¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ .

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

Camforttrae <&vtzk Testament for
Kfyool* anU Colleges*

THE EPISTLES OF
S. JOHN.

First Edition 1886.
Reprinted 1894, 1896

PREFACE
BY THE GENERAL EDITOR
The General Editor of The Cambridge Bible for
Schools thinks it right to say that he does not hold
himself responsible either for the interpretation of
particular passages which the Editors of the several
Books have adopted, or for any opinion on points of
doctrine that they may have expressed. In the New
Testament more especially questions arise of the
deepest theological import, on which the ablest and
most conscientious interpreters have differed and
q always will differ. His aim has been in all such
9 cases to leave each Contributor to the unfettered
<T exercise of his own judgment, only taking care that
\mere controversy should as far as possible be avoided.
% He has contented himself chiefly with a careful
revision of the notes, with pointing out omissions, with
S. JOHN (EP.) b

Iv PREFACE.
suggesting occasionally a reconsideration of some
question, or a fuller treatment of difficult passages,
and the like.
Beyond this he has not attempted to interfere,
feeling it better that each Commentary should have
its own individual character, and being convinced
that freshness and variety of treatment are more
than a compensation for any lack of uniformity in
the Series.

ON THE GEEEK TEXT.

In undertaking an edition of the Greek text of the
New Testament with English notes for the use of Schools,
the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press have not
thought it desirable to reprint the text in common use*.
To have done this would have been to set aside all the
materials that have since been accumulated towards the
formation of a correct text, and to disregard the results
of textual criticism in its application to MSS., Versions
and Fathers. It was felt that a text more in accordance
with the present state of our knowledge was desirable.
On the other hand the Syndics were unable to adopt one
of the more recent critical texts, and they were not disposed
to make themselves, responsible for the preparation of an
* The form of this text most used in England, and adopted in
Dr Scrivener's edition, is that of the third edition of Robert Stephens
(1550). The name "Received Text " is popularly given to the Elzevir
edition of 1633, which is based on this edition of Stephens, and the
name is borrowed from a phrase in the Preface, "Textum ergo habes
nunc ab omnibus receptum." , _

vi PREFATORY.
entirely new and independent text: at the same time it
would have been obviously impossible to leave it to the
judgment of each individual contributor to frame his own
text, as this would have been fatal to anything like uni
formity or consistency. They believed however that a good
text might be constructed by simply taking the consent of
the two most recent critical editions, those of Tischendorf
and Tregelles, as a basis. The same principle of consent
could be applied to places where the two critical editions
were at variance, by allowing a determining voice to the
text of Stephens where it agreed with either of their read
ings, and to a third critical text, that of Lachmann, where
the text of Stephens differed from both. In this manner
readings peculiar to one or other of the two editions would
be passed over as not being supported by sufficient critical
consent ; while readings having the double authority would
be treated as possessing an adequate title to confidence.
A few words will suffice to explain the manner in
which this design has been carried out.
In the Acts, the Epistles, and the Revelation, wherever
the texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles agree, their joint
readings are followed without any deviation. "Where they
differ from each other, but neither of them agrees with the
text of Stephens as printed in Dr Scrivener's edition, the
consensus of Lachmann with either is taken in preference
to the text of Stephens. In all other cases the text of
Stephens as represented in Dr Scrivener's edition has been
followed.

ON THE GREEK TEXT. vii
In the Gospels, a single modification of this plan has
been rendered necessary by the importance of the Sinai
MS. (X), which was discovered too late to be used by
Tregelles except in the last chapter of St John's Gospel
and in the following books. Accordingly, if a reading
which Tregelles has put in his margin agrees with tt,
it is considered as of the same authority as a reading
which he has adopted in his text; and if any words
which Tregelles has bracketed are omitted by N, these
words are here dealt with as if rejected from his text.
In order to secure uniformity, the spelling and the
accentuation of Tischendorf have been adopted where he
differs from other Editors. His practice has likewise been
followed as regards the insertion or omission of Iota sub
script in infinitives (as £?Jv, In-m/iav), and adverbs (as Kpvtprj,
XaOpa), and the mode of printing such composite forms as
hunravros, Start, rovrecm, and the like.
The punctuation of Tischendorf in his eighth edition has
usually been adopted : where it is departed from, the devia
tion, together with the reasons that have led to it, will be
found mentioned in the Notes. Quotations are indicated
by a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence. Where
a whole verse is omitted, its omission is noted in the margin
(e.g. Matt xvii. 21; xxiii. 12).
The text is printed in paragraphs corresponding to those
of the English Edition.
Although it was necessary that the text of all the
portions of the New Testament should be uniformly con-

viii PREFATORY.
structed in accordance with these general rules, each editor
has been left at perfect liberty to express his preference
for other readings in the Notes.
It is hoped that a text formed on these principles
will fairly represent the results of modern criticism, and
will at least be accepted as preferable to "the Received
Text " for use in Schools.
J. J. STEWART PEEOWNE.

CONTENTS.

I. Introduction. pages
Chapter I. The Last Tears of S. John  xi— xxxvii
Chapter II. The First Epistle of S. John  xxxvii — Ixvi
Chapter III. The Second Epistle  Ixvi — lxxviii
Chapter IV. The Third Epistle  lxxviii — lxxxi
Chapter V. The Text of the Epistles  lxxxi — xcv
Chapter VI. The Literature of the Epistles  xcv — xcviii
II. Text  1—11
III. Notes  13—153
Appendices. A. The Three Evil Tendencies in the World  154
B. Antichrist  156
C. The Sect of the Cainites  160
D. The Three Heavenly Witnesses  163
E. John the Presbyter or the Elder  172
F. The "Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles" and the
Writings of S. John  176
GF. The Latin Versions compared in 1 John  178
H. The English Versions derived from the Vulgate
compared with it and with one another  184
I. The Latin Correspondence between S. Ignatius and
S. John  191
IV. Indices  195

INTKODUCTION. CHAPTER I.
The Last Yeabs op S. John.
A sketch of the hfe of S. John as a whole has been given in
the Introduction to the Fourth Gospel. Here it will not be
necessary to do more than retouch and somewhat enlarge what
was there said respecting the closing years of his hfe, in which
period, according to all probability, whether derived from direct
or indirect evidence, our three Epistles were written. In order
to understand the motive and tone of the Epistles, it is requisite
to have some clear idea of the circumstances, local, moral, and
intellectual, in the midst of which they were written.
(1) The Local Surroundings — Ephesus.
Unless the whole history of the century which followed upon
the destruction of Jerusalem is to be abandoned as chimerical
and untrustworthy, we must continue to believe the almost uni
versally accepted statement that S. John spent the last portion
of his life in Asia Minor, and chiefly at Ephesus. The sceptical
spirit which insists upon the truism that well-attested facts have
nevertheless not been demonstrated with all the certainty of a
proposition in Euclid, and contends that it is therefore right to
doubt them, and lawful to dispute them, renders history im
possible. The evidence of S. John's residence at Ephesus is too
strong to be shaken by conjectures. It will be worth while to
state the main elements of it.
(1) The opening chapters of the Book of Revelation are
written in the character of the Metropolitan of the Churches of

xii INTRODUCTION.
Asia Minor. Even if we admit that the Book is possibly not
written by S. John, at least it is written by some one who knows
that S. John held that position. Had S. John never lived in
Asia Minor, the writer of the Apocalypse would at once have
been detected as personating an Apostle of whose abode and
position he was ignorant.
(2) Justin Martyr (c. a.d. 150) probably within fifty years of
S. John's death writes : "Among us also a certain man named
John, one of the Apostles of Christ, prophesied in a Revelation
made to him, that the believers of our Christ shall spend a
thousand years in Jerusalem.'' These words occur in the Dia
logue with Trypho (lxxxi.), which Eusebius tells us was held at
Ephesus : so that ' among us' naturally means at or near Ephesus,
though it might mean ' in our time.'
(3) Irenaeus, the disciple of Polyearp, the disciple of S. John,
writes thus (c. a. d. 190) in the celebrated Epistle to bis fellow-
pupil, the heretically inclined Florinus, of which a portion has
been preserved by Eusebius {H. E. v. xx. 4, 5) ; " These views
(Soy/tcrra) those elders who preceded us, who also were conversant
with the Apostles, did not hand down to thee. For I saw thee
when I was yet a lad in lower Asia with Polyearp, distinguishing
thyself in the royal court, and endeavouring to have his appro
bation. Por I remember what happened then more clearly than
recent occurrences. Por the experiences of childhood, growing
up along with the soul, become part and parcel of it : so that I
can describe the very place in which the blessed Polyearp used
to sit and discourse, and his goings out and his comings in, the
character of his life and the appearance of his person, and the
discourses which he used to deliver to the multitude ; and how
he recounted Ms close intercourse with John (i-ijv pera 'I. o-vvava-
arpotpjv), an(l ^th the rest of those who had seen the Lord1").
i Lipsius (Diet, of Christ. Biogr. m. 263) shews that the letter to
Florinus must be later in date than the work on Heresies. Bishop
Lightfoot, who once thought otherwise (Contemp. Rev. May, 1875, 834),
now accepts this view (S. Ignatius and S. Polyearp i. 429). Florinus
was a presbyter at Rome under Eleutherius and Victor, and seems to
have been deposed for accepting Valentinian Gnosticism (Eus. H. E.
v. xv.).

1±\TMUL>UUT1VJ\. XIU
That Polyearp was Bishop of Smyrna, where he spent most of
his Ufe and suffered martyrdom, is well known. And this again
proves S. John's residence in Asia Minor. Still more plainly
Irenaeus says elsewhere (Haer. in. i. 1); "Then John, the
disciple of the Lord, who also leaned back on His breast, he
too published a gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."
(4) Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, in his Epistle to Victor
Bishop of Rome (a. d. 189 — 199) says ; "And moreover John
also that leaned back upon the Lord's breast, who was a priest
bearing the plate of gold, and a martyr and a teacher, — he lies
asleep at Ephesus " (Eus. H. E. v. xxiv. 3.
(5) Apollonius, sometimes said to have been Presbyter of
Ephesus, wrote a treatise against Montanism (c. a.d. 200), which
Tertulhan answered; and Eusebius tells us that Apollonius
related the raising of a dead man to life by S. John at Ephesus
(5. E. v. xviii. 14).
There is no need to multiply witnesses. That S. John ended
his days in Asia Minor, ruling 'the Churches of Asia' from
Ephesus as his usual abode, was the uniform belief of Christen
dom in the second and third centuries, and there is no sufficient
reason for doubting its truth1. We shall find that S. John's
residence there harmonizes admirably with the tone and contents
of these Epistles ; as also with the importance assigned to these
Churches in the Revelation and in several of the Epistles of
S. Paul. Ephesus was situated on high ground in the midst of a fertile
plain, not far from the mouth of the Cayster. As a centre of
commerce its position was magnificent. Three rivers drain
1 The silence of the Ignatian Epistles presents some difficulty, but
not a serious one. It is certainly remarkable that in writing to the
Ephesians Ignatius alludes to S. Paul and not to S. John (xii.). But
Ignatius is writing of martyrs connected with Ephesus. The parallel
between himself and S. Paul was exact ; each visiting Ephesus before
going to a martyr's death at Rome. There was no parallel between
Ignatius and S. John. See Lightfoot in loco i. 64; also n. 390. A
few lines above (xi) Ignatius speaks of those Ephesians who had
" ever been of one mind with the Apostles" which probably means
S. Paul and S. John. The interpolator expands "the Apostles" into
" Paul and John and Timothy."

xiv INTRODUCTION.
western Asia Minor, the Maeander, the Cayster, and the Hermes,
and of these three the Cayster is the central one, and its valley
is connected by passes with the valleys of the other two. The
trade of the eastern Aegean was concentrated in its port.
Through Ephesus flowed the chief of the trade between Asia
Minor and the West. Strabo, the geographer, who was still
living when S. John was a young man, had visited Ephesus, and
as a native of Asia Minor must have known the city well from
reputation. Writing of it in the time of Augustus he says;
"Owing to its favourable situation, the- city is in all other
respects increasing daily, for it is the greatest place of trade
of all the cities of Asia west of the Taurus.'' The vermilion
trade of Cappadocia, which used to find a port at Sinope, now
passed through Ephesus. What Corinth was to Greece and the
Adriatic, and Marseilles to Gaul and the Western Mediterranean,
that Ephesus was to Asia Minor and the Aegean. And its home
products were considerable: corn in abundance grew in its
plains, and wine and oil on its surrounding hills. Patmos, the
scene of the Revelation^ is only a day's sail from Ephesus, and
it has been reasonably conjectured that the gorgeous description
of the merchandise of ' Babylon,' given in the Apocalypse (xviii.
12, 13) is derived from S. John's own experiences in Ephesus ;
' Merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stone, and pearls,
and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet; and all thyine
wood, and every vessel of ivory, and every vessel made of most
precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble ; and cinna
mon, and spice, and incense, and ointment, and frankincense,
and wine and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and cattle, and
sheep ; and merchandise of horses and chariots and slaves ; and
souls of men.' The last two items give us in terrible simplicity
the traffic in human beings which treated them as body and soul
the property of their purchaser. Ephesus was the place at which
Romans visiting the East commonly landed. Among all the
cities of the Roman province of Asia it ranked as 'first of all
and greatest,' and was called 'the Metropolis of Asia.' In his
Natural History Pliny speaks of it as Asiae lumen. It is quite
in harmony with this that it should after Jerusalem and Antioch

INTRODUCTION. xv
become the third great home of Christianity, and after the death
of S. Paul be chosen by S. John as the centre whence he would
direct the Churches of Asia. It is the first Church addressed in
the Apocalypse (i. 11; ii. 1). If we had been entirely without
information respecting S. John's life subsequent to the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, the conjecture that he had moved to Asia
Minor and taken up his abode in Ephesus would have been one
of the most reasonable that could have been formed. With its
mingled population of Asiatics and Greeks it combined more
completely than any other city the characteristics of both East
and West. With the exception of Rome, and perhaps of Alex
andria, no more important centre could have been found for the
work of the last surviving Apostle. There is nothing either in
his writings or in traditions respecting him to connect S. John
with Alexandria ; and not much, excepting the tradition about the
martyrdom near the Porta Latina (see p. xxx), to connect him
with Rome. If S. John ever was in Rome, it was probably with
S. Peter at the time of S. Peter's death. Some have thought that
Rev. xiii. and xviii. are influenced by recollections of the horrors
of the persecution in which S. Peter suffered. It is not im
probable that the death of his companion Apostle (Luke xxii. 8 ;
John xx. 2; Acts iii. 1, iv. 13, viii. 14) may have been one ofthe
circumstances which led to S. John's settling in Asia Minor. The
older friend, whose destiny it was to wander and to suffer, was
dead; the younger friend, whose lot was 'that he abide,' was
therefore free to choose the place where his abiding would be of
most use to the Ghurches of Asia, which had lost their first guide
and protector, S. Paul. While the activity of other Apostles
was devoted to extending the borders of the Church, S. John di
rected his energies towards consolidating and purifying it. They
' lengthened the cords,' he ' strengthened the stakes ' (Is. liv. 2),
contending with internal corruptions in the doctrine and con
duct of its converts, building up and completing its theology.
But there is no local colouring in S. John's Epistles. Por
him everything local or national has passed away. His images
are drawn, not from the scenery or customs of Ephesus, but from
facts and feelings that are as universal as humanity and as old

xvi INTRODUCTION.
as creation itself: light and darkness, hfe and death, love and
hate. The Church of Ephesus had been founded by S. Paul about
A.D. 55, and some eight years later he had written the Epistle
which now bears the name of the Ephesians, but which was
apparently a circular letter addressed to other Churches as well
as to that at Ephesus. Timothy was left there by S. Paul,
when the latter went on to Macedonia (1 Tim. i. 3) to endeavour
to keep in check the presumptuous and even heretical theories
in which some members of the Ephesian Church had begun to
indulge. Timothy was probably at Rome at the time of S. Paul's
death (2 Tim. iv. 9, 21), and then returned to Ephesus, where,
according to tradition, he suffered martyrdom during one of the
great festivals in honour of 'the great goddess Artemis,' under
Domitian or Nerva1. It is not impossible that 'the angel of the
Church of Ephesus' praised and blamed in Rev. ii. 1 — 7 is
Timothy, although Timothy is often supposed to have died
before the Apocalypse was written. He was succeeded, ac
cording to Dorotheus of Tyre (c. a.d. 300), by Gams (Rom.
xvi. 23 ; 1 Cor. i. 14) ; but Origen mentions a tradition that this
Gaius became Bishop of Thessalonica.
These particulars warrant us in believing that by the time
that S. John settled in Ephesus there must have been a consider
able number of Christians there. The labours of Aquila and
Priscilla (Acts xviii. 19 ; 2 Tim. iv. 19), of S. Paul for more than
two years (Acts xix. 8—10), of Trophimus (Acts xxi. 29), of the
family of Onesiphorus (2 Tim. i. 16—18, iv. 9), and of Timothy
for a considerable number of years, must have resulted in the
conversion of many Jews and heathen. Besides which after
the destruction of Jerusalem not a few Christians would be likely
to settle there from Palestine. Between the downfall of Jeru
salem and the rise of Rome as a Christian community, Ephesus
i The Apostolical Constitutions (vii. 46) give a double succession
at Ephesus, Timothy ordained by S. Paul and John ordained by
S. John ; just as at Rome they give Linus ordained by S. Paul and
Clement by S. Peter, and at Antioch Euodius ordained by S. Peter
and Ignatius by S. Paul.

INTRODUCTION. xvii
becomes the centre of Christendom. Among those who came
hither, if the tradition preserved in the Muratorian Canon may
be trusted (p. xlix), was John's fellow townsman and fellow
Apostle, Andrew. And Philip, who died at Hierapolis, was
possibly for a time at Ephesus : his third daughter was buried
there (Eus. H. E. in. xxxi. 3). A Church which was already or
ganized under presbyters in S. Paul's day, as his own speech to
them and his letters to Timothy shew, must have been scan
dalously mismanaged and neglected, if in such a centre as
Ephesus it had not largely increased in the interval between
S. Paul's departure and S. John's arrival. For that interval
was probably considerable. No mention of S. John is made
when S. Paul takes leave of the Ephesian elders at Miletus, nor
in the Epistle to the Ephesians. The obvious conclusion is that
S. John was not yet there, nor even expected. In the Epistles
to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Timothy, there is no hint that
the Churches of Asia Minor have any other Apostolic overseer
but S. Paul. (ii) The Moral Surroundings — Idolatry.
If there was one thing for which the Metropolis of Asia was
more celebrated than another in the apostolic age, it was for the
magnificence of its idolatrous worship. The temple of Artemis,
its tutelary deity, which crowned the head of its harbour, was
one of the wonders of the world. Its 127 columns, 60 feet high,
were each one the gift of a people or a prince. In area it was
considerably larger than Durham Cathedral and nearly as large
as S. Paul's; and its magnificence had become a proverb. 'The
gods had one house on earth, and that was at Ephesus.' The
architectural imagery of S. Paul in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians (iii. 9 — 17), which was written at Ephesus, and in
the Epistles to the Ephesians (ii. 19 — 22) and to Timothy
(1 Tim. iii. 15, vi. 19; 2 Tim. ii. 19, 20), may well have been
suggested by it. The city was proud of the title 'Temple-keeper
of the great Artemis' (Acts xix. 35), and the wealthy vied with
one another in lavishing gifts upon the shrine. The temple thus
became a vast treasure-house of gold and silver vessels and

xviii INTRODUCTION.
works of art. It was served by a college of priestesses and of
priests. "Besides these there was a vast throng of dependents,
who Uved by the temple and its services, — theologi, who may
have expounded sacred legends, hymnodi, who composed hymns
in honour of the deity, and others, together with a great crowd
of hierodulae, who performed more menial offices. The making
of shrines and images of the goddess occupied many hands....
But perhaps the most important of all the privileges possessed
by the goddess and her priests was that of asylum. Fugitives
from justice or vengeance who reached her precincts were per
fectly safe from all pursuit and arrest. The boundaries of the
space possessing such virtue were from time to time enlarged.
Mark Antony imprudently aUowed them to take in part of the
city, which part thus became free of all law, and a haunt of
thieves and viUains.... Besides being a place of worship, a museum,
and a sanctuary, the Ephesian temple was a great bank. No
where in Asia could money be more safely bestowed than here"
(P. Gardner). S. Paul's advice to Timothy to 'charge them that
are rich' not to amass, but to 'distribute' and 'communicate'
their wealth, 'laying up in store for themselves a good founda
tion,' for 'the Ufe which is life indeed' (1 Tim. vi. 17 — 19), acquires
fresh meaning when we remember this last fact. In short, what
S. Peter's and the Vatican have been to Rome, that the temple
of Artemis was to Ephesus in S. John's day.
It was in consequence of the scandals arising out of the abuse
of sanctuary, that certain states were ordered to submit their
charters to the Roman Senate (a.d. 22). As Tacitus remarks,
no authority was strong enough to keep in check the turbulence
of a people which protected the crimes of men as worship of the
gods. The first to bring and defend their claims were the
Ephesians. They represented "that Diana and ApoUo were not
born at Delos, as was commonly supposed; the Ephesians
possessed the Cenchrean stream and the Ortygian grove where
Latona, in the hour of travail, had reposed against an olive-tree,
still in existence, and given birth to those deities; and it was by
the gods' command that the grove had been consecrated. It
was there that ApoUo himself, after slaying the Cyclops, had

INTRODUCTION. xix
escaped the wrath of Jupiter : and again that father Bacchus in
his victory had spared the suppliant Amazons who had occupied
his shrine" (Tac. Ann. in. 61).
We have only to read the first chapter of the Epistle to the
Romans (21 — 32), or the catalogue of vices in the Epistles to the
Galatians (v. 19 — 21) and Colossians (iii. 5 — 8) to know enough
of the kind of morality which commonly accompanied Greek
and Roman idolatry in the first century of the Christian era;
especially when, as in Ephesus, it was mixed up with the wilder
rites of Oriental polytheism, amid all the seductiveness of Ionian
luxury, and in a climate which, while it enflamed the passions,
unnerved the will. Was it not with the idolatry of Ephesus and
all its attendant abominations in his mind that the Apostle of
the Gentiles wrote Eph. v. 1 — 21 ?
A few words must be said of one particular phase of super
stition, closely connected with idolatry, for which Ephesus was
famous; — its magic. "It was preeminently the city of astrology,
sorcery, incantations, amulets, exorcisms, and every form of
magical imposture.'' About the statue of the Ephesian Artemis
were written unintelligible inscriptions to which mysterious effi
cacy was attributed. 'Ephesian writings,' or charms ^Etpio-iu.
ypapiuvra) were much sought after, and seem to have been about
as senseless as Abracadabra. In the epistles of the pseudo-
Heraclitus the unknown writer explains why Heraclitus of
Ephesus was called "the weeping philosopher." It was because
of the monstrous idiotcy and vice of the Ephesian people. Who
would not weep to see religion made the vehicle of brutal super
stition and nameless abominations? There was not a man in
Ephesus who did not deserve hanging. (See Farrar's Life of
S. Paul, vol. n. p. 18.) Wicked foUy of this kind had tainted
the earhest Christian community at Ephesus. They had accepted
the Gospel and stiU secretly held fast their magic. Hence the
bonfire of costly books of charms and incantations which fol
lowed upon the defeat of the sons of Sceva when they attempted
to use the name of Jesus as a magical form of exorcism (Acts
xix. 13 — 20). Timothy at Ephesus is warned against impostors
(¦yoijrer) of this kind, half knaves, half dupes (2 Tim. iii. 13).
s. JOHN (ep.) C

xx INTRUDUVTIuiv.
It was at Ephesus that Apollonius of Tyana is said by some to
have ended his days : and it is not improbable that he was
teaching there simultaneously with S. John. In the Epistle of
Ignatius to the Ephesians (xix) he mentions .first among the
consequences of the Nativity that "every sorcery and every spell
was undone'' (iKvero ira<ra iiayela /cal iras Secr/ios)..
Facts such as these place in a very vivid Ught S. John's
stern insistence upon the necessity of holding stedfastly the
true faith in the Father and the incarnate Son, of keeping oneself
pure, of avoiding the world and the things in the world, of being
on one's guard against lying spirits, and especially the sharp
final admonition, 'Guard yourselves from the idols.'

(iii) The Intellectual Surroundings — Gnosticism.
It is common to speak of the Gnostic heresy or the Gnostic
heresies; but such language, though correct enough, is apt to
be misleading. We commonly think of heresy as a corrupt
growth out of Christian truth, or a deflection from it ; as when we
call Unitarianism, which so insists upon the Unity of God as to
deny the Trinity, or Arianism, which so insists upon the Primacy
of the Father as to deny the true Divinity of the Son, heretical
systems or heresies. These and many other corruptions of the
truth grew up inside the bosom of the Church. They are one
sided and exaggerated developments of Christian doctrines.
But corruption may come from without as well as from within.
It may be the result of impure elements imported into the
system, contaminating and poisoning it. It was in this way
that the Gnostic heresies found their way into the Church. The
germs of Gnosticism in various stages of development were in
the very air in which Christianity was born. They had influenced
Judaism ; they had influenced the reUgions of Greece and of the
East : and the Christian Church had not advanced beyond its
infancy when they began to shew their influence there also.
While professing to have no hostility to the Gospel, Gnosticism
proved one of the subtlest and most dangerous enemies which

INTRODUCTION. xxi
it has ever encountered. On the plea of interpreting Christian
doctrines from a higher standpoint it reaUy disintegrated and
demohshed them; in explaining them it explained them away.
With a promise of giving to the Gospel a broader and more
cathohc basis, it cut away the very foundations on which it
rested — the reality of sin, and the reaUty of redemption.
It is not easy to define Gnosticism. Its name is Greek, and
so were many of its elements ; but there was much also that
was Oriental in its composition ; and before long, first Jewish,
and then Christian elements were added to the compound. It
has been called a ' philosophy of reUgion.' It would be more
true perhaps to call it a philosophy of being or of existence; an
attempt to explain the seen and the unseen universe. But this
again would be misleading to the learner. Philosophy with us
presupposes a patient investigation of facts ; it is an attempt to
rise from facts to explanations of their relations to one another,
and their causes, efficient and final. In Gnosticism w« look
almost in vaip for any appeal to facts. Imagination takes the
place of investigation, and what may be conceived is made the
test, and sometimes almost the only test, of what is. Gnosticism,
though eminently philosophic in its aims and professions, was
yet in its method more closely akin to poetry and fiction than
to philosophy. If on the one hand it was intended as a contrast
to the it'ioTis of the Christian, on the other it was meant to
supersede the <pikoo-o<pia of the heathen. While it professed to
appeal to the inteUect, and in modern language would have
caUed itself rationaUstic, yet it perpetually set intelligence at
defiance, both in its premises and in its conclusions. We may
describe it as a series of imaginative speculations respecting the
origin of the universe and its relation to the Supreme Being.
In reference to man its problem was, How can the human spirit
be freed from the trammels of matter? And this led to the
further question, How came the human spirit under such tram
mels ? In other words, What is the origin of evil ?
Gnosticism had in the main two ground principles which
run through aU the bewildering varieties of Gnostic systems.
A. The supremacy of the inteUect and the superiority of

xxii INTRODUCTION.
enlightenment to faith and conduct. This is the Greek element
in Gnosticism. B. The absolutely evil character of matter and
everything material. This is the Oriental element.
A. In N. T. knowledge or gnosis means the profound ap
prehension of Christian truth. Christianity is not the Gospel of
stupidity. It offers the highest satisfaction to the inteUectual
powers in the study of revealed truth ; and theology in all its
branches is the fruit of such study. But this is a very different
thing from saying that the intellectual appreciation of truth is
the main thing. Theology exists for religion and not religion
for theology. The Gnostics made knowledge the main thing,
indeed the only thing of real value. Moreover, as the knowledge
was difficult of attainment, they completely reversed the principle
of the Gospel and made 'the Truth' the possession of the
privileged few, instead of being open to the simplest. The
historical and moral character of the Gospel, which brings it
within the reach of the humblest inteUectual power, was set on
one side as valueless, or fantasticaUy explained away. Spiritual
exceUence was made to consist, not in a holy Ufe, but in know
ledge of an esoteric kind open only to the initiated, who " knew
the depths " (Hippol. Ref. Saer. v. vi. 1) and could say " this is
profound." (Tert. Adv. Valent. I.) In the fragment of a letter
of Valehtinus preserved by Epiphanius this Gnostic teacher
says ; " I come to speak to you of things ineffable, secret, higher
than the heavens, which cannot be understood by principalities
or powers, nor by anything beneath, nor by any creature, unless
it be by those whose intelligence can know no change " (Epiph.
Contra Haer. adv. Valent. I. 31). This doctrine contained three
or four errors in one. (1) Knowledge was placed above virtue.
(2) This knowledge treated the facts and morahty of the Gospel
as matter which the ordinary Christian might understand Uter-
aUy, but which the Gnostic knew to mean something very
different. Besides which, there was a great deal of the highest
value that was not contained in the Scriptures at aU. (3) The
true meaning of Scripture and this knowledge over and above
Scripture being hard to attain, the benefits of Revelation were
the exclusive property of a select band of philosophers. (4) To.

INTRODUCTION. xxiii
the poor, therefore, the Gospel (in its reaUty and fulness) could
not be preached.
B. That the material universe is utterly evil and impure in
character is a doctrine which has its source in Oriental Dualism,
which teaches that there are two independent Principles of
existence, one good and the other bad, which are respectively
the origin of aU the good and aU the evil that exists. The
material world, on account of the manifest imperfections and
evils which it contains, is assumed to be evil and to be the
product of an evil power. This doctrine runs through almost
aU Gnostic teaching. It involves the foUowing consequences.
(1) The world being evil, a limitless gulf lies between it and
the Supreme God. He cannot have created it. Therefore (2) the
God of the 0. T., who created the world, is not the Supreme
God, but an inferior, if not an evfi power. (3) The Incarnation
is incredible ; for how could the Divine Word consent to be
united with an impure material body? This last difficulty
drove many Gnostics into what is called Docetism, i.e. the theory
that Christ's humanity was not real, but only apparent {boneiv).
In S. John's time there were two forms of Docetism. (a) Some
maintained that Christ's body from His infancy to His Ascension
was a phantom. This seems to have been the view of Simon
Magus and of Saturninus. (/3) Others allowed reaUty to the
body of Jesus, but said that the Christ only seemed to be born
and to suffer, for the Christ did not unite Himself with Jesus
until the Baptism, and departed before the Passion. This was
the teaching of Cerinthus. S. John seems to attack both forms :
Ignatius specially the more thoroughgoing and simpler. Other
modifications were invented later on by Basilides and Valen-
tinus1. (4) There can be no resurrection of the flesh : the
redeemed wiU be freed from the calamity of having bodies.
The first of these four consequences opened the door to
boundless imaginations. The gulf between the material world
and the Supreme God was commonly filled by Gnostic specu
lators with a series of beings or aeons emanating from the
1 Lightfoot's S. Ignatius and S. Polyearp i. 365.

xxiv. INTRODUCTION.
Supreme God and generating one another, in bewildering
profusion and intricacy. It is this portion of the Gnostic
theories which is so repugnant to the modern student. It seems
more Uke a night-mare than sober speculation ; and one feels
that to call such things ' fables and endless genealogies, the
which minister questionings rather than a dispensation of God'
(1 Tim. i. 4; comp. iv. 7; 2 Tim. iv. 4) is very gentle condem
nation. But we must remember (1) that these were not mere
wanton flights of an unbridled imagination. They were attempts
to bridge the chasm between the finite and the Infinite, between
the evil world and the Supreme God, attempts to explain the
origin of the universe and with it the origin of evil. We must
remember (2) that in those days any hypothesis was admissible
which might conceivably account for the facts. The scientific
principles, that hypotheses must be capable of verification, that
existences must not rashly be multipUed, that imaginary causes
are unphilosophical, and the Uke, were utterly unknown. The
unseen world might be peopled with any number of mysterious
beings ; and if their existence helped to explain the world
of sense and thought, then their existence might be asserted. If
the Supreme God generated an aeon inferior to Himself, and
that aeon other inferior aeons, we might at last arrive at a being
so far removed from the excellence of God, that his creation of
this evil world would not be inconceivable. Thus the Gnostic
cosmogony was evolution inverted : it was not an ascent from
good to better, but a descent from best to bad. And the whole
was expressed in chaotic imagery, in which allegory, symbohsm,
mythology and astronomy were mixed up in a way that sets
reason at defiance.
These two great Gnostic principles, the supremacy of know
ledge, and the impurity of matter, produced opposite results in
ethical teaching ; asceticism, and antinomian profligacy. If
knowledge is everything, and if the body is worthless, then the
body must be beaten down and crushed in order that the
emancipated soul may rise to the knowledge of higher things :
"the soul must live by ecstasy, as the cicada feeds on dew." On
the other hand, if knowledge is everything and the body

INTRODUCTION. xxv
worthless, the body may rightly be made to undergo every kind
of experience, no matter how shameless and impure, in order
that the soul may increase its store of knowledge. The body
cannot be made more vile than it is, and the soul of the
enlightened is incapable of pollution.
Speculations such as these were rife in Asia Minor, both
among Jews and Christians. They were foretold by S. Paul
when he bade farewell to the Ephesian Elders at MUetus (Acts
xx. 29, 30). They were already troubling the Churches when
S. Paul wrote his letters to Timothy (1 Tim. i. 7: — 11, vi.
3—10; 2 Tim. ii. 16, iii. 2—5, iv. 34). And when S. John wrote
the Revelation they were rampant (ii. 6, 14, 15, 20, 24). They
are among the many proofs that we have that the Apostohc
Church had blemishes both in thought and practice as serious
as those which disfigure our own. 'The gates of hell' did not
prevail then; nor wiU they now, if the ApostoUc example in
contending with such things be followed. That S. John would
offer the most uncompromising opposition to them is only what
we should expect. While professing to be Christian and to be
a subUme interpretation of the Gospel, they struck at the very
root of all Christian doctrine and Christian morality. They
contradicted the 0. T., for they asserted that aU things were
made, not 'very good,' but very evil, and that the Maker of them
was not God. They contradicted the N. T., for they denied the
reaUty of the Incarnation and the sinfulness of sin. Morality
was undermined when knowledge was made of far more im
portance than conduct; it was turned upside down when men
were taught that crimes which enlarged experience were a duty.
The classification of the Gnostic teachers and sects is a problem
of weU-known difficidty, which fortunately does not lie within
the scope of our inquiry. But a rough table, based partly on
local, partly on chronological considerations, will be of service to
the student, in helping to shew the relation of the errors com
bated by S. John to the flood of wild speculation which passed
over the Church in the century and a half that foUowed his
death. The chronology in some cases is only tentative.

INTRODUCTION.

The Germs of Gnosticism, a.d. 30 — 70.
Samaritan.
Dositheus. Simon Magus, said to be a pupil of Dositheus.
Menander, pupil and successor of Simon.
These early teachers cannot in any proper sense be called
heretics. They did not deprave the Gospel, but simply opposed
it. Their doctrine was thoroughly antichristian, not only in
tendency, but in form. Simon Magus, though baptized, was not
converted. He probably did not understand Christianity: he
certainly never embraced it.
Early Gnosticism, a.d. 70—100.
Jewish or Ebionite.
The Ophite sects ; the earliest Gnostic systems.
Cerinthus, contemporary with S. John.
Carpocrates, placed sometimes before, sometimes after Ce
rinthus. In this group Gnosticism has not fully entered within the pale
of the Church, but it is far less distinctly antichristian. Cerinthus
and Carpocrates have a similar and well-defined Christology,
against the errors of which S. John contends with aU the in
tensity of his nature. In other respects Carpocrates was pagan
rather than Jewish in his sympathies, and his moral teaching
was utterly antinomian and licentious.
Fully developed Gnosticism. a.d. 100 — 250.
Syrian.
Saturninus or Saturnilus (c. a. d. 100 — 120) : ascetic.
Tatian, converted to Christianity by Justin Martyr, after
whose death be became a Gnostic (c. a. d. 160) : ascetic.
Bardaisan or Bardesanes, born a.d. 155, died 223.

INTRODUCTION. xxvii
Alexandrian.
BasiUdes, flourished under Hadrian (a. d. 117 — 138) : he made
a great impression, became widely known, but founded no school.
Valentinus, came to Rome and taught in the time of Hyginus,
Pius, and Anicetus (c. a.d. 140 — 160) : he was the most success
ful of aU Gnostic teachers in gaining able disciples.
Heracleon, pupil of Valentinus (c. a.d. 160 — 180) : the earhest
known commentator on S. John's Gospel1.
Asiatic or Anti-Judaic.
Cerdon, came to Rome c. a.d. 135.
Marcion, taught at Rome simultaneously with Valentinus
(c. A.D. 140 — -165): perhaps the most permanently influential
and least Gnostic of aU the Gnostic leaders : ascetic.
ApeUes, chief disciple of Marcion (c. a.d. 150 — 190).
Almost aU these teachers held Docetic views of Christ's body,
and therefore denied the Incarnation. The Syrian school was
more Oriental and dualistic, the Alexandrian more Greek and
pantheistic. It was mainly the heresy of Valentinus, as taught
by his brilliant pupil Ptolemaeus, which occasioned the great work
of Irenaeus on Heresies. The Asiatic school contended for a
distorted and mutilated Christianity in opposition to both Jewish
and pagan phUosophy. AU of them are condemned by anticipa
tion by S. John no less than those who were his contemporaries.
He mentions no one by name: it is not a personal or a local
controversy. And he does not pause to go into details. He
goes at once to first principles of faith and of morals, and with
uncompromising sternness condemns aU tampering with either.
Thus, while guarding against the special errors of his own age,
he taught how further developments of them must be met, and
left to the Church of aU ages a storehouse of truth that can
never be exhausted or become inapphcable2.
1 The use made by BasiUdes and the Valentinians of the Fourth
Gospel is an important element in the evidence for its authenticity.
They equally with the orthodox recognised its authority ; which
implies that it was fully accepted before they separated from the
Church. 2 "The Epistles are, humanly speaking, the result of the very

xxviii . INT ROD UCTION.
His unflinching severity seems to have anticipated the magni
tude of the evil that was coming. The swiftness with which
Gnosticism overtook (or even outran) Christianity, is without a
paraUel in the history of human thought. Even German philo
sophy since Kant has not developed systems with the rapidity
with which new Gnostic schemes sprang up and spread between
a.d. 100 and 250. In rather high-flown language Eusebius tells
us that "when the sacred choir of Apostles had taken its de
parture from life, and when the generation of those who were
privileged to hear with their own ears their inspired wisdom
had passed away, then the conspiracy of godless, error took its
rise through the deceit of false teachers, who, now that none of
the. Apostles was any longer left, henceforth endeavoured with
brazen face to preach their ' knowledge falsely so caned' in op
position to the preaching of the truth" {H. E. vi. xxxn. 8). From
Edessa to Lyons there was probably not a single educated con
gregation that was not more or less tainted with some form of
this plague.
The result was by no means unmixed evil. These varying
and often antagonistic speculations stimulated thought, broke
down the barriers of formalism and Uterahsm, forced upon the
Church the necessity of clear ideas about fundamental doctrines,
and promoted the study of Scripture. We have a close parallel
in our own day. "The Gnostic heresy, with aU its destructive
tendency, had an important mission as a propelling force in the
ancient Church, and left its effects upon patristic theology. So
also this modern gnosticism [of the Tubingen school, Renan, &c]
must be aUowed to have done great service to bibUcal and
historical learning by removing old prejudices, opening new
avenues of thought, bringing to light the immense fermentation of
the first century, stimulating research, and compeUing an entire
conflict between the good and evil elements which existed together in
the bosom of the early Christian society. As they exhibit the prin
ciples afterwards to be unfolded into aU truth and good, so the
heresies which they attack exhibit the principles which were afterwards
to grow up into all the various forms bf errors and wickedness"
(Stanley, Apostolic Age, 193).

INTRODUCTION. xxix
scientific reconstruction of the history of the origin of Christianity
and of the Church. The result will be a deeper and fuller know
ledge, not to the weakening, but to the strengthening of our
faith" (Schaff).
The fantastic speculations of the Gnostics as to the origin of
the universe have long since perished, and cannot be revived.
Nor is their tenet as to the evil nature of everything material
much in harmony with modern thought. With us the danger is
the other way; — of deifying matter, or materialising God. But
the heresy of the supremacy of knowledge is as prevalent as
ever. We still need an Apostle to teach us that mere knowledge
will not raise the quaUty of men's moral natures any more than
light without food and warmth will raise the quality of their
bodies. We still need a Bishop Butler to assure us that infor
mation is "reaUy the least part" of education, and that reUgion
"does not consist in the knowledge and behef even of funda
mental truth," but rather in our being brought "to a certain
temper and behaviour." The philosophic Apostle of the first
century and the philosophic Bishop of the eighteenth aUke
contend, that light without love is moral darkness, and that not
he that can 'know aU mysteries and all knowledge,' but only 'he
who doeth righteousness is righteous.' If the Sermons of the
one have not become obsolete, stiU less have the Epistles of the
other. (iv) The Traditions respecting S. John.
The century succeeding the persecution under Nero (a.d. 65
— 165) is a period that is exceedingly tantalising to the ecclesi
astical historian and exceedingly perplexing to the chronologer.
The historian finds a very meagre supply of materials: facts
are neither abundant nor, as a rule, very substantial. And
when the historian has gleaned together every available fact,
the chronologer finds his ingenuity taxed to the utmost to
arrange these facts in a manner that is at once harmonious
with itself and with the evidence of the principal witnesses.
The traditions respecting S. John share the general character

xxx INTRODUCTION.
of the period. They are very fragmentary and not always
trustworthy; and they cannot with any certainty be put into
chronological order. The foUowing sketch is offered as a
tentative arrangement, in the belief that a clear idea, even if
wrong in details, is a great deal better than bewildering con
fusion. The roughest map gives unity and intelligibiUty to
inadequate and piecemeal description.
S. John was present at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.),
which settled for the time the controversy between Jewish and
Gentile Christians. And here, as in the opening chapters of the
Acts (i. 15,' ii. 14, 38, iii. 4, 12, v. 3, 8), his retiring character is
seen, in that he is quite in the background, while Peter and
James take the lead. He was at Jerusalem as one of the 'pillars'
of the Church (Gal. ii. 6), and in aU probability Jerusalem had
been his usual abode from the Ascension until this date (a.d. 50)
and for some time longer1. It is by no means improbable that
he was with S. Peter during the last portion of his great friend's
life and was in Rome when he was martyred (a.d. 64). Here
will come in the weU-known story, which rests upon the early
testimony of TertulUan (Praescr. Haer. xxxvi.), and perhaps
the still earlier testimony of Leucius, that S. John was thrown
into boiling oil near the site of the Porta Latina and was pre
served unhurt. Two churches in Rome and a festival in the
Calendar (May 6th) perpetuate the tradition. The story, if un
true, may have grown out of the fact that S. John was in Rome
during the Neronian persecution. The similar story, that he
was offered poison and that the drink became harmless in his
hands, may have had a similar origin. In paintings S. John is
often represented with a cup from which poison in the form of a
viper is departing.
It is perhaps too soon to take S. John to Ephesus immediately
1 An ancient tradition, quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom.
vi. v. sub Jin.) from the Preaching of Peter, states that Christ com
manded the Apostles, "After twelve years go forth into the world;
lest any one say, We have not heard." So also ApoUonius, according
to Eusebius (H. JS. v. xviii. 14). The Clementine Recognitions (i. xliii.)
give seven years instead of twelve ; "A week of years was completed
from the Passion of the Lord."

INTRODUCTION xxxi
after S. Peter's death1. Let us suppose that he returned to
Jerusalem (if he had ever left it) and remained there until a. d. 67,
when large numbers of people left the city just before the siege.
If the very questionable tradition be accepted, that after leaving
Jerusalem he preached to the Parthians, we must place the
departure from Judaea somewhat earlier. Somewhere in the
next two years (a. d. 67 — 69) we may perhaps place the Revela
tion, written during the exile, enforced or voluntary, in Patmos.
This exile over, S. John went, or more probably returned, to
Ephesus, which henceforth becomes his chief place of abode
until his death in or near the year a. d. 100.
Most of the traditions respecting him are connected with this
last portion of his life, and with his government of the Churches
of Asia as Metropolitan Bishop. Irenaeus, the disciple of
Polyearp, the disciple of S. John, says; "All the presbyters,
who met John the disciple of the Lord in Asia, bear witness that
John has handed on to them this tradition. For he continued
with them until the times of Trajan" (a.d. 98 — 117). And
again; "Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned
back on His breast, he too published a gospel during his resi
dence at Ephesus." And again; "The Church in Ephesus
founded by Paul, and having John continuing with them until
the times of Trajan, is a truthful witness of the tradition of
Apostles" (Haer. il. xxii. 5; ni. i. 1, iii. 4). Here, therefore, he
remained "a priest," as his successor Polycrates tells us, "wear
ing the plate of gold;" an expression which some people con
sider to be merely figurative. "John, the last survivor of the
Apostolate, had left on the Church of Asia the impression of a
pontiff from whose forehead shone the spiritual splendour of the
1 Bishop Lightfoot thinks otherwise. " The most probable chrono
logy makes his withdrawal from Palestine to Asia Minor coincide very
nearly with the martyrdom of these two Apostles (Peter and Paul)....
This epoch divides his Ufe into two distinct periods : hitherto he had
Uved as a Jew among Jews ; henceforth he wiU be as a Gentile among
Gentiles. The writings of S. John in the Canon probably mark the
close of each period. The Apocalypse winds up his career in the
Church of the Circumcision ; the Gospel and the Epistles are the
crowning result of a long residence in the heart of Gentile Christen
dom " (S. Paul and the Three, Galatians, 360).

xxxii INTRODUCTION.
holiness of Christ" (Godet). And here, according to the anti-
Montanist writer ApoUonius, he raised a dead man to Ufe (Eus.
H.E. v. xvin. 14).
It would be in connexion with his journeys through the
Churches of Asia that the beautiful episode commonly known as
'S. John and the Robber' took place. The Apostle had com
mended a noble-looking lad to the local Bishop, who had in
structed and baptized him. After a while the lad feU away and
became a bandit-chief. S. John on his next visit astounded the
Bishop by asking for his 'deposit;' for the Apostle had left no
money in his care. "I demand the young man, the soul of a
brother:'' and then the sad tale had to be told. The Apostle
caUed for a horse and rode away to the haunts of the banditti.
The chief recognised him and fled. But S. John went after
him, and by his loving entreaties induced him to return to his
old home and a holy Ufe (Clement of Alexandria in Eus. H. E.
in. xxxiii.).
The incident of S. John's rushing out of a pubUc bath, at the
eight of Cerinthus, crying, "Let us fly, lest even the bath faU on
us, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within,"
took place at Ephesus. Doubt has been thrown on the story
because of the improbability of the Apostle visiting a public
bath, and because Epiphanius, in his version of the matter, sub
stitutes Ebion for Cerinthus. But Irenaeus gives us the story
on the authority of those who had heard it from Polyearp: and
it must be admitted that such evidence is somewhat strong. If
Christians of the second century saw nothing incredible in an
Apostle resorting to a public bath, we cannot safely dogmatize on
the point. The incident may doubtless be taken as no more
than "a strong metaphor by way of expressing marked disap
proval." But at any rate, when we remember the downright
wickedness involved in the teaching of Cerinthus, we may with
Dean Stanley regard the story "as a Uving exemplification of
the possibiUty of uniting the deepest love and gentleness with
the sternest denunciation of moral evil;" or with Dean Plumptre
as evidence of " the ardent spirit that ahke loves strongly and
strongly hates." .The charge given to the elect lady (2 John 10,

INTRODUCTION. xxxiii
11) is a strong corroboration of the story. Late versions of
it end with the sensational addition that when the Apostle
had gone out, the bath fell in ruins, and Cerinthus was
killed. Another and far less credible story comes to us through
Irenaeus (Haer. v. xxxiii. 3) on the authority of the uncritical
and (if Eusebius is to be believed) not very inteUigent Papias,
the companion of Polyearp. — The elders who had seen John, the
disciple of the Lord, relate that they heard from him how the
Lord used to teach about those times and say, "The days will
come in which vines shaU grow, each having 10,000 stems, and
on each stem 10,000 branches, and on each branch 10,000
shoots, and on each shoot 10,000 clusters, and on each cluster
10,000 grapes, and each grape when pressed shaU give 25 firkins
of wine. And when any saint shall have seized one cluster,
another shall cry, I am a better cluster, take me; through me
bless the Lord." In Uke manner that a grain of wheat would
produce 10,000 ears, and each ear would have 10,000 grains, and
each grain 5 double pounds of clear, pure flour: and all other
fruit-trees, and seeds, and grass, in Uke proportion. And all
animals feeding on the products of the earth would become
peaceful and harmonious one with another, subject to man with
all subjection." And he added these words; "These things are
believable to believers." And he says that when Judas the
traitor did not believe and asked, "How then shaU such pro
duction be accompUshed by the Lord?" the Lord said, "They
shaU see who come to those [times]."
This extraordinary narrative is of great value as shewing
the kind of discourse which pious Christians of the second
century attributed to Christ, when they came to inventing such
things. Can we believe that those who credited the Lord with
miUenarian utterances of this kind, could have written a single
chapter of the Gospels with nothing but their own imagination
to draw upon. Even with the Gospels before them they can do
no better than this. Possibly the whole is only a grotesque
enlargement of Matt. xxvi. 29. For the apocryphal correspondence
between S. Ignatius and S. John and the Yirgin, which again

xxxiv INTRODUCTION.
illustrates the character of fictitious Christian documents, see
Appendix I.
Of S. John's manner of Ufe nothing trustworthy has come
down to us. That he never married may be mere conjecture;
but it looks like history. S. Paul certainly implies that most,
if not aU, of the Apostles did 'lead about a wife' (1 Cor. ix. 5).
But the tradition respecting S. John's virginity is early and
general. In a Leucian fragment (Zahn, Acta Johannis, p. 248)
the Lord is represented as thrice interposing to prevent John
from marrying. We find the tradition in Tertullian (De Monog.
xvn.) ; in Ambrosiaster (ad 2 Cor. xi. 2) ; in Augustine (Tract.
cxxiv.), who quotes Jerome (Contra Jovinianum I.) as declaring
that John was specially loved by Christ, because he never married,
but adds, Hoc quidem in Scripturis non evidenter apparet; and in
Epiphanius. See below, p. xlni. It may weU be true that (as
Jerome expresses it) to a virgin son the Virgin Mother was com-
. mitted : ut hereditatem virginis Domini, virginem matrem filius
virgo susciperet (Ep. ad Principiam). But Epiphanius (a.d. 357)
is much too late to be good authority for S. John's rigid asceticism.
It is mentioned by no earher writer, and would be Ukely enough
to be assumed ; especiaUy as S. James, brother of the Lord and
Bishop of Jerusalem, was known to have led a life of great
rigour. The story of S. John's entering a pubUc bath for the
purpose of bathing is against any extreme asceticism.
We may conclude with two stories of late authority, but
possibly true. Internal evidence is strongly in favour of the
second. Cassian (a.d. 420) tells us that S. John used some
times to amuse himself with a tame partridge. A hunter
expressed surprise at an occupation which seemed frivolous.
The Apostle in reply reminded him that hunters do not keep
their bows always bent, as his own weapon at that moment
shewed. It is not improbable that Cassian obtained this story
from the writings of Leucius, which he seems to have known.
In this case the authority for the story becomes some 250 years
earher. In a Greek fragment it is an old priest who is
scandalized at finding the Apostle gazing with interest on a
partridge which is roUing in the dust before him (Zahn, p. 190).

INTRODUCTION. xxxv
The other story is told by Jerome (In Gal. vi. 10). When
the Apostle became so infirm that he could not preach he used
to be carried to church and content himself with the exhor
tation, "Little children, love one another." And when his
hearers wearied of it and asked him, "Master, why dost thou
always speak thus?" "Because it is the Lord's command," he
said, "and if only this be done, it is enough."
Of his death nothing is known; but the Leucian fragments
contain a remarkable story respecting it, to which Augustine
also alludes as "found in certain apocryphal scriptures" (Tract.
cxxiv. in Johan. xxi. 19). On the Lord's Day, the last Sunday of
the Apostle's life, "after the celebration of the divine and awful
mysteries and the breaking of the bread," S. John told some of
his disciples to take spades and foUow him. Having led them
out to a certain place he told them to dig a grave, in which, after
prayer, he placed himself, and they buried him up to the neck.
He then told them to place a cloth over his face and complete
the burial. They wept much but obeyed him and returned home
to teU the others what had taken place. Next day they all went
out in prayer to translate the body to the great Church. But
when they had opened the grave they found nothing therein.
And they called to mind the words of Christ to Peter, 'If I will
that he abide tiU I come, what is that to thee?' (Zahn, p. 191;
comp. p. 162). The stiU stranger story, which S. Augustine
seems almost disposed to believe1, that the earth over his grave
moved with his breathing and shewed that he was not dead but
sleeping, — is another, and probably a later outgrowth, of the mis
understood saying of Christ respecting S. John. Yet another
legend represents John as dying, but being immediately raised
from the dead, and then translated, like Enoch and EUjah, to
reappear on earth as the herald of the Christ and the opponent
of the Antichrist2. Such legends testify to the estimation in
1 Viderint enim qui locum sciunt, utrum hoc ibi faciat vel patiatur
terra quod dicitur, quia et re vera non a levibus hominibus id audi-
vimus (Tract, cxxiv. in Johann. xxi. 19).
2 John Malalas, a Greek writer of about a.d. 570, says ; " Now unto
the second year of his reign [Trajan's] there was appearing and
teaching in Ephesus, being Bishop and Patriarch, Saint John the
s. JOHN (ep.) d

xxxvi INTRODUCTION.
which the last man living who had seen the Lord was held.
After he had passed away people refused to believe that no suoh
person remained alive. The expectations respecting Antiohrist
helped to strengthen such ideas. If Nero was not dead, but had
merely passed out of sight for a time, so also had the beloved
Apostle. If the one was to return as Antichrist to vex the
Church, so also would the other to defend her. (See Appendix B.)
One point in the above sketch requires a few words of
explanation, — the early date assigned to the Book of Revelation.
This sets at defiance the express statement of Irenaeus, that
the vision "was seen almost in our own days, at the end of the
reign of Domitian" (Haer. v. xxx. 1), who was kUled A.D. 97.
The discussion of this point belongs to the commentary on
Revelation. Suffice to say that the present writer shares the
opinion which seems to be gaining ground among students,
that only on one hypothesis can one believe that the Fourth
Gospel, First Epistle, and Apocalypse are all by the same
author; viz., that the Apocalypse was written first, and that a
good many years elapsed before the Gospel and Epistle were
written. (1) The writer of the Apocalypse has not yet learned
to write Greek. The writer of the Gospel and Epistle writeB
Greek, not indeed elegantly, but with ease and correctness.
(2) The antinomian licentiousness condemned in the Revelation
(u. 6, 14, 15, 20) is of a crude and less philosophic kind than that
which is opposed in the Epistle. (3) The Revelation is still fully
under the influence of Judaism : its language and imagery are
Apostle and Divine : and he made himself vanish and was no more
seen by any one, and no man knows what became of him unto this
day, even as Afrioanus and Irenaeus, most able (writers), have re
lated " (Chronographia xi. sub init. p. 269 ed. Bonn.). What Afrioanus
said we do not know; but Irenaeus confirms no more of this than
that John lived on at Ephesus into the reign of Trajan (Haer. n. xxii.
5 ; m. iii. 8). See Lightfoot's S. Ignatius and S. Polyearp n. 437. One
of the Vienna MSS. of the Apostolical Constitutions (vin. 16) has this
note : " John the Evangelist, brother of James, was banished by
Domitian to the island of Patmos, and there oomposed the Gospel
aooording to him. He died a natural death, in the third year oi
Trajan's reign, in Ephesus. His remains were sought, but have not
been found." Book viii. is probably of the sixth century.

INTRODUCTION. xxxvii
intensely Jewish. The Gospel and Epistle are much more free
from such influence. "The Apocalypse winds up St John's
career in the church of the circumcision ; the Gospel and the
Epistles are the crowning result of a long residence in the heart
of Gentile Christendom" (Bishop Lightfoot).

CHAPTER II.
The First Epistle op S. John.
The First Epistle of S. John has an interest which is unique.
In aU probability, as we shall hereafter find reason for believing,
it contains the last exhortations of that Apostle to the Church
of Christ. And as he long outlived all the rest of the Apostles,
and as this Epistle was written near the end of his long life, we
may regard it as the farewell of the Apostolic body to the
whole company of beUevers who survived them or have been
born since their time. The Second and Third Epistles may
indeed have been written later, and probably were so, but they
are addressed to individuals and not to the Church at large.
"If it were not for the writings of S. John the last thirty years
of the first century would be almost a blank. They resemble
that mysterious period of forty days between the resurrection
and the ascension, when the Lord hovered, as it were, between
heaven and earth, barely touching the earth beneath, and appear
ing to the disciples Uke a spirit from the other world. But the
theology of the second and third centuries evidently presupposes
the writings of John, and starts from his Christology" (Schaff).
An Introduction to this unique Epistle requires the discussion
of a variety of questions, which can most conveniently be taken
separately, each under a heading of its own. The first which
confronts us is that of its genuineness. Is the Epistle the work
ofthe Apostle whose name it bears?
d2

INTRODUVTIOis.

(i) The Authority of the Epistle.
Eusebius (H. E. in. xxv.) is fully justified in reckoning our
Epistle among those canonical books of N. T. which had been
universally received (6ao\oyovp.(va) by the Churches. The ob
scure sect, whom Epiphanius with a scornful double entendre
caUs the Alogi ('devoid of [the doctrine of] the Logos,' or
'devoid of reason') probably rejected it, for the same reason as
they rejected the Fourth Gospel ; because they distrusted
S. John's teaching respecting the Word or Logos. And Mar
cion rejected it, as he rejected aU the Gospels, excepting an
expurgated S. Luke, and aU the Epistles, excepting those of
S. Paul; not because he believed the books which he discarded
to be spurious, but because they contradicted his pecuhar views.
Neither of these rejections, therefore, need have any weight
with us. The objectors did not contend that the Epistle was
not written by an Apostle, but that some of its contents were
doctrinally objectionable.
On the other hand, the evidence that the Epistle was received
as Apostolic from the earUest times is abundant and satisfac
tory. It begins with those who knew S. John himself and goes
on in an unbroken stream which soon becomes fuU and strong.
See Professor Charteris, Canonicity, 319 — 326.
Whether the recently discovered Doctrine op the Twelve
Apostles indicates that the author knew S. John's writings, is
disputed. If this question is answered in the affirmative, then
we have evidence which is probably even earher than that of
Polyearp. See Appendix F.
Polycarp, the disciple of S. John, in his Epistle to the
Phihppians writes in a way which needs only to be placed side
by side with the similar passage in our Epistle to convince any
unprejudiced mind that the two passages cannot have become
so Uke one another acoidentaUy, and that of the two writers it
is Polycarp who borrows from S. John and not vice versa.

INTRODUCTION.

Polycarp, Phil. vii.
Every one that shall not con
fess that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh is Antichrist : and who
soever shaU not confess the wit
ness of the Cross is of the devil.

1 John.
Every spirit which confesseth
Jesus Christ as come in the flesh
is of God : and every spirit which
confesseth not Jesus is not of
God : and this is the spirit of An
tichrist (iv. 2, 3).
He that doeth sin is of the
devil (in. 8).

When we remember that the expression 'Antichrist' in N. T.
is pecuhar to S. John's Epistles, that it is not common in the
literature of the sub-ApostoUc age, and that 'confess,' 'witness,'
and 'to be of the devil' are also expressions which are very
characteristic of S. John, the supposition that Polycarp knew
and accepted our Epistle seems to be placed beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore about thirty years1 after the date at which the
Epistle, if genuine, was written we have a quotation of it by a
man who was the friend and pupil of its reputed author. Could
Polycarp have been ignorant of the authorship, and would
he have made use of it if he had doubted its genuineness?
Would he not have denounced it as an impudent forgery?
Eusebius tells us (H. E. m. xxxix. 16) that Papias (c. a.d.
140) "made use of testimonies from the first epistle of John."
S. Irenaeus tells us that Papias was "a disciple of John and a
companion of Polycarp." Thus we have a second Christian
writer among the generation which knew S. John, making use
of this Epistle. When we consider how Uttle of the literature
of that age has come down to us, and how short this Epistle is,
we may well be surprised at having two such early witnesses.

1 S. John's Epistle cannot well have been written much before
a.d. 90 (see p. xUv.). Polycarp's Epistle was written about the time of
the martyrdom of Ignatius : Ignatius had already left Asia Minor, but
Polycarp has not yet heard of his death (xiii). Ignatius suffered at
Rome, probably in the reign of Trajan (a.d. 98-117), and perhaps at
the time when, as we know from PUny, a persecution was going on in
Bithynia (a.d. 112). Polycarp's letter, therefore, may be placed a.d.
112-118. See Lightfoot's S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp, i. 567.

xl INTRODUCTION.
Eusebius also states (H. E. v. viii. 7) that Irenaeus
(c. a.d. 140—202) "mentions the first epistle of John, citing
very many testimonies from it." In the great work of Ire
naeus on Heresies, which has come down to us, he quotes it
twice. In m. xvi. 5 he quotes 1 John ii. 18—22, expressly
stating that it comes from the Epistle of S. John. In in. xvi. 8
he quotes 2 John 7, 8, and by a slip of memory says that it
comes from "the epistle before mentioned" (praedieta epistoU).
He then goes on to quote 1 John iv. 1 — 3. This evidence is
strengthened by two facts. 1. Irenaeus, being the disciple of
Polycarp, is in a direct Une of tradition from S. John. 2. Ire
naeus gives abundant testimony to the authenticity of the
Fourth Gospel ; and it is so generaUy admitted by critics of all
schools that the Fourth Gospel and our Epistle are by the
same hand, that evidence to the genuineness of the one may be
used as evidence to the genuineness of the other.
Clement op Alexandria (fl. a.d. 185 — 210) makes repeated
use of the Epistle and in several places mentions it as S. John's.
Tertullian (fl. 195 — 215) quotes it 40 or 50 times, repeat
edly stating that the words he quotes are S. John's.
The Muratorian Fragment is a portion of the earliest
attempt known to us to catalogue those books of N. T. which
were recognised by the Church. Its date is commonly given
as c. a.d. 170 — 180; but some now prefer to say a.d. 200 — 215.
It is written in barbarous and sometimes scarcely intelhgible
Latin, having been copied by an ignorant and very careless
scribe. It says; "The Epistle of Jude however and two Epistles
of the John who has been mentioned above are received in the
Catholic (Church)," or "are reckoned among the Catholic
(Epistles)." It is uncertain what 'two Epistles' means. But
if, as is probably the case (see p. lxix.), the Second and Third
are meant, we may be confident that the First was accepted
also and included in the catalogue. The opening words of the
Epistle are quoted in the Fragment in connexion with the Fourth
Gospel, and this quotation from it seems to be intended as equi
valent to mention of it. The writer apparently regarded the
First Epistle as a kind of postscript to the Gospel. See Light-

INTRODUCTION. xii
foot, Contemp. Rev. Oct. 1875, p. 835. We know of no person or
sect that accepted the Second and Third Epistles and yet rejected
the First.
Origen (fl. a.d. 220—250) frequently cites the Epistle as
S. John's. Dionysius op Alexandria, his pupil (fl. a.d. 235
— 265), in his masterly discussion of the authenticity of the
Apocalypse argues that, as the Fourth Gospel and First Epistle
are by S. John, the Apocalypse (on account of its very different
style) cannot be by him (Eus. H. E. vii. xxv). Cyphian,
Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, and in short all Fathers,
Greek and Latin, accept the Epistle as S. John's.
The Epistle is found in the Old Syriac Version, which omits
the Second and Third as well as other Epistles.
In the face of such evidence as this, the suspicion that the
Epistle may have been written by some careful imitator of the
Fourth Gospel does not seem to need serious consideration. A
guess, not supported by any evidence, has no claim to be
admitted as a rival to a sober theory, which is supported by
all the evidence that is available, that being both plentiful and
trustworthy. The student must, however, be on his guard against uncritical
overstatements of the case in favour of the Epistle. Some
commentators put forward an imposing array of references to
Justin Martyr, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of
Hennas, and the Ignatian Epistles. This is altogether mis
leading. All that such references prove is that early Christian
writers to a large extent used similar language in speaking of
spiritual truths, and that this language was influenced by the
writers (not necessarily the writings) of N. T.
Where the resemblance to passages in N. T. is very slight
and indistinct (as will be found to be the case in these refer
ences), it is at least as possible that the language comes from
the oral teaching of Apostles and Apostolic men as from the
writings contained in N. T.
The author of the Epistle to Diognetus knew our Epistle;
but the date of that perplexing treatise, though probably ante-
Nicene, is uncertain. "Notwithstanding all that has been said

xiii INTRODUUTION.
to the contrary, the Epistle of Diognetus may, I think, with fair
confidence be placed during the period with which we are con
cerned (a.d. 1 17—180), and not improbably in the earlier years of
it" (Lightfoot, S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp, I. 517).
That the internal evidence in favour of the ApostoUc author
ship of the Epistle is also very strong, will be seen when we
consider in sections iv. and v. its relation to the Gospel and its
cliaracteristics. "The traces of Montanism which some have attempted to find
(the sacredness of Christianity, xpicr/za, distinction between mortal
and other sins) depend upon exegetical extravagance, and over
look the parallels in the Gospels and Epistles; Matt. xu. 31;
2 Cor. i. 22; &c  The circumstance that destructive criticism
should fix now upon the Gospel and now upon the Epistle as
representing the higher stage of development is not calculated
to arouse great confidence in its arguments" (Reuss).
(ii) The Persons addressed.
The Epistle is rightly called catholic or general, as being
addressed to the Church at large. It was probably written with
special reference to the Church of Ephesus and the other
Churches of Asia, to which it would be sent as a circular letter.
The fact of its containing no quotations from the 0. T. and not
many aUusions to it, as also the warning against idolatry (v. 21),
would lead us to suppose that the writer had converts from
heathenism specially in his mind. But it has more the form of
a homily than of a letter. There is no address or salutation at
the beginning; no farewell or benediction at the close. Never
theless, the frequent use of ypatpa (ii. 1, 7, 8, 12, 13,) and Zypafya
(ii. [13, 14, 21] 26 ; v. 13), with ypaqbop.ev at the very outset (i. 4),
quite justify the appeUation universally given to it of Epistle.
It is a Pastoral Epistle, to be read aloud to those to whom it is
addressed. S. Augustine in the 'heading1 to his ten homilies on the Epistle
styles it 'the Epistle of John to the Parthians' (ad Parthos), and
1 This heading is by some considered not to be original : it occurs
in the Indiculus Operum S. Augustini of his pupil Possidius.

INTRODUCTION. xliii
he elsewhere (Quaest. Evang. n. xxxix.) gives it the same title.
ln this he has been followed by other writers in the Latin
Church. The title occurs in some MSS. of the Vulgate. The
Venerable Bede states that "Many ecclesiastical writers, and
among them Athanasius, Bishop of the Church of Alexandria,
witness that the first Epistle of S. John was written to the
Parthians" (Cave, Script. Eccles. Hist. Lit. ann. 701). But
not aU editions of Bede contain the statement ; and Athanasius
and the Greek Church generally seem to be wholly ignorant
of this superscription, although in a few modern Greek MSS.
'to the Parthians' occurs in the subscription of the second
Epistle. Whether the tradition that S. John once preached
in Parthia grew out of this Latin superscription, or the latter
produced the tradition, is uncertain. More probably the title
originated in a mistake and then gave birth to the tradition.
Gieseler's conjecture respecting the mistake seems to be rea
sonable, that it arose from a Latin writer finding the letter
designated 'the Epistle of John the Virgin' (tov irapBivov) and
supposing that this meant 'the Epistle of John to the Parthians'
(irpos irapBovs). From very early times S. John was called
'virgin' from the belief that he never married. Johannes aliqui
Christi spado, says TertuUian (De Monogam. xvn.). In the
longer and interpolated form of the Ignatian Epistles (Philad. rv.)
we read "Virgins, have Christ alone before your eyes, and His
Father in your prayers, being enlightened by the Spirit. May
I have pleasure in your purity as that of Elijah  as of the
beloved disciple, as of Timothy  who departed this Ufe in
chastity." So also the Pseudo-Clement De Virgin, i. 6, quoted
by Lightfoot in loco (n. 792). See above, p. xxxiv. But there is
reason for beUeving that Ad Virgines (npbs irapdevovs) was an
early superscription for the second Epistle. Some transcriber,
thinking this very inappropriate for a letter addressed to a lady
with children, may have transferred the heading to the first
Epistle, and then the corruption from 'virgins' (napdevovs) to
'Parthians' (irap6ovs) would be easy enough.
Other variations or conjectures are Ad Spartos, Ad Path-
mios, and Ad sparsos. None are worth much consideration.

xliv INTRODUCTION.
(in) The Place and Date.
Neither of these can be determined with any certainty, the
Epistle itself containing no intimations on either point Ire
naeus teUs us that the Fourth Gospel was written in Ephesus,
and Jerome writes to the same effect. In aU probabiUty the
Epistle was written at the same place. Excepting Alexandria,
no place was so distinctly the home of that Gnosticism, which
S. John opposes in both Gospel and Epistle, as Asia Minor, and
in particular Ephesus. We know of no tradition connecting S.
John with Alexandria, whereas tradition is unanimous in con
necting him with Ephesus. In the next section we shaU find
reason for believing that Gospel and Epistle were written near
about the same time; and this in itself is good reason for
beUeving that they were written at the same place. Excepting
occasional visits to the other Churches of Asia, S. John probably
rarely moved from Ephesus.
As to the date also we cannot do more than attain to proba
biUty. (1) Reason has been given above why as long an interval
as possible ought to be placed between the Apocalypse on the
one hand and the Gospel and Epistle on the other. If then the
Apocalypse was written about a.d. 68, and S. John died about
a.d. 100, we may place Gospel and Epistle between a.d. 85 and
95. (2) Moreover, the later we place these two writings in S.
John's lifetime, the more intelligible does the uncompromising
and explicit position, which characterizes both of them in refer
ence to Gnosticism, become. (3) Again, the tone of the Epistles
is that of an old man, writing to a younger generation. We can
scarcely fancy an Apostle stiU in the prime of life, writing thus
to men of his own age. But those who see in this forcible and
out-spoken letter, with its marveUous combination of love and
sternness, signs of senility and failing powers, have read either
without care or with prejudice. 'The eye' of the Eagle Apostle
is 'not dim, nor his natural force abated.' (4) The contents lead
us to suppose that it was written at a time when the Church
was free from persecution : therefore before the persecution
under Domitian (a.d. 95). Later than that S. John would he

INTRODUCTION. xiv
too old to write. (5) No inference can be drawn from 'it is the
last hour' (ii. 18): these words cannot refer to the destruction
of Jerusalem (see note in loco). And perhaps it is not wise to
dweU much on the fact that the introductory verses seem to
imply that the seeing, hearing, and handling of the Word of
Life took place in the remote past. This wiU not help us to
determine whether S. John wrote the Epistle forty or sixty years
after the Ascension.

(iv) The Object of the Epistle: its Relation to the Gospel.
The Epistle appears to have been intended as a companion to
the Gospel. No more definite word than 'companion' seems to
be applicable, without going beyond the truth. We may call it
"a preface and introduction to the Gospel," or a "second part"
and "supplement" to it ; but this is only to a very limited extent
true. The Gospel has its proper introduction in its first eighteen
verses, and its supplement in its last chapter. It is nearer the
truth to speak of the Epistle as a comment on the Gospel, "a
sermon with the Gospel for its text." It is "a practical applica
tion of the lessons of the life of Christ to the wants of the Church
at the close of the first century" (Schaff). References to the
Gospel are scattered thickly over the whole Epistle.
If this theory respecting its connexion with the Gospel be
correct, we shall expect to find that the object of Gospel and
Epistle is to a large extent one and the same. This is amply
borne out by the facts. The object of the Gospel S. John tells
us himself; 'these have been written that ye may believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may
have life in His name' (xx. 31). The object of the Epistle he
tells us also ; ' These things have I written unto you, that ye may
know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the
name of the Son of God' (v. 13). The Gospel is written to shew
the way to eternal Ufe through belief in the incarnate Son. The
Epistle is written to confirm and enforce the Gospel ; to assure
those who believe in the incarnate Son that they have eternal
life. The one is an historical, the other an ethical statement of

xlvi INTRODUCTION.
the truth. The one sets forth the acts and words which prove
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; the other sets forth
the acts and words which are obligatory upon those who believe
this great truth. Of necessity both writings in stating the truth
oppose error : but with this difference. In the Gospel S. John
simply states the truth and leaves it : in the Epistle he commonly
over against the truth places the error to which it is opposed.
The Epistle is often directly polemical: the Gospel is never
more than indirectly so.
S. John's Gospel has been called a summary of Christian
Theology, his first Epistle a summary of Christian Ethics, and
his Apocalypse a summary of Christian Politics. There is
much truth in this classification, especiaUy as regards the first
two members of it. It wiU help us to give definiteness to the
statement that the Epistle was written to be a companion to the
Gospel. They both supply us with the fundamental doctrines
of Christianity. But in the Gospel these are given as the foun
dations of the Christian's faith; in the Epistle they are given as
the foundation of the Christian's life. The one answers the
question, 'What must I believe about God and Jesus Christ?'
The other answers the question, 'What is the behever's duty
towards God and towards man?' It is obvious that in the latter
case the direct treatment of error is much more in place than in
the former. If we know clearly what to believe, we may leave on
one side the consideration of what not to believe. But inasmuch
as the world contains many who assert what is false and do
what is wrong, we cannot know our duty to God and man,
without learning how we are to bear ourselves in reference to
falsehood and wrong.
Again, it has been said that in his three works S. John has
given us three pictures of the Divine life or life in God. In the
Gospel he sets forth the Divine life as it is exhibited in the
person of Christ. In his Epistle he sets forth that life as it is
exhibited in the individual Christian. And in the Apocalypse
he sets forth that life as it is exhibited in the Church. This
again is true, especially as regards the Gospel and Epistle. It is
between these two that the comparison and contrast are closest.

INTRODUCTION. xlvii
The Church is the Body of Christ, and it is also the collective
body of individual Christians. So far as it comes up to its
ideal, it will present the Ufe in God as it is exhibited in Christ
Himself. So far as it falls short of it, it wiU present the Divine
hfe as it is exhibited in the ordinary Christian. It is therefore
in the field occupied by the Gospel and Epistle respectively that
we find the largest amount both of sirmlarity and difference. In
the one we have the perfect life in God as it was realised in an
historical Person. In the other we have the directions for
reproducing that life as it might be realised by an earnest but
necessarily imperfect Christian.
To sum up the relations of the Gospel to the Epistle, we may
say that the Gospel is objective, the Epistle subjective; the one
is historical, the other moral; the one gives us the theology of
the Christ, the other the ethics of the Christian; the one is
didactic, the other polemical; the one states the truth as a
thesis, the other as an antithesis ; the one starts from the human
side, the other from the divine; the one proves that the Man
Jesus is the Son of God, the other insists that the Son of God is
come in the flesh. But the connexion between the two is inti
mate and organic throughout. The Gospel suggests principles
of conduct which the Epistle lays down explicitly; the Epistle
impUes facts which the Gospel states as historically true.
It would perhaps be too much to say that the Epistle "was
written designedly as the supplement to all extant New Testa
ment Scripture, as, in fact, the final treatise of inspired reve
lation." But it will be well to remember in studying it that as a
matter of fact the letter is that final treatise. We can hardly
venture to say that in penning it S. John was consciously putting
the coping stone on the edifice of the New Testament and
closing the Canon. But in it the leading doctrines of Christi
anity are stated in their final form. The teaching of S. Paul
and that of S. James are restated, no longer in apparent op
position, but in intimate and inseparable harmony. They are
but two sides of the same truth. And just as the different forms
of truth are blended, so also are the different forms of error.
S. Paul constantly reminds us that the believer has to meet the

xlviii INTUODUVTiuiM.
hostility both of the Jew and of the Pagan. In this Epistle
neither Jew nor Pagan is even named : " Their distinctive hos-
tiUty to the Church has melted into the one dark background of
' the world ' " (Farrar).
But though S. John's hand was thus guided to gather up and
consummate the whole body of evangeUcal truth, it seems
evident that this was not his own intention in writing the
Epistle. The letter, Uke most of the Epistles in N. T., is an
occasional one. It is written for a special occasion; to meet a
definite crisis in the Church. It is a solemn warning against
the seductive assumptions and deductions of various forms of
Gnostic error ; an emphatic protest against anything like a com
promise where Christian truth is in question. The nature of
God, so far as it can be grasped by man; the nature of Christ;
the relation of man to God, to the world, and to the evil one;
are stated with a firm hand to meet the shifty theories of false
teachers. 'I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts'
(1 Kings xix. 10) is the mental attitude of this polemical element
in the Epistle. "We hear again the voice of the 'son of
thunder,' stUl vehement against every insult to the majesty of
his Lord." But it is a thunder which is not simply destructive.
It clears the air and prepares the way for the sunshine. Thus,
he who professes knowledge of God without hoUness of life, is
a Uar (i. 6; u. 4): he who hates his brother is a murderer
(ni. 15): he who habituaUy sins is a child of the devil (iii. 8):
he who denies the Incarnation is a Uar, and a deceiver, and an
Antichrist (ii. 22 : 2 John 7). But, on the other hand, if any
man sin we have an Advocate, a propitiation for the sins of the
whole world (ii. 1, 2) : he that doeth the wiU of God abideth for
ever (ii. 17) : we are in Him that is true, in His Son Jesus
Christ (v. 20). The intensity of his severity grows out of the
intensity of his love ; and both reflect that union of the two
which is so conspicuous in the life of his Lord and Master.
The connexion between Gospel and Epistle is recognised by
the writer of the Muratorian Canon, who probably lived within
a century of the writing of both. We have no means of veri
fying his narrative, but must take it or leave it as it stands.

INTRODUCTION. xlix
" Of the fourth of the Gospels, John one of the disciples [is the
author]. When his feUow-disciples and bishops1 exhorted him
[to write it], he said; 'Fast with me for three days from to-day,
and let us relate to each other whatever shaU be revealed to
each.' On the same night it was revealed to Andrew2, one of the
Apostles, that, though all should revise, John should write down
everything in his own name. And therefore, though various
principles are taught in the separate books of the Gospels, yet it
makes no difference to the faith of believers, seeing that by one
supreme Spirit there are declared in all all things concerning the
Birth, the Passion, the Resurrection, the life with His disciples,
and His double Advent ; the first in humility, despised, which is
past; the second glorious in kingly power, which is to come.
What wonder, therefore, is it, if John so constantly in his
Epistles also puts forward particular [phrases], saying in his
own person, what we have seen with our eyes and heard with
our ears, and our hands have handled, these things have we
written to you!' Bishop Lightfoot conjectures that the author of
the Canon, or some earlier authority whom he copied, had a MS.
in which the First Epistle of S. John was placed immediately
after his Gospel.
The foUowing table of parallels between the Gospel and the
Epistle wiU go far to convince anyone; (1) that the two writings
are by one and the same hand; (2) that the passages in the
Gospel are the originals to which the parallels in the Epistle
have been consciously or unconsciously adapted; (3) that in a
number of cases the reference to the Gospel is conscious and in
tentional.

1 Cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis. This evidence of
bishops in the lifetime of S. John is important. ' His bishops ' means
bishops appointed by him. Clement of Alexandria in his pvdos ov
fivBos of S. John and the Robber represents S. John as going about
Asia Minor iwuricbirovs Karaar-qaav (Eus. H. E. in. xxiii. 6).
2 It is scarcely probable that S. Andrew was Uving when S. John
wrote his Gospel : but this may be accepted as evidence that for a time
he Uved at Ephesus with S. John.

1

INTROVUVTiuiy.

Gospel.
i. 1. In the beginning was the
Word.
i. 14. We beheld His glory.
xx. 27. Reach hither thy hand,
and put it into My side.
iii. 11. We speak that we do
know, and bear witness of that
we have seen.
xix. 35. He that hath seen hath
borne witness.
i. 1. The Word waB with God.
xvii. 21. That they may aU be
one ; even as Thou, Father, art
in Me, and I in Thee, that they
also may be in Us.
xvi. 24. That your joy may be
fulfilled.
i. 19. And this is the witness of
John.
i. 5. The Ught shineth in the
darkness ; and the darkness ap
prehended it not.
viii. 12. He that foUoweth Me
shaU not walk in darkness, but
shaU have that light of Ufe.
ui. 21. He that doeth the truth,
cometh to the light.
xiv. 16. I will pray the Father
and He shall give you another
Advocate.
i. 29. Behold, the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sin of
the world.
iv. 24. The Saviour of the world.
xiv. 15. If ye love Me, ye will
keep my commandments.

Epistle.
i. 1. That which was from the be
ginning... concerning the Word
of life.
That which we beheld.
And our hands handled.
i. 2. We have seen, and bear
witness, and declare unto you.

The eternal life, which was with
the Father.
i. 3. Our feUowship is with the
Father, and with His Son Jesus
Christ.
i. 4. That our joy may be fui-
fined.
i. 5. And this is the message
which we have heard from Him.
God is Ught, and in Him is no
darkness at aU.
i. 6. If we say that we have fel
lowship with Him, and walk in
darkness we lie, and do not the
truth; but if we walk in light,
as He is in the Ught...
u. 1. We have an Advocate with
the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous.
ii. 1. And not for ours only, but
also for the whole world.

ii. 3. Hereby know we that we
know Him, if we keep His com
mandments.

INTRODUCTION.

Gospel.
xiv. 21. He that hath My com
mandments and keepeth them,
he it is that loveth Me.
xv. 5. "He that abideth in Me,
and I in him, the same beareth
much fruit.
xin. 34. A new commandment I
give unto you.
i. 9. There was the true Ught.
v. 17. Even until now.
xi. 9. If a man walk in the day,
he stumbleth not, because he
seeth the Ught of this world.
xii. 35. He that walketh in the
darkness knoweth not whither
he goeth.
xii. 40. Hehathblinded their eyes.
xiii. 33. Little children (reKvla).
i. 1. In the beginning was the
Word.
v. 38. Te have not His word
abiding in you.
viii. 35. Abideth for ever.
xxi. 5. ChUdren (vmSta).
vi. 39. This is the wiU of Him
that sent Me, that of aU which
He hath given Me I should
lose nothing.
vi. 69. The Holy One of God
(Christ).
xvi. 13. When He, the Spirit of
truth, is come, He shaU guide
you into aU truth.
xv. 23. He that hateth Me hateth
My Father also.
xiv. 9. He that hath seen Me
hath seen the Father.
s. JOHN (ep.)

U. 8

Epistle.
5. Whoso keepeth His word,
in Him verily hath the love of
God been perfected.
6. He that saith he abideth in
Him ought himself also to walk
even as He walked.
A new commandment write
I unto you.
The true Ught already shineth,
9. Even untU now.
10. He that loveth his brother
abideth in the Ught, and there
is none occasion of stumbling
in him.
11. He that hateth his brother
is in the darkness, and walketh
in the darkness, and knoweth
not whither he goeth, because the
darkness hath blinded his eyes.
1,12,28. Little children (reKvla).
13. Te know Him which is
from the beginnmg.
14. The word of God abideth
in you.
17. Abideth for ever.
18. Little children (waiSla).
19. If they had been of us,
they would have abided with us.

ii. 20. The Holy One (Christ).
Te have an anointing from the
Holy One, and ye know all
things.
u. 23. Whosoever denieth the Son,
the same hath not the Father.
He that confesseth the Son,
hath the Father also.

Iii INTRODUCTION.

Gospel.
xiv. 23. If a man love Me, he
wiU keep My word ; and My
Father wiU love him, and We
wiU come unto him, and make
Our abode with him.
xvn. 2. That whatsoever Thou
hast given Him, to them He
should give eternal Ufe.
xvi. 13. When He, the Spirit of
truth, is come, He shaU guide
you into all truth.

Epistle.
U. 24. If that which ye heard
from the beginning abide in you,
ye also shaU abide in the Son,
and in the Father.
ii. 25. And this is the promise
which He promised us, even
eternal Ufe.
ii. 27. As His anointing teacheth
you concerning aU things,

These are but gleanings out of a couple of chapters1, but they
are sufficient to shew the relation between the two writings.
Some of them are mere reminiscences of particular modes of
expressions. But in other cases the passage in the Epistle is a
deduction from the passage in the Gospel, or an iUustration of
it, or a development in accordance with the Apostle's expe
rience in the half century which had elapsed since the Ascen
sion. But the fact that the Epistle at every turn presupposes
the Gospel, does not prove beyond all question that the Gospel
was written first. S. John had delivered his Gospel oraUy over
and over again before writing it : and it is possible, though
hardly probable, that the Epistle was written before the Gospel.
In this abundance of paraUels between the two writings,
especially between the discourses of the Lord in the Gospel and
the Apostle's teaching in the Epistle, " it is most worthy of
notice that no use is made in the Epistle of the language of the
discourses in John iii. and vi."
" GeneraUy it wiU be found on a comparison of the closest
parallels, that the Apostle's own words are more formal in
expression than the words of the Lord which he records. The
Lord's words have been moulded by the disciple into aphorisms
in the Epistle." — Westcott.
1 Dr Farrar is far below the mark when he writes, " There are
fully thirty-five parallel passages in the Gospel and the Epistle"
{Messages of the Books, 475).

INTRODUCTION. liii

(v) The Plan of the Epistle.
That S. John had a plan, and a very carefully arranged plan,
in writing his Gospel, those who have studied its structure will
scarcely be able to doubt. It is far otherwise with the Epistle.
Here we may reasonably doubt whether the Apostle had any
systematic arrangement of his thoughts in his mind when he
wrote the letter. Indeed some commentators have regarded
it as the rambling prattle of an old man, "an unmethodised
effusion of pious sentiments and reflections." Others, without
going quite these lengths, have concluded that the contemplative
and undialectical temper of S. John has caused him to pour
forth his thoughts in a series of aphorisms without much
sequence or logical connexion.
Both these opinions are erroneous. It is quite true to say
with Calvin that the Epistle is a compound of doctrine and ex
hortation : what Epistle in N.T. is not ? But it is a mistake to
suppose with him that the composition is confused. Again, it is
quite true to say that the Apostle's method is not dialectical.
But it cannot foUow from this that he has no method at all. He
seldom argues ; one who sees the truth, aud beheves that every
sincere behever wiU see it also, has not much need to argue : he
merely states the truth and leaves it to exercise its legitimate
power over every truth-loving heart. But in thus simply affirm
ing what is true and denying what is false he does not allow his
thoughts to come out hap-hazard. Each one as it comes before
us may be complete in itself ; but it is linked on to what pre
cedes and what foUows. The Unks are often subtle, and some
times we cannot be sure that we have detected them ; but they
are seldom entirely absent. This peculiarity brings with it the
further characteristic, that the transitions from one section of the
subject to another, and even from one main division of it to
another, are for the most part very gradual. They are Uke the
changes in dissolving views. We know that we have passed on
to something new, but we hardly know how the change has
come about. And in addition to this there is the peculiarity e 2

liv INTRODUCTION.
that subjects touched upon and left are frequently reappearing
further on for development and fresh treatment. The spiral
movement, which is so conspicuous in the Prologue to the Gospel
and in Christ's Farewell Discourses, is apparent in the Epistle
also. See Notes on the Gospel, pp. 75, 273.
A writing of this kind is exceedingly difficult to analyse. We
feel that there are divisions ; but we are by no means sure where
to make them, or how to name them. We are conscious that
the separate thoughts are intimately connected one with another;
but we cannot satisfy ourselves that we have discovered the
exact lines of connexion. At times we hardly know whether we
are moving forwards or backwards, whether we are returning to
an old subject or passing onwards to a new one, when in truth
we are doing both and neither ; for the old material is recast and
made new, and the new material is shewn to have been involved
in the old. Probably few commentators have satisfied them
selves with their own analysis of this Epistle : stiU fewer have
satisfied other people. Only those who have seriously attempted
it know the real difiiculties of the problem. It is like analysing
the face of the sky or of the sea. There is contrast, and yet
harmony; variety and yet order; fixedness, and yet ceaseless
change; a monotony which soothes without wearying us, be
cause the frequent repetitions come to us as things that are both
new and old. But about one point most students of the Epistle
will agree ; that it is better to read it under the guidance of any
scheme that will at all coincide with its contents, than with no
guidance whatever. Jewels, it is true, remain jewels, even when
piled confusedly into a heap : but they are then seen to the very
least advantage. Any arrangement is better than that. So also
with S. John's utterances in this Epistle. They are robbed of
more than half their power if they are regarded as a string of
detached aphorisms, with no more organic unity than a col
lection of proverbs. It is in the conviction of the truth of this
opinion that the following analysis is offered for consideration.
It is, of course, to a considerable extent based upon previous
attempts, and possibly it is no great improvement upon any of
them. It has, however, been of service to the writer in studying

INTRODUCTION. Iv
the Epistle, and if it helps any other student to frame a better
analysis for himself, it will have served its purpose.
One or two divisions may be asserted with confidence. Be
yond all question the first four verses are introductory, and are
analogous to the first eighteen verses of the Gospel. EquaUy
beyond question the last four verses, and probably the last eight
verses, form the summary and conclusion. This leaves the
intermediate portion from i. 5 to v. 12 or v. 17 as the main
body of the Epistle : and it is about the divisions and sub
divisions of this portion that so much difference of opinion
exists. Again, nearly every commentator seems to have felt that a
division must be made somewhere near the end of the second
chapter. In the following analysis this generaUy recognised
landmark has been adopted as central. Logically as weU as
locally it divides the main body of the Epistle into two fairly
equal halves. And these two halves may be conveniently desig
nated by the great statement which each contains respecting
the Divine Nature — ' God is Light ' and ' God is Love.' These
headings are not merely convenient ; they correspond to a very
considerable extent with the contents of each half. The first
half, especially in its earlier portions, is dominated by the idea
of ' Ught ' : the second half is still more clearly and thoroughly
dominated by the idea of ' love.'
As regards the subdivisions and the titles given to them, all
that it would be safe to affirm is this ; — that, Uke trees in a well-
wooded landscape, the Apostle's thoughts evidently faU into
groups, and that it conduces to clearness to distinguish the
groups. But it may easily be the case that what to one eye is
only one cluster, to another eye is two or three clusters, and
that there may also be a difference of opinion as to where each
cluster begins and ends. Moreover the description of a par
ticular group which satisfies one mind will seem inaccurate to
another. The following scheme will do excellent service if it
provokes the student to challenge its correctness and to correct
it, if necessary, throughout.

lvi INTRODUCTION.
An Analysis of the Epistle.
i. 1 — 4. Introduction.
1. The Subject-Matter of the Gospel employed in the
Epistle (i. 1—3).
2. The Purpose of the Epistle (i. 4).
i. 5 — U. 28. God is Light.
a. i. 5 — n. 11. What Waiting In the Light involves: the Con
dition and Conduct of the Believer.
1. FeUowship with God and with the Brethren (i. 5 — 7).
2. Consciousness and Confession of Sin (i. 8 — 10).
3. Obedience to God by Imitation of Christ (n. 1 — 6).
4. Love of the Brethren (u. 7 — 11).
o. ii. 12 — 28. What Walking ln the Light excludes : the Things and
Persons to he avoided.
1. Threefold statement of Reasons for Writing (u. 12—14).
2. The Things to be avoided ; — the World and its Ways
(u. 15—17).
3. The Persons to be avoided; — Antichrists (n. 18 — 26).
4. (Transitional) The Place of safety ;— Christ (u. 27, 28).
u. 29 — v. 12. God is Love.
c. ii. 29 — ni. 24. The Evidence of Sonship ; — Deeds of righteousness
before God.
1. The Children of God and the Children of the Devil
(u. 29- ui. 12).
2. Love and Hate ; Life and Death (in. 13—24).
d. iv. 1 — v. 12. The Source of Sonship ; — Possession of the Spirit
as shewn by Confession of the Incarnation.
1. The Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error (iv. 1—6).
2. Love is the Mark of the Children of Him who is Love
(iv. 7—21).
3 Faith is the Source of Love, the Victory over the
World, and the Possession of Life (v. 1  12).
v. 13 — 21. Conclusion.
1. Intercessory Love the Fruit of Faith (v. 13—17).
2. The Sum of the Christian's Knowledge (v. 18—20).
3. Final Injunction (v. 21).

INTRODUCTION. lvii
Perhaps our first impression on looking at the headings of the
smaUer sections would be that these subjects have not much
connexion with one another, and that the order in which they
come is more or less a matter of accident. This impression
would be erroneous. Fellowship with God involves conscious
ness of sin, and its confession with a view to its removal. This
implies obedience to God, which finds its highest expression in
love. Love of God and of the brethren excludes love of the
world, which is passing away, as is shewn by the appearance of
antichrists. He who would not pass away must abide in Christ.
With the idea of sonship, introduced by the expression ' begotten
of God,' the Epistle takes a fresh start. This Divine sonship
imphes mutual love among God's children and the indwelling of
Christ to which the Spirit testifies. The mention of the Spirit
leads on to the distinction between true and false spirits. By a
rather subtle connexion (see on iv. 7) this once more leads to the
topic of mutual love, and to faith as the source of love, especiaUy
as shewn in intercessory prayer. The whole closes with a sum
mary of the knowledge on which the moral principles inculcated
in the Epistle are based, and with a warning against idols.
The omissions are as remarkable as the contents. Unlike the
Gospel, the Epistle contains no quotations from the O.T. It
teUs us nothing about the government, ministry, sacraments, or
worship of the Apostolic Church. The word inKkno-ia does not
occur in it. There is no mention of bishop, presbyter, or deacon,
of Baptism or the Eucharist Not that the Apostle is indifferent
to these things, but that they are no part of his subject. He has
to tell, not of the structure or discipline ofthe community, but of
its spiritual life and organism : — the fellowship of beUevers with
the Father and the Son and their consequent fellowship with one
another. (vi.) The Characteristics of the Epistle.
" In reading John it is always with me as though I saw him
before me, lying on the bosom of his Master at the last supper :
as though his angel were holding the light for me, and in certain
passages would fall upon my neck and whisper something in

lviii INTRODUCTION.
mine ear. I am far from understanding aU I read, but it often
seems to me as if what John meant were floating before me in
the distance ; and even when I look into a passage altogether
dark, I have a foretaste of some great, glorious meaning, which
I shaU one day understand" (Claudius).
Dante expresses the same feeUng stiU more strongly when he
represents himself as bUnded by the radiance of the beloved
disciple (Paradiso xxv. 136 — xxvi. 6).
"Ah, how much in my mind was I disturbed,
When I turned round to look on Beatrice,
That her I could not see, although I was
Close at her side and in the Happy World!
Wtule I was doubting for my vision quenched,
Out of the flame refulgent that had quenched it
Issued a, breathing, that attentive made me,
Saying — 'Whilst thou recoverest the sense
Of seeing which in me thou hast consumed,
'Tis weU that speaking thou should'st compensate it.' "
(LongfeUow's Translation : see notes.)
Two characteristics of this Epistle wiU strike every serious
reader ; the almost oppressive majesty of the thoughts which are
put before us, and the extreme simplicity of the language in
which they are expressed. The most profound mysteries in the
Divine scheme of Redemption, the spiritual and moral relations
between God, the human soul, the world, and the evil one, and
the fundamental principles of Christian Ethics, are all stated in
words which any intelligent child can understand. They are
the words of one who has 'received the kingdom' of heaven
into his inmost soul, and received it ' as a Uttle child.' They are
the fooUsh things of the world putting to shame them that are
wise. "They are stiU waters, which run deep." Their ease, and
simphcity, and repose irresistibly attract us. Even the unwilling
ear is arrested and Ustens. We are held as by a spelL And as
we listen, and stop, and ponder, we find that the simple words,
which at first seemed to convey a meaning as simple as them
selves, are charged with truths which are not of this world, but
have their roots in the Infinite and Eternal. S. John has been

INTRODUCTION. lix
so long on the mount in communion with God that his very
words, when the veil is taken off them, shine : and, as Dante
intimates, to be brought suddenly face to face with his spirit is
weU-nigh too much for mortal eyes.
Another characteristic of the Epistle, less conspicuous per
haps, but indisputable, is its finality. As S. John's Gospel, not
merely in time, but in conception and form and point of view, is
the last of the Gospels, so this is the last of the Epistles. It
rises above and consummates all the rest. It is in a sphere in
which the difficulties between Jewish Christian and Gentile
Christian, and the apparent discords between S. Paul and S.
James, are harmonized and cease to exist. It is indeed no
handbook or summary of Christian doctrine ; for it is written
expressly for those who 'know the truth'; and therefore much
is left unstated, because it may be taken for granted. But in
no other book in the Bible are so many cardinal doctrines
touched, or with so firm a hand. And each point is laid before
us with the awe-inspiring solemnity of one who writes under the
profound conviction that 'it is the last hour.'
Closely connected with this characteristic of finaUty is another
which it shares with the Gospel ; — the tone of magisterial au
thority which pervades the whole. None but an Apostle, per
haps we may almost venture to say, none but the last surviving
Apostle, could write Uke this. There is no passionate claim to
authority, as of one who feels compelled to assert himself and
ask, 'Am I not an Apostle ?' There is no fierce denunciation of
those who are opposed to him, no attempt at a compromise, no
anxiety about the result. He will not argue the point ; he states
the truth and leaves it. Every sentence seems to tell of the
conscious authority and resistless though unexerted strength of
one who has ' seen, and heard, and handled' the Eternal Word,
and who 'knows that his witness is true.'
Once more, there is throughout the Epistle a love of moral
and spiritual antitheses. Over against each thought there is
constantly placed in sharp contrast its opposite. Thus light and
darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate, Ufe and death, love
of the Father and love of the world, the children of God and the

Ix INTRODUCTION.
children of the devil, the spirit of truth and the spirit of error,
sin unto death and sin not unto death, to do righteousness and
to do sin, follow one another in impressive alternation. The
movement of the Epistle largely consists of progress from one
opposite to another. And it wUl nearly always be found that
the antithesis is not "exact, but an advance beyond the original
statement or else an expansion of it. ' He that beUeveth on the
Son of God hath the witness in him : he that believeth not God
hath made Him a liar' (v. 10). The antithetical structure and
rhythmical cadence of the sentences would do much to commend
them " to the ear and to the memory of the hearers. To Greek
readers, famihar with the lyrical arrangements of the Greek
Drama, this mode of writing would have a pecuhar charm ; and
Jewish readers would recognise in it a correspondence to the style
and diction of their own Prophetical Books" (Wordsworth).
If we say we have no sin,
We deceive ourselves,
And the truth is not in us.
If we confess our sins,
He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins,
And to cleanse us from aU unrighteousness.
If we say that we have not sinned,
We make Him a Uar ;
And His word is not in us.
In this instance it will be noticed that we pass from one
opposite to another and back again: but that to which we
return covers more ground than the original position and is
a distinct advance upon it. This progress by means of alternat
ing statements is still more apparent in the foUowing example.
He that saith he is in the Ught,
And hateth his brother,
Is in the darkness even until now.
He that loveth his brother
Abideth in the Ught,
And there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

INTRODUCTION. lxi
But he that hateth his brother
Is in the darkness,
And walketh in the darkness,
And knoweth not whither he goeth,
Because the darkness hath bUnded his eyes.
For other characteristics of S. John's style which are common
to both Gospel and Epistle see the Introduction to the Gospel,
chapter v. Many of these are pointed out in the notes on these
Epistles : see in particular the notes on 1 John i. 2, 4, 5, 8, ii. 1,
3, 8, 24, in. 9, 15, 17, iv. 9, v. 9, 10.
"Every reader feels the calmness and the serenity which per
vade this book. It teUs of a soul that has reached peace, of the
serenity of an aged man ; and the very reading of it puts us in
the rest, the quiet, the tranquiUity of peace. He likes to dweU
upon a great thought ; he turns it this way and that, and sinks
his soul into it. He ever leads us back to the same thoughts
and gladly repeats them to us, so as to send them deep into the
soul and make them stay there....
This calmness of lingering contemplation, and this passive,
peaceful tranquilUty, is, however, not nature. It is command of
the mind. For we can still discover in him the fiery, violent
character of the youth. If the hasty glow of earlier days is no
longer there, still a reminiscence of it is always at hand. We
can see his natural character in his short decisive sentences, his
emphatic way of building sentences, the want of connexion in
his array of sentences, and in the use of contrasts in his speech.
His nature is not destroyed. It is purified, brightened, raised
to the truth, and so taken into the service of the loved Master....
The fire of youth has left its calm light and its warm enthusiasm.
It breathes through the most quiet speech, and raises the lan
guage to the rhythmical beauty of Hebrew poetry, and to a very
hymn of praise."
These words, though written by Luthardt of the Gospel of
S. John (Introduction ii. 5, § 2), may be applied, without the
alteration of a single sentence, to the Epistles.
The foUowing characteristic words and phrases are common to

lxii INTRODUCTION.
S. John's Gospel and one or more of his Epistles, those printed
in thick type being found in the Apocalypse also : —
d-ycwrav, avdirrj, a/yvtijeiv !o.ut6v, dAi^eta, dXnBijs, d\i]8iv£s, akndivos
Oeos (comp. Rev. vi. 10), dXr,Bt2s, dXX' "va (see on 1 John ii. 19),
dpapriav txeiv, dv8pamoicr6vos, ¦yivcSo-Kciv, ytvvnBrjvai in, etvai &,
Eivai ix rfj! dXnBtias, thai i< tov Qeo€, eivai i< rov Koapov, ivroXtj
Kawf], fan}, £a>rj alavlos, Bmo-Bai, 6e<opetv, iva, in unusual construc
tions (see on 1 John i. 9), naivos in a good sense, Koa-pos, A&yos,
paprvptiv, [laprupCo, piveiv, ptraBaivtiv in tov Bavarov tis ttjv £«»;!',
povoytvrjs (of the Son of God), vik&v, vikov tov Koo-pov, opav in the
perfect tense, rraihia, rrapaicX-qTos, ntpmartiv iv rg o-Koria, iriortieiv
lis, rrapprjo-ia, irXavdv, to rrvtvpa rrjs dXnBtias, rroitiv ttjv dX-qBeiav,
noitiv Ttjv dpapriav, 6 irovrjpos, o-Koria, ceor^p tov Koapov, riniia
Qtov, TtKVia, njpetv tos evToXds, ri\pitv tov Xoyov, TiBivat, ttjv ¦tyvxrjti
avrov, <j>aCv£iv, qbavtpovv, <pms, XaP& rttrrXnpaipivn.
The following expressions occur in one or more of the Epistles, .
but not in the Gospel : —
dyytXia, dpapria rrpbs Bavarov, avrixpicrTos, imBvpia ran o(j>BaX-
pav, imBvpla Trjs aapKos, iv crapKi tpxto-Bai, iv dXnBtia trtpirraTtiv,
iv rio (pari rrtpnraTtiv, iXao-pos, Koivavla, rrapovaia (of the Second
Advent), wXdvos, noitiv ttjv dvoplav, iroulv diKaioo-iivnv (Bev.),
Xplo-pa. (vii) Its relation to the Teaching of S. Paul.
"John and Paul have depth of knowledge in common. They
are the two apostles who have left us the most complete systems
of doctrine. But they know in different ways. Paul, educated
in the schools of the Pharisees, is an exceedingly acute thinker
and an accomphshed dialectician. He sets forth the doctrines of
Christianity in a systematic scheme, proceeding from cause to
effect, from the general to the particular, from premise to con
clusion, with logical clearness and precision. He is a represen
tative of genuine scholasticism in the best sense of the term.
John's knowledge is that of intuition and contemplation. He
gazes with his whole soul upon the object before him, surveys all
as in one picture, and thus presents the profoundest truths as an

INTRODUCTION. lxiii
eye-witness, not by a course of logical demonstration, but im
mediately as they Ue in reaUty before him. His knowledge of
divine things is the deep insight of love, which ever fixes itself at
the centre, and thence surveys all points of the circumference at
once. He is the representative of aU true mysticism.... Paul and
John, in their two grand systems, have laid the eternal founda
tions of aU true theology and philosophy; and their writings,
now after eighteen centuries of study, are still unfathomed"
(Schaff). The theory that S. John "came to Ephesus with a view to up
holding the principles of the Christianity of Jerusalem against
the encroachments of the Christianity of S. Paul," and that
"John, the writer of the Apocalypse, as superintendent of the
Churches of Asia Minor, made war upon Pauline Christianity,"
would be sufficiently untenable even if S. John had written
nothing but the Apocalypse. But this Epistle contains the most
ample refutation of it. F. C. Baur, the great upholder of the
theory, can make it look plausible only by attributing the Fourth
Gospel, and with it of course this Epistle, to some unknown
evangelist who assumed S. John's personahty. He admits that
"inner points of connexion between the Apocalypse and the
Gospel are not wanting.'' But "the author of the Gospel felt his
standpoint to be a new and pecuhar one, and essentiaUy distinct,
both from the Pauhne and the Jewish Christian : but this very
fact forced upon him the necessity of giving a genuinely apostohc
expression to the new form of Christian consciousness."
This view has recently been elaborated afresh by Dr Pfleiderer
in the Hibbert Lectures. He holds that Baur has proved "how
profound was the antagonism between Paul and the first Apostles,"
and with Baur he maintains that the Revelation is an attack on
S. Paul by S. John. He goes on to suggest that the Gospel of
S. Mark is a Pauhne rejoinder to the Revelation, and that of
S. Matthew a Judaic reply to S. Mark. Then comes the Third
Gospel as a partial attempt at a reconciUation, an end which is
ultimately reached by the writer of the Fourth.
We are asked, therefore, to believe that the first age of the
Church was spent in a pamphlet war between the representatives

lxiv INTRODUCTION.
of three totaUy different forms of Christianity. (1) The Gospel
of S. Paul; (2) that of S. John, who in the Apocalypse "made
war upon PauUne Christianity;" (3) that of the Fourth Evan-
geUst, who usurped the name of S. John in order to take up a
position "essentially distinct" both from that of S. John and of
S. Paul. The theory that the Revelation is an attack on S. Paul
has been sufficiently answered by Bishop Lightfoot in his Essay on
S. Paul and the Three (Galatians, 6th ed. pp. 308—311, 346-
364), in which he points out the fundamental agreement between
S. Paul's Epistles and the Apocalypse on the one hand, and
between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel with our Epistle
on the other. It remains to compare the last member in this
series with the first. An examination of the foUowing passages
wiU enable the reader to judge whether in this Epistle the author
of the Fourth Gospel teaches a Christianity "essentiaUy distinct"
from that of S. Paul. And it should be observed that in almost
aU cases the references are taken exclusively, or at least partly,
from the four great Epistles on which even Baur admits "there
has never been cast the sUghtest suspicion of unauthenticity,"—
Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. In addition to
these Dr Pfleiderer accepts as genuine 1 Thessalonians, PhiUppians,
and Philemon ; and as partly genuine 2 Thessalonians and Co-
lossians. (1) The manifestation of the Eternal Son : i. 2, iii. 5 ; Rom.
xvi. 26 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16.
(2) Our feUowship with the Son: i. 3, ii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 9.
(3) No feUowship between Ught and darkness : i. 6 ; 2 Cor. vi. 15.
(4) Redemption through Christ's blood: i. 7; Rom. v. 9;
Eph. i. 7.
(5) Christ our Advocate with the Father : ii. 1 ; Rom. viii. 34;
1 Tim. ii. 5.
(6) Christ a propitiation : ii. 2, iv. 10 ; Rom iii. 25 ; 2 Cor. v. 18.
(7) Obedience the test of a true Christian : ii. 4, hi. 24; 1 Cor.
vii. 19. Imitation of Christ : u. 6 ; Eph. v.
(8) Darkness yielding to Ught : ii. 8 ; Rom. xiii. 12 ; Eph. v. 8.
(9) EnUghtenment worthless without love : ii. 9 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 2.
(10) The world passing away : ii. 17 ; l Cor. vii. 31.

INTRODUCTION. lxv
(11) The end close at hand : ii. 18; 1 Cor. vii. 29; x. 11.
(12) Antichrists a sign of the end : u. 18 ; 1 Tim. iv. 1.
(13) The use of heresies in sifting faithful from unfaithful
Christians : ii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi. 19.
(14) The unction ofthe Spirit: ii. 20; 2 Cor. i. 21, 22.
(15) The fulness of the Christian's knowledge: ii. 20, 21;
Rom. xv. 14.
(16) The Divine gift of sonship: U. 1, 2; Rom. viii. 15; Gal.
ni. 26.
(17) The beatific vision : in. 2 ; 1 Cor. xin. 12.
(18) The Christian's hope an incentive to seff-purification :
in. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 1.
(19) Our future glory not yet revealed : ni. 2 ; Rom. viii. 18.
(20) The relation of sin to law : in. 4; Rom. iv. 15, v. 13.
(21) The sinlessness of Christ : iii. 5 ; 2 Cor. v. 21.
(22) Conduct more important than knowledge: iii. 7; Rom.
ii. 13.
(23) The world's hatred of Christians natural : iii. 13 ; 2 Tim.
iii. 12.
(24) The Divine love exhibited in the work of redemption:
hi. 16, iv. 9 ; Rom. v. 8 ; Eph. v. 2, 25.
(25) Love without hypocrisy : hi. 18; Rom. xii. 9.
(26) Conscience not infalhble : in. 20 ; 1 Cor. iv. 4.
(27) Mutual indwelling of the Divine and the human : iii. 24 ;
Rom. viii. 9.
(28) Possession of the Spirit a proof of union with God : iii.
24, iv. 13 ; Rom. vhi. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6.
(29) Prophets must be tested : iv. 1 ; 1 Cor. iv. 29, xii. 10,
xiv. 32.
(30) BeUef in the Incarnation a sure test : iv. 2, 15, v. i ; Rom.
x. 9 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3.
(31) The spirit of Antichrist already in the world: iv. 3
2 Thess. U. 7.
(32) God the source of the Christian's victory: iv. 4, v. 4;
Rom. viii. 37 ; 1 Cor. xv. 57.
(33) Submission to Apostohc authority : iv. 6 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 37.
(34) God invisible: iv. 12; 1 Tim. vi. 16.

Ixvi INTRODUCTION.
(35) Fear giving place to love ; iv. 18 ; Rom. viii. 15 ; 2 Tim. i. 7.
(36) The whole world evil : v. 19 ; 1 Cor. v. 10 ; GaL i. 4.
(37) Idolatry to be shunned : v. 21 ; 1 Cor. x. 14.
The coincidences of doctrine rarely extend to language: but
Koivavia, ¦ntpinareiv (in the figurative sense) and iwiB. rf/s o-apmt
are almost pecuUar to S. Paul and S. John. Some remarks of
the late Professor Shirley respecting these theories of Baur and
others may be added with profit. " Such views are only possible
where the history of doctrine is extensively studied apart from
the general history of the Church ; and they stand as a warning
against aU that handUng of history which reduces it to a branch
of literary criticism. The relations in which the Apostles actually
stood to each other are in fact to be ascertained far less by
framing a theology out of the extant writings of each, than by
considering how they must have been affected by the mode of
their training and appointment, by the nature of their powers,
and by the Unks which bound together the society of which they
were the rulers. In point of fact the writings even of St Paul
and St John are inadequate to express their whole theology.
Each has contributed to the Canon not his whole system, but
that special side of his teaching of which he seemed to the Holy
Spirit to be the most appropriate organ; and the account of
their opinions, based simply on an analysis of their writings,
however perfect and however free from colouring such an analysis
may be, must always exaggerate what is distinctive of the indi
vidual, and throw into the shade what belongs to the Christian
and the apostle" (Apostolic Age, 79, 80).

CHAPTER III.
The Second Epistle.
Short as this letter is, and having more than half of its con
tents common to either the First or the Second Epistle, our loss
would have been great had it been refused a place in the Canon,
and in consequence been aUowed to perish. It gives us a new

INTRODUCTION. lxvii
aspect of the Apostle : it shews him to us as the shepherd of in
dividual souls. In the First Epistle he addresses the Church at
large. In this Epistle, whether it be addressed to a local
Church, or (as we shall find reason to beUeve) to a Christian
lady, it is certain definite individuals that he has in his mind as
he writes. It is for the sake of particular persons about whom
he is greatly interested that he sends the letter, rather than for
the sake of Christians in general. It is a less formal and less
pubUc utterance than the First Epistle. We see the Apostle at
home rather than in the Church, and hear him speaking as a
friend rather than as a Metropolitan. The Apostolic authority
is there, but it is in the background. The letter beseeches and
warns more than it commands.
i. The Authorship of the Epistle.
Just as nearly aU critics aUow that the Fourth Gospel and the
First Epistle are by one hand, so it is generally admitted that
the Second and Third Epistle are by one hand. The question
is whether all four writings are by the same person; whether
'the Elder' of the two short Epistles is the beloved disciple of
the Gospel, the author of the First Epistle. If this question is
answered in the negative, then only two alternatives remain;
either these twin Epistles were written by a person commonly
known as 'John the Elder' or 'the Presbyter John,' a contem
porary of the Apostle sometimes confused with him; or they
were written by some Elder entirely unknown to us. In either
case he is a person who has studiously and with very great
success imitated the style of the Apostle.
The External Evidence.
The voice of antiquity is strongly in favour of the first and
simplest hypothesis ; that aU four writings are the work of the
Apostle S. John. The evidence is not so full or so indisputably
unanimous as for the Apostolicity of the First Epistle; but,
when we take into account the brevity and comparative unim
portance of these two letters, the amount is considerable. See
Charteris, Canonicity, 327 — 330.
s. JOHN (ep.)

lxviii INTRODUCTION.
Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of S. John,
says; "John, the disciple of the Lord, intensified their condemna
tion by desiring that not even a 'God-speed' should be bid to
them by us; For, says he, he that biddeth him, God speed, par-
taketh in his evil works" (Haer. I. xvi. 3). And again, after
quoting 1 John ii. 18, he resumes a little further on; "These
are they against whom the Lord warned us beforehand; and
His disciple, in his Epistle already mentioned, commands us to
avoid them, when he says; Many deceivers are gone- forth into
this world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
This is the deceiver and the Antichrist. Look to them, that ye lose
not that which ye have wrought" (in. xvi. 8). In one or two
respects, it will be observed, Irenaeus must have had a different
text from ours : but these quotations shew that he was well
acquainted with the Second Epistle and believed it to be by the
beloved disciple. And though in the second passage he makes
the slip of quoting the Second Epistle and caUing it the First,
yet this only shews aU the more plainly how remote from his
mind was the idea that the one Epistle might be by S. John and
the other not.
Clement of Alexandria, and indeed the Alexandrian school
generaUy (a.d. 200 — 300), testify to the belief that the second
letter is by the Apostle. He quotes 1 John v. 16 with the in
troductory words; "John in his longer Epistle (iv tji pti(ovi
imo-ToXfi) seems to teach &c." (Strom, n. xv.), which shews that
he knows of at least one other and shorter Epistle by the same
John. In a fragment of a Latin translation of one of his works
we read ; "The second Epistle of John, which is written to virgins,
is very simple : it is written indeed to a certain Babylonian lady,
Electa by name ; but it signifies the election of the holy Church."
Eusebius (H. E. vi. xiv. 1) tells us that Clement in his Hypo-
typoses or Outlines commented on the 'disputed' books in N. T.
viz. "the Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles."
Dionysitjs of Alexandria in his famous criticism (Ens.
H. E. vn. xxv.) so far from thinking 'the Elder' an unlikely
title to be taken by S. John, thinks that his not naming himself
is Like the Apostle's usual manner.

INTRODUCTION. Ixix
Thus we have witnesses from two very different centres,
Irenaeus in Gaul, Clement and Dionysius in Alexandria.
Ctprian in his account of a Council at Carthage, a.d. 256,
gives us what we may fairly consider to be evidence as to the
belief of the North African Church. He says that Aurelius,
Bishop of ChuUabi, quoted 2 John 10, 11 with the observation;
Johannes apostolus in epistula sua posuit: "Si quis ad vos venit
et doctrinam Christi non habet, nohte eum admittere in domum
vestram et ave illi ne dixeritis . qui enim dixerit ilU ave com-
municat factis ejus maUs." This quotation exhibits no less than
ten differences from the Vulgate of Jerome (Cod. Am.) and proves
the existence of an early African text of this Epistle. But
Cyprian frequently quotes the First Epistle and several times
with the formula Johannes in epistola sua, or in epistola: he no
where adds prima or maxima any more than he here adds
secunda. The evidence of the Muratorian Fragment is by no means
clear. We have seen (p. xl.) that the writer quotes the First
Epistle in his account of the Fourth Gospel, and later on speaks
of "two Epistles of the John who has been mentioned before."
This has been interpreted in various ways. (1) That these
'two Epistles' are the Second and Third, the First being
omitted by the copyist (who evidently was a very inaccurate and
incompetent person), or being counted as part of the Gospel.
(2) That these two are the First and the Second, the Third
being omitted. (3) That the First and the Second are taken
together as one Epistle and the Third as a second. And it is
remarkable that Eusebius twice speaks of the First Epistle as
" the former Epistle of John" (H.E. in. xxv. 2, xxxix. 16), just
as Clement speaks of " the longer Epistle," as if in some arrange
ments there were only two Epistles. But in spite of this the
first of these three explanations is to be preferred. The con
text in the Fragment decidedly favours it.
Origen knows of the two shorter letters, but says that "not
all admit that these are genuine'' (Eus. H. E. vi. xxv. 10). Yet
he expresses no opinion of his own, and never quotes them. On
the other hand he quotes the First Epistle "in such a manner

lxx INTRODUCTION.
as at least to shew that the other Epistles were not familiarly
known" (Westcott).
Eusebius, who was possibly influenced by Origen, classes
these two Epistles among the 'disputed' books of the Canon,
and suggests (without giving his own view) that they may be the
work of a namesake of the Evangelist. "Among the disputed
(dvTiXtyoptva) books, which, however, are weU known and recog.
nised by most, we class the Epistle circulated under the name of
James, and that of Jude, as well as the second of Peter, and the
so-called second and third of John, whether they belong to the
Evangelist, or possibly to another of the same name as he"
(H. E. in. xxv. 3). Elsewhere he speaks in a way which leaves
one less in doubt as to his own opinion (Dem. Evan, m, iii,
again p. 120), which appears to be favourable to the Apostolic
authorship ; he speaks of them without qualification as S. John's.
The school of Antioch seems to have rejected these two
'disputed' Epistles, together with Jude and 2 Peter.
Jerome (Vir. lllust. ix.) says that, whfie the First Epistle is
approved by all Churches and scholars, the two others are
ascribed to John the Presbyter, whose tomb was stiU shewn at
Ephesus as weU as that of the Apostle.
The Middle Ages attributed aU three to S. John.
From this summary of the external evidence it is apparent
that precisely those witnesses who are nearest to S. John in time
are favourable to the Apostolic authorship and seem to know of
no other view. Doubts are first indicated by Origen, although
we need not suppose that they were first propounded by him.
Probably the belief that there had been another John at Ephesus,
and that he had been known as 'John the Presbyter' or 'the
Elder,' first made people think that these two comparatively
insignificant Epistles, written by some one who calls himself
'the Elder,' were not the work of the Apostle. But, as is shewn
in Appendix E., it is doubtful, whether any such person as Joh
the Elder, as distinct from the Apostle and Evangelist, ever existed
In all probabihty those writers who attribute the two shorter
letters to John the Presbyter, whether they know it or not, are
reaUy attributing them to S. John.

INTRODUCTION. lxxi

The Internal Evidence.

The internal is hardly less strong than the external evidence
in favour of the Apostohc authorship of the Second, and there
fore of the Third Epistle : for no one can reasonably doubt that
the writer of the one is the writer of the other. The argument
is parallel to that respecting the Pastoral Epistles. There is
much in these Epistles that cannot reasonably be ascribed to
anyone but S. Paul : these portions cannot be severed from the
rest: therefore those portions which are not in his usual style
were nevertheless written by him. So here ; the Second Epistle
has so much that is similar to the First, that common author
ship is highly probable: and the Third Epistle has so much
that is similar to the Second, that common authorship is
practicaUy certain. Therefore the Third Epistle, though not
like the First, is nevertheless by the same hand. We have
seen in the preceding sections that Apostles were sometimes
called Elders. This humbler title would not be Ukely to be
assumed by one who wished to pass himself off as an Apostle ;
aU the less so, because no Apostohc writing in N. T. begins with
this appellation, except the Epistles in question. Therefore
these Epistles are not hke the work of a forger imitating S. John
in order to be taken for S. John. On the other hand an ordinary
Presbyter or Elder, writing in his own person without any wish
to mislead, would hardly style himself 'The Elder.' 'John the
Elder,' if he ever existed, would have given his name. Had he
been so important a person as to be able to style himself ' The
Elder,' we should find clearer traces of him in history. Assume,
however, that S. John wrote the Epistles, and the title seems
to be very appropriate. The oldest member of the Christian
Church and the last surviving Apostle might well be called, and
call himself, with simple dignity, 'The Elder.' "Nothing is
more welcome to persons of simple character who are in high
office than an opportunity of laying its formalities aside ; they
Uke to address others and to be themselves addressed in their
personal capacity, or by a title in which there is more affection
than form... Just as we might speak of some one person as 'the

lxxii

INTRODUCTION.

Vicar,' or 'the Colonel,' as if there were no one else in the
world who held those offices, so St John was known in the family
to which he writes by the affectionately famihar title of 'the
Presbyter'" (Liddon).
The following table will help us to judge whether the simi
larities between the four writings are not most naturaUy and
reasonably explained by accepting the primitive (though not
universal) tradition, that all four proceeded from one and the
same author.

Gospel and First
Epistle.
1 John in. 18. Let us
not love in word,
neither in tongue,
but in deedandtruth.
John viii. 31. If ye
abide in My word...
ye shaU know the
truth.
x. 18. This command
ment received I from
My Father.
1 John iv. 21. This
commandment have
we from Him.
ii. 7. No new com
mandment write I
unto you, but an
old commandment
which ye had from
the beginning.
John xui. 34. A new
commandmentl give
unto you, that ye
love one another.
xiv. 21. He that hath
My commandments

Second Epistle.
, The Elder unto the
elect lady... whom I
love in truth: and
not I only, but also
aU they that know
the truth.

4. I rejoiced greatly
that I have found of
thy chUdren walking
in truth, even as we
received command
ment from the Fa
ther.
5. And now I beseech
thee, lady, not as
though I wrote to
thee a new com
mandment, but that
which we had from
the beginning, that
we love one another.

. And this is love,
that we should walk

Third Epistle.
1. The Elder unto
Gaius the beloved,
whom I love in truth

3. I rejoiced greatly
when brethren came
and bare witness un
to thy truth, even
as thou walkest in
truth.

INTRODUCTION.

lxxiii

Gospel and First
Epistle.
and keepeth them, he
it is that loveth Me.
Uohnv.3. This is the
love of God, that we
keep His command
ments.
u.24. Let that abide in
you which ye heard
from the beginning.
iv. 1 — 3. Many false
prophets are gone
out into the world.
Hereby know ye the
Spirit of God : every
spirit which confess
eth that Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh
is of God: and every
spirit which confess
eth not Jesus is not
of God : and this is
the spirit ofthe An
tichrist.
ii. 23. Whosoever de-
nieth the Son, the
same hath not the
Father : he that con
fesseth the Son hath
the Father also.

ii. 29. Every one that
doeth righteousness
is begotten of Him.
in. 6. Whosoever sin-
neth hath not seen
Him, neither know
eth Him.

Second Epistle.
after His command
ments. This is the
commandment, even
as ye heard from
the beginning, that
ye should walk in it.

7. For many deceivers
are gone forth into
the world, even they
that confess not that
Jesus Christ cometh
in the flesh. This is
the deceiver and the
Antichrist.

9. Whosoever goeth
onward and abideth
not in the doctrine
of Christ, hath not
God : he that abideth
in the doctrine, the
same hath both the
Father and the Son.

Third Epistle.

11. He that doeth
good is of God: he
that doeth evil hath
not seen God.

lxxiv

INTRODUCTION.

Gospel and First
Epistle.
John xxi. 24. This is
the disciple which
beareth witness of
these things : and we
know that his wit
ness is true.
xv. 11. That your joy
may be fulfilled.
1 John i. 4. That our
joy may be fulfilled.

Second Epistle.

12, 13. Having many
things to write unto
you, I would not
write them with pa
per and ink: but I
hope to come unto
you, and to speak
face to face that your
joy may be fulfiUed.
The children of thine
elect sister salute
thee.

Third Epistle.
12. Yea, we also bear
witness; and thou
knowest that our
witness is true.

13, 14. I had many
things to write unto
thee, but I am un
willing to write them
to thee with ink and
pen : but I hope
shortly to see thee,
and we shaU speak
face to face. Peace
be unto thee. The
friends salute thee.
Salute the friends by
name.

The brevity and comparative unimportance of the two letters
is another point in favour of their Apostolicity. " Under such
intimate personal relations forgery is out of the question"
(Reuss). What motive could there be for attempting to pass
such letters off as the work of an Apostle 1 Those were not days
in which the excitement of duping the Uterary world would in
duce anyone to make the experiment. Some years ago the
present writer was disposed to think the authorship of these two
Epistles very doubtful. Further study has led him to believe
that the balance of probability is very greatly in favour of their
being the writings, and probably the last writings, of the Apostle
S. John. ii. The Person or Persons addressed.
It seems to be impossible to determine with anything like
certainty whether the Second Epistle is addressed to a com-

INTRODUCTION. lxxv
munity, i.e. a particular Church, or the Church at large, or to
an individual, i.e. some lady personaUy known to the Apostle.
In favour of the former hypothesis it is argued as follows :
"There is no individual reference to one person ; on the con
trary, the chUdren 'walk in truth' ; mutual love is enjoined;
there is an admonition, ' look to yourselves' ; and ' the bringing
of doctrine' is mentioned. Besides, it is improbable that 'the
children of an elect sister' would send a greeting by the writer
to an 'elect Kyria and her children.' A sister Church might
naturaUy salute another" (Davidson).
In favour of the latter hypothesis : " There is no sufficient
reason for supposing that by 'elect lady' St John is personi
fying a particular Christian Church. He is writing to an actual
individual... She was an elderly person, probably a widow, Uving
with her grown-up children. When St John says that she was
loved by ' all them that knew the truth,' he makes it plain that
her name was at least weU known in the Asiatic Churches, and
that she was a person of real and high exceUence. There were
many such good women in the Apostohc age" (Liddon).
A very great deal will depend upon the translation of the
opening words (iiiX.tK.Trj Kvpia), which may mean : (1) To the
elect lady: (2) To an elect lady; (3) To the elect Kyria; (4) To
the lady Electa; (5) To Electa Kyria. The first two renderings
leave the question respecting a community or an individual open :
the last three close it in favour of an individual. But the fourth
rendering, though supported by the Latin translation of some
fragments of Clement of Alexandria (see p. lxviii), is untenable on
account of v. 13. It is incredible that there were two sisters each
bearing the very unusual name of Electa. The name is possible
(for Electus occurs as a man's name, e.g. the chamberlain of
Commodus), but it has not been found. The third rendering
is more admissible, and S. Athanasius seems to have adopted
it. The proper name Kyria occurs in ancient documents :
Liicke quotes examples. Like Martha in Hebrew, it is the
feminine of the common word for 'Lord'; and some have con
jectured that the letter is addressed to Martha of Bethany.
But, had Kyria been a proper name, S. John would probably

lxxvi INTRODUCTION.
(though not necessarily) have written Kvpia rjj «X«rg like
rain tcS 070717;™ Moreover, to insist on this third rendering
is to assume as certain two things which are uncertain:
(1) That the letter is addressed to an individual; (2) that
the individual's name was Kyria. These two objections apply
to the fifth rendering also. Besides which, the combination
of two uncommon names is improbable. We therefore fall
back upon one of the first two renderings ; and of the two
the first seems preferable. The omission of the Greek defi
nite article is quite inteUigible, and may be compared with
ArNQSTO GEO in Acts xvii. 23, which may quite correctly be
rendered, 'To the unknown God,' in spite of the absence of the
article in the original. "The deUcate suppression of the indi
vidual name in a letter which might probably be read aloud
in the Christian assembly is perfectly explicable " (Farrar).
That 'the elect lady' may be a figurative name for a Church,
or for the Church, must at once be admitted : and perhaps we
may go further and say that such a figure would not be unlikely
in the case of a writer so fond of symbohsm as S. John. But is
a sustained aUegory of this kind Ukely in the case of so shght a
letter 1 Is not the form of the First Epistle against it ! Is
there any parallel case in the literature of the first three cen*
turies? And if 'the elect lady' be the Church universal, as
Jerome suggests, what possible meaning is to be found for the
elect lady's sister ? The common sense canon, that where the
literal meaning makes good sense the Uteral meaning is right,
seems appUcable here. No one doubts that the twin Epistle is
addressed to an individual. In letters so similar it is scarcely
probable that in the one case the person addressed is to be taken
literally, while in the oilier the person addressed is to be taken as'
the allegorical representative of a Church. It seems more reason
able to suppose that in both Epistles, as in the Epistle to
Philemon, we have precious specimens of the private correspond
ence of an Apostle. We are allowed to see how the beloved
Disciple at the close of his Ufe could write to a Christian lady
and to a Christian gentleman respecting their personal conduct.
Adopting, therefore, the Uteral interpretation as not only

IN TROD UCTION. 1 xxvii
tenable but probable, we must be content to remain in ignorance
who 'the elect lady' is. That she is Mary the Mother of the
Lord is not merely a gratuitous but an incredible conjecture.
The Mother of the Lord, during S. John's later years, would be
from a hundred and twenty to a hundred and forty years old.
But it is not impossible that 'the elect lady' may be one who
helped, if not to fill the place of the Virgin Mother, at any rate
" to brighten with human affection the later years of the aged
Saint, who had thus outUved all his contemporaries."
iii. Place, Date and Contents.
We can do no more than frame probable hypotheses with re
gard to place and date. The Epistle itself gives us vague out
lines; and these outlines are aU that is certain. But it wiU give
reality and Ufe to the letter if we fill in these outlines with
details which may be true, which are probably like the truth, and
which though confessedly conjectural make the drift of the letter
more inteUigible.
The Apostle, towards the close of his life — for the letter pre
supposes both Gospel and First Epistle — has been engaged
upon his usual work of supervision and direction among the
Churches of Asia. In the course of it he has seen some children
of the lady to whom the letter is addressed, and has found that
they are Uving Christian lives, steadfast in the faith. But there
are other members of her family of whom this cannot be said.
And on his return to Ephesus the Apostle, in expressing his joy
respecting the faithful children, conveys a warning respecting
their less steadfast brothers. ' Has their mother been as watch
ful as she might have been to keep them from pernicious in
fluences ? Her hospitality must be exercised with discretion ;
for her guests may contaminate her household. There is no
real progress in advancing beyond the limits of Christian truth.
There is no real charity in helping workers of evil to work suc
cessfully. On his next Apostolic journey he hopes to see her.'
Near the Apostle's abode are some nephews of the lady ad
dressed, but their mother, her sister, is dead, or is Uving else
where. These nephews send their greeting in his letter, and

lxxviii INTRODUCTION.
thus shew that they share his loving anxiety respecting the
elect lady's household. It was very possibly from them that he
had heard that all was not well there.
The letter may be subdivided thus :
1 — 3. Address and Greeting.
4—11. Main Body of the Epistle.
1. Occasion of the Letter (4).
2. Exhortation to Love and Obedience (5, 6).
3. Warnings against False Doctrine (7 — 9).
4. Warnings against False Charity (10, 11).
12, 13. Conclusion.

CHAPTER IV.
The Third Epistle.
In this we have another sample of the private correspondence
of an Apostle. For beyond aU question, whatever we may think
of the Second Epistle, this letter is addressed to an individual.
And it is not an official letter, like the Epistles to Timothy and
Titus, but a private one, like that to Philemon. While the
Second Epistle is mainly one of warning, the Third is one of en
couragement. As in the former case, we are conscious of the
writer's authority in the tone of the letter ; which, however, is
friendly rather than official.
i. The Authorship of tlie Epistle.
On this point very Uttle need be added to what has been
said respecting the authorship of the Second Epistle. The two
Epistles are universaUy admitted to be by one and the same
person. But it must be pointed out that, if the Second Epistle
did not exist, the claims of the Third to be Apostohc would be
more disputable. Neither the external nor the internal evidence
is so strongly in its favour. It is neither quoted nor mentioned
so early or so frequently as the Second. It is not nearly so

INTRODUCTION. lxxix
closely akin to the First Epistle and the Gospel. It labours
under the difficulty involved in the conduct of Diotrephes : for
it must be admitted that "there is something astonishing in the
notion that the prominent Christian Presbyter of an Asiatic
Church should not only repudiate the authority of St John, and
not only refuse to receive his travelhng missionary, and prevent
others from doing so, but should even excommunicate or try to
excommunicate those who did so" (Farrar). Nevertheless, it is
impossible to separate these two twin letters, and assign them to
different authors. And, as has been seen already, the balance
of evidence, both external and internal, strongly favours the
ApostoUcity of the Second ; and this, notwithstanding the diffi
culty about Diotrephes, carries with it the ApostoUcity of the
Third. That difiiculty only forces on us once more the con
viction that the Church in the Apostolic age was not, any more
than in our age, an untroubled community of saints. The ideal
primitive Church, bright in the unbroken possession of truth
and hohness, is unknown to the historian. The First and
Second Epistles of St John teU us of gross corruptions in doctrine
and practice. The Third teUs of open rebellion against an
Apostle's commands. ii. The Person addressed.
The name Gaius was so common throughout the Roman
Empire that to identify any person of this name with any other
of the same name requires specially clear evidence. In N.T.
there are probably at least three Christians who are thus caUed.
1. Gaius of Corinth, in whose house S. Paul was staying when
he wrote the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. xvi. 23), who is
probably the same as he whom S. Paul baptized (1 Cor. i. 14).
2. Gaius of Macedonia, who was S. Paul's travelling companion
at the time of the uproar at Ephesus, and was seized by the mob
(Acts xix. 29). 3. Gaius of Derbe, who with Timothy and
others left Greece before S. Paul and waited for him at Troas
(Acts xx. 4, 5). But these three may be reduced to two, for 1
and 3 may possibly be the same person. It is possible, but
nothing more, that the Gaius of our Epistle may be one of these.

lxxx INTRODUCTION.
Origen says that the first of these three became Bishop of Thes-
salonica. The ApostoUcal Constitutions (vii. 46) mention a
Gaius, Bishop of Pergamos, and the context implies that he was
the first Bishop, or at least one of the earhest Bishops, of that
city. Here again we can only say that he may be the Gaius
of S. John. The Epistle leaves us in doubt whether Gaius is
at this time a Presbyter or not. Apparently he is a well-to-do
layman. iii. Place, Date, and Contents.
The place may with probabiUty be supposed to be Ephesus :
the letter has the tone of being written from head-quarters. Its
strong resemblance, especiaUy in its opening and conclusion,
inclines us to believe that it was written about the same time as
the Second Epistle, i.e. after the Gospel and First Epistle, and
therefore towards the end of S. John's life. The unwillingness
to write a long letter which appears in both Epistles (vv. 12, 13)
would be natural in an old man to whom correspondence is a
burden. The contents speak for themselves. Gaius is commended
for his hospitality, in which he resembles his namesake of
Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23) ; is warned against imitating the factious
and intolerant Diotrephes ; and in contrast to him is told of the
exceUence of Demetrius, who is perhaps the bearer of the letter.
These two opposite characters are sketched "in a few words
with the same masterly psychological skiU which we see in the
Gospel." In his next Apostolic journey S. John hopes to visit
him. MeanwhUe he and 'the friends' with him send a salutation
to Gaius and 'the friends' with him.
The Epistle may be thus analysed.
1. Address.
2—12. Main Body of the Epistle.
1. Personal Good Wishes and Sentiments (2 — i).
2. Gaius commended for his Hospitality (5 — 8).
3. Diotrephes condemned for his Hostility (9, 10).
4. The Moral (11, 12).
13, 14. Conclusion.

INTRODUCTION. lxxxi
"The Second and Third Epistles of S. John occupy their
own place in the sacred Canon, and contribute their own
pecuUar element to the stock of Christian truth and practice.
They lead us from the region of miracle and prophecy, out of an
atmosphere charged with the supernatural, to the more average
every-day life of Christendom, with its regular paths and unex
citing air. There is no hint in these short notes of extraordinary
charismata. The tone of their Christianity is deep, earnest,
severe, devout, but has the quiet of the Christian Church
and home very much as at present constituted. The re
ligion which pervades them is simple, unexaggerated, and
practical The writer is grave and reserved. Evidently in the
possession of the fulness of the Christian faith, he is content to
rest upon it with a calm consciousness of strength.... By the con
ception of the Incarnate Lord, the Creator and Light of all men,
and of the universality of Redemption, which the Gospel and
the First Epistle did so much to bring home to aU who received
Christ, germs were deposited in the soil of Christianity which
necessarily grew from an abstract idea into the great reality of
the Catholic Church. In these two short occasional letters
S. John provided two safeguards for that great institution.
Heresy and schism are the dangers to which it is perpetually ex
posed. S. John's condemnation of the spirit of heresy is re
corded in the Second Epistle ; his condemnation of the spirit of
schism is written in the Third Epistle. Every age of Christendom
up to the present has rather exaggerated than dwarfed the sig
nificance of this condemnation" (Bishop Alexander).

CHAPTER V.
The Text of the Epistles.
i. The Greek Text.
Our authorities for determining the Greek which S. John
wrote, though far less numerous than in the case of the Gospel,
are various and abundant. They consist of Greek MSS., Ancient

lxxxii INTRODUCTION.
Versions, and quotations from the Epistles in Christian writers
of the second, third and fourth centuries. The Apostolic auto
graphs were evidently lost at a very early date. Irenaeus, in
arguing as to the true reading of the mystical number in Bev.
xin. 18, cannot appeal to S. John's own MS., which would have
been decisive (Haer. v. ttt. 1) ; and Origen knew no older copy
of S. John's Gospel than that of Heracleon. Papyrus is very
perishable, and this was the material commonly employed (2 John
12 : comp. 2 Tim. iv. 13).
It wiU be worth while to specify a few of the principal MSS.
and Versions which contain these Epistles or portions, of them,
Greek Manuscripts.
Primary Uncials.
Codbx SDfArncus (n). 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf
in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and
now at Petersburg. AU three Epistles.
Codex Alexandrqjus (A). 5th century. Brought by Cyril
Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and after
wards presented by him to Charles L in 1628. In the British
Museum. AU three Epistles.
Codex Vaticasts (B). 4th century. Brought to Borne about
1460. It is entered in the earhest catalogue of the Vatican
Library, 1475. AU three Epistles.
Codex Ephraemi (C). 5th century. A palimpsest: the
original writing has been partially rubbed out and the works oi
Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it. In the National
Library at Paris. Part of the First and Third Epistles; 1 John
L 1— iv. 2; 3 John 3—15. Of the whole X. T. the only Books
entirely missing are 2 John and 2 Thessalonians.
The fifth great Uncial, Codex Bezae (D), has lost the leaves in
which aU three Epistles were undoubtedly contained. Only the
servile Latin translation of 3 John 11 — 15 remains.
Secondary Uncials.
Codex Mosqueksis (K). 9th century. AU three Epistles.
Codex Angeliccs (L). 9th century. AU three Epistles.

INTRODUCTION. lxxxiii
Codex Porphyrianus (P). 9th century. A pahmpsest. AU
three Epistles excepting 1 John iii. 19— v. 1. There is a fac
simile of a portion in Hammond's Outlines of Textual Criticism
showing the late leaning uncial letters of the 9th century (Acts
iv. 10 — 15), with cursives of the 13th (Heb. vii. 17 — 25) written
over them.
Besides these four primary and three secondary Uncial MSS.,
more than two hundred Cursives contain the Epistles. These
range from the 10th to the 15th centuries, and are of every degree
of value, from the excellent Codex Colbert (13, or 33 in the
Gospels) of the 11th century, and Codex Leicestrensis (31, or 69
in the Gospels) of the 14th century, to the worthless Codex Mont-
fortianus (34, or 61 in the Gospels), of the 15th or 16th century,
famous as the "Codex Britannicus" which induced Erasmus, in
consequence of his unfortunate promise to yield to the evidence
of a single Greek Codex, to insert the spurious text about the
Heavenly Witnesses into his third edition (a.d. 1522).
But it cannot be too carefully remembered that the date of a
document is a very different thing from the date of the text which
it contains. Obviously the text must be at least as old as the
document which contains it. But it may be centuries older, or
it may be only a few years older. Comparison with readings in
the Fathers of the second, third, and fourth centuries proves that
while Codex B and Codex X are of the fourth century, yet they
represent a text which can be traced to the second, whereas
Codex A, which is of the fifth century, represents a text which is
no older than the fourth, at any rate as regards the Gospels.
The scribe of A had evidently purer texts to copy when he
transcribed the Epistles. We might arrange these witnesses
roughly as follows.
Text of B, early and very pure.
Text of K, early, but somewhat mixed.
Text of A in the Epistles, fairly early, but mixed.
Text of A in the Gospels, late and very mixed.
ST JOHN (up.) £

lxxxiv INTRODUCTION. Ancient Versions.
Vulgate Striac. (Peschito=' simple' meaning perhaps 'faith
ful'). 3rd century. The First Epistle.
Philoxenian Striac. "Probably the most servUe version of
Scripture ever made." 6th century. AU three Epistles.
Old Latin. 2nd century. Nearly the whole of an Old Latin
text of 1 John i. 1 — v. 3 can be constructed from Augustme's
HomiUes on the Epistle: but Augustine's text is of a mixed
character, somewhat remote from the original. Another Old
Latin text of 1 John iii. 8 — v. 21 exists in a Munich MS. of the
7th century (Scrivener, 339, 346). See W. and H. small ed.,
1885, p. 571.
Vulgate Latin (mainly the Old Latin revised by Jerome,
A.D. 383—385). AU three Epistles.
Thebaic or Sahidic (Egyptian). 3rd century. AU three
Epistles. Memphitic or Bahiric (Egyptian, but independent of the
Thebaic). Most of it 3rd century. AU three Epistles.
Armenian. 5th century. AU three Epistles.
Aethiopic. 4th or 5th century. AU three Epistles.
To these Greek MSS. and ancient Versions must be added
the evidence of the Fathers who comment upon or quote these
Epistles. The Greek commentaries of Clement of Alexandria,
of Didymus, and of Diodorus of Tarsus, are unhappily lost: hut
portions of the two former survive in translations. Considerable
quotations, however, especially from the First Epistle, exist in
various Greek and Latin writers from the second to the fourth
centuries. Quotations by writers later than the fourth century
are of httle value. By that time the corruption of the text was
complete. The Diocletian persecution had caused the destruction
of most of the ancient MSS., and a composite text, formed with
very imperfect knowledge, and emanating mainly from Con
stantinople, gradually took their place.
In examining the text of S. John's Epistles, which is more free
from corruption than perhaps that of any other book in N. T,

INTRODUCTION. lxxxv
the great excellence of the text found in B is again conspicuous1.
There are very few cases in which it gives an unquestionably
corrupt reading. And this is the test of exceUence in a wit
ness : — To what extent does it give evidence which is obviously
false? Tried by this test B stands easily first, and N second,
though considerably behind B. Codex A, though inferior to the
other two, is found to give a purer text here than in the Gospels.
A few of the indefensible readings in each of these three great
authorities are worth noting.
False readings in B.
1 John 1. 2. o eopaKaptv for iatpaKaptv.
11. 14. to aw dpxrjs for tov dir apxys.
ii. 27. x"Pt0'lla Mr XP'°'lJia'
3 John 9. typa^jras for iypar^ra.
False readings in x.
1 John ii. 4. ij dXrj8tia tov Stov ov** tariv for iv tovto* r)
dX^Btia ovk tariv.
ii. 9. yjrtvo-rris iariv Kai iv tj o-Koria iariv for iv rij
o-Koria iariv.
iii. 5. otSaptv for oiSart.
iii. 14. ptrafiifiriKtv for ptraBtfiiJKaiitv.
1 See Introduction to S. John's Gospel lvi. — lviii. "We accord to
Codex B at least as much weight as to any single document in exist
ence." — " Cod. B is a dooument of such value, that it grows by
experience even upon those who may have been a little prejudiced
against it." — "Notice especiaUy those instanoes in the CathoUo Epistles,
wherein the primary authorities are comparatively few, in which
Cod. B accords with the later oopies against Codd. KAC, and is
supported by internal evidence; e.g. 1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 14; v. 2; 2 Pet.
ii. 20 ; 1 John ii. 10 ; iii 23, &c. In 1 John iu. 21, where the first
¦qpav is omitted by A and others, the second by C almost alone, B
seems right in rejecting the word in both places. So in other cases
internal probabilities occasionally plead strongly in favour of B, when
it lias little other support." Those who have followed recent con
troversy on the subjeot will find the above remarks aU the more
interesting when they know that they are taken, not from Westcott,
or Westcott and Hort, or the Bevisers, or Dr Sanday, but from
Dr Scrivener's latest edition of the Introduction to the Criticism of
N. T. (1883), pp. 116, 652 and note. The italics are not Dr Scrivener's.

lxxxvi INTRODUCTION.
1 John ni. 21. dbtXtpoi for dyamyroi.
iv. 10. rj dyanri tov Qtov for 17 dyarrrj.
^yairno-tv (K1) for rjya^aaptv (N3).
iv. 17. ptff r]pjZv iv rjpXv for ptff rjpmv.
txoptv for tx<aptv.
rrj dydnn ttjs Kpiatas for rfj npipa rrjs Kpiatess.
iaoptBa for io-piv.
2 John 4. eXafiov for iXa^optv.
3 John 8. rfj i/oik^a-la for tj dXtjOtia.
False readings in A.
I John i. 6. tov yap ttiraptv for cav tirraptv.
ii. 8. 77 o-#«a for rj aKoria.
ii. 27. to avrb xpiapa for to outov xpi°~pa.
KaBas iSiSa^tv for Kal naBas i&l8a£tv.
iv. 7. o dyairdtv rbv Qtov for o ayarrav.
iv. 8. ou ytvdaKti for ouk cyvu.
iv. 10. iKtlvos for auTos.
V. 6. rrvtvpari for at pari.
V. 14. ovopa for BtXnpa.
2 John 3. omits to-rax ptff rjpav.
In a good many of its pecuUar readings A is supported by the
Vulgate. This fact is significant. "By a curious and apparently
unnoticed coincidence the text of A in several books agrees with
the Latin Vulgate in so many peculiar readings devoid of Old
Latin attestation, as to leave Uttle doubt that a Greek MS. largely
employed by Jerome in his revision of the Latin Version must
have had to a great extent a common original with A. Apart
from this individual affinity, A both in the Gospels and elsewhere
may serve as a fair example of MSS. that, to judge by patristic
quotations, were, commonest in the fourth century" (Westcott
and Hort, 11. 152).
False readings in which A unites with the Vulgate.
1 John iv. 19. r]ptis ovv dyairwptv tov Qtov, on 6 Qtos for tjjmIs
ayanaptv, ore avros.
iv. 21. txoptv drrb tov Qtov for txoptv dir avrov.

INTRODUCTION. lxxxvii
1 John V. 10. ttjv paprvpiav tov Qtov for rf/v paprvpiav.
™ via for t& Qtw.
V. 20. tov dXrjBivbv Qtov for toi» dXrf&ivov.
omits 'irjaov XptcrTtS.
2 John 9. tov vlov Kai tov rrarkpa for tov nartpa Kai rbv vlov.
In Westcott's Epistles of St John much more complete Usts are
given; and from them nearly all of these instances have been
taken. But these suffice as examples. In all of them the
balance of evidence is conclusive against the rejected reading;
and in most cases it is much easier to understand how the
reading of B became corrupted into that of N, or of A, orof 0, than
the converse process would be. That reading is most likely to be
original which best explains the origin of the other readings.
The superiority of B may be exhibited in another way from
the text of these Epistles. As we have seen, B is occasionally in
error when it stands alone amoDg the primary authorities. It is
very rarely in error when it is united with any one of them. It
would be difficult to find a reading supported by NB, or AB, or
BO, or even BP, or B with any Version, which is certainly false.
In the foUowing instances the original text seems to have been
preserved by B and some one other authority : 1 John n. 14, 20
(B, Thebaic) ; iii. 21 (AB, BC) ; iv. 12 (NB) ; iv. 15 (B, Armenian) ;
v. 13 (NB). The other three Uncials not unfrequently go wrong
in pairs, and sometimes aU three of them go wrong together :
e.g. 1 John iii. 21 ; v. 6 ; 2 John 6, 12 (NA) :— i. 9 ; ii. 6 ; iii. 5, 11,
13, 19, 21 (NC):— i. 4; ii. 15; iii. 7, 10 (AC) :— ii. 5 and possibly
ii. 10; ii. 29; iii. 23 (NAC). Various instances have been given
. above in which A and the Vulgate are both at fault. In the
following passages N is in error in company with one or more
Versions: ii. 4, 9, 24, 26, 27; iii. 18, 24; iv. 3, 19; 3 John 3.
And almost as often (making allowance for what is missing) C
goes wrong with the support of one or more Versions: — i. 5;
3 John 4, 6, 10, 12.
In the two instances of conflate readings which these Epistles
supply, NB are among those authorities which preserve the original
text.

Ixxxviii INTRODUCTION.
1 John ii. 15. ij dy&irn tov irarpos (KB, and Versions).
»j dydirn tov Qtov (AC).
i) dydirri tov Qtov Kai irarpos.
3 John 12. vtto av-rrjs ttjs dXnBtias (NB and Versions).
into avrrjs ttjs ixKXnaias (A1?).
tjjro avr. t. tKKXnaias Kal dXijBtias (C).
Only one case of omission through homoeoteleuton occurs in B,
and there the omitted words are inserted in the margin, perhaps
by the original scribe.
1 John iv. 21. [tJv Qtov dyaira Kai] t6v k.t.X. (AVB1).
Other instances of homoeoteleuton are
ii. 27, 28. iv airio [koi vvv TtKvla, pivtrt iv cu5t$,] "va k.t.X. (n).
iv. 6. cucouei q|iwv' [os ovk tariv « tov Qtov ovk aKova
i]|iuv.] tK or iv k. t. X. ( AL).
iv. 7, 8. tov ©eov. [d pf/ dyairav ovk eyva tov 0£6v,] on
K.T.X. (N1)
v. 2, 3. tAs IvroXds avrov [irotwptv. aim; yap iariv i|
dydirq tov Qtov, iva tos 4vroXds avroO] Tijpu-
ptv. (A)
v. 14, 15. aKovei i}|iwv. [koi idv otSaptv on aKOVEi i]pi>v] o av
K.T.X. (NXA)
One important omission through homoeoteleuton has found
its way into the Textus Receptus and thence into A. V., where
the translation of the omitted words is in itaUcs, implying that
the passage is wanting in the original. The italics come from
the Great Bible of 1539. But the passage is in aU the primary
Uncials and Versions.
ii. 23. t6v Ttarripa. i\a' [d d/xoXoytoK tov vlov (cat tAv ira-
T^pa 8x€u] vptis k.t.X. (KL)
Thus out of seven cases of omission through homoeoteleuton
only one is found in B, while N and A each admit four. And
though frequent cases of omission through this cause prove
nothing as to the purity of the text, they do prove something
as to the accuracy of the scribe. The scribe of B was evidently
a more careful worker than the scribes of N and A.

INTRODUCTION. Ixxxix
Whatever reasonable test we select, the preeminence of B as
an authority becomes conspicuous : but the superiority of N to A
is not nearly so apparent as in the Gospels, where the scribe of
A must have used inferior copies. The absence of C in so much
of the First Epistle (iv. 2 to the end) and the whole of the
Second makes comparison less easy : but " the peculiar readings
of C have no appearance of genuineness" (Westcott).
From the notes on the text at the head of the notes on each
chapter the student may collect many more instances, aU tending
to show that where the Textus Receptus needs revision (1) B is
almost always among the authorities which preserve the original
reading, and that (2) the combination NB is practicaUy conclusive
— at any rate in these Epistles : e. g. 1 John v. ] 3. The appa
ratus criticus in Alford will supply facts for still further in
ductions. Any analysis of the evidence supplied there will lead to
the conclusion that B is a preeminently trustworthy witness.
In conclusion it may be worth while to repeat a caution
aheady given in the volume on S. John's Gospel. The sight of
a large collection of various readings is apt to produce a very
erroneous impression. It may lead to very exaggerated ideas
as to the amount of uncertainty which exists with regard to the
Greek text of N. T. " If comparative trivialities, such as changes
of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper
names, and the hke, are set aside, the words in our opinion still
subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth
part of the N. T." (Westcott and Hort, The N. T. in Greek,
MacmiUan, 1881, I. p. 561). Every student of the Greek Testa
ment who can afford the time should study the work just quoted.
Those who cannot, should at least read the Appendix to the
smaU edition in one volume, MacmiUan, 1885. SchafFs Com
panion to the Greek Testament and the English Versions, Harper,
New York, 1883, wiU by many readers be found more useful
than the larger edition of Westcott and Hort. Hammond's Out
lines of Textual Criticism, Clarendon Press, is a clear, interesting
and inexpensive manual. Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism
cf N. T. contains an immense store of information not easfly
accessible elsewhere. The latest edition (1883) is somewhat

xc INTRODUCTION.
disappointing in being not quite up to date in its statement of
facts : and the conclusions drawn from the facts are in some cases
to be accepted with caution.
ii. The English Versions.
The earliest translation of the N. T. into English of which we
have any knowledge is the translation of the Gospel of S. John
made by the Venerable Bede, in completing which he died
(a.d. 735). It must have been almost the earhest piece of prose
literature written in the English language. Unfortunately it has
long since disappeared ; and two or more centuries elapsed before
anything of the same kind which has come down to us was
attempted1. Wiclif began his work of translating the Scriptures
into the vulgar tongue with parts of the Apocalypse. So that
for a second time in history S. John was the first N. T. writer
made known to the EngUsh people. In the Last Age of th
Church (a.d. 1356) there is a translation and explanation of the
portion of the Kevelation which Wiclif beUeved to be applicable
to his own age. Whether Wiclif completed his translation of the
Apocalypse at this time or not seems to be uncertain. A version
of the Gospels with a commentary was given next ; and then the
rest of the N. T. A complete N. T. in Enghsh was finished about
1380. This, therefore, we may take as the date at which our
Epistle first appeared in the EngUsh language. While the 0. T.
of Wichf 's Bible was by various hands, the N. T. seems to have
been mainly, if not entirely, the work of Wiclif himsetf. The
whole was revised by John Purvey about 1388. Specimens of
both wiU be found in Appendix H.
But these early EngUsh Versions, made from a late and
corrupt text of the Latin Vulgate, exercised Uttle or no influence
on the later Versions of Tyndale and others, which were made
1 The earUest prose translations extant are Psalms i. — 1.^ attributed
to S. Aldhelm and preserved in the National Library at Paris. The
famous Lindisfarne Gospels written in Latin by Eadfrith (c. a.d. 680)
have interlinear English glosses, forming a word by word translation,
added by Ealdred (c. a.d. 950). They are now in the British Museum.
The earliest extant version of a complete book is the Psalter of
William de Schorham, who became Vicar of Chart-Sutton in Kent
a.d. 1320.

INTRODUCTION. xci
from late and corrupt Greek texts. Tyndale translated direct
from the Greek, checking himself by the Vulgate, the Latin
of Erasmus, and the German of Luther. Dr Westcott in his
most valuable work on the History of the English Bible, from
which the material for this section has been largely taken, often
takes the First Epistle of S. John as an iUustration of the varia
tions between different versions and editions. The present writer
gratefully borrows his statements. Tyndale published his first
edition in 1525, his second in 1534, and his third in 1535; each
time, especiaUy in 1534 making many alterations and correc
tions. "Of the thirty-one changes which I have noticed in the
later (1534) version of 1 John, about a third are closer approxi
mations to the Greek : rather more are variations in connecting
particles or the hke designed to bring out the argument of the
original more clearly; three new readings are adopted; and in
one passage it appears that Luther's rendering has been substi
tuted for an awkward paraphrase. Yet it must be remarked
that even in this revision the changes are far more frequently at
variance with Luther's renderings than in accordance with them "
(p. 185). "In his Preface to the edition of 1534, Tyndale had
expressed his readiness to revise his work and adopt any changes
in it which might be shewn to be improvements. The edition
of 1535, however enigmatic it may be in other respects, is a proof
of his sincerity. The text of this exhibits a true revision and
differs from that of 1534, though considerably less than the text
of 1534 from that of 1525. In 1 John I have noted sixteen
variations from the text of 1534 as against thirty-two (thirty-
one?) in that of 1534 from the original text" (p. 190). But for the
ordinary student the differences between the three editions of
Tyndale are less interesting than the differences between Tyndale
and the A. V. How much we owe to him appears from the fact
that "about nine-tenths of the A. V. of the first Epistle of S. John
are retained from Tyndale" (p. 211). Tyndale places the three
Epistles of S. John between those of S. Peter and that to the
Hebrews, S. James being placed between Hebrews and S. Juda
This is the order of Luther's translation, of Coverdale's Bible
(1535), of Matthew's Bible (1537), and also of Taverner's (1539).

xcii INTRODUCTION.
The Great Bible, which exists in three typical editions
(CromweU's, April 1539; Cranmer's, April, 1540; Tunstall's
and Heath's, Nov. 1540) is in the N. T. "based upon a careful
use of the Vulgate and of Erasmus' Latin Version. An analysis of
the variations in the first Epistle of S. John may furnish a type
of its general character. As nearly as I can reckon there are
seventy-one differences between Tyndale's text (1534) and that of
the Great Bible : of these forty-three come directly from Cover-
dale's earlier revision (and in a great measure indirectly from
the Latin) : seventeen from the Vulgate where Coverdale before
had not followed it: the remaining eleven variations are from
other sources. Some of the new readings from the Vulgate are
important, as for example the additions in i. 4, 'that ye may
rejoice and that your joy may be full.' U. 23, 'he that know-
ledgeth the Son hath the Father also.' in. 1, 'that we should be
called and be indeed the sons of God.' v. 9, 'this is the witness
of God that is greater.' All these editions (Uke v. 7) are marked
distinctly as Latin readings : of the renderings adopted from
Coverdale one is very important and holds its place in our
present version, iii. 24, 'Hereby we know that he abideth in us,
even by the Spirit which he hath given us,' for which Tyndale
reads: 'thereby we know that there abideth in us of the Spirif
which he gave us.' One strange blunder also is corrected;
'that old commandment which ye heard' (as it was in the earlier
text) is replaced by the true reading: 'that old commandment
which ye have had' (ii. 7). No one of the new renderings is of
any moment" (pp. 257, 258).
The revision made by Taverner, though superficial as
regards the 0. T, has important alterations in the N. T. He
shews an improved appreciation of the Greek article. "Two
consecutive verses of the first Epistle of S. John furnish good
examples of his endeavour to find EngUsh equivalents for the
terms before him. AU the other versions adopt the Latin 'ad
vocate' in 1 John ii. 1, for which Taverner substitutes the Saxon
'spokesman.' Tyndale, foUowed by Coverdale, the Great Bible,
&c. strives after an adequate rendering of IXao-uds (1 John ii 2)
in the awkward periphrasis 'he it is that obtaineth grace for our

INTRODUCTION. xciii
sins : Taverner boldly coins a word which if insufficient is yet
worthy of notice : 'he is a mercystock for our sins'" (p. 271).
The history of the Geneva N. T. "is Uttle more than the
record of the apphcation of Beza's translation and commentary
to Tyndale's Testament  An analysis of the changes in one
short Epistle wUl render this plain. Thus according to as
accurate a calculation as I can make more than two-thirds of
the new renderings in 1 John introduced into the revision of
1560 are derived from Beza, and two-thirds of these then for the
first time. The rest are due to the revisers themselves, and of
these only two are found in the revision of 1557" (pp. 287, 288).
The Rhemish Bible, Uke Wiclif's, is a translation of a
translation, being based upon the Vulgate. It furnished the
revisers of 1611 with a great many of the words of Latin origin
which they employ. It is "simply the ordinary, and not pure,
Latin text of Jerome in an English dress. Its merits, and they
are considerable, lie in its vocabulary. The style, so far as it
has a style, is unnatural, the phrasing is most unrhythmical, but
the language is enriched by the bold reduction of innumerable
Latin words to EngUsh service" (p. 328). Dr Westcott gives
no examples from these Epistles, but the following may serve as
such. In a few instances the Rhemish has given to the A. V. a
word not previously used in EngUsh Versions. 'And he is the
propitiation for our sins' (ii. 2). 'And sent his son a, propitiation
for our sins' (iv. 10). 'These things have I written to you con
cerning them that seduce you' (ii. 26).
In some cases the Rhemish is superior to the A. V. 'Every
one that committeth sin, committeth also iniquity: and sin is
iniquity' (iii. 4). The foUowing also are worthy of notice. 'We
seduce ourselves' (i. 8). 'Let no man seduce you' (ii. 6). 'Because
many seducers are gone out into the world' (2 John 7).
But we may be thankful that King James's revisers did not
adopt such renderings as these. 'That you also may have
society with us, and our society may be with the Father and with
his Son' (i. 3). 'And this is the annuntiation' (i. 5, iii. 11).
'That he might dissolve the works of the devil' (iii. 8). 'The

xciv INTRODUCTION.
generation of God preserveth him' (v. 18). 'The Senior to the
lady elect' (2 John 1). 'The Senior to Gaius the dearest'
(3 John 1). 'Greater thanke have I not of them' (3 John 4).
'That we may be coadjutors of the truth' (3 John 8)1.
This is not the place to discuss the Revised Version of
1881. When it appeared the present writer had the satisfaction
of finding that a very large proportion of the alterations which
he had suggested in notes on S. John's Gospel in 1880 were
sanctioned by alterations actually made by the Revisers. In the
notes on these Epistles it wiU be found that in a large number of
cases he has followed the R. V., of the merits of which he has a
high opinion. Those merits seem to consist not so much in
skilful and happy treatment of very difficult passages as in
careful correction of an enormous number of smaU errors and
inaccuracies. Of the Revisers, even their most severe and most
unreasonable critic has said, " that their work bears mark of
conscientious labour which those only can fuUy appreciate
who have -made the same province of study to some extent
their own." The late Dr Routh of Magdalen CoUege, Oxford,
when asked what he considered to be the best commentary on
the N. T., is said to have replied, 'The Vulgate.' If by that he
meant that in the Vulgate we have a faithful translation made
from a good Greek text, we may say in a similar spirit that the
best commentary on the N. T. is now the Revised Version. The
A. V. is a sufficiently faithful translation of a corrupt Greek text,
The R. V. is a very faithful translation of an excellent Greek
text. It is in the latter particular that its great value hes. The
corrections made through revision of the Greek are far more im
portant than the corrections made through revision of the
renderings. Tastes may continue to differ respecting the Revisers'
merits as translators. Scientific criticism wiU in the large ma
jority of cases confirm their decisions as to the Greek to be trans-
1 For further information respecting early English Versions see
Scrivener's Cambridge Paragraph Bible, 1873; Eadie's The English
Bible : an External and Critical History, 1876; Stevens' The Bibles in
the Caxton Exhibition, 1878; and the article on the 'English Bible' in
Encyclopcedia Britannica vm., 1878.

INTRODUCTION. xcv
lated. The rules laid down for determining the text in the
Cambridge Greek Testament have resulted in producing a text
very similar to that of the Revisers. Out of about seventy-three
corrections made by them in these Epistles aU but four or five
are adopted in this edition : and in these four or five cases and
a few more the reading must remain a Uttle doubtful1.

CHAPTER VI.

the literature op the epistles.
Although not so voluminous as that of the Gospel of S. John,
the Uterature of the Epistles is nevertheless very abundant. It
would be simply confusing to give anything approaching to an
exhaustive Ust of the numerous works on the subject. AU that
wiU be attempted here wiU be to give the more advanced student
some information as to where he may look for greater help than
can be given in a handbook for the use of schools.
Of ancient commentaries not a very great deal remains. In
his Outlines ('YnoTvirtoatis) Clement op Alexandria (c. a. d.
200) commented on detached verses of the First and Second
Epistles, and of these comments a valuable fragment in a Latin
translation is extant. Didymus, who was placed by S. Atha
nasius in the catechetical chair of Clement at Alexandria a
century and a half later (c. a.d. 360), commented on all the
CathoUc Epistles; and his notes as translated by Epiphanius
Scholasticus survive, together with some fragments of the Greek
original. Specimens of each are given by Liicke. "The chief
features of his remarks on S. John's three Epistles are (1) the
earnestness against Docetism, Valentinianism, all speculations
injurious to the Maker of the world, (2) the assertion that a
1 Comp. 1 John ii. 20 ; iii. 15, 19, 23 ; 2 John 8.

xcvi INTRODUCTION.
true knowledge of God is possible without a knowledge of
His essence, (3) care to urge the necessity of combining ortho
doxy with right action" (W. Bright). The commentary of
Diodorus op Tarsus (c. a.d. 380) on the First Epistle is
lost. S. Chrysostom is said to have commented on the whole
of the N. T., and Oecumenius and Theophylact appeal to hhn
in discussing the Catholic Epistles. But his commentary
exists no longer. We have ten Homilies by S. Augustine on
the First Epistle; but the series ends abruptly in the tenth
Homily at 1 John v. 3. They are translated in the Library of
the Fathers, vol. 29, Oxford 1849. In our own country the
earhest commentary is that of the Venerable Bede (c. a.d. 720),
written in Latin. Like S. Augustine's, it is doctrinal and horta
tory: quotations from both wiU be found in the notes. It is
possible that we have the substance of Augustine's commentary
on 1 John v. 3 — 21 in Bede, who elsewhere sometimes adopts
Augustine verbatim. If so, we have further evidence that
Augustine knew nothing of the spurious passage 1 John v. 7,
for Bede omits it. Bede's notes on the Second and Third Epistles
are very slight and are perhaps whoUy his own. In the tenth
and eleventh centuries we have the Greek commentaries of
Oecumenius and Theophylact. The former is highly praised
by Liicke, who quotes a good deal of it.
Of the reformers, Beza, BuUinger, Calvin, Erasmus, Luther,
and ZwingU have aU left commentaries on one or more of these
Epistles. Besides these we have the frequently quoted works of
Grotius (c. A. d. 1550), of his critic Calovius (c. A. D. 1650), and
of Bengel (c. a. d. 1750). Bengel's Gnomon N. T. has been trans
lated into English ; but those who can read Latin wiU prefer the
epigrammatic terseness of the original
Among original English commentaries those of Bishop Alexander
(in the Speaker's Commentary), Alford, Blunt, Jelf, Pope (in
SchafFs Commentary), Sinclair (in Bishop ElUcott's Commentary),
and of Bishop Chr. Wordsworth are easily accessible. But superior
to aU these is that of Canon Westcott, MacmiUan, 1883.
Neander's work on the First Epistle has been translated hy
Mrs Conant, New York, 1853. The commentaries of Braune,

INTRODUCTION. xcvii
Ebrard, Haupt, Huther, and Lucke have been pubhshed in an
Enghsh form by T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh. Of these that of
Haupt on the First Epistle may be specially commended.
Among untranslated foreign commentaries may be mentioned
those of DUsterdieck, 1852 ; Rothe, 1879 ; C. A. Wolf, 1881 :
Erdmann, 1855; Luthardt, 1860; Stockmeyer, 1873. The last
three are chiefly concerned with the structure of the First Epistle.
Other works which give valuable assistance are Cox's Private
Letters of S. Paul and S. John, F. W. Farrar's Early Days of
Christianity, several of Liddon's Easter Sermons, Macdonald's Life
and Writings of S. John with Introduction by Dean Howson,
F. D. Maurice's Epistles of S. John, Schaff's History of tlie
Church vols. I. and n. (1883), Stanley's Sermons and Essays on
the Apostolic Age, with various articles in the Dictionary of
Christian Biography edited by Smith and Wace, in the Religious
Encyclopaedia edited by Schaff, and in the Real- Encyklopiidie
edited by Herzog, PUtt, and Hauck.
The references to Winer's Grammar of N. T. Greek in this
volume are from the second EngUsh edition by Moulton : those
to Cromer's Lexicon of N. T. Greek are from the English edition
by Urwick. The latter volume has by no means superseded
the simfiar work by Archbishop Trench, The Synonyms of the
N. T., the references to which are from the edition of 1865.
The present writer desires to express his obhgations, which
in some cases are very great, to many of the works mentioned
above, as well as to others. Almost all that can be said with
truth about S. John's writings has already been said, and weU
said, by some one. The most that a new commentator can hope
to do is to coUect together what seems to him to be best in
other writers, to think it out afresh, and recoin it for his own
and others' use. What might have remained unknown, or unin
telligible, or unattractive to many, if left in the original author
and language, may possibly become better known and more
inteUigible when reduced to a smaUer compass and placed in a
new Ught and in new surroundings. Be this as it may, the
writer who undertakes, even with aU the helps available, to
interpret S. John to others, must know that he incurs serious

xcviii INTRODUCTION.
responsibiUty. He wiU not be anxious to be originaL He wfll
not be eager to insist upon views which have found no favour
among previous workers in the same field. He wfll not regret
that his conclusions should be questioned and his mistakes ex
posed. He wfll be content that a dirge should be song over the
results of his own work, if only what is true may prevail
aZXo>os» axXtrov thri, to d' tv vucara).

IQANNOY A.

1 1,vO r)v dtr dp-xfjs, o dxr/Koafiev, o ewpctKapiev Tot?
6<f>6aXpo?<: rjpwv, o ideatrdpeOa, Kai al xeipes rjpcov
hjrrjXa<f)r]o-av, trepl tov Xoyov tjj? £a>?7? a («ai r) %<or)
itfravepwdr}, Kal ecopaKapev, Kal papTvpovpev, Kal dtray-
yekXofiev iip.lv rrjv farjv rrjv alciviov, r/ri<; r)v trpd? tov tra-
Tepa, Kal iabavepobOr] r)piv), "o ecopaKapev Kal dKr)Koap,ev,
atrayyeXXoiiev Kai v/jiiv, 'iva Kai vpteit Koivcovlav e'x^Te
pe9 rjpiouv' Kal r) Koivcovla Be r) rjpeTepa perd tov
traTpos Kai peTa tov viov avTOV Irjcrov XpitTTOV' * Kal
Tavra ypa^opiev r/peis, 'iva r/ XaPa 7?/tt<*>'/ V TfeTrXrjpco-
pevrj. Kat kaTiv aiiTrj r) dyyeXia ijv dKt]Koap,ev dir avrov
Kai avayyiXXopev vpiv, oti o #eo? g!>oj? early Kal CKOTia
ovk eo-Tiv iv avT(p ovBepta. a'Eidv ettreopev '6ti KOivcovlav
Hftopev per avrov, Kal iv too crKSTei trepttraTrnpev,
yjrevBopeOa Kal ov trotovpev Tr)v dXijOeiav' ' idv Be iv too
$am trepnraTwpev, co? avTo? ioTiv iv toj (f>a>Ti, kolvoj-
viav exopev peT dXXrjXcov, Kal to alpa 'Irjcrov tov vlov
avTov KaOapi^et, ^/xa? a7ro irdar)<; d/iapTias. 8 'Eai/
eitrtofiev oVt dpapTlav ovk e-^ppiev, eavrovf trXavwpev, Kal
rj dXrjdeia iv tf/uv ovk eariv. 9 idv opoXoympev Ta?
s. JOHN (ep.) x

ETTIZTOAH 1. 9

dpaprias r)po3v, iriaros eVTiv Kal BiKaioi, 'iva dtpfj r)piv
to? dpaprias, Kal Kadapioy rjpds airo iraarjs aoya'a?,
10 idv etiroopev oti ovy, rjpaprrjKapev, -vsevaTrjv iroiov/iev
avrov, Kal 6 Xoyos avrov ovk 'iariv iv rjp.iv.
2 l TeKvia pov, ravra ypd<f>a> vpiv, iva prj dpaprq-re.
Kal idv Tt? dpapTTj, irapdKXrjTOV exopev irpos tov irarepa,
'Ir/aovv Xpiarov BlKatov' 2 Kai avTO<s iXaapos iariv irepl
twv dpapriav r\pv>v, ov irepi TOiv r/perepcov Be povov,
dXXd Kal irepl okov tov Koapov. s Kal iv tovtcj) yivti-
a-Kopev oti iyvcoKapev avrov, iav Tas ivroXas avrov
Tijpwpev. * 6 Xeyav oti ILyvcoKa ovtov, koi to? ivrdklk
avTov p,r) Tijpwv, '^revarrjs iariv, Kal iv rovrcp r) dXtfdeta
ovk eariv' s 6? o""az/ tt;jo^ ovtov tov Xoyov, aXrjOwi eV
toi5to> rj dydirr) tov deov TereXeicorai. iv Toiirtj) yivoi-
aKopev oti iv aVT& iapkv' e6 Xiyeov iv avrw peveiv
6<f>eiXei Ka6w<; iKeivos irepieirdrrjaev Kal avros irepi-
iraTeiv. 7 ' AyainjToi, ovk ivroXrjv Kaivrjv ypdtfxo vpiv, dk\'
ivToXrjv iraXaidv, rjv ei^ere dir dpy^fis' r) ivroXrj rj
iraXaid iariv 6 Xoyos ov r/Kovaare. sirdXiv ivroXr/v
Kaivrjv ypatf)(o vpiv, fa iariv aXrjdes iv avrm Kai ev
vpiv oti rj aKOTia irapdyerai, Kal to oSgS? rd aXr)9ivov
r/Br] (paivei. 9 6 Xeycov iv too (pearl eivai Kal tov dheXfyov
ovtov piaoov ev rrj aKoria, eariv eoo? apri. o ayatrmv
tov d8eX<f>bv avrov iv too <j>o)tI p,evei, Kal aKavSaXov ovk
eariv iv avrm. " o Be piiamv tov dSeXtbov avrov iv rrj cko-
tux eariv, Kai iv rrj aKoria irepiirarei, Kal ovk olBev ttov
virayei, oti tj aKoria irixfiXwaev rovs 6(j>0aXpov$ alrrov.
12 Tpdtfxo vpiv, reKvia, '6ti d<f>ecovTai vpiv ai dpapriai
Bid to ovopa avrov. " ypdtf>a> vpiv, irarepes, oti eyvd-
Kare tov dir dpxvs. ypdtpa vpiv, veaviaKoi, oti veviKtj-

11.27 IQANNOY A.

Kare rbv irovrjpov. eypatya vpiv, iraiBia, on iyvtoKare
tov irarepa. w eypayjra vpiv, irarepes, on iyvwKare rbv
air dpxrjs. eypaifra vpiv, veavio koi, on lavvpoi iare,
koi 6 Xoyos rov deov iv vpiv pevei, Kal veviKrjKare rbv
irovrjp6v. 15 M?) dyairdre rov Koapov, prjBe rd iv too
Koapco. idv ns ayaira rov Koapov, ovk eariv rj dydirrj
tov irarpos ev avrta. on irav to ev reo Koaptp, rj
iiriQvpia rrjs aapKOS, Kal r) iiridvpia tcov 6<f>0aXpcSv,
Kal r) dXa&veia tov fiiov, ovk eariv Ik tov irarpos, dXXd
€K tov Koapov iariv. " Kal 6 Koapos irapdyerai, Kal rj
iiriOvpia avrov' 6 Be iroicov to OeXrjpa tov 0eov pevei
els rbv altova.
KUaiBia, ia-ydrrj copa iariv' Kal Kadcbs rjKOvaare
'6n dvrixpiaros epx^rai, Kal vvv avrixpiaroi iroXXoi
yeyovaaiv' '60 ev yivcbaKopev on iaxarrj copa ianv.
19 e£ rjpcov ii;r]X0av, dXX' ovk rjaav it; rjpcov " ei ydp rjaav
e£ rjpwv, pepevrjKeiaav av pe0 rjpwv' aXX iva (pavepco-
owaiv on ovk eiaiv iravres ef rjpwv. Kai vpeis yp1'7^
eyere dirb tov dyiov, Kal otBare irdvra. ovk eypayjra
vpiv, on ovk o'iSare rrjv dXr)9eiav, dXX' on o'iBare avrrjv,
Kal on irav yfrevBos eK rrjs dXrjdeias ovk eariv. Tt?
ianv 6 tyevaTrjs, el pr) 6 dpvovpevos on Irjaovs ovk
eariv 6 Xpiaros ; ovros ianv 6 dvrlxpiaros, o apvov-
pevos rbv irarepa Kai rov vlov. iras o apvovpevos rov
vibv ovSe rbv irarepa e^et" 6 bpoXoytov rov viov Kai
rbv irarepa e^et. ^ vpeis o rjKovaare dir dpxv?, iv
vpiv peverco. idv iv vpiv peivrj o air' dpxys rjKovaare,
Kai vpeis ev too vim Kai ev reo irarpi peveire. Kai
avrrj iariv r) iirayyeXia, rjv avrbs iirrjyyeiXaro rjpiv,
rr)v forjv rrjv alwviov. wravra eypa^-a vpiv irepi Ttov
irXavdvTcov vp&s. 27 Kal vpeis rb ^otayxa 8 iXdjBere air
A2

ETTiZTOAH II. 2;

auTou, pevei iv vpiv, Kal ov XPeiav ^XeTe ""* T'9 ^tBdaxr/
fip,ds' dXX' cos rb avTov ^ptcr/ia BiBaaKei vpds irepl
irdvTcov, Kal dXrjBis ianv, Kal ovk eanv yjrevBos, Kal
Ka0ws iBiBagev vpds, pevere iv avrw. Kai vvv, reKvia,
pevere iv avrw' "va idv cf>avepo)0fj, ax^pev irapprjaiav,
Kai prj alaxwBcopev dir avrov ev rfj trapovaia avrov,
29'Eaj/ eiBrjre on BiKaios eanv, yivwaKere on Kal irds 0
iroicov rrjv BiKaioavvrjv if; avrov yeyevvrjrai.
3 1"ISeTe, irorairrjv dydirrjv BeBwKev rjpiv 6 irarrjp,
'iva reKva Beov KXrjBcopev' Kal iapev. Bid tovto 6
Koapps oi yivwaKei r)pds, in ovk eyvw avrov. 2 dya-
irrjroi, vvv rmva Beov iapiev, Kal ovirw icpavepcodrj ri
iaopeBa. oiSapev 'on idv <f>avepwBfj, opoioi avrw eao-
peBa, on bifrope&a avrbv KaBws ianv. 3 Kal irds 6 eywv
rrjv iXiriBa Tavrrjv eV avrw dyvi^ei eavrov, Kadccs
iKeivos dyvos ianv. 4 7ra? 6 iroiwv rrjv dpapriav Kal
rrjv avopiav iroiei, Kal r) dpapria iariv r) dvopia. 6 Kal
o'iBare 'on iKeivos icpavepwBrj, iva rds dpaprias dprj, ko\
apapria ev avrw ovk eariv. 6 7ra? 6 iv avrw pevcov ovv
apapravei' irds 6 apaprdvwv ovx i^paKev avrov, oiihe
eyvwKev avrov. ' reKvia, prjBels irXavdrw vpds' 6 iroicov
rrjv BiKaioavvrjv BiKaios ianv, KaBws iKeivos BiKaios iariv'
8o iroicov rrjv dpapriav e'« tou Bia^oXov iariv, oVt a7r'
dpxrjs 6 SidfioXos apapravei. els tovto icpavepcodrj 0
vios rov Beov, iva Xvarj rd epya rov Bia/3oXov. 97T<£?
6 yeyevvrj pevos e'« tou Beov dpapriav ov iroiei, on
aireppa avrov iv avrw pevef Kal ov Bvvarai dpaprd-
veiv, on eK rov Beov yeyevvrjrai. 10eV rovrw cpavepa
ianv rd reKva rov Beov Kal rd reKva rov SiajUbXoV
irds 6 prj iroicov BiKaioavvrjv ovk eariv eV rov Beoii, koi
6 prj dyairwv rbv dBeXcpbv avrov. " '6n avrrj iariv 17

III. 24 IQANNOY A. 5
dyyeXia rjv rjKovaare dir dpxrjs, 'iva dyairwpev dXXrj-
Xovs' " ov KaBws KatV e'/e rov irovrjpov rjv, Kal eatba^ev
rbv dBeXcf>ov avrov. Kal %aoti> rivos eacpatjev avrov ;
on rd epya avrov irovrjpd rjv, rd Be rov dBeX<f>ov avrov
BiKaia. 13 Mr) Bavpd^ere, dBeXcpoi, ei piaei vpds 6 Koapos.
ur)peis oiBapev on pera/3e/3rjKapev iK rov Bavarov els
rrjv %wrjv, on dyairwpev rovs d8eXcf>ovs. 0 pr) dyairwv
pevei iv reo Bavdrco. ls irds 6 piacov rbv dSeX<f>bv avrov
dvBpwiroKrovos iariv' Kal o'iSare '6n irds dvBpwrroKrbvos
ov*: exei l,wtjv aiwviov ev avrw pevovaav. ev rovrw
iyvcoKapev rrjv dydirrjv, on iKeivos virep rjpwv rrjv
ifrvxrjv avrov eBrjKev' Kai rjpeis o<j>eiXopev virep rwv
aoeXqbcov ras yv^a? aeivai. os o av exiJ rov piov rov
Koapov, Kal Bewprj rbv &SeXc\>bv avrov xpeiav exovra, Kal
KXeiarj ra airXdyxva avrov air avrov, 77-00? rj ayairrj rov
Beov pevei iv avrw ; ls reKvia, pr) chyaircopev Xoyw prjSe
rrj yXwaarj, dXXd iv epya) Kal dXrjBeia. 19 Kal iv rovrw
yvccaopeBa on iK rrjs dXrj&elas iapev, Kal epirpoaBev
avrov ireiaopev ras Kapoias rjpwv, on eav KaraywwaKrj
rjpcov r) KapBia, oti pei%wv iariv 6 Beos rrjs KapBlas
rjpcov, Kal yivwaKei irdvra. 2l dyairrjroi, idv r) KapBia
pr) KarayivwaKrj rjpwv, irapprjaiav e^o/iey 7rpo? rov
Beov, 22 Kal b idv alrwpev, Xapfidvopev air avrov, on
Td? ivroXas avrov rrjpovpev, Kal ra apeara ivwiriov
avrov rtoiovpev. Kai avrrj eanv rj evro\rj avrov, iva
iriarevwpev too bvbpan rov vlov avrov '\rjaov Xpiaroii,
Kal dyairwpev dXXrjXovs, KaBws eBwKev ivroXrjv rjpiv.
24 Kal 6 rrjpcov ras ivroXas avrov iv avrw pevei, Kai
avros iv avrw. Kal iv rovrw yivwaKopev on pevei iv
rjpiv, iK rov irvevparos ov rjpJiv eBwKev.

EnilTOAH IV. i
4 i,Ayairijroi. /<») iravrl irvevpari iriareivre, dXXik
BoKip.d%GT6 rd irvevpara, ei t'« toO Beod earii" Sn
ttoXXoI ¦tyevBoirpotpljrat, egeXtjXvOaatv eis rbv K6apo»,
1 iv roiirm yivcbas-ere rb irvev/ia toi) #eou' ttiii1 7r)*e0jua
8 6/40X0766 "I ijaovv Xpurrbv ir trapn'i eXijXvOora t'« toO
Beov iariv' " Kal irdv irvevpa 8 pi) bpoXoyei rbv \Ii/<rofli>
t'x; rov Beov oi)« earn1' kih toutcS ivrtv rb rov itvri-
Xpi<rrov, 8 (!(fi/*iirtT<? 8Vt &pyeT<u' Ka,f '''"'' *'•' T9> *&*!*$
iarh' ijBrj. ' vpeis i:K roi> Beoii iare, reKvia, Kal iwi/eij.
Kare ui'toiJ?' St* pei^niv eariv 6 ev vpiv ij a ev nf) Kucrp,m,
* avrol ix rov nbapov eiaiv' Bin roDro eK t»i» K&apov
XaXoSaiv, Kal 6 xbapos avrwv iiKovei. * >'ipeis iK toO
Beov iap'-v 6 yivwaKMv rbv Oebv <ikoi'h-i. ypwv' 8? oi)«
tiariv eK rov Beov, ovk tiKovei ijpwv. eK tovtov ytvti-
axopev rb irvevpa. ri)s aXrjBeias Kal rb irvevpa Ttjs
irXmttjs. ''Ayairrjroi, dyairwpev dXXi'jXovs' ort ij dydiri) ix
rov Beov iariv, Kal irds b dyatrav i'K roO BeoD yeyiv-
vrjrai Kal ytvc&aKei rbv Oebv. * 6 pi) dyairwv ovk Syvv>
rbv Be6v' '6n b Bebs dyiiiry iariv. "iv rovrtf) icpavt-
pwBtj i) dydinj rov BeoD ev i)piv, ot* rbv vlov avrov Tt)v
povoyevPj diriaraXKev b Bebs eis rbv KOtrpov, ha £»Jo"m-
pev Bi avrov. 10 ev rovrio iariv >) nyitirij, ovx ^Tt '}/"!*
ijyairi'jaapev rbv Beov, dXX' oti atirbs ijydirrjaev i)pth,
Kal direareiXev rbv vlbv avrov iXaapbv irepl rwv dpap
nwv rjpwv. " tiyairtjroi, el ovrms b Bebs i')ynm)ffw
r)pds, Kal r)peis bcpeiXopev dXXr)Xovs dyairiiv. lu0«oi>
ovSels iraiirore reOearai' edv dyairwpev aXXr)Xovs\ i
Bebs iv r)piv pevei, Kal >} dydtrtj avrov rereXetmfiivij
ev rjpiv iariv ' "' ev rovnp yivdaxopev Un iv avf$
pivopev, xal avros iv rjpiv, in eK rov irvevparo? avroi

V. 6 IQANNOY A.

BiBwKev r)piv. " Kal rjpeis reBedpeBa Kal paprvpovpev
on 6 irarrjp direaraXKev rbv vlov awrrjpa roD Koapov.
18 o? dv bpoXoyrjarj oTt 'Irjaovs iariv 6 vlbs rov Beov, o
peo? ev avrw pevei, Kai avros ev too ueco. /cat rjpeis
iyvcoKapev Kal ireiriarev Kapev rrjv dydirrjv rjv ep^ei 6
Bebs iv r)piv. b Bebs dydirrj iariv, Kal b pevwv iv rr/
dydirrj iv to> 0eo3 pevei, Kal 6 Bebs iv avrw [pevei]. " iv
rovrw rereXeiwrai r) dydirrj peB1 rjpwv, iva irapprjaiav
eytopev iv rrj r)pepa rrjs Kpiaews, on KaBws iKeivos ianv
Kal r)peis iapev iv too Koapco rovrw. 1 cpofios ovk eanv
iv rfj dydirrj' dXX' rj reXela dydirrj efa) /SaXXet rov
obbftov, on 6 <£o/3o? KoXaaiv e^et, 6 Be <f>o/3ovpevos ov
^ / > ft » / W ( ft ) ft tl >\
TeTeXeiWTat ev rrj ayatrrj. rjpeis ayairwpev, OTt avros
A J / t n 20'' W f/ ' A *t \
irpwros r/yairrjaev rjpas. eav ns eiirrj on A.yatrw rov
Beov, Kal rbv dBeX<f>bv avrov piarj, yjrevarrjs ianv' o
ydp pr) dyairwv rbv dSeXcf>bv avrov, bv ewpaKev, rbv Beov,
bv ovx ewpaKev, ov Bvvarai dyairdv. 21 Kal ravrrjv rrjv
ivroXrjv exopev dir avrov, 'iva 6 dyairwv rov Beov
dyaird Kal rbv dBeXcfiov avrov.
5 i Has b iriarevwv on 'Irjaovs iariv b Xptcrro? iK
rov Beov yeyevvrjrai' Kal irds o ayairwv rov yevvrjaavra
dyaird [/cat] rbv yeyevvrjpevov il; avrov. 2 iv rovrw yivw
aKopev on dyairwpev rd reKva rov Beov, brav rov Beov
dyairwpev, Kal rds ivroXas avrov iroicopev. s avrrj yap
ianv r) dydirrj rov Beov, 'iva rds ivroXas avrov rrjpwpev'
Kal al ivroXal avroD ySapetat ovk eiaiv. on irav ro
yeyevvrjjievov e« rov Beov viko, rov Koapov' Kai avrrj
iariv r) vIkij rj viKrjaaaa rbv Koapov, rj irians rjpwv.
5 Tt? ianv 6 vikwv rbv Koapov, el prj o iriarevwv 'on
'Irjaovs iariv b vlbs rov BeoD; "otros iariv 6 iXBwv
Bi SBaros Kal a'iparos, 'Irjaovs X.piarbs' ovk iv t&>

ElfllTOAH V.6

iiBan pbvov, dXX' iv too vBan Kal iv rw a'ipari. Kal rb
irvevpa ianv rb paprvpovv, on rb irvevpa iariv r)
aXrjBeia. ' on rpeis eiaiv ol paprvpoDvres, srb irvevpa
Kai rb vBwp, Kal ro alpa' Kal ol rpeis et? to ev eiaiv.
et rrjv paprvpiav TtSy dvBpwirwv Xapfidvopev, r) paprvpia
rov Beov pel^wv iariv on avrrj iariv rj paprvpia tou
Beov, on pepaprvprjKev irepl rov vlov avrov. 10 b iri
arevwv els rbv vlov rov Beov e^et rrjv paprvpiav iv avros
o prj iriarevwv rw Bew ¦tyevarrjv ireiroirjKev avrov, on
ov iretriarevKev els rrjv paprvpiav, rjv pepapri/prjKev b
Bebs irepl rov vloD avrov. " Kal avrrj iariv rj paprvpia,
on £wr)v alwviov eBwKev rjpiv 6 Bebs, Kal avrrj rj %tofj iv
rw vlw avrov iariv. 12 o ey/ov rbv vlov eyet rrjv %corjv'
o prj exwv rbv vlov rov Beov rrjv t,wr)v ovk eyet.
"Tavra eypayjra vpiv, 'iva elBijre on £wr)v eyere
alwviov, rois iriarevovaiv et? to ovopa rov vlov rov Beov.
Kai avrrj ianv rj irapprjaia rjv exopev irpbs avrbv, on
iav n alrwpeBa Kara rb BeXrjpa avrov, aKoiiei rjpwv'
Kal iav o'iBapev on aKovei rjpwv b dv alrwpe0a, o'iBapev
'6n exopev rd alrrjpara a r/rrjKapev dir' avrov. 16 iav
Tt? tor) rbv dBeXtpbv avrov dp,aprdvovra dpapriav pr)
irpbs 0dvarov, alrr/aei, Kal Bwaei avrw %wr)v rois dpap-
ravovaiv p,rj irpbs Bavarov. eanv dpapria irpbs Bavarov'
ov irepl iKeivrjs Xeyeo 'iva ipwrrjarj. lr 7raVa dBiKia dpap
ria eanv' Kai eanv dpapria ov rrpbs Bavarov.
O'iBapev on irds b yeyevvrjpevos iK rov Beov ovv
apapravei, dXX' b yevvrjBels e'/c toO Beov rrjpei avrov,
Kal b irovrjpbs ovx airrerai avrov. 19 o'iBapev on iK rov
Beov iapev, Kal b Koapos oXos iv too irovrjpw Keirai.
20 o'iBapev Be '6n b vlbs rov Beov rjKei, Kal BeSwKev r)piv
Bidvoiav, 'iva yivwaKopev rbv dXrjBivbv, Kai iapev iv reo

VER. 10 IftANNOY B. 9
dXrjBivw, iv rw vlw avrov 'Irjaov Hpiarw. ovros ianv
b aXrjBivbs Bebs Kal %wr) alwvios. n ReKvia, tfrvXdgare
eavrd drrb tosv elBwXwv.

IQANNOY B.
''O irpeafivrepos iKXeKrfj Kvpia Kal rois reKvois
avrrjs, ovs iyw ayairw iv aXrjBeia, Kai ovk iyw p.6vos
dXXd Kal irdvres ol iyvwKores rrjv dXrjBeiav, "Bid rrjv
dkrjBeiav rrjv pevovaav iv rjpiv, Kal peB' rjpwv earai et?
toV aiwva' a earai peB' rjpwv %opt?, eXeos, eiprjvrj irapd
Beov irarpos, Kal irapa Irjaov Xpiarov rov viov rov
irarpos, iv aXrjBeia /cat dydirrj.
* 'EyaoTjf XtW Sn eiiprjKa e'« tosz/ tbkvwv aov irepi-
irarovvras iv aXrjBeia,, KaBws ivroXrjv iXaftopev irapd
rov irarpos. s Kai. vvv ipwrw ae, Kvpia, ovx oo? ivroXrjv
Kaivrjv ypdobwv aoi, dXXa rjv eixapev air apxrjs, iva
ayairwpev aXXr/Xovs. 6 koi avrrj iariv rj ayairrj, iva
irepiirarwpev Kara rds ivroXas avrov. avrrj r) ivroXr)
ianv, KaBws r/Kovaare dir apy^?, ti>a iv avrfj rrepirrarrjre.
7 '6ri TroXXot irXdvoi i^rfkBav et? tw Koapov, ol pr) bpo-
Xoyovvres 'Irjaovv ~Kpiarbv ipxbpevov iv aapKi. ovros
ianv b irXdvos Kal b dvrixptaros. " fiXeirere eavroi/s,
'iva pi) diroXearjre a elpydaaa&e, aXXa p.iaBov irXrjprj
diroXdfirjre. s irds b irpodywv Kal prj pevwv iv rrj
BiBaxfj roD Xpiarov Beov ovk e^et' b pevwv iv rfj
BiBaxfj, oiJto? Kal rbv irarepa Kal rbv vlov e^et. 10Et
Tt? epxerat irpbs vpds, Kal ravrrjv rrjv BiBaxyv ov cpepei,

10 ETTIITOAH ver. i0
pr) Xap/3dvere avrbv et? oIk'iov, Kal yatpetz/ avrw prj
Xeyere' u b Xe'yeoi' yap avrw ^atpetv Kotvwvei rois epyoK
avrov rois irovrjpois.
12 LToXXd exwv vpiv ypdcpeiv ovk i/3ovXrjBrjv Bid
Xaprov Kal peXavos' aXXa eXiri^w yeveaBai irpbs vpd$
Kal aropa irpbs aropa XaXrjaai, 'iva rj xaPa vpmv fj
ireirXrjpwpevrj. ls 'Ao-7ra£eTat ae ra reKva rrjs dBeXcbfjs
aov rrjs iKXeKrrjs.

IQANNOY T.
O irpeaftvrepos Tateo too dyairrjrw, bv iyw dyaira
iv aXrjBeia. Ayairrjre, irepl irdvrwv evxopai ae evoBovaOai xal
vyiaiveiv, KaBcbs evoBovrai aov rj tyvx1]. 3 ixaPVv [j®p]
Xiav ipxopevwv dBeXcpwv Kal paprvpovvrwv aov rfi
aXrjBeia, KaBws aii iv aXrjBeia irepiirareis. * jJtei^orepav
rovrwv ovk eyw xaPl^v> "va okovw rd ipd reKva iv ry
aXrjBeia irepiirarovvra.
Ayairrjre, iriarbv iroieis b idv ipydarj et? toi)?
aBeXcpovs Kal tovto ^evovs, 6o? ipaprvprjadv aov rrj
ayairrj ivwiriov iKKXrjaias' oi)? «aXo3? rroirjaeis irpo-
irepyjras dglws rov Beov ' 7 virep yap roD bvbparoft
i%rjX8av prjBev Xapfidvovres dirb tcov iBviKwv. srjpei<!
ovv ocpeiXopev viroXapfidveiv rovs roiovrovs, "va avvepyoi
yivwpe&a rfj aXrjBeia.
'Rypayjrd Tt rfj iKKXrjaia,' dXX' b (piXoirpcorevaiv
avrwv Aiorpecprjs ovk eVtSey^Tat rjpds. 10 Bid tovto,

ver. 14 IQANNOY T. 11
idv eXBw, viropvrjaw aiirov rd epya a iroiei Xbyois irovrj-
pois <j>Xvapwv rjpas' Kal pr) apKov pevos iirl rovrois ovre
avrbs iiriB&xerai rovs dBeXqbovs, Kal rovs ftovXopevovs
KwXvei, Kal ix rrjs iKKXrjaias e'/c/3aXXet.
n' Ayairrjre, prj pipoD ro KaKov, aXXd ro ayaBov. o
dyaBoiroiwv eK rov Beov iariv' b KaKoiroiwv ovx ^Pa~
Kev rbv Beov. I2 Arjprjrpiw pepaprvprjrat virb irdvrwv,
Kal vir avrrjs rrjs aXrjBeias' Kal rjpeis Be paprvpovpev,
Kal olBas on rj paprvpia rjpwv dXrjBrjs ianv.
lsIToXXa etyof ypd^rai aoi, dXX' ov BeXw Bid pe-
Xavos Kal KaXapov aoi ypdcpeiv ueXiri%w Be ev'Bews ae
IBeiv, Kal aropa irpbs aropa XaXrjaopev. JLlprjvrj aoi..
dairdtpvral ae ol cpiXoi. daird^ov rovs cfiiXovs Kar'
ovopa.

NOTES.

In the remarks on the results of textual revision prefixed to the Notes
on each Chapter, it is not intended to enter minutely into each
point, but to indicate generally the principal errors and correc
tions, and occasionally to state the grounds on which a reading is
preferred.
CHAPTER I.
'Iudvov is preferred by the best recent editors to 'Iuco'i'ou (W. & H.
it. 169). The title of the Epistle is found in very different forms in
auoient authorities, the earliest being the simplest. 'loiivvov or
'Iudvov p; (AB). 'loidvvov inaroXi) d (N). 'EirioroX^ (cafloXi/ri/ rov fcylov
iiratrrikov 'Iwdvvov (L). A MS. of the thirteenth century has the sin
gular title Bpovrijs vlbs 'Iwdvvns rdSt xPl<rrta.voTatv. In C the title has
disappeared. naBoXuci appears in most titles. It means 'general' in the sense of
'universal.' The Epistle is not addressed to any particular Churoh or
individual, but to the whole Church throughout all ages. It is as
suitable to the Church of England or of Borne in the nineteenth
century as to that of Ephesus in the first. Origen was perhaps the
first to call this Epistle KatfoXiio), an epithet which he also gives to
1 Peter and Jude. Others used it of James and 2 Peter, and even of 2
and 3 John, of whioh one is certainly addressed to an individual and
the other either to an individual or (less probably) to a particular
Churoh. In the English versions ' general ' does not appear in the title
either in Wiolif, or Coverdale, or the Bishops' Bible, or the Rhemish.
3. Before ifitv insert ko.1 (KABC).
4. ¦fatts (NAB) for iiuv (CKL). ifcisv (NBL) for ip&v (AC).
S. ftrriv a(Srri (NBC) for airn iariv (A). dyyeXCa (NAB) for ^07-
7eX(o (0). 4>ws 4or£v. The enclitics iariv, iapiv, io-ri, tlalv are ac
cented thus when the previous word cannot receive the aocent :
oomp. ii. 6; iii. 3, 8, 23; iv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 17; v. 9, 11, 19;
3 John 11. Icrrlv Kal... Following the unoial MSS., the best editors
add v icbeXttvo-riKov before consonants and vowels alike : irao-t and Sval

i4 1 S. JOHN. [I. 1-
being occasional exceptions, and perhaps yiyv uxncovm (John x. 14),
Winer, 44 note.
7. After 'Iijo-ov omit Xptarov with NBC against AKL with Syr,
and Vulg.
In all these six cases NB have the right reading.

Ch. I. 1 — 4. The Intbodtjction.

The first four verses are introductory. They are analogous to the
first eighteen verses of the Gospel, and to the first three of the
Revelation. Like the Prologue to the Gospel, this Introduction tells
us that the Apostle's subject is the Word who is the Life. The simi
larity between the two Prefaces extends to details. " In each the
main subject is described first (John i. 1, 2 — 5 ; 1 John i. 1) : then the
historical manifestation of it (John i. 6 — 13; 1 John i. 2): then its
personal apprehension (John i. 14 — 18; 1 John i. 3 f.)." — Westcott.
Note that neither before nor after the Introduction is there any
address or salutation, just as at the end there is neither valediction
nor blessing. In form this Epistle is very unlike other Epistles
in N. T.
1—4. A prolonged and somewhat involved construction. Such
complicated sentences are not common in S. John: but comp. John vi.
22 — 24; xiii. 2 — 4. Some make iariv understood to be the main
verb: 'That which was from the beginning is that which we have
heard, &c. ' Others take it//ri\d<f>'qaav : ' That which was from the
beginning, which..., which..., our hands also touched.' But almost
certainly the main verb is airayyiXXo/iev, and $ in each case introduces
the thing declared. Verse 2 being parenthetical, part of v. 1 is
repeated for clearness and emphasis (Winer, 709 note 4). The crowd
ing of profound thoughts has proved almost too much forthe Apostle's
command of Greek. In the plurals, dxriKbapev, iupdicaptv, &c, we
have the testimony of the last survivor of those who had heard and
seen the Lord, the sole representative of His disciples, speaking in
their name.
1. The similarity to the opening of the Gospel is manifest : but the
thought is not the same. There it is that the A070S existed before the
Creation, here that the A670S existed before the Incarnation. With the
neuter 8 comp. John iv. 22 ; vi. 37 ; xvii. 2 ; Acts xvii. 23 (R.VJ. The
verbs iwpdicaiiev, idtaaa//.t8a, and iipTiXdQ-naav are fatal to the Sooinian
interpretation, that 0 means the doctrine of Jesus. S. John employs
the neuter as the most comprehensive expression to cover the attributes,
words, and works of the Word and the Life manifested in the flesh.
fy. Not 'came into existence,' but ' was in existence' already. The
difference between tlvat (i. 1, 2) and ylvtaBat (ii. 18) must be carefully
noted. Christ the Word was from all eternity; antichrists have arisen,
have come into existence in time. Comp. John i. 1 and 6. . The
clause is an instance of what is so characteristic of S. John — profound
and almost unsearchable meaning expressed in very simple and ap-

I.I.]

NOTES. 15

parently transparent language, dir dpxijs. The meaning of dpjrf
always depends upon the context. Here rjv rrpbs rbv iraripa (v. 2)
determines the meaning, shewing that it points to a beginning prior
even to Creation, and is therefore a stronger expression than dvb
/nrnijSoXijs nbapov (Rev. xiii. 8, xvii. 8 ; and even than irpd Kara^oXijs
uba. (John xvii. 24). It contains a denial ofthe Arian position (rjv 8re
oin tJk), that there was a time when the Word was not. Comp. oixl av
iv' ipxV't Kipte 6 Ge6s pov, 6 ayibs p.ov ; (Hab. i. 12). Of idols it is said
oirt yap rjv dir' dpxijs (Wisd. xiv. 13). The Gospel is no new-fangled
mystery: its subject is as old as eternity. 'Av' dpxns without the
article is idiomatic (Hes., Pind., Hdt., Trag.): so also i£ dpxijs (John
vi. 64; xvi. 4; Horn., Soph., Plat., Xen.).
8 dKt)Koa(iev. As in vv. 3, 5 and iv. 3, the perfect indicates perma
nent result of past action. We here pass from eternity into time. The
first clause tells of the Word prior to Creation : the second of all that
the Prophets and the Christ have said respecting Him. No need to
make 0 in each clause refer to different things ; the words, miracles,
glory, and body of Christ. Each 0 indicates that collective whole of
Divine and human attributes which is the Incarnate Word of Life.
eupaK. t. o<^8. tJ(uuv. A climax: seeing is more than hearing, and
beholding (which requires time) is more than seeing (which may
be momentary); while handling is more than all. 'With our
eyes' is added for emphasis. The Apostle would have us know that
¦see' is no figure of speech, but the expression of a literal fact. With
all the language at his command he insists on the reality of the
Incarnation, of which he can speak from personal knowledge based
on the combined evidence of all the senses. The Docetic heresy of
supposing that the Lord's body was unreal, and the Cerinthian heresy
of supposing that He who 'was from the beginning' was different
from Him whom they heard and saw and handled, is authoritatively
condemned by implication at the outset. In the Introduction to the
Gospel there is a similar assertion ; ' The Word became flesh and dwelt
among us — and we beheld His glory' (John i. 14). Comp. 2 Pet. i. 16.
Of ipav 8. John uses no tense but the perfect (ot. 2, 3 ; iii. 6 ; iv. 20;
3 John 11). Maxime illi qui eum in monte elarificatum viderunt, e
quibus unus erat ipse Johannes (Bede).
S c6cao-d|iE0a...4i|n]Xd<f>i]<rav. That which we beheld and our hands
handled. After the imperfect rjv we had a pair of perfects, and now a
pair of aorists. ©edo-flcu implies deliberate and perhaps pleasurable
sight (John i. 14, 34; Acts i. 11). We can hear and see without in
tending to do so ; but we can scarcely behold and handle unintention
ally. The aorists probably refer to definite occasions on which the
beholding and handling took place. 'E\|/iiXd<jjT|o-av seems to be a
direct reference to the test demanded by S. Thomas (John xx. 27)
and offered to the other disciples (Luke xxiv. 39, where the same verb
is used as here). "The clear reference to the Risen Christ in 'han
dled ' makes it probable that the special manifestation indicated by
the two aorists is that given to the Apostles by the Lord after the
Resurreotion, which is in faet the revelation of Himself as He remains

1 6 IS. JOHN. [I. 1—
with His Church. ..The tacit reference is the more worthy of notice
because S. John does not mention the fact of the Resurrection in his
Epistle" (Westcott). Tertullian is very fond of insisting on the fact
that the Lord was 'handled ' : Adv. Prax. xv. twice ; De Animd xvn. ;
De Pat. m. ; comp. Ad Uxorem iv. So also Ignatius (Smyr. in.); "I
know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the resurrection:
and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, Take,
handle Me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon." Bede points
out that the argument has special force as coming from the disciple
who had lain on the Lord's breast. No greater proof of the reality
of His Body before and after the Resurrection could be given.
irepV tov Xoyov ttjs £wtjs. Concerning the Word of Life. The in
terpretation of both X670S and tw-n in this clause is disputed. Is
either of them personal? Does 6 X670S mean the Revelation, the
Gospel ; or Him who revealed the Father hy being revealed in the
Gospel, viz. the Word? Does rj fonj mean life; or Him who is 'the
Way and the Truth and the Life ' ? In favour of the impersonal ren
dering of toO X0701; is b X670S toC Geou (John x. 35; comp. Matt. xiii.
19; Acts vi. 7; xiii. 26; xx. 32; 1 Cor. i. 18; Col. i. 5; 2 Tim.ii. 15).
Against this is 6 A670S rov Qtov (Rev. xix. 13) and the probability that
X070S in this Introduction has the same meaning as in the Introduc
tion to the Gospel. IIep£ confirms this : comp. v. 9, 10 ; John i. 15,
22, 30, 48; ii. 25; v. 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, 46, &c. &c, where vepl is used
of testimony concerning persons. Out of about twenty instances in
the Fourth Gospel all but two (xviii. 23 and xxi. 24) are of witness
about persons. And in xxi. 24 the roirav may very likely be mascu
line: to take it so avoids tautology. ToC X67011, therefore, probably
means the Son of God, in whom had been hidden from eternity all
that God had to say to man, and who was the living expression ot
the Nature and Will of God. See on John i. 1 for the history of the
term, which is peculiar to the phraseology of S. John. But of the two
terms, Word and Life, the latter is here the emphatic one as is shewn
by v. 2 and by the fact that ' the Life' is one of the main topics of the
Epistle (ii. 25, iii. 14, v. 11, 12, 20), whereas 'the Word' is not men
tioned again. As to rrjs furjs, the expression may be analogous to 6
opros r. f. (John vi. 35), rb <pas r. f. (viii. 12), to %fiXov r. f. (Rev. ii.
7), to% vdwp r. f. (xxi. 6) where 'of life' seems to mean 'life-giving.'
More probably the genitive is one of apposition, as in vtpl tou raoi! tou
aiifiaros airrov (John ii. 21) ; irepl rrjs KOifajatws rov vwov (xi. 13) ; 7r/xS
rrjs ioprfjs too vdaxa (xiii. 1). Winer, 666. "The Word which is the
Life' is the meaning. Christ is at once the Word of God and the Life
of man. This is confirmed by v. 2, where r) fur) is certainly personal.
But the transition from an impersonal to a personal signification is
easily made, as in the use of xbanos in John i. 10. Tertullian (Be
An. xvn.) quotes the verse as Joannis testationem thus: Quod vidimus
quod audivimus, oculis nostris vidimus, et mantis nostras contrectave-
runt, de sermone vitae: and again (Adv. Prax. xv.), adding Sermo
enim vitae caro factus et auditus et visus et contrectatus, shewing that
he took Sermo personally. He renders 6 A070S by Sermo, Verbum,

T.2.]

NOTES. 17

and Oratio. Clement of Alexandria and Didymus considered 0 X6yos
here to be the personal Word. Bee p. 53.
2. Kal rj t,ar\ «|>avepu6r|. Trebly characteristic of S. John. 1.
The connexion by means of the simple conjunction. 2. The repetition
of fur) from v. 1, carrying on part of one sentence into the next for
further elucidation and development, without the use of relatives. 3.
The verb tpavtpovv, frequent in Gospel and Epistle and occurring twice
in Revelation. Points which connect the Epistle with the Gospel, or
either of these with the Apocalypse, should be carefully noted. The
verbs are in logical order : the manifestation must precede the seeing,
which must precede witness and announcement. 'H fur; i<j>avtpa6-n
is a less definite expression than 6 Xbyos erctpf iyivtro (John i. 14), but
refers to the same fact. For 'the Life' as a name for the Christ comp.
John xi. 25 and xiv. 6. Maprvpeiv is another word which, by its fre
quency in all three, connects together Gospel, Epistle, and Revelation.
Witness to the truth, to produce faith in the Truth, on which eternal
life depends, is a favourite thought with S. John. But the frequency
of papTvpeiv in his writings is obscured in A.V. by rendering it, ' bear
record' (v. 7), 'give record' (v. 10), and 'testify' (iv. 14, v. 9), as
well as 'bear witness'; and so also in Gospel and Revelation. Simi
larly p.aprvpia is translated 'record' (v. 10, 11) and 'testimony' (Rev.
i. 2, 9, vi. 9, &c), as well as 'witness.' The R.V. has made great
improvements in this respect. Comp. Acts i. 22 and ii. 32.
diray\e\Xop.ev. We declare, as in v. 3. The verb is frequent in
S. Luke, but rare in S. John (xvi. 25, but not iv. 51 or xx. 18). As in
vv. 1 and 3 the Apostle emphatically states that what he has to declare
is guaranteed by full personal experience. Comp. John xix. 35 ; xx.
30, 31 ; xxi. 24. " Let us firmly hold that which we see not ; because
those tell us who have seen" (Augustine). Note the sequence here
and in v. 3: 1. the evidence which produced conviction in them,
iupixapev ; 2. their declaration of their conviction as Apostles, /tapru-
povp.ti>; 3. their declaration of it as Evangelists, avayy iXKop.ev. ti]v
Jcmjv tt)v oioiviov. The life, the eternal life. The repetition of the
article in this phrase occurs only here and ii. 25. Its effect is to pre
sent life and eternity as two distinct ideas : comp. ii. 7, 8. The more
general expression, fur) alwvios, is the common form. It is another
of S. John's phrases; but its frequency is blurred in A.V., which
rings the changes on 'eternal life,' 'life eternal,' 'everlasting life,'
and 'life everlasting.' 'Eternal' is preferable to 'everlasting,'
although in popular usage the words are nearly synonymous. And
it is worth remembering that 'eternal' is etymologically identical
with altbvios. Aeternus through aeviternus comes from aevum, which
is the same word as alihv with the digamma. The phrase fu^ alavios
occurs first Dan. xii. 2. S. John's fur) aliivios has nothing to do with
time, but depends on our relation to Jesus Christ. He tells us re
peatedly that eternal life can be possessed in this world (v. 11, 13, 20 ;
iii. 15: see on John iii. 36; v. 24; vi. 47). Excepting in Rev. xiv. 6,
where he speaks of a evayyiXtov altiviov, he never applies aliivios to
anything but fur). With the subject of eternal life this Epistle begins
B. JOHN (ef.) 3

1 8 IS. JOHN. [I. 2-
and ends (v. 20). It is remarkable that S. Paul in the same sentence
(Rom. xvi. 25, 26) applies the epithet altivios to two such different
subjects as xpoooi and Beos. In N. T. altivios is generally of two termi-
nations; but alavlav occurs 2 Thess. ii. 16; Heb. ix. 12. In Plato
(Timaeus 37) we have altivios <piais, and this is perhaps the earliest
appearance of the word.. For a full discussion of it see Plumptre's
Spirits in Prison 356 — 371.
tjtis t^v irpos t. irarepa. The oompound qualitative relative denotes
that what follows is a special attribute: 'whioh was such os to be with
the Father.' Comp. arivd ianv d\Xr)yopovp.tva, ' whioh c lass of things
contain an allegory; tjtis iarlv'Ayap, 'inasmuch as she is Hagar' (Gal.
iv. 24); r)Yis iariv e'lbuXoXarpela, 'inasmuch as it is idolatry' (Col. iii, 5).
In N. T. Sorts ocours only in nom., neut. ace, and contracted gen.
(iws Srov). For the riv see on v. 1. IIpos r. iraripa is exactly paral
lel to irpos r. Qtbv (John i. 1, 2). It indicates the distinct Personality
of r) fur). Had S. John written rjrts rjv iv rip v., we might have taken
' the Life ' to mean a mere attribute of God. IIpos r. v. is apud Patrem,
'face to face' or 'at home with the Father.' Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 7;
Gal. i. 18; 1 Thess. iii. 4; Philem. 13. "The simple title o vari/p
occurs rarely in the Synoptic Gospels, and always with reference to
'the Son '....In the Acts only i. 4, 7; ii. 33. In S. Paul only Rom. vi.
4 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Eph. ii. 18 ; and not at all in the Epistles of S. Peter,
S. James or S. Jude, or in the Apocalypse. In S. John's Gospel on
the contrary, and in his Epistles, the term is very frequent" (Westcott).
In i(pav. ¦nn'iv the statement with which the parenthesis began is re
peated. But S. John's repetitions generally oarry us a stage further.
The manifestation was not only made, but made to us. Note the con
trast between the imperfect of the continuous pre-existence of Christ
aud the aorist of the temporary manifestation. He who was from
everlasting with the Father has been made known, and made known
to men, as the source of all life, physical, intellectual, moral, and
spiritual. 3. In returning to his main sentence he repeats part of it, but
from a different point of view and with a change of thought. In v.
1 he is leading up to the Incarnation and thinking mainly of what he
has to declare, viz. One existing from all eternity and intimately
known to himself. In v. 3 he is starting from the Inoarnation and
thinking mainly of why he ieolares this, viz. to promote mutual fel
lowship. dirayy. Kal vpiv. Declare we to you also. It may seem a trifle, hut
it is worth while to distinguish between rrpos ifyiSs k.t.X. after verbs of
speaking, 'unto you' and b/xw, 'to you'; all the more so as the former
construction is a characteristic of S. Luke's writings. The 'also' may
mean either 'the declaration is made by us to you as well as by
others to us,' or (more simply) 'to you as well as to others
whom we have already told.' Comp. "We oannot but speak the things
whioh we saw and heard" (Aots iv. 20). Where does S. John deolare
Him who was from the beginning and was bo well known to him and
to others? Not in this Epistle, for no such declaration is found init;

I. 3.]

NOTES. 19

but in the Gospel, which consists of such a declaration. Some per
sons, however, make these opening verses the declaration. We shall
miss the purport of the Epistle if we do not bear constantly in mind
that it was written as a companion to the Gospel. " See whether his
Epistle does not bear witness to his Gospel" (Augustine). Parallels
between the two abound: in what follows we have a striking one.
'That ye also may have fellowship with us' is the counterpart of
'that they maybe one, even as We are' (John xvii. 11). The Apo
stle's purpose is identical with his Master's prayer. See on v. 4.
'Te also, who have not seen, or heard, or handled, may have a
blessing at least equal to ours, who have' (John xx. 29). Just as
it is possible for every Christian to share the blessedness of Christ's
mother by obedience (Matt. xii. 49, 50), so it is possible for them
to share the blessedness of His Apostles by faith. In N.T. kov-
vmila is rare, excepting in this chapter and in S. Paul's writings.
It is almost always used of fellowship with persons (1 Cor. i. 9;
xiii. 13; Gal. ii. 9; Phil. ii. 1) or with things personified (2 Cor.
vi. 14). It "generally denotes the fellowship of persons with persons
in one and the same object, always common to all and sometimes
whole to each" (T. S. Evans in Speaker's Comm. on 1 Cor. x. 16). In
2 Cor. ix. 13 and Rom. xv. 26 it has the special sense of almsgiving as
an expression of fellowship. In S. John's idea of the Church each
member of it possesses the Son, and through Him the Father : and in
this common possession each has communion with all other members.
Koivavlar Ixtiv (vv. 3, 6, 7) is stronger than Koivavttv (2 John 11), and
is still further strengthened by the /terd instead of the simple genitive
(Phil. iii. 10; Philem. 6).
Kali] koiv. 84 r\ r^^tTipa. Tea and our fellowship. For nal. ..51...
comp. John vi. 51 ; viii. 16, 17 ; xv. 27. Grammarians are not agreed
as to which of the two conjunctions connects the clauses and which
adds emphasis to the substantive : Winer, 553 ; E llieott on 1 Tim. iii.
10. Anyhow we have here a double emphasis, first through the double
conjunctions and secondly through the double article : see on rr\v foir)v
rrpi alutv. (v. 2). 'Yea and the fellowship which I mean, the feUowship
which is ours ' is the full force. S. John in the intense earnestness
of his style is very fond of the double article: 7; ivroXr) 1) rroXotd, to
0us rb dXijdivbv, 6 vlbs 6 fwvoytvrjs (ii. 7, 8 ; iv. 9), Tots tpyois avrov rois vo-
vnpols, rrjs a8t\$ijs aov ttjs iKhtKTrjs (2 John 11, 13) : comp. John iv. 9;
v. 30; vi. 38, 42, 44, 50, 51, 58, &c, &c. This is specially the case
with iubs in Christ's discourses ; d X070S 6 i/i&s (viii. 31, 43, 51), r) xaP&
t/ ipirj (xv. 11; xvii. 13): comp. v. 30; vi. 38; vii. 6, 8; xiv. 15, 27, &o.
The Vulgate rendering, et societas nostra sit cum Patre, accepted by
Beza, is excluded by the di which shews that xal rj koiv, k.t.X. cannot be
dependent upon tra, but is a separate statement. In N. T. the indi
cative iarl is frequently omitted, the subjunctive 7; very rarely — even
in S. Paul, who at times leaves so much to be understood: 2 Cor.
viii. 11, 13; Rom. iv. 16.
|Mrd tov ir. Kal u.ct(1 t. vi. He Bhews what the fellowship that
is ours really means: not merely communion with us, but with
B2

2o 1 S. JOHN. [I. 3—
the Father and the Son. The title of the Son is given with solemn
fulness, as in iii. 23 and 2 John 3 ; perhaps to indicate that the
Christian Church is a family in which all in their relation to God
share in the Sonship of Christ. S. Paul uses a similar fulness of
expression in stating the same fact : viarbs 6 6eos Si' off e/cXr)9r;Te els
Koivwvlav rov vlov abrov 'I. Xp. tou Kvpiov r)/iwv (1 Cor. i. 9: comp.
2 Cor. i. 19). S. Paul also teaches our fellowship with the Father
through the Son (Rom. viii. 17). The repetition of the nerd and of the
toO marks emphatically the distinction and equality between the Son and
the Father. Thus two fundamental truths, which the philosophical
heresies of the age were apt to obscure or deny, are here clearly
laid down at the outset; (1) the distinctness of personality and
equality of dignity between the Father and the Son ; (2) the identity
of the eternal Son of God with the historical person Jesus Christ.
The verse forms another parallel with the Gospel : comp. John xvii.
20 — 23, esp. v. 21, to the two halves of which the two halves of this
verse fit, each to each.
tva vdvrts iv waiv,
Kadtos ait, vdrep, iv ipiol
Kdytb iv aoi,
tva Kal avrol iv rjpuv

tva Kal vpitis Koivuviav
Ixtrt t*c6' r)p.Qv •

Kal r) k. di rj r)p.er.
Herd r. v. k. p.. t. vi.
4. Kal raiiTa Ypd<f>. t|ucis. He here refers to the Epistle as a
whole in contrast to the (iospel, which is referred to in dvayyi\Xop.ev
(vv. 2, 3). The purpose of his writing is stated in the Epistle at
the outset, in the Gospel at the close (xx. 31). Both vpdcf>o|i<:v and
TJU.CLS are emphatic: it is a permanent message that is sent, and it
is sent by Apostolic authority. Scriptio valde confirmat (Bengel).
Only in this solemn Introduction does the Apostle use the first
person plural: in the body of the Epistle he uses the singular,
ypdcpoi or iypatj/a. The frequent use of this verb shews that in spite
of its unusual form the document is rightly called an Epistle. The
'to you' of the A.V. and earlier Versions and vobis of the Vulgate
must he omitted.
tva r\ xaP» ^HJojv tJ ireirX. That our joy may be fulfilled. Tyndale
in his first edition (1525) has 'your'; in his second (1534) and third
(1535) 'our.' "The confusion of rj/j.. and vp.. in the best authorities is
so constant that a positive decision on the reading here is impossible"
(Westcott). The Latin varies between nostrum and vestrum. Some
copies insert gaudeatis et, and are foUowed doubtfully by Cranmer
(who prints 'ye may rejoyce, and that' in italics within brackets), and
without any marks of doubt by Wiclif and the Rhemish Version.
Bede evidently read nostrum. He remarks, doubtless as the result
of his own experience, that the joy of teachers is made full when
by their preaching many are brought to the communion of the Church
and of Him through whom the Church is strengthened and increased.
IIct-Xtipu^vti must not be rendered as if it were vXfjpm, all the less
so as 'joy fulfilled' or 'made full' is one of S. John's characteristic
phrases. The active, vX-qpaaari /tov rrjv xapdv occurs Phil. i. 11, but

J. 4.] NOTES. 21
the passive with xapa is peculiar to S. John (John iii. 29 ; xv. 11 ; xvi.
24; xvii. 13; 2 John 12J. Comp. especially ravra XtXdXr/Ka vpuv
tva...r) XaP& v/iQy vXijpiaSri, and ravra XaXui iv t$ nbap.tp tva ?xuo"ii'
rrjv xaP^v Tty ^f-V" vtvXrjpapiivriv iv iavrois (John xv. 11; xvii. 13).
Once more, as in v. 3, the Master's prayer and the Apostle's purpose
are one and the same. 'Our joy' may mean either the Apostolic joy
at the good results of Apostolic teaching; or the joy in which the
recipients of the teaching share — 'yours as well as ours.' In either
case the joy is that serene happiness, which is the result of conscious
union with God and good men, of conscious possession of eternal
life (see on v. 13), and which raises us above pain and sorrow and
remorse. The concluding words of the Introduction to the Epistle
of Barnabas are striking both in their resemblance and difference:
"Now I, not as a teacher, but as one of you, will set forth a few
things, by means of which in your present ease ye maybe gladdened."
The following profound thoughts struggle for expression in these
four opening verses. ' There is a Being who has existed with God the
Father from all eternity: He is the Father's Son: He is also the
expression of the Father's Nature and Will. He has been manifested
in space and time ; and of that manifestation I and others have had
personal knowledge : by the united evidence of our senses we have been
convinced of its reality. In revealing to us the Divine Nature He
becomes to us life, eternal life. With the declaration of all this in
our hands as the Gospel, we come to you in this Epistle, that you may
unite with us in our great possession, and that our joy in the Lord may
be made complete.'
We now enter upon the first main division of the Epistle, which
extends to ii. 28 ; the chief subject of which (with much digression) is
the theme God is Light, and that in two parts : i. the Positive Side —
What Walking in the Light involves; the Condition and Conduct
of the Believer (i. 5 — ii. 11) : ii. the Negative Side — What Walking
in the Light excludes ; the Things and Persons to be avoided (ii.
12 — 28). These parts will be subdivided as we reach them.
I. 5 — H. 28. God is Light.
I. 6 — II. 11. What Walking in the Light involves.
This section is largely directed against the Gnostic doctrine that to
the man of enlightenment all conduct is morally indifferent. Against
every form of this doctrine, which sapped the very foundations of
Christian Ethics, the Apostle never wearies of inveighing. So far from
its being true that all conduct is alike to the enlightened man,
it is the character of his conduct that will shew whether he is
enlightened or not. If he is walking in the light his condition and
conduct will exhibit these things; 1. Fellowship with God and with
the Brethren (5 — 7) ; 2. Consciousness and Confession of Sin (8 — 10) ;
3. Obedience to God by Imitation of Christ (ii. 1—6) ; 4. Love of the
Brethren (ii. 7—11).

22 1 S. JOHN. [I. 5—
S — 7. Fellowship with God and with the Brethren.
5. Kal Soriv ovtt| r] dyy. And the message which we have heard
from Him Is this : avrrj is the predicate, as so often in S. John, and
means ' This is the sum and substance of it, This is what it consists
in.' TJsuaUy ovt?7 precedes iariv, as in iii. 11, 23; v. 3, 11, 14;
2 John 6 ; and hence some texts place avrrj first here. Comp. avnj Si
ianv r) Kplais (John iii. 19), avrrj iariv r) ivroXrj (xv. 12), avrrj Si iariv r)
altiv. tar) (xvii. 3). As in the Gospel (i. 19), the main portion of the
writing is connected with the Introduction by a simple Kal. It does
not introduce an inference, and the 'And' of Tyndale, Cranmer, and
the Rhemish is rightly restored in R. V. The 'then' of A.V. comes,
like so many errors, from Geneva, probably under the influence of
Beza's igitur. The connexion of thought, as so often in S. John, is
not plain, but seems to be this. He desires that we should have
fellowship with God (v. 3) : and in order to have this we must know
a. what God is (v. 5), and /S. what we are consequently bound to be
(6—10). 'A-vydXla (frequent in LXX., 2 Sam. iv. 4; Prov. xii. 26;
xxv. 26; xxvi. 16; &c.) occurs nowhere else in N.T. but here and
iii. 11; in each case with ivayytXla, as v. 1. 'AyyiXXtiv occurs only
John xx. 18 ; with v. 1. d7ra77AXeii/. Neither in his Gospel nor in his
Epistles does S. John ever use ebayyiXiov, tbayytXljreiv, or ebayyeXl-
feo-ffat. The Gospel with him is o' Xo7os or r) dXr)8tia.
Once more we have a striking parallel between Gospel and Epistle.
Each opens with the same kind of statement.
Kal avrrj iariv \ Kal tariv aUrrj
rj /mprvpla... I 170776X10...
All these similarities strengthen the belief that the two were written
about the same time, and were intended to accompany one another.
arr ovtov means from Christ, as the context shews: comp. ii. 12.
Christ was the last mentioned (v. 3) and has been the main subject of
the Introduction. It was from Christ, and not immediately from the
Father, that the Apostles received their mission. 'Akovuv dvb is not
common in N.T. S. John generally writes djcovtiv vapd (vi. 45 ; vii.
51 ; viii. 26, 38, 40 ; xv. 15).
dvavveXXo(i€v vp.iv. We announce to you. The amount of differ
ence between aira77(?XXeii' (vv. 2, 3) and dva77^\Xeo' is not great, yet
for the sake of distinction one may be rendered 'declare' and the other
•announce'. The Vulgate renders both by adnuntiare; but dvayy. is
rather renuntiare. Both have the meanings 'report, announce, pro
claim.' Both also may have the meaning of making known 017am to
others what has been received elsewhere : yet this is more commonly
the force of dvayy. And this is the meaning here. The Apostles hand
on to all men what they have reoeived from Christ. It is no invention
for their own benefit. It is a message and not a discovery. So also
the Spirit reveals to us truths which proceed from the Father and the
Son (John xvi. 13, 14, 15): and the Messiah dvayyiXti r)ixiv v&vra
(John iv. 25 based on Deut. xviii. 18). Of the Evangelists S. John
alone uses 0^077. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 7 ; 1 Pet. i. 2. The dvb in 0*077.

I. 5.]

NOTES. 23

is 'from' rather than 'back': 0*077. = 077. avb tivos. Hence, while
the destination of the message (dvd) is prominent in 0x077., the origin
of it (avb) is prominent in 0*077. The latter word is rare in S. John
(only vv. 2, 3 and John iv. 51), but very frequent in S. Luke's writings.
Although dyyiXXeiv occurs only once in N.T. (John xx. 18), its com
pounds abound : SiayyiXXtiv, ivayyiXXeaffai, i^ayyiXXtiv, KarayyiXXeiv,
vapayyiXXetv, vpoevayy., vpoKarayy.
b 0€os ipus itnlv. God is Light. This is on the whole the main
theme of the first great division of the Epistle, as God is Love of the
second. This verse stands in much the same relation to the first main
division as vv. 1 — 4 to the whole Epistle.
No one tells us so much about the Nature of God as S. John. The
name given to him by the Greek Church, 6 #60X0705, 'the Theologian,'
is amply justified. It is from him that we learn most of the Divinity
of the Word and of the meaning of ' Divine.' Other writers tell us what
God does, and what attributes He possesses ; S. John tells us what He
is. There are three statements in the Bible which stand alone as
revelations of the Nature of God, and they are all in the writings of
S. John: 'God is spirit' (John iv. 24); 'God is light,' and 'God is
love ' (1 John iv. 8). In all these momentous statements the predicate
has no article, either definite or indefinite : *»eG/io 6 Geos : 0 Qebs tpds
iariv: 6 Oebs dydvrj iariv. We are not told that God is the Spirit, or
the Light, or the Love : nor that He is a Spirit, or a light. Luther is
certainly wrong in translating, "dass Gott ein Licht ist." But 'God
is spirit, is light, is love': spirit, light, love are His very Nature.
They are not mere attributes, like mercy and j ustice : they are Himself.
They are probably the nearest approach to a definition of God that
the human mind could frame or comprehend : and in the history of
thought and religion they are unique. The more we consider them,
the more they satisfy us. The simplest intellect can understand their
meaning ; the subtlest cannot exhaust it. No philosophy, no religion,
not even the Jewish, had risen to the truth that God is light. ' The
Lord shall be to thee an everlasting light' (Is. Ix. 19, 20) is far short
of it. But S. John knows it: and lest the great message which he
conveys to us in his Gospel, ' God is spirit,' should seem somewhat
bare and empty in its indefiniteness, he adds this other message in his
Epistle, 'God is light, God is love.' No figure borrowed from the
material world could give the idea of perfection so clearly and fully as
light. It suggests ubiquity, brightness, happiness, intelligence, truth,
purity, holiness. It suggests excellence without limit and without
taint ; an excellence whose nature it is to communicate itself and
to pervade everything from which it is not of set purpose shut out.
'Let there be light' was the first fiat of the Creator; and on it all the
rest depends. Light is the condition of beauty, and life, and growth,
and activity: and this is as true in the intellectual, moral, and
spiritual spheres as in the material universe.
Yet we must not suppose that S. John means this as a mere figure
borrowed from the material world, as if sunlight were the reality and
the Godhead something like it. Rather, the similarity exists, because

24 1 S. JOHN. [I. 5—
light and its properties are reflexions of attributes which are Divine.
In Platonic language, God is the ISia or archetype of which light is the
noblest earthly expression. Thus Philo says, 6 Otbs 0<Ss iarl,...Kal ob
novov <J>ws dXXd Kal vavrbs iripov rparbs apxirvvov. S. James seems to
have a similar thought in calling God b varrjp tuv 0utwk (i. 17) : comp.
Rev. xxii. 5.
Of the many beautiful and true ideas which the utterance ' God is
light' suggests to us, three are specially prominent in this Epistle;
intelligence, holiness, and communicativeness. The Christian, anointed
with the Holy Spirit, and in communion with God in Christ, possesses
(1) knowledge, (2) righteousness, and (3) necessarily communicates to
others the truth which he knows and the righteousness which he
practises. (1) ' Ye know Him which is from the beginning ' (ii. 13, 14) ;
'I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but
because ye know it' (ii. 21); 'Ye need not that any one teach you' (ii.
27); &c. &c. (2) 'Every one that hath this hope on Him purifieth
himself, even as He is pure ' (iii. 3) ; ' Whosoever is begotten of God
doeth no sin, because His seed abideth in him : and he cannot sin
because he is begotten of God'; &a. &c. (3) 'We have fellowship one
with another' (i. 7); 'We love the brethren ' (iii. 14); and the whole
tone of the Epistle.
Kal o-KOT£a ovk So-tiv 4v ovtoj ov8eu.(a. This is the order of the
words in B, Thebaic, and Memphitic, and it is very forcible:
and darkness there is not in Him, no, not any at all. Gnostic
systems which taught, that a series of Aeons ending in an evil
one could emanate from the Supreme Being, are here condemned by
anticipation. Out of Light no darkness can come. This 'antithetic
parallelism ' is a mark of S. John's style. He frequently emphasizes
a statement by following it up with a denial of its opposite. Thus, in
the very next verse, 'We lie and do not the truth': comp. v. 8, ii. 4,
10, 27 ; v. 12. So also in the Gospel : i. 3, 20 ; iii. 15 ; x. 5, 18; xviii.
20 ; xx. 27. And in Revelation ii. 13 ; iii. 9. It is one of many
instances of the Hebrew cast of S. John's language. Parallelism is
the very form of Hebrew poetry and is frequent in the Psalms (Ixxxix.
30, 31, 38).
Another point of similarity between the Gospel and the Epistle
must here be noticed. In the Prologue to the Gospel we have these
four ideas in succession ; o X070S (vv. 1, 2), r) far) (v. 4), rb </>£s (vv. 4,
5), r) aKorla (v. 5). The same four follow in the same order here : vepl
tov X670V tt/S fuijs, tj gut) i(pavepu8rj, 6 Otbs <pojs iariv, Kal o-kot£o iv
abrtp o6k ianv obStfila. Has not the sequence of thought in the one
case been influenced by the sequence of thought in the other ? Such
close correspondence between the ideas with whioh each writing opens
cannot be accidental.
The figurative use of aKorla for moral darkness, i.e. error and sin
(peccata, haereses, et odia nominat, says Bede), is very frequent in
S. John (ii. 8, 9,11; John i. 5; viii. 12; xii. 35, 46): he only twice
uses the form aKoros (v. 6; John iii. 9), which (excepting Matt. x. 27 ;
Luke xii. 3) is the invariable form elsewhere in N.T. The passages
just quoted shew that S. John's meaning here cannot be, 'God has

I. 6.]

NOTES. 25

now been revealed, and is no longer a God that hideth Himself
(Is. xiv. 15). The point is not that God can be known, but what kind
of God He is. The Apostle is laying the foundation of Christian
Ethics, of which the very first principle is that there is a God who
intellectually, morally, and spiritually is light.
"In speaking of ' light ' and ' darkness ' it is probable that S. John
had before him the Zoroastrian speculations on the two opposing
spiritual powers which influenced Christian thought at a very early
date" (Westcott).
6. An inference from the first principle just laid down. God is
Ught, utterly removed from all darkness: therefore to be in darkness
is to be cut off from Him. If God is light, then those who have com
munion with Him must (1) walk in light, (2) be conscious of sin, (3)
confess their sin (ot. 6 — 10).
lav thrafjev. With great gentleness he states the case hypotheti-
cally, and with great delicacy he includes himself in the hypothesis.
As in his Gospel, he has in view only professing Christians, and he
warns them against three false professions, each introduced in the
same way (vv. 6, 8, 10). In between these three possible forms of false
doctrine is stated by way of antithesis the right course of action and
profession (7, 9). The symmetrical arrangement of clauses is very
marked throughout. Further on in the Epistle. S. John varies the
form of expression from idv ttvwp.ev to b Xiyav (ii. 4, 6, 9) and idv ns
etvv (iv. 20). The conditional particles idv and el, especially the
former, are very frequent in this Epistle.
iv Tip o"KOT€i irepi.iraTcop.ev. Comp. 0 Xaos 0 iropevoaevos iv aKorei (Is.
ix. 1). Darkness is the sphere of the Koapios, and the xbapios is in an
tagonism to God. Hepivareiv is the Latin versari and signifies the
ordinary course of life. The word in this sense is frequent only
in S. Paul and in S. John. Comp. ii. 6, 11 ; 2 John 4, 6 ; 3 John
3, 4; Rev. xxi. 24; John viii. 12; Eph. v. 1, 9—15, &c. It
expresses not merely action, but habitual action. A life in moral
darkness can no more have communion with God, than v. life in
a coal-pit can have communion with the sun. For 'what com
munion hath light with darkness?' (2 Cor. vi. 4). Light can be
shut out, but it cannot be shut in. Some Gnostics taught, not merely
that to the illuminated all conduct was alike, but that to reach the
highest form of illumination men must experience every kind of action,
however abominable, in order to work themselves free from the powers
that rule the world (Eus. H. E. iv. vii. 9). 'Ev rip aKorei should pro
bably be rendered in the darkness: in vv. 6, 7, as in ii. 8, 9, 11, both
'light ' and ' darkness ' have the article, which is not merely generic but
emphatic ; that which is light indeed is opposed to that which is dark
ness indeed. In ' What communion hath light with darkness ? ',
neither word has the article: rls Koivavla <j>tarl vpds aKoros; (2 Cor.
vi. 14).
t|/evSoue6a Kal ov irou>vu.ev ttjv dX. As in v. 5, the affirmation is
enforced by denying its opposite. But here the negative clause carries

26 1 S. JOHN. [1. 6-
us further than the positive one : it includes conduct as well as speech.
In John iii 21 voieiv r. dXr)6eiav is opposed to <pavXa vpdaaeiv, to do
what has true moral worth as opposed to practising what is morally
good-for-nothing. Ethical rather than intellectual truth is here meant
by dXr)0Eio. With voieiv rrjv dX. should be contrasted *ote2V ^eCSos
(Rev. xxi. 27; xxii. 15). In LXX. voieiv iXerjp.oabvnv (or tXeos) ml
dXrjB. occurs (Gen. xlvii. 29; 2 Sam. ii. 6; &c); but there the £Xeos
renders voieiv less startling. In Neh. ix. 33 the very phrase occurs;
&Xrj9eiav ivol-qaas. S. Paul comes near to it when he opposes dXr)6eia
to dSida (1 Cor. xiii. 6) ; shewing that with him also truth is not con
fined to speech. In this Epistle we find many striking harmonies in
thought and language between S. John and S. Paul, quite fatal to the
view that there is a fundamental difference in teaching between the
two. See on ii: 16.
Note the exact correspondence between the two halves of the verse :
\]/evSbp.e6a balances dvuipev (speech) ; voiovfiev balances vepivarSp.ev
(action). Profession without conduct is a lie : Nequaquam, ergo sola
fidei confessio sufficit ad salutem, cui bonorum operum attestatio deest
(Bede). 7. A further inference from the first principle laid down in v. 5:
walking in the light involves not only fellowship with God but fellow
ship with the brethren. This verse takes the opposite hypothesis to
that just considered and expands it. We often find (comp. v. 9) that
S. John while seeming to go back or repeat, really progresses and
gives us something fresh. It would have enforced v. 6, but it would
have told us nothing fresh, to say 'if we walk in the light, and say
that we have fellowship with Him, we speak the truth, and do not lie.'
And it is interesting to find that the craving to make this verse the
exact antithesis of the preceding one has generated another reading,
'we have fellowship with Him,' instead of 'with one another.' This
reading is as old as the second century, for Tertullian (De Pud. xix.)
quotes, 'si vero,' inquit, 'in lumine incedamus, communionem, cum eo
habebimus, et sanguis c&c' Clement of Alexandria also seems to have
known of this reading. Another ancient corruption is 'with God'
(Harl.). This is evidence of the early date of our Epistle; for by the
end of the second century important differences of reading had already
arisen and become widely diffused.
Trepuro.rap.ev, cos avros fo-Tiv. Vfewalk; God is. We move through
space and time; He is in eternity. We progress from grace to grace,
becoming sons of light by believing on the Light (John xii. 36 ; Eph.
v. 8, 9). Of Him who is absolute Perfection, and knows no progress
or change, we can only say ' He is. ' That which is light must ever
be in the light : comp, dvafiaXX6p.evos 0ws us IpAnov (Ps. civ. 2), and
<J>ws oIk&v dvpbairov (1 Tim. vi. 16), which embodies the same
thought. Ai)t6s,' as commonly, but not invariably (see on v. 5 and ii.
12), in this Epistle, means God, not Christ. Imitatio Dei, criterium
communionis cum illo (Bengel).
It is very possibly, from this antithesis of walking in light and
walking in darkness that the figure of " The Two Ways," called in the

I. 7.]

NOTES. 27

AiSoxi) rCiv SibSeKa 'AvoarbXav (i. — vi.) o'Sos rrjs farjs and 6Sds tov Bavd-
rov, and in the Epistle of Barnabas (xviii. — xxi.) 6Sbs rou ipuirbs and
68bs tov aKorovs, took its rise.
KOivuvtav s\. p.6T dXXfjXwv. It is quite clear from iii. 23 ; iv. 7, 1 2 ;
2 John 5 that this refers to the mutual fellowship of Christians among
themselves, and not to fellowship between God and man, as S. Augus
tine, Calvin, and others (desiring to make this verse parallel to v. 6),
have interpreted-. But such barren repetitions are not in S. John's
manner: he repeats in order to progress. Moreover he would scarcely
have expressed the relation between God and man by a phrase which
seems to imply equality between those united in fellowship. Contrast
'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God'
(John xx. 17). He would rather have said 'We have fellowship with
Him, and He with us.' The communion of Christians with one
another is a consequence of their walking in the light. In that 'thick
darkness' which prevailed 'in all the land of Egypt three days, they
saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days (Ex.
xi. 22, 23) : i.e. there was an absolute cessation of fellowship. Society
could not continue in the dark : but when the light returned, society
was restored. So also in the spiritual world ; when the light comes,
individuals have that communion one with another which in darkness
is impossible. In a similar spirit Cicero declares that real friendship
is impossible without virtue (De Amic. vi. 20).
Kal to alpa 'Ii)crov. Comp. Rev. v. 9; vii. 14; xii. 11. The Kal
indicates that this is a further consequence of walking in the light.
One who is walking in spiritual darkness cannot appropriate that
cleansing from sin, which is wrought by the blood of Jesus, shed on
the Cross and offered to God as a propitiation for sin. It is by His
death that we participate in His life, and the sphere in which life is
found is light. The addition of tov vlov cCvtov is not at aU redundant :
(1) it is a passing contradiction of Cerinthus, who taught that Jesus
was a mere man when His blood was shed, for the Divine element in
His nature left Him when He was arrested in the garden ; and of the
Ebionites, who taught that He was a mere man from His. birth to His
death ; (2) it explains how this blood can have such virtue : it is the
blood of One who is the Son of God. Early Christian writers used
very extreme language in expressing this truth. Clement of Rome (ii)
speaks ofthe vaBrj/iara of God; Ignatius (Eph. 1) of alp-a Qeov, (Bom.
vi.) of rb vdBos tou Geofi. Tatian (ad Graec. xm.) has rofi vevovBbros
GeoB, Tertullian (de Cam. Christi, v.) passiones Dei, and (ad Uxor. 11.
iii) sanguine Dei. See Lightfoot, Appendix to Clement, p. 402.
KaSaplga. Note the present tense of what goes on continually, that
constant cleansing which even the holiest Christians need (see on John
xiii. 10). One who lives in the light knows his own frailty and is
continually availing himself of the purifying power of Christ's sacrifi
cial death. 'This passage shews that the gratuitous pardon of sins is
given us not once only, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in
the Church, and daily offered to the faithful' (Calvin). Nate also the
'all'; there is no. limit to its cleansing power: even grievous sinners

28 1 S. JOHN. [I. 7—
can be restored to the likeness of God, in whom is no darkness at all.
This refutes by anticipation the error of the Novatians, who denied
pardon to mortal sins after baptism. Comp. 'How much more shall
the blood of Christ... cleanse your conscience' (Heb. ix. 14), and
' These are they which come out of the great tribulation, and they washed
their robes and made them white in the blood ofthe Lamb' (Rev. vii.
14). And 'apart from shedding of blood there is no remission' (Heb.
ix. 25). For dpapria in the singular, sin regarded as one great plague,
comp. iii. 4; John viii. 21; xvi. 8; and especially i. 29. But the
addition of vdar/s without the article shews us that this plague has
many forms: 'from every (kind of) sin.' Winer, 137. Comp. Matt.
xii. 31. Clement of Alexandria (Strom, m. iv.) quotes vv. 6, 7 (with
the formula ipr/alv 6 'ludwr/s iv rrj iviaroXy) and omits *doTjs.
8 — 10. Consciousness and Confession op Sin.
8 — 10. Walking in the light involves the great blessings just stated,
— fellowship with God and with our brethren, and a share in the puri
fying blood of Jesus. But it also involves something on our part. It
intensifies our consciousness of sin, and therefore our desire to get rid
of it by confessing it. No one can live in the light without being
abundantly convinced that he himself is not light.
8. 4av elircoiiev. The second of the false professions : see on v.
6. Some probably did say so, and others thought so : ttvap.ev need
not mean more than ' say in our hearts.' Portions of S. John's own
teaching (iii. 9, 10) might easily be misunderstood as countenancing
this error, if taken without his qualifications. 'AuapTiav 'i\av is a
phrase peculiar to S. John in N. T. It differs from dp.aprdvtiv much
as dp.aprla or r) dfxaprla, sin as a whole, from apaprlai or ai apM.prlai,
the separate sinful acts. Comp. John ix. 41 ; xv. 22, 24 ; xix. 11. We
need not enquire whether original or actual sin is meant : the expres
sion covers sin of every kind. Only one human being has been able
to say ' The things pleasing to God I always do ' ; ' Whioh of you con-
victeth Me of sin? ' ; ' The ruler of the world hath nothing in Me'
<John viii. 29, 46; xiv. 30). The more a man knows of the meaning
of 'God is light', i.e. the more he realises the absolute purity and
holiness of God, the more conscious he will become of his own im
purity and sinfulness: comp. Job ix. 2; xiv. 4; xv. 14; xxv. 4; Prov.
xx. 9; Eccles. vii. 20.
Iovtovs irXavcopev. Not the middle, nor the passive, but a form of
expression which makes it quite clear that the erring is all our own
doing. Not 'we err,' or 'we are deceived,' but we lead ourselves
astray, with an emphasis on 'ourselves.' Ipsi nos seducimus. We do
for ourselves what the archdeceiver Satan (Rev. xii. 9 ; xx. 10) en
deavours to do for us. UXavdv in the active is frequent in S. John (ii.
26, iii. 7; John vii. 12; Rev. ii. 20; xii. 9; xiii. 14; xix. 20; xx. 3, 8,
10). These passages indicate that the verb is a strong one and imphes
serious departure from the truth. For iavrois with the first person
comp. dvt8ep.arlaap.ev iavrois (Acts xxiii. 14), iavrovs SitKplvoaev (1 Cor.
xi. 31). It occurs with the second person v. 21; 2 John 8 (see note);

I. 9.]

NOTES. 29

John v. 42 ; and frequently in S. Paul's writings. Winer 178, 179,
321, 322. 'To deceive' would be rather dvardv (James i. 26), i£ava-
riv (1 Cor. iii. 18), (ppevavarav (Gal. vi. 3), ij dXijO. Iv ijptv ovk
eonv. Once more the positive statement is enforced by a negative
one (vv. 5, 6). We are in an atmosphere of self-made darkness which
shuts the truth out. It may be all round us, as sunlight round a
closed house; but it does not enter into us, still less has a permanent
place in us. All words about truth are characteristic of S. John's
writings ; dXrjBeia, Gospel and all three Epistles ; dXrjBrjs, Gospel, and
1 and 3 John; dXijBivbs, Gospel, 1 John, and Revelation; dX-nBus,
Gospel and 1 John. ' The truth ' is the correlative of ' witness ', which,
as shewn above (v. 2), is also characteristic of the Apostle.
9. lav opoX. rds dpapT. ijutov. The opposite case is now taken
and developed, as in v. 7: see note there. But here we have no Si,
and the asyndeton is telling. Greek has such a wealth of connecting
particles, that in that language asyndeton is specially remarkable.
Here there is expansion and progress, not only in the second half of
the verse where 'He is faithful and righteous' takes the place of 'we
are true'; but in the first half also; where 'confess our sins' takes
the place of 'say we have sin.' The latter admission costs us little:
the confession of the particular sins which we have committed costs a
good deal, and is a guarantee of sincerity. He who refuses to confess,
may perhaps desire, but certainly does not seek forgiveness. ' He that
covereth his transgressions shall not prosper : but whoso confesseth and
forsaketh them shall obtain mercy' (Prov. xxviii. 13). Obviously con
fession to Him who is 'faithful and righteous,' and to those 'selves'
whom we should otherwise ' lead astray, ' is all that is meant. The
passage has nothing to do with the question of confession to our fellow-
men. Elsewhere S. John uses ouoXoyeiv only of confessing Christ
(ii. 23; iv. 2, 3, 15; 2 John 7; John i. 20; ix. 22; xii. 42; Rev. iii. 5).
itio-t6s Io-tiv k. Slkoios. He is faithful and righteous, to bring out
the contrast with vdar/s d S 1 k I a s here and the connexion with 'Iria. Xp.
SUaiov (ii. 1). God is *iotc5s because He keeps His word, and SUaios
because in doing so He gives to each his due. Comp. *coros ydp o
ivayyeiXdpevos (Heb. x. 23) ; viarbv rjyrjaaro rbv ivayyeiXd/itvov (xi. 11).
AIkcuos et 0 wv... oti ravra l-Kpivas. . .dXrjBival Kal 5i/cacat ai Kplatts aov (Rev.
xvi. 5 — 7). Beware of watering down Slxaios into a vague expression
for 'kind, gentle, merciful.' 'The Lord be a true and faithful witness
between us ' (Jer. xiii. 5) in LXX is "Eo-ru Kvpios iv rjiuv tis adprvpa
SlKaiov Kal viarbv.
tva dtpfj. In spite of what some eminent scholars have said to the
contrary, it is perhaps true that the Greek for these words includes to
some extent the idea of intention and aim. Comp. iii. 1 ; John iv. 34;
vi. 29, 40; xii. 23; xiii. 1. Thus the Vulgate and Beza, fidelis est et
Justus, ut remittat nobis peccata nostra; and Wiclif, ' He is feithful and
jnst that He forgeve to us oure synnes'; and the Rhemish, 'He is
faithful and just, for to forgive us our sinnes.' In S. John we find
the conviction deeply rooted that all things happen in accordance with

3o 1 S. JOHN. [I. 9-
the decrees of God : events are the results of His purposes. And this
conviction influences his language : so that constructions (Ira) which
originally indicated a purpose, and which even in late Greek do not
lose this meaning entirely, are specially frequent in his writings: see
on John v. 36. It is God's decree and aim that His faithfulness and
righteousness should appear in His forgiving us and cleansing us
from sin. " Forgiveness and cleansing are ends to which God, being
what He is, has regard" (Westcott). See Haupt's note and Winer,
577. Those particular acts of which we are conscious and which we
have confessed are indicated by Tas dpapTCas: apiaprla in the singular
may be either sin in the abstract (John xvi. 9) or a single act of sin (v.
16) ; dp-aprlai in the plural must mean particular sinful acts (ii. 2, 12 ;
iii. 5; v. 10). Comp. Ps. xxxii. 5; Prov. xxviii. 13, where the doctrine,
that confession of sins (not admission of sinfulness) leads to forgive
ness, is plainly stated.
KaSapCo-rj T^p. airo ir. a'SiKtas. Not a repetition in other words of
dcpjj tos dpi. It is a second and distinct result of our confession : 1.
We are absolved from sin's punishment ; 2. We are freed from sin's
pollution. The reference to the phraseology of the Temple is obvious
(Heb. ix. 23 ; John ii. 6 ; iii. 25). The one affects our peace, the other
our character. The forgiveness is the averting of God's wrath ; the
cleansing iB the beginning of holiness. "He takes from thee an
evil security, and puts in a useful fear " (Augustine). Possibly, as in
v. 6, there is exact correspondence between the two clauses. There,
ij/evSbpieBa evidently refers to etvapitv, voiov/iev to vepivardpitv. Here,
diprj may look back to viarbs, KaBapla-Q to Slxaios. God is 'faithful'
in forgiving our sins, because He has promised to do so, 'righteous'
in cleansing us from unrighteousness, because reunion with Him
banishes what is contrary to Him. Light must expel darkness.
10. ovx ilpapTTiKapev. This is the third false profession. It is
not equivalent to dp.aprlav obx ixop-t" (v. 8), which refers to the sinful
state, the inward principle : whereas this indicates the result of that
state, viz. the commission of sinful acts. 1. We may ignore the
difference between right and wrong and thereby deny that sin exists
(v. 6). 2. We may deny that our own nature is sinful (v. 8). 3. Or,
admitting the reality of sin and the sinful tendency of our nature, we
may deny that we, as a matter of fact, have sinned. Of course sins
committed before baptism are not meant : no Christian would have
denied these. Both in Gospel and in Epistles S. John has in mind
adult Christians, not catechumens. The Greek perfect here again
(ot. 1, 3) has its full force; present result of past action: 'We are in
the condition of having avoided sin.'
i|ie<o-Trp/ iroiovpev avTo'v. At first sight this third false profession
seems less serious than the others: but to avoid the other two and
yet adopt this is more conspicuously a sin against light. There is a
marked gradation of guilt. 'To lead ourselves astray' (v. 8) is worse
than 'to lie' (v. 6): but 'to make God a liar' is worst of all. This
use of *oieiV for 'to assert that one is' is another of S. John's charac
teristics: riva aeavrbv voiets; (John viii. 53); rroieis creai/Tov Beov (x.33).

IL]

NOTES. 31

Comp. v. 18, xix. 7, 12. The 0. T. proclaims the universality of sin.
Moreover, God's whole scheme of salvation assumes that every human
being sins and has need of redemption, the Redeemer only excepted.
Therefore those who profess that they have never sinned, and have
no need of a Redeemer, charge God with having deliberately framed
a Ubel against themselves, and having misstated the possibilities of
human nature. It has been acutely remarked of Renan's Life of
Jems that "sin does not appear in it at all. Now if there is anything
which explains the success of the Good News among men, it is that it
offered deliverance from sin — salvation" (Amiel).
& XcVyos ovtov ovk Jo-tiv Iv t}v.Iv. God's revelation of Himself has
no home in our hearts : it remains outside us, as the light remains
outside and separate from those who shut themselves up in darkness.
Obviously 6 \670s here is not personal: nothing has been said about
the indwelling of Christ. 'His word ' means the whole of God's Reve
lation in both 0. and N.T., especially in the Gospel (John x. 35; xvii.
6, 14, 17). '0 X070S is more definite than r) aXrjBeia (v. 8), and also
more personal : it implies that the truth has been uttered. Utterance
there must be in word or deed to make truth of any worth to mankind.
The expressions eivai iv and fiiveir ir, to express intimate relationship,
are very characteristic of S. John : and either of the things related can
be said to be in the other. Thus, either ' His word is not in us ' (comp.
ii. 14) or 'If ye abide in My Word' (John viii. 31): either ' The truth
is not in us' (v. 8) or 'He standeth not in the truth' (John xiii. 44).
Sometimes the two modes of expression are combined; 'Abide in Me,
and I in you' (John xv. 4).
Note that the contrary hypothesis to the first and second false pro
fessions is given (vv. 7 and 9) but not to the third. That to the
second (v. 9) covers the third also. The mere confession of sinfulness,
which would be the exact contrary to the second false profession, is
omitted as being of no moral value.
CHAPTER II.
4. Before fvvioKa insert oti with NAB against CKL. N omits Iv
tovtcj) before ij aXrjSeia and inserts toC Beov after it.
6. Before irepnraTtCv omit outus with AB against NCK.
7. For dSeXctoi (KL) read dvairnToi' (XABCP), and after iJKOvo-a™
omit dv' dpxvs with NABCP and Versions against KL.
8. For o-KOTCa (BC and Versions) A has ovcia.
13. For 7pdcpu with iraiSta (K) read g-ypaipa (KABCP).
14. B has t6 dir* dpxijs- B and the Thebaic omit tov 8«ov. Comp.
v. 20.
15. AC read ij 07011-0 tov OeoB. Some later authorities have the
conflate reading ij dydirTi toB GeoB Kal tov iraTpos-
18. Before aVrCxpio-ros omit d with N'BC against AKL.

32 IS. JOHN. [IL—
20. For Kal o£8aTe irdvra (ACKL, Memphitic, Vulgate) we should
perhaps read xal olSart vdvres (NP) or oXSare vdvres (B, Thebaic).
Comp. v. 14. The reading remains uncertain.
23. After c?x«i add 6 opoXo-ywv rdv vlov Kal tAv iraWpa H\a with
NABC and Versions against KL. Omission through homoeoteleuton.
24. After the first vpeis omit oSv with NABC and Versions against
KL. 27. For iv bp.iv piivei (KL) read pevei Iv vpiv (NBC); for t6 avrb
(AKL) read to ovtov (NBC) ; and for iitveirt (KL) read pevere (NABC
and Versions). B has xdpto-p;a for the first XP'°"P<* and N1 has vvevpa
for the second.
28. For otoj' (KL) read lav (NABC), and for ?x»(iep (N^KL) read
crx<opev (N3ABC). N omits Kal vvv...lv avTcu through homoeoteleuton.
29. For elSrJTe (NBC, Vulgate) AKL and some Versions read tirp-e.
Before ircts insert Kal with NAC, Peschito, Thebaic, and Vulgate
against BKL. B and some Versions omit both Kal and vas.
In nearly all these cases B preserves the original text. The com
bination NB iu no instance yields a doubtful reading.

Ch. H. 1 — 6. Obedience to God by Imitation of Chbist.
1 — 6. The Apostle is still treating of the condition and conduct of
the believer as determined by his walking in the light ; there is no
break between the two chapters. Having shewn us that even Christ
ians constantly sin, he goes on (1) to point out the remedy for sin, (2)
to exhort us not to sin. The paragraph begins and ends with the latter
point, but the former constitutes the chief link with the preceding
paragraph : comp. i. 7. He who craves to grow in sanctification, and
yet is conscious of his own frailty must constantly have recourse to
the Advocate and His cleansing blood: thus he will be enabled to
obey God more and more perfectly. The consideration of what it has
cost to provide a remedy for sin will inspire bim with a horror of sin.
1. TtKvCa pov. The diminutive does not imply that the Apostle
is addressing persons of tender age: it is a term of endearment.
Wiclif has 'litil sones' as a rendering of the filioli of the Vulgate;
Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan Version all waver between
'babes' (which is far too strong) and 'little children.' -Setting aside
Gal. iv. 19, where the reading is uncertain, the word occurs only in
this Epistle (vv. 12, 28; iii. 7, 18 ; iv. 4; v. 21) and once in the Gospel
(xiii. 33). Possibly it is a reminiscence of Christ's farewell address in
John xiii. S. John's conception of the Church is that of a family, in
which all are children of God and brethren one of another, but in
which also some who are elders stand in a parental relation to the
younger brethren. Thus there were families within the family, each
with its own father. And who had a better right to consider himself
a father than the last surviving Apostle? "The Apostles loved and"

II. l.j

NOTES. 33

cherished that name, and all that it implied, and all that illustrated it.
They much preferred it to any title which merely indicated an office.
It was more spiritual: it was more personal; it asserted better the
divine order; it did more to preserve the dignity and sacredness of all
domestic relations" (Maurice). Comp. the story of 'S. John and the
Robber ' (p. xxxii).
Tai/Ta Ypdcpco. Probably referB to what precedes rather than to what
follows. They must not think that because he insists on the reality
of sin and the sinfulness of all (i. 6 — 10), therefore he would have
them acquiesce in sin as inevitable. Henceforward he drops the
Apostohc first person plural and uses the more personal singular in
harmony with rtKvla p.ov.
tva prj dpdpTi|Te. In order that ye may not sin. The aorist is
conclusive against the rendering 'that ye may not continue in sin.'
He would help them to avoid every act of sin. Comp. Iva ns i% avrov
Qdyrj Kal p.rj dvoBdvn (John vi. 50) ; and contrast i. 3 ; iii. 11 ; iv. 21 ;
v. 3, where the present subjunctive is used. This is the moral effect
of the death of Christ ; — to unite men to the God who is Light, and
to enable them to hate and avoid the darkness of sin. His aim
throughout is bpalwais rep GecJ (iii. 2).
Kal idv tis dpdpTij. Et si quis peccaverit. And if any one have
sinned. The aorist again shews that it is an act, and not a state of
sin, that is contemplated. Not merely the habitual offender, but he
who falls into a single sin, needs and has an Advocate. Sin and its
remedy are placed in close proximity, just as they are found in the
Church. Note the changes of construction : 'that ye sin not. And if
any one. ..we have.' S. John's habit of writing in the Hebrew form
by co-ordinating rather than by subordinating his clauses comes out
here. A Greek would more probably have written : toBto ypdtpw tva
pUj dudp. Kal tva. eiSfJTe oti, idv tis dp,., v. ixpP-tv.
irapdicXT|Tov ex0!""- ^us* as we always have sin (i. 8) so we always
have One ready to plead for pardon. S. John does not say ' he hath
an Advocate, ' but ' we have ' one : he breaks the logical flow of the
sentence rather than seem not to include himself in the need and pos
session of an Advocate, comp. v. 28. On Advocate or Paraclete (vapd-
kXijtos) see on John xiv. 16. It means one who is summoned to the side of
another, especially to serve as his helper, spokesman (causae patronus),
or intercessor. The word occurs in N.T. only in S. John; here in the
Epistle and four times in the Gospel (xiv. 16, 26 ; xv. 26 ; xvi. 7). It is
unlikely that S. John would use the word in totally different senses in
the two writings, especially if the Epistle was written to accompany the
Gospel. We must therefore find some meaning which will suit all five
passages. Two renderings compete for acceptation, 'Comforter' and
'Advocate.' Both make good sense in the Gospel, and (though there
is by no means agreement on the point) 'Advocate' makes the best
sense. 'Advocate' is the only rendering which is at all probable here:
it exactly suits the context. 'We have a Comforter with the Father'
would be intolerable. Moreover, the passive form of the word is
decisive, as well as the use of it in the Greek Orators; although some
s. JOHN (ep.) C

34 1 S. JOHN. [II. 1—
of the Greek Fathers give it an active meaning, as if it were
vapaKXrjrap. The older English Versions (excepting Taverner, who
has 'spokesman') all have 'Advocate' here; and (excepting the
Rhemish, which has 'Paraclete') all have 'Comforter' in the Gospel:
and of course this unanimity influenced the translators of 1611. But
' Advocate ' as the one rendering which suits all five passages should be
adopted throughout. Then we see the full meaning of Christ's promise
(John xiv. 16), 'I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another
Advocate.' Jesus Christ is one Advocate ; the Holy Spirit is another.
As S. Paul says, ' the Spirit Himself maketh intercession for us with
groanings which cannot be uttered': and it is worthy of remark that
he uses precisely the same language (ivrvyxdveiv) to express the inter
cession of the Spirit and the intercession of Christ (Rom. viii. 26, 27,
34). Comp. Heb. vii. 25 ; ix. 24 ; 1 Tim. ii. 5. Philo's use of the word
'Paraclete ' throws considerable light upon its meaning. He often uses
it of the high-priest with his breastplate of judgment (Ex. xxviii. 29)
interceding on earth for Israel, and also of the Divine Word or Logos
giving efficacy in heaven to the intercession of the priest upon earth :
' It was necessary that the priest who is consecrated to the Father of
the world should employ as an Advocate most perfect in efficacy the
Son, for the blotting out of sins and the obtaining a supply of abundant
blessings' (De Vita Mosis, in. xiv. 155). It is evident that the whole
passage — ' the blood of Jesus cleanseth us,' 'to cleanse us from all un
righteousness, ' 'Advocate,' 'propitiation' — points back to the Mosaic
purifications by the blood of victims, and especially to the intercession
of the high-priest with the blood of the bullock and the goat on the
Day of Atonement. That great type, S. John affirms, has been
fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Comp. Heb. ix. 24 ; and an Easter Collect
in the Gelasian Sacramentary : "Be propitious to our supplications,
that our supreme High Priest interceding for us may reconcile us, in
that He is like unto us, and absolve us, in that He is equal to Thee."
irpos tov iraTepa. The *p6s expresses either turning towards in
order to plead, or (as in i. 2; John i. 1) ever before His face. Cyprian
has apud Patrem, Augustine sometimes ad and sometimes apud,
Jerome apud. Haripa rather than GeoV, because our Advocate is His
Son, through whom we also become sons. It is not a stern Judge
but a loving Father before whom He has to plead.
8£kcuoi>. Much more forcible placed here as a predicate than if it
had been added as an epithet to irapaKX-qrov. It is not merely that we
have a righteous advocate, but that we have as our advocate One who
is in His own nature righteous. Thus He can so well plead with the
' righteous Father ' (John xvii. 25 ; 1 John i. 9) for those who are
unrighteous : Justus namque advocatus injustas causas non suscipit
(Bede). 'For such a high-priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled,
separated from sinners' (Heb. vii. 26). It is the Sinless Man, the
perfected and glorified Jesus, who pleads for sinners before the Throne
of God. Note that neither in the body of the Epistle, any more than
in the body of the Gospel, does S. John speak of Christ as 'the Word.'
In both cases that title is used in the Introduction only. When he

II. 2.] NOTES. 35
speaks of the historic person Jesus Christ, S. John uses the name by
which He is known in history. Of the perfect righteousness of this
Man S. John has personal knowledge, and he alludes to it repeatedly
in this Epistle.
2. Kal avTos IXao-pos Icttiv. And He Himself is a propitiation.
"ExoueK... iariv, present tense of what is continual. In His glorified
Body the Son is ever acting thus. Contrast the aorist (iBr/Kev) of what
took place once for all (iii. 16), His death. Beware of the unsatisfactory
explanation that ' propitiation ' is the abstract for the concrete, ' pro
pitiation' (IXaapbs) for 'propitiator' (iXacrnjp). Had S. John written
'propitiator' we shouldhave losthalf the truth; viz. that our Advocate
propitiates by offering Himself. He is both High Priest and Victim,
both Propitiator and Propitiation. It is quite obvious that He is the
former ; the office of Advocate includes it. It is not at all obvious that
He is the latter : very rarely does an advocate offer himself as a propitia
tion. 'IXao-pos occurs nowhere in N. T. but here and in iv. 10 ; in
both places without the article and followed by vepl twV dp,, rjpdv. It
is one of the few great words in this Epistle which are not found in the
Gospel. It signifies any action which has expiation as its object, whether
prayer, compensation, or sacrifice. Thus 'the ram ofthe atonement'
(Num. \. 8) is 6 xpios toB iXaovioB. Comp. Ezek. xliv. 27 ; Num. xxix. 11 ;
Lev. xxv. 9. 'There is forgiveness with Thee' (Ps. cxxx. 4) is in LXX.
Trapa o-ol b IXaapbs iariv, 'Before Thee is the propitiation,' Apud Te
propitiatio est. The full meaning of this is given here : Jesus Christ,
as being righteous, is ever present before the Lord as the propitiation.
Comp. the use of IXdaKtaBai (Heb. ii. 17) and of IXaarrjpiov (Rom. iii.
25; Heb. ix. 5). These passages shew that in N.T. the word is
closely connected with that form of expiation which takes place by
means of sacrifice or offering, although this idea is not of necessity
included in the radical signification of the word itself. See notes in
all three places. Latin writers use deprecatio, exoratio, and placatio
as translations, as well as propitiatio. Thus Tertullian (De Pud. xix.) :
et ipse placatio est pro delictis nostris; and again Horum ergo erit
venia per exoratorem patris Christum. Augustine uses both propitiatio
and exoratio, and also propitiator. See Appendix G. Comp. S. Paul's
words KaraXXayr) (Rom. v. 11; xi. 15 ; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19) and /caToXXao-crcii'
(Rom. v. 10; 1 Cor. vii. 11; 2 Cor. v. 18—20). By the advocacy of
Christ (vapaKXr/ros) God is propitiated (IXaapbs) and we are reconciled
to Him (KaraXXayr)).
irepl tcov dpapr. rjp. Literally, concerning our sins: our sins are
matter respecting which propitiation goes on. So commonly in LXX.
Xipapov i£ alywv iva irepl dpaprias, i£tXdaaa8ai irepl vp&v (Num. xxix.
5, 11; comp. Exod. xxx. 15, 16; xxxii. 30; Lev. iv. 20, 26, 31, 35,
etc.). Comp. also John viii. 46 ; x. 33; xvi. 8. Note the plural: not
merely the sinfulness of human nature, but the sins which we are
daily committing, is the subject of the propitiation.
ov irepl tuv ijpeTe'puv 8e povov, dXXd Kal ir. oXov t. k. "The particle
St marks the clause as guarding against error, not merely adding a new
C2

36 1 S. JOHN. [II. 2—
thought" (Westcott). Once more we have a parallel with the Gospel,
and especially with chap. xvii. 'Neither for these only do I pray,
but for them also that shall believe on Me through their word... that
the world may believe that Thou didst send Me. ..that the world may
know that Thou didst send Me, and lovedst them, even as Thou
lovedst Me ' (xvii. 20 — 23) : 'Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh
away the sin of the world' (John i. 29) : 'We know that this is indeed
the Saviour of the world' (iv. 24). Comp. 1 John iv. 14. S. John's
writings are so full of the fundamental opposition between Christ or
believers and the world, that there was danger lest he should seem to
give his sanction to a Christian exclusiveness as fatal as the Jewish
exclusiveness out of which he and other converts from Judaism had
been delivered. Therefore by this (note especiaUy ' the whole world ')
and other plain statements both in Gospel (see xi. 51 in particular)
and Epistle he insists that believers have no exclusive right to the
merits of Christ. The expiatory offering was made for the whole world
without limitation. All who will may profit by it : quam late peccatum,
tarn late propitiatio (Bengel). The disabilities under which the whole
human race had laboured were removed. It remained to be seen who
would avail themselves of the restored privileges. It is from the
Latin, pro totius mundi (understanding peccatis, which Beza inserts)
that the A.V. rendering, 'bnt also for the sins of ihe whole world,'
comes. So Luther: 'sondern auch filr der ganzen Welt.' The sup
posed ellipse is neither necessary nor very probable: rather, as R.V., but
also for the whole world. Comp. John v. 36 ; Heb. ix. 7. The latter
passage shews that the ellipse is not necessary ; and if it be said that
IXaapbs implies tuv apapnwv (which may be doubted), then let 'pro
pitiation ' imply ' sins ' in the English. We are not justified in
inserting the word.
'O Koo-pos is another of S. John's characteristic expressions. In
his writings it generaUy means those who are alienated from God,
outside the pale of the Church. " The world is a living tradition of
disloyalty and dislike to God and His kingdom, just as the Church is
or was meant to be a living tradition of faith, hope, and charity "
(Liddon's Easter Sermons xxii, perhaps the best existing commentary
on S. John's use of 'the world'). But we should fall into grievous error
if we assigned this meaning to the word indiscriminately. Thus, in
'the world was made by Him' (John i. 10) it means 'the universe'; in
'This is of a truth the Prophet that cometh into the world ' (John vi.
14) it means ' the earth ' ; in ' God so loved the world ' (John iii. 16) it
means, as here, ' the inhabitants of the earth, the human race.' But
still the prevalent meaning in both Gospel and Epistle is a bad one ;
'those who have not accepted the Christ, unbelievers, especially the
great heathen organization of Rome.' The natural order has become
an unnatural disorder. S. Paul uses the word in the same sense (1 Cor.
ii. 12; vii. 33; 2 Cor. vii. 10; Col. ii. 8; Gal. iv. 3 ; vi. 14). In the
Apocalypse it occurs only thrice, once in the usual sense, 'The
kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord' (xi. 15), and
twice in the sense of ' the universe' (xiii. 8 ; xvii. 8).

II. 3.]

NOTES. 37

3. Iv to4tcj> vivwo-Kopev oti lyvuKapev ovtov. Herein we come to
know that we know Him; or, we perceive that we have come
to know Him. The difference between lyvaxa (' I have come to know '
= 'Iknow') and other tenses of yivioaKoi ('I get to know, perceive,
recognise') should be marked. Comp. the collect for First Sunday
after Epiphany; ' that they may both perceive and know what things
they ought to do.' Progressive knowledge gained by experience is
implied in yivaaKtiv (ot. 5, 18, 29; iii. 1, 19, 24, &a.). 'Ej> toiJtu fol
lowed by idv (John xiii. 35), or dVe (1 John iii. 16; iv. 9, 10, 13) or orav
(v. 2), or tva (John xv. 8 and perhaps 1 John iv. 17), is common in S.
John's writings. The meaning of iv roiru must in each case be
determined by the context. Sometimes, as here, it refers to what
follows: sometimes, as probably in iv. 17, to what precedes : generally
to both; i.e. what has been already stated is elucidated by what
follows. Comp. iK roirov (iv. 6) and oid toBto (John v. 16, 18; vi. 65;
vii. 22; viii. 47; ix. 23; x. 17; xii. 18, 27, 39, &c), which also com
monly looks both backwards and forwards: see on John xii. 39.
Excepting Luke x. 20, iv roirip is peculiar to S. John. Avtov, as
commonly in this Epistle, probably means God rather than Christ : ai
ivroXal airov everywhere else means God's commandments (iii. 22, 24 ;
v. 2, 3), and probably here also.
edv t. Ivt. avrov rnpupev. This = iv rtp fyurl vtpivareiv (i. 7) and prj
a/iaprdveiv (ii. 1). There is no real knowledge of God, no fellowship
with Him, without practical conformity to His will. Nam quisquis
eum non amat, profecto ostendit, quia quam sit amdbilis, non novit
(Bede). S. John is again condemning that Gnostic doctrine which
made excellence to consist in mere intellectual enlightenment. Di
vorced from holiness of life, says S. John, no enlightenment can be a
knowledge of God. In his system of Christian Ethics the Apostle
insists no less than Aristotle, that in morals knowledge without
practice is worthless : ' not speculation but conduct ' (oi yvaais dXXd
vpS.£is, Nic. Eth. i. iii. 6) is the aim of both the Christian and the
heathen philosopher. Mere knowledge will not do : nor will know
ledge 'touched by emotion' do. It is possible to know, and admire,
and in a sort of way love, and yet act as if we had not known. But
S. John gives no encouragement to devotion without a moral life
(comp. i. 6). There is only one way of proving to ourselves that we
know God, and that is by loving obedience to His will. Compare the
very high standard of virtue set by Aristotle : he only is a virtuous
man who does virtuous acts, vpwrov piv idv elSds, irreir' idv vpoaipoi-
pevos, Kal vpoaipoipevos Si1 aird, to Si rplrov Kal idv /3e/3aius Kal
dpeTaxivhjus ixav vpdrrrj (Nic. Eth. ii. iv. 3).
Tds eVoXds r-nptiv and toV XcVyop rripeiv are phrases of frequent
occurrence in S. John's writings, Gospel (xiv. 15, 21; xv. 10; viii. 51,
52, 55 ; xiv. 23 ; xv. 20 ; xvii. 6), Epistle (ii. 4 ; iii. 22, 24 ; v. [2,] 3 ; ii. 5)
and Revelation (xii. 17; xiv. 12; iii. 8, 10). Comp. John xiv. 24; Rey.
xxii. 7, 9. Tifpeti' means to be on the watch to obey and fulfil ; it
covers both outward and inward observance.
These verses (3—5) exhibit the Vulgate as for once as capricious in

38 1 S. JOHN. [II. 3—
its renderings as the A.V. In three consecutive sentences we have
Tnpeiv translated in three different ways ; observemus, custodit, servat.
i. The previous statement is again enforced by denying the opposite
of it (i. 5, 6, 8). The construction 6 Xiyav, b dyavQv, &c. now takes
the place of idv etvwpev, idv vepivartSpev, &c, but without change of
meaning : after v. 11 both constructions cease and a new division
begins. Comp. i. 6 which is exactly parallel to this.

idv e'tvapev oti
Koivwvlav ix°^-tv per' airov,
Kal iv rtp aKbrei vepivar&pev,
^J/evSbpeBa k. oi v. rrjv dXr)B.

6 Xiywv on
"~EyvwKa avrbv,
Kal rds ivr. avrov prj rrjpav,
tj/eia. iar., k. iv r. r) dX. ovk ear.

By writing prj rr/piov rather than oi) t. S. John states the case as
generally and gently as possible, without asserting that any such
person exists : comp. iii. 10, 14; iv. 8, 20; v. 10, 12; Matt. xii. 30, &c.
Winer, 606.
6. The statement in v. 3 is still further emphasized by taking the
opposite of v. 4, which is the opposite of v. 3. But this does not bring
us back to v. 3, but to an expansion of it. S. John's apparent retro
gressions are real advances.
tov Xoyov is a wider expression than tos ivroXas, covering the sum
total of the revelation of God's will : comp. v. 14. It is certainly
wrong to interpret this of the ' continued indwelling ' of 'the Personal
Word. ' Here the emphasis is on Tr/py ; in v. 4 on ivroXas. dXr|6cos,
should be truly, or of a truth, to distinguish it from dprjv, verily, in
our Lord's discourses. Here it stands first for emphasis, as in John
viii. 31 : truly in him. Like i. 7, this verse insists on the necessity
for reality in holiness.
rj avoiri] t. ©eov TeTeXeiWai. The full force of the perfect is found
here as in i. 1, 2, 10 : ' hath been made perfect and remains so ' ;
perfecta est or consummata est : Beza has adimpleta est. Obedience,
not feeling, is the test of perfect love. This declaration shews that
it is quite wrong to make ' we know Him ' in v. 3 and ' I know Him '
in v. 4 a Hebraism for ' love Him ' Even if ' know ' is ever used in the
sense of 'love,' which may he doubted, S. John would hardly in the
same sentence use 'know' in two totally different senses (v. 3).
S. John's mention of love here shews that when he means 'love'
he writes ' love ' and not ' know.' He declares that true knowledge
involves love, but they are not identical, any more than convex and
concave. 'H dydiri) t. Qtov here means 'the love of man to God' :
this is the common usage in this Epistle (ii. 15; iii. 17 ; iv. 12; v. 3)
Winer, 232. Only once is the genitive subjective and means 'the
love of God for man ' ; and there the context makes this quite clear
(iv. 9). 'Aydvri and a7a*dV are among S. John's favourite words.
His Gospel is the Gospel of Love and his Epistle the Epistle of Love.
TeXeiovv is also much more common in his writings than elsewhere
in N.T., excepting the Epistle to the Hebrews, especially in the
passive voice (iv. 12, 17, 18 ; John xvii. 23 ; xix. 28). S. John is here
speaking, as often in this Epistle, of an ideal state of things. No

II. 7.] NOTES. 39
Christian's love to God is perfect: but the more perfect his know
ledge, the more perfect his obedience and his love. For the parallel
in the AiSaxrj rwv i/3' 'AvoaroXwv see Appendix F.
Iv ovtu lo-pev. Comp. iv avrip Irwper Kal KivoipeBa Kal iapiv (Acts
xvii. 28).
6. 6 Xe\wv. He who declares his position is morally bound to act
up to the declaration which he has made. To profess to abide in God
involves an obligation to imitate the Son, who is the concrete expression
of God's will. Mlveiv is another of the Apostle's very favourite ex
pressions, a fact greatly obscured in A.V. by capricious changes of
rendering: see on v. 24. 'To abide in ' implies habitual fellowship.
Note the climax ; to know Him (v. 3), to be in Him (v. 5), to abide in
Him (v. 6) : cognitio, communio, constantia (Bengel). Profession of
such close intimacy involves a debt (6<j>elXti, debet). S. John does not
say 'muBt' (Set, oportet) which might seem to imply constraint. The
obligation is internal and personal. 'Must' (Set), frequent in the
Gospel and Revelation, does not occur in these Epistles. See on iii. 16.
Ka6us IKeivos ir. Not simply us, as, but KaBws, even as : the imita
tion must be exact. It is always well in translation to mark the
difference between us and KaBws. For KaBws comp. vv. 18, 27 ; iii. 2,
12, 23, and for KaBws iKttvos, iii. 3, 7 ; iv. 17. 'Ekcivos in this Epistle
is always Christ : iii. 3, 5, 7, 16 ; iv. 17. Nomen facile supplent cre-
dentes, plenum pectus habentes memoria Domini (Bengel). S. Peter says
of Christ, bpiv ivoXipvdvwv vvoypappbv tva ivaKoXov8r)arjrt rots txvtaiv
avrov (1 Pet. ii. 21) ; and (stiU more closely to S. John) S. Paul says
vepivareiTe iv dydvy, KaBws Kal 6 Xptoros rfyavqaev bpds (Eph. v. 1).
Comp. Rom. xv. 5 ; Heb. xii. 2 ; and the Collect for the Second Sunday
after Easter. In all cases it is His loving self-sacrifice that is to be
imitated. Hence the next section.
7 — 11. Love of the Brethren.
7 — 11. Walking in the light involves not only fellowship with God
and with the brethren (i. 5 — 7), consciousness and confession of sin
(i. 8 — 10), obedience by imitation of Christ (ii. 1 — 6), but also love of
the brethren. In nothing did Christ more express the Father's Nature
and Will than by His love : therefore in obeying the Father by imitat
ing Christ we also must love. "This whole Epistle which we have
undertaken to expound to you, see whether it commendeth aught else
than this one thing, charity. Nor need we fear lest by much speaking
thereof it come to be hateful. For what is there to love, if charity
come to be hateful?" (S. Augustine). Comp. iii. 10; iv. 7.
7. aYairnToC. This, the true reading, is specially suitable as the
opening to this section (7 — 11), in which the subject of dydvtj comes to
the front. In the second part of the Epistle, in which 070*17 is the
main subject, dyavnrol becomes the prevailing form of address (iii. 2,
21 ; iv. 1, 7, 11). Augustine always in this Epistle renders dyawr/rot
dilectissimi, the Vulgate always carissimi ; but Contra Pelag. 13
Jerome has dilectissimi in 1 John ii. 3. ovk IvtoXtjv koivijv Ypa'tpu.

4o 1 S. JOHN. [II. 7—
The order of the Greek is worth preserving : not a new command
ment do I write. What commandment is here meant? To imitate
Christ (v. 6)? Or, to practise brotherly love (ot. 9— 11)? Practically
it makes little matter which answer we give, for at bottom these are
one and the same. They are different aspects of walking in the
light. But a definite command of some kind is meant, not vaguely
the whole Gospel : had he meant the latter, S. John would rather
have said 'the word' or 'the truth.' See on v. 11. Kaivos, as
distinct from pero, is 'fresh, novel,' as opposed to 'worn out' and
'familiar.' It may imply either praise, as being a reformation (k.
SiaBrJKrj, k. Krlais, oipavbs k. Kal yrj k.), or blame, as being an inno
vation (SiSaxv k., k. Btol). Neos is 'new, young,' as opposed to 'old,
aged.' In Mark ii. 22 we have both words: 'new wine into fresh wine
skins.' Trench, Synonyms of N. T., 209; Cremer, 321. In its better
sense xaivbs is a favourite word with S. John.
tX-jctrt dir apxijs. As already noticed (i. 1) the meaning of 'begin
ning' must always depend upon the context. Several interpretations
have been suggested here, and all make good sense. (1) From the
beginning of the human race: brotherly love is an original human
instinct. Christian Ethics are here as old as humanity. S. Athana
sius takes it in this sense. (2) From the beginning of the Law : ' Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Lev. xix. 18) was commanded
by Moses. Christian Ethics are in this only a repetition of Judaism.
(3) From the beginning of your life as Christians. This was one of
the first things ye were taught. On the whole this seems best, espe
cially as we have the aorist, which ye heard, not the perfect, as A. V.,
ye have heard (see on v. 18): comp. v. 24 and especially iii. 11;
2 John 5, 6. The second a*-' dpxijs is not genuine : see critical notes.
Note that both ivroXrj and X670S, being convertible terms, have the
article. See on iii. 4.
8. irdXiv evr. Kaivrjv vp. vp., o Io-tiv dXi)6ls. Either, Again, a new
commandment I write unto you, which thing is true: Or, Again, as a
new commandment I write unto you a thing which is true : Or, Again,
a new commandment write I unto you, namely that which is true. It
is difficult to decide between these three renderings ; but the third is
simpler than the first. Both Tyndale and the Genevan Version have
'a thing that is true': Beza ; id quod verum est in ipso: Luther; das
da wahrhaftig ist. If we adopt the rendering of A.V. and R. V.,
the meaning seems to be, that the newness of the commandment is
true, both in the case of Christ, who promulgated it afresh, and in
the case of you, who received it afresh. If we prefer the simpler ren
dering, the meaning will be, that what has already been shewn to be
true by the pattern life of Christ and by the efforts of Christians to
imitate it, is now given by S. John as a new commandment. The
irdXiv introduces a new view : that which from one point of view was
an old commandment, from another was a new one. It was old, but
not obsolete, ancient, but not antiquated : it had been renewed in a
fuller sense; it had received a fresh sanction. Thus both those who

II. 8.] NOTES. 41
feared innovations and those who disliked what was stale might feel

Iv atircj) Kal Iv vpiv. Note the double preposition, implying that it
is true in the case of Christ in a different sense from that in which it
is true in the case of Christians. He reissued the commandment and
was the Uving embodiment and example of it ; they accepted it and
endeavoured to foRow it : both illustrated its truth and soundness.
See on i. 3, where perd is repeated, and on John xx. 2, where *pos is
repeated. The reading iv r)piv is certainly to be rejected.
oti tj o-k. irapdyeTai. Because the darkness is passing away: present
tense of a process still going on (v. 17). All earlier English Versions
are wrong here, from Wiclif onwards, misled by transierunt tenebrae
in the Vulgate. So also Luther : denn die Finsterniss ist vergangen. On
ckotCo see on i. 5. The oti introduces the reason why he writes as a
new commandment what has been proved true by the example of
Christ and their own experience. The ideal state of things, to which
the perfect fulfilment of this commandment belongs, has already
begun : ' The darkness is on the wane, the true light is shewing its
power; therefore I bid you to walk as children of light.' Comp. 1 Cor.
vii. 31, where vapdyei used intransitively is rightly rendered ' passeth
away,' praeterit, vergehet. Uapiyerai here is middle rather than
passive, of a cloud withdrawing rather than of a veil being withdrawn.
Comp. Rom. xiii. 12; 1 Thes. v. 5.
The difference between the Vulgate (Cod. Am.) and Jerome (Adv.
Jovin. 1. 40) is here remarkable. In his own treatise he has Jlfarj-
datum novum scripsi vobis, quod est verissimum, et in Christo, et in
nobis : quia tenebrae praeterierunt et lux jam lucet. In the Vulgate
he has Iterum mandatum novum scribo vobis, quod est verum et in ipso
et in vobis ; quoniam tenebrae transierunt et lumen verum jam lucet.
rb <|>us to dX. rj'Srj cpatVei. The light, the true light, is already
shining. For the repetition of the article comp. v. 7; i. 2. 'Is shin
ing' rather than 'shineth,' to correspond with 'is passing away.'
It is the nature of light not merely to appear (<palveaBai) but to lighten
(<palveiv) : comp. John i. 5. We might render here, as in Gen. i. 17, 'is
already giving light.' 'AXtjOivov is 'true' as opposed to 'spurious,'
while dXi)8ls in the previous clause is 'true' as opposed to 'lying': the
one is verum, the other verax. 'AX-qBivbs is 'genuine,' and hence
'perfect,' as realising the idea formed of it. It is represented by
tie old English 'very,' the word which both Wiclif and Purvey
here employ, although they translate verum in the first part of
the verse by 'true.' 'Very God of Very God' in the Nicene Creed is
Qebv dXr/Bivbv iK Qeov dXrjBivov. Christ and the Gospel are 'the perfect
Light ' in opposition to the imperfect light of the Law and the Pro
phets. They are realities ; the others were types and figures. They
are 'the genuine Light' in opposition to the false light of Gnostic
philosophy. 'AXrjBirbs is almost peculiar to S. John ; four times in
this Epistle, nine times in the Gospel, ten times in Revelation : else
where in N. T. only five times. Christ is 0 dpros b dXr/Birbs (John vi.
32) and r) dpveXos r) dXijBirr) (xv. 1) as well as t6 e6us to dXrjBivbv (i. 9).

42 1 S. JOHN. [II. 8-
This last passage combined with John i. 5 renders it probable that
Christ is intended here, rather than the light of the truth or the king
dom of heaven: although the difference between the three interpreta
tions is not important. The contrast with the impersonal darkness
does not disprove this here any more than in John i. 5. Darkness is
never personal ; it is not an effluence from Satan as light is from God
or from Christ. It is the result, not of the presence of the evil one,
but of the absence of God. Comp. 'Ye were once darkness, but now
light in the Lord: walk as children of light' (Eph. v. 8).
9 — 11. The form of these three verses is similar to that of vv. 3 — 5,
and still more so to i. 8 — 10. In each of these three triplets a case is
placed between two statements of the opposite to it ; confession of sin,
obedience, and love, between two statements of denial of sin, disobe-
dience, and hate. But in none of the triplets do we go from one
opposite to the other and back again: in each ease the side from
which we start is restated in such a way as to constitute a distinct
advance upon the original position. There is no weak tautology
or barren see-saw. The emphasis grows and is marked by the in
crease in the predicates. In v. 9 we have one predicate: iv rrj axorlg.
iariv eW dpri: in v. 10 we have two; iv Tcp tpwrl pivei, Kal aKavSa-
Xov oiK iariv iv airtp: in v. 11, three; iv rrj aK. iariv, Kal ivryaK.
v., Kal ovk dlSev vov vvdyei. The Sinaiticus spoils this climax by
making the predicate in v. 9 to be twofold; \peiarrjs iariv Kai iv ax.
k.t.X. This reading is wrongly ascribed to Cyprian (Test. adv. Jud.
iii. 3).
9. For the fifth time the Apostle indicates a possible inconsistency
of a very gross kind between profession and conduct (i. 6, 8, 10 ; ii. 4).
We shall have a sixth in iv. 20. In most of these passages he is aiming
at some of the Gnostic teaching already prevalent. And this intro
duces a fresh pair of contrasts. We have had light and darkness, truth
and falsehood; we now have love and hate.
to'v dSeXcpov avTov. Ipsa appellatio amoris causam continet (Bengel).
Does this mean 'his fellow-Christian' or 'his fellow-man,' whether
Christian or not? The common meaning in N.T. is the former;
and though there are passages where dSeX^bs seems to have the wider
signification, e.g. Matt. v. 22; Luke vi. 41; Jas. iv. 11, yet even here
the spiritual bond of brotherhood is perhaps in the background. In
S. John's writings, where it does not mean actual relationship, it
seems generally if not universally to mean ' Christians' : not that other
members of the human race are excluded, but they are not under
consideration. Just as in the allegories of the Fold and of the Good
Shepherd, nothing is said about goats, and in that of the Vine nothing
is said about the branches of other trees ; so here in the great family
of the Father nothing is said about those who do not know Him.
They are not shut out, but they are not definitely included. In this
Epistle this passage, iii. 10, 14 — 17, and iv. 20, 21 are somewhat open
to doubt: but v. 1, 2 seems very distinctly in favour of the more
limited meaning; and in v. 16 the sinning 'brother' is certainly a
feUow-Christian. In 2 John the word does not occur: 3 John 3, 5,

II. 10.] NOTES. 43
10 confirm the view here taken. In the Gospel the word is generally
used of actual relationship : but in the two passages where it is used
otherwise it means Christians : in xx. 17 Christ speaks of the disciples
as toi>s dSeX<J>ois pov, and in xxi. 23 Christians are called toi>s dSeXtpobs
(see note). In the Apocalypse, omitting xxii. 9 as doubtful, all the
passages where the word occurs require the meaning 'Christian' (i. 9;
vi. 11; xii. 10; xix. 10). Note that throughout this Epistle the sin
gular is used ; rbv dSeXtpbv airov, not robs dSeX<pobs airoO.
Iv Trj o-KOTfa eo-rlv i-us apTi. Is in the darkness, to bring out the
full contrast with the light, as in i. 6 : even until now, i. e. in spite of
the Ught which ' is already shining, ' and of which he has so Uttle real
experience that he believes Ught and hatred to be compatible. Years
before this S. Paul had declared (1 Cor. xiii. 2), 'If I have the gift of
prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge. ..but have not
love, I am nothing.' "Fictitious sanctity dazzles the eyes of almost
all men, while love is neglected, or at least driven into the farthest
corner" (Calvin). The Ught in a man is darkness until it is warmed
by love. The convert from heathendom who professes Christianity
and hates his brother, says S. Augustine, is in darkness even until
now. "There is no need to expound ; but to rejoice, if it be not so, to
bewail, if it be." "Aprils specially frequent in S. John's Gospel: it
indicates the present moment not absolutely, but in relation to the
past or the future. The peculiar combination tws dpri occurs John ii.
10 ;v. 17; xvi. 24; Matt. xi. 12; 1 Cor. iv. 13; viii. 7; xv. 6; a fact
much obscured in A.V. by the variety of renderings; 'until now,'
'hitherto,' 'unto this day,' 'unto this hour,' 'unto this present.'
10. 6 dvairwv. Nothing is said about what he professes; it is what
he does that is of consequence, pevei means not only has entered
into the Ught, but has it for his abode : see on v. 24.
o-KdvSaXov ovk ea-Tiv Iv avT<3. There are four ways of taking this;
three taking abrtp as masculine, and one taking it as neuter, referring
to rip tpwrl. 1. He has in him nothing likely to ensnare him or cause
him to stumble. 2. He has in him nothing likely to cause others to
stumble. 3. There is in Ms case nothing likely to cause stumbHng.
4. In the light there is nothing likely to cause stumbling. AU make
good sense, and the last makes a good antithesis to 'knoweth not
whither he goeth' in v. 11 : but the first is to be preferred on account
of v. 11. Yet in favour of the second it is worth noting that aKdvSa-
Xov. is commonly, if not always, used of offence caused to others. The
paraUel expressions 'the truth is not in him' (v. 4), 'His word is not
in us' (i. 10; comp. i. 8), make 'in him' more probable than 'in his
case.' And nothing here suggests the notion that the brother-hater
leads others astray : it is his own dark condition that is contemplated :
ipse sibi offendiculum est. Moreover, there is the very close paraUel
in John xi. 9, 10; 'If a man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, be
cause he seeth the Ught of this world. But if a man walk in the
night, he stumbleth, because the Ught is not in him.' Comp. Ps. cxix.
165, 'Great peace have they which love Thy law: and nothing shall
offend them ' ; i. e. there is no stumbling-block before them : ovk iarui

44 1 S. JOHN. [II. 10-
avrois aKavSaXov. It is not impossible that this passage was in the
Apostle's mind: his iv may represent the 'to' in the Hebrew original.
Comp. 1 Sam. xxv. 31 where aKavSaXov represents the Hebrew mikshol,
'a stumbUng.' Elsewhere it represents moqesh 'a snare' (Judg. ii.
3 ; viii. 27). It combines the notions of tripping up and ensnaring.
The word is a late form of aKavSdXijBpov (Aristoph. Ach. 687) the 'bait-
stick' in a trap.
11. Iv ttj o-K. Io-tCv, k. Iv ttj o-k. ir. The darkness is his home and
the sphere of his activity. The contrast between the godly and the
wicked is similarly indicated in Prov. iv. 18, 19 : oi Si bSol rwv Sixalav
opolws tpwrl Xdpvovaiv vpovopevovrai Kal <pwrt£ovaiv, &OS KaropBwarj r)
r)pipa. al Si bSol rwv daefiwv axoreival' ovk otSaaiv rrcos vpoaKovrovaiv.
Here *o8 u*o7ei is Uterally, where lie is departing : vvdyeiv is ' to go
away.' S. John frequently joins *oB with vvdyeiv: John iii. 8; viii.
14; xii. 35, 36; xiv. 5; xvi. 5; vii. 35. Elsewhere in N.T. this con
struction occurs only Heb. xi. 8. In late Greek vov and o*ou are fre
quently used for vol and 6'*oi, iKti for ixtiat (John xviii. 3; Matt.
ii. 22; Rom. xv. 24), wSe for ivBdSe (John xx. 27; comp. Rev. iv.l; xi.
12). Neither *oi nor Svoi occurs in N.T. Winer, 591. The effect of
joining an adverb of rest to a verb of motion may sometimes be to
express both rest and motion. But this is commonly done by the
converse process of joining an adverb or preposition of motion to a
verb of rest: tbpiBrj els'Atwrov, ' was carried to Azotus and found there'
(Acts viii. 40) : comp. John viii. 26 ; xx. 7. — Another close parallel
between Gospel and Epistle exists here: part of John sii. 35 is almost
verbatim the same.
Sti rj o-k. iTvcpXcocrev. Because the darkness hath blinded. This is
juBt one of those cases where it is the Greek idiom to use the aorist,
but the EngUsh idiom to use the perfect ; and therefore the Greek aorist
should be rendered by the EngUsh perfect. Comp. John xiii. 13, 34;
xv. 9, 12. But the A.V. frequently turns aorists into perfects without
justification (see on i. 1 ; ii. 18, 24, 25, 27 ; 2 John 6), and occasionally
turns perfects into aorists (iv. 9; 2 John 4). ' Blinded ' must not be
weakened into 'dimmed': the verb means definitely 'to make blind'
(John xii. 40; 2 Cor. iv. 4). Animals kept in the dark, e.g. ponies in
coal-mines, become bUnd: the organ that is never exercised loses its
power. So also the conscience that is constantly ignored at last ceases
to act. The source of the metaphor is perhaps Is. vi. 10 : comp. Rom.
xi. 10.
Before proceeding further let us briefly sum up the Apostle's line of
argument thus far. 'God is Ught. Christ is that Ught revealed. The
Ufe of Christ was a life of obedience and a life of love. In order, there
fore, to have fellowship through Him with God beUevers must obey and
love. The state of things in which this is possible has already begun.
Therefore I write to you a command which is both old and new ; walk in
the Ught by imitating the love of Christ.' In this manner he lays the
foundations of Christian Ethics. The last three verses (9  11) shew
that the special aspect of walking in Ught which is referred to in the
commandment which is at onoe old and new is love: and if this be so,

II. 12.] NOTES. 45
we can hardly doubt that in caUing it 'a new commandment ' he has
in his mind Christ's fareweU words, John xiii. 34; 'A new command
ment I give unto you, that ye love one another ; even as I have loved
you, that ye also love one another.' The latter half of the verse is,
therefore, the special interpretation of ' ought himself also to walk
even as He walked.'
It is not easy to determine whether the division which follows (vv.
12 — 28) is best regarded as a subdivision of the first main portion of
the Epistle, or as a co-ordinate portion. In favour of the latter view
are these facts: 1. The idea of light which runs through the whole of
the division just concluded (i. 5 — ii. 11), and which is mentioned six
times in it, now disappears altogether. 2. The Epistle now takes a
distinctly hortatory turn. The first part lays down principles : this
part gives warnings and exhortations. 3. The Apostle seems to make
a fresh start : vv. 12 — 14 read Uke a new Introduction. In favour of
making this part a sub-division of the first main division it may be
urged : 1. Though the idea of Ught is no longer mentioned, yet
other ideas to which it directly led, love, the truth, abiding in God,
still continue : the parts evidently overlap. 2. The hortatory turn is
but a partial change of form occurring only in vv. 15 and 28. In the
intermediate verses the aphoristic mode of expression continues.
3. The quasi-Introduction in vv. 1 and 7.
On the whole it seems best to consider what follows as a subordi
nate part of the first main division of the Epistle. Thus far we have
bad the Condition and Conduct of the Believer considered on its
positive side. We now have the negative side — What Walking in
the Light excludes.
12 — 28. The Things and Persons to be Avoided.
These are summed up under two heads: i. The World and the
Things in the World (15 — 17) ; ti. Antichrists (18 — 26). The section
begins with a threefold statement of the happy experiences which those
addressed have had in the Gospel, and gives these as a reason for their
being addressed (12 — 14), and ends with an exhortation to abide in
Christ as the best safe-guard from the dangers against which the
Apostle has been warning them (27, 28).
12—14. Threefold Statement of Reasons for Writing.
"Hitherto St John has stated briefly the main scope of his Epistle.
He has shewn what is the great problem of life, and how the Gospel
meets it with an answer and a law complete and progressive, old and
new. He now pauses, as it were to contemplate those whom he is
addressing more distinctly and directly, and to gather up in a more
definite form the charge which is at once the foundation and the end
of aU he writes" (Westcott).
These verses have given rise to much discussion (1) as to the different
classes addressed, (2) as to the meaning of the change of tense, from
ypdtpw, I write, to lypaxf/a, I wrote or have written. In the true text
each of these forms occurs thrice. We have to deal with a change

46 1 S. JOHN. [II. 12—
from a triplet with ypdipw to a triplet with iypafa. This arrangement
is of importance in discussing the two difficulties. (1) The question
as to the classes addressed is much the easier of the two. It wiU be
observed that in each triplet we have 'little children' foUowed by
'fathers' and 'young men'; the sole difference being the use of
TtKvla in the first case and vaiSla in the second. But this need not
make us give a different interpretation in each case. 'Little children'
throughout the Epistle, whether expressed as in vv. 14 and 18 (vaiSla),
or as in vv. 1, 12, 28; iii. 7, 18; iv. 4; v. 21 (rtKvla), probably means
the Apostle's readers generally, and has nothing to do with age or
with standing in the Christian community. It indicates neither those
who are of tender years, nor those who are young in the faith. It is
a term of affection for aU the Apostle's 'dear children.' But this is
not the case with either 'fathers' or 'young men.' These terms are
probably in each triplet to be understood of the older and younger
men among the Christians addressed. This fuUy accounts for the
order in each triplet ; first the whole community, then the old, then
the young. If 'little children' had reference to age, we should have
had either 'children, youths, fathers,' or 'fathers, youths, children.'
There is, however, something to be said for the view that all S. John's
readers are addressed in all three cases, the Christian Ufe of aU having
analogies with youth, manhood, and age ; with the innocence of child
hood, the strength of prime, and the experience of full maturity.
Thus S. Augustine saya that Christians are filioli, quia baptismo
neonati sunt; patres, quia Christum patrem et antiquum dierum agnos-
cunt; adolescentes, quia fortes sunt et validi. But the other interpre
tation is better. To make rtKvla refer to the whole body of readers,
and vaiSla to a subdivision coordinate with varipts and veavlaKoi,
violently dislocates the grouping : so strange an arrangement may
safely be rejected.
(2) The question as to the change from ypdtpw to kypa\j/a is much
more difficult and cannot be decided with confidence. It is much
easier to shew that other explanations are unsatisfactory than to
produce an explanation that is free from serious objection. The
foUowing interpretations of the change from the present to the aorist
have been suggested. 1. 'I write' refers to the Epistle, 'I wrote' to
the Gospel which it accompanies. The Apostle first gives reasons
why he is writing this letter to the Church and to particular portions
of it ; and then gives reasons, partly the same and partly not, why he
wrote the Gospel to which it makes such frequent aUusions. On the
whole this seems least unsatisfactory. It gives an intelUgible meaning
to each tense and accounts for the abrupt change. But it must be
admitted that iypa\pa in v. 21 cannot easily be referred to the Gospel :
v. 26 is not parallel. 2. 'I write' refers to this Epistle; ' I wrote' to
a former Epistle. But of any former Epistle we have no evidence
whatever. 3. 'I write' refers to the whole Epistle; 'I wrote' to the
first part down to ii. 11. But would S. John have first said that
he wrote the whole letter for certain reasons, and then said that he
wrote a portion of it for much the same reasons? Had 'I wrote ' pre
ceded ' I write,' and had the reasons in each triplet been more different,

II. 12.] NOTES. 47
this explanation would have been more satisfactory. 4. ' I write '
refers to what foUows, 'I wrote' to what precedes. This is a construc
tion louche indeed ! The objection urged against the preceding explana
tion appUes still more strongly. 5. 'I write' is written from the
writer's point of view, 'I wrote' from the reader's point of view: the
latter is the epistolary aorist, like scripsi or seribebam in Latin (comp.
Phil. u. 25, 28 ; Philem. 12, and especially 19 and 21). But is it likely
that S. John would make three statements from his own stand-point,
and then repeat them from his readers' stand-point? And if so, why
make any change in them? 6. The repetition is made for emphasis.
This explains the repetition, but not the change of tense. Hence 3
yeypatpa yiypatpa (John xix. 22) and xoipere iv Kvplw vdvrore ' vdXiv
ipSi, xalptre (Phil. iv. 4) are not analogous ; for there the same tense
is repeated. 7. S. John may have left off writing at the end of v. 13,
and then on resuming may have partly repeated himself from the new
point of time, saying ' I wrote ' where he had previously said ' I write. '
This is conceivable, but is a little fine-drawn. — Without, therefore,
confidently affirming that it is the right explanation, we faU back upon
the one first stated, as intelligible in itself and more satisfactory than
the others. Commentators on the Vulgate are not confronted by the
difficulty, both ypdtpw and iypatj/a being rendered alike scribo, except
ing by Jerome (Cod. Amiatinus) who omits one fypatpa and translates
the last scripsi. Latin translators probably regarded iypatpa as an
epistolary aorist.
A paraUel arrangement wiU help the reader to consider the two
questions for himself.

ypdtpw bpiv, reKvia, Sti
dipiwvrai vpiv al apaprlai
Sid rb ovopa avrov.
ypdtpw vpiv, varipes, Sri
iyvt^Kare rbv dv' dpxijs.
ypdtpw vpiv, veavlaKol, on
vevmrJKaTe rbv vov-npbv.

iypatj/a vpiv, vaiSla, on
iyvicKare rbv varipa.
iypaxpa vpiv, varipes, Sn
iyvwKare rov dv' dpxvs.
iypa\j/a vpiv, veavlaKoi, on
laxvpol iare, Kal b Xbyos
rov Qeov iv vpuv piivei, koI
veviKrjKare rbv vovrjpov.

tekvCo. As in v. 1 (reKvia pov), v. 28 ; iii. 18 ; iv. 4 ; v. 21, this
addresB includes all his readers (in ni. 7 the reading is disputable).
Omnes suos auditores, quos ipse in Christo praecesserat, filiorwm
nomine glorificat (Bede). Some would render oti dcpeWrai vp. at
dpapT. ' that your sins are forgiven you ' ; and so in each of these six
sentences substituting ' that' for ' because. ' Of course this is possible
grammaticaUy, but otherwise is highly improbable. See on v. 21.
The Vulgate has quoniam, Augustine quia, Luther denn. The verses
are not quoted by Tertullian or Cyprian. S. John is evidently not
telling his children what he is writing, but why he writes it. The
very first condition of Christian morals is the forgiveness of sins
(i. 7); therefore he reminds aU of them of this first. 'AtpeWrai
(Luke v. 20, 23 ; vii. 47 ; and perhaps John xx. 23) is now commonly
admitted to be a perfect indicative (=d<j>eivTai) of Doric origin but

48 1 S. JOHN. [II. 12—
used sometimes by Attic writers : Winer, 96, 97; Veitch, 104. The
remittuntur ot the Vulgate is therefore inadequate: not 'are being
forgiven,' but 'have been forgiven and remain so.'
8id to ov. avTov. Here, as in i. 5, it is obvious that airov refers to
Jesus Christ and not to the Father. It was by believing on His
Name that they acquired the right to become children of God (John.i.
12). 'The Name of Jesus Christ ' is not a mere periphrasis for Jesus
Christ. Names in Scripture are constantly given as marks of
character possessed or of functions to be performed. This is the case
with all the Divine Names. The Name of Jesus Christ indicates His
attributes and His relations to man and to God. It is through these
that the sins of S. John's dear children have been forgiven. Comp.
ni. 23; v. 13; 3 John 7. For Sid rb ovopa comp. Matt. x. 22; xxiv.
9 ; Mark xiii. 13 ; Luke xxi. 17 ; John xv. 21 ; Rev. ti. 3.
13. irarepes. The older men among his readers : comp. Jud. xvii.
10; xviii. 19; 2 Kings ii. 12; vi. 21; xiii. 14. The address stands alone
in N. T. The nearest approaches to it are Eph. vi. 4 and Col. iii. 21,
where the actual fathers of children are addressed. Comp. Tit. ii.
1 — 8, where S. Paul in like manner gives directions as to the exhorta
tions suitable for Christians of different ages. evvuKaTe. Ye know:
'ye have come to know' and therefore 'ye know,' as in v. 3. The
knowledge possessed by the old is fitly expressed by a word which signi
fies the result of progressive experience. t6v dir' dpxijs means Christ,
not the Father, as is plain from the opening words of the Epistle.
By the knowledge of Christ which these older Christians had gradually
acquired is certainly not meant the having seen Him in the flesh.
Very few, if any, of S. John's readers could have done that. And if
they had, the Apostle would not have attached any moral or spiritual
value to the fact (2 Cor. v. 16, 17). Besides which, in order to express
this we should require 'ye have seen Jesus our Lord' (1 Cor. ix. 1)
rather than ' ye have come to know Him that was from the beginning. '
On dv' dpxijs see on i. 1.
veav£o-Koi. The younger half of his readers; men in the prime,
or not yet in the prime of life : adolescentes, juvenes. For veviKrJKOTS
comp. John xvi. 33. Throughout both Epistle and Gospel S. John
regards eternal life as a prize already won bythe believer (John iii. 36;
v. 24; vi..47, 54; xvii. 3): the contest is not to gain, but to retain.
These three perfects, deJeWrai, iyvwKart, veviKijKare, once more express
the abiding result of past action (i. 1, 2, 5, 10). He bases his appeals
to the young on the victory which their strength has won, just as he
bases his appeals to the aged on the knowledge which their experience
has gained, and his appeals to aU on the forgiveness which they have
aU received. There is the confidence of victory in aU S. John's
writings. Tovirovupov. It is important to have a uniform rendering for
vovvpbs, respecting which there has been so much controversy with
regard to the last petition in the Lord's Prayer. The A.V., following
earlier Versions, wavers between 'wicked' and 'evil,' even in the
same verse (iii. 12). 'Evil' is to be preferred throughout. Almost

II. 14.] NOTES. 4g
aU are agreed that the evil one here means the devil, although the
Genevan Version has 'the evil man, ' as in Matt. xii. 35. Wiclif,
Tyndale, and Cranmer supply neither 'man 'nor 'one, ' but write 'the
wicked' or 'that wicked.' 'The wicked' in EngUsh would inevitably
be understood as plural. For this name for Satan comp. v. 18 ; Matt.
xiii. 19 and also 1 John ni. 12 ; v. 19 ; John xvii. 15 ; Eph. vi. 16. In
these last four passages the gender, though probably masculine, may,
as in Matt. vi. 13, possibly be neuter. S. John elsewhere speaks of
the evil one as d SidfioXos (iii. 8, 10; John viii. 44; xiii. 2), d Zaravas
(John xiii. 27), d dpxwv tou Koapov robrov (John xii. 31; xvi. 11), d
tou Koapov dpxw (John xiv. 30), d Karrrywp rwv dSeXcpwv rjpwv (Rev. xii.
10), d btpis b dpxaios, 6 KaXovpevos AidfioXos Kal b Zotopos (Rev. xii. 9 :
comp. xx. 2), d Spdxwv (Rev. xii. 7, 8; xiii. 2; xvi. 13; xx. 2).
fypaipa vpiv, iraiSCa. All the chief MSS., confirmed by the Ver
sions, give iypatpa and not ypa/fiw here. The latter reading probably
arose from interpreting vaiSla as a subdivision of rexvla, co-ordi
nate with varipes and veaviaKoi. Beyond reasonable doubt vaiSla
is coextensive with rtKvla and includes all his readers. The two
words should, however, be distinguished in translation. Keeping
'Uttle children' for TtKvla, we may render vaiSla little ones. The
Vulgate has filioli for rexvla and here has infantes for *ai5io, but
inconsistently has filioli in v. 18. Augustine has pueri for vaiSla.
TtKvla imphes both juniority and relationship; vaiSla implies the
former only. Both are terms of affection. 'EyvcoKaTe, as in vv. 3 and
13, ye know. In v. 12 the Apostle attributes to them the possession
of spiritual peace through the remission of sins : here he attributes to
them the possession of spiritual truth through knowledge of the
Father. This knowledge they had acquired specially through S.
John's Gospel, in which the Fatherhood of God is a most prominent
doctrine. In the fourth Gospel God is called the Father twice as
frequently as in all three Synoptics : the numbers are about as follows ;
S. Matthew 40 times, S. Mark 5, S. Luke 17, S. John 126. While the
addresses to his children as a whole and to the younger section of
them vary, the two addresses to the fathers are the same, excepting the
ohange of tense. Their spiritual experience is practically complete
and cannot be better summed up than by the knowledge of the
Incarnate Word. The Vulgate both Old and New omits the second
address to the ' fathers' : but Augustine and Bede have it.
14. 'Io-xvpds is frequent in the Apocalypse ; elsewhere in S. John's
writings here only. Comp. Eph. vi. 10 — 20.
d XcVyos tov 0eov. B and the Thebaic or Sahidic Version (2nd or
3rd cent.) omit too Geov. In v. 20 we again find B and the
Thebaic alone in a reading which is very likely original : comp.
Acts xxvii. 37; Rom. xiii. 13; Col. iii. 6; Heb. iii. 2; 2 John 8.
The clause is an echo of John xv. 7. This possession is the secret of
their strength and the source of their victory. They conquer because
they are strong, and they are strong because God's word is ever
in their hearts. They have God's wiU, especially as revealed in
Scripture, and in particular in the Gospel, as a permanent power
s. JOHN (ep.) D

50 1 S. JOHN. [II. 14—
within them : hence the permanence of their victory. So long as they
trust in this and not in themselves, and remember that their victory
is not yet final, they may rejoice in the confidence which the con
sciousness of strength and of victory gives them. Humiles estate, ne
in pugna cadatis (Bede).
It is plain from the context and from John v. 38; x. 35; xvii. 6, 14; ,
Bev. i. 9 ; vi. 9, that d X670S tou Geou here does not mean the Word, the
Son of God. See on v. 5 and i. 10. S. John never uses the term
d X070S in this sense in the body either of his Gospel or of his Epistle,
but only in the theological Introductions to each.
15 — 17. The Things to be avoided; — the World and
its Ways.
Having reminded them solemnly of the blessedness of their condition
as members of the Christian family, whether old or young, and having
declared that this blessedness of peace, knowledge, and strength is his
reason for writing to them, he goes on to exhort them to live in
a manner that shaU be worthy of this high estate, and to avoid aU that
is inconsistent with it. In chap. i. walking in darkness was shewn to
be incompatible with feUowship with God. Here love of God is shewn
to be incompatible with affection for the world.
15. prj clya-miTe tov KoVpov. The asyndeton is remarkable. S.
John has just stated his premises, his readers' happiness as Christians.
He now abruptly states the practical conclusion, without any introduc
tory ovv or Sid tovto. Our equally abrupt 'Love not the world' comes
from the Rhemish. Tyndale and others weaken it by expansion ; ' So
that ye love not the worlde. ' And obviously S. John is once more ad
dressing all his readers, not the veavlaKoi only. Omnibus hispariter man-
dat (Bede). As was said above on v. 2, we must distinguish between the
various meanings of the Apostle's favourite word, Koapos. In John iii.
16 he tells us that ' God loved the world ', and here he teUs us that we
must not do so. " S. John is never afraid of an apparent contradic
tion when it saves his readers from. a real contradiction  The
opposition which isonthesurfaceof his language may be the best way
of leading us to the harmony which Ues below it " (Maurice) . The world
which the Father loves is the whole human race. The world which we
are not to love is all that is alienated from Him, aU that prevents men
from loving Him in return. The world which God loves is His creature
and His child : the world which we are not to love is His rival. The
best safeguard against the selfish love of what is sinful in the world is
to remember God's unselfish love of the world. '0 Koapos here is that
from which S. James says the truly reUgious man keeps himself
daviXov, friendship with which is txsPa rov Beov (Jas. i. 27; iv. 4).
It is not enough to say that 'the world' here means 'earthly things,
so far as they tempt to sin, ' or ' sinful lusts, ' or ' worldly and impious
men. ' It means aU of these together : aU that acts as a rival to God;
all that is alienated from God and opposed to Him, especiaUy sinful
men with their sinful lusts. '0 Koapos and rj aKorla are almost
synonymous. To love the one is to love the other (John iii. 19). To

II. 16.] NOTES. 51
be iv rrj aKorla (vv. 9, 11) is to be ix rov xbapov (v. 16; iv. 5). Nor is
pij dyavdre to be weakened into ' love not too much ' : it means quite
literaUy, 'love not at all. ' The world 'lies in the evil one' (v. 19);
and those who 'have overcome the evil one ' cannot love the world.
pi)Se Td Iv tu k. . Nor yet the things &e. ' Love not the world ; no,
nor anything in that sphere. ' Comp. Matt. vi. 25; xxiii. 9, 10; and
urj avvavaplyvvaBai  to) roioirw pi)8e avveaBleiv (1 Cor. v. 11). Td iv
rip Koapa, as is plain from v. 16, are not material objects, which can
be desired and possessed quite innocently, although they may also be
occasions of sin. Rather, they are those elements in the world which
are necessarily evil, its lusts and ambitions and jealousies, which
stamp it as the kingdom of 'the ruler of this world' (John xii. 31) and
not the kingdom of God.
edv tis d-yair$. Once more, as in v. 1, the statement is made quite
general by the hypothetical form : everyone who does so is in this
case. The Lord had proclaimed the same principle; 'No man can
serve two masters  Ye cannot serve God and mammon' (Matt. vi.
24). So also S. James; 'Whosoever would be a friend of the world
maketh himself an enemy of God' (iv. 4). Comp. Gal. i. 10. Thus
we arrive at another pair of those opposites of which S. John is so fond.
We have had light and darkness,' truth and falsehood, love and hate ;
we now have love of the Father and love of the world. The world
which is coextensive with darkness must exclude the God who is Ught.
rj dvairn tov iraTpds occurs nowhere else: hence the reading of
AC, r) 07. t. Geou. It means man's love to the Father, not His to
man (see on v. 5) ; and it points to the duty of Christians as children
of God. They must not love their Father's enemies. The order of
the Greek is perhaps to be preserved. There is not the love of the
Father in him. Whatever profession there may be of Christianity,
the guiding principle of his Ufe is something quite different from
devotion to God.
16. Proof of the preceding statement by shewing the fundamental
opposition in detail.
irav to Iv t. k. Neuter singular : in v. 15 we had the neuter plural.
The material contents of the universe cannot be meant. To say that
these did not originate from God would be to contradict the Apostle
himself (John i. 3, 10) and to affirm those Gnostic doctrines against
which he is contending. The Gnostics, beUeving everything material
to be radicaUy evti, maintained that the universe was created, not by
God, but by the evil one, or at least by an inferior deity. By 'aU
that is in the world ' is meant the spirit which animates it, its tenden
cies and tone. These, which are utterly opposed to God, did not
originate in Him, but in the free and rebeUious wiUs of His creatures,
seduced by 'the ruler of this world.'
The Latin writers, almost without exception, translate (with some
differences of wording); "All that is in the world is the lust of the
flesh.' The est appears in Cyprian four times, in Ambrose, in Augus-
D2

52 IS. JOHN. [II. 16—
tine frequently, in Jerome twice, in Ambrosiaster, Zeno of Verona,
Gelasius, &c. See Appendix G.
tj ImOvpCa tt[s crapKos. Not 'the lust for the flesh,' any more than
r) iv. twv b<b8aXpwv means 'the lust for the eyes.' In both instances
¦the genitive is subjective, as is generaUy the case with genitives after
ividvpla in N.T. Comp. iv rais iv. rwv KapSiwv (Rom. i. 24) ; dvBpu-
vwv iviBvplais (1 Pet. iv. 2) ; rrjs iv. rrjs if'vxrjs aov (Rev. xviii. 14). See
also Gal. v, 16; Eph. ii. 3. The meaning is the lusts which have
their seats in the flesh and in the eyes respectively.
"TeU me where is fancy bred.
*****
It is engendered in the eyes."
Merchant of Venice, in. ii.
The former, therefore, will mean the desire for unlawful pleasures of
sense; for enjoyments which are sinful either in themselves or as being
excessive. Note that S. John does not say r} iviB. tov crco'paTos. Supa in N. T.
is perhaps never used to denote the innately corrupt portion of man's
nature : for that the common term is r) o-dp{. S. John and S. Paul are
here also in harmony: see on i. 3, 6; ii. 1, 6, 19. Td o-upa is the
neutral portion which may become either good or bad. It may be
sanctified as the abode and instrument of the Spirit, or degraded
under the tyranny of the flesh. See Introduction Chap. n. § vii.
tj IttiB. tcov dtpBoXpcov. The eyes are the chief channel between the
flesh and the outside world ; and ' the lust of the eyes' is the desire
of seeing unlawful sights for the sake of the sinful pleasure to be
derived from the sight; idle and prurient curiosity. FamiUar as
S. John's readers must have been with the foul and cruel exhibition
of the circus and amphitheatre, this statement would at once meet
with their assent. Tertullian, though he does not quote this passage
in his treatise De Spectaculis, is full of its spirit : "The source from
which aU circus games are taken poUutes them  What is tainted
taints us" (vn., vm.). Similarly S. Augustine on this passage; "This
it is that works in spectacles, in theatres, in sacraments of the devil,
in magical arts, in witchcraft; none other than curiosity." See also
Confessions vi. vii., viii., x. xxxv. 55. In the Testament of the Twelve
Patriarchs the second of the seven spirits of seduction is vvevua
opdaews, peB' rjs yiverai iviBvpla (Lucke).
ij dXaJoveia tov pCov. Or, as Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort prefer,
r) aXafavla t. j3. : the vainglory of life. Latin writers vary much in
their renderings : superbia vitae (Vulgate Old and New) ; ambitio saeculi
(Cyprian, Augustine, Zeno Veron., Gelasius) ;jactantia vitae (Ambrose);
superbia hujus vitae (Jerome). AXafovela occurs elsewhere only Jas.
iv. 16, and there in the plural; where A.V. has 'boastings' and R. V.
'vauntings.' The cognate adjective (dXapbv) occurs Rom. i. 30 and 2
Tim. iii. 2, where A. V. has ' boasters ' and R. V. ' boastful.' Preten
tious ostentation, as of a wandering mountebank, is the radical signi
fication of the word. In Classical Greek the pretentiousness is the

IL 17.] NOTES. 53
predominant notion; in Hellenistic Greek, the ostentation. Compare
the account of this vice in Aristotle (Nic. Eth. rv. vii.) with Wisd. v.
8; 2 Mace. ix. 8; xv. 6. Ostentatious pride in the things which one
possesses is the signification of the term here; ' life' meaning 'means
of life, goods, possessions.' Bios must be carefuUy distinguished from
£uij. Bios occurs again iii. 17, and elsewhere in N. T. only 8 times.
Zar) occurs 13 times in this Epistle, and elsewhere in N. T. over 100
times. This is what we might expect from the meaning of the two
words. Bios means (1) period of human life, as 1 Tim. ii. 2 ; 2 Tim.
ii. 4 ; (2) means of life, as here, iii. 17 ; Mark xii. 44; Luke viii. 14, 43 ;
xv. 12, 30 ; xxi. 4. In 1 Pet. iv. 3 the word is not genuine. Zar)
means that vital principle which through Christ man shares with God
(i. 2; John i. 4). With the duration of mortal Ufe and the means of
prolonging it the Gospel has comparatively Uttle to do. It is concerned
rather with that spiritual Ufe which is not measured by time (see on i.
2), and which is independent of material wealth and food. For this
kind of life jrwrj is invariably used. By r) dX. r. j3iou, therefore, is
meant ostentatious pride in the possession of worldly resources. See
Trench, Synonyms of N. T., 87, 95; Cremer, 272.
These three evil elements or tendencies 'in the world' are co-ordi
nate : no one of them includes the other two. The first two are wrong
ful desires of what is not possessed ; the third is a wrongful behaviour
with regard to what is possessed. The first two may be the vices of a
solitary ; the third requires society. We can have sinful desires when
we are alone, but we cannot be ostentatious without company. See
Appendix A.
ovk So-riv Ik t. irarpos. Does not derive its origin from (ix) Him,
and therefore has no natural Ukeness to Him or connexion with Him.
S. John says 'the Father' rather than 'God' to emphasize the idea of
parentage. Its origin is from the world and its ruler, the devil. Comp.
'Ye are of (ix) your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye
wiU to do' (John viii. 44). The phrase elecu ix is highly characteristic
of S. John.
dXXd Ik tov Koo-pov Io-t£v. Cyprian twice renders sed ex concupi-
scentia saeculi, and twice sed ex eoncupisoentia mundi. Zeno of
Verona makes the same insertion. An instance of Western inter
polation. 17. irapd yeTai. Is passing away; as in v. 8: the process is now
going on. We owe the verb 'pass away ' here to Coverdale : it is a
great improvement on Tyndale's 'vanisheth away'. Comp. 'The
fashion of this world is passing away ' (1 Cor. vii. 31), where the same
verb is used, and where the active in a neuter sense (*apd7et) is
equivalent to the middle here and in v. 8.
ij liriO. avTov. Not the lust for the world, but the lust which it ex
hibits, the sinful tendencies mentioned in v. 16. The world is pass
ing away with aU itB evil ways. How footish, therefore, to fix one's
affections on what not only cannot endure but is already in process of
dissolution 1 ' The lust thereof ' = 'aU that is in the world.' Codex A
omits aiVoii, and is supported in this by some other authorities.

54 1 S. JOHN. [II. 17-
t6 OeXrjpa t. ©eov. This is the exact opposite of vdv to iv Tip xbaptp.
The one sums up all the tendencies to good in the universe, the other
aU the tendencies to evil. We see once more how S. John in giving us
the antithesis of a previous idea expands it and makes it fructify. He
says that the world and aU its wtil and ways are on the wane : but as
the opposite of this he says, not merely that God and His will and
ways abide, but that 'he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.'
This implies that he who follows the ways of the world wiU not abide
for ever. Again he speaks of the love of the world and the love of the
Father; but as the opposite of the man who loves the world he says
not 'he that loveth the Father,' but 'he that doeth the will of the
Father. ' This imphes that true love involves obedience. Thus we have a
double antithesis. On the one hand we have the world and the man
who loves it and foUows its ways: they both pass away. On the other
hand we have God and the man who loves Him and does His will:
they both abide for ever. Instead of the goods of this life (§los) in
which the world would allow him to vaunt for a moment, he who doeth
the will of God has that eternal life (fur)) in which the true Christian
has feUowship with God. In this far higher sense what was ignorantly
said of S. John himself becomes Uterally true of every believer: 'That
disciple shall not die.' Heracleon, the earliest commentator on
S. John that is known to us (c. a.d. 170), says of the devil pr) i*xeH>
BiXripa, dXX' iviBvplas. Els rov aiwva is Uterally 'unto the age', i.e.
' unto the age to come ', the kingdom of heaven. He who does God's
will shall abide until the kingdom of God comes and be a member ofit.
The latter fact, though not stated, is obviously implied. It would be
a punishment and not a blessing to be aUowed, Uke Moses, to see the
kingdom but not enter it. The followers of the world share the death
of the world : the children of God share His eternal Ufe. Augustine
adds at the close of this verse sicut et ipse manet in aeternum. Other
Latin authorities have quomodo et Deus manet (or manebit) in aeter
num. Another case of Western interpolation. Cyprian quotes the
passage four times, always with this addition in some form or other.
See Appendix G.
Here probably we should make a pause in reading the Epistle.
What follows is closely connected with what precedes and is suggested
by it: but there is, nevertheless, a new departure which is made with
much solemnity. 18 — 26. The Persons to be avoided; — Antichrists.
18. iraiSCa. Little ones. See on v. 14. It is difficult to see any
thing in this section specially suitable to children : indeed the very
reverse is rather the case. S. John's readers in general are addressed,
irrespective of age. Both his Epistle and Gospel are written for
adults and for weU-instructed Christians.
!crxdTT| dipa Io-t£v. It is the last hour; possibly, but not probably,
it is a last hour. The omission of the definite artiole is quite intelli
gible and not unusual: the idea is sufficiently definite without it, for
there can be only one last hour. Similarly (Jude 18) we have iv

II. 18.] NOTES. 55
laxarov XP0V0V'' &n^ (Acts i. 8; xiii. 47) las iaxdrov r. 7^s. A great
deal has been written upon this text in order to avoid a very plain but
unwelcome conclusion, that by the 'last hour' S. John means the
time immediately preceding the return of Christ to judge the world.
Hundreds of years have passed away since S. John wrote these words,
and the Lord is not yet come. Rather, therefore, than admit an
interpretation which seemed to charge the Apostle with a serious
error, commentators have suggested aU kinds of explanations as sub
stitutes for the obviouB one. The following considerations place S.
John's meaning beyond all reasonable doubt.
1. He has just been stating that the world is on the wane and that
its dissolution has already begun. 2. He has just declared that the
obedient Christian shaU abide 'unto the age' of Christ's kingdom of
glory. 3. He goes on to give as a proof that it is the 'last hour', that
many Antichrists have already arisen ; it being the common beUef of
Christians that Antichrist would immediately precede the return of
Christ (Matt. xxiv. 23, 24). 4. 'H iaxar-n rjpipa is a phrase pecu
Uar to S. John (John vi. 39, 40, 44, 54; xi. 24; xii. 48), and
invariably means the end of the world, not the Christian dispen
sation. 5. S. John's Gospel contains the prophecy, 'There cometh
an hour (ipxtrai wpa), in which aU that are in the tombs shall
hear His voice, and shaU come forth, &c.' (v. 28). 6. Analogous
phrases in other parts of N. T. point in the same direction: 'In
the last days grievous times shall come' (2 Tim. iii. 1); 'Ye are
guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the
last time' (1 Pet. i. 5); 'In the last days mockers shall come with
mockery' (2 Pet. iii. 3). These and other passages shew that by 'the
last days', 'last time', 'last hour', and the like, Christian writers did
not mean the whole time between the first and second coming of
Christ, but only the concluding portion of it. 7. We find similar
language with similar meaning in the sub-apostolic age. Thus Igna
tius (Eph. xi.) writes; "These are the last times (iaxaroi xaipol).
Henceforth let us be reverent ; let us fear the longsuffering of God,
lest it turn into a judgment against us. For either let us fear the
wrath which is to come, or let us love the grace which now is. "
Of other interpretations of 'the last hour' the most noteworthy are
these. (1) The Christian dispensation, which we have every reason to
believe is the last. Comp. Acts ii. 17. This is the sense in which
S. John's words are true ; but this is plainly not his meaning. The
appearance of Christ, not of Antichrist, proves that the Christian dis
pensation is come. (2) A very grievous time; tempora periculosa pes-
sima et abjectissima. This is quite against usage whether in classical or
N.T. Greek: comp. 2 Tim. iti. 1. The classical phrase, 'to suffer the
last things', i.e. 'to suffer extremities ' (rd faxara vaBetv), suppUes no
analogy: there the notion of 'grievous' comes from the verb. (3) The
eve of the destruction of Jerusalem. How could the appearance of
Antichrist prove that this had arrived? And Jerusalem had perished
at least a dozen years before the probable date of this Epistle. (4) The
eve of S. John's own death. Antichrists could be no sign of _ that.
It is admitted, even by some of those who reject the obvious inter-

56 IS. JOHN. [II. 18—
pretation, that "the Apostles expected a speedy appearing or mani
festation of Jesus as the Judge of their nation and of aU nations "
(Maurice) : which is to admit the whole difficulty of the rejected ex
planation. Only gradually was the vision of the Apostles cleared to
see the true nature of the spiritual kingdom which Christ had founded
on earth and left in their charge. Even Pentecost did not at onoe
give them perfect insight. Being under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit they could not teach what was untrue: but, like the Prophets
before them, they sometimes uttered words which were true in a sense
far higher than that which was present to their own minds. In this
higher sense S. John's words here are true. Like others, he was
wrong in supposing 'that the kingdom of God was immediately to
appear ' (Luke xix. 11), for ' it was not for them to know times or
seasons which the Father hath set within His own authority' (Acts i.
7). He was right in declaring that, the Messiah having come, it was
the 'last hour.' No event in the world's history can ever equal the
coming of Christ untti He comes again. The epoch of Christianity,
therefore, is rightly caUed the 'last hour,' although it has lasted nearly
two thousand years. What is that compared with the many thousands
of years since the creation of man, and the limitless geological periods
which preceded the creation of man ? What again in the eyes of Him
in whose sight 'a thousand years are but yesterday'?
" It may be remarked that the only point on which we can certainly
say that the Apostles were in error, and led others into error, is in
their expectation of the immediate coming of Christ ; and this is the
very point which our Saviour says (Mark xiii. 32) is known only to the
Father" (Jelf).
Kal Ka6us rJKovo-aTe oti avrCxpioros ep\. And even as ye heard
that Antichrist cometh. For on dvrlxp. A reads d dvrlxp- For xaBas see
on v. 6. This seems to be a case in which the aorist should be retained
in English. As in v. 7, the reference is probably to a definite point
in their instruction in the faith. See on v. 11. 'Cometh' points to
the analogy between the Christ and the Antichrist. The one was
hoped for, and the other dreaded, with equal certainty; and hence
each might be spoken of as 'He that cometh' (d ipxbpevos). 'Art
Thou He that cometh?' (Matt. xi. 3; Luke xix. 20). Comp. Mark viii.
38 ; xi. 9 ; John iv. 25 ; vi. 14 ; xi. 27, &c. &c. And as to the coming of
Antichrists the N.T. seems to be as explicit as the O.T. with regard to
the coming of Christ. 'Many shaU come in My name, saying I am
the Christ; and shall lead many astray... There shaU arise false
Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders,;
so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect' (Matt. xxiv. 5, 24).
Comp. Mark xiii. 22, 23; Acts xx. 29; 2 Tim. iii. 1; 2 Pet. ii. 1; and
especiaUy 2 Thess. ii. 3, which like the passage before us seems to
point to one distinct person or power as the one Antichrist, whose
spirit animates all antichristian teachers.
The term 'Antichrist' in Scripture occurs only in the First and
Second Epistles of S. John (ii. 18, 22 ; iv. 3; 2 John 7). The earUest
instance of its use outside Scripture is in S. Polycarp (Ep. ad Phil.

II. 18.] NOTES. 57
vn.), in a passage which shews that this disciple of S. John (a.d.112 
118) knew our Epistle: see on iv. 3. The term does not mean merely
a mock Christ ox false Christ, for which the N.T. term is ij/evS6xpiaTos
(Matt. xxiv. 24; Mark xiii. 22). Nor does it mean simply am opponent
of Christ, for which we should probably have ixBpbs tov Xpiarov, like
robs ixBpobs t. aravpov t. Xp. (Phil. tii. 18) and ixBpbs rov GeoB (Jas. iv.
4). But it includes both these ideas of counterfeiting and opposing ;
it means an opposition Christ or rival Christ; just as we call a rival
Pope an 'antipope'. The Antichrist is, therefore, a usurper, who
under false pretences assumes a position which does not belong to
him, and who opposes the rightful owner. The idea of opposition is
the predominant one.
It is not easy to determine whether the Antichrist of S. John is
personal or not. But the discussion of this question is too long for a
note : see Appendix B.
dvrCxp- iroXXoi ¦yeyovao-iv. Have there arisen many Antichrists.
The Christ was from all eternity (i. 1) ; the Antichrist and his com
pany arose in time: they are come into being. We have a simtiar
contrast in the Gospel. 'Ec dpxi ijv d Xd7os (i. 1). JyeveTO dvBpwvos
dvearaXpivos vapa Qtov (i. 6). Note the difference of tense between
iyivero and yeybvaaiv : the perfect indicates that these antichrists are
for the most part still aUve. The word occurs nowhere else in this
Epistle. For KaBws. ..Kal.. .instead of Ka0us...ourus...comp. v. 6; iv.
17; John xvii. 18 ; xx. 21. These 'many antichrists' are probably to
be regarded as at once forerunners of the Antichrist and evidence that
hiB spirit is already at work in the world : the one fact shews that he
is not far distant, the other that in a sense he is already here. In
either case we have proof that the return of Christ, which is to be
heralded by the appearance of Antichrist, is near.
6'8ev 7ivc6o-Kopev oti lcr\. (Spa Io-tCv. Whence we come to know
that it is the last hour. "OBtv in the sense of 'from which data, from
which premises' hardly occurs elsewhere in N.T., excepting perhaps
in Hebrews (ii. 17 ; vii. 25 ; viii. 3), where it is uniformly rendered
'wherefore' in both A.V. and R.V. It is simUar in meaning to ix
rovrov (iv. 6).
It is difficult to see what S. John could have meant by this, if by
the 'last hour' he understood the Christian dispensation as a whole
and not the concluding portion of it (comp. 2 Tim. iii. 1). The mul
titude of false teachers who were spreading the great Ue (v. 22) that
Jesus is not the Christ, were evidence, not of the existence of Christi
anity, but of antichristianity. Nor could evidence of the former be
needed by S. John's readers. They did not need to be convinced
either that the Gospel dispensation had begun, or that it was the last
in the history of the Divine Revelation. The Montanist theory that a
further dispensation of the Spirit, distinct from that of the Son, was
to follow and supersede the Gospel, as the Gospel had superseded
Judaism, the dispensation of the Father, was a beUef of later growth.
(For an account of this theory as elaborated by Joachim of Flora [fl.
i.D. 1180—90] see DolUnger's Propliecies and the Prophetic Spirit in tlie

58 1 S. JOHN. [II. 18—
Christian Era, pp. 114—119.) In the ApostoUo age the tendency was
all the other way; — to believe that the period since the coming of
Christ was not only the last in the world's history, but would be very
brief. It was thought that some of the generation then existing might
live to see the end (1 Thess. iv. 15, 16 ; 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52).
19. The relation of these antichristian teachers to the Church
of Christ. They were formerly nominal members, but never real
members of it. They are now not members in any sense. Note the
repetition, so characteristic of S. John, of the key-word rjpwv, which
means the Christian Church. It occurs five times in this one verse.
Ig ijpcov egrjXBav. Tenses, which in other respects are second
aorists in form, frequently in LXX. and N. T. have the a of the first
aorist. Comp. 2 John 5, 7; 3 John 7. Winer, 86, 87. Note the
chiasmus : i% rjpwv stands first in the one clause and last in the other
for emphasis. 'Out from us they went; it was their own doing, — a
distinct separation from our communion : but that very fact proves
that their origin is not from us'. We can hardly express in EngUsh
the simple and forcible antithesis of i£ rjpwv. It is incredible that the
first clause means 'they proceeded from us Jews.' What point is
there in that 1 Moreover, S. John never writes as a Jew, but always
as a Christian to Christians. "Rpav includes aU true Christians, whe
ther Jews or Gentiles in origin. Comp. *ai If; vpwv avnov dcaoTTjo-oirai
dvSpes XaXovvres Siearpappiva (Acts xx. 30), which may refer to these
very antichrists (the words are addressed to the Ephesian presbyters) :
and IgrjXBov dvSpes vapdvopoi !£ vpcov *ai dviarrjaav rovs xaroixovvras
rrjv vbXiv avrwv (Deut. xiii. 14). In the second clause ii- rjpwv is exactly
analogous to ix tov varpbs and ix tov xbapov in v. 16. The contrast
between the single act of departure (igijXBav) and the lasting condition
of origin (ijaav) is clearly marked by the tenses. Comp. John iv. 27,
47, 50; v. 9 ; vi. 1, 2, 16, 17, 66 ; vii. 14, 30, 31, 44.
pepev. dv peB' rjpwv. They would have abided with us. See on
v. 24. The 'no doubt' of A. V. corresponds to nothing in the Greek,
and the intrusion is interesting. Almost all the earUer EngUsh Ver
sions go wrong as to 'no doubt.' Tyndale and Cranmer have 'no
dout,' the Genevan has 'douteles,' and the Rhemish ' surely. ' Pro
bably these are attempts to translate the utique of the Vulgate, per-
mansissent utique nobiscum: and the utique, which is as old as Tertul
lian (De Praescr. Haer. in.), is a mistaken endeavour to give a separate
word to represent the Greek particle av. WicUf (not Purvey) has
'sotheli' to represent utique; 'sotheli they hadden dwelte with
us'. Luther inserts 'ja'; 'so waren sie ja bei uns geblieben';
which looks as if he also were under the influence of the utique.
There is a similar instance John viii. 42, where Wiclif has 'sotheli
ye schulden love Me', Cranmer, 'truly ye wolde love Me', and the
Rhemish, 'verely ye would love Me', because the Vulgate (not
TertulUan) gives diligeretis utique Me for 7770*01-6 av ipi. Comp.
3 John 9, where the Vulgate has scripsissem forsitan to represent the
reading typatj/a av. The meaning here is that secession proves a
want of fundamental union from the first. As Tertullian says: Nemo

II. 20.] NOTES. 59
Christianus, nisi qui ad finem perseveraverit. Note that S. John
does not say 'they would have abided among us (ir rjpZv)', but ' with
us (peB' rjpav)'. This brings out more clearly the idea of fellowship :
'these antichrists had no real sympathy with us'.
dXX tva. cpavepwBcocriv. 'AXX' tva is an elUptical expression very fre
quent in S. John's Gospel (i. 8; ix. 3; xiii. 18; xiv. 31 ; xv. 25). The
elUpse may be filled up thus ; dXXd tovto yiyovtv tva, or by supplying
a verb from the previous sentence; dXX* i£r]X8av tva. Winer, 398,
774. The Apostle's favourite construction with tva (see on i. 9) again
points to the Divine government of events. It was God's wtil that
these spurious members should be made known as such. The xplais,
which all through the Gospel is given as the necessary result of the
manifestation of the Son, stiU continues after His return to the Father
— the separation of Ught from darkness, of the Church from the
world, of real from unreal Christians (see introductory note to John
v.). S. John assures his readers that the appearance of error and
unbelief in the Church need not shake their faith in it : it is all in
accordance with the Divine plan. Revelation of the truth necessarily
causes a separation between those who accept and those who reject
it, and is designed to do so. God does not wiU that any should
reject the truth; but He wiUs that those who reject should be made
manifest. S. Paul states this truth the other way ; that the faithful
need to be distinguished from the rest: Set 7dp Kai alpiaeis iv vpiv
eivai, tva, ol Sbxipoi cpavepol •yevuvTai iv vpiv (1 Cor. xi. 19).
oti ovk eio-lv irdvTes 1% rjpcov. Does this mean 'that not all are of
ns', as in the margin of R. V., or 'that they are not, any of them, of
us "I Certainly the latter. ' That they were not all of us ', as A. V. is
doubly wrong. Where the negative immediately precedes *5s, it
negatives the vas, and the meaning is non omnis, 'not every one' or
'not aU'. Where the verb intervenes, the ou negatives the verb and
not the vds: 'not any one' or 'all. ..not'. This idiom appears to be a
Hebraism, far more common in LXX. than in N. T. ; comp. Ex. xii.
16, 44; xx. 40; &c. &c. Contrast od *ao-o crap£ r) avrrj adp% (1 Cor. xv.
39) with oik dv iawBij vdaa crdpf (Matt. xxiv. 22). Wictif, Tyndale,
and Cranmer rather avoid the difficulty by omitting ' all' ; but the
omission gives the right sense in a weakened form. The erroneous
'were' comes from Tyndale and Cranmer: Wiclif, the Genevan and
the Rhemish are right. For od  vas comp. Rev. xxi. 27; Luke i.
37; Rom. iii. 20. Winer, 214.
In this verse S. John does not teach that the Christian cannot faU
away ; his exhortations to his readers not to love the world, but to
abide in Christ, is proof of that. He is only putting in another form
the declaration of Christ, 'I give unto them eternal Ufe; and they
shall never perish, and no one shaU snatch them out of My hand'
(John x. 28). Apostasy is possible, but only for those who have never
reaUy made Christ their own, never fuUy given themselves to Him.
20. Kal vpeis xpwri"1 ^X€Te- And Ve ^lave an anointing (as in v. 27)
from the Holy One. S. John, in his manner, puts two contrasted
parties side by side, the Antichrist with his antichrists, and the Christ

6o 1 S. JOHN. [II. 20—
with His christs; but the fact of there being a contrast does not war
rant us in turning S. John's simple 'and' (Kal) into 'but.' Tyndale
holds fast to 'and', in spite of Wiclif 's 'but' and the Vulgate's sed.
Just as the Antichrist has his representatives, so the Anointed One,
the Christ, has His. AU Christians in a secondary sense are what
Christ is in a unique and primary sense, the Lord's anointed. 'These
anointed', says the Apostle to his readers, 'ye are'. The 'ye' is not
only expressed in the Greek, but stands first after the conjunction for
emphasis : ' ye ' in contrast to these apostates. The word for ' anointing '
or 'unction' (xpicrpa) strictly means the 'completed act of anointing':
but in LXX. it is used of the unguent or anointing oil (Deut. xxx.
25) ; and Tyndale, Cranmer and the Genevan have ' oyntment ' here.
In N. T. it occurs only here and v. 27. Kings, priests, and sometimes
prophets were anointed, in token of their receiving Divine grace.
Hence oil both in O. and N. T. is a figure of the Holy Spirit (Ps. xiv.
6, 7; cv. 15; Is. lxi. IrActs x. 38; Heb. i. 9; 2 Cor. i. 21). It is con
fusing cause and effect to suppose that this passage was influenced by
the custom of anointing candidates at baptism : the custom though
ancient (for it is mentioned by TertuUian, c. a.d. 195, De Bapt.
vii., and by S. Cyril of Jerusalem, c. a.d. 350, Catech. Lect.
xxi. 3, 4), is later than this Epistle. More probably the custom
was suggested by this passage. The opening of S. Cyril's 21st
Lecture throws much Ught on this passage. "Having been baptized
into Christ and... being made partakers of Christ, ye are properly
called christs, and of you God said, Touch not My christs, or anointed.
Now ye were made christs by receiving the emblems of the Holy Spirit;
and all things were in a figure wrought in you, because ye are figures
of Christ. He also bathed Himself in the river Jordan, and.. .came
up from the waters ; and the Holy Spirit in substance Ughted on Him,
like resting upon like. In the same manner to you also, after you had
come up from the pool of the sacred streams, was given the unction,
the emblem of that wherewith Christ was anointed ; and this is the
Holy Spirit". SimUarly S. Augustine; "In the unction we have a
sacramental sign (sacramentum) ; the virtue itself is invisible. The
invisible unction is the Holy Spirit" (Hom. m. 12). Comp. Eph. i. 13.
It may be doubted whether S. John in this verse makes any allusion
to the anointing which was a feature in some Gnostic systems.
dird tov dyiov. This almost certainly means Christ, in accordance
with other passages both in S. John and elsewhere (John vi. 69 ; Rev.
iii. 7 ; Mark i. 24 ; Acts iii. 14 ; Ps. xx. 10), and in harmony with Christ
being called Slxatos in vv. 1, 29, and 071*05 in iii. 3. Moreover in
John xiv. 26 ; xv. 26 ; xvi. 7, 14 Christ promises to give the Holy Spirit.
It may possibly mean God the Father (Hab. iii. 3; Hos. xi. 9; 1 Cor.
vi. 19). It cannot weU mean the Holy Spirit, unless some other mean
ing be found for xpivpa. The meaning then is " a chrism from the
Christ." Kal otSaTe irdvTa. The reading is profoundly uncertain: see critical
notes. Here, as in v. 14, it is possible that B and the Thebaic Version
preserve the original reading : otSare vdvres with a colon after toB

II. 21.] NOTES. 61
dylov. In which case the meaning may be either 'Ye all know this';
or 'Ye aU know — I have not written to you because ye know not the
truth, but because ye know it', with a very intelligible anacoluthon.
"The harmony between B and the Thebaic in characteristic readings,
for which they stand almost or quite alone, is weU worth notice : e.g.
Acts xxvii. 37; Rom. xiii. 13; Col. iii. 6; Heb. iii. 2; 1 John ii.
14, 20" (Scrivener). If A.V. and R.V. are right with xal ofcWe vdvra,
the meaning will be, 'It is you (and not these antichristian Gnostics
who claim it) that are in possession of the true knowledge, in virtue of
the anointing of the Spirit of truth. Christians possess the truth in a
far higher sense than any unchristian philosopher. The unbeliever's
knowledge is aU out of balance and proportion. The material side is
exaggerated, the spiritual is distorted or ignored. Whichever reading
we adopt, the meaning is strictly in harmony with the promise of
Christ ; Srav Si tXBr) ixeivos, ro Hvevpa rrjs dXrjBeias, bSr)yr)aei vpds els
v&aav rrjv dXrjBeiav — into all the truth (John xvi. 13). Simtiarly S.
Ignatius writes; wv oiSiv XavBdvei ipds, idv rtXelws eis 'Irjaovv Xp.
txvrt rrjv vlanv xal rrjv d7a*7)»' (Eph. xiv. 1) : and S. Polycarp ; obSiv
vpds XiXrjBev (xii. ). Comp. ol di ^qrovvres rbv "Kipior avvrjaovaiv iv vavrl
(Prov. xxviii. 5), and see 1 Tim. iv. 9.
The whole verse is very remarkable as being addressed by the
Apostle to the Christian laity, and is in marked contrast to the clerical
exclusiveness of some later teachers.
21. ovk e^pail/a. Whatever may be the explanation of the tense in v.
14, here we probably have the epistolary aorist, which may be represented
by either the present or the perfect in English. But some would
refer this also to the Gospel; and the absence of ravra renders this
not impossible. More probably, however, as appears from v. 26,
iypatf/a both here and there refers to this section about antichrists.
'Do not think from my warning you against lying teachers that I
suspect you of being ignorant of the truth : you who have been anointed
with the Spirit of truth cannot be ignorant of the truth. I write as
unto men who wiU appreciate what I say. I write, not to teach, but
to confirm.' " S. John does not treat Christianity as a religion con
taining elements of truth, or even more truth than any religion which
had preceded it. S. John presents Christianity to the soul as a
rehgion which must be everything to it, if it is not really to be worse
than nothing" (Liddon).
oti ovk oftiaTe t. dX., d\X' oti ol'S. avnjv, Kal Sti. There are no
less than three ways of taking this, depending upon the meaning
given to the thrice repeated conjunction (on), which in each place may
mean either 'because' or 'that'. 1. As A.V. ; because, ...but because
...and that. The A.V. follows the earUer Versions in putting
' that ' in the last clause : so Tyndale, Cranmer, &c. 2. As R.V. ;
'because' in each clause. 3. 'That' in each clause: 'I have not
written that ye know not the truth, but that ye know it, and that &c.'
This last is almost certainly wrong. As in vv. 13, 14 the verb 'write'
introduces the reason for writing and not the subject-matter or contents
of the Epistle. And if the first conjunction is ' because ', it is the sim-

6a 1 S. JOHN. [II. 21—
plest and most natural to take the second and third in the same way.
The Apostle warns them against antichristian lies, not because they are
ignorant, but (1) because they possess the truth, and (2) because every
kind of Ue is utterly aUen to the truth they possess. "There is the
modesty and the sound philosophy of an Apostle 1 Many of us think
that we can put the truth into people, by screaming it into their ears.
We do not suppose that they have any truth in them to which we can
make appeal. S. John had no notion that he could he of use to his
dear children at Ephesus unless there was a truth in them, a capacity
of distinguishing truth from Ues, a sense that one must be the eternal
opposition of the other " (Maurice). Comp. ivopvrjaai Si vpds plobXopai,
elSoTas dira| irdvTa (Jude 5).
irav \|/ev8os Ik t. dX. ovk eVriv. As in iti. 15, the negative belongs
to the verb and not to the vdv; "aU...not, not any, none' : No lie is
of the truth. There is nothing Hebraistic in this form of expression,
as in v. 19 : comp. Eph. v. 5 ; John tii. 16. 'Ex expresses origin, as in
vv. 16, 19; ix rov varpbs, ix tov xoapov, il- rjpwv. Comp. Td pdvnapjo.
'ladvvov d| obpavov rjv, rj ej dvBptbvav ; (Luke xx. 5). Every Ue is from its
very source utterly removed from the truth. The truth springs from
d d<j/evdr)s Qebs (Tit. i. 2) ; lying from the devil, Sti ^euorr/s iarl xal d
varrjp airov (John viii. 44) : aXrjBeia ydp dvaSbs GeoO (Philo Vita Mosis
III) : vdvrrj dpa dtpevdis rb Beiov (Plato Rep. n. 208 e).
22. t£s Icttiv 6 <|»evo-TT|s. Who is the liar } R.V. is here again
superior to previous English Versions. But we must beware of
exaggerating the article in interpretation, although it is right to
translate it. It merely marks the passage from the abstract to the
concrete : 'Every Ue is absolutely alien from the truth. Who then is
the one who speaks lies ? There are no Uars if he who denies that
Jesus is the Christ is not one. ' The exactly paraUel construction in
v. 4, 5 shews that 'the Uar' here does not mean 'the greatest Uar
possible'. Moreover, this would not be true. Is denying that Jesus is
the Christ a greater Ue than denying the existence of the Son, or of
God ? Nor does this Ue include aU falsehood. A Jew or Mahometan
possesses a large portion of the truth along with this falsehood. It is,
however, an instance of what Plato caUs to us dXrjBws ij/evSos, a Ue vepl
rd xvpiarara, i.e. a veritable falsehood on the most momentous sub
jects. Cerinthus and his Gnostic hearers, who profess to be in pos
session of the higher truth, are reaUy possessed by one of the worst of
lies (see Introduction).
The abruptness of the Apostle's question is startling. Throughout
these verses (22 — 24) " clause stands by clause in stern solemnity
without any connecting particles" (Westcott).
ovtos Io-tiv d dvT. This is the antichrist, as R. V. The article,
almost certainly spurious in v. 18, is certainly genuine here, iv. 3, and
2 John 7. But here 6 dvrlxpiaros does not seem to mean the great
personal rival of the Christ, but the antichristian teacher who exhibits
Ms spirit and acts as his mouthpiece.
d dpvovpevos t. iraTlpa k. t. vlov. This clause takes the place of d
Apv. on 'Irjaovs ovk 'ianv 6 Xpiaros. The change, which is quite in S.

II. 23.] NOTES. 63
John's manner, impties that to deny the one truth is to deny the
other. Jesus is the Christ, and the Christ is the Son of God; there
fore to deny that Jesus is the Christ is to deny the Son. And to deny
the Son is to deny the Father; not merely because Son and Father
are correlatives and mutually imply one another, but because the Son
is the revelation of the Father, without whom the Father cannot be
known. 'Neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him' (Matt. xi. 27). 'No one
cometh unto the Father but by Me' (John xiv. 6). Comp. John v. 23,
xv. 23. Some would put a full stop at 'antichrist,' and connect what
follows with v. 23, thus; This is the antichrist. He that denieth the
Father (denieth) the Son also : every one that denieth the Son hath not
the Father either.
23. The previous statement is emphasized by an expansion of it
stated both negatively and positively. The expansion consists in
declaring that to deny the Son is not merely to do that, and indeed
not merely to deny the Father, but also (oiSi) to debar oneself from
communion with the Father. So that we now have a third conse
quence of denying that Jesus is the Christ. To deny this is (1) to
deny the Son, which is (2) to deny the Father, which is (3) to be cut
off from the Father. ' To have the Father ' must not be weakened to
mean 'to hold as an article of faith that He is the Father' ; stiU less,
'to know the Father's wiU'. It means, quite Uterally, 'to have Him
as his own Father '. Those who deny the Son cancel their own right
to be caUed rixva GeoB : they ipso facto excommunicate themselves
from the great Christian family in which Christ is the Brother, and
God is the Father, of aU beUevers. ' To as many as received Him, to
them gave He the right to become children of God ' (John i. 12). The
verse is a condemnation of those who insist on the Fatherhood of God
and yet deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ. And the condemnation is
made with special comprehensiveness : not merely d dpvoipevos but ircts
d dpv. As if the Apostle would say, ' Some may think that there are
exceptions to this principle ; but it holds good of every one '. Comp.
I). 29 ; iii. 4, 6, 9, 10, 15 ; iv. 7 ; v. 1, 4, 18; 2 John 9.
d dpoXovcov. He that confesseth, as R. V. The translation of
bpoXoyeiv should be uniform in i. 9 ; iv. 2, 3, 15 ; 2 John 7. It is sur
prising that A. V. , while admitting the passage about the three
Heavenly Witnesses (v. 7) without any mark of doubtfulness, prints
the second half of this verse in itaUcs, as if there were nothing to
represent it in the Greek. Excepting the 'but', the sentence is un
doubtedly genuine, being found in all the best MSS. (NABC) and
many other authorities. A few authorities omit it accidentally, owing
to the two halves of the verse ending in the Greek with the same
three words (rbv varipa e'x")- Tyndale, Luther, and the Genevan
omit the sentence: Cranmer and the Rhemish retain it; Cranmer
marking it as wanting authority, and both omitting 'but', which
Purvey inserts, although there is no conjunction in the Vulgate. Other
Versions insert different conjunctions. The asyndeton is impressive
and continues through three verses, 22, 23, 24. "The sentences faU

64 1 S. JOHN. [II; 23—
on the reader's soul Uke notes of a trumpet. Without cement, and
therefore all the more ruggedly clasping each other, they are Uke a
Cyclopean wall" (Haupt). It would be possible to translate, 'He
that confesseth, hath the Son and the Father' (comp. 2 John 9):
but this is not probable.
24. vpeis d! rJKovo-aTe. The obv is an erroneous insertion in many
of the inferior MSS. which omit the second half of v. 23: it weakens
the force of the charge. As for you (with great emphasis, in contrast
to these antichristian Uars), let that abide in you which ye heard from
the beginning. For the nominativus pendens comp. John vi. 39; vii.
38; xiv. 12; xv. 2; xvii. 2; Rev. ii. 26; iii. 12, 21: Winer, 718. 'Hkov-
o-aTe should be rendered as an aorist : as in v. 7 and iii. 11, it points
to the definite time when they were instructed in the faith. 'Hold
fast what ye first heard, and reject these lying innovations '.
In this passage the arbitrary distinctions introduced by the trans
lators of 1611 reach a climax. The same Greek word (piveiv) is trans
lated in three different ways in one verse; 'abide. ..remain.. .continue'.
Elsewhere it is rendered in four other ways, making seven English
words to one Greek; 'dwell' (John i. 39; vi. 56; xiv. 10, 17), 'tarry'
(iv. 40; xxi. 22, 23), 'endure' (vi. 27), 'be present' (xiv. 25). The
translators in their Address to the Reader teU us that these changes
were often made knowingly and sometimes of set purpose. See Trench
On the A. V. of N. T. pp. 85 — 87. They are generally regretable,
and here are doubly so : (1) an expression highly characteristic of S.
John (Gospel, 1 and 2 Epp., Rev.) and of deep meaning is blurred, (2)
the emphasis gained by iteration, which is also characteristic of S.
John, is entirely lost. ' Let the truths which were first taught you
have a home in your hearts : if these have a home in you, ye also
shaU have a home in the Son and in the Father'. The Son is men
tioned first because it is by abiding in Him that we abide in the
Father. Bede quaintly suggests another reason : ne dicant Ariani,
Filium minorem Patre propterea credendum, quia nunquam ante
Patrem nominatus inveniatw. But there was ' The grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ &c.' (2 Cor. xiii. 14) to forbid so weak an argument.
25. Kal avTT| IcttIv rj lir. <jv avTos !ir. TJptv. And the promise
which He Himself promised us is this. As in i. 5; iii. 23; v. 11, 14,
avrrj is the predicate and refers to what foUows, not to what precedes :
comp. v. 22. 'This is what His promise amounted to — no less than
eternal life '. But the connexion with what precedes is close ; for eternal
life is only another name for abiding in the Son and the Father.
'EirayyeXCa, frequent in the Acts, S. Paul, and Hebrews, occurs here
only in S. John : ivayyiXXeaBai also is used nowhere else by him. For
the promise itself see John iii. 15; iv. 14; vi. 40, 51, 54, 58, <feo.
Avt4s, as commonly in the nominative, is emphatic: et haec est
repromissio quam ipse pollicitus est nobis (New Vulgate). Augustine
has pollicitatio ; the Old Vulgate promissio and vobis. Comp. v. 2.
Of course adrds means Christ, "who in this passage forms the centre
round which the statements of the Apostle move" (Huther). B reads
vpiv for rjpiv, but the other Uncials and almost all Versions are

II. 27.] NOTES. 65
unanimous for r)ptv, which has internal evidence strongly on its side.
Note the double article, ttjv jr. rr/v alwv., as in i. 2 and nowhere else in
this phrase: but see on i. 3. Note also that the substantive placed
after a relative clause is attracted to the case ofthe relative: comp
Acts xxi. 16 ; Phil. tii. 18; Philem. 10.
26. TavTa eypai|/a. This is not paraUel to typaxf/a in vv. 14, 21
where there is no toOto. Here the reference must be to the Epistle,
or rather to the section about the antichrists (18 — 25) : v. 14 probably
refers in all three sentences to the Gospel : v. 21 is doubtful, but is
best taken in conjunction with this as referring to the paragraph in
whioh it occurs.
tcov irXavcdvTwv. That lead you astray, i.e. that are endeavouring
to do so : see on i. 8. Thus Satan is called d vXavwv rrjv olxovpivrjv
oKtjv. In both cases the present participle expresses habitual effort,
not success. In such cases the participle with the article is almost a
substantive, and as such loses aU notion of time. Winer, 444.
27, 28. The Place of Safety; — Christ.
27. Kal vpeis to \P- 8 eXapere. As in v. 2, we have the false and
the true Christians put side by side in contrast; but this does not
justify us in turning S. John's simple 'and' (xal) into 'but'. As in v.
24, we have the pronoun put first with great emphasis, and as a
nominativus pendens. Moreover, the reception of the chrism refers to
the definite occasion when Christ poured out His Spirit upon them,
viz. their baptism; and therefore the aorist should be retained.
Wherefore, as R.V., And as for you, the anointing which ye received.
pevei Iv vptv. In order to convey a command or a rebuke gently,
we often state as a fact what ought to be a fact. This may be the
meaning here; and hence the Vulgate reads maneat in vobis. If not,
it is an expression of the Apostle's great confidence in the spiritual
condition of his children. For Xappldveiv dird comp. iii. 22 ; 3 John 7.
S. John more often writes Xappldveiv rrapd., 'to receive at the hands of;
v. 41, 44; x. 18; 2 John 4; Rev. ii. 27.
ov xpel*av exeTe iva. Te have no such need that any one teach you.
The construction is pecuUar to S. John (Gospel ii. 25; xvi. 30): else
where either the infinitive or a genitive. For the meaning comp. v. 20.
He who has once been anointed with the Spirit of truth has no need
even of an Apostle's teaching, This seems to be quite conclusive
against 'Uttle children' anywhere in this Epistle meaning children in
years or children in knowledge of the Gospel. S. John writes through
out for adult and well-instructed Christians, to whom he writes not to
give information, but to confirm and enforce and perhaps develope
what they have aU along known. Of course S. John does not mean
that the anointing with the Spirit supersedes all necessity for in
struction. The whole Epistle, and in this chapter vv. 6, 7, 24, are
conclusive against such a view. S. John assumes that his readers
have been thoroughly instructed in 'the word' and 'the truth', before
receiving the outpouring of the Spirit which shows them the full
ST JOHN (EP.) E

66 1 S. JOHN. [II. 27—
meaning of 'the word' and confirms them in 'the truth'. If S. John
has no sympathy with a knowledge which professed to rise higher than
Christian teaching, still less has he sympathy with a fanaticism which
would dispense with Christian teaching. While he condemns the
Gnosticism of his own age, he gives no encouragement to the Monta-
nism of a century later. But he does testify to the high position of
the Christian laity who make good use of their privileges.
There are several various readings of importance in the second half of
this verse : see critical notes. The A.V. deserts Wiclif, Purvey, Tyndale,
Cranmer, and the Rhemish to foUow the Genevan in preferring peveire
to pevere (KABC and Versions). The possible constructions are almost
as numerous as the readings and are less easily determined, but they
do not seriously affect the general sense. We may render (1) But as
His anointing teacheth you concerning all things, and is true, and is no
lie, and even as it taught you, — do ye abide in Him; making only
one sentence with a long protasis. Or (2) we may break it into two
sentences, each with a protasis and apodosis ; But as His anointing
teacheth you concerning all things, it is true and is no lie ; and even as
It taught you, do ye abide in Him. The majority of EngUsh Versions,
including R.V., are for the former: so also the Vulgate. Com
mentators are much divided; but Huther claims to have most on his
side for the latter. He has against him Alford, Braune, De Wette,
Diisterdieck, Ewald, Liioke, Neander, Westcott. The sentence seems
to be a recapitulation of the sentence : — ws rb avrov xP^P-a SiSdaxei
ipos *epi vdvrwv recaUs v. 20 ; dXrjBis iariv xal ovk Ianv \f/evdos recalls
vv. 21 — 23 ; pivere ir avnp recaUs vv. 24, 25. The KaBws emphasizes
the exactness of the conformity, even as : comp. vv. 6, 8 ; iii. 2, 3, 7,
23; iv. 17; 2 John 4, 6. What is the nominative to ISCSogev? Pro
bably 'He' implied in avnp. This explains the change of tense:
idlSal-ev refers to the gift of the Spirit made once for all by Christ;
SiSdaxei to the continual iUumination which is the result of that
gift. Winer, 764. Whether pcWre is indicative, Uke the pivei just
before, or imperative, Uke the piivtre just foUowing, is uncertain
and unimportant. Therefore we adopt (3) But as His anointing
teacheth you concerning aU things, and is true, and is no lie,
and even as He taught you, — ye abide in Him, or abide in Him.
The number of passages in S. John's writings in which verbs
occur which may be either imperative or indicative, is remarkable :
comp. v. 29; John v. 39 ; xii. 19 ; xiv. 1 ; xv. 18, 27. As in v. 10, iv
avrf is ambiguous : it may be neuter and mean iv rip xp'o-jaaTt, as some
Latin Versions seem to have taken it; permanete in ipsa (unctione).
But the next verse is decisive : iv avnp in both cases must mean in
Christ. And this confirms the rendering 'He taught' as preferable to
'it taught'. Luther makes iv avrtp refer to KaBws idlda£ev: und wie
sie euch gelehret hat, so bleibet bei demselbigen.
28. Kal vvv introduces the practical conclusion : see on 2 John 5
and comp. John xvii. 5, where Jesus, 'having accompUshed the work
given Him to do', prays icai vvv bbfaabv pt ai, vdrep. So also in Acts
iii. 17 ; vii. 34 ; x. 5. Haupt thinks that Kai vvv introduces the new

II. 28.] NOTES. 67
division of the Epistle, which (almost aU agree) begins near this point.
The truth seems to be that vv. 28 and 29 are at once the conclusion of
one division and the beginning of another : rexvla recaUs the beginning
of this section (v. 18), and no doubt means aU S. John's readers.
iav cpavepoi&jj. If He shall be manifested, as R.V. In inferior
authorities the more difficult idv has been softened into drav. 'If'
seems to imply a doubt as to Christ's return, and the change to 'when'
has probably been made to avoid this. But 'if impUes no doubt as
to the fact, it merely impUes indifference as to the time: 'if He should
return in our day' (see on John vi. 62 ; xii. 32 ; xiv. 3). Be manifested
is greatly superior to 'appear' (as Augustine's manifestatus fuerit is
superior to the Vulgate's apparuerit) because (1) <pavepw8jj is passive ;
(2) (pavepovv is a favourite word with S. John and should be translated
uniformly in order to mark this fact (i. 2 ; ii. 19 ; iii. 2, 5, 8 ; iv. 9 ;
Rev. in. 18; xv. 4; John i. 31; iii. 21, &c. &c). Beza has conspicuus
f actus fuerit. As appUed to Christ it is used of His being manifested
in His Incarnation (i. 2 ; iii. 5, 8), in His words and works (John ii. 11 ;
xvii. 6), in His appearances after the Resurrection (John xxi. 1, 14), in
His return to judgment (here and iii. 2). S. John alone uses the word
in this last sense, for which other N.T. writers have ' to be revealed '
(d*o*oXd*reo-t'ai), a verb never used by S. John excepting once (John
xii. 38) in a quotation from O.T. (Is. liii. 1), where he is under the
influence of the LXX.
Note the correspondence between the clauses: idv <pavepa8^=h>
rjj vapovalg. airov, and axwpiev vapprjolav = prj alaxwBwpev dv' airov.
crxwpev irapprjcrtav. The R.V. has we may have boldness. At first
sight this looks Uke one of those small changes which have been some
what hastily condemned as ' vexatious, teasing, and irritating.' The
A.V. wavers between 'boldness' (iv. 17 ; Acts iv. 13, 29, 31, &c.) and
'confidence,' with occasionaUy 'boldly' (Heb. iv. 16) instead of 'with
boldness.' The R. V. consistently has ' boldness ' in aU these places.
Happrjala means UteraUy ' freedom in speaking, readiness to say any
thing, frankness, intrepidity.' In this Epistle and that to the
Hebrews it means especially the fearless trust with which the faithful
soul meets God : iti. 21 ; iv. 17 ; v. 14. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19. In
axapev S. John once more breaks the logic of his sentence rather than
seem to exempt himself from what he teUs others : pivere, tva axapev
is paraUel to idv ns dpdprrj, epopee (v. 2).
prj alcrxvvBcouev ,{„.' ajTOv. The graphic terseness can scarcely be
reproduced in English. We see the averted face and shrinking form,
which are the results of the shame, clearly indicated in the Greek.
'Turn with shame from Him' and 'Shrink with shame from Him'
have been suggested as renderings. Comp. pr) 0o(3v)9f)re dird rwv
ivoKreivivrwv rb awpa (Matt. x. 28), ' Shrink not away in fear from
them.' ' Receive shame from Him ' is almost certainly not the
meaning, although the Vulgate has confundamur ab eo: avb means
'away from' not 'proceeding from.' Comp. vpoaixere dvd (Matt.
vii. 15; x. 17; xvi. 11; Luke xii. 1 ; xx. 46) and <j>vXdoaeo8e dvd
.(Luke xii. 15) and the LXX. of Is. i. 29 ; Jer. ii. 36 ; xti. 13 ; and the
E2

68 1 S. JOHN. [II. 28—
speechless confusion of him who had no wedding-garment (Matt. xxii.
13). Iv tjj irapovo-Ca. The word occurs nowhere else in S. John's writ
ings. In N. T. it is almost a technical term to express Christ's return
to judgment (Matt. xxiv. 3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. ii.
19; iii. 13; iv. 15; v. 23; Jas. v. 7, 8; 2 Pet. i. 16, &c). S. John
uses it, as he uses d A070S and d vovrjpbs, without explanation, confi
dent that his readers understand it. This is one of many small indi
cations that he writes to weB-instructed believers, not to children or
the recently converted. The single occurrence of the word here,
" where it might easily have been omitted, in exactly the same sense
as it bears in aU the other groups of apostolic writings, is a signal
example of the danger of drawing conclusions from the negative phe
nomena of the books of N.T. The fact is the more worthy of notice
as the subject of eschatology falls into the background in the Gospel
and Epistles of S. John. Comp. John xxi. 22" (Westcott).
S. John's divisions are seldom made with a broad line across the
text (see on iii. 10 and 24). The parts dovetati into one another and
intermingle in a way that at times looks like confusion. Wherever
we may place the dividing line we find similar thoughts on each side
of it. Such is the case here. If we place the line between vv. 27, 28
we have the idea of abiding in Christ (vv. 24, 27, 28) on both sides of
it. If we place it between vv. 28, 29, we have the idea of Divine
righteousness and holiness (i. 9; U. 1, 12, 20, 29) prominent in both
divisions. If we make the division coincide with the chapters, we,
have the leading ideas of boldness towards Christ and God (v. 28;
iii. 2, 21; iv. 17; v. 14), of Christ's return to judgment (v. 28; iii. 2;
iv. 17), of doing righteousness (v. 29, iii. 7 — 10), and of Divine sonship
(v. 29 ; iii. 1, 2, &c), on both sides of the division. It seems quite
clear therefore that both these verses (28, 29) belong to both portions
of the Epistle, and that v. 29 at any rate is more closely connected
with what follows than with what precedes.
The close connexion between the parts must not lead us to suppose
that there is no division here at aU. The transition is gentle and
gradual, but when it is over we find ourselves on new ground. The
antithesis between light and darkness is replaced by that between love
and hate. The opposition between the world and God becomes the
opposition between the world and God's chUdren. The idea of having
feUowship with God is transformed into that of being sons of God.
WaUring in the Ught is spoken of as doing righteousness. And not
only do previous thoughts, if they reappear, assume a new form, but
new thoughts also are introduced: the Second Advent, the boldness of
the faithful Christian, the final relation between believers and God.
Although there may be uncertainty as to where the new division should
begin, there is none as to the fact of there being one.
n. 29 — V. 12. God is Love.
There seems to be no serious break in the Epistle from this point
onwards until we reach the concluding verses which form a sort of

II. 29.] NOTES. 69
summary (v. 13 — 21). The key-word 'love' is distributed, and not
very unevenly, over the whole, from iii. 1 to v. 3. Subdivisions, how
ever, exist and wiU be pointed out as they occur. The next two sub
divisions may be marked thus; The Children of God and the Children
of the Devil (ii. 29— ui. 12) ; Love and Hate (iii. 13—24). The two,
as we shall find, are closely linked together, and might be placed under
one heading, thus ; The Righteousness of the Children of God in their
relation to the Hate of the World (ii. 29 — iii. 24).
H. 29 — IH. 12. The Children of God and the Children op
the Devil.
29. Idv elS-fJTe oti SCxaids Icrriv. This probably does not mean
Christ, although the preceding verse refers entirely to Him. ' To be
born of Christ,' though containing "nothing abhorrent from our
Christian ideas," is not a, Scriptural expression; whereas 'to be born
of God' is not only a common thought in Scripture, but is speciaUy
common in this Epistle and occurs in the very next verse. And clearly
'He' and 'Him' must be interpreted aUke: it destroys the argument
(d Slxaios Sixalovs yevvq., Justus justum gignit, as Oecumenius and
Bengel put it) to interpret 'He is righteous' of Christ and 'born of
Him' of God. Moreover, this explanation gets rid of one abrupt
change by substituting another stiU more abrupt. That 'He, Him,
His' in v. 28 means Christ, and 'He, Him' in v. 29 means God, is
some confirmation of the view that a new division of the letter begins
with v. 29. That 'God is righteous' see i. 9 and John xvii. 25.
But S. John is so fuU of the truth that Christ and the Father are one,
and that Christ is God revealed to man, that he makes the transition
from one to the other almost imperceptibly. Bede interprets both
dlxaids iariv and df adroB of Christ.
Yivwo-KeTe. Once more we are in doubt as to indicative or impera
tive: see on v. 27. The Vulgate has scitote, and hence Wiclif and
the Rhemish, as also Tyndale and Cranmer, have the imperative. But
the indicative is more in harmony with vv. 20, 21 : Ye know that
everyone also, i. e. not only Christ, hut every righteous believer, is a
son of God. Beza has nostis, which the Genevan mistranslates ' ye
have known'. Note the change from elSrjre to yivwaxere, the one express
ing the knowledge that is intuitive or simply possessed, the other that
which is acquired by experience: 'If ye are aware that God is righte
ous, ye must recognise, &c.' Contrast vv. 11, 20, 21 with 3^4, 5, 13,
14, 18. Comp. d iyiii void ab ovx otSas dpn, ¦yvcoo-Tj 51 perd Taura (John
xiii. 7): *cWa av otSas' av *yivc6crK€is d'rt <piXw ae (xxi. 17): and con
versely, el eyvcoKeiTe pe, xal rbv varipa pov dv rj'SeiTe (xiv. 7).
0 iroicov. ' That habitually doeth : ' not the fact of having done a
righteous act here and there, but the habit of righteousness, proves
sonship. MoraUty in the highest sense can come of no lower source
than God. ttjv 8iKaioo-vvnv. The article possibly means His righte
ousness, or the righteousness that is rightly known as such; but it is
safer to omit it in translation. The omission of the article before
abstract nouns is the rule; but the exceptions are very numerous,

7o 1 S. JOHN. [II. 29—
and among the exceptions are the many cases in which the article is
used for a possessive pronoun. Winer, 148. Again, "the Article is
rightly prefixed to words by which a system of action, famihar to the
mind as such, is intended to be signified" (Green, Grammar of the N. T.
p. 17). It is difficult to decide between these two explanations, but
the latter seems better. Comp. voieiv tt\v dXrj8eiav.
I| avrov YeylvvriTai. Of Him hath he been begotten and His child
he remains : d£ ovtov first for emphasis. Just as only he who habi-
tuaUy walks in the light has true feUowship with the God who is light
(i. 6, 7), so only he who habituaUy does righteousness is a true son of
the God who is righteous. Thus the writer to Diognetus says that
the Christian is A07W vpoa<piXei yevvrjBels, while the Son is vdvrort
vios iv aylwv xapdlais ytvvwpevos (xi.). Other signs of the Divine birth
are love of the brethren (iv. 7) and fait h in Jesus as the Christ (v. 1).
Righteousness begins in faith and ends in love.

CHAPTER III.
1. After KXr|6wpev insert Kal ecrpeV with NABCP, Justin Martyr
and Versions against KL. NKL have bpds for rjpas.
2. After ofSapev omit di with NABC against EL.
5. After dpaprias omit rjpwv with AB and most Versions against
NCKL and the Thebaic. X and the Thebaic have oldaptv for oCSaTe.
7. AC have *oidio for TeKvCa (NBKL).
11. NC have iirayyeXia for dyytkla (ABEL).
13. After dSeXcpof omit pov with NABC against KL.
14. After d-yairiov omit rbv ddtX<pbv with NAB against CKL.
15. NAC have iavrip for ai™ or ovto (BKL) . The reading remains
doubtful. 16. For nBivai (KL) read Beivai (NABC).
18. After reKvCa omit pov with NABC against KL. Before 7X100-™
insert ttj with ABCKL against N, and before epycp insert Iv with NABCL
against K.
19. For yivwaxopev (KL) read 7vucrdpe6a (NABC). AB, Syriac,
and Vulgate omit KaC before Iv tovtu. A^B, Peschito, and Thebaic
read rrjv xapSlav for Tds k. (NA2CKL).
21. With AB omit ijpwv after KapSCa. BC omit rjpcov after koto-
yivcdo-KTj. 22. For *op' adrofi (KL) read dir* ovtov (NABC).
23. For viareiaaptv (BKL) we should perhaps read mo-revcopev
(KAC). Once more B almost invariably has the true text : in no case has it
a reading which is certainly wrong.

III. 1.] NOTES. 71
In vv. 1 — 3 the Apostle states the present and future condition of
the children of God. For the present they have both in name and
fact a parentage that is Divine: but the world, which has not
recognised their Parent, does not recognise them. Their future is not
yet fuUy revealed : but they are to be like Him ; and this thought
inspires their strivings after hoUness.
1. iroTairrjv. The same word occurs Matt. viii. 27; Mark xiii. 1;
Luke i. 29 ; vii. 39 ; 2 Pet. tii. 11 : it always impUes astonishment, and
generaUy admiration. The radical signification is 'of what country,'
the Latin cujas; which, however, is never used as its equivalent in the
Vulgate, because in N.T. the word has entirely lost the notion of place.
It has become qualis rather than cujas: 'what amazing love'. In
LXX. the word does not occur.
dYOTrnv. This is the key-word of this whole division of the Epistle
(ti. 29 — v. 12J, in which it occurs 16 times as a substantive, 25 as a
verb, and 5 times in the verbal adjective d7a*>7Toi. Here it is repre
sented almost as something concrete, a gift which could be actuaUy
seen. S. John does not use his favourite interjection (i!8« d dpcds r.
6eoB, £8e d dvBpwvos, k.t.X.), but the plural of the imperative, tSere.
'A-ydiniv SfSovai occurs nowhere else in N.T.
TJpiv d iraTrjp. The words are in emphatic proximity : on us sinners
the Father hath bestowed this boon. Quid majus quam Deus ? quae
propiornecessitudo quam filialis 1 (Bengel.) Comp. taopai airb) Bebs,
xal abrbs iarai poi vlbs (Rev. xxi. 7). '0 Harrjp rather than i 8eds
because of what foUows. B reads bpiv for rjpiir and has some support
in inferior authorities, but it can hardly be right. The confusion
between ip. and rjp. is easily made and is very frequent even in the
best MSS.
tva t. 0eov kXt|8. S. John's characteristic construction, as in i. 9.
" The final particle has its fuU force " (Westcott). This was the purpose
of His love, its tendency and direction. Winer, 575. Comp. vv. 11,
23; iv. 21; John xiii. 34; xv. 12, 17. KoXetcrBai "is especially used of
titles of honour, which indicate the possession of a certain dignity :
see Matt. v. 9; Luke i. 76; 1 John iii. 1" (Winer, 769). With R.V. we
must render tIkvo ©eov children of God, not with A.V. and eartier
Versions, ' the sons of God '. There is no article ; and we must not
confuse S. Paul's uioi GeoS with S. John's rixra Qeov. Both Apostles
tell us that the fundamental relation of Christians to God is a filial
one: but while S. Paul gives us the legal side (adoption), S. John gives
us the natural side (generation). To us the latter is the closer rela
tionship of the two. But we must remember that in the Roman Law,
under which S. Paul Uved, adoption was considered as absolutely
equivalent to actual parentage. In this ' unique apostrophe ' in the
centre of the Epistle two of its central leading ideas meet, Divine love
and Divine sonship ; a love which has as its end and aim that men
should be called children of God. Note that GeoB, as Qtbr in iv. 12,
has no article. This shews that it is the idea of Divinity that is pro
minent rather than the relation to ourselves. The meaning is that we

72 IS. JOHN. [III. 1
are children of One who is not human but Divine, rather that we are
related to One who is our God. See on iv. 12.
After 'children of God' we must insert on overwhelming authority
(NABC and Versions), and we are: God has allowed us to be called
children, and we are children. The simus of the Vulgate and S. Au
gustine and the 'and be' of the Rhemish are probably wrong. Tyn-
dale, Beza, and the Genevan omit. The present indicative after tva
is not impossible (John xvii. 3 ; 1 Cor. iv. 6 ; Gal. iv. 17 : Winer, 362) :
but would S. John have put KXrjBwpev in the subjunctive and iapir in
the indicative, if both were dependent upon tva? With <col iapiv here
comp. Kal iarai in 2 John 2. It is in this passage with the true
reading that we have something Uke proof that Justin Martyr knew
this Epistle. In the Dial. c. Try. (eran.) he has Kai GeoB riKva
dXrjBivd KaXoipeBa Kal iapiv.
Bid tovto. For this cause, as R.V., reserving 'therefore' as the
rendering of ovv, a particle which is very frequent in the narrative
portions of the Gospel, but which does not occur anywhere in thiB
Epistle. In ii. 24 and iv. 19 ovv is a false reading. Tyndale, Cranmer,
the Genevan and the Rhemish aU have 'for this cause': the A.V., as
not unfrequently, has altered for the worse. It may be doubted
whether the R.V. has not here altered the punctuation for the worse,
in putting a fuU stop at 'we are.' Aid tovto in S. John does not
merely anticipate the ore which follows ; it refers to what precedes.
'We are children of God; and for this cause the world knows us not:
because the world knew Him not.' The third sentence explains how
the second sentence foUows from the first. In logical phraseology we
might say that the conclusion is placed between the two premises.
Comp. John v. 16, 18; vii. 22; viii. 47; x. 17; xii. 18, 27, 39. For
'the world' see on ii. 2. S. Augustine compares the attitude of the
world towards God to that of sick men in delirium who would do
violence to their physician. After the experiences of the persecutions
under Nero and Domitian this statement of the Apostle would come
home with full force to his readers. The persecution under Domitian
was possibly just beginning at the very time that this First Epistle
was written. Comp. John xv. 19. All spiritual forces are uninteUigible
and offensive to ' the world.' For ovk iyva see on iv. 8.
2. dyam]Tot. Vulgate carissimi, as usual : Jerome (Con. Pelag. 13)
dilectissimi. In the first part of the Epistle this form of address
occurs only once (ti. 7), just where the subject of love appears for a
few verses. In this second part it becomes the more common form of
address (vv. 2, 21; iv. 1, 7, 11), for here the main subject is love.
Similarly, in v. 13, where brotherly love is the special subject, d5eXo>oi
is the form of address. Nvv and oilirw each stand first in their re
spective clauses in emphatic contrast, and ko£, as so often in S. John,
introduces an antithesis. Our privileges in this world are certain;
and yet our glories in the world to come are stiU vefled. But they
wiU be connected with our blessings here (Kal), not something quite
different (oiXXd). With this Te'xva 6eoB agrees: 'child' implies a
future development; 'son' does not. $avepovo-6ai in both places

III. 2.] NOTES. 73
should be rendered, as in R.V., be made manifest or be manifested,
in order to preserve the passive voice and uniformity of rendering with
i. 2; ii. 19, 28. It is one of S. John's characteristic expressions.
'Appear' comes from the Vulgate: Augustine uses both apparere and
manifestari, Tertulhan revelari.
Idv cpavepcoBrj. If it shall be manifested, or if He shall be manifested.
Here there is no difference of reading, as there is in ii. 28, between
irav and idv ; but earlier English Versions, under the influence of the
Vulgate (cum apparuerit) have 'when' in both passages. Ambrose and
Augustine have cum also; Tertulhan has si. In both cases 'if is
right ; but it has been either changed in the Greek, or shirked in transla
tion, as appearing to imply a doubt respecting the manifestation. It
implies no doubt as to the fact, but shews that the results of the fact
are more important than the time : comp. ' If I be Ufted up from the
earth,' and 'If I go and prepare a place for you' (John xii. 32;
xiv. 3).
It is less easy to determine between 'if it shaU be manifested' and
'if He shaU be manifested;' 'it ' meaning what we shall be hereafter,
and ' He ' meaning Christ. No nominative is expressed in the Greek,
and it is rather violent to supply a new nominative, differing from
that of the very same verb in the previous sentence: therefore 'it'
seems preferable. ' We know that if our future state is made manifest
we, who are children of God, shaU be found Uke our Father.' On the
other hand, ii. 28 favours 'if He shaU be manifested.' Note the
oUSopev and comp. ti. 20, 21. No progress in knowledge is implied;
no additional experience. Our future resemblance to our Father is a
fact of which as Christians we are aware. Contrast yivtiaxopev (ti. 3,
18; iii. 24; iv. 6, 13; v. 2). The 'but' of A.V. from Si of T. R.
introduces a false antithesis. But yet another way is possible. We
may read here, as R. V. in v. 20, S ti idv, and translate, We know —
whatever may be manifested — that we shaU be like Him. But this
•does not seem probable : it is unlike S. John, and (perhaps we may
say) unlike Scripture generally.
opoioi ad™. We are once more in doubt as to the meaning of
avrtf. If idv <pav. be rendered 'if He shall be manifested,' this will
naturaUy mean that we shaU be Uke Christ; which, however true in
itself, is not the point. The point is that children are found to be
Uke their Father. This is an additional reason for preferring 'it'
with Tyndale and Cranmer to ' He ' with Wiclif, Purvey, Genevan,
and Rhemish. The precise nature of the bpoibrrjs (not labrrjs) is left
undetermined. Similes, quia beati, says Bede. Man was created kot'
tlxbva Kai xaB' bpolwaiv toB 9eoB (Gen. i. 26, 27), and this likeness,
marred at the FaU, is renewed here by Christ's Blood and perfected
hereafter, oti dipdpeBa ovtov KaBws Io-tiv. Because we shall see Him
«ven as He is: 'because' as in vv. 9, 20, 22; ii. 13, 14, &c, and
'even as' as in vv. 3, 7, 23; ii. 6, 27, &c. 'Because' or 'for' may
give the cause either (1) of our knowing that we shaU be like Him, or
(2) of our being like Him. Both make good sense; but, in spite of
' we know ' being the principal sentence grammatically, the statement

74 i <=>¦ juiuv. [III. 2
which most needs explanation is the subordinate one, that we shall be
Uke God. 'We shall be Uke Him,' says the Apostle, 'because, as you
know, we shaU see Him.' Comp. 'But we aU, with unveiled faoe
reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the
same image from glory to glory ' (2 Cor. iii. 18) ; the sight of God wiU
glorify us. This also is in harmony with the prayer of the great High
Priest; 'And the glory which Thou hast given Me, I have given unto
them' (John xvii. 22). Comp. 'And they shall see His face' (Rev.
xxii. 4). The ' even as' emphasizes the reaUty of the sight: no longer
'in a mirror, darkly,' but ' face to face.'
3. irds 6 ?xwv- Once more, as in ii. 23, 29, the Apostle explicitly
states that there is no exception to the principle laid down. It is not
only a general rule that he who has this hope of becoming Uke God
purifies himself, but it is a rule without any exceptions; irds d (xup.
There is absolutely no room for the Gnostic belief that to the en
lightened man sin brings no poUution. 'Err' avTcy of course does not
mean ' in Him, ' but ' on Him ': in eo sitam, as Beza. Every man
who has the hope, based upon God, of one day being Uke Him,
purifies himself. Comp. !ir' abra) idvrj iXviovaiv (Rom. xv. 12):
rjXvlxaptv Iirl Btip £wvn (1 Tim. iv. 10).
ayvCtfi. In LXX this verb (dyvljreiv) is used chiefly in a technical
sense of ceremonial purifications, e.g. of the priests for divine service:
and so also even in N. T. (John xi. 55 ; Acts xxi. 24, 26; xxiv. 18).
But we need not infer that, because the outward cleansing is the
dominant idea in these passages, it is therefore the only one. Here,
Jas. iv. 8, and 1 Pet. ii. 22, the inward purification and dedication
become the dominant idea, though perhaps not to the entire exclusion
of the other.
dYV. eavrov. See on i. 8 and v. 21. S. John once more boldly
gives us an apparent contradiction, in order to bring out a real truth.
In i. 7 it is 'the blood of Jesus' which 'cleanseth us from aU sin:'
here the Christian ' purifieth himself. ' Both are true, and neither
cleansing will avail to salvation without the other. Christ cannot
save ub if we withhold our efforts : we cannot save ourselves without
His merits and grace.
KaBws IKeivos dyvo's loriv. As in v. 2, the 'even as' brings out the
reality of the comparison: similarly in John xvii. 11, 22 we have 'that
they may be one, even as we are. ' It is not easy to determine with
certainty whether 'He' means the Father or Christ. The change of
pronoun in the Greek from 'on Him' (iv' avrip) to 'He' (ixeivos)
favours, though it does not prove, a change of meaning. Probably
throughout this Epistle ixtivos means Christ (vv. 5, 7, 16 ; ii. 6 ; iv. 17).
He who, relying on God, hopes to be Uke God hereafter, purifies him
self now after the example of Christ. Christ conformed Himself to
the Father ; we do the like by oonforming ourselves to Christ. This
interpretation brings us once more in contact with Christ's great
prayer. 'For their sakes I consecrate Myself, that they themselves
maybe consecrated in truth' (John xvii. 19). Moreover, would S.

UT. 4.] iyc/j.M/o. 75
John speak of God as ' pure ' ? God is ' holy ' (0710s) ; Christ in His per
fect sinlessness as man is 'pure' (07^5). The Vulgate here renders
i7i>ds sanctus, as the Corbey MS. in James iii. 17, where the Vulgate
has pudicus. The usual Vulgate rendering is castus. Note that
S. John does not say ' even as He purified Himself: ' that grace which
the Christian has to seek diligently is the inherent attribute of Christ.
The consecration of Christ for the work of redemption is very dif
ferent from the purification of the Christian in order to be Uke Him
and the Father. Comp. Heb. xii. 14.
4. As so often, the Apostle emphasizes his statement by giving the
opposite case, and not the simple opposite, but an expansion of it.
Instead of saying 'every one that hath not this hope' he says every
one that doeth sin. The A. V. not only obscures this antithesis by
changing ' every man ' to ' whosoever,' but also the contrast between
'doing righteousness' (ii. 29) and 'doing sin' by changing from 'do '
to 'oommit.' This contrast is aU the more marked in the Greek
because both words have the article ; 'doeth the righteousness,' 'doeth
the sin.' EquaUy unfortunate is the A. V. rendering of Kal ttjv
dvopCav iroiei, ' transgresseth also the law :' which destroys the paral
lel between voiwr t. dpapr. and t. dvop. voiti. Note the chiasmus, and
render with R. V. ; Every one that doeth sin, doeth also lawlessness.
To bring out the contrast and paraUel it is imperative to have the
same verb in both clauses and also in ii. 29 : to do sin is to do lawless
ness, and this is the opposite of to do righteousness. The one marks
the children of God, the other the chUdren of the devil. 'Lawless
ness' both in EngUsh and Greek (dvopla) means not the privation of
law, but the disregard of it : not the having no law, but the act
ing as if one had none. (Comp. the Hebrew pesha and the LXX.
rendering of it, Is. xtii. 27 ; Amos iv. 4 : it implies faithless disregard
of a covenant. This was precisely the case with some of the Gnostic
teachers : they declared that their superior enUghtenment placed them
above the moral law; they were neither the better for keeping it nor
the worse for breaking it. Sin and lawlessness, says the Apostle, are
convertible terms : they are merely different aspects of the same state.
(Hence the predicate as weU as the subject has the article : see below.)
And it is in its aspect of disregard of God's law that sin is seen to be
quite irreconcilable with being a child of God and having feUowship
with God. See on v. 17.
The 'for' of A. V. is sanctioned by no reading or ancient Ver
sion : it comes from Tyndale, Beza, and the Genevan. The Vulgate-
preserves the chiasmus as well as the xal: Omnis qui facit pecca-
tum, et iniquitatem facit; et peccatum est iniquitas. So also-
Tertullian, but with the African rendering delictum in each case
for peccatum. So also, quite naturaUy, Luther : Wer Siinde thut,
der thut auch Unrecht, und die Siinde ist das Unrecht. For in
stances in which both terms in a proposition that can be con
verted simply have the article comp. rj ivroXrj r) vaXaid ianv 0 X&yos
bv tjxoiaart (ii. 7): rj £wr) rjv to cpws twv dvBpwvwv (John i. 4): 17 *erpa
rjv 6 Xpiaros (1 Cor. i. 4; comp. xi. 3; xv. 56). Winer, 142, note-
Green, 35, 36.

76 IS. JOHN. [III. 5—
5. That sin is incompatible with Divine birth is further enforced
by two facts respecting the highest instance of Divine birth. The Son
of God (1) entered the world of sense in order to put away sin ; and
therefore those who sin thwart His work: (2) was Himself absolutely
free from sin; and therefore those who sin disregard His example.
otSaTC. N and the Thebaic read otSapev. As in v. 2 and ii. 21, the
Apostle appeals to that knowledge which as Christians they must
possess. The translation of «pavepco6i| here must govern the transla
tion in v. 2 and ti. 28, where see note. Here, as in v. 8 and i. 2, the
manifestation of the Ad7os in becoming visible to human eyes is
meant, — the Incarnation. The expression necessarily impUes that
He existed previous to being made manifest.
tva tos dpapT. dprj. Literally, that He might take away the sins,
i.e. all the sins that there are. If ' our sins ' means ' the sins of us
men ' and not ' the sins of us Christians,' the rendering is admissible,
even if the addition rjpwv (NC Thebaic) is not genuine. As already
stated, the article is often used in Greek where in EngUsh we use a
possessive pronoun. ' To take away ' is the safest rendering ; for this
is all that the Greek word necessarily means (see on John i. 29).
Vulgate, tolleret; AuguBtine, auferat. Yet it is not improbable that
the meaning of 'to bear' ia included: He took the sins away by bear
ing them Himself (1 Pet. ii. 24). This, however, is not S. John's
point. His argument is that the Son's having become incarnate in
order to aboUsh sin shews that sin is inconsistent with sonship : the
way in which He abolished it is not in question.
Kal dp. . . .ovk eWiv. This is an independent proposition and must not
be connected with oldart on. The order of the Greek is impressive;
sin in Him does not exist. And the tense is significant. Christ not
merely was on earth, but is in heaven, the eternally sinless One. He
is the perfect pattern of what a son of God should be. This, there
fore, is yet another proof that sin and sonship are incompatible.
Comp. John vii. 18. Nemo tollit peccata, quae nee lex quamvis sancta
et justa et bona potuit auferre, nisi ille in quo peccatum non est
(Bede). 6. irds 6 peVwv. Every one that abideth. Here, as in ii. 23, 29;
iii. 3, 4, 9, 10, 15; iv. 7; v. 1, 4, 18, it is well to bring out in transla
tion the full sweep of the Apostle's declaration. He insists that there
are no exceptions to these principles.
ovx dpapTavei. The Christian sometimes sins (i. 8 — 10). The
Christian abides in Christ (ii. 27). He who abides in Christ does not
sin (iii. 6). By these apparently contradictory statements put forth
one after another S. John expresses that internal contradiction of
which every one who is endeavouring to do right is conscious. What
S. John detivers as a series of aphorisms, which mutuaUy qualify and
•explain one another, S. Paul puts forth dialectically as an argument.
' If what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin
which dwelleth in me' (Rom. vii. 20). And on the other hand, 'I
live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me' (Gal. ii. 20).

III. 8.] NOTES. 77
irds 6 dpapT....avTov. Every one that sinneth, hath not seen Him,
neither knoweth Him. For ewpaKev see on i. 1, for gyvuKev on ii. 3.
It is possible that S. John alludes to some who had claimed authority
because they had seen Christ in the flesh. No one who sins, has seen
Christ or attained to a knowledge of Him. What does S. John mean
by this strong statement? It will be observed that it is the antithesis
of the preceding statement; but, as usual, instead of giving us the
simple antithesis, 'Every one that sinneth abideth not in Him,' he
expands and strengthens it into 'Every one that sinneth hath not seen
Him, neither come to know Him.' S. John does not say this of every
one who commits a sin (6 dpaprrjaas), but of the habitual sinner (d
ipaprivav). Although the believer sometimes sins, yet not sin, but
opposition to sin, is the ruling principle of his life ; for whenever he
sins he confesses it, and wins forgiveness, and perseveres with his self-
purification. But the habitual sinner does none of these things: sin is his ruling
principle. And this could not be the case if he had ever really known
Christ. Just as apostates by leaving the Church prove that they
have never reaUy belonged to it (ii. 19), so the sinner by continuing
in sin proves that he has never really known Christ. — Seeing and
knowing are not two names for the same fact : to see Christ is
to be spirituaUy conscious of His presence ; to know Him is to
recognise His character and His relation to ourselves. For a coUec-
tion of varying interpretations of this passage see Farrar's Early Days
of Christianity n. p. 434, note.
7. TeKvCa. The renewed address adds solemnity and tenderness to
the warning. From the point of view of the present subject, viz. the
Divine parentage, he again warns them against the ruinous doctrine
that religion and conduct are separable ; that to the spiritual man no
action is defiling, but all conduct is alike. The language implies that
the error set before them is of a very grave kind : let no man lead you
astray: see on i. 8.
d iroicov. Not d voir)aas, any more than d du.aprr)aas (v. 6). It is he
who habitually does righteousness, not he who simply does a righte
ous act. If faith without works is dead (Jas. ii. 17, 20), much more
is knowledge without works dead. There is only one way of proving
our enUghtenment, of proving our parentage from Him who is Light ;
and that is by doing the righteousness which is characteristic of Him
and His Son. This is the sure test, the test which Gnostic self-exal
tation pretended to despise. Anyone can say that he possesses a
superior knowledge of Divine truth; but does he act accordingly?
Does he do divine things, after the example of the Divine Son? S.
John speaks of both the Father (i. 9) and the Son (ii. 2) as Siracos ;
but here as elsewhere in this Epistle, it is best to take ixeivos as
meaning Christ : see on ii. 6 and iii. 3.
8. d iroicov t. dpapT. He that doeth sin, as in v. 4, to bring out
the contrast with 'he that doeth righteousness.' Qui facit peccatum.
The first half of this verse is closely paraUel to the second half of v. 7.

78 1 S. JOHN. [III. 8-
The habitual doer of sin has the devil as the source (die), not of his
existence, but of the evil which rules his existence and is the main
element in it. "The devil made no man, begat no man, created no
man : but whoso imitates the devti, becomes a child of the devil, as
if begotten of him. In what sense art thou a child of Abraham? Not
that Abraham begat thee. In the same sense as that in which the
Jews, the children of Abraham, by not imitating the faith of Abra
ham, are become children of the devti " (S. Augustine). Jerome (Horn.
in Jerem. vi.) quotes this passage thus ; Omnis qui facit peccatum, ex
zabulo natus est. Neither the omnis nor the natus is in the Vulgate
or in the Greek. The form zabulus occurs in MSS. of Cyprian and
Lactantius, and also in Htiary and Ambrose : it is not found in the
Vulgate. (With zabulus for didpoXos comp. fdxoXos, fa*Xr)0;js, fd*upos,
jrdvXovros, £dxpvaos: and zeta for Slaira. ) Jerome continues; Toties ex
zabulo nascimur, quoties peccamus. Infelix iste qui semper generatur a
zabulo. Rursumque multum beatus qui semper ex Deo nascitur. It is
one of the characteristics of these closing words of N. T. that they
mark with singular precision the personatity of Satan, and his relation
to sin, sinners, and redemption from sin.
oti dir' dpxrjs 6 8. dp. Because from the beginning the devil sin
neth. Ab initio diabolus peccat (Vulgate): a primordio delinquit
(TertuUian). 'From the beginning' stands first for emphasis. What
does it mean ? Various explanations have been suggested. (1) From the
beginning of sin. The devil was the first to sin and has never ceased
to sin. (2) From the beginning of the devil. This comes very near
to asserting the Gnostic and Manichaean error of two co-eternal
principles or Creators, one good and one evti. The very notion of sin
involves departure from what is good. The good therefore must have
existed first. To avoid this, (3) from the beginning of the devil as
such, i.e. from the time of his becoming the devil, or (4) from the
beginning of his activity; which is not very different from (3) if
one believes that he is a fallen angel, or from (2) if one does not.
(5) From the beginning of the world. (6) From the beginning of the
human race. The first or last seems best. "The phrase 'From the
beginning' intimates that there has been no period of the existence of
human beings in which they have not been liable to the assaults of
this Tempter ; that accusations against God, reasons for doubting and
distrusting Him, have been offered to one man after another, to one
generation after another. This is just what the Scripture affirms;
just the assumption which goes through the book from Genesis to the
Apocalypse." (Maurice.) Note the present tense : not he has sinned,
but he is sinning ; his whole existence is sin.
6 vids tov 0eov. In special contrast to those habitual sinners who
are morally the children of the devil. Origen here gives the reading
yeyivvrjrai, which is probably a mere stip of memory. There seems
to be no trace of it elsewhere. The metaphor in tva Xvcrrj has
probably nothing to do with loosening bonds or snares. All destruc
tion is dissolution. The word in a figurative sense is a favourite one
with the Apostle: comp. John ii. 19; v. 18; vii. 23; x. 35, where either

III. 9.] NOTES. 79
notion, loosening or dissolving, is appropriate. Comp. xpifa obv
vpabrrjros, ev rj KaTaXierai b dpxwv rov alSvos roirrov (Ign. Trail, iv).
The ep-ya of the devil are the sins which he causes men to commit.
Christ came to undo these sins, to ' take away ' both them and their
consequences. They are the opposite of to ipya toB GeoB (John ix. 3),
the same as Tel ipya toB axbrovs (Rom. xiii. 12).
The recognition of the personaUty of the devil in this passage is
express and clear, as in John viii. 44, where we have Christ's declara
tion on the subject. It is there implied that he is a faUen being ; for
he 'did not stand firm in the truth' (od* iarrjKtv). He is here the
great opponent of the Son of God manifest in the flesh and the author
of men's sins. In both passages he appears as moraUy the parent of
those who deliberately prefer evil to good. Nothing is said either as
to his origin, or the origin of moral evil.
9. This is the opposite of v. 8, as v. 8 of v. 7; but, as usual, not
the plain opposite, but sometliing deduced from it, is stated.
irds d yeyevvripe'vos Ik t. 0. Every one that (see on v. 6) is begotten
of God. Note the perfect tense ; ' every one that has been made and
that remains a child of God.' The expression is very frequent
throughout the Epistle (ii. 29 ; iv. 7 ; v. 1, 4, 18) and the rendering
should be uniform; all the more so, because the phrase is characte
ristic. The A. V. wavers between 'born' and 'begotten,' even in the
same verse (v. 1, 18). The R. V. rightly prefers 'begotten' through
out: 'born' throughout is impossible, for in v. 1 we have the active,
'begat.' The expression 'to be begotten of God' is found only in S.
John; once iu the Gospel (i. 13) and eight or nine times in the
Epistie: comp. John iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8.
dpapriav ov iroiet. As R. V., doeth no sin (see on v. 4): the opposi
tion between ' doing sin ' and ' doing righteousness ' must be carefully
marked. The strong statement is exactly paraUel to v. 6 and is to be
understood in a similar sense. It is UteraUy true of the Divine nature
imparted to the betiever. That does not sin and cannot sin. A chUd
of the God who is Light can have nothing to do with sin which is
darkness : the two are moraUy incompatible.
oti cnreppa avrov Iv av. p. As R. V., because his seed abideth in
him: see on ii. 24. This may mean either (1) 'His seed,' the new
birth given by God, 'abideth in him; ' or (2) 'his seed,' the new birth
received by him, ' abideth in him ; ' or (3) ' His seed,' God's child,
'abideth in Htm.' The first is probably right. The third is possible,
but improbable : avippa is sometimes used for ' child ' or ' descendant ;'
but would not S. John have written rixvov as in vv. 1, 2, 10, v. 2?
To resort to the parable of the sower for an explanation, and to inter
pret 'seed' as 'the word of God' is scarcely legitimate. The whole
analogy refers to human generation, not to the germination of plants ;
but comp. 1 Pet. i 23. John iti. 5 — 8 would lead us to interpret seed
as meaning the Holy Spirit. Justin Martyr may have had this verse
in his mind when he wrote oi viareiovres airtp eiaiv dvBpwvoi tv ols
olKeirb vaph tov 0eoB avippa b Xbyos (Apol. i. xxxii).

8o 1 s. JOHN. [III. 9—
ov Svvarai dpapr. It is a moral impossibility for a child of God to
sin. It is because of the imperfection of our sonship that sin is pos
sible, an imperfection to be remedied and gradually reduced by the
blood of Jesus (i. 7) and self-purification (tii. 3). In quantum in
eo manet, in tantum nonpeccat (Bede). Od divarai of what is morally
impossible is frequent in S. John's Gospel (v. 30; vi. 44, 65; vii. 7;
viii. 43; xii. 39; xiv. 17). Comp. iv. 20. Augustine, foUowed by
Bede, limits the impossibility in this case to the violation of the
principle of love. That is the sin which is impossible to the true child
of God.
10. Iv tovtw. This phrase, Uke did toBto (v. 1) commonly looks
back at what has just been stated. In doing or not doing sin ties the
test. A man's principles are invisible, but their results are visible :
'By their fruits ye shall know them' (Matt. vii. 16 — 20).
Td tIkvo t. SiaBdXov. The expression occurs nowhere else in N. T.
Acts xiii. 10 we have vid biapbXov, and Matt. xiii. 38 oi viol toB vovrjpov.
Comp. vpeis iK tov varpbs tov diapbXov iari (John viii. 44). AU man
kind are God's children by creation : as regards this a creature can
have no choice. But a creature endowed with free wtil can choose his
own parent in the moral world. The Father offers him the 'right
to become a child of God' (John i. 12); but he can refuse this and
become a child of the devil instead. There is no third alternative.
It was for pressing the doctrine that a tree is known by its fruits to
an extreme, and maintaining that a world in which evil exists cannot
be the work of a good God, that the heretic Marcion was rebuked
by S. John's disciple Polycarp, in words which read Uke an adaptation
of this passage, 'T&viyiyvwaxu tov irpwTOTOKov tov SaTavd (Iren.
Haer. in. iti. 4). And Polycarp in his Epistle (vii. 1) writes, Ss av prj
bpoXoyrj rb papripiov tov aravpov, Ik tov 8ia8dXov IotCv.
Kal 6 pij dyaTrcov. The «ai is almost epexegetic: 'not to love' is
only a special form of 'not to do righteousness.' As in ii. 4 (6 Xiyav
xal prj rrjptSv), S. John does not say that there is any such person (d
ovk d7a*<2y) ; but if there be such, this is his condition. Comp. iv. 8,
20 ; v. 12 ; 2 John 7, 9. Here also we may again note the manner in
which S. John's divisions shade off into one another (see on ti. 28,
29). Doing righteousness, the mark of God's children, suggests the
thought of brotherly love, for love is righteousness in relation to others;
' For the whole law is fulfiUed in one word, even in this ; Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself (Gal. v. 14). Love suggests its opposite,
hate; and these two form the subject of the next paragraph. Some
editors would make the new section begin here in the middle of v. 10.
It is perhaps better to draw the Une between vv. 12 and 13, consider
ing vv. 11 and 12 as transitional.
'He that loveth not his brother is not of God,' for a child of God
wiU love all whom God loves. This prepares us for the statements in
iv. 7, 20, 21.
11. oti ovtt| eori'v. Because the message is this; this is what it
consists in (see on i. 5). For tva see on i. 9. "Here the notion of

III. 12.] NOTES. 81
purpose is stiU perceptible" (Winer, 425). The first d77eXia told us
the nature of God (i. 5) ; the second teUs us our duty towards one
another. 'A*' dpxijs as in ti. 7 : it was one of the very first things
conveyed to them in their instruction in Christianity and had been
ceaselessly repeated, notably by the Apostle himself. Jerome tells us
that during S. John's last years 'Little children, love one another'
was the one exhortation which, after he had become too infirm to
preach, he stiU insisted upon as sufficient and never obsolete. "It is
the Lord's command," he said; "and if this is done, it is enough."'
'Love one another' addressed to Christians must primarily mean the
love of Christians to feUow-Christians ; and this shews what 'loving
his brother' must mean. But the love of Christians to non-Christians
must certainly not be excluded: the arguments for enforcing brotherly
love cover the case of love to all mankind.
12. A brother's love suggests its opposite, a brother's hate, and that
in the typical instance of it, the fratricide Cain.
ov KaBcds Kd'iv. As R.V., Not as Cain was of the evil one. In
A. V. the definite article has been exaggerated into a demonstrative
pronoun, 'that wicked one.' The same fault occurs John i. 21, 25;
vi. 14, 48, 69 ; vii. 40. For 6 irovi)pds see on ii. 13. In d*' dpxijs dpap-
rdvei (v. 8) S. John took us back to the earUest point in the history
of sin. The instance of Cain shewed how very soon sin took the form.
of hate, and fratricidal hate. It is better not to supply any verb with.
'not'; although the sentence is grammaticaUy incomplete, it is quite
inteUigible. 'We are not, and ought not to be, of the evil one, as
Cain was.' Commentators quote the " strange Rabbinical view" that
while Abel was the son of Adam, Cain was the son of the tempter.
Of course S. John is not thinking of such wild imaginations : Cain is
only morally 'ofthe evil one.' Here, as elsewhere in the Epistle (ii.
13, 14; v. 18, 19), S. John uses ' the evil one ' as a term with which his
readers are quite famitiar. He gives no explanation. To render tov
vovripov 'that wicked one' while vovrjpd is translated 'evil,' mars the
Apostle's point. Cain's vovrjpd ipya prove that he is ix tov vovrjpov.
Kal co-dtagev t. dSeXdtdv. This is special proof of his devilish nature.
The devil dvBpavoxrovos rjv dv' dpxijs (John viii. 44). Scpdjjeiv is a Unk
between this Epistle and the Apocalypse : it occurs nowhere else in
N.T. Its original meaning was 'to cut the throat' (a<payr)), especially
of a victim for sacrifice. In later Greek it means simply to slay,
especially with violence. But perhaps something of the notion of
slaying a victim ctings to it here, as in most passages in Revelation
(v. 6, 9, 12; vi. 9; xiii. 3, 8; xviii. 24).
Kal xdpiv tCvos. S. John puts this question to bring out stiU more
strongly the diabolical nature of the act and the agent. Was Abel at
aU to .blame? On the contrary, it was his righteousness which excited
the murderous hate of Cain. Cain was jealous of the acceptance
which Abel's righteous offering found, and which his own evil offering
did not find: and 'who is able to stand before envy?' (Prov. xxvii.
4). Cain's offering was evil, (1) because it 'cost him nothing' (2 Sam.
s. JOHN (ep.) F

82 1 S. JOHN. [III. 12—
xxiv. 24) ; (2) because of the spirit in which it was offered. The ko.1
emphasizes the question. Comp. xal rls ianv, xbpit; (John ix. 36) : xal
rls iart pov vXrjalov ; (Luke x. 29) : Koi Tis bvvarai awBrjvai ; (Luke xviii.
26). Winer, 545. Elsewhere in N. T. xdpiv foUows its case, as com
monly in classical Greek. The exceptional arrangement seems to
emphasize the x^pi". 'And because of what?'
Sixain. This is the last mention of the subject of dixaioaivrj, with
which the section opened in ti. 29 : comp. tii. 7, 10. Neither SiKaioavvrj
nor dlxaios occurs again in the Epistle, righteousness being merged in
the warmer and more definite aspect of it, love. This is a reason for
including from ii. 29 to iti. 12 in one section, treating of the righte
ousness of the chtidren of God. Comp. 'By faith Abel offered unto
God a more exceUent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had wit.
ness borne to him that he was righteous' (Heb. xi. 4).
13 — 24. Love and Hate: Life and Death.
|uj 6avpd£eTe. Comp. John v. 28, and contrast iti. 7. The anta
gonism between the Ught and the darkness, between God and the evil
one, between righteousness and unrighteousness, has never ceased
from the time of the first sin (v. 8) and of the first murder (v. 12).
The moral descendants of Cain and of Abel are still in the world, and
the wicked still hate the righteous. Therefore Christians need not be
perplexed, if the world (as it does) hates them.
Both in Jewish (Phtio, De saer. Abelis et Caini) and in early Chris
tian (Clem. Hom. in. xxv., xxvi.) Uterature Abel is taken as the
prototype of the good and Cain as the prototype of the wicked. For
the -wild sect of the Cainites, who took exactly the opposite view, see
Appendix C. It is possible that some germs of this monstrous heresy
are aimed at in v. 12.
aSeXcpof. The form of address is in harmony with the subject of
brotherly love. It occurs nowhere else in the Epistle. In ii. 7 ddeX«4oi
is a false reading, et pio-ei vpds 6 k. As R. V., if the world hateth
you: the fact is stated gently, but without uncertainty. The con
struction Bavpdfciv el is the more common in Attic. The hypothe
tical ei is gentler and more considerate than the blunt matter-of-fact
Sn. Both constructions occur in N. T.: with ei Mark xv. 44; with on
Luke xi. 38 ; John iti. 7 ; Gal. i. 6. In Gal. i. 6 the bluntness is quite
in keeping with the passage. This verse is another echo of Christ's
last discourses as recorded in the Gospel : ei d xbapos bptds piaei (pres.
indicative with ei, as here), yivwaKtre Sri ipi vpwrov vpwv pepiarjKev.
Comp. peyiBovs eariv b Xpianaviapbs, Srav piarjrai vvb tov sbapov (Ign.
Rom. iii.).
14. Love means Ufe and hate means death.
•npets oftSapev. The pronoun is very emphatic : 'the dark world
which is full of devtiish hate may think and do what it pleases about
us; we know that we have left the atmosphere of death for one of life.'
This knowledge is part of our consciousness (otSaptv) as Christians :
comp. ii. 20, 21; iii. 2, 5. Cain hated and slew his brother: the world

III. 15.] NOTES. 83
hates and would slay us. But for all that, it was Cain who passed
from life into death, while his brother passed to eternal life, and
through his sacrifice 'he being dead yet speaketh' (Heb. xi. 4). The
same is the case between the world and Christians. Philo in a simi
lar spirit points out that Cain reaUy slew, not his brother, but him
self. peTa|3eB. Ik t. B. els r. J. Have passed over out of death into Hfe,
have left an abode in the one region for an abode in the other : another
reminiscence of the Gospel (John v. 24). The Greek perfect here has
the common meaning of permanent result of past action: 'we have
passed into a new home and abide there.' The metaphor is perhaps
taken from the Passage of the Red Sea (Exod. xv. 16), or of the Jor
dan. oti dva-rruipev. This depends upon oldapev ; our love is the infalUble
sign that we have made the passage. The natural state of man is
selfishness, which involves enmity to others, whose claims clash with
those of self: to love others is proof that this natural state has been
abandoned. Life and love in the moral world correspond to Ufe and
growth in the physical: in each case the two are but different aspects
of the same fact. The one marks the state, the other the activity.
Comp. avvitjitpev Si airois dyavdv, tva xal dvaarwaiv (Ign. Smyr. vii.).
pevei Iv tio Bavdrco. The pevei shews that death is the original
condition of aU, out of which we pass by becoming children of God.
But each child of God loves God's children. Therefore he who does
not love is stiU in the old state of death. Comp. d di dveiBwv to) vltp
oix Sif/erai jrwrjv, dXX' r) bpyrj tov Beov pevei iv abrbv (John iii. 36).
Note that both Bdvaros and fur), like axorla and cpus in the earUer
part of the Epistle, have the article. That which in the fullest sense
is death, Ufe, darkness, and Ught, is meant in each case.
15. irds d pio-div. Every one that hateth. There is no exception.
A man may caU himself an enUghtened believer, but if he has no love,
oiBiv ian. See on v. 4. Quite as a matter of course S. John passes
from not loving to hating. The crisis caused in the world by the
coming of the Ught leaves no neutral ground : all is either Ught or
darkness, of God or of the evil one, of the Church or of the world, in
love or in hate. A Christian cannot be neither loving nor hating,
any more than a plant can be neither growing nor dying.
dvBpwiroKrdvos IcttCv. Most of the earlier Versions render is a man-
slayer. The word occurs only here and John viii. 44. The mention of
Cain just before renders it certain that ' murderer 'isnottobe understood
figuratively as 'soui-destroyer.' Human law considers overt acts; God
considers motives. The motiveB of the hater and of the murderer are
the same : the fact that one is, and the other is not, deterred by lazi
ness or fear from carrying out his hatred into homicidal action, makes
no difference in the moral character of the men, though it makes aU
the difference, in the eyes of the law. This is only applying to the
sixth commandment the principle which the Lord Himself applies to
the seventh (Matt. v. 28).
F2

84 1 S. JOHN. [III. 15-
otSaTe. Once more (v. 14) the Apostle appeals to their conscious
ness as Christians: it is not a matter of experience gradually acquired
(yivtiaxtrt), but of knowledge once for all possessed. He who is a
murderer at heart cannot along with the deadly spirit which he
cherishes have eternal life as a sure possession. Comp. 'Ye have not
His word abiding in you,' John v. 38. S. John of course doeB not
mean that hatred or murder is a sin for which there is no forgiveness.
But 'the soul that sinneth, it shaU die'; and the sin of which the
special tendency is destruction of Ufe is absolutely incompatible with
the possession of eternal Ufe. 'But for. ..murderers. ..their part shall
be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the
second death' (Rev. xxi. 8). Here, as elsewhere, S. John speaks of
eternal life as something which the Christian already has, not whioh
he hopes to win: comp. v. 13; John iii. 36; v. 24; vi. 47, 54, die.
Eternal life has nothing to do with time, and is neither lost nor
gained by physical death : see on John xi. 25. — The form of expression
in this verse is similar to ii. 19, being literally, every murderer hath
not, instead of 'no murderer hath.' Omnis homicida non habet.
16. Iv toutco evvuKapev t. ay. The A. V. here coUects the errors of
previous Versions. Tyndale and Cranmer have 'perceave we.' Wiclif,
Purvey, and the Rhemish insert ' of God ' from the Vulgate without
any support from Gk. MSS. The Genevan is right on both points;
'Hereby have we perceaved love.' Better, as R. V., Hereby know we
love. Why not 'Herein'? In the concrete example of Christ's vica
rious death we have obtained the knowledge of what love is. Christ
is the archetype of self-sacrificing love, as Cain is of brother-
sacrificing hate. Love and hate are known by their works. The
article has its fuU force ; ttjv dydvrjv, love in its very essence : comp.
iv. 10. The Vulgate here, as in iv. 16, inserts Dei after caritas:
Western interpolation.
0Ti...e,8-r|Kev. For iv tovtq foUowed by Sti see on ii. 3. TiBivat
may mean ' to pay down ' in the way of ransom or propitiation, or
simply 'to lay aside.' Classical usage sanctions the former interpre
tation : Demosthenes uses the verb of paying interest, tribute, taxes.
And this is supported by 'for us' (vvip rjpCbv), i.e. 'on our behalf.'
But 'I lay down My life that I may take it again' (John x. 17, 18),
and 'layeth aside His garments' (xiii. 4; comp. xiii. 12), are in favour
of the latter : they are quite against the rendering ' He pledged His
life.' The phrase riBivai rrjv ipvxrjv avrov is pecuUar to S. John (x.
11, 15, 17; xiii. 37, 38; xv. 13). In Greek the pronoun (ixeivos as in
ii. 6 and iii. 7) marks more plainly than in EngUsh who laid down His
life: but S. John's readers had no need to be told. 'EKeivos and bvip
rjpwv are in emphatic juxtaposition : 'He for us His life laid down.'
Kal rj pets ocpeiXopev. The r)pecs is emphatic: this on our side is a
Christian's duty; he 'ought himself also to walk even as He walked'
(ii. 6). The argument seems to shew that though 'the brethren'
speoiaUy means betievers, yet heathen are not to be excluded. Christ
laid down His Ufe not for Christians only, 'but also for the whole
world' (ii. 2). Christians must imitate Him in this: their love must

III. 17.] NOTES. 85
be (1) practical, (2) absolutely self-sacrificing, (3) aU-embracing. ' God
commendeth His own love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us' (Rom. v. 8). Tertulhan quotes this dictum
of the Apostle in urging the duty of martyrdom : "If he teaches that
we must die for the brethren, how much more for the Lord" (Scorp.
xu.). Comp. Prov. xxiv. 11. See on iv. 18. 'OcpeiXeiv occurs four times
in these Epistles (ii. 6; iv. 11; 3 John 8), twice in the Gospel (xiii.
14; xix. 7), and not at aU in Revelation. In the Gospel and Revela
tion we commonly have dti. Bengel on 1 Cor. xi. 10 thus distin
guishes the two: "bipeiXei notat obligationem, Sei necessitatem ; illud
morale est, hoc quasi physicum; ut in vernaculd, wir soUen und
miissen." 17. os 8" dv t\r\. The phrase is as wide in its sweep as ircis d (xav '•
comp. ii. 5. The Si is full of meaning. 'Not many of us are ever
called upon to die for others : but smaUer sacrifices are often demanded
of us; and what if we fail to respond?' Si nondum es idoneus mori
pro fratre, jam idoneus esto dare de tuis facultatibus fratri (Bede).
tov ptov t. Koo-pov is to be rendered, as in R. V. , the world's goods :
^los, as in ii. 16 (see note), signifies 'means of life, subsistence,' in
cluding all resources of wealth and ability. Tdv §lov t. x., therefore,
means aU that supports and enriches the Ufe of this world (ti. 15)
in contrast to £ur) alavios (v. 15).
Beuprj t. dS. avT. \peiav i\ovra. Beholdeth his brother having
need. He not only sees him (Ideiv), but looks at him and considers
him (Beuipeiv). It is a word of which the contemplative Apostle is very
fond (John ii. 23; vii. 3; xii. 45; xiv. 19; xvi. 16; &c), and outside
the Gospels and Acts it is found only in S. John's writings and Heb.
vii. 4. It is a pity to spoil the simple irony of the original by weak
ening xptlav ix0VTa in*0 'in need' (R. V.). So also Luther; siehet
seinen Bruder darben. This misses the contrast between (xv t. (3lov
and xptlav Ixovto. The one has as his possession wealth, the other
has as his possession — need. The New Vulgate has necessitatem habere,
which is far better than necesse habere, as in ti. 27 : the Old Vulgate
has necesse habere in both places. Cyprian has desiderantem here twice.
KXeicrrj t. cnrXaTXva avT. dir' avT. The ancients betieved the
bowels to be the seat of the affections (Gen. xliti. 30 ; 1 Kings iii. 26 ;
Jer. xxxi. 20; Phil. i. 8; ii. 1; Philem. 7, 12, 20) as weU as the heart,
whereas we take the latter only. Coverdale (here, as often, foUowing
Luther) alters Tyndale's 'shutteth up his compassion' into 'shutteth
up his heart.' And in fact, 'shutteth up his bowels from him' is the
same as 'closeth his heart against him.' The phrase occurs nowhere
else in N. T., but comp. 2 Cor. vi. 12. The 'from him' is picturesque,
as in ii. 28 : it expresses the moving away and turning his back on
his brother. Comp. od* dvoarpixf/tis rrjv xapSlav aov oidi prj ava(f>lyl-eis
rrjv X"pd aov dird toi? ddeX(f>ov <rov (Deut. xv. 7).
ircos. For the abrupt argumentative interrogation comp. vws tois
ipdis jtijpaaiv viareiaere; (John v. 47). See also 1 Cor. xiv. 7, 9, 16;
xv. 12. The order of the Greek is worth keeping, as in R. V., how

86 1 S. JOHN. [III. 17—
doth the love of God abide in him? For peveiv Iv, 'to have a home in,'
see on ii. 24. For rj d-yd-irn r. ©., which again means man's love to
God, see on ti. 5. The idea that God is the source of that love which
man feels towards Him may be included here. The question here (*c3s)
is equivalent to the statement in iv. 20 (od), that to love God and hate
one's brother is moraUy impossible.
18. TeKvCa, prj ay. Xdyco. The Apostle, as in ii. 28; iii. 13; iv. 1, 7,
hastens on to a practical appUcation of what he has been stating as
the principles of Christian Ethics ; and in each case he prefaces his
gentle exhortation with a word of tender address. 'Dear children, do;
not think that I am giving you a series of philosophical truisms ; I am
telling of the principles which must govern your conduct and mine, if
we are children of the God who is Light and Love.' Note the present
subjunctive after prj, indicating a continuous feeling, somewhere in
existence, which is to be discontinued or avoided: 'Do not let us go
on loving in word, as some people do.' In N. T.-when prj prohibitive
is joined with the third person, the verb is always in the imperative
(Matt. vi. 3; xxiv. 17, 18; Rom. vi. 12; xiv. 16 ; &c.) : when it is joined
with the first person, as here, the verb is in the subjunctive (John xix.
24; 1 Cor. x. 8; Gal. v. 26; vi. 9; &c). Winer, 629. The above
examples shew that both present and aorist are used frequently in
both moods.
pi}8e ttj ¦yXwo-o-Tj. As R.V. (emended reading), neither with the
tongue; "the tongue as the particular member for the expression of
the word" (Huther). Perhaps 'with word' would be better than
'in word,' if 'in word' were not the usual idiom. The simple
datives, Xbyip and t% yXaaarj, seem to indicate the instruments
with which the false love is shewn, the preposition, iv. X. xal
dX., the sphere in which it is shewn. For the contrast between
X070S and (pyov, so common in Thucydides, comp. Luke xxiv. 19;
Acts vii. 22; Rom. xv. 18; 2 Cor. x. 11; Col. iti. 17. Is there any
difference between loving in word and loving with the tongue? And
is there any difference between loving in deed and loving in truth?
The answer must be the same to both questions. The oppositions
between 'word' and 'deed' and between 'tongue' and 'truth' are so
exact as to lead us to beUeve that there is a difference. To love in
word is to have that affection which is genuine as far as it goes,
but which is so weak that it never gets further than affectionate
words : such love is opposed, not to truth, but to loving acts. To love
with the tongue is to profess an affeotion which one does not feel,
which is sheer hypocrisy: it is opposed, not to deeds, but to truth. It
may shew itself also in hypocritical acts, done (as Bede points out) not
with the wish to do good, but to win praise, or to injure others.
Tyndale and the Rhemish Version have no second 'in' before 'truth':
it should of course be omitted, as in R. V. Comp. James ti. 15; Rom.
xii. 9.
What foUows, though intimately connected with the first part of the
section (see next note), almost amounts to a fresh departure. The

III. 20.] NOTES. 87
subject of love and its opposite is transformed into the security and
serenity of conscience which genuine and active love is able to produce.
19. Iv tovtco tvwo-. Herein we shall know. The omission of ko(
by AB, Syriao, and Vulgate, is probably right. 'Ev tovtw sometimes
refers to what follows (v. 16; iv. 2, 9), sometimes to what precedes
(ii. 5). Here to what precedes : by loving in deed and truth we shaU
attain to the knowledge that we are morally the chtidren of the Truth.
'H dXrrBeia here is almost equivalent to d Geds. 'Ek ttjs dXrjB. thai is
to have the Truth as the source whence the guiding and formative
influences of thought and conduct flow. Comp. ii. 21; John iii. 31;
viii. 47 ; and especiaUy xviii. 37.
The construction and punctuation of what foUows is doubtful ; also
the reading in the first and second clauses of v. 20. Certainty is not
attainable, and to give all possible variations of reading and rendering
would take up too much space. The conclusions adopted here are
given as good and tenable, but not as demonstrably right.
eprrp. avTov. First for emphasis. It is in His presence that the
truth is reaUsed. The self-deceiver, who walks in darkness, hating
his brother (ii. 11), can quiet his heart, 'because the darkness has
blinded his eyes ' : but this is not done (pvpoaBev tov Beov.
ireicropev rds KapSCas rj p. As the Rhemish, shall persuade our hearts.
This clause is probably coordinate with yvwabptBa, not dependent on
it. The meaning is not 'we shall know that we shall persuade,' but 'we
shall know and we shaU persuade.' The powerful combination of B,
Peschito, and Thebaic, coupled with the fact that everywhere else in
both Gospel and Epistle S. John uses the singular and not the plural,
incUnes one to prefer rrjv xapdlav to rds xapdlas. ' ' The singular fixes
the thought upon the personal trial in each case" (Westcott). Obvi
ously it means, not the affections (2 Cor. vii. 3; Phil. i. 7), but the
conscience (Acts ii. 37; vii. 54). S. Paul's word, awtldrjais, emphasizes
the knowledge of what the man recognizes in himself. S. John's word,
xapSla, emphasizes the feeling with which what is recognized is
regarded. 'ShaU persuade our heart' of what? That it need not
condemn us: and hence the rendering in A. V. and R. V., 'assure.'
But this is interpretation rather than translation; for vtlBeiv in
itself does not mean ' assure. ' Tyndale and the Genevan have ' quiet ' ;
Beza secura reddemus. And if the context in the Greek shews that
velBeiv means this here, then let the context speak for itself in the
English. Comp. rjpeis velaopev avrbv xal vpds dpeplpvovs voirjaopev
(Matt, xxviii. 14) : and velaavres BXdarov (Acts xii. 20).
20. oti Idv KaTavivwo-K-n ijpcov. The Revisers foUow Lachmann
in reading 8 n idv, a construction found Acts iti. 23 and Gal. v. 10,
and possibly Col. iti. 17. The clause is then attached to what pre
cedes : shall persuade our heart before Him, whereinsoever our heart
condemn us. But this is not probable (see next note). "A Christian's
heart burdened with a sense of its own unworthiness forms an un
favourable opinion of the state of the soul, pronounces against its
salvation. If we are conscious of practicaUy loving the brethren, we

88 1 S. JOHN. [III. 20—
can adduce this as evidence of the contrary, and give the heart ground
to change its opinion, and to reassure itself.- Anyone who has had
experience of the doubts and fears which spring up in a believer's
heart from time to time, of whether he is or is not in a state of con
demnation, will feel the need and the efficacy of this test of faith and
means of assurance" (Jelf).
Sti pcCgwv lo-rlv d 0eds. Either, because God is greater, or that
God is greater. If the R. V. is right as regards what precedes, 'be.
cause God is greater ' will make good sense. Because God is superior
to our consciences in being omniscient, we may (when our love is
sincere and fruitful) persuade our consciences before Him to acquit
us. Our consciences through imperfect knowledge may be either too
strict or too easy with us: God cannot be either, for He knows and
weighs aU.
But it seems almost certain that 'if our heart condemn us' must be
right, as the natural correlative of ' if our heart condemn us not,' which
is indisputably right. This progress by means of opposites stated side
by side has been S. John's method aU through: 'if we confess our sins'
and 'if we say that we have not sinned' (i. 9, 10) ; 'he that loveth his
brother' and 'he that hateth his brother' (ii. 10, 11); 'he that doeth
righteousness' and 'he that doeth sin' (iti. 7,8); ' every spirit that
confesseth' and 'every spirit that confesseth not' (iv. 2, 3). But, if
this is accepted, what is to be done with the apparently redundant 6Vi?
Two plans are suggested: 1. to supply 'it is' before oti =' because';
2. to supply 'it is plain' (SrjXov) before oti = ' that.' The latter
seems preferable: for what can be the meaning of 'if our heart con
demn us, (itis) because God is greater than our heart'? Whereas,
'if our heart condemn us, (it is plain) that God is greater than our
heart' makes exceUent sense. There is perhaps a similar elUpse of
'it is plain' (Sri = SrjXpv Sri) 1 Tim. vi. 7; 'We brought nothing into
the world, and (it is plain) that we can carry nothing out'; where
N3D3KL insert drjXov before dVt oudd i^eveyKtlv n SvvdptBa. Field
(Otium Norvicense in. 127) quotes other instances from S. Chrysostom
of the ellipse of drfXov.
We must not give ' God is greater' a one-sided interpretation, either
' God is more merciful' or ' God is more strict.' It means that He is
a more perfect judge than our heart can be. It is the difference be
tween conscience and Omniscience.
xal vivcJo-Kei irdvTa. The Kai is epexegetic ; it explains the special
character of God's superiority when the soul stands before the judg
ment-seat of conscience. He knows all things ; on the one hand the
Ught and grace against which we have sinned, on the other the reaUty
of our repentance and our love. It was to this infallible omniscience
that S. Peter appealed, in humble distrust of his own feeling and
judgment; 'Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou knowest that I love
Thee' (John xxi. 17). It is the reaUty and activity of our love (vv.
18, 19) which gives us assurance under the accusations of conscience.
Comp. 'If ye forgive men their trespasses,' having genuine love for

III. 22.] NOTES. 89
them, 'your heavenly Father wtil also forgive you,' and ye will be
able to persuade your hearts before Him (Matt. vi. 14).
The force of vv. 19, 20 may be thus summed up: 'By loving our
brethren in deed and truth we come to know that we are God's
children and have His presence within us, and are enabled to meet
the disquieting charges of conscience. For, if conscience condemns
us, its verdict is not infaltible nor final. We may still appeal to the
omniscient God, whose love implanted within us is a sign that we are
not condemned and rejected by Him.
21. d7airT|ToC. See on v. 2.
idv rj KapSCa pij koto^. An argument H fortiori: if before God we
can persuade conscience to acquit us, when it upbraids us, much more
may we have assurance before Him, when it does not do so. It is not
quite evident whether 'condemn us not' means 'ceases to condemn
us,' because we have persuaded it, or 'does not condemn us from the
first,' because it had no misgivings about us. Either makes good
sense. KaTaYivwo-Keiv occurs elsewhere in N. T. Gal. ti. 11 only, dVi
xareyvaapivos rjv. Comp. Ecclus. xiv. 2, ' Blessed is he whose con
science hath not condemned him ' (ov xariyva).
irapp. exopev. We have boldness: see on ii. 28. The 'then' of A. V.
is not needed. With irpos Tdv 0edv here comp. dvpbaxovov avveiSrjaiv
e'xew *pds Tdv Bebv xal robs dvBpavovs (Acts xxiv. i6). We approach
Him boldly as children, not fearfuUy as criminals. Comp. v. 14.
This is not the same as 'persuading our heart before Him,' but is a
natural result of it. Comp. Rom. v. 1.
22. This verse is so closely connected with the preceding one, that
not more than a comma or semicolon should be placed between them.
When a good conscience gives us boldness towards God our prayers
are granted, for children in such relations to their heavenly Father
cannot ask anything which He wiU refuse.
xal 6' Idv aiTcopev. The xal is probably epexegetic, as in v. 20, and
explains the special character of our boldness. See on v. 15.
XapBdvopev. The present is to be taken quite literally; not as the
present for the future. It may be a long time before we see the results
of our prayer; but it is granted at once. As S. Augustine says, "He
who gave us love cannot close His ears against the groans and prayers
of love." For Xappdvtiv avb see on ti. 27.
Ttis IvToXds ovt. t. This should certainly be plural, commandments :
previous English Versions have the plural, and there seems to be no
trace of a various reading, so that one suspects a misprint in the
edition of 1611. "Oti depends upon Xapfidvopev, not upon vap'prjalav
txoptv : we receive because we are loyal. This is in harmony with the
Gospel and with Scripture generally: 'We know that God heareth not
Burners : but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do His will, him
He heareth' (John ix. 31); 'The Lord is far from the wicked, but He
heareth the prayer of the righteous ' (Prov. xv. 29; comp. Ps. Ixvi. 18,
19 ; Job xxvii. 8, 9 ; Isai. i. 11 — 15). For Tds eVroXds TijpeiV see on ti. 3.

oo 1 S. JOHN. [HI. 22—
rd otpeo-rd...Troiovpev. Not the same as tos dvroXds rrjpeiv : the one
is obedience, and may be slavish; the other is love, and is free. We
seem to have here another reminiscence of the Gospel : oti iyw to
dpeard avr$ voiw vdvrore (viii. 29). Excepting Acts vi. 2, xii. 3,
apearos occurs nowhere else in N. T. The different phrases ipvpoaBev
adroB (v. 19) and Iviomov avTov Buit their respective contexts. Both
indicate the Divine Presence: but IpvpoaBtv brings out the man's
regard to God, ivwviov God's regard to him.
23. Kal avTT|...avTov. And His commandment is this : see on i. 5.
For tva after ivroXr) comp. John xiii. 34; xv. 12: after ivriXXopai,
John xv. 17. In such caseB tva perhaps merely "gives the nature and
contents of the commandment, not the aim" (Jelf) : but see on i. 9.
This verse is the answer to those who would argue from the prece
ding verses that aU that is required of us is to do what is right ; it
does not much matter what we believe. Not so says the Apostle.
In order to do what is right it is necessary to betieve : this is the first
step in our obedience to God's commands.
irio-revwpev ™ dvdpaTi. Believe the Name. Beza rightly substitutes
credamus nomini for the Vulgate's credamus in nomine. A.V. has ' be-
Ueve on': R.V. has 'believe in'; which would be viar. els or ivl or ev.
' To believe the Name ' means to beUeve all that His Name impUes ;
His Divinity, His Sonship, and His office as Mediator, Advocate, and
Saviour. Hence the solemn fulness with which the Name is given,
His Son Jesus Christ. The reading np vicp odroB 'I. XpioTtp is an
obvious correction of an unusual phrase. A copyist would argue,
'One can believe a person (John iv. 21 ; v. 24, 38, 46), and one can
beUeve a statement (John iv. 50 ; v. 47), but how can one beUeve a
name?' The phrase viareieiv els Td ovopa is frequent in S. John's
writings (v. 13 ; John i. 12 ; ii. 23 ; tii. 18).
Kal dvairiopev dXX. Here xal is not epexegetic : it adds some
thing fresh, giving active love as the necessary effect of Uving faith.
'Faith if it have not works is dead' (James ti. 17). KaBws. Even as
Christ (just mentioned) gave us commandment; in reference to the
ecroXr) xaivr) (John xiii. 34 ; xv. 12, 17). There must be exact corre
spondence (ko0us) between His command and our love : i.e. we must
love one another 'in deed and truth.' In N.T. the phrase ivToXrjv
SlSovai is peculiar to S. John (xi. 57 ; xii. 49 ; xiii. 34) : it occurs in
Demosthenes (250, 14).
24. Kal d rnpcov t. !vt. This looks back to the same phrase in
v. 22, not to KaBws ISuxev ivr. in v. 23, which is parenthetical.
Therefore avTov means God's, not Christ's. A.V. again spoils S.
John's telting repetition of a favourite word by translating pivei first
'dweUeth' and then 'abideth': see on ii. 24. "Let God be a home
to thee, and be thou a home of God" (Bede). Comp. 'Lord, Thou
hast been our dwelling-place in aU generations' (Ps. xc. 1). This mutual
abiding expresses union of the strongest and closest kind : oomp. iv.
13, 16; John vi. 56 ; xv. 4, 5. S. John once more insists on what may
be regarded as the main theme of this exposition of Christian Ethics;

III. 24.] NOTES. 91
that conduct is not only not a matter of indifference, but is all-
important. We may possess many kinds of enlightenment,
inteUectual and spiritual ; but there is no union with God, and
indeed no true knowledge of Him, without obedience : comp. i. 6, ii.
4, 6, 29; tii. 6, 7, 9. 'He that willeth to do His will shall know'
(John vii. 17).
xal Iv tovtw. And herein, as in vv. 16, 19 ; ti. 3, 5 ; iv. 9, 10, 13,
17; v. 2. This probably refers to what follows ; but the change of
preposition in the Greek, a change obliterated in both A.V. and R.V.,
renders this not quite certain. S. John writes, not iv tovto yiv....iv
rip vveipan, nor ix roirov yiv...ix tov vveiparos, either of which
would have made the connexion certain, but iv...ix, which leaves us
in doubt: comp. iv. 12, 13. The Vulgate preserves the change of
preposition: in hoc.de Spiritu. The indwelting of God is a matter
of Christian experience (yivtiaxopev not otSapev), and the source (ix)
whence the knowledge of it springs is the Spirit. This is the first
express mention of the Spirit in the Epistle; but in ii. 20 He is
plainly indicated. It was at Ephesus that S. Paul found disciples
who had not so much as heard whether the Holy Spirit was given
(Acts xix. 2). There was perhaps stiU need of expticit teaching on
this point.
ov rjpiv e'SwKev. Which He gave us. Although this is a case
where the EngUsh perfect might represent the Greek aorist, yet as
the Apostle probably refers to the definite occasion when the Spirit
was given, the aorist seems better. This occasion in S. John's case
would be Pentecost, in that of his readers, their baptism. Thus in
our Baptismal Service we are exhorted to pray that the child " may
be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost"; and in what follows
we pray, "wash him and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost"; and
again, "give Thy Holy Spirit to this infant, that he may be born
again " : after which follows the baptism.
It would be possible to translate 'by the Spirit of which He has
given us,' a partitive genitive, meaning 'some of which' as in Mac
beth, 1. tii. 80, "The earth hath bubbles as the water has,
And these are of them."
And in Bacon's Essays, Of Atheisme, "You shall have of them, that
wiU suffer for Atheisme, and not recant." But the Greek genitive
here is probably not partitive but the result of attraction. S. John
commonly inserts a preposition (ix) with the partitive genitive
(2 John 4; John i. 24 ; vii. 40; xvi. 17 ; Rev. ti. 10; xi. 9; comp. John
xxi. 10). Tyndale here translates 'Therby we knowe that ther
abydeth in us of the sprete which He gave us, ' making ' of the Spirit '
(=a portion of the Spirit) the nominative to 'abideth'; which is
grammaticaUy possible, but scarcely in harmony with what precedes.
The change from Tyndale's rendering to the one adopted in A.V.,
and (with change of 'hath given' to 'gave') in R.V. also, is due to
Coverdale.

92 IS. JOHN. [III. 24—
Once more (see notes between ii. 28 and 29 and on iii. 10) we are
led to a fresh section almost without knowing it. In the last six
verses of this chapter (19—24) the transition from verse to verse
is perfectly smooth and natural; so also in the previous six verses
(13 — 18). Nor is the transition from v. 18 to v.. 19 at'aU violent or
abrupt. By a very gradual movement we have been brought from
the contrast between love and hate to the gift of the Spirit. And
this prepares the way for a new subject; or rather for an old subject
treated from a new point of view. Like the doubtings of the Mae
ander near which he lived, the progress of the Apostle at times looks
more like retrogression than advance : but the progress is unmistak
able when the whole field is surveyed. Here we seem to be simply
going back to the subject of the antichrists (ii. 18 — 28) ; but whereas
there the opposition between the Holy Spirit in true believers and
the lying spirit in the antichrists is only suggested (ii. 20, 22, 27), here
it is the dominant idea.
" The Apostle speaks first of the Spirit by which we know that
God dweUs in us ; then of other spirits that were in the world which
might or might not be of God  They require to be tried. And he
intimates very distinctly that there were men in his day who were
turning the faith in spiritual influence to an immoral account"
(Maurice).

CHAPTER IV.
2. For -yivcdo-KeTe (N3ABCL) N1 has yivwaxoptv: K, Peschito, and
Vulgate have yivwaxtrai. For IXijXvBdra (NAC) B has iXrjkvBtvai : see
also possibly the Vulgate (venisse).
3. For o prj dpoXoyei (aU Greek MSS. and aU Versions except
the Latin) some ' old copies ' mentioned by Socrates read d Xiti, which
is supported by nearly all Latin authorities with solvit or destruit.
After 'Irprovv omit Xpiarbv iv aapxl iXrjXvdora with AB, Vulgate, and
Thebaic against NKL. For Xpiarov N has Kvpiov. See Appendix G.
6. For Ik tovtov (NBKL, Peschito) A, Vulgate, and Thebaic have
iv Toirrw.
10. For TJ-ya-mjcrapev (N3A) we should perhaps read ijyavrJKapev
(B) : N1 has the impossible r)ydvrjatv.
15. After 'Irprovs B inserts Xpiaros.
16. After Iv avTco we should perhaps insert pivti with NBKL and
Thebaic against A and Vulgate.
19. After ijpeis A, Peschito, and Vulgate insert ouv. After 070x0)-
pev omit adrdv with AB against KL. For odrdv N has tov 6ed». For
avrds (NBKL, Thebaic) A and Vulgate have d Beds.
20. For vws Sivarai (AKL, PeBchito, Vulgate) read oi Svvotoi (NB,
Thebaic).

IV. 1.] NOTES. 93
21. For dir1 ovtov (BKL) A and Vulgate have dvd tov Geofi. B
omits from tov to tov : homoeoteleuton.
Once more note that B very rarely supports a doubtful reading, and
never an impossible one, excepting the accidental omission in v. 21.

The main subject still continues, that God is Love ; and that from
this truth flows the moral obligation on Christians not only to love
God but one another. But, as in chap, iii., there are subdivisions,
each of which has a unity in itself as well as intimate and subtle
relations to the whole. These subdivisions are mainly two : Tlie
Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error (1 — 6) ; Love as the Mark of the
Children of the God who is Love (7 — 21). If we are asked as to the
relation which this chapter bears to the preceding one, the answer
would seem to be something of this kind. Chap. iii. insists upon tho
necessity of deeds in order to prove our relationship to God (iti. 3, 7,
10, 16 — 18, 22) ; chap. iv. points out the certainty of our relationship
to God as attested by our deeds (iv. 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15—17). The one
gives us the evidence of our sonship, viz. deeds of righteousness to
wards God (iii. 1 — 10) and deeds of love towards men (iii. 11 — 21) :
the other shews us the source of our sonship, viz. possession of the
Spirit as proved by confession of the Incarnation (iv. 1 — 6) and by
love of the brethren (iv. 7 — 21).
1 — 6. The Spirit op Truth and the Spirit op Erkok.
1 — 6. This section is an ampUfication of the sentence with which
the preceding chapter ends. We certainly have the Holy Spirit as an
abiding gift from God, for otherwise we could not believe and confess
the truth of the Incarnation. As usual, S. John thinks and teaches
in antitheses. The test which proves that we have the Spirit of God
proves that the antichrists have not this gift but its very opposite. In
chap. ii. the antichrists were introduced as evidence of the transitori
ness of the world (ti. 18) : here they are introduced as the crucial
negative instance which proves that every true believer has the Spirit
of God.
1. dyamyrot. See on iii. 2. The tender address once more intro
duces a matter of deep practical importance : comp. iii. 21.
prj ttovtI irvevpaTi ino-revere. This exhortation does not give us the
main subject of the section, any more than ' Marvel not, brethren, if
the world hate you' (iii. 12) gave us the main subject of the last
section (iii. 12 — 24). In both cases the exhortation is introductory
and momentary. Having spoken of the Spirit by which we know that
God abides in us, the Apostle goes on to speak of other spiritual
influences which indubitably exist, and of which every one has experi
ence, but which are not necessarily of God because they are spiritual.
"He does not discredit the fact that spiritual influences were widely
diffused; he does not monopolize such influences for the Christian
Church. How could he discredit this fact ? How can we? Are there

94 1 S. JOHN. [IV. 1—
not myriads of influences about us continuaUy, which do not act upon
our senses but upon our spirits, which do not proceed from things
which may be seen and handled, but from the spirits of men?"
(Maurice). But besides ordinary spiritual influences, S. John probably
has in his mind those extraordinary and supernatural powers which
at various periods of the Church's history persons have claimed to
possess. Such claims exhibit themselves in professed revelations,
prophecies, miracles, and the like. About aU such things there are
two possibitities which must put us on our guard : (1) they may be
unreal ; either the delusions of fanatical enthusiasts, or the ties of de-
Uberate impostors : (2) even if real, they need not be of God. Miracu
lous powers are no absolute guarantee of the possession of truth. The
present imperative has the same force as in iti. 13 : ' do not continue
to beUeve, as I fear some do, whenever occasion arises'.
8oKipd£eTE. Prove the spirits. There are two words in N. T. mean
ing ' to try, test, prove' ; doxipdjrtiv and veipd^tiv. The latter is used
of the Jews trying or tempting Christ (Mark viii. 11; x. 2 ; &c.) and
of the temptations of Satan (Matt, iv, 1, 3, &c). Neither are common
in S. John's writings. He nowhere else uses doKipdlreiv, which occurs
about 20 times in N. T., and only 4 times uses vtipd^tiv (John vi. 6;
Rev. ii. 2, 10, tii 10), which occurs about 40 times in N. T. The
A. V. is very capricious in its renderings of the former ; ' aUow'
(Rom. xiv. 22), 'approve' (Rom. ii. 18), 'discern' (Luke xii. 561,
'examine' (1 Cor. xi. 28), 'Uke' (Rom.i. 28), 'prove' (Luke xiv. 19),
'try' (1 Cor. iii. 13); while the latter is rendered 'examine' (2 Cor.
xiii. 5), 'prove' (John vi. 6), 'tempt' (Matt. xxii. 18), 'try' (Rev. ii. 2).
The Revisers have somewhat reduced this variety. In the one case
'aUow' has been changed to 'approve'; 'examine' and 'try' to
' prove': in the other case ' examine' has been changed to 'try.' The
difference between the two words (which are found together 2 Cor.
xiii. 5 and Ps. xxvi. 2) is on the whole this, that doKipdjrtw com
monly implies a good, if not a friendly object ; to prove or test in the
hope that what is tried wtil stand the test ; whereas veipdfav often
impUes a sinister object ; to try in the hope that what is tried wiU be
found wanting. The metaphor here is from testing metals. Comp.
'Prove aU things; hold fast that which is good' (1 Thess. v. 21).
cl Ik tov 0eov. Whether their origin (iK) is from God: comp.
iii. 2, 12. ' With doKipdfriv el comp. vtipdfciv el (2 Cor. xiii. 5).
A verse such as this cuts at the root of such pretensions as the
Infaltibitity of the Pope. What room is left for Christians to ' prove
the spirits,' if all they have to do is to ask the opinion of an official?
The Apostle's charge, ' prove ye the spirits,' may be addressed to
Christians singly or to the Church coUectively : it cannot be addressed
to one individual exclusively. Comp. Rom. xii. 2 ; Eph. v. 10 ; 1 Cor.
x. 15 ; xi. 13. The verse also shews us in what spirit to judge of snch
things as the reported miracles at Lourdes and the so-caUed ' mani
festations ' of Spiritualism. When they have been proved to be real,
they must still further be proved to see ' whether they are of God.'
We are not to judge of doctrine by miraoles, but of miraoles by doc-

IV. 2.] NOTES. 95
trine. A miracle enforcing what contradicts the teaching of Christ
and His Apostles is not ' of God' and is no authority for Christians.
Comp. Gal. i. 8; Deut. xiii. 1 — 3.
oti iroXXoi ilrcvSoirp. The caution is against no imaginary or merely
possible danger ; it already exists. Warnings respecting the coming
of such had been given by Christ, S. Paul, S. Peter, and S. Jude; and
now S. John, writing long afterwards, teUs the Churoh that these
prophecies have been fulfilled. The *oXXoi ^evdovpotprjrai include the
antichrists of ii. 18 ; and what is here said of them seems to indicate
that Uke Mahomet, Swedenborg, the Irvingites, and others, they put
forth their new doctrine as a revelation.
l£eXr|Xv8ao-iv els t. k. This probably has no reference to what is
said in ii. 19 about their ' going out from us'. It need mean no more
than that they have appeared in pubUc ; but it perhaps includes the
notion of their having a mission from the power that sent them : comp.
John tii. 17; vi. 14; x. 36; xi. 27; xii. 47, 49; and especiaUy xvi. 28.
We need not confine these ' many false prophets ' to the antichrists
who had left the Christian communion. There would be others who,
Uke Apollonius of Tyana, had never been Christians at aU : and others
even more dangerous who stiU professed to be members of the Church.
The difficulties in the Church of Corinth caused by the unrestrained
' speaking with tongues ' point to dangers of this kind.
2. Iv tovtw 7ivwo-KeTe. Once more we have a verb which may be
either indicative or imperative (ii. 27, 29). The indicative is to be
preferred in spite of the imperative in v. 1. The passage is closely
analogous to iii. 16, 19, 24, which must be indicative. In aU four
cases the Apostle appeals to the progressive experience of Christians.
'Ev toiVu refers to what foUows : see on tii. 19. Nowhere else in the
Epistle is iv robnp joined to an imperative.
irdv irv. 8 dpoXoyet. This idea of 'confessing' one's beUef is
speciaUy frequent in S. John: ti. 23 ; iv. 15 ; 2 John 7 ; John ix. 22;
xii. 42 ; comp. Rom. x. 9.
'Ii)cr. Xp. iv o-apKi IXtjXvBoto. See on 2 John 7. This is the
crucial test, and one which would at once expose ' the spirits ' of
Cerinthian and Docetic teachers. We are not to suppose that aU other
articles of faith are unimportant ; or that to deny this truth is the
worst of aU denials (see on ti. 22) ; or that such denial involves every
kind of doctrinal error. But against the errors prevalent in that age
this was the great safeguard. The confession must of course be not
with the tongue only but in truth, and in deed as well as in word (iti.
18) : rum lingua sed factis, non sonando sed amando (Bede).
The sentence may be taken in more ways than one : (1) as both A.V.
and R V. ; (2) more accurately and with some difference of meaning,
confesseth Jesus Christ as come in the flesh; (3) confesseth that Jesus
Is the Christ come in the flesh. Remark that S. John does not say
'come into the flesh,' but 'in the flesh': Christ did not descend (as
Cerinthus said) into an already existing man, but He came in human
nature; He 'became flesh.' Moreover he does not say that the con-

96 1 S. JOHN. [IV, ,2—
fession is to be of a Christ who came (iXBbvra), but of a Christ who is
come (iXrjXvBora). This 'coming' is not an exhausted fact: He is
come and abides in the flesh. Some Latin writers have in camera
venisse for in carne venisse; but this is bad Latin rather than bad
doctrine. The translator has not been able to mark the difference
between els adpxa and iv aapxl.
8. Paul gives almost exactly the same test: 'I give you to under
stand that no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is
anathema; and no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit'
(1 Cor. xii. 3).
Ik tov 0eov lo-riV. Proceeds from Him as its source. Comp. vv. 3,
6, 7; ii. 16; iti. 10; 3 John 11; John vii. 17; viii. 47. Outside
S. John's writings the expression is not common : comp. Acts v. 38 ;
1 Cor. xi. 12. It is closely akin to the idea of Divine birth (ii. 29 ; iii,
9) and being children of God (iii. 1, 2, 10). "To confess that Jesus
the anointed is come in the flesh, is to confess that there is a medium
of spiritual communications between the visible and the invisible
world, between earth and heaven. It is to confess that there is one
Mediator for aU men" (Maurice).
3. c? prj dpoXovet tov 'I. The words inserted in N and some other
authorities are an obvious interpolation by some early transcriber who
wished to make the two sides of the antithesis exactly equal. But, as
we have repeatedly seen (i. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, ti. 10, 22, 23, &c), this is
rarely the case in S. John's oppositions.
There is yet another very ancient and very interesting difference of
reading here : every spirit which severeth Jesus, or unmaketh Jesus, or
destroyeth Jesus, or, as the margin of R.V., which annulleth Jesus Jd
Xdei, qui solvit), the verb which in iti. 8 is used for 'to destroy.' This
reading appears to have been known to TertuUian (a.d. 210), who
quotes S. John, qui jam antichristos dicit processisse in mundum prae-
cursores antichristi spiritus, negantes Christum in carne venisse, et
solventes Jesum, scilicet in Deo creatore (Adv. Marcion. v. xvi.), and to
Irenaeus (a.d. 180), who quotes the whole passage, and in this place
has omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum (Haer. in. xvi. 8). But it can
scarcely be genuine, for it is not found in a single Greek MS., nor in
any version except the Vulgate. And we have no certain knowledge
that any Greek Father had this reading. ' Qui solvit ' in the Latin
translators of Irenaeus and of Origen may be interpretation rather than
Uteral translation. Socrates the historian (a.d. 440) charges the Nes-
torians with tampering with the text and ignoring the reading d Xdei
rdv 'I. ; just as Tertullian accuses the Valentinians of falsifying the
text of John i. 13, and S. Ambrose the Arians of inserting oidi 6 vlbt
into Mark xiii. 32 and of mutilating John i. 6. In all these cases
the supposed heretical reading is the right one. In this very verse
Nestorius was blamed for a reading which his opponent Cyril has
also. See Appendix G.
The passage in S. Polycarp's Epistle already aUuded to (see on ii.
18) is against the reading advocated by Socrates: 'For every one who
confesseth not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an Antichrist ;

IV. 4.] NOTES. 97
and whosoever confesseth not the witness of the Cross is of the devil '
(Phil. vn.). The expressions 'confess', 'come in the flesh', 'Anti
christ', 'is of the devil', place S. Polycarp's knowledge of his master's
First Epistle beyond aU reasonable doubt. This is very early testi
mony (a.d. 112 — 118) to the existence of the First Epistle.
The variations as regards reading are testimony to the same effect.
Such things take time to arise and spread. If a corrupt reading is
known to Tertullian in Africa, and (apparently) adopted by Irenaeus
in Gaul, before the end of the second century, then the original docu
ment written in Asia Minor cannot be much later than the end of the
first century, at which time S. John was stiU Uving.
Note the prj after the relative ; ' every spirit who is of such a kind as
not to confess'. Comp. <p pr) vdpean ravra, TwpXbs ianv (2 Pet. ii. 9).
The prj in Col. ii. 18 is of very doubtful authority. Winer, 603.
Ik t. 0eov ovk eariv. S. John gives two tests: one for trying
human conduct, the other for trying spiritual claims. 'Everyone that
doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his
brother' (iti. 10). And 'Every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not
ofGod'. Td tov dvTixpio-Tov. The (spirit) of antichrist. Nothing better than
'spirit' can well be inserted in English, and some insertion is neces
sary. But we need not suppose that vvevpa is to be understood. Td
rou dvr. is a comprehensive term covering all the principles and
powers, aU the essential characteristics of Antichrist : what Aristotle
would call to rl rjv thai (Eth. Nic. n. vi. 17), and we might caU 'the
antichristian nature'. The nearest parallel is to ttjs dXrjBovs vapoiplas
(2 Pet. ii. 22), 'the very thing which the true proverb says ': Matt. xxi.
21 ; 1 Cor. x. 24 ; James iv. 14 are parallel only as regards the gram
matical construction.
oti epxeTai. As R.V., that it cometh. Wiclif, Purvey, and the
Rhemish have ' he cometh'. Most English Versions before 1611 have
' he ' for ' it ' ; as also has Luther. This is due to the Vulgate, which
has antichristus for illud antichristi. 'It' is certainly right. Not
Antichrist, but the antichristian nature, is affirmed to be now in
the world already. The spirit of antagonism to Christ has passed
from " the invisible world of spiritual wickedness" to the visible world
of human action. The addition of ' already ' hints that something
more may be expected to foUow. Comp. rb ydp pvarrjpiov rjSrj ivepyeirai
rrjs ivopias (2 Thess. ii. 7). Here rjSrj comes last for emphasis, as in
Xevxal eiaiv vpbs Bepiapbv r)drj (John iv. 35) ; where, however, some
editors put a stop at dtpiapbv and join rjdri to the next verse. The
(pxerai points once more to the parallel and opposition between the
Christ and the Antichrist: each may be spoken of as d ipxbpevos
(ii. 18).
4. vpeis. Te, with emphasis and in marked contrast to the false
teachers, are of God. The emphasis is intensified by the asyndeton.
veviKiJKOTe ovtovs. In the masculine S. John passes from the
antichristian spirits to the false prophets who are their mouthpieces.
s.john (ep.) G

98 1 S. JOHN. [IV. 4—
By not Ustening to these seducers his ' Uttle children ' have overcome
them. 'A stranger will they not foUow, but wiU flee from him, for
they know not the voice of strangers ' (John x. 5). Thus the stranger
is defeated.
oti peC£wv Io-tIv d Iv vpiv. Qui audit ' Vicistis ' erigit caput, erigit
cervicem, laudari se vult. Noli te extollere. Vide quis in te vicit
(S. Augustine). ' Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith
the Lord of Hosts' (Zech. iv. 6). It is precisely for this reason that
they may have confidence against all spiritual enemies: it is not
confidence in themselves (1 Cor. xv. 57 and especiaUy Ephes. vi. 10—
17). In d ir vpiv and d iv rix) xbaptp we have two personal powers
opposed to one another : and therefore d iv vpXv must be understood
of God or Christ rather than of d Xd7os toB GeoB.
d Iv tio Kocrpco. The same as d &px<»v rov Kbapov roirov (John xii. 31),
the devil, the father of these lying teachers (iti. 10; John viii. 44),
whose works Christ came to destroy (iii. 8). By saying 'in the world'
rather than 'in them', the Apostle indicates that they belong to 'the
world '. " S. John constantly teaches that the Christian's work in this
state of probation is to conquer 'the world'. It is, in other words, to
fight successfully against that view of life which ignores God, against
that complex system of attractive moral evil and specious inteUectual
falsehood which is organized and marshaUed by the great enemy of
God, and which permeates and inspires non-Christianized society"
(Liddon). 5. ovto'i Ik t. k. elo-Cv. The pronouns at the beginning of aU three
verses are in emphatic opposition; vpeis. ..airol. ..rjpeis. That they,
the antichristian teachers, are ' of the world ' was impUed in ti. 19,
where it is stated that they are 'not of us': for there is no middle
neutral position. The verse is another reminiscence of the Lord's
farewell discourses : ' If ye were of the world, the world would love its
own' (John xv. 19; oomp. xvii. 14).
Bid tovto Ik t. k. XaXovo-iv. Therefore of the world they speak: as
in John iii. 31, the Greek order is impressive and worth preserving.
(See on iii. 1 ; but here Sid tovto is not followed by on.) -The
impressive repetition of ' the world ' is very characteristic of S. John's
style; e.g. John i. 10; tii. 17; xv. 19; xvii. 14. Comp. 'He that is
of the earth, of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh ' (iii. 31) :
where, however, ix rrjs yrjs XaXtiv is to speak of God's work on earth;
whereas ix r. xbapov X. is to speak what is aUen from God's work and
opposed to it. 'To speak of (XaXeiv ix) is not the same as 'to speak
concerning ' (Xiyeiv vepl) v. 16 ; John i. 22, 47 ; ii. 21, &o. ' To speak
of the world ' is to have the world as the source of one's words, so that
one's inspiration flows from it : and of course the world ' heareth,1 i.e.
loves to hear, the wisdom derived from itself. It expects to secure
everything, the honour of the Christian name and the credit of lofty
spiritual 7»>uo-is, without any humiUation or orucifixion of the flesh.
6. rjpets. Once more we have no barren seesaw, but an advance.
Airol is opposed to ipeis, and rjptis is opposed to odroi : but rjpeis is

IV. 7.] NOTES. 99
not a return to vpeis. The contrast between vpeis and avrol is that
between true and false Christians. The contrast between airol and
rjpeis is that between false and true teachers. As in v. 14 and i. 4,
ijpeis probably means the Apostles. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 37.
d ¦yivoio-Kwv tov ©edv. Both the verb itself and the present
participle are very expressive; ' He that is increasing in the knowledge
of God'. It is with a view to this increase that Christ has given us
Sidvoia (v. 20) ; and he who has it cUoiei ijpcov, listens to tis. Here
again we have that magisterial tone of Apostolic authority which is so
conspicuous in the Prologue (i. 1 — 4). It underUes the whole Epistle,
as it does the whole of the Fourth Gospel, but here and there comes
to the surface. It is the quiet confidence of conscious strength. Comp.
' He that is of God heareth the words of God ; for this cause ye hear
them not because ye are not of God ' ; and, ' Every one that is of the
Truth heareth My voice' (John viii. 47; xviii. 37). For ordinary
Christians to adopt this language is presumptuous sectarianism.
Note, that, as usual, the antithesis is not exact : ' he that knoweth
God' is balanced by 'he that is not of God' ; indicating that it is the
child of God who comes by experience to know Him.
Ik tovtov. A fresh sentence should begin here. It is not certain
whether 'from this' refers to the whole section (1 — 6), or to the latter
half (4 — 6), or only to the first half of v. 6. In any case the meaning
is, not that those who hear the Apostle have the Spirit of truth, while
those who refuse to hear have the spirit of error ; but that the Apostles
have the Spirit of truth because God's children listen to them, while
the false prophets have the spirit of error because the world Ustens to
them. On the other hand the world does not Usten to the Apostles,
because it has no sympathy or affinity with what they have to teach
(1 Cor. ti. 14).
to irvevpa ttjs dX-nfleCas. The Holy Spirit; John xiv. 17; xv. 26;
xvi. 13: comp. 1 Cor. ii. 12. It is not easy to decide whether rrjs
aXrjBeias expresses the character of the Spirit, as in np vveipan T-ijs
ivayyeXlas rip dyltp (Eph. i. 13), and to vvevpa rrjs xapiros (Heb. x. 29),
or the source, as r$ vveipan tov GeoS (1 Cor. vi. 11). The Spirit is the
Truth (v. 6), proceeds from Him who is the Truth (John xiv. 6, 26),
communicates and interprets the Truth (John xvi. 13, 14).
Ti irvevpa Ttjs TrXdvr|s. The expression occurs nowhere else in N.T.
Comp. Td vvevpa tov xoapov (1 Cor. ii. 12). It is the spirit which
emanates from Vn'm who 'is a liar and the father thereof (John
viii. 44).
7—21. Love is the Mark op the Children op the God who
is Love.
7. dvairriToC, dyairwpev dXXrjX. See on iii. 2 and iv. 11. The
transition seems abrupt, as if the Apostle had summarily dismissed
an unwelcome subject. But the connexions of thought in S. John's
writings are often so subtle, that it is rash to assert anywhere that
two consecutive verses or sections are entirely without connecting
G2

ioo 1 S. JOHN. [IV. 7—
links. Two such links may be found here. 1. The power to love one
another, no less than the power to confess the Incarnation, is the gift
of the Spirit (vv. 2, 12, 13). And faith and love mutually aid one
another. This is the case even between man and man. Faith and
trust soon pass into love. 2. The antichristian spirit is a selfish one;
it makes self, i. e. one's own intellect and one's own interest, the
measure. of all things. Just as it severs the Divine from the human
in Christ, so it severs Divine love from human conduct in man.
' Beloved, let us do far otherwise. Let us love one another '.
For the third and last time in this Epistle the Apostle introduces
the subject of brotherly love. First it was introduced as a conse
quence and sign of walking in the light (ii. 7—11). Next it was
introduced as a special form of righteousness and mark of God's
children (iii. 10 — 18). Here it appears as a gift of the Spirit of God,
a contrast to the antichristian spirit, and above aU as an effluence
from the very Being of God.
'Love one another' here, as in iti. 11, appUes primarily to the
mutual love of Christians. The love of Christians to unbeUevers is
not expressly excluded, but it is not definitely before the Apostle's
mind. tj dydn"n Ik t. 0eov Io-tCv. And 'we are of God' (v. 6), and 'ye are
of God ' (v. 4) ; therefore there should be the family bond of love
between us.
irds 6 dyairiov k.t.X. This foUows from the preceding statement.
If God is the source of aU love, then whatever love a man has in him
comes from God ; and this part of his moral nature is of Divine origin.
Of ' every one that loveth' is this true, whether he be heathen or
Christian : there is no limitation. If a Socrates or a Marcus Aurelius
loves his feUow-men, it is by the grace of God that he does so. See
first note on iii. 3.
yeyevvT|Tai. 'Hath been begotten of God and remains His child';
the fuU sense of the perfect. Translate with R.V. is begotten of God.
Kal yiv<do-Kei. And groweth in the knowledge of God: see on d yivti-
aKwv in v. 6. A loyal child must increase iu knowledge of its father.
8. 6 p-rj dyairiov. For the prj comp. tii. 10, 14; ii. 4. ovk eyvio.
LiteraUy, knew not God, i.e. never attained to a knowledge of Hun.
Comp. iii. 1 ; John xvi. 3. We have here a remarkable instance of
S. John's habit of not making the second part of an antithesis the
exact counterpart of the first, but an advance beyond. Instead of say
ing 'is not born of God' he says 'never knew God', which is much
stronger. Not to have known love is not to have known God.
6 0eds dydirn lo-rCv. This is the third of S. John's great statements
respecting the Nature of God : ' God is Spirit ' (John iv. 24) ; ' God is
Ught' (1 John i. 5), and 'God is love'. See on i. 5. Here, as in the
other cases, the predicate has no article, and expresses not a quality
which He possesses, but one which embraces all He is. This is clear
from S. John's argument. It does not foUow, because God is full of
love, that one who does not love cannot have known God : aU that

IV. 9.] NOTES. i oi
foUows from this is that his knowledge of God is very incomplete.
Only if God is love, i. e. if love is Himself, is the statement true, that
to have no personal knowledge of love is to have no personal know
ledge of God. And here we may remark that to attain by experience
to a knowledge of God (yivwaKeiv rbv Gedv) is a very different thing
from knowing something about Him (elSivai n vepl airov). The
Gnostics knew a good deal about God, but they did not know Him ;
for instead of loving those brethren who did not Bhare their intel
lectual attainments, they had an arrogant contempt for them. They
had recognized that ' God is spirit ', and to some extent that ' God is
Ught'; for they knew Him to be an immaterial Being and the highest
InteUigence: but they had whoUy failed to appreciate that 'God is
love'. And yet of the three great truths this is the chief. The other
two are incomplete without it. The first, ' God is spirit ', is almost
more negative than positive : God is not material ; ' He dwelleth not
in temples made with hands'. The second might seem in making our
idea of Him more definite to remove Him further away from us : God
is perfeot intelligence, perfect purity, perfect hoUness. The third not
only makes His Nature far more clearly known, but brings Him very
close to us. The spirit is Bhewn to be personal, the light to have
warmth and Ufe.
If no previous religion, not even the Jewish, had attained to the
truth that ' God is Ught ', stiU less had any attained to the truth that
'God is love'. To the heathen world God is a powerful, a terrible, and
often a cruel being ; one whose fierce wrath needs to be deprecated
and whose iU-wtil needs to be propitiated, rather than one on whose
love men may rely. To the Jews He is a just and a jealous, if also a
merciful God, of whose inmost being aU that was known was I AM
THAT I AM. To the Christian alone He is known as LOVE.
As already stated, this truth, God is love, dominates the second main
division of the Epistle. In no Book in N.T. does the substantive 'love'
(iydvrj) occur so often as in these two and a half chapters (iii. 1 — v.
12); and in no Book in N.T., excepting the Fourth Gospel, does the
verb ' to love ' (d7a*o» occur half so many times as here. No wonder
that the writer of this Epistle has been known in the Church as ' the
Apostle of Love'. "If nothing were said in praise of love throughout
the pages of this Epistle, if nothing whatever throughout the other
pages of the Scriptures, and this one thing only were all we were told
by the voice of the Spirit of God, For God is Love; nothing more
ought we to require" (S. Augustine).
9. ev tovtw ld>. For the sake of uniformity with vv. 10, 13, 17,
Herein was manifested: we have the same Greek in aU four verses.
'Herein' plainly refers to what follows: comp. iii. 16 and see on iti.
19. For IcpavepcoBr) see on i. 2. This is a second reason for our loving
one another. We must do this (1) because love is the very Being of
Rim whose ohildren we are ; (2) because of the transcendent way in
whioh His love was manifested. The context shews that ' the love of
God', which usuaUy in this Epistle means our love to God, here
means His love to us: comp. iii. 16.

102 1 S. JOHN. [IV. 9—
Iv rjpiv. Rather in us than 'toward us': we are in the sphere in
which God's love is exhibited: comp. v. 16 and John ix. 3, which
is very parallel. The latter passage tends to shew that iv rjpiv is to be
joined with itpavtpwBrj rather than with rj aydvrj t. Beov: Herein was
the love of God manifested in us. The rendering 'in our case' (R.V,
margin) is improbable : comp. v. 12.
t6v vlov ovtov tov pov. His Son, His only-begotten: comp. John
iii. 16. As in rrjv £wrjv rrjv alwviov (i. 2), rj xoivwvla r) rjperipa (i. 3), rj
ivroXr) rj vaXaid (ii. 7), and to cpus to dXrjBivbv (ti. 8), the repetition of
the article makes both ideas, 'son' and 'only-begotten', prominent and
distinct. Comp. 2 John 11, 13. His Son was much to send, but it
was also His only Son. Movoyevrjs as apptied to Christ is peculiar to
S. John : it occurs four times in the Gospel (i. 14, 18 ;• iii. 16, 18) and
here. 'Only-born' would be a more accurate rendering: Christ is the
only born Son as distinct from the many who have become sons. The
word occurs in LXX. to translate a Hebrew word (yachid), which is
elsewhere rendered dyavrrro s (' beloved ' or ' darling ') : and oddly enough
where the Greek has povoyevrjs the A.V. has 'darting' and vice versa.
Contrast Gen. xxii. 2, 12, 16 with Ps. xxii. 21 ; xxxv. 17 : in the latter
texts R.V. has 'my only one' in the margin. The Vulgate has uni-
genitus and unicus. Comp. Rom. v. 8 ; viii. 32.
direo-TaXKev. Hath sent; the perfect indicates the permanent result
of Christ's mission and should be distinguished from the aorists, rjyd-
rrrjaev and dviareiXev, which express past acts without reference to
their permanent effects (v. 10).
tva ijrjcrapev 8i ovtov. These are the important words, setting forth
that in which God's love is so conspicuous and so unique. The only
Son has been sent for this purpose (tva), that we may Uve, and not die,
as we should otherwise have done ; comp. iti. 14 ; v. 11 ; John iii. 16,
17, 36; x. 10; xi. 25, 26. Just as vdvra oi* ovtov iyivero (John i. 3),
so He was sent tva awBrj b xbapos Si avrov (John tii. 17) and ba
jrrjawpev 8i" ovtov.
10. Iv tovtco. This again refers to what foUows: Love in its full
perfection is seen, not in man's love to God, but in His to man, which
reached a cUmax in His sending His Son to save us from our sins.
The superiority of God's love does not Ue merely in the fact of its
being Divine. It is first in order of time and therefore necessarily
spontaneous : ours is at best only love in return for love. His love is
absolutely disinterested ; ours cannot eastiy be so. Comp. Titus in. 4.
For tXacrpds and irepl tcov dp. see on ti. 2 ; IXao-pds *epl t. dp. is
paraUel to tva t;r)awpev 6V oBtoB in the previous verse, but an advance
on it. ' It is by being a propitiation for our sins that He wins Ufe for
us. Bede teUs us that some MSS. had the reading ' Et misit Filium
suum litatorem pro peccatis nostris, adding Litator autem sacrificator
est. But litator is more than sacrificator, it is 'one who sacrifices
with favourable results '. Augustine has litator, Lucifer expiator,
the Vulgate propitiatio.
11. dyaTrrjTof. For the sixth and last time the Apostle uses this
appropriate address. Here also it affectionately emphasizes a de-

IV. 12.] NOTES. 103
duction of practical importance. See on tii. 2 and comp. iv. 7. No
address of any kind occurs again until the last verse of the Epistle.
cl ovtws & 0. TJy. ijpds. 'If, as is manifest, to this extent God loved
us'. The fact is stated gently, but not doubtfuUy, just as in iii. 13;
V. 9. Comp. el ovv iyw ivitj/a vpwv robs voSas, . . . Kal vpeis dcpeCXeTe dX-
XijXwv vlvreiv robs vbdas (John xiii. 14). Ovtws is emphatic, and refers
to vv. 9, 10.
Kal rjpeis dcpeCXopev. As R.V., we also ought : ko( belongs to rjpeis ;
we as weU as God. In the spiritual family also noblesse oblige. As
children of God we must exhibit His nature, and we must foUow His
example, and we must love those whom He loves. Nor is this the only
way in which the Atonement forms part of the foundation of Christian
Ethics. It is only when we have learned something of the infinite
price paid to redeem us from sin, that we rightly estimate the moral
enormity of sin, and the strength of the obligation which lies upon us
to free ourselves from its poUution. And it was precisely those false
teachers who denied the Atonement who taught that idolatry and
every abominable sin were matters of no moral significance.
12. 0edv odSels irioiroTe TefllaTai. As R.V. , No man hath beheld
God at any time, to mark the shade of difference between this and
Qeiv ovdels ewpaKev vwvore (John i. 18). Here gazing and contem
plation are imptied ; there not. Each word suits its own context. The
order here is striking: God no man ever yet hath beheld. In both
cases Gedc stands first with great emphasis and without the article.
Dr Westcott tabulates a number of instances and draws the foUowing
conclusion from them : " In Geds the general conception of divinity is
prominent, and in d Oeds that of the One Being in personal relation
to others". This distinction holds good with great precision in
the present passage. Comp. ov tlSev ovStls dvBpwvuv ovSi ISeiv Sivarai
(1 Tim. vi. 16).
Once more (see on v. 7) the connecting Unes of thought are not on
the surface, and cannot be affirmed with certainty. What foUows seems
to give the clue to what otherwise looks tike an abrupt transition.
'I Bay we must love one another, for by so doing we have proof of the
presence of the invisible God. No amount of contemplation ever yet
enabled any one to detect God's presence. Let us love one another,
and then we may be sure that He is not only with us but in us, and
not merely is, but abides' For pevei see on ii. 24: He is not a
momentary visitant but a permanent friend and guest.
rj dydirr| ovtov. The love of Trim. 'His love to us' can hardly be
meant: in what sense would our loving one another perfect that?
Moreover, as already noticed, 'the love of God' in this Epistie com
monly means man's love to Him, not His to man <ti. 5, iii. 17, v. 3).
'His love' might possibly mean the love which characterizes Him, or
the love which He has implanted in us ; but the other is simpler. Our
love to God is developed and perfected by our loving one another.
We practise and strengthen our love of the Unseen by shewing love to
the seen. See on ti. 5.

io4 1 S. JOHN. [IV. 12—
TeTeXeiwplvr) Iv ijptv Io-tCv. In a perfected form is in us: ' is per
fected in us' hardly does justice to the Greek. TeXeioBo-0ai is frequent
in Hebrews (v. 9; vii. 28; xi. 40; xii. 23) and in this Epistle (ii. 5;
iv. 17, 18).
13. This should be compared with iti. 24, to which it is closely
paraUel. There, as here, the gift of the Spirit is the proof of God's
abiding presence : but there this is connected with keeping His oom-
mandments; here it is connected with the special duty of brotherly
love. Ik tov irvedpaTos ovtov 818. We receive of His Spirit. Of Christ
alone was it said in the fuUest sense that ouk ix perpou iB the Spirit
given to Him (John tii. 34). Christians are said sometimes rd ttrevpa
Xafieiv (Gal. iii. 2: comp. iv. 6), sometimes Ik toC nxedparos Xafieiv, as
here. Only the former is true of Christ. See on iii. 24 and 2 John 4.
14. TefledpeBa Kal papT. As R.V., we have beheld and bear wit
ness : see on v. 12 and i. 2. -fjpeis is emphatic, and as in the
Prologue and in v. 6, means S. John and the other Apostles. See on
i. 4 and iv. 6. With their own eyes the Twelve saw the Son working
out His mission as the Saviour of the world. TeBedptBa points- back
to rediarai in v. 12 : ' God Himself no one hath ever yet beheld, but we
have beheld His Son '.
dirlo-raXKev. Hath sent, as in v. 9. tov Kocrpov is important.
The Son has been sent as Saviour, not of the Jews only, nor of the
'enlightened' Gnostics only, but of aU. There is no limit, to His
mission to save, and no limit to its success, excepting man's unwiU-
ingness to accept salvation by betieving on the Saviour. See on ii. 2
and comp. John iii. 17. Only twice in his writings does S. John use
the word awrrjp, here and in the Samaritans' confession (John iv. 42).
In both places it is followed by rou Koapov.
15. Ss civ dpoX. Quicunque confessus fuerit (Vulgate) : less weU,
Si quis confessus fuerit (Jerome Adv. Jovin. n. 29). This explains
and confirms toB xoapov. Without any exception, Whosoever shall
confess (see on ii. 5) God abideth in him : but this was just what the
false prophets refused to do. See on vv. 2 and 3, and on v. 1. Comp.
Eph. iii. 17.
6 0eds...Tio 0ec3. The communion is of the closest kind: comp.
iii. 24; John vi. 56; xiv. 20; xv. 5. Even Apostles, who have beheld
and borne witness, can have no more than this Divine fellowship,
which is open to every betiever. For pivei see on ii. 24. Vicissim in
se habitant qui continet et qui continetxir. Habitas in Deo, sed ut con-
linearis : habitat in te Deus, sedut contineat ne cadas, quia sic de ipsa,
caritate apostolus ait ; Caritas nunquam cadit. Quomodo cadit quem
continet Deus ? (Bede).
16. koI ijpels- This is perhaps the ApostoUo ' we' again, as in the
Prologue and vv. 6, 14.
lyvwK. Kal Tremor, ttjv dydirr)v. The accusative shews that
iyvwxapev is the leading verb: we have come to know the love and

IV. 17.] NOTES. 105
have believed it. The Vulgate has cognovimus et credidimus cari-
tati, as if _S. John had written tj? 070*?/, and adds Dei as in
iii. 16. Obviously knowledge, when it precedes, is the main thing.
Faith then foUows as a matter of course : and this is the natural
order— progressive knowledge (yirwaxeir) leading up to faith. But
sometimes faith precedes knowledge (John vi. 69). In either case
each completes the other. Sound faith is inteUigent ; sound know
ledge is betieving. We must be ' ready always to give answer to every
man that asketh a reason concerning the hope that is in us ' (1 Pet.
in. 15). This verse is a fulfilment of the conclusion of Christ's High-
Priestly prayer ; ' I made known unto them Thy name, and will make
it known ; that the love wherewith Thou lovedst Me may be in them,
and I in them' (John xvii. 26). With dydiri]v ex«iv (here and John
xiii. 35) comp. dX*ISa exeiv (iii. 3).
ev rjpiv. In us, as in v. 9, not 'to us'. Note the characteristic
repetition of the characteristic verb piveiv ; thrice in one verse, Uke
bxbapos in v. 5 : comp. ii. 24. Cyprian (according to the best authori
ties) translates ; Deus agape est, et qui manet in agape in Deo manet,
et Deus in eo (Test. in. 2). So also in some MSS. Quomodo agape
Dei manet in illo (1 John ii. 17 quoted Test. in. 1). Was agape the
original African rendering, afterwards altered to caritas or dilectiol
17. Iv tovtio t. ij dy. peB' rjpcov. Here R. V. Herein is love made
perfect with us, or the margin of A.V. Herein is love with us made
perfect, is to be preferred to A.V. Most earUer EngUsh Versions
agree with R.V. ; and peB' rjpwr probably belongs to rereXelwrai, not to
1) bydvrj. So also the Vulgate (Cod. Am.), perfecta est nobiscum cari
tas: while Augustine renders perfecta est dilectio in nobis. 'H dydv-q
here must mean our love towards God : His love towards us cannot
have any fear (v. 18) in it. This love takes up its abode, is developed,
and perfected, with us. 'Sr roirw may refer to either of the clauses
which foUow. 'Sr roirw  tva is a possible construction, and perhaps
occurs John xv. 8 ; and iv roirw Sn occurs 1 John iti. 16 ; iv. 9, 10.
But it is perhaps best to make ir roirw refer to what precedes ; to our
abiding in God and God in us. This avoids the awkwardness of
making perfection of love in the present depend upon our attitude at
the Judgment, which though near (ii. 18) according to S. John's view,
is stiU future. In this way we can give its fuU meaning to tra : by
close union with God our love is made perfect, in order tliat we may
have boldness at the Day of Judgment. For ¦vappr\o-la see on ti. 28.
Qulsquis fiduciam habet in diejudicii, perfecta est in illo caritas (Bede
from Augustine).
TJJ TJplpo Tijs KpCerews. The fuU phrase occurs nowhere else : the
usual form being rjpipa xplaews (Matt. x. 15; xi. 22, 24; xii. 36; 2 Pet.
u. 9; tii. 7). S. John elsewhere calls it r) iaxdrrj rjpipa (John vi. 39,
40, 44, 54; xi. 24; xii. 48), or r) rjiUpa rj peydXrj (Rev. vi. 17) or r) rjp.
ixelrrj r) ptydXrj (xvi. 14). Other Scriptural phrases are rj rjp. ixelrrj
(Matt. xiii. 1 ; Mark xiii. 32 ; Luke x. 12), rj rjp. rov Kvpiov (1 Cor. v. 5 ;
2 Cor. i. 14; 2 Thess. ti. 2), r) toB GeoB rjpipa (2 Pet. iti. 12), rj rjp. (Heb.

io6 1 S. JOHN. [IV. 17—
x. 25), rjp. aiwvos (2 Pet. iii. 18), xplais pe-ydXr/s rjp. (Jude 6), r) icpicris
(Matt. xii. 41, 42; Luke x. 14).
KaBws Ikcivos  Kal rjpeis. For Ka0ws...Kal... see on ii. 18. 'Sxeiros,
as elsewhere in this Epistle (ii. 6 ; iii. 3, 5, 7, 16), almost certainly means
Christ. Our assurance with regard to the future Judgment is not pre
sumption, because so far as is possible in this world we are in character
Uke Christ. The resemblance is marked as close, 'even so are we'
(xaBiiis) ; comp. ti. 6 ; iti. 3, 7. In what does this close resemblance
specially consist? In love: the whole context points to this. He
need not fear the judgment of Christ who by loving has become like
Christ. Iv tw r. tovtco does not belong to both clauses; otherwise
we should have had koSus ixeiros ijv. The plural throughout is
to be noted: peB' rjpwr...xal rjpeis. "The Apostle does not write to
any individuals as individuals, but to the members of the congregation
as such. In the Church alone, but certainly there, is to be found Buch
a consummation of love, such a perfection of fellowship with God "
(Haupt). Here again Jerome differs considerably from his own Vulgate. In
the latter; In hoc perfecta est nobiscum caritas, ut fiduciam habea-
mus in die judicii, quia sicut ille est et nos sumus in hoc mundo :
in his own works (Adv. Jovin. i. 40); In hoc perfecta est nostra
caritas, si fiduciam habeamus in diem judicii ; ut quomodo ille est, sic
et nos simus in hoc saeculo.
18. Proof of the preceding statement that perfect love wtil give us
boldness, by shewing the mutually exclusive nature of love and fear.
Love moves towards others in the spirit of self-sacrifice: fear shrinks
from others in the spirit of self-preservation. The two are to be
understood quite generaUy; neither love of God nor fear of God is
speciaUy meant. In aU relations whatever, perfect love excludes fear,
and fear prevents love from being perfect. And the two vary inversely :
the more perfect the love, the less possibility of fear; and the more the
fear, the less perfect the iove. But, though as certain as any physical
law, the principle, that perfect love excludes aU fear, is an ideal that
has never been verified in fact. Like the first law of motion, it is
verified by the approximations made to it. No betiever's love has ever
been so perfect as entirely to banish fear ; but every betiever experiences
that as his love increases his fear diminishes. It is worthy of note
that S. John here abandons his antithetic method He does not go on
to state anything about him that feareth not. And rightly, for the
absence of fear proves nothing : it may be the result of ignorance, or
presumption, or indifference, or unbetief, or inveterate wickedness.
Tertullian quotes this verse in insisting on the duty of suffering mar
tyrdom, adding "What fear would it be better to understand than that
which gives rise to denial (of Christ)? What love does he assert to be
perfeot, but that which puts fear to flight, and gives courage to confess
(Christ) ? What penalty wtil He appoint as the punishment of fear, but
that which he who denies is to pay, who has to be slain, body and soulj
in heU" (Scorp. xn.). Simon Magus is said to have "freed his disciples

IV. 19.] NOTES. 107
from the danger of death " by martyrdom, "by teaching them to regard
idolatry as a matter of indifference" (Origen c. Celswm vi. xi.).
d 4>d(3os koXoo-iv e\ei. As R.V., fear hath punishment. 'Torment'
would be fiaaavos (Matt. iv. 24; Luke xvi. 23, 28). Wiclif has 'peyne'
representing poena in the Vulgate. Other Versions have ' painfulness ',
Luther Pein. KbXaais, common in classical Greek and not rare in
LXX. , occurs only here and Matt. xxv. 46 in N. T. Its primary meaning
is 'pruning', and. hence 'checking, correcting, punishing': whereas
the primary meaning of fidaavos is 'testing', and hence 'trying by
torture, tormenting'. Comp. tra rrjv Xtlvovaav rais Bacrdvois vpoaava-
vXripaaaai koXoctiv (Wisd. xix. 4).
0 Se cpop. The Si, omitted in A.V., connects this clause with the
first one, dXX'...?xe' being parenthetical. Wiclif has 'forsothe' and
Purvey 'but', the Genevan, Rhemish, and R.V. have 'and'. None are
satisfactory, owing to the preceding dXXd. The passage is a good
instance of the difference between d\Xo and di (sed and autem, son-
dern and aber). The one introduces a sharp opposition, the other
a qualification, objection, or contrast. Winer, 551, 552. The present
participle indicates a constant condition : the habitual fearer is neces
sarily imperfect in his love.
S. Paul teaches the same doctrine ; ' Ye received not the spirit of
bondage again unto fear; but ye received the spirit of adoption, where
by we cry, Abba, Father' (Rom. viii. 15). The servile fear, which
perfect love excludes, is therefore altogether different from the child
like awe, which is a necessary element in the creature's love for its
Creator. Even servile fear is necessary as a preparation for perfect
love. ' The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom ' ; and it is
also the beginning of love. The sinner must begin by fearing the God
against whom he has sinned. Bengel gives the various stages thus :
' Neither love nor fear ; fear without love ; both fear and love ; love
without fear'. Fear is the child of bondage ; love of freedom. In this
case also the bondwoman and her son must be cast out (Gal. iv. 30).
19. TJpeis dyaircopev. The Old Vulgate here is trebly wrong : nos
ergo diligamus invicem, the New has Deum; Augustine omits both, —
Nos diligamus. (1) The ovv inserted in A and some other authori
ties is a false reading. (2) There is no invicem either stated or implied
by the Greek. (3) 'Ayavwpev is indicative, not subjunctive, as is shewn
in the Tjpeis: the Ubrtative verb would hardly have the pronoun ex
pressed; contrast v. 7. Some authorities insert rbv Bebv or abrbv after
d7o*upev: so A. V., 'we love Him'. Nothing is to be understood,
Christian love of every kind being meant. The power of loving is a
Divine gift.
Sti ovtos irpwTos. The rrpiiVos is the important word and impUes
three things. 1. Our love owes its origin to God's love, from which it
is an effluence (v. 7). 2. Love is checked by fear when it is doubtful
whether it is returned ; and our love has no such check, for God's love
has been beforehand with it. 3. Gratitude easily blossoms into affec
tion, especiaUy gratitude for love. With God's priority rn loving us

108 IS. JOHN. [IV. 19—
Bede compares Christ's priority in choosing His disciples (John xv.
16). 20. Idv tis elirrj. We return to the form of statement which was
so common at the beginning of the Epistle (i. 6, 8, 10). The case
here contemplated is one form of the man that feareth not. His
freedom from fear is caused, however, not by the perfection of love,
but by presumption. He is either moraUy blind or a conscious hypo
crite. Comp. ti. 4, 9.
d ydp prj dyairwv. As we have seen already (iti. 14, 15), S. John
treats not loving as equivalent to hating. For pr) see on ti. 4 ; iii. 10,
14. Sv ewpaKev. S. John does not say 'whom he can see', but 'whom
he has continuaUy before his eyes '. The perfect tense, as so often,
expresses a permanent state continuing from the past. His brother
has been and remains in sight, God has been and remains out of
sight. 'Out of sight, out of mind' is a saying which holds good in
morals and religion as weU as in society. And if a man fails in duties
which are ever before his eyes and are easy, how can we credit him
with performing duties which require an effort to bear in mind and are
difficult? And in this case the seen would necessarily suggest the
unseen: for the brother on earth implies the Father in heaven. If
therefore even the seen is not loved, what must we infer as to the
unseen? The seen brother and unseen God are put in striking juxta
position in the Greek ; ' He that loveth not his brother whom he hath
seen, the God whom he hath not seen cannot love'. But in EngUsh
this would be misunderstood.
ov Svvotoi. It is a moral impossibility : comp. tii. 9 ; John iii. 3,
5, 27 ; v. 19, 30 ; vii. 7, 34 ; viii. 21, 43 ; xii. 39 ; xiv. 17. The reading
*us divarai is perhaps a reminiscence of iti. 17 or John iti. 4, 9 ; v. 44 ;
vi. 52; ix. 16. See critical notes.
21. Kal t. t. !vt. ?x- dir' ovtov. The Apostle drives home his
arguments for the practice of brotherly love by the fact that God has
commanded aU who love Him to love their brethren. So also S. Paul,
here again in harmony with S. John: 'The whole law is fulfilled in
one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyseU'
(Gal. v. 14). Some take 'Him' to mean Christ. But this is untikely,
as Christ has not been mentioned for several verses: although it
must be admitted that S. John is so full of the truth that 'I and
My Father are one ', that he makes the transition from the Father to
the Son and from the Son to the Father almost unconsciously.
Where has God given this commandment? In the whole Law,
which is summed up in loving God with aU one's heart and one's
neighbour as oneself (Deut. vi. 5; Lev. xix. 18; Luke x. 27). The
Apostle thus anticipates a possible objection. A man may say, 'I
can love God without loving my brother, and I can prove my love
by keeping His commandments' (John xiv. 15). 'Nay', says S. John,
'your own argument shews your error: you cannot keep His com
mandments without loving your brother'. Thus then we have two

v.]

NOTES. 109

revelations of God: our brother, who is His image ; and command
ment, which is His will. Not to love our brother is a flagrant viola
tion of both. As Pascal puts it, we must know men in order to love
them, but we must love God in order to know Him.
tva,...dyamj. "The final particle (tva) gives more than the simple
contents of the commandment. It marks the injunction as directed
to an aim" (Westcott). See on i. 9.

CHAPTER V.
1. After dyaira we should perhaps omit ko£ with B, Vulgate, and
Thebaic against NAKL and Syriac.
2. For Trjpwpev (NKL) read iroicopev (B and Versions). A omits
from ovtov tin;. 2 to ovtov in v. 3 : homoeoteleuton.
6. The Si which B has after lo-riv and after rfe is possibly genuine.
It is represented in several Versions.
6. After a'iparos NA, Thebaic, and Memphitic insert ko! vveipa
ros: B, Peschito, and Vuigate omit. With NAB omit d before Xpio-rds.
7. For the notorious interpolation here see Appendix D. The dis
puted words (iv rtp ovpavQ b *orr)p d X070S xal rb dyiov vvevpa ' xal
ovtoi ol Tpeis iv ela 1. xal rpeis eiaiv ol paprvpovvres iv rrj 77}) are absent
from every Greek MS. earUer than the fourteenth century, from every
Greek Father in discussing the doctrine of the Trinity, and from every
ancient Version. The insertion is of Latin origin and even in Latin
is not older than the fifth century. Another Western interpolation.
9. For rjv (KL) read oti with NAB and most Versions.
10. After ttjv papTVpCav A, Vulgate, and Memphitic insert toB
9eoB. For eavnp (N) read avrw (ABKL). But it remains doubtful
whether avrip represents avrip or avrtp: the latter seems preferable.
ForTcji ©eij (NBKL, Memphitic) A and Vulgate have Tip vltp to which
, others add toB Qe-ou or avroC.
13. After vpiv omit tois viareiovaiv eis rb Svopa tov vlov rov Beov
with NAB, Vulgate, Memphitic, Thebaic, and Syriac against KL. For
xal tva viareir/Te (KL) read tois Trio-Tevovo-iv (^B, Syriac) : but oi
TOTTevoi'Tes (N3A, Vulgate, Memphitic, Thebaic) is strongly supported
15. For *op adroB (AKL) read dir' ovtov (NB). NXA omit from
ijpwv to rjpwv : homoeoteleuton.
18. For iavrbv (NA2KLP) read ovtov (AjB, Vulgate).
20. For yivwaxapev (B2K) read yivido-Kopev (NABiL). A and Vul
gate add Beov after t. dXnflivdv. Before Jut) oiwvios omit 17 with NAB
against L : K inserts r) after £wrj.
21. Omit the final dprjv with NAB and most Versions against KL.
In aU these cases B is almost certainly right ; in not one is it
certainly wrong. The combination NB proves to be always right.

no IS. JOHN. [V. 1-
The chapter falls into two parts. The first twelve verses form the
last section of the second main division of the Epistle, God is Love
(ii. 29 — v. 12) : the last nine verses form the conclusion and summary
of the whole. Some editors break up the first part of the chapter into
two sections, 1 — 5 and 6 — 12, but texts and versions seem to be right
in giving the whole as one paragraph. The second part does contain
two smaUer sections, 13—17 and 18—21. We may analyse the
chapter therefore as foUows : Faith is the Source of Love, the Victory
over the World, and the Possession of Life (1 — 12). Conclusion and
Summary : Intercessory Love the Fruit of Faith and of the Possession
of Life (13 — 17) ; The Sum of the Christian's Knowledge (18—20) ;
Final practical Injunction (21).
It wiU be observed that in the middle of the first section we have
what looks at first sight a digression and yet is intimately connected
with the main subject of the section. This main subject is Faith, a
word which (strangely enough) occurs nowhere else in S. John's
Epistles, nor in his Gospel. And faith necessarily implies witness.
Only on the strength of testimony is faith possible. Therefore in this
paragraph on Faith and its effects the Apostle gives in detail the
various kinds of witness on which the Christian's faith is based
(6 — 12). The paragraph shews plainly S. John's view of the relation
of Faith to Love. The two are inseparable. Faith that does not
lead to Love, Love that is not based on Faith, must come to nothing.
Ch. V. 1 — 12. Faith is the Sot/bce or Love, the Viotoby over
THE WoBIJD, AND THE POSSESSION OS LlFE.
1. irds o iricrrevwv. Every one that believeth: the construction is
identical with that in ti. 29; iti. 3, 4; iv. 2, 3, 7, and in the second half
of this verse. See first note on iti. 3. The verb viareiw which occurs
only three times in the rest of the Epistle, occurs six times in these first
13 verses. After the third verse the word ' love ', which has been the
keyword of the last two chapters, ceases to appear. With the first sen
tence comp. John i. 12.
The verse is a couple of syUogisms condensed into an irregular
Sorites. Every one who believes the Incarnation is a child of God.
Every child of God loves its Father.
.-.Every betiever in the Incarnation loves God.
Every betiever in the Incarnation loves God.
Every one who loves God loves the children of God.
. •. Every beUever in the Incarnation loves the children of God.
To believe that Jesus is the Christ is to believe that One who was
known as a man fulfilled a known and Divine commission ; that He
who was born and was crucified is the Anointed, the Messiah of Israel,
the Saviour of the world. To beUeve this is to accept both the Old
and the New Testaments; it is to believe that Jesus is what He
claimed to be, One who is equal with the Father, and as such demands
of every betiever the absolute surrender of self to Him. Belief with-

V. 3.] NOTES. in
out love is, as S. Augustine remarks, the belief of a demon (James
n. 19).
yeylvvTjTai. As R. V., is begotten, for the sake of uniformity in
this verse and elsewhere. A good deal is lost if ytyivvrjTai, yevvrjaavra
and yeyevvrjpivov are not translated alike. See on v. 18.
tov yeyevvr)plvov. Not Christ, but any believer, as the next verse
shews. " Since God regenerates us by faith, He must be loved by us
as a Father: and this love embraces all His children" (Calvin). Here
again the verb may be either the indicative or the hortative subjunc
tive; and, as in iv. 19, the indicative is preferable: 'loveth' rather
than 'let him love'.
This verse shews that iv. 20 ought not to be interpreted to mean
that through love of the invisible brother we ascend to the love of the
invisible God. On the contrary the love of the Father is the source
of love of His children. "That is the natural order; that, we may
say it confidently, is the universal order" (Maurice).
2. The converse of the truth insisted upon in iv. 20, 21 is now
stated. Their love and obedience to God were shewn to involve love of
His children: here love of God's children is said to foUow from our
love and obedience to God. The two (or three) ideas mutuaUy imply
one another. Love to God implies obedience, and either of these
impUes love of His children, which again impUes the other two. In
short, love to God and love to the brethren confirm and prove each
other. If either is found alone, it is not genuine. FeUowship with
God and feUowship one with another (i. 3, 7) necessarily exist together.
A man may be conscious of kindtiness towards others and yet doubt
whether he is fulfilling the law of brotherly love. For such the
Apostle gives this test, 'Do you love God? Do you strive to obey
Him ? If so your love of others is of the right kind '. For the cha
racteristic phrase 'keep His commandments ' see on ii. 3: but here the
true reading seems to be do His commandments, a phrase which occurs
nowhere else. This reading is supported by B, aU ancient Versions,
and several Fathers. Note the 'when', or more UteraUy, 'whenever'
(brav) : whenever we love and obey we have fresh evidence that our
philanthropy is Christian. Nowhere else in these Epistles does dVac
occur. 3. avTT| ydp Iotiv. ' This is what it tends towards ; this is its out
come': see on i. 5. Love impUes obedience. Comp. John xiv. 15, 21,
23 ; xv. 10 ; 2 John 6. For iva comp. John vi. 29 ; xvii. 3 ; 2 John 6.
Sopetai ovk elcrCv. For three reasons : 1. Because He gives us
strength to bear them; juvat qui jubet (Phil. iv. 13); 2. Because of
the greatness of the reward— xpds rrjv piXXovaav Sogav (Rom. viii. 18) ;
3. Because love makes them Ught; dilige et quod vis foe (Augustine).
They are not like the ' burdens grievous to be borne ' which the legal
rigour of the Pharisees laid on men's consciences. Here again we
have an echo of the Master's words: 'My yoke is easy, and My burden
is Ught' (Matt. xi. 30).

112 IS. JOHN. [V. 4-
4. Reason why keeping even the difficult commandment of loving
others rather than oneself is not a grievous burden. It is the world
and its ways which makes the Divine commands grievous, and the new
birth involved in faith gives us a new unworldly nature and a strength
which conquers the world. Without this new nature and strength we
should find God'B commandments, in spite of their reasonableness,
intolerable. Sti ttov Td yey. Ik t. 0. Because whatsoever is begotten of God:
see on v. 1. The coUective neuter, 'whatsoever', gives the principle a
wide sweep by stating it in its most abstract form : comp. John vi. 37 ;
xvii. 2. Moreover, whereas the masculine would make the victorious
person prominent, the neuter emphasizes rather the victorious power.
It is not the man, but his birth from God, which conquers. In v. 1
we had the masculine and in v. 18 return to the masculine again. In
aU three cases we have the perfect, not the aorist, participle. It is not
the mere fact of having received the Divine birth that is insisted on,
but the permanent results of the birth. Comp. John tii. 6, 8, where
we have the same tense and a similar change from neuter to mas
culine. rj v£ktj tj viKijo-oo-o t. k. The victory that overcame the world:
aorist participle of a victory won once for aU. Under the influence of
the Vulgate (quae vincit mundum) Wiclif, Luther, Tyndale and others,
aU have the present tense here. Faith, which is 'the proof of things
not seen ' (Heb. xi. 1) which ' are eternal ' (2 Cor. iv. 18), has won a
decisive victory over the world which is visible and which 'is passing
away ' (ti. 17). Faith is both the victory and the victor. Ilia nimirum
fides quae per dilectionem operatur. Ilia fides, qua ejus humiliter aux-
ilium flagitamus, qui ait...confidite, ego vid mundum (Bede). Hio-ris
occurs nowhere else in these Epistles, nor in the Gospel ; vCkij nowhere
else in N.T. Note the characteristic repetition of rbv xbapov, thrice in
two verses, and always in the sense of the great human tradition of
indifference or antagonism to God. See on ti. 2.
5. t£s Icttiv d vikcov. Here the present tense is right. The Apostle
appeals to the daily experience of every victorious Christian. B
inserts a Si after ianv, N after t(s : so also Luther, Wer ist aber. The
faith that conquers is no mere vague beUef in the existence of God,
but a definite beUef in the Incarnation: comp. i>. 1; ti. 22; tii. 23; iv.
2, 3. For the form of question comp. ti. 22: this verse shews that
'the Uar' (d ^edo-T?;s) there does not mean 'the supreme liar', for 'he
that overcometh' (6 nxwv) cannot mean 'the supreme conqueror'.
The one sole Victor, who is such in the highest and unique sense, is
Christ. Comp. 'Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. xv. 57). Belief in Christ is at
once betief in God and in man. It lays a foundation for love and
trust towards our feUow men. Thus the instinctive distrust and sel
fishness, which reign supreme in the world, are overcome. Comp. the
Sarum CoUect for Trinity Sunday, weakened by Cosin in 1661, quae-
sumus ut ejusdem fidei flrmitate ab omnibus semper muniamur adversis.
Our Creed is our spear and shield.

V. 6.]

NOTES. ti3

6. ovros Iotiv & IXBcov. Closely connected with what precedes.
'This Son of God is He that came'. The identity of the historic
person Jesus with the eternal Son of God is once more insisted upon
as the central and indispensable truth of the Christian faith. Faith
in this truth is the only faith that can overcome the world and give
eternal Ufe. And it is a truth attested by witness of the highest and
most extraordinary kind.
81' KSotos Kal atpaTos. LiteraUy, by means of or through water
and blood. This is the most perplexing passage in the Epistle and one
of the most perplexing in N.T. A very great variety of interpretations
have been suggested. It would be simply confusing to discuss them
aU; but a few of the principal explanations, and the reasons for
adopting the one preferred, may be stated with advantage. The water
and the blood have been interpreted to mean : —
(1) The Baptism by means of water in the Jordan and the Death
by means of blood upon the Cross.
(2) The water and blood which flowed from Christ's pierced
side. (3) , Purification and Redemption (Xovrpbv and Xirpov).
(i) The Sacraments of Baptism and of the Eucharist.
These are fairly representative interpretations ; the first two making
the water and blood refer to facts in the earthly career of the Messiah ;
the last two making them symboUcal of mysteries. It will be observed
that these explanations are not aU exclusive one of another : either of
the last two may be combined with either of the first two ; and in fact
the fourth is not unfrequently combined with the second. The second,
which is S. Augustine's, has recently received the support of the-
Speaker's Commentary and of Canon F. W. Farrar in The Early Days
of Christianity : but in spite of its attractiveness it appears to be
scarcely tenable. The difficult passage in John xix. 34 and the difficult
passage before us do not reaUy explain one another. That ' ' in these
two passages alone, of all Scripture, are blood and water placed together,"
would, if true, amount to nothing more than a presumption that one
may be connected with the other. And such a presumption would be
at once weakened by the change of order : instead of the ' blood and
water ' of the Gospel we have ' water and blood ' here. But the state
ment is not true; e.g., five times in Exod. vii. 17 — 25; 'He took
water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am inno
cent of the blood of this righteous man' (Matt, xxvii. 24); 'He shajl
cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running
water' (Lev. xiv. 52) ; ' He took the blood of the calves and the goats,
with water and scarlet wool and hyssop,' &c. (Heb. ix. 19). And
is it credible that S. John would speak of effusions from the dead
body of Jesus as the Son of God "coming through water and blood"?
Moreover, what, on this interpretation, can be the point of the
emphatic addition, ' not in the water only, but in the water and in
the blood'? At the piercing of the side it was the water, not the
blood, that was so marveUous. So that, to make the reference clear,
the whole ought to run somewhat in this manner: 'This is He that
s, JOHN (ep.) H

114 IS. JOHN. [V. 6
shed forth blood and water, even Jesus Christ ; not the blood only, but
the blood and the water'.
The first of the four explanations is far more tenable, and is adopted
by Bede, but not to the entire exclusion of the second. So also Dr
Westcott, who thinks the additional reference to John xix. 34 "beyond
question ". The Baptism in the water of Jordan and the Death by the
shedding of blood sum up the work of redemption. Christ's Baptism,
with the Divine proclamation of TTim as the Son of God and the Divine
outpouring of the Spirit upon Him, is not merely the opening but the
explanation of the whole of His Ministry. The bloody death upon
the Cross is not merely the close but the explanation of His Passion.
' Coming ' when spoken of the Christ includes the notion of His
mission (John i. 15, 27, 30; iii. 31; vi. 14; vii. 27, 31, 41, &c., &c).
Therefore, when we are told that the Son of God ' came by means of
water and blood', we may reasonably understand this as meaning that
He fulfilled His mission by the Baptism with which His pubUc work
began and the bloody Death with which He finished it (John xix. 30).
(1) This interpretation explains the order; 'water and blood', not
' blood and water'. (2) It explains the first preposition ; 'through' or
'by means of (did with the genitive: comp. the remarkable parallel
Heb. ix. 12). (3) It also explains the second preposition ; ' in' (iv, of
the element in which, without the notion of means: comp. the
remarkable paraUel Heb. ix. 25). Christ's Baptism and Death werein
one sense the means by which, in another sense the spheres in which
His work was accompUshed. (4) Above aU it explains the emphatio
addition, ' not in water only, but in the water and in the blood'. The
Gnostic teachers, against whom the Apostle is writing, admitted that
the Christ came 'through' and 'in' water: it was precisely at the
Baptism, they said, that the Divine Word united Himself with the
man Jesus. But they denied that the Divine Person had any share in
what was effected 'through' and 'in' blood: for according to them
the Word departed from Jesus at Gethsemane. S. John emphatically
assures us that there was no such separation. It was the Son of God
who was baptized ; and it was the Son of God who was crucified : and
it is faith in this vital truth that produces brotherly love, that over
comes the world, and is eternal life.
It may reasonably be admitted, however, that there is this large
amount of connexion between the 'water and blood' here and the
' blood and water' in the Gospel. Both in a symbolical manner point
to the two great sacraments. Thus TertuUian says, " He had come
by means of water and blood, just as John had written ; that He might
be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood ; to make us in Uke
manner called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptismB He
sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who
beUeved in His blood might be bathed in the water ; they who had
been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood' (De
Bapt. xvi.).
ovk Iv T<f v8. p., dXX. Iv tco v8. k. Iv T<j> otp. As R.V., not with the
Water only, but with the water and the blood. The dv marks the
element or sphere in which the thing is done. The use of dv here and

V. C] NOTES. 115
Heb. ix. 25 may, however, come direct from LXX. Comp. tlaeXtiaerai
,Aapwv els rb ayiov Iv pbaxv ix /3ouk vepl dpaprias (Lev. xvi. 3), of the
ceremonies on the great Day of Atonement. The Hebrew may mean
' in', ' with', or ' by'. The article here in aU three places means 'the
water' and ' the blood' already mentioned.
As applied to us these words will mean, ' Christ came not merely to
purify by His baptism, but to give new life by His blood ; " for the
blood is the life".' In short, all that is said in the Gospel, especially
in chapters iti. and vi., respecting water and blood may be included
here. The Epistle is the companion treatise of the Gospel.
Kal to irv. Icrriv Td papT. Here again there are great diversities of
interpretation. S. Augustine, who makes the water and blood refer to
the effusions of Christ's side, takes 'the spirit' to mean the spirit
which He committed to His Father at His death (John xix. 30 ;
Luke xxiii. 46). But in what sense could Christ's human spirit be
said to be ' the Truth ' ? Far more probably it is the Holy Spirit that
is meant (iii. 24 ; iv. 13 ; John i. 32, 33 ; vii. 39 ; Rev. ti. 7, 11, 17, 29,
<ftc). Bede takes this view and understands the witness of the Spirit
at Christ's baptism to be meant. The form of the sentence is exactly
paraUel to to vvevpd ianv to fwovoiovv (John vi. 63). We might render
in each case, 'The spirit is the life-giver', 'And the Spirit is the
witness-bearer'. The Spirit bears witness in two ways: 1. in Scrip
ture ; 2. by His action on the wtils of men. " The evidence for the
Resurrection was not stronger on the Day of Pentecost than it was on
the day before. But the Descent of the Spirit made it morally possi
ble for three thousand converts to do that evidence something Uke
justice" (Liddon).
Td papTvpovv. We have seen already (note on i. 2) that witness to
the truth in order to produce faith is one of S. John's leading thoughts
in Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation. Here it becomes the dominant
thought : the word ' witness' (verb or substantive) occurs ten times in
five verses. In the Gospel we have seven witnesses to Christ ; Scrip
ture (v. 39 — 47), the Baptist (i. 7), the Disciples (xv. 27; xvi. 30),
Christ's works (v. 36; x. 25, 38), Christ's words (viii. 14, 18; xviii. 37),
tlie Father '(v. 37 ; viii. 18), the Spirit (xv. 26). Of these seven three
are speciaUy mentioned in the Epistle, the Disciples in i. 2, the Father
in vv. 9, 10, and the Spirit here ; but to these are added two more, the
water and the blood.
oti to irv. k.t.X. It would be possible to translate ' It is the Spirit
-that beareth witness that the Spirit is the truth' : but this self-attes
tation of the Spirit would have no relation to the context. (Comp.
n. 12—14, where oti is six times capable of either rendering.) It is
the witnesses to Christ, to the identity of Jesus with the Son of God,
that S. John is marshalling before us. It is because the Spirit is the
Truth that His testimony is irrefragable : He can neither deceive nor
be deceived. He is ' the Spirit of Truth' (John xiv. 16 ; xv. 26), and
He glorifies the Christ, taking of His and declaring it unto the Church
(John xvi. 14).
H2

n 6 IS. JOHN. [V. (i—
There is a remarkable Latin reading, quoniam Christus est Veritas,
'It is the Spirit that heareth witness that the Christ is the Truth,'
but it has no authority. Westcott suspects a confusion between
XPC (Xpio-rds) and SPS (Spiritus).
7. For a discussion of the famous interpolation respecting the
Three Heavenly Witnesses, see Appendix D. The Revisers have only
performed an imperative duty in excluding it from both text and
margin. Three facts ought never to be forgotten : and one of them
singly would be decisive; combined they are irresistible. 1. Not a
single Greek Codex earlier than the fourteenth century contains the
passage. 2. Not one of the Greek or Latin Fathers ever quotes the
passage in conducting the controversies about the Trinity in the first
four and a half centuries. 3. No Version earlier than the fif th century
contains the passage, and, excepting the Latin, none earUer than the
fourteenth. Tpeis elcrlv oi papT. Those who bear witness are three. For paprvpeiv
see on i. 2. S. John does not say merely ol pdprvpes but oi paprvpovvres. •
They are not merely witnesses who might be called: they are per-
petuaUy delivering their testimony. The masculine points to the per-
sonaUty of the Spirit.. The Apostle is answering the misgivings of
those who fancied that when he, the last of the Apostles, was taken
from them, the Church would possess only second-hand evidence, and
a tradition ever growing fainter, as to the Person and Mission of the
Christ. 'Nay', says he, 'evidence at first-hand is ever present, and
each believer has it in himself (v. 10). Comp. John xv. 26.
It is very doubtful whether the Trinity is even remotely symboUzed.
Perhaps S. John wishes to give the fuU complement of evidence recog
nised by law (Matt, xviii. 16 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 1 ; Deut. xix. 15 ; comp. John
Viii. 17).
8. rd vSwp koI tS alpa. These of course have the same meaning
as before; Christ's Baptism and Death. " The real value of our Lord's
baptism and His death may be estimated by supposing that neither
had taken place, and that our Lord had appeared on His mission
without openly confessing His mission from God in submitting to the
baptism of John; or that He had died quietly, as other men die"
(Jelf). koI oi Tpeis els to ev eto-iv. LiteraUy, and the three are (united)
into the one; or, are for the one object of estabtishing this truth. This
may mean either that they are joined so as to become one witness, or
that they co-operate in producing one result. "The trinity of
witnesses furnish one testimony". 'To be one' (iv eivai) occurs John
x. 30; xvii. 11, 21, 22, and (ets iare) Gal. iii. 28: 'into one' (els b)
occurs John xi. 52 ; xvii. 23 : but ' to be into one 'or 'to be into the
one' occurs nowhere else in N.T. TA ev here has been made into an
argument for the genuineness of v. 7. It is said that ' the one' plainly
impUes that 'one' has preceded. But this lands us in absurdity by
making 'one' in v. 8 mean the same as 'one' in v. 7. ' One 'in v. 7
means 'one Substance', the 'Unity in Trinity'. But what sense can

V. 10.]

NOTES. 117

< The spirit, the water, and the blood agree in the Unity in Trinity '
yield? g — n. S. John's characteristic repetition of the word ' witness ' is
greatly weakened in A.V. by the substitution of ' testify ' in v. 9, and
'record' in vv. 10 and 11 : see on i. 2; ti. 15, 24; iv. 5.
9. el t. papT. t. dvflp. Xappdvo pev. ' If we receive such testimony —
and it is quite notorious that we do so'. Comp. el ovtws b Bebs rjyd-
vrjaev rjpas (iv. 11). In neither case does el imply any doubt about the
fact. See on 2 John 10. The argument is a fortiori and reads Uke an
echo of that of Christ to the Pharisees ' In your law it is written that
the witness of two men is true' (John viii. 17) ; how much more there
fore the witness of the Father and the Son? For Xapfjdveiv in the
sense of 'accept as vatid', comp. John tii. 11, 32, 33.
oti avTrj lo-rlv rj papT. Because the witness of God is this (see on
i. 5). This first on is elliptical. 'I say the witness of God, because...',
or, 'I use this argument, because...', Winer, 774. The second dVi
(NAB and most Versions) is less easy, and hence the corruption to the
simple ^V. This on may be epexegetic of avrrj, or epexegetic of paprv
pia, or paraUel to the first dY«. The first of these possibilities seems
best: that He hath borne witness. 'I appeal to the witness of God,
because (on) the witness of God is this, that (on) He hath borne witness
concerning His Son'. Maprvpeiv vepl is frequent in the Gospel (i. 8,
15; n. 25; v. 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, &c). The perfect, as so constantly in
S. John, gives the permanent result of a past act: the testimony still
abides. Comp. d iwpaxws pepapriprjxev ...iva xal vpeis viareiar/Tt (John
xix. 35).
10. d irioreviov els t. vidv t. 0. The present participle again indi
cates what is habitual: not a transitory conviction (d viareiaas), but a
permanent attitude of faith (ti. 10, 22, 23; iii. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, &c). For
the first time in this Epistle we have the full phrase viareieiv As, of
which S. John is so fond in his Gospel, where it occurs nearly 40 times.
Elsewhere in N.T. it occurs only about 10 times. It expresses the
strongest confidence and trust ; faith moves towards and reposes on its
object. Whereas 'to believe a person' (viareieiv nvt) need mean no
more than to beUeve what he says (iv. 1), 'to beUeve on or in a person'
(TOjreiieic efs nva) means to have fuU trust in his character.
t\a. ttjv popTvpCov. Some authorities add toB GeoB, which is right
as an interpretation, though not as a part of the text. He has it as
an abiding possession (John v. 38 ; Heb. x. 34) : ?xcl d°es not mean
merely 'he accepts it'. Comp. 'The Spirit Himself beareth witness
with our spirit, that we are children of God' (Rom. viii. 16); 'God
sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father'
(Gal. iv. 6).
Iv avTw. The differences of reading here, ev adrip, iv adnp, iv iavnp,
are immaterial: 'in him' in this context cannot mean anything but
' in himself. ' The external witness faithfully accepted becomes internal
certitude. Our faith in the Divinity of Christ attests its own Divine

ii.8 1 S. JOHN. [V. 10—
origin, for we could not have obtained it otherwise than from God,
" The human mind is made for truth, and so rests in truth, as it
cannot rest in falsehood. When then it once becomes possessed of a
truth, what is to dispossess it? But this is to be certain; therefore
once certitude, always certitude. If certitude in any matter be the
termination of all doubt or fear about its truth, and an unconditional
conscious adherence to it, it carries with it an inward assurance,
strong though impUcit, that it shaU never fail" (J. H. Newman).
6 pij Tricrrevcov tco 0ei5. He that has not even enough faith to
induce him to beUeve what God says (see first note on this verse).
There are great diversities of reading here; 'God,' 'the Son', 'the Son
ofGod', 'His Son', 'Jesus Christ': of these 'God' (NBKLP) is cer
tainly to be preferred. The others have arisen from a wish to make
'he that betieveth not' more exactly balance 'he that betieveth'. But,
as we have repeatedly seen, S. John's antitheses seldom balance exactly.
Yet it is by no means impossible that all five are wrong, and that we
ought simply to read ' He that believeth not hath made Him a Uar ' :
comp. John iti. 18, of which this verse seems to be an echo. In ' he
that believeth not ', the case is stated quite generaUy and indefinitely
(d prj viareiwv) : the Apostle is not pointing at some one person who
was known as not betieving (d ou viareiav); comp. iti. 10, 14; iv. 8,
20 ; v. 12. But in the second clause the point of view becomes one of
fact and not of mere possibility ; dVi oli vevlarevxev. Contrast bn prj
*e*io-TevKei' (John iti. 18). Winer, 594. For the antithetic paraUelism
comp. v. 12 ; ii. 4, 27.
«J/evim]v ireTro'r|Kev ovtov. See on i. 10. He has given God the lie
as to His whole scheme of redemption, ov ireTrCo-TevKev...pepapTvpr|Kev.
As R.V., hath not believed in the witness that God hath borne. See
on i. 2. The perfect in both cases indicates a permanent result. He
has been and remains an unbeliever in the witness which God has
given and continuaUy suppties concerning His Son. TIio-Teveiv els ttjv
papTvpCav occurs nowhere else in N.T. UsuaUy we have viar. rjj p.
See on iti. 23.
11. KalavTi) lo-rlv tj papT. As R.V., And the witness is this, as in
v. 9 : this is what the external witness of God, when it is internally
appropriated by the believer, consists in ; viz. the Divine gift of eternal
Ufe. £wrjv alwviov. See on i. 2 and on John iii. 36 ; v. 24. "E8wKev is
Uterally gave ; but perhaps this is a case in which the EngUsh
perfect may represent the Greek aorist. But at any rate ' gave ' must
not be weakened into ' offered ', stiU less into ' promised '. The betiever
already possesses eternal Ufe.
Kal aiiTT| tj £«tj k.t.X. This is a new independent statement, coor
dinate with the first clause : it is not, like the second clause, dependent
upon the first. Eternal life has its seat and source in the Son, who is
the 'Prinoe' or 'Author of life' (Acts tii. 15): see on John i. 4; v. 26.

V. 12.] NOTES. „9
12. A deduction from the preceding clause. If the Son has the life
in Himself, then whoever has the Son has the life, and no man can
have the one without the other. ' To have the Son ' must be compared
with 'to have the Father' in ti. 23. In both cases 'have' signifies
possession in living union through faith.
Ixei ttjv !>tjv. As R.V., hath the life; not merely 'the life just
mentioned', or ' the life which God gave us', but the life which in the
fuU sense of the word is such.
d urj ex.wv. As in v. 10, the negative alternative is stated generally
and indefinitely (prj not oi). The addition of tov Beov is neither for
tuitous nor pleonastic. Those who possess Him know that He is the
Son of God ; those who do not, need to be reminded Whose Son it is
that they reject.
The verse constitutes another close parallel with the Gospel : comp.
the last words of the Baptist (John tii. 36).
13—21. Conclusion and Summaby.
Some modern writers consider that v. 13 constitutes the conclusion
of the Epistle, the remainder (14 — 21) being a postscript or appendix,
analogous to chap. xxi. of the Gospel, and possibly by another hand.
Some go so far as to conjecture that the same person added chap. xxi.
to the Gospel and the last nine verses to the Epistle after the Apostle's
death. Not much can be urged in favour of these views. No MS. or version
seems to exist in which these concluding verses are wanting. Tertullian
quotes vv. 16, 17, 18 (De Pudicitia xix. ) and v. 21 (De Corona x.) :
Clement of Alexandria quotes vv. 16, 17 (Strom, n. xv.) ; and both
these writers in quoting mention S. John by name. This shews that
at the end of the second century these verses were an integral part of
the Epistle. Against such evidence as this, arbitrary statements that
the division of sins into sins unto death and sins not unto death, the
sternness of j;. 19, and the warning against idolatry, are unlike S. John,
wiU not have much weight. The diction is S. John's throughout, and
some of the fundamental ideas of the Epistle reappear in these con
cluding verses. Moreover, the connexion with the first half of the
chapter is so close, that there is no reason for supposing that, while
unquestionably by S. John himself, yet it is, Uke chap. xxi. of the
Gospel, a subsequent addition to the original work. Indeed so close
is the connexion with what precedes that some commentators consider
only the last four verses, or even only the last verse, to be the proper
conclusion of the Epistle.
The Conclusion, as here arranged, faUs into three parts. In the
first, three main thoughts are retouched; faith in the Son of God,
eternal Ufe, and love of the brethren shewing itself in intercession
(13—17). In the second, three great facts of which believers have
certain knowledge are restated (18—20). In the third, a fareweU prac
tical warning is given (v. 21).

i2o 1 S. JOHN. [V. 13—
13 — 17. Intebcessoby Love the Fbuit oe Faith and oe the
Possession op Lies.
13 — 17. Eternal Ufe, faith, and brotherly love shewing boldness in
intercession, are the leading ideas of this section. We have had most
of these topics before, and the section is more or less of a recapitula
tion. But S. John "cannot even recapitulate without the introduc
tion of new and most important thoughts " (F. W. Farrar) ; and the
combination of the idea of boldness in prayer (tii. 21, 22) with that of
love of the brethren leads to very fruitful results.
13. tovto eypa<]/a. ' These things ' will cover the whole Epistle,
and such is probably the meaning, as in i. 4, where S. John states the
purpose of his Epistle in words which are explained by what he1 says
here : there is nothing there or here, as there is in ti. 26, to limit
'these things' to what immediately precedes. As in ii. 21, 26, iypa\j/a
is the epistolary aorist, which may be represented in EngUsh either by
the present or the perfect.
In the remainder of the verse the divergences of reading are very
considerable, and authorities are much divided. The original text
seems to be that represented by NXB, which has been adopted in R.V.
These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have
eternal life, — unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God.
The awkwardness of the explanatory clause added at the end has led
to various expedients for making the whole run more smoothly. Comp.
the similarly added explanation in v. 16; tois dpaprdvovaiv prj vpbs
Bavarov. tva elSrJTe oti %. ex- al. At the opening of the Epistle S. John said
' These things we write that our joy may be fulfilled' (i. 4). The
context there shews what constitutes this joy. It is the consciousness
of fellowship with God and His Son and His saints; in other words it
is the conscious possession of eternal life (John xvii. 3). Thus the
Introduction and Conclusion of the Epistle mutuaUy explain one
another. This verse should also be compared with its parallel in the
Gospel (xx. 31), a passage which has probably influenced some of the
various readings here. We see at once the similar yet not identical
purposes of Gospel and Epistle. S. John writes his Gospel, 'that ye
may have life'; he writes his Epistle 'that ye may know that ye have
life'. The one leads tp the obtaining of the boon; the other to the
joy of knowing that the boon has been obtained. The one is to pro
duce faith; the other is to make clear the fruits of faith. For mor.
els Td 6'vopa see on v. 10 and on iti. 23.
14. koI ovi-n lo-rlv tj imp. And the boldness that we have towards
Him is this : see on i. 5 and ti. 28. For the fourth and last time in
the Epistle the Apostle touches on the subject of the Christian's
'boldness'. Twice he speaks of it in connexion with the Day of
Judgment (ti. 28 ; iv. 17) ; twice in connexion with approaching God
in prayer (iti. 21, 22 and here). In the present case it is with special
reference to intercessory^ prayer that the subject is retouched. Thus
two more leading ideas of the Epistle meet in this recapitulation,

V 16.] NOTES. i2i
boldness towards God and brotherly love; for it is love of the brethren
which induces us to pray for them. For the difference between alreiaBai
and ipwrav see on v. 16. The difference between alreiaBai and alreiv
is not great, as is seen in v. 15: but the middle rather implies that
the request in some way is for the gratification of the petitioner.
KOTd to BlX-npa ovtov. This is the only Umitation, and it is an
exceedingly gracious limitation. His wtil is always for His children's
good, and therefore it is only when they ignorantly ask for what is not
for their good that their prayers are denied. Comp. S. Paul's case,
2 Cor. xii. 9. 'Akovci of course means that He hears and grants what
we ask (John ix. 31 ; xi. 41, 42). Comp. ' The desire of the righteous
shaU be granted' (Prov. x. 24).
15. Idv otSapev Sti aKovei...ot8. oti exopev. The one certitude
depends on the other: if we trust God's goodness, we are perfectly
certain that our trust is not misplaced. Comp. *dira d'o-a vpoaeixea8e
xal alreia8e, viareiert on iXdplere, xal iarai vpiv (Mark xi 24). Here
the present ix°P*v states the fact (comp. Matt. vii. 8) ; in Mark xi. 24
the future iarai states the result of the fact. Our petitions are granted
at once : the results of the granting are perceived in the future. For
the exceptional construction Idv ol'Sapev comp. Idv Si d*d rwv vereivwv
bXoxdpvapa irpoo-cpepei Swpor rej) xvpltp (Lev. i. 14) : Idv dpeis o-rrJKeTe iv
svplw (1 Thess. iii. 8). In Rom. xiv. 8 dvoBrrjanoper seems to be a
false reading : so also iXevSepwaei in John viii. 36. But in Acts viii 31
iSrjyrjaei is probably correct. Winer, 369.
& rJTTJKapev. Which we have asked of Him, as R.V. Note the
change from middle to active without change of meaning. 'Air' ovtov
is amphibolous : it may go either with ?x°Mev or rjrrjxapev. The order
favours the latter connexion ; but alreiv is more commonly foUowed
by *apo (John iv. 9 ; Acts iti. 2 ; ix. 2 ; James i. 5) than by d*d. Hence
the confusion of readings here and Matt. xx. 20.
16. 'The prayer of faith' is aU-prevailing when it is in accordance
with God's wiU. This is the sole limit as regards prayer on our own
behalf. Is there any other limit in the case of prayer on behalf of
another ? Yes, there is that other's own wtil : this constitutes a further
Umitation. Man's will has been endowed by God with such royal
freedom, that not even His wtil coerces it. StiU less, therefore, can a
brother's prayer coerce it. If a human wtil has deliberately and ob
stinately resisted God, and persists in doing so, we are debarred from
our usual certitude. Against a rebel wtil even the prayer of faith in
accordance with God's will (for of course God desires the submission of
the rebel) may be offered in vain. —For exhortations to intercession
elsewhere in N.T. see 1 Thess. v. 25; Heb. xiii. 18, 19; James v. 14 —
20; comp. Phil. i. 4.
t4v dStXcpdv. Here 'brother' must mean 'iellow-Christiati', not
any human being, whether Christian or not.
dpapTdvovTa dpapTiav. As R.V., sinning a sin. The supposed case
is one in which the sinner is seen in the very act. No earUer English
Version marks the participle; neither does Luther, nor the Vulgate

122 IS. JOHN [V. 16—
(peccare peccatum). 'Apapravtiv dpapriav occurs nowhere else in N.T. j
but irepi ttjs dpaprias airov rjs rjpaprt occurs repeatedly in LXX. (Lev.
v. 6, 10, 13; Ezek. xviii. 24.)
alTTJo-ei. Future equivalent to imperative ; he shall ask, as A.V. and
R.V. : or, he will ask; i.e. a Christian in such a case is sure to pray
for his erring brother. The latter seems preferable. Comp. Tdre vij-
areiaovaiv iv ixelvrj t% rjpipa (Mark ii. 20); i.e. the children of the
bridechamber not only can fast, but will fast, when the Bridegroom is
taken away.
Swo-ei avTio gcorjv. Ambiguous. The nominative may be either God
or the intercessor ; and atrip may be either the intercessor or the sinner
for whom he intercedes. If the latter alternatives be taken, we may
compare 'he shaU save a soul from death' (James v. 20). Com
mentators are much divided. On the one hand it is urged that
throughout Scripture asking is man's part and giving God's : but, on
the other hand, when two verbs are connected so closely as these,
'wiU ask and wtil give' (alrrjaei xal Swaei), it seems rather violent to
give them different nominatives ; ' he wtil ask and God wiU give '. It
seems better to translate, he will ask and will give him life, — them that
sin not unto death. ' Them ' is in apposition to ' him ', the clause
being an explanation rather awkwardly added, similar to that at the
end of v. 13. If 'God' be inserted, 'them' is the dativus commodi;
' God wtil grant the intercessor Ufe for those who sin'. The change
to the plural makes the statement more general: 'sinning not unto
death' is not likely to be an isolated case. The New Vulgate is here
exceedingly free ; petal, et dabitur ei vita peccanti non ad mortem.
TertuUian also ignores the change of number ; postulabit, et dabit ei
vitam dominus qui non ad mortem delinquit. The Old Vulgate has
petit, et dabit ei vitam, peccantibus non ad mortem.
foriv dpapria irpos fldv. There ls sin unto death; we have no tis
or pia, a fact which is against the supposition that any act of sin is
intended. In that case would not S. John have named it, that the
faithful might avoid it, and also know when it had been committed?
The following explanations of 'sin unto death' may be safely rejected.
1. Sin punished by the law with death. 2. Sin punished by Divine
visitation with death or sickness. 3. Sin punished by the Church
with excommunication. As a help to a right explanation we may get
rid of the idea which some commentators assume, that 'sin unto
death' is a sin which can be recognised by those among whom the one
who commits it lives. S. John's very guarded language points the
other way. He implies that some sins may be known to be 'not unto
death': he neither says nor implies that aU 'sin unto death' can be
known as such. As a further help we may remember that no sin, if
repented of, can be too great for God's mercy. Hence S. John does
not speak even of this sin as 'fatal' or 'mortal', but as 'unto death'
(*pds Bdvarov). Death is its natural, but not its absolutely inevitable
consequence. It is possible to close the heart against the influences of
God's Spirit so obstinately and persistently that repentance becomes a
moral impossibility. Just as the body may starve itself to such an extent

V. 17.] NOTES. 123
as to make the digestion, or even the reception, of food impossible ; so
the soul may go on refusing offers of grace until the very power to re
ceive graee perishes. Such a condition is necessarily sin, and ' sin unto
death'. No passing over out of death into life (iti. 14) is any longer
(without a miracle of grace) possible. 'Sin unto death', therefore, is
not any act of sin, however heinous, but a state or habit of sin wilfully
chosen and persisted in : it is constant and consummate opposition to
God. In the phraseology of this Epistle we might say that it is the
deUberate and persistent preference of darkness to light, of falsehood
to truth, of sin to righteousness, of the world to the Father, of spiritual
death to eternal Ufe.
ov irepl !Keivi]S Xeyco tva IpuTrjo-rj. Not concerning that do I say that
he should make request. This reproduces the telling order of the
Greek; it avoids the ambiguity which lurks in 'pray for it'; it pre
serves the emphatic ixelvrjs ; and marks better the difference between
the verb (aiTeiV) previously rendered 'ask' (w. 14, 15, 16) and the one
(ipurfv) here rendered in A. V. 'pray'. Of the two verbs the latter is
the less suppUant (see on John xiv. 16), whereas 'pray' is more sup-
pUant than ' ask '. Two explanations of the change of verb are sug
gested. 1. The Apostle does not advise request, much less does he
advise urgent supplication in such a case. 2. He uses the less humble
word to express a request which seems to savour of presumption.
See on 2 John 5. With ixelvrjs here, indicating something distinct,
alien, and horrible, comp. iKeivos of Judas (John xiii. 27, 30).
(1) Note carefuUy that S. John, even in this extreme case, does not
forbid intercession: all he says is that he does not command it. For
one who sins an ordinary sin we may intercede in faith with certainty
that a prayer so fuUy in harmony with God's will is heard. The sinner
wiU receive grace to repent. But where the sinner has made repent
ance impossible S. John does not encourage us to intercede. Comp.
Jer. vii. 16 ; xiv. 11. Yet, as S. Bernard says, Fides aliquando recipit,
quod oratio non praesumit, and he instances the sisters' faith in ' Lord,
ti Thou hadst been here my brother had not died'.
(2) Note also that, whilst distinguishing between deadly and not-
deadly sin, he gives us no criterion by which we may distinguish the
one from the other. He thus condemns rather than sanctions those
attempts which casuists have made to tabulate sins under the heads
of 'mortal' and 'venial'. Sins differ indefinitely in their intensity
and effect on the soul, ending at one end of the scale in ' sin unto
death' ; and the gradations depend not merely or chiefly on the sinful
act, but on the motive which prompted it, and the feeling (whether of
sorrow or delight) which the recoUection of it evokes. Further than
this it is not safe to define or dogmatize. This seems to be intimated
by what is told us in the next verse. Two facts are to be borne in
mind, and beyond them we need not pry.
17. irdtro dSiKio dpapri'a IcrrCv. A warning against carelessness
about breaches of duty, whether in ourselves or in others. AU such
things are sin and need the cleansing blood of Christ (i. 9; ii. 2).
Here, therefore, is a wide enough field for brotherly intercession. The

i24 1 S. JOHN. [V. 17—
statement serves also as a farewell declaration against the Gnostic
doctrine that to the enUghtened Christian declensions from righteous
ness involve no sin. Comp. the definition of sin as lawlessness in tii. 4.
eoriv dpaprCa ov irpds fldv. As before, there is sin not unto death.
Luther has etliche Siinde here, eine Siinde in v. 16 : WicUf, Purvey,
Tyndale, Cranmer and the Genevan omit the indefinite article here,
although they insert it in v. 16. While the preceding statement is a
warning against carelessness, this is a warning against despair, whether
about ourselves or about others. Not aU sin is mortal :• — an answer by
anticipation to the heathen rigour of Stoicism and to the unchristian
rigour of Montanism and Novatianism.
Note the change in vv. 16, 17 from dpapr. prj vpbs Bdv. (in a sup
posed case) to dpapr. ov *. 8. (in a statement of fact). TertulUan, the
Vulgate, Harcleian Syriac, and Thebaic omit the negative and read et
est peccatum (or delictum) ad mortem.
18 — 20. The Sum of the Christian's Knowledge.
18—20. The Epistle now draws rapidly to a close. Having briefly,
yet with much new material, retouched some of the leading ideas ofthe
Epistle, eternal life, faith in Christ, and boldness in prayer united with
brotherly love (13 — 17), the Apostle now goes on to emphasize once
more three great facts about which Christians have sure knowledge,
facts respecting themselves, their relations to the evil one and his
kingdom, and their relations to the Son of God. Each verse is a con
densation of what has been said elsewhere. Ver. 18 is a combination of
tii. 9 with ti. 13 ; v. 19 a combination of the substance of i. 6 ; ti. 8, 15
and iti. 10, 13 : v. 20 condenses the substance of iv. 9 — 11 and v. 1 —
12. " Hence we have in these last verses a final emphasis laid on the
fundamental principles on which the Epistle rests ; that through the
mission of the Lord Jesus Christ we have fellowship with God; that
this fellowship protects us from sin; and that it establishes us in a re
lation of utter opposition to the world" (Haupt). Fellowship with one
another is not mentioned again, but it is included in the threefold
'we know'.
18. ol'Sapev. This oonfident expression of the certitude of Christian
faith stands at the beginning of each of these three verses, and is the
link which binds them together. We have had it twice before (iti. 2,
14 ; comp. ii. 20, 21 ; tii. 5, 15) : and perhaps in all cases it is meant to
mark the contrast between the real knowledge of the beUever, which is
based upon Divine revelation in Christ, and the spurious knowledge of
the Gnostic, which is based upon human intelUgence.
The triple otSapev at the close of the Epistle confirms the view that
John xxi. 24 is by the Apostle's own hand, and not added by the
Ephesian elders.
iras d yeyevv. Ik t. 0eov. As R.V., wlwsoever is begotten of God.
A.V. changes the verb ('born', 'begotten'), which does not change in
the Greek, and does not change the tense, which does change in a
very remarkable way (yeyewqpivos, yewr/Beis).

V. 18.] NOTES. 125
ovx dpapTavei. To the non peccat of the Vulgate Bede adds pecca
tum videlicet ad mortem; which is clearly not S. John's meaning.
The condition of Divine sonship is incompatible, not merely with sin
unto death, but with sin of any description. The sentence is a return
to the statement made in iii. 9, where see notes. Once more the
Apostle is not afraid of an apparent contradiction (see on ii. 15). He
has just been saying that if a Christian sins his brother will intercede
for him ; and now he says that the child of God does not sin. The
one statement refers to possible but exceptional facts ; the other to the
habitual state. A child of God may sin ; but his normal condition is
one of resistance to sin. (' Two things a genuine Christian never does.
He never makes light of any known sin, and he never admits it
to be invincible " (Liddon).
d yevvnBels Ik t. 0eoS T-npei ovtov. The Begotten of God keepeth
him. The interpretation of d yewr/Bels and the reading as to the
pronoun cannot either of them be determined with certainty. The
latter is the easier question and it throws light on the former. ' Him '
(aurdi'), on the high authority of A1!} and the Vulgate, seems to be
rightly preferred by most editors to 'himself (iavrbv). This 'him' is
the child of God spoken of in the first clause: who is it that 'keepeth
him'? Not the child of God himself, as A.V. leads us to suppose
and many commentators explain, but the Son of God, the Only-Be
gotten. On any other interpretation S. John's marked change of
tense appears arbitrary and confusing. Recipients of the Divine birth
are always spoken of by S. John both in his Gospel and in his Epistle
in the perfect participle (d yeytvvrjpivos or rb ytytvvrjpivov) ; iii. 9 ; v. 1,
4; John tii. 6, 8; also the first clause here. In the present clause he
abruptly changes to the aorist participle (d yewr/dels), which he uses
nowhere else (comp. Matt. i. 20 ; Gal. iv. 29). The force of the two
tenses here seems to be this : the perfect expresses a, permanent rela
tion begun in the past and continued in the present ; the aorist ex
presses a timeless relation, a mere fact : the one signifies the child of
God as opposed to those who have not become His children; the other
signifies the Son of God as opposed to the evil one. It is some confir
mation of this view that in the Constantinopolitan Creed, commonly
caUed the Nicene Creed, 'begotten of the Father' (top ix tov Uarpds
yervrjBivra, is the same form of expression as that used here for 'be
gotten of God ' (d yevvrjBels ix tov Geou). Moreover this interpretation
produces another harmony between Gospel and Epistle. Christ both
directly by His power and indirectly by His intercession 'keepeth' the
children of God: 'I kept them in Thy Name' (xvii. 12); 'I pray not
that Thou shouldest take them out of the world but that Thou should-
est keep them from the evil one' (xvii. 15).
The Latin renderings are remarkable : non peccat ; sed generatio Dei
conservat eum, et malignus non tangit eum (Augustine, Jerome, Vul
gate) ; and peccatum non facit ; quia nativitas Dei custodit ilium, et
diabolus non tangit ilium (Chromatius).
d irovr|pds ovx dirreTai avrov. As R.V, The evil one toucheth him
not. A.V. here as in i. 2 ('that eternal life') exaggerates the article

126 1 S. JOHN. [V. 18—
into a pronoun. For d vovrjpbs see on ii. 13 : strangely enough the
Genevan here has 'that wycked man'. 'Toucheth him not' is some
what too strong for ovx oVtctoi outou. "AvreaBai, as distinct from
Biyydveiv (Heb. xi. 28; xii. 20), is 'to lay hold of; and one may
sometimes touch where one cannot lay hold. See on John xx. 17.
The verb is very frequent in the Synoptists, elsewhere rare. In Col.
ti. 21 the A.V. exactly reverses the cUmax by translating pri d^rj
'touch not' and prjdi Blygs 'handle not'. Here the meaning is that
the evil one may assault, but he gets no hold. ' No one shaU snatch
them out of My hand ' (John x. 28). ' The ruler of the world cometh :
and he hath nothing in Me' (John xiv. 30). Therefore whoever is in
Christ is safe.
19. ol'Sapev. The conjunction must be omitted on abundant au
thority. This introduces the second great fact of which the believer
has sure knowledge. And, as so often, S. John's divisions are not
sharp, but the parts intermingle. The second fact is partly anticipated
in the first ; the first is partly repeated in the second. Christians know
that as children of God they are preserved by His Son from the devil.
Then what do they know about the world, and their relation to the
world? They know that they are of God and the whole world lieth in the
evil one. It remains in his power. It has not passed over, as they
have done, out of death into life ; but it abides in the evil one, who is
its ruler (John xii. 31 ; xiv. 30 ; xvi. 11), as the Christian abides in
Christ. It is clear therefore that the severance between the Church
and the world ought to be, and tends to be, as total as that between
God and the evil one. The preceding verse and the antithesis to God,
to say nothing of ti. 13, 14 ; iv. 4, make it quite clear that ' the evil '
(np vovrjpip) is here masculine and not neuter. The Vulgate has in
maligno, not in malo. Tyndale and Cranmer have ' is altogether set
on wickedness', which is doubly or trebly wrong. Note once more
that the opposition is not exact, but goes beyond what precedes. The
evil one doth not obtain hold of the child of God : he not only obtains
hold over the world, but has it whoUy within his embrace. No similar
use of xeiaBai iv occurs in N. T. Comp. Sophocles Oed. Col. 248.
20. o'iBapev 81. This introduces the third great fact of which
believers have certain knowledge. The first two Christian certitudes
are that the believer as a child of God progresses under Christ's pro
tection towards the sinlessness of God, while the unbeUeving world
lies whoUy in the power of the evil one. Therefore the Christian
knows that both in the moral nature which he inherits, and in the
moral sphere in which he Uves, there is an ever- widening gulf between
him and the world. But his knowledge goes beyond this. Even in
the inteUectual sphere, in which the Gnostic claims to have such ad
vantages, the Christian is, by Christ's bounty, superior.
The 'and' (Si) brings the whole to a conclusion: comp. Heb. xiii.
20, 22. Or it may mark the opposition between the world's evil case
and what is stated here ; in which case Si should be rendered ' but '.
*' Since the two preceding verses are opposed, as asyndeta, to the 20th,
which is connected with them by di, we may at once infer that vv. 18,

V. 20.] NOTES. 127
19 contain two more or less paraUel thoughts, to which v. 20 presenta
one that corresponds to both. And so we find it. The preceding
verses stated that we know in what relation our Divine sonship places
us to sin and to the world. Here it is unfolded that we are conscious
of the ground of this relation to both " (Haupt).
rj'Kei Kal 8l8wKev. Just as rjxet includes the notions both of ' hath
come' and 'is here', so SiSaxev includes those of 'hath given' and 'the
gift abides'. It is the present result rather than the past act that is
prominent. Sidvoiav. Intellectual power, the capacity for receiving knowledge.
The word occurs nowhere else in S. John's writings : yvwais does not
occur at aU: aiveais occurs only Rev. xiii. 18; xvii. 9. Aidi-oia indicates
that faculty of understanding and reflection which S. Peter tells his
readers (1 Pet. i. 13) to brace up and keep ever ready for use. Comp.
2 Pet. iti. 1 and a beautiful passage in Plato's Phaedo 66a.
tva yivcio-Kopev. The force of this strange construction seems to be
'that we may continue to recognise, as we do now'. Such combina
tions are not rare in late Greek. Comp. John xvii. 3 ; 1 Cor. iv. 6 ;
Gal. iv. 17. But in John xvii. 3 Westcott and Hort and the Revisers
retain yivaaxaaiv. It is possible that the construction is the result of
imperfect pronunciation. The subjunctive in certain cases was perhaps
pronounced Uke the indicative and then written instead of it. The
future indicative after ha is comparatively common. Winer, 362.
Note that it is the appropriation of the knowledge that is emphasized
(yivwaKopev), not, as at the opening of these three verses, the possession
of it (otSapev). In tva yivwaxopev rbv dXrjBivbv we have another re
markable parallel with Christ's Prayer: tva yivwaxovalv ae rbv pbvov
dXr/Btrbv Beov (John xvii. 3). For ctX-nBivos see on ti. 8. '0 dXrjBivis
here is not equivalent to d d\//evSfis Beds (Tit. i. 2) : the contrast is not
with the father of lies, but with the spurious gods of the heathen
(v. 21). What is the Gnostic's claim to superior knowledge in com
parison to our certitude of such a fact as this? We know that we
have the Divine gift of inteUigence by means of which we attain to the
knowledge of the very God, a personal God who embraces and sustains
ns in His Son. Christianity is not, as Gnostics held, only one of
many attempts made by man to communicate with the Infinite. It
is in possession of 'the Truth'. The Christian knows (not merely
gropes after) his God and his Redeemer.
Kai eo-pev Iv tco dXrjBivu. Here, as in iii. 1, the Vulgate and many
other Latin authorities make ko( iapev depend upon the preceding tva
(et simus) : wrongly in both cases. The new clause is a fresh state
ment clinching what precedes. Tip dXrjBivip means God, as in the
previous clause. It is needlessly arbitrary to change the meaning
and make this refer to Christ. ' The Son has given us understanding
by which to attain to knowledge of the Father '. Instead of resuming
'And we do know the Father', the Apostle makes an advance and
says : 'And we are in the Father '. Knowledge has become feUowship
(i. 3; ti. 3—5). God has appeared as man ; God has spoken as man

128 1 S. JOHN. .[V. 20—
to man ; and the Christian faith, which is the one absolute certainty
for man, the one means of reuniting him to God, is the result.
For iv to) dX. the Thebaic has ' in the Life'.
Iv tw vio) avrov . Omit ' even ' which has been inserted in A.V. and
R.V. to make ' in Him that is true' refer to Christ. ThiB last clause
explains how it is that we are in the Father, viz. by being in the Son.
Comp. ti. 23; John i. 18; xiv. 9; xvii. 21, 23. Tyndale boldly turns
the second ' in ' into ' through ' ; ' we are in him that is true, through
his sonne Jesu Clirist '. We have had similar explanatory additions
in vv. 13, 16. A and the Vulgate omit ' Jesus Christ'.
ovtos Io-tiv d dXr|Bivds 0eds. It is impossible to determine with
certainty whether ovros refers to the Father, the principal substantive
of the previous sentence, or to Jesus Christ, the nearest substantive.
That S. John teaches the Divinity of Jesus Christ both in Epistle and
Gospel is so manifest, that a text more or less in favour of the doc
trine need not be the subject of heated controversy. The foUowing
considerations are in favour of referring oBtos to Christ. 1. Jesus
Christ is the subject last mentioned. 2. The Father having been
twice caUed ' the true One ' in the previous verse, to proceed to say of
Him 'This is the true God' is somewhat tautological. 3. It is Christ
who both in this Epistle (i. 2; v. 12) and also in the Gospel (xi. 25;
xiv. 6) is caUed the Life. 4. S. Athanasius three times in his
Orations against the Arians interprets the passage in this way, as if
there was no doubt about it (in. xxiv. 4; xxv. 16; rv. ix. 1). The
foUowing are in favour of referring ovtos to the Father. 1. The
Father is the leading subject of aU that foUows Sidvoiar. 2. To repeat
what has been already stated and add to it is exactly S. John's style.
He has spoken of 'Him that is true': and he now goes on 'This
(true One) is the true God and eternal life '. 3. It is the Father who
is the source of that Ufe which the Son has and is (John v. 26).
4. John xvii. 3 supports this view. 5. The Divinity of Christ has
less special point in reference to the warning against idols : the truth
that God is the true God is the basis of the warning against false gods:
comp. 1 Thess. i. 9. But see the conclusion of the note on dird r.
elSwXwr in the next verse: also note k in Lect. v. of Liddon's Bampton
Lectures, and Winer, 195, 202.
21. Faeewell Waening.
21. t«kvio. As in ii. 1, 12, 28 ; iti. 7, 18 ; iv. 4, this address refers
to all his readers, and not merely the younger among them.
¦pvXdijaTe eavrd. As R.V., guard yourselves, to distinguish between
rrjpeiv (v. 18) and ipvXdaativ (2 Thess. iii. 3). Both verbs occur John
xvii. 12: comp. xii. 25, 47. The aorist imperative makes the command
sharp and decisive : ' once for aU be on your guard and have nothing
to do with'. Comp. ixrivd^are rbv xov" (Mark vi. 11), i^dpare rbv
vovrjpbr d| vp£r avrwr (1 Cor. v. 13). The difference between aorist
and present imperative is well seen in John ti. 16 : ' Take these things
hence at once (dpore) and do not go on making (prj iroieire)'. The use
of the reflexive pronoun instead of the middle voice intensifies the

V. 21.] NOTES. 129
command to use personal care and exertion. See on i. 8. This con
struction is common in S. John (iti. 3 ; John vii. 4 ; xi. 33, 55 ; xiii. 4 ;
xxi. 1 ; Rev. vi. 15 ; viii. 6 ; xix. 7). For the reflexive of the third person
with a verb of the second comp. 2 John 8 ; John v. 42. Winer, 178,
321. For eavTd some authorities (N3A) have davrous, which is the usual
gender : the pronoun is rarely made to agree with a neuter form of
address. dird tcov elSwXiov. Perhaps, from the idols ; those with which Ephe-
sub abounded : or again, from your idols; those which have been, or
may become, a snare to you. TMs is the last of the contrasts of
which the Epistle is so full. We have had tight and darkness, truth
and falsehood, love and hate, God and the world, Christ and Anti
christ, life and death, doing righteousness and doing sin, the children
of God and the children of the devil, the spirit of truth and the spirit
of error, the believer untouched by the evil one and the world lying in
the evil one ; and now at the close we have what in that age was the
ever-present and pressing contrast between the true God and the idols.
There is no need to seek far-fetched figurative explanations of ' the
idols ' when the Uteral meaning ties close at hand, is suggested by the
context, and is in harmony with the known circumstances of the time.
Is it reasonable to suppose that S. John was warning his readers
against " systematising inferences of scholastic theology; theories of
self- vaunting orthodoxy... tyrannous shibboleths of aggressive systems",
or against superstitious honour paid to the " Madonna, or saints, or
pope, or priesthood", when every street through which his readers
walked, and every heathen house they visited, swarmed with idols in
the Uteral sense; above aU when it was its magnificent temples and
groves and seductive idolatrous rites which constituted some of the
chief attractions at Ephesus? Acts xix. 27, 35; Tac. Ann. in. 61,
iv. 55. Ephesian coins with idolatrous figures on them are common.
' Ephesian letters ' ('EcpeVia ypdppara) were celebrated in the history
of magic, and to magic the ' curious arts ' of Acts xix. 19 point. Of
the strictness which was necessary in order to preserve Christians
from these dangers the history of the first four centuries is fuU. Else
where in N. T. the word is invariably used literally : Acts vii. 41 ;
xv. 20 ; Rom. ti. 22 ; 1 Cor. viii. 4, 7 ; x. 19 ; xii. 2 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16 ;
1 Thess. i. 9 ; Rev. ix. 20. Moreover, if we interpret this warning lite-
raUy, we have another point of contact between the Epistle and the
Apocalypse (Rev. ti. 14, 20 ; ix. 20; xxi. 8). Again, as we have seen,
some of the Gnostic teachers maintained that idolatry was harmless,
or that at any rate there was no need to suffer martyrdom in order to
avoid it. This verse is a final protest against such doctrine. Lastly,
this emphatic warning against the worship of creatures intensifies the
whole teaching of this Epistle ; the main purpose of which is to estab-
Ush the truth that the Son of God has come in the flesh in the Man
Jesus. Such a Being was worthy of worship. But if, as Ebionites
and Cerinthians taught, Jesus was a creature, the son of Joseph and
Mary, then worship of such an one would be only one more of those
idolatries from which S. John in his fareweU injunction bids Christians
once and for ever to guard themselves.
s. JOHN (ep.) I

139 1 S. JOHN. [V. 21.
Of course the figurative meaning of ' idols' is not excluded by main
taining the Uteral meaning as the primary one. Thus Cornelius a
Lapide having first explained the passage of actual idolatry, quia illo
aevo hoc erat maxime periculosum, adds Mystici, simulacra phantasiae
hominum sunt prava dogmata, hcereses, phantasmata varia, avaritia,
cupiditates honoris, pecuniae, voluptatis. Comp. Bacon's idola tribus,
idola specus, idola fori, idola theatri (Nov. Org. xxxix. — xtiv.).
The final ' Amen' (KL and Vulgate) is the addition of a copyist, as
at the end of the Second Epistle and the Gospel. It is omitted in
NAB and most Versions. Such conclusions, borrowed from liturgies,
have been freely added throughout N. T. Perhaps that in Gal. vi. 18
is the only final 'Amen' that is genuine; but that in 2 Pet. iii. 8 is
well supported.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF S. JOHN.

The title, like that of the First Epistle and of the Gospel, exists in
various forms both ancient and modern, and is not original : here again
the oldest authorities give it in the simplest form. 'Iwdwou or 'ludvow
J3 (NB). 'Iwdvvov iviaroXrj xaBoXixrj /3 (K). tou d7iou d*oo-rdXou 'Iwdv-
vov tov BeoXbyov iviaroXrj devripa (L). Geios 'Iwdvvrjs rdSe Seirepa rois
vporipoiaiv (f). In A the title has been torn off. In our Bibles the
epithet 'Catholic' or 'General' is rightly omitted. The Epistle is
addressed either to an individual, or to a particular Church, not to the
Church at large.
1. For 'EkXcktb read IkXckttj with all the best editors : the word is
certainly not a proper name. For KvpCg. we should perhaps read Kvpia.
3. Omit Kupiov before 'I-ncrov with AB against NKL. A omits
eVrai peB' rjpcov.
4. B omits tov before iraTpds.
6. For ypdtpa read ypdcpwv (NABKL), and with NA, Vulgate, and
Memphitic place Kaivrjv before ypddtwv croi : but the other order (B,
Thebaic) is very possibly correct. In the case of ypdipw, as in many
others, " Erasmus (1516) led the common editions wrong, where the
Complutensian (1514) is correct " (Scrivener, p. 76).
8. For dvoXiawpev and dvoXdBwpev (KL) read dTroXIcrnTe and diro-
Xdpivre (AB), and for tlpyaadpeBa (BKL) read elpydcrao-8e (NA and
most Versions) : the reading is doubtful.
9. For vapafialvwv (KLP) read irpodyuv (NAB). After the second
SiSaxfj omit roC Xpicrrou with. NAB against KL.
11. For d ydp Xiywv (KL) read d Xlywv ydp (NAB). When 7op ap
peared in the third place, the copyists frequently transposed it to the
more usual second place.
12. For iXBtiv (KL) read yevlo-Bai (NAB). For dXXd eXirCSw (NBKL)
A and the Vulgate have iXvljrw ydp. For rjpar (NKL) read vpwv (AB).
13. For 'EKXeKrfJs read iKXeKrrjs with the best editors as in v. 1
kXeKTJ. Omit dprjr with NAB against KL.
Excepting the omission of tov in v. 4, B almost always, and
perhaps quite always, has the right reading : NB may be implicitly
trusted.

12

132 2 S. JOHN. [1—
1 — 3. Addkess and Gbeetino.
1—3. Like most of the Epistles of S. Paul, the Epistles of S. Peter,
S. James, and S. Jude, and unlike the First Epistle, this letter has a
definite address and greeting. In its fulness the salutation reminds
us of the elaborate openings of the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians,
and Titus.
1. 6 irpeo-pvTepos. This title was probably given to the writer by
others before he adopted it himself. It indicates both age and office.
It is a designation likely to be used of the last surviving Apostle; yet
not likely to be chosen by a writer who wished to personate the
Apostle, as being too indistinct. On the other hand an Elder, who
did not wish to personate the Apostle, would hardly caU himself ' The
Elder'. It is in addressing Elders that S. Peter caUs himself d avp-
vpeaBirepos (1 Pet. v. 1). The omission of the name John is against
the Presbyter John (if he ever existed) being the writer. "The use of
the word in this Epistle shows that he cannot have understood this
title in the usual ecclesiastical sense, as though he were only one
among the many presbyters of a community. Clearly the writer meant
thereby to express the singular and lofty position he held in the
circle around him, as the teacher venerable for his old age, and the
last of the Apostles" (Doltinger). "In this connexion there can be
little doubt that it describes not age simply but official position"
(Westcott). Comp. the use of vpeaBirrjs (Philem. 9). See Appendix E.
For the history of the title vptaBirepos see Bishop Lightfoot's Philip-
plans, pp. 226—230.
IkXckt-q Kvpia. To an elect lady; electae dominae (Vulgate). This
is the most natural translation: but 'to the elect lady' may be right.
All EngUsh Versions have the definite article. So also Luther: der
auserwahlten Frau. Comp. ixXexrdis vapeviSrjpois (1 Pet. i. 1). 'To
the elect Kyria', is also possible, though less probable. The name
existed ; but if xvpla were a proper name here, we should have had
Kvpia r% iKX. Uke Tatw rip dyavrjTtp (3 John 1), dSeX<prjs aov rrjs ixK (v.
13), 'Poucpov rbv ixX. (Rom. xvi. 13). If either word is a proper name,
probably both are; 'To Electa Kyria': but this is not an attractive
solution. 'To the lady Electa' may be safely dismissed, if only on
account of v. 13. If ixXexrr) is a proper name here, it is a proper
name there ; which gives us two sisters with the same extraordinary
name. 'Elect lady ' is best, so as to leave open the question, which
cannot be determined, whether the letter is addressed to an individual
or to a community. In the one case Tots tIkvois means the lady's
children, in the other, the members of the community. Probability
is largely in favour of the former hypothesis, which far better fits the
somewhat informal designation, 'The Elder'. For the Church as a
mother see Gal. iv. 26. But the Church cannot be meant here. Who
is the Church's sister (v. 13) ?
oils lyco dyairco. The masculine ous probably covers both Kupio and
rixvois: and this again would fit either a family or a Church. Comp.
ol rpeis referring to three neuter words (1 John v. 8). However others

3.]

NOTES. 133

may treat them, they may be assured of the Apostle's genuine affec
tion. The emphatic <?7u implies that others are less truly affectionate.
Iv dXrjflefo. In truth: no article. Comp. 3 John 1; John xvii. 19;
iv. 23 ; 1 John tii. 18. It means 'in all Christian sincerity', as
opposed to nominal or hypocritical friendship : vero amore diligo, illo
videlicet qui secundum Deum est (Bede). "What he means is that
truth — truth of thought, truth of feeling, truth of speech and inter
course — was the very air in which his affection for this Christian lady
had grown up and maintained itself" (Liddon).
dXXd Kal irdvTes ol lyvwKdres. As R.V., but also all they that know:
UteraUy, that have come to know (see on 1 John ti. 3). At first sight
this looks Uke a strong argument in favour of the view that 'the elect
Lady' is a Church. "How could the children of an individual woman
be regarded as an object of the love of aU beUevers?" The First
Epistle is the answer to the question. Every one who ' has come to
know the truth' enters that ' Communion of Saints' of which the love
of each for every other is the very condition of existence. The Apostle
speaks first in his own name, and then in the name of every Christian.
"For aU CathoUcs throughout the world foUow one rule of truth : but
aU heretics and infidels do not agree in unanimous error : they impugn
one another not less than the way of truth itself" (Bede). Here and
in vv. 4 and 5 there is perhaps an allusion to the faot that some
accused S. John of preaching new doctrine as to Christ's Person and
commands. "H aXrjBeia is S. John's own term for the revelation of
God in Christ: he learned it from his Master (John xiv. 7).
2. 8id ttjv dXijBeiav. The repetition of dXrjBeia is quite in S. John's
style. For ttjv pevovo-av, which abideth, see on 1 John ti. 24. The
change of construction, Kai peB' rjpwv iarai (for iaopivrjv), indicates
that the later clause is a kind of afterthought : comp. Kai iapiv (1 John
tii. 1). Winer, 723. The peB' rjpwv is emphatic ; and with us it shall
be. For els tov aliovo see on 1 John ti. 17. Here again we have an
echo of Christ's fareweU discourses: 'He shaU give you another
Advocate, that He may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth'
(John xiv. 16). Comp. 'I am.. .the Truth' (John xiv. 6) and 'The
Spirit is the Truth' (1 John v. 6). The Apostle and aU beUevers love
the elect lady and her children on account of the ever-abiding presence
of Christ in the gift of the Spirit.
3. eo-rai pe9* TJpcov x- &• €*P- Yea, there shall be with us grace,
mercy, and peace. The preceding peB' rjpwv iarai has probably pro
duced this very unusual mode of greeting. It is not so much a prayer
or a blessing, as the confident assurance of a blessing ; and the Apostle
includes himself within its scope. This triplet of heavenly gifts occurs,
and in the same order, in the salutations to Timothy (both Epistles)
and Titus. The more common form is X"P'S vP-i" "a* tlprjvrj. In Jude
2 we have another combination iXeos vpiv xal eiprjvrj xal dydvn. In
secular letters we have simply 'greeting' (xalpeiv) instead of these
Christian blessings. Xdpis is the favour of God towards sinners (see
on John i. 14); SXeos is the compassion of God for the misery of

i34 2 S. JOHN. [3—
sinners; elprjvr| is the result when the guilt and misery of sin are
removed. Xdpis is rare in the writings of S. John ; elsewhere only
John i. 14, 16, 17 ; Rev. i. 4 ; xxii. 21 : g\eos occurs here only.
irapd... irapd... The repetition of the preposition marks the separate
PersonaUty of the Father and the Son. The doctrinal fulness of
statement is perhaps in anticipation of the errors condemned in vv. 7
and 10. For vapd see on John i. 6; xvi. 27: it means 'from the
presence of ' or ' from the hand of '. In S. Paul's Epistles we usuaUy
have d*d (Rom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 2 ; &c.) ; and N has d*d
here. . Iv d\r|6eia Kal dydirrj. These two words, so characteristic of
S. John (see on 1 John i. 8; ti. 8; iii. 1), are key-notes of this short
Epistle, in which 'truth' occurs five times, and 'love' twice as a
substantive and twice as a verb. 'SvroXrj is a third such word.
4. The Occasion of the Epistle.
4. The Apostle has met with some of the elect lady's children (or
some members of the particular Church addressed), probably in one of
his ApostoUo visits to some Church in Asia Minor. Their Christian
life delighted him and apparently prompted him to write this letter.
Ixdpi|v XCav. I rejoiced greatly, or, I have rejoiced greatly, or,
perhaps, as R.V., I rejoice greatly, ifit is the epistolary aorist, as in
1 John ti. 26 ; v. 13. The same phrase occurs 3 John 3 and Luke
xxiii. 8. Xaipu is cognate with xdpis in v. 3. Xdpis is originaUy ' that
which causes joy': but there is no connexion between the two words
here. Like S. Paul, the Elder leads up to his admonition by stating
something which is a cause of joy and- thankfulness : comp. Philem. 4 ;
2 Tim. i. 3 ; Rom. i. 8 ; &a.
oti evpr|Ka. That I have found, or, because I have found. There
is nothing in evprjxa to shew that there was any seeking on the part of
the Apostle (John i. 44), stiU less that there had been any investigation
as to the children's conduct.
Ik twv tIkvwv. This eltiptical expression occurs in classical Greek ;
avvrjyvpovaiv ix rlvav (Aristoph. Nub. 1089) ; and therefore need not
be classed as a Hebraism. Comp. LXX. in Ps. lxxii. 15. This ellipse
of nvis or nvds is rather common in S. John (John i. 24 ; vii. 40; xvi.
17 ; Rev. ti. 10 ; v. 9 ; xi. 9 ; see on 1 John iv. 13). It is impossible to
say whether the expression is a deUcate way of intimating that only
some of the children were walking in truth, or whether it merely
means that the Apostle had faUen in with only some of the children.
The expression of affection in v. 1 is in favour of the latter supposi
tion; but the strong warnings against intercourse with heretical
teachers favours the former ; some of her children were already con
taminated. LTepuraTeiv indicates the activity of human Ufe (see on
1 John i. 7) and in this sense is found in aU three Epistles, the
Gospel, and the Apocalypse; elsewhere rare except in S. Paul:
Iv dXr)BeCa is in Christian truth, as in vv. 1 and 3 ; in Christian tone
and temper.

6-] NOTES. i3S
KaBws IvtoXtjv IXd(3opev. The changes made in R.V., even as we
received commandment, are aU improvements in the direction of
accuracy. 'Even as' (xaBtis) points to the completeness of their
obedienee; comp. 1 John ti. 6, 27; tii. 3, 7, 23; iv. 17. The aorist
points to the definite occasion of their reception of the commandment :
comp. rjxovaare 1 John ti. 7, 24; iti. 11; and iSwxev iii. 23, 24.
'EvroXrj is the third key- word of the Epistle, in which it occurs four
times. Love, truth, and obedience ; these are the three leading ideas,
which partly imply, partly supplement one another. Obedience with
out love becomes servile; love without obedience becomes unreal:
neither of them can flourish outside the realm of truth.
irapd tov iraTpds. As in v. 3, from the hand of the Father, who is
one with the Son. The Divine command has come direct from the
Giver. 'AU things that I heard from My Father I have made known
unto you ' (John xv. 15), including the Father's commands.
ti — 11. We now enter upon the main portion of the Epistle, which
has three divisions : Exhortation to Love and Obedience (5, 6) ; Warn
ings against False Doctrine (7 — 9) ; Warnings against False Charity
(10, 11). As usual, the transitions from one subject to another are
made gently and without any marked break.
5, 6. Exhoetation to Love and Obedience.
5. koI vvv. As in 1 John ti. 28 (see note there), this introduces a
practical exhortation depending on what precedes. 'It is my joy at
the Christian Ufe of some of thy children, and my anxiety about the
others, that move me to exhort thee'.
epuTio o-e. S. John uses the same verb as that used of making re
quest about 'sin unto death' (1 John v. 16). It perhaps indicates
that he begs as an equal or superior rather than as an inferior. In
both passages the Vulgate rightly has rogo not peto. In classical
Greek iparw=interrogo, 'I ask a question', a meaning which it
frequently has in N.T. S. Paul uses it very seldom, and always in
the sense of 'I request': his usual word is rrapaxaXa, which S. John
never employs. Only at the opening and close does the Apostle use
the strictly personal <re (v. 16) : in vv. 6, 8, 10, 12 he uses the second
person plural. What meaning has this change, if the letter is addressed
to a Church? Jt is natural, if it is addressed to a lady and her family.
For evroXr)v xaivrjv see on 1 John ti. 7.
efxapev. Comp. OfiXBav in v. 7 ; 1 John ti. 19 (see note) ; 3 John 7.
For dir dpxijs see on 1 John ti. 7.
tva dyairwpev. It is doubtful whether this depends upon ipara or
ivToXrjv : in either case tva introduces the purport of the request or
command, with perhaps a lingering notion of the purpose of it (see on
1 John i. 8 and comp. tii. 23).
6. ral ovtt| IcttIv tj dydirrj. And the love is this : the love which
I mean consists in this (see on 1 John i. 5). In v. 5 obedience prompts
love ; here love prompts obedience. This is no vicious logical circle,

136 2 S. JOHN. [6—
but a healthy moral connexion, as is stated above on v. 4. Love
divorced from duty will run riot, and duty divorced from love will
starve. See on 1 John v. 3. The Apostle has no sympathy with a
religion of pious emotions : there must be a persevering walk according
to God's commands. In writing to a woman it might be aU the more
necesBary to insist on the fact that love is not a mere matter of
feeling. ovtt| rj evToXrflcrTiv. As before, The commandment is this, i.e. con
sists in this. We had a similar transition from plural to singular,
' commandments ' to ' commandment ' in 1 John iti. 22, 23. For ovtt|
...tva see 1 John v. 3.
In these verses (5, 6) S. John seems to be referring to the First
Epistle, which she would know.
KaBws rJKovo-OTe. As R.V., even as ye heard, referring to the time
when they were first instructed in Christian Ethics. See on xaBws ivr.
iXdBopev in v. 4. R.V. is also more accurate in placing ' that ' after,
instead of before, 'even as ye heard'. But A.V. is not wrong, for
'even as ye heard' belongs to the apodosis, not to the protasis: still,
this is interpretation rather than translation.
Iv avTJj. In brotherly love; not, in the commandment, as the
Vulgate impUes. S. John speaks of walking in (iv) truth, in Ught, in
darkness ; but of walking according to (xard) the commandments. S.
Paul speaks both of walking in love (Eph. v. 2) and according to love
(Rom. xiv. 15). Neither speaks of walking in commandments : and in
Luke i. 6 a different verb is used. Moreover the context here is in
favour of iv avry meaning in love.
7 — 9. Warnings against False Doctbine.
7 — 9. The third element in the triplet of leading thoughts once
more comes to the front, but without being named. Love and obedi
ence require, as the condition of their existence, truth. It is in truth
that ' the Elder ' and aU who love the truth love the elect lady and her
children ; and they love them for the truth's sake. Truth no less than
love is the condition of receiving the threefold blessing of grace,
mercy, and peace. And it was the fact that some of her children
were walking in truth, while others seemed to be deserting it, which
led the Apostle in the fulness of his heart to write to her. AU this
tends to shew the preciousness of the truth. Love of the brethren and
loyal obedience to God's commands wtil alike suggest that we should
jealously guard against those who by tampering with the truth harm
the brethren and dishonour God and His Son.
7. oti. Some would make this conjunction introduce the reason
for v. 8: 'Because many deceivers have appeared  look to your
selves'. But this is altogether unlike S. John's simple manner; to
say nothing of the very awkward parenthesis which is thus made of
ouro's ianv...b dvrlxp. 'For' or 'Because' points backwards to vv. 5
and 6, not forwards to v. 8. 'I am recaUing our obligations to mutual
love and to obedience of the Divine command, because there are men

7.]

NOTES. 137

with whom you and yours come in contact, whose teaching strikes at
the root of these obligations '.
irXdvoi. This word reaches the meaning 'deceivers' in two ways.
1. ' Making to wander, leading astray '. 2. ' Vagabonds ', and hence
'charlatans' or 'impostors'. The former notion is predominant here:
these ToXXoi are seductores (Vulgate). The word is rare in N.T.
S. John uses it nowhere else ; but not unfrequently has the cognate
ffXarac (1 John i. 8 ; ii. 26 ; iti. 7, &a.).
IgrjXBav. Are gone forth (see on 1 John ti. 19). Here the EngUsh
perfect idiomaticaUy represents the Greek aorist, unless i£rj~X8av refers
to a definite occasion, when these deceivers migrated from the com
munion to which they had belonged. This depends on the meaning
of els Tdv Koo-pov. The xbapos may mean either human society, or (in
S. John's usual sense) that which is external to the Church and anti
christian. See on 1 John ti. 2. The meaning may be that, like the
many antichrists in 1 John ti. 18, they went out from the Church into
the unchristian world. Possibly the same persons are meant in both
Epistles. Irenaeus (a.d. 180) by a slip of memory quotes this passage
as from the First Epistle (Haer. in. xvi. 8).
ot pij dpoXoyovvTes. As R.V., even they that confess not: the many
deceivers and those who confess not are the same group, and this is
their character, — unbetief and denial of the truth. 'Confess not'
=deny. Note the pr): ' aU who fail to confess, whoever they may be';
quicunque non profitentur. Winer, 606. In the rendering of Ipxdpevov
that of A.V., 'that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh', is not quite
accurate; nor does R.V., 'that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh', seem
to be more than a partial correction. Rather, that confess not Jesus
Christ as coming' in the flesh, or possibly, that confess not Jesus as
Christ coming in the flesh. See on 1 John iv. 2, where the Greek is
similar, but with perfect instead of present participle. These deceivers
denied not merely the fact of the Incarnation, but its possibtiity. In
both passages A.V. and R.V. translate as if we had the infinitive mood
instead of the participle. The difference is, that with the participle
the denial is directed against the Person, 'they deny Jesus'; with the
infinitive it is directed against the fact, 'they deny that He cometh '
or 'has come'. See Winer, 435. Note that Christ is never said
to come into the flesh ; but either, as here and 1 John iv. 2, to come
in the flesh ; or, to become flesh (John i. 14). To say that Christ came
into the flesh would leave room for saying that the Divine Son was
united with Jesus after He was born of Mary; which would be no true
Incarnation. ovtos ecrriv d irX. k. 6 ovt. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist:
a good example of inadequate treatment of the Greek article is here
found in A.V. (see on 1 John i. 2). Luther is more accurate; 'Dieser
ist der Verfiihrer und der Widerchrist '. The transition from plural to
singular (see on v. 6) may be explained in two ways: 1. The man
who acts thus is the deceiver and the Antichrist; 2. These men
collectively are the deceiver and the Antichrist. In either case the

138 2 S. JOHN. [7—
article means 'him of whom you have heard' : 'the deceiver' in refer
ence to his fellow men ; ' the Antichrist ' in reference to his Redeemer.
This completes the series of condemnatory names which S. John
uses in speaking of these false teachers ; liars (1 John ti. 22), seducers
(1 John ti. 26), false prophets (1 John iv. 1), deceivers (2 John 7), anti
christs (1 John ii. 18, 22; iv. 3; 2 John 7). On the Antichrist of S.
John see Appendix B.
8. BXeireTe eavrovs. Comp. Mark xiii. 9. The use of iavrois k.t.X.
with the first (1 John i. 8) and second person (1 John v. 21 ; John xii.
8) is not uncommon. It occurs in classical Greek, even in the singu
lar: ovSi ydp rrjv iavrov ai ye tyvxrjv dpas (Xen. Mem. 1. iv. 9).
The persons of the three verbs that foUow are much varied in MSS.
and Versions. The original reading is probably preserved in B and
the Thebaic; d*oXeVr|Te d r)p7ao-drie8a...d*oXd/3r]Te. This the Revisers
adopt. To make the sentence run more smoothly some (A, Vulgate,
Memphitic) changed rjpyaadpeBa to r)pydaaa8e, the reading adopted in
the text, foUowing Lachmann, Tischendorf and TregeUes : while others
changed dvoXiarjre and dvoXdQrrre to d*oXeVopev and dvoXdBapev. In
1 John ti. 14, 20 there are other instances of B and the Thebaic pre
serving what may be the original reading. For the construction comp.
1 Cor. xvi. 10. The meaning is, 'Take heed that these deceivers do not
undo the work which Apostles and Evangelists have wrought in you,
but that ye receive the fuU fruit of it '. He warns them against loss in
both worlds.
picrflov irXrjpr|. Eternal Ufe. The word 'reward' has reference to
'have wrought'. Comp. d picrBds pov per' ipov, dvodovvai iadanp ws Td
epyov iariv airov (Rev. xxii. 12). 'Apostles have done the work, and
you, if you take heed, will have the reward'. Eternal Ufe is called a
full reward in contrast to real but incomplete rewards which true be
Uevers receive in this Ufe; peace, joy, increase of grace, and the Uke,
Comp. Mark x. 29, 30.
9. Explains more fully what is at stake; no less than the posses
sion of the Father and the Son.
irds o irpodycov. See on 1 John iti. 16. Everyone that goeth before,
or, that goeth onwards. Hpod7eij' is fairly common in the Synoptists
and the Acts, but occurs nowhere else in S. John's writings. It may
be interpreted in two ways: 1. Every one who sets himself up as a
leader ; 2. Every one who goes on beyond the Gospel. The latter is
perhaps better. These antichristian Gnostics were advanced thinkers:
the Gospel was aU very weU for the unenlightened ; but they knew
something higher. This agrees very weU with what foUows; by ad
vancing they did not abide. There is an advance whioh involves de
sertion of first principles; and such an advance is not progress but
apostasy. Iv ttj SiSaxti- 'In the teaching', as R.V., is no improvement on
' in the doctrine '. Of the two words used in N.T., didaxr) (as here) and
Sidao-KoXia (which S. John does not use), the former should be rendered

10.] NOTES. 1 39
'doctrine', the latter, as being closer to diSdaxaXos and Siddaxeiv, should
be rendered ' teaching'. But no hard and fast Une can be drawn.
tov Xpio-rov. The doctrine which He taught (John xviii. 19; Rev.
n. 14, 15), rather than the doctrine which teaches about Him.
0edv ovk e"x«i. This must not be watered down to mean ' does not
know God': it means that he has Him not as his God; does not
possess Him in his heart as a Being to adore, and trust, and love.
d pe'vwv. The opposite case is now stated, and as usual the original
idea is not merely negatived but expanded. ToC Xpiarov in this half
of the verse has been inserted in some authorities to make the two
halves more exactly correspond. Kal t. -Trare'pa Kal t. vidv 'i\a shews
that 'hath not God' impUes 'hath neither the Father nor the Son'.
See on 1 John ti. 23.
10, 11. Warnings against False Chaeity.
10. et tis epxeTai. As R.V, If anyone cometh. 'If there come
any unto you' would require idv with the subjunctive. It is implied
that such people do come ; it is no mere hypothesis : comp. 1 John v.
9 ; John vii. 4, 23 ; viii. 39, 46 ; xviii. 8. "EpxeTai probably means more
than a mere visit: it implies coining on a mission as a teacher; comp.
3 John 10; John i. 7, 30, 31; tii. 2 ; iv. 25 ; v. 43; vii. 27, &c; 1 Cor.
ii. 1 ; iv. 18, 19, 21 ; xi. 34, &o.
Kal t. t. SiSaxrjv ov cpepei. And bringeth not this doctrine. The
negative (od not prj) should be emphasized in reading: it "does not
coalesce with the verb, as some maintain, but sharply marks off from
the class of faithful Christians aU who are not faithful" (Speaker's
Commentary on 1 Cor. xvi. 22). The phrase SiSaxrjv cpe'peiv occurs
nowhere else in N.T., but it is on the analogy of pvBov or d77eXii)K
ipipeiv (Hom. II. x. 288; xv. 175, 202, &c). Comp. Tivo Karrjyoplav
cjiepere k.t.X. ; (John xviii. 29).
pij Xoppdvere . . . pij Xeyere. Present imperative forbidding a con
tinuance of what is customary. ' Refuse him the hospitality which as
a matter of course you would shew to a faithful Christian'. The
severity of the injunction is almost without a paraUel in N. T. Charity
has its ltinits : it must not be shewn to one man in such a way as to
do grievous harm to others ; still less must it be shewn in such a way
as to do more harm than good to the recipient of it. If these deceivers
were treated as if they were true Christians, (1) their opportunities of
doing harm would be greatly increased, (2) they might never be brought
to see their own errors. " S. John is at once earnestly dogmatic and
earnestly philanthropic ; for the Incarnation has taught him both the
preciousness of man and the preciousness of truth" (Liddon). The
famous story respecting S. John and Cerinthus in the pubtic baths is
confirmed in its main outtines by this injunction to the elect lady,
which it explains and tilustrates. Both are instances of "that in
tense hatred of evil, without which love of good can hardly be said
to exist" (Stanley). See the Introduction, p. xxxii.

140 2 S. JOHN. [10—
The greatest care wtil be necessary before we can venture to act upon
the injunction here given to the elect lady. We must ask, Are the cases
really parallel? Am I quite sure that the man in question is an un-
betiever and a teacher of infideUty? Will my shewing him hospitaUty
aid him in teaching infidelity? Am I and mine in any danger of being
infected by his errors? Is he more likely to he impressed by severity
or gentleness? Is severity likely to create sympathy in others, first for
him, and then for his teaching? In not a few cases the differences
between Christianity in the first century and Christianity in the nine
teenth would at once destroy the analogy between antichristian
Gnostics visiting this lady and an Agnostic visiting one of ourselves.
Let us never forget the way in which the Lord treated Pharisees, pub
licans, and sinners.
koI x°-'P"v ovTep pr) XlyeTe. ' And give him no greeting' is perhaps
too narrow, whether as translation or interpretation. And do not bid
him God speed will perhaps be a better rendering ; and the injunction
will cover any act whioh might seem to give sanction to the false
doctrine or shew sympathy with it. Xalpeiv is used in a similar sense
Acts xv. 23 ; xxiii. 26 ; James i. 1 : comp. John xix. 3, &c.
11. 6 Xeycov ydp avTiy x- Much more, therefore, he that by re
ceiving him into his house affords a home and head-quarters for false
teaching. The reading d ydp Xiywv is an obvious correction.
KOivwvet t. epyois av. t. irovrjpots. As R.V., partaketh in his evil
works: UteraUy, with much emphasis on 'evil', partaketh in his works,
his evil (works). Koivwveiv occurs nowhere else in S. John, but he
uses the cognate xoivwvla, 1 John i. 3, 6, 7. The word for 'evil' (*o-
vnpos) is the same as that used of 'the evil one', 1 John ti. 13, 14; iii.
12 ; v. 18, 19. What is involved, therefore, in having feUowship with
such men is obvious. At a Council of Carthage (a.d. 256), when
Cyprian uttered his famous invective against Stephen, Bishop of
Rome, — Aurelius, Bishop of Chunabi, quoted this passage with the
introductory remark, "John the Apostle laid it down in his Epistle":
and Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria (e. a.d. 315), quotes the passage
as an injunction of "the blessed John" (Socrates H. E. i. vi.). The
change from ' deeds ' to ' works ' may seem frivolous and vexatious,
but it is not unimportant. ' Works ' is a wider word and better repre
sents ipya : words no less than deeds are included, and here it is spe-
ciaUy the words of these deceivers.that are meant. Moreover in 1 John
iti. 12 the same word is rendered ' works ' of the (pya vovrjpd of Cain.
See on John v. 20 ; vi. 27, 29. Wiclif and the Rhemish have ' works '
here. At the end of this verse some Latin authorities add : Ecce praedixi
vobis, ut in die Domini non confundamini (or in die Domini nostri Jesu
Christi). WicUf admits the insertion ; the Rhemish does not : Cranmer
puts it in itaUcs and in braokets. It has no authority.
12, 13. Conclusion.
12, 13. The strong resemblance to the Conclusion of the Third
Epistle seems to shew that the two letters are nearly contempo-

12..]

NOTES. I4i

raneous, and it adds to the probabtiity that both are addressed to
individuals. 12. iroXXd ex<ov. The First Epistle gives us some idea of what
these many things were. Tpdcpeiv is used in the wide sense of ' to
communicate ' : just as our ' say ' or ' teU ' may include writing, ypdipeiv
includes other modes of communication besides letters. In the ovk
IBovXijBi]v we may perhaps trace a sign of the failing powers of an old
man, to whom writing is serious fatigue. But what foUows shews
that the Apostle has not yet reached the state of feebleness recorded
by Jerome, when he had to be carried to church.
'Paper' (xdprrjs) occurs nowhere else in N.T. ; but it occurs in LXX.
of Jer. xxxvi. 23; and its diminutive (xaprlov) is frequent in that
chapter. In 3 Mace. iv. 20 we have a cognate word (xaprrjpia), which
probably, Uke ' paper' here, means Egyptian papyrus, as distinct from
the more expensive 'parchment' (pepBpdrai) mentioned 2 Tim. iv. 13.
But both papyrus and parchment were costly, which may account
for the Apostle's brevity. Augustine writes to Romanianus ; " This
letter indicates a scarcity of paper (charta) without testifying that
parchment is plentiful here. My ivory tablets I used in the letter
which I sent to your uncle. You will more readily excuse this scrap
of parohment, because what I wrote to him could not be delayed;
and I thought it would be absurd not to write to you for want of
better material" (Ep. xv.). The very perishable nature of papyrus
accounts for the early loss of the Apostolic autographs. See Diet, of
the Bible, whiting, and Diet, of Antiquities, libee.
'Ink' (pdXov) is mentioned again 3 John 13; elsewhere in N.T. only
2 Cor. tii. 3 : comp. LXX. of Jer. xxxvi. 18. It was made of lamp
black and gall-juice, or more simply of soot and water.
dXXd iXrrlX/a. As R.V., but I hope : the verb is frequent in N.T.,
and there seems to be no reason for changing the usual rendering :
comp. 1 Tim. iti. 14; Phil. ti. 19, 23. A.V. wavers needlessly between
'hope' and 'trust'.
yevlo-Bai irpos vpds. To appear before you: literally, 'to come to
be in your presence, to become present with you, to be with you'.
Comp. 1 Cor. ti. 3, xvi. 10. The phrase is used of words as weU as of
persons : *pds ovs 6 Xbyos tov Beov iyirero (John x. 35) ; iyirero tpwrr)
vpbs airbr (Acts x. 13). In aU these cases the coming is expressed
with a certain amount of solemnity.
The ' you ' (vpir, vpds) in this verse includes the children mentioned
in v. 1. This, when contrasted with 'thee' (ae, aoi) in v. 5, seems to
be in favour of understanding the ' lady ' literally. The change from
'thee' to 'you' seems more in harmony with a matron and her family
than with a Church and its members.
o-rdpa irpos crrdpa. In Num. xii. 8 we have arbpa xard aropa XaXrj-
o-w adr£: comp. Jer. xxxix. (xxxii.) 4. In 1 Cor. xiii. 12 the phrase is
vpoawvor vpbs vpbawvor : comp. Gen. xxxii. 31.

142 -2 S. JOHN. [12.
tva rj xapd vpwv rj ireirXr|pcop!vr|. As R.V., that your joy may be
fulfilled. See on 1 John i. 4, and comp. Rom. i. 12.
13. doirdgeToi' o-e. For the sake of uniformity with 3 John 14,
salute thee : the same verb is used in both passages. That the elect
sister herself sends no greeting is taken as an argument in favour of
the ' elect lady ' being a Church, and the ' elect sister ' a sister Church,
which could send no greeting other than that of its members or
'children'. But the verse fits the other hypothesis equaUy well.
The lady's nephews may be engaged in business at Ephesus under
S. John's ApostoUc care : their mother may be Uving elsewhere, or be
dead. It was perhaps from these children of a sister that the Apostle
had knowledge of the state of things in the elect lady's house. Their
sending a salutation through him may intimate that they share his
anxiety respecting her and hers. It is impossible to give any reason
able interpretation of the sister and her children, if ' the elect lady '
be taken as the Church at large.

THIRD EPISTLE OF S. JOHN.

The title, like that of the Gospel and of the other two Epistles, is
not original, and is found in various forms, the most anoient being the
simplest. 'IuAvkou or 'ludi-ou y (NB). 'Iudwou iviaroXrj y (C). ivi
aroXrj rplrrj tov dylov dvoarbXov 'Iwdvvov (L). As in the Second Epistle,
the title in A is missing. Some authorities insert xaBoXixrj, which is
manifestly inappropriate. The Second Epistle may be addressed to a
local Church and be intended to be encyclical : beyond doubt this is
addressed to an individual.

3. N, Vulgate, and Thebaic omit ydp.
4. Before dXrjBeCci insert T|j with ABC1 against NKL. For x<*pdv
(NACKL, Thebaic) B, Vulgate, and Memphitic have xapiv, which is
very likely right.
5. For els rois (KL) read tovto (NABC and Versions).
7. For iBrwr (KL) read IBvikwv (NABC).
8. For dvoXapBdreir (KL) read viroXapPdveiv (NABC1). For
dXr|fle£a (NBC) N2A have ixxXrjalq..
9. After eypatpo insert ti with NJABC against KL. For eypoipa
B has lypa\j/as. For ti N3 and Vulgate have dr. In the Vulgate
forsitan is an obvious attempt to give a separate word to translate dr.
See on 1 John ti. 19.
10. For flovXopevovs (NAB and most Versions) C and Thebaic
have ividexopirovs.
11. Before kokottoiwv omit cV with NABCK against L.
12. For oJSore (KLP) read otSas (NABC).
13. For ypdiptir (KL) read ypdipai troi (NABC) : ypdrptiv is from
2 John 12. Similarly A and the Vulgate substitute iBovXrjBrjv from
2 John 12 for BeXco. For ypdtpai (KL) read ypdcpeiv (NABC).
14. For ISeiv at (NKL) read ere ISeiv (ABC).
For tpiXoi (NBCKL) A has dSeXcpoi.
For dcrcrd£ov (ABCKL) N has davaaai.
Once more the text of B is almost faultless, while every other
authority admits serious errors.

144 3 & JOHN. [1—
1. The Addbess.
1. This Epistle, tike the Second, and most others in N.T., has a
definite address, but of a very short and simple kind : comp. James i.
1. It has no greeting, properly so caUed, the prayer expressed in v. 2
taking its place.
d irpeo-puTepos. See on 2 John 1. From the Apostle's using this
title in both Epistles we may conclude that he commonly designated
himself thus. If not, it is additional evidence that the two letters
were written about the same time : see on vv. 13, 14.
Tola tw dyaiTT|Tcp. To Gaius the beloved : the epithet is the same
word as we have had repeatedly in the First Epistle (ti. 7 ; iti. 2, 21 ;
iv. 1, 7, 11) and have again in vv. 2, 5, 11. The name Gaius being
perhaps the most common of aU names in the Roman Empire, it is
idle to speculate without further evidence as to whether the one here
addressed is identical with either Gaius of Macedonia (Acts xix. 29),
Gaius of Derbe (Acts xx. 4), or Gaius of Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23). See
Introduction, Chap. rv. sect. ti. p. lxxix.
Bv eyed dy. Iv dXrfi. Whom I love ln truth : see on 2 John 1. This
is not mere tautology after ' the beloved ; ' nor is it mere emphasis.
' The beloved ' gives a common sentiment respecting Gaius : this clause
expresses the Apostle's own feeling. There is no need, as in the
Second Epistle, to enlarge upon the meaning of loving in truth. In
this letter the Apostle has not to touch upon defects which a less true
love might have passed over in silence. The emphatic dyw again
seems to imply that there are others who are hostile, or whose affec
tion is not sincere. In veritate, hoc est, in Domino qui est Veritas (A
Lapide). Similarly Bede : id est, vero amore diligo, illo videlicet qui
secundum Deum est.
2 — 4. Pebsonal Good Wishes and Sentiments.
2. irepl ird VTWvelixopoi. I pray that ln all respects ; UteraUy, con
cerning all things. It might weU surprise us to find S. John placing
health and prosperity above aU things, as A.V. has it ; and though
irepi vdvrwv has that meaning sometimes in Homer (Zi\ i. 287), yet no
paraUel use of it has been found in either N.T. or LXX. It belongs
to eioSovaBai rather than to tbxppai, a word whioh occurs here only in
S. John.
evoSouo-Bai. The word occurs elsewhere in N.T. only Rom. i. 10
and 1 Cor. xvi. 2, but is frequent in LXX. EtymologicaUy it has
the meaning of being prospered in a journey, but that element has
been lost in usage, and should not be restored even in Rom. i. 10.
vyioCveiv. Bodily health, the chief element in aU prosperity: Luke
vii. 10; xv. 27; comp. v. 31. We cannot conclude from these good
wishes that Gaius had been ailing in health and fortune: but it is
quite clear from what foUows that 'prosper and be in health' do not
refer to his spiritual condition; and this verse is, therefore, good
authority for praying for temporal blessings for our friends. In the

4-]

NOTES.

H5

Pastoral Epistles vyialveiv is always used figuratively of faith and
doctrine. The order of the Greek is striking, vtpl vdvrwv at the beginning
being placed in contrast to r) fvxr) at the end of the sentence: in all
things I pray that thou may est prosper and be in health, even as prosper-
eththysoul. Theverseis a model for all friendly wishes of good fortune
to others. 'H 'f'vxrj here means the immaterial part of man's nature;
and the weU-being of the tyvxr) is the measure of aU weU-being, in a
far higher sense than the Aristotelian (Nic. Eth. 1. vii. 15). Ubi ani
ma valet, omnia valere possunt (Bengel). For a similar use of r) ipvxrj
as including the vvevpa comp. Matt. x. 28 ; 1 Pet. i. 9, 22.
3. exdpijv ydp XCav. The ydp has been omitted in some important
authorities, perhaps under the influence of 2 John 4. It means 'I
know that thy soul is in a prosperous condition, for I have it on
good authority'. For !xdpr|v see on 2 John 4: but here it cannot so
weU be the epistolary aorist, but refers to the definite occasions when
information was brought to the Apostle. Of course if ixdpv be ren
dered 'I rejoice' as epistolary aorist ipxopiivwv and paprvpoivrwv must
be treated in Uke manner ; as in R.V. margin.
epXoplvwv. Imperfect participle of what happened repeatedly: so
also papTvpovvTuv. When brethren (no article) came and bare wit
ness (see on 1 John i. 2) to thy truth (see on v. 6). The whole, Uter
aUy rendered, runs thus ; For I rejoiced greatly at brethren coming and
witnessing to thy truth. John v. 33 is wrongly quoted as a paraUel.
There the Baptist 'hath borne witness to the truth,' i.e. to the Gospel
or to Christ. Here the brethren bare witness to Gaius's truth, i.e. to
his Christian Ufe, as is shewn by what foUows. The o-ov is emphatic,
as in v. 6 ; perhaps in contrast to the conduct of Diotrephes. Comp.
Luke iv. 22. What follows, KaBws o-v k.t.X., is part of what these
adeXQol reported, explaining what they meant by Gaius's truth.
4. pei£oTepav t. ovk ex<o x°pdv. The order is worth keeping, all
the more so on account of the similar arrangement in John xv. 13 ;
peljrova ravrrjs dydvrjv ovStls ixeL> %va rts T- }PvXrlv abrov Brj. Greater
Joy have I none than this. The Vulgate is barbarously exact:
majorem horum non habeo gratiam. Comp. majora horum for pdjrw
tout-UK (John i. 50). 'Gratiam' impUes the reading x^Plv (B and
Memphitic), which Westcott and Hort adopt. The double compara
tive pei£oTepav is analogous to 'lesser' in EngUsh. In Eph. iti. 8
we have iXaxiarbrtpos. Such forms belong to the later stages of a
language, when common forms have lost strength. Comp. koXXio.'-
repos, KoXXio-rdTaros, minimissimus, pessimissimus. Winer, 81. The
plural pronoun tovtwv (corrected in some copies to Tadrijs) may either
mean 'these joys,' or 'these things,' viz. the frequent reports of the
brethren: oomp. peifu toutuv S^/ei (John i. 50). Winer, 201.
tva okovio. There is no need either here or in John xv. 13 to sup
pose an eUipse of rj after the comparative. In both cases the tva clause
is epexegetic of the preceding genitive pronoun; and tva okouu=to8
ixoieiv in apposition with tovtwv. Winer, 745, 425.
S. JOHN (EP.) K

146 3 S. JOHN. [4—
to Ipd tIkvo. My own children. The emphatic ipd (contrast 1
John ti. 1 ; 2 John 4) perhaps indicates those who not only were under
his Apostotic care, but had been converted by him to the faith.
irepiiraTovvTo. See on 2 John 4. For the participial construction
comp. Saa rJKoiaapev yerbpeva els rrjv Kocp. (Luke iv. 23) : dKoutras Si
'laxwB 6vra airla els Atyvvrov (Acts vii. 12) : and especiaUy dxoiopev
ydp nvas vepivarovvras iv vpiv (2 Thess. iii. 11). To hear of my own
children walking in the truth.
6 — 8. Gaius pkaised fob his Hospitality : Its special Value.
5. dyoirnTl. The affectionate address marks a new section (comp.
vv. 2, 11), but here again the fresh subject grows quite naturaUy out of
what precedes, without any abrupt transition. The good report, which
caused the Apostle such joy, testified in particular to the Christian
hospitaUty of Gaius.
irioTov iroiets. A.V., thou doest faithfully. So the Vulgate; fideliter
fads : Wictif, Tyndale, and other EngUsh Versions take the same
view. So also Luther : du thust treulich. The Greek is UteraUy,
thou doest a faithful (thing), whatsoever thou workest (same verb as is
rendered 'wrought' in 2 John 8) unto the brethren: which is in
tolerably clumsy as a piece of English. R.V. makes a compromise;
thou doest a faithful work in whatsoever thou doest; which is closer to
the Greek than A.V. , but not exact. 'To do a faithful act' (viarbv
*o!eTi<) possibly means to do what is worthy of a faithful man or of a
believer, ostendens ex operibus fidem (Bede) ; and ' to do faithfully '
expresses this fairly weU : thou doest faithfully in all thou workest
towards the brethren. But this use of *icrrdv voieiv is unsupported by
examples, and therefore Westcott would translate Thou makest sure
whatsoever thou workest; i.e. 'such an act will not be lost, will not
fail of its due issue and reward.' The change of verb should at any
rate be kept, not only on account of 2 John 8, but also of Matt. xxvi.
10, where 'she hath wrought a good work upon Me' (elpydaa.ro els ipi)
is singularly paraUel to ' thou workest toward the brethren ' (ipyda-Q els
rods ddeXoious). Cod. 80 has the singular reading pio-Bdv *oteis for
*iordv *oieis.
koI tovto |evovs. And that strangers; i.e. towards the brethren,
and those brethren strangers. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 6 ; Phil. i. 28 ; Eph.
ii. 8. The brethren and the strangers are not two classes, but one and
the same. It enhanced the hospitality of Gaius that the Christians
whom he entertained were personally unknown to him: Fideliter
facis quidquid operaris in fratres, et hoc in peregrinos. Comp. Matt.
xxv. 35.
6. of IpapTvp-ncrdv orov ttj dydirn,. As R.V., who bare witness to
thy love. There is no sufficient reason here for rendering the aorist
as the perfect; and certainly in S. John's writings (whatever may be
our view of 1 Cor. xiii.) d7d*n must always be rendered 'love.' In a
text like this, moreover, 'charity' is speciaUy likely to be understood
in the vulgar sense of almsgiving, with which it is contrasted in
1 Cor. xiii.

7.] NOTES. 147
Ivcdiriov IkkXtio-Cos. Probably at Ephesus; but wherever S. John
was when he wrote the letter. Only in this Third Epistle does he use
the word ixxXrjala: viz., here, and in vv. 9 and 10 (and in some copies
in v. 8, with or instead of dXrjdelg.). For the omission of the article
before ixxXijatas comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 19, 35; as we say 'in church.'
ofls koXws Troirjcreis irpoire'pT'as. The order may as weU be preserved :
whom thou wilt do well to forward on their journey. Upovipvtir
occurs Acts xv. 3; xx. 38; xxi. 5; Rom. xv. 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 11;
2 Cor. i. 16; Tit. iti. 13. There would be abundant opportunity in
the early Church for such friendly acts; and in telling Gaius that he
wiU do a good deed in helping Christians on their way the Apostle
gently urges him to continue such work. Comp. Phil. iv. 14; Acts
x. 33.
dgiws tov ©eov. Worthily of God (R.V.), or, ln a manner worthy of
God (Rhemish), or, as it beseemeth God (Tyndale and Genevan).
'Help them forward in a way worthy of Him whose servants they and
you are.' Comp. 1 Thess. ti. 12 ; Col. i. 10.
7. virep ydp tov dvdpaTos. For for the sake ofthe Name: the abrov
of some texts is a weak ampUfication followed in several versions. A
similar weakening is found in Acts v. 41, which should run, ' Rejoicing
that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name.' ' The
Name ' of course means the Name of Jesus Christ : comp. James ti. 7.
This use of ' the Name ' is common in the ApostoUc Fathers ; Ignatius,
Eph. iii., vii.; Philad. x. ; Clem. Rom. ti., xiii.; Hermas, Sim. viii.
10, ix. 13, 28. Bengel, appeating to Lev. xxiv. 11, wrongly explains
1 . bvoparos as Nomine Dei : so also Liicke, appeating to John xvii. 11.
eijijXBav. The word is used in the same absolute way Acts xv. 40 ;
IlauXos Si iviXe^dpevos SiXav i^rjXBev: i.e. on a missionary journey
from a Christian centre.
pt)8ev Xappdvovres. The tense indicates that this was their custom,
not merely that they did so on one occasion. Hence the greater
necessity for men like Gaius to help. These missionaries declined
to 'spoil the Egyptians' hy taking from the heathen, and therefore
would be in great difficulties if Christians did not come forward with
assistance. We are not to understand that the Gentiles offered help
which these brethren refused, but that the brethren never asked them
for help. ' The Gentiles ' (oi idrixol) cannot weU mean Gentile converts.
What possible objection could there be to receiving help from them?
Comp. Matt. v. 47 ; vi. 7 ; xviii. 17, the only other places where the
word occurs. There was reason in not accepting money or hospitaUty
at aU, but working for their own Uving, as S. Paul loved to do. And
there was reason in not accepting help from heathen. But there
would be no reason in accepting from Jewish converts but not from
Gentile ones.
Some expositors render this very differently. 'For for the Name's
sake they went forth from the Gentiles, taking nothing' ; i.e. they were
driven out by the heathen, penniless. But i^ffXBar is too gentle a
word to mean this ; and the negative (prjSir not obdir) seems to imply
that it was their determination not to accept anything, not merely that
K2

14° 3 S. JOHN. [7—
as a matter of fact they received nothing. For XapBdreir oird in a
similar sense comp. Matt. xvii. 25. Winer, 463.
8. rjpeis ovv. 'We' is in emphatic contrast to the heathen just
mentioned. The Apostle softens the injunction by including himself ;
comp. 1 John ii. 1.
ocpeiXopev viroX. t. t. Ought to support such, to undertake for
them: the verb (vvoXapBdreir not dvoXapBdreir) occurs elsewhere in
N.T. only in S. Luke's writings, and there with a very different mean
ing. Comp. Xen. Anab. i. i. 7. There is perhaps a play upon words
between the missionaries taking nothing from the Gentiles, and
Christians being therefore bound to undertake for them.
tva orvvepyol yivwpeBa. That we may become /eiioui-workers with.
'Fellow-workers' rather than 'fellow-helpers' on account of v. 5; see
also on 2 John 11. Cognate words are used in the Greek, and this
may as weU be preserved in the English. 'FeUow- workers' with
what? Probably not with the truth, as both A.V. and R.V. lead us to
suppose; but with the missionary brethren. In N.T. persons are
invariably said to be 'feUow- workers of (Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21; 1 Cor.
tii. 9; 2 Cor. i. 24; Phil. ti. 25, iv. 3; [1 Thess. iti. 2;] Philem. 24),
never ' feUow- workers to' or ' feUow- workers with'; those with whom
the feUow-worker works are put in the genitive, not in the dative. The
dative here is the dativus commodi, and the meaning is, that we may
become their fellow-workers for the truth. Sometimes instead of the
dative we have the accusative with a preposition (Col. iv. 11 ; comp.
2 Cor. viii. 23). In classical Greek those with whom the avrepyos
works are more commonly in the dative than in the genitive.
9, 10. DlOTEEPHES CONDEMNED EOB HIS AbEOGANOE AND HOSTILITY.
This is the most surprising part of the letter ; and of the internal
evidence this is the item which seems to weigh most heavily against the
Apostohc authorship. That any Christian should be found to act in
this manner towards the last surviving Apostle is nothing less than
astounding. Those who opposed S. Paul, Uke Alexander the copper
smith (2 Tim. iv. 14), afford only remote paraUels (1 Tim. i. 20 ; 2 Tim.
i. 15). They do not seem to have gone the lengths of Diotrephes: the
authority of Apostles was less understood in S. Paul's time: and his
claim to be an Apostle was at least open to question ; for he was not
one of the Twelve, and he had himself been a persecutor. But from
the very first the N.T. is full of the saddest surprises. And those who
accept as historical the unbelief of Christ's brethren, the treachery of
Judas, the flight of aU the Disciples, the denial of S. Peter, the quarrels
of Apostles both before and after their Lord's departure, and the fla
grant abuses in the Church of Corinth, with much more of the same
kind, wtil not be disposed to think it incredible that Diotrephes acted
in the manner here described even towards the Apostle S. John.
9. eypaij/d ti rfj IkkXtio-Co. I wrote somewhat to the Church; i.e.
' I wrote a short letter, a something on which I do not lay much
stress.' This was perhaps an iviaroXrj avaranxrj respecting cpiXo|ecia.

10.]

NOTES. 149

The other reading (r would have written to the Church, typaypa dr,
scripsissem forsitan) is an obvious corruption to avoid the unwelcome
conclusion that an official letter from S. John has been lost (comp.
1 Cor. v. 9). The reference cannot be to either the First or the
Second Epistle, neither of which contains any mention of this sub
ject: though some do consider that the Second Epistle is meant.
There is nothing surprising in such a letter having perished: and
Diotrephes would be likely to suppress it. That the brethren whom
Gaius received were the bearers of it, and that his hospitaUty was
specially acceptable on account of the violence of Diotrephes, does not
seem to fit in well with the context. ' To the Church' probably
means 'to the Church' of which Diotrephes was a prominent member:
that he was in authority seems to be implied from what is stated v. 10.
d cpiXoirpwTevwv. The expression occurs nowhere else in N.T. ; but
it comes very close to "whosoever willeth to be first among you"
(Matt. xx. 27). QCXbvpwTos occurs in Polybius. Perhaps the meaning
is that Diotrephes meant to make his Church independent : hitherto
it had been governed by S. John from Ephesus, but Diotrephes wished
to make it autonomous to his own glorification. Just as the antichristian
teachers claimed to be first in the inteUectual sphere (2 John 9), so the
unchristian Diotrephes claimed to be first in influence and authority.
This looks as if ecclesiastical government by a single official was in
existence in Asia Minor in S. John's Ufetime.
ovk liriSexeTai TJpas. Such inhospitaUty was unheard of: Rom.
xii. 13 ; xvi. 23 ; Heb. xiii. 2 ; 1 Pet. iv. 9 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2 ; v. 10 ; Tit. i. 8 ;
Acts xvi. 15 ; xvii. 7 ; xxi. 8, 16. So also in the Doctrine of the Twelve
Apostles: "Let every Apostle that cometh to you be received as the
Lord" (xi. 4); where 'Apostle' is used in the generic sense of Rom.
xvi. 7 for an itinerant Evangetist, such as are described by Eusebius
(H. E. in. xxxvii. 2 — 4). The passage throws much light on this
Epistle, as also does what foUows in the Doctrine of the Twelve Apo
stles. ' The Apostle is not to remain more than one day, or if need be
two : but if he remains three, he is a ^evSovpo<t>r)Trjs. And when he
departs, he is to take nothing (pr/Siv XapBavirw) but bread to last him
to his next night- quarters: but if he asks for money, he is a \j/ev5o-
*pocprjT7js.' These precautions shew that the hospitality, universally
shewn to missionaries, was sometimes abused. The chapter ends
thus: "Whoever says in the spirit, Give me money, or any other
thing, ye shaU not Usten to him ; but if for the sake of others who are
in want he bid you give, let no one judge him."
10. Sid tovto. For this cause. See on 1 John iti. 1.
viropvfjerio. ' I wtil direct pubtic attention to the matter' ; equiva
lent to ' bear witness of it before the Church' (v. 6). For the construc
tion comp. vvopvrjaei vpds vdvra (John xiv. 26). I will call to remem
brance his works (see on 2 John 11).
Xo'yois Trovripois. With evil words: the connexion with 'the evil
one' must not be missed either here or in 2 John 11.

ISO 3 S. JOHN. [10—
¦pXvapwv rjpas. The verb occurs nowhere else in N. T., and the
construction with an accusative is quite exceptional. It is frequent in
Aristophanes and Demosthenes, and means UteraUy ' to talk nonsense.'
Therefore ' prates against us,' garriens in nos, cannot weU be improved :
it conveys the idea that the words were not only wicked, but senseless.
Comp. ' And not only idle, but tattlers (ipXiapoi) also and busybodies,
speaking things which they ought not' (1 Tim. v. 13). Other render
ings are 'garringe, or chidinge, in to us' (Wiclif), 'chiding against
us' (Purvey), 'jesting on us' (Tyndale and Cranmer), 'pratteling
against us' (Genevan), 'chatting against us' (Rhemish), plaudert
wider uns (Luther). 'Prating about us' may be right: comp. dXXdXais
XaAe'ovTi Ted? ydpov ai xvvdpiaaoi (Theocr. xxvii. 58).
The description of the \j/evSovpo<pr)rris in the Shepherd of Hermas
(Mand. xi. 12) tilustrates this account of Diotrephes : " He exalts him
self and wishes to have the chief seat (vparoxaBeSplav), and forthwith
is hasty, and shameless, and talkative." Comp. 1 Pet. v. 3.
dpKovpevos Irrl t. The ivl is unusual. Both in N. T. and in clas
sical Greek apxeiaBai usuaUy has the dative without a preposition :
Luke tii. 14; 1 Tim. vi. 8; Heb. xiii. 5.
ovrc.Kal.... The combination ouVe...Te... is not uncommon in
classical Greek, but ovre... xal... is late. It seems to occur, however,
in Eur. I. T. 591 el yap, as loixas, ovre Svayevrjs xal rets MuktJxos otaBa.
Comp. oSre dvrXrjpa ixtis xal to <ppiap ianv BaBi (John iv. 11).
Winer, 619.
liriSexerai. The word occurs nowhere in N. T. but here and
v. 9, though common enough elsewhere. In v. 9 the meaning seems
to be 'admits not our authority,' or 'ignores our letter.' Here of
course it is ' refuses hospitality to.' But perhaps ' closes his doors
against' may be the meaning in both places ; ' us' being S. John's
friends. By saying 'us' rather than 'me,' the Apostle avoids the
appearance of a personal quarrel.
Ik ttjs IkkX. iK^aXXei. He excommunicates those who are wiUing to
receive the missionary brethren. The exact meaning of this is un
certain, as we have not sufficient knowledge of the circumstances.
The natural meaning is that Diotrephes had sufficient authority or
influence in some Christian congregation to exclude from it those who
received brethren of whom he did not approve. For the expression
comp. John ix. 34, 35. 11, 12. The Mobal.
11, 12. This is the main portion of the Epistle. In it the Apostle
bids Gaius beware of imitating such conduct. And if an example of
Christian conduct is needed there is Demetrius.
11. dyairr|Tl. The address again marks transition to a new sub
ject, but without any abrupt change. The behaviour of Diotrephes
wtil at least serve as a warning.
pt] pipou t. kokov d. t. dy. Imitate not the ill, but the good.
Kok6s, though one of the most common words in the Greek language to

12.]

JXUTttS. 151

express the idea of ' bad,' is rarely used by S. John. Elsewhere only
John xviii. 23; Rev. ti. 2; xvi. 2: in Rev. xvi. 2 both words occur.
Perhaps 'til' is hardly strong enough here, and the 'evil' of A.V. had
better be retained. Nothing turns on the change of word from vovrjpbs
in v. 10, so that it is not absolutely necessary to mark it. For
pipeto-Bai comp. 2 Thess. tii. 7, 9; Heb. xiii. 7; the word occurs no
where else in N.T.
Ik tov ©eov Iot£v. He has God as the source (ix) of his moral and
spiritual life ; he is a child of God. In its highest sense this is true
only of Him who 'went about doing good'; but it is true in a lower
sense of every earnest Christian. See on 1 John ti. 16, 29 ; tii. 8, 9 ;
iv. 4, 6, 7.
ovx lidpaKev tov 0edv. See on 1 John iii. 6. Of course doing good
and doing evti are to be understood in a wide sense : the particular
cases of granting and refusing hospitaUty to missionary brethren are
no longer specially in question.
12. While Diotrephes sets an example to be abhorred, Demetrius
sets one to be imitated. We know of him, as of Diotrephes, just what
is told us here and no more. Perhaps he was the bearer of this letter.
That Demetrius is the silversmith of Ephesus who once made silver
shrines for Artemis (Acts xix. 24) is a conjecture, which is worth
mentioning, but cannot be said to be probable.
AriprrTpCcp pepapT. k.t.X. LiteraUy, Witness hath been borne to
Demetrius by all men and by the truth itself; or less stiffly, as R. V.,
Demetrius hath the witness of all men. See on 1 John i. 2. ' AU
men ' means chiefly those who belonged to the Church of the place
where Demetrius lived, and the missionaries who had been there in
the course of their labours. The force of the perfect is the common
one of present result of past action : the testimony has been given and
stiU abides.
Kal vir' atiTrjs Tijs dXr|Be£as. A great deal has been written about
this clause; and it is certainly a puzzting statement. Of the various
explanations suggested these two seem to be best. 1. ' The Truth '
means "the divine rule of the walk of all believers"; Demetrius
walked according to this rule and his conformity was manifest to all
who knew the rule. Thus the rule bore witness to his Christian life.
This is inteUigible, but it is a Uttle far-fetched. 2. ' The Truth ' is
the Spirit of truth (1 John v. 6) which speaks in the disciples. The
witness which 'aU men' bear to the Christian conduct of Demetrius
is not mere human testimony which may be the result of prejudice or
of deceit: it is given under the direction of the Holy Spirit. This
explanation is preferable. The witness given respecting Demetrius
was that of disciples, who reported their own experience of him: but
it was also that of the Spirit, who guided and tilumined them in their
estimate. See note on John xv. 27, which is a remarkably parallel
passage, and comp. Acts v. 32 ; xv. 28, where as here the human and
Divine elements in Christian testimony are clearly marked.

152 a ts. JVUJX. [12—
Kal rjpets 8e papr. As R. V., yea, we also bear witness (see on
1 John l. 2) : the 'and ' of A. V. is redundant. The Apostle mentions
his own testimony in particular as corroborating the evidence of ' aU
men.' For Kal...8e... see on 1 John i. 3.
Kal otSas oti k.t.X. As R. H . and thou knowest that our witness is
true. The evidence for the singular, oldas (NABC and most Versions),
as against the plural, ofdaTe (KL), is quite decisive; a few authorities,
under the influence of John xxi. 24, read olSaper : oomp. John xix.
35. The plural has perhaps grown out of the belief that the Epistle is
not private but Catholic. John jxxi. is evidently an appendix to the
Gospel, and was possibly written long after the first twenty chapters.
It may have been written after this Epistle; and (if so) xxi. 24 may be
"an echo of this sentence" (Westcott). The form oXSas for oZcr&i
is common in later Greek (John xxi. 15; 1 Cor. vii. 16), and occurs in
Xenophon and Euripides. Similarly we have oiSapev (John iti. 2, &c),
oldare (Mark x. 38, &c), dtSaaiv (John x. 5, &c).
13, 14. Conclusion.
13, 14. The marked similarity to the Conclusion of the Second
Epistle is strong evidence that the two letters were written about the
same time. See notes on 2 John 12, 13.
13. iroXXd etxov. Imperfect ; at the time of his writing there were
many things which he had to communicate toi Gaius. ov BIXco. 'I do
not care to.' See on John vi. 67 ; vii. 17 ; viii. 44.
Sid pIXavos Kal KaXdpov. In 2 John 12 it is did yapTov xal piXavos.
KdXapos occurs nowhere else in the sense of 'reed for writing with,
pen,' but only in the general sense of 'reed,' calamus. Qutils were
not used as pens untti the fifth century. The earliest certain evidence
as to their use is in the writings of Isidore, early in the seventh
century. In LXX. of Ps. xliv. 1 xdXapos is used of ' the pen of a ready
writer.' 14. IXirC^w SI evBecos ere ISeiv. But I hope immediately to see thee.
The punctuation of this verse and of 2 John 12 should be alike. There
is no reason for placing a comma before ' but I hope ' in the one case
and a fuU stop in the other. For o-Topa irpds o-rdpa see notes there,
and oomp. the French bouche a bouche.
15. clprjvri o-oi. This eip^vi; takes the place of the ippaao in or
dinary letters ; comp. Gal. vi. 16 ; Eph. vi. 23 ; 1 Pet. v. 14. It is an
ordinary blessing, suitable either for salutation or fareweU, with a
Christian fulness of meaning. Comp. John xx. 19, 26.
dcnrdtovTaC ere ot cpiXoi. The friends salute thee: there is no au
thority for ' our ' either as translation or interpretation. If any pro
noun be inserted, it should be ' thy ' : the friends spoken of are probably
the friends of Gaius. It is perhaps on account of the private character
of the letter, as addressed to an individual and not to a Church, that
S. John says ' the friends ' rather than ' the brethren.' Comp. ' Lazarus,
our friend, is faUen asleep ' (John xi. 11) ; and ' Jutius treated Paul

15.] NOTES. i S3
kindly, and gave him leave to go unto the friends and refresh himself'
(Acts xxvti. 3), where 'the friends' probably means ' his friends,' just
as it probably means ' thy friends ' here. In ' Lazarus, our friend ' the
pronoun is expressed in the Greek.
dcnrdjov r. A>. As R.V., Salute the friends: the same verb as in the
previous sentence and in 2 John 13 : ' greet ' may be reserved for the
verb used Acts xv. 23, xxiii. 26; James i. 1; comp. 2 John 10, 11
(xoipeiv). The former is much the more common word in N.T. to
express salutation. For other instances of capricious changes of
rendering in the same passage in A.V. comp. 1 John ii. 24; iti. 24;
v. 10, 15; John tii. 31.
kot' ovopa. The phrase occurs in N. T. in only one other passage
(John x. 3); 'He caUeth His own sheep by name.' The salutation is
not to be given in a general way, but to each individual separately —
bvopaarl. S. John as shepherd of the Churches of Asia would imitate
the Good Shepherd and know aU his sheep by name.

APPENDICES.

A. The Thbee Evil Tendencies in the Woeld.
The three forms of evil 'in the world' mentioned in 1 John ii. 16
have been taken as a summary of sin, if not in aU its aspects, at least
in its chief aspects. ' The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and
the vainglory of life' have seemed from very early times to form a
synopsis of the various modes of temptation and sin. And certainly
they cover so wide a field that we cannot weU suppose that they are
mere examples of evil more or less fortuitously mentioned. They
appear to have been carefully chosen on account of their typical nature
and wide comprehensiveness.
There is, however, a wide differenpe between the views stated at the
beginning and end of the preceding paragraph. It is one thing to say
that we have here a very comprehensive statement of three typical
forms of evil ; quite another to say that the statement is a summary of
aU the various kinds of temptation and sin.
To begin with, we must bear in mind what seems to be S. John's
purpose in this statement. He is not giving us an account of the
different ways in which Christians are tempted, or (what is much the
same) the different sins into which they may faU. Rather, he is stating
the principal forms of evti which are exhibited ' in the world,' i. e. in
those who are not Christians. He is insisting upon the evil origin of
these desires and tendencies, and of the world in which they exist, in
order that his readers may know that the world and its ways have no
claim on their affections. AU that is of God, and especiaUy each child
of God, has a claim on the love of every believer. AU that is not of
God has no such claim.
It is difficult to maintain, without making some of the three heads
unnaturaUy elastic, that aU kinds of sin, or even aU of the principal
kinds of sin, are included in the Ust. Under which of the three heads
are we to place unbeUef, heresy, blasphemy, or persistent impenitence?
Injustice in many of its forms, and especially in the most extreme
form of all — murder, cannot without some violence be brought within
the sweep of these three classes of evil.
Two positions, therefore, may be insisted upon with regard to this
classification.

APPENDICES.

r55

1. It applies to forms of evti which prevail in the non-Christian
world rather than to forms of temptation which beset Christians.
2. It is very comprehensive, but it is not exhaustive.
It seems weU, however, to quote a powerful statement of what may
be said on the other side. The italics are ours, to mark where there
seems to be over-statement. "I think these distinctions, the lust of
the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, prove themselves to
be very accurate and very complete distinctions in practice, though an
ordinary philosopher may perhaps adopt some other classification of
those tendencies which connect .us with the world and give it a
dominion over us. To the lust of the flesh may be referred the crimes
and miseries which have been produced by gluttony, drunkenness, and
the irregular intercourse of the sexes ; an appalling catalogue, certainly,
which no mortal eye could dare to gaze upon. To the lust of the eye
may be referred aU worship of visible things, with the divisions, perse
cutions, hatreds, superstitions, which this worship has produced in dif
ferent countries and ages. To the pride or boasting of life, — where you
are not to understand by life, for the Greek words are entirely different,
either natural or spiritual Ufe, such as the Apostle spoke of in the first
chapter of the Epistle, but aU that belongs to the outside of existence,
houses, lands, whatever exalts a man above his fellow, — to this head
we must refer the oppressor's wrongs, and that contumely which Hamlet
reckons among the things which are harder to bear even than the
'stings and arrows of outrageous fortune.' In these three divisions I
suspect aU the mischiefs which have befallen our race may be reckoned,
and each of us is taught by the Apostle, and may know by experience,
that the seeds of the evils so enumerated are in himself" (Maurice).
Do we not feel in reading this that S. John's words have been
somewhat strained in order to make them cover the whole ground?
One sin produces so many others in its train, and these again so many
more, that there wtil not be much difficulty in making the classifica
tion exhaustive, if under each head we are to include all the crimes and
miseries, divisions and hatreds, which that particular form of evti has
produced. Some of the parallels and contrasts which have from early times
been made to the Apostle's classification are striking, even when some
what fanciful. Others are both fanciful and unreal.
The three forms of evil noticed by S. John in this passage are only
partiaUy paraUel to those which are commonly represented under the
three heads of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Strictly speaking
those particular forms of spiritual evil which would come under the
head of the devil, as distinct from the world and the flesh, are not
included in the Apostle's enumeration at aU. ' The vainglory of Ufe '
would come under the head of the world; 'the lust of the flesh' of
course under that of 'the flesh'; while 'the lust of the eyes' would
belong partly to the one and partly to the other.
There is more reality in the paraUel drawn between S. John's clas
sification and the three elements in the temptation by which Eve was
overcome by the evil one, and again the three temptations in which

156 APPENDICES.
Christ overcame the evil one. 'When the woman saw that the tree
was good for food (the lust of the flesh), and that it was pleasant to
the eyes ^the lust of the eyes), and a tree to be desired to make one
wise (the vainglory of life), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat'
(Gen. tii. 6). Similarly, the temptations (1) to work a miracle in order
to satisfy the cravings of the flesh, (2) to submit to Satan in order to
win possession of aU that the eye could see, (3) to tempt God in order
to win the glory of a miraculous preservation (Luke iv. 1 — 12).
Again, there is point in the contrast drawn between these three
forms of evil 'in the world' and the three great virtues which have
been the peculiar creation of the Gospel (Liddon, Bampton Lectures
vni. iti. B), purity, charity, and humitity, with the three corresponding
' counsels of perfection,' chastity, poverty, and obedience.
But in aU these cases, whether of paraUel or contrast, it wtil pro
bably be felt that the correspondence is not perfect throughout, and
that the comparison, though striking, is not quite satisfying, because
not quite exact.
It is surely both fanciful and misleading to see in this trinity of evil
any contrast to the three Divine Persons in the Godhead. Is there any
sense in which we can say with truth that a lust, whether of the flesh
or of the eyes, is more opposed to the attributes of the Father than to
the attributes of the Son? Forced analogies in any sphere are pro-
duetive of faUacies ; in the sphere of religious truth they may easily
become profane. B. Anticheist.
In the notes on 1 John ti. 18 it has been pointed out that the term
'Antichrist' is in N. T. peculiar to the Epistles of S. John (1 John ti.
18, 22 ; iv. 3 ; 2 John 7), and that in meaning it seems to combine the
ideas of a mock Christ and an opponent of Christ, but that the latter
idea is the prominent one. The false claims of a rival Christ are more
or less included in the signification ; but the predominant notion is
that of hostility. The origin of the word is obscure; but S. John uses
it as a term weU known to his readers. In this respect the use of
d avrlxpiaros is paraUel to that of d Xd7os.
It remains to say something on two other points of interest. I. Is
the Antichrist of S. John a person or a tendency, an individual man
or a principle? II. Is the Antichrist of S. John identical with the
great adversary spoken of by S. Paul in 2 Thess. ti.? The answer to
the one question wtil to a certain extent depend upon the answer to
the other.
I. It will be observed that S. John introduces the term ' Antichrist,'
as he introduces the term 'Logos ' (1 John i. 1 ; John i. 1), without any
explanation. He expressly states that it is one with which his readers
are familiar; 'even as ye heard that Antichrist cometh.' Certainly
this, the first introduction of the name, looks Uke an aUusion to a per
son. All the more so when we remember that the Christ was ' He that
cometh ' (Matt. xi. 3 ; Luke xix. 38). Both Christ and Antichrist had
been the subject of prophecy, and therefore each might be spoken of as

APPENDICES. 157
'He that cometh.' But it is by no means conclusive. We may under
stand ' Antichrist ' to mean an impersonal power, or principle, or ten-
dcncy,_exhibiting itself in the words and conduct of individuals, with
out doing violence to the passage. In the one case the ' many anti
christs' wtil be fore-runners of the great personal opponent ; in the
other the antichristian spirit which they exhibit may be regarded as
Antichrist. But the balance of probability seems to be in favour of
the view that the Antichrist, of which S. John's readers had heard as
certain to come shortly before the end of the world, is a person.
Such is not the case with the other three passages in which the
term occurs. 'Who is the Uar but he that denieth that Jesus is the
Christ? This is the Antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and
the Son' (1 John ti. 22). There were many who denied that Jesus is
the Christ and thereby denied not only the Son but the Father of
whom the Son is the revelation and representative. Therefore once
more we have many antichrists, each one of whom may be spoken of
as 'the Antichrist,' inasmuch as he exhibits the antichristian charac
teristics. No doubt this does not exclude the idea of a person who
should have these characteristics in the highest possible degree, and
who had not yet appeared. But this passage taken by itself would
hardly suggest such a person.
So also with the third passage in the First Epistle. 'Every spirit
which confesseth not Jesus is not of God : and this is the (spirit) of the
Antichrist,- whereof ye have heard that it cometh, and now it is in the
world already' (iv. 3). Here it is no longer ' the Antichrist ' that is
spoken of, but ' the spirit of the Antichrist.' This is evidently a prin
ciple; which again does not exclude, though it would not necessarily
suggest or imply, the idea of a person who would embody this anti
christian spirit of denial.
The passage in the Second Epistle is similar to the second passage
in the First Epistle. ' Many deceivers are gone forth into the world,
even they that confess not Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This
is the deceiver and the Antichrist' (v. 7). Here again we have many
who exhibit the characteristics of Antiohrist. Each one of them, and
also the spirit which animates them, may be spoken of as ' the Anti
christ'; the further idea of an individual who shall exhibit this spirit
in an extraordinary manner being neither necessarily excluded, nor
necessarily impUed.
The first of the four passages, therefore, wtil have to interpret the
other three. And as the interpretation of that passage cannot be de
termined beyond dispute, we must be content to admit that the question
as to whether the Antichrist of S. John is personal or not cannot be
answered with certainty. The probabtiity seems to be in favour of an
affirmative answer. In the passage which introduces the subject (1
John ti. 18) the Antichrist, of which the Apostle's little children had
heard as coming, appears to be a person ofwhom the ' many antichrists'
with their lying doctrine are the heralds and already existing repre
sentatives. And it may weU be that, having introduced the term with
the personal signification familiar to his readers, the Apostle goes on
to make other uses of it ; in order to warn them that, although the

1S8 APPENDICES.
personal Antichrist has not yet come, yet his spirit and doctrine are
already at work in the world.
Nevertheless, we must aUow that, if we confine our attention to the
passages of S. John in which the term occurs, the balance in favour of
the view that he looked to the coming of a personal Antichrist is far
from conclusive. This balance, however, whatever its amount, is
considerably augmented when we take a wider range and consider —
(a) The origin of the doctrine which the Apostle says that his readers
had already heard respecting Antichrist; (6) The treatment of the
question by those who foUowed S. John as teachers in the Church;
(c) Other passages in the N. T. which seem to bear upon the question.
The discussion of this third point is placed last because it involves the
eecond question to be investigated in this Appendix ; — Is the Antichrist
of S. John identical with S. Paul's 'man of sin'?
(a) There can be tittle doubt that the origin of the primitive doctrine
respecting Antichrist is the Book of Daniel, to which our Lord Himself
had drawn attention in speaking of the ' abomination of desolation '
(Matt. xxiv. 15 ; Dan. ix. 27, xii. 11). The causing the daily sacrifice
to cease, which was one great element of this desolation, at once brings
these passages into connexion with the ' tittle horn ' of Dan. viii. 9 — 14,
the language respecting which seems almost necessarily to imply an
individual potentate. The prophecies respecting the 'king of fierce
countenance' (viii. 23 — 25) and 'the king' who 'shaU do according to
his wtil' (xi. 36 — 39) strongly confirm this view. And just as it has
been in individuals that Christians have seen realisations, or at least
types, of Antichrist (Nero, Julian, Mahomet), so it was in an individual
(Antiochus Epiphanes) that the Jews beUeved that they saw such. It
is by no means improbable that S. John himself considered Nero to be
a type, indeed the great type, of Antichrist. When Nero perished so
miserably and obscurely in a.d. 68, Romans and Christians aUke
believed that he had only disappeared for a time. Like the Emperor
Frederick II. in Germany, and Sebastian 'the Regretted' in Portugal,
this last representative of the Caesars was supposed to be stiU ative in
mysterious retirement : some day he would return. Among Christians
this belief took the form that Nero was to come again as the Antichrist
(Suet. Nero, 40, 56 ; Tac. Hist. u. 8). AU this wtil incline us to beUeve
that the Antichrist, of whose future coming S. John's 'tittle children'
had heard, was not a mere principle, but a person.
(6) " That Antichrist is one individual man, not a power, not a
mere ethical spirit, or a political system, not a dynasty, or a succes
sion of rulers, was the universal tradition of the early Church." This
strong statement seems to need a smaU amount of qualification. The
Alexandrian School is not fond of the subject. " Clement makes no
mention of the Antichrist at aU; Origen, after his fashion, passes
into the region of generalizing allegory. The Antichrist, the 'ad
versary,' is 'falBe doctrine'; the temple of God in which he sits and
exalts himself, is the written Word ; men are to flee, when he comes,
to ' the mountains of truth ' (Hom. xxix. in Matt.). Gregory of
Nyssa (Orat. xi. c. Eunom.) foUows in the same track." StiU the
general tendency is aU the other way. Justin Martyr (Trypho xxxii.)

APPENDICES. 1 59
says ''He whom Daniel foreteUs would have dominion for a time,
and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak
blasphemous and daring things against the Most High." He speaks
of him as 'the man of sin.' Irenaeus (v. xxv. 1, 3), Tertullian (De
Res. Cam. xxrv., xxv.), Lactantius (Div. Inst. vn. xvii.), Cyril of
Jerusalem (Catech. xv. 4, 11, 14, 17), and others take a similar view,
some of them enlarging much upon the subject. Augustine (De Civ.
Dei, xx. xix.) says "Satan shaU be loosed, and by means of that
Antichrist shaU work with all power in a lying but wonderful manner."
Jerome affirms that Antichrist " is one man, in whom Satan shaU
dweU bodily"; and Theodoret that "the Man of Sin, the son of
perdition, wtil make every effort for the seduction of the pious, by
false miracles, and by force, and by persecution." From these and
many more passages that might be cited it is quite clear that the
Church of the first three or four centuries almost universaUy regarded
Antichrist as an individual. The evidence, beginning with Justin
Martyr in the sub-Apostolic age, warrants us in betieving that in
this stream of testimony we have a beUef which prevailed in the time
of the Apostles and was possibly shared by them. But as regards this
last point it is worth remarking how reserved the Apostles seem to
have been with regard to the interpretation of prophecy. "What the
Apostles disclosed concerning the future was for the most part disclosed
by them in private, to individuals — not committed to writing, not in
tended for the edifying of the body of Christ, — and was soon lost "
(J. H. Newman).
(c) Besides the various passages in N.T. which point to the coming
of false Christs and false prophets (Matt. xxiv. 5, 24 ; Mark xiii. 22, 23 ;
Acts xx. 29 ; 2 Tim. iti. 1; 2 Pet. ti. 1), there are two passages which
give a detailed description of a great power, hostile to God and His
people, which is to arise hereafter and have great success ; — Rev. xiii.
and 2 Thess. ti. The second of these passages will be considered in the
discussion of the second question. With regard to the first this much
may be asserted with something tike certainty, that the correspondence
between the ' beast ' of Rev. xiii. and the ' little horn ' of Dan. viii. is too
close to be accidental. But in consideration of the difficulty of the
subject and the great diversity of opinion it would be rash to affirm
positively that the ' beast ' of the Apocalypse is a person. The corre
spondence between the ' beast ' and the ' little horn ' is not so close as to
compel us to interpret both images alike. The wiser plan wtil be to
leave Rev. xiii. out of consideration as neutral, for we cannot be at all
sure whether the beast (1) is a person, (2) is identical with Antichrist.
We shaU find that 2 Thess. ti. favours the belief that Antichrist is an
individual. II. There is a strong preponderance of opinion in favour of the
view that the Antichrist ofS. John is the same as the great adversary of
S. Paul (2 Thess. ti. 3). 1. Even in the name there is some similarity ;
the Antichrist (b dvHxpiaros) and 'he that opposeth' (d dvnxelpevos).
And the idea of being a rival Christ which is included in the name
Antichrist and is wanting in 'he that opposeth,' is supptied in S. Paul's
description of the great opponent: for he is a 'man,' and he 'setteth

160 APPENDICES.
himself forth as God.' 2. Both Apostles state that their readers had
previously been instructed about this future adversary. 3. Both
declare that his coming is preceded by an apostasy of many nominal
Christians. 4. Both connect his coining with the Second Advent
of Christ. 5. Both describe bim as a liar and deceiver. 6. S. Paul
says that this 'man of sin exalteth himself against aU that is caUed
God.' S. John places the spirit of Antichrist as the opposite of
the Spirit of God. 7. S. Paul states that his ' coming is according
to the working of Satan.' S. John impUes that he is of the evil one.
8. Both Apostles state that, although this great opponent of the
truth is still to come, yet his spirit is already at work in the world
With agreement in so many and such important details before us,
we can hardly be mistaken in affirming that the two Apostles in their
accounts of the trouble in store for the Church have one and the same
meaning. Having answered, therefore, this second question in the affirmative
we return to the first question with a substantial addition to the
evidence. It would be most unnatural to understand S. Paul's
'man of sin' as an impersonal principle; and the widely different
interpretations of the passage for the most part agree in this, that
the great adversary is an individual. If, therefore, S. John has
the same meaning as S. Paul, then the Antichrist of S. John is an
individual. To sum up: — Although none of the four passages in S. John's
Epistles are conclusive, yet the first of them (1 John ti. 18) inclines us
to regard Antichrist as a person. This view is confirmed (a) by earUer
Jewish ideas on the subject, (6) by subsequent Christian ideas from the
sub-ApostoUc age onwards, (c) above aU by S. Paul's description ofthe
'man of sin,' whose similarity to S. John's Antichrist is of a very close
and remarkable kind.
For further information on this difficult subject see the articles on
Antichrist in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (Appendix), unci Dictionary
of Christian Biography, with the authorities there quoted ; also four
lectures on The Patristical Idea of Antichrist in J. H. Newman's
Discussions and Arguments. C. The Sect of the Catnites.
The name of this extravagant Gnostic sect varies considerably in
different authors who mention them: Cainistae, Caiani, Cainani,
Cainaei, Cainiani, Caini, and possibly other varieties, are found.
Cainites were a branch of the Ophites, one of the oldest forms of
Gnosticism known to us. Other branches of the Ophites known
to us through Hippolytus are the Naassenes (Naash) or 'Venerators
of the serpent,' the Peratae (vipav or vtpav) ' Transmarines ' or
'Transcendentatists,' the Sethians or 'Venerators of Seth,' and the
Justinians or foUowers of Justin, a teacher otherwise unknown. Of
these the Naassenes, as far as name goes, are the same as the Ophites,
the one name being Hebrew, and the other Greek (6<pis) in origin, and
both meaning ' Serpentists ' or 'Venerators of the serpent.'

APPENDICES. 161
AU the Ophite sects make the serpent play a prominent part in their
system, and that not out of sheer caprice or extravagance, but as part
of a reasoned and philosophical system. In common with almost aU
Gnostics they held that matter is radieaUy evti, and that therefore the
Creator of the material universe cannot be a perfectly good being. The
Ophites regarded the Creator as in the main an evti being, opposed to
the Supreme God. From this it foUowed that Adam in disobeying
his Creator did not faU from a high estate, nor rebel against the
Most High, but defied a hostile power and freed himself from its
thraldom: and the serpent who induced Ivim to do this, so far from
being the author of sin and death, was the giver of light and liberty.
It was through the serpent that the human race was first made aware
that the being who created them was not supreme, but that there were
higher than he ; and accordingly the serpent became the symbol of
intelligence and entightenment.
LogicaUy carried out, such a system involved a complete inversion
of all the moral teaching of the Old Testament. AU that the Creator of
the world (who is the God of the Jews) commands, must be disobeyed,
and aU that He forbids must be done. The negative must be struck
out of the Ten Commandments, and evei^hing that Moses and the
Prophets denounced must be cultivated as virtues. From this monstrous
consequence of their premises most of the Ophites seem to have recoiled.
Some modified their premises and made the Creator to be, not an
utterly evil being, but an inferior power, who through ignorance some
times acted in opposition to the Supreme God. Others, while retain
ing the Ophite doctrine that the serpent was a benefactor and deUverer
of mankind in the matter of the temptation of Eve, endeavoured to
bring this into harmony with Scripture by declaring that he did this
service to mankind unwittingly. His intention was evti ; he wished
to do a mischief to the human race. But it was overruled to good ;
and what the serpent plotted for the ruin of man turned out to be
man's entightenment.
The Cainites, however, accepted the Ophite premises without quaU-
fication, and foUowed them without shrinking to their legitimate
conclusion. Matter and the Creator of everything material are utterly
evil. The revolt of Adam and Eve against their Creator was a
righteous act, the breaking up of a tyranny. The serpent who sug
gested and aided this emancipation is a good being, as worthy of
veneration, as the Creator is of abhorrence. The redemption of man
begins with the first act of disobedience to the Creator. Jesus Christ
is not the redeemer of the human race. He merely completed what
the serpent had begun. Indeed some Cainites seem to have identified
Jesus with the serpent. Others again, with more consistency, seem
to have maintained that Jesus was an enemy of the truth and deserved
te die.
The moral outcome of such a system has been already indicated,
and the Cainites are said to have openly accepted it. Everything that
the God of the Old Testament forbids must be practised, and every
thing that He orders abjured. Cain, the people of Sodom, Esau,
Korah, Dathan and Abiram, are the characters to be imitated as saints
S. JOHN (EP.) L

i6a APPENDICES.
and heroes ; and in the New Testament, Judas. These are the true
martyrs, whom the Creator and His foUowers have persecuted. About
Judas, as about Jesus Christ, they seem not to have been agreed, some
maintaining that he justly caused the death of one who perverted the
truth ; others, that having higher knowledge than the Eleven, he saw
the benefits which would foUow from the death of Christ, and there
fore brought it about. These benefits, however, were not such as
Christians commonly suppose, viz. the detiverance of mankind from
the power of the serpent, but the final extinction of the dominion of
the Creator. Irenaeus (Haer. i. xxxi. 1) tells us that they had a book
called the Gospel of Judas. In the next section he states the practical
result of these tenets. " They say, Uke Carpocrates, that men cannot
be saved until they have gone through aU kinds of experience. They
maintain also that in every one of their sinful and foul actions an
angel attends them and listens to them as they work audacity and
incur pollution. According to the nature of the action they invoke
the name of the angel, saying, ' 0 thou angel, I use thy work. 0
thou great power, I accompUsh thy action.' And they declare that
this is ' perfect knowledge,' — fearlessly to rush into such actions as it
is not right even to name."
These are developments of those ' depths of Satan ' of which S. John
speaks in the Apocalypse (ti. 24) as a vaunted form of knowledge.
Into the fantastic details of the system it is not necessary to enter.
Suffice to say that, taking an inverted form of the Old Testament
narrative as their basis, they engrafted upon it whatever took their
fancy in the Egyptian rites of Isis and Osiris, the Greek mysteries of
Eleusis, the Phoenician cultus of Adonis, the speculative cosmogony
of Plato, or the wild orgies of Phrygian Cybele. Purpurei panni from
all these sources find place in the patchwork system of trie Ophite
Gnostics. Christianity supplied materials for stiU further accretions,
and probably acted as a considerable stimulus to the development of
such theories. In several of its Protean forms we trace what appear
to be adaptations of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
" The first appearance of the Ophite heresy in connexion with
Christian doctrines," says Dean Mansel (The Gnostic Heresies, p. 104),
"can hardly be placed later than the latter part of the first century ;
which brings us within the limits of S. John's .lifetime. It is not
probable that the monstrous system of the Cainites was formulated as
early as this. But the first beginnings of it were there ; and it is by
no means impossible that 1 John tii. 10 — 12 was written as a con
demnation of the principles on which the Cainite doctrine was built.
Be this as it may, the prodigious heresy, although it probably never
had very many adherents and died out in the third century, is never
theless very instructive. It shews us to what results the great Gnostic
principle, that matter is utterly evil, when courageously foUowed to
its logical consequences, leads. And it therefore helps us to understand
the stern and uncompromising severity with which Gnostic principles
are condemned, by impUoation in the Fourth Gospel, and in express
terms in these Epistles.

APPENDICES. 163
D. The Theee Heavenly Witnesses.
The outcry which has been made in some quarters against the
Revisers for omitting the disputed words in 1 John v. 7, and without a
hint in the margin that there is any authority for them, is not creditable
to EngUsh scholarship. The veteran scholar DoUinger expressed his
surprise at this outcry in a conversation with the present writer in July,
1882: and he expressed his amazement and amusement that anyone in
these days should write a book in defence of the passage, in a conver
sation in September, 1883. The Revisers' action is a very tardy aot of
justice; and we may hope that, whether their work as a whole is
autiiorised or not, leave will before long be granted to the clergy to
omit these words in reading 1 John v. as a Lesson at Morning or
Evening Prayer, or as the Epistle for the' First Sunday after Easter.
The insertion of the passage in the first instance was quite indefensible,
and it is difficult to see upon what sound principles its retention can
be defended. There would be no difficulty in treating this case by
itself and leaving other disputed texts to be dealt with hereafter. The
passage stands absolutely alone (a) in the completeness of the evidence
against it, (6) in the momentous character of the insertion. A sum
mary of the evidence at greater length than could conveniently be
given in a note wtil convince any unprejudiced person that (as Dr
DoUinger observed) nothing in textual criticism is more certain than
that the disputed words are spurious.
(i) The External Evidence.
1. Every Greek uncial MS. omits the passage.
2, Every Greek cursive MS. earlier than the; fifteenth century omits
the passage.
3. Out of about 250 known cursive MSS. only two (No. 162 of the
15th century and No. 34 of the 16th century) contain the passage, and
in them it is a manifest translation from a late recension of the Latin
Vulgate. Erasmus hastily promised that if he could find the words in a single
Greek MS. he would insert them in his text ; and on the authority of
No. 34 (61 of the Gospels) he inserted them in his third edition (1522) ;
Beza and Stephanus inserted them also : and hence their presence in
all EngUsh Versions until the Revised Version of 1881.
4. Every Ancient Version of the first four centuries omits the

5. Every Version earlier than the fourteenth century, except the
Latin, omits the passage.
6. No Greek Father quotes the passage in any of the numerous dis
cussions on the doctrine of the Trinity. Against SabelUanism and
Arianism it would have been almost conclusive.
It has been urged that the orthodox Fathers did not quote v. 7 because
in conjunction with v. 8 it might be used in the interests of Arianism;
in other words that they shirked a passage, which they saw might teU
against them, instead of proving that it did not teU against them !
And Cyril must not only have shirked but suppressed the disputed
L2

164 APPENDICES.
words, for he thrice quotes the passage without them. But in that
case why did not the Arians quote v. 7? Had they done so, the ortho
dox would have repUed and shewn the true meaning of both verses.
Evidently both parties were ignorant of its existence.
Again, it has been urged that the Greek Synopsis of Holy Scripture
printed in some editions of the Greek Fathers, and also the so-caUed
Disputation with Arius, "seem to betray an acquaintance with the dis
puted verse." Even if this 'seeming' could be shewn to be a reaUty,
the fact would prove no more than that the interpolation existed in
a Greek as well as a Latin form about the fifth century. Can we
seriously defend a text which does not even 'seem' to be known to a
single Greek Father until 350 years or more after S. John's death?
Could we defend a passage as Chaucer's which was never quoted until
the nineteenth century, and was in no edition of his works of earlier
date than that ? — And the ' seeming ' can not be shewn to be a reaUty.
7. No Latin Father earlier than the fifth century quotes the
passage. It is sometimes stated that Tertullian possibly, and S. Cyprian
certainly, knew the passage. Even if this were true, it would prove
nothing for the genuineness of the words against the mass of testimony
mentioned in the first six of these paragraphs. Such a fact would only
prove" that the insertion, which is obviously of Latin origin, was made
at a very early date. But the statement is not true. " Tertultian and
Cyprian use language which makes it moraUy certain that they would
have quoted these words had they known them" (Westcott and Hort
Vol. n. p. 104).
Tertullian's words are as foUows: — 'De meo sumet,' inquit, sicut ipse
de Patris. Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et FUU in Paracleto, tres efficit
cohaerentes alterum ex altera : qui tres unum sunt, non unus; quomodo
dictum est, 'Ego et Pater unumsumus,' adsubstantiaeunitatem,nonad
numeri singularitatem. " He saith, He shall take of Mine (John xvi.
14), even as He Himself of the Father. Thus the connexion of the
Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, maketh Three that
cohere together one from the other : which Three are one Substance,
not one Person ; as it is said, I and My Father are one (John x. 30), in
respect to unity of essence, not to singularity of number " (Adv.Praxean
xxv.). S. Cyprian writes thus; Dicit Dominus, 'Ego et Pater unum
sumus '; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est,
'Et tres unum sunt.' "The Lord saith, I and the Father are one; and
again it is written concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, And
three are one " (De Unit. Eccl. vi.).
It is very difficult to believe that TertulUan's words contain any
aUusion to the disputed passage. The passage in S. Cyprian seems at
first sight to look Uke such an aUusion ; but in aU probabtiity he has
in his mind the passage which foUows the disputed words ; ' the spirit,
the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one'; the Latin
Version of which runs, spiritus et aqua et sanguis ; et hi tres unum sunt.
For the Vulgate makes no difference between the conclusions of vv. 1
and 8 ; in both cases the sentence ends with et hi tres unum sunt. That

APPENDICES. 165
S. Cyprian should thus positively allude to • the spirit, the water, and
the blood as 'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit' wtil seem im
probable to no one who is familiar with the extent to which the Fathers
mate any triplet found in Scripture, not merely suggest, but signify the
Trinity. To take an example from Cyprian himself: "We find that
the three children with Daniel, strong in faith and victorious in cap
tivity, observed the third, sixth, and ninth hour, as it were, for a sacra
ment of the Trinity, which in the last times had to be manifested. For
both the first hour in its progress to the third shews forth the consum
mated number of the Trinity, and also the fourth proceeding to the
sixth declares another Trinity ; and when from the seventh the ninth
is completed, the perfect Trinity is numbered every three hours"
(Dom. Orat. xxxiv.).
But perhaps the most conclusive argument in favour of the view that
Cyprian is alluding to ' the spirit, the water and the blood,' and not
to ' the Three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Spirit,' is S. Augustine's treatment of the passage in question.
In all his voluminous writings there is no trace of the clause about the
Three Heavenly Witnesses; but about 'the spirit, the water and the
blood' he writes thus: — "Which three things if we look at as they are
in themselves, they are in substance several and distinct, and not one.
But if we wtil inquire into the things signified by these, there not
unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the
one, only, true, supreme God, Father, and Son and Holy Spirit,
of whom it could most truly be said, There are Three Witnesses, and
the Three are One. So that by the term ' spirit' we should understand
God the Father to be signified ; as indeed it was concerning the wor
shipping of Him that the Lord was speaking, when He said, God is
spirit. By the term 'blood,' the Son; because the Word was made
flesh. And by the term 'water,' the Holy Spirit; as, when Jesus
spake of the water which He would give to them that thirst, the
Evangelist saith, But this said He of the Spirit, which they that
believed on Him were to receive. Moreover, that the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are witnesses, who that believes the Gospel can doubt,
when the Son saith, I am one that bear witness of Myself, and the
Father that sent Me, He beareth witness of Me ? Where, though the
Holy Spirit is not mentioned, yet He is not to be thought separated
from them " (Contra Maxim, n. xxii. 3). Is it credible that S. Augus
tine would go to S. John's Gospel to prove that the Father and the
Son might be caUed witnesses if in the very passage which he is ex
plaining they were caUed such? His explanation becomes fatuous if
the disputed words are genuine. A minute point of some significance
is worth remarking, that in these passages both S. Cyprian and S.
Augustine invariably write 'the Son,' not 'the Word,' which is the
expression used in the disputed passage.
Facundus of Hermiana in his Defence of the "Three Chapters"
(0. a.d. 550) explains 1 John v. 8 in the same manner as S. Augustine,
quoting the verse several times and evidently knowing nothing of v. 7.
This shews that late in the sixth century the passage was not generaUy
known even in North Africa. Moreover he quotes the passage of S.

1 66 APPENDICES.
Cyprian as authority for this mystical interpretation of v. 8. This
shews how (300 yeairs after he wrote) S. Cyprian was still understood
by a Bishop of his own Church, even after the interpolation had been
made. Attempts have been made to weaken the evidence of Facundus
by asserting that Fulgentius, who is a little earUer in date, understood
Cyprian to be referring to v. 7, not to v. 8. It is by no means certain
that this is the meaning of Fulgentius ; and, even if it is, it proves no
more than that in the sixth century, as in the nineteenth, there were
some persons who believed that Cyprian aUudes to 1 John v. 7.
Even if such persons were right, it would only shew that this cor
ruption, Uke many other corruptions of the text, was in existence in
the third century.
This may suffice to shew that the passage in Cyprian probably
refers to 1 John v. 8 and gives no support to v. 7. And this probability
becomes something like a certainty when we consider the extreme un
likelihood of his knowing a text which was whoUy unknown to S.
Hilary, S. Ambrose, and S. Augustine ; which is absent from the earUest
MSS. of the Vulgate (and consequently was not known to Jerome);
and which is not found in Leo I.1 Neither Codex Amiatinus, c. a-.d.
541, "doubtless the best manuscript of the Vulgate" (Scrivener), nor
Codex Fuldensis, a.d. 546, contains the passage, though the latter
inserts the Prologue, which defends the interpolation.
The anonymous treatise On Rebaptism (which begins with a fierce
attack on the view of S. Cyprian that heretics ought to be rebaptized,
and was therefore probably written before the martyrdom of the
bishop) twice quotes the passage (xv. and xix.), and in each case says
nothing about the Three bearing witness in heaven, but mentions only
the spirit, the water, and the blood. This confirms the beUef that the
words were not found in the Latin Version in use in North Africa at
that time.
Lastly, the letter of Leo the Great to Flavianus in b.c. 449 (The
Tome of S. Leo, v.), shortly before the Council of Chalcedon, "sup-
pties positive evidence to the same effect for the Roman text by
quoting vv. 4 — 8 without the inserted words" (Westcott and Hort,
Vol. n. p. 104).
Therefore the statement, that No Latin Father earlier than the fifth
century quotes the passage, is strictly correct. The words in question
first occur in some Latin controversial writings towards the end of the
fifth century, but are not often quoted until the eleventh. The inser
tion appears to have originated in North Africa, which at the close of
the fifth century was suffering from a cruel persecution under the
Arian Vandals. The words are quoted in part in two of the works
attributed to VigiUus of Thapsus, and a Uttle later in one by Fulgentius
of Ruspe. They are also quoted in a confession of faith drawn up by
Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage, and presented to Hunnerio c. a.d. 48i
• The passage (sometimes quoted as from S. Cyprian) in the Epistle to
Jubaianus may be omitted. 1. S. Augustine doubled the genuineness of the
Epistle. 2. The important words cum tres unum sunt are not found in all, if
any, early editions of the Epistle. 8. Even if they are genuine, they come from
v. 8, not from v. 7.

APPENDICES. 167
But it is worth noting that in these first appearances of the text the
wording of it varies: the form has not yet become set. Moreover, in
the earUest MSS. which contain it, the Heavenly Witnesses come after
'the spirit, and the water, and the blood,' indicating that the insertion
was originaUy a gloss: and one form of the reading introduces the
gloss with a sicut, thus : Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus
et aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Sicut in caelo tres sunt, Pater
Verbum et Spiritus, et tres unum sunt. " This momentous sicut explains
how the words, from being a gloss or tilustration, crept into the text"
(Dobbin, Codex Montfortianus, p. 45). The Prologus Galeatus to the
Catholic Epistles, falsely written in the name of Jerome, blames the
Latin translators of the Epistle for omitting Patris et FUU et Spiritus
testimonium, while the writer of it naively confesses that his contempo
raries condemned him as falsarium corruptoremque sanctorum scriptu-
rarum. The date of it is certainly far later than Jerome. But not
until some centuries later are the inserted words often cited even by
Latin writers. Bede, the representative scholar of Western Christen
dom in the eighth century, omits aU notice of them in his commentary,
and probably did not know them; for he comments on every other
verse in the chapter. StiU later (a.d. 797) Alcuin was com missioned
by Charles the Great to prepare a critical edition from the best Latin
MSS. without reference to the original Greek ; and he also omitted the

The external evidence against them could not well be much stronger.
If S. John had written the words, who would wish to expel such con
clusive testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture? If
anyone had wished to do so, how could he have kept the words out
of every MS. and every Version for four centuries ? And had he suc
ceeded in doing this, how could they have been recovered? Let us
grant, for the sake of argument, that the passage was known to Ter
tullian, Cyprian, and some later Latin writers; is it therefore even
possibly genuine? No reasonable hypothesis can be framed to account
for a genuine portion of the Greek Testament being known to certain
Latin authorities but to no others, whether Greek, Syriac, or Egyptian.
In short, we may use in this case the argument which Tertullian
uses with such force in reference to the Christian faith. " Is it credible
that so many and such important authorities should have strayed into
giving unanimous testimony?" Ecquid verisimile est ut tot ei tantae
ecclesiae in unam fidem erfaverint ?
(ti) Internal Evidence.
But it is sometimes said that, although the external evidence is no
doubt exceedingly strong, yet it is not the whole of the case. The
internal evidence also must be considered, and that teUs very power
fully the other way. Let us admit for the sake of argument that the
internal evidence is very strongly in favour of the genuineness of the
disputed words. Let us assume that the passage, though making
sense without the words (as is indisputably the case), makes far better
sense with the words. Let us suppose that the sense of the passage

168 APPENDICES.
when thus enlarged is so superior to the shorter form of it, that it
would be incredible that anyone to whom the longer form had occurred
would ever write the shorter one. Can ati this prove, in the teeth of
abundant evidence to the contrary, that the longer and vastly superior
passage was written, and not the shorter and inferior one ? If twenty
reporters quite independently represent an orator as having uttered a
very tame and clumsy sentence, which the insertion of a couple of short
clauses would make smooth and far more telling, would this fact con
vince us that the orator must have spoken the two clauses, and that
twenty reporters had all accidentally left just these two clauses out?
The fact that in a few out of many editions of the orator's collected
speeches, pubtished many years after his death, these two clauses were
found, but not always in exactly the same words, would hardly
strengthen our belief that they were actually uttered at the time. No
amount of internal probability, supplemented by subsequent evidence
of this kind, ought to shake our confidence in the reports of the twenty
writers who took down the speaker's words at the moment. Where
the external evidence is ample, harmonious, and credible, considerations
of internal evidence are out of place. If the authorities which omit
the words in question had united in representing S. John as having
written nonsense or blasphemy, then, in spite of their number and
weight and unanimity, we should refuse to beUeve them. But here no
such doubts are possible ; and the abundance and coherence of the
external evidence teU us that the internal evidence, whatever its testi
mony, cannot be aUowed any weight.
And here it is very important to bear in mind an obvious but not
always remembered truth. Although internal evidence by itself may
be sufficient to decide what an author did not write, it can never by
itself be sufficient to decide what he did write. Words may be in the
highest degree appropriate to the subject and harmonious with the
context ; but that does not prove that they were written. Without
any external evidence we may be certain that S. John did not write
' The Word cannot come in the flesh ' ; but without external evidence
we cannot know what he did write. And if the external evidence
amply testifies that he wrote ' The Word became flesh,' it is absurd to
try and ascertain from the internal evidence what (in our judgment)
he must have written. So also in the present case it is absurd to say
that the internal evidence (even if altogether in favour of the disputed
words) can prove that S. John wrote the passage. In other words,
although internal evidence alone may suffice to prove a passage
spurious, it can never suffice to prove a passage genuine.
The case has been discussed on this basis for the sake of argument
and to meet the extraordinary opinion that the internal evidence is in
favour of the inserted words. But as a matter of fact internal consi
derations require us to expel the clauses in question almost as impera
tively as does the testimony of MSS., Versions, and Fathers.
1. The inserted words break the sense. In v. 6 we have the water,
the blood, and the spirit mentioned; and they are recapitulated in
S. John's manner in v. 8. The spurious words in v. 7 make an awk
ward parenthesis; which is only avoided when, as is sometimes the

APPENDICES. 169
Sr.""»I ^.ifS6fed ^ "• 8- And ™ this Potion " b^ays its
origin, as having been in the first instance a comment one. 8.
•ni'cittZ. ?°wh?re sPeaks °f ' the Father' and ' the JTord ' together.
i<^t % «yS Gof ^nd ' the IPoni' (John i. 1, 2, 13, 14 ; Rev. xix. 13),
or 'the iather' and 'the Son' (1 John ii. 22, 23, 24, &o. &c). John
1. 14 is no exception; 'father' in that passage has no article in the
Greek, and should not have a capital letter in English. S. John never
uses Trarryp tor the Father without the article ; and the meaning of the
clause is 'the glory as of an only son on a mission from a father. '
Contrast, as marking S. John's usage, John i. 1 with i. 18.
3. Neither in his Gospel, nor in the First Epistle, does S. John use
the theological term ' the Word ' in the body of the work : in both cases
this expression, which is peculiar to himself in N. T., is confined to the
Prologue or Introduction.
4. The inserted words are in the theological language of a later age.
No Apostle or EvangeUst writes in this sharp, clear-cut style respecting
the Persons in the Trinity. The passage is absolutely without anything
approaching to a paraUel in N. T. If they were original, they would
throw the gravest doubt upon the Apostolio authorship of the Epistle.
As Haupt observes, "No one can deny that in the whole compass of
Holy Writ there is no passage even approaching the dogmatic precision
with which, in a manner approximating to the later ecclesiastical defi
nitions, this one asserts the immanent Trinity. Such a verse could not
have been omitted by inadvertence ; for even supposing such a thing
possible in a text of such moment, the absence of the words iv ry yrj
of v. 8 would stiU be inexplicable. The omission must then have been
intentional, and due to the hand of a heretic. But would such an act
have remained uncondemned ? And were all our MSS. produced by
heretics or framed from heretical copies ? "
5. The incarnate Son bears witness to man ; and the Spirit given at
Pentecost bears witness to man ; and through the Son, and the Spirit,
and His messengers in Old and New Testament, the Father bears
witness to man ; — respecting the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
But in what sense can the Three Divine Persons be said to bear witness
in heaven ? Is there not something almost irreverent in making Them
the counterpart of the triple witness on earth? The incongruity
recaUs that of the ignorant petition once seen placarded in a Roman
Cathotic Church, " Holy Trinity, pray for us." And for whose benefit
is the witness in heaven given? Do the angels need it? And if they
do, what has this to do with the context? Nor can we avoid this
difficulty by saying that the Three are in heaven, but bear witness on
earth. It is expressly stated that the Three bear witness in heaven,
while three other witnesses do so on earth.
6. The addition ' and these Three are one, ' though exactly what
was required by the interpolators for controversial purposes, is exactly
what is not required here by the context. What is required is, not
that the Three Witnesses should in essence be only One, which would
reduce the value of the testimony ; but that the Three should agree,
which would enhance the value of the testimony
On this part of the evidence the words of S. T. Coleridge and of

1 70 APPENDICES.
F. D. Maurice respecting the passage are worth considering. The for
mer says, " I think the verse of the three witnesses spurious, not only
because the balance of external authority is against it, as Porson
seems to have shewn ; but also because, in my way of looking at it, it
spoils the reasoning." (Table Talk, Jan. 6, 1823.) The latter writes,
"If it was genuine, we should be bound to consider seriously what it
meant, however much its introduction in this place might puzzle us,
however strange its phraseology might appear to us. Those who dwell
with awe upon the Name into which they have been baptized ; those
who believe that aU the books of the Bible, and St John's writings
more than aU the rest, reveal it to us ; those who connect it with
Christian Ethics, as I have done ; might wonder that an Apostle
should make a formal announcement of this Name in a parenthesis,
and in connexion with such a phrase as bearing record, one admirably
suited to describe the intercourse of God with us, but quite unsuitable,
one would have thought, as an expression of His absolute and eternal
being. StiU, if it was reaUy one of St John's utterances, we should
listen to it in reverence, and only attribute these difficulties to our own
blindness. As we have the best possible reasons for supposing it is
not his, but merely the gloss of some commentator, which crept into
the text, and was accepted by advocates eager to confute adversaries,
less careful about the truth they were themselves fighting for, — we may
thankfully dismiss it" (Epistles of St John, pp. 276, 277). Add to
this the emphatic declaration of Sir Isaac Newton; "Let them make
good sense of it who are able: for my part I can make none."
We have, therefore, good grounds for saying that the internal
evidence, no less than the external, requires us to banish these words
from the text. They are evidence of the form which Trinitarian doc
trine assumed in North Africa in the fifth century, and possibly at an
earlier date. They are an old gloss on the words of S. John; valuable
as a specimen of interpretation, but without the smallest claim to be
considered original. Had they not found a place in the Textus
Receptus, few people not bound (as Roman Cathotics are) to accept the
later editions of the Vulgate without question, would have dreamed of
defending them. Had the translators of 1611 omitted them, no one
(with the evidence, which we now possess, before him) would ever have
dreamed of inserting them. In Greek texts the words were first
printed in the Complutensian edition of a.d. 1514, the addition being
made, not from any Greek authority, but by translation from the Vul
gate. Erasmus in his first two editions (1516 and 1518) omitted
them ; but having given his unhappy promise to insert them if they
could be found in any Greek MS. , he printed them in his third edition
(1522), on the authority of the worthless Codex Britannicus (No. 34).
Yet even in his third edition, though he inserts the words in the text,
he argues against their genuineness in the notes. Stephanus and
Beza inserted them also: and thus they obtained a place in the
universaUy used Textus Receptus. Luther never admitted them to his
translation, and in the first edition of his commentary declared them
to be spurious ; but in the second edition he followed the third edition
of Erasmus and admitted the words. They first appear in translations

APPENDICES. 1 7i
published in Switzerland without Luther's name, as in the Zurich
edition of Froschover (1529). They were at first commonly printed
either in different type or in brackets. The Basle edition of Bryltinger
(1552) was one of the first to omit the brackets. Perhaps the last
edition which omitted the words in the German Version is the quarto
of Zach. Schiirer (1620). Among EngUsh Versions theRevisedof 1881
has the honour of being the first to omit them. Tyndale in his first
edition (1525) printed them as genuine, in his second (1534) and third
(1535) he placed them in brackets, in the second edition with a differ
ence of type. Cranmer (1539) foUows Tyndale's second edition. But
in the Genevan (1557) the difference of type and the brackets disappear,
and are not restored in the Authorised Version (1611).
The foUowing by no means complete list of scholars who have pro
nounced against the passage will be of interest. After Richard Simon
had led the way in this direction towards the close of the seventeenth
century he was foUowed in the eighteenth by Bentley, Clarke, Emlyn,
Gibbon, Griesbach, Hezel, Matthaei, MichaeUs, Sir Isaac Newton,
Porson, Sender, and Wetstein. In the nineteenth century we have,
among others, Ezra Abbott, Bishop Alexander, Afford, Bishop Blom-
field, J. H. Blunt, S. T. Coieridge, Davidson, DoUinger, Diisterdieck,
Bishop EUicott, F. W. Farrar, Field, Haddan, Hammond, Haupt,
Holzendorff, Home, Hort, Huther, Lachmann, Bishop Lightfoot,
Bishop Marsh, Maedonald, McCleUan, F. D. Maurice, Meyriek,
Oltramare, Plumptre, Pope, Renan, Reuss, Sanday, Schaff, Schmidt,
Scrivener, Scholz, Tischendorf, TregeUes, Bishop Turton, Weiss,
WeiszSeker, Westcott, De Wette, Bishop Chr. Wordsworth, and the
Revisers. Even the most conservative textual critics have abandoned
the defence of this text. As Dr Scrivener says, "to maintain the
genuineness of this passage is simply impossible " (Introduction to
the Criticism of N. T. 649). If this passage is possibly genuine, then
scores of other passages are possibly or probably spurious, for the
evidence in their favour is less weighty than the evidence against
this passage. There is no escape from this conclusion.
Some will perhaps think that this Appendix is wasted labour : that
it is a needlessly elaborate slaying of the slain. But so long as any
educated EngUshman, above aU, so long as any EngUsh clergyman1,
1 An Essex Eector has recently (Feb. 1883) thought it worth while to publish
a, book restating most of the old and exploded arguments in defence of the dis
puted text : and a member of the York Convocation (April, 1883) denounced the
Revised Version as most mischievous, because people now heard words read as
Scripture in Church and then went home and found that the words were omitted
from the new Version as not being Scripture; and he gave as an instance the
passage about the Three Heavenly Witnesses, which had been read in the
Epistle that morning. He afterwards stated in a published letter " that the last
word had not been spoken on this text, and that he was quite content himself to
read it in the A V., as required in the Church Service... Whether the text was
expunged by the Arians (!), or interpolated by the Western Atbanasians, is as
much a question as ever." Jerome's famous hyperbole, "The whole world
groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian," fades into insignificance com
pared with the supposition that long before Jerome s day the Arians had
acquired influence enough to expunge a decisive passage/rom every copy ofthe
miin every language, m that neither Jerome, nor any Christian writer of his
time or before his time, had any knowledge of its existence! "Where was the

172 APPENDICES.
believes, and indeed pubUcly maintains, that the passage is genuine, or
even possibly genuine, trouble to demonstrate its spuriousness will not
be thrown away.

E- John the Peesbttee oe the Eldeb.
For some time past the writer of this Appendix has been disposed
to doubt the existence of any such person as John the Elder as a
contemporary of S. John the Apostle at Ephesus. It was, therefore,
with much satisfaction that he found that Professor Salmon in the
article on Joannes Presbyter in the Dictionary of Christian Biography,
Vol. m. pp. 398—401, and Canon Farrar in The Early Days of
Christianity, Vol. n. pp. 553 — 581, take a similar view. Dr Salmon's
conclusion is this; "While we are willing to receive the hypothesis of
two Johns, if it wiU help to explain any difficulty, we do not think
the evidence for it enough to make us regard it as a proved historical
fact. And we frankly own that if it were not for deference to better
judges, we should unite with Keim in relegating, though in a different
way, this 'Doppelganger' of the apostle- to the region of ghostland."
Keim, with Scholten and others, would get rid of the second John by
denying that John the Apostle was ever in Asia. This utterly unten
able hypothesis has been discussed in the Introduction, chap. i. Dr
Farrar, with more confidence, concludes thus; "A credulous spirit of
innovation is welcome to believe and to proclaim that any or aU of
S. John's writings were written by ' John the Presbyter.' They were :
but 'John the Presbyter' is none other than John the Apostle."
Professor MiUigan, Riggenbach, and Zahn are of a similar opinion,
and believe that this personnage douteux, sorte de sosie de Vapdtre, qui
trouble comme un spectre toute I'histoire de VEglise d'Ephise1, has no
separate existence. Professor Charteris speaks of him as "leaving
only vague and doubtful traces, not so much in the reminiscences of
his contemporaries as in the half-imaginary historical notes of later
ages" (Ganonicity, p. 327).
The question mainly depends upon a quotation from Papias and
the interpretation of it by Eusebius, who quotes it (H. E. in. xxxix. ;
Routh, Rei. Sac. i. 7, 8). Papias is stating how he obtained his
information. "If on any occasion any one who had been a follower
of the Elders came, I used to inquire about the discourses of the
passage lying hid all those centuries? How was it rediseoveredf Those who
have been endeavouring upon critical principles to obtain a pur© text of the
Greek Testament have been accused of unsettling men's minds by shewing that
certain small portions of the common text are of very doubtful authority. But
what profound uncertainty must be the result if we once admit, as a legitimate
hypothesis, the supposition that an heretical parry in the Church could for
several hundred years rob the whole Church, and for many hundred years rob
all but Western Christendom, of the clearest statement of the central doctrine of
Christianity. What else may not the Arians have expunged? What may they
not have inserted P
1 Kenan, L'Antechrist, p. xxiii. On the whole, however, Kenan is disposed
to believe in two Johns.

APPENDICES. 173
Elders— what Andrew or Peter said, or Phitip, or Thomas or James,
or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord's disciples ; and what Aristion
and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say."
Certainly the meaning which this at first sight conveys ib the one
which Eusebius adopts; that Papias here gives us two Johns, the
Apostle and the Elder. But closer study of the passage raises a doubt
whether this is correct. With regard to most of the disciples of the
Lord Papias could only get second-hand information ; he could learn
what each said (ttvtv) in days long since gone by. But there were
two disciples still living at the time when Papias wrote, Aristion and
John; and about these he had contemporary and perhaps personal
knowledge : he knows what they say (Xiyovat). Of one of these, John,
he had knowledge of both kinds ; reports of what he said long ago in
the days when Philip, and Thomas, and Matthew were living, and
knowledge of what he says now at the time when Papias writes. If
this be the meaning intended, we may admit that it is rather clumsily
expressed: but that wtil not surprise us in a writer, who (as Eusebius
tells us) was " of very mean intellectual power, as one may state on
the evidence of his own dissertations." The title 'Elder' cuts both
ways, and teUs for and against either interpretation. It may be urged
that 'the Elder' before the second 'John' seems to be intended to
distinguish him from the Apostle. To which it may be replied, that
it may quite as probably have been added in order to identify him
with the Apostle, seeing that throughout the passage, Andrew, Philip,
Peter, die. are called 'Elders' and not Apostles. May not 'the Elder'
be prefixed to John to distinguish him from Aristion, who was not an
Apostle? In any case the first John is caUed 'elder' and 'disciple of
the Lord ' ; and the second John is caUed ' elder ' and ' disciple of the
Lord.' So that the view of Eusebius, which prima facie appears to be
natural, turns out upon examination to be by no means certain, and
perhaps not even the more probable of the two.
But other people besides Eusebius studied Papias. What was their
view? Among the predecessors of Eusebius none is more important
than Irenaeus, who made much use of Papias's work, and indepen
dently of itknewa great deal about Ephesus and S. John ; and he makes
no mention of any second John. This fact at once throws the balance
against the Eusebian interpretation of Papias. Polycrates, Bishop of
Ephesus, would be likely to know the work of Papias ; and certainly
knew a great deal about S. John and his later contemporaries. In
the letter which he wrote to Victor, Bishop of Rome, on the Paschal
Controversy (Eus. H. E. in. xxxi. 2; v. xxiv. 1 — 6) he proudly enu
merates the 'great lights,' who have faUen asleep and Ue buried at
Ephesus, Smyrna, HierapoUs, Laodicea, and SardiB, as authorities in
favour of the Quartodeciman usage. Among these the Presbyter John
is not named. At Ephesus there are the graves of ' John who rested
on the Lord's bosom' and of the martyred Polycarp. But no tomb of
a second John is mentioned. And would not the reputed author of
two canonical Epistles and possibly of the Apocalypse have found a
place in such a list, had such a person existed distinct from the
Apostle? Whether Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vn. xxv.)

174 APPENDICES.
knew Papias or not we cannot teU ; but he had heard of two tombs at
Ephesus, each bearing the name of John. And yet he evidently knows
nothing of the Presbyter John. For while contending that the John
who wrote the Apocalypse cannot be the Apostle, he says that it is
quite uncertain who this John is, and suggests as a possibtiity ' John
whose surname was Mark,' the attendant of Paul and Barnabas (Acts
xii. 25, xiii. 5). The fragments of Leucius, writings of unknown date,
but probably earlier than Dionysius, contain many traditions respecting
S. John the Apostle, but nothing respecting any other John. The
fragments are sufficient to render it practically certain that the com
piler of the stories which they contain knew no second John.
It would seem therefore that the predecessors of Eusebius, whether
they had read Papias or not, agreed in believing in only one John, viz.
the Apostle. Therefore those of them who had read Papias (and Ire
naeus certainly had done so) must either have understood bim to mean
only one John, or must have ignored as untrue his statement respect
ing a second. There is no independent evidence of the existence of a
second John. Papias, as interpreted or misinterpreted by Eusebius, is
our sole witness. Eusebius seems to have got the hypothesis of a
second John from Dionysius. But Dionysius never quotes Papias as
supporting it, and if he had read him must have believed him to men
tion only John the Apostle.
Indeed Eusebius himself would seem at one time to have held the
same view. In his Chronicon (Schoene, p. 162) he states that Papias
and Polycarp (to whom Jerome adds Ignatius) were disciples of John
the Divine and Apostle. That Papias was the disciple of another John,
is a later theory of his, adopted (as there is good reason for beUeving)
in order to discredit the Apocalypse. Eusebius was greatly opposed
to the miUenarian theories which some people spun out of the Apo
calypse ; and in order to attack them the better he wished to shew that
the Apocalypse was not the work of the Apostle. But the Apocalypse
claims to be written by John. Therefore there must have been some
other John who wrote it. And as evidence of this other John he
quotes Papias, whose language is so obscure that we cannot be certain
whether he means one John or two.
The two tombs at Ephesus, each said to have borne the name of
John, need not disturb us much. Polycrates, writing on the spot
within a hundred years of the Apostle's death, seems to know nothing
of a second tomb. Dionysius, writing a century and a half after his
death and far away from Ephesus, has heard of two monuments, but
(much as it would have suited his theory to do so) he does not venture
to assert that they were the tombs of two Johns. Jerome, writing still
later and sttil farther away from the spot, says that a second tomb is
shewn at Ephesus as that of John the Presbyter, and that " some think
that they are two monuments of the same John, viz. the Evangetist"
— nonnulli putant duas memorias ejusdem Johannis evangelistae esse
(De Vir. Illust. ix.). The probabilities are that these people were
right. Either there were rival sites (a very common thing in topo
graphy), each claiming to be the grave of the Apostle; or there were
two monuments commemorating two different things, e.g. the place of

APPENDICES. 175
his death and the place of his burial. Very possibly they were churches
(Zahn, Acta Johannis, clxiv.).
_ The evidence, therefore, of the existence of this perplexing Presbyter
is of a somewhat shadowy kind. It amounts simply to the statement
of Papias, as conjecturally interpreted by Eusebius, and the two monu
ments. But the Eusebian interpretation is not by any means cer
tainly correct, and the two monuments do not by any means necessarily
imply two Johns. Moreover, Eusebius himself was not always of the
same opinion, making Papias sometimes the disciple of the Apostle,
sometimes the disciple of the supposed Presbyter. And in this in
consistency he is followed by Jerome. Assume the Eusebian interpre
tation to be correct, and it wiU then be very difficult indeed to explain
how it is that Irenaeus and Polycrates know nothing of this second
John, and how even Dionysius does not seem to have heard of him.
Assume that Eusebius was mistaken, and that Papias mentions the
Apostle twice over, and then aU runs smoothly.
Does this hypothetical Presbyter explain a single difficulty ? If so,
let us retain him as a reasonable hypothesis. But if, as seems to be
the case, he causes a great deal of difficulty and explains nothing that
cannot be quite well explained without him, then let him be surrendered
as a superfluous conjecture. Personae non sunt multiplicandae. We
may heartily welcome the wish of Zahn (Acta Johannis, p. cliv.) that
the pubtication of the fragments of Leucius wtil " give the coup de grace
to the erudite myth created by Eusebius about ' the Presbyter John.'
The latter has quite long enough shared in the lot of the undying
Apostle. Had this doublet of the Apostle ever existed, he could not
have failed to appear in Leucius : and in his pages the Apostle of
Ephesus could never have been caUed simply John, if he had had at his
side a second disciple of Jesus of this name. " We, therefore, give up
the second John as unhistorical. (See Salmon, Historical Introduction
toN. T., 109, 274, 330—334.)
It would seem as if ' Presbyter John ' was destined to plague and
perplex historians. A spectral personage of this name troubles, as
we have seen, the history of the Church of Ephesus. Another equaUy
mysterious personage of the same name confronts us in the history of
Europe in the twelfth century; when the West was cheered with the
news that a mighty Priest-King called Presbyter Johannes had arisen
in the East, and restored victory to the Christian cause in the contest
with the Saracens. For this extraordinary story, which appears first
perhaps in Otto of Freisingen, see Col. Yule's article in the ninth
edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Baring Gould's Myths of
the Middle Ages, p. 32. Probably in this case an unfamiliar oriental
name was corrupted into a familiar name which happened to sound
something Uke it.

176

APPENDICES.

F. The

'DoOTEINE OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES '
op S. John1.

and the Waitings

The date of the now famous Atdaxv rwv Stidtxa 'AvoarbXwv has sttil
to be determined. But it can hardly be later than a.d. 140, and may
eastiy be as early as a.d. 95. In other words it is almost certainly
earlier than the Apologies of Justin Martyr, and may possibly be
earlier than the Epistle of Clement. In any case, if it contains
evidence of a knowledge of S. John's writings it is one of the earliest
witnesses, or is perhaps the very earliest witness, that has come down
to us.
The proof of its early date is negative rather than positive. There
is an entire absence of aU those features of which Church History
between a.d. 140 and 200 is so fuU. There is no attempt at a Canon
of the New Testament Scriptures. The Evangelists are stiU treated
as one: their writings are "the Gospel." There are sttil only two
orders in the Church, bishops and deacons, the former (as in N. T.)
identical with presbyters, who are not mentioned. No outline of a
Creed is given. No Christian festival is mentioned. No doctrinal
errors are attacked; not even Gnosticism or Ebionism, which were
in full bloom by a.d. 140. The only error which is attacked is the
moral error of an evil Ufe. The language of the treatise is Scriptural,
not patristic. It has been ascertained that it has a vocabulary of 552
words, of which 504 occur in N. T., while of the remaining 48 about
17 are found in LXX. and others are compounds of N. T. words.
All these facts, with others pointing in the same direction, force on
us the conviction, that in the AiSaxv we have a very early witness to
whatever Books of N. T. were evidently known to the author.
Did he know the Epistles of S. John ? A tabular arrangement of
passages will help the student to decide this question for himself.

1 John
iv. 18. 6 di ipoBoipevos ob TercXeCcn-
tui iv oVycCrrTj.
iv. 12. rj dydirn cvutov rereXaa-
|Uvr| iv rjpiv iariv.
iv. 17. TeTeXeiiorai ij d7a-irn.
ii. 5. iv roirw r] dyam) tov 0eou
rereAeCwrcu.

Aidaxv
x. pvrjaSrjn, Kipit, rrjs ixxXrjalas
aov, tov pvaaaBai avrrjv dvb
vavrbs vovrjpov, Kal TeXeiiGcrcu
o.vtt)v kv tjj cvyaTrrj o-ov.

The phrases "to be perfeoted in love" and "to have love perfected
in" occur nowhere in Scripture bnt in these four passages. Comp.
John xvii. 23.

1 John
ti. 17. 6 koctllos Trapd-yeTcu.

Aidaxv
X. rrape\8e'Tio 6 koctm-os outos.

1 The substance of this Appendix appeared in the Churchman, July, 1884, and
October, 1885.

APPENDICES.

177

The force of this instance is weakened by the similar passage
1 Cor. vii. 31, Trapd7«i ydp rb axvpa rov ko'o-iiov tovtov: and the
AtSaxn elsewhere exhibits traces of 1 Corinthians.
1 John
iv. 1. SoKiM-dJeTe rd vvevpara.

AtSaxv
xi. *as Si vpocprjTrjs 8e8oKiiiao--
iictvos, dXrjBivbs, x.t.X.
The addition of dXrjBivbs, which is one of S. John's characteristic
expressions (see on 1 John ii. 8), strengthens the parallel in this case.

2 John
10. el Tis tpxerai vpbs vpas, xal
TOVTT|V TT|V 8l8oXT]V Oil dWp«,
iifj XapBdvere avTov.

Ai5a%^
xi. edv Si avrbs b SiSdaxwv arpaipels
SiSdo-KT) aXXr|v 8i8ayj^v els rb
xaraXvaai, \lt\ avTov aKOvcrT|T€.

The. weight of these instances from the Epistles is considerably
augmented when we find apparent reminiscences of the Fourth
Gospel and of the Apocalypse in the Aidaxv- It is almost universally
admitted that evidence for S. John's Gospel may be accepted as
evidence for his First Epistle, and vice versa. They were very possibly
published together, and the author of the Muratorian Canon seems to
treat them as one book.
In the euoharistic thanksgiving (Did. x.) we have the address
HdTcp ityw. This occurs in "the prayer of the Great High Priest"
(John xvii. 11) and nowhere else in N.T. And there are several other
expressions in the thanksgiving which look like echoes of Christ's
prayer.

Aidaxv x.
vvip rrjs 7vcocrecus xal vlarews xal
d8o.vacri.as, rjs eyvupicras rjpiv
Sid *It]o-ov tov rraiSos cov.
tfitrjv aicovtov 5id rov vatSos aov.
Tr)v btyicurOeio-av (eKKXijcriaj").

John xvii.
Sb\a.abv crov tov v\av...iva...Swarj
avrois \wr\v aicoviov. avrrj Si
iariv r) altivios \,<vr\, tra 71VC0-
crKaicri ere... xal dv dviareiXas
'lWovv Xpiarov.
ha waiv xal airol -rjviacruevoi.
The phrase eyvcopicras tjm.iv Sid'lr/aov rov *ai56s aov occurs thrice in
the eucharistic prayers and thanksgivings in the AiSaxv. Comp. xal
e-yvwpicra avTois rb 6vopd aov, xal Yvcopicrcii (John xvii. 26), and *djra d
rjxovaa vapd toC varpbs pov tyvaovra. iiiiv (John xv. 15). Moreover,
the prayer for unity in the AiSaxh (ix.), though very differently
expressed, may easily be inspired by the similar prayer in John xvii.
11, 22, 23. "Just as this broken bread was scattered upon the
mountains and being gathered together became one (iyivero &0> so let
Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy
Kingdom. " Comp. 1 Cor. x. 17.
There are two other passages which look like reminiscences of the
Fourth Gospel

John
XV. 1. iyii tlpi T| aM.irsX.os rj dXrjBivr),
xal 0 TraTTJp pou 0 7«op7os ianr.
i. 14. eo-Krjviocrev Iv T*jutv.

8. JOHN (EP.l

AiSaxv
ix. tixapiarovpiv aoi, rrdrep rjpiwv,
vvip rrjs dylas dp.-rre'Xou AaBlS.
X. vvip r. a7iou bvbparbs aov ov
KaT«rKTjvu<ras 4v Tats KapSiais
tjiluv. M

178 APPENDICES.
The source of "the holy vine of David" may be the Targum on
Ps. Ixxx. 18 and not John xv. 1; and God's "causing His Name to
tabernacle within us" may come from Rev. vii. 15 or xxi. 3 rather
than John i. 14. 2xrjvbw used intransitively is a favourite term with
S. John in aUusion to the Shekina, the 'tabernacling' of Jehovah
among His people in the Holy of Holies. But the idea of the Divine
Name being enshrined in the heart at the reception of the heavenly
food may have been suggested by Rev. ti. 17. 'I wtil give him of the
hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and upon the stone
a new name written. '
There are four other passages which may be connected with the
Apocalypse. (1) 2i), Siavora iravTOKpaTop (Did. x.). The epithet varroKpdrwp
occurs nine times in the Revelation and nowhere else in N.T.,
excepting 2 Cor. vi 18, where it is a quotation from the LXX. For
dtavbrrjs in an address to the Almighty comp. Rev. vi. 10.
(2) At the close of the eucharistic prayer we have Ef ns 61716s ianv,
epxe'o-8co (Did. x.). Comp. 6 0710s ayiaaBrjrw in (Rev, xxii. 11) ; Kai
0 Sitf/wr epx&ria (Rev. xxii. 17).
(3) In chap, xi., respecting the ministry, we read Kal vdrra
vpotprjrrjv XaXovvra kv rrvevaaTi ov iretpdcreTe, a use of veipdfciv in the
sense of ' testing ' ministers which may have been suggested by Rev.
ii. 2 ; /cai eTreipdcrio robs (pdaKovras tivai dvoarbXovs, xal oix tlal. For
iv vveipan in the sense of 'in ecstasy' comp. Rev. i. 10; iv. 2; 1 Cor.
xii. 3.
(4) Lastly, Kard Kvpiaicrjv Si Kvpiov (Did. xiv.) is probably the
earliest instance of the use of xvpiaxr) as a substantive in the sense of
the Lord's Day or Sunday. In Rev. i. 10 it is still an adjective; iv ry
KvpiaKrj rjpipa -. where, however, some understand it as meaning, not
the Lord's Day, but the Day of the Lord, i.e. the Day of Judgment.
These numerous coincidences in so short a treatise as the AiSaxv
appear to constitute a fairly strong case. Not one of them can be
considered decisive, although the first is certainly strong ; and being
from the First Epistle is of special interest in the present inquiry.
Taken altogether they seem to justify the conclusion that the author
of the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles was acquainted with much of
the teaching of S. John, either in a written, or at least in an oral
form. For a very fuU discussion of the phraseology of the Aidaxv, especiaUy
in connexion with the Canon of Scripture, see Dr Schaff's excellent
edition, New York, 1885, from which one or two of the above paraUels
are taken. He entirely agrees with the conclusion just stated.
G. The Latin Veesions compaeed in 1 John.
Critical editions of Latin Versions are among the desiderata in
textual appliances : but exceUent work is being done in this most
promising and interesting field. See especiaUy the valuable essays in
Studia Biblica (Oxford, 1885) by Professors Wordsworth and Sanday,
to the latter of whom this Appendix is much indebted.

APPENDICES. 179
The object of the Appendix is not to arrive at any conclusions
(which would necessarily be premature), but merely to give some indi
cation of the problems to be solved, and to show from the First
Epistle of S. John the kind of facts which form materials for
conclusions. What was the origin of the Old Latin Version out of which Jerome
formed the Vulgate ? Was it originally one? And, if more than one,
how many independent translations existed? In the Roman Empire
the need of a Latin translation of the Scriptures would very soon be
felt. And there would be nothing surprising in the fact, if fact it be,
that several Latin Versions, i.e. translations for general use, were
made in different parts of the Empire almost simultaneously.
The best working hypothesis at present seems on the whole to be,
that there were two such original translations; and that the great
variety of Latin texts that have come down to us are modifications
of these caused (1) by crossing of the two main stocks and (2) by local
revision of them. When the two translations came into contact, each
would influence the other : and if the English of a Northumbrian
mirier is not easily foUowed by a Cornish one even in these days of
railways and newspapers, we may be sure that a Latin Version made
in one part of the Roman Empire might need a good deal of change
in its vocabulary before it oould become popular in another part.
The two main classes of Latin texts are commonly distinguished as
African and European; and the characteristics which have been
already ascertained as belonging to each are so numerous and so
definite, that it is unlikely that these two great families wtil eventually
be traced to one parent.
But it does not necessarily foUow that each of these two original
translations covered the whole N.T. Both may have contained the
Gospels, but only one of them the remainder. Both may have con
tained the Epistles of S. Paul, but only one of them the CathoUc
Epistles. It would be very rash to argue from phenomena found in
the Gospels to conclusions respecting the Epistles, and perhaps even
from phenomena found in the text of S. James to the text of the
EpistleB of S. John.
StiU it is very interesting to notice that one of the conclusions
reached by Professor Sanday with regard to S. James does seem to hold
good of our Epistle. "What inferences are we to draw from aU this
as to the character of the Vulgate text in this Epistle (S. James) ?
Extremely little is due to Jerome himself. There is hardly a word
that cannot be proved to have been in use before bis time: in many
cases where the evidence is slenderest as to the use of the word else
where the quotations in St Augustine and Ambrosiaster prove that it
was already found in this Epistle" (Studia Biblica, 252). In the fol
lowing tables, which were not drawn up with a view to eliciting this
fact, it wtil be noticed that in the first passage (1 John ti. 1, 2) not a
Bingle word in the Vulgate text is Jerome's own; in the second (11. 15
—17) only superbia vitae; in the third (iv. 2, 3) only the second
Christum, which has no business to be there.
The passages were selected (1) because they are quoted by Cyprian,
M2

180 APPENDICES.
of whose works we now have a critical edition by Hartel ; (2) because
they each contain something of special interest in the way of reading
or translation. The arrangement of the quotations in their respective
columns is not intended to prejudge the question as to which writer
gives an African, and which a European text. But we may safely
consider Cyprian as having mainly the former, and the Vulgate as
being, at any rate in its base, the latter. Tertullian is either omitted
or placed below Cyprian, in spite of his priority. " The presence of a
reading in TertuUian,' ' says Dr Sanday, " does not, I beUeve, necessarily
prove that it is African ; for I strongly suspect that besides his own
direct translations from the Greek, he also became acquainted with the
European text during his stay at Rome, and made use of it together
with the African. But I wish to speak on aU points relating to Ter
tuUian as yet with great reserve. Cyprian is our true starting point
in the history of the African Version" (S. B. 245).
It is worth while observing that several renderings, which by evi
dence obtained in other parts of N.T. have been proved to be decidedly
African in character, are in these passages found in Cyprian, or in
Cyprian and TertuUian, and for the most part there alone. Thus iste
for hie (ista scribo) ; si qui for si quis (si qui deliquerit and si qui
dilexerit) ; delinquere for peccare (ne delinquatis : et si qui deliquerit) ;
delictum for peccatum (pro delictis nostris) ; quomodo for sicut (quomodo
et ipse [Deus] manet — four times). To such smaU points do the
characteristic differences between the two main families of Old Latin
texts extend.
These passages serve also to illustrate that tendency to interpolation
which is one of the marked features of aU Western texts. We have
the insertion of concupiscentia in 1 John ti. 16 (sed ex concupiscentia
saeculi) and the spurious addition to ti. 17 (quomodo et ipse manet in
aeternum). Comp. the addition of Dei after caritatem (iti. 16) and
after caritati (iv. 16) ; of quod majus est after hoc est testimonium Dei
(v. 9) ; and (in some copies) of ecce praedixi vobis ut in die Domini non
confundamini (2 John 11). From Wictif s and Purvey's " The grace of
God be with thee " (2 John 13) we infer that there also some Latin
texts had a spurious addition to the text. Western interpolation
reached a climax in the famous Latin addition to 1 John v. 7, 8.

Cyprian
(Ep. lv. 18).
Filioli mei, ista scribo
[scripsi Q] vobis ne de-
tinquatis: et si qui [quis
BQR] deUquerit, advo-
catum habemus apud
patrem, Iesum Christum
justum [suffragatorem
Q], et ipse est deprecatio
pro delictis nostris.
Tertullian
(De Pud. xix).
FitioU, haeo scribo
vobis, ne deUnquatis, et
si deUqueritis, advoca-
tum habemus apud Deum
patrem, Iesum Christum
justum, et ipse placatio
est pro delictis nostris.

VlGILIUS OF
Thapsus.
Haeo vobis scribo ut
non peccetis. Quod si
peccaverimus.paracUtumhabemus ad patrem.
Elsewhere Vigilius has
advocatum. Victor of Vita.
Haec scribo vobis, ne
peccetis. Sed et si quiB
peccaverit, paractitum
habemus apud patrem,
Iesum Christum.

Augustine

(Commentary). Jerome (Vulgate).

Ftiiolimei, haec scribo
vobis ut non peccetis : et
si quis peccaverit, ad
vocatum habemus ad
patrem, Iesum Christum
justum, et ipse propitia
tio est peccatorum nos-
trorum. Elsewhere Augustine
has et ipse est exoratio
pro peccatis nostris ; and
et ipse est propitiatio pro
peccatis nostris; and et
ipse propitiator est pec
catorum nostrum.

FitioU mei, haeo scribo
vobis ut non peccetis :
sed et si quis pecca
verit, advocatum habe
mus apud patrem, Iesum
Christum justum, et ipse
est propitiatio pro pecca
tis nostris.
So also Contra Jovin.
ii. 2 two or three times.

Hilary.
Ipse est placatio pro
peccatis nostris.

L-i

>

H

M

3
<
H
W
w M
fe.
o
ha
%
!?
so
^
O
ta s
H
o
feq
«H
&5
Cyprian
(Test. hi. xi).
Notite ditigere [ins.
hue A] mundum neque
ea quae in [ins. hoc A]
mundo sunt. Si qui
[quis AMB] dilexerit [ins.
nunc A] mundum, non
est caritas patris in iUo :
quoniam omne quod in
mundo est, concupis
centia carnis est et con
cupiscentia oculorum et
ambitio saeculi, quae non
est a patre, sed ex con
cupiscentia saeculi : et
mundus transibit et con
cupiscentia ejus. Qui
autem feceritvoluntatem
Dei manet [thus WLMB,
manebitrei.]in aeternum,
quomodo et ipse [et Deus
M ; omit et LB] manet in
aeternum. Cyprian quotes this
passage four times. Twice
he has quia for quoniam,
twice concup. mundi for
concup. saeculi, once ma-
nebit for manet, thrice
Deus for ipse.

Lucifer.
Et mundus transit et
concupiscentia ejus. Qui
autem fecerit voluntatem
Dei manet in aeternum,
quomodo et Deus manet
in aeternum.
Zeno of Verona.
As Cyprian Test. in.
xi, with si quis for si
qui, and Deus for ipse.
Victor of Tununa.
As Lucifer, but with
vero for autem.

Augustine
(Commentary). Jerome (Vulgate).

Notite ditigere mun
dum, neque ea quae sunt
in mundo. Si quis di
lexerit mundum, dilectio
patris non est in ipso:
quia omne quod in mun
do est, desiderium est
carnis et desiderium ocu
lorum et ambitio saeculi :
quae non sunt ex patre,
sed ex mundo sunt. Et
mundus transit et desi-
deria ejus. Qui autem
fecerit voluntatem Dei,
manet in aeternum, sicut
et ipse manet in aeter
num. Elsewhere Augustine
lias Et mundus transit
et concupiscentia ejus.
Qui autem facit vol. Dei,
manet in aeternum, sicut
et Deus m. in aeternum :
and again Qui autem
fecit.

Nolite ditigere mun
dum neque ea quae in
mundo sunt. Si quis
diligit mundum, non est
caritas patris in eo :
quoniam omne quod in
mundo est, concupis
centia carnis est et con
cupiscentia oculorum
et superbia vitae, quae
non est ex patre, sed
ex mundo est. Et mun
dus transibit et concupi
scentia ejus : qui autem
facit voluntatem Dei,
manet in aeternum.
Elsewhere Jerome has
Omne quod in mundo est,
desiderium carnis est et
desiderium oculorum et
superbia hujus vitae ;
quae non est de patre,
sed de mundo. Et mun
dus praeterit et deside
rium ejus. (Contra Jo-
vin. i. 40.)

t-i

FOCOMO % COO

O W

Cyprian
(Test. ii. viii).
Omnis spiritus, qui
confitetur Iesum Christ
um in carne [carnem
WB] venisse, de Deo est.
Qui autem negat in carne
[carnem B] venisse, de
Deo non [natus non M]
est, sed est de antichrist!
spiritu [est antichristus
M]. Comp. Tebtullian
(Adv. Marc. v. 16) who
combines either two read
ings or 1 John iv. 3
with 2 John 7 : Ioannes
apostolus qui jam anti-
christos dicit processisse
in mundum praecursores
antichristi spiritus, ne-
gantes Christum in carne
venisse, et solventes Ie
sum.

Codex Fbisingensis.
Omnis spiritus qui
confitetur Iesum [Christ
um] in carne venisse ex
Deo est: et omnis spi
ritus qui non confitetur
Iesum ex Deo non est;
et hoc est illius anti
christi. Fulgentius.
Omnis spiritus qui non
confitetur Iesum Christ
um in carne venisse ex
Deo non est ;, et hie est
antichristus. Elsewhere he has Om
nis spiritus qui solvit
Iesum ex Deo non est;
et hie est antichristus.

Translator of
Irenaeus.
Omnis spiritus qui
confitetur Iesum [Christ
um] in carne venisse, ex
Deo est. Et omnis spi
ritus qui solvit Iesum,
non est ex Deo, sed ex
[de] antichristo est.
Translator of
Origen.
Omnis spiritus qui
solvit Iesum non est ex
Deo. Lucifer.
Omnis spiritus qui
destruit Iesum ex Deo
non est ; et hie est anti
christus. TlCHONIUS.
Omnis spiritus qui
solvit Iesum et negat in
carne venisse de Deo non
est, sed hie de anti
christo est.
Conflation, as in An-

Jerome (Vulgate).
Omnis spiritus qui
confitetur Iesum Christ
um in carne venisse, ex
Deo est: et omnis spi
ritus qui solvit Iesum
Christum, ex Deo non
est ; et hie est anti
christus. The Clementine Vul
gate omits the second
Christum. Auqustine reads qui
non confitetur but ex
plains both qui non con
fitetur and qui solvit
withtutnoting the change.
Finally he combines the
two like Tertullian, but
in reverse order : solvis
Iesum et negas in carne
venisse.

!5

<fefW
oo M
o coO

o W2i < OS

tb.

CO

1 84 APPENDICES.

H. The English Veksions derived fkom the Vulgate compaked
WITH IT AND WITH ONE ANOTHEB.
A comparison of the three EngUsh Versions which are based on the
Vulgate is interesting and instructive, not only in reference to the
history of the English Bible, but also as throwing Ught on the manner
in which the Vulgate was formed. Two centuries separate Wiclif 's
work (c. 1380) from the Rhemish (1582), and much had taken place in
the way of translation of the Scriptures in the interval. Wictif's
Version, even when revised by Purvey, was a mere translation from the
Latin without reference to the Greek. The Rhemish, while professing
to be the same, was influenced by Tyndale's translation from the
original. The precise Latin texts used by Wiclif and Purvey cannot
be ascertained ; but their translation is much nearer to the ordinary
Vulgate of the Sixtine and Clementine editions than to the original
Vulgate of Jerome. This wtil be apparent from the tabular arrange
ment of the Second and Third Epistles given below. The Latin text
there printed is the Clementine, which in these Epistles agrees almost
exactly with the Sixtine, excepting as regards the spurious addition to
2 John 11, and some smaUer points in 1 John ti. 4, 24 and v. 14.
The chief readings of the Codex Amiatinus (our best authority for the
text of Jerome) are added in brackets at the end of each verse ; and the
chief readings of the Old Latin are added at the end of each Epistle.
It wiU be seen that neither Wictif nor Purvey used texts that were
closely akin either to the Old Latin or to Jerome. Purvey teUs us in
his Prologue (chap, xv.) that he " hadde myche travaile, with diverse
felawis and helperis, to gedere manie elde bibtis, and othere doctouris,
and comune glosis, and to make oo Latyn bibel soumdel trewe." But
all these "old bibles," which he and his "feUows" coUected, seem to
have had in the main the ordinary Vulgate text; and his "one Latin
bible somewhat correct " is of the same character. In a few cases he
appears to have had an older text than Wictif: e.g. 1 John v. 10
in filio for in filium; 2 John 9 praecedit for recedit: but this is not
common. And in a few instances both Wiclif and Purvey seem to
have had the reading of Jerome rather than that of the Sixtine or
Clementine text : e.g. 1 John ti. 17 transibit and not transit; iti. 19
suademus and not suadebimus. But the large majority of instances are
the other way. In 1 John ti. 4 they read Deum for eum; ti. 24 Quia si
for Si; ti. 29 et omnis for omnis; iti. 11 diligatis for diligamus; iti. 12
qui ex for ex; tii. 13 vos for nos; iti. 17 hujus mundi for mundi; iv. 10
ipse prior for ipse; iv. 17 charitas Dei for caritas; iv. 19 diligamus
Deum for diligamus, or dil. invicem; v. 7 the great interpolation;
v. 13 scribo for scripsi; v. 14 Deum for eum; v. 16 petat et dabitur for
petit et dabit.
The MSS. of Purvey's Version do not exactly agree : those of Wictif 'a
differ very considerably. The text adopted here is that of ForshaU
and Madden. A sUghtly different text wtil be found in Lewis's edition
(1731) reprinted by Baber (1810); and yet another in Bagster's very
useful English Hexapla (1841). But neither Baber nor Bagster give

APPENDICES. 185
Wictif 's Version: they give Purvey's under the name of WicUf. The
variations between these three texts of Purvey's Version do not often
S-Sf^^^f8 g0 bey°nd spelling and punctuation. The spelling of
Middle iLnghsh being phonetic, differences of spelling are considerable
even m the same document. Thus in one and the same text of 3 John
we have 'brother' and 'brothir,' 'most' and 'moost,' 'welefuly' and
'welefuti,' 'wryte' and 'write,' 'Y' and 'I.' But the MSS. have no
stops : the differences in punctuation are due to the editors. In the
Clementine Vulgate and in the Rhemish Version the punctuation is
sometimes very pecuUar.
In the N.T. the work of Purvey is very analogous to that of Jerome.
Both revisers had a complete translation, made by their predecessors,
to work upon. Both knew of variations from that translation as
sources whence improvements might possibly be drawn. In both
cases many of the changes actuaUy introduced by the reviser were
already in existence as alternative renderings in commentaries or
translations. Comparison of Old Latin texts tends to reduce within
very narrow limits the amount of work on the N.T. done by Jerome
that can justly be caUed original. And a study of the various readings
given by ForshaU and Madden under Wiclif 's Version will shew how
often the ohanges actuaUy made by Purvey have been anticipated in
some copy of the earlier translation. This is so frequently the case
in the MS. styled by the editors V (New CoUege 67), that one suspects
this document of representing an early attempt at revision made by
Purvey himself. In any case Purvey's merits are great. Out of
existing materials he made numerous exceUent selections and added
many improvements which were entirely his own. And his work im
proved as he went on. The glosses which disfigure Wiclif 's work,
and which Purvey for the most part retains and sometimes adds to in
the O.T., are dismissed from the N.T.1 And the clumsy 'forsothe'
and 'sotheU,' very frequent throughout the earUer translation, and
sttil frequent in the first half of Purvey's recension, almost disappear
in the last part8. Therefore in these Epistles we have the reviser at
his best.
The alterations made by Purvey are not as a rule either emendations
of the Latin text, or corrections of mistranslations, real or supposed.
Some emendations and corrections no doubt occur : e.g. he rightly in
serts ' Jhesu' before 'Crist' in iv. 2 and substitutes 'bileveth in the
sone' for 'bileveth in to the sone' (in filio for in filium) in v. 10: and
less weU he changes ' for Crist is treuthe' into 'that Crist is treuthe'
in v. 6. But far more often his alterations are improvements in the
English, with a view to making a stiff and over literal translation
more suitable for popular use as a Version. A few instances from the
First Epistle wtil illustrate this.
1 Tn 1 John L 1- ii 14; iii- 16. 20; iv. S: v. 7, 21 Wiclif gives an alternative
rendering or explanation. Purvey has nothing of the kind. Comp. 2 John 18;
8 JShsnBfi0i John i 7- ii 2, S, 11. 19, 23; iv. 20; v. 6; 2 John 6, 12; 3 John 14. In
all these passages Purvey has changed Wichfs 'sotheli' or 'forsothe' into some
more suitable particle, or has omitted it altogether.

i86

APPENDICES.

i. 8. Si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos
seducimus. Wiclif. If we shulen seie, for we han not synne, we oure silf
deceyven us.
Purvey. If we seien, that we han no synne, we disseyven us silf.
ii. 1, 2. Sed si quis peccaverit, advocatum habemus apud patrem,
Iesum Christum justum : et ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris
(Am. sed et si).
Wiclif. But and if ony man shal synne, we han avoket anentis the
fadir, Jhesu Crist just, and he is helpyng for oure synnes.
Purvey. But if ony man synneth, we han an advocat anentis the
fadir, Jhesu Crist, and he is the forxyvenes for oure synnes.
ti. 6. Qui dicit se in ipso manere, debet, sicut tile ambulavit, et
ipse ambulare.
Wiclif. He that seith him for to dweUe in him, and he owith for to
walke, as he walkide.
Purvey. He that seith that he dweUith in hym, he owith for to
walke, as he walkide.
ii. 21. Non scripsi vobis quasi ignorantibus veritatem, sed quasi
scientibus earn.
Wiclif. I wroot not to xou as to men unknowinge treuthe, but as
to knowinge it.
Purvey. Y wroot not to xou as to men that knowen not treuthe,
but as to men that knowen it.
But a much fairer estimate of the amount and kind of difference
between Wiclif and Purvey and between Purvey and the Rhemish
Version will be formed from a continuous passage. After these verses
selected from the First Epistle let us compare Wictif with Purvey
throughout the Second Epistle, and Purvey with the Rhemish through
out the Third; in each case placing the ordinary Vulgate text
between the two English Versions.

Wiclif, c. 1380.
1. The eldre man
to the chosen lady,
& to hir children,
the whiche I love' in
treuthe; and not I
aloone, but & alle men
that knewen treuthe.
2. for the treuthe
that dweUith in xou,
& with xou shal ben in
to with outen ende.
3. Grace be with
xou, mercy, & pees of
God the fadir, and of
Jhesu Crist, the sone

Vulgate.
1. Seniok Electae
dominae et natis ejus,
quos ego dtiigo in veri-
tate, et non ego solus,
sed et omnes qui cog-
noverunt veritatem,
2. propter verita
tem, quae permanet in
nobis, et nobiscum erit
in aeternum.
3. Sit vobiscum gra
tia; misericordia, pax
a Deo Patre et a Chris
to Jesu, Filio Patris,

Pcbvet, c. 1388.
1. The eldere man,
to the chosun ladi, &
to her children, whiche
Y love in treuthe ; and
not Y aloone, but also
alle men that knowen
treuthe ;
2. for the treuthe
that dweUith in sou,
and with xou schal be
with outen ende.
3. Grace be with
xou, merci, and pees
of God the fadir, and
of Jhesu Crist, the

Wiclif, o. 1380.
of the fadir, in treuthe
and charite.
4. I joyede fui
miche, for I foond of
thi sones goynge in
treuthe, as we recey-
veden maundement of
the fadir.
5. And now I preye
thee, lady, not as
writinge a newe maun
dement to thee, but
that that we hadden
at the bigynnynge,
that we love eche other.
6. And this is cha
rite, that we walke up
his maundementes.
Sotheli this is the co-
maundement, that as
xe herden at the bi-
gynnyge, in him walke
je. 7. For many decey-
vours wenten out in
to the world, whiche
knowlechen not Jhesu
Crist for to have come
in flesch ; this is decey-
vour and antecrist.
8. See je soure silf,
lest se leese the t Ij in ges
that ;e han wrought,
but that se receyve fui
meede; 9. witynge that ech
man that goith awey,
& dweUith not in the
techinge of Crist, hath
not God. He that
dweUith in the tech
inge, hath and the
sone and the fadir.
10. If ony man
cometh to sou, &
bringeth not to this

APPENDICES.
Vulgate.
in veritate et charitate
(Am. nobiscum: omits
the second a).
4. Gavisus sum
valde, quoniam inveni
de filiis tuis ambulan
tes in veritate, sicut
mandatum accepimus
a Patre. 5. Et nunorogo te,
domina, non tanquam
mandatum novum
scribens tibi, sed quod
habuimus ab initio, ut
ditigamus alterutrum.
6. Et haec est cha-
ritas, ut ambulemus
secundum mandata
ejus. Hoo est enim
mandatum, ut quem-
admodum audistis ab
initio in eo ambuletis
(Am. omits enim).
7. Quoniam multi
seductores exierunt in
mundum, qui non con-
fitentur Jesum Chris
tum venisse in carnem.
Hie est seductor, et
Antichristus (Am. ve-
nientem in carne).
8. Videte vosmet
ipsos, ne perdatis quae
operati estis: sed ut
mercedem plenam ac-
cipiatis. 9. Omnis, qui rece-
dit, et non permanet
in doctrina Christi,
Deum non habet : qui
permanet in doctrina,
hie et Patrem et Filium
habet (Am. praecedit :
manet : fitium et pa
trem). 10. Si quis venit ad
vos, et hanc doctrinam
non affert, nolite reci-

187
Purvey, 0. 1388.
sone of the fadir, in
treuthe and charite.
4. I joiede fui
myche, for Y foond of
thi sones goynge in
treuthe, as we ressey-
veden maundement of
the fadir.
5. And now Y preye
thee, ladi, not as wri
tinge a newe maunde
ment to thee, but that
that we hadden fro the
bigynnyng, that we
love ech other.
6. And this is cha
rite, that we walke
after his maundemen-
tis. For this is the
comaundement, that
as se herden at the
bigynnyng, walke se
in him.
7. For many dis-
seyveris wenten out in
to the world, which
knoulechen not that
Jhesu Crist hath come
in fieisch: this is a
disseyvere and ante
crist. «,
8. Se je sou s^
lest se lesen the thingis
that se han wroust,
that se resseyve fui
mede; 9. witynge that ech
man that goith before,
& dweUith not in the
teching of Crist, hath
not God. He that
dwellith in the teching,
hath bothe the sone
and the fadir.
10. If ony man
cometh to sou> &
bryngith not this tech-

APPENDICES.

Vulgate.
pere eum in domum,
nee ave ei dixeritis.

11. Qui enim dicit
illi ave, communicat
operibus ejus malignis
(Am. illius). [Ecce
praedixi vobis, ut in
die Domini non con-
fundamini.] 12. Piura habens
vobis seribere, nolui
per chartam et atra-
mentum: spero enim
me futurum apud vos,
et os ad os loqui : ut
gaudium vestrum ple
num sit.
13. Salutanttefilii
sororis tuae Electae.

PrmvET, c. 1388.
ing, nyle se resseyve
hym in to hous, nether
seie se to hym, Heti.
11. For he that
seith to hym, Heil,
comyneth with hise
yvel werkis. Lo! Y
biforseide to sou, that
56 be not confounded
in the dai of oure Lord
Jhesu Crist.
12. Y have mo
thingis to write to 50U,
& Y wolde not bi par-
chemyn & enke ; for Y
hope that Y schal come
to sou, & speke mouth
to mouth, that sour
joye be fui.
13. The sones of
thi chosun sistir greten
thee wel. The grace
of God be with thee.
Amen.
The chief variations between the Vulgate and the Old Latin in this
Epistle are the following (Sabatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Ver
siones Antiquae, Remis, 1743, in. 981, 982): —
5. Oro te domina, non sicut.. .ut diligamus nos alterutrum.
6. Hoc est mandatum, sicut audistis ab initio, ut in eo ambuletis.
7. Quoniam multi fallaces progressi sunt in saeculo... venisse in
carne: isti sunt fallaces et antichristi.
8. Videte eos, ne perdatis quod...recipiatis.
9. Non manet... qui autem manet in doctrina ejus, tile.
10. Si quis venerit...et ave nolite dicere ei.
Now we may go on to compare Purvey with the Rhemish in 3 John.
But first it maybe worth while to point out one or two characteristic
renderings both in the Latin and in the EngUsh Versions. They
shew the desire to keep very closely, in the one case to the Greek, in
the other to the Latin, even at the risk of being scarcely intelligible,
or at least very uncouth (comp. Wiclif s rendering of 2 John 6 quoted
above). Thus we have the use of the genitive after a comparative;
peiforipav roirwv ovk lxu X^-P1" (a8 B and the Memphitic for x&P&vjt
¦majorem horum non habeo gratiam, 'Y have not more grace of these
thingis ' or 'Greater thanke have I not of them' (v. 4; comp. pel^a
tovtwv, majora horum, John i. 50) : the introduction of quoniam for Sn
in the sense of ' that ' ; dtdas Sn, nosti quoniam (v. 12 ; comp. 1 John i.

Wiclif, c. 1380.
teching, nyle se recey-
ve him in to hous,
nether se shulen sei
to him, Heyl.
11. Sotheli he that
seith to hym, Heyl,
comuneth with his
yvele werkis. Lo 1 I
bifore seide to jou,
that se be not con-
foundid in the day of
our Lord Jhesu Crist;
12. I havynge mo
thinges for to wrijte
to s°u. wolde not by
parchemyn & ynke ;
sotheli I hope me to
comynge to sou> &
speke mouth to mouth,
that soure joye be fui.
13. The sones, or
doustres, of thi systir
chosen greten thee wel.
The grace of God with
thee. Amen.

APPENDICES.

189

k'. 2 '1 « 1 ol m- ,' ¥ ; lv- 13' u> 20 : ana ^i*11 2™«'« for S« «• 18 ; iii.
0, v. id, IB): and the attempt to express the Greek particle dv by a
separate word; typafa dv (as N3 and the Syriac Versions for lypatid n),
scripsissem fomtan, 'I hadde write peradventure' or 'I had written
1 J hPS" IP! S6e DOte °n ^^"ri^tiaav av, permansissent utique.
The italics in the Rhemish Version indicate renderings which seem
to have come from Tyndale.

Purvey, c. 1388.
1. The eldere man
to Gayus, most dere
brother, whom Y love
in treuthe.
2. Most dere bro-
thir, of aUe thingis Y
make preyer, that thou
entre, and fare wele-
fully, as thi soul doith
welefuli. 3. Y ioyede greetli,
for britheren camen,
& baren witnessing to
thi treuthe, as thou
walkist in treuthe.
4 . Y have not more
grace of these thingis,
than that Y here that
my sones walke in
treuthe. 5. Most dere bro
ther, thou doist faith-
fuU, whatever thou
worchist in britheren,
and that in to pil-
grymys, 6. which xeldiden
witnessing to thi cha
rite, in the s j jt of the
chirche ; which thou
leddist forth, and doist
wel worthtii to God.

7. For thei wenten
forth for his name, and

Vulgate.
1. SENiOBGaiocha-
rissimo, quem ego di-
tigo in veritate.
2. Charissime, de
omnibus orationem
facio prospere te in-
gredi, et valere, sicut
prospere agit anima
tua. 3. Gavisus sum
valde venientibus fra-
tribus, et testimonium
perhibentibus veritati
tuae, sicut tu in veri
tate ambulas.
4. Maj orem horum
non habeo gratiam,
quam ut audiam fitios
meos in veritate am-
bulare (Am. ambu
lantes). 5. Charissime, fi
deliter facis, quidquid
operaris in fratres, et
hoc in peregrinos,

6 . qui testimonium
reddiderunt charitati
tuae in conspectu Ec-
clesiae, quos, benefa-
ciens, deduces digne
Deo (Am. benefacies
ducens). 7. Pro nomine enim
ejus profecti sunt, nihil

Rhemish, 1582.
1. The seniour to
Gaius the deerest,
whom I love in truth.
2. My deerest, con
cerning al thinges I
make my praier that
thou proceede pros
perously, & fare wel,
as thy soule doth pros
perously. 3. I was exceding
glad when the brethren
came, & gave testimo-
nie to thy truth, even
as thou walkest in
truth. 4. Greater thanke
have I not of them,
then that I may heare
my children do walke
in truth.
5 . My deerest, thou
doeBt faithfully what
soever thou workest
on the brethren, &
that upon strangers.
6. they have ren-
dred testimonie to thy •
charitie in the sight of
the church ; whom,
thou shalt doe wel,
bringing on their way
in maner worthie of
God. 7. For, for his name
did they depart, taking

190 Pcbvey, c. 1388.
token no thing of he-
thene men.
8. Therforweowen
to resseyve siche, that
we be even worcheris
of treuthe (Bagster,-
such manner men).
9. I hadde write
peradventure to the
chirche, but this Dio-
trepes, that loveth to
bere primacie in hem,
resseyveth not us.
10. For this thing,
if Y schal come, Y
schal moneste hise
werkis, which he doith,
chidinge asens us with
yvel wordis. And as
if these thingis suffisen
not to hym, nether he
resseyveth britheren,
and forbedith hem
that resseyven, and
puttith out of the
chirche. 11. Moost dere bro-
thir, nyle thou sue
yvel thing, but that
that is good thing.
He that doith wel, is
of God ; he that doith
yvel, seeth not God.
12. Witnessing is
Soldun to Demetrie of
alle men, and of treuthe
it silf; but also we
beren witnessing, &
thou knowist, that oure
witnessing is trewe.

13. Y hadde many
thingis to wryte to
thee, but I wolde not
write to thee bi enke
and penne.
14. For Y hope

APPENDICES.
Vulgate.
accipientes a gentibus
(Am. omits ejus).
8. Nos ergo debe-
mus suscipere hujus-
modi, ut cooperatores
simus veritatis.
9. Scripsissem for
sitan Ecclesiae : sed is,
qui amat primatum
gerere in eis, Diotre
phes, non recipit nos
(Am. Diotripes).
10. Propter hoc, si
venero, commonebo ejus
opera, quae facit, ver
bis malignis garriens
in nos : et quasi non ei
ista sufficiant : neque
ipse suscipit fratres : et
eos, qui suscipiunt, pro-
hibet, et de Ecclesia
ejicit (Am. commone-
am: cupiunt).

11. Charissime, no
ti imitari malum, sed
quod bonum est. Qui
benefacit, ex Deo est :
qui malefacit, non vi-
dit Deum (Am. videt).
12. Demetrio testi
monium redditur ab
omnibus, et ab ipsa
veritate, sea! et nos tes
timonium perhibemus:
et nosti quoniam testi
monium nostrum ve
rum est (Am. omits
sed). 13. Multahabuitt-
bi scribere: sed nolui
per atramentum, et
calamum scribere tibi
(Am. scribere tibi).
14. Spero autem

Rhemish, 1582.
nothing of the Gentiles.
8. We therefore
ought to receive such :
that we may be coad
jutors of the truth.
9. I had written
perhaps to the church :
but he that loveth to
beare primacie among
them, Di6trepes. doth
not receive us.
10. For this cause,
if I come, I wtil adver
tise his workes which
he doeth: with mali
cious wordes chatting
against us, and as
though these thinges
suffise him not : nei
ther him self doth re
ceive the brethren, &
them that do receive,
he prohibiteth, and
casteth out of the
church. 11. My deerest, do
not imitate evti, but
that which is good.
He that doeth weU, is
of God : he that doeth
ti, hath not seen God.
12. To Demetrius
testimonie is given of
al, & of the truth it
self, yea & we give tes
timonie : & thou know
est that our testimonie
is true.

13. I had many
thinges to write unto
thee : but I would not
by inke and penne
write to thee.
14. But I hope

Pubvey, c. 1388.
soone to se thee, and
we schulen speke
mouth to mouth.
15. Pees be to thee.
Frendis greten thee
wel. Greete thou wel
frendis bi name.

APPENDICES.
Vulgate.
protinus te videre, et
os ad os loquemur.
15. Pax tibi. Salu-
tant te amici. Saluta
amicos nominatim (Am.
per nomen).

191
Rhemish, 1582.
forthwith to see thee,
and we wti speake
mouth to mouth.
15. Peace be to
thee. The freendes
salute thee. Salute
the freendes by name.

The chief variations between the Vulgate and the Old Latin
in this Epistle are the following (Sabatier, Bibliorum Versiones
Antiquae, in. 983, 984) : —
1. Senior Gaio dilectissimo.
4. Majus autem horum non habeo gaudium... ambulantes.
5. quodcwnque operaris in fratribus, et hoc peregrinis.
6. dederunt dilectioni tuae coram Ecclesia: quos optime fads,
si praemiseris Deo digne.
7. Pro nomine enim Domini exierunt.
9. Scripsi etiam Ecclesiae : sed qui primatus agere cupit eorum.
10. Propterea cum venero, admonebo ejus opera, quae facit, malis
verbis detrahens de nobis: et non sufficit ei, quod ipse non recipit
fratres ; sed et volentes prohibet.
12. Demetrio testimonium perhibetur...et nos vero testimonium
perhibemus : et seis, testimonium nostrum verum est.
13. Piura habui scribere tibi : sed nolo.
14. Spero enim protinus te visurum, et os ad os locuturum.
15. Pax tecum. Salutant te amici tui.
Excepting enim in v. 14, and perhaps in fratribus in v. 5, there is no
evidence that these readings were known to Purvey.
I. The Latin Correspondence between S. Ignatius and S. John.
This Appendix, with the exception of a few sentences, is taken
almost verbatim from Bishop Lightfoot's great work on S. Ignatius
and S. Polycarp, recently published.
The Latin Version of the Ignatian Epistles in their middle form
has a special interest for Englishmen, as being a product of the re
markable but premature literary revival which distinguished the
thirteenth century, and as giving the Ignatian letters in the only form
in which they were known in this country ttil several years after the
invention of printing. It does not seem to be quoted except by
English writers, or to have been known out of England. It is with
much probabtiity conjectured to be a translation made by Robert
Grossteste, Bishop of Lincoln, c. a. d. 1250. _
The coUection comprises sixteen epistles in all besides the Acts of
the Martyrdom, and it faUs into two parts.
(1) The first which ends with the Acts of Martyrdom and the
accompanying Epistle to the Romans, includes twelve epistles. This
portion is a translation from a Greek original. It corresponds exactly
in arroruTPment and contents with the Greek coUection represented by

192 APPENDICES.
the Medicean and Colbert MSS. and must have been translated by
Bishop Grossteste or his assistants from some similar Greek MS. At
the close of this part is a summary of the contents. This is the main
indication in the Latin MSS. that the first part is separate from the
second. (2) The second part consists of the four short epistles, which make
up the correspondence of the saint with the Virgin and S. John.
These epistles appear never to have existed in the Greek, and therefore
cannot have formed part of Grossteste's version. How they came to
be attached to this version it is impossible to say ; but inasmuch as
they occur in both the MSS. Lj L2, in the same form and arrangement,
though these two MSS. are independent of each other, they must have
held this position at a very early date, and it is not improbable that
they were appended soon after the version was made. They were
very popular in the middle ages, and appear to have been much read
about this time; so that no coUection of the Ignatian Epistles would
have appeared complete without them.
The great importance of this Anglo-Latin version of the Ignatian
Epistles for textual criticism consists in its extreme literalness, to
which the construction of the Latin is consistently sacrificed. This
remark cannot of course apply to the correspondence with the Virgin
and S. John which probably is not a translation and is comparatively
unimportant. It is found in a considerable number of MSS. some
times by itself, sometimes in connexion with the Epistles of the Long
Recension. The various readings are very numerous, and the order
of the four Epistles is different in different copies. Like so many
other apocryphal writings, they help by contrast to confirm the authen
ticity of genuine writings. The wide difference between the two is
fuUy accounted for by the fact that the one are spurious and the other
not.

Johanni Sancto Seniori Ignatius et qui cum eo sunt Fratres.
De tua mora dolemus graviter, aUocutionibus et consolationibus tuis
roborandi. Si tua absentia protendatur, multos de nostris destituet.
Properes igitur venire, quia credimus expedire. Sunt et hie multae de
nostris mutieribus Mariam Jesu videre cupientes et discurrere a nobis
quotidie volentes, ut earn contingant et ubera ejus tractent, quae
Dominum Jesum aluerunt, et quaedam secretiora ejus percunctentur
earn. Sed et Salome quam ditigis, filia Annae, Hierosotimis quinque
mensibus apud earn commorans, et quidam alii noti referunt earn
omnium gratiarum abundam et omnium virtutum foecundam. Et, ut
dicunt, in persecutionibus et afflictionibus est hilaris ; in penurtis et
indigenttis non querula; injuriantibus grata; et molestata laetatur ;
miseris et afflictis coafflicta condolet, et subvenire non pigrescit.
Contra vitiorum pestiferos insultus in pugna fidei discrepitans enites-
cit. Nostrae novae religionis est magistra; et apud fideles omnium
operum pietatis ministra. Humilibus quidem est devota, et devotis
devotius humitiatur. Et mirum ab omnibus magnificatur; cum a

APPENDICES. 193
scnbis et Pharisaeis ei detrahatur. Praeterea et multi multa nobis
reterunt de eadem: tamen omnibus per omnia non audemus fidem
concedere, nee tibi referre. Sed sicut nobis a fide dignis narratur, in
Mana Jesu humanae naturae natura sanctitatis angeUcae sociatur.
Et haec tatia excitaverunt viscera nostra, et cogunt valde desiderare
aspectum hujus (si fas sit fari) prodigii et sanctissimi monstri. Tu
autem diligenti modo disponas cum desiderio nostro, et valeas. Amen.
2.
Johanni Sancto Seniori suus Ignatius.
Si ticitum est mini apud te ad HierosoUmae partes volo ascendere,
et videre fideles sanetos qui ibi sunt ; praecipue Mariam Jesu, quam
dicunt universis admirandam et cunctis desiderabtiem. Quem vero
non delectet videre earn et aUoqui, quae verum Deum deorum peperit,
si sit nostrae fidei et retigionis amicus ? Similiter et tilum venerabi-
lem Jacobum qui oognominatur Justus ; quem referunt Christo Jesu
BuniUimumvita et modo conversationis, ac si ejusdem uteri frater esset
gemeUus; quem, dicunt, si videro, video ipsum Jesum secundum
omnia corporis ejus tineamenta : praeterea ceteros sanetos et sanctas.
Heu, quid moror? Cur detineor? Bone praeceptor, properare me
jubeas, et valeas. Amen. 3.
Christiferae Mariae suus Ignatius.
Me neophitum Johannisque tui discipulum confortare et consolari
debueras. De Jesu enim tuo percepi mira dictu, et stupefactus Bum
ex auditu. A te autem, quae semper ei familiarius fuisti conjuncta et
seoretorum ejus conscia, desidero ex animo fieri certior de auditis.
Scripsi tibi et etiam aUas, et rogavi de eisdem. Valeas ; et tui neo-
phiti, qui mecum sunt, ex te et per te et in te confortentur. Amen.
4.
Ignatio Dilecto Condiscipulo Humilis Ancilla Domini.
De Jesu quae a Johanne audisti et didicisti vera sunt. Dia credas,
litis inhaereas, et Christianitatis susceptae votum firmiter teneas, et
mores et vitam voto conformes. Veniam autem una eum Johanne
te et qui tecum sunt visere. Sta et virtiiter age in fide; nee te
commoveat persecutionis austeritas, sed valeat et exultet spiritus
tuus in Deo salutari tuo. Amen.

s. JOHN (ep.)

INDEX I.
GREEK.

dyavdv, 38
aydvrj, 38, 71
aydvrj tov Qeov, 38, 51, 86
dyyeXia, 22
dytos, b, 60
dyvbs, 74
iSeXtpbs, 42
alpa, 27
alpeiv, 76
cuVeiV, 121, 123
alaxiveaBai dvb, 67
aiiiv, 54
aiiiwos, 17, 18
dXalrovela, 52
dXrjBeia, 29, 87, 133
dX-^ecai', voieiv rrjv, 26
d\7/0?7S, 41
dVijtfieos, 41
d\i;0&, 38
dXXd, 107
dXV IW, 59
dpapria vpbs Bdvarov, 122
dpapriav ixeiv, 28
dpapriav, TroieiV t?V> 75
dra77^\Xeii>, 22
dvBpwvoxrbvos, 83
dvrlxpiaros, 56, 57
d{ius tou 6eo8, 147
tanrjrylWeii', 17, 22
oto, 67, 85
avreaBai, 126
apri, 43
dpxv, 15,40, 78
apxijs, 6 air', 48

davdfeaBai, 142, 153
atfris, 26, 37, 66, 73
dtpiwvrai, 47
/3ios, 53, 85
yeyevvijpivos, b, 79
yevvaaBai, 70
yevvaaBai ix tov Qeov, 79
yevvrjBels, b, 125
ylveoBai, 14, 57
ylveaBai vpbs, 140
yivwaxeiv, 37, 69, 84, 91, 99
7yiicris, xxii, 127
ypd<pw, 10, 141
St!, 19, 35, 107, 126
5ict roCro, 72
SidBoXos, 78
bidvoia, 127
SiSax^j 138
AiSax^J ritji/ 5to5e/ca dVocrTiA&ji', 39,
149, 176
SiSaxrjv tpipeiv, 139
Slxaios, 29, 34
SoKipd£eir, 94
Mc, 67, 73
iBviKol, 147
ei, 82, 103
eiScVai, 69, 84
tiSwXa, 129
eiVu, 14
elrai ix, 53, 62
N2

196

INDEX I. GREEK.

eiprjvrj, 152
els rb iv eivai, 116
eis rbr aiwva, 54
iK, 53, 134
iKtiros, 39, 84, 123
iKKXrjala, 147
ixXeK-rrj, 132
iXeos, 133
iXvls ivl, 74
ipvpoaBer, 87, 90
eV, 86, 114
iv roirw, 37, 84, 87, 101, 105
ivroXrj Kaivrj, 40
ivroXrjv SiSbvai, 90
ivwviov, 90
eVcr^eXici, 64
ivayyiXXeaBai, 64
ivtBvpla, 53
iviBvpla rrjs aapxbs, 52
iviBvpla twv bipBaXp&v, 52
*>ya, 79, 140
IpXtaBai, 56, 97
epwrax, 123, 135
iaxarrj wpa, 54 — 56
eioSovaBai, 144
ex«" dpapriav, 28
?ios apri, 43
far)) aicwios, 17, 18
jj/iepa, 77, tt^s Kplaews, 105, 106
Bavpdfreiv tl, 82
0ecKr0cu, 15
DiXrjpa tov GeoO, 54, 121
9e6s, 103
Beupeiv, 85
iXac/i(5s, 35
iVa, 29, 30, 71, 72, 102, 109, 127,
135, 145
laxvpbs, 49
Ka6apl£eiv, 27, 30
KaOoXiKos, 13
Ka<9i6s, 39, 66, 90, 135
Kal, 82, 88, 90
Kal... Si, 19
/cai vvv, 66, 135

Kaivos, 40
x&Xapos, 152
xapSla, 87
KarayivwaKeiv, 89
KOivwveiv, 140
Koivwvla, 19
KoXocriS, 107
Koapos, 36, 50
xoapw, rd iv np, 51
Kplaews, r) r)pipa rrjs, 105, 106
xvpla, 132
XaXeiV eK, 98
A670S, 6, 16
X070!, 0, 31, 38, 49
XiW, 78
paprvpeiv, 17, 115, 117
paprvpia, 17
peifrbrepos, 145
piXav, 141
piveiv, 39
/ti 38, 80, 86, 97, 118
p,??5iV XapBdveiv, 147
povoyevrjs, 102
p iipeXxvanxov , 13
veavlaxoi, 48
ve'os, 40'
vikov, 48
wki}, 112
Mei*, 57
bpoXoyeiv, 29, 63, 95
oi/oixa, to, 48, 90, 147
dpa?, 15
dans, 18
01). ..Tras, 59
ouros, 22
btpelXeiv, 39, 85
Trapo, 134, 135
vapdytadai, 41, 53
7rapaKXi?ros, 33, 34
vapovala, 68
vajprjala, 67, 120
7ras...oiV, 81
varipes, 48
naTi?p, d, 18
jreiffeii', 87

INDEX I. GREEK.

197

wept, 16, 35
irepi vdvrwv, 144
vepivaretv, 25, 134
7ri(TTei)eii', 118
TTHTTeiieiK np bropan, 90
viareieiv els, 117
vloris, 112
viarbv voieiv, 146
viarbs, 29
TrXovdi', 28, 65
vXdvrjs, rb vvevpa ttjs, 99
vXdvos, 137
irXjipoOcrOcu, 20
Hvevpa, rb, 91
vreipara, 93
7roieiV, 30
iroieiV tijc aXrjBeiav, 25
— dpapriav, 75
— dvoplav, 75
— SiKaioaivrjv, 69, 77
vovrjpbs, 48
irorairds, 71
jroB, 44
vpeaBirtpos, 132
vpodyeiv, 139
vpovipveiv, 147
irpos, 18, 89
irpos, ylvtaBai, 141
7TWS, 85
cropKi, ex, IpxeoBai, 95, 96
o-dpf, 52
cncdi'SaXoi', 44
axorla, 24
axbros, 25
avippa, 79
irirXaTX""! 85

aropa vpbs aropa, 141, 152
awe py bs, 148
aipdgeiv, 81
reKva Geou, 71
reKvia, 32
TeXeioOx, 38, 104
rrjpeiv rds ivroXds, 37
rrjpeiv rbv Xoyov, 37
rlBevai rrjv tyvxrjv, 84
vSwp, 113
farcfyew, 44
ipalveiv, 41
tpavepovv, 17, 67, 73
0iXoirpurei)eii', 149
tpXvapeiv, 150
q^vXdaativ, 128
(pus, 23
Xalpeiv, 134, 140
Xapdj 20
Xcipu', 82
Xapis, 133, 134
Xaprrjs, 141
Xpelav ixHV< 65
Xfiiapa, 59, 60
\pevarrjv voieiv, 30
\j/evoTrjs, b, 64
\j/rjXa<pav, 15
r-vxi l*5 ,„ „.
yj/vxrjv, rov, rlBevai, 04
wpo, iaxarrj, 54 — 56

INDEX II.
GENERAL.

Abel as a type, 82
accentuation of certain enclitics,
13
address of the First Epistle, xiii
— — Second, lxxiv
— — Third, lxxix
Advocate or Comforter, 33, 34
African Version, 179
Alexander of Alexandria quotes
the Second Epistle, 140
Alexander, Bishop, quoted, lxxxi
Alogi, xxxviti
Amiel on Renan, 31
analysis of the First Epistle, lvi
— Second, lxxviii
— — Third, Ixxx
Andrew in Ephesus, xlix
Antichrist, 56, 57, 156
Antioch, lxx
antithesis, S. John's love of, 25,
68, 75, 88, 97, 99, 100, 118, 126,
129
antithetic parallelism, 24, 25, 29,
38, 118
aorist, force of the Greek, 15, 33,
40, 64, 65, 135 ; sometimes equi
valent to the EngUsh perfect,
44, 118
aorist, epistolary, 47, 61, 120, 145
aorist imperative, 128
aorist participle, 112
Apocalypse, date of the, xxxvi ;
exhibits parallels with the First
Epistle, Ixiv

Apollonius onS. John at Ephesus,
xiii, xxxii
ApoUonius of Tyana, xx
'Apostles, Doctrine of the Twelve,*
39, 149, 176
ApostoUc first person plural, 20,
99, 104
ApostoUc Constitutions, xvi, xxxvi
apparent contradictions in S.
John, 50, 76, 125
arbitrary distinctions in A. V., 64,
79, 94 ; in the Vulgate, 38
argument a fortiori, 89
Aristotle quoted, 37, 97
article, exaggerated in A. V. , 81
— ignored in A. V., 25, 62, 137
— double, 17, 19, 65
asyndeton, 29, 50, 63
Athanasius, 128
attraction, 65
Augustine on S. John's grave, i
xxxv ; on the title of the First
Epistle, xiii; on its relation to
the Gospel, 19 ; on its contents, t
39 ; on hatred, 43 ; on the ;
classes addressed in the
Epistle, 46; on the circus and li
theatre, 52 ; on the chrism, 60 ;
on the world and God, 72 ; on
the children of the devil, 78 ; on d
the efficacy of prayer, 89; on
the Christian's victory, 98 ; on g
Christian love, 101, 111; on be
lief without love, 111; his evi-

INDEX II. GENERAL.

dence respecting 1 John v. 7,
165
authority, tone of, in S. John, lix
authorship of the First Epistle,
xxxviti — — Second, Ixvii
— — Third, lxxviii
Babylon, S. John's description of,
xiv
Bacon quoted, 91, 130
Bardaisan or Bardesanes, xxvi
Barnabas, Epistle of, 21, 27
BasiUdes, xxvti
Baur on S. John and S. Paul, lxiti
Bede on the address of the First
Epistle, xliti, 47, 50 ; on the joy
of teachers, 20; on faith with
out works, 26 ; on Christ's ad
vocacy, 34; on want of love,
37; on the sinless Advocate,
76 ; on abiding in God, 80, 90,
104 ; on sacrifice for others, 85 ;
on faith, 112 ; on the unity of
truth, 133 ; his evidence respect
ing 1 John v. 7, 167
Bengel quoted, 20, 26, 36, 39, 42,
69, 71, 85, 145
Bernard, 123
Beza's renderings, 29, 36, 38, 40,
67, 69, 74, 87
boldness at the Judgment, 67, 105 ;
against the charges of con
science, 87 ; in prayer, 120
brother, 42
Butler on the essence of religion,
xxix
Cain's offering, 81
Cainites, Gnostic sect of the, 82,
160
Calvin on gratuitous pardon of
sins, 27; on want of love, 43;
on God's love, 111
Canon, Muratorian, testimony of
the, xl, xlix .
capricious changes of rendering
in A. V., 64, 79, 94, 153; in
Vulgate, 38
Carpocrates, xxvi

199
Cassian, story about S. John in,
xxxii
catholic, the First Epistle, xlti;
the Second not, lxxvi
Cerdon, xxvti
Cerinthus, doctrine of, xxiii, 27,
129 ; date of, xxvi
Cerinthus and S. John, xxxii, 139
characteristic readings, lxxxv
characteristics of the First Epistle,
lviii — — S. John's style,
lxi
children of the devil, 78, 80
Chromatius, his rendering of 1
John v. 18, 125
Claudius on S. John's writings,
lvti
Clement of Alexandria employs
the First Epistle, xl; quotes
from the last nine verses, 119 ;
witnesses to the Second Epistle,
lxvtii
Codex B, exceUence of, lxxxv, 14,
32, 49, 70, 93, 109, 143
Coleridge on 1 John v. 7, 170
collective neuter gender, 112
Comforter or Advocate, 33, 34
commentaries on S. John's Epis
tles, xcv — xevti
conflate readings, lxxxvii, 31
Constitutions, ApostoUc, xvi, xxvi
contradictions, seeming, in S.
John, 50, 76, 125
Cornetius a Lapide, 130, 144
correspondence between S. John
and the Virgin, Latin, 191
Coverdale's improvements in the
English Version, 53, 85, 91
Cyprian, witnesses to the First
Epistle, xii; to the Second
Epistle, lxix, 140 ; interesting
readings in, 53, 54, 85, 105; his
supposed knowledge of 1 John
v. 7, 164 ; importance of his
quotations, 180
Cyril of Jerusalem on the chrism,
60
Dante on S. John, lviii

INDEX II. GENERAL.

date of these Epistles, xliv; of
the Epistles of Ignatius, xxxix ;
of the Epistle of Polycarp,
xxxix; of the Epistle to Diog
netus, xii
dative of the instrument, 86
Davidson on the address of the
Second Epistle, lxxv
Demetrius, 151
devil, 78
differences of reading classified,
lxxxv; important as evidence
of antiquity, 26, 97; Western,
53, 84, 109, 140
Diognetus, xii, 70
Dionysius of Alexandria on S.
John's writings, lxviti, 174 ; on
the two monuments of S. John,
173
Diotrephes, difficulty respecting,
148
divisions in S. John gradual, 45,
68, 92, 126
Docetism, xxvti; various forms
of, xxiii
'Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles'
and the First Epistle, 39, 149,
176
DoUinger on the title Elder, 132 ;
on the interpolation in 1 John
v. 7, 163
double article, 17, 19
double comparative, 145
double succession at Ephesus,
Rome, and Antioch, xvi
duatism, 25
Ebionites, 27, 129
Elder, meaning of the title, 132
Electa, 132
emphatic opposition of pronouns,
84,98
enclitics, accentuation of, 13
Ephesian letters, 129
Ephesus, Church of, xvi ; evidence
for S. John's life at, xi; situ
ation and trade of, xiii ; idola
try at, xvii, 129; tombs of S.
John at, 173
Epiphanius on the asceticism of

S. John, xxxiv; on the Alogi,
xxxvtii; quotes Valentinus, xxii
Epistle to Diognetus, xii, 70
epistle of S. John, lost, 149
epistolary aorist, 47, 61, 120, 145
eternal life attainable in tliis
world, 48, 84, 118
Eusebius, on the First Epistle,
xxxix, xl; on the Second and
Third, lxx; on John the Pres
byter, 173; on Papias, 173
Facundus of Hermiana, 165
Farrar quoted, xix, lxxvi, lxxix,
113, 152, 172
finaUty a characteristic of the
First Epistle, lix
First Epistle, a companion to the
Gospel, xiv, 19 ; a summary of
Christian Ethics, xlvi; an oc
casional letter, xlviii; a catholic
letter, xiii; difficult to analyse,
lvi
flesh, 52
Fulgentius, 166
Gaius, 144
Gelasian Sacramentary quoted,
34
Genevan N. T., xciti; errors de
rived from, 75
genitive, partitive, 91, 104 ; of ap
position, 16
Gentiles, 147
Gnostio cosmogony, xxiii, 80
— denials of the Incarnation,
95, 114
— morality, 21, 75
— teachers classified, xxvi
Gospel of Judas, 162
Greek text of the Epistles, lxxxi
Haupt on S. John's asyndeton,
63 ; onperfection in the Church,
106 ; on the last verses of 1
John v, 124, 127 ; on the inter
polation in 1 John v. 7, 169
Heavenly Witnesses, the Three,
109, 116, 163
Hermas, Shepherd of, 150

INDEX II. GENERAL.

homoeoteleuton, 32, 63, 93, 109
Huther quoted, 64, 86
idolatry, xvii, 129 ; how regarded
by Gnostics, 103, 107, 129
Ignatius, his silence respecting S.
John, xiti; on the last days,
55 ; on a Christian's knowledge,
61 ; coincidences with S. John's
Epistles, 79, 82, 83; Latin cor
respondence with the Virgin,
193
imperative aorist, 128
imperative present, 94, 139
imperfect participle, 145
indicative after tva, 74, 127
indicative or imperative, 66, 69,
95
indicative or subjunctive, 107,111
infaUibility of the Pope, 94
ink, 141
internal evidence, limits of, 168
internal evidence as to the author
ship of the First Epistle, xiti;
of the Second and Third, Ixxi;
as to 1 John v. 7, 167
interpolations in the Greek text,
70, 92, 96, 109
— in the Latin Versions, 53, 54,
84, 109, 140
intolerance of S. John, 139
Introduction to the First Epistle,
xxxvii — — — Second rxvi
— — — Third, lxxviii
Irenaeus on S. John and Polycarp,
xii; on the date of the Apo
calypse, xxxvi ; quotes the First
and Second Epistles, xl, Ixviti,
96, 137; knows of no second
John at Ephesus, 173 ; on the
Cainites, 162
Jelf on the one error of the Apo
stles, 56; on the test of a state
of grace, 87, 88 ; on the value
of Christ's baptism and death,
116 . . ..
Jerome on S. John's virginity,
xxxiv; on S. John's old age,

xxxv ; on these three Epistles,
lxx; on the two tombs at
Ephesus, 174; character of his
Vulgate, 179 ; its divergences
from his own quotations, 39,
41, 78, 104, 106
John the Apostle and Cerinthus,
xxxii, 139; and the Parthians,
xliti; and the partridge, xxxii;
and Polycarp, xii ; and the rob
ber, xxxii; ante Portam Lati-
nam, xxx; his death, xxxv ; his
tomb, 174; his relation to S.
Paul, lxti; his virginity, xxxiv,
xliti
John the Elder or the Presbyter,
lxxi, 132, 172
John Malalas on the Apostle's
death, xxxv
Judas, Gospel of, 162
Judgment, Day of, 105, 106
Justin Martyr on the Apocalypse,
xii; on Antichrist, 159; pro
bably knew the First Epistle,
72, 79
key-words in the Second Epistle,
134, 135
knowledge of the Christian, 61,
124, 126; of the Gnostic, xxii,
21, 75, 127
Kyria, lxxv, 132
Lapide, CorneUus a, 130, 144
Latin interpolations, 53, 54, 84,
109, 140
Latin Versions, lxxxiv, 41, 52, 58,
75, 78, 102, 105, 107, 178
Leucian fragments on S. John's
death, xxxv ; are silent as to a
second John at Ephesus, 174
Liddon on the title 'the Elder',
lxxi ; on the elect lady, lxxv ; on
S. John's view of Christianity,
61; on S. John's view of 'the
world', 98; on the witness of
the Spirit, 115 ; on loving in
truth, 133; on S. John's dog
matism, 139
life, 16, 53

INDEX II. GENERAL.

Ufe eternal, 17, 18, 177; attain
able in this life, 48, 84, 118
Lightfoot on the letter to Florinus,
xii; on S. John's withdrawal
from Palestine, xxxi; on the
Muratorian Canon, xlix ; on the
Apocalypse, lxiv; on the Epistle
to Diognetus, xiti
Uterature of the Epistles, xcv
lost Epistle of S. John, 149
Luthardt on the serenity of S;
John's writings, lxi
Luther's renderings, 36, 41, 75,
85, 112, 124, 137, 150
magic, xix
Malalas on S. John's death, xxxv
Mansel on the Ophite heresy, 162
manuscripts, characters of the
chief, lxxxiii, Ixxxix
Marcion, xxvii, 80
Maurice on the Apostolic title of
Father, 33; on apparent con
tradictions in S. John, 50; on
innate truth, 62 ; on tempta
tion, 78 ; on spiritual influences,
93 ; on Jesus come in the flesh,
96 ; on the love of the Father,
111; on the three evil tenden
cies, 155 ; on the interpolation
in 1 John v. 7, 170
Menander, xxvi
miUenarianism, xxxiii
miracles no absolute proof of re
velation, 94, 95
Montanist dispensation of the
Spirit, 57
— — rigour, xiti, 124
Muratorian Fragment, testimony
of the, to S. John's Epistles,
xl, xlix
Naassenes, 160
Name, The, 48, 90, 147
Newman on certitude, 118; on
Apostolic prophecy, 159
nominativus pendens, 64
Novatian error condemned by an
ticipation, 28, 124

Oecumenius, xcvi, 69
omissions in S. John's Epistles,
lvti — through homoeoteleuton,
Ixxxviii, 32, 63, 93, 109
Ophites, 161
Origen frequently quotes the First
Epistle, xii; is reserved about
the other two, lxix ; aUegorizes
Antichrist, 159
paper, 141
Papias made use of the First
Epistle, xxxix; his account of
John the Elder, 172, 173
Paraclete, 33, 34
parallels between S. John and S.
Paul, 20, 25, 26, 35, 71, 76, 96,
107, 108
paraUels between S. John's Gos
pel and First Epistle, 20, 22,
24, 43, 74
paraUels between the three E-
pistles, lxxii — lxxiv
participial construction, 146
participle, aorist, 112
participle, imperfect, 145
participle, present, 65, 69, 77, 99,
117, 137
partitive genitive, 91, 104
Pascal on love and knowledge,
109
Pauline and Johannine theology,
lxti — Ixvi
pen, 152
perfect, force of the Greek, 15, 30,
48, 79, 83, 100
Pfleiderer on S. John and S. Paul,
Ixiti
Philo, 24, 34, 82
plan of the First Epistle, Uii
Polyearp made use of the First
Epistle, 96, 97
Polycrates on S. John at Ephesus,
xiti, 173
Presbyter, 132
Presbyter Johannes, 172
pronouns, emphatic, 64, 65, 70,
82, 97, 98
purpose, S. John's fondness for

INDEX II. GENERAL.

203

constructions expressing, 29,30.
71,72,102,135
Purvey, xc, 184
readings pecuUar to N, lxxxv
— — A, lxxxvi
— — B, lxxxv
— of Latin Versions, 51, 53, 54,
84, 105, 109
— common to A and Vulgate,
lxxxvi
— — N and B, lxxxvi, 14,
32, 49, 70, 93
— supposed to be heretical, 96
— as evidence of antiquity, 26,
97
reflexive pronoun, S. John's use
of, 28, 74, 128, 129, 138
Renan on John the Presbyter, 172
repetition of the article, 17, 41,
102
repetition of prepositions, 134
repetitions, S. John's, 18, 58, 98,
112,117,133
Reuss on supposed Montanism
in these Epistles, xiti ; on the
authenticity of the Second and
Third, lxxiv
Revised Version, chief exceUence
of, xciv
Rhemish Bible, xctii, 188
rhythm in S. John's writings,
lx
Salmon, 172
Sanday on the Latin Versions,
179, 180
Schaff on modern Gnosticism,
xxvti; on the Epistle's relation
to the Gospel, xiv; on S. John
and S. Paul, lxti ; on the AiSaxv,
178
Scrivener on the exceUence of
Codex B, lxxxv
Second Epistle, authorship of,
Ixxvii; analysis of, lxxviii; to
whom addressed, lxxiv; quoted
by Irenaeus, lxviii, 137 ; known
to Clement of Alexandria, lxviii
Shepherd of Hennas, 150

Shirley on the Tubingen School,
Ixvi
Simon Magus, xxvi, 106, 107
Socrates, 92, 96
Stanley on S. John and Cerinthus,
xxviii, 139
Strabo's account of Ephesus,
xiv
Tatian, xxvi, 27
Taverner's Bible, xcii
tendencies, the three evil, 53, 154
TertuUian frequently quotes the
First Epistle, xl; quotes from
the last eight verses, 119; on
circus games, 52 ; on persever
ance, 58, 59; on martyrdom,
85, 106 ; on the two sacraments,
114; on the Trinity in Unity,
164 ; on the unity of the faith,
167 ; the Latin text of his quo
tations mixed, 180
text of the Epistles, evidence for,
lxxxi — Ixxxiv
Thebaic Version, Ixxxiv, 49, 60
Theodoret on Antichrist, 159
Third Epistle, authorship of,
lxxviii; analysis of, Ixxx; to
whom addressed, lxxiv
three evil tendencies, 53, 154
Three Heavenly Witnesses, 109,
116, 163
Timothy, possibly the Angel of
the Church of Ephesus, xvi
traditions respecting S. John, xxix
transitions in S. John gradual,
45, 68, 92
Twelve Apostles, Doctrine of the,
39, 149, 176
Tyndale's New Testament, xci
uncial MSS., lxxxii
unction, 59, 60
universality of redemption, 36
versions, Ancient, Ixxxiv
— English, xc, 184
— Latin, variations in,
181, 183, 188, 191
Vulgate, Jerome's work in N. T.,

204

INDEX II. GENERAL.

179 ; different editions of, 184 ;
capricious renderings in, 37,
38
Westcott quoted, lti,lxxxvi,lxxxix,
xci, xciti, 15, 20, 30, 45, 62, 68,
87, 103, 109, 114, 132, 152
Western interpolations, 63, 54,
84, 109, 140
Wiclif, xc, 184

Witnesses, the Three Heavenly,
109, 116, 163
Wordsworth on the structure of
S. John's sentences, Ix
world, The, 36, 50
Zahn on John the Presbyter, 172,
175
Zeno of Verona, 52
Zoroastrianism, 25

CAMBRIDGE; PEIHTED BY 1. 4 C. P. CLAT, AT THB UNIVERSITY FKE33.

THE PITT PRESS SERIES.
COMPLETE LIST.

1. GREEK.

¦

Author

W«r,4

Editor

Price

Aristophanes

Aves— Plutus— Ranae

Green

2/6 each

»»

Vespae

Graves

3/6

Demosthenes

Olynthiacs

Glover

In the Press

Euripides

Heracleidae

Beck & Headlam 3/6

u

Hercules Furens

Gray & Hutchinson 2/-

)>

Hippolytus

Hadley

2/-

»

Iphigeneia in Aulis

Headlam

2/6

)»

Hecuba

Hadley

2/6

jj

Alcestis

,,

2/6

?)

Orestes

Wedd

4/6

Herodotus

Book v

Shuckburgh

, 3/"

„ VI, VIII, IX

>>

4/- each

„ vm 1- — 90, IX 1 — 89
j»
2/6 each
Homer
Odyssey ix, x
Edwards
2/6 each
a
XXI
j»
2/-
Iliad vi, xxii, xxiii, xxiv
s»
2/- each
Lucian
Somnium, Charon, etc.
Heitland
3/6
>j
Menippus and Timon
Mackie
H6<
Plato
Apologia Socratis
Adam
3/6
ii
Crito
»>
2/6
Euthyphro
»»
2/6
»»
Protagoras
J. & A. M. .
Adam 4/6
Plutarch
Demosthenes
Holden
if
»,
Gracchi
'»
61-
Nicias
»)
5/-
„
Sulla
»>
6j-
Timoleon
»»
6/-
Sophocles
Oedipus Tyrannus
Jebb
4/6 5/- sl-
Thucydides
Book in
Book vn
Spratt Holden
Xenophon
AgesilausAnabasis Vol. I. Text.
Hailstone
Pretor
2/6 3/-
"
Vol. II. Notes.
> »
4/6
)»
u
4/-
»
'„ I, III, IV, V
»i
2/- each
2/6 <?ar.4
i>
'„ II, VI, VII
»»
»»»j
Cyropaedeia 1, n (2 vols.)
Ill, IV, V
Holden
61- sl-
»»
„ VI, VII, VIII
»»
sl-
15 .
1
25.9.96
THE PITT PRESS SERIES.

2. LATIN.

Author

fFor/t

Editor

Price

Caesar

De Bello Gallico

Com. I, HI, vi, vm
Peskett
1/6 each
„ n-in, and vn
1)
il- each
"
„ i-m
1»
il-
n iv-v
»»
1/6
De Bello Civili. Com. I
*»
3/-
„ ,, Com. Ill
If
In the Press
Cicero
Actio Prima in C. Verrem
Cowie
1/6
De Amicitia
Reid
3/6
De Senectute
ii
3/6
Div. in Q. Caec. et Actio
Prima in C. Verrem
Heitland & Cowie 3/-
„
Philippica Secunda
Peskett
3/6
Pro Archia Poeta
Reid
*
„ Balbo
11
„ Milone
11
2/6
,, Murena
Heitland
3/-
,, Plancio
Holden
4/6
„
„ Sulla
Reid
3/6
Somnium Scipionis
Pearman
2/-
Cornelius Nepos Miltiades, Themistocles, Aris
tides, Pausanias, Cimon
Shuckburgh
1/6
Hannibal, Cato, Atticus
i»
1/6
Horace
Epistles. Bk i
i»
2/6
,,
Odes and Epodes
Gow
sl-
,,
Odes. Books i, III
11
2/- each
»,
„ Book II, IV
11
1/6 each
*>
Epodes
11
1/6
Livy
Books iv, vi, ix, xxvn
Stephenson
2/6 each
»»
>• v
Whibley
2/6
M
„ XXI, XXII
Dimsdale
2/6 each
Lucan
Pharsalia. Bk I
Heitland & Haskins 1/6
»>
Pharsalia. Bk VII
Postgate
In the Press
Lucretius
Book V
Duff
2/-
Ovid
Fasti. Book VI
Sidgwick
1/6
,,
Metamorphoses, Bk I.
Dowdall
1/6
Flautus
Epidicus
Gray
3/-
jj
Asinaria
11
3/6
11
Stichus
Fennell
2/6
J>
Pseudolus
Auden
3/-
Quintus Curtlus Alexander in India
Heitland & Raven 3/6
Tacitus
Agricola and Germania
Stephenson
3/"
Hist. Bk I
Davies
In the Press
Terence
Hautontimorumenos
Gray
3/"
Vergil
Aeneid I to XII
Sidgwick
1/6 each
»»
Bucolics
11
1/6
,,
Georgics I, II, and III, IV
11
2/- each
D
Complete Works, Vol. I, Text „
3/6
»»
„ „ Vol. 11, Notes „
4/6
Atet/tor
About Biart Corneille n
De Bonnechose

Delavigne ii
D'HarlevilleDe Lamartine
De Vigny

THE PITT PRESS SERIES.

3. FRENCH.
Work
Le Roi des Montagnes
Quand j'e'tais petit
La Suite du Menteur
PolyeucteLazare Hoche
Bertrand du Guesclin

Part II ( With Vocabulary)

Editor
Ropes In the
Boi'eUe Nearly
Masson
Braunholtz Colbeck
Leathes

Louis XI
Les Enfants d'Edouard
Le Vieux C&ibataire
Jeanne d'Arc
La Canne de Jonc

Erckmann-Chatrian La Guerre

Guizot

Discours sur l'Histoire de la

Revolution d'Angleterre

Lemercier

Fredegonde et Brunehaut

Mme de Stael

Le Directoire

11

Dix Annees d'Exil

Merimee

Colomba

Michelet

Louis XI & Charles the Bold

MoUere

Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme

n

L'Ecole des Femmes

i»

Les Precieuses ridicules

11

„ (Abridged Edition)

11

Le Misanthrope

Piron

La Metromanie

Fonsard

Charlotte Corday

Racine

Les Plaideurs

ii

,, (Abridged Edition)

Sainte-Beuve

M. Dam. (Causeries du

Lundi, Vol. ix)

Saintlne

Picciola

Scribe & Legouv6 Bataille de Dames

Scribe

Le Verre d'Eau

Sedaine

Le Philosophe sans le savoir

Souvestre

Un Philosophe sous les Toits

Eve 11
Masson Clapin & Ropes
Eve Clapin Eve
Masson
Masson & Prothero
ii
Ropes 11
ClapinSaintsburyBraunholtz

Masson Ropes
Braunholtz

Thierry

Villemain
Voltaire

Xavier de
Maistre

MassonClapin Bull
ColbeckBull Eve
Le Serf & Le Chevrier de Lorraine Ropes
Le Serf (With Vocabulary) „
Lettres sur l'histoire de
France (xiii— xxiv) Masson & Prothero
Recits des Temps Merovin-
giens, I — m Masson & Ropes
Lascaris ou les Grecs du xv8 Siecle Masson
Histoire du Siecle de Louis
XIV, Pt i, Ch. I — xm Masson & Prothero
Pt ii, Ch. xiv— xxiv „ „
Pt in, Ch. xxv — end „ „
(La Jeune Siberienne. Le) M
LepreuxdelaCitWAostej Masson

Press
ready 2/"2/-2/- 2/"
1/6 il-
2/-
i/6i/6 3/-
2/6 2/-
2- 2/"
2/-
2/6 i/6
2/6 2/- •/-
2/6 2/- 2/"2/- '/¦
»/¦ 2/-
2/-2/-2/"
2/-2/-
i/6
2/6 1{-
2/62/62/6 i/6

THE PITT PRESS SERIES.

4. GERMAN.

Author

Work

Editor

Price

Ballads on German History
Wagner
•/¦
Benedix
Dr Wespe
Breul
il-
Freytag
Der Staat Friedrichs des
Grossen
Wagner
2/-
German Dactylic Poetry
11
3/-
Goethe
Knabenjahre (1749 — 1761)
Wagner & Cartmell
2/-
11
Hermann und Dorothea
11 11
3/6
11
Iphigenie
Breul In the Press
Grimm
Selected Tales
Rippmann
il-
Gutzkow
Zopf und Schwert
Wolstenholme
3/6
Hacklander
Der geheime Agent
E. L. Milner Barry
3/-
Hauff
Das Bild des Kaisers
Breul
3/-
it
Das Wirthshaus im Spessart
Schlottmann
& Cartmell
3/-
it
Die Karavane
Schlottmann
3/-
Tmmermann
Der Oberhof
Wagner
3/-
Elee
Die deutschen Heldensagen
Wolstenholme
3/-
Kohlrausch
Das Jahr 181 3
11
»/-
Lessing
Minna von Barnhelm
Wolstenholme
In the Press
Leasing & Gellert Selected Fables
Breul
il-
Mendelssohn
Selected Letters
Sime
il-
Kaumer
Der erste Kreuzzug
Wagner
2/-
Rlehl
Culturgeschichtliche
Novellen
Wolstenholme
3/-
>>
Die Ganerben & Die Ge-
rechtigkeit Gottes
it
3/-
Schiller
Wilhelm Tell
Breul
2/6
11
,, (Abridged Edition)
»»
1/6
11
Geschichte des dreissigjah-
rigen Kriegs Book in.
*i
il-
ii
Maria Stuart
»i
3/6
»>
WaUenstein I. (Lager and
Piccolomini)
**
3/6
n
Wallenstein II. (Tod)
>»
3/6
Uhland
Ernst, Herzog vonSchwaben
Wolstenholme
3/6
THE PITT PRESS SERIES.

Author
MayorWallaceBacon

CowleyGrayMacaulay
More
Milton

PopeScott

Shakespeare

Shakespeare &
Sidney

West 11
Carlos
MillBartholomew

5. ENGLISH.
Work
A Sketch of Ancient Philoso
phy from Thales to Cicero
Outlines of the Philosophy of
History of the Reign of
King Henry VII
Essays
Essays
Poems
Lord Clive
History of King Richard III
UtopiaArcades and Comus
Ode on the Nativity, L' Alle
gro, II Penseroso & Lycidas
Samson Agonistes
Paradise Lost, Bks I, n
„ Bks in, iv
„ Bks v, vi
„ Bks vn, vm
„ Bks ix, x
„ Bks xi, xn
Essay on Criticism
MarmionLady of the Lake
Lay of the last Minstrel
Legend of Montrose
A Midsummer-Night's Dream
Twelfth Night
Julius Caesar
The Tempest
Fletcher Two Noble Kinsmen
An Apologie for Poetrie

Price

Elements of English Grammar
English Grammar for Beginners
Short History of British India
Elementary Commercial Geography
Atlas of Commercial Geography

3/6

istotle

4/6

Lumby

3/"

West In the Press

ii

4/-

Tovey In the Press

Innes

i/6

Lumby

3/6

n

3/6

Verity

3/-

M

2/6

II

2/6

5>

2/"

I >

2/-

>I

' »/-

J!

2/-

j, In the Press

>i

2/-

West

2/-

Masterman

2/6

»j

2/6

Flather

2/"

Simpson

2/6

Verity

i/6

11

i/6

ii

i/6

ii

i/6

Skeat

3/6

Shuckburgh

ih

2/6

r/-

'/-
y
i/6
il-
Robinson
Church Catechism Explained
il-
THji PITT PRESS SERIES.

6. EDUCATIONAL SCIENCE.
Author Work Editor
Colbeck Lectures on the Teaching of Modern
Languages
Comenius Life and Educational Works Laurie
Three Lectures on the Practice of
Education
Eve I. On Marking
Sidgwick II. On Stimulus
Abbott III. On the teaching of Latin |
Verse Composition
Farrar General Aims of the Teacher)
Poole Form Management \
Locke Thoughts on Education Quick
Milton Tractate on Education Browning
Sidgwick On Stimulus
Thring Theory and Practice of Teaching

tin j

i Vol.

Vol.

Price »/-
3/6

»/¦
1/6
3/6 i\-
4/6

7. MATHEMATICS.

Ball

Elementary Algebra

4/6

EucUd

Books I — vi, xi, xii Taylor

sl-

»!

Books I — VI ,,

4/"

11

Books I — iv „
Also separately

3?-

>I

Books I, & II ; III, & IV ; v, & vi ; XI, & xn i/6

each

)»

Solutions to Bks 1— iv W. W. Taylor

61-

Hobson&Jessop Elementary Plane Trigonometry

4/6

Loney

Elements of Statics and Dynamics

7/6

Part I. Elements of Statics

4/6

„ II. Elements of Dynamics

3/6

i»

Solutions'of Examples, Statics and Dynamics

7/6

»i

Mechanics and Hydrostatics

4/6

Smith, C.

Arithmetic for Schools, with or without answers

3/6

it

Part I. Chapters I — VIII. Elementary, with

or without answers
i\-
ii
Part II. Chapters IX — XX, with or without
answers
2/-
Hale, G.
Key to Smith's Arithmetic
7/6
London: C. J. CLAY and SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.
GLASGOW : 263, Argyle Street.
6
&f)e ©anrtrfoge mblt for &cf)ools
antr OMleges.
General Editoes :
J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D., Bishop op Wobcesteb,
A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D., Regius Pkofessok or Hebeew.
 ? 
Extra Ecap. 8vo. cloth, with Maps when required.
Book of Joshua. Rev. G. F. Macleab, D.D. 2s. Gd.
Book of Judges. Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 3s. Gd.
First Book of Samuel. Prof. Kibkpatbick, D.D. 3s. Gd.
Second Book of Samuel. Prof. Kikkpateick, D.D. 3s. Gd.
First & Second Books of Kings. Prof. Lumby, D .D. 3s. Gd. each.
Books of Ezra & Nehemiah. Prof. Ryle, D.D. 4s. Gd.
Book of Job. Prof. Davidson, D.D. 5s.
Psalms. Book I. Prof. Kikkpateick, D.D. 3s. Gd.
Psalms. Books II and III. Prof. Kiekpateick, D.D. 3s. Gd.
Book of Ecclesiastes. Very Rev. E. H. Plumptke, D.D. 5s.
Book of Isaiah. Chaps. I  ¦xrxrxrrx.. Rev. J. Skinner, D.D.
In the Press.
Book of Jeremiah. Rev. A. W. Streane, D.D. 4s. Gd.
Book of Ezekiel. Prof. Davidson, D.D. 5s.
Book of Kosea. Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D. 3s.
Books of Joel and Amos. Rev. S. If. Deiveb, D.D. In the Press.
Books of Obadiah and Jonah. Arch. Perowne. 2s. Gd.
Book of Micah. Rev. T. K. Chuyne, M.A., D.D. ls. Gd.
Nahum, Habakkuk & Zephaniah. Prof. Davidson, D.D. 3s.
Books of Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi. Arch. Perown'E. 3s. Gd.
Book of Malachi. Archdeacon Peeowne. Is.
First Book of Maccabees. Rev. T. Fairweathee and Rev.
J. S. Black. In the Press.
Gospel according to St Matthew. Rev. A. Caer, M.A. 2s. Gd.
Gospel according to St Mark. Rev. G.F. Maclear, D.D. 2s. Gd.
Gospel ace. to St Luke. Very Rev. F. W. Farrar, D.D. 4s. Gd.
Gospel according to St John. Rev. A. Plummer, D.D. 4s. Gd.
Acts ofthe AposUes. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 4s. Gd.
EpisUe to the Romans. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 3s. Gd.
First and Second Corinthians. Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 2s. each.
EpisUe to the Galatians. Rev. E. H. Perowne, D.D. ls. Gd.
EpisUe to the Ephesians. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 2s. Gd.
EpisUe to the philippians. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 2s. Gd.
Colossians and PhUemon. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 2s.
EpisUes to the Thessalonians. Rev. G. G. Findlay, B.A. 2s.
EpisUes to Timothy* Titus. Rev. A. E. Humphreys, M.A. 3s.
EpisUe to the Hebrews. Very Rev. F. W. Farrab, D.D. 3s. Gd.
EpisUe of St James. Very Rev. E. H. Plumptke, D.D. ls. Gd.
St Peter and St Jude. VeryRev.E. H. Plumptre, D.D. 2s.6d
EpisUes of St John. Rev. A. Plummee, D.D. 3s. Gd.
Book of Revelation. Rev. W. H. Simcox, M.A. 3s.
Other Volumes Preparing.
LONDON : C. J. CLAY and SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.

*mjc ^mailer
CamftrfOge Mbk iov g>cf).oote.>

Now Ready. With Maps. Price Is. each volume.
Book of Joshua. Rev. J. S. Black, M.A.
Book of Judges. Rev. J. S. Black, M.A.
First Book of Samuel. Prof. Kikkpateick, D.D.
Second Book of Samuel. Prof. Kibkpatbick, D.D.
First Book of Kings. Prof. Lumby, D.D.
Second Book of Kings. Prof. Lumby, D.D.
Gospel according to St Matthew. Rev. A. Carr, M.A.
Gospel according to St Mark. Rev. G. F. Macleab, D.D.
Gospel according to St Luke. Very Rev. F. W. Fakrae, D.D.
Gospel according to St John. Rev. A. Plummeb, D.D.
Acts ofthe AposUes. Prof. Lumby, D.D.

€f)t Cambridge <Bmk Cestammt
for Schools anfc CDolkges
General Editor : J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D.

Gospel according to St Matthew. Rev. A. Carr, M.A.
With 4 Maps. 4s. Gd.
Gospel according to St Mark. Rev. G. F. Macleab, D.D.
With 3 Maps. 4s. Gd.
Gospel according to St Luke. Very Rev. F. W. Eaebab.
With 4 Maps. 6s.
Gospel according to St John. Rev. A. Plummer, D.D.
With 4 Maps. 6s.
Acts of the AposUes. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 4 Maps. 6s.
First EpisUe to the Corinthians. Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 3s.
Second EpisUe to the Corinthians. Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 3s.
EpisUe to the Hebrews. Very Rev.F. W. Faebab, D.D. 3s. Gd.
EpisUes of St John. Rev. A. Plummer, D.D. 4s.
General Editob : Prof. J. A. ROBINSON, D.D.
EpisUe to the Philippians. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D.
[In the Press.
EpisUe of St James. Rev. A. Cabe, M.A. 2s. Gd.
Pastoral EpisUes. Rev. J. H. Beenakd, D.D. [In Preparation.
Book of Revelation. Rev. W. H. Simcox, M.A.. 5s.

Eonuon: C. J. CLAY and SONS,
CAMBRIDGE WAREHOUSE, AVE MARIA LANE.
©IaBsoto: 26S, ARGTLE STREET.
Eeipjffl: F. A. BEOOKHAUS.
#eto Sorft: THB MACMLLLAN CO.
CAMBRIDGE*. POINTED BT J. & 0. V. CLAT, AT THB UNIVERSITY PRESS.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 02461 3987