1 John 2:3-11

5. Mark of the walk in the light. Obedience to the commandments of God, especially brotherly love

1 John 2:3-11

3And hereby we3 do know that we know4 him, if we keep5 his commandments. 4He that saith,6 I know7 him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected8: hereby know we that we are in him. 6He that saith he abideth in him 7ought himself also so9 to walk, even as he walked. Brethren,10 I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.11 8Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you;12 because the darkness is past,13 and the true light now shineth. 9He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in14 darkness even until now. 10He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.15 11But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that16 darkness hath blinded his eyes.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The Connection. The call to the contest with gin on the ground of the Saviour’s antecedent propitiation and lasting intercession is connected with this section of the mark of the true knowledge of and fellowship with God, as that of vital Christianity: see whether thou really art the object of the intercession of the Sinless One with Him who is Light! The mala securitas and the utilis timor move the Apostle to set this section with the given marks of a true Christian into close connection with the immediately preceding section of the atonement for the sins of the whole world, and namely, as a link in the chain of thoughts depending on 1 John 2:5.: “That God is Light.” His object is to excite a salutary, moral seriousness of purpose in his readers; their obedience to the commandments of God, and especially their practice of brotherly love are given to them as tokens by which they may determine whether they are really in God’s kingdom of grace. He warns, therefore, “against the false security of a show-Christianity,” and guards his churches “against false confidence and carnal security” (Neander); similar are the views of the greater number of commentators, from Episcopius and Calov down to Düsterdieck, who, however, confines himself to pointing out the dependence of this section also on the leading thought in 1 John 1:5-6, while the former take too narrow views of the connection with 1 John 2:1-2. The copula καὶ denotes the close connection and appurtenance of the sequel to the preceding section. Hence it is not correct to make here the beginning of a new section, (Sander: “Having thus far spoken of the proofs of salvation, he now proceeds to exhort his readers to its preservation”), or to connect with 1 John 1:5-6 (Huther).

Obedience to the commandments of God is the general characteristic of true Christianity, (1 John 2:3-6).

1 John 2:3. And hereby we know.—John uses ἐν τούτῳ in order to refer to the sequel, as here, 1Jn 3:16; 1 John 3:19; 1Jn 3:24; 1 John 4:9-10; 1 John 4:13; 1 John 4:17; 1 John 2:2, or to the preceding, as in 1 John 2:5; 1 John 3:10; the reference is generally plain from the context. In the former case the Apostle is wont to indicate the mark whereby we know, by the addition of the preposition ἐκ (1 John 4:13), or by ὅτι (1 John 3:16; 1 John 3:19; 1 John 4:9-10), or ἵνα (1 John 4:17), or ἐὰν (1 John 2:3; 1 John 2:5), or ὅταν (1 John 5:2), according as he wants to supply either “a really existing, historically given and objectively sure token” (Düsterdieck), on one only ideally existing and described as possible or conditional. The Apostle, who lays a strong emphasis on knowing, understands to express in writing the different shades of thought with the same nicety and correctness. [“John uses the formula ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν first as referring the demonstrative pronoun back to what has gone before, as e.g. in our 1 John 2:5, and in 1 John 3:10. If, however, the demonstrative pronoun in this or a like formula, looks onward, and the token itself, with the circumstance of which it is a token, follows, he expresses this token variously and significantly, according to the various shades of meaning to be conveyed. Sometimes the token implied in the demonstrative, follows in a separate sentence, as in 1 John 4:2; sometimes the construction is slightly changed, and the sentence begun with ἐν τουτῳ is not regularly brought to a close, but continued in a new and correlative form; e.g. 1 John 3:24, where ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν is taken up by ἐκ τοῦπν. And this way of expression is closely parallel to that where ὅτι completes the construction begun with ἐν τούτῳ. So 1 John 3:16; 1 John 3:19; 1 John 4:9-10; 1 John 4:13. In these cases the full objective reality of the token, as a fact, is set forth. It is an undoubted fact that He has given us of His Spirit, that He has sent His Son: and from these facts our inference is secure to the other facts in question, that He abideth in us, etc. But in other passages we find instead of this ὅτι an ἵνα, 1 John 4:17, or an ἐὰν, as here, John 13:35, or ὅταν, 1 John 5:2. This ἐὰν, ὅταν, mark the token implied in ἐν τούτῳ as one not actually existent, an historical or objectively certain fact; but as a possible contingency, something hypothetically and conditionally assumed: in other words as ideal.” Düsterdieck, pp. 172, sq.—M.]. He is concerned with the fact,

That we have known Him.—The context must determine who is meant by αὐτὸν, God the Father or Christ; the reason must be sought in the section itself, where in 1 John 2:3-6 we have first the repeated forms αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ and αὐτὸν and once ἐκεῖνος, 1 John 2:6. As the latter evidently denotes Christ, so the former applies with equal certainty to God the Father. Hence it was not the immediately preceding verse in which Christ is spoken of, which induced the Apostle to use αὐτὸν and to understand thereby the Father, but rather the all-controlling thought, “God is Light,” 1 John 1:5.—So Bede, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Lücke, Jachmann, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Brückner, Düsterdieck, Huther, Ebrard. It is referred to Christ by Augustine, Episcopius, Grotius, Luther, Calov, Wolf, Lange, Sander, Neander. Socinus and Calvin are undecided. The word γινώσκειν, occurring twice in juxtaposition, bears each time substantially the same meaning: to know. But to know God is not a matter of the understanding only, a knowledge, a knowing, but matter of the whole man; it is an inward life, both matter of the will and of the mind; an entering into, a perceiving in order to be penetrated thereby, in order to receive it in receptivity. The object of this knowing becomes the substance of him that knows; the nature of the object of our knowing determines His coming near us and entering into relationship with us. God cannot be known without Himself; it is. only by converse with Him that He allows Himself to be known (Oecumenius; συνεκράθημεν αὐτῷ), Clarius “societatem habemus cum eo.”); the knowledge of God presupposes and promotes life-fellowship with Him. This last particular is also intimated by the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν; the real fact of having known Him is described as finished, attended by an after-effect and still further development in continued and ever-growing knowledge; it is parallel κοινωνίαν ἔχειν μετ̓ αὐτοῦ, 1 John 1:6. Colossians 3:0. “Inward affinity of life, real appurtenance is the unconditional pre-supposition both of knowing and loving; for only those in affinity with each other know and love each other” (Düsterdieck). We, the Christians, renewed in Christ, created to His image, are those who know. Hence it is false to take γινώσκειν like the Hebrew יָרַע in the sense of to love (Carpzov, S. G. Lange), or only as a theoretical understanding of Divine truth (Socinus, Episcopius); nor may we intermingle knowledge and love, and regard the latter as essential to the former (Bede, Oecumenius, Lücke), although knowledge is conditioned by love (de Wette).—[It is not mere theoretical knowledge, but vital, experimental knowledge flowing from God, being received into the heart, and His influencing our thoughts, our will and our actions.—M.].

If we keep His Commandments.—The verb τηρεῖν, probably connected with τέρας, [more probably with τήρος, a watch, M.], a sign, denotes properly to pay attention, to observe, ἄνεμον (Ecclesiastes 11:4), τὴν φυλακὴν (Acts 12:6), the beloved disciples (John 17:11, sqq.), τὴν ἐνότητα τοῦ πνεύματος (Ephesians 4:3), ἐαυτόν (1 John 5:18). Hence to preserve [keep in safety] [observare, servare) from loss, danger, injury. Fear, selfishness, hatred or love may be the motives of such preserving; the object of τηρεῖν enables us to infer the motive. His commandments=the commandments of God the Father; for the reference to Christ here is valid not so much because He gave commandments as because He kept them (cf. 1 John 5:6). To keep the commandments is not the same as ἐν φωτὶ περιπατεῖν (1 John 1:7), but an indispensable part of it, and moreover a distinct, cognizable part of the greater, wide and profound whole, and as a sign or token peculiarly fitted to mark a conclusion. The commandments of God are clear, simple, well-defined; the expression of His will, given as much for His glory as for our salvation, evidences of His holy love, of His sanctifying compassion, and of His salutary righteousness; they answer to His Being, and in like manner to the nature of His Law, and particularly to the nature of His creatures. If they originate in the love of God, the motive of obedience to them must also be the love of God, who gave them, and the love of themselves as the gifts of His love. But the words themselves do not warrant the opinion of Augustine and Bede, that John insists here upon love. He only demands the unexceptional keeping of the commandments of God, and by the use of the Article and the Plural (τὰς ἐντολὰς), excludes any and every arbitrary selection. He lays down a sure and infallible token; and the erroneous view just stated proves it to be such. But he does not lay down this keeping as a fact by the use of ὅτι, but as a supposition by ἐὰν; with this agrees also the choice of the word τηρεῖν instead of ποιεῖν (which is likewise conditioned by the words of our Lord in Matthew 28:20 : τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμηνυμῖν). We cannot do, but only keep the commandments of God. And even this is very limited, unsatisfactory, liable to frequent and manifold interruptions. Least of all can it be John’s meaning (according to 1 John 1:8-10) to suppose Christians capable of fully keeping and practising the commandments of God. But notwithstanding all the shortcomings of obedience to the commandments of God, and despite all the imperfections and sins of Christians and their life, there still remains a sharp contrast between those who remember the commandments of God to do them (Psalms 103:18), and those who do not mind them at all, or only know them. However great may be the difference of believers among themselves, their knowledge of God and their obedience to the commandments of God will be reciprocally related, and the latter will always remain a sure token of the former, which cannot be a fact in the life of Christians without the latter. On that account the Apostle, as is his wont, (as in 1 John 1:8-9), gives prominence to the opposite with a progression in the thought and by way of explanation. [Huther thinks it note-worthy that John never designates the Christian commandments by νόμος, a term used by him only with reference to the Mosaic code of laws, but mostly by ἐντολαί (only occasionally λόγος θεοῦ, or χριστοῦ); nor by the verb ποιεῖν (except in Revelation 22:14), but τηρεῖν. Paul uses the term τηρεῖν ἐντολήν only at 1 Timothy 6:11; it occurs besides in the N. T. at Matthew 19:17 (cf. Matthew 28:20). M.].

1 John 2:4. He that saith I have known Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar.—The progression in the development and unfolding of the thought lies in the Singular, which sets it forth not as indefinitely general, but as general and true in its application to each individual. It lies moreover in the negative form, so that we may and must not only infer the knowledge of God from the keeping of God’s commandments, and from other facts as well, but that the keeping of the Divine commandments, obedience, cannot and must not be wanting where there is a knowledge of God, which deserves that name. The words “he is a liar,” moreover, are intensive and stronger than “he lies” (1 John 1:6), or “he deceives himself” (1 John 1:8). Not a single act, but his whole nature and being, is thus designated; the lie reigns in him. There may first of all be wanting self-examination in the light of divine truth, or it may be self-deception and unconscious hypocrisy, but the conscious lie will follow; one desires to appear more than one is. The further particular,

And the truth is not in him, gives emphatic prominence to the status, the emptiness of such a person, cf. ad. 1 John 1:8, in Exegetical and Critical.

1 John 2:5, similar to 1 John 1:8-10, in antithesis with 1 John 2:4, refers back to 1 John 2:3, δὲ, but progressing both in the subject-clause and in the predicate-clause.

But whoso keepeth His word; literally: “but whoso keepeth of Him the word.”—Τηρῇ, keepeth, stands emphatically first, so αὐτοῦ precedes τὸν λόγον, and λόνον instead of the manifold λόνον, in order to mark the unity. “Præcepta multa, verbum unum,” observes Bengel, and a Lapide correctly says: “Dicit verbum ejus in singulari, quia præcipue respicit legem caritatis: enimceteras omnes in se comprehendit.” Hence ὁ λόγος is not the synonym of αἱ ἐντολαί (Huther), nor the comforting message of the gospel, nor the requirement of faith, but the revelation of the will of God as a unit, or the revelation of His commandments in their relation as a unit to His purpose of grace (Ebrard). As this sentence corresponds with “if we keep His commandments” (1 John 2:3), and is more definite by the pron. rel. than is the other sentence by ἐὰν, so the ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτὸν is parallel with ἐν τούτῳ ἡ . It matters not how much we distinguish knowledge and love, and warn against their being confounded, they are nevertheless intrinsically connected and correlatives: “Amor præsupponit cognitionem” [says Grotius, which Huther admits, and adds M.]: “Cognitio præsupponit amorem.” Both are true. From this it is evident both that we must apply αὐτὸν, 1 John 2:3, to God the Father, and that ἡ must denote our love of God (as 1 John 2:15; 1 John 3:17; 1 John 4:12; 1 John 2:3.) The knowledge of God and the love to God must correspond with each other. This is the view of the majority of commentators, viz.: Bede, Oecumenius, Luther, Beza, Lorinus, Socinus, Grotius, S. G. Lange, Lücke, Jachmann, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Brückner, Neander, Huther, Düsterdieck, and others. Others (Flacius, S. Schmid, Calov, J. Lange, Bengel, Sander), understand the love of God to us (as in 1 John 4:9-10), first in opposition to the Romish exposition of the meritorious perfectio caritatis nostræ aut operum nostrorum, and secondly on account of τετελείωται, which, they say, cannot be predicated of our love. But neither is it “the love commanded by God” (Episcopius) in which we have to exercise ourselves, nor the relation of reciprocal love between God and man, the communio, societas and conjunctio, mutua amicitia et conjunctio (Ebrard following several commentators, chiefly [German] Reformed), nor “the love of God in us, comprising both God’s love to us, through which, and our love to God, in which we live.” (Besser.) The explanation of τετελείωται, is perfected, perfect, is difficult. We have no right to dilute the word with Beza, as if John were speaking not of perfecta caritas, but of an adimpleta caritas, without all show and hypocrisy, so that the reference were only to sincere love and τελειοῦν were only mettre en exécution [to put into execution.—M.]. Nor can it be right to hold with Socinus and his successors, the rationalists, that the reference is to a relative perfection adapted to the powers of man, because ὰληθῶς prohibits such an interpretation. It signifies, as in 1 John 4:12; 1 John 4:17-18, perfected, has become perfect. “John supposes the case that somebody really keeps the word of God, and from this ideal stand-point says with the fullest right that such a keeping of the Divine commandments evidences a perfected love to God in practice (cf. Lücke). The more the ideal keeping of the sentence becomes apparent to us, so much the more do we perceive in it a paracletical power, an incentive to the realization of that ideal, a holding up of Christian duty, ὀφείλει, 1 John 2:6.” (Düsterdieck). Calvin says: “Si quis objiciat, neminem unquam fuisse repertum, qui deum ita perfecte diligeret, respondeo, sufficere, modo quisque pro gratiæ sibi datæ mensura ad hanc perfectionem adspiret. Interim constat definitio, quod perfectus dei amor sit legitima sermonis ejus observatio. In ea nos progredi sicut in notitia proficere decet.” But Huther is perfectly right in his strictures of Calvin’s view which approaches that of Socinus, who says: “Est autem perfectio ista caritatis in Deum et obedientia præceptorum ejus ita intelligenda, ut non omnino requiratur, ne ei quicquam deesse possit, sed tantum ut ejusmodi sit, qua Deus pro sua ingenti erga nos bonitate contentus esse voluit.”—M.]. “Where the word of God is perfectly fulfilled, there the love to God is perfect; perfect love shows itself in perfect obedience. It is certainly true that the Christian at no moment of his life has reached this perfection, but is always only growing in that direction. John, however, does not refer to that here.” The Apostle now quickly subjoins the concluding thought: Hereby (not “by the perfection of love” (Socinus), but “by obedience to the commandments of God,” Huther, Ebrard; for this thought concerning, obedience as the token of the knowledge of God and of life-fellowship with Him governs this whole thought-complex) we know that we are in Him. ’Εν αὐτῷ ἐσμέν is the final and summary expression of ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, 1 John 2:3, and of κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ̓ αὐτοῦ, 1 John 1:6, of the inward life-fellowship of Christians with God. It is more than man’s dependence on God in virtue of his inward relation to Him (as in Acts 17:28). As having known Him is not without being in Him, obedience of His commandments must stand as the mark of the knowledge of God, while the love of God [i.e., our love to God, M.] must supervene. What is said here amounts therefore to more than the explanation given by Grotius: “Christi ingenii discipuli sumus.”

1 John 2:6 is the final and full conclusion of this section.

He that saith he abideth in Him, ought himself also so to walk.—First: “Synonyma, cum gradatione: Illum nosse, in Illo esse in Illo manere, cognitio, communio, constantia,” (Bengel); then ἐντολὰς τηρεῖν, τὸν λόγον, περιπατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος. ’Εν αὐτῷ, particularly by the side of ἐκεῖνος (Jesus), and different from it, evidently denotes God the Father, and not Christ, as maintained by Augustine, Wolf, Neander, al., although the recollection of μένειν, the favourite expression of Jesus, which occurs ten times in John 15:4-11, may have influenced the language of the Apostle in this passage; at all events, the abiding spoken of in the Gospel is also connected with a reference to the commandments. “Being and abiding in God denote one and the same fellowship with God. The latter term merely superadds the description of its permanence and continuance, which is not contained in the former.” (Frommann.)

Ought (ὀφείλει) does not designate a mark or sign, but only the obligation.

So to walk even as He walked.—(i.e. Christ). This walking is not a mark or sign, which exists or might exist, or given as a touchstone to determine the Christianity of individuals, but simply designates the duty and obligation of Christians, as the disciples of Christ. Nor is it consequently a moment of abiding or being in God, a part thereof, but a goal to be reached, and a problem to be solved by every Christian, with the obligation of which none may dispense. So (οὕτως) to walk as Christ walked—is a requirement, compliance with which involves constant learning and ceaseless labour. The reference to Christ by καθὼς ἐκεῖνος occurs several times in this Epistle, 1 John 3:3; 1 John 3:7; 1 John 4:17.

As He walked points neither to particular traits in the life of Christ, e.g. prayer for His enemies (Augustine), contempt of the world and its pleasures, and patience in sufferings (Bede), nor, as in 1 Peter 2:21, sqq., to His self-humiliation and suffering, nor only to His perfect obedience of the commandments of God, nor to His doing only; but it is the concrete representation of walking in the Light (1 John 1:7), of the Divine life in Christ, whose essence and kernel is love. So that Paul may even exhort us to imitate, copy, follow God (Ephesians 5:1,) and to walk in love (1 John 2:2). But this must not be confined to the inward disposition, but must have an adequate expression in all our doings, in our whole conduct, at every step of our life; hence περιπατεῖν. John and his mysticism are certainly not afflicted with sentimentalism. The emphatic οὕτως can hardly be dispensed with here [See Appar. Crit. 1 John 2:6, note 7.—M.].

Brotherly love in particular is now specified as a mark of true Christianity (1 John 2:7-11).

1 John 2:7. Beloved, so in 1 John 3:2; 1 John 3:21; 1 John 4:1; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 4:11; in the last two passages it is particularly connected with the commandment of brotherly love. Beloved of God the Father in Christ, whom they ought to follow in that they walk in love to the brethren, as He did. [Huther: “Such an address does not necessarily indicate a new paragraph, but it bursts forth also in cases when the matter in question is to be brought home to the hearts of readers or hearers; which is the case here.”—M.].

I write not a new commandment to you.—The whole context, both what immediately precedes and what follows, requires us to regard this ἐντολή as a commandment, even as the commandment of brotherly love. The consideration of 1 John 2:6 teaches first that ὀφείλει constrains us to hold fast to the meaning of ἐντολή, commandment, and secondly exhorts us to walking after Christ; while 1 John 2:9 treats of love to the brethren. The latter is the definite and explicit declaration of what is implied in the former. It is improper to say that the reference here is to the different commandments; the commandment, to walk after Christ, and the commandment, to love the brethren; the two commandments are not alongside one another, but inside one another, and so that the latter is included in the former, not vice versa, that consequently the former is more general and less definite than the latter, whereas the latter is particular and clearly defined [i.e. Walking after Christ is the general, loving the brethren the particular.—M.]. A separation is impossible here; nor must 1 John 2:7-11 be subdivided as if 1 John 2:7-8 treated of something different from. 1 John 2:9-11. That which is stated in such explicit and definite terms in the second half, with reference to the first half of the whole section, must be already contained and intimated in the first half. The argument proceeds from the formal, as given in the walk of Christ, to the material which is contained therein. The connection is supported by the Apostle’s mode of treatment. For in 1 John 3:11; 1 John 3:23; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 4:21, he uniformly passes from general precepts to the commandment of love. John 15:13; John 15:17, and particularly John 13:34, present an analogy, and supply the basis for this part of the Epistle. 2 John 1:4-6 is the perfect parallel passage which specifies walking in truth, walking after His commandments, walking in the new comandments, which we had from the beginning, and which they had heard. The corresponding points here are walking in the light, walking as He walked, after the commandments of God, in love of the brethren. But the reference cannot by any means be to walking after Christ per se in 1 John 2:6, because just there the ἐντολὴ is described as ὁ λόγος ὅν ἡκούσατe. The commandment given is therefore, not Christ’s walk which is seen, but His Word, which is heard; the commandment was not only given in acts, but spoken in the word. Of course we must not understand ὁ λόγος as designating the Gospel which is preached, and make it the ἐντολή. Lastly, the general grammatical usage forces us to take ἐντολή [in its usual sense—M.] as commandment, and not in the sense of doctrine or truth, as Flacius, Calov, J. Lange, Rickli, Ebrard understand it. We ought therefore to agree with Augustine, Bede, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Neander, Sander, Huther and Düsterdieck, who understand the commandment of brotherly love, and not with expositors like Beza, Socinus, Episcopius, Lücke, Frommann and others, who hold that the commandment applies only to walking after Christ. [It is doubtful whether Braune’s view of the relation between walking after Christ and loving the brethren is correct. It strikes me that the case is stated with greater lucidity and correctness by Huther, who says with reference to the two views of the commentators: “These two views seem to be opposed to each other, but they are opposed only when it is assumed that John’s design was to specify a particular commandment in contradistinction from other commandments. But that assumption is erroneous: the commandment to keep the commandments (or the word) of God after the pattern of Christ, or to walk in the Light, is none other than that of loving one’s brother. From 1 John 1:5, onwards John does not refer to different commandments, but to a general commandment of the Christian life, which flows from the truth that God is Light. The reference is to this commandment when John, in order to bring the matter right home to the hearts of his readers, says: οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, so that ἐντολή does not refer to a commandment he is about to specify, but to the commandment he had already specified before (however, not in 1 John 2:6 only), and which he is about to define more clearly in the sequel as its concrete substance.” This view Huther pronounces in agreement with that of Düsterdieck: “The solution of the riddle is … that the holy commandment to walk as Christ did walk, is fully and essentially contained in the commandment of brotherly love.” “We encounter here the view that as the whole exemplary life of Christ is contained in His love of us, so our whole walk in the Light is substantially nothing else than following after Christ in this full brotherly love.”—M.].

The words “not a new commandment” are explained by what follows:

But an old commandment, which ye had from the beginning; this old commandment is the word which ye heard.—The commandment, therefore, is not new, but old, because the readers do not only now learn to know it by his writing, (γράφω), but because they have it already, and had it from the beginning. It is also said how they did receive it; they had heard it, that is, it had been announced to them. This renders it necessary to refer ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς to the beginning of Christianity, and the Christian standing of the readers; for the beginning, as far it concerns their life, cannot be anterior to their time, but must coincide with their life and the time when it was announced to them. So, also, 1 John 2:24; 1Jn 3:11; 2 John 1:5-6. Ye can never mean majores vestri (Grotius), but designates the readers themselves, the Church, to whom the Epistle is addressed. Nor is there room for a distinction between Jewish Christians who had it already formerly, and Gentile Christians who had only heard it by the preaching of the Gospel, as Wolf draws it, and for saying that the beginning in the case of the former denotes what is written in the Old Testament by Moses (Flacius, Clarius), and that in the case of the latter the beginning dates even from the creation, written in their heart and conscience (the Greeks, fully corresponding with what Luthardt, on free-will, p. 12, sq., 22, observes as a characteristic of the Greek Church which is fond of connecting Christianity with the sphere of the universally human as contradistinguished from the Latin Church, which prefers to give prominence to the specific newness of the Christian, Baumgarten-Crusius, Credner). But we must not say that ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς bears precisely the same meaning as in 1 John 1:1; 1 John 2:13-14; 1 John 3:8, since the meaning is determined by the context, which points here to the beginning of the Christian life. This is the view of most commentators, viz,: Calvin, Beza, Socinus, Episcopius, Lange, Rickli, Lücke, de Wette, Sander, Neander, Besser, Düsterdieck, Huther and al.—The Article in the addition (ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά) marks once more, the age of the commandment which had already been indicated by the antithesis (οὐκ καινήν, ἀλλὰ παλαιάν). It is called straightforth ὁ λόγος, because, as all ἐντολαὶ run together in the one ἐντολὴ, as this one ἐντολὴ runs through and fills the whole λόγος, the evangelical ὰγγελία: “We should love one another as Christ has loved us;” wherefore ὁ λόγος is not the chief substance of the word, but the word itself. As εἵχετε meant that they had, knew and used the commandment, so ὴκούσατε adds how they came to possess it: by the preaching of the Apostles. The addition is, therefore, not a correction of γράφω, as if John wanted to say: it is not I that give it to you now while I am writing, but you have heard it long ago of Christ (Baumgarten-Crusius), [for ὴκουσάτε has no immediate relation to γράφω, but to εἵχετε.—M.].

1 John 2:8. Again I write unto you.—Πάλιν indicates a close connection with the preceding verse, rendered unmistakable by the repetition of the same word in the same form: γράφω, 1 John 2:7,—πάλιν belongs to the verb (Lücke, de Wette), although ἐντολὴν καινὴν stands before γράφω, and signifies again, once more, a second time, and Erasmus, with whom most commentators agree here, is not wrong in saying (against Huther): “et contrarietatem declarat et iterationem,” because πάλιν is used by Homer and Hesiod in the sense of back, backward, and against, πὰλιν ἐρεῖν to gainsay [i.e., say against—M.], but in Herodotus and Attic, and later writers generally, it bears almost the exclusive signification of again, once more, anew; but Erasmus errs when he adds: “hic non repetitionis sed contrarietatis est declaratio;” it is here corrective and epanorthotic (Beza, Episcopius, Calov, Wolf, Lücke, al.).—Τράφω, both here and in 1 John 2:7, denotes the present act of the Apostle, and has its ordinary, literal sense, not=I prescribe (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor does the Accusative following γράφω admit the construction=I write of, concerning the commandment.

[As] a new commandment, which thing is true in Him and in you.—[Knapp’s paraphrase πάλιν (ὡς) ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν (τοῦτο) ὅ ἐστιν is the basis of as bracketed in the text.—M.].—This is a further proof of the close connection of this verse with 1 John 2:7; John adheres to what he had just said, writes still on the same point, and it is, therefore, simply impossible to make 1 John 2:8 begin a new paragraph, as does Ebrard. The clause ὅ ἐστιν relates to the preceding matter, as is evident from the relative pronoun, and cannot be connected with the following clause introduced by ὅτι, as Ebrard thinks. The Neuter forbids our regarding it as a relative clause belonging to καινὴ ἐντολὴ, as maintained by Düsterdieck, who assumes a constructs ad sensum, and says that “the real substance of ἐντολὴ is declared to be true, both in Christ and in the readers,” but this would require ἡ—ἀληθής (Lücke), and “the thing required by ἐντολὴ is nothing else but the ἐντολὴ itself” (Ebrard). We must take it rather as coördinated with ἐντολὴν καινὴν, and construe it like ἐντολὴν καινὴν, as the object of γράφω. The above-mentioned paraphrase of Knapp is the most simple construction, although we must not attach to the inserted ὡς the meaning of “tanquam si nova esset,” as Knapp does, for then it could not be called a new commandment; yet both the Apostle and our Lord Himself describe it by the epithet new (John 13:34); ὡς, moreover, denotes the reality (Romans 15:15, and elsewhere), and is well adapted to being supplied, in order to point out the right explanation.—But we have to begin with the explanation of ὅ ἐστιν, which stands emphatically first; the reference is consequently to that, which is—in Him and in you. Αὐτός by the side of ὑμῖν denotes a person, so that ἐν αὐτῳ is not=per se ac simpliciter (Socinus), and the context requires its being explained of Christ and not of God (Jachmann, who is then compelled to understand ἀληθὲς in connection with ἐν αὐτῷ, in a different sense from the same word in connection with ἐν ὑμῖν; in God it has its reason, in you it has its evidence). There is no reason why the preposition should be rendered respectu, in respect of, or by (which something may be known, identified as true, de Wette); it simply means: in or with Christ and you. At the same time ἀληθὲς bears of course the sense of real, as in Acts 12:9 [i.e., it denotes actual reality (Huther, Meyer)—M.]. The sentence, moreover, must not be torn to pieces after the manner of Erasmus, Episcopius and Grotius: “quod verum est in illo, id etiam in vobis verum est, esse debet.” But brotherly love evidenced in the walk is true in Christ the Head and in the readers of the Epistle, as the members of His Body. No matter how great the difference of that reality may be, it is still there [is actually, really extant.—M.]. This stands as a new commandment, and, therefore, John writes it thus. He considers the ἐντολὴ as the main point, places it first, and then predicates of it that it is new, after having previously called it old.—He called it old from the stand-point of the present with regard to the former entrance into Christianity, which took place long ago; he describes as new that which is true in Christ and His people, and sees first in Him what is now also in His people, what Christ required of His followers as a new commandment (John 13:34), and from this stand-point, from their entrance into Christianity and their fellowship with Christ, he, like the Lord Himself, calls this a commandment which is new. The Apostle consequently does not refer here to the permanent duration of the commandment of brotherly love, which requires to be constantly inculcated anew (Calvin: “perpetuo vigere,” Socinus, Knapp, al.), nor to man’s new birth (Augustine, Bede, al.). It is new by the very words added by Christ Himself in John 13:34 : “καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς,” as He has proved it in fact, and as he does effect and operate it in His people. [Huther: “The sense is: that which is already true, i.e., a reality, in Christ and in you, to wit: the τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. John 15:10, where Christ says of Himself: ἐγὼ τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ πατρός μου τετήρηκα), I write to you as a new commandment,” and then he adds in a foot-note, “It is manifestly not more surprising that John sets up before his readers anew as a commandment that which has already become a reality in them, than that he announces to them truths, of which he says himself that they know them already.”—M.].

Because the darkness passeth away and the true light shineth already.—This sentence answers the question: Why does the Apostle write as a commandment which is new that which is true in Him and the readers of the Epistle? Hence ὅτι is simply causal, because; and this whole sentence corresponds exactly with the preceding (Düsterdieck, Huther). ̔́Οτι, consequently, is not merely dependent on ἀληθές or ἐντολή (Socinus, Bengel, Ebrard), so that it has declarative force=that; the point is not to prove that the light shineth and that the darkness passeth away, nor could that be the substance of a commandment. Nor can we divide (with Lücke and Brückner) the sentence that the commandment of walking in the light manifests itself as new in Christ (in whom the true light has appeared), and in the readers (in whom this light diffuses itself and shines already, scattering the darkness), and refer the former to ἐν αὐτῷ, which is not said at all, or to τὸ φῶς φαίνει, and the latter to ἐν ἡμῖν or ἡ σκοτία παράγεται. We have no occasion or warrant for doing so. The antitheses ἡ σκοτία and to τὸ φῶς must be taken in an ethical sense, and denote the sinful and the holy, as the elements in which one lives and walks; and this construction is rendered necessary by the subsequent verses and the whole context. Both are opposed to each other, but they exist alongside each other, increasing or decreasing (παράγεται—ἥδη φαίνει). The former consequently does not denote the economy of the Old Testament or paganism, which indeed were never without light, nor the latter only the person of Christ, as in John 1:9 (Oecumenius, Bengel), nor “Christus una cum doctrina ejus et effectus fide et caritate” (Lange); for the expression has a wider reach. The σκοτία denotes the whole power and sphere of the ethical life, separate from communion with God (the Light in Whom there is no darkness), still fighting against the Light, but evermore condemned (John 3:19), constantly overcome and consuming itself; but the Light, which is God (1 John 1:5), embraces whatever belongs to His Kingdom, and keeps believers in communion with Himself (Düsterdieck). The Light is called τὸ , which is not only real (ἀληθὲς), but the true light answering to the real truth, embracing and effecting the real truth. (Ibid.) [Eternal, essential Light, of which earthly light is only a transitory image.—Huther, Neander.—M.]. So Luke 16:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9. It is just the life of the Lord, wherein is that which shines, bursts and shines forth with ever increasing strength; this real Being is the Light, the true Light (John 1:4). In παράγεται we have first of all to preserve the Present form. The Vulgate renders falsely “tenebræ transierunt;” so do Luther, “is past,” Calvin [and E. V. “is past”—M.]. It is unnecessary to construe it passively with Besser, Sander, Bengel, (traducitur, commutatur, ita ut tandem absorbeatur); it is Middle, like παράγει, 1 Corinthians 7:31 (so Oecumenius, Wolf, Lücke, de Wette, Düsterdieck, Huther): it is passing away, vanishing, disappearing. With this corresponds ἤδη φαίνει, said of the Light, it shineth, shineth already, not now (Luther, E. V.); the darkness makes room for the light, the light begins already to break through. [Huther, who adds, “so that neither the darkness is entirely past, nor the light entirely established.”—M.]. The transition from the reign of darkness to that of the Light is thus indicated and referred to the future, when the conflict thus begun will end in the full victory of the Light. Hence in the words ὅ ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν John expresses not so much an encomium on his church, as a declaration of his joy in the continued working and the commencing and progressing victory of the Lord and His Kingdom. From this point of view the reading ὑμῖν only can be received as authentic, as bringing out the true sense of the passage in an undiluted form, which would certainly be awakened by the reading ἡμῖν, and lessen the Apostle’s pure rejoicing over his church, as the work of Jesus Christ. [Rickli: “John says this in relation to the time in which they live, and during which the great work of the Lord took a wondrously rapid course of development. The true Light, the Lord in His perfect revelation of Divine truth, shines already;—already the great morning dawns for mankind. When the Lord returns, then will be the full day of God. This revelation … believers go to meet.—M.].

1 John 2:9. He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother.

For the form cf. 1 John 2:4, for the thought see 1 John 1:6-7. Φῶς here denotes neither Christ (Spener), nor the Church (Ebrard: “The Church of those in whom the fact ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἤδη φαίνει has become an άληθές”); for since to τὸ φῶς, 1 John 2:8, denotes the holy, the sphere of the Divine life, no other sense can be admitted here. The Apostle regards as his brother particularly the believer in Christ, as γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (1 John 5:1); the love of the brethren, as the children of a loved Father, rests on the love of God, who has regenerated them (1Jn 5:1; 1 John 3:10.). Likewise in the Gospel (John 3:16; John 15:12, sq.; John 13:34; John 20:17; John 21:13); St. Peter also gives φιλαδελφία in the same sense (1 Peter 1:22, sq.), and actually distinguishes it from ἀγαπὴ which he takes in the sense of φιλανθρωπιά (2 Peter 1:7), (Luther, common love). “Ipsa appellatio amoris causam continet (Bengel). Whether ἁδελφὸς denotes elsewhere an actual brother or a cousin, John 7:3; John 7:5 [see my article “Are James the son of Alphæus and James the brother of the Lord identical,” in Princeton Review, January, 1865—M.], or members of the same nationality, Acts 23:1, or=ὁ πλησίον, ὁ ἕτερος, (Matthew 18:35; Matthew 7:3; Luke 6:41; James 4:11), the context must always determine the sense, and the context here refers decidedly to Christian fellowship. Hence Grotius is wrong: “sive Judæum, sive alienigenam; fratres omnes in Adamo sumus”), as well as Calov and Lange [who give a similar exposition.—M.]. It is improper to take μισεῖν as “post habere, minus diligere, non colere” (Bretschneider); it means to hate; but it is not specified here to which degree of hatred he has come to whom reference is made; it is left undecided whether his hatred be germinating and initial, or mature and fully developed. Not even the faintest degree or colouring of hatred can be compatible with this ἐν τῷ φωτὶ εἷναι. That saying and this hating are so little in agreement, and this hating imports so much more than that saying, that John continues, saying,

Is in the darkness until now—in sin, in the atmosphere of the sinful, until now, yet, at this hour, this very moment. But along with all this severity and profound earnestness which insists upon one thing or the other, runs the intimation of a hope of return. [Huther: “Like φῶς and σκοτία, μισεῖν τὸν and ἀγαπᾶν τὸν mutually exclude each other. They are two diametrically opposed biasses of life; a man’s doings belong either to the one or to the other; that which does not belong to the sphere of the one, appertains to that of the other. Each denial of love is hatred, each conquest of hatred is love.” Düsterdieck:—“Nothing can be more shallow and weak as compared with the ethics of the whole Scripture. All the truth, depth, and power of Christian ethics rest on the ‘aut … aut,’ so distinctly insisted on by St. John. On the one side is God, on the other the world: here is life, there is death; here love, there hate, i.e. murder; there is no medium. In the space between, is nothing. Life may as yet be merely elementary and fragmentary. Love may as yet be weak and poor, but still, life in God and its necessary demonstration in love, is present really and truly, and the word of our Lord is true: “He that is not against me is with me,” Luke 9:50; and on the other side, the life according to the flesh, the attachment to the world, and the necessary action of this selfishness by means of hatred, may be much hidden, may be craftily covered, and with splendid outer surface; but in the secret depth of the man, there where spring the real fountains of his moral life, is not God but the world; the man is yet in death, and can consequently love nothing but himself, and must hate his brother; and then the other word of the Lord is true, “He that is not for me is against me,” Luke 9:23. For a man can only be either for or against Christ, and consequently can only have either love or hate towards his brother.”—M.].

1 John 2:10. He that loveth his brother, abideth in the light, and a stumbling-block is not in him.—Not only an antithesis to 1 John 2:9, but also a progression in the argument: μένει, for every thing depends on the abiding which must be the result of being cf. 1 John 2:6. The sentiment is prepared in ἕως ἄρτι 1 John 2:9 by the fine allusion that hatred of the brother and being in the darkness, must be overcome, and that being in the light and in love must be maintained. Hence we cannot say with Ebrard: “The exercise of brotherly love is of itself a means of strengthening and confirming the new life; from brotherly fellowship there flow for the new man refreshing and quickening streams of his faith.” But the love of the brother acts and moves within the sphere of light, not without growth which strengthens itself there; the impelling power is that which evinces itself in brotherly love, faith in the Father, faith in the Only Begotten of the Father, who gives us the power to become the children of God. He that loves his brother ever grows more firmly rooted in holiness, the kingdom of light; growth takes place in brotherly love, but brotherly love does not produce it; He only produces it who produces fellowship with Himself and the love of the brother. John knows only aut—aut, hating or loving: “ubi non amor est, odium est, cor non est vacuum” (Bengel). The sentence, σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἕστιν fully corresponds with 1 John 2:4; ἐν τούτῳ ἠ . The comparison of these two verses facilitates the understanding of our passage, τὸ σκάνδαλον, or ὁ σκάνδαλος (Hesychius) is [the rendering of the LXX, M.] for מִכְשׁוֹל or מוֹקֵשׁ properly ἐμπόδισμος, σκανδάληθρον (τὸ ἐν ταῖς μυάγραις), προσκόμμα; hence βάλλειν, τιθέναι σκάνδαλον. So λίθον προσκόμματος, πέτρα σκανδάλου Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:7; cf. Isaiah 8:14; Isaiah 28:16; Romans 14:13. It is always a stumbling against, an offence given, but it is left undefined whether it is given with or without guilt. Christ Himself, the Crucified One, is 1 Corinthians 1:23 : Ἰουδαίοις σκάνδαλον. The guilt of the σκάνδαλον may reside in him to whom it is given, who takes it, who is offended at it and falls. Here it is said: ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν. In him, who loves his brother and abides in the Light, in the holy, is not σκάνδαλον, is not that which offends, gives offence, causes himself or others to stumble and fall, such as envy, suspicion, want of sympathy, harshness of judgment, pride—all σκάνδαλα to himself and also to others. “Qui fratrem odit, ipse sibi offendiculum est et incurrit in se ipsum et in omnia intus et foris; qui amat expeditum iter habet. Bengel. This seems also to be the exposition of Düsterdieck, who says: “Occasion of stumbling and falling, the lust of the flesh is still extant in believers, but they are always sure of the virtue of the blood of Christ which hallows and increasingly removes every σκάνδαλον (1 John 1:7, sqq.). It is inadmissible to explain ἐν αὐτῷ αὐτῳ, as Grotius does (est metonymia et ἐν abundat; sensus: ille non impingit. Psalms 119:165), or de Wette (with him [for him] there is no offence), or Neander (there is no offence with him, he himself does not stumble) or to explain αὐτῷ with Lücke and Sander of the external sphere of life, because in the case of Christians σκάνδαλα lie in the world, not in himself. What Vatablus says is only half true; nemini offendiculo est; the same applies to Johannsen: “he gives no offence; Ebrard: “there is nothing in them whereby they give offence to the brethren; and Huther, “there is nothing in him which becomes an offence to himself:” the reference to others has also been given by Calov, Jachmann, that to himself by Bede, Luther and Calvin.

1 John 2:11 concludes this section in antithesis to 1 John 2:10, taking from that antithesis that which helps the further development of the thought.

But he that hateth his brother is in the darkness and walketh in the darkness.—Here we find περιπατεῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, superadded to εἶναι ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ 1 John 2:10. The latter denotes the status or habitus (Sander), or affectus (Grotius) the disposition, state, the former the actus, operation; so also de Wette and others. “Both the being (the assumption) and the doing (the consequence) of the unloving belong to the darkness; cf. Galatians 5:25” (Huther). “He that hateth his brother, both as to his person and as to his walk, belongs to the darkness, the sphere of the sinful” (Ebrard). Closely connected with this is:

And he knoweth not where he goeth to—answering to the σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἕστιν, 1 John 2:10. The particle ποῦ, where, not whither, denotes rest; ὑπάγειν however is not to go, but to go away to, to go to; the word describes a calm walking, not a mere moving to and fro, but a progressive moving towards an end or goal. So John 3:8; John 8:14; John 12:35; also John 7:35; ποῦ—πορεύεσθαι; John 20:2; John 20:13; ποῦ ἔθηκαν. The unloving man sees and knows not which way he is going; he walks with darkened eyes on a dark way. Luther (“they fancy that they are going to rest and glory, and yet go to hell”); and Cyprian (“it nescius in gehennam, ignarus et cæcus præcipitatur in pœnam”) look at the extreme goal, but we should not lose sight of the immediate consequences of a selfish and unloving being and walking. The matter is so very important, that the Apostle substantiates his statement, saying:

Because the darkness hath blinded his eyes.—Τυφλοῦν, to blind, to make blind must not be changed into “surrounding with darkness,” or diluted by a tanquam (Lücke and others). The unloving man himself is dark, and the darkness is in him, in his eyes, not only round about him. John 12:40; cf. Isaiah 6:9, sq.; Matthew 13:14, sq.; and N. pp. Acts 28:26, sq.; also 2 Corinthians 4:4.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Here we see quite plainly the different sides of the Christian life; γιγνώσκειν θεόν, τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρεῖν, τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ τηρεῖν, αʼλήθεια, ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ εἶναι, μένειν, appear as correlates. The dogmatical and the ethical are in one another. The ethos is contained in the dogma, waiting to be delivered in the life; the ethos rests on the dogma as on a root; both are inwardly related to each other, refer to each other, belong together, may be distinguished, but not separated; the one without the other falls to ruin or runs to waste. Christian knowledge loses experience, clearness, sharpness of outline, assurance, and breadth, without a life of Christian morality; Christian morality loses unity, depth, endurance, joyfulness, grace and beauty, if not founded on Christian knowledge. If it is affirmed concerning him who, while disobeying the commandments of God, still makes his boast of the knowledge of God, that the truth is not in him, and concerning him who loving his brother, abides in the light that offence is not in him (John 2:4; John 2:10), it is evident that the ἀλήθεια and the σκάνδαλον cannot be made to agree, and that the former is also an immoral thing.

2. Since John makes τὰς ἐντολὰς and τὸν λόγον τηρεῖν perfectly parallel, and regards the Law with its particular commandments, and the revelation of God in His word as a unit, and contemplates the love of God as growing and maturing toward perfection by the obedient observance of the same, the presumption is that the same loving Will of God has revealed itself both in the Law and in the Gospel, and that man’s love of God lives on, ought and has to live on the wholesome food of both. But this decidedly excludes any and every meritoriousness of obedience and of good works; just as in the Gospel faith in the love of God does not constitute a merit, so in the law obedience to the loving Will of God is not a merit. Obedience is simply a sign and mark of the Christian life begun on the foundation and in the efficiency of the reconciliation accomplished by Christ. Our only merit before God is Christ, and beside Him no man can have any merit before God.

3. John does not in any way countenance the doctrine of the Council of Trent (Sess. VI., chap. 16) that “the justified are able fully to satisfy (plene satisfacere) the divine law by means of works wrought in God” [Nihil ipsis justificatis amplius deesse credendum est, quo minus plene illis quidem operibus quæ in Deo sunt facta, divinæ legi pro hujus vitæ statu satisfecisse.—M.], because he does not speak of that which has an historical existence, but of that which is to become a reality; he refers not to actual reality, but to ideal reality. On this account the words of John rather sustain Luther’s paradox: “The righteous sins in every good work mortaliter, at least venialiter”—or Schleiermacher’s translation of it: “even in our good works there is something in consequence of which we stand in need of forgiveness for them.” Though [Roman] Catholicism debase the Law and blunt its requirements in order to exalt man, we are bound to exalt the Law, though man be debased and humbled, since the case as put by John is and remains only ideal truth, Christ alone being the exception, whom alone all are bound to follow.

4. The unity and difference of the characteristics of the Old and New Testaments appears in one point, namely, the commandment of brotherly love. This commandment is valid in either sphere; it derives in both spheres its origin from God; it has the same meaning in both, and is one in both, the old [commandment] which remains. But in virtue of Christ’s example in His love of the brethren, it is more lucid, attractive, powerful, comprehensive and pure in the New than in the Old. It is new only in that which the Person of Christ has added thereto in His personal love; He is the new, which has been superadded to the old commandment.

5. The Perfect τετελείωται, 1 John 2:5, evidently denotes no historical truth, since the historical is marked by ἡ σκοτία παράγεται, τὸ φῶς ἤδη φαίνει. But these Presents indicate the assurance of victory and the joyfulness of hope with which that Perfect is anticipated. It signifies: “the whole power and sphere of the ethical life, separate from communion with God, (the Light in whom there is no darkness), still fighting against the Light, but evermore condemned, constantly overcome and consuming itself” (Düsterdieck), both in respect of the great totality of the world, and in respect of individual persons.

6. The progress in evil to perdition, and in good to the salvation of eternal life, is inward. The hidden life of the children of God has been commenced by the Forerunner; walking after Him, it grows in them, daily increasing in completeness, so that salvation, pursuant to divine appointment, is the consequence of a holy life on earth. But disobedience and unlovingness exert a reaction on the unloving, which forms their inward being and operates their perdition, which, in its turn, is also the result of their conduct here on earth.

7. As Christ is the principle of ethical life (1 John 2:6), and love the principle in Him, as in the λόγος and the Law, so the love of Him, of God and of the brethren, must be the principle of obedience and of ethical life. Ultimately every thing concurs in brotherly love, which is the mark, while the love of God is the principle, the love of the loving God the fountain of all inward, Christian and godly life.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Examine thyself.

1. What is to be investigated? Whether you know God; and the knowledge of God is not without fellowship with God. The question is not knowledge concerning and about God, not having heard and learned certain truths relating to Him, but the being and abiding in Him (1 John 2:3; 1 John 2:5-6). You are intimate only with those between whom and yourself there is habitual intercourse. Otherwise you have only a more distant and superficial acquaintance, but never an intimate knowledge.

2. Why it should be investigated? Without God you are in darkness, without Him you walk in darkness, you become more and more darkness yourself, you run to ruin, and perish at last in the darkness of condemnation; you reach the point that you hate, and are hated, hateful and abominable (1 John 2:9; 1 John 2:11). But with and in God you are in the light, you walk in the light, and light and truth and love are in you, you become more and more light, love in truth grows more perfect, and all offence will be put away from you (1 John 2:4-5; 1 John 2:11).

3. How it should be investigated? Look after your obedience to the commandments of God (1 John 2:3-4), more especially after the old and yet new commandment of the love of the brethren (1 John 2:7-11), and see whether you walk after the Lord Jesus (1 John 2:6). He that keeps the commandments of God in thought, in word and in deed, keeps himself; he that observes the commandments of God, preserves himself.

Augustine:—Christ says not, learn of me to create the world, to work miracles, to raise the dead, but that I am meek and lowly in heart.

Luther:—The commandment of love is a short commandment and a long commandment, one commandment and many commandments, it is no commandment and all the commandments. Short and one it is of itself, and soon mastered as to its meaning; but long and manifold in point of practice, for it is the sum and chief of all commandments. And it is no commandment at all in respect of the works, for it has no special work of its own by name; but it is all the commandments, because the works of all the commandments are and should be its works. The commandment of love therefore abrogates all the commandments and yet establishes all the commandments; and all this in order that we may know and learn thus much: no commandment and no work is to be kept and binding, but in as far as it is the demand of love.

Spener:—There is a vast difference between living and dead knowledge; the one flows from the revelation of Jesus Christ (John 14:21), from the Holy Ghost, and is therefore the operation of God; the other flows from reason, and consists in man’s imagination; the latter knows only what people are wont to say of God, the former ascertains the mind of God; the one is a knowledge like that which I have of a man, concerning whom I have heard something, the other like that of one with whom I have had converse; the one is a feeble light, letting in only a beam into the understanding, the other is a heavenly light which fills and irradiates the whole soul, and in which we should walk.—It is a great consolation that God gives us a sure test, whereby we may be assured of our faith and consequently of our participation in the reconciliation of Christ, a test moreover which we may use also in a state of temptation, when the sense of faith is wanting.—Saying that we know God, amounts to nothing. Simon the sorcerer gave out that himself was some great one, but was not (Acts 8:9); some say that they are Jews, and are not (Revelation 3:9); but confession demands first of all a believing heart.—The imitation of Christ is not something that is left to our option, or only incumbent upon certain people desirous of attaining unto a peculiar perfection, but it is the universal obligation of all those who are in Christ Jesus, and is therefore binding on the high and on the low, on the clergy and on the laity, on men and women, in every manner and walk of life.—Teachers should treat their hearers as brethren, and use the paternal power within such limits, as never to forget their brotherly equality (Philemon 1:16). No condition of life gives to a man the liberty to hate his brother; but in whatsoever condition a man may be, he is never and in no wise permitted to hate his neighbour; and although he have occasionally to hurt him, as e.g., the authority of the land, which has to punish the wicked, yet must such condign punishment flow from love, as in the case of others so in his case, and be administered with a compassion that would, if it were able, rather withhold the severe remedy, just as a physician, moved by love, yet because of urgent necessity, will amputate the arm or leg of a patient.—There is no lack of offences in the world; let every one take care not to give offence, nor condemn others, but judge every thing in love. He that hateth his brother knows not the injury he inflicts upon himself, and into what misery he precipitates himself; for whereas he thinks that he loves himself and for his own interest, honour or pleasure, hates his neighbour, even as selfishness is the cause of all hatred, he hates himself most of all, when he fancies that he is loving himself (John 13:9).

Lange:—The true followers of Christ have not a transient faith, but they are firm and steadfast like a branch in the vine, a bough in the tree, a house on its foundation. The duties of common love towards every man are these: 1. Intercession for the promotion of his conversion; 2. friendly admonition and correction at convenient seasons; 3. the careful avoidance of whatever may deter him from the practice of good; 4. the diligent warding-off of his loss under all circumstances; 5. kindly demeanour in words, manner and works. The duties of particular love towards believers are partly the same, partly those which are necessary to the maintenance of intimate brotherly converse and spiritual affinity.

Starke:—A piece of coin stands the test; lead betrays itself that it is not silver, and brass that it is not gold. Perhaps by sound? No, by the streak; and this is to keep the commandments of Christ. Have a care, my soul. The loss of the fraud is thine own.—Faith worketh by love (Galatians 5:6); wherefore the faith, whence no good works do proceed, is only dead faith (James 2:17; James 2:26).—The perfection of believers’ love of God consists in that it is honest, sincere, pure, undivided, upright, faithful and without hypocrisy, lacking neither a truly divine impulse nor holy ardour, neither true reverence of God, nor ardent zeal for and towards God, although as yet unable to take and hallow all the thoughts of the mind, or to present all its powers as an offering of love to God.—As we know that a branch which bears good fruit is truly in the vine (for were it otherwise how could it bear fruit?) so we may surely say of a man that does truly good works, that he is truly planted in Christ.—Come hither, ye that refuse to believe that it is necessary to be pious. Christ is your Forerunner! Do as He did! Look upon His example. Arbitrary choice and presumptuous conceit pave the road to hell.—It is a great comfort that our Christian doctrine is sure and established, not liable to change and to be presented now in one way, now in another, but remains always the same, because God, who has wisdom and truth, is its Author, and needs not at any time to change that which He has given us once for all. Examine thyself, O man! who art thou? The child of God, or of the devil? Consider only whether thou lovest or hatest thy neighbour? If thou lovest him in deed and in truth, thou art in the light and in God’s; but if thou hatest Him and showest thy hatred either outwardly in works, or concealest it inwardly in thy heart, and withdrawest thyself from Him, then thou hast a sign that thou art in darkness and the devil’s. Tremble at thyself, and amend thy ways!

Heubner:—To know Christ is to know, experience and delight in Him as our Friend and Saviour, and to enjoy His grace and fellowship. The mark of it is the keeping of His commandments, vital, active Christianity. Works are not the ground of justification, but a mark to ourselves, whether justifying faith is in us, and whether we are justified; because Christ when He gives Himself to us, never gives Himself half but entire; to whom He becomes justification, to them He also becomes sanctification. We may therefore conclude backwards, to whom He has not yet become sanctification, to them also He has not yet become justification.—The assertion of justifying faith and want of holiness, fidelity and conscientiousness, constitutes a contradiction and makes the assertor a liar.—In those who keep the words of Christ, we may plainly see that they have really tasted the forgiving love of God, that it has carried captive their hearts and filled them with love to God.—Hatred, selfishness, is a state of darkness because the lightsome knowledge of God, of the love of Christ is still wanting, because it has not yet penetrated and illuminated the heart, because therefore the soul also is still in a dark, rent state, at discord with itself, without seeing the gracious countenance of God which renders us light, and, as it were, resplendent of countenance.—He knows not 1, how far this evil, unloving mind may carry him, and 2, what will be his end, what his reward,—exclusion from the kingdom of light.

Neander:—Believing aright in John’s sense, is a matter of life.—His commandments are only separate traits in which His life-forming word develops itself.—As genuine love can evidence itself only in the observance of Christ’s word, so there are different degrees of the manner how this love has more or less interpenetrated the life of men.—He Himself is in His commandments, and they also are only separate parts of His self-revelation.—The life of every believer should be only a peculiar representation of the image of Christ, the original of the new and glorified humanity.—Either love or hatred of the brethren; love which is ready for any sacrifice, or selfishness that may also pass into hatred; even as Christ indicates only the two fundamental biasses: to serve God or the world.

Besser:—Would I know whether I know God, I must not examine my knowledge but my walk; and would I know whether thou knowest God, I do not ask that which thy mouth may have to say of Him, but that which thy life does testify of Him.—Just in the sense of John we read in the Epistle to Diognetus: There is neither life without knowledge, nor right knowledge without the true life.—It is characteristic of love that it would do nothing to grieve but every thing to please the Beloved, surrendering its will and weal, its honour and life to the Beloved; His pleasure is its pleasure; what displeases Him, it hates.—The motto of St. Francis was: “Tantum quisque scit, quantum operatur.”—Cursed be all science that cannot stand the test of the commandments of Jesus Christ!—This indisputable ought (1 John 2:6), is at the same time a blessed may to John and to all who have John’s mind [That is, the duty is to them a blessed privilege, which they receive with grateful hearts.—M.].—When the pagans looked with amazement on the love of the early Christians, and exclaimed: “See how these Christians love one another, and are ready to die for one another,” when the mark of Christians was described in the words: “They love each other even before they know each other,” then there shone the resplendent light before which darkness recedes. Would that this day, when it comprises already a much longer period of light, there could be found no Christian Church, in whose new walk that is not truth and reality which John writes to the Christians as an old commandment.

[Secker:—If we keep His commandments, 1 John 2:3. Whosoever doth so, though imperfectly, yet sincerely and humbly, hath nothing to fear. Whosoever doth not, hath nothing to hope. Strong feelings of joyful assurance may be given to the pious from above as a present reward; and strong feelings of vain presumption may lead on the wicked, secure and triumphant, to their final destruction. Very reasonable terrors from consciousness of their guilt, may torment, the bad beforehand; and very unreasonable ones, from constitution or the suggestions of Satan, may assault the good. Therefore we are to judge of our condition by none of these things; but by the Scripture rule, fairly interpreted: “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous; he that committeth sin is of the devil” 1 John 3:7-8.—M.].

[Barrow:—(1 John 2:5). If a man perform any good work not out of the love to God, but from any other principle or any other design (to please himself or others, to get honour or gain thereby) how can it be acceptable to God, to whom it hath not any due regard? And what action hath it for its principle, or its ingredient, becomes sanctified thereby, in great measure pleasing and acceptable to God; such is the work and value thereof. It is also the great commandment for efficacy and influence, being naturally productive of obedience to all other commandments; especially of the most genuine and sincere obedience; no other principle being in force and activity comparable thereto; fear may drive to a compliance with some, and hope may draw to an observance of others; but it is love, that with a kind of willing constraint and kindly violence carries on cheerfully, vigorously and swiftly, to the performance of all God’s commandments.

(1 John 2:6): “To abide in Christ, to be in Christ, to put on Christ and reciprocally Christ’s being in us, living, dwelling, being formed in us, and the like expressions, occurring in Holy Scripture, do not denote any physical inherence, or essential conjunction between Christ and us, such as those who affect unintelligible mysteries, rather than plain sense, would conceit; but only that mutual relation accruing from our profession of being Christ’s disciples, our being inserted into His body, the Church, being governed by His laws, partaking of His grace, with all the privileges of the Gospel, relying upon His promises, and hoping for eternal salvation from Him. By virtue of which relation we may be said, in a mystical or moral manner, to be united to Him, deriving strength and sustenance from Him, as the members from the head, the branches from the tree, the other parts of the building from the foundation, by which similitudes this mysterious union is usually expressed in Scripture; in effect, briefly, to be in Christ, or to abide in Christ implieth no more, but our being truly in faith and practice Christians; so that the meaning of St. John’s words seemeth plainly and simply to be this. Whosoever pretends to be a Christian, that is, to believe the doctrine and embrace the discipline of Christ, ought to walk, that is, is obliged to order the whole course of his life and actions, as Christ walked, that is, as Christ lived and conversed in the world; or, it is the duty of every one professing Christianity to conform his life to the pattern of Christ’s life, to follow His example, to imitate. His practice.—M.].

[Horne:—(1 John 2:6). No one can fail to see that the life of Christ was designed as a pattern for His followers, who considers how admirably it is calculated for that purpose. We meet not here with legendary tales of romantic austerities, ecstasies and abstractions, tending only to amaze and embarrass the consciences of men with unprofitable and unnecessary scruples, but we behold a life, which though holy and without spot or blemish from beginning to end, was conducted after the manner of men, and so as to be imitable by them; being passed into the midst of civil society, and in the exercise of all those lovely graces, by which that is preserved and improved, sweetened and sanctified. And we should find it the best compendium of morality, the most perfect and unerring rule whereby to direct ourselves in all cases, if we would only ask our own hearts, before we enter upon an action, how the blessed Jesus would behave in our circumstances. A conscience, but moderately informed from the Gospel, would seldom perhaps give a wrong determination.—M.].

[Burkitt:—(1 John 2:7). The commandment of love might be called an old commandment, as being a branch of the law of nature, and a known precept of the Jewish religion: although in other respects it might be called a new commandment, because urged from a new motive, and enforced by a new example.—M.].

[Clarke:—There is a saying in Synopsis, Sohar, p. 94, n. 51, that may cast some light on this passage: “That way in which the just have walked, although it be old, yet may be said to be new in the love of the righteous.”

(1 John 2:11). Love prevents him from giving any offence to his neigbour, and love prevents him from receiving any from his neighbor, because it leads him to put the best construction on every thing. Besides, as he walks in the light, he sees he stumbling-blocks that are in the way, and avoids them; every part of his path being illuminated. Many fall into sin because they do not see the snares that are in their way; and they do not see the snares because they either have not received, or do not abide in the light.—M.].

[Pyle:—Wherefore it is an effect of the most malicious prejudice and stupid ignorance of plain truth, for any man to profess himself a true disciple of Christ, while he harbours revengeful thoughts and uncharitable principles towards other men. On the contrary, a kind behaviour and tender disposition towards all our brethren is one of the best instances of Christian perfection, and secures us from all the scandal and mischievous effects of a censorious and persecuting temper.—M.].

[Neander:—(1 John 2:8). Thus, too, John contemplates Christ as Himself the true light, holding the same relation to the spiritual as the sun to the natural life. What he here says then is this: With those who have been so long attached to Christianity, the darkness proceeding from their former heathen state is passing away, and the true light is now breaking. Now, he says,—meaning their present in contrast with their former state of heathenism, or while still affected by its remaining influence. The light derived from Christ, the true Light, was already banishing the former darkness—they were becoming constantly more and more enlightened. So Paul says to his readers, Romans 13:11 sqq., that now their salvation is nearer than when they believed, that the end of the night approaches, the day of the Lord draws near. It is, therefore, true, both with reference to Christ, the true Light which has dawned upon their souls, and with reference to believers who have received this light and been illuminated thereby, that this fundamental law of Christianity now verifies its character as the new command. To those who live in the light of Christ, who have become at home in the new world of Christianity, the old commandment now, in contrast with the former state of darkness, presents itself in new glory as the new command. In new power must it be revealed to their hearts, that brotherly love constitutes the essence of the Christian life, is the essential mark of fellowship with Christ.—M.].

[Wordsworth:—Christian Praxis is the test of Christian Gnosis.—True Christians are the genuine Gnostics.—The Gnostics pretended to have light, to have special illumination; but their light is a false light, it is the light of wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness” (on 1 John 2:8).—M.].

Sermons:

[1 John 2:4. Smalridge, Bp.: Disobedience to the commandments of God, a mark of unbelief. Sermons, 199.

1 John 2:5. Dwight, T.: His example. Theology, II. 359.

1 John 2:6. Flavel, John: Imitation of Christ in holiness. 2 Serm. Works II. 299.

Barrow, Is.: Abiding in Christ to be demonstrated by walking in Christ. Serm. Works II. 362.

1 John 2:8. Alford, H.: The shining light. Hulsean Lecture, 1842. 1.—M.].

Footnotes:

[3][1 John 2:3. German: “And hereby we know;” the emphatic do know in E. V. suggests an idea foreign from the text.—M].

[4][German: “That we have known him.” Lillie: “Have attained to this knowledge.” Where knowledge is spoken of merely as present, γνώσκω, or οἶδα is used, not ἐγνωκα. See John’s epistles passim.—E. 1 John 2:0 :1 John 2:13-14; 1Jn 3:6; 1 John 4:16; 2 John 1:1., and generally elsewhere.”—M.].

[5]Cod. Sin. has φυλάξ̇ωμεν for τηρῶμεν; which is, however, given as well. The future by no means suits the Apostle’s thought.

1 John 2:4; 1 John 2:4. A. B. Cod. Sin. al. insert ὅτι before ἔγνωκα. John usually employs the oratio indirecta with the infin., as in 1 John 2:6; 1 John 2:9; 1 John 1:6, or temp, fin. with ὅτι, as in 1 John 1:8; 1 John 1:10. The oratio directa with ὅτι occurs only in one other place, 1 John 4:20. It is difficult to understand why ὅτι should have been introduced here from there. [Rather: ὅτι was possibly omitted by later transcribers, on account of the difficulty it presented.—M.].

[7][German: “I have known Him,” ἔγνωκα see above on 1 John 2:3, note 2—M.].

[8][1 John 2:5. German: “In such an one the love of God is truly perfected.” Lillie: “Truly in this man hath the love of God been perfected.”—M.].

[9][1 John 2:6. C. Cod. Sin. insert οὕτως before περιπατεῖν. There is no reason why it should be inserted, although it might have seemed superfluous to some. [It is wanting in A. B. Vulg.—M.] It renders the thought very emphatic.

[10][1 John 2:7. German: “Beloved” M.] ὰδελφοί, Oecum, Mill, Wetstein, is weakly supported; ἀγαπητοί is manifestly the correct reading [A. B. C. Cod. Sin. Syr. Vulg. Griesb. Bengel, al. sustain it.—M.].

[11][German omits the words “from the beginning,” at the close of the verse. The corresponding ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, omitted by A. B. C. Sin. al., are cancelled by Lachm., Tischend., Buttm., Theile.—M.].

[12][1 John 2:8. ὐμῖν, B. C. Cod. Sin., although the more difficult reading, is better authenticated than ἡμῖν (A.)

[13] σκιά instead of σκοτία lacks the weight of authority, and is clear as to its tendency or origin from the contrast between the economy of the Old and New Testaments.

German: “Passeth away,” παράγεται. The Present should by all means be retained. German: already, ἥδη, better than now.—M.].

[14][1 John 2:9. German: “The darkness,” ἡσκοτία, both here and below in 1 John 2:11. The omission of the Article in E. V. obscures the sense.—M.].

[15][1 John 2:10. German: “An offence” or “stumbling-block is not in him.”—M.].

[16][1 John 2:11. German: “The darkness;” “because that darkness” (E. V.) is perplexing and ambiguous, better retain the more correct rendering, “because the darkness,” ὅτιἡ σκοτία. German: “where he goeth to.”—M.].