1^1-3a. }O h=n avpV avrch/j, o] avkhko,amen, o] e`wra,kamen toi/j ovfqalmoi/j h`mw/n, o] evqeasa,meqa kai. ai` cei/rej h`mw/n evyhla,fhsan, peri. tou/ lo,gou th/j zwh/j (kai. h` zwh. evfanerw,qh, kai. e`wra,kamen kai. marturou/men kai. avpagge,llomen u`mi/n th.n zwh.n th.n aivw,nion, h[tij h=n pro.j to.n pate,ra kai. evfanerw,qh h`mi/n), o] e`wra,kamen kai. avkhko,amen, avpagge,llomen kai. u`mi/n.

    These verses consist of a sentence begun (1¹), interrupted by a parenthesis (1²), resumed, partly repeated, and completed in 1³.  The principal verb is avpagge,llomen in 1³; the series of appositional clauses, o[ h=n avpV avrch/j, o] avkhko,amen, o] e`wra,kamen, k.t.l., declare the substance, and the adverbial clause, peri. tou/ lo,gou th/j zwh/j the subject of the announcement made.

    1¹. The first verse, as construed by the majority of commentators, presents no small difficulty.  The series of clauses, o[ h=n avpV avrch/j, o] avkhko,amen, o] e`wra,kamen . . . , are taken as denoting, not what the Apostle has to announce concerning the Word of Life, but the Word of Life Himself.  The personal Christ is "what was from the beginning . . . what our hands handled."  And the design of the collocation of these clauses is to identify the Eternal Word with the Christ of human experience.  It is, however, confessedly difficult to account for the peculiarly abstract form in which the thought is clothed by the use throughout of the neuter relative  o], instead of the masculine, "Him who was from the beginning, whom we have heard," etc. The difficulty is not lessened by such explanations as Haupt's, that o] indicates that "the subject of announcement is not the personal Christ in Himself, and as such, but that quality in Him which is Life"; or Plummer's, that it indicates "that collective whole of human and divine attributes which is the Incarnate Word of Life"; or Weiss's, that the subject of consideration is "not Christ's Person or the facts of His Life, but His Being as it comes to manifestation in these facts."

    Again, peri. tou/ lo,gou th/j zwh/j is taken, not as depending on the clauses preceding it, but as an independent co-ordinate clause, supplying an additional definition of the object of the Apostle's announcement.  (I venture to observe that in ordinary Greek this would be expressed by ta. peri. tou/ lo,gou; and, in the second place, that the more natural phrase would have been simply to.n lo,gon th/j zwh/j "that is to say, the Word of Life.")

    Another and in every way simpler construction is obvious.  The predicate to be supplied in 1¹ is, of course, the avpagge,llomen of 1³.  But for the interrupting parenthesis (1²), avpagge,llomen would come immediately after peri. tou/ lo,gou th/j zwh/j.  The sentence as originally conceived would run as follows: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard . . . concerning the Word of Life, we announce unto you."  peri. tou/ lo,gou th/j zwh/j defines in ordinary adverbial fashion either avpagge,llomen or the series of clauses, o[ h=n avpV avrch/j, o] avkhko,amen, o] e`wra,kamen, k.t.l. (so Westcott).  This construction gives to the neuter o[ its natural sense; and it is rendered almost necessary by the form in which the sentence is resumed in 1<sup>3</sup>, where it seems very unnatural to take o] e`wra,kamen kai. avkhko,amen in any other than a strictly neuter sense.  It may be said, indeed, that but for the opening clause, o[ h=n avpV avrch/j, no other sense would have been suspected.  But there need be no difficulty in supposing that the Apostle professes to announce what was from the beginning "concerning the Word of Life.  In point of fact, this is what he does announce (John 1¹³).  The only possible way, moreover, of announcing the personal Word of Life is to announce what is known concerning Him.

    o[ h=n avpV avrch/j is invariably understood of the "unbeginning beginning"; and the parallelism of John 1¹ and I John 2^13,14 is in favour of this.  Might not something, however, be said for taking avpV avrch/j in the sense of "from the beginning of Christ's earthly ministry"?  The purpose of the passage is to describe the content of the Apostolic testimony.  And in John 15^26,27 it is expressly said:  "The Spirit shall bear witness of Me; and ye also bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the beginning" (cf. John 16⁴, Luke 1²).

    Whichever view of the whole construction is preferred, the effect is to describe accurately the contents of the Apostolic Gospel.  "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of Life, we announce unto you.

    evqeasa,meqa . . . evyhla,fhsan.  On the significance of these aorists, v. supra, Chapter III.

    tou/ lo,gou th/j zwh/j.  It has been assumed in the foregoing discussion that the reference is to Christ, the Personal Word. v. supra, Chapter III.

    The precise significance of the genitive th/j zwh/j.  From what follows - kai. h` zwh. evfanerw,qh, k.t.l. - it is evident that the emphasis is not so much on lo,gou as on zwh/j; not so much on the Word as revealing the Life, as on the Life pertaining to the Word.  Thus the phrase may be understood, after the analogy of the "Bread of Life," as meaning the "Word who communicates Life" (so Calvin: "Non dubito quin de effectu loquatur . . . beneficio Christi partam nobis esse vitam"); or better, perhaps, as "the Word who is the Life,"  "in whom the Life inheres" (zwh/j genitive of definition.  Cf. John 2²¹, 11¹³, 13¹¹).

    1². kai., with the force of ga,r.  The purpose of the verse is to explain how the announcement summarised in the preceding verse is possible, - "for the life was manifested, and we have seen," etc.

    avpagge,llomen.  The shade of difference between the avpagge,llomen of this and the following verse and the avnagge,llomen of 1⁵ ought to be observed.

    avpagge,llomen (to report with reference to the source from which the message comes) is appropriate to the historical Gospel, as avnagge,llomen (to report with reference to the persons addressed) is appropriate to the Epistle, as carrying home to the readers the practical implications of the former.

    h[tij h=n pro.j to.n pate,ra.  In late Greek the distinction between o[j and o[stij is quite lost; but in the N.T. o[stij, as a rule, retains something of its proper generic force (Moulton, p. 95), and may here be understood as "which by its very nature."

    1³. i[na kai. u`mei/j koinwni,an e;chte meqV h`mw/n^Å kai. h` koinwni,a de. h` h`mete,ra meta. tou/ patro.j kai. meta. tou/ ui`ou/ auvtou/ VIhsou/ Cristou/.

    Exegetes are much divided as to the grammatical relation and the precise meaning of these two clauses.  The Vulgate (followed by Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and others) places both clauses under the government of i[na ("ut et vos societatem habeatis nobiscum, et nostra societas sit"), "that ye may have fellowship with us, and that our (common) fellowship may be . . ."  This may be at once set aside on the ground both of grammar (i[na . . . kai. . . . de. is an impossible sequence, v. Westcott, p. 12.  And to supply the conjunctive h=| after koinwni,a de h`mw/n is difficult, and is not justified by cases like 2 Cor. 8<sup>11,13</sup>, where it is the inevitable supplement). and of sense (h`mete,ra must refer to the preceding h`mw/n and does not readily suggest the idea of "ours and yours together").  On the other hand, some regard the second clause as implicitly contained in the first - "That ye also may have fellowship (with God) along with us; and, truly, our fellowship is with the Father."  But there is no warrant for taking koinwni,a as meaning by itself "fellowship with God"; and, even if it could be so taken, the interpretation of koinwni,a meqV h`mw/n as "fellowship with God in common with us" is very strained.  The real difficulty is to determine the meaning of koinwni,a in the two clauses respectively.  The abstract idea of fellowship is differently modified by the different objects to which it is related.  In the first clause, it points to community of privilege between the Apostle and his readers in the possession of the historic Gospel, to bring about this being the purpose of his announcement.  In the second, it is participation in the Life and the Light of God.  And the logical link of connection is that the common basis of both "fellowships," the human and the divine, is found in the knowledge of God in Christ (John 17³) which is given to men in the facts of the Incarnate Life.  By their participation with the Apostle in the possession of that knowledge, his readers also will enter, or enter more fully, into the "fellowship" which he possesses with the Father and the Son.

    kai. h` koinwni,a de. h` h`mete,ra.  kai, . . . de,; cf. Matt. 10<sup>18</sup>, Acts 3<sup>24</sup>, I Tim. 3<sup>10</sup>, 2 Pet. 1<sup>5</sup>, John 6<sup>51</sup>, 8<sup>16,17</sup>, 15<sup>27</sup>, 2 John <sup>12</sup>.  In this combination the conjunctive function belongs to de,, kai, being intensive.  The double particles, kai,  . . . de,, together with the reduplicated article in h` koinwni,a h` h`mete,ra, give peculiar emphasis to the statement made.  "And this fellowship of which I speak, our fellowship, is with . . ."

    1⁴. kai. tau/ta gra,fomen h`mei/j( i[na h` cara. h`mw/n h=| peplhrwme,nh.

    kai. tau/ta gra,fomen.  The preceding verses have reference to the writer's habitual oral proclamation of the Gospel, or to its literary embodiment.  These words now introduce the Epistle itself.

    i[na h` cara. h`mw/n h=| peplhrwme,nh.  v. supra, Chapter III.

    The words are an almost verbal reproduction of John 16²⁴.

    1⁵. skoti,a evn auvtw/| ouvk e;stin ouvdemi,a.  Cf. 1⁶evn tw/| sko,tei peripatw/men.

    sko,toj is the concrete thing called "darkness" ("the dark"), skoti,a, its abstract quality.  Here skoti,a is appropriately used:  "Nothing of the nature of darkness is in Him at all."  Elsewhere, however, St. John uses the two forms indifferently (cf. evn tw/| sko,tei peripatw/men, 1⁶; evn th/| skoti,a| peripatei/n, 2¹¹).

    1⁶. eva.n ei;pwmen o[ti koinwni,an e;comen metV auvtou/, kai. evn tw/| sko,tei peripatw/men, yeudo,meqa kai. ouv poiou/men th.n avlh,qeian.

    peripatw/men. peripatw/men, as describing the whole course of life, outward and inward (the equivalent of %l;h' e.g. Pss. 1¹, 15²), is characteristic of St. Paul and of the Johannine Epistles (1^6,7, 2^6,11, 2 John ^4,6, 3 John ^3,4).  In the Fourth Gospel only in explicit metaphor (8¹², 12³⁵).

    yeudo,meqa kai. ouv poiou/men th.n avlh,qeian.  By some (Huther, e.g.) yeudo,meqa is taken correlative eva.n ei;pwmen, as denoting verbal falsehood, and "we do not the truth" as correlative to "walk in darkness."

    But the natural sense is that "we lie" and "do not the truth"; both refer to the whole supposed situation.  Nor can I agree with Westcott in his exposition of yeudo,meqa:  "The assertion is not only false, but known to be false."  There are no lexical grounds for assigning this meaning to yeu,desqai, which merely signifies to "say what is untrue"; nor is there any reason in the context for narrowing the meaning here to that of conscious falsehood.  On the contrary, we have here the widest statement of the case, covering culpable self-deception as well as conscious hypocrisy.

    ouv poiou/men th.n avlh,qeian.  In St. John h` avlh,qeia, objective Divine Truth, is to be distinguished from avlh,qeia, subjective, moral truth (sincerity).  h` avlh,qeia denotes the reality of things sub specie aeternitatis - the realities of the spiritual and eternal world, the revelation of which is the Light; v. supra, Chapter IV.  So here "we do not the Truth" is more specific than "we lie."  We do not act out what the Light of God reveals as the Truth.  We say that we have fellowship with God, yet ignore or shun His Light as the guide of Life.

    1⁷. eva.n de. evn tw/| fwti. peripatw/men w`j auvto,j evstin evn tw/| fwti, koinwni,an e;comen metV avllh,lwn kai. to. ai-ma VIhsou/ tou/ ui`ou/ auvtou/ kaqari,zei h`ma/j avpo. pa,shj a`marti,aj.

    koinwni,an e;comen metV avllh,lwn.  Instead of the expected "we have fellowship with God" - a surprising but characteristic turn of thought.  For to understand "the fellowship with one another" as our fellowship with God and God's with us (Augustine, Calvin, and others) is inadmissible.  The proximate result of walking in the Light is that we have fellowship with those who also are walking in the Light.  When men have the light of the same spirit of sincerity and goodness shining in them, there is fellowship of the noblest kind; soul meets soul with brotherly trust and love and joy.  Probably, however, the thought here is more definitely religious.  Walking in the Light we are spiritually one with the "children of God," we are of the "commonwealth of Israel," and the "household of faith"; and we partake in the cleansing efficacy of the sacrifice by which Christ consecrates the people of God.

    avpo. pa,shj a`marti,aj.  pa/j ought to be taken in its distributive sense, not "from all sin," but "from every (kind of) sin.

    1⁸. h` avlh,qeia.  See note on 1⁶, supra.  On the whole verse, v. supra, Chapter VIII.

    1⁸. eva.n o`mologw/men ta.j a`marti,aj h`mw/n, pisto,j evstin kai. di,kaioj, i[na avfh/| h`mi/n ta.j a`marti,aj kai. kaqari,sh| h`ma/j avpo. pa,shj avdiki,aj.

    The expected antithesis would have been:  "If we confess our sins, we do not deceive ourselves," etc.; but the thought (as in 1⁷) leaps immediately to the Divine action which is immediately consequent upon our action.

    eva.n o`mologw/men ta.j a`marti,aj.  Only here in the N.T. is o`mologei/n used with reference to sin.  Its invariable usage in other connections certifies the sense here, as not recognition only, but open acknowledgment - this, as is evident, being made primarily to God, but confession to man, when it is due, not being excluded.

    pisto,j evstin kai. di,kaioj.  v. supra, Chapters V and IX.

    i[na avfh/|.  Haupt, Westcott, and Abbott notwithstanding, it is not possible in this and many Johannine passages to give i[na its strictly telic force.  "The whole fulness of His unfathomable essence is turned to nothing else but the salvation of His creatures, so that it is to Him only the means, yea, His very self is only the means, to effect His creatures' happiness and good" (Haupt).  Most true it is that God, Who is Love, uses all His attributes for our salvation, and, being what He is, could not do otherwise.  But it is to press this truth very far to say that God regards His attributes, and even Himself, as existing only for this end (it comes too near Heine's "Dieu me pardonnera, c'est son metier").  There is no need to import such a difficulty into the passage, when a simple and adequate meaning is so obvious.  The use of i[na without the telic sense (sometimes equivalent to w[ste, sometimes to o[ti) is amply attested in St. John (John 2²⁵, 4³⁴, 6²⁹, 9², 11⁵⁰, 15⁸, 16^7,30, 17³, not to mention the passages in which it is used after evntolh,, to give the purport of the commandment, John 13³⁴ etc.).  Here the meaning simply is, that, in forgiving our sins and cleansing us from all unrighteousness, God is faithful and righteous.

    avpo. pa,shj avdiki,aj. "From every (kind of) unrighteousness." Cf. avpo. pa,shj a`marti,aj, 1⁷.  Cf. supra, Chapter VIII.

    1¹⁰. yeu,sthn poiou/men auvto,n. v. supra, Chapter VIII. This use of poiei/n (to "make one out to be") is characteristic of St. John (John 5¹⁸, 8⁵³, 10³³, 19^7,12).  In this culminates the series of falsehoods:  "We lie" (1⁶); "We lead ourselves astray" (1⁸); "We make Him a liar" (1¹⁰).

    o` lo,goj auvtou/ ouvk e;stin evn h`mi/n.  o` lo,goj here corresponds closely to h` avlh,qeia in 1⁸.  It regards the truth not only as true in itself, but as the message which God has addressed to men in Christ.  If we say that we have not sinned, we make God a liar; because we contradict what He has expressly revealed and declared.

    2¹. tekni,a mou, tau/ta gra,fw u`mi/n i[na mh. a`ma,rthte.  kai. eva,n tij a`ma,rth|, para,klhton e;comen pro.j to.n pate,ra, VIhsou/n Cristo.n di,kaion.

    i[na mh. a`ma,rthte.  Not "that ye may not continue in sin," but "that ye may commit no act of sin" (aorist). So also, eva,n tij a`ma,rth|:  "if any one commit a sin."

    pro.j to.n pate,ra. pro.j may here have the definite sense of "turning towards" (in the act of pleading).  Or it may have the more general sense which it has in 1² and John 1¹ "in relation to."

    di,kaion.  The absence of the article imports that di,kaion is not added to Jesus Christ as an epithet, or as pointing to Him, in contradistinction to others, as the Righteous One.  Its effect is to emphasise the abstract quality indicated by the adjective, and so to bring out the relation between the character "righteous" and the office "Paraclete," "Jesus Christ being, as He is, righteous."  Similarly, in John 1¹⁴do,xan w`j monogenou/j para. patro,j = glory as of an only-begotten of-a father," the thought being of a son to whom the full undivided glory of the father is transmitted.  Thus also in John 6<sup>68</sup>, the force of r`h,mata zwh/j aivwni,ou is, "words that are words of eternal life." v. Moulton, p. 82.

    2². peri. o[lou tou/ ko,smou.  Cf. John 3¹⁶.

    There is no need to supply "the sins of" before "the whole world."  evxila,zesqai peri,is often used directly of the person or object on whose behalf propitiation is made.

    2³. tou,tw| is correlative to eva.n ta.j evntola.j, k.t.l.

     eva.n is used instead of the usual o[ti in order to avoid the clumsiness of evn tou,tw| ginw,skomen . . . o[ti . . . o[ti.  Cf. 5², where o[tan is used for the same reason.

    ginw,skomen . . . evgnw,kamen.  See special note on ginw,skein.

    2⁴. mh. thrw/n. mh., because the phrase has a conditional force.

    evn tou,tw| h` avlh,qeia ouvk e;stin.  e;stin, emphatic.  The truth is not in him, whatever he may think.

    2⁵. thrh/| auvtou/ to.n lo,gon.  The change of order from ta.j evntola.j auvtou/ mh. thrw/n in 2⁴ is significant.  In the former case, the emphasis is on ta.j evntola.j, "He who says that I know Him, and does not so much as keep His commandments."  Here it is on thrh/|, "But he who does keep His word, verily in him," etc.

    evn tou,tw| ginw,skomen.  With prospective reference to 2⁶.

    2⁶. kaqw.j evkei/noj. kaqw.j is a favourite Johannine word.  Cf. 2^18,27, 3^2,3,7,12,23, 4¹⁷.

    evkei/noj. v. supra, Chapter VI.

    peripatei/n. v. supra. on 1⁶.

    The next two verses bristle with disputed points and also with real difficulties.

    2⁷  1.  By some (Lucke, e.g.) the "old commandment" is understood as looking back to the requirement "to walk, even as He walked" (2⁶), or (Ebrard and Candlish) to all that precedes (2^3-6); the "new" as looking forward to the requirement of brotherly love (2^9-11).  This is erroneous.  The command "to walk, even as He walked," is in no sense older than the command "to love one another"; and the identity of the "old" and the "new" is rendered certain by 2 John ⁵.  2.  This identity being granted, there is still a diversity of view as to the reason why the commandment is "old."  Because it is already given in the O.T. or, additionally, in the human conscience, is one explanation (Maurice; Rothe, who says a number of profoundly true things about the Christian being only man as he ought to be, and Christianity only the ideal life of humanity).  But, unmistakably, the reason is that the commandment had been familiar to the readers of the Epistle ever since they knew the Gospel.  "The old commandment is the word which ye heard."  3. The aorist hvkou,sate denotes the Gospel message as heard at a definite point of time.  The imperfect ei;cete seems decidedly anomalous (cf. ei;comen, 2 John ⁵).  Westcott's explanation, that it denotes the commandment as a continuous influence, is, no doubt, right.  But one would have expected the perfect tense instead of an imperfect, with its suggestion of uncertainty as to the continuance of this influence down to the present time.

    2⁸  1.  pa,lin is to be taken here as an adversative particle.  Huther and others deny that it can be so used, and take it in a strictly temporal sense, "a second time I write unto you."  But the use of pa,lin in a mildly adversative sense, exactly corresponding to "again or on the other hand" in English, is not unknown in classical usage (I have noted it in Lucian, Zeus Elenchomenos, 16; Parasitos, 43), and seems to be vouched for in the N.T. by John 16²⁸, I Cor. 12²¹.

    2.  The principal clause may be construed in two ways.  (a)  o[ evstin avlhqe.j may be taken as the direct object after gra,fw, with evntolh.n kainh.n as an accusative of nearer definition:  "I write to you, as a new commandment, what is true in Him and in you."  But the parallelism with ouvk evntolh.n kainh.n gra,fw in the preceding verse is against this; and, besides, this construction is extremely improbable in a simple prose-writer like St. John.  It is much more tiatural to take evntolh.n kainh.n as the direct object of gra,fw, with o[ evstin avlhqe.j, k.t.l., as a parenthetic clause in apposition.

    3.  o[ti h` skoti,a para,getai\ kai. to. fw/j to. avlhqino.n h;dh fai,nei.  "para,getai is middle rather than passive of a cloud withdrawing, rather than of a veil being withdrawn" (Plummer).  Regarding the construction of the clause as a whole, we may at once reject the view that it is declarative of the "thing that is true in Him and in you" (Bengel, Ebrard, Candlish).  This yields no tolerable sense.  Without doubt, o[ti = because.  But to what preceding word or words is it related? T he possible connections are (a) with gra,fw (Huther and others), "I write this to you because the darkness passeth away," etc.; (b) with o[ evstin avlhqe.j evn auvtw/| kai. evn u`mi/n, either by taking the passing away of the darkness and the shining of the true Light as the reason why this thing is true both "in Him and in you," or by limiting the reference to u`mi/n (Haupt).  This limitation seems necessary; for it is extremely difficult to comprehend how the words "the darkness passeth away" can apply to Christ.  The meaning of the verse, so construed, will be: "Again, a new commandment I write unto you - a commandment which is realised as a new and living power in His Incarnation, but also in you, because the same Law of Love that was embodied in Him is revealed to you in the Light of His Gospel, by which the darkness of the world is being overcome and dispersed."

    The former of these two interpretations seems to me the simpler and more forcible.  v. supra, Chapter XII.

    2⁹. e[wj a;rti.  Cf. John 2¹⁰, 5¹⁷, 16²⁴.

    2¹¹. pou/, "where," is constantly used in the N.T. for poi/, "whither."  pou/ u`pa,gei; cf. John 3⁸, 8¹⁴, 12³⁵, 14⁵, 16⁵.

    It is not necessary to understand pou/ u`pa,gei of the final goal (Westcott, who quotes Cyprian, "It nescius in Gehennam, ignarus et caecus praecipitatur in poenam").  The man blinded by hate does not see the way he is taking - has no true perception of the character of his own actions.

    evtu,flwsen seems to be a "gnomic" aorist, denoting what habitually happens, like evblh,qh in John 15⁶; cf. Jas. 1¹.

    Regarding the structure, v. supra, Chapter XV.  Each of its six clauses contains a o[ti which, without doubt, is used in its causal, not in its declarative (Bengel, Neander, etc.), sense.  The Apostle is not writing to inform his readers that their "sins are forgiven them," but to declare that this is the presupposition of all he is writing.

    gra,fw . . . e;graya.  Regarding the epistolary aorist, v. supra, Chapter XV; and cf. Moulton, p. 135.

    2¹². dia. to. o;noma auvtou/. auvtou/ = Christ. v. supra, Chapter VI.

    The construction (dia,, c. acc.) differs from that usually found in the N.T. (dia,, c. gen.; cf. Acts 10⁴³ a;fesin a`martiw/n labei/n dia. tou/ ovnomatoj avutou/).  In the latter case, the name of Christ connotes the means through which forgiveness is instrumentally effected; in the former, as here, the reason for which it is granted.  In the latter case it is regarded as the object of man's faith; in the former, as the ground of Divine action.

    This paragraph resumes the subject of 2^7-11.  The commandment to love the " brethren" is supplemented by the commandment not to love the "world."  But there is also a close connection with the immediately preceding address to the readers (2^12-14); v. supra, Chapter XV.

    2¹⁵. ouvk e;stin h` avga,ph, k.t.l.  The order is peculiarly emphatic:  "There is not in him, whatever he may suppose, the love of the Father."

    2¹⁶. pa/n to. evn tw/| ko,smw|.  The form of expression is stronger than that used in the preceding verse, ta. evn tw/| ko,smw|.  There is nothing else in the world's life than what he is about to mention.  This is the whole of it - "the lust of the flesh," etc.

    evpiqumi,a th/j sarko.j . . . tw/n ovfqalmw/n.  The genitives are subjective, as is usual with evpiqumi,a:  "That which the flesh and the eyes long for."

    h` avlazonei,a.  In the N.T. avlazonei,a occurs only here and in Jas. 4<sup>16</sup>; the adjective avlazw,n in Rom. 1<sup>30</sup> and 2 Tim. 3<sup>2</sup> in both of which places it is coupled with u`perh,fani,a.  The distinction seems to be that avlazonei,a signifies atheistical, u`perh,fani,a a egotistical pride.  v. supra, Chapter VIII.  In classical usage avlazw,n means: 1, a vagrant; 2, an impostor or quack; 3 (as adjective), boastful or braggart.

    tou/ bi,ou. bi,oj is not to be taken in the restricted sense of "possessions" (Mark 12⁴⁴, Luke 15¹², I John 3¹⁷ etc.), but as the whole course of human life in relation to the seen and temporal (Luke 8⁴³, 2 Tim. 2⁴).

    2¹⁷. kai. h` evpiqumi,a auvtou/.  Again the genitive is subjective, expressing not desire for the world, but the desire which charactenses the world of unspiritual men.

    2¹⁸. paidi,a; cf. 2¹³. v. supra, Chapter XV.

    kaqw.j . . . kai, = "as . . . even so"; cf. John 15⁹, 17¹⁸, 20²¹.  kai, is used thus, in apodosi, often in the LXX, sometimes in classical prose.

    2¹⁹. evx h`mw/n evxh/lqan avllV ouvk h=san evx h`mw/n.  The sense of the preposition evx is determined by the verb upon which, in each clause, it is dependent.  With ei=nai, it denotes connection of the most intimate kind, spiritual affinity, nay, spiritual unity (evk tou/ ko,smou 2¹⁶, 4⁵, etc.; evk tou/ qeou/ (patro.j), 2¹⁶, 3¹⁰, 4^1-3, etc.; evk tou/ diabo,lou, 3⁸; evk tou/ ponhrou/, 3¹²; evk th/j avlhqei,aj, 2²¹, 3¹⁹).

    With evxh/lqan the meaning is merely that of local severance (cf. John 8⁵⁹), as is proved by the antithesis memenh,keisan a'n meqV h`mw/n.

    memenh,keisan a'n may be noted as the solitary instance in the N.T. of the pluperfect with a'n in the apodosis of a conditional sentence.  It expresses "the continuance of the contingent result to the time of speaking."

    avllV i[na fanerwqw/sin o[ti ouvk eivsi.n pa,ntej evx h`mw/n.

    avllV i[na fanerwqw/sin.  This elliptical construction, requiring that we supply, after "but," "they went forth from us," is peculiarly Johannine (cf. John 13¹⁸, 15²⁵; less exactly parallel, 1⁸, 9³, 14³¹).

    o[ti ouvk eivsi.n pa,ntej evx h`mw/n.  o[ti is taken causally (Rothe); a construction that has nothing to commend it.  By others pa,ntej is not referred to the antichrists, but is taken absolutely ("that all who seem to be of us are not of us"), the meaning assigned to the whole clause being that the visible separation of the antichrists was providentially designed to make it evident that outward fellowship with the Church was no sufficient credential of genuine Christian life.  But to obtain this meaning it is necessary to supplement the Apostle's diction (already elliptical) to the extent of inserting kai. i[na fsnrrwqh/| after fanerwqw/sin (so De Wette, Huther, Haupt, and others).  However excellent and edifying the sense thus obtained, the construction proposed is absolutely needless, and would have occurred to no one, but for a supposed difficulty in the phrase ouvk eivsi.n pa,ntej evx h`mw/n, which, if it is translated "not all of them are of us," and is applied to the antichrists, is said to imply that, though not all are, yet some of them may be "of us" (so Huther, who insists that ouv pa,ntej = nonnulli, not nulli).  The difficulty, however, does not really exist.  ouvk eivsi.n pa,ntej evx h`mw/n means, not "not all of them are of us, but "all of them are not of us," or "not any of them are of us.  According to the idiom of N.T. Greek, pa/j with the negative particle (except when immediately preceded by it) is to be translated, not as "all," but as "any," or, otherwise, by attaching the negative to the verb.  Cf. 2²¹, 3¹⁵, and list of parallels in Westcott.  It seems questionable whether this is a Hebraism, as is usually said.  The explanation of the idiom probably is, not that pa/j was used in a consciously distributive sense, but that, in vernacular Greek, the negative was attached in sense to the verb, where we attach it to the nominative (all are not = none are).  The attachment of ouv to what seems to us the wrong word is not unusual in Greek (in the Wasps, e.g. 1091, pa,nta mh. dedoike,nai = mhde.n dedoike,nai), and is invariable in the common ou; fhmi tou/to ei=nai = I say that this is not so.

    2²⁰. kai. u`mei/j cri/sma e;cete avpo. tou/ a`gi,ou kai. oi;date pa,nta.  By the first kai,, the verse is related to the last clause of 2¹⁹, as adding a new fact to what is there stated.  "By the separation of the antichrists from the Church, it has been made visible to all that they had never truly been of it; and, besides, ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and know all things (and so, in any case, would have been able to discern the falsity of their teaching)."

    2²¹. pa/n yeu/doj . . . ouvk e;stin.  "Not any lie . . . is."  See note on 2¹⁹.

    2²². o` avrnou,menoj o[ti VIhsou/j ouvk e;stin o` Cristo,j. avrnei/sqai and similar verbs are used either with or without (cf. Heb 11²⁴) a pleonastic negative (ouv, mh,, mh. ouv).  When it is present, as here, it seems to impart a tone of special aggressiveness to the negation, expressing it in the very terms in which it may be supposed to have been originally spoken - VIhsou/j ouvk e;stin o` Cristo,j.

    ou-to,j evstin o` avnti,cristoj, o` avrnou,menoj to.n pate,ra kai. to.n ui`o,n.

    This clause is translated in R.V. :- "This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son."  It is better, however, to take o` avrnou,menoj to.n pate,ra kai. to.n ui`o,n, not as a further definition of o` avnti,cristoj, but as an additional predicate: "This is the antichrist, (this is) he that denieth the Father and the Son."  This sense is to be preferred, because the writer immediately proceeds to justify the statement that he who denies that Jesus is the Christ in effect denies both the Father and the Son.  For "Whosoever denieth the Son hath not even the Father" (2<sup>23</sup>). to.n pate,ra kai. to.n ui`o,n.  The order is significant.  We should have expected the Son and the Father; but the unexpected emphasis thus laid on the denial of the Father, as involved in the denial of Jesus as the Christ, is immediately explained by the following sentence.

    2²³. pa/j o` avrnou,menoj to.n ui`o.n ouvde. to.n pate,ra e;cei. pa/j . . . ouvde..  See note on 2¹⁹. ouvde, is intensive in force (cf. Gal. 2³).  "No one that denieth the Son hath even the Father; he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also."  v. supra, Chapter VI.

    2²⁴  Having thus exhibited in the strongest light the substance and also the infinitely momentous consequences of the Christian avlh,qeia and the antichristian yeu/doj, the Apostle addresses to his readers the practical exhortation that leaps irresistibly into utterance.

    u`mei/j o] hvkou,sate avpV avrch/j evn u`mi/n mene,tw.

    avpV avrch/j = from your first acquaintance with the Christian evangel.  In 2⁷ the word "heard from the beginning" is specifically the old-new commandment of Love.  Here, "that which ye have heard from the beginning" is the whole unity of the Gospel teaching, with particular reference to the cardinal truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  Both are only diverse sides of the same matter (Haupt).  Christian morality derives all its contents from Christ, and His Divinity is the presupposition of its authority.  It is "the truth as it is in Jesus" translated into practice.

    u`mei/j.  The form of the sentence is peculiar.  The abrupt u`mei/j with which it begins is not a vocative (Ebrard), nor yet the nominative to hvkou,sate placed out of the usual order for the sake of emphasis, but is an example of anacoluthon of a common type (cf. 2²⁷, John 7³⁸, Luke 21⁶), and suggests that the sentence, as it first flashed upon the writer's mind, ended with me,nete evn auvtw/| instead of evn u`mi/n mene,tw.  Both forms are used of the relation ot the Christian disciple to the Word.  He abides in it (John 8³¹), not withdrawing himself from its influence, but continuing steadfastly under it.  It abides in him (John 15⁷, Col. 3¹⁶, 2 John ²) as a vitalising, fertilising power (John 6⁶³).  This reciprocal relation is brought out in our Lord's parables of the Sower and of the Fruitful Soil.  "These are such as in an honest and good heart, having heard the Word, hold it fast and bring forth fruit with patience" (Luke 8¹⁵); and "The seed springs up and grows, he knoweth not how" (Mark 4²⁷).  Here the expression is conflate.  What is to be done, the only thing necessary or effectual, is to let that "which ye heard from the beginning" abide in you and do its proper work.  On the other hand, the fact that this is expressed imperatively, shows that what is implied is not a merely passive attitude towards the Truth.  We cannot command the results of its efficiency, but we can furnish the conditions.

    2^24b. eva.n evn u`mi/n mei,nh| o] avpV avrch/j hvkou,sate, kai. u`mei/j evn tw/| ui`w/| kai. evn tw/| patri. menei/te.

    Protasis and apodosis are finely balanced.  The abiding of the Truth in you will result in a further abiding - your abiding in the Son and in the Father.  Here the order of 2²² is reversed.  There, pate,ra stands first, under the influence of the thought that the denial of the Son finds its unexpected yet inevitable consequence in the denial of the Father.  The order here is the natural one.  In the facts of experience, the Father is revealed and apprehended through the Son (cf. 2 Cor. 16¹³). It is by abiding in the Son that we abide in the Father.  v. infra on 5²⁰.

    2²⁵  The Apostle now brings the matter to its final issue.  Eternal Life is at stake.  kai. au[th evsti.n h` evpaggeli,a h]n auvto.j evphggei,lato h`mi/n( th.n zwh.n th.n aivw,nion.

    The verse presents several peculiarities.  evpagge,llesqai and evpaggeli,a are not found elsewhere in St. John.  th.n zwh.n th.n aivw,nion is in the accusitive by attraction to the h]n of the preceding relative clause (cf. Phil 3¹⁸). au[th may he refeired either to what precedes or to what follows.  In the former case, the meaning is - "This that has been just now spoken of - that we shall abide in the Son and in the Father - is the promise that He has promised.  And this is, in effect, the promise of Eternal Life."  In the latter case, the meaning is - "This, namely, Eternal Life, is the promise He hath given," i.e. on condition of our abiding in the Son and in the Father.  The former construction forces a too pregnant sense apon the words th.n zwh.n th.n aivw,nion (= and this - to abide in the Son and in the Father - is Eternal Life).  The latter involves a more abrupt transition of thought, but is preferable in point both of sense and of grammar (cf. John 1^27,28).

    2²⁶. tau/ta e;graya u`mi/n peri. tw/n planw,ntwn u`ma/j.

    tau/ta e;graya. Epistolary aorist (cf. 2^14,21, 5¹³).

    tw/n planw,ntwn u`ma/j. Cf. 3⁷, 4⁶, Matt. 24^4,5,11,24, 2 Tim. 3¹³.  It is not implied, of course, that the effort to lead astray is successful.  The force of the present tense is distinctly conative.

    2²⁷. kai. u`mei/j to. cri/sma o] evla,bete avpV auvtou/ me,nei evn u`mi/n, kai. ouv crei,an e;cete i[na tij dida,skh| u`ma/j, avllV w`j to. auvtou/ cri/sma dida,skei u`ma/j peri. pa,ntwn, kai. avlhqe,j evstin kai. ouvk e;stin yeu/doj, kai. kaqw.j evdi,daxen u`ma/j, me,nete evn auvtw|.

    kai. u`mei/j = "and as for you" (in contrast with those who would lead you astray).  The anacolouthon is exactly the same as in 2<sup>24</sup>avpV auvtou/, from Christ (avpo. tou/ a`gi,ou, 2²⁰). me,nei.  The gift once bestowed is never, from the Divine side, recalled (cf. Rom. 11²⁹). crei,an e;cete i[na (cf. John 2²⁵, 16³⁰).  The telic sense of i[na is, as so commonly in St. John, much enfeebled.  tij refers, not to the false teachers, but to the Apostle himself, and to human teachers in general.  They have resources within themselves that render them independent of human teaching.  avllV w`j to. auvtou/ cri/sma, k.t.l.  The first question is as to the construction of this second part of the sentence.  By the majority of commentators it is divided into two parts, with a protasis and an apodosis in each.  "As His anointing teacheth you concerning all things, even so is it true and is no lie; and as it taught you, even so you abide in Him."  But the sense thus obtained is very weak.  The affirmation that the Divine teaching "is true, and is no lie," is not in any way dependent upon the fact that "it teacheth you concerning all things."  It is better to construe the whole as one continuous sentence - kai. avlhqe,j evstin kai. ouvk e;stin yeu/doj being taken as a parenthesis, and kai. kaqw.j evdi,daxen as a resumption of w`j dida,skei (Westcott).  "As His anointing teacheth you concerning all things - and it is true, and is no lie - even as it taught you, ye abide in Him."

    to. auvtou/ cri/sma. The very unusual position of auvtou/  throws strong emphasis upon the pronoun; cf. I Thess. 2¹⁹evn th/| auvtou/ parousi,a|.

    kaqw,j, stronger than w`j, fixing this "teaching" as the criterion of all truth by means of which we abide in Christ.  dida,skei . . . evdi,daxen.  The change of tense is significant.  The teaching is, on the one hand, continuous.  In another sense, it was complete from the first.  The aorist can refer only to the time when, taught by the Spirit, they first understood and accepted the Gospel.  In germ, at least, all legitimate developments were contained in that first illumination.

    me,nete, indicative, not imperative, - as is necessitated by the preceding me,nei evn u`mi/n, and also by the imperative me,nete which follows in the next verse.  The Apostle first expresses his confidence in his readers, and then, as is his wont, proceeds to exhort them to "make their calling and election sure."

    evn auvtw|.  In Christ, not in the anointing.  The anointing is not an end in itself, but the means of abiding in Christ.

    2²⁸. eva.n fanerwqh/|. The conditional form throws no doubt upon the actual occurrence.  It might be argued, indeed, that "if He appears," signifies more emphatically than "when He appears" (o[ta.n fanerwqh/|, Col. 3⁴) an event which quite conceivably, or even probably, may happen at any moment.

    fanerou/sqai, not avpokalu,ptesqai, is the Johannine term for the manifestations of Christ (His Incarnation and Life on earth, 1²; His appearances after His Resurrection, John 21^1,14; His Second Coming, 2²⁸, 3²).  For the implications of the word, v. supra, Chapter XVI.

    scw/men parvr`hsi,an.  Not in the sense of I Thess. 2¹⁹ or Phil. 4¹.  For the significance of the strange sequence, me,nete . . . i[na scw/men, v. supra, Chapter XVI.

    parvr`hsi,an e;cein.  The phrase, introduced here for the first time, is destined to further service.  v. supra, Chapter XVI.

    aivscunqw/men avpV auvtou/.  v. supra, Chapter XVI.  The converse idea is expressed in Luke 9²⁶.

    evn th/| parousi,a| auvtou/.  v. supra, Chapter XVI.

    2²⁹  This verse, introducing for the first time the subject of the Divine Begetting (evx auvtou/ gege,nnhtai), is to be regarded as the beginning of a new section, rather than as a practical summing up of what precedes (Haupt).  It may be urged (Haupt, Rothe) that it gives the necessary completion to the thought, "that we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before Him at His coming" (2²⁸).  For this naturally raises the question, what quality or qualities we must possess in order to ensure this result.  It has been said that to this end we must "abide in Him."  But it might still be asked - in respect of what are we to abide in Him?  And the answer is that, as He is righteous, we must abide in Him by doing righteousness.

    But this connection of thought is not really present.

    1.  It is not the case that (as Haupt maintains) to be "begotten of Him" is not a new idea, but merely a resumption of "abiding in Him."  It is very distinctly a new idea.

    2.  The readers have already been told in respect of what they are to "abide in Him," - "Let that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you: if that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father" (2²⁴).

    3.  Haupt's idea that this verse is introduced as a caveat against fanatical licence in the interpretation of "Ye need not that any man teach you," is without support in the context.  The "anointing" which renders the Christian community independent of extraneous teaching is viewed simply as its strongest bulwark against anti-christian falsehood, and there is no hint of its being regarded as offering the slightest pretext for antinomian licence.

    It is true that in the following verses the Apostle goes on to denounce and warn against antinomian indifference to conduct, but the objects of this attack are almost certainly the same false teachers who already have been denounced as "antichrists" (cf. "Let no man lead you astray," 3⁷; and "those who are for leading you astray," 2²⁶).

    The sentence is merely predicative, pointing to practical righteousness as the universal mark of a Divine birth, and laying down the basis for the subsequent rigorous application of this as a test of Divine Sonship.

    eva.n eivdh/te.  This use of eva.n does not, as in classical Greek, indicate any uncertainty.  "If ye know, as ye absolutely do know."

    eivdh/te . . . ginw,skete.  See special note.  It is difficult to choose between an indicative and an imperative sense for ginw,skete.

    The imperative brings out, perhaps, more sharply the proper sense of ginw,skein: "take note," "recognise."

    di,kaio,j evstin . . . evx auvtou/ gege,nnhtai.  The question as to the subjcct of di,kaio,j evstin and the reference of auvtou/ is much debated.  Connecting the verse with what precedes, we must refer di,kaio,j evstin to the auvtou/ of 2²⁸, namely, Christ; while universal usage requires "God" as the antecedent to the pronoun in evx auvtou/ gege,nnhtai.  But one feels this to be intolerable grammatically and also weak in sense.  The sense, indeed, would have been excellent, if the idea of Christ's Sonship had also been expressed - "Since Jesus the Son of God is righteous, every one who does righteousness must also be begotten of God."  But so much cannot be legitimately read into the words.  Both the unexpressed subject of di,kaio,j evstin and the unexpressed antecedent of auvtou/ must, therefore, be the same, namely, "God."

    I cannot agree with Bengel, Rothe, and Westcott that there is nothing against the tenor of Scripture in saying that Christians are "begotten of Christ."  They are the "children of God" (3², John 1¹²).  They are "begotten of God" (3⁹ etc., I Pet. 1³).  Instrumentally, they are "begotten of the Spirit" (John 3^6,8) and of the Word (I Pet. 1²³, Jas. 1¹⁸).  On the other hand, those who do the will of God are Christ's brothers and sisters (Matt. 12⁵⁰).  Christ is formed in them (Gal. 4¹⁹).  They are heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8¹⁷).  They are conformed to His likeness as "the firstborn among many brethren" (Rom. 8²⁹, I John 3²).  Everywhere Christ is the medium and the exemplar of Life, not its source.  It is, therefore, against the tenor of the N.T. to speak of Christians as "begotten of Christ."  v. supra, Chapter X.  And, in view of what immediately follows, such an interpretation is quite impossible.

    3¹. potaph.n avga,phn. v. supra, Chapter XVI. o` path.r, The Father - the Author of our Divine sonship.

    de,dwken h`mi/n.  The expression, as to both word and tense, is peculiarly strong - stronger than hvga,phsen o` qeo.j to.n ko,smon of John 3¹⁶.  The Father has endowed us with this astonishing love, once for all, as our inalienable possession.  Westcott, with such Catholic interpreters as a Lapide, understands de,dwken in the sense of "imparted."  "The Divine love is, as it were, infused into us," and it is in virtue of our being thus "inspired with a love like the love of God, that we truly claim the title of children of God."  This thought is coming in 4⁷, but it is not present here.  Had this been the Apostle's meaning, some kind of exhortation to "love one another" must have 'been given in the immediate context, which, however, contains nothing in that vein.  The only test of our being the children of God is, meanwhile, poiei/n th.n dikaiosu,nhn.

    de,dwken h`mi/n i[na.  What is the love bestowed upon us?  Does it consist in calling us and making us His children?  This would be entirely in accordance with the frequent Johannine use i[na of as practically equivalent to o[ti.  Or does the love bestowed upon us consist rather in the costly means by which our Divine sonship has been made possible - the mission of Christ - the avga,ph of 4⁹ and of John 3¹⁶?  This is in the background, at least, of the Apostle's mind.  Had it been possible to make us His children by a simple fiat, to have done so would still have indicated that God is love; but it would not have been that amazing love that evokes the rapturous i;dete potaph.n avga,phn.

    The anarthrous te,kna is noticeable. Not "the children of God" in contrast to others, but absolutely "children of God."  Cf.  i`lasmo,j (2², 3¹⁰) and spe,rma qeou/ (3⁹).  See note on VIhsou/n Cristo.n di,kaion (2¹).

    i[na . . . klhqw/men.  "That we should be called."  By whom?  Not, surely, by believers themselves (Haupt, Westcott - "outwardly recognised as God's children in their services and intercourse with others"), nor yet, perhaps, by the Father, though this is implied.  The meaning seems to be quite general " that such a name should be ours."

    dia. tou/to . . . o[ti.  The parallel passages (John 5^16,18, 8⁴⁷, 10¹⁷, 12^18,39) show that dia. tou/to always refers to a fact already stated, while the clause introduced by o[ti supplements the inference founded upon this fact.  Thus, in the present passage dia. tou/to is not directly relative to the o[ti following, but to the te,kna qeou/ preceding.  "The reason why the World does not recognise us is, that we are children of God; and the proof that this is the reason is, that it did not recognise Christ Himself."

    ouv ginw,skei.  Not "does not understand our principles, methods, and character" (Westcott), but simply "does not recognise us as being what we are - children of God."

    o[ti ouvk e;gnw auvto,n.  By auvto,n, the majority of commentators understand "God."  The World does not recognise the children, because it does not recognise the Father Whose they are and Whom they resemble.  It seems clear to me, nevertheless, that the reference is to Christ, Who is not yet manifested to the world (eva.n fanerwqh/|, 2²⁸, 3²).  For auvto,j used absolutely of Christ, cf. 2^8,12,27,28,  3³.  With ouvk e;gnw auvto,n cf. John 1¹⁰,  I John 3⁶.

    3². nu/n te,kna qeou/ evsmen strongly resumes the statement already made.  The World does not recognise us, nevertheless it is true that we now are children of God.

    nu/n, in strictly temporal sense, antithetic to ou;pw.

    kai. ou;pw evfanerw,qh ti, evso,meqa.  The meaning is not that "what we shall be" will be essentially other or more than what we now are (Haupt, Holtzmann, Weiss, the last of whom suggests that our present te,kno,thj may become the full ui`o,thj), but that what we are now children of God will then only be fully manifested.  Haupt's contention, that to express this the Apostle would have written ti, evsmen, not ti, evso,meqa, is not without point, but is rather hypercritical.  The thought, fully expressed, is that what we are can be fully realised only in what we shall be; but this is not yet apparent, therefore the World does not recognise us.

    evfanerw,qh.  To insist (as Westcott does) upon the definite aoristic sense, and to read into it a reference to the manifestation of Christ after the Resurrection ("Even these revelations of a changed and glorified humanity do not make known to us what we shall be") is an extraordinary super-subtlety.  Whether a Greek aorist refers to a definite or indefinite past must always be decided from the context (v. Moulton, 135-140).  Here evfanerw,qh, plainly has a perfective sense (ou;pw evfanerw,qh = "has never yet been manifested"; and this may be rendered in English also by the simple past tense - "was never yet manifested."  Cf. Heb. 12⁴:  ou;pw me,crij ai[matoj avntikate,sthte = "Ye have not yet resisted unto blood"; and Matt. 9³³:  ouvde,pote evfa,nh ou[twj evn tw/| VIsrah,l = Nothing like this was ever yet seen in Israel = has yet been seen in Israel).

    ti, evso,meqa.  St. John rarely uses the indirect interrogative.

    oi;damen o[ti eva.n fanerwqh/|( o[moioi auvtw/| evso,meqa( o[ti ovyo,meqa auvto.n kaqw,j evstin.

    oi;damen o[ti.  The absence of any connective particle is striking.  It may be thought to set the confident oi;damen in bolder relief.

    eva.n fanerwqh/|.  The question here is as to the unexpressed subject of fanerwqh/|.  It may be ti, evso,meqa (Huther, Haupt, Holtzmann, and the majority of commentators), or it may be supplied from the following auvtw/| that is, Christ (Westcott, Rothe, Calvin, etc.).  The former is the more obviously grammatical, and yields an excellent sense:  "We know that the manifestation, when it comes, will be a manifestation of likeness to Christ."  Yet the second alternative seems preferable, because eva.n fanerwqh/| has just been used (2²⁸) with unmistakable reference to Christ, and because the central thought of the sentence is, that the manifestation of Christ is the means by which perfect likeness to Him will be attained.  eva.n fanerwqh/| is the prerequisite of ovyo,meqa auvto.n kaqw,j evstin.

    o[moioi auvtw/| . . . ovyo,meqa auvto.n.  The most obvious antecedent to the pronouns is qeou/ (nu/n te,kna qeou/ evsmen).  "Now are we the children of God, and then we shall be like Him" (Bengel, Ebrard, Huther, Weiss, etc.).  But this is untenable.  The whole tenor of N.T. teaching demands that the object of vision and assimilation be Christ (so Holtzmann). This whole verse has the closest affinity with Col. 3⁴, o[tan o` Cristo.j faverwqh/|, h` zwh. h`mw/n, to,te kai. u`mei/j su.n auvtw/| faverwqh,sesqe evn do,xh|.  One other point remains to be touched upon before we pass from this verse. A certain ambiguity is discovered in the relation of the clause, o[ti ovyo,meqa auvto.n kaqw,j evstin, to the rest of the sentence.  The debate is whether this gives the cause of our being like Him, or of our knowing that we shall be like Him; whether the "seeing Him as He is" is the effect and the proof of the "being like Him" instead of vice versa.  Both thoughts are, of course, essentially true - that our power to see depends on what we are (Matt. 5⁸), and that we are changed into the likeness of what we behold (2 Cor. 3¹⁸).  The former is coming in the following verse, where the Apostle reminds us that only he can have a real hope of attaining to the vision of Christ as He is, who is now purifying himself even as He is pure.  But, before proceeding to this, the Apostle must first complete the task he has in hand - to show "what we shall be," and how we are assured of its being brought to pass.  We shall be like Christ, because, beholding His glory, we shall be changed into the likeness of the glory we behold; even as the planets, when they face the sun, are clothed with its radiance.

    3³. pa/j o` e;cwn th.n evlpi,da tau,thn evpV auvtw/|.

    pa/j o` e;cwn. v. supra, Chapter XI.

    e;cwn . . . evlpi,da . . . evpV auvtw/|.  This phrase, evlpi,da evcein evpV, is unique in the N.T., and may be distinguished from evlpi,da evcein eivj (Acts 24¹⁵) or evlpi,j eivj (I Pet. 1²¹) as giving the idea of hope "resting upon" instead of "reaching unto."  Westcott is of opinion that, as compared with the simple evlpi,zein, it gives the specific idea of maintaining or enjoying the hope.  But this is scarcely supported by the N.T. parallels (Rom. 15⁴, 2 Cor. 10¹⁵, Eph. 2¹², I Thess. 4¹³).

    a`gni,zei e`auto.n.  On  a`gno,j and a`gni,zein, v. supra, Chapter VI.

    evpV auvtw/| . . . evkei/noj.  This use, in the same sentence, of different pronouns to represent the same antecedent is not without parallel in St. John (cf. John 5³⁹, 19³⁵, unless, in the latter, evkei/noj means Christ).

    3⁴. kai. h` a`marti,a evsti.n h` avnomi,a.  v. supra, Chapter VIII..

    3⁵. kai. a`marti,a evn auvtw/| ouvk e;stin.  Grammatically, the clause is independent, not under oi;date o[ti.  Nevertheless, one feels that the influence of oi;date covers this clause also.  The sinlessness of Christ, as well as the fact that He was manifested to take away sins, is an intuition of the Christian mind.

    3⁹. a`marti,an ouv poiei/. a`marti,an in this construction, is stronger than either th,n a`marti,an or a`marti,aj would be.  It puts the question as to the fact in the broadest way.

    spe,rma auvtou/. The absence of the article brings out the qualitative or causative force of spe,rma auvtou/.  "A seed of Divine Life abideth in him, therefore he cannot sin"; cf. te,kna qeou/ 3¹; and i`lasmo.j, 2² and 4¹⁰.  This unique spe,rma auvtou/ has been variously explained.  By some (Augustine, Luther, with most of the older commentators) it is understood of the "word" (after the analogy of Matt. 13²³, Jas. 1¹⁸, I Pet. 1²³, 2 Pet. 1⁴).  But this is entirely foreign to the context, if not to all specific Johannine teaching.  By others (Bengel, e.g.), spe,rma has been taken as signifying God's children collectively (cf. spe,rma VAbeaa,m, John 8^33,37).  But, so understood, the whole sentence becomes singularly lame.  "Every one that is begotten of God sinneth not, because they who are God's seed abide in Him; and they cannot sin, because they are begotten of God."  It is evident that, on this interpretation, the last clause must have been "and they cannot sin, because they abide in Him."  Unquestionably the spe,rma is here the new life-principle implanted by the Divine Begetting.

    3¹⁰. pa/j o` . . . ouvk e;stin.  See note on 2¹⁹.

    o` mh. poiw/n . . . o` mh. avgapw/men.  The particle mh, is used because the phrase is conditional in sense though not in form.  The assertion is not that there is such an one, but that, if there be, he is not of God.

    3¹¹. au[th evsti.n h` avggeli,a . . . i[na avgapw/men.  "The words do not simply give the contents of the message, but its aim, its purpose."  So says Westcott, resolved, on all occasions, to maintain the telic force of i[na, but disregarding the fact that if the i[na clause gives the purpose of the message, the message itself is not given at all.  It is perfectly clear that in such constructions as au[th . . . i[na the clause gives the purport, not the purpose, of the announcement or command (cf.  John 2²⁵, 4³⁴, 6^29,40, 11⁵⁰, 15⁸ etc., I John 2²⁷, 3²³, 4²¹, 5^3,16).  The laboured explanation given in Abbott's Johannine Grammar [2094-6] of such passages as John 4³⁴, 6²⁹, 13³⁴, 17³ etc., is extremely convincing in contrarium.

    3¹². ouv kaqw.j (except 2 Cor. 8⁵) is purely Johannine (John 6⁵⁸, 14²⁷).  The sentence here is elliptical, and irregular in a high degree.  If we punctuate with a comma between this and the preceding verse (Tischendorf), we must translate ". . . that we love one another, not as Cain (did, who) was of the Wicked One," etc.  Or we may regard ouv kaqw.j, k.t.l., as the first member of a new sentence, the conclusion of which is unexpressed:  "Not as Cain (who) was of the Wicked One, and slew his brother (let us be or do)."  To make the sentence grammatical, it seems necessary, in either case, to supply o[j or o[sper before h=n, and also to change ouv into mh,. In John 6⁵⁸ the construction with ouv kaqw.j is equally loose.  Here the anacoluthon (if the second construction be preferred) is probably due to the sudden rushing upon the writer's mind of the question, kai. ca,rin ti,noj.  Cf. a similar construction with ouvc w[sper (Plato, Symp. 179 E.).

    ca,rin, as a preposition (= e[neka, and usually found after its case, e.g. ti,noj ca,rin), is not uncommon in the N.T., but is here only in St. John.

    ta. e;rga auvtou/ ponhra. h=n.  ponhra, marks the source as well as the character of the works.  They were inspired by o` ponhro,j.

    3¹³. mh. qauma,zete.  "Do not be wondering (as you are in danger of doing)."  In the Gospel and Epistles of St. John the mh, of prohibition is found only once with the aor. subj. (John 3⁷), everywhere else (19 times) with the present imperative.

    eiv misei/.  Used thus with the indicative after verbs denoting strong emotion, eiv = o[ti.  Cf. Mark 15⁴⁴, Luke 12⁴⁹, Acts 26^8,23, 2 Cor. 11¹⁵.

    u`ma/j o` ko,smoj.  Both words are emphatic by position.  You are to the World what Abel was to Cain.  According to the interpretation I have adopted in my exposition of the passage, mh. qauma,zete is connected with the preceding verse by an unexpressed "therefore."  On another view (Haupt, Westcott) it is connected with what follows by an unexpressed "because."  "Do not be surprised that the World hates you; because we know that to love the brethren (whom the World hates) is proof of nothing less than a transition from death into life."  The insertion of kai, before mh. qauma,zete (by a, C*, Peshitto, retained by Tischendorf in his text) shows that the interpretation I have given is a very ancient one.

    3¹⁴. oi;damen.  A case in which eivde,nai scarcely be differentiated from ginw,skein.  It probably expresses a stronger feeling of the certainty of the thing known; cf. 5¹⁹.  See special note on ginw,skein and eivde,nai.

    o` mh. avgapw/n.  Although to.n avdelfo.n auvtou/ (T.R.) may not belong to the authentic text, it must be supplied in thought.  Westcott, indeed, takes o` mh. avgapw/n as "expressing the feeling in its most absolute form."  But it is not to be supposed that, in this single clause, the conception of Love is widened beyond that which obtains everywhere else in the Epistle. v. supra, Chapter XII.

    3¹⁵. kai. oi;date.  Ye know it at once, without instruction, or even reflection.

    avnqrwpokto,noj.  In the N.T. only here and in John 8⁴⁴.

    pa/j avnqrwpokto,noj ouvk e;cei.  See note on 2¹⁹.

    zwh.n aivw,nion = th.n zwh,n in 3¹⁴.  The same equivalence of article and adjective is found in 5^11,12.

    3¹⁶. ovfei,lomen.  Stronger than dei/.  See note on 2⁶.

    3¹⁷. crei,an e;conta.  For the use of the phrase absolutely, cf. Mark 2²⁵, Acts 2⁴⁵, 4³⁵, Eph. 4²⁸.

    ta. spla,gcna = ~ymih]r;.  Is found also in classical Greek with this sense.  A favourite Pauline word, only here in St. John.

    klei,sh|.  Not found elsewhere with spla,gcna.

    3¹⁸. avgapw/men.  For the use absolutely, cf. 3¹⁴, 4^7,8,19. lo,gw| . . . glw,ssh| . . . e;rgw| . . . avlhqei,a|. Haupt and Weiss find here a double contrast - lo,gw| (sincere good wishes) with e;rgw| (good deeds), and glw,ssh| (hollow phrases) with avlhqei,a| (sincerity). Obviously, however, there is only a single contrast. glw,ssh| is merely a contemptuous synonym of lo,gw|, expressing how cheap such love is; while avlhqei,a| does not introduce a second idea, co-ordinate with e;rgw|, but declares that only love in "deed" is love in "truth" (cf. John 4²⁴, where pneu,mati and avlhqei,a| stand in exactly the same relation).  lo,gw| and glw,ssh| are datives of instrument.

    3¹⁸. evn tou,tw|.  Here only, in the Epistle, used with retrospective reference.

    pei,somen ta.j kardi,aj.  Not dependent on gnwso,meqa o[ti but to co-ordinate with it.

    e;mprosqen auvtou/. auvtou/ stands for God (cf. 2^3,4,29), as is evident from mei,zwn evsti.n o` qeo.j following.

    kataginw,skh|. kataginw,skein is not found elsewhere in the very N.T. (except in perf. part. katagnwsme,noj, Gal. 2¹¹).  It has three shades of meaning: to accuse (= kathgorei/n), to declare guilty, to give sentence against (= katakri,nein).  Here it is to be taken in the second of these meanings.  When conscience accuses, it ipso facto brings in a verdict of guilty; but while it may anticipate, it does not pronounce sentence.  These verses (3^19,20) present an exegetical problem of no little complexity.  I do not propose to offer an exhaustive account of the many different views that have been taken of the syntax and of the sense (this may be found concisely in Westcott; at greater length in Huther or Haupt); but it is necessary, in the first place, to indicate where the main difficulties of the passage lie.  One source of difficulty is the verb pei,somen.  This may be taken in its ordinary sense, "persuade" or "convince," with ta.j kardi,aj h`mw/n as direct, and the clause o[ti mei,zwn evsti.n o` qeo.j, k.t.l., as secondary predicate.  But it is usually understood here in the sense of "over-persuade," "pacify," "assure" (A.V., R.V.).  The extra-biblical parallels cited (Hesiod, ap. Plat. Rep. 390 E; Josephus, Arch. vi. 5. 6) are valueless.  In both cases the translation "pacify" is possible, but in neither is it necessary.¹  In the N.T. the only passage at all parallel is Matt. 28¹⁴ - h`mei/j pei,somen auvto,n - which might be translated "we shall talk him over."  The strongest example is 2 Macc. 4<sup>45</sup> (Westcott), where pro.j to. pei/sai to.n basile,a has as its equivalent in the next verse w`j avnayu,xonta to.n basile,a, and may very well be translated "in order to reassure the king."  But, even if the literary parallels be thought too meagre to establish the use of pei,qein in this special sense, virtually the same meaning may be got by translating it "persuade."  "Herein shall we recognise that we are of the truth, and shall persuade our hearts before Him."  Persuade our hearts of what? Of this, naturally, "that we are of the truth" (Plummer).

    A second source of difficulty is the ambiguity of the words o[ti eva.n kataginw,skh| h`mw/n h` kardi,a.  This is capable of three different meanings - "that, if our heart condemn us"; "because, if our heart condemn us"; "whereinsoever our heart condemn us" (R.V.).  The last of these is fully tenable.  The construction (acc. rei. c. gen. pers.) is the normal construction after  kataginw,skein; is not well and though the special form o[ti eva.n is not well authenticated elsewhere in the N.T., this is of little importance in view of the fact that such forms as o[j eva.n, o[pou eva.n, o[soi eva.n, o`sa,kij eva.n are more or less common, and that the substitution of eva.n for a;n in such compounds is a feature of later Greek (v. Moulton, pp. 42, 43).

    Of the text as it stands, then, various renderings are possible.  Taking pei,somen as "persuade," we may translate the whole - "We shall persuade our hearts before Him that, even if our own heart condemn us, (that) God is greater than our heart" (so Weiss, Holtzmann); or, "We shall persuade our hearts, whereinsoever our own heart condemn us, that God is greater," etc.

    The former translation regards the second o[ti as a rhetorical resumption of the first ("that, if" -  "that, I say, . . ."); and this, with so few words intervening, seems to me intolerable, whether in Greek or in English.  On either rendering, however, the meaning is virtually the same.  We persuade our heart that God is greater than our heart, and, because He knows all things, is better able to judge whether we are "of the truth."  The objection to this, and to me it seems decisive, is that evn tou,tw| is quite left out of the thought.  How can it be said that "herein - namely, in our loving in deed and in truth - we shall persuade our hearts that God is greater than our hearts"?

    We are compelled to adopt the alternative translation of pei,somen as "pacify" or "assure," or "persuade our hearts that we are of the truth."  Even so, a double rendering is possible.  "Herein . . . we shall assure our hearts before Him, because even if our own heart condemn us - because (I say) God is greater than our heart."  But, again, this meaningless repetition of "because" is intolerable; and we are shut up to the translation of the R.V. as the only possible one of the accepted text - "We shall assure our hearts before Him, whereinsoever our own heart condemn us, because God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things."  All these renderings have, however, one chief feature in common - the fact that God is greater than our own heart is a fact that tends to tranquillise the heart.  And so I have interpreted the passage in my exposition.

    But it must be admitted that the thought most naturally suggested by God's being greater than our hearts and knowing all things is, that if even our own heart condemn us, much more must we dread the judgment of the All-knowing.  And this is the view maintained by Professor Findlay (Expositor, November 1905), who would translate 3²⁰ "Because, if our own heart condemn us (because), God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."  He recognises that the stumbling-block is the second o[ti, which, accordingly, he dismisses from the text as a "primitive error of the copyist" or an "inadvertence of the author."

    But there is a still greater difficulty remaining, namely, that this interpretation leaves 3²⁰ without any obvious link of connection with 3¹⁹.  How can it be said that "Herein - by loving in deed and in truth - we shall . . . assure our hearts before Him; because, if our own heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and will judge more strictly"?

    "But," not "because," is needed to indicate such a line of reasoning.  To justify such a "because" some connecting thought must be supplied between 3¹⁹ and 3²⁰.  "We shall assure our hearts before Him; (and it is the more necessary that we be able to do this) because if our own heart condemn us, God is greater," etc.  Granted the right to amend the text by the omission of the second o[ti (which is omitted in A, and in the Vulgate1 Memphitic and Thebaic versions), and to supply such a connecting link in the thought, this interpretation would be most acceptable.  It greatly simplifies the passage; gets rid of the cumbrous "whereinsoever our own heart condemn us," and it secures a clear antithesis between the eva.n kataginw,skh| of 3²⁰ and the eva.n mh. . . . kataginw,skh| of 3²¹.  The last point is a strong one in its favour.

    3²². o] eva.n.  See note on o[ti eva.n, 3²⁰.

    evntola.j throu/men. v. supra,  Chapter XI.

    ta. avresta,.  Only here and in John 8²⁹ ta. avresta. auvtw/| poiw/.  euva,restojis the Pauline term, Phil. 4¹⁸, Eph. 5¹⁰, Col 3²⁰, also Heb. 13²¹.

    3²³. kai. au[th evsti.n h` evntolh. auvtou/ i[na.

    i[na indicates the purport, not the purpose of the command.  Cf. John 13³⁴, 15^12,17, I John 4²¹.  See note on 3¹¹.

    i[na pisteu,wmen. The reading is doubtful, Tischendorf preferring pisteu,wmen, W. and H. pisteu,swmen.  Here the present tense gives a better sense than the aorist.  It is more natural that the commandment should be that we maintain faith, than that it should refer to the initial act of faith.  In the parallel passage, John 6³⁹ the tense is the present.

    pisteu,wmen tw/| ovno,mati.  The construction is unique.  Elsewhere it is eivj to. o;noma, (John 1¹², 2²³, 3¹⁸, I John 5¹³).  The meaning, however, must be the same with both constructions.  See note on pisteu,ein appended to Chapter XIII.

    tw/| ovno,mati.  The o;no,ma of Christ is not distinguishable in effect from Christ Himself.  It is the "self-revelation of Christ" (Westcott), or rather the true conception of Christ, by which He is present to the minds of believers, and is proclaimed to men in the Gospel.  (Cf. Acts 9¹⁵.)  It may be that the phrase pisteu,ein eivj to. o;noma was a reminiscence of the baptismal formula (Acts 8¹⁶, 19⁵).  But the present passage suffices to show how groundless is the supposition that "to believe in the name" of Christ signified a lower kind of faith than is implied in "believing in Christ" - a profession of faith such as might warrant baptism (Origen; adopted by Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, p. 37, and by Westcott on John 2²³).  Here the "Name" of Christ is nothing else than Christ Himself as He is presented in the Gospel, and is the object of human speech and thought.

    kai. avgapw/men avllh,louj kaqw.j e;dwken evntolh.n h`mi/n.  The subject to e;dwken is "His Son, Jesus Christ," not - God.  In 3¹⁴ the command was o[ti avgapw/men tou.j avdelfou,j: here it is avllh,louj, quoting the exact word of John 13³⁴.

    3^24a. kai. o` thrw/n ta.j evntola.j auvtou/.  ta.j evntola.j may refer to the two great branches of the evntolh, in 3<sup>23</sup>; but preferably o` thrw/n ta.j evntola.j is to be taken as a resumption of the similar phrase in 3²².

    3^24b. kai. evn tou,tw| ginw,skomen o[ti me,nei evn h`mi/n, evk tou/ pneu,matoj ou- h`mi/n e;dwken.  With this begins the new paragraph extending to 4⁶.  The matter to be tested is that God "abideth in us"; the test is the Spirit He has given us, that is to say, the Spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh (4²).

    evn tou,tw| ginw,skomen . . . evk tou/ pneu,matoj.  This collocation of evn and evk is certainly peculiar and, in fact, ungrammatical; but it is unwarrantable to say (Ebrard, Westcott) that it is impossible.  It is probably accounted for by the fact that evn tou,tw| ginw,skomen is so much of a formula with the Writer that the proper prepositional force of evn is not fully felt. ginw,skein evk occurs in 4⁶.  Cf. o[qen ginw,skomen, 2¹⁸.

    I must admit that the exposition I have given of this verse (v. supra, Chapter XIII) is not sustained by the commentators (except, in part, by Holtzmann and Plummer), who in one way or other all refer evn tou,tw| to the keeping of the "commandments" in the first half of the verse.  Some (Lucke, Ebrard, Rothe, Westcott) do so directly; in which case not only does this clause become purely tautological, but evk tou/ pneu,matoj, k.t.l., is altogether left out of the construction.  To obviate this difficulty, Westcott (following Ebrard) supplies a second ginw,skomen before evk tou/ pneu,matoj, and extracts from this the meaning (if I understand him rightly): - " We know that God abides in us by the love that prompts us to obey His commandments - in other words, we know it by the Spirit He hath given us."  But, besides the arbitrariness of supplying this second ginw,skomen, to identify the possession of the Spirit with the Love that prompts obedience is quite foreign to the doctrine  of the Epistle, in which the function of the Spirit is solely to testify of Christ.  Others (Huther, Haupt, etc.) correctly relate evn tou,tw| to evk tou/ pneu,matoj, but in the sense that the Spirit is the source of the knowledge that God abideth in us, if we keep His commandments.  The "keeping of the commandments," that is to say, is valid proof of God's abiding in us only when we are conscious of it, by the witness of the Spirit, as the fruit of a renewed nature.  But this is to reason in a way exactly the reverse of St. John's, who tests spirit by deeds, not deeds by spirit the - tree by its fruit; not the fruits by the tree.  Undoubtedly, the meaning is, not that the Spirit is the source of a subjective assurance that God dwelleth in us, but that the Spirit gives objective evidence of this by prompting the confession that Jesus is the Christ.  v. infra, 4² and ¹³.

    ou- h`mi/n e;dwken.  The relative is attracted into the case of its antecedent; cf. among numerous examples, John 4¹⁴, 15²⁰.  But might not ou= be a partitive genitive? cf. evk tou/ pneu,matoj (4¹³).

    e;dwken.  We find de,dwken in 4¹³.  The aorist points to the time when the gift was bestowed; the perfect denotes its permanence.

    4¹. mh. panti. pneu,mati pisteu,ete.  See note on pisteu,ein, appended to Chapter XIII.

    evxelhlu,qasin eivj to.n ko,smon.  They have gone forth as ambassadors from their native sphere, the daemonic world, on their errand of deceit (cf. I Kings 22²², I Pet. 5⁸, Rev. 20⁸).  Probably these "false prophets" were identical with the "antichrists" who had gone out from the Church (2¹⁹).

    4². evn tou,tw| = by the test which is about to be laid down. ginw,skete, following mh pisteu,ete and dokima,zete, is better taken as imperative than as indicative.  In all the three verbs, the present tense points to the duty enjoined, as one which must be performed as often as the occasion arises.

    pa/n pneu/ma o] o`mologei/ VIhsou/n Cristo.n evn sarki. evlhluqo,ta; cf. 2 John ⁷.  v. supra, Chapter VI.

    4³. o] mh. o`mologei/ to.n VIhsou/n. mh, in a relative clause with the indicative is exceedingly rare in the N.T. (Tit. 1<sup>11</sup>, 2 Pet. 1<sup>9</sup>).  Here it is used with classical correctness, as expressing the subjective conviction of the writer that there are no exceptions to the statement he is making.  "Every spirit whatsoever that confesses not," etc. In Polycarp's quotation of the verse (Westcott, p. 142) it runs: pa/j ga.r o]j a'n mh. o`mologh|/. to.n VIhsou/n.  The article defines VIhsou/n in the full sense of the formula in the preceding verse.  The only valid confession of Jesus is that He is "Christ come in the flesh."

    kai. tou/to, evstin to. tou/ avnticri,stou.  pneu/ma may be supplied both with tou/to and with to, (Weiss, Haupt, R.V., and most commentators). But the natural interpretation, it seems to me, is to take tou/to as denoting the whole matter that has just been under discussion, and to. tou/ avnticri,stou in a similar general sense (Westcott).  "And this that we have been speaking of - all these undivine manifestations - are the fulfilment of the current expectation of Antichrist."  "That affair of Antichrist," as we might colloquially say.

    o] avkhko,ate. o], not o]n.  Antichrist is regarded as a principle or an event, not as a person.  In 2¹⁸ we find hvkou,sate in precisely the same connection a warning not to insist too pedantically upon tense-values.

    kai. nu/n evn tw/| ko,smw| evsti.n h;dh.  Cf. kai. nu/n avnti,cristoi polloi. gego,nasin (2¹⁸).  Here the addition of h;dh at the end of the clause lends a certain grim emphasis to the statement.  There is no doubt about it; Antichrist is here - already upon us.

    4⁴. nenikh,kate.  This is not to be understood only in the sense that ultimate victory is assured in principle (Calvin, Neander, Rothe).  They have already conquered by their steadfast adherence to the truth, which has resulted in the separation of the false teachers from the Church (2¹⁹).  The tense indicates that the results of the victory will continue.

    4⁵. auvtoi. evk tou/ ko,smou eivsi,n. auvtoi,, in strong contrast to the preceding u`mei/j and to the succeeding h`mei/j.

    evk tou/ ko,smou lalou/sin.  Cf. evk th/j gh/j lalei/ (John 3³¹), although gh/ and ko,smoj are not quite equivalent.

    4⁶. h`mei/j evk tou/ qeou/ evsme,n. evk tou/ ko,smou . . . evk tou/ qeou/.  The two phrases, though parallel, do not express exactly the same relation.  In the latter case, the source of the spiritual life is indicated; in the former, its affinities.  Cf. supra, Chapter VIII.

    h`mei/j . . . avkou,ei h`mw/n. h`mei/j must refer, not to Christians generally (Calvin, Liicke, Haupt), but to the Writer himself and those whom he associates with himself as teachers of the Truth.

    evk tou,tou.  Here only in St. John is evk tou,tou found in an inferential sense (John 6⁶⁶, 19¹² in a temporal sense).  Cf. evn tou,tw| ginw,skomen . . . evk tou/ pneu,matoj (3²⁴).  Westcott suggests that evn tou,tw| indicates a more direct, evk tou,tou a less direct, inference.  But a single instance supplies meagre data for any such conclusion.

    ginw,skomen.  The subject is not the h`mei/j of the preceding clause.  Such discerning of spirits by such means is the privilege of all who have the cri/sma (2²⁰).

    4⁷. pa/j o` avgapw/n evk tou/ qeou/ gege,nnhtai kai. ginw,skei to.n qeo,n.  The inter-relation of the three ideas - "loving," "begotten of God," "knowing God" - has been construed in a bewildering variety of ways.  Let us call these, for the sake of brevity, a, b, and c. b and c are taken as both consequences of a (De Wette), which inverts the relation between a and b; a is taken as the consequence of b, and b again of c (Weiss), which inverts the relation between b and c; a and c are taken as both consequences of b (Haupt, Rothe, Westcott), which is true, but, as regards the relation between b and c, irrelevant, the relation of the knowledge of God to the Divine Begetting not being here in question.  The true anatomy of the sentence is that a is the consequence, therefore, the test of b; and that a is either the consequence (Huther) or the condition, and, in either case, the test of c.  The important point is that "loving" is the test and criterion both of being "begotten of God" and of "knowing" God.  Beyond question, it seems to me, this is the purport of the verse.

    4⁸. o` mh. avgapw/n. mh, is used because the phrase is conditional in effect, though not in form.  In St. John ouv with the participle occurs only once, John 10¹².

    4⁹. The order of the words is finely significant.  Observe the emphatic position of to.n ui`o.n auvtou/ to.n monogenh/, also of o` qeo.j following its predicate avpe,stalken.

    evfanerw,qh.  Cf. 1², The Love is everlasting; the aorist points to the definite occasion of its manifestation.

    evn h`mi/n may be taken as dependent on evfanerw,qh - "in us" as its objects (cf. John 9<sup>3</sup>); or on h` avga,ph tou/ qeou/.  The latter, indeed, would seem to require h` avga,ph t. q. h` evn h`mi/n.  But see note on 4<sup>16</sup>. For the sense of evn h`mi/n, see the same note.

    4¹⁰. evn tou,tw| evsti.n h` avga,ph.  Herein is Love.  Neither tou/ qeou/ nor anything else is to be supplied after h` avga,ph.  This is Love in its purest essence.

    ouvc o[ti h`mei/j . . . avllV o[ti auvto.j.  This is not an example of the frequent elliptical ouvc o[ti . . . avlla,, "not that" . . . "but" (a genuine case of which is found in John 7²²).  Here the o[ti in each clause is in strict logical and grammatical dependence on evn tou,tw| evsti.n.  What is said is, not that we did not love God, but that the true nature of Love is revealed, not in our love to God, but in God's Love to us.

    hvga,phsen . . . avpe,steilen.  The aorists concentrate attention upon the definite act in which this Love was so wondrously embodied.

    i`lasmo.n peri., k.t.l.  A secondary predicate, in the same manner as swth/ra in 4<sup>14</sup>.  The absence of the article with i`lasmo,j brings out the qualitative or generic force of the word.  The thought is not of the fact that Christ is the propitiation for our sins (to the exclusion of all others), but that God's Love was so great that He sent His Son as a propitiation for sin.  The whole clause corresponds to i[na zh,swmen diV auvtou/ in 4⁹.  It is because He is a propitiation for our sins that we live through Him.

    4¹². qeo.n ouvdei.j pw,pote teqe,atai.  This is almost a quotation of John 1¹⁸ qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,paken pw,pote. In both places the sentence begins with the accusative qeo,n (the absence of the article giving to the word its most absolute sense - "God as God") followed immediately by the negative ouvdei,j - the statement thus being made with the strongest possible emphasis:  "God in Himself no man hath ever seen."

    teqe,atai.  In St. John qea/sqai signifies either bodily vision (John 13⁸, 6⁵, 11⁴⁵) or spiritual contemplation (John 1¹⁴, 4³⁵).  Here it must be taken in the former sense.

    By the majority of commentators quite a different interpretation is put upon this verse from that which I have advanced (supra, Chapter XII).  teqe,atai is taken in simple and immediate contrast to me,nei evn h`mi/n. "Though no man bath seen God at any time, yet God may be abiding in us as the Life of our lives; and the sign (or the reality) of this is present when we love one another" (Westcott, Weiss, Haupt, Huther).  This gives a sense that would be un- exceptionable but for two things:  (a) that "No man hath seen God at any time"is introduced with exceeding abruptness - there is no link of thought that attaches it to the preceding verse; and (b) that the parallel passage (4²⁰) is decisively in favour of the interpretation I have given.

    kai. h` avga,ph auvtou/.  Not the Love of God to us nor the Love which God commands, but the love which is evx auvtou/ (4⁷) and is His own nature (4⁸).

    Our loving one another is the sign that He (whose nature is Love) is abiding in us, and it is also the means by which His Love has been "fulfilled in us."

    A new paragraph, as is recognised by Huther, Haupt, Ebrard, Brooke (vigorously opposed by Weiss).

    4¹³. See note on 3^24b, of which this verse is almost a verbal reproduction.

    evn tou,tw| ginw,skomen . . . o[ti evk tou/ pneu,matoj, k.t.l.  The second o[ti is in strict apposition to evn tou,tw|.  "In this, that He namely, hath given us of His Spirit, we perceive that we abide in Him and He in us."  By most of the commentators the verse is related to what precedes, either the entire paragraph (7-12) or, specially, to the words, h` avga,ph auvtou/ evn h`mi/n teteleiwme,nh evstin.  "We know that it is God Who abides in us, and in Whom we abide; because the Spirit teaches us to recognise the Love which is revealed in the mission of Christ as the true nature of God and as the source of the Love that is fulfilled in us" (Weiss).  But the true connection of the verse is with what follows (Huther), as a com-parison with the parallel passage (3^24b-4⁶) plainly shows.  There the test of Belief immediately follows the test of Love; so here.  There the presence and work of the Spirit are manifested in the confession of the True Belief; so here (4^14,15).

    4¹⁴. The first-fruit of the gift of the Spirit is the Apostolic testimony itself. kai. h`mei/j.  The writer and his fellow-witnesses.  It is true that "The vision and witness remain as an abiding endowment of the Church," but not that "The Apostle does not speak of himself personally, but as representing the Church" (Westcott).  On the contrary, it is the importance of the personal element in the vision and witness that is brought out by the emphatic kai. h`mei/j.

    teqea,meqa.  See note on 4¹².

    teqea,meqa kai. marturou/men.  Cf. 1².  It is not necessary to regard the two verbs as forming only one compound idea (Westcott).  Its full and proper force may be given to each.  The witness-bearing is based on the beholding, exactly as in 1².  The meaning is, "We have personally beheld the historic Jesus, and, taught by the Spirit, have recognised the true significance of what we beheld, namely, that the Father hath sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world; and to this we bear witness."  avpe,stalken, as in 4⁹ expressing the present and permanent reality of the mission of Christ.

    swth/ra tou/ ko,smou.  Secondary predicate; cf. i`lasmo.n (4¹⁰).

    4¹⁵. The permanent result of the gift of the Spirit is the believing response of others to the Apostolic testimony, o]j a'n o`mologh,sh|, k.t.l.

    o` qeo.j evn auvtw/| me,nei kai. auvto.j evn tw/| qew/|.  The order of statement is the reverse of that found in 4¹³; but, since the evidence of the mutual indwelling is the same in both places, this only shows that the order has no special significance.

    4¹⁶. kai. h`mei/j.  Not those who bear the original testimony (4¹⁴), but the writer and his readers, or Christian believers generally.

    evgnw,kamen kai. pepisteu,kamen. See footnote 26, Chapter XIII.

    th.n avga,phn h]n e;cein is simply a stronger expression for avgapa/n.  In Greek, as in English, to "have" love, joy, grief, desire, etc., means nothing else than to love, rejoice, grieve, desire, etc. (cf. John 13³⁵, 16^21,22,  17¹³, Rom. 10², 15²³ etc.).  And here th.n avga,phn h]n e;cei o` qeo.j expresses, perhaps a little more emphatically, th,n avga,phn tou/ qeou/ (4⁹).

    Thus the question whether evn h`mi/n is dependent on e;cein or on avga,phn does not arise.  The verb and the associated noun are only the compound expression of a single idea (cf. John 16²¹ lu,phn e;cei, o[ti . . . ; Rom. 15²³ evpipoqi,an e;cwn tou/ evlqei/n ; Phil. 1²³th.n evpiqumi,an e;cwn eivj to. avnalu/sai).

     The grammatical point, however, is of minor importance.  The real question here is as to the meaning of evn h`mi/n.  And this, notwithstanding the protest of Westcott and Huther and the rendering of R.V., is, I maintain, practically equivalent to eivj h`ma/j - "toward us."  We may conceive of Love as going forth toward and reaching its object (eivj), or as resting on and abiding in its object (evn), without any real difference of meaning.  Both usages are sufficiently illustrated in the N.T. St. Paul everywhere uses eivj (Rom. 5⁸, Eph. 1¹⁵, Col. 1⁴, I Thess. 3¹², 2 Thess. 1³) except in 2 Cor. 8⁷, where, with exactly the same meaning, he uses evn (th/| evx u`mw/n evn h`mi/n avga,ph|, "Your love to us," R.V.).  This proves the interchangeableness of the two prepositions with avga,ph.  In the three cases where St. John uses avga,ph with a preposition following (John 13³⁵, I John 4^9,16), the preposition is evn. But if avga,phn e;chte evn avllh,louj (John 13³⁵) is translated "have love one to another" (R.V.), why should th.n avga,phn h]n e;cei o` qeo.j evn h`mi/n be pedantically rendered "the love which God hath in us"? (R.V.).  To "have love in a person" is not an English idiom; and evn h`mi/n must be rendered either by some periphrasis, or simply and quite adequately by "toward us."  I plead, therefore, for the restoration of simplicity and common sense in the exegesis of this verse and also of 4<sup>9</sup> - for the rejection of such far-fetched subtleties as Westcott's explanation of "Herein was manifested the love of God, evn h`mi/n"(4⁹): - " The Christian shares the life of Christ, and so becomes himself a secondary sign of God's love"; and of "the love which God hath evn h`mi/n," here in 4¹⁶: - " The love of God becomes a power in the Christian body.  Believers are the sphere in which it operates and makes itself felt in the world."  The progress of thought in this section is simple as it is beautiful:  "Herein was the love of God toward us manifested (4⁹).  Herein is the reality that was manifested (4¹⁰).  Herein is our response to the reality of Divine love thus manifested - we have recognised it and believed it" (4¹⁶).

    4¹⁷. meqV h`mw/n.  Instead of evn h`mi/n (2⁵, 4¹²).  In grammar and sense it belongs to tetelei,wtai, not to avga,ph.  By some commentators it is understood as signifying the mutual love between God and us (but St. John never includes God and man in h`mei/j); by Westcott, as implying that in the perfecting of Love "God works along with man" (an excessive weight of meaning to lay upon the preposition, and a thought foreign to the passage); better, as by the majority of commentators, of the mutual love which is realised in the Christian community.  Or, might it simply mean what "with us" so often means in English - "in our case"?

    parvr`hsi,a. v. supra, Chapter XIV.

    e;cwmen.  The parvr`hsi,a is a present possession.  The tense, however, does not exclude a reference to the future.  Although in 2²⁸ we find the aorist conj., the regular construction with i[na to express a purpose the fulfilment of which lies in the future, St. John uses the present conj. also in the same sense (John 16⁴, 17²⁴).

    kaqw.j evkei/no,j. Cf. 2⁶, 3^3,7, John 17¹⁶.

    4¹⁹.avgapw/men.  May be construed as indicative (A.V. , R.V., Huther, Weiss, Westcott, Holtzmann), or as imperative (Vulgate, Luther, Lucke, Rothe, Haupt).  With the former construction the verse would appear to be an explanation or thanksgiving:  "Why is it that we are not of those who, when they remember God, are troubled - that we are made perfect in love?  It is owing to nothing in ourselves.  We love, only because He first loved us."  The sense given by the alternative construction seems to me more pointed as well as more obvious.  "As for us, let us love," etc.  It is quite in the Apostle's manner first to express confidence in the Christian attainments of His readers ("Herein is love perfected with us"), and then to exhort to further effort (cf. 2^27,28, 4^1,4).  The exhortation "Let us love" is specially characteristic (4^7,11).

    auvto.j = God.  Cf. 4^7,11.

    prw/toj for pro,teroj.  In John 1¹⁵ we find even prw/to,j mou h=n.

    hvga,phsen.  The aorist points to the historical act in which the Love was realised (4^9,10).

    4²⁰.  The order of words is very expressive.  avgapw/ to.n qeo,n with the emphasis on avgapw/ - there is profession of warm love to God; kai. to.n avdelfo.n auvtou/ mish|, with emphasis on to.n avdelfo.n auvtou/ - and yet his own brother is to him an object of hate.

    avgapw/ to.n qeo,n.  avgapa/n is not used in the Fourth Gospel of the feeling of man to God (although it is used of man's feeling to Christ, John 21^15,16), and in the Epistle is so used only here and in 5²; in the Synoptics, only in quotations from the LXX.; in other N.T. writings only in Rom. 8²⁸, I Cor. 8³, Eph. 6¹⁴ (to.n ku,rion), Jas. 1¹², 2⁵, I Pet. 1⁸ (VIhsou/n Cristo,n).

    yeu,sthj evsti,n.  Cf. 1⁶ 2^4,22.

    4²¹. avpV auvtou/, i.e., from God, not expressly from Christ.  The reference, however, is to Christ's "new commandment."  Cf. 3²³.

    i[na, indicating the purport, not the purpose, of the commandment.  See notes on 3²³ and 3¹¹.

    5¹. pa/j o` pisteu,wn anticipates, according to the Writer's wont, the subject which is to be treated in the next section (5^3b-12); but there is no reason for regarding it as the beginning of that section (Westcott, Weiss).  Here it is introduced to define those who are the objects of the Christian's brotherly love.

    o[ti VIhsou/j evstin o` Cristo.j.  In direct opposition to the doctrine of the antichrists (222).  A full measure of brotherly love is claimed for all believers, but not for the antichrists and their adherents. v. supra, Chapter XII.

    5². evn tou,tw|.  Correlative to o[tan to.n qeo.n, k.t.l.

    ta. te,kna tou/ qeou/ = to.n gegennhme,non evx auvtou/ (5¹) = to.n avdelfo.n (4^20,21).

    o[tan.  Cf. the eva.n in 2³.  Both are used to avoid the clumsiness of evn tou,tw| ginw,skomen o[ti . . . o[ti.

    ta.j evntola.j auvtou/ is not to be understood of the evntolh, of 4²¹ nor as including it (Weiss).  St. John always makes a distinction between ai` evntolai,, the moral precepts in general, and, h` evntolh, , the commandment of Love.  Thus in 2^3-6 the former exclusively are treated of, and then in 2^7-11 the latter.  Obedience to the former constitutes dikaiosu,nh; obedience to the latter is conceived simply as Love, not also as Righteousness.  Here, "to love God and keep His commandments" is equivalent to St. Paul's "soberly and righteously and godly."

    poiw/men.  Whereas throu/men expresses heedful regard to the commandments (2³, 3²², 5³), poiw/men expresses the actual performance of them in opposition to Antinomian pseudo-spiritualism.  Cf. 2²⁹, 3⁷ etc.  v. supra, Chapter XI.

    5³. au[th . . . i[na.  See note on 3¹¹.

    barei/ai ouvk eivsi,n.  Cf. forti,a bare,a, Matt. 23⁴.

    5⁴. pa/n to. gegennhme,non. v. supra, note 34 Chapter XIII.

    h` ni,kh h` nikh,sasa.  v. supra, note 35 Chapter XIII.

    h` pi,stij.  The solitary occurrence in St. John.  v. supra, note 1 Chapter XIII.

    5⁵. o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ = o` Cristo,j in 5<sup>1</sup>.  Cf. 2<sup>22</sup>, where the same interchange of Cristo,j and ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ takes place.

    5⁶. diV u[datoj kai. ai[matoj . . . evn tw/| u[dati kai. evn tw/| ai[mati marks the means by which Christ's office was revealed; evn the sphere in which He continues to exercise it" (Westcott).  Even in point of grammar this is untenable, since evn as well as dia, depends upon the aorist evlqw,n, which cannot refer to Christ's continuing to exercise His office.  Here, evndoes not differ materially from dia,, c. gen., having that instrumental sense of which there are numerous examples in the N.T. (cf. Matt. 5¹³, 12²⁷, 26⁵², Acts 4⁷, 17³¹, Rom 5^9,10, 12²¹ etc.), and which is well established for popular Greek of the N.T. period (Moulton, pp. 12, 61, 104).

    5⁷. o[ti. v. supra, Chapter VII.

    oi` marturou/ntej.  The participle, as distinguished from the noun, oi` ma,rturej, sets the witnesses more vividly before us, as employed in the actual and present delivery of their testimony.  The Water and the Blood, no less than the Spirit, are personified; hence the masculine marturou/ntej qualifying the neuter nouns, pneu/ma, u[dwr, ai-ma.

    5⁹. eiv. c. pres. indic., assuming the truth of the supposition (cf. e.g. John 13¹⁷).  The sentence is extremely awkward.  v. supra, Chapter VII.  The second part of it may be construed in three different ways, according as the second o[ti is translated "that," "because," or "whatsoever."  "Because the witness of God is this (pre-eminently consists in this), that He has borne witness concerning His Son" (Westcott, Huther, Holtzmann, R.V.); or, "Because the witness of God is this, (namely), whatsoever He has witnessed concerning His Son" (Rothe); "Because this (namely, the triple witness cited in the preceding verse) is the witness of God, because God hath borne witness concerning His Son" (Haupt, Weiss).  Of these, the third seems to yield the most natural sense.  The first and second seem to strain unduly the sense of au[th evsti.n h` marturi,a (= this is par excellence the witness of God).

    5¹⁰. pisteu,wn eivj to.n ui`o.n . . . o` mh. pisteu,wn tw/| qew/| . . . pepi,steuken eivj th.n marturi,an.  The distinction between pisteu,ein eivj (= to "believe in," to commit oneself unto), and pisteu,ein, c. dat. (= to "believe" or credit), is very clear in the first two phrases; but to draw the same clear distinction between the second and third is difficult.  eivj th.n marturi,an is explained by Westcott as carrying on belief of the testimony to belief in its object, the Son of God.  It is better to regard it as looking beyond the testimony to its source.  It is not only disbelief of the testimony, but distrust of the person who bears it, that is signified; as, in English, "I do not trust your word," has a different implication from, "I do not believe what you say."

    mh. pisteu,wn . . . ouv pepi,steuken. mh. and ouv are here used with grammatical nicety.  mh. with the participle (equivalent to eva,n tij mh.) stating the general case, ouv with the indicative the definite fact.

    5¹¹. h` marturi,a.  This may be taken as applying to the "witness of God," spoken of in 5<sup>10b</sup>, or to the "witness in Himself," spoken of in 5<sup>10a</sup>.  Our assurance of possessing Eternal Life rests, in the one case, on Divine testimony (cf. 2<sup>25</sup>, John 3<sup>16</sup>); in the other, on a conscious experience confirming Divine testimony.  The former interpretation is preferable, both because au[th evsti.n h` marturi,a is more naturally referred to the nearer than to the more remote antecedent, and because this is more agreeable to the succeeding context, in which (5^12,13) Belief is emphasised as the condition and test of Life, not Life as the confirmation of Belief.

    kai. au[th h` zwh., k.t.l.  The clause is under the government of o[ti.  The witness of God is not only that He gave us Eternal Life, but that the sole medium of its bestowal is His Son.

    5¹². o` mh. e;cwn . . . ouvk e;cei.  Cf. note on 5¹⁰.

    5¹³. tau/ta e;graya u`mi/n i[na eivdh/te, k.t.l.  These words accurately define the governing aim of the whole Epistle.  Contextually, however, they refer to the contents of 5^6-12, and most directly to 5^11,12.  At the same time, they effect the transition to the new subject, confidence in Prayer - that being an immediate result of the knowledge that we have Eternal Life.

    e;graya.  Epistolary aorist. v. supra, Chapter XV.

    eivdh/te.  In such a connection we might have expected the familiar ginw,skein.  But the more absolute eivde,nai is justified by the added clause toi/j pisteu,ousin eivj to. o;noma tou/ ui`ou/ tou/ qeou/.  It is taken as self-evident truth, that they who believe on the name of the Son of God have Eternal Life.

    zwh.n e;cete aivw,nion.  The peculiar order gives a separate emphasis both to the noun and to the adjective: "Ye have Life, and that Eternal."

    eivj to. o;noma.  See note on 3²³.

    tou/ ui`ou/ tou/ qeou/.  By the full title of the Saviour, the Apostle finally recalls the central truth of the whole preceding section.  (In this brief section alone, "the Son of God," or "His Son," occurs seven times.)  And here he brings to a completion his consideration of the subject of Belief.  Except in a parting word (5²⁰) he does not recur to it.

    5^14-17. Subsection on Prayer.

    5¹⁴. au[th correlative with o[ti eva,n ti aivtw/meqa, k.t.l.

    parvr`hsi,a. v. supra, Chapter XIV.  This parvr`hsi,a springs directly, not from the zwh.n e;cete aivw,nion of the preceding verse, but from the eivdh/te.

    kata. to. qe,lhma auvtou/.  This defines, not the manner of the asking, but its object - ti.  This qualification is not expressed in 3²², but is implied there in the character of the suppliants, who are such as "keep His commandments, and do those things that are well-pleasing in His sight," as it is also implied in John 15⁷ by the condition, "If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you."

    avkou,ei = hears and answers. Cf. John 9³¹, 11⁴¹.

    This sense of avkou,ein is peculiar to St. John.

    5¹⁵. kai. eva.n oi;damen. eva.n, c. indic. is, grammatically, an atrocity, and is without parallel in St. John, although it is found in I Thess. 3³.  Elsewhere, however, o[tan, o[pou a;n, and o[soi a;n are found with the indicative, and examples for eva.n are furnished by the papyri (Moulton, p. i68).  Westcott's explanation, that the unusual construction "throws the uncertainty upon the fact of the presence of the knowledge, not upon the knowledge itself," is beyond my comprehension.  The one thing clear about it is that it is wrong.  Uncertainty is not always implied by eva.n c. subj. (2²⁹), and still less need it be implied with the indicative.

    aivtw,meqa . . . hv|th,kamen.  The active and middle forms of aivtei/n are used by St. John without difference of meaning (pace Westcott).  The only difference is that he prefers aivtei/n, c. acc. pers.  The only exception to this is John 11²².

    Moulton's suggestion (p. 160), that aivtei/sqai is the stronger word, does not seem to be borne out by Johannine usage.

    o[ti e;comen. "We have," not "we shall have."  The whole emphasis of the verse falls on this e;comen.

    avpV auvtou/.  Connects much more naturally with hv|th,kamen than with the more remote e;comen.

    5¹⁶.  It is no accident that the one kind of prayer to which St. John refers is intercession.  It is in accordance with the conception of Eternal Life which the whole Epistle expounds.  That Life in its essence is Love; for God is Love, and Love is fulfilled in us only by our loving one another (4¹²).  But Prayer is one of the modes of action in which that Life puts forth its energies.  All prayer, indeed, which is according to the Will of God is in effect intercessory.  By the Will of God all who are "begotten of Him" are members one of another.  The good of each is the good of all, and the good of all the good of each.  Even in praying for his own forgiveness and sanctification, the Christian is praying, in a true sense, for the Body of Christ, is praying that he may contribute a stronger and more healthful influence to the Life of the Body.

    eva,n tij i;dh|.  The supposed case is stated, not as one of suspicion or of hearsay, but of personal observation.

    a`marta,nonta a`marti,an.  The cognate accusative is not a frequent construction with St. John.  But cf. aivth,mata hv|th,kamen, 5¹⁵, also 2²⁵, John 7²⁴, 17²⁶.

    a`marta,nonta.  The tense shows that a persistent course of action and not an isolated act is contemplated.

    mh. pro.j qa,naton.  The mh. does not signify that in his judgment the sin is not unto death, - "that the decision can only be a subjective one" (Huther), - for it is found also in the next phrase, toi/j a`marta,nousin mh. pro.j qa,naton, where this meaning is not admissible. In both cases, mh. is due to the influence of the supposition, eva,n tij i;dh|.

    aivth,sei.  He shall ask = let him ask.  A milder imperative sense is intended, as is clear from le,gw i[na in the next clause.  The imperative form, however, is avoided.  It is assumed that this is what he will naturally and spontaneously do.

    kai. dw,sei auvtw| zwh,n toi/j a`marta,nousin mh. pro.j qa,naton.

    1.  The subject to dw,sei may be the intercessor, auvtw| may be the "brother," with toi/j a`marta,nousin in apposition:  "He will give his brother Life (i.e. he will be the means of doing so through his intercession), even to them that sin not unto death."  In favour of this is the continuity of the construction - aivth,sei kai. dw,sei; against it, the awkwardness of the immediate apposition of auvtw| and toi/j a`marta,nousin.

    2.  The subject to dw,sei may be God, auvtw| may be the intercessor, and toi/j a`marta,nousin a dative of advantage:  "God will grant to him life for them that sin not unto death."  After the express reference in the preceding verse to God's answering prayer, there is no difficulty in supplying qeo,j before dw,sei.  And upon the whole this interpretation seems, both in grammar and in sense, the more natural (so Lucke, Westcott; contrariwise, Weiss, Huther, Rothe).

    e;stin a`marti,a pro.j qa,naton.  e;stin, emphatic.  There is such a thing as a sin unto death.

    ouv peri. evkei,nhj le,gw i[na evrwth,sh|.  The sentence is not a prohibition, in which case the negative must have been attached to evrwth,sh|.  The ouv does not go directly even with le,gw, so as to constitute a strong dissuasion, but with peri. evkei,nhj - "It is not concerning that sin that I say he shall ask."

    le,gw i[na.  Cf. Acts 19⁴, Matt. 4³, Mark 9¹³, Luke 10⁴⁰ etc.  Even in such cases the original telic force of i[na is almost lost, as is shown by the fact that it is often replaced by the simple infinitive.  Matt. 23³, Mark 5⁴³, Luke 9⁵⁴ etc.

    evrwth,sh|.  The word properly means to ask interrogatively; and so it suggests prayer in which our requests are made known, as it were, with the inquiry whether they may be granted.  But, in actual usage, it does not appear to have this meaning.  It is noteworthy that evrwta/n, not aivtei/n, is the word by which our Lord always refers to His own prayers (John 14¹⁶, 16²⁶, 17^9,15,20).

    5¹⁷.  On the verse as a whole, v. supra, Chapter VIII, and note there.

    avdiki,a.  v. supra, Chapter VIII.

    kai. e;stin a`marti,a ouv pro.j qa,naton.  ouv instead of the mh.  of 5^16,17.  Here there is an express statement of fact.  The verse as a whole effects, in the Apostle's usual manner, the transition to the next section.  The idea of intercession, though still lingering in ouv pro.j qa,naton, has become secondary; whereas the idea of sin, which is to be further dealt with, is primary.  For similar transitions, cf. 3^10b,23, 5³.

    5¹⁸.  oi;damen.  See special note on ginw,skein and eivde,naj.  Upon the whole, ginw,skein has been the key-word in the earlier parts of the Epistle; but here, in the closing section, it is displaced by eivde,nai.  The process of testing and self-discernment having been accomplished, the Apostle assumes its results, and lifts up his soul in a three-fold "we know" of joyful certainty.

    ouvc a`marta,nei.  v. supra, Chapter XI.  To supply pro.j qa,naton after a`marta,nei (Rothe, after the older expositors) is entirely to miss the point; which is, that though the Apostle has been speaking of "sin not unto death" as giving occasion for brotherly intercession, not even this "sinning not unto death" but not sinning at all, is the true characteristic of the Christian Life.

    avllV o` gennhqei.j evk tou/ qeou/ threi/ e`auvto,n.  Certainty as to whether the true reading is auvto,n or e`auvto,n would at once decide the interpretation of gennhqei.j.  But, although the majority of editors (Tisch., Trg., W. and H., Nestle, R.V.) favour auvto,n, the ground for doing so is so narrow (A<sup>1</sup>, B, 105, and Vulgate for auvto,n; a, the Peshitta, and all other authorities for e`auvto,n) that here exegesis may claim to have a voice in the question of text.

    (a)  If e`auvto,n be read, then clearly gennhqei.j is simply a synonym for the preceding pa/j o` gegennhme,noj evk tou/ qeou/.  To this it is objected that elsewhere in St. John the Christian is not said to "keep himself;" but is said to be kept by Divine power (John 17^11,12,15; cf. Rev. 3¹⁰, I Pet. 1⁵).  But it is to be observed - (1) that the examples from the Gospel are only found in the Intercessory Prayer, where it is inevitable that this aspect of the truth should be presented; (2) that elsewhere in the N.T. the Christian is almost as often said to "keep himself" (I Tim. 5²², Jas. 1²⁷, Jude ²¹) as to be kept by God; and (3) that precisely in the same sense in which the Christian is said to "purify himself" (3⁸) he may be said also to "keep himself" (the two ideas are virtually identical).

    The question remains, why, if the subject be the Christian himself, o` gennhqei.j should be substituted for the o` gegennhme,noj of the preceding clause.  Westcott calls the substitution "impossible"; Plummer, "arbitrary and confusing."

    But there are other passages in the Epistle in which the perfect and the aorist points of view are changed quite as suddenly and apparently quite as arbitrarily as here (cf. e.g. 4^9,10).  And here the literal translation - "Every one who has been begotten of God sinneth not; but he that was begotten of God keepeth himself" - does not strike me as "impossible" or even as "confusing."  For a possible explanation of the change of tense, v. supra, Chapter XI.

    (b)  If auvto,n be read, o` gennhqei.j evk tou/ qeou/ can only refer to Christ (for Weiss's proposed explanation with the reading auvto,n, "He who was once begotten of God keeps that which is the result of the Divine Begetting," that is, o` gegennhme,noj (= himself), is frankly impossible).  To this there is the objection that o` gennhqei.j, as applied to Christ, is without parallel.  And to me it does seem very improbable that, having just described the Christian as o` gegennhme,noj, the Apostle should immediately expect us, without a hint of any kind, to understand by o` gennhqei.j the Only-Begotten Son of God.  If this had been his meaning, it seems to me that he would certainly have written o` ui`o.j auvtou/ or some such phrase; for there is nothing in o` gennhqei.j, any more than in o` gegennhme,noj, by which it is intrinsically a fitting appellation for the Divine Son.  It seems, indeed, less fitting.  For these reasons, and against my prepossessions, I conclude that the more probable reading is e`auvto,n (A.V. and R.V. marg.).  The remarkable rendering of the Vulgate, "generatio Dei conservat eum," is evidently to be understood in the light of 3⁹ o[ti spe,rma auvtou/ evn auvtw/| me,nei.

    kai. o` ponhro.j.  Cf. 2¹³.  All the influences of temptation are regarded as proceeding from him in whose personal agency they are concentrated.

    ouvc a[ptetai auvtou/ = layeth not hold of him; cf. Ps. 105¹⁵.  v . supra, Chapter XI.

    5¹⁹.  oi;damen.  The relation to the preceding verse is not that of inference - "We know, inasmuch as we fulfil the aforesaid condition."  The oi;damen here is equally absolute with that of 5¹⁸: the present verse reduces to concrete terms the general proposition there announced.

    o[ti evk tou/ qeou/ evsmen.  The emphatic h`mei/j of 4⁶ is here noticeably absent.  The chief point of the antithesis is not the difference between us personally and the world, but the difference of the principle embodied in us and in it respectively.  It is from God we derive what constitutes our essential being; the World as a whole lies in the Wicked One.

    o` ko,smoj o[loj.  This order is common in the N.T. instead of the more regular o[loj o` ko,smoj (Matt. 16²⁶, 26⁵⁹, Mark 1³³, 8³⁶, Luke 9²⁵, 11³⁶, John 4⁵³, Acts 21³⁰, I Cor. 14²³).  It seems in the majority of these cases to denote unity of state or action rather than wholeness of extent.  Thus o[lon to.n ko,smon (2²) "all the World," "the whole of that which is called the World"; here, o` ko,smoj o[loj kei/tai = The World lieth as a whole wholly) the Wicked One.

    evn tw/| ponhrw/|.  The tw/| ponhrw/| is masculine, not neuter (A.V.), is certain from the preceding verse.

    kei/tai.  The Wicked One does not "lay hold" of him who is "begotten of God" (5¹⁸); but he does not need even to "lay hold" upon the World.  Already it lies wholly in his grasp.  This metaphorical use of kei/sqai evn is not found elsewhere in the N.T.  The sense seems to be that of helpless passivity - to be "in the power of."  The Wicked One is the a;rcwn of the world, and it lies utterly under his dominion and at his disposal.  So in Soph. Oed. Col. 248: evn u`mi/n w`j qew/| kei,meqa tla,movej (Liddell and Scott, sub voce).

    5²⁰.  oi;damen o[ti.  The third of the "triumphant certainties."  In 5¹⁸ the Apostle has asserted as a matter of certainty that the outstanding characteristic of the Life that is begotten of God is Holiness - its victorious antagonism, not to some sin, but to all sin, and that upon those who possess this Life the Wicked One takes no hold.  In 5¹⁹ this becomes the further assertion that we possess this Life, while the world lies entirely in bondage to the Wicked One.  But this assertion naturally raises two questions.  First, it may be asked - on what grounds is it made?  That we, the small handful of Christian believers, are right, and all the rest of the world wrong; that we alone are in possession of Divine truth and life, while the world as a whole is in bondage to falsehood and sin: this seems to be an enormously egotistical assumption.  What gives us the right to make it; nay, compels us, on penalty of treason to the truth itself; to maintain it?  And then the second question arises.  If it be true that there does run between men this awful moral cleavage, and if we are standing on one side - the Godward side - of that gulf; while the mass of mankind are on the other, how comes this to pass?  Is it due to any moral or intellectual superiority in ourselves; and, if not, to what is it due?  The present verse may be taken as answering either of those questions (though not stating the point quite as I have done, Haupt and Weiss take it as answering the former; Huther and Rothe as answering the latter).  But in fact it answers both; for, in indicating the means by which this has come to pass, it also indicates the ground of our certainty that it has come to pass.

    oi;damen de..   The verse is in substance explanatory of the first half of 5¹⁹ -  "We know that we are of God"; but the explanation is occasioned by the statement of the second half " - and the whole world lieth in the Wicked One"; to which, therefore, it is connected adversatively by de..

    o[ti o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ h[kei kai. de,dwken.  According to the point of view, the Apostle speaks of Christ either as evlhluqo,ta (4²) or as evlqw.n (5⁶); describes His mission by avpe,stalken (4⁹) or avpe,steilen (4¹⁰); and His gift by de,dwken (4¹³) or e;dwken (3²⁴).  Here the perfect sense is to be clearly marked.  Both His coming and His gift are present and permanent facts.

    i[na ginw,skwmen.  Westcott's suggestion, that the quite abnormal ginw,skwmen is simply a "corrupt pronunciation" of ginw,skwmen, is amply confirmed by the more recent additions to our knowledge of vernacular Greek.  By the time that the oldest extant MSS of the N.T. were written, o and w were no longer distinguished in pronunciation (cf. Moulton, p. 35).

    ginw,skein.  As throughout the Epistle, to recognise or discern, not to know with full experiential acquaintance (evginwke,nai).

    to.n avlhqino,n.  avlhqino,j, found only once in the Synoptists, once in St. Paul, four times in Hebrews, has nine occurrences in the Gospel, four in this Epistle of St. John, and ten in the Apocalypse.  Everywhere in the Gospel and Epistle it has its proper meaning of "genuine" or "real" that which perfectly corresponds in fact to the idea which its name expresses (cf. John 1⁹, 4²³, 6³², 15¹, 17³, I John 2⁸, Heb. 8², 9²⁴).

    The full knowledge of the True One is first made possible through His Son.  While the God of the O.T. was o` avlhqino,j as opposed to the idols of heathenism, the God revealed in Christ is o` avlhqino,j in comparison with the limited and symbolical conceptions of the O.T. itself.  In Him we find completely realised that idea of Godhead which, when it reveals itself to us, we intuitively know to be the highest, transcending all other conceptions of the Divine, or rendering them intolerable.  Christianity is not a revelation, but the revelation of God.  In it we reach the absolutely and only Divine.

    kai. evsme.n evn tw/| avlhqinw/|.  Not under the government of i[na, but a thought hurriedly added to the foregoing, as if the Writer felt that he had understated the case in saying only that "We know Him that is true" (cf. kai. evsme,n, 3¹).  And yet another clause has to be added to express the fulness of the thought.

    evn tw/| ui`w/| auvtou/ VIhsou/ Cristw/|.  This explains how in "We are Him that is true."  "No man cometh unto the Father but by Me," our Lord had said; so here the Apostle implies that no man can be "in" the Father but by being "in" the Son.  For the thought, cf. 2<sup>23</sup>; for the epexegetic construction, 5<sup>13</sup>.  In both A.V. and R.V. the word "even" is inserted before this clause, presumably to make it clear that "in Him that is true" and "in His Son Jesus Christ" are to be taken as in apposition - that is to say, that the words "Him that is true," at their second occurrence, denote Christ.  This interpretation, favoured by the older exegetes, is stoutly contended for by Weiss.  It gives, however, an unnatural turn to the sentence.  For it is most unnatural to suppose that to.n avlhqino,n first signifies Him Whom the Son of God has come to reveal, and then, without a hint of change of subject, the Son Who has come to reveal Him; and it is almost equally unnatural to suppose that the auvtou/ in evn tw/| ui`w/| auvtou/, k.t.l., has not as its antecedent the tw/| avlhqinw/| immediately preceding.  The objection taken by Weiss, that to understand evn tw/| ui`w/| auvtou/ as explaining the possibility of our being evn tw/| avlhqinw/| (if this means God) involves a Pauline, not a Johannine conception, is groundless.  Cf. John 17²³ where, though conversely stated, the relation of Father, Son, and believers is conceived precisely as here.

    ou-to,j evstin o` avlhqino.j qeo.j kai. zwh. aivw,nioj.  ou-to,j.  Not "His Son Jesus Christ," but He Who is the subject of the foregoing delineation, He Whom we recognise as the True God by means of the "understanding" which His Son has given us, and with Whom we are in fellowship through His Son.  This clause was long a battle-ground between the champions of orthodoxy and those of heterodoxy.  And, no doubt, if it could be made good that, when the Apostle says, "This is the true God," he means, "His Son Jesus Christ," we should have the most explicit statement in the N.T. of the Divinity of Christ.  But the day is past when such a truth was thought to be substantiated or invalidated by proof-texts.  Besides, for determining the doctrine of the Apostle himself; the materials are so abundant that little is to be gained or lost by the interpretation of a single clause.  Apart, however, from dogmatic interests, it is still urged by some (Weiss, Rothe, Ebrard, e.g.) that ou-to,j refers to VIhsou/ Cristw/|, both because that is the nearest antecedent, and because, otherwise, the statement, "This is the True God," is a pure tautology.  But to this it may be replied that ou-to,j does not necessarily refer to the nearest antecedent, but may more naturally refer to the main subject of the whole preceding statement, namely, o` avlhqino.j and that the repetition, "This is the true God," with the addition, "and Eternal Life," so far from being a mere tautology, is singularly impressive, especially when followed, as it is, by the warning, "Keep yourselves from idols."

    kai. zwh. aivw,nioj. v. supra, Chapter IV.  Only He Who is eternally the Living One can be the essence of all Life.  Thus the close of the Epistle bends round to meet the beginning (1²).  There, the Apostle bore testimony to the historic manifestation of the Eternal Divine Life in Jesus Christ; here, He testifies that this historic manifestation becomes, in experience, an inward certainty.  "We know," because the Son of God hath come, and "hath given us an understanding."

    5²¹.  tekni,a, fula,xate e`auta. avpo. tw/n eivdw,lwn.  No writer is more urgently and severely practical than St. John.  From the thought of our knowledge, he turns instinctively to our present duty (cf. John 13¹⁷) from the thought that "we know Him that is true" to the thought that we are in a world full of "lying vanities," against which that knowledge must be our shield and salvation.

    tekni,a.  The thought of that danger, actual and inevitable, calls forth once more and finally the note of paternal solicitude, "Little children."  v. supra, Chapter III.

    fula,xate e`auta,.  The command is expressed in the most urgent fashion.  fula,ssein is, if anything, more vivid than threi/n (5¹⁸).  The more pungent and "instant" aorist is used instead of the quieter present imperative (v. Moulton, 173, 189); while the verb in the active voice with the reflexive pronoun conveys more strongly the necessity of personal action than the usual middle (cf. Luke 12¹⁵, 2 Pet. 3¹⁷ fula,ssesqe).

    e`auta,.  The use of the neuter, in direct agreement with tekni,a, appears to be unique.  (Although cases nearly analogous may be found, e.g. Plato, Theaetetus, 146 A, tw/n meiraki,wn ti ke,leue, soi avpokre,nesqai, and Euthydemus, 277 D, gnou.j baptizo,menon to. meira,kion, boulo,menoj avnapau/sai auvto,). The use of e`auto,j for the second person is common, especially in the plural, in N.T. and in Hellenistic Greek generally (Moulton, p. 87).  But it is found also in Attic (e.g. in Xenophon's Anabasis, vii. 5. 5).

    avpo. tw/n eivdw,lwn.  The interpretations of tw/n eivdw,lwn vary widely, from "idols" in the literal sense (Plummer, Rothe) to the false ideas substituted by antichristian teaching for the True God revealed in Christ (Haupt, Huther), and even to the inclusion of such self-deceptions as the profession of "knowing God" without keeping His commandments, and loving one's brother (Weiss).  It is true, as Plummer urges, that elsewhere in the N.T. eivdw,lon is invariably used in the literal sense.  That, however, is no reason why it should not here express a more comprehensive idea, provided that this would be intelligible by those to whom the Epistle was addressed.  On the other hand, it is urged that everywhere in the Epistle the pressing peril is antichristian teaching, and that there is no reference to any temptation to idolatry.  That, however, is rather a reason why the Apostle should now guard his readers against that danger, if it actually existed.  Upon the whole, it seems very doubtful that the Apostle would describe the phantasms of Gnostic theology, not to say unreal professions of Christianity, as "idols," or that, if he had done so, the first readers of His Epistle would have understood him in that sense.  Nevertheless, the Apostle's closing word is of far-reaching and deep-reaching application.  And most impressively does the Epistle close with this abrupt and sternly affectionate call to all Christians, to beware of yielding to the vain shadows that are always seeking to usurp the shrine of the True God, the homage of the heart's desire and dependence.

    2.  Cf. Eur. Phaen. 391, where to the question, What is the greatest hardship of an exile's lot? the reply is ~e[n me.n me,giston, ouvk e;cei parrhsian; and the rejoinder to this, dou,lou to,dV ei=paj, mh. le.gein a; tij frone/i.

    1.  I am admonished, however, that what may seem intolerable is not impossible, by the discovery of a passage in Xenophon (Anabasis, vii. 4,5) the construction in which is strikingly parallel to that in St. John . . . o` Seu,qhj e;legen o[ti, ei, mh. katabh,sontai kai. pei,sontai, o[ti kataka,usei kai. tou,twn ta.j kw,maj kai. to.n si/ton . . . .  Here the number of words in the parenthetical clause is exactly the same as in the present passage.  A similar repetition of o[ti, though with a longer parenthesis, is found in the Anabasis, v. 6, 19.  A comparison of the passages suggests that the second o[ti may not be a mere inadvertence, but may have the effect of giving additional emphasis to the subsequent statement.  Still, this does not seem natural to the style of St. John.  Windisch regards the passage as corrupt, and proposes to read ouv pei,somen and to omit o[ti eva.n . . . kardi,a, as an interpolation suggested by v. 21.  The emendation does not seem a happy one; and Windisch acknowledges that the wiser course is to abide by the statement that the text is corrupt.  But a better extra-biblical parallel seems to have been overlooked in an epigram of Antipater (Anth. ix. 420) -

Mh. klai,wn to.n {Erwta do,kei, Thle,mbrote, pei,sein
mhdV ovli,gw| pau,sein u[doti pu/r avtele,j.