1 John 3
Woods1 John 3:1-2
SECTION THREE GOD IS LOVE
(1 John 3:1 to 1 John 5:12)
GOD’S LOVE FOR MAN
1 Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are.–The first verses of 1 John 3 continue and advance the thought set out in the final verse of the second chapter of the Epistle. Having declared that those who exhibit righteousness in their lives evidence the fact that they are the begotten sons of God, the apostle proceeds to dwell upon the marvelous blessings which such a relationship suggests.
“Behold” (eidete) means to see, to take notice of, to be im-pressed with. Its design, as in John 1:29; John 19:5; Mark 13:1, and often elsewhere in the New Testament, was to fix the attention of John’s readers on the measure of the love which had been revealed in their behalf. “Manner of love” is a phrase descriptive of the quality of the love which the Father has vouchsafed to his children. In it is revealed not only the size, but the blessedness of it. “What glorious, sublime, immeasurable love the Father hath bestowed upon us . . .” Included in the manner of it is the freeness, the greatness, the preciousness, the scope, the duration–in a word, all that is summed up in the word, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son . . .” (John 3:16.) This love God “bestowed” (literally, gave), eventuating in our being “called chil-dren of God.” Inasmuch as the Lord makes us what we are, to be called his children by him is to be such, and to sustain this relation to him in all the affairs of life. “And such we are” is a positive affirmation of that which had just been said.
For this cause the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.–The first clause of this sentence is a conclusion drawn from the premise which the second clause contains. The world knows us not. Why does the world know us not? Because it knew him not. Since the world does not know the Father, of course it does not recognize the Father’s children! The word “know” here, as in many other instances in John’s writings, is used to mean much more than merely superficial knowledge.
The world knows, of course, that Christians are in it; they are aware of the fact that Christians worship God; but they do not approve of the lives of Christians, nor do they acknowledge the Christian’s God as their Sovereign and King. Of similar import are the words of the Lord: “If the world hateth you, ye know it bath hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15:18-19.)
2 Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be.–We are children of God now, in spite of the nonrecognition of the world. Though the world about us refuses to recognize us for what we are, God does, and this is enough. And, the fact that “it is not yet made manifest what we shall be,” does not raise a question regarding our present status. Grant that we do not possess a full knowledge of matters pertaining to the next life; let it be admitted that here is much with reference to the future which we do not know. Does this, in any fashion, raise a presumption of doubt regarding our present rela-tion to the Father? Certainly not. We are children of God; we are children of God now; and as such, all the blessings of sonship are ours.
We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is.–To “be manifested,” is to be made to appear, to be brought to the light, to be known. The phrase, “if he shall be manifested,” refers to the Lord’s second coming. When this event occurs, our imperfect conceptions will vanish in the perfect knowledge of him which will then be ours. Then it is that we shall see him even as he is, and shall be like him. The meaning is: we are children of God now, as much so as we shall be when the Lord comes; but at the present we are waiting for an inheritance which we do not fully comprehend ; when he comes we shall still be children and, in addition, in pos-session of that for which we now wait. Moreover, we shall then have perfect understanding of matters with reference to our future state which now we do not fully understand.
The glorious anticipation of being “like him” should prompt us to utilize every faculty we possess in his service, and thrill us with the prospect of awakening in his likeness. To be like him is to be as he is, in both spirit and body. It is to partake of his glorious characteristics of mind and heart, of soul and spirit; to come into possession of the spiritual graces which are his. It is to be like him in purity, in holiness, in kindness and in love; it is to share with him the complete approval of our Father and God. It is, further, to be like him in body; to possess the immortal nature which he possesses, and to be no longer, as he is no longer, subject to death. “For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself.” (Phile. 3:20, 21.)
The wondrous blessing which this promise includes–of being like him–should not be lightly regarded or passed over hurriedly. It is a summary of all the good things which the Father has in reserve for his own. There is a story often told of a group of heathen converts who, when they came to this verse in translating into their language, unable to believe that such could possibly be in store for sinful man, stopped and said, “No! It is too much. Let us write that we shall be permitted to kiss his feet.”
1 John 3:3-12
ORIGIN AND
OF SINFUL CONDUCT
3 And every one that hath this hope set on him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.–The “hope” which we have is in being like him when he shall appear; and he who is in possession of this hope keeps himself pure, even as Christ, whom we shall be like when he appears, is pure. The meaning is, we have a hope; this hope is to awake in the likeness of the Saviour; the possession of this hope leads one to keep himself pure, this being a condition precedent to its realization; the pattern for this purity is Christ, himself. The verb “purifieth” (hagnizei, present active indicative), is a continuous act, keeps on purifying, an essential prerequisite to the maintenance of the hope which we have in him. Taught here, in the most emphatic fashion is, (1) the con-ditionality of our salvation; (2) the necessity of abstaining from every form of impurity; (3) the encouragement to faithfulness which hope affords; and (4) the example of purity which Christ himself supplies.
This passage may not be legitimately cited to sustain the view that it is possible for a child of God to live above sin here. (1) Such a view is opposed to other statements by the same writer. (1 John 1:8; 1 John 2:1.) (2) Such is a misapprehension of what is here taught. If this passage teaches that one can purify himself to the extent he is above sin, it teaches that every one who has hope in Christ can do so, in which case all who have hope in the Lord are above sin. We are purified by complying with the con-ditions on the basis of which the Lord forgives us: “If we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:7-9.) This passage, instead of teaching us that it is possible to live above sin, actually teaches the opposite of this, by indicat-ing the means by which we overcome the effect of sin in our lives. By striving for the purity which the Lord possesses we reach for the goal which will be finally realized when he appears.
4 Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness and sin is lawlessness.–Here, again, the connection with what has gone before, in the Epistle, is immediately apparent, and should not be overlooked. The theme of this section is set forth in 2:29: “If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him. Verses 1-3, of this chapter, in the development of this theme, emphasize the fact that the doing of righteousness is proof of the new birth; and when such evidence does not exist, there is no sonship. Verses 4-10, establish the utter impossibility of reconciling sin with the work of redemption, with fellowship with Christ, and with the new birth. These con-necting links are not to be ignored in the study of the Epistle; they are, indeed, essential to the understanding of the design of the author. Having shown, in the foregoing verses, what the fatherhood of God (and the consequent sonship which relates) includes, he then proceeds to show what it excludes.
In the statement which constitutes a definition of sin, the apostle wrote, “Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness and sin is lawlessness.” It is easily possible that it was the purpose of the apostle to encourage his readers to refrain from sin by showing its essential and inherent nature, more than to set out a formal defini-tion thereof, but it still remains that his statement is a definition of sin, simply and plainly put. Sin is translated from the Greek hamartia, the literal meaning of which is “to miss the mark,” and as here used, to veer away from that which is right. It is a general term embracing every form of wrong-doing, all divergence from that which is right. The verbs “doeth” in the first clause are both in the present tense, the force of which, in Greek, is to indicate continuous action. It is the habitual practice of sin which is here contemplated. “Lawlessness,” (anomia) is that state or manner of life wherein one fails to conform to law, whether in positive disobedience thereto, or in failing to come up to its demands. It is action contrary to law, whatever the form in which the action takes place. It embraces si both positively and negatively; it in-cludes sins of omission as well as sins of commission.
The meaning is that whoever practices sin is a lawless person; by his sinful life he has become a violator of the law for “sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4 AV.) This, John wrote, in order to impress his readers with the fact that all sin is a viola-tion of the law of God; and since the violation of his law leads to condemnation, no sin, however small or insignificant it may ap-pear to us to be, should be regarded lightly. In view of conditions which then prevailed this was a sorely needed lesson. Certain heretical sects of the time held that their superior knowledge (the Gnostics) made them immune from the demands of the law, and that God did not, in their case, impute to them wrongdoing even though their conduct was in conflict with God’s law. The apostle here shows that the wickedness of sin is in the fact that it is dis-regard for, and disobedience to, the law of God, for sin, all sin, any sin, is lawlessness. It follows, therefore, that any sin is serious, because it puts one under condemnation of the law
In the Greek text, both sin and lawlessness have the article before them; each term is the equivalent of the other and they are, therefore, interchangeable. Sin is lawlessness; and lawlessness is also sin. One who veers away from the right is a lawless person ; a lawless person is one who veers from the right. To “miss the mark,” whether it be going beyond that which is right, or in failing to measure up to it, puts one in the position of being a law vio-lator, and one who violates the law of God is, of course, a sinner. The connection with the context thus becomes apparent: if we would sustain and preserve the hope which we possess, we must continue to purify ourselves. A failure to do so is to lapse into a life of sin; and a life of sin is lawlessness.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away sins ;and in him is no sin.–Two additional reasons are thus ad-vanced why Christians are not to engage in the practice of sin (1) Christ was manifested to take away sins (2) in him, who is our example, there is no sin. The manifestation of Christ here referred to was his entrance into the world, in the flesh, the purpose of which was to “take away sins.” (Matthew 1:21.) The article (the) appears before the word “sins” in the Greek text, and the meaning is, Jesus came into the world to take away the sins of the world, all sin, not merely one sin here and another there.
The design of the Lord’s appearance was, therefore, in part, to take away sins. The verb take away is translated from arei, first aorist subjunctive of afro, occurring also in John 1:29. It conveys the idea of a burden or load which is lifted in order that it may not crush him upon whom it rests; and, as here figuratively used, it signifies the lifting and carrying away of sins that they may be upon us no more. Being in the aorist tense, the act is a once-for-all process, in which by one offering the Lord accomplished his purpose henceforth and forever. Implied in the word is the idea of atonement, reconciliation, expiation and sanctification, all of which the Lord accomplished in his death, though the primary meaning here is the bearing away of sin. The lesson the apostle desired to reach is that all sin must be shunned and voided for Christ came into the world for the purpose of removing sin from us, and to continue to participate therein would frustrate his pur-pose and thwart his plan for those for whom he suffered.
Forms of the word thus translated occur in the Septuagint translation in Isaiah 53:11, and in Hebrews 10:4; Hebrews 10:11, in each of which the primary meaning “to take away” is retained. In taking away sin, the Lord abolishes the guilt, the power, and the punishment thereof, thus making it possible for his children to entertain an assured hope of salvation. Such Paul must have had in mind when he wrote, “Christ . . . gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works.” (Titus 2:14.)
In view of the fact that the Lord became incarnate in order that he might take away our sins, the proper regard for this should serve as a mighty incentive to all Christians to refrain from all wil-ful participation therein. (1) To engage in sin, in view of the design which led to his death, is to thwart the purpose and plan of the Lord and to render his sacrifice in vain. (2) As disciples of his, it is proper that we should follow such a course as would result in the furtherance of his purposes and plans for men. (3) To indulge in sin is to practice that which was the occasion for the ignominy and shame which were heaped upon the Lord at his crucifixion. (4) To persist in such practices in view of what sin did to him reveals a perverseness and depravity of heart wholly inconsistent with that which characterizes those who love and serve him.
The second clause, “and in him is no sin,” is, if literally rendered, and sin in him is not.” It is an emphatic and positive affirmation of the Lord’s freedom from sin. Being himself ab-solutely free from sin, and without any admixture of wrong in him whatsoever, it is only as we “purify” ourselves, (verse 3), and abstain from all sinful practices, that we are able to approach the perfect standard his life constitutes. That our Lord was wholly free from sin every moment of his life is a fact clearly taught in the sacred writings. Jesus declared it himself (John 7:18; John 8:46) and it was often affirmed of him (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:26; Hebrews 9:13). It follows, therefore, that those who would imitate him in manner of life today must strive for the same inherent purity. “For hereunto were we called because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.” (1 Pet. 2 21-23.)
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not; whosoever sin-neth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him.–The ideas which this verse contains were favorite ones with the apostle, and are repeated, in one form or another, throughout his writings. The word “abideth,” for example, occurs (in one of its various forms) in John 5:38; 6:56; 14:10 15:4, 5, 6, 7, 9; 1 John 2 6, 10, 14, 17, 27; 3:6, 25; 4:12, 13, 15, 16. It was likely sug-gested to him by the Lord in the familiar and impressive statement of Joh 15:4-6 : “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit for apart from me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” The word “abide” is translated from a word (Meno) which means to settle down and remain, as in one’s permanent home.
Here, in addition to its literal meaning, it denotes the intimate relationship which exists between the Lord and his disciples, the close and continuing connection which obtains between him and those who derive their life from him. Not only does the word itself suggest an abode in Christ; the tense necessitates this conclusion also, “whosoever keeps on abiding . . .”
“Whosoever keeps on abiding in him sinneth not.” Here, too, the apostle gives utterance to an idea which is often expressed in one way or another in his Epistles. (1 John 2:24; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 5:18 ; 3 John 1:11.) (1) Whosoever abides in him sins not (2) whoso-ever is begotten of God does not sin; (3) he that does evil has not seen God. These propositions are developed in much detail throughout the first Epistle; and the ideas which they contain were favorite ones with John. The apostle did not intend to af-firm that one who abides in Christ is not capable of commiting a single act of sin such a concept would be in conflict with his af-firmation of the universal prevalence of sin, even among the saints (1 John 1:8); moreover, the designation of the means by which to overcome sin through the intercession of Christ (1 John 2:1), implies its possibility. Thus to teach it is possible or even probable that one will attain to a life of sinlessness here, is in con-flict with his own teaching in the instances cited, and must not be attributed to him here.
The meaning of this verse, and indeed, all of those of similar import in the writings of the apostle John (e.g., 3:9; 5:18; 3 John 1:11), is to be sought and found in the significance which attaches to the tense of the verbs which set forth the action involved. The word “tense” as applied to the Greek verb is misleading, if it be accorded its literal signification, for it is derived from the French temps, time, and originally the Greek tense had no reference to time, as such. This characteristic, so prominent in the English verb, is only incidental in the Greek, the tense of the Greek verb having to do with the state of the action, and not necessarily with the time when it occurred. Its function is to indicate the state of the action, accordingly as it is conceived of as an indefinite event, (aorist tense), an action in progress, (present tense), or a com-pleted action with existing results, (perfect tense). Other tenses, such as the imperfect, etc., are variation of one or the other of these types of action. In the English language the time element is the prominent feature of the verb, and we think of an act as either past, present, or future.
The present tense, in Greek, indicates action in progress at the present time. It is thus distinguished from the aorist tense which is a single act indefinitely conceived of, without regard to time. The distinction between the present and the aorist tenses may be seen in the following manner…..
In the passage under consideration, the verb sinneth not is the translation of ouch hamartanei, third person singular, of the pres-ent indicative active, of hamartano. Inasmuch as the chief char-acteristic of the Greek present tense is to indicate action in prog-ress contemporary with the time of speaking, whereas the English verb does not distinguish between such action in progress, and a single act occurring, the significance of the verb sinneth, as used by the apostle, does not fully appear in the translation. It can be brought to the attention of the English reader only by an expanded translation thus: “Whosoever continues to abide in him, does not keep on sinning” (i.e., habitually as he did before his conversion). Had the apostle intended to convey the idea that one who abides in Christ is incapable of committing a single act of sin, he would have utilized the aorist tense. In such a case, however, he would have been in conflict with his own previous statements which assert the fact of sin in the lives of Christians, and the means provided for their removal. The meaning of the verse is, He who has taken up his abode in Christ, and settled down to a permanent existence in him, has terminated his former manner of life and has ceased the practices then characteristic of him.
He no longer engages in habitual and persistent sin. That he has broken the hold of sin- in his life, and no longer regularly yields to evil im-pulses as a manner of life, however, is far from asserting that there are never occasional lapses into sin through weakness or ignorance. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 9:27; Philippians 3:12.) For these inadvertent lapses, a plan has been provided. (1 John 2:1.)
“Whosoever sinneth bath not seen him, neither knoweth him.” The verb “sinneth” here, as in the first clause of the verse, is in the present tense. Whosoever sins following his conversion dem-onstrates the fact that he has neither seen nor known the Lord. This passage, as translated, appears to teach that sinful conduct on the part of one who affects to be a child of God is evidence of the fact that such a one is not only not saved at the time, but never has been! This conclusion is obviously erroneous, because it is in conflict with other statements in the same Epistle, and by the same author. He had earlier said that Jesus is our Advocate when we sin, and that “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:7-9; 1 John 2:1.) How is it possible to confess sins never committed? Why do Christians need an Advocate for them when they sin, if they never sin?
The verb sinneth, as in the first clause, indicates a continuous practice. Whosoever keeps on sinning . . .," has neither seen nor known him. The verbs “seen” (heoraken) and “knoweth” (egnoken) are Greek perfects. The Greek perfect tense denotes action absolutely past, which lasts on in its effects. It is the function of the Greek perfect to indicate the result which follows the action, the action, meanwhile, dropping out of view. In this respect it differs greatly from the English perfect which keeps the action in view and in which the past idea predominates.
When, for example, we say. “I have known,” the mind instinctively at-tributes the time of knowing to the past; in this, the true function of the English perfect is seen. In the Greek perfect, however, the time element is lost sight of, and the force of the tense is to point to an existing state produced by the action which has already ter-minated. Thus, the significance of “I have known,” regarded from the viewpoint of the Greek perfect, is, “I know” (now).
Thus, in the study of this verse if we keep in mind that the verbs seen and knoweth, as here used, express result, the meaning becomes clear. “Whosoever continues to abide in him does not keep on living a life of sin; whosoever does keep on living such a life, does not see him or know him.” Obviously, one who has lapsed into a life of habitual sin, such as characterized him before his conversion, no longer sees (enjoys) God, nor knows (recog-nizes) God in his life.
In the implication that one who abides in Christ sees the Fa-ther, we do not, of course, infer from this that it is possible for one to look upon, with physical eyes, the likeness of the great Jehovah. “No man bath seen God at any time.” (1 John 4:12.) The seeing which is thus possible is to exercise the knowledge and in-sight which such a relationship allows–the perception possible to the faithful. To see in the New Testament is a figure often used of such spiritual insight. (John 1:18; John 6:46; Hebrews 2:8.)
7 My little children, let no man lead you astray: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous:–The address here is the same, and the same ones are addressed as in 2:1 and 2:18. The warning, “Let no man lead you astray,” appears, in one form or another, often in the Epistles. (1:8 2:18, 26; 4:1-3.) These words have particular reference to men who sought to deceive the saints of that day by alleging that it is pos-sible to live a life of habitual sin, and yet have the approval and approbation of God. Such views were progapated by false and heretical sects of the time, and many were deluded and led into a life of sin by them. (See under “Design of the Epistle,” in the Introduction.) These false teachers advocated the view that they pleased God without living a life of righteousness, and that what-ever might be the case with others who were without their alleged superior knowledge (gnosis), there was no need for them to work righteousness, because they were eternally saved by the grace of God, regardless of what their works might be. The effect of this teaching was to lead those who accepted it into a life of gross and unrestrained indulgence, and that in the name of religion!
To counteract such teaching the apostle laid down the maxim that “He who doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he (Christ) is righteous,” i.e., the man who does righteousness is righteous, and no other is. It is a positive affirmation that character and conduct cannot be separated. It matters not how much one may assert his righteousness; it is of little consequence to what extent one may declare his love for the Lord; the acid test is, does he do righteousness? If yes, he is a righteous man; if no, his claims are false.
Here, as in 2:29, the doing of righteousness is not a condition precedent to righteousness, but evidence that such salvation exists. However tempted we may be to cite these passages in support of the scriptural doctrine that obedience is essential to salvation from past, or alien, sins, such is an unwarranted use of them. It is never allowable to take passages from their context and use them in support of a proposition even though the proposition we seek to prove is taught elsewhere in the scriptures. A passage should never be used in any sense other than that for which it was orig-inally written by the sacred writer. The use of texts out of their contexts, so common to denominational preachers, has led people to the conclusion that it is possible to prove anything by the Bible. It is well to remember that “a text, taken from its context, becomes a mere pretext.” It was John’s design to show here that the doing (practice) of righteousness is the only test of a righteous (ap-proved) person, whatever his claims may be. Long ago Luther truthfully said, “Good works of piety do not make a good pious man, but a good pious man does good pious works . . . fruits grow from the tree and not the tree from the fruits.”
The verb “doeth” in this verse, as often elsewhere in the Epis-tles of John (e.g., 2:29; 3:4; 3:7; 3:9, etc.), is a present active participle in the Greek text (poion), and signifies to keep on doing. As occasional lapses into sin through weakness, inadvertence, or ignorance do not demonstrate that one has never been saved, so isolated and infrequent acts of righteousness (outward conformity to some of God’s laws) do not justify the conclusion that such a one is a righteous man. To be righteous, one must practice righteousness as a settled habit in life. Such a one, the apostle, affirms, is a righteous man; no other is.
“Even as he is righteous” is a reference to Christ. “Even as” does not signify that one attains to the same righteousness as that Christ possesses; it means that Christ constitutes the model or pattern of righteousness toward which all of his followers are ever to strive. As he is righteous, so are we to seek to be; and such righteousness is attained through right-doing. (Psalms 119:172 ; Acts 10:34; Matthew 3:14.) The right-doing essential to such righteousness includes the duties and responsibilities of the Chris-tian life.
8 He that doeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.–He who lives a life of habitual sin is of the devil; he demonstrates his relation to satan by his conformity to the character which the devil possesses. The devil has sinned (has been sinning, ap’ arches hamartanei, present active indicative) from the beginning, i.e., from the first sin which resulted in his becoming the devil. Being the first sinner, the devil is the source of sin, the fountain from which it springs, the father of all those who practice it. “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father thereof.” (John 8:44.) Inasmuch as the devil is the original sinner, and since he has persisted in sin with-out interruption from the occasion of the first sin, it follows that whoever sins thus persistently partakes of the character of him who is their spiritual father. Such being the pattern of his exist-ence, those who conform thereto must be regarded as his off-spring and imitators.
But here, again, we must not confuse mere occasional lapses into sin with a life of persistent and willful transgression. (1) To affirm that this passage teaches that it is possible to live a sinless life here is to (a) ignore the significance of the terms employed and (b) to put the writer in conflict with himself in other passages in the same Epistle. (1 John 1:7-9; 1 John 2:1.) (2) Such a claim is refuted by the sober consciousness of all thoughtful persons who, though it may have been years since they have engaged in willful sin, are aware of defects of character, and the like, which occas-sionally lead them inadvertently into sin. (3) The wisest, greatest, and best characters of whom we read in the scriptures never laid claim to sinlessness in this life, but, on the contrary, exhibited the weaknesses- common to humanity, and often confessed them with penitence and shame. (Cf, the lives of Abraham, David, Peter, and Paul.) (4) It must not be overlooked in the consideration of this passage that the evil contemplated is that which flows uninter-ruptedly from an evil heart, and is deliberate, willful, and persist-ent. The steady stream of pollution unmistakably reveals that the source is equally corrupt. It follows, therefore, that the type of sin under contemplation here is that which is habitual. Those who live as the devil lives must be regarded as belonging to the devil; in exhibiting the traits and characteristics of the devil, they evidence the fact that they are his children.
Here, incidentally, is additional proof of the personality of the devil–a fact often taught in the scriptures. (a) He exists; (b) he has existed from the beginning; (c) he is the spiritual progen-itor of all who sin as he does; and (d) false teachers are his agents in seeking to seduce and lead astray the saints.
To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. “To this end” indicates the purpose for which the Son of God was manifested (appeared in the world), that he might “destroy” (bring to naught) the “works of the devil.” The “works of the devil” include his plans, purposes, designs, schemes, aims, and ends which he hopes to accomplish. These Jesus came to “destroy” (luso), literally, to weaken, deprive of power, abolish in principle. Included among the works of the devil are not only sins, but the consequences of sin–pain, sorrow, misery, and death. Christ has abolished death “and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” (2 Timothy 1:10.) The eventual triumph over death will be realized in the resurrec-tion: “But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?” (1 Corinthians 15:54-55.) There, too, will all sorrow, pain, and misery be forevermore terminated: “And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God him-self shall be with them, and be their God: and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain any more: the first things are passed away.” (Revelation 21:3-4.)
9 Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.–The familiar rendering, “Whosoever is born of God loth not commit sin,” of the King James’ Version, has given place to the American Standard rendering, “Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin,” and here, as often elsewhere, the Standard rendering is the preferable one, though it, too, as we shall later see, does not fully and adequately convey the meaning of the text. (1) The phrase “begotten of God” is a decided improvement over “born of God” (gegennemenos ek tou theou), for gegen-nemenos, from gennao, means to beget. (2) Correctly translat-ed, the scriptures never refer to a “birth of God.” (3) It is absurd to predicate the act of birth of a masculine personality exclusively. We are not, however, from this to infer that the reference here, or in the numerous other instances where the phrase occurs, signifies an embryonic or prenatal state. Obviously, here and in 2:29 and 5:18, the reference is to children of God. While the context establishes the fact that children of God are contem-plated, accuracy of translation necessitates the rendering “begotten of God” rather than “born of God.”
Whosoever is begotten of God “doeth no sin.” (“Doeth no sin” is translated from the phrase, hamartian ou poiei, present active indicative of polo, does not keep on doing sin (as a life habit.) The reference here is to persistent, continuous, willful sin, such as that contemplated in 3:6, and the remarks there (which see) apply with equal force here.
But why does the one begotten of God refrain from habitual and persistent indulgence in sin? Because his seed remains in him and he cannot sin. Whose seed? God’s. What is God’s seed? The word of God: “The seed is the word of God.” (Luke 8:11.) In whom does this seed abide or remain? In the child of God. What does the word “abide” signify? That the word of God has made its home, as it were, in the heart of the one begot-ten. Is this a scriptural concept? “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom” (Colossians 3:16), which we translate more vividly, “May the word which Christ speaks to you have in your hearts in all its fullness its home.” What is the result of such? The child of God cannot sin.
Does this mean that it is impossible for a child of God, under any circumstances, to commit a single act of sin? No. The phrase “Doeth no sin” does not adequately convey the meaning of the original text. Here, as in 3 6, in order to discover the full significance of the verb doeth, it is essential to take into consider-ation the tense thereof, a better rendering of which would be, “worketh no sin.” (See comments on 1 John 3:6.) What rea-sons have we for concluding that it was not the intention of the apostle to teach that it is impossible for a child of God to commit a single act of sin? (1) Such a conclusion is in conflict with 1 John 1:7-9; 1 John 2:1, and many other passages in the scriptures. (2) The words “he cannot sin” cannot be correctly construed to mean that one cannot commit a single act of sin after being begotten of God. Why is it alleged that such a conclusion is in conflict with what the apostle taught elsewhere? Because he affirmed, in the references cited, that children do sin, and he moreover revealed the conditions on which they may be forgiven.
Why is it thought that the phrase “he cannot sin” may not be correctly interpreted to mean that it is impossible for a child of God to commit a single act of sin? “And he cannot sin” is trans-lated from the phrase “kai ou dunatai hamartanein. Hamartarein is a present active infinitive, the force of which is, “he cannot con-tinue to live a life of sin” (as before). But why cannot he continue to live such a life? The seed, which is the word of God, and which is in him, forbids it. How did David recognize and apply the principle taught here? “Thy word have I laid up in my heart, that I might not sin against thee?” (Psalms 119:11.) How did Jesus resist the seductions of Satan? By relying on the same power.
Suppose one is tempted to steal. Such a one remembers that the Word says, “Thou shalt not steal.” So long as this injunction remains in the heart and governs the life, one cannot steal. “It is written” is as effective in resisting the blandishments of Satan today as it was when the Lord utilized it on the mount of temptation. Why, then, cannot one thus begotten persist in sin? (1) The seed (the word of God), which forbids it, is in him, controls his life, and directs his energies. (2) A life of sin is inconsistent with the spiritual parentage of the one thus begotten. But does this mean that it is never possible for one possessed of this nature to sin? No. All, through weakness, error, ignorance, and inadvertence, occasionally sin; but children of God do not work sin as a life principle, for its author–Satan–they have repudiated and his nature abandoned.
When, in such instances, sin occurs, it is a momentary lapse; it is due to an imperfect hold-ing of the word in the heart; it is recognized as contrary to the higher impulses of the person thus sinning, and it is confessed and put aside with shame.
Paul and John are in strict harmony in their teaching on the difference between such occasional lapses into sin and a life wholly devoted to it. The former wrote,
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resur-rection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that we should no longer be in bondage to sin.” (Romans 6:1-6.)
We are thus no longer to continue in sin, for (a) we have died (separated ourselves) from the practice thereof; (b) we have risen from the baptismal grave to walk a new life; (c) the body of sin has been done away; (d) we have been delivered from the bondage of sin. The careful dis-tinction which the inspired writers make between a life of contin-uous and habitual sin and the infrequent deviations of children of God who, while they ever reach upward toward a nobler life, now and then falter through weakness or error, may be seen by a com-parison between Romans 6:1, “Shall we continue in sin” (epimeno-men tei hamartiai, present active subjunctive) and 6:15, “Shall we sin” (hamartesomen, first aorist active subjunctive), “Shall we commit a single act of sin?” (because we are not under law, but under grace). Carefully and pointedly the apostle to the Gentiles make it clear that even isolated acts of sin were not to be indulged in on the assumption that the grace under which we live, instead of the law, would make provision for such.
Properly interpreted, neither 1 John 3:9 nor any other scripture, countenances the view that it is impossible for a child of God to live above sin in this life; and theories to this end, whether drawn from this passage or some other, are clearly erroneous.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the chil-dren of the devil:–That is, in the matters immediately pre-ceding. We indicate by our manner of life our parentage. The word “manifest” means to make known, to reveal. Children of God and children of the devil are readily distinguished from each other by the fact that the former abstain from a life of unrelieved sin, whereas such a life is ever characteristic of the latter. The nature exhibits itself in the individual and reveals who is his father. As a life of constant and continuous sin justifies the conclusion that such a one is a child of the devil, so a life of righteousness is evidence of the fact that such a one is a child of God. “Ye know that every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him.” (1 John 2:29.) “Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.” (1 John 3:4.)
Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.–The first clause of this verse relates to what had just been said; the second expands it and makes it applicable not only to the spiritual, but also to the social side of life. The love under consideration here is that which one brother in Christ should have for another and where it does not exist, there is an absence of divine parenthood. We are taught here that he who does not love his brother actually has no brother to love, for in his failure to comply with this normal and natural principle, he demonstrates that God is not his Father. In refusing to love one of God’s family, he simply excludes himself from the family itself!
11 For this is the message which ye heard from the begin-ning, that we should love one another:–“For,” i.e., with ref-erence to what had just been written, “Whosoever doeth not right-eousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” John’s readers had heard this “message” from the beginning of their acquaintance with Christianity, since this was a cardinal principle of the movement itself. (John 13:34-35.) It is called a message from a word which, in the New Testament, signifies things announced in order that they may be done. It is referred to here as a message, instead of a commandment, though such it was, and is, because it was announced in words, and conveyed by messengers. See further on this in the comments on 1 John 2:9.
12 Not as Cain was of the evil one, and slew his brother.–This statement is put in contrast with that of verse 11, and Cain is offered as an example of what children of God are not to do. The meaning is, We should love one another, and not be as Cain was, who was of the evil one, and slew his brother. (Genesis 4:1-17.) Those who do righteousness are “of God” Cain, who did not obey the commandment to love, was “of the evil one,” i.e., the the devil. He demonstrated the fact that he was of the devil by killing his brother Abel. The word translated “slew” here (spha-zo) means, literally, to butcher, to slit the throat with a knife; and from this it may be inferred that this was the manner in which Cain took the life of Abel. If the word is to be taken in its literal import, this conclusion follows, though it is, of course, possible that it is used figuratively to kill, and thus without any indication of the method by which the murder took place.
And wherefore slew he him? Because his works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.–The question, “Wherefore slew he him?” is immediately answered, “Because his (Cain’s) works were evil, and his brother’s (Abel’s) were righteous. The reason for God’s rejection of Cain’s offering and his acceptance of Abel’s, though not detailed in the Genesis record, is made clear in the reference thereto by the writer of Hebrews: “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing wit-ness in respect of his gifts; and through it he being dead yet speaketh.” (Hebrews 11:4.) Cain’s offering was “of the fruit of the ground,” Abel’s “of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.” (Genesis 4:3-4.) “And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.” Inasmuch as Abel made his offering “by faith,” it fol-lows that the Lord had specified the nature and the type of offering to be made, since faith comes by hearing God’s word. (Rom. 10 17.) Cain’s offering was rejected because it was in violation of express instructions from Jehovah. Though not stated in the Mosaic account, it is implied in the following statement: “And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And Jehovah said unto Cain, why art thou wroth?and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto thee shall be its desire ; but do thou rule over it.” (Genesis 4:5-7.)
Resentful because his brother’s offering was accepted and his own rejected, and filled with envy at Abel because his brother enjoyed the approbation of Jehovah while he smarted under the rebuke which he had received, “it came to pass that when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him.” (Genesis 4:8.) In this terrible deed, Cain acted from envy, he was influenced by the evil that was in him, and he was directed by Satan whose servant he was. In citing this well-known Old Testament instance of the first murder, it was evidently the apostle’s design to show the extent to which one is led when under the influence of envy, bitterness, and hate. His reasoning appears to have followed this pattern: Cain murdered his brother; therefore Cain hated his brother; hate is a characteristic of those who are children of the devil; therefore, Cain was of the devil. (Verse 12.) His brother identifies himself as of the same spirit as Cain, and likewise demonstrates that his works are evil. Basic in every difficulty and dispute between brethren today is the ab-sence of brotherly love. Whatever may be the immediate occasion which prompts such, each difficulty and dispute may, in principle, be traced to the resentment which the evil feel toward the good. Why did Cain murder Abel? Because his works were evil, and Abel’s works were righteous.
1 John 3:13-24
LOVE AND HATE
13 Marvel not, brethren, if the world hateth you. “Marvel not,” i.e., do not be surprised or astonished that the world hates you. The hatred of the good by the bad is nearly as old as the race; hence, it is not a thing to be surprised at, however much it may be regretted. This disposition was exhibited by Cain in the early morning of the race; and man’s subsequent history has been filled with similar examples. Jesus, in teaching the disciples the obligation of love, referred to this attitude: “These things I com-mand you, that ye may love one another. If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15:17-19.).
It is significant that only here, in the Epistle, does John refer to his readers as “brethren,” the address being elsewhere, “little children,” “beloved,” etc. The designation “brethren,” literally, brothers, was especially appropriate here, in view of his discussion of brotherly love.
14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren.–The connection which this verse sustains to the context in which it appears is very close, and must not be disregarded if the meaning of the text is to be deter-mined. Love of the brethren is that which distinguishes between the children of God and the children of the devil. (Verse 10.) The obligation of Christians to love one another is definite and positive, and has been taught them from their earliest acquaintance with Christianity. (Verse 11.) The feeling of hate which the world evidences toward the good is ever present, and is, therefore, to be expected, however much it may be regretted. (Verses 12, 13.) But, in spite of this, children of God have the blessed assur-ance of knowing that they have passed “out of death into life” because “they love the brethren.” They thus have more about which to rejoice than to regret in this fact, since they are in life while the world remains in death. “Death” is the status of the unregenerate; “life,” of the good. These terms, opposites in their reference to the condition of the good and the bad, are often used in this fashion in the scriptures. (Ephesians 2:1; Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:13.) Children of God “have passed” (migrated) from the spiritual death which formerly characterized them (and that which yet charac-terizes the world) into the life which is obtained through union with Christ. “He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life.” (1 John 5:12.) The pro-noun “we” with which the verse begins is in the emphatic position in the sentence: whatever the world may do, or feel, toward us, we (in contrast with those of it) know (have certain, definite knowledge) that we have passed from a state of death into life because we love the brethren.
Just here care should be exercised in avoiding an obvious and common misinterpretation of this text. It was not the apostle’s purpose to affirm, nor did he affirm, that love of the brethren is the (or even a) condition of salvation from past, or alien, sins. Brotherly love is here declared to be the condition, not of our salvation, but of the certainty of our knowledge of it. It affords the evidence by which we may know that we have passed out of death into life. The test is human, not divine; it is one we are to apply to ourselves for the purpose designated. It is such a test by which the individual and (as John 13:34-35 shows) the world about him may determine the reality of his profession. “We know that we have passed out of death into life because . . . we have been baptized?
Because . . . we meet on the first day of the week? Because . . . we give liberally of our means? However important these matters are, in their respective spheres, it remains that such do not constitute the test here set out. “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren.” “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples . . .” (John 13 35.) Why? Because you say you are? Because there is outward conformity to the ceremonials of Christianity? Because you be-lieve that you are?
These are not the tests which the Lord or-dained. “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another.”
This does not mean that love alone is the basis of our accept-ance before God. What it does mean is that love is the base on which all other virtues rest; where it exists, the others may be implied; yea, they must exist. He who loves his brother will not only discharge his whole duty to him; he will be led, by the same considerations which prompt such love, to love God, and so to comply with all the requirements which such a relationship in-volves.
He that loveth not abideth in death.–In the absence of love, the state in which one dwells is death. As the presence of love signifies life, so its opposite, hate, indicates death. The reference is not to future death; it already exists and will reach its con-summation in the next life. “He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believed not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18.) The absence of love is not the cause of his death, but the sign of it by which it is evidenced to others. “He that loveth not” is, literally, the not loving man; and “abid-eth” suggests a state into which one has settled down permanently. The death is spiritual death–separation from God and all that is good.
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer:–The phrase “he that loveth not” (ho me agapon) is followed by “who-soever hateth” (pas ho mison), thus indicating that the two are of identical meaning: it was the design of the writer to show us that in the absence of love there is hate; there can be no middle ground. Not loving is hating; it is impossible to avoid one or the other of these opposites. In the teaching of the apostle, love and hate, as life and death, light and darkness, mutually exclude each other. He who has not the one must be regarded as possessing the other. It follows, therefore, that the only protection against hate in the heart is love.
The affirmation of the text is that he who hates his brother is a murderer. This does not mean that he has committed the act of murder; or, that he is as guilty as if he had committed the act of murder; or, that God will hold him responsible for the act of murder. What is meant is, he has exhibited the disposition and spirit of a murderer; he has allowed passions to arise in his heart which, when carried to their ultimate ends, result in murder. The reason such a one does not commit murder is not that he lacks the disposition or desire the restraint which prevents it is not inward, but outward. Either the opportunity is lacking, or the courage or the means with which to accomplish it wanting. He refrains from the overt act, not from restraint which he himself has imposed, but a restraint from others.
Murder is simply hate expressed in an overt act; and when it does not issue in this fashion, it is due to other causes than those which reside in the heart of the hater. If hate does not result in murder, the reason is to be sought, not in the hate, but in the lack of opportunity or means, or courage, of the hater.
It was this which prompted the Lord to forbid that which leads to hate. In his explanation of the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” he said, “Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoso-ever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the coun-cil; and whosoever shall say. Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.” (Matthew 5:21-22.) Unnecessary anger and words of provocation are thus shown to violate, in spirit, the command to do no murder, since such often leads to it. Cain, who slew his brother Abel (1 John 3:12), affords an example of the fruits of Bate; and the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44), became such by sowing the seeds of hate in those whom he seduced.
And ye know that no murderer bath eternal life abiding in him.–Obviously, spiritual life and spiritual death cannot abide in the same soul. Where hate is, there is death; where there is death, there can be no life. He who entertains hatred for another, whether it follows its normal course and results in murder, or from outward restraints imposed, stops short of the overt act, it still remains that such a one is utterly incapable of possessing life. Several phrases of similar import are discernible in the context. He is not of God who loveth not his brother. (Verse 10.) He that loveth not abideth in death. (Verse 14.) He who hates his brother has no life abiding in him. (Verse 15.) Thus, to be not of God, to abide in death, and to be without eternal life in the sense here intended, is the same. (1) In view of this, how impor-tant it is that we search our hearts diligently and purge from them every semblance of bitterness, hate, and envy. (2) How we should guard with ceaseless vigilance our own hearts lest such evil dis-positions possess us. (3) How grateful we should be that we have fallen under the influence of the glorious gospel of Christ, which enables us to subdue the feelings of hate and bitterness and envy, and to triumph over the dispositions of the flesh and carnal mind.
16 Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us:–Every word in this verse is of the utmost importance and justifies the most minute and careful study. “Hereby” is, literally, “in this,” (en touto), i.e., in that which is about to be stated. “Know we” (egnokamen, perfect active indicative of ginosko, from an investigation of the facts we have come to possess certain knowledge of) “love,” what it is, its nature, its sacrifices, its extent, and its design. This knowledge we have come to appre-hend, for the reason that Christ laid down his life for us (huper hemon), in our behalf, for our protection. The verb “laid down,” is, significantly, the same mode of expression as that which the Lord utilized in his narrative of the shepherd and the sheep: “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep.” . . “Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have the power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” (John 10:11; John 10:17-18.) The meaning is, we have become acquainted with love we know what it is from having seen it displayed in Christ in his death for us. The preposition “for” here (huper) indicates the purpose of the death of Christ, and sheds much light on the nature and effects thereof.
The picture in the preposition is of one who sees, for example, another who has fallen, wounded, in grave danger, and about to perish, and who rushes to him, stands over him, fights in his behalf, and enters the fray in his stead. This, and more, Jesus did for us in his death on the cross. He took our place; he suf-fered the penalty of law to be executed in his own person; “him who knew no sin he made to be sin in our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21.) We thus have, in both the Father and the Son, a clear demonstration of love, in all that it is and does. (John 3:16; John 5:13; Romans 5:8.)
And we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.–In view of what Christ and God have done for us, we (the children of God) ought (are morally obligated) to lay down our lives (die) for the brethren (our brothers and sisters in Christ). The mean-ing is, Christ’s death was the greatest possible proof of love; if, therefore, we imitate him as we ought, the same evidence of love which prompted him to die for others will be seen in us. “This is my commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:12-13.) This, of course, does not mean that there is the same efficacy in the death of one Christian for another as there was in the death of Christ for the world; nor was it the writer’s design to compare the effects which follow such sacrifices. The subject is love; the comparison which is drawn is designed to demonstrate what love is; and the example of Christ’s sacrifice is offered for our emulation. Under what circumstances it is the duty of one child of God to die for another is not stated, but in any instance, we may assume, when more good would be accomplished for him by dying than by living. In any case, where a brother’s welfare depends on such a sacrifice, love prompts it, without regard to the cost that might result.
The contextual force of the apostle’s teaching is clear: Cain is an example of hate; Christ, of love. Cain killed his brother Abel because of selfish-ness; Christ died for all men because of his unselfishness. If we are to avoid the hate which motivated Cain, we must adopt the love which influenced Christ. The willingness to give what one has, even his life, for the sake of others, is of the essence of true love.
17 But whoso bath the world’s goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how doth the love of God abide in him?–In an argument from the greater to the less, the apostle shows, in the application of the principle taught in the verse preceding, that if a brother’s welfare should require that we give up our life for him, we surely ought to make those smaller sacrifices involving only material things. A refusal to make such comparatively minor sacrifices is to demon-strate that the love of God does not abide in us. The “world’s goods” here is, literally, “the life of the world” ton bion tou kos-mou); and the “world” contemplated is not the order of evil often set forth by this term (1 John 2:15), but the material sphere in which we live. The “life” of the world is not the higher spiritual life (zoe), but the organic life (bios), which is sustained by the things of the world. The meaning is, He who has in his possession the necessary means to sustain life and who sees his brother in need yet refuses to be touched by a feeling of sympathy for his unfortunate condition or be moved to supply the things needed, how does the love of God abide in him? The question is rhetorical for emphasis; its significance is, the love of God does not abide in him.
The “love of God” here is not God’s love for us, but our love for him. Here, as often elsewhere in the Epistle, and, indeed, throughout the sacred writings, we are taught the important lesson that it is impossible to separate theory and practice. Theology and religion are inseparable handmaids; theology without religion is an empty shell; religion without theology simply does not exist. Our obligation to our less fortunate brethren is clear and unmis-takable; we have the example of Christ (Matthew 20:28); we have the admonition of the inspired apostle (Galatians 6:10); only through compliance therewith do we exhibit the religion which is both pure and undefiled (James 1:27).
18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue; but in deed and truth.–These words contain a summary of the ideas developed by the apostle in the verses im-mediately preceding. It was not his purpose to condemn affection-ate speeches, nor did he forbid us to express our love for others in word. The meaning is, “Let us not love in word only, neither with the tongue alone, but let us also love in deed and truth.” It is an admonition to exhibit our love in such fashion as to demon-strate its reality. As the Lord forbade words of hypocrisy in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 6:5), so, here, John forbids the mere babble of brotherly love, when neither the word nor the tongue is attended by the fruits of brother love.
19 Hereby shall we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our heart before him:–Hereby, i.e., by what has just been said, we are enabled to know that we are of the truth, and have the means by which to assure our hearts before him. If our love is not merely in word or in tongue, but truly in deed and truth, in this (en touto) we shall know (come to possess the knowl-edge) that we are of the truth. “Of the truth” is, in significance, the equivalent of the phrase, “of God,” so often occurring in the Epistle. These words of the apostle were likely an echo of the Lord’s affirmation before Pilate: “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” (John 17:38.) Possessed of this informa-tion, we “shall assure our heart before him.” The word “assure,” from the verb peitho, means to still, persuade, placate; and the meaning here is, the knowledge of the reality of the love which we possess for others enables us to quiet the fears which arise in our own hearts and restrain the questionings which confront us from imagined deficiencies of life and conduct.
20 Because if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.–If, in spite of the assur-ances provided, we yet suffer the uneasiness which springs from the realization of our own weaknesses and the consciousness of our own imperfections, let us remember that God is greater than our heart; he knows all things; and he will deal with us, not according to our conscience, but in harmony with the eternal and unchangeable principles of right. Knowing all things, he knows us better than we know ourselves, and he will deal with us ac-cordingly. Let us then not be disturbed by the promptings of conscience, but conform, as far as possible, to the standard of right, with the assurance that he will approve our course at the last day.
21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, we have boldness toward God; –If, in addition to the assurance we have from God that we are approved of him, we also have the approval of our own heart, we thus experience even greater confidence of the fellowship that is ours. It will be, of course, unnecessary to add, to the thoughtful reader, that John has under consideration here individuals whose hearts were fully attuned to the gospel and whose consciences were awakened to the relation which all sustain to God. Obviously the apostle does not hcre refer to men of wicked and depraved conscience whose hearts have been hardened to the influences of the truth and the restraints of right. The ref-erence is to a time of judgment; the court is that of the conscience ; and the judgment rendered is one of approval. The approval is that which the individual recognizes as bestowed upon him from the Father.
22 And whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing in his sight.–In proof of the fact that the assurance alluded to above is well grounded, the Father is attentive to the prayers of his children and bestows upon them whatever they ask. Two rea-sons are assigned: (1) they keep his commandments; (2) they do the things that are pleasing in his sight. The promise of the pas-sage is, of course, to be understood within the limitations of his promises regarding prayer elsewhere set forth: viz., that the prayer must be in faith, in confidence, according to his will, and in keeping with his instructions regarding prayer. The truly faithful child of God seeks ever to learn what the will of the Father is, even in matters pertaining to prayer, and does not ask for those things which he discovers to be contrary to the Father’s will. The verbs are all in the present tense here and emphasize continuous action; whatever we keep on asking, we keep on receiving, because we keep on keeping his commandments and habitually practice the things that are pleasing in his sight.
23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment.–It is significant that the word “commandment” here is singular; it sums up the duties involved in the injunctions which follow it: (1) to believe in the name of God’s Son, Jesus Christ; and (2) to love one another. This emphasizes a principle needing constant attention, and one often taught in the Bible; it is impossible to separate faith and practice, duty and dogma. Belief, in order to bless, must eventuate in love; love, without belief, is an impossibility. Faith is the ground not only of love, but of all obedience; it is that which leads to and produces it. And obedience is that which perfects and validates faith. “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren.” (James 2:20.) The name of Christ here is put for him and for all for which he stands to believe in his name is to accept him for what he is and all that he does. The command-ment, involving the duties herein set forth, was frequently on the lips of the Lord. (John 13:34; John 15:12; John 15:17.)
24 And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in him.–Here is a reference to the Lord’s own words, “If a man love me, he will keep my word:and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” (John 14:23.) To “abide” in him is to have fellowship with him, to live and move in that realm of conduct which he approves, and thus to have the abiding presence of deity in the heart. While the context seems to require that the words “in him” refer to the Father (see verse 23), the affirmation is also true of the Son, and is so taught elsewhere. (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:13-14, etc.) The apostle had earlier referred to this same fellowship. (1:3.)
And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the spirit which he gave us.–This verse declares, (1) God abides in us (2) we have knowledge of his abiding presence; (3) we possess this knowledge by the Spirit which he has given. It should be observed that it is not the manner of entrance nor the mode of the Spirit’s dwelling which is here referred to, but the fact of it. The Spirit assures of approval by motivating its possessor to do those things which enable the Father and the Son to abide in us. If it be asked how the Spirit does this, the answer is, Through the word of God, the only motivating force in immediate contact with the individual. Neither here nor elsewhere do the scriptures teach a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, either before or after conver-sion. It is as erroneous to assume an immediate impact of the Spirit on the Christian’s heart as it is to argue similarly with reference to such impact on the sinner’s heart.
The fact of the Spirit’s indwelling is often affirmed in the sacred writings. The manner or mode of such is an entirely different question. The two are not always distinguished; and the result is, a prepossession for some theory thereon creeps easily into our exegesis and colors our explanation, if we are not careful. The fact that the scriptures assert that the Spirit dwells in the Christian does not justify the conclusion that this indwelling is personal, immediate, and apart from the Word of God. Christ is in us (Colossians 1:25); from this we do not infer that in some mysterious, incomprehensible way he has, in his own person, taken up an abode in us. Why should we fall into similar error with reference to the third person of the Godhead the Holy Spirit?