{yi tf ‘; ey tig Pal tet tilt i j ihe Tene Wdi fits 4 If i nt sai attr sie Sts say iy Ht tf My i ' ay { i J nh Ht ie “iet : i re tinte, ty 1 AL , sibina lal Ih Pisa nen Pas tagtipte ts ete ft iy Bdiliaee j ised , ij J ; 7 : Pa Hr a Hr Ade ‘a in / ff ) tess ‘ if Tate Merits vty iy fy tag Jy cifie tnt ty irr ilitadety gig lpi: te ie elt tidids finsdtd Eee ars RiP UP TE! Set a tis een iit pat pry ett elitr tia Sri rar rsttan Hipteresps rants Syst S fj inte i in Ani Ail eleinins f Ha if ft art ¥ iy. diy i fit fy f frre dig : i At it ayes hey Moc eta Tapia, ¥y Pit ef ine it > ; ae if i’ fy cig hint pelted PM nnn At wey pe ttyl Hitt Bie hee ier Gg ‘lay ff Ke ; tet J se a F t Faqnranenenantinaipttie regis les f Pe ‘ Huy fits lili ffi f byt ie tags ila PU aa rat feet etait tetera Ute tee Gltele Aty i , : TPS Pere Pit fle 1 sete HOA OEP UE a be : From the Library of Professor Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield Bequeathed by him to the Library of Princeton Theological Seminary Fae 4 ‘sas! & 7 f =e ) &- - ~ : > j } eee j — CLARK’S FOREIGN SEI 5 —tK 2 | Warf. £&, THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. THIRD SERIES. VOL. VILh: Ebrarv’s Commentary on the Epistles of St Pohn. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. LONDON: J. GLADDING ; WARD AND CO.; AND JACKSON AND WALFORD. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON. MDCCCLX. Pho n BIBLICAL COMMENTARY | pa in eae 66. ee THE EPISTLES OF ST JOR IN CONTINUATION OF THE WORK OF OLSHAUSEN. LONDON: WITH AN APPENDIX ON THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES, AND AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY ON THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF ST JOHN. BY e VV DR JOHN H. A. EBRARD. TRANSLATED BY ols We bE OP MANCHESTER. Fx EDINBURGH: T. AND T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON. MDCCCLX. x ' a ~~) © per Ae 2m othe ELT PATO * a Oh *ie7S* Se it orl Baers Dae AD i} BES) 2d ee ee a) fe 7 Tae tel MURRAY AND GIBB, PRINTERS, west 7 ieee | = Fie San): ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. T JOHN occupies a place so peculiar and prominent, § among the disciples of our Lord as a person, and among my the New-Testament writers as an author—and the writings which bear his name have always been the object of such various and conflicting discussion—that a comprehensive exhibition of his personal character, his life, his labours, and his literary activity may well be regarded as one of the most difficult undertakings. If, in the brief limits here prescribed to us, we are to succeed, we must enter upon the subject not analytically, but synthetically ; that is, we must set out with the collective picture of the Apostle and his writings given in the New Testament, and then pass on to a general view of all the critical questions arising out of it. The personality of the Apostle himself, and the character of his writings, and their adjustment in the extant cycle of New-Testament literature, must first of all be viewed as a thesis; and upon that we may found a universal review of the critical questions which have been raised in relation to those writings. Three of our Lord’s Apostles stand out prominently from the general circle: St John, St Peter, and St Paul. The last was not in the number of the Twelve. Among them St James, the son of Zebedee and brother of St John, had been singled out by Christ to be the companion of St John and St Peter in the special distinction of witnessing His transfiguration and His deepest humiliation (Mark vy. 37; Matt. xvii. 1, xxvi. 37); but St James soon followed his Master in a death of martyrdom (Acts xii. 2), and on that account is less known to us than the rest. As compared with St Peter, St John exhibits to us a vi ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. — calm and reflective nature, with a preeminent receptivity : every word of his beloved Master, which tends to solve to his heart the mystery which he pondered, he apprehends in his deepest soul, and holds it fast, and meditates upon it, blessedly losing himself in the contemplation of the glory of the Son of Man. In relation to all that Christ speaks or does, he does not seize the element of practical conduct ; he does not ask, “ What shall I do? shall I build tabernacles upon the Mount of Transfiguration ? shall I draw my sword against Malchus ?” —but, far from feeling the pressure of action and co-operation, he loves calmly to contemplate what passes, and asks, “ What is this that He doeth? what is it that He saith?” He was lost in the pondering, affectionate contemplation of Jesus, as a bride in the contemplation of the bridegroom ; in the most pro- found and purest love, he sank into the person of his Master (hence he was chosen as an individual friend rather than the others, John xiii. 23, etc.). And thus it is to be explained that in the soul and in the living remembrance of this disciple the very character of our Lord, in its most fine and character- istic traits, was retained so clearly and unconfusedly ; and that so many long colloquies of Jesus with friends and foes remained in all their vividness, down to the minutest particulars. All the supreme and preeminent glory and dignity of Christ, which is exhibited in the Gospel of St John, did not certainly remain concealed from the rest of the disciples; but only St John was capable of being the instrument of reproducing the exhibition of it. Every man may see the ineffable beauty of an Alpine scene under the setting sun; but not every man can paint it. St John had the nature of a living mirror, which not merely received the full brightness of the Lord’s glory, but could also reflect it back. The other Aposiles and Evangelists have rather preserved those points of our Saviour’s speaking and acting which produced the greatest effect, externally viewed, at the time. The Sermon on the Mount, delivered before a large assembly of the people upon a sunny height of Galilee, was to them, humanly speaking, for ever rememberable; the unde- monstrative conversation with the woman of Samaria, or the controversial discourses of Jesus in the Temple at Jerusalem, would not make so deep an impression upon them, as not pro- ducing any striking immediate effect : St John alone was able to ® + ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. vu penetrate and discern the glory which radiated through such less apparently significant words. And, under the influence of the Spirit, he was able to do this, to retain and faithfully reproduce all, because his was a receptive and observant nature. For, this is the talent of a true observer : not to overlook the most minute trait, and to place it in its right position in the connection of the whole. But then St John was only an observer, not a poet or inventor. The first requisite of an inventive poet—the art of rounding, and making an artistic whole out of, the things narrated—is altogether wanting in him. Plainly, and altogether without artificial attractions—often, it might seem, wearisomely —he faithfully gives back “ that which he had seen and heard” (1 John i. 1). We are conducted to another side of St John’s nature by the comparison with the Apostle Paul. In inwardness, St Paul is much more like St John than St Peter is; but it is another kind of inwardness: in St Paul it is dialectic, in St John purely contemplative. St Paul views psychologically the becoming, St John the eternal being; St Paul directs his regards to the appropriation of redemption, St John to the Founder of salva- tion; St Paul to conversion, St John rather to the fulness of life in Christ. Hence St Paul’s is a much gentler character than that of the vios Bpovrjs (Mark ii. 17). St John, indeed, has often been called “the Apostle of love,” because the word aydrn often occurs in his writings as an important term in his doctrine. But this a@yd7rn occurs at least as often in St Paul’s writings : in St Paul, in its relation to faith as its outward ex- pression ; in St John, in its opposition to hatred and wickedness. St John has even been regarded by many as a sentimental man of feeling, and he has been painted as a youth with soft and effeminate features; but thus his personal character has been most egregiously misconceived. On the other hand, the passage Luke ix. 51 seq. by no means justifies those who describe him as a man of violent temperament. Rather he was that which the French describe in their expression, “il est entier ;” he had no mind or sense for relativities and mediating modes; and hence was not a man of, middle courses. The ground of this, however, lay, not in a vehemence of his natural temperament, but in the peculiarity of his mystic-contempla- tive and deep insight, which everywhere and always pierced vill ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. © through to the last extremes. Irenaeus (Her. 3, 3; comp. Euseb. 3, 28; 4, 14) relates, as received from Polycarp, that St John, when he once met the Gnostic Cerinthus in a bath, instantly left the place; fearing that the building would fall down in which such an enemy of the truth was found. He was—even in his natural temperament—a man who was alto- gether that which he was; a man who could only have been altogether a Christian, or altogether a devil. In St John, grace celebrated a silent, and permanent, and decided victory over the natural corruption. He had never moved in contradictories. He had been from earliest youth piously trained ; for his mother, Salome (Mark xvi. 1; Matt. xx. 20), belonged to the circle of those few souls who found their consolation as true Israelites in the promises of the Old Covenant, and who longed for the coming of the Messiah. Salome was one of those women who ministered of their substance to the Lord, who had not where to lay His head (Luke viii. 3); she did not leave Him when He hung upon the cross (Mark xv. 40); and it was her high distinction that the Saviour put her son in His own place, as the son and sustainer of His mother Mary (the bosom-friend of Salome). To such a mother was St John born—probably in Bethsaida,’ at least in its neighbourhood—and trained up in the fear of God and hope of Israel. The family was not with- out substance ; for Zebedee had hired servants for his fishing trade (Mark i. 20), Salome ministered to Jesus, St John pos- sessed va iéva, a dwelling (John xix. 17), and was personally known in the house of ce high-priest (John xviii. 15). As soon as the Baptist came into trouble, St John adhered to him with all the energy of his receptive inwardness. We see from John i. 27-36, that the Evangelist had formed the peculiar style which distinguishes him from all the other New- x, concise, clear, sententious, and ever reminding of the Old-Testament prophetic diction— under the express influence of the Baptist, that last and great prophet ; not so much, however, appropriating the Baptist’s to himself, as constructing his own style, under the Baptist’s in- fluence, in harmony with the intuitional Hebrew character of his 1 Chrysostom and others mention Bethsaida with confidence as the place of his birth, resting upon the passages John i. 44, Luke v. 9. But those passages do not speak with absolute precision. a ST JOHN TIIE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. ix own mind, which rejected all dialectics and logical gramma- tical construction. For, that longer discourse of the Baptist— although in its substance altogether pre-Christian, and spring- ing simply out of the distinctive position of the Baptist (and therefore, most assuredly, not composed by the Evangelist)—ex- hibits the same Hebraically-conceived construction of sentences, which was certainly natural to the Baptist, and which is every- where reproduced by the Evangelist. As the Baptist was finally to prepare all Israel for Christ, so it was his specific vocation to prepare the émvar7O10s waOntys, to develop in him the related (“ Johannzean”) germs, to form him into a stamped and distinctive personality, into an instrument which would be capable of receiving into himself all the outbeaming glories of Christ. Thus no other disciple so clearly and effectually seized the kernel of the preaching of John the Baptist (John i. 26-36). His relation to the Baptist was analogous to that which he after- wards bore to Christ : he apprehended those profounder views ot the preaching of John which were comparatively concealed from the others. The Synoptists dwelt largely on the Baptist’s preaching of repentance; and added only a brief notice, that he pointed also to the coming Messiah. But this last point is taken up by St John as the centre of the Baptist’s work ; and he has preserved and recorded his prophetic discourses concern- ing the nature and the passion of Christ, which no other has preserved. From the Baptist he had further received the fun- damental categories of his own subsequent doctrine—the anti- thesis of heaven and earth (John iii. 31), the love and wrath of God (ver. 36) ; and even the word in ver. 29 may have sounded afterwards in his soul as a prophetic note of his own relation to Christ. But with the same decision of will and absoluteness of pur- pose with which he had joined himself to the Baptist, and at his command fully renounced all fellowship with the cxoréa, he now joined himself to Jesus, when to Him he was directed by the Baptist (John i. 35 seq.). This fixed decision, this abso- lutism in the best sense, manifested itself in his whole nature — so far as that nature was not yet entirely purified and shone through, or was still under the influence of erroneous views. When the inhabitants of a Samaritan village would not receive Jesus, his Jesus, he does not break out into reproach,—that x ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. would have been the reaction or vehemence of a hot tempera- ment,—but he goes with his brother to Jesus, and asks—again purely receptive and self-resigning ; but what he asks testifies to the internal absoluteness with which he apprehends the two perfect opposites—he asks whether he should not call fire down from heaven. In his nature and temperament he is everywhere and always receptive: not prominent, active, interfering, chal- lenging ; but expectant, observant, listening, and self-devoting. But in his internal distinctive character, he is always most fixed and decided. His is a self-devoting nature; but it is devoted only to one object, and to that altogether and absolutely de- voted. And, because his nature was so self-devoting, therefore it needed such strong decision. The same positive decisiveness, the same incapacity to tolerate vacillation and middle points, appears also in St John’s views of the plan of salvation. St Paul views it as becoming, and pauses and lingers in the conflict between the old and the new man; St John beholds salvation as the simply perfected victory of light over the darkness: he who is born of God is light, and hath light, and sinneth no more. St Paul, in his writings, has more to do with sin gua weakness; St John, although he does not omit this aspect (1 John i. 8, i. 1), yet has more to do with sin as wickedness. St John also well knows that the victory of light over darkness is won only by what seems to be a subjection, abandonment, and succumbing ; as in the case of Christ Himself, who overcame death by dying, so also in every individual (1 John v. 4) in the collective Church (Rev. ii. 8, vii. 14, xx. 4). But he contemplates the victory, which in time is still future, as already decided from eternity (comp. 1 John iy. 4, “ Ye are of God, and have over- come the spirit of Antichrist ;’ ch. v. 4, “ Our faith is the victory which hath overcome the world ;” and, in respect to holiness, ch. iii. 6 and 9). To St John there are only two postures of heart:—/or and against. He knows no third ; and the points of transition from the one to the other he brings not into consideration. Such a nature, sanctified by grace, would never have been in a position to win the heathen world for Christ; never could St John have done the work which St Paul did,—who became a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles, and, with ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. xi inexhaustible patience, entering dialectically into the relation of each Church, contended against its weaknesses and errors. But then such a character as St John’s was needful, in order to preserve pure and to purify the Church already founded and established. That was his high vocation ; he was an ambas- sador as much of the Judge as of the Saviour, called as he was by the Holy Ghost to prophesy of judgment and to publish the redemption,—to be alike an Apocalyptic and an Evangelist. As in the time of his Master’s life he directed his gaze, not so much outwardly to the practical field of work, as inwardly to the contemplation of Christ, so he was called after the ascension to consecrate his energies, not so much to the conversion of the extra-Christian world, as to the perfecting and cleansing of the Christian Church. It was his to supplement the doctrine of the other Apostles, and so to consummate the diday7 Tov amocTokwy ; and accordingly he added the topstone of the speculative mystery of the incarnation of the Logos, as well as of the mystery of the wnio mystica—by communicating those utterances of our Saviour which contained these things, and which he alone has preserved in all their fulness and depth. He had to cleanse the Church from the worst primitive defile- ment, to exercise judgment upon Gnosticism: this he did by simply opposing to the Gnostic caricatures of the Saviour and His salvation the truth which he especially had received, by letting shine forth from himself that image of the true Son of Man, in His judicial Divine glory, which he had received into his inmost nature, and by placing it visibly before the eyes of the world in his Gospel. He had for all future ages to rebuke and condemn the abominations of the antichristian nature ; and thus was called to lay down in the Apocalypse that pro phecy of the future conflict of the cxoria with the light, an everlasting test for the discrimination of all the shifting forms of corruption in the Church. In short, while his relation to Christ is altogether that of the softer and receptive nature, he shows himself to be altogether man, and like a consuming fire, against all antichristian error. The old hymn aptly describes him in the words, Volat avis sine meta, ete. The consideration of St John’s personality leads us now, naturally, to the consideration of his apostolical and specifically literary work. xii ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. Ilis apostolical labour, during the first three decennia after the ascension of our Lord, was, in conformity with his personal characteristics, still and retired, and marked by no external de- monstration. At the Saviour’s final passion (83 Aur. Dion.), St John was the only disciple who did not forsake the Lord, but stood fearless under the cross, avowing himself the Saviour’s friend and disciple. After His resurrection, St John remained with the other disciples in Jerusalem. But he does not appear to have assumed any external prominence among them. Were it not for the passage Gal. ii. 9, we should not have known that he, in connection with St Peter and St James, enjoyed any distinctive personal consideration in the Church. As it re- spects his work, he retired, during that period, into the silent background. In harmony with his apostolical vocation, he laboured like the rest; assuredly he did not keep holiday. But his work was not of the outward kind which attracted attention; and, unless we are altogether mistaken, he was much more occupied with the edification of churches already founded than with the conversion of new communities. It is hard to say how long he remained in Jerusalem. At the persecution fol- lowing upon the death of Stephen, he remained in that city with the other Apostles (Acts viii. 1). When, on the other hand, St Paul came up, three years after his conversion, to Jerusalem (Gal. i. 18), in the year 40 /Er. Dion., he met there only St Peter, and St James the Lord’s brother. It does not indeed follow from this, that the other disciples had forsaken Jerusalem, and settled themselves elsewhere. (The itinerant visitation-journey of St Peter, Acts ix. 32, was only a transi- tory one.) In the year 51 (Acts xy.), we find the collective Apostles again in Jerusalem; St Peter.and St James taking the prominent place as their leaders in the Council. But, seven years later, in the year 58 (Acts xxi. 18), St James alone, with the nate Girdsdea is present in Jerusalem. In the in- terval between 51 and 58 it seems that we must place the dis- persion or removal of the remaining Apostles from Jerusalem. An ancient tradition relates concerning St John (Clem. Alex., Strom. vi. 5), that he left Jerusalem twelve years after the death of Christ (thus, as early as 45 ‘Er. Dion.). By no means did he then go at once to Ephesus, where unanimous tradition locates him during the closing term of his life. But ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. xii we are altogether without anything like precise account of his residence and occupation during the intervening time. It is true that a later tradition sends him to Parthia; but that owed its origin simply to the spurious gloss (pos IIdp@ovs) in the superscription of his First Epistle. The supposition of Jerome, that St John preached in India, is equally groundless. There is much more internal probability in the hypothesis that he betook himself, at the time of St Paul’s first missionary journey (46 ZEr. Dion.), to the then second centre of Christendom, Antioch, that he might fill up the chasm created by the depar- ture of St Paul. As early as Acts xi. 22 (43 Hr. Dion.) Barnabas had been delegated thither from Jerusalem ; in the year 44 (ver. 27), prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch ; according to Gal. ii. 11, Peter was sent to Antioch (in the year 54?). This much we see, therefore, at least, that the Church in Jerusalem held it to be a duty to exercise a special super- vision over Antioch, and to take special pains to supply it with worthy men. On the other hand, it is certain that St John was at a later time, and a much later time, the successor of the Apostle Paul in Ephesus. Certainly this did not take place until about the time of St Paul’s death (64 /Er. Dion.), or after it; for, neither in the farewell address at Miletus (Acts xx., anno 58), nor in the Epistle to the Ephesians (anno 61), is there any trace whatever of St John’s being in Ephesus. But that he subsequently guided the Church of Asia Minor, unanimous tradition of the Fathers—a tradition which has been doubted by some, only because it stands in the way of the theory, which has been set up, of the opposition between St Paul and the Twelve. Polycrates, a bishop of Ephesus in the second century (of an illustrious Christian family, to which seven earlier bishops of Ephesus had belonged, Euseb. v. 24), says, in a letter to Victor of Rome (ibid.), concerning St John: odros év Edéow xexoiuntat. Irenzeus (Her. 3, 3, 4, in Euseb. 4, 14, comp. Euseb. 3, 23) says: dAnda kal 4) ev Edéow éxxdyola, b7r0 IIavrov pév TeOepediopévyn, "Iwdvvov 6 rapapelvavtos avtois Kéxpt ToD Tpaiavod xpover, wdptus adnOys ote THs aToTTONwY Tapadocews. (Trajan reigned, as is well known, 98-117). So also Irenzeus (ii. 22, 5), that St John lived with a circle of disciples péyps tdv Tpaiavod ypover in ’Acia (Proconsular XIV 8ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. Asia, of which Ephesus was the capital). And Irenzeus is here all the more to be depended upon, because one of those dis- ciples of St John, the martyr Polycarp, was his own teacher and spiritual father (Iren. 3, 3, Euseb. v. 20, 24; where sais éru ay means “as puer, boy or youth”). Ignatius of Antioch also, and Papias, were among those personal disciples of the veteran St John (Kuseb. 3, 22; Iren. in Euseb. 3, 39). Jerome (Vir. Illus. 9) places the death of St John 68 years after the death of Christ; therefore in the year 101 /Er Dion. Eusebius, agreeing in the main, places it in 100. (Polycarp, a Christian “for eighty years” at his death in 170, Euseb. 4, 15, had therefore enjoyed the instruction of the Apostle for ten years, 90-100.) There is, further, a unanimous tradition that St John was banished to the Isle of Patmos by a Roman tvpavves. Clemens Alexandrinus (Quis div. salv., cap. 42) relates the beautiful story of the deliverance of the young man who had fallen among thieves by St John, as a wiGos od pdGos (an orally-re- received but yet. true narrative), and marks the date thus: érreLon) TOD TUpavVOU TENEUTHTAVYTOS ato THs IIdtpou THs vycov perhrOev eis tHv”Edecov. He speaks here of the exile in Pat- mos as of a circumstance well known to his readers, and to all the world. (He cannot, therefore, as Credner supposes, have conjectured from Rev. i. 9 that St John must have been banished to Patmos; more especially as in Rev. i. there is not a word spoken about banishment.) So also Origen (in Matt. iii, p. 720): 0 5é “Pwpalav Baciredls as ) Tapaddocts SiddoxKer (he again appeals to the predominant tradition, not to a conjecture) KaTredixace Tov Lwdvyny paptupodvra Sia Tov THs adnOelas Noyor, eis IIatpov thv vncov. As subordinate, he then cites the pas- sage, Rev. i. 9. Tertullian (Pres. Her., cap. 36) thinks the ' Roman Church happy, where St Paul was beheaded, and from which St John was banished to Patmos, after he had been plunged into boiling oil, but was miraculously (comp. Acts xiv. 20, xxvii. 5; Mark xvi. 18) preserved. Irenzus (in Euseb. 3, 18) records with precision that St John had been banished to Patmos under Domitian. Even the contemporaneous heathen writers did not omit (according to Euseb. 1. c.) to relate Tov te Siwypov Kal Ta €v aVTS papTtupia—those, that is, of ye Kal Tov katpov én axpyBes éreonuivavto, to wit, the fifteenth year of ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. XV Domitian (95, 96 ZZr. Dion.). In the sueceeding year, when Nerva assumed the government, the return to Ephesus had been permitted to him. Jerome (Vir. Illust. 9) mentions the fourteenth of Domitian as the year of the banishment of St John; so that the banishment must be placed in the year 95. The Syriac translation of the Apocalypse (discovered by Pococke, and of the same character as the Philoxenian, con- sequently originating in the sixth century) mentions by mis- take Nero instead of Domitian." The passage Aets i. 9 serves only to confirm that report. These notices concerning the sphere of the external activity of the Apostle John, sparing as they indeed are, throw, never- theless, a welcome light upon his work, and specially upon his literary work. This work is divided into two parts: on the one side, we have the Gospel, with the closely-connected First Epistle; on the other, the Revelation. First, let us take a general view of the Gospel and the First Epistle. His Gospel is at the first glance plainly distinguished from the three others—as in its chronological order, so also in the selection of its materials. As it regards the latter, St John has, it is well known, very much that is peculiar, and coincides with the Synoptists only in a few sections (ch. i. 21-27, vi. 5-21, xii. 1-15, and the main points of the history of the Passion). The omission of the narrative of the childhood distinguishes him from St Matthew and St Luke; the records of the journeys to the feasts in Jerusalem are peculiar to him, and not found in the Synoptists. That he has supplemented the matter of the Synoptists, is no more than simple fact; and the question whether it was his design to do so (comp. Luthardt), is a per- fectly needless one, since it is no other than the question whether he wrote as he wrote, and what he wrote, consciously or not— a question which none will for a moment hesitate how to answer.” But there is another, much deeper, and more internal 1 Recent critics have conjectured,—though, in the face of Irenzeus’ account, without any grounds,—that St John was banished to Patmos in the time of Nero. This conjecture is pressed into the support of a false interpretation of the five kings, Rev. xvii. 10, which understands by them the first five Roman emperors. ? It may indeed be questioned whether this design—that of supple- menting —was the last object of his work, or whether it was only a second- ary aim, subordinate to a much higher one. Xv1 ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. sense in which he supplements or completes the Synoptists. It has been already observed that St John, according to his in- dividual endowment and personal peculiarity, was the only one who was overruled to seize and retain certain individual aspects of the nature and the doctrine of Jesus. First, to wit, those utterances of our Lord concerning His eternal relation to the Father, and His eternal, pre-temporal and supra-temporal, one- ness of essence with the Father (John ii. 13, 17, v. 17, vi. 33, 51, vii. 16, 28, viil. 58)—an aspect of the teaching of Christ which, in opposition to that which the Lord lays down concern- ing His historical work upon earth, and his historical relation to men, may assuredly with perfect propriety be described as “the speculative aspect,” and to the apprehension of which a “philosophical” tone and culture of mind (using this expression, of course, in the widest sense) must be supposed.’ But, secondly, also those sayings of our Lord concerning the mystical relation of unity and fellowship of life into which He would enter with His people through the Holy Spirit. (John ii. 8, ch. vi., ch. xiv. 16 seq., xv. 1 seq., xvii. 21-23.) The question now arises, whether the individuality and personal characteristics of the Apostle was the only factor in the case; whether it was this alone which prompted him to supplement and perfect the picture which the Synoptists had given of the person and teach- ing of Christ (mark, not that he invented or feigned anything new and unhistorical, but that he gave a representation of an aspect of the historical and real Christ which he alone had ap- prehended in all its depth and fulness),—or whether there was also co-operating, as the second factor, an actual necessity of the Church, which was beginning to be pressingly felt at the period when St John wrote. He who should hesitate to admit this, must be prepared to deny that the providential wisdom of God had assigned to St John any peculiar and independent vocation in the joint apos- tolical work of founding the Church. St Peter and St Matthew had it for their vocation to found the Christian Church among the people of Israel, and to bear their testimony to Jesus as the Fulfiller of the prophecies; the same St Peter and St Mark had it for their vocation first to bear the tidings concerning 1 Against Luthardt, 8. 227. ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. XVil Christ, the Son of God, over the borders of Israel towards the Gentiles; St Paul and St Luke had it for their vocation te establish the relations between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity, and to oppose at all points that great error of legal- Jewish perversion which envied the heathen their privileges, and insisted upon reserving the prerogatives of the law :—as if Israel did not exist for Christ’s sake, and Christ for the sake of all mankind; as if, consequently, men must first belong to Israel by the rite of circumcision and the observance of the law, and then, as subordinate to this, belong to Christ. Now, can we suppose that St John alone was without any analogous specific apostolical vocation ? “There was neither occasion nor room for the origination of any new doctrine concerning Christ; but only for the attesta- tion and confirming in manifold and various ways of the one great and well-known fact of Christ Himself. But the Church of Christ had their history ; and, in the degree in which the apos- tolical Church had a history, new views of Christian doctrine grew up to the Apostles in connection therewith.” (Luthardt.) Or, more correctly, they perceived more and more clearly what aspects of the one history and the one truth of salvation must be made emphatic, in opposition to the heresies as they arose ; and thus the Apostle John became conscious, in the last years of the first century, that now the hour was come when he must bring out the reserved treasure, which had been peculiarly his own and shut up in himself, for the salvation of the Church of his own time, and for the rule of the Church of all times. For, the Christian Church had, since the death of the Apostle Paul, and especially since the destruction of Jerusalem, entered upon a new stage of her history. That time when the Twelve lived in the midst of the Jews, and according to Israelite customs, having as believers in the Messiah a place and mem- bership in the corporate body of the people of the Covenant, and making it their first great business to bear witness to the identity of Jesus and the promised Messiah (a period, the literary monument of which is the Gospel according to St Matthew)— was now long and forever past. Israel as a people had rejected that testimony ; the Church of the Redeemer had withdrawn from Israel and from Jerusalem ; the judgment had been poured out on Israel; from a nation it had sunk down b xviii ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. to an exiled diaspora ; Christianity had thenceforward no more to do with the people of Israel, but with the heathen Roman state, and with individual Jews only so far as these in their malice denounced the Christians to the Romans. But, at the same time, that period of Pauline labour was past, during which there was a necessity for warning against the errors and the labours of the wapeicaxtot wevdaded dot (Gal. ii. 4), who taught that Christ and His salvation was the monopoly of the Jews, that circumcision and the fulfilment of the law was the condition of fellowship in the Messianic hope,—thus bringing men back to a dependence on their works. In opposition to them, St Luke, the investigator (Luke i. 3), had collected together in his Gospel, under the Divine Spirit’s guidance, all those events and those discourses in the life of Christ which showed that not only Israel, and not all Israel, had inheritance in the salvation of the Gospel. The destruction of Jerusalem had impressed the seal upon his testimony (comp. Luke xxi. 24). But, all this notwithstanding, there were still found among the Christian communities, a circle of Jewish-Christian Churches which had so little understood the judicial acts of the Lord upon Jerusalem that they still clung with blind wilfulness to the pre- servation of the dissolved Jewish nationality, to the use of the Semitic (Aramaic) tongue, and the continuance of Jewish usages. These Churches were conducted by their ungodly traditionalism to a separation from the rest of the Church, being known first as Nazarenes; in the last stage of their perversion and apostasy they appear in history as Hbionites. They saw in Christ only a second Lawgiver—as might have been expected from their legal position and relations ; using only the Aramaic Gospel of St Matthew, in which the declarations of Christ concerning His Divinity are not yet so prominent as in the other Gospels, Christ became contracted in their creed to the limits of a mere man. It cannot be demonstrated that this error had already in St John’s time reached its final point of development ; nor can it be established that St John, living in Ephesus, was brought into direct conflict with these heretics, or that a “ refutation of Ebionitism ” is to be sought for in his Gospel.’ But it is cer- tainly a possible supposition, that the gradual separation of the 1 Jerome, Epiphanius, and, in later times, Grotius, thought that they perceived such a polemical aim in the Gospel of St John. ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. xix Nazarene communities from the living body of the Church (a circumstance which could not have been unknown to the Apostle) disclosed to his seer-glance—his own special endow- ment—the prospect of the spiritual dangers into which this self-limiting and cramped system must necessarily lead; and, therefore, that these manifestations were regarded by him as an intimation that the time was come for him to come forward with his testimony concerning the eternal Divine Sonship of Christ (attested by all His words and acts), and by means of this testi- mony to erect, once for all and for all time, an impregnable bulwark against all Ebionite and Ebionitish heresies and de- partures from the truth." This was the appearance of one root of all heresy, just showing itself above the ground ; and it might possibly have had some influence upon St John in the publica- tion of his. Gospel. But simultaneously with that, there was the sprouting of a second root of heresy: Gnosticism. A system of speculation which was heathen in principle laid violent hold of Christian dogmas, without receiving them in Christian faith ; aspiring, not to reconciliation with God and holiness, but only to yvaaus, that is, the solution of the fundamental problems which offered them- selves to knowledge, and using for this purpose those Christian dogmas, rich in the elements of presentiment and speculation, which it grossly wrested and perverted. And it was all the more dangerous, because it presented the appearance of a deeper than ordinary apprehension of Christianity ; and seemed to give its proper satisfaction to a want which came with Christianity, and which indeed Christianity excited— the desire of yvdaus in the true and proper sense. The first noted teacher of this kind 1 The view that St John might have viewed the existence of congrega- tions of John’s disciples as an exhibition of Ebionite error (Hug), is not to be so absolutely rejected as Luthardt rejects it. Liicke rightly says, ‘‘The somewhat strongly emphasized passages, ch, i. 8 and 20, seem to favour that view,” as intimating an antithesis of definite errors. If it had been written, ‘‘ Christ was not the Father, but the Son of the Father’’—who could have denied that it was a plain denial of Patripassian error ?— Further, it must be remembered that Ephesus was, according to Acts xviii. 24, xix. 1, a seat of the community of John the Baptist’s disciples ; and, if we have no proof that this community existed on into the end of the cen- tury, and degenerated into a denial of the Divinity of Christ, we certainly have no proof of the contrary. xx ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. of error was Cerinthus. He taught (Iren. Her. 1, 26 seq., comp. Euseb. 3, 28) that the world was produced into existence, not by the supreme God, but a power having its origin from God; that Jesus was a Son of Joseph and Mary; that the ion Christ was united with Him at His baptism, and guided Him in teaching men to know the Most High God, hitherto not known; that the AZon Christ left Him again before His passion ; and that it was the mere man Jesus who suffered. A related, and still older, heretical tendency was (according to Iren. 3, 11) that of the “ Nicolaitanes” (Rev. i. 15),—concerning which, however, Irenzeus does not seem to have known anything beyond what is said in Rev. ii. Now the men were still alive in the time of Irenzeus (as is evident from the words, efoiv of axnKod- tes, ch. iii. 3) who received from the lips of Polycarp, St John’s disciple, the circumstance of St John’s having met Cerinthus in the bath. Thus it is historically frm—unless we are content hypercritically to throw overboard alJ, even the most trustworthy, tradition—that this Apostle had to contend against the Cerin- thian gnosis; and that this form of Gnosticism contained as well Ebionite as Docetic elements, that is, an Ebionite man Jesus by the side of a Docetic Alon Christ. Nor will any reasonable person be able to deny that there could not be a more striking, demonstrative, and victorious refutation of this Gnostic heresy than that. which we actually find in the utterances of our Lord Himself, which St John has handed down, concerning His pre- existence and eternal Godhead, and in the testimony of the Apostle that the Father created all things by the Word. (Com- pare only with that doctrine of Cerinthus the passages John i. 3 and 14, and 33, 34, and 49; ch. ii. 13, 14, v. 23, 26, vi. 51, 62, vili. 58, xiii. 23 seq., xvii. 1, 2, 16, 19, xviii. 6, 11, 37.) As it would be very hard indeed to persuade oneself that St John, who past all doubt had to contend against the errors of Cerin- thus, and who past all doubt declared the identity of Jesus with the Son of God, and the incarnation of Christ (1 John iv. 2, 3, v. 5) to be the corner-stone of the Christian doctrine, and the distinguishing test between Christianity and Antichristianity — as it would be very hard indeed to believe that this St John wrote down all those utterances of Christ without any conscious- ness of the force which lay in them as against the Cerinthian \eresy—nothing remains but that we admit the conviction of - ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. Xx1 St John’s having written all those sayings with this express design. For he must then have written them with will and purpose: he who knows what effect his act will have, and there- fore acts, must design and purpose that effect. Thus it was assuredly and preeminently the appearance on the stage of the Cerinthian gnosis which taught the Apostle to discern that the hour was come for him to bring forth that peculiar treasure of remembrances of the life of Jesus which was his own, and publicly to confront with it the germ of lie which it would re- fute as a testimony. Or, in other words, he knew that the time was come when his entire specific endowment must become fruitful in his own peculiar vocation and work :—fruitful, not only for salvation in the time being, but for the placing of the topstone on the whole apostolical function, in the consummating of the norma credendorum for all succeeding ages of the Christian Church. When, therefore, St John came forward with the testimony of his Gospel to oppose the Ebionizing and Gnostic fundamental principle of all heresy, and at the same time externally and in- ternally supplemented the Synoptists, he was not influenced by a multiplicity of separate and independent aims. It was one motive which impelled him to write his Gospel (that is, the knowledge that he had in himself what would be sufficient for the refutation of the fundamental principle of all heresy, con- curred with the knowledge that it was now necessary to bring out the fulness of his treasures) ; and there was but one means by which the various needs, which at that time were arising, could be all at once and entirely satisfied. The striving after gnosis—in itself justifiable, though now excited by a wrong element—must not be ignored, or altogether suppressed ; it must be gratified, but in the right way. It must be shown that the true yvdous had its root, not in the vain curiosity of know- ledge, and in philosophical gropings sundered from faith, but inversely in faith itself; and that to childlike faith the true depths of blessed knowledge and blessed insight into the deepest mysteries were opened up (and therefore St John so often lays stress upon faith, and would lead his readers “ to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” John xx. 31). The ma- terials which he wrought up to this end were not of a kind which it was necessary that he should first arbitrarily select and XXil ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. arrange; he himself in his original endowment already pre- pared for this, so that, during the lifetime of Jesus, that had become fixed in his nature which would serve for the refutation of all these heresies. Because St John in his own person was the complement of the other disciples, therefore his writings also were in themselves the supplement of the writings of the Synoptists. And preeminently the internal supplement. To the doctrines of lying speculation which sundered Jesus and the Christ, he had to oppose the utterances and discourses of Jesus Christ concerning His eternal unity with the Father, His preexistence with the Father, the glorification of the Father in His sufferings, and the giving up of the Bread of Life unto death. To a dead striving after gnosis without sanc- tification, he had to oppose the sayings of the Lord concerning the mystical life of the Head in His members (John vi. 15, etc.). It was obvious that the Synoptists would be thus externally sup- plemented also, since the majority of these sayings were uttered in the feast-journeys to Jerusalem. And thus, finally, it was obvious that he must so construct his Gospel as to subserve the subordinate end also of giving a chronological supplement to the whole. The most decisive proof of this systematic (in a good sense) and orderly-planned character of the Gospel (exhibiting in the unity of the great end a variety of subordinate designs), lies, as we have said, in the words of John xx. 31, where the Evangelist himself plainly announces his design: that is, not (as Luthardt says) “that ye may believe,” but “that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of Ged ;” which contains the clearest and sharpest antithesis to the doctrine of Cerinthus that can be con- ceived. « But we have another evidence in the First Epistle of St John. The pervasive relation which this Epistle bears to the Gospel, in language, and style, and tone, and ideas, and phraseology, has been generally and by all acknowledged ; but we have to add the remarkable fact that the writer of the Kpistle gives us, ch. 11. 12-14, a sixfold repetition of the design for which he writes and had written—before he had written anything substantial at all! or, in ch. i. 1 seq., we have only an announcement that he would declare what he had heard, seen with his eyes, touched with his hands, that which concerned ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. Xxiil “ the Word of life,” and that he would write this (the Epistle) that the joy of the readers might be full. But, for an actual declaration of that which he had seen and handled, we look in vain throughout the Epistle. Presently, in ver. 4, he an- nounces this as the substance of his évayyedia, that “ God is light,” and appends to that practical inferences. Then at once begins in the second chapter that repeated resolution of the several ends for which he writes and had written. We are involuntarily driven to the conclusion that this “writing and having written,” ef which he speaks in the Epistle as of something objectively present before his eyes, cannot be the Epistle itself, but an- other independent document connected with it; that is, in other words, that the Epistle was no other than a companion- document of the Gospel. For, in this Gospel he had, in fact, announced that which he had seen, and beheld, and handled with his hands; had announced all that which was to be an- nounced concerning that Word which was no word of dead theory and speculation, but the revelation-Word of God, who was life and light to sinful humanity—and therefore a Word of life—a Word giving life, and itself a living, personal Word. That this view, maintained by Hug, Lange, and myself, admits not of absolute demonstration, may indeed be conceded; but certainly there is no absolute demonstration that it is wrong. The whole Epistle assumes a living and perfectly intelligible character, only when we regard it as a companion to the Gospel. But, whether it was a companion-document of the Gospel (which, according to Theophylact, was written in Patmos, and according to some Scholia thirty-two years after the death of Christ, that is, 95 Ar. Dion.), or stood in no direct connection with it, this much is absolutely certain from 1 John iv. 2 seq., that the Apostle had to withstand those who denied that Jesus was the Christ. And he wrote his Gospel in order to lead to the faith that Jesus is the Christ. John xx. 31. If the Gospel of St John, together with the First Epistle, forms the first part of the literary remains of the Apostle, the other part is the Apocalypse. It bears the same relation to St John’s Gospel which the Acts of the Apostles bears to St Luke’s.' * The Apocalypse will be treated in an independent article. XXIV ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. — Thus the life, work, and writings of St John form one cont- pact, organic, independent, and harmonious unity. And this congruity forms an evidence for the genuineness of the three great writings of St John, more powerful and convincing than any analytical criticism could furnish. Not that external evi- dences are wanting to establish the age and genuineness of these writings : no book in all antiquity is so abundantly vouched as these documents are. The testimonies in favour of the genuineness of the Gospel and the First Epistle are very decided. As the author describes himself as an eyewitness of the life of Jesus (ch. i. 14, comp. 1 Johni. 1), there could remain only the choice between genuine- ness and laborious conscious deception. If it is added, that the author everywhere seems designedly to avoid mentioning the sons of Zebedee (ch. 1. 385 and 42, xi. 23, xvii. 15, xix. 26, xx. 2) ;—that he invariably calls himself “the disciple whom the Lord loved” (that he thereby means one of the three favoured disciples, is plain from John xiii. 23, xix. 26; that he means, not Peter, but one of the sons of Zebedee, from John xx. 2; that the son of Zebedee who wrote the Gospel could not have been James, from Acts xii. 2);—that, while he always carefully distinguishes the two Judases (ch. xii. 4, xiii. 26, xiv. 22), and always gives Thomas his surname (ch. ii. 26, xx. 24, xxi. 2), yet, on the other hand, he always called the Baptist only ’Iwdvvns :—all these are things to be explained only by the fact that the Apostle John was himself the writer. With this direct declaration of the Gospel itself is connected a strong, unbroken chain of external testimonies. In an age when it was not customary to quote the New-Testament writ- ings with a statement of their authors and subjects, we find a large mass of reminiscences from St John, and allusions to him. When Ignatius (Philad. 7) abruptly says concerning the “Spirit of God :” otdev yap robe épyetat Kat rod brayer, his words can be understood only as referred to St John’s figure of the Holy Ghost as wind. In the same abrupt manner, with the same evident allusion to the figures and sayings of the Evangelist John, whom he supposes to be well known and familiar to his readers, he elsewhere (Philad. 9; Rom. 7) calls Christ “the Door of the Father,” the “Bread from heaven.” Polycarp (Phil. 7) quotes expressly and literally the passage ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. XXV 1 John iy. 2 seq. Justin Martyr’s writings are pervaded with Johannxan thoughts, ideas, and views: he describes Christ as the “Living Water,” the “Word of God,” the “Only-be- gotten ;” he speaks of His capxozrounOijvat, of the Regeneration, and occasionally makes allusion to certain specific passages in the Gospel (Otto). Marcion’s polemic against the Gospel of St John (Tert. adv. Marc. 6, 3) proves that it was at that time received as genuine and canonical by the Catholics. Valentinus did not dare to eall in question its genuineness, but sought by a subtle allego- rical interpretation to extract his Gnostic system from its con- tents (Tertull. de Preescr. her. 38; Iren. 3, 11, 7); and his disciple Heracleon, with this design, even wrote a commentary on St John’s Gospel, of which Origen has preserved for us many fragments (see Iren. Opp., Paris 1710, Tom. i. pp. 362— 376). Theodotus cites the passages John i. 9, vi. 51, vill. 56, and others. Ptolemzus (ad Floram) quotes John i. 3. That the Montanists acknowledged the Gospel of St John as an apostolical document is proved by this, that Tatian not only literally cites the passages John 1. 3 and 5, but also constructed out of the four ecclesiastically-received Gospels an evangelical Harmony or Diatessaron (Kuseb. iv. 29; Epiphan. Her. 46), which (according to the testimony of Barsalibi, who had it be- fore him in the Syriac translation) commenced with the passage John i. 1 seq. So also Theophilus of Antioch (about 169) wrote a commentary on the four canonical Gospels, which Jerome (cap. 53, Vir. Ill. 25) had himself read. The heathen Celsus also was acquainted with four Gospels, and mentions the showing of the marks of the nails in our Lord, which is related only by St John. Theophilus (ad Autol. 2, 22) cites the Gospel of St John with mention of his name. To him may be added Irenzus (3, 1), who not only attests the genuineness of the Gospel by the tradition of Polycarp, but also quotes it with close precision. Three other independent evidences may be appealed to. First, the testimony of Hippolytus in the Book wept racav aipécewy,' which was discovered on Mount Athos, critically in- vestigated by Bunsen, and acknowledged to be genuine by all. 1 Especially B. v. and vi., with which B. x. cap. 82 may be compared. XXV1 ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. Secondly, the famous Fragment of Apollinarius, in which he says, against the Quartodecimans: Kal Aéyovow, tt TH WS TO mpoBatov peta Tav pabntav épayev Oo KUpLos, TH SE weyarn npépa Tov alipav adbtos érabev, kal Sunyodvtar Mar@aiov obta Aeyewy @s vevonxacww: Ocev actudhwves TE VOL@ 1) VOnTLS aVTOD, Kal otacidlew Soxel Kat avtovs Ta evayyédva. The Gospels which seem to conflict with and differ from each other, can be only the Synoptists on the one side, and St John on the other. And this is therefore proof that in the second half of the second century the Gospel of St John was diffused through- out the whole Church, and everywhere received as genuine and canonical. Thirdly, and finally, Papias (Euseb. 3, 39) was acquainted with, and quoted, in his time, the First Epistle of St John, which was undeniably from the same hand as the Gospel (xéypntat 8 6 avtos waptupias ao Ths Tpotépas ’Iwdy- Vou €TLOTONTS)« These collective facts, which require to be appreciated, not only in their separate and individual character, but in their combination, cannot possibly be understood on the hypothesis that the Gospel of St John was composed after St John’s death, and in the second century, by a forger. Only five or six decennia had passed after the death of the Apostle when we find this Gospel in the possession of all Christendom as a known, precious, and much-loved common property; and none insisted with more energy upon the sanctity and apostolical authority of the Johannzan writings than the circle which was formed around the Apostle, and trained under his influence,—the prin- cipal members of it being Polycarp and Irenzus. The destructive criticism of Rationalism approached these writings very slowly and very timidly ; and we are met by the singular fact, that in its earlier period doubt was directed rather to the Apocalypse than to the Gospel,' while the Tiibingen school aimed their attack, out of the Apocalypse acknowledged genuine, against the Gospel. Both proceeded, however, from the common supposition, that the Apocalypse was so funda- mentally distinguished from the Gospel in language and spirit that they could not possibly have sprung from the same author. 1 De Wette, Credner, Liicke, and Ewald maintained that the Apoca- lypse could not have been written by the author of the Gospel; Bleek and Credner attributed it to the Presbyter John. ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. XXVil Nevertheless, that the spirit of the author is the same in both books,—that, among the New-Testament writers, the Apostle John alone had the internal capacity and adaptation to receive such a revelation,—that this revelation is essentially and internally related in spirit to the Gospel and Epistle,—has been already shown above. And the saying of Polycrates about the zréraXov does not lead us to the Presbyter John (as Liicke says), but testifies the identity of the Apostle and the seer of the Apocalypse. But, as it respects the difference in language (remarked by Dion. Alex.), I have endeavoured to maintain,'—against Hitzig, who attributed the Apocalypse te the Evangelist John Mark,’—that the greater part of those more striking Hebraisms which are common to the Apocalypse and St Mark’s Gospel, are found also in the Gospel of St John; further, that the little remainder which are not reproduced in that Gospel are to be explained by the fact that the author wrote in the Apocalypse more after the manner of the Old-Testament prophetic language, and therefore more Hebraically, than he was wont to do in ordinary life; while, on the other hand, in the Gospel, and in the First Epistle, he took the greatest pains to write as good Greek (for Ephesian readers) as he pos- sibly could: so that one may say that in the Apocalypse he wrote more Hebraically, and in the Gospel less Hebraically, than was the wont of his ordinary language. Moreover, the Gospel of St John coincides with the Apocalypse in many pecu- liarities of expression and thought which are quite foreign to the Gospel of St Mark. That the Apocalypse describes known persons (Christ, and likewise Satan) in figures, finds its natural and sufficient solution in the fact that it is recording visions : no argument one way or other can be derived from that. That the (falsely so called) “ doctrinal idea” of the Apocalypse does not anywhere come into collision with the Gospel, I have striven, and I hope successfully, to show in the work quoted above. This preliminary question being settled, the important historical testimonies for the genuineness of the two writings mutually support each other. But, independently of this, the testimonies in favour of the 1 Hitzig, weber Joh. Marcus und seine Schriften, 1843. * Ebrard, das Ev. Joh., 1845. Krit. der ev. Geschichte. XXVii ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. © Gospel are abundantly sufficient to establish its antiquity and genuineness, which has invariably come victorious out of all cri- tical contests. ‘The attacks of Evanson, Eckermann, Schmidt, Simpson,.and others, have all been fairly met. Later assaults have all issued in yielding abundant demonstration that, in order to contend successfully against the Gospel of St John, the whole history of the Church and its literature in the first two centuries must be thrown away as rubbish. We shall not now enter upon the romantic hypothesis which has been spun, to the effect that the Gospel of St John was fabricated by a clever forger in the second century, in order to reconcile the previously separated Jewish and Gentile Christians. That the two smaller Epistles, the Second and Third, were admitted only by some Churches into the number of the writings publicly read in the congregation (canones), is to be accounted for by their individual and occasional character. Thus they were regarded, when the traditional catalogues of individual Churches began to be compared, as antilegomena. But this circumstance is absolutely no impeachment of their genuine- ness. But, as the author terms himself o mpeoBdrepos, and as there was notoriously another John, distinguished from the Apostle, and well known by the distinctive name of “the Presbyter” (Papias in Euseb. 3, 89; Dionysius in Eus. 7, 25), it is natural to suppose that these two Epistles belong to him ; and this was the opinion of many in remote antiquity. (Huseb. 3, 25: Kal } dvopatopévn Sevtépa cal tpitn Iwavvod, ite Tov evayyeboTov TuyxXdvovod, elite Kal ETépov opewvimov éxeive.) The similiarity in style between these two Epistles and the First Hpistle of St John is not decisive against this view. ‘That simi- larity, carefully examined, reduces itself to three citations from 1 John (2 John 5, 6, compared with 1 John v. 3 ; 2 John 7, com- pared with 1 John iy. 1 seq.; 8 John 11, compared with 1 John ill. 6), which are precisely of the same character as the citations from the Pauline Epistles (2 John 3 and 8, and 3 John 6 and 7, and 8 and 15); and thus these quotations or allusions are only new evidences of the genuineness and the age of the First Kpistle. That the Apostle St John should have encountered such a contradiction (not of his doctrine, but of his authority) as this which is described in 3 John 9, is certainly not pro- bable ; while that the Presbyter should have encountered it, is ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND HIS WRITINGS. XXIx not so very strange. On the whole, it is the most probable hypothesis, that the Second and Third Epistles sprang from the Presbyter John. While, then, these two Epistles contain very ancient testi- mony to the genuineness of the First Epistle and Gospel (compare 3 John 12 with John xix. 35), the Appendix of the Gospel (John xxi.) furnishes the same kind of demonstration. This chapter was composed, according to ver. 24, and the whole style and treatment, by the Apostle himself, who did not, however, at once and in the beginning attach it to his Gospel. Not till he had been honoured by beholding the Apocalypse, and this had made it plain what the Lord meant by His mysterious words, “he should tarry till He come” (that is, till He should come in vision and appear to him, so that John, still living upon earth, should behold with prophetic eye Christ’s coming to judgment, Rev. xxi. 20), was this independent record appended. Doubt- less, it was the Presbyter John who added it (compare John xxi. 24 with 3 John 12); scarcely the Apostle himself (in which case the addition Kai ofdapev 6tt adnOijs eotw 1) waptupia avtov would not have been supplementarily inserted). He who added it attested the authorship of St John; and, as ch. xxi. is wanting in no manuscript, the appendix must have been added a very short time after the composition of the Gospel. It must certainly have been added before the Gospel itself was circu- lated beyond the neighbourhood of Ephesus. r yris » «ie é oe) CONTENTS. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST JOHN. INTRODUCTION. PAGE § 1. The Epistolary Form, . “ = 2 2 : : : 1 § 2. Identity of Author and Evangelist, ; : - : : 6 § 3. Genuineness of Epistle, . ¥ 3 ; ‘ : il § 4. Its Relation to the Gospel, . : : : : : 14 § 5. Time and Place of Composition, and Circle of Readers,. : 34 § 6. Diction and Spirit of Epistle, E : : . 7 : 40 § 7. Literature, . P ; : 7 : A : ; ; 41 EXPOSITION. Exordium, : : , : : 43 Part I. Centre of the 2 ayysnia : God i is Light, : : : FAL Part I. Relation of Readers to the Light, as already anne. F 133 Part III. The Children of God in relation to the Enmity of the Word, . ‘ . 2 ‘ 203 Part IV. The Spirit from God a Spirit of Truth and tay e, : 272 Part V. The Faith which overcometh the World, : : : 313 TRANSLATION, ; : : “ : : ; é : ‘ 350 THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF ST JOHN. INTRODUCTION, . ; : é . ‘ P é 2 ‘ 359 ExrositTIon or SECOND EPISTLE, i : : ; 4 ‘ 379 XXXll CONTENTS. THE THIRD EPIstL ln. OF Sf .JODN, EXPOosITION, TRANSLATION OF THE Two EPISTLEs, APPENDIX ON THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES, INDEX. I. Greek Words and Phrases Explained, : II. Passages of Scripture incidentally Explained or fluc III. Principal Matters, 409 417 418 419 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST JOHN. EN kOe Cen hoO NN : I, THE EPISTOLARY FORM. = HE New-Testament document which occupies a place in Z our Canon by the name of “The First Epistle of St John,” not only does not bear on its front the name of its author, but also omits any introductory greeting at the beginning, as well as any benediction at the close. Hence, while hypercritics have doubted whether St John wrote the Epistle, intelligent critics, admitting the evidences of his peculiar style, have doubted whether it should be called an epistle at all. J. D. Heidegger (Enchir. Bibl. Tig. 1681, p. 986) led the way: “This book, though it seems to bear the stamp of an epistle, may rather be regarded as a short epitome of Christian doctrine, and, as it were, a succinct enchiridion of the Gospel written by St John, to which have been added certain exhortations appro- priate to the general state of the Christian Church. For it does not, like the other Epistles, begin with an inscription and salutation ; nor does it end with salutation and good wishes, or benediction.” In essentially the same style wrote Bengel (Gnomon), who was followed by Lilienthal, J. D. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Storr, Berger, Bretschneider, and Reuss. These all hold this book—thus doubtful as to its scope—to be a kind of treatise or essay. For, the circumstance that the readers are personally addressed, does not of itself constitute an epistle : were it otherwise (observes Michaelis), Wolf's “ Mathematical Principles” must be held to be an epistle. The majority of expositors and critics have now, however, declared against this view of Heidegger and Bengel. Ziegler, A 2 INTRODUCTION. in particular, has emphatically shown, in opposition to Michaelis, that there is more in the language of the writer.than a mere apostrophizing of the friendly reader; that, in fact, he rather speaks as one who assumes a definite personal relation to those whom he addresses. This is the opinion of the great mass of more modern commentators, such as De Wette, Diisterdieck, Huther, and Sander. And certainly it must be admitted that they went very much too far who argued, from the absence of the epistolary form, that this document was not addressed to any definite circle of readers, but that it was a general essay, or treatise, or book intended for universal literary publication within the Church. Against this it may be urged, positively, that the author places himself in an express personal relation to his readers (ch. i. 1 seq., li. 27, v. 13); that he has in view a definite class of readers, whose faith he knows (ch. ii. 20 seq., iv. 4)—one congregation or more, whose history is in his im- mediate thought (ch. ii. 19; comp. the comment on this pas- sage), and which he finds it necessary to warn against specific dangers (ch, ii. 18 and 26, iv. 1 seq., v. 16 and 21); and nega- tively, that the arrangement of the matter, however clear in itself, is not such as is conformable to the style of a treatise; for, “with all its regularity, there reigns throughout a certain easy naturalness, and that unforced simplicity of composition which harmonizes best with the immediately practical interest and paracletic tendency of an epistle” (Diisterdieck). Thus the First Epistle of St John is undoubtedly a production addressed to specific readers. Yet the circumstance from which Michaelis and the rest deduced their false conclusion, has in it a very important element of truth, which demands further at- tentive consideration. Assuredly, there may be such a thing as a proper letter without greeting or benediction: St James ends his with a sentence which, instead of a benediction, contains in it a promise of blessing (Jas. v. 19, 20); St Jude closes his with a doxology, which (ver. 28) does indeed contain an invoca- tion of blessing, but nothing more. Our Epistle closes, not with this, but with a pregnant exhortation; and why may not a real epistle wind up with such a climax, or terminate with such a point, as condenses all that had been said in one pithy word? It is much more strange, however, that the epistolary form is THE EPISTOLARY FORM. 3 entirely wanting at the commencement. The author does not mention himself, nor does he specify his readers, nor does he address them with the greeting of peace. For the circumstance that St John wrote the Epistle, ch. i. 4, “that their joy might be full,” is most assuredly not to be regarded as standing in the place of the epistolary ya/pew: this was not recorded, as Diister- dieck thinks, “because St John had the customary ya/pew in his mind” (compare the Commentary on this passage). Our Epistle is altogether destitute of the greeting. We have only one parallel case—that of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But we have seen (in our Introduction to that Epistle) that that production lacks in many other respects the stamp of a proper letter, and especially that free outpouring of thought which is essential to it; and therefore, that it must be regarded rather as a treatise designed for careful study and repeated perusal, than as a letter or communication in the ordinary sense. It may be added, moreover, that, in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the absence of personal superscription and address has another explanation ; viz., the fact—which hardly admits of doubt— that it was written only under the commission of the Apostle Paul, and not by his own hand. But none of these explana- tions can be applied to the First Epistle of St John: it was not, as we have seen, a production sent forth in the form of a treatise, but a thoroughly epistolary outpouring of thought and feeling; and then it was, as we shall see, absolutely and dis- tinctively from the very hand of the Apostle himself. This makes the absence of introductory greeting doubly strange; and, in connection with this circumstance, the absence of every kind of benedictory greeting at the close will appear equally remarkable. For even the Epistle to the Hebrews, which in its character and design is very much more like a treatise, yet at least in the close introduces a twofold benediction (Heb. xiii. 20, 21, and 25) and greeting (ver. 24). But here every- thing of the kind is wanting. We may therefore venture to say that the First Epistle of St John is of the essence of an actual epistle, but does not bear the form of one. This, however, needs its own explanation. It must be held to be possible that an Apostle should send to a church, or to a circle of churches, an epistle, without nam- ing his own name, the name of the author. There was not then 4 INTRODUCTION. a public establishment, as with us, to take charge ofthe passage of letters; such communications then reached their destination through the medium of private messengers, or private oppor- tunities; and, whether the Apostle would deem it needful or needless to mention his name, would depend altogether upon the position and character of the person who was the bearer in each case, as well as upon the confidence which was reposed in him by those who should receive it. Certainly, if the runaway slave Onesimus had brought, on his return to his master Phile- mon, an anonymous letter of recommendation, with the mere oral assurance that the writer who recommended him, and begged consideration for his case, was no other than the great Apostle Paul himself, Philemon might well have thought it a very strange circumstance, and distrusted the whole matter. Therefore, St Paul did not fail to attach his name to the epistle. Nor does he neglect it in his other epistles, having been taught by old experience (2 Thess. ii. 2) that deceivers carried about supposititious letters bearing his name ; yea, he was constrained by this on some occasions to add, at the close of the dictated epistle, a subscription in his own hand (2 Thess. in. 17), or even to write an entire epistle himself (Col. vi.11). Indeed, even when he sent an epistle to the Colossians (Col. iv. 7, 8) by the trusted and trustworthy Tychicus, he thinks it better to au- thenticate the bearer by the epistle, than to authenticate the epistle by the bearer. Similarly, when he wrote by Epaphro- ditus to the Philippians (Phil. 11. 25). Viewed in itself, it is quite conceivable that St Paul might, in these two last-mentioned cases, have omitted the mention of his name; but it does not appear natural that he should. It is ever the more obvious and natural course, that the author of an epistle should name him- self ; and when this is not done, we must seek the reason in circumstances peculiar to the case. Now, if we suppose (what, meanwhile, is quite destitute of proof) that St John wrote his First Epistle in Patmos, at a time when a number of Ephesian elders—and possibly with them elders of other churches in Asia Minor'—had come to ? According to Estius, Calovius, Liicke, Diisterdieck, and Huther, 1 John i. etc. is ‘only a peculiar form of the usual preface to a letter.” Very peculiar, indeed, since it contains nothing but an absolutely general annunciation (‘‘ We declare to you that which we have heard, seen, THE EPISTOLARY FORM. 5 him, and that he committed his communication to this circle of most eminent men, then we may easily understand that he would hold it unnecessary to mention his own name in the super- scription, his authorship being already attested by such a cloud of witnesses. But even this hypothesis does not help us to understand why -all greeting and benediction are wanting at the beginning and the end. This circumstance requires some further explanation, and on a different principle. Even if he had committed his greet- ings to be delivered orally by the bearers of the Epistle (which, however, we cannot suppose St Paul to have omitted in the case of Tychicus and Epaphroditus !), yet the fact remains, that the document which he committed to them had not the external form of an epistle. One would think, that if an Apostle wrote an epistle to one or more churches, bearing upon it the charac- teristic stamp of the object of an epistle—that is, being the substitute for, and the representative of, oral communication— he would have adopted the universally customary form of epis- tolary writing. Now it is this which we find wanting here. I think that this circumstance would be capable of a more easy explanation, if our epistle could be regarded as having no independent character and object of its own, but as attached to something else. According to its form, it bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them,—in that we mark the essence of the epistle ; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers ; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and dif- ferent communication. We shall see in due course what other and independent handled, etc., and write unto you this, that ye truly have fellowship with us”), but nothing of all that which makes the opening of a letter the open- ing of a letter. Or, is there actually in vers. 1-4 only a single word which would not be suitable in the preface of a book (e.g., in a preface to the Gospel of St Johf, in case St John would have written any such)? Hence Céicolampadius is quite right in saying : Hic est mos Joannis evangeliste, ut fere absque omni verborum ambage sua mox ab ipso auspicetur Deo... . . Idem porro agit in exordio hujus epistole, quod egit in evangelii sui principio. 6 INTRODUCTION. supports this supposition rests upon. Let it suffice now to have established that those expositors who regard 1 John as an independent epistle of the ordinary kind, have too lightly despatched the absence of the epistolary form, and have not given sufficient reasons for that absence. II. IDENTITY OF THE AUTHOR OF THIS EPISTLE AND THE EVANGELIST. Although the writer does not mention himself, yet there was never a doubt within the circle of the Christian Church— nor could such a doubt ever reasonably prevail—that this Epistle was written by the hand of the same man who composed the Fourth canonical Gospel. But that this had St John for its author, has been satisfactorily established by Olshausen in the first volume of this Commentary, and has since been defended, against the objections of the Tiibingen school, by myself and others. Regarding, therefore, the Johannzan authorship of the Fourth Gospel as established, it only remains for us to enter a little more at length into the question, whether the author of this Epistle and the Evangelist were one and the same. If we begin with what is most external, the style and con- struction remind us most expressly of the didactic passages of the Gospel; e.g., John i. 1-18, ili. 27-36, and others. For, we meet in the Epistle the same peculiar manner of thinking in paratactic periods, and of combining the individual members of the thought by xai (compare only, for example, ch. ii. 1-3, where St Paul would doubtless have used éay dé instead of cat édv, and certainly adros yap iNkacpos éote instead of xat adtos ihacpos éott). We need only to observe the manner in which he, 1 John ili. 20, resumes the é7z which had just preceded, and compare it with the anaphora in John i. 33, iv. 6, ete. ; and to mark his preference generally for the particle 671, used in manifold senses (comp., e.g., John xvi. 3, 4, 6, 17; comp. further, 1 John ii. 12, etc., with John xvi. 9-11), as well as the frequent use of the particles epi, wa, adda. It is evident to every one, that the author of the Epistle is accustomed, like the author of the Gospel, to think in Aramzan, and to move in the narrow circle of the particles 1, ‘2 or "5, }705. To these may be added some IDENTITY OF AUTHOR OF THIS EPISTLE AND EVANGELIST. 7 other Hebraic kinds of construction and thought; e.g., the paraphrase of the Gen. by éx, 1 John iv. 13, comp. John i. 35, vi. 8 and 70, and the resolution of a relative in a conditional clause (€dy Tis . . . ovK éctw év avt@ instead of daTis, K.T.2.), 1 John ii. 15, ui. 17, comp. John vi. 43, etc. The resolution of a simple antithesis into a final or causal sentence dependent upon a word to be supplied (ov« Foav €& judy aN wa. . .), 1 John ii. 19, comp. John i. 8, iii. 28; the paraphrase of the instrumental Dative by év, 1 John ii. 3, comp. John i. 26 and 33, xvi. 30; and, finally, the abundant use of Oewpeiy and Gea Oar, while of opdv only the Perfect occurs, and of individual phrases, such as Tv Wuyi riOévat, Oeds 0 adynOwos, 6 cwTHp Tov Koomod 6 Xpicros, Koopos Aap Pdve, and of daiver, Texvia, Tatvia, etc. More important than these specialities is the similarity of the circle of ideas in both writings. The notions das, fw, cKotia, adnOeia, yreddos, meet us in the Epistle in the same broad, and deep, and essentially speculative meaning which they bear in the Gospel: so also recur the notions (Aas, trovety THY Sixavoctvny, THY dpaptiav, THY avowiav; and the sharply pre- sented antitheses gas and cxotia, adnOela and weddos, fw) and @dvatos, wyavay and piceiv, ayawn Tod Tatpos and Tod Koopov, Téxva Tod Oeod and tod SiaBorov, Trovety THv SiKaLo- ovvny and tH dpaptiay, Trvebua Ths aAnOelas and THs TAVIS. But this leads us to something still higher. It is the same per- sonality which moves before our eyes in the Gospel and in the Epistle. It is that same disciple who, in’relation to Jesus, ex- hibits the virgin-spirit of devotion and receptiveness, but, filled with the Spirit, became altogether man and even a son of thunder against all the enemies of Christ ; who no longer had to do with the contrast between Jewish Christianity and heathen Chris- tianity,—no longer with the historical relation of the Messiah to the circumcision and the uncircumcision,—but whose business it was to judge and overcome the false speculation of dawning Gnosticism by the true gnosis and holy speculation, while he treated of “ the onian eternal antitheses and relations.” It is that disciple whose nature was full of self-devotion and alto- gether receptive ; yet whose character was that of absolute dect- sion, so that he devoted himself only to one thing, or rather to One Person, but to that One most perfectly and undividedly,— 8 INTRODUCTION. who, as the result of this specific combination in his character, was incapable of entering into the spirit of an intermediate and neutral position, and therefore never, like St Paul, makes the process of the warfare between the old and the new man the object of his exhibition, but contemplates salvation at once as the perfected victory of light over the darkness. It cannot, then, be otherwise than that we must find the dogmatic views of the Epistle bearing the same form and stamp, down to the minutest statement, which they present in the Gospel :—not as the views of St John, but as what he received from the lips of his Lord and Master, yet exhibited under that aspect which he, by virtue of his own personal individuality, beyond others apprehended and appropriated to himself. Thus, for example (as Diisterdieck has excellently shown), “ the ethic of the Johannzan doctrine concerning the final judgment at the coming of the Lord, in its connection with the doctrine concerning the Paraclete, is altogether the same in the Epistle as in the Gospel; and in the Epistle the notion of the Spirit as the Principle of judgment who prepares the way for the final Judgment itself, is no more wanting than the representation of the actual coming is wanting in the Gospel. According to the Epistle, believers have already actually passed from death unto life (ch. iii. 14), are already the children of God (ch. iii. 2), have everlasting life, because they have the Son and the Father (ch. i. 23, ete., v.11, etc.), and the Holy Spirit (ch. iti. 24).” And so far there is no more judgment awaiting them (ch. ii. 28, ili. 2, iv. 17). The future judgment will only “finish the con- summation of the life which believers already have received, and maintained, and preserved upon earth, in fellowship with Christ, and in the possession of the Holy Spirit (ch. ii. 12, etc., iil. 9, v. 1). And as the judgment is already, in time, prepara- torily accomplished upon unbelievers, through the power of the Holy Spirit exerting His influence upon the world (ch. ii. 8 and 19), so also believers have in their earthly life, from the same Spirit, the principle of their holy and saving development, which will be blessedly consummated at the coming of the Lord, from whom they have received the Spirit.” With this compare John v. 24, vi. 39, etc., and other passages. The present existence of the last hour is presupposed in the Gospel (ch. v. 25, xii. 31), in the same manner as in the Epistle (ch. ii. 18). According to IDENTITY OF AUTHOR OF THIS EPISTLE AND EVANGELIST. 9 the Gospel, as according to the Epistle (1 John ii. 1), Christ is the Paraclete; for the Holy Spirit is exhibited by the side of Christ in the Gospel, ch. xiv. 16, as a\Xos trapdkdyTOos, another Comforter. Compare further John ii. 16 with 1 John iv. 9, 10; John xiv. 15 and 21, with 1 John ii. 6, v. 3; John xvii. 14 with 1 John ii. 1; John xv. 18 with 1 John ii. 13. That the Epistle came from the same author as the Gospel, was, therefore, never questioned, until in these later times the crotchety critics of the young-Hegelian school found it for their advantage, in the interest of their other views, to deny the identity of authorship. But, in their endeavours to establish their point, it has happened that they have split into two opposite par- ties, which have zealously contended against each other. United in this, that the Epistle came from another hand than that which wrote the Gospel, they then separated diametrically. Baur and Zeller’ maintained, that the Gospel was the relatively older document ; and that the Epistle was the imitative production, altogether void of original substance, of a man who sought to have himself identified with the author of the Gospel, and therefore did his best to imitate his style. On the other hand, Hilgenfeld? admitted the originality of the Epistle, but assigned to the Gospel a later date, and the authorship of a different hand.. What these critics allege for the establishment of their common assertion—to wit, that the author of the Gospel and the author of the Epistle are not one and the same—is really very insignificant ; and we shall content ourselves with referring those of our readers who are desirous to investigate their subtleties at length, to the fundamental arguments of Diister- dieck, in his Introduction to this Epistle. All others will be contented with the proofs given above of the identity of the author of the Epistle and the author of the Gospel; for our remarks have contained, in part at least, the refutation of the supposed dogmatical contradictions which have been thought to 1 Zeller made a beginning, by representing it as ‘‘ conceivable” that the two writings might have had different authors (Tiib. Jahrb. 1845). Baur, in his treatise on the Johannzan Epistles (Tiib. Jahrb. 1848), elevated this ** conceivableness” into positive certainty. 2 Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis nach ihrem Lehrbegriff dar- ‘gestellt, Halle 1849. 10 INTRODUCTION. exist between the Epistle and the Gospel. The contradictions which we have not referred to rest upon a perverted exegesis of individual utterances of the Epistle (for instance, ch. v. 6) ; and they will be considered at large in the commentary on those passages. But what Baur, in particular, has alleged in dis- paragement of the Epistle, and in proof that it was no better than an unhappy imitation of the style and spirit of the Gospel, has been already reduced to nothing by our common adversary Hilgenfeld. Baur says, that in the Epistle there is not one of the ideas, borrowed from the Gospel, which is stated in an in- dependent manner, and developed in a profounder connection ; that whatever it contains is but taken arbitrarily from the rich contents of the Gospel; that if the Epistle has any leading fundamental thought, it is extremely hard to detect or follow it anywhere; that its polemics are idle and empty (everything is to Baur idle and empty that is directed against a false panthe- istic gnosis!) ; and that the Epistle has received from the Gospel its manner of representation,—the monotony of which, however, is more strange, because it is a mere form without its corre- sponding essence. But to all this we can only reply by giving the great critic our humble assurance, that the poverty of thought and spiritlessness which he alleges, does not le with the author of the Epistle. If a wild Indian can find no relish in the Olympic Jupiter, the fault is not with Phidias. Hilgenfeld discerns in the Epistle “profound views,” which the author of the Gospel, without disparagement to his own “ grand originality of conception,” appropriated in his production. But every remaining doubt as to the identity of the Epistle- writer and the Evangelist must vanish, when we observe that the latter, like the former, represents himself to have been an eye-witness of the life of Jesus, and an Apostle (1 John i. 1-3, iv. 14); and that he refers to the beginning of the Gospel (1 John i. 1-4) in such a manner as to leave no reason for doubting that it is his purpose to describe himself as the same who had written the Gospel. We have therefore the option, either to attribute deception (!) to the man who declares the devil to have been the father of the lie, and every one who speaketh falsehood to be a child of the devil, and the spirit of lying to be the spirit of darkness and of antichrist,—a supposi- tion, the possibility of entertaining which, argues either a very GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 6! suspicious failure of the power of thinking, or a still more suspicious moral abandonment—or, to accept the two writings as the production of the Apostle St John. III. GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. This result, obtained by internal investigations, will be per- fectly confirmed by the external testimonies in favour of the genuineness of the Epistle. Polycarp (according to Iren. adv. Her. v. 33; Euseb. iv. 14, v. 20, an immediate disciple of St John) writes (Phil. 7): mas yap Os dy pa) oporoyn “Incodv Xpwcrov év capri édnrvévat, avtixpratos éot1s—an undeniable allusion to 1 John iv. 3 (compared with ver. 2). Polycarp quotes these words, too, as a warning against those oitwes azro- Travaou Kevo’s avOpeérrovs, and even introduces the expres- sion used by St John concerning the same false teachers (rept Tov TAavevTwv twas, 1 John ii. 26). And this passage is all the more important, as the expression dyt/ypioTos is not found in any of the Fathers of the second century, except St John’s own disciples, Polycarp and Irenzeus (Liicke). And the words which immediately follow in Polycarp (xatl ds dv pu) oporoyn TO paptiploy tod otavpod, éx Tod StaBorov éoriv) certainly contain another specifically Johannean expression. Moreover, Polycarp elsewhere, and generally, moves in a circle of Johan- nzean phraseology and turns of thought and ideas (sepurareiv év tals évtodats, aEiws THs évToAHs, KaTa THY adjOevav TOD Kupiov, fiv €v Xpior@) : he often sharply defines brotherly love as the climax of righteousness, commands his readers to separate them- selves dro tay émibupidv Tov év TO KOcH@ (cap. V., comp. 1 John ii. 16), and to hold fast tov é& dpyjs jpiv tapadodevta Novo (cap. vii., comp. 1 John ii. 7, and 19-21). Papias also (who, according to Euseb. iii. 39, had been "Iwdvvov ev axovaris, Tlo\vKdprov 8€ éraipos) used, that is, cited, in his writings (lost to ws, but extant and well known to Eusebius, who gives us on this point his unsuspicious testimony) the first Epistle of St John. (Euseb.1.c.: xéypyntas & 6 adbtos Haptuplas amd Ths Iwdvvov mporépas éeriatonns Kal THs Ilétpov ouolws.) Indeed, it would appear that the citations from 1 John in the writings of Papias were much more striking than those be INTRODUCTION. in Polycarp’s Epistle to the Ephesians; for Eusebius, when he speaks concerning this latter Epistle, does not make any mention of the allusions to St John’s Epistle.’ The Epistle to Diognetus—written about the time of Justin Martyr—is most certainly full of Johannzan thoughts: ex- amine, e.g., the following passage (p. 500): 0 yap Oeds rods avOpetrous HyaTNnoEe, Tpos ods améoTE\Ae TOV UioY avTOD TOV poovoyev (comp. with 1 John iv. 9, 10, and John ui. 16): ois Ti év otpave Bacirelav émnyyeirato, Kal Swcer Tois ayaTHTact avTov' émuyvods S€, Tivos oles TANTwWOjcETPaL yapas ; 7) THs ayarnces Tov oUTws TpoayarycavTa ce (1 John iy. 10, 11). "Ayarnoas Sé, wyuntns én adtod THs ypnoToTnTos (John xiv. 15 and 21; 1 John v. 3; 2 John 6; and, especially, 1 John ii. 6). Or, the following in cap. xii.: od6€ yap Son avev yvocews, ode yoaots acdaris avev Swhs adnPods, which is no other than a short and compact summary of the process of thought contained in 1 John ii. 18-25, iv. 4-6, v. 6-12. The Epistle to Diognetus represents Christians as those who are not éx Tod Koopov (cap. vi.; comp. 1 John iii. 1, and John xvii. 14); as those who are hated by the world (cap. v.—vi.; comp. John xyu. 14, xv. 18; 1 John iii. 13), and who yet love this world, even as (cap. vil.) the Father sent the Son, not that He might condemn the world, but that He might show love to it (comp. John iii. 17). The Epistle to Diognetus acknowledges (cap. vii.), with St John, the future zapovoia of Christ to judgment; teaches, with St John, that God has planted His holy Logos into the hearts of Christians (0 «ds am’ obpavav THY adnGevav Kal Tov AOYoV TOV ayLov Kal aTrEpwonToV éyKaTe- otnpige Tats Kapdias, since He did not send an angel, but adrov Tov texvitny Kal Snuroupyov TOV OX@v). Further, it here, and in Ep. xi., terms Christ tov Aoyov and Tov am’ apyis. The Epistle of the Church of Vienne and Lyons (in Euseb. y. 1) also contains an undeniable allusion to 1 John iii. 16, in the words: 6 Ova Tod TAnpepatos THs ayamns évedeiEaTo, evdo- KnoaS UTEP THS TOV GdEAHOV aTroNoylas Kal THY EavToOD Oeivar uy. The circumstance, further, is very important, that the Gnostic Carpocrates—who lived at Alexandria in the beginning of the 1 The whole body of then-extant Christian literature lay before Eusebius’ eyes, and he was a learned reader and investigator of it. GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 13 second century—sought to pervert and bend to his purpose the passage of 1 John vy. 19, “ Mundus in maligno positus est” (Origen in Genesin, cap. i.). Ireneeus cites our Epistle, as is well known, with express mention of its author (ady. Heer. iii. 16, v. and viii.; the pas- sages are 1 John ii. 18-22, iv. 1-3, v. 1); hence Eusebius (v. 8) writes concerning him (as concerning Papias) : péuvytas dé Kal Ts “Iwdvvov mperns émictodys, paptupia €& avThs TreloTa eiodépwr" opoiws dé Kat THs Ilétpov mporépas.— So also Clem. Alex. Peedag. iii. and Strom. ii. quotes the passages, 1 John y. 3 and 16, and with mention of the author. Similarly Tertullian, Origen, and the succeeding Fathers. Thus it is not to be wondered at, that the First Epistle of St John everywhere appears in the ancient Canones, or Catalogues of the ecclesiastical books of instruction, and that as ojoXoryov- pevn.. The Syrian Church received it in the Peshito; the Alexandrian Church is represented as receiving it by Clem. Alex. (see above), Origen (in Euseb. vi. 25), and Dionysius (in Euseb. vii. 25); for the African Church vouch Tertullian (de Idol, ii. de Fug. 9) and Cyprian (de Orat. Dom.) ; for the Gallican, Irenzeus ; and for the East, Eusebius, who reckons the Epistle among the homologowmena. In the face of these witnesses, it must appear only ridiculous to hear the pseudo-criticism of the young-Hegelian school peremptorily uttering their dictum—in the service of their a priori construction of the history of the development of Chris- tianity—that the Epistle harmonizes only with the second century, because it contains “ post-Montanistic” elements, or because it has incorporated Gnostic ideas which were not un- folded till during the course of the second century. A thorough refutation of these arguments—based upon pure misunder- standing and perversion—may be found in the introduction of Diisterdieck. The kernel of this refutation lies in the golden 1 When we find in the Canon Murat. mention of ‘‘ superseripti Joannis duas,” this does not refer to the first and second, but to the second and third, Epistle ; both of which required to be established against the sus- picion which might place them among hurtful and heretical writings. The author of that canon did not think it necessary to mention the First Epistle, in this connection and for this purpose: its canonicity was self- understood. 14 INTRODUCTION. saying of this commentator: “ Baur, misunderstanding or ignorant of the truth of the apostolical thoughts, has regarded the Montanistic [and the Gnostic] caricature of those thoughts as their type.” For the rest, the next section will contain suffi- cient exposure of the hypothesis of Baur. It is well known that as early as the second century there were men who, purely on internal grounds, were repelled by St John’s writings, and therefore rejected them from the canon. They were named d&doyou—a name which in every sense was quite suitable for them. IV. RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GOSPEL. It has been shown above, Sect. II., that in the Epistle we may discern the same style, the same manner and substance of thought, the same doctrinal individuality, the selfsame spirit and character—in short, the same individual and personal traits of authorship—which meet us in the Gospel. But, beyond this general identity, there may be traced a still more direct. rela- tionship between the two writings, in respect to the similarity of the state of things to which they owe their origin, and the similarity of purpose which they were meant to subserve. In these respects they are more closely allied to each other than to the Apocalypse, which was written by the same author, but under totally different impelling circumstances. In style, also, the Epistle more nearly approximates to the Gospel, than either does to the Apocalypse. That the Gospel of St John did not owe its origin to any mere impulse to write in the author, but also to an historical, practical necessity for it existing in the Church, I think I have already established in opposition to my friend Luthardt. It is most certain that St John received from the Lord a calling, and a circle of influence, as real as that of any of the other Apostles ; and we know that it was his especial vocation (John 1 The patristic notices of them are arranged in Kirchhofer’s Quellen- sammlung zur Geschichte des N. T. Canons, ii. 8. 425-432. But, as the opposition of the Alogi was mainly directed to the Gospel and the Apocalypse, we may here the more briefly dismiss this most uncritical demonstration of heresy. RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GOSPEL. wy xxi. 22) to remain until the Lord should come. He was to out- live the other Apostles ; he should live to behold the parousia, —which he attained to, not indeed in external reality, but in the visions in which the Lord came to him, Rev. i. 9, etc., and gave him to see His coming to judgment, Rev. i. 7, xxii. 20. Thus, the vocation of this Apostle had an essentially eschato- logical character. When he came forth from his earlier com- parative retirement to play an active part upon the scene of the history of the apostolical age, the perfected judgment upon Jerusalem had abolished the ground of the previous controversy between Jewish and Gentile Christianity,—the controversy which had enlisted the energies of St Paul (and with which the contest between the Papacy and the Reformation is analogous). But, instead of this, other powers of seduction and perversion had sought to force themselves into-the doctrine of the Christian Church,—powers in which both Jewish and heathen elements of falsehood combined in wildly confused league against the Truth, while bearing the guise of truth and wisdom (and with which are analogous the powers of negative and destructive wisdom which have come forth in our day since the Deists and Encyclopedists). Of the Jewish Christianity there remained only that Nazarene element which still clung, in godless and naked traditionalism, to the observance of the ceremonial law, and the use of the national language, after the Lord had laid low in destruction both temple and nation; and which, as the result of this spiritual obstinacy, was suffered to sink into the lowest stage which was exhibited as Ebionitism, capable of viewing Jesus only from the legal point of view, as a new law- giver, and therefore as no more than a mere man. It had not, in the Apostle’s days, reached that stage; although that ex- treme development, to which the then existing separation of the Nazarenes from the organism of the Church must necessarily lead, could not possibly be concealed from that prophetic glance which was St John’s special endowment. Now, whether St John, in his so emphatic testimony to the eternal Divine Sonship of Christ, had in view the Nazarene element and its results, or not; whether it was his conscious design to interpose a barrier to one of the two fundamental principles of all heresy, or not; whether or not the strongly asserted sayings of the Gospel, ch. i. 8, 20, with which 1 John 16 INTRODUCTION. v. 6 is connected, were directed against an Ebionizing school of John’s disciples (which, according to Acts xviii. 24, and xix. 1, had continued in existence long after the Baptist’s death as a school or sect) ;—thus much is clear, and historically established beyond possibility of doubt, that the same error, otherwise termed “ Hbionite,” did confront the Apostle from another point, and that as combined with the second root of all the heresies— docetic-pantheistic Gnosticism. Gnosticism generally had in this its distinguishing mark, that it regarded Christianity not as having to do primarily with the salvation of the soul (as in Acts xvi. 30), but with theore- tical wisdom. It appropriated many—and in some instances truly-apprehended — elements of Christian doctrine; but it sundered them from their organic connection with the centre of the Gospel, and wrought them into the complex of its pro- blems and systems, making them do nothing better than mini- ster to the enlargement of those problems and systems. And these questions of the older Gnosticism assume various forms in history. or example, in Marcion it was a problem of natural ethics, how the law was related to individual per- sonal freedom :—solved by taking the ground of a no longer moral Antinomianism. Among the Ophites, it was a problem of the philosophy of history, how the Old-Testament limited national development was related to the New-Testament univer- sality :—solved by the theory which wildly denied the truth of the Old-Testament revelation, and perverted it into a revelation of Satan. With Valentinian it was a problem of pure abstract speculation, how spirit was related to matter, and so forth. All these problems bear evident marks of their forced and artificial origin; we perceive that Christianity had not only imposed itself upon their originators as a power with which they must, in some way or other, place themselves in relation, but that they, in all their attempts at solution, set out with the principle and design, to assign the highest place to Christianity (that is, to what they could find good for their purpose in Christianity) ; yea, even to secure for their systems, by artificial, allegorical exegesis, the appearance of being founded upon Holy Scripture. But, with such forced and artificial systems the spiritual movement of Gnosticism could not possibly have had its rise. RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GOSPEL. 17 The first exhibition of the Gnostic nature—in itself very rough and unformed—within the Christian Church we see in Simon the Magician (Acts viii. 9, etc.), who before his conversion made himself honoured as an emanation of God (1) dvvapus Tod Ocod 1) Kadovpévn weyddy), and brought over into Christianity, if not the doctrine, yet the general view, that the Christian mysteries, like all others, were an instrument and a means for the obtaining of money and fame (vers. 18, etc.). So far there was some element of truth in the old saying which made Simon the father of Gnosticism; he had in himself at least, in his moral and religious position and character, the material of a Gnostic.—But the most ancient actual Gnostic, who brought out a Gnostic theory, was Cerinthus. That he lived in Ephesus at the same time with St John, and that St John regarded him and shunned him as “the enemy of the truth,” is attested by Irenzeus with the express remark that he had received his in- formation from Polycarp, the immediate disciple of St John.' His doctrine is given by Irenzeus in the following words (i. 26) : Et Cerinthus autem quidam in Asia non a primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a virtute quadam valde separata et distante ab ea principalitate, que est super universa, et ignorante eum, qui est super omnia, Deum. Jeswm autem, subjecit, non ex virgine natum (impossibile enim hoc ei visum est) fuisse autem eum Josephi et Maric filium simpliciter ut reliqui onnes homines, et plus potuisse justitia et prudentia et sapientia ab hominibus. Et post baptismum descendisse in eum ab ea principalitate, quae est super omnia, Christum figura columbe ; et tunc annunciasse incogni- tum patrem et virtutes perfecisse; in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu, et Jesum passum esse et resurrexisse ; Chris- tum autem impassibilem perseverasse, existentem spiritualem.’ 1 Tren. adv. Her. 3, 3, 4: Kal sisiv of dxquodres abrod (rov ToAv- xapTov) ort loans 6 rov Kuplov wadaras, tv 7h EQéow ropevdsis Aavonadccs, nal idadv gow Kypivbov, eenraro rov Baravelov mh Aourcpevos GAA’ ewerrov" Duyumev, wy nal To Buraveiov overtan, evoov dvrog Kupzivbov, rov rijg &Andelas &%Op00. So Euseb. H. E. 3, 28. * What, on the contrary, Gaius and Dionys. Alex. say about Cerinthus (in Euseb. 3, 28) is of no moment. For Gaius, a fanatical anti-Montanist and anti-Chiliast, condemns Cerinthus as being the true author of the Apo- calypse, which he invented in the Chiliast interest. But Dionysius (whose words in Euseb. 3, 28 are imperfect, but are quoted at length in 7, 25) relates of the Alogi, that they condemned Cerinthus for holding a sensual Chiliasm. B 18 INTRODUCTION. Thus there are two points in which the doctrinal system of Cerinthus culminates. First, he teaches that the Creator of the actual visible world was a Demiurgus, different from the supreme God, the Sender of Christ, a lower (Zon who pos- sessed no knowledge of God, and did not communicate to his creatures any such knowledge :—that primal and fundamental position of Gnosticism, which, under various modifications, runs through all the succeeding Gnostic systems. Second, he teaches that Jesus was a mere man, begotten of Joseph; that at his baptism an don Christ was united to him, sent down by the supreme God (the apy avwtarn), in order that he might lead the world, by the mouth of the man Jesus, to know Him, the Supreme God. Before the death of Jesus, however, the Hon Christ is represented as being again separated from him. We see plainly enough glimmering throughout this system the problems which gave it its existence: the question of vain curiosity, how it was that God, supposing Him to have created the world, could have remained so long unknown to the world which He had made (the blame of this was not sought in men, who would not receive the light shining into the world, but was transferred from men to the world itself, and its dypsoupyds !) and then the question of Rationalism, how the Son of God could have become man, and could have been conceived by a virgin. Hence, the basis of the system was not a Jewish-Ebionite error, which through an over-valuation of the Jaw denied the necessity for the incarnation of Christ, but a rationalist philosophical error; although its resu/¢ in relation to the person of Jesus con- curred with the final result of (later) Ebionitism. How, then, did the Apostle John bear himself in his attack upon this system of lies? A craving for yvdous had been ex- cited ; speculative thinking had been awakened, though in an un-Christian direction, to busy itself with such questions as these. This craving must be satisfied, but satisfied in the right manner : it must be shown that the true yv@ous had its roots, not in the idle curiosity of a philosophical groping, altogether separate from penitent faith in the Saviour of sinners, but in that faith itself, and in that alone. And this is what St John hasshown. The material which he had to use for this purpose, was not to be sought for anew, or laboriously to be constructed. He himself was prepared by his own original endowments: he had already, RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GOSPEL. 19 in the lifetime of his Master, viewed, apprehended, and retained especially those aspects of the nature and doctrine of Jesus Christ, which now served of themselves to bear victorious testi- mony against the Gnostic heresy. He, that is, alone among all the disciples, had been fitted to apprehend and lay up in his mind certain phases of the nature and doctrine of Jesus: to wit, first, the Lord’s own declarations concerning His eternal relation to the Father, and His eternal, pre-temporal unity of nature with the Father (John ii. 13 and 17, v. 17, vi. 33 and 51, vii. 16 and 28, viii. 58, etc.) ; secondly, those utterances of our Lord concerning the profound mystical relation of unity and communion of life into which the Lord would enter with His disciples, through the Holy Ghost (John ii. 8, ch. vi., xiv. 16, etc., xv. 1, etc., xvii. 21-23). Because St John was, in his per- sonal character, the complement of the other disciples, therefore it was obvious of itself that he would give the complement of their exhibition of Christ and His doctrine, by presenting, as soon as the occasion should arise, in doctrine and writing, that peculiar side of it which he had beyond others apprehended. And for that the occasion has now come. Merely taking a human view of the matter, and apart from all inspiration and enlightenment of the Holy Ghost, it must have now arisen to his consciousness that he had in his own internal self the living armoury against the new assaults of the spirit of lymg! The Gnosticism of a Cerinthus must necessarily have awakened within him his holy indignation ; for it directly contradicted all that which St John bore in his heart as the most sacred treasure from the lips of Jesus; and surely would he know that in these discourses of our Lord he had already received the refutation of Gnosticism, and the elements of a perfect victory over its errors. To the doctrinal statements of lying speculation which sundered the Father of Jesus Christ from the Creator of the | world, he had to oppose the doctrine that the Father of Jesus Christ had created the world by the Logos ;—to'the lie that ~ sundered the man Jesus from the on Christ, and separated them entirely before the passion of Christ, he had to oppose the doctrine of Jesus, the incarnate Logos, and of the glorification of the Father in His sufferings;—to the dead striving after dead knowledge, he had to oppose the discourses of Christ concerning the life of the Head in the members. 20 INTRODUCTION. That he did set himself in opposition to them, is undeniable matter of fact. It has been questioned by some, whether he did so designedly and consciously: it has been asserted that, without any reference to Cerinthus, he purposed only “to make known to the collective One Church the whole One Christ, in His fullest and most perfect essential character, and universality of meaning for man ;” and to show “in what way Jesus Him- self knew or sought to create faith in Himself.” But the Evangelist specifies his own design in the construction of his Gospel (ch. xx. 31): “These things are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that be- lieving ye may have life in His name.” And did St John write these words without at all thinking of that enemy of the truth who was living in the same city with himself, and who taught the precise reverse—that Jesus was not the Christ? If it was his design in the Gospel to lead His Church to a perfect faith, and to confirm them in that faith, that Christ was the Son of God, it was also his design, doubtless, to arm and prepare them against the cunning and subtile attacks of the Cerinthian Gnosticism, which was so nigh at hand. And how aptly and specifically are the lying assertions of Cerinthus overthrown by individual passages of the Gospel! Cerinthus taught that the world was created by an inferior Kon, who did not know the Supreme God. St John writes : “The Word was to (with) God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made” (Johni.3). We must mark the polemico- negative repetition of the statement, which before was laid down in a positive form. Cerinthus taught that men before Christ had not the possibility of knowing the Supreme God, because the Demiurgus himself did not know Him, and could not there- fore give the knowledge of Him to His creatures,—the Avon Christ having first made Him known. St John writes concern- ing the Word of God, who was Himself God, and through whom all things were made, “ In Him was life, and the life was the light of men:” he thus writes that the supreme and only God had, through the Logos, given life from the beginning to men, and in this life the light of knowledge also. And, while Cerinthus ascribed the cause of human sin, blindness, and ignorance of God, to an increated impossibility, and that again RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GOSPEL. 21 to the Demiurgus, St John, on the contrary, writes, “ And the light shineth in the darkness, but the darkness received it not ;? and thereby throws the guilt of blindness where it should fall, on the wicked will of the creature, which is and abides dark because it received not the light. In ver. 9, he repeats once more, that the Logos was “the true Light, which enlighteneth every man ;” and in ver. 10, once more, that “ the world through Him existed, but that the world knew Him not ;’ and in ver. 11, that He, when He came to the world, came not into the strange province of a Demiurgus, but “to His own, though His own (creatures) received Him not.’ Again, he charges the guilt upon the evil will of the creatures, while Cerinthus taught that the Alon Christ had come into the alien domain of an alien Demiurgus, whose creatures could not know the supreme Prinei- palitus through an increate inability. When St John had thus diligently opposed a barrier to the fundamental Gnostic assumption and presupposition of a Demi- urgus, he could pass onward to the doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos, eternally one with God, in Jesus the Christ, and oppose it to the lying doctrine of Cerinthus concerning the mere man Jesus, and the Zon Christ only temporarily united to him (ver. 14): “The Logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only- begotten of the Father.” To the lie of Cerinthus concerning the mere man and son of Joseph, he has to oppose that which he had seen with his eyes. And the eyes of no disciple had been so inwardly opened as his had been, to behold and appre- hend the full and gracious outbeaming of the eternal glory of God manifest in Christ Jesus! “By Jesus Christ came grace and truth. No man hath seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him (God).” Thus writes St John (ch. i. 17, 18); while Cerinthus was teaching that the Zon Christ, who brought to men the knowledge of God, was neither the Only-begotten in the bosom of the Father, nor one person with Jesus. According to Cerinthus, it was the don Christ who de- scended, at his baptism, on the mere man Jesus, and com- municated to him the “virtutes” of prudence, wisdom, and righteousness. St John relates (ch. i. 32, etc.) how the Holy Ghost came down upon Him, who Himself was already the 22 . INTRODUCTION. Son of God, and before the Baptist (vers. 30 and 31); and that He received the Holy Ghost, not that He might then and thereby become partaker of the Divine nature for Himself, but that He might be able (ver. 33) to baptize others with the same Spirit. We shall not now go through the individual actual demon- strations of the Divine d0£a in Jesus which the Evangelist records. All we can do is to point to those individual utterances of Christ which the Evangelist cited for the confirmation of the doctrine laid down in ch. i. In ch. ii. 13, 14, we have the two things placed in close juxtaposition by Christ Himself— that the Son of Man came down from heaven, and is in heaven, and that the same Son of Man must be lifted up on the cross (while Cerinthus entirely sundered the on Christ, who came down from heaven, from the suffering man Jesus). Compare, further, ch. v. 23 and 25, where the Son, Jesus Christ, arrogates to Himself the same honour which belongs to the Father, and where He prophesies that He will raise the dead; and ch. vi. 51 and 62, where He again testifies that He came down from heaven. So also ch. viii. 58; and especially ch. xu. 23 seq. and xvii. 1 seq., where again the suffering itself appears to be the glorification of God in His incarnate Son; and, moreover, ch. xviii. 6 and 11 and 37, where the suffering appears as the counsel of God, and the end of the incarnation of the Son. As certainly as St Luke, the companion of St Paul, wrote such passages and expressions as Luke xiy. 23, xv. 10 and 31, not without the consciousness of the immense energy which lay in those sayings as directed against a false legal Jewish Chris- tianity, and, consequently, not without the latent intention to erect by their means bulwarks against this mischievous error, so certain is it that St John did not record the above-mentioned sayings of our Lord without the consciousness of the mighty witness which they would bear against the Cerinthian heresy, and, consequently, not without the design to put weapons in the hands of the Lord’s people for their defence against that power of seduction and falsehood. Indeed, we must assume that this purpose and latent aim was much more distinctly con- scious in the mind of St John, than in the mind of St Luke. When the latter wrote his Gospel, a false legal Judaism did not oppose itself in so concrete and concentrated a form as that bt RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GOSPEL. 23 with which Gnosticism confronted St Luke. That Jewish Christianity was, indeed, found everywhere, but especially in Palestine (Acts xv. 1 seq.; Gal. ii. 4), Galatia (Gal. i. 7, etc.), and Corinth (1 Cor. i. 12); certainly it was not so abundant, and it was not so vigorous, in the churches of Asia Minor which had been founded under the influence of St Paul, and for which St Luke wrote his Gospel. The contest with Judaism had been to St Luke, while he laboured by the side of St Paul, only an independent and general matter of interest; many years before, the conflict had been settled in his mind by those discourses, and parables, and acts of Jesus, which demonstrated that not only Israel, and not all Israel, would be saved, but only those who penitently believed, whether among the Jews or among the Gentiles. It is more involuntarily that he presents, in his Gospel especially, a selection of those portions which had from the beginning appeared to him to be pre-eminently impor- tant on the subject. With St John it was otherwise. He had not had previously —that is, before the rise of Gnosticism—any particular external occasion presented, which rendered it neces- sary that he should give prominence to that speculative side of the doctrine and the nature of Christ, which he beyond others had so deeply and inwardly apprehended; but now, when Cerinthus had begun in Ephesus to perplex the minds even of the members of the Church (1 John ii. 19), and to induce some of them to apostatize, the Apostle must have become distinctly conscious to what end and for what occasion the Lord had fur- nished him with his own peculiar talent of knowledge. That which he had long and faithfully retained in the inmost depths of his spirit, and pondered in his heart, he now comes forward prominently to declare, in opposition to a concrete and locally concentrated lying power and influence,—consequently, with a directly polemical aim. We define Cerinthic Gnosticism to have been a “locally- concentrated” lying power, but not simply a “local” one. It was not a merely local and isolated occurrence, as was the heresy of Hymenzus and Philetus (2 Tim. ii. 17), which in Ephesus “ spread like a cancer ;”! but a lying power, which at ‘ It is not, however, denied that this spiritualism also was a symptom of a more general disease, nor that it was itself one of the earliest precursors of the Gnostic views. 94 INTRODUCTION. that time had its place in the air (comp. Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12). Moreover, the history of Gnosticism in the second century teaches us what a widely extending growth was to spread from this root; and, that already about the end of the first century this root had put forth more than one stem, we are assured by the reports which the newly discovered Hippolytus gives us, in the fifth book of his ¢urocopovmeva 7) Kata Tacav aipécewv éXeyyos, concerning the Naassenes, Peratics, Sethites, and Justin | the Gnostic.’ Nevertheless, this power of the lie confronted St John in a locally concentrated form—that is, in the person and in the influence of Cerinthus. For, that St John had (as Bunsen thinks) the Naassenes and Sethites in his eye, is at least incapable of proof; and the manner in which these heretics interwove the Logos-idea into their systems, appears to assign them a place rather after than before the appearance of St John’s writings.” That, on the other hand, Cerinthus lived at the same time with St John in Ephesus, and laboured for the subyersion of Christianity, stands historically firm; and we have already seen how distinctly and sharply St John opposes precisely the Cerinthian doctrine (as explained to us by Irenzeus) in his Gospel. Thus the Gospel assumes a concrete historical place in a definite conflict with heresy. But we find that our Epistle has its place most clearly defined in the same conflict. Plainly and expressly the Apostle warns against “the liar who denies that Jesus is the Christ” (ch. ii. 22), and who thereby ' Compare Bunsen, Hippolytus i. 8. 32. ? For they do not contain the Philonic Logos (the hypostatic reason in God, the world-idea, by which God created the actual world) — that notion of a creation of the universe is what they absolutely reject !—but a cor- ruption of the Johannxan Logos, a Logos who descended for redemption, and (though indeed only docetically) became man. Bunsen himself, moreover, - is constrained to admit (8. 33): ‘‘ St John can have had in his eye, not so much the philosophical aicpies of Philo, who abominated every notion of a personal union of the Logos with man, as the Christian heretics who per- verted that idea in one manner or another.” But, how could they have perverted the idea of the incarnation, if this idea had been nowhere uttered and made prominent? And where is there a single trace that it had been uttered before St John? Accordingly, the Johannzan writings must have preceded those heretics; and therefore were not composed for their refutation. RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GOSPEL. 25 denies “ the Father and the Son; and in connection with this, he speaks of an already witnessed apostasy of some (vers. 18, 19), exhorting the readers to hold fast that which they had heard from the beginning (ver. 24). Nor do this warning and this exhortation stand here isolated and alone. It is not only that expressly analogous passages recur in the Epistle (ch. iv. 1-3 and 15, v. 1 and 5, and 10 and 20), which all exhibit the kernel and essence of truth to be the doctrine, that “Jesus Christ came into the flesh ;” that Jesus is the Son of God ;” that “ Jesus is the Christ,” and “the true God and eternal life,” —but the entire Epistle, from beginning to end, is constructed on this principle, to exhibit this opposition between the Christian truth and the Gnostic denial that Jesus was the Christ,’ in its most intimate connection with the religious and moral opposition between truth and lie, righteousness and avouia, love and hatred, and with the xonian opposition between the kingdom of God and the world, between God and Satan,—as will be made manifest in our explanation of these contrasts in the Commentary. If, then, the Epistle thus originated in the same nature of things as the Gospel, we may at least consider this position as established, that the Epistle belongs to the same period of time with the Gospel. An attentive observation, however, will carry this position still further, and lead to the assumption that the two documents were strictly simultaneous. And in this case the Epistle must be considered to have been a companion-document to the Gospel, as it were an epistle dedicatory. This view has been already defended by Heidegger, Berger, Storr, Lange, Thiersch, and others; I have also in another work maintained it. Bleek, Diisterdieck, and Huther have re- cently opposed it, but by arguments which cannot be regarded as valid. Bleek rests mainly upon the insufficiency, which cannot be denied, of the arguments which I brought forward in the Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte; but even this he deals with partially, for he limits himself really to the question of the ypddw and éypaya (1 John i. 4, ii. 12 seq.), which he supposes to refer, not to the Gospel, but to the Epistle itself. ‘St John uses the formule, ‘‘ Jesus is the Son of God,” and ‘‘ Jesus is the Christ,” promiscuously and interchangeably. That this is to be ex- plained only on the supposition of a definite opposition to Cerinthus, will be seen in the remarks below upon 1 John v. 1. 26 INTRODUCTION. Diisterdieck asserts the same; and adds, that there is not throughout the Epistle any express reference to the Gospel. Huther goes somewhat more deeply into the subject; but it still needs a new and more thorough investigation. It is in itself a significant circumstance, that Diisterdieck himself admits it to be very difficult to determine which of the two writings was the earlier written. This acknowledges that no difference of time.is anywhere distinctly marked ; in which case, we may assuredly venture to hold that they were written at the same time. Not, however, in the same hour: the one must have been written after the other. And here Diisterdieck follows Liicke in taking for granted that the Epistle was written after the Gospel. With this assumption we entirely agree, but not with the manner in which it is established. “ The bearing of the Epistle, in its doctrinal and polemical positions, is such as to seem to presuppose that the development of them given in the Gospel was known to the readers,” says Liicke. We can- not altogether assent to this; but hold rather, with Diisterdieck, that “the Epistle stands perfectly independent, and is self- contained ;” and that it was quite intelligible in itself and alone, especially to readers who had already enjoyed the oral instruction of the Apostle John. Yet there is something of truth underlying the observation of Liicke. Ideas and trains of thought are repeated from the Gospel in the Epistle ; and in such a way, that what is fully expanded or thrown out as oppor- tunity required, is in the Epistle, not “ abbreviated,” as Liicke says, but yet concentrated and formally condensed in summary. But it is marvellous that any man should admit this, and then deny anything like a direct reference in the Epistle to the Gospel! It will not be ‘required by any one that the Apostle should have “ expressly,” after the manner of modern authors, cited his Gospel, or written, “ As I have already taught in my Gospel—”’! Is it not quite enough that the Epistle, as to its substance, rests upon the Gospel? But not only so, it rests upon the Gospel in its very form. For we have already seen that the absence of the epistolary form (the lack of address, greeting, and farewell benediction) is, in fact, then only intelligible when we assume that the docu- ment had no independent design as an epistle (the substitute of oral discourse), but rested upon something else. Now, if the a. 7 LOSS spr ae i RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GOSPEL. 27 Epistle was a kind of dedicatory letter, or companion-document of the Gospel, its peculiar form is perfectly understood. And that it was so, may be proved or supported by many of its individual passages. Diisterdieck, who denies any express reference in the Epistle to the Gospel, establishes, however, the priority of the Gospel, and says: “ One may probably perceive in the profound exhibition of the commandment of love (1 John ii. 7), which is not new, which is old, and which yet is called new, an allusion to the written Gospel (ch. xiii. 34).” More important, and much less dubious," is the passage 1 Johni. 1-4. The similarity of the thought with that of the Gospel, ch. i. 14, might be explained by the mere identity of the author; but other things conspire to make the passage refer most expressly to the Gospel. The paragraph, vers. 1-4 (the construction and exposition of which will be treated more at large in the Commentary, where the exegetical establishment will be found of what is here anticipated), falls into two clauses, which are co-ordinated and connected by «ai. The governing verb of the first sentence is the dwayyé\Xouev of the third verse; the governing verb of the second sentence is the ypddpoper of ver. 4, The object of the first verb precedes it in ver. 1: “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we have con- templated, and our hands have handled, declare we unto you.” But to this object there is appositionally appended (not as dependent upon “handled,” but as still dependent upon the governing verb “ we declare’’) a closer definition and statement of it: “Concerning the Word of Life declare we unto you.” In that St John announces that which he had seen and heard, that which he had beheld with his eyes and touched, —he makes announcement concerning “the Word of Life.” And these words are again illustrated by the parenthesis of ver. 2: “ And the Life hath appeared, and we have seen and bear witness, and declare unto you the Life, the Eternal Life, which was with the Father and hath been manifested unto us.” The words of the parenthesis, “ And we have seen, and bear witness and declare,” which run parallel with the words of the first clause, “That which we have seen and heard, beheld and 1 For, that ‘the commandment of love” is not meant in ch. ii. 7, see the commentary on the passage. 28 INTRODUCTION. have handled, we make known unto you,” and which contain a brief recapitulation of that clause, leave us no alternative but to interpret the “ Word of Life” and “the Eternal Life” as referring to Something visible to the eyes, and to be touched with the hands;—not therefore to a Doctrine, not to an abstract Power, but only to the personal Logos, who appeared in the flesh (and who is personally the Gw7}, and that the aidvuos ; comp. John i. 4; and who isin 1 John v.20 again expressly so termed); and it is a perfect confirmation of this, that it is said in the close of ver. 2, and that with undeniable backward allu- sion to John i. 1, 2: “ Which was zpos Tov trarépa, and hath appeared unto us.” Thus also, by this parenthesis, the crept Tod Aoyou THs Gwis—artayyéAXNouey is more closely defined as an announcement of the Incarnate Logos as beheld by St John qua manifested (and not of an abstract idea, or of a doc- trine); and this again serves for the closer definition of the first object—“ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, etc.” We per- ceive that St John would have us understand by that which he had heard, seen, and beheld, not a complex of manifold experiences which he had attained unto concerning the nature and the power of Christian faith, and love, and walk—or “ the idea of the Gospel” (Diisterdieck)—but the personal Christ. And when he so declares or announces this Christ, as to make known “that which he had seen with his eyes, and beheld, that which his hands had handled,’ must he not necessarily mean by this an announcement of the concrete manifestation of Christ, and His life? He does not indeed write dv éwpdxaper, K.T.2.: “ We declare to you the Christ, whom we have beheld and touched,” so that the object of the announcement might be the person of Christ according to its abstract idea—the relative clause being then added for closer definition of this person, that it was actually beheld by St John (and not merely imagined and feigned),—but he writes 6, “ That which we have . seen, and beheld, and handled, we declare unto you.” Thus . that which St John had beheld in Christ and of Christ, forms itself the immediate object of the amayyéAnXopev. But it may be reasonably asked, whether an announcement precisely of this kind does occur in the Epistle ; and for any such we look everywhere in vain. For we learn in the Epistle, that 7° pT 2 eae “ a uety ov! RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GOSPEL. 29 God is light, and that therefore we should not walk in darkness ; that the light hath already appeared to us, since we have attained unto the forgiveness of sins, and that we therefore should not again apostatize ; that we are the children of God, and that nevertheless, yea on that very account, we have still to bear the hatred of the world, which on our own part, however, we must repay with love ; finally, that he who denies the identity of Jesus and the Christ, is antichristian, and belongeth to the darkness. We find pure developments of doctrine and direct dogmas, but never a plain announcement of Christ as such,—not to say any announcement of that which St John had beheld, heard, and handled with his hands! And this first clause is immediately connected with a second in ver. 4: “ And this we write unto you, that your joy may be full.” The translation, or explanation: “ And indeed we write unto you this (that which had been stated in vers. 1-3) on this account, that, etc.,” is simply impracticable. Kal tadra stands emphatically first, so that tadra does not look back upon and recapitulate the contents of vers. 1-3, but is adjoined to the sub- stance of vers. 1-3 as a second and different matter. That this tavta refers to the Epistle is obvious, in the lack of any other specification of its meaning, and is acknowledged by Diister- dieck and Huther. But then the dmayyé\Xoper of vers. 1-3 cannot refer to the Epistle, simply because the cat tadta ypado- pev is plainly added to that amayyé\Xowev as something new and different. So we must rather assume that the Apostle designs in vers. 1-3 to characterize his ordinary (oral) instruc- tions generally to the readers—but how aimless would this have been !—or we must be content to conclude, according to the most obvious and natural solution of the difficulty, that the words of vers. 1-3 refer directly to the transmission of the Grospel to their hands, and that in ver. 4 the Apostle further states his purpose to add this additional, the Epistle, in order to help his readers to a perfect joy. For, in the Gospel, St John had actually de- clared that which “ was from the beginning” (John i. 1, etc.), and that which the disciples had heard from the lips of Jesus (His discourses), and that which they had seen with their eyes (His miracles), and that which they had beheld (His person, in its Divine doa), and that which their hands had handled (His resurrection-body, John xx. 27). Thus much is clear, that, as 30 INTRODUCTION. soon as we refer the “ declare we” of ver. 3 to the transmission of the Gospel, all in these verses which otherwise seems con- fused, and no better than as it were “ a certain interweaving and interplay of notions concerning the person and concerning the history and doctrine of Christ” (Diisterdieck), immediately receives life, distinctness, meaning, and force. St John had written his Gospel, and sends it to the Ephesians with the accompaniment of another document; in that announces the former by the words, “ That which was from the beginning, etc., we declare unto you ;” and then continues: “ And this (accom- panying document) we write unto you, in order to make your joy full.” A stricter description of the Gospel was not neces- sary ; for it came to their hands in company with the Epistle ; and the words, which were necessarily referred to the Epistle itself, “ And these things we write,’ would of themselves lead to the conclusion, that “that which was from the begin- ning, etc., we declare,” must be referred to the accompanying Gospel. This being so, we may meet the argument which Huther brings forward, by making it prove the contrary of what he intends. He maintains, that “a distinction between the aay- yédXomev of ver. 3 and the ypdadopev of ver. 4 is not intimated by anything in the text ;’ but presently afterwards we find that even he cannot hold the strict and absolute identity of reference between the two words. Some distinction he cannot but per- ceive in them: “ ravra refers neither to what precedes merely, nor merely to what immediately follows, but to the whole Epistle.” But, we need only observe carefully the manner in which the cal tadra ypadoper is opposed to the 6 am’ apyjs, KT... aTayyedropuev, to see plainly the necessary distinction between them in the writer’s mind. Who would begin a letter with the words, “ That which I have experienced, I declare ; and this Epistle I write, that, etc.,’—if he wrote at the same time nothing but this letter, and if, moreover, in this letter he actually made known none of those experiences? Huther goes on, indeed, to say: “ 6 defines not the life, but the person of Christ ; and the question is not here of a narrative, but of a testimony and a declarative announcement.” But this is simply contrary to the truth,—the opposite is the case. “ That which we have seen with our eyes,” etc., cannot indicate, as we have RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GOSPEL. 31 seen above, the person according to its abstract idea, but only the person in its conerete life. The closer definition of ver. 2 points out to us simply to what sphere the “ that which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen, etc.,” of the first verse refers,—that is, not to any other gracious experiences of St John generally, but to such ex- periences as he had enjoyed rept Tod Adyou, in reference to Christ. The idea of experience, however, remains: not Him whom we had seen, heard, handled, but that which we had heard, seen, and contemplated, concerning Him, we will “ declare ;” and by this very characterization of the object the announcement itself is defined as a narration. But, that a “ testimony,” and not a narrative, is the matter here, is so far not true as the “ bearing witness” is not in the main clause, but only in the parenthetical explanation ; and, even if the thought of this pa- renthesis runs parallel with that of the main clause, a thorough exegete like Huther ought not to question, in the face of such passages as John xix. 35, xxi. 24, whether waprupety in St John’s phraseology could ever mean a narration! Is not the paptupeiv of 1 John i. 2 attached to the éwpaxévar precisely as in John xix. 85? “ He who saw this, beareth witness.” ‘We have seen and bear witness.” To this passage, 1 John 1. 1-4, must be added a second, in which we cannot fail to find an equally undeniable reference to the Gospel. I formerly (with Hug) regarded the oft-recurring ypadw and éyparpa of the Epistle as referring simply and ex- clusively to the Gospel ;’ but I must now so far concede to Bleek as to allow that this is not unconditionally and univer- sally the case. But Huther’s equally unconditional assertion of the direct contrary is equally erroneous: “ We cannot under- stand why the oft-repeated ypddw and éyparya should not be referred to the Epistle itself, but to another production.” In ch. ii. 12, ete., the Apostle founds a triple ypadfw upon essen- tially the same causal positions or arguments on which he founds an immediately-following triple éypayra. “I write unto you, children, because your sins are forgiven for His name’s sake. 1 That ratte yeaQo, ch. ii. 1, refers to the Epistle, and indeed to ch. i. 5-10 primarily, I never denied, but, on the contrary, expressly affirmed (Kritik der ev. Geschichte, 8. 837) ; and ch. ii. 12, etc., I referred not to the Gospel alone, but to ‘‘ the Epistle and Gospel together.” 32 INTRODUCTION. I write unto you, fathers, because ye know Him who is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because ye know the Father. I have written to you, fathers, because ye know Him that is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.’ The very fact, that in the several fundamental reasons for the several classes of the clauses there is no essential difference, should drive us to the conclusion that there must have been a material dis- tinction intended in the change from ypd¢w to éyparyya,—unless we suppose the Apostle to have fallen into an intolerable tauto- logy, and an aimless repetition of his own words (a supposition which no Christian, and no rational, expositor would entertain for a moment). But, are Diisterdieck and Huther in a posi- tion, on their principle, to point out any such distinction? The former rightly rejects the artificial supposition of Liicke, accord- ing to which the triple ypd¢ must be referred to the three following individual exhortations, vers. 15-17, vers. 18-27, and ch. il. 28-ch. ii. 22, while the triple éypaxya must be referred to the three preceding fundamental doctrines, ch. 1. 5-7, i. 8- u. 7, and ii. 83-11. He also rejects (and with equal correct- ness, as will be shown in the Commentary) the view of Bengel, who connects ypapo with all that follows, and éypawa with all that precedes, in the Epistle ; and the similar one of De Wette (followed by Huther), which refers the ypada to what precedes and what follows, and the éypayra to what precedes alone. But Diisterdieck himself—following Beza—explained the change from ypddw to éypawa by different points of view in the writer. The object is the same in both cases—that is, the whole Epistle: when St John writes ypadw, he writes from the then present moment in which he has the pen in hand; but when he writes éypaya, he throws himself into the time when his readers would have the completed Epistle as such in their hands. Certainly, if the question were to account for one and the same writer saying ypadpw in one place (e. g., 1 John ii. 1), and in another quite different place saying éypanpa (e. g., 1 John v. 13), it might be received as a sufficient reason, that he in the one place wrote as from the present moment, and in the other transposed himself into the time when his readers RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GOSPEL. 33 would have the Epistle in their hands.'| But that St John should have thus played with the tenses, and in one and the same passage so distinctly and formally varied the same thought, “T write unto you this Epistle, because” etc., as to say: “I am even now occupied, fathers, in writing to you this Epistle, because ye know Him who is from the beginning. I have (when ye read these lines) written this Epistle, because ye know Him that is from the beginning,” etc.,-—is a solution that we never could be persuaded to receive. De Wette, Briickner, and Huther do not in reality get over this same difficulty; for, according to their view, St John designs to say: “I write unto you this Epistle (the whole of it), because ye know Him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you (already the former part of this Epistle), because ye know Him who is from the beginning.” Apart from the fact, that the notion of the making prominent of “ already in the former part of the Epistle,” in opposition to the following part, is not intimated by anything in the text, one cannot see what motive could have impelled the Apostle to say to the readers that he wrote not only that which was to follow, but that also which had already preceded, because they knew the Father and the Son, and had overcome the wicked one. Even supposing this to have been declared to be the aim of the whole Epistle, would it not have been self-understood that the first part also of the Epistle was composed to the same end? Much better worth considering than these expositions— which, in fact, make St John say nothing—is that of Neander, who in the éypayra finds simply a confirmation and intensification of what had just been stated (“I write unto you, because— As I have said: I have written unto you, because,” etc.) —if only this explanation would stand the verbal and grammatical test. But it is necessary to such a confirmation, that what had been already said should be repeated exactly in the same manner, and without any change of form. St John must have written, *Qs eitrov tpiv ypdryo, OT, K.T.r.~3 OF, @S eltrov byiv, TadwW Ayo" ypaha, oT, «.T.r. (comp. Gal. i. 9). And why, finally, should these three particular thoughts have stood in need of such pressing confirmation ? 1 That St John, in ch. v. 13, uses the Aorist, is much more simply and better to be explained by saying that he is now conscious of having come to the end of his Epistle. Cc 34 INTRODUCTION. Here also all difficulty vanishes, as soon as (with Whiston, Storr, and others) we submit to refer the ypa¢w to the Epistle itself, and the éypaypa to the Gospel, which those who received the Epistle had then in their hands. Instead of an empty play “upon words, we receive an equally substantial and solemn testi- mony of the Apostle, that he would no more have written his Gospel, than he would write this Epistle, to his readers, if he had not known and been able to take for granted that they (ver. 8) had pressed through the darkness to the light, and were firmly established in the light; that they had known the Father as they had known the Son; and that they stood victoriously above the temptations which the wicked one now (in the assault of Gnosticism) had prepared for them. Neither the pearl of the paptupia concerniny Christ’s life in the Gospel, nor that of the paternal exhortation and instruction in the Epistle, was intended or adapted for the children of the world. To both the readers had a right, only as far as they in very deed knew the Father in Christ (in the Johannzean sense !), and had already internally conquered the wicked one. Thus, this passage also indicates that the Epistle must be regarded as a companion-document to the Gospel. Vv. TIME, AND PLACE, AND CIRCLE OF READERS. The question as to the time and place of the composition of this Epistle is strictly connected with the same question con- cerning the Gospel; and we may therefore dismiss it cursorily here, referring to what has been said in an earlier volume.’ That the Gospel by St John was written at a later time than the three other Gospels, has been made abundantly certain ; that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and even long after that event, must appear most clearly and unambiguously from the whole position and character of ecclesiastical matters, as exhibited in the Gospel and in this Epistle (see above, Sect. IV.). The entire contest against a legal Jewish-Christianity, which ruled the Pauline period, is past; and so entirely settled, that to the question concerning the relation of faith and works to justd- 1 Compare, with Olshausen’s Introd. to the Gospel, my Kritik der Evang. Gesch. § 140, 141. a TIME, AND PLACE, AND CIRCLE OF READERS. 35 fication, regard is no longer paid.’ So also the entire question as to the relation of the Christian Church to the people of Israel is closed: Israel has rejected Christ ; hence “ oi Iovédaiou,” as such and simply, appear as enemies, in opposition to the Christian community ; and of any hope, or obligation, to win Israel as a people to the Gospel, there is found absolutely no trace. On the other hand, the Christian Church is already most deeply affected by the threatening onset of that Gnosticism of which, in the time of St Paul, only the preparations and forerunners were seen, and the continuation and further development of which occupied the second century (compare above, Sect. 1V.). All this constrains us to place the composition of the Gospel and the First Epistle in the last decade of the first century. Some have thought that they had found passages in the Epistle and the Gospel which point to an earlier date. Diister- dieck, following Grotius,’? Hammond, and others, detects in 1 John ii. 18 a reference to the impending destruction of Jerusalem ; but with no more propriety than Benson discovered in 1 John ii. 13, etc. an intimation that Christians were still living who had seen the Lord in the flesh : compare, in opposi- tion to both, the commentary on those passages. Huther finds, in the omission of any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem, an argument for the earlier composition of the Epistle ; “since the impression which that event must have produced upon the Christians, could not have faded away when the Epistle was composed.” But it was not the Apostle’s task to mention all the impressions and influences which Christian people had received ; and, moreover, there was space enough between A.D. 70 and A.D. 98 for the dying away of the impression even of 1 The assertion of our modern critics, that ‘‘ the old controversy about justification” is solved in St John’s writings by his making ‘“‘ love equally valid with faith in the matter,” co-ordinating faith and love in the sinner’s justification, has been abundantly refuted by Diisterdieck. As unjustified, or less justified, even St Paul has never represented love (1 Cor. xiii. 1-3, and 13) ; as justifying, in company with faith, St John never exhibits love. * Grotius has elsewhere (Opp. Tom. iv. p. 463) so far modified his assertion as to admit: ‘‘ Nomen hore extremz modo totum humanum genus respicit, modo populum Judaicum.” It is worthy of note (as Huther shows) that Ignatius (Ep. xi.), long a/ter the destruction of Jerusalem, writes: toxa7ol weeipol Aoirov® aloxvydauer, PoBnOauer Tyy waxpobvuiay Tov Ocov, iva wy yuiv sis xpiuoe yéevynras. 36 INTRODUCTION. the destruction of Jerusalem. Huther, further, discerns in the Gospel, ch. v. 2, positive proof that Jerusalem had not been destroyed when the Gospel was written—which, according to our conviction, was accompanied by the Epistle. He thinks it clear that “not only the pool of Bethesda, but also the five porches, and the sheep-gate of the Temple, were still remain- ing.” We do not (with Meyer) oppose this argument by adducing the passages, ch. xi. 18, xvii. 1, xix. 41, in which various localities in and near Jerusalem (Bethany, Gethsemane, the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea) are introduced with 7. We acknowledge that in the later passages the Imperfect does not constrain us to the assumption, “that Jerusalem destroyed lay in the background of the Apostle’s representation ;” but that St John, relating past events in the Aorist, added also the explanatory notices concerning the localities in the Imperfect. But then we also, conversely, require it to be acknowledged, that if St John once makes use of the presens historicum, so very familiar with him, in giving such explanatory notices, it ought not to be at once concluded that the place in question lay as yet undestroyed in the background of his representation. St John » narrates in an entirely objective manner, thinking altogether and only of the occurrence which is to be recorded, and not at all reflecting upon the state of things at the then present moment of his writing. He who denies this in relation to John v. 2, must also, to be consistent, deny it in relation to chs. xi. 18, xvill. 1, xix. 41. For, only on the ground of this objectivity in St John’s point of view in historical narration can we make the concession, that in these three passages the Imperfect tense can- not be the foundation of an argument that the destruction of Jerusalem had taken place. In the case of any other, less objective and more reflecting, author, such a conclusion would be amply justified. When Goethe (W. und D. I. Buch v.) writes: “The Court-house is a regular and handsome build- ing, towards the Maine,” we rightly conclude that, at the time when Goethe wrote, the Court-house was yet standing (as it is now standing); but when he elsewhere writes: “The locality was neither pleasant nor convenient, since they have forced,” etc., or, “ A turret-like flight of steps led up to unconnected chambers,” every one must see at once that he is describing localities which, when he wrote, stood no longer in this form. TIME, AND PLACE, AND CIRCLE OF READERS. 37 Goethe would never have written, concerning the afterwards altered house of his parents: “ A turret-like flight of steps leads up to unconnected chambers,” any more than he would have written, concerning the still standing Court-house: “ The Court-house was a regular and handsome building, towards the Maine!” And if, in relation to ch. v. 2, an analogous style of writing is presupposed in St John, then, in relation to the pas- sages xi. 18, etc., we must come to the conclusion that “ St John would never have written vy, if Jerusalem had been when he wrote still undestroyed.” But the very contradiction which is the result of forcing upon St John this exact style of writing, makes it evident that the one conclusion would be as wrong as the other, and that St John, in both passages, wrote without any reflection upon what, at the time of his writing, was still remain- ing or had been altered,—using now the descriptive Present, and now the descriptive Imperfect. The certainty that both Gospel and Epistle were written long after the destruction of Jerusalem, is, therefore, not at all affected by the passage, John v. 2. And to this conclusion we are led by patristic tradition also. On the later, and somewhat ambiguously-worded, passage in Epiph. Her. 51, 12,' we lay no particular stress. Most weighty is the account of Irenzeus (Heer. 3, 1, in Euseb. v. 8): érecta ‘Twdvyns, 6 pabnris tod Kupiou, 6 xat él otOos abtod avarrecon, Kai avdtos é&édwxe TO evaryyédiov, ev ’Edéow tis’ Acias dvatpi- Bov. He is followed by Chrys. and Theod. of Mopsuestia. And the tradition which was widely circulated among the Fathers, that St John wrote his Gospel in his exile in Patmos, does not contradict that evidence. Dorotheus of Tyre, and the author of the Synopsis printed with the works of Athanasius, remark alike’ that St John wrote his Gospel when an exile in Patmos, and then published it in Ephesus by means of his ayarnros Kat Eevoddyos, the deacon Gaius. This account has sufficient external foundation ; since Theophylact and the pseudo Hippolytus, and a multitude of later MSS., mention Patmos as the place of its composition. It has also great internal proba- bility on its side; for it is only the separation of St John from his flock which explains the necessity of a written compensation 1 Compare Meyer, Comm. zum Ey. Joh., Einleit. § 5. 2 See the passages in my Kritik der evang. Gesch. S. 871. 38 INTRODUCTION. for his now-lacking oral paptupia. But if St John wrote his Gospel in Patmos, and sent it by his confidential friend to the Church of Ephesus, it becomes perfectly intelligible, first, that he did not think it needful to mention his name in the com- panion-document ; and secondly, how it was possible for Irenzeus to say that the Gospel must be placed in the Apostle’s residence at Ephesus (in opposition to his earlier abode in Palestine). That report of Gaius bears, moreover, the plain stamp of histo- rical tradition, and not at all that of a mere conjecture or in- vention resting upon supposed grounds. The exile in Patmos must be placed in the last years of Domitian, about a.p. 94-97." In all probability the Gospel, together with our Epistle, was written at the outset of this banishment—when the need of a written compensation for the cessation of his oral instructions and pastoral care would be felt most vividly, both by the Apostle and the Church,—and in any case before the Apocalypse.” That the latter refers to the Gospel, has been shown in the Commentary on the Apocalypse. And the twenty-first chapter of the Gospel appears to speak in favour of this assumption. For it is internally probable that this chapter was then added—through the Apostle, or by his instruction to Gaius—supplementarily to the Gospel, when the prophecy, ch. xxi. 22 (“If I will that he tarry till I come”), which originally appeared to affect only St John personally, attained an importance for the Church; that is, then, when the Lord in His revelation “had come to St John,” and His “coming” (Rey. i. 7, xxii. 20) had been by St John seen in vision. Jor in the words of John xxi. 22 were contained a preceding foreannouncement, and consequently an authentica- tion, of the revelations contained in the Apocalypse. The readers of the Epistle we consequently must seek in the Church of Ephesus, doubtless including the neighbouring churches of Proconsular Asia. It is of no great moment that a solitary intimation of 1 According to Jerome (Vir. Ill. ix.), St John wrote the Apocalypse when an exile in Patmos, in the fourteenth year of Domitian (95); and under Nerva (96-98) obtained permission to return to Ephesus. ? That the better Greek of the Gospel and Epistle (to which Olshausen appeals for the priority of the Apocalypse) is no argument against our supposition, has been shown in the Commentary on the Apocalypse. _ > TIME, AND PLACE, AND CIRCLE OF READERS. 39 Augustin! asserts our Epistle to have been written to the Parthians ;? it is generally acknowledged that not much weight is to be attached to this single evidence.* Augustin himself nowhere else mentions, often as he speaks of this Epistle, this destination for the Parthians; so that we have only to in- quire how these isolated words could have originated. Scarcely could they have come from Augustin himself. Clemens Alexandrinus (Fragm. Adum. Oxf. edit. ii. 1011) mentions that the Second Epistle of St John was written ad Virgines (pos mapOévous) : he understood the éxAexrm Kupia, 2 John 1, allegorically ; and hence, also, allegorically interpreted ta téxva auris, in the sense of Rev. xiv. 4, as wap@dvous. This view was widely extended; for in some manuscripts 2 John bears the simple superscription, zpos tapO@ous. It would appear that the meaning of this zpés wap$évous was soon entirely lost : and hence that the superscription was soon (as e.g. Cassiodor. de Instit. Diy. Script. cap. 14) appropriated to all the three Epistles. But the word, being misunderstood, was soon further changed into ad Parthos. (Other less probable attempts to explain it may be seen in Diisterdieck.) Not in Parthia, and not even in Palestine (as Benson thought), nor in Corinth (Lightfoot), but in Ephesus and the country around, are we to seek for the readers of this Epistle. This may now be accepted as the firm and certain result of critical. investigation. 1 Secundum sententiam hanc etiam illud est, quod dictum est a Johanne in epistola ad Parthos. (Quzst. Evang. ii. 39.) ? That is, to the Christians living, not under Roman dominion, bat in the Parthian Empire, east of the Euphrates. * Possidius, in his Indiculum operum Auqustini, entitled the tractates of Augustin on 1 John as de Ep. Joannis ad Parthos sermones decem. Vigilius Tapeensis, Cassiodorus, and Beda, copied this ad Parthes. Grotius thought Augustin’s notice worthy of credit (Opp. ili. 1126), and conjec- tured that St John omitted his name to avoid doing any injury to the Christians who lived in a state opposed to Rome (!). The Heidelberg Paulus imagined that, not the Apostle, but the Presbyter John. wrote the Epistle to Parthian Christians in order to oppose a “ magian-Parthian Gnosis,” of the existence of which he had been informed by camel- drivers (!). i. > . rv 4 a) ~~ 40 INTRODUCTION. VI. DICTION AND TONE OF THE EPISTLE. As the peculiarities of style which mark this Epistle have been already in Sect. III. mentioned at some length, we have now only a few observations to make upon the Johannzan style of writing as it is specifically seen in this /pistle as such. St John’s was not a dialectic, but a contemplative, nature. Hence he does not logically arrange, and deduce, and expand individual ideas, but takes a leading idea as the object of in- ternal contemplation ; and with it he connects, though without any logical medium, the consequences which flow from it for the Christian consciousness of experience. ‘ Even the estab- lishment and reason of an idea is in the simplest manner given, by referring it to a truth the authentication of which is in the Christian consciousness itself” (Huther). Often there is the semblance of the repetition of the same thought; but closer investigation shows that every new turn given to it brings to light some new element of its meaning: he lets the indivi- dual positions or truths, filled with life, sparkle in the light like precious stones, that the eye may penetrate to their hidden meaning. His own language itself is as simple as possible, but as profound as it is simple. “ All his characteristic words, in all their simplicity of sound—life, light, truth, love, right- eousness, abiding in God, etc.—who can perfectly fathom and expound the meaning which they contain? He who ventures upon them with only his analytical understanding, and merely philological learning, will find that they remain unintelligible hieroglyphics ; their internal essence is disclosed to us in pro- portion as we experience in our own souls that of which they speak.” (Huther.} And thus the Epistle itself reflects a mind penetrated through and through by the light of the Spirit of God. “Whether the Apostle is unfolding Divine truths in themselves, or speaking in exhortation and warning to his readers, his language always retains the same uniform repose and precision ; he never betrays a disposition moved to passion; everywhere is reflected the stillness of a heart resting in sacred peace, and in which he is assured that the simple utterance of the truth is enough to secure an entrance for his words into the minds of his readers. At the same time, there reigns LITERATURE. Al throughout the Epistle a firm and manly tone, the perfect opposite of all effeminate and sentimental enthusiasm.—It is also observable that while, on the one hand, he speaks to his readers as a father speaking to his children, on the other hand, he never forgets that they are no longer babes to whom he has something new to communicate, but that they are altogether equal to himself, possessed like himself of all the truth which he announces, and of all the life which it is not for him to ereate in them, but only to strive to preserve and increase.” (Huther.) The Epistle is “a work of holy love. It appears to the simplest reader, who only has an experience of Christian salva- tion in his heart, immediately intelligible; while to the most profound Christian thinker it is unfathomable. To both, it is equally dear and stimulating.” (Diisterdieck.) And thus the expositor, like the readers, hears the cry at the entrance: “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” VII. LITERATURE. Among the commentaries of the Fathers upon this Epistle, those of Diodorus and Chrysostom are altogether lost, and those of Clemens Alex. and Didymus are preserved only in fragments ; on the other hand, the Catenze of Gicumenius and Theophylact, the Ewpositio of Augustin, and that of Bede, are still extant, and have been very diligently used by later expositors. Of the period of the Reformation, we may mention, besides the Adnotationes of Erasmus, Luther’s two expositions, and Zwingle’s. More important exegetically are Bullinger’s Jn ep. Johannis brevis et catholica expositio; Gigneeus Expl. Epist. Cathol.; and the well-known commentaries of Calvin and Beza, which include this Epistle. In the interval between the Reformation and the rise of Rationalism, much was done upon 1 John. The celebrated Arminian Grotius (Annott. in Ep. Joan. primam, and Com- mentatio ad loca N. T. que de Antichristo agunt) was opposed by the rigid Lutheran Calovius (Bibl. N. T. illustrata). Of 42 INTRODUCTION. commentators who explained the entire New Testament, and who are worthy of notice upon 1 John, we may mention Pis- eator, Hammond, Bengel, Whitby, Rosenmiiller, Beausobre, to whom Benson may be added: among those who wrote com- mentaries upon the Catholic Epistles, may be named Aretius (1589), Alsted (1640), Hornejus (1652), J. B. Carpzov (1790). Whiston wrote a special commentary upon the three Epistles of St John (London 1719); and so also did Weber (Halle 1778) and Schirmer (Breslau 1780). Upon the 1st Epistle of St John alone, we have the commentaries of Socinus (Rakau 1614), Episcopius (Amsterdam 1665), Spener (Prac- tical Exposition), Hunnius, and S. Schmidt. Of the Rationalist time, we may mention Oertel (iiber die drei Briefe Joh.), Morus, S. G. Lange, Paulus (on the Three Epistles), and Semler (1 John). In the transition-period are Augusti (katholische Briefe, 1808) and Lachmann (k. Briefe, 1838), but especially Liicke (Evangelium und Briefe Johan. 1836). Of a more recent date are Neander (part of 1 John practically explained, 1851), Wolf, Sander; but especially the thorough, though sometimes too diffuse, work of F. Diisterdieck (Die drei Johanneischen Briefe, Giéttingen 1852), which has been followed by the briefer commentary of Huther (as part of Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament, 1855). EXPOSITION. THE EXORDIUM. Ch. i. 1-4. G cHAT which we have already in Sect. IV. of the Intro- 4 duction exhibited in its main points of importance, we shall now more fundamentally and at length expound. The paragraph which forms the entrance to the Epistle, vers. 1—4, is—as far as concerns the construction of its former part, vers. 1-3—somewhat obscure and involved: it admits, viewed grammatically alone, of three methods of construing. That 6 i am’ apyis is the grammatical object, admits of no doubt; the only question is, What is the main verb on which that object hangs? First, it would be possible (with Paulus) to make yetpes the subject, and éyyAddncav the main verb: “ That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that also our hands have handled.” But no sane expositor would fall into this error; partly, because there is not in the sense any such contrast, as made prominent by «ai, between the handling and the seeing, and, partly, because the succeeding sept Tod Aovyou Tis Swijs cannot depend upon the verb éynAddycav, on which that explanation would make it depend, inasmuch as one may handle “ an object,” but not “ in relation to an object.” — Secondly, we might (with Erasmus and Carpzov) take the words of ver. 2, kal éwpdxapev Kal paptupotuev Kal amrayyéddoper, k.T.X., as the main verbs; and then zrepi tod Aoyou Tis Cws would still depend upon éyradnoav, while the words kat 1 for éfavepoOm would form a parenthesis. This construction is the most unnatural of all: in that case the governing verb 44 THE EXORDIUM. would receive two objects—the preceding “ that which was, etc.” and the following “ eternal life;’ and we should be obliged to suppose that the author—constrained by the brief intervening parenthesis—took up again in a new form the object, which had been already so copiously unfolded. The only way of escaping from the difficulty, on that hypothesis, would be to place a colon after Kal amayyédXopmev, ver. 2, and to refer the first two verbs in ver. 2 backward to ver. 1, but the third forward to t7v Sonv—which, however, would be still more unnatural. Thus there remains only the third construction, which the immense majority of expositors defend, and accord- ing to which atrayyéAXoperv, ver. 3, is the main governing verb, on which the object, 6 jv, «.7.r., depends. A difference which divides Winer and De Wette here, vanishes when closely looked at. Winer (in his Grammar, § 65) would begin the after-clause with zrept Tod Noyou, x.7.r.; he assumes that the Apostle had it originally in his mind to continue thus: ep) tod Adyou Tis fons amayyéAXopev viv (in which case the words zrepi, etc., would be a brief compendium of 6 7, etc.), but that, having interposed the parenthesis of ver. 2, he was thereby laid under the necessity of resuming from the beginning, in ver. 3, the sentence begun in ver. 1. On the other hand, De Wette and others begin the after-clause first in ver. 3; and then, while the whole of ver. 2 (as in Winer’s explanation) is a parenthesis still, the words zrepi tod Aoyou THs CwHs still belong to the relative clause. As it regards this last point, thus much is clear, that mept cannot possibly depend upon the verb éyyAddyear, or upon the verbs axnxoapev, Ewpaxapev, €Geacdpela, and éepyrddncav together (against Theophyl., Gicumenius, Erasmus, Beza, Gro- tius, Bengel, etc.; comp. Luther, Winer, De Wette, Neander). Therefore, we must either assume that the words zrepi, etc., form a kind of apposition to the objective clause 6 7jv—eénradycar, “in order to define more closely the indefinite 6,” —or we must make 7rept immediately dependent upon the subsequent govern- ing verb amayyédXNouev in ver. 3 (“ That which was from the beginning, which we have, ete.,—that is, concerning the word of life—we announce unto you”): but these two methods of construction are as little different from each other, as they are distinguished from that of Winer. The appearance of differ- ence arises only from the needless question, as to where the i i i 1 JOHN I. 1-4, ‘45 after-clause begins; whereas, in fact, there is no antecedent and no after-clause, and therefore no line of distinction between them, but only one quite simple sentence, consisting of the verb amayyédXowev and the object, the tovro latent in the 6, which contains in itself a chain of relative clauses (0 4v— énrddn- cav), and then is again summed up in the appositional addition mepl, x.T.r. Thus, the appositional clause, equally with the objective clause preceding it, depends immediately upon the amayyédnouev 3 consequently, St John had already in ver. 1 the amayyédAouev in his mind and in his meaning. After the long parenthesis, ver. 2, St John recapitulates the main object, 6 jv am apyis—évnradycay, but only in the abbreviated form 6 éwpaxapev Kal axnxcapev. Having now settled the construction of the sentence, vers. 1-3, we can turn to the exposition of the individual clauses. We begin with the main verb, amayyéAXomev, ver. 3, in which the subject of the proposition, “we,” is contained. Beausobre, Grotius, and Bengel suppose that the plural was used because the Apostle would unite the other Apostles with himself, —it being thought that the familiar style of the Epistle would not permit a rhetorical pluralis majesticus. Yet St John writes in ver. 4 tadta ypddoper, in the plural, where we cannot imagine him to refer to the collective Epistles of collective Apostles! So also, in the “we make known,” he does not mean to refer to the general communications of the Apostles as a body, but to his own announcement; and the plural must here, as in the case of “we write,’ be regarded as a more solemn form of speech—strictly in harmony with the elevated and glowing language of the exordium. We must not class this plural with the common collective plural which we find in vers. 6, 7, 8, and often elsewhere, and in which St John by the “we” unites his readers with himself. But it is not on that account a mere rhetorical form. St John is speaking of him- self and his announcement and writing (not of that of the other Apostles, comp. ver. 5); thus, however, he does not feel himself to be a fortuitous private individual—an isolated I over-against his readers—but an authority, armed and authenti- eated by Christ and the Holy Spirit,—an authority which, in the consciousness of standing connected with all the messengers and servants of Christ (Liicke), had a perfect right to address 46 THE EXORDIUM. to the readers the “We” of full dignity and prerogative. (Compare the analogous plural, ch. iv. 14.) But the plural amayyéhXowev is doubly intelligible, when we remember that the plurals dxnxdaper, x.7.r., have preceded, in which St John includes himself in the number of all the eyewitnesses of the life of Christ. The predicative idea of the aayyé\Xew is clear in itself; its more exact specification it receives from the object. That object consists, as we already know, of the relative sentence 6 4v—épnradnoav. As the proper objective Accu- sative to the governing verb dazrayyéhNopev, we must supply a todTo, which is latently contained in the relative 6. But the relative sentence is itself composed of more members than one: it falls, indeed, into two divisions, as the 6 is first the subjective Nominative with the 7, and then takes the place of the objective Accusative with the verbs dxnxdapev, Ewpdxaper, COcacdpcba, éevnrddnoav. In the first clause is stated what or how the object is in itself; in the second clause, the relation in which St John stood to it. “O i ar apyis.—Here at once is seen most evident that peculiarity of St John’s language which consists in his pre- senting in most simple, and apparently transparent, words an almost unsearchable substance of meaning. ‘The words in themselves would bear the mere grammatical and lexical inter- pretation, “That which was from the beginning, we declare unto you:” these words, considered in themselves, may say all that it is possible to say; and yet, when they are isolated, they declare fundamentally nothing. A philosopher, who would exhibit a truth held from all time—a natural philosopher, who would exhibit a law of nature established from the beginning —a historian, who would exhibit the primitive history of the world and humanity,—all might, each in his own sense, com- mence with the words, 6 jw am dpyns drayyéhopuev. But it is not right, on that account, with so many expositors, to raise the question at once, whether by the 6—that which was from the beginning—be meant a dogmatic object (Theoph., Gicum., Socinus: the doctrine that God was manifested in the flesh), or a real substantial essence (the f7, De Wette, Huther), or the personal Logos or Christ (Calvin, Beza, Luther, Calov, Bengel, Liicke, Sander). The words of themselves furnish no 1 JOHN I. 1—4. 47 means for the settlement of this question. Indefinite, and obscure, and mysterious are the words with which St John begins, “ That which was from the beginning;” only the following members serve to make it more and more plainly evident what is present before his spirit. ‘Thus we must seek our instruction as to the meaning of this first clause from that which follows. The second member, 6 dxnxoapev, 6 Ewpaxapyev Tots oOanr- pots Huav, 0 BcacducOa Kai ai yelpes juav enraddnoar, falls into a fourfold distribution of sub-members. What strikes the eye immediately here, is the progress from the more general to the more specific and energetic—that elevation and increase of meaning which Bullinger so beautifully describes: “There is in the words a wonderful intensification. It was not enough that he said, We have heard; he adds, that which we have seen ; and, not content with that, subjois with our eyes: moreover, there is still something more weighty: that which we have beheld ; and then, above all the rest, and our hands have handled. St John advances from the more distant relation to that which is nearer, straiter, and more internal: that which he has to announce was heard of by him (and his fellow-disciples) ; and, still more, seen with the eyes; yea, contemplated; and even handled with hands. Thus, most assuredly, he would oppose that which he announces—as an absolutely undoubted, and immediately sure, true, and experienced reality—to all that is merely imagined, speculated upon, and dreamed about. But this general view of the climax lying before us, and its design, does not complete the exegetical comprehension of the words of the text. Still limiting ourselves for a while to the merely formal arrangement, we are struck with the fact, that the four members of the sentence move in a duplicate connec- tion throughout. “Axnxoayev stands without any more direct appendage ; the next member, éwpdxapev, marks of itself a pro- gression (since the hearing may be through a medium, but the seeing must always be immediate), but made still more em- phatically so by the appendage tots 6d@arpots auav, which gives prominence to the immediate character of sight. The third member, €Geacduea, without any appendage, is once more parallel with the first; while the fourth, which advances from the seeing to the still more immediate touching, and there- 48 THE EXORDIUM. fore again does not leave unmentioned the yefpes, is parallel with the second. Thus these four members form a proper climax—a ladder of three steps. In the first pair of members, the writer advances from the first stage of hearing to the second and higher stage of seeing with the eyes. In the second pair, he takes his stand upon this stage of seeing, which nevertheless, by a delicate internalization of the idea, is described as a behold- ing, and rises from it to the third stage of touching with the hands. And what is the material advantage, for the understanding of the meaning which St John connected with these words, gained by this observation? In itself it throws a considerable mea- sure of clearness upon the whole. We learn that “that which was from the beginning,” and which he “ declares,” was some- what not only heard by him, but beheld with his own eyes, and even handled with his own hands. Had it been only something heard by him, we might have interpreted it (with Theophylact, CEcumenius, and Socinus) of a doctrine, a dogma, or a truth. Had it been only something seen with his eyes, we might have accepted the notion of De Wette, that the power of the new life implanted in humanity by Christ was meant,—a power which St John had not only experienced in himself, but the fruits of which he had seen with his own eyes. But, when he describes that which he announced to be also something which he had handled with his hands, and when it is certain that he is not referring to any allegorical meaning of a spiritual touch, which altogether destroys the climax—nothing remains but to admit that Christ Himself manifest in the flesh alone was the object which St John had in view in this sentence. For neither His doctrine, nor the life infused by Him, could be touched ; but the disciples did handle with their hands Him, the Incarnate One. “ Every pressure of the hands was a handling of Him who had actually become flesh” (Diisterdieck). The disci- ples touched the Lord, in conformity with His own command, Luke xxiv. 39: wWyragijoaté pe cai dere. And who does not think of the passage, John xx. 27, where Thomas placed his hand in the side of the risen Lord ? If we now return back to the first main member of the rela- tive clause, 6 jv am’ apyijs, it is plain that St John here also cannot have in his meaning a doctrine, or a reality of existence _ < in fact, but no other than the personal Lord. For there are not two distinct objects of the dmayyedua which he names (else they would haye been connected together by a xa), but it is one and the same object viewed on different sides. The same object of announcement whom St John heard, and saw with his eyes, and beheld, yea, handled with his hands, is also He that was “from the beginning.” It was Christ whom he saw and touched; of Christ, therefore, it is said, He was from the beginning. In what sense, we are taught by a glance at the Gospel, without the first chapter of which our passage would in- deed present a very startling obscurity of expression. Asan allu- sion to John i. 1, etc., the words 6 jv am’ apyis are perfectly clear. There it had been said, that év apy the Neyos was; and that as a Word which God “to God” spake, and which was Itself God, and by which God created all things; and that this Word became flesh, and appeared yisible upon earth. That which was in the Gospel more diffusely expanded, in the develop- ment of all its main points, is here condensed in energetic brevity. The Object which St John declared was both these in one: it had been from the beginning, and it had been seen and touched as visible and tangible. Most assuredly the fun- damental theme of the Gospel is here referred to,—that identity of the Eternal Logos with the visible Jesus which, in oppo- sition to the Cerinthian gnosis,’ formed the kernel and heart of revealed truth ; a truth which was not, like the figments of Cerinthus, invented or dreamed of, but which had been seen by St John’s eyes, when he looked upon and handled the In- carnate One as a visible man, and beheld and experienced in Him the eternal d0£a of the Father. Thus the apy7 is here, as in John i., not the temporal be- ginning-point of history or chronology, either of our earth (as in Matt. xix, 4 and 8), or (as in Gen. i. 1) of the universe, but that eternal apyy and primal being in which the déyos is exhibited to have been a Aeyos mpos TOY Oeov dy (John i. 1 and 1 The polemical reference of ver. 1 was evidently felt by Luther, who writes: ‘‘He heaps up words, and thus makes the matter as great and weighty as may be. We have, he means to say, carefully and with all diligence beheld and observed what we declare; we were not deceived, but are sure that there was no delusion. He says this because he would make his readers also sure of the matter.” D 50 THE EXORDIUM. 2), before as yet (ver. 3) anything is said of a creation of the world (comp. John xvii. 5). The expression am’ dpyfs is not substantially different from the expression év dpyy (John i. 1): am’ apyns is written here by St John, because he has already in his mind his own having seen and having touched the Incarnate Lord, transposes himself into the subjective position of his own experience, and from that point of view would declare that He whom he had beheld had already been from the beginning. In the Gospel, ch. i. 1, on the other hand, St John begins objec- tively to unfold the eternal being of the Logos, and therefore ean write only, “ Jn the beginning was the Xoyos.” Accordingly, the Object of St John’s announcement is Christ: thus much is gained by the examination of the indi- vidual members of the relative clause. But this is far from exhausting the exegetical investigation of this first verse. The question arises, whether then this relative clause, one and fourfold, is merely a paraphrase of the idea “ Christ,” so that the concise sense of the whole would be, “ We declare unto you Christ ;” as a panegyrist upon Goethe might begin: “To him who was born at Frankfort, who as a youth began to spread the wings of his poetic fancy, who studied at Leipzig and Strassburg, who spent the greatest part of his long life at Weimar, whom Ger- many honours as her greatest poet—to him this hour is devoted.” Do the individual members of the relative clause serve the purpose in any way of making known who is meant ? Assuredly not. It cannot be the object of the climax to heap up marks and notes by which it may be discerned that St John intended to speak of Jesus Christ, and of no other; but, as we have already seen, that progression was designed to exhibit that which was to be declared concerning Christ as an absolutely certain and experienced truth. And thus we understand why the author connected the members of the relative clause, not by os —6v, but by the neuter 6." 1 Tn opposition to the view of Socinus, who concluded from the neuter 6 that not Christ, but a doctrine or an idea, must have been meant. Also to the assertion of Beza and Calovius, that by means of the ¢ the two natures of Christ were to be represented in their union (!). Huther says, quite erroneously, and in contradiction to his elsewhere-expressed views: ‘‘The neuter ¢ is explained by this, that it refers to a4, an idea abstract in itself.” But where is there the shadow of a grammatical refer- ence between ¢ and (a4? ~ 1 JOHN I. 1-4. 51 If he had written, “ Him, who was from the beginning, whom we have heard, etc., we announce unto you,” then might we, with some appearance of right, have thought of an abstract Christ-idea as the object of the aayyéAXew, or of the Christ- dogma (that He, to wit, was to be declared as He who was at once eternal and incarnate, at once One who was eternal and One that became visible and tangible). The neutral 6 forbids our adopting this notion. It is the Person, concerning whom both the aT apxijs eivas and the ofOjvat «.7.X. at once hold good, that is to be declared—quoad His person ; but also that Being which was from the beginning was to be announced, and as that which St John had heard, seen with his eyes, and handled, in and concern- ing Him. Even Liicke—who originally, misconceiving the pre- dicates jv am’ apyns, etc., represents the “ Gospel” as the object of the arayyéAXew — cannot avoid acknowledging, nevertheless, that “with the idea of the Gospel the person of Christ, and the person of Christ in its entire history and work, is combined.” That the object of the announcement is not the idea of the Gospel, but the person of Christ, has been shown by the pre- dicative ideas, “ was from the beginning,” “seen,” “ touched ;” that this Person was to be announced not as abstract, but in its historical manifestation, is shown by the neutral subject’ and object 6. The one- and four-membered relative clause does not serve the purpose of giving marks by which the reader may know who is meant, but to tell the reader what was to be declared concerning Him. Hence, then, the members of the relative clause are summed up, not in the words Tov Noyor THs fw7As, but in the words wept Tod Aoyou T. €. This being so, the four members, axnxoaper, etc., receive a new and living reference to that which St John had experimen- tally known in Christ, to the individual phases or sides of His manifestation in the flesh. The last member, “handled with our hands,” obliges us at once to think of Luke xxiv. 39, John xx. 27. The “hearing” reminds us involuntarily, in the same way, of all that the disciples had heard from the lips of Jesus, of all His discourses. The “seeing with our eyes” suggests imme- diately all the miracles and wonderful works which they had witnessed ; while the more internal Geéc@av will refer of itself to the beholding and discerning of the “ glory of the Father” which shone through His whole life. (Compare John i. 14, 52 THE EXORDIUM Kat €Ocacapeba thy ddéav avtod.) Thus, behind or beneath the climax of the modus percipiendi there glimmers another climax of the object perceived. The Being, which was from the beginning, which (to wit, His words) he had heard, which (to wit, His miracles) he had seen with his eyes, which (to wit, His Divine glory) he had beheld, which (to wit, His resurrec- -tion-body) he had handled with his hands,—that Being he declares, and therewith declares “that which he had heard, seen with the eyes, beheld, handled with his hands”—the acts and the life of this Being, the Person in its historical manifes- tation. This way of understanding the previous words finds now its full confirmation in the appositional clause zept tod Aoyou THs Sons, which again is laid open and developed in the paren- thetical unfolding of ver. 2.'| A proper apposition, in the strict grammatical sense, wept tod Adyou Tt. €. cannot be, since that only bears the name of “apposition” which stands in the same Case with what precedes. But it is an appositional clause, which in its meaning represents a strict apposition. “ That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, etc., we declare unto you; and thereby we declare unto you what concerns, or something about, the Word of Life.” It has been already shown that zrept could not possibly (Fritzsche) depend upon the four previous verbs. *Axovevy is the only one which could have vepi following it ;—but even this would be very unsuitable here, since St John is not saying that he had heard something concerning Jesus, de Jesu, but that he had heard Jesus Himself. The remaining verbs cannot consistently with their meaning have a zepi depending upon them; and a par- titive azo (that of Jesus which we have seen, etc.) wep) cannot possibly here represent. Consequently, zepi must depend upon the principal verb drayyéAXopev ; and the wepi 7. dr. 7. €. 1 It is strange that«Sander should represent the grand impression of the whole as weakened by the second verse being made a parenthesis. As ifa clause, which, grammatically considered, holds the place of a paren- thesis—since it does not syntactically depend upon any portion of the pre- vious clause, but rests in its own isolation—could not by its own matter, and indeed in its very isolation, have a grandeur of its own! When Sander alleges a breaking down of the construction, and confusion intro- duced into the arrangement of the words, what is that but admitting the grammatical isolation of ver. 2 ? 1 JOHN I. 1-4. 53 must be regarded as a closer definition of the object, something added to the object in order to explain it. But what, then, is the meaning of this defining sentence ? The Genitive 775 Swjs may, regarded in itself, be variously viewed. It may be the Genitivus objecti, according to the analogy of ddyos Tod ctavpod, 1 Cor. i. 18; AOyos Tis KaTAar- Aayhs, 2 Cor. v. 19; and, in this case, the introduction of such an objective Genitive defines the idea of the Adyos as that of an announcement or doctrine. The word concerning the life would be equivalent to the doctrine concerning life, the preach- ing concerning life. Or, we may take the Genitive here as the Genitive of the closer definition of the property of the thing itself, as in Phil. ii. 16; John vi. 68; Acts ii. 28; and then the “word of life” would be equivalent to “the word which is living,” or “the life-giving word, bearing in it and be stowing the power of life,’—the “word” being understood in the sense of “ preaching.” Or, we may finally take the Geni- tive as the Genitive of the substance: the doyos, He in whom the life is (so Cicumenius, Zwingli, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, Olshausen, Liicke) ; in which case the Adyos must be under- stood in the supreme sense of Johni.1. What De Wette urges against this last view—that epi would be very inap- propriate for the description of an object—does indeed press fatally upon the two former views. That is, if we understand by the Xoyos THs Cwis the doctrine or preaching concerning life, or the vivifying doctrine, St John would have said that he an- nounced the doctrine itself, and not concerning the doctrine ; but if, on the other hand, we take Adyos as the personal Logos in the sense of John i. i, St John writes with perfect propriety : while he announces what he had heard, seen, and handled, he gives an annunciation of the Logos, about the Logos. this rrepi is strictly parallel with the neutral 6. As he did not design to write, “ Him whom we have seen we announce to you,” but “ That which (in, on, and of Him) we have seen” — as he does not purpose to say that he announces Christ as an abstract single idea,.but that he declares his own concrete his- torical eaperiences concerning Christ,—so now he continues, not “the Logos,” but “concerning the Logos,” we make annun- ciation to you. But what speaks most loudly in favour of the Noyes being 54 THE EXORDIUM. the personal Word, is the undoubted reference which the pre- ceding words already contain to the Introduction of the Gospel. We have indeed seen how the words, “That which we have heard—handled,” constrained the reader to think of Christ ; and that, accordingly, also the first “that which was from the beginning” must be understood of Christ in the sense of John i. 1;—so also, when he reaches the words, wept tod Adyou t. &, he cannot fail to have still in his mind the passage of the Gospel, év apyf jv 6 AGyos ; and are we to think that anything else can be meant by the Logos of the Epistle than that same Logos of the Gospel, ch. i. 1? And when in the Gospel the very same thing is said concerning the Logos which, in a more condensed form, is here said in the Epistle, Ev aivé Go?) 7, then truly He was in the beginning 0 AGyos Tis Swijs, yea, He was Himself the Life; for we read there, further, «al 4 G7 iv TO Pos THY avOpeTev, and this very das is in John i., vers. 5 and 8, represented as the personal Logos Himself. As, then, in the Gospel the Logos was already identified with the das, and this again with the G7, it cannot seem strange that St John, in the parenthetical expression of ver. 2, does not go on to say, Kal 0 Noyos EfavepwOn, but Kat 1 Sor epavepoby. The argument which De Wette makes this change furnish against our explanation of the Noyos, falls therefore of itself to nothing. If now, before we pass on to ver. 2, we look back once more upon the whole combined substance and meaning of ver. 1, we derive confirmation, from a twofold consideration, of the correctness of our position in Sect. IV. of the Introduction ; viz., that the Apostle has nothing else in view, when he writes aTrayyédXopev, but his written Gospel. (1.) He declares, not Christ, who was from the beginning, and had been seen and handled by himself —the Logos,— but that which was from the beginning, that which had been heard, seen, beheld, handled, in His coming into the flesh, by himself the Apostle. Thus he declares concerning the Logos: the object of his announcement is not the dogma about Christ, but his experience about Christ. And such an announcement as that is not contained in the Epistle, but only in the Gospel. (2.) St John at the same time expresses this conception in such a form as should remind us, word for word, and point for point, of the announcement in the beginning of the Gospel; so that he here concisely recapitulates 1 JOHN I. 1-4. 5d and sums up the material collective substance of the Gospel, as it is in John i. 1 seq. pre-announced, and then, in the historical portion of the Gospel, John i. 19-xx. 31, unfolded. Ver. 2. That no doubt may remain on the readers’ minds upon the question, what they must understand by the Adyos Tis foAs, St John here expressly exhibits, in a parenthetical expla- natory clause, the great fundamental truth which he had already uttered in John i. 14. (1) That Sw, which constitutes the nature of the Adyos, is made manifest ; (2) it is that life which had been mpos tov Twarépa, and then appeared unto us; (3) this “O hv am apis, 6 axnkoaper,” K.T-X., this object which we an- nounce, is that very Sw itself. Thus by the Gw it is not an abstraction which is meant; but that substantially eternal per- sonal Being, which was from the beginning with the Father, and then was made manifest and tangible on earth. The three thoughts indicated above in order, which serve the purpose of showing us the identity of the Being named fw in ver. 2 with the object of the message described in ver. 1, as also the identity of the G7 with the Adyos, or exhibit most clearly the substantiality and personality of the G#—those three thoughts appear, ver. 2, in the following connection. Pre- supposing the readers’ understanding of the expression, 6 Adyos THs Gwijs, as explained by the Gospel, ch. i. 4—presupposing that they would also understand the Genitive tis Sais, ver. 1, as a Genitive of substance,—St John first of all confirms this way of understanding it, by laying down the fundamental sen- tence of all announcement of salvation, that this Life has been made manifest ; and thereby at the same time explains how “that which was from the beginning” could be “beheld and handled.” Certainly these words, “the Life was manifested,” considered in themselves alone, would themselves be still more or less indistinct and ambiguous. They might have been under- stood of an abstract fw, of some spiritual or physical energy of life; and as only expressing the fact that this life-energy had in some way or other been manifested in a chain of revelations and developments—just as the physical energies of nature are brought into manifestation by the production of manifold suc- eessive organisms. But the first verse, connected with its plain reference to John i. 4, must have already led the readers’ minds 56 TIIE EXORDIUM. to think of that personal eternal f2), which was itself the Adyos, and, accordingly, to interpret the ¢avepwOjjvar in the sense of a becoming visible and tangible: that no doubt, however, may remain upon this point, St John appends the second utterance, “ And we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you that eternal Life.” That, namely, which he had seen (thus he sums up in brief the hearing, seeing, beholding, and touching of the first verse ; for the beholding is in reality the centre and chief of all these kinds of observation and perception, and here in ver. 2 it was not necessary to repeat the whole climax)—the Object mentioned in ver. 1,—which he can therefore bear witness to and announce, because he had seen Him, is to be understood by the %&7. And when he calls this “ Life” here “ eternal,” he only recapitulates the important point which had been already expressed in “ from the beginning,” and gives it that predicate which it bears in ch. v. 20—in the second from the last, as in the second from the first, verse of the Epistle.—a passage in which it is expressly said that Christ is that eternal Life. Thus has St John here, in ver. 2, uttered concerning the ») itself that which in ver. 1 he had begun to say concerning “that which was from the beginning,” and concerning the “ Word of Life,”— namely, that it was the Object of his announcement ; and this confirms the right interpretation of this “ Life” as sub- stantial and personal, and identical with Christ. After he has done this, and clearly defined the idea of this fw, he returns, thirdly, back to the first, the essential kernel-thought of ver. 2— “The Life hath become manifest”—and repeats this thought, which was there obscure, but which is here perfectly cleared up by his adding to the word “ eternal Life” the relative sentence, “which was with the Father, and was made manifest unto us.” And thus the “manifestation” is clearly defined, by the anti- thesis with “being with the Father,” as an entering into the sphere of time and space, into the sphere of visibility and historical existence. Thus we have here at the outset an example of the peculiar Johannean manner of thought and expression, which often ne- glects in its progress the line of a strictly dialectic development, moving in a circle, or rather in a spiral, going round and round a thought, illustrating it on all sides,—thus all the time ap- proaching its essence with more and more evident precision. 1 JOHN I. 1-4. oP Having thus made the construction of thought in the second verse plain to our minds, we shall find that the individual words will present no great difliculty. The «ai which opens the verse we are neither required nor warranted to take in the sense of yap (with Beza, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, etc.). It is true that the main thought of ver. 2, “the Life was manifested,” contains an element which may be placed in an explanatory and demon- strative relation to ver. 1; that is, the “ becoming manifest” of the “ Life” would show how One “ from the beginning,” who was eternally existent, could have been also visible and palpable, —and thus the “and” might be substituted by “for”? But the scope of ver. 2 cannot be to unfold and solve that problem (upon which, indeed, as such, no emphasis is laidin ver. 1). The aim and purpose of the Apostle is simply to detach and isolate from the main thought, begun in ver. 1, “ We declare unto you the Word of Life who was from the beginning, and who was by us heard, seen with the eyes, beheld, and handled,” the objective idea involved in it, “ That eternal Being has become manifest,” and to make that objective idea independent in order to its con- Jirmation (though not without a connection still maintained with the thought of ver.1). Or, to make it still clearer: In the main period, vers. 1 and 3, the scope of the Apostle is to lay emphasis upon the truth and certainty of this amaryryédXew ; hence in it the grammatically ruling thought is this—Thus and thus we declare unto you, that is, a Being both eternal and yet visible to our eyes. Meanwhile, the idea that Christ was of an eternal nature, but that He had come into flesh and become visible, is only Jatent in the object of the clause. On the other hand, in the parenthesis, ver. 2, this latent objective, dogmatical idea or position is to be exhibited most formally as the great fundamental doctrine, and therefore is thus repeated with confirmation ; hence here the dominant thought is this—The life became manifest. Meanwhile, that which in vers. 1 and 3 appeared as the chief thought, takes in ver. 2 a rather subordinate place: “ And we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you— ;” yet, in such a manner that this subordinate thought, which gives expression to St John’s subjective relation, hastens back in its object to the objective dogmatical main doctrine of the paren- thesis (“ The eternal Life, which was with the Father, and hath become manifest”). 58 THE EXORDIUM. The «ai does not stand here in the sense of yap, which it never does; but this is an instance of that free, Hebraic con- junction of clauses, and members of clauses, which meets us everywhere throughout the writings of St John. The subject, 7 7, has received its explanation already on ver. 1. The opinions of those who have interpreted it as meaning doctrina de felicitate, or felicity itself, need scarcely be mentioned, much less refuted. "Edavepo6n—was manifested—is not to be regarded (with De Wette) as simply equivalent to cap& éyévero, was made flesh: although it is the same act of incarnation which is here and in John i. 14 described, yet it is exhibited under a different aspect and relation. Gavepotc@as is equivalent to Pavepds yiyverOat. The G7 as such, as it is 7pos Tov watépa, with the Father, is not for us men davepa, manifest, but concealing itself in the unsolved mystery of eternity. It has, however, become a davepa, visible to the eyes, yea, tangible to the hands, inasmuch as it became flesh in Jesus, and thus entered into the conditions of time and visibility. The cap& yiyverOar, therefore, desig- nates the objective process of the incarnation itself as such; the gavepwOjvat, the result as it respects our capacity of perceiving and understanding it. The former tells us what the Logos became in His incarnation as it regards Himself ; the latter, what He became for us. The three verbs, éwpdxapev, kal paptupotpev, nal amrary- yéAXowev, must evidently be united together’ (Cicumenius, Zwingli, Liicke), having for their common object the words tiv Cony THY aiéviov. Huther would separate the éwpaxaper, and provide for it an object adr#v out of the preceding Gm (“ And the Life is manifested, and we have seen it; and we, etc.’”). Fritzsche, De Wette, and Diisterdieck would separate off and divide the two verbs, cal éwpaxapev Kal waptupoduev, supplying both of them with an avryv, so that amayyéAXopev would stand quite alone with its t7v € aiwv. This very uncertainty where the sentence is to be cut into, whether after “seen” or after “ tes- tify,” betrays the forced character of the whole hypothesis. Cer- tainly, waptupotpev and amayyéAXouev are in their ideas more closely related than both are with éwpdxayev. On the other 1 Cod. B. reads zai ¢ twpexeuev. But the spuriousness of this ¢é is admitted on all hands by critics. 1 JOHN TI. 1-4. 39 hand, the opav and waprupeiv recur presently (compare John xix. 35), as a compacted pair of ideas; so that it would not be well done to separate the two verbs by a grammatical severance of the construction. Assuredly, it is the scope of the Apostle to say, not that he saw the one thing and testified the other, but that he testified that itself. which he had seen ; and this takes effect only if both verbs have the same object. But then, again, the amayyédxrevwv is so closely connected in its idea with the waptupety, that after the waptupeiy also a grammatical severance is im- practicable. And why should we interpose or supply an object, when one stands evidently before us? According to Liicke’s and our construction, the great objective, “the Life was made manifest,’ stands in its own nervous independence; and the subordinate subjective thought, “and we have seen, and testify, and declare,” appears in its own unconfused clearness. Accord- ing to Fritzsche, on the contrary, the two members of the verse would be so ordered as to make the former contain, in connec- tion with the objective doctrinal statement, one half of the sub- jective utterance : A) And the Life hath appeared, and we have seen it, [and bear witness to it. | B) And we [bear witness, and] declare the eternal Life ; —which utterly confuses the whole sense. That, finally, at the end of the verse the éfavep@0n has a ijuiv connected with it, does not justify Diisterdieck’s conclusion, that the first ebavepoOn too must have the cal éwpdxayev connected with it, as it were in compensation of the #uév which it lacks. For, in the first member of the verse, the objective truth, that the Life had been manifested, is exhibited as such; in the second member, that subordinate thought, concerning the subjective relation of St John, is added, that he had seen this eternal Life, and bore witness, and declared it; and the third member, —that is, the relative clause dependent on “ eternal Life,’—leads back again to the objective fundamental thought, yet so that xow, in a very natural synthesis, the subjective side is touched, though slightly, by the »iv. As it respects the meaning of the three verbs, opav, as we have seen, takes here the place of tke whole climax contained in ver. 1, and indicates all that is included in eyewitness-ship and personal immediate experience. Maprtupeiy and arayyéd- 60 THE EXORDIUM. dew both signify an active announcement (compare upon pap- tupetv John xxi. 24); but the reference of waprupeiv is directed to the truth and absolute certainty of the object announced, while avayyéAXew points rather to the knowledge of the readers and hearers, which is to be increased. “ We have seen, and come forward as witnesses of it, and announce it unto you.” But that paprupetiv is used only in reference to dogmatic doc- trines, and not in reference to individual historical occurrences, is an assertion which has nothing to establish it, and which is glaringly refuted by such passages as John i. 34, xix. 35, xxi. 24. The paprupety which is here spoken of, has, equally with the opav and the arayyéAnew, for its object the concrete histo- rical manifestation of the fw) ai@vvs in the life, sufferings, and resurrection of Christ. That the “ eternal life” is not to be understood of the vita per Christum nobis parta (Calvin), or of “ the true eternal life to be appropriated by believers,” but only of that personal which appeared in Christ, is established by the relative clause which is appended to it. By the attribute “ eternal” the idea of “ that which was from the beginning” is simply repeated ; yet so that this idea now comes forward in a purely objective form (“ eternal’’), while the “ from the beginning,’ as we saw above, is spoken rather from the subjective position of the be- holder, St John. In ch. v.11 Christ is called in the same sense fn aiévios,—a sense which is as different from the ordinary meaning of the expression in the New Testament (e.g., Matt. xxv. 46; John iii. 15), as the meaning of the expression Adyos (rod Ocod), John i. 1 seq., and 1 John i. 1 and Rev. i. 2, is from the customary use of that word; for example, in Heb. ii. 12 ; John xvii. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 15. The relative clause is appended with %7vs, not with the simple 4. Marvellous things have been seen or fancied by the expositors in this #7. According to Diisterdieck, the predica- tive definition which lies in the relative clause is by this rus not merely attached in a relative manner to the subject, but con- tains at the same time an explanatory and demonstrative refer- ence to the ruling sentence. “ We have seen, bear witness, and declare to you the eternal life, which namely (because it, to wit) was with the Father, but hath appeared unto us.” Sander explains: “ We announce to you the eternal life as being that 1 JOHN I. 1-4. 61 which, etc.” Huther thinks that it marks out what is uttered in the following words as something essentially added to the preceding idea. (But to which idea? That of the seeing and witnessing? or that of the “eternal life”?). All this seems to me far-fetched enough. The classical Greek éarus has certainly the signification “ whosoever,” gwicunque ; and then, when it refers to a definite object, the meaning of utgui, “as who,’ — the definite individual object being thereby carried back to a general idea lying at its foundation. And this “ as who” divides itself again into these meanings: (1.) “ who, to wit” (when the matter of the relative clause serves for the elucidation or establishment of the utterance in the main sentence) ; or (2.) “ who indeed” (when the matter of the relative clause serves for the exposition of the nature of the already well-known noun on which the relative in question immediately depends). Now, it is by no means to be denied that there are traces, even in the New-Testament writers, of a consciousness of the distinction which holds good in classical Greek between 6s and éo7us. It is true that in the two passages, Luke viii. 3, Acts xxiv. 1, éoTts appears to stand in a quite enfeebled meaning; on the other hand, Diisterdieck has correctly observed that in the pas- sages, Matt. 1. 6, vil. 15, xx. 1, xxv. 1, Mark iv. 20, Luke vii. 37, Acts x. 41, Rom. xi. 4, 1 Cor. v. 1, Phil. ii. 20 (to which he improperly adds Rey. xvii. 12, xix. 2), dots has the meaning of tovodtos és. ‘To these passages we would add the following: Rom. i. 82 (“such people as”); Heb. ii. 3; Mark xv. 7 (“ which such were, who”). Then we find our above- mentioned meanings 1 and 2 again in the following passages : (1.) “who, to wit,” Sine ii, 15; Gal. iv. 24; Heb. viii. 6 (where the relative ce introduces an element ital serves for the demonstration of the thought expressed in the main clause) : (2.) “who indeed,” Rom. 1. 25 (“ who indeed changed”) ; Rom. 2 ( we, who indeed are dead to sin”); Eph. iii. 13 (“ in which indeed my glorying is”); Acts x. 47; and approximately also, Heb. xii. 5 and 2 Cor. ix. 11. In these passages the rela- tive clause unfolds something which lies, and is already assumed to be known, in the nature of the noun on which it depends. Which, then, of these interpretations suits do7vs in our passage ? Of the meaning tovodros és we must not think for a moment : that has most assuredly no place where the noun, which has a 62 THE EXORDIUM. relative clause connected with it, marks out a distinctive indivi- dual being, but only where it stands for a generic idea (as in Matt. ii. 6, “ Out of thee shall arise such a ruler as ;” Matt. vii. 15, “ Take heed of that kind of false prophets, which’). When, therefore, Sander would explain it, “ We declare unto you the eternal life as being such as,” he introduces a perfectly strange element into the text,—one which does not belong to the éo7vs, and which is opposed to the whole process of the thought ; for, the meaning of St John is evidently this, that the “ eter- nal Life” had been with the Father, and had been manifested actually and in Himself, and not merely that He was presented as such in the Apostles annunciation. ‘The signification “ which, that is,’ appears to me equally unsatisfactory in this passage. The statement that the Sw “was with the Father, and appeared unto us,’ could only in its second half serve the purpose of establishing the sentence that “we have seen it, and can bear witness ;” but the two halves are so co-ordinated, that we are not justified in considering the first as a merely preparatory, subordinate element of the clause. Thus the only signification of #rvs which seems suitable, is that of “ which indeed.” This, however, must not be taken in the sense suggested by Huther, that the matter of the relative clause was to be exhibited as an element “ essentially” added to the preceding thought; but in the sense that the matter of the relative clause is exhibited as an already known (from ver. 1), and consequently admitted, ele- ment of the preceding main clause, and the noun in it on which the relative clause depends. We can reproduce this, in the most exact manner possible to us, by the translation, “ which indeed (as before said) was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.” The first member of the relative clause, 4 pds Tov martépa, intimates in the direction towards the Father; altogether as in John i. 1, etc., it is said of the Logos, that He had ever been in the direction towards the Father: that is, not an action of God ad extra, towards the creature, but a Word in which the Father spoke to Himself, uttered His own existence before Himself, or Word of God to God. So also it is here said concerning the Son, that it was towards the Father. Thus, according to its eternal being and nature, it was not a life which streamed forth from God and towards the creature (to be produced, or already 1 JOHN I. 1-4. 63 produced), in order to call that creature into existence, or to fill it with powers of development; but a life which did indeed flow forth from the bosom of the Father, but which did at once return back into the bosom of the Father, in the ceaseless flow of the inmost being of God. We do violence to the passage, and weaken away its force, when (with the old Scholiasts) we interpret pos by év—an interpretation against which Basil de- livered his warning. But so, also, the translation “ bei,” with, in the sense of wapa (John xvii. 5), is not precise enough; and even the passage, John i. 18, 6 @p els Tov KoATOV TOD TraTpés, is not perfectly analogous, since e/s there, used in connection with a verb of rest, somewhat as in 1 Pet. v. 12,' defines the basis of support, and not, like zpés, the direction. We must leave this zpos here in the possession of its full signification, to which we are led by the analogy of Johni. 1. Moreover, it is to be acknowledged that this pos, used in connection with the fw, would present a great obscurity and the appearance of harshness, if the reference to these words, 6 Adyos Hv mpos TOV Qecov, did not shed its sufficient light over our passage. Con- sidered in itself, to wit, it is more easily understood when spoken of the Word, than when spoken of the Life, that it had been “to God, to the Father ;” since the Word contains already the idea of being spoken to a person, and therefore involves the notion of movement and direction, while this is at least not so clear in the case of the idea life. Here, however, we find new reason for holding fast the conviction of the strict and essential reference of this verse to the Introduction of the Gospel, on which it entirely rests. As God here receives, in relation to that personal Life which afterwards was manifested to the disciples in Jesus Christ, the name of Father, we may, with Huther, assert that the Logos is in reality, and is termed the “Son,” not simply from the time of His incarnation, and not only in relation to that incarnation, but already in respect to the mystery of His eternal existence in the Divine Trinity. " Quite of another kind are the passages, Mark ii. 1, xiii. 16; Luke xi. 7, where \ éynte wel” Hav av, TaTEp, ev emol, Kaye €v cl), (6) Kat cowavia dé jpe- (b)"Iva nal adrol ev tyiv & Tépa peTa TOD TaTpos QoW. \ \ a ean lot Kal META TOV VioOv avTOD ’ la) a Inoot Xpicrob. Thus the final and highest positive end which St John aimed to attain by his Gospel was this, that the High-priestly prayer of Jesus should have its fulfilment in his readers; that they (1) should grow as living members into that fellowship, the mother-stem and centre of which was the disciples themselves, —into that fellowship, the members of which among them- selves were one, but the common unity of which (2) has its internal ground of life in the unity in which every individual stands with the Father and the Son. It is obvious, accordingly, that the two members of this final statement of the design do 1 JOHN T. 1-4. 71 not simply stand side by side in external conjunction, but are most internally and livingly one. The latter specifies the in- ternal living ground and principle of life, on which the former grows, and on which alone it can be brought to perfection. This relation of the two members is grammatically expressed by the 5¢ which is added to the particle cai. Kal 5é, et vero, inti- mates that the second member is not simply appended or added on to the former : the combination expresses at the same time the introduction of a new turn, or more distinct essential definition given, to the thought that preceded. Compare John vi. 51, where the thought, “I am the living bread,” receives, through the added clause, “and the bread, which I will give, is My Jlesh,” a new turn and more exact modification. (Otherwise in John viii. 17, xv. 27, where the xaé is not the leading conjunc- tion which connects the clauses, but 5é; «a/ referring, in the sense of also, to an individual noun in the sentence—in ¢h. vili. 17 to vowos, in xv. 27 to dmets—so that there we must translate “ but also.’’) The second member of our final clause has no verb, no copula; for, the reading Kat 7 Kowevia dé 1 jeTépa 7 peta TOD matpos K.T.d. is decidedly spurious—the 7 being found only in one lesser codex, and in some versions where it has no critical significance whatever. But, though the 7 does not stand in the text, it must be supplied; that is, we must regard the second clause as dependent still upon the wa (Vulg., Aug., Beda, Eras- mus, Zwingli, Gicolamp., Luther, Calvin, Grotius, etc). Other expositors (Episcopius, Bengel, Diisterdieck, Sander, Huther) would supply éor/. But this rends the second clause out of its natural reference to the first, and reduces it to a merely explana- tory remark. No, it is the design of St John, in his azrayyenia, that that prayer of Jesus should be fulfilled on both its sides : that his readers should enter into fellowship with the disciples, and that this fellowship should have its living principle of life in the fellowship with the Father and the Son. Instead of the év dow of John xvii. 21, St John substitutes the idea of the xowwvia. And this receives light from John xvil. itself. It is not merely a made fellowship, as it were rest- ing upon agreement ; also, it is not a merely ethical fellowship, resulting from a previous community of disposition in the indi- viduals ; but it is a fellowship of being and nature, having its ie THE EXORDIUM. root in this, that those who partake of it are begotten of the same omépwa Ocod (1 John ii. 9), and are penetrated by the same powers of a heavenly and glorified life. And on that very account ts this fellowship of the members essentially, and in its root, a fellowship with the Father and the Son :—with the Father, who giveth His o7répua, that is, His Holy Spirit, and thereby draweth to the Son; with the Son, in union with whom the regenerate soul groweth up through the Holy Spirit as a member with the Head. “Concerning what fellowship he speaks this, and what society he thereby understands, the words expound: not alone that peace, concord, and brotherly amity, by which men are joined to men ; but that by which there is an indissoluble union of men with God in spirit and soul by faith, and hereafter eternal life with Him. This is that for which Christ prays the Father, John xvi.” (Zwingli.) ' “That ye may have fellowship with us’ —this is the formal statement here of the Saviour’s “ that they may be one.” Christ prays absolutely that “ they all” who “should believe on Him” (ver. 20) might be one. St John has to do with a number of specific individuals, who are to be incorporated into the body of that mavtes év dvtes. The already-existing body, into which they are incorporated, appears here as “ we;” it consists of the already-existing older generation of those who had been eye- witnesses of Jesus. Those to be incorporated, or in process of being incorporated, are the readers to whom he is writing: these are, by the words cai tpets (the form of which is explained, as we have seen, by the preceding xai tiv), set over against the nets. They are to have fellowship with the “us ;” thus, are to be incorporated into the already-present cowwvia. “And that our fellowship (sc. may be, 7) with,” ete. “ Our fellowship,” naturally, is not that fellowship in which the eye- witness stood already, alone and exclusive of the “you ;” but the “our” is here used in community of meaning. “ Our fellow- ship ; that in which we already stood, and into which ye are now to enter, and must more and more increase.” Ver. 4. The first longer and more complex portion of the introductory section is now followed by a second, shorter, and less difficult portion. With the first main sentence is now co- ordinated a second, closely connected with it by the particle xaé. 1 JOHN I. 1-4. ia “ And these things we write unto you, that our joy may be full.” But, first of all, we must establish the reading. Instead of dpiv, Cod. B. has zyets, a reading which is here certainly opposed to internal probability. For, although St John not seldom (e.g., John vi. 51) adds the personal pronoun which was already contained in the verb, yet he does so only in cases where some additional emphasis requires it. Lut here an emphasized nets would be altogether out of keeping. It would only intro- duce again with new force the antithesis between *pe?s and vets which met us in ver. 3, but which had been just done away by the common jjuerépa ; and the thought of ver. 4 does not give any occasion for this, since here the contrast is pro- minent between cat tadta and that which had preceded, but not between the “ye” and “we.’ (“ And this we write, that—,” -but not, “And this write we ;” for that this Epistle was written by St John, and not by the readers themselves, was evident enough already.) These internal arguments against els are so strong, that they would be decisive against the reading, even if it were supported by much stronger testimony than a single codex. The variations of the codd. are much more important at the end of our verse, between 2) yapa 7uav and ) yapa buon." ‘“Hydr is the reading of B.G., of aseries of the lesser authorities, of some Fathers (Theoph., G2cumen.), and the Slavonic Version. Lachmann, therefore, received sav into the text of his greater edition, as Mill had done before him. If sav be genuine, the Apostle again resumes the common 7jerépa, “that our (common) joy may be perfected.” Now it is obviously more probable that a transcriber should continue—whether involuntarily by over- sight, or by design—the tuoév after the tuiv which had just preceded, than that he should correct a plain tuay into aap on account of the #etépa of ver. 3. For this reason I am not disinclined to hold 7ev, with Lachmann, as the true reading ; and as such it throws a finer tone into the meaning, Even the origination of the reading ypdpopev jets seems to point that way. For it manifestly sprang from the (perverted) endeavour to introduce once more the antithesis between we and you in ver. 4, which had been done away in ver. 3; and, therefore, we may assume that the first codices, which had read ypadopev 1 Athirdreading, 4 yapa quay ev dui» (only in the Syr. and Erpen. Vers.), owes its origin evidently to the wish to combine the two other readings. 74 THE EXORDIUM. jets, would read also yapa tuav. And thus we have a double explanation of the spurious tjuev. But this makes it all the more significant, that Cod. B., which received from those (now lost) codices the ypadouev mets, nevertheless suffered the yapa juev (unsuitable with the former) to remain; evidently because this 7jaév was too well otherwise authenticated, or too generally acknowledged as genuine. For the rest, the variation yields no essential difference of thought. “ And these things” points manifestly to the Epistle. But when Diisterdieck says that it points “ not merely to vers. 1-3 (to which Sander refers it !), but also to the whole Epistle,” this is far from being the right manner of putting it. Strictly to vers. 1-3 the «al radra cannot refer, since “ and these things we write” is introduced as a second and different clause, added to the “that which was from the beginning—we declare,” and with a new and perfectly independent design (that your joy may be full). On the other hand, we cannot say (with Socinus) that cat tadra refers to the remainder of the Epistle only, to the exclusion of what precedes in vers. 1-3. In fact, the «ai Tatra refers to no individual passage or portion of the Hpistle as such, but to the Epistle as such in contradiction to the Gospel, which had been referred to in vers. 1-3. The one writing is co-ordinated with the other, and not one part of the Epistle with any other. The design with which the Apostle adjoined his Epistle to his Gospel is expressed in the words, “ that our joy may be perfected.” The point of the design is not in the idea of the joy, but in the making perfect of that joy. It is not that the joy is to be added to the fellowship, ver. 3, as something dif- ferent and separable from it ; but that joy which is presupposed, though not stated, to have been already imparted in the fellow- ship, is to be brought to its consummation. And this it is which shows most decisively the internal preferableness of the reading nuov. The mutual joy—first the comfort and confidence of faith in the readers after evil overcome, and then the joy of the Apostle in the faith and fidelity of his people, and this mutual, common joy connected with the blessed joy of both in God— must be brought to its perfection. In order to the accomplish- ment of this, he adjoins to his written Gospel, which contained the material for the overcoming of all Gnostic assaults, the 1 JOHN I. 1-4. 15 present /pistle, in which he shows the application of that de- fensive material, and teaches his readers how to use their weapons,— opening up to them the abyss, but also unfolding to their eyes the glory of fellowship with Him who is light. The idea of the yapd, and also the order of words 1 yapa mAnpodrat, point again for their origin to the Gospel of St John (ch. xv. 11, xvii. 13). As ver. 3 manifestly connects itself with ver. 21 of the High-priestly prayer, so also we are reminded by ver. 4 of the passage in ver. 13 of the same John xvii. And there we find the same participle, wewAnpopévn, used which is used in our passage. Christ utters, before He goeth to the Father, and while He is still é€v 7@ xédcp@ with His disciples, tadta (Lis Farewell-Discourses), va éywot Thy yapay THY € wiv TETANPwMEVHY é€v Eavtois—that they might have His joy fulfilled in themselves. And here the veteran St John would add to his Gospel this further Epistle, as a word of remembrance and farewell, in order that the joy—the joy of victory in the confidence of having overcome the world (for this is the kind of joy which is meant, as in John xvii. 9-16, so also in the scope of this Epistle, the final section of which, as we shall see, treats expressly of the “ victory over the world,” so that the climax of the whole Epistle is in this vex7)—might be perfected in them, as it was perfected in him (hence the yapa 7uav, used in common, which strictly corresponds with the év éavtots, John xvil. 13, and embraces both points in one). It is therefore not quite right to view this joy (with Zwingli, (Kcolampad., Diisterd., Huther, etc.) in a too generally dogmatic light, and make it simply the blessed experience of salvation flowing from fellowship with God, or the tranquillitas con- scientia. This effaces the delicate antithesis between vers. 3 and 4, and disturbs the full meaning of the relation to John “xvii. 13. The yapda is here, what it is in John xvii., that joyful- ness which is grounded on the assurance that the children of God, although in the world, yet are not of the world, and that the world can have no advantage over them, either inwardly through temptation, or outwardly through persecution. Prac- tically considered, this yapd is always present wherever that kowevia, ver. 3, is present (this is itself more fully unfolded afterwards, ch. iii. 10 and 14), and not present where that xowavia is wanting ; therefore St John can (as we stated above) 76 THE EXORDIUM. take it for granted as self-understood, that with that xowwvia this apa will also be given. But as certainly as in practical reality these two are ever united, so certain is it that they ex- hibit two distinct sides of one and the same divine life. The Kowevia is the positive relation to the brethren, and to the Father and the Son; the yapa (understood in the sense of John xvii. 13) refers essentially to the hostile relation of Christians to the Koopos. And how plain does this make the connection of the two distinct ends of ver. 3 and ver. 4 with the means specified for their attainment! His Gospel, the positive historical amayyedia of the eternal Aéyos in His historical manifestation, St John gives to his readers, in order that the High-priestly petition of John xvii. 21 might be fulfilled; that is, in order that the positive end might be attained, of incorporating them into that fellowship of the body of Christ which depends upon fellowship with its living Head. But St John appends to the Gospel his Epistle,—with its hortatory application of essential doctrine, with its distinction and diagnosis of light and darkness, with its exhibition of the relation of Christians to the xdcpos (ch. iii.), with its delineation of all the distinctive marks of the anti- christian power of temptation, and earnest warning against it, with, finally, its final and conclusive triumph of vex over the Koojzos,—in order that that other High-priestly petition, John xvil. 13, might be fulfilled, in the attainment of his readers to a consummate joy of warfare and victory; an attainment never possible save when the Christian, though still in the world, is really sundered from the world, saved from its seductions, and inaccessible to its ensnaring arts. PART THE FIRST. CENTRE OF THE ayyeAia: GOD IS LIGHT. Ch. i. 5-ch. ii. 6. St Jony, in ver. 5, lays down the central point and kernel of that message, of which he had spoken in ver. 3, viz., of that which was contained in his written Gospel. He does not here introduce (as we have shown above)—he does not introduce in ver. 5 the ayyedla which was in view, ver. 3; but he reminds them in ver. 5 of the message brought already in his Gospel, handed over to his readers, and mentioned as such in ver. 3. For this was the strict relation of his Epistle to his Gospel, that in the Gospel he declared his experimental knowledge of the manifested Logos as such, objectively and historically ; but in the Kpistle he as it were dogmatically sets forth the indi- vidual sides of the revelation of the Logos, and of His nature, and draws from them their practical consequences, whether hortatory or polemical. But he begins this development, ver. 5, with a declaration which does not contain one aspect simply, in connection with the rest, but is itself the central point and source of all the re- velation of God, from which all the other truths are derived. Hence he can write at once: cal éotw atitn 7) ayyeNla Hr, K.T.A.: the message heard from Jesus Christ, and the whole message, is presented in the truth, 671 6 Ocds das éotw—that God is light. And thus we may explain the éoriv which is so emphatically placed first in that sentence. For, the reading cat éotiv avrn is authenticated by Codd. B.C.G., Theophyl., Gicu- menius, and others; and the circumstance that St John else- where (ch. ii. 25, ii. 11 and 23, v. 11 and 14) writes «at ain éoriv, so far from being an argument against the genuine- 78 CENTRE OF THE a@yyeAia: GOD IS LIGHT. ness of the reading (as Diisterdieck thinks), confirms it very strongly; for, it is much more probable that a transcriber should have conformed our passage to those later ones (where, however, St John is developing only individual doctrines of the revelation of Christ, and therefore uses less emphasis), than that a transcriber should have arbitrarily violated St John’s customary usage by placing the word éoriv in the forefront of the whole sentence. Thus he writes very emphatically: “ And truly is this the message ;” by placing the éoriv first, he stimu- lates the attention to the following airy, and throws upon this word a stronger accent. Kai aitn éotiv 4) ayyenia, HET =Dny would run in Hebrew nyown nxn; on the other hand, the «at €oTly QUTN, K.T.A., would ‘correspond to the Hebrew nst nm nyown, Instead of ayyenria the Text. Rec. reads évrayyeXia ; but external testimonies (A.G. and the Fathers), as well as the inter- nal argument that émayyedia everywhere occurs in the sense (here unsuitable) of “ promise,” decide in favour of ayyenia. The conjecture of Socinus and Episcopius, who would read atayyenia, has everything against it; for this word does not occur in any MS. of our passage, nor anywhere in the New Testament. “‘ The message which we have heard from Him, and declare unto you,” is in its essence no other than that same dmrayyédXew which had been the subject of ver. 38, but now modified, and seen more closely under one particular aspect. That which he had heard, and seen with his eyes, beheld, and handled with his hands—his experimental knowledge of the Incarnate Logos— St John declares in the Gospel. Here also he speaks of the very same announcement contained in the Gospel: the quint- essence and the radical principle of this annunciation, which he is now in the act of transmitting to the readers in the written Gospel, he will now in these verses of the Epistle concentrate and develop; he will exhibit that in which the announcement, received from Christ and delivered to the Ephesians, consisted, as viewed in its central principle. He therefore characterizes it according to those two several critical points which had been already brought forward in vers. 1 and 3; that is, (1) as one that had been derived from Christ, and (2) as by him communicated to his readers. Only he does not, as to the former of these points, repeat the hearing, beholding, 1 JOHN I. 5-ITI. 6. 79 and handling ; here he specifies only the hearing, and that for a good reason. For, this supreme truth, which he will here specify by name as the source of all the other developments of the revelation of God in Christ, and therefore as the quint- essence of all announcement concerning Christ—the truth that God is light—has preeminently in itself the character of a doctrinal statement. It came forward especially in the doc- trine of Christ (although, like every other part of the revelation of God, actually manifested also in the person and life of the Redeemer) ; it was uttered, viz., in those discourses of our Lord in which He disclosed and opened up to His disciples His own nature, as also the nature of the Father (John xiv. 9), and thus the nature of the Triune God, and revealed to them that His nature was light (John i. 19, etc., vii. 12, ix. 5, xi. 9, etc., xii. 35, etc., and 46; comp. Luke xi. 35, xvi. 8). Viewed in relation to this its ultimate source, the ayyedia appears preeminently as one that had been sKxovcpévn, as one that had been received from the lips of Christ. Christ had announced to His disciples that God Himself, and He Himself the Son of God, was light; and St John announces it over and again, on his part, to his readers (this ve-announcement is expressed by avayyé\new, renunciare ; comp. John xvi. 13-15, and Erasmus and Diisterdieck on this passage). Thus in this verse the central point of the whole Johannzean ayyeXia is introduced; and it certainly is not true that ver. 5 connects itself with ver. 4 as a “ condition,’ under which alone the disciples must enter into the fellowship mentioned in vers, 3, 4 (a view which Huther, §. 14 of his Commentary, holds, while he mentions it in §. 15 as “ incorrect’’). That main position and central point of the message is now exhibited in the words: 67s 6 Oeds das éore. With utmost emphasis the negative side is added: kai cxotia év ai7@ ovK éotw ovdeuia. As it respects the literal understanding of the phraseology, das is the qualitative predicate, and says that God in His nature is light; not that He (as Luther's translation expresses it) is a Light among many. But, if we would pene- trate into the deeper meaning of this saying, that God is light, we are encountered by the same difficulty which met us in the interpretation of the fw, ver. 1, and that in an increased degree. When Diisterdieck would explain the idea of the 80 CENTRE OF THE ayyeAia: GOD IS LIGHT. gos by that of “the believer’s walk in light being a ray of the Divine light,’ he moves in a circle, and explains idem per idem; when he goes on to reduce the idea of light to that of holiness, blaming Calovius for understanding it at once of the holiness and the omniscience of God, and then presently after- wards assures us that the idea of light cannot be referred to mere abstract holiness, he altogether fails to make the matter in any degree more comprehensible. It will be more helpful to set out by reminding ourselves that the declaration, God is light, is not peculiar to St John alone, but is found through- out the Holy Scriptures: so in Ps. civ. 2, the creaturely light of the stars is represented as a garment of God; and to Ezekiel and Habakkuk God appeared visible as a light (comp. Rey. i. 14, and iy. 3), as in Dan. ii. 22 God is exhibited as light in reference to His omniscience; and in St Paul (Rom. xii. 12; Hph. v..8;°2 Cor. vi. 145'1 ‘Thess. v. 5; ,1 Tim. wig 6) St Peter (1 Pet. ii. 9), and St James (James i. 17), we find the opposition of light and darkness, with the declaration that God dwelleth in light, or is the Father of light. But the simple statement, that God Himself in His very nature is light, is strictly peculiar to St John. And, in penetrating its meaning, all those other passages serve indeed to point out the way; but they only lead us a few degrees nearer to the thing itself —they do not lead us into the very heart of it, and in fact receive more light from our present passage than they throw upon it. For, all that is here and there said concerning the contrast of walk- ing in the light and walking in the darkness, only serves gene- rally to show us this much, that the entire category has not merely a physical and metaphysical, but also and most espe- cially an ethical side; but, in order to understand wherefore the walking in the Spirit of God is described as a walking in the light, we must first of all know wherefore God Himself is as to His nature described as light. In order to perceive this clearly, we must remember in this case—as analogously in the case of the fw above—that all which we are accustomed to term “light” in the domain of the creature, whether with a physical or a metaphysical meaning, is only an effluence of that one and only primitive Light, which appears as the nature of God. But, in order to penetrate into this primal and incommunicable idea of light, it is necessary, 1 JOHN I. 5-II. 6. 81 before every other question, that we ask what there is in com- mon between those various kinds of creaturely light. The starting point for this is found in the passage, Gen. i. 3. The beginning of the Divine creative energy, as directed to the lower domain of creation, designated as ys, and as yet confused and orderless, consisted in this, that He commanded, “ Let there be light.” Thus light—physical light, to wit—was not some- thing brought down and added to the already prepared sub- stances and organisms, enlightening them, and making them subjectively visible; but it was rather the supreme source of all cosmical organization, chemical separation, and organic develop- ment. But physical light is in itself a phenomenon of move- ment, a life in enlightening bodies which makes their minutest particles vibrate, so that these their life-vibrations communicate themselves in beams issuing in all directions to the surround- ing (transparent) bodies; and thus the light is that life-action of shining bodies, by means of which it is their nature to give intelligence outwardly of their presence, to declare themselves, to speak of themselves to. others, to make themselves and their own nature manifest to all around. It belongs to the essence of the shining body to be for others; the dark body is shut up in itself, Consequently the light—even the physical light—is, in its inmost essence, as life, so also love; and, since it is the laying open of its own being, it is also truthfulness. But the shining body does not manifest itself only,—it shines upon other dark bodies not its own, which in their own nature were shut up in themselves. Its beams strike upon their surfaces; and, as the vibrating life meets here with opposition, it rebounds back on all sides, and gives in every direction notice of the existence and the nature of the body dark in itself. In this lies an ascendency of light over darkness: that which is in itself dark is, in spite of itself, drawn by the light to the light, made manifest, and disclosed as it is. Yea, more than that: physical light is for organisms a condition of their life; the opaque body is not only enlightened by the light, but quickened also; as the light is life, so also it diffuses life. But it is mani- fest that this physical light is more than a mere parable or symbol of the metaphysical and ethical light; indeed, there exists between all three more than mere analogy or resemblance. Physical light is for us creatures the real basis of metaphysical = 82 CENTRE OF THE ayyeXia: GOD IS LIGHT. knowledge: not only are all our abstract and general notions formed out of concrete perceptions of sense, but our thinking itself may almost be said to take place within the category of physical light. We cannot think without distinguishing; and cannot distinguish without thinking of A and B as in juxta- position, for the intellectual representation of juxtaposition is the root of all creaturely thinking. But this is the intellectual representation of space; and the simplest dimension of space— the representation of a line, or a point, or, in short, of any de- marcation in space, cannot be internally effected without the representation of a distinct colouring—that is, enlightenment— and consequently without physical light. The nature of physical light is inborn in the thinking soul. Light is distinetion in its very nature; and it may be said to be more than a mere alle- gorical phrase, that an intellectual truth is brought to light, when it is made plain. And thus it is more than a parable or allegory, and even more than an analogy, when, in the ethical domain, sin, the selfish- ness which turns away from God, and shuts itself against the neighbour, is represented as darkness, and the sentiment of love and truthfulness is represented as light. It is not a fortuitous and external thing that sin, in all its diversified forms and mani- festations, as cunning, as murder, as theft, as uncleanness, etc., shuns even the physical light. It is not alone the fear of dis- covery and punishment which operates here: sin is in its essen- tial nature an involution and shutting up in self—a turning away from all moral and physical relations and ordinances in the world of God’s arrangement—a wilful and selfish negation of those orderly gradations of cosmical, physical, and ethical or- ganization which were developed by the hand of God out of the creation of physical light, Gen. i. 3, as the further results of creation. And thus the ethical darkness of sin is most in- ternally related to the lie, as light is to truthfulness. For holy love has this for its nature, to open itself and its nature, and make it manifest towards others; sinful selfishness closes and conceals itself, and all that is in itself. Now, to conceal that which is actually present, and not to make it manifest, is to Kjie.” Seeing, then, that we find light thus supreme in the sphere of creaturely existence —light physical, metaphysical, and ethical 1 JOHN I. 5-II. é. 83 being thus undeniably one in the essence of their nature ;— seeing that physical light appears to be the producing, forming, quickening principle of all organization, in its essence self- communicative, and the stimulating principle of all physical organic functions of life ;—-seeing, then, that the thinking soul, the spirit of man, has essentially the same physical light for the generating principle of its thinking life ;—and seeing, finally, that the disposition of mind and will which we term holy love is no other than the illumination of our own nature for the sake of others; and thus that the same great principle may be traced throughout all these,—it cannot be thought an overbold leap in thought, if we draw from this deepest fundamental principle and fundamental law of the physical, intellectual, and religious life in the creature, an inference with respect to the eternal inner nature of the Creator. The Creator, who made light the principle of all orders of creation, physical, intellectual, and ethical, must Himself in His nature be light (comp. Jas. i. 17; He is not merely the Creator, but the Father of light!). That life—uttering and diffusing itself in love, making all darkness manifest, and drawing it to the light—must be the life and nature of the Creator Himself. The individual kinds of light, which in the creature are exhibited in their distinct characters and separately, must have been in Him from all eternity in their primal unity. And if in man thinking and self-conscious- ness takes effect essentially under the category of physical light —that is, of distinction—we have in thought, self-conscious of love and of a relation to God, a dim symbol or reflection of the manner in which the nature of God unites all three characters of light eternally in one. To the positive clause St John now appends the confirming and more closely defining negative side: And there is no dark- ness in Him at all. Ue writes év adt@, not év@miov avtod ; and therefore does not mean to say that between God and the creature all is light unto God, that is, that the creature les naked and manifest before the glance of God (which would be a one-sided interpretation, leading only to the Divine omni- science), but that in the internal essence of God’s own nature there is no kind of darkness at all. No kind of darkness—ov« —ovdeuia. All and every kind of darkness, whatever may in any sense be termed ocxor/a, is excluded from the nature of 84 CENTRE OF THE ayyeAia: GOD IS LIGHT. God. Hence Diisterdieck admits that it is not the holiness of God alone which is here meant (as it is not alone the darkness of sin that is denied in relation to God), but rather that the observation of the old Scholiast has something right in it: ore yap ayvowa, ote TAdVN, oUTE dpapTtia, ov’TE OdvaTos, neither ignorance, nor error, nor sin, nor death. Sander well exhibits the comprehensive and almost inexhaustible sense of these words, and remarks with propriety, “ that no philosophy hath found one God, who is a Light in which there is no darkness.” In Pantheism (he says correctly), with its ever-becoming God, the difference between evil and good is only seeming; even with Schleiermacher, sin is an inevitable point of transition, conditioned by Divine necessity. Spinoza declares (Tract. Theol. Polit. 2, 8), that what is called evil appears such only to the individual being, which cannot grasp evil as a necessary element of the universe of things. Even Schelling cannot go beyond the “ dark primal ground” in God; as Plato could not go beyond the An, and Jacob Bohme beyond the “ dark wrath- nature” in the Divine Being. It is only the Sacred Scripture, the word of the living God alone, which in fact teaches us to know the true God, in whom there is no cxoréa at all, who in Mis very substance is light, who has that principle in His very nature, the reflection of which we see in physical, metaphysical, and ethical light ; the God, who—in Himself eternally a Spirit self-conscious, living, loving, and, in virtue of His life of love, self-distinguishing (as the Trinity) —produced the creature into existence, in self-conscious free will, and with a perfect con- templation of the end which He purposed, and organized and appointed the crown of the creature, man, to a loving know- ledge of God, to the xowwvia or fellowship of the light. This being the comprehensively profound meaning which lies in the words of ver. 5, there are particularly two aspects of this truth which we may discern in the relation of ver. 5 to vers. 6-8, and which we must regard as clearly presenting themselves to the mind of St John. First, the material truth, that in God there is no kind of darkness, no kind of sin ;— and from this flows the consequence, vers. 6, 7, that he who would have fellowship with God, cannot on his part walk in ethical darkness. But also the formal side of this truth, that in God there is no kind of metaphysical darkness, no obscurity and 1 JOHN i. 6-1: 6. 85 ignorance; that He rather, as being in His own nature light, fashioned the creature as ever and fully penetrable to Him- self ;—and from this flows the consequence, vers. 7, 8, that he who has sin and conceals it, deceiveth only himself (and not God). Both sides of the truth, like the whole statement itself, bear thus also an undeniable polemical relation to the Cerin- thian gnosis ; that is, are aimed at the very root of all Gnosti- cism. For in this the God of Cerinthus was the direct opposite of the true God,—and the teaching of Cerinthus the direct opposite of the truth—that the God of Cerinthus was not light, but that the darkness was so absolutely in himself, that all the darkness and sin in the world must at last be charged upon this Cerinthian “ primus Deus.” For, this primus Deus, or this “ principalitas” (Iren. i. 26), was most assuredly an impotent being, who did not himself create in self-conscious will, but was obliged to tolerate the separation and emanation from himself of a “virtus,” which virtus created a world altogether ignorant of the primus Deus. In the place of the clear almighty will in God, was brought in a dark fatalist nature-process in God. And the producing agent employed upon the natural world is no longer the light (as in Gen. i. 3), but the darkness condensing itself into matter. According to Cerinthus, the world in its very substance was created in sin. According to the word of God, the world in its very substance was created of light, and in light and for light; and was appointed to the knowledge of the Eter- nal Light, and to walk in it. Hence, how simple soever the clause, God is Light, may seem, it nevertheless contains, in fact, the entire Christian doc- trine and revelation infolded germinally in itself ; and there- fore may rightly be exhibited by St John as » ayyedia, as the epitome and substance of the whole Christian announcement. For, that primal law which immediately follows from the light- nature of God, forms the basis of the Christian redemption. God, in conformity with His own nature, so fashioned and organized the nature of man (who is the crown and end of the creation), that he can have his perfect satisfaction only by actual fellowship with God, the Light in Himself: He therefore so fashioned it, that there is for men a distinction between light and darkness, holiness and sin, good and evil, innocence and guilt, blessedness and misery. Upon this primal law rests the 86 CENTRE OF THE ayyedla: GOD IS LIGHT. whole necessity of a redemption ; apart from this primal law of human nature, there would be for men no distinction between good and evil; without this, there would be no guilt and con- demnation, and no necessity therefore to be redeemed. But, as this primal law, and the necessity of a redemption resulting from it, rests upon the light-nature of God, so, in the second place, the nature of the redemption itself flows from the light- nature of God. As in the nature of God as the Light both elements are in principle one—the formal element of truth and self-manifestation, and the material element of holy love and self-communication (the former disclosing, laying bare, and con- demning the darkness ; the latter communicating life and over- coming death) —so also, in the fact of atonement through Christ, both elements are in principle united: that of the truth and self-manifestation, which, as confronting the sinner, is no other than the judging righteousness of God (who, in opposition to sin and darkness, demonstrates and asserts His own nature, His light, His holiness, making it actually manifest against evil) ; and that of the sacred self-sacrificing, self-imparting, love, which, as confronting the sinner, is no other than saving grace. The sacrificial death of Christ is the judgment of grace, the grace of judgment, the redeeming confirmation of judicial righteousness, the highest confirmation of absolute love, in the act of holy condemnation pronounced upon sin,-—in the sur- render of the Holy One to judgment for sinners, of the Prince of life to death (Acts ii. 15), of the eternal Light to the power of darkness (John xiii. 20; Luke xxii. 53). In the death of Christ, sin is condemned and guilt is expiated, the sin is judged and the sinner is saved. Thus, from the nature of atonement these two things follow: the requirement of repentance, of the knowledge of sin, and of truth as against himself, on the part of man; and the assurance of love, grace, and adoption, unto man. The interaction and combination of the two—of the truth which knows and confesses sin, and the love to God which overcomes it—leads to and constitutes the walking in the light, or holiness. And this combination is the same which is exhi- bited in the nature of light itself, and which even physical light illustrates: it is the combination of the manifestation of self and of life-producing self-impartation. For both the con- spicuum esse to the beholding look, and the eradiare, the beam 1 JOHN I. 5-Il. 6. 87 ing forth into others’ substance, belong inseparably to the nature of light as such, even of physical light. All light exerts both a judicial and a quickening influence. The two central points which constitute the walking in light, or the appropriation of the redemption accomplished in Christ, are now specifically developed and expanded by St John in vers. 6-8 : in vers. 6, 7, the requirement of a holy walk; in vers. 8, 9, the requirement of the knowledge and confession of sin. But, in relation to these, the Apostle opportunely gives expression to those two elemental truths in God which consti- tute the nature of the atoning act itself,—His actual truth or righteousness, and His love or grace. The former is indirectly brought before us, when it is said in ver. 8, that he who con- cealeth his sin deceiveth himself, and hath not the truth (of God) in him; the latter is directly referred to at the close of ver. 7, and again in ver. 9. If we take a general glance at THE CHAIN OF THOUGHT FROM CH. I. 6 to CH. If. 6, we find that the Apostle first of all draws, in ch. i. 6-10, the two conclusions which follow from those two clraracteristics of the light-nature of God as it re- spects man, the Christian, —to wit, first, vers. 6, 7, the Christian may not sin; secondly, vers. 8-10, the Christian may not conceal his sin. ‘Thus these two consequences are seen to stand in con- nection with each other, without anything as yet to mediate be- tween them, and as it were in apparent contradiction. Hence, in ch, ii. 1-6, St John gives the truth which reconciles the two. For he shows in ver. 1 that the not sinning is always a require- ment which, as such, is binding upon us, notwithstanding that our actual condition may not as yet be in harmony with that requirement ;—but that the means in order to compliance with it lie in the propitiation through Christ, once for all accom- plished, which is offered at the same time that the requirement is enforced ; while this propitiation does no detriment to that requirement (vers. 3-6), inasmuch as it takes effect generally only for those who have known the nature of the light, and accordingly lay that injunction wpon themselves. Vers. 6, 7. The first consequence from the truth, that God is light, is this, that the man who would assert truly that he has fellowship with God, must confirm it by his own holy walk 88 CENTRE OF THE ayyeAla: GOD IS LIGHT. in the light. St John draws out this inference in two condi- tional clauses, ver. 6 and ver. 7, which, as to their essential meaning, run strictly parallel, though the second of them in its conclusion contains a transition from the first to the second inference. Both clauses begin with éav. This particle does not introduce, as Schmid says, a casus ex re non fortuita sed debité et moraliter necessarid ; nor, as Winer affirms,’ a “ con- dition with the assumption of objective possibility.” “Edy is used when the possibility is not merely an assumed one, but one which has a real ground in objective relations ; hence then, in particular, when only two cases are possible, of which the one or the other must necessarily be the fact, and therefore when it is expected that it will in reality be decided whether that which as stated as possible will be the fact or its opposite. So here. The one case is, that we, while we profess to have fellowship with God, walk in darkness; the other, that we walk in light. Tertium non datur. (So ch. ii. 15, iv. 20.) That St John uses this turn of phrase precisely here, where he “ will exhibit a moral law” (Diisterdieck), has its reason, not in the meaning of éav, but in this, that St John has to do here with the matter, not of physical, but of ethical religious objects. Viewed in itself, the é&y may just as well be used for the representation of natural laws and conditions. “Tf we say that we have fellowship with God :” the e/zrapev is quite analogous to the Néyy of Jas. ii. 14, being an assertion to which no reality corresponds. On that account we must not lay too much stress on the 1 Pers. Plur.: it serves only to express the general “one,” and only so far represents the uni- versal application of the saying announced in vers. 6, 7; not as if St John had meant to say, “ Even if I, the Apostle, were to say this, and nevertheless walk in darkness, I should be a liar ;” and, certainly, not that he, in “sparing delicacy,” gave this declaration the form of a common Plural. To have xowwviav with God, means to have xowvwvia with Him who ts light; and that word cannot otherwise be under- 1 On the other hand, ¢/, cum Opt., according to Winer, expresses ‘‘a condition with the assumption of subjective possibility.” But what can we understand by a ‘‘ subjective possibility ?” Only the subjective assumption of an objective possibility. But in that case Winer’s distinction between si cum Opt. and ¢#y falls to the ground. a 1 JOHN I. 5—Il. 6. 89 stood than of that relation of life and fellowship of nature which had been mentioned in ver. 3, and as it is defined by John xy. 1, xvii. 21, ete. Now he who says that he stands in such a fellowship of life with God, the Light, as that of a member with the head, and nevertheless walketh év TS cKoret, —lies. ITepurareiv signifies here, as in Rom. vi. 4, vill. 4, 1 John ii. 6, etc., not the internal disposition as such, but the confirmation and external assurance of that which man bears in himself as his nature—the moral deportment, so far as it is manifest before Auman eyes, and is discernible by man. This coming to manifestation in the whole round of our nature, lies in the zrepé itself. Iepiraretv is to go round, to goon. "Ev To oxorer dees not, as the év clearly shows, express the qualitative characteristic, but the sphere in which that walk, that exhibition of the life outwardly, is conducted. In the darkness he walks whose actions and demonstrations of character have their being in the sphere of sin, of untruthfulness, of death—of the sinful course of the world and its perishable lusts, its lies, its wicked- ness, and its vanity. Where this is the case, where the life and aim and deportment of a man runs in the sphere of the selfish, ungodly, worldly, fleshly nature, there the internal nature of the man cannot be standing in that fellowship with God. From the sphere which a man chooses for the exhibition of his mternal nature, we may draw a sure conclusion as to the character of that internal nature itself. And he who serves darkness in the bent of his life as it is visible to the eyes of men, and yet would assert that in his internal secret nature he stands in fellowship with God, is a liar. Such a discord between the inner and the outer man cannot by possibility exist. Internal fellowship of life with God cannot do otherwise than reveal itself externally to man in the fruits of sanctification ; yea, the light which shines inwardly must of necessity so diffuse its glow of holy consecra- tion over the whole life, that the eyes of men may see it. He who lives in fellowship with God, and is born of the light, can- not in his life and deportment conceal his high derivation. He who saith that he hath fellowship with God, and yet walketh in darkness, lieth, however, not only in words: he not only speaketh not the truth; he doeth not the truth likewise. Kai od rovodpev thy adjOeav. In this, that he saith he hath fellowship with God, he speaketh not the truth ; in this, that he 90 CENTRE OF THE ayyeAla: GOD IS LIGHT. walketh in the darkness, he doeth not the truth. The contra- diction between his pretension and his walk has a double aspect of lying; both in word and deed he denies the truth: in word he denies that truth, that he is an unregenerate child of dark- ness; in act he denies that substantial truth, in which the nature of God and the nature of light consists. The former is the opposite of the formal truthfulness against itself, of the knowledge and confession of sin as a present reality in self ; the latter is the opposite of the material truth, of the substantive love to God, of the requirement which he, by saying that he has fellowship with God, admits as a requirement, while he in act denies it.—That t7v adjGevav can mean only the substantial truth—that which in its nature is conformed to the nature of God the Light—ought never to have been doubted, after the standard of interpretation had been given in such passages as ver. 8, ch. ii. 21; John iii. 21.1 In ver. 7 the second conditional clause follows. The con- verse to that laid down in verse 6 is this, that we walk in the light. This walking in the light forms the actual contrast to the acts of those who say indeed that they have fellowship with God, but yet walk in darkness. The meaning of the expression, walking in the light, must be explained after the analogy of the former. ITepurarety marks, as in ver. 6, the externally-shown exhibition of that which is in the man; and é& T@ ¢eoti, as n ver. 6, defines the sphere in which that outer demonstration of the internal nature moves. Hence, the ¢@s does not indicate the light as the substance of God itself, but that in the objec- tive world which in character corresponds to the nature of God —that which is not sinful pursuit, selfishness, falsehood, wicked- ness, but love, truthfulness, salvation, and the holy heavenly nature. In the light he walks whose action and deportment runs in the sphere of those deeds, impulses, and relations, which in their objective scope and quality correspond to the nature of light —that is, to the nature of love, life, and truthfulness. 1 Episcopius explains zossiv tiv éajdciavy by facere quod rectum est, and regards it then as equivalent to dicere veritatem. Lachmann takes it as éanéeverv, Eph. iv. 15; Socinus as agere recte; Grotius, sincere agere ; Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, after the analogy of Ezek. xviii. 9, now Avy, the performance of good words, that which is right. am | 1 JOHN I. 5—II. 6. 91 But, having once used dds, ver. 7, in this objective quali- tative meaning—not to define the Divine substance, but the sphere of the manifestation of the good and the Godlike—St John does not go on to say, “ As He is light,” but, in order to avoid confusion of ideas, “As He is in the light.” Even of God it is said that He is in the light. That sphere of the good, the holy, the heavenly, the pure, is the sphere in which God (while as the Creator everywhere present in and to His works) has in an especial sense His dwelling-place; that is, in which He may disclose His nature concealed, and on which His eye rests with holy complacency. (The passage, 1 Tim. vi. 16, treats of something quite different from this, and is not applicable here.) But it is not said of God that He mweputate? &v TO oti: He éorlv ev t6 dwti— He is, not walketh, in light. The idea of mrepurrarteiv can have no place in God in any sense: that antithetical relation between the internal and the externally visible, which subsists among men, cannot be predicated of God. God is in light—that is, He dwelleth in that sphere in which no sin, no falsehood, no death is, among the holy angels and the souls of men made perfect. Between this and our walking in the light there is an analogy. As God elects for Himself the sphere of the sinless and pure life of the angels and glorified men for His dwelling-place, and His perfect complacency rests there, and as He is everywhere upon earth, also, specifically present in His power and blessing where He is feared and loved, so also he who is born of God will approve the character of his internal nature by conducting all his acts and aims in that sphere in which God is feared and loved: not amid the vain and impure pursuits of the world, and of the flesh, with its evil thoughts and unholy imaginations; but in the sphere of holy external and internal surroundings, in the circles of the children of God, as in the circle of sacred thoughts and holy imagina- tions. The macrocosm as well as the microcosm, the outer world as well as the inner world, in which his willing, loving, and striving live and move, will be light, that is, corresponding to the nature of God. That is “to walk in the light, as God is in the light.” Turn we now to the sequel of the sentence. What is it that is declared concerning those who thus walk in the light ? In ver. 6 we heard, that if we say that we have fellowship with 92 CENTRE OF THE ayyeAla: GOD IS LIGHT. God, and yet walk in darkness, we lie in word and act; that is, if we walk in darkness, we have no fellowship with God. Accordingly, we might now expect the bare, and as it were tautological, converse, that if we walk in the light, we have fel- lowship with God. In fact, the reading pe7’ adrod instead of pert adAjAwV—with Him instead of one with another—is found in Tertullian, Clem. Rom., Clem. Alex., Didymus, and the Kthiop. Vers. ; and it appears also to have been the reading of Cod. A. But that reading has too little external support, and is too suspicious internally, to have much stress laid upon it. For it is only too clear that it owed its origin to the desire to make ver. 7 externally conformable to ver. 6, and thus to establish a simple logical antithesis. But it is not St John’s manner to lay down such bare contrasts and antitheses as repeat in the second member the same thought in a negative form which the first contained. He always prefers to introduce in every new clause of the discourse some new aspect of the object. And so it is here, in the correct reading, “one with another.” We has already declared, in ver. 6, that he who saith that he hath fellowship with God, and yet conducts his life in the sphere of the ungodly nature, lies in word and deed. And certainly the leading thought of ver. 7 is no other than this: He, on the other hand, that walketh in the light, does stand really in fellowship with God. But this leading thought is presented in such a form, and is arranged in such an order, that it contains at the same time a twofold progression to something new. rst, that is, the idea of actual fellowship with God is reselved into its two great elements. That fellow- ship with God is, according to ver. 3 (as in John xvii.), a fellowship which approves itself in fellowship of love with the brethren (just as “ walking in the light” is essentially walking in love, and in the first member of our sentence is characterized as walking in the sphere and the living circle of holy persons and holy interests). And again this brotherly communion rests upon no other ground than that of fellowship with God in Christ. Thus St John resolves this fellowship with God at once into its two main points: into the fellowship of believers one with another,’ and the fellowship and common participation ‘ It is grammatically inadmissible, and a perversion of the meaning, to make (with Augustin, Socinus, Calvin) the xowavie wer’ dAAQAOY Mean 1 JOHN I. 5—II. 6. 93 of a Divine power of life. “ He who walketh in light, as God is in the light,” he would say, “ hath that true fellowship with God really in its two aspects: He standeth, a) in the fellowship of the children of God (that was already expressed in “ walking in the light”); and, 6) in the fellowship of God Himself and His purify- ing power. But, secondly, St John now characterizes this life- fellowship with God as the cleansing from all sins by the blood of Christ. This is joined to the “fellowship one with another” by the xai as a second element ; and therefore it is doing vio- lence to the text to regard the second member (with Gicumen., Theophyl., Beza, etc.) as furnishing the reason of the first : “We have fellowship one with another, and stand in love, because we have through Christ forgiveness of sins.’ This is simply to obtrude dogmatics into the exposition of the words. An expositor should be (as Bengel says) like the maker of a well, who puts no water into the source himself, but makes it his object to let the water flow without diversion, stoppage, or defilement. That forced view of the relation of the thoughts would not have been adopted, had it not been taken for granted that xa@apifew signified the forgiveness of sins, justi- fication. We find this view adopted also by Calvin, Bullinger, Schmid, and Episcopius; although these do not regard the second clause as establishing the first, but rightly view it as a co-ordinate member. But, in later times, the more correct apprehension of xa@apigev, as meaning the sanctifying, purify- ing power of the blood of Christ, has been very generally adopted (Liicke, Neander, Olshausen, Diisterdieck). This is conclusively decided by the ninth verse, where the xa@apifeuv occurs in connection with adsévac as something different. And it is supported by the use of the Present tense, which marks the cleansing as not being an act accomplished once, the act of jus- tification, but as a continuous process." But, finally and espe- cially, the analogy of faith, like the process and connection of the specific context, leads necessarily to the idea of the sanetifying the fellowship which believers, on the one hand, and God on the other, have ‘‘ with each other.” Similarly Episcopius, Paulus, and De Wette. 1 This reason is nevertheless less decisive, since it may be said that, in connection with daily sanctification, there must be also a daily new appro- priation of the assurance of forgiveness,—and indeed lying at the root of the former. 94 CENTRE OF THE adyyeAla: GOD IS LIGHT. power of God exerted upon believers. That the walking in light is represented as the condition under which we attain to the for- giveness of sins (éaév!)—is a notion which utterly contradicts the whole strain of apostolical teaching. The walking in light ‘must indeed be the result, and therefore the note and sign, of the faith which exists; consequently, it will be the sign that the condition under which God has promised to forgive sins has been complied with. But this sign cannot itself be represented as the condition of forgiveness; that is, according to St John, as according to St Paul, everywhere only faith as such (comp. John i. 12, iii. 15, 16, and 18 and 36, v. 24, vi. 29 and 40, xv. 3, etc.); and even in our ninth verse St John requires, as the condition of the apeots, not the walking in light, but simply the truthful, sincere confession of our sin and misery—that confession which is the essential ground from which springs faith—coming to receive, and not to do or give. Now, as the analogy of faith forbids our referring the ca@apicpos, of which walking in the light is a condition, to the forgiveness of sins, so the chain of thought in the context constrains us to refer it to the sanctifying power of God. The antithetical relation between ver. 6 and ver. 7 must not be omitted from our view. ‘The fundamental thought which runs through both verses is this, that a walk in darkness necessarily infers an inner nature full of darkness, which has no¢ God’s nature living in it; that, on the other hand, a walk in light gives testimony of that fellow- ship (ver. 8) which, in its manifestation, exhibits itself as the fellowship of love with the brethren, but which, in its root, is a fellowship and participation in the nature of God, the Light. The subject here must be this, that God’s nature lives in such a Christian; not this, that he receives the forgiveness of sins. Thus xa@apicpos indicates the purifying, sanctifying energy of God living within him; and with this also agree the words azo maons awaptias. From all and every kind of sin he is cleansed by God, who is light, and who liveth and worketh in him. That not God Himself as such, but 76 aia ’Inood tod viod avTov,' is mentioned as the subject, does not by any means 1 Instead of the simple *Iyood (Cod. B.C., Syr., Arm., Sahid., ete), Cod. A. and Ree. read "Iycod Xpicrod. The latter word may certainly be ex- plained as an interpolation taken from ver. 3, for the sake of conformity with ch. ii. 1, ii. 23, iv. 2, v. 20; while it is not to be imagined why a 1 JOHN I. 5-II. 6. 95 interfere with this construction of the meaning. That by the aiwa Incod we must understand the real blood of Jesus poured out upon the cross, and not, with Socinus, the /idus novwm, or with Grotius, the fides in passionem, or with Episcopius, the obedientia Christi, or with Paulus, the “rational faith in the moral end of the death of Jesus,” is as certain and self-under- stood, on the one hand, as it is, on the other, that it is not the matter or material substance of that blood in which a magical power lay, whether to forgive or to cleanse from sin. Not in virtue of its material constituents, or of any magical power in- herent in these constituents, but in virtue of its having been shed, has the blood of Jesus the power to cleanse from sins. Hence in St John (John vi. 53; 1 John v. 6, comp. Heb. ix. 14, Rom. v. 9, 10) the blood of Christ is most certainly equivalent to the death of Christ. But this death of Christ, or His blood as poured out, has not less power to cleanse our hearts from sin than it had to furnish a propitiation and obtain forgiveness : the latter, because in the blood of Christ guilt was reckoned for, and grace obtained; the former, because in the death of Christ sin has been condemned. He who livingly believes in the atoning death of Christ cannot love sin—the sin which brought Jesus to the cross. Thus the blood of Jesus continues to exercise a purifying, sanctifying influence, until the heart is cleansed from all sin. And, indeed, the blood and death of Jesus has this power, because He was and He is the Son of God, in whom the nature of the Father was manifested ; because in Him the eternal Light surrendered itself, by virtue of its light-nature, that is, love, to that darkness. Hence the apposition Tod viod avtov. In Christ ruleth, worketh, dwelleth the Father Himself. The fellowship of the blood of Christ is fellowship with the Father in its most concentrated concentration. But when St John has drawn out to this point the first in- ference from the statement that God is light—to wit, the in- ference, vers. 6, 7, that he who stands in fellowship with God must himself walk in the light—he has already in effect gone beyond that first inference, and has touched another and a copyist should have omitted Xoverod, if that had stood in the text. There might be good reason why St John here, where he is speaking of the blood of Christ, should describe the Lord by the name of His humanity and humi- liation alone. 96 CENTRE OF THE ayyeAla: GOD IS LIGHT. second element of the question. If the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin, it is taken for granted that we need such a cleansing, that sin is still in us, even in those who “ walk in the light.” The requirement, that we walk in the light, is con- fronted by the fact, that in us there still is sin and darkness. And this has now internally prepared the way, and given a connection for, a second inference, VERS. 8-10; to wit, that we must in truth and sincerity of mind confess the existing sin that is in us to ourselves and to God. In the external dialectic form of the passage, this inference is not connected with ver. 7, to say nothing of ver. 5; but an internal bond connects it with both these verses. First of all, the concluding thought of ver. 7 leads over immediately to the thought of ver. 8: “ Cleans- ing from sin presupposes the presence of sin even in believers ; the denial of that is self-deception” (Huther). Accordingly, vers. 8-10 might appear to be only a further unfolding of a point contained in vers. 6, 7, and consequently as a mere con- tinuation of vers. 6, 7. But who does not see that this new point assumes at once an independent position, and one even apparently in opposition to vers. 6,7? Who does not see that in this, its independent position, it stands in an immediate relation to the leading sentence, ver. 5? From the truth, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all, follows, first, that fellowship with Him will approve itself by a walk in light; but secondly, and not less directly, that we, who are not like God im haying no darkness at all, must needs confess in truth this our dark- ness. For truth is not less an essential element of the light- nature than holiness is, and love. Nam ipsa veritas lua est, remarks Augustin on the passage.—Even in the formal view, vers. 8, 9 assume an independent position in regard to vers. 6, 73 for the construction of the clauses is perfectly parallel. Ver. 8. Here again the thought is distributed into two con- ditional clauses, beginning with édv, in which an alternative, a pair of possible cases, is represented to the reader. The first case is, éav elzrwpev, b7t apaptiav ovK exoper. Once more (as in ver. 6) an etzveiv, a saying, to which no actual fact corresponds. There, it was the profession of having fel lowship with God, while yet walking in darkness ; here, it is the profession of haying no sin, while yet the sin is present. 1 JOHN I. 5-II. 6. 97 There, St John requires of the Christian that he walk in light ; here, that he confess that he has sin. This relation of the thoughts of itself establishes, with logical necessity, that duapriav éyew must be something different from év cxotlg mepurrareiv. For the latter, the walking in darkness, is assumed to be entirely excluded from the condition of a Christian, while the former must be acknowledged as present by every Christian (the 1 Pers. Pl.). But wherein the difference between these two consists, it is not so altogether easy to determine. The first elance shows the fallacy of the opinion of Socinus, Grotius, and Episcopius, according to which ayapria defines the guilt of sins contracted before conversion. The subject here, is that of an actual inward possession of present sin. But this having of sin must be something different from the walking in darkness ; and therefore we cannot, with Bengel and De Wette, refer it without qualification to the contracting of new guilt by new sins. The expression is interpreted to mean original sin, or still-re- maining concupiscentia, in opposition to actual sins, by Augustin, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Neander; of sins which are committed against better knowledge and will, by Huther ; of the condition which is the result of still-continued sinning, by Liicke and others. But the assertion that the Christian has still only concupiscentia, or original sin, and no longer commits any actual sins, would be most assuredly, according to the Apostle’s meaning itself, a éavtov mAavav! as also that, in the sins which he commits, his will does not concur. But, as it respects Liicke’s opinion, we have only to put it in the right form to hit the truth, or at least to approximate towards it. Not the condition which proceeds from the continuing to sin, but the condition from which the continuing to sin proceeds, and in which it takes place, might be defined as the dwapriav éyew. Meanwhile that fails to establish the sharp distinction between this and the “walking in darkness.” To bring this out, we must not hazard a variety of speculations, but contem- plate each of the two expressions steadily, in its own distinctive meaning. ITepimateiv év tH ocKorlg describes, as we have seen, a walk, deportment, and pursuit, observable by man, which is conducted in the sphere of that which is cxotia. The repurrateiv is in the cxor/a; on the other hand, in the éyew dpwapriay, the man is not in the dwapria, but the duapria in the man. Now, G 98 CENTRE OF THE ayyeAla: GOD IS LIGHT. it is undoubtedly true that every kind of duapria belongs to the domain of darkness, and not to that of light; but there would be a great difference between 7) cxotia and cxoria, between 7 dpaptia and dpapria, without the article; how much wider is the difference therefore between 2) cxoréa and the simple awapria without the article! ‘H cxoria is the darkness in all its charac- teristics, shut up and comprehending in itself all these charac- teristics (sin, lie, deception, rebellion, death, vanity, and so forth), placing itself in contradiction to the nature of God: dpaptia is any particular deportment of a sinful kind, so far as it is a falling away from the true renewed nature of the man. In the domain of “the darkness” he has his conversation whose aims and acts’ move in the sphere of the life turned away from God, whose scope of life is thus carnal and vain, whose maxims are unspiritual and worldly, whose imaginations are impure, whose affections are unholy, and whose favourite society is not that of the true children of God. On the other hand, the “having sin” may still be said of him whose internal ruling principle is the love of God springing from faith, whose system of life (in aims, tendencies, maxims, endeavours) is one that is regulated by the Spirit of Christ, according to the will of God and the rules of His kingdom, whose delight is among the children of God, in whose society he seeks his consolation and help. He walks no longer in the sin, not to say the darkness; the sphere in which his life revolves is that of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. But while he is no longer in sin, sin is still in him. Not only impulses and affections of sensuous desire and constitutional inclination in his physical-psychical soul-life; but also obscuri- ties and dark places in his intellectual life, which still need to be overcome and enlightened away (such as lack of self-know- ledge, undue sparing of evil, principles and views which seem to be born of the Spirit, while in reality they are born of the flesh) ; and, as the consequence of both, there is the confused wavering 1 The zep:rarsiv leads, as we have seen upon ver. 6, not to the idea of the internal spirit and temper, but to that of the conduct as outwardly ex- hibited, and witnessed by men without in the world. Only we must not suppose that others can perceive nothing but the glaring external act. The dispositions, the tendencies, the fundamental principles, and, above all, the character of men’s imaginations, are sure more or less to betray themselves to the observer. 1 JOHN I. 5-II. 6. 99 of will, which leads to individual obliquities of a grosser or more subtle kind. It is obvious that this éyewv dwapriar is infinitely diversified, according to the successive measure of the purification and development of the new man; even the Apostle St John does not exclude himself from the universal “ If we say.” He, then, who disputes or questions to himself or other men this éyew dpaptiav before God, deceiveth himself, éavrods Travapwev. If\avn is “error;” not error, however, in the ob- jective sense of a theoretically erroneous principle of doctrine, but error in the ethical sense. It is a way of error, in which man, whether through self-deception or through seduction on the part of others, has been led astray ; comp. John iv. 6, and 2 Thess. i. 11. Hence mAdvos, 2 John 7, and 1 Tim. iv. 1, is he who deceives others touching the truth, and thus seduces them to lie and to error. IT\avaa, accordingly, does not mean in the New Testament “ seduce” in the ordinary sense, —that, namely, of enticing to anything wicked; but the fundamental idea remains, that of a deceiving with respect.to the truth. Thus it is not seduction of any and every kind, but,the specific misleading into error and falsehood, which is expressed by 7Aavdw: com- pare Matt. xxiv. 4 and 11; Rev. ii. 20, xii. 9, xix. 20; 1 John ill. 7; 2 Tim, ii. 13, and other passages. Hence it is wrong to translate, “ We mislead ourselves ;” and most certainly Huther has no ground for the assertion that the Mid. wAavac@as means to “go astray,” while rAavdv éavrov means “to mislead oneself.” That there is no difference in meaning between the Middle and the Active, we are taught most clearly by the passage, 2 Tim. ii. 13, and by a comparison of Rey. xviii. 23 with xix. 20, or of John vii. 47 with 1 John iii. 7. Tava éavtov is no other than a kind of paraphrase of the Middle, peculiar to St John’s Greek. Everywhere, in the Middle and Passive, as in the Active, 7Aavav bears the same signification: that of deceiving concerning the truth, that is, seducing to a lying doctrine; never does wAavav mean misleading in general, and without any qualification. The translation, “‘ We mislead ourselves,” would in this passage give rise to the false idea that the Apostle meant, “If we say we have no sin, we seduce ourselves to commit sin—so that we thereby sin all the more.” True, that this thought would not be incorrect in itself, in as far as every non-perception and palliation of present sin and past sins absolutely involves a 100 CENTRE OF THE dyyeAla: GOD IS LIGHT. hardening of the conscience with respect to future sins; but that is not what the Apostle has it here in view to say—his meaning is something different. For, the meaning and the customary use of the word wAavay does not lead to the idea of seduction to sin, but that of misleading to falsehood; and, moreover, our wAavapev éavtovs runs parallel with the yevdd- peOa of ver. 6, as our Kal adnOea ev typiv ovx éotw runs parallel with the words of ver. 6, cat od trovodpev THY adjOear. But these two pairs of phrases are certainly not similar in signi- fication, though they are analogous. In both, the Apostle says that there is as well a theoretical untruth, as an actual negation of truth in life; only he declares it in ver. 8 by other and still stronger expressions. He that saith he hath fellowship with God, without however walking in the light, lieth in so saying ; he lieth towards others, as his etzretv would appear to be primarily directed to others. He, on the other hand, who saith that he hath no sin, deceiveth himself, as this eieitv would appear to be primarily a speaking to self. “To deceive self,” however, is in its guilt more heinous, and in its consequences more perilous, than that former simple yevderGar. In that case it is an unregenerate man who would make others believe that he is a Christian; in this case it is a Christian, who, against his better knowledge, in spiritual pride, again deceives himself concerning the truth that he had already apprehended. The adrrOeva év jpiv ov« éott is similarly related to the ob trovodwev THY aAjOeav. He who walketh in darkness, while giving out that he stands in fellowship with God, denieth in fact that substantial truth in which the nature of God, the nature of the Light, consists. He who deceiveth himself into the belief that he hath no sin—in him the power and energy of the light, which discloses all dark- ness, and draws all sin to the judgment, cannot be working, cannot be present; thus, while he denies his still-existing sin, he casts the substantial truth or light-nature, immanent in him before, out of himself; yea, he must already have cast it out, in order to have been abie to “say that he hath no sin.” ‘H ad7Gea, here as in ver. 6, does not indicate the subjective dis- position of truthfulness, but the objective essence of the Divine nature, which is light, and therefore truth and truthfulness. This nature of Ged he cannot have, dwelling and working in himself, who denies his sin. LJOHN Te 5=1k: & 101 In ver. 9 the second member of the general thought now follows, in a conditional clause which introduces the opposite side of the alternative. “If we confess our sins.” St John avoids here also a mere tautological repetition. He does not write, “If we confess that we have sin;” but, when he is setting over against the negative denial the positive confession, he speaks not of the confession of a sinful con- dition generally, but of our definite, concrete, and individual sins. For this is the form which confession of sin must assume, if it ever becomes a practical and effectual reality. The mere confession in abstracto that we have sin, would, without the knowledge and the admission of our concrete individual sins, lose its truth and value, and soon degenerate into a mere phrase. It is much easier to utter a pious lamentation over our misery, and to speak rightly about repentance, than to see our unrighteousness, to confess it, and mourn over it, in the definite instance in which we have sinned. St John requires the latter. The question, whether the owonroyetv means a confession before God and one’s own soul (Bullinger, Neander), or a confession before men, is in its ground an idle one. As the “saying that we have no sin,” as far as it is called a “deceiving ourselves,” appears first of all as a representation to self, so the “con- fession” must be intended first of a confession in the inner soul and before God; even as in fact the next clause, “ He is faith- ful and just,” points to a procedure between the Christian and God. But, as certainly as the “saying” of ver. 8 might very possibly be a speaking before men, appearing then to be all the more audacious a lie and glaring a self-deception, so certainly there may, and there will, be circumstances which require the dpuoroyia of the sins committed in the presence of men (for example, before a pastor, or a Christian friend, or in public confession before the congregation). As often as the general question is asked of a Christian, be it by whom it may, whether he have sin, he who admits this before God and himself would obviously not deny it before men; nor would he deny or palliate his individual sins, when individual sins are charged against him. But this does not lie in the words of our verse: the con- text points primarily to something passing between the Chris- tian and his God; and those Romish expositors are as far as possible from the truth, wlio (as 4 Lapide) would argue from 102 CENTRE OF THE ayyeAla: GOD IS LIGHT. this passage the necessity of a private confession to the priest. God, not the priest, is mentioned as He who forgives sins. ITucros éote cat Sixavos, va, x.7.r.. is the supplementary clause. If we confess our sins, He—that is, God, who is the only subject of vers. 5-10, and to whom also the avrod of ver. 7, in the words rod viod avrod, referred—is faithful and just that He should forgive us our sins, and cleanses us from all unrighteous- ness. Instead of xaapion in the Text. Rec., A. and H. read Kabapice.—a reading which is not to be attributed, as has been alleged, te an “error of the ear,’ but which has rather itself been corrected into cafapicn through the anxiety of copyists to preserve grammatical correctness. It is a peculiarity of the Hebraizing idiom to connect with iva the Future instead of the Subjunctive: St John does this frequently in the Apocalypse (ch. xxii. 14; and, in the true reading, also xiii. 12, xiv. 13, ix. 5); and so in the Gospel, ch. xv. 16 (where dace is decidedly and manifestly the right reading), with the ov ju) also, as well as the iva, ch. x. 5 (where A.B.D.E., Cyr., Chrys. read dxodov6ij- covow), and vi. 35 (comp. Lachmann), and x. 28 (according to D.C.). But the passage, John vi. 40, is especially worthy of notice, where St John, after ta, falls back again from the better Greek of the Subjunctive into the Hebraizing Indicative ava- otjow; so that the second member of the final clause as it were limps in its connection with the whole sentence. Suffice that the same thing is observable in our present passage. According to the sense, even xa@apicer still depends upon the fva; but St John has fallen back into his more customary Future, and con- sequently the member kcal xa@apicer, at Dey is as it were sun- dered from its strict connection with the wa. The thought is altogether Hebraic; :ywBE->3D wk DAD NNEN-Py MAD Wyo. “Iva never stands, and it does not stand her e, simply instead of dare ; yet it must be admitted that its original telic signification seems to be considerably weakened in such passages as this of ours. Whiere iva occurs in its genuine original telic or jinal meaning, it declares that the act which the governing clause defines, is to be accomplished for the express end that the final clause specifies. Thus the sense would here come out: “God is faithful and just, in the design to forgive (to the end that He may forgive) our sins.’ But this yields no intelligible meaning. God is not faithful and just on account of any object external to Himself, 1 JOHN I. §-II. 6. 103 but in His very nature. That He forgives our sins, follows from His fidelity and righteousness ; but His fidelity and right- eousness do not result from His design to forgive our sins. Thus we shall be compelled to acknowledge that the particle iva has here a meaning very closely related to that of aoe. The idea of a design does indeed enter, in some sense, into it ; it is not, however, a purpose on account of which the declared truth of the leading clause (“He is faithful and just”) is evoked, but a purpose by which what the final clause de- clares is conditioned. “God is faithful and just, so that He hath (and doth effect) the will and the purpose to forgive our sins.” Compare below on ch. iii. 1, as also the perfectly ana- logous passages, John iv. 34 (iva troujow = My meat is that I should do), vi. 29 (The work of God consists in this, that ye should believe) and 40, xii. 23 (The hour is come that, that is, in which the Son of Man should be glorified). Some similarity with this (though not a proper analogy) is seen in the use of wa after Oédewv, épwrav, and the like (John xvii. 15 and 24). If, after these observations upon the phraseology, we now enter into the thought of the final clause, we are met by one of those glorious progressions of which St John is so fond. If we deny our sin, we deceive our own selves, and the (essential) truth dwelleth notin us. If we confess our sin—the conclusion is not only this, that we then are true, but the incomparably greater and most surprising thought meets us, that— God then in act approves Himself towards us as true, as the miotos Kat Sixasos. (Thus in ver. 7 we had, not merely the logical opposite of the charge wevdopueba, x.7.r., but the real result added, the walking in light.) If we confess that which in us is still related to the oxoria, that is, our dwapria,—if, therefore, we suffer the light of God to rule in us, so that it may bring to the light and condemn in us the darkness which still remains,—then does God approve to us in act and fact His nature as light. And this is demon- strated in relation to us, who have sin, under two great general aspects of manifestation—as fidelity and as justice. ‘The idea of fidelity must not be reduced or confused by the introduction of strange elements; it must not be limited to the faithfulness of God to His promises and declarations (Bullinger, Sander, Huther, etc.). God’s faithfulness is here spoken of as faith- 104 CENTRE OF THE ayyeAla: GOD IS LIGHT. ayy fulness towards us, fidelity to that nature of truth and hght, related to His own essence, which rules in us in as far as we confess our sins. And, similarly, the notion of dé«avos is not to be arbitrarily restricted by the dogmatic reflection, that God, when He forgives the sinner believing in Christ, performs only an act of faithfulness to Christ, who paid the penalty of sins, and thereby obtained a right to demand forgiveness on behalf of all who believe in Him. But it is still worse (with Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Carpzov) to enforce upon dicasos the meaning of benignus, equus, lenis. Atixavos means here and everywhere justus. But righteousness must here be viewed as denoting an immanent quality of the Divine nature, and that (as Gicum., Calvin, Beza, rightly discerned) in its strict internal connection with fidelity; both being derived from, and understood by, the light-nature of God. As God approves Himself faithful towards us, so He approves Himself also righteous towards us when He forgives the sins of those who confess their sins, and cleanses them from their déc«éa, their unrighteousness. Not, indeed, by any means in the Romish sense ; as if the confession of sins were a meritorious act, which God is under obligation, in virtue of His rewarding righteousness, to reward by the for- giveness of the sin. Such a “meritum de congruo”’ is a notion that in itself cannot bear the application of a merely logical test: a forgiveness which one might have merited would be no forgiveness; for the idea of forgiveness rests upon that of grace, the idea of meriting rests upon that of retribution and right. “To forgive” means to abstain from letting the deserved award take place; “to deserve forgiveness” would mean to deserve the withholding of what we had deserved: and thus it comes to the not deserving what we have deserved, which makes pure nonsense. And as this idea of a meritum de congruo is logically contradictory, so is the thing in itself futile. How can the mere sincere confession that we have sinned and deserve punishment be sufficient to atone for the guilt, and give a claim for the remission of the sentence? Merit has its place in the sphere of judgment and prerogative of right; forgiveness, in the sphere of redemption and grace: to assert any prerogative of right in the presence of the Redeemer—to think of deserving grace—would be the purest contradictio in adjecto. It can, therefore, never be the purpose of St John to say that God was 1 JOHN I. 5-II. 6. 7 105 obliged by His retributive righteousness to forgive the sins of the man who should confess his sins, or (which is the same thing) that he who should confess his sins would have a claim upon the retributive righteousness of God for his forgiveness. The idea of righteousness here, as closely connected with faith- fulness, and flowing from the declaration that “ God is light,” must be a higher and more comprehensive idea than that of judicial compensative right. The passage, Rom. 1. 17 sEQ., affords us some light upon the subject; since we find St Paul also using a loftier and more comprehensive idea of the Suxatocvvn. EXCURSUS ON ROM. I. 17 SEQ. Expositors are wont to understand Scxavoctvn Oeod, in Rom. i.17, as meaning that righteousness of man which is valid before God; but in this they are wrong.' The citation, 6 6€ OlKaLos éx miotews Fijcerat, does not support that view; since the emphasis is evidently laid upon the words é« mictews—the citation being intended only as a foundation for the preceding words, é« ricTews eis tiotw. We must not read 0 dicaos éx mictews together, but €« wictews belongs to the predicative idea contained in &joerat, as more closely defining it; and 0 Sékavos is used in the broad Old-Testament meaning which it has in Hab. ii. 4, that is, to describe the pious in opposition to bold mockers ; and thus 0 d/cavos would not itself correspond to that idea of “righteousness before God,” which it has been sought to find in the words d:catocvvn Ocod. But if the citation from Hab. ii. 4 does not serve to maintain that interpretation, the verb amokanvTretar serves to refute it. If this verb is to retain its proper meaning, we must assume an ellipsis, and interpret, “The way to attain righteousness before God is revealed ;” although even then “hath been revealed” (dmexadvhOn, or amoxexadduTtat) would be expected. But, further, it cannot fail to be seen that in ver. 18 the words, “ the wrath of God is revealed,” are strictly parallel in phrase with the words of 1 Compare my treatise on ‘‘The Doctrine of Satisfaction.” The most important points of my investigation of the passage in that treatise are condensed in the present text. 106 CENTRE OF THE ayyedla: GOD IS LIGHT. ver. 17, “for the righteousness of God is revealed.” It is true that vers. 17 and 18 do not form a parallel in such a sense that Sucavocvvn might be translated by “ grace,” as being the exact opposite of opyn; but yet ver. 18 is so strictly connected with ver. 17, and its references to it are so close and full, that we cannot conceive amoxadvmrerat in ver. 17 to bear a meaning perfectly different to that which it bears in ver. 18. “ To reveal,” apart from this, does not bear so full a meaning as that of “show forth,” nor as that of “work in act;” but it every- where (1 Cor. ii. 10, xiv. 6 and 26; Gal. i. 12 and 26; Phil. ili. 15; 1 Cor. xiv. 30; Eph. ii. 8 and 5; further, Rom. ui. 5, vill. 18; Gal. iii. 23; 2 Thess. ii. 8 and 6; 1 Cor. i. 7) indi- cates that something shut up in the nature of God, and as such concealed from the creature, comes forth from God, and is manifested in a manner cognizable by the creature. The opy7 existing in God is revealed upon the ungodly, when it is manifested in its work of judicial punishment. So also the ducatocvvn Ocod must be, not a relation of man to God, but a definition of the nature of God Himself, which is in the Gospel revealed and manifested “ from faith to faith.” The preposi- tions éx and e/g mark the boundaries within which that revela- tion takes place (comp. 1 Cor. xvii. 5—)x, yp); it is a revela- tion which takes place altogether within the sphere of faith. ’Ex denotes what had been the issuing-point of its being made mani- fest; eés denotes the goal to which it leads. From faith it was derived, and it leads to faith.’ But, wherein consists that revelation itself of the righteous- ness of God? Assuredly a certain contrast between God’s dpy7) and God’s S:cavocdv7y is expressed: though it is not a contrast of contradiction, as between hatred and love, wrath and grace; yet it is a relative contrast, as between amendment and cure, help and full salvation, that which is preparatory and that which is perfect. The wrath of God is revealed in punishing; the right- eousness of God is revealed in the Gospel, and therefore evidently in redemption. But the Apostle must have had a good reason for referring redemption here, not to the grace of God, but to His righteousness. Grace would form an exclusive opposite to 1 That is, from the risris "Iyood Xpisrod, ch. iii. 22: not from faith in Jesus, but from the faith which Jesus exercised. For He is indeed the Leader and Finisher of faith (Heb. xii. 2). 1 JOHN 1. 6-11. 6. 107 the wrath; but the Apostle will not name the counterpart of wrath as the ground of the plan of salvation, but something that is higher than the wrath is. He will not deny, either that re- demption is grace, or that wrath is righteous; but he will in- timate that it is not the full essence of righteousness which finds tts realization in wrath; and that it is not merely grace, but, as essentially, righteousness also, which is manifested in redemption. What he had to say concerning the worth of the Gospel reached its climax in the utterance of ver. 17, that God’s righteousness was revealed in it, and that as demanding faith and leading to faith. God’s wrath, that is—he goes on expla- natorily—will be revealed from heaven (not, like the former, upon earth, through the incarnation of Christ) upon the un- godly; and then he brings in demonstration, from ver. 19 to ch. il. 29, that this wrath is not unrighteous, but a ducavoxpicia (ii. 5), as against the Gentiles (ch. ii. 14-16), so against the Jews (ch. ii. 17 seq.). In ch. iii. he teaches that the pre-emi- nence of Israel did not rest upon his greater sinlessness or righteousness, but in his relation to God, as the instrument of the preparation for the Gospel (ch. iii. 2), since to him the pro- phecies (Aoy/a) had been entrusted. For, the unfaithfulness of the Israelites did not abolish (ver. 3) the faithfulness of God (in the fulfilment of the promises). But, on the other side (ver. 5, d€), man cannot by unbelief do any service to God ; unbelief could never have a right to demand discharge of punishment, because by means of it the faithfulness of God had been manifested in a still brighter light (ver. 7); but God suspends over the ungodly His opy} righteously, God’s opyy is a righteous wrath (ver. 5). Thus has St Paul shown that the opy) does not stand in contradiction to the ducaocvvn. But similarly the full nature of the latter does not find its full realization in the opyj. The righteousness of God extends beyond the wrath, and embraces more than it. St Paul, in ch. iii. 9 seq., deduces from all that had been said, ch. i. 18-iii. 8, the conclusion, that no man is righteous before God (ver. 11),—that is, that no man is righteous through the works of the law (ver. 20). He then goes on: “ But now the righteousness of God is revealed, apart from the law, as it was witnessed by the law and the prophets; but God’s right- 108 CENTRE OF THE ayyeAla: GOD IS LIGHT. eousness (has been revealed) through the faith of Jesus Christ, for all and upon all them that believe.” Christ went—a second and greater Abraham—the way of faith (in the sense of Heb. xii. 2), and thereby revealed the dvcavocvvn Oeod. But this “ righteousness of God” is here, as in ver. 17, not the way in which man is justified before God, but righteousness as essen- tial in the nature of God. For gavepotv denotes, like azoxa- UTTETOax, not a creation or working out of that which previously had not existed, but a making manifest of that which before had been concealed in God’s unapproachable nature (comp. 2 Cor. ii. 14; 1 Cor. iv.5; John xvii. 6). Atxavootvn Ocod denotes here the same as in ver. 5 and ver. 25. Thus we obtain the very same thought here as meets us in ch. i. 17. Thus, that righteousness of God—with which, according to ch. i. 19-iii. 7, wrath stands by no means in contradiction—is manifested not merely in wrath (in which God appears as He who ts righteous), but more highly and more fully in redemp- tion, in which God appears as He who both is righteous and makes righteous (ver. 26). For, in ver. 26 it becomes perfectly plain, what idea St Paul connects with the dccarvocvvn Ocov. Right- eousness is never simply and of itself equivalent to grace ; it is through a redemption (ver. 24) effected, and a propitiation made, that we are justified and absolved. Righteousness is that characteristic of God as a Judge, in the exercise of which He requires right to be done to sin—that it be condemned and punished. But this judging and condemning act of God’s righteousness does not exhibit the whole and entire essence of His righteousness. When God set forth Christ as a 0753, that He should cover the guilt of sins by His blood (183), the design of God was not merely that of revealing Himself as One who was righteous, that is, in punishing sin; His higher aim was, that He might approve Himself to be righteous, and at the same tame to make righteous. Here we attain to the highest and most comprehensive notion of the Divine dvcavocvvn, in which it is not any longer merely the conduct of God towards the creature (as a retributive judging), but a definition and character of the Divine nature. To let sin go unpunished, would have been contrary to the righteousness of God—contrary to His retributive righteous- ness, which follows from the essential righteousness of His 1 JOHN I. 5—II. 6. 109 nature; to leave the sinner to perish in his sin, would have been also contrary to the righteousness of God,—not, indeed, contrary to His retributive judicial righteousness, but contrary to that higher righteousness of His nature. From this flows, in connection with the retributive dealing with sin, the redeem- ing work for the sinner. What then is the inmost essence of this righteousness of nature ? That God not only és décazos, but also makes righteous; that is, that He not only bears in Himself the norm in virtue of which His retributive righteousness shows itself as a holy nega- tion of sin, as judgment and condemnation of all evil,—or, in other words, that He not only, in virtue of His light-nature, draws the darkness to the light and condemns it,—but that He also seeks to make this His own light-nature effectual in His creature, in bringing the creature to a perfect victory over the darkness. Therefore, it was not enough to His absolute right- eousness that He should have condemned the sin in men ; there- fore, it was His sacred counsel to redeem and deliver mankind from sin. Let us now return to our passage in St John. We have derived, from an unbiassed exegetical examination of Rom. i. 17— iil. 26, a notion of essential righteousness in the nature of God which is different from, and exalted above, the idea of mere re- tributive dealing, and which is most internally and most straitly coincident with that of the wiords etvae (comp. Rom. iii. 3), as well as with the primal truth é7c 6 Oeds Pas éore. It is not an arbitrary assertion, when we say that our déxatos, 1 John i. 9, stands for the designation of the same idea:’ it musé be the same Ovxatoctvn Ocod; for in both passages the righteousness of God appears as the source in God from which flows His re- deeming, sin-forgiving, and sin-destroying dealing with man.’ It is that righteousness in which God, as being the Light, not only condemns the darkness, but gives -to light a real victory 1 That 2 Cor. iii. 10, v. 21, also present the same idea of the d:x2s00vvn @ \ ’ Ni coe ’ / r @! 5 E@pakev avTOV, ovdE Eyvaxev avTov. ‘Thus St John returns back from the second motive, developed in ver. 5, to the ethical law Jaid down in ver. 3, and which finds its foundation in the mo- 1 That ¢y «i7@ refers to Christ, and not (with Calvin) to the ‘t body of Christ,” that is, to all believers in Him, needs no demonstration. Pp 226 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. tives expanded in vers. 4, 5. He repeats this ethical law here in our sixth verse, naturally, in the same formula which it had received in its reference to the second motive (ver. 5), in its reference to Christ. But in doing this, he (after the analogy of ver. 3 and ver. 4) lays it down, first in a positive, and then in a negative, form. “ Every man, who abideth in Him” (on this pévwy comp. above, ch. ii. 24), “ sinneth not.” Diisterdieck, as we before re- marked, deduces from the awapraver, standing thus simply, that the article before duaprtiay above, in ver. 4, is fortuitous, and without significance, and that srovety tv duaptiay means no- thing more than zrovety aduaptiay or duwaptavew. An instructive and warning xample, into what a man may fall when he moves in totépows mpotépois, explaining what goes before by what comes after, instead of the reverse! Our simple, and thus in- definite ovy dwapravet, St John could use here, only because the preceding zovety tiv dwaptiay, ver. 4, and its antithesis with dyvifew éavtov, had already defined clearly to the readers what kind of duapravew was intended ;' otherwise he would never have thus unconditionally, and without explanation, writ- ten, “ He that abideth in Christ, sinneth not.” But he has himself shown, in ch, i. 8-10, how and in what sense even he — that abideth in Christ may still sin. He has, in ch. ii. 1, 2, set over against the requirement, “ that ye sin not,” the actual state, “and if any man sin.” St John writes here, “sinneth not,” only because ver. 4 has made it evident that he has in his mind that moeiv THY amaptiav which forms the opposite of dyvifesv éavréov. He who abideth in Christ, sinneth not in this sense,’—in this sense he cannot and may not sin; he cannot wilfully, and against his better knowledge and conscience, do that which is sin; he cannot love, and cherish, and entertain sin.’ Wherefore 1 In a similar manner he writes, ch. iv. 3, 6 wy ouoroys! tev ’Iycoty, because in ver. 2 the more explicit ¢ cworoysi 71. X. ty copul ernavdéra had preceded. But who would think of explaining the more definite expression in ver. 2 by the less definite expression of ver. 3, instead of the reverse ? 1 Olshausen remarks on ch. v. 18, quite in harmony with our view: “The child of God sinneth not at all, that is, in a certain sense. He has indeed sin, ch. i. 8; but he committeth not sin, ch. iii. 4-8. He is not willingly overcome, he suffers not himself to be overcome, by sin.” 3 Huther violates the context by explaining 2uapravei of the condition of those who are still members of the xéojos, not yet having entered into ’ 1 JOHN III. 1-24. 227 —it is easy to see. Because he who doeth this, abideth not in Christ ; but, as the consequence of neglected purification, suffer- eth shipwreck of faith, and the good seed in him is choked among thorns. And thus, then, the negative side also stands fast : He that (in this sense) sinneth, hath not seen Him nor known Him. (Adrov goes back here, as in ver. 5, naturally to the éxeivos, that is, to Christ.) St John advances his expression (after the manner of ch. i. 10) to this point, that such a Christian, who, instead of purifying himself, committeth willingly that which is sin, cannot be a truly regenerate man, cannot have attained to true, full, and genuine conversion of heart. True conversion presupposes full, perfect, and earnest repentance, that is, self- despairing hatred of sin; and he who, thus self-despairing, has embraced Christ as his Saviour, has at the same time, when he came to behold and know Christ, cast away and renounced sin with abhorrence. He who has not done this, he who secretly entertains sin in his soul, has—git is frightfully solemn, but frightfully true: O that all preachers of the Gospel preached this sacred truth more distinctly and impressively than, alas, they commonly do!—“ not yet beheld, and not yet known Christ :” he has not yet beheld Him who is throughout and altogether light, and the enemy of darkness and sin; he has not yet beheld Him with the inner eye of the spirit, and not yet known Him in the inmost centre of his being; only with the superficies of the powers of his soul has he adhered to Christ, knowing only the fragmentary beginnings of the character of his Saviour, and not yet Christ Himself. He who has discerned in Christ only a consolation, and has not also embraced, and loved, and shut up in his heart the holy Judge of all oxoréa, has, ac- cording to the testimony of St John, “not yet seen and known Him ” aright. As Diisterdieck softened down the idea of roseiv THY duap- tiav, ver. 4, by an unjustifiable reference to ver. 6, into the idea of sinning generally ; so now in ver. 6, where he consistently understands dwaptdvew in the same vague and general way, he introduces an exegesis which robs the Johannzan expression of the number of God’s children. But ver. 4 speaks of those who are Chris- tians, but wanting in holiness. Not till the close of ver. 6 is it said, that and how far such Christians are not yet truly regenerated. 928 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. its precision and solemnity. He regards it as the “ideal view of St John,” that whoever “sins,” in any sense whatever, has not yet rightly known Christ. According to this unjustifiable generalization of the idea of the duaptdavew (which should rather be interpreted by ver. 4), St John’s declaration certainly seems to be made more rigorous and emphatic than according to our exegetically-precise interpretation. In fact, it would be a fright- ful and most depressing utterance, that whosoever sins in any sense whatever, has no part in Christ. But this severity is abated by the expositor’s notion that it is “ St John’s ideal way of viewing the matter, which leaves out of consideration the remaining sinfulness of believers ;”” and which, moreover, “in the case of those in whom the beginning of eternal life has not been followed by continuance, leaves out of consideration that beginning.” That is no good divinity in which yea is nay and nay is yea. According to this notion, the sense would be: “ Tdeally viewed, that is, apart from the always-continuing sin- fulness of believers, it may bessaid that whosoever sinneth, hath not yet known Christ. But, viewed in reality, that is, with due consideration of the fact that believers may still sim, we must say that one who sinneth, may nevertheless have known Christ.” What, then, is there left in this whole utterance of St John? To do this interpretation the fullest justice, no more can be ex- tracted from it than this seemingly ingenious but really empty declaration, that a Christian, 7f he commits a sin, approves him- self in this—that is, so far as he commits this sin—not as one who has known Christ. But St John’s words mean something very different from this, something fearfully solemn but equally true—a truth which must not be thus toned down and accom- modated to the licentious Christianity of our days. "Eyvoxev, as compared with é#paxev, is not, as some think, an elevation of the idea; still less is it, however, an anticlimax, as others think. But opdy is the beholding of Christ as of the light ; yeveoxew is the loving knowledge (comp. on ch. i. 3) which contains the reception of the nature of Christ into our own selves. Vers. 7-10. The contrast, established in ver. 6, between those who abide in Christ, and those who have not yet known Christ, leads of itself and immediately to a comparing contrast 1 JOHN III. 1-24. 229 of the réxva Ocod and the réxva Tod bsaB8orov. By the horta- tory appeal, “ Little children, let no one deceive you,” this new train of thought is separated from what precedes, while its meaning and substance is still strictly connected with it and developed from it. In vers. 7, 8, the thought is essentially a modified recapitulation of that which was expanded in vers. 3-6. The reflection of ver. 4 is repeated in ver. 7 in a positive form, and yet so that, not the “ purifying of self,’ but the doing righteousness,” is opposed to the “sin ;” for the Apostle here, from ver. 7 onwards, no longer speaks of Christians who intermit the care of their sanctification, but designs to oppose to the true and living Christians the not-Christians as such, the téxva Tod SiaBorov. Thus, the roveiv tiv dixacocvyyy and the Tov Tv auaptiav stand in antithesis, as two absolute, com- plete, and diametrically opposed kinds of life. And thus there enters in the new modification, that presently in ver. 8 the idea of the é« tod dvaBddXov civas—as preparation for the conclusion of the strain, ver. 10—is introduced; and, conformably with this, there is a modification of the repetition of the idea of ver. 5, épavepoOn iva, x.7..—Thus, on the one hand, vers. 7, 8 are attached to what precedes, while, on the other, they lead beyond to the main proposition of the new train of thought, expressed in vers. 9, 10,—to a contrasting juxtaposition of the children of God and the children of the devil. Ver. 7. Texvia, pndels trAavadTw bas: this is the reading of Cod. B. and the Rec.; Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Lach- mann, and Tischendorf, give this reading the preference. Codd. A. and B. (Copt., Syr., and Arm.) read wasdia, which Tischen- dorf prefers. But it is on internal grounds more probable that the vada was a correction introduced from ch. ii. 18: there the section, vers. 18-26, began with the address vraid/a, and ended with the words, “ ‘These things have I written to you con- cerning Tov TAavevTaV tuas.” Now, because a warning is found in this passage also against a 7Aavao@at, it might have been supposed that the passages were homogeneous, and that mavdia must be here also the true reading. The warning, “ Let no man deceive you,” finds its explana- tion in this, that the Gnostic false teachers of that time actually maintained the assertion, that nothing could defile the dv@pw7rov mvevpatixor, or, that the law did not proceed from the Supreme 230 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. God, and so forth, according to the various forms of their anti- nomian doctrine. These were the deceivers, whose seductions the readers were to withstand. ‘O rowdy Thy Sixatocvyny forms, as we have said, the con- trast to 0 oid tiv duaptiav. The latter was in ver. 4 placed in opposition to the ayvifew ceavtov ; for there, according to the context, ver. 3, Christians were spoken of. To the conduct of those Christians who continually purify themselves from sin, a contrast was presented by the conduct of those Christians who “commit that which is sin,” that is, do evil against their better knowledge and conscience, and wilfully. The Apostle has now uttered in ver. 6 the declaration that such Christians are not really Christians at all; and this leads him now, from ver. 7 onwards, to drop entirely the contrast between Christians and Christians (the genuine and the spurious), and to lay down instead the stronger antithesis between the children of God and the children of the devil. He has in vers. 2-6 viewed the idea of the réxvoy Ocod as he is in himself; and has developed from it the opposition between what is consistent and what is not consistent with that dignity. Now, on the other hand, he places the idea of the téxcvov cod in comparing contrast with the téxvov Tod dsa8orov. Conformably with this, the opposite of moélv TH dpaptiav assumes another form. ‘Two complete and finished states of heart are opposed to each other, and that as exhibited in their actual and visible results. Here then the gradual ayvifew éavtov has no longer place; as opposed to the child of the world and the devil, the child of God is character- ized, not by a gradual process of becoming pure, but by this, that he simply “doeth that which is righteous,” while the child of the devil “doeth that which is sin.” For, zrovetv tiv duxato- cvvny can mean, in such a contrast, no other than “the doing that which is right.” Avcatocdvn denotes that which is, in its quality, ddcavov, right. Concerning him, then, who doeth that which is right, St John declares, Sikasds éots—he is righteous. A glance at the connection teaches that Sécatos does not occur here in the sense of the Pauline doctrine of justification, and does not describe a justified state,—that of one who is able to stand before the judgment-seat of God, and is acknowledged to be free from guilt. For the question, Who may thus stand before God, and 1 JOHN Ill. 1-24. 231 by what means he may thus stand? does not in the most distant manner enter into the subject here. Least of all is the décavos eivat exhibited as the consequence or result of the wocety tiv Suxcacocvvnv. And with this falls to the ground the exegesis of the Romish expositors, who have perverted this passage into a refutation of the Protestant doctrine of justification. But we should not interpret it at once as meaning that he who doeth that which is right, demonstrates thereby that he has already attained to justification (in the Pauline sense) by faith. No- thing is said here about justification. But neither is anything directly said concerning regeneration. Aikatds éote stands, first, in opposition to é« Tod duaBorouv éott; and, secondly, has the appendage KaOws éxelvos Sixatos éott. This final clause must not, of course, be regarded as a mere repetition of that in ver. 3, Ka0es éxeivos adyvos éott. In ver. 3 the clause xadeds, k.T.X., Serves to assign the motive for the requirement, “ purify- ing self ;’ in our seventh verse, on the other hand, the ca@ds is not connected with the subject-idea, involving the require- ment, 6 woidy THY Suxatocdynv, but with the predicate which is attributed to the doer of righteousness. Such a man is décatos, as He (Christ) is dékavos. Here the cafes cannot have the meaning of a motive (siguidem), but only that of comparison (sicut). He who doeth that which is right, is righteous, even as Christ is righteous; he who doeth that which is sin, is of the devil: this antithetical juxtaposition shows most plainly that the predicate-idea has no other aim than to attribute to him who doeth that which is right a relation of nature, or likeness of nature, with Christ. Not that such a man will be acknowledged, like Christ, to be guiltless before the judgment-seat of God, but that such a man bears in himself the nature of Christ, is what the Apostle would say. And so far our dikaids éore has cer- tainly some affinity with the €& adrod yeyérvnras of ch. ii. 29; that, however, must be interpreted, not by ch. ii. 29, but by the contrast contained in ver. 7. Nor does St John lay emphasis here upon the being born of Christ, but upon the consequence of that, the likeness of nature.—A/xatos therefore denotes here, not a man’s position before God’s judgment, but simply the character of his nature: the nature of Christ is one which corresponds to the will of the Father; so the nature of him who “ doeth righteousness” is one which corresponds to the will of the 232 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. Father. And so far Calovius is right, that this idea of the justus falls not under that of justificatio, but under that of sanctijicatio. He who doeth that which is right, showeth thereby that the nature of Christ, conformed to the will of the Father, has be- come his nature: he who doeth that which is sin, showeth thereby that he éx tod duaBeXov éote (comp. John vill. 44) ; that is, that he is a child of the devil, and that his nature and cha- racter’ has been derived from him. For it is for ever the nature and character of the devil, to sin. This explanatory middle clause follows in the words, “ For the devil sinneth from the beginning,” which words plainly point to John viii. 14, and are by them to be understood. ’Az’ dpyis is not to be referred, with B.-Crusius, to the beginning of the existence of the devil, as if he had never done anything but sin from the beginning of his existence; nor, with Bengel, to the period of his fall. The former contradicts the other teaching of Scripture; and the latter is an arbitrary and impossible interpretation of the words. But am’ apyijs is the beginning of human history (Calvin, Lange, Semler); in comparison with the sin of men, the devil appears to be one who sinned az’ apyijs. Eis rovto épavepoOn, x.7.Xr., is, in its substance, a repetition of the thought of ver. 5. In its form, this thought is here modified in two ways: first, Christ is not here, as there, desig- nated by éxetvos, but, in marked contrast to the dvdBoXos, as the vios Tod Ocod; and, secondly, in conformity with the pre- vious train of thought, vers. 7, 8, the aipew tas daptias is here described as a Avew Ta épya Tod StaB8orov. These “ works of the devil” are simply the duapriat; for, this is his work, that he sins himself and infuses sin into his téxvois 3 conse- quently, the duaptiav which are committed by these children of his, are épya Tod dvaPorov, works after the devil’s kind, works which the devil works in them—thus in every view (in kind and origin) devil’s works. Some expositors erroneously include death and all evil among the épya tod d:a8oXou here mentioned ; but this is against the context. Avew bears the meaning of cast down, destroy, abolish, as in John ii. 19, v. 18, vii. 23, x. 853; Eph. i. 14. 1 Tt is self-evident that we do not use these words in the sense of the scholastic ‘‘ substantia,” but designate by them the inherent moral charac- ter of the will. 1 JOHN III. 1-24; 233 In ver. 9 follows now the thought which Diisterdieck erro- neously found in the words dixavés éots, ver. 7. The Apostle has said, that he who doeth that which is (before God) righteous, shows thereby that he is partaker of the nature of Christ; but that he who doeth that which is sin, shows thereby that he is partaker of the nature of the devil. He has further repeated the declaration, that the whole scope of the incarnation of Christ is directed to this end, to make an end of the dpapria. Accordingly, he has shown that a child of God, a Christian, may not sin; or, more strictly, that he who would be, not a child of the devil, but a partaker of the nature of Christ, may not sin. He adds now the more inward truth, that he who is a child of God, born of God, cannot sin. That the rocety tiv dpaptiav is a contradiction to the whole nature and work of Christ, has been shown in vers. 7, 8; it is now added in ver. 9, that the being born of God has for its essential and internally necessary and indispensable consequence the px) dwaptavew. The subject-idea, “ born of God,” finds its explanation in what was remarked upon ch. ii. 29. In the predicate dyapriav ov trove?t, St John could now omit the article, for the same rea- son which led him, in ver. 6, to substitute the bare aduapriav for the woveiy T2)v ayaptiav. ‘The idea is sufficiently plain after what has gone before. The zrovezy, be it observed, is here repeated, in order that the reader may not think of a mere éxyew aaptiav; afterwards he uses (as connected with dvvataz) the mere dywaprdavew (as above, ver. 6), since it was no longer ‘possible now to misunderstand his meaning. (Diisterdieck persists in doing so. He understands the adwapravew of all and every kind of sin, and explains the idea thus resulting, which is utterly opposed to ch. i. 8-10, as St John’s “ ideal view.” He whois born of God, doeth not sin ; that is, not with know- ledge and will opposed to the will of God. “Ori o7éppa adtod €v avT® péver: these words have been explained in two ways. Some (Bengel, and others) take o7répya in the sense of “ child or progeny,” and refer the ait@ to God: “the progeny of God abideth in or with God,” —abideth faithful to Him, falleth not away. Nearly all other expositors understand o7épya of that same seed, in the spiritual sense, which the regenerate have received from God, and through which they have become new 234 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. men,—that is, of the seed or germ of the new life ; and, accord- ingly, they refer the adr@ to men. “The seed of God abideth in them, in the regenerate men.” The latter view is obviously to be preferred, because the words in question, on that view, con- tain a real argument; whereas, on the other view, they would be a tautological and weakened repetition of what had been said in dpaptiay ov move. Moreover, the designation of téxvoy cod by the word o7épua would be here most inappropriate, and altogether out of keeping with the figure of the pévew év Te Oe. There has been much controversy as to what this o7éppa refers to— whether the word of God (Augustin, Luther, Bul- linger, Bengel), or the Holy Ghost (Calvin, Beza). It is (Episcopius, Gicumenius, Hstius, Liicke) the germ of the new life implanted i in us by the Holy Spirit, the germ of the new man in us,—that is, the Christ implanted in us. In him into whom this oépua has been planted, it abides, wéver. This péver is used, however, without any reference to the question whether a regenerate person might ever fall from faith ; but with reference to the question, whether it be possible to him knowingly and wilfully to act contrary to the will of God. But, if the latter is with him an impossibility, certainly so much the more must the former be: if a qovety Tv auaptiay justifies us in coming to the conclusion that ody édpaxe Tov Xpeorov, how much more must a shipwreck of faith lead to the same conclusion ? And so far Calvin and the Synod of Dort were right in saying, that he who falls away manifests that his faith had not been the true and genuine faith as to its quality ; or that the vera fides has among its marks that of perseverantia.’ But, to regard this 1 In accordance with this, my remarks upon Heb. vi. 4, in the eighth volume of this work, must undergo some modification. Not that I can agree with Calvin, when he makes the yevexmevos there refer merely to those who had just begun to taste the blessedness of a state of grace. I must hold fast my affirmation, that it is not the scope of the passage to say that the less one had tasted of the enjoyments of grace the more easily he would be lost ; but the contrary, that the more one had already enjoyed of the gifts of grace, the more irrecoverably would he be lost, if he should turn his back upon these blessings, and fall away from the confession of Christ. Only this must be added—from our present passage, 1 John iii. 9—that in the man who, in the sense of Heb. vi. 4, falls away again from great be- ginnings of the new life, a true and thorough regeneration cannot have 1 JOHN III. 1-24. 935 perseverance as a specific, as it were external and added gift, donum, is to go clean contrary to our present text. But there is no essential connection between this whole doc- trine and that of absolute predestination; for, the question whether the cause of a man’s not reaching true regeneration lies in the will of man himself, or in a decree of God, is not at all touched by the teaching of our present passage—that genuine regeneration cannot be lost. But there is another point of view in which this verse is dogmatically important. Nothing can be more absolute than its contradiction of the Romanist delusion, that regeneration is in some magical way effected in the baptism of children. He who is born of God, committeth no sin. He who committeth sin (in the sense of our context), that is, who willingly doeth, as an unconverted man, that which is sin, is not yet born of God, though he may have been twenty times baptized. The word of God cannot lie. Little children, let no man deceive you. The Divine seed of the new life abideth in the regenerate man; and therefore it follows cal od dvvatat dpaprdvew, where apaptdvew stands, as we have shown, in the meaning which alone the context marks out. To the regenerate man it is a thing impossible—by his very nature—to commit sin in that sense, to withstand and run counter to the commandments of God knowingly, and with deliberate will. For, sorrow on account of sin, and abhorrent abandonment of sin, lie at the foundation of his conversion; light and life derived from God, and love to Christ, are the very essence of the new life which is within him. Every true and genuine Christian gives testi- mony by his walk to the truth of this utterance of St John. He hath sin in him still (according to ch. i. 8-10) ; his consti- tutional dispositions and affections need constant grace and puri- fication ; and even in his maxims, and tendencies, and pursuits there may still be oxoréa, or perversion scarcely detected. Thus it may be that the odp& leads him into greater or lesser lapses ; but this is contrary to the bent of his will, and his soul is affected with the deepest sorrow on account of the slightest fault. The sins which he commits bear in themselves most taken place : the subsequent apostasy leads to the inference, that the pre- ceding conversion had not been absolutely and in all respects sound. The inmost centre of the heart had not been pierced, and entirely changed. 236 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. decidedly the character of sins of infirmity, and are for the most part peccata per accidens. His anger, holy and justified as to its object and character, may, as a result of the tempera- ment not yet fully sanctified, rise to sinful violence; the heat of conflict for truth may hurry him away to words and measures, the imperfect purity of which he may not at the moment per- ceive; and even the impulse of the flesh may, in a subtle man- ner, assault his fidelity, and involve him in hot conflict with himself ;—yet, on the other hand, to the truly regenerate man it is altogether impossible willingly and wilfully to do that which he knows to be forbidden of God. He walks not as the world walks, é€v 7) oxores (ch. i. 6); his endeavours and yolitions move not in the sphere of that which is evil; and to perform deeds which as such are sinful, is to him in fact not possible : it is In the same sense impossible as it is, for example, impos- sible to a moral man, only partially conscientious, to do away with his enemy by poison or murder. As to a mere partially moral man the offer, “‘ Give me so much, and I will poison your enemy,” brings no temptation with it, because he is not capa- ble of such a crime; so, analogously (though on other and higher grounds), the truly regenerate man is not capable of committing deeds which he knows to be contrary to the will and commandment of God,—such, for example, as the yielding to forbidden lusts, lying, depriving a neighbour of his goods, and whatever else may belong to the domain of the peccata manifesta. His walk is a holy and pure walk; and exhibits to every one who beholds as holy and pure. Let not thy high and most real boundary-line be obscured by any “ ideal views.” In ver. 10 St John deduces from what had been said in vers. 7, 8, and ver. 9 (that a child of God cannot commit, and is not in his nature capable of committing, that which is sin), the final and conclusive reflection: that thus in this roveiv or 2) Tovey Sixatoctvyny is exhibited the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil. "Ev tovr» does not point backwards to what had been said, vers. 7-9, but forwards; and that to the words, “ whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God,” —which words are in reality the quintessence and concise formula of all that had been previously said. First, the additional words, “and he that loveth not, etc.,” contain a progression in 1 JOHN III. 1-24. 237 the thought, a transition to another train: in what manner con- ducted, we shall see. G@avepa éort, are manifest, are as such quite comprehensible. ‘O ju) rou@y Sixavoovyny, “ who doeth not that which is right :” the article might here be omitted,’ for the same reason as in ver. 9, before duaptiav. “Ex tod Ocod eciva is synonymous with téxvov Ocod eivat, just as Téxvov duaBdorou eivat is with é« Tod duaBorov civat, ver. 8. Kal 6 pu) ayaa tov adedpov adtov, St John now emphati- eally adds ; and by this thought, which is continued in vers. 11, 12, he forms the transition to the second sub-section, which begins in ver. 13. Indeed, he who cannot be brought to see that the idea of rékvov Ocod is the predominant idea of this whole Part of the Epistle,—he who persists in regarding ch. ii. 29, instead of ch. iii. 1, as expressing its fundamental theme,—will not be likely to discern the true relation of thought between ver. 10 and ver. 13. Thus many think (Diisterdieck) that throughout vers. 1-10 the subject has been the téxva @ecod, simply as explanatory of the idea of the dimasoctvn; while, conyersely, the fact is that the rovety duxacoodvgy, vers. 7 and 10 (which, moreover, the dyvifew éavtov, ver. 3, had preceded as no other than a co-ordinated idea), serves simply for the purpose of ex- plaining the idea of the téxvov Ocod. These expositors suppose that in ver. 10 the Apostle passes over from the idea of the dtxatoovvn to that of brotherly-love, and that ver. 10 therefore begins a new subordinate section which has brotherly-love for its subject; but they forget that in ch. iv. 11 there is the beginning of another section concerning brotherly-love, and that thus there would be two distinct and independent sections having the same subject and matter. But if, instead of this, we mark that the idea of téxvov Oeod is the predominant idea of this Third Part, and that the theme of this Part is contained in ver. 1, we cannot doubt for a moment that, not ver. 10, but ver. 13, is the beginning of the new sub-section, and that it treats, not of brotherly-love as such, but—in harmony with the words of ver. 1, “ Therefore the world knoweth us not—of the hatred of the world in contrast with the mutual brotherly-love of Christians. After the Apostle has, in ver. 10, laid down the distinction between those who are born of God and those ' A. and C. read, moreover, r7v. But this variation seems to owe its origin to an endeavour to conform the verse wjth ver. 7. 238 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. who are not born of God, he passes over, in ver. 13, to the oppo- sition and enmity manifested by the latter towards the former. The transition to this second sub-section is formed by the words from the conclusion of the tenth verse to the end of the thir- teenth. That is, as St John has it in view to turn to the enmity of the world against the children of God, he singles out from the general ju) crovetv Suxavocvvny the particular feature’ of py ayarray Tov aberpov avTod, and makes it the object of special remark. But here arises the question, what idea the Apostle connects with adedgds. Diisterdieck is everywhere ready with the con- fident assurance that adedgoi always means in St John those who are born of God, and that brotherly-love always means the love of those who are also born of God. And therefore he at once casts away the notion of Estius, Grotius, and others, who refer the ddedpos to the relation of men to men generally. But the matter is not to be despatched in so peremptory a manner. The Apostle is speaking of him who “ is not of God,” and says that his not being of God is manifested by this among other things, that he “loveth not his brother.” Is then the un- regenerate the brother of the regenerate in the sense assumed by Diisterdieck, that is, because both “are born of God?” Cer- tainly not. Then, if the “loving his brother” be made to refer to the mutual love of the regenerate, founded upon their re- generation, it could hardly be alleged as a reproach against the unregenerate that he had no share in that love. Indeed, the words, “ he who loveth not his brother, is not of God,” would then, in consistency, be interpreted in some such absurd para- logism as this: ‘“ He that loveth not those who like himself are still unregenerate, is not of God.’ If St John had written o py ayaTav Tovs abderdouvs, it would have been a different matter: then we might have taken the of adeddoi as an objec- tive and absolutely stated idea, as the definition of those who are in the true and highest sense brethren, that is, of the re- _ generate ; and the meaning would then have been this, that he who has no part in this love of the brethren among themselves, 1 Huther thinks that the zy is not one part or specific trait of the dixeesoouvn, but ‘* the substance and nature” of it. That may be true of éya7% as such (including love to God), but could not be said of love to the brethren. " 1 JOHN III. 1-24. 239 must needs be still an unregenerate man himself. But St John does not so write; he makes it plain that the adedrdos, connected with the Gen. avrod, is the brother of him who does not love, though he ought to love; that is, as a relative idea. The requirement “to love our brother” is presupposed to be one of universal application: When it is asked, who doth fulfil this? he who is proved to his own conscience not to fulfil it may be sure that he is not of God. Accordingly, aderdos is here taken in the widest sense, in the sense of mdjovos, Luke x. 36, etc., denoting the relation of men to men generally. In the passage, ch. ii. 9, the combination of thoughts was quite dif- ferent: there, according to the context, the question was of members of the Christian Church who desired to be thought Christians; and when it was said of them, “and hateth his brother,” the idea of “his brother” is defined by the context to be that of a fellow-member of this (visible) community — but by no means that of a fellow-regenerate, which would have been as little suitable there as here. The meaning was this: “ He that saith he is in the light, and yet hateth him who (as the result of this declaration) must then be his brother in Christ, is still in darkness.” In our present passage, on the other hand, the question is not of seeming and nominal Christians — at least not specially of such—but the subject has been, from ver. 7, the absolute and penetrating contrast between all who are “children of the devil” (and to them appertain preemi- nently the children of the world, without the Church of Christ), and ali who are the children of God. Indeed, the Apostle has already purposed to concentrate the former in the expression 6 xdcpos (ver. 13), and to contemplate them in their open, visible relation of enmity to the Church of Christ ; and the element of the ‘“ not loving his brother’ must serve to give him the point of transition to the characteristic, “the world hateth us.” Thus here, in the words, “he that loveth not his brother,’ we cannot possibly think of the conduct of those who pretend to be “ brothers in Christ,” but only of the general conduct of those who are unregenerate towards their neighbours. Thus a comparison with ch. ii. 9 adds confirmation to our view, that dderdos, in the present passage, denotes the relation of man toman. But this is of great moment to the right inter- pretation of what follows in ver. 13 seq., especially of ver. 16. 2940 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. Vers. 11, 12. "Ore attrn éotlv 4 ayyeria (érayyeXia is the reading of Codex C.; but it is neither externally authenticated, nor internally suitable). “ For this is the message which ye have heard from the beginning, that we ought to love one another.” Idp stands here to show that what is said in ver. 11 is intended to explain why he who loveth not his brother is no child of God. To us, the children of God, this message was given from the beginning, that we should love one another. ‘Iva is used here again as in ch. ii. 27, iii. 1, ete. The clause with iva does not specify the design in respect to which that which the main proposition contains took place ; but the matter of the clause with fa is itself exhibited as something that was contemplated. “ This is the message which ye have heard from the be- ginning :” avrn points, like év tovr@, ver. 10, forwards, that is, to the clause with fa. The substance of the message is the commandment that we should love one another. Thence follows, that our “ message which ye have heard from the be- ginning” is not identical with the “old commandment,” ch. ii. 7. For, there we saw that St John specifies as the substance of the “old commandment, etc.,” “the word which ye have heard,’ —that is, the whole word concerning Christ, announced to the readers. St John seems to have designedly avoided using the same word évto\7. Therefore, we must not explain the am apyijs also of our verse by the am apyfs of ch. ii. 7. In that passage the am apyijs formed the antithesis to the new thing which St John had to say concerning the light “ as already shining.” In our passage there is no such antithesis as that ex- isting. Hence am’ apyijs is here to be taken, not in a relative, but in an absolute sense ; not in the sense of “ hitherto already” (in opposition to what was now first to be announced to them), but in the objective historical sense. ‘The message, that we love one another, we have heard from the beginning, that is, from the beginning of history, as one that had been given from every beginning onwards. This is favoured also by ver. 11, where St John reminds them how and in what manner this ayyerla (though not in the form of évtoA7j—but this word St John has carefully avoided—yet in the one, actnal Divine message) had already been sent to the past generations of men. Ov Kabos Kaiv é« rod rovnpod ty, Kat, x.7.r. The gram- 1 JOHN III. 1-24. 241 matical connection is somewhat lax here. And if we would establish a logical relation in the sentences, we must certainly (though Diisterdieck denies it) supply something between them. The thought as a whole would run thus: iva ayara@pev addjdovs, Kal yn) Trovdwev Kabws Kadiv, 05 éx tod rrovnpod ty, «.7.r. All other methods of supplementing the sentence are seen at the first glance to be forced." The thought itself is plain. Cain showed himself (according to ver. 8) to be é« Tod trovnpod (—SdiaBorov) by this, that he killed his brother (o@dafew was originally used of the slaughtering of sacrifices, but in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, specially in the Apocalypse, of “ killmg” generally) ; but that was both a doing of what was not dvcavocdvy, and the utter- most opposite of the dya77. Indeed, this very example shows how the “ not loving his brother” and the “ not doing righteous- ness” are inwardly related, the one leading to the other.—In the judgment which God’s word pronounced upon Cain’s act, lies the “message which ye have heard from the beginning.” But the Apostle does not merely in a general manner refer to this example of Cain: he also adds the words, “And where- fore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s works were righteous.” We catch the design of this additional clause only when we rightly view the relation of this verse to ver. 13. The hatred of the world to the children of God it is, to which St John would now lead on our thoughts. Therefore he has singled out from the “not doing righteous- ness,” the “not loving his brother” for especial prominence ; therefore he now makes it emphatic, that in Cain the envy of him who “ was of that wicked one” and “whose works were evil” had shown itself against the “just.”” Thus he passes over from the general “not loving” to the specific demonstration of this 1 Grotius and Liicke supply: xal 4 dev éx rod rovnpod, xaebac x.7.A. ; but this forms, after all, no proper antithesis to dyevouev. Others have resorted to other methods. 2 Tt is asked, how it can be known that Cain had previously done evil, and therefore hated his brother. This is not answered by saying that gov rovnpx signify the whole disposition and condition of soul in general, which was exhibited afterwards in the act of murder ; for the Apostle is speaking, not of a disposition, but of works, and not of such works as followed, but of such as preceded, the hatred. Better is it to say that St John deduced from this, that Cain’s offering was unacceptable, what and Q 942 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. hatred, as it ever manifests itself on the part of those who are “of the wicked one” against the “children of God.” The righteousness of the latter is in and of itself an object of hatred | to the former; the nature which rules (compare above on ver. 1) in the children of God—their holy, righteous nature, con- formed to the character of God—is to the children of the wicked one something displeasing and alien, hateful to them as God Himself is hateful. In their “wicked deeds” these are at peace and apparently happy, only so long as their consciences are un- disturbed. The mere aspect, the mere existence of the children of God, who do 7a Sixaia, disturbs them from their repose : they feel, though they may not confess it, that a power is reign- ing here which condemns them; and therefore they hate the Téxva Ocod. Thus has St John now fully paved the way of transition to the second sub-section. Vers. 13, 14. The antagonist relation of the world to the children of God, is, therefore, the subject of which St John now speaks. That which he has to say on this matter resolves itself into two things: first (ver. 13), that the Christian must not marvel at the hatred of the world (this is established in ver. 14); and, secondly, that the Christian must not return that hatred (vers. 15, 16). The words of ver. 13 are in themselves perfectly plain. Concerning 6 xécpos, compare the remarks on ch. ii. 15: here again it is applied to the world as not yet penetrated by the light of Christ, still in bondage to the oxoria, and therefore fearing and hating the @@s. Ez is not used instead of 674, nor for etiamsi, but in its own peculiar and genuine signification. Ei with the Indicative does not put the case as hypothetical, but represents what is said in the conditional clause as something which actually occurs ; and asserts, that whenever or as often as such a case occurs, what is said in the conclusion will or should occur also. For example, ef Bpovtad cat dotparres, “ as often as it thunders, it lightens also,” simply declares that the latter is conditional on the occurrence of the former, but without any how evil his former works had been. It is not a single step that leads to murder. All points to this, that as Cain’s spirit, so also his life and walk, had been altogether estranged from God. 1 JOHN ITI. 1-24. 943 further reference to the former being only possible or uncertain. So here: Whensoever it takes place that the world shows its hatred to you (and this assumes it to be well known that that often takes place), we must not wonder that it does occur. The conditional clause with e¢ specifies that state of things, or the case in which the injunction yu) Cavpagere is to be binding on Christians. If it were ét1, the pice? twas 0 Kéopos would be exhibited as the object which was not to be wondered at. (As, for example, John i. 7, iv. 27; where the e¢ would have no place, for the simple reason that in both these passages a fact, once for all in the past, and not often recurring, forms the object of the Oavydfew.) In our passage, if we were to repro- duce the thought in its full logical completeness, another érz pucel, K.T.r., would have to be supplied. “If the case occurs that the world hate you, wonder not (scil. at this, that the case occurs that the world hate you).” It points to the declarations of our Lord, John xv. 18, 19, xvii. 14; Matt. x. 22, xxiv.9; Mark xm. 13; Luke xxi. 17. The Apostle addresses his readers as adeAdoi, when he directs to them this exhortation ; not as if the word involved the idea of their being regenerate (compare, on the contrary, what was said upon ver. 10), but because he would at this moment bring to their minds that that Divine requirement of brotherly-love to all men, which was never fulfilled in the world, was actually fulfilled between himself and his readers. ‘Thus, in the idea adedos as such there lies no specifically Christian element (compare yer. 12, “ He slew his brother,” which is quite parallel with “not loving his brother,’ ver 10) ; but, our adeAdés, ver. 13, serves for the address of the children of God in their anti- thesis to the «écpos, because the idea of brotherly-relation, human in itself, is become in them, through the power of grace and the Spirit of Christ, an actual reality. It is now in ver. 14 explained why the children of God should not marvel at the hatred of the world. ‘“‘ We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren ; he that loveth not, abideth in death.’ St John places seis emphatically first. _We—it is his purpose to say—vwe have the power to love our brethren; all cannot do that. But is that what he actually says? If it were his manner to demonstrate a proposition laid down only according to the rules of a mecha- 944 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. nical logic, and if he had by “marvel not” intended nothing beyond the external and negative “deem it not incomprehen- sible,’ he would most assuredly have continued in another style. He would have been obliged to write, “ We love the brethren, because we have passed from death unto life; but he that abideth in death, loveth not :” he would have been obliged to specify love as the result of receiving life, and hatred as the result of abiding in death. But, in the apostrophe, “ Marvel not,” he has more in his mind than that negative “ think it not a wonder,” —more than the mere deeming it not an incompre- hensible thing. When he appeals to them, “ Marvel not,” he arms them not only against a wondering of the understanding, but especially against a wondering and recoil of their spirit and temper, against such an internal abandonment and fear as might lead them astray from God; and therefore the negative py Gavuagere includes in it the positive “but be strong and of good courage.” Accordingly, ver. 14 is not constructed with the purpose of making it intelligible to their understanding how it should be that the world hateth the children of God; but with the purpose to impress upon their hearts the motives for courage and consolation. And therefore in ver. 14 he exhibits love, not as the consequence, but as the sign,' of their having received life: he does not say, “ We love the brethren, because we have passed from a state of death to that of life ;” but, “We know that we have passed from death to life, by this, that we love the brethren.” The particle 67. does not depend upon peraBeR7- Kapev, but upon oldapuev. In the clause petaPeBijxaper, «.7.r., the category of “light and darkness” is exchanged for the different, though related, category of Odvatos and fw», death and life. The “having passed from death unto life” must not be at once, and uncon- ditionally, made identical with the “ being born of God.” The antithesis of Gw and Qavaros is indeed correlative with that of eds and dvaBoros; but not more so than that of das and oxotia. Each of these categories must be understood and ap- prehended according to the peculiar force which it contains in 1 There is no propriety in the interpretation of the Romish and Socinian expositors, which regards the love, not as the sign, but as-the cause, of the passing from death unto life. ‘* By this, that we love, we know that we have passed from death to life.” 1 JOHN III. 1—24. 245 itself. In his Gospel, St John inverts the order; he mentions, ch. i. 4, first the G7, then the das. “ In the Logos,” he says, “was life ;” not “the life,” but “life.” He takes a view of the whole multitude of things which had been made (ver. 3), and in which he may find life; but he finds life, true life, only in that eternal Word which was eternally essential to the nature of God—in that hypostatic, self-uttering act of God, who was from eternity, and apart from all creation of existing things, the speaking of God to God (pos tov Ocdv), and by whom also the Father created all things that were created. In Him was life. For, as the Father (ch. v. 26) hath life in Himself, so hath He also given to the Son to have life in Himself ; while, on the other hand, the creature hath its life, not as inherent in itself, hut as dependent upon the will of God, which might with- draw the gift and leave the creature to become nothing again. Therefore St John can at once (ch. i. 4) call the Logos 4 fw; and he adds to the new truth, “And the Life was the Light of men.” How then are light and life related to each other? If we proceed from the principles of a mere empirical experience, all life might seem to be the elevation of a multiplicity of lower existences into a higher, simple, and indivisible existence, the factor of which lies not in that lower multiplicity, but in some- thing without it. The elements, for example, of the living corporeal organism are chemical materials which, left to them- selves, can do no other than decompose, according to chemical laws—“ verwesen”’—lose their nature, as we have seen in the corpse forsaken of life. Informed by soul, quickened by the principle of life, or by the living central-monad, they enter into combinations which could not be established in a chemical manner, —that is, according to the chemical laws which obtain in the macrocosm, in the inorganic world,—but which are brought into existence only by the living organism, the microcosm. The living organism assimilates the macrocosmical matter, and con- strains it to enter into organic combinations. Chemistry may resolve these combinations in a chemical manner, and study their nature, but is powerless of itself to re-establish them. Chemistry is unable, by its own resources, to produce the smallest living vegetable cell, or living muscular fibre, not to say the living homunculus. Life is gendered only by the living; all the organic presupposes a living principle existing before it; 246 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. and thus the proposition of Jacobi (so abhorrent to Goethe, because so misunderstood), that all the living lives only through something independent of itself, maintains its perfect truth. Now, what the central-monad is in the individual organism, that the Adyos Tov Oeod is in the universe, in the life of the macro- cosm. But in stating this, we must not overlook the fact that the great organism of the universe does not consist merely of material elements, that is, chemical matter, like the microcosms of vegetable, animal, and human bodies; but that it is a living whole which bears in itself the powers of spiritual and moral life, as well as those of natural life, as its elements, through which therefore history is bound up with the course of nature.’ And on that account the Logos is, as the life, so at the same time the light, of the world (concerning which, compare the observations upon ch. i. 5). As the life elevates a multiplicity of elements into a higher unity of being, so the light (even the physical light) elevates a multiplicity of actual existences to the higher unity of being seen. And thus the light is the intensest action of the life itself ; that action by which living existences become existent for one another, reciprocally revealing their life. The Logos, who is the source of all creaturely life, is also the original light of the world, at the same time the eye and the sun. How fellowship with the Logos, as the Life and the Light, is not merely theoretical, but an essential religious fel- lowship, has been already shown upon ch. i. 5. Selfishness is the being sealed up in self, the opposite of light and shining ; the lie is the opposite of the being penetrated by or admitting the light. As the creature closes itself in selfishness and lie against Him who is the light, and therefore also the love, so also it rends itself asunder from Him who is its life, and in whom alone it has and can have life. Hence it is with the world sundered by sin from God, as it is with the corpse forsaken of the spirit: the harmonic union of the physical and spiritual elements which constitute the macrocosm ceases to exist, and there enters in a bellum omnium contra omnes, a disjunction or decomposition of 1 Tn the misapprehension of this palpable fact lies the error of those who substitute a mere ‘‘ universal soul,” after the analogy of what may be regarded as the animal or vegetable soul, for the eternal, personal, and con- scious Logos. 1 JOHN TI. 1-24. 247 all. The unsaved xocpos it is which in its pu) a@ya7av exhibits this image of derangement, and proclaims itself thus “to be év T® Oavatre, in death;” while, on the other hand, the children of God are, through the incarnate Logos being inborn into them, regenerated unto a@yd7n, and declare by that self-re- nouncing love which gives itself to death, and which endures the hatred of the world in order to the saving of the world, that they are redeemed from that condition of death, and translated into the Sw, the life. It will appear as the obvious result of this, that, with the children of God, as with Christ Himself, the being delivered out of death takes effect only through the loving surrender to death. As Christ overcame death by enduring it, so analo- gously that love of the children of God which declares their “having passed into life” is such as patiently bears the hatred of the world. That this is involved also in the “because we love the brethren”—brethren, adeA¢goi, being used in the most comprehensive meaning—is evident from what has been already observed on vers. 10 and 13. They exhaust St John’s thought of its most profound and precious meaning, who would hmit brotherly-love to the mutual love of the regenerate among themselves. The strongest counter-argument against this per- verted view—which opposes the utterances of Christ, Matt. v. 44, etc., and all the doctrine of the Apostles, e.g., 1 Cor. iv. 12 —is to be found in ver. 16. The concluding words of our verse, 6 47) ayaTav péves év T@® Savat, are explained by the antithesis. But St John does not here, any more than elsewhere, specify the dry logical antithesis (“ He that loveth not, shows thereby that he is still in death”); but he extends the thought to include the warning de- claration that the not-loving, as it is a mark of the being still in death, so also it is a cause of the further abiding in death. For, as every sin, so especially this sin—that of not loving—shuts and seals the heart against the influences and operations of grace. All conversion begins with an opening of the heart to the judging light of God, and therefore with a feeling which abominates sin, and, of all sins, selfishness above all. Ver. 15. The new turn of the thought which enters at the end of ver. 14—that he who loveth not his brother is not only 248 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. still in death, but on that account abideth in death, finds here in ver. 15 its further expansion and illustration. “ He that hateth his brother is a murderer; and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” But we must take notice of the progression of the thought in ver. 14 a, ver. 14 b, and ver. 15: He that loveth not his brother (but hateth him) is, a, not yet passed from death to life; 6, he abideth further in death; and, ¢, even supposing that he had had for a season the G@2) aidvios in himself (which, however, according to ver. 9, is not possible in the fullest sense), yet it could not remain in him: he would, as the result of this puceiv, fall again out of the wy, thereby proved not to have been the true and real life. Turning to the individual members of the paragraph by which the above proposition, stated in its third and most intense form, is established and proved, we note that the first clause, “ Every one that hateth his brother is a murderer,” is illustrated by its plain allusion backwards to the history of Cain, intro- duced in ver. 12. That was not merely an insulated example, but a history of a typical nature and character. In the con- duct of Cain, that came out into distinct manifestation which is the very nature of all hatred generally. The mildest definition of the mildest form of hatred would be this, “The being unable to bear any one;’’ and what does this pregnant description of enmity mean, but that to A the existence of B is too much; that he cannot reconcile himself to it; and that, if it depended upon him, that existence would be done away with? The selfish negation of another’s existence is the nature of all hatred: whether the person hated be put out of life, or only injured in life, matters not, as this may depend upon external circum- stances; hatred as such is of itself a negation of another's existence—it is “murder in the heart” (Augustin),—quem odimus vellemus periisse (Calvin). Where hatred dwells in the heart, it is no merit of the hater that the appropriate fruit of murder does not ripen upon the tree of hate: it is all the same the specific and regular fruit of that tree. Thus, St John can write TGs 6 wc OY, K.T.r., GVOpwTroKTOVves éoTi.' As to the words ‘ Manifestly opposed to the spirit of the context is the notion of Lyra and others, that St John calls the hater a murderer because he hurts his own soul. This idea follows in the second clause as an inference from the first, and cannot therefore give a reason for the first. 1 JOHN III. 1—24. 249 Tov aderdov avtod, “his brother,” the remarks hold good which were made upon ver. 10. The universal ads of itself shows that St John does not speak merely of members of the Christian Church alone, but generally of all who hate their fellow-men. The second member of the statement runs, “ And ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” Diister- dieck is altogether wrong when he explains the declaration, ov« éyer Conv aiwviov év avT@ wévovcar, as “in its essential meaning perfectly corresponding with the péver év TS Cavdta,” as he was also wrong in making this last equivalent to “he is still as yet in death.” In this way we may make everything mean every- thing, and impose almost anything upon the meaning of St John. The Apostle rather intensifies, as we have already seen, the declaration, “ He abideth in death,” into the much more penetrating, “ He hath not eternal life in himself as abiding.” In appearance, this says less; in reality, it says much more. In appearance, the utmost is the denial that an avOpwroKroves has eternal life abiding in him, while it is admitted that he may have it in him (in a certain sense) temporarily." In reality, it is said most strongly and emphatically that a murderer, even admitting him to have wv af@viov in himself, yet will and must fall again from this fo7 into the @avatos.—St John designedly writes wiv aiéviov without the article, because he (in harmony with ver. 9) cannot attribute “the eternal life,” even temporarily, to one who is not, in the sense of ver. 9, an actual child of God. But such a man might have “eternal life’ —that is, the powers of the world to come (compare Heb. vi. 4)—within him. By oiéare 67e St John exhibits that which was said in the second member of the verse as a truth well known to all his readers. It has been asked, how it had become so well known to them. Grotius and Liicke thought that they received it from the Mosaic law, which affixed the punishment of death to murder: “ For if the law of Moses could not tolerate such a 1 Obviously only may have, not have. That ra¢ cvéowroxrdves has eternal life temporarily in him, St John could not reasonably say, and he does not say it. Logic teaches us that the negation of one thing does not involve any positive assertion of another. If, for example, I say that no murderer can have a happy future, I do not thereby assert that every murderer has had a happy past and present. But +és od is logically equi- valent to ovdess. 250 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. man in terrestrial society, how much less would Christ tolerate him in the heavenly city!” (Grotius.) But, according to Matt. xxl. 381, Luke v. 31, this “for if—how much less” appears to be unjustifiable ; and the question as to whom the Lord tole- rates, and whom not, in His heavenly societus, is regulated not according to the Law, but by an altogether different principle. Still more inappropriate, if possible, is Liicke’s reference. to certain ordinances of ecclesiastical discipline that must have excluded murderers from the Christian community, —which, in the face of Luke xxiii. 43, is a bold assertion and argument. The Apostle does not appeal to any individual isolated teachings or ordinances, but to that which the conscience and Christian consciousness affirms to every living Christian as a self-evident truth. If death as such is the absolute opposite of the Gw7, it is evident of itself that the disposition which would diffuse death around—the mind of the yu) aya7dav, which, according to John viii. 44 and the twelfth verse of this chapter, is that of the Tovnpos or 61é80r05—cannot be reconciled in thought with the év Th Sw eivat. Either that temper of mind must end in a true and thorough conversion, or the rudiments of a «7 which might have been present come to theirend. Life and death, life and murder, cannot abidingly be reconciled in the same heart. After this exposition, it is scarcely necessary to obviate the misunderstanding that whosoever has actually committed murder can never more be converted and attain to eternal life (against which Luke xxiii. 43 also speaks). It is plainly evident, from the first half of the verse, that it is not the external act of murder which St John describes by the word dvOpwzroxrévos, but the spirit and temper of not-loving, the condition of heart which hates. He who fosters this disposition is not yet in the Gw7 ; he abideth also (obviously as long as he nourishes it) in death, and falls again from the possible beginnings of a new heavenly life (that is, then, when he does not put an end to this disposi- tion by earnest repentance, before it is too late). The notion that no man who had ever nourished this spirit of not-loving in his heart could ever be converted, most certainly St John does not mean to inculcate. For that would be to assert that no natural man could ever be converted ; since all natural men as such are the children of the world, and bear in themselves that mind as their natural inborn cxotia. ' 1 JOHN III. 1-24. oak Ver. 16. The turn of the thought introduced at the end of ver. 15 leads from the exhortation, that we bear the hatred of the world confidently and joyfully, to the exhortation that we should repay it, not with hatred, but with love. “Ev tovr@ eyvoxkapev THY ayaTny, bTL exeivos bTEP Huav THY Yruyhy avTod €Onxev. Thy Wuynv tePévae occurs again only in John x. 11 and 15 and 17, xiii. 37, xv. 13. In John xi. 17, 18 it stands in opposi- tion to the 7ddw AapBavev, and hence must indicate no other than the actual giving up of life—death itself. In the remain- ing passages the signification “ venture life” would be suitable. Now, although this phraseology does in its meaning go beyond the Hebrew 1522 1w5) Dw, yet it seems rather to have been de- rived from that Hebrew phrase, or at least from some reference to it, than to be illustrated by the Latin, where ponere is used for deponere, and where vitam ponere (Cic. ad Fam. 9, 24) occurs. Even the ré@nou Ta (warva, John xiii. 4, offers no analogy, since by the t.@évae there is simply expressed the “laying down,” not the (essentially identical in meaning) “putting off.” We as- sume that tiOévae tiv ~Wvynv had originally the meaning of ow 1BI2 w|I, “to pledge or offer the soul,” and was then afterwards used in the intenser sense of “ sacrificing the life.” As it respects the construction, an ovcav must be supplied to the év tovT@. ‘This last cannot possibly depend upon éyvaxapev— “ By this we have known or perceived love, that He”—for what would be the meaning of such a thought? Some explain it thus: We have known the love of Christ by this, that He gave His life for us; that is, by this, that He gave His life for us, we have known that He loveth us. But it is not true that St John, with the other disciples, perceived first by His dying that Christ loved them (compare, on the contrary, John xiii. 1) ; and, moreover, we cannot see what purpose would be served in this context by answering the question in what the disciples of Jesus had perceived love. Others (Luther, Bengel, etc.) ex- plain: “ By this, that He gave His life for us, we have first come to know what love is in its inmost nature, or what true love is.” This is more tolerable and appropriate, but in such a form too modern. “ What love in itself essentially is,” could hardly be expressed by tiv ayarnv. In the words giv aydarny eyvaxapev the object does not appear as a problem, but as some- 252 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. thing known. lence it is most natural to construe: “ We have known love as that which consists in this, that He gave up His life for us.” ’Ev rovr@ forms the predicative idea to tiv ayamny, and 67s depends upon év rovT@. It is true that classical Greek would have required this to be év TovTw odcav; but similarly classical Greek would have required in John iii. 25, wera “Iov- daiov Tuvos. It is entirely in conformity with St John’s style that he writes év tovr@, as if it belonged to éyvdxapev, while he thinks of it as the predicate to dydmarnv.—Thus viewed, the thought now assumes its clear antithesis to ver. 15. It is not wherein we (subjectively) have perceived love, but in what (objectively) the nature of love consists, that St John purposed to say. The éyvodxaper, therefore, is just as introductory and subordinate as the o/éapev in ver. 15.—Hatred in its inmost essence is killing, or a negation of another’s life; love in its inmost essence is the voluntary sacrifice of one’s own life. And, in fact, this love exists not merely in abstracto as an ideal re- quirement or object of contemplation, but it exists in concrete reality. He who is light and life is love; in the death of Christ that nature of love became a concrete act. As hatred became a concrete act in Cain, who took his brother’s life; so love be- came a concrete act in Christ, who laid down His life for us. But from the knowledge and perception that love consists év TovT@, that Christ gave up His life for us, the cthical demand follows at once, that we—we who, according to ver. 11, etc., are under an internal obligation to exercise the ayam7j—“ are bound, like Him, to lay down our lives also for the brethren.” Here it is as clear as the light of day that the idea of aderdés is not to be restricted to the idea of our brethren in salvation, our brethren in regeneration. The requirement, that we should be ready to lay down our life for our brethren in Christ, would point to but a wretched counterpart of the self-sacriticing love which Christ has shown to us. Christ died for us when we were yet enemies (Rom. v. 10), and only through His death have we become the sons of God. The Apostle Paul represented himself as having entirely to fill up ra totepjyata Tov OdAbewv tov Xpiotov for the salvation of the sinful world yet to be saved. And can we suppose the Apostle John to restrict the obligation gf loving surrender of life to the relation of the re- generate among themselves? No, aderdés is used in the same 1 JONMN III. 1-24. 253 broad sense as in vers. 10, 13, 14, 15, and designates the relation of man to man. We ought to behold’in every fellow-sinner a brother to be saved. As far as the propitiatory virtue of the death of Christ extends, extends the obligation of this brotherly- love: its limit is not the fellow-regenerate, but the fellow-re- deemed, among men; that is, it stretches to the whole human family. For the world, for the world under the slavery of the oxotia and hating Himself, Christ laid down His life; and we therefore are bound, after Christ’s example, and in His spirit, to love, with a love which would sacrifice life for those who hate us, the world which hateth both Him and ourselves (ver. 13). This, and nothing less than this, is the vast meaning of our verse. Every other view destroys the parallel between what Christ has done and what we must do. And thus we have ample confirmation that it is not the general and vague notion of brotherly-love which St John treats of in this section, but the relation of the “sons of God” to those who are not “sons of God.” They have the enmity of the world to endure ; they must bear that enmity with confident joy, and recompense it by love which shrinks not from the sacrifice of life. It is manifest how important ver. 16 was in those times of persecution, and in all similar times. The death of confessors is not only an act of faith and persevering profession, but equally an act of love. The martyr sacrifices his life willingly and cheerfully, knowing that from the seedtime of blood the harvest of the world’s salvation grows. Ver. 17. Thus in the surrender of His own life for the salvation of the world consists the essence of ayam7; but, he who should be deluded, in the contemplation of this highest and sublimest exhibition of love, into the imagination that love can show itself only in great actions and great sacrifices, and not in the most trifling matters of life, would altogether mistake the nature of trwe love. Such a love as would demonstrate itself only in great and heroical deeds, would be a proud love, and therefore no love at all. And it is in times of persecution and martyrdom that this dangerous error is imminent. Hence, St John appends to what had just been said in the previous verse, a warning, and in doing so uses the 6é. What had been said 254 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. appears now to have relatively the force of a wév: true, that the nature of love consists in this great sacrifice; but, how dwelleth the love of God in him who thinks he may omit the lesser duty of love ? The lesser matter which love must by no means omit, con- sists in the communication of earthly bread and the necessities of life. The greater matter consisted in this, that the children of God, having (according to vers. 14, 15) eternal life dwelling in them, seek to lead those-who are still in death to the pos- session of the life—seek to communicate to them the “ eternal life,’ and that (ver. 16), according to Christ’s example, by the sacrifice of their own (earthly-bodily) life. The opposite to this heavenly-eternal possession of the fw) aidvios is now represented as the Bios tod Kocpov. Zon is the life as an internal principle, as the sovereign power or energy ; Gw7 designates that dominant central-monad which rules, assimilates, reproduces the material elements: thus it is life as viewed in its sovereign ascendency and supremacy over macrocosmical matter, life as an internal principle and developed from itself. Hence this definition 7 fo, in its highest and fullest sense, applies only to the Aoyos tod Oecod as the source of all life (John i. 3, 4, compare John v. 26), and only in a derived and relative sense to those who partake of life from Christ. Béos, on the other hand, is the organic bodily life in its conditionality, the life of the body as a finite and transitory state; hence the continuance of life as limitedly conceived. Then, in its derived meaning, it is what belongs to the prolonging of that life as dependent on external things, on nourishment. (Sept. Prov. xxxi. 3, 14; Cant. viii. 7; Mark xi. 44; Luke vil. 43, xv. 12, 30, xxi. 4; compare above on ch. ii. 16.) The Gw7 in that higher sense, the fo7 aiwvios, the Christian has in common with Christ, and from Christ: the Bios he has in common with the xocpos, and from the xocpos; hence St John calls it Bios tod Kocpov (Les biens de ce monde. Beza). Accordingly, it is self-evident that the Genitive tod xoouod defines the @ios, not as sinful, but only as secular, earthly, and, in comparision with the 7) aiwvos, worthless.— And secth his brother in need. Ocewpeiv signifies here, as everywhere, not the mere involuntary seeing, conspicere, in which the eye is merely passive, but the active beholding, or looking at. It is he who can see before him his brother (adergov) 1 JOHN III. 1-24. 355 as one who suffers distress, needy (xpela, as in Eph. iv. 28; Mark ii. 25, and elsewhere), and yet close his heart against him. Knrelon ta oddyxva abtovd an’ avtod: omdadyyva, in the Old-Testament meaning (o%9mM), is equivalent to spirit or heart ; and hence here is the object of the «dele, which figure would not suit the figure of omdayyva. But we must not conceive the omddyyva as bearing its original meaning: it is not used figuratively, but as a metonymy, while «e/ew is used figura- tively. “To shut the heart” is to prevent the impression, which the beholding of an object of distress produces, from penetrating to the heart. *Az’ avrov is pregnant in its sense : he closes his heart away from him; that is, so that he himself, as a consequence, turns away. (Compare daz’ avrov, ch. ii. 28.) —How dwelleth the love of God in him? ‘H ayarn tod Ocot stands here in a different connection from that of ch. ii. 5: it is not connected with rereAe(wras; in the present context the ayarn is spoken of as a conduct required of us. By this, there- fore, as also by the passage ch. iv. 20, we might be misled into one-sidedly understanding this ayamn tod Oecd of our love to God. This, however, would be incorrect. For the words, “ how abideth the love of God in him,” are strictly parallel with “ abideth in death,” ver. 14, and “ hath not eternal life abiding in him,” ver. 15. And, even in ver. 16 the subject was not merely love as a deportment which we on our part are bound to exhibit, but love according to its substantial being, as sub- stantively displayed in Christ and Christ’s act of love. And therefore our present words can mean no other than that this substance of Divine love (having its source in God) cannot re- main in him who does not practise love in lesser and earthly things. Such a man drives—that is, by the subtle pride which (as remarked above) is mingled with his love—the nature and spirit of the love of God out of himself.—The passage ch. iv. 20 does not furnish an argument against this explanation ; since we have not to explain ch. ii. 17 by ch. iv., but simply to ask what is meant by the words themselves in ch. iii. CONCLUSION OF THIS Part OF THE EpIstLn, vers. 18-24. As St John closed the Second Part of the Epistle by directing, after the recapitulation addressed to the travd/a (ch. ii. 26, 27), his final words to all his readers (vers. 28, 29), so now he ends 256 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. our Third Part with a concluding address, which begins (after the analogy of ch. ii. 28) with texvia. In ver. 18 he exhibits most prominently the exhortation which is the very essence of what has preceded (just as in ch. il. 28 the analogous exhortation, “ Abide in Him”). In ver. 19 he then recapitulates the general motive, which had been urged from ver. 7 onwards, that we possess in our conduct, as pleasing God, the mark that we are of the truth. And it is obvious that these words, as connected with what had been said from yer. 11 to ver. 17, describe the conduct which pleases God as dyamdv, — the manifestation of love.-—From the close of the nineteenth verse to the twenty-second, this motive and reason is developed in its negative and in its positive side; and then in the close of ver. 22 the ayamay is extended (with a recapitulating return to the thought of ver. 4 seq., and ver. 7 seq.) to the typety Tas evroAds. Finally, in vers. 23, 24 these previous considerations are in such a manner summed up in one as to present (after the analogy of ch. ii. 29) the germ-thought of the subsequent Fourth Part. Ver. 18. The exhortation runs: pa) ayaT@pev AOyo pndé TH YAooon, AAW’ év Epyw kal adnGeia. The correctness of this reading, as attested by all the old codices, stands unquestion- ably firm against the Rec., which omits the 77 before yAooon, and év before épy@. The pension from the mere Dative X\oyo and 77 yAeooy to év with the Dative is thought by Liicke and others to be appropriate, inasmuch as the Datives describe the instruments by which the love produces its effect, while év, on the other hand, introduces the elements in which the love moves. But this is contradicted by the fact that the two clauses are opposed to each other antithetically. Can we suppose St John to have meant to say, “ Let us not approve the energy of our love with the instruments of word and tongue, but let our love move in the elements of deed and truth?” This would’ be a marvellous antithesis! De Wette perceived more correctly that the év with the Dative is here equivalent to the simple Dative by itself. It is well known that St John often uses the év in the Hebraizing sense of 2 instrumentale (most strikingly in Rev. xill. 10); and thus we have here nothing more than the Apostle’ s not unusual sinking down from the pure Greek into a Hebraiz- JOHN III. 1—24. 957 ing phraseology.— Adyos forms the antithesis to épyov, and, ac- cordingly, signifies the mere word. I’A\éoca enters in as an intensification. A man may love with words (without deeds), yet in such wise that the words are true and sincere; much worse is it, when the mere tongue chatters without the heart, and when, therefore, the very words are not sincerely meant. To this d\7@eca forms the antithesis. Ver. 19. The first member of the verse, “ Hereby we know that we are of the truth,” is easily understood. It is essentially the same thought which we have seen in ver. 14, viz., that love is the distinguishing mark of a state of grace. But here the state of grace, that is, the ée Oeod eivas (comp. ver. 9), is not viewed, as in ver. 14, according to the category of life and death, but according to that of ad7Geva and >eddos, truth and lie (comp. ch. ii. 21); partly, because in ver. 18 the dArjOeva had just been opposed to the mere yAdooa, and partly because the Apostle has it already in his mind to return back, in the following Part, to the category of the ad7Oea, and the opposi- tion between it and the Gnostic lie. I'vwodpela is the reading of A.B.C. against the Rec. yuvdaoxowev (which seems to have sprung from the notion of conforming the passage with ver. 24, ch. ii. 3 and 5, iv. 2 and 13, v. 5). The Future was not occa- sioned (as Huther thinks) by “ the cohortative form of thought,” as if we must supply, “ If we observe this injunction, we shall thereby be able to know;” it simply serves to exhibit the declaration as a universally applicable rule. If ywookopuer stood in the text, the ayawav would then appear to be taken for granted as etl present: “ Her eby — by the love which we are now enabled to exercise—we know ;” it would be an infer- ence drawn from the abiding continuance of something in the life. But, it seems the Apostle’s purpose not to do that, but to lay down a general rule applicable to all cases. "Ev rovre, scil. TO ayarvav, yvwooueba, by our life we shall be able to know; the presence or the absence of the love will be ever and in all eases the distinguishing mark or test to ourselves, whether or not we be of the truth. That the words év Todt in this passage look backwards, is plain at the first glance, and is now pretty generally admitted ; that they cannot refer forward to ver. 20 (as if one of the two érz, or both of them, depended upon the R 258 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. év TovT@), will be very plain from a closer consideration of what follows. Vers. 19, 20, may be regarded as a difficult passage, inas- much as expositors have always been. widely at variance, both in their views of the whole and in their interpretation of the individual words, both as to the general meaning and the con- struction of the sentences. The points in question are these: (1) Whether cai éumpocGev airod begins a new and indepen- dent clause, so that the Future vreécoper is co-ordinated with the Future yvaooueba, or whether retcoper, like écpév, still depends upon étv; and, in the former case, whether év tovT@ is to be referred merely to yywooue@a, or also to wefcopev. (2) Whether meiVew means to convince, and has an object following; or, whether it means to persuade, “to persuade into pacification,” and stands absolutely. (8) Whether orc is generally a particle, and then also édy a conditional particle, the second érv being a resumption (epanalepsis) of the first ; or whether édv stands for av, and 6,rs must be read, in the sense of quodcunque. (4) Whether God is called pe/fov because He is more merciful than our heart, or because He is more rigorous in His judgment upon us. (5) Whether, in ver. 21, by means of the words éay 7 xapdia, K.T.X., a Second supposition is introduced in opposition to that contained in ver. 20; or whether, rather, this éay stands in the sense of “if then now,” and introduces a deduction from what is said in ver. 20. Before these questions can be thoroughly examined and receive their answer, it is of great importance to settle the right reading. At the close of ver. 19 we must read the singular rip kapdiav, with A. and B. (and Lachmann), against C., Vulg., and Rec.; since the authority of A. and B. is here perfectly decisive.’ Manifestly, the plural was introduced here as a cor- rection, the singular by the side of 7juey not seeming correct.— In ver. 20 érz is omitted before peifov in Cod. A.; but it is vouched for by B. and C. The omission is easily accounted for : the recurrence of dru after so short an intervening clause might appear to be superfluous. We have further to remark, that in ver. 22 éay is sufficiently authenticated by B. and C., in opposi- tion to the av of A. 1 Tn Cod. A. a later hand has inserted the plural. 1 JOHN III. 1-24. 259 And now we may simplify the investigation by removing out of the way certain interpretations which are generally acknowledged to be wrong. It is clear, at the outset, that meicomev does not, like éopév, depend upon étz, but that it is independent and co-ordinate with the yywodue@a. The only question that remains is, whether the €v tovrq still throws its influence upon the weicopev, or whether Kai éwrpocbev begins a perfectly independent reflection. Secondly, it may be regarded as settled that ore before édy cannot mean “ for; 1, because in that case the following 67c would be without an explanation, since only “ that,’ and not “for,” can be epanalectically re- peated; and 2, because in that case there would be lacking some apodosis to éav.' Thirdly, it may be considered as a settled point that we have no right arbitrarily to correct the last 6é7¢ (with Stephanus) into étv, or the 67u édv (with Andrei) into éte dy or oray ; as also, that the latter 67. must not be taken (Beza) in the sense of dyAovors, or (Calvin) in that of certe. We begin then our investigation by a glance at ver. 21; that is, by giving its answer to the fifth of the questions men- tioned above: it will be seen that this question is in reality in- dependent, and may be decided with confidence, furnishing at the same time a firm basis for the explanation of ver. 20. Huther, like many other expositors, discerns in ver. 20 the reflection that, if or however much our heart may accuse us, we may pacify our heart on the ground that God is greater—to wit, greater in forgiveness and in grace—than our heart. For the present, we leave out of the question the correctness of the interpretation which, in view of ver. 20, leads to this result. The main point which concerns us now is only this, that Huther regards ver. 21 as a deduction from the premises laid down in ver. 20. It is not that to the one supposition, “ that our heart condemn us,” the other, “ that it do not condemn us,” is opposed ; but the sense in his view is this: “ If then, in consequence of that ved@ew, that purification obtained, our heart no longer condemn us, then (what follows is a necessary consequence, etc.).” But this explanation is verbally and 1 Unless we agree with De Wette to find it in xal yiwdoxes rave, translating x«/ by “‘also:” ‘‘ For, if our heart accuse us, because God is greater than our heart, He also knoweth all things.” But this will not commend itself by its clearness to any one. 260 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. grammatically untenable. Not only should we then expect nKéTe Kataywookn, but, further, the particle édv could not possibly serve to introduce an inference from a premiss actually presupposed as existing and real. ‘This would have required e¢ with the Indicative. ’*Edy expresses the exact contrary ; it introduces a condition, of which the future must decide whether it be or be not the case. "Edy does net mean, “ If then, there- fore ;” but, “ putting the case.” And therefore we must regard it as absolutely indubitable, that the words of ver. 21, éav 7) xapdia 42) KaTayWwooKn was, are set over against the case assumed in ver. 20, €av Katayweoxn, as the opposite case. In ver. 20 is expressed what would take place on the supposition that our heart condemns us; in ver. 21 is expressed what would take place on the contrary supposition, if our heart condemned us not. And this leads us immediately to the decision of the third question. If in éav ur) kataywodoxn, ver. 21, the one supposi- tion is laid down, éav cataywocxy in ver. 20 must lay down the opposite ; that is, édy must be a conditional particle. Hooge- veen and Huther would read 6;7z éav in the sense of 6,7¢ adv (“ of whatever our heart may at amy time accuse us”); and Huther appeals to the fact, that many New-Testament codices have here and there the unclassical reading édy instead of ap, and that even the union of ée71s with such an éay is not with- out example; for Lachmann and Tischendorf read 6o7tséay in Gal. v. 10, and the latter #7vs édv in Acts tii. 23, and in Col. iii. 17 the preponderance of testimony is in favour of 6,71 éav. This sets aside Diisterdieck’s appeal to the dictum of Hermann (ad Vigerum, p. 835), which applies only to classical Greek ; and, in fact, no one who is thoroughly acquainted with New-Testa- ment Greek will deny the possibility of the combination de7is éay (and xatayweoxew may certainly have the double Accusa- tive of the person and the thing, though this construction never occurs in the New Testament, and but seldom in profane writers). But inthis passage the reading 6,7 édv, as equivalent to 67s av, is not only very improbable (since immediately in ver. 22 0 éav follews), but it is rendered flatly impossible by the antithetical relation of the two conditional propositions, ver. 20 and ver. 21. Consequently, it is decisively settled that the latter é7¢ in ver. 20 can be only an epanalepsis of the preceding. 1 JOHN III. 1-24. 261 Now, when St John places in such sharp antithesis to each other the two opposite cases, 1. that of our hearts accusing us, and 2. that of our hearts not accusing us, we naturally and at once assume, after the analogy of many such examples of the Apostle’s habit of antithesis (ch. i. 6 and 7, 8 and 9, ii. 4 and 5, 10 and 11, ch. iii. 8 and 4, 7 and 8), that here also he is oppos- ing the ungodly deportment of those who are not at all, or are not truly, of God, to the godly and Christian deportment of those who are the genuine rtéxva Ocod. That the 1 pers. pl. nas need not embarrass us, is plain from a glance at ch. i. 6-10. ‘ ; But, in spite of this, Luther, Bengel, Morus, Spener, Olshausen, Diisterdieck, and others, have felt themselves under the necessity of regarding both sides of the matter as referring to one and the same class of true Christians, both of them find- ing their place within the limits of the same sincere Divine life. (The testing of this view will bring us to a decision con- cerning the first, second, and fourth of the five questions above- named.) Those expositors. (as also Huther, who admits generally no antithesis between ver. 20 and ver. 21) assume at the outset that €v rovtw must be referred to wefcouev,—in opposition to Fritzsche and others, who regard «al éumpoobev, x.7.d.. as a perfectly independent and new thought. That reference has nothing grammatically against it, but nothing positively in its favour. In themselves, both interpretations are conceivable : “ By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and (by this shall we) persuade or still our hearts ;” and also the other, “ By this shall we know, ete., and we shall persuade our heart, ete.’ Even Diisterdieck admits that it is the following train of thought which renders it necessary to refer év TovT@ also to melcouev. We regard this as still an open question, the deci- sion of which must be given by what immediately follows. But now we must further ask what the meaning of we(@ew is. Of course the word must be acknowledged to bear the two significations of convince and persuade. A third interpretation, that of stilling, pacifying, or placare, has been vindicated by Diisterdieck, following Luther; but it may be proved that it never bears this meaning: in Matt. xxviii. 14, for instance, it means simply no more than “ persuade,” the context showing 262 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. to what the Jews would persuade the Governor. So also with 1 Sam. xxiv. 8, where the Septuagint has translated the doubt- ful yow, which properly means verbis lacerare, increpare, by évetce—not, indeed, to express the idea of pacification, but simply to show the result, that David had so persuaded his fol- lowers as that they should do his will. It is conceded also that the meaning is not different in Joseph., Arch. vi. 5, 6. But Huther, admitting that in our passage zre/@evv means of itself only to persuade, contends that the context requires the addi- tional meaning of persuading or stilling to repose. For, mwe(@ewv stands here in an antithetical relation to catayweoKxew. But, the question whether this be so or not, must be, after all, de- cided on other grounds. Considered in itself, one cannot see why zei@ev should form a contrast with cataywooxew: the grammatical construction does not lead that way; for, wei@ew is the finite verb of the governing proposition, and the words peiCov éotl—xal yweoke TévtTa rather would form a kind of antithesis to the cataywoéonev of the conditional member of the dependent proposition. Thus it must first be demonstrated that the weécoper, in the ruling proposition, is in sense related to the ore pelSwv, x.7.. But, far from being demonstrated, this relation is opposed by the whole construction. That welcopev was asserted absolutely and without any object, in a meaning which the reader only after reading the twentieth verse would discover, is in itself not very probable. He who read or heard the word zreécopev, together with the 67¢ which follows it, must certainly have been disposed—since wefcowev has no other object stated, and since it expresses, as absolutely laid down, no definite idea at all—to regard the clause with 67u as the object of the eécouev; and, accordingly, to translate oT, not by “ because,” but by “ that,’ taking wei@ew in the meaning of convince. Huther, however, declares this explanation to be untenable; “ for, the consciousness that God is greater than our heart, cannot be regarded as the result of this, that we know ourselves by our love to be such as are of the truth.” But who does not see that this supposed objection holds good only on the supposition that the év Tovv« is still referred to the we(comev, or that between the two propositions, yuwcouefa and treicopev, a relation of ground and consequence must be assumed? The former, however, is not true; for we hold it established that év 1 JOHN III. 1-24. 263 rov7m must be referred only to ywwoouea; and of the latter we find no trace in the text. Thus Huther has refuted only those who translate we(Oew 674 by “ convince that,” and then at the same time would refer év rovT@ also to mefcowev. The other acceptation, that év rovTw belongs only to ywwoouePa, and that then reife ore means “ convince that,” he leaves entirely unre- futed. And unrefuted it will remain. For, not only has vreécouev no such meaning as “ pacify ;” not only does the interpretation “persuade,” thus without an object, give no sense; not only does it require 671, «.7.X., as its object, and necessarily therefore bear the meaning of “ con- vince ;’—but the other acceptation is also wrecked on the words ore pelfov, «.T.r. If, with Liicke, we take we/couer in the sense of pacifying, and then refer peifwv to the greater severity of God, the following ideas rise: “ By our love we know that we are of the truth, and by this we can pacify our heart, because, if our heart should accuse us (that is, of the want of love), then God is a still greater Judge than our heart, that is, an omni- scient Judge (and therefore would still more condemn us).” But in what logical relation would this “because” stand to that which it is supposed to establish? From the fact, that if our own heart condemn us, the Omniscient would all the more condemn us, it cannot in fact follow that the consciousness of practising love it is which serves to pacify our heart. The matter of the clause with 67 would stand to the év rovT@ Teico- ev, at furthest, in the relation of an explanatory confirmation, not in that of a causal nexus; and ought, therefore, to be con- nected at least with yap, but not with the paratactic dru, “for,” certainly not with the syntactic 671, “ because.” Hence other expositors, who connect 7re(copev with év TovTe, and take it in the sense of “ pacify,” have consistently sought to establish for the words éti pelfwv, x.7.d., also another and perfectly opposite meaning. God is called peifwv, inasmuch as His forgiving grace is exalted above the fear of our self-con- demning heart, and inasmuch as with Him there is the possibility of absolving us, even when to ws there is no possibility of ab- solving ourselves. Nésselt has very ingeniously placed this in connection with the dyamav Tov adedpov. By this, that we practise love, we know that we are of the truth ; by this we can pacify ourselves, and that on this ground, 264 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. because if our heart (loving our neighbour, and consequently forgiving his trespasses) should accuse ourselves of any fault, God is still greater than our heart,—that is, will much more certainly forgive our sin than we could ever forgive our neigh- bour’s sin. But however ingenious this may sound, the words of our passage cannot be made conformable to such an inter- pretation. The strength of such an interpretation is in what must be supplied. The element of the forgiveness of our neigh- bour, which of course is, in the nature of the case, contained in brotherly-love, had not been expressed in any form in the con- text: the idea of forgiveness must be forced upon the text, and that twice, first with regard to ourselves, and then afterwards with regard to God. If St John had had this idea in his mind, he would have written thus: 6t1, e¢ mweis TO AdEAPO aieuev TA TAPATTOMATA avTOV, TOT paAdoV 0 Ocds adyjoer huiv TA TapaTTopata nov. But the main objection to this and every similar interpretation lies in the words kcal ywooKxe wavta. It is hard to see what the omniscience of God would have to do with the tireprepicoevew of His grace. It must then be as- sumed that God, as knowing all things, might discover some excellencies in us which were concealed from our own modesty, and on account of those latent virtues would forgive our sin! Or, that He were better acquainted with our weakness than ourselves are, and therefore would not so severely reckon with our guilt (as if we were not of ourselves only too much inclined to excuse ourselves on these and other grounds!). We need not stay to demonstrate that both these acceptations are flatly opposed to scriptural teaching; that God does not forgive our sin because of our excellencies, or excuse it because of our weakness. The omniscience of God can therefore be no reason why He should be supposed to judge us more gently than we judge ourselves. But since the “knowing all things” is laid down in strictest connection with “is greater,” the latter cannot intend the greater mildness of God." But neither can it signify this, viewed in itself. When God is called “ greater,” in comparison with our self-accusing heart, the heart which accuses us is called “less.” This notion of 1 Huther substitutes for ‘‘ mildness” the vague idea of ‘‘ glory ;” but this is only disguising the matter. For this also really refers ‘‘ is greater” to ‘‘ forgiving love.” 1 JOHN III. 1-24. 265 littleness cannot here be meant in any laudatory sense, since in that case some kind of disparagement would fall upon God's being greater. But it is manifest that our heart can be opposed to the “ greater” God only in the sense either of positive blame, or at least of deficiency. But, according to this explanation, our heart can be the less, only as far as it accuses us. But it is quite incomprehensible how the self-accusation and self-con- demnation could be represented as a defect, where there is no guilt. If indeed the thing intended were, that our heart in littleness of faith failed to apprehend aright the consolation of the forgiveness of sins, the matter would be quite different. In that sense, it might be said that God is greater than our heart ; that is, that the superabundance of His grace covers the de- ficiency of our faith. But it is an exegetical violence to sub- stitute this idea for the plain words, cataywooKkn jas. We have not in the text of vers. 20 and 21 the antithesis between timorous littleness of faith and its joyful confidence, as if in both cases the heart were conscious of guilt,—in the one, how- ever, appropriating forgiveness, and in the other not venturing to do so; but we have in ver. 20 the supposition that our heart condemns us, and in ver, 21 the supposition that our heart does not condemn us. This self-accusation of the heart can in no case be put to the account of its being little or less ; any more than #he forgiving fulness of God’s grace can have its ground in the fact of His “ knowing all things.” Thus we think we have shown that this entire view is at all points untenable; and shall now go on to set over against it that interpretation which alone we regard as correct and capable of perfect vindication. After what has been already said, it must be assumed that the particle édv, in the words 6ére éav, is a conditional particle ; that the two clauses, ver. 20, éav xataywookn, K.T.r., and, ver. 31, éav ur) Katayweckn, serve the purpose of setting over against each other two opposite suppositions; that 7e(copev means “to convince ;” and that é7c introduces, with the signi- fication “that,” the objective proposition belonging to we(coper. —By no means, therefore, can we lower the reference of ev TovT@ down to the wefcowev; first, because this could be done only by means of a zeugma, for the assumption of which there is no occasion here; and, secondly, because, as we have already 266 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. seen, a very inapposite thought would arise out of it. We regard, therefore, xal EumpooGev as the beginning of a new and perfectly independent clause. St John has already said, in the preceding words, that we may always discern by our “loving” or “not loving” whether we are or are not of the truth. He now passes over to another and new reflection. “And before Him—™5?, before God’s face—shall we convince our hearts of this, that if our heart already condemns us, God is greater and knoweth all things.” How far and in what sense God is greater, the words “and knoweth all things” declare. He penetrates by His knowledge all things. Now, if our heart, so inclined to self-deception and self-vindication (and therefore “ little”), accuses us (that is, of not exercising love), God, the Omniscient, is greater than our heart; and we can therefore all the less stand before Him, all the less have the wappnoia. If we take peifwv in this sense (with Bullinger, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, a Lapide, Liicke, Neander, and many others), then the words “is greater,” etc., form the purest, sharpest antithesis to the words “have con- fidence towards God,” ver. 21, and all the details become per- fectly clear. Then it becomes perfectly intelligible why St John writes éumpocGev adtod tetcouev. “ And before God’s face shall we convince ourselves,” he says, in order by anticipa- tion to remind us that we have not to do with ourselves angl our own hearts alone, but that we stand before the all-searching eye of God; and, therefore, that it is not left to our own option whether we will or will not believe what is stated in the propo- sition with 67. And certainly the gupocfev aitod must not be referred forward to the distant judgment—“ when we one day stand before Him in judgment, we shall,” ete. Ile/copev Thy Kapdiav Hoy is not a simple paraphrase for meicopev judas avtovs: St John intends to lay the emphasis upon this, that the question is not of a mere conviction of the understanding, but that our heart, spirit, and conscience must be convinced of the truth that we can less escape God than we can ourselves. He uses the Future here, not to express by it a rule holding good for all supposed cases, but in order simply to express his own expectation of the truth of what is said. We cannot, in fact, see what form other than the Future he could have used here. An Imperative would have been too absolute; an in- 1 JOHN Iti. 1-24. 267 sinuating Conjunctive, as a mere friendly injunction or chal- lenge (“Let us, however, be convinced”), would have been insipid. He would neither command nor entreat: he would exhibit it as something which he decidedly expects, and which so necessarily and inevitably follows from the nature of the case itself, that he may expect it; therefore this precise and definite “before God’s presence will we convince our hearts, that,” etc. The words éav xataywodoxn, «.T.r., derive their fixed definiteness from the context. The question, whether we practise an active love or not, had preceded: in regard to this matter, our hearts can either accuse or acquit us. God is called “oreater,” as has been said, because He cannot be deceived ; on the contrary, our hearts are “less,” because we may suppose them liable to self-deception. The whole thought, consequently, is closely bound up with the proposition laid down in the beginning of ver. 19. In the words év TovT» yvwoduela there was contained implicitly a challenge to self-examination. And the two opposite supposi- tions which are evolved by such a self-examination are more expressly referred to and described in vers. 20, 21. Of this we must be convinced in our heart and conscience, before God’s presence, that, if the former of these suppositions be the true one with regard to us—if our own hearts condemn us in self- examination—assuredly we can stand before God with still less confidence than before our own hearts. That is, we shall then subjectively be able to attain to no mappnala, and objectively shall not be acknowledged by Him as réxva, or as €« Tis ady- Geias dvtes. For how could He, who knoweth all things, ac- knowledge us “to be of Him,” when our own hearts convict us of a lie? | The second supposed case is unfolded in vers. 21, 22. What St John had to say touching the former part of the alternative he had introduced by the solemn appeal, “ Before God’s face shall we convince our heart, that;” but now he introduces what he has to say touching the second case by the graciously-confident address, “ Beloved” (as in ch. ii. 7, ill. 2). He now takes for granted the existence of such a condition of things in regard to his readers; therefore he names them “ his beloved,’—as they would present themselves to his mind, on 268 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. the latter part of the alternative-—upon whom his glance may rest for a time with joyful love. The conditional clause éav, x.7.r., has already received its explanation. When the case occurs, that our heart sustains the application of the test prescribed in ver. 19, and does not accuse us, we discern that we “are of the truth,” and “of God,” and “children of God.” This again resolves itself into a twofold consequence. First, wappynoiav éyopev pds Tov Ocov (Cod. B. reads éyes instead of €youev, which is without any critical significance). Those who translate we(copuev by “pacify” are now at great pains to establish a distinction between 7retcopev and trappyclav éyouev. To us the rappnoiay éyouev seems to form the pure and simple antithesis to the idea contained in é7t peifwv, x.7.r. We discern ourselves to be God’s children ; and therefore have that joy and confidence in our hearts which the children feel towards their father. The second point is cat O €ay aiTamev, AawBdvowev Tap avtob—the answer to prayer, of which the child of God (according to John xv. 7, etc.) may be fully assured. It is obvious, however, that here the child of God is supposed to pray as such—that is, “in the name of Jesus.” And this includes everything: he asks in the spirit of Jesus, according to the pattern cf our Lord’s Prayer, in which there is one petition for daily bread, and all the rest supplicate heavenly blessings,—none being put up for earthly honour, or things too high for us; moreover, he asks in humility like that of which Jesus gave us an example in Gethsemane, in suppli- cation far removed from the carnal presumption which would intrude into the secrets of the Divine government, and dictate what only the providence of the Almighty and All-wise can determine for the world’s good and the good of each. But within these limits there is boundless room for the exercise of confidence in prayer; within these limits, even particular re- quests are permissible, and special petitions are granted, as the experience of every devout Christian can confirm by many examples. The clause 67e tas évToAds adtod Tnpodmer, Kal TA apecTa 1 As it regards the reading, the first yay is wanting in A., the second is wanting in C., and in B. both are wanting. Probably both are genuine —the one or the other having been omitted simply for the sake of the sound. JOHN TII. 1-24. 269 €voTriov avTov Trotodmev, does not give the reason why God can hear our prayers, for then it must have been said, 67 Ta adr@ apeata aitoduev); nor does it belong only to the second clause, Kal 0 éav, x.7.r., as if it specified the reason why God may grant our petitions (on account of our obedience) ; but it be- longs to the whole sentence. We must not translate the 671 by “ because,” but rather by “ for.” We have confidence, and find hearing for our prayers ; for we keep His commandments, and thereby approve ourselves to be His children. That this mediating thought must be supplied, and that our prayers must not be interpreted as causa meritoria, has been observed by most expositors. This is rendered indubitable by the previous chain of thought (comp. vers. 9, 14, 19); and the words in question are nothing but a recapitulation of that which had been more freely expanded above.'' In fact, what had been expressed by “if our heart condemn us not” is now resolved into positive elements by the clause with 671; and, indeed, in such a way as to refer the thought not to brotherly-love alone, but to the more general scope of the seventh verse. The antithesis of the rovety TH avopiay, ver. 4, and the crosety THY Stxatoctvny, ver. 7, con- sists in the keeping of the commandments of God, and conse- quently in the doing what is in accordance with the Divine will and well-pleasing to the Divine Being. Vers. 23, 24. But froin this most general statement and view St John once more returns—again recapitulating — back to the specific mention of the @yamn. But he inserts here an intermediate thought which had not occurred in the Third Part. “ And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another.” First and foremost, St John sums up the multitude of the évtoXa/ in the unity of the one €vtod7. Of the legalist character stamped upon the Romish theology and Church he knows nothing. Even the “ believing in Christ” and “ loving one another” are not to him two commandments, but only one; because, where there is genuine and living faith there must be also love, as certainly as with the sun there must be light. God does not give us a 1 It is obviously erroneous to separate, as the Romish expositors do, the dpeora rosciv from the rapsiv ras évroAxs, understanding the former of the consilia evangelica. 270 CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE ENMITY OF THE WORLD. multitude of injunctions; but this one thing is His will, that we believe in Christ, and consequently love one another. It is by express design that St John here comprehends all piety in faith; that no man may pervert or misunderstand what he had said in ch. iii. But, at the same time, this mention of wiotis gives expression to a thought which paves the way for the next division of the Epistle. For he has it in view to return back once more to the contrast between the faith in Christ and the Gnostic false doctrine. Here he writes muctevew TO dvopuate ; elsewhere (ch. v. 13; John i. 12, ii. 23, iii. 18) es TO dvopa. Diisterdieck thinks that the eds specifies the name of Jesus simply as the object of the faith, while the Dative case specifies the Person Himself with whom faith brings us into relation. But the converse is nearer the truth. ITIvorevew eis Te means to repose confidence in anything ; uatevew Tivi, to repose faith in an assurance. Hence, the construction with the Dative gives prominence rather to the theoretical aspect, the construction with eds rather to the experimental aspect, of faith. The 24th verse is so entirely a recapitulation, that it needs no further explanation. Once more St John lays down the pro- position: he that keepeth His commandments, dwelleth in God and Grod in him (comp. ch. ii. 24, John xv. 4, etc.) ; once more he adds the more definite intimation, that the keeping of the commandments is not the efficient cause, but the mark of the péverv of God in us. Only the concluding words, é« tod TVEVMATOS OV Hiv Edwxev, are new. As it respects their gram- matical arrangement and position, they form a free apposition to that which is contained in év Todt, so that we have to supply in thought ywaeckouev again ; but év Todt refers back. “ By this (the keeping of the commandments) we know that He abideth in us—by the Spirit (we know it) whom’ He hath given us.” (To refer év tovt@ forward to é« Tod mvevparos is incompatible with the distinction between éy and éx.) The Spirit given us by God is not specified as a second mark, simply distinguished from the keeping of the commandments (that would have required cai é« tod mvevpartos); but it is that one and the selfsame mark, which is here viewed and exhibited under another aspect. Moreover, it is self-evident, since a 1 Qo stands here by attraction, and is not the genitivus partitivus. 1 JOHN III. 1-24. 271 mark is the matter in question, that the wvedya here is not the power within which works obedience, but that it is regarded as a spirit manifesting its influence before men in an external holy life. This is made perfectly plain by reference to ch. iv. 1. St John shows throughout the whole of the next section how the true and genuine wvedua, opposed to the false zvedua of gnosis, is internally one with obedience and love (and, there- fore, how dogmatic lie and moral error are closely connected). He prepares the way for this course of thought, when he places the possession of the true rvetua in such direct apposi- tion with the keeping of the évroXa/—And this gives these concluding words the character, as it were, of an announcement of anew theme. The mention of wiczvis in ver. 23 had paved the way for the chain of thought now commenced; and here, in the concluding words of ver. 4, St John makes a formal transition to it. And thus this verse contains (by means of the appositional juxtaposition of the mvedua and the type tas evtonds) the germ of the subjects unfolded in Part the Fourth ; just as ch. ii. 29 had contained the germ of that of the Third. PART THE FOURTH. THE SPIRIT FROM GOD IS A SPIRIT OF TRUTH AND OF LOVE. Ch. iv. 1-ch. v. 3. WHEN we glance over the fourth chapter as a whole, we are involuntarily reminded of the two concluding verses of the third chapter. The Apostle has mentioned two kinds of God’s commandment, by the fulfilment of which we may attain to know: whether we dwell in God, and God in us: 1, that we believe in the name of Jesus ; and, 2, that we love one another. Both these he then sums up, ver. 24, under the idea of the Spirit of God. With this “ Spirit from God” he begins at once the fourth chapter; that is, with the injunction to test the spirits, and to distinguish the Spirit of God from the spirit of wAav7j. Now the first mark which he sets forth (vers. 2-6) is of a dogmatic nature; it is the confession that Jesus is come in the flesh. But then, in ver. 7, he springs as it were without any mediating thought to the exhortation, “‘ Let us love one another,” as being the second sign that we are of God. These are manifestly the two marks which were mentioned in ch. iii. 23, and which here are further developed. 'The second is unfolded in vers. 7-12. And then, in ver. 13, there is a recapitulation: “ Hereby we know that we dwell in Him, and He in us, that is, by the Spirit which He hath given to us.” Thus here also both sides are viewed together, and embraced under the one uniting idea of the Spirit of God. But these are not to be externally distributed simply under one common head. St John will show the unity of the nature of the “Spirit from God,” and demonstrate how those two aspects 1 JOHN IV. I-V. 3. ots of it—sound faith and living love—are organically united in that one common nature, and in this sense one with each other. This has been already prepared for by the manner in which he had spoken, vers. 2-6 and vers. 7-12, of both elements; and now in vers. 14—16 the subject finds its full and express state- ment. In vers. 2-6, the coming of Jesus Christ into the flesh was exhibited as the object of true faith, in opposition to the mravy of the Gnostics. In vers. 7-12 (specially vers. 9, 10), the same coming of Jesus Christ into the flesh, as the act of Divine love which precedes our love, was exhibited as the ground and root of all our love. And therefore St John can now, vers. 14-16, define the one and undivided nature of the “ Spirit from God” as faith in that love of God which was mani- fested in the sending of His only-begotten Son, and from which it follows of itself that we, in order to abide in God, must abide tn love. These three explanatory groups of thoughts are now followed by a further and more hortatory expansion. It is now shown that, and in what manner, the presence of the Spirit of God may be known by these fundamental marks. Love is not simply an external mark of sonship; but it ¢s itself made per- fect in confidence towards God, since it has its root in the love of God to us (vers. 17-19) :—thus it is itself zappyofa in its own nature. ‘To this is attached the reflection, that he who hateth his brother, loveth not God. The same love which was, in its essence, a confidence in the previous love of God to us, assumes, by an internal necessity, the form of love to the brethren. Consequently, vers. 17-19 is parallel with the dogmatic view of the subject, vers. 2-6; but vers. 20, 21, with the ethical, vers. 7-12. And thus in ch. iv. 20-v. 2, the two sides—the faith that Jesus is the Christ, and the love to the brethren—are ex- hibited in their mutual inseparable dependence and connection ; so that these two elements, faith and love, are shown to be, not only each in itself an evidence of the Spirit of God, but also mutually each as a mark of the other (ch. iv. 20, and v. 2). In ch. v. 3 a reflection is appended to this, which forms the transi- tion to the final main section (concerning the world-overcoming power of faith). This analysis of the scope of the section so entirely justifies itself (as seen by its reference to ch. iii. 23, and by the re 5 274 THE SPIRIT FROM GOD A SPIRIT OF TRUTH AND LOVE. curring collocation of the two leading topics in ch. iv. 13 and ch. v. 1), and it is so clear that the idea of the mvedya éx @ecod (to which ch. iii. 24 formed the transition, which has its climax in ch. iv. 1, and recurs in ver. 13 as the uniting founda- tion of the two elements) is the predominant idea of this section, that it seems needless to refute the view of those who refer ch. iv. 1-6 to the preceding section, or of those who find here no organization at all, and refer back ch. iv. 1 to ch. ii. 29. In ver. 1 the fundamental position of the section is laid down in the form of an injunction: “ Try the various spirits, whether they be of God.’ The exhibition of the marks by which the “Spirit from God” may be known—the dogmatic confession of the coming of Jesus into the flesh, and brotherly- love—forms the subject of the whole section. On the address dyamnroi, which serves to mark either a main or a subordinate section (here the former), compare above on ch. ii. 7, ili. 2 and 21.—My ravi wvetpate rictevere. Here there is presupposed a multiplicity of spirits: not merely a duality (the Spirit of God and the spirit of the lie), but many various spirits under each of the two heads. ‘This is abundantly clear from the following words: “ Try the spirits, whether they be of God;” which assumes that they may be demonstrated by the test to be spirits in their plurality coming from God. And so it is exhibited in ver. 2, “ Every spirit that confesseth, etc. ;” where again a plurality of spirits is referred to, each of which confesses Jesus. Hence, many expositors (Lyra, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, and others) have agreed that we must understand by mvedua simply, and without qualification, the spirits of indi- vidual persons, that is, their personalities : the sense would then be—Prove the individual persons, the several teachers, who bring with them or represent any particular spirit. But we do not find in Holy Scripture wveduara used for the designation of men qua spiritual natures; nor could such a metonomy as would make “spirits” stand for the “bearers, or representa- tives, or instruments of a definite spirit,” be justified. Others, on the contrary (a Lapide, Zwingli, Carpzov, Episcopius), take mvevata conversely, in its purely objective meaning, for doc- trine, dogmata—which, however, is an equally indefensible in- 1 JOHN IV. 1~V. 3. 275 terpretation of the phraseology. Diisterdieck, however, is not right when he reduces the Biblical idea of the zrvedua to the philosophical idea of “the superhuman principle which possesses the man ;”* not right, even if he had spoken of a superhuman power or inspiration, instead of a superhuman principle. For this would be, among the children of the truth, no other than the power of God, that is, the Holy Spirit Himself; but this would be inconsistent with the representation of a multiplicity of the mvevyara. Therefore, we must agree with Huther, so far as he does not understand by the wvedua here any spirit higher than and distinguished from the human spirit. But he, on the other hand, is wrong when he takes the zvedua to mean the human spirit itself gua the organ of a higher spirit. Bul- linger discerned the true meaning (essentially, at least, though he wavers in the exhibition of it) when, appealing to 1 Cor. xiv. 32, he explained avedua as the mens and the sensus which came into existence or took effect through the influence and operation of a higher (Divine or ungodly) power in men.” It is not the function of the spirit, or the subjective spirit of man, as it stands in the relation of a receptive organ to higher influ- ences, which is here spoken of; but the objective stamp or characteristic of spirit which obtains in man, the objective spirit which rules in him and assumes the character towards other men of a power of doctrine: spoken of, however, in such a way that every such spirit in the objective sense appears as produced and inspired by a higher Spirit; which, indeed, is plain from the very expression, yevdorpopAtrat, as also from ver. 2. (To make this clear by examples: The spirits to be tested by us would not be the spirit of the individual Gaius, or that of the individual Titus, and so forth; but the spirits of Gnos- ticism, the spirit of Cerinthianism, of Valentinianism, and, on the other hand, the spirit of Paulinism, that of Petrinism, or, in later ages, the spirit of Augustinianism and Pelagianism, of Protestantism and Popery, of Pietism and Rationalism, and so forth.) 1 Similarly Olshausen : ‘‘ Here it is a pretended higher spirit which is spoken of, the representative of which gives himself out as a prophet.” 2 So, essentially, also Grotius: ‘‘ Spiritum vocat prophetiam. Pro- phetia ejus, qui in ipsé prophetia Jesum non pro Christo agnoscit, non est bzomveveres.” 276 THE SPIRIT FROM GOD A SPIRIT OF TRUTH AND LOVE. “ Believe not every spirit :” that is, Believe not every formal exhibition of a higher spiritual influence and working, as soon as it appears before you in a compact and authoritative form, holding men by its power; “ but prove the spirits, whether they be of God.” Wherein the doxiuafew consists (comp. 1 Thess. v. 21), how and by what tests, and in what respects, they are to be tried, will be unfolded in the following verses. But the reason why a Soxysagery is necessary, lies in the fact that “many false prophets have gone out into the world.” "“E&épyeo@au eis Tov xocpov does not mean that they go forth from a place without or beyond the world,’ and enter into the world; for, it is not evil spirits which are spoken of here, but human individuals, the false prophets themselves. We must simply connect with the going forth the additional phrase, “ from their abodes.” They went out in the absolute sense: they set forth to go up and down, in publicum prodierunt ; and thus they went eis Tov xocpov,—which is not used here in opposition to heaven or hell, nor indeed in opposition to the kingdom of God, but simply denotes the world inhabited by men, the mass of mankind (not excluding the children of God, since they must be on their guard against the seduction of the false prophets). When the Apostle thus urges his injunction to doxipafew upon all the “ beloved,” he takes away the very ground from under the Romish assumption, that the Papal See alone can finally decide what is true and what is heretical doctrine. The very 7vedua itself of that See must be solemnly tried by every Christian. Vers. 2, 3. St John indicates how the (first) sign by which the Spirit from God may be known. *Ev tovr@ points for- ward, as is self-evident, to what is coming. Iwocxere is the best-authenticated reading ; that of ywoeoxeras (Minusc., Syr., Vulg.) has arisen from inadvertence. To rvedpa tod Ocod stands in the singular and with the definite article: it is not, therefore, one and the same with wav mvedua 6 oporoyel; it does not mark out the spirit of any one particular tendency or doctrine (well-pleasing to God), existing in some men, and through them exerting its influence upon others ;—but that 1 So Olshausen: ‘‘ They go forth as sent apostles from the father of lies.” Lad 1 JOHN IV. 1-¥:-3. 277 personal Spirit of God who approves Himself present in all the collective mvevpact & opmoroyel, K.7.X.—the Holy Spirit. The meaning is this: “ Hereby ye know in which among the zvev- fact, mentioned in ver. 1, the Spirit of God works; that is, which among these spirits are spirits (spirits from the Spirit of God) from God.” Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh, is from God. ’Ev capxi cannot (as Piscator affirms) be simply and of itself equivalent to eis odpxa. The Hebrew 3 and 2 are rigorously distinguished ; and therefore the author was not led, by involuntarily thinking in Hebrew, to the substitution of év for e’s. The assumption of a prolepsis—- the resulting etvas év being already conceived in connection with the épyeoGar eis —the sense of which would be the same as if it had been said, e’s cdpxa édndvO6rTa, is not at all more tolerable. It is true that verbs of rest occur with eis (as, for example, Mark ii. 1, Acts viii. 40, John i. 18, where the verb of rest, “be,” involves the idea of movement effected, “ having gone”) ; and, conversely, verbs which express movement are connected with év, in as far as the verb of motion involves the result of the motion (as in Matt. x. 16; John iii. 35, v.4; Rom. v. 5). But we cannot assume this in the case of such dogmatically- important distinctions of idea as that between épyecOau eis cdpxa and épyecOai év capxi, more especially as St John else- where (for example, ch. v. 6) connects with the épyecOau an altogether specific notion ; and, generally, such a solution would be allowable only if the literal interpretation of the words afforded no appropriate sense. But the literal interpretation here gives a much more appropriate sense than the other. (So Olshausen.) The Cerinthic gnosis did not deny absolutely and simply that the AYon Christ had come “ into the flesh is he was thought to have entered into the man Jesus at his bap- tism, and to have remained with him until the commencement of his sufferings ;—but Cerinthus denied that Jesus Christ came in the jlesh. When we take év capxi literally, it does not denote the terminus ad quem of the coming, but the quality and condition of the state of Jesus as He came into the world; the €AnAvOds stands as an absolute idea, and bears the meaning, “ having come into the world, and unto men.” (The Perfect of itself shows that we cannot, with Socinus, interpret the épxeo@at in the sense of coming forward as a teacher, as in 278 THE SPIRIT FROM GOD A SPIRIT OF TRUTH AND LOVE. ver. 1, 2 John 10, etc.) Thus St John rigorously opposes to the Cerinthian doctrine—that Jesus was a mere man, dwelling upon earth; that Christ had entered into this man, but not as having come in the flesh to the earth—the truth that the Per- son, Jesus Christ (one and undivided), had come, and that in the flesh—év capxi, being found and being manifested in the condition of cdp& Sdp& naturally does not signify here, as in John i. 14, sinful human nature in its opposition to God, but it is used in that more primitive sense according to which 1w1. or nt) 1va denotes material, visible nature, in its distinction from God, and especially hwnan nature as such (Gen. vii. 15 seq., will, 173) Psi lie. 5; Jer. xvii 53) 1: Tim int6 sieompyies. Ixv. 3, exlv. 21; Isa. Ixvi. 24; Joel ii. 28; Luke iii. 6; also Matt. xvi. 17; Gal. i. 16). The words therefore contain a twofold antithesis to the Cerinthian gnosis: first, that Jests Christ is exhibited as one and the same person; and secondly, that He is acknowledged to have come “ in the flesh,” that is, in the form of existence of humanity upon earth. But, as it respects the construction, the words oporoyet Incotv Xpiorov év capki éhnrvOora have not a force equivalent to ouoroye?, Incody Xpwctov é€v capt édndvGévas ; nevertheless, those expositors are in error who say that édndv66ra is not of the nature of a predi- cate, but simply attributive in its character. “'To confess Christ manifested in the flesh,’ would require in Greek, ouororyety "Inootv Xpiotov tov év capkl éknrvOdTa ; as the words stand, they signify, “ to confess Jesus Christ as one who was mani- fested in the flesh :” éAyAvOoTa without the article is not a mere attributive, but an apposition; and this apposition, re- ferred to owodoyet, involves the predicative idea. (So in 1 Cor. i. 23; 2 Cor. iv. 5). Hence, again, those are right who make *Incody Xpiorov one and inseparable as the objective idea, not suffering Xpuorov to be an attribute, or in apposition. We must not translate, “ He that confesseth Jesus, the Christ, come in the flesh ;” but, “ He that confesseth Jesus Christ as One come in the flesh.” There is an antithesis to the Cerinthian rending asunder of Jesus and Christ in the whole clause; but the simple point of it is, that St John so strictly and unconditionally makes "Inooiv Xpuarov one name. In ver. 3 follows the negative member. Kat wav tvedpua 6 1) Omoroyel Tov “Incody, éx Tov Ocod ove éotw: thus read A. 1 JOHN IV. 1-V. 3. 279 and B.; Codex H. adds to the "Incody the words év capxt €AndvOora; later authorities further add Xpiotdv; but it is clear (Griesbach, Liicke) that these variations owe their origin to an anxiety to conform ver. 3 to ver. 2. In ch. i. 6 and 14, and ch. ii. 23, St John had, in an analogous way, repeated the idea to be repeated in a compressed form; and had taken for granted, just as here, that the readers would be able to explain the abbreviated form by the previous more expanded form. Never, on the contrary, does an instance occur in which St John, in the construction of these parallel members, had set literally or “symmetrically” the negative over against the positive. (Compare, on the contrary, ch. i. 6 and 7, 7 and 8, ii. 4 and 5; also below, ch. iv. 7, 8.) Another reading, wav mrvedua 0 Aver tov “Inoody amd Qeod ov« éatw, has certainly neither external authentication (since it occurs only in the Vulgate, and the Fathers of the fourth century; but is not found in a single manuscript) nor internal, being evidently only an interpreter’s scholium. The meaning of the words is explained by what was re- marked upon ver. 2. It follows now: kcal toird éote TO TOD avtixpiotou, 6 axnkoate Ott épyeTat, Kal viv ev TO KOTHm éoTiV 76n. Todro, scil. rd rvedya. This todTo naturally points back- wards to the wav mvedua 5 pi, «.7.X.3 yet in such a way that St John mentions, instead of this plurality of spirits which exert their influence among men, that one spirit who demon- strates his power and energy in those many spirits. “ And this spirit (working in these spirits) is that of Antichrist.’ Thus this todto (7d wvedpwa) is parallel with the wvedua Tod Oeod, ver. 2, and forms the antithesis to it. As the direct antithesis, however, one might indeed have expected rvedua Tod SuaBorov ; and certainly no other is meant by the “ spirit of Antichrist ” than the spirit of the prince of darkness. But, St John describes him in the specific form which he assumes in opposition to the kingdom of Christ—as the spirit of opposition to Christ, Anti- christ. But, it is the spirit, not the person, of Antichrist that is spoken of. Concerning the spirit of Antichrist, which, inde- pendently of the person of Antichrist to be expected in the future, and before his manifestation, urges his work and career, St John says that his readers have heard from himself, that he would come into the world in the future, but was also already in 280 THE SPIRIT FROM GOD A SPIRIT OF TRUTH AND LOVE. the world.'| This is made very plain by a comparison of all the’ other New-Testament prophecies concerning Antichrist. One day, in the future, that spirit was to come in concentrated form, exhibited emphatically in the person of Antichrist; but now already it is present, and manifests itself in the antichristian nature, demonstrating his energy in a multiplicity of vedwara. Thus our passage serves perfectly to confirm what was said upon ch. i. 18. Let us now once more glance over the general meaning of vers. 2 and 3. St John has primarily to do with the false teachers of fis time: in opposition to them, he lays down the criterion of ver. 2, in the form of this specific formula of con- fession. Hence they do wrong who, on the one hand with a latitudinarian bias, declare all dogmatic errors to be unimportant which do not absolutely deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh ; as they do also, on the other, who take great pains to reduce all possible errors of another kind into the denial of the great point contained in ver. 2. True it is that the doctrines of the Christian faith are one organic whole ; it may, indeed, be demonstrated that all those things, which in other passages of Scripture are stamped as errors in doctrine, do directly or in- directly offend against one or other of the points contained in the words ’Incodv Xpictov év capri édndrvOdTa; yea, it may be admitted that St John here lays down the central-point or the foundation of all Christian faith, and so expresses it that “the testimony he bears, or the confession he requires, is broad enough to embrace all those who have in truth apprehended Christ by faith, and at the same time narrow enough to ex- clude all those who make any other than Christ the source of their life” (Diisterdieck). But, we must, on the other hand, admit that this mark, in the formula expressed in ver. 2, is not enough, and is not intended for the testing of all possible his- torically-manifested doctrine and false doctrine. For, it would be simply to open the door for all the most fearful abuses, if all imaginable controversies were to be brought to the decision of this passage of Scripture. Hence the Romish theologian Estius is quite right when he deems this present passage insufficient 1 Grammatically, might be supposed to be “according to the will of God,” it(7"*~ would certainly be the petition for the conversion and salvation of our neighbour. This is indeed prayer, not for myself, but for him, and therefore springing from love; it is a prayer, not for earthly good, but for the salvation of a soul, and therefore for the extension and coming of the kingdom of God. Hence, one might be misled into the theoretical notion that every prayer for the conversion of a fellow-man must be heard and granted. The Apostle here obviates that erroneous inference. Conversion proceeds in a sphere of its own, which touches at all points the domain of human voluntary determination ; and in this domain there is a point at which the human will may have so hardened itself against the converting influences of the grace of God, as that God cannot and will not any more save. When this point has been reached, intercession has no assurance of being heard. It is plain, and indeed uncontested, that this is the general meaning of these words. The spot sets out with the pre- supposition that one sees his dd Qavarov. Instead of the édv, another author would have used et with the Optative. How wide the idea of aded des is, we have LNOMLY 1 Olshausen: ‘ St John makes specially prominent the noblest applica- tion of prayer— Prayer for others.” » 338 THE SIN UNTO DEATH. pi already seen; and what St John in ver. 8 says concerning the witnessing, world-overcoming power of the aiwa, that is, of the love which sacrifices its own life, shows us that he did not limit his meaning, any more than his Lord (Luke x. 30 seq.), to mere obligations towards our fellow-regenerate, exclusive of the obli- gations of love towards those who are still to be converted. First of all, we must think of the members of the Christian community, but not to the exclusion of those who are not Christians. To restrict the idea of ddedgds to the regenerate is altogether untenable, especially if the duaptia pos Odvarov be the sin of apostasy, which, ch. 11. 19, the truly regenerate can- not commit.—He then who seeth his aderdds (in the widest sense) sin—his sin not being yet the sin unto death—should (not may) pray for him; and God'—or he, the petitioner,” by his prayer—will give him life. This daceu fw7v of itself shows that it is not so much the commission of an individual sinful action which is meant by the duaprdvew (in that case we should have expected as the answer of the prayer, “ And God will for- give it to him’’), as a state of sin which is to be removed by the impartation of a higher heavenly power of life. And this therefore must define and limit the idea of the “ sinning unto death.” By this also cannot be meant an individual external action, deserving the punishment of death (as Morus, Lange, and the papal expositors suppose, with a false application of Num. xvii. 22); for @dvaros can be here only the antithesis of «7, and must not therefore be understood of bodily death. But mpos @dvatov he sins who has brought himself into such a posture and state of soul as renders impossible the conversion to miotis and fo» (Calvin, De Wette, Liicke). The one and only point of difficulty in the whole passage is, whether and how it can be surely known, as to a third person, that the adeddpos has committed that sin of internal reprobation. That it is supposed to be possible to be known, is shown not so much by the édv tis id (which refers primarily to the general apaptavovta), as by this, that the repeated restriction, dwapraverv pen Tpos Edvarov and Tots duaptdvover wn mpos Odvarov, impli- citly requires the readers, when they see their brother sinning, to test whether the sin be or be not the “sin unto death.” The 1 So Beza, Socinus, Grotius, Spener, Bengel, Liicke. 2 So Erasmus, Calvin, De Wette. 1 JOHN V. 3-21. 339 question then arises, how this mark of cognisableness may be reconciled with what is said besides concerning the “sin unto. death ;” or, in other words, what definite species of sin may be found in the case of which the mark that it may be known coincides with the other marks. Diisterdieck lays down the following norms for the exposi- tion of the idea of the dapria pos Odio: ¥. That i may be known; 2. That it can be committed only by a member of the Christian community ; 3. That for him who has committed it “ there may not be prayer;” 4. That in and for itself it is not distinguished from every other sin, since every sin is in fact asin unto death. Accordingly, he comes to the decision that the “sin unto death” cannot be the “sin against the Holy Ghost, Matt. xii. 81” (since this was committed by unbelievers) ; nor impenitence continued even unto (bodily) death (since it could never be known whether any man would continue his im- penitence unto death) ;—but no other than shipwreck of faith, or apostasy. However generally correct this may be, the question is left quite unsolved by it—how far this sin is cognisable. Diister= dieck was at first disposed to regard with some favour the notion of Grotius, who regarded excommunication from the Church as the sure sign of the commission of the sin unto death —as if that sin were to be known by what a man suffered, and not by what he did; and as if the Church might not be mis- taken in the infliction of excommunication! He afterwards says, with Huther, that “a sin must be meant by which the internal abandonment of life in Christ is consummated and declared. But thus every grosser sin, murder, denial of Christ, adultery, may be such a sin unto death.’ We may reasonably doubt, however, whether the man who commits an act of adultery, must be therefore at once supposed to have finally and fully broken off all connection with Christ. Diisterdieck finally takes refuge in the assumption, that “the whole representation of the sin unto death must have been far less difficult to the first readers of the Epistle,” and that apostasy to Gnosticism must necessarily have been its meaning to their minds. A miserable conclusion this, after eighteen pages of investigation! Were then the Cerinthian Gnostics the only men for whom prayer was not to be offered ? 340 THE SIN UNTO DEATH. But these regulative principles for the exposition of the idea are, asa a whole, partly incorrect, and partly inefficient. It is not correct to say that the sin es treated of could be committed only by the regenerate. If the sin unto death was apostasy to Gnosticism, then we are taught by ch. ii. 19, that those who committed this sin had never been truly regenerate. And it is JS Eat. an error to make ch. vy. 1 prove that the idea of aderdds Is 1S limited to the fellow-regenerate: in our observations upon that passage, we have seen that, not the idea aderdéds, but the con- textual process of the Apostle’s thought, led him to the deriva- tion of the @yd7n there from the common fatherhood of God ; and on ch, iii. 15, that the idea adedgos, viewed in itself, em- braces the whole relation of man to man. Accordingly, the first restriction falls to the ground. A “sin unto death” will -every sin be through which man becomes incapable of any fur- ther conversion; therefore, both the “sin against the Holy Ghost,” spoken of in Matt. xi. 31 seq., that is, unbelievers’ decided hardening of themselves against the drawing of grace, and the sin of apostasy (comp. Fer. vi. 4) committed by mem- bers of the Christian community (though, according to ch. ii. 19, not internally and in the fullest sense regenerate), fall under the idea of the “sin unto death” alike. Secondly, it is a perversion for him to maintain (misunder- standing a saying of .Calvin, that every, the smallest sin, would deserve death) that every sin in itself is a sin unto death; and, therefore, that the question does not concern the baeciee quality of the sin, but only the subjective condition of heart in him who commits the sin. That would take away every vestige of the possibility of discerning and knowing the sin. But the Apostle says in ver. 18 just the reverse, that not every sin is a “ sin unto death” in the sense of ver. 17. Thirdly, it is a very incautious way of speaking, to lay down as a third mark, that for him who has committed the sin unto death “ we are not to pray.” St John speaks more cautiously ; he does not forbid the praying,’ but he says, ov mept exelvns Néyw iva épwrnon. Now, whether the zrepi be connected with épwrjcn (as the majority of expositors’ think) or with Aé€ym (which better suits the meaning of zepi)—in ? Olshausen writes here erroneously, ‘‘ Love forbids now to pray.” 1 JOHN V. 3-21. 341 neither case is there any prohibition of prayer in the words ; St John only takes this sin away from under the previous com- mandment to pray. (It is not—“ For it I say that he may not pray ;” the negation ov belongs decisively to the Aéyw, not to épwtjon). But this is very important. For with it falls all that has been said by him concerning the cognisableness of this “sin unto death.” If St John forbids a Christian to pray for the sinner unto death, he must presuppose that the having committed such a sin is in every case indubitably certain ; but, taking the words of ver. 17 in their simple meaning, the only thing laid down and presupposed is this, that a sin which is um mpos Odvarov, not unto death, may be surely known as such. And thus all the difficulties are solved. ‘That any particular sin which another may commit, as also the general state in which he may be found, is not wpos @dvatov—that he may still repent and be converted—this may be easily and with the utmost confidence known. And where this is known with certainty, where there is no necessity for thinking another to be hardened and past salvation,—there must be prayer offered. Where, on the other hand, this certainty ceases, where there: is reason to assume or suppose that another has committed the “ sin unto death,” —there this prayer ceases (Grotius, Lange, Huther, Besser). Thus, in this latter case—that is, where there is room for much doubt (absolute assurance is never’ possible to any human eye)—the intercession is not commanded ; neither is it forbidden, but left to the heart of the individual: only, that in such cases such assurance of the hearing of prayer as had been spoken of in ver. 14 seq. cannot have place.’ The Christian is defended against the dangerous supposition, that uncondition- ally, and in every instance, prayer for the conversion of a third person must be granted.” There are cases, says St John, in 1 The connection of thought, therefore, is not this: Such an interces- sion remains unheard, because the intercession itself is a forbidden one, and against the will of God (Calvin, Bengel) ; but, conversely, Such an inter- cession is not commanded, because the assurance of hearing is not given. 2 Bullinger’s words on this point are very good: ‘‘ Poterat autem ali- quis pro impio aliquo contemtore Dei orare, Deumque ipsum, non auditus, arguere mendacii. Istud ut declinaret apostolus, notanter addidit : Impe- trabis quidem, si ille Deum convertentem non contemserit. Pro eo, inquit, qui ad mortem peccat, rogari nolo, i.e. nolo quis exspectet se quidquam consecuturum, si oret pro perfidio et impio contemtore numinis.” nn 342 FAITH OVERCOMETH THE WORLD. which man has destroyed his own capacity of conversion (Matt. xi. 381 seq.; Heb. vi. 4 seq.) ; and, where it may be assumed that such a case is before us, intercession is not commanded : it may not reckon upon that acceptance and answer, simply be- cause, whenever such a case occurs, the man has already fallen into spiritual @avaros, into reprobation. _In ver. 17 follows the pimple cep imran that in fact every ANS Nes is sin, but that there is a duaptia od mpos Odvatov. That éott is the substantive verb, is plain from the arrangement of the words. (Luther was one in error when he took-duaptia as the subject, in the sense of duaptia tis, éoriv as the copula, and ov pos Odvarov as the predicate.) — The first words have an external resemblance to ch. i. 4, but the. likeness is only ex- ternal. There, the matter of the java dpapria was defined by et “dvowia; here, the comprehensiveness of the idea dwapria is de- fined by aéixia. There, the point was, that sin is in its nature a transgression of the commandments of God; here, the thought is that not merely the duaptia mpos Odvatov, but every advxia, falls under the idea of dwapria, while there is within this range of the idea a sinning which is “ not unto death.” ’Adzxia is therefore an idea altogether different from dvopuia. ’ Avoula serves for the qualitative definition of the idea dwaptia; adiKkia serves for its qualitative limitation. ’Avopia is that which offends the specific commandments of God; and in ch. iii. 4 it is said that sin (all sin) offends against God’s commandments., ’Adv«ia is all that is opposed to the inmost, deepest idea of Suktttooovn (ch. i. 9 and ii. 29); and it is said in our passage that every deviation from the nature of Him who is righteous and maketh righteous, is of itself sin, but that not every sin is a sin unto death. Vers. 18-20 form a proper conclusion. With a triple oléauev St John recapitulates three truths which he has dilated upon in the course of the Epistle. The /irst, that every man who is born of God sinneth not, but taketh heed and guardeth him- self, and that Satan cannot touch him, had been unfolded, as to its general substance, in the first section (ch. i. 6, il. 3 seq.) 5 and, as to its foundation in sonship to God and regeneration, and the requirement of the rnpety, in the third section (ch. i. 3 seq.) ; and, as it respects the security against the zrovypés, in the second section (ch. ii. 13 and 20 seq., and 27), and also in ’ 1 JOHN V. 3-21. 343 the third. The second truth, that we are of God, while the world lieth in the evil one, had been prepared for in the first section, and then formed the foundation of the second section (ch. ii. 8 and 15 seq.), as also the second part of the third section (ch. iii. 13 seq.). The third, that Christ is come, and hath given us an understanding of the truth, had been copiously unfolded in the fourth and fifth sections, but had been before that touched upon in the second (ch. il. 20 and 22).—Thus we see that St John does not here recapitulate the five main divisions, but three main aspects and points of his teaching which had pervaded more or less the various sections of his Epistle: our obligation and pre- rogative of holiness; our opposition to the world; our relation to the Person of Christ. The first of these three thoughts connects itself immediately with the preceding verse. Not to obviate a perversion of his doctrine that there is a sin “ not unto death” (Bengel)—for no occasion had been given for such a perversion—but as the simple appendage to his words, waca aéuxia duaptia éoriv, and as aremembrancer of what had been taught throughout the Epistle, St John proceeds— Oidapyev (with reference to his haying said it before), we know that every one who is born of God sinneth not. These words have their full interpretation, as it respects the subject, in our remarks upon ch. i. 9, and, as it respects the predicate, in our remarks upon ch. ii. 1 and 3, ill. 3, 4, 9. But St John appends to the main thought two subordinate explanatory suggestions. First, he sets against the negative ody apapravet the positive GAN o yevvnbels Ex ToD Ocod Typet éav- tov (where the Part. Aor. Pass. is employed to lay stress upon the contrast between the past and completed yervnOjvar and the idea of typeiv, or of continuous preservation of grace); but he thus at the same time lays down the requirement of what the Christian has to do on his own part, in order to realize the “not sinning.” Tnpeiv éavrov, elsewhere with a predicate, as in 1 Tim. v. 22; James i. 27, “keeping oneself pure :” here we must either supplement the predicate, “keeps himself as one born of God,’ that is, preserves the new life and: the state of grace ; or, Tnpety avrov is used in the sense of the (classical) Middle tnpeic@as, “ be on guard, taking heed” (that is, against sin). The latter explanation is the more natural. St John had 344 FAITH OVERCOMETH THE WORLD. * occasion here to mention, not the result (that he remains a yevunbels ex Tod Ocod), but the means, that is, his guarding against sin. Moreover, he would have expressed in a clearer and less abstract way the thought that “he who is born of God keeps himself as one who has a new life.” But as he, in the words add’ o, «.7.X., has mentioned the means which we on our part must use, so in the concluding words of the verse, kal 6 rovnpos ody amreTat avTod, he gives the ground of the confidence which we may have in the contest with sin. God on His part suffers it not that Satan should touch us: Satan may not touch us (&rTec@a, as in the Sept., Ps. cv. 15, comp. Wisd. iii. 1); compare Luke xxi. 31, 32; Eph. vi. 11 seq.; 1 Cor. x. 13. “It is not meant, that tempta- tion itself may be avoided” (on the contrary, comp. Eph. vi. 12; 1 John ii. 13), “but that the tempting attack shall be made hurtlessly, and be victoriously repelled” (Diisterdieck). A touch- ing is signified which would wound us (our new man), and do us injury. In ver. 19 the second main truth follows: We know that we are of God. In ver. 18 it was laid down as a universal judg- ment— He that is born of God sinneth not; in ver. 19 follows the specific judgment—We know that we are of God. But with this is presently contrasted the xdcpos, the antithesis of the “we.” Kal 0 xdcpos 6dros év TO Trovnp@ xeitat. ‘The pre- dicate év T@ wovnpe@ xeitas does not merely constitute the nega- tive of é€x Tod Ocod eivat, as if the sense were, “ We know that we are of God, but the world is not of God ;” and the idea of év T@ Tovnp@ KetoOar is much weakened, if we regard (as is generally done) the “lying in the evil” as merely the “being in a miserable and wrong state generally.” ’Ev vovnp@ is not neuter, but, as the antithesis of é Ocod, masculine. Keto@ar ev T® Tovnp® is, generally, parallel with the etvau éx rob Ocod, but the Apostle must have had some reason why he did not write é« Tov Tovnpov éotwy (as in ch. iii. 10-12 and John viii. 4, comp. 1 John ii. 16); and this reason is to be sought in his habit of making the second member of an antithesis overpass the first’ 1 So fixed is this habit of St John, that even in ch. v. 12, where the second member does not in fact overpass the first, he introduces in the second member at least a formal change and advancement, that of rod @cod added to rcv vidv. 1 JOHN V. 3-21. 345 (compare above, ch. i. 6 and 7, and elsewhere). Concerning the world he says, not merely that it is “ of the zrovnpds,” or has him for a father, and bears his nature, but also that it “ lies in him,” that is, lies in his bosom,—not, indeed, like an unborn child in the mother’s womb (Spener, Steinhofer, after Isa. xlvi. 3), which would be only another form of being “ of the evil one,” and moreover would be an altogether mappropriate figure, —but like an infant on the bosom of a mother or a father, which is absolutely given up to its parents’ power (Calvin, Bengel, Liicke). Consequently, St John speaks not only of the origin and nature of the world, but also of the destiny which it has to expect ; and thus these last words include at the same time a consolation for the pets which are é« Tod Ocod. Ver. 20. The clause, 6r¢ ék Tod Ocod écpév, leads naturally to the third great truth, to the person of Him through whose mediation we have become children of God. We know that the Son of God fre, “has come” (compare ch. iv. 9 and 14), and hath given us’ dvavoray wa ywookopev Tov adnOwer. Ardvaa is not “ knowledge” (Liicke), but the power of capacity of knowing (Luther, Bengel), compare Eph. iv. 18; 2 Pet. iii. 1; and, especially, the facultas cognoscendi, as it rests upon an ethical-religious basis (1 Pet. i. 13; Matt. xxii. 37; Eph. ii. 3; Heb. viii. 10, x. 16; Luke i. 51; Col. i. 21). It may there- fore be appropriately translated “sense” or “ discernment.” As Christ has come (in the sense of ch. iv. 9), and through this act of love has kindled love im us (ch. iv. 10), thus communi- cating His nature to us, he has furnished us with the under- standing which is necessary in order that we may know God. For God is, according to ch. i. 6, iv. 8, pads and aydwrn; and only he who is penetrated by His light, and kindled by His love, can know Him.—But God is here termed the adnOwos, not as He who is the adeva, and not as He who possesses the attribute of truth ; ddnOcvds forms here, as at the conclusion of this verse and John xvii. 3, the antithesis to jictitious, or false (Calvin, Huther, and most others). The true God stands in opposition to the imagined and vain gods, which are not das and are not aya7n. In the concluding words which now follow—«ai éopev €v } That 0280xev has the same subject as 4z<: is clear, and has been ad- mitted by ali expositors with the exception of Bengel. 346 FAITH OVERCOMETH THE WORLD. TO GANIWO, Ev TO vid adtov "Incod Xpiotrod: odds éeoTw 0 ady- Owvds Ocds Kat Son aiovios—St John reaches in his recapitula- tion the same fundamental result, comprehending the crown and quintessence of all his teaching, which he had reached at the close of the development of the Fifth Section, ver. 12, and from which the final Section, ver. 13, had set out. “ We are in Him that is true” (God), not merely é« tod Oecd, begotten of Him, born again of Him, but in virtue of that being in Him (compare John xvii. 23, and above, 1 John ii. 6 and 24). But in Christ we are in God; that is, because we are, and as long as we are, in Jesus Christ, we are in the Father. The words éopev év T® adnOwe@ constitute together one verbal idea, to which the words év T@ vid avTov “Incod Xpictod are added as an ex- planatory definition. Our “being in the True” is the being found in Christ. Similarly, it was said in John xvii. 33, “I in them, and Thou in Me” (consequently, through My mediation, “Thou in them”). That év 7@ vid, x.7.r., are not in apposi- tion to €v T@® GANOwe (Vulg., Erasmus) is self-evident; for the Genitive avrod refers to the adie, and, consequently, the adnOwos is distinguished from “ His Son.” But it does not by any means follow from this distinction between the adnOuwos and “His Son” that o&ros must in the closing words refer back to @An@iwvos (as Grotius and many others assume), and cannot point to vids. It is quite possible in itself, and very much in harmony with the style of St John’s favourite turns of thought and expression, that he should, after having distinguished the adnOwos from His vids, simply say concerning the same Son, that He was Himself the adn@wos cos. (So Bullinger, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, Olshausen, Stier, and, generally, all orthodox expositors ; even the Arminian Episcopius.) And this interpretation is the more probable, in comparison with the former. For, if it is referred to the Father, it would be a flat repetition, after the Father had been twice called 6 ddn@wes, to say now again, “ This is the adAnOwos Oecos.” And, as it respects the second predicate, cal fan ai@vos, the Son had been in ver. 12 seq. with such precision exhibited as He in whom we have the &@7,— this had been in ver. 12 so plainly laid down as the final climax of the whole development, and in ver. 13 as the goal and consummate issue of the whole Epistle,—that we here, at the close of the conclusion, might oO 1 JOHN V. 3-21. 347 almost have naturally expected some such thought as that the Son is eternal life. Moreover, in the previous member of the verse, the proper predicate-idea lay in the words év 7@ vid, «.7.X.: these words declared, not that we are in God generally, but that our “being in God” has its basis in Christ His Son; and this also makes it more natural that obros should be referred to vid. The only thing which seems to oppose this view is the article before adAnOivds Ocds. When St John, in the Gospel, ch. i. 1, ete., teaches the divinity of the Logos, he writes cal Oeds jv o Noyos. This is correct. But it may be questioned whether it was the Apostle’s design in this passage to attribute to the Son the predicate of divinity—that is, to say concerning Him that He was of a Divine nature. What would be the force of such a declaration here? It is St John’s purpose to say, not what the Son of God is, but who He is. Not that He was more than mere man, and partaker of the Godhead, but that this Son, dis- tinguished from the true God as His Son, was yet also the true God Himself—to say that, was strictly in keepmg. For, thus writing, St John teaches us two things: that this vids is, on the one hand, identical with the adnOwos Ocds Himself; and, on the other, that He is for us the source of eternal life.— Now, in declaring what any one is, the predicate must have no article ; in declaring who any one is, the predicate must have the article. Accordingly, Diisterdieck is wrong when he says that he must “maintain, with Liicke, that the Apostle could not have written more confusedly than to exhibit the Son of God, immediately after having distinguished Him from the true God, as being this true God Himself.’ There would have been confusion here, only if any reader had been in danger of misunderstand- ing the Apostle’s obrds, «.7.X., as placing the vids in opposition to the matyp as the ddnOuvos Oeds, and as declaring the zarip to be a false God. But there was no need to fear such a mis- understanding as that, more especially as St John had imme- diately before named the Father unconditionally the adnOwos. On the other hand, it would have been to our mind something hike confusion, if the Apostle, who so plainly teaches in his Gospel the eternal divinity of the Xdoyos, should have done nothing more in the Epistle than distinguish the Son from the Father, and from the Father as from the ddn@wos, without 348 FAITH OVERCOMETH THE WORLD. adding a single word as to their real identity of nature. Diister- dieck, indeed, seems to fear heterodoxy here: “the distinction between the Son and the Father would be obscured” by this exposition. That would be the case if St John had said of the Son, otros éorw o watyp; but not when he says of the Son, oUTOS éoTiv 0 aXNOwos Oeos. For 6 adrnOuvds Oeos is simply no other than a definition of the Divine collective personality in opposition to the creature (and here in opposition to false gods) ; and One is called 6 adnOuvds Oeds, in such case as His internal trinitarian relation is out of view. That this Son, on whom our “being in the true God” rests, is this true God. Himself, St John here says. We may say, in strictest scholastic ortho- doxy, that the Son is owoodcvos 76 Tatpi, and, with the Father and the Spirit together, is the Three-One God. But St John had not to speak the language of the schools, but the language of revelation. Christ, as He is the true God Himself—that is, One with Him—is also @7 aidvios (the article before So is wanting in A.B.; and St John never writes % G7) aiwvios, but always either 9 aievios fon, or without the article 07 aidvios). He is eternal life; that is, he who hath Him hath life (ver. 12). It is worthy of notice that it is never said of God the Father that He is life, but only that He hath life (John v. 26, comp. ch. i. 4, xi. 25, xiv. 5). The Father as such is not life; but God Himself is the Eternal Living One as from eternity begetting the Son; and this Son Himself is “the Life” for the creature, in whom the creature “ hath life.” Ver. 21 is not (as many think) an “abrupt” final exhorta- tion, but is clearly mediated by the idea of the adrnOwos Oeds. If the Father, who hath revealed Himself in Christ, is the true God,—if the Son, in whom we have the Father, is the true God, — it follows that we must guard ourselves against all idols, that is, against all false gods.'_ This idea is a general, and very com- prehensive one: it embraces all things and everything which may be opposed to the God revealed in Christ, and to His wor- ship in qvedpa and in ad7Oeva. Preeminently, therefore, it embraces the delusive and vain idols of the Cerinthian Gnosti- 1 Olshausen: ‘ ¢i/dwAoy is the antithesis of the true God.” 1 JOHN Y. 3-21. 349 cism, and infidelity, whether ancient or modern; but it includes also the idols and false mediators of superstition, to whom the confidence is transferred which is due only to God in Christ— be their name Madonna, or saints, or Pope, or priesthood, or pictures, or good works, or office, or church, or sacraments. The One Being in whom we have Tv Gwyy is Christ, who “is come not with water alone, but with water and blood;” and therefore our trust should never be reposed in the water alone— in the signs and institutions— but for ever in His atoning death, of which these signs are designed to remind us. And this Christ we possess through the Spirit of God, whose marks and tokens are not priestly vestments, but faith and love. In this meaning the Apostle’s cry sounds forth through all the ages in the ears of all Christians: LirrLe CHILDREN, KEEP YOUR- SELVES FROM IDOLS! TRANSLATION. THat which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have beheld and our hands have handled—concerning the Word of life (and the Life was manifested ; and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us),—That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, and that our fellowship (may be) with the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ. And this we write unto you, that our joy may be full. This then is the message which we have heard of Him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth; but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have not sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; but if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unright- eousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.—My little children, this I write unto you, that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, who is righteous. And He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours alone, but for all the world——And hereby we know that we have known Him, if we keep His commandments. He that saith, I have known Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth His word in him the love of God is in truth perfected. Hereby TRANSLATION. 351 know we that we are in Him. He that saith he abideth in Him, is bound, as He walked, so also himself to walk. Beloved, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment, which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard. Again, a new commandment I write unto you, that which is true in Him and in you: that the darkness is in act of passing, and the true light already shineth. We that saith, he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is no offence in Him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the dark- ness hath blinded his eyes.—I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you through His name. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have over- come the wicked one. I have written unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of God is not in Him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof ; but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.— Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but that they might become manifest, that they were not all of us. And ye have unction from the Holy One, and know all. I have not written unto you, because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and (know) that all that is lie is not of the truth. Who is the liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also. Let that abide in you which ye 352 ‘ TRANSLATION. have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He hath promised us, eternal life—This have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. And ye, “the anointing which ye have received from Him abideth in you,” and “ye need not that any man teach you ;” but as “the same anointing teacheth you concerning all things ;” and “it is true and no lie,” and “as it hath taught you, abide in it.’— And now, little children, abide in Him; that, when He shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. If ye know that He is righteous, know that every one that doeth righteousness is born .of Him. Behold, what love hath the Father given unto us, in this, that we should be called and are children of God! Therefore the world knoweth us not, for it knew Him not.—Beloved, now are we children of God, and it hath not yet been revealed what we shall be. We know that, when it shall be revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And every man that hath this hope towards Him, purifieth himself, even as He is pure.. Whosoever committeth sin committeth also transgression of the law, and sin is transgression of the law; and ye know that He was manifested that He might take away sins, and in Him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in Him, sinneth not. Who- soever sinneth, hath not seen Him, nor known Him.—Little children, let no man deceive you. He that doeth what is right, is righteous, even as He is righteous: he that doeth what is sin, is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God committeth not sin; for His seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.— Marvel not, brethren, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love TRANSLATION. ' $53 the brethren: he that loveth not, abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer; and ye know that no mur- derer hath eternal life abiding in him. Jn this we have per- ceived love, that He laid down His life for us. And we are bound to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath this world’s sustenance, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels from him, how dwelleth in him the love of God? — Little children, let us not love in mere word, nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth. Hereby shall we know whether we be of the truth. And before Him shall we convince our hearts, that if our heart condemn us, God is greater, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, we have con- fidence towards God, and, whatever we may ask, we receive of Him; for we keep His commandments, and do that which is well-pleasing in His sight. And this is His commandment, That we should believe the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment. And he that keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him ; and thereby know we that He abideth in us, by the Spirit which He hath given us. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God; for many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus, is not of God; and this is that of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world. Yeare of Gods. little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world; therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God, heareth us; he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the Spirit of truth, and the spirit of seduction.— Beloved, let us love one another ; for love is of God, and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, hath not known God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God towards us, that God sent His Son, His Only-begotten, into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so Z 354 TRANSLATION. loved us, we are bound also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time: if we love one another, God abideth in us, and His love is perfected in us. Hereby we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit. And we have seen, and do testify, that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall con- fess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love which God hath in us: God is love; and he that abideth in love, abideth in God, and God in him.—Herein is love with us made per- fect, that we have confidence in the day of judgment; for as He is, so are we also, in this world. ‘There is no fear in love ; but perfect love casteth out fear (for fear hath torment) : but he that feareth is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us.—If a man say, “I love God,” and hateth his brother, he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen, how can he love God, whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from Him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God ; and every one that loveth Him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of Him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not grievous: for whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world. And this is the victory which hath overcome the world: our wfaith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that be- lieveth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is He that came by water and blood, Jesus the Christ; not with water only, but with water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth wit- ness, that the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three tend to one.—If we receive the witness of men, the wit- ness of God is greater: this is the witness of God, that He hath given testimony to His Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made Him a liar, because he hath not believed the witness that God hath borne concerning His Son. And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life ; and this life isin His Son: he that hath the Son hath life; he that hath TRANSLATION. 355 not the Son of God hath not life-—This have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, ye that believe in the name of the Son of God. And this is the confidence that we have towards Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He heareth us. And if we know that He heareth us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of Him. If any man see his brother sin a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and give him life,—to them that sin not unto death. ‘There is a sin unto death: not concerning it do I say that we should pray. All unrighteousness is sin; but there is a sin not unto death. We know: that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is born of God guardeth himself, and the wicked one toucheth him not. We know: that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one. But we know: that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true. And we are in Him that is true, in His Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols ! THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF ST JOHN. INTRODUCTION. of the Second and the Third Epistles of St John, are distinguished in a very marked manner, and in several ways, from the First Epistle ; while, on the other hand, they may be regarded in a certain sense as very similar to it. They are distinguished from it, in the first place, by their brevity ; in the second place, by their object and character,—neither of them being addressed to a church, but the former to a Christian woman named Kyria (2 John 1), and the latter to a man named Gaius (3 John 1),—both therefore to private persons; in the third place, by the fact that the author calls himself, somewhat mysteriously, 6 mpeoBurepos, the Elder (2 and 3 John, ver. 1) ; in the fourth place, and finally, by the circumstance that neither the canonical character of these Epistles, nor the view held concern- ing their author, was firmly established in patristic antiquity. On the other hand, the Second Epistle bears some resemblance to the First in respect to its doctrinal matter, which is the same, and. its doctrinal form, which is similar, but not in respect to its style, which is different. (In regard to the second point, that of form, the passage, 2 John 5-7, and ver. 9, is so obviously a literal ex- tract from the First Epistle, or direct allusion to it, that on that very account the Second Epistle may be as naturally attributed to another author as to the Apostle himself.) In the Third Epistle we find no resemblance in style to the First. In ver. 11 occurs a turn of thought which may be explained (after the analogy of 2 John 5-7) as a close reminiscence of or allusion to the First Epistle; and this may be explained as the work of (A AQHE two documents which bear the name in our Canon ny 1 But, besides this passage, we are encountered by many specifically Johannzan ideas; e. g., 2 John 12. 360 INTRODUCTION. another author than the Apostle, just as in Polycarp we find allu- sions to the Apostolical Epistles. And in this very ver. 11 we have no less then four un-Johannzan expressions (70 Kaxév, TO ayalov, aya0otroteiv, Kaxorrovetv). The address wyamrnré, ver. 4, is in any case irrelevant; for St John’s employment of the address ayamnroi, in addressing the Church in the First Epistle, does not exclude the possibility that another Christian might have aaaressed his friend and fellow-labourer as ayamnré. The word paptupety is in 8 John 3 and 12 used in a sense quite different from that of 1 John 1, 2, etc. But vers. 5-10 deviate so strikingly from all that we recognise as St John’s style,’ that any one who has any sense of stylistic distinctions and differences must feel himself decided. The construction of clauses, the turn of thought, the phraseology, all are dif- ferent. Instead of the perfectly transparent and Hebraistic dic- tion of the Apostle, we find a decidedly Greek diction; though not on that account pretending to beauty of style, but rather somewhat obscure, because closely condensed. The Apostle could write better Greek (less Hebraistic) than he was wont to do, when he took pains to do so; but here we seem to have to do with a writer who, when he takes his own free course, thinks and writes in Greek. But now we are met by another striking fact. The Second and Third Epistles show so decisive a resemblance to each other, that there can be no doubt—there never has been any doubt— as to their coming from the same hand. Compare 2 John 1 with 3 John 1 (aya év adnGeta) ; 2 John 4 with 3 John 3 (éyvdpnv dNiav) ; 2 John 12 with 3 John 13, 14 (dca péravos Kal Kaddpov ypade, and croua pos oTOma Nanreiv). Now, if an author, who, like the author of the Third Epistle, writes in a style altogether different from the Apostle, never- theless, in ver. 11, so plainly reproduces the language of St 1 The expressions vysalvesv, evodovabas, tporeume ding rov Ocov, xosvw- velv, Ooaxiy Piper, weplrereiv mata TO xoexov, TO a&yedcy, are simply such as St John never uses—expressions, instead of which he constantly uses others. And, though no one of these expressions would of itself have much weight, yet their concurrence to such an extent within the compass of so few verses, and verses, too, which have nothing in their matter specifically Johannzan, tells very heavily on the case. We may add also the large proportionate number of composite verbs, such as Q:Aowrparever, cyabowoiv, xanomossiv ? svooovabcs. INTRODUCTION. 361 John’s First Epistle, ought not the appearances which meet us in the Second Epistle, vers. 5-7 and ver. 9, of resemblance in matter and phrase to that Epistle, to be explained in the same manner, that is, as allusions to it and intentional reminiscences ? Even the remarkable reproduction of St John’s style in 2 John 2 might be very well resolved into a reminiscence of the (written and oral) diction of the Apostle, and consequently into an in- voluntary imitation, without our being justified in saying, with De Wette, that “the author must have slavishly copied the style of the Apostle’s thinking and writing.” For 2 John 2 is the only passage in which there is a simple imitation of style (though even here not without some reference in the matter to Johannzan dicta; comp. 1 John 1. 24 and 27): all other resemblances in style are found only in such passages as designedly make allusion to definite sayings of the First Epistle (such as 3 John 11 to 1 John iii. 6; 2 John 5 to 1 John ii. 7; and 2 John 12 to 1 John i. 4), or where such sayings are almost expressly quoted (such as 2 John 6, 7, and 9, compared with 1 John vy. 2, iv. 1, 3, ii. 23); and, even in one of these passages (2 John 10), we are met by the striking fact that the writer substitutes e/ tus for the usual éay tis of St John. It has been observed before, that in another passage (3 John 11) he reproduces St John’s turn of thought in a form of expression which is not St John’s. Thus, if we had no other information concerning these two Epistles than that which they themselves furnish, their own peculiar character would lead us to the conclusion that they were written, not by the Apostle, but by a man who belonged to the circle of the Johannzan labours as a scholar and co- operator, who had read St John’s writings, and who used and quoted these writings, especially the First Epistle, just in the same way as we find the Apostolical Epistles used and quoted by Polycarp and Clemens Romanus. 2 John particularly must have been written under the influence of the teaching of St John’s First Epistle. And if we turn to external testimonies, this view is not weakened, but on the contrary confirmed. We attach no im- portance to the fact that the two Epistles were entirely wanting for a considerable time in the canon of many churches. Ter- tullian and Cyprian do not mention them. But that the Syrian 362 INTRODUCTION. Church did_not receive them into its ecclesiastic version until the sixth century, may be sufficiently explained by three circum- stances: first, that the two Epistles were merely private letters (though of a pastoral character) ; secondly, that one of them was even addressed to a woman; and, thirdly, that with the exception of what they have in common with (or rather what they derived from) the First Epistle of St John, they contain little that was specifically appropriate to the edification of the Church.—But that the Fragment of Muratori knew of the second only, and not the third, is no more true than that it “denied both Epistles to the Apostle” (Diisterdieck). We have proved in the Introduction to the Apocalypse that the words of the Fragment, “ Epistola sane Jude et superscripti Joannis duas (= dvas) in Catholica habentur,” must refer, not to the first and second of John, but only to the second and third of John. The design of the Fragment was, in a purely practical interest, to instruct the reader what writings he must avoid as heretical, and what he might read as orthodox. The First Epistle of St John did not come into question at all; for it had been distinctly referred to in the Fragment as apostolical. The only purpose which the words above-quoted served, was to prevent the Epistle of St Jude and the second and third of John (which were received only by a part of the Church into the canon of Scriptures to be publicly read, and consequently were avtideyoueva) from being regarded as heretical. And, when the Fragmentist immediately goes on to mention the “Sapientia, ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta,” this collocation does not lead to the inference that he “ intended to deny the Second and Third Epistle to St John,” any more than his collocation of the Johannean Apocalypse with the Petrine (an Antilegomenon) and the Pastor of Hermas (which was written nuperrime temporibus nostris) leads to the inference that he regarded the Apocalypse as spurious (which indeed he had already mentioned as genuine and apostolical).—In fact, the Fragment of Muratori tells us nothing at all decisive concern- ing the apostolical or non-apostolical origin of our two Epistles; we hear only that they were esteemed orthodox, and in no sense heretical, in the circle in which the author moved. For this and nothing else is concerned, as the connection shows, in the words in Catholica habentur. INTRODUCTION. 363 But, that the two Epistles were wanting, not only in the canon of the Syrian Church, but in that of other churches also, is proved generally by the fact of their having been rec- koned by Eusebius (iii. 25)" among the Antilegomena ; for he does this by no means because it was doubtful whether they sprang from the Apostle or from another “ John.”? But to him those writings were Antilecomena—and Antilegomena, too, of the first class, in contradistinction to the subsequent “ vdAoxs,” which he afterwards also reckons with the Antilegomena (tadra Lev TavTa TOV avTiAeyouévwy ay ein) because it is his design to oppose to both (to the Antilegomena in the stricter sense, as well as to the voOous) the heretical writings—those writings were Antilegomena, we repeat, which are “dvtTiAeyopevat, duos Sé Tapa TAETTOLS TOV EKKANTLATTLKOY yivwcKomeva,” which there- fore were admitted, not everywhere, but yet in the majority of churches, into the canon of Holy Scripture read publicly in Divine service. Thus, we learn from this canon of Eusebius, primarily, only—what the Peschito has already taught us, and what the canon of Muratori has led us to suppose—that these two Epistles were not everywhere admitted into the canon of the Scriptures publicly read ;* a fact which is so manifestly to be accounted for, even on the supposition of their apos- tolical authorship, by the character of these Epistles as private documents, that it affords no ground of certain argument either against, or in favour of, their having been written by an Apostle. But more important than this is a series of patristic passages, from which we gather that, in the very first centuries, and as soon as these Epistles were mentioned at all, it was regarded as an open question whether the Apostle or the Presbyter John was their author. That there was such a Presbyter John living at Ephesus, and a disciple of the Apostle, cannot, in the face of the 1 Tov 0 dyrincyoutvov, yuwpiuay 0 aby ouas Tog TOAAOIS, 4 Asvyoutyn "TaxaGov Déperas xi 4 lovda yre Tlérpou devtépa trioronry, nal 4 cvopaComern Sevripc nel rpirn lwdvvov, cire TOU evayyersoroy Tuyxcvovoc: cite xal Erépou Ouavimov exeivo. 2 This addition, vobeverat.' To these negative arguments (that xa@odxos did not mean “ canonical”) may be added the following positive arguments (that it had the meaning of “ encyclical”). Apollonius (in Euseb. 5, 18) relates of the Montanist Themisus: érodunce pyovpevos Tov amoaTtoXNoV, KaDoNKHY Twa cuVTaEdpeEVOS érl- oTOMY KaTnYEl TOs dmElVoY a’TOD TeTLaTEVKOTAas. Themisus could not have written an Epistle made up of several, nor an Epistle acknowledged canonical, but only a circular-letter meant for the several Phrygian Churches. To the same interpretation we are led by the words of Eusebius himself (4, 23): (Aeovd- Glos) XpnolweTaTov dnacw éavTov KabiaTas ev ais bTreTUTODTO KaOoXtKais Tpos Tas ExKrXnolas éEmtaTtoNats. We see what was the meaning which was universally at that time con- nected with the expression ka@odux? émictod}. Thus also CEcumenius (Prolegomena in Epist. Jac.) explains the current designation of our seven Epistles in the following way: xa0o- AtKal A€yovtat avrat, olovel eyxvKALOL ov yap adhopicpévas Over Evi 1) TodEL, ws 6 Oetos IIadnNos Tots “Pwpalors 7) KopwOiors mpochavel Tavtas Tas émiaTONas 0 TOV TOLOVTwWY TOD Kupiou pabntav Oiacos, adda Kaborov Tots TLcTOls, HTOL ’Iovdaiots Tots év Tn Siactropa, as Kal o ILétpos, 7) Kai maou Tols bro THY avTHVY mioTw ypiatiavois TeXodDawW. When Origen (cont. Cels. i. 63) ealls the Epistle of Barnabas a cafoduxi) érructodx—so terming it, obviously, as intending to designate it an encyclical Epistle, for it could not be his wish to represent it as canonical—vwe see plainly in what sense he terms the First Epistles of St Peter and St John “ Catholic Epistles,” in the passages above quoted. Just as they were wont to quote thus, “ St Paul says in his Epistle to the Romans,” so, in the case of an Epistle which had no specific designation, they quoted by the formula, “ St John says in his general (that is, encyclical) writing.” This was the origin of the term: first, they denominated the First Epistle of St John, the First and Second of St Peter, those of St James and St Jude, “ Catholic Epistles ;’ then this designation was 1 Whoever reads the passage in its connection, and without bias, will see plainly that this remark is not made with the design to limit the idea of xaorsx<¢, or to annul it, —that, in other words, dvowaZéuevos is not used in the pregnant sense of ‘‘ only so called, but not actually being.” 416 APPENDIX ON THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. applied to the collection as such, although in the meantime the two small Epistles, addressed to private persons, had been re- ceived into the number—which, however, obviously could not prevent the whole collection from being a potiori designated as the Encyclical Epistles. It was not until the Arian and sub- sequent controversies had brought into more frequent and more definite use the distinction between the ca@orwx) éxxAnola and the afperuxois, that the old signification of xa@odxds, as equi- valent to encyclical, vanished entirely from the minds of men. Then they began (Theodoret, Cassiodorus) erroneously to un- derstand the word, even when found as the predicate of an Epistle or collection of Epistles, in the sense “ of being acknow- ledged orthodox and canonical by the Catholic Church.” This could not have been possible till a time when the remembrance of the antilegomenon character of five among the “ Catholic Epistles” had passed away." 1 The first who recognised this change in the signification of adores was Bertholdt (Einleitung, I. S. 221). But he erroneously refers that change of signification to a period as early as the end of the third century. That xaéorixcs originally meant ‘‘ encyclical,” and only afterwards ob- tained the meaning of ‘ canonical,” has been assumed, after Bertholdt, by De Wette and Olshausen, and most of the moderns, INDEX. I. GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES EXPLAINED. "Ayarn, -Avyarn aro, qh, - ‘Ayann Tov Osov, 7, "Ayyenia, “AyviGew and dyccetewv, “Ayyos and a&yios, *AdeAQds and adeAQol, . "Adinice and avouia, Aipewy, : Aiay and sis rov aiave, "Axovery tives, "Aralovia, . "Arg besa, *Arndas, “Apaptic xpos bavaroy, “Amaprian exe, . , / Avoula, , *Aurixpioros, ’ Le = Ax apxis, - *AroxaArurreTal, . b ] UJ Apxa, , Bios, J aie Baémere tavtovus, . Tevevujobur ex Ocov, Tpade and typaya, Atdyvote, Aimatocvvy Ocov, . Ainesoovyny, Toreiy THY, Alxasos, Edy, : ? / Eyvaxauer, 169, 254 337 110 224 175 337 169 381 129 338, etc. 97 110 181 139, 140 106 49 390 104, 109, 120, 230, 331 88 126 238, etc. Page "Eypaye Tl, 403 Ei eh, 190 "Exhexra, 380 "Ey aeety and és ane. 289 *Evronal, ai, 128 *Evroag, 135 "Exibuula, . 167 "Epya tov d:eonov, 232 "Epyecdoes duce, 316 "Epxecder pos, 393 ’Eporay and airsiv, 386 ’Eoxarn dpa, 178, etc. “ris, 60 Zan, 55, 64, 254 Ocupesiv, 254 “‘Tanopecs, 121, 122, 291 “Ive, ‘ 102, 301 Kadbapifey, . 93, 110 Kabapionés, ‘ 94 Kaborixy erioroag, 410 Keé’ cao, 409 Karaarayn, 291 Koanois, 305 Kéopos, 162, 164, 295 Keonov, ra Tov, 162, 163 Keouw, ray Te Ev 7Q, 165 Aovyos, . 53, 54 Adyos avrov, 112, 128 Aoyou ris Cwijs, wept rov, 52 Mere, . 300 Miséds, 390 2D 418 INDEX. Page Page Hlévot, . 399 Srépua, : = 233, 234 SrAayxKve, « ; : 255 *O qv ax’ cpxiis, . 46 Of ’lovdaioz, 35 Téxva Ocov, 207 “Opeot0s, 2 214 Texvia, 116 “Omoroyeiy, . 101, ‘193, 194 Tnpeiv tavrov, 343 ’Opy’, - 106, 122 “Os and Goris, 4 61 Lior, 192 7 LarcnapeBiewers, 402 Tlasdice, 154, 176, 177, 178 Tlapaxanros, : 120 Davepovobas, . 58, 212 Tlarépee avn exes, . 192 Davepwbjvat, 211 Tlepsrareiv, 89 Dépery, 393 Tlepsrareiv év tn oxoria, 97 Depopeevos, 412 Tlisrey xossiv, 399 Davapew, 404 Tladvn, rAavos, TAavaw, 99 Das, 79 Tlyctue, 275 Dari, gv TH, « 147 Tloraxés, 205 TIpeaBurepos, 368 Xeiossv, 395 TIpoayay, 392 Xapee, 75 Tlporiu rey, 401 Xaprns, 396 Xpioue, 186 Sapxi, v, 277 Sapé, 168, 278 Woevorny aca avrov, 112 Sxavderoy, « 149 WYosvorns, 6, 189 Dxerel, ¢y TH, 89 Voyny ridevees, ray, 251 Sxorie and 4 cxorica, 98 II. PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE INCIDENTALLY ILLUSTRATED OR EXPLAINED. xi. 17, 18, Page 400 144 48 2 62, 64 20 John xvii. 21, Acts viii. 9, xxiv. 15, Romans i. 17, 1 Corinthians xiv. 32, xv. 29; 2 Corinthians iii. 18, 2 Thessalonians ii. 1, ete., . Hebrews vi. 4, James 1. 17, 105-109 275 400 214 182 234 80 INDEX. 419 III. PRINCIPAL MATTERS. Abiding in love, 299. ; j Advent of Christ, expected by the Apostles in the immediate future, 179, etc. Advocate with the Father, our, 118, 120. Anointing, the, which believers receive, 185, 186, 198. ny Antichrist, and many Antichrists, 180-183, 191, 192; the spirit of, 279. Antithesis, the, between the children of God and the children of the devil, 229, 230. Beginning, that which was from the, 46. Beginning, from the, 139, 140. Believing in God’s love, 298. Blinding the eyes, darkness, 150, etc. Blood of Christ, its cleansing power, 93, 95, 96. Blood, and water, which Jesus came by, 316-319. Born of God, 311; he that is, sins not, 232, 235 Bowels, to shut up the, 255. Brethren, 146. Brother, hatred of one’s, inconsistent with love to God, 308, etc. Brotherly-love, 237. Cain, 240, 241. Calling, the, of John, 14, etc. Catholic, meaning of the term, 409; how applied to the Epistles so called —the question investigated, 409-416 ; origin of the term, 415, 416. Cerinthic Gnosis, the, 277, 288, 296. Cerinthus, the most ancient, actual Gnostic, 17; the doctrines of, 17, etc. ; the God of, 85; the lie of, 191, 277. Children, 154, 176, 177, 178. Children of God, and children of the devil, 229, 230, 236. Children, little, 116. ‘ Christ, that Jesus is the, the kernel of all truth, 188, 189; the rationalistic and pantheistic, 191; denying that Jesus is the, 191, 193; the con- fession of, 193, etc. ; became incarnate to take away sin, 223-226; without sin, 225; manifested to destroy the works of the devil, 232 ; the true God, 348. Coming of Christ, expected by the Apostles as at hand, 179. Commandment, the old and the new, 134, etc., 138, etc. eo Commandments, God’s, a standard to regulate the believer's walk and spirit, 125; their nature, 128. Confession of Christ, 193, etc., 297. Confession of sin, 96, 101, 102. Construction and style of John’s Gospel and Epistle, 6, etc. Conversion, true, 227. Darkness, none in God, 83, etc. Darkness, walking in, 89, 149, 150; blinding the eyes, 150. Darkness, passing away, 144. Death, passing from, unto life, 244. Death, a sin unto, 337-342. Demetrius, 404, 405. Denying the Father and the Son, 192; that Jesus is the Christ, 191, 193. Diotrephes, 404, 405. Devil, the, 232; the works of, 232; the children of, 229, 230, 236. 420 INDEX. Ebionitism, 15, ete. Epistle, the First, of St John,—is it an Epistle? 1; addressed to specific readers, 2; is, in essence, not in form, an Epistle, 3; why all greeting and benediction are absent from it, 5, etc.; never doubted to be the ction of John, 6; style and construction the same as of the . 6; cirele of ideas also the same, 7, etc.; dogmatic views of both the same, 8, ete.; genuineness of, 11, etc. ; relation of, to the Gospel, 14, ete.; belongs to the same time as the Gospel, 25, ete. ; rests upon the , 26, ete.; time and place of its composition, 34, ete. ; patristic tradition respecting its having been written in Patmos, 37: readers of, 38; Augustine's assertion, that it was written to the Parthians, and ground of the mistake, 38,39; diction and tone of, 40; literature of, £1, 42. Epistle, Second and Third, of John, 359 ; how distinguished from the First, 359 ; internal evidence in relation to its authorship, 359, 360,361; ex- ternal evidence, 361, ete.; investigation of the claims of John the Presbyter to the authorship of, 363-376 ; canonicity of, 376; readers, 377, 378. . Eternal Life, the, 56, 60. Evil One, the, toucheth him not, 344; the world lying in the, 344. Excursts on Rom. i. 17, 105-109. Eye, lust of the, 167, ete. Faith, the victory of, 311, ete. Faith tnamissibilis, 184. Faithful and just to forgive sin, God is, 102-105. Fall, can the regenerate ever? 234. False teachers, how to act towards them, 393-395. Father, denying the, 192; to have the, 192, 193; the love of the, 205, ete. Fathers, 160. Fear, none in love, 804; has torment, 305. Fellowship, 72. Fellowship with God, 88, 92. Flesh, denying that Jesus is come in the, 277. Flesh, lust of the, 166, ete. Forgiveness, 104; upon confession, 155. Gaius, 397. Genuineness of the First Epistle of John, 11, ete. Gnosis, the true, 18, ete. Gnosis, the Cerinthic, 277, 278, 296. Gnosticism, 16, ete. ; John’s opposition to, 18-23, 189, 229. God is light, 79, ete.; in the light, 91, etc.; is love, 288; no man hath seen, at any time, 293; how to demonstrate our love to, 293; His love to us, 297; the true, 347, 348. God speed, not to be addressed to false teachers, 393, etc. Gospel of St John, the style and construction of, the same as those of his First Epistle, 6; circle of ideas of, the same, 7; personality of, the same, 7; directly referred to in the First Epistle, 28, 29. Grace, mercy, and peace, 382. Handling of the Word of Life, 48. Hatred, and love, 252. Hatred of one’s brother, 149, 248; inconsistent with the love of God, 308. Hatred, the world’s, of believers, 243, ete. Heart, our, condemning, 259, etc.; God greater than our, 263, 266. INDEX. 421 Hebraizing idiom in the use of ive, 102. Hope, the orig foe influence of Christian, 215. Hour, the last, 178. In God, 131. Incarnation of Christ to take away sin, 223, etc.; its object in respect to the zospds, 295. Intercession of Christ, 121. Jesus is the Christ,—the kernel of all truth, 188, 189; denying that, 191, 193. John the Apostle, his calling, 14, etc. John, the First Epistle of—is it an Epistle? 1; addressed to specific readers, 2; in essence, but not in form, an Epistle, 3, etc.; why all greeting and benediction are wanting in it, 5; the style and construction the same as those of the Gospel, 6; circle of ideas the same, 7; dogmatic views the same, 8; genuineness of, 11, etc. ; its relation to the Gospel, 14, ete.; belongs to the same time as the Gospel, 25, etc.; rests upon the Gospel, 26; time and place of writing, 54, ete. ; readers of, 38; diction and tone, 40; literature, 41, 42. John, the Second and Third Epistles of,—internal evidence as to their . authorship, 359-361; external evidence, 361-363; claims of John the Presbyter to the authorship of, investigated, 363-376. John the Presbyter, 363. Joy, full, 74, 75. Knowing all things, 186, 187. Knowing and believing in God’s love, 298. Kyria, to whom the Second Epistle of John was addressed, 377, 380, 354. Last hour, the, 178. Liar, who is the, 188, 190. Lie, the, 188, 189, 190. Life, the, was manifested, 55, 62; the eternal, 56, 60; the Son of God called, 64, 65. Life, passing from death unto, 244, ete. ; and light, how related, 345. Life, to lay down one’s, 251. Light, God is, 79, 80-83, 85; God is in the, 91. Light, the, 80-83 ; walking in the, 87, 90, 91; shineth, 146; dwelling in the, 147 ; and life, how related, 245. Likeness to Christ, 213, 214.* Littie children, 116. Logos, the, 49 ; with the Father, 62. dane, God is, 288; source of, 287, 290, 291; no fear in, 304; per- ect, 305. Love of God, the, meaning of the phrase, 128, 130, 165, 294. Love of the Father, 205, etc. Love to God, how to prove it, 293, 311, etc. ; to abide in, 299. Love of one’s brother, 238, etc. ; bound up in love to God, 307, ete. Love of the world, 163, ete. Love and hatred, 252. Love-relation, the, between God and us, 298, 300, etc. Loving in the truth, 380, 381. Lusts of the flesh, and of the eye, 166-169. Luxury, 170, 171. 422 INDEX. Man of Sin, the, 182. Manifestation of the children of God, 211. Manifestation of Christ in the flesh, 223. Manifested, the Life was, 223. Meritum de congruo, 104. Message, the, which John received, 77, 78. Murderer, he who hates his brother is a, 248. Nazarene element, the, of Christianity, 15. New commandment, the, 138, etc. Old commandment, the, 134, etc., 138, ete. Only Son, and Only-begotten, 290. Pantheistic Christ, the, 191. Paraclete, 120. Parthians, Augustine’s assertion that the First Epistle of John was ad- dressed to the, 39. Patmos, the patristic tradition which refers the writing of John’s Gospel to the Isle of, 37; date of John’s exile to, 38. Perfect love, 305. Perseverance of the saints, 234, 235. Personality of the Gospel and First Epistle of John, the same, 7. Plural, the use of the, by John in his First Epistle, 45. Prayer, the efficacy of, when according to God’s will, 336; for one who has not sinned unto death, 337, etc. Predestination, and semi-Pelagianism, 115, note; absolute, 235. Presbyter John, the, 363; the author of the First and Second Epistles of John, 363-384. Progress, true and false, 393. Propitiation for the sin of the world, Christ the, 121, 122. Purification, self-, produced by Christian hope, 216, etc., 218, 220. Rationalistic Christ, the, 191. Regenerate, the, cannot sin, 235. Regeneration, 208. Reward, a full, 390. Righteous, who is, 230. Righteous, Jesus Christ the, 120, etc. Righteousness, to do, 201. Righteousness of God, the, 105-109. Seed of God, the, 233, etc. = Self-deception, 99. : Simon the magician, the first exhibition of the gnostic nature seen in, 17. Sin, 221; committing, 221, 222, 223; the incarnation of Christ designed to take away, 223, 225; none in Christ, 225; the man born of God does not commit, 226 ; renounced by the converted soul, 227. Sin, the confession of, 96; to have, 97, 98. Sin not unto death, 337-342. Son, the Only-begotten, 290. Son, denying the Father and the, 192. Sons of God, 207. Spirit, the biblical idea of, 275. Spirit of Antichrist, 279. Spirit of God, the, marks by which it may be known, 276, 292. Spirit, the, and the water, and the blood, 330. ‘ INDEX. Spirits, the injunction to try the, 274, etc. Stumbling, 148, etc. Style of John’s First Epistle and his Gospel, 6, etc. Taking away sin, 225. Teachers, false, how to act towards them, 393-395. Testimony of God, the, 331, 334. Torment, fear has, 305. Toucheth not him that is born of God, the Evil One, 344. True, He that is, 346; God, 347. Truth, the, 187, 188. 423 Truth, doing and speaking the, 89, etc. ; loving in the, 380, 381; walking in the, 383. Victory, faith the, which overcometh the world, 311. Vocation, the, of John, 14, etc. Walking as Christ walked, 132. Walking in darkness, 89. Walking in the light, 87, 90, 91. Walking in the truth, 383. Water and blood, Jesus came by, 316, etc., 319. Water, the, and the spirit, and the blood, 330, ete. Will of God, the blessedness of doing the, 174. Witness of the Spirit, 319, etc., 322. Witnesses, the three heavenly, 324-329. Word of God, the, 112, 113. Word of Life, the, 28, 52. Works of the devil, the, 232. World, the, 162; things of, 162, 163; love of the, 163, 165; passeth away, 173, etc., 176 ; knows not Christ nor His people, 209, etc. ; its hatred of the children of God, 243, etc. ; as the object of salvation, 295; as Christ is, so are we in the, 302, etc. ; the victory over, 314, etc. ; lieth in the Wicked One, 344. Wrath of God revealed, 105, ete. Young men, 160. THE END. MURRAY AND GIBB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. “th te ty . dHorks Published bo ©, and ©, Clark, Edinburgh. RECENT PUBLICATIONS, In foolscap 8vo, Second Edition, price 4s. 6d., NETTLETON AND HIS LABOURS; BEING THE IMEMOIR OF DR NETTLETON, By BENNET TYLER, D.D. Remodelled in some parts, with occasional Notes and Extracts, and Specimens of his Sermons and Addresses, and an Introduction. By REV. ANDREW A. BONAR, Author of “‘ Memoir of Rey. R. M. M‘Curyne.” ““ We may safely aver that, so far as the Church is concerned, this is the Book of the Season, and it will unquestionably exert a very powerful influence upon the ministry of our Jand. If every Minister who has the good of souls at heart would now get it, we might have a summer of awakenings throughout the land, and a rich harvest might yet be secured ere the winter, which we fear, set in, with its stormy tempests on the Church of God.”— British Messenger. In Crown 8vo, price 5s., Second Edition, revised, feo Hr FROM THE CROSS: SERMONS ON THE PASSION OF OUR LORD. Translated from the German of A. THOLUCK, D.D., PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF HALLE, By the Rev. R. C. LUNDIN BROWN, M.A. In Crown 8yo, price 4s. 6d., Fourth and Cheaper Edition, Pak SUBREFERING SAVIOUR: OR, MEDITATIONS ON THE LAST DAYS OF THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST By the Rev. F. W. KRUMMACHER, D.D., AUTHOR OF “ ELIJAH THE TISHBITE.” TRANSLATED UNDER THE EXPRESS SANCTION OF THE AUTHOR, By SAMUEL JACKSON. In Crown 8yo, price 7s. 6d., THE KINGDOM OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. A PRACTICAL EXPOSITION OF MATTHEW XVI. 13-28, XVII., XVIII. ; MARK VIII. 27-38, IX.; LUKE IX. 18-50. By the Rev. WILLIAM WILSON, MINISTER OF ST PAUL'S FREE CHURCH, DUNDEE. 2 Works Published by T. anv TC. Clark, RECENT PUBLICATIONS. In Crown 8vo, price 5s., STUDIES ON BLAISE PAS@Re By the late A. VINET, D.D. TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH ; WITH AN APPENDIX OF NOTES, PARTLY TAKEN FROM THE WRITINGS OF LORD BACON AND DR CHALMERS. By the Rev. THOMAS SMITH, A.M. ‘* A work of much interest, especially to those who wish rightly to estimate the mind and character of Pascal. We have looked over various passages in the original French, and, as might have been anti- cipated from the well-known accuracy of the translator, find the rendering all that could be wished; while the notes appended to the volume throw light on obscure points, at times check inaccuracies of thought, and reveal a mind accustomed during intervals of so-called relaxation, to hold converse with the highest intellects of bygone ages. The rare ability of Mr Smith was well understood in the East, and, we doubt not, will be more highly appreciated here the better he becomes known.”’— Witness. In Crown 8yo, price 4s. 6d., CHRISTIANITY IN THE FIRST CENTURY: OR, THE NEW BIRTH OF THE SOCIAL LIFE OF MAN THROUGH THE RISING OF CHRISTIANITY. Translated from the German of CHRISTIAN HOFFMAN, INSPECTOR OF THE EVANGELICAL SCHOOL IN SALON, NEAR LUDWIGSBURG. ‘“The object of this volume is a noble one. It beautifully exhibits the characteristics of the early Church. The work is, in fact, an attempt to promote Christian union, and it deserves the careful study of all to whom that is dear.’”—Clertcal Journal. In Crown 8vo, price 5s., EARTHLY AND HEAVENLY THINGS: OR, THE TRUTHS UNFOLDED BY OUR LORD IN HIS INTERVIEW WITH NICODEMUS. By the Rev. JAMES GRIERSON, D.D., Errol. “It is rich in Christian thought, and will be appreciated by all who know and love evangelical truth.”’— Watchman. “This work is evidently the result of careful thought and of studious and repeated examination of the Sacred Text; and without any parade of scholarship, it gives results which only a cultivated and devout mind could have produced. The book is one that we can heartily recommend.”—F7veeman. In Crown 8vo, price 5s., cloth, THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS: AN EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY. By Dr CARL ULLMANN, Author of ‘‘ Reformers before the Reformation, principally in Germany and the Netherlands.” Translated from the Sixth German Edition by Rev. ROBERT L. BROWN. In Crown 8vo, price 6s., Second Edition, HISTORY OF THE JEWISH MATION AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM UNDER TITUS. By the Rev. ALFRED EDERSHEIM, Ph.D., Old Aberdeen. In Demy 8vo, price 12s., CREATION AND THE FALL: A DEFENCE AND EXPOSITION OF THE FIRST THREE CHAPTERS OF GENESIS. By the Rev. DONALD MACDONALD, M.A., MINISTER OF THE FREE CHURCH, EDINKILLIE. 38, George Street, Evinburgh. 3 Just Published, in One Thick Volume (of about 520 pp.), Price 7s. 6d. HANDBOOK oF CHURCH HISTORY TO THE REFORMATION, From the German of PROFESSOR KURTZ. WITH EMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONS, BY THE REV. ALFRED EDERSHEIM, Ph.D., AUTHOR OF “ HISTORY OF THE JEWISH NATION.” “A work executed with great diligence and care, exhibiting an accurate collection of facts, and a succinct, though full, account of the history and progress of the Church, both external and internal. . . . The work is distinguished for the moderation and charity of its expressions, and for a spirit which is truly Christian.”—Znglish Churchman. “As a manual, we greatly prefer it to any other. Not so artistic and beautiful as Hase, not so dog- matic as the more limited work of Guericke; it is imbued with a more deeply religious spirit than the former, and characterised by a broader, milder Christian intelligence than the latter. As a handbook for the professor, and as a guide to more enlarged knowledge to the student, it stands alone. The translator has executed his whole task with great judgment, skill, and diligence. His additions are truly valuable, especially those which refer to Wycliffe and the Calvinistic Churches.’—Patriot. ‘ “This volume exactly supplies a want long felt by the students of Church History. It is scientific in its plan and structure, ample in its information, clear in its classification, and arrangement, brief, com- pact, and very moderate in price. Like most of Messrs Clark’s publications, its value is enhanced by a copious index and table of contents.”—Baptist Magazine. In One Volume, demy 8yo (580 pp.), price 10s. 6d., COMMENTARY ON THE PENTATEUCH, Translated from the German of OTTO VON GERLACH. By Rev. HENRY DOWNING, INCUMBENT OF ST MARY'S, KINGSWINFORD. “This work is very popular in Germany. It is adapted for general readers as well as theological students, and is published in Messrs Clark’s well-known series of translations of foreign theological and biblical works, with regard to which we observe that the Bishop of London recently expressed himself as follows, at a public meeting held to receive information as to the religious state of Germany :— “ «We did not think the public generally were aware how much our present literature was based on what was derived from Germany. ‘“Clark’s Foreign Theological Library,” for instance, was exten- sively read in Scotland, and the theology of the Presbyterian clergy of that country was greatly modified by this reading. This was also the case in England, and it was likely to increase every year. Hence the great importance of knowing whether the intellectual Germans were more reli- giously inclined than in past years.’ "—Guardian. ‘This work possesses a high character among the Evangelical parties in Germany. It is decidedly orthodox and conservative in its statements; and its spirit and its publication here will confer a great service on sacred literature, especially as writers on the Old Testament are comparatively rare among us. The translation is well executed; and, we hope, the work will be extensively patronised by the clergy.”—Clerical Journal. ‘“We recommend it to our readers as an excellent explanatory Commentary. The modest claims of the Editor are well sustained, the work is well edited, and the English reader, who would study with profit to himself or expound to others, this portion of Scripture, will thank us for directing his attention to it."—Christian Observer. ‘This is an able and valuable Commentary.’—Unitted Presbyterian Magazine, Just Published, in One thick Volume, Second Edition, price 12s., A GRAMMAR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DICTION: INTENDED AS AN INTRODUTION TO THE CRITICAL STUDY OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, - BY DR GEORGE BENEDICT WINER. Translated from the Sixth Enlarged and Improved Edition of the Original, BY EDWARD MASSON, M.A., FORMERLY PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS. Extract from letter from the late Venerable Archdeacon Harpwick, Christian Advocate. ‘Tt is a subject of sincere pleasure to ali critics of the sacred text, that this elaborate and ex- haustive treatise is at length in a fair way of becoming familiar to England as it has long been to Germany ; I shall have great pleasure in commending it to my divinity class.” The Publishers have also been favoured with the following opinions of this translation, all from well-known and eminent scholars :— I. “ The translation of ‘Winer’s Grammar’ will, I am convinced, constitute an era in the Biblical Criticism of this country. It will dissipate those groundless fears as to the influence of Sacred Philology on the Christian taith, which the sad extravagances of our German brethren have tended to foster amongst alarmists; and it will serve to show that Learning and Faith are not antagonists, but can cordially ‘kiss each other,’ and that in this day, as formerly, the genuine scholar is the most likely to become and continue a sound practical Christian. The translation appears to be admirably executed.” IJ. This is indeed a valuable publication ; I rejoice at its being made at last accessible, as I am in the habit of recommending it annually to my Greek class.” III. “I shall have pleasure in recommending your beautiful and apparently accurate edition of ‘ Winer.’” IV. “From the hasty glance I have taken of it, I should think it was very well done in all ways.” V. “The work appears to be extremely well executed.” VI. ‘ This translation of Winer’s very valuable Grammar is extremely well-timed; and, I doubt not, will be used in Cambridge by theological students, who are an increasing class in the University.” VII. “I have no doubt that I will find it very useful in my lectures.” VIII. I have opened it in a few places, and find that, judging from them, it appears to be done with great care. I have a large theological class, to which I shall bave much pleasure in strongly recommending it.” IX. “Having often had occasion to recommend to students the original work, or the old and very unsatisfactory translation, I shall have much greater confidence in recommending your publication, so carefully superintended by Professor Masson.” “ This is the standard classical work on the Grammar of the New Testament, and it is of course indispensable to every one who would prosecute intelligently the critical study of the most important portion of the inspired record; itis a great service to render such a work accessible to the English reader.”—British and Foreign Evangelical Review. “We gladly welcome the appearance of Winer’s great work in an English translation, and most strongly recommend it to all who wish to attain to a sound and accurate knowledge of the language of the New Testament; we need not say it is the Grammar of the New Testament. It is not only superior to all others, but so superior as to be by common consent the one work of reference on the subject. No other could be mentioned with it."—Literary Churchman. “We congratulate Mr Masson on the completion of his labour, and on having made such a useful and permanent contribution to our translated Biblical literature. There can be no doubt of the reliable character of a translation made by one with the knowledge and experience of Mr Masson, and he has transferred his German original into English that is at once idiomatic, clear, and per- fectly expressive.”—Nonconformist. From 8. W. Turner, D.D., Prof. in the Episcopal General Theol. Seminary. “The value and importance of this work in its bearing on critical exposition of the New Testa- ment can hardly be overrated. I firmly believe that in proportion as such books are conscientiously used to assist in investigating and determining the true meaning of the Scriptures, will erroneous views of doctrine gradually disappear, and Divine truth prevail in its greatness. Exposition, founded on preconceived systems, human authority, personal feeling, or supposed analogy, must be abandoned, or modified, if found to be at variance with grammatical principles and usage. To assist in deter- mining such usage and settling such principles, I know of no book comparable to Winer’s Grammar. It should be in the library of every clergyman, and in the hands of every theological student.” WORKS OF JOHN CALVIN, IN FIFTY-ONE VOLUMES, Demy 8vo. EpinpurGu, 38, Georce Srreer. Messrs Crark beg respectfully to announce that the whole Srock and Coprricuts of the WORKS OF CALVIN, published by the Calvin Translation Society, are now their property, and that this valuable Series will be issued by them on the following very favourable terms:— 1.—Complete Sets in 51 Volumes, Nine Guineas. (Original Subscription price about £13.) The “Lerrers,” edited by Dr Bonnet, 2 vols., 10s. 6d. additional. 2.—Complete Sets of Commentaries, 45 vols., £7, 17s. 6d. 3.—A Selection of Six Volumes (or more at the same proportion), for 21s., with the exception of the Institutes, 3 vols. 4.—The InstiTuTEs, 8 vols., 24s. THE CONTENTS OF THE SERIES ARE AS FOLLOWS :— Institutes of the Christian Religion, . 8 vols. | Commentary on Habakkuk, Zephaniah, ‘tracts on the Reformation, ° - 3 vols. and Haggai, . _+ vol. Commentary on Geresis, . : <2 Os, 3 Zechariah and Malachi, 1 vol. Harmony of the last Four Books of the Harmony of the Synoptical Evangelists, 3 vols. Pentateuch, : : - 4vols..| Commentary on John’s Gospel, . . 2 vols. Commentary on Joshua, . = adevols “5 Acts of the Apostles, . 2 vols. i the Psalms, 5 - 5vols. a Romans, Z ~ Jivelk EY Isaiah, ° F . 4Avols. “s Corinthians, =. — 2 vols. 7 alae Jeremiah and Lamenta- ” Galatians and Ephesians, 1 vol. tions, 2 - 5vols. eA Philippians, Colossians, Hs Ezekiel, . - 2 vols. and Thessalonians, - 1 vol. oe Daniel, .- 5 2” vols: = Timothy, Titus, and 9 Hosea, . - a Lavole Philemon, . . 1vol. a Joel, Amos, and Oba- + Hebrews, ‘ - aivole diah yy a0 Ay vol: - Peter, John, James, and Jonah, Micah,and Nahum 1 vol. | Jude, - * WEsVOL: Orders must be accompanied by a remittance, and may be transmitted through any respect: able bookseller. “ THE VENERABLE CALVIN.—I hold the memory of CALyry in high veneration; his Works have a place in my library; and in the study of the Holy Scriptures he is one of the Commentators I most frequently consult.”—Bishop Horsley. “ OaALyin’s COMMENTARIES remain, after three centuries, unparalleled for force of mind, justness of expression, and practical views of Christianity.”"—Bishop of Calcutta (Wilson). “The Genevese Reformer (CALVIN) surpassed Knox in the extent of his theological learning, and in the unrivalled solidity and clearness of his judgment.”—M‘Crie (Life of Knox). “ A minister without this, is without one of the best Commentaries on the ScriprursEs, and a valuable body of Divinity.”—Bickersteth, Christian Student. Amongst the Theological Works which were widely circulated in England and Scotland daring the latter part of the Sixteenth century, Translations of many of the Writings of Joun CaLvIN had a distinguished place. Of his eminence as a Divine and CoMMENTATOR ON THE Hoty Scrierurss, it is unnecessary here to speak, though few are now fully aware of the very high respect in which his Works were held by all the leading English Reformers and Ecclesiastical Writers from Cranmer to Hooker, and the extensive benefits resulting to the Church of Christ from his literary labours. At that time, doctrines which he never held were not attributed to him; nor were sentiments iinputed to him which he never advocated. Bishop Horsley well advised to ascertain what is Calvinism and what is not. Copious Tables and Indices are appended to each of the Commentaries, etc., to facilitate reference, and to render the whole Series more generally useful and acceptable to every class of readers. Gs Manacers or Postic, Parocnrar, ConGREGATIONAL, VESTRY, OR LENDING LiprRa- ries, Revicious Societies, Reaping Cxiuss, AND oTHER PusBric INstTITUTIONS, are re- spectfully invited to consider the advantage of subscribing to these Translations. Parties wishing to make presents to Parish Liprartes, Ministers, SrupENTsS oF Drvinity, or Private Frrenps, would also find that these Works could not fail to be a very useful and acceptable gift, JOHN ALBERT BENGEL’S GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. NOW FIRST TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH ORIGINAL NOTES. EXPLANATORY AND ILLUSTRATIVE, In Five Large Volumes, Demy 8vo, SuBSCRIPTION 81s. 6d., payable in advance, or free by Post 35s. The very large demand for Bengel’s Gnomon enables the Publishers still to supply it at the Subscription Price. The whole work is issued under the Editorship of the Rev. ANDREW R. Fausset, M.A., Rector of St Cuthbert’s, York, late University and Queen’s Scholar, and Senior Classical and Gold Medalist, T. C. D. For the convenience of such as may wish only a portion of the Commentary, the volumes are sold separately at 8s. 6d. each (except Vol. LI., 10s. 6d.) Vol. I., Inrropuction, Matruew, Marr; Vol. II., Luxe, Jonny, Acts; Vol. III., Romans, CorintHians; Vol. [V., Gavatians to Hesprews; Vol. V., James to the End. “ We are heartily glad that this important work, of an English Translation of Bengel’s ‘Gnomon, has not only been fairly started, but has been successfully completed. Bengel’s ‘Gnomon’ has always been held in the highest estimation by all competent judges, as presenting a very remarkable, pro- bably unexampled, combination of learning, sagacity, critical tact, evangelical unction, and terse- ness and condensation of style. Its growing popularity in Germany is, like the popularity of Cal- vin’s Commentary on the New Testament, as edited by Tholuck, one of the very best signs of the times. . . . The enterprising Publishers have secured, for this purpose, the services of several accomplished and thoroughly qualified scholars. Mr Fausset, of Trinity College, Dublin, acts as general Editor and Superintendent, and undertakes the translation of the Commentary upon the Gospels of Mark, Luke, John, and Acts of the Apostles. The Rev. James Bandinel of Wadham College, Oxford, has translated Bengel’s General Preface, and his Commentary upon Matthew’s (zospel. The Rev. Dr James Bryce, late of Aberdeen, has translated the portion upon the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, and has undertaken the rest of Paul’s Epistles. The Rey. Dr Fletcher wf Wimborne, has executed the translation of the remainder of the work, on the Catholie Epistles, and the Apocalypse.”— British and Foreign Evangelical Review. “Tt is a thesaurus of terse, pithy, luminous, and sometimes admirable expositions of the words and phrases in the New Testament. It is in fact a ‘ Gnomon,’ a ‘ Pointer,’ an ‘Indicator,’ as on a sun- dial, of the meaning of the Evangelists and Apostles. It has been an invaluable aid to the commen- tators of more recent times; and we are happy to see that all our clergymen may now have access, in thei mother tongue, to the work which has already instructed them through the medium of critics familiar with the original of this most suggestive index. The translators have performed their work with much pains-taking, and have rendered an important service to scholars, who are interested in critical and theological investigations.”—Bibliotheca Sacra. “Every scholar is familiar with the character of Bengel's ‘Gnomon.’ It is, for conciseness, suggestive- nses and felicity, unrivalled. More than a hundred years have elapsed since its first publication, and it is still one of the books most frequently quoted or referred to as an authority by modern exegetical writers. The names of the translators are a guarantee for the scholarlike execution of the difficult task.”—Princeton Review. “This translation is particularly good, characterised by accuracy and strength, and enriched, more- over, with many valuable original notes by the translators. We earnestly recommend it to all our readers as one of the very best commentaries on the New Testament Scriptures.”—Church of England Monthly Review. “Tn a word, the student may here calculate on finding one of the best helps that the English or any other language can afford him.”—Afethodist Magazine. “We hail with sincere pleasure the appearance of this work. Bengel’s Exposition has been long known and valued by all Biblical students, and as it can hardly be expected that the great mass, even of well-educated readers, should be able to read Latin with the same facility as their mother-tongue, a translation of Bengel’s work into English will render it accessible to a much larger number than would otherwise have been able to avail themselves of its help. Bengel’s mind was one peculiarly fitted for the task he undertook; united with acuteness in critical discernment, and a love of patient and laborious investigation, there was a spirit of deep, earnest, and practical piety which ever kept in view the great end and aim of Christianity.”— Record. “ Tt may safely be said, that the ‘Gnomon’ of Bengel is, on the whole, the most valuable exegetical work on the New Testament which has ever appeared.”—Journal of Sacred Literature. THE WORKS OF DR JOHN OWEN, EDITED BY REV. DR GOOLD, EDINBURGH, WITH THE CO-OPERATION OF REV J. EDMONSTONE, ASHKIRK. In Twenty-Four Volumes, 8vo. “Mou will finn that in him the learning of Lightfoot, the strength of Charnock, the analpsis of owe, the savour of Leighton, the raciness of bepwwoov, the glow of Barter, the copiousness of Barrow, the splendour of ates, are al{ combined, TW: should quick{p restore the race of great Dibines tf our candidates were Disciplined in such lore,’’—The Late Dr Hamilton of Leeds. Messrs CLARK of Edinburgh beg respectfully to invite attention to this well-known edition of Dr Owen’s Works. I. Set in Twenty-four Vols. 8vo., F é : : £55) bss II. The Miscellaneous Works, Sixteen Vols., . ; : 4 4 0 Ill. The Theologoumena, and some Sermons, One Vol., : : 0 8 6 1V. The Exposition of the Hebrews, Seven Vols., : : Ze DEO V. Any Separate Volume, . : : - - . ° 0 8 6 “ As North British Reviewers, we congratulate our country on having produced this beautiful reprint of the illustrious Puritan: and from the fact that they have offered it at a price which has introduced it to 4000 libraries, we must regard the publishers as benefactors to modern theology. The Editor has consecrated all his learning and all his industry to this labour of love; and, by all accounts, the previous copies needed a reviser as careful and as competent as Dr Goold. Dr Thom- son’s Memoir of the author we have read with singular pleasure. It exhibits much research, and a fine appreciation of Dr Owen’s characteristic excellences ; and its tone is kind and catholic. Such reprints, rightly used, will be a new era in our Christian literature. They can scarcely fail to inten- sify the devotion and invigorate the faculties of such as read them. And if these readers be chiefly professed divines, the people will in the long run reap the benefit.”—North British Review. “ Never before did the great Puritan appear in such a dress—every way in keeping with the character of the man and of his productions, and happily adapted to our modern ideas of convenience and taste. With respect to the important matters of accuracy in the text, and of careful editorial revision, we are constrained to speak in terms of warmest commendation. Dr Goold seems to have formed a most correct estimate of the task committed to him; he never shows himself but when there is a propriety in making his appearance, and is then nothing more than the interpreter of obscurities, and the usher of his principal into the better acquaintance of the reader. This is a ceremonial by no means super- fluous ; for, though every one who has so much as set a foot within the domain of theological science is familiar with Owen’s fame, few are conversant with the occasions and the circumstances of his multifarious authorship, and, consequently, a few words of preface must be to the bulk of readers a very seasonable and acceptable aid. ‘These introductory notices are really excellent, giving just the kind and the amount of information which will be generally desiderated, always expressed with neatness, and often with much felicity. There is, no doubt, a transition somewhat startling from the base, and polish, and pleasant flow of the prefatory notes, to the massive and often cumbrous march of Owen’s style of exercitation ; but we are not the less reconciled to the effort of wending our way in the giant’s company, that we have been gracefully introduced to his acquaintance.”—/vangelica Christendom. “. . . Inshort, with all our reverence for Owen, we are free to say that full justice has here been done to him at last, and we need not expect ever to see an edition surpassing the present. It is something for the publishers to have given a sermon by Owen which was never embraced before in his collected works, or to have exceeded what they promised to the subscribers by nearly two and a half volumes, but it is better far to have presented the noble old Puritan, so abundant in rich thought and solid theology, in a form worthy of himself, and of the brotherhood of which he is the best speci- men or type. The Life of Owen by Dr Thomson, prefixed to the first volume, and which we noticed at length when it appeared, the revision and notes of Dr Goold, with the typography and style of the whole, are all worthy of the work.”— Witness. THE BIBLICAL CABINET; OR, HERMENEUTICAL, EXEGETICAL, AND PHILOLOGICAL LIBRARY, Consisting of Translations of the most Valuable and Interesting Works of German and other Continental Divines, in so far as they are connected with BisyicaL LiTERATURE. ERNESTI on the Interpretation of the New Testament, 2 vols., 12s. Philological Tracts, illustrative of the Old and New Testaments, 3 vols., 12s. THo.uck’s Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., 12s. PaReEAv on the Interpretation of the Old Testament, 2 vols., 8s. Stuart's Greek Syntax of the New Testament, 6s. ROSENMUELLER’S Biblical Geography, 3 vols., 12s. STEIGER’s Exposition of the 1st Epistle of St Peter, 2 vols., 12s Licke’s Exposition of the Three Epistles of St John, 6s. Umesretr’s Exposition of the Book of Job, 2 vols., 8s. Bitiroty’s Exposition of the Epistles of St Paul to the Corinthians, 2 vols., 8s. KrummMacuer’s Life of Cornelius the Centurion, and of St John the Evangelist, 4s. Wirsius on the Lord’s Prayer, 4s. Clayis Symbolica: a Key to the Symbolical Language of Scripture. By THomas Wemyss. 5s. ROSENMUELLER’S Biblical Botany and Mineralogy, 4s. ‘TnoLucK’s Sermons, and Life and Character of St Paul. Heathenism, etc. 6s. Lisco’s Exposition of Christ’s Parables, 5s. Nature and Moral Influence of Ca.vin on Epistles to the Galatians and Ephesians, 4s. Gess on the Revelation of God in His Word, 4s. JROSENMUELLER on the Messianic Psalms, 5s. Couarn’s Sermons on the Life of the Early Christians, 4s. ‘THoLuck on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 vols., 12s. Catvin and Srorr on the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and Colossians, 4s. Smaitscn’s Life, Times, and Writings of Justin Martyr, 2 vols., 10s. Réur’s Historico-Geographical Account of Palestine, 4s. TirrMAnN on the Gospel of St John, 2 vols., 10s. ALSO PUBLISHED BY T. AND T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. Bargsacovi’s Literary History of Italy, 8vo, 2s. 6d. Brak on Slavery among the Romans, 6s. The Doctrine of Changes, post 8vo, 4s. 6d. Krummacuer’s Little Dove: a Story for Children, 6d. LowMan’s a@ priort Argument, 1s. Mowes’ Minister of Andouse, feap 8vo, 2s. Murpocu’s Sketches of Modern Philosophy, Ds. Necris’ Herodotus, with Notes, 4s. 6d. Xenophon’s Anabasis, ls. 6d. Pindar, 4s. 6d. ReYNOLDS on the Preservation of the Hyes, Is. Necessity of Physical Culture to Literary Men, 6d. Reynoup’s (Sir Joshua) Discourses to Stu- dents of Royal Academy, 3s. 6d. Ropinson (Professor), View of Education in German Universities, 1s. 6d. Ruckert and Lanes on the Resurrection, Is. 6d. Russe 1, Life of Lady, 1s. 6d. Sawyer’s Elements of Biblical Interpreta- tion, ls. Scumip’s Flower-basket, 2s. -———-— Little Lamb, Is. | EDWARDS Scumip’s Easter Eggs, 1s. Start (Madame de), Life of, 1s. 6d. STauDuins’ History of Theological Knowledge and Literature, 6d. Srory on the Progress of Science and Litera- ture, ls. 6d. Hircucock and Sruart’s Discussions on Geo- logy and Religion, 6s., cloth. ULLMANN on the Sinless Character of Jesus, 2s. VeERPLANCK on the Right Moral Influence and Use of Liberal Studies, 6d. Ware on Extemporaneous Preaching, Is. on the Character and Duties of a Physician, 6d. We tsu (Professor), Elements of Church His- tory, 6s. CuanninG on a National Literature, 6d. — on Fenelon, 6d. ————— on Napoleon, Is. 3d. on Slavery, ls. 6d. — on Self-Culture, 1s. 3d. on Slavery in Greece, and in the Early and Middle Ages, ls. 3d. EVERETT on Scientific Knowledge, 2s. Staprrenr’s Life of Kant, 1s. Macpovatt on Oriental *aneEaESe 1s, Nrepuur’s Life, 1s. Date Due | a oe os | § Ee 7 7 a an ; o Bi, i : fe @ paren cipitey ee Ce coe a ee rT iad -