Saver ὟΣ ΠΣ 
 Lean 
 
 ἃ » ἀρ)» ᾿ ᾿ och a 2 Ν - 5 ete a SRA 
 ARCANE SE AN Bee ee ERAS MR πε τε ng ee eee rere ει See 
 
 Jat Aes iam νὰ σαν νὰ Mg Peet eel he ese Geet Pal meet hen ten 
 
 οτος ΤΕ ΤΜΥΤΕ ΤΟΤΕ ΤΙ Sak 
 ae SAPS Se Re Ξ : a ee 
 Seb eS bea AE δός ak set a ES NS I a οι : 5 x Ὁ ῳ 
 
 aarti 
 
 
 

 
 
 
ν᾽ 
 
 aN 
 
 way 
 
 rh 
 
 ᾽ 
 
 U 
 
 as 
 
 rt 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 ‘ 
 ὃ 
 * 
 2 
 ' 
 5 
 Ῥ 
 ᾿ 
 ὸ 
 a 
 ἵν, 
 4 
 » 
 ᾿ 
 ‘ 
 ’ ς 
 ~ 
 - Ἰ 
 Te 
 Σ 
 é 
 2 = 
 * WE, 
 Vi 
 Ἕ ᾿ — 
 
 of 
 δεν ᾿ 
 ey 
 ~ am 
 -. δὲ 
 = Pm 
 «ὦ, 
 «ἘΣ 
 ' 
 ᾿ Δ 
 . 
 ‘ 
 » . 
 ὶ 
 ν; 
 Th 
 “ως, 
 av 
 > 
 * 
 * 
 {. 
 * ne 
 * 
 = 
 ῃ 
 " 
 ‘a | Re j 
 in ~~ 
 ον» 
 ἜΣ ‘ 
 nS 
 Yrs} 
 a 4 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
 *F 
 el iceeeT! 
 20 A 
 
 ἮΝ 26. 
 
 ὶ 
 
 
 
NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS. 
 
 > 
 > 
 
 ESSRS. CLARK have much pleasure in publishing the 
 Second Issue of the FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY for 
 1879, viz. :— 
 
 
 
 STEINMEYER’S HISTORY OF THE PASSION AND 
 RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD. 
 
 HAUPT’S COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE 
 OF JOHN. 
 
 
 
 NEW SERIES OF THE 
 Foreign Theological Library. 
 
 The FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY was commenced in 1846, and 
 from that time to this Four Volumes yearly (or 136 in all) have appeared 
 with the utmost regularity. The Publisher is not aware that there is 
 any other instance of a series of works having been continued for such 
 a length of time under the care of the same individual, and issued with 
 undeviating punctuality. 
 
 He trusts that this long-continued publication has not been without 
 influence for good upon theology and biblical criticism in English- 
 speaking countries; and he has been grateful indeed for the recognition 
 of his services both by the press and by individuals whose opinions he 
 most values. 
 
 It is proposed to begin a NEW SERIES with 1880, and'so give an 
 opportunity to many to subscribe who are possibly deterred by the 
 extent of the former Series. : 
 
 With this view Messrs. CLARK beg to announce as in preparation a 
 New and Enlarged Edition of 
 
 . HAGENBACH’S HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. Translated from the last 
 Edition, and Edited, with large additions from various sources, 
 by the Rev. Prebendary Clark. 
 
 PROFESSOR GODET’S COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL 
 TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 PROFESSOR DORNER’S SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 
 
 BISHOP MARTENSEN’S CHRISTIAN ETHICS. (Special Ethics.) 
 
 KRIEBEG’S DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT ON THE FOUNDATION OF 
 CHRISTIAN CONSCIOUSNESS. 
 
 DR. KEIL’S HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL ARCHZOLOGY. 
 
 From time to time other works will be added to this list; but the 
 Publishers are sanguine enough to believe that a Series containing the 
 works of writers so eminent, upon the most important subjects, cannot 
 fail to secure support. 
 
 The Binding of the Series will be modernized so as to distinguish it 
 from the former Series. 
 
 The Subscription Price will remain as formerly, 215. annually for 
 Four Volumes, payable in advance. 
 
 EDINBURGH, 38 GEORGE STREET, 
 . November 1879. 
 
" aa Pah ae ae ἜΩ ἢ ΤΟΝ A 
 
 ae fener att Ὧν sug heise 
 ἢ iv ait a 
 
 7 +a Ι ἫΝ ΠΣ , ‘ as ae 
 
 2 OER TO ὙΠ ταὶ Bah aE EY 
 ΠΟ. Ἀπὸ το HOTT x sy RUSKER: Ὁ 
 xe ALT aEeY ἡ rs A TY AST th cMOD ξεν eat 
 
 SHY 
 
 ν- 
 
 . » Ὁ Ὁ 
 * ῳ a 
 Tit see toe we 
 a . q F 
 iy ‘ & δ. 
 
 ἴω ΣΎ ΕΙΣΗΣ" "Ἢ te 
 bac vores Megane 
 ‘ ee aes ΟΝ 1: 
 
 if) na? seat S 
 τὴ ΘΝ 
 
 Α ἢ ὴ 
 
 sf » hid as] iat ~ fe a | 
 ; cranks . 
 
 ἀξ fryer ; a 
 
 oe coe a 
 
 ‘ as, , ἘΠΕ ὑπ 
 ΑΎΡΡΝΕΥΣ wore ἫΝ a Μ [ 
 
 ὑμένι | δὰ nee fal 
 
 " 
 ise. & 4 a 
 
 ree Τὰ ΩΣ al 
 δ cA 7 
 i wh?’ esl ae 
 δι practi ὴ 
 any oF ae 
 Λ any ΩΣ » 
 
 wi τὴν 
 
 ‘or 
 Ἢ 
 
 A408 rAd νὰν “nD Ay 
 rr AL Atk τοῖς oes: ἘῸ 
 
 τ νὴ tenes? oo? * ar ae 
 cee δίνη ae πῊΣ ΤΌΝ 
 ho Πρ. δὰ χρὴ ὦ 
 ‘ Ν᾿ sheer 
 b ΒΥ aor @ alt 
 ¢ ae : 
 
 He ΨΥ) {tt eC Ey a ail ‘hak ly t " 
 
 | DS rt ia ae ἌΠΟ 
 
 “Ya a aunt: shale sill Pasty Ὁ Π 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 Ba. Soran say _ 
 
 ve 
 
CLARKS 
 FOREIGN 
 
 THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. 
 
 NEW SERIES. 
 VOL. LXIV. 
 
 Haupt on the dfirst Epistle of St. Hohn. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 Peek CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 
 ie 7 δὲ 
 
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, 
 FOR 
 
 © δὲ Τὸ CLARK SE DINE UNG H: 
 
 LONDON, . . 2 - HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. 
 DUBLIN, : δ “ . ROBERTSON AND CO. 
 
 NEW YORK, . 2 δ - SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. 
 

 
 
 ΘΠ FIRST EPISTLE 
 
 See ct dnt) HER 
 
 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 ΒΥ, 
 
 ERICH HAUPT. 
 
 Translated, with an Introduction, by 
 
 We Sb τ: 
 
 DIDSBURY COLLEGE, MANCHESTER. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 jee LARK, 38 GEORGE “SPREET. 
 187 9. 
 
“TAR Pee 
 
 a eT 
 ἀν a 5 
 δ 1); ᾿ 
 
 ΤΠ 
 
 + 
 ᾿ς 
 
 4 
 
 ᾿ SAUTOGUT st 
 
 
 
THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE, 
 
 HE present work does not profess to be a commentary. 
 On the one hand, much is wanting in it that is ordi- 
 narily looked for in that kind of work; and, on the other 
 hand, it contains much that goes beyond the design of a 
 commentary in the ordinary sense. In both these directions 
 some justification of its method will be thought necessary. 
 It is sufficiently obvious that, for the interpretation of 
 any New Testament book in its sequence of thought and 
 theological bearings, a great deal of work is demanded. 
 The text must be critically examined, the exposition philo- 
 logically established and sustained against contradictory 
 ‘views. As, further, no true expositor imagines that he can 
 ‘create out of his own resources what has been contributed 
 by the current of exegesis during many generations, each 
 one must make the past history of its exposition the 
 foundation of his own. But all these labours of a critical, 
 philological, polemic, and historical kind are still only the 
 preparation for the proper business of exposition, that of 
 intellectually reproducing the document in question. When 
 the greater part of our commentaries are examined, we find 
 that those preliminary labours are exhibited with such 
 profuseness as to embarrass very much the independent 
 view of the object of investigation as a whole. The mind 
 of the reader is drawn in so many directions, and occupied 
 with so many and separate questions, that the one single im- 
 
 pression of the book itself is lost. That which the apostle 
 7 
 
Vill THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 says retires into the background before that which he is 
 supposed by this and that interpreter to have said. Indeed, 
 the number is not small of those authors who think that 
 with this preliminary toil their end is answered. Let any 
 one subtract even from such distinguished and in their way 
 unrivalled works as the exposition of the Ephesians by 
 Harless, and the exegetical-critical commentary of Meyer 
 and Huther, all that belongs to this preparatory labour, and 
 then put together their own contribution to the theological 
 exposition, and he will have to marvel at the small quantity 
 of the residuum. Accordingly, the attempt has been made 
 here to withhold from the reader as much as possible all 
 ‘these preliminaries, giving instead as succinctly as may be 
 their results. Attention has been paid to the varietas 
 lectionwm only so far as they have any bearing on the 
 meaning of the passage, and the same course has been 
 adopted as to the philological groundwork. The history 
 of the exposition has been left out altogether, and all 
 controversy with predecessors has been systematically 
 avoided. 
 
 The aim has been rather to unfold, with the New 
 Testament only in hand, the order and the substance of 
 the thought in St. John’s Epistle. Not indeed with the 
 foregone conclusion that historical-critical commentary is 
 superfluous ; for it is, in fact, the first work that every one 
 must toil at who seeks to penetrate independently into the 
 meaning of any book in the New Testament. But it 
 seemed to me more convenient to present the reader at 
 once with a uniform exposition, which would not leave 
 him under the necessity of passing under review all 
 possible varieties of exposition, and thus, instead of being 
 ‘occupied with one interpretation of the Epistle, striving to 
 come to an understanding with a good many of them. 
 Thus there is a gain of space and time which may be 
 devoted uninterruptedly to the investigation of its theo- 
 
΄ 
 
 THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 1x 
 
 logical principles, and, according to the ability given, to 
 sink into their depths. The purpose has been ever before 
 my mind to study every detail as far as possible in such a 
 way that the reader may be aware always of its place in 
 the great whole; for so long as the particulars are viewed 
 only as particulars, the apprehension of their meaning even 
 as particulars becomes onesided and disjointed. Thus the 
 way in which I arrange the order and matter of thought in 
 the Epistle determines, under this aspect, the substance of 
 the whole book. 
 
 Under this aspect—for it may be supposed to furnish 
 something independently of this—it professes to be a con- 
 tribution to Biblical Theology. This, in my view, has for 
 its object more than the systematic arrangement of the 
 fortuitous or intentional utterances of a New Testament 
 author on all possible dogmatic points, and the gathering 
 them into one whole: more than this may be expected, so 
 far as it aims to be scientific. Almost all the dogmatic 
 disquisitions of the New Testament are in a certain sense 
 occasional utterances. For instance, when our Epistle calls 
 God Light, this definition is not primarily given in the 
 interest of theological metaphysical speculation, but only to 
 lay the basis for the exhortation to walk in the light. 
 Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that the definition Θεὸς 
 φῶς was, quite apart from the relation in which it here 
 stands, a constituent element of Johannaean thinking; and 
 that, generally speaking, whatever St. John says throughout 
 the Epistle with a practical aim was not only living in his 
 spirit in this its ethical connection, but also drawn from 
 the whole fulness of his Christian moral philosophy. Every 
 man who truly thinks bears in himself, albeit perhaps un- 
 consciously, his own system of thought; all his individual 
 and apparently isolated utterances spring from the totality 
 of his view of things. In common life we are justified from 
 the individual words of a man (more than that we really 
 
Χ THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 know in but few) to draw our conclusions as to his collec- 
 tive habit of thought. He must consent to accept the 
 premises and conclusions which lie wrapped up in his 
 words ; otherwise he would have no claim to be considered 
 at all. How much more are we justified, in the case of 
 apostles whom the Holy Ghost led into all truth, to con- 
 clude from their occasional utterances to the whole spirit of 
 their view and system of thought! To do this—to place, 
 as it were, every word of their mouth under the microscope, 
 to investigate dialectically on what presuppositions it is 
 based and to what conclusions it leads—is the problem of 
 Biblical Theology. 
 
 It is not intended to signify, that whatever we may thus 
 find must have been actually present to the consciousness 
 of the apostles; probably much of it was never made by 
 them the express object of their thinking. All that is 
 meant is, that if they had directed their thought upon it, 
 they must have come to a system thus and thus constructed ; 
 and that thus we arrive at the view of God and the universe 
 which lay at the basis of all their individual utterances, 
 although in many cases unconsciously to themselves. When 
 we contemplate a work of human genius,—such, for example, 
 as Goethe’s Faust,—we think ourselves warranted to watch 
 for many beauties, and to seek them there, although we do 
 not always suppose that they came actually as such to the 
 poet’s own consciousness. We may appeal to the old 
 maxim, that the poet is a seer who says more than he him- 
 self knows. And the holy men of God, who spake as they 
 were moved by the Holy Ghost, are they to be supposed to 
 have said nothing beyond what they at the moment were 
 clearly and intelligently conscious of? Must we hesitate 
 to leave them with the responsibility of all consequences 
 and promises which, by dialectical necessity, flow from these 
 words ? 
 
 For such an edifice of Biblical Theology, thus hastily 
 
THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. ΧΙ 
 
 sketched or hinted at, I have essayed to contribute a single 
 stone, my labour having been to pursue the utterances of 
 the apostle at salient passages into all their consequences. 
 With what result it is not for me to say. The spirit of the 
 Apostle John is an imposing spirit; and one feels himself 
 almost oppressed by the majesty of the thoughts of this 
 Epistle, which are like heavenly music in the reader's ears. 
 If here and there one soul should be moved, by the ministry 
 of my book, to cast himself with all his might into this sea 
 of the riches of divine wisdom and knowledge, my labour 
 will have attained its end. 
 
 Often had I with pleasure anticipated the moment when 
 I should submit these sheets to the Director of this Gym- 
 nasium, Dr. Robert Geier, under whose guidance I studied 
 during the years which were engrossed with this work, and 
 whose signal goodwill I reckon as one of the treasures of 
 my life. But it was not to be: he was during the interval 
 summoned from this world. Let his name, however, at least 
 be named here as a token of the piety and love which link 
 me with him beyond the grave. Ἢ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε 
 
 ἐκπίπτει. 
 
 TREPTOW ON THE RHINE. 
 
4 
 Mia avin Bs fit bata » oe 
 ra i ΤΟΣ doles d 
 asl εἰμ δὶ p ida pity od pares 
 ΝΣ 
 “Yue re ss 
 fetid wiht 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 
 
 HE translator has been requested to say a few words 
 with respect to the book which is now, after some 
 delay, presented to the English public. The first thing 
 expected of him is naturally some account of the author; 
 but this curiosity it is not in his power to gratify. The 
 work was published some years ago by a writer who has 
 not since made his appearance in literature. It was received 
 with much favour, and generally regarded as a specimen of 
 exegesis at once original and orthodox; in fact, it took 
 its place immediately among the best contributions to a 
 literature, already very rich, devoted to the exposition of 
 St. John’s writings. Perhaps the best introduction to 
 these remarks will be some extracts from early criticisms 
 in the German theological press, especially as those criti- 
 cisms are bound up with the first issue of the original. 
 Zimmermann’s Theologische Literaturblatt thus speaks in a 
 free translation :— 
 
 “The present work may be classed among the most use- 
 ful and interesting that have lately appeared in Biblical- 
 \exegetical literature. It exhibits scientific ‘profoundness 
 ‘and practical application in harmonious union: united in 
 such a way as few books unite them. It is a pleasant 
 ‘thing in these days, when the storms of party contest 
 disturb the Church, when the opponents and the friends 
 of revelation are pitched against each other in open and 
 violent warfare, when Supernaturalism and Nihilism con- 
 tend everywhere and in all confessions for the mastery,— 
 to fall in with books whose authors have evidently, in quiet 
 and earnest toil, been pondering the precious word of God, 
 and extracting from the hidden depths of Scripture its pure 
 
 gold. Such a gift this author presents us; and, in the 
 ‘ 13 
 
XIV TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 name of all who love the Bible, but especially in the name 
 of our ministerial brethren, whom this expositor has mainly 
 had in view, we heartily thank him. He has done much 
 by his own fundamental investigations to advance the 
 knowledge of this Epistle; and he has also offered an 
 important contribution towards the yet future exploration 
 of its depths. In a way not hitherto trodden, and with a 
 success not hitherto attained, he shows the subtle connec- 
 tion of thought in its general scope; and thus by his clear 
 and luminous analysis refutes the objection sometimes 
 urged against the Epistle as being without any method. 
 ‘He, in fact, shows that the most beautiful order reigns in 
 it. And he further admits us into the secret mystery of 
 St. John’s habit of thought and view of things generally ; 
 so that by his aid we can understand the spiritual life of 
 the evangelist in its entire unity and harmony, and even 
 penetrate into the inmost movements and feelings of his 
 apostolic heart inflamed and governed by perfect love. 
 
 “ He rightly observes that it is the province of Biblical 
 Theology, to which he offers this contribution, to place, as 
 it were, every word under a microscope, and examine in 
 a dialectical way from what presuppositions it springs, to 
 what consequences it leads; in short, to deduce from 
 incidental expressions what the general system of thought 
 _was, and conversely to pour upon individual expressions 
 light derived from the spirit of the Christian philosophy of 
 the whole. With this aim the author has examined the 
 Johannaean ideas ζωὴ αἰώνιος, φῶς, χρίσμα, δικαιοσύνη, 
 ἀλήθεια, ἀγάπη, ἀνομία, and illustrated their meaning with 
 such a profusion of learning and skill as must be studied to 
 be adequately appreciated. 
 
 “We have particularly to remark upon one thing, that 
 the author has avoided a snare into which, as far as our 
 observation goes, all expositors have more or less fallen: the 
 superabundant citation and refutation of other exegetes. 
 To such an extent is this carried, even in de Wette and 
 Meyer, and in the excellent Bible of Lange, that often the 
 expositor forgets to establish and clear up his own views. 
 We see no reason why this practice should be indulged in, 
 
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. XV 
 
 at the expense of the compendiousness of the work and the 
 concentration of the mind on its own teaching. It holds 
 good here also that nimiwm nocet. This danger our 
 expositor has happily avoided; although he has, as the 
 whole book plainly shows, thoroughly examined and tested 
 the opinions of others, and his own exposition is the pro- 
 duct and rich fruit of that conscientious study. Moreover, 
 the: arrangement of the work is very suggestive. Each 
 independent section of the Epistle has its explanation of 
 word and matter and sense; this is followed by a resumé 
 of the meaning of the whole section as such, with which is 
 connected a glance backward at each leading division of the 
 Epistle, followed by a development of its entire current of 
 thought, as also by an examination of the occasion and 
 purport and aim of the letter, with a final review of its 
 theological character. And all this is done in a spirited, 
 penetrating, and attractive style. 
 
 “ After these general observations we count it our duty, 
 and an obligation of gratitude, to examine a few points in 
 detail, As already mentioned, it was the steady purpose of 
 the writer to illustrate the fundamental ideas and sharply 
 define the leading principles of the whole Epistle, which 
 bears a specifically Christological character. Around these 
 unique ideas the excellent exposition is ordered, in which 
 the author has succeeded in developing the deep thought of 
 the Johannaean theology in a clear and perspicuous manner, 
 and in contributing much valuable help towards under- 
 standing the obscure and difficult parts of the Epistle. For 
 instance, we perfectly agree with him in the explanation of 
 the first four verses of the first chapter, which are very 
 frequently misunderstood: his exhibition of the argument 
 is clear and unforced; and the personal meaning of the 
 Adyos in ver. 1, as he supports it, appears to commend 
 itself most absolutely to acceptance. His view of the con- 
 nection between this and the subsequent vids is highly 
 suggestive ; and so is the development of the idea in φῶς, 
 which he rightly denies to be a particular quality in God, 
 and asserts to be the primal ground of His essence which 
 is such as manifests itself to itself. The interpretation of 
 
Xvi TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 ch. 1. 7 is rather unusual: the author makes καθαρίζειν 
 refer to sanctification, and shows, with keen and convincing 
 force, the internal connection between ver. 8 and the closing 
 words of ver. 7. 
 
 “The second chapter presents a knot to expositors in 
 vers. 12-14, not only as to the meaning of the sixfold 
 address, but also as to the place of the paragraph in the 
 organic whole of the letter. Our author is successful in 
 diffusing light in both directions. He shows that the aim 
 of the exhortation is not to set forth generally the doctrines 
 of Christianity, but to bring the Christian disciples to a 
 \higher perfection. Not less admirable is the profound way 
 * in which all Scripture is made to illustrate the principle 
 laid down by St. John. He rightly takes the καί in 
 ver. 20, not adversatively, but as expressing simple pro- 
 gression. ‘This gives precision and clearness to the context, 
 and makes the connection with the preceding passage 
 luminous at once. ‘Ye who are able through your anoint- 
 ing to discern with sufficient clearness the anti-Christian 
 error, will also now take care to avoid it, and hold fast the 
 truth. He correctly interprets the χρίσμα of anointing as 
 the symbol of the impartation of the Spirit, and refers the 
 ἅγιος not to the Father, but to the Son. 
 
 “ Concerning the exposition of the passages, ch. iv. 17-19 
 and ch. v. 6—8, which present so many difficulties, we need 
 say no more than that our expositor has been able to 
 illustrate every point in its relation to St. John’s general 
 habit of thought. On the other hand, we cannot altogether 
 accord with his remarks upon ch. v. 16, 17. Our own 
 view is that the apostle here describes by another name the 
 sin which the Saviour termed a sin against the Holy Ghost, 
 and does no more than declare the uselessness of prayer for 
 such a sin. For the rest, the elucidation of the details is 
 here also, as everywhere, both striking and instructive. 
 
 “ We can therefore heartily and with perfect confidence 
 recommend this work, which in fact presents to the working 
 minister specifically a rich fund of help for his study, con- 
 tinually keeping, as it does, the scientific and the practical 
 
 5 : 
 equally in view. For such labour as this we would have 
 
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. XVli 
 
 as many sympathizers and helpers as possible. We are 
 deeply convinced that he who penetrates the spirit of this 
 book, and ponders, with our author’s help, the sublime 
 and majestic divine ideas of the Epistle, will lay down the 
 work enriched in knowledge and comforted in his inner 
 man. Nor will he fail to wish that the New Testament 
 were handled in this fashion by many more among the 
 learned.” 
 
 The student—for he who appreciates our volume must be 
 a student—will find that this testimony is true. He will 
 ' perceive that, while St. John’s inspiration and the canonical 
 authority of his letter are left uninvestigated, every word, and 
 every turn of thought in every sentence, is examined with 
 most reverent care, and viewed in the light of the analogy 
 of his own other writings, and in that of the other Scrip- 
 tures. It will be found to yield a great advantage—as the 
 reviewer points out—that we have to do with the opinions 
 and decisions of one mind, and are not required to watch . 
 how he holds the balances in which a thousand conflicting 
 interpretations lie. It is a book that encourages the reader’s 
 private judgment; while sufficiently dogmatic, and occa- 
 sionally almost dictatorial, it commends itself to every man’s 
 thoughtful discrimination. Though a certain Platonic 
 philosophy and the theology of Lutheranism underlie the 
 exposition, these are not unduly obtruded. The reader and 
 his guide are together in the presence of St. John as an 
 independent witness of the truth of God. The translator in 
 this case not being an editor also, it would be out of place 
 to point out what he may deem flaws in the exegesis. 
 Were it right to do so, he could indicate several results 
 of elaborate exegetical criticism from which he dissents ; 
 among them would be two that the reviewer above highly 
 approves,—connected with the καθαρίζειν and the φῶς, --- 
 the determination of the vexed question as to the residue 
 of necessary sin in the believer, and the terms used in the 
 definition of regeneration, and as to the operation of per- 
 fecting and perfected charity in the hearts of the sanctified. 
 It would be a labour of love to discuss these points here 
 or anywhere; but it must suffice that the translator clears 
 
 1 JOHN, b 
 
XVill TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 
 
 himself from the responsibility of some few of the conclu- 
 sions of his author. For the rest, there is nothing in the 
 volume that is not true to the Catholic faith; even in the 
 questions alluded to, our expositor—it must be honestly 
 confessed—has on his side the great majority. But let 
 that pass. 
 
 A word may be said here as to the studied exclusion of 
 the polemics of exegesis. It is quite possible, while admir- 
 ing this specimen of direct in opposition to indirect inter- 
 pretation, that we may do injustice to those invaluable 
 works which adopt a different plan. It is undoubtedly 
 sometimes a very troublesome thing to get at the meaning 
 of Meyer or Huther themselves through the wearisome 
 array of contradicted authors who bar the way. But, 
 generally speaking, the toil is in the long run rewarded. 
 We see, as we otherwise should not, all that has been or 
 may be said on the subject; we are saved the trouble of 
 consulting a multitude of writers; and meanwhile we have 
 the pleasure of exercising our own critical faculty upon a 
 variety of opinions,—a pleasure which to many is one of a 
 very exquisite kind. It is hardly fair, moreover, that an 
 author who could never have produced a book like this had 
 he not carefully read the other kind of commentaries should 
 even seem to disparage them. He could not have used his 
 own microscope with such wonderful effect had he not been 
 in the habit of looking through a multitude of other men’s 
 less finished instruments. And his honest desire to advance 
 the truth would be thought by himself to have failed of its 
 reward if he did not find his own conclusions discussed 
 in commentaries yet to come. We have noticed evidences 
 already—and if we had not noticed them, may be sure of 
 their being found—that Haupt’s interpretations will play 
 a conspicuous part in the labours of future Meyers and 
 Huthers, who will point out where his microscope has seen 
 more than it should have seen, or has failed to see what 
 ought to beseen. After all, this matter of bristling polemics 
 on the page of calm exegesis is one merely of degree. It is 
 carried to a great and wearisome excess, but it cannot be 
 altogether avoided. 
 
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. wis 
 
 Another reviewer in the Lvangelische Kirchen-Zeitung 
 brings out a feature of the book not yet touched upon :— 
 
 “The present work occupies a place as it were between 
 a commentary and ἃ biblical - theological essay. It is 
 distingished from the former, inasmuch as grammatical- 
 historical exegesis is not the writer's chief aim, but is 
 regarded only as the foundation already laid, which, how- 
 ever, is introduced more or less according to the necessity 
 of the case. His eye is always fixed on the process of 
 thought; all else is subordinate to this supreme object. 
 On the other hand, it is distinguished from those works 
 which deal with the Epistle only as illustrating Johannaean 
 theology; for it does not select and discuss isolated passages, 
 but impartially investigates every thought from beginning 
 to end. The expositor aims to develope from it the general 
 principles of St. John’s views of God and the universe ; 
 for, although the apostle may not have been conscious that 
 he was exhibiting such a system, all the elements of it 
 were enfolded in his thinking. Hence, as Haupt himself 
 says, he has placed every expression under a microscope, 
 and traced it back to its premisses, and forward to its con- 
 clusions; thus finding its exact relation to the apostle’s 
 scheme of thought generally. He has taken special pains 
 with the order of the ideas in the Epistle; this having 
 always been, and still being, matter of great difficulty to 
 exegetes. He thinks that he has found a specific, compact, 
 and regularly ordered process of thought, without, however, 
 believing that the apostle wrote on a preconceived harmoni- 
 ous plan. Throughout the exposition we trace a decidedly 
 realistic feature; as also a dialectic, sometimes even too 
 keen, which with great subtilty seeks to do justice to every 
 word of the Bible.” 
 
 The question of any analytical arrangement of this 
 Epistle has been a fruitful source of discussion among 
 expositors. Taking it altogether, that which is established 
 in the present volume is, perhaps, the most elaborate that 
 has ever been attempted. How elaborate it is the reader 
 will hardly be aware until he reaches the summing up at 
 the close. He will then perceive that he has been examin- 
 
Xx TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 ing the most exquisite piece of reticulation imaginable. If 
 he should attempt—what the author has not attempted— 
 to write out the Greek, which is everything here, on the 
 principle of this analysis, he will be simply amazed at the 
 result. Two things will strike him most forcibly. First, 
 that men with any pretension to common sense could ever 
 have come to the conclusion that the Epistle, as the pro- 
 duction of St. John’s old age,—this undoubtedly it was,— 
 betrays all the marks of senility, being an unmethodized 
 effusion of pious sentiments and reflections. This view has 
 been put in a more respectful form, in the assertion that 
 the apostle was a contemplative and not a dialectical spirit, 
 and that he poured out the aphorisms or detached expres- 
 sions of his pure meditation on the profound truths of 
 the Gospel. We cannot travel through the first chapter, 
 under our author's guidance, without feeling that, at any 
 rate, such a fallacy as this must be exploded. Intuition 
 and deductive thought meet here as they never met before, 
 and have perhaps never met since, save in some of the 
 meditations of St. Augustine. The second matter of 
 astonishment will be, that a writer whose mind never for 
 a moment loses the thread or the clue of his own analysis 
 should have adopted his method unconsciously, as our 
 author seems to assert that he did. And this may beget 
 some suspicion of the analysis itself: suspicion which, it 
 may be observed, a careful examination will justify. But 
 into this question the present notice cannot enter. Suffice 
 to say that, saving in a few cases where the despotism of 
 analysis leads to a certain violence being done to the text, 
 even a faulty scheme, thoroughly worked out, very much 
 aids the interpretation of the whole. None can read 
 Bengel’s exposition of the Epistle without feeling this. It 
 is remarkable that no two expositors are in agreement here. 
 Every man has his own interpretation. It would be wrong 
 here to yield to the temptation of adding another. 
 
 Before delivering up the book to its readers, a few 
 concluding sentences may be permitted on the general 
 characteristics of the Epistle, and the spirit in which it 
 should be studied. 
 
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. Xxi 
 
 Our expositor again and again remarks that St. John’s letter 
 bears all the marks of having been written to congregations 
 already in possession of the truth. This hardly goes far 
 enough to do justice to the case. It was written designedly 
 as the supplement to all extant New Testament Scripture, 
 as, in fact, the final treatise of inspired revelation. This is 
 not avowed, or, if avowed, the expression of it is very faint 
 and indirect. But the effect of this truth is everywhere 
 apparent. Every doctrine, from that of God, as manifested 
 in the Mediatorial Trinity, through the atonement down to 
 the last things, receives its consummating form. The 
 evangelist was reserved to “seal up the vision” and close 
 the long series of divine communications to man. The com- 
 mandment to “ write,’ which was first given to Moses, and 
 is not often heard afterwards, is emphatically given at the 
 close to St. John, who finishes what Moses began. He is 
 the last writer of the New Testament, and it is highly 
 probable that his Catholic Epistle was his last service to 
 Christianity. It is his only doctrinal work, for in neither 
 the Gospel nor the Revelation does he speak in his own 
 person as a teacher. In the latter, he is only the amanuensis 
 of the Lord’s Apocalypse, and the recorder of the visions 
 which he beheld “in the Spirit ;” where he speaks in his 
 own person, it is only to narrate his rapture or the historical 
 event connected with his vocation to write. The prologue 
 of the Gospel seems to be an exception; but that is not so 
 much his own teaching as the necessary introduction of the 
 person of his.-Lord. In this Epistle we receive the closing 
 doctrinal testimony of the last and greatest teacher of the 
 
 _ Christian Church; and in it we have, therefore, the final 
 ~~ “and finishing touches of the whole system of evangelical 
 
 truth. As the fourth evangelist undeniably had the three 
 synoptical Gospels before him, so the last apostle had the 
 apostolical Epistles before him, and gave them also their 
 finish and perfection. Remembering how long an interval 
 separates this document from all other purely doctrinal 
 treatises, it will not be too much to say that St. John 
 devotes the last breath, as it were, of infallible inspiration 
 to a general review of the whole sum of truth, and sets on 
 
XXil TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE, 
 
 it his final seal. Not that the letter is a general doctrinal 
 summary. It is, like almost all the other treatises of 
 revelation, an occasional document : a protest against many 
 kinds of Gnostic heresy, especially concerning the Person 
 of Christ and its relation to the redeeming economy. As 
 such it keeps its eye steadily on the ultimate forms which 
 fleeting errors were beginning to assume, and almost defines 
 the terms of these false theories. It is undoubtedly a 
 contribution of St. John to the pressing needs of the uni- 
 versal Church ; a Catholic defence against uncatholic false 
 doctrine. We hear again the voice of the “son of thunder,” 
 still vehement against every insult to the majesty of his 
 Lord. It is not therefore a general compendium of theology. 
 But we may say that it traverses, more than any other 
 treatise, the whole field; in other words, that it would, 
 better than any other fragment of the New Testament, 
 supply the place of the entire final revelation to such as 
 might possess it alone. 
 
 It is evident that St. John speaks generally as the 
 representative of the company of his predecessors; the 
 opening of the Epistle introduces the “ we,’ not of personal 
 authority, but of the apostolic brotherhood. His is the 
 last voice, soon to be silent like the others; and the tone 
 of the whole letter is that of recapitulation and bringing to 
 remembrance. Not a solitary instance is there of a new 
 assertion ; allis written under the law of its own maxim, “I 
 write no new commandment unto you.” There is not from 
 beginning to end a truth which adds to the old stock, as is 
 so often the case in the earlier writings. Yet the form of 
 all is new. The ever fresh and never exhausted Spirit of 
 inspiration leaves the Church in this Epistle with the token 
 that there is no limit to the power of exhibiting fresh com~ 
 binations of truth. As St. Paul’s last letters are still full 
 of new forms and turns of expression, so it is with St. John, 
 and especially in this last fragment of Scripture. But 
 every novelty of expression is in perfect harmony with the 
 other types of doctrine, on which it sets the seal of perfec- 
 tion. This double truth—that St. John retains every other 
 element of evangelical truth while giving a final touch to 
 
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. XXill 
 
 every other—is of the utmost possible importance to the 
 expositor of this Epistle. 
 
 Let it be remembered, for instance, in every passage that 
 introduces the three several Persons of the Holy Trinity, 
 and it will be seen that some delicate points emerge which 
 have no strict parallel elsewhere. Not to speak of the 
 Three Heavenly Witnesses—our author, in common with 
 most recent criticism, rejects this—reference may be made 
 to the passage that closes the Epistle, and therefore in a 
 sense the whole Bible. “ We are in Him that is true, even 
 in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal 
 life.” Here God and the Father are one in His Son. With 
 this let ch. iv. 9, 14 be collated: “Gop sent His only- 
 begotten Son into the world,” which in a remarkable varia- 
 tion becomes, “ the Father sent His Son to be the Saviour of 
 the world.” Hence, in a manner more express than anywhere 
 else, it is asserted that the Father is the Head and Repre- 
 sentative of the Godhead: in other words, God and the ᾿ 
 Father are one. Of course, this is the doctrine of the 
 entire New Testament; but it has here its final and full 
 expression. Again, with regard to the Person of Christ, 
 we find the same note of a final recension of doctrine. 
 What elsewhere is said concerning the Son as having “ life 
 in Himself,’ might be and has been referred to the incarnate 
 Son the life of men; but here “the Word of life is with 
 the Father,” an expression that retires behind all temporal 
 relations. And the Son is here more emphatically than any- 
 where else “that Son of Him the Only-begotten” who, as 
 such, was “sent into the world.” And, with respect to the 
 incarnation itself, the basis and presupposition of all other 
 doctrine, our Epistle has the final and unsurpassable 
 formulae, almost all of them peculiar, though each of 
 them linking itself with something that had been said 
 before: formulae, namely, such as “ was manifested,” “ came 
 in the flesh,’ “sent into the world,’ which will be found 
 to contain, when studied in their connection, some slight 
 but very specific variation from all preceding phrases, and 
 improvement upon them. The emphasis is here at the 
 close upon the truth that not God absolutely, but the Son 
 
ΧΧΙΥ͂ TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE, 
 
 e 
 came in flesh, and that this Son is still Jesus Christ who 
 came: the reader must mark for himself by collation the 
 advance in such phrases as these found in the Epistle. 
 They are unique, and chosen in order to serve the double 
 purpose of rebuking the Gnostic antichrists, who refused to 
 believe that the Son of God took more than the semblance 
 of a human existence, and that also of making it for ever 
 plain that there was no conversion of the divine into the 
 human when “the Word became flesh.” The Epistle ends 
 with a declaration, so clear as to leave all doubt behind, 
 that the entire manifestation of Jesus Christ is that of the 
 personal Son, whose divine and eternal personality governs 
 the development of His person and work. Here is a final 
 and definitive and consummate word, “the Son of God is 
 come:” there is but One Person of whom all is said, by 
 whom all was done upon earth, and who is accomplishing 
 all that remains to be done in heaven. The distinctions of 
 later theology between a divine and a human personality 
 in our Lord were unknown to St. John, who speaks for all 
 the apostles, and for the Lord Himself. They know of no 
 human personality as such and as apart from the divine. 
 They do not say that He became aman, but that He became 
 flesh, or came in the flesh: flesh being the realistic com- 
 pendium of human nature or human existence. ‘There is a 
 remarkable reading of ch. iv. 3, which Haupt admirably 
 defends, implying that St. John seemed to condemn the 
 sundering or dissolving of Jesus into a God and man: 
 “every spirit ὃ Ave.” There is something deeply sugges- 
 tive in this variation of the text. However much one 
 might hesitate before its authentication, when once it is 
 authenticated no one can doubt that it must be classed 
 among that large number of presentient or anticipative texts 
 of Scripture the meaning and application of which the set 
 time should declare. Be that as it may, this Epistle does, 
 in the most subtle and exquisite way, exhibit the very 
 perfection of the doctrine of the two natures in one per- 
 sonality which make up the true doctrine of the Person of 
 Christ. It removes the angularity and roughness from all 
 other passages, obviates the possible misconception to which 
 
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. XXV 
 
 they were liable, and, in short, crowns them all, as has been 
 said again and again, with the finishing touch of perfection. 
 
 The same principle might be applied to the doctrine of 
 sin in this Epistle, which is brought into relation with 
 Satan in a manner quite peculiar to itself, though in strict 
 harmony with other passages in the Gospel and the later 
 Epistles of St. Paul. The original sinner himself is brought 
 out into very distinct prominence: never, indeed, is he so 
 sharply defined in his personality and in his relation to the 
 redeeming work as in the last pages of Scripture. But 
 more important than this is the effect of the finishing hand 
 upon the work and mediatorial ministry of Christ. Let 
 the reader} carefully mark the specific aspect in which the 
 atonement is seen in four or five distinct presentations of 
 it, and his own reflection will suggest all that might be 
 said. The Father sent the Son As the Saviour rather than 
 TO BE the Saviour of the world. He sent His Only-begotten 
 Son as the propitiation for our sins. This term in the 
 Epistle, ἱλασμός, is invested with deep interest as St. John’s 
 unique expression, reserved as it were for the close of the 
 Scripture, just as is the revelation that “God is love.” 
 Jesus is Himself the propitiation once in heaven and once 
 on earth: Himself, which is the same as St. Paul’s “ pro- 
 pitiatory in His blood through faith,’ but also very much 
 more than that. The term Mediator is not used; but what 
 the term means is exhibited more clearly than anywhere 
 else. It is the Pauline “ Mediator of God and men, the 
 Man Christ Jesus” somewhat improved upon, if such lan- 
 guage may be used. The Mediator 1s God and man, and 
 not only BETWEEN God and men. Everywhere the mission 
 is of the only-begotten Son, not to win for man the love 
 of God by appeasing first His holy wrath, but as the Mes- 
 senger of a love which had already provided the propitiation 
 that eternal holiness rendered necessary and justice found 
 sufficient. It must be remembered that the wonderful 
 revelations of the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians 
 and the Hebrews were before St. John when he so carefully 
 blended love and propitiation together, giving love the pre- 
 eminence. But it is hardly possible to doubt that his full 
 
XXV1 TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 _and complete doctrine of the atonement is, and is intended 
 _ to be, the complement and perfection of all former testimonies. 
 The same may be said of the application of the atone- 
 ment to the individual, with all the blessings of the Christian 
 covenant as imparted to faith. The same three leading 
 ‘ideas of righteousness, sonship, and sanctification which run 
 through the whole New Testament pervade this Epistle 
 also, though the terminology undergoes a slight variation 
 here and there. We miss many of St. Paul’s phrases, and 
 many of these found in the Epistle to the Hebrews; but 
 we do not miss what these terms signify. And it may be 
 said with confidence that in this last document of revelation 
 these three several families of blessing are combined and 
 interwoven with each other in a manner of which there is 
 no example elsewhere. The verification of this would be 
 a good preliminary discipline for the study of our Epistle. 
 
 With regard to the first term, we certainly find nothing 
 here answerable to the Pauline “righteousness of God,” 
 “righteousness of faith,” Christ “made unto us righteous- 
 ness.” But we have, corresponding to each of these terms 
 respectively, phrases which suggest the same meaning to 
 ears already prepared for them. St. John, however, taking 
 for granted St. Paul’s earlier fundamental teaching, enters 
 into the spirit of his later defence of the doctrine against 
 antinomian perversion: he lays stress upon the link between 
 imputed and inherent conformity with law. Supposing 
 this Epistle to be the final expression of the evangelical 
 doctrine of the new righteousness of faith, how striking is 
 the play upon the words: “he that doeth righteousness is 
 righteous, even as He is righteous”! On any other supposi- 
 tion they seem nothing but a play on the words; and, in 
 fact, have been set by more than one shallow and irreverent 
 expositor to the account of our apostle’s senility. 
 
 In harmony with the principle thus laid down, the con- 
 nection between righteousness as before the law and the 
 filial relation to God in Christ is set forth in its final and 
 consummate form. The Epistle does not distinguish between 
 the mediatorial court, in which law, with its forensic 
 phraseology, presides, and the household or family of God 
 
\ 
 
 TRANSLATORS PREFACE. XXvil 
 
 wherein all belongs to the adoption of sons. St. Paul does 
 in general keep these apart. St. John unites them in these 
 words, which form the transition from the one great term 
 to the other: “ Ye know that every one that doeth right- 
 eousness is born of Him.” He makes more emphatic than 
 ever, as if by a final testimony, the pre-eminent dignity of 
 the estate of sonship. It had been said that believers were 
 “ predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son:” 
 thus making their sonship the only privilege spoken of 
 in such high terms. The second part of our Epistle is a 
 wonderful expansion of this very theme, with the terms 
 changed and a finishing touch laid on the whole. The old 
 
 \word adoption is no longer used; but the reality of its 
 
 meaning, and its close connection with the new birth itself, 
 
 are again and again expressed in the apostle’s words. As 
 
 if the whole design of God’s love in the Gospel was 
 summed up in this, he cries,—in the centre of the Epistle and 
 in its unique apostrophe,—* Behold what and how great 
 love God hath given to us, in order that we may be called, 
 and we are, the children of God!” But the very highest 
 expression of this dignity is, that it springs from union 
 
 
 
 with the First-born and the Only-begotten. St. Paul gives 
 
 many hints of this; but his hints are in our Epistle perfect 
 
 developments. Passing over many passages which illus- 
 
 trate the high reach of its doctrine, it is enough to say 
 
 that only of our sonship in Christ and the more abundant 
 
 τ life it imparts is “ eternal” used: it is not eternal righteous- 
 
 ness, nor eternal sanctification, but eternal life. Whatever 
 has been said before is now more greatly said: “ We are in 
 Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is 
 the true God and eternal life.” More glorious things are 
 spoken of the estate of regeneration than had ever before 
 been spoken. This gives the Christians at last their name: 
 not any longer “the righteous,’ or “the saints,” but 
 “children,” “little children,’ “brethren,” “the sons of 
 God.” This, however, is comparatively a small thing. The 
 
 actual birth “of God,” of “His seed,” defines regeneration 
 
 _by stronger terms, if possible, than had been used before ; 
 
 the privileges of the new birth have here their highest 
 
XXVill TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 ideal description, so high indeed as to be the despair 
 of commentators. In fact, this final treatise makes the 
 supreme glory of the Christian vocation to be, that the sons 
 of God in Christ are like the Son as He now is and as He 
 will appear hereafter: like Him in the sense both of ὁμοίοι 
 and of ὁμοουσίοι ; or, to borrow a word of St. Paul, which 
 for once St. John has not surpassed, “one Spirit with Him.” 
 
 The third branch or development of privilege in the 
 Christian covenant is everywhere in the New Testament 
 the sanctification of the soul, pardoned and regenerate, to 
 God: not, however, as if the sanctification follows on forgive- 
 ness and the new birth; rather it is concurrent with them. 
 _ Strictly speaking, there is but one great substantial blessing, 
 life in Christ ; the other two are the necessary concomitants 
 or conditions or appendages of this. The relation thus 
 indicated is impressed most emphatically by St. John as 
 the final lesson of the New Testament. We are forgiven in 
 order that we be “called sons;” we are sanctified in order 
 that we may worthily “be sons.” The new life is in the 
 mediatorial court, where law reigns, cleared from condemna- 
 tion, and enabled to fulfil all righteousness; it is itself im- 
 parted in fellowship with the Son, “the First-born among 
 many brethren,” in the Father’s house; and it is in the new 
 temple of Christianity, over which Jesus presides as High 
 Priest, consecrated and sanctified. The development of 
 this last idea bears the same marks of finality and con- 
 summation which have been observed in the two others. A 
 certain change has passed over the terminology; but the 
 change is—sit venia verbo—on the side of_simplicity and 
 strength. For the purification from sin only two are 
 retained out of a large number, καθαρίζειν and ayvifew. 
 The former is used twice at the threshold of the Epistle, 
 and in each case with a unique application: “the blood of 
 Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin,’ from all sin 
 which the light reveals as spot and detilement; and 
 presently afterwards the virtue of the atonement is said 
 to be administered by God, “faithful and just to forgive us 
 our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness:” that 
 is, blending the court and the temple in a way hitherto 
 
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. ΧΧΙΧ 
 
 unusual, to forgive the sin in the one, and to cleanse from 
 the guilt of unrighteousness in the other. Here, at the 
 outset, we have the divine application of the atonement to 
 those who confess that they have been, that they are, and 
 that they will be to eternity sinners, depending on the 
 mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ for admission to eternal 
 life. In the heart of the Epistle the other term comes in, 
 and St. John appropriates it to the human co-operation. 
 Both St. Paul and St. James apply the former term, 
 καθαρίζειν, to man’s own act; St. John only uses dyvifeww 
 for this. He says all that St. Paul meant when he exhorts 
 us to “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and 
 spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God;” but, as his 
 manner is, he varies and, if possible, elevates the argument : 
 “He that hath this hope in Him purifieth himself, even as 
 He is pure.” But hitherto all has been in some sense 
 negative, the cleansing the nature from sin. The positive’ 
 element of entire consecration to God comes before us in 
 the form of the perfected work of the love of God in us: 
 St. John’s final contribution to the subject. The passages 
 which unfold this high doctrine have no parallel in 
 Scripture, though they are jointly and severally the exact 
 expression, in its highest form, of the spirit of the entire 
 New Testament. This is not the place to expound them 
 fully. But let the reader of our present volume, and of most 
 other commentaries on this Epistle, ask himself as he reads 
 whether justice is done to them. He should be exceedingly 
 jealous upon this point, and not suffer his mind to be 
 beclouded in the interpretation of this last and highest 
 testimony to the prerogatives of the Christian life of 
 holiness. 
 
 The passages here referred to—those which speak of the 
 perfected love of God in man—are distributed over the 
 _ Epistle in a very suggestive manner, illustrating what has 
 been said as to the final tone here impressed upon the 
 evangelical phraseology. Their first occurrence connects 
 them with the observance of the law or righteousness: 
 “whoso keepeth His word, in him verily is the love of God 
 perfected.” Here there is a beautiful inversion of St. Paul’s 
 
ΧΧΧ TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 order, “love is the fulfilling of the law:” for in St. John 
 the fulfilling of the law is also the perfecting of love. The 
 second instance of their use connects them with the 
 regenerate life. Writing to those who are born of God, St. 
 John says: “If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, 
 and His love is perfected in us.” At this point rises in the 
 text the word which revelation had never uttered before, 
 “God is love,” and the love of God, dwelling in those who 
 are born of Him, has in and through their charity to man 
 its perfect operation. The third time they are connected 
 with our sanctification from all sin, through the indwelling 
 of God by His Spirit in the soul. St. Paul speaks of the 
 “Jove of God shed abroad” in the believer. This is a large 
 word, but here it is surpassed: “love with us is perfected,” 
 it becomes “perfect love” in us, which drives out fear 
 because it drives out sin, the cause of fear, gives boldness 
 in the judgment whether present or future, and is the entire 
 consecration of the soul in the indwelling Trinity. These 
 are only suggestions, offered only to illustrate a principle 
 that furnishes one key of great importance to the exposition 
 of this Epistle. It sets the seal of perfection on all former 
 doctrine concerning the privileges of the Christian estate. 
 The entire vocabulary sanctified in the New Testament 
 to describe these privileges falls into three classes, as we 
 have seen: one large class revolves around the word right- 
 - eousness; another around the life of sonship; and a third, 
 brought up from the temple, is composed entirely of 
 > sacrificial terms. These various departments of phraseology 
 are everywhere distinct, though sometimes they seem to be 
 blended. We see at once which predominates in the several 
 Epistles of St. Paul and the Hebrews, and in the other 
 writings of the New Testament. But when we come to this 
 last document or compendium, they are intertwined and 
 made one after a new fashion. This can be verified in 
 every paragraph. One instance may suffice. Let the reader 
 begin with ch. 11. 29, and go on to ch. i. 5, with this 
 thought in his mind. He finds the three ideas of con- 
 formity to law or righteousness, perfection of the filial life 
 in the image of the Son, and sanctification from all sin, 
 
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. Xxx 
 
 distinct and yet blended inextricably. The order is there, 
 righteousness, sonship, sanctification; but the three are one. 
 The terms of the court, the household and the temple, con- . 
 firm and illustrate each other; and Jesus Christ —the 
 Righteous, the Son of the Father, the Holy One—presides, 
 in the glory of His holiness, over all and over each. 
 
 The principle here laid down may be perverted in its 
 application. It may be said that this final testimony of 
 revelation has left behind and rendered obsolete much of 
 St. Paul’s forensic and judicial thought, and sublimated the 
 Gospel into its higher and more simple character. But this 
 
 |is a mistake. This Epistle perfects all, but not by sup- 
 pressing anything. For instance, there is no aspect of the 
 
 atonement—as in the divine nature first, and then revealed 
 at the cross—which may not be discovered by the faithful 
 eye in this Epistle. Christ is the messenger of eternal love, 
 but He bears a propitiatory sacrifice sent forth from eternity, 
 and as the Righteous One He vindicates the rectoral 
 righteousness of God in His advocacy for sinners. St. Paul 
 has dilated on these three points more fully; but no terms 
 of his surpass the force of the last apostle. The entire 
 doctrine of the righteousness of faith is wrapped up in one 
 expression: “ Your sins are forgiven for His name’s sake.” 
 St. Paul’s: “just God and the Justifier,” is reproduced in 
 St. John’s “faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” St. 
 John’s vindication of the necessity of interior righteousness 
 is only the echo of St. Paul’s own; and in his pages St. 
 James and St. Paul are harmonized better than anywhere 
 else. Again, it may be insinuated that the absence of the 
 
 ideas of Church, and sacraments, and ministry, indicate a 
 
 certain disparagement of these ideas. Certainly the spiritu- 
 ality of the true Christian fellowship is exalted to the 
 highest point; but the visible organization is implied in 
 the condemnation of those “who went out from us,” and 
 the little Epistle to Gaius, written by the same hand, and 
 about the same time, settles the place “the Church” and 
 its ministry held in the apostle’s system. As to the 
 sacraments, they are not alluded to, save in a mystical way, 
 because there is no reason to think that the sacramental 
 
ΧΧΧΙΙ TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 doctrine had been perverted in St. John’s time. But here 
 comes in another principle or key of interpretation,—that 
 the great errors of the time were assailed in this final 
 document,—and this has not been dwelt upon here, because 
 it is abundantly illustrated in the volume now introduced. 
 
 It only remains to commend the reverential and devout 
 spirit that pervades this exposition. The writer evidently 
 knows that secret of the “unction from the Holy One” 
 which he has so beautifully expounded, and the reader must 
 know it too, if he would not lose his labour. 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 O-author in the New Testament canon has to the same 
 extent as the Apostle John impressed upon the very 
 introductory words of his writings a Christological stamp. 
 The Epistles of St. Paul refer the χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη, which 
 they invoke upon the readers, equally to the Father and to 
 the Son.. The first Epistle of St. Peter introduces at once 
 in its superscription the three divine persons co-ordinately ; 
 and his second Epistle, while it first speaks of Christ as 
 Θεὸς ἡμῶν καὶ σωτήρ, yet ascribes the proper salutation 
 equally to the Father and to the Son. But, even apart 
 from the introductory words, these documents—to which 
 we may indeed add the synoptical Gospels themselves—do 
 not produce the sublime Christological impression that is 
 produced by the works of St. John. This stamp is all the 
 more remarkable inasmuch as the first Epistle, and still more 
 the Apocalypse,’ when they are examined in detail, contain 
 but little doctrine proper concerning the God-man. The 
 Epistle to the Colossians, for example, is much richer in 
 this respect than both the works just mentioned. But with 
 such full energy does St. John at the outset make the Son 
 of God the sole centre of all his thinking, that in our 
 
 1 The author may observe here, once for all, that he gives due appreciation 
 to the great difficulties which oppose the hypothesis that the writer of the 
 Apocalypse was the writer of the Gospel. But they fail to sway him, never- 
 theless, especially as they contradict the strong witness of antiquity ; and he 
 therefore always quotes the Apocalypse as Johannaean. By a more and more 
 diligent and thorough comparison of its matter with that of the Gospel and 
 of the Epistle, the conviction on the one side or the other must necessarily in 
 due time be brought clearly out. 
 
 1 JOHN, A 
 
2 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 investigations of the most remote subjects that follow we 
 feel ourselves always under the supremacy of this central 
 truth. Χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γεγόνεν : these words, 
 taken in their widest significance, constitute the signature 
 of the Johannaean writings. 
 
 However strikingly the opening words of the Gospel 
 and our Epistle respectively accord as to their scope and 
 matter, they have important differences in their form. The 
 Gospel begins in short, antithetical sentences, as to their 
 construction and bearing easily intelligible; the Epistle 
 begins with a long period, abruptly breaking off and then 
 returning back to its starting-point, such as furnishes some 
 difficulties to the grammatical interpretation. This Epistle 
 also has no superscription ; while the second and third of 
 the same writer each contains one, the second in a form 
 approximating to the copiousness of the Pauline formula ; 
 the third, in the briefest way possible, only mentioning the 
 sender and the receiver. It is true that an attempt has 
 been made to force the first four verses of our Epistle into 
 the scheme of a superscription; the χαρά of the fourth 
 verse has been made analogous to the χάρις of the Pauline 
 Epistles ; the πληρωθῆναι of the joy here has been paral- 
 leled with the πληθυνθῆναι of the inscriptions in St. Peter, 
 Polycarp, and Clemens. But if we find evidence that the 
 first four verses aim only to give the matter and scope of 
 the letter, this of itself proves that they furnish us, not 
 with a superscription proper, but with a specific intro- 
 duction. In the superscription of an epistle the names of 
 the receiver and of the sender could not well be wanting. 
 We have something like such a letter without superscrip- 
 tion in the Epistle to the Hebrews, only that there the 
 close at least corresponds with the customary closing 
 formula of St. Paul’s letters. Still, in the main current of 
 our present document the reader remains much more con- 
 scious of the epistolary form than in the case of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, which is much more like a treatise. 
 
CHAP. L 1 3 
 
 Cr AP REE 1. 
 
 VERSE 1. 
 
 Ὃ ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλ- 
 μοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, 
 περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς. 
 
 As to the construction of the first verses of this Epistle, 
 modern exegesis has come to a pretty clear agreement. 
 The period contains a double specification of the object ; 
 first, it is given in the relative clauses with 6; and then, 
 secondly, it is summed up in the words: περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς 
 ζωῆς. The predicate to which all these definitions of the 
 object belong is ἀπαγγέλλομεν in ver. 3. But before this 
 is announced the apostle inserts a parenthesis for the 
 closer explanation of the περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς (ver. 2) ; 
 and then the broken thread is taken up again by a brief 
 repetition of the object (ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν). 
 But when the form is settled, the matter yet remains for 
 interpretation. What is the substance of the announcement 
 which St. John has to make? Isitathing? In favour 
 of this seems the neutral beginning, the fourfold 6. Or is 
 it a person? For this speaks the matter of these same 
 neutral clauses: ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν 
 κι τίλ. ; for this also the allusion to the beginning of the 
 Gospel, where in part the same is said concerning the 
 Logos ; for this, finally, the summarizing expression: λόγος 
 τῆς ζωῆς. It is certainly inadmissible to translate these 
 words as meaning the annunciation or message concerning 
 life ; for St. John’s aim is not to speak about the preaching 
 of the apostles, but to announce that preaching itself. We 
 can understand περὶ τῆς ζωῆς ἀπωαγγέλλομεν ; but περὶ τοῦ 
 λόγου τῆς ζωῆς would be, on such a theory of interpre- 
 tation, an embarrassing thought. The undeniable coinci- 
 
4 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST, JOHN. 
 
 ~ dence between the beginning of the Epistle and the prologue 
 of the Gospel requires that we take the λόγος here in the 
 same sense as there,—that is, as the description of the Son 
 of God, the eternal Revealer of the divinity. 
 
 All the expressions of the verse showing that it is a 
 person who is in the apostle’s view, how comes it that he 
 begins with the neuter? We shall find the right answer 
 when we seek for the solution of another and easier 
 question: why, that is, the apostle does not, in summing 
 up the object of his annunciation, use the simple accusative, 
 τὸν λόγον τῆς ζωῆς ἀπαγγέλλομεν, instead of saying, περὶ 
 τοῦ λόγου. These two are by no means equivalent. We 
 might expect to find τὸν λόγον ἀπαγγέλλομεν in the begin- 
 ning of the Gospel, or in the beginning of the Epistle to the: 
 Hebrews, or, in fact, of any document which might be 
 occupied with the person of our Lord ; but it is obvious to 
 the most superficial consideration, that our Epistle neither 
 gives nor professes to give a detailed disclosure of the 
 characteristics of the person and nature of the Logos. It 
 is true that the Logos is the fundamental matter and pith 
 of the Epistle; not, however, His person in itself, but in 
 its effects, in its glorious outbeamings, which only in an 
 indirect way lead to any conclusions concerning His own 
 nature as a person. Consequently the apostle announces 
 assuredly περὶ tod λόγου, merely things which stand con- 
 nected with the Logos, but not directly τὸν λόγον. From 
 this point of view we can explain primarily the clause : περὶ 
 Tov λόγου τῆς ζωῆς. This phrase also carries us back to 
 the prologue of the Gospel. We read, ch. i. 4, concerning 
 the Logos, ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν ; in ch. xiv. 6 the Lord calls 
 Himself absolutely the Life ; and, according to ch. v. 26: 
 ἔδωκεν ὁ πατὴρ τῷ vid Conv ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷς It might 
 appear, from this combination, as if the expression λόγον 
 τῆς ζωῆς signified only the Logos who hath life, the true 
 life, in Himself. But a closer study of the passages quoted 
 shows that in all of them life comes into consideration not 
 
 -as shut up in the Logos alone, but also as streaming forth 
 from Him, so that His life is at the same time a power 
 penetrating and filling the world. So even in ch. 1. 4 of 
 
CHAP. I. 1. 5 
 
 the Gospel, the words which immediately follow declare that 
 ἡ fon ἣν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων; and in ch. v. 26 the 
 Lord makes it emphatic that He had life in Himself, only 
 to demonstrate His authority as the Giver of life, as the 
 ζωοποιῶν. And the same holds good of ch. iv. 6 when we 
 consider the clause added: οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα 
 εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ, which states the design of the definitions of 
 Himself given by Christ in the former member of the 
 sentence. But in order to arrive at a surer determination 
 of the meaning of λόγος τῆς ζωῆς in our passage, we must 
 consider another series of Johannaean passages—those, 
 namely, in which, as here, the life is the genitival definition 
 of another name, such as ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς, John vi., and das 
 τῆς ζωῆς, ch. viii. 12. These passages also lay down not 
 only that the bread and the light are themselves living, but 
 that they are life-civing also. In the latter of them, the 
 words ὁ ἀκολουθῶν μοι ἕξει τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς do not aim 
 to show that where there is life merely Christ will become 
 to that life light also, but that the light which He gives 
 awakens life; and, that ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς makes emphatic not 
 the internal quality of the bread, but its effect as such, is 
 proved, apart from other considerations, by ver. 33, where 
 the words ἄρτος ζωὴν διδοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ prescribe the sense 
 in which the ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς ought in this connection to 
 be understood. 
 
 Thus also in our passage we shall, guided by the analog 
 of these collective parallels, understand by the λόγος τῆς 
 ζωῆς, not only the Logos so far as He has life, but so far 
 also as He gives life. As it lies in the nature of light that 
 it is not only luminous itself, but also makes other things 
 luminous, so it lies in the idea of the Logos, as viewed by ~ 
 our apostle, that He communicates and diffuses whatever He 
 is, and therefore His life. This latter aspect could here 
 least of all be excluded; for the apostle’s design is not to 
 impart any purely theoretical communications concerning 
 that which is in Christ, but to set it forth as the possession 
 of His people; and he sums up the scope of his Epistle, 
 ch. v. 13, as consisting in this, that we by means of our 
 
 faith should know ourselves in possession of life, That 
 
0 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN 
 
 which, therefore, conclusively and distinctly, the writer 
 would announce, is the life; as appears plainly from the 
 circumstance that in the expression λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, in 
 ver. 2, he selects and makes prominent that element which 
 jis the most important,—that is, the life. Thus, when the 
 apostle says that he would make his record περὶ τοῦ λόγου 
 hs ζωῆς, he indicates, by means of the genitive, that 
 element on account of which he speaks generally of the 
 | Logos, —that is, of the Logos in as far as He is life, and, 
 ‘according to what follows, life become manifest and com- 
 municable. Thus, while it is the Logos which certainly is 
 present to his view, it is not the Person in Himself, and as 
 such, that is the matter of his announcement: not His acts 
 nor His process, but only that quality in Him which is life, 
 life in His person and flowing from it. Fundamentally, 
 therefore, it is guid and not a quis of which the apostle 
 would speak ; hence he is justified in saying that he declares 
 not τὸν λόγον, but more generally περὶ τοῦ λόγου ; and he 
 is right in defining the object of his announcement not as 
 masculine, but as neuter. 
 
 Since it is plain that the expression περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς 
 ζωῆς can denote only the same object of announcement 
 which the preceding relatival clauses indicate, the task 
 lies before us to ascertain whether our definition of that 
 object accords with all these. It is found that it does 
 in the highest degree: the same interfusion of person and 
 thing meets us as in the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς. Of course it 
 may be objected, that what the disciples heard, saw, and 
 touched had not been the life which was hidden in Christ, 
 jbut the Person, the Logos, Himself; and it might seem 
 that this is fatal both to our explanation of the neutral 
 | pronouns and to our definition of the object generally. But 
 let this be closely examined. By the ἀκούειν certainly not 
 the mere sound of Christ’s words is to be understood, but 
 the substance of His discourse; what was that but the 
 announcement of the life which was in Christ, and which 
 was to flow into the apostles? Surely, too, by the ὁρᾶν 
 and θεᾶσθαι was not signified merely the beholding of the 
 corporeal form of the Lord, so that a Caiaphas might have 
 
 
 
CHAP. I. 1. % 
 
 been included under the plural ἑωράκαμεν; but what they 
 beheld was His works, not according to their outward 
 occurrence, but according to their inward significance ; and 
 what did the disciples see, other than that the Lord both | 
 was the life and imparted it? Finally, it has probability 
 in its favour preliminarily, and will hereafter be more fully 
 shown, that the ψηλαφῶν refers directly to the narrative of 
 Thomas after the resurrection. Moreover, it is demonstrable 
 that even this last expression does not allude to the touching 
 of the person of Christ as such, but to the knowledge of 
 Him as the life which the touching was the medium of 
 obtaining. We know it had been the opinion of the 
 disciples that He who appeared was an apparition, an 
 appearance which belonged essentially to the dead and had 
 only the semblance of life. By means of the ψηλαφῶν 
 Thomas discerned that the Saviour had in Himself true, 
 perfect, and not merely seeming life—in fact, that He was 
 the Conqueror of death. The main thing, then, was not 
 the handling of the Logos, but of the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς. 
 And when, in virtue of that touch, he broke out into ΠΩ͂ 
 words “ My Lord and my God!” the Lord approved Him- 
 self to him not merely as the Possessor of life, but as the 
 Dispenser of it. For the rest, what we have now arrived 
 at is as follows. As St. John says that what he had heard, 
 had seen, had touched, was the matter of his annunciation, 
 he cannot mean the annunciation of external occurrences, 
 such as the words and acts of the Lord ; for the Epistle con- 
 tains directly no such matters. No more can he mean the 
 seeing, hearing, touching of the person of the God-man in 
 itself; for that would have required a masculine form at the 
 outset. He means rather the seeing, hearing, and touching 
 of the Lord as of the life. In fine, the apostle speaks of | 
 Christ, but not of Christ asa person,—not of the Son in | 
 
 Himself, but of the Son as He is the life. In this way every 
 word of the clause finds its full and unrestricted meaning. 
 ‘Let us now descend to details. The relative clauses 
 which introduce the Epistle are grouped primarily in two 
 parts: the first declares the objective existence of the λόγος 
 
 τῆς ζωῆς from the beginning, the others declare His mani- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST, JOHN. 
 
 festation as in the presence of the apostles. But these two 
 divisions are, in the style adopted by the writer to arrange 
 and connect the words, not to be viewed as antithetic, but 
 as gradational. The contrast is not between the eternal 
 existence and the temporal manifestation to certain persons, 
 and at a specific season,—had it been so, we should have 
 read ὃ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἦν, νυνὶ δὲ ἡμεῖς ἀκηκόαμεν, or ἡμεῖς δὲ 
 
 ἀκηκόαμεν. But the ἀκούειν is an advancement on the 
 
 εἶναι, as is plain from the precedence of the ἣν in the 
 former clause and the absence of the ἡμεῖς in the latter. 
 The meaning of the earlier words will be made more plain 
 by a comparison with the Gospel. This begins with ἐν 
 ἀρχῇ ἣν ὁ λόγος ; in antithesis to the ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησε of 
 
 \Genesis, St. John writes ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν: when God made all 
 
 ‘things, the Logos was already 1 in existence. Here, on the 
 other hand, the question is not of the priority of the Logos 
 as opposed to the world, but of the priority of His being as 
 opposed to His manifestation: the life that filled eternity 
 had entered into the world of manifestation. Further, our 
 ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς is to be noted in its relation to the ἐν ἀρχῇ of 
 the Gospel. In the latter we must understand, following 
 the pervasive parallel with the first words of Genesis, that 
 ἐν ἀρχῇ is the same as the M'WNI2 of Gen. i. 1,—that is, 
 the element of the first creating, of the beginning of the 
 creature, is contained in it. If we take the word in the 
 same sense in our own passage, then the apostle affirms that 
 ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, since the beginning of the creation, that of which 
 he will speak, the true life, Seiten Nothing would then 
 be said in this passage of the pre-temporal, pre-creaturely 
 existence of the true life, and the possessor of that life, the 
 Word ; nor, indeed, was anything necessary to be said. 
 But ἀρχή may be understood in another sense,—that is, not 
 as the beginning of the world, and therefore of time, but 
 as the starting-point of human thought in its way over the 
 limits of the creaturely universe. As we can form no con- 
 ception of timelessness, we are wont to define that which 
 was before the creation by terms taken from time,—even 
 this “before” introduces the temporal idea where it does 
 not belong, for we cannot shake off the restraints of time 
 
CHAP. I. 1. 9 
 
 and space. In this sense, as a help to express the notion 
 of eternity, ἀρχή is often employed in Scripture. The 
 beginning of the world is not then denoted, as in Gen. 1. ; 
 but the absolute First, going before all things else. Thus, 
 for example, in the passage of the Old Testament which 
 lies at the basis of the Logos-doctrine, Prov. vill. 23: 
 [Κύριος] ἐθεμελίωσέ με ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ τὴν γῆν 
 ποιῆσαι, where the last words show that the ἐν ἀρχῇ cannot 
 be understood of the beginning of the world, but designates 
 eternity. Furthermore, in 2 Thess. xi. 13, according to the 
 right reading, εἵλετο ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς eis σωτηρίαν, 
 where ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς may be supposed to express the same 
 thought as elsewhere is expressed by πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. 
 Similarly, the description of Christ as ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος, Rev. 
 i. 8,is intended to teach the truth, not only that Christ 
 lives through all time, but that He is above time: in fact, to 
 declare His super-temporal nature. To accept in this way 
 the ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς of our own passage is recommended to us 
 by the thought which St. John aims to express: it cannot 
 be his design to assert, that, since the world was, Christ, or 
 the eternal life, has been; but he would describe the abso- 
 lute primordial life of Christ Himself. When we clearly 
 perceive that in the whole verse the notion of ζωή is that 
 which floats before the ‘apostle’s vision, we shall be con- 
 strained to accept this idea as the substance also of the 
 ὃ ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς : the eternal life, which I would publish to 
 you, was before all time, existing therefore before all mani- 
 festation of itself. As in Prov. viii. 22 it is said of Wisdom 
 that she was the beginning of the ways of God, so here it 
 is said of the life; for both had from eternity rested in the 
 Logos, who Himself is or was the Wisdom and the Life. 
 But that which thus has its essence in the eternities has 
 become to the apostle and to his fellow-apostles—this is 
 evidently the meaning of the plural form—the object of per- 
 sonal and most interior experience. As St. Paul, with all his 
 independence, and notwithstanding his self-assured relation 
 even to the other apostles, finds it a necessity, when he writes 
 officially and of his office, to regard his own person as part 
 only of a greater whole,—that is, of the apostolate ordained 
 
10 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIN. 
 
 of Christ,—and therefore to use the plural, so also it isa 
 necessity to St. John. We note in the stream of his dis- 
 course, always strengthening in its volume and never doing 
 itself full justice, how important it was to him to make 
 emphatic the reality of the amazing revelations which had 
 been made to him; and how, on the other hand, an over- 
 whelming joy on their account pours out everywhere on 
 his words its inspiring influence. Between the four predi- 
 cates, which describe the manifestation of what was from 
 the beginning, we find a twofold relation in the fact that 
 the last two by a single 6 are linked closely together ; these 
 take the place of one whole, as over against the first two 
 predicates ; while, again, between the first and second, and 
 
 further, between the third and fourth predicates, an advance 
 is indicated through the instrumental definition which is 
 connected with the second and fourth particularly. Thus 
 we have two pairs of clauses; and there is, indeed, an eleva- 
 tion of meaning discernible first between each pair, and then 
 also between the first and the second pair. First, by the 
 ἀκηκόαμεν the altogether general thought is expressed of a 
 knowledge touching the object; it is not yet said whether 
 that was the result of direct hearing or indirectly through 
 athird hand. The ὁρᾶν takes a step in advance, with its 
 addition τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, an addition which affirms 
 the extraordinary character belonging to this immediate 
 contemplation: “it is scarcely credible, but I affirm it, with 
 our own eyes we saw it.” The ὁρᾶν in holy writ always 
 stands higher than ἀκούειν ; it indicates the most assured 
 and the most incontestable evidence. Again, we have the 
 ἐθεασάμεθα. The word by its root (comp. θάμβος, θαῦμα) 
 points to a seeing which, in regard to its object, is connected 
 with astonishment and wonder; something was exhibited 
 to the apostles which was most worthy to be beheld and 
 contemplated. With regard to the seeing subject, it con- 
 nects the perfect energy and intensity of the act; the word 
 itself is stronger than ὁρᾶν, and describes a purposed and 
 most diligent beholding. The ψηλαφᾶν finally establishes, 
 so to speak, the most material kind of knowledge, which 
 excludes even the faintest doubt. Now, as we cannot, of 
 
 
 
CHAP. Lt 11 
 
 course, think of an accidental or fortuitous touching of the 
 Lord, while obviously the position at the close of the four 
 predicates leads to the conclusion that, with ψηλαφᾶν, as 
 with θεᾶσθαι, the intention is to make prominent a deliberate 
 and conscious and purposed attainment of knowledge, we 
 arrive necessarily, in a new and striking way, at the relation 
 between the first and second pair of predicates. ὋὉρᾶν and 
 ἀκούειν indicate immediate perceptions of sense ; θεᾶσθαι and 
 ψηλαφᾶν indicate investigation pursued with full purpose 
 and diligence, and therefore with all exactitude. Now, as 
 St. John, and only he, in the Gospel records the transaction 
 with Thomas, in which precisely this industrious θεᾶσθαι 
 and ψηλαφᾶν plays a part, it is almost evident that in these 
 words he is thinking of that event, and generally of the 
 time after the resurrection. If this is the right point of 
 view to assume for the interpretation of the last pair of 
 predicates, the change of tense is at once explained, namely, 
 that the first two verbs are in the perfect, and the last two 
 in the aorist; the former are to describe the evidences of - 
 the sense running through the whole of the life of Christ, 
 and completed as one whole; the latter by the aorists point 
 to definite historical individual occurrences, which are to be 
 described as such. 
 
 Thus St. John has given a twofold utterance concerning 
 the object of his publication: that He in His nature is 
 eternal, and therefore divine; and also that He descended 
 into the domain of human, yea, sensible experience, and 
 thus became manifest, so that He became known in a per 
 fectly assured manner. More distinetly i is the object of the | 
 writing laid down in the words περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς Cams; | 
 the subject is the λόγος, but, as we have seen, the Logos, | 
 not as in Himself, but as He is the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς: and | 
 precisely this makes it clear why the apostle lays so much | 
 stress on the θεᾶσθαι and ψηλαφῶν of the risen Lord; why 
 the Lord was so emphatically present to his eye as risen. 
 For Christ had indeed from the beginning of His ministry 
 manifested Himself as the life, and, like the χάρις καὶ adi 
 fea, the Son also had ever been reflected from His face; | 
 but beyond all comparison more abundantly did the cha- 
 
12 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 racteristic of ζῶν and ἕωοποιῶν declare itself in Him when 
 
 the long-restrained source of life was fully unsealed in the 
 
 resurrection: ἐὰν μὴ ὁ κόκκος τοῦ σίτου ἀποθάνῃ, αὐτὸς 
 | μόνος μένει, ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνη, πολὺν καρπὸν φέρει. 
 
 VERSE 2. 
 
 (Καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν, καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν, καὶ 
 ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις ἣν πρὸς τὸν 
 πατέρα, καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν.) 
 
 But with all this, St. John has not laid down precisely 
 enough the object of his Epistle. Of the two ideas contained 
 in λόγος τῆς ζωῆς he therefore singles out and makes pro- 
 minent that one which concerns him particularly ; not the 
 person bearing and enfolding the life, but this life itself 
 15 the main idea. The Gospel ‘begins with ὁ λόγος σὰρξ 
 ἐγένετο, for it treats of the person of Him through whose 
 / mediation the ζωή came. The Epistle says ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, 
 for its object is not the person, but the influences flowing 
 through the medium of the person. It is true that in the 
 Gospel also the influences and energies of the Logos are 
 depicted ; but it is in such a manner as to exhibit His per- 
 son in richer light, and define that person more precisely. 
 It is true also that, conversely, the Epistle speaks of the 
 person of the Logos ; but it is in such a manner that thereby 
 the influences of that person should be made more con- 
 spicuous. This life has entered into the world of mani- 
 festation, ἐφανερώθη. It is obvious that it could not be 
 said of the ζωή that it σὰρξ ἐγένετο; for while the λόγος, 
 the person, might indeed become man, no attribute or quali- 
 fication of Him could be incarnate. - The eternal life of 
 the Logos with the Father, and the earthly life below, are 
 diverse forms in which the ζωή clothes itself ; itself, however, 
 becomes not σάρξ; rather, as the result of the incarnation, 
 it presents itself to us as manifested. But, apart from 
 the logical impossibility in such a passage as ours of 
 the σὰρξ ἐγένετο, it. is to be remarked that elsewhere the 
 -Epistle of St. John betrays a preference for the more general 
 φανεροῦσθαι. And naturally so. For the assumption of 
 flesh was in fact only the means of the manifestation, and, 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAP, I. 2. 13 
 
 moreover, ἃ medium which had not eternal continuance; 
 for, when the Lord was glorified, He remained indeed man, 
 but not σάρξ. The flesh, whose note is weakness, was 
 penetrated and swallowed,up by the power of the Spirit 
 that pervaded it. In our Epistle, where the subject is the 
 life-giving energy of the Lord, and at this point, where the 
 first verse has indicated that this was to be found speci- 
 fically in the risen Saviour, who was no longer σάρξ, the 
 more general φανεροῦσθαι is on all accounts the most 
 adequate and pertinent expression. 
 
 What has been said makes it clear that ζωή cannot here 
 be a personal name of the Logos; it is rather that quality 
 or characteristic of the Logos which the writer would by 
 means of his Epistle implant in us. The ζωή is a potency 
 constituting the personality, but not the person himself. 
 What has led to the contrary opinion, namely, that ζωή is 
 a definition of the person of the Logos, is the second clause 
 of our verse, where we read, ἡ ζωὴ ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, 
 that being declared concerning the life which in the Gospel 
 is declared concerning the Logos. But the testimony of the 
 Gospel may with equal propriety be turned against this view; 
 for there it runs expressly, ζωὴ ἣν ἐν αὐτῷ, and thus even in 
 the Gospel the life is not used as a personal name, but as a 
 characteristic inherent in the Logos. What there is of right 
 in this opinion, which, however, we cannot accept, is that here, 
 more than elsewhere, the eternal life is described as something 
 enfolded in Christ and inseparable from His person. Onl 
 through the manifestation of the Son could the life becom 
 manifest ; but not on that account is the life an idea which 
 may be used interchangeably with Christ or the Logos. 
 
 This life, which has been manifested in the Logos, and 
 which we have learned to recognise as the object of 
 apostolical annunciation, is in the second half of the verse 
 more precisely defined as ζωὴ alwvios,—that is, looked at 
 on the side most important for the aim of the writer. At 
 the outset it must be noted that “eternal life” is not to 
 St. John merely a term for unbroken continuance in being, 
 as if it were simply equivalent to the ζωὴ ἀκατάλυτος of 
 Heb. v. 6; that it does not define the form of this life so 
 
14 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 much as the nature and meaning of it: ζωὴ αἰώνιος is, in 
 other words, a description of divine life, of the life which is 
 in God, and which by God is communicated. It is with 
 this expression as it is with the βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. 
 To the οὐρανός the New Testament does undoubtedly 
 attach first of all a local meaning. When Christ teaches 
 us to pray that the will of God may be done here as it is 
 done in heaven, and when we read of a descending from 
 and ascending to heaven, this meaning is sufficiently mani- 
 fest. But then the word passes from the external and 
 local into the internal and spiritual or ethical sense. The 
 βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν is not only a kingdom whose seat is 
 heaven in the ordinary sense, but, at the same time, a king- 
 dom which has the same ethical quality that characterizes 
 the super-terrestrial world, and hence this βασιλεία τῶν 
 οὐρανῶν may indeed be literally on earth. In other words, 
 οὐρανός is the antithesis not only of the physical, but also 
 of the ethical idea of the κόσμος. The same thing holds 
 good of the ζωὴ αἰώνιος ; primarily it denotes, of course, 
 the antithesis of the external, temporal finiteness and 
 restriction of the earthly life, as, for instance, when we 
 read of a ζήσεσθαι eis τὸν αἰῶνα. But when Christ calls 
 Himself ζωή, or is called ζωὴ αἰώνιος, John xiv. 3, 1 John 
 v. 20, this notion recedes before the internal quality of the 
 ‘life so defined; by ζωὴ αἰώνιος a life is meant which 
 
 really and truly is life, fe in the fullest sense, life and 
 nothing but life, in_a word, divine life; while all earthly 
 
 ife is in some sense death. 
 
 This last interpretation of the ζωὴ αἰώνιος is an absolute 
 necessity in our present passage. For only when it is 
 thus interpreted does the added clause, ἥτις ἣν πρὸς τὸν 
 πατέρα, acquire a satisfactory meaning. At the outset, the 
 fact that instead of the simple ἥ the connection by ἥτις is 
 preferred, indicates that the interjected relative clause con- 
 tains a reason for the preceding name, or an explanation of 
 it. But, apart from that, only two ways of interpret- 
 ing the relative clause are possible. The first would be 
 to consider the apostle as resuming by means of it what 
 he had said about the life: what he had said having been 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAP. I. 2. 10 
 
 the εἶναι ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς and the φανερωθῆναι. But we must 
 reject this explanation, because the εἶναι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς is not 
 really taken up again, but instead of it comes in the idea of 
 εἶναι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, which is, after all, another; here 
 the counterparts are being in the Father and being in the 
 world, while in ver. 1 they are being from the beginning 
 and manifestation in time; and however nearly related 
 these two pairs may be, they are not identical, and the one 
 is not a resumption of the other. But, granted that the 
 substance of what precedes was to be recapitulated by the 
 relative clause, and thus eva πρὸς τὸν πατέρα was to be 
 altogether equivalent to εἶναι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, yet even this does 
 not give αἰώνιος the idea of mere superiority to the limita- 
 tions of time, for then the αἰώνιος would itself be a re- 
 capitulation of the εἶναι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, and this latter would 
 be twice resumed, once by the αἰώνιος, and a second time 
 by ἥτις ἣν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. But, as it has been made 
 evident, this whole notion of an analepsis of what had pre- 
 ceded by means of the relative clause is not to be justified ; 
 there is, however, another analepsis which commends itself, 
 namely, that the relative clause gives a reason for the 
 declaration, ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. That 
 this ζωή is an αἰώνιος ----ἰ αὖ is, as seen above, a divine life, 
 life in the true ethical sense—is established and proved by 
 the fact that it springs from the Father; that St. John can 
 and will announce it, is established and proved by the fact 
 that it has passed into manifestation, that it has become 
 knowable, and therefore communicable. It is not the life, 
 as it is in God the Father, that the apostle can and will 
 declare, but the life which is in the Son, who says of 
 Himself, John v. 26, vi. 57: ἐγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα. The 
 life of the Father is sealed and shut up in itself, and that 
 which is said of the Father generally may be said of His 
 life: Θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε ἑώρακεν, ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ἐξηγή- 
 σατο. It is the life of the Son of God, more particularly of 
 the incarnate Son of God, that St. John beheld and would 
 fain implant in the church. Hence it is not said, ἥτις ἣν 
 ἐν τῷ Θεῷ, but, πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. And here, as in the 
 prologue of the Gospel, we must carefully mark that it is 
 
10 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 not παρά, but mpos,—that is, it is thus to be asserted that 
 ‘Ythe life existing in the Logos is not a life originating in 
 Himself, but one that is His only in virtue of a permanent 
 relation to the Father, through the eternal turning towards 
 Him. And it is precisely this reference of itself to the 
 Father that makes αἰώνιος ζωή the true and divine life. 
 
 Let us now retrace our steps and measure our progress 
 to this point. In always more specific definitions and 
 always narrowing circles, the apostle has laid down the 
 object of his writing more and more precisely. It is 
 something eternal, yet, at the same time, something to 
 him made known in immediate and therefore most assured 
 experience, that is the first point of his announcement. 
 It is something, again, as he still more closely defines it, 
 which concerns the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς. That is, in the third 
 stage, it is precisely the life existing in the Son; and, 
 finally, this as the only true life in the fullest sense, as 
 ζωὴ αἰώνιος. While he places this true life in inseparable 
 conjunction with the Logos, and makes it matter of know- 
 ledge and announcement only through the manifestation of 
 the Logos, he places it thus in antithesis to all that before 
 was called or might be called life. ΑἸ] previous life, even 
 that which most of all bore the stamp of divinity in itself, 
 was nevertheless mingled with sin and death, and therefore 
 no true life. Not till the manifestation of Jesus Christ 
 did the ζωὴ αἰώνιος in its deepest sense appear, but with 
 its appearance all previous life was stamped with the 
 character of darkness. 
 
 As to the object of the apostolical announcement, we 
 might now feel tolerably clear; but the manner in which 
 it is and becomes known has yet to be considered. This 
 is defined to us by the threefold predicative: ἑωράκαμεν, 
 μαρτυροῦμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν. In these we have a climax; 
 the predicate that precedes is always the basis for that 
 which follows. Let us, in order to see this more clearly, 
 observe the three predicates in their inverted order. The 
 last, ἀπαγγέλλομεν, denotes a promulgation for the hearers’ 
 sake, through such means to be edified; what the apostle 
 himself knows and enjoys he would make over to the 
 
CHAP. I: 8. 17 
 
 hearers of his message. But if the message lays claim to 
 be accepted, it must itself be true, and this presupposition 
 is guaranteed by the μαρτυρεῖν. Μαρτυρία, to wit, is ever 
 the declaration of something self-experienced and _self- 
 observed by the witness. A witness is not primarily 
 appointed to be serviceable to others, but purely to serve the 
 cause of truth. Whether it is profitable or not, received or 
 rejected, is a matter of indifference to testimony as such: 
 it is an actus forensis, though in this case the forum is a 
 divine one only. In the ἀπαγγέλλειν the emphasis lies on 
 the communication of truth; in the μαρτυρεῖν the emphasis 
 lies on the communication of truth. As already noted, 
 the μαρτυρία rests always on personal experience, hence 
 the word which Christ, John 111. 11, spoke to Nicodemus, 
 ὃ ἑωράκαμεν μαρτυροῦμεν ; hence the sedulousness with 
 which the apostles in the Acts present themselves as 
 witnesses of the resurrection; hence in our passage the 
 ἑωράκαμεν placed before the μαρτυροῦμεν. That this word 
 and not ἀκηκόαμεν is chosen, has its reason in the fact 
 that the former rather than the latter expresses the direct 
 evidence of the senses, so that ὁρῶν is alone selected of 
 the four verbs of perception used in the first verse; as well 
 as in the fact that in all languages the idea of seeing is 
 used for sensible cognizance of every kind. In the previous 
 verse it is easily intelligible why the apostle spoke in the 
 plural, for the experiences recorded there had always been 
 his in the fellowship of the other apostles; but for the | 
 same reason he here also writes ἀπαγγέλλομεν, since, 
 though he alone writes the Epistle that follows, he recog- 
 nises himself in the act as only the organ of the apostolical 
 function as a whole. 
 
 VERSE 3. 
 
 “O ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν, ἵνα 
 καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν" καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ 
 ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 “Χριστοῦ. 
 
 Thus the object of the Epistle has evolved itself to our 
 apprehension in a series of more and more definite ideas. 
 
 1 JOHN. Β 
 
18 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 Nevertheless, the question as to the substance of his 
 annunciation is not to St. John the most important. This 
 is obvious when we consider that he introduces the more 
 exact specification of it as ζωή, and indeed fw) αἰώνιος, 
 only in a parenthesis. That cannot possibly be the most 
 momentous thing in the view of an author which he inserts 
 in a parenthetical manner. It is clear also when we con- 
 sider that in the third verse the object is reintroduced in 
 the first more general expressions: ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ 
 ἀκηκόαμεν. This very circumstance points to the con- 
 clusion that the emphasis in the context before us does 
 not rest upon the object of the annunciation, but upon the 
 assured _knowledge of that object. Even in the parenthesis 
 of the second verse, the idea, for the sake of which gener- 
 ally it is interpolated, is that of the ἐφανερώθη. We have 
 in the first two verses a double series of ideas and a double 
 tendency ; one series specifies the object about which it 
 treats, the other the assurance concerning the nature of 
 that object. But that the latter series is the most im- 
 portant for the present aim of the apostle, is shown by the 
 very commencement of ver. 3, which, recapitulating all 
 that went before, selects an expression which defines the 
 object altogether in its generality, while it defines the 
 certitude of experience concerning it in the most pregnant 
 way. If it had run τὴν ζωὴν ἀπαωγγέλλομεν, this latter 
 element would, conversely, have receded instead. That the 
 order of the words is not the same as in ver. 1 (here 
 ἑωράκαμεν before ἀκηκόαμεν) cannot be regarded as a 
 designed gradation, the less so as we certainly have such a 
 gradation in ver. 1, and there the ἀκούειν is the first verb. 
 The present order is rather to be explained from the 
 circumstance that the ὁρῶν of the former verb is still 
 lingering in the apostle’s ear, and therefore presented itself 
 first. But that only ὁρᾶν and ἀκούειν, and not also 
 θεᾶσθαι and ψηλαφᾶν, are repeated, is to be accounted for 
 on the ground that for an epanalepsis or resumption, which 
 should be as short as possible, and yet as comprehensive as 
 possible, the most general expressions are the most pertinent. 
 
 After the substance and trustworthiness of his document 
 
CHAP. I. 3. 19 
 
 are satisfied, the writer lays down further the aim of it. We 
 may interpret this in two ways: either the apostle purposes 
 to_establish_a fellowship between himself and_the readers, 
 or between God and the readers. In the former case the 
 κοινωνία μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν would be translated as communio inter 
 nos et vos; in the latter as eadem quae jam nobis (mihi) 
 est communio sc. cum Deo. The decision depends upon 
 two expressions: the μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν and then the καί before 
 ὑμεῖς. We decide for the former of the two explanations: 
 the apostle says primarily that he would establish a fellow- 
 ship between imse/f and the readers, not that he would 
 introduce them ito that fellowship which he had with God. 
 To be more particular, it is, in the first place, not true, as 
 some have maintained, that κοινωνία is in the New Testa- 
 ment employed only of communion with God: the passage 
 Acts 11. 42 sufficiently refutes that idea. Secondly, it 
 is highly forced to take the μετά in the same sentence, 
 connected with the same substantive twice in close succes- 
 sion used, in two different senses: the first time (κοινωνία 
 μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν) to indicate the same common fellowship, as it 
 were, eadem communio quam nos inter nos habemus; the 
 second time (ἡ κοινωνία ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός) to 
 indicate the subject with whom I have fellowship. And, 
 finally, how in all the world can the expression κοινωνία 
 pe? ἡμῶν then define the same thing as ἡ αὐτὴ κοινωνία 
 ἣν Kat ἡμεῖς ἔχομεν For all these reasons it is plain that 
 the purpose of the apostle is, in the first place, to establish 
 a communion between himself and his readers. And this 
 makes the reference of the καί as before ἡμεῖς clear; on 
 this supposition it cannot mean to say that the readers 
 also, like the apostles, should have fellowship with God, 
 but that_the readers of this Epistle should, like other 
 Christians, enter into fellowship with the apostles. 
 And thus, once more, we have the elements of decision 
 as to the right reading: the reading ἀπωγγέλλομεν καὶ 
 ὑμῖν, which on external grounds is to be preferred, yields 
 an altogether appropriate sense on this interpretation. The 
 first καί after ἀπαγγέλλομεν emphasizes the community of 
 the announcement which is made to the readers as to others 
 
20 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 before them, and the second καί before ὑμεῖς the community 
 and equality of the blessing which should be the fruit of 
 this announcement. That this bond between apostles and 
 churches was not only a high benefit to the churches, but 
 that it was found such on the side of the apostles also, we 
 have a Pauline testimony in Rom.i. 11,12; and the stress 
 laid upon this is in precise harmony with the drift of our 
 Epistle, which aims always at the awakening of ἀγάπη, or 
 the sentiment of fellowship. It may be thought surprising 
 that St. John here speaks as if this community or fellow- 
 ship was yet to be constituted, the readers being obviously 
 Christians already, and therefore such a link between them 
 and the apostles already established. To this it might be 
 replied that the readers were as yet unknown to the 
 apostle, and that of necessity the fellowship between them 
 would become much deeper if they entered into personal 
 association, even though it were only through the medium 
 of a written communication. But apart from the historical 
 grounds of this hypothesis, there is a deeper reason to be 
 sought. It is quite customary with St. John, on the one 
 hand, to consider his readers as perfected and in possession 
 of all the blessings of salvation, while yet, on the other 
 hand, he regards them as altogether in the beginnings of 
 development ; as when he expressly writes his Gospel to 
 Christian men, and yet avows the creation of faith in them 
 as his aim (ch. xx. 20). 
 
 In order to understand the second part of the verse, it 
 is of primary importance to assign the force of ἡμετέρα. 
 Till now, the first person has been always appropriated 
 to the apostles. If we would accept it so here, the 
 meaning would be: “the fellowship which we the apostles 
 have is a fellowship with the Father and the Son.” Then 
 this sentence would be a simple declaration, and by no 
 means dependent on iva; for the abiding fact of the 
 fellowship between God and the apostles is altogether 
 independent of the Epistle that follows. This interpretation 
 can be held fast, however, only so long as we explain the 
 preceding words, κοινωνίαν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, as “ the same fellow- 
 ship with us,” that is, the same which we have; but this 
 
CHAP. 1. 4. 91 
 
 explanation we have proved untenable. But if we translate 
 these words, “that ye may enter into fellowship with us 
 the apostles,” it is impossible that the following ἡ κοινωνία 
 ἡ ἡμετέρα can be referred again to the apostles: “and 
 indeed we the apostles have fellowship with God.’ The 
 essential main idea, that the readers also should have 
 fellowship with God, is on this interpretation simply not 
 expressed. Thus we are led to understand {π6 ἡμετέρα 
 otherwise, that is, in such a way as to make it_combine 
 the ἡμεῖς καὶ ὑμεῖς, the apostles and the readers. The 
 writer presupposes that the aim prescribed in the preceding 
 clause with ἵνα is accomplished, the fellowship with his 
 
 readers which he desired is established, and is regarded 
 in the expression ἡ κοινωνία ἡ ἡμετέρα as perfect. ~The 
 
 manner and the meaning of this fellowship are now more 
 clearly defined, that it is at the same time a fellowship with. 
 God. “The fellowship which each one of us must have 
 with God I would show, but at the same time thereby 
 also most closely bind us all together in one.” Thus we 
 shall make the second clause depend on the iva, especially 
 as the grammatical impossibility of supplying the con- 
 junctive 7 is certainly not proved. And thus the junction 
 of the latter part by καί has justice done to it. This can 
 enter only when a new thought is introduced (καί), which, 
 however, at the same time stands in something like anti- 
 thesis to the preceding (6é). So it is here; the subject 
 was of brotherly fellowship, and now the new thought 
 distinguished from the former is added. “ But this fellow- 
 ship should at the same time and essentially be a fellowship 
 with God.” 
 
 
 
 VERSE 4. 
 
 Kai ταῦτα γράφομεν ὑμῖν, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν ἢ πεπλη- 
 ρωμένη. 
 
 But not even this redoubled specification of his purpose, 
 as given in what precedes, exhausts the apostle’s design: 
 his aim is not only to establish a fellowship whether with 
 God or with the brethren; but this itself is to him again 
 a means toward the elevation to its highest stage of their 
 
ph THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOUN. 
 
 individual interests and their attainment of the joy of 
 life (χαρά), and that in its most perfect degree (πεπληρω- ἡ 
 μένη. This is the substance of the fourth verse. Ταῦτα 
 γράφομεν ὑμῖν (the reading ἡμεῖς is neither sufficiently 
 attested, nor is there any internal reason for such pro- 
 minence to the subject) cannot without violence be referred 
 to anything but the letter before us, to the ἀπαγγελία 
 announced in the previous verse and defined more closely 
 as to its tendency. If we ask by what means this joy is 
 brought to a state of πεπληρωμένη, we are led to the every- 
 where observable coincidence between the Epistle and the 
 Gospel of the apostle. Specifically we have in the latter 
 _ the πλήρωσις τῆς χαρᾶς. Primarily we find it in ch. xv. 11; 
 there we read: “If ye keep My commandments, ye shall 
 abide in My love; even as I keep My Father’s command- 
 ments, and abide in His love. And this have I said unto 
 you, that My joy may remain in you, καὶ ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν 
 πληρωθῇ. The meaning is, that the keeping of the Father's 
 commands is Christ’s joy, and will be that of His disciples, 
 yea, that their joy would thereby reach its highest point. 
 The commandment, the fulfilment of which is here in 
 question, is then in ver. 12 mentioned as ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλή- 
 λους, καθὼς ἠγάπησε ὑμᾶς, and thus the πλήρωσις of the 
 joy is attained according to this passage through the 
 confirmation of brotherly love. With this let Phil. ii, 2 
 be compared, where the πλήρωσις of the apostolical joy is 
 sought in this, that the church has τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην. A 
 second time St. John’s Gospel speaks of χαρὰ πεπληρωμένη, ͵ 
 ch. xvii. 3; there the ground of it is given in the conscious- 
 ness that Christ has kept His own, and that the Father 
 will go on to keep them: thus fellowship with the Father 
 and the Son begins the consummated joy. If we combine 
 together the two passages in the Gospel, the fellowship 
 with the Lord and fellowship with the brethren is St. 
 John’s ground of χαρὰ πεπληρωμένη ; literally, therefore, 
 the same which is specified here in the combination of 
 ver. 3 with ver. 4 as its ground and substance. We may 
 further point attention to Phil. iv. 4, 5, where both these 
 are still laid down as the foundation of a permanent, con- 
 
CHAP. I. 5, 23 
 
 tinuous, intense Christian joy: ὁ κύριος ἐγγύς comes first 
 as the perfected fellowship with the Lord in the near 
 prospect, and then the requirement resulting from this, τὸ 
 ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, follows as the 
 ‘manifestation of brotherly love in its widest comprehension. 
 And, in fact, all joy, that is, every heightened feeling of 
 life, rests upon the consciousness of a communion ever 
 more firmly established and articulated; hence the fulfil- 
 ment of all joy is produced, first, through the highest 
 object with whom this fellowship is entered into, that is, 
 by God, and then through the participation of others in 
 this fellowship; accordingly, throughout the Scripture the 
 community of the heavenly songs of praise is regarded as 
 an essential factor of blessedness. 
 
 It is accepted by common consent, that with the first 
 four verses the introduction of the Epistle is complete. 
 But as at the very outset a natural and justifiable expecta- 
 tion would independently arise that the introduction will 
 ᾿ stand in an organic relation to the whole, so we are all the 
 more warranted in expecting it in the present case, inas- 
 much as the apostle has in express terms laid down the 
 scope of his communication. We shall venture, therefore, 
 to enter on the Epistle with the presumption that we shall 
 find in it a twofold element: the requirement to enter into 
 fellowship with God; but this in such a form that from it 
 shall issue the requirement to enter_into brotherly fellow- 
 ship. Finally, however, we shall be constrained to expect 
 that through both the apostle will lead us to perfected joy. 
 Whether, indeed, this presupposition, thus encouraged by 
 the author himself, will be found warranted in the Epistle, 
 and if so, in what manner this, end is attained, will be 
 shown by a detailed interpretation. 
 
 
 
 VERSE 5. 
 Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία, ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ 
 3 , eon 4 e \ fal εἰ Ν / > 
 ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, OTL ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστι, καὶ σκοτία ἐν 
 αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία. 
 _ In one most impressive sentence St. John sums up the 
 whole matter of his annunciation. This message—we 
 
24 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 must read ἀγγελία, not ἐπαγγελία, which, according to New 
 Testament usage (2 Tim. 1. 1 being no exception), could 
 only have meant promise; here, as in ch. 11. 11, the 
 copyists inserted the familiar ἐπαγγελία instead of the 
 ἀγγελία, which is found nowhere else—was communicated 
 to the apostles ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, that is, by Christ, who is the last 
 most immediate antecedent (comp. ch. v. 3); and they 
 communicate this fundamental declaration, thus unique, in 
 their turn. Quod Filius annunciavit, renunciat apostolus. 
 The substance of the record which had been given to him 
 St. John condenses into one clause: Θεὸς φῶς. At the 
 first glance this seems to have no discernible connection 
 with the constituent ideas of the introduction. The ζωή 
 was to have been the subject, and that as manifested by 
 One who had come within the range of personal and sensible 
 observation and experience. But both the idea of life 
 and that of sensible experience here fall into the back- 
 ground and disappear. The key to the connection in this 
 case also is found in the prologue of the Gospel. There, 
 too, we find the three ideas which have hitherto entered as 
 constituent elements ; and we find them in the same order, 
 λόγος, ζωή, φῶς ; there also as here, and here as there, the 
 antithesis being supplied to φῶς by the σκοτία. Now it is 
 manifest, that in the Gospel φῶς is a closer definition of the 
 ζωή, and that in its highest stage. As ἕωή the Logos 
 created all things which generally were created; as φώς 
 He is described only in relation to man: ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν 
 καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἣν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. This definition of 
 the λόγος as φῶς is that on which the whole Gospel rests ; 
 for the following words, τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει καὶ ἡ 
 σκοτία οὐ κατέλαβεν αὐτό, might serve as the programme, 
 particularly of the first great division of the Gospel down 
 to ch. xu. They declare, as the present tense itself indi- 
 cates, something altogether universal, running through the 
 entire course of history, which reached in the work and 
 influence of the manifested incarnate Logos its highest stage 
 of expression and development. 
 
 ᾿ς Inasmuch as the life is described as the light of men, 
 it is declared that He manifested Himself for them in a 
 
CHAP. I. 5. 25 
 
 manner in which it was not possible that He would mani- 
 fest Himself in regard to the rest of the creation. It is 
 self - understood that the designation light is not to be 
 understood in the physical sense, but in its reference to the 
 spiritual domain. It is the property of light that it com- 
 municates itself to those objects which are capable of 
 receiving it, and makes them light. We may compare 
 that other word of Scripture: “The light of the body is the 
 eye ; if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall 
 be full of light.” There our thought is expressly declared : 
 the eye receives the light, and thereby becomes itself 
 enlightened and enlightening. So also in the prologue of | 
 the Gospel: the whole creation manifests the Logos as the 
 life; but only man is capable of light, that is, can so 
 receive the nature of the Logos pouring forth toward him, 
 that he himself shall be consciously transformed into it. 
 Inasmuch as man has not only a passive relation to his 
 life, that is, instinctively fulfils his destiny, but an active 
 one also, his life being at all points and throughout 
 ethically ordered, therefore he has the capacity not only to 
 receive life from the Logos, but also to have this life as. a 
 light, that is, to be able to discern or know Him in His 
 nature, in order to reflect His image in himself. Now, 
 wherever this destination is forgotten by man, and he closes 
 against it the eye which was given him in order to be 
 able to receive the Logos into himself as light, there is the 
 dominion of darkness as the σκοτία. According to St. John’s 
 view, what constitutes the ground or characteristic of belong- 
 ing to the cxoria, is not the fact of not coming under the 
 influence of the light, but only the fact of that not sub- 
 mitting to it which ought or was destined to be subject to 
 it. Only in the domain of the rational world does the 
 Logos manifest Himself as φῶς; hence only in regard to 
 that is there any question of φῶς or σκοτία; all else lies 
 outside of the sphere of these counterparts, and the two / 
 ideas have no longer any application. Accordingly, what 
 we have learned from John i. 4 is, that the revelation of 
 the Logos as light is the highest stage of His revelation, 
 that it is specifically a higher potency of His manifestation 
 
20 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 as life, and that therefore it takes place only in relation 
 to men, because these alone have the organ for receiving 
 Him as φῶς. To the same relation between fw and φῶς 
 we are led by John viii. 12, ἔχειν τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς : the 
 Lord promises His believing disciples the life, not, however, 
 life in general, but in its development as ¢#s,—such life, 
 namely, of His as becomes at the same time light for them. 
 Where the φῶς is, there is also ζωή ; but the converse does 
 not hold good. When a man is said to be a partaker of 
 eternal life, ζωὴ αἰώνιος, that takes place through his 
 becoming a τέκνον φωτός. Thus it is clear in what certain 
 connection the message here announced, Θεὸς φῶς, stands 
 with the introduction of the Epistle: to wit, inasmuch as 
 here, precisely as in the Gospel, there is an ascent from the 
 _ idea of the ζωή to that of the light, men having the possi- 
 bility in the ordination of God for sharing in the life. 
 
 But there is another point of view from which, however 
 little obvious it may be, the connection between the fifth 
 verse and what precedes may be traced. Hitherto the 
 stress had been laid on the φανέρωσις of the λόγος τῆς 
 ζωῆς, on His entering into the sphere of experience. And 
 this element is noteworthy for the interpretation of ver. 5. 
 In order to discern this clearly, let us start from another 
 difficulty. We know that the declaration Θεὸς φῶς, which 
 St. John lays down as the compendium of the message of 
 Christ, does not occur in the Gospels in this particular 
 form. Christ indeed is called φῶς, ch. 1. 4,111. 19, viii. 12, 
 but not the Father. It may be said, of course, that in the 
 Johannaean view, according to which Christ and the Father 
 are one, so that he who sees the one sees also the other, 
 there is direct propriety in assigning whatever Christ predi- 
 cates of Himself to the Father also. But we do not need 
 this extrication ; nor need we seek for individual passages 
 in which the ἀγγελία with which we now have to do is 
 literally contained. For, as the whole substance of the 
 Gospel may be epitomized in the expression Θεὸς ἀγάπη, 
 even though in no one passage this phrase is found, because 
 the real essential meaning of every saving word and every 
 saving act is no other than this, that God is love; so also 
 
CHAP. I. 5. ba 
 
 the real essential meaning, patent to every unprejudiced 
 eye, of all that Christ ever said and did, is no other than 
 that which is summarized and announced in the words: Θεὸς 
 das. Θεὸς φῶς: for to this end was Christ born, and 
 came into the world, that He might reveal the Father whom 
 no man hath seen; and Θεὸς φῶς: for if, according to. 
 John i. 4, this is the peculiar vocation of mankind, that in 
 relation to it God reveals Himself as φῶς, then all revela- 
 tion of the Father through Christ becomes a manifestation 
 as light. And if Christ in His whole life, in word and 
 deed, reveals the Father, and yet this revelation of God as 
 proceeding towards men is a revelation of God as φῶς, then 
 the whole life of Christ, His person and His work, must 
 have for its one meaning the proclamation Θεὸς φῶς : it is 
 indeed the representation to the senses, in a sense the incar- 
 nation, of the truth: Θεὸς φῶς. Thus it is made clear that 
 the φανέρωσις, made prominent in the introduction, of the 
 λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, His entering into personal, sensible ’per- 
 ceptibility and observation, is the necessary basis for our 
 affirmation that God is light; for all that the apostles had 
 learnt concerning the Logos by hearing and seeing, behold- 
 ing and handling, may be condensed into this one sentence. 
 
 But with all this investigation we have not in the 
 slightest degree explained the meaning of this sentence. 
 We do not yet know what it signifies that God is light, 
 nor what thought was to be expressed by this designation. 
 There is a difference between this passage and the others 
 in which the fact that Christ is light appears. In these 
 latter we have not so much to consider the immanent 
 nature of Christ, or the definition of His essence, as an 
 assertion or vindication of His being. Thus in Johni. 4, 5, 
 ἣν φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὸ φῶς φαίνει ἐν τῷ κοσμῷ, Where 
 it is obvious that the question is, not what the Logos is 
 in Himself, but what He is and wills to be for men; in 
 ch. ili, 19, where the light as a judicial power is treated of ; 
 in ch, viii. 12, where, apart from the expression φῶς τοῦ 
 κόσμου, the light is represented as a power passing over ~ 
 or reaching to man. We may compare also ch. ix. 10, 11. 
 Similarly, in our passage it is certainly affirmed that the 
 
28 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 nature of God, which is light, will have its effect upon us, 
 so that we also may ἐν φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν, or, to adopt St. 
 Paul’s parallel word, may be τέκνα φωτός. But, on the 
 other hand, it is clear of itself that the practical vindication 
 of Christ or of God as light presupposes a quality in Him 
 corresponding, as in general every transitive energy implies 
 an immanent characteristic. And it is this latter which in 
 our passage, otherwise than in those before mentioned, is 
 placed in the foreground. Not only does the general pro- 
 position Θεὸς φῶς produce the impression that it gives us 
 a general definition of the divine essence, without any 
 reference as yet to influence ad extra, but also the subse- 
 quent teaching that we should walk in the light, ὡς αὐτός 
 ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί, shows that the apostle is thinking of His 
 being light as of an absolute, immanent characterization of 
 God. As God is life, apart from any particular life-giving 
 energy, so also He is light, apart from any enlightening act. 
 Consequently we see how impossible it is to accept φῶς as 
 simply equivalent to σωτηρία, salvation; for salvation is a 
 relative idea, absolutely requiring the added thought of 
 some one who is the object of the salvation, while God 
 must be light, according to all that has been said, not only 
 in a relative, but in an absolute sense also. 
 
 It is usual to illustrate the idea of the φῶς by making 
 it a figure, in this case to be applied in the intellectual or 
 moral direction; for example, as the figurative designation 
 of the divine wisdom or holiness. But this way of looking 
 at it does not meet all the requirements of the apostolical 
 view. When we reflect that, in the most strikingly abundant 
 and persistent way, the scriptures of both Testaments place 
 God in peculiar and immediate relation to light,—calling 
 it His garment, His dwelling-place, φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον, 
 1 Tim. vi. 15,—we shall be disposed to seek in these expres- 
 sions for more than a mere figure of some particular attri- 
 bute of God, and shall be constrained, giving up the purely 
 figurative application altogether, to assign to them the 
 meaning of reality. Moreover, to this we shall be forced by 
 another passage of Scripture. In Jas. 1. 17, God is directly 
 called πατὴρ τῶν φώτων. This phrase cannot be intended 
 
CHAP. I. 5. 29 
 
 to designate God as only the Creator of the stars; it is 
 nowhere, and in no connection, the manner of the New 
 Testament to identify the creative activity of God with His 
 fatherly relation: the latter always presupposes a fellow- 
 ship of nature between Creator and creature, and therefore 
 stands in a higher sphere than the former. Where there is 
 a father, the question is not of production, but of genera- 
 tion. Accordingly God, in the passage quoted, must be 
 called πατὴρ τῶν φώτων, only because the creatures or 
 natures of light, which are intended here, are in some sense 
 of the same nature with Him,—that is, because He is Him- 
 self light. Thus, when we have learned from Scripture 
 that the definition of God as light or φῶς is a characteriza- 
 tion of essence, there remains only the possibility that we 
 have here a metaphorical description of His divine nature, 
 and that the φῶτα, whose Father He is, are so called in a 
 figurative sense. But that will not avail; for St. James, 
 when he says φῶτα, is certainly thinking of light-natures 
 in the ordinary sense: even if the expression φῶτα were 
 not to be referred to the stars, but to any spiritual light- 
 natures, yet even then the description would be used not 
 on account of any ethical quality in them, but on account 
 of the bodies of light with which Scripture customarily 
 invests them. We must therefore hold to it as a scriptural 
 view, that God is in the proper and unfigurative sense 
 light. 
 
 Of course we do not mean to assign to Him material 
 light, nor, indeed, that supernatural yet still material light 
 which shed its beams around the Lord, or surrounded the 
 angel forms; but we mean a light purely unmaterial. The 
 matter stands simply thus: The earthly light is not the 
 proper and real, and the description of God as light there- 
 fore figurative ; but the divine light-nature is the true light, 
 the earthly being only the divine light translated into the 
 creating domain and the earthly reflection of it. Every- 
 where it is not the bodily and the material which is the 
 reality, but the spiritual and the immaterial, which makes 
 for itself a body in matter, and thus comes to manifestation. 
 As the tabernacle was the copy of heavenly realities, not 
 
90 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 merely a symbol, therefore, but a type, so in the end every- 
 thing material is only the copy of heavenly realities. If, 
 therefore, God is called light, we are taught to think that 
 He possesses, in the fullest intensity and in the most real 
 because spiritual manner, that which for us upon earth is 
 the light. Consequently more is asserted than any particular 
 attribute of God. All united attributes are far from fur- 
 nishing the essence of God itself; they are only particular 
 modalities, outbeamings, or forms of His nature: at the 
 basis of them all lies the divine essence, as the source 
 whence they flow; and this, His essence, the θεία φύσις, 
 the primal ground of His being, it is which St. John defines 
 as φῶς. The necessity of such a view will be evident at 
 once, if we cease to think of spirit as mere force. All force 
 presupposes something in which it inheres; and it is this 
 something, this ground-essence in God, which is meant by 
 the das. 
 
 Thus our word φῶς is not intended to be a figure for 
 any particular divine attribute, but it is the altogether real, 
 though not materially understood, designation of the divine 
 essence. We are carried now a step farther by the circum- 
 stance that we read, as following hard one on the other: 
 Θεὸς φῶς and Θεὸς ἐν τῷ φωτί. These are by no means 
 one and the same thing. It is only in the case of this 
 word φῶς that such a variation of the phraseology is possible. 
 We cannot, in the same way, say Θεὸς ἐν τῇ ζωῇ, but only 
 Θεὸς ζωή or ζωὴ ἐν τῷ Oe. The expression Θεὸς ἐν τῷ 
 φωτί corresponds pretty nearly to the applications “light 
 is His garment,” or φῶς οἰκῶν. In all three the light is 
 not thought of as in God, but, conversely, as surrounding 
 God. Thus they lead us to consider a similar representa- 
 tion, in which St. Paul describes it by μορφὴ Θεοῦ, Phil. 
 ii. 7. In this last-mentioned word we may most easily 
 trace the idea which all these descriptions would set before 
 us. To the μορφὴ Θεοῦ corresponds, in Phil. ii., the μορφὴ 
 δούλου. Now, as the nature of the μορφὴ δούλου is further 
 depicted by obedience, this leads us to conclude, and the 
 connection of the passages confirms it, that the μορφὴ Θεοῦ 
 is dominion. This is the figure which God has given Him- 
 
CHAP. I. 5. 31 
 
 self, the form under which we see and know Him, which 
 Jesus Christ laid aside, and, instead of it, assumed the 
 μορφὴ δούλου, when He became obedient. The lordship of 
 God is thus a transitive idea; if we seek the corresponding 
 immanent quality within the divine nature, in virtue of 
 which God can exercise the dominion, we are led at once 
 to the biblical idea of the δόξα. The Scripture, to wit, 
 understands by δόξα the perfect unfolding of the divine 
 essence in its altogether infinite riches,—the revelation of 
 Himself before Himself, as distinguished from His revelation_, 
 only in the creature and to the creature. Now this, His 
 essence, which He reveals before Himself, is called φώς ; 
 and inasmuch as this self-manifestation of God before Him- 
 self, His δόξα, is yet to be distinguished from His nature as 
 pure potency, it is called His garment, or it is said of Him 
 here: Θεὸς ἐν τῷ φωτί. As the clothing of the lily is 
 inseparably bound up with its nature, and yet is the first 
 φανέρωσις of its nature as unfolded in the germ, so the 
 light-nature of God has become a δόξα surrounding Him, 
 so that it may be said with equal propriety Θεὸς des, and 
 also Θεὸς ἐν τῷ φωτί. 
 
 As we have thus to keep steadily before’ our eyes the 
 fact that by the word φῶς, the heavenly pattern of our 
 light, something purely super-creaturely—the essence of 
 God—is intended to be expressed, it becomes evident that 
 we cannot think out and make clear, in human ideas, this 
 divine nature. But, on the other hand, it is assuredly true 
 that the apostles tell us nothing which should have no 
 practical bearing, and therefore no conceivable meaning. 
 Especially here, where St. John aims to deduce from the 
 light-nature of God conclusions affecting us, he evidently 
 must intend that with the expression Θεὸς φῶς should be 
 connected an altogether definite meaning. All utterances 
 concerning divine things transcend, it is true, all human 
 understanding. Not, however, that they are therefore empty 
 of meaning ; it is only that we cannot seize their full import. 
 Hitherto we have placed in the foreground that side of 
 the apostolical utterance which points to depths which go 
 beyond all fathoming of human thought; but now, on the 
 
92 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 other hand, we must needs consider what it contains for us 
 of practical and accessible bearing. The way is indicated 
 for us by those passages of the Gospel, again and again 
 referred to, in which Christ describes Himself as the light 
 of the world, and the light of men. The enlightening 
 energy of Christ has relation pre-eminently to the under- 
 standing of men: He shows them the right and the truth. 
 He who would give clearness to others must have it him- 
 self; he who would enlighten must be light. Now, absolute 
 clearness in human thought is to be found only when I 
 know a thing altogether, and look through it on all sides, 
 and in its connections. If God is to give this intelligence, 
 He must of course have it Himself: that means, He must 
 possess all truth. But the enlightening activity of God 
 refers not merely to the impartation of certain abstract 
 truths, but to the communication of the good generally, 
 which, on its theoretical and intelligible side, we call the 
 truth, and goodness on its practical side. If, then, God is 
 the light of men, it means that in Him all goodness and all 
 perfection dwell; there is no good which is not in Him; 
 
 He is the πλήρωμα, out of the fulness of which we all 
 receive. And this is the concrete and practical import of 
 blessedness, and holiness; and in such a sense in Him, that 
 as the light everywhere diffuses around its own nature, so 
 all that is good radiates from God. 
 
 What is beyond, that this metaphysical essence of God 
 is to be conceived, not as the sum of individual perfections, 
 but as the substance and archetype of the light, passes, 
 indeed, human power of comprehension. But it is a gain 
 even to know that such an original ground, such a primal 
 substance, is in God, out of which all His perfections flow ; 
 to know, further, that it is such as may be most fitly 
 described by the word φῶς, even though we cannot also 
 know how this is to be conceived. Is it no enrichment of 
 science, that chemical researches have detected to us the. 
 existence of ultra-violet colours, though we cannot discover 
 them with the eye, and have no suspicion of their appear- 
 ance? Or was it no enrichment of theology, that the union 
 
CHAP. I. ὅ. 33 
 
 of the two natures in Christ was defined by the terms, aovy- 
 χύτως, ἀμερίστως, ἀχωρίστως, ἀδιατρέπτως, although, being 
 pure negations, they say nothing positive as to the manner 
 of that union? There are two kinds of ignorance-—one con- 
 cerning the being of an object, and the other concerning its 
 character as being. The latter marks an advanced stage in 
 relation to the former. So it is a great thing to know that 
 in God there is an essential nature which is to be called 
 light, though we do not know how we are to conceive of it. 
 
 That in this expression we have in general a definition 
 of the divine essence, which is not to be limited one- 
 sidedly to the region of His willing or of His thinking 
 activity, is confirmed by the progress of the apostolical 
 discussion. That is to say, when it speaks of a περυπατεῖν 
 ἐν τῷ φωτί in us, that points rather to the exhibition of the 
 nature by act, and therefore to the will; when it speaks of 
 the ὁμολογία τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν as required, that points rather 
 to the domain of the thinking. To make it more plain, 
 however, the negative is added to the positive declaration, 
 καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία. First, it must be 
 observed that this sentence is, as to its form, distinguished 
 as well from Θεὸς φῶς as from Θεὸς ἐν τῷ φωτὶ ἔστιν. To 
 the former would have corresponded accurately οὐκ ἔστιν 
 σκοτία, He is light and not darkness; it is clear, however, 
 that this would have been far less pregnant than the ex- 
 pression selected by St. John. To the latter would have 
 corresponded οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ. But this idea would 
 be a harsh one, since it is obvious that the self-revelation 
 of God before Himself, His garment—for this is meant by 
 εἶναι é€v—must correspond with His inmost essence ; and 
 it was necessary therefore to deny, not that in it, but that 
 in God, there is any darkness. The form οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ 
 σκοτίᾳ would not have been parallel with Θεὸς φῶς, which, 
 however, it would be supposed to be. Generally speaking, 
 to God as φῶς there is no counterpart nature which in a 
 similar way would be the sum of all σκοτία : not Satan ; 
 for though he is indeed ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, and ἄρχων of the 
 kingdom of darkness, he is not the epitome of darkness, so 
 that there is no darkness outside of him; while all light 
 
 1 JOLIN, C 
 
3 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 dwells and has its source in God, and is derived from Him, 
 and wrapped up in Him, the σκοτία comes to realization 
 only in the community of collective persons who are ἐν τῇ 
 σκοτίᾳ; darkness, as a whole, is only an ideal, and not a 
 concrete unity. For the rest, that the positive expression 
 Θεὸς φῶς is followed by the negative one, has its reason— 
 apart from the tendency of St. John to move by preference 
 in antitheses—in the consideration that follows: because, 
 to wit, the purport of the teaching is to make it emphatic 
 that the slightest fellowship with darkness excludes fellow- 
 ship with God, as God has no darkness in Himself, but is 
 light, and only light. 
 
 VERSE 6. 
 
 ᾿Εὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν 
 τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν, ψευδόμεθα, καὶ οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν 
 ἀλήθειαν. 
 
 It is obvious at once that the following verses aim to 
 deduce the consequences which flow from the nature of God 
 being light ; and further, that these consequences are two- 
 fold, each of the two being again unfolded into two counter- 
 part sentences. But, before we exhibit the thoughts in 
 their clear connection, it is important here also to define the 
 ideas that constitute the whole. The first consequence is, 
 that we should walk in the light; the second, that we 
 must ever remain conscious of our sin. What is meant by 
 περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ hwti? At the very outset we see the 
 incorrectness of the common explanation of φῶς by holiness 
 or holy love. For, since in ver. 7 the presupposition is 
 assumed that we walk in the light as God is in the light, 
 there would be assumed also a holiness in us altogether 
 corresponding to the divine holiness, which is absolute ; but 
 how in that case would such a presupposition (ἐάν) of 
 absolute holiness be consistent with the necessity of a 
 καθαρίζεσθαι ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας, and of a perpetual con- 
 sciousness of sin? Such an explanation of the φῶς requires 
 the exposition to soften down ἐν φωτὶ περιπατεῖν ὡς αὐτὸς 
 ἐν φωτὶ ἔστιν in a way that does violence to the plain 
 meaning of the words. 
 
CHAP. I. 6. oD 
 
 Now, let us see if the interpretation we have given will 
 help us on our way. Our starting-point is, that in our 
 verse it is not, as in the former, Θεὸς φῶς, and accordingly 
 ἡμεῖς φῶς, but αὐτὸς ἐν φωτὶ ἔστιν, and, corresponding with 
 it, ἡμεῖς ἐν τῷ φωτίίᾧ We saw that Θεὸς ἐν τῷ φωτί 
 defines the divine nature not in itself, but in its self- 
 manifestation before itself, the θεία φύσις, as St. Peter says ; 
 in short, that it is the sphere homogeneous with His | 
 essential being. The expression, therefore, thus carried 
 over to men, would indicate not so much the bearing and 
 character of a being in itself, as the sphere in which 
 he moves. In relation to God, however, it is not ἐν 
 φωτὶ περιπατεῖν, an expression which would not do justice 
 to the divine, immutable nature, but simply ἔστιν. But 
 the former expression is used of men, because the apostle 
 is concerned with a permanent, never - resting confirma-_ 
 ‘tion of the ἐν φωτὶ εἶναι. Thus the writer is not here 
 reflecting upon the sinning or not sinning, the holiness or 
 the unholiness of human conduct; in fact, not upon its 
 ethical quality at all, but purely and simply upon the 
 sphere to which this conduct belongs. This will be made 
 yet more plain when we carefully mark the: contrast, ἐν 
 σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖν. We read in the Gospel, ch. viii. 12, 
 that he who follows the Lord “ shall not walk in darkness ;” 
 and it is clear that the darkness there means primarily 
 something that is round about men, even as the light there 
 is primarily a sphere external to men. Similarly, in ch. 
 111. 19 we read that men “ loved darkness rather than light, 
 because their deeds were evil;” now here, while certainly 
 there is a connection established between the light and the 
 ethical quality of men, it is clear, on the other hand, that 
 the Saviour distinguishes the light and the darkness them- 
 selves from the works. Now, if the light is the divine, Γ᾽ 
 taking it thus generally at the outset, then the darkness is 
 the undivine or what is opposed to God,—that is, the nature 
 turned away from God, and not directed to Him. = 
 
 Hence the σκοτία coincides with the New Testament 
 idea of the κόσμος ; it is the principle which animates and 
 governs the κόσμος, and which comes in it into outward 
 
90 ΤΠῈ FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 exhibition and form. Similarly, the φῶς must be the 
 principle coming into exhibition as opposed to the κόσμος, 
 which is represented, namely, in the βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, 
 the βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. Thus the ἐν φωτὶ περιπατεῖν 
 is in close affinity with the biblical idea of the μετανοία. 
 The meaning of μετανοεῖν is the being translated or 
 turning oneself over to the interests of the kingdom of 
 God, instead of being, as before, rooted in the domain of 
 the κόσμος, with all its thinking, and willing, and nature. 
 —Through the μετανοεῖν, as well as through the περιπατεῖν 
 ἐν φωτί, a change passes upon the sphere in which the man 
 lives, the circle of his interests, the powers with which he 
 reckons, only that in the μετανοεῖν there is reference to the 
 turning to a new sphere of life, while in the περιπατεῖν ἐν 
 φωτί there is reference to his belonging to it, the latter 
 being the consequence of the former. ‘Qs ὁ Θεὸς ἐν τῷ 
 φωτὶ ἔστιν : that is, as His self-manifestation is in harmony 
 with and adequate to His internal divine light-nature, so 
 should man ἐν φωτὶ περιπατεῖν ; his light-sphere should 
 be the same with that of God. The kingdom of God is the 
 element of his life which surrounds him, the air of which 
 he breathes, and the breath of which encircles him with its 
 nourishing influence. 
 
 Thus it is now perfectly clear that the idea of the ἐν 
 φωτὶ περιπατεῖν is by no means coincident with that of 
 personal holiness and sinlessness. For as, in Acts xi. 38, 
 the forgiveness of sins is represented as the consequence of 
 the petavoia, so in our passage the καθαρίζεσθαι ἀπὸ 
 πάσης ἁμαρτίας is represented as the consequence of the 
 ἐν φωτὶ περιπατεῖν. Only he who opens himself to the 
 light, and has entered into the domain of light, can ex- 
 perience in himself the effects of the light. Only when the 
 father’s house sways all the thoughts of the prodigal son, 
 and he has come back again to this sphere of his home, 
 does the father come to meet him with the announcement 
 of forgiveness. The kingdom of God, and its interests, its 
 views, and its measure of all things, are to the natural man 
 altogether sealed up and strange. But when, instead of 
 this, he obtains an eye and a heart for these, he enters into 
 
CHAP. L 6. on 
 
 the sphere of light, and that light begins at once its ethical 
 influence upon him and in him. The ethical deportment 
 of the man is therefore a consequence of his περιπατεῖν 
 in the sphere of light or of darkness respectively. But as 
 the light by its shining reveals, according to the Gospel, the 
 darkness as darkness, so here also the immediate result oi 
 the ἐν φωτὶ περυπατεῖν is that the man perceives where in 
 himself the darkness is, and recognises it as darkness. 
 
 The ἐν φωτὶ περιπατεῖν is, admitting all this, not, so to 
 speak, a predominant, characteristic tendency of the human 
 life only, a series of points of light with which may co-exist 
 another though smaller series of points of darkness ; it is 
 rather a thorough and perfect characterization with which no 
 other can co-exist. Every interruption of it, every disso- 
 lution of the once established fellowship with God, must fall 
 under the condemnation of Heb. vi. 4... He who has once 
 entered into this κοινωνία tod φωτός walks now habitually 
 in the light. But with this it is quite consistent that the 
 sin is not, so to speak, only a thing past for him, as might 
 be concluded from the perfect ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι οὐχ ἡμαρ- | 
 τήκαμεν, ver. 10 ; such an error is at once repelled by the 
 parallel ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν in ver. 8. On the contrary, 
 the σάρξ yet remains in the man as the stronghold of his 
 sin, from which, indeed, it is not to be ejected in a magical 
 and instantaneous manner. ‘This only is necessary, that, as 
 every fellowship in which we find ourselves reacts against 
 all that is directly opposed to it, so the sphere of light to 
 the empire of which we have become subject reacts against 
 every such indwelling sin. Only he who should refuse to 
 be convicted by the light, who should decline to bring all 
 that is in him before the bar of the light, would be said 
 again to walk ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ. Moreover, these individual 
 sinful acts, the presence of which in the Christian life is 
 admitted, and the acknowledgment of. which is required, 
 have a deep significance in relation to what constitutes 
 belonging to the kingdom of God; for, after all, the man 
 should not only be ἐν τῷ φωτί, but should also be φῶς 
 itself. Now, God is first φῶς, and then afterwards is said 
 to be ἐν τῷ φωτί; but in the case of man the order is 
 
4 
 
 38 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JONN. 
 
 inverted: he must first be ἐν τῷ φωτί, in order that then, 
 through the energy and operation of the light, he may 
 himself become φῶς. Hence here, in the beginning of his 
 exposition, St. John gives the former side of the question 
 precedence, reserving the other for later development. 
 
 Let us now descend to the details. It has long since 
 ‘been pointed out, that from ch. i. 6 to ch. 11. 8 the apostle 
 speaks in the form of emphatic conditional sentences ; that 
 from that point he applies the participial construction in 
 order to express the conditional clauses: in harmony with 
 which we have in the first chapter the verb ψεύδεσθαι, and 
 in the second chapter the substantival form ψεύστην εἶναι. 
 It is common to both sections that we find the genuine 
 Johannaean habit of carrying on the process of thought 
 through the medium of antithesis. The sixth verse takes 
 up the idea of κοινωνία laid down in the introduction. 
 This is fundamentally a fellowship with God; he, therefore, 
 who will generally be a Christian—as was the case with 
 the readers of this Epistle—must, in virtue of an internal 
 necessity, give utterance to the avowal of such a fellow- 
 ship with God. Rightly then does the apostle now lay 
 down his proposition in the first person; for the former 
 part of the conditional clause, ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτε κοινωνίαν 
 ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, is already an accomplished fact in regard 
 to him and all his readers. Moreover, that αὐτός refers to 
 the Father, to God Himself, follows not only from the fact 
 that He is the immediate antecedent, but especially from 
 ’ the explanatory clause, ver. 7, ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί. 
 But if, St. John continues, with this avowal there is con- 
 nected a περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ σκότει, a direction of all the 
 interests of life to the κόσμος, then we lie. Here, too, we 
 have the first person; not in the spirit of a “modesty 
 that would spare them,” but, conversely, in the spirit of 
 holy severity which yields itself personally up to the 
 common judgment. The lie is evidently here the dis- 
 parity between word and deed. 
 
 The second expression, however, demands special notice, 
 οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. This expression is commonly 
 explained as if it asserted that by our deeds we prove that 
 
CHAP. 1. 6. 99 
 
 we are liars. The ψεύδεσθαι which precedes is thus sup- 
 posed to be more closely defined by this, that it is made 
 evident by works that it is so. But to signify that, the 
 present expression would be far-fetched ; on the other hand, 
 the repetition ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν, ver. 8, as also 
 the entire phraseology of the New Testament, point to 
 another interpretation. When we read in John viii. 47, ὁ 
 av ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκούει μου THY φωνήν, and immediately 
 before, ἐγὼ ἐλήλυθα ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ; and 
 further, John xiv. 6, ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀλήθεια, and finally in St. 
 Paul, τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐ πείθεσθαι: all these passages urge 
 upon us a peculiar, specific, objective idea of the word 
 ἀλήθεια. We are accustomed to regard truth as a definite 
 relation between two things; whether the congruence 
 between word and deed, or the congruence between nature 
 and manifestation, or what not. In short, truth is to | 
 us an altogether relative idea, an idea of relation between 
 two things. Now this notion does not suit, or very 
 badly suits, the passages which have been quoted from 
 Scripture; in them the truth is something independent 
 and absolute. What shall we make with the relatival 
 idea in such expressions as ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι, TH 
 ἀληθείᾳ πείθεσθαι ? 
 
 It may be attempted to preserve the idea of a relation 
 in the expression ἐγὼ ἀλήθεια, by saying that in God His 
 actual essence and the notion of Him coincide with each 
 other. For first, on the one hand, we should thereby 
 separate between the notion of God and His essence, 
 which is impossible; for the idea of Him exists only in 
 virtue of His nature, and we should by such a course only 
 reach the empty conclusion that God is such as He is. 
 Secondly, on the other hand, Christ speaks this word con- 
 cerning Himself, and that in relation to men; but the 
 statement that in Him idea and reality coincide does not 
 permit, so far as we can see, an unforced application to 
 His relation to men. We are driven therefore to conclude 
 that ἀλήθεια must be accepted as expressing a purely 
 absolute and objective truth. It means the being which 
 is absolutely filled with reality, and is substantially real ; 
 
40 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 all generally that 1s, is in God pre-eminently ; and what is 
 not in God has generally no reality, no real being. 
 
 And this definition of the idea is vindicated in its right 
 when we observe the antithesis,—that is, the ψεῦδος. The 
 κόσμος is subjected to the father of the lie, and all its 
 members are therefore liars; this signifies, however, that 
 they have no true, substantial, real being, that their being 
 has no positive substance. The κόσμος belongs to death, 
 but God is life; as it is essential to the world to be with- 
 out real being, to be nothing, so to God it is essential to 
 have a being that is absolutely filled and satisfied. Thus, 
 truth and life are correlative and interchangeable ideas: the 
 former is the substance of the latter; no life would be 
 possible without a being filling it, without a substantial 
 reality. God is accordingly the truth, His kingdom is a 
 kingdom of truth, because here is the seat of all substantial 
 being, the only place where realities are to be found. The 
 Lord came τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μαρτυρεῖν, that is, to bring demon- 
 stration in His own Person that there is a true being, the 
 counterpart and antithesis of death; and to show in what 
 this ἀλήθεια consists, and how it is to be manifested. 
 
 It is obvious, finally, that this notion of ἀλήθεια har- 
 monizes well even with the common application of the 
 word in human affairs ; all untruth is mere appearance, 
 being which has only the form of being, to which the sub- 
 stantial contents are lacking; but truth is the presence of 
 a reality. This being, as perfectly and substantially full, 
 God has absolutely and primarily: He is therefore truth. 
 But man must first establish the reality of this truth in 
 himself by his works. We do not, however, read ta ἀληθῆ 
 ov ποιεῖ; for our passage does not mean to intimate that 
 the man in question fails to exhibit in action the individual 
 realities which lie in the collective being of God; but we 
 read οὐ ποιεῖ τὴν ἀλήθειαν : his action has in it altogether 
 nothing of the divine fulness of truth, of real and sub- 
 stantial being; it is directed only to semblance and death. 
 Not only the individual outbeamings of truth, τὰ ἀληθῆ, 
 but truth itself, conceived as one whole, is absent from his 
 deeds. 
 
CHAP. I. 7. 41 
 
 Consequently, the meaning of the whole verse is this: 
 If any man makes an avowal of fellowship with God, and 
 yet the darkness, or the κόσμος, is the object to which his 
 life and action tend {(περυπατεῖ), he thereby speaks untruth, 
 and shows that his deeds are not directed to the truth and 
 its realization in himself. The περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί 
 suggests the existing sphere into which the man has 
 entered; but in the expression τὴν ἀλήθειαν ποιεῖν we 
 have the element of personal activity ; for the entering into 
 that sphere does not come to pass without the act of man, 
 without the direction to it of his own will, 
 
 VeRSE 7, 
 
 ᾿Εὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν, ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ 
 φωτὶ, κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων, καὶ τὸ αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας. 
 
 The opposite case to that just assumed is introduced by 
 a δέ: that is, the accordance between the word and the 
 deed. But, instead of simply declaring this accordance, 
 there is connected with it an emphatic expression of its 
 happy results, and in such a way that a twofold progres- 
 sion of the thought is introduced. One advance is marked 
 by the words κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων ; this reading 
 is undoubtedly to be preferred to that of μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. It is 
 true that the exact antithesis to the previous verse would 
 be ἐὰν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν, κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ 
 αὐτοῦ; it is, however, altogether Johannaean not to repeat 
 precisely the same thought, but to define it more closely at 
 the same time, or to supplement it. In the third verse 
 fellowship with God is brought into view only as the 
 foundation, as the essential substance, of brotherly fellow- 
 ship. So here, also, the superstructure is brought into 
 view, the consequence of that principle, that he who is in 
 the light is connected by a bond with the τέκνα tod φωτός. 
 The bond, however, is at this point no other than the like- 
 ness of the mutual life element: not yet brotherly love, or 
 the reference of any action to the brethren, but the founda- 
 tion of every such personal relation, the similarity and 
 community of the same element in which we all move 
 
42 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 alike, and in which we all alike have an interest. But 
 that the apostle dwells first on this side of the matter, and 
 only afterwards passes on to the καθαρίζεσθαι ἀπὸ πάσης 
 ἁμαρτίας, has its reason in this, that in the present connec- 
 tion he can treat of the former only ὡς ἐν παρόδῳ, in order 
 then to go onward more specifically to another fruit of the 
 περιπατεῖν ἐν φωτί. 
 
 This second fruit, the second new element that enters 
 here, is embraced in the words καὶ τὸ αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ (the 
 Χριστοῦ must be struck out) τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει 
 ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας. It is obvious that the life in 
 the light—in other words, the internal direction of the 
 whole man towards the kingdom of God—cannot but 
 have its results as to the inner man. For, the kingdom of 
 God is by no means an abstract notion, it is something 
 altogether real; and thus the life that is in him is nota 
 life merely in the sphere of dead thoughts, it is a life 
 moved by the powers of the world to come. That this 
 light is poured abundantly into the man has the positive 
 effect of making him a τέκνον τοῦ φωτός: negatively 
 expressed, that of abolishing in him the ruling power of 
 sin. 
 
 Now this connection of thought itself shows that xa@a- 
 ρίζειν must not be understood of the forgiveness of sins 
 past, but of sanctification. To the same meaning we are 
 led by the words themselves; the cleansing from actual 
 committed sins through forgiveness would have been ex- 
 pressed by καθαρίζειν ἀπὸ πασῶν TOV ἁμαρτιῶν ἡ μῶν, OF 
 something of the same kind. But πᾶσα ἁμαρτία, every 
 sin, is much too comprehensive a word for the sins of the 
 past ; it signifies not “all our sins,” but “all that is called 
 sin.” Up to this point the expression has been altogether 
 rooted in the context, but the addition τὸ αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ «7.2. 
 seems to introduce something quite new,—something of 
 which the context has given no indication. We have here 
 two questions to discuss: first, how far sanctification is 
 ascribed to the blood of Jesus; secondly, whether this 
 participation in the benefit of the blood of Christ is not 
 already included in the περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί. 
 
CHAP, I. 7. 43 
 
 As to the former point, it is undoubtedly biblical doctrine 
 that Christ in His death has borne the penalty of our sin, 
 and therefore released us from its punishment. But the 
 power of the blood of Christ is not limited to this. The 
 fundamental passage as to the question is St. John’s sixth 
 chapter in the Gospel. There the drinking of the blood of 
 Christ is presented as the means for procuring eternal life. 
 As the shedding of that blood brought about the death of 
 redemption, so also it rendered it possible that the blood 
 should be an open fountain which might overflow upon 
 others: the death of the corn of wheat illustrates its 
 effect, that of His life passing over as a power to others. 
 Blood and life are in the Scripture equivalent terms : where 
 that is, there is this; for the life is in the blood, according - 
 to the language of the Old Testament. Thus, then, the 
 καθαρισμὸς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας is possible only in conse- 
 quence of the blood of Christ entering into our life as a 
 new principle of life. There is absolutely no Christian 
 sanctification imaginable which does not take place through 
 the blood,—that is, through the Redeemer’s power of life 
 working its effects and ruling within us. 
 
 As to the second point, it is supposed that this blood has 
 its effect only in those who walk in the light. The light 
 is the circle within which the divine life reigns; on earth, 
 therefore, it is the kingdom of God, the church, whose 
 Head is Christ. But as that church has been founded only 
 through the death of the Redeemer, and as the life of the 
 church has its basis and principle only in His blood, he 
 who ἐν φωτὶ περιπατεῖ by the very supposition comes into 
 immediate contact with the influence of that blood; and if 
 the φῶς has its effect upon him, that is only in connection 
 with the constant carrying on of the work of Christ’s blood 
 upon him,—that is, in its cleansing from sin, from the cor- 
 ruption still clinging to the soul. Now, as the expression 
 αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ, according to this exposition, lies indicated in 
 the previous expression, so has the supplemental clause τοῦ 
 υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ its relation also to that previous expression. 
 As well in the third as in the sixth verse the discourse had 
 been of fellowship with God ; accordingly, it is here said that 
 
44 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 he who comes into contact with the blood of Christ, by that 
 very means has fellowship with God. For the man Jesus, 
 whose blood that is, is at the same time the Son of God. 
 
 VERSE 8. 
 
 "Edy εἴπωμεν ὅτι ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν, ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν, 
 καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν. 
 
 After the author has, in the two previous verses, illus- 
 trated the first deduction from the Θεὸς φῶς, and exhibited 
 its special blessing, he goes on in this verse to exhibit the 
 second result with its blessing also. This second conse- 
 quence, the acknowledgment of our sinfulness, has in itself 
 a close connection with what precedes; for we saw that it 
 is involved in the very fact of walking in the light. But 
 the connection is made still closer by the words καθα- 
 ρίζεσθαι ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας at the end of the foregoing 
 verse. If the cleansing from sin is an essential element of 
 our walking in light, so the denial of its necessity is a token 
 of εἶναι ἐν σκότει. This inference is also unfolded, like 
 the other, in two antithetical clauses, so that the eighth 
 "verse corresponds with the sixth, and the ninth verse with 
 the seventh. 
 
 First, then, for the false position, the denial of sin. The 
 expression ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν requires consideration. It is 
 specifically Johannaean; comp. John ix. 5, xv. 22, 24, xix. 11. 
 Obviously it says something different from, and indeed some- 
 thing less than, ἐν ἁμαρτίᾳ εἶναι. It is indeed impossible 
 that he who abides ἐν φωτί, in the sphere of light, should 
 at the same time continue ἐν σκοτίᾳ, in the precisely oppo- 
 site sphere; but there may nevertheless be sin yet in him. 
 Accordingly St. Paul also uses the peculiar form ἐν ἁμαρτίᾳ 
 εἶναι only in the passage 1 Cor. xv. 17, where he is denying 
 absolutely any connection with God. He who denies that 
 he has sin, would by that very fact πλανᾶν himself. The 
 word occurs in no other document of the New Testament so 
 often as in the Apocalypse. But in all the passages it is 
 employed with a very definitely stamped meaning ; never for 
 mere error with express limitation as such, but always for 
 fundamental departure from the truth. It occurs concern- 
 
CHAP, I. 9. 45 
 
 ing the artifices of Satan, of the Antichrist, of the beast, 
 and once of the false teachers in Thyatira, Rev. ii. 20, whose 
 work, however, is expressly marked by its signs as funda- 
 mental deception. In precisely the same significance is the 
 word used in the only other passage of our Epistle where 
 it occurs, ch. 11. 26,—that is, of the Antichrist. Finally, 
 we find it twice in the Gospel said concerning the Lord, 
 ch. vii. 48, but in the mouth of those who in the next 
 chapter reproached Him with being of the devil, and there- 
 fore with the most pregnant meaning used it. Accordingly 
 we must in our passage, too, assume that it is employed in 
 the same sense: “If we say that we have no sin, we enter 
 upon an altogether false course, a godless way of life;” not 
 as if it were only that “ we fall into an error.” The appli- 
 cation of the word thus found is confirmed by what follows ; 
 St. John’s πλανῶν is illustrated by ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν 
 ἡμῖν. As already remarked upon ver. 6, it is not the 
 apostle’s meaning that in the present matter we have not. 
 truth, but ἡ ἀλήθεια is the truth in the absolute sense. In 
 such a case our whole life and being is fallen into the 
 πλάνη, the empty appearance; we are lacking in any real 
 substantial life. For, where there is even only a trace of | 
 life, and of the divine fulness, this must immediately mani- 
 fest sin to be sin. Hence, where there is no consciousness 
 of sin, there can be not even the beginning of the only 
 true life and its rich substantial meaning. 
 
 VERSE 9. 
 
 ᾿Εὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστι καὶ 
 δίκαιος, ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας, καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ 
 πάσης ἀδικίας. 
 
 In the same manner as ver. 7 forms an antithesis to ver. 
 6, ver. 9 does to ver. 8; but here, however, also we have 
 no mere logical contrast, but at the same time the introduc- 
 tion of a new element which exhibits, like ver. 7, the bless- 
 ing of the right condition of the heart, of the περιπατεῖν ἐν 
 τῷ φωτί. It is true that the antithesis to ver. 8 is not 
 introduced, like ver. 7, by a 6é On the one hand, that 
 antithesis appears of itself sufficiently marked by its matter, 
 
40 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 and St. John does not prefer the accumulation of particles ; 
 on the other hand, the intention is that in this manner 
 the thought introduced should be brought forward in its 
 own absolute significance, being presented by an asyndeton, 
 and therefore to be considered not alone in its relation to 
 what precedes. As, in the seventh verse, the mere assertion 
 of a fellowship with God has not only placed against it in 
 antithesis the actual fact of fellowship, as stated in εἶναι ἐν. 
 τῷ φωτί, but also this fact is, as it were, strengthened by the 
 περιπατεῖν, and placed in its full intensity and active force ; 
 so in our verse the εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἁμωρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν is not 
 only paralleled by a mere εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἁμαρτίαν ἔχομεν, but 
 the whole energy of the consciousness of sin opens itself 
 out in the ὁμολογεῖν. 
 
 As to the emphatic significance of this word, we may 
 compare ch. 1, 20, καὶ ὡμολόγησεν Kal οὐκ ἠρνήσατο, καὶ 
 ὡμολόγησεν, where the element of earnest emphasizing and 
 prominence which lies in the ὁμολογεῖν is made still more 
 prominent through the negative expression οὐκ ἀρνεῖσθαι. 
 It is not unimportant that, instead of the singular in 
 ver. 8, οὐκ ἔχομεν ἁμαρτίαν, here the articulated plural 
 comes in: the recognition and confession has not reference 
 to sinfulness in general, but to the individual sinful actions 
 of which I am conscious to myself. Against sin I cannot 
 contend, and the consciousness of sinfulness in general will 
 not conduce to an effectual repentance ; I control sin only 
 by fixing my eye keenly upon its particular outbursts and 
 war against individual transgressions. This kind of acknow- 
 ledgment of sins cannot fail of its benefit; as a response to 
 it, God, for the sake of His justice and righteousness, for- 
 gives them all. 
 
 But what, then, is that? In the majority of passages— 
 of the New Testament especially—where the faithfulness 
 of God is spoken of, His fidelity to His promise is meant: 
 that He performs what He has promised. At the first 
 glance this seems unsuitable here; for where in the whole 
 context has there been any reference to promise? The 
 idea of promise must needs in that case be enlarged. Not 
 alone by words, but also through deeds, a promise may be 
 
ΟΠΑΡ. I. 9. 47 
 
 given, and it is of such practical promises that it is said 
 πιστὸς ὁ Θεός : comp. 1 Thess. v. 9, πιστὸς ὁ καλῶν ὃς 
 καὶ ποιήσει, and, so far as the thing goes, though the word 
 is not used, Phil. i. 5, πέποιθα ὅτι ὁ ἐναρξάμενος ἐν ὑμῖν 
 ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐπιτελέσει. This particular application of the 
 πιστές would be more appropriate here; the ἐν φωτὶ περι- 
 πατεῖν, which is manifested in the ὁμολογεῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας, 
 is such a real beginning of the divine energy of which 
 the final and good result must be, in the faithfulness of 
 God, the effectual cleansing from all sin. But even this 
 explanation has its difficulty. It is true, indeed, that the 
 περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί and ὁμολογεῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας take 
 place as the result of the divine action on the soul; but 
 this view of the matter is not made prominent in our 
 passage, and both are brought into consideration as human 
 acts. Moreover, we are wont to speak of fidelity in yet 
 another sense. One is true to himself when he does that 
 which he must do according to the constitution of his whole 
 nature. Now, here God’s nature is described as φῶς only ; 
 and therefore the fidelity of God refers to His ever mani- 
 festing Himself truly as the light. Man, in the apostle’s 
 supposition, has already entered into connection with God, 
 inasmuch as he has passed into the kingdom of light; and 
 it belongs to the very nature of God—that is, it comports 
 with His fidelity—that He should appear Himself as light 
 in him who has come near to Him, and that by destroying 
 and taking away his sin. 
 
 Again, He shows Himself, in the forgiveness of sins, 
 δίκαιος, righteous. This idea occurs in St. John with the 
 same two meanings which we attach to our word “ right ;” 
 one, that is, signifying the rectitude of the judge who judges 
 according to the evidence, the other signifying the rectitude 
 of the judged who answers to the standard applied to him, 
 who therefore in this case is holy and sinless. The former 
 is the meaning in almost all the passages of the Apocalypse, 
 not only ch. xvi. 5, 7, xix. 2, but also ch. xv. 3, where the 
 connection leads directly to the same signification; with 
 which compare also John v. 30, vii. 24, both confirming this. 
 In the second meaning, that of holiness, it occurs in ch. 
 
48 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 ii, 29, iii. 12 of our Epistle, as also in Rev. xxii. 11 and 
 John xvii. 25, where the sense is not that the Father must, 
 in His judicial capacity, hear the Son’s request,—for in 
 that case the address to the Father must belong to the 
 preceding verse,—but that He as the Holy One, withdrawn 
 from all sin, cannot be effectually known by the world, save 
 only by the Son. These two interpretations, however, do 
 not lie wide apart; because God is in possession of imma- 
 nent, objective righteousness, therefore He can exercise the 
 transitive and subjective righteousness of the judge; this 
 latter is only the outgoing of the former. This reconcilia- 
 tion or synthesis of the two meanings must be maintained 
 if we would understand the δίκαιος of our passage. On 
 the one hand, that is, the transitive righteousness of God is 
 exhibited in its true character when sin is forgiven, this 
 being certainly an act of the judge: He could forgive no 
 sin if His righteousness, and not His grace only, did not 
 require it. But, on the other hand, the immanent right- 
 eousness comes also to its rights; God as the light cannot 
 be otherwise than such towards those who stand in a 
 true relation to the light; He cannot regard them as ἐν 
 σκοτίᾳ περιπατοῦντες. In other words, he who knows and 
 acknowledges his sin has in fact separated himself inwardly 
 from it: hence the transitive or subjective righteousness of 
 God requires, that is, His judicial function demands, that 
 He should in fact, by His pronounced sentence, acknow- 
 ledge this internal separation. Further, as He is in Himself 
 in an immanent sense righteous, God approves Himself holy 
 towards the sinner, inasmuch as He, by virtue of His own 
 holiness, effectually takes away the sin that is still present 
 in him, imparting instead a portion of His own perfection. 
 With all this correspond the two following predicatives, 
 the ἀφιέναι τὰς ἁμαρτίας and the καθαρίζειν ἀπὸ πάσης 
 ἁμαρτίας : the former refers to the actus forensis, the latter 
 to the renewal of the nature in virtue of the δικαιοσύνη 
 indwelling in him. 
 
 Thus the meaning of the supplementary clause is this: 
 by πιστός it is said primarily and generally that God, in 
 the forgiveness of sins, approves Himself faithful to His 
 
CHAP. I. 9. 49 
 
 own nature, which is light; then by δίκαιος it is more 
 specifically said under what aspect this fidelity shows itself. 
 But in the previous discussion we have evidently laid our- 
 selves open to the charge of inexactness, inasmuch as we 
 have treated the passage as if it had been δίκαιός ἐστι τὰς 
 ἁμαρτίας ἀφιεὶς καὶ καθαρίζων κατ. But the apostle’s 
 phrase, instead of that, moves in ἃ [6110 clause, or “ in order 
 that.” It has been attempted to rob the sentence of its 
 strange peculiarity by interpreting the ἵνα as ecbatic, as if it 
 were ὥστε. It is undoubtedly true that with the decline 
 of a language there is frequently a marked enfeebling of 
 its conjunctions; and as to ἵνα in particular, looked at 
 philologically, a multitude of examples have been adduced 
 from later Greek, especially from Plutarch. But, in the 
 first place, these examples from classical Greek require a 
 very careful sifting, for there are not a few among them 
 which show that by the exhibition of the consequence as 
 if it were a design, a certain effect is attained and a 
 precision intentionally introduced into the thought (as, for 
 example, in Plutarch, Moral. p. 333 A); and, secondly, there 
 is need of doubly careful sifting in the Scripture, where 
 from the very beginning much is viewed as design which 
 to our apprehension is primarily only consequence or result. 
 We have only to think of the hardening of Pharaoh, which 
 is referred to as the purpose of God; and yet more appro- 
 priately, Matt. xiii. 15. The thought is, as in all such 
 cases, only weakened if we do not hold fast the reference 
 to design or purpose. Assuredly the righteousness and 
 fidelity is grounded in His inmost nature, and both attri- 
 butes belong to Him apart from every possible demonstration 
 of them in act, and every purpose outside of Himself to _ 
 which they refer. But as all that He has, and not only 
 so, but also all that He is, He gives to the Son, so that He 
 places all, so to speak, at His Son’s service, so all 15. abso- 
 lutely and entirely devoted to the service of man. The 
 whole fulness of His unfathomable essence is turned to 
 nothing else but the salvation of His creatures, so that it 
 is to Him only the means, yea, His very self is only the 
 means, to effect His creatures’ happiness and good. As a 
 
 1 JOHN, D ΤΩΣ 
 
50 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 friend has lived for his friend when his whole life has had 
 his friend’s wellbeing for its aim, so God makes the whole 
 πλήρωμα αὑτοῦ into the means for bringing us to our 
 salvation. It is a deduction from the sentence Θεὸς 
 ἀγάπη that He refers His whole nature only to others, 
 whether to His own Son or to the creature. His fidelity, 
 His righteousness, and in like manner all His other per- 
 fections, are for Him existent, only to be applied to His 
 creatures’ benefit, to our salvation. Here is the impressive 
 thought which lies in the ἵνα. In this one particle lies 
 the most comprehensive and the highest witness of the 
 power of His love that it is possible to conceive. For the 
 rest, whether we are to read at the close of the verse 
 καθαρίζῃ or καθαρίζει, is irrelevant to the sense; even in 
 the latter case the xa@apifer must be in fact parallel with 
 ἀφῇ, and the form is only after the Hebrew manner released 
 from strict grammatical symmetry. 
 
 VERSE 10, 
 
 ᾿Εὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν, ψεύστην ποιοῦμεν 
 αὐτὸν, καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν. 
 
 With the ninth verse the author has developed his 
 thought in a logically clear and precise manner. The two 
 deductions which he has drawn from the Θεὸς φῶς in 
 relation to the Christian life have been plainly exhibited, 
 each in an antithetical form. Returning now once more to 
 the idea already touched in ver. 8, that self-justification 
 excludes from the kingdom of God, it is evident that he 
 has no logical interest in doing so, but is moved by purely 
 practical reasons, and aims only at edification. In fact, as 
 the whole letter is directed to Christians as such, members 
 of the kingdom of God, it was important for the apostle 
 to lay the utmost stress upon what was the fundamental 
 condition of this, the acknowledgment of sin. Hence the 
 resumption of the subject now before us. Not, indeed, 
 that this resumption is at all tautological; the idea is so 
 ordered that, in harmony with the very solemn purpose of 
 the verse, its characteristics are more keen and more 
 penetrating than in ver. 8. We would not, indeed, lay 
 
CHAP. I. 10. 51 
 
 stress on the ἁμαρτάνειν being used instead of the ἔχειν 
 ἁμαρτίαν above. The former refers rather to individual 
 sinful acts, and the latter to sinfulness in general ; and that | 
 the former is here selected has its reason probably in the 
 τὰς ἁμαρτίας ὁμολογεῖν of ver. 9, which also referred, of | 
 course, to individual sinful acts. But as to matter of fact, 
 this can hardly be of much significance here. The pith 
 of the verse obviously lies rather in the words ψεύστην 
 ποιοῦμεν αὐτόν. Till now, the verbs ψεύδεσθαι and 
 πλανᾶν had been used only to make prominent the sin 
 which we ourselves in our own person bring upon ourselves 
 by a false condition of our hearts. Here the emphasis is 
 laid upon a much heavier sin into which we fall: we make 
 God Himself a sinner. So blasphemous is the denial of our | 
 sinfulness that we thereby degrade God, who is the φῶς. 
 and ἀλήθεια, into the domain of darkness and the lie. And 
 here we have not to think only of the fact that God 
 expressly declares in the utterances of the Old and New 
 Testament Scriptures the sinfulness of man, and therefore 
 that we make the Scripture, the word of God which οὐ 
 δύναται λυθῆναι, lie to us. All the spiritual institutions of 
 the divine economy, the ἀφιέναι τὰς ἁμαρτίας, the καθα- 
 pile ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, His entire government and work 
 upon earth, yea, the whole manifestation of the Son of 
 God, which was based upon the presupposition of human, 
 sin, is reduced to one comprehensive lie. ἃ 
 
 And thereby all possible fellowship with Him is broken 
 off: ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν. That the λόγος 
 Θεοῦ here does not mean the personal Logos, the Son of 
 God, is plain enough if we consider that in the preceding 
 context nothing had been said of any indwelling of the 
 Son in us. Nor must we regard the sayings of the Old 
 Testament as intended by the words; for not only is there 
 nothing here to suggest such an allusion, but it is a fact 
 that the apostle in this Epistle generally refers very little 
 to the Old Testament, so that the Epistle in this respect is 
 in a certain contrast with the Gospel and the Apocalypse, 
 which are pervaded with formal allusions to the ancient 
 Scriptures. But then, again, we are not to think of specitic 
 
52 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 sayings of Christ, as if λόγος αὐτοῦ were simply equivalent 
 to ῥήματα αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν : that would mean only 
 that we observe not His commandments, or that they do 
 not dwell in us. The λόγος means to say more than the 
 mere ῥήματα would say. We must be guided by such 
 passages as John viii. 31: ἐὰν ὑμεῖς μένητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ 
 τῷ ἐμῷ, ἀληθῶς μαθηταὶ μοῦ ἐστε; or John v. 38: τὸν 
 λόγον αὐτοῦ ἔχειν μένοντα ἐν αὐτῷ ; or, so far as the analogy 
 of the matter goes without the word, John vi. 63: τὰ 
 ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λαλῶ ὑμῖν πνεῦμα καὶ ζωή. As in all these 
 places, so here also, ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ is the aggregate collective 
 internal unity of the entire divine announcement; not, 
 indeed, as to the external words, but these words as they 
 are spirit and life, as a power laying fast hold upon men. 
 The words of God, as they have been revealed in the 
 incarnate Logos, are the divine ἀλήθεια comprehended in a 
 definite form. Thus what was said above, ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ 
 ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν, corresponds to our expression, ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ 
 οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν ; only that this latter specifies, instead of 
 the purely objective idea of the truth, the means whereby 
 that absolute truth is implanted in our nature, 
 
CHAP. II, 1. fe 
 
 CHAPTER. ΤΊ: 
 
 VERSE 1. 
 
 Texvia pov, ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν, ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε" καὶ ἐάν 
 τις ἁμάρτῃ, παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ᾿Ιησοῦν 
 Χριστὸν δίκαιον. 
 
 The first two verses of this new chapter are strictly con- 
 nected with the preceding. The ταῦτα at the outset shows 
 that. On a first glance, the μὴ ἁμαρτάνειν, our not sinning 
 at all, would not seem to be directly prepared for by any- 
 thing in the previous chapter. It is true that the second 
 clause of our verse, ἐάν Tis ἁμάρτῃ, παράκλητον ἔχομεν, is 
 founded on what the other chapter says as to man, and 
 even the Christian man, being still sinful; but that is not 
 the case with the first clause, ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητες. And yet 
 it appears as if precisely that second clause is introduced as 
 a new thought; for it does not stand in connection with 
 what precedes by ἵνα, as a resumption of it with ταῦτα. 
 On the other hand, the first clause is actually placed by ἵνα 
 in telic connection with what precedes, which, however, does 
 not appear to afford any reason for such connection. When 
 ‘we look more closely into the matter it takes a different 
 turn. The first statement on which the apostle laid em- 
 phasis was this, that we must walk in light, and that its 
 consequence would be the blessing that, so walking, the 
 Lord would cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Thus the 
 cleansing from sin—and that we have seen to comprehend - 
 not only the atoning, but specifically the delivering power 
 of Christ, the abolition of sin in us—constitutes the conse- 
 quence of the ἐν φωτὶ περιπατεῖν : it is therefore also at 
 the same time the end for the sake of which St. John 
 exhorts to a walk in light. Thus, in fact, he has a right 
 to lay it down as the goal of his statements in vers. 6 
 
54 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 and 7 of the previous chapter that we should not sin, that 
 sin should cease to be a power within us. Thus the ταῦτα 
 is primarily a resumption of these verses. But, further, he 
 has. taught in the last three verses of that chapter that 
 sin still remains even in the Christian; that the purifying 
 energy of Jesus Christ is not consummated at one stroke ; 
 that fellowship with the kingdom of light does not imme- 
 diately make a man himself light. Thus what the apostle, 
 in the words ταῦτα γράφω ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε, surveys in a 
 single glance, is really the result of continuous effort, a 
 process filling the whole life of the man. It is to this 
 second aspect of the matter, as made prominent in the 
 former chapter, that the second half of our ver. 1 refers. 
 Moreover, the paracletic work of Christ, the ἱλασμός, which 
 is wrapped up in it, also refers back to the former chapter, 
 —that is, to the mention of the αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ in ver. 7. 
 Hence we are justified, so far as the matter of the words 
 goes, to include the first two verses of ch. ii. under the ἵνα, 
 and accordingly to sum up under the ταῦτα the whole sub- 
 stance of ch. i. 5-10. The fact that ἵνα does not formally 
 stretch to the second clause of the first verse, is to be 
 accounted for by the particular form the apostle has given 
 to his thought. It was indeed impossible to write ταῦτα 
 γράφω ἵνα παράκλητον ἔχωμεν; for the παράκλητον ἔχειν is 
 not the end of the Epistle, as that goes on independently οἵ 
 anything the apostle or man may do: his aim in writing is 
 only that we may know that we have a Paraclete. He 
 might therefore have written ταῦτα γράφομεν ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι 
 παράκλητον ἔχομεν. But the Gospel has given us abundant 
 evidence how constantly the apostle thinks in the Hebrew 
 style, by co-ordinating thoughts, and not in the Greek style, 
 by subordinating them one to another. Thus, as in ch. i. 9 
 —the reading καθαρίζει being otherwise established—the 
 close of the verse is formally sundered from the preceding 
 telic clause and becomes an independent sentence, precisely 
 so it is here. And here with all the more propriety, because 
 the thought expressed in ch. 1, 6 finds a more full elucida- 
 tion in ver. 2, and thus assumes or lays claim to a certain 
 independence. Thus, if we have discerned the reference of 
 
CHAP. II. 1. 55 
 
 the ταῦτα to all that precedes, and therewith, at the same 
 time, the connection of the following verses, we shall not 
 be in any doubt as to their actual significance, as to the 
 reason why they are added. In the previous chapter the 
 apostle had spoken objectively, he had announced simple 
 facts ; but the last verse came in with a hortatory meaning, 
 and for practical reasons. These two verses of the new 
 chapter now give ex professo the subjective application of 
 what had been said, the practical aim which those objective 
 declarations should subserve. Accordingly there follows 
 here, and that for the first time, the direct address to the 
 readers; and the diminutive form of this address, τεκνία, 
 shows how full the apostle’s heart is, and with what ardour 
 he pours out this exhortation. 
 
 Looking now more closely into the thoughts of the verse 
 before us, we are immediately struck by the collocation of 
 its two leading ideas. That is to say, while the apostle 
 first exhibits their ceasing from sin as the essential aim of 
 his words, he yet seems to take away from his exhortation 
 its very nerve by straightway supposing it not to be followed. 
 Notwithstanding this, we must be on our guard against 
 explaining it, as it were, thus: “but if ye, despite of this, 
 should fall into sin,” for the words italicized are not there. 
 It would be equally a mistake to understand in the first 
 ἁμαρτάνειν a περιπατεῖν or a μένειν ἐν TH ἁμαρτίᾳ, and to 
 make the meaning of the second mere sins of infirmity. 
 What shadow of justification would there be for that, when 
 the expressions are identical, the same words being used 
 also in the same sentence? In both cases the same kind 
 of ἁμαρτία must be intended. It is better to say that the 
 apostle specifies two different ways of being delivered trom 
 sin: one, that of doing no sin at all, in the phrase ἵνα μὴ 
 ἁμάρτητε; and then the other, that any such sins as might 
 nevertheless remain may be done away by forgiveness. The 
 circumstance that these are conjoined as they are, so that 
 the former comes first and the latter last, may be explained 
 by this, that if the forgiveness had been placed first, the 
 result might have been a rash and unthinking reliance 
 upon the grace that freely pardons. That the two kinds 
 
56 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 were placed together at all was demanded by what pre- 
 ceded. 
 
 The first thought had been this, that the Christian enjoys 
 sanctifying fellowship with the light: whence followed the 
 exhortation, Let sin cease entirely in your case. The second 
 thought was, that the Christian still sins: whence followed 
 the encouragement, Let the sins you have done obtain their 
 forgiveness. Thus the ἁμαρτάνειν refers in both cases to 
 the sins of believers, and therefore, if you will, to sins of 
 infirmity. Most supremely must we be on our guard 
 _against them, for they easily lead to the περιπατεῖν ἐν τῇ 
 σκοτίᾳ. But the consciousness of this danger might very 
 well lead to despair, and therefore the reminder that we 
 have in the Lord Jesus a Representative and Propitiation, 
 who as such secures the forgiveness of sins; of the two 
 exhortations which result from the preceding,—not to sin, 
 and to secure forgiveness for any sin that may arise,—it is 
 only the former that the apostle urges in the form of 
 exhortation ; the latter he changes into the more needful 
 tone of encouragement. And this gives us a new reason, 
 the most real one, why the apostle, instead of going on with 
 the ἵνα, so expressly shapes the second part into an inde- 
 pendent sentence. 
 
 The consolation which he would impart consists in this, 
 that Christ is our παράκλητος πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. Of the 
 two meanings which have been assigned to the word παρά- 
 κλητος, Comforter and Advocate,—the former in the sense 
 of παρακαλῶν, the latter in that of mapaxdnOeis,—most 
 decidedly the second is the only one admissible here ; it 
 alone answers to the passive form of the word, and the 
 explicit use of the term in classical Greek. Now as, apart 
 from these reasons, it is Inappropriate to assume that in the 
 same author, in the same general period of his writing, and 
 especially in the case of an idea so very important, the 
 same word has two distinct meanings, our passage must be 
 regarded as shedding some light upon the passages in the 
 Gospel where the word occurs. It is true that there it is 
 the Holy Ghost that is spoken of, while here it is the Son; 
 but apart from the fact that in John xiv. 16 the Holy 
 
CHAP. II. 2 57 
 
 Ghost is mentioned as ἄλλος παράκλητος, which indirectly 
 at least calls the Lord a παράκλητος also, the difference is 
 only an apparent one; for the Holy Ghost is in the New 
 Testament the Spirit of Jesus Christ. 
 
 II pos τὸν πατέρα, the Lord is our Paraclete,—that is, not 
 as it were with the Father, for the accusative must have its 
 rights, as meaning over against or towards the Father. His 
 advocacy turns towards the Father, and has to do with 
 Him; while, on the other hand, He is, according to the 
 Gospel, ἐν ἡμῖν, our Paraclete, masmuch as He stands by 
 the side of the Christian, in all his conflict with the world 
 and himself, as his Counsellor, and Advocate, and Helper. 
 But as towards God, who is light and a righteous Judge, 
 the Lord can be regarded as a merciful Mediator only under _ 
 a twofold presupposition: first, He must Himself be weil 
 pleasing to God through His moral qualification ; secondly, 
 He must represent a cause which may commend itself to 
 God as the Righteous One. The first element is in our 
 verse made prominent by the predicate δίκαιος ; the second 
 verse brings out the second element. The two united 
 cannot be more tersely and precisely expressed than in the 
 words of Calvin: “ Justum et propitiationem vocat Christum; 
 utroque praeditum esse oportet, ut muwnus personamque ad- 
 vocati sustineat, quis enim peccator nobis Dei gratiam con- 
 ciliet?” Hence it is not to be overlooked that we read, 
 not παράκλητον δίκαιον ἔχομεν, but παράκλητον ἔχομεν 
 ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον. The former statement would 
 indeed mean that His agency as a Paraclete was a righteous 
 one, that He is righteous in His proper function as a Para- 
 clete, as Beda expresses it, “ Patronus justus caussas injustas 
 non accipit ;” but it is not until the second verse that that 
 element comes out. The order in the apostle’s own words 
 gives prominence first to the righteousness of the Person ; 
 by reason of which He is fitted generally, as over against 
 God, to assume the part of a Mediator. 
 
 VERSE 2. 
 x fal A A 
 Kai αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστι περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν Hav’ ob περὶ 
 τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. 
 
58 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 But there is a second condition which must be met if 
 a successful intervention with God shall take place: the 
 question or case advocated must be in conformity with the 
 divine righteousness. The second verse shows us that this 
 is the case, and how: not in itself is our cause righteous, 
 for the question is of sinners and sins; but because the 
 _ Lord Himself has taken away their unrighteousness. Kat 
 /abtos, the apostle writes, ἱλασμός ἐστιν. Certainly, the 
 καὶ αὐτός must not be taken in the Latin meaning of e¢ 
 ipse, as if it meant that the very same who is an advocate 
 has at the same time set right our cause; for the καί serves 
 here only for the simple connection of the two sentences. 
 That idea, however, which we have discussed is in itself 
 sound enough; for the mere αὐτός, without the appendage 
 of a καί belonging to it, itself asserts that concerning 
 the previous subject a second and new predicate is to 
 be affirmed. This new element is the idea of ἱλασμός. 
 As the words καταλλάσσειν and κατωλλαγή occur only 
 in St. Paul’s writings, and not often in them, so ἱλασμός 
 is peculiar to St. John, and in his writings only twice 
 occurs, here and ch. iv. 10. The two ideas are not 
 identical. 
 
 Καταλλάσσειν means, to wit, that God and the world 
 are reconciled with each other; the relation of the two is 
 always understood in the word. It is not otherwise when 
 St. Paul uses it of human relations, as that of marriage, in 
 1 Cor. vii. 11, and such we find it in its reference to the 
 death of Christ, 2 Cor. v. 16, καταλλάξας ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ, and 
 ver. 20, καταλλάγητε [ὑμεῖς] τῷ Θεῷ, and Rom. v. 10, 
 κατηλλάγημεν [ἡμεῖς] τῷ Θεῷ. The same may be said of 
 the decompositum ἀποκαταλλάσσω. Whether the ἀπό 
 here means a perfect reconciliation, or a renewed recon- 
 ciliation, or a reconciliation which brings back out of 
 estrangement, in any case the reconciliation in Col. 1, 20 
 and 21 is, as in Eph. ii. 16, that of mankind with God, 
 the opposition between the two parties being abolished. 
 Even if, which we do not believe, a reconciliation of two 
 portions of mankind with each other is spoken of in Eph. 
 ii. 16, our assertion would still hold good, for the verb 
 
CHAP. II. 2, 59 
 
 would have reference to the relation between two separate 
 beings or parties. 
 
 On the other hand, ἱλασμός keeps in view the recon- 
 ciliation of God with Himself; it does not therefore refer 
 to the relation of two to each other, but to the relation of 
 one nature to itself. It expresses the overcoming of the 
 divine wrath, or its being brought into harmony or’ under- 
 standing with the divine love; and thus it is the recon-- 
 ciliation of these two characteristics of the znterior divine 
 nature which had been brought into collision by human 
 sin. ‘IXacyos is, indeed, according to the form of the 
 word, that by means of which any one is made favourable 
 or ἵλεως, and thus it is the propitiation, while καταλλαγή 
 is the reconciliation which has taken place in consequence 
 of the propitiation or atonement, which has, in fact, been 
 rendered possible by that atonement. The atonement or 
 propitiation applies only to the one party, the offended; 
 the reconciliation takes place between the two parties, 
 Thus it comes to pass, that while indeed ἱλάσκεσθαι may 
 have things for its object (Heb. 11. 17, τὰς ἁμαρτίας once), 
 for there is an expiation or atonement of sins, the κατάλ- 
 λασσειν can never be referred to things as: its object, for 
 only personal beings can be reconciled. 
 
 Now, as it regards our passage in particular, it is first 
 of all essential to inquire if there is any sacrificial idea 
 involved in the ἱλασμός. Certainly it is currently used in 
 the Septuagint in passages where there is no allusion to 
 sacrifices ; as, for example, in Ps. cxxxiv. it is the transla- 
 tion of the Hebrew mmo, But when we mark, on the 
 other hand, that ἱλάσκεσθαι is the standing translation of 
 133, and that ἱλασμός is the specific translation of 083, 
 we must decide in favour of the sacrificial element. It is. 
 true that 782 itself occurs in many passages without any 
 expressed reference to a sacrifice (Ps. lxv. 4, lxxvill. 38, 
 xxix. 9); but always it is the sacrifice which is the means, 
 whether expressed or not, through which, according to the 
 Old Testament point of view, the covering of human sin is 
 effected. But more: it has not been proved that the sub- 
 stantive O23, which precisely corresponds to our ἱλασμός, 
 
00 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 ever occurs without an express reference to sacrifice ; rather 
 is the idea so closely associated with the sacrificial offering, 
 that D052 is the standing term for the great day of 
 atonement. Now, when we add to this that in Heb. ii. 17 
 ἱλάσκεσθαι, on the only occasion when it is used, is brought 
 in precisely at the point when for the first time the high- 
 priesthood of Christ is mentioned, and remember also that 
 the ancient high priest had, specially on the 0%S53 O¥, the 
 _ function which made him the type of Christ; and observe 
 \further that the substantive ἱλαστήριον, derived from the 
 same root, is in the New Testament (Rom. iii. 25, and 
 Heb. ix. 5), as in the Septuagint, the current reproduction 
 of the mercy-seat or 53, which in that high-priestly 
 sacrificial day occupied so prominent and central a place, 
 and by its very name at least alluded to that mercy-seat,— 
 then shall we feel inclined to take the expression ἱλασμός 
 in our passage also as connected with the sacrificial institute 
 generally, and with the great sacrificial offering of the day 
 of atonement in particular. 
 
 In accordance with this, the (Aacpos is the expiation, 
 inasmuch as it was wrought and perfected by our great 
 High Priest on the New Testament day of atonement by 
 the sacrifice of Himself. We do not mean that the ex- 
 pression ἱλασμός of itself signifies that sacrifice: it points 
 only to the atonement or propitiation accomplished by its 
 means. But this is what we maintain: O°N52 has a sacri- 
 ficial meaning; ἱλασμός was the apostle’s designed and 
 chosen translation of that word. The whole New 
 Testament beholds in the death oi Christ the antitype of 
 the great day of atonement, and the great central sacrifice 
 of that day. Hence St. John did agai? in the use of 
 this in itself broader word ἱλασμός, think precisely and 
 only of that sacrifice. 
 
 And it is in precise and striking harmony with this that 
 in our present passage the apostle says that the (Aacpos 
 _ had reference not only to our sins, the sins of believers, but 
 \ also to the sins of the whole world. As in the classical 
 _passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews special stress is laid 
 upon the fact that, in contrast with the yearly renewed 
 
CHAP, II. 2. 61 
 
 sacrifices of the old economy, Christ presented His sacrifice 
 once for all; so in this passage stress is laid upon the fact 
 that the virtue of His oblation extends, not, like the old 
 offerings, merely to the covenant people, but to the whole 
 world of mankind, having efficacy for all alike, believers as 
 well as unbelievers. Thus this universal dictum not only 
 furnishes a most befitting conclusion for the first section of 
 our Epistle, but also the consolation or encouragement, 
 which it is the apostle’s desire to afford to those who still 
 feel the weight of sin, is carried to its highest point. For, 
 if all sins are expiated or atoned for, how were it possible 
 that their sins should not be included in the propitiation, 
 who, as ἐν φωτὶ περιπατοῦντες, have, as it were, the first 
 right to stand in the closest connection with the Saviour 
 and His atoning work ? 
 
 Here we may perceive the right answer to the question 
 why Christ is here termed not ἱλαστήρ, but ἱλασμός. For 
 this reason, namely, because it was not the object to lay 
 stress upon the fact that He was the true High Priest, but 
 that He was that true high-priestly offering in virtue of 
 which sin is expiated. Moreover, the construction of 
 ἱλασμός with περί is in strict correspondence with the 
 Hebrew, where by or ya is used with the meaning de or. 
 concerning. 
 
 A little above, we said in passing that the ὅλος κόσμος, 
 for which Christ is the propitiation, is to be understood of 
 the world in the widest sense, all unbelievers included. It 
 is well known that many from predestinarian prepossessions 
 have sought to restrict the compass of the word to those who 
 should obtain actual participation in the benefits of redemp- 
 tion. But, not to mention the arbitrariness of any such 
 enfeebling of the words, their hortatory and encouraging 
 purport, as we have shown above, pleads against such 
 an interpretation. “Quam late patet peccatum, tam late 
 propitiatio.” Through the ἱλασμός of Christ all sin and the 
 sins of all are atoned for; if the salvation of all does not 
 take effect, the fault is not that God will not forgive the 
 sins of any one, but that the unforgiven sinner repels the 
 fatherly heart that moves towards him in mercy. 
 
σ9 
 bo 
 
 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 VERSES 3-11. 
 
 The exposition of the following verses depends very 
 much on our clear perception of their relation to what 
 precedes. The first thing that helps us to understand that 
 is the verb ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν in the third verse. Unless we 
 assume that this idea enters here without any link of con- 
 nection, and so leave a yawning chasm between ver. 3 and 
 what goes before——which, indeed, the καί, linking the two 
 portions together, would not allow,—we must find in what 
 we have just been studying an idea of which the develop- 
 ment is this γιγνώσκειν αὐτόν. Now, to get a clearer 
 notion of what it is, we must first of all define who is 
 meant by the αὐτός, God or Christ. Certainly it cannot be 
 other than the same person who in the second part of the 
 verse is again described by αὐτός : ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ 
 τηρῶμεν. Now, as in all that follows God is invariably 
 the source of command, and Christ is introduced only as 
 the pattern we must imitate in obeying His commandments; 
 as, besides this, Christ is distinguished as ἐκεῖνος from Him 
 who is marked out by adrés,—it will appear that αὐτός here 
 can be only God the Father. But then, in that case, the 
 γυγνώσκειν αὐτόν cannot attach itself to vers. 1 and 2; for 
 they contain no element that enters into the knowledge of 
 the Father, while they point to the knowledge of Christ if to 
 any knowledge at all. We may suppose, perhaps, that the 
 train of thought which begins with ver. 3 is a continuation 
 of the passage, ch. 1. 8-10: he who walks in the light must 
 first of all confess his sins, and, secondly, keep the divine 
 commandments. But that is made simply impossible by 
 ch. ii 1, 2. We have seen that these two verses sum 
 up by way of recapitulation the whole contents of ch. i. 
 6-10; and consequently ver. 3, when it begins again, must 
 be the continuation of this whole section. But that, after a 
 resuming summary of the whole, the thought should recur 
 to one particular part, and rest upon it without actually 
 and expressly mentioning what, is hardly to be supposed. 
 
 If, however, we ask to what γιγνώσκειν τὸν Θεόν may 
 positively be referred, ver. 5 of the previous chapter points 
 
CHAP. II. 3-11. 63 
 
 the way; for it tells us expressly that God is light ; and the 
 most obvious explanation of the idea in our passage is, 
 accordingly, that to know God is to know His nature of 
 light, to know Him as light. Then, in that case, ver. 3 
 would immediately join on to ch. 1. 5, and introduce a new 
 second section which runs parallel with the entire section 
 from ch. i. 6 to ch. 1. 2. The construction of the whole, 
 to which we have thus been guided by the idea of γιγνώσ- 
 Kew τὸν Θεόν, would receive its strong confirmation from 
 the ninth verse ; for it is clear that the clause ὁ λέγων ἐν τῷ 
 φωτὶ εἶναι καὶ Tov ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῶν ἐν TH σκοτίᾳ ἐστίν 
 corresponds precisely to the sentence in ch.i. 6. But this 
 evidence is effectual only on the supposition of its having 
 been already proved that ch. ii. 9 is part of the section 
 begun with ver. 3, and that this section therefore does not 
 end with the sixth verse. Such proof, however, requires 
 us to point out and establish that the ἐντολαὶ Θεοῦ, ver. 3, 
 the λόγος Θεοῦ, ver. 5, the περιπατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιε- 
 πάτησεν, and the commandment of brotherly love, ver. 9, 
 have substantially the same meaning. It is in favour of 
 this that, if we make the section end with ver. 6, the clause 
 concerning brotherly love is absolutely wanting in any, 
 whether external or internal, connection with what goes 
 before. Without that link the reader would not by any 
 means have understood the seventh and the eighth verses 
 concerning the old and the new commandment ; for the 
 previous verses, which on this supposition speak of sancti- 
 fication in quite general terms, furnish no point of help to 
 the interpretation. But if we suppose that the apostle, 
 from ver. 3 to ver. 6, has already the commandment of 
 brotherly love in his eye, the readers are already put in a 
 right position to perceive the meaning in which he speaks 
 of an old and of a new commandment. In fact, they 
 might at once have perceived, from the whole tenor of the 
 paragraph from ver. 3 to ver. 6, that brotherly love was the 
 subject treated. True it is that the first expression, τηρεῖν 
 Tas ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ, is quite general, and signifies obedience 
 to the will of God in all directions and in all the particulars 
 of obedience. But then the following τηρεῖν τὸν λόγον 
 
64 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 αὐτοῦ reduces back the universality of that first expression 
 to its unity again, as we saw, indeed, already in ch. i. 10 
 that the meaning of the latter sentence is, that the full | 
 manifoldness of the words and teaching of our Lord is 
 summed up in one living and life-giving unity. But those 
 who are acquainted with St. John’s Gospel, as these readers 
 were, know at once that this unity is nowhere else to be 
 _sought but in the commandment of love. 
 
 What thus in the word λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ lies wrapped up 
 as a germ is clearly unfolded in the words ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ τετελείωται of the following clause ; if, indeed, we can 
 suppose from other considerations that ἀγάπη tod Θεοῦ 
 here means the love which we have to Him. Certainly 
 there are some other reasons for adopting the inverted sense 
 of the expression: the love of God to us, First, there is 
 the parallel clause that forms the pendant and sequel of 
 the fourth verse. Then the result of disobedience to the 
 divine commandments is declared to be the inference, ἡ 
 ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν ; and we have seen in the inter- 
 pretation of the preceding chapter that ἀλήθεια means the 
 
 real fulness of the divine nature. Hence it commends 
 itself to our feeling, that in the fifth verse there is found 
 a parallel thought: if we keep the commandments of God, 
 His love is in us in a perfected sense, analogous to His 
 ἀλήθεια being in us. Again, when we compare other 
 passages, such as ch. iv. 10, ἐν τούτῳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη, οὐχ 
 OTL ἡμεῖς ἠγαπήσαμεν αὐτὸν GAN OTL αὐτὸς ἠγώπησεν ἡμᾶς, 
 and such as 2 Tim. ii. 19, where it is specified as the seal 
 of belonging to God that He knows us, not that we know 
 Him, then in our passage also, thus looked at, the subjective 
 genitive becomes probable, as in the interpretation: “ the 
 love of God to us.” Nevertheless, there are equally strong 
 reasons for taking it as the genitivus objectivus, or our love 
 to God. For we have from ch. 1. 6 to ch. 11. 11 a number 
 of conditional sentences, the conclusion of which in every 
 case exhibits the blessing attached to a right posture of 
 heart required in those conditions ; but in every case it is 
 a blessing which we receive for wse and application, not 
 only for enjoyment. So it is when it is said, ἡ ἀλήθειά 
 
CHAP, II. 511 65 
 
 ἐστιν ἐν ἡμῖν, or the purification from sin is ascribed to us. 
 The same should we expect here also, But the meaning of 
 God’s love to ws does not harmonize with this; for that is 
 indeed an experience or enjoyment of which we are par- 
 takers, but not something with which we can operate, and 
 of which we can make any use. Further, the love of God 
 to us is a thought which in the present context is by no 
 means brought into prominence, but would enter here as an 
 abrupt and isolated idea. If, then, on the one side there 
 are the strongest reasons for taking Θεοῦ as a genitivus 
 subjectivus, and on the other side equally strong reasons for 
 understanding something to be spoken of that we receive 
 for use and application in ourselves, how are we to decide 
 between them? The materials for decision are presented 
 to us in the text. It is purely arbitrary for one half of the 
 expositors to speak of God’s love to ws, and the other half 
 to speak of our love to God: we read nothing but ἀγάπη 
 τοῦ @cod,—that is, the divine love, love as it is in God, 
 without the addition of any object for that love. The right 
 meaning has escaped them simply through the interjection 
 of an object for the love. The apostle says that he who 
 keeps the commandment of God—that is, the command- 
 ment of love—has the love of God, has love as God is love, 
 and as it is in God, dwelling and ruling within him as a. 
 power of life. As in the former passage the truth, which 
 God is and which God has, comes upon us as a power filling 
 and penetrating our being; so here the love of God, which 
 He is and which He has, attains in us its perfected sway. 
 He who keeps the divine commandment, the apostle means, 
 has in himself the love from which God’s commandment 
 flows, and which is in God. Thus the preceding λόγος τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ is, in the conclusion of the fifth verse, more closely 
 defined ; the reader receives into himself the idea of love. 
 St. John takes one step further towards his end in the 
 sixth verse, in the requirement of περιπατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος 
 περιεπάτησεν. Looked at on one side, the word περιπατεῖν 
 contains an enlargement of the τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς, τὸν 
 λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ. We have seen—that is, on ch. i. 6—how 
 περιπατεῖν denotes the whole complex movement of life, 
 1 JOHN, E 
 
66 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 not only in the outward act, but in the collective expression 
 of it, inward as well as outward; and therefore in this 
 closer definition the τηρεῖν tas ἐντολάς must embrace not a 
 greater or less number of individual acts, but the essential 
 habit of the entire life. On the other side, the addition 
 καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν gives another and additional 
 point to the previous thought. As the ἐντολαὶ Θεοῦ, ordered 
 πολυτρόπως καὶ πολυμερῶς, find their ideal unity in the 
 λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, in the annunciation of Christ, which forms 
 one living whole ; so the real, visible, concrete unity is found 
 - in the life of Jesus Christ itself. But the question how 
 He walked is answered in the whole Gospel. In John 
 xiii. 1, His entire life is gathered up in one word: ᾿Ιησοῦς 
 ἀγαπήσας τοὺς ἰδίους ἠγάπησεν εἰς τέλος. Now, then, at 
 Jast in ver. 9 the apostle’s thought, to which he had been 
 converging in ever-narrowing circles, bursts into clear ex- 
 pression : he is treating of brotherly love. 
 
 If it has been established in detail that the four expres- 
 sions now considered have as to their matter the same 
 substantial meaning ; that the apostle has before his eyes in 
 the first and most general of them, αἱ ἐντολαὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, the 
 last and most special of them, and aims to bring the reader 
 only by degrees to the unity and central point of these 
 ἐντολαί ; and thus that ver. 9 forms the pith of the whole 
 discussion,—then it has been demonstrated that we must 
 not think of separating vers. 3-6 from what follows, but 
 must make the whole from ver. 3 to ver. 11 one connected 
 whole. Again, as not only the expression ἐγνωκέναι τὸν 
 Θεόν points back to ch. i. 5,as we have seen, but also 
 ver. 9 stands in express dependence on ch. i. 5, and is 
 parallel with ch. 1. 6, it is further demonstrated that the 
 section ch, 1]. 8-11 runs strictly parallel with the section 
 ch. 1. 6—-ch. 1. 2. As we have further perceived that 
 the contents of the new section are simply brotherly love, 
 we have already half found the mutual relation of the two 
 main divisions of our Epistle which we now have in hand. 
 The subject of the first section, ch. 1. 6—ch. 11. 2, may be 
 briefly stated to be the relation of man to God. He who 
 walks in the light, says the apostle, receives the purification 
 
CHAP, II. 3-11. 67 
 
 from sins on the one hand through deliverance from them, 
 ch. 1. 70, and ta μὴ ἁμάρτητε, ch. ii. 1; on the other 
 hand, he receives that purification through forgiveness of 
 the sins still committed by him, ch. 1. 9, ii. 2. The new 
 section treats of the relation of the Christian not to God, 
 but to the brethren: he who walks in the light must love ~ 
 the brethren. Thus the first two sections of the Epistle 
 strictly correspond with the purpose which, according to 
 ch. i. 3, the apostle had in view in his first announcement : 
 the assertion and proof of the κοινωνία: first, μετὰ τοῦ 
 πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ; and then, secondly, 
 μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων. The former end is kept in view in ch. 1. 6— 
 ch. ii. 2; the latter, in ch. 11. 3-11. 
 
 This second section of the Epistle in its construction 
 answers almost exactly to that of the first. Both are com- 
 plete in two sub-sections: the first, ch. i. 6, 7, and ch. 
 1. 8-10, if we leave apart for a moment the hortatory 
 summing up in ch. ii. 1, 2; the second, ch. 11. 3-5 and 
 ch. ii. 6-11. There is a difference indeed in the detail: 
 the former section in the first chapter treats its subject in 
 the form of antithesis; while the second, in the second 
 chapter, places a superscription before each topic, or, to put 
 it better, there is a statement of the subject placed before 
 each. Its first general sub-section, which in a certain 
 sense lays the foundation, ch. 11. 3—5, has ver. 3 for its 
 statement of contents; the second and more special sub- 
 section, ch. 11. 6-11, has vers. 6-8 for its heading. But 
 then the most perfect similarity returns again in the two 
 chapters ; for the proper development takes place still in 
 antithesis, of which each particular sentence is not indeed 
 here formally a conditional one, but yet is really such, 
 inasmuch as the participial sentences have essentially a 
 conditional meaning. And the conformity in the structure 
 may be traced still further. As in the first chapter the 
 first sub-section, vers. 6, 7, consists of two sentences over 
 against each other, so also the first of the second chapter, 
 vers. 4,55; and as in the first chapter the second sub- 
 section runs in three opposed sentences, vers. 8, 9, 10, so 
 does also the second sub-section in the second chapter, 
 
08 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 vers. 9, 10, 11. Of course the apostle did not work 
 according to a scheme laid down beforehand; but this 
 concert and uniformity, descending into the very details, 
 shows how clearly his thoughts were before his mind down 
 to their minutest shade. This portion of the Epistle itself, 
 to go no further, shows how much injustice is done to the 
 author by those who refuse to find in him any regular 
 process of thought. 
 
 VERSES ὃ--δ. 
 
 Kat ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτὸν, ἐὰν τὰς 
 ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν. 
 
 Let us now descend to the particulars. The sentence at 
 the outset, which gives us our point of view for the whole, 
 is to the effect that we know God only if we keep His 
 commandments. If γιγνώσκειν τὸν Θεόν means, as we have 
 seen in full, to know Him as light, as He alone is described, 
 it is obvious of itself that the γυγνώσκειν must be taken in 
 its ordinary meaning, and by no means as equivalent to 
 ἀγαπᾶν. But certainly this knowing is throughout the 
 New Testament never a merely external knowledge; it is 
 rather, so to speak, a knowledge full of soul, which involves 
 and establishes of itself a fellowship with Him who is 
 known. In the same sense as St. Paul uses the composite 
 word ἐπίγνωσις, which is not found in St. John, St. John 
 uses the simple word. In this plerophoric meaning the term 
 often occurs in the Gospel: ch. i. 10, where the οὐκ ἔγνω 
 answers to the ov κατέλαβεν of ver. 4, ch. viii. 54, xiv. 7, 
 and others. It is not altogether strange to the Synoptics ; 
 comp. Mark vii. 23. If, then, to know is, in our apostle’s 
 use of it, the appropriation or the personal reception into 
 ourselves of another and foreign nature, it is clear that the 
 knowledge of God includes in itself a participation of His 
 nature as known; and that thus the γνῶναι tov Θεόν here 
 is essentially related to the περιπατεῖν ἐν φωτί of ch. i. 6: 
 the rather as here also the connection requires us to assume 
 that God is known as light. Such fellowship with God | 
 should declare itself in the τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ. This 
 sentence, laying its foundation for what follows. is then 
 
CHAP. ΤΙΣ 4, 5. 69 
 
 further unfolded in two verses containing two antithetical 
 clauses. 
 
 VERSE 4, 
 
 Ὃ λέγων, “"Eyvoxa αὐτὸν, καὶ tas ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ μὴ 
 τηρῶν, ψεύστης ἐστὶ, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν. 
 
 The former of these two clauses corresponds with perfect 
 exactness to the sixth verse of the preceding chapter. It 
 is true that, in the place of the expressly conditional ἐάν 
 τις εἴπῃ there, we have here the more positive term ὁ 
 λέγων, which is the form that rules the whole of this new 
 section ; but it is obvious that the meaning is the same. 
 The uniformity of the external construction within the two 
 sections,—in the one always ἐάν, in the other always the 
 nominative participle,—as also the slight change of form 
 between the two, serve only to set the parallelism of the 
 thoughts in a light doubly clear. Further, that the ἔγνωκα 
 αὐτόν in our passage corresponds as to its substance with 
 the assertion κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ch. i. 6, we have 
 just now seen; and it is equally obvious that the μὴ τηρεῖν 
 τὰς ἐντολάς runs parallel here with the mepumarety ἐν τῷ 
 σκότει there. 
 
 The form of the condemning conclusion is, with all the 
 similarity of contents in the two passages, rather different ; 
 and that difference presents a slight change in the thought. 
 In the first chapter the conclusion lays down two kinds of 
 activity, ψεύδεσθαι and ἀλήθειαν ov ποιεῖν; but here we 
 have, on the contrary, two states or conditions, that of 
 ψεύστης εἶναι and that in which a man is not partaker of 
 the truth. In the former it is said that the original 
 pattern of truth, its full reality, the real substance of the 
 divine being, does not communicate itself to the man; here 
 it is said that generally it is not in him. 
 
 VERSE 5d. 
 
 “Os δ᾽ ἂν τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον, ἀληθῶς ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ τετελείωται. ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ 
 ἐσμεν. 
 
 In the same way as ch. ii. 4 corresponds with ch. 1, 6, 
 
70 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 ch. ii. 5 corresponds with ch. i. 7. Both passages urge the 
 importance of the exhibition of true godliness as opposed 
 to the mere semblance of it. The form of the first limb of 
 the sentence, or the protasis, in the latter case is not the 
 participle, as in the previous verse, nor is it an actual con- 
 ditional clause, as in the former chapter; but it is a relative 
 sentence with ἄν, which closely approximates to the positive 
 form with nominative nouns which prevails throughout the 
 section. In the present case also, the last limb of the 
 sentence, or the apodosis, corresponds in ch. i. 7 to ch. ii. 5 ; 
 as in the former the highest benefit of the walk in light is 
 specified as the καθαρίζει τὸ aiwa ᾿Ιησοῦ x.7.X., so also here 
 the closing clause declares the blessing of τηρεῖν τὸν λόγον 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ to be the full and perfect participation in the 
 divine nature of love. 
 
 The passage of the Gospel, ch. viii. 31, which gave us 
 above the right hint for the right interpretation of the λόγος 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ will shed some light on the ἀληθῶς also: ἐὰν 
 ὑμεῖς μείνητε ἐν TO λόγῳ TO ἐμῷ ἀληθῶς μαθηταί pod 
 ἐστε. It may be, indeed, that ἀληθῶς occurs sometimes in 
 the New Testament with the meaning of mere affirmation, 
 equivalent to profecto; but that is never the case. in St. 
 John, not even in John i. 48: the expression as he uses it 
 always denotes the internal reality as opposed to the out- 
 ward appearance only. So it is here. With him who 
 obeys the λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, love, the love which makes the 
 character or nature of God, is perfected in its fullest reality 
 and entire fulness. Τελειοῦσθαι is reserved by St. John 
 for the consummation of love, and of perfected fellowship 
 with God through love; comp. besides ch. iv. 12, 17, 18, 
 ch. xvii. 25 in the Gospel. In itself it is not a startling or 
 revolting thought, that the love of God should dwell in us 
 in its full measure and in its simple perfection. According 
 to Eph. iv. 16, we are to grow up εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ 
 πληρώματος Χριστοῦ; but here our perfecting (μέτρον 
 ἡλικίας) is this, that the whole fulness of Christ dwells in 
 us. Again, as Christ is the χαρακτὴρ καὶ ἀπαύγασμα of 
 the Father in such a manner that the whole πλήρωμα τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ dwells in Him, this proves that the πλήρωμα τοῦ 
 
CHAP. II. 6. Th 
 
 Θεοῦ is supposed to dwell in us. And that this πλήρωμα 
 of God is essentially love, we are taught by the fundamental 
 dictum of 1 John iv. 16; as also St. Paul exhorts us, in 
 the only place (Eph. v. 7) where he places God before us 
 as a pattern, to strive after that pattern through walking in 
 love. 
 
 The little clause that follows, ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι 
 ἐν αὐτῷ ἐσμεν, takes up again the fundamental thought 
 placed first in ver. 3, and thus bears its witness that the 
 first sub-section of the new section has come to its close. 
 Marking the uniformity of structure throughout, it is not to 
 be overlooked—though we venture to give it only as a sup- 
 position—that in ver. 5 there is but one conclusion, while 
 in ch. i. 7, the verse correlative with ch. ii. 5, there are 
 two; here then we have, instead of the second, this sum- 
 ming up repetition of the fundamental thought. The 
 parallel ἐν τούτῳ of the third verse testifies, were any 
 proof necessary, that these words are not to be referred to 
 the last conclusion, 7 ἀγαπὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ τετελείωται, but to 
 the first clause, ἐὰν τηρῶμεν, or still better probably, to the 
 whole preceding period. 
 
 VERSE 6. 
 
 Ὃ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν, ὀφείλει, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπά- 
 τησε, καὶ αὐτὸς οὕτως περιπατεῖν. 
 
 It is clear now that there is a progression in the follow- 
 ing verses; but it is important’to keep it in the right 
 order. For instance, it is not to be found forthwith in the 
 new idea μένειν ἐν Θεῷ. It is undoubtedly true that the 
 three ideas γνῶναι, ver. 3, εἶναι, ver. 5, μένειν, ver. 6, express 
 a gradation : cognitio, communio, constantia in communione. 
 But because the progress of the thought might rest upon 
 this gradation, that does not prove that it does so in the 
 present case. This is opposed first of all by the fact that 
 in ver. 5, at the end of the section which began with the 
 γνῶσις Θεοῦ, what was said is summed up again by εἶναι 
 ἐν αὐτῷ; it could not have been the apostle’s point to 
 introduce a new thought in the recapitulation; and the 
 emphasis must lie not upon the difference between γνῶναι 
 
72 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 and εἶναι, but upon what they have in common. The main 
 consideration, however, is this. If the gradation in the three 
 ideas before us were the point which carries the apostle’s 
 thoughts onwards, the emphasis would have lain on the 
 blessing conferred in keeping the divine commandments ; 
 that, however, is obviously not the case, but it lies in the 
 following the commandment itself. The distinctive feature 
 of our section is not promissory, but hortatory. Conse- 
 quently, the three ideas only in passing indicate the whole 
 comprehensiveness of the blessing which is attached to the 
 keeping of the divine word, marking it out under its several 
 aspects. The emphasis, however, lies not upon their dif- 
 ference, but upon their relative identity. The progression of 
 the thought rests rather upon the περιπατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος 
 περιεπάτησεν. In that phrase the contents of the divine 
 will, hitherto viewed generally as ἐντολαί, and again made 
 more specific as λόγος αὐτοῦ, is yet again more closely 
 defined. We also must exhibit the same walk which Christ 
 exhibited. What was said before had shown, even if the 
 reader did not know it from the outset, that the walking in 
 love was alone signified. And this resemblance to the Lord 
 is Imposed on us as the supreme obligation; if indeed the 
 οὕτως, against which there is certainly some slight external 
 evidence, is the true reading: the καί and the οὕτως would 
 doubly emphasize the αὐτό and thus strengthen the parallel. 
 And this walk is obligatory on the Christian (ὀφείλει) ; 
 moreover, through an obligation contracted by his own free 
 act, that is, by his own word (ὁ λέγων). That, for the 
 rest, Holy Scripture has exhibited Christ as a pattern only 
 in His sufferings, is a fact which, admitted by all expositors, 
 we keep in our view here in passing; without, however, 
 entering upon the question whether our passage constitutes 
 an exception, and how far it does so. The sequel will clear 
 up this point. 
 
 Verses 7, 8. 
 
 \ 
 ᾿Αδελφοὶ, οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐντολὴν 
 3 a ᾽ 
 παλαιὰν, ἣν εἴχετε ἀπ ἀρχῆς" ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν 
 ke , ἃ Ι] ΄ ας b A ΄ > \ \ 
 0 λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς. Tladw ἐντολὴν καινὴν. 
 
CHAP. II. 7, 8. 73 
 
 γράφω ὑμῖν, 6 ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ὅτι ἡ 
 σκοτία παράγεται, καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει. 
 
 We enter on that sequel with a double expectation. 
 First, that is, we are obliged to expect a closer definition 
 of the contents of ver. 6, as we have seen in our general 
 remarks upon the section that we are still on the way to 
 its central point in ver. 9. But what constitutes the closer 
 relation between ver. 6 and the sequel can, in the ab- 
 sence of any external bond of connection, be shown only 
 by a penetrating study of the particulars. But, secondly, 
 the appeal, so emphatic and disconnected, which stands at 
 the beginning, and so obviously springs from a vehement 
 feeling, points us to the fact that the apostle attaches a 
 special importance to what is about to follow. As to 
 the adeddoi of the Textus receptus, however aptly it may 
 suit a section on love of brethren, we are obliged by external 
 reasons to prefer the reading ἀγαπητοί, 
 
 But the main question is, what we are to understand by 
 the ἐντολὴ καινή and παλαιά. There has been a disposi- 
 tion to interpret them of two distinct commandments: in 
 which case, probably, the ἐντολὴ παλαιά would be brotherly 
 love, and the ἐντολὴ καινή the imitation of Christ; or the . 
 order might be inverted; or a-third interpretation might be 
 supposable, since the section itself furnishes no key, and 
 the idea of two separate commandments of course opens 
 the way for all kinds of solutions. But the notion of 
 thus dividing them is as a theory full of insurmount- 
 able difficulties, both formal and in the matter. The 
 expression itself opposes_it, as it seems to us; for we 
 should in such a case expect, not οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν 
 ἀλλὰ παλαιάν, but “as well a new commandment as 
 an old,’ or something like this; and similarly, in the 
 eighth verse, instead of πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω, we 
 should expect “and yet again I write,” and so forth. For 
 if the apostle, in fact, announced two commandments, an 
 old one and a new one, it would be impossible for him to 
 
 have said, without any further explanation, that one_of 
 them he did not announce. Thus we must understand that 
 
 only one commandment is meant, which, viewed from 
 
 
 
 
 
74 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 different points, may now be considered as new and now 
 as old. 
 
 But there are material as well as formal difficulties in 
 the theory of two separate commandments. For it would 
 be most obvious on that supposition to describe the com- 
 mand to follow Christ as the ἐντολὴ παλαιά, and that of 
 brotherly love as the καινή. But it is impossible to admit 
 that the former of these was older than the other; even in 
 the sense that the churches received the precept to follow 
 Christ before they received that of loving one another. 
 For where can we imagine a church which had not been 
 taught to include this among the elements of the faith ? 
 Still less can we conceive that St. John should call that 
 commandment old because it had been communicated in 
 what he had said above, and the other new because he was 
 about to communicate it: for how can a commandment be 
 called old because it has just been announced? Thus we 
 must regard the ἐντολὴ καινὴ Kat παλαιά as one and the 
 same commandment viewed under different aspects. This 
 being so, of course it can mean no other than that of 
 brotherly love, of which the section before us treats. Even 
 if the commandment in question were referred to the zreps- 
 πατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν, that would make no 
 material difference, for we have seen that even these words 
 have for their substance nothing but the example of 
 brotherly love. Formally, of course, there would then be 
 a certain difference introduced into the thought; but we 
 will for the time assume that brotherly love in general is 
 the matter of the precept. Further consideration will 
 show whether vers. 7 and 8 are to be referred forwards 
 to ver. 9, that is, to the ἀγαπᾶν τοὺς ἀδελφούς, or back- 
 wards to ver. 6, the περιπατεῖν Kalas ἐκεῖνος περίε- 
 πάτησε. 
 
 In what sense, then, is the commandment of brotherly 
 love an old one? It seems obvious and plausible at the 
 outset to consider this as meaning that it had been already 
 given in the Old Testament, and that it was called also an 
 ἐντολὴ καινή, because Christ had in an altogether new way 
 established it as a law. Nor would it be a valid objection 
 
CHAP. II. 7, 8. 75 
 
 to this that the readers were for the most part Gentile 
 Christians, to whom the Old Testament had no authority ; 
 for the New Testament regards the whole kingdom of God 
 as one unity, so that the Gentile Christians were the 
 legitimate heirs of the ancient oracles. But, certainly, were 
 this the right interpretation, we should expect to find the 
 apostle using the plural, as including himself and all: ἣν 
 ἔσχομεν, ἣν ἠκούσαμεν. But by speaking in the second 
 person he distinguishes himself from his readers as his 
 disciples ; and this of itself makes it probable that the ἀπ᾽ 
 ἀρχῆς ἔσχετε refers to the begi τ οἵ their Christianity. 
 Moreover, we have seen that λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ in ver. 5 
 points to the announcement made through Christ, and it 
 would seem obvious to refer the λόγος of ver. 7 also to 
 this; accordingly, the λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε is the announce- 
 ment of salvation communicated through the apostles. We 
 must note how delicately careful is the insertion and 
 omission of the article in our verse; not a new command- 
 ment write I unto you, the author says, but an old one, 
 which ye ye have had since the beginning of your Christianity ; 
 and the saving announcement which ye then he: ye then heard (the 
 second ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς δὲ the end of the verse must be struck 
 out), the entire λόγος concerning the personal Logos, has 
 only this meaning, the very same old_commandiment (here 
 the article comes in) concerning which I speak. 
 
 And now, once more, how can this commandment be 
 termed a new one? The answer of this difficult question, 
 or the way to it, is indicated evidently enough ; for in John 
 xii. 34 we have a quite similar utterance. The Lord says 
 in connection with the last Passover: ἐντολὴν καινὴν 
 δίδωμι ὑμῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς, 
 ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους. In this verse we find 
 the constitutive elements of our present passage: here as 
 there brotherly love is called an ἐντολὴ καινή ; here as there 
 the same closer definition is appended, for the περιπατεῖν 
 καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν corresponds precisely to the_ 
 ἀγαπᾶν καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς. But the same question 
 arises as to the passage in the Gospel itself, how far 
 brotherly love could be there called a new commandment ; 
 
70 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 since it was not only prescribed in the Old Testament, but 
 had been by Christ Himself, during the course of His 
 ministry, again and again imprinted upon His disciples’ 
 minds as the second great commandment, like unto the 
 first. But when we narrowly examine it, we find a 
 difference. So _to love as He Himself loved, the Lord 
 had never before commanded; and it will be evident that 
 in this appendage not only is there a new and stronger 
 incentive to brotherly love, but that also the precept in 
 fact receives an altogether new colour. Brotherly love on 
 this foundation, and enforced by this example, does in very 
 deed become a perfectly new commandment. 
 
 To apprehend this more fully, we must take a step 
 onward in the evangelical history. The evangelist begins 
 the second great division of the Gospel, the narrative of 
 the passion, with the words, “Incods ἀγαπήσας τοὺς ἰδίους 
 εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς. It is manifest that this does 
 not say merely that our Lord also, in the last days of His 
 earthly life, advanced in the love which He had all along 
 displayed: for how should it occur to the thought of any 
 one to deny that? What was there in this general idea 
 that could have moved the apostle to place it in the fore- 
 ground with such deep emphasis? We are constrained 
 rather to believe that the justification of an utterance thus 
 made emphatic lay in this, that a peculiar power of love 
 was manifested in the passion of Christ, that it was a 
 specifically arduous love, a higher degree of love, which 
 enabled the Lord to continue, even eis τέλος, in the course 
 of love which He had always displayed. -And, in fact, it 
 would have been—to speak humanly—natural if the Lord 
 had been frightened back from this ayam εἰς τέλος, which 
 imposed upon Him such an unspeakable burden; and it 
 signalized the full glory of His power to love, that it was 
 capable of sustaining such a test. Thus the verse of the 
 Gospel distinguishes two grades or kinds of love with 
 which the Lord loved His own. 
 
 The same result emerges from a closer examination of 
 John xiii. 12 seq., especially of the fifteenth verse. The 
 most superficial glance shows at once that the Lord Himself 
 
CHAP. II. 7, 8. yi 
 
 and His evangelist exhibited the feet-washing as a demon- 
 stration of love bearing a peculiar character, such as His 
 former life had not yet displayed. And with this we now 
 connect the remark, that precisely on this occasion, and on 
 this occasion alone, Jesus required of His disciples to love 
 one another as He had loved them. The washing of their 
 feet is the theme which runs through its variations in the 
 whole of the following section. See ver. 15: ὑπόδειγμα 
 ἔδωκα ὑμῖν, ἵνα καθὼς ἐποίησα ὑμῖν, καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιῆτε, with 
 ver. 94: ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν. If, then, we ask 
 wherein the distinctiveness of this proof of love lay, as 
 distinguished from all the other demonstrations of love 
 which the hand of the Redeemer’s love had wrought out 
 during His previous life, the answer is threefold. First, in 
 all the other deeds through which the Lord’s love dispensed 
 grace and help, He acted, according to His own express 
 testimony, on the suggestion of His heavenly Father: they 
 were tokens of love, but He wrought them not as expressions 
 of love, but as expressions of obedience. But we cannot 
 say the same in precisely the same sense concerning this 
 act of the feet-washing: beyond all other acts, it leaves the 
 impression that it sprang from a perfectly spontaneous and 
 instantaneous impulse. It was indeed in absolute harmony 
 with the Father’s will; but the Lord performed it not as 
 of obedience, but as from the source of His own love gushing 
 forth in unwonted power. Secondly, in all the previous 
 demonstrations of His love, the Lord had ever maintained 
 His position of κύριος and διδάσκαλος; they were the 
 manifestations of Himself precisely as of a loving διδάσ- 
 καλος. But in the feet-washing He denied Himself this 
 very position, and was constrained to deny Himself of it in 
 order to accomplish the act. In this deed of humility 
 He was no longer the διδάσκαλος, but rather the διακονῶν. 
 And there especially is the emphatic love which, according. 
 to ch. xiil., was manifested in the passion, that He surren- 
 dered the supreme and exalted place which, despite His 
 humiliation, was always His, and descended from the dignity 
 of the prophet to the deep renunciation of the cross, 
 Thirdly, in all the other demonstrations of Christ’s love we 
 
 
 
78 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 receive the impression that He must act as He did, and 
 that if He did not so act there would have been a blot on 
 His image; we know also that His disciples and the people 
 expected from Him His miracles. On the other hand, the 
 feet-washing was expected by no one, nor could any one 
 have expected it; yea, if we suppose Him to have preter- 
 mitted it, no blot would have rested on His person. 
 
 Thus we have, in connection with our Lord Himself, two 
 different kinds of demonstration of love. Only in the latter 
 did He present Himself as a pattern to His disciples ; and it 
 is this precise love, exercised in imitation of Him, that He 
 Himself described as the ἐντολὴ καινή. Now, as the Lord’s 
 love εἰς τέλος, that which He showed in the feet-washing, 
 was related to His earlier demonstrations, so must, among 
 His disciples, the love which He commands them to exercise 
 in imitation of Himself be related to the love with which 
 they had hitherto loved, such as they had found prescribed 
 in the Old Testament. As the Lord, according to our 
 remarks above, until the night of the passion had performed 
 His acts, not in the first instance.as from love, but rather from 
 obedience, so until the night of the passion it had been for 
 the disciples a commandment obligatory to love their neigh- 
 bour; they practised love as a duty, and in every particular 
 act were constrained to remember the obligation. For it is 
 obvious that the question is here not of those testimonies 
 of love which spring from natural and instinctive sympathy, 
 —these do not generally lie at the basis of any ethics,— 
 but of such love as is exercised in conscious self-denying 
 acts. Such acts of self-denial it was necessary for men 
 before Christ, and it is necessary to every man now, espe- 
 cially in the beginning of the Christian life, to constrain 
 himself to perform. As, again, in all the earlier demonstra- 
 tions of His love, Christ had still remained the διδάσκαλος 
 and κύριος, so also the natural position of man in the first 
 stage of love thus considered remains uninvaded and un- 
 touched: in His loving acts the King remains what He is; 
 He is simply a loving King, even as the Lord among His 
 own was a loving διδάσκαλος, But when this same Lord 
 presents Himself, that is to say, more particularly His feet- 
 
CHAP, 11. 7, 8. 79 
 
 washing, as the pattern of love, it is His will to put an end to 
 this love from mere obedience: from that time His disciples 
 were to love after the model He gave them generally, and 
 gave them specifically at that very hour; in such a way, 
 namely, that the individual act should spring, not from the 
 obligation of law, but from the direct and compulsory pres- 
 sure of the heart. Further, as the Lord surrendered His 
 position as Lord in the feet-washing, and in His passion 
 generally, so should we also so love as that all human 
 distinctions may cease in its presence: no longer loving 
 the πλησίον, but the adder¢gév, as it stands written: οὐκ ἔνι 
 ᾿Ιουδαῖος cal” EXAnv, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος καὶ ἐλεύθερος" πάντες 
 ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. It is love when the Lord 
 exhibits Himself as a loving Master towards slaves; but 
 love as the ἐντολὴ καινή is commended to us, to be regarded 
 and to be felt, not as Lord, but as itself δοῦλος. And this 
 touches the third mark which we perceived to be the pecu- 
 liarity of the feet-washing: this love will not limit itself to 
 cases in which there is a visible occasion or external necessity 
 for its display ; but its unrestrained vehemence as a living 
 spring will go beyond all expectations, and approve itself 
 literally without measure or degree. Further, it is clear 
 that this ἐντολὴ καινή can be called such only in a broader 
 sense of the word commandment: it is, namely, a goal set 
 before men, for ever to be striven after; not, however, as 
 properly speaking an obligatory law; for as soon as it is 
 exercised as such, it ceases to be the new commandment. 
 Rather the matter stands thus: that the new spring of love, 
 which in the passion issued forth from the Redeemer’s heart, 
 streams, through His return to the Father, His glorification, 
 and the consequent mission of the Spirit, into the hearts of 
 Christians as an active energy of their life; and thus the 
 commandment comes of itself into fulfilment, not gua com- 
 mandment, but as an irrepressibly energizing power. Finally, 
 we may be permitted to complete this biblical disquisition 
 by pointing out how both the kinds or stages of love which 
 we have distinguished in the spiritual domain are reproduced 
 in all human relations. As well the love of friendship as 
 the conjugal love exhibit them in their degree, seeking 
 
80 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 especially all individual opportunities for their manifesta- 
 tion. But the more internal the relation is, the more surely 
 does this necessity of seeking cease; because the whole life 
 and being are more and more fashioned into one entire 
 demonstration of love. 
 
 Having thus established the meaning of ἐντολὴ καινή in 
 the passage of the Gospel, we may easily apply it to our 
 present passage, and it will be found to harmonize with the 
 whole in the completest and most satisfactory manner. 
 The commandment of love, St. John says, is to you a 
 παλαιόν; for it is the λόγος which ye heard from the 
 beginning. There is no evangelical annunciation possible 
 without this precept: indeed, the whole Gospel itself is 
 nothing but this precept. That is the first stage of Chris- 
 tian brotherly love; and, as the benediction upon it, it is 
 most pertinently assured by the apostle that the love of 
 God, as that of the Father, dwells in us after a perfected 
 manner. That is to say, God cannot deprive Himself of 
 His nature: it is true that His love flows not from any 
 obligation, but out of the inexhaustible source of His being, 
 which is love; yet He remains ever the loving God, the 
 loving Lord. Hence it is this blessed consequence of our 
 brotherly love-—why speak we of consequence? it is this 
 blessed ground of it,—to wit, that His nature of love abides 
 in us, and in us makes its dwelling, which the apostle 
 makes prominent first of all. But this is not the highest 
 blessing of it. That the love of Christ dwells in us is yet 
 more, and a higher stage of love; for His was the self- 
 renouncing, eee ἘΠ τ and self-sacrificing 
 love. And this love is the καινὴ ἐντολή Sahih is ἀπο τον 
 to us. The στουχεῖα of Christianity had been long em- 
 braced by the church; now the great point was that they 
 ἐπὶ τὴν τελείωσιν φέρεσθαι (Heb. vi.). To the τελείωσις, 
 especially to the τελεία χαρά, would the apostle lead them 
 on; and we have already seen in ch. i. 4 that this perfect 
 joy rests in one sense upon the perfectness of brotherly 
 love. The one passage has the other in view. 
 
 At the point thus carefully secured we are in a posi- 
 tion to decide whether our verses look forward to the 
 
CHAP. Il. 7. 8, 81 
 
 expression ἀγαπᾶν τοὺς ἀδελφούς, or backwards to the 
 περιπατεῖν καθὼς Χριστὸς περιεπάτησεν. The latter is 
 obviously favoured by the circumstance that the readers, 
 when they came to the words οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω 
 ὑμῖν, must necessarily have at once thought that the 
 apostle was referring to the commandment just given to 
 them; but a still stronger reason is, that he expressly 
 describes the ἐντολὴ καινή as the λόγος, ὃν ἤκουσαν, thus 
 taking up again the λόγος of the fifth verse. The weightiest 
 argument, however, is found in what we have already per- 
 ceived, that the commandment thus impressed upon them 
 was no other than that they should walk after the example 
 of Christ. The matter, strictly speaking, stands thus: 
 First, he describes the conversation, or rather the whole life 
 of Jesus quite generally as the commandment; but then he 
 goes on, more definitely, to exhibit the love of Christ mani- 
 fested in the passion, and the imitation of it he makes into | 
 a commandment by means of the word ἐντολὴ καινή : this 
 word being naturally understood by the readers acquainted 
 with the Gospel, without any express reference to the 
 passage on which our exposition has been based. Thus, 
 moreover, we may justify to ourselves the remark already 
 made, that Christ is presented to us as a pattern only in 
 His passion,—that is to say, after we have heard a quite 
 general exhortation to the following of His life of love, the 
 emphasis in our passage declines upon the ἀγάπη εἰς τέλος, 
 upon the love which the Lord manifested on the night of 
 His sorrows. For the rest, it may be observed once more, 
 that not all the thoughts which we have brought in here 
 were by the apostle himself expressly set forth. They are 
 rather only the premises which must have been living in 
 his spirit when he used the word which he did use. We 
 may infer from his utterance here, that all this was in the 
 background of his mind. 
 
 But a new difficulty emerges, after all our exposition, in 
 consequence of the appended clause, 6 ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ 
 καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν. The words admit of a double grammatical 
 construction. Either they are regarded as the proper object 
 of γράφω, and the preceding ἐντολὴν καινήν as an attributive 
 
 1 JOHN. F 
 
82 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 describing it: I write now to you this, which in you is the 
 truth, as a new commandment. Or, inverting it, we may 
 take the ἐντολὴν καινήν as the object, and the relative 
 clause: as merely a declarative closer definition : I write to 
 you a new commandment, namely, that which in you is 
 truth. When we now observe that the idea of the ἐντολὴ 
 καινή is the fundamental theme of the verse, that, further, 
 the ἐντολὴ παλαιά is certainly the objective of the γράφειν 
 in the seventh verse, which formally and materially corre- 
 sponds with this, we are constrained to decide in favour of 
 the latter. But we must remember that the sentence with 
 ὅ is by no means the same as the sentence with #, or to be 
 taken as simply a closer definition of the ἐντολή. Apart 
 from the question,—which, however, we ought not to omit, 
 —why the apostle in that case did not use the feminine 
 pronoun, the thought would on that supposition be alto- 
 gether different. If we had a relative clause with 7 
 belonging to the ἐντολή, we should have generally only one 
 objective definition ; brotherly love would be simply called 
 a new commandment; but as it is, we find two parallel 
 definitions of it,~—one as a new commandment, and the 
 other as something that is truth in the readers. 
 
 But if we regard the form as settled, the matter of the 
 sentence meets us with new questions. or instance, how 
 comes it to pass that what is truth in the readers—that is, 
 according to the firmly fixed idea of the word, living reality 
 in them—is yet exhibited asa commandment ? This would 
 seem indeed to place the reality of what is commanded 
 before the readers as their aim, and not regard it as a 
 present experienced fact. Again, how is it possible that 
 what is supposed to be a reality in the readers, is never- 
 theless described to them as a new announcement? But 
 the view we have established of the ἐντολὴ καινή itself 
 suggests the possibility of giving right answers to these 
 questions. 
 
 We have seen that objectively, in relation to brotherly 
 love, there has been a twofold commandment; for, while it 
 was taught from the beginning, both in the Old Testament 
 and in the New, it was so taught by the passion of Christ 
 
ΠΑΡ; τι ἢ; 8. 89 
 
 as to become an altogether new commandment. Not only 
 so; we have seen, further, that subjectively also in the life 
 of every Christian the same twofold characteristic approves 
 itself: in the beginning of the Christian career love is of 
 the former, in its further stages it is of the latter kind. 
 Further, we have discerned that brotherly love as an ἐντολὴ 
 καινή can by no means be fulfilled as an obligatory law ; 
 that its nature is rather to flow from its own free and 
 independent personal impulse, while at the same time it is 
 effectual only through the Spirit of Him who exercised it 
 symbolically and in its original and perfect character. 
 Now, if the readers of the Epistle have received this Spirit, 
 there must be in them at least the commencement or 
 starting-point of this new and higher brotherly love; in 
 some definite degree it must have become in them ἀληθής. 
 It is therefore a new commandment only in as far as 
 now, in virtue of the apostle’s word, they are, on the one 
 hand, made conscious of its possession, the old precept 
 becoming a new one because now it has become their own 
 conscious possession; and, on the other hand, that word 
 presents to them that which they already had, being Chris- 
 tians, as now to be a conscious end, the realization, and 
 indeed perfect realization of which must be their problem 
 and goal: thus this higher kind of brotherly love becomes 
 after all an ἐντολή to them. What we, in our remarks 
 upon John xiii. 34, saw to be a feature of the new com- 
 mandment,—that it was at once a commandment and yet 
 not a commandment, because springing directly from the 
 impulse of the heart,—that the apostle says here expressly; 
 and this, as we think, impresses on our exposition the seal 
 of its approval. ‘Thus, as the previous words present the 
 brotherly love which the apostle commends as at once an 
 old and yet a new commandment, so in our verse it is pre- 
 sented as a commandment, and yet again as not a command- 
 ment. But this double character of the idea is designedly 
 not exhibited as an antithesis,—as if it were ἐντολὴν 
 παλαιὰν γράφω ὑμῖν, πάλιν δὲ καινήν, as also ἐντολὴν μέν, 
 ἀληθὲς δὲ ἐν ὑμῖν,---αὖ as perfectly interwoven and one. 
 Hence the first time it is the πάλιν, merely marking a new 
 
84 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 starting-point ; the second time, the simple appositional 
 clause ὃ ἀληθές ἐστιν. 
 
 Thus upon the complete sentence, as appended, ἀληθὲς 
 ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, there now falls a clear light,—that is, 
 the brotherly love now in question. as ἐντολὴ καινή has 
 been brought into the world only through the example of 
 Christ, and can by us be attained only through fellowship 
 with Him. Hence the apostle, by ἐν ἀυτῷ, assigns the 
 reason on account of which this brotherly love was in them, 
 so far as it really dwelt in their souls. 
 
 But how it comes to pass that what in Christ is truth is 
 truth also in them, the last words of the verse explain: ὅτι 
 ἡ σκοτία παράγεται Kal TO φῶς TO ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει. 
 That this ὅτι is not declarative, and to be taken as stating 
 the contents of the ἐντολὴ καινή, is obvious from the very 
 matter of the sentence. It describes, forsooth, a purely 
 objective historical fact, while the idea of ἐντολή in its very 
 nature contains a subjective element: I may indeed repre- 
 sent a fact as at the same time involving a requirement, as 
 indeed this clause shows; but a mere objective fact cannot 
 as such be called an ἐντολή. Thus the words simply 
 announce a reason. But of what must a reason be given ? 
 We might think of the ἐντολὴ καινή, and say that the 
 apostle gives this command because of the fact now im- 
 pressively stated: “since now the darkness recedes, the 
 true light now unfolds its reality ; walk then as it becomes 
 you, like τέκνα φωτός, in this light.” The warranty for the 
 precept would then be essentially parallel with that of 
 Rom. xii. 11 seq. 
 
 Against this we have nothing really material to urge; 
 but still the reason assigned is more pointed, and appears 
 to us more natural also, if we refer the causal clause to the 
 immediately preceding sentence, 6 ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ 
 ἐν ὑμῖν, thus making it explain how that commandment 
 has its reality in us: to put it more plainly, a reason is 
 given for the καί in the words referred to. “Ye are indeed 
 already under the power of the light; therefore that which 
 is ἐν αὐτῷ is also ἐν ὑμῖν, and the law which I demand has 
 its reality in you; but the great consideration is, that it be 
 
CHAP. 117, 8. 85 
 
 brought into full consciousness and to its perfection.” The 
 darkness is passing away, St. John writes. He does not 
 add, in connection with it, ἐν ὑμῖν : the proposition is there- 
 fore to be taken in its universality. The place in which 
 the darkness reigns is, as we saw on ch. i., the world in its 
 biblical meaning ; and with the appearing of Him who has 
 overcome the world, both it and its prince are judged and 
 condemned, and the power of darkness is broken. It has 
 not yet passed away, but it is in the act of passing; the 
 spread of the kingdom of God, and, what is equivalent to 
 that, the passing away of the world, are the signature and 
 the very matter of all church history. 
 
 But alongside of this negative, the παράγεσθαι of the 
 darkness, there runs a parallel positive, τὸ φῶς ἀληθινὸν 
 ἤδη φαίνει. This expression is a distinct remembrancer of 
 John 1. 4, 9, in which latter verse we find it in the same 
 words ; and if we add that St. John always understands by 
 φῶς, Christ, or, as in ch. i. 5 here, God, it will commend 
 itself to think of the Lord Himself as here directly signified. 
 It is not a contradiction to this, that in the previous words 
 the σκοτία does not expressly refer to a person; for we 
 have already shown on ch. i. 5 that here lies the all- 
 pervading distinction, that while the light is concentrated 
 in a person, the darkness never is. All goodness is in the 
 power of divine light, a lesser jet from the greater Flame ; 
 but all evil, while it is occasioned by Satan;is not in the 
 same sense an effluence from him as the light is an out- 
 beaming from God. 
 
 Christ, however, is not called φῶς merely, but φῶς ἀλη- 
 θινόν : a genuine Johannaean appendage. While ἀλήθεια 
 signifies the objective truth which is absolute fulness and 
 reality, ἀληθινός signifies that a specified person is that) 
 which is predicated of him in the fullest possible degree. 
 It is the application of the ἀλήθεια to one particular question 
 or point; yet so that ἀληθινός, as compared with ἀληθής, 
 specifies the form as opposed to the matter: φῶς ἀληθές 
 would mean that the light is a true one, and not merely has 
 the semblance of it; φῶς ἀληθινόν, on the contrary, declares 
 that the idea φῶς must be taken in its full reality. The 
 
80 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 true light “already” shineth: the ἤδη is the correlative of 
 the present παράγεται in the preceding sentence; the light 
 has already commenced its activity. This clause also is 
 altogether general and objective, — spoken without any 
 external or obvious reference to the readers. But when we 
 consider that, as the σκοτία comes to manifestation in the 
 κόσμος, so the light developes its energy in the βασιλεία 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ: and again, that the readers are supposed to be 
 ἐν φωτὶ περιπατοῦντες, living under the power of the light, 
 —it will be clear that these general statements also specifi- 
 cally indicate that the light appears in them, that they have 
 their portion in that love which is gathered up in the φῶς 
 ἀληθινόν. 
 
 How far this is the case, thus how far brotherly love can 
 be exhibited as the consequence of walking in light; that 
 is to say, further, how far the close of the eighth verse 
 demonstrates the beginning of it; and lastly, how far the 
 whole section results from the one sentence Θεὸς dds,— 
 is now the concluding question which requires summary 
 answer. The collective elements of the answer lie in the 
 words of the apostle. If Christ, namely, like God, is φῶς, 
 —if His walk was a walk in love,—it is clear that fellow- 
 ship with His light-nature is and must be fellowship with 
 His walk in love. What inwardly, in the subjects them- 
 selves, approves itself as ἀληθειω, shows itself outwardly in 
 relation to other subjects as ἀγώπη. 
 
 VERSES 9-11. 
 
 Ὃ λέγων ἐν τῷ φωτὶ εἶναι, καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῶν, 
 ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστὶν ἕως ἄρτι. “O ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, 
 ἐν τῷ φωτὶ μένει, καὶ σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν" ὁ δὲ 
 μισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστὶ, καὶ ἐν τῇ 
 σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ, καὶ οὐκ οἷδε ποῦ ὑπάγει, ὅτε ἡ σκοτία 
 ἐτύφλωσε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ. 
 
 The two verses just expounded correspond, in their rela- 
 tion to the whole, with the third verse of the chapter: in 
 both cases the matter of the sub-section is summed up com- 
 pendiously and placed at the head. The following verses, 
 from ver. 7 to ver. 9, correspond, on the one hand, to 
 
CHAP. 11. 9-11. 87 
 
 vers. 4, 5 within our second section; while, on the other 
 hand, they run parallel with ch. 1. 8-10. The thought 
 presented in the preceding words is now elucidated ; but in 
 the genuine Johannaean style, that of bringing out into 
 prominence the constituent elements involved in the ideas 
 themselves. We might well wonder that the apostle, after 
 he had preparatively spoken of brotherly love with such 
 solemn and plain emphasis, should now descend to the 
 terseness of simple dialectical disquisition about it. But it 
 is precisely here, where he has set the supreme beauty of 
 brotherly love before his readers in the preceding words, 
 that he now, with inexorable logic, asks the question, Art 
 thou of God or not? Hast thou attained this goal or not ? 
 The former of the verses is here also negative, as we have 
 found to be the case always. He who saith that he is in 
 the light—the expression is occasioned by the words going 
 just before, τὸ φῶς ἤδη φαίνει--πα does not love: this is _ 
 the first supposition. Fellowship with God, and with God 
 as light, is ever the final goal of all the apostle’s exhorta- 
 tions: hence this is placed here in the foreground. But 
 here this fellowship is only asserted: in very fact there is 
 hatred instead. The formal negation, μὴ ἀγαπᾶν, is dis- 
 placed in favour of the full positive expression μισεῖν. 
 Tertium non datur. Particularly in the case of brethren, 
 and in relation to them,—for that is the question here,— 
 indifference is utterly impossible. We may indeed speak 
 in common life of inclinations and dislikes, but these are 
 really nothing but stages of love or hatred not yet come to 
 their full development or into clear consciousness. Indeed, 
 the apostle does not speak of hatred in general, but of 
 the most fearful and unnatural hatred: that which has our 
 brethren for its object. The expression may refer to the 
 πλησίον, to every man; but also specifically to those who 
 with us are members of the body of Christ. Now, as the 
 apostle in what precedes had been exhorting us so to love 
 as Jesus loved ; as he almost expressly reminds us of the 
 feet-washing, and this, we know, referred, like the whole 
 section of the Gospel in which the ἐντολὴ καινή is the sub- 
 ject (ch. xili.—xvii.), to the disciples of Jesus in the strictest 
 
88 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 sense, we are constrained to limit the term “ brethren” to 
 the inmost circle of the Christian discipleship. But we 
 should expect here, as parallel with the corresponding verse 
 of the previous section, some such conclusion as ψεύστης 
 ἐστίν. Instead of this, the apostle lays down here, with 
 keen severity, the antithesis of the mere assertion of walking 
 in the light (ὁ λέγων) in the words ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστὶν ἕως 
 ἄρτι. The last words evidently have the emphasis. Even 
 yet: so much and so long as he nevertheless declares the 
 contrary ; or, probably with more correctness: even yet, 
 although the true light already shines and the darkness is 
 wearing away. 
 
 Now for the obverse of all this. He that loveth his 
 brother—here also, as in ch.i. 9, the direct antithesis is 
 not formally indicated, but to the feeling of the reader it 
 is thereby all the more emphatic—abideth in the light. 
 Assuredly this light is not kindled in him by brotherly 
 love; but this latter is itself the result of the εἶναι ἐν τῷ 
 φωτί. But as, in the natural life, life itself is the condition 
 of all living activities, and is then by these activities con- 
 firmed and strengthened, so it is in this case. Hence the 
 expression μένειν. By the side of this positive benediction 
 of the ἀγαπᾶν τοὺς ἀδελφούς there runs a negative: σκάν- 
 δαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν. But the question, very difficult 
 of decision, arises, whether the offence has for its object the 
 ἀγαπᾶν itself or the brethren,—that is, whether the believer 
 has no occasion of his own sin in himself, or is not to be 
 an occasion of sinning to his brother. There are weighty 
 reasons on both sides. In favour of the former is the 
 strong consideration, that throughout the whole section the 
 subject is how every individual is to secure his own salva- 
 tion, not how he may effect or influence his brethren’s. 
 And this view of it would yield a good meaning. As all 
 sin is egoism, he who in love walks as Christ walked has 
 no longer any impulse of sin within him ; every temptation 
 to sin is restrained by the habitual stream of love from 
 issuing in act. On the other hand, in favour of the second 
 meaning is the consistent usage of the New Testament, 
 which without exception regards σκάνδαλον as the offence 
 
 
 
CHAPS IL Ὁ 1 89 
 
 or cause of stumbling which may be put in the way of 
 others. And when we reflect with what solemn earnestness 
 our Lord, in St. Matthew and St. Luke, threatens those who 
 are the cause of offence, it is evident that in fact there is a 
 higher blessing in being exempt from cause of stumbling 
 in our fellow-Christians. And with this agrees our experi- 
 ence, that lovelessness on our part is wont to occasion sin 
 in others beyond anything else; and the doctrine of St. 
 Peter, that we by well-doing, or by expressions of love, 
 may stop the mouths of ignorant men. Consequently, we 
 may well temporarily decide for this latter interpretation, 
 without, however, being able positively to refute the other. _ 
 Just as in the second sub-section of the first section, the 
 second of our present one also consists of three clauses; 
 and the third (ver. 11) is here, as there, more full and more 
 forcible than the preceding ones. He that hateth his 
 brother not only zs in darkness,—that was also already in 
 the μένει of the ninth verse,—but the darkness rules all the 
 actions of his life, περιπατεῖ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ; and, forsooth, 
 as his way is wrapped in darkness, his goal also is hidden 
 from him, οὐκ οἷδε ποῦ ὑπάγει. Now, when a verb of 
 motion like ὑπάγειν is connected with a ποῦ, that is, with 
 an adverb of rest, corresponding to ἐν with a dative, two 
 points are made emphatic: as well the movement to an 
 end as also the result of it. And what is the goal to which 
 the hating man moves without knowing it? Generally, it 
 is quite right to explain that he knows not to what a depth 
 of sinful ruin he may be driven down by means of his 
 hatred. But it is simpler and more exact to take the 
 σκοτία itself as his goal. The persons in question say, and 
 that without conscious hypocrisy, that they are in the light ; 
 and precisely through this ignorance as to their own con- 
 dition, as to the way in which they are found, they are 
 blinded also as to the goal, which is again no other than 
 darkness. And how comes it that they so absolutely know 
 not this sure end of all? The same darkness hath blinded 
 their eyes. ᾿Οφθαλμός is not the “ natural power of appre- 
 hension,” the intellectual eye in the ordinary sense; but in 
 the New Testament style it is the organ by means of which 
 
90 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 man becomes susceptible to the powers of light and dark- 
 ness compassing him about, this being altogether distinct 
 from the mere understanding. According as it is determined 
 in its function by the one or the other, is the whole man 
 light or darkness. Finally, let us not fail to observe the 
 progression in the last three verses: ver. 9 has only one 
 predicate in the conclusion, ver. 10 has two, ver. 11 three. 
 
 VERSES 12-14. 
 
 Γράφω ὑμῖν, texvia, ὅτι ἀφέωνται ὑμῖν ai ἁμαρτίαι διὰ 
 τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. Τράφω ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν 
 ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς: γράφω ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι, ὅτι νενικήκατε τὸν 
 πονηρόν. Εγραψα ὑμῖν, παιδία, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν πατέρα. 
 Ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς" ἔγραψα 
 ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι, ὅτι ἰσχυροί ἐστε, καὶ ὁ λύγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν 
 ὑμῖν μένει, καὶ νενικήκατε τὸν πονηρόν. 
 
 The position of the three following verses in the organism 
 of the Epistle cannot be determined before we have exa- 
 mined their meaning somewhat in detail, and made it clear 
 to our minds. The apostle addresses himself to his readers 
 in a sixfold appeal; but the meaning of this depends in 
 some measure on the right reading in ver. 13. If the 
 Textus receptus in that verse is correct, γράφω ὑμῖν 
 παιδία, it is inevitably necessary to connect this γράφω 
 with the γράφω of the three previous clauses ; but in that 
 case the παιδία must, in contradistinction from the πατέρες 
 and νεανίσκοι of the two former members, be understood 
 of actual children, so that the apostle would be supposed 
 to address three several classes of age. But the external 
 evidence is very strong in favour of the other reading, 
 ἔγραψα ὑμῖν παιδία. In that case the clause no longer 
 belongs to the preceding, but to the following; and we have 
 three denominations of the readers in parallel and contrast: 
 on the one hand, τεκνία, πατέρες, and νεανίσκοι bound 
 together by γράφω; and, on the other hand, παιδία, 
 πατέρες, νεανίσκοι bound together by ἔγραψα. But then 
 it is further obvious that by παιδία and texvia children are 
 not meant in the sense of physical age; all the readers are 
 thus classed together as a whole, asin ch. ii. 1. The very 
 
CHAP, II. 19--14. 91 
 
 order seems at once to indicate this. If actual children 
 had been intended, the apostle would certainly have 
 arranged the terms in natural order, either advancing from 
 the youngest to the eldest, or taking the inverted line; but 
 to mention children first, then the fathers, and then again 
 young men, has in it something inharmonious. To this may 
 be added that, supposing children generally in physical age 
 to have been meant, the antithesis to the νεανίσκοι would 
 require us to think of little children; but neither were 
 these present in the Christian assembly, for which the 
 Epistle was primarily designed, nor can they be supposed 
 to have been in a position to understand the apostle’s 
 missive. Thus, then, the apostle addresses the whole church 
 twice in the first place, and then turns to the older and 
 ‘younger among them with special exhortation: whether 
 older and younger in a physical sense must be as yet left 
 undetermined. 
 
 Then, further, the sixfold ὅτι in the foreground requires 
 explanation: the question being whether it gives the matter 
 of the γράφω, or the reason assigned for it. The latter is 
 decidedly the right view. An emphatic assertion of the’ 
 good degree, the καλὸς βαθμός, which the church had _ pur- 
 chased to itself, is not the substance of the Epistle; nor 
 could it be such, unless the document had been meant to 
 be a letter of consolation against undue despondency, or an 
 epistle of commendation. But it is most manifestly neither 
 of these. So then we must take ὅτι as causative: pre- 
 cisely because the churches were in the enjoyment and in 
 the labour of faith, the apostle writes to them the letter 
 before us. He does not teach the elements of Christianity ; 
 but it is his design to lay the finishing touches on their 
 perfection, and bring to maturity the πλήρωσις of their 
 χαρά. 
 
 What the apostle says to the church as a whole in his 
 first clause, ver. 12,—that he writes to them under the 
 supposition that they were already partakers of the for- 
 giveness of sins—appears not to be in harmony with ch. 
 11. 1, 2, where he mentions this forgiveness of sins as the 
 object of his writing. In fact, this contradiction is the 
 
02 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 same as in the eighth verse, where the apostle lays that 
 down as an ἐντολή which he in the same breath acknow- 
 ledges they had already realized ; no other than what per- 
 vades the whole Epistle, which everywhere presupposes 
 Christianity in the hearers and yet teaches it. It is precisely 
 this relation, this substructure of the whole Epistle, which 
 explains why St. John writes nothing new, and yet writes 
 the old as being new: his presupposition and his object 
 are one and the same. And the forgiveness of sins’ he 
 presupposes more definitely as having been διὰ τὸ ὄνομα 
 αὐτοῦ. That the pronoun here refers to Christ, must be 
 taken for granted because of the διὰ cum accus., “on 
 account of.” But the name might generally be explained 
 as the revelation of His person, as the name which the 
 Lord by His deeds has made for Himself; but it may also 
 refer to that name of Christ of which mention had been 
 _ made, and the idea inherent in which was in the apostle’s 
 immediate memory, φῶς ἀληθινόν. The Lord, who is light, 
 and came to bring light into the world, has for the sake of 
 this His name vouchsafed us forgiveness. 
 
 If we have not missed the meaning of the texvia, as 
 referring, namely, to the whole church, it will be thereby 
 firmly established that the two specific utterances in regard 
 to the πατέρες and the νεανίσκοι are simply deductions 
 from the immediately preceding general clause. Now the 
 forgiveness of sin has two aspects: on the one hand, it pro- 
 duces a strong warfare against sin, and that in the order of 
 time is its first result; on the other hand, it assures a 
 deeper knowledge of the Saviour through whom so great a 
 ‘benefit has been obtained and is continuously appropriated. 
 This latter stage is not reached without some experience of 
 the Christian life; it is the point of contest with sin, and 
 therefore belongs rather, or belongs in a higher degree, to 
 
 1The form ἀφέωνται is grammatically difficult. But in Suidas, Htym. ex 
 Herodiano, gram. Bekk. 470, 15, there is for ἀφεῖκα a Doric and even Attic 
 form vouched, from which apedxauevand ἀφεωκέναι have sprung; similarly, 
 the Pass. in inscript. Arcad. in the imperative form ἀφεώσθω. ΑἸ] this leads 
 to the assumption of an extended form ἑόω instead of the common ἕω, against 
 
 the formation of which nothing can be grammatically urged. Comp. on the 
 passages quoted, Steph. 7168. I. p. 2662. 
 
CHAP, II. 12-14. 93 
 
 the later period of the Christian course. For, all knowledge 
 of the Lord which may be supposed to spring from any- 
 thing besides a warfare for the more and more perfect 
 appropriation of the redeeming work of Christ, would be 
 merely theoretic knowledge, and dead therefore in its rela- 
 tion to the true Christian life. The apostle here gives 
 prominence to this second aspect of the matter ; and the 
 reason is that he will begin with the fathers, who naturally 
 assumed the more important place in the Christian church 
 and in any allusion to its members. The expressions 
 πατέρες and νεανίσκοι must not be referred to merely 
 intellectual stages of advancement: the second of the words 
 will not allow this, as being entirely unsuitable. At the 
 same time, it may be naturally supposed that the elders, 
 who had of course occupied their place longer in the Chris- 
 tian church, and had more experience of life, were also 
 intellectually more mature than the younger. 
 
 When the apostle presupposes that the elders had known 
 τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, the connection requires us to understand 
 this of our Lord Christ alone. The strongest argument is 
 not that the first words of the Epistle, ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, as 
 also the beginning of the Gospel, contain similar descrip- 
 tions of the Son; but that the forgiveness of sins empha- 
 sized in the previous verse, διὰ τὸ ὄνομα Χριστοῦ, suggests 
 at once rather the knowledge of the Son than the knowledge 
 of the Father. The young men, on the contrary, have 
 overcome the wicked one; they have successfully withstood 
 his μεθοδείαις (Eph. vi. 11). The thought seems to enter 
 here without any point of connection and unprepared for. 
 Forgiveness of sins had been mentioned in the first chapter 
 and in the beginning of the second: what, however, of the 
 πονηρός and the victory over him? But when we come 
 to remember that the σκοτία, as in antithesis to the light, 
 was a prominent idea in the previous paragraphs, and that 
 it is this wicked one who has the ἐξουσία tod σκότους, we 
 shall not after all find the present mention of him so 
 _entirely isolated. That this victory over the enemy is 
 described in the perfect tense, is not to be regarded as 
 meaning that the victory was determined or finally settled 
 
94 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 ~ and ended: it simply draws a conclusion from the already 
 past life of the young men. 
 
 With the third member of the thirteenth verse the second 
 triad of addresses begins. The most striking difference we 
 encounter is the changed ἔγραψα; which is all the more 
 important a difference because of the general similarity in 
 the contents of the two triads. The essentially identical 
 substance of the two sub-sections makes it evident that the 
 apostle’s aim is to lay down in the most emphatic way 
 possible the general fact of the Christian life and of the 
 Christian knowledge in the churches. Hence it seems at 
 once obvious to take the repetition of the verb in the sense 
 
 ~ of confirmation or additional assurance, in some distant 
 analogy with the ὃ γέγραφα γέγραφα, John xix. 22: “I 
 write unto you, and I assert it again that for these reasons 
 I write to you;” essentially if not formally the same 
 repetition is presented here as in Phil. iv. 4, χαίρετε, πάλιν 
 ἐρῶ χαίρετε. But after all, this only accounts for the simple 
 repetition generally, and does not explain the preterite form 
 of the verb. We do not read, as we might expect, γράφω 
 καὶ πάλιν γράφω. It is hardly admissible to refer the 
 preterite to the first part of the Epistle now finished, and 
 the preceding present to the whole of the Epistle itself,— 
 _ “I write unto you generally for these reasons, and for them 
 have specially written the previous words,’—because, first, 
 the perfect γέγραφα would have been the more obvious 
 form, and secondly, we should naturally expect the order to 
 -be inverted: “I have written what precedes_under this 
 _— presupposition, as indeed my whole Epistle proceeds from 
 it.” Nor will it help the case to refer the ἔγραψα to 
 earlier writings of St. John, such as the Gospel; for in that 
 case there would certainly have been some such appendage 
 as “I write to you now, as I have written to you before.” 
 Nothing remains, then, but that we refer as well the ἔγραψα 
 as the γράφω to the entire Epistle lying before us ; in which 
 case the great point is to determine why at one moment 
 the apostle regards his writing as a matter of the present, 
 and the next moment views it aoristically. 
 Now there is certainly a good reason for this, if the 
 
 | 
 
CHAP. II. 19--14. 95 
 
 writer’s purpose is to reassert what he had said in the 
 γράφω for the sake or in the service of some particular 
 application. This distinctive application must then be 
 sought in what immediately follows. The meaning would 
 be: “I write to you on the ground of your Christian 
 estate; as first said, J have been induced to write for this 
 reason, and hence the strong injunction which I must 
 address to you, μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον, ver. 15. That, 
 in fact, those following words of injunction did rest upon 
 the presupposition of their Christian character needs no 
 proof; for vers. 15 seq. themselves assert the conclusion 
 that the love of the world and the love of God cannot 
 co-exist or tolerate each other. It might be objected that 
 this “and hence,” which we have supplied in ver. 15, 
 stands not in the text. But when we find in three conse- 
 cutive sentences the reasons given so emphatically for μὴ 
 ἀγαπᾶν τὸν κόσμον, there seems no strict necessity to 
 express formally the causal relation. After ver. 14 we 
 have thus to insert a colon; before ver. 1809 not only a 
 point, but a period, the close of a sub-section. “I have 
 written or wrote unto you, as I have said, only on the 
 supposition of your fellowship with the light, of your 
 victory over the darkness :—love not the world, for other- 
 wise (ver. 15) you discredit and shame my supposition.” 
 In the present γράφω the apostle has in view the passing 
 act in which he is engaged; in the aorist ἔγραψα the 
 Epistle is in his mind represented as finished; he speaks 
 historically of the intellectual conception of the Epistle 
 which preceded the actual performance of the writing. 
 Because the conception of it was perfected, and in fact its 
 realization half accomplished, the apostle could speak of 
 his letter as of an historical fact; that he actually does so 
 speak has this for its reason, that his writing rests upon the 
 presupposition that his readers will follow his exhortation, 
 μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον. Because his letter was produced 
 by these express presuppositions, the churches must on 
 that very account answer to them. To sum up all: the 
 preterite form has for its reason this, that the following 
 injunction is presented as the necessary result of the ex- 
 
96 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 pectations and presuppositions which lie at the basis of 
 the Epistle. 
 
 In this way the course of thought pursued in the portion 
 of that Epistle now closed reaches the conclusion which the 
 unity of its structure would lead us to expect. Ch. 1. 6-10 
 corresponds most exactly in its construction with ch. ii. 
 3-11; but for ch. 1. 1-2 we find no parallel member 
 remaining. From quite a different point of view, we have 
 come to the conviction that this parallel member is to be 
 found here: it in fact consists of ch. ii, 12-13). The 
 most important difference between these two parallels is 
 this, that ch. 11. 1, 2 recapitulates only one half of its 
 theme in the arrangement; while, on the other hand, ch. 
 1. 6, 12-130 not only brings in the other half, but also 
 winds up the two previous sections, though its form is 
 specifically determined by the second of them. With this 
 parallel relation of the two periods the γράφω beginning 
 each of them, ver. 1 and ver. 12, and the address to the 
 church in τεκνία common to the two, agree. Both recapi- 
 tulations or resumptions give prominence to the forgiveness 
 of sins, but in a different way: the former makes it an end 
 te be attained, the latter makes it the basis or reason of the 
 apostle’s writing. We have already seen that the difference 
 is only an apparent one; but that the form in ver. 12 is 
 determined and occasioned by the thought expressed in 
 ver. 8. The two clauses which enter into detail, ver. 13a 
 and ὦ, answer admirably to the resuming purpose of the 
 period. The γνῶσις is in ch. 11. 3 the first fundamental 
 thought of the second sub-section; hence it is taken up 
 again, not, however, as the knowledge of the Father, as in 
 ch. ii. 3, but as that of the Son, for throughout ch. 11. 6 seq. 
 the knowledge of God has been specifically defined as the 
 knowledge of Christ. And the idea of the victory over the 
 wicked one is contained, ch. ii. 8, in the clause ἡ σκοτία 
 παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς ἤδη φαίνει, which, to those who know 
 the Gospel of St. John, includes the notion of a contest 
 between light and darkness, God and Satan. 
 
 Thus with the ἔγραψα of ver. 196 there begins an 
 altogether new section of the Epistle, which first of all 
 
CHAP. II. 12-14. 97 
 
 resumes the presuppositions of the apostle uttered at the 
 close of the first part, in order to carry them onwards to 
 further uses. But, after the Johannaean manner, this 
 resumption takes place not in exactly the same words. 
 In the place of the forgiveness of sins, which was 
 attributed to the church as a whole in ver. 12, comes in 
 here the knowledge of the Father. When we mark that 
 in the section commenced with these words the χρίσμα 
 from God, and the knowledge of the truth thus guaranteed, 
 forms the conclusive particular in the apostle’s argumenta- 
 tion, that the whole subject is the separation from the 
 antichrists, and the marks by which they are to be 
 known, it is very evident why the apostle describes fellow- 
 ship with God under the precise aspect of the knowledge_of 
 the Father. This knowledge of the Father falls in ver. 14 
 again into two elements: the knowledge of the Son, and 
 victory over the evil one. Like the forgiveness of sins, the 
 knowledge of God also has two sides, one more theoretic 
 and the other more practical; yet so that the former is the. 
 foundation or presupposal of the latter. The latter is the~ 
 conflict against sin resting upon the knowledge of the 
 good and holy will of God; and it is pre-eminently ascribed 
 to the young men. They are, in virtue of their knowledge 
 of God, or, more strictly, in virtue of their living insight 
 into His nature as light, ἰσχυροί: the knowledge that 
 they stand not alone, but that the strength of the light © 
 works in them, and on them, and for them, makes them 
 strong; further, the λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ abides in them, the 
 living and effectual message of Jesus Christ and about 
 Jesus Christ, the concrete substance of the γνῶσις τοῦ 
 πατρός, has found a place in them; and, finally, through 
 this divine power, which lies in the divine word, they have 
 maintained a victorious contest against the darkness and 
 its prince. On the other hand, the γνῶσις τοῦ πατρός has 
 also a more theoretical side; the repose of age and the 
 experience of the Christian life have matured this in the 
 fathers. They have known τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, that is, accord- 
 ing to the explanation already given, the Son of God. The 
 general fellowship with God, with the light, is specialized 
 1 JOHN. G 
 
; 
 
 98 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 into fellowship with the Saviour; he who knoweth God 
 knoweth Him in His Son, who has said, “He that hath 
 seen Me hath seen the Father.” 
 
 VERSE 15. 
 
 My ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον, μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ" ἐάν τις 
 ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ. 
 
 Vers. 130, 14 have laid the foundation of what now 
 follows. The apostle has written only on the presup- 
 position of their estate of Christian life and knowledge as 
 just described: thus results for the churches the require- 
 ment to correspond with this presupposition; and this can 
 be only through their absolute abnegation of the power of 
 darkness and withdrawal from it. Hitherto the apostle 
 has spoken positively on the whole; the negative clauses 
 have been introduced only for the clearing of the thought. 
 But now the order is inverted. No longer is the nature of 
 κοινωνία τοῦ φωτός the matter of his theme, but the nature 
 of the oxotia. Now, in order to warn them against all 
 
 __and every fellowship with darkness, the author exhibits in 
 
 concreto the form in which the darkness presents itself, 
 where its kingdom is to be found, and therefore against 
 what the Christ has to defend Himself. Hence, in the 
 place of the more abstract and general idea of darkness, 
 comes in the more concrete idea of the κόσμος, which is 
 then again resolved into its elements and further developed. 
 Σκοτία and κόσμος have the same substantial contents ; 
 
 but, while σκοτία is the animating principle, κόσμος is the 
 Β gp μ 
 
 domain in which this principle works ; and they are related 
 to each other as the soul and the body; the κόσμος 
 becomes κόσμος through the cxoréa manifesting itself in it. 
 Everything, however, is subjected to the power of darkness 
 which generally is on earth, so far as it has not been 
 renewed by grace; thus not only the world of mankind 
 belongs to the κόσμος ; the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός, which is 
 presently mentioned as an element of the κόσμος, does not 
 always spring absolutely from man; the whole region of 
 created things, as described in Gen. i. 2 seq., is subjected 
 to sin, But, on the other hand, mankind belongs also to 
 
CHAP. II. 15. 99 
 
 the κόσμος, because mankind is absolutely and throughout 
 entangled in sin. The counterpart of the κόσμος, as the 
 kingdom of darkness, is that of the light, the βασιλεία τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ, the limits of which in the divine ordination and its. 
 final goal are precisely the same as those of the Kdopes, | 
 that is to say, the whole domain of the creation. 
 
 Thus between κόσμος and βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ there is 
 precisely the same relation as there is in a narrower sphere 
 between two similar antitheses or counterparts. Σῶμα, to 
 wit, is a vox media, the corporeity of man purely of itself, 
 apart from the power dominating in it. But σάρξ is that 
 σῶμω so far as it is thoroughly penetrated and swayed by 
 sinful powers; so far as it is, on the other hand, filled with 
 divine energies, it is called a new or glorified body. Just 
 so in regard to our present counterpart ideas. The vow 
 media, which here corresponds to the σῶμα, is ἡ γῆ καὶ τὸ 
 πλήρωμα αὐτῆς, Ps. xxiv., the κτίσις, Rom. viii. 19. So 
 far as this sum of created things is interpenetrated and 
 swayed by the powers of darkness, it is called κόσμος: so 
 far as it is, on the other hand, filled and animated by 
 divine energies, it is called the new heaven and the new 
 earth. 
 
 With the injunction not to love τὸν κόσμον is connected 
 the further injunction not to love τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. Two 
 explanations may be given of this. It were most obvious 
 to understand by it the objects present in the world, the 
 things which collectively make up the idea of the κόσμος. 
 But that would involve tautology. If it was the apostle’s 
 mind to make emphatic that we should love neither the 
 world in general nor anything in particular belonging it, 
 the expression chosen would not have been appropriate 
 for that thought; instead of τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, it ought to 
 have been μηδὲν τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, or something like it. 
 However, the following verse makes it quite impossible to 
 understand by τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ the particular objects 
 existing in the world. That is to say, when ver. 16 
 begins with πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, it is manifest that this 
 expression is equivalent to our τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ: what in 
 the one case is comprehended in the neuter plural is in the 
 
100 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 second case reduced to unity by the wav. But when we 
 read, further, that the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός and τῶν 
 ὀφθαλμῶν, as also the ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου, are the πᾶν τὸ 
 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, we have given to us a fingerpost for the true 
 interpretation of our expression, Those three terms are 
 obviously not individual objects in the world, but the 
 ethical quality adherent to those objects. It is true that 
 ἐπιθυμία might express not the desire itself, but by 
 metonymy the objects of the desire; yet the addition 
 τῆς σαρκός, and still more τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν, demands the 
 former meaning; and certainly ἀλαζονεία can only be 
 referred to an ethical subjective quality. Accordingly, we 
 are not permitted to interpret the πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, 
 and by consequence τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, of the objects which 
 constitute the κόσμος. ΑΒ in the expression, “that which 
 is in man,” we may understand not merely the individual 
 attributes that are found in him, but also the characteristic 
 quality which marks and expresses his whole life and 
 nature; so also in our expression, “that which is in the 
 world,” we may understand the element that makes the 
 world to be world, its fundamental determination and 
 inmost nature. And this idea, as it comes owt of the con- 
 text, admirably fits into the context. That which makes 
 the world into the κόσμος, with the New Testament 
 meaning, is not any one object in it, but the sinful power 
 inhering in all and pervading its collective whole. Thus 
 the apostle says: Love not the world, the whole circle of 
 objects comprised in it; and also love not—the μηδέ is thus 
 as often ascensive in meaning—that which is in the world 
 as its kernel and pith. The appended clause brings out 
 and makes prominent that which makes the love of the ᾿ 
 world sin. 
 
 Before, however, St. John more closely in ver. 16 defines 
 and specifies the general phrase τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, he indicates 
 in the second half of ver. 15 how it is that the love of the 
 world cannot. accord with the presupposition of a Christian 
 walk which gave him his reason for writing,—that is to say, 
 because the love of the world and the love of God are 
 absolutely incompatible. He says, ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός : for 
 
CHAP. II. 16. LOW 
 
 internal reasons we may decide against the reading Θεοῦ. 
 This, indeed, appears at the first glance better to correspond 
 with the general word κόσμος, and therefore was by some 
 transcriber involuntarily substituted for the πατρός, which 
 seemed to him without any point of connection. But, in 
 fact, ver. 14 itself, as the fundamental beginning of one 
 section, sprang from the ἐγνωκέναι τὸν πατέρα, and it is 
 with allusion to that the apostle here resumes this word: 
 “the fellowship in which I supposed you to exist ye do 
 not then possess; and my letter does not at all apply to 
 you.” Moreover, this reference back to the fundamental 
 idea of ver. 14 establishes clearly that the ἀγάπη τοῦ 
 πατρός here does not denote the love of God to us, but our 
 love to God. 
 
 VERSE 16. 
 
 “Ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐν TO κόσμῳ, ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκὸς, καὶ ἡ 
 ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου, οὐκ 
 ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, GAN ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστί. 
 
 Very noteworthy and strictly Johannaean is the method 
 of establishing the thought thus uttered, with which is at 
 the same time connected a further explanation ‘of the idea 
 Ta ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. The former takes the form of an em- 
 phatic repetition of what had been said, while the conse- 
 quences involved in the matter itself are now brought out 
 more tersely. This is the apostle’s genuine method of 
 demonstration. When we closely examine the thoughts 
 themselves, we find that, first of all, he specifies the con- 
 tents of πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ by the three definitions 
 already mentioned, ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός, ἐπιθυμία τῶν 
 ὀφθαλμῶν, ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου. In the form we have a 
 trichotomy, which, however, resolves itself into two parts, 
 as the ἐπιθυμία is developed in two directions. The 
 relation of the ἀλαζονεία to the ἐπιθυμία is easily per- 
 ceptible: the latter presupposes a want, the former a 
 possession ; they are related as the desire for enjoyment, 
 and the enjoyment of what is desired, but in such a way | 
 that the egoistic element is prominent. The ἀλαζονεία 
 is not enjoyment in itself, but as connected with proud 
 
102 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 contempt for others; and, in harmony with this, the 
 ἐπιθυμία is not desiring in itself, but the desiring of what 
 does not belong to me, the envying of others for the sake 
 of self, though this may be an unconscious sentiment. J 
 will have, and I as in contrast with others (ἀλαζονεία). 
 
 But not ἐπιθυμία and ἀλαζονεία alone are spoken of: 
 they take a definite form. The desire is partly that of the 
 _ flesh, partly that of the eyes. It is obvious that the eyes 
 refer rather to an intellectual, psychical element of enjoy- 
 ment; the flesh rather to enjoyment in the physical 
 domain. With this it is connected that the flesh seeks 
 rather active enjoyments, in which it is itself not merely 
 the means of that enjoyment, but also the subject that 
 enjoys; while the eye can only take up objects external 
 and alien, and is viewed only as the medium of enjoyment. 
 “Active and therefore more sensual, passive and therefore 
 more psychical, enjoyments are thus distinguished by the 
 apostle. A similar isolating specification of the eye, which, 
 however, one might say is already subjoined under the 
 notion of σάρξ, but by which it gains a more independent 
 position, we find in Matt. vi. 22. There the eye is set 
 over against the whole body ; and in such a way that its 
 characteristic quality conditions that of the whole body. 
 But this view of the matter is here, in conformity with the 
 connection, left altogether out of view. 
 
 Similarly, the term dAafovela is more closely defined by 
 the genitive tod Biov. St. John uses this word only once 
 more, ch. 111. 17, but in both passages, as throughout the 
 New Testament, with definite distinction from fw. That 
 is to say, like the verb βιόω of 1 Pet. iv. 2,—a ἅπαξ 
 λεγόμενον in the New Testament,—the noun signifies only 
 the external life of man as belonging to the material world, 
 which is sustained by eating and drinking; on the other 
 hand, the ζωή refers ever to the personality of life, the 
 spiritual being of the man, thus forming a contrast to Bios: 
 passages such as Luke xii. 15, xvi. 25, 1 Cor. xv. 9, and 
 Jas. iv. 14, are no exceptions to this rule. But both βίος 
 and ζωή occur, each in its several sphere as just indicated, 
 with a twofold reference. As ζω now describes the 
 
CHAP. II. 16. 103 
 
 natural personal life, and now that life as filled with the 
 divine eternal life ; so βίος is sometimes used generally of 
 the natural life in itself, and sometimes of the powers which 
 fill and sustain it,—that is, of the sustentation of life. In 
 ch. iii 17 it is to be understood without doubt in the 
 latter sense: how here, is a question. The passage of 
 this same Epistle just mentioned would recommend us to 
 attach to it here the same narrower meaning; but, on the 
 other hand, there is nothing in this passage to indicate 
 such a restriction, while such a restriction of the idea is 
 not in harmony with the context, which points to the 
 widest possible interpretation. Not only rich nourishment, 
 but all the good of the present external life, high position, 
 money, honour, and the like, give sustentation to the. 
 ἀλαζονεία. But the word Bios is chosen, because the life 
 of the natural man is after all only a purely external life. 
 As the natural man is called σάρξ, although he has also 
 the natural human spirit, because the flesh has the 
 dominion, and even the most seemingly spiritual interests 
 stand in the long run under the empire of corporeity im- 
 pregnated with sin; so the whole life is here called Bios, 
 because the pride and exultation in honour, personal con- 
 sideration, and other apparently spiritual things, are in 
 reality nothing but the same hanging on and cleaving to 
 the things of the created, material world, although in 
 another form. As selfishness may sometimes deny itself, 
 and postpone its pleasure, and appear as self-renunciation ; 
 so the ἀλαζονεία may sometimes assume the forms of a 
 higher life, although it fundamentally springs from the 
 σάρξ and its life, the Bios. Now this double desire and 
 this pride are said to be πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. Or may 
 they be only examples of what is in the world, individual 
 examples of the πᾶν in the beginning of the verse? In 
 favour of this it may be said that the dependence on false 
 teachers, presently spoken of, certainly belongs to the 
 κόσμος; while yet it cannot be dovetailed into the 
 specimens here adduced. But that would be unsound 
 argument. For the anti-Christian nature is not inde- 
 pendent of the ἀλαζονεία and the ἐπιθυμία; it is only the 
 
104 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 concrete form into which these run, and it grows out of 
 them directly. All else that may be mentioned is only the 
 development of these germs. 
 
 But that we may exhibit in all their clearness the 
 thoughts of the apostle, we must once more return and 
 fasten our thought upon the idea of the κόσμος. We have 
 seen that the creation and all it contains is not of itself 
 called κόσμος, but only as it is determined by sin and 
 impregnated by sinful forces. This sinful characteristic 
 
 “does not inhere in itself, but it becomes partaker of it 
 through the fact that man makes it the instrument of his 
 sin. Hence also its nature and essence is presented as a 
 subjective one; the ὀφθαλμοί and σάρξ which desire belong 
 to man, and the βίος is the sphere in which the man 
 absorbs that from the earthly creation which he had taken 
 into his service, and has consequently also a subjective side. 
 But in any case, the desire and the pride itself which 
 proceeds from the eyes, the flesh, the life, is absolutely and 
 altogether something subjective. Accordingly, the proper 
 
 ground and substance of the idea κόσμος lie not in the 
 things of the world, but in man, who uses them. But 
 when, on the other hand, it is said that this desire and this 
 pride are ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, the opposite seems to hold good ; 
 sin seems to be transferred to created things, and from them 
 sinful desires and sinful pride seem to take their rise, and 
 come into men. And this view we find elsewhere in 
 Scripture. In Rom. viii. 19, 20, ματαιότης is ascribed to 
 the irrational creature, which longs to be freed from it, 
 and a δουλεία τῆς φθορᾶς under which it groans. And 
 this, like much else in the Scriptures of the Old and the 
 New Testaments, leads us to the thought of a change or 
 
 «depravation of the creature through sin. The world, which 
 stood in no original contact with evil, is not only depraved 
 by man in individual cases, or in virtue of specific sinful 
 acts, but, as the originally sinless body of man was not 
 only made into the organ of sin, but in consequence of sin 
 evil so penetrated and pervaded it that it on its side also 
 influences and makes sinful the spiritual life of man; so 
 also the whole earthly creation has been drawn into the 
 
CHAP. II. 17... 105 
 
 kingdom of darkness, and exercises now a depraving in- 
 fluence on man, who had previously corrupted it. Man 
 originally, or, more specifically, the flesh and the eye, lusted, 
 and he perverted the creature to the service of pride; 
 as the result of this, the world is so pervaded with sin, that 
 out of itself now the lust that covets it and the provoca- 
 tion to pride proceed. The ἐπιθυμία and ἀλαζονεία, which 
 originally sprang from man, now proceed from the world, 
 and thereby it becomes in the scriptural sense the κόσμος ; 
 thereby all that is the τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, the evil principle 
 filling the creature, may be said to come ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. 
 And it is this very thing that it is the apostle’s purpose to 
 emphasize in one verse: he has said in the verse preceding 
 that love to the world and to that which is in it, as its 
 moving principle, cannot consist with the love of God. 
 The evidence thus lies in the progression from that which 
 is ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ to the ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. The difference of 
 origin between love of God and love of the world affirms 
 and establishes the all-pervading and ineffaceable oppo- 
 sition between the two for all time and for all stages of 
 development, 
 
 VERSE 17. 
 
 Καὶ ὁ κόσμος παράγεται, καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ" ὁ δὲ 
 ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 
 
 The thought is assuredly carried onward by the intro- 
 duction of a new element in ver. 17 ; but it is questionable 
 whether the idea of ver. 16 or that of ver. 15 is developed 
 further. If that of ver. 16, then we have here a second 
 reason given for ver. 15: the love of God and the love of 
 the world cannot agree together, because, first (ver. 16), 
 their origin is diametrically opposite ; because, secondly 
 (ver. 17), their end is equally diverse. Nevertheless, it 
 seems more appropriate to regard it as developing ver. 15; , 
 love not the world (ver. 15a) ; for, first (vers. 150, 16), the | 
 love of the world is incompatible with the love of God ; 
 and, secondly (ver. 17), ye would, loving it, perish with the 
 world, while obedience towards God brings eternal life as ὺ" 
 its result. The παράγεσθαι, which is here asserted con- 
 
100 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 cerning the world, is not absolutely identical with that 
 which in ver. 8 is predicated of the σκοτία, although 
 κόσμος and σκοτία are, as we have seen, equivalent ideas, 
 It was said in that verse that in the present state the 
 darkness is, in virtue of the appearance of the true light, 
 in process of passing away ; this, therefore, is a fact stated. 
 But here it is asserted that the world in itself pertains 
 to transitoriness, and this denotes an internal quality or 
 characteristic. That which turns away from the light is 
 on that account devoted to inevitable ruin; for only the 
 φῶς is the ζωὴ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. But this germ of death, 
 existing in it potentially from the beginning, comes into 
 actuality when the light strikes upon it with its full power ; 
 for, as it produces life where the germs of life are, so ite 
 produces death where they are not. 
 
 And with the world passes away also its essential nature, 
 ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ. This, in harmony with the connection, 
 does not mean the desire towards the world, but the 
 desire resting or abiding in the world, and constituting its 
 signature and mark. How it is in very deed the nature of 
 the world appears most clearly from the antithesis, the 
 ποιεῖν TO θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ. The lust here is the life 
 creaturely which makes itself independent. According to 
 the original divine ordinance, there should be no individual 
 desire personal to self, no knowledge or will of our own, 
 but only a will responsive to what God wills. Hence the 
 idea, θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, does not by any means enter here 
 without introduction ; it is the necessary antithesis of the 
 ἐπιθυμία after the creaturely life which would constitute 
 itself independent. But with the world its own desire must 
 cease. That is precisely the condemnation, that the possi- 
 bility of sinning ceases because the material of its activity 
 is taken away from sin; and so, the θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ not 
 being the power of life in the man, his existence becomes 
 a fearful waste, devoid of all substantial contents. But it 
 is far otherwise if the divine will has become my will; 
 because the willing of God is infinite, an inexhaustible 
 spring of ever new invigoration and confirmation of life, 
 consequently to the life of the man who makes God’s will 
 
CHAP. II. 18. 107 
 
 his own there is given an infinite matter, a never-ceasing 
 series of aims and problems; and therefore he μένει εἰς τὸν 
 αἰῶνα. There is hardly another example of the trans- 
 formation of Greek ideas by Christianity equally suggestive 
 with that given by the word αἰών. While the Hebrew 
 Doi, translated, as is well known, by this αἰών, signifies at 
 least, in its proper original meaning, the dark futurity, lost 
 in the distance, αἰών originally referred simply to the 
 limited and definitely measured continuance of a certain 
 period (aevum). The New Testament has not only given it 
 the meaning of a long continuance,—a meaning it had 
 obtained also in classical Greek,—but it has used it to 
 express the idea of timelessness. 
 
 As in the previous section of the Epistle, ch. 1. 3-11, 
 the apostle adopts the course of starting from altogether 
 general ideas (at ἐντολαὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ), and then lighting on 
 the specific commandment of brotherly love, so also it is 
 here. In what immediately precedes he has treated of the 
 κόσμος as the opposite generally to the kingdom of light ; 
 he now passes over to the development and potentiality 
 which the κόσμος has received in consequence of the 
 appearance of the φῶς adnOAwvdv,—that is to say, he pro- 
 ceeds to the expression of anti-Christianity. For most 
 certainly the light has, according to ch. ii. 8, the power to 
 bring about the passing away of darkness ; but that takes 
 place only through the fact that first of all the κόσμος 
 developes its enmity to the light to the utmost extreme, 
 and reveals itself as perfectly dark. As sin becomes 
 through the law exceeding sinful, or sin in reality, so the 
 darkness becomes truly dark through the contrast to the 
 perfect light. It is precisely through its own internal 
 development and energizing that the darkness in very truth 
 puts an end to itself. 
 
 VERSE 18. 
 
 Παιδία, ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστί: καὶ, καθὼς ἠκούσατε ὅτι ὁ 
 ᾿Αντίχριστος ἔρχεται, καὶ νῦν ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ γεγό- 
 νασιν" ὅθεν γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν. 
 
 This is the general relation of the following verses 
 
108 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 to those which precede. They are closely attached to 
 ver. 17. The exhortation to keep themselves unspotted 
 from the world is all the more urgent, because the final 
 decision and separation is immediately before the door. 
 And this thought of the solemnity of the time, which 
 makes it doubly necessary μὴ ἀγαπᾶν τὸν κόσμον, Moves 
 the apostle with all the vehemence of his love to appeal to 
 the churches ; hence the repeated address, παιδία. 
 
 “Tt is the last hour.’ What is it this expression would 
 say? "Eoydtn ὥρα is not a phrase current in the New 
 Testament, though with the same meaning we have ἔσχαται 
 ἡμέραι, Acts xi. 17, 2 Tim. iii. 11, Jas. v. 3; or ἔσχατον 
 τῶν ἡμερῶν, Heb. 1. 1, Jude 18, 2 Pet. iii. 3, as well as 
 καιρὸς ἔσχατος, 1 Pet. i. 3. These expressions correspond 
 collectively to the Old Testament phrase D293 NMS, as 
 partly a comparison of the Septuagint, partly the quotation 
 in Acts ii. 17, will show ; but it is the expression ἔσχατον 
 τῶν ἡμερῶν which formally and most exactly answers to 
 the Hebrew. The precise meaning which the phrase in 
 question bears is very various, no doubt, when understood 
 in concreto. Whilst in Gen. xlix. the taking possession of 
 the promised land is indicated by the end of the days, the 
 same expression in Mie. iv. and Isa. 11. points to the time 
 of Christ’s first manifestation, and in 1 Pet. i. 5 it refers to 
 eternity. This variety of interpretation must be explained 
 by the fact that Holy Scripture everywhere knows only a 
 dichotomy in this matter of times: the period of the intro- 
 ductory preparations of salvation and that of its consum- 
 mation. The latter is in the Old Testament denoted by 
 DY NMS. 
 
 Now, every new period, every important event in the 
 history of the kingdom of God, contains a new germ of final 
 development, a marked progress towards the end. When 
 the eye looks into the future, those new potencies in that 
 future strike it first which are not yet contained in the 
 present, and in consequence of which it believes that with 
 the new period the final development will enter. If the 
 predicted period has actually come, then to those who live 
 in it the new elements, the germs of development, recede 
 
CHAP, II. 18. 109 
 
 further into the future, and the imperfect and unaccom- 
 plished which still lingers in it assumes its worst form and 
 in the clearest light. And hence the new period will come 
 to be reckoned in with the first of the two halves of time, 
 and the 0%2°3 NHS will retire back into the futurity. Both 
 views have accordingly their full justification. Every age, 
 looked at from the past, belongs to the end; looked at 
 from the present, it belongs to the beginning. The present 
 has never an eye for the procedures and gradual growth of 
 things in the time following; it has no eye but for the 
 unity of the future end. The manifoldness in this distant 
 goal, which is to be unfolded in sequences of events, is 
 hidden from its view. So Jacob beholds the possession of 
 the holy land and the future of the Messiah in one great 
 picture: to him both belong to the ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις. 
 When the land was laid waste, the germ which was in that 
 fulfilment receded further, and the development of the end 
 passed into a later futurity. Thus the earlier prophet 
 beheld deliverance from the captivity as one with the final 
 deliverance through the Messiah; and though it was re- 
 vealed to Daniel how long was the interval between these, 
 the entire prophecy of the Old Testament, down to Malachi 
 and even the time of Christ, nevertheless combined together 
 in one vision the incarnation of God and the coming to 
 judgment, the 872) 9173 DY of Mal. iv. as the O97 NNN, 
 
 It must not seem strange, then, if, in harmony with all 
 this, the New Testament peRhes further back the ἔσχαται 
 ἡμέραι, and understands them of the second appearance of 
 Christ. This is decisively the case in 1 Pet. i. 5, where the 
 future glorification is assigned to the καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ, where 
 also the present epoch is reckoned as the first. But in the 
 other New Testament places the idea of the ἔσχατον τῶν 
 ἡμερῶν appears to us to depart more widely from that of 
 the Old Testament. That is to say, because in the Old 
 Testament the entire eschatology, the immortality of the 
 soul, and so forth, retired far back, so also did that of eter- 
 nity, and of the endless development of the world. But 
 the more clearly the ζωὴ αἰώνιος was unfolded to Christians, 
 the less adequate was to them the use of the phrase ἔσχαται 
 
110 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 ἡμέραι to express the infinite fulness of what was in their 
 expectation; the endlessness of an eternal life would no 
 longer be fitly described by the definition, “end of the 
 times.” To this concurred also, that the view of the Old 
 Testament, just indicated, to the effect that the 0.0 NOs 
 would come in with a mighty break in the passing away of 
 heaven and earth, was brought forward both by the eschato- 
 logical discourses of our Lord and the explanations of the 
 apostles into the foreground; and that therefore it must 
 have appeared far more befitting to describe the 830 poiy as 
 a new beginning, instead of the end, as was natural in the 
 Old Testament. Hence, while the ὉΠ NOS in the Old 
 Testament was equivalent to 820 Doiy, it becomes in the 
 New Testament, for the reasons assigned, a constituent 
 element of the viv αἰών, and that as its last period, its last 
 stage of development. In this way we can explain such 
 passages as 2 Tim. iii. 1, 2 Pet. 111. 3, Jude 18, easily and 
 without violence. They speak of the stage of development 
 which precedes the αἰὼν μέλλων. 
 
 But in our present passage and in Jas. v. 3 there is this 
 peculiarity, that the apostolical period itself—not any as 
 yet future epoch—is described as the ἐσχάτη ὥρα, or, what 
 is substantially the same, as ἔσχαται ἡμέραι; and even Heb. 
 i. 1 seems to belong to the same category, where the ἔσχατον 
 TOV ἡμερῶν τούτων, that is, τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, begins at 
 once with the incarnation of Christ. This introduced the 
 concluding epoch of the present world; when it runs out 
 there does not enter a new epoch, but the αἰὼν μέλλων, 
 the second great half of time, that of fulfilment; of all the 
 stages that prepare for this, the present is regarded as the 
 last. And in fact this view has been hitherto corroborated 
 by experience: from the manifestation of Christ down to 
 the present day there is running out a great epoch which 
 will not reach its end but with the ἀποκατάστασις πάντων. 
 
 But this does not exhaust the meaning of the expression 
 in our passage. For when we consider carefully with what 
 sedulity the apostle here makes prominent the end of the 
 world as the motive of his exhortations, how he intensifies and 
 sharpens the usual phrase ἔσχαται ἡμέραν into ἐσχάτη ὥρα, 
 
CHAP. II. 18. afte 
 
 we are at once penetrated by the feeling that he beholds 
 this last preparatory fraction as hastening to its end, and 
 the final catastrophe as impending,—in other words, that 
 he, like St. Paul, as we well know, expected within brief 
 limits the end of the world. Nor can we say that this was 
 an error which he himself corrected in the composition of 
 the Apocalypse, showing there as he does how much was 
 to take place before the Lord’s return; for, notwithstanding 
 these its contents, the book introduces the final and defini- 
 tive utterance of Christ to this plain effect, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. 
 Accordingly, we also must confront the much-agitated ques- 
 tion, how an apostle, who had like St. John so deeply 
 penetrated into the process of development of the kingdom 
 of God, could nevertheless cling to such a view as this ? 
 For the solution of this difficulty it is necessary, before 
 all things, not to lose sight of the fact that the Scripture 
 has for the process of the times a standard of measure- 
 ment different from ours: it measures them not by their 
 length, but according to their weight and importance; not 
 according to their external matter, but according to their in- 
 ternal meaning. Expressions like those now before us can 
 be understood only when we interpret them according to the 
 canon of 2 Pet. iii. 8, μία ἡμέρα παρὰ κυρίῳ ὡς ἔτη χίλια 
 καὶ χίλια ἔτη ὡς ἡμέρα μία. But that tells us no other 
 than this, that in the divine estimation one day may wrap 
 up in itself a thousand human years, and the converse. 
 Now if, with the Scripture, we measure time by its contents, 
 it is clear that the essential meaning of no epoch has been 
 so perfectly condensed into its beginning as that of the epoch 
 in which we live, and which had its commencement with 
 the manifestation of Christ. With the substance of the 
 Gospels, the life of the Lord, and the outpouring of His 
 Spirit, its essential and proper meaning and substance were 
 already given. According to the adduced passage of the 
 second Epistle of St. Peter, objective hindrances to the 
 coming of the world’s end are no longer present; but 
 through Christ’s appearance the world is already ripe for it. 
 Only the ἀνοχή of God protracts the last hour, deferring it 
 to a later and later period; and precisely because every 
 
113 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 moment has in it the possibility of the end, and only the 
 long-suffering of God, unaccountable to every other, makes 
 the finger of the dial go more slowly, no man knows in 
 heaven or earth the day and the hour of the end. 
 
 But if this be so, it is the true Christian and apostolical 
 wisdom to keep before our keen vision this possibility, we 
 might even say this objective probability, of the judgment 
 of the world. The end of all things will judge concerning 
 the good as concerning the evil; both must therefore have 
 found their full development. The former took place with 
 Christ's manifestation; but the latter also: the power of 
 distinction had reached its climax in the τέκνοις τῆς ἀπει- 
 θείας, as the rising up of the ἀντίχριστοι proved. This was 
 to the apostle the sign of the approaching end; now was he 
 assured that the axe was already laid at the root of the tree. 
 Its development was quite complete: the fruits might indeed 
 ripen more and more, but no new fruits would yet spring 
 forth. Thus there may be, to speak with the Apocalypse, 
 silence for half an hour, or, according to human measure- 
 ment, of half an eternity: potentially the development is 
 consummated ; at any moment both Christ and Antichrist 
 may appear, and the decisive stroke may follow the placing 
 of the axe at the root of the tree. All peoples and indi- 
 viduals who have become Christians since the apostle wrote 
 this, all the developments of the Christian church, are but 
 the growth and ripening of germs then present, with nothing 
 new superadded. Thus we have two things in the present 
 verse, according to the explanation given: one is that we 
 stand in the last period before the ωἰὼν μέλλων ; and the 
 other, that it is already advanced to the top of its develop- 
 ment, and therefore hastens to its end. And both are true. 
 
 As the token by which the readers may know the time, 
 the antichrists are expressly mentioned. They had heard 
 of the Antichrist as of a unity; but they may see the anti- 
 christs as a plurality. It is a question how these expres- 
 sions are related to each other: whether ὁ ἀντίχριστος is 
 ες an ideal combination of many antichrists which in concrete 
 form will never show himself; or whether of ἀντίχριστοι are 
 only the forerunners of that one whose near coming their 
 
CHAP. IT. 18, ΠῚ Ὁ 
 
 appearance foreannounced. When we first of all examine 
 what our own Epistle affords for the decision of this 
 question, we see that the four passages which mention 
 Antichrist (1 John ii. 18 and 22, iv. 3, 2 John 7) con- 
 tain no irrefragable argument on the one side or the other. 
 For if, first of all, in our passage the πολλοὶ ἀντίχριστοι 
 are supposed to furnish demonstration that the last hour 
 was at hand or come, then, indeed, it is possible to argue 
 that in them “the Antichrist,” the anti-Christian nature, 
 had manifested itself, and that therefore there was no further 
 individual to be expected who should exhibit personally 
 the might of anti-Christianity. On the other hand, the 
 apostle may have meant to say: “As we already see many 
 antichrists in vigorous activity, we thereby discern that 
 the scene is fully prepared for the appearance of the one 
 personal Antichrist. In these he is foreshadowed and pre- 
 dicted ; and we have therefore entered on the period of his 
 manifestation, into the last hour.’ In fact, not only are 
 both interpretations possible, but there is literally nothing 
 in this passage of ours which suggests anything for or 
 against either distinctively. The same may be said of ver. 22. 
 There the characteristic of Antichrist is declared to be the 
 denial of the Father and of the Son; and it is evident that 
 such a characteristic was manifested fully and clearly in 
 those antichrists. But beyond this nothing is said as to 
 whether or not all the rays of enmity against the kingdom 
 of God may hereafter be concentrated and reflected from 
 one individual: the words do not exclude the possibility ; 
 the necessity, however, they do not include. In ch. iv. 3 
 Antichrist is described as the spirit of negation; there all 
 pertain to Antichrist who deny the incarnate Son of God; — 
 and anti-Christianity is pre-eminently a principle. But 
 neither does this passage absolutely shut out the possibility 
 that one man, surpassing all the forms in which the anti- 
 Christian element has been manifested, and summing up 
 in himself the whole power of darkness, may hereafter 
 appear,—that is, that the personal Antichrist may come. 
 Finally, in 2 John 7 it is said that the denial of the incar- 
 nation is the token of the deceiver and of the Antichrist, it 
 1 JOHN. H 
 
114 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 having been just before said explicitly that many become 
 guilty of that great sin of denial: hence it is clear that 
 Antichrist primarily was understood to signify a principle, 
 that of unbelief, and not an individual person. Wherever 
 this principle exists, there is Antichrist. But is the thought 
 thereby excluded, that this principle may hereafter be 
 embodied in one person after such a manner that all earlier 
 forms of manifestation shall be thrust into the background, 
 so that this one individual might be designated ὁ ἀντί- 
 χρίστος in the same way as, for instance, Christ Himself 
 was called ὁ προφήτης Thus we may confidently assert 
 that, on the ground of Johannaean passages alone, we should 
 not be constrained to expect a personal Antichrist ; but 
 rather that the apostle, especially in the last two passages 
 quoted above, understands, and would have us understand, 
 by ὁ ἀντίχριστος the personified anti-Christian principle 
 working in all the variety of its individual manifestations. 
 But should we have other reasons for assuming that such 
 an individual person is to be looked for hereafter, there is 
 certainly nothing in the passages written by St. John to 
 contradict such an expectation: collectively, they allow the 
 possibility of assuming, together with the preliminary reflec- 
 tions of the anti-Christian spirit, a yet future and final 
 personal consummation of them all. 
 
 Further, there is an argument against the theory of a 
 concentration of anti-Christianity in one person in the very 
 diverse pictures which Scripture sketches of the final des- 
 tination, and which on a first glance at least seem hardly 
 compatible with a living individualization in one person. 
 For, while in our Epistle anti-Christianity bears a theo- 
 logical character, resting upon a denial of the incarnation of 
 God in Christ, and as such originating within the church 
 itself (ἐξῆλθον ἐξ ἡμῶν, ver. 19), in the Apocalypse it dis- 
 tinctly assumes a twofold physiognomy: one, that of the 
 many-headed beast, that is, of the God-opposed power of 
 the world, which is established in direct contradiction to 
 Christianity ; and the other, that of the beast like a lamb, 
 which corresponds to pseudo- prophecy, and thus has 
 some affinity with the anti-Christianity of our passage. 
 
CHAP. II. 18. 11 
 
 While one of these beasts goes forth from the world, the 
 other goes forth from the church. All this seems plainly 
 to indicate two totally distinct forms of the corruption, 
 which could hardly be combined in one person. 
 
 But when we compare 2 Thess. ii. the matter assumes 
 another aspect. It is obvious that St. Paul borrowed the 
 colours of his description from the prophet Daniel; and we 
 must accordingly think of his man of sin as, according to 
 the analogy of Daniel, a worldly potentate. It is equally 
 plain that he speaks, on the other hand, of a great ἀπο- 
 στασία out of which the son of perdition should emerge ; 
 and that leads at once to a corruption within the Christian 
 church: the enemy sitteth in the temple of God, and as 
 God exacts worship, which points at least in a pseudo- 
 prophetic direction. The two diverse presentations of the 
 beast in the Apocalypse are thus combined by St. Paul 
 into one sole picture; and the Apocalypse itself gives us a 
 hint how that comes to pass when it says, ch. xiii. 15, ἐδόθη 
 αὐτῷ (that is, to the beast representing pseudo-prophecy) 
 δοῦναι πνεῦμα TH εἰκόνι τοῦ θηρίου, ἵνα Kai λαλήσῃ ἡ εἰκὼν 
 τοῦ θηρίου. According to this, the hostile ungodly power of 
 the world receives the spirit of pseudo-prophecy opposed to 
 God ; and it is not until then—that is, until both forms of 
 opposition are united in one—that this enmity is raised to 
 its highest form of activity. But again, 2 Thess. ii. is so 
 constructed that we can hardly escape the conviction that 
 it speaks of an individual in whom the ἀποστασία should 
 be consummated. To this all the expressions used by St. 
 Paul point; in the other case the singular would not be 
 constantly used as it is; but the real multiplicity lying at 
 the base of it would somewhere appear, as it does, for 
 instance, in St. John, who in fact has primarily a principle 
 in view. 
 
 With all this perfectly corresponds the fact, which the 
 Scripture gives us to discern in the ways of God, that every 
 principle is finally presented in its concentration in one 
 person. As the “ ideal righteous man” of the Old Testament 
 is not a mere abstraction, finding its full realization only 
 in the sum of all the individual righteous, but in Him whom 
 
116 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIN. 
 
 our Epistle, ch. 11. 2, terms δίκαιος κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν finds its 
 concrete and full manifestation; as the 717 72 is not only 
 the type and ideal of a true servant of God, but has found 
 its final concrete realization in Christ: so also the power of 
 darkness will have its climax in a person who will fulfil all 
 that has been predicted concerning Antichrist. 
 
 We have felt it necessary briefly to indicate the true 
 doctrine of Antichrist, because a new question attaches 
 itself here to the subject. If, to wit, a personal Antichrist 
 is yet to be expected, and if, moreover, St. John must have 
 known this and would have it known, the reason must 
 needs be assigned why he altogether keeps out of his 
 Epistle this view of the case, and, after the single mention 
 of ὁ ἀντίχριστος, which did not positively require it, yet at 
 once occupies himself with the πολλοὶ ἀντίχριστοι generally, 
 with anti-Christianity as a principle. But the reason of 
 this it is not hard to discover. That a personal Antichrist 
 was to be expected, had its importance to Christianity at 
 that time only so far as the end of all things was not 
 immediately impending, this being proved by his appear- 
 ance not having yet taken place. It is with this signi- 
 ficance that St. Paul alludes to it, in order to obviate 
 misconceptions as to the approaching and instant end of 
 the world. But our apostle follows an altogether different 
 line, having a different end in view: it is his purpose to 
 show not the distance, but the nearness of the world’s 
 consummation ; and therefore he could not make prominent 
 what was yet to take place, but must point out that all had 
 taken place which was previously to take place. Hence 
 he says nothing about the concentration of evil still in the 
 future, but dwells on the fact that the antichrists already 
 existing foreannounce that highest climax. Prominence 
 given to Antichrist as one person might well have produced 
 a relaxing effect: there is time enough to be in deep 
 earnest about perfect holiness until we see him come. But 
 the conclusion, that τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀδικίας ἤδη ἐνεργεῖ- 
 ται, is a strong exhortation to the utmost possible holy 
 earnestness. Now, as the apostle must, according to the 
 design of this Epistle, have felt himself moved to give pro- 
 
CHAP. 11. 18. ay 
 
 minence to this latter aspect, so it is in harmony with his 
 general habit, instead of placing the final consummation of 
 the evil in contrast with its present imperfectness, rather 
 to place in a strong light the germs of that consummation 
 already appearing in the present. Thus we find it in his 
 Gospel, and with specific reference to the final judgement. 
 When our Lord, in ch. v. 25, says, ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ viv ἔστι 
 ὅτι οἱ νεκροὶ ἀκούσονται τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ Tod Θεοῦ καὶ 
 ζήσονται, He by no means refers only to the bodily raising 
 of the dead which He accomplished during His life, but to 
 the internal judgment which already takes place in virtue 
 of His manifestation. So also when, in ch. iii. 17 seq., He 
 makes it emphatic that the unbeliever is not to be judged 
 first when he stands before the bar, but that he is already 
 because of his unbelief condemned. 
 
 The apostle terms the great enemy of the Lord and His 
 principle ἀντίχριστος. Now it is certain that in the earlier 
 classical Greek most compounds with ἀντί signify not 
 merely an opponent of the idea contained in the simple 
 noun, but such an opponent as would fain make himself 
 also what the simple noun means, and be so termed him- 
 self. ᾿Αντιβασιλεύς is not the enemy of ἃ king, but a 
 king who declares himself the enemy of another king; 
 ἀντιπαλαιστής is not the opponent of a wrestler, but a 
 wrestler who contests the place of another wrestler. 
 Accordingly, ἀντίχριστος would not be a mere enemy of 
 Christ, but such an opponent as himself claims to take the 
 place of Christ. Thus the term ἀντίχριστος would be an 
 equivalent of the ψευδόχριστοι of whom the Lord speaks 
 in Matt. xxiv.; and it would be in strict accordance with 
 this that in 2 Thess. ii. the man of sin puts himself in the 
 temple of God, that he might be worshipped in the place 
 of God, or, as we should say here, in the place of Christ 
 But if this applies very well to the one personal Antichrist, 
 it does not apply to the many antichrists of whom St. John 
 here speaks. These, so far as we know, never made pre- 
 tension to be honoured equally with Christ; nor does the 
 mark of the anti-Christian spirit, which is laid down in 
 ver. 22 and ch. iv. 3, agree with it, for that was only the 
 
118 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 denial of Christ, and therefore enmity to His person. Now 
 the usage above referred to does not hinder our taking 
 ἀντίχριστος also in its wider meaning of an opponent of 
 Christ; for that usage refers only to substantives, and 
 there is no reason why ἀντίχριστος should not be taken as 
 an adjective. Thus, as ἀντίθυρος means that which is over 
 against the door, so would ἀντίχριστος mean anti-Christian, 
 that which is set in opposition to Christ. In precisely the 
 same way is ἀντιβάρβαρος constructed. 
 
 That the name Antichrist occurs only in St. John has this 
 eround, that this apostle regards him specifically as the 
 opponent of Christ, as is seen in ch. iv. 3, 2 John 7, 
 ἀρνούμενος ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐληλυθότα ἐν σαρκί, while St. 
 Paul emphasizes his enmity against everything divine, and 
 more general names, such as ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, sug- 
 gested themselves more obviously to him. In fact, these are 
 only diverse aspects of the same thing differently presented 
 here and there. St. John’s description helps us, moreover, 
 in the examination of the course of thought in our passage. 
 In what preceded, the exhortation was to preserve them- 
 selves unspotted from the world as the general sum and 
 substance of the spirit contrary to God; here, the apostle 
 proceeds onward to a warning against the specific embodi- 
 ment of the κόσμος in anti-Christianity. The beast has 
 become one with the pseudo-prophecy. 
 
 Concerning the coming of Antichrist—and after what 
 has been said, we must think here of the personal Anti- 
 christ,—the church had already heard. But from whom ? 
 It has been usual to refer at once to the passage in the 
 Thessalonians so often quoted. But though it is not 
 improbable that, at the time when St. John wrote, that 
 Epistle had already found its way into Asia Minor, yet this 
 allusion is rendered doubtful by the consideration that in 
 such a case the apostle would have kept closer to the 
 Pauline expression. Still less tolerable is the reference to 
 Daniel; for the figure the prophet draws of the man of sin 
 traces other features than those which here come into view. 
 Thus we are led to assume that the words point to certain 
 instructions given by St. John himself or by other teachers 
 
CHAP. II, 19. 119 
 
 to the churches concerning the eschatological discourses 
 of Christ, and especially those about the ψευδόχριστοι 
 and ψευδοπροφῆται in Matt. xxiv. They had. heard that 
 Antichrist cometh ; and by the previous words, ἐσχάτη dpa 
 ἐστίν, as well as by the matter itself, it had been more closely 
 defined that he would appear in the last age. At the 
 same time, then, that they knew the coming of Antichrist, 
 and indeed his coming ἐν ἐσχάτῃ ὥρᾳ, they also see καὶ 
 νῦν many antichrists: the «ai refers to the congruence of 
 the then present. time with the time for which the Anti- 
 christ was presented prominently to their view. And since 
 there were so many of them already, this was all the more 
 plain an indication that the last hour had actually struck ; 
 that the anti-Christian principle had already attained to 
 its mighty energy. For the rest, we have probably in the 
 words of the apostle a subtle indication of the fact that he 
 did not in the πολλοῖς ἀντιχρίστοις already contemplate 
 the one Antichrist, but only the preparation for his appear- 
 ance. If he had meant the former, he would have used 
 some such words as ἠκούσατε, ὅτι ὁ ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται, 
 νῦν δὲ καὶ πολλοὶ ἀντίχριστοι yeyovacw,—that is, in the 
 many the prophecy was abundantly fulfilled—not one alone, 
 but many had appeared. But inasmuch as he does not 
 admit into his words this intensifying sense, he points to 
 the idea that the many antichrists were not an intensifica- 
 tion, but rather a diminution of the one Antichrist. 
 
 VERSE 19. 
 
 "EE ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν" εἰ yap ἦσαν 
 ἐξ ἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν: ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν, 
 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶ πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν. 
 
 The warning to Christians to be on their guard against 
 this enemy was all the more needful, because the antichrists 
 came forth from the bosom of the church itself: on the one 
 hand, it is evident how these Christians might themselves 
 be entangled in their corruption; and on the other hand, 
 their earlier connection with these men suggested the 
 danger of their being willing to remain in fellowship with 
 them notwithstanding their anti-Christian spirit. There is 
 
120 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIIN. 
 
 fa peculiarly painful feeling breathed in the words of this 
 nineteenth verse. If to any men the apostle’s appeal in 
 ch. iv. 16 applied, that they were not to be prayed for, 
 “It might appear that these antichrists were the people. 
 Nevertheless, he manifestly looks upon them with sorrow- 
 ful sympathy, with the same sympathy which we observe 
 in our Lord when He remembers in His high-priestly 
 prayer the υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας. The antichrists, like Judas 
 their type, had once been in another relation to the church 
 of Christ: ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν. This may be understood in 
 the sense of exierunt, but also in the sense of prodierunt ; 
 either that they left us, or that they sprang up in our midst. 
 The former view is distinctly opposed by the following 
 ἀλλά, It would be an illogical thought that they have 
 separated from us, but they were not of us: we should 
 have expected in that case a yap. This conjunctive 
 ‘requires us to take ἐξῆλθαν, as in Acts xv. 24, in the 
 sense of origination: prodierunt a nobis. They have 
 indeed gone out from among us, they stand in historical 
 connection with us, but οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν ; inwardly they 
 have always been estranged from us; for if they ever 
 had belonged to us, they would not have been able to 
 leave us. He who goes back into the world has never 
 perfectly broken with the world. It follows from what is 
 said here, that not the denial, but the renunciation of 
 Christianity is the essential nature of Antichrist: the light 
 has come upon him, has touched him, but ἡ σκοτία οὐ 
 κατέλαβεν αὐτός With a brachylogical turn the apostle 
 goes on: ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῶσι ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶ πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν. 
 The ἀλλά is most easily supplemented by ταῦτα γέγονεν ; 
 and this ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα is not unusual with St. John: compare 
 John xiii, 18, xv. 25; but not John xiv. 31, where the 
 close of the verse ἐγείρεσθε x.7.X. is not to be separated 
 from the preceding, as in the Test. rec, by a point, but 
 forms the main sentence belonging to ἀλλά. The apostle 
 says that it was the divine purpose that the anti-Christian 
 spirit which clung to the church should in the course of 
 time be revealed, should be made known as such, and thus 
 the congregation be cleansed from it. The divine purpose is 
 
CHAP. II. 19. 121 
 
 represented as seen only in the φανερωθῆναι, and not in 
 the existence of the anti-Christian element itself. Pre- 
 destinarian theories can be no more extracted from the 
 sentence than they can be refuted by it; for, in fact, such 
 questions are altogether out of the scope of the passage. 
 The presentation of the design is here entirely the same as 
 in the words of the Shainin (Ps. li. 6): “YY Pra wn 
 yaa Agim 1213 Pay ip, David there does not by any 
 means attribute his being evil to any determination of 
 God, but the doing of sin, the expression of his interior 
 evil. The meaning is, that if I had not fallen into any of 
 these courses of wickedness, and Thou hadst nevertheless 
 punished me, that would have been perfectly righteous ; 
 for only the expressions of my evil nature would have been 
 wanting, because the opportunity was wanting; myself 
 would then have been as evil as I am now. But my 
 punishment would then have had the semblance of injustice, 
 because my sin would have been perfectly known only to 
 myself, and not to another. But now hast Thou let me 
 fall into dreadful guilt, Thou hast let my heart’s evil be 
 brought to light, that Thy judgment might be seen to be 
 righteous.. Thus, in the psalmist’s words, not the being 
 evil, but the manifestation of the evil was brought into act 
 by God. So itis also here. It is not regarded as God’s 
 work that the antichrists were such as they were, but they 
 unfolded their character as such; that the mask was with- 
 drawn, and thus they were proved never to have belonged | 
 to the church. Thus the divine purpose in this clause 
 refers not to the οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν, but to their manifest 
 appearance and exhibition as antichrists, ver. 18. Formally, 
 indeed, the telic clause is not constructed with exactness: 
 the πάντες is embarrassing. The author does not mean to 
 say that not all anti-Christians are ἐξ ἡμῶν : that would 
 have been awkward, as they certainly are all of them not 
 ἐξ ἡμῶν ; but that these anti-Christian elements demonstrate 
 that not all Christians are ἐξ ἡμῶν. The two ideas that 
 all the antichrists are not, and that Christians are not all, 
 belonging to the Christian church, are packed together into 
 one, as often happens in ordinary phrase. Here it is with 
 
122 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIN. 
 
 ease explained if we assume that St. John, like St. Paul, 
 was in the habit of dictating his Epistles. 
 
 VERSE 20. 
 
 What the apostle now suddenly says of the χρίσμα of 
 Christians seems to be in no immediate connection with 
 what precedes. For if we should suppose the intention to 
 be that of setting the true nature of Christians in contrast 
 with that of the antichrists, we should expect the con- 
 junction δέ instead of καί It is obvious that the thought 
 entering the context with ver. 20, that the Christian church 
 possesses the χρίσμα and knows all things, is not a subor- 
 dinate one, but introduces the whole of the ensuing disserta- 
 tion. It will therefore be necessary to examine if we can 
 find an element in the following context for which ver. 20 
 will be the simple preparation, and which in itself stands 
 in organic connection with the statements made concerning 
 the antichrists. The last idea prominently in our minds 
 was that these antichrists had not remained in the church, 
 but had separated from it. Now, that would obviously 
 suggest the same exhortation or appeal which Christ uttered 
 when, John vi. 66, many went no longer with Him: μὴ 
 | καὶ ὑμεῖς θέλετε ὑπάγειν, ---ἰο wit, that at least the remainder 
 _ are and will be faithful to the Lord’s fellowship. And this 
 “idea of the μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ is palpably the very nerve of the 
 entire remainder of the chapter. In ver. 24 it comes for- 
 ward in all its strength and emphasis; in ver. 27 it is 
 taken up again. The whole section is concerned with 
 exhortation to Christians to keep themselves apart from 
 the world; this is then rendered more specific as a re- 
 quirement to guard themselves against antichrists, for the 
 sin of Christian men leads immediately not only to the 
 unchristian, but also to the anti-Christian spirit and life. 
 But, as the essence of the spirit of the antichrists is 
 apostasy or infidelity, the negative injunction to be on 
 ‘cuard against them slides naturally round into the positive 
 one of maintaining their faithfulness. He, however, who 
 would maintain his fidelity must before all things know 
 what that infidelity is by which faithfulness is wounded. 
 
CHAP. IT. 20. ioe 
 
 This is the lie; every lie greater or less. Such knowledge 
 the readers have, the apostle tells them in vers. 20, 21, in 
 virtue of the anointing of which they have been made 
 partakers. The last words of ver. 21, πᾶν ψεῦδος οὐκ 
 ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας, form the pith of the verses before us, 
 vers. 20, 21: for the sake of them these were written, and 
 they themselves, on the other hand, form a point of con- 
 nection with what ensues. Thus we gain tle following 
 train of thought. Ye see the antichrists, whose principle 
 is infidelity, acting out their nature (vers. 18,19). Ye know 
 further (our resolution of the order takes away any tempta- 
 tion to assign to the καί of the beginning of ver. 20 an 
 adversative meaning; it rather introduces an actual and 
 simple progression), in virtue of the anointing which ye 
 have, that πᾶν ψεῦδος excludes from the kingdom of God 
 the lie in any and every form, because it (ver. 21) is in 
 the issue always a denial and renunciation of the Son of 
 God. Ye, then, who are by the supposition of your anoint- 
 ing in a satisfactory condition to discern anti-Christian error, 
 will assuredly avoid that error and approve your fidelity. 
 Thus the whole section is lightened up, and vindicates for 
 itself a simple but sure and orderly course of thought. 
 The passage from ver. 20 to ver. 23 thus primarily indicates 
 that the Christian church is in a position to discern and 
 detect anti-Christian error down to its most subtle ramifi- 
 cation. This it is by virtue of the χρίσμα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου. 
 
 VERSE 20. 
 
 Καὶ ὑμεῖς χρίσμα ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου, καὶ oldate πάντα: 
 
 This idea rests of course upon the ceremony of anointing, 
 everywhere so’ common in the Old Testament. It is well 
 known that in Hebrew the word is rendered in two ways, 
 by 71D and by ΠΕ: the former signifies always merely | 
 outward anointing, and for common uses; the latter is the 
 unction as a symbol of religious consecration. So also the 
 Septuagint has two words to reproduce the two Hebrew 
 terms respectively, ὠλείφειν and χρίειν. It is generally 
 said that the former corresponds always to the 73D, and the 
 latter to the v2, This is certainly not exact, nor is it 
 
124 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST, JOHN. 
 
 absolutely and at all points borne out by an induction of 
 instances. For, although we may not lay much stress on ° 
 the fact that in Ezek. xvi. 9 73D is translated by χρίειν, 
 inasmuch as the translator might there have had in his 
 mind a religious anointing, we find, on the one hand, 
 ἀλείφειν used in Ex. xl. 15 of religious anointing, and, on 
 the other, χρίειν used in 2 Sam. i. 21 of the anointing of a 
 shield for the sake of greater smoothness, and thus without 
 any concomitant religious idea (the similar anointing of the 
 shield in Isa, xxi. 5 is ἑτοιμάζειν) ; as also classical Greek 
 uses ἀλείφειν and χρίειν promiscuously and interchangeably. 
 Appeal may be made to Ex. xl. 15, and it may be said that 
 there the translator had in view only the external act of 
 anointing; but when we find in the same verse, and con- 
 cerning the same anointing, yp/ew afterwards employed, it 
 is very obvious to infer that the distinction observed in the 
 Hebrew is not carried out thoroughly by the translation. 
 But, notwithstanding these individual exceptions, it remains 
 true that on the whole χρίειν is used for religious anointing 
 as such. 
 
 As to the substantives depending on the verb, χρίσμα is 
 the only one used in the New Testament, and there only 
 three times in this Epistle: the Septuagint has in connection 
 with it χρίσις also. These last, however, have not quite 
 the same signification: ἔλαιον χρίσεως is the oil with which 
 T anoint ; ἔλαιον χρίσματος, the oil with which I am anointed. 
 Xpiocpa, absolutely used, thus signifies (compare with our 
 passage Ex. xxx. 25, ἔλαιον χρίσμα ἅγιον) that with which 
 we are anointed, or the oil of anointing. 
 
 If we pass from the application of the word to the mean- 
 ing of the symbol, we are met by the expositors who point 
 for the explanation of our passage to 1 Pet. 11. 9, βασίλειον 
 ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιόν ἐστε, as if the χρίσμα signified the 
 dignity and elevation of the Christian estate. But this ex- 
 position does not accord with the train of thought. How 
 should the apostle, without any point of connection, without 
 any bearing on what precedes or what follows, make such 
 an allusion as this? Moreover, it is plain that, according 
 to the close of this verse, the knowledge of the truth is the 
 
CHAP. II. 90. 195 
 
 subject treated of. Then it was neither the priestly nor 
 the kingly, but the prophetic vocation of Christians that 
 was involved; and the prophetic vocation is precisely that 
 which could not be distinguished by the term χρίσμα. 
 For, in the Old Testament, while priests and kings were 
 anointed, prophets were not anointed. We find indeed the 
 word once in 1 Kings xix. 16, where Elisha’s institution to 
 the prophetic office is referred to. But when we observe 
 that in the succeeding very full narrative of the calling of 
 Elisha, not a syllable of allusion to anointing occurs, and 
 when we bear in mind that nowhere else and under no 
 circumstances do we hear of prophets being anointed, we 
 shall be disposed to prefer explaining the Nv in the cited 
 passage as a breviloquence, or summary way of describing. 
 The Lord commands that two kings be anointed, and thus 
 consecrated to their office; when Elisha is mentioned, we 
 have to eliminate from the anointing its peculiar idea of 
 consecration and take that alone, understanding the expres- 
 sion as figurative. This one passage being cleared away, 
 we have no shadow of right to refer the χρίσμα of this 
 verse to the prophetic dignity or position of Christians. 
 
 We must rather make our starting-point the fact, that in 
 the Old Testament not only persons, but things also—for 
 instance, altars—were anointed. This, together with the 
 connection which the Pentateuch loves to establish between 
 anointing and ἁγιάζειν, shows that the anointing generally 
 signifies the separation from profane or common to religious 
 use. Accordingly the exposition will need to be modified 
 by the thought that the anointing signifies the reception of 
 the Holy Ghost. Certainly, in Isa. lxi. 1 this element is 
 expressly declared ; but it is obvious that neither altars nor 
 vessels might receive the Spirit. This symbol was the 
 preparation for the feasts; the oil pertained to the expres- 
 sion of festal and elevated feeling; hence in times of 
 lamentation it was omitted. It is in such a meaning that) 
 the idea occurs in Matt. vi. 17. As a result of this, every- 
 thing was anointed which was brought out of the profane 
 and common world into fellowship with God. The funda- 
 mental meaning of the unction is that an object is withdrawn 
 
120 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 from the domain of creaturely life, and is supposed to enter 
 into sacred relation with God. At the stone which Jacob 
 anointed, the Supreme revealed Himself to him; and it was 
 marked out by him with oil as the place of that manifesta- 
 tion. The anointed altar was thereby declared to be a 
 sacred spot at which God would enter into union with men, 
 and place them through sacrifice in union with Himself. 
 
 Now, if persons are anointed, or separated from profane 
 life to the service and to the revelation of God, that must 
 assuredly take place through this, that the Holy Spirit of 
 God works in them; and in such cases the anointing was 
 the symbol of the impartation of the Spirit; but it is such 
 only as a consequence of the fundamental idea of separa- 
 tion from common use; the fundamental meaning is always 
 ‘the same; and χρίειν is thus the symbolical expression for 
 ἁγιάζειν. And in this passage of ours, that expression is 
 to be understood as taken precisely in this sense. Un- 
 doubtedly, of course, the χρίσμα is here used for the 
 reception of the Holy Ghost; for the εἰδέναι πάντα, εἰδέναι 
 τὴν adr Geav, the derivation of the anointing unction from 
 the Holy One, the resulting μένειν ἐν adté,—all this, too 
 surely to leave any doubt, reminds us of the Lord’s expla- 
 nation touching the Paraclete whom He would send, whose 
 ‘office would be ὁδηγεῖν εἰς πάσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, John 
 xvi. 13, whose proceeding from the Father and the Son is 
 there taught, and who is the bond of the μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ. 
 But, on the other hand, all that does not make it clear 
 why St. John should describe the Holy Ghost precisely 
 here as χρίσμα; for the mere similarity of sound between 
 it and ἀντίχριστος would be, after all, an altogether too 
 external reason. 
 
 It is quite otherwise if we firmly hold fast the idea that 
 separation from the profane is the real meaning of the 
 symbol. The apostle is speaking pre-eminently of the 
 separation of Christians from the world, especially from 
 the world in its most perilous form as anti-Christianity. 
 That separation was already accomplished in the church; 
 through their participation in the Spirit they had been set 
 apart from everything ungodly and opposed to God; and 
 
CHAP, 11. 91. ΤΟΝ 
 
 this significance of the bestowment of the Holy Ghost He 
 imprints on their souls by the descriptive χρίσμα. This 
 separation was given them as their portion ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου. 
 When we observe that the χρίσμα is to form the antithesis 
 to the anti-Christian spirit, and therefore to the renunciation 
 of Christ, not of the Father, we shall see fit to understand 
 the ἅγιος here of the Son and not of the Father. He 
 who Himself was indeed in the world, but yet not of the 
 world, has also defended His own that they should not be 
 mingled again with the world, John xvii. 16 seq. The 
 whole contents of the high-priestly prayer generally gives 
 sufficient confirmation of the truth of this exposition. 
 What is here figuratively expressed by the χρίσμα is there 
 expressed by the literal ἁγιάζειν. And as here the being 
 released out of the lie through the knowing of the truth is 
 regarded as the matter of the χρίσμα, so there the ἀλήθεια 
 is the sphere in which the anointed are ἡγιασμένοι. 
 
 VERSE 21. 
 
 Οὐκ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλ᾽ 
 ὅτι οἴδατε αὐτὴν, καὶ ὅτι πᾶν ψεῦδος ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας 
 οὐκ ἔστι. 
 
 For it is not only as matter of fact that the church, 
 through the anointing of the Spirit, is severed from the 
 world to God: it is such also theoretically and in point οἵ. 
 knowledge. They know through the Spirit’s power how to 
 distinguish truth itself from error: οἴδατε πάντα, the apostle | 
 adds. And what is first as to the form laid down as πάντα, . 
 is now as to the matter defined as ἀλήθεια: the latter is 
 the concrete substance of the πάντα ; it gives the quality 
 and meaning of the εἰδέναι, as πάντα gives its range and 
 comprehension. When studying ch. i. 6 we recognised the ~ 
 ἀλήθεια to mean the collective fulness of all real being 
 which dwells in God, as the πλήρωμα τοῦ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν 
 πληρουμένου. So it is here; because Christians have the 
 χρίσμα, and are brought over out of the world into the 
 fellowship of God and His kingdom, therefore they also 
 have a certain knowledge of all things that are in that 
 divine kingdom and have to do with it; they know the - 
 
128 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 fulness of its possessions, with the powers and energies that 
 work in it; and all this together is the ἀλήθεια. And 
 indeed they know all things, and therefore πᾶσαν τὴν 
 ἀλήθειαν ; because in the Spirit of God, whom they possess, 
 all this fulness lies enfolded and hid; the possession of 
 Him, therefore, includes, although ever so potentially alone, 
 the whole compass of this knowledge. 
 
 But the εἰδέναι πάντα has another side to it, and that is 
 found in the close of the verse, cat ὅτε πᾶν ψεῦδος ἐκ τῆς 
 ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστιν. The καὶ ὅτι adjoins, that is, as is 
 fully acknowledged by expositors, the matter of the follow- 
 ing clause as a second and co-ordinate element in the 
 knowledge of the truth. The first assertion, that Christians 
 know the truth, is related to the second or new one, that 
 they know also the incompatibility of every lie with that 
 truth, just in the same way as the proposition, God is light, 
 ch. i. 5, is related to the proposition that in Him is no 
 darkness at all. The εἰδέναι πάντα includes a knowledge 
 of the lie, which is here simply the knowledge concerning 
 the absolute contrariety between it and the truth. Since 
 there is such a thing as the lie, that is, seeming existence, 
 to which all true and deep reality is wanting because it is 
 sundered from God, the source and substance of the ζωή, 
 therefore as well God as the man enlightened by God must 
 take it up into consciousness as fact, though only as 
 absolutely denying and rejecting it. 
 
 And this absolute negation of the lie it is which receives 
 here the emphasis: the whole weight of the sentence rests 
 upon the πᾶν ψεῦδος. The εἰδέναι πάντα is mentioned 
 only in order to show that Christians are supposed in every 
 particular case to know the difference between truth and 
 lie; their knowing of-the whole is to demonstrate that 
 every part of the whole also lies in the sphere of their 
 knowledge. The apostle’s meaning is, that, let the le 
 show itself in what form it may, in great things or in 
 small, in every instance ye know it as lie as certainly as 
 ye know that ye are for ever separated from it. 
 
 Yet it is not the fact in itself that the apostle declares 
 in ver. 21, that Christians know everything, and can dis- 
 
CHAP, II. 22, 129 
 
 tinguish the lie as lie; but his firm conviction of that fact, 
 from which conviction and for the sake of which conviction 
 generally he writes this Epistle, ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ὅτι οἴδατε, ---- 
 that is, by reason of this your knowledge, prompted by 
 it, I have written. It is the very same kind of declaration 
 as we found, vers. 196, 14, in the beginning of this section. 
 As in this passage εἰδέναι πάντα corresponds to ἐγνωκέναι 
 Tov πατέρα in that, as εἰδέναι ὅτε πᾶν ψεῦδος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ 
 τῆς ἀληθείας in this passage corresponds to the νενικηκέναι 
 Tov πονηρόν in that, so also the ἔγραψα in our present 
 verse reproduces the same word in the former. In both 
 cases the preterite or aorist refers back to the internal 
 conception of the letter as a whole, the apostle speaking of 
 that as of an historical fact preceding the actual external 
 accomplishment of the purpose in writing; in both we 
 might translate without impropriety, “I have brought 
 myself to write.” And in fact we may find good reason 
 if we seek it for the reminder concerning the apostle’s 
 presupposition in writing the Epistle: as in the beginning 
 of the section, so in this passage especially, the motive is 
 obvious. The subject is the absolute and total turning 
 away from the κόσμος: but this presumes that already a 
 separation of the readers from the world has taken place ; 
 were that not the case, were the preliminaries for that now 
 to be arranged, the apostle would have had to write in a 
 very different way ; something after the manner of St. Paul, 
 in the first part of his Roman Epistle, concerning sin and 
 its power of corruption and ruin. But he who would ex- 
 hort to μένειν ἐν τῷ φωτί, must presuppose an εἶναι ἐν τῷ 
 φωτί in those whom he exhorts. And in our passage par- 
 ticularly he would warn the church against every the least 
 contact with the antichrists. But that presupposes in them 
 the ability to detect the anti-Christian nature even in its 
 most subtle expressions and ramifications (πᾶν ψεῦδος). 
 
 VERSE 22. 
 
 Tis ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης, εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ 
 ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός; οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀντίχριστος, ὁ ἀρνούμενος 
 τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν. 
 
 1 JOHN. 1 
 
130 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 The proposition, that πᾶν ψεῦδος ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ 
 ἔστιν, seems at the first glance to be so perfectly clear and 
 self-evidencing, that it needs at the utmost only to be 
 expressed for the sake of logical completeness. But, how- 
 ever plain it may be to the theoretic consciousness, it very 
 little governs the practical, With Christians in general, 
 sin can be possible only through their forgetting that every, 
 even the slightest le (understood in St. John’s full meaning), 
 excludes from the truth. And how solemn is that asser- 
 tion! It follows from it that πᾶν ψεῦδος leads directly 
 into fellowship with the antichrist nature. This is the 
 consequence which is deduced in ver. 22. All depends here 
 upon rightly understanding the article in the clause tis 
 ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης ; the parallelism with the ὁ ἀντίχριστος 
 in this second part of the verse would suggest at once that 
 we must interpret this of the Antichrist himself, and to 
 translate the article as meaning: who is the one true arch- 
 liar? But this yields a very loose connection with what 
 precedes. Hence it commends itself that we refer back 
 the ὁ ψεύστης simply to the last words of ver. 21, and 
 place ὁ ψεύστης in correlation with the πᾶν ψεῦδος. In 
 what precedes, every lie was declared to bear witness that 
 the ἀλήθεια has no place in the man who is the subject of 
 it. That leads then further to the question: who makes 
 himself thus partaker of such ψεῦδος 1 what is his spirit 
 and nature, that it bears in itself such fearful consequences ? 
 The answer is: that is the liar.—the article thus indicates 
 the liar as the person spoken of just before——and his nature 
 is that he does not acknowledge Jesus as the Christ. In 
 the assertory form the proposition would run, οὐκ ἔστιν 
 ψεύστης εἰ μὴ K.T.A. 
 
 The interrogative form is adopted in order to indicate to 
 the reader that the proposition concerned is one self-under- 
 stood, resting upon the fact of his own consciousness, about 
 which there can be no contest or doubt. The nature and 
 moving principle of every lie (πᾶν ψεῦδος, ver. 21) is here 
 declared. It is constituted by the strong ἀρνεῖσθαι: that 
 is more than mere denying; it rather expresses that the 
 denial is based on the ground of opposed and better con- 
 
CHAP. II. 22. alee) | 
 
 viction. We may compare John i. 20, where it is said of 
 the Baptist, ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο, ---ἰ]ναῦ is, he gave 
 to the truth, well known by hin, its full honour. Thus 
 the repudiation of Jesus as the Christ is the essence of 
 every lie. 
 
 Two questions here emerge. One is, how far this may 
 be regarded as the fundamental nature of the lie; and 
 the other, how far this may be even accounted as 
 equal to the only le (εἰ μή). The former question 
 is easily answered. If Jesus, to wit, is the truth, and 
 that simply because He is the Messiah who was anointed 
 by God with the Spirit without measure, then the denial 
 of His Messiahship is not only the turning away from 
 a truth, but a break with al/ truth; for He is the con- 
 centration of all truth, which is one with Him, and 
 there is no other method of reaching the truth than 
 He. But the other question is more difficult, as to this 
 being the only lie; since even with the acknowledgment 
 of the Messiahship of Jesus we may conceive many other 
 falsehoods as to other regions of truth to be bound up. 
 But that is only a false conception, and it seems so only 
 so long as we think of a merely intellectual or theoretical 
 acknowledgement of the Lord; which is never the case with 
 St. John, who in ver. 14 connects the ἐγνωκέναι tov Θεόν 
 immediately with the νικᾶν τὸν πονηρόν. As soon as we 
 regard the confession of Christ as the power of spiritual 
 life, which is supposed to sway the whole of man’s being, 
 it is natural to behold every lie, wav ψεῦδος, any kind ot 
 fellowship with the ungodly, as a removal from Christ, a 
 renunciation of Him as the Messiah,—that is, of Him who 
 has the χρίσμα οὐκ ἐκ μέτρου, the full and perfect truth. 
 As certainly as the slightest obliquity in the circumference 
 of a circle causes the circle to be a circle no longer, dis- 
 turbing the equal supremacy of the centre, so the slightest 
 le is a disturbance of the supremacy of Christ. 
 
 Every lie, be it fashioned however it may, has in its 
 essence the denial of the Son of God. Hence, therefore— 
 and that is the next proposition of the apostle—every lie 
 is a direct participation in the antichrist nature; for the 
 
Π52 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST, JOHN. 
 
 ἀρνεῖσθαι ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός is the distinctive 
 mark or token of Antichrist. ‘O ψεύστης, that is, accord- 
 ing to the explanation now given, every one who enters 
 into fellowship with the lie, denies Christ; and thus the 
 lie and the antichrist nature, and the liar and Antichrist, 
 are one and the same. And, in order more vigorously to 
 emphasize this identity of the two, the apostle repeats after 
 the οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀντίχριστος, once more in the form of an 
 apposition, the element in common between the ψεύστην 
 εἶναι and the ἀντίχριστον εἶναι : and that is, ὁ ἀρνούμενος 
 τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν. 
 
 Now, it is undeniable that the proposition, which we 
 have thus derived from the whole, is of so extremely severe 
 a character that it sounds almost repulsive. But it is 
 equally clear that it thus presents the most urgent reason 
 which the exhortation could bring forward in favour of 
 utter severance from the Antichrist: he who in the least 
 degree recedes from the ἀλήθεια falls away from fellowship 
 with Christ, has denied Christ Himself, and has become a 
 / member of Antichrist. Now this, even apart from the 
 stringency of the context, is a doctrine precisely conform- 
 able to the whole Johannaean view of things. There is no 
 apostle who to the same extent, and with the same con- 
 sistency, carries out the total severance between the world 
 and the kingdom of God. The third chapter will give us 
 occasion to bring forward abundant evidence of this. 
 Commonly those men only are called antichrists who have 
 openly displayed the sentiment of opposition to Christ, and 
 in whom this sentiment rules the entire life. But here it 
 is amply shown that every ψεῦδος involves this principle, 
 and therefore internally makes men into antichrists, and 
 the weight of the propositions asserted so peremptorily by 
 the apostle is much augmented by the total absence of 
 conjunctions: neither does a γάρ unite the first half of the 
 verse with the twenty-first, nor does a δέ connect the 
 second half with the first. The sentences fall on the 
 reader’s soul like notes of the trumpet. Without cement, 
 and therefore all the more ruggedly clasping each other, they 
 are like a cyclopaean wall. 
 
CHAP. II. 23. oe 
 
 VERSE 23, 
 
 Πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν, οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχον ὁ 
 ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν, καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει. 
 
 At the end of ver. 22 the apostle brought forward a new 
 point, which has not in what precedes been demonstrated : 
 the declaration, namely, that the Antichrist denied not only 
 the Son, but the Father also. The twenty-third verse takes 
 this up again with emphasis, in order that a due considera- 
 tion may establish it as truth. Now, if no man hath ever 
 seen God nor can see Him, but He is declared only by His 
 only-begotten Son, it follows that he of necessity loses the 
 knowledge of the Father who rejects the way in which 
 alone it can be found. If Christ as the ἀπαύγασμα of the 
 Father is equally with the Father the truth, it follows that 
 he who has not the One cannot have the Other: else would 
 he at once have and not have the truth. But that the 
 Redeemer is not here, any more than at the close of the 
 previous verse, called Χριστός, but υἱός, has its simple 
 reason in the fact that He is placed in direct relation to the 
 Father. At the same time, the choice of both terms points 
 to the absolute and necessary unity and mutual indwelling 
 of the Two, which affects that no man can be partaker of 
 the One without being partaker of the Other. And because 
 this is an internal necessity, it holds good in every par- 
 ticular case of error: πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος declares that even 
 the members of the church fall under the condemnation of 
 this sentence if they in any measure become confederates 
 of the lie. Yet this most solemn declaration has also its 
 bright converse. That lies in the second half of the verse: 
 ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει. Manifestly the 
 ὁμολογεῖν is the antithesis of the ἀρνεῖσθαι in the previous 
 verse; but, instead of the more diffuse ὅτε ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν 
 ὁ Χριστός or ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, the simple τὸν υἱόν is ap- 
 pended. For he who sees not in Jesus the Son of God, does 
 not acknowledge another being as such, but denies generally 
 the existence of the Son of God. No man who has ever 
 contended against the Christology of Christian doctrine has 
 ever accepted the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
184 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 VERSE 24, 
 
 Ὑμεῖς οὖν ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω. ᾿Εὰν 
 ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ ὃ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἠκούσατε, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν τῷ υἱῷ 
 καὶ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ μενεῖτε. 
 
 Thus has the apostle exhibited to the church the activity 
 of the antichrists; he has further appealed to their own 
 knowledge of the truth, to the intent that he might win 
 from themselves the confession that by any degree of 
 departure from the truth they would be drawn into the 
 antichrist fellowship. It remains now that he should draw 
 the practical conclusion from these premisses: therefore 
 guard yourselves against every declension from the truth ; 
 or, in its positive form, hold fast that fellowship in which 
 ye now safely stand in despite of all the μεθοδείαις τοῦ 
 πονηροῦ. The apostle begins by an asyndeton,—for the 
 οὖν of the Text. rec. must be struck out,—and yet with 
 specific notification of the antithesis, by means of the abso- 
 lute ὑμεῖς that stands first. True, that in the last words 
 there is contained no express antithesis to the ὑμεῖς ; but 
 the antithesis is in the sense, inasmuch as the whole of the 
 previous discussion treated of the nature of Antichrist. 
 Accordingly, the ὑμεῖς is not to be referred to the ἠκούσατε, 
 for then the hearing of the readers would seem to be placed 
 in an inscrutable contrast with the hearing of others ; but 
 it must be referred to the μένειν of the main sentence, so 
 that. it is in reality parallel with or equivalent to its ἐν 
 ὑμῖν. That which they had heard they should hold fast : 
 the object is given in a general manner, but its concrete 
 meaning is preserved to it by the connection, according to 
 which the doctrine that Jesus is the Christ is meant. The 
 expression occurred before in ch. ii. 7 ; but, instead of the 
 general 8 here, the object there was the λόγος, the entire 
 message of Christ: here His person is in view, there it was 
 His work of love; but both are only diverse sides of the 
 same matter. His whole work was the commentary on His 
 person; His person was the text of his whole work. 
 
 But in this connection we should expect that an earnest 
 and express exhortation would follow to keep themselves 
 
CHAP. II. 24. 135 
 
 from the antichrists, or, putting it positively, to abide in 
 the truth. And this abiding in the truth is undoubtedly 
 the prevailing motive in all the verses that follow; yet the 
 form of commandment is almost altogether absent. More 
 than that: human energy generally is kept as much as 
 possible in the background. At the outset, indeed, the 
 μενέτω has the imperative form; but the contents of the 
 commandment in a very marked manner restrict human 
 activity. That which they had heard, which had therefore 
 come into them from without, that should abide in them: 
 not, that should they suffer it to abide in them, in which 
 case the Christians themselves would be the subjects of the 
 action. This turn of the thought—which is all the more 
 evidently intentional, as the preliminary ὑμεῖς itself sug- 
 gested that the church’s own activity was coming—is 
 intended obviously to refer the μένειν to the meaning and 
 substance of the announcement: it was not that the church 
 must abide in the word which they had heard, but that. 
 word abide in them. The same word which had made 
 them Christians should keep them such; the self-activity 
 of the brethren recedes entirely into the rear; it has nothing 
 to do but to avoid hindering the power of the truth. 
 Essentially, therefore, it is just as when the Apostle Paul 
 exhorts the Thessalonians, τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε ; only a 
 negative activity, a suffering themselves to be kept, was 
 needful on their side. Similarly, in the second half of the 
 verse the abiding in God is represented, not as a command- 
 ment, but as the inevitable and natural result of the pre- 
 ceding; and, finally, in ver. 27 the very necessity of any 
 command is expressly precluded. 
 
 Now all this coincides most graciously with the set and 
 posture of the whole section. Not only the Christian estate 
 of the church in general, but also specifically the abiding of 
 the word of God in it (ver. 14), forms the fundamental 
 presupposition of it throughout; indeed, their νικᾶν τὸν 
 πονηρόν was expressly declared to be the result of their 
 abiding. Thus the apostle’s exhortation is of a more 
 negative kind: disturb not this energy of the truth, guard 
 against all interruptions of it; all else will this word, im- 
 
156 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIN. 
 
 planted in you, itself accomplish. If this continues in 
 them, the result will be—according to the second half of 
 the verse—that they will continue in the Son and in the 
 Father. This double relation, the μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ and the 
 μένειν of the word of God ἐν ἡμῖν, occurs also in the 
 Gospel: comp. ch. xv. 7, ἐὰν μείνητε ἐν ἐμοὶ, καὶ τὰ ῥήματά 
 μου ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ κατλ. And as the word of Christ is not 
 viewed here as a dead letter, but as the bearer and instru- 
 ment of His Spirit, as pervaded and filled by Him, these 
 expressions are parallel also with John xv. 4, 5, where to 
 the μένετε ἐν ἐμοί corresponds the κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν. 
 
 Now, that these counterpart expressions are in fact two 
 various sides of the same thing, and that at their basis les 
 a real and not merely dialectical distinction, is shown at 
 once by the causal relation in which one is here placed to 
 the other. But it is rather hard to define the distinction 
 sharply, because in the Gospel our abiding in God is ever 
 exhibited as priws, while in this passage the order is re- 
 versed. Let us try to mark the relation of the two expres- 
 sions discussed by another view, seemingly wide apart from 
 this, which, however, only brings before us the figure of 
 which this is the reality. Through all the Scriptures of the 
 ‘Old and the New Testaments there runs this double aspect 
 of the matter, that we on the one hand are the temple of 
 God in which He dwells, and that, on the other hand; we 
 dwell in God Himself as our temple. In the latter case, 
 
 God is, or His temple, which comes into consideration as the 
 sphere of His revelation of His nature, is, the place where 
 we find rest and peace, and security and life: thus is ex- 
 
 pressed all that we possess in God; He is here the giver, 
 and we the receivers; He is active, and we are passive. 
 When, inversely, we are regarded as the temple in which 
 God dwells, we are considered ourselves as the objects in 
 which God works and as the organs of His will; thus is 
 expressed, by what seems a paradox, what He has in us; 
 we in this case are the active. Precisely thus is it in the 
 terms of our passage, which are only the pure spiritual 
 expression of the figurative statements just examined. If 
 we abide in God, He is the proper and essential subject, we 
 
CHAP. II. 24. 137 
 
 are parts of His I: out of His fulness we receive all, having 
 absolutely no independent life. If He abides in us, we are 
 ourselves the proper and real subject, He becomes a part of 
 our I, insomuch as in our actions His will comes into effect. 
 This will make it plain why in our text the former of these 
 two comes first. The beginning of the relation does not lie 
 with us, but with God; the word of Christ, and through 
 that word His Spirit, becomes a living power in us, μένει 
 ἐν ἡμῖν ; and the more perfectly the entire Christ enters into 
 us, the more perfectly and the more inwardly we are wedded 
 to Him on our part, and enter into Him essentially: 
 μένομεν ev αὐτῷ. Such is the actual historical process ; 
 we may, however, with propriety invert the order with John 
 xv. 4seq.: there, forsooth, the disciples are regarded as 
 already standing in the fellowship of Christ; the words 
 καθαροί ἐστε διὰ τὸν λόγον pov, just as in this passage, 
 specify the indwelling of the λόγος in them as the first 
 stage of their religion; but then comes in the μένειν ἐν 
 αὐτῷ as the result, and through this result again the abiding 
 of Christ in the disciples is nourished and strengthened. It 
 is a permanent and continuous reciprocation: the abiding 
 of Christ in men furthers their abiding in Him ; this again 
 facilitates the former; and so it goes on. Did they indeed 
 but let the great message of salvation, that Jesus is the 
 
 Christ, and with that message the ruling of Christ Himself 
 
 in our hearts, have its full living development as a power ! 
 ἐὰν ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ ὃ ἠκούσατε: then, indeed, would they be 
 secure against any contamination of the antichrist spirit ; 
 yea, more than that, fellowship with God would become 
 more continuous and perfect, and that as fellowship with 
 the Son and the Father. In the twenty-second verse the 
 Father was first, here it is the Son. That is not an acci- 
 dental or indifferent circumstance. The Father preceded 
 before, because the apostle there had the last consummation 
 in his eye,and would place it before the readers as the goal 
 from which the antichrist lie would lead them astray, and 
 to which fidelity would surely attain. Here the Son pre- 
 cedes, because already in Him is the means and the only 
 means for attaining that end. 
 
138 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 VERSE 25. 
 
 Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡμῖν, 
 τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. 
 
 Now at length the apostle may regard his exhibition of 
 the truth as completed and closed; he brings in the con- 
 clusion when he indicates that the abiding in our Lord is 
 the final goal and issue of the whole saving institute of 
 Christ. For we must be sure that the αὕτη in the beginning 
 of ver. 25 refers to this abiding in the Lord,—that is, to 
 what goes before, not to what follows. It is indeed not to 
 be disputed that, generally speaking, in propositions which 
 are constituted like this of ours, St. John is accustomed to 
 refer the demonstrative pronoun to what follows; but a 
 erammatical necessity it is not, and the sense here forbids 
 it. For if the αὕτη is referred to the sequel, its meaning 
 is the ζωὴ αἰώνιος : and the thought would be, that eternal 
 life is the promise given to us. But in that case the 
 accusative τὴν ζωήν would be a still greater difficulty than 
 it is in the explanation we shall presently give ; and, more- 
 over, the apostle would then introduce into the close of the 
 whole period two absolutely new ideas, without the least 
 indication of their connection with what precedes. It is 
 quite otherwise if we refer αὕτη to what goes before: then 
 the ζωὴν αἰώνιον is essentially in apposition with ἐπαγγελία, 
 and put into the accusative only through attraction to 
 the relative clause ἣ ἐπηγγείλαμεν. From this, then, we 
 derive a meaning as clear as it is appropriate: it is this, 
 that the abiding in the Lord forms the contents of the 
 
 Dad of eternal life which Christ has given us. It is’ 
 certainly true, again, that the words ἐπαγγελία and ἐπαγ- 
 γέλλειν are not generally current in the Johannaean idiom ; 
 and we do not find, in his Gospel, eternal life specified as 
 the contents of the ἐπαγγελία of Christ,—that is, in any 
 formal expression. It is indeed the goal to which He 
 would conduct us, the end that He sets before us; and in 
 this sense is a promise actually running through the whole 
 of our Lord’s life and teaching. Particularly, there are two 
 passages, out of many which treat of eternal life, which 
 
CHAP. II. 26, 27. 139 
 
 here come into consideration. One is in the sixth chapter, 
 where Christ exhibits this life as the fruit of faith in Him- 
 self, vers. 40, 47, 54, while it comes further into view 
 as the result of His words in us, comp. ver. 68, ῥήματα 
 ζωῆς αἰωνίου ἔχεις : precisely as here, in our passage, the 
 ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ forms the presupposition for that 
 abiding in Him which is the substantial meaning of the 
 ζωὴ αἰώνιος. The second is ch. xvii. 2, 3, where eternal 
 life consists in this, that γινώσκωσί σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν 
 Θεὸν καὶ (and the addition following is the point concerned 
 here) ὃν ἀπέστειλας ᾿Ιησοῦν Χρίστον. This γιγνώσκειν 
 corresponds to the ὁμολογεῖν αὐτόν in our present passage. 
 —Thus the Lord has set forth eternal life as the final 
 scope of His work; to this He will lead every man; and 
 therefore it is called the promise which He hath given. 
 And this promise, according to our present verse, He has 
 fulfilled ; this life we have received, inasmuch as He abideth 
 in us and we in Him: the contents and meaning of the 
 αὕτη. This definition of the strict meaning of eternal life 
 is the same—and this shows its correctness—which we 
 found in the introduction to our Epistle, that is, in ch. 1. ὃ, 
 where fellowship with the Father and the Son is laid down . 
 as its substantial meaning. Moreover, it is very plain, from 
 a consideration of our passage, how necessary it is that we 
 should take αἰώνιος not as a metaphysical, but as an ethical 
 idea: it is not its super-temporal character, but the divinity ) 
 of this life which is expressed by the term. 
 
 VERSES 26, 27. 
 
 Ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν περὶ τῶν πλανώντων ὑμᾶς. Καὶ 
 ὑμεῖς τὸ χρίσμα ὃ ἐλάβετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἐν ὑμῖν μένει, καὶ οὐ 
 χρείαν ἔχετε ἵνα τις διδάσκῃ ὑμᾶς" ἀλλ᾽, ὡς τὸ αὐτὸ χρίσμα 
 διδάσκει ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων, καὶ ἀληθές ἐστι, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι 
 ψεῦδος, καὶ καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑμᾶς, μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ. 
 
 The very fact that the apostle, in ver. 25, has come 
 round to the selfsame point from which he started, shows 
 that the previous discussion has now attained its close. 
 More particularly: since the discourse does not return to 
 the starting-point of the last section (from ver. 13c¢ onwards), 
 
140 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIN, 
 
 but to the beginning of the whole letter (compare only with 
 the ζωὴ αἰώνιος of ver. 25 the mention of it in ch. i. 2, with 
 the μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ the κοινωνία μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ch. 1. 3), it 
 follows that the development since ch. i. 5 has now come 
 to its end. But, like the two former sections of the whole 
 first part now reaching its close, this third section also has 
 a summary recapitulation, vers. 26, 27. Up to this point 
 (ταῦτα) the apostle has written to the churches concerning 
 the antichrists. Ταῦτα does not refer to the brevity of the 
 discussion (“only so much”), nor to the specific matter of 
 it (“this and no other that might be added”) ; but it places 
 what goes before in contrast with what follows—with what 
 the apostle has it in his purpose yet to write. As the 
 section ch. xi. 3-11 treats of brotherly love, although the 
 matter is first of all quite generally of keeping the divine 
 commandments, so the topic of this section has been the 
 antichrist nature, although first of all (vers. 15-17) the 
 discourse was of the κόσμος in general, whose full form is 
 anti-Christianity. But the antichrists came into considera- 
 tion as πλανῶντες ὑμᾶς : they have aimed to make the 
 church wander from the truth, and then to lead them to 
 wander back ¢o the world. This was the practical starting- 
 point of the whole discussion. Against this practice of 
 seduction the church had, as we have seen in the previous 
 exposition, a defence in the χρίσμα: hence this, then, is 
 particularly taken up again in the recapitulation. Even in 
 the form it assumes, the reswmé is faithful to itself: here 
 also we have the ὑμεῖς placed significantly first; here also, 
 moreover, there is a marked absence of any injunction as 
 such. The holy anointing oil which they had received, which 
 separated them from the world, is within them a permanent 
 power,—for ἀμεταμέλητα τὰ χαρίσματα καὶ ἡ κλῆσις τοῦ 
 ©cov,—and makes every exhortation, even every apostolical 
 exhortation, superfluous. And so had the Lord promised to 
 His disciples that the Paraclete should lead them into all 
 truth. 
 
 To establish the undeceivableness of this heavenly in- 
 struction is the object of the second clause in our verse. 
 This second clause, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τὸ αὐτὸ χρίσμα διδάσκει ὑμῶς 
 
CHAP. II. 26, 27. 141 
 
 περὶ πάντων, καὶ ἀληθές ἐστι, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι ψεῦδος, is 
 related to the third just as a general proposition as a whole 
 is to its particular concrete application. Not only does the 
 περὶ πάντων give the former its general colouring, and the 
 μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ give the latter its specific colouring, but 
 the present διδάσκει also shows that in the second clause a 
 general proposition is before us, whilst ἐδίδαξεν in the third 
 makes prominent one definite historical single fact out of 
 the general domain of that clause. And thus it is established 
 that the words καὶ καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑμᾶς are not merely a 
 resumption of the ἀλλ᾽ ὡς «.7.r..—that thus καὶ ἀληθές 
 ἐστι «.T.X. is not a parenthesis, but a conclusion to the 
 proposition with ὡς. Certainly it is extremely difficult to 
 accept the redoubled καί as meaning, “not only but also;” 
 for that anything is true and not false is after all essen- 
 tially no more than one attribute which is only viewed on 
 two different sides, while “not only but also” presupposes 
 two different ideas. But such a view as this of the former 
 καί is not imperative ; rather is the former to be translated 
 by “also:” the congruence between the declaration of the 
 χρίσμα and the real bearing of the matter, between the 
 διδάσκειν and the ἀληθὲς εἶναι, was thereby to be marked. 
 The following καὶ οὐκ ἔστι ψεῦδος is genuinely Johannaean : 
 it is a peculiarity of this apostle to place every idea in full 
 prominence through setting by the side of it its antithesis. 
 This διδάσκειν of the χρίσμα is true, and there is no lie 
 in it; and thus the ἔστι, in virtue of its deep emphasis, 
 becomes equivalent to an ἔνεστι. 
 
 Thus, then, the apostle in the first of the three clauses 
 of ver. 28 has summed up and resumed the whole fact that 
 the χρίσμα gave full instruction to the church ; in the second, 
 he has declared that this instruction was simply and purely 
 true; in the third, he then draws the practical conclusion 
 that the church should stand firmly by the substance of the 
 teaching here in question, and here treated of (this is the 
 meaning of the aorist ἐδιδαξεν). The μενεῖτε of the Test. 
 rec. would indeed admirably suit the tone of the whole 
 section, in which the apostle less commands the μένειν than 
 points to it as an internal necessity; but the imperative 
 
142 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 μένετε has too strong authentication from external evidence 
 to be rejected; and it is in itself easily to be understood 
 that, at the conclusion of the whole discussion, the impera- 
 tive, everywhere latent in the preceding words, should for 
 once come out into clear expression. 
 
 Let us throw a glance back along the course of the first 
 part, now concluded, of the whole Epistle. It is completed 
 in three sections, of which each again contains three sub- 
 sections, two giving instruction, and one exhortation or 
 recapitulation. The first section deduces from the idea of 
 the φῶς εἶναι of God the nature of our fellowship with 
 Him, and as viewed under two aspects: that of ἐν φωτὶ 
 περιπατεῖν, and that of ὁμολογεῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας. The second 
 section discusses, on the same basis, the nature of our fellow- 
 ship with the brethren, and that also under two aspects: as 
 obedience to the ἐντολαὶ Θεοῦ, and as imitation of the con- 
 verse and walk of Christ. The third section points to the 
 enmity which exists between the kingdom of God and this 
 world: here, again, first as against the world in general, 
 and then as against its antichrist development in particular; 
 but both in order to enforce the obligation of breaking off 
 from the world negatively, or positively of abiding in God. 
 That the two former sections of the whole discussion have 
 their basis in Θεὸς φῶς, and are evolved from this, has been 
 shown in the proper place. But it is true also of the third 
 section, only that it takes up the negative side of ch.1 8: 
 καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν ovdeuia. This thorough and 
 pervasive antithesis between them, such as forbids the very 
 
 _.slightest contact, is the theme of the whole discussion in 
 ch. ii. 13-27. Κόσμος and ἀντίχριστος are only terms 
 interchangeable for the σκοτία. 
 
 VERSES 28, 29. 
 
 Καὶ νῦν, texvia, μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ" ἵνα ὅταν φανερωθῇ, 
 ἔχωμεν παῤῥησίαν, καὶ μὴ αἰσχυνθῶμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐν TH 
 παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ. ᾿Εὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστι, γινώσκετε 
 ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται. 
 
 We have assumed, in opposition to the current view of our 
 day, that ver. 28 belongs to the second part of the Epistle. 
 
CIIAP. IL. 28, 29. 143 
 
 One circumstance may be mentioned here as making this 
 probable : with the exception of the μένειν at the beginning 
 of the verse, all the ideas in it are new ones, and enter the 
 Epistle for the first time; but that would be a startling 
 close of a discussion which should introduce a new series of 
 ideas instead of summing up the old ones. But the connec- 
 tion of this verse with the second part becomes a certainty, 
 when we observe that the special ideas that are literally 
 touched here for the first time are the ever-recurring con- 
 stitutive elements of the second. Thus the φανεροῦσθαι is 
 taken up again in ch. 111, 3-8; the παῤῥησίαν ἔχειν is 
 elucidated in ch. iii, 21, iv. 17, v. 14; the ποιεῖν τὴν 
 δικαιοσύνην forms the fundamental idea of the first ten 
 verses of the following chapter; the ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννῆσθαι 
 is not only repeated in the τέκνα Θεοῦ, ch. iii. 1, but also 
 from ch. iii, 24 onwards is more closely considered. But 
 all this only introduces the all-decisive reason, which is, 
 that the thought announced in ver. 28 is precisely in the 
 same sense the theme of the next part as ch. i. 5 was of 
 that we have just closed. This argument, however, must 
 approve itself as our exposition pursues its course, 
 
 Now, if we have in ver, 28 the beginning of a new part, 
 it follows that the emphasis does not lie on the μένει at the 
 beginning, but on the clause which follows and gives the 
 writer’s design. That word serves to place the new part in 
 connection with the other; the telic clause points to the 
 progress of the thought. The goal of abiding in God, as 
 the end of the development so far, is represented posi- 
 tively and negatively: the former by παῤῥησίαν ἔχειν, the 
 latter by μὴ αἰσχυνθῆναι. Both these ideas derive a more » 
 specific definition from the appendages, common to them, ἐὰν 
 φανερωθῇ and ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ. That these expressions 
 refer to the Lord’s return needs of course no proof. But it 
 must be observed that φανεροῦσθαι never occurs throughout 
 the other New Testament Scriptures as denoting the appear- 
 ing of Christ for judgment: they are accustomed to express 
 that by ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι, while St. John, again, never uses 
 this latter word (not even in Rev. i. 1) for that purpose, 
 but invariably φανεροῦσθαι. (The substantive φανέρωσις 
 
144 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 is not to be found at all in his writings.) Further, it will 
 help to clear up the the general subject if we bear in mind 
 that in ch. 111. 8 the same φανεροῦσθαι is used concerning 
 the manifestation of Christ in the flesh. 
 
 The peculiarity of St. John’s phraseology just alluded to 
 
 is not a fortuitous one, but has its deep internal reasons. 
 Throughout the Scripture, aroxddves invariably designates 
 a revelation which has taken place in an extraordinary 
 way, through a direct interposition of God, and therefore as 
 a perfectly new development. In φανεροῦσθαι this element 
 of the entirely new and the absolutely extraordinary is 
 neither asserted nor denied; but the definite meaning 
 attached to ἀποκάλυπτειν assigns to the φανεροῦν at least 
 a predominant application to such a revealing as is the 
 development of a definitive germ,—a development which is, 
 in comparison with azoxadvys, natural and ordinary. This 
 is the general law in the Bible. This explains how it is 
 that in Scripture the twofold manifestation of Jesus in the 
 flesh and for judgment is spoken of as one ἀποκάλυψις: 
 His appearance in the flesh was not in fact a result of past 
 development, but, beyond everything else, an immediate and 
 extraordinary interposition of God, an entirely new creation; 
 and His appearance for judgment is revealed as nothing 
 less than an instantaneous and sudden catastrophe taking 
 place purely through divine causality, whose product will 
 be a new heaven and a new earth. 
 
 Now, however obvious would be here such an application 
 of ἀποκάλυψις, it is not the less easy to be understood how 
 St. John in particular comes to use, concerning both these 
 events, not this word ever, but always φανεροῦσθαι. We 
 have already often remarked that he delights to bring out 
 
 ‘into prominence the germs of the future lying in the 
 present; it is the effect of this peculiarity that the 
 difference between the present and the future is reduced 
 from an absolute one to one merely relative ; and when the 
 question is of a revelation, he exhibits this rather as a 
 φανεροῦσθαι, or making visible of potencies long working 
 secretly, than as an ἀποκάλυψις, or something entirely new, 
 resting immediately on divine causality. Now when St. 
 
CHAP. II. 28, 29. 145 
 
 John, in his Gospel, ch. i. 3, teaches us to behold the opera- 
 tion of the λόγος already in the creation, and, since the 
 creation, His energy as that of the φῶς ἀληθινόν, it must 
 of course have been very natural to him to regard the 
 manifestation of our Lord in the flesh not as something 
 new, and as an ἀποκάλυψις, but as a φανέρωσις : this indeed 
 we find him doing in our own Epistle, ch. 1. 2, 11.8. And 
 similarly, to this apostle, with such a habit of looking at 
 things, who sees the decision of judgment already involved 
 in unbelief, who always regards the resurrection as a thing 
 present (comp. especially John v. 25 with John xi. 25), 
 the future judgment would appear not as altogether a new 
 thing,—that is, as an aroxaddvyis,—hbut as a natural result 
 and conclusion of a long series of sacred events which only 
 now brings out into light (favepodv) that which had been 
 long present spiritually and secretly. The apostle therefore 
 describes by ἐὰν φανερωθῇ that day in which the Lord, who 
 abideth with His people always, will make His presence 
 apparent at once and for ever to all eyes. 
 
 In the second member of the sentence which contains 
 the purpose there comes in an ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ instead 
 of the ἐὰν φανερωθῇ. This expression, which is so very 
 current among the other writers of the New Testament, 
 occurs in St. John nowhere but in this passage. Probably 
 this is not an accidental circumstance; but has its reason, 
 though the apostle might not have been altogether aware of 
 it, in the very same habit of considering ‘aes which we 
 have been trying to explain. It was τ from his thoughts 
 at any time to regard the appearance of the Lord as an 
 arrival from a distance: the presence of Jesus in the midst 
 of His disciples, and within their hearts, was ever before 
 his thoughts. This, however, did not hinder him from 
 using this expression for once concerning the last day. 
 
 When the Lord shall in that great day enter into the 
 world of manifestation, our ΠΣ to Him will also be a 
 manifest one, revealed and withdrawn from all delusion. 
 And the μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ will then fit us and enable us in 
 our appearance before Him παῤῥησίαν ἔχειν. It has been - 
 thought, without reason, that in this and other similar 
 
 1 JOHN. K 
 
140 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIN. 
 
 passages, παῤῥησίαν has lost the fundamental idea of free 
 and unrepressed speech. But we must remember that the 
 subject here is the appearance of the Lord for judgment ; 
 that therefore question and answer, charge and exculpation 
 (compare Matt. xxv. 34 seq.), enter into the accessories of 
 the scene; and then it will not be thought absolutely 
 necessary, at least in this passage, to resort to an enfeebled 
 interpretation of the word. If we have continued in Him, 
 we shall be able to answer with perfect tranquillity of mind, 
 unqualified by fear and trembling, the questions of our 
 ‘righteous Judge. The negative counterpart of παῤῥησία is 
 _given us in the αἰσχύνεσθαι. Formally, the correlative is 
 not exactly adequate; while the former presents to us the 
 joyful tone of mind which we shall maintain in the day oi 
 judgment, the latter refers rather to the result of the 
 judgment, as appears from the added words am’ αὐτοῦ. 
 The phrase, formed after the analogy of the Hebrew [9 via 
 (compare, for example, Jer. ii 36, Sept., ἀπὸ «Αἰγύπτου 
 ᾿αἰσχυνθήσῃ), does not describe the source from whence the 
 shame springs, which would be expressed by ὑπό, but the 
 object from whom we are in our shame severed. But as 
 the παῤῥησία is possible only on the ground of the testi- 
 mony of a good conscience, which in itself includes the 
 result of the judgment, its happy consequence, so also the 
 αἰσχύνεσθαι includes its necessary result, the separation 
 ~from the Lord. 
 
 Looking at the twenty-ninth verse apart and by itself, as 
 detached from what precedes and what follows, we are met 
 by no difficulties of any kind. It is obvious that the sub- 
 ject in the δίκαιός ἐστιν at the commencement is God. For, 
 as the meaning and bearing of the verse is that as “He” is 
 righteous all must be righteous too who are His children ; 
 
 \ as throughout the New Testament we never read of a rela- 
 tion of sonship to Christ, only of sonship to God ; as, finally, 
 in ch. iii. 8 we are expressly called τέκνα Ocov,—it is im- 
 possible to understand the δίκαιος, whose nature we as His 
 children should carry in ourselves, of our Lord Christ. It 
 is true that ver. 28 had spoken of Christ. But a transi- 
 tion, immediate and not marked by any external sign, from 
 
CHAP. II. 28, 29. 147 
 
 discourse concerning the Son to discourse concerning the 
 Father, is not strange in the case of St. John, in whose 
 consciousness the two are so profoundly intertwined, that 
 he very seldom thinks it necessary to mention either, or 
 distinguish them otherwise than by a pronoun. And this 
 transition need not favour the notion of a new part of the 
 Epistle beginning with ver. 29; for in ch. iv. 21 we find 
 in the same way that after the Father has been spoken of 
 throughout several verses, suddenly the Son is mentioned, 
 and obviously mentioned, by the simple pronoun αὐτός, and 
 no more. Thus the plain meaning of the verse is: As the 
 nature of God is righteousness, so must this same righteous- 
 ness be the token of sonship in relation to Him; the 
 children must bear their Father’s stamp upon them. 
 
 But it is hard to determine the kind of link which the 
 verse has with what precedes. At the first glance there 
 is as little internal connection with the preceding thought 
 as there is grammatical bond. Nevertheless there must be 
 connection, even on the supposition that our verse begins 
 the new part; for the ἐὰν εἰδῆτε would certainly be much 
 too naked for the commencement of a different theme: we 
 should expect at least a texvia or παιδία in a new address. 
 And there is certainly a natural presumption in favour of 
 the idea that the apostle was moved to set out on this fresh 
 topic by something just before said. 
 
 There are two thoughts which appear here as new, 
 the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην and the γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ. Now, when we observe that in the first section of 
 the third chapter it is said, ver. 6, πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων 
 οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, and in ver. 9 the same thought is expressed 
 by πᾶς ὁ yeyevynpévos ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ ; 
 when we further mark that in ch. iii, 24 the μένειν ἐν 
 αὐτῷ is in the same way connected with the τηρεῖν τὰς 
 ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ as the γεγεννῆσθαι ἐξ αὐτοῦ is here con- 
 nected with the ποιεῖν τὴν Sexacoovvnv,—we shall no longer 
 discern in the γεγεννῆσθαι ἐξ αὐτοῦ of our verse a new 
 idea, but only the resumption of the μένειν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ often 
 dealt with in the previous section, and mentioned in it 
 finally at ver. 28. That the expression here used is sub- 
 
148 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 stituted for that one has its reason, apart from what later 
 development will show, in this, that here the divine 
 essential righteousness (ὅτε δίκαιός ἐστι) comes into con- 
 sideration as the source of our ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ; 
 but that this relation of causality is made prominent as our 
 being born of God rather than as our abiding in Him. 
 Thus there is at once presented a point of view from which 
 the connection of the present verse with the preceding 
 becomes plain. This connection becomes still plainer 
 when we more closely examine and appreciate the relation 
 which is here established between the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιο- 
 σύνην and the γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ tov Θεοῦ. Manifestly the 
 emphasis rests upon the latter. It is not the apostle’s 
 purpose to say that whosoever is born of God must 
 therefore of necessity work righteousness, although in 
 itself such a proposition would be perfectly justified; but 
 he draws the inverted conclusion, namely, that he who 
 doeth righteousness is also born of God, because God’s 
 nature, the δίκαιον εἶναι, has become his nature also. Thus 
 this new sonship is not the basis or supposition from which 
 St. John proceeds in order to found on it the exhortation 
 to righteousness ; but the δικαιοσύνη, as already present, is 
 the presupposition from which he deduces the reality of 
 their sonship. The question is here to lay down a mark of 
 the regeneration of the soul. Now, if we bear in mind that 
 the γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ is simply a resumption in 
 another form of the μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ, being related to this as 
 the planting of the tree is to its flower, we shall perceive 
 that here we have also a mark given us of the μένειν ἐν 
 αὐτῷ. 
 
 And why is this given? In the preceding passage the 
 παῤῥησία in the day of judgment was made dependent on 
 the μένειν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ; here it is said further how it is this 
 παῤῥησία comes into effect—that is, it operates thus, that 
 he who continueth in God, and therefore is born of God, 
 becomes firmly assured of this his fellowship with God 
 through his ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην. The synthesis of the 
 μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ and the mappnoia —that is, their close 
 relation, which the former verse merely asserted—is here 
 
CHAP, II. 28, 29, 149 
 
 expressly indicated through the mediating link between 
 them, which is the newly introduced idea of ποιεῖν τὴν 
 δικαιοσύνην. The idea of the παῤῥησία presupposes not only . 
 the abiding in God, but the conscious assurance of it: this, 
 however, is produced by the doing of righteousness. Strictly 
 speaking, indeed, our abiding in God and the abiding of 
 God in us are in their unity something entirely internal, 
 perceptible only to the feeling or the consciousness; there- 
 fore it is, hke every feeling, something subjective which is 
 itself and as such no pledge of its own objective reality. 
 This additional guarantee or assurance it receives through 
 such a confirmation in act: we are to know others by their 
 fruits, and by our own fruits we are to know ourselves.; 
 He who finds this ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην in his life has 
 in sustaining this sure test for his knowledge of himself 
 (γινώσκετε is in the indicative), the guarantee of his being 
 born from above, and therewith also the παῤῥησία, which 
 the apostle bound up with fellowship with God. | 
 
 Thus a close consideration of ver. 29 shows, what ap- 
 peared plain enough on ver. 28 itself, that the new part 
 begins with ver. 28, the idea of which is supplemented and 
 made specific by what follows. Further, there is thus 
 afforded to us a clear view of the relation of the part of the 
 epistle now closed to that which now begins. In both the 
 apostle keeps in view the end he proposed in the intro- 
 duction, that of helping towards advancing fellowship with 
 God and fellowship with the brethren; but the method 
 differs in the two. In the first part this fellowship comes 
 into consideration as an internal habit; in the second it is 
 rather its confirmation in works. From the very beginning 
 we have accustomed ourselves to understand the περυπατεῖν 
 ἐν τῷ φωτί in the first chapter of more than the mere ex- 
 ternal actions of man in the narrower sense; of the sphere, 
 rather, in which his whole life and being are rooted. The 
 ἁμαρτίαι and the ἀδικία are by no means limited to actual 
 sins of commission ; they include all sins whether in thought_ 
 or in word or in work. Similarly, in the second chapter 
 the τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολάς is not to be restricted to the ποιεῖν 
 in the external sense, but, as the ideas ἀγαπᾶν and μισεῖν 
 
150 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 immediately following show, pre-eminently to the inner mind. . 
 And then in the third section of the first part the nature 
 of it is traced to the ἐπιθυμία and ἀλαζονεία: therefore 
 it is not so much in the outward expressions of a quality 
 as in the quality itself. 
 
 That in ch. i. 6 we read once of ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, and 
 similarly in ch. ii. 17 once of ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
 are exceptions which have no power to alter the definitely 
 marked character of the section in each case; in fact, it is 
 not the inner mind as opposed to the external confirmation 
 which is the subject, but the habitus of the Christians 
 generally, which includes the approval of its reality in 
 works. Out of this habitus generally is now in the second 
 part the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην taken and brought forward 
 prominently and laid down as the token of that habitus: 
 on its reality, as we have seen, the παῤῥησία of Christians, 
 as its final consummation, depended. In details, we may 
 observe at the outset and in advance, the course of the 
 whole of the second part is very similar to that of the first. 
 First, the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is viewed in reference to 
 God, then in reference to the brethren; finally, from their 
 combination the παῤῥησία is deduced, and thus once more 
 we have supernumerary confirmation in the tenor of this 
 part, that its theme is to be found in ver. 28; for the 
 παῤῥησία spoken of there is dilated on after the full 
 illustration of the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, which is intro- 
 duced in ver. 29; in harmony, therefore, with our analysis, 
 according to which the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is the middle 
 term between what the μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ treated of in the 
 preceding and the παῤῥησία. 
 
 Finally, in this way we are extricated, as easily as 
 satisfactorily, from a difficulty which we designedly left 
 behind in ver. 27. There the χρίσμα is introduced as an 
 absolutely right guide, never erring and always to be 
 J depended upon, which the church therefore might follow 
 (. most implicitly. We have seen in the proper place that 
 the anointing oil, by which the church is withdrawn from 
 the world, is the Holy Ghost; and it is of course self- 
 understood that the Spirit cannot deceive. But here comes 
 
CHAP. II. 28, 29. 101 
 
 in the question as to how this χρίσμα may be known as 
 such, as to what its tests are,—that is to say, if instruction 
 through the apostolical word is represented as superfluous, | 
 then the door seems to be opened for all fanaticism, which 
 is always so ready to appeal to the internal voice of the 
 Spirit, either esteeming the apostolical word less or alto- 
 gether despising it. The answer to the question here 
 proposed is given in the new part of the Epistle: only 
 there is the χρίσμα, the new birth, present with its abiding 
 in God, where the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is found. Doing 
 is the evidence of all evidences; and such a doing as 
 harmonizes or corresponds with the divine δίκαιον eivar, ~ 
 Now it is precisely this relation between the governing 
 ideas which we now have to do with that brings out the 
 exquisitely careful steps by which the Epistle goes onward. 
 The first part leads up to its climax by developing its ideas 
 to the point at which, by an internal necessity, they must 
 issue, unless they are to remain both one-sided and untrue. 
 That the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is the conclusive evidence 
 of any man’s personal Christianity, the only undeceiving 
 mark by which the Christian may test himself, is in perfect 
 agreement with the Pauline view; in 2 Tim. 11, 19 it is 
 said concerning the sure foundation of God, that is, accord- 
 ing to the context, the Christian community: ἔχει τὴν 
 σφραγῖδα ταύτην, ἔγνω κύριος τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ" Kal, ἀποσ- 
 τήτω ἀπὸ τῆς ἀδικίας πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 «Χριστοῦ. In this passage also there is, by the side of the 
 divine knowledge which is not within man’s apprehension, 
 the turning away from ἀδικία, that is, positively, the ποιεῖν 
 τὴν δικαιοσύνην ; and this latter is the only possible ground 
 of our own personal knowledge concerning our belonging to 
 the οἰκία Θεοῦ. Not unlike this is the passage, Rom. x. 10. 
 There it is said that while it is faith that justifies, confession 
 saves (σωθῆναι). Internally, the right relation to God is 
 attained through believing ; but in order to the full enjoy- 
 ment of the righteousness of faith, and the realization of its 
 purpose, there must be the outward righteousness of the 
 life: St. Paul, however, here speaks of its expression in 
 word, while St. John makes the work prominent, The 
 
152 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIIN. 
 
 divine sonship spoken of here is imparted before any doing 
 of man can claim or approve it; but man’s good work 
 demonstrates its reality, and only thus is the full assurance 
 of sonship attained. 
 
 After having found our position by means of a careful 
 examination of vers. 28 and 29, let us take a parting 
 glance at the details. St. John begins with καὶ viv μένετε 
 ἐν αὐτῷ, joining on to the preceding context. The καὶ 
 νῦν is always appropriated to this use,— namely, that 
 of introducing something new on the basis of a previous 
 discussion ; such is its service in the only passage of St. 
 John’s Gospel where it occurs, ch. xvi. 5. The new 
 thought that enters is the παῤῥησία in the judgment, which 
 thought is mediated and introduced by the ποιεῖν τὴν 
 δικαιοσύνην. The principle of this mediation between them 
 is that God Himself is righteous, and righteousness is 
 therefore an essential attribute of one who is born ἐξ 
 avtov,—that is, of God’s own very nature. From the con- 
 nection it follows that the righteousness of God does not 
 here refer to His judicial righteousness: as if it were, Ye 
 know that the judgment will be a righteous one, therefore 
 so act that ye may stand in such a day as that. The 
 ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην does not correspond to the judicial 
 righteousness of God, but to His righteous character and 
 holiness. Adkavos here has the same meaning as in ch. ii. 2 
 and John xvii. 25 (comp. on ch.i. 9). This principle, that 
 God is essentially righteous, is to the Christian undoubted 
 and fundamental, οὔδατε ; and that we on our side have in 
 the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην the assurance that we are born 
 of Him, is the logical deduction that naturally follows, 
 γινώσκετε. A thing, however, which is to be represented 
 as necessary is not expressed by the imperative, but by the 
 indicative ; consequently we must understand γινώσκετε as 
 indicative here. 
 
CHAP, III. 1. Lod 
 
 OHA PT ER, ΤΙ]. 
 
 Verse 1, 
 
 Ἴδετε, ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ πατὴρ, ἵνα τέκνα 
 Θεοῦ κληθῶμεν᾽ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς, ὅτι 
 οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν. 
 
 The external bond of connection between this verse and 
 what precedes is clear; the Christian sonship, which in 
 ver. 29 was mentioned in the last place, is resumed by 
 means of the τέκνα Θεοῦ κληθῆναι, in order to make 
 prominent the greatness of the divine gift which is im- 
 parted in it. Yet this evident connection decides nothing 
 as to the chain of thought in the following verses ; that 
 will have to be detected on a careful consideration of the 
 details. Ἴδετε, St. John says, ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν 
 ἡμῖν ὁ πατήρ. Into the thought of the glory of this sacred 
 relation our minds should profoundly sink: the emphasis 
 of that high dignity is not alone in ἴδετε, which announces 
 something most specific, but also in the pronoun ποταπός. 
 This never occurs in the New Testament save as intro- 
 ducing an exclamation of amazement. It never serves, 
 however, to indicate merely external greatness (as equiva- 
 lent to guantus), but always that which is internal (qualis). 
 The meaning is not that it is a special kind of love which 
 we have to wonder at in the divine relation of father, as if 
 in proportion to other kinds of love ; but the reference is 
 generally to the wonderfulness of its interior characteristic : 
 the full depth, interiority, and grace of it is marked im- 
 pressively by this word. ᾿Α4γάπην διδόναν says more than 
 a mere demonstration of love; the full power of divine 
 love has imparted itself to us as our own, is a free gift to 
 us ; not only specific manifestations of the love of God, 
 but that love itself is given to us. 
 
154 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 And this was the Father’s act, ὁ πατήρ. It might seem 
 obvious, since the subject here is our relation towards God 
 as children, to refer this πατήρ to the relation between 
 God and us, and thus to read it as if it were πατὴρ ἡμῶν. 
 But a closer consideration teaches that throughout the 
 entire Gospel of St. John the expression πατήρ, when it is 
 used absolutely of God, always indicates the Father of 
 Jesus Christ. The only two passages in which it might be 
 _ thought to have a different meaning are John iv. 21, 23; 
 as the woman of Samaria did not know the specific relation 
 of Jesus to God, the expression must have been unintel- 
 ligible to her in that sense. But they need not be made 
 exceptions, especially as the woman certainly understood 
 that the Lord was speaking concerning God, and there was 
 no need that she should apprehend precisely in what sense 
 He used the word. In our Epistle the expression ὁ πατήρ 
 is either obviously to be understood at once of God as the 
 Father of Jesus Christ, as, for example, in ch. 11. 22 seq.; 
 or it occurs without manifest reference to Christ, as in 
 ch. ii, 14-16. But even in these last cases it is not 
 obligatory to supply ἡμῶν ; rather, in harmony with the 
 frequent use of the word in the lips of Jesus, it seems 
 preferable to find in them the standing designation of the 
 first person in the Godhead, so that ὁ πατήρ should corre- 
 spond to our “ God the Father.” If this be so, we are then 
 disposed here also to regard the expression as indicating 
 the way in which God has demonstrated this love to us,— 
 that is, as the Father of Jesus Christ, and through the 
 mission of His Son. 
 
 That the final clause with ἵνα is by most expositors 
 softened down, and the philological purism of those rebuked 
 who are not content that it should be so, is easily under- 
 stood, because in fact, according to the connection, the 
 κληθῆναι τέκνα Θεοῦ seems to be the content of the ἀγάπη. 
 We should, indeed, have a perfectly satisfying interpretation 
 if we take the ἵνα in its rigorous meaning as stating the 
 desigen. What a depth and inwardness of love is that 
 which the Father hath given us in order that we might be 
 called His children! The thought would be: “ How much 
 
CHAP. III. 1. 15 
 
 οι 
 
 it cost Him that I am redeemed!” But since this idea of 
 the mission and death of His Son comes in without any 
 direct mediating link, we must prefer to take the κληθῆναι 
 τέκνα Θεοῦ as certainly the content of the ἀγάπη ; but that 
 which is its content and meaning is αὐ the same time its 
 end. The love of God is moariifested in this, that He 
 makes us His children; but that very same thing is the 
 goal He aimed at, the object He pursued. Now it is pre- 
 cisely the latter point that is brought into prominence, and 
 there is no reason whatever why we should take the ἵνα 
 as echatic. It is God’s will to make us His τέκνα : that 
 it does not run simply τέκνα αὐτοῦ, but Θεοῦ is placed 
 instead, was intended to point to the height and greatness, 
 past all understanding, of this gift, to be children of the 
 eternal and all-glorious God. 
 
 It is well known that St. John has only the expression 
 τέκνα Θεοῦ, while St. Paul has by the side of it the υἱοὶ 
 Θεοῦ. The internal reason of this distinction in the ex- 
 pression will appear when we come to examine the second 
 verse. But the material difference between the two manners _ 
 of viewing the relation to God we may here at once illus- 
 trate. The idea of the γεννηθῆναι ἐκ tod Θεοῦ, which, 
 according to the connection, constitutes the τέκνα Θεοῦ, is 
 not current in St. Paul’s writings ; and when he uses any 
 expressions like them, they have a different signification © 
 from that of St. John. We know, indeed, that the former 
 speaks of an ἀνακαίνωσις Tod νόος (Rom. xii. 2); of a νέος 
 ἄνθρωπος avakawovpevos εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν 
 (Col. iii. 10); of an ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν 
 κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα (Eph. iv. 28); of ἃ καινὴ κτίσις 
 (Gal. vi. 15). But im all these places the renewal is a 
 formation back into the original human nature as created 
 of God. This is expressly brought into prominence in the 
 passage to the Colossians by the definition tod κτίσαντος 
 αὐτόν. It isa reforming back again which indeed comes 
 to effect through the grace of God; and it has its measure 
 or standard (κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα) in the nature of God, 
 because it was simply in the image of God that man was 
 originally created; but it is not on that account said to take 
 
156 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 place, as it were, owt of or from God’s nature. This, how- 
 ever, is the side which St. John brings out in the idea of 
 the παλυγγενεσία, of the γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, and 
 keeps always before him. Even in the passage where St. 
 Paul uses the word παλιγγενεσία, Tit. iii. 5, we shall, after 
 the analogy of his general habit of thought and statement, 
 be constrained to find only the element of the renewal 
 through the help of the Divine Spirit, through a renewal or 
 reimpartation of the original gift of the Spirit (@vaxai- 
 νωσις Πνεύματος ‘Ayiov), while St. John never fixes his 
 eye on the mere outpouring and help of grace, but always 
 on the communication of God’s own divine nature. 
 
 ~ This difference is in close connection with another which 
 has often been dwelt upon,—namely, that St. Paul regards 
 us as children of God adoptive, and therefore uses the word 
 υἱοθεσία, while St. John regards us as children in nature 
 and reality. The former stands hard by or is closely related 
 to the Pauline emphasis on the Christ For us, his juridical 
 doctrine of satisfaction (this word we use, be it remembered, 
 without the slightest undertone of condemnation); the 
 latter is more in harmony with the Johannaean emphasis 
 upon the Christ IN us. According to St. Paul, we receive 
 for Christ’s sake the rights of children ; according to St. 
 John, we receive, through Christ, the children’s nature, 
 According to St. Paul, the old’nature of man is transformed 
 into a new? according to St. John, an altogether new 
 principle of nature takes the place of the former. It is 
 most evident that the two views are substantially one and 
 true; but they depend on the respective general systems of 
 the two apostles. And this explains, too, how the full mean- 
 ing of δέδωκεν is in the leading clause: the love of God is 
 a gift ; it is particularly the gift of His Spirit; still more 
 
 particularly it is the gift of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. 
 
 There is a remarkable difference of reading in the telic 
 clause. According to the authority of the manuscripts, 
 there should be after the κληθῶμεν a very decisive Kai 
 ἐσμέν added. Respect for the important witnesses in its 
 favour will not permit us to strike it out absolutely ; yet it 
 seems to us in a high degree suspicious; not, indeed, on 
 
CHAP. III. 1. 157 
 
 account of the continuity in the form of the sentence which 
 it mars,—for of this there are examples enough to be 
 adduced,—but on account of the sense of the whole. The 
 greatness of the divine gift does not consist in this, that 
 we are acknowledged as God’s children, but primarily and 
 pre-eminently in this, that we are such in reality ; which 
 also the recapitulation of the thought in ver. 2 by τέκνα 
 Θεοῦ ἐσμέν makes emphatic. The κληθώμεν of our passage 
 would be suitable on this supposition only, as it includes 
 the εἶναι or ἐσμέν. But if, after the κληθῶμεν, this latter 
 idea was supernumerarily added, then the former word 
 must mean only the acknowledgment of sonship, and not 
 the bemg sons. The emerging thought would then be 
 harsh and distorted. We might, indeed, accept ὦμεν καὶ 
 κληθῶμεν, but not the inverted order. It is preferable, 
 therefore, to regard the καὶ ἐσμέν as a gloss which came 
 very early into the text; this would explain the many 
 testimonies in its favour as well as its indicative form. 
 The subject of the verb, who calls us children, is not to be 
 regarded as God—for what would there be remarkable in 
 His calling us what we are ?—but believers themselves ; 
 and in favour of this way of taking it comes in the 
 antithesis in the sequel, ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς. 
 According to our general exposition of the Epistle, the 
 apostle is occupied from the very beginning with the idea 
 of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of light; the indi- 
 vidual comes into consideration not as an individual, but as 
 a member of the whole body, as a stone in the temple of 
 God. This recognition which the single member receives 
 from the church is what lies in the καλεῖσθαι. And there 
 is a double propriety of the word in this section, which 
 treats of the confirmation or proof of sonship in deed. In 
 the spiritual generation les the point or characteristic to 
 approve ourselves children of God,—that is, the necessity 
 of proving ourselves such; and the precise counterpart of 
 this is our recognition by others as children. 
 
 But, indeed, only on the part of the church. For, 
 precisely in the proportion that we approve ourselves to 
 them as children of God, shall we be unintelligible by the 
 
158 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 world. The διὰ τοῦτο of the last clause in ver. 1 does not 
 refer to the following ἕνα any more than it does to the 
 καλεῖσθαι that precedes, but to the τέκνα Θεοῦ εἶναι, or, 
 still better, to the whole of the previous clause. Because 
 we have become partakers of this divine love, which com- 
 municates to us its own essence, the world cannot know 
 us, because it knows not Him whom we have come to 
 resemble so much. Substantially, therefore, this proposi- 
 
 tion is quite naturally proved by that out of which it 
 - flows ; nevertheless there is a touch of strangeness about 
 it, inasmuch as there is scarcely any allusion throughout 
 the entire section, vers. 1-10, to our relation to the world. 
 And in fact the significance of this added clause is gathered 
 less from the particular thought precisely touched upon 
 here, than from the whole tenor of the Johannaean habit 
 of thinking generally. It is St. John’s manner, as we have 
 seen it illustrated abundantly throughout the two former 
 chapters, always to think in antitheses: to construct the 
 matter of a positive idea out of its combination or contrast 
 with its opposite. Precisely so is it here. The greatness 
 of God’s love, which admits us into fellowship with God 
 Himself, is to be brought out all the more vividly through 
 this antithesis, that our perfect and absolute separation 
 from the world, even down to a total want of common 
 understanding, is made so prominent. Thus the second 
 ~ hemistich is introduced, not for the sake of the discussion 
 that follows, but purely to illustrate the thought itself and 
 as such now in hand. 
 
 VERSE 2, 
 
 ᾿Αγαπητοὶ, viv τέκνα Θεοῦ eopev' καὶ οὔπω ἐφανερώθη 
 τί ἐσόμεθα. οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτε ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ 
 ἐσόμεθα: ὅτι ὀψόμεθα αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστι. 
 
 The fellowship with God, which is based upon the 
 γεννηθῆναι ἐξ αὐτοῦ or the τέκνον Θεοῦ εἶναι, is the 
 prominent idea of the section before us: the tokens of this 
 divine sonship, which are no other than the ποιεῖν τὴν 
 δικαιοσύνην, are not to be more carefully exhibited. Great 
 as the love of God is which approves itself in the gift of our 
 
CHAP, III. 2. 159 
 
 sonship (ver. 1), in that gift it has not reached its highest 
 goal: it will make us partakers of something higher still. 
 What that higher prerogative is the second verse shows. 
 The apostle begins by an emphasized repetition of the 
 present gift, νῦν τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμεν. The verse before had 
 spoken of the κληθῆναι τέκνα Θεοῦ, this verse speaks of the 
 εἶναι ; for in ver. 1 the apostle’s aim was not only to bring 
 out our filial relationship to God, but at the same time the 
 position which in virtue of it we attain as to other children 
 of Godin His kingdom; but here this aspect of the matter 
 recedes, and our absolute relationship to God and to Him 
 alone comes again to the front. 
 
 It is usual to expound the thought of the verse thus: 
 we are already indeed internally the children of God, 
 though not yet such in the fullest sense of the word; here- 
 after this internal habitus will also be externally mani- 
 fested (ἐὰν φανερωθῇ), and then will this sonship be 
 revealed, through the contemplation of God, through the 
 ὅμοιον αὐτῷ εἶναι, in all its glory and fulness. The dis- 
 tinction between the now and the then would accordingly 
 in that case be only quantitative and not qualitative; not 
 a difference in the thing, but in the degree of it; only the 
 difference between the germinal beginning and the developed 
 consummation. But this analysis seems to us by no means 
 in harmony with the phraseology of the verse. For when 
 we read νῦν τέκνα ἐσμὲν καὶ οὔπω ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα, 
 there is a difference certainly and obviously established as 
 to the predicative definition of the sonship: the declaration 
 of what we shall be one day is placed in contrast with 
 what we now are, that is, with the τέκνα Θεοῦ εἶναι. If we 
 seize the exact sense of the words, it can be only this, 
 that we shall be hereafter something different as children 
 of God from what we now are. If it had been the 
 apostle’s design to express the thought given above as the 
 alternative, to wit, that the sonship now begun would 
 hereafter be consummated, we should expect οὔπω ἐφανε- 
 ρώθη τί ἐσμεν instead of οὔπω ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα, --- 
 that is, what we essentially are now already is simply not 
 yet come to its full expansion and development (οὔπω 
 
100 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST, JONN. 
 
 ἐφανερώθη). Moreover, we should in this case look for 
 τέκνα Θεοῦ in the beginning of the sentence, emphasized 
 thus as the idea common to the present and the future, 
 τέκνα Θεοῦ ἤδη νῦν ἐσμεν κα. But, as the words now 
 run, the τέκνα is in antithesis with what follows: now the 
 _children of God, hereafter something different. 
 
 Of course, this antithesis is not an absolute one. By 
 the φανεροῦσθαι the future development is also exhibited 
 as a consummation of the present estate; only that this 
 development leads to something beyond the τέκνα Θεοῦ. 
 Thus, then, an unbiassed consideration of the whole verse 
 “arrives at this idea: we have now the mighty gift of son- 
 ship to God, but hereafter it will be shown what we shall 
 be; in any case, something more than this. The crisis at 
 “which this new development will enter is indeed, strictly 
 speaking, not declared; for we do not read ὅταν, but ἐὰν 
 φανερωθῇ; but, inasmuch as this φανερωθῇ does sub- 
 stantially look back to the φανερωθῆναι of ch. 11. 29, it is 
 manifest that the apostle is thinking of the development 
 commencing with the judgment, that is, of eternity. But 
 this does not by any means decide that the φανερωθῇ has 
 the same subject as in ch. 11. 28, Christ namely; rather it 
 is more obvious to take τί ἐσόμεθα as the subject: when it 
 will come to the light of day to what consummate and final 
 ‘development we are called. 
 
 But, though the matter and meaning of our full develop- 
 ment does not actually lie before our thought in revelation, 
 yet it is already well known to us (οἴδαμεν). What it is 
 we find announced in the two sentences, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ 
 ἐσόμεθα and ὀψόμεθα αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστιν. The stricter 
 apprehension of what this means depends primarily on the 
 view we take of the ὅτε which introduces the second clause. 
 It either gives the reason of the first, exhibiting the likeness 
 as the result of the seeing, or it gives the reason of the 
 οἴδαμεν. But since in the latter case it must, taken ex- 
 actly, have meant that we know that we shall see Him; 
 and further, since the ὄπτεσθαι αὐτόν as a reason for our 
 ὅμοιον εἶναι αὐτῷ is, as we shall see, a decidedly biblical 
 idea, we shall adhere to the first view, and accordingly 
 
CHAP. III. 2. 161 
 
 proceed from the second clause as the presupposition on 
 which the first depends. 
 
 Now, however, rises the question who is to be under- 
 stood by the pronoun αὐτόν, whether God or Christ. 
 It cannot be denied that, taking the preceding sentence 
 into account, the more obvious subject is 6 @eds; it is 
 further in favour of referring the pronoun to the Father, 
 that in ver. 3 the Son is defined by ἐκεῖνος. for, if 
 the Son is throughout spoken of, why this change of the 
 pronoun, why the ἐκεῖνος, which obviously seems to refer to 
 a more distant subject ? But, as it respects the first reason, 
 we have just now seen that in ver. 29 the Father is without 
 any further intimation spoken of after the Son had been 
 decidedly the subject in ver. 28; while it was there obvious 
 enough that the reader should understand the Son to be 
 the subject because St. John points him to the ἡμέρα 
 κρίσεως, on which, according to scriptural teaching gene- 
 rally, as in particular that of ch. 11. 28, the Son is the 
 active person. As to the second reason, the entering of 
 ἐκεῖνος into the third verse, we may appeal to ver. 1, 
 where ἐκεῖνος stands although in what precedes the Lord 
 had been more than once spoken of as αὐτός. But yet 
 more stringent is the appeal to John v. 39: ἐρευνᾶτε τὰς 
 γραφὰς, ὅτι ὑμεῖς δοκεῖτε ᾽ν αὐταῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχειν" καὶ 
 ἐκεῖναί εἰσιν αἱ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ. Here the change 
 of the pronouns in the same verse obviously did not arise 
 out of a change in the subject, but ἐκεῖνος is substituted 
 only for stronger emphasis on the same subject: “these 
 very same are they which testify of Me.” Precisely so is 
 it here: “ He that hath this hope in Him purifieth himself, 
 even as the same He is pure.” But all this only proves 
 the possibility that the pronouns of the second and third 
 verses collectively may be referred to Christ; it is shown to_ 
 be necessary, however, by the expression itself, ὀψόμεθα ἡ 
 αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστι. It is everywhere the scriptural doctrine 
 that the Father can in no sense whatever be seen. That 
 does not follow so much from the Johannaean utterance, 
 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε TeOéatar,—for, although He is not seen 
 here below, He might, nevertheless, in some sense be seen 
 
 ᾿1 JOHN. L 
 
102 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 in eternity,— but it is absolutely required by the Pauline 
 saying, Ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν δύναται... 
 φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον. It is true that in some passages 
 of the New Testament — not to speak of figurative ex- 
 pressions in the Old—a seeing or beholding of God is 
 spoken of. But Matt. v. 8 can hardly be reckoned among 
 these; on the one hand, because the seven benedictions 
 revolve so directly in Old Testament terms that we must 
 needs understand them after the meaning rather of the Old 
 Testament than of the New, as, for instance, in the verse 
 immediately following the one referred to the idea of the 
 υἱοὶ Θεοῦ is altogether a different one from that which is 
 exhibited, as we have seen, in our Epistle; on the other 
 hand, because, as promise and requirement must stand in 
 a close relation, the preceding καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ seems 
 clearly to indicate the sphere in which the seeing is to be 
 enjoyed, that is, in the heart. 
 
 The meaning of the words is thus no other than that of 
 Ps, xvii, 15: WON ppPTI nyaby Pw AM piva wz. The 
 form of God which David would contemplate is His mani- 
 festation of Himself; and thus the first hemistich also, as 
 similarly Matt. viii. 15, understands by the seeing of God 
 the immediate fellowship of the heart with Him. As 
 it respects Rev. xxii. 4, the visions of this book also are 
 extremely analogous with the Old Testament style of 
 representation, and it is hazardous to derive any dogmas 
 immediately from its figures; while, in addition to this, we 
 have there the πρόσωπον τοῦ Θεοῦ, and this of itself points 
 us to the sphere of transcendent divine manifestations. 
 
 The doctrine of Scripture on this point comes most 
 clearly out of John xiv. 7. There it is expressly said that 
 the disciples have seen the Father because they see the 
 Son: this is the only way in which a vision of God is 
 practicable. From the beginning of days down to the 
 most distant aeons the Logos is the only revealer of the 
 Father ; and no one enters into any union with the Father 
 save through His mediation. That general signification, 
 according to which the ὄπτεσθαν may certainly be 
 predicated also of God, cannot be applied in our present 
 
CHAP. III. 2. Ge 
 
 passage: here there is no allusion to any spiritual behold- 
 ing. For this takes place even on earth, and could not 
 therefore be appropriately assigned to futurity. Moreover, 
 in that case, the consequence deduced would not hold good; 
 for, although in that spiritual sense we may indeed already 
 see God, we are by no means on that account ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ. 
 The reference to God is also excluded by the καθώς ἐστι: 
 this addition can mean to indicate nothing less than an 
 absolutely adequate knowledge of God; but how is it 
 possible that man, the creature, should ever reach by con- 
 templation the interior and perfect fulness of the Creator ? 
 But, if we are reduced on such a supposition to accept the 
 beholding of God in a limited sense, the consequence 
 deduced from it, the ὅμοιον εἶναι αὐτῷ, must in like 
 manner be limited; and the full and weighty expressions 
 of the apostle must become altogether indefinite and 
 nebulous. Only in one way can we know God, that is, 
 
 through knowing Christ; and Him we may know because 
 
 He has become like us. The same inference we draw 
 
 from the expression ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα. Is it the style 
 of Scripture to say that we shall be like unto God? Con- 
 cerning Christ it affirms not only the ὅμοιον εἶναι, but also 
 the εἶναι ica Θεῷ (Phil. ii. 6); but is this said also of us? 
 One we are to become like, the Lord Jesus; therefore 
 it is said in Phil. iii. 21 that our earthly body is to be 
 glorified into the likeness (εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι σύμμορφον) 
 of His glorified body, and that we should grow up εἰς 
 μέτρον ἡλικίας Kal πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. But nothing 
 of this kind could be said of God, nor is anything of 
 this kind ever said. Finally, then, as after all our dis- 
 cussion there is a phraseological possibility of referring 
 the pronoun to Christ, while all scriptural analogy most 
 decidedly favours our doing so, we must follow this 
 guidance; and we shall find that fuller investigation of 
 the details will furnish further justification of our doing so. 
 
 Now when St. John declares that Christians “know” 
 that they shall see the Lord, the question immediately 
 
 rises as to the ground of that knowledge. First of all, we | 
 
 must go back to the sayings of our Lord Himself; and we 
 
164 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 find in the high-priestly prayer, John xvu. 24, a thought 
 altogether similar: πάτερ, ods δέδωκάς μοι, θέλω ἵνα ὅπου 
 εἰμὶ ἐγὼ, κἀκεῖνοι ὦσι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ἵνα θεωρῶσι τὴν δόξαν τὴν! 
 ἐμὴν ἣν ἔδωκάς μοι. From these words was derived and 
 formed the Christian hope of seeing the Lord as He is in 
 . His glory. It is precisely this which the expression says, 
 ὀψόμεθα αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστιν. A beholding of the glorified 
 Redeemer as He is (καθὼς ἔστιν), is, in fact, on earth 
 impossible; it is altogether outside of the ability of the 
 human spirit to form a conception of the Son of man as 
 He is now, since He has been received again into the 
 fellowship of Deity, the man Jesus with the attributes of 
 the Godhead ; yea, even His glorified body we cannot con- 
 ceive of. For all this we have no faculty nor ability to 
 -contemplate now. Καθὼς ἦν, as He once walked on the 
 face of this earth the Son of man, the apostles had seen 
 Him; thus have we also seen Him, at least in spiritual 
 contemplation, since the apostles have set Him before our 
 eyes as if He were visibly amongst us crucified; καθὼς 
 ἔστιν, in the glory which He had before the foundation of 
 the world, and which He has again now restored, no one 
 thas ever yet seen Him, nor can any one see Him. If, 
 then, the καθώς ἐστιν of our passage corresponds to the 
 phrase τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι (John xvii. 22); if, 
 further, the δόξα Θεοῦ of ch. i. 6 has been understood of 
 His ἐν φωτὶ eivar,—then must the seeing of the Lord as 
 He is be no other than the seeing Him as He is φώς. 
 Assuredly, the expression Θεὸς φῶς, ch. 1. 5, applied 
 primarily to the Father; not only, however, is it a firmly 
 settled point that what the Father hath the Son hath like- 
 wise, but also it is expressly said that the Logos is τὸ φῶς 
 τῶν ἀνθρώπων, and in ch. ii. 9 the expressions ἐν τῷ φωτὶ 
 εἶναι, TO φῶς ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει, are referred to the Son. 
 The idea of light is so entirely the fundamental idea of the 
 Epistle before us, that in this passage we may translate 
 ὄπτεσθαι αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστιν by beholding the light of the 
 Redeemer’s glory. God dwells in an inaccessible light; but 
 though we cannot find direct access, indirect access we can 
 find to His presence. Our verse lays down the means of 
 
CHAP, III. 9. 165 
 
 this: we may hereafter see the Lord in His glory, as the 
 ἀπαύγασμα τοῦ φωτός. And thus the apostle’s assertion, 
 that through this beholding of the Lord (ὅτι) we may 
 be made like Him, comes to its clear meaning. Here 
 again we may refer to Matt. vi. 22: the eye is not only 
 the organ by means of which we see the light as an 
 external thing; it is, at the same time, the medium through 
 which our whole body becomes light,—that is, the medium 
 through which the light outside of us is translated into our 
 own eye. Thus, he who seeth the Lord in His glory as_ 
 light, becomes thereby a light himself; what is beheld 
 becomes his own immediate possession; he becomes like 
 his Lord. The ὅμοιος must not be pressed too far, nor 
 must it be softened away: of the former we are in danger 
 when we think of anything like absolute equality, which the 
 word says nothing about; of the latter we are in danger 
 when we think only of holiness in general. This holiness, 
 the turning away from all sin, should, according to the 
 tenor of what follows, be found even upon earth; that 15 
 a prerogative which we already have as τέκνα Θεοῦ; but 
 when it shall be manifested τί ἐσόμεθα, there will be 
 something beyond that privilege, even the glorification of our 
 whole being after the analogy of the being of our glorified © 
 Lord. It is an altogether wrong and inadequate idea that 
 limits the blessedness of heaven to sinlessness. Through 
 sin our whole nature has become different; and therefore 
 the heavenly life, the ὅμοιον εἶναι αὐτῷ, will be something 
 beyond the mere ceasing from sin. Sinless our Lord was 
 upon earth; yet, notwithstanding that, His present exist- 
 ence is altogether different from that which He had upon 
 earth. 
 
 And now we have arrived at the point from which we 
 may clearly discern what is the distinction between the 
 τέκνα Θεοῦ and the τί, of which it is said that such we 
 shall be. That the consummation oi believers here dealt 
 with is to be something different from the sonship, has been 
 hitherto maintained and proved by appeal to the expres- 
 sions here used. But now we shall vindicate the correct- 
 ness of this assertion by substantial reasons taken from the 
 
τι 
 
 166 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 nature of the case. Here on earth the Saviour was a Son 
 of God in the fullest and highest sense. Indeed, He was 
 also very much more: even here already He was the Son 
 of God, equal to God in power. But was He equal also 
 in honour? The dignity, the divine form, He had laid 
 aside, and with respect to this He was while upon earth, 
 in virtue of His own spontaneous decision, not ὅμοιος τῷ 
 Θεῷ. To that He was restored in its fullest and deepest 
 sense only by the ascension. So shall it be with us. We 
 also are now τέκνα Θεοῦ; but that does not constitute us 
 like ene elon neny more than He Himself was in an aise 
 
 oan 2 ne 
 
 
 
 
 
 μορφὴ Θεοῦ was lacking to Him. But this we shall be, 
 
 the apostle’s promise tells us. 
 
 And what means the expression which the New Tes- 
 tament Scripture elsewhere uses to describe this con- 
 summated likeness? “AdeAdol Χριστοῦ. Our Lord gives 
 His disciples this name ‘once after the resurrection (John 
 xx. 17); for through what it signifies the likeness is 
 rendered possible ; that is the very τ τς of it, as the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews clearly shows (ch. ii, 11). But, on 
 the other hand, the feeling of every one of our hearts tells 
 us that, while we even now may assume to be the children 
 of God, we cannot arrogate the dignity of brotherhood with 
 
 Christ. He is not ashamed to call us brethren (Heb. 
 ii. 17); but we must not be bold enough to adopt the 
 
 name. The brotherhood, which consists in perfect likeness 
 to the Lord, we shall _reach only at_the end of the days 
 
 when we shall see Him as He is. 
 
 Now comes out clearly the reason of that peculiarity 
 in St. John’s phraseology to which we have referred,—to 
 wit, that he uses the phrase τέκνα Θεοῦ, but never adopts 
 St. Paul’s word viol Θεοῦ. The former is a relative and 
 transitory designation; the latter is one that never ceases. 
 One remains a υἱός all through his life; He even who is 
 exalted to the right hand of God is a υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ; but 
 it would be impossible to call Him any longer a τέκνον, 
 for in this idea there is always the element of subordina- 
 tion or of a development not yet fulfilled. On earth human 
 
CHAP. III. 8. 167 
 
 parents may, indeed, still term an adult child τέκνον; but 
 that is only because, in relation to their offspring, they are 
 conscious of being in authority, or of standing in a higher 
 position. If St. Paul uses, in addition to the expressions 
 τέκνα Θεοῦ, that of υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, it is simply because he con- 
 denses all that we have or ever shall have into this latter 
 term, without reflecting specifically on the beginning of 
 the development as the definition τέκνα would suggest it. 
 On the other hand, St. John uses only this latter expres- 
 sion, because he never leaves out of sight this element of 
 the commencing development. St. Paul uses child and son ' 
 promiscuously ; St. John does not, for to him child always 
 denotes the idea of immaturity or of being under age. For 
 the present, therefore, he knows only the one υἱὸς Θεοῦ, Him 
 who is our common Master ; all the rest of us are τέκνα. 
 Θεοῦ. But thus it shall not be always. He thinks of a 
 stage when we shall be in full possession of equality with 
 Christ; and he expresses his idea of this by the ὅμοιον 
 εἶναι αὐτῷ, that is, Χριστῷ: The filial relation, viewed as 
 τέκνα εἶναι, is therefore not yet identical with the ὅμοιον 
 εἶναι Χριστῷ; it is rather the germ and the principle out 
 of which the latter grows into full formation, like the moth 
 from the pupa-chrysalis. And it is this which makes the 
 term φανεροῦσθαι so admirably expressive: nothing new 
 will then be imparted; it will be only the full evolution 
 or expansion into the light of the germs already deposited. 
 That our view of the filial relation in St. John’s words is 
 the right one, receives, as we think, strong support from the 
 circumstance that the Apocalypse, which points throughout 
 to this φανέρωσις, altogether omits the word we now 
 consider. 
 
 VERSE 3. 
 
 Καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ἁγνίζει 
 ἑαυτὲν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος ἁγνός ἐστι. 
 
 The apostle’s aim in inserting here the reference to the 
 future consummation in the other world, becomes obvious 
 in the third verse. His eschatology is one that is alto- 
 gether practical. To this estate of glory we attain only 
 
108 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 through intermediate stages; it is not reached through an 
 act of divine despotic power; but a way 1s, definitely 
 marked out. If the goal is likeness"fo Christ, 1 18 of the 
 utmost importance to have that goal always and steadily 
 ind practically in view. Thus the third verse impresses 
 its seal on our interpretation of the previous one. That is 
 to say, taking as we have done both pronouns (αὐτός, ver. 2, 
 and ἐκεῖνος, ver. 3) as indicating Christ, the idea is extremely 
 plain: Would you be hereafter perfectly like Christ, you 
 must even now aim at this same end. On the other band, 
 if we refer the αὐτός of the second verse to the Father, the 
 point of connection with the third is lost : how from the hope 
 of becoming like God may spring the zeal to preserve the 
 ἁγνεία of Christ is not said; and yet it is that we should 
 expect. But we must even now aim to resemble the ἁγνεία 
 of our Lord. We must be on our guard against taking this 
 idea as interchangeable with that of the ὅμοιον εἶναι αὐτῷ 
 in the previous verse. ‘“Ayvel/a_is essentially the require- 
 ment of _sinlessness; this is exhibited as the goal and 
 problem of the earthly development of the Christian. But 
 if I think of this requirement as fulfilled, yet this is far 
 from including the full meaning of the ὅμοιον εἶναι αὐτῷ, 
 as it was still more closely defined by the addition καθώς 
 ἐστι. Christ was, indeed, sinless here upon earth; but 
 that did not constitute Him the glorified _one whom we are 
 to become like. The weakness of which the Apostle Paul 
 speaks, in relation to Christ’s earthly life (2 Cor. xiii. 4), 
 the constraints and manifold limitation to which He had 
 subjected Himself, would remain in us also, even if we 
 were supposed to be sinless. It is therefore with perfect 
 propriety that St. John regards this ἁγνεία as only _a_pre- 
 liminary and Condition of the ὅμοιον εἶναι hereafter to_be 
 attained, ~~ foe vehi) ΤῊΝ ἢ 
 But the requirement of ἁγνεία requires to be defined 
 more closely. Despite its etymological affinity with ἅγιος, 
 the word ἁγνός, in profane as well as in scriptural use, has 
 a perfectly distinct and definite meaning apart from ἅγιος. 
 On the one hand, it is to be observed that ἅγνός contains 
 even in classical Greek a negative element, which takes 
 
CHAP, III. 8. 169 
 
 form in an abundance of connections, such as dyvos φόνου, 
 ἁγνὸς γάμου. Further, the etymological link with ἅξεσθαι, 
 fear, and ἄγαμαι, wonder at, is more firmly adhered to in 
 ἁγνός than in ἅγιος. “‘Ayvos is he who is by any autho- 
 rity, or by any power swaying him, preserved from evil. | 
 The ἁγνὸν εἶναι comes to effect through the αἰδώς, the 
 sacred fear. Hence the word is never used of God Him- 
 self; though ἅγιος is used of Him, signifying as it does 
 generally severance from all evil. Hence, further, ayvos is 
 especially used of the chaste spirit; it rests essentially on 
 the internal_abhorrence of anything that would tarnish 
 virgin purity and honour. Similarly, when ἄγνος is said 
 of the Nazarite: his abstinentia is grounded on the dread 
 of tainting by contact with the profane the divine to which 
 he is consecrated. In like manner, the word is in Exodus 
 applied to preparation for the divine revelation of the law: 
 here, also, there is a dread of bringing the natural into too. 
 close proximity to the divine. From all this it appears 
 that ἁγνεία is substantially the virtue of_reverentia. But 
 this being so,—and all passages of the New Testament in 
 which ἁγνός, and words derived from it, appear, confirm it, 
 —the idea seems altogether inappropriate to the exalted 
 Christ. If we read καθὼς ἐκεῖνος ἁγνὸς ἦν, that would not 
 seem quite so strange, for we might suppose this reverentia 
 to have been displayed by the Lord while on earth; His 
 perpetual waiting on the will of the Father, which is s 
 
 prominent in St. John’s Gospel, is nothing but that holy 
 fear. But can this be affirmed also of the glorified Christ ? 
 Is that now necessary to Him? can He indeed yet exercise 
 that? The breath of disciplinary severity, which cannot be 
 detached from the word ἁγνεία, may yet in a certain way 
 be predicated even of the Exalted One. For His present. 
 glory He reached, according to Scripture, only through His 
 absolute obedience, in virtue of His overcoming all tempta- 
 tions, and most entirely submitting Himself to the obedience 
 of the Father’s will, And that which He thus as man 
 attained through exercise of the ἁγνεία is now still stamped 
 upon the countenance of the Redeemer; even as He is 
 beheld by the same St. John in the form and under the 
 
170 TIIE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 aspect of the ἀρνίον ἐσφαγμένον. Nothing of what the 
 Lord possessed upon earth has passed away; everything 
 has become an eternal element of His personality. ΑΒ 
 with man nothing that he has experienced and has become 
 passes away, but without it he would be through the ages 
 of ages different from what he is, so also with the Lord. 
 If, then, we are to become hereafter like Him, the apostle 
 says, we must on our part appropriate to ourselves the 
 ayveia which the Lord exercised here below, in virtue of 
 which He passed into His glory. There is no word which 
 to the same extent as this expresses the whole grace and 
 tenderness of the ethical habit. 
 
 Let us now gather up the connection of the strain now 
 developed. St. John taught us, in ch. ii. 29, that we shall 
 have confidence in the day of judgment only on the ground 
 of the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, which will approve us as yeyev- 
 νημένοι. ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. This γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ is first 
 of all, as we have seen, and as the apostle himself firmly 
 establishes by the ἔδωκεν, a divine gift, entirely independent 
 of human act, the gift, that is, of the Spirit, or, more particu- 
 larly, of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. That is the beginning 
 of all Christian development. We are called the sons of 
 God (κληθῶμεν, ver. 1) not on account of anything we do, 
 but in virtue of a divine act accomplished in us. But, on 
 the other hand, we are to become, ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, like 
 Christ ; and that can take place only if the possibility of 
 this likeness is on our part afforded by the ἁγνίζειν. 
 Between that originating divine act, by which He gives us 
 the Holy Spirit and declares us to be His children, and 
 this conclusive and consummating divine act, by which He 
 makes us like Christ, that is, glorifies us, there is thus a 
 mediating human act or doing, which is called as to its 
 internal characteristic ἁγνεία, and according to its outward 
 expressions ποιεῖν THY δικαιοσύνην. Thus, while God now 
 beholds us as His sons on the ground of His gift, He will 
 call us such in the judgment only if, in the strength of 
 that gift, we have become sons in our act, that is, in the 
 full transformation of our life. The subject, therefore, of 
 the first three verses of our chapter is to establish the 
 
CHAP. III. 4. ΠῚ 
 
 eround of the assurance that the regenerate have confidence | 
 through the working of righteousness: the reason is con- 
 tained in the exposition that the sonship as the gift of God 
 is only the beginning, and that between this and the con- 
 summation (ver. 2) the ἁγνεία, or the moral character and 
 life by which that beginning is to be confirmed and approved, 
 is to be intermediately carried out. 
 
 VERSE 4. 
 
 Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ" καὶ 
 ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία. 
 
 The exhortation to the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην takes a 
 form habitual to our apostle: first of all, he presents sharply 
 to view the ἁμαρτία, its opposite, in order that thereby he 
 may illustrate the meaning of the positive idea concerning 
 which he has to speak. Here it is above all needful that 
 we should regard anything that opposes the δικαιοσύνην as 
 also a contradiction and absolute opposite to the divine 
 nature, as contrary to God in its very essence; and that 
 we should be careful not arbitrarily to restrict in any way 
 the idea of sin. This definition and delimitation of the 
 idea of ἁμαρτία is the subject of the fourth verse. 
 
 This word is not supposed, in the apostle’s teaching, to 
 convey a more comprehensive idea than ἀνομία, but to be 
 strictly co-extensive with it: wherever, therefore, we are 
 constrained to find ἁμαρτία. Nothing evil can to the Chris- 
 tian man be merely imperfection, or sin, so to speak, of 
 the second degree: all is to him transgression of the law. 
 Such is the strict meaning of the word ἀνομία even in 
 classical Greek: it signifies not the conduct which proceeds 
 from a state in which the law is either absent or unknown, 
 it does not imply the exclusion of a νόμος, but rather 
 expresses a guilt which casts aside the law already existing 
 by actual neglect of its requirements, just as in the German 
 Ungesetzlichkeit is interchangeable with Widergesetzlichkett. 
 And thus ἀνομία, when the word really occurs in its full 
 meaning, is the very strongest definition or description of sin : 
 the νόμος, indeed, according to St. Paul, makes sin generally 
 exceeding sinful, and his emphatic word ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς 
 
J Bee THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 Os οὐκ ἐμμένει ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ TOD 
 νόμου (Gal. ii. 20), refers, precisely as St. James does, 
 ch. ii. 10, ὅστις ὅλον τὸν νόμον τηρήσει, πταίσει δὲ ἐν ἑνὶ, 
 γέγονε πάντων ἔνοχος, to sin as definitely and strictly 
 ἀνομία. This sunders man unfailingly, according to the 
 very idea of man, from God. And the force of the apostle’s 
 declaration is, that ἀνομία is not a subordinate kind or a 
 
 specifically aggravated degree of the ἁμαρτία, but that 
 ᾿ every ἁμαρτία is at the same time ἀνομία: in short, that 
 the two ideas cannot be separated from each other. 
 
 The solemn earnestness of this proposition will appear 
 more fully when we inquire what the νόμος is, and what 
 is in St. John’s estimation that νόμος, the violation or not 
 following of which he speaks of in the ἀνομίαᾳ. Most 
 certainly it is not the universal law of conscience; for the 
 New Testament never calls that νόμος ; nor yet is it, how- 
 ever, the law of Moses or the old covenant as such. It is 
 not this, first, because in the Old Testament the strict 
 congruence or coincidence here declared between ἁμαρτία 
 and ἀνομία did not yet exist: there were actually multi- 
 tudes of ἁμαρτίαι, or moral delinquencies, for instance, in 
 the connubial relations which were not forbidden by the 
 letter of the Mosaic law, and were not therefore ἀνομία. 
 Secondly, not the old law, because St. John furnishes no 
 instance of the word νόμος, standing absolutely, being 
 applied to the Mosaic law. It is true that in two passages 
 (John vii. 49, xii. 34) it stands absolutely and as the 
 definition of the Old Testament canon; but it must be 
 observed that this is put into the mouth of the Pharisees 
 only ; and elsewhere there is the invariable addition ὁ νόμος 
 ὑμῶν, ὁ νόμος Μωῦσέως, or the like. The reason of this is 
 to be found in the fact that St. John starts originally (ch. 
 i.18) from the great principle of a sharp antithesis between 
 the revelation of the law and the revelation through Christ. 
 The Mosaic law was to him absolutely and only the law of 
 the Jews: although this did no violence to the truth that 
 Christ was born οὐ καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι. 
 ~ Thus we are constrained to understand the νόμος, op- 
 position to which is here expressed by the word ἀνομία, 
 
CHAP. III. 4. L73 
 
 of the divine law generally and universally, as it is 
 revealed through Christ: the expression refers as well 
 to the as it were new commandments given by the 
 Saviour, as to the spirit of the Old Testament which our 
 lawgiver has only released from the γράμμα enveloping it 
 and thrust forward into the foreground. The uttered or 
 revealed will of God is the νόμος, therefore ἀνομία is the 
 opposition or rebellion of the lawless will against this 
 will, Every ἁμαρτία, consequently, bears on its front the 
 impress of ἀνομία as thus explained: every transgression 
 or shortcoming in the widest sense of the word. But this 
 view of the matter was not obvious to the churches here 
 addressed, any more than it is obvious to us who have 
 received this fundamental declaration in its true meaning: 
 it is only too common in the very nature of men to 
 establish distinctions and gradations among individual sins. 
 As to the countless little failures and defects in common 
 life, no man indeed who is filled with the Spirit of Christ 
 will justify these, or even hold them as indifferent: but 
 have we in relation to them a pressing consciousness of 
 actual transgression of law? Do we look at the manifold 
 discords of our life, and its deviations from the line of the 
 Christian ideal as positive sins, every one of. which imme- 
 diately and certainly separates us from God, and can be 
 expiated or abolished only by deep repentance and a distinct 
 act of forgiveness? Most assuredly in multitudes of cases 
 it is not so: such things are thought of as imperfections, but 
 do not press on the consciousness as ἀνομία. 
 
 Now, St. John declares here that this current view of 
 the matter as entertained by us is not’ of the truth; he 
 lays this down as an axiom without any further demonstra- 
 tion: the demonstration of it is plain enough throughout 
 the whole teaching of the apostle. If, in fact, the Spirit 
 of Christ guides us into all truth, and therefore in every 
 particular case shows us what is right, every sin must be 
 an act of resistance to the drawing of the Spirit, and 
 consequently of disobedience to the will of God as shown 
 by the Spirit, and consequently against the νόμος Θεοῦ. 
 I may not in the specific case have been conscious of the 
 
Lis THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 drawing of the Spirit; but then that was my fault, and 
 does not alter the position of things. As in the well- 
 known passage in the Sermon on the Mount concern- 
 ing the oath, the centre and pith of the explanation— 
 too often unobserved—is that the mere utterance of yea 
 must itself contain equally inviolable truth as the oath 
 with its strong emphasis, the simple affirmation being 
 lifted up to the height of the oath; so here in like manner 
 it is the design of St. John to elevate every sin in its 
 whole and wide domain to the degree of ἀνομία. There 
 lies in every sin, of whatever kind for the rest it may be, 
 the highest grade of guiltiness. 
 
 But this definition of the nature of sin, as it is contained 
 in the words ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία, does not itself 
 constitute the motive of the verse, but serves only for the 
 illustration of the first member of it: he who committeth 
 sin committeth also a breach of the law. The article before 
 ἁμαρτίαν is not intended to distinguish a specific kind of 
 sin from other kinds; for nothing whatever had been said 
 about various kinds of sin in the present Epistle. It 
 simply comprehends the diversified acts of human sin 
 which may take place into the unity of one idea. He who 
 ἁμαρτίαν τινα ποιεῖ, by that very fact also committeth τὴν 
 ἁμαρτίαν ; in every individual transgression the nature of 
 the sin is manifested. The emphasis les in the first 
 hemistich plainly upon the ποιεῖν ; for generally the apostle 
 is here occupied with the doing of men. That the ποιεῖν 
 τὴν ἁμαρτίαν is identical with the ποιεῖν τὴν ἀνομίαν, the 
 apostle proves by the simple declaration that ἁμαρτία and 
 ἀνομία are or ought to be for Christians interchangeable 
 ideas. Similarity of nature implies or produces similarity 
 of outward manifestation. Substantially, therefore, the 
 second universal proposition of the verse is the demon- 
 stration or proof of the first particular proposition; but, 
 inasmuch as they are bound together by the general καί, 
 we see that the apostle reflects not precisely on the causal 
 connection of the two propositions, but simply regards the 
 second as the illustration of the first. Now, if every sin is, 
 as well in its internal nature (ver. 40) as in its outward 
 
CHAP, III, 5. {75 
 
 revelation (ver. 4a), ἀνομία, this assertion must bear to be 
 applied to every specific case: hence the πῶς placed first 
 with strong emphasis, which in this particular section 
 appears as abundant as in the section parallel to it in the 
 organism of the Epistle, ch. i. 6 seq. (comp. vers. 3, 4, 6, 
 down to 9,10 seq.). It is precisely this emphatic assertion 
 of the universal and exceptionless fact that is calculated to 
 impress deeply the conviction that the question here is of 
 every individual sin and of every individual sinner. 
 
 VERSE 5. 
 
 Kai οἴδατε ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας apy’ 
 καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστι. 
 
 Now, as every sinful work is express opposition to the 
 commandment, the revealed will of God, so also it is further 
 a contradiction as well to the manifestation of Christ’ 
 (ver. 5a) as to His person (ver. 50); for He appeared to no. 
 other end than τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἄραι. This phrase may have 
 three meanings: either that Christ has borne our sins, or 
 that He took them upon Himself, or that He has taken 
 them away. Ata glance it will be plain that these three 
 interpretations are substantially very near to each other. 
 If Jesus took sins upon Himself, that could be only in 
 order to bear them; and if He did this, it was, however, for 
 the sake of taking away, and with that design. On the 
 other hand, if the word signifies here that He has borne 
 them away, there are abundant reasons from other quarters 
 to assure us that this was accomplished through His bearing 
 them. Nevertheless, the decision of this point is not matter 
 of indifference; for in the nature of the case St. John 
 must have had expressly in view one or other of these 
 elements. 
 
 The signification of bearing we must give up at once, 
 because St. John never elsewhere uses αἴρειν in this mean- 
 ing; it would be necessary, therefore, to resort to it only if 
 the ordinary meaning was not sufficient. Our apostle uses 
 the word either in an external and local sense for “ lifting up 
 anything,” for example, χεῖρας, λίθους, and the like, or with 
 the significance of “taking away.” Now, if αἴρειν is here 
 
176 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 to mean “take on Himself,” the additional clause καὶ ἐν 
 αὐτῷ ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἔστιν must signify only that although 
 there was no sin in Him, nevertheless He suffered Himself 
 to be treated as a sinner,—that, in fact, not His own sin, but 
 the sin of others lay upon Him. But there is nothing here 
 to indicate such a thought as that; and, moreover, in this 
 case we should have read not ἔστιν, but ἣν. Further, the 
 expression “take sin on Himself” would lead us to the 
 atonement; and the idea would be strictly parallel with 
 that expressed in ch. ii., that Jesus is the ἱλασμὸς περὶ τῶν 
 ἁμαρτιῶν. But any such remembrancer of the atonement 
 must be supposed, as in the instance just quoted, to be 
 apphed as a consolation to those who are still and ever 
 harassed with sin; and what the context here requires as 
 its design is exhortation rather than comfort. In the case 
 just supposed the meaning would be: as ye were the cause 
 of such pains to your Lord, now show yourselves thankful ; 
 of this, however, there is not the faintest indication. 
 
 But there is perfect appropriateness in the thought of a 
 remembrancer of the redemption from sin fully accomplished 
 by our Lord, as that redemption consists in the “ doing 
 away of sin” (the ἡμῶν, “our sins,” must be struck out). 
 If Jesus put away sins, then no one has any part in Him 
 who suffers himself to have any confederacy with sin. 
 
 And by what means was this putting away accomplished, 
 and the new man who τὴν δικαιοσύνην ποιεῖ implanted 
 instead? This is answered by the ἐφανερώθη. It is clear 
 that the expression is larger than πάσχειν or ἀποθνήσκειν, 
 of which, when redemption is in question, we usually think 
 first of all; but it is also quite distinct from the εἰς τὸν 
 κόσμον ἐλήλυθεν or the σὰρξ ἐγένετο. On the one hand, it 
 signifies less than those phrases, inasmuch as the manner in 
 which His manifestation was consummated is not indicated ; 
 while at the same time more than they, inasmuch as it 
 does declare that before the passion His work was actually 
 efficient, although by it alone it was brought to full mani- 
 festation. The entire contents of the prologue, John 1. 1-138, 
 —that the Logos had been from the beginning the light 
 and life of the world, but by means of His incarnation 
 
CHAP, III: δ. LT 
 
 had manifested Himself as such in the highest sense,—lies 
 wrapped up germinally in the φανεροῦσθαι. This self- 
 manifestation was ordered expressly with this design (iva), 
 that sin should be made to disappear. In the fact that the 
 ζωή as such is made manifest, the power of death is sub- 
 stantially taken away through its manifestation ; in the fact 
 that the φῶς ἀληθινόν shineth, the darkness recedes im- 
 mediately and in virtue of its very shining: by a natural 
 necessity the design of our Lord is accomplished; and 
 in reality His entire life, which is here comprehended in 
 the ἐφανερώθη, has not only a redeeming aim and ten- 
 dency, but also a redeeming power. Through His whole 
 influence, word, suffering, dying, rising again, — that is, 
 through the whole process of His ¢avépwous taken on all 
 sides—He implanted in the world subjected to sin the 
 germ of sinlessness. According to the apostle’s view, this 
 power was not wrapped up and concluded in His death, 
 although it was in His death that this power was pre- 
 eminently unfolded. 
 
 The parallel passage, John i. 29, confirms this view of 
 the matter; and that is peculiarly important, because the 
 two passages cannot well be separated from each other. 
 There we read, ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ 
 κόσμου. The present participle in this sentence does not 
 require to be explained by the theory that St. John brings 
 forward into the present the element of Christ’s death; nor 
 on the principle that the present is chosen because the effects. 
 of that death always continue to the time that now is: 
 on either of these suppositions the present would really be 
 treated as the future. The participle must be understood 
 in its most proper and distinctive meaning. Already at 
 that very time the Lord was in act to take away the sin of 
 the world, because He was such through His whole life ; 
 already at that time He was the ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, because 
 He was so through His whole life, and not first in His | 
 death became the Lamb. 
 
 This aspect of the matter would have much more im- 
 portance attached to it, and it would exert a healthier 
 influence on our entire soteriology, if we conceived more 
 
 1 JOHN, M 
 
178 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 justly and laid to heart more simply the words of Matt. 
 viii. 17. The evangelist there regards the work of Christ 
 as already, in the first period of it, fulfilling the prophetic 
 word, τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβε καὶ Tas νόσους ἡμῶν ἐβάσ- 
 tracey: this prophetic word we are accustomed to refer to 
 the death of Christ; but the evangelist’s use of it points 
 directly to the view we have just been exhibiting and 
 defending. For if our Lord through His whole activity, 
 and specifically in His healing of the sick, bore our sorrow, 
 so also throughout His whole life He took it away; for the 
 former was a reality only on account of the latter. In John 
 i. 29 we certainly find, in connection with the redeeming 
 and delivering element, which is represented by αἴρειν, the 
 atoning element also, as contained in the expression ἀμνὸς 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ; for even if we consider this to refer at once to 
 the paschal lamb, at any rate there was an expiating and 
 therefore sacrificial characteristic in it. It is indeed other- 
 wise in our passage: here the vids τοῦ Θεοῦ is the subject : 
 the Son of God was manifested in order to abolish sin, 
 establish His kingdom, and destroy the kingdom of the 
 devil (ver. 8); here, therefore, prominence is given, not to 
 the form of a Servant which our Lord assumed in order to 
 our reconciliation with God, but to the might of the Ruler 
 who has brought to light life and our immortality of being. 
 
 Thus the only two passages (ours and the parallel in the 
 Gospel) which have been adduced against the interpretation 
 of αἴρειν as take away, have been seen to admit it as possible, 
 and our own to require it absolutely. It is useless, in 
 opposition, to urge, finally, that aipeww is the translation of 
 xv), and that therefore it must mean bear, or at least to 
 take upon Himself. Not only may be opposed to this the 
 fact that the Septuagint invariably reproduces “ bear” by 
 φέρειν and the like, but that the 83, particularly in its 
 combination with »wWB, has precisely the meaning of taking 
 away sin; compare Ps. xxxii. 1. Thus the Old Testament 
 gives our interpretation its full sanction. Υ 
 
 The second clause of the verse is externally to be taken 
 as a leading proposition; for the Johannaean diction is 
 so far Hebraizing, that it prefers the juxtaposition or co- 
 
CHAP. III. 6. 179 
 
 ordination of sentences to their subordination; whence it 
 sometimes happens that the second member of a subordinate 
 clause is changed into a main proposition. It is precisely 
 so here. But if we take the second hemistich as only 
 formally independent, it is substantially to be regarded as 
 dependent on the οἴδατε. But then what is the relation of 
 the clause, linked with it by «av, introducing the thought 
 of the righteousness of Jesus, to the preceding thought of 
 His redeeming work? When we observe that the verse 
 following is joined on to the close of this one,—as there is 
 no sin in Jesus, there ought not to be sin in him who, for 
 his part, belongs to Jesus,—and thus that the ἁμαρτίαν 
 ἄραι apparently comes no further into consideration, we 
 shall obviously see in the words ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν 
 the apostle’s more particular specification of the grounds of 
 the ἁμαρτίας ἄραι. That being the case, the second hemi- 
 stich only bringing out into prominence the fundamental 
 thought of the first, this latter must be regarded as really 
 included in the reference when we find that the following 
 verse is formally linked only to the second clause. The 
 concluding words of the verse thus indicate the way in 
 which Jesus has brought to effect the ἁμαρτίας ἄραι: it is 
 because He manifested Himself as the sinless one, and 
 through that same manifestation communicated His sinless- 
 ness to men also, For if a mere human word or work can 
 produce a transforming effect on him to whom it is com- 
 municated, how much more will the revelation of the 
 righteousness of Christ be able to act transformingly on the 
 recipients of that revelation! For the rest, ἁμαρτία ἐν 
 αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν is by no means the equivalent of ἁγνός ἐστι 
 in ver. 3: the latter marks especially the internal habitus 
 of the character, on the ground of which sinning is im- 
 possible ; the former refers rather to the expressions of that 
 internal quality. 
 
 VERSE 6. 
 Πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων, οὐχ dpaptave’ Tas ὁ ἁμαρτάνων, 
 οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν, οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν. 
 When, therefore, the apostle deduces from the end of the 
 
180 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 manifestation of Jesus, and then more particularly from 
 the nature of Him who appeared, that sin and belonging 
 to the Lord are perfectly irreconcilable opposites, this is 
 logically altogether clear and incontrovertible. But, on the 
 other hand, there is much that rises up against the simple 
 and unlimited acknowledgment of the saying before us: 
 not only does the common Christian consciousness which— 
 despite sin still operative in believers—still clings to the 
 fact of sonship to God revolt against it, but also this 
 exaggeration of the antithesis seems not to harmonize with 
 our Epistle itself. While in our verse the apostle makes 
 it emphatic that every one who sins neither has nor can 
 have had any fellowship with the Lord, he has notwith- 
 standing, in ch. 1. 8-10, not only recognised the presence 
 of sin in believers, but even described their denial of it as 
 an essential lie, and as a clear token of the absence of 
 fellowship with the Lord. Hence it is easily to be under- 
 stood that many industrious attempts have been made to 
 soften down the meaning of our verse, and thus to reconcile 
 it with clear and express declarations elsewhere. But all 
 these efforts are discredited by the phraseology and the 
 context of our passage. It has been attempted to explain 
 ἁμαρτάνειν as continuing in sin; but the arbitrariness of 
 such an exegesis is manifest at once. And if the sins are 
 limited to very grave sins, such as the sin unto death, this 
 is evidently contradictory to the context and spirit of the 
 argument, in which the apostle is simply denying every dis- 
 tinction between sin and sin, and exhibiting every ἁμαρτία 
 as also an ἀνομία. But not less erroneous is the explana- 
 tion that the Christian does not in fact sin, because, as a 
 Christian and according to his new man, he cannot sin, but 
 as such cherishes nothing but hatred against the sin which, 
 according to his old man, he commits. For although I may 
 hate the sin which I do, it still remains sin; and as it is 
 in me, it cannot possibly be said of me that I sin not: 
 granted that I cannot in my new man sin, nevertheless it is 
 the I, my person, which is the sinning subject. Generally, 
 the view cannot be psychologically sustained which would 
 introduce a total cleavage of the one human constitution, 
 
 
 
CHAP. III. 6. 181 
 
 making the half of the man a sinner —that is, the old man 
 —at the very time that the other half is under the influence 
 of the Holy Spirit. All subterfuges of this and of similar 
 kinds are exploded by a touch of the passage itself. We 
 have seen that the apostle pleads against every sin as ἀνομία; 
 and that, further, according to the Scripture, every ἀνομία 
 inevitably separates from God. Then it follows directly 
 and most closely from these premises, that every sin, be it) 
 what it may, sunders from God; and that he who commits 
 it can have no communion with Him. How such a rigid 
 scriptural utterance as this can be reconciled with the rest 
 of Scripture is another and a second question, which we 
 leave at present unconsidered. It is enough now to 
 establish that St. John did lay down the propositions we 
 now consider. 
 
 The second half of the verse gives us the converse of the 
 proposition we have been studying, but in such a way that 
 its idea is only made essentially more intense. The thought 
 of the former clause, πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, is 
 in itself not absolutely inexplicable: it might be said that 
 the sinning man had fellowship with God, and will have it 
 again ; and that his sin has also interrupted that fellowship. 
 But all this is taken away by the second clause, which 
 makes it more startling than ever: the μένειν of the former 
 does seem, indeed, to presuppose that there had been an 
 actual past union with God; but here this is expressly 
 denied, for we read: πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν 
 οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν. Τί we had the present tense in each 
 case instead of the perfect, the meaning of the latter clause 
 would be very much the same as that of the former: sup- 
 posing that in the critical time of sinning the image of the 
 Lord is not on the table of my heart, might it not have 
 been there before though it is not there now? The éwpa- 
 xévat here might be explained by the same word in ver. 2. 
 It is true that they do not refer to the same object: in 
 ver. 2 the glorified Son of God is the object beheld; but 
 He cannot be meant in our present passage. He cannot 
 according to the connection; and because, simply, we have 
 no image in our minds of the glorified Christ, nor can our 
 
182 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 thoughts of Him serve us here in the least degree. Here 
 the object beheld is the Lord as He was once manifested, 
 ἐφανερώθη, and as He in fact in whom ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἔστιν. 
 Thus the ἑωρακέναι refers to the Lord not καθὼς ἔστιν, but 
 καθὼς ἣν : just as the apostles have depicted Him in His life 
 and sufferings before our eyes, as if in fact He had been 
 crucified amongst ourselves (Gal. iii. 1, after Luther). Yet 
 even if the two beholdings in this and the second verse are 
 different as to the aspect of the object beheld, the seeing 
 itself is of the very same nature, and is followed in both 
 cases by the same results. When we behold the glorified 
 Lord we shall be changed into the same image, and be in 
 fact glorified ourselves; and so here likewise, he who has 
 truly beheld the Sinless One should through this beholding 
 himself become sinless. This consequence is so express to 
 the apostle’s mind as to bring out the declaration, that 
 he who is not sinless proves by that very fact his never 
 having yet beheld the Lord. 
 
 - Of course it needs not to be insisted on that the seeing 
 here meant does not consist in historical knowledge of 
 Christ ; but that such a perception is meant as is brought 
 about by the instrumentality of the Spirit of Christ Him- 
 self, whose office is to bring to remembrance of the disciples 
 both Him and all that He has said. Hence the apostle 
 goes on to say that the sinning man, as he has not seen the 
 Lord, so also he “has not known Him.” This position after 
 ὁρᾶν is intended to stamp the γινώσκειν as either a higher 
 grade or as a consequence of the seeing. It is not that 
 ὁρᾶν is a figurative expression, and γινώσκειν its translation 
 into fact: this is evident partly from the οὐδέ itself, which 
 points to a distinction between the ideas which it divides, 
 and partly from the circumstance that to St. John the ὁρᾶν 
 is by no means a figure, but the standing expression for a 
 spiritual energy which absolutely refuses to be translated 
 
 _into anything else. The difference between the two words 
 is rather this, that ὁρᾶν indicates the intuition, the act in 
 virtue of which I take something immediately into myself 
 or my mind; while γινώσκειν defines the apprehension or 
 knowledge which is found as’ the consequence of this 
 
CHAP. III. 6. 183 
 
 intuition,—that is, the consciousness and the means of it, 
 its reconciliation with all the other objects of my thinking. 
 Consequently the γινώσκειν is the result of the ὁρᾶν : the 
 former without the latter would be an impossibility. It is 
 customary with the Scripture generally to take the word 
 γινώσκειν with a specially emphatic meaning. Thus, when 
 in Matt. vu. 23 the Lord says to those who would bring to 
 His mind their great deeds: οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς. And 
 yet it is unimaginable that a προφητεύειν, a δαίμονας éx- 
 βάλλειν, in the name of Jesus, could be wrought without 
 some corresponding relation to the Lord behind them; but 
 the Lord denies any such relation. This is substantially 
 the same case as that in our verse, and corresponds to its 
 assertion that he who sinneth never had fellowship with 
 the Lord. The only question is, how we are to understand . 
 a doctrine of Scripture which is so clearly expressed. 
 
 The history of St. Paul’s conversion may give us help. 
 It is said there, on the one hand, that the apostle’s com- 
 panions had not heard the voice which spoke to him (Acts 
 xxii. 9); and, on the other, that they had heard it (Acts 
 ix. 7). There is no contradiction here ; for in the one case 
 it is declared that they heard a sound and perceived a voice, 
 while in the other it is said that they did not hear the 
 words of this voice. It was the same with the heavenly 
 voice which the Lord heard in John xii. 28: some heard 
 the sound as it were only of thunder; others discerned an 
 angel’s voice; the disciples alone heard the words which 
 were pronounced. In this latter case it might have been 
 said of the people that they heard a voice as well as the 
 seemingly direct contrary. In both the examples thus 
 adduced it might have been said that nothing was heard, 
 inasmuch as that was not heard which was properly to be 
 heard. The relation in our present passage between seeing 
 and knowing is precisely similar. St. John uses them 
 here, as in Acts xxii. 9 the hearing is used, with an 
 emphatic meaning: the sinning man demonstrates by his 
 sin, that knowing in the strict sense cannot be predicated 
 of him; for had he really known, he could not have sinned. 
 But that does not exclude the possibility that elsewhere 
 
184 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 the same ideas may be found with a more lax application. 
 Even from the hem of our Saviour’s garment a virtue 
 issued, and there was healing in the apostle’s handkerchief ; 
 but he who had experienced the healing power of the 
 handkerchief was far from being on that account acquainted 
 with all the treasures that flowed from the spirit of the 
 apostle. We may here and there and in some various 
 degrees submit to the influence of the Holy Ghost, and 
 break off many a sin; but so long as sin is still in us, it 
 is proved that we have seen only the hem of the Lord’s 
 garment, not His very nature; for His nature is δικαιοσύνη, 
 and he who had seen and known Him as δίκαιος must 
 through that seeing have become himself sinless. 
 
 Now let us sum up the meaning of the verse. He who 
 abideth in Christ sinneth not. The present does not express 
 precisely the actual now, but a continuing condition: in 
 him in whom the μένειν has become a reality, for μένειν 
 carries with it the idea of abiding continuously. In him 
 there is the abiding condition of the οὐχ ἁμαρτάνειν. 
 Again, on the other hand, in the case of him who sinneth, 
 such an abiding state has not been attained: the actings of 
 the ὁρῶν and γινώσκειν are—let the perfects be observed— 
 not accomplished facts. Then the sum is: every sin 
 demonstrates that we are not found in the fellowship of 
 the Lord. 
 
 VERSE 7. 
 
 Texvia, μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς" ὁ ποιῶν THY δικαιοσύνην 
 δίκαιός ἐστι, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν. 
 
 But this thought is too keen, too repellent to the natural 
 man, for reception in this plain form, and without quali- 
 fication. Hence follows the express exhortation not to be 
 led astray by opposite and erroneous thoughts. The direct 
 appeal by no means introduces a new thought; but here 
 as everywhere its aim is to bring close home the apostolic 
 utterance to the individual reader. The words μηδεὶς 
 πλανάτω ὑμᾶς lead at once to the supposition that the 
 church was in danger of giving heed to such spirits of 
 error; but we must not overlook the fact that the tempta- 
 
CHAP. III. 8. 185 
 
 tion to lower views is not supposed to lie in any definite 
 relation to others and in any definite sect, but is always 
 grounded on the thoughtlessness of the natural man. We 
 are too often content with the consciousness that we stand 
 in some special relation to the Lord, and come to regard 
 sin as an unavoidable evil which is not so very hurtful as 
 might be thought. In opposition to this, the apostle makes 
 it emphatic that the only test, the only sure evidence, of 
 the righteousness of believing is the righteousness of living : 
 where the latter is wanting, there must be something 
 fundamentally wrong in the former. The stress of the 
 seventh verse lies on the ποιεῖν : he only is righteous whose 
 righteousness is approved in act. As we read in John 
 lil, 31, ὁ ὧν ἐκ τῆς γῆς, ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστι, ---6 whose origin 
 is the earth has in fact an earthly origin, bears its signa- 
 ture in himself—so it is here with the ὁ ποιῶν τὴν 
 δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν : he who is righteous must be 
 simply righteous, and bear the stamp of righteousness on 
 himself. It is then added that this righteousness, thus 
 approving itself, makes us like the righteous Christ. This 
 does not mean to say that by such a procedure we may 
 attain to a specially distinguished kind of righteousness, 
 such, namely, as Christ had; for the apostle in this present 
 connection knows nothing about gradations in righteousness 
 any more than he acknowledges gradations in sin. The 
 clause καθὼς «.7.d. rather points back to ver. 3: there it 
 was said that. the goal of our earthly development is the 
 ἁγνεία of Christ; and this we are supposed in the present 
 words of St. John to reach in the doing of righteousness. 
 
 VERSE 8. 
 
 Ὃ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἐκ Tod διαβόλου ἐστίν. ὅτι ἀπ᾽ 
 ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει. Eis τοῦτο ἐφανερώθη ὁ υἱὸς 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου. 
 
 As we in this way enter into fellowship with the Lord, 
 so through the ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν we enter into fellowship 
 with the devil: this is, generally, the matter of the eighth 
 verse. The latter part of it first of all demands our 
 attention; as it in fact furnishes the logical basis of the 
 
186 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 former. Because the devil sinneth from the beginning, do 
 all sinners therefore spring from him? There is certainly 
 a suspicious tone of the post hoc ergo propter hoc about this. 
 But all depends on the right view of ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. The idea 
 of the ἀρχή is applied in such manifold ways, that it must 
 in every individual case be explained by the context. 
 The interpretation that the devil sins from the beginning 
 of his being or existence is by no means justified by the 
 expression ; for the absolutely general ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς would be 
 ‘quite unsuitable to such a notion. The only tolerable 
 reference is to the ἁμαρτάνειν : the devil was the origin of 
 sinning, or it made its beginning in him. When that 
 beginning of sin and of his sinning took place is not here 
 mentioned: it is enough that his sin was the first. But 
 there is assuredly no reason, and it would be entirely 
 wrong, to understand this beginning of the fall of Adam. 
 What allusion can there be in the general and indefinite 
 ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς to the fall of man? It is of no use to appeal 
 to John viii. 14 in favour of such an interpretation: that 
 passage affirms that the devil was a murderer of man from 
 the beginning; but the ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς has there its closer 
 definition in the ἀνθρωποκτόνος, he could have been such 
 a murderer only when men began to exist, and thus the 
 context in the cited passage absolutely determines the 
 - reference of ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς to the paradisiacal history. But here 
 we have no closer definition of the am’ dpyfs; and it must 
 therefore be referred to the beginning of sin in general, to 
 the act by which the devil became the devil. The idea of 
 sin through him first came into life and reality. Thus 
 viewed, the thought is the same as would have been 
 expressed by ἐν ἀρχῇ or πρῶτος ὁ διάβολος ἡμάρτηκεν ; 
 and that this form was not selected, is to be accounted for 
 by the fact that the writer thinks of his sin and would 
 have us think of it, not as one act once performed, but as 
 the permanent habit and at the same time the original 
 deed of sinning. The combination of these two ideas 
 hardly allows any other expression to be used than that 
 which the apostle employs. 
 
 Thus the clause ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει only 
 
 
 
CHAP. IIL. 8. 187 
 
 declares really that the devil before any other being sinned, 
 and has since been in the continual act and habit of sinning. 
 Now again, consequently, the question arises with new force, 
 how it foilows from this that every later sin, or here human 
 sin as such, springs from the devil, and may be traced to 
 diabolical causality. Is it not quite conceivable that man 
 might have sinned, after the devil indeed, but independently 
 of him; and this being only possible, is not the deduction 
 of St. John a vain one? But though we do not find it 
 established in the idea of the jivst sin, we do find it in 
 the idea of the first sin, that all successive sinful creatures 
 must enter into a state of dependence on the first one. 
 Sin has just been described as ἀνομία; it therefore presup- 
 poses a vouos; this, again, a Lord who gives the law; and 
 he who rebels against the law thereby makes himself into 
 a lord. This establishes the fact that he who first falls 
 from God places himself, in virtue of this apostasy, over 
 against God, and therefore in rivalry to His kingdom: in 
 fact, setting up, though at first only in a germinal way, a 
 kingdom of evil in opposition to it. No sinner that follows 
 can erect a third kingdom, but must through his sin enter 
 into the kingdom already opposed to God, incorporating 
 himself into it as a member. Whether he wills it or not, 
 whether he knows it or not, he makes himself dependent 
 on the originator and representative of this kingdom. But 
 more than this: after these two kingdoms, that of the light 
 and that of the darkness, are founded, no one can any longer 
 be good or evil of himself from his own most proper 
 impulse; but because he is placed in the midst of the two 
 kingdoms in their concrete reality, he necessarily receives 
 solicitations from both sides to determine his action: thus, 
 if he sins, his sin proceeds not from his own, but ἐκ τοῦ 
 διαβόλου; and his sinning is the evidence that he is ἐκ 
 τοῦ διαβόλου. Thus the deduction of the apostle is per- 
 fectly just; only it is based, not on the ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς of itself, 
 but on the ἁμαρτάνειν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς. That the spiritual/ 
 dependence of human sin on sin Satanic, here only expressed 
 as a logical necessity, was an actual fact in human history 
 needs no demonstration in the light of biblical and 
 
188 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 especially Johannaean teaching. With our apostle beyond 
 all others it is customary to establish the Satanic origin of 
 sin. As, in the Pauline view, the sin of Adam was not 
 only the temporal beginning of evil, but also the principle 
 of all sin in his descendants, so stands it when, with St. 
 John, we carry up the matter a stage further, in regard to 
 the relation of human sin to that of Satan. True as it is 
 that every man is enticed or drawn away of his ἐδία 
 ἐπιθυμία, it is equally true that every sin is a work of the 
 devil, in a certain sense an incarnation of devilish thoughts. 
 Just as the πόρνοι, according to St. Paul, in virtue of their 
 πορνεία belong no longer to themselves but to the πόρνη, 
 so does the sinner belong, in virtue of his sin, no longer to 
 himself, but has become a member and a living stone in 
 the kingdom of Satan. 
 
 The thoughts we have indicated are not only necessary 
 consequences of the expression ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ 
 τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστί, but are also needful to enable us to 
 understand the second hemistich of the verse. The pro- 
 position, that Christ was manifested to destroy the works 
 of the devil, is parallel with that other in ver. 5, that He 
 appeared τὰς ἁμαρτίας ὧραι. The works of the devil are 
 identical with our sins. But they can bear that denomina- 
 tion only if each of them has in fact the devil for their 
 proper agent, is a reflection of Satanic thoughts, and a 
 realization of Satanic tendencies. It is this relation which 
 explains the expression λύειν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου exactly 
 to the very letter. The devil will indeed never cease to 
 be evil; to restore him to goodness the Lord did not 
 appear; but to be evil is not an épyov. A work requires 
 a material to be fashioned. Without the material to be 
 wrought upon, no created being can perform a work. 
 Therefore the devil also requires for his work matter which 
 he can impregnate with his thoughts. This material is the 
 earth, and the men upon it. This being withdrawn from 
 him, he may indeed still be evil, but he can no longer 
 accomplish evil by ἔργοις πονηροῖς. From this point of 
 view we understand how, in the well-known narrative of 
 the Gadarene demoniacs, the devils ask the Lord permission 
 
CHAP, III. 8, 189 
 
 to enter the swine: they seek the matter which they may 
 destroy; if men no longer are available, they desire at 
 least some equivalent. If from Satan is taken away all 
 material, that is his consummate misery. Absolutely not 
 to be able to accomplish the evil lusts of his heart, to be 
 obliged—let the word be pardoned—to consume his own 
 wretchedness in himself, to find no sphere of activity while 
 yet burning with desire for it: that is the acme of un- 
 blessedness. If men are loosed from Satan (Luke xiii. 17), 
 then is he bound, the nerves of his energy are restrained. 
 Conversely, if Satan is loosed (Rev. xx. 7), it means that 
 he can bind men and does bindthem. Thus the expression 
 λύειν has justice done to it. All loosing presupposes a 
 dissolution into the constituent elements. The devil uses 
 in his activity his evil lust on the one hand, and, on the 
 other, the material in which it becomes flesh. To take 
 from him this material is to resolve his works into their 
 elements, and thus to cause that they can no longer come 
 to effect. This λύειν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου has been 
 accomplished by the Lord through the fact of His mani- ~ 
 festation: ἐφανερώθη. The expression is obviously to be 
 taken in the same generality as in ver. 5. - Through the 
 appearance of the light the darkness loses its domain and 
 is destroyed. And He who appears is with deep propriety 
 described here as υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. As St. Paul in Rom. v. 
 places Christ as the bringer of righteousness over against 
 Adam as the cause of sin, so St. John here, in harmony 
 with his higher position, places Him over against Satan 
 himself. Hence we find that, while in Rom. v. the Lord 
 is described as ἄνθρωπος, here He is the vids τοῦ Θεοῦ: 
 the sin of the first man is taken away by the right- 
 eousness of the second Adam; but in the place of the 
 kingdom of the devil enters the kingdom of the Son of © 
 God. 
 
 Let us now glance, in conclusion, at the strain of the 
 whole verse. It contains the antithesis of ver. 7. This 
 had, by means of the καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν, declared 
 that righteousness brings us into union with the Lord; the 
 new verse, conversely, draws the conclusion that sin proves 
 
190 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 us to be members of the Satanic kingdom. It is the same 
 severity which we were obliged to recognise in ver. 6: 
 there it was said that every sin gives proof that we have 
 not yet known the Lord; here it is said to show that we 
 belong to Satan. This bondage to Satan, however, the Lord 
 in His manifestation purposed to abolish. Hence the latter 
 clause obviously corresponds to ver. 5; just as similarly 
 the first part of our verse corresponds to ver. 4. The fourth 
 and fifth verses exhibit sin as a principle opposed to God 
 and to Christ; here it is exhibited as subjection to the 
 devil, yea, as resistance to the only means of the only 
 redemption from it. 
 
 VERSES 9, 10a. 
 
 Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι 
 σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, 
 ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται. ‘Ev τούτῳ φανερά ἐστι τὰ 
 τέκνω τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου. 
 
 To the declaration of ver. 8a, that he who sinneth is of 
 the devil, the proposition of ver. 9 is attached, that he who 
 is born of God sinneth not. But this latter is by no means 
 to be understood as an antithesis to the former verse; 
 for this ver. 8 was itself the negative counterpart of the 
 positive contained in ver. 7. We must rather take ver. 9 
 as strictly connected with ver. 10a, and as a recapitulation 
 of the whole section; in such a way, however, that ver. 9 
 briefly sums up the matter of this section itself, and then 
 ver. 10a indicates its place in the whole organism of the 
 latter, pointing to the result which has been gained by the 
 development of it. 
 
 Let us first look more closely at the context of ver. 9. 
 Its recapitulation takes the form of two clauses, each of 
 which has its own reason briefly assigned. It is clear that 
 in the second clause the emphasis rests upon the ov 
 δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, the impossibility that a child of God 
 should sin is made prominent; accordingly, the emphasis 
 in the first clause can fall only on the οὐ ποιεῖ ἁμαρτίαν, 
 that is, upon the actual condition and character of God’s 
 children: this latter, however, not being viewed as a 
 
CHAP. III. 9, 10. 1091 
 
 transitory fact; for the present wove? marks it as an abiding 
 and continuous state. Thus the actual character, and the 
 internal necessity of that character, of the regenerate are 
 the two affirmations of our verse, and to these two main 
 propositions most precisely correspond the two subordinate 
 ones introduced by 67e to establish the others. In the 
 former of them the emphasis falls on the péves: because 
 God (we leave for a while unconsidered the σπέρμα) abideth 
 in such a man, his not sinning is a permanent condition or— 
 state. In the latter the emphasis is on the Θεοῦ: because 
 he is born of God, in whom there is no alternation of light 
 and darkness, of whom we know that He is essentially and 
 of necessity righteous (ch. 11. 29), therefore the regenerate 
 is necessarily righteous. We observe that the positive 
 ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, which recurred again and again in 
 the previous verses, is exchanged throughout the present 
 verse for the negative οὐχ ἁμαρτάνειν ; and this fact has 
 the same reason as that which governs the predominant 
 negative in the decalogue. Because in man, as he is by 
 nature, evil forms the paramount principle, the nega- 
 tive definition of the new man as one free from sin 
 is more obvious than the positive one οἵ his being 
 righteous. 
 
 It has been remarked that ver. 10a indicates the place 
 which the completed section has in the organic whole of 
 the Epistle. The emphasis falls therefore on the φανερά. 
 In ch. ii. 28 seq. it had been said that the ποιεῖν τὴν 
 δικαιοσύνην imparts the true παῤῥησία in the day of judg- 
 ment: this is demonstrated with the help of the idea 
 φανερὸν γενέσθαι. The doing of righteousness makes the 
 nature inherent in me manifest, withdraws it from the 
 sphere of delusion or self-deception; and this revelation of 
 my sonship to myself produces the effect of parrhesia or. 
 strong confidence. In other words, if I am to have 
 παῤῥησία in the judgment, I must have become absolutely 
 assured of my filial relation to God—that must have become 
 to me a φανερόν ; but only through its confirmation in my 
 life can that have taken place. This confirmation in deed, 
 the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, is therefore in the third chapter 
 
102 TIIE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 represented as the necessary result of sonship to God; and 
 ver. 10 draws the final conclusion, inasmuch as it connects 
 the whole of what precedes with ch. 11. 28 seq. by showing 
 that the external act makes manifest the internal character 
 of the man. 
 
 There are only two individual expressions in the verses 
 we now consider which demand elucidation. One is the 
 σπέρμα tod Θεοῦ which is said to be in the new man. 
 There is not the slightest justification for referring this 
 phrase to the word of God, after the analogy of Matt. xiii. 
 or 1 Pet. i. 23; for in the context of this passage, and in 
 the Epistle generally, this is not spoken of in any sense. 
 The word is entirely unique here; and the thing intended 
 , ean be made plain only by entering into the figure used. 
 The human seed is the germ whence a new man proceeds, 
 which developes into man; accordingly the spiritual seed is 
 the divine principle, the divine germ, out of which the new 
 spiritual man is developed. This principle is, according to 
 John iii. 5, the πνεῦμα : the Divine Spirit, viewed as seed 
 or σπέρμα, is the power of life entering into the man, the 
 living germ sinking down into his nature. As, through the 
 σπέρμα coming from the human parent, the newly-begotten 
 man becomes a child of his father, because he simply 
 springs from the nature of this man, so we are the children 
 of God in virtue of the community of nature with God, 
 because we have grown out of His I, His Spirit. And thus 
 σπέρμα μένει, the seed abideth: it is not that a single 
 impulse proceeds from it, and it then is again withdrawn, 
 but it unfolds a continuous energy. And it abides ἐν αὐτῷ ; 
 it works not as the quickening ray of the sun works upon 
 the plant by energy from without, but it developes its 
 directing and fashioning power and activity from within 
 outwardly. 
 
 The second expression which demands special attention 
 is that of τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, ver. 10. On the one hand, 
 it is clear that this definition is a distinct correlative of the 
 closely connected τέκνα Tod Θεοῦ; the word τέκνα must in 
 the two cases have the same meaning. On the other hand, 
 it is plain that, in the meaning which we attach to the 
 

 
 CHAP. III. 9, 10. 193 
 
 expression τέκνα Θεοῦ in ver. 1, it can have no distinct 
 correlative. The sonship there we understood to be not 
 merely ethical, but a relation of being, a real communication 
 of the divine nature; and in this sense there can be no 
 τέκνα Tod διαβόλου. God can indeed beget life, but Satan 
 cannot. The question then arises, whether we will give 
 up the former explanation of τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ in favour of 
 a more general meaning, and regard the expression as 
 signifying a purely ethical relation, or whether, considering 
 that in the tenth verse the τέκνα Θεοῦ and διαβόλου must 
 necessarily be understood alike, we may assume a different 
 meaning of the term τέκνα in the tenth and first verses of 
 the chapter. It is to be taken for granted that any such 
 change in the meaning must receive its warranty in some 
 way from the apostle himself. Now, as to the beginning 
 of this chapter, which is relatively the end of the preceding, 
 we cannot by any means surrender the meaning of the 
 sonship established there. It is certainly Johannaean, it is 
 established by the one expression of the Gospel, “born of 
 water and of the Spirit,” and it will be found confirmed by 
 the fourth chapter of our Epistle. And in our ch. 111. 1 it 
 is further rendered necessary by the word ἔδωκεν. An 
 ethical relation is not a gift of God; the moral habit of the 
 man rests naturally not upon a mere divine bestowment, 
 but also upon the human co-operation in act. The ethical 
 relation of the child of God is spoken of from ver. 3 onward : 
 up to that point the ground of nature which is the condition 
 of that act is alone treated of. Finally, there can be no 
 doubt that in ch. ii. 29 the γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, the 
 confirmation of which in the deeds of righteousness is in 
 question, cannot be identical with those confirming deeds 
 of righteousness themselves; and, as ch. ii. 1 resumes 
 that description in τέκνα Θεοῦ, it must there have the 
 same meaning. We must therefore hold fast the ex- 
 planation of sonship given in ch. iii, 1. But then it is 
 obvious that the description τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, and 
 accordingly also that of τέκνα tod Θεοῦ in ver. 10, will 
 tolerate only an ethical interpretation. When St. Paul 
 calls Elymas υἱὸς διαβόλου, and Christ in St. John’s Gospel 
 1 JOHN, N 
 
194 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 calls the devil the father of the Jews, these expressions say 
 no more than what is elsewhere meant by being ἐκ τοῦ 
 διαβόλου: the sense is that of an ethical dependence, the 
 being under the influence of the devil, which, however, by 
 no means constitutes the inpouring of a devilish spirit. 
 Accordingly, the expression τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ in ver. 10a will 
 say no more than the parallel ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ in ver. 100. 
 But how can we reconcile ourselves to accept the same 
 phrase in the same section according to two different 
 meanings? The answer is, because of the changed view of 
 our relation to God which has intermediately entered. As 
 we have seen in the section ch. 111. 1-3, the apostle shows 
 that sonship as a gift, according to ver. 1, is not the basis 
 on which the final consummation of the man rests, but the 
 ethical development springing from that as its principle. 
 The objective divine act of begetting requires the subjective 
 unfolding of the new nature on the part of man. Thus 
 also in the tenth verse reference is no longer made to the 
 regenerate ground of nature which is the principle of all 
 religious development, but to the ethical position which the 
 regenerate has acquired, of course always on the ground of 
 that divine principle. Hence it is natural that the phrase 
 τέκνον Tov Θεοῦ must no longer be taken in that earlier 
 metaphysical sense ; the ethical likeness to God is now the 
 predominant idea; and therefore it can be employed as the 
 correlative of τέκνον τοῦ διαβόλου. 
 
 Let us now look at the section here ended as a whole, 
 and first with regard to its form. We shall find the same 
 scheme of construction which was adopted in ch. 1. and 11. : 
 not indeed as if the apostle wrote according to a plan 
 fore-arranged down to the minutest analysis; we see only 
 the clear and methodical spirit of the writer involuntarily 
 adopting an order and measure which appears in the 
 harmonious articulation of his Epistle. We note in ch. 
 111. 1-10 two sub-sections, vers. 1—3 and vers. 4-10. The 
 former of these gives the substructure of the latter, by 
 showing to what extent at the final judgment, to which 
 ch. 1. 28 had pointed, works come into consideration: 
 because, namely, the question will then be what we have 
 
CHAP, III. 9, 10. 195 
 
 become through the divine gift of regeneration, in order 
 that it may then be given to him who hath, that he may 
 have more abundance. The second sub-section, which 
 introduces the proof that on the ground of ποιεῖν τὴν 
 δικαιοσύνην we become assured of our sonship, is con- 
 structed with extreme symmetry. It is complete in four 
 members: vers. 4, 5, ver. 6, vers. 7, 8, vers. 9, 10a, each 
 of which again consists of two clauses. The first of these 
 four members lays the foundation of the evidence, ex- 
 hibiting sin as a principle absolutely opposed to God 
 (ἀνομία, ver. 4), and absolutely opposed to Christ (ver. 5). 
 The last member, vers. 9, 10a, recapitulates the whole 
 demonstration (ver. 9), and at the same time exhibits the 
 result gained on the whole (ver. 10) with reference to the 
 purpose of the section. The two intermediate members 
 furnish the proper assertion of the antithesis: ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 εἶναι and righteousness of life, sin and εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ 
 διωβόλου, are interchangeable. ideas. The whole discussion 
 proceeds in the antithetical form with which ch. i. and ii. 
 have made us familiar. The first pair of antitheses are in 
 ver. 6, the second in vers. 7 and 8. After the Johannaean 
 manner, the second pair throw a stronger light on the 
 antithesis, the opposites being carried up to their principles : 
 righteousness being referred to Christ (καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός 
 ἐστι), and sin being referred to the devil. 
 
 Clear and analytical as is the form of the section, and 
 exact as is the logic pervading it, its several clauses are 
 full of difficulties. The whole finds its keenest point in 
 the assertion that he who is born of God cannot sin. When 
 examining ver. 6, we saw that this proposition seems 
 opposed as well to Christian experience as to St. John’s 
 own doctrine, which, addressed to the regenerate children 
 of God (ch. ii. 13 seq., 111. 2), nevertheless urges them to 
 the confession of sin. We have also come to the conviction 
 that the force of our passage must not be softened down, 
 as also that Christian experience cannot be explained away. 
 It is resorting to a hopeless expedient to say that the 
 Christian does not practise sin, but suffers it. Such affir- 
 mations as these seem excellent enough, but in fact they 
 
196 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 are unmeaning. It ought not to be denied that in a 
 certain sense sin is actually to the Christian matter of 
 passive endurance—he feels himself under an alien and 
 hostile power. Such was the experience of St. Paul in 
 Rom. vi. But this truth would be applicable in the 
 present case only if the guilt of sin ceased,—that is, if 
 human freedom were not disparaged in connection with 
 these failings: for a mere accident of evil cannot be matter 
 _of personal responsibility. But it was not St. John’s inten- 
 tion to teach this ; every sin, even of the Christian man, is 
 the free act of the will—though, it may be, not altogether 
 spontaneous,—and is sin therefore in the fullest sense. 
 Moreover, this distinction between doing and suffering sin 
 is out of the question in our passage, as may be seen in 
 the change between ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν and the simple 
 ἁμαρτάνειν. In order to reach the solution of the diffi- 
 culty, let us look more narrowly at its proper bearing. The 
 edge of it does not lie in the word, “ he that sinneth is of 
 the devil,’ viewed in itself. If we had this alone, it must 
 appear to us a frightful truth ; but we should be constrained 
 in the end to bow before the word of Scripture, and say : 
 “Then are we all, since we all sin, not children of God.” 
 The difficulty hes rather in the opposition between this 
 word and the oft-repeated recognition of our sonship on the 
 part of the apostle. There are, however, two things which 
 serve to throw some light on the embarrassment. One is 
 the distinction between the sense in which St. John speaks 
 of our sonship in ch. iii, 1, and that in which he speaks 
 of it from ver. 4 onwards ; the other, connected with this, 
 is that in ver. 4 seq. he takes his stand at the day of 
 judement. 
 
 The former point, the twofold meaning of τέκνα τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ, has forced itself as a necessity on our previous 
 exposition. Our sonship is first considered as a divine gift, 
 independent of all human act (δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ πατήρ, ver. 1) ; 
 in virtue of this gift, which consists of the impartation 
 of His Spirit, God beholds us as His children ; in virtue of 
 it we have the forgiveness of sins, for through this Spirit 
 we have become one with Christ, the God-man, whose 
 
CHAP. III. 9, 10. 197 
 
 Spirit He is, members of His body, partakers of all that He 
 has wrought. Through this act of God we are, before any 
 corresponding acts on our part, His children: as He will . 
 also have us regarded by men (κληθῶμεν). But what we 
 now are as the result of a divine act, we must become as 
 the result of our own deeds; the principle of righteousness 
 which the πνεῦμα implants in us must develope itself into 
 realization ; the divine gift must be appropriated and made 
 our own. A field which had hitherto borne thorns and 
 thistles, but in which the corn is sown, is, in virtue of the 
 seed in it, a field of wheat ; its owner speaks of it as such, 
 and treats it as such. But if the ground is stony, so that 
 the good seed cannot germinate freely, but produces weeds, 
 and only weeds, it is thenceforward, regarded from the 
 result, no field of corn. The owner was justified in regard- 
 ing it, and bound to regard it, first as a wheat-field ; but 
 after the good seed has been choked, the right and obliga- 
 tion so to regard it cease. So is it with men. Through’ 
 the gift of the Spirit, the σπέρμα Θεοῦ, we are children of 
 God; we are ἅγιοι, that is, appointed to His service, καὶ 
 ἠγαπημένοί, according to the divine act and destination. 
 But as, in the comparison just used, the seed must be 
 developed and productive if the field is to be, not only 
 according to the owner’s purpose, but also in reality, a field 
 of wheat, so we also must place our whole life under the 
 influence of the Spirit, and be swayed altogether by His 
 power, that is, ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην. Now, that by 
 τέκνα Θεοῦ, from ver. 4 onwards, only those are to be 
 understood who, on the ground of the divine generation of 
 ver. 1, have become that in their character which they had 
 already been in their destination, we have established in 
 our exposition of the structure of the whole section ; it is 
 evident also from the correlation of τέκνα Θεοῦ and τέκνα 
 διαβόλου, ver. 10, and is demanded by the expressions 
 ἑώρακεν, ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν in ver. 6, both these being appro- 
 priating activities by which I receive into my consciousness 
 something objectively existing and real. In this way it 
 becomes clear how the same persons are called children of 
 God, and yet have this name denied to them as sinners: in 
 
198 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 the one case it is the gift which is meant, in the other the 
 _ ethical habit. The child of God in ver. 1 can sin, just as 
 the field sown with corn can bear weeds; the child of God 
 in ver. 9 cannot sin, for he is by the imparted σπέρμα 
 determined consciously and mightily against it. 
 
 If we now examine carefully what the Christian life 
 really is, we shall not find in it a series of distinct and 
 opposite elements, one half of which belong to the kingdom 
 of light, and the other half to the kingdom of darkness. 
 Rather, if we closely watch these particular elements and 
 analyse them, the result will be found, that in every one 
 of them the powers of light and the powers of darkness 
 carry on their work in the man, so that there is no moment 
 in the Christian’s life when he is purely ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, as also 
 _ by parity no moment when he is purely ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου. 
 It may seem hard to reconcile with such a view the ener- 
 | getic way in which St. John in this section lays down the 
 antithesis or the alternative aut... aut. But this alternative 
 ' is a necessary consequence of the position he assumes in 
 __speaking ; it is that of the final judgment. The question 
 has been ruled by ch. ii. 28 as that of the last παῤῥησία in 
 the great day. But then it is plain that no man can be 
 saved on the ground of a mere work of God wrought upon 
 him; if salvation cannot be reached through an opus 
 operatum OF man, neither can it any more be reached 
 through an opus operatum ON man. God can never reckon 
 that man blessed who has not in himself the conditions of 
 blessedness. Further, it is certain that no admixture of 
 good and evil can enter into the inheritance of heaven ; 
 that God will apply to human destiny and character not a 
 relative but an absolute standard. Thus he who shall stand 
 in the judgment must be absolutely righteous. The question 
 in the great day will not be concerning a gift imparted by 
 God to man (as in ch. 111. 1), not concerning a power or 
 principle infused into him, but concerning what he has 
 made of the power he received,—that is, in fact, concerning 
 his works. Hence it is the pervasive biblical doctrine, 
 especially that of the New Testament, and emphatically 
 that of St. Paul, that man will be judged according to his 
 
 
 
CHAP. III. 9, 10. 199 
 
 works ; comp. Matt. xvi 27; Rom. ii. 6; 1 Cor. iii. 8; 
 2) Com πὶ 08: Πα] 1: Rev. ii, 23, xx. 12, sii 12 
 As in the case of the owner of the field already mentioned, 
 God beholds His children below, and regards them as such, 
 in the hope and in the expectation and to the intent that 
 the germ infused into us will prove itself fruitful. The 
 idea of a υἱοθεσία in hope suggests that it is only a limited 
 sphere of privilege which points beyond itself. The limit 
 of it is the judgment, and of this the apostle treats. Wilt 
 thou know how thou standest towards thy God, apply to 
 thyself the standard which God will apply in the judgement, 
 the standard of perfected righteousness. St. John gives us 
 that in the words: ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου 
 ἐστίν. However terrible the proposition sounds, it approves 
 itself mighty and wholesome in its effects. He who admits 
 that we have not to fight with flesh and blood, but with 
 the kingdom of darkness, must needs also admit that every 
 deed of darkness bears witness to our standing yet in some 
 relation to that kingdom, and that we are not entirely 
 withdrawn from it. Thus judging ourselves according to 
 the test, the absolute test, of the divine judgment, we shall 
 not, as sinning every day, be able to refrain.from confessing 
 that we are yet ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου, that the kingdom of 
 darkness is still mighty within us. The deed of darkness 
 makes us manifest as children of darkness. We have, so 
 long as we abide on earth, the gift of sonship in an alto- 
 gether stedfast manner; but that will not be the main 
 test at the day of judgment. It will be asked then how 
 we appropriated the gift and used it. Thus, therefore, the 
 question is with the apostle not as to whether and in what 
 way, at any particular moment of our earthly development, 
 light and darkness are intermingled in the Christian ; he 
 only expresses the truth that in the day of awards he will 
 not stand who still in any measure sins; and that we shall 
 have no title then to regard ourselves as τέκνω Tod Θεοῦ in 
 the ethical sense. Although these thoughts, in the form we 
 give them, do not govern the ordinary Christian conscious- 
 ness, they nevertheless find in ordinary Christian experience 
 their justification. It is an experienced fact that the most 
 
200 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 advanced Christians cry to God with a full heart, “ Turn 
 Thou me, O Lord, and I shall be turned!” They regard 
 themselves, on the evidence of a series of concurring 
 elements, as still not entirely converted. But what other 
 is this than the consciousness that, tested by the true 
 standard of God’s final judgment, they are not yet with- 
 drawn from the ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους. 
 
 The difficulties of the section, however, are not in this 
 way altogether solved. If we are thus rigorous in impressing 
 our minds, when sin occurs, with the fact that every such 
 sin manifests us to be τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, then that 
 παῤῥησία which it was the apostle’s aim to mature seems 
 altogether cut off and buried out of sight. The yapa 
 τετελείωμένη promised in the Epistle is exchanged for 
 an ever-renewed and ever-enduring φόβος. For though 
 the experience, constantly confirmed, that we are still ἐκ 
 τοῦ διαβόλου may urge us to a more full surrender to the 
 Holy Ghost, that the union between Him and our own 
 I may become a perfected reality, yet we know, on the 
 other hand, that down to the end of life we must needs go 
 on sinning again. Now, if St. John infers from every sin 
 that we have not yet seen and known the Lord, it certainly 
 must seem that there is a stamp of unreality and self- 
 deception impressed on any kind of surrender of the heart 
 to the Lord from the very beginning. Thus may it not be 
 said that all our believing and struggling, all our con- 
 fidence and peace, are rendered doubtful in their very 
 nature? How are we to understand—that is the question 
 of habitual urgency—the appropriation of the divine gift, 
 the perfect coincidence of our human condition and cha- 
 racter with the Divine Spirit? First of all, it is certain 
 that a self-surrender to the Lord, in connection with which 
 we have consciously retained any sin, could be of no service 
 to us; that would never inspire anything like παῤῥησία. 
 Secondly, and conversely, it is equally true that if we 
 actually have yielded up to the Lord the whole sum of our 
 being, and surrendered ourselves absolutely to the illumi- 
 nating influence of the φῶς ἀληθινόν, either all sin must 
 cease, or, supposing it to reappear, it would subject us to 
 
CHAP, III. 9, 10. 201 
 
 the doom of Heb. vi. Between these two hypotheses—a 
 dedication, consciously not entire, to the sanctifying Spirit, 
 and a dedication consciously perfect—there is a third con- 
 ceivable. We may possess, that is, the will to surrender 
 ourselves, with all that we have and are, to the Lord; but 
 yet, in an unconscious manner, as it is now said, the dedi- 
 cation may be imperfect: either as to its extent, so far as 
 sinful parts remain which have either not at all or not 
 rightly been revealed to us as darkness, and therefore have 
 not yet been brought under the searching influence of the 
 light ; or as to its intensity—and this is psychologically 
 more exact—so far as our devotion has not reached its full 
 consummation in the perfect energy of the spirit, in the 
 absolutely decisive and influencing power of the will. In 
 such a case the word would hold good of us: “she hath 
 done what she could.” Consecration to the Lord would 
 not indeed be absolutely, but yet relatively, perfect : accord- 
 ing, that is, to the measure of our knowledge and the 
 strength of our will. So far, then, as this consecration 
 appears to me perfect, and is perfect in the sense just 
 indicated, there may be a παῤῥησία at the moment of this 
 consciousness : I am assured that at this moment the light 
 has the victory over the darkness. But if, in the course of 
 further development, sin nevertheless manifests itself, this 
 gives me to see that the last act of consecration to the Lord 
 was, after all, not a complete one, and thus that, in the light 
 of the absolute standard of the judgment, I do not stand as 
 a τέκνον τοῦ Θεοῦ. This experience, then, evermore urges 
 us, with respect to the past, to admit the force of the 
 apostle’s word, οὐκ ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, but only to aim at it 
 all the more diligently. The consequence of this view is 
 obvious, that in the moment of death every man must have 
 come or must come to this perfect devotion, or he cannot 
 stand in the judgment. 
 
 It hardly needs to be added, that this exposition of the 
 section does not make it in the most distant way support_ 
 the merit of good works. These come into view only as | 
 confirmation of the εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. But most assuredly | 
 they are in the apostle’s meaning the test, the standard of 
 
202 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 self-knowledge, by which we are to measure our relation to 
 God. It cannot be made too emphatic that it is St. John 
 himself, who impresses us always with the predominant 
 inwardness of his spiritual nature, who founds the assurance 
 of sonship on something more than any feeling or con- 
 
 . sciousness. He leaves the decision to the simple practical 
 “question as to the indwelling of sin. When the decision 
 is against us, we are rescued from despair by the needful 
 testimony, given in ch. ii. 1, 2, to Him who is the (Aacpos 
 περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. To make the works the means of 
 knowing our spiritual state is not Johannaean only, it is 
 Pauline also. We may compare 2 Tim. ii. 19, according 
 to which the firm foundation of God, that is, the Christian 
 church, has for its seal or testing token: ἔγνω ὁ κύριος 
 τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ, Kal ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων 
 τὸ ὄνομα Χριστοῦ. Of these two elements, however, only 
 one falls into the domain of experience, and that is the 
 second: this is therefore the norm or standard of our 
 judgment of ourselves; the former is the source of our 
 consolation. 
 
 As soon as we view the words of St. John from the 
 point to which they themselves conduct us, all difficulty 
 disappears. Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐ δύναται 
 ἁμαρτάνειν : this is and must ever be an ideal for us; but 
 it is at the same time the actual requirement, in the pre- 
 sence and by the application of which we can ascertain 
 our position before God. 
 
 VERSE 100. 
 
 Πᾶς ὁ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
 καὶ ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ. 
 
 As early as the introduction of his Epistle the apostle 
 announced its twofold aim: to confirm, on the one hand, 
 fellowship with the brethren, and, on the other, fellowship 
 with God. The first part of the document is constructed 
 on this principle of division; and the one we are now 
 examining is similarly divided into two halves. The first 
 and second chapters had treated generally of the κοινωνία 
 τοῦ φωτός ; the apostle has proceeded in this to the con- 
 
CHAP, III. 10. 203 
 
 firmation of the fellowship which produces παῤῥησία. This. 
 confirmation takes place, on the one hand, through the 
 works which are referred to God, that is, through the ποιεῖν 
 τὴν δικαιοσύνην : this has been discussed in the section 
 just ended, vers. 4—-10a. It takes place, on the other 
 hand, through the works which approve brotherly love: 
 these are discoursed of in vers. 100-18. That in a certain 
 way brotherly love also belongs to the obedience to the 
 divine commandments, and thus penetrates into the first 
 section, the apostle had recognised in the second chapter, 
 and it will be seen also in what follows. But it is also 
 self-evident that the commandments of the second table 
 have a relative independence by the side of those of the 
 first. Looking at it from this point of view, St. John con- 
 nects brotherly love with the exhortations to δικαιοσύνη by 
 means of a καί, which makes it a second and co-ordinate 
 exhortation. 
 
 But who are the brethren thus to be loved? Are they 
 the other members of the Christian fellowship, or men 
 generally ? When we consider that Cain and Abel are ad- 
 duced as an exemplary warning, who were nevertheless only 
 connected by physical consanguinity, and not by similarity 
 of relation to God; when we find that the unrighteousness 
 of hard dealing with those who are in bodily need is the 
 subject ; when the opposition to brotherly love is stated to 
 be, not that the children of the world hate one another, but 
 that the world hates ws; when the example of Christ is 
 urged, who, however, died for us when we were yet sinners: 
 all these considerations might induce us to interpret the 
 ἀδελφοί as meaning all men at large. But, on the other 
 hand, the exhortation ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους can only refer to 
 the Christian fellowship ; for a mutual love between Chris- 
 tians and the world is, according to ver. 13, impossible, 
 since the world must hate us. Moreover, the entire dis- 
 cussion of the apostle concerning love and hatred looks back 
 to the final discourses of the Lord in the Gospel, and these 
 refer exclusively to the relation of the apostles to each 
 other. The arguments on both sides can have justice 
 done to them only when we recognise that St. John does 
 
204 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 not absolutely exclude love to all men, and that he by no 
 means limits with any care his requirements to the relations 
 of Christians to each other; while, on the other hand, he 
 reflects primarily and expressly only upon these, since the 
 mutual conduct of the brethren lay at the moment nearest 
 his heart. The world comes into view in the present 
 Epistle, not so much as the field of Christian labour, or as 
 a power to be vanquished and Christianized: it is rather 
 the negative pole to the kingdom of God. The former 
 view the apostle does not aim to deny; but he does not 
 bring it directly into notice. 
 
 VERSE 11. 
 
 "Ore αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, wa 
 ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους. 
 
 The declaration, that he who loveth not his brother is 
 not of God (ver. 100), is established by the fact that the 
 church had received the commandment of brotherly love 
 ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. A commandment which had been impressed 
 among the first fundamental ideas of Christianity, which 
 had further been enforced ever anew (ὦπό), must assume a 
 central position, and be decisive concerning the εἶναι ἐκ 
 Θεοῦ. The words obviously point back to ch. 11. 7, where the 
 ἀκούειν am ἀρχῆς is in a similar way referred to brotherly 
 love. The same reasons in this passage and in that make 
 it impossible to refer the ἀρχή to the Old Testament 
 economy ; in both the beginning of the Christian estate of 
 the church is intended. The matter of the announcement 
 here before us—for ἀγγελία, not ἐπαγγελία, is the approved 
 reading—is at the same time its end and purpose: that the 
 matter is brotherly love is testified by the αὕτη ; that it is 
 the purpose ἵνα declares. Though these two distinct ideas, 
 thus indicated by the αὕτη and the ἵνα, and as it were 
 blended together, did not present themselves as sharply 
 defined to the first readers, yet it is to be observed that 
 both language and the truth it delivers often mean more 
 than either speaker or hearer is conscious of; and the 
 expositor—especially of the poets in classical literature, 
 and more especially still in sacred literature—has a right 
 
CHAP. III. 12. 205 
 
 to take into account the full scope of the words, unless, 
 indeed, the meaning of the whole shows that part of this 
 scope is rendered impossible. 
 
 VERSE 12. 
 
 Οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἣν, καὶ ἔσφαξε τὸν ἀδελ- 
 φὸν αὐτοῦ. Καὶ χάριν τίνος ἔσφαξεν αὐτόν ; ὅτι τὰ ἔργα 
 αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν, τὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ δίκαια. 
 
 As to the detail, the apostle orders his exhortation to the 
 exhibition of brotherly love in this way: in vers. 12—15 
 he warns against hatred as the ungodly principle, which 
 is the token of death; and in vers. 16—18 exhorts posi- 
 tively to active love. The example of Cain, adduced to 
 affright us in ver. 12, might seem at the first glance fitted 
 to support that reference of am’ ἀρχῆς to the Old Testament 
 which we have denied to exist here: “in the very first 
 pages of the Bible the deterring example of Cain preaches 
 the duty of brotherly love.” But ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἀκούειν is, 
 after all, something different from ἀκούειν ἃ ἐν ἀρχῇ 
 γέγονεν ; and while the deed of Cain showed the horror of 
 hatred, that is something different from the ἀγγελία, ἵνα 
 ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους. As to the construction of the sen- 
 tence, it is not enough for the explanation of the words 
 καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἣν to assume a simple ellipsis, 
 and therefore to supply ὦμεν ; for that would leave the οὐ 
 to be accounted for, as μή ought then to have been found 
 instead of ov. It is obvious that this is a case of simple 
 attraction. The thought present to the apostle’s mind was 
 obviously this: μὴ ὦμεν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ 
 τοῦ πονηροῦ ἣν. First of all, the point of comparison, the 
 ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ εἶναι, is only once uttered, and that as a 
 subordinate clause; and then the negative, which belonged 
 to the cohortative sentence generally (μή), is by attraction 
 drawn to the subordinate clause, which is merely declara- 
 tory, and thus, instead of the subjective negation, the 
 objective (ov) appears. The apostle’s thought was—to 
 make the grammatical point clearer by an example—in its 
 form similar to that of 1 Cor. x. 8, μὴ πορνεύωμεν καθώς 
 τινες αὐτῶν ἐπόρνευσαν : Which was under the apostle’s pen 
 
206 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 so changed as if in the cited passage it stood οὐ καθάς tives 
 αὐτῶν ἐπόρνευσαν. 
 
 In ver. 10 it had been declared that brotherly love was 
 a sign of divine sonship; and, conversely, that the absence 
 of it was a proof that regeneration was wanting. Hence 
 the apostle’s exhortation is directed in the first place, not 
 against the σφάζειν, which was only evidence of the ἐκ τοῦ 
 πονηροῦ, but against this latter itself, and subordinately 
 against its evidence in murder. The part of the Epistle 
 now before us does not, indeed, refer to works in themselves, 
 but to these as the marks and signs of the internal con- 
 dition. The second half of this verse shows the internal 
 connection between the relation to the brethren, of which 
 the apostle will now speak, and the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, 
 —that is, the relation to God of which he had already just 
 spoken. The former, that is, depends upon the latter: 
 because Cain’s works, the collective expression of his inner 
 man, were not righteous like those of his brother, there- 
 fore there arose in him hatred to that brother. Ποιεῖν τὴν 
 ἁμαρτίαν and οὐκ ἀγαπᾶν τὸν ἀδελφόν are not simply 
 co-ordinate evidences of the εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ, as the 
 καί in ver. 100 declared this co-ordination; but the latter 
 is, on the other hand, the plain result of the former. That 
 the unrighteousness of Cain is here exhibited as the ground 
 of his hatred to his brother, is altogether in harmony with 
 the Old Testament record. For there we see that the 
 motive of his hatred to Abel was his envy, because Abel 
 was more acceptable to God; but this latter was founded, 
 according to the express divine declaration, in the 2", 
 the “good work” of Abel, which was wanting to Cain. It 
 "15 extremely appropriate that St. John does not speak of the 
 μισεῖν of Cain, but of the opagew in which that hatred 
 found expression ; for he is treating generally of the outward 
 evidence of the internal disposition, through which outward 
 evidence the internal disposition appears manifestly and 
 incontrovertibly to the man himself; and that he uses the 
 word σφάζειν, which occurs elsewhere in the New Testa- 
 ment only in the Apocalypse, and there used, so to speak, 
 
 as a vox solemnis, with a special fulness of meaning, was 
 
CHAP. III. 13--1ὅ. 207 
 
 designed to exhibit before the reader’s eyes the unmitigated 
 fearfulness of the act of Cain. But St. John does not pre- 
 sent the fratricide of Cain only as one individual result of 
 the general unrighteousness of his works, but rather as 
 specifically evoked by the opposite character of the works 
 of Abel. As everywhere, so here also evil is brought to its 
 full maturity by means of juxtaposition with the light, 
 which reveals its character and makes it truly dark. The 
 wicked man who feels himself miserable at heart grudges 
 the good man the blessedness he has in his righteousness ; 
 and therefore has the disposition to rob him of it by 
 annihilating the good himself. As it is in the nature of 
 the devil, so it is in the nature of the child of the devil ; 
 they are alike ἀνθρωποκτόνοι. And the mention here of 
 envy as the cause of the murder accords with the record of 
 Genesis: Cain was urged to his sinful act by knowing that 
 his offering was not acceptable to God, while his brother's 
 was acceptable. 
 
 VERSES 13-15. 
 
 Mn θαυμάζετε, ἀδελφοί pov, εἰ μισεῖ ὑμᾶς ὁ κόσμος. 
 Ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι μεταβεβήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν 
 ζωὴν, ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς. ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν 
 ἀδελφὸν μένει ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ. Πᾶς ὁ μισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν 
 αὐτοῦ ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἐστί: καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι πᾶς ἀνθρωποκ- 
 τόνος οὐκ ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐν αὐτῷ μένουσαν. 
 
 The following verses certainly make an application of 
 this scriptural example to the relation between Christians 
 and the world. There is still a Cain on a large scale, 
 which is the world; and there is an Abel, which is the 
 Christian church. What wonder is it if the same relations 
 are sustained which we see in the primitive times between 
 the two brothers! But what direction does the teaching of 
 the apostle seem to take, when carefully examined? Does 
 he aim really to show that the world corresponds to Cain, 
 and we to Abel,—that is, will he assure us that the hatred 
 of the world as being evil is naturally excited against us 
 as being good? The form which the writer has given 
 to his present thought does not accord with this. In such 
 
208 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 a case he must evidently have thrown the accent upon the 
 fact that the world hates ws, and assigned as the obvious 
 reason of it that we were good and the world evil. But it 
 is not so ordered: he speaks only of the loving and hating 
 of brethren ; an expression which does not point to the 
 great difference in character between the parties as an 
 explanation of the hatred, but, on the contrary, shows how 
 unnatural the feeling is as between persons of the same 
 nature. And were that other order of thought the right 
 one, the conclusion would have been drawn from the 
 character as a whole to the consequent hatred or love ; 
 while the apostle conversely concludes from the existence 
 of hatred or love what is the ethical character as a whole. 
 All this leads us to another analysis of the three verses 
 before us. 
 
 The apostle does not mean to indicate how natural it is 
 (μὴ θαυμάζετε) that the world hates ws, but that the world 
 hates: the stress is not on the object hated, but on the sub- 
 ject hating. This is evident, first, from the emphasis laid 
 on the ἡμεῖς of ver. 14, as over against the κόσμος of 
 ver. 13; and it is confirmed by the marked position of the 
 κόσμος at the end of the sentence. It is natural for the 
 
 world to hate,—the apostle proceeds,—for hatred is simply 
 a sign of the death into which the world, according to the 
 _ true idea of the world, has fallen; while the Christian must 
 love, because he, by his very nature, belongs to the life. 
 Thus the section does not by any means contain consolation 
 as to the world’s hatred which falls upon Christians, but is 
 simply a dehortation from hatred: the world, and only the 
 world, can hate; there is nothing strange in its hating; and 
 this makes it clear that the Christian cannot and may not 
 hate. In ver. 13 the object of the hatred is added (ὑμᾶς), 
 not because the following observations have reference to 
 this, but simply in remembrance of the preceding compari- 
 son between Cain and Abel; the progress of the thought 
 does not rest upon this, that the world hates us, but that 
 the world hates. That hatred is characteristic of the world, 
 the apostle dilates upon in two ways; first, by showing that 
 the token of divine life is love, the very opposite o1 hatred 
 
CHAP. ΠῚ. 13--15. 209 
 
 (ver. 14a); secondly, by dwelling on the fact that hatred 
 infallibly springs from death (vers. 146,15). The conclu- 
 sion, that thus it is only the world that can hate, is not 
 expressly repeated. The emphasized ἡμεῖς in ver. 14 
 accordingly contrasts Christians with the world; but it 
 does not refer only to the οἴδαμεν, as if the meaning were: 
 “we indeed know that we belong to the kingdom of life, 
 but the world does not know it:” the antithesis is found 
 between the nature of Christians defined in the verse and 
 that of the world. “ We Christians are partakers of life, 
 and know it by this, that we have brotherly love; the 
 world hateth, and thereby gives evidence that it belongs to 
 death.” This part of the Epistle we now consider deals, as 
 a whole, with the signs of sonship; and as such brotherly 
 love is here introduced. 
 
 It is not, however, that we know ourselves to be children 
 of God, but that we have become such, that we have passed 
 from death unto life; for every Christian has the conscious- 
 ness that by nature he also belonged to the world, and was 
 withdrawn from it only through a μετανοεῖν. That in the 
 second hemistich the apostle does not say, as a formal 
 parallel, “the world abides in death, because it does not 
 love (causa cognitionis),” but constructs the clause generally, 
 “ He that loveth not, abideth in death,’ has its reason th 
 this, that he is not really thinking of the world, but refers 
 his dehortation to Christians alone. All who hate, be they 
 who they may, and ye also, therefore, if in this ye are con- 
 formed to the world, are fallen under the power of death. 
 That this is the case the apostle makes still more emphatic, 
 when in ver. 15 he makes hatred equivalent to murder, 
 which manifestly and obviously pertains to death. But 
 this is not meant to prove that the hater is essentially a 
 murderer, that, as the common exposition runs, hatred is 
 the germ of murder; for, while it would follow from this 
 that the murderer must have been a hater, the converse 
 would not follow, that every hater is already a murderer ; 
 and yet this was to be proved. Rather the congruence 
 between the two lies in this, that in hatred there is no | 
 element wanting which is contained in murder, that the ° 
 
 1 JOHN, 0 
 
210 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 animating thoughts of the hater and the murderer are 
 the same. In both, the existence of the brother is opposed 
 to me, and I seek to take it away: inwardly in hatred, 
 denying him existence in my thoughts; in murder out- 
 wardly, seeking to remove him out of the world of the 
 living. As the thought not uttered aloud does not essen- 
 tially differ from the thought spoken out, no more does 
 hatred differ from murder. If it does not lead to murder, 
 that may be due to accidental circumstances, not inherent 
 in the hatred itself, that hinder; and then there is no 
 difference between it and murder in the moral estimate. 
 Or it may be that I hate another not enough to murder 
 him; and in that case hate is not present in the full com- 
 prehensiveness and maturity of its idea. But a murderer, 
 the apostle goes on to say, hath not eternal life abiding in 
 him; and by the οἴδατε declares that to be a fact which 
 ‘needs no demonstration. Here it is primarily obvious in 
 this passage that ζωὴ αἰώνιος has in it no thought of time, 
 | but is altogether an ethical idea or characteristic: for, if 
 ‘we would take it in the sense of ζωὴ ἀκατάλυτος, it is clear 
 that an οὐ μένειν of the ζωὴ ἀκατάλυτος would be a contra- 
 dictio in adjecto. And the expression od μένειν leads us to 
 infer that the apostle is really addressing his inference to 
 the readers themselves as a dehortation, and not speaking 
 objectively concerning the world; for they alone have as 
 yet received a portion in this life, and it is they alone who 
 could undervalue and lose this prerogative. That the 
 murderer is under the power of death, is placed in a clear 
 light by the consistency between his nature and his act: he 
 who would deliver others to death is himself in the power 
 of a much more fearful death ; what he purposes for others 
 / affects himself in a much higher degree. As God can give 
 nothing but life, because He is Himself life, so he who is 
 under the power of death can effect only death. Thus has 
 the apostle, not only by the example of Cain, but also by 
 dialectical argument, shown that hatred is a token of being 
 bound in death, that therefore only the world can hate; 
 and thus he has in the most urgent way warned his readers 
 against hatred. And here we have another instance of the 
 
CHAP, III. 16. Pail! 
 
 double-sidedness of treatment which abounds in this Epistle: 
 on the one hand, the warning against hatred, and, on the 
 other, the presupposition (ver. 14a) that the church does 
 not need such a warning, being conscious of being actuated 
 
 by love. 
 VERSE 16. 
 
 Ἔν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν 
 τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκε. καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν 
 ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς τιθέναι. 
 
 To the negative view, the dehortation from hatred, the 
 apostle appends as an antithesis the positive (vers. 16-18), 
 love as shown in act and not merely in sentiment. As he 
 has sharply exhibited hatred of the brother in the example 
 which proclaimed first in the history of man and in the most 
 fearful manner its type, so that in him and in his acts we 
 may learn what hatred really is; so now in the verses 
 before us he places Him in contrast who furnishes the 
 supreme and perfect type of what love is, that we may 
 learn it from Him—Jesus Christ. But as the apostle is 
 writing to Christians, who, according to ver. 14, ἐκ τοῦ 
 θανάτου eis τὴν ζωὴν petaBeBnxacw, their learning of 
 Christ is supposed to have already taken place, ἐγνώκαμεν. 
 The counterpart or opposite of Cain, which the Lord pre- 
 sents, is as perfect as can be conceived by the mind. 
 Cain’s hatred consisted in this, that he sacrificed his 
 brother’s life for his own advantage ; and in this consisted, 
 by contrast, the love of Christ, that He sacrificed His own , 
 life for our good. Τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκε: a unique 
 expression, found in Greek literature only in St. John. 
 We meet with it in the Gospel, and often especially in the 
 tenth chapter (vers. 12, 15, 17, 18), as also in ch. xiii. 
 37, 38, xv. 13; and we have it here. That it occurs first 
 in the discourses of our Lord Himself, which are pervaded 
 by Old Testament references, must suggest a derivation 
 from the Old Testament; which, indeed, is otherwise much 
 more probable than the explanation that makes it an appli- 
 cation of profane Greek, such as θέσθαι ἀσπίδας, and so 
 forth. The Hebrew at once presents the verb nw, which 
 
212 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIIN. 
 
 in so many ways responds to the τιθέναι. More specifi- 
 cally we have then, on the one hand, the phrase WD) DY 
 1592, and on the other, a suggestion of Isa. 11]. 10, DWN 
 ov v2. The former of these applications signifies not so 
 much the surrender of life as the staking it, and therefore 
 expresses no more than the readiness to surrender life ; 
 whether that life be lost or not, is in the first place 
 irrelevant. In the passage of Isaiah the case is otherwise. 
 For if in this place, as we think, OA is in the third 
 person, and 5) the subject preceding, then we must trans- 
 late: when the soul (sc. of the servant of Jehovah) pledges 
 compensation. Wherein the compensation consists is not 
 contained in the words; for we must not give the verb a 
 reflexive aspect, and translate: “when his soul shall pledge 
 itself for compensation.” But what is not justified as 
 translation is nevertheless true of the matter itself: the 
 sacrifice of restitution consists essentially in the life of Him 
 who pays it down, that is, in the life of the Messiah. But 
 the chief thing is here to take the verb Δ) in both the 
 phrases not in the sense of “laying down,” but in that of 
 “pledging,” gauging His life for something. But this 
 interpretation is not merely possible here ; it is the only 
 one which harmonizes with the connection, as will pre- 
 sently be shown. Nothing is here said of that satisfactio 
 viearia of which the passage in Isaiah speaks; for then we 
 should have read, τὴν ψυχὴν τιθέναι ἀντὶ ἡμῶν, whereas 
 the ὑπέρ only indicates that the interposition of the life of 
 Christ was for our advantage: every more exact determina- 
 tion of it the apostle leaves untouched. In this act of 
 Christ we have learned to know τὴν dyamnv,—that is, not 
 His love, but love generally, what it means to love. And, 
 in fact, there can be no more profound conception of love 
 than that which is contained in the words τιθέναι τὴν 
 ψυχήν. Every deed of love isa staking of the ψυχή: 1 
 cannot discharge the slightest office of charity to any one 
 without in some degree denying myself, my own I. As 
 the denying of the personality of the brother on my own 
 account is the essence of all hatred, so the denying of my 
 own I for the brother’s sake is the essence of all love. 
 
CHAP. III. 17. 15 
 
 And as the apostle already in ch. ii. 7, and that with 
 special reference to love, had declared that καθὼς ἐκεῖνος 
 περιεπάτησε Kal ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν οὕτως περιπατεῖν, so here 
 also the same requirement is urged with specific reference 
 to the demonstrations of love: as the mind of the Re- 
 deemer’s love found expression in the τιθέναι τὴν ψυχήν, 
 so it is our obligation (ὀφείλομεν) to copy this expression 
 of love in our own life. 
 
 VERSE 17, 
 
 Ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ἔχῃ τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ θεωρῇ τὸν 
 ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχοντα, καὶ κλείσῃ τὰ σπλάγχνα 
 αὐτοῦ aT αὐτοῦ, πῶς ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐν αὐτῷ ; 
 
 With this requirement, that we lay down in this sense 
 our life, is associated the antithetical observation (δέ), how 
 it is with him who does not act thus: it is most natural— 
 as the rhetorical question really says—that there can be 
 no relation to God in that case. If I give not τὸν βώον, 
 what I possess for the need and nourishment of bodily 
 life, that signifies no other than that I will not myself lay 
 down my life in the very least, in the most external 
 circumference of it, for the advantage of my brother. The 
 apostle says Bios τοῦ κόσμου, in order by this appendage to 
 make prominent the triviality of the matter: if ye do not 
 in this which is least evince your love, how will ye do it 
 in that which is greater? Such a man as St. Paul would 
 surrender the very highest thing, his fellowship with Christ, 
 for the brethren (Rom. ix. 3); and will ye not surrender 
 the least important of all things? And it is yet more 
 base, since ye must absolutely shut your heart against 
 sympathy (κλείξιν), and suppress the most natural impulses, 
 natural even in the world.’ The entire unnaturalness of 
 such hardheartedness appears in all its prominence in the 
 θεωρεῖν Tov ἀδελφὸν χρείαν ἔχοντα : his need is supposed 
 to be well known to me, my eye rests upon it, my thoughts 
 are concerned with it, sympathy urges its claims; but yet 
 
 *Awoxdcisy φσινός is a phrase well known in classical Greek ; but κλείειν ἀπὸ 
 
 σινός seems, on the other hand, formed simply after the type of the Hebrew 
 42519 72D, 
 
214 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 I bolt the doors of my heart. We need not here assume, 
 any more than in the case mentioned by Jas. 11. 15 seq,., 
 that such lovelessness had occurred in a marked and 
 express manner among the disciples; it is everywhere so 
 common that we may understand the exhortation without 
 any more especial occasion for it. But if the unnaturalness 
 of the behaviour thus rebuked is so great, its deviation 
 from the required τιθέναν τὴν ψυχήν so wide, it is clear 
 how little consistent it must be with any near relation to 
 God. 
 
 St. John has from the beginning of his discussion of the 
 subject exhibited brotherly love as the test of εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ, and therefore as its result; if this love be absent, the 
 being born of God must be absent too. As in the negative 
 section, vers. 12-15, brotherly love was considered to be 
 the reflection of our relation to God, not of the relation of 
 God to us; so also here the ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ is not God’s 
 love to us, but our love to Him. We might indeed here, as 
 in ch. ii. 5, take the ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ quite generally to be 
 love, as it is in God and will have its reflection in us, and 
 therefore as a unity which contains reference to both its 
 directions ; but since in what precedes the specific love of 
 Christ to us had been spoken of, the other view just pre- 
 sented is the more appropriate. The μένειν is here to be 
 explained as in vers. 14 and 15: since the apostle is 
 writing to Christians, he obviously presupposes the right 
 sentiment of the heart; but through hardness against 
 brethren that must needs be lost. For the rest, our verse 
 plainly enough shows that the profound speculation of 
 St. John is laid at the service of the most immediate 
 practical requirements of Christianity: there is here and 
 nowhere a gulf between them. 
 
 VERSE 18. 
 
 Texvia pov, μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν λόγῳ μηδὲ TH γλώσσῃ, ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. 
 
 The men here spoken of have no sort of love whatever. 
 But it is not necessary that this lack of love should exhibit 
 itself in words. We may present the semblance of love 
 
CHAP, III. 18, Ἢ 215 
 
 by words, while remaining absolutely without it in deeds. 
 Hence follows the exhortation to avoid such hypocritical 
 semblance of charity. But as this is about to close the 
 section, and the apostle purposes here to sum up the whole 
 in one clause, he turns his address in affectionate earnest- 
 ness to the hearts of his readers. The words λόγῳ μηδὲ 
 τῇ γλώσσῃ, with which we should not love, derive their 
 explanation from the antithesis ἐν ἔργῳ, καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. To. 
 the λόγος the ἔργον is opposed. The word of love to which 
 the λόγος refers may be meant sincerely, inspired by warm 
 feeling, but be wanting in readiness for sacrifice; we may 
 wish the best to the brethren, but not procure it for them 
 by the proper τιθέναι τὴν ψυχήν. The Christians repre- 
 sented in Jas, ii. 16 were such ἀγαπῶντες ἐν λόγῳ. 
 Opposed to this is the ἀγαπᾶν ἐν ἔργῳ. The ἐν must 
 be noted as the opposite of the lack of it in λόγῳ. 
 The apostle certainly could not have written μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε 
 ἐν λόγῳ, for this would have meant that we should not 
 love in words, which is obviously not his meaning; but 
 we are not to love ἐν λόγῳ, in the sense that the word 
 is made the representative, instrument, and only herald or 
 spokesman of our love. We then come to:the second pair _ 
 of the four expressions: μὴ TH γλώσσῃ GAN ἀληθείᾳ (the 
 ἐν is to be supplemented before ἀληθείᾳ). To the truth, 
 the inward actuality of love, stands opposed the γλῶσσα, 
 the mere outward babbling about it. In the first member 
 of the sentence we are exhorted against a love which 
 approves itself only by good, sincere, and well-intentioned 
 wishes ; here, against hollow phrases as such. That λόγος 
 might come from a sympathizing soul, without, however, 
 energy enouch in its fellow-feeling; but in the other case 
 mere phrases disguise the utter absence of all true sympathy. 
 
 The apostle has thus, in contrast with the hatred which 
 reions in the world, not merely demanded of Christians 
 love in general, but that love which the Lord Himself has 
 taught ; it must be self-sacrificing (ver. 16) ; this self-sacrifice 
 must approve itself in the outward relations of life (ver. 17) ; 
 and that not in deceptive words, but in deed and in truth 
 (ver. 18). 
 
216 ‘THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 Verses 19, 20. 
 
 Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐσμέν. καὶ 
 ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πείσομεν τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, ὅτι ἐὰν κατα- 
 γινώσκῃ ἡμῶν ἡ καρδία, ὅτι μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς τῆς καρδίας 
 ἡμῶν, καὶ γινώσκει “πάντα. 
 
 There is certainly in the following words an advance in 
 the thought: this is clear on the first glance. But wherein 
 the progress consists, and how these verses are therefore 
 related to what goes before, cannot be decided at the outset. 
 Expositors are so divided as not to know whether the 
 passage refers to forgiveness or condemnation, whether 
 brotherly love or ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is the subject; and 
 this division shows the importance of considering the 
 expressions in detail before we can gain even a preliminary 
 point of view whence to understand the whole connection. 
 
 First of all we must settle the readings, which itself will 
 be a great gain for the exposition. The καί beginning 
 ver. 19 is indeed wanting in many influential manuscripts, 
 especially A and B; but it is otherwise extremely well 
 attested. The decision as to its genuineness would be 
 really important only if on it depended the answer to the 
 question whether ver. 19 introduces an altogether new 
 thought, or is connected with what precedes. But the καί 
 has no such critical weight as this: certainly ver. 19 does 
 spring from the preceding words, as ἐν τούτῳ in the 
 beginning shows, which must necessarily be referred to 
 them. For otherwise, if ἐν τούτῳ is to be referred to the 
 following ὅτι, the condensed statement would be simply, 
 we may know our εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ by this, that God is 
 ereater than our heart. But it is plain that the proposition 
 taken in this general way proves too much, and therefore 
 nothing. Laid down thus, and without any cautionary 
 cuards, it might be used to demonstrate that even the vids 
 τῆς ἀπωλείας is of the truth. But if the substance of the 
 ἐν τούτῳ is what precedes, and the connection of our verse 
 with the foregoing is held fast, then it is a matter quite 
 irrelevant whether the καί is or is not read in the beginning 
 of the verse. Similarly, it is of little moment whether we 
 
CHAP. III. 19, 20. 217 
 
 read γινώσκομεν or γνωσόμεθα. As to the internal grounds, 
 the genuineness of the present tense may be argued from 
 the probability that copyists, having before them the future 
 immediately following, πείσομεν, which is co-ordinated with 
 the γινώσκομεν, would be likely to change this latter also 
 into a future through mere /apsus memoriac; while, on the 
 other hand, that the future γνωσόμεθα was the original 
 reading, might be argued from the fact that the phrase or 
 turn ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν is 80 current with St. John that 
 the transcribers would naturally choose to write it. If 
 internal reasons are to decide, we must judge by the strength 
 of the evidence as it appears to us; and the future seems 
 more likely to have been the primitive reading. The two 
 futures, γνωσόμεθα and πείσομεν, are then to be explained, 
 not so much from the cohortative tone of the section (“ we 
 should know,” and so on), but in their strictly logical sense, 
 as deduction from the conditions laid down by the apostle 
 to be at once explained: “under these suppositions shall 
 we, aS a necessary result, know.” Finally, it is of no 
 importance whether at the end of ver. 19 καρδίας or 
 καρδίαν is to be read, but the former is to be preferred. On 
 the other hand, everything depends on our striking out, or 
 otherwise, the second ὅτε in ver. 20, that before μείζων. 
 But it happens that here we have good grounds, both 
 external and internal, for decision. While the external 
 testimonies are in favour of keeping it, we can much more 
 easily understand that the transcribers, taking it as purely 
 epanaleptic, left it out, than that they inserted it where it 
 was not, since its insertion has greatly embarrassed the 
 passage, 
 
 Let us now proceed to the exposition itself. After what 
 has been discussed we may assume that ἐν τούτῳ looks 
 back to what has just preceded, and there its meaning is 
 plain enough: it is the true and inward brotherly love to 
 which it refers as the ground of the γινώσκειν. We have 
 perceived that the design of the whole section from ch. 
 ii, 28 onwards has been to exhibit the demonstration of 
 divine sonship in work as its sure criterion. First, there 
 Was a requirement of ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην as ib respects 
 
218 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 God; then it was shown that the lack of this gives birth 
 to hatred towards brethren; and conversely, that love to 
 brethren gives sufficient evidence of the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιο- 
 σύνην as a character. Consequently the inference is a sound 
 one, that true brotherly love, as demanded in ver. 18, gives 
 assured. evidence (ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν) of the right relation 
 to God. Here, however, this is not, as before, described as 
 εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, but as εἶναι ἐκς τῆς ἀληθείας. Primarily, 
 Wwe may suppose, because so much prominence had just 
 been given to truth and semblance. We must love ἐν 
 ἀληθείᾳ, and only when we do this are we ἐκ τῆς ἀλη- 
 θείας. But, further, this expression probably was intended 
 to. indicate that only in virtue of the consciousness that we 
 are of the truth can we have tranquillity in thinking of the 
 divine judgment. He who is Himself the truth must 
 acknowledge those as His who by genuine brotherly love 
 approve themselves as ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ὄντες. This position 
 of confident assurance as in regard to God, the apostle 
 expresses by the words, ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πείσομεν τὰς 
 καρδίας ἡμῶν. 
 
 There is a controversy about the meaning of the πείθειν. 
 If we translate it “ persuade to something,” it may be asked 
 what it is that we persuade our hearts to accept. The 
 omission of the object. itself would not be so strange; but 
 in the present connection nothing has been spoken of to 
 which we might be supposed to persuade our hearts; for 
 the brotherly love which had been the matter of discourse 
 is taken for granted in our verse (ἐν τούτῳ), and we have 
 no need.to persuade ourselves of that. Moreover, it is not 
 to be denied that “to persuade our heart to anything” is 
 very artificial; it would come to this in the end, that we 
 are supposed to form some purpose: but it is obvious that 
 it would be extremely forced to describe that by πείθειν 
 τὴν καρδίαν. Besides this one, there are two other signi- 
 fications of πείθειν which. are suggested: “ convince” and 
 “ soothe.” Now here again we have, in respect to the 
 former of these, the same difficulty of finding an object con- 
 cerning which we are thought to convince ourselves. The 
 most obvious course would then be to take the clause o7e 
 
CHAP. III. 19, 20. 219 
 
 μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς τῆς καρδίας ἡμῶν as this object. And 
 the preliminary inquiry must be the reference and meaning 
 of the second ὅτι in ver. 20, which must be decided before 
 we can decide the other point. 
 
 This may be understood as either a causal particle 
 (because) or as defining the object (that). Let us begin 
 with the second of these possibilities. In that case the ὅτι 
 would introduce the objective matter of the πείθειν ; and 
 it would be declared concerning what we τὴν καρδίαν 
 πείσομεν. Now, if we take πείσομεν with the meaning 
 “ convince,” we must translate: “we shall convince our 
 heart of this, that God is greater than our heart.” But 
 then it must not be forgotten that the proposition μείζων ὁ 
 Θεὸς τῆς καρδίας ἡμῶν is so clear in itself, that there could 
 be no necessity of our being in any manner persuaded of 
 it. It might indeed be used as a premiss from which:a 
 conclusion should be drawn; but certainly not as a’ thesis 
 which itself needed to be demonstrated. But, that being 
 the case, on what principle should we here have to be 
 convinced of it? Isit that the apostle looks back on the ἐν 
 τούτῳ, so that in the consciousness of brotherly love we are 
 supposed to penetrate to this assurance of God’s greatness ? 
 But what in all the world has brotherly love to do with 
 the divine greatness and our conviction of it? Thus this 
 translation is altogether untenable. 
 
 Now let us try the second possible interpretation, and 
 take ὅτι as defining the object; but taking πείθειν in the 
 sense of “ soothing or allaying.” Then the meaning would 
 be: “ we shall encourage our heart as to the fact that God 
 is greater than it.” It is clear that in this case μείζων 
 refers to the greater severity of God; for, in relation to 
 His greater mildness, we should not need any special solace. 
 But then again it would be incomprehensible how this 
 soothing should take effect: however conscious of brotherly 
 love we might be, the simple thought of the greater severity 
 of God must needs make every such solace impossible. 
 To this must be added that, even if we admit the meaning 
 of soothe or solace to be right generally (of which hereafter), 
 yet πείθειν with this meaning is always used absolutely, 
 
220 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 never with ὅτε following it; that at least “comfort con- 
 cerning” must be expressed. Thus it is perfectly impossible 
 to understand the clause with ὅτε as objective; and we are 
 forced to revert to the causal meaning of the ὅτ. But 
 then it becomes impossible to translate πείθειν as convincing 
 of something. For if, as we have shown, we do not find 
 the object of the πείθειν in the clause with ὅτι μείζων, there 
 is generally none to be found. Yet some such objective is 
 peremptorily necessary if we take the meaning “ to persuade 
 or convince :” we must be convinced of something. 
 
 The question then arises, whether πείθειν may not have 
 a meaning which will allow its being without a substantial 
 object after it. Such a meaning would be the “ soothing” 
 already mentioned, if only it can be defended on other 
 erounds. Classical Greek is supposed to furnish many 
 instances in its favour; but in most of the cases (especially 
 those out of the Jliad, i. 100, ix. 112, 181, 386) this 
 signification is at least not obligatory, since the connection 
 allows us to translate “persuade,” the object of the per- 
 suasion being invariably supplied in the context. On the 
 other hand, the passage cited in Plato, de Rep. ii. 390, 
 probably Hesiodic, seems to us to establish the meaning of 
 “soothe:” δῶρα θεοὺς πείθει, dap’ aidoiovs βασιλῆας. As 
 it concerns the New Testament, Acts xil. 20 and xiv. 19 
 do not belong to this subject, as in these passages the 
 object of the “ persuading” is easily supplied. It is other- 
 wise with Matt. xxvii. 14, where the members of the 
 council bribe the watchers of the sepulchre, and promise 
 them that, if Pilate should hear of it, πείσομεν αὐτόν. To 
 supply here ἀκολάστους ὑμᾶς ἐάν is venturesome, on the 
 one hand; and, on the other, this thought needed not to be 
 expressed, since it was already prominent enough in the 
 ἀμερίμνους ὑμᾶς ποιήσομεν. Rather we must assume that 
 the high priests aimed at accomplishing two things: first, 
 they would soften Pilate’s displeasure on account of the 
 supposed sleep of the watchers at the sepulchre; and, 
 secondly, they would thus deliver these watchers from 
 suffering the penalty. But if once the meaning of a word 
 is established by any confirmatory passage, as it is in the 
 
CHAP. III. 19, 20. gah 
 
 present case by the quotation from Plato, and, less directly, 
 by that from St. Matthew, then we are justified in adopting 
 this meaning in other passages which, though they do not 
 pressingly demand such an interpretation themselves, yet 
 are most successfully interpreted when such a meaning is 
 applied to them by their help. This is the case in our 
 present passage, and we therefore translate πείθειν by pro- 
 pitiate or soothe. And this solacing of our hearts, the 
 apostle says, will take place ἔμπροσθεν Θεοῦ : that is, when 
 we place ourselves inwardly before God, and judge ourselves 
 with His measure, in the consciousness of His holiness, so 
 can we, even in the presence of this standard, take comfort. 
 
 But this soothing presupposes anxiety of heart: whence~ 
 this comes, and in what it consists, is shown in the beginning 
 of the following verse. That the second ὅτε is to be taken 
 causatively commends itself at once; but the first one 
 involves us in new difficulties. For this first ὅτι may itself 
 be viewed in two ways: either it may be understood as 
 equivalent to the second, so that this latter is only an 
 epanalepsis or resumption of the former, and then the 
 clause with ἐάν is a conditional clause; or the first ὅτι is 
 to be written with the diastole (ὅ,τι), and understood rela- 
 tively, and then ἐάν is only the particle ἄν which is so 
 frequent in the New Testament. Against the first explana- 
 tion, according to which the second ὅτι is an epanalepsis of 
 the first, many very decisive arguments may be urged. For 
 instance, the causal ὅτι (and we have shown that its clause, 
 μείζων ὁ Θεὸς x«.7.r., is of this character) is never resumed 
 or repeated in such a way as this; certainly such an un- 
 exampled epanalepsis is out of the question here, where 
 only some words separate the first ὅτε from the second. 
 And then, again, the conditional clause ἐὰν καταγινώσκῃ 
 would in that case stand in a false logical position. For 
 we should have to translate: “We can comfort our hearts, 
 because God, in case our heart condemns us, is greater 
 than our heart.” The position of the conditional particle 
 alter 67s would make this meaning inevitable; the condi- 
 tional clause would be dependent on the clause with ὅτι, 
 and thus the greatness of God would appear to be condi- 
 
223 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 tioned by the accusation of our heart. That would lead 
 to the conclusion that, if our hearts did not condemn us, 
 God would not be greater than they. But the only appro- 
 priate thought is obviously that, in case our hearts condemn 
 us, we may console them,—that is, the conditional clause 
 must not belong to the phrase ὅτι μείζων, but to πείσομεν. 
 Accordingly, as we cannot take the ὅτε opening ver. 20 
 as a causal particle, it only remains that we take it as a 
 relative, and resolve ἐάν into the simple ἄν. Certainly the 
 combination ὅστις ἐάν, ὅ,τι ἐάν is not frequent; indeed, it 
 is very remarkable that it is not found uncontradicted in 
 any passage of the New Testament. Yet the reading 
 ὅ,τι ἐάν seems to us secure enough in Gal. v. 10 and Col. 
 iii. 17, where the preponderant probability is in favour of 
 retaining the ἐάν, though even the two other passages, Acts 
 ii. 33, Col. 11. 18, must be struck out. The interpretation 
 of the ὅτι ἐάν in this manner in our passage is not only 
 demanded by the sense, but it is grammatically admissible ; 
 since καταγινώσκειν elsewhere occurs with the accusative, 
 not to say that the pronoun even with such verbs as 
 generally require other cases may stand in the accusative. 
 Moreover, the generalizing 6,71 ἐάν, instead of the usual 
 ὃ ἐάν, is here peculiarly appropriate; for it expresses the 
 idea that in all instances in which our hearts may happen 
 to condemn us, we may solace them. The two verses under 
 consideration might therefore be thus translated: “ Herein, 
 « by this love ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, rests our consciousness 
 that we are of the truth; and hereby (the ἐν τούτῳ belongs 
 also to πείσομεν) may we soothe our hearts, in all cases in 
 which our heart condemns us (that here the singular καρδία 
 enters is very refined: each heart has its own particular 
 accusations, and the individual is in the apostle’s view), for 
 God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.” 
 After all this, we have only as yet busied ourselves 
 about the mere vesture of St. John’s thought: we have now 
 to look at the very thought itself. Two things the apostle 
 takes for granted: one, in the ἐν τούτῳ of ver. 19, that we 
 have brotherly love; the other, in the clause ὅτι ἐὰν κατα- 
 γινώσκῃ «.7.r., that in some measure our hearts reproach 
 
CHAP. III. 19, 20. 223 
 
 us. According to the explanation given, we are supposed 
 to have, in the consciousness of brotherly love, the means 
 whereby we may allay the reproaches of our conscience. 
 But this thought is, as it appears, quite an alien one to the- 
 Christian sentiment. The accusations of my heart certainly 
 can have reference only to sins and the’ sinfulness of 
 which I know myself to be a partaker: concerning that, 
 am I supposed to take comfort simply in this way, and in 
 this way alone? and if so, could that consolation lie in the 
 possession of brotherly love ? does not this lead to the most 
 superficial and vapid Rationalism? The Apostle James 
 says that he who keeps the whole law, and yet sins in one 
 particular, is guilty of the whole law. Does not St. John 
 here say the very opposite: if you only keep the command- 
 ment of brotherly love, you may leave all else behind you 
 with confidence? Not in any work wrought by us, but in 
 the blood of Christ or the grace of God we are accustomed to 
 see the only genuine ground of our hearts’ pacification. But 
 it is God who comes primarily into view here; for the words 
 μείζων ὁ Θεὸς τῆς καρδίας ἡμῶν can, according to the inter- 
 pretation given above, be brought into consideration only as 
 the ground that justifies our taking comfort to our hearts. 
 Consequently the much- contested question, whether the 
 μείζων refers to the condemning severity of God or His 
 pardoning kindness, is made easy at the very outset: having 
 become convinced that πείθειν must be understood in the 
 sense of “soothe,” and ὅτι with a causative signification, 
 it is clear that the clause ὅτε μείζων must, as containing 
 matter of consolation, exhibit not the greater strictness of 
 God, but His greater tenderness. 7 
 
 For the sake, however, of the deep importance of the 
 matter itself, and to become still more convinced of the 
 soundness of our interpretation, let us look at the other 
 way of taking the μείζων ὁ Θεός. Referring it to the 
 greater severity of God, we must make the meaning of the 
 verse this: we condemn ourselves, God will much more 
 condemn us. There would then be found a contrast between 
 the subject-ideas, God and we; but the predicate would 
 apply to both, though it may be in a different degree: both 
 
274. TIIE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIIN. 
 
 condemn. But such an antithesis as this is assuredly not 
 supported by the arrangement of the words: the words 
 ὁ Θεός and καρδία ἡμῶν have by no means any emphasis 
 on them—rather come in among different ideas. Observing 
 the καταγινώσκη, placed first in the subordinate clause, this 
 might appear to be the strength of the antithesis; and then 
 the condemnation would require to have a non-condemna- 
 tion set over against it. Further, the view of ὅντε ἐάν as 
 a relative, which we have established, would not so well 
 harmonize with the end of the verse, γινώσκει πάντα, on 
 any other principle of interpretation. For, that we thereby 
 come to the persuasion that God is greater than our heart, 
 in the matter of its condemnation, is not logically and 
 strictly demonstrated by the proposition that God knoweth 
 all things, but by the proposition that He more fully knows 
 the thing in question. Of course it may be said against 
 that, that this is naturally included in the γινώσκει πάντα ; 
 but there would be a certain inconcinnity, nevertheless. 
 We therefore adhere to the conclusion that μείζων must be 
 understood to exhibit the greater gentleness of God. 
 
 The gentleness of God is not regarded as absolutely and 
 in all matters a valid ground of consolation; but it is such 
 as based upon His omniscience (γινώσκει πάντα). Thus, if 
 our conscience condemns us, we can find solace for our- 
 selves only if we have made ourselves worse than we really 
 are, or thought ourselves more entirely sundered from God 
 than is actually the case,—than could indeed actually be 
 the case, since God knows everything. Notwithstanding 
 the accusations of our heart, we are not altogether rejected 
 of God; we are ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας, and can determine that 
 we are so. But in what way? ἐν τούτῳ, by the fact of 
 our having brotherly love in deed and in truth. When we 
 measure ourselves by the terms of the whole previous 
 section, especially from ver. 1 to ver. 10, we must see 
 that we are wanting in the first token of sonship, the ποιεῖν 
 τὴν δικαιοσύνην : our heart condemns us on that account, 
 because we find much unrighteousness still clinging to our 
 lives. Now we perfect the self-judging, in the way the 
 apostle has taught us; and place ourselves in the position 
 
CIIAP. IIL. 19, 20. 225 
 
 of the last day; and recognise that we cannot stand before 
 God,—that, measured by so strict and absolute a standard, 
 we are not yet altogether withdrawn from the sphere of 
 darkness. But, so long as we live below, we shall never 
 attain to any such maturity as to fix us absolutely on 
 the one side of the religious alternative; we are yet in 
 the process of a development, in the course of a conflict 
 between light and darkness; and it is essential to the idea 
 of such a struggle that the territory contended about belongs 
 not altogether either to the one or to the other of the several 
 powers. In other words: though we must day by day 
 measure ourselves by the standard of the goal set before 
 us, the od δύνασθαι ἁμαρτάνειν, we may, on the other hand, 
 know where in the course we are now found; we must 
 needs be assured whether or not we have made a good 
 beginning towards the final victory. This is the question 
 considered and determined in the present verse. 
 
 Ver. 19 and the following contain a summary of what 
 goes before; but only in a preliminary way. The question 
 was about the παῤῥησία on the day of judgment: if we 
 would know whether that will be ours or not, we must judge 
 ourselves according to our works. If on such a judgment 
 our heart does not condemn us, we have already now, and 
 already here, the parrhesia: that is the substance of ver. 21. 
 But if—and this is the other possibility—our hearts con- 
 demn us, we being not as yet conscious of the δικαιοσύνη, 
 what then? is the question of ver. 20. The confidence or 
 parrhesia of a perfect and secure trust we assuredly cannot 
 in any case have; but something less than this is possible, 
 —we may be joyful in hope if we have only made a good 
 beginning, as evidenced by the required outward practice 
 corresponding to the divine gift within. And this good 
 beginning is brotherly love. It is the first and easiest 
 commandment: for how can he who closes his heart against 
 his brother (ver. 17) love his God? It is the first stage 
 and first test of the love of God. He who has this ἐν 
 ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ will be able to conclude from his having 
 it that there is the commencement of that love in him, 
 as the evidence of his fellowship with God; and even 
 
 1 JOHN. P 
 
226 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST, JOHN. 
 
 supposing him to be not for the moment conscious of 
 it, God is greater and sees deeper: He knows this very 
 beginning that may be concealed from ourselves. True, 
 that in the absolute judgment of eternity no mere beginning 
 will avail; there must be an entire and perfected holiness: 
 thinking on this, we must evermore say that we have not 
 yet attained. But it is, nevertheless, a great thing to know 
 that we have at least made a beginning; for from that 
 springs the confidence that ὁ ἐναρξάμενος ἐν ἡμῖν ἔργον 
 ἀγαθὸν, ἐπιτελέσει ἄχρις ἡμέρας ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Phil. i. 6). 
 And this very passage demands for the day of Christ the 
 same that St. John demands in our Epistle, ch. 11. 28: the 
 perfection of religion. But it may be repeated, that the 
 beginning of the good :work itself inspires the hope that its 
 completion will not be wanting at the last. Thus our 
 verse (20) contains the counterpart of that fearfully solemn 
 doctrine of the judgment to which the apostle had led up 
 in the previous verse; and, indeed, a necessary counter- 
 part, since, unless we bring this also into prominence, the 
 solemnity of the judgment might well lead us to despair. 
 But, that the consolation which the apostle now admini- 
 sters to those whom he had previously smitten is not sought, 
 as in ch. 11. 1, in the remembrance of the propitiatory death 
 and intercession of the Lord, has its reason in the bearing 
 and motive of the whole section. The question in it is 
 only of the confirmation of fellowship with the Lord,—a 
 fellowship the existence of which must always and only be 
 known by its fruits. As to the reality of my faith, the 
 depth of my devotion to Him, I may deceive myself; I 
 dare not base my security on my feeling; the energies and 
 actings of faith alone give me a sufficient guarantee for my 
 confidence. If these are found in an absolute degree, 
 so that my heart no longer condemns me, then I have 
 the perfect parrhesia; but if they are present in their 
 beginnings only, in vigorous brotherly love, that affords me 
 the consolation of knowing that as to my relation to God 
 the way is fairly open before me. And the inference which 
 I only thus deduce is naked and open before the eyes of 
 Him who πάντα γινώσκει. Thus our verse takes its place 
 
CHAP. III. 19, 20. 2a 
 
 in the unity of the chapter as a perfectly homogeneous 
 constituent; and at the same time gives us additional 
 security for the correctness of our interpretation of what 
 goes before. 
 
 In conclusion, we may turn our attention for a moment 
 to the word καρδία. In express terms and by inference 
 this word has been accepted as interchangeable with συνεί- 
 Snows. This latter word is, as we are aware, unknown to 
 the Johannaean phraseology ; for ch. vill. 9 must not come 
 into consideration, on account of its suspected genuineness. 
 It might therefore be regarded as possible or probable that 
 the apostle expressed the more special idea of the conscience 
 by the more general one of the heart. But καρδία itself 
 occurs comparatively seldom in St. John’s writings; in no 
 case, however, with the meaning of conscience. It rather — 
 signifies, especially in those passages which are closely 
 dependent on the Old Testament,—that is, in the Apoca- 
 lypse (ch. ii. 25, xvii. 17, xviii. 7), and in the citation of 
 John xii. 40 seq.,—the entire inner man, the interior of the 
 nature, corresponding to the quite general 3 Τὴ other’ 
 instances of his use, it signifies particularly the life of 
 feeling and sentiment, John xiv. 1, 27, xvi. 6, 22. The, 
 only question then is, whether we may take it here in the 
 latter of the senses just mentioned, or must needs limit it 
 to the express idea of συνείδησις. This term συνείδησις 
 itself occurs in the New Testament with a double applica- 
 tion. One is in harmony with the classical συνειδός, as the 
 knowledge of anything, especially of an action past: as in 
 Heb. x. 2, where συνείδησις τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν is simply the con- 
 sciousness that my sin is a certain fact of the past, as is made 
 quite clear by the parallel ἀνάμνησις of ver. 3. Similarly 
 the ἀγαθὴ συνείδησις of Acts xxiii. 11, which is simply the 
 consciousness of the ἀγαθὸν εἶναι of the past conversation. 
 In this and similar passages συνείδησις defines the moral 
 judgment concerning the ethical position of a person, whether 
 he is good or whether he is evil. On the other hand, St. Paul 
 attaches to συνείδησις a more abstract notion: it means the 
 measure of moral discernment which is peculiar to any man, 
 —that is, the consciousness of what 7s good and evil, not the 
 
228 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 consciousness of my being good or evil. So, for example, 
 in Rom. 11. 15: the συνείδησις of the Gentiles is not the 
 judgment or verdict which they pronounce on their own 
 conduct, but the moral consciousness, the moral discern- 
 ment which belonged to them, out of which that verdict 
 sprang. For, not until after the apostle had first ascribed 
 to them generally such a theoretical knowledge does he in 
 the clause τῶν λογισμῶν κατηγορούντων ἢ ἀπολογουμένων 
 declare the sentence which they themselves pronounce upon 
 their own concrete actions in virtue of that moral conscious- 
 ness. So, too, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians it is 
 plain we are not to understand by the συνείδησις τών 
 ἀσθενούντων, who would eat no sacrificed flesh, that they 
 considered this particular thing as sin; the phrase indicates 
 in general the weakness of their moral perception, which 
 allowed them to detect sin, as in other things so in this. 
 To be brief, συνείδησις signifies first the abstract moral 
 consciousness, which is quite independent of my own moral 
 conduct, which may be very strong even in ethical wicked- 
 ness and very weak even in great moral earnestness; and, 
 secondly, the judgment which I pronounce on my own deport- 
 ment as the result of this my moral discernment. It fol- 
 lows that, if we would make the word καρδία in our passage 
 strictly parallel with συνείδησις, we must hang to the latter 
 of the two meanings above, for the καταγινώσκειν is cer- 
 tainly an actus forensis. But it is also made plain how little 
 the Johannaean ideas induce such a strict parallelization 
 with those of St. Paul. They do not entirely coincide 
 or cover each other; hence we do well to consider the 
 καρδία as meant simply and generally of the inner man, 
 in which inner man St. John does not so rigorously as St. 
 Paul distinguish between the νοῦς, the λογισμοί, and the 
 “συνείδησις. 
 
 VERSES 21, 22, 
 ᾿Αγαπητοὶ, ἐὰν ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν μὴ καταγινώσκῃ ἡμῶν, 
 παῤῥησίαν ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" καὶ ὃ ἐὰν αἰτῶμεν, λαμ- 
 βάνομεν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ" ὅτι τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηροῦμεν, Kal 
 τὰ ἀρεστὰ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ποιοῦμεν. 
 
CHAP. III. 21, 99, 229 
 
 After the apostle has thus illustrated the one presupposi- 
 tion that we are in many ways conscious of sin, and has 
 laid emphasis in connection with that upon brotherly love 
 as token cf a life of faith at least germinal in us, he now 
 passes over to the second presupposition, ἐὰν ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν 
 μὴ καταγινώσκῃ ἡμῶν. He obviously regards this case to 
 be possible, as is plain not only from the conditional clause 
 itself, but also from his proceeding at once to base upon it 
 the most important practical consequences. And in this 
 he is found in accordance with St. Paul, who certainly and 
 unconditionally gives himself the testimony, οὐδὲν ἐμαυτῷ 
 σύνοιδα (1 Cor. iv. 4). It is indeed a noteworthy psycho- 
 logical fact, that in the hours of the most vivid consciousness 
 of sin all former faith and love will seem to us no more 
 than delusion; but, on the other hand, it is also in hours 
 of more than ordinary elevated faith that we regard sin 
 as under our feet. Of such hours as these last St. John 
 here speaks. At such hours the παῤῥησία as towards God 
 appears in force. What we mentioned preliminarily in the 
 explanation of the previous verse must again be brought to 
 remembrance, that the point of view under which in ch. 
 ii. 28 the parrhesia is assumed is not regarded here: it is 
 not the final judgment that is now concerned. Accordingly, 
 it is clear that the section begun with ch. 11. 28 has not 
 here reached its absolute, but only its relative end. That 
 is to say, when the apostle was speaking of the judgment, 
 which we in a certain sense are supposed to anticipate in 
 ourselves after a preliminary and typical manner, the first 
 effect was the question, what results to us as to our. condi- 
 tion here below from a course of conduct thus or thus 
 ordered: first, in the case of the imperfect (ver. 20), a 
 consolation springing from the consciousness of God’s near- 
 ness, at least affecting happily the present time (ver. 2),— 
 that is to say, a feeling of elevation, the παῤῥησία. The 
 having our prayers heard is exhibited as a result of this. _ 
 It is clear from this, first, that the idea of confident speaking 
 is prominent to St. John in the παῤῥησία; as, finally, before 
 the Judge, so now before the Father we have the conscious- 
 ness of artless and perfect simplicity and freedom. Even 
 
290 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIIN. 
 
 at the last judgment we may conceive of a real παῤῥησία 
 as a joyous request: of such supplication as that which 
 Christ once preferred on leaving the world, viv δόξασόν pe 
 πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ: The remembrauce of this word is 
 here all the more appropriate, because not only shall we on 
 that day ask to be transfigured into the glory of Christ, as 
 He asked to be transfigured into the glory of the Father, 
 but He also in the same way as we attained the παῤῥησία of 
 His supplication,—that is, through the confirmation of His 
 divine Sonship by the work of perfected obedience (John 
 xiv. 31), and of perfected love to man (John xiii. 1). 
 That which was then the matter of Christ’s prayer offered 
 ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ, that which will be the matter of our prayer 
 at the end of the days, the δοξάξεσθαι, the full and absolute 
 fellowship with our Lord, will naturally in some degree be 
 the matter of our prayer even here. 
 
 But, on the other hand, the expression ὃ ἐὰν αἰτῶμεν 
 _points by its generality to a manifold supplication. Had 
 St. John anything definite in his eye? When we bethink 
 ourselves that in the last discourses of Christ to the dis- 
 ciples He reminded them of the confident prayer assured of 
 its answer, and that in two ways, first, when He exhorted 
 them both before and after to brotherly love (John xv. 
 12-17); and, secondly, when He promised to them the 
 Paraclete (John xvi. 23 seq.), thus showing that He referred 
 to prayer for perfect brotherly love and perfect fellowship 
 with the Father; moreover, that the high-priestly prayer of 
 Jesus Himself partly referred to His own glorification and 
 ‘partly to that of his disciples; again, that in our Epistle, 
 ch. v. 14, the certain assurance of prayer is again men- 
 tioned in connection with intercession for erring brethren,— 
 remembering all this, we shall think it probable that in 
 this passage also the apostle had in his mind these two 
 sorts of petition, for the accomplishment of our own salva- 
 tion and that of our brethren. Thus viewed, our verse 
 assumes @ position of definite and necessary importance in 
 the whole section. To him that hath it shall be given: if 
 you have once obtained this parrhesia, you will by virtue 
 of it urge ever renewed supplications for the fulfilment of 
 
CHAP, III, 23. VAD | 
 
 our salvation and the consummation of the kingdom of 
 God, and so urge them that you will always obtain what 
 you ask. The ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, that is, fellowship 
 with God, and the ἀγάπη, fellowship with the brethren, 
 were the conditions of the παῤῥησία; and this again leads 
 to an increased and deeper possession of those two elements 
 of religious experience. The parrhesia and the answer of | 
 prayer are strictly correlative ideas. For the former rests 
 upon the knowledge of my fellowship with God; the latter | 
 upon the fact that my will is one with the divine: essen- 
 tially, therefore, they have the same foundation. Hence 
 it becomes probable that the clause with ὅτι, which gives 
 the reason, will refer not only to the λαμβάνειν ὃ ἐὰν 
 αἰτῶμεν, but to the two co-ordinated propositions of the 
 former half of the verse. If we remember that τηρεῖν τὰς 
 ἐντολὰς Θεοῦ was a main idea of the first part of the 
 Epistle, and that ποιεῖν is made prominent in the second, 
 but that the two parts are related as the internal to the 
 external presentation, then we have perceived the relation 
 of the two clauses in our verse. 
 
 VERSE 23, 
 
 Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα πιστεύσωμεν τῷ 
 ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἀγαπῶμεν 
 ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡμῖν. 
 
 The commandments which the apostle is discoursing of 
 and commending are now exhibited by him again with 
 reference to their meaning and aim. ‘Two things strike us 
 on a superficial glance: the precepts we must obey are 
 described in their unity (the singular ἐντολή), then being 
 again described as twofold; and the import of the second 
 is specified by the word πιστεύειν, which now for the first 
 time enters the Epistle. As to the former of these points, 
 the two commandments of faith and brotherly love are in 
 the same sense one commandment, as the two tables of 
 the law are in the issue one table and one law: they 
 enforce simply and only this, I am the Lord thy God, walk 
 before me and be thou perfect. The other question is more 
 difficult, how it is that faith is here so suddenly mentioned, 
 
Roe THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 coming in unintroduced by anything that precedes, and 
 without any bearing on anything that follows. Whenever 
 Christ has been before alluded to, the objective value of His 
 work has been specified as an ἱλασμός securing the forgive- 
 ness of sins, without any reference to the method of subjective 
 appropriation ; and whenever the subjective position of man 
 before God has been spoken of, the confirmation of it in act 
 and deed has alone been made prominent, without any side 
 glance at the root and spring of this action. Similarly in 
 the fourth chapter the πιστεύειν recedes into the background 
 in comparison of the ὁμολογεῖν : obviously for the same 
 reason again, because the Epistle has for its aim the con- 
 firmation and consummation of the joy of faith by means 
 of the active work of religion, the external expressions of 
 faith. It is not until the fifth chapter that the idea of 
 πίστις begins to lead the development of the thought. All 
 this makes it more urgent to ask why the πιστεύειν enters 
 precisely in our passage, where the word ἐντολή itself points 
 to a course of action and not a state of being, while, on 
 the other hand, it forms the conclusion of a section that 
 professedly treats of works and of works alone. 
 
 If we now look at the other ideas brought forward 
 in these verses, it becomes evident that they also are not 
 the same with those which have ruled the contents of the 
 third chapter, but that they have reverted back again to 
 the thoughts and phraseology of the first two chapters. It 
 has been already remarked that τηρεῖν tas ἐντολάς, ver. 22, 
 has in the first part of the second chapter its own dis- 
 tinctive position; and similarly, the combination of the 
 various ἐντολαὶ Θεοῦ into the unity of one single command- 
 ment, just as we have it here, is observable in the same 
 earlier part of the second chapter. In ver. 24 we find the 
 reciprocal abiding of God in us and our abiding also in 
 God which was already present in the second chapter; and 
 not only so, its juxtaposition or co-ordination with the 
 τηρεῖν Tas ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ is substantially to be discerned in 
 that chapter, though not expressed in precisely the same 
 words. On the other hand, any such emphasis on the 
 works as we find pervading the whole of the second 
 
CHAP. III. 23. 230 
 
 chapter is altogether wanting in our vers. 23 and 24. 
 The first and second chapters contain, as has been fully 
 shown, an exhibition of fellowship with God and the 
 brethren as belonging to the internal character of Christians ; 
 and this is met in the third chapter by a requirement of 
 the outward confirmation of that sentiment in act. From 
 this it appears why at the close of this final exposition the 
 apostle falls back again into the tone of the first chapters. 
 The former is supposed to be only the superstructure upon 
 the foundation of the latter. If I approve my fellowship 
 with God, then must I have it already ; and on this having, 
 this internal characteristic of the Christian, rests here in 
 conclusion the apostle’s eye. By the works of love to God 
 and man we discern that we keep the commandment of 
 God; but this commandment itself points first and directly, 
 not to the external demonstration of an internal character, 
 but to that internal character itself: not to show that we 
 are, but to be. Thus, therefore, in the requirement of the 
 πιστεύειν and the ἀγαπᾶν, the internal state of the heart is 
 made prominent, of which we all should be and must be 
 partakers. 
 
 But all this has only served to vindicate the substance 
 of the πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ as appro- 
 priate in this place; it is the ἐντολή in its interior spirit 
 and tone ; but the expression or phrase itself is not accounted 
 for. Would it not seem more obvious that the apostle 
 should have used the phrase περιπατεῖν ἐν φωτί, or some- 
 thing like that? But we must remember how emphatically 
 the writer has in ch. iii. 2 seq. laid it down that the one 
 essential thing on earth as the indispensable earnest of 
 eternal glory is the following of Christ ; that he has, further, 
 from the beginning onwards shown that the manifestation 
 of Christ is the principle of our entire Christian new life 
 (μένειν ἐν τῷ υἱῷ, ch. 11. 3, 6). Accordingly, throughout 
 the whole process of his discussion it must have been 
 natural to the apostle to lay emphasis upon fellowship with 
 Christ in particular when meaning fellowship with God. 
 That His self-manifestation (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι) as the Son of ἡ 
 God (τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ) and as the Saviour of the world 
 
234 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIN. 
 
 (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) at the same time and especially, has 
 passed into our being and inmost consciousness as a fact 
 determining our life (πιστεύσωμεν) : that is the will of God 
 on one side. And that this self-revelation of Christ should 
 determine us in the obedience of His commandments 
 (καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡμῖν) to love the brethren (ἀγαπῶμεν 
 ἀλλήλους): that is the will of God on another side. Thus 
 is explained also the aorist πιστεύσωμεν : brotherly love 
 presupposes faith, and this preterite form of the verb serves 
 to indicate that very presupposition. And this shows that 
 in ἔδωκεν ἐντολήν, at the close of the verse, Christ is the 
 subject, which is to be assumed also for other reasons, 
 specially because the addition, after the already preceding 
 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ, that is, Θεοῦ, would otherwise 
 be perfectly pleonastic. Moreover, brotherly love is through- 
 out the Epistle exhibited by preference as the command- 
 ment of Christ; and, further, His person is formally 
 alluded to at the close, and that with a specific emphasis 
 on its two aspects, the divine and the human natures. 
 Faith also is defined as a commandment, though not of 
 Christ but of the Father; and in presence of the fact that 
 precisely in St. John’s Gospel the awakening of such a 
 faith is represented as the final goal of the entire work 
 ‘of Christ among men, we need not seek for specific passages 
 that demand from man this faith. Yet these are not 
 entirely wanting. First, John vi. 40 comes at once into 
 consideration: τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός pe, ἵνα 
 πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. For it is 
 plain that these words declare not only that in the divine 
 will the believer shall have eternal life, but also that faith 
 is the commanded condition of this life, and therefore 
 equally and in the first instance the matter of the divine 
 will, So again in John xiv. 1: πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ 
 εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε, where faith in the Lord enters not as a 
 second requirement by the side of faith in God, but is 
 introduced as the way to the latter, and is really therefore 
 the first requirement of all. 
 
CHAP. III. 24. Zan 
 
 VERSE 24a. 
 
 Καὶ ὁ τηρῶν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, Kal αὐτὸς 
 ἐν αὐτῷ. ' 
 
 As generally throughout the Epistle, so especially in the 
 passage before us, from ver. 22 to ver. 24, the apostle 
 recurs again and again to the Lord’s last discourses. The 
 fundamental ideas are the same in both: the observance 
 of the divine commands, specifically those of faith and 
 brotherly love ; the answers to prayer; the abiding in God; 
 and, finally, if we include ver. 240, the mission of the Holy 
 Ghost. We may compare, moreover, John xiv. 11, the 
 requirement of the faith that God is in Christ, corresponding 
 here to faith in Him as the Son of God; and then as the 
 result of that faith, John xiv. 14, 15, ὅντε ἂν αἰτήσητε 
 τοῦτο ποιήσω, corresponding here to ch. iil. 22, ὃ ἐὰν 
 αἰτῶμεν λαμβάνομεν. And again, John xiv. 15, ἐὰν 
 ἀγωαπᾶτέ με, τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμὰς τηρήσατε" καὶ ἐγὼ épo- | 
 τήσω τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν, 
 corresponding here to ver. 24, the mention of the gift of 
 the Spirit in connection with the τηρεῖν tas ἐντολάς. And 
 the μένειν, finally, is really the fundamental idea, as of the 
 last discourses of Jesus, so also of the Epistle before us. 
 In John xiv. 16 the Spirit is sent ἵνα μένῃ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν; in | 
 ch. xv. the μένειν ἐν ἀμπέλῳ is the centre of the whole 
 parabolical discourse ; compare, in proof, ver. 4, μείνατε ἐν 
 ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν ; ver. 7, ἐὰν μείνητε ἐν ἐμοὶ, καὶ τὰ 
 ῥήματά μου ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ, ὃ ἐὰν θέλητε αἰτήσεσθε K.T.X. ; 
 ver. 10, ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολάς μου τηρήσητε μενεῦτε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ 
 μου. And as here, at the end of the section, the μένειν ἐν 
 αὐτῷ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν ἡμῖν is made prominent, so it forms the 
 conclusion of the last discourses of our Lord, the theme of 
 the second part of the high-priestly prayer, that the relation 
 between God and Christ, as it is expressed in the words 
 ἐγὼ ἐν σοὶ καὶ σὺ ἐν ἐμοί, is, as it were, to be the pattern 
 of our relation to God, and to find its reflection in us. 
 These simple citations testify abundantly that there and 
 here the thoughts in detail and as a whole correspond. 
 
 For the furtherance of a definite view of the spirit of the 
 
236 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 passage, we have yet to decide whether the pronouns in 
 ver. 24 refer to the Father or to Christ. If, as we have 
 established, the last words of ver. 23 have Christ for their 
 subject, it seems obvious that in this verse also He is the 
 subject. But Christ had come into consideration in what 
 precedes only as the giver of one commandment, that of 
 brotherly love ; on the other hand, at the beginning of ver. 
 23 the Father was mentioned as the proper νομοθέτης, and 
 therefore the τηρεῖν tas ἐντολάς may well refer to the 
 latter ; and it is in favour of this that in ch. iv. 13, where 
 a part of our verse is repeated almost literally, the pronouns 
 decidedly must, according to the connection, point to the 
 Father, while certainly the Son, on the other hand, is often 
 in the second chapter the subject of the μένειν, as He 
 almost always is in the Gospel. In ch. xv. this is abso- 
 lutely the case; comp. ver. 4, μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί, and the 
 often-repeated μένετε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ μου. In ch. xvii., it is 
 true, it begins to be common to the Father and the Son, 
 ver. 21, ἵνα αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσι ; but afterwards, in ver. 23, 
 the Son alone comes forward as the subject: ἐγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς 
 καὶ ov ἐν ἐμοί. 
 
 Thus we have once more reached the end of a division. 
 ~The thesis with which the apostle set out in ch. 11, 28 seq. 
 was, that our abiding in God, or, more definitely, our son- 
 ship to God, must be made manifest in works in order that 
 we may be capable of confidence at the day of judgment. 
 Has this thesis been now actually demonstrated? It has 
 been shown that the idea of the εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, as well 
 as the requirements of the judgment day, must lead to most 
 scrupulous and complete works of righteousness, to full and 
 perfect deeds of love ; and thus that every one who would 
 profess to be of God must exhibit these deeds. But the 
 converse has not been established, though this is quite 
 necessary, namely, that he who doeth these works is neces- 
 sarily a child of God. It might, indeed, be thought that 
 there could be such a practice of righteousness without the 
 divine sonship; this latter having been rightly defined as 
 not a mere ethical deportment of man, but as a substantial 
 change in his nature preceding and laying the foundation 
 
CIIAP, III. 24. O3'1 
 
 for that deportment. If I am therefore to enjoy the full 
 parrhesia at the final bar, I must have exhibited not merely 
 a thus and thus well-ordered deportment, but must have 
 the assurance that this deportment could be the result only 
 of a divine sonship or regeneration ; and thus the one must 
 help the assurance of the other. And this demonstration, 
 that the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is not only necessary, but 
 also the certain evidence of the γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, it 
 was the apostle’s purpose to establish; for otherwise he 
 would, in ch. 11. 29, have been obliged to write πᾶς ὁ 
 γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ποιεῖ τὴν δικαιοσύνην, but not 
 πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται. It is 
 plain from what has been said that the thesis of ch. ii. 
 28 seq. has not been fully established, but only in its first 
 principle ; we yet want the argument that the ποιεῖν τὴν 
 δικαιοσύνην, ἀγαπᾶν τοὺς ἀδελφούς, which have been seen 
 in ch, ili, to be so necessary, are also a certain testimony of 
 regeneration from above. ‘The close of the section now 
 ended points in a preliminary and preparatory way to this 
 internal change of sentiment, of which the works give cer- 
 tain testimony ; for, instead of expressions which describe the 
 external conduct, it chooses simply those, as we have seen, 
 which refer to the inner mind. That we, in the conscious- 
 ness of upright walking before God (ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην) 
 and before the brethren (ἀγαπᾶν), attain to confidence, and“ 
 the more perfect that consciousness is to all the more 
 perfect confidence, has been already shown; but how far 
 and in what sense this our conduct lays the foundation of 
 confidence, how far it is the absolutely sure evidence of 
 fellowship with God, has yet to be shown. When the 
 apostle enters upon this question, and gives us to know 
 (γινώσκειν) that we in this way are united with God, he 
 furnishes the complement of the third chapter. The new 
 section, whose theme is contained in ver. 240, will be, so 
 far as we can now perceive, co-ordinated with the third 
 chapter, but only as subordinate to the theme announced 
 in ch. ii. 28 seq. 
 
bo 
 os 
 oO 
 
 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 VERSE 247. 
 
 Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι μένει ἐν ἡμῖν, ἐκ τοῦ 
 πνεύματος οὗ ἡμῖν ἔδωκεν. 
 
 The contents of the new section are preliminarily deter- 
 mined by two points in ver. 24, the mention of the 
 πνεῦμα at the close, and the γινώσκετε ὅτι μένει ἐν ἡμῖν. 
 This latter must be compared at once with the beginning 
 of the second main division, ch. ii. 28, where we read, καὶ 
 νῦν τεκνία μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ, thus the precise converse of our 
 present passage. This is of importance for the whole 
 matter of the section. For we have already become per- 
 suaded that these two phrases are not identical, but that 
 the μένειν ἐν Θεῷ makes prominent the human relation in 
 the Christian estate, and the μένειν Θεὸν ἐν ἡμῖν the divine. 
 Now, at the close of the second chapter it was strictly in 
 keeping that we should hear the exhortation to abide in 
 God, for there the apostle’s aim was to show that it was 
 our duty to approve our fellowship with God by works ; 
 therefore the question was of the human relation. But our 
 new section begins with God’s abiding in us, because the 
 apostle is about to point to the fact that our works make 
 it evident that we are born of God,—that is, that God had 
 begun and was carrying on His work within us. Thus the 
 very expression leads us at once to the subject which our 
 study of the previous train of thought in the Epistle gave 
 us reason to expect in the new section. The second element 
 is the mention of the πνεῦμα. That this will be a leading 
 idea in the new part is shown by this, that in ver. 13, at 
 the close, namely, of the development here beginning, the 
 clause is repeated: it must therefore have been reckoned 
 by the writer as containing its substance. And this is all 
 the more striking as the idea πνεῦμα, not failing, indeed, in 
 the detailed discussion, is nevertheless only found at the 
 beginning of it, and afterwards altogether retreats from view. 
 
 Let us, in order to harmonize these facts, take a pre- 
 liminary glance at the sequel. It is obvious at once that 
 the two main themes which we have hitherto found in each 
 section of the Epistle recur here also: vers. 1-6 treat of 
 
CHAP, III. 94. 239 
 
 our relation to the Lord; vers. 7-12, of our relation to the 
 brethren ; vers. 13-16 then give us a supplementary 
 summary from one point of view, or, more strictly speaking, 
 the essence of the two discussions. It is of the nature of 
 such a. resumé that the thoughts which are summed up 
 should be reduced to the briefest expression ; in it, there- 
 fore, we shall be able most easily to perceive the substance 
 of the two preceding sections. The former is comprehended 
 in this, that God has sent His Son, and the confession of 
 this divine act guarantees fellowship with God ; the second 
 is comprehended in this, that God is love, and he who hath 
 this love must, again, have fellowship with God. Thus 
 fellowship with God and consciousness of it—for our verse 
 shows that the yeyvooxesy ὅτι μένει ἐν ὑμῖν is the apostle’s 
 point—rests upon the acknowledgment and appropriation 
 of a divine act and of the divine nature of love. But 
 where the acknowledgement of the divine act in the incar- 
 nation of Christ exists, there, as vers. 1—6 show, must the 
 Holy Ghost have wrought it; similarly, where love to the 
 brethren exists, there, according to vers. 7-12, it must have \_ 
 resulted from the love of God, and thus again have been 
 produced by the same Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the 
 argument of the apostle is generally this: where there is a 
 true confession of the incarnate Son of God, it is the effect 
 of the operation of the Holy Spirit; where love exists, it is 
 the outflowing of a divine love imparted first, and conse- 
 quently is wrought of God: he, therefore, who is the subject 
 of this confession and this love is in fellowship with 
 God, and hath the Holy Ghost, who is the sole agent of all 
 the operations of God in man. This, therefore, perfectly 
 establishes the thesis laid down in ch. 11. 28 seq. According 
 to ch. iii. 3, the apostle requires that our ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιο- 
 σύνην should spring from the example of Christ the incar- 
 nate (ch. 111. 5, ἐφανερώθη), and now exalted (ch. 111. 2), Son 
 of God. But where the true acknowledgment of the Son 
 of God exists, it must be of the operation of the Holy Spirit 
 (ch. iv. 1-6) ; if, therefore, in this confession, and urged by 
 it, we practise righteousness, we have in ourselves the 
 evidence that we are in God, and God in us. Similarly, 
 
Seo) THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 brotherly love shows, inasmuch as it can be only the 
 expression of a divinely-wrought love (ch. iv. 7-12) if it 
 demonstrates its reality by works (ch. 111. 11-18), that we 
 are of God. Chapters 111. and iv. thus together contain, in 
 fact, the effectual demonstration of ch. ii. 28, 29. Their 
 relation to each other is also, as we have already seen, this: 
 that ch. 111. shows the necessity of deeds, ch. iv. the security 
 of the confident argument based upon them. The exposi- 
 tion of the details will abundantly confirm all this, 
 
CHAP, IV. 1. 241 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 VERSE 1. 
 
 ᾿4γαπητοὶ, μὴ παντὶ πνεύματι πιστεύετε, ἀλλὰ δοκιμά- 
 ζετε τὰ πνεύματα, εἰ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν" ὅτι πολλοὶ ψευδο- 
 προφῆται ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 
 
 The first six verses of the fourth chapter give evidence 
 of the conclusion that the confession of the incarnate Son 
 of God is the assurance of the energy of the Holy Ghost 
 within us. This demonstration is so conducted as to set 
 over against the Holy Spirit, who testifies of Christ and for 
 Christ, the spirit of the world and of Antichrist, which not 
 only opposes this witness, but diffuses the opposite li. 
 Thus it is an argument ὁ contrario. The exhortation of the 
 first verse is thus not the main thing to the apostle; but 
 the emphasis lies on ver. 2b: πᾶν πνεῦμα 0 ὁμολογεῖ K.7.X., 
 ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν. The Holy Spirit, indeed, is the sure 
 token of divine sonship, but there are many spirits; hence 
 a test is necessary, a standard must be found, to distinguish 
 the divine Spirit from lying spirits. Now assuredly there~ 
 are only two πνεύματα, that of God and that of the dark- 
 ness; but since each of these assumes a different character 
 in individual men, there must be as great a variety of 
 spirits as there is of individuals, while yet they fall into 
 two classes, according as they bear the signature in them- 
 selves of the divine or the anti-Christian spirit. Now the 
 necessity of such a testing the apostle grounds on this 
 (ὅτι), that lying spirits are not only possible, but also in 
 creat numbers actually emerge. The ψευδοπροφῆται are 
 not here alone, but everywhere in the New Testament, 
 wherever they are spoken of, connected most intimately 
 with the Antichrist; and as the token of this here and 
 everywhere, there is only one thing adduced, that is, the 
 
 1 JOHN. Q 
 
242 TIE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIN. 
 
 denial of the mission of Christ. In Matt. xxiv. and the 
 parallels the ψευδόχριστοι are named together with the 
 false prophets; the former are false Christs, and the latter 
 bear testimony to them as if they were true Christs. In 
 Acts χη]. 6, Bar-jesus announces himself as a false prophet, 
 in that he opposes the preaching of St. Paul concerning 
 Christ. In 2 Pet. 11. 2 we have the sign of false prophets, 
 that they τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνοῦνται ; and 
 in the Apocalypse it is the false prophet who seduces men 
 to the beast,—that is, to apostasy from Christ. Thus there 
 is literally everywhere the connection with anti-Christianity. 
 
 Yet it is not to be overlooked that the name false 
 prophet is more comprehensive in St. John than in the 
 Synoptists. For as he understands by the ἀντίχριστος 
 something more general than they understand by their 
 arevdoypiotos,—that is, not only those who give themselves 
 out for Christ, but all who are opposed to Him, who belong 
 to the host of the arch-Antichrist,—so also the false prophets 
 are in his estimation not only those who bear testimony to 
 a false Christ, but all who do not give due honour to the 
 true One. Thus it comes to pass that in the Synoptists 
 the false prophets are only servants and helpers of the 
 Antichrist; m St. John they appear as antichrists them- 
 selves. Further, it is not accidental that here ψευδοπροφῆται 
 is used, and not ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι. In the former word, to 
 wit, prominence is given to their dependence on a higher 
 spirit working in the souls of men; but this token is 
 wanting in the latter word. Since in our passage the 
 question is of that very higher principle energizing in men’s 
 souls, the former word, and not the latter, is appropriate. 
 And these prophets of the lie εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐξεληλύθασιν. 
 The words may bear two interpretations: either we may 
 take the ἐξεληλύθασιν here in the same sense as ἐξ ἡμῶν 
 ἐξῆλθον in ch. 1]. 19, of the origination of the false teachers 
 in the bosom of the congregation, in which case κόσμος is 
 the world as the enemy of the church; or we may under- 
 stand the ἐξεληλυθέναι quite generally as prodire, without 
 referring the ἐξ to the bosom of the church, and then 
 
 κόσμος is the world in its widest meaning, as the scene of 
 
CHAP. IV. 1. 243 
 
 their activity. This latter is recommended, not only by 
 the circumstance that the ἐξ ἡμῶν of ch. ii. 19 is wanting 
 here, and that without any hint that could supplement it 
 in the connection, but also by some more urgent reasons. 
 For the clause containing the statement that many false 
 teachers had gone out from the congregation into the world, 
 and given in their adhesion to the kingdom of darkness, is 
 by no means a foundation for the requirement δοκιμάζειν 
 τὰ πνεύματα εἰ ἐκ TOV Θεοῦ ἐστιν. Such spirits would not 
 have needed to be tested; they had become manifest by 
 their very severance from the church. If it was a plain 
 and palpable fact, and this is presupposed by the ore which 
 assigns a reason, that they had gone out into the ungodly 
 κόσμος, then in this fact there could be no inducement to 
 the δοκιμάζειν, for itself was the accomplishment of the 
 δοκιμασία. Therefore we take the κόσμος in the wider 
 meaning of the scene of the activity of these liars, and the 
 ἐξέρχεσθαι as their appearing. That, in fact, they had gone 
 from the midst of the Christian community is not indeed 
 denied, it is simply not asserted here; that it was so is to 
 be assumed from the fact that the false prophets of this 
 passage must be identified with the antichrists of the second 
 chapter (compare especially, ch. iv. 3). If we must find 
 an express allusion in the ἐξέρχεσθαι, we must think of 
 the kingdom of darkness generally from which they sprang, 
 and into which they in due time will be thrust out as being 
 their ἔδιος τόπος. 
 
 This trying of the spirits, which the presence of the 
 lying prophets thus alluded to so urgently required, must 
 all Christians discharge; for the exhortation is addressed 
 to the entire community. Indeed, there was, according to 
 1 Cor. xii. 10, a proper χάρισμα τῆς διακρίσεως πνευμάτων, 
 which was related to the charism of the prophets as. the 
 ἑρμηνεία was related to the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν ; but as every 
 charism was potentially the property of every Christian, 
 the apostle might well enforce, nevertheless, this testing 
 duty upon all. In the very presupposition that all had 
 the Holy Spirit, lay the possibility that every one might 
 detect the spirit opposed. 
 
244 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 VERSE 2. 
 
 Ἔν τούτῳ γινώσκετε TO πνεῦμα τοῦ Ocov’ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ 
 ὁμολογεῖ Incoty Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐχηλυθότα, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 ἐστι. 
 
 St. John mentions and commends the standard of judg- 
 
 ment in ver. 2: we must take γινώσκετε in the imperative 
 sense; that elsewhere the indicative γινώσκομεν so often 
 occurs, cannot affect the application of the second person 
 here. These few words must be all the more carefully 
 studied, because their meaning is so important: the deci- 
 sion concerning others, yea, the decision concerning my 
 own relation to God. An ὁμολογεῖν is demanded: the 
 question is not here of πίστις, for that is an act of my 
 inmost and most secret life; visible to no other, often un- 
 known to myself while often I am conscious of it, it cannot 
 be a standard or mark for judgment upon others. It is 
 ‘something that must show itself, and be confirmed, and 
 that in act (ch. 111.}; but the act must be judged by its 
 ‘motive and spring, and this judgment is measured by the 
 confession that I make concerning my motive. But thus 
 it is not the confession of itself which is laid down as a 
 standard, as if it were opposed to the fear of confession ; 
 the emphasis rests upon the matter of the confession or its 
 object. In general, it is made plain by a comparison of ver. 3, 
 where the right reading comprehends the full contents of the 
 confession in the one word ᾿Ιησοῦς, that the question here 
 is of the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 But in what sense, we must again more closely ask, is 
 this to be the matter of my confession? What concerning 
 it am 1 to confess? Here, first of all, the words must be 
 grammatically arranged in their due order. Much depends 
 on the grammatical place of the word Χριστόν. Is it to 
 be immediately combined with ᾿]ησοῦν, so that Jesus Christ 
 is the definition of the person concerning whom something 
 ——that is, the ἐληλυθέναι ἐν capKi—is to be confessed ? or 
 is it to stand as an attributive, so that I am to confess 
 Jesus as the Christ, and that He appeared as such in the 
 flesh? In the former case, the apostle presupposes that 
 Jesus is the Christ; and his requirement is only this, that 
 
CHAP. IV. 9. 243 
 
 I avow this Jesus Christ to have become incarnate; in the 
 other case, the presupposition is that there must be a con- 
 fession concerning Jesus, and the requirement is that I avow 
 concerning Him Messiahship and incarnation. The ques- 
 tion is not an irrelevant one, nor one of mere logomachy. 
 If we take the former view, we suppose that the confession 
 demanded was in opposition to Docetism, which acknow- 
 ledged Jesus as the Christ, as sent of God, as the ἄνωθεν 
 ἐρχόμενον, but not as real man, who had become flesh; if 
 we take the latter view, we suppose it demanded in opposi- 
 tion to Ebionism, which would not acknowledge Jesus as 
 the incarnate Christ, but denied His higher nature. For 
 it is quite certain that Χριστός here does not define Jesus 
 as the promised Messiah of the Jews, but expresses His 
 higher and divine nature. It is true that the former is 
 the meaning in all those passages of the Gospels where by 
 Jews, or in opposition to Jews, Jesus is described as the 
 Christ. But wherever ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός is used as a proper 
 name, the former word expresses His human nature, the 
 latter His divine; and in a series of places Χριστός simply 
 is interchangeable with vids τοῦ Θεοῦ. Thus it is in John 
 1. 17, where the words ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς x.7.r. define the 
 meaning of the Χριστός : thus it is in John 111. 28, for the 
 subsequent words in ver. 31, ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος, 
 define the substance of the name. In our Epistle we must 
 hold fast this significance in every passage where Χριστός 
 occurs: in ch. i. 5 it is clear from the added clause that 
 Jesus Christ is introduced as the Son of God; in ch. ii. 22 
 the denial of Jesus as the Christ is more closely defined by 
 the words of ver. 23, ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱόν ; the close of the 
 ninth verse of the second Epistle confirms this meaning of 
 the name. And finally, as it concerns our present passage, 
 it may be most absolutely proved that Christ is interchange- | 
 able with Son of God. First, the sum of Christian doctrine 
 which the apostle here lays down is identical with that 
 which he utters in John i. 14, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, and 
 therefore the Χριστός here corresponds to the idea of λόγος, 
 there. Secondly, in the reswmé of our section in ver. 14) 
 the apostle sums up what he here says thus, that God sent’ 
 
246 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 His Son as Saviour into the world: thus the Χριστός here 
 is equivalent to υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ there ; just as similarly in ver. 
 15 he demands the confession that Jesus is the Son of God. 
 After having established the full significance of the word 
 Christ, let us turn back to the original question: does the 
 apostle demand the confession that the Son of God, who is 
 acknowledged Jesus by the supposition, became flesh and 
 _a true man; or does he demand that the man Jesus be 
 acknowledged as the Son of God? In other words: Is 
 the divinity of Jesus the thing acknowledged, the humanity 
 in its full meaning the thing doubted,—-that is to say, the 
 thing denied; or is it precisely the converse of this? 
 Finally, in the grammatical terminis, does Χριστόν belong 
 to the subject or to the predicate? In favour of the former, 
 it may be urged that the combination ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός is 
 so common, that if the apostle had meant to divide them, 
 he must have shown his intention by his specific arrange- 
 ment; and this he might easily have done by simply 
 putting the ᾿Ιησοῦν before the ὁμολογεῖν. Not the less on 
 that account must we decide for the separation of the 
 Χριστόν from the ᾿Ιησοῦν. For the recapitulation in 
 ver. 14, and especially that of ver. 15, shows that the 
 ,matter of primary importance to the apostle here was the 
 recognition of Jesus as the Son of God: he sums up the 
 ‘confession introduced before to this effect, that "Incotds ἐστιν 
 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. Now if, as we have seen, Χριστός here 
 is equivalent with υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ there, it cannot belong to 
 the subject, but must be separated as the predicate of the 
 confession demanded. Thus the question which should 
 serve for the δοκιμασία πνευμάτων was the old one: What 
 think ye of Jesus? The right answer to the question was 
 the common confession of the church concerning His divine- 
 human person as the God-man ; but this introduced in such 
 a way that the emphasis rests upon the divinity, while the 
 humanity is here, as everywhere else in the New Testament, 
 simply taken for granted or not open to any suspicion. 
 In making the divinity prominent, the apostle does not 
 say that Christ became flesh, but that He came into the 
 flesh. Concerning His birth as the physical entrance into 
 
CHAP. IV. 2. 247 
 
 the world, St. John neither here nor anywhere else uses 
 ἔρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσμον and the like; it is always rather 
 with him the coming as the result of a higher divine 
 causality. All the three Johannaean documents agree in 
 representing the coming of Jesus as essentially a coming 
 from heaven. “Hv ἐρχόμενον τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν is the 
 announcement of the gospel, coming, that is, from the 
 Father into the world; the Saviour promises to His disciples 
 His own coming from the Father, to whom He returns 
 as the Paraclete; the entire Apocalypse revolves around 
 the val ἔρχου Κύριε ᾿Ιησοῦ, His final coming from heaven. 
 Accordingly, it is not the intention of the apostle to aver 
 here primarily that the Son of God became truly man,— 
 that follows only from the words used,—but by the ἔρχεσθαι 
 to indicate plainly that the man Jesus was nevertheless 
 the Son of God, that He came into this humanity from 
 heaven, and therefore entered it as the eternal Logos. . 
 
 We are then to regard Christ in our thoughts as ἐν 
 σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα. The phrase expresses something different 
 from εἰς σάρκα, and something more than εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 
 Something different from εἰς σάρκα, for this would mean 
 only that He descended into the sphere of the σάρξ, of 
 humanity as infected by sin and guilt, without expressing 
 in what sense He personally became σάρξ. Something 
 higher than εἰς τὸν κόσμον ; for we have already seen on 
 ch. ii. 16 that κόσμος is a much more comprehensive idea | 
 than σάρξ: all potencies opposed to God which are found 
 in the κόσμος are condensed in the σάρξ, in human nature 
 sold under sin, as in a focus. dp means human nature 
 not in itself, nor as exclusively in its corporeal relation, 
 but that human nature as having sin lodged init. Sin 
 does not originate indeed in the σῶμα of man; but all 
 that man is and does makes for itself an organ in the body, 
 makes indeed the body its organ. Not only does the body 
 of man participate in the dissolution of the human constitu- 
 tion which entered as the efiect of sin, sickness, suffering, 
 and death itself included, but every sinful psychical impulse 
 conditions or determines man’s bodily nature, inasmuch as, 
 in consequence of sinful impulses, the body is adapted to the 
 
248 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 service of sin, and unfitted for the service of righteousness. 
 Thus, while we cannot indeed say that the flesh, that is, the 
 body infected with sin, is itself sin, for sin can be predicated 
 only of that which is psychical or spiritual, it is neverthe- 
 less pervaded through and through by the results of sin. 
 As nature cannot be evil, though no longer by any means 
 responding to the original design of the Creator, not being 
 any longer the representative and organ of pure, divine 
 thoughts, so also is it with the body of man. And this 
 corporeity thus perverted is the σάρξ in which Christ 
 must appear if He would and should approve Himself the 
 σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (ver. 14). He must thus be manifested 
 in it as the Reconciler or Atonement, thus also as the 
 Redeemer. As the former, for in taking upon Himself the 
 σάρξ, He bore all the consequences of sin; not even His 
 body was the adequate and homogeneous organ of His spirit, 
 as St. Paul declares in the averment of His ἀσθένεια (2 Cor. 
 xul.); He tasted thoroughly the sorrow which sin has 
 poured out upon the whole human estate and life. But 
 by this very fact He has redeemed us from the σάρξ; for 
 in that He, by virtue of the power of the Spirit indwelling © 
 in Hin, gradually overcame, blessed and glorified the σάρξ, 
 that is, the corporeity deteriorated and bound by sin, it has 
 become a σῶμα τῆς δόξης, or σῶμα πνευματικόν, that is to 
 say, a body which is the absolutely perfect organ of the 
 spirit; and thereby He has opened the way for us also on 
 our part to undergo this process of glorification with our σάρξ. 
 
 Now he who confesses to this Son of God, who was 
 manifested in the flesh, gives witness that he has the πνεῦμα 
 τῆς ἀληθείας, for no man can call Jesus Lord but by His 
 Holy Spirit; thus also, in his case, the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιο- 
 σύνην is the glorifying process upon the flesh wrought 
 through Christ’s Spirit, and after His pattern. His works 
 are therefore the full pledge of His divine sonship, which 
 fact the apostle aims here to corroborate with force. Thus 
 this section concurs with the former to make one whole. 
 And the confession here demanded is not alone an uncon- 
 ditional token of my estate of grace; for, while it does 
 indeed prove that the Holy Spirit is operating within me, 
 
CHAP. IV. 3. 249 
 
 it does not prove that my whole personal life is brought 
 under His power; again, the testimony of works demanded 
 in ch. 111. is then only efficient when it is certain that these 
 works have the right principle as their source, that is, the 
 Holy Ghost. Both these elements taken together, however, 
 establish an unassailable security. 
 
 VERSE 3. 
 
 Kai πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν 
 σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι: καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ τοῦ 
 ἀντιχρίστου, ὃ ἀκηκόατε OTL ἔρχεται, καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ 
 ἐστὶν ἤδη. 
 
 Over against this true πνεῦμα the apostle now introduces 
 the false one: to the Spirit of Christ is opposed that of anti- 
 christ. But we have first to establish the genuine reading. 
 It is generally admitted that the object denied is defined 
 as simply tov ᾿Ιησοῦν, and that the Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ 
 ἐληλυθότα of the Teaxtus receptus is an addition. If, now, 
 the right reading is πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν 
 ᾿Ιησοῦν, this must be so explained as to show that the 
 apostle connects with the name Jesus the whole matter 
 that he had announced in the previous verse. And, in 
 fact, a confession of Jesus is impossible without the full 
 substance of that: if I do not hold Him to be the Son of 
 God, I may speak of Him and know, but I have then 
 nothing to confess. To confess to a MAN is a thing without 
 meaning: it is nothing. But it is to me doubtful whether 
 the reading given above is the genuine one. The old 
 reading, πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ λύει τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, appears to me to 
 have more value than is mostly conceded to it. That it 
 was quoted by Socrates as an ancient one is indeed un- 
 questionable. The words referred to are these: [Nestorius] 
 ἠγνόησεν ὅτι ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ Iwavvov ἐγέγραπτο ἐν τοῖς 
 παλαιοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, ὅτι πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ λύει τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν 
 ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν. Ταύτην γὰρ τὴν διάνοιαν ἐκ τῶν 
 παλαιῶν ἀντιγράφων περιεῖλον οἱ χωρίζειν ἀπὸ τοῦ τῆς 
 οἰκονομίας ἀνθρώπου βουλόμενοι τὴν θεότητα κιτιλ. (Hist. 
 Eccles. vii. 32). Diisterdieck supposes that it does not follow 
 from these words that the verse so ran, as Nestorius quoted 
 
250 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 them; he thinks that the phrase περιεῖλον τὴν διάνοιαν 
 shows rather that he was only giving the sense of the text. 
 But in this he is wrong. We cannot see what end the 
 mention of the παλαιὰ ἀντίγραφα would serve if there was 
 not in them something different from what the Nestorians 
 read in these texts. If the heretics only by exegetical 
 manipulation made the meaning of the passage favourable 
 to their views, nothing was to be gained by a reference to 
 the old manuscripts, and the word διάνοια thus receives its 
 rights. While the heretics changed the words, they did 
 also in the judgment of Socrates change the sense of them. 
 It cannot therefore be denied that we have the testimony 
 of Socrates that ὃ Aves was the original reading. For the 
 rest, indeed, the words are not to be pressed; in spite of 
 the repeated τὰ παλαιὰ ἀντίγραφα, we may not believe 
 that all the manuscripts were collated by Socrates and 
 found to give evidence of his reading. Further, it is 
 to be observed that in the time of this Father even the 
 manuscript Aves was no longer common, since, opposing 
 Nestorius, he in a certain sense introduces the old reading 
 as a novelty: ἠγνόησεν. In itself, therefore, the testimony 
 of Socrates to a reading no longer found in any manuscript 
 would have no great weight; but we have other witnesses. 
 Among these we reckon Tertullian first. It is true that 
 his citation in De carne Christi, ch. xxiv. (“certe qui negat 
 Christum in carne venisse, hic antichristus est”), seems on 
 the first glance to support the Zeatus receptus. But it is 
 so only in appearance; for we have not here an exact 
 quotation of our verse, but a blending of it with part of 
 the preceding; the idea of the im carne venire was the 
 chief thing with Tertullian, and must therefore be made 
 prominent whether his copy read μὴ ὁμολογεῖ or λύει. 
 This passage, therefore, is decisive on neither side. But it 
 is otherwise with the citation, adv. Marcion. v.16. Ter- 
 tullian agitates the question as to whom St. Paul meant in 
 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, and answers: “secundum nos quidem anti- 
 christus .. . ut docet Joannes apostolus, qui jam antichristos 
 dicit processisse in mundum praecursores antichristi spiritus, 
 negantes Christum in carne venisse et solventes Jesum, 
 
CHAP. IV. 8. put 
 
 Or 
 = 
 
 scilicet in Deo creatore.” In these words he gives an 
 extract from the first three verses of our chapter: the 
 processisse in mundunr refers to the first verse; the ὧν carne 
 venisse to the second; the solventes to the third. As the 
 second verse specifies as a sign of the reception of the 
 Holy Ghost, the ὁμολογεῖν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ 
 ἐληλυθότα, he simply inverts this; the Antichrist denies 
 that fact and confession. So, too, the change of Christ in 
 the second, of Jesus in the third member, points to the 
 fact that the former was to be the second, and the latter 
 the third verse. Tertullian, therefore, had not, as some 
 suppose, the true readings of the third verse before his 
 eyes; but only the one, ὃ λύει, and what precedes was 
 derived from the second verse. Nor is the solventes Jeswm 
 to be regarded as a gloss or addition of Tertullian, for the 
 construction of the sentence, dicit processisse negantes et 
 solventes, manifestly indicates that the latter words also 
 belong to his citation: it is only in the following sczlicet 
 that the gloss of the expositor enters. If we add to all 
 this the quotation from adv, Psych. 1., “ quod Jesum Christum 
 solvant,” and further, that Irenaeus, somewhat earlier than 
 Tertullian, has the same reading (adv. Haer. 111. 18), we 
 shall find it impossible to doubt the existence of this 
 reading. It will hardly be thought necessary to go further, 
 and examine the testimonies of Leo and Augustine, the 
 latter of whom does not certainly unite the two readings, 
 as is thought, when he says, solvit Jesum et negat wm carne 
 venisse: rather does he mark the meaning of the obscure 
 and difficult solvere by adding the clause derived from the 
 previous verse, which alone makes it intelligible. If in 
 this citation of Augustine the solvere did not rest upon a 
 reading in the text, but was inserted merely as an inter- 
 pretation, it would have been more appropriately inserted, 
 not before the negare, but after it. Against the genuine- 
 ness of this reading as the original one—its early existence 
 cannot be contended against after what has been said— 
 we have the fact of that earliest citation of our Epistle and 
 of this passage of it in Polycarp, Phil. 7: πᾶς ὃς ἂν μὴ 
 ὁμολογῇ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι ἀντίχριστός 
 
252 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 ἐστιν. When we weigh this narrowly, however, we find 
 that even this citation says nothing against the existence 
 of the ὃ λύει: were it not so, it would be of great signi- 
 ficance against the reading, for Polycarp certainly was older 
 than the παλαιὰ ἀντίγραφα of Socrates. We have, in fact, 
 here no actual literal citation, but a paraphrastic inter- 
 pretation of the passage: there is hardly a word of the 
 third verse which is distinctly reproduced in the passage 
 of Polycarp. The reason was the same which actuated 
 Augustine and the others: the expression λύειν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν 
 was found too difficult to make a clear sense as standing 
 alone. To me, therefore, it seems highly probable that 
 in fact the reading in dispute was in the original text, and 
 that it was very early lost. But how? that question 
 cannot well be answered of course: probably through the 
 intrusion of an explanatory gloss. Certainly the Oriental 
 manuscripts must at the time of the Nestorian controversies 
 have contained the text of the Catholic manuscripts on the 
 whole as we read them now; for otherwise they would 
 assuredly not have forgotten to cast their falsification of 
 the Scripture in the teeth of the heretics. Moreover, 
 internal reasons strongly recommend the reading ὃ λύει 
 tov ᾿Ιησοῦν. The phrase μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ιησοῦν seems 
 always to my feeling something harsh; one involun- 
 tarily expects an attributive definition of the object to be 
 confessed. On the other hand, λύειν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν is an 
 expression which, after the preceding verse, is as intelligible 
 as it is pregnant: it signifies to rend asunder those two 
 sides of the person of Jesus as they had been united in the 
 phrase Χριστὸν ἐληλυθότα ἐν σαρκί, which referred pre- 
 eminently, as we find in the explanation of ver. 2, to the 
 denial of the divinity of Christ. Lastly, it is more in 
 harmony with St. John’s manner not to make the two 
 points in an antithesis simply contradictory of each other: 
 he would scarcely write ὁμολογεῖν and μὴ ὁμολογεῖν, but 
 place in the second member something positive. 
 
 The second half of the verse now declares that such a 
 denial of the incarnation is not only a token that one is 
 not of God, but a stamp also of positive anti-Christianity. 
 
CHAP. IV. 4—6. 25a 
 
 As it respects the meaning, it is comparatively matter of 
 indifference whether with each of the neuters, τοῦτο and 
 TO Tod ἀντιχρίστου, the πνεῦμα is supplied; or whether 
 we regard τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν (λύειν) as the contents of τοῦτο, 
 and translate τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου as the nature or charac- 
 teristic of the Antichrist. Both are grammatically possible, 
 though the former seems on the whole the more obvious. 
 The Antichrist, concerning whom ye have heard that he 
 will appear as the highest and most fearful error, and as the 
 most bitter enemy of Jesus, has manifested himself in this 
 denying of the divine-human nature of Jesus. He who was 
 to come is already in the world: in the future he will be 
 the final, perfected, and personal exhibition of the principle ; 
 now he is present in the first beginnings of the principle. 
 
 VERSES 4—6. 
 
 “Ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστε, τεκνία, Kal νενικήκατε αὐτούς" 
 ὅτι μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν, ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. Αὐτοὶ ἐκ τοῦ 
 κόσμου εἰσί: διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου λαλοῦσι, καὶ ὁ κόσμος 
 αὐτῶν ἀκούει. ἡμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐσμεν ὁ γινώσκων τὸν 
 Θεὸν, ἀκούει ἡμῶν ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐκ ἀκούει 
 ἡμῶν. ᾿Εκ τούτου γινώσκομεν τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ 
 τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης. 
 
 The opposite principles which animate Christians and the 
 antichrists have their reflection also in the relation of both 
 
 to the world: the antichrists are in full friendship with it; 
 ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν ἀκούει; Christians are at enmity with it, | 
 
 and that a victorious enmity. From the principle the 
 apostle passes to the effects of it; and thus connects and 
 combines his discussion of the πνεῦμα as operating in the 
 Christian with that upon his practical life as given in the 
 third chapter. For, νικᾶν τὸν κόσμον and ποιεῖν τὴν 
 δικαιοσύνην are interchangeable ideas. Already in the 
 second chapter the ἀγωπᾶν τὸν κόσμον is placed in 
 opposition to the περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί; in the third it 
 was exhibited as the work of Christ, as His ποιεῖν τὴν 
 
 δικαιοσύνην, that He vanquished the devil: then the deeds 
 
 of His members will consist in this, that, as their Head 
 overcame the head, so they, the members, shall overcome 
 
254 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 'the members of the kingdom of darkness; that is to say, 
 
 “vanquish the κόσμος. There is here below no mere positive 
 construction, no mere negative destruction: all doing of good 
 is at once building up and pulling down. For this correlative 
 arrangement of the νικᾶν τὸν κόσμον and ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιο- 
 σύνην, We may compare, in particular, ch. v. 3, 4, where the 
 ἐντολὰς Θεοῦ τηρεῖν and τὸν κόσμον νικᾶν are equivalent 
 terms and ideas. 
 
 What our section contains as to the trying of the spirits, 
 and the relation between the Christian and the anti-Christian 
 spirit, is accordingly only the means used by the apostle to 
 bring out his subject, not the absolute end he has in view: 
 his sole end is the sign that the Holy Ghost is the energy 
 and spring of all holy action. That the testing the spirits 
 is only the means in his exposition appears at once from 
 the beginning of the fourth verse. For there it is declared 
 as a fact, the reality of which is simply presupposed, that 
 the readers have the Holy Ghost and are therefore of God: 
 this is the main proposition of the apostle, to which all the 
 rest leads up. But this, of course, implies at the same 
 time that the victory over the antichrists is achieved. 
 That victory is accomplished (perfect); for, in that the 
 church has turned away from all error, and witnessed the 
 good confession laid down in the preceding words, it has 
 already been successful in the conflict and overcome the 
 anti-Christianity: yet not indeed in its own power, but 
 through the power of the Holy Ghost ruling in it. The 
 carrying back of all human activity for good to a divine 
 “influence is quite characteristic of this section. ‘O ἐν ἡμῖν 
 is the God who hath given us His Spirit, and thereby be- 
 gotten us of Himself. “O ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ is he who elsewhere 
 is called the ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (John xii. 31). The 
 prince of the world has his work in the false prophets, for 
 —thus it is in ver. 5—these belong to the world, to the 
 kingdom of darkness pervaded and governed by sinful 
 powers; and therefore the world acknowledges them as 
 flesh of its flesh, and hears them. ‘Ex τοῦ κόσμου 
 λαλοῦσι: that is, all their words are moulded and ordered 
 by the spirit ruling in the world, and therefore have a 
 
ΘἾΑΡῚ γι τὸ 2.50 
 
 well-known and familiar sound to the children of the world. 
 Compare John xv. 19: εἰ ἐκ Tod κόσμου Te, ὁ κόσμος ἂν 
 τὸ ἴδιον ἐφίλει. It is obvious that the converse must also 
 be true (ver. 6): we who are of God must be understood 
 by him who himself knows the divine. The pronouns 
 refer, according to the connection, not to the apostles alone, 
 but the whole Christian fellowship; for they cannot 
 possibly have another subject than the γινώσκομεν in 
 the second half of the verse, and that this refers to all 
 Christians is perfectly obvious. The ὁμολογεῖν of ver. 2 
 indeed referred not to any individual, but to all who would 
 belong to the Christian community: they all witness the 
 same confession, and they all understand that confession 
 when it is borne by others. Each is at once the speaker 
 and hearer of the confession. 
 
 The second period brings in the end of the discussion. 
 By this we may know the Spirit of the truth and the spirit 
 of error. But what is meant by the ἐκ tovrov? Is it the 
 substance of the entire six verses; or only the last, the 
 ἀκούειν on the part of the world or of the children of God ? 
 Certainly the former, and pre-eminently the confession of 
 the incarnate Son; for the last three verses have, in fact, 
 only laid down the effect which such a confession pro- 
 duces: enmity of the world, friendship of the children of 
 God, in other words, incorporation into the whole organism 
 of the divine kingdom. 
 
 VERSE 7. 
 
 ᾿Αγαπητοὶ, ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους: OTL ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ TOD 
 Θεοῦ ἐστι, καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται, καὶ 
 γινώσκει τὸν Θεόν. 
 
 Hitherto St. John has exhibited the confession of the 
 Son of God manifested in the flesh as the principle of the 
 divine life in man: the foundation he lays, therefore, is not 
 anything that is in us, but something that God has done 
 for us. Similarly, he places—this is the meaning of the 
 paragraph from ver. 7 to ver. 12—the ground of our love 
 to the brethren not in ourselves; he makes it only the 
 reflection of the divine love to us, therefore the result 
 
256 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 again of what has been wrought for and upon us. Thus, 
 when he begins with the hortatory ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, 
 we are to regard this only as the introductory form, the 
 sentence of transition; the essence of the section is not an 
 _exhortation, but, so to speak, a physiology of love. We 
 ought to love, for ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι: it has its 
 home, its primal dwelling-place, in God; thus where there is 
 love, there is somewhat that must have come from Him. 
 Hence, therefore, he who loveth is born of God, and he is 
 a partaker of the divine nature; to him God hath revealed 
 Himself, and he on his part knoweth God. Γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ and γινώσκειν τὸν Θεόν are related as principle 
 to result, as gift and appropriation of the gift. We have 
 here once more the same fundamental principle which in 
 ch. 111, 2 is so clearly prominent, that all knowing pre- 
 supposes a spiritual likeness to the person known; and 
 that knowledge of the divine rests upon a possession of the 
 divine. If, accordingly, the knowledge of God is a result 
 of divine regeneration, and this again is discernible by the 
 evidence of love, it follows that the absence of this token 
 allows the conclusion to be drawn, that there is a lack of 
 the knowledge of God. 
 
 But here it is also shown clearly that to the apostle the 
 γινώσκειν is something very different from a thinking based 
 upon merely logical categories. It is indeed perfectly 
 possible that a man may understand all the teaching of 
 Scripture concerning God, and receive it into his mental 
 being, without having any real love. But such a fact 
 as that does not contradict the apostle’s assertion. For he 
 who knows all plants by their scientific names, classes, and 
 orders, but has never seen any of them, must be held to be 
 far from knowing the plants. In lke manner, he who 
 professes to know God without love has no spiritual per- 
 ception, no experience of Him; because his ideas are only 
 constituent elements out of which he seeks to produce a 
 living unity. He therefore proves that his idea of God is 
 a false one, since God is not a substance compounded of 
 \marks and attributes. Only from experience, that is, from 
 
 ‘aie can there spring any γινώσκειν τὸν Θεόν ; since 
 
 4 
 
CHAP. IV. 8 257 
 
 love, which is here represented as the token of a divine 
 birth, is supposed to be the pure copy or mere effluence of 
 
 the divine love, we, of course, must not limit it to the love of | 
 
 the brethren, but must understand it in its widest meaning. 
 
 VERSE ὃ. 
 
 ‘O μὴ ἀγαπῶν, οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν Θεὸν, ὅτε ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη 
 ἐστίν. 
 
 As if it was impossible for the apostle with too much 
 formality to draw out a contrast, he employs here also 
 another antithesis which ver. 8 presents to ver. 7, in order 
 to add an impressive enlargement to the thought. JBefore, 
 he had taught that ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐστιν; now, he teaches 
 that ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν. But what does this import? Love 
 is primarily under all circumstances a reciprocal idea, or idea 
 of relation: it necessarily requires a loving subject and an 
 object loved. Even in self-love this maintains its truth ; 
 for that can exist only where the subject is conscious of 
 itself as an object, and has differenced a self from the self. 
 In love the subject _goes out_of itself; and this takes place 
 more particularly in that it opens itself towards another, 
 and communicates itself. Moreover, it lies in the nature of 
 love that what it imparts is something good; is, in fact, a 
 good: communication of what is evil as such is the opposite 
 of love; it can only take place at all under the supposition 
 that I regard the evil erroneously as something good. To 
 wish to communicate what is known to be evil is Satanic, 
 and therefore the precise opposite of loving. Accordingly, 
 there are in the idea of love two things: one, the pre- 
 supposition that I have a good, or, more particularly, since 
 good if ethically considered cannot be an accident, that I 
 
 am_good; another, that I refer this good not to myself, but 
 
 to another, or am_conscious of the tendency to impart it. 
 
 If, now, it is said that God not only has love, but is love, 
 
 that means His being altogether and only love, love and 
 
 nothing but love; and in that again appears the second 
 
 thing, that He not only has good in itself, but that He is 
 
 altogether good, has all perfection, and absolutely refers 
 
 nothing to Himself, but all to others. . 
 1 JOHN. R 
 
 --.-.».-“---. 
 
258 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 By means of this it is possible to determine the rela- 
 tion which exists between the definition of the divine 
 nature given here and that of ch. i. 5, God is ight. That 
 given in our passage presupposes, as we have seen, that 
 goodness is the essential quality of God which in virtue 
 of His ἀγάπη εἶναι He communicates. This essential 
 quality is in ch. i. 5 described by the term φῶς. We 
 found φῶς to be the compendium of all His perfections, 
 the πλήρωμα αὐ icine; i, τε ΤΙΣ πο deition οἵ 
 the metaphysical essence of God, as ἀγάπη is of that_of 
 _ His ethical nature; the former is the immanent side of the 
 “divine essence, the latter the transitive which presupposes 
 the former; and the two together express nothing but 
 this, that God at no moment and in no measure ever has, 
 or ever can, or ever does refer the perfect fulness of His 
 being t0 Himself. The unfathomable and inconceivable 
 fulness of life which is named as φῶς is from eternity to 
 ΩΣ ἀῶ tere ene τ 
 
 the unlimited force of the Θεὸς ἀγάπη is dashed to pieces 
 
 every notion whi ts God as in any way or at any 
 
 time living ἃ life turned toward self or folded within self. 
 If we take the two definitions Θεὸς φῶς and Θεὸς ἀγάπη 
 together, we reach the result that no action of God is con- 
 ceivable which has not for its aim the demonstration of 
 love; and that there is no evidence of love which has not 
 for its substance the communication of the divine nature 
 , of light, of the divine δόξα. If this self-communication of 
 perfect love is conceived as in a literally absolute sense 
 consimmate, as a ray-of Tight passing unbroken from one 
 point to another, then we have the eternal ὠπαύγασμα καὶ 
 χαρακτὴρ τῆς δοξῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Son. If it 15 conceived 
 
 as dispersing itself in all possible gradations of colour, 
 which in their combination and sum, however, are again 
 like the cotourless indil erence of pure light, without image, 
 —consummate in time and space,—then we have the 
 world, or, a8 it 15 called in its final reference to God, the 
 divine kingdom. Thus it is plain how not only Christ, 
 but the ἐκκλησία, that is, the church, the perfected king- 
 dom of God, with its body, the earthly creation, may be 
 
CHAP. IV. 9. 259 
 
 called the πλήρωμα of God. Τί, then, light and love are 
 
 as inseparably the nature divine as form and_ matter make 
 up any material thing, then it follows that every one who 
 
 Ee eee ibe aparaker of ‘his light and et 
 this love. But as, according to ver. 7, the birth from God | 
 is the presupposition of the γινώσκειν αὐτόν, the conclusion 
 reached in our eighth verse is perfectly clear, that he who 
 loves not cannot know God,—that is, because he is not 
 born of Him. 
 
 VERSE 9. 
 
 Ἔν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὸν 
 υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον, 
 ἵνα ζήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ. 
 
 That love, which God is in His inmost essence, has now 
 become manifest, and that through the mission of His Son. _ 
 But the proposition is not here laid down in this wide 
 generality. Certainly it is true that herein the love of 
 God has been demonstrated in its broadest comprehensive- 
 ness (comp. John iil. 16, οὕτως ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς x.7.d.), 50 
 that it might have been said that ἡ ἀγάπη, this very per- 
 fect love itself, was first manifested in the Son; but when 
 we mark that the conclusion is, ἵνα ζήσωμεν δι᾿ αὐτοῦ, and 
 that it runs in the beginning ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη ἐν ἡμῖν, 
 we feel that both these circumscribe the comprehensiveness 
 of the statement above: it is not that all the love of God 
 generally was manifested in the sending of His Son; but 
 the apostle would say that His love towards us was in this 
 way approved. In order to obtain a more distinct idea, we 
 must determine whether ἐν ἡμῖν belongs to ἀγάπη or to 
 ἐφανερώθη, and how it is more particularly to be under- 
 stood. The former might require the article before ἐν ἡμῖν; 
 but that is not an absolute argument against it, for, though 
 we find no instance in our apostle, yet we have one in Col. 
 i. 4 of its absence in a similar or parallel case, ἡ ἀγάπη 
 ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. But since this construction must 
 under any circumstances be harsher than the reference to 
 ἐφανερώθη, we must needs prefer this latter. 
 
 But, this granted, even then the ἐν ἡμῶν may be variously 
 
200 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 understood. The most obvicus interpretation would be 
 that of “among us;” but this is opposed by the form of 
 the resumed thought in ver. 16, where it is ἡ ἀγάπη ἣν 
 ἔχει ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν. If this were to be translated “ among 
 us,” the whole phrase might easily be reduced to mean the 
 love which God finds existing among us, that is, our love to 
 Him. But this is rendered impossible by the preceding 
 πεπιστεύκαμεν ; for my love to God can be no object of 
 faith to me. Therefore it must be that ἡ ἀγάπη ἣν ἔχει ὁ 
 Θεός, ver. 16, defines the love which God has or feels; and 
 ἐν can by no means be translated “among.” But then, as 
 ἐν ἡμῖν in ver. 16 and in ver. 9 stand or fall together, we 
 cannot admit the interpretation “among” in our present 
 verse also. It may be added that throughout the entire 
 context ἐν never occurs in any other than its proper mean- 
 ing of “in.” What this apostle meant to express by the 
 phrase ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη ἐν ἡμῖν may be best illustrated 
 by comparing a similar Pauline passage. The φανεροῦσθαι 
 ἐν ἡμῖν, that is, must be understood precisely in the same 
 sense as St. Paul’s ἀποκαλύπτειν ἐν ἐμοί, Gal. i. 16. This 
 is something different from the simple ἀποκαλύπτειν μοι. 
 St. Paul would make it emphatic that not only Jesus Christ 
 had been revealed to him, and that he himself had been the 
 receiver of the revelation, but that the revealed Christ had 
 become an element of his own being and life. The expres- 
 sion presupposes a change which had passed within the 
 apostle’s own nature, a renewal of his being; without this 
 we can form no conception of an ἀποκαλύπτειν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐν 
 αὐτῷς And here also the ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν 
 ἡμῖν implies much more than if the ending of it had been 
 \ ἡμῖν simply. It means to say that not only had the love 
 ‘of God become known to us through the mission of His 
 Son, but that in virtue of that mission it had fixed a per- 
 manent dwelling-place in us. The matter is so simple, 
 both in phrase and meaning, that we could hardly wish it 
 more so: if I say ὁ Χριστὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν τῷ Koop, I 
 define the world as His dwelling; if I say ἐφανερώθη ἐν 
 ἡμῖν, we ourselves then become His dwelling. Similarly, 
 when it is said that ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἡμῖν, 
 
CHAP. IV. 9. 261 
 
 we ourselves are the sphere in which the love of God has 
 pitched its visible tent. The love of God, of which the 
 verse preceding spoke, has become manifest, has been clearly 
 made known to us; and that—for here is the second point 
 connected with the former—in such a manner that it has | 
 made for itself a dwelling-place in us. 
 
 The correctness of this interpretation must be confirmed 
 abundantly when it is shown how in that mission of the 
 Son here spoken of this dwelling of love in us or that 
 ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἡμῖν is verified. Let us look more closely at 
 the declaration of the apostle. The revelation of the divine 
 love of which St. John speaks did not consist in the fact 
 that the Son was manifested, that He as ἀπαύγασμα τοῦ 
 πατρός, in whom we see the Father, has through His life of 
 love also made known the Father’s love; nor will St. John 
 make it emphatic, that the mission of the Son, or more 
 strictly the Son sent, shows us in His person the divine 
 love: that love is manifested in the mission of the Son. 
 The former thought is true, indeed, but is not here im- 
 pressed. That God sends τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, Him in whom 
 He beholds Himself, who possesses the whole fulness of 
 His own divine essence, yea, Tov υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ, Him 
 who alone has this place in deity,—sent Him, ἀπέσταλκεν, 
 so that He has not that Son for Himself, for Himself loves 
 Him not nor will enjoy Him, but sent Him to enter into 
 the living agitation, the sinful agitation, of the human 
 world, εἰς τὸν κόσμον, that human world which deserved 
 not love but wrath—this is the act of love which has 
 brought the divine nature of love in God to full develop- 
 ment, in which it ἐφανερώθη. 
 
 And now for the ἐν ἡμῖν. All other acts of God in 
 history and nature manifest also His love, though not in 
 the same degree as this ; but when we discern in these the 
 tokens of love, our knowledge is, so to speak, at second 
 hand: of all this we might say only ἢ ἀγάπη tod Θεοῦ 
 φανεροῦται ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἡμῖν. But it is otherwise in the 
 mission of the Son. This had for its purpose and result, 
 iva ζήσωμεν Ov’ adtod,—that is, we ourselves are to be trans- 
 
 τς formed by it, the divine life is to be implanted in us, and 
 
262 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 [thus most assuredly the love of God is to be manifested in 
 jus because we are to be ourselves drawn into the fulness oi 
 this divine nature of love. In this, as we have seen, con- 
 sisted the love of God generally, that He refers not His 
 whole being to Himself, but to others, and in such a manner 
 that He communicates it to others; He not only works 
 with its energy for the world, but commits it into our own 
 very being. And under both aspects His nature of love 
 has been most perfectly revealed in the mission of His Son: 
 by it He has surrendered the whole fulness of His divine 
 nature, all that He has; and so surrendered it that He 
 communicates it to us as a free gift; it is not merely a 
 power working for us and in us, but the power energizing 
 within us has become part of our own personality. Only 
 when the Christ for us is really the Christ in us, do we 
 exhaust the meaning of the word Θεὸς ἀγάπη. 
 
 VERSE 10. 
 
 Ἔν τούτῳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη, οὐχ ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠγαπήσαμεν τὸν 
 Θεὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἀπέστειλε τὸν υἱὸν 
 αὐτοῦ ἱλασμὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. 
 
 The love of God has become in the mission of His Son 
 a power of love working in us,—that is, it infers the 
 thought that in this way only can we ourselves love in the 
 manner and after the standard of the ἐντολὴ καινή (comp. 
 ch. ii. 8): this is the idea of the ninth verse, which the 
 tenth more fully expands. It begins with ἐν τούτῳ ἐστὶν 
 ἡ ἀγάπη. This cannot mean the love of God, for an αὐτοῦ 
 would in that case hardly have been left out; rather the 
 subject of the loving must be derived from the following 
 clause with ὅτι. That, however, contains two of them, ἡμεῖς 
 and Θεός, and thus we must take the ἀγάπη quite generally, 
 as it might be plainly expressed in the infinitive expression 
 “loving.” The topic is the nature of love generally, all 
 love which may be found in God or man: neither the love 
 of God to us alone, nor our love to God alone. The ἐν 
 τούτῳ ἐστίν suggests an unfolding of the nature of love ; 
 “it consists in this, that ;” the ὅτε ἠγαπήσαμεν, ὅτι ἀπέσ- 
 τείλεν point through the very tense up to the causality of 
 
CHAP. IV. 10. 263 
 
 love, the principle of its origination. The two, however, 
 are in fact inseparably united. This let us try to make 
 clear by an example. Concerning the publicans, whom 
 the Lord in Matt. v. 46 introduces, the very converse of 
 the proposition before us might have been said, ἐν τούτῳ 
 ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν τελωνῶν, οὐχ OTL ἐμὲ ἠγάπησαν ἀλλ᾽ 
 ὅτι ἐγὼ αὐτοὺς ἠγάπησα. The ground of their love to me 
 lies not in them, but in me; if I cease to love them, they 
 cease to love me; thus their love to me is essentially no 
 other than my love to them. Therefore, as the publican’s 
 love to me consists of or may be resolved into my love,to 
 him, the apostle says here that all loving on earth and in 
 heaven has its originating cause and consists (thus are the 
 two forms of the proposition to be united) in God’s loving. 
 All human loving is a flame from the divine Flame, having 
 in itself no independent existence: “I love” means no 
 other than that the divine love has become in me an over- 
 mastering and all-pervading power of life. Accordingly, it 
 is not the apostle’s design here to make prominent the 
 priority of the divine love, to exhibit it as causa sui, as we 
 find it in Rom. v. 8. Had that been his intention, to show 
 that love in us has been enkindled by am anticipation on 
 the part of God, he would have used the perfect instead of 
 the aorist, in order to express the finished action and ex- 
 pression of it. But the explanation we have given is in 
 precise harmony with the aorist. The historical fact of the 
 mission of the Son 7s love: it is the demonstration and | 
 substance of divine love, and it is the germ and ground and | 
 substance of our love. If we introduce the priority of 
 the divine love, that it is the divine manner of love to 
 take precedence and anticipate, and that we must follow 
 and copy it, we derange the whole thought of the apostle. 
 The πρῶτος, which the Vulgate interpolates here, and which 
 actually occurs in ch. iv. 19, would on such a supposition 
 not have been wanting. ΤῸ repeat what we have said: the 
 apostle does not say that God loves first, and we then in 
 the second order; true as that is, he says something more 
 comprehensive and much higher, including the former, to 
 wit, that the divine love dwells in us. And this must regu- 
 
264 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 late our view of the standard aimed at in the last words of 
 the clause, ἀπέστειλε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ (Nag moV περὶ τῶν 
 ἁμαρτιῶν. They do not, like similar words in Rom. v. 8, 
 ὅτι ETL ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ 
 ἡμῶν, indicate the anticipating love of God; but they point 
 to the means by which God has made us capable of being 
 the recipients and representatives of His love. They are 
 altogether parallel, therefore, with the concluding words of 
 the previous verse, ἵνα ζήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ, and lay down 
 only the negative condition for the positive awakening of a 
 new life. 
 
 VERSE 11. 
 
 ᾿Αγαπητοὶ, εἰ οὕτως ὁ Θεὸς ἠγώπησεν ἡμᾶς, Kal ἡμεῖς 
 ὀφείλομεν ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾷν. 
 
 From ver. 8 till now the apostle has been exhibiting how 
 the love to the brethren, which he enforces, comes to reality 
 in us; purely on the ground of a divine operation. God is 
 ‘love, and has through the central act of the mission of His 
 Son established this His love as an efficient power in us. 
 Now in ver. 11 comes forward the application: the exhor- 
 tation to suffer the germ thus deposited in us to come to its 
 “full development. The words as they run show in the 
 most beautiful manner the accuracy of the above explana- 
 tion of the previous verses. For, ifthe current exposition 
 were true, according to which the anticipating love of God 
 is arguinent to us that we all should love our brethren in 
 the same anticipating manner, the conclusion of the pro- 
 position ought to have the οὕτως of its beginning repeated ; 
 for then the apostle would not be commending brotherly 
 love in general, but a definite kind of brotherly love 
 (οὕτως). But the apostle has not inserted this, and we 
 must seek another explanation. The emphasis lies upon 
 \the ὀφείλομεν : it is explained that, in virtue of the mission 
 of the Son of God, love ἐν ἡμῖν is manifested, that is, is 
 implanted in us as an energizing power. Let then your 
 light shine, trade with the pound given, is the apostle’s 
 exhortation. This trading with the pound, the evidencing 
 of brotherly love, is your most solemn duty: every gift, 
 
CHAP, IV. 12. 265 
 
 like that of the infusion of divine love, makes us responsible 
 for its use. And now the interpretation of the οὕτως in 
 the beginning suggests itself at once: it is our duty if God 
 has so loved us: how? in that He hath revealed His love 
 ἐν ἡμῖν, implanted the germ of it in our hearts. The 
 ἀγαπητοί, which introduces the verse, resumes that of 
 ver. 7: the former one was only the foundation for this 
 superstructure of exhortation. And, when he has come to 
 this, the apostle brings it home to his readers by an affec- 
 tionate appeal to the heart of each. 
 
 VERSE 12. 
 
 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται: ἐὰν ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, ὁ 
 Θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν μένει, καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ τετελειωμένη ἐστὶν 
 ἐν ἡμῖν. 
 
 The following verse brings in the close of the discussion: 
 attributing to brotherly love the μένειν ἐν Θεῷ. It is true 
 that, on the first glance, the words Θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε 
 τεθέαται seem to stand in the text without any mediating 
 link. The first thing we have to ask is, whether the 
 emphasis rests on the Θεόν or on the τεθέαται. The 
 arrangement suggests the former. In that case we should 
 have an antithesis between God as the invisible and the 
 brother as seen; but then there would arise only one sense, 
 that we could love the unseen God only in our brethren, 
 and that this brotherly love would have the same blessed 
 result (μένειν ἐν ἡμῖν) as if we could have seen God. But 
 where do we find in the Bible the faintest trace of the 
 thought that we can love God only in our brethren? Not 
 indeed in ver. 20, where the subject is only the confirma-_ 
 tion of brotherly love. Love in its direction and impulse 
 takes no account of the visibility or invisibility of the 
 object beloved. It has indeed the tendency to desire sight 
 of the object; but that is by no means necessary to its. 
 existence or strength. Moreover, if the apostle had wished 
 to speak of the contrast between loving the invisible God 
 and the visible brethren, of the ease or the difficulty of 
 loving the unseen and the seen, he might have by one 
 word indicated that contrast. 
 
206 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 Thus we are driven to the second possibility, that of 
 laying the stress on the τεθέαται. The meaning then is, 
 that no man hath indeed seen God; any visible fellowship 
 with Him is out of the question; but a spiritual fellowship 
 of another kind is possible, and becomes actual if we love 
 the brethren. It is plain that this meaning is unexcep- 
 \tionably suitable; and, for the rest, it may be easily 
 explained why, notwithstanding the emphasis, the object 
 comes before the verb. For, to look closely, while it is 
 true that zside the verse itself, as we have just seen, there 
 is an antithesis between the invisibility of God and the 
 spiritual union with Him which is nevertheless necessary, 
 it is still true that the verse as a whole lays the stress on 
 that fellowship with God into which we through love of the 
 brethren enter, and of which ver. 11 had spoken. Hence 
 the Θεόν, as the point around which the whole revolves, is 
 placed at the outset. That, instead of the direct phrase 
 ov δυνάμεθα θεᾶσθαι τὸν Θεόν, the more limited οὐδεὶς 
 πώποτε τεθέαται is used, rests on the thought that we 
 certainly need not hope to attain what has been inaccessible 
 to all before us. The promise which is here in a certain 
 sense given to brotherly love as the equivalent for not 
 being able to see God, is at a first glance twofold: first, 
 that God will abide in us; secondly, that ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ 
 τετελειωμένη ἐστὶν ἐν ἡμῖν. But let us ascertain whether 
 these two are really distinct. That would be the case only 
 if ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ meant “our love to God.” Then the 
 two clauses would issue in what we commonly find dis- 
 tinguished as ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν αὐτῷ: But this 
 translation is impossible. For, throughout the section we 
 have heard of our love to our neighbour, but never once of 
 our love to God; and this latter idea would be a new one 
 entering without any bond of connection, and furthermore 
 at the close of the section. But it is equally out of the 
 question to translate ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ of the love of God to us; 
 for it would be quite out of harmony with the tenor of a 
 section which exhibits our love as the reflection and effluence 
 of divine love to turn round and inversely represent the 
 divine love as the result of our love to the brethren. There 
 
CHAP. IV. 18--16. 267 
 
 remains only, therefore, the solution which we found it 
 needful to adopt in ch. ii. 5,—that is, to exclude from the — 
 expression every objective or subjective reference of the 
 ἀγάπη, and to take it simply as the love which God has, 
 and which He 15. Brotherly love shows that love which 
 is in God is also in us: a thought which obviously is the 
 most striking conclusion for the whole discussion of the 
 section before us. 
 
 Moreover, the apostle inserts a τετελειωμένη, an idea 
 which from this point plays a conspicuous part; compare 
 ver. 17 and ver. 18 (bis). By this last fact we may note 
 at once that the writer is approaching the end of his dis- 
 cussion. Thus also is explained the relation between the 
 two members of the leading clause, ὁ Θεὸς μένει ἐν ἡμῖν and 
 ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ κιτιλ. In the latter the emphasis lies on 
 τετελειωμένη, and the two are related as general to parti-. 
 cular: that God abideth in us, on this or that condition or 
 supposition, the apostle had more than once said ; but here 
 at the end he adds expressly, that the divine nature of love 
 in its whole fulness and glory takes up its dwelling in us. 
 This is the highest perfection in God, that His love neither 
 excludes any nor ever suffers interruption; and this is 
 therefore the image and ideal for love among Christians, so 
 that all individuals should love one another without ex- 
 ception (ἀλλήλους), and that with uninterrupted energy (the 
 present ἀγαπῶμεν). 
 
 Verses 13-16. 
 
 Ἔν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ μένομεν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν 
 ἡμῖν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν. Καὶ ἡμεῖς 
 τεθεάμεθα καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν, ὅτε ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέσταλκε τὸν 
 υἱὸν σωτῆρα τοῦ κόσμουι “Os ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς 
 ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ Θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν 
 τῷ Θεῷ. Καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν τὴν 
 ἀγάπην, ἣν ἔχει ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν. ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστὶ, καὶ 
 ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, ἐν τῷ Θεῷ μένει, καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐν 
 
 stoi 
 αὐτῷ. 
 
 It has been shown already that the following four verses 
 give a recapitulation: ver. 13 summing up the substance 
 
268 TILE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 of the whole section ch. iv. 1-12, parallel with ch. iii. 24, 
 while the two particular sub-sections, vers. 1—6 and vers. 
 7-12, are taken up again by vers. 14-16. But it will be 
 plain, on the other hand, if we examine carefully, that we 
 have by no means a mere reswmé; though what is found 
 to be added may be explained by the consideration that 
 the apostle is here in the act of gathering up the threads of 
 his whole discussion from ch. ii. 28 downwards. Hence at 
 the very beginning of ver. 13 we have the double expres- 
 sion ἐν αὐτῷ μένωμεν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν ἡμῖν, while in the last 
 section, and in the theme of ch. iii, 24 corresponding to it, 
 only the latter part of it comes forward. But if it is 
 remembered that the last section is only the substructure 
 or pendant of the third chapter, which treats of our abiding 
 in God, we shall perceive how fitly the apostle, in his 
 recapitulation here, combines the two thoughts, and that in 
 each of the three resuming clauses. Even the γινώσκειν 
 enters here again very appropriately ; for the whole of the 
 second part of the Epistle treats of no other than the tokens 
 by which the sonship of Christians may be discerned. 
 
 The thing here adduced is ὅτε ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ 
 δέδωκεν ἡμῖν : the same words as in ch. iii. 24. That this 
 is in fact the matter contained in vers. 1-12 can, after the 
 exposition we have given, be no longer questionable. For, 
 to set out from the last sub-section, vers. 7-12, where it is 
 said that all human loving rests upon the infusion of the 
 divine fire of love, what does that mean but that it rests 
 upon the Holy Spirit? And in vers. 1-6 the subject is 
 expressly the confessing of the God-man as a sign of possess- 
 ing the Holy Ghost. What ver. 14 brings in as new, as 
 also in ver. 16, are the two introductory clauses each 
 emphasized by καὶ ἡμεῖς. That these aim to exhibit the 
 contents of the section as the experience of Christian life, 
 is clear enough; but it is not so evident to what end 
 the experience is here introduced. Is it alleged as the 
 enarantee of the truth of what St. John had said, just as the 
 apostles collectively, and St. John in particular, elsewhere 
 adduce the experience of Christ’s resurrection as the 
 demonstration of the truth? But that would suit only the 
 
CHAP. IV., 13—16. 269 
 
 first καὶ ἡμεῖς, and not the second; for, as to the love 
 which God has in me, my faith in that love gives me no 
 certain assurance, since it might be an erroneous faith. 
 Nor does there seem any absolute necessity for a pledge of 
 the truth of the assurance, ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη. Rather are the 
 clauses καὶ ἡμεῖς «.7.d. necessary, and absolutely necessary, 
 to show that the theme of ch. 11. 24, iv. 13 has been 
 demonstrated. We read there, δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεὸς ἐκ τοῦ 
 πνεύματος, Which expresses an experience that the readers 
 had known. Now in the development of ch. iv. 1-12 
 nothing is said of this actual gift and experience; only 
 abstract and no concrete relations are treated of: he who 
 confesses Jesus has the Holy Ghost ; he in whom the love 
 of God is manifested must love the brethren. Whether 
 this was actually the case with the readers is certainly not 
 said here; if, therefore, the δέδωκεν ἡμῖν was really to be 
 established, there must be at least a single word to express 
 the evidence of this fact. Now that we find in the clauses 
 before us : confession of Jesus is necessary, and we have it ; 
 love is necessary, and it is found in us,—therefore we have 
 received the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Granted that we have now come to a general under- 
 standing as to our verses, we are far from ee 
 them yet in detail. The first question is, to whom the 
 ἡμεῖς emphatically standing at the outset refers. Primarily, 
 it appears, to the apostles; for in ch. i. 1 these are made 
 prominent as θεασάμενοι and μαρτυροῦντες ; and, even if 
 we took the θεᾶσθαι in a figurative sense, yet the pap- 
 τυρεῖν demands ever a personal eye-witness. Equally clear 
 is it that the second καὶ ἡμεῖς refers to the whole congre- 
 gation inclusive of. the apostles ; for what would be the 
 meaning of saying that the apostle or the apostles had 
 known by living experience of faith the divine love ruling 
 within them? Certainly the object with St. John is not 
 to show that he had received the Holy Ghost, but that all, 
 ‘even the whole church, had received Him. But here again 
 there is.a difficulty; as it seems to be asserted that the 
 first καὶ ἡμεῖς refers to the apostles without including the 
 church, while the second refers to both: in each case the 
 
270 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 καὶ ἡμεῖς is so emphatic, and they are both put in the 
 beginning as so manifestly corresponding to each other, that 
 it is almost matter of necessity to take them in the same 
 meaning. To this must be added, that even in ver. 14, 
 and equally in ver. 15, as we have perceived also in 
 ver. 16, the apostle aims not to show that he has the 
 Spirit, but that the church has: that is, the emphasis 
 cannot rest on the θεωρία of the apostles, but only upon 
 the ὁμολογία (ver. 15) of the congregation. The former is 
 brought forward only for the sake of the latter. Our con- 
 fession of Jesus as the Son of God rests indeed in the first 
 instance on the μαρτυρία of the apostles, their μαρτυρία 
 again on their being eye-witnesses: by this they became 
 μάρτυρες, not merely announcers, but trustworthy an- 
 nouncers, of the truth. Thus, by means of their testimony 
 we obtain a participation in what they had first per- 
 sonally beheld and spiritually apprehended. This observa- 
 tion makes it plain that the two καὶ ἡμεῖς are perfectly 
 parallel, and how they are so. For, in the first, the apostles 
 are not regarded in contradistinction to the church, but 
 as the principle of the church’s ὁμολογία ; their θεᾶσθαι καὶ 
 μαρτυρεῖν was the ground and essence of that confession ; 
 in their personal experience concerning the mission of the 
 Son of God, the experience of the church was as it were 
 involved. ‘Thus, as the καὶ ἡμεῖς in ver. 16 refers to the 
 apostles and the church, so essentially it is in ver. 14, 
 although that verse formally embraces the apostles alone. 
 So the meaning of vers. 14, 15 is: we have the Holy 
 Ghost ; for we have the token of this, the confession of the 
 mission of the Son as Saviour of the world,’ on the ground 
 of apostolical testimony ; and consequently we have perfect 
 mutual fellowship with God. As if he would make evident 
 at once the reciprocity of the connection between God and 
 
 1 Τὸ must not be unnoted that St. John has the expression σωτήρ only 
 twice (John iy. 42, in the mouth of the Samaritans), but each time with the 
 addition σοῦ κόσμου. Elsewhere the word occurs always as connected with 
 ἡμῶν (that is, Christians) or absolutely ; St. Paul alone speaks of the Father 
 once as σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων (1 Tim. iv. 10). Even in this otherwise 
 
 insignificant peculiarity St. John shows his predominant tendency to give 
 prominence to the universality of the divine purpose of redemption, 
 
CHAP, IV. 13-16. 271 
 
 man, the apostle changes the arrangement of the words in 
 vers. 13, 15, 16: now the μένομεν ἐν αὐτῷ comes first, 
 now the αὐτὸς ἐν ἡμῖν. The historical fact of the mani- 
 festation of Christ, belonging to the domain of the visible 
 world, could be established only by the experience of testi- 
 mony ; the internal fact, on the contrary, of the love of 
 God ruling in us can only be inwardly experienced: hence 
 here the ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν. 
 
 That which is known and believed is love, the love ἣν 
 ἔχει ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν. The expression has already been 
 dealt with on ver. 9: it is the divine love, which is in 
 God, but which He, by virtue of the mission of His Son, 
 implants in our hearts, so that it now is also ἐν ἡμῖν. It 
 must first be known and then believed: for I can believe 
 in the biblical sense, that is, enter, with all the soul and 
 perfect trust, only into that the existence of which I 
 know. So St. John says: we have known, it has become 
 plain to us, that divine love has taken up its dwelling 
 in us; and, after we came to know this, we have also 
 believingly apprehended it. Let it not be wondered at that 
 we are said to believe in what is after all ἐν ἡμῖν. As 
 certainly as I must believe in the power of. God which is 
 mighty in the weak,—this, however, being in myself,—so 
 certainly must I believe in the love of God which abides in 
 me. Without such faith neither can that power. nor this 
 love approve itself mighty within me. The following clause, 
 ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν, is quite necessary for the conclusion 
 that we, in virtue of this love, have perfect fellowship with , 
 God. It might, indeed, be conceived that he who loves, he 
 who has the divine love in himself, may in some degree 
 enter into communion with God; but not on that account 
 into a full and complete fellowship. This argument, how-— 
 ever, is very plain, when it is said that God is love, and 
 only love, and altogether love. For, if the whole nature of 
 God is love, it follows that he who has this love participates 
 in the whole nature of God; he who possesses the love of 
 God has God entire. This we may establish also in other 
 ways. If the apostle’s proposition, that by means of love 
 we have absolute fellowship with God, is correct, it may 
 
272 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 equally be averred that we also have everything else which 
 may be said concerning Him: for instance, the light-nature 
 of God may assuredly become the portion of him who loves. 
 This also is quite true; for we have seen in ver. 8 that 
 love in its nature is diffusion of good, this latter being 
 presupposed ; and, as the love of God presupposes His light- 
 nature, so does loving on our part presuppose that we 
 participate in this nature of light. Similarly, it follows 
 from the declaration that both the confession of Christ and 
 the love of the brethren exhibit full and complete fellow- 
 ship with God, that both these are perfectly involved in 
 each other. And so indeed it is. For the confession of 
 Christ rests, according to the exposition in vers. 1-6, on 
 the impartation of the Divine Spirit, or, more strictly, of the 
 Spirit of the incarnate Son of God; and love rests upon 
 the communication of the same Spirit,—that is, as He is 
 the Spirit of love. Confession and love are therefore only 
 the outbeamings of one and the selfsame Spirit; each of 
 the two pledges the perfect unity with God. Neither is a 
 true avowal of Christ possible without brotherly love, nor 
 is this latter possible without the former; either both are 
 wanting or both are present: at least, that is, in their 
 germ. 
 
 Let us now look at the position of the track in which 
 we now find ourselves. The theme of this division of the 
 Epistle was said to be, in ch. ii. 28 seq., μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ, 
 iva παῤῥησίαν ἔχωμεν ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ. This par- 
 rhesia, according to ver. 29, was to spring from the con- 
 sciousness of divine birth, or being born out of God, and 
 this consciousness to rest upon the sign of works. The 
 concluding proposition in ver. 29, πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιο- 
 σύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται, is thus the argument of proof 
 for the main proposition in ver. 28. This last-adduced 
 proposition is now developed in two directions: first, in 
 ch. 11, that he who is born of God must practise righteous- 
 ness ; secondly, in ch. iv., that this practice of righteousness 
 (especially brotherly love) can only proceed from a divine 
 new birth. For, as ch. iv. expounds, all νικᾶν τὸν κόσμον, 
 and thus all opposition to sin, as also all love, depends 
 
CHAP. IV. 17. 273 
 
 upon the infusion of the Divine Spirit. Thus we may say 
 that in ch. iii. it is demonstrated ὅτε ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐξ αὐτοῦ 
 τὴν δικαιοσύνην ποιεῖ; in ch. iv., OTe πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν 
 δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται. Finally, it is shown, 
 especially in the resumé of vers. 13-16, how, in this com- 
 munication of the Holy Ghost, that μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ comes 
 to perfection which was spoken of in ch. 11. 28. It remains 
 now that the apostle should disentangle the knot he created, 
 by showing that thus the παῤῥησία is attained in the final 
 judgment. He does this in the following verses. They 
 are the guod erat demonstrandum. 
 
 Verse 17. 
 
 Ἔν τούτῳ τετελείωται ἡ ἀγάπη μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, ἵνα παῤῥησίαν 
 ἔχωμεν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως, ὅτι καθὼς ἐκεῖνός ἐστι, καὶ 
 ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ. 
 
 But this ver. 17 has its difficulties, by no means insig- 
 nificant. First, as to the direct meaning of the particles ἐν 
 τούτῳ, ἵνα, ὅτι. The ἐν τούτῳ which leads off in the verse 
 may refer either to what follows or to what precedes. In 
 the former case it must receive its specification οἵ. contents 
 by a clause in the sequel; and this it might first receive 
 through the sentence with iva, which must in that case have 
 its telic meaning modified, or, secondly, through that with 
 ὅτι. This latter, however, is rendered intolerable by the 
 extremely hard trajection which it would assume. How 
 could the apostle have in such a way rent asunder the ἐν 
 τούτῳ ὅτι so strictly united? Much better than that would 
 it be to accept the former, which makes the clause with ἵνα 
 the substance or matter that the ἐν τούτῳ refers to. This 
 would follow the analogy of ch. iii. 11, 23, where the means 
 through which love is brought to perfection are at the same 
 time the end to be attained. We should have then presented 
 to us two thoughts interpenetrating each other: the confi- 
 dence as to the end is the highest consummation of actual 
 love; but it is at the same time the goal to which that love 
 aspires, and at which it aims. But with regard to this we 
 must observe, in the first place, that St. John, while he 
 uses the combination αὕτη iva, τοῦτο iva, ταῦτα iva, gives 
 
 1 JOHN. 5 
 
274 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 us no other example than this of ἐν τούτῳ iva: John xv. 8 has 
 it, but it is obvious that the sense there decidedly requires 
 the ἐν τούτῳ to be referred to what precedes. Again, 
 we certainly find the combination ἐν τούτῳ ὅτε. . . ἐάν, 
 ch. ii. 3, but never once that of ἐν τούτῳ ἵνα ὅτι. All 
 this of course does not prove that St. John could not have 
 written thus. Proof, however, that he did not, may be 
 gathered from the connection of the passage. If we refer 
 ἐν τούτῳ to what follows,—that is, to the clause with ἵνα, 
 —we absolutely take away the bridge between what has 
 gone before and the new section. The apostle had just 
 been saying (ver. 12), that in brotherly love ἡ ἀγάπη τετε- 
 λειωμένη ἐστὶν ἐν ἡμῖν ; again, he here suddenly announces 
 that it is perfected in parrhesia or assurance: but as to how 
 these two are related he suggests not a word of explanation. 
 Again, if we translate it to the effect that love is fulfilled 
 in this, that we have confidence in the day of judgment, we 
 obviously defer its perfection to the future; but how does 
 that accord with the fundamental ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ 
 TOUT ? 
 
 Now we escape from all these difficulties, and place our 
 passage where it both gives and receives light, if we refer 
 the ἐν τούτῳ to what precedes, following examples which 
 abound in St. John; compare, for example, ch. ii. 6, John 
 iv. 37, xv. 8, xvi. 30. What év τούτῳ means is then the 
 μένειν ἐν Θεῷ καὶ Θεὸν ἐν ἡμῖν of ver. 16,—that is, the 
 “this” points to the conclusion of the entire preceding 
 development of the thought. The first half of our verse is 
 therefore to be translated to this effect: in the reciprocal 
 relation of fellowship betwixt God and us, love is—pe@ 
 ἡμῶν may wait awhile for its examination—perfected, to 
 the end that—the goal which this earthly perfection arrives 
 at—we may have confidence in the day of judgment. This 
 verse is thus, in fact, the precise close or pendant of that 
 beginning in ch. 11. 28: there we have μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἵνα 
 ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, ἔχωμεν παῤῥησίαν ; here, by the help of ἐν 
 τούτῳ, we have again the abiding in God corresponding 
 with that; to the φανερωθῇ there the ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως 
 answers here ; while the ἔχειν παῤῥησίαν is common to the 
 
 
 
ὭΣ 
 
 CHAP, IV. 17. 2 
 
 two passages in the very letter, and, similarly, the refer- 
 ence to the end in the μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ: But, as befits the 
 closing idea of a section, the abiding in God is no longer 
 here an exhortation as in ch. 11. 28, but something assumed 
 already to exist as a consummated reality (ἐν τούτῳ τετε- 
 λείωται). The words teterclatas ἡ ἀγάπη μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν are 
 new in this passage; they are wanting in ch. il. 28; in 
 them lies the whole argument im nuce which the apostle 
 has been conducting. Why is the μένων ἐν Θεῷ full of 
 confidence and joy? Answer: because this μένειν contains 
 in itself the perfecting of love, and thus of itself renders 
 possible and actually produces a free uplifting of the eyes | 
 and a free opening of the mouth even in the presence of 
 God the Judge of all. 
 
 That which is perfected, which has reached perfection, is 
 love. For the μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν which follows must not be com- 
 bined with the ἀγάπη : not only on account of the absence 
 of the article, but, as we have seen in the similar combina- 
 tion of ver. 9, on account of the sense. What can ἀγάπη 
 μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν be supposed to mean? Love between us,—that 
 is, God and men? But it need not be again observed that 
 God and men cannot be conjoined by ἡμεῖς. Is it our own 
 mutual love? That would require the ἀλλήλων. Or is it 
 the love, scilicet, of God with us,—that is, again, the relation 
 of love between God and men? Apart from the harshness 
 of such a contorted sentence, we should then expect, of 
 necessity, ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ. The only thing possible, and that 
 which is of itself the most probable, is to take ἀγάπη in the 
 same meaning which, since ver. 9, has been demanded: as 
 the divine love, the love which God has, and which He 
 sends down into the spirit of man. The ped’ ἡμῶν is to be 
 connected with the verb,—that is, with the τετελείωται,---- 
 and testifies that the love among Christians, within the 
 church, has reached this perfection: the apostle does not, 
 indeed, write to any individuals as individuals, but to the 
 members of the congregation as such. In the midst of 
 the church alone, but certainly there, is to be found such 
 a consummation of love, such a perfection of fellowship 
 with God. Two things are inseparably bound up in the 
 
276 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 text. The infusion of divine love in the heart of man 
 establishes the principle of this fellowship; the develop- 
 ment of this principle or germ in continued brotherly love 
 brings this germinal fellowship with God to its. perfection ; 
 and this perfected fellowship with Him is again the per- 
 fectng of love. Communion with God and love are 
 reciprocal ideas; they require each other, and are each the 
 other’s condition ; and the growth of the one carries with it 
 ever the growth of the other. 
 
 It being now clear in general, that perfected love must 
 produce confidence or parrhesia in the day of judgment, 
 the apostle proceeds to unfold this connection between the 
 two in detail; first setting out with the clause which has 
 its argument of proof in the ὅτε. The passage runs, καθὼς 
 ἐκεῖνός ἐστι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ. The 
 words are obscure. Their explanation must start from the 
 sure basis that the concluding words ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ 
 cannot refer to both parts of the comparison, but only to 
 the latter part. Otherwise, that is, the ἐστί would have 
 been found altogether absent; and, moreover, we cannot 
 see then how either generally or in the present connection it 
 can be asserted that Christ still is (for the ἐστίν is certainly 
 not equivalent to 7#v) in this world in the same manner 
 as we are. Precisely the converse of this is the truth. 
 Thus the apostle will affirm, as we gather at once, an 
 equality between Christ as He now is, that is, the glorified 
 Christ, or as He has ever been and still is—this is also 
 possible—the Son of God, and us in our condition below 
 not yet made perfect. But how may we now more pre- 
 cisely apprehend the tertiwm comparationis ? The expression 
 itself is so general, that it can be understood only from the 
 whole system of the apostle’s thinking, and not from itself 
 alone. Now, as there is hardly an important phrase in the 
 whole Epistle which does not rest upon the Gospel, and as, 
 in particular, the matter of the thought in the section just 
 studied, ver. 9 seq., is based upon John iii. 16, so we shall 
 find it in the present passage. The explanatory text in the 
 Gospel is John xvii. 21 seq.; the Lord declares there that 
 He is no more in the world, but that the disciples are in 
 
CHAP, IV. 17. OTT 
 
 the world,—the same antithesis which we have now before 
 us,—and He asks the Father, who had hitherto kept them 
 in fellowship with Him, to keep them still, and with them 
 all who should believe on Him through their ministry: not 
 taking them out of the world, but so ordering it that 
 (ver. 21) καθὼς σὺ πάτερ ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν col, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν 
 ἡμῖν ἕν ὦσιν. Compare, further, ver. 26, ἵνα ἡ ἀγάπη ἣν 
 ἠγάπησάς με ἐν αὐτοῖς ἢ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς, and ver. 23, κἀγὼ 
 ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ σὺ ἐν ἐμοί These passages throw on our. 
 present one a clear and steady light: as Christ is one with 
 the Father, in inseparable fellowship with Him, so we 
 are to be indissolubly united with Him, although we 
 are still in this world and while we are still in this world. 
 And this takes place, as in our passage through the 
 τελείωσις of the ἀγώπη, so according to John xvii. 26 
 through the love wherewith God loves Christ dwelling in 
 us. In this perfect fellowship with the Father consisted 
 ‘the whole life, essence, and being of the Lord upon earth, 
 and in that it exists from everlasting to everlasting: hence 
 the absolute καθώς ἐστιν. And as in this fellowship with 
 God (ἐν τούτῳ) our Lord becomes τετελειωμέπη, 80 in virtue 
 of the same the Lord’s love also was perfected (τελειωθεὶς 
 ἐγένετο, Heb. v. 9). As He in Gethsemane subordinated 
 all His own thinking, feeling, and willing to that of the 
 Father, as thereby His μένειν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ had reached its 
 highest degree, thereby was His own love and His work of 
 love brought to perfection; thus was the ἀγάπη εἰς τέλος, 
 which was at the same time the τετελειωμένη ἀγάπη, 
 conquered and won by Him. Thus the apostle’s train of 
 thought in our passage is this: If we have perfect fellow- 
 ship with God (ἐν τούτῳ), then have we already upon earth 
 become like, or conformed to, the being and nature of 
 Christ ; and when the day of judgment, that is, the day of 
 His manifestation (ch. ii. 28), comes, we shall on the 
 ground of this conformity freely and openly look Him in 
 the face (παῤῥησίαν ἔχομεν). Fellowship with God is 
 at the same time the perfected indwelling of the divine 
 love in us; both these, however, make us like Christ; 
 according to this conformity to Him shall we be finally 
 
218 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIIN. 
 
 judged ; and if we have it, we have also confidence at the 
 last day. 
 
 Let it be further observed how affectingly our verse, 
 thus understood, concurs and coincides with ch. ui, 1-4. 
 There it was said that full and entire conformity to Christ, 
 which we saw to be comprehended in the idea of brother- 
 hood, lay before us still as the issue of the judgment; but 
 that in order to attain it (ver. 3) we must have attained 
 even here another kind of likeness or equality to Him—we 
 must have become dayvol like Him. Then the following 
 exposition showed that this ἁγνεία consists in righteousness 
 and love, which on their part also again depended on the 
 infusion of the Divine Spirit. Comprehending all in one, 
 we must abide in God and He in us. Now the apostle 
 returns back to the beginning: this fellowship with God, 
 this perfected love in us, is the likeness to Christ above 
 indicated as necessary in the judgment; in virtue of it we 
 pass through the terrors of the judgment unappalled, and 
 then press onward to that higher thing, the καλὸς βαθμός 
 of perfect equality with Christ. In the ἀγάπη τετελειωμένη 
 we have attained all that we may hope to attain ἐν τῷ 
 κόσμῳ τούτῳ ; if, then, we have entered through the ἡμέρα 
 τῆς κρίσεως into the αἰὼν μέλλων, the further development 
 will not be found in arrear: φανερωθήσεται τί ἐσόμεθα. 
 
 VERSE 18, 
 
 Φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, GAN ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω 
 βάλλει τὸν φόβον, ὅτι ὁ φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει: ὁ δὲ φοβού- 
 μενος οὐ τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ. 
 
 The apostle’s exposition in ver. 17 has shown that we 
 have in the ἀγάπη τετελειωμένη, which involves in it the 
 μένειν ἐν Θεῷ, the parrhesia, because we are thus conformed 
 to Christ the standard of the judgment. But he has now 
 another method of exhibiting the connection between love 
 and confidence, that is, by reference to the nature of love 
 itself. To the parrhesia, he says, fear is utterly opposed, 
 as this is incompatible with love: where love is, there is 
 not fear, but confidence. This is generally the substance of 
 ver. 18. That confidence and fear are opposed is a pre- 
 
CHAP. IV. 18. 279 
 
 supposition of the verse which is not further demonstrated ; 
 the emphasis rests upon the evidence that fear and love 
 are not reconcilable with each other. “Fear is not in_ 
 love:” love is the feeling of internal union with another, 
 the opening out my person to that other; fear is the sense 
 of wanting harmony, and therefore the separation and © 
 shutting up of my person as it respects him. Love springs 
 from the feeling that God is for us; fear, from the feeling 
 that He is against us. Thus it is plain that the two 
 ideas exclude each other. Yea, so little do they agree 
 together, that, on the contrary (ἀλλά), love, where it exists, 
 has the power and tendency to drive out fear. But 
 certainly it can do that only where it is τελεία, that is, 
 penetrates and fills the whole life and being of man. 
 
 That love must cast out fear, however, appears from this 
 (ὅτι), that fear κόλασιν ἔχει. For the explanation of this 
 idea we are directed to Matt. xxv. 46. There it is said 
 that the ungodly ἀπελεύσονται εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ 
 δίκαιον εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. We therefore perceive that 
 κόλασις is the punishment, the condemnation itself, not 
 merely the feeling of it; the objective condition, not the 
 subjective sense of it or pain. As this is required by the 
 verb ἀπέρχεσθαι εἰς itself, so still more is it demanded by 
 the antithesis to ζωὴ αἰώνιος : as it would be highly forced 
 to speak of going away or entering into a feeling, so the 
 state of eternal life is not the description of a subjective 
 feeling, but of a condition appointed. Similarly, in our 
 passage κόλασις cannot be understood of a mere painful 
 feeling; for it was surely not necessary to emphasize that 
 fear is in itself a sentiment of distress. Rather, the preg- 
 nant thought of St. John is this, that in fear, which has 
 been shown to be fear of punishment, the punishment itself 
 is already included and involved. If we remember the 
 saying of the Gospel, that he who believeth not is con- 
 demned already ; that the condemnation consists simply in 
 ‘this, that light shineth into the darkness and declares it 
 to be darkness,—it will appear plain that in St. John’s 
 thought condemnation is consummate in separation from 
 God. Now, as we have seen that fear has its ground in 
 
280 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 the feeling of being sundered from God, while this separa- 
 tion from Him is in St. John’s doctrine already the state of 
 judgment or condemnation, it is evident that fear contains 
 in itself the element of judgment: φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει. 
 The last clause of ver. 18, which is linked by δέ, does not 
 intend to introduce the antithesis of ὁ φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει, 
 that is, does not carry further the argument brought in by 
 ὅτι, but contains the inverse of the clause ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη 
 ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον. It is perfectly clear that St. John 
 might have exhibited this proposition, that where fear is, 
 love cannot be perfected, as the conclusion of the first 
 clause itself; but it is clear, at the same time, that the form 
 of the antithesis is justified as it is, and is more appro- 
 priate to the Johannaean genus dicendi. 
 
 Thus, then, the proposition which was laid down as a 
 theme in ch. 11. 28 has been argued out on all sides and 
 justified ; while, at the same time, the end has been reached 
 which St. John, according to ch. 1. 4, set before himself in 
 this Epistle, that the Christian church should attain the 
 perfection of that joy, which, according to ch. 1. 13, consists 
 in fellowship with God and with the brethren. For the 
 τετελειωμένη OY πεπληρωμένη χάρα is nothing but the 
 παῤῥησία, the feeling of perfect unity and harmony with 
 God, which will approve itself even before the rigours of 
 the final judgment. How, in fact, this consummate joy 
 rests upon the two things which ch. 1. 3 lays down, com- 
 munion with God and communion with the brethren, it has 
 been St. John’s object throughout the whole Epistle to 
 show. Every section of it is based upon this double rela- 
 tion. But there is one thing yet wanting that had to be 
 evinced; and that St. John introduces supernumerarily in 
 the paragraph from ch. iv. 19 to ch. v. 5: the exposition, 
 namely, how these two aspects, which had been hitherto 
 viewed always as co-ordinate, the relation to God and the 
 relation to the brethren, form an internal and indissoluble 
 organic unity, so that neither of them can be conceived 
 without the other. Our relation to God has been presented 
 by the apostle under various phrases: sometimes in act, as 
 ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην positively, and negatively as νικᾶν 
 
CHAP. IV. 19, 20. 281 
 
 τὸν κόσμον ; sometimes as the energizing potency lying at 
 the root of the act, the confession to Christ. In this last 
 section, which is to exhibit the unity of all these aspects by 
 the ἀγαπᾶν τὸν ἀδελφόν, we accordingly find all these 
 expressions gathered up again: the actual side by τηρεῖν 
 τὰς ἐντολάς, ch. v. 2 seq., as also by νικᾶν τὸν κόσμον, 
 ch. v. 4, 5; the principle by πιστεύειν ὅτε ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ 
 Xpioros. In what preceded, the relation to God has been 
 based upon the acknowledgment of the mission of the Son 
 of God; the relation to the brethren upon the divine love 
 infused into us. In order now to show the internal unity 
 of the two relations, the apostle begins by deriving both 
 first from the idea of love, and then from that of faith in 
 the God-man. The former occupies ch. iv. 19-21, the 
 latter ch. v. 1 seq. 
 
 VERSE 19. 
 
 “Hpeis ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς. 
 
 The nineteenth verse resumes what was said in ch. iv. 
 8 seq. From this it at once follows that we must not read 
 ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν αὐτόν, but only ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν. Here 
 primarily love is demanded in its universality: that we 
 generally must love follows from the anticipating love of 
 God; that this our love must have two directions, towards 
 God and towards the brethren, is then explained in what 
 follows. Similarly, it is plain from the point of view in 
 which we have sought to place what follows, that ἀγαπῶμεν 
 is not in the indicative, but in the conjunctive. The sense 
 is: I have told you that we, as the result of the love of 
 God manifested to us, must ourselves also love. 
 
 VERSE 20. 
 
 ἜάΑν τις εἴπῃ, “Ott ἀγαπῶ τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ τὸν ddeddov 
 αὐτοῦ μισῇ, ψεύστης ἐστίν" ὁ γὰρ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν 
 αὐτοῦ ὃν ἑώρακε, τὸν Θεὸν ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακε πῶς δύναται 
 ἀγαπᾷν ; 
 
 It is now unfolded that the love of God without the love 
 of the brethren is a thing impossible. Of love to God not 
 a word had been hitherto said; only of the divine love 
 
282 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 which is infused into us, and which must approve itself as 
 brotherly love. That we must love God enters here as a 
 new thought, which, however, is so self-understood that it 
 is introduced simply as a matter taken for granted. The 
 emphasis lies only on the evidence that the love of God is 
 not conceivable without love of our brother. The form 
 of the exposition has been made familiar to us by ch. 1. 
 and ii.: here we have ἐάν tus εἴπῃ, there it was ἐὰν εὔἴπω- 
 μὲν or ὁ λέγων; we may compare also the ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις 
 of Jas. 11, 15, 1 Cor. xv. 35; only that in this last passage 
 we have objections introduced, while here there is no theo- 
 retical denial of the apostolical doctrine, but a delusive 
 assertion of being in the true state. Similarly the ψεύστης 
 ἐστίν has been familiarized by the first division of the 
 Epistle, and this severe sentence the apostle justifies by the 
 clause with yap. 
 
 The question now arises, how far the invisibility of God 
 as such, for on it the stress is evidently laid, demonstrates 
 that we cannot love Him without loving the brethren. It 
 is not to be thought that the apostle should mean to deny 
 the possibility of loving generally what is invisible. This 
 would not only contradict our experience that we are 
 capable of loving with all our hearts persons whom 
 we have never seen, but the consciousness of all true 
 Christians who know that they love God notwithstanding 
 that He is unseen. If it be said that we at least know 
 something of the men whom we love without having seen 
 them, and that this knowledge is the ground of the love, 
 then we say in reply that such a knowledge of God also 
 we may have in the fullest degree. The error of this 
 explanation lies here, that πῶς is taken too hastily as 
 rhetorically used; so that the clause is made to express 
 the simple affirmation οὐ δύναται x.7.X., as, indeed, some 
 codices have actually substituted this ov. But the fact is 
 | that the πῶς has the emphasis in the sentence. “ Jn what 
 way can he love God who loves not his brother?” Obviously 
 the love of which St. John speaks is the same of which he 
 had said in ch. 111. 18, that it consists not in words, but ἐν 
 ἔργῳ. Love in mere words is no love; all genuine love 
 
CHAP, IV. 91. 283 
 
 presses to its demonstration in act. But the act requires, 
 
 as we have been reminded in another connection, a material . 
 
 on which it may exert itself. God, as in His nature and 
 being withdrawn from visibility, does not present in Him- 
 self absolutely such a material on which we may work; bet 
 He has given Himself a body, sz verbis audacia detur, in 
 man who is made after His image: that is then the only 
 material on which my love to God may show its energy 
 and reality. If I scorn that, πῶς, in what other way, in 
 what other sense, can I then love God, scilicct, ἐν ἔργῳ ? 
 But all this has not done full justice to the tense ἑώρακε ; 
 if the matter were of visibility or invisibility in general, we 
 should expect rather the present, or simply ὁρῶν δύναται. 
 But the point of view from which all is regarded indicates 
 the right sense: if the matter here is the demonstration ot 
 love in any way whatever (πῶς), it is clear that I can 
 approve my love to my brother only if I know the precise 
 point in which he needs it; in short, love requires for its 
 exhibition a specific opportunity. Hence I must have seen, 
 if he is to present such an opportunity to me; without 
 having seen him, I cannot approve my love to him in act; 
 whence naturally the ὁρῶν is to be taken in so wide a sense 
 that the hearing about him is involved in it also. Such 
 occasion for the expression of love, however, such stimulant 
 to testify love to God as if to His own person, is not pos- 
 sible without the medium of the brethren. My deeds of 
 charity to my neighbour may indeed and must spring from 
 love to God; but there are no means (πῶς) of testifying 
 our love to Him in act, to Him as invisible, or to Him in 
 and for Himself, without such a mediating element. 
 
 VERSE 21. 
 
 Καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔχομεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα ὁ ἀγαπῶν 
 τὸν Θεὸν, ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ. 
 
 There is nevertheless one way, it might be thought, of 
 loving God directly, that, namely, of keeping His com- 
 mandments—the way of obedience. But ver. 21 explains 
 that this method of loving God ἐν ἔργῳ is not really a 
 second one; for it is God’s express commandment that 
 
284 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 we love the brethren. Certainly the words do not indicate 
 that this is the only commandment which we have received ; 
 for if the apostle says ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔχομεν, that does 
 not hinder us from supposing that, besides the one in ques- 
 tion, we have many others. But yet, strictly speaking, the 
 ‘precept of brotherly love is actually the πλήρωμα νόμου. 
 ‘Tf, for example, we would reckon the νικᾶν τὸν κόσμον, 
 the suppression of self, the subjection of pride, and so forth, 
 as other commandments, yet it is plain that every victory 
 over the evil is utterly impossible save through the might 
 of the one principle opposed to them all, that of love. If 
 love consists in this, that I refer my life absolutely not to 
 myself, but altogether to others, then there can be no other 
 commandment like unto this; and this laying down or 
 throwing away of our own life, as Christ terms it, is pos- 
 sible as an act only in relation to man, not in relation to 
 God: or it is possible as towards God only through the 
 _-mediation of brotherly love. A passage literally expressing 
 the commandment here given we certainly nowhere find. 
 Yet we need not fall back upon the fundamental text of 
 the Old Testament, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, 
 and thy neighbour as thyself;” the apostle himself will 
 give us what we want. In John xiv. 15 we read, ἐὼν 
 ἀγαπᾶτέ με Kal Tas ἐντολάς μου τηρήσατε. The plurality 
 of the precepts here mentioned is reduced again, according 
 to the context, to the unity of the one commandment given 
 in ch. xiii, 34: ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε 
 ἀλλήλους. That in the Gospel the love of Christ is spoken 
 of, while here it is the love of God, is of no moment; since 
 the apostle knows no love to Christ which is not love to 
 God, and no love to God which is not love to Christ, 
 
CHAP, V. 1. 
 
 bo 
 (oa) 
 οι 
 
 ΘΕ ΡΣ πὸ ΟὟ. 
 
 VERSE 1. 
 
 Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ἐκ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ γεγέννηται" καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα, ἀγαπᾷ 
 καὶ τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ. 
 
 The synthesis of our relation to God and to the brethren, 
 which the apostle here perfectly sets forth, he has thus 
 educed primarily from the love of God supposed to exist in 
 us: the right relation to God is confirmed and corroborated 
 only by the right relation to the brethren. He now seizes 
 the matter from the opposite side: brotherly love is to be 
 measured by the reality of our fellowship with God. This — 
 thought, expressed in ch. v. 2, is the fundamental note of 
 the verses which follow, the first verse of the chapter form- 
 ing only a transition to it. Several new ideas enter here. 
 First, instead of the ἀδελφός, as the hitherto usual desig- 
 nation of the neighbour, the phrases γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ and τέκνον Θεοῦ (ver. 2) are selected to be reproduced. 
 This is done in the service of the synthesis here brought 
 out perfectly: because we are to love our neighbour as the 
 child of God, the genuineness of our love to him is proved, 
 as ver. 2 declares, by the genuineness of our love to God; 
 if this love to God is absent, I cannot love my neighbour 
 as a child of God, and therefore do not regard him with the 
 right kind of sentiment. For since, according to ch. iv., 
 charity to the neighbour depends upon the infusion of 
 divine love, that is, of the divine Spirit, such charity must 
 be always absent where the right relation to God is not 
 sustained. The first verse of our new chapter asserts 
 generally, that between our relation to God and our relation 
 to the brethren there must be a reciprocal influence ; 
 ver. 2 seq. then explains, as we have seen, how the approval 
 
280 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 of our relation to God is a sure token of our right relation 
 to the brethren. 
 
 Similarly significant is the introduction of the idea 
 πιστεύειν. It had twice before occurred, ch. 111. 23 and 
 iv. 16, but on both occasions only in a certain sense as 
 signals for the future, without taking any definite place in 
 the organic train of thought in the Epistle. It does not 
 take that place until this fifth chapter. In other respects 
 the beginning of the first verse is based upon ch. iv. 2 and 
 iv. 15; the question therefore arises, why in those passages 
 ‘ ὁμολογεῖν is the subject, while here it is πιστεύειν. It is 
 clear that ὁμολογεῖν presupposes πιστεύειν and includes it. 
 In the fourth chapter, as our investigation has shown us, 
 ' faith in Christ does not appear as a characteristic in man 
 himself, or a property of his own; but as the token by 
 which he may be known to be a child of God, a partaker 
 of the Divine Spirit. But what is in man may be known 
 only so far as it takes outward expression; and the out- 
 ward expression of faith is simply and only the ὁμολογεῖν. 
 Here, however, the question is not of an external, but of an 
 internal token of divine sonship; hence the word πίστις is 
 introduced. That πιστεύειν in this place and generally 
 expresses primarily the acknowledgment of a truth is suffi- 
 ciently obvious: as here, the proposition that Jesus is the 
 Christ is to be acknowledged. So, when we read of πιστεύειν 
 τινί, we acknowledge the trustworthiness of the person 
 generally. But this does not exhaust the idea: for, when 
 in John v. 44 the πιστεύειν is opposed to the δόξαν παρ᾽ 
 ἀλλήλων λαμβάνειν, that is, to the egoism which seeks τὰ 
 ἴδια, Such a view of faith as that is seen to be insufficient ; 
 and when in John xx. 31 the end of the whole Gospel 
 is laid down as being ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε, it is 
 ‘impossible to suppose that a mere acknowledgment as truth 
 could include the whole ζωή, which is the state of the 
 whole man as thinking, feeling, and willing. In very deed, 
 there lies in πιστεύειν the idea of the unio mystica ; more 
 strictly, the union and conjunction of the human with the 
 divine, which is effected fundamentally in the acknowledg- 
 ment of the central fact of salvation (Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ 
 
CHAP. V. 1. 287 
 
 Χριστός). Now it is certainly true that the πίστις is not 
 in itself the sonship; for to this belongs another element, 
 the gift of God. Compare as to this two passages of the 
 Gospel, in which, as here, faith and sonship are placed in 
 juxtaposition. The first is in John i. 12: ὅσοι οὖν ἔλαβον 
 αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖς. 
 πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. If to believers the power. 
 is given to become sons of God, then they are not such in 
 virtue of their faith: there is necessary beyond this a 
 special gift of God (ἔδωκεν). And as, in the immediately 
 following words, this divine sonship is explained as a 
 γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ θελήματος τοῦ Θεοῦ, it cannot be 
 regarded as simply equivalent to the human acting of faith ; 
 but the divine causality is there brought prominently forward 
 which makes us the children of God. The second passage 
 is in John 111. In the fourth verse the γεγεννῆσθαι ἄνωθεν 
 is described as a γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ TvevpaTos; | 
 it is therefore marked out as an act of God, or rather 
 as the communication of the Divine Spirit. But then 
 Christ answers the question of Nicodemus, πῶς δύναται 
 ταῦτα yevéo0at,—which was by no means an exclamation 
 in the wondering rhetorical form of interrogation, but 
 literally a simple question: “In what way, through what 
 means, is such a total renewal possible ? ”—-Christ answers 
 it, we affirm, summarily by the requirement of faith: 
 “Dost thou, the celebrated teacher of the law, so little 
 know the law?” As, in the Old Testament, the people 
 stung by serpents were saved by believing on the sign 
 divinely lifted up, so in the New Testament men are saved 
 by faith in the divine sign of the Son of man lifted up. 
 Thus through faith δύναται ταῦτα γενέσθαι; and still this 
 ταῦτα is, according to vers. 2 and 3, a divine act, the 
 γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ πνεύματος. Between these two, the human 
 faith and the divine act, there is no contrariety, but a 
 synthesis is necessary. In order to the γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ there must be, first of all, an infusion of the σπέρμα 
 Θεοῦ, the divine germ of life, and this represents the one 
 element. As, however, the γεγεννῆσθαι is not a new 
 creation, but rather a renewal or transformation, the new life 
 
288 TIE FIRST EPISTLE. OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 can come to realization only as it stamps its impress on the 
 original elements of man’s nature, and makes that its organ ; 
 or, in other words, as the subject under the operation unites 
 himself and is conjoined with the divine σπέρμα. Now this 
 latter element is the πίστις. When, then, our passage says 
 ’ that every one who believeth is born of God, the ideas of 
 subject and predicate are not in themselves of equal com- 
 prehension, that of the subject is narrower than that of the 
 predicate ; and it is only established that where faith, the 
 act demanded on the part of man, is present, there certainly 
 also the divine act, the impartation of the Spirit, may be 
 found also; and thus the existence of the former is a 
 sufficient and satisfactory sign of the reality of sonship. 
 Where, however, a γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ is experienced, 
 —this is the further meaning of the verse,—a relation is 
 proved not only to Him who begets, but also to those 
 begotten of Him, that is, to the brethren, 
 
 VERSE 2. 
 
 Ἔν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τὰ τέκνα TOD Θεοῦ, 
 ὅταν τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν. 
 
 But it is not the apostle’s purpose to show that love to 
 God and love to the brethren must go hand in hand ; this 
 is only the basis of the subsequent exposition, that our 
 relation to God must lay down the standard for our love to 
 the brethren. The two verses, therefore, are connected as the 
 more general and the more particular. The thought pre- 
 sented by the new verse is, however, in itself very striking. 
 If it said that brotherly love vests upon the divine love, 
 and that the latter is the causa essendi of the former, this 
 would be perfectly clear. But what of the causa cogno- 
 scendi 2? Has not St. John at the close of the former 
 explained simply that brotherly love is the token of the 
 love of God, indeed the only evidence of it? First, it is to 
 be observed that not the love of God in itself is the ap- 
 proving mark of brotherly love, but as connected with the 
 addition καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν, while the relation 
 between this love to God and obedience to His command- 
 ments is laid down in the first clause of the third verse: 
 
CHAP. V. 2. 289 
 
 herein consists the love of God; there is no other than that 
 which approves itself in obedience. The same relation 
 between love and practical obedience we find in John 
 xiv. 31: ἵνα γνῷ ὁ κόσμος, ὅτι ἀγαπῶ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ, 
 καθὼς ἐνετείλατό μοι ὁ πατὴρ, οὕτω ποιῶ, Where certainly 
 the clause with ὅτε shows how the world is to recognise 
 the love of Christ to His Father. Compare also John 
 xiv. 15: ἐὰν ἀγαπῶτέ pe, καὶ τὰς ἐντολάς μου τηρήσατε. 
 But what does this mean, what the commandments 
 which are here spoken of? Do they mean brotherly love ? 
 Impossible, for then the sense would be pure tautology: we 
 know our brotherly love by this, that we keep the com- 
 mandment of loving the brethren; or, in other words, he 
 that hath brotherly love hath it. It is the following verse, 
 rather, which specifies the contents of the ἐντολαὶ Θεοῦ, 
 that is, in the νικᾶν τὸν κόσμον. As the world is van- 
 quished, the kingdom of God is built up; these two are 
 not separate and distinct factors; they are inseparably 
 bound up with each other. Accordingly, the ἐντολαὶ Θεοῦ 
 are no other than what St. John had laid down in ch. ii. 
 
 as the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην. And now we may take a- 
 
 complete survey of the apostle’s thought. Besides the 
 genuine Christian brotherly love there is another, a purely 
 natural love, which, however, is in fact only a sublimated 
 egoism, and concerning which in its various forms the word 
 
 of St. James holds good, that it is in its gradation éziyetos, © 
 
 ψυχική, δαιμονιώδης. These may in their most amiable 
 and seductive aspects easily enough suggest the erroneous 
 idea that in them the commandment of the apostle is ful- 
 filled. Now, whether the love is a thoroughly Christian 
 sentiment, a love towards the τέκνα Θεοῦ, flowing from the 
 γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, we may surely judge by the answer 
 to the question whether we practise the δικαιοσύνη, or, 
 negatively, whether we overcome the world. Every imagin- 
 able exhibition of brotherly love approves itself as Christian, 
 and therefore genuine, by this, that it is a stone contributed 
 to the house or kingdom of God, a blow dealt to the king- 
 dom of darkness; only as we are the performers of the 
 divine will and conscious of divine ends, can we recognise 
 1 JOHN. db 
 
290 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 ourselves as ἀγαπῶντες Ta τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ; for only then 
 has our deportment any reference to men as they are chil- 
 dren of God. At the close of the previous chapter it was 
 said that brotherly love alone was the test by which we 
 must try our love to God; because, as we saw in ver. 21, 
 there is no obedience towards God possible which should 
 not be at the same time and equally a working and striving 
 and living for the brethren. Here we have the converse. 
 If we build up the kingdom of God, the same thing as lay- 
 ing low the kingdom of the world, then we give a plain 
 token of true brotherly love; for there is no genuine love 
 to God’s children which has not in itself this mark or this 
 tendency. In sum, the love of God and charity to our 
 fellow-Christians confirm, corroborate, and approve each 
 other reciprocally: the one idea cannot be considered per- 
 fect without the supplement of the other. And here, then, 
 we have found the most absolute synthesis between the two 
 leading thoughts or aspects of truth which govern the whole 
 Epistle, the κοινωνία μετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ and the κοινωνία μετὰ 
 τῶν ἀδελφῶν. As objects of thought, or ideas in the mind, 
 we may hold these apart; but in the reality of life they 
 cannot be disjoined. And, looked at from this point of 
 view, our exposition of ch. ii. 3 seq. receives a confirmatory 
 light. We perceived there, regarding only the context, that 
 all the commandments of God in the end are gathered up 
 in that one focus of brotherly love ; and the point we have 
 just been establishing must make that appear perfectly 
 natural: in fact, all other precepts are summed up in this ; 
 as, on the other hand, the presence of obedience towards 
 God in any other supposable respects must in the long 
 run react upon or lead up to brotherly love. 
 
 But the form of the sentence in our verse demands some 
 further consideration. The construction ἐν τούτῳ γινώ- 
 σκομεν .. . ἐάν is common enough both in the Gospel and in 
 our Epistle ; but we never find ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅταν 
 save in this place. That ὅταν is never elsewhere used by 
 St. John with a conditional meaning, will make us hesitate 
 about taking it so here. “Ὅταν is primarily, just as ὅτε, a 
 particle of time; the ἄν added to this certainly introduces 
 
CHAP. V. 8. 291 
 
 a conditional element, without interfering with the idea of 
 time in it: either its force is to define the action as in- 
 definite and often recurring, on each recurrence, however, 
 having a specific result (whenever); or it means that the 
 time of its recurrence is to be expected in the future (when 
 once). Here the former is the case: in every such sup- 
 posed case (ἄν) there must concur simultaneously (ὅτε) 
 with brotherly love obedience also; and it is precisely in 
 the fact of the latter (ἐν τούτῳ) that we are confident in 
 discerning the former. Whether we are to read at the 
 close of the verb ποιῶμεν or τηρῶμεν is essentially matter 
 of indifference ; yet the circumstance that Cod. A omits the 
 next line down to the second τηρῶμεν, seems to indicate 
 that the eye of the transcriber might easily go astray and 
 wander to the following clause, and thus the τηρῶμεν of the 
 third verse was wrongly brought forward into the second, 
 in which originally the unusual ἐντολὰς ποιεῖν stood. 
 
 VERSE 3. 
 
 Αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα τὰς ἐντολὰς. 
 αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν᾽ καὶ αἱ ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσίν. 
 
 The first clause of the third verse has been made clear 
 so far as its meaning goes: the strict connection between 
 love of God and obedience, introduced before in passing, is 
 here expressly established. This is the substance (αὕτη 
 ἐστίν), and this is, at the same time, the tendency (ἵνα) of 
 love to fulfil the commandments of God. And that follows, 
 not only from the idea of love, but also from the way in 
 which it was brought into our hearts. If love is the 
 reference of my I to another I, love to God is the reference 
 and subjection of my will to the will divine; and if the 
 genesis of love to God is the fact that His prevenient love 
 has been infused into my nature, then, again, the will of 
 God must have become my will. And this obedience to 
 the divine precept, thus demanded, the apostle proceeds to 
 say, is easy; comp. Matt. xi. 30. Assuredly, the expression 
 βαρεῖαν means, primarily, pressing or hard, not “easy to be 
 fulfilled ;” but as the commandments are pressing or hard 
 only from the fact that we cannot fulfil them, or fulfil them 
 
YASH THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 only with pains, the two meanings come to one and the same 
 thing. God’s laws are not termed light in themselves, as if, 
 that is, they did not require anything heavy or difficult ; 
 for, strictly speaking, nothing is easy and nothing difficult 
 of itself; all difficulty lies simply in the relation between 
 the thing concerned and the power of the person concerned. 
 Only to the Christian are the divine commandments easy ; 
 because, in the power of faith, of that faith which links him 
 with Christ, there is the strength of union between his will 
 and the divine will, But in the spiritual domain the 
 measure of the will is also ever the measure of the power. 
 Every sin rests not only on a deficiency of power, but also 
 on a deficiency of will. 
 
 VERSE 4, 
 
 Ὅτι πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ νικᾷ τὸν κόσμον, 
 καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ νίκη ἡ νικήσασα τὸν κόσμον, ἡ πίστις 
 ἡμῶν. 
 
 __ The reason which makes the law of God become easy is 
 given in ver. 4a. The commandments are hard only through 
 a certain opposition which thwarts them and hinders their 
 being obeyed. This depends upon the power of the world, 
 the κόσμος. The world, as the kingdom of darkness, per- 
 vaded through and through with powers of evil (compare on 
 ch. ii. 15), has evermore the tendency to act in opposition 
 to the divine will; and inasmuch as ail that is earthly has 
 in and for itself this tendency, so all obedience towards 
 God must be. wrested, so to speak, out of the power of the 
 world. The manifold temptations which issue from the 
 ἐπιθυμία and the ἀλαζονεία ; that dependence on the visible 
 which is inborn in all men; the sins also which predominate 
 at any period and throw their influence on all things accord- 
 ingly, an influence purely of this earth: all these are the 
 issues and outgoings of the κόσμος which is by us to be 
 renounced and vanquished. But what is the power which 
 shall gain the abiding victory in a war like this, which shall 
 in fact permanently conquer (present νικᾷ) What is the 
 might that is equal to this? πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ. This phrase in the neuter, after the manner of St. 
 
CHAP. V. 4. 293 
 
 John in some other applications where persons are really 
 meant (comp. John ili. 16, vi. 37, xvii. 2), is, however, not 
 to be at once regarded as identical with πάντες οἱ γεγεννη- 
 μένοι. The distinction makes itself easily felt on considera- 
 tion: this latter phrase would make the person prominent ; 
 such and such men, so furnished, conquer; but St. John’s 
 expression places in the foreground the power by which 
 they conquer, the divine cause, working in the personality, 
 which carries away the victory. The divine energy, the 
 power of light, wherever it truly works (πᾶν), does without 
 exception (νικᾷ) win the cause and triumph over the world 
 as the seat of all darkness. Now, because this victory is so 
 absolutely a thing of necessity, therefore the divine com- 
 mandments which require and enforce this victory cannot 
 be grievous. 
 
 What power is there that can successfully oppose the 
 world, which is the sphere of the transitory (comp. ch. 
 11. 17, ὁ κόσμος παράγεται) because it is the sphere of the 
 visible (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 18, τὰ βλεπόμενα πρόσκαιρα, TO δὲ 
 μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια), save that power the nature of which 
 is, according to Heb. xi. 1, to have commerce with the 
 invisible (οὐ βλεπόμενα), that is, the virtue of faith? The- 
 three clauses, vers. 4a, 4b, 5, are so related to each other 
 that this victorious energy is in each case brought into 
 clearer definition. First, we have it in general that this 
 victory depends upon regeneration; then, more distinctly, 
 it is so far as the divine birth evokes faith; finally, in 
 ver. 5, that this faith is, more particularly viewed, a faith -. 
 in Jesus as the Son of God. In the words νίκη νικήσασα, 
 two elements of thought are combined,—that is to say, 
 while the perfect νικήσασα leads us to think of the armour 
 and stress of the combat that wins the fight, νίκη gives 
 simply the result of the contest. There is no need to ex- 
 plain away one in order to make the other clearer: both 
 should have their full expression. In believing itself, the 
 world is already virtually overcome; and faith has ever 
 vanquished from the beginning, being the armour or the 
 means to which victory is always attached. On the other 
 hand, faith is also the victory itself, for it is the result of 
 
294, THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 the conflict: through believing I vanquish the world, and 
 win for myself as a prize the same faith; so that it can 
 now, as the result, unfold without fatal opposition all its 
 force. But inasmuch as faith involves in itself, germinally, 
 a victory over the world, its development takes place in 
 actual life through a series of crises or stages; it becomes 
 eradually manifest in all its character. Even as Christ 
 Himself had already conquered and slain the world and its 
 prince, while yet this victory has to be brought out into 
 external manifestation gradually in the history of the king- 
 dom of God, and through that history, which is no other 
 than the more and more perfect dying out of Satan’s power 
 and the more and more nearly approaching death-struggle 
 of Satan himself: so also is our faith, as reflecting the whole 
 work of its Lord in itself, essentially and in germ the com- 
 pleted victory, while yet this victory must find its external 
 and full expression only through a series of stages and 
 processes. The γεγεννῆσθαν ἐκ tod Ocod—that is, the 
 indwelling of the Divine Spirit in us—is the principle of the 
 victory, faith ; as the union and conjunction of our own 1 
 with this Divine Spirit, this principle becomes energetic and 
 effectual in individual acts. 
 
 VERSE 5. 
 
 Tis ἐστιν ὁ νικῶν τὸν κόσμον, εἰ μὴ ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι 
 ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ; 
 
 And that faith is no other than faith in Jesus as the Son 
 of God: according to ch. 111. ὃ, it was the work of Christ 
 to destroy or undo the works of Satan; and His work 
 specifically as the Son of God. He could say θαρσεῖτε ἐγὼ 
 νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον (John xvi. 33); and faith in Him, full 
 fellowship with Him, reflects all His work even in us. 
 Thus the close of our section, ver. 5, most exactly returns 
 again to its beginning, ver. 1. Birth of God, faith, and the 
 accomplishment of the divine will, which constitute the 
 victory over the world, are exhibited in their combination 
 and interdependence, and at the same time as evidence of 
 brotherly love. 
 
ἰδ] 
 «Ὁ 
 Cr 
 
 CHAPS Val 65:71: 
 
 VERSES 6-11. 
 
 Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι᾽ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Incods ὁ 
 Χριστὸς, οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, GAN ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ 
 αἵματι: καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ μαρτυροῦν ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά 
 ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ 
 οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. καὶ οὗτοι 
 οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ], 
 τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα" καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν 
 εἰσιν. Εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ 
 μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν" ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἣν μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. “O πισ- 
 τεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔχει τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ" 
 ὁ μὴ πιστεύων τῷ Θεῷ, ψεύστην πεποίηκεν αὐτὸν, ὅτι οὐ 
 πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὴν μαρτυρίαν, ἣν μεμαρτύρηκεν ὁ Θεὸς περὶ 
 τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία, ὅτι ζωὴν 
 αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ 
 αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. 
 
 Thus, then, it appears that the section we have just been 
 considering forms one whole with that of ch. iv. 19-21; 
 but we observe that there is in it one distinct element, which 
 carries us back again to the beginning of the Epistle. In 
 the middle of its first sentence it was declared that the 
 λόγος τῆς ζωῆς would form the contents of it; that St. 
 John’s purpose was to give an annunciation concerning 
 Christ ; and if not to exhibit His person, yet to exhibit His 
 work in us. He had then in his first main division described 
 the interior religious character of the Christian life in its 
 relation to God and to the brethren; in the second, the 
 external confirmation of this as a token of a right posture 
 towards God and man, and as therefore a condition of true 
 Christian joy. But all this is subsumed under a higher 
 aim: not for its own sake, but for the sake of an annuncia- 
 tion περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς. The relation to Him—that 
 is, to Christ the Son of God—it was to which his final aim 
 was directed. But this relation is in the New Testament 
 phraseology embraced and expressed by the idea of πίστις ; 
 and in here introducing this, the apostle rounds off the 
 Epistle into unity ; he seems to declare that the design laid 
 
206 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 down in ch. i. 1 seq. was in this at length fulfilled. But 
 there is one element in the Introduction which has not yet 
 had justice done to it, having only once, ch. iv. 14, been 
 touched upon in passing: the idea of waptupia. What other 
 was the purport of the copious sentence of ch. i. 1 seq., with 
 its so emphatic development of one idea, but the guarantee 
 and witness of the truth of the apostolic tendency? This 
 element is now, in the section ch. v. 6-12, taken up again, 
 although in another form than what it assumed in ch. i. 1. 
 All that the apostle had aimed to teach he had now taught: 
 luminous and distinct, complete and self-contained, lies the 
 full development of his thought before us. He has estab- 
 lished the true relation towards God and the brethren; the 
 παῤῥησία, as the result even in relation to the 872) 173 Dir. 
 the χαρὰ τετελειωμένη is guaranteed and secured; while all 
 this rests upon the outgoings of πίστις in the divine Son of 
 God. On this last, therefore, rests the superstructure of the 
 whole. This faith must accordingly in itself be a spiritual 
 possession, absolute and unconquerable; its object must 
 have the strongest possible confirmation and assurance. To 
 show that this is so remains now the apostle’s final problem. 
 
 The idea of μαρτυρία, which, apart from these explana- 
 tions, must appear to the most superficial and external 
 observation the centre of all that follows, is one that has a 
 remarkable prominence throughout the Johannaean writings. 
 This idea appears at the beginning, and recurs at the end 
 of all the three greater documents which we have received 
 from St. John. Jn the Apocalypse he commences, ch. i. 2, 
 with the vindication of his trustworthiness: ὃς ἐμαρτύρησε 
 Tov λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅσα 
 τε εἶδεν. It is matter of indifference whether the ἐμαρ- 
 τύρησεν referred to the work itself which he was beginning, 
 or to the earlier written Gospel, or to his general and ordinary 
 oral ministry: in any case, it is the drift of the apostle to 
 introduce a guarantee of his veracity by the mention of his 
 eye-witness-ship (ὅσα τε εἶδε). So, again, at the close of 
 the book, ch. xxii., its contents are summed up again and 
 , again as a μαρτυρία of our Lord. The Gospel, in its turn, 
 \ goes on, after the prologue, with the μαρτυρία of the Baptist, 
 
CHAP, V. 6—11. 297 
 
 ch. i. 18 seq., and ends with that of the evangelist himself, 
 ch. xxi, 24. And, finally, our Epistle begins with the . 
 personal testimony of the apostle, while it ends with that of 
 God Himself. But to return, the body of the Gospel gives 
 the same prominent part to the idea of the μαρτυρεῖν: the 
 valid and sufficient witness which the Lord has to appeal 
 to in His controversies with the Jews is a thought which 
 is constantly on His lips. In particular, He appeals in His 
 own behalf again and again—compare John v. 32, viii. 18, 
 xv. 26 (strictly speaking, it is the Holy Ghost who is 
 referred to in this last)—to the witness of His God to His 
 mission. Now it is precisely this, as we have seen, which 
 is spoken of in our present passage. It is true that in 
 ver. 6 the witness is that of the Spirit; in ver. 8, that of 
 water, and blood, and the Spirit; but as from ver. 9 onwards 
 THE witness of God is spoken of (mark the article) without 
 any kind of specification as to the manner or the medium 
 in which this testimony reaches us, it follows from this last 
 circumstance, as well as from the definite article, that the 
 water, and the blood, and the Spirit have no independent 
 meaning of their own, but are only the mediating repre- 
 sentations of the divine testimony. They together form, in- 
 fact, the μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 We have here, however, two things sharply to distinguish. 
 First comes the question as to the substance of the witness 
 of God: what does it testify? This question is fully and 
 clearly answered in ver. 11, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία, ὅτι ζωὴν 
 αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεὸς καὶ αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ 
 ἐστιν; but it is also, in a more condensed form, contained 
 in ver. 6. However, if we are content for a time with the 
 perfectly clear answer in ver. 11, we perceive that the 
 object of the divine testimony is the eternal life sealed for 
 us in the Son of God: He is the possessor (ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστι), 
 and He is the mediator, of this life. The second question 
 is this: by what means does God bear His witness? And 
 its answer: by water, blood, Spirit. Now we have in the / 
 substance of the divine testimony, given to us in ver. 11, 
 a standard by which we may measure and ascertain the 
 correctness of our interpretation of these three witnesses. 
 
a 
 
 298 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 They must be such as can testify concerning Jesus as the 
 possessor of eternal life, and as the giver of eternal life to 
 us. In what sense, then, do the water, the blood, the Spirit 
 furnish this witness for Christ ? 
 
 In order to explain the water and the blood, we must 
 consider the twofold relation which they here assume. 
 First, they are witnesses, or media of the testimony, ἣν 
 
 ᾿μεμαρτύρηκεν ὁ Θεὸς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ: the water and the 
 
 blood must therefore represent some divine act, some divine 
 institution, in virtue of which God appears in behalf of 
 Christ. Secondly, it is to be observed that Christ Himself 
 is said to have come δ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος. Now, as St. 
 John uses always the word “come,” or the ἔρχεσθαι, con- 
 cerning Christ, as a vox solemnis which refers to the coming 
 of Jesus as the Messiah,—-not to His being born generally, 
 but to His manifestation as Saviour of the world—the pro- 
 position before us must needs signify that Jesus attained 
 His Messianic position through water and blood. ‘These 
 two are therefore not only the pledge of His divine sonship, 
 
 ' but at the same time the powers through which He was 
 
 constituted the Saviour: the water and the blood must, 
 accordingly, be pointed to as constitutive factors in the life 
 of the Redeemer. Before, however, we look more closely 
 at the sense in which this is true, we must first justify the 
 phraseology we have just used. We have, that is, described 
 the testimony here concerned, now as witnessing His divine 
 sonship, and now as witnessing His Messianic activity,—that 
 is, as at once testimony to His person and as testimony 
 also to His work. For this double way of describing it we 
 have the apostle’s own warranty; for in ver. 11 he refers 
 both to the gift of life and to the bringer of life as the 
 object of the divine witness. And, in fact, the one is 
 involved in the other: He who is to give the life must first 
 
 \have it in Himself; and He who has it in Himself is 
 
 thereby declared to be the Son of God, according to John 
 v. 26, ὥσπερ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως ἔδωκε Kal 
 τῷ υἱῷ ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν Eavt@. He who ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ life is 
 thereby demonstrated to be the Son of God; and He who 
 shall give life to others must ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχειν that life. 
 
CHAP, V. 6-11. 299 
 
 Thus in reality the divine sonship and the Messiahship of 
 Jesus are bound up together. 
 
 But what manner of water is that, concerning which so 
 great things are said? Primarily, we are led to think of 
 the baptism which Christ received at the hands of John 
 the Baptist. In truth, He was by that baptism inaugurated 
 into His Messianic function: the three Synoptists make this — 
 point of view abundantly prominent; and at the first glance 
 it seems therefore perfectly intelligible, when it is said δι᾽ 
 ὕδατος, that He came as the Messiah by this baptismal 
 water, that this event was the medium of His introduction 
 to His Christly function, and fitted Him to enter on it. 
 But we must bethink ourselves to examine this closely. 
 What prepared Jesus for His office was not the baptismal 
 water, but the communication of the Spirit connected 
 with His baptism. In our sacramental Christian baptism, ἡ 
 indeed, the water and the impartation of the Spirit through 
 the rite are so inseparably united, that the one word water 
 may well be used to signify the whole, including the 
 heavenly blessing: the earthly sign and the heavenly 
 reality are in the sacrament indissolubly one. But it was 
 quite otherwise in the baptism of John. That was assuredly - 
 no sacramental act, and certainly did not of itself confer 
 the Holy Ghost: whence, indeed, John himself could say 
 that, in contrast with his own baptism, Christ would 
 baptize with the Holy Ghost: compare John i. 33, ὁ 
 πέμψας we βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι, ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν" ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν 
 ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον... οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν 
 πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. The communication of the Spirit, of which 
 our Lord at His baptism was the object, was not itself 
 connected by any means with that baptism as such; but 
 it was an extraordinary event, which was attached to it. 
 John’s baptism and Christian baptism are in antithesis to 
 each other: in the former, man is, primarily, the giver; in 
 the latter, he is the receiver. He who submitted to John’s 
 rite laid down this confession: as the water cleanses my 
 body, so will 1 henceforth dedicate my soul to God in pure 
 service. Anything like an extraordinary supernatural gift 
 of God to man was not by any means connected with this 
 
300 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 act. Thus, if the question here is of the inauguration of 
 Christ to His office, the designation of baptism by ὕδωρ 
 would be altogether unsuitable ; since the introduction to 
 His function was not by baptism in itself, but by the gift 
 of the Spirit" not necessarily connected with that rite. 
 Moreover, the water of Christ's baptism cannot by any 
 means be exhibited as a witness of His divine mission: 
 this external rite was in fact one common to the Lord and 
 many besides, which therefore did not involve of itself any 
 such virtue of special testimony. The voice which sounded 
 from heaven, or the Spirit who ὡσεὶ περιστερά descended 
 on Jesus, might indeed have this virtue; but they would 
 not be designated by ὕδωρ, because, as we have seen, the 
 baptism of John did not necessarily include the gift of the 
 Spirit. 
 
 We must therefore look about for another interpretation 
 of the ὕδωρ. Does it signify Christian baptism? It is 
 clear that this, in contradistinction to that of John, may 
 well be described by ὕδωρ ; since that essential and neces- 
 sary interpretation of water and Spirit, form and matter, is 
 found in it which is absent from John’s baptism. And the 
 phrase ὁ ἐλθὼν δι’ ὕδατος is thus perfectly intelligible. 
 The Baptist himself comprises the whole work of Christ in 
 ‘this, that He would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with 
 fire. Even the fact that the baptismal sacrament was in- 
 stituted only at the end of our Lord’s ministry would not 
 stand obstinately in the way of this explanation ; for the 
 proper unfolding of the Messianic activity of Christ, to 
 which the ἔρχεσθαι refers, actually attained its consumma- 
 tion only at the end of His course upon earth. We should 
 
 1 It may seem strange that, according to the consentient narratives of the 
 evangelists, Jesus first received the Holy Ghost in connection with His 
 baptism, whereas He was filled with the Spirit in His mother’s womb. . The 
 solution of the difficulty lies in the distinction between the Spirit as a prin- 
 ciple fillmg His personal life, and the Spirit as an official gift for communica- 
 tion to others. This distinction finds a more distant analogy in the fact that 
 among men the knowledge of a matter does not involve either the vocation 
 or the gift to appear as a witness and teacher concerning it, which latter is 
 wont to be matured by definite experiences. A nearer analogy lies in the 
 double impartation of the Spirit to the disciples on the evening of the resur- 
 rection and on the morning of Pentecost. 
 
CHAP. Υ͂. 6—11. Od 
 
 indeed expect to read ἐρχόμενος ; since the historically 
 completed fact of the manifestation of the Messiah in the 
 world was not consummated by means of the baptismal 
 sacrament; rather in it He continuously comes as the 
 Saviour and Redeemer of nen. Another reason for reject- 
 ing this view is suggested by the way in which the ὕδωρ 
 and the αἷμα are here placed in correlation or opposition : 
 for Christian baptism itself includes a reference to the 
 death, and therefore to the blood of Christ, according to the 
 Pauline declaration of Rom. vi. 3, εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ 
 ἐβαπτίσθημεν. Now, where it is said that Christ came not 
 by water alone, but by water and blood, there is ascribed to 
 each of these elements a specific matter: there is somewhat 
 in the blood which is not found in the water. But, as we 
 have seen that in the baptismal sacrament water and blood 
 are together efficient, the interpretation which makes the 
 water the sacrament of baptism is not altogether suitable. 
 And this objection is strengthened when we consider the 
 peculiar position which St. John assumes to the sacraments 
 generally. We certainly find in his Gospel passages which 
 must be referred incidentally to the sacraments, having in 
 them their highest fulfilment and truth; but we find no 
 reference to the institution of these rites, nor indeed any 
 mention of them as such. In John vi. our Lord speaks of 
 the eating of His flesh and drinking His blood, and the 
 words in question doubtless allude also to the holy supper ; 
 but the explanation of eating by the idea of faith itself 
 shows that the paragraph is primarily to be understood as 
 a symbolic way of teaching the full and living appropria- 
 tion of Christ Himself (ἐγὼ ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς) and of His — 
 atonement (αἷμα). Similarly, when John iii. speaks οὔ" 
 regeneration of water and the Spirit, the words certainly 
 allude to the water of baptism; indeed they cannot be read 
 by Christian people without bringing this allusion to their 
 consciousness. But the very fact that there existed at the 
 time no sacrament of baptism, that therefore Nicodemus, to 
 whom the words were applied, could not, if this were their 
 only meaning, have understood them, indicates that the 
 water also must primarily be accepted in its symbolical 
 
302 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 sense. Now, as we have seen that our Epistle never in any 
 passage goes beyond the circle of thought prescribed by the 
 Gospel, this of itself must make us suspicious of accepting 
 a reference to the sacraments as the direct and exclusive 
 meaning of our present passage. 
 
 Thus we are led to make the experiment, whether the 
 same interpretation of ὕδωρ which applies everywhere to 
 the Gospel may not be here also applicable,—that is, in 
 effect, the symbolical. A test of this method of interpreta- 
 tion we have in the fact that the meaning of the water in 
 our text must be different from that of the blood: this 
 latter must involve an element which the former has not; 
 while both must be available and equally valid as witnesses 
 for Christ. Now at the outset we find the symbolical use 
 of the ὕδωρ in John iv., “he that drinketh of the water 
 that I shall give shall never thirst ;” and, further, in John 
 vii. 38, “he that believeth on me, out of his body shall 
 flow rivers of living water.” In these passages we must 
 understand by the water the new and saving life, which 
 springs up fresh and clear as from a fountain: compare the 
 πηγαὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου of Isa. xii. 3, and Ps. xxiii. 2. On the 
 other hand, the washing with water is in the Old Testa- 
 ment ritual the means of purification ; and the water very 
 frequently elsewhere occurs with this meaning, apart from 
 the legal observances. The two symbolical applications 
 must not be sundered, for they rest on the same funda- 
 mental ideas: water is the symbol, not only of the attain- 
 ment of purification, that is, of holiness, but of the possession 
 of it as the result. Thus we find it in the passage, John 
 iii. 5, which is fundamental for the meaning of our present 
 text: the new birth of water and of the Spirit describes 
 the production of new and pure and saving life, ὕδωρ, 
 through the Holy Ghost, πνεῦμα. Thus the relation of the 
 water and the blood is clear, at least clear in general: in 
 the blood lies the element of propitiation; this is wanting 
 in the water, which points rather to redemption. Regenera- 
 tion is, in fact, primarily not so much the expiation of the 
 past, as the implanting of a new nature, the establishing of 
 salvation. That negative aspect, according to which the 
 
CHAP. V. 6-11. 303 
 
 λοῦτρον παλιγγενεσίας becomes at the same time βαπτισμὸς 
 els ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (Acts ii. 38), is introduced first by the 
 above-mentioned reference to the death of Christ. Accord- 
 incly, the ὕδωρ would here be the symbol of the new 
 divine life, filled and replenished with purifying energies, 
 which the Redeemer has brought. In virtue (διά) of this 
 power existing in Himself, as the source of the fountain 
 (John iv.), He came as the Messiah (ἦλθεν): only because 
 He had this life of salvation and could impart it to us was 
 He fitted to be the Messiah. And, at the same time, the 
 fact that the pewers of a new and saving life came from 
 Christ, is the witness that lecitimates Him as the Son of 
 God. For, as we unfolded at the outset of our discussion, 
 He who can impart life is thereby guaranteed as the pos- 
 sessor of it, and, moreover, therefore attested to be the Son 
 of God. So far we are led by the principle of a purely 
 syrabolical interpretation ; it must be admitted, however, 
 as the exegetical feeling of every one will suggest, that the 
 interpretation of ὕδωρ thus arrived at is not at all points | 
 satisfactory and sufficient. But before we penetrate further, 
 we must deal in a similar way with the αἷμα for its 
 preliminary symbolical exposition. 
 
 That the αἷμα is not to be understood, primarily at least, 
 of the sacrament of the altar, is shown—apart from what 
 has been already said, which partly applies here also— by 
 the fact that there is in the New Testament no allusion to 
 the Lord’s Supper, which mentions only the blood. But 
 we have in our Epistle itself one passage which expresses 
 to us the significance of the blood of Christ, and from 
 which, therefore, we must not in our interpretation of the 
 present text without strong necessity depart: it is in ch. 
 ii. 2 (also ch. iv. 10), where the fAacyos, the propitiation, 
 is described as the result of the death of the Redeemer. 
 And to this we must add ch. 1. 7, τὸ αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 καθαρίζει ἡμᾷς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας. Accordingly St. John 
 says here that Christ, by means of His propitiatory death, 
 came forward as the Messiah; that in this lay the realiza- 
 tion of His work as the Saviour. And this atoning power, 
 which proceeds from Him and fills His being (ἦλθεν ἐν 
 
904 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 αἵματι), is the second witness which God bears to Him. It 
 demonstrates that He in whom such power dwells is the 
 Son of God. 
 
 This symbolical interpretation of the ὕδωρ and αἷμα by 
 no means excludes the possibility that the sacraments are 
 also included in these expressions. It is, in fact, not 
 fortuitous that in baptism the water, in the Eucharist the 
 blood, assume so prominent a place; it was so appointed, 
 because in the former the renewal of the power of life, the 
 purifying and saving energy of the Spirit, is the main 
 point ; in the latter, the appropriation of the atonement 
 lying in the blood of Jesus. Indeed, with baptism also is 
 connected the forgiveness of sins, and therefore expiation, 
 and with the Eucharist renewal to pure life; but still in 
 such a way that with baptism the element of the implanting 
 of new life comes into the foreground, with the Eucharist 
 the suppression of the sin indwelling in the flesh by the 
 diffusion and penetration of the glorified body of Christ. 
 While, therefore, the reasons already alleged forbid our 
 thinking of the sacraments primarily and exclusively, they 
 are so far included as the symbolical meaning of the water 
 and the blood finds in them its application, indeed its 
 culminating application. Our passage, accordingly, ranks 
 side by side with the third and sixth chapters of the 
 Gospel. It is even probable that the thought of the 
 sacraments, and the order in which they are received by 
 Christians, prescribed the order of the words ὕδωρ καὶ 
 αἷμα. 
 
 But, as we said before, the interpretation thus reached 
 does not perfectly satisfy. For, though ὕδωρ and αἷμα 
 often occur in St. John symbolically, or rather tropically, 
 this does not explain how this tropical expression finds its 
 way here. Instead of saying that the powers of the new 
 life which Christ has brought testify for Him, to say that 
 the water testifies for Him,—is and must ever be thought 
 inexpressibly hard. In addition to this: granted that the 
 blood is here a symbol of expiation, yet it is not as a mere 
 trope, or figurative style of speaking ; actual and true blood 
 was shed and effected the propitiation, and therefore the 
 
CHAP. V. 6-11. 305 
 
 expression αἷμα is perfectly intelligible in this connection. 
 The blood, that is, the expiating blood of Christ poured out 
 on the cross, witnesses to His divine sonship, But is not 
 this precise background of reality altogether wanting in the 
 vdwp ? Is it not merely a purely figurative expression, and 
 one that in this passage has no foundation for it assigned ? 
 It would indeed be altogether different, if in the life of 
 Christ—apart from His baptism, which we have found to 
 be inapplicable for our purpose—there could be specified 
 any point at which actual water appears in the higher 
 symbolical sense we have indicated, thus giving our passage 
 just such a concrete historical foundation as the blood has 
 in it: such an event as we now contemplate would assume 
 in the mind of the apostle and of his readers a place of 
 peculiar prominence, so that the mention of the water 
 would at once and necessarily suggest it. Now such an 
 event is found; and our whole passage would receive a 
 rich illumination if it could be shown that it refers to 
 John xix. 34: a passage the reference to which is so 
 obvious that it is difficult not to point to it at once. It is 
 not simply that in these two passages of Scripture alone 
 blood and water are thus placed in juxtaposition ; in both 
 cases they are conjoined in an equally marked manner, with 
 manifest emphasis ; and in both cases μαρτυρεῖν is the idea 
 under the light of which the αἵμα and ὕδωρ are introduced. 
 Now, if it can be shown that that water and that blood 
 which are spoken of in the history of the passion are to be 
 typically understood, that is, that there an external fact 
 occurred which bore in it a deeper meaning; that, further, 
 the interpretation of the type, or rather of the typical ideas 
 ὕδωρ and aiwa, is there the same as we have discerned to be 
 true in our present passage: then shall we be constrained to 
 regard the passage in the Gospel as the foundation of this; 
 and similarly, the relation of these symbolical expressions, 
 as well as the meaning we have discovered in them, will 
 be demonstrated afresh and more fully illustrated. The 
 only external reason which can be adduced in opposition 
 to our reference to John xix. is this, that the blood comes 
 first in the Gospel, while here the water has precedence. 
 1 JOHN. U 
 
306 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 But the force of this objection is altogether neutralized by 
 a consideration of two things. Furst, in the Gospel the 
 apostle observes the order in which the elements issued 
 from the Lord’s side, while here the water comes first on 
 account of the reference, mentioned above, to the sacraments. 
 Secondly, the difference urged has the less significance, 
 because (presupposing the symbolical meaning of the water 
 and the blood in the Gospel, which we shall confirm pre- 
 sently) the difference between redemption and propitiation 
 is generally a fleeting one, the two ideas being involved in 
 each other. 
 
 Now let us examine John xix. 34 seq. more carefully. 
 First of all, it is an altogether wrong view of the incident, that 
 blood and water issued from the Redeemer, which sees in 
 it only a demonstration that Jesus had actually died. It is 
 not only the fact—often remarked—that Christian antiquity 
 never had doubts about the reality of Christ’s death, and 
 that therefore so emphatic a demonstration of it might 
 appear quite without reason; but to attain such an end the 
 apostle is supposed to have adopted the worst possible 
 means. At any rate, it would have been much simpler to 
 say that the soldier pierced the heart of our Lord. More- 
 over, we can scarcely attribute to the evangelist so much 
 physiological knowledge as to be aware that the dissolution 
 of the blood into placenta and serum was a sure sign of 
 consummated death: even granting that this can be proved, 
 which we do not believe. How could a fact of such special 
 peculiarity that its physiological explanation has not to the 
 present day been arrived at, have been used as a decisive 
 evidence of the death of Jesus? Since these elements do not 
 usually flow from a corpse any more than from a living body, 
 the conclusion might have drawn with equal truth and un- 
 truth to the life of Christ, or His death not consummate. 
 But the main point is this: the Old Testament citations 
 introduced by γάρ in vers. 36, 37 must, if it had been the 
 apostle’s design to confirm the fact of Christ’s death, stand 
 in some connection with that design. But we see no trace 
 of such a connection. The quotations are no more linked 
 with the flowing of blood and water than they are with the 
 
CHAP. V. 6--11. 307 
 
 certainty of our Lord’s death. They furnish evidence that 
 the piercing with the lance, and the pretermission of the 
 breaking the legs, were predicted in the Old Testament: 
 not, however, to establish the reality of these facts them- 
 selves, but to point out that He, as to whom that took 
 place and this did not take place, was the Messiah. No 
 bone of the paschal Lamb was to be broken; Jesus there- 
 fore, by the circumstance that the crurifragium could not 
 befall Him, was marked out as the paschal Lamb. They 
 were to look on Him as Jehovah whom they pierced: the 
 piercing of the lance, therefore, marked out Jesus as 
 Jehovah, as the Son of God. Thus all else that is recorded 
 in this section was to demonstrate Jesus to be the Messiah 
 and the Son of God: the flowing of blood and water from 
 His side must be regarded from the same point of view. 
 And that this is the only right. one, appears from ver. 35: 
 ὁ ἑωρακὼς μεμαρτύρηκε, καὶ ἀληθινή ἐστιν αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία, 
 κἀκεῖνος οἷδεν ὅτι ἀληθὴ λέγει, ἵνα ὑμεῖς πιστεύητε ὅτι ὁ 
 ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. St. John says, 
 ὁ ἑωρακώς: in this he includes in one whole all that he 
 had related, the pouring out, therefore, of blood and water 
 included ; and he declares all to be testimony that Jesus 
 was the Son of God. If, indeed, the words quoted in ver. 35 
 produce the impression that they record something mira- 
 culous, something so wonderful that it might appear 
 incredible to the readers, this cannot refer so much to the 
 piercing itself, which was not such a matter of wonder, but 
 to the water and blood which flowed from the side of Jesus. 
 For the fact of the piercing, and the pretermitted cruri- 
 JSragium, the apostle can appeal to other witnesses, those of 
 the Old Testament, which also explain the facts as indicat- 
 ing the divine sonship of our Lord. But he has no other 
 witness for the water and the blood ; instead, therefore, of 
 that, he must himself give the most confident assertion 
 of his exact and true observation; and he must himself 
 explain what he saw. Accordingly, the facts adduced by 
 the evangelist receive a twofold illustration : first, the truth 
 of each is attested by the apostle’s eye-witness, with that of 
 the Old Testament superadded ; secondly, their significance 
 
908 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 is confirmed, and this significance is declared to be the 
 same in all three, that is, the vindication of Christ as the 
 Son of God. 
 
 But it is clear that the flowing of blood and water could 
 not of itself attest this truth; this it could do only if the 
 two ideas are symbolically understood. These symbols we 
 must interpret according to the general usage of Scripture, 
 and especially that of St. John, and thus obtain for the 
 passage in the Gospel the same results which we have 
 arrived at in the case of our text in the Epistle. As the 
 prophecy of Hosea, “ Out of Egypt have I called my Son,” 
 would maintain its applicability to Christ even if He had 
 never set His foot in Egypt, though He was carried to 
 Egypt that the prophecy might be set in a clearer light ; 
 as the word of Zechariah concerning the meek King sitting 
 on an ass would maintain its truth even without its external 
 fulfilment in the history of Palm Sunday: so would the 
 significance of the death of Jesus naturally be the same if 
 it had not been symbolically exhibited in the flowing forth 
 of the blood and water. But God so ordered it that the 
 internal should become external; and the apostle’s wonder 
 approved and attested this divine and altogether miraculous 
 order of Providence. If we revert to our passage in the 
 Epistle, this now receives its most satisfactory and final 
 elucidation. First, it is plain how the powers of purifying 
 renewal and reconciliation might be here expressed by ὕδωρ 
 and αἷμα : they are used on the ground of the fact in the 
 Gospel, which is by St. John made prominent with such 
 emphasis, and in which water and blood occur with so 
 symbolical a meaning. Whenever one acquainted with the 
 Gospel read this passage, and noted that the question was 
 concerning a witness borne, he must have recalled to his 
 mind that historical event. Secondly,it is clear how water 
 and blood could be adduced as witnesses appointed of God: 
 for in a most marvellous way God had so ordered it that 
 blood and water should flow from the side of the Crucified, 
 and thus symbolically seal His vocation as a Saviour. 
 
 But there is yet a third witness given by God, the 
 Spirit; and the matter of His testimony is guaranteed (ὅτι), 
 
CHAP. V. 6-11. 309 
 
 because the Spirit is the truth. This clause must be con- 
 sidered well on all sides. It needs no argument that 
 πνεῦμα is the Spirit of God, the Holy Ghost, without whom 
 no man can call Jesus Lord, and who bears witness to Jesus 
 as the Christ in our hearts; but we must note the accord- 
 ance with John xv. 26, where in like manner the μαρτυρεῖν 
 περὶ Χριστοῦ is exhibited as the function of the Paraclete. 
 In the paraphrase we have given, the clause with ὅτι is not 
 regarded as the substance of the testimony, but as the 
 ground of its truth. If it is taken as the substance of it, 
 and translated, “The Spirit beareth witness that the Spirit 
 is truth,” thus making the Spirit bear witness to Himself, 
 we have only to observe that He is certainly introduced 
 here only as a witness for Christ. Moreover, it would be a 
 poor specification of the matter of His testimony, that He 
 witnesses His own truth, that is Himself: the main idea, 
 His testimony that His witness to Christ is true, would be 
 wanting. Or we should be obliged to understand the first 
 πνεῦμα of the Spirit as the third Person in the Godhead, 
 and the second of the Spirit as dwelling in man, or of the 
 Spirit of Christ as blended with the human spirit. But, 
 apart from the question whether we may establish such 
 
 a severance at all, we know nothing generally of a testi-| 
 mony of the Holy Spirit of the Trinity in His distinction | 
 from the Spirit of God as ruling in man. Finally, if we) 
 
 should understand the second πνεῦμα of the human spirit, 
 and explain it after the analogy of Rom. viii. 16, αὐτὸ τὸ 
 πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ TO πνεύματι ἡμῶν, We should then 
 miss this precise ἡμῶν in our passage. 
 
 On the other hand, the thought is perfectly clear and 
 truly Johannaean if we take ὅτε as the causal particle: the 
 Spirit of God, who enters into man, is in Himself a πνεῦμα 
 τῆς ἀληθείας (John xv. 26), and therefore the testimony 
 which He bears for Christ in our experience is true. But 
 there yet remains one difficulty, and that is the article 
 before μαρτυροῦν. The proposition, τὸ mvedud ἐστι TO 
 μαρτυροῦν, by means of this article produces the impression 
 that the Spirit is the only witness, while, nevertheless, the 
 apostle goes on, ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες. In this 
 
310 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 last clause the Spirit is mentioned co-ordinately with the 
 water and the blood: the three have all one office of 
 witness. On the other hand, our proposition in its formal 
 construction exhibits the Spirit not as conjoined with the 
 water and the blood, but as conjoined with Christ. That 
 is to say, ver. 6a, οὗτός (scil. ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός) ἐστιν ὁ. 
 ἐλθὼν δι’ ὕδατος «.7.r., manifestly corresponds with ver. 6c, 
 TO πνεῦμά ἐστιν TO μαρτυροῦν. Accordingly, the Spirit 
 assumes a twofold position : one as parallel with Christ, who 
 came by water and blood, and another as parallel with this 
 same water and blood themselves. As to the former, Christ 
 ~eame as the Messiah by water and blood, He brought salva- 
 tion and propitiation; the Spirit’s office is to witness for 
 this, and then to appropriate and be the means of im- 
 parting in detail what was once accomplished as a whole 
 “by the Redeemer. Thus we can explain the article in our 
 text, TO πνεῦμά ἐστι TO μαρτυροῦν : the Lord is the bringer 
 (ὁ ἐλθὼν διὰ «.7.r.), the Spirit is the attester. The article 
 does not therefore refer to the fact that the Spirit and no 
 other attests, but to the fact that He in relation to Christ’s 
 work has the function only of witnessing, not that of any 
 fundamental work of His own. Thus, in a certain sense, 
 Christ and the Spirit have their distinct offices in the 
 accomplishment of our salvation. As to the latter, the 
 Spirit has also a function running parallel with the water 
 and the blood. If these last, to wit, are the actual 
 demonstrations that He is the Saviour, that is, because 
 He administers salvation, then they are also witnesses, 
 μάρτυρες ; and, the Spirit being reckoned with them, 
 whose specific office is that of testimony, we have three 
 witnesses. Thus we assign its rights to the telic ὅτι, as 
 establishing the fact ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες. It 
 must not be forgotten that in the very order of the 
 sentence the emphasis falls upon the τρεῖς. It is not as 
 if the general proposition, firmly established to the apostle, 
 concerning the threefold witness, confirmed the correctness 
 of the deductions drawn in ver. 6 as to the fact of the 
 three testimonies—for how should such a proposition be 
 a priori firmly established in his mind ?—but the ὅτι 
 
CHAP. V. 6—11. 9.1: 
 
 refers also to the second part of the clause, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς 
 τὸ ἕν εἰσιν; and what was to be established is not the 
 immediately preceding proposition, but οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ vids 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ, the statement whose demonstration was the chief 
 question throughout. That three witnesses give the same 
 testimony is, according to Moses, the guarantee of the truth 
 of any matter; Jesus Himself appealed to this (John 
 viii. 17), and on this the apostle here rests. The trinity 
 of the witnesses, therefore, which furnish one testimony, is 
 the demonstration (ὅτι) of the divine sonship of the Lord. _. 
 
 But all the three witnesses named were given by (fod 
 (ver. 9): He is in the end the only Testifier. His witness, 
 however, is by the perfect μεμαρτύρηκεν described as one 
 that is closed and perfected. If the blood and water were 
 ‘referred exclusively or even primarily to the sacraments, 
 this would be unintelligible; for their influence goes on 
 perpetually. But if we are to think first of the ἔρχεσθαι 
 of Christ, and further of the event that took place in His 
 death, the perfect tense is explained clearly: this is the 
 witness of God, that He sent Christ filled with purifying 
 and atoning powers, that He provided an external authenti- 
 cation of this power given to Christ in the issuing of blood 
 and water from His side in death; and similarly, that He 
 sent the Spirit as a witness. The Spirit Himself μαρτυρεῖ ; 
 but God once for all witnessed in sending Him. 
 
 After we have thus generally elucidated the constitutive 
 fundamental ideas, we have the details to observe on; and 
 pre-eminently to decide the question whether ver. 7 belongs 
 to the text or not. If our decision invariably depended on 
 the testimony of manuscripts known to us, there could be 
 no question about the genuimeness or spuriousness of this 
 verse ; for it is undeniable that no Greek codex earlier than 
 the sixteenth century contains it. If the text is defended 
 in spite of this, it must be on the ground of quotations from 
 the Fathers; and then it must be explained how it came to 
 pass that the words vanished from the text without leaving a 
 trace. In both these respects the matter here is very dif- 
 ferent from that involved in the reading of ch. iv. 3, λύειν 
 tov ᾿Ιησοῦν. In this latter case a reading no longer extant 
 
312 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 at the threshold of the third century was attested in the east 
 and in the west by such men as Irenaeus and Tertullian, 
 while, as we saw, it cannot be proved that Polycarp did 
 not know it. But in the case now before us this ver. 7 is 
 found for centuries only in the west, while in the east 
 there is no trace of it; and it may be taken for granted 
 that it could not have been known in the east, for other- 
 wise it would have been used in the Arian controversy. 
 And this leads to the other question, as to the possibility 
 of its vanishing from the text. Let us in this respect also 
 compare ch. v. 7 with ch. iv. 3. The phrase λύειν τὸν 
 ᾿Ιησοῦν might indeed, as Socrates shows, have been applied 
 to refute the heretics; but it was in itself too profound to 
 put an end to the controversy by one stroke; at any rate, 
 it was not of such a kind that every transcriber would 
 at once perceive in it an ἑδραίωμα ἀληθείας. But how 
 different is it with ch. v. 7! No one can deny that in the 
 whole compass of holy writ there is no passage even ap- 
 proaching the dogmatic precision with which, in a manner 
 approximating to the later ecclesiastical definitions, this one 
 asserts the immanent Trinity. Such a verse could not 
 have been omitted by inadvertence; for, even supposing 
 such a thing possible in a text of such moment, the absence 
 of the words ἐν τῇ γῇ of ver. 8 would still be inexplicable. 
 The omission must then have been intentional, and due to 
 the hand of a heretic. But would such an act have 
 remained uncondemned ; and were all our manuscripts pro- 
 duced by heretics or constructed from heretical copies? In 
 spite of my subjective conviction of the genuineness of the 
 λύειν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, I could not decide to receive this reading 
 into the text of ch. iv. 3; for our editions must, above all 
 things, keep close to the substance of the manuscripts. 
 But to preserve ch. v. 7 cannot by any means be justified. 
 The most acute argument that has been adduced to this 
 hour in its favour is represented by the venerable Bengel, 
 who asserts that here the analysis of the Epistle is summed 
 up in one point, the Trinity being the governing principle 
 of its arrangement. But we have found that an altogether 
 different analysis is the right one; and to us, therefore, this 
 
CHAP. V. 6—11. als 
 
 argument for the genuineness is neutralized. As to the 
 dogmatic shortsightedness which bewails in its loss the 
 removal of a prop for the doctrine of the absolute Trinity, 
 this might be expected in lay circles, but ought not to be 
 found among theologians. A doctrine which should depend 
 on one such utterance, and in its absence lose its main 
 support, would certainly be a very suspicious one. Omitting 
 the verse, we have in this very section the doctrine of the 
 Trinity just in the form in which Scripture generally pre- 
 sents it: the Father, who witnesses, ver. 9; the Son, who 
 is attested, ver. 6 seq.; the Holy Spirit, through whom the 
 Son is witnessed by the Father, ver. 6): the passage being 
 thus very similar to the narrative of our Lord’s baptism. 
 
 We have recognised that the leading idea of the entire 
 section, vers. 6-12, is that of the μαρτυρεῖν. The whole 
 Epistle rests upon faith in the Son of God: He is to be 
 exhibited in the fulness of His divine attestation; and it is 
 accomplished in such a way that vers. 6-9 present to us 
 the witnesses, vers. 10-12 the effects of the witness. This 
 and no other (hence the οὗτος at the outset, resuming 
 the subject of the preceding proposition) is He who came 
 with the powers of a new life which overcomes the world; 
 that is, the Jesus Christ already named. He came: the 
 aorist specifies His coming simply as an historical fact ; 
 not marking it as one accomplished event, as if it were 
 ἐληλυθώς, nor as something continuous, as if it were 
 ἐρχόμενος. The words must be taken in their strict 
 order and meaning: it is not ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, as if the 
 person were mentioned with a double nomen proprium, but 
 ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός ; the article before Χριστός, and only 
 before it, makes it a closer appellative definition of ’Incods, 
 Jesus who is the Messiah. The Messiahship of Jesus is 
 taken for granted; for nothing new concerning this is 
 asserted throughout the section, only the old is confirmed 
 afresh. Moreover, we do not read οὗτός ἐστιν ἐλθών, after 
 the manner of John i. 9, τὸ φῶς ἣν epyopuevov,—as if, for 
 the sake of more strongly emphasizing the verbal idea, the 
 copula were separated from the verb—but οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ 
 ἐλθὼν dv ὕδατος. 
 
914 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST, JONIN. 
 
 Thus the purport of the whole is this: You call Jesus 
 the Messiah ; and you are right in this, for it is He who 
 has in Himself the necessary and settled (mark the article) 
 sign of Messiahship: which is, that He has brought the 
 powers of renewal and atonement. By means (διά) of the 
 water and the blood He has come; and His coming is 
 comprehended in the water and the blood (év). If we 
 abidinely receive these powers of renewal and atonement, 
 then is He no longer ὁ ἐλθών : for here we must remember 
 that ἔρχεσθαι, spoken of Jesus, does not signify a mere 
 appearing or being born; but, on the ground of the Old 
 Testament, His manifestation as Saviour and Redeemer. 
 And, in very deed, He has the two necessary tokens of a 
 Saviour in Himself: not as it were only the one, that of 
 water (οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον). We saw above that in the 
 symbol of water the element of atonement as such is 
 wanting. It refers to the establishment of a new life, and 
 thus looks forward to the future and not back to the past. 
 Past sins are not washed away by water, but only by 
 blood ; for χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας οὐκ ἔστιν ἄφεσις. It is 
 true that this seems to be contradicted by Mark i. 4, where 
 the baptism of John is called βαπτισμὸς μετανοίας εἰς 
 ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτίων. But it is not really contradicted. The 
 baptism is expressly termed βαπτισμὸς μετανοίας, having 
 its character in the change of mind; and we have there- 
 fore to assume that the forgiveness of sins also comes as 
 the result of the change of mind. It is therefore such a 
 forgiveness of sins as took place in the case of David: 
 ‘viewed as in the future, on the ground of an atonement 
 hereafter to come. The expiatory element was by no 
 means involved in the baptism of John; it implied an act 
 of God’s grace standing in no necessary connection with 
 this ordinance. Sins were, in the baptism of John, as 
 generally down to the manifestation of Christ, placed 
 under the ἀνοχὴ tod Θεοῦ ; but a propitiation was not 
 connected with it, save symbolically through the shedding 
 of blood. Through that propitiation itself was man’s sin 
 done away in the sight of God; and hence it is the sign of 
 the true and only Saviour that He came οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι 
 
CHAP. V. 6--11. elo 
 
 μόνον GAN ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι. By the side of 
 this work of Christ, laying the foundation, comes in the 
 attesting and confirming work of the Spirit. Our Lord’s 
 work had its own confirmation in its power to renew and to 
 abolish guilt; but it receives a new and most express con- 
 firmation through the Spirit, whose only office is to witness 
 (τὸ μαρτυροῦν), and who possesses the fullest adaptation to 
 this office, inasmuch as He is ἡ ἀλήθεια, the compendium 
 of all truth. 
 
 But that which was to be attested is the subject of the 
 first clause, the fact which this testimony makes unassail- 
 ably secure to faith: ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χρίστος. It is 
 secure, for the condition is fulfilled to which the Mosaic 
 law attaches all security, the concurrence of three witnesses. 
 These are eis τὸ ἕν, converge to one goal, that is, the fact 
 already announced and the consequence deducible from it 
 (vers. 11, 12), that we possess in Jesus Christ eternal life. 
 Inasmuch as this goal has been already named, and is 
 known to the readers, it is not said that they merely agree 
 εἰς ἕν, but εἰς τὸ ἕν, that particular end with which the 
 whole was concerned. The mighty force of conviction 
 inherent in these testimonies rests emphatically on this, 
 that they are given not by men, but by God Himself, the 
 source of all truth, ver. 9. The comparison between human 
 and divine witness is suggested to the apostle by ver. 8, 
 in which he had referred to the fact that the testimony 
 adduced by him fulfilled the conditions demanded by valid 
 human testimony. It not only furnishes valid human 
 testimony ; it does more than that,—he goes on,—for it 
 springs from God. A corresponding development, funda- 
 mental for our passage, is found in John viii. 17 seq. 
 There, our Lord avers that in His case the requirements 
 were met which men are justified in demanding for the 
 guarantee of any truth; here, His apostle goes further, and 
 says that more than this is furnished for Christ. Therefore, 
 as men are wont to receive attested facts without contradic- 
 tion, and always thus to receive them (Ind. Pres.), so must 
 we yet more heartily yield our assent to truth. Thus the 
 μείζων does not refer to the matter of the testimony, as if 
 
316 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 the thing here attested were of greater and higher moment 
 than the things which men attest,—these latter being about 
 ἐπίγεια, While God vouches for ézrovpdvia,—but simply to 
 the trustworthiness of the witness. For, the apostle says, 
 the question is here essentially of nothing less than a 
 divine testimony (the emphasis falls on τοῦ Θεοῦ) ; the 
 witness of the Spirit, the water, and the blood of which we 
 speak (αὕτη, scil. ἡ μαρτυρία) is only the means by which 
 God Himself testifies. 
 
 The clause following these words with ὅτι is not to be 
 attached to them by ἥν : this appears certain from the evi- 
 dence of manuscripts, and is confirmed by internal argu- 
 ments; for, in the first place, we can easily understand the 
 lapsus oculorum, which might take up the ἥν of the similar 
 words of ver. 10 into our verse; and, secondly, this ἣν 
 produces at once the impression of being an explanatory 
 correction. For it is not obvious at first sight whether 
 the ὅτι here means “that” or “because.” If we take the 
 former, ὅτι is the unfolding of the preceding αὕτη, and 
 must be translated thus: “it is for us to receive the testi- 
 mony of God rather than the testimony of man, because 
 (the first ὅτω) it consists in this, that God has witnessed 
 concerning His Son.” Then the contents or the object of 
 the testimony would establish its higher trustworthiness. 
 But, as we have already remarked, it is impossible to see 
 what significance in that case there is in the contrast 
 between the witness of God and that of man. The divine 
 testimony is for its own sake, and not because it is given 
 to this or that fact, more trustworthy than human testi- 
 mony. In fact, we might deduce from this view the 
 inference that if God were to give His witness to anything 
 else, His witness would not be more strong than that of 
 man. Hence we must take the second ὅτι as causal, and 
 lay the emphasis on the μεμαρτύρηκε, to which, indeed, we 
 are led by its prominence in the order of the verse. The 
 meaning then is, that we must receive the witness of God 
 as greater than the witness of men; for (the first ὅτι) the 
 question is of a divine testimony, and God hath borne 
 witness concerning His Son. The first clause of the verse 
 
CHAP, Υ. 6-1:. eT 317 
 
 thus has two reasons assigned: the first confirms that the 
 matter is of G'od’s testimony, the second that it is of a 
 testimony of God. 
 
 When we go on to observe the injunction to the readers 
 to believe in this testimony, a difficulty arises from its 
 appearing that the witnesses mentioned speak only in the 
 believer. For in whom but the believer does the Spirit 
 speak concerning the Lord, and, to use the Lord’s own 
 word, glorify Him? and to whom does the water, the 
 renewing energies which proceed and have proceeded from 
 Christ, witness of Christ, but to him who finds evidence in 
 himself of these invigorating powers, and who is conscious 
 that he has received from Him every inspiration to a new 
 life? The same may be said of the witness of the αἷμα, 
 the atonement centred and rooted in Christ. Are not then 
 these witnesses superfluous, witnessing only to those who 
 already believe? Now such a contradiction as seems here 
 to emerge would not, apart from other considerations, be 
 intolerable; for it would not be greater in our passage than 
 in those which speak of our Lord being come as a light to 
 those who sit in darkness; while, on the other hand, those 
 only can hear His voice who are of the truth. But the 
 case is different here. If the subject were, as we presumed, 
 the witness of God in believers, it would not be, as we 
 read here, μεμαρτύρηκεν ὁ Θεός, but only μαρτυρεῖ. As 
 it is, the testimony of God must be a definite and closed 
 testimony, perfected in the past. And such it is in very 
 deed: that the powers of renewal and atonement lie summed 
 up and sealed in Christ, is indeed an historical fact. No 
 one with open eyes can possibly deny that all such energies 
 as have been manifest in the world have without exception 
 resulted from the name of Jesus Christ. No man can 
 gainsay that the Spirit sent to the apostles witnessed to 
 them on behalf of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Thus 
 the testimony of God in its threefold direction is not only 
 one that lives in individual believers, but it stands before 
 us as an incontrovertible historical fact. It is with faith 
 in this testimony of God as it is with faith in the miraculous 
 power indwelling in Christ and in Christianity, He who 
 

 
 918 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 has experienced the miracle of sinful man’s renewal needs 
 no other witness for the miracles which the Lord aforetime 
 wrought. But has not he to whom this is not a living 
 experience historically before him the great and undeniable 
 miracle that a sunken, dying, ruined world has been 
 awakened through Christ to a new life? ‘Thus, as this 
 one great, undeniable miracle is even to the unbeliever a 
 real demonstration of the miraculous power of Christ gene- 
 rally, so the historically undeniable witness of the water 
 and the blood and the Spirit is obligatory on all who have 
 not as yet experienced it in themselves. In a word, the 
 witnesses here adduced are valid not only to believers, but 
 also for unbelievers; they stimulate and invite faith; for 
 they are not only subjective in men’s hearts, but objective 
 also in history. 
 
 These observations make the progress of the thought 
 between vers. 6—9 on the one hand, and vers. 10-12 on 
 
 _ the other, quite clear. Vers. 6—9 treat of the witness of 
 
 God as of one that is historically present, completed, and 
 closed (μεμαρτύρηκεν). Then in ver. 10 the new thought 
 enters, that if we believe this objectively present testimony, 
 it becomes a subjective one which we find experimentally 
 in ourselves (ὃ πιστεύων ἔχει THY μαρτυρίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ). 
 But he who believes ποὺ (μή, for the participle is to be 
 conditionally understood, as it were, ἐὰν μή) makes God a 
 
 ' liar: he charges the historically present testimony of God 
 
 with falsehood. We see at once how in this proposition 
 we can again: expect only μεμαρτύρηκεν, and not pap- 
 τυρεῖν ; for the divine testimony, which has its realization 
 in man, the unbeliever has indeed not experienced. 
 
 Now follows the explicit statement of the substance of 
 the witness, which ver. 6 indicated only in few words. 
 That is to say, Jesus is generally attested as the Son of 
 God and the Messiah. At an earlier stage it was impressed 
 on us that these two ideas are regarded by St. John as 
 involved in each other, so that if He is said to be the 
 Messiah, He must be the Son of God; if the Son of God, 
 He must also be the Messiah. The idea Son of God or 
 that of Logos is not in our apostle a mere metaphysical 
 
CHAP. V. 19. 9519 
 
 description of what Christ is in Himself or in relation to 
 the Father: the idea in both its terms stands in an imme- 
 diate connection with the created universe. In the first 
 verses of the Gospel it is said that all becoming and all 
 being in the world proceed from the Logos,—the former, 
 the becoming, in ver. 3; the latter, the being, in ver. 4, 
 and it follows from this that He who is the medium of ζωὴ 
 αἰώνιος to the world must therefore be the Son of God; 
 and that the Son of God, because it is His to procure and 
 accomplish all, must also be the mediator of salvation,— 
 that is, the Son of God and the Messiah are in St. John’s 
 consciousness interchangeable ideas which necessitate each 
 other. Accordingly, the testimony which God here bears 
 concerning His Son cannot be a merely theoretical proposi- 
 tion, ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ; but it is a proposition 
 in which there les a thoroughly practical element: to wit, 
 that He, as the Son of God, is the Saviour of the world. 
 Thus it is accounted for that the two phrases are introduced 
 quite promiscue, as indicating the object of the testimony : 
 in ver. 6, ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός, the Messiahship of Jesus; in 
 vers. 9, 10, by the words περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, His divine 
 sonship. Finally, in ver. 11 both elements are placed in 
 correlation, and thus the whole is summed up. 
 
 
 
 VERSE 12. 
 
 ‘O ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν, ἔχει τὴν ζωήν" ὁ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ, τὴν ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει. 
 
 But the apostle does not only say that through Him, on 
 source of life, life has been brought to men generally, but 
 that it has been brought to us (ἡμῖν ἔδωκεν ὁ Θεός). For 
 it is taken for granted in this verse that the witness of | 
 God, the historically actual witness, has been received by | 
 us, and thus become ἃ μαρτυρία ἐν ἡμῖν (comp. ver. 10); | 
 in other words, that we have received our portion in the | 
 life brought by the Redeemer. The connection between the 
 Son of God and the life, declared in ver. 11, is then in 
 ver. 12 evolved under two aspects: where the Son of God 
 is, there is also life; and it is to be found only where He 
 is. And thus the apostle has come back to the idea which 
 
ον THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 he had laid down at the outset of his document; in ch. i. 1 
 he had declared that His annunciation concerned the Logos, 
 but as the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, that is, the divine and eternal 
 life which is in the Logos, and flows forth from Him. That 
 Son of God and life are correlative terms, is here obviously 
 the conclusion of all his development. 
 
 The conclusion it is; for that which now follows is not 
 a continuation of the discussion of ver. 6 seq.: that it is 
 not this is evident from the matter of what follows, in which 
 the μαρτυρεῖν no more appears; as well as from the em- 
 phasized resumption of the twelfth verse in the thirteenth, 
 a thing to be accounted for only on the ground that some- 
 thing new is about to be entered on. Nor is what follows 
 a new train of thought, which stands co-ordinately by the 
 side of the previous development. We have rather only a 
 recapitulation yet before us, in which, indeed, the apostle 
 expands one single thought, that of intercession, under one 
 aspect, intercession in regard to the sin unto death. That 
 this close of the whole Epistle falls again into two members 
 is evident at the first glance: vers. 13-17 and vers. 18-21 
 must be taken together; but it will require a discussion of 
 the details to show in what relation these two sub-sections 
 stand to each other. 
 
 VERSE 13. 
 
 Ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ 
 υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχετε, καὶ ἵνα 
 πιστεύητε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 First, we have to decide the reading of this verse. There 
 are three various forms which it assumes. The Lecept. 
 reads: ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς TO ὄνομα 
 τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτε ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον, καὶ 
 ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. The 
 manuscript form most generally accepted is that of Cod. 
 A: ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον ot 
 πιστεύοντες εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Finally, 
 Cod. B reads: ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε 
 αἰώνιον, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 The decision between these readings, especially between the 
 
CHAP, V. 14. oun 
 
 latter two, is, as to external arguments, difficult. The most 
 important question is here, of course, as to which of the 
 readings would most easily suggest the reason for the 
 origination of the others. Now, that is the third. If, 
 namely, the τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, according to Cod. B, stood 
 after the telic clause with ἵνα, we can easily understand 
 how it was that it came to be changed into the nominative, 
 —that is, to refer to the εἰδῆτε (as in Cod. A); and we can 
 also see how those transcribers who rightly viewed the 
 grammatical connection placed it before the intermediate 
 telic clause, immediately after the ἔγραψα ὑμῖν (as the 
 fecept.). The second clause with ἵνα, found in the Recept., 
 appears to have sprung from a gloss which the parallel 
 definition of purpose in the Gospel (ch. xx. 21) contained. 
 If we suppose the Recept. genuine, we eannot account for 
 the origination of the two other readings; nor will the 
 second of the two readings help us to explain how the first 
 and third arose. Then, if the third reading is the right 
 one, the closing words, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν x.T.r., may be com- 
 pared with John i. 12, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ 
 γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν K.T.X. Thus the aim of the Epistle 
 is the firm assurance of the readers that they have eternal 
 life; and both the writing and the establishment of this 
 assurance are designed only for those who believe in the 
 revelation (ὄνομα) of the Son of God, 
 
 VERSE 14, 
 
 \ e 5 \ e de , ἃ ” \ 3.4 “ 
 Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ παῤῥησία ἣν ἔχομεν πρὸς αὐτὸν, ὅτι 
 \ an 5 a 
 ἐάν τι αἰτώμεθα κατὰ TO θέλημα αὐτοῦ, ἀκούει ἡμῶν. 
 
 .---- 
 
 This assurance, that we are partakers of a true and divine - 
 
 life, produces in us παῤῥησία as it respects God,—the senti- 
 ment of unity with Him, and therefore of perfect freedom, 
 or the unrestrained and unreserved utterance of our whole 
 thought. But the apostle has not in view here, as in the 
 second division of the Epistle he had, the approval of this 
 confidence at the day of judgment. Here, at the close of 
 all, he points rather to the fruit which this parrhesia already 
 bears in our experience, in the confirmation even now of 
 our possession of the fw) αἰώνιος. It takes the form of 
 1 JOHN, x 
 
a2 TILE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 _Aonfidence in prayer, founded upon the assurance of being 
 heard. But prayer here comes into consideration only in its 
 intercessory character, as ver. 16 shows. This, however, 
 is not an isolated thought which is made prominent at this 
 point for practical reasons; it will be seen to correspond 
 with the general tone of the Epistle, when we reflect that it 
 regards the whole life of prayer as finding its deep expres- 
 sion in prayer for others. We have seen in previous exposi- 
 tions that St. John subsumes our whole religious life under 
 the one commandment of brotherly love; that he regards our 
 entire moral obligation as discharged in this precept; and 
 hence it is plain that there was to him no other prayer 
 imaginable than that which in its issue should be bound up 
 with our brethren. If I pray for my own person, it is that 
 I may become a living member of the kingdom of God; 
 but my place in the kingdom of God is conditioned by this, 
 that I am helpful to my brethren in that kingdom. Accord- 
 ingly, the final, at least the indirectly final, end of all prayer 
 —viewed from the point which connects our whole life 
 with the service of the divine kingdom—uust be prayer for 
 the salvation of our brethren. The κοινωνία μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων, 
 which it was the apostle’s aim in ch. i. 4 to help to its 
 perfection, is in its deepest principle fellowship in prayer. 
 ‘It is remarkable that at the close of several of the catholic 
 Epistles we find an exhortation to intercession for sinful 
 brethren. Compare the close of the Epistle of St. James 
 and 1 Pet. iv. 8, πρὸ πάντων τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπην 
 ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες, ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν. 
 We may appeal also to Rev. 11. 4, where it is the reproach 
 of this very Ephesian church ὅτε τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν πρώτην 
 ἀφῆκεν. Though, primarily, it is the love of God which 
 there is spoken of as grown cold, yet in our Epistle St. John 
 establishes so close a connection between the love of God 
 and the love of the brethren, that the coldness of the one 
 must needs draw after it, or with it, the coldness of the 
 other. 
 
 Our passage, and that of ch. iii. 21 to which it refers 
 back, are not the only ones in which the most intimate 
 connection is established between παῤῥησία and prayer. 
 
CHAP, V. 15. ave 
 
 We may compare also Eph. iii. 12, παῤῥησία καὶ προσα- 
 yoyn; and Heb. iv. 16, προσερχώμεθα μετὰ παῤῥησίας τῷ 
 θρόνῳ τῆς χάριτος. It must be carefully noted that the. 
 apostle does not write that the parrhesia consists in our 
 knowing that God hears us, but that it consists in this, that 
 God heareth us. And yet the parrhesia is a subjective * 
 feeling, while God’s hearing is an objective fact: now this 
 pregnant juxtaposition of the two ideas is intended to make 
 prominent the indissoluble connection between the Lord’s 
 hearing prayer and the joy of man in offering it. In all 
 cases in which God heareth, there is necessarily joyful confi- 
 dence in praying, and never otherwise; conversely, when- 
 ever there is this joyful confidence, there is also the ἀκούειν 
 of God. It is obvious, however, that supplication κατὰ τὸ 
 θέλημα αὐτοῦ is the presupposition both of the ἀκούειν and 
 of the παῤῥησία. By this, indeed, the apostle does not so 
 much mean to warn against carnal requests, such as the 
 sons of thunder addressed once to their Master and received 
 a rejecting answer; in the present connection, spiritual 
 things alone are concerned; the thought of external and 
 temporal matters of desire are far from the apostle’s mind; 
 and to introduce them here would be to bring a perfectly 
 foreign element into the train of thought. Ver. 6 sheds 
 the true light on our passage: there is a certain kind of 
 prayer even in spiritual matters which is not according to 
 the divine will; which, therefore, is neither heard by God 
 nor offered with perfect confidence by man. 
 
 VERSE 15. 
 
 Καὶ ἐὰν οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀκούει ἡμῶν, ὃ ἂν αἰτώμεθα, οἴδαμεν 
 ὅτι ἔχομεν τὰ αἰτήματα ἃ ἠτήκαμεν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ. 
 
 We must, however, consider more carefully the idea of 
 God’s hearing. Are we to limit it to mere hearing, or to 
 regard it as a hearing with approval and intent to answer, 
 hearing and granting being one? The fifteenth verse seems 
 to plead for the former ; for there the hearing comes first, 
 and afterwards the ἔχειν τὰ αἰτήματα, or the granting of 
 the request. But, on the other hand, this general meaning 
 of the ἀκούειν has its difficulty: in this sense the God ds 
 
ς 
 
 924 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 γινώσκει tavta (ch. iii. 21) hears all prayers, even those 
 which are not according to His will; consequently this 
 indefinite kind of hearing could never impart confidence in 
 the petitioner. Moreover, it is remarkable that St. John, 
 and he only, employs this very word ἀκούειν in the sense 
 of hearing favourably or granting; comp. John ix. 31, 
 xi. 41, 42. As to the fifteenth verse, we have only to 
 interpret it rightly. It does not mean to indicate the 
 unity of the hearing and the granting of petitions; but the 
 unity of the being heard with acceptance and the reception 
 of what is supplicated. Many petitions κατὰ τὸ θέλημα 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ are outwardly granted, it may be, after a long 
 season ; so granted that their acceptance appears manifest. 
 But—and this is the pith of the apostle’s declaration—faith 
 has the thing asked, which probably will not be granted 
 externally for a long time, already inwardly in possession 
 at the moment of asking: in the consciousness that God 
 hears, there is to this believing petitioner the actual éyew 
 Ta αἰτήματα, the possession of the thing asked, though it 
 
 __may be for a season only in internal experience. As the 
 
 Christian hope brings the Christian man immediately into 
 possession of the thing hoped for,—so that by virtue of the 
 very hope itself he may inwardly rejoice in the experience 
 of the object hoped for as his own,—so the believing peti- 
 tioner needs not to wait for the time to come when the 
 fulfilment of his prayer will be an external reality: he has 
 what he asks, he enjoys it already, before he actually sees 
 it. To sum up all: the parrhesia which, within the limits 
 of the present life, a Christian may have, is indeed primarily 
 only a confidence in prayer and an alacrity for prayer (ch. 
 iii. 20),— that is, it does not rest so much upon the having 
 as upon the possibility of future having, upon the fact that 
 the door is opened into all the treasures of heaven. Never- 
 theless there is, on the other hand, a present sense of 
 having, though it be only in faith and not in sight; for 
 there is a full assurance of the absolutely necessary attain- 
 ment of the request, which is no other than an internal 
 
 _and spiritual possession of it already. Believing, we have 
 
 already eternal life,—that is, fellowship with God (ver. 13); 
 
CHAP. V. 16. 920 
 
 in believing prayer we have—that is, more particularly, in 
 believing intercession—already perfect fellowship with our 
 brethren as members of the kingdom of God (ver. 14 seq.). 
 
 
 
 VERSE 16. 
 
 "Edy τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν 
 μὴ πρὸς θάνατον, αἰτήσει, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ ἕωὴν, τοῖς ἁμαρ- 
 τάνουσι μὴ πρὸς θάνατον" ἔστιν ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον" οὐ 
 περὶ ἐκείνης λέγω ἵνα ἐρωτήσῃ" : 
 
 What follows shows that intercession has for its aim the 
 winning of our brethren for the kingdom of God. But, 
 before we look closely at the link between vers. 16, 17 
 and what precedes, we must examine the meaning of the 
 verses themselves. What are we to understand by the 
 ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον! At the outset it is clear that 
 the apostle has in view sin which irrevocably shuts the 
 gates of eternal life, the consequence of which is death in its — 
 most awful character. That there is such a sin, or that 
 there are such sins, is affirmed by the New Testament in 
 other places (Matt. xii. 31 and parallels; Heb. vi. 4 seq.) ; 
 and this lies at the foundation of all such passages as pro- 
 claim an eternal condemnation. What is peculiar and 
 startling in our passage is this, that our intercession is made 
 to depend upon the question whether or not the sin is πρὸς 
 τὸν θάνατον, thus indicating that its character as such may 
 be and is discernible by us. Now our possible knowledge 
 of this absolutely mortal kind of sin may be fairly questioned. 
 In Matt. xii. our Lord sees the Pharisees in the manifest 
 act of committing ὦ sin, or the sin unto death, πρὸς θάνατον 
 (which of the two let us at present leave undecided), 
 because they would assign His works to the inspiration of 
 Beelzebub ; but, on the other hand, He prays for His 
 murderers, and therefore did not, according to our present 
 passage, regard the sin unto death as consummate in them: 
 now in these cases would not human eyes have judged the 
 very opposite? Saul heard the rejecting words of the 
 prophet, while David’s sin was forgiven; but according to 
 appearances, and therefore so far as men could judge, was 
 not David’s sin much heavier than the sin of Saul? And, 
 
326 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIIN. 
 
 to speak generally, it is impossible to decide confidently the 
 greater or less alienation of a sinner from eternal life on 
 the ground of the more or less violent demonstration of his 
 sin as an act. For, even as a hardened sinner may be 
 brought round by the divine grace and saved from destruc- 
 tion, so may a man, devout in the eyes of his fellows, 
 become perfectly reprobate to everything divine. Or are 
 we to assume that there is one definite and definable sin 
 which is absolutely πρὸς θάνατον! But would not the 
 apostle, in that case, have taken care to warn against it, 
 and to mention it by name? Would he not at least have 
 written ἔστιν ἁμαρτία τις or μέα ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον ? 
 These difficulties can be solved only by observing what St. 
 John elsewhere teaches concerning the ideas lying before 
 us: first, that of the sin; and, secondly, that of the prayer. 
 
 As to the former, it is demonstrable that St. John 
 measures all sin by the relation it assumes to Jesus Christ. 
 In John i. 5 he describes sin to the effect that the σκοτία 
 τὸ φῶς οὐ κατέλαβε, and thus places it in direct opposition 
 to the light which appeared in Christ. Our Lord says, in 
 John viii. 24, ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν. ᾿Εὰν 
 γὰρ μὴ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρ- 
 tla ὑμῶν. He thereby assigns the real ground of death 
 —that is, of eternal death—to the state of unbelief towards 
 Himself. Finally, in John xvi. 9, He defines the judgment 
 or conviction of the Spirit to be this, that He ἐλέγξει τὸν 
 κόσμον περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ; and what sin He has in view 
 appears plain from the subsequent words, 67s οὐ πιστεύουσιν 
 εἰς ewe. In our Epistle, St. John defines the nature of the 
 Antichrist, who is, however, the Pauline ἄνθρωπος τῆς 
 ἁμαρτίας, the incarnation of sin, as that of one who denieth 
 the Son, ch. ἢ. 21; and also, in ch. iv. 3, as that of one 
 who λύει ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα. From all 
 this we must infer that the essential sin, which makes all 
 other sin to be sin, is in the apostle’s estimation unbelief 
 in our Lord. And no doctrine is more firmly established 
 in the New Testament than this, that we shall hereafter 
 be judged by the relation in which we stand to the Son. 
 According to the measure in which any act betrays the 
 
CHAP. V. 16. OE 
 
 mark that this relation subsists aright, or does not yet 
 subsist, or has ceased to subsist, according to the measure 
 in which any action confirms, or interrupts, or entirely 
 dissolves this relation, is the value of that action and its 
 estimation before the divine judgment-seat. 
 
 Accordingly, the sin unto death can be no other doe 
 consummate enmity to Christ. It is obvious how perfectly 
 this thought is in accordance with the tenor of our Epistle: 
 the kingdom of the world and the kingdom of God, Christ 
 and Antichrist, life and death, are the fundamental ideas 
 and inseparable antitheses which govern it throughout. But 
 however clear it is, that in harmony with his general views 
 St. John might have regarded unbelief in Christ as the con- 
 clusive and consummate sin, yet this is not here expressly 
 stated ; the words have too general a bearing to be a mere 
 paraphrase of “ Antichrist ;” they lead our minds rather to 
 practical errors than to an intellectual ἀρνεῖσθαι. More- 
 over, while the antichrists, according to the second chapter, 
 certainly ἐξῆλθαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, they are at the present time 
 sundered from the church, and no longer are regarded as 
 belonging to it; and those who are the ἁμαρτάνοντες πρὸς 
 θάνατον are supposed to be still living in the bosom of the 
 community. The sinner is described as an ἀδελφός ; and we 
 have seen that throughout the Epistle this name indicates 
 Christians alone. The world comes into St. John’s view in 
 this document only as to be avoided ; the intercession which 
 may be urged on behalf also of the children οἱ the world is 
 never alluded to here. Thus we have reached the twofold) 
 result: first, that, on the one hand, St. John must, in har- 
 mony with his whole system of thought, have regarded the 
 determinate sin as apostasy from Christ; and, on the other, 
 that he here at least speaks not of any theoretical denial οἵ, 
 Him, and not of any external apostasy. We must not, 
 therefore, accept the sin unto death and the antichrist 
 nature as ideas of the same exact import. 
 
 Let us, for the sake of a more thorough understanding 
 of the matter, look at the development of sin in men 
 generally. If every man is consigned in biblical teaching 
 either to salvation or perdition according to his conduct 
 
328 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 during his bodily life, it is clear that he must on earth 
 have become ripe for one or the other; that no man dies 
 without being a child of heaven or a child of hell. The 
 latter case is then only possible when the accesses of the 
 converting grace of God are effectually closed, and every 
 possibility of its influence cut off; for, so long as this is 
 not the case, the final decision and full maturity cannot be 
 predicated. In other words, every organ for the reception 
 of the Spirit of participation in the kingdom of God must 
 have withered and died; and that moment in which the 
 decision follows, in which the evil principle attains the 
 absolute supremacy, is that which is the essentially con- 
 demning crisis. That act, external or internal, which in 
 this crisis is consummate, is the ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον : 
 the sin, which finishes irrevocably the soul’s death. It is 
 involved in this, that no deed as such, in virtue of its 
 external character and quality, is the ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον; 
 for no sin—be it named what it may—is in itself too great 
 for the mercy and the might of the Lord; but a sin be- 
 comes the ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον in virtue of the interior 
 quality out of which it springs and of which it gives the 
 fatal evidence. Such a central position, one that deter- 
 mines the whole life of man through eternity, can be 
 assumed by no sin of infirmity; only a sin of presumptuous 
 wickedness, that is, such a sin as is committed in spite of 
 the power to resist it—such a sin as man commits not only 
 in resistance to the protest of conscience, but in contempt 
 of the gracious power proffered to avoid it,—such a sin as he 
 is not seduced into, but commits in the pure love of sinning: 
 thus it is not simply a human sin, but sin that is essentially 
 devilish. 
 
 The Old Testament analogue of our ἁμαρτία πρὸς 
 θάνατον is found in those passages where sins 7127 7°32 are 
 spoken of, on which rests the curse, 90722 NN} W537, Ἐχ- 
 communication from the people of God was in the old 
 covenant what now exclusion from the kingdom of God is. 
 Thus every sinful act may be an ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον, 
 while no act is such in itself; hence the apostle does not 
 use the article, nor could he use it. Ἔστιν ἁμαρτία πρὸς 
 
CHAP. V. 16. 329 
 
 θάνατον : in the domain of sin there is such a kind as is 
 absolutely mortal. But when Christ calls Himself the door 
 of the kingdom of God, ὁ ἔχων τὴν κλεῖδα τοῦ Δαβίδ, ὁ 
 ἀνοίγων καὶ οὐδεὶς κλείει, καὶ κλείει καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀνοίγει, it is 
 plain that absolute death can be reached only when all. 
 relation to Him is broken off. If the apostle, as we have 
 seen, thinks here of members of the congregation, the sin 
 unto death can consist only in their having internally and 
 in act—if it were externally done, and by words, they 
 would indeed be no longer members of the congregation 
 —burst the last bond of their fellowship with Christ. 
 According to John 1. 14, Christ brought grace and truth. 
 As truth the antichrists rejected Him, as grace the sinners 
 unto death: more precisely, the antichrists were introduced 
 by the apostle in the aspect of their rejection of Christ the 
 truth ; and the sinners unto death in the aspect of their 
 rejection of the grace. 
 
 This extended observation has demonstrated that sin 
 unto death does not signify any definite external form of 
 sin, but the sin through which the internal link between 
 God and man is severed and the gulf fixed absolutely. 
 But this infers how difficult it must be to discern whether 
 any man can in such a sense have sinned πρὸς θάνατον or 
 not. How then can it be introduced as a test for the 
 offering or the withholding of our intercessory prayer? If 
 this question is not solved by studying the idea of ἁμαρτία 
 πρὸς θάνατον, it may be solved by studying the nature of 
 the prayer. In His last discourses our Lord exhibits 
 prayer in His name as something that the disciples had 
 never hitherto exercised, but which must be unconditionally 
 answered with acceptance. The promise is perfectly un- 
 restricted; if one single exception were possible, the promise 
 would be invalidated. On the other hand, Scripture testi- 
 fies that many men enter into the way of eternal death: 
 is not a prayer ever to be offered up to heaven on their 
 behalf? According to the Lord’s word it stands eternally 
 fast, that 7f such prayer ever did go up ἐν ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ, 
 ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ, as our passage terms it, that is, if the peti- 
 tioner ceased to be the mere man, but were the Spirit of 
 
4) 
 
 330 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 Jesus Christ dwelling in him, and moving his heart to such 
 intercessory prayer; thus, if his petitions were like the 
 petitions of the Lord Himself, already in their essence 
 thanksgivings,—these all being the signs of prayer in the 
 name of Jesus,—then must his supplication be heard and 
 answered, and it were impossible that the soul interceded 
 for should perish. It follows, conversely, that if a soul 
 perishes, that soul has never been thus prayed for, and 
 never could have been thus prayed for. Many petitions, 
 indeed, in the ordinary and more general sense may have 
 been offered for him,—such petitions, for instance, as we 
 offer for temporal things, uttering our wishes as children to 
 our heavenly Father,—but not prayers in the name or in 
 the person of Christ, in the full and inwrought conscious- 
 ness that they are heard, not such prayers as offer violence 
 to the kingdom of heaven. Prayers of the higher order like 
 these are, however, the proper Christian prayers, and such 
 are inwrought of God alone; but He cannot inspire them 
 in regard to men concerning whom He knows that they 
 will perish. 
 
 Such considerations as these will help to make our verse 
 / intelligible. The apostle says that if any man sees τὸν 
 ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ, his own brother bound to him by the bonds 
 of the most interior love, sinning,—dpaptiay ἁμαρτάνειν is 
 quite general, without limitation to any particular kind of 
 sin,—and has the conviction (the subjective μή is used) 
 that the sin is not unto death, then—and now follows not 
 an exhortation, but a declaration—he will pray, he will, 
 simply because it is his brother, feel himself constrained to 
 pray for him. We must not interpret the future αἰτήσει, 
 like the futures of the ten commandments, as the strongest 
 form of the imperative speech; for it must certainly be 
 understood in the same sense as the future δώσει near at 
 hand, and that would not tolerate any such imperative 
 meaning. A Christian, the apostle tells us, cannot do 
 otherwise than run by intercession to the help of an erring 
 brother. And, as definitely as this prayer will be offered, 
 the result of it will also be definite, δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν. The 
 subject in δώσει cannot be God; that would be harsh, in 
 
CHAP, V. 17. 90. 
 
 immediate view of the preceding αἰτήσει, which has man 
 for the subject, especially as God is not mentioned any- 
 where else in the whole verse. Nor is the thought that 
 man may by his prayer give life to his brother a repellent 
 one ; in Jas. v. 20, and in a perfectly similar connection, we 
 read that σώσει ψυχὴν ἐκ θανάτου. We have here, there- 
 fore, no direct contradiction to the seemingly opposite state- 
 ment that no man can redeem his brother; for believing 
 prayer, and consequently its result also, the δοῦναι ζωήν, 
 rests essentially on divine operation, and impulse from 
 above. The expression δώσει ζωήν shows, however, how 
 the ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον must be taken; to wit, that a 
 sin so named is left to death zrredeemable. In a sense, 
 every sin must be exposed to death, otherwise there would 
 be no giving of life to be thought of. The explanatory 
 words. that follow, τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον, 
 introduce really nothing new, for the preceding conditional 
 clause has already brought forward the same element; but 
 the repetition is intended to impress more deeply on the 
 readers two things: first, by means of the plural τοῖς 
 ἁμαρτάνουσι, that the result indicated will: follow, not in 
 isolated cases, but in every one; and, secondly, that the 
 limitation must be ever remembered which is bound up 
 with it, μὴ πρὸς θάνατον. 
 
 VeRSE 17. 
 
 Πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστὶ, καὶ ἔστιν ἁμαρτία ov πρὸς 
 θάνατον. 
 
 What had been in the previous words indirectly said, 
 that there are two altogether different kinds of sin, sin 
 unto death and sin not unto death, St. John now in what 
 follows directly declares, ἔστιν ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον Kat 
 ἔστιν ἁμαρτία ov πρὸς θάνατον. That these two clauses are 
 thus connected is not generally acknowledged ; still less is 
 it the common view that the words πᾶσω ἀδικία ἁμαρτία 
 ἐστίν are to be linked with what precedes instead of with 
 what follows. Nevertheless, this view is absolutely neces- 
 sary. That the two clauses just mentioned correspond to 
 each other in their entire construction, and are in thought 
 
Son THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 fitted to each other, scarcely needs any demonstration ; it is, 
 in any case, enforced upon us when we observe that the 
 proposition πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστίν cannot belong to 
 what comes after. If it did so, we should scarcely see what 
 induced St. John to introduce here the idea of ἀδικία: this 
 idea not only has no organic connection with the proposi- 
 tion that all sin is not sin unto death, but it is decisively 
 foreign to it, and somewhat discordant. We should be 
 obliged to take it only in a concessive way: “it is true that 
 all ἀδικία is sin; do not think too tenderly concerning 
 ἀδικία, it also is sin ;” but we should expect to read, “it is 
 not sin unto death.” That, however, we do not read, but only 
 that there is sin which is not unto death. The idea of 
 ἀδικία is therefore at once dropped again ; and it is entirely 
 irrelevant to the proposition ἔστιν ἁμαρτία οὐ πρὸς θάνατον. 
 Are we indeed to suppose that the apostle felt himself 
 called to occupy himself with teaching here, in an inci- 
 dental way and without any necessity, the relation of ἀδικία 
 to ἁμαρτία 2 
 ~All is changed, if we connect the words with what goes 
 | before: there zs sin unto death, but to this (mark the 
 emphatic περὶ ἐκείνης coming first) my words do not refer ; 
 you cannot suppose it the design of my words (οὐ λέγω iva) 
 to recommend intercession concerning i¢. There are indeed 
 “other cases quite enough, he proceeds, to which your inter- 
 cessory prayer may find application, πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία 
 ἐστίν; wherever there is any measure of unrighteous- 
 ness, there is sin, and the fit occasion therefore for interces- 
 sion. Thus the apostle really says that there are sins unto 
 death and sins not unto death. To the former of these two 
 propositions there are added two parenthetical explanations: 
 concerning these sins unto death St. John’s exhortation 
 does not treat, he does not speak of them; and the range 
 of sin for which intercession may be valid is otherwise 
 large enough. ‘This is the general bearing of the clauses ; 
 they can be fully understood only through a close investiga- 
 tion of the idea involved in ἀδικία. 
 ᾿Αδικία and ἁμαρτία are often regarded as synonyms 
 varied simply in order to define the nature of sin on ali 
 
CHAP. V. 17. ΘΝ 
 
 sides: for example, in Heb. viii. 12, ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς 
 ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν, Kal TOV ἁμαρτιῶν Kal τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν 
 οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ, where obviously there is no consideration of 
 the distinction in the three expressions respectively. But 
 there are passages where this distinction comes into pro- 
 minence. ‘Advxéa is the antithesis of δικαιοσύνη, as well 
 in the sense of justitia distributiva as in that of justitia 
 interna. The former antithesis we find in Rom. ix. 14, μὴ 
 ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ; and 2 Cor: xii. 13, χαρίσασθέ μοι 
 τὴν adixiav,—that is, pardon me if in this I have been 
 unjust, and dealt with you in a manner not correspondent 
 with justitia distributiva. But we find ἀδικία much oftener 
 used as the antithesis to justitia interna, internal righteous- 
 ness; and in this sense only is it a synonym of ἁμαρτία: 
 in the former sense it is only one species of ἁμαρτία as a— 
 genus. As δικαιοσύνη is one of St. Paul’s fundamental 
 ideas, it is in his writings that we find ἀδικία most 
 frequently occurring. For its relation to ἁμαρτία we may 
 consult Rom. vi. 13, as a leading passage, μὴ παριστάνετε 
 τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα ἀδικίας TH ἁμαρτίᾳ. Unrighteousness 
 uses the body of man as the means by which it declares 
 itself: this is certainly the sense of ὅπλα, even though we 
 should leave undisturbed its proper signification. And the 
 end of this employment of men’s members, its result—thus 
 we accept the dative—is the ἁμαρτία. This latter, there- 
 fore, is the full expression im fact of that former, the form 
 under which the ἀδικία in every particular case appears ; 
 ἀδικία is the mind which suggests the meaning of ἁμαρτία, 
 and what it presupposes. 
 
 We are carried one step further by the comparison of 
 ἀδικία and ἀνομία. Δικαιοσύνη is the ideal which man 
 should set before him, and ἀδικία is disharmony with that ; 
 but ἀνομία is not simply the falling below a standard or 
 ideal, it is also a violation of right. The idea of obligation 
 is wanting in the ἀδικία, but it is present in ἀνομία; the 
 notion of guilt inheres in ἀνομία, but not in ἀδικία. This 
 latter presents the condition of man as one opposed to per- 
 fection; ἀνομία at the same time suggests that it is one of 
 guilt, because it is παράβασις. If the νόμος makes sin 
 
994 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 exceeding sinful, then ἀνομία is the definition of this deepest 
 and most aggravated aspect of sin. 
 
 Γ From what has been said, it now appears that ἁμαρτία 
 
 marks out the individual act, or even the total character , 
 of the man, as evil; while ἀδικία and ἀνομία indicate the 
 point of view from which it is thus evil,—that is, either 
 
 »as it is discordant with the idea of δικαιοσύνη, or as it 
 
 is violation of positive law, the νόμος. When St. John 
 
 ‘teaches that πᾶσα ἀδικία ἐστιν ἁμαρτία, he intends to say 
 
 that every instance of declension from the normal character 
 
 of the Christian, from the Christian ideal, is realized and 
 _condensed into ἁμαρτία. No man can be ἄδικος without 
 
 doing ἀδικία ; and the doing of unrighteousness is simply 
 ἁμαρτία. The proposition here laid down is in principle 
 equivalent to saying that the corrupt tree must bring forth 
 evil fruits; only that here more emphasis is laid on the 
 fact that a// unrighteousness, everything not right, that is 
 in man, is at the same time ἁμαρτία or positive sin. 
 Every defect of righteousness is concurrently absolute sin ; 
 every negative must suggest its corresponding positive ; 
 every minus of righteousness employ a plus of sin. Thus 
 
 _the proposition πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστίν indicates how 
 
 wide a range the idea of sin has. While the definition of 
 each sin as ἀνομία, ch. 111. 4, enlarges the meaning of the 
 idea ἁμαρτία, our present sentence enlarges its compre- 
 hension or range. And thus this proposition is well 
 adapted to the purpose of showing how little the apostle, 
 speaking of intercession, could have thought of sin unto 
 death: there are, indeed, so many sins with regard to 
 which intercession may be applied, that the sin for which 
 it has no validity may be left altogether out of notice. 
 
 If this, then, is the meaning of our two verses, it is 
 plain that St. John neither says nor purposes to say 
 anything about the nature of these sins πρὸς θάνατον : all 
 he emphasizes is, that intercession and its fruit avail only 
 for sins not unto death. Intercession has only to do with 
 them: that is the deeply important presupposition of the 
 writer, never too much to be considered. That is, when 
 he says ἐών tis ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα μὴ 
 
CHAP. V. 17. 339 
 
 πρὸς θάνατον αἰτήσει καὶ δώσει, this takes for granted that, 
 while only in this case, yet certainly in this case, he has 
 confidence in the intercession being heard. If he had 
 meant to say that only in this case intercession would be 
 heard, he must have written either ἐάν tis ἴδῃ Kal αἰτήσῃ, 
 δώσει or ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἁμαρτάνοντα, αἰτήσει καὶ 
 δώσει ζωὴν τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι μὴ πρὸς θάνατον ; but, as he 
 places the ἁμαρτάνειν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον in the premiss and 
 - the airjoe in the conclusion, his meaning can be only 
 this, that prayer must be offered only in case there is no 
 sin unto death involved. The same follows also from the 
 proposition, ov περὶ ἐκείνης λέγω ἵνα ἐρωτήσῃ. If these 
 words of the apostle do not make prayer for sin unto death 
 an end, it follows that there was no such prayer, for an end 
 always refers to the attainment of something not present ; 
 if he had purposed to inhibit prayer that might be hesitating 
 as to the sin unto death, he must have said λέγω ἵνα μή 
 and not οὐ λέγω ἵνα. 
 
 After having thus discussed the details, let us once 
 more glance at the general connection. Supposing a right 
 state of heart (ver. 13), there may be confidence in prayer 
 (ver. 14), in ¢hat prayer which has in itself the assur- 
 ance that it is heard (ver. 15). And hence (as the future 
 αἰτήσει asserts) that must and will be offered wherever 
 it 1s possible, that is, in regard to sins not unto death. 
 How then, in the apostle’s meaning, is the sin not unto 
 death to be discerned? By this, that for it and only for 
 it are we to pray,—that is, in the sense of ver. 15, in 
 the name of Jesus and peta παῤῥησίας. Such prayer as 
 this is in the case of sins unto death impossible. For as it | 
 is essential to this prayer that it has its energy in God, | 
 and accords perfectly with His will, it can never be offered | 
 where a man has fallen hopelessly into ruin: when, generally, 
 aman is lost, while this takes place undoubtedly through 
 an act of self-determination, it is also according to God’s | 
 will, and God cannot possibly by His Spirit prompt to 
 prayer which is contrary to His will. Presupposing that 
 we have the true Christian feeling,—and this presupposition 
 impresses the whole of the conclusion of the Epistle,—I 
 
336 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 must feel myself urged to intercede for an erring brother ; 
 and when I have this impulse, this constitutes the 
 assurance that his sin is not unto death: in regard to a 
 sin unto death, I may indeed entertain good wishes for a 
 brother, but never offer prayer ἐν ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ, μετὰ 
 παῤῥησίας. And where this strong confidence of petition 
 is wanting to the Christian, who as such is filled with 
 vehement brotherly love, and is conscious of freedom from 
 every personal impulse, οὐ λέγω ἵνα αἰτήσῃ: he must not 
 think himself urged by the apostle’s words, misunderstand- 
 ing those words, to offer such a prayer; he must not 
 stimulate his heart to that. Thus our passage is made 
 most aptly to accord with what we have discerned to be 
 the issue of the biblical teaching generally, and specially 
 the Johannaean. St. John gives no external mark of the sin 
 unto death; for this it cannot have, inasmuch as it is not 
 the nature of the sin, but that of the sinner, that stamps its 
 signature on sin unto death. He says only that where 
 there is no sin unto death the Christian (the presupposal 
 that he is a true Christian must be made very emphatic) 
 will offer the true and all-acceptable intercession: wherever, 
 then, such a prayer issues from the full heart there can 
 certainly be no sin unto death. But he says nothing 
 positively as to our relation to sinners unto death: he only 
 declares that he does not exhort to intercession for them ; 
 they are for the rest altogether left out of his consideration. 
 Nevertheless, it is plain, however indirectly plain, as well 
 from these words as from the nature of the case, that for 
 such sinners the prayer of acceptance is utterly out of the 
 question.’ 
 
 1 So far as concerns the general apprehension of our text, comparison with 
 the passages of the Gospels respecting the sin against the Holy Spirit, and 
 that of the Epistle to the Hebrews respecting those who cannot be renewed 
 to repentance, is, strictly speaking, irrelevant. Nevertheless it is an 
 interesting question whether the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and 
 apostasy from grace received are of the same import, and of the same import 
 and comprehension as the sin unto death ; or whether this last is the genus 
 of which the others are species. For, that all blasphemy against the Holy 
 Ghost is an ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον seems certain, because the impossibility of 
 
 forgiveness certainly involves everlasting death ; and the same may be said 
 of Heb. vi. But the sins marked out in these passages might be individual 
 
CHAP. V. 18. 30 
 
 VERSE 18. 
 
 Οἴδαμεν ὅτι πᾶς ὃ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐχ ἁμαρ- 
 Taver adr ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τηρεῖ ἑαυτὸν, καὶ ὁ 
 πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ. 
 
 We have the close of the Epistle in vers. 13-17. What 
 the Christian receives for himself, the ζωὴ αἰώνιος in faith, 
 and what it confers on him for the benefit of the brethren, 
 that is, the power to bring them into the kingdom of God 
 by intercession, has been fully and conclusively exhibited. 
 The three verses that follow, which bespeak their internal 
 connection by the thrice-repeated resumption of the οἴδαμεν 
 at the beginning of the clauses, give a kind of recapitulation 
 of the three constitutive elements out of which the happy 
 estate of Christians has been constructed, as in the exposi- 
 tion of the whole Epistle so particularly in the summary of 
 
 expressions of the sin unto death Ly the side of others. It is not so, how- 
 ever; but we have in all three places only diverse expressions of one thing ; 
 they all have the same range and extent. As it respects Matt. xii. 31 and 
 the parallels, this is proved by the circumstance that these passages and our 
 present one look back to the same Old Testament fundamental declarations 
 concerning the sins 799 3°23 which are followed by excision. More exactly, 
 
 Matt. xii. 31 refers back to Num. xv. 30. The Septuagint translates 543 
 
 there by βλασφημεῖν; and the Peschito gives for the βλασφημία of Matt. 
 xii, 31 the word standing in Num. xy. in the form of ppjiq33, Now, if 
 
 Num. xv. is the original text for Matt. xii., that is very important for the 
 meaning of βλασφημεῖν in the latter. That is to say, in Numbers, sins not 
 of word but of act are alluded to, and we must therefore take βλασφημεῖν in 
 the wider sense; accordingly in Matt. xii. also the blasphemy against the 
 Holy Ghost is intended not of words only, but also of actions. Indeed, it 
 follows from this passage itself that the βλασφημία rod πνεύματος is possible 
 without the Spirit being mentioned : the Pharisees were in danger of com- 
 mitting this in the words they had spoken before, in which the Holy Ghost 
 does not occur. To blaspheme the Spirit means to aseribe to the evil spirit 
 that which men might and must acknowledge to be the work of the Holy 
 Ghost ; to ascribe it to the evil spirit against their knowledge and conscience, 
 and thus deliberately to harden themselves against the operation of the Spirit. 
 And this very sinning in spite of the knowledge of the truth and the power 
 to follow it, this hardening, is meant in Heb. vi. But all this is essentially 
 the same which, as we have seen, St. John here signifies by the ἁμαρτία πρὸς; 
 éévarov: for he alone falls unsalvably and irremediably into death who 
 refuses the power of life brought near to him, and absolutely closes his heart 
 against it. 
 
 1 JOHN. δ 
 
338 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 the three previous verses. The first point of importance is 
 to seize the relation of the three clauses to each other. As 
 the γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ of ver. 18 and the εἶναι ἐκ 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ of ver. 19 mean essentially the same thing, the 
 element that distinguishes the two thoughts must lie in the 
 second half of the two clauses severally: as to the former, 
 the emphasis rests on this, that the child of God does not 
 sin; as to the latter, on this, that the world lieth in the 
 wicked one. The substance of the first two verses is there- 
 tore to this effect: that one born of God is as such with- 
 \ drawn from sin and the devil; and that one born of God as 
 such stands in opposition to the world subjected to the 
 devil and sin. For the conjunction of the two propositions 
 οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐκ TOD Θεοῦ ἐσμεν and ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ 
 πονηρῷ κεῖτων can yield no other meaning than that, in 
 virtue of our assurance touching our being born of God, 
 we know ourselves to be in contrast and opposition to the 
 ungodly world. It would be more in formal harmony 
 with the phraseology of St. John to regard the second 
 clause as not dependent on οἴδαμεν ὅτι, taking it as 
 an independent proposition; but as to the thing itself, it 
 is understood that the evil of the world is also known 
 to us. 
 
 The first part of ver. 18 is both in substance and in 
 form a resumption of ch. iii. 9a. The apostle is not con- 
 cerned about what the Christian may be at any supposed 
 period of his militant course, but about what he is according 
 to his vocation and the end of his development. The sin- 
 lessness and the perfect antithesis in which he stands to 
 the world are not found in the whole of his history, but 
 are the result of that history. As we during our stage of 
 development still have sin in us, so also the world is not at 
 first wholly surrendered to the power of darkness, but the 
 power of light still more or less works in it; it will, how- 
 ever, finally come to this, that on its part there will be total 
 night, and on the part of the children of God absolute day 
 and light. Concerning this relation between us, which 
 more and more clearly works itself out, we have already 
 the knowledge (οἴδαμεν), we know it as the true and the 
 
CHAP. V. 19. 309 
 
 right relation. The second part of ver. 18 does not form, 
 like the first, a resumption of a previous statement: it is 
 true that τηρεῖν is common enough in our Epistle, but it 
 has always had ἐντολή as its object; just as in the Gospel 
 this word or λόγος is the ordinary object of the τηρεῖν. A 
 person is the object, as in our passage, in John xvii. 12-16, 
 as also in Rev. iii. 10; but in both cases there is a preposi- 
 tional definition connected with it: in the former ἐν defines 
 the sphere in which, in the latter ἐκ defines the sphere 
 against which, we are to be defended. In our present 
 passage there is no such closer definition: the child of God 
 keeps himself in the estate of a child of God simply. As ~ 
 to the reflexive form of the sentence, we may compare 
 ch. ii, 3: πᾶς ὁ ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην ἁγνίζει ἑαυτόν. 
 Generally speaking, sanctification and preservation are 
 elsewhere regarded as God’s work in man; but here they 
 are regarded as duty incumbent on man himself: thus the 
 ethical side, that of our freedom, is placed in all the 
 clearer light. This self-preservation is the hindering cause 
 that the devil, 6 πονηρός, οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ. Probably 
 there lies in the words a remembrancer οἵ: θη. iv., where 
 sin is described as a ravenous thing at the door; and 
 watchful care of self appears to be the means for securing 
 ourselves against it. The seduction of the enemy is only 
 admissible to him who does not rightly guard his house. 
 The ἅπτεσθαι may be taken in the strongest sense: the 
 devil cannot even touch such a child of God, much less 
 carry him off as a prey. Or ἅπτεσθαι may be taken 
 in a broader sense, like the corresponding 2 323 of Gen. 
 xxvi. 11, Josh. ix. 13, that of inflicting any harm on its 
 object. 
 
 VERSE 19. 
 
 Οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐσμεν, καὶ 6 κόσμος ὅλος ἐν TO 
 πονηρῷ κεῖται. 
 
 Whilst we thus know ourselves, as the children of God, 
 to be secure against any contact with the evil one, we 
 know, on the other hand, that the world is perfectly under 
 the power of this evil one. ᾿Εκ τοῦ Θεοῦ and ἐν τῷ 
 
340 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 πονηρῷ are the representatives of the antithesis. It 
 follows from this collocation itself, as also from the analogy 
 with ὁ πονηρός in the previous verse, that the dative is to 
 be here taken as masculine and not as neuter. Further, 
 we are led to this by the fact that πονηρός never occurs as 
 a neuter throughout the Epistle. But this certainly makes 
 the κεῖται ἐν all the more difficult. There is no instance 
 in the New Testament of κεῖσθαι ἐν being connected with 
 a personal name; but Sophocles, Gdip. Col. 258, seems to 
 give an illustration: ἐν dupe ὡς Θεῷ κείμεθα τλάμονες. 
 Antigone’s meaning is: In you Athenians we, with all our 
 life and hope and expectation, are perfectly bound up; on 
 you depends not only the specific gift which we would have 
 of you, but we ourselves, with all that we are and have, 
 depend on you. So itis here. The world rests on Satan, 
 its whole being as world is constituted by its relation to 
 him; devil and world are ideas so interpenetrating each other, 
 that the latter comes to its full meaning only through the 
 former. It is obvious that the world is to be understood 
 “here, as in ch. 11. 15, of the world as pervaded with sin. 
 And ὁ κόσμος ὅλος κεῖται ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ, which is more 
 pregnant than ὅλος ὁ κόσμος: it is not that the whole 
 world is subjected to Satanic influence; the apostle makes it 
 emphatic that the world as a whole, without any qualifica- 
 tion or exception, all that is in it absolutely, is under his 
 sway. 
 
 VERSES 20, 21. 
 
 Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥκει" καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν 
 διανοιαν, ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν" καί ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ 
 ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ 
 ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Τεκνία, φυλάξατε ἑαυτοὺς 
 ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων. ἀμήν. 
 
 Since the two previous verses are opposed, as asyndeta, 
 to the twentieth, which is connected with them by δέ, we 
 may at once infer that vers. 18 and 19 contain in some 
 sense two parallel thoughts, to which ver. 20 presents one 
 that corresponds similarly to both of them. And so we 
 find it. The previous verses alleged that we know in what 
 
CHAP, V. 20, 31. 341 
 
 relation our divine sonship places us to sin and to the 
 world: here it is unfolded that we are conscious of the 
 ground of this relation to both. Christ by His manifesta- 
 tion has given us the knowledge of Him that is true, and 
 thereby furnished us with the right view of our relation to 
 God and the world. This we have in the διάνοια, and 
 with it the relation of ver. 20 to what has preceded. The 
 word διάνοια comes most frequently before us in Old Testa- 
 ment quotations, where it is, as generally or often in the 
 Septuagint, the translation of 2 or 3?. But in all instances 
 of its occurrence, apart from such an Old Testament founda- 
 tion, it seems to have a narrower signification, corresponding 
 to its conjunction with dd, that of the discerning and 
 distinguishing thought, or the faculty of distinction. This 
 it is most clearly in 2 Pet. iii. 1: the apostle would 
 stimulate the εἰλικρινὴς διάνοια of the church ἐν ὑπομνήσει, 
 by means of itsremembrance. The εἰλικρινής itself suggests 
 the gift of discernment: it signifies that which approves 
 itself pure under the keenest test (κρίνω), under the light 
 of the sun (εἴλη, cf. ἥλιος). And the same meaning is 
 confirmed by its connection with what follows: the church 
 should distinguish, by means of their discerning faculty, 
 the teaching of the false prophets from the true apostolical 
 παράδοσις. Similarly, in Eph. iv. 17, the ἐσκοτισμένοι τῇ 
 διανοίᾳ are those whose faculty of discernment was so 
 obscured that they had lost any standard for the distinction 
 of good and evil, divine holiness and worldly corruption. 
 The ματαιότης τοῦ vods consists in this, that the Gentiles 
 had absolutely no sentiment of the baseness of the change 
 between the divine life and utter impurity (ἀπηλγηκότες 
 τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ). It is not otherwise in 1 Pet. 1. 13, where 
 the ἀναζωσάμενοι τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν as pre- 
 dicate to τελείως ἐλπίσατε indicates that the church must, 
 by a keen and sure discrimination (διάνοια), sever all other 
 objects from their hope, and hold fast to that of the revela- 
 tion of Christ. This special meaning of διάνοια comes out 
 with less precision in the two other passages, Eph. ii. 3 and 
 Col. i. 21. In the former, the plural permits only a more 
 general reference ; it is obvious that the διάνοια must not 
 
\ 
 
 94 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 be referred to the various individuals, as if the διάνοια 
 were ascribed to each of them, but the plural διανοιῶν 
 must be referred to each individual. In Col. 1. 21, how- 
 ever, it should be observed that the pregnant expression 
 ἐχθρὸς τῇ διανοίᾳ does not so much signify that the soul is 
 the seat or sphere of the enmity, as that the ground of the 
 enmity lay in their own thinking and in their own personal 
 decision, so that the meaning we considered above glimmers 
 through this text also. But as to our passage in this 
 Epistle the meaning of discerning faculty admirably suits, 
 
 and it alone suits. Christ has given us διάνοιαν, not 
 
 τὴν διάνοιαν: not the fulness of all spiritual ability had 
 been imparted to man, but, as the absence of the 
 article shows, with reference to the particular point in 
 question, the power to discern the true God, and to 
 recognise, as opposed to Him the true God, the false 
 gods (εἴδωλα). 
 
 But this knowledge is also the ground of that other, by 
 which we know ourselves as God’s children to be. separated 
 from sin, while the world on the other hand lies in the 
 wicked one. Thus our verse approves itself. to be the 
 foundation on which the two former rest. The central and 
 fundamental fact is by δέ set over against them, as they are 
 the consequences of it; while at the same time the particle 
 defines this to be the supreme matter. This διάνοια is, 
 more closely examined, the gift of the Son of God who has 
 come: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥκει. Christ is here described as 
 the Son of God, because He alone as ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
 καταβάς (John iii. 13) can impart the knowledge of the 
 Father; which knowledge, however, He has imparted by 
 the very fact of His coming. He that knows Him who has 
 come has received thereby the gift of διάνοια; for he 
 acknowledges Jesus as the light, and has come to a clear 
 perception about light and darkness generally. The gift of 
 διάνοια enables us to know τὸν ἀληθινόν. 
 
 This expression is an elect one of St. John, for we find 
 it very seldom outside of his writings. It is not synonymous 
 with ἀληθής. We have perceived in ἀληθής and ἀλήθεια 
 an absolute property, but ἀληθινός is a relative idea, and 
 
CHAP, V. 20, 21. 343 
 
 signifies what corresponds to its name and the nature that 
 name expresses. The present passage refers back to John 
 xvii. 3: αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, ἵνα γινώσκωσί σε τὸν μόνον 
 ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν. Not 
 only have we in our verse the ἀληθινὸς Θεός again and His 
 Son Jesus Christ, but also the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, and that in both 
 cases as the gift of the Son of God. The Father is here 
 termed ἀληθινός without the addition of Θεός : He is the — 
 Being who alone in the highest degree corresponds with | 
 His name. But not only do we know to discern Him as 
 the True from all dis ficticiis ; we are also in this only true 
 God (καί ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ), and that in virtue of our 
 being in His Son (ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὑτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ). For 
 it is impossible on grammatical and logical grounds to refer 
 the second ἀληθινός as it were to Christ, and to interpret : 
 “we are in Him that is true, that is, nm His Son Jesus 
 Christ,” as if the second ἐν were in explanatory opposition . 
 to ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷς When we simply hear the two proposi- 
 tions, “ we know Him that is true, and we are in Him that 
 is true,” it is the most obvious thing to understand in both - 
 cases Him that is true of the same subject. And how 
 very harsh would be the apposition: “we are in Him 
 that is true,—that is to say, in His Son, the Son of Him 
 that is true.” The same meaning, that we now in fel- 
 lowship with Christ have also fellowship with God, is 
 obtained by our interpretation; only that the clause is 
 much more simple, if we take the second ἐν as a state- 
 ment of the means through which we attain to the εἶναι 
 ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ. 
 
 But the question whether Christ is here called ἀληθινὸς 
 Θεός is not yet settled. It has to be determined whether 
 the οὗτος of the next proposition refers to the locally and 
 immediately preceding subject, υἱὸς tod Θεοῦ, or to the 
 more distant antecedent God. Taking the former view, 
 there arises the difficulty, never yet solved by any one, that 
 Christ, after the Father has just been called ὁ ἀληθινός, se. 
 Θεός, could be termed, indeed, ἀληθινὸς Θεός, but not ὁ 
 ἀληθινός. Further, a testimony to the one true God seems 
 more in harmony with the final warning against idols than 
 
944 ΤΠῈ FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, 
 
 a demonstration of the divinity of Christ: the former and 
 not the latter forms the true antithesis to idols. Against 
 the reference of οὗτος to God, appeal has been made to the 
 distance of this antecedent, as well as to the tautology 
 which would issue from three repetitions of the same 
 thought. This last reason m particular would have some 
 weight if οὗτος were a simple resumption of the one idea 
 ἀληθινός ; for the idea then resulting, “This true God is 
 the true God,” is, in fact, tautological enough. But it is 
 otherwise if οὗτος refers to all that had been said of God 
 before: “this God, whom Christ has taught us to know, and 
 with whom through His Son we have been brought into 
 living union, is the true God.” Then the proposition is not 
 pure tautology ; but it emphasizes at the close that only 
 that God has a claim to the name just assigned Him of 
 true, who has been made known in Christ to the world and 
 to the individual Christian. This view is supported by the 
 fundamental text of John xvii. 3, where the knowledge of 
 God and that of Christ are exhibited as equal factors in eternal 
 life, just as here; only that, while there they are presented 
 together as simply co-ordinate, here the internal relation of 
 the one to the other is indicated (ἐν τῷ vid «.7.r.). The 
 connection is also distinctly in favour of it. Our Epistle is 
 directing its final address to Christians, and in its own way 
 demands of them what another author speaks of as ἀφεῖναι 
 τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς λόγον and the φέρεσθαι ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα : 
 this being so, its last exhortation to keep themselves from 
 idols could not refer to gross idolatry; such a dehortation 
 would most inharmoniously fit the tenor of the whole 
 document. The εἴδωλα are rather the ideas entertained of 
 God by the false prophets of whom the apostle has spoken, 
 the antichrists, who, because they have not the Son, have 
 not the Father also, without being therefore atheists in the 
 common meaning of the word. But the antithesis to their 
 εἰδώλοις is not Christ the Logos, but the Father revealed in 
 the Son. All the heretics of that time would serve God. 
 Against them is held up the proposition that οὗτος, that is, 
 this God revealed in Christ, is alone the true God, all else 
 is an εἴδωλον, But not only is God robbed of His honour ; 
 
CHAP. V. 20, 91. 345 
 
 not only does man serve a false god when he seeks another 
 God than the God revealed in Christ; but he also trifles 
 away his own salvation, for this only is eternal life (the 
 article before ζωὴ αἰώνιος must be struck out): he that hath | 
 Him hath thereby life. He hath, according to John v., the | 
 life in Himself; and the life which the Son has and is, is 
 πρὸς Tov πατέρα as it is παρὰ Tod πατρός. There is not 
 the slightest difficulty in the fact that the Father is here 
 described as ζωὴ alwvios, whilst elsewhere the Son is so 
 described ; on the contrary, this is in harmony with the 
 close of the Epistle. In its beginning the apostle set out 
 with the ζωὴ αἰώνιος which the λόγος is, and which is in 
 Him; here all flows back to the primal source of all life, | 
 to whom the ἀπαύγασμα καὶ χαρακτὴρ ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ | 
 has opened the way of access, and with whom He has | 
 placed us in fellowship, ἵνα 7 ὁ Θεὸς πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν. But | 
 this supreme end must be firmly maintained, there must be. 
 no recession from it: every moment that we forget that: 
 only the God revealed in Christ is ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ 
 αἰώνιος would place us in fellowship with the εἰδώλοις. 
 Hence the penetrating word of the apostle is a warning to 
 avoid them. 
 
 The first glance shows that the last verses (18—21) are 
 not designed perfectly to recapitulate the entire contents of 
 the Epistle. There is not in them any reference to brotherly 
 love, which has nevertheless made up half the substance of 
 it down to the close. But this, indeed, has come into con- 
 sideration only as the expression of a true relation to God 
 and the means of obtaining it. From this last everything 
 flows, and to it everything leads. Hence we have in these 
 last verses a final emphasis laid on the fundamental prin- 
 ciples on which the Epistle rests: that we through the 
 mission of the Lord Jesus Christ have fellowship with God ; 
 that this fellowship protects us from sin, and establishes 
 us in a relation of perfect opposition to the world. But, 
 indeed, the threefold plural οἴδαμεν, the consciousness of 
 common relationship to God as His children, suggests the 
 principle and always energetic impulse to brotherly love; 
 and thus this common consciousness, as containing in itself 
 
346 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 the bond with God and with our brethren, is the pledge 
 of the χαρὰ τετελειωμένη which the apostle promised in 
 the beginning of the Epistle to bring to maturity, and to 
 maturity through the establishment of fellowship with God 
 and the brethren. 
 
 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 
 
 TWOFOLD aim has been pursued in the preceding 
 
 study of our Epistle. First, we have endeavoured 
 to find in itself its process of thought. But if we have 
 perceived rightly what the apostle says to the churches, we 
 have now to pursue the inquiry whether certain results 
 cannot be established in regard to the origin of the docu- 
 ment: as to the end for the sake of which, as to the 
 immediate occasion by reason of which, it was written. It 
 is only when it organically connects itself with a definite 
 time to our thoughts that we can claim to have understood it. 
 But, again, our illustration of the details of the Epistle has 
 *.sought to ascertain whether the dogmatic and ethical state- 
 ments which it contains may not enable us to argue out 
 the collective system of thought held by the author, so that 
 we may have a clear figure of its intellectual and spiritual 
 physiognomy. To this end it was necessary that such 
 passages should not only be looked at in the light of their 
 meaning in every particular connection, but that they should 
 be detached from their context, and the premises and con- 
 clusions indicated on which they rest and to which they 
 lead, in order thus to find out the place they assume in the 
 general system of the author’s theology. Certainly we do 
 not intend to say that the apostle had formed for himself a 
 completed system in our sense of the word; but at the 
 same time it is not only an unobjectionable, but also a 
 necessary assumption, that one unified view lay at the root 
 of all the particular passages, and gave the colouring to these 
 expressions. For whosoever, generally speaking, in the full 
 sense of the word, thinks,—and who can deny this full sense 
 
 347 
 
948 TIIE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JONN. 
 
 to our apostle ?—must have, though often unconsciously, a 
 ‘principle from which his specific thoughts flow: there must 
 be an organic connection in his thinking. And just in 
 proportion as the view has come to be very generally 
 accepted that the writings of the New Testament are mostly 
 occasional writings, aiming not at laying down a dogmatic 
 system, but containing only occasional utterances concern- 
 ing Christian dogmas in the interest of practical ends, in 
 that proportion is it necessary to ascertain exactly what 
 material they at least indirectly furnish for a dogmatic 
 system, and what aid they at least indirectly contribute 
 to the construction of such a system. The building 
 materials which we have collected in these two several 
 directions must now be in conclusion laid together; and 
 from the detailed features we have made our own we must 
 form the picture as a whole. 
 
 THE CHAIN OF THOUGHT. 
 
 In this interest let us first of all glance over the process 
 of thought in our Epistle. At the very outset, its intro- 
 duction (ch. 1. 1-4) gives us our right position as to its 
 contents. We had in the first verses two series of ideas to 
 distinguish. One specifies the object that was to be treated 
 of: it is the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, which is the Logos, and which 
 He by His manifestation has brought. The other expresses 
 the certain assurance of this object as an irrefragable truth. 
 Both series are found recurring in the body of the Epistle : 
 the message concerning the substance and the obligations of 
 the ἕω αἰώνιος forms the contents from ch. i. 5 to ch. 
 v. 5; the assurance of what is delivered is resumed in ch. 
 v. 6-12, pointing back to the beginning. After what 
 manner and form the ζωὴ αἰώνιος communicated to us must 
 manifest and approve itself, the apostle describes in such a 
 way that two principia divisionis are interwoven in his 
 treatment. On the one hand, he adduces the expressions 
 _ of this life as towards God, on the other as towards man : 
 this gives one principle of division, Again, we derive 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 349 
 
 much aid in tracing the process of the thought throughout 
 the Epistle from the following ideas, περιπατεῖν ἐν φωτί, 
 ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ὁμολογεῖν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, πιστεύειν εἰς 
 τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ. It appears at a glance that the two 
 ideas in the heart of the four are more closely united than 
 the others, expressing only two definite sides of the one 
 character of the life, that of the deed and that of the word: 
 hence the four may be reduced again to three. Around 
 this triplicity are grouped in fact the individual parts of the 
 Epistle; and in such a way that within each section the 
 above-mentioned principle of division furnishes the sections: 
 the principle, namely, of relation to God first, and then 
 relation to the brethren. 
 
 The first part demands as evidence of the ζωὴ αἰώνιος 
 communicated to us the περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί, This is, 
 as we have seen, an altogether general expression, which 
 denotes the sphere of life in which we are supposed to be 
 conversant, embracing the aggregate of the Christian moral 
 condition, The περιπατεῖν refers to all the collective and 
 each individual outgoing of the life, not only in word and 
 work, but also in the very thoughts: the whole is supposed 
 to be dipped in light and by light evoked. But light is the 
 description of the divine nature: therefore our whole life— 
 this is the burden of the requirement to walk ἐν φωτί----ἰ5 
 to be a life in God, in the kingdom of light; the light is to 
 be the centre of all, yea, the spring from which all the 
 energies of this life take their rise. Accordingly this first 
 part of the Epistle is altogether general. It falls into three 
 sections: ch. i. 6-ii. 2; ch. 11, 3-13; ch. 11. 14-27. The 
 first of these tells us that the walk in light as towards God 
 must show itself as sinlessness; the second, that towards 
 the brethren it must approve itself as brotherly love; and 
 the third, that towards the world opposed to Christ it must 
 have an absolutely opposed relation. Each of these three 
 sections is again carried out in three sub-sections. The 
 sinlessness which God requires is brought to effect first 
 positively through the redemption or deliverance from sin 
 which we obtain through the death of Christ; then nega- 
 tively through the forgiveness of past sin which is acknow- 
 
390 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST, JOHN. 
 
 ledged as such. Both these aspects are recapitulated in the 
 third sub-section, ch. 11. 1, 2, which assumes the hortatory 
 tone. Similarly the second section, treating of brotherly 
 love, has three sub-sections. We perceived in dealing with 
 the details that the apostle leads in the exhortation to 
 brotherly love gradually, by a progressive advancement 
 exhibiting this as the substance of ali the divine command- 
 ments. First, he describes the divine will quite generally 
 as ἐντολαὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, then he carries back these ἐντολαί by 
 the phrase λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ to their internal unity, for he at 
 the same time in the supplementary clause, τετελείωται ἡ 
 ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν iuty,—that is, love as it is in God is 
 then also in us,—points out what concrete commandment 
 this unity forms. He further defines this love more closely 
 as περιπατεῖν καθὼς Χριστὸς περιεπάτησεν, and, describing 
 it as the new commandment, closes with the exhortation so 
 to practise it as Christ in His passion practised and taught 
 it. Then the first sub-section (ch. ii. 3-5) speaks of love 
 as of the old commandment ; it describes it as union with 
 the divine will (ἐντολαὶ Θεοῦ) and as union with the divine 
 nature (τετελείωταν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν. The 
 second sub-section (ch. ii. 6-11) leads over to love as the 
 ‘new commandment. In it is at the same time shown what 
 connection exists between love and the walking in light, 
 this latter being the ruling idea of the whole. If, namely, 
 Christ in His whole life announced on the one hand that 
 God is light, and on the other exhibited in this His life a 
 great practical demonstration of love, it follows that walk- 
 ing in light is no other than walking in love. The third 
 sub-section has, like the corresponding one in the first 
 section, a hortatory tendency : it reminds the churches that 
 the apostle in writing to them assumed their already stand- 
 ing, the old as well as the young, in the possession of a 
 Christian life (ch. 1. 12,13). And this very presupposi- 
 tion (ch. i, 13, 14) is also the transition to the third 
 section. The first sub-section warns against fellowship 
 with the kingdom of darkness: whether the world in 
 general opposed to Christianity ; or the antichrist opposition 
 in particular,—that is, the world as it will be born afresh out 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. ΟΝ 
 
 of Christianity itself (ch. ii, 15-19). The second sub- 
 section declares that the church is through the possession 
 of the χρῖσμα separated from this kingdom of darkness and 
 furnished with the means of knowing and detecting it: 
 this holy oil of anointing can and will keep them secure 
 with their God and their Saviour (ch. 11. 20-26). The 
 third sub-section (ch. ii. 27) sums up all again for the sake 
 of laying vehement emphasis upon what had just been said. 
 Thus to the apostle the first general requirement of walking 
 in the light took a threefold form of development: the 
 light approves itself in relation to God and before the 
 brethren ; but also in opposition to the unchristian world, 
 and as hatred against this, which means fidelity (μένειν) 
 towards God. 
 
 But now the apostle proceeds a step further. A general 
 walk or conversation in light, in such and such a specific 
 atmosphere, is not all the obligation that the possession of 
 ζωὴ αἰώνιος entails upon us: we have been thereby not 
 only translated into a new sphere of life, but also inwardly 
 renewed and ourselves thoroughly transformed. The φῶς 
 has entered into us; we have been born of God. ‘This 
 idea of the divine begetting rules the whole treatment from 
 ch. i. 18 to ch. v. 5: it is this which, at the end of the 
 part thus defined, at the beginning of the fifth chapter, is 
 taken up again; thus by the resumption marking the limits 
 of the part of the Epistle we now consider. In order to 
 show what. obligations on us are included in the γεγεν- 
 νῆσθαι ἐκ tov Θεοῦ, the apostle resorts for aid to the 
 mediating idea of παῤῥησία. At the appearing of Christ 
 for judgment, that which is within us will be made mani- 
 fest; and we shall have therefore to prove ourselves 
 whether the total transformation of our nature which is 
 required has taken place: more precisely, whether the 
 δικαιοσύνη, which constitutes the divine nature, is approved 
 also in us. The deed is, however, the standard of the 
 being, and therefore our being the children of God must be 
 demonstrated by our acts; while, on the other hand, the 
 principle from which our act springs furnishes a standard 
 of judgment with regard to it, and therefore the works of 
 
jon THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 righteousness must approve themselves as having sprung 
 from the Spirit of God. To sum up, the divine birth, or 
 inward renewal, gives evidence of itself only in two ways: 
 one, that itself governs and transfornis all our action; the 
 other, that this action may be traced back to the Spirit of 
 God, as the Factor of the new birth. The former is the 
 substance of ch. 111.; the latter, of ch. iv. 1-16. Then 
 there is added a retrospective conclusion, ch. iv. 17, 18, 
 which lays stress upon this, that where these two postulates 
 are both found the parrhesia or confidence enters certainly 
 and infalibly. The second part is in two aspects an 
 advance upon the first. Primarily, we have in the first 
 chapters to do with walking in the light, and thus with be- 
 longing to the kingdom of God, and being moulded by its 
 influences ; but here we have to do with the divine birth, 
 and thus with a power which makes us individually into 
 members of this kingdom of God. Then, secondly, there 
 the question was of walking in the light, and therefore of 
 the universal bearing and tendency of the life; here the 
 question is of the concrete expressions of this walk, the 
 tokens of the divine birth which meet the eye. 
 
 First, for the demonstration of sonship to God in act, 
 which is exhibited in two directions: in relation to God it 
 is a doing of righteousness (ch. 111. 1-10), in relation to the 
 brethren it is the office of love (ch. 111. 11-18); and then 
 comes the resumé in ch. 111, 19-23. Our act Godward is 
 shown in two sub-sections: first, ch. 11. 1-3, we have the 
 necessity of ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην. In eternity we shall 
 be like the Lord, as He is; the way thither is the same 
 which He took in His process of glorification: that is to 
 say, all depends on our being like Him as He was, in 
 avoiding sin, and doing righteousness. The second sub- 
 section, ch. iii, 4-10, more closely explains the meaning of 
 this requirement: the righteousness must be pure and 
 simple, since every residuum of sin would manifest us as 
 still belonging to Satan. 
 
 Secondly, for the other side, the approval of our sonship 
 to God by the acts of brotherly love is similarly illustrated 
 in two sub-sections: in ch, ili, 11-14, it is the negative 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. aoe 
 
 antithesis to the hatred which is the signature of the world; 
 in ch. i. 16-18, it is positive, and emphasis is laid upon 
 the importance of actual doing which has as its funda- 
 mental characterization the spirit of τιθέναι τὴν ψυχήν. 
 The third sub-section deduces a reswmé from the former,— 
 that is to say, the consciousness of actual brotherly love, to 
 wit, the exhibition of sonship to God in some measure at 
 least, may amidst the manifold accusations of our heart 
 comfort us so far as we thereby discern that we have made 
 a sure beginning, while, indeed, the full confidence depends 
 upon the completeness of the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην. 
 
 But to this divine sonship belongs not only a certain 
 doing, but also a specific source of that doing,—that is, the 
 Spirit of whom we are born and from whom our deeds 
 must spring. That the idea πνεῦμα, ἐξ οὗ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῖν 
 ἔδωκεν and the idea γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ are substan- 
 tially the same is evident from ch. ii. 4: the reception of the 
 Spirit makes us children of God. In the acknowledgment 
 that our salvation rests upon the divine act in the mission 
 of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, being thus divinely wrought, 
 and in the acknowledgment, on the other ‘hand, that our 
 good relation to the brethren is certainly divinely wrought 
 too, inasmuch as the love that God has flows into us,—the 
 acknowledgment, in short, that our whole life, as well in 
 its relation Godward as in its relation towards the brethren, 
 purely and absolutely rests upon the divine act,—we have 
 the demonstration that the deeds demanded in the third 
 chapter have their source in the principle of our sonship to 
 God. Where, then, these two marks are found, the required 
 course of action and the consciousness as to their divine 
 origin, there is the evidence adduced of the γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ. The section we have now considered also divides 
 itself again into three sub-sections. ‘The first, ch. iv. 1-6, 
 so unfolds the thought that our fellowship with God rests 
 upon a divine act, as to show that only through our acknow- 
 ledgment of Jesus as the Son of God wrought by the Holy 
 Ghost is such a fellowship with God possible, while without 
 it we are surrendered to the pseudo-prophetic spirit. The 
 second sub-section, ch. iv. 7-12, unfolds the parallel thought 
 
 1 JOHN. Z 
 
Ὁ.) Ἔ TIIE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIN, 
 
 that our brotherly love also is based on the divine causality, 
 in such a manner as to show, or by showing, how all human 
 loving is not an independent activity, but is only a reflec- 
 tion and effluence of the divine nature of love. The third 
 sub-section, ch. iv. 14—16, recapitulates the two former. 
 
 When at this point, ch. iv. 17, 18, the apostle introduces 
 afresh the idea of the parrhesia or confidence, which he first 
 laid down in the theme-clause, ch. ii. 29, and took up again 
 in the resumé, ch. 111. 19, it is made clear, as already 
 remarked, that we have from ch. ii. 28 to ch. iv. 18 one 
 whole, the two parts of which must have had in the spirit 
 of the author an internal bond of connection. 
 
 Up to this point we have had two main parts to dis- 
 tinguish, the themes of which were περιπατεῖν ἐν φωτί 
 and γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ tov Θεοῦ respectively. Both these 
 were unfolded according to two aspects: in each came 
 clearly into consideration the relation to God and the rela- 
 tion to the brethren. The internal coherence and unity of 
 these two relations is evinced copiously in ch. iv. 19-v. 5: 
 in each of them the leading principle of the other is already 
 involved. That is to say, ch. iv. 19-21 contains the evi- 
 dence that in the idea of love not only the relation to the 
 brethren, but also that to God is rooted; ch. v. 1—5 con- 
 tains the evidence that in the idea of faith not only the 
 relation to God, but also the relation to the brethren is 
 included. And, in order to exhibit the internal unity 
 of the whole. material of this section, St. John introduces 
 also here the relation to the κόσμος, demonstrating in ch. 
 v. 4,5 that this, too, follows from the idea of faith. 
 
 At the outset of this summary, we pointed to the fact 
 that the ideas περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί, ποιεῖν THY δικαιοσύνην, 
 ὁμολογεῖν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα ᾿Ιησοῦ, per- 
 vade the entire Epistle. It has been shown that the first 
 is the representative of the development in ch. 1. and 1]. ; 
 the second and third rule the two parts of the second 
 main division; not till the last section does the πίστις 
 come in. There is a progression in these ideas which 
 will not escape our notice, particularly in the last three. 
 While the first of them refers to the acts, the second refers 
 
GENERAL REVIEW, S00 
 
 to the word, the third to the heart or centre of the life. It 
 is true that in the ὁμολογεῖν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν of ch. iv. the 
 predicate, the avowing or confessing, recedes behind the 
 object confessed: the apostle lays all the stress not upon 
 the form, the confessing, but upon the importance of what 
 is confessed. But there is good reason for his adopting 
 as the predicate ὁμολογεῖν instead of using the term 
 πιστεύειν. For it was his object in the second leading 
 part, according to the distribution given at the outset, to 
 show upon what the consciousness of sonship to God rests: 
 not this latter in itself, but the consciousness of it, can 
 alone produce the affection of confidence. This, however, 
 rests not upon the objective reality of the Divine Spirit in 
 me, but upon the subjective consciousness of it in my heart, 
 which is brought to consummation in the ὁμολογεῖν. But 
 at the close, where the apostle is unfolding that the relation 
 to God and the relation to the brethren are inseparably and 
 most inwardly one, each involving the other, it is naturally 
 not his object to choose any term which should exhibit the 
 external confirmation of the one or the other relation: he 
 must exhibit this itself in its inwardness. Hence at this 
 point the πίστις begins to predominate in the discourse, the 
 other words only revolving around these as pendants. It 
 is the idea of faith which, as the Gospel shows, is central 
 to St. John. The Epistle, too, knows no other than this: 
 γράφω ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἵνα πιστεύητε, Which we may 
 place in distant analogy with the Pauline ἐκ πίστεως εἰς 
 πίστιν. The document, which demonstrates in its general 
 course how faith must express itself and be confirmed or 
 approved, comes back at its close to the exhibition of all 
 as the expression and influence of faith, 
 
 We come now to the closing section of the Epistle. Two 
 series of ideas, as we have seen, were excited in the readers 
 by the introduction: there was an annunciation to be made 
 concerning the Logos as the source and giver of life; and, 
 on the other hand, this announcement was declared to be 
 one raised above doubt. This latter point, the guarantee 
 of all, the apostle has yet to unfold. He now reverts to 
 the idea of the μαρτυρία, which in ch. 1. 1-3 was made 
 
9.90 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 so prominent. The witnesses, ch. v. 6—9, and the effects of 
 these testimonies, ch. v. 10-12, now occupy his attention. 
 
 There remains still the conclusion, which corresponds 
 with the introduction. It also resolves itself into three 
 sections. The first, ch. v. 13-17, once more specifies the 
 substance of that eternal life of which the Epistle treats: 
 it consists of faith in the Son of God, of love as towards 
 the brethren, which preserves them in the kingdom of God 
 by intercession. The second gives in three clauses the 
 signature of the child of God as opposed to the child of 
 this world (ch. v. 18-20). The third, ch. v. 21, sums 
 up in a hortatory warning the entire practical aim of the 
 entire treatise. 
 
 As it has now been made clear, the whole Epistle is 
 almost entirely and down to its details governed by a 
 threefold distribution: only here and there does the thought 
 develope itself in two members, while for the most part 
 even then a synthetic or recapitulatory member is added. 
 It is true that occasionally theories of number have 
 been abused in regard both to the Old and to the New 
 Testament; and mistrust as to what might suggest them 
 may indeed be justifiable. On the other side, it is 
 impossible to deny that in the formal presentation and 
 construction of Scripture definite numbers play their part. 
 And, as it respects our present case, it is to us a pledge of 
 correctness that the observation of a certain triplicity in 
 the Epistle arose out of the reswmé of the whole, and did 
 not, as it were, prejudice us at the outset, and thus insinuate 
 itself into the pursuit of its chain of thought. That 
 Luthardt long since established the fact that the number 
 three is a divisor in the Gospel, though without exhibiting it 
 in such detail as we have done here, was remembered by the 
 author only afterwards. However, the remark often already 
 made may be made once more, that we are by no means to 
 think that the writer of this treatise adjusted beforehand a 
 scheme in such number and measure. The order and 
 symmetry, which pervade all down to the minutest detail, 
 only show how clearly and sharply the apostle was 
 accustomed to think; and that, in consequence of an 
 
-- 
 
 GENERAL REVIEW. 357 
 
 o 
 
 (inherent sense of order, his thoughts grouped themselves 
 with facility in a definite way. 
 
 OCCASION AND AIM OF THE EPISTLE, 
 
 Does this account of the general contents of the Epistle 
 
 ,|\ give us any light for the discovery of its occasion and 
 
 purport? There is evidently no direct obvious connec- 
 tion between the two; but this should only make us 
 examine all the more narrowly whether or not the process 
 of thought affords at least some indirect aid for the dis- 
 covery of the general aim. And, first of all, the impres- 
 sion produced upon the readers by the Epistle as a whole 
 suggests a helpful intimation. We easily perceive, for 
 instance, the contrast in which its collective substance 
 places it to the other epistolary writings of the New 
 Testament, especially the Pauline. While these latter 
 always bear and everywhere show the character of docu- 
 ments that lay the foundation and organize, that is, have a 
 creative character, our Epistle has rather the character of 
 sustaining, nourishing, and building up. The former have 
 to do with the basis, the latter with the superstructure. 
 Not only in the Epistle to the Romans, which has most 
 distinctively the fundamental stamp, the apostle in it 
 showing the church how he viewed and how he executed 
 his apostolical function, but in all his Epistles we hear the 
 man speak whose it was to give the congregations their 
 first organized formation: as to doctrine, as to constitution, 
 as to ethics, as to all, he has to prepare the soil for some- 
 thing new. His writings have the universal characteristic 
 
 of teaching. But it is this very characteristic which is 
 
 wanting throughout St. John’s Epistle: from beginning to 
 end it is entirely restricted to the reminding tone. As in 
 the first part of it the apostle again and again intimates that 
 he writes to the church only under the presupposition of 
 their Christian estate and character (ch. ii, 12 seq.); that 
 they need no instruction of any kind, having themselves 
 the χρίσμα (ch. 11, 20, 27); so towards the end of it he 
 
3958 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 again reminds them that his document was calculated only 
 for believers (ch. v. 13, γράφω ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν). 
 Apart from these individual expressions of the writer, 
 we have ourselves observed that it is the character of the 
 Epistle everywhere to exhibit the new as the old, the 
 instruction now given as already known, the ethical 
 demands made as already in the act of being fulfilled by 
 them. Similarly the idea of the τελείωσις, particularly of 
 the τετελειωμένη χαρά, points to the fact that the apostle 
 has nothing in his view but to crown the edifice. This 
 characteristic of his document may be simply called the 
 reminding style in contradistinction from the teaching and 
 elementary style of St. Paul which lays the foundation. 
 Now this difference itself in the tone indicates the dif- 
 ference in the position of affairs for which our Epistle is 
 adapted, as compared with that in the Pauline congregations, 
 To the same conclusion we are led by another consideration, 
 that the relation of the church to the world outside of 
 Christianity, whether Jewish or Gentile, at the time of our 
 Epistle had become altogether a different thing from that 
 which meets us in the earlier documents of the New Testa- 
 ment. In the time of St. Paul, it was matter of import- 
 ance to come to an understanding with each of these 
 powers and to be clear of both: temptations came specifically 
 from each. In our Epistle this separation of interest was 
 fully accomplished, and the world is entirely overcome: 
 not, indeed, in the sense that it was no longer present, but 
 that a total and firm severance had taken place externally. 
 First of all, the distinction between the two distinct 
 camps of the enemy had vanished away: they are now 
 comprehended under the one common term κόσμος. With 
 St. Paul the notion predominates that Judaism was the 
 ancient kingdom of God, which in no other form than this 
 had lived through the ages and survived, having become 
 opposed to Christianity only because it spasmodically held 
 fast the obsolete, the old things which ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ ἐστιν. 
 With him, therefore, Judaism is a mission field co-ordinate 
 with heathenism, and of the same importance. Now, with 
 St. John, Judaism has utterly lost its independent position, 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 359 
 
 and relations, and meaning. The expressions ὁ κόσμος and 
 ὁ κόσμος οὗτος, Which, when St. Paul uses them, we 
 immediately feel ourselves constrained to connect primarily 
 with the Gentile world, are, when St. John uses them, 
 descriptions of a// that is outside of Christianity : he knows 
 nothing now of the old distinction. With this his Gospel 
 corresponds. In it also Judaism is simply a power entirely 
 opposed to Christ; in it also we find Jews and Gentiles 
 indiscriminately blended in the common word κόσμος. It 
 is true that in ch. i. 9, 10 Judaism is, as equivalent to οἱ 
 ἴδιοι, distinguished from the κόσμος as a whole; but else- 
 where, and generally, Jesus is represented not as the Messiah 
 of the Jews, but as the σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. He announces 
 Himself to Nicodemus as the Saviour and Judge sent not 
 to Judaism, but to the κόσμος, in which the Jews are 
 included and merged. In His last discourses our Lord 
 speaks only of the hatred of the world, although He has to 
 do immediately with the hatred of His own people. Thus 
 there is no longer any difference between the world of 
 Judaism and the Gentile world; both are summed up in 
 the idea of the κόσμος. This is the first thing that 
 strikes us. 
 
 But, further, the Christian relation to this κόσμος is 
 noteworthy. It is undoubted that the application of this 
 idea in St. John is in harmony with the current of New 
 Testament phraseology so far as it is mostly referred to 
 the world of mankind, while in such a way as not to 
 refer to them alone or to them as such. Not mankind 
 alone: for man is such, not as contrasted with the collec- 
 tive earthly nature and economy, but as its head. The 
 inanimate creature also belongs to the κόσμος ; for, when 
 we read of a βίος τοῦ κόσμου (this world’s goods), of εἶναι 
 ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, and μισεῖν τὰ ἐν TO κόσμῳ, all this we 
 understand not merely of men, but also of all created 
 things. Nor is it mankind as such: for that mankind 
 only is thus denoted which is depraved by sin and in 
 bondage to it. But such a meaning the word always has, 
 even when the expression is not made complete, as ὁ κόσμος 
 οὗτος, as is relatively very often the case in St. John. 
 
900 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 Even when ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἶναι describes a life merely lived 
 upon earth, as in ch. ix. 5, 39, the idea first referred to is 
 still involved in the world. All this is undoubtedly true, 
 so far as the use of the word goes, which is common to 
 St. John and the rest of Scripture. 
 
 St. John, however, has this peculiarity, that with him 
 this fallen world only seldom comes into view as the object 
 of salvation. It is true, indeed, that with him also the 
 Lord appeared in order to redeem the world, fallen under — 
 the empire of sin and guilt. He is called the σωτὴρ τοῦ 
 κόσμου (John iv. 42; 1 John iv. 16), and ἕω τοῦ κόσμου 
 (John vi. 52), and finally, ἱλασμὸς περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. 
 Yet it is still more frequent with him to represent the 
 world, not as a missionary sphere, and therefore as an un- 
 christian territory which must be christianized, but as the 
 principle which opposes the church of Christ in rigid and 
 cold enmity, in short, as the anti-Christian kingdom. 
 Especially marked is this style of thought in the Lord’s 
 last discourses and in our Epistle, between which generally 
 the points of contact are so exceedingly many. The world 
 is not the sea which contains good fishes and bad; it is the 
 sphere and abode of total darkness. It is this which we 
 meant when we spoke above of the severance with the 
 world being complete: Christianity and the world have 
 become absolute opposites. And it is to be observed that 
 this deep antithesis is not emphasized in the manner of an 
 urgent warning and exhortation to avoid and be on their 
 guard against the world; wherever the world is mentioned 
 in our Epistle, it is in a tone which suggests the tranquil 
 feeling of entire and final severance. The evil of the 
 world or its wickedness is not complained of nor lamented : 
 it is a simple fact, which cannot be otherwise than it is. 
 When we consider the way in which St. Peter in his first 
 letter warns the churches in view of the persecutions 
 threatened by the world, how evidently full of solicitude 
 he is lest Christians should be moved by this to turn back 
 again to the world; and when we compare with this the 
 tranquil, we might say the cold, way in which St. John 
 speaks of the hatred of the world as of a thing so self. 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 361 
 
 understood and taken for granted that no one can be led 
 astray by it; we shall come at once to the conclusion that 
 our Epistle assumes towards the κόσμος a very different 
 position from that occupied by the rest. The result of 
 all that has been said is the conviction that in this docu- 
 ment the difference between Judaism and heathenism is 
 gone; that to it the κόσμος is not so much the sphere of 
 Christian mission as the metropolis of declared and decided 
 
 “ enmity against the kingdom of God; and that this hostile 
 position has nothing astonishing in it, but is altogether 
 “natural and normal, so that no man need be embarrassed 
 by it or led astray. 
 
 It is not from Judaism and heathenism as such, not 
 from the world in itself, that the temptations proceed, but 
 from anti-Christianity or the false prophets,—that is, from 
 the endeavour to generate the world anew in the bosom of 
 Christianity. The enemies are no longer extra but intra 
 
 \\parietes; the perilous power is not the denial, but the 
 “simulation of the Christian spirit; their foes sought to be 
 ~ regarded as Christians, but Christians they were not; they 
 had their point of departure from the church, but did not— 
 belong to it. They are essentially children of the world, 
 and yet would be deemed children of light: it is a mixing 
 together of light and darkness. Thus we have enemies of 
 the church who are neither Jews nor.Gentiles, but false 
 Christians. It is true that this aspect of things is not 
 peculiar to our Epistle: it is shared by Jude and the 
 second of Peter, and in part even by some portions of the 
 last Pauline Epistles. But it is precisely when we mark 
 in what way these specific portions of Scripture con- 
 front the danger that we discern the altogether peculiar 
 character of our Epistle. The former assume a tone of 
 anxious care; we observe how the writers tremble for the 
 churches, and how they gather up all their forces to pre- 
 serve them, to warn them, to rescue them. We compare 
 with their excited vehemence the tranquillity and peaceful 
 bearing which our Epistle exhibits, as before to the world, 
 80 now to the anti-Christianity that threatens. Reading it 
 carefully, we do not receive the impression that the churches 
 
ΘΝ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 were or had been in any sore distress. When the anti- 
 christs are mentioned for the first time in ch. iL, express 
 reference is made to the anointing which would defend the 
 people of God from contact with every kind of le, and 
 which seemed to render every kind of exhortation super- 
 fluous. The words of the apostle do not give the idea that: 
 they aim at keeping back the readers from any apostasy 
 which was closely imminent, but rather that he was solici- 
 tous to make all perfectly safe, and therefore represented to 
 them once more how great was the gulf between them and 
 1 all forms of anti-Christianity. So, when this enemy is in- 
 troduced again in ch. iv., even then the exhortation to try 
 the spirits is by no means the main concern, but is rather 
 brought in ὡς ἐν παρόδῳ : the chief thing in the apostle’s 
 estimation is rather to make it clear how the Christian 
 spirit must express itself. The former is only the foil to 
 the latter. As when, in a firmly built house, the master, 
 hearing the storm without, gives one more glance around 
 to see that all is secure, while still he knows that he 
 is sheltered and safe, and, indeed, the more furiously the 
 tempest blows, feels all the more sense of security,—so it 
 is with this Epistle, which gives us the feeling of an 
 inexpressibly beautiful peace and silent confidence of joy 
 diffused through it from beginning to end. 
 
 Anything like polemics proper is altogether absent from 
 the document: its aim and tendency is essentially not 
 negative, but positive. How little its general contents and 
 character are governed by the controversy with antichrists, 
 has been seen in the general scheme of its construction. 
 The life which has appeared in Christ, and from Him over- 
 flows upon His people, is its leading idea. And this life 
 manifests itself, as we have seen, in two directions: on the 
 one hand it matures fellowship with God, and on the other 
 fellowship with the brethren, through these manifestations 
 bringing in the χαρὰ τετελειωμένη. This is its trunk, 
 absolutely positive, on which all the particular develop- 
 ments of exhortation are grafted, not excepting the twice- 
 repeated exposition of the antichrists. The first time 
 these are mentioned it is in connection with walking 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 363 
 
 in the light: in relation to God and the brethren, this 
 walk leads to union and fellowship; but as it regards 
 the antichrists, who belong not to the φῶς but to the 
 σκοτία, it leads to nothing but severance. And, on the 
 second occasion of mentioning them, our δικαιοσύνη is spoken 
 of as resting upon the possession of the Spirit of God, 
 the true and only Spirit; and in connection with this, 
 the acts of that righteousness are dilated on as dia- 
 metrically opposed to those of the anti-Christian spirit. 
 We might altogether omit the two passages which deal 
 with the antichrists, and the Epistle would not lose its 
 essential character or be changed in its scope: evidence 
 ‘enough this that polemics against them did not constitute 
 its final aim. 
 But, however firmly established this is, there is another 
 side to the question. Though it may seem to contradict 
 what has been said, we cannot seize rightly the occasion 
 and design of the Epistle wnless we assume that the 
 churches were heavily oppressed by the antichrists, and 
 that they were to be defended against them by this 
 apostolical letter. At the outset we must. absolutely take 
 it for granted that it was written for one occasion, that it 
 owed its origin to some definite historical circumstance, 
 and not to the mere leisure of the author. Now he him- 
 self indicates such a concrete historical occasion for his 
 writing. For, when we find at the close an exhortation to 
 the churches to keep themselves from idols, our exposition, 
 as has been seen, requires us to regard this as a warning 
 against the teachers of error dealt with in the Epistle. 
 If this warning is the keynote of a letter which we have 
 learnt to regard as one whole from beginning to end, one 
 harmonious development, it must, of course, be in strict 
 connection with this whole; it must, moreover, because 
 forming the very conclusion, contain that very thought 
 which the author has been before all things concerned 
 about. As, further, the letter with this begins and returns 
 back at the close to this,—to emphasize, namely, the firm 
 assurance or security of the truth declared by the apostle, 
 who presents that truth as a paptupia,—the energy and 
 
364 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 sedulousness with which he does this is to be explained 
 only by the assumption that it was of importance to make 
 firm this truth in the face of other teachings which were 
 devoid of it: these other teachings, however, must needs, 
 unless we surrender ourselves to random guesses, have 
 been those of the antichrists. Nor is it to be overlooked, 
 that precisely after his first delineation of the antichrists 
 the apostle writes, ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν περὶ τῶν πλανώντων 
 ὑμᾶς, which must be compared with ch. v. 13, where with 
 the same formula the eternal life, which we have seen to 
 be the essential thought of the Epistle, is exhibited as the 
 substance of what preceded. Considering all this, we must 
 admit that anti-Christianity was the immediate occasion of 
 this epistolary communication. 
 
 Consequently the matter stands thus. The beginning 
 and the end of the Epistle, as well as the two fragments of 
 it which are concerned with antichrists, indicate that these 
 occasioned the apostle’s writing. On the other hand, the 
 bulk of the letter is not in manifest connection with anti- 
 Christianity as a subject; and, more than that, the sections 
 which treat of it expressly come in as side-illustrations or 
 adjuncts of the positive and leading thoughts. Now we might 
 be tempted to suppose that the apostle pursued different 
 designs; one of them being to warn against the antichrists, 
 while the other aimed at presenting certain positive 
 exhortations. But that indeed is not possible; for, first, 
 ‘the letter approves its unity as one uniform whole; and, 
 secondly, these two aims are so blended and so inter- 
 penetrate one another in every section as to suggest 
 necessarily that they rise together into a higher unity. 
 And here comes in that character of the Epistle which 
 has been indicated above: its rest and its peace, as if 
 adjusted to the most joyful relations; its internal release 
 from all the agitation of the world, as if its author were 
 looking out from a secure haven into the tumult of the 
 distant sea. All this taken together makes up the mystery 
 of the writing, But its solution can be brought to light 
 only when we seek and find the historical relations to 
 which these apparently opposite traits are equally con- 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 365 
 
 gruous, and under which the Epistle must have taken 
 precisely the form it has and no other. 
 
 Now the relations indicated are identically those to 
 which the earliest tradition about the origin of the letter 
 point. At the outset, the fact that it was referred to the 
 latest period of St. John’s life explains at once how it 
 comes to bear a character so different from that of the 
 other New Testament writings. Our apostle, that is, had 
 not entered upon a new field of labour, such as St. Paul 
 as a principle was accustomed to seek for himself, but 
 he had taken over the field which that apostie had left 
 behind to him. The churches of Asia Minor, and especially 
 the Ephesian, to which our thought is directed by early 
 tradition, had been introduced into Christendom through the 
 long and assiduous activity of the apostle of the Gentiles, 
 with advantages beyond most others. We at once under- 
 stand, therefore, why our Epistle has no organizing character, 
 but rather that of nourishing and establishing. Further, 
 that the distinction between Judaism and heathenism as two 
 defined hostile camps is so entirely absent, is natural enough 
 at the end of the first century, and so long after the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem ; for, after that event, the power of the 
 Jews in persecuting the Christians lay simply in their hiding 
 themselves behind the Gentiles, and thus declaring themselves 
 to belong to the κόσμος. And that the whole non-Christian 
 world summed up under this name comes here into con- 
 sideration, not as a missionary-field, but as an anti-Christian 
 principle, as μισῶν, is to be explained by this, that already at 
 that time the energy of the gospel in founding and forming 
 churches had receded to the second place ; this characteristic 
 belonged rather to the Pauline age; and what we know 
 \ concerning the work of St. John assures us that it was not 
 80 much mission as cure of souls that lay near his heart. 
 It had been long demonstrated that both Judaism and 
 heathenism as a whole τὸ φῶς οὐ κατέλαβον. The hatred 
 of the world had since the days of Demetrius so often 
 declared itself, that it was confirmed and could no longer 
 now be matter of astonishment. The enemy of these days 
 was, in a peculiar sense, the spirit of false prophecy. We 
 
[3] 
 
 900 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 know, indeed, that even in the lifetime of the apostle heresy 
 had been in Ephesus brought to maturity by Cerinthus ; 
 and not only so, but, as has been already shown, the very 
 omissions of the Epistle may be perfectly understood when 
 it is referred to the Cerinthian Gnosis. All this proves, 
 therefore, that the Epistle must have been written later 
 than the other New Testament Scriptures, and that it mght 
 well have been written by St. John. That this latter was 
 actually the case its peculiar characteristics make clear 
 enough. 
 
 That there was probably no man who experienced the 
 transforming and glorifying influence of Christianity to the 
 same degree as the son of thunder, who once would have 
 desired fire to come down from heaven, appears, apart from 
 the Johannaean writings, from the testimony of the earliest 
 antiquity. Even supposing the touching traditions about 
 his declining life to be untrue, at least they are indi- 
 cations of the impression made upon generation after 
 generation by the work and character of this apostle. 
 Untrue legends, which become current in the mouths of 
 the people, are important for history; though these traditions 
 concerning St. John are not to be regarded as untrue. Let 
 it be noted how admirably the character of our Epistle 
 accords with what we otherwise know of the character of 
 the apostle. On the one side there is a keenness of severity 
 in the severance of light from darkness, and of the world 
 from the kingdom of God, which betrays the son of thunder ; 
 indeed, we find such an ethical sharpness of definition as 
 makes every little sin an evidence of the Satanic nature (comp. 
 ch. iii, 4-11), such indeed as occurs nowhere else through- 
 out the compass of Scripture. But, on the other side and 
 concurrently with this, we feel a breath of most pathetic and 
 most inward affection, from a spirit overflowing with love 
 and strong in peaceful rest, such as corresponds precisely 
 with those narratives, handed down from antiquity concern- 
 ing his old age, which appeal so forcibly to our hearts. If 
 we recall here again its consummate repose in the pre- 
 sence of the world’s hatred, the impression made by the 
 passages about Antichrist, as if apostasy to their company 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 367 
 
 were a thing clean impossible, though a reminding word 
 might be still appropriate, all this, too, is perfectly recon- 
 cilable with the character of St. John. That the aged 
 disciple, who through a long life had by faith and love 
 brought himself into so close a relation to his Lord, was so 
 thoroughly filled and pervaded by the riches of the grace 
 which came to him through Christ that all the hatred of 
 the world and raging of Antichrist failed to disturb him in 
 his deep repose, that he could not indeed well understand 
 how their attraction should be felt at all—all is perfectly 
 imaginable in his case. Simon Peter before this, in his 
 second Epistle, when the times were disturbed and the lie 
 had raised its head aloft, felt himself impelled with all the 
 energy of his love to transpose himself back into the days 
 when he had his Master’s society, and also with all the 
 energy of his hope to propel himself forward to the time 
 of the perfected kingdom of God. So also our apostle, 
 following his character out, and in harmony with his deep 
 interior nature, must needs, in his old age especially, have 
 still more abundantly felt himself impelled, while enemies 
 raged around him, and the more they raged, to fasten his 
 deep thought upon the glory of Him whom he had seen 
 as He was, and whom he hoped to see as He is. Thus, 
 in conclusion, it may be said that it is perfectly clear 
 how St. John, with such a personality as his, was precisely 
 so affected as the Epistle reveals him, so full of peace 
 in a time of fiercest conflict, so much more occupied with 
 positive construction than with defensive polemic against 
 enemies. 
 
 But it is quite another question whether, after all, St. 
 John could have written a /etter like this from out of such 
 circumstances, and as addressed to such circumstances. An 
 apostolical missive might be expected to be not merely an 
 expression of personal feelings, but by all means to impart 
 something to the readers; and therefore it must needs be 
 born out of the urgency of the particular time, and be 
 strictly adapted to its necessity. However high our esti- 
 mate of the Asiatic churches may be, it remains never- 
 theless certain that the Gnostic errors had not passed away 
 
908 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 without leaving deep traces; in fact, that these errors were 
 not overcome until after the hard conflict of a century. 
 Now, when we seem to find in our Epistle so extraordinarily 
 favourable a picture of the state of the churches in question, 
 and mark that the apostle is everywhere not so much teach- 
 ing and warning and exhorting as taking it for granted 
 emphatically that they know all things, how can all this 
 be made consistent with a time when the first love had 
 crown cold? Must not the churches, when they read the 
 Epistle, have felt themselves divided by an infinite gulf 
 from the state of things which its contents presupposed 
 among them? May we not suppose also that the apostle, 
 with eyes sharpened by faith and love and experience, 
 would have observed in the church in whose midst he 
 laboured many kinds of imperfection? Would it not have 
 occurred to him, or have been impressed on his mind, that 
 the false teachers, however little influence they might exert 
 upon himself personally, might be very dangerous indeed 
 to the flock? Could he really imagine, supposing him 
 to be at Ephesus, that the dangers and injuries were in 
 other places so much less or so insignificant? Now, if 
 there is any force in such questions as these, might it not 
 be presumed that the communication would have taken 
 quite another form, and have been much more urgent and 
 hortatory, and I might say more anxious? Must not all 
 these concurring circumstances, arising out of a view of 
 the concrete necessities of the churches, have at least so far 
 influenced the personal feeling and tone of the apostle as 
 to lessen the profound peace and the absolute joy that we 
 see to abound ? 
 
 All these difficulties are obviated and the mystery of 
 the Epistle solved if we assume that the apostle, when 
 writing it, was in a position in which the relations of the 
 churches were not immediately under his very eyes, not so 
 near to him as to affect his feeling and shape his words. 
 If, on the ground of the tradition that the Apostle John 
 was a long time in Patmos, we admit that he wrote his 
 letter from that island, this hypothesis will lighten up the 
 whole. First, we may point to an incidental and external 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 369 
 
 circumstance, which does not indeed depend upon this fact 
 for its explanation, but yet seems from this point of view 
 to be most satisfactorily explained. The two smaller 
 Epistles, which obviously came from the same hand as 
 the first, send final greetings from the church in the 
 bosom of which the writer had his residence. That needs no 
 proof for the third Epistle; nor for the second, if we only 
 grant that the Κυρία to whom it was addressed is a desig- 
 nation of the church, for then the τέκνα τῆς ἀδελφῆς τῆς 
 ἐκλεκτῆς at the close are obviously the members of the 
 community with which the apostle was then connected. 
 But in our Epistle, on the contrary, there is neither any 
 greeting from a church nor any greeting to one. The 
 absence of the latter may be accounted for by the encyclical 
 character of the document. But how shall the absence of 
 the former be accounted for? It was natural that the 
 ‘apostle should omit that, if he happened to be at the time 
 not in the midst of any church whatever. 
 
 If we only hold fast the supposition—more than that 
 we need not call it—tthat St. John wrote in Patmos, what 
 may be further assumed as to the character to which his 
 interior life was moulded? He lived in relative seclusion, 
 separated at least from all the excited movements of the 
 outer world. For on this small island, which was certainly 
 then no more frequented than now, he could only to a 
 slight extent exercise any influence or carry on any work of 
 an external character; and all the less must his work have 
 seemed to him, the more familiar he had been with the 
 energetic work of a large city. To him, at his age, it would 
 be matter of doubt whether he could win back that larger 
 influence, or whether the time of active work was not for 
 ever gone in his case. Then, the great concern was to wait 
 upon the blessed manifestation of the Lord, and ask of Him 
 how he might prepare to meet Him worthily at His coming. 
 The more he was shut in from exterior life, the more did he 
 retire into the depths of his own being, and exhaust that 
 which his faith gave him for his own good, and what he, in 
 common with the whole church, was called to attain through 
 the energy of that faith, Thus the internal and ethical 
 
 1 JOHN. 2A 
 
ano THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIN, 
 
 \ characteristics of the Epistle are no less explained than the 
 
 apocalyptic tendency of its strain. 
 
 And the world, the κόσμος, had recently, by banishing 
 him, not only given evidence of its internal severance from 
 Christianity, but had also almost entirely cut off the apostle 
 from its external fellowship. Now this perfect separation 
 between them is precisely reflected in the cold, abandoned 
 tone in which our Epistle speaks of the world throughout. 
 Withdrawn absolutely from it, and his thoughts alternating 
 between the first and the second appearance of the Son of 
 man, there rested upon the apostle that blessed and peaceful 
 sentiment to which his Epistle everywhere bears witness. 
 There is generally that joy, tranquil but all the more 
 intense on that account, which he knows whose sufferings 
 have driven him into seclusion, and who feels himself alone 
 with his God: like that which animated St. Paul when he 
 sent forth from the solitude of his prison the Epistle to the 
 Philippians, so pervaded with the atmosphere of joy. Anti- 
 Christianity and pseudo-prophecy St. John would hardly 
 find in the island of Patmos; for, even supposing that he 
 had founded a little church there, that church would not 
 probably have as yet been touched by such an influence, 
 especially as all gnosis rested much on philosophical culture. 
 But the report might reach him from without, that the false 
 teachers had all the more powerfully and ruthlessly pene- 
 trated into the old churches because they were deprived of 
 their apostolical shepherd. The intelligence of the πολλοὶ 
 ἀντίχριστοι which were among them gave token to him of 
 the ἐσχάτη ὥρα. Thus he felt himself moved to write to 
 the congregations in which he had laboured, in order to 
 exhort them to walk worthily of this last hour, and to arm 
 themselves with the true and only parrhesia for the coming 
 of the Son of man. And the apostle’s position, thus assumed, 
 accounts for the economy of the whole letter as we have 
 it; this explains the tranquil stillness of his own mind, 
 released from the bonds of this world, so full of the confi- 
 dent sense of the grandeur of Christianity as contrasted with 
 the vanity of the false prophets,—in all this not disturbed 
 by being personally in immediate contact with the unrest 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 5.1 
 
 and danger of the churches still living in the midst of the 
 world. 
 
 May we not say that the divine wisdom found better 
 means to strengthen the churches by this Epistle, pene- 
 trated by influences arising from the circumstances we have 
 alluded to, than if the apostle himself had stood in their 
 ‘midst lifting up the most urgent warnings? Into the midst 
 of the conflict of life, with its temptations and its distrac- 
 tions, he thus entered, himself untouched by them all, as ii 
 coming forth from another world,—must not that have 
 prompted the feeling, “ Put off thy shoes, for this is holy 
 ground”? He is filled by the glowing experience (χαρά, 
 παῤῥησία) which the Christian has who knows himself in 
 possession of the great communicated gifts of life and son- 
 ship: what so effectually pierces the heart as the language 
 of this calm and full inspiration? He speaks about that 
 which the churches already are in accordance with their 
 new nature (as partakers of the kingdom of light), and of 
 what, in accordance with their destination, they are to 
 become (as those who should have παῤῥησία in the day of 
 judgment), —that is, he speaks of the positive objects and aims 
 which Christianity places before every individual Christian: 
 _ was not this the way to point the churches to so high and 
 so comprehensive a work, that for mere idle speculation, the 
 opposite of that practical work, and therefore for the seduc- 
 tions of pseudo-prophecy, they would literally have no time 
 
 or thought? The apostle so deals with the great gifts and ~~ 
 
 the great problems of Christian people, so opens to them 
 the riches of what they have and are yet to have in Christ, 
 that he takes the most effectual means of rendering it 
 impossible that they should seek these riches anywhere 
 else. The interior life of the church he would invigorate, 
 he would consummate their union with God and with the 
 brethren: that is the weapon which he puts into their 
 hands for their better external warfare. Thus the secret of 
 the Epistle is solved. We see that it is occasioned by the 
 energetic working of anti-Christianity ; but we also see that 
 it is moulded by the personal position of the writer, and 
 that this explains his peaceful and tranquil bearing, despite 
 
ΠΩ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 their uprising: in fact, this very bearing is the means of 
 defence approved and chosen by the apostle. 
 
 The utmost that we have reached by this series of 
 explanations would be only the proof that it is possible to 
 insert the Epistle, just as we have it, with all its apparently 
 discordant peculiarities, into the course of St. John’s life, 
 and show its harmony with that life. But is the composi- 
 tion in Patmos, which we have relied upon, more than 
 a mere hypothesis? We know that in recent times the 
 apostle’s residence there has been contended against; and, 
 in very recent times, his work at Ephesus altogether. It 
 certainly is not our business to come now to a new under- 
 standing with the records and traditions of the first cen- 
 turies: for exegesis and biblical theology, our relation to 
 them is taken for granted. Still it is necessary, when we 
 yield our faith to tradition about a book as a whole, that 
 we should be able to show that the internal character of the 
 book is in harmony with this tradition. But what does 
 tradition say in confirmation of the view that the Epistle 
 was written in Patmos ? 
 
 Certainly there is no tradition as to the place where the 
 Epistle was written, nor as to its readers,—for the well-known 
 error of Augustine we may leave out of view,—but there is 
 one as to the place where the Gospel was composed. Now 
 this at once includes the Epistle, if we acknowledge that the 
 two writings were designed for the same readers, with the 
 same object, and simultaneously written. Itis true that we 
 could not refer the ἔγραψα of the second chapter to the 
 Gospel; and it is not right to regard the introduction of 
 the Epistle (ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὸν λόγον τῆς ζωῆς) as 
 alluding to it; for the Epistle itself is such an annunciation, 
 which would never have been doubted if the expression had 
 been rightly interpreted. The many passages of the Epistle 
 which are parallel with passages in the Gospel must not be 
 appealed to; for, while they show the identity of author, 
 they say nothing as to the identity of time when both were 
 composed. But this is important, that in a whole series of 
 places— marked in our exposition, as especially ch. ii. 7, the 
 ἐντολὴ καινή, and ch. iv. 17, v.6—the Epistle is intelligible 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. ole 
 
 only if we suppose the reader to possess a knowledge of the 
 Gospel, not only in general, but also in detailed expressions. 
 They are written as one would write who not only has the 
 phrases current in the Gospel directly before himself, but 
 also supposes them to be immediately under the eye of the 
 readers too. Such allusions to individual phrases in another 
 treatise are best explained by supposing that the writer 
 has just finished writing them; and not only so, he must 
 suppose the readers to understand them only if those readers 
 are under their immediate influence: if some time had 
 elapsed since the perusal, they could hardly be presumed 
 or expected to understand them, especially as we cannot 
 assume that individual Christians were furnished with copies 
 of the Gospel. Further, this reconciles us to the form of 
 the Epistle, the absence of the customary greeting at the 
 beginning and the end: a circumstance quite appropriate if 
 it was regarded as really belonging to the Gospel itself ; as 
 has been rightly observed, though weight enough has not 
 generally been conceded to the remark. We see that in 
 the two smaller Epistles, coming from the same hand, the 
 apostle has adopted the usual style of greeting. He who 
 wrote a gospel was possibly led to do so by some definite 
 relations and circumstances, and wrote it primarily for a 
 definite circle; but he certainly wrote it not only for that 
 circle, and not only for these relations, but generally in the 
 service of Christianity. And if the author of such a book 
 accompanies it by a letter, which expounds the practical 
 bearing of the history communicated,—and such is the 
 relation of our Epistle to the Gospel,—then it is easily 
 understood that the letter also would partake of the objective 
 tone of the book, that the specific relations of the readers 
 would remain untouched, that the definite circle of readers 
 would from the outset recede in comparison of the universal 
 company of readers for whom the book was intended. Thus, 
 though the Epistle is sent primarily to an individual com- 
 munity, it is really catholic and encyclical in the highest 
 degree: it is addressed to the readers of the Gospel as a whole. 
 
 Accordingly, if it is highly probable that the Epistle is 
 most intimately bound up with the Gospel, then all that 
 
9.1: THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 has been urged about the place where the Gospel was written 
 holds good also of the Epistle. And what is the current of 
 tradition here? It testifies in two ways: one declares that 
 Patmos was the place of its origin; the other speaks of 
 Ephesus, though, strictly speaking, not so much as the place 
 of its composition as the place of its publication. It is well 
 known that earlier antiquity sought to harmonize the two: 
 the Gospel was written im Patmos, issued in Ephesus. 
 Certainly it were possible that the earlier tradition rested 
 on a supposition which transferred the Patmos origination 
 of the Apocalypse to the Gospel. But the Gospel bears 
 traces in itself that it was not finished at one stroke, as we 
 have it now. The last chapter is as certainly from the 
 same hand as it is certain that it was written later than the 
 rest. There is but one reason assignable for its being 
 added, that is, to contradict the opinion that the apostle 
 was not to die. If, then, St. John was at Ephesus when 
 he wrote the Gospel, and knew that this opinion existed, 
 would he not at once have incorporated the twenty-first 
 chapter into the body of the work? If that opinion 
 originated later, would not an oral energetic contradiction 
 have sufficed to suppress it, and thus render the postscript 
 needless? But how easily is all this explained and recon- 
 ciled, if we assume that during his absence, and on the 
 ground of the fact that he had saved his life during the 
 Christian persecution, this notion sprang up and became 
 firmly established in consequence of his not being there to 
 suppress it! When he returned, he found it existing and 
 very generally prevalent. Then he determined to add this 
 postscript, to put an end to it wherever the Gospel should 
 spread. That the original conclusion, ch. xx. 20, was left 
 in its place, may be explained by the circumstance that 
 many copies were already abroad, and that the work was no 
 longer in the sole possession of its author. Thus, in fact, 
 the two accounts as to the origin of the Gospel, and the 
 old attempt to reconcile them, remain therefore justified. 
 Moreover, this proves that the Epistle was primarily written 
 from Patmos to Ephesus, and, with the Gospel to which it 
 belongs, had a later and wider circulation. 
 
GENERAL REVIEW, 375 
 
 THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 But we have not only been concerned in our investi- 
 gation to discuss the form of the Epistle. We have not 
 only had to do with the order of the thought as the ground 
 for conclusions as to the external and internal relations 
 which originated it, but have sought to penetrate to the 
 matter of the thought, and to present vividly before our 
 minds the dogmatic - ethical views of the apostle. It 
 remains that we undertake a recapitulation of this last 
 point,—that is, sum up the fundamental principles of the 
 Johannaean theology, so far as it les before us in this 
 Epistle. But we must first endeavour to explain our 
 conception generally of the relation subsisting between the 
 several orders of New Testament doctrine. It is not that 
 St. John held something different from St. Paul as truth, 
 and St. Peter something different from St. James: they all 
 and alike announce one and the same truth in Christ Jesus, 
 and in the work finished in His life and sufferings. But 
 this divine truth, thus revealed, could not by any human 
 spirit be embraced, in its totality, in all the inexpressibly 
 various references and relations which are involved in it. 
 It reflected itself in every individual mind, according to the 
 variety of their several spiritual apprehensions. Not only 
 did one aspect become prominent to one, and another to 
 another, according to the several postures and necessities of 
 each ; but also the same side of truth, beheld by two persons, 
 became to each a distinct image, because the eye of each 
 was variously organized. What every apostle announces, 
 accordingly, is truth, but not the truth in the absolute 
 sense. THE truth is, in fact, only for God. What, there- 
 ‘fore, we call the various apostolical types of doctrine or 
 theologies is the synthesis between the one Object equally 
 manifested to all, and the subjectivity of each distinct 
 apprehension of that object. Hence, if we would under- 
 stand the doctrinal system of any apostle, we must, above 
 all things, form to ourselves a distinct idea of his entire 
 spiritual peculiarity, of his natural subjectivity, in order 
 
oO 
 
 376 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIIN. 
 
 that we may be able to perceive how it came to pass that 
 the same common truth thus and no otherwise reflected 
 itself in him. 
 
 The easiest and surest way to proceed here is to make 
 the Gospel our point of departure; for not only does the 
 wider range of the Gospel allow more prominence to the 
 spiritual nature of St. John’s conceptions, but the very 
 difference between the matter contained in it and that of 
 the Epistle enables us, by comparison of the two writings, 
 yto perceive what was the peculiarity of the author. It has 
 | been long since exhibited, that the specific character of the 
 _ Gospel consists in the penetration of the historical material 
 | by certain dominant and formative ideas. This view is 
 common alike to the defenders and the impugners of its 
 authenticity. He who objects against the truth of the 
 facts recorded there, assumes that these have been invented 
 or worked up for the sake of such ruling ideas; on the 
 other hand, he who defends them, defends them in such a 
 way as to show that the apostle so understood the facts as 
 to place them in the light of the ideas immanent in them ; 
 but the author's own way of looking at all remains the 
 same in both hypotheses. 
 
 If it may be permitted to apply to the style of an 
 apostle’s thought the later scholastic terminology, then St. 
 John was through and through a Realist. Universalia ante 
 vem is the principle of all his philosophy, of all his views. 
 Ideas — light and darkness, truth and lie — are the true 
 _ and actual reality, the principle of life out of which indi- 
 vidual things emerge ; mankind, the individual man, the 
 particular action, are not otherwise than as the idea marked 
 out for their existence prescribes; this is the thing in- 
 ἡ dwelling in them, which moves them as a law, by virtue 
 of which all that belongs to them is fashioned. Thus it is 
 that history to St. John is not the sum of individual, free 
 human acts, interwoven with each other and interpene- 
 trating, but it appears to him one great organism,—if the 
 word is not objected to,—a process the internal law of 
 whose development is as much marked out beforehand, and 
 as naturally flows from it, as the plant springs from its germ. 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 377 
 For all the particular is inevitably and immediately, con- 
 sciously or unconsciously, in the service of a general 
 ‘principle. History is to him the working out of an idea, , 
 the body which it assumes to itself; and this body is 
 naturally conformed to the soul which creates it, that is; 
 to the idea: history is the invisible translated into the 
 visible. ὁ 
 
 History has generally two faces: the one reflects in 
 itself the expression of human freedom, the other a neces- 
 sary orderly sequence of things; and that not as if 
 these two gave place to each other, but both as being at 
 one and the same time altogether present. All is at once 
 the entire product of freedom, and the entire product of 
 necessity. It is the latter of the two faces which has 
 presented itself to St. John, and stamps its peculiar impress 
 upon his book. Therefore we have in the Gospel no un- 
 expected, surprising catastrophes; but we are conscious 
 from the outset of the impression that thus and not other- 
 wise the development must go on. Indeed, this further 
 explains how it is that we sometimes miss anything like 
 a continuous development: that, for example, the conflict 
 with the Jews in the fifth chapter seems to be as deadly as 
 in the twelfth chapter ; that the discourses of the Baptist 
 are so similar to those of Christ Himself; that what our 
 Lord unfolds to Nicodemus is of the same character as 
 that which He presents to the uncultured multitude. All 
 this rests on the same principle. Because St. John has 
 always in view the dominant idea, and will show its 
 dominance, it therefore comes into the foreground of his 
 ‘representations ; but hence also the gradual process of its 
 realization, all the external differences of the several 
 occasions receding comparatively into the rear. So is it 
 with the discourses: the ideas which lie at the basis of the 
 words of the Baptist and of the words of Christ are in the 
 issue the same ; and in order to show this plainly, the form 
 is lost in which the idea was clothed according to the 
 several peculiarities of the speaker and the hearers. 
 
 The same Realism which is stamped as a pervasive 
 feature on the Gospel reappears in the Epistle. Here also 
 
378 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 all leads up to the fact that the ideas, the general notions, 
 ‘light, truth, and so forth, are not to the apostle abstrac- 
 tions, but absolute realities, which, like the germ in the 
 plant, are deposited in Christian natures, and condition all 
 the outward expressions of their life. The most material 
 difference between the two books is only this, that in the 
 Gospel the fundamental facts are recorded through which 
 the ideas have been introduced into this earthly life; while 
 in the Epistle, on the other hand, it is shown how, on the 
 ground of these, the life of individual men must be raised 
 \and fashioned. As to the form of the Epistle, it appears 
 from what has been said that St. John cannot be said to 
 ‘communicate instruction proper in the ordinary sense ; he 
 does not impart propositions to the reader which he may 
 receive as, so to speak, novelties into his understanding. 
 For as he presupposes that light, truth, life are already 
 present in the Christians whom he addresses, all learning 
 and teaching is to him only remembrance in the proper 
 sense ; that is, a becoming inwardly conscious of what is 
 in the man himself, a meditation upon that as already in 
 the spirit, not the unfolding and discussion of the contents 
 | of these ideas. And as there is no proper instruction, so 
 _ there is to our apostle no proper exhortation and command- 
 | ment; for the substance of all precepts is involved in the 
 ideas indwelling in the Christian: he not only knows in 
 himself what God enjoins, but he does it from his own 
 impulse; so that St. John’s only command is ὅ ἐστιν 
 ἀληθὲς ἐν avtois,—that is, what, apart from any precept 
 of his, has already become a reality in the readers. 
 
 This being the general spiritual point of view from which 
 St. John sees all things, we have at once the one prin- 
 ciple whence all his connected thinking must take its de- 
 parture, the idea in which all others are involved, and from 
 which all others grow as their germ. It is the idea of the 
 Logos. As to the relation of the Logos to the Father, the 
 Epistle certainly gives no specific determination; it does 
 not in any passage speak of the transcendent, pre-temporal 
 life of God, but from the outset regards the Logos as the 
 φανερωθείς, who has entered into the historical sphere of 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 379 
 
 the world’s movement and action. The proper historical 
 process in St. John, according to which the Father giveth 
 to the Son all that He hath, and the Son then again 
 proffers His fulness to the world, is not made emphatic in 
 the first clause of the Epistle; but it is the silent pre- 
 supposition, known well to the readers from the Gospel. 
 That such a presupposition there is, however, is most 
 evident ; for if, as an example, God is named φῶς in ch. 
 i. 5, and in ch. ii. 8 Christ is τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, this most 
 assuredly points back to the relation we have mentioned, 
 But it is certainly the centre of our Epistle, as of all the 
 Johannaean writings, that the Logos, apart from the ques-| 
 tion whence He received it, is the πλήρωμα of the divine} 
 essence, and that in order to communicate it. What the’ 
 Gospel and Epistle both utter in their introductory sen- 
 tences, is no other than the germ out of which the whole 
 substance of both books is developed. Similarly; in ch. i. | 
 of the Apocalypse the recorded appearance of Jesus from 
 heaven is the kernel, the sum of the whole book: the_ 
 book is simply a commentary on that text. The Logos is \ 
 the possessor of all life, of all light, of all truth; He com- 
 municates Himself to men, and, as the issue of this, man- 
 kind participates in the portion that the Logos has. Thus. 
 we understand how the ideas of truth and so forth are, as 
 we saw above, to St. John not abstractions, but realities ; 
 because, that is, they are existent in the Logos, yea, they 
 fare the nature of the Logos. These are in men only 
 , because the Logos is in men. This is what the Epistle 
 ᾿ teaches in almost every chapter. When it is said in ch. 1. 
 that the blood of the Son of God cleanses us from all sin ; 
 when in ch. 11. brotherly love is taught as a new command- 
 ment, that is, not a new commandment of obligation to us, 
 but a power ruling within us; when the idea of the μένειν 
 ἐν Θεῷ καὶ Θεὸν ἐν ἡμῖν is made so prominent ;—all this 
 receives its full illustration in ch. iv., where all obedience 
 to the divine commandments and all brotherly love are 
 derived from the γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, or, what is the 
 same thing, from the possession of the Holy Ghost. The 
 Holy Ghost, that is, is ever to St. John the Spirit of the 
 
380 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOIN, 
 
 glorified Christ. And this too is a matter presupposed in 
 the Epistle, being derived from the Gospel. In the Gospel 
 it is expressly announced and shown forth, how, in the 
 economy of the work of the Logos upon earth laying the 
 foundation for all else, that which He objectively obtained 
 is now subjectively imparted to every individual. And it 
 is of this personal and subjective appropriation of the 
 redeeming work that the Epistle speaks throughout. It is 
 so exhibited, however, that the Logos Himself as πνεῦμα 
 imparts Himself to men; and thus the life of men is 
 essentially nothing but the life of the Logos reproduced and 
 fully formed in them. This entrance of the Spirit of 
 Christ—that is, of the Logos Himself substantially—is the 
 first act which is accomplished on man, through which he 
 becomes a child of God, and subjected to the energy of the 
 Logos. 
 
 It is plain from what has been said, that all Christian 
 development is referred by St. John to a divine causality. 
 
 L— f 
 
 The truth—that is, what is in God, which alone, therefore, 
 
 can claim to be reality—is before any exhibition of it already 
 in men; every approval of it in life is only the expression 
 of the objective truth living in them. The life which is in 
 man is so constituted, that it is simply the result of his 
 having in him the personal Logos, or the personal life, 
 through the possession of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, 
 on the other hand, the Christian life is to the apostle more 
 than a mere process, not merely the natural and necessary 
 development of the germs implanted in men; it is also the 
 work of human freedom. The truth hes, as we have said, 
 before any human activity in the subject himself, in virtue 
 of the gift of the Holy Spirit ; nevertheless, the requirement 
 goes forth that he must ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Similarly, all 
 love of the brethren is an outbeaming of the love of God 
 
 infused into him; nevertheless it is no mere rhetorical 
 
 formula when the commandment to love is issued in his 
 hearing. All that is done is, as we have already remarked, 
 at once divine and human action; and if St. John makes 
 specially prominent the former aspect, and brings that into 
 the foreground, he does not on that account deny the latter. 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 381 
 
 As it is said concerning Christ in the Gospel that He has 
 life from the Father and lives δι αὐτόν, while, on the other 
 hand, He does not lay down His life and take it again 
 merely at the Father’s will, but both are at the same time 
 His own free act,so is it also with man. The side of 
 human freedom is especially emphasized in the third 
 chapter of the Epistle; and it is most evident in the two- 
 fold idea of sonship which we were constrained to establish: 
 sonship as a gift by means of the impartation of the Spirit 
 is the divine side of the matter; sonship as the working 
 out of righteousness and brotherly love is, however, possible 
 only in virtue of a concurrent human activity. Man must’ 
 ‘open his whole person to the Spirit of God, giving scope 
 to His Divine activity; and that not only in the sense 
 of a mere passive resignation, but by making that which 
 God does in him the free act, at the same time, of his own™ 
 ‘personal individuality. And this conjunction of the natural 
 human spirit with the Divine Spirit, this central activity of 
 man himself, is faith. While St. John regards all human 
 action as at once the result of birth from God and the 
 result of faith, he has found the synthesis between the two 
 factors, everywhere interpenetrating and running parallel 
 with each other, of the divine and the human causality : 
 the former being ever that which predominantly rules the 
 apostle’s thought. 
 
 Since all human acting is to St. John the reflection of 
 the divine life, he places it in his Epistle under the norm 
 [οἵ a twofold divine property: God is righteous, and God is 
 ‘love; and accordingly the human life is practising right- 
 eousness and practising love; the former being man’s act 
 
 85. towards God, the latter as towards the brethren. Any 
 further specialization and analysis of righteousness and love 
 in their outward expressions in the various relations of life 
 is not found in the Epistle: if only righteousness and love 
 are both in the heart, they will know how of themselves to 
 give evidence of their presence, without needing any specific 
 prescriptions. Avro τὸ χρῖσμα διδάσκει ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων. 
 
 Up to this point we have left unconsidered the relation 
 which St. John assumes to the doctrine of sin. Concerning 
 
 Y 
 
382 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 the origination of sin in the world of mankind he gives in 
 the Gospel and in the Epistle no deliverance: he teaches 
 only that it has come to us through the devil. Satan has 
 » founded a kingdom which stands in diametrical opposition 
 to that of the light ; and into that kingdom we are incor- 
 porated through sin. If God is the life, then obviously in 
 the Satanic kingdom is the sphere of absolute death; if 
 God is light, then darkness rules here; if in God is all 
 truth, then here is nothing but lie-—that is, an existence 
 which has only the appearance of life and reality, while in 
 fact it is altogether void of substance, and maintains itself 
 only through contradiction to the light. This kingdom of 
 “darkness has received into its possession the whole earth, 
 with all that is upon it, so that ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ 
 πονηρῷ κεῖται. We saw that in this passage the expression 
 ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ is to be understood in the masculine; and as 
 such it is definitive as to the Johannaean view of sin. Just 
 as God in the kingdom of light is the causality on which 
 all depends, so it is in the kingdom of Satan. The Logos 
 became flesh, and was manifested, to destroy this kingdom 
 of Satan; and through His own manifestation has established 
 a kingdom of light upon earth. Assuredly, they who have a 
 part in this kingdom are not altogether without sin, and so 
 far belong still to the kingdom of Satan ; but this point of 
 view recedes into the background throughout the Epistle. 
 Since St. John enters less into the detail, the process of 
 development of the Christian life, rather embracing the 
 issue of the development in one comprehensive glance,— 
 dwelling more on what we as Christians should be and 
 shall be than on what we are at any particular time in our 
 earthly course,—so also for the most part he sees in Chris- 
 tians only the enemies of the Satanic kingdom who are 
 released from the despotism and service of evil. Over 
 _against them stands then the κόσμος, as the world not only 
 un-Christian, but anti-Christian. For, in the manifestation 
 of Christ not only has the power of God reached its 
 culminating point, but the power of Satan also: the world 
 has become anti-Christianity. And thus the history of the 
 church is to the apostle one great warfare: the conflict 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 383 
 
 which in fundamentals Christ Himself waged through His 
 earthly life with Satan is continued as a conflict between 
 His members and the members of the Satanic kingdom, 
 But as the apostle gives no utterance on the question 
 how the kingdom of darkness, properly speaking, originated, 
 in what way Satan arose in opposition to God, so also he 
 leaves perfectly untouched the question how the warfare | 
 between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness 
 will be brought to an end. In the Gospel and in the Epistle ~ 
 he speaks only and always of the enmity between these 
 two,—of the victory which Christians win, and so win that 
 evil cannot come near them; but as to what will become of 
 the kingdom of evil he says nothing. The evil one and evil 
 itself are condemned, inasmuch as through the manifestation 
 of Christ both as darkness are placed under the light; but | 
 as to any other external judgment upon them he makes no 
 disclosure; this is beyond the sphere of thought occupied 
 by our Epistle. The converse of this is, that the external 
 form and final destiny of the church also, as well as of the 
 corporate congregational life, le beyond St. John’s con- 
 sideration: he has to do only with the relation of the 
 individual Christian to God and to his own brethren. We 
 may collate this with the fact that he has no ethical doc- 
 trine as such, that he communicates no instruction as to 
 the way in which the Christian life is to adapt itself to 
 the particular relations of life; but deals only with the 
 general principles of δικαιοσύνη and ἀγάπη. In all this 
 we discern a disregard of everything special or individual, 
 and of everything external; the detailed formation of the 
 personal life as well as the external organization of the 
 ον community are left unconsidered. And we understand it 
 
 Ui well when we consider the distinctive characteristics of St. 
 
 John’s spirit, as unfolded above; according to which he 
 contemplates rather the ideas lying at their root than the 
 external appearances themselves, and, never lingering amidst 
 the manifold outward forms of things, presses into the unity 
 of the impulses which move in them respectively. 
 
 These remarks of course constitute not even a funda- 
 mental sketch of a Johannaean theology. For anything of 
 
384 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 that kind the Epistle with which we have been occupied 
 gives no material, since it everywhere rests upon the basis of 
 the doctrinal principles of the Gospel. But it does furnish 
 evidence enough to show how all thoughts on divine things 
 were presented to St. John, in virtue of his own general 
 style of spiritual contemplation, with a specific tone and 
 colouring ; and evidence also as to what that style of con- 
 templation was. And this is a very important matter. 
 What the net is to the chartographer, that is for the 
 student of biblical theology the natural cast and tone of an 
 apostle. For the first question is not to find out and show 
 how one apostle may discuss any particular locus of dog- 
 matics rather differently from another; but to seize so 
 accurately the spiritual peculiarity and individuality of 
 every New Testament author, as to know why the one truth 
 has been in his mind so differently reflected, and reflected 
 precisely in such a manner. An example taken from 
 another science will show what we mean. When we com- 
 pare with each other several great philosophical systems, 
 no results come from the process if we merely isolate a 
 single point and exercise our critical faculty on that: as, 
 for example, the idea of space and time in Kant. If we 
 have before us an actual system, then all the individual 
 points in it hang upon the specific fundamental view of the 
 philosopher himself. The system should furnish its own 
 evidence of this fundamental view; and, conversely, the 
 evidence that every individual point results from the one 
 common principle. The various fundamental views of the 
 philosopher, however, are not usually in antithesis as truth 
 to untruth; but each of them usually, though as mixed with 
 much error, presents one side of the truth. The main thing, 
 therefore,—abstracting of course the error,—is to receive 
 every such distinct glimmering of truth for itself, and thus, 
 collecting the several colours into which the light breaks, to 
 approximate more and more closely to the absolute truth. 
 If we apply this to biblical theology, that which we observed 
 above becomes plainer through the illustration. This specific 
 branch of theological science furnishes solid advantage to 
 dogmatics, not through its helping us to compare the 
 
GENERAL REVIEW. 385 
 
 individual apostles on this or that particular dogma, but 
 through its teaching us to penetrate into the general view 
 which each apostle takes of the world and of God, following 
 his own spiritual individuality, and to concentrate those 
 several rays of truth into one most rich and perfect image, 
 thus obtaining a point of view from which the picture is 
 seen to embrace all those individual elements without dis- 
 paragement and without exception. 
 
 And the advantage which the theologian has over every 
 other investigator is this, that he needs never to make any 
 deductions; that he finds error nowhere, but everywhere 
 truth, though it may be truth seen under peculiar aspects. 
 To such a fabric of biblical theology the author has desired 
 to contribute a single stone: taking one little document 
 of one apostle, he has sought according to his ability to 
 obtain what, in the figure above, the net obtains for the 
 draughtsman, that is, its general outline ; and, moreover, to 
 insert into the chart such points as our exegesis may have 
 secured by the way. Even supposing that in both these 
 respects all our results were sound, the chart is still far 
 enough from being complete: it could be made such only 
 by a similar treatment of the Gospel. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 bo 
 io] 
 
 1 JOHN. 
 

 
PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 Πρ TCL: A ake 
 
 88 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH. 
 
 mo 
 
 Adam (John, D.D.)—AN EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 
 With an Appendix of Dissertations. 8vo, 9s. 
 
 Alexander (Dr. J. A.)—COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH. 
 New and Revised Edition. With a Preface by Joun Eapin, D.D., LL.D. 
 Two vols. 8vo, 17s. 
 
 Ante-Nicene Christian Library—A COLLECTION OF ALL THE WoRKS 
 OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF 
 Nicza. Twenty-four vols 8vo, Subscription price, £6, 6s. 
 
 Auberlen (C. A.)—THE DIVINE REVELATION. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Augustine’s Works—Edited by Marcus Dons, D.D. Fifteen vols. 
 8vo, Subscription price, £3, 19s. 
 
 Bannerman (Professor)—THE CHURCH OF CHRIST: A Treatise on the 
 Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian 
 Church. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 Baumgarten (Professor)—AposToLtic History ; Being an Account of 
 the Development of the Early Church in the form of a Commentary on the 
 Acts of the Apostles. Three vols. 8vo, 27s. 
 
 Beck (J. T., D.D.)—OUTLINES oF BIBLICAL PsycHoLocy. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 
 
 Bengel—GNoMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. With Original Notes, 
 Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 31s. 6d. 
 Cheaper Edition, the five volumes bound in three, 24s. 
 
 Besser (Dr. Rudolph)—BrIsLicaAL STUDIES ON St. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 
 Two vols. crown 8vo, 12s. 
 
 Bleek (Professor)—AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 Bowman (T., M.A.)—A NEw EAsy AND CoMPLETE HEBREW COURSE: 
 Containing a Hebrew Grammar, with copious Hebrew and English Exercises, 
 strictly graduated ; and also a Hebrew-English and English-Hebrew Lexicon. 
 Part I., 8yo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 Brown (David, D.D.)—Curist’s Second Comine: Will it be Pre- 
 Millennial? Sixth Edition, crown 8yo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 Bruce (A. B., D.D.)—THE TRAINING OF THE TWELVE; or, Exposition 
 of Passages in the Gospels exhibiting the Twelve Disciples of Jesus under 
 Discipline for the Apostleship. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST IN ITS PHYSICAL, ETHICAL, AND 
 OrricriAL Asprcts. (Sixth Series of Cunningham Lectures.) 8vo, 12s. 
 
 Buchanan (Professor)—THE DocTRINE oF JUSTIFICATION: An Out- 
 line of its History in the Church, and of its Exposition from Scripture, with 
 special reference to recent attacks on the Theology of the Reformation. (Second 
 Series of Cunningham Lectures.) ὅνο, 10s. 6d. 
 
 ON CoMFORT IN AFFLICTION. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. 
 ΟΝ IMPROVEMENT OF AFFLICTION. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. 
 
 
 

 
 2 T. and 7. Clark's Publications. 
 
 Bungener (Felix)—ROME AND THE COUNCIL IN THE NINETEENTH 
 Century. Crown 8vo, 5s. 
 
 Calvin—His Lirx, LABours, AND Writincs. By FEeLix BUNGENER. 
 8vo, 8s. 6d. 
 
 INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. Translated by 
 Henry BEVERIDGE. Two vols. 8vo, 14s. 
 
 Calvini Institutio Christiane Religionis. Curavit A. THOLUCK. 
 Two vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 14s. 
 
 Caspari (C. E.)—A CHRONOLOGICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUC- 
 TION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST. ὅνο, 9s. 
 
 Caspers (A.)—TuHE Footsteps OF CHRIST. Crown ὅνο, 7s. 6d. 
 
 Cave (Alfred, B.A.)—Tue ScriprurE DocTRINE OF SACRIFICE. 
 Demy 8vo, 12s. 
 
 Christlieb (Dr.)—MopERN DovuBT AND CHRISTIAN BELIEF. A Series 
 
 of Apologetic Lectures addressed to Earnest Seekers after Truth. Fourth 
 Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Cotterill (J. M.)—PrrrGRINUS Proteus: An Investigation into 
 
 certain Relations between De Morte Peregrini, the Two Epistles of Clement 
 to the Corinthians, ete. ὅνο, 12s. 
 
 Cousin (Victor)—LECTURES ON THE TRUE, THE BEAUTIFUL, AND THE 
 Goop. Post 8vo, 6s. 6d. 
 
 Cremer (Professor)—BrisBiico-THEOLOGICAL LEXICON oF NEW TESTA- 
 MENT GREEK. Third Edition, demy 4to, 25s. 
 
 Cunningham (Principal)—SERMONS BY THE LATE WM. CUNNINGHAM, 
 D.D., Principal and Professor of Church History, Edinburgh. 8vo, 9s. 
 
 REFORMERS AND THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMATION. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 DISCUSSIONS ON CHURCH PRINCIPLES. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 HIsToRICAL THEOLOGY. A Review of the Principal Doctrinal 
 
 Discussions in the Christian Church since the Apostolic Age. Second 
 Edition, Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 Curtiss (Dr. 5. I.)—Tue Leviticat Priests. <A Contribution to the 
 Criticism of the Pentateuch. Crown 8vo, 5s. 
 
 Dabney (R. L., D.D.)\—THE SENSUALISTIC PHILOSOPHY OF THE 
 NINETEENTH CENTURY CONSIDERED. Crown 8vo, 6s. 
 
 Davidson (Professor)—AN INTRODUCTORY HEBREW GRAMMAR. With 
 Progressive Exercises in Reading and Writing. Third Edition, 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 Delitzsch (Professor)—A SysTEM OF BIBLICAL PSYCHOLOGY. Second 
 Edition, 8vo, 12s. 
 
 BIBLICAL COMMENTARY ON JoB. ‘Two vols. ὅνο, 21s. 
 BIBLICAL COMMENTARY ON PSALMS. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. 
 
 BIBLICAL COMMENTARY ON THE PROVERBS OF SOLOMON. Two 
 vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 BIBLICAL COMMENTARY ON THE SONG OF SOLOMON AND 
 ECCLESIASTES. 8yo, 10s. θά. 
 
T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 Delitzsch (Prof.)—BIBLICAL COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. Twovols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 Dods (Marcus, D.D.)—Tue Post-Exm1AN PropHets—HAaaaat, 
 
 ZECHARIAH, MAnacut. With Introduction and Notes. Bible Class Hand- 
 books. Crown 8vo, 2s. 
 
 Doedes (Dr. J..—MANUAL OF HERMENEUTICS FOR THE NEW TESTA- 
 MENT. Crown 8yvo, 3s. 
 
 Dollinger (Dr.)—HIPPOLYTUS AND CALLISTUS ; or, The Roman Church 
 in the First Half of the Third Century. 8vo, 9s. 
 
 Dorner (Professor)—HIsToRY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE 
 OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. Five vols. 8vo, £2, 12s. 6d. 
 
 HIsTORY OF PROTESTANT THEOLOGY, particularly in Germany, 
 viewed according to its Fundamental Movement, and in connection with the 
 Religious, Moral, and Intellectual Life. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 Eadie (Professor)—CoMMENTARY ON THE GREEK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE 
 oF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.)—TuHe Gospet History: A Compendium of 
 Critical Investigations in support of the Four Gospels. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Elliott (Chas., D.D.)—A TREATISE ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE ΠΟΙ 
 ScRIPTURES. 8vo, 6s. 
 
 Ernesti—PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION oF New TESTA- 
 MENT. ‘Two vols. feap. 8vo, 8s. 
 
 Ewald (Heinrich)—SynTAx OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE OF THE OLD 
 TESTAMENT. 8vo, 8s. 6d. 
 
 Fairbairn (Principal)—TyPpoLocy oF SCRIPTURE, viewed in connection 
 with the series of Divine Dispensations. Fifth Edition, Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 Tne REVELATION OF LAW IN SCRIPTURE, considered with 
 respect both to its own Nature and to its relative place in Successive Dispen- 
 sations. (The Third Series of Cunningham Lectures.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 EZEKIEL AND THE Book oF HIS PROPHECY: An Exposition. 
 Fourth Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 PROPHECY VIEWED IN ITS DISTINCTIVE NATURE, ITS SPECIAL 
 FUNCTIONS, AND PROPER INTERPRETATIONS. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 HERMENEUTICAL MANUAL; or, Introduction to the Exegetical 
 Study of the Scriptures of the New Testament. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 THE PASTORAL EpIsTLES. The Greek Text and Translation. 
 With Introduction, Expository Notes, and Dissertations. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 PasToRAL THEOLOGY: A Treatise on the Office and Duties of 
 the Christian Pastor. With a Memoir of the Author. Crown 8vo, 6s. 
 
 Fisher (G. B., D.D.)—THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY, with a or 
 of the State of the Roman World at the Birth of Christ. ϑνο, 12s. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 4 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 
 
 Forbes (Professor)—THE SYMMETRICAL STRUCTURE OF SCRIPTURE ; 
 or, Scripture Parallelism Exemplified in an Analysis of the Decalogue, the 
 Sermon on the Mount, and other Passages of Sacred Writings. 8vo. 8s. 6d. 
 
 
 
 ANALYTICAL COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 
 tracing the Train of Thought by the aid of Parallelism ; with Notes and Dis- 
 sertations on the Principal Difficulties. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Gebhardt (H.)—Tue DocTRINE OF THE APOCALYPSE, AND ITS RELATION 
 TO THE DocTrRINE OF THE GOSPEL AND EPISTLES OF JOHN. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Gerlach—CoMMENTARY ON THE PENTATEUCH. §8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Gieseler (Dr. J. C. L.)—A CoMPENDIUM OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 
 Five vols. 8vo, £2, 12s. 6d. 
 
 Gifford (Canon)—VoIcEs OF THE PROPHETS : Twelve Lectures preached 
 in the Chapel of Lincoln’s Inn, 1870-74, on the Foundation of Bishop War- 
 burton. Crown 8vo, 5s. 
 
 Glasgow (Professor)—THE APOCALYPSE TRANSLATED AND EXPOUNDED. 
 8vo, 14s. 
 
 Gloag (Paton J., D.D.)—A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY 
 ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. ‘Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 THE MesstANIC PROPHECIES. The Baird Lecture, 1879. In 
 crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d. 
 
 INTRODUCTION TO THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 8vo, 12s. 
 
 Godet (Prof.)—CoMMENTARY ON St. LuKr’s GOSPEL. Twovols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 CoMMENTARY ON St. JOHN’S GosPEL. Three vols. 8vo, 
 915. 6d. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON St. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE RoMANS. In 
 preparation. 
 
 
 
 Gotthold’s Emblems; or, INVISIBLE THINGS UNDERSTOOD BY THINGS 
 THAT ARE MApE. Crown 8yo, 5s. 
 
 Hagenbach (Dr. K. R.)—History or THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY 
 AND SWITZERLAND CHIEFLY. Translated from the Fourth Revised Edition 
 of the German by Evetina Moore. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 Harless (Dr. C. A.)—SysTEM OF CHRISTIAN Eruics. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Haupt (Erich)—CoMMENTARY ON THE First EpistLe or St. JOHN. 
 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Havernick (H. A. Ch.)—INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. ὅνο, 
 10s. 6d. 
 
 Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.)—Tue TRIPARTITE NATURE OF MAN—SPIRIT, 
 Sout, AND Bopy—applied to Illustrate and Explain the Doctrine of Original 
 Sin, the New Birth, the Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body. With 
 an Appendix on the Fatherhood of God. Fourth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s. 
 
 
 
 Hefele (Bishop)—A History OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 
 Vol. I., to A.D. 325; Vol. II., a.D. 326 to 429. 8vo, 12s. each. 
 
T. and T. Clark's Publications. 5 
 
 Hengstenberg (Professor)—CoMMENTARY ON THE PsaAums. Three 
 vols. 8vo, 33s. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE Book or EcciestAstes. To which are 
 appended : Treatises on the Song of Solomon ; on the Book of Job ; on the 
 Prophet Isaiah ; on the Sacrifices of Holy Scripture ; and on the Jews and 
 the Christian Church. 8vo, 9s. 
 
 THE PROPHECIES OF THE PROPHET EZEKIEL ELUCIDATED. 
 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 DISSERTATIONS ON THE GENUINENESS OF DANIEL, AND THE 
 INTEGRITY OF ZECHARIAH. 8vo, 12s. 
 
 HIsToRY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD UNDER THE OLD TESTA- 
 MENT. ‘Two vols. 8vo, 21s, 
 
 CHRISTOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: A Commentary on 
 the Messianic Predictions. Second Edition, Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Two vols. 8vo, 
 21s. 
 
 Janet (Paul)—FinaL Causes. By Paut JANET, Member of the In- 
 stitute. Translated from the French by W. AFFLECK, B.D. Demy 8vo, 12s. 
 
 Jouffroy—PHILOSOPHICAL Essays. Fcap, 8vo, 5s. 
 Kant—Tue Metapuysic oF Eruics. Crown 8vo, 6s. 
 
 Keil (Professor)—BIBLICAL COMMENTARY ON THE PENTATEUCH. Three 
 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE BooKS OF JOSHUA, JUDGES, AND RUTH. 
 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE BooKS OF SAMUEL. ὅνο, 10s. 6d. 
 COMMENTARY ON THE Books OF KINGS. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 COMMENTARY ON THE Books oF CHRONICLES. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 COMMENTARY ON Ezra, NEHEMIAH, EsTHER. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 COMMENTARY ON JEREMIAH. ‘Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 COMMENTARY ON EZEKIEL. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 COMMENTARY ON DANIEL. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE BooKS OF THE MINorR PRoPHETS. Two 
 vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 MANUAL OF HISToRICO-CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 CANONICAL SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. ‘Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 
 
 Killen (Prof.)—Tur Οὐ CatTHoric CuurcH ; or, The History, Doc- 
 trine, Worship, and Polity of the Christians, traced from the Apostolic Age to 
 the Establishment of the Pope as a Temporal Sovereign, A.D. 755. 8vo, 9s, 
 
 Krummacher (Dr. F. W.)—Tue SuFFERING SAVIOUR ; or, Meditations 
 on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ. Eighth Edit., crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 
 

 
 6 T. and 7. Clark's Publications. 
 
 
 
 Krummacher (Dr. F. W.)—Davin, THE ΚιΝα oF ISRAEL: A Portrait 
 drawn from Bible History and the Book of Psalms. Second Edition, crown 
 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Edited by his Daughter. Crown 8vo, 6s. 
 
 Kurtz (Prof.)—HanpBook or CuurcH History. Two vols. 8vo, 15s. 
 HISTORY OF THE OLD COVENANT. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. 
 
 
 
 Lange (J. P., D.D.)—Tur Lire or Our Lorp JEsus Curist. Edited, 
 with additional Notes, by Marcus Dops, D.D. Second Edition, in Four 
 vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 28s. 
 
 COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD AND NEw TESTAMENT. Edited 
 by ῬΗΠῚΡ Scuarr, D.D. (The volume on NumpBers and DEUTERONOMY, 
 completing the Series, will shortly be published.) To purchasers of a Complete 
 Set of either Old or New Testament the price is 15s. per volume. Non-Sub- 
 scribers, 21s. per volume. In 24 vols. imperial 8vo. 
 
 Lange (J. P., D.D.)—CoMMENTARY, THEOLOGICAL AND HOMILETICAL, 
 ON THE GOSPELS OF ST. MATTHEW AND St. Mark. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. 
 
 ON THE GOSPEL OF St. LUKE. Two vols. 8vo, 18s. 
 ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.)—TueE Srx Days or CREATION; or, the Scriptural 
 Cosmology, with the ancient idea of Time-Worlds in distinction from Worlds 
 in Space. New Edition, crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 Lisco (F. G.)—PARABLES OF JESUS EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED. 
 Feap. 8vo, 5s. 
 
 Luthardt, Kahnis, and Bruckner—THE CHURCH: Its Origin, its 
 
 History, and its Present Position. Crown 8vo, 5s. 
 
 
 
 Luthardt (Prof.)—Sr. JoHN THE AUTHOR OF THE FourTH GOSPEL. 9s. 
 
 St. JoHN’s GOSPEL DESCRIBED AND EXPLAINED ACCORDING 
 TO ITs PECULIAR CHARACTER. ‘Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. 
 
 APOLOGETIC LECTURES ON THE FUNDAMENTAL (Fifth 
 Edition), SAvine (Fourth Edition), MORAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY (Second 
 Edition). Three vols. crown 8vo, 6s. each. 
 
 Macdonald (Rev. Donald)—INTRopUCTION ΤῸ THE PENTATEUCH: An 
 Inquiry, Critical and Doctrinal, into the Genuineness, Authority, and 
 Design of the Mosaic Writings. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 THE CREATION AND FALL: A Defence of the First Three 
 Chapters of Genesis. 8vo, 12s. 
 
 Macgregor (Rev. Jas., D.D.)—Tur EpIstLeE or PAUL TO THE CHURCHES 
 OF GALATIA. With Introduction and Notes. Handbooks for Bible Classes. 
 Crown ὅνο, 15. 6d. 
 
 M‘Lauchlan (T., D.D., LL.D.)\—Tue Earty Scorrish Cuurcu. To 
 the Middle of the Twelfth Century. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Martensen (Bishop)—CurisTIAN Docmatics: A Compendium of the 
 Doctrines of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 CHRISTIAN Eruics. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 

 
 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 “SI 
 
 
 
 Matheson (Geo., D.D.)—GRowTH OF THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY, from 
 the First Century to the Dawn of the Lutheran Era. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 Aws To THE StuDY OF GERMAN THEOLOGY. Second Edition, 
 crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. 
 
 Meyer (Dr.)—CriTicAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON ST. 
 MATTHEW’s GosPEL. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 On St. JoHN’s GosPEL. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 On ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 ON THE EPISTLE TO THE RoMANS. ‘Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 On CoRINTHIANS. ‘Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 On GALATIANS. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 ON PHILIPPIANS AND CoLossIANs. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Monrad (Dr. D. 6.)-- ΤῊΕ WortpD oF PRAYER; or, Prayer in relation 
 to Personal Religion. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. 
 
 Morgan (James, D.D.)—TuHEe Scripture TESTIMONY TO THE HOoLy 
 Spirit. ὅγο, 9s. 
 EXPOSITION OF THE First EPISTLE OF JOHN. 8vo, 9s. 
 
 Miiller (Dr. Julius)—Tur CuristiAN Doctrine oF Sin. An entirely 
 New Translation from the Fifth German Edition. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 Murphy (Professor)—A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON 
 THE Book oF PsALMs. 8vo, 12s. 
 A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE ΒΟΟΚ OF 
 Exopvus. 8vo, 9s. 
 Naville (Ernest)—THE ῬΕΟΒΙΕΝ oF Evin. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. 
 
 Neander (Dr.)—GENERAL HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND 
 Cuurcu. Nine vols. 8vo, £3, 7s. 6d. 
 This is the only Library Edition of Neander published in this Country. 
 
 Oehler (Professor)—THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Two 
 vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 Oosterzee (Dr. Van)—Tur Year or SAtvaTion. Words of Life for 
 Every Day. A Book of Household Devotion. Two vols. 8vo, 7s. 6d. each. 
 — Mosss: A Biblical Study. Crown 8vo, 6s. 
 Olshausen (Dr. H.)—BrpiicAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS AND 
 Acts. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. 
 RomMANS. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 CORINTHIANS. One vol. 8vo, 9s. 
 GALATIANS, EPHESIANS, COLOSSIANS, AND THESSALONIANS. 
 One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 PHILIPPIANS, TITUS, AND First Trmotuy. One vol.8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 Owen (Dr. John)—Works. Best and only Complete Edition. Edited 
 
 by Rev. Dr. Gootp. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £4, 4s. 
 
 Philippi (Friedrich Adolf)—ComMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE ΤῸ 
 THE RoMANS. Translated from the Third Improved and Enlarged Edition, 
 by the Rev. J. S. Banks. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 
 

 
 ὃ T. and 7. Clark's Publications. 
 
 Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by PHILIP 
 Scoarr, D.D. With Illustrations and Maps. Vol. 1.--- ΤῊ SynopricaL 
 GOSPELS, now ready. Vol. Il.—Sr. JoHNn’s GosPEL, AND THE ACTS OF THE 
 ApostLzs, shortly. In Four vols. imperial 8vo, 18s. each. 
 
 Pressensé (Edward de)—Tur REDEEMER: Discourses Translated from 
 the French. Crown 8vo, 6s. 
 
 Preuss (Dr.)—THE RomisH DocTRINE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEP- 
 TION, traced from its Source. Crown 8vo, 4s. 
 
 Rainy (Principal) — DELIVERY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN 
 Doctrine. (The Fifth Series of the Cunningham Lectures.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Riehm (Dr. E.)—MEss1Anic Propuecy : Its Origin, Historical Charac- 
 ter, and Relation to New Testament Fulfilment. Crown 8vo, 5s. 
 
 Ritter (Carl) —THEe COMPARATIVE GEOGRAPHY OF PALESTINE AND THE 
 SINAITIC PENINSULA. Four vols. 8vo, 32s. 
 
 Robinson (Rev. S., D.D.)—DIscouRSES ON REDEMPTION. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 Robinson (Edward, D.D.)—GREEK AND ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE 
 New TESTAMENT. 8vo, 9s. 
 
 Rothe (Professor)—SERMONS FOR THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. Crown 
 8vo, 6s. 
 
 Saisset-—MANUAL OF MODERN PANTHEISM: Essay on Religious Philo- 
 sophy. Two vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Schaff (Professor)—HIsToRY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, from the 
 Birth of Our Lord to Gregory the Great. Three vols. royal 8vo, 36s. 
 
 Schmid (C. F., D.D.)—BisticAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Scott (Jas., M.A. B.D.)—PRINCcIPLES OF NEW TESTAMENT QUOTATION 
 ESTABLISHED AND APPLIED TO BIBLICAL CRITICISM, AND ESPECIALLY TO THE 
 GOSPELS AND THE PENTATEUCH. Crown 8vo, Second Edition, 4s. 
 
 Shedd (W., D.D.)—A History oF CuristiAN Doctrine. Two vols. 
 8vo, 21s. 
 
 SERMONS TO THE NATURAL MAN. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 Smeaton (Professor)—TuHe DocrrINE OF THE ATONEMENT AS TAUGHT 
 By Curist HimsELF. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 THE DocTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT AS TAUGHT BY THE 
 APOSTLES. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Smith (H. B., D.D.)—FairH AnD PHiLosopHy : Discourses and Essays. 
 Edited, with an Introductory Notice, by G. L. Prentiss, D.D. 8vo, 12s. 
 
 Stalker (Jas., M.A.)—A Lire or Curist. Bible Class Handbooks. 
 Shortly. 
 
 Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.)—Tur MiraAciEs oF Our LorpD: Examined in 
 their relation to Modern Criticism. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION OF OUR 
 Lorp, considered in the Light of Modern Criticism. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 

 
 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 9 
 
 Stevenson (Mrs.)\—TuHeE SyMpBotic PARABLES; or, The Church, the 
 World, and the Antichrist : Being the Separate Predictions of the Apocalypse 
 viewed in their relation to the General Truths of Scripture. Crown 8vo, ds. 
 
 Steward (Rev. G.)—MEDIATORIAL SOVEREIGNTY : The Mystery of Christ 
 and the Revelation of the Old and New Testaments. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE ΤῸ THE HEBREWS. A 
 Posthumous Work. ὅνο, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Stewart (Dugald)—Tue CoLLEcTED Works ΟΡ. Edited by Sir Wm. 
 
 HAMILTON, Bart. Eleven vols. 8vo, 12s. each. 
 Stier (Dr. Rudolph)—On THE WorpDs oF THE LorD Jesus. Eight 
 vols. 8vo, £4, 4s. Separate volumes may be had, price 10s. 6d. 
 
 In order to bring this valuable Work more within the reach of all Classes, both 
 Clergy and Laity, Messrs. Clark continue to supply the Hight-volume Edition bound 
 in Four at the Original Subscription price of £2, 2s. 
 
 THE WORDS OF THE RISEN SAVIOUR, AND COMMENTARY ON 
 THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES. ὅνο, 10s. 6d. 
 
 THE WORDS OF THE APOSTLES EXPOUNDED. §8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 Thiersch (Dr. H. W. J.)—On CuristIAN COMMONWEALTH. 8vo, 15: 6d, 
 
 Tholuck (Professor)—CoMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. 
 8yvo, 95. 
 EXPOSITION OF ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE RoMANS. Two vols. 
 feap. 8vo, 8s. 
 
 LIGHT FROM THE Cross: Sermons on the Passion of Our 
 Lord. Third Edition, crown 8vo, 5s. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE SERMON ON THE Mount. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 Ullmann (Dr. Carl)—REFORMERS BEFORE THE REFORMATION, princi- 
 pally in Germany and the Netherlands. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 
 
 THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS: An Evidence for Christianity. 
 Third Edition, crown 8vo, 6s. 
 
 Urwick (W., M.A.)—TuHE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH: A Commentary, 
 Grammatical and Critical, upon Isaiah lii. 13-lii. 12 ; with Dissertations 
 upon the Authorship of Isaiah x].-lxvi. 8vo, 6s. 
 
 Vinet (Professor)—STUDIES ON BLAISE PascaL. Crown 8vo, 5s. 
 PASTORAL THEOLOGY. Second Edition, post 8vo, 3s. 6d. 
 Homietics ; The Theory of Preaching. Second Edit., 8vo, 9s. 
 
 White (Rev. M.)—Tur SyMBoLicAL NUMBERS OF SCRIPTURE. Crown 
 8vo, 4s. 
 
 Winer (Dr. G. B.)—A TREATISE ON THE GRAMMAR OF New TESTA- 
 MENT GREEK, regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Second 
 Edition, edited by W. F. Movuron, D.D. Eighth English Edition, 8vo, 15s. 
 
 A COMPARATIVE VIEW OF THE DOCTRINES AND CONFESSIONS 
 
 OF THE VARIOUS COMMUNITIES OF CHRISTENDOM, with Illustrations from 
 their Original Standards. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 Wuttke (Professor)—CuristTIAN Eruics. Two vols. 8vo, 12s. 6d. 
 
 
 

 
 IO ZT. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 
 
 Ln Twenty-four Handsome 8vo Volumes, Subscription Price £6, 6s. od., 
 
 Ante=Nicene Christian Wibrarp. 
 
 A COLLECTION OF ALL THE WORKS OF THE FATHERS OF THE 
 CHRISTIAN CHURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF NICAMA. 
 
 EDITED EY THE 
 
 REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D. 
 
 
 
 IN ae CLARK are now happy to announce the completion of this Series. 
 
 It has been received with marked approval by all sections of the 
 Christian Church in this country and in the United States, as supplying what 
 has long been felt to be a want, and also on account of the impartiality, learn- 
 ing, and care with which Editors and Translators have executed a very difficult 
 task. 
 
 The Publishers do not bind themselves to continue to supply the Series at the 
 Subscription price. 
 
 The Works are arranged as follow :— 
 
 FIRST YEAR. 
 
 APOSTOLIC FATHERS, comprising 
 Clement’s Epistles to the Corinthians; 
 Polycarp to the Ephesians; Martyr- 
 dom of Polycarp; Epistle of Barnabas; 
 Epistles of Ignatius(longerand shorter, 
 and also the Syriac version); Martyr- 
 dom of Ignatius; Epistleto Diognetus ; 
 Pastor of Hermas; Papias; Spurious 
 Epistles of Ignatius. In One Volume. 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR; ATHENAGORAS. 
 In One Volume. 
 
 TATIAN; THEOPHILUS; THE CLE- 
 mentine Recognitions. In One Volume. 
 
 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume 
 First, comprising Exhortation to Hea- 
 then; The Instructor; and a portion 
 of the Miscellanies. 
 
 SECOND YEAR. 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS, Volume First; Refutation 
 of all Heresies, and Fragments from 
 his Commentaries. 
 
 IREN AUS, Volume First. 
 
 TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION. 
 
 CYPRIAN, Volume First; the Epistles, 
 and some of the Treatises. 
 
 THIRD YEAR. 
 
 IREN AUS (completion); HIPPOLYTUS 
 (completion); Fragments of Third 
 Century. In One Volume. 
 
 ORIGEN: De Principiis; Letters; and 
 portion of Treatise against Celsus. 
 
 
 
 
 
 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume 
 Second; Completion of Miscellanies. 
 
 TERTULLIAN, Volume First; To the 
 Martyrs; Apology; To the Nations, 
 etc. 
 
 FOURTH YEAR. 
 
 CYPRIAN, Volume Second (completion) ; 
 Novatian; Minucius Felix; Fragments. 
 
 METHODIUS; ALEXANDER OF LY- 
 copolis; Peter of Alexandria; Anato- 
 lius; Clement on Virginity; and 
 Fragments. 
 
 TERTULLIAN, Volume Second. 
 
 APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS, ACTS, AND 
 Revelations; comprising all the very 
 curious Apocryphal Writings of the 
 first three Centuries. 
 
 FIFTH YEAR. 
 TERTULLIAN, Volume Third (comple- 
 
 tion). 
 
 CLEMENTINE HOMILIES; APOSTO- 
 lical Constitutions. In One Volume. 
 
 ARNOBIUS. 
 
 DIONYSIUS; GREGORY THAUMA- 
 turgus; Syrian Fragments. In One 
 Volume. 
 
 SIXTH YEAR. 
 LACTANTIUS; Two Volumes. 
 ORIGEN, Volume Second (completion). 
 12s. to Non-Subscribers. 
 
 EARLY LITURGIES AND REMAIN- 
 ing Fragments. 9s. to Non-Subscri- 
 ers. 
 
 Single Years cannot be had separately, unless to complete sets; but any Volume 
 may be had separately, price 10s. 6d.,—with the exception of OricxEn, Vol. II., 12s.; 
 
 and the Harty Liroureres, 98. 
 
 
 
 ed i i 
 
7. and T. Clark’s Publications. Il 
 
 
 
 
 
 In Fifteen Volumes, demy 8vo, Subscription Price £3, 19s. 
 (Yearly issues of Four Volumes 21s.) 
 
 Che Corks of St. Augustine. 
 
 EDITED BY MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 SU BS ΘΙ ΕΣ ΕΠ ΟΥΝ: 
 
 Four Volumes for a Guinea, payable in advance (24s. when not paid 
 in advance). 
 
 FIRST YEAR. THIRD YEAR. 
 THE ‘CITY OF GOD.’ Two Volumes. | COMMENTARY ON JOHN. Two 
 WRITINGS IN CONNECTION WITH Volumes. 
 the Donatist Controversy. In One ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE Ex 
 Volume. ἢ Ξ 
 
 CHIRIDION, ON CATECHIZING, and ON 
 THE ANTI-PELAGIAN WORKS OF FAITH AND THE CREED. One Volume. 
 
 St. Augustine. Vol. I. 
 THE ANTI-PELAGIAN WORKS OF 
 St. Augustine. Vol. II. 
 
 SECOND YEAR. 
 
 ‘LETTERS.’ Vol. I. ΕΘ ΤῊ YEAR 
 
 TREATISES AGAINST FAUSTUS |-‘LETTERS.’ Vol. IT. 
 the Manichean. One Volume. 
 
 ‘CONFESSIONS.’ With Copious Notes 
 THE HARMONY OF THE EVAN- 4 P 
 gelists, and the Sermon on the Mount. by ΠΧ ΕΠ (δ τ PutstyGron. 
 
 One Volume. ANTI-PELAGIAN WRITINGS. Vol. 
 ON THE TRINITY. One Volume. IIT. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Messrs. CLARK believe this will prove not the least valuable of their various 
 Series. Every care has been taken to secure not only accuracy, but elegance. 
 
 It is understood that Subscribers are bound to take at least the issues for 
 two years. Each volume is sold separately at (on an average) 10s. 6d. 
 
 ‘For the reproduction of the ‘‘ City of God” in an admirable English garb we are 
 greatly indebted to the well-directed enterprise and energy of Messrs. Clark, and to the 
 accuracy and scholarship of those who have undertaken the laborious task of translation.’ 
 —Christian Observer. 
 
 ‘The present translation reads smoothly and pleasantly, and we have every reason to 
 be satisfied both with the erudition and the fair and sound judgment displayed by the 
 translators and the editor.’—John Bull. 
 
 
 
 SELECTION FROM 
 
 ANTE=-NICENE LIBRARY 
 
 AND 
 
 ST. AUGUSTINE’S WORKS. 
 
 ΠΕΡ Ante-Nicene Library being now completed in 24 volumes, and the 
 St. Augustine Series being also complete (with the exception of the ‘ LIFE”) 
 in 15 volumes, Messrs. CLARK will, as in the case of the Foreign Theological 
 Library, give a Selection of 20 Volumes from both of those series at the Sub- 
 scription Price of Five Guineas (or a larger number at same proportion). 
 
 
 

 
 12 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 (TEMPORARY) CHEAP RE-ISSUE OF 
 
 STIER’S WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS. 
 
 To meet a very general desire that this now well-known Work should be 
 brought more within the reach of all classes, both Clergy and Laity, Messrs. 
 CLARK are now issuing, for a limited period, the Light Volumes, handsomely 
 bound in Four, at the Subscription Price of 
 
 
 
 TWO GUINEAS. 
 
 As the allowance to the Trade must necessarily be small, orders sent either 
 direct or through Booksellers must in every case be accompanied with a Post 
 Office Order for the above amount. 
 
 ‘The whole work is a treasury of thoughtful exposition. Its measure of practical and 
 spiritual application, with exegetical criticism, commends it to the use of those whose duty 
 it is to preach as well as to understand the Gospel of Christ.’-—Guardian. 
 
 
 
 New and Cheap Edition, in Four Vols., demy 8vo, Subscription Price 28s., 
 
 THE LIFE OF THE LORD JESUS. CHRISE: 
 
 A Complete Critical Examination of the Origin, Contents, and Connection of 
 the Gospels. Translated from the German of J. P. LANGE, D.D., Professor 
 of Divinity in the University of Bonn. Edited, with additional Notes, by 
 Marcus Dops, D.D. 
 
 ‘We have arrived at a most favourable conclusion regarding the importance and ability 
 of this work—the former depending upon the present condition of theological criticism, 
 the latter on the wide range of the work itself; the singularly dispassionate judgment 
 of the Author, as well as his pious, reverential, and erudite treatment of a subject inex- 
 pressibly holy. . . . We have great pleasure in recommending this work to our readers. 
 We are convinced of its value and enormous range.’—Jrish Ecclesiastical Gazette. 
 
 
 
 BENGEL'S GNOMON—CHEAP EDITION. 
 
 GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 By Joun ALBERT BenceL. Now first translated into English. With 
 Original Notes, Explanatory and Illustrative. Edited by the Rev. 
 Anprew R. Fausset, M.A. The Original Translation was in Five Large 
 Volumes, demy 8vo, averaging more than 550 pages each, and the very 
 great demand for this Edition has induced the Publishers to issue the 
 Five Volumes bound in Three, at the Subscription Price of 
 
 TWENTY-FOUR SHILLINGS. 
 They trust by this still further to increase its usefulness. 
 
 ‘It is a work which manifests the most intimate and profound knowledge of Scripture, 
 and which, if we examine it with care, will often be found to condense more matter into 
 a line than can be extracted from many pages of other writers. — Archdeacon HARE. 
 
 ‘In respect both of its contents and its tone, Bengel’s Gnomon stands alone. Even 
 among laymen there has arisen a healthy and vigorous desire for scriptural knowledge, 
 and Bengel has done more than any other man to aid such inquirers. There is perhaps 
 no book every word of which has been so well weighed, or in which a single technical 
 term contains so often far-reaching and suggestive views. ... The theoretical and 
 practical are as intimately connected as light and heat in the sun’s ray. —Life of Perthes. 
 
 
 

 
 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 13 
 
 Dry BULHARDT’S WORKS. 
 
 In Three handsome crown 8vo Volumes, price 6s. each. 
 
 ‘We do not know any volumes so suitable in these times for young men 
 entering on life, or, let us say, even for the library of a pastor called to deal 
 with such, than the three volumes of this series. We commend the whole of 
 them with the utmost cordial satisfaction. They are altogether quite a 
 specialty in our literature.’— Weckly Review. 
 
 APOLOGETIC LECTURES 
 
 ON THE 
 FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 Fourth Edition. 
 By C. E. LUTHARDT, D.D., Letpzia. 
 
 ‘From Dr. Luthardt’s exposition even the most learned theologians may derive in- 
 valuable criticism, and the most acute disputants supply themselves with more trenchant 
 and polished weapons than they have as yet been possessed of.’—Bell’s Weekly Messenger. 
 
 APOLOGETIC LECTURES 
 
 ON THE 
 
 SAVING TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 Fourth Edition. 
 
 ‘ Dr. Luthardt is a profound scholar, but a very simple teacher, and expresses himself 
 on the gravest matters with the utmost simplicity, clearness, and force.’"—Literary World. 
 
 APOLOGETIC LECTURES 
 
 
 
 ON THE 
 MORAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 Second Edition. : 
 
 ‘The ground covered by this work is, of course, of considerable extent, and there is 
 scarcely any topic of specifically moral interest now under debate in which the reader 
 will not find some suggestive saying. The volume contains, like its predecessors, a truly 
 wealthy apparatus of notes and illustrations. —English Churchman. 
 
 
 
 Just published, in demy 8vo, price 9s., 
 
 ST. JOHN THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 
 
 By Proressor C. E. LUTHARDT, 
 Author of ‘Fundamental Truths of Christianity,’ etc. 
 
 Translated and the Literature enlarged by C. R. Grecory, Leipzig. 
 
 ‘A work of thoroughness and value. The translator has added a lengthy Appendix, 
 containing a very complete account of the literature bearing on the controversy respect- 
 ing this Gospel. The indices which close the volume are well ordered, and add greatly 
 to its value. —Guardian. 
 
 ‘There are few works in the later theological literature which contain such a wealth 
 of sober theological knowledge and such an invulnerable phalanx of objective apolo- 
 getical criticism.’—Professor Guericke. 
 
 
 
 Crown 8vo, 5s., 
 LUTHARDT, KAHNIS, AND BRUCKNER. 
 The Church: Its Origin, its History, and its Present Position. 
 
 ‘A comprehensive review of this sort, done by able hands, is both instructive and 
 suggestive.’—Record. 
 

 
 
 
 14 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 LANGE S “COSEM ET NaGs Ra: 
 
 In 24 Volumes Imperial 8vo (Subscription price, nett), 15s. each. 
 
 
 
 "THEOLOGICAL AND HOMILETICAL COMMENTARY 
 ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 
 
 Specially designed and adapted for the use of Ministers and Students. By 
 
 Prof. JoHN PETER LANGE, D.D., in connection with a number of Eminent 
 
 European Divines. 
 
 Evangelical Denominations. 
 
 Translated, enlarged, and revised under the general 
 editorship of Rev. Dr. PHiLip Scuarr, assisted by leading Divines of the various 
 
 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT VOLUMES. 
 
 I, GENESIS. With a General Introduc- 
 tion to the Old Testament. By Prof. J. P. 
 Lance, D.D. Translated from the German, 
 with Additions, by Prof. TAyLER LEwis, 
 LL.D., and A. GosmAn, D.D. 
 
 II. EXODUS. By J. P. Lanes, D.D. 
 LEVITICUS. By J. P. Laneru,D.D. With 
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION by Rev. Dr. 
 OsGoop. 
 
 11. NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 NUMBERS. By Prof. J. P. Lancer, D.D. 
 DEUTERONOMY. By WiLHELM JoLIius 
 SCHROEDER. 
 
 IV. JOSHUA. By Rev. F. R. Fay. JUDGES 
 and RUTH. By Prof. Pautus CasskLt, D.D. 
 
 V. SAMUEL, I. and II. By Professor 
 
 Erpmany, D.D. 
 
 VI. KINGS. By KAaruCar. W. Ἐν, Baur, 
 D.D. 
 
 VII. CHRONICLES, I. and II. By Orro 
 Z6cKLER. EZRA. By Fr. W. SCHULTZ. 
 NEHEMIAH. By Rev. Howarp Crossy, 
 D.D.,LL.D. ESTHER. By Fr. W. Scau.tz. 
 
 VIII. JOB. A Rhythmical Version, with 
 an Introduction and Annotations by Prof. 
 TAYLER Lewis, LL.D. A Commentary by 
 Dr. Orro ZOcKLER, together with an Intro- 
 ductory Essay on Hebrew Poetry by Prof. 
 Puitip ScuaFrF, D.D. 
 
 IX. PROVERBS. By Prof. Orro Z6cKLER, 
 D.D. ECCLESIASTES. By Prof. 0. Zicx- 
 LER, D.D. With Additions, and a New 
 Metrical Version, by Prof. Tayter Lewis, 
 D.D. THE SONG OF SOLOMON. By 
 Prof. O. Zock ier, D.D. 
 
 X. THE PSALMS. By Cart BERNHARDT 
 Mott, D.D. With a New Metrical Version 
 of the Psalms, and Philological Notes, by T. 
 J. Conant, D.D. 
 
 XI. JEREMIAH. By C. W. E. Narcets- 
 BACH, D.D. LAMENTATIONS. By C. W. 
 E. NAEGELSBACH, D.D. 
 
 XII. ISAIAH. By Ὁ. W. E. NAEGELSBACH. 
 
 XIII. EZEKIEL. By F. W. Scuroper, 
 D.D. DANIEL. By Professor Z6ckLER 
 D.D. 
 
 ? 
 
 XIV. THE MINOR PROPHETS. HOSEA, 
 JOEL, and AMOS. By ΟΥΤῸ ScHMoLLErR, 
 Ph.D. OBADIAH and MICAH. By Rev. 
 Paut  KLEINeRT. JONAH, NAHUM, 
 HABAKKUK, and ZEPHANIAH. By Rev. 
 Paut Kiemnert. HAGGAI. By Rev. James 
 E. M‘Curpy. ZECHARIAH. By T. W. 
 CHAMBERS, D.D. MALACHI. By JosrpH 
 PacKarD, D.D. 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT VOLUMES. 
 
 I. MATTHEW. With a General Intro- 
 duction to the New Testament. By J. P. 
 Lancer, D.D. Translated, with Additions, by 
 Puiie ScuarFr, D.D. 
 
 II, MARK. By J.P. LAncz, D.D. LUKE. 
 
 By J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE. 
 III. JOHN. By J. P. Lanes, D.D. 
 
 Iv. ACTS. By G. V. ΤΕ ΗΕ, D.D., and 
 Rey. CHARLES GEROK. 
 
 V. ROMANS. By J. P. Lanes, D.D., and 
 Rey. F. R. Fay. 
 
 VI. CORINTHIANS. 
 
 KLING. 
 
 By Curistian F. 
 
 VII. GALATIANS. By Orro ScuMotuer, 
 Ph.D. EPHESIANS and COLOSSIANS. 
 By Kart Braunet, D.D. PHILIPPIANS. 
 By Karu Braung, D.D. 
 
 VIII, THESSALONIANS. By Drs. AuBER- 
 Lin and RiecEnBAcH. TIMOTHY. By J. 
 J. VAN OoSTERZEE, D.D. TITUS. By J.J. 
 Van OOSTERZEE, D.D. PHILEMON. By J. 
 J. VAN OosTERZBE, D.D. HEBREWS. By 
 Kart B. Nott, D.D. 
 
 IX. JAMES. By J. P. Lanes, D.D., and 
 J. J. VAN OosTERZEE, D.D. PETER and 
 JUDE. By P. F. C. Fronmvtier, Ph.D. 
 JOHN. By Kart Bratne, D.D. 
 
 X. THE REVELATION OF JOHN. By 
 Dr. J. P. Lance. Together with Double 
 Alphabetical Index to all the Ten Volumes 
 on the New Testament, by Jonn H. Woops. 
 Conupleting the New Testament portion. 
 
 
 
 ae ee 
 
 a 
 

 
Date 
 
 
 
 
 
 ry « 
 ao 
 is ond 
 a τ 
 7) 
 ἘΞ , 
 y ἢ ᾿ 
 , - 
 i = 
 
 [τ 
 
 My § 
 . Τ᾿ 
 
 ῃ 
 | 
 { 
 
 
 
 Zor 
 RF f ie 
 ἔς Kh 
 
 onl 
 
 \ 
 
 AP 20°54 
 FACULTY 
 
 b 
 
 Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lil 
 LLL 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BS2805 .H374 ΕΝ 
 The First Epistle of St. John; ἃ AAO RES 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 
 
 Mit πΟ 
 
 1 1012 00067 1513 aan 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ψ 
 ; Ξ 
 : Γ 
 ZA 
 ' 
 Ν 
 ᾿ ’ ἵ 
 μ 7 
 i 
 ? 2 ἢ 
 "ἢ d ¥ ‘ 
 | ᾿ 
 
 ’ 3