THE TESTS OF LIFE
A STUDY OF
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF
Being the Kerr Lectures
for 1909
BY
THE
REV. ROBERT LAW, B.D.
MINISTER OF
T. CLARK,
1909
[Scanned and proofed by Ted Hildebrandt, 2005]
Printed
by
MORRISON & GIBB
LIMITED,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK,
EDINBURGH.
THE KERR LECTURESHIP
THE
"KERR LECTURESHIP" was founded by the TRUSTEES of the late Miss
JOAN
KERR of Sanquhar, under her Deed of Settlement, and formally adopted
by
the United Presbyterian Synod in May 1886. In the following year, May
1887,
the provisions and conditions of the Lectureship, as finally adjusted,
were
adopted by the Synod, and embodied in a Memorandum, printed in the
Appendix
to the Synod Minutes, p. 489.
On the union of the United
Presbyterian Church with the Free Church of
of
the object of the Lectureship and the persons eligible for appointment to it,
so
as to suit the altered circumstances. And at the General Assembly of 1901
it
was agreed that the Lectureship should in future be connected with the
College
of the United Free Church. From the Memorandum, as thus amended,
the
following excerpts are here given:--
II. The amount to be invested shall
be ₤3000.
III. The object of the Lectureship
is the promotion of the study of Scientific
Theology
in the United Free Church of
The Lectures shall be upon some such
subjects as the following, viz. :
A. Historic Theology
(1) Biblical Theology, (2) History of Doctrine, (3) Patristics, with
special reference to the
significance and authority of the
first three centuries.
B. Systematic Theology
(1) Christian Doctrine—(a) Philosophy of Religion, (b) Com-
parative Theology, (c)
Anthropology, (d) Christology,
(e) Soteriology, (f)
Eschatology.
(2) Christian Ethics—(a) Doctrine of Sin, (b) Individual and
Social Ethics, (c) The
Sacraments, (d) The Place of Art
in Religious Life and
Worship.
Further, the Committee of Selection
shall from time to time, as they think
fit,
appoint as the subject of the Lectures any important Phases of Modern
Religious
Thought or Scientific Theories in their bearing upon Evangelical
Theology.
The Committee may also appoint a subject connected with the
practical
work of the Ministry as subject of Lecture, but in no case shall this
be
admissible more than once in every five appointments.
IV. The appointments to this
Lectureship shall be made in the first instance
from
among the Licentiates or Ministers of the United Free Church of
vii
viii The Kerr
Lectureship
of
whom no one shall be eligible who, when the appointment falls to be made,
shall
have been licensed for more than twenty-five years, and who is not a
graduate
of a
for
some time been connected with a
V. Appointments to this Lectureship
not subject to the conditions in
Section
IV. may also from time to time, at the discretion of the Committee,
be
made from among eminent members of the Ministry of any of the Noncon-
of
the Protestant Evangelical Churches of the Continent.
VI. The Lecturer shall hold the
appointment for three years.
VII. The number of Lectures to be
delivered shall be left to the discretion
of
the Lecturer, except thus far, that in no case shall there be more than twelve
or
less than eight.
VIII. The Lectures shall be
published at the Lecturer's own expense within
one
year after their delivery.
IX. The Lectures shall be delivered
to the students of the
of
the United Free Church of Scotland.
XII. The Public shall be admitted to
the Lectures.
PREFACE
As
only a portion of the contents of this volume could
be
orally delivered, I have not thought it necessary to
adhere
to either the form or the title of "Lecture," but
(with
the consent of the Trustees) have assigned a separate
"Chapter"
to each principal topic dealt with. The
method
adopted in this exposition of the Epistle—that,
namely,
of grouping together the passages bearing upon a
common
theme—will be found, I trust, to have advantages
which
compensate in some measure for its disadvantages.
That
it has disadvantages, as compared with a continuous
exposition,
I am well aware. These, however, I have
endeavoured
to minimise, by supplying in the first chapter
a
specially full analysis of the Epistle, by careful indexing,
and
by making liberal use of cross-references. For the
convenience
of the reader, I have set down in the footnotes
such
exegetical details as seemed most necessary to
explain
or to establish the interpretation adopted; but
where
these involved lengthy or intricate discussion, they,
along
with all minuter points of exegesis, have been
relegated
to the Notes at the end of the volume. In these
Notes
the text of the Epistle is continuously followed.
The points of textual difference
between the various
critical
editions of the Epistle are comparatively unimportant,
ix
x Preface
and
I have seldom found it necessary to refer to them.
The
text used is that of Tischendorf's Eighth Edition; but
in
one passage (518) I have preferred the reading indicated
in
our Authorised Version and in the Revisers' margin.
Among the commentators to whom I
have, of course,
been
indebted, I mention Westcott first of all. Owing,
perhaps,
to natural pugnacity, one more readily quotes a
writer
to express dissent than to indicate agreement; but,
though
I find that the majority of my references to
"Westcott"
are in the nature of criticism, I would not be
thought
guilty of depreciating that great commentary.
With
all its often provoking characteristics, it is still, as
a
magazine of materials for the student of the Epistle,
without
a rival. Huther's and Plummer's commentaries I
have
found specially serviceable; but the most original,
beautiful,
and profound is Rothe's, of which, it is somewhat
surprising
to find, no full translation has yet appeared.
I
desire, besides, to acknowledge obligation to J. M. Gibbon's
Eternal Life, a remarkably fine
popular exposition of the
Epistle;
and to Professor E. F. Scott's Fourth
Gospel, for
the
clear light which that able work throws upon not a
few
important points as well as for much provocative
stimulus.
But there is no book (except Bruder's
ance) to which I have been
more indebted than to
Moulton's
Grammar of New Testament Greek, the
next
volume
of which is impatiently awaited.
Professor H. R. Mackintosh, D.D., of
New College,
and
the Rev. Thomas S. Dickson, M.A.,
placed
me under deep obligation by exceptionally generous
and
valuable help in proof-reading. Mr. David Duff, B.D.,
not
only has rendered equal service in this respect, but has
Preface xi
subjected
the book, even in its preparatory stages, to a
rigorous
but always helpful criticism—a labour of friendship
for
which I find it difficult to express in adequate terms
the
gratitude that I owe and feel. Finally, I am grateful,
by
anticipation, to every reader who will make generous
allowance
for the fact, that the preparation of this volume
has
been carried through amid the incessant demands of
a
busy city pastorate, and who will attribute to this cause
some
of the defects which he will, no doubt, discover in it.
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
II.
THE POLEMICAL AIM 25
III.
THE WRITER 39
IV.
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AS LIFE AND LIGHT . 52
V.
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AS RIGHTEOUSNESS
AND LOVE 67
Excursus on the Correlation of
Righteousness and Love 80
VI.
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST 89
VII.
THE WITNESSES TO THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST
(with appended
Note on xri?sma) 108
VIII.
THE DOCTRINE OF SIN AND THE WORLD 128
IX.
THE DOCTRINE OF PROPITIATION 156
X.
ETERNAL LIFE 184
XI.
THE TEST QF RIGHTEOUSNESS 208
XII.
THE TEST OF LOVE 231
XIII.
THE TEST OF BELIEF (with appended Note
on pisteu<ein) 258
XIV.
THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE 279
XV.
THE GROWTH OF CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE 306
XVI.
ESCHATOLOGY (with appended Note on
Antichrist) 315
XVII.
THE RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE
FOURTH GOSPEL 339
NOTES 368
INDEXES 415
xiii
ABBREVIATIONS
The
following works are referred to as follows, other titles being
cited
in full:
ABBOTT
Johannine Vocabulary (A. & C. Black,
1905), and Johannine
Grammar (A. & C. Black, 1906).
BEYSCHLAG Neutestamentliche
Theologie. Zweite Auflage.
CANDLISH The First Epistle of
DB A Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. by Dr.
Hastings. T. & T.
EBRARD Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of
GIBBON Eternal Life. By the Rev. J. M. Gibbon.
GRILL Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evan-
geliums. J. C. B. Mohr, 1902.
HAUPT The First Epistle of
Library, 1879.
HOLTZMANN Hand-Commentr.
zum Neuen Testament. Vierter Band.
HARING Theologische Ablzandlungen zum Carl von Weizsacker
gewidmet.
HUTHER Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles of
James and John T. & T. Clark, 1882.
JPT Jahrbucher fur protestantische Theologie.
LUCKE Commentary on the Epistles of
1837.
MAURICE The Epistles of
MOULTON Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. i. T. & T.
PFLEIDERER Das
Urhristentnm. Zweite Auflage.
PLUMMER The Epistles of S. John. In the
ment for Schools and Colleges.
ROTHE Der erste Brief Johannes.
SCOTT The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and Theology. T. & T.
STEVENS The Johannine Theology. Scribner's Sons, 1904.
WEISS Die drei Briefe des Apostel Johannis. Von Dr. Bernhard
Weiss.
WEIZSACKER The
Apostolic Age of the Christian Church. Second edition,
Williams & Norgate, 1897.
WESTCOTT The Epistles of
1892.
THE
FIRST EPISTLE OF
CHAPTER
I.
STYLE AND
STRUCTURE.
ON
a first perusal of the Epistle, the effect of which one can
at
least try to imagine, the appreciative reader could not
fail
to receive a deep impression of the strength and direct-
ness
of the writer's spiritual intuition, and to be charmed
by
the clear-cut gnomic terseness of many of his sayings;
but
not less, perhaps, would he be impressed by what
might
seem to him the marks of mental limitation and
literary
resourcelessness,—the paucity of ideas, the poverty
of
vocabulary, the reiteration, excessive for so brief a com-
position,
of the same thoughts in nearly the same language,
the
absence of logical concatenation or of order in the pro-
gress
of thought. The impression might be, indeed, that
there
is no such progress, but that the thought, after sundry
gyrations,
returns ever to the same point. As one reads
the
Epistle to the Romans, it seems as if to change the
position
of a single paragraph would be as impossible as to
lift
a stone out of a piece of solid masonry and build it
in
elsewhere; here it seems as if, while the things said are
of
supreme importance, the order in which they are said
matters
nothing. This estimate of the Epistle has been
2 The
First Epistle of
endorsed
by those who are presumed to speak with
authority.
Its method has been deemed purely aphoristic;
as
if the aged apostle, pen in hand, had merely rambled on
along
an undefined path, bestrewing it at every step with
priceless
gems, the crystallizations of a whole lifetime of
deep
and loving meditation. The "infirmity of old age"
(S.
G. Lange) is detected in it; a certain "indefiniteness,"
a
lack of "logical force," a "tone of childlike feebleness"
(Baur);
an "absolute indifference to a strictly logical and
harmoniously
ascending development of ideas" (Julicher).
It
is perhaps venturesome, therefore, to express the opinion
that
the more closely one studies the Epistle the more one
discovers
it to be, in its own unique way, one of the most
closely
articulated pieces of writing in the New Testament;
and
that the style, simple and unpremeditated as it is, is
singularly
artistic.
The almost unvarying simplicity1
of syntactical struc-
ture,
the absence of connecting, notably of illative, particles,2
and,
in short, the generally Hebraic type of composition
have
been frequently remarked upon; yet I am not sure
that
the closeness with which the style has been moulded
upon
the Hebraic model, especially upon the parallelistic
forms
of the Wisdom Literature, has been sufficiently
recognised.
One has only to read the Epistle with an
attentive
ear to perceive that, though using another lan-
guage,
the writer had in his own ear, all the time, the
swing
and the cadences of Old Testament verse. With
the
exception of the Prologue and a few other periodic
passages,
the majority of sentences divide naturally into
two
or three or four sti<xoi.
Two-membered sentences are common,
both synthetic
and
antithetic, which are strongly reminiscent of the
1 The writer's efforts in
more complex constructions are not felicitous. Cf.
e.g.
227 59.
2 de< occurs with only
one-third of its usual frequency; me<n, te, ou#n, do not
occur
at all; ga<r, only thrice.
Style and Structure 3
Hebrew
distich. Examples of the synthetic
variety are:
"He that loveth his brother
abideth in the light,
And there is none occasion of
stumbling in him'' (210);
or,
"Hereby know we love, because He
laid down His life for us:
And we ought to lay down our lives
for the brethren" (316).
Of
the antithetic, one may quote:
“And the world passeth away, and the
lust thereof:
But he that docth the will of God
abideth for ever” (217);
or
"Whosoever abideth in Him
sinneth not:
Whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him,
neither known Him" (36).
Commoner still are sentences of three
members, which,
in
the same way, may be called tristichs; as:
"That which we have seen and
heard declare we unto you also,
That ye also may have fellowship
with us:
Yea, and our fellowship is with the
Father, and with His Son Jesus
Christ" (13);
or,
"Beloved, no new commandment
write I unto you,
But an old commandment which ye had
from the beginning:
The old commandment is the word
which ye heard" (27).
Resemblances
to the tetrastich also are found:
"For whatsoever is begotten of
God overcometh the world:
And this is the victory that
overcometh the world, even our faith.
Who is he that overcometh the world,
But he that believeth that Jesus is
the Son of God" (54-5);
or
"Little children, it is the
last hour:
And as ye heard that Antichrist
cometh,
Even now have arisen many
Antichrists ;
Whereby we know that it is the last
hour" (218).1
The Epistle presents examples, also,
of more elaborate
combinations:
as in 16-22 where
the alternating verses
1 An instance of
"introverted" parallelism, in which the first and fourth
lines,
and the second and third, answer to each other.
4 The First Epistle of
6.
8. 10
and 7. 9 21 are
exquisitely balanced both in thought
and
expression1; and in 2 12-14, where we have a double
parallel
tristich:
"I write . . . I write ... I
write:
I have written ... I have written .
. . I have written."
The author's literary art achieves
its finest effects
in
such passages as 2 7-11 and 2 15-17 (where one could
fancy
that he has unconsciously dropped into a strophic
arrangement
of lines), and in the closing verses of
the
Epistle (5 18-21) consisting of alternating tristichs
and
distichs:
"We know that every one that is
begotten of God sinneth not;
But he that was begotten of God
keepeth himself,
And the Wicked One toucheth him not.
We know that we are of
God,
And the whole world
lieth in the Wicked One.
We know that the Son of God is come,
And hath given us an understanding
to know the True One,
And we are in the True One, in His
Son Jesus Christ.
This is the True God,
and Life Eternal;
Little children, guard
yourselves from idols."2
It is not suggested that there is in
the Epistle a
conscious
imitation of Hebraic forms; but it is evident, I
think,
that no one could have written as our author does
whose
whole style of thought and expression had not been
unconsciously
formed upon Old Testament models.
1 The structure is broken
by the interjected address, "My little children,
these
things write I unto you that ye sin not." This being removed, the con-
tinuation
of the parallelism is clear.
2 In the Expository Times (June November 1897)
there is an interesting series
of
articles by Professor Briggs on the presence of Hebrew poetical forms in
the
N.T. He does not touch on the Johannine writings; but his method, if
applied
to the Epistle, would yield results beyond what I have ventured to
suggest.
Style and Structure 5
But we pass to the more important
topic, the structure
of
the Epistle. As has been already said, the impression
left
upon some, who cannot be supposed to have been
cursory
readers, is that the Epistle has no logical struc-
ture,
exhibits no ordered progression of thought. And this
estimate
has a measure of support in the fact that there is
no
portion of Scripture regarding the plan of which there
has
been greater diversity of opinion. It is nevertheless
erroneous.
The word that, to my mind, might
best describe St.
John's
mode of thinking and writing in this Epistle is
"spiral."
The course of thought does not move from point
to
point in a straight line. It is like a winding staircase--
always
revolving around the same centre, always recurring
to
the same topics, but at a higher level. Or, to borrow
a
term from music, one might describe the method as
contrapuntal.
The Epistle works with a comparatively
small
number1 of themes, which are introduced many times,
and
are brought into every possible relation to one another.
As
some master-builder of music takes two or three
melodious
phrases and, introducing them in due order,
repeating
them, inverting them, skilfully interlacing them
in
diverse modes and keys, rears up from them an edifice
of
stately harmonies; so the Apostle weaves together a
few
leading ideas into a majestic fugue in which unity of
material
and variety of tone and effect are wonderfully
blended.
And the clue to the structure of the Epistle will
be
found by tracing the introduction and reappearances of
these
leading themes.
These1 are Righteousness,
Love, and Belief. For
here
let me say at once that, in my view, the key to the
interpretation
of the Epistle is the fact that it is an
1 The following list
includes most, if not all, of the leading ideas found in the
Epistle—God,
True One, idols—rather, begotten of God, children of God,—Son
of
God, Word of Life, Christ come in the flesh, Jesus—Spirit, spirits—Anointing,
teaching,
witnessing—word, message, announcing--truth, lie, error—beholding,
6 The
First Epistle of
apparatus
of tests; that its definite object is
to furnish
its
readers with an adequate set of criteria by which
they
may satisfy themselves of their being "begotten of
God."
"These things write I unto you, that ye may
know
that ye have eternal life" (513) And throughout the
Epistle
these tests are definitely, inevitably, and in-
separably—doing
righteousness; loving one another; and
believing
that Jesus is the Christ, come in the flesh, sent
by
the Father to be the Saviour of the world. These
are
the connecting themes that bind together the whole
structure
of the Epistle. After the prologue, in fact, it
consists
of a threefold repetition and application of these
three
fundamental tests of the Christian life. In proof of
this
statement let us, in the first instance, examine those
sections
of the Epistle in which the sequence of thought
is
most clearly exhibited. The first of these is 23-28,
which
divides itself naturally into three paragraphs, (A)
23-6(B)
27-17 (C) 218-28.
Here A (23-6) obviously
consists of a threefold state-
ment,
with significant variations, of the single idea, that
righteousness
("keeping His commandments," "keeping
His
word," "walking, even as He walked") is the indis-
pensable
test of "knowing God" and "abiding in Him."
In
B (27-17) the current of thought is interrupted by the
parenthetical
passage, 212-14; but, this being omitted, it
is
apparent that here, also, we have a paragraph formed
upon
one principal idea--Love the test of the Christian
Life,
the test being applied positively in 27-11 (the
"new
commandment"), and negatively in 215-17 ("Love
not
the world"). In C (213-25), again, the unity is obvious.
believing,
knowing, confessing, denying—brotherhood, fellowship—righteousness,
commandment,
word of God, will of God, things that are pleasing in His sight--
sin,
lawlessness, unrighteousness—world, flesh, Antichrist, Devil—blood, water,
propitiation,
Paraclete, forgiveness, cleansing—abiding, passing away—Begin-
ning,
last hour—parousia, Day of Judgment, manifestation, hope—boldness,
fear—asking,
receiving—overcoming.
Style and Structure 7
The
theme of the paragraph is—the Christian life tested
by
Belief of the truth, of which the Anointing Spirit is the
supreme
Witness and Teacher, that Jesus is the Christ and
the
Son of God.
If, next, we examine the part of the
Epistle that extends
from
229—46, we find precisely the same topics recurring in
precisely the same order. We have again three
paragraphs
(A)
229-310a, (B) 310b-24a and (C) 324b-46.
And, again, it is
evident
that in A we have the test of Righteousness, in
B
the test of Love, and in C the test of Belief.
In the third great section of the Epistle
(47-521)
though
the sequence of thought is somewhat different,
the
thought-material is identical; and for the present it is
sufficient
to point out that the leading themes, the tests
of
Love (47-12 and 416b-21), Belief (413-16a and
55-12), and
Righteousness
(518, 19) are all present, and that they alone
are
present.
We seem, then, to have found a
natural division of the
Epistle
into three main sections, or, as they might be most
descriptively
called, "cycles," in each of which the same
fundamental
thoughts appear, in each of which the reader
is
summoned to bring his Christian life to the test of
Righteousness,
of Love, and of Belief. With this as a
working
hypothesis, I shall now endeavour to give an
analysis
of the contents of the Epistle.
Passing by the Prologue (11-4),
we have the
FIRST CYCLE,
15-228
Walking in the Light tested by
Righteousness, Love,
and Belief
It begins with the announcement,
which is the basis of
the
whole section, that "God is Light, and in Him is no
darkness
at all" (15). And, since what God is determines
8 The
First Epistle of
the
condition of fellowship with Him, this is set forth: first,
negatively
(16)—"If we say that we have fellowship with
Him
and walk in darkness"; then positively (17)—"If we
walk
in the Light as He is in the Light." What, then, is
it
to walk in the Light, and what to walk in darkness?
The
answer to these questions is given in all that follows,
down
to 228.
PARAGRAPH A, (1)
18-26
Walking in the Light
tested by Righteousness: first, in
confession
of sin (13—22); secondly, in actual obedience
(23-6).
The first fact upon which the Light
of God impinges
in
human life is Sin; and the first test of walking in the
Light
is sincere recognition of the true nature, the guilti-
ness,
of Sin (1 8.9). Again, this test is applied negatively--
“If
we say that we have no sin,” and positively—"If we
confess
our sins."
But, in the Light of God, not only
is Sin, wherever
present,
recognised in its true character as guilt; it is
revealed
as universally present. Whence arises a second
test
of walking in the Light—"If we say that we, have not
sinned,
we make Him a liar," etc.
What follows is very significant.
Obviously the
writer
had intended to continue—"If we confess that we
have
sinned, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus
Christ
the Righteous" (thus carrying forward the parallel
series
of antitheses: 16.8. 10 = walking in darkness, 17. 9
1 In order to avoid
complexities in our preliminary survey, 23 was taken as
the
starting-point, the structure being more clearly marked from that point
onward.
But this first Cycle really includes the whole from 15. The verses
(18-22)
which deal with the confession and removal of sin and those (23-6)
which
deal with conduct, are both included in the ethical guarantee of the
Christian
Life. That recognition of sin in the Light of God and that renunciation
of
it which are involved in its sincere confession are inseparable in experience
from
the "keeping of God's commandments" and "walking as Christ
walked,"—
are
the back and the front, so to say, of the same moral attitude toward life.
Style and Structure 9
and
what would have been 111 = walking in the light). But
before
he writes this, his pen is arrested by the sudden fear
that
some might be so infatuated as to wrest these broad
evangelical
statements into a pretext for moral laxity. He
therefore
interposes the earnest caveat, "My little children,
these
things write I unto you, that ye sin not"; then
carries
forward the train of thought in slightly different
forms,
"And if any man sin," etc. (21. 2).
But if confession of sin is the test
of walking in the
Light,
confession itself is to be tested by its fruits in new
obedience.
If impenitence, the "lie" of the conscience (18),
renders
fellowship with God impossible, no less does dis-
obedience,
the "lie" of the life (24). This is the purport
of
the verses that follow (23-6). Christian profession is to
be
submitted to the test of Christian conduct; of which a
threefold
description is given—"keeping God's command-
ments"
(23); "keeping His word" (25); and
"walking even
as
He (Christ) walked" (26). With this the first application
of
the test of Righteousness is completed.
PARAGRAPH B, 27-17.
Walking in the Light tested by Love.
(A) Positively—the old-new
commandment (27-11).
This is linked on to the immediately
preceding verses
by
the word "commandment." Love is the commandment
which
is "old," familiar to the Apostle's readers from their
first
acquaintance with the rudiments of Christianity (27);
but
also "new," a commandment which is ever fresh and
living
to those who have fellowship with Christ in the True
Light,
which is now shining forth (28). But from this
follows
necessarily, that "He that saith he is in the light, and
hateth
his brother, is in darkness." The antithesis of 28.9
is
then repeated, with variation and enrichment of thought,
10 The First Epistle of
in
210.11 (Then follow the parenthetical verses 12-14, the
motive
for the insertion of which will be discussed else-
where.1
These being treated as a parenthesis, the unity of
the
paragraph at once becomes apparent.)
(B) Negatively. The commandment to
love is com-
pleted
by the great "Love not" (215-17) If walking in the
light
has its guarantee in loving one's "brother," it is tested
no
less by not loving the "world." One cannot at the
same
time participate in the life of God and in a moral life
which
is dominated by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the
eyes,
and the vainglory of the world.
PARAGRAPH C, 218-28
Walking in the Light tested by
Belief.
The Light of God not only reveals
Sin and Righteous-
ness,
the children of God (our "brother") and the "world"
in
their true character, so that, walking in that Light, men
must
confess Sin and follow after Righteousness, love their
"brother"
and not love the "world"; it also reveals Jesus in
His
true character as the Christ, the Incarnate Son of God.
And
all that calls itself Christianity is to be tested by its
reception
or its rejection of that truth. In this paragraph,
it
is true, the Light and the Darkness are not expressly
referred
to. But the continuity of thought with the preced-
ing
paragraphs is unmistakable. Throughout the whole of
this
first division of the Epistle the point of view is that of
Fellowship
with God, through receiving and walking in the
Light
which His self-revelation sheds upon all things in
the
spiritual realm. Unreal Christianity in every form is
comprehensively
a "lie." It may be the Antinomian lie of
him
who says "he has no sin" (18), and, on the other hand,
is
indifferent to keeping God's commandments (24); the
lie
of lovelessness (29); or the lie of the Antichrist who,
1 See Chapter XV.
Style and Structure 11
claiming
spiritual enlightenment, denies that Jesus is the
Christ
(222). Every one who does this asserts what is
untrue
and impossible, if he say or suppose that, while
thus
walking in darkness, he has fellowship with God, who
is
Light. Minuter analysis of this paragraph is, for our
present
purpose, unnecessary.
SECOND CYCLE, 229-46.
Divine Sonship tested by Righteousness, Love,
and Belief.
The first main division of the
Epistle began with the
assertion
of what God is relatively to us--Light; and from
this
it deduced the condition of our fellowship with Him.
The
light of God's self-revelation in Christ becomes to us
the
light in which we behold ourselves, our sin, our duty,
our
brother, the world, the reality of the Incarnation; and
only
in acknowledging the "truth" thus revealed and
loyally
acting it out can we have fellowship with God.
The
point of view is ethical and psychological. This
second
division, on the other hand, begins with the asser-
tion
of what the Divine nature is in itself, and thence
deduces
the essential characteristics of those who are
"begotten
of God." Righteousness, Love, Confession of
Christ
arc the proofs, because the results, of participation
in
the Divine nature; Sin, Hate, Denial of Christ, the proofs
of
non-participation. The point of view is, predominantly,
biological.
The key-word is "begotten of God."
PARAGRAPH A, 229-310a
Divine Sonship tested by Righteousness.
Here (229) the idea of
the Divine Begetting is intro-
duced
for the first time. And, as the first test applied to
Fellowship
in the Light was the attitude toward Sin and
12 The First Epistle of
Righteousness,
so, likewise, it is the first applied to the life
of
Divine sonship. As the Light convicts of sin and at the
same
time reveals both the content and the absolute
imperative
of Righteousness, so the Divine Life begotten in
man
has a twofold action.1 The identity of the human
will
with the Divine, which is the necessary result of the
community
of nature, reveals itself both in "doing right-
eousness"
and in entire antagonism to sin. "If ye know
that
He is righteous, know that every one also that doeth
righteousness
is begotten of Him." But here the writer is
immediately
arrested by the wonder and thanksgiving that
fill
and overflow his soul at the thought that sinful men
should
be brought into such a relation as this to God.
"Behold
what manner of love!" (31a). This leads him
further
to contemplate, first, the present concealment of the
glory
of the children of God (31b); then, the splendour of
its
future manifestation (32); and, finally, the thought that
the
fulfilment of this hope is necessarily conditioned by
present
endeavour after moral likeness to Christ leads back
to
the main theme of the paragraph, that the life of Divine
sonship
is, by necessity of nature, one of absolute Right-
eousness,
of truceless opposition to sin (34-10a) This is
now
exhibited in a fourfold light: (1) in the light of what
sin
is, lawlessness (34); (2) in the light of Christ—the
purpose
of all that is revealed in Christ is the removal and
abolition
of sin (35-7); (3) in the light of the Divine
origin
of the Christian life—only that which is sinless can
derive
from God (39. 10a); (4) intertwined with these
cardinal
arguments there is a fourth, that all that is of the
nature
of sin comes from a source which is the antithesis
of
the Divine, and which is in active hostility to the work
of
Christ—the Devil (38-10a) The last clause of the para-
graph
reverts to and logically completes the proposition
with
which it began. To the positive, "Every one that
1 The parallelism is
strikingly close. Cf. 33 with 26, 36a with 25b,
36b with 24.
Style and Structure 13
doeth
righteousness is begotten of God " (220), is added the
negative,"
Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of
God"
(310b). The circle is
completely drawn. The
"begotten
of God" include all who “do righteousness”;
all
who do not are excluded.
PARAGRAPH B, 310b-24a
Divine
Sonship tested by Love.
In structure, this paragraph is less
regular; its contents
are
not so closely knit to the leading thought. But what
this
leading thought is, is clearly fixed at the beginning:
"He
that loveth not his brother is not begotten of God"
(310b).
That brotherly love is the test of Divine sonship is
the
truth that dominates the whole. Instead, however, of
developing
this thought dialectically, the Apostle does so,
in
the first instance, pictorially; setting before us two
figures,
Cain and Christ, as the prototypes of Hate and
Love.
The contemplation of Cain and of the disposition
out
of which the first murder sprang (312), suggests paren-
thetically
an explanation of the World's hatred of the
children
of God (313); but, chiefly, the truth that in loving
our
brethren we have a reliable guarantee that we have
passed
from death unto life (314); while, on the other hand,
whosoever
hateth his brother is potentially a murderer and
assuredly
cannot have the Life of God abiding in him (315).
Next,
in glorious contrast to the sinister figure of Cain, who
sacrificed
his brother's life to his morbid self-love, the
Apostle
sets before us the figure of Christ who sacrificed
His
own life in love to us, His brethren (316a); and draws
the
inevitable inference that our life, if one with His, must
obey
the same spiritual law (316b).
In 317 this test is
brought
within the scope of everyday opportunity; and is
followed
(318) by a fervent exhortation to love "not in
14 The First Epistle of
word,
neither with the tongue, but in deed and in truth."
This
introduces a restatement of the purport of the whole
paragraph—that
such Love is the test of all Divine sonship,
and
affords a valid and accessible ground of assurance
before
God, even should our own hearts condemn us
(319.
20). In the remainder of the paragraph the subject of
assurance
and its relation to prayer is further dwelt upon
(321.22).
And, finally, in setting forth the grounds upon
which
such assurance rests, the Apostle combines all the
three
cardinal tests—Righteousness ("keeping His com-
mandments,"
322), Belief ("in the name of His Son Jesus
Christ,"
323a), and Love (323b). All these are, in fact,
"commandments,"
and he that keepeth them abideth in
God,
and God in him (321a).
PARAGRAPH C, 324b-46
Divine Sonship tested by
Belief.
Here, again, the test to be applied
is broadly and
clearly
indicated at the outset. "Hereby know we that
He
abideth in us, by the Spirit1 which He hath given us."
As
in the corresponding paragraph 213-28, so here also the
argument
is conducted in view of the concrete historical
situation,
upon the consideration of which we do not now
enter.
The essence of the paragraph lies in 42. 3b and 6b:
"Hereby
know ye the Spirit of God. Every spirit that
confesseth
that Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh is of
God;
and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of
1 It is necessary to say
here, although a fuller discussion will be given later,
that,
in the Epistle, the Spirit is regarded solely as the Spirit of Truth, whose
function
is to testify of Christ, to reveal the Divine glory of His Person, to
inspire
belief in Him, and to prompt confession of Him as the Incarnate Son of
God.
The "knowing" by "the Spirit which God hath given us "is
not
immediate
but inferential. It does not proceed from any direct subjective
testimony
that "God abideth in us," but is an inference from the fact that God
hath
given us that Spirit without whom no man calleth Jesus Lord.
Style anal
Structure 15
God."
"By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit
of
error."
To recur to the general structure of
the Epistle, it may
be
noted that we have found the first and second "cycles"
corresponding
exactly in subject-matter and in order of
development.
In 15-26 and in 229-310a the Christian life
has
been tested by its attitude to Sin and Righteousness,
in
27-17 and in 310b-24a by Love, and in 218-28
and 324b-46 by
Belief.
THIRD CYCLE, 47-521
Inter-relations of Love, Belief, and
Righteousness.
In
this closing section the Epistle rises to its loftiest
heights;
but the logical analysis of it is the hardest part
of
our task. The subject-matter is identical with that
which
has been already twice used, not a single new idea
being
introduced except that of the "sin unto death." But
the
order and proportion of treatment are different; the
test
of Righteousness takes here a subordinate place (52.3
518);
and the whole "Cycle" may be broadly divided into
two
sections, the first, 47-53a, in which the dominant
theme
is Love (with, however, the Christological passage
413-15
embedded in it); the second, 53b-21, in which it is
Belief.
The same practical purpose is still steadfastly
adhered
to as in the preceding "Cycles"—the application
of
the three great tests to everything that calls itself
Christian.
But here an additional aim is, I think, partly
discernible,
namely, to bring out the necessary connections
and
inter-relations of Righteousness, Love, and Belief.
Hitherto
the writer has been content to exhibit these
simply
as collateral elements in the Christian life, each
and
all indispensable to its genuineness. He has made
no
serious effort to show why these three elements must
coalesce
in the unity of life,—why the Life of which one
16 The First Epistle of
manifestation
is Belief in the Incarnation must also manifest
itself
in keeping God's commandments and loving one
another.
Here, however, as he traverses the same ground
for
the third time, he does seem to be feeling after a closer
articulation.
Thus in 49-16 the inner connection between
Belief
and Love is strongly suggested; in 52.3a we find
the
synthesis of Love and Righteousness; and in 53b-5,
the
synthesis of Righteousness and Belief. Without
asserting
that the writer's conscious purpose in this third
handling
of his material was to exhibit these interdepen-
dencies,
it may be said that in this consists its distinctive
feature.
LOVE.
PARAGRAPH A, 47-13
The genesis of
Love.
Christian Love is deduced from its
Divine source.
Regarding
Love, the same declaration, precisely and
verbally,
is now made as was formerly made regarding
Righteousness
(229). "God is Love"; and every one that
loveth
is begotten of God (47 and, negatively, 48). But
here,
feeling his way to a correlation of Love and Belief,
of
Christ alone is the perfect revelation of the fact that the
nature
of God is Love (49); nay, that it furnishes the one
absolute
revelation of the nature of Love itself (410).
From
this follows the inevitable consequence, "If God so
loved
us, we ought also to love one another" (411); and
the
assurance that, if we love one another, the invisible God
abideth
in us; His nature is incorporate with ours; His
Love
is fulfilled in us (412).
Style and Structure 17
PARAGRAPH B, 410-16
The synthesis of Love and
Belief.
As in 220-28 and 324b-46,
the gift of the Spirit, by whom
confession
is made of Jesus as the Son of God, is cited
as
proof that God abideth in us and we in Him (413-15),
and
seems to be merely collateral with the proof
already
adduced from "loving one another" (412). But it
becomes
evident, on closer examination, that the two
paragraphs
(47-12 and 413-16) stand in some more intimate
relation
than this. We observe the parallel statements,
"If
we love one another, God abideth in us" (412); then,
"Whosoever
shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God,
God
abideth in him and he in God" (415); then a second
time,
"He that abideth in love abideth in God, and God
in
him" (416). We observe, further, that the confession of
Jesus
as the Son of God (416) is paralleled by the statement
that
"the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the
world"
(414), which points back to that revelation of God
as
Love (49. 10) in which the moral obligation and spiritual
necessity
of loving one another have been already disclosed
(411).
And we observe, finally, that the confession of
Jesus
as the Son of God, sent by the Father to be the
Saviour
of the world (414. 15), is personally appropriated
in
this, "We know and have believed the Love which God
hath
toward us," followed by the reiterated "God is Love;
and
he that abideth in Love abideth in God, and God in
him"
(416). Thus closely observing the structure of the
passage,
we cannot doubt that the writer is labouring to
express
the truth that Christian Belief and Christian Love
are
not merely concomitant, but vitally one. Yet, what
the
interrelation of the two is in the Apostle's mind;
which,
if either, is anterior and instrumental to the
other;
whether we are begotten through the medium of
spiritual
perception into love, or through the medium of
18 The First Epistle of
love
into spiritual perception, it would be hazardous
to
say.
PARAGRAPH C, 417-53a
The effects, motives, and manifestations
of Love.
1. The effect of Love is assurance
toward God (417. 18).
It
is a notable example of the symmetry with which the
Epistle
is constructed that the sequence of thought here is
minutely
the same as in 319. 20. Here, as there, Love has,
as
its immediate result, confidence toward God; and
with
precisely the same condition, that Love be in "deed
and
in truth" (cf. 318. 19 with 420)
2. The motives to brotherly Love:
These are God's
love
to us (419), the only possible response to which is
to
love one's brother (420); the express commandment of
Christ
(421); and the instincts of spiritual kinship (51).1
3.
The synthesis of Love and Righteousness.
This is exhibited in a two-fold
light. True love to
man
is righteous, and is possible only to those who love
God
and keep His commandments (52). True love to ,God
consists
in keeping His commandments (53a).
SECTION II. 53b-21
BELIEF.
PARAGRAPH A, 53b-12
The power, contents,
basis, and issue of Christian Belief
It may seem sufficiently arbitrary
to make the clause
"And
His commandments are not grievous" the point of
1 Throughout this portion
of the Epistle, each thought is so closely inter-
locked,
as well with what precedes as with what follows, that it is impossible to
divide
it at any point which shall not seem more or less arbitrary. I have made
52
the beginning of a subsection; but obviously it is also the requisite com-
plement
to 51. There, loving "him that is begotten" is the sign
and test of loving
"Him
that begat"; here, conversely, loving God and "keeping His command-
ments"
is the sign and test of “loving the children of God.”
Style and Structure 19
departure
for a new paragraph. But so closely is the
texture
of thought woven in these verses, that the same
objection
would apply equally to any other line of division.
There
is, however, an obvious transition in 53-5 from the
topic
of Love to that of Belief; and it seems most suitable
to
regard the transition as effected at this point, "This is
the
Love of God, that we keep His commandments," is
be
said has as its subject, more or less directly, Belief.
And,
while the clause "and His commandments are not
grievous"
is intimately linked on to the first half of the verse
by
the common topic "commandments," it introduces an
entirely
new train of thought.
1. The synthesis of Belief and
Righteousness (53b. 4)
God's
commandments are not burdensome to the believer.
That
which would make them burdensome, the power of
the
world, is overcome by the victorious divine power
given
to every one who is "begotten of God"; and the
medium
through which the victorious power is imparted is
our
Christian Belief,
2. The substance of Christian Belief
is that "Jesus is
the
Son of God, even He that came by water and by
blood” (55. 6)
3. Next, the basis on which it rests
is: the witness of
the
Spirit (57); the coincident witness of the Spirit, the
water
and the blood (58); which is the witness of God
Himself
(59); and which, when received, becomes an
inward
and immediate assurance, a self-evidencing certitude
(510a).
On the other hand, to reject this witness is to
make
God a liar (510b)
4. The issue of Christian Belief.
The witness of God
to
His Son Jesus Christ is fundamentally this, that He is
the
source of paternal Life to men (517). This Life is
the
present possession of all who spiritually possess Him
and
to be without Him is to be destitute of it (512).
20 The First Epistle of
The end of the paragraph thus
answers sublimely to
its
beginning. That which has eternal life in it (512) must
conquer,
and alone can conquer, the world, whose life is
bound
up with transitory aims and objects. Because it
makes
the truth that "he that doeth the will of God abideth
for
ever" a living power, faith wins its everlasting victory
over
the world which "passeth away with the lust thereof."
PARAGRAPH B, 513-21
The conscious certainties of
Christian Belief.
1. Its certainty of Eternal Life. To
promote this in
all
who believe in the name of the Son of God is the
Apostle's
purpose in writing this Epistle (513).
2. Its certainty regarding Prayer (514-17)
If we
ask
anything according to God's Will, He heareth us"
(514);
and, consequently, we have these things for which
we
have made petition (515). An example of the things
which
we may ask with assurance is "life" for a brother
who
sins "a sin not unto death" (516a); and an example of
the
things regarding which we may not pray with such
confidence
is the restoration of a brother who has com-
mitted
sin unto death (516b). To
this is appended a
statement
regarding the nature and effect of sin (517).
3. The certainty regarding the
regenerate Life, that
Righteousness
is its indefeasible characteristic, that it is a
life
of uncompromising antagonism to all sin (518).
4. The certainty as to the profound
moral contrast
between
the Christian life and the life of the world (519)
5. The certainty of Christian Belief
as to the facts
upon
which it rests, and the supernatural power which has
quickened
it to perception of those facts (520a)
Then with a final reiteration of the
whole purport of
the
Epistle, "This is the true God and Eternal Life" (520b),
and
an abrupt and sternly affectionate call to all believers
Style and Structure 21
to
beware of yielding the homage of their trust and depen-
dence
to the vain shadows which are ever apt to usurp the
place
of the True God, the Epistle ends, "Little children,
keep
yourselves from idols" (521).
SYNOPSIS.
THE PROLOGUE, 11-4.
FIRST CYCLE, 15-228
THE
CHRISTLAN LIFE, AS FELLOWHIP WITH GOD, CONDITIONED
AND TESTED BY WALKING IN THE
LIGHT.
15.
The fundamental announcement. "God is Light."
PARAGRAPH A, 16-26
16-7.
General statement of the condition of fellowship with God, Who
is Light.
18-26.
Walking- in the Light tested by the altitude to Sin and Righteous-
ness.
To walk in the Darkness. To walk in the Light.
a. To deny sin as guilt, 18. a. To confess sin as
guilt, 19.
b. To deny sin as fact, 110. b. To confess sin as
fact, 21,2.
g. To say that we know God and not g. To keep His
commandments, 23.
keep His commandments, 24. d. To keep His word, 25.
d. Not to walk as Christ walked, 26. e. To walk as Christ
walled. 26.
PARAGRAPH
B, 27-17.
Walking in the Lid ht tested by
Love.
(a) By love of one's brother (vv. 7-11)
[Parenthetic address to the readers (vv.12-14).]
(b) By not loving the World
PARAGRAPH C,
218-28
Walking in the Light tested be
Belief
218.
Rise of the antichrists.
219.
Their relation to the Church.
220.21.
The source and guarantee of the true Belief.
222.23.
The crucial test of Truth and Error.
224.
25. Exhortation to steadfastness.
223-27.
Reiterated statement of the source and guarantee of the true
Belief.
228.
Repeated exhortation to steadfastness.
22 The First Epistle of
SECOND CYCLE, 229-46
THE
CHRISTIAN LIFE, AS THAT OF DIVINE SONSHIP, APPROVED
BY THE SAME
TESTS.
PARAGRAPH A, 229-310.
Divine Sonship tested by
Righteousness.
229.
This test inevitable.
31-3.
The present status and the future manifestation of the
children of God: the possession of
this hope conditioned
by assimilation to the purity of
Christ.
34-10a.
The absolute contrariety of the life of Divine Sonship to
all sin.
a. In the light of the moral authority of God (v.4).
b. In the light of Christ's character and of the
purpose of His
mission (vv.5-7 ).
g. In the light of the origin of Sin (v.8).
d. In the light of its own Divine source (v.9).
e. In the light of fundamental moral contrasts (v.10a)
PARAGRAPH B, 310b-24a
Divine Sonship tested by
Love.
310.
11 This test inevitable.
312. Cain
the prototype of Hate.
313. Cain's
spirit reproduced in the World.
314a.
Love, the sign of having passed from
Death unto Life.
314b.15 The absence of it, the sign of abiding in
Death.
316
Christ
the prototype of Love; the obligation thus laid
upon us.
317.18 Genuine
Love consists not in words but in deeds.
319-22.
The confidence toward God resulting from
such Love,
especially in Prayer.
323.24b Recapitulatory;
combining, under the category of His
"commandment," Love and also belief on His Son
Jesus Christ. Thus a transition is
effected to Paragraph C.
PARAGRAPH C, 324b-46.
Divine Sonship tested by Belief.
324b. This test inevitable.
41.
Exhortation in view of the actual
situation.
42.
The true Confession of Faith.
44-6.
The relation thereto of the Church and
the World.
Style and Structure 23
THIRD CYCLE, 47-521
CLOSER
CORRELATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, LOVE AND BELIEF
LOVE.
PARAGRAPH A, 47-12.
The genesis of
Love.
47.8.
Love indispensable, because God is
Love.
49.
The mission of Christ the proof that
God is Love.
410.
The mission of Christ the absolute
revelation of what Love is.
411.
The obligation thus imposed upon us.
412.
The assurance given in its
fulfilment.
PARAGRAPH 413-16
The
synthesis of Belief and Love.
413.
The True Belief indispensable as a
guarantee of Christian
Life, because the Spirit of God is its author.
414.15.
The content of the true Belief, "
Jesus is the Son of God."
416.
In this is found the vital ground of
Christian Love.
PARAGRAPH C, 415-53a
The effect, motives, and manifestations
of love.
417.18 The
effect, confidence toward God.
419-51.
The motives to Love: (1) God's love to us; (2) the only
possible response to which if to love our brother; (3)
Christ's commandment; (4) the instincts of spiritual
kinship.
52-3a. The synthesis of Love and Righteousness.
SECTION II. 53b-21.
BELIEF.
PARAGRAPH A, 53b-12.
The power, contents,
basis, and issue of Christian Belief.
53b.4
The synthesis of Belief and
Righteousness. In Belief lies the
power of obedience.
55.6.
The contents of Christian Belief.
57-10.
The evidence upon which it rests.
511.12.
Its issue, the possession of Eternal
Life.
24 The First Epistle of
PARAGRAPH B, 513-21
The certainties of
Christian Belief
513. Its
certainty of Eternal Life.
514.15. Of prevailing in Prayer.
516.
Instance in which such certainty
fails.
517. Appended
statement regarding Sin.
518. Of
Righteousness, as the essential characteristic of the
Christian Life.
519.
Of the moral gulf between the
Christian Life and the life
of the World.
520.
Of itself, the facts on which it
rests, and the supernatural
power which has given perception of these facts.
521.
Final exhortation.
Note.—After this chapter was
completely written, there came into my
hands
an article by Theodor Haring in the Theologisclze
Abhandlungen
Carl von Weizsizcker
gewidnzet
(
that
in this article, which is of great value, the analysis of the Epistle
is
on precisely the same lines as that which I have submitted. The
only
difference worth noting is that Haring, by combining Righteous-
ness
and Love, finds in each "cycle" only two leading tests, which
he
calls the "ethical" and the "Christological." This gives a
more
logical
division; but I am still of opinion that my own is more faithful
to
the thought of the Epistle, in which the comprehension of Right-
eousness
and Love under any such general conception as "ethical" is
not
achieved.
CHAPTER II.
THE POLEMICAL AIM OF THE EPISTLE.
ALTHOUGH
explicit controversial allusions in the Epistle
are
few, — are limited, indeed, to two passages (218. 19
41-6)
in which certain false teachers, designated as "anti-
christs,"
are unsparingly denounced,--there is no New
Testament
writing which is more vigorously polemical in
its
whole tone and aim. The truth, which in the same
writer's
Gospel shines as the dayspring from on high,
becomes
here a searchlight, flashed into a background of
darkness.
But, though the polemical intention
of the Epistle has
been
universally recognised, there has been wide diversity
of
opinion as to its actual object. By the older com-
mentators
generally, it was found in the perilous state of
the
Church, or Churches, addressed. They had left their
"first
love"; they had lapsed into Laodicean lukewarmness
and
worldliness, so that for them the sense of the absolute
distinction
between the Christian and the unchristian in
life
and belief had become blurred and feeble. And it
was
to arouse them from this lethargy—to sharpen the
dulness
of their spiritual perceptions — that the Epistle
was
written. But not only does the Epistle nowhere
give
any sign of such an intention; it contains many
passages
which are inconsistent with it (213. 14. 20. 21. 27
44
518-20)
Unmistakably its polemic is directed
not against such
evils
as may at any time, and more or less always do,
25
26
The First Epistle of S. John
beset
the life of the Church from within, but against a
definite
danger threatening it from without. There is a
"spirit
of error" (46) abroad in the world. From the Church
itself
(219) many false prophets (41) have gone forth, cor-
rupters
of the gospel, "antichrists" who would deceive the
very
elect. And, not to spend time in statement and
refutation
of other views, it may be asserted as beyond
question
that the peril against which the Epistle was
intended
to arm the Church was the spreading influence
of
Gnosticism, and, specifically, of a form of Gnosticism
that
was Docetic in doctrine and Antinomian in practice.
A
very brief sketch of the essential features of Gnosticism
will
suffice to show not only that these are clearly reflected
in
the more explicitly controversial utterances of the Epistle,
but
that the influence of an anti-Gnostic polemic is traceable
in
almost every sentence.
Of the forces with which
Christianity had to do battle
for
its career as the universal religion—Jewish legalism,
pagan
superstition, Greek speculation, Roman imperialism—
none,
perhaps, placed it in sharper hazard than Gnosticism,
that
strange, obscure movement, partly intellectual, partly
fanatical,
which, in the second century, spread with the
swiftness
of an epidemic over the Church from
dimmest
chapters in Church history; and no attempt need
be
or can be made here to elucidate its obscurities or
unravel
its intricacies. But one fact is clear, Gnosticism
was
not, in the proper sense, a "heresy." Although it
became
a corrupting influence within the Church, it was
an
alien by birth. While the Church yet sojourned within
the
pale of Judaism, it enjoyed immunity from this plague;
but,
soon as it broke through these narrow bounds, it found
itself
in a world where the decaying religions and philo-
sophies
of the West were in acute fermentation under the
influence
of a new and powerful leaven from the East; while
The Polemical Aim of the
Epistle 27
the
infusion of Christianity itself into this fermenting mass
only
added to the bewildering multiplicity of Gnostic sects
and
systems it brought forth.
That this was the true genesis of
Gnosticism,--that it
was
the result of an irruption of Oriental religious beliefs
into
the Graeco-Roman world,—and that, consequently, it
sought
to unite in itself two diverse strains,
lectualism
and Eastern mysticism, is generally admitted.
Different
views are held, however, as to which of these is
to
be regarded as the stock upon which the other was
grafted.
It has been the fashion with Church historians
of
the liberal school to glorify Gnosticism by giving chief
prominence
to its philosophical aspect. Oriental elements
it
admittedly contained, but these, in its most influential
representatives
at least, had been thoroughly permeated
with
the Hellenic spirit. In its historical result it was the
"acute
Hellenising" of Christianity. The great Gnostics
were
the first Christian philosophers; and Gnosticism is to
be
regarded as, upon the whole, a progressive force. More
recent
investigations and a more concrete study1 of the
subject
have tended to discredit this estimate. Naturally,
Gnosticism
had to make some kind of terms with Hellenic
culture,
as Christianity itself had to do, in order to win
a
footing on which it could appeal to those who sought
after
"wisdom"; but by much the prepotent strain in this
singular
hybrid was Oriental Dualism. Many of the
Gnostic
sects were characterised chiefly by a wild,
fanatical,
and sometimes obscene cultus; and even in
those
which, like the Valentinian, made the most am-
bitious
attempts to evolve a philosophy of the universe,
Dualism
was still the fundamental and formative principle.
It
is far truer to call Gnosticism a reactionary than
a
progressive force, and its most eminent leaders the
last
upholders of a lost cause, rather than the advance-
1 v. Bousset's Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, pp. 1-9.
28 The First Epistle of
guard
of intellectual progress.1 But Dualism no less than
Monotheism
or Pantheism has its philosophy, its reading
of
the riddle of existence; and it is clear that it was by
reason
of its speculative pretensions that Gnosticism
acquired
its influence in the Church. The name by
which
the system came to be designated, the Gnosis,
indicates
a claim to a higher esoteric knowledge2 of Divine
things,
and a tendency to reckon this the summit of
spritual
attainment; a claim and tendency which
as
early as his First Epistle to the Corinthians, finds occa-
sion
to meet with stern resistance (I Cor. I19-25 81 132),
as
engendering arrogance and unbrotherly contempt for
the
less enlightened (81. 7-11) This Epistle, it is true,
exhibits
no trace of anything that can be distinctively
called
Gnosticism; but it does reveal into how congenial
a
soil the seeds of Gnosticism were about to fall. In the
Epistle
to the Colossians we find that the sower has been at
work;
in the Pastoral and other later Epistles, that the
crop
is already ripening. The innate pride and selfishness
of
the system became more and more apparent as it
took
more definite form (I Tim. 63-5, 2 Tim. 32-5). Those
who
possessed the higher knowledge were distinguished
from
those who were incapable of its possession, as a
superior
order, almost a higher species, of believers. The
latter
were the unspiritual men, yuxikoi<, pneu?ma mh>
e@xontej.3
The
highest Christian attainment was that of intellectual
or
mystic contemplation. To "know the depths"4 was
esteemed
not only above the commonplace facts and
moralities
of the gospel, but above love, virtue, and practical
holiness.
When this, the general and most pronounced
1 Bousset, ibid. p. 7.
2 It is maintained,
however, by Bousset (p. 277) that the name Gnosis
primarily
signified, not so much a higher intellectual knowledge, as initiation
into
the secret and sacramental mysteries of the Gnostic sects.
3 Jude 19,
where the epithet is retorted upon those who used it.
4 Rev. 224.
Cf. Hippolytus, Ref. Haer. v. vi. i.
The Polemical Aim of the Epistle 29
feature
of Gnosticism, is borne in mind, a vivid light is at
once
shed upon many passages in the Epistle. In those,
especially,
in which we find the formula "he that saith"
(o[
le<gwn);
or an equivalent (e]a>n ei@pwmen, e]a<n tij ei@p^), it
becomes
apparent that it is no abstract contingency the
writer
has in view, but a definitely recognised case. Thus
in
24-6. 9 we have what may be supposed to be almost verbal
quotations
of current forms of Gnostic profession (he that
saith),
"I know Him,"1 "I abide in Him," "I am in
the
light";2
and in each case the claim, unsupported by its
requisite
moral guarantee, is underlined with the writer's
"roughest
and blackest pencil-mark" as the statement of
a
liar. When we observe, moreover, the prominence which
the
Epistle gives throughout to the idea of knowledge, and
the
special significance of several of the passages in which
it
occurs, the conviction grows that one of the purposes
chiefly
aimed at is not only to refute the arrogant claims
of
Gnosticism, but to exhibit Apostolic Christianity, be-
lieved
and lived, as the true Gnosis,—the Divine reality
of
which Gnosticism was but the fantastic caricature—the
truth
of experience to which it was the corresponding "lie"
(24.22
420). The confidence he has concerning those to
whom
he is writing is that they "know Him who is from
the
beginning," and that they "know the Father " (213).
The
final note of exulting assurance upon which the
Epistle
closes, is that "we know the True One, and we are
in
the True One" (520). This, the knowledge of the
ultimate
Reality, the Being who is the Eternal Life, is, for
Christian
and Gnostic alike, the goal of aspiration. But,
against
the Gnostic conception of this as to be attained
exclusively
by flights of intellectual speculation or mystic
contemplation,
the Apostle labours, with the whole force of
1 Cf. Clementine Recognitions, " Qui Deum
se nosse profitentur." Holtz-
mann,
J. P. T., 1882, p. 320.
2 To be of the "seed
of the light" appears to have been a popular form of
Gnostic
pretension. Holtzmann, ibid. p. 323.
30 The First Epistle of
his
spirit, to maintain that it is to be reached only by the
lowlier
path of obedience and brotherly love; and that by
these,
conversely, its reality must ever be attested. To
speak
of having the knowledge of God without keeping
His
commandments (24) is self-contradiction. If God is
righteous,
then nothing more certain than that "Every one
that
doeth righteousness is begotten of Him" (220), and
that
"Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God "
(310).
"Whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither
known
Him" (36).
Still more strenuously, if that were
possible, does the
Apostle
insist upon brotherly love as at once the condition
and
the test of the true knowledge of God. In Gnosticism
knowledge
was the sum of attainment, the crown of life,
the
supreme end in itself. The system was
loveless to
the
core.
81
132), and the contemporary witnesses bear testimony
that
it bore abundantly its natural fruit. "Lovers of self,
lovers
of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to
parents,
untruthful, unholy, without natural affection,
implacable,
slanderers" (2 Tim. 32.3), are the typical re-
presentatives
of the Gnostic character as it is portrayed
in
the later writings of the New Testament. "They give
no
heed to love," says Ignatius,1 "caring not for the
widow,
the orphan, or the afflicted, neither for those who
are
in bonds nor for those who are released from bonds,
neither
for the hungry nor the thirsty."
That a religion which destroyed and
banished love
should
call itself Christian, or claim affinity with Christi-
anity,
excites the Apostle's hottest indignation. To him it
is
the real atheism. Against it he lifts up his supreme
truth,
God is Love, with its immediate consequence, that
1 peri>
a]ga<phj ou] me<lei au]toi?j, ou] peri> xh<raj, ou] peri>
o]rfa<nou, ou] peri>
qlibome<nou, ou] peri>
dedeme<nou h} lelume<nou, ou] peri? peinw?ntoj h} diyw?ntoj. Ad
Smyrn. 6. 2.
The Polemical Aim of
the Epistle 31
to
be without love is the fatal incapacity for knowing God.
"Every
one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth
God"
(47); but, "He that loveth not knoweth not God: for
God
is Love" (48). Spiritual illumination, apart from
the
practice of love, is the vaunt of a self-deceiver (29).
The
assumption of a lofty, mystical piety, apart from
dutiful
conduct in the ordinary relations of life, is ruth-
lessly
dealt with. "If any man say, I Iove God" (we can
almost
hear the voice of the self-complacent "spiritual")
"and
hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth
not
his brother whom he bath seen, how can he love
God
whom he bath not seen?" All these and numerous
other passages (27. 8. 10. 11 310b.
11. 14. 17-19. 23b 411. 12. 17. 18.
19.
21 51b)
receive fresh point when read in view of the
unbrotherly
aloofness inherent in Gnosticism. And,
in
general, it may be said that the uniquely reiterated
emphasis
which the Epistle lays upon brotherly love, the
almost
fierce tone in which the New Commandment is
promulgated,
is not adequately accounted for by any
idiosyncrasy
of the writer, on the supposition that he is
writing
in the abstract, but becomes vividly intelligible as
the
expression of a truly godlike wrath against actual
tendencies
that were powerfully assailing the life and
fellowship
of the Church.
But if Gnosticism was distinguished
by this unethical
intellectualism,
its deeper characteristic lay in its dualistic
conception
of existence. Epiphanius tells us that Basilides
began
with the inquiry, po<qen to> kako<n (Haer. 24. 6);
Clement,
that he ended by “deifying the devil” (qeia<zwn
me>n to>n dia<bolon, Strom. iv. 12, 87). This may be
taken
as a compendious account of Dualism. It traces
back
into the eternal the schism of which we are
conscious
in the world of experience, and posits two
independent
and antagonistic principles of existence, from
which,
severally, come all the good and all the evil that exist.
32 The First Epistle of
It
is true that in those Gnostic systems which were most
strongly
touched by Hellenic influence, the fundamental
dualism
was disguised by complicated successions of
emanations
and hierarchies of moons and archons, bridging
the
gulf between absolute transcendent Deity and the
material
creation. These cosmogonies were broadly
analogous
to the materialistic theory of evolution; except
that,
while modern evolution is from matter upward to
“whatever
gods there be,” Gnostic evolution was from
divinity
downwards. Invariably, however, the source and
the
seat of evil were found in matter, in the body, with
its
senses and appetites, and in its sensuous earthly
environment;
and invariably it was held inconceivable
that
the Divine Nature should have immediate contact
with,
or influence upon, the material side of existence.
To such a view of the universe
Christianity could
be
adjusted only by a Docetic interpretation of the
Person
of Christ. A veritable incarnation was unthinkable.
The
Divine Being could enter into no real union with a
corporeal
organism. The Human Nature of Christ and
the
incidents of His earthly career were, more or less,
an
illusion. It is with this Docetic subversion of the
truth
of the Incarnation that the "antichrists" are
specially
identified in the Epistle (222.23 43); and it is
against
it that
and
fervour, his central thesis—the complete personal
identification
of the historical Jesus with the Divine
Being
who is the "Word of Life," the "Son of God,"
the
"Christ."1
A further consequence of the
dualistic interpretation of
existence
is that Sin, in the Christian meaning of Sin,
disappears.
In its essence, it is no longer a moral
opposition,
in the human personality, to good; it is a
physical
principle inherent in all non-spiritual being. Not
1 See Chapters VI, and
VIII.
The Polemical Aim of the Epistle 33
the
soul, but the flesh is its organ; and Redemption
consists
not in the renewal of the moral nature, but in its
emancipation
from the flesh. And, again, it becomes
apparent
that no abstract possibility, but a very definite
historical
phenomenon, is contemplated in the repeated
warning,
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves,
and the truth is not in us." "If we say that we
have
not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is
not
in us" (18. 10).
With the nobler and more earnest
spirits, the practical
consequence
of this irreconcilable dualism in human nature
was
the ascetic life. Only by the mortification of the
bodily
members and the suppression of natural appetite
could
the deliverance of the soul from its life-long foe be
achieved.
A rigid asceticism is ascribed to various Gnostic
sects
(Encratites, the followers of Saturninus, etc.), and has
left
distinct traces in the Epistle to the Colossians (221)
and
in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 43). But the same
principle
readily suggested an opposite method of achieving
the
soul's deliverance from the yoke of the material. Let
the
dualism of nature be boldly reduced to practice. Let
body
and spirit be treated as separate entities; let each
obey
its own laws and act according to its own nature,
without
mutual interference.1 The spiritual nature could
not
be involved in nor defiled by the deeds of the flesh;
and
the power of external things was most effectually
overcome
when they were not allowed to disturb in anywise
the
tranquility of the inner man. Let the flesh indulge
every
lust, but let the soul soar on the wings of lofty
spiritual
thought, no more hindered or harassed by the
body
and its appetites than is the skimming swallow by
the
barking dog that chases it. It is evident, from various
references
in the later New Testament writings (Tit.
110.
16, 2 Tim. 31-7, 2 Pet. 212-22, Jude 4. 7-19,
Rev. 214. 15. 20)
1 This was to>
a]diafo<rwj zh?n.
Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 5. 40.
34 The First Epistle of
that
Gnosticism, from its earliest contact with Christianity,
began
to infect the Church with this leaven of all abomin-
ableness.
And for the interpretation of our Epistle this
Antinomian
development of Gnosticism is of special im-
portance.
While there are no direct allusions to it, as there
are
in Second Peter and Jude, it is ever present to the
writer's
mind when he is on the ground of ethics. The
moral
indifferentism of the Gnostic sheds a vivid light
upon
such utterances as "sin is lawlessness" (34), and its
converse,
"every unrighteousness is sin" (517). Especially
is
it the key, as we shall find, to that difficult passage
229-310,
the whole emphasis of which falls upon the "doing"
(poiei?n), whether of
righteousness or of sin. Every one that
"doeth
righteousness" is begotten of God (229). He that
"doeth
sin" "doeth also lawlessness" (34). He that "
doeth
righteousness"
is righteous (37). He that "doeth sin"
is
of the Devil (38). Every one that is begotten of God
"doeth
not" sin (39), and every one that "doeth not"
righteousness
is not of God. Clearly, in all this trenchant
reiteration
of the same thought,
merely
by the consideration of the perpetual tendency
in
men to substitute profession, sentiment and vague
aspiration
for actual doing of the Will of God. The
writer
expressly indicates, indeed, a more definite object
of
attack (37); and the whole passage presupposes, as
familiar
to its readers, a doctrine of moral indifferentism,
according
to which the status of the "spiritual" man is
not
to be tested by the commonplace facts of moral
conduct.
The detailed examination of this and
kindred pass-
ages
must be deferred to a later stage.1 The pur-
pose
of the present chapter has been served if it has
furnished
a general view of the polemical scope of the
Epistle,
and if it has been shown that in it all the
1 Chapter XI.
The Polemical Aim of the
Epistle 35
authentic
features of Gnosticism, its false estimate of
knowledge,
its loveless and unbrotherly spirit, its Docetic
Christology,
its exaltation of the illuminated above moral
obligations,
are clearly reflected. It is true that the whole
presentation
of truth in the Epistle widely overflows the
limits
of the controversial occasion. On the one hand,
the
human tendencies that manifested themselves in
Gnosticism
are not of any one period or place. The
Gnostic
spirit and temper are never dead. On the other
hand,
ciation;1
he so constantly opposes to the pernicious
plausibilities
of error the simple, sublime, and satisfying
facts
and principles of the Christian Revelation; he so lifts
every
question at issue out of the dust of mere polemics
into
the lucid atmosphere of eternal truth, that his Epistle
pursues
its course through the ages, ever bringing to the
human
soul the vision and the inspiration of the divine
life.
Nevertheless, for its interpretation, the polemical aim
that
pervades it must be recognised. The great tests of
Christianity,
the enforcement of which constitutes its chief
purpose,—the
tests of practical Righteousness and Love, and
of
Belief in Jesus as God Incarnate,—are those which are
of
perennial validity and necessity; yet it was just by these
that
the wolf of Gnosticism could be most unmistakably
revealed
under its sheep's clothing, and they are presented
in
such fashion as to certify that this was the object
immediately
aimed at.
One point more, though of minor
importance, remains
for
consideration, namely, whether the polemic of the
Epistle
is directed throughout against the same persons, or
whether,
in its two branches, the Christological and the
ethical,
it has different objects of attack. The latter view
has
been widely held. It is admitted that it is Gnostic
1 An instructive
contrast, in this respect, is presented by the Epistle of Jude
and
its comparatively small influence in later times.
36 The First Epistle of f
error
that is controverted in the Christological passages,
but
not that it is Gnostic immorality that is aimed at in
the
ethical passages. On the contrary, it is maintained
that
the moral laxity against which these are so vigorously
directed
is within the Church itself. And on behalf of
this
view it is argued that, in the Epistle, no charge of
teaching
or practising moral indifferentism is brought
against
the "antichrists"; that, apart from the Epistle,
there
is no proof that Docetism in
to
such a charge; and that the moral tendencies reflected
in
the Epistle are such as would naturally spring up in
communities
where Christianity had already passed from a
first
to a second generation and become, in some degree,
traditional.1
But, as has been already said, the
tone in which
the
writer of the Epistle addresses his readers lends
no
support to this supposition. He is tenderly solicitous
for
their safety amid the perils that beset them; but this
solicitude
nowhere passes into rebuke. It is plainly sug-
gested,
too, that the same spirit of error (46) which is
assailing
their faith is ready to make a no less deadly
assault
upon the moral integrity of their Christian life
(37
"let no man deceive you," not, "let no man deceive
himself").
Of necessity, Dualism led, in practice, either to
Asceticism
or to the Emancipation of the Flesh; and, in
the
absence of any allusion in the Epistle to the former, it
is
a fair inference that, with Gnosticism in
pendulum
had swung, at the date of the Epistle, towards
the
latter. This influence is confirmed by the historical
data,
scanty as these are. The name associated with the
Epistle
by unvarying tradition as
is
that of Cerinthus. It seems to be beyond
doubt
that
the Apostle and the heresiarch confronted each
1 Neander, Planting of Christianity, i. 407-408
(Bohn). With this view
Lucke
and Huther agree.
The Polemical Aim of
the Epistle 37
other
in Ephesus.1 Unfortunately, the accounts of Cerinthus
and
his teaching which have come down to us are
fragmentary,
confused, and, in some points, conflicting.
The
residuum of reliable fact is that, according to his
teaching,
the World and even the Law were created
not
by the Supreme God, but by a far inferior power;
and
that he deduced from this a Docetic2 doctrine of the
Incarnation.
We do not know with equal certainty
that he deduced
from
it the other natural consequence of practical Anti-
nomianism.
But such testimony as we do possess is to that
effect.
According to Caius3 of Rome, a disciple of Irenaeus,
Cerinthus
developed an elaborate eschatology, the central
point
of which was a millennium of bliss as sensual as that
of
the Mohammedan paradise. This account is confirmed
by
Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 260), who says that, as
Cerinthus
was a voluptuary and wholly sensual, he conjec-
tured
that Christ's kingdom would consist in those things
which
he so eagerly desired, in the gratification of his sensual
appetites,
in eating and drinking and marrying.4 If such
was
his programme of the future, we can more readily
believe,
what is stated on good authority, that his position
approximated
closely to that of Carpocrates, in whom
Gnostic
Antinomianism reached its unblushing climax.
And
although the only version of his opinions which we
have
is that given by his opponents, there seems to be no
room
for doubt as to their real character. Thus, so far as
they
go, the historical data harmonise with the internal
1 The well-known incident
of their encounter in the public baths at
has
been discredited on the ground of its incongruity with the Apostle's character,
and
of the improbability of the alleged visit of the Apostle to the public bath-
house.
But Irenaeus gives the story on the authority of those who had heard
it
from Polycarp (Adv. Haer. iii. 3, 4;
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 28, iv. 14);
and
such
evidence is not altogether contemptible.
2 See, further, Chapters
VI. and XIII.
3 Ap. Euseb. iii.. z8, vii. 25.
4 Ibid. viii. 25.
38 The First Epistle of
evidence
of the Epistle itself in giving the impression that
the
different tendencies it combats are such as were
naturally
combined in one consistently developed Gnostic
system,
and that the object of its polemic is, throughout,
one
and the same.
CHAPTER III.
THE WRITER.
NOT
only is the "First Epistle of St. John" an anonymous
writing;
one of its unique features, among the writings of
the
New Testament, is that it does not contain a single
proper
name (except our Lord's), nor a single definite
allusion,
personal, geographical, or historical. Untrammelled,
therefore,
by any question of authenticity, we are left to
gather
from tradition and from the internal evidence such
facts,
if such there are, as may furnish a warrantable con-
clusion
regarding its authorship.
As to the general question of its antiquity,
the evidence
is
peculiarly strong, and may be briefly stated. It is
needless
to come further down than Eusebius, by whom it
is
classed among the homologoumena (c.
325). It is quoted
by
Dionysius, bishop of
Cyprian,
Origen, Tertullian, Clement of
Irenaeus,
and the Muratorian Canon. Papias (who is
described
by Irenaeus as ]Iwa<nnou me>n a]kousth<j,
Poluka<rpou
d ] e[tai?roj) is stated by Eusebius
(H. E. iii. 39) "to have
used
testimonies from John's former Epistle"; and
Polycarp's
Epistle to the Philippians (c. 115) contains an
almost
verbal reproduction of 1 John 43. Reminiscences
of
it are found in Athenagoras (c. 180) (koinwni<a tou?
patro>j pro>j to>n ui[o<n, cf. i. 3), the Epistle
to Diognetus
(vi.
11), the Epistle of Barnabas (h#lqen e]n sarki<, cf. 42;
ui[o>j tou? qeou? e]fanerw<qh, cf. 38),
more distinctly in
Justin
(qeou? te<kna a]lhqina> kalou<meqa kai>
e]sme<n,
Dial.
39
40 The First Epistle of
123),
and in the Didache (cc. x., xi., teleiw?sai
au]th>n e]n t^?
a]ga<p^ sou; parelqe<tw o[
ko<smoj ou$toj; pa?j de> profh<thj
dedokimasme<noj, cf. 418 217
41). They are also alleged
in
Hermas. It is possible that the earliest of these
indicate
the currency of Johannine expressions in the
Christian
circles in which the writer moved rather than
acquaintance
with the Epistle itself. The evidence,
however,
is indisputable that this Epistle, though one of
the
latest, if not the very latest, of the books of the New
Testament,
won for itself immediately and permanently an
unchallenged
position as a writing of inspired authority.1
The verdict of tradition, moreover,
is equally clear and
unanimous
that the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle
are
both the legacy of the Apostle John, in his old age,
to
the Church. All the Fathers already mentioned as
quoting
the Epistle (excepting Polycarp, but including
Irenaeus)
quote it as the work of
the
end of the sixteenth century this view was un-
questioned.2
Proceeding to consider what light
the Epistle itself
sheds
upon the personality of the writer, we note, in the
first
place, that, though writer and readers are alike left
nameless,
and any clue to the identity of either must be
merely
inferential, the writing before us is one in which a
person
calling himself "I" addresses certain other persons
as
"you," and is, in form at least, a letter. That it is
more
than formally so, has been denied by various
critics,
who have, in various ways, pronounced it deficient
1 This statement requires
no modification on account of the fact that the
Epistle
shared with the other Johannine writings the fate of rejection, for
dogmatic
reasons, by Marcion and the so-called Alogi.
2 There are possible
exceptions to this statement in the case of Theodore
(Bishop
of Mopsuestia, 393–428), who is said to have "abrogated" all the
Catholic
Epistles,
and of the "certain persons" referred to by Cosmas Indicopleustes,
the
topographist (sixth century), as having maintained that all the Catholic
Epistles
were written by presbyters; not by apostles. Both statements are at
second-hand;
the latter, in addition, is very indefinite.
The Writer 41
in
genuine epistolary character, describing it as a treatise,
a
homiletical essay, or a pamphlet. This criticism is
unwarranted.
Although its topics are so broadly handled,
the
Epistle is not written in any abstract interest, theo-
logical
or ethical; nor—though the movement it was
designed
to combat was one which threatened, on the
widest
scale, to imperil the very life of Christianity—is it
even
Catholic, in the sense of being addressed to the
Church
at large. From beginning to end the writer shows
himself
in close contact with the special position and the
immediate
needs of his readers. The absence of explicit
reference
to either only indicates how intimate was the
relation
between them. For the writer to declare his
identity
was superfluous. Thought, language, tone—all
were
too familiar to be mistaken. The Epistle bore its
author's
signature in every line.
Though the main characteristics of
the Epistle are
didactic
and controversial, the personal chord is frequently
struck,
and with much tenderness and depth of feeling, the
writer
alternating between the "you" of direct address
(13.
5 21. 7. 8. 12-14. 18 etc., 35. 13 etc.) and the
" we " in which
spontaneous
feeling unites him with his readers (16.10 31.2.
14.
16. 18
etc., 47. 10. 11 etc., 514. 15. 14-20). Under special stress of
emotion
his paternal love, sympathy, and solicitude break
out
in the affectionate address, "Little children"1 (tekni<a,
paidi<a), or, yet more
endearingly, "My little children"
(tekni<a
e]mou?).
Or, again, the prefatory "Beloved"2
(a]gaphtoi<) gives proof how deeply
he is stirred
by
the sublimity of his theme and by the sense
of
its supreme importance to his readers. He shows
1 Expressing mingled
confidence and anxiety (21), glad thanksgiving (44),
fervent
exhortation (228 318), urgent warning (37 524).
2 Conveying in every case
an earnest appeal, based upon the
familiar and
fundamental
character of the doctrine advanced (27), the loftiness of the
Christian
calling and privilege (32), the urgent necessity of the case (41),
the
sense
of special obligation ( 47.11)
42 The First Epistle of
himself
intimately acquainted with their religious
environment
(219 41), dangers (226 37 521),
attainments
(212-14.21),
achievements (44), and needs (319 513)
Further,
it
is implied that the relation between them is definitely
that
of teacher and taught, evangelist and evangelised
(12.
3). The Epistle is addressed primarily to the circle
of
those among whom the author has habitually exercised
his
ministry in the gospel.1 He is in the habit of
announcing
to them the things "concerning the Word of
life"
(11), that they may have fellowship with him (13);
and
now2 that his joy may be full he writes these things
unto
them (14). He writes as light shines. Love makes
the
task a necessity and a delight. That joy may have
its
perfect fruition in aiding their Christian development,
in
guarding them from the perils to which it is exposed,
in
guiding them to the trustworthy grounds of personal
assurance
of eternal life, he sets himself to draw out and
place
before them the great practical implications of the
gospel,
and the tests of genuine Christian discipleship which
these
afford.
Thus the writer is a person who, to
his readers, is of so
distinctive
eminence and recognised authority that he does
not
find it necessary even to remind them who he is. His
whole
tone towards them is affectionate, solicitous, re-
sponsible.
His relation to them is not necessarily that of
"spiritual
father" in the Pauline sense, but it is, at any rate,
1 This is worth noting
for its bearing on the interpretation of the Epistle. It
has
always seemed to me that such a passage as that on the "Three
Witnesses"
contains
merely a summary—"heads" of sermons, shall we say?—intended to
recall
fuller oral expositions of the same topics. Though this yields no help to
interpretation,
there is a certain relief in the thought that what is so obscure to
us
need not have been equally so to the original readers.
2 i!na
h[ xara> h[mw?n ^# peplhrwme<nh. The words are almost a verbal reproduc-
tion
of John 1524. On critical grounds, it is not easy to decide between
the rival
readings
h[mw?n
and u[mw?n
(v. Westcott, critical note, p. 13). The former may be
preferred
as less obvious, and as yielding the finer and more characteristically
apostolic
sense. Cf. St. Paul's "Now we live if ye stand fast in the Lord"
(1
Thess. 38, also Phil. 22).
The
Writer 43
that
of spiritual guide and guardian, whose province it is to
instruct,
to warn and exhort with all authority, as with all
tenderness.
All this agrees perfectly with the traditional
account
of
during
the later decades of the first century. More than
this
cannot be said. Nothing has been, so far, adduced
that
points conclusively to an apostolic authorship. There
is
one passage in the Epistle, however, which has a special
bearing
upon the personality of the writer, namely, the
Prologue
(11-4); and this we shall now examine so far as it
relates
to this question.
1 1-4
1 "That which was
from the beginning, that which
we
have heard, that which we have seen with our own 2
eyes,
that which we gazed upon, and our own 2 hands
handled,
concerning the Word of Life (and the Life was
manifested,
and we have seen, and bear witness, and
announce
unto you the Life, the Eternal Life, which was
with
the Father and was manifested unto us); that which
we
have seen and heard we announce also unto you, that
ye
also may have fellowship with us. And these things
write
we unto you, that our joy may be full."
This is, in effect, a statement of
the theme of evan-
gelical
announcement, an abstract of the report which the
Christian
apostle is sent to deliver "concerning the Word
of
Life." And, both for the interpretation of the passage
itself
and for its bearing on the question of authorship, the
first
point to be determined is what is signified by the
"Word
of Life." And here, at once, we enter upon con-
troversial
ground; for the phrase may be taken as denoting
1 For exegetical details,
see Notes, in loc.; for the doctrinal
implications,
Chapters
VI., VII., and X.
2 "Own" is not
too strong for an adequate rendering of h[mw?n in the phrases
toi?j o]fqalmoi?j h[mw?n and ai[
xei?rej h[mw?n.
44 The First Epistle of
either
the personal Logos of John 11-14 or the Christian
Revelation.
Some of the Greek commentators,
followed by Westcott
and
others, adopt the latter alternative. "The obvious
reference
is to the whole Gospel, of which Christ is
the
centre and the sum, and not to Himself personally"
(Westcott,
p. 7). But the immense difficulty of establish-
ing
this view (though it is said to be "obvious")
is
sufficiently illustrated by the acrobatic feats of inter-
pretation
to which its exponent is compelled to resort.1
With
the great majority of commentators, I conclude that
the
"Word of Life" here signifies the Personal Logos;
and
for the following reasons. (a) The parallelism between
the
Prologue to the Epistle and that to the Gospel is too
unmistakable
to permit of different significations for a word
which
is so cardinal in both. (b) In answer to
the
objection
that elsewhere2 lo<goj th?j zwh?j is applied always
to
the Gospel, never to the personal Christ, it is to be
observed
that, while there is no reason why it should not
be
so applied, the form of expression is here determined
by
the verse following (kai> h[ zwh> e]fanerw<qh), which is
1 The application of o{
h#n a]p ] a]rxh?j
to the Gospel is justified by the observa-
tion
"of the grandeur of the claim which
Revelation,
as, in some sense, coeval with creation." But, true as it is that
the
Gospel has an eternal being and operation in the thought and purpose of
God,
it is difficult to imagine that a truth so remote from the ordinary plane of
thought
was made the starting-point of the Epistle. Again, "What we have
heard"
has to embrace "the whole Divine preparation for the Advent, promised
by
the teaching of the Lawgiver and Prophets, fulfilled at last by Christ."
"What
we have seen with our eyes" connotes "the condition of Jew and
Gentile,
the
civil and religious institutions by which
which
the Gospel has wrought, as revealing to the eye of the world something
of
the Life." It is acknowledged that e]yhla<fhsan is a quotation of our
Lord's
own
word yhlafh<sate< me (Luke 2439); but "While it is
probable that the special
manifestation
indicated is that given by the Lord after the Resurrection, this is,
in
fact, the Revelation of Himself as He remains with His Church by the
Spirit."
In that case, the use of language surely is to conceal thought !
2 Matt. 1319,
Acts 2032, 2 Cor. 519, Phil. 216. It is to be
observed that
none
of these parallels is Johannine. In John 668 r[h<mata, not lo<goj, is
found.
The Writer 45
already
in the writer's mind, and which requires th?j zwh?j
as
a point of dependence. The theme of the whole Epistle,
moreover,
is Life. Its whole scope is summed up in this:
"These
things write I unto you, that ye may know that
ye
have eternal life" (513). What then more natural
than,
at the outset, to place before the mind of the readers
their
Lord and Saviour as the "Word of Life"? (c) There
is
not a clause or a word1 in the Prologue that does not
naturally
and inevitably point to the personal Logos—Him
who
in the beginning was with God, and was God, and who
"became
flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 11.14).
The subject regarding whom the
announcement
(a]pagge<llomen, 12) is made
being the Lord Jesus Christ,
the
matter announced is "That which was from the begin-
ning,
that which we have heard, that which we have seen
with
our (own) eyes, that which we beheld and our (own)
hands
handled." From this, two inferences are obvious,
if
the words "heard," "seen," "beheld,"
"handled" are
taken
in their natural sense. The first is that the
Prologue
does not in any way describe the contents of the
Epistle,
but must refer to some other occasion or mode of
announcement.
It is true that the reference to the historic
Gospel
is here in absolutely the right place. The facts
in
which the Divine Life has been personally revealed to
human
perception are the fitting and firm basis for the
Epistle
with all its theological and ethical developments;
and,
doubtless, it is the purpose to impress this upon its
readers
that underlies the Prologue. But, since the Epistle
itself
contains no announcement whatsoever of such facts,
the
reference (a]pagge<llomen u[mi?n, 12) can be only2 either
1 The single apparent
exception to this statement is the use of the neuter o!,
instead
of the masculine o!j, in the relative clauses. As to this, see
Notes,
in loc.
2 Those who understand
wept peri> tou? lo<gou th?j zwh?j as referring to the personal
Logos
and yet regard the Prologue as a syllabus of the contents of the Epistle,
are
reduced to extremities of exegesis. Rothe, e.g.,
commenting on "concerning
46 The First Epistle of
to
the writer's habitual oral teaching, or to the literary
record
of it—that is to say, the Fourth Gospel.
The second inference is that the
writer claims direct,
first-hand
acquaintance with the facts of the Saviour's life
on
earth. The terms in which he describes the substance
of
his announcement are these1—"what we have heard,
what
we have seen with our eyes," so that any sugges-
tion
of subjective, visionary seeing is set aside, " what
we
gazed upon" (e]qeasa<meqa, deliberately and of
set
purpose
to satisfy ourselves of its actuality), " what our
hands
handled" (e]yhla<fhsan, the most
incontrovertible
evidence
of physical fact that human sense can furnish).
It
is difficult to imagine words more studiously adapted to
create
the impression that the writer is one of the actual
disciples
of Jesus. But we are informed2 that this "super-
ficial
impression is corrected" when the language is taken
along
with such expressions as John 114, 1 John 36, and
414.
Turning to these passages for the correction of our
"superficial
impression," all that we find is proof that
o[ra?n (1 John 36) may certainly,
and that qea?sqai3 may
possibly,
be used of purely spiritual vision. This does not
go
far to alter the impression that when one speaks of
"what
he has seen with his eyes," he intends us to
the
Word of Life," explains that the apostle is not (in the Epistle) in a
position
to
announce the whole Word. "Only a drop from the ocean, not the ocean
itself,
will he give." To find this meaning in peri< is to be, exegetically,
capable
de
tout. Besides, the Epistle does not give even "a drop from the
ocean."
Haupt,
on the other hand, idealises the meaning of o{ a]khko<amen, k.t.l., and
reaches
the conclusion that "while it is the Logos who certainly is present to
the
writer's view, it is not the Person in Himself, and as such, that is the
matter
of his announcement, but only that quality in Him which is Life." Thus
a
mere abstraction, a quality belonging to the Person, but considered apart from
the
Person, is "what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes,"
etc.
1 After o{
h#n a]p ] a]rxh?j,
which, since it probably refers to the eternal pre-
existence
of the Logos, is not relevant to the point under discussion.
2 Moffatt, Historical New Testament, p. 621.
In
John 114 a spiritual element is implied in the "beholding"
(qea?sqai),
but
it is the spiritual beholding of a Divine Glory revealed through facts of
sense.
In
1 John 412 the physical element is undeniable. No one would maintain
that
the meaning is, "No man has had spiritual perception of God at any
time."
The
Writer
47
understand—well,
just what he has seen, or supposes that
he
has seen, with his eyes.
It is asserted (ibid.) that even the
"strange metaphor
e]yhla<fhsan is not too strong for
the faith-mysticism of the
early
Church and its consciousness of possessing a direct
experience
of God in Christ." One desiderates some stronger
proof
for such a statement than a vivid phrase from so
highly
rhetorical a writer as Tacitus.l Assuredly, if one
speaks
of “what his hands have handled,” meaning thereby
his
consciousness of a spiritual experience, it is one of the
most
bewildering uses to which human language has ever
been
put; and the ordinary mind may well despair of
tracing,
with any certitude, the meaning of a writer so
elusive.
Besides these palpable obstacles to
the adoption of the
"faith-mysticism"
interpretation, there are others, less
obvious
but not less insuperable. How, on that theory,
can
we explain the sudden change from the perfect tense2
in
a]khko<amen and e[wra<kamen to the aorist in e]qeasa<meqa and
e]yhla<fhsan? The change of tense is
quite naturally
accounted
for by referring the aorists to a definite occasion,
that,
namely, on which the Lord3 invited His disciples to
satisfy
themselves of the reality of His Resurrection by the
most
searching tests of sight and touch (Luke 2439, John 2027)
But
can it be supposed that any definable diversities as to
time
or mode of spiritual perception are intended to be
expressed
by such variations of phraseology?
It is to be observed, moreover, that
the writer assumes
1 Moffatt quotes
"mox nostre duxere Helvidium in carcerem manus," from
Tacitus,
Agricola, 45, where the commentators
debate whether he means his
own
hands or the hands of the senators. But I fail to perceive in this any
analogy
whatsoever to the faith-mysticism of the early Church.
2 These perfects signify
that the "hearing" and "seeing," though in the past,
have
been abiding in their results, one of which is the writer's present ability to
bear
witness to the facts seen and heard.
3 e]yhla<fhsan is a direct quotation
of Our Lord's yhlafh<sate< me; while
e]qeasa<meqa is the natural response
to the repeated i@dete in the same verse
(Luke
2439).
48 The First Epistle of
that,
in announcing to his readers his experiences of the
Word
of Life, he is communicating what they do not
fully
possess (a]pagge<llomen kai> u[mi?n, 13). But if
these were
merely
spiritual experiences, he could not and would not
write
thus. On the contrary, his constant assumption is
that
his readers have full spiritual perception of the truth
(213.
14. 20. 21. 27 etc.). And, on the
broadest exegetical
grounds,
the "faith-mysticism" theory is inadmissible.
It
eviscerates the words of precisely that (anti-docetic)
force
of testimony they are intended to contain--not to the
ideal
truth of the gospel nor to the consciousness of a
spiritual
experience, but to the physical reality, certified by
the
evidence of every faculty given to man as a criterion
of
such reality, of the human embodiment by means of
which,
alone the glory of the Only-Begotten of the Father
was
revealed to the spiritual perceptions of mankind.
Upon
that testimony, together with the accompanying
testimony
of the Spirit, the whole anti-docetic polemic
of
the Epistle is based (224 46. 14 56-8); and it
is in-
credible
that the writer intended these words to be under-
stood
in a sense in which Cerinthus himself might have
appropriated
them.
It is alleged,1 however,
that the words are susceptible of
an
interpretation which, while preserving the natural sense
of
"heard," "seen," "beheld," "handled,"
does not necessi-
tate
that the writer be held as making a strictly personal
claim
to these experiences. It is noted that here, in the
Prologue,
the author writes in the plural number, while
elsewhere
in the Epistle he speaks of himself , in the
singular2
(212-14 513), and uses the plural "we" only
when
identifying himself with his readers. And from
this
it is argued that all he may have intended was to give
1 Julicher, Introduction to N. T. p. 247.
2 There are exceptions to
this statement, namely, 46 and 414. It might
be
said, however, that in these the reference of "we" is involved in the
same
ambiguity
as here.
The Writer 49
his
Epistle the authority of "the collective disciples of
Jesus,"
the emphasis being not on the persons, but on the
actuality
of the perception. At furthest, this would be
possible,
apart from unveracity, only if the writer were one
who
was recognised by the Church as so peculiarly
identified
with the original witnesses that, without creating
a
false impression, he could speak of the Apostolic testi-
mony
as virtually his own. But, except the presumption
that
the writer cannot have been one of the original
witnesses,
there is really nothing to urge in favour of this
supposition.
The use of the plural here perfectly harmon-
ises
with the dignity of the passage; and the same idiom
is
employed in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel (114),
where
it is not denied that the testimony purports, at
least,
to be personal. And there are strong arguments
to
the contrary effect. The very emphatic phraseology—
"what
we have seen with our eyes,"
"what our hands
handled"—makes
it difficult, if not impossible, to suppose
that
the writer intends himself to be understood as merely
producing
the collective testimony of the Apostles, he
himself
not being of their number. No example of any
such modus loquendi is found in the New
Testament, or is
alleged
in the patristic literature.1 And—what seems to
be
decisive—the author uses in the same passage the
same
"plural of majesty" of his present writing,2 as well as
1 This is scarcely
accurate. A parallel is alleged from Irenaeus (v. i. 1); but
it
is quoted without its context. The passage is—"Non enim aliter nos discere
poteramus
quae sunt
fuisset
. . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum
videntes, et per auditum
nostrum vocem ejus perczpientes." It is a travesty of
the
meaning of this passage to say (as Holtzmann does) that Irenaeus reckons
himself,
in any sense corresponding to our writers, among those "whose ears
have
heard and whose eyes have seen." What Irenaeus asserts, in both of the
sentences
quoted, is merely a general and necessary truth. As it was impossible
for
us to learn the things of God except by the Incarnation of the Word, so
also
it was impossible for us to receive the revelation of the Incarnate Word
except
through the medium of human sense. There is as little suggestion of a
"collective
testimony" as there is of "faith-mysticism."
2 kai>
tau?ta gra<fomen,
14. Cf. gra<fw, 212; e@graya, 213. 14 513.
50 The First Epistle of
of
the testimony on which he claims to found. So far
from
suggesting that the writer was merely one who could
in
some peculiar manner represent the original witnesses
of
the Incarnation, the language employed resists such
an
interpretation. He who writes these things " (14), is
he
who announces (13) his personal experiences of the
incarnate
"Word of Life" (11). Putting aside, as morally
intolerable
and inconceivable, the hypothesis of deliberate
misrepresentation,
we really seem to be shut up to the
conclusion
that the writer is one of the contemporary
witnesses
of the Saviour's life on earth.
To sum up, then, what has been
gathered from the
Epistle
itself regarding the writer:—he was intimately
acquainted
with and profoundly concerned in the religious
state
and environment of his readers, their attainments,
achievements,
dangers, and needs; his tone and temper
are
paternally authoritative and tender; the relation
between
them is that of teacher and taught; and, finally,
he
claims that his testimony to the historic Gospel is based
on
first-hand observation of the facts. Thus the internal
evidence
agrees so completely with the ancient and un-
broken
tradition which assigns the authorship of the Epistle
to
the Apostle John that, unless this traditional authorship
is
disproved by arguments of the most convincing kind, it
must
be regarded as holding the field. Whether the argu-
ments
brought against the Johannine authorship possess
this
character is a question which involves the criticism of
the
Fourth Gospel even more than of the Epistle, and
which
cannot be investigated here. Yet the kernel of the
question
is contained in small compass. It is whether
room
can be found within the first century for so
advanced
a stage of theological development as is reached
in
the Johannine writings, and whether this development
can
be conceivably attributed to one of our Lord's
original
disciples. To neither of these questions, as it
The
Writer 51
appears
to me, is a negative answer warranted. If, within
a
period comparatively so brief, primitive Christian thought
had
already passed through the earlier and later Pauline
development,
and through such a development as we find
in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is no obvious reason
why
it may not have attained also to the Johannine, within
the
lifetime of the latest survivor of the Apostles. Nor,
when
one considers the nature of the intellectual influences,
without
and within the Church, by which the Apostle John
was
surrounded—if, as tradition says, he lived on to a
green
old age in
why
he should not have been the chief instrument of that
development.
Only a fragment of the Johannine
problem, however,—
namely,
the relation of the Epistle to the Fourth Gospel,
—can
be discussed in detail within the limits of this
present
study; and this discussion it will be well to reserve
until
we have completed our consideration of the Epistle
itself.
CHAPTER IV.
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AS LIFE AND LIGHT.
THE
influence of the immediate polemical purpose of the
Epistle
is manifest in its doctrine of God manifest
not
only
in its contents, but, first of all, in its exclusions. For,
though
the conception and delineation of the Divine Nature
are
the crowning glory of the Epistle, and form its greatest
contribution
to New Testament thought, it may justly be
said
that this conception is a narrow one, or, at least,
narrowly
focussed. The limitations of the writer's field
of
vision are only less remarkable than the intensity of his
perceptions
within it. Throughout the Epistle, God is seen
exclusively
as the Father of spirits, the Light and Life of
the
universe of souls. His creatorship, His relation to the
government
of the world and the ordering of human lives,
the
providential aspects and agencies of His salvation, the
working
together of nature and grace for the discipline and
perfecting
of redeemed humanity,--all this is left entirely
in
the background. From beginning to end, the Epistle
contains
no direct reference to the terrestrial conditions
and
changes of human life, or to the joys and sorrows,
hopes
and fears, that arise from them. These do not come
within
the scope of the present necessity; it is not from
this
quarter that the faith of the Church is imperilled.
The
writer's immediate interest is confined to that region in
which
the Divine and the human directly and vitally meet
—to
that in God which is communicable to man, to that in
man
by which he is capable of participation in the Divine
Nature.
52
The Doctrine of God as Life and
Light 53
From this point of view, the
conception of God is
presented
under four great affirmations: God is Light
(15);
God is Righteous (229); God is Love (48); God
is
Life (520). And though, characteristically,
makes
no endeavour to bring these ideas into an or-
ganic
unity of thought, their inter-relation is sufficiently
clear.
Righteousness and Love are the primary ethical
qualities
of the Divine Nature; Life is the essence in
which
these qualities inhere; and that God is Light
signifies
that the Divine Nature, as Righteousness
and
Love, is self-necessitated to reveal itself so as to
become
the Truth, the object of faith, and the source
of
spiritual illumination to every being capable of
receiving
the revelation. Thus, while Gnostic speculation
conceived
the Divine Nature metaphysically, as the ulti-
mate
spiritual essence in eternal separation from all that
is
material and mutable, and while Gnostic piety aspired
to
union with the Divine Life solely by the mystic
vision
of the Light which is its emanation; with
the
conception of God is primarily and intensely ethical.
A
deity of mere abstract Being could never awaken his
soul
to worship. His homage is not given to Infinitude
or
Everlastingness. For him, God is in the least atom
of
moral good, as He is not in
"the fight of
setting suns,
And the round ocean, and the living
air,
And the blue sky."
For
him, the Eternal Life, the very Life of God,
brought
into the sphere of humanity in the person of
Jesus
Christ, is Righteousness and Love; and with his
whole
soul he labours to stamp on the minds of men
the
truth that only by Righteousness and Love can they
walk
in the Light of God, and have fellowship in the Life
of
the Father and of His Son Jesus Christ.
54 The First Epistle of
God is Life.1
"This is the true God, and
Eternal Life" (520). It
is
everywhere assumed in the Epistle that God is the
absolute
final source of that life—Eternal Life—the pos-
session
of which is the supreme end for which man, and
every
spiritual nature, exists. This is clearly implied in
such
a statement as "This is the witness, that God
gave
us Eternal Life" (511) and in all the passages, too
numerous
to be quoted, that speak: of the existence of
this
Life in man as the result of a Divine Begetting.
That
God is also the immanent source of
Life—that it
exists
and is maintained only through a continuous vitalising
union
with Him, as of the branch with the vine—is no
less
clearly implied in those equally numerous passages
that
speak of our abiding in God and God's abiding
in
us.
In all this it is further implied that
God is the
source
of Life to men because He has Life in Himself.
Omne vivum ex vivo. Eternal life may be
spoken
of
as His gift (511, Rom. 623); but the gift is not
extraneous
to the Giver. It is nothing else than His
self-communication
to men, the transmission to us of
His
own nature. "This is the true God, and Eternal
Life"
(520).2
It must be observed, however, that
merges
the idea of God in that of Life. God is the ultimate
Eternal
Life; Eternal Life is not God. God is personal,
1 This part of the
subject is treated very briefly. For fuller exposition of
the
Johannine conception of Life, see Chapter X.
2 ou$to<j
e]stin o[ a]lhqino>j qeo>j kai> zwh> ai]w<nioj. See Notes, in loc. Even here,
it
is true, the thought is primarily soteriological. It is not of what God is in
Himself,
but of what He is in relation to us—the source of Eternal Life. This
is
clear from the contrast drawn between Him who is " the true God and
Eternal
Life,"
and the idols which cannot give life (cf. Jer. 213), and from which
we
are
exhorted to guard ourselves (521). But, of course, the though: of
what
God
is in relation to us inevitably passes up into the thought of what God is in
Himself.
The Doctrine of God as Life and
Light 55
Life
is impersonal;1 and any manner of thinking by which
God
is reduced to a pantheistic anima mundi
is as foreign
to
noticeable,
indeed, that
ception
of God as the Life to its full cosmical expansion.
It
would be in full accord with that conception—it is its
religious
as well as its logical completion—to say that
God,
as immanent, is the principle of universal life; that
life,
throughout the whole hierarchy of creation, from the
flower
in the crannied wall to the archangel, is a pulse of
God's
own life, a stream not separated but ever flowing
from
Him as its fountain-head (Ps. 365). For every finite
being
life is union with God according to its capacity. But
the
lower potencies of the creative Life do not come within
the
Apostle's horizon. Man alone, of terrestrial creatures,
has
capacity for the highest kind of life, which
calls
Eternal Life; and his concern is exclusively with this.
What elements, then, are present in
ception
of the Divine Life? Primarily, as has been said,
this
conception is ethical. The activities in which the
Life
is manifested are those of Righteousness (229), and
Love
(48). The life God lives is a life absolutely righteous
and
loving. But the conception is also metaphysical.
Essentially,
the Eternal Life is nothing else than the Divine
Nature
itself, regarded, not as abstract being, but dynami-
cally,
as the ground and source of all its own manifold
activities—as
the animating principle2 in virtue of which
the
Divine Righteousness and the Divine Love are not
mere
abstractions, but eternally active forces. And, finally,
the
Life of God is a principle of self-communication and
self-reproduction.
It is this by intrinsic necessity. Love
cannot
but seek to beget love (47); and Righteousness to
1 Even in 12,
where h[ zwh> h[ ai]w<nioj is, not the Logos, but the pre-incarnate
life
of the Logos. The Eternal Life is the common element in the personality
of
God, the Word, and those who are "begotten of God."
2 v. Scott's Fourth Gospel, p. 257.
56 The First Epistle of
beget
righteousness (229). In the Epistle, this generative
activity
of the Divine Life holds a place of equal import-
ance
with its ethical quality. No thought is more closely
interwoven
with its whole texture than that of the Divine
self-communication.
Eternally, the Father imparts Him-
self
to His only-begotten Son (49), the Word whose life
from
the Beginning consisted in His fellowship with the
Father
(h!tij h#n pro>j to>n pate<ra, 12). To men, Eternal
Life
is communicated as the result of a Divine act, by
which,
in the terminology of St. John, they are "begotten
of
God" and become the "children of God" (te<kna
tou? qeou?).
This
actual impartation of the actual Life of God is the
core
of Johannine soteriology. It is this that makes the
Gospel
a gospel, and Christ the mediator of a real salvation.
"This
is the witness, that God gave us Eternal Life, and this
Life
is in His Son."
God is
Light.
"And this is the message which
we have heard from
Him,
and announce again unto you, that God is Light,
and
in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have
fellowship
with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do
not
the truth"(15.6).
The words "God is Light,"
though unrecorded in any
of
our Gospels, may quite conceivably contain the verbal
reminiscence
of an actual utterance of our Lord. This,
however,
is not necessarily implied in
What
is asserted is that the whole purport of the Christian
Revelation,1
from a certain point of view, may be said to be
this—God
is Light. And our endeavour, in the first
place,
must be to determine the sense in which the symbol
is
here employed.
Light, the most beautiful and
blessed thing in Nature,
1 a]ggeli<a is used with exactly
the same import in 311. There the “message"
is
" that we love one another."
The Doctrine of God as Life and Light 57
which
seems as if created to be the emblem of all purity
and
splendour, of knowledge, safety, love and joy, and
which
fits the world to be the abode of the higher forms of
life,
has been inevitably associated by men of every race
and
religion with their conception of the Divine. It would
lead
far from our present purpose, however, to attempt an
investigation
of the typology of Light in the extra-Biblical
religions,
or even to examine minutely the symbolic mean-
ings
and uses of it that are scattered broadcast over the
Scriptures
themselves.1 It will suffice
to notice that there
are
two main lines along which the idea of Light is related,
both
in the Old Testament and the New, to the being,
character
and activity of God.
On the one hand, Light is associated
physically or
symbolically
with the Divine Essence, and with the heavenly
world.
Everywhere in the Old Testament, Light is the
actual
medium of theophany, the physical accompaniment
of
Jehovah's presence.2 In the New Testament also, the
same
conception of Light as pertaining to the essence of
Deity—as
the physical element, so to say, of the Divine
Life--is
abundantly present. God "dwells in light that is
inaccessible
and full of glory" (1 Tim. 616); and where-
ever
the celestial world is projected into the terrestrial it is
in
a radiance of supernatural Light.3 Following this line
of
analogy, we might infer that here in our Epistle the idea
of
Light is associated symbolically with the moral Being of
God.
That God is Light in which there is no darkness,
signifies
the spotless and radiant perfection of the Divine
1 The most comprehensive
discussion, both of the Biblical and extra-Biblical
typology
of light, is contained in Grill's Untersuchungen
uber die Entslehung des
vierten Evangeliums.
2 In the visions of
Ezekiel, e.g. (Ezek. 128 323 104 etc.), as the
"Glory of
the
Lord"; which in the Priestly Code is localised, and assumes a definite
uniformity
as the Shekinah-Glory (Ex. 4034, 1 Kings 811 etc.).
3 Cf. Matt. 172
283, Acts 93 127 etc. In these and other
similar passages
the
conception is of a Light, supramundane, "above the brightness of the
sun,"
but actual and in some sense physical, emanating from the Divine
Presence.
58 The First Epistle of
Holiness.
In another class of passages, on the other hand,
the
symbol is used to express the correlative facts of God's
self-revelation
and of the enlightenment it brings to man's
spiritual
perceptions. Thus, in the Old Testament, it is
the
symbol of the illuminative action of the Divine Word
(Pss.
198 119105), of the Divine Spirit (Ps. 3610,
Prov. 2027),
and
of the witness of the people of God to the sur-
rounding
world (Isa. 426 496 601-3). In the New Testa-
ment
this is the prevailing use. Christ is the a]pau<gasma
of
the Father's glory (Heb. 13); the Word in whom the
Divine
Life becomes the Light of men (John 14) and of the
world
(812); and the prophetic word is a "lamp shining
in
a dark place" (2 Pet. 119). The subjective illumination
which
is the counterpart of the external revelation is also
Light.
By the "Spirit of wisdom and revelation" the
"eyes
of the heart" are enlightened (Eph. 118); and as,
in
the first creation, God caused Light to shine out of
darkness,
so now He shines in the heart "to give the light
of
the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ"
(2 Cor. 46).
Now, for the interpretation of the
Epistle, it is a question
of
some importance to determine with which of these ideas,
essence
or revelation,
Light
comes into line. In my judgment it is with the
latter.
That God is Light expresses the self-revelation of
God;
first, as a necessity that belongs to His moral nature;
secondly,
as the source of all moral illumination. But while
maintaining
this interpretation I must admit that the
exegetical
authorities, almost with one voice, declare for
the
opposite view, namely, that Light here denotes the
essential
Being of God. "It is the innermost, all-compre-
hending
essence of God, from which all His attributes
proceed"
(Haupt); "Absolute Holiness and Truth"
(Huther);
"the Absolute Holiness of God, especially as
Love"
(Rothe); "the new idea of God as unconditioned
The Doctrine of God as Life and Light 59
Goodness,
holy Love" (Beyschlag, ii. 450); "the Love
which
constitutes the essence of God " (Grill, p. 312).
To
this whole class of interpretations there is only one
objection—a
serious one, however--that they are irrelevant
to
the context. While this interpretation of the Light as
absolute
Holiness or Love serves admirably for this single
sentence
(15), taken by itself, it will be found that it entirely
dislocates
the continuity of thought that runs through
the
paragraph (15-22).
Examining this paragraph as a
whole,
we find that the unifying idea is not the Light, but
is
fellowship with God.
thought
that God is Light as an independent thesis. He
does
not develop it, or even recur to it. It is introduced
only
for the sake of leading up to what follows, "If we say
that
we have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness, we
lie,
and do not the truth." In fact, it
is the logical starting-
point
for the whole paragraph--the major premise from
which
the Apostle proceeds, in the course of the paragraph,
to
draw a number of conclusions regarding the conditions
of
fellowship with God. These conditions are, abstractly
and
summarily, that "we walk in the Light, as He is in the
Light"
(17). Light is the medium in which fellowship
between
God and man is realised; the first element which
He
and we may possess in common. The crucial question,
moreover,
is as to what this condition of fellowship—walk-
ing
in the Light—signifies for sinful men; for, as
immediately
proceeds to insist, to "walk in the Light" is, first
and
indispensably, to confess our sins (18-10) Obviously,
therefore,
the Light cannot signify the absolute moral per-
fection
of God. For sinners, fellowship with God cannot,
initially,
consist in sharing His moral perfection. The Light
in
which we, being yet sinful, can walk so as to have fellow-
ship
with God, is the Light of Truth, the Light which His
self-revelation
sheds upon all objects in the moral universe,
and,
first of all, upon ourselves and our sin. The clue to the
60 The First E istle of
whole
passage, in short, is the idea of fellowship.1 As in
nature
Light is the medium of fellowship,—the social element
in
which all creatures, whatever their affinities or antagon-
isms,
may meet and be revealed one to another,—so, in the
spiritual
sphere, the Light, the source of which is the self-
revelation
of God, is the medium of fellowship between all
spiritual
beings. And especially is it the element in which
we,
though yet sinful, can have fellowship with God; because,
when
by confessing our sins we walk in the Light, "the
Blood
of Jesus, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin."
The single meeting-place of the Holy
God and sinful
men
is, to begin with, the Truth; the only medium of their
fellowship,
a common view of spiritual realities. And it is
because
God is Light that this is possible. As it is said in
the
most Johannine of the Psalms, "In Thy Light shall we
see
light."
place,
that the Divine Nature is, by inherent moral necessity,
self-revealing.2
As Light, by its nature, cannot be self-
contained,
but is ever seeking to impart itself, pouring
through
every window and crevice, shining into every eye,
bathing
land and sea with its pure radiance; so God, from
His
very nature of Righteousness and Love, is necessitated
to
reveal Himself as being what He is. He is Light, and as
such
is always seeking to shine into the minds He has made
in
His own Image. "And in Him is no darkness at all."
1 So Westcott (p. 14).
Yet, having grasped the clue, he does not follow it
up.
Having struck the nail on the head, he proceeds to make a circle of dints
all
around it.
2 So Weiss, though
somewhat inadequately: " God is Light denotes the fact
that
He has become visible, namely, in Christ, in whom He is completely
revealed."
"God is Light means in modern language that it is the nature of
God
to communicate Himself" (Inge, Dict.
of Christ, i. 892b). "The trans-
cendent
life streaming out on men, the absolute nature of God as Truth, as the
Supreme
reality for man to believe in" (Moffatt, ibid. ii. 34a).
3 The idea of Light is
one which plays a various but always prominent part
in
the Gnostic theologies and cosmogonies. And it may very well be that the
aim
of the writer of the Epistle was partly, at least, to emphasise as supreme
The Doctrine of God as Life and Light 61
In God there is nothing that hides, nothing that is hidden.
In the Light of His self-revelation there is no darkness,
because in His nature there is no inconsistency, no variable-
ness, no secret reserve, God, as revealed in Christ, is
knowable as no other Being is. His holiness, justice, and
love are beyond knowledge, not because there is in Him
anything that is not holiness, justice, and love, but because
these, as they exist in Him, are beyond the measure of
man's mind. The Divine character is utterly transparent
—goodness without a shadow of evil. It is Light in
which there is no darkness, to which there is no arresting
horizon, that streams through the spiritual universe from
Him who is its Sun, the Word of Life.1
II. But this thought of God's self-revelation carries with
it, as its correlative, the thought of man's illumination
thereby. As the light of the sun not only reveals the
sun itself, but brings all things in their proper forms and
colours to our vision, so the Light of God makes all things
in the spiritual realm visible in their true character. As
all truth is God's thought, and all finite intelligence is
the moral significance of the Divine Light, as opposed to the merely intellectual,
or, on the other hand, semi-physical conceptions of Gnosticism. Westcott thinks
that in the emphatic "in Him is no darkness at all" there is a reference to
"Zoroastrian speculation on the two opposing spiritual powers." But Zoro-
astrianism did not teach that there are two opposing powers in God. Holtzmann,
again, finds a protest against any idea of a su<gxusij a]rxikh<, such as was sub-
sequently developed in the Basilidian system. But the doctrine of Basilides
(Clem. Strom. ii. 2o. 112), that the corruption of the human soul is due to an
original confusion and mixture of Light and Darkness (kata< tina ta<raxon kai>
su<gxusin a]rxikh<n), has no perceptible relevance to
is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all." The Antinomianism which the
Epistle combats must have had as its basis a dualistic conception of the
Universe; but there is no indication that it carried this dualism back into the
Divine nature itself.
1 In the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel, the concatenation of ideas is exactly
parallel to that which I have endeavoured to establish in the Epistle. As here
we have successively the ideas of the Word (11), the Life (12), and the Light
(15); so there, "In the beginning was the Word" (11); "In Him was Life,
and the Life was the Light of men" (14). In the Gospel it is quite evident that
the idea of Light is attached not to the Divine Essence, but to the self-revelation
of God in the Word.
62 The First Epistle of
participation in the light of the Eternal Reason; so, in the
moral sphere, the character that things have in the moral
judgments of God and the view of them that is given in
the light of His self-revealment constitute what is called,
in Johannine phrase, h[ a]lhqei<a, the Truth. And it is in
their perception of the Truth, their illumination by the
Divine Light, that there exists for all moral beings a
medium of conscious fellowship with God. For sinful men,
especially, this is the only possible medium' of such fellowship.
We can come to the Light and walk in the Light, as He
is in the Light (17). Light is the translucent atmosphere
in which, even while still morally imperfect and impure,
we can come to have a common perception of moral
facts and a true fellowship of mind with Him who is
the absolutely Good. This, indeed, is the basis of spiritual
religion; it is this that distinguishes Christianity from
irrational superstitions and unethical ritualism. It is no
merely emotional, mystical, or sacramentarian fellowship
with God that
in the Truth, in thought and knowledge, and in all that
springs from them. God is not Life merely; He is Light
also. And the complete Johannine conception may be
expressed in this, that Life is the medium of our sub-
conscious, Light of all our conscious fellowship with God
and with one another (17).
The relation to God in which such fellowship is consciously
realised is expressed throughout the Epistle, as in the Gospel,
by the characteristic use of the verb "to know" (ginw<skein).1
1 To "know Him" (24) is equivalent to "being in Him" (25b), and to
"abiding in Him" (26). The children of God "know the Father" (214).
"Every one that loveth is begotten of God and knoweth God" (47). "We
have received an understanding that we should know Him that is true" (520)
The antithesis of this relation is expressed as "not knowing" (36 48);
more emphatically by "lie" and "liar" (16 24. 22). It must he observed
that ginw<skein invariably denotes knowledge, not by ratiocination, but by
spiritual perception.
See, further, special note on ginw<skein.
The Doctrine of God as Life and Light 63
But the conception of spiritual knowledge, in all its presup-
positions and in all its consequences, is equally remote from
Rationalism and from Gnosticism. The perception of spirit-
ual truth is as little attainable by logical faculty or common
intelligence as it is by theosophic contemplation. Spiritual
regeneration is the prerequisite of spiritual illumination.
Those only who are "begotten of God" have the power
to "see" and "know" Divine realities. God is Light;
and had human nature been animated by a normal and
healthy spiritual life, the Divine illumination would have
flowed in upon it uninterruptedly by all its channels of
affinity with the Divine. And, indeed,
is that the Light never has been, never could be, wholly
withdrawn. But "the Light shineth in the darkness, and
the darkness apprehended it not" (John 15). As the original
state of every man is death (314), so is it also blindness.
And "Except a man be born from above, he cannot
see the
Johannine position is that the whole redemptive process
has its origin, not in any conscious human act, but in a
sub-conscious activity of the Divine Life in man; and the
first fruit and manifestation of this activity is the power to
"see," to "believe" on Him who is the Light, to "know"
God whom He reveals.1
Yet, since Light is the element of conscious activity,
of conscious obedience or disobedience (John 724), of
sincerity or insincerity (John 319-21), the Epistle strongly
emphasises the office of human volition in the response
made to it. The Light is a message in the impera-
tive, not only in the indicative mood; and the Epistle
speaks not of "seeing," but of "walking in the Light."
The conception, in both Gospel and Epistle, is that,
while the light, which shines around all men, becomes a
power of saving illumination only in those who, as
1 See, further, Chapters X. and XIII.
64 The First Epistle of
"begotten of God," are responsive to its influence, none
can be entirely unconscious of its being there, or entirely
insusceptible to its claims upon him. But men may close
the shutters of the soul's windows against it. With an
instinctive premonition of what it would constrain them to
see and acknowledge, to do and forego, men may and do
employ devices of various subtlety to fortify the mind
against its entrance. As in the primeval story the covert
of the trees of the garden is preferred to the Light of
God's presence, so still "This is the judgment, that the
light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness
rather than the light, for their works were evil" (John 319)
A brief study of the paragraph (15-22) will show that
this interpretation of the Light fits into the context like
a key into its proper lock. The thesis of the whole
paragraph is that "walking in the Light" is the one
necessary and sufficient condition of fellowship with God.
This is first stated in the most abstract form. "God is
Light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that
we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we
lie, and do not the truth" (15. 6). Here the affirmation
is not (as in 2 Cor. 614) that two elements so opposite
in nature as light and darkness, holiness and sin, purity
and impurity, cannot mix and coalesce. What is in view
is the irreconcilable effect of light and darkness. Light
is that which reveals; darkness, that which conceals.
Light is the medium in which we come to see as God sees,
to have a true perception of all moral objects—qualities,
actions, and persons. To "walk in the Light" is, therefore,
to have, in the first place, the will to see all things in the
Light of God, and to acknowledge and act up to what is
thus seen to be the truth. To "walk in darkness" is the
effort, instinctive or deliberate, not to see, or the failure
to acknowledge and act up to what is seen; to withdraw
ourselves, our duties, our actions, our character, our relation
The Doctrine of God as Life and Light 65
to the facts and laws of the spiritual realm, from the light
which God's self-revealment sheds upon them. And to do
this is, ipso facto, to exclude the possibility of fellowship
with God.
That this is the Apostle's meaning becomes still more
apparent as we follow the concrete development of the
thought in the remainder of the paragraph. This is
composed of three parallel pairs of antitheses (16.7 18.9
110-22), which may be arranged thus:
|
DARKNESS-SERIES. 16 "If we say that we have fellow- ship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth." 18 "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 110 "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." |
LIGHT-SERIES. 17 "If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the Blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin." 19 “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all un- righteousness." 21 "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." |
From this it is evident that to "walk in the Light" is,
first of all, to confess sin; to walk in the darkness,
to ignore or to deny sin. All things assume a different
aspect in the Light, of God; but nothing looks so different
as we ourselves do. The first fact on which the light
impinges is our sin. But, though it exposes sin in all its
horror, we may loyally submit to and endorse the result—
we may come tot the Light and walk in it; or we may
"rebel against the Light" (Job 2413) and "love the
darkness." The "darkness," therefore, is not the "world,"
nor "sin, especially as impurity" (Rothe). It is, in this
instance, self-concealment, the cloud of sophistry and self-
deception which it is always the instinct of guilt to gather
around itself. To "walk in darkness" is not necessarily,
indeed, to live a double life under any of the deeper
shades of deliberate hypocrisy. For the exclusion of the
66 The First Epistle of
Light, conscious dissimulation is comparatively ineffective.
Simply to pursue the everyday life of business and pleasure,
of purpose and achievement, without reference to the Will
of God; to live by the false and mutilated standards of the
world; to be blinded by the glare of its artificial illumin-
ations—there are no more effectual and frequented ways
than these of walking in darkness.
It is needless for our present purpose to pursue further
the exposition of this paragraph.1 And it must suffice to
indicate in a sentence how, in the remainder of this whole
section of the Epistle (15-220), the contrast between walking
in the Light and walking in darkness is developed.
The Light of God not only reveals sin (17-22), it
reveals Duty (23-6); especially, it reveals Love as the
highest law for the children of God (27-11); as it also
reveals in their true character the "world and the things
that are in the world," so that it is seen that "if any man
love the world, the love of the Father is not in him"
(215-17). Finally, the light reveals Jesus as the Christ, the
Incarnate Son of God (218-28). He who denies the
glorious reality of the Incarnation is a "liar," and is blind
to the Light of God.
"God is Light" signifies the inward necessity of the
Divine Nature to reveal itself, the fact of its perfect and
eternal self-revelation in Christ, and the correlative fact
of men's spiritual illumination thereby. This is the only
conception of the Light that fits into the train of thought
running through this whole section of the Epistle.
1 See Chapters VIII. and IX.
CHAPTER V.
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AS RIGHTEOUSNESS AND LOVE.
God is Righteous (229).
GOD is Life, self-imparting; God is Light, self-revealing.
But what, in itself, is the Divine Nature, the communication,
of which is Life and the revelation of which is Light?
It is solely within the ethical sphere that the Epistle
contemplates this question; and in the unity of God's
moral being, two, and only two, elements are distinguished
—Righteousness and Love. From these the whole moral
activity of the Divine Life proceeds; and, as a necessary
consequence, it is by the impartation of these same qualities
to human nature that the whole development of the
regenerate life is determined.
The words Righteous and Righteousness (di<kaioj,
dikaiosu<nh) are used only in the broadest sense. They
express neither the Pauline idea of forensic status nor the
specific virtue of justice, the voluntas suum cuique tribuendi,
but the sum of all that is right in character and conduct.
Righteousness includes all of which sin is the negation.
"Every one that doeth righteousness is begotten of God"
(229), but "He that doeth sin is of the devil" (38); and
again, "Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God"
(310), but "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth not sin"
(39). Righteousness and sin divide between them the
whole area of moral possibility.
That such Righteousness belongs to, or rather is, the
67
68 The First Epistle of
character of God, and that this is the basis of all Christian
Ethics, is everywhere implied, and is categorically asserted
in (229) e]a>n ei]dh?te o!ti di<kaio<j e]stin, ginw<skete1 o!ti kai> pa?j
o[ poiw?n th>n dikaiosun<nhn e]c au]tou? gege<nnhtai. "If ye know
that He is righteous, know (or, ye know) that every one
also that doeth righteousness is begotten of Him."
The argument presupposes, in the first place, that
Righteousness in God and in man is one and the same.
Like begets like; the stream has the quality of the fountain.
It presupposes, in the second place, that God, and He alone,
is originally and essentially righteous—there is no other
source from which human righteousness can be derived.
The Righteousness that belongs to the inward char-
acter of God extends also to His action; it ensures
rightness, unfailing self-consistency, in all that He does.
Thus, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and
righteous (pisto<j e]stin kai> di<kaioj) to forgive us our
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." When,
on the ground of Christ's propitiation, God forgives those
who by confession make forgiveness possible, He is
"righteous"; and because He is "righteous," He is
"faithful." He does not deny Himself (2 Tim. 213). He
does what is according to His character, because He does
what is right.
But the activity of God's Righteousness, which is most
conspicuous in the Epistle, is that in which it is directly
and imperatively related to the whole moral action of His
creatures. The2 Righteousness of God is that which
1 The delicate differentiation of the two verbs to "know" is very noticeable
here. The ei]dh?te of the first clause expresses the knowledge absolutely, as a
first principle assumed in all cogitation upon the subject; the ginw<skete of the
second clause expresses the art of mental perception by which knowledge, in the
particular instance, is acquired. The full sense of the verse is, "If ye know,
as ye do absolutely know, that He is righteous, recognise (or, ye recognise), as
implied in this, that every one also," etc. See special note on ginw<skein and
ei]de<nai.
2 On the whole subject of this paragraph, see, further, Chapter XI.
The Doctrine of God as Righteousness and Love 69
renders sin inadmissible in them; inadmissible de jure in
all, inadmissible de facto in those who are "begotten of
Him."
This the writer maintains with unexampled strenuous-
ness and rigour. The Righteousness of God is Law for all
men and for all their actions. "Sin is lawlessness; and
every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness" (34).
Nothing excites in
the supposition of compatibility between a life of actual
wrong-doing and fellowship with the Righteous God.
"He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His com-
mandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in Him " (24).
"Every one that doeth not righteousness is not of God"
(310), but is "of the devil" (38) Not less absolutely is
it insisted that all who are "begotten of Him" and in
fellowship with Him partake of His Righteousness.
"Every one that is begotten of God doth not commit sin,
because His seed abideth in Him; and he cannot sin, because
He is begotten of God" (39). "We know that every one
that is begotten of God sinneth not; but he that was
begotten of God keepeth himself, and the wicked one
toucheth him not" (518). It is an inveterate misreading
of the Epistle that represents its author as being, almost
exclusively, the "Apostle of Love." Intense as is St.
John's gaze into the heavenly abyss of the Divine Love,
it seems impossible that any writing could display a more
impassioned sense, than this Epistle does, of the tremendous
imperative of Righteousness—a more rigorous intolerance
of sin. So long as the Church lays up this Epistle in its
heart, it can never lack a spiritual tonic of wholesome
severity.
It is true, however, that in its doctrine of Divine
righteousness, thoroughly spontaneous as it is, the Epistle
makes no remarkable contribution to the development of
New Testament thought. It does no more than restate, in
70 The First Epistle of
a peculiarly forceful fashion, and with all the glow of an
original intuition, that conception of the Divine Nature
which is fundamental to the whole Biblical revelation. It
must be conceded, moreover, that the assertion of the
impeccability of the regenerate, into which the Writer,
apparently at least, is led by the vehemence of the polemical
interest, has tended to detract from the full usefulness of
his teaching on this head. However effectively the unique
form of expression employed may have been adapted to the
peculiarities of the immediate situation, it has been to later
generations a paradox and a puzzle rather than a source of
instruction or a practical stimulus. It is far otherwise
with the next of the great affirmations which constitute the
Epistle's doctrine of God.
God is Love (48)
Here the Epistle rises to the summit of all revelation;
and, for the first time, enunciates that truth which not only
is the profoundest, gladdest, most transforming that the
mind can conceive, but is the beginning and the end—
the truth in which all truths have their ultimate unity, the
innermost secret of existence.
The New Testament word for Love, a]ga<ph, is virtually
a coinage of Christianity. It may be that it is an old
word reminted; but it is one of the curiosities, at least, of
philology that, while the verb a]gapa?n is fairly common in
classical Greek from Homer downwards, the noun a]ga<ph
is not found in any extant classical text; a single passage
in Philo supplying the solitary instance of its extra-
Biblical use.1 This does not prove, indeed, that it was
unknown to non-literary Greek; and Deissmann may be
1 Even in the Septuagint there are only fifteen occurrences, eleven of them
in Canticles, where the sexual tinge is unmistakable, as also in 2 Sam. 1315 and
Jer. 22. In Eccles. 91.6 it is opposed to mi?soj in a more general sense.
The Doctrine of God is Righteousness and Love 71
right in supposing it to have been current in the
Egyptian vernacular.1 The fact remains, however, that
though the Greek language is rich in terms2 answering
to "love" in its various shades of meaning, the com-
paratively unused a]ga<ph was, as it were, providentially
reserved to express that purely ethical love the con-
ception of which Christianity first made current among
men.
In the Epistle the words a]ga<ph and a]gapa?n are
used to express an energy of the moral nature in God
towards men, in men towards God, in men towards one
another. And one of its profound truths is that, in
whatever relation it may operate, Love is one and the
same. All love has its origin in God; and human love
is the moral nature of God incarnate in man. "Every
one that loveth is begotten of God" (47). And, since
nothing moral can exist merely in the form of action,
Love is, primarily, a disposition, a permanent quality
of the Will, an inherent tendency of the moral nature.
The quality of this disposition is indicated by the fact's,
that the object of Love in the human relation is invariably
our "brother."3 We may disregard the fact that brother-
hood here denotes not physical but spiritual relationship;
for the spiritual presupposes the physical analogue. And
though, in fact, it is not brotherhood that makes Love
(211 312), but Love that makes brotherhood, Love may be
said to be that mutual disposition which ideally exists
among brothers in the same family—the disposition
to act towards our fellow-men as it is natural for those
1 The supposed discovery of the word in a papyrus of the second century B.C.,
announced by Deissmann in his Bibel-Studien (1895), has been abandoned
(Expository Times, September 1898, p. 567). But its adoption instead of e@rwj
by the LXX may be thought to lend probability to the supposition of its Egyptian
origin.
2 storgh<, the love that belongs to natural kinship; e@rwj, with its predominant
suggestion of sexuality; fili<a, specially appropriated to friendship.
3 210 310.14.16.17 420.21.
72 The First Epistle of
to do who have all interests in common, and who
instinctively recognise that the full self-existence of each
can be realised only through a larger corporate existence.
Love is the power to live not only for another, but in
another, to realise one's own fullest life in the fulfilment of
other lives.
Love is such a disposition, and such a disposition of
necessity issues in appropriate action. In the Epistle
nothing is more incisively dealt with than the fiction of
a love that is inoperative in practice. "Whoso hath this
world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth
up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the
love of God in him?" (317). That which terminates in
the mere self-satisfaction of "feeling good," whatever it
may be, is something else than Love. Love is the giving
impulse. And it rejoices, not only in imparting benefits,
the cost of which is imperceptible and the bestowal of
which is a sheer luxury: it expresses itself most fully in
sacrifice. It is that complete identification of self with
another which makes it sometimes imperative, and always
possible, to lay down even our lives for our brethren (316),
and which, indeed, realises an exquisite joy in suffering
endured for the beloved's sake.
In human history, Love has its one absolute embodiment
in the self-sacrifice of Christ. "Hereby know we love," says
the Epistle in one of its pregnant sentences, hereby do we
perceive what Love is, "in that He laid down His Life for
us" (316). This is the Absolute of Love—its everlasting
type and standard. The world had never been without
the dower of Love. It had known love like Jacob's,
like David's and Jonathan's, the patriot's and the martyr's
self-devotion. But till Jesus Christ came and laid down
His Life for the men that hated and mocked and slew
Him, the world had not known what Love in its greatness
and purity could be.
The Doctrine of God as Righteousness and Love 73
And the Love of Christ in laying down His Life for
us is the manifestation, under the conditions of time and
sense, of the Love of God, eternal and invisible. God
is Love; but what God is can be known only through
His self-manifestation. Wherein does this consist? Not
in word only. It was not enough that He should say
that He is Love (cf. 318). Not in the works of Nature and
points us to the Sun (49.10)
"Herein was manifested the Love of God toward us,
that God hath sent His Son, His Only Begotten, into the
world, that we might live through Him. Herein is Love,
not that we loved God, but that God loved us, and sent
His Son (as) a propitiation for our sins."1
The first of these two verses emphasises the fact that
God is Love, and exhibits the proof of it ("Herein
was the Love of God manifested"); the second, the
nature of Love itself, so manifested. But, taking both
in one view, we perceive that there are five factors
which here contribute to the full conception of Divine
Love.
(1) First, the magnitude of its gift is set forth. "His
Son, His Only Begotten." Elsewhere, the title of Our
Lord is simply "the Son," the argument turning upon the
relation of Father and Son; or "His Son," or the "Son of
God," where the element of Divine power and dignity in
the Sonship is made more prominent. Here only,2 where
he would display the infinite Love in the infinite Gift, does
The essence of the manifestation is in the fact, not that God
sent Jesus, but that Jesus, who was sent, is God's Only-
Begotten Son. The full being of God is present in Him.
Other gifts are only tokens of God's Love. Its all is given
1 See Notes, in loc.
2 In the Gospel, only in the parallel passage, John 316.
74 The First Epistle of
in Christ. It is His own bleeding heart the Father lays
on Love's altar, when He offers His Only-Begotten Son
(cf. Gen. 2212 and
of the Love is exhibited in the person of the Giver. It
was a father who thus sent his only-begotten son; but that
father was God (o[ qeo<j, not o[ path<r, as in 414). It was
the Divine Nature whose whole wealth was poured out
in the sacrifice of
is manifested in the purpose of the mission of the Son.
This purpose is that we might live through Him,"1 in
which is implicitly contained the "should not perish"
of John 316. The Love of God is thus seen to be His
self-determination not only to rescue men from what is
the sum of all evils, but to impart to them the supreme
and eternal good, Life. (4) Fourthly, the Love of God is
manifested in the means by which this purpose is achieved,
God shrinks not from the uttermost cost of Redemption.
His Son is sent as a "propitiation for our sins." He not
only dies heroically on our behalf, as the good shepherd
lays down his life in defending his helpless flock from the
fangs of the wolf or the assault of the robber; but, as a
father drinks a full cup of sorrow and humiliation in striving
to make atonement for the criminal profligacies of an
unworthy son, even so, Almighty God, in the person of
His Son, humbles Himself and suffers unto blood for
the sins of His creatures. Such is the Love of God to
men; and what can be said of it, except that it is at once
incredible that the fact should be so, and impossible that
it should be otherwise? It is what never did, never could,
flit within the horizon of man's most daring dream; it is
that which, when it is revealed, shines with self-evidencing
light. It needs no argument. Apologetic is superfluous.2
1 i!na zh<swmen di ] au]tou?. Cf. John 315.16 651.57 1010 1125.26 1419
2 "what doubt in thee could countervail
Belief in it? Upon the ground
The Doctrine of God as Righteousness and Love 75
Such Love is Divine. The Being whose nature this is,
is God.
But these statements ought, perhaps, to have been
reserved until we had considered the final moment in the
full conception of Divine Love, its objects. (5) "Herein
is Love, not that we loved God, but that God loved
us." The interpretation popularly put upon this verse,
as equivalent to "Herein is love, that, although we
did not love God, God loved us," is grammatically
untenable,1 and it misses the point in one of the
profoundest sentences in the Epistle. The Apostle does
not say that we have not loved God. What he says
is that we have loved God, but that this is not love
to call love. That we have loved God is nothing
wonderful. The ineffable mystery of Love reveals itself
in this, that God has loved us, who are so unworthy of
His Love, and so repulsive to all the sensibilities, so to
say, of His moral nature. The full glory of the Divine
Love is seen in the fact that it is wholly self-created and
self-determined.
It may be permissible to elucidate this truth somewhat
more fully. As we have seen. Love is that mysterious
power by which we live in the lives of others, and are thus
moved to benevolent and even self-sacrificing action on
their behalf. Such love is, after all, one of the most
universal things in humanity. But always natural human
That in the story had been found
Too much Love? How could God love so?
While man, who was so fit instead
To hate, as every day gave proof,—
Man thought man, for his kind's behoof,
Both could and did invent that scheme
Of perfect Love; 't would well beseem
Cain's nature thou vast wont to praise,
Not tally with God's usual ways."
Browning's Easter Day.
1 See Notes, in loc.
76 The First Epistle of
love is a flame that must be kindled and fed by some quality
in its object. It finds its stimulus in physical instinct, in
gratitude, in admiration, in mutual congeniality and liking.
Always it is, in the first place, a passive emotion, determined
and drawn forth by an external attraction. But the Love
of God is the ever-springing fountain. Its fires are self-
kindled. It is love that shines forth in its purest splendour
upon the unattractive, the unworthy, the repellent. Herein
is Love, in its purest essence and highest potency, not in
our love to God, but in this, that God loved us. Hence
follows the apparently paradoxical consequence, upon
which the Epistle lays a unique emphasis, that our love to
God is not even the most godlike manifestation of Love in
us. It is gratitude for His benefits, adoration of His
perfections, our response to God's love to us, but not its
closest reproduction in kind. In this respect, indeed, God's
love to man and man's love to God form the opposite
poles, as it were, of the universe of Love, the one self.
created and owing nothing to its object, the other entirely
dependent upon and owing everything to the infinite
perfection of its object; the one the overarching sky, the
other merely its reflection on the still surface of the lake,
And it is, as the Epistle insists, not in our love to God;
but in our Christian love to our fellow-men, that the Divine
Love is reproduced, with a relative perfection, in us (412.19.20;
cf. Eph. 432-52)
Such is the conception of the Love of God that St.
John sets before us. In this entirely spontaneous, self-
determined devotion of God to sinful men, this Divine
passion to rescue them from sin, the supreme evil, and
to bestow on them the supreme good, Eternal Life:
in this, which is evoked by their need, not by their
worthiness, which goes to the uttermost length of
sacrifice, and bears the uttermost burden of their self-
inflicted doom—in this, which is for ever revealed in the
The Doctrine of God as Righteous and Love 77
mission of Jesus Christ, God's Only-Begotten Son—is
Love.
This is at once the norm and the inspiration of all that
is most truly to be called Love. Love is no merely
passive, involuntary emotion awakened in one person by
another. In the Epistle, as everywhere in the New
Testament, it is a duty (47.11) a subject of command-
ment (27.8 323b 421), and is, therefore, a moral self-deter-
mination which, in man, must often act in direct opposition
to natural instinct and inclination. And this is a self-
determination to do good, good only, and always the
highest good possible (49), without regard to merit or
attractiveness in the object (410a)and that even at highest
cost to self1 (410b).
Yet such a definition would be adequate only to one
half of what Love is. Love is not solely benevolence
issuing in beneficence. In its highest as well as in its
lowest forms it contains the element of appetency. In
its lower forms Love is predominantly an egoistic and
appropriative impulse; in its highest form it becomes that
marvellous power which reconciles and identifies the
apparently opposite principles, egoism and altruism. One
finds one's richest satisfaction in the happiness of others,
one's own fullest self-realisation in promoting theirs. Love
seeks not its own, yet makes all things its own. It is the
utmost enrichment and enlargement of Life. "My beloved
is mine"—a possession of which nothing can rob me. The
more perfect the love, the more completely achieved is this
mysterious result, this self-enlargement by self-communica-
tion, this self-losing self-finding. If I love my neighbour
as myself, I regale myself with his prosperity, even as
I share the bitter cup of his adversity; I am honoured in
his praise, promoted in his advancement, gladdened in his
joy, even as I am humbled in his shame or distressed in
1 Cf. J. M. Gibbon, Eternal Life, p. 106.
78 The First Epistle of
his sin. In short, we might define the highest Love as
that state of the moral nature in which the egoistic and the
altruistic principles coalesce and are fused into one living
experience. Such is the perpetual miracle of Love. Such
is it in man. Such also is it in God, as it is delineated in
the New Testament. No less than benevolence, God's
Love displays the element of infinite desire and yearning
quest. It seeks the lost as the shepherd seeks the strayed
sheep upon the mountains; as a father's heart yearns after
a wayward son. It becomes the source of an infinite
Divine Joy over the sinner that repenteth; and because of
the joy, it endures the cross and despises the shame. It is
in God's Love, and transcendently in His self-sacrifice for
the sinful and lost, that the Divine Life conies to its fullest
self-realisation. And, though it is the self-communicating
aspect of Divine Love that alone is presented in the Epistle,
yet, always, Love is that for which self-communication
is the fullest self-assertion, and all that Love is, is
ascribed in its supreme perfection to God. God is Love.
(1) He is Love essentially. Like the sunlight which
contains in itself all the hues of the spectrum, Love is
not one of God's attributes, but that ill which all His
moral attributes have their unity. The spring of all
His actions, the explanation of all He does or ever can
do is Love. (2) Therefore, also, His Love is universal.
If there were any of His creatures whom He did not
love, this would prove that there was something in His
nature that was not Love, but was opposed to Love.
Whatever be the mysteries of the past, present, or future,
God is Love. That is
not attempt to reconcile with it other and apparently
conflicting truths in his theological scheme; possibly he
was not conscious of any need to do so. But of this
he is sure—God is Love. That fact must, in ways we
cannot yet discern, include all other facts. No being is
The Doctrine of God as Righteousness and Love 79
unloved. Nothing happens that is not dictated or over-
ruled by Love. (3) And if essential and universal, the Love
of God is also eternal and unchangeable. It does not depend
on any merit or reciprocation in its object, but overflows
from an infinite fulness within itself. Our goodness did
not call it forth; neither can our evil cause it to cease.
“Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
sends with the remover to remove.”
We may refuse to the Divine Love any inlet into our
nature, may refuse to let it have its way with us, may so
identify ourselves with evil as to turn it into an antagonistic
force. This is the most awful fact in human life. But
the sun is not extinguished, though shutters be closed and
blinds drawn at midday; and though we may shut out
God from our hearts, no being can by any means shut
himself out from the great Heart of God. God is Love.
It is the surest of all intuitions; the strongest corner-
stone of the Christian Faith. Having known and believed
the Love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord—
the Love that came not by water only, but by blood
also—we can tolerate no other conception of the Divine.
(4) From all this it follows that we cannot ultimately con-
ceive of God as a single and simple personality. Love, no
more than Thought, can exist without an object. If we
say that God was eternally the object of His own Love,
we deny to Him the supreme prerogative of Love, self-
communication. If we say that, either in time or from
eternity, God created the universe in order to have an
object for His Love, we make the Universe as necessary
to God as God is to the Universe. His Love in creation
was not the overflowing of the fountain, but the craving
of the empty vessel. It is at this point that the Trini-
tarian doctrine becomes most helpful. It enables us to
think of the Life of God not as an eternal solitude of
80 The First Epistle of
self-contemplation and self love, but as a life of communion:
—the Godhead is filled with Love, the Love of the
Father and the Son in the unity of the Spirit. So far
from being a burden to faith, the doctrine of the Divine
Trinity sheds a welcome light upon the mystery of God's
Eternal Being, both as self-conscious personality and as
Love. It is a mystery, but a mystery which "explains
many other mysteries, and which sheds a marvellous light on
God, on nature, and on man." It is the "consummation and
only perfect protection of Theism"; and it will be ultimately
found not only to influence every part of our theological
system, but to be the vital basis of Christian Ethics.
EXCURSUS
ON
The Correlation of Righteousness and Love.
God is Love; God is Righteous. The two conceptions appear to be
equally fundamental; and a problem of no small perplexity is presented
by the inevitable inquiry—what is their relation to each other? When
it is said that God is Love, the only possible interpretation seems to be
that Love is that essential moral quality of the Divine Nature in which
all God's purposes and actions have their origin. But when it is said
that God is Righteous, it seems equally inevitable to regard His
Righteousness as determining all His purposes and ways. Both state-
ments, moreover, are intuitively felt to be true. We can assert the one
and then, the next moment, assert the other without any sense of
contradiction. How, then, are we to think of the moral nature of God?
Is it a unity, or is it a duality? Is it, to use a mathematical analogy,
a circle having a single centre, or is it an ellipse formed around two
different foci?
The latter solution of the problem has been most widely and
authoritatively maintained. Righteousness and Love, it is held, are
essentially different and mutually independent. They are not conter-
minous, Righteousness occupying the whole area of moral character
and obligation, while Love covers only a part of it. God is righteous
in all His ways; in some only is He loving. Righteousness is a
necessity with Him; Love is secondary, and can be exercised only
when it does not conflict with Righteousness. Let us consider whether
this view is tenable.
(1) In the first place, Love is included in Righteousness. A distinc-
The Doctrine of God as Righteousness and Love 81
tion is drawn between duties of Right and duties of Love. But there
certainly are duties of Love. Love is not a mood or inclination that
may or may not be exercised at one's option. The maxim is laid down
by Dorner1 that duties of Right precede duties of Love—"We must be
just before we are generous." But in what is this precedence grounded?
Assuredly, not in any essential difference in the nature of the obligation.
We are not under one sort of obligation to be honest and under another
and inferior obligation to be kind. It is a mere and inevitable fact,
indeed, that is expressed by the axiom, "We must be just before we
are generous." We cannot in reality be generous before we are just.
If we act as if we could, we are generous with what is not ours but
another's; that is to say, we arc not generous at all. The apparent
self-communication is altogether unreal. And it is because the tempta-
tion to forget this is, for many persons, peculiarly strong that the
maxim, "We must be just before we are generous," is so needful. But
morally it is no whit less imperative that a man be generous according
to his real ability, than that he be honest; that he forgive an injury,
than that he refrain from committing one. Such difference as exists
between duties of Right and duties of Love is not qualitative but
quantitative. To succour the needy is as truly a duty as to pay one's
mercantile debts; but to be dishonest is a more flagrant violation of
the law, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," than to be
ungenerous. The distinction between the two classes of duties is only
a convenient expression of certain moral measurements, which experi-
ence has taught mankind to make, as to the duties that are the more
universal and important, and the neglect of which works greater and wider injury.
The duties of love, then, are included in the area of Righteousness.
According to all Christian Ethics, indeed, Love is the chief part of that
sum of moral obligation which is Righteousness. (According to Matt.
2235-40 and
duty, and the withholding of it the worst sin.
(2) But, further, it is clear that nothing that is truly called Love can
be outside the area of Righteousness.
For since, ex hypothesi, Love always seeks for its object the greatest
good possible to it, and cannot consent to sacrifice the greatest to any
lower good, it seas for moral beings always the same thing that
Righteousness seeks—their highest moral excellence. Human love may
be blind and mistake its way, and give instead of bread a stone;
but when enlightened it cannot, if true to its own ends, seek aught
less than the best. And, on the other hand, enlightened Love never
becomes an impulse to undutiful conduct in the person who loves, never
permits the supposition that we can promote another's good by means
that involve inferior conduct on our own part; on the contrary, it
1 System of Christian Ethics, p. 91 (
82 The First Epistle of
becomes the strongest impulse to realise the full moral worth of one's
own personality.
All that is truly called Love is included, in the area of Righteous-
ness. (3) We come to a more disputed question when we ask—Is all
Righteousness included in the area of Love? Can there be action
that is righteous in which there is no Love? Or could there exist a
person who, though destitute of Love, possessed the attribute of
Righteousness? Without attempting to show in detail that all duties
can be resolved into diverse applications of the law of Love, one may
state the general question, whether, if Love were non-existent, conscious-
ness of any moral obligation whatsoever is conceivable. The answer
it seems to me, is that it is not conceivable. If my normal and proper
state of soul towards my neighbour were one of absolute indifference to
his well-being, I could no more stand in any moral relation to him than
to a stone. We find, in fact, that this is the case. In those abnormal
natures in which benevolence seems to be completely extinct, the
whole moral consciousness seems to be equally a blank. It is true,
indeed, that there are social virtues, such as truthfulness, honour,
equity, that are frequently regarded as existing in an entirely self-centred
form—"I shall keep honour with that scoundrel, not because it is due
to him, but because it is due to myself." But such an attitude (not to
say that it is not that of Christian morality) is not really so self-centred
as it seems. He who thus acts is importing into the particular instance
a feeling derived from his sense of obligation to mankind in general.
He acts upon a code and habit of honour which are to him of such
worth that he would not be compensated for their violation by any
satisfaction derived from paying a rascal in his own coin. But this
code and habit of honour are not self-centred. The self-respect to
which honourable dealing with our neighbour is felt to be clue is reflex.
We could not be conscious that such conduct is necessary to self-
respect, unless we were, in the first place, conscious that it is due from
us to our neighbour.
It is in respect to Justice, and especially punitive Justice, that the
question we are considering comes to its acutest point. And without
discussing the ultimate origin of the idea of Justice, I again submit that
if we were so constituted that the interests of our fellow-men were nothing
to us, it would be impossible that we should be sensible of any obligation
to justice, equity, or impartiality in our dealings with them. Whether
or not the idea of Justice is directly derivable from Love as the dis-
tributive method by which Love deals with competing interests in such
wise as to advance the best interests of all without detriment to any,
it is at least evident that Justice is the instrument of Love. Love
demands that we do justly. Nor is this less true of punitive Justice.
In the popular understanding of the words, the Love of God is regarded
as acting only in the direct communication of good; while the judicial,
punitive, and destructive energies of the Divine Nature, which are
evoked by evil, are assigned exclusively to Righteousness. But this
The Doctrine of God as Righteousness and Love 8
is a false antithesis, based upon an inadequate and one-sided con-
ception of Love. Love, as seeking the highest good of its objects, is
constrained to oppose, and to oppose passionately, all that works for
the defeat of its purpose. Love is not merely a sweet, suave, and
benignant disposition. Love has in it the sharpness of the sword and
the fierceness of flame. Love hates—hates evil, which is opposed to
Love. Love in the right-minded parent hates evil in the child; in the
right-minded ruler, hates evil in the society which he governs, and
encounters it with the full force of his opposition and displeasure. Love
cares for social as well as for individual well-being. The more truly
loving a parent is, the more inflexible will he be in rebuking and
correcting evil within the home; in exercising justice, and preventing one
member of the household from acting wrongfully towards another ;.and,
when the interests of the individual or of the whole family require it, in
punishing and making an example of the wrong-doer, and even, should
he prove incorrigible, in excluding him from the home. Yet all this
Righteousness will he do for the ends and in the spirit of Love. Even
so, the Love of God must assert itself in infinitely intense antagonism
to all that works for the defeat of the eternal purpose of Love--Love
that seeks the highest moral excellence of His creatures—for which
He created and governs the universe. It is in accordance with that
purpose that right shall be rewarded and wrong punished; nay, this
must be inherent in the constitution of a universe created and ruled by
Love. In the interests of the sinner himself, sin must be punished.
Even if there be no hope of his amendment, in the interests of the
moral universe God must still encounter sin with the full force of His
displeasure. Yet all this Righteousness God will do for the ends and
in the spirit of Love.
It is a strong point in the Calvinistic tradition to maintain that
punitive justice cannot be derived from Love. Yet it is not only
consistent with, it is a necessity of God's changeless purpose of Love
that wrong be punished. And I fail to conceive the nature of a
Justice that has no connection with this purpose. There is, doubt-
less, a genuine moral satisfaction in the humiliation of triumphant
wrong, in beholding the evil-doer receive the due reward of his
deeds; but this satisfaction is ultimately derived from sympathy with
the central purpose of Love; it is the satisfaction of beholding the
beneficent moral order of the universe reasserting itself, repairing
the breaches that have been made in it, and guarding itself against
similar infringements in the future. And, again, I fail to conceive
how, apart from such a purpose of Love, the punishment of wrong
would be right or rational; how, if the infliction of suffering--let
us suppose the case—could be of no possible benefit either to
the sinner himself or to any other being in the universe, present
or future, there would still remain a ground of reason or of obliga-
tion for inflicting it. Nay more, I fail to conceive how a being
without Love, wholly indifferent to the well-being of others, could
84 The First Epistle of
ever be conscious of Justice as a moral obligation, or be capable of
finding any moral satisfaction in it. If, indeed, this were possible, if
there could exist a being of whose moral consciousness Justice were the
sole content,1 for whom Love did not exist, or existed only as a secondary
and accidental attribute, of whom it could be said2 that "Love is an
attribute which he may exercise or not as he will," that Mercy is
optional with him," that "he is bound to be just, he is not bound to be
generous," such a being would be morally of an infra-human type and
vastly remote in character from the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ.
This whole theory rests, in fact, upon the idea which, as has been
already said, is the negation of Christian Ethics, that Love is something
over and above what is strictly right, a work of supererogation, a comely
adornment of character, but not the very fibre of which its robe is woven.
The conclusion, then, at which I arrive is that Righteousness and
Love are conterminous in area; that as little can Righteousness exist
without Love as Love, truly so called, without Righteousness. But
the question remains, how we are to conceive their relation to one another.
An interesting and fruitful view—true, I believe, as regards the
fundamental position, though I cannot find myself in agreement with
the conclusion reached—is that presented by Dorner.3 "The essence
of morality consists in an unchangeable but also eternally living union
of a righteous will and a loving will. The two together and inseparably
one constitute a holy love." Donner then construes Righteousness
as the necessity of self-assertion in the Divine Nature, Love as the
necessity of self-communication; and he has no difficulty in showing that
without self-assertion ethical self-communication would be impossible.
It would cease to be voluntary, and would become a merely instinctive
benevolence, akin to a physical expansion like that of light or heat.
1 One may try to imagine such a being, who should possess as his sole
moral characteristic a passion for abstract Justice—for arriving at and executing
equitable decisions regarding the merits of other beings—and who might find a
peculiar satisfaction in thus administering Justice among men, or in a colony of
ants, or a swarm of bees. But would such a characteristic be really moral?
Would there he any ethical motive or value in such a passion for applying the
rules of equity—there being no interest or sense of obligation to advance any
one's well-being thereby—any more than in a passion for solving mathematical
problems? Is there necessarily ethical value in the justice of a judge qua judge
(the persons judged being to him but lay figures, representing so many judicial
problems) any more than in the diagnosis of a physician? The crucial
question is—Can any moral relation subsist between two persons apart from the
obligation, recognised or unrecognised, to seek each other's good, that is to say,
apart from Love? It does not seem possible. The prerequisite of all moral
relationship is Love.
2 See Steven's Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p. 17S.
3Christian Ethics, pp. 76–79 (
The Doctrine of God as Righteousness and Love 85
But then it would seem to be equally true that, without self-communica-
tion, ethical self-assertion is impossible. The self-assertion or righteous-
ness of God is that in all He does He must be true to Himself, must
act according to the voluntary self-determination of His own moral
nature. But that nature is holy love; and only by acting in holy love
can God truly assert Himself. This, however, Dorner refuses to admit,
maintaining that ethical self-assertion is possible without self-communi-
cation. And when we ask wherein this consists, he replies that it is
in God's assertion of His non-communicable attributes—of His self-
existence, His glory and majesty, of "Himself in the distinction which,
to thought and in fact, exists between Him and the non-self-existing
universe." "It is a guarding of the difference between Him and the
world, even when He imparts himself to it and wills to be self-
imparting." But this is far from satisfactory. It amounts to this, that
in communicating all of His own nature that is communicable,—life,
physical, rational, and spiritual,--God is both loving and righteous;
while in asserting what is incommunicable His self-existence and
supremacy as Creator and Lawgiver--He is not loving, but is exclusively
righteous. But this does not seem to yield that living, inseparable
union of a loving and a righteous will which Dorner rightly posits as
"the essence of morality." For those of God's attributes that are not
directly communicable may yet be employed for the ends of Love; as,
for example, His self-existence for Creation, His power and omniscience
for beneficent providential rule, His moral authority for the moral educa-
tion and discipline of His creatures; and, if they were not so employed,
His will would not be a loving will to its utmost possibility—God would
not be Love. But if God's assertion of all His attributes is directed to
the highest good of His creatures; if, as Christianity teaches, it is in
blessing them, and, above all, in employing all His attributes, com-
municable and non-communicable, for their rescue from the death of Sin
unto Life Everlasting; if Christ is the moral image of the Invisible
God, and if it is in that He "counted it not a prize to be on an equality
with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant," that
the Divine Self is supremely asserted and the difference between
God and the world supremely manifested,—then His fullest self-com-
munication is also His highest self-assertion. The twain constitute
that living and inseparable union of a loving and a righteous will
which is the essence of all morality. And, in short, a moral nature
cannot be thus divided into compartments. Separate attributes exist
only as abstractions. If a person is perfectly loving, he is loving
always and in everything; if he is perfectly righteous, he is righteous
always and in everything; and if he is both perfectly loving and
perfectly righteous, he is loving in his righteousness and righteous
in his love.
The weakness of Dorner's argument lies in regarding Love as
exclusively self-communication, and not rather as that in which self-
commmunication and self-assertion coalesce. Put accepting his definition
86 The First Epistle of
of the essence of morality as the living, inseparable union of a loving
and a righteous will, we may, perhaps, reach a conception of the
correlation of the Righteousness and the Love of God along the follow-
ing lines.
1. The perfect moral state is that in which self-communication is
also self-assertion. This is the mind that was in Christ Jesus (Phil.
25-8). Such Love, therefore, is the content of all moral excellence
(Matt. 2335-40, Rom. 138-10). It is the inner principle without which
even actions that are formally right are morally worthless (1 Cor.
131-3). All graces and virtues are either special manifestations of Love,
as gentleness, compassion, reverence; or are constitutional qualities of
the will—as truthfulness, obedience, gratitude, perseverance, courage--
or of the mind—as wisdom—which are ancillary to the perfect work of
Love. All duties spring ultimately from the one duty of Love. Even
the duty of justice or equity does so; for, if we were so constituted as
to be conscious of no obligation to seek the well-being of others, there
would be no reason, except a prudential one, for doing to others as we
would that they should do to us.
2. Because Love is that power by which self-communication and self-
assertion coalesce in the unity of Life, it is not only the sum of all moral
excellence, but the source of the highest moral satisfactions. It is by
means of Love that Life runs its full circle, as if a river should carry
back: to its source all the wealth its fertilising influences have produced.
And because it thus unites the egoistic and the altruistic principles, it
is also the highest impulse to all duty. It is as much the supreme and
universal power in the moral realm as gravitation is in physics.
3. As being, thus, the content of and the impulse to all moral
excellence, and, at the same time, the source of the highest moral
satisfactions, Love is the summum bonnum. Without it no real good is
possible; and there is no blessedness conceivable beyond that of a
society of persons all united in perfect love. Each communicates
himself to all and all to each. Each seeks the joy and well-being of all,
and, in turn, enjoys the joy and is blessed by the well-being of all.
Such a society would be the perfect organism for the perfect life; and
such an organism God is fashioning and perfecting in the Body of
Christ.
4. God is Love; and, because He is Love, it is His Will to impart
this highest good to all beings capable of participating in it. Because
He is Love, it is His Will to make Love the law of His universe, His
gift to all beings made after His own likeness, and His requirement
from them. And this, I take it, is the Righteousness of God—that
He asserts Love, the law of His own Life, as the law of all life that
is derived from Him. This assertion necessarily acts in two direc-
tions; in the communication of Love, the highest good; and in
antagonism to all that is opposed to it. These modes of action are not
derived from conflicting or mutually independent principles, but are
diverse applications of the same principle. If the eternal purpose of
The Doctrine of God as Righteousness and Love 87
God is to produce beings capable of the highest good and to impart it
to them, then, by His very character as Love, He is also constrained so
to order the universe that whatever tends to the defeat of that purpose
shall meet His unceasing antagonism. This will take the form of what
we call punitive Justice. And what makes the punitive Justice of God
so terrible is that it is the Justice of one who is Love, and that even
Infinite Love can find no alternative.
"Thus, then, we may see that the moral nature of God is a unity,
not a duality. Righteousness is Love in the imperative mood; is
Love legislative and administrative; is the consistency of Love to its
own high and eternal end. The Righteousness of God is that He
makes Love the law of His own action, and that He, in His Love, can
tolerate nothing less and nothing else as His purpose and requirement
for His creatures than that what He acts upon they also shall act upon,
and that the character He possesses they also shall possess. And
nothing else than this is Righteousness in man. Duty is the obligation
which is inherent in the very nature of Love, and could not conceivably
exist in a being destitute of Love, to seek the highest attainable good of
all whom one's conduct affects, that is to say, to be faithful to Love's
highest ends. And when, in popular language, Duty is contrasted with
Love, the true significance of this is that Duty is the consistency of
Love to its higher end, in the face of egoistic inclination or of temptation
to decline upon some lower end.
It will be seen that the view here presented involves
these fundamental positions. (I) All moral life is neces-
sarily social. As self-consciousness is psychologically
possible only by the distinction of the ego from the non-
ego, so moral self-consciousness is awakened only in our
relation to other personalities. An absolutely solitary unit
(without God or neighbour) could have no moral conscious-
ness. Our moral ideal of self is our conception of the ideal
man in all his relations to God and his fellows; and apart
from such relations moral self-love is inconceivable.
(2) The supreme end is Life. All that we call morality
is the "Way of Life," the means to that fullest, highest Life
which
moral excellence (Love) is an end in itself; for it is only by
our entering with that vivid, spontaneous response, which is
at once self-communication and self-assertion, into all the
relations, human and divine, amid which we have our being,
88 The First Epistle of
that Life is realised. Hence, while it has just been said
that Life is the summum bonum, this may be also said of
moral excellence, that is, of Love. Love is not only the
way to Life, it is the living of the Eternal Life. (3) All
this implies, as has been shown, a Trinitarian conception
of the Divine Nature.
CHAPTER VI.
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST.
THE centre of doctrinal interest in the Epistle is the
Incarnation, in which
a true manifestation of the Divine Life in man, and the
single channel for its permanent communication to men.
Before proceeding, however, to the study of the chief
Christological passages, it will be convenient to advert to
some few points that lie on the circumference of the subject,
yet are of great interest.
The nomenclature of the Epistle is noticeably different
in some respects from that of the Fourth Gospel. "Jesus
Christ" has now become the proper personal name of
our Lord (13 21 323 520). "Jesus" is not found except
in conjunction with "Christ" or some other term of
theological significance, such as "Son of God" (17), or
where the sense requires some such term to be supplied
(43). The absolute use of e]keinoj (26 33.5.7.16 417) and of
au]to<j (28. 12. 27.28 32. 3 421) almost as a name of the Saviour
is peculiar1 to the Epistle. Blending a certain idealising
reverence with the allusiveness of familiar affection, this
usage is singularly expressive of a state of mind to which,
although the mists of time have gathered around the image
of the historical Jesus, He is still the one ever-present
living personality. As in old-style Scottish parlance, a
wife would speak of her husband, present or departed as
1 Unless we recognise the same usage in John I935.
89
90 The First Epistle of
"himself";1 so with the Apostle it is needless to say who
He is. There is but one "He."
Other designations applied to Christ are "righteous "
(di<kaioj, 21 37) "pure" a]gno<j, 33), "the Holy One" (o[ a!gioj,
220). The first of these (di<kaioj) expresses the broadest con-
ception of His moral perfection. In every aspect of character
and conduct He absolutely fulfils the idea of "right." In
a[gno<j, again, the primary idea is that of freedom from moral
stain.2 The word may indicate a previous state of actual
impurity (Ps. 5112), and it necessarily implies the thought of
possible impurity. Broadly, we might say that Purity (a[gnei<a)
is the negative aspect of Love. The command to "purify
oneself" (33) is equivalent to "love not the world, neither
the things that are in the world " (215). Purity is that
element in holy character which is wrought out by the
discipline of temptation; and thus the word imparts a
peculiar significance to the passage in which it is applied to
Christ. Hoping in Him, we are to purify ourselves, even
as He Who, though tempted in all points like as we are, was
and is pure (33).
In a!gioj (=wOdqA) the same root-idea of separation from
evil has been merged in that of consecration to God. The
sense is religious3 rather than, per se, ethical. To Christ it
is applied in a technical Messianic sense. He is the " Holy
Servant " (o[ a!gioj pai?j, Acts 430), the fulfilment of the Old
Testament ideal of the Servant of Jehovah. He is recog-
1 Or a farm-servant, of his master. In Theocritus (xxiv. 50), Amphitryon,
calling his retainers .from their beds, cries, a@nstate dmw?ej talasi<fronej, au]to>j
a]u*ti?: "It is himself (your master) that is calling." It is inevitable to compare
the Pythagorean au]to>j e@fa.
2 Biblically, a[gno<j the equivalent of rOhFA=Levitically clean. In classical
Greek, the prevalent sense is that of freedom from moral defilement; more
specifically, chastity. Thus in Homer a[gnh< is the epithet of the virgin goddesses
Artemis and Persephone. This specific sense is frequently retained in the N.T.
(2 Cor. 66 711 112, Tit. 25, I Tim. 52, I Pet. 32). The broader sense is exemplified
in 1 Pet. 122 (ta>j yuxa>j u[mw?n h[gni<kotej) and Jas.48 (a[gni<sate kardi<aj, di<yuxoi).
3 Thus the Father Himself is a!gioj (John 1711); the Divine Spirit is to> a!gion
pneu?ma; the angels are a!gioi; Christians are a!gioi in virtue of their Divine calling
(1 Cor. 12, 2 Tim. 19).
The Doctrine of Christ 91
nised by evil spirits (Mark 124, Luke 434), and confessed by
disciples (John 669) as "the Holy One of God " (o[ a!gioj tou?
qeou?). He is o[ a!gioj o[ a]lhqino<j (Rev. 37), the "true" or
"genuine" Holy One, who hath the Key of David—who
wields all Messianic prerogatives. And it is obviously in
the same sense that He is named "the Holy One" in the
Epistle (220). It is as the Messiah, the Anointed, that He
bestows upon the members of the Messianic community the
"anointing" (xri?sma) of the Spirit.
Passing from these points, we proceed to consider the
great Christological thesis of the Epistle. That thesis is the
complete, permanent, and personal identification of the historical
Jesus with the Divine Being who is the Word of Life (11), the
"Christ" (42) and the Son of God (55); and it is characteristic
of the author's method that this, which is to be the subject of
repeated development in the body of the Epistle, is preluded
in its first sentence. The abstract of the Apostolic Gospel
which is there prefixed to the Epistle, as the fountain-head
from which all its teaching is drawn, contains the two com-
plementary truths: that Jesus is the "Word" in whom the
Eternal Life of God has been fully manifested, and that
this manifestation has been made through a humanity in
which there is nothing visionary or unreal, and is vouched
for by every applicable test as genuine and complete. The
Incarnate Word has been "seen," "heard," "handled" (11-3).1
In the Epistle this thesis is maintained in the form of
a vigorous polemic against certain heretical teachers whom
the writer calls " antichrists,"2 in whom he discovers the
true representatives of that arch-enemy of God and His
Christ who figured so vividly in apocalyptic literature and
in the popular belief. That we must recognise in these
"antichrists" one or more of the many ramifications of
Gnosticism, is beyond question. Though our knowledge of
Gnosticism in the Johannine age is but dim and fragmentary,
1 v. supra, pp. 46-48, 109. 2 See Chapter XVI,
92 The First Epistle of
still, what we do gather from the scanty records of the
Apostolic Fathers fits into the Christological passages
of the Epistle so accurately that it renders their interpreta-
tion certain where otherwise it would be only conjectural.
From the Epistle itself we learn that the heretical teachers
denied that Jesus is the Christ (222), or, more definitely,
"Christ come in the flesh" (43); they denied that Jesus is
"the Son of God" (415); and they asserted that He came
"by water only" and not "by blood also" (56). Plainly,
what is here in view is, in the one or the other of its
forms, the Docetic theory of Christ's Person; for it appears
that the theory existed in two more or less defined types.
There was the crude unmitigated Docetism described in the
Ignatian Epistles, according to which Jesus was the Christ,
but was in no sense a real human being. It was only a
phantom that walked the earth and was crucified. The
Incarnation was nothing else than a prolonged theophany.1
The other is specially associated with the name of Cerinthus,2
of whom Irenaeus reports (Haer. I. 26. i.) that he taught that
Jesus was not born of a virgin, but was the son of Joseph.
and Mary, and was distinguished from other men only by
superiority in justice, prudence, and wisdom; that, at His
Baptism the Christ descended upon Him in the form of a
1 An interesting specimen of a Docetic Gospel of this type is extant in the
recently published Acts of John, the date assigned to which is "not later than
the second half of the first century" (Texts and Studies, vol. v., No. 1, p. x).
According to this Gospel, our Lord had no proper material existence. He
assumed different appearances to different beholders, and at different tunes.
Sometimes His body was small and uncomely; at other times His stature
reached unto heaven. Sometimes He seemed to have a solid material body, at
other times He appeared immaterial. It was only a phantom Christ that was
crucified. During the Crucifixion, the read Christ appears to John on the Mount
of Olives and says, "John, unto the multitude down below in
being crucified and pierced with lances and reeds, and gall and vinegar are given
me to drink; but I put it into thine heart to come up unto this mountain, that thou
mightest hear matters needful for a disciple to learn from his Master and for
a man to learn from his God." The Lord then shows to John the mystic Cross
of Light and the Lord Himself above the Cross, not having any shape, but only
a voice.
2 See Chapter II.
The Doctrine of Christ 93
dove, and announced the unknown Father; that, at the end
of His life, the Christ again left Jesus; that Jesus died and
rose again, but that the Christ, being spiritual, remained
without suffering. According to this view, Jesus was not
the Christ, but only, for the period between the Baptism
and the Crucifixion, the earthly habitation of the heavenly
Christ. On either of the theories the Incarnation was only a
semblance. The one denied reality to the human embodi-
ment of the Divine Life; the other, admitting the reality of
the human embodiment, denied its permanent and personal
identification with the Divine. By some exegetes, traces
of both forms of the Docetic theory have been discerned in
the Epistle. We shall find, however, that the Cerinthian
heresy alone offers a sufficient objective for all the Christo-
logical passages.
These passages are 221-23 41-3 415 56-8. And we shall,
in the first place, simply state the doctrinal content of each.
"Who is the liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the
Christ?" (222). Here the assertion or denial that Jesus is
the Christ has no relation to the early controversy regard-
ing the Messiahship2 of Jesus in the Jewish sense, a
controversy which now could possess little more than an
antiquarian interest.
In Gnostic nomenclature "Christ" was one of the aeons
—spiritual existences emanating from the Godhead who
appeared on earth in phantasmal or temporary embodiment
in Jesus; and the Apostle also uses the name "Christ" as
equivalent to the "Word " or "the Son of God," to signify
the Divine pre-existent factor in the personality of Jesus.
1 For example, by Pfleiderer (ii. 433). Cerinthus was a contemporary of St.
John; and if we accept Lightfoot's argument (Apostolic Fathers, i. 368), that the
more crudely Docetic view must have been the earlier, the natural tendency
being toward modification, it is evident that the polemic of the Epistle might, as
a matter of date, have been directed against either or both forms of the heresy.
2 Cf. especially Acts 1828 where the subject of controversy, though verbally
the same, is substantially quite different. There is no trace in the Epistle of
conflict with Jewish or Ebionistic error.
94 The First Epistle of
Evidently, then, it is the Cerinthian heresy that is here
repudiated. As to the manner in which this school of
Gnosticism construed the personality of the composite
Christ-Jesus during the period of union, we are ignorant;
but the essential significance of the theory, truly and
tersely stated, was that Jesus was not the Christ. There
was only a temporary and incomplete association of Jesus
with the Christ.
"Hereby recognise (or, ye recognise) the Spirit of God.
Every spirit that confesseth Jesus (as)1 Christ come in the
flesh is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus
is not of God" (42.3a). Here the statement is more specific,
but to the same effect; it is still the Cerinthian heresy that
is combatted. The emphasis is not upon the real humanity
of Jesus so much as upon the personal identity of the pre-
existent Divine Christ with Jesus. There is no mere
association, however intimate, between Jesus and the Christ.
Jesus is the Christ, come in the flesh.
A third time the Apostle returns to the same theme.
"Whosoever confesseth that Jesus is the Son of God, God
dwelleth in him, and he in God" (415). Here the true con-
1 e]n tou<t& ginw<skete to> pneu?ma tou? qeou?: pa?n pneu?ma o{ o[mologei? ]Ihsou?n
Xristo>n e]n sarki> e]lhluqo<ta e]k tou? qeou? e]sti<n, kai> pa?n pneu?ma o{ mh> o[mologei? to>n
]Ihsou?n, e]k tou? qeou? ou]k e]sti<n
Three different constructions of the crucial phrase in these verses are possible.
(a) ]Ihsou?n Xristo>n e]n sarki> e]lhluqo<ta may be taken as one object after o[mologei?
—" Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ, Who is come in the flesh". (Huther,
Westcott). Grammatically, this lies open to the objection that the article is
(normally) demanded (to>n e]n sarki> e]lhluqo<ta); in point of sense, that it contains
no definite statement—does not specify in what sense we are to confess Jesus
Christ, Who is come in the flesh. (b) ]Ihsou?n Xristo<n may be taken as a proper
name (cf. 13 21 323 520). Thus the confession would be expressly that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh; and would be opposed to that thoroughgoing
Docetism which attributed to our Lord only the semblance of a human body
(Weiss, Pfleiderer). But it is quite unnecessary to find here a reference to
a different type of error. (c) For ]Ihsou?n alone may be taken as the direct
object after o[mologei?, and Xristo>n e]n sarki> e]lhluqo<ta as a secondary predicate.
"Every spirit that confesseth Jesus as Christ come in the flesh" (Haupt).
This construction is rendered probable by so close a parallel as e]a<n tij au]to>n
o[mologh<s^ Xristo<n (John 922), and, I think, certain by the fact that in the
following clause ]Ihsou?n stands alone as object after o[mologei?.
The Doctrine of Christ 95
fession, "Jesus is the Christ," appears as "Jesus is the Son
of God." The terms are interchangeable, if not synony-
mous; and, in this instance, "Son of God" is preferred as
bringing out the filial relation of Him who is sent to Him
who sends (414), and thus exhibiting the immensity of the
Divine Love manifested in the mission of Christ.
Finally, we have the much-debated passage, "Who is
he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that
Jesus is the Son of God? This is He that came by water
and blood; not by the water only, but by the water and
by the blood" (55.6a). The obscurity of the whole passage is
due, doubtless, to the fact that the first readers of the Epistle,
for whom it was written, were already familiar with the
author's handling of the topics that are here merely indicated.
Such expressions as the "water" and the "blood" are
a kind of verbal shorthand, intended merely to recall to
his readers the exposition of those themes which they had
heard from his lips. Without attempting a full account1
of the extraordinarily numerous and diverse explanations,
ancient and modern, of these words, it must suffice to say
that an interpretation based on a supposed reference to
the sacraments was inevitable (so Lutheran commentators
generally; also, in part, Westcott). But, while Baptism and
the Lord's Supper do exhibit sacramentally those elements
in Christ's saving work that correspond respectively to His
coming by Water and by Blood, to explain the text by
direct reference to these is inadequate.2 Equally inevitable
was the effort to explain the passage by the account given
in the Gospel of the efflux of water and blood from the
Saviour's wounded side (Augustine and ancient com-
mentators generally). But it may be said with consider-
1 This may be found in Huther, pp. 456-458.
2 This statement is made with reference only to the lust mention (56) of the
"Dater and the Blood. Subsequently (57.8) there is, I think, a natural transition
from the historical realities to their permanent memorials, the Christian
Sacraments. See Chapter VII.
96 The First Epistle of
able confidence that while this passage in the Epistle may
serve to explain the symbolical meaning which is apparently
attached in the Gospel to that incident of the Passion,
the incident in the Gospel sheds no light upon the passage
in the Epistle. The clue to this is the Docetic tenet that
the aeon Christ descended upon Jesus at His Baptisms and
departed again from Him before His Passion. Thus it is
evident that the "water" here denotes our Lord's Baptism,
the "blood," His death on
heresy taught that the Christ came by "water," but denied
that He came by "blood" also. Hence
and emphatic assertion that He came "not by the water
only, but by the water and the blood."
As Westcott rightly points out, "He that cometh," "He
that came" (o[ e]xo<menoj, o[ e]lqw<n), are terms used in the
Gospels, and notably in
the Messiah.1 When, therefore, it is said that Jesus the Son
of God "came" by water and by blood, it is signified that
first by His Baptism and then by His Death, Jesus entered
actually and effectively upon His Messianic ministry. He
"came" by water (di ] u!datoj).2 In their own sense the
Gnostics maintained that Christ "came" by water; in
another sense, the Epistle asserts the same3—in what
sense is clearly demonstrated in the Gospels, where the
Baptism is invariably regarded as the actual beginning of
His Messianic ministry (John 131, Acts 122; Mark's Gospel
begins with the Baptism). When Jesus definitely con-
secrated Himself in the full consciousness of His calling
1 Cf. John 331 614 727 1127 1213; Matt. 113 2339, and cognate passages is the
other Gospels.
2 The exact significance of dia< with u!datoj and ai!matoj is not easy to determine.
The idea may be that of the door, so to say, through which Christ entered upon
his mission.
3 It might be supposed, were one to take this passage by itself, that the
writer was half a Gnostic, that he held the view that Christ descended into
Jesus at His baptism, while strenuously resisting the idea that the Christ
departed from Jesus before His Passion.
The Doctrine of Christ 97
(Matt. 315); the Spirit was bestowed on Him "not by
measure" for its accomplishment (Matt. 316); and the
voice from Heaven testified His predestination to it
(Matt. 317). But He came by Blood also. This the
Gnostics denied; this the Apostle affirms.1 He who
was baptized of John in Jordan, and He whose life-blood
was shed on
the same Son of God eternally. For He "came" by
blood. He did not depart by blood. He laid down
His life only that he might take it again. Death was for
Him only the entrance upon the endless career of His
redemptive work, the unhindered fruitfulness of His life
(John 1224).
If the foregoing exposition of the chief Christological
passages has been right, it has been made clear that these
passages all promulgate the same truth in substantially the
same way. If one might express it mathematically,
there is on one side of an equation the Divine, or, at least,
super-terrestrial, Being Who is the "Word of Life," the
"Christ," the "Son of God"; on the other side, the human
Jesus. But the two sides of the equation are not only
equivalent, they are identical. Without ceasing to be
what He, is, the Son of God has become the human
Jesus; and Jesus, without ceasing to be truly human, is
the Son of God.
An investigation of the wider problems presented by
the Johannine use of these titles, Logos, Christ, Son of
God, cannot be undertaken here.'' Only the more immedi-
ate theological implications of the passages that have been
passed under review may be adverted to. It is at once
1 "Not by the water only, but by the water and by the blood." Both the
repetition and its form are directly determined by the repudiated error. The
first member of the clause denies what Cerinthus affirmed, the second affirms
what he denied.
2 See on these topics, Scott's Fourth Gospel; especially the admirable
chapter on "The Christ, the Son of God."
98 The First Epistle of
evident that, in the Epistle, these titles imply the pre-
temporal existence of the Person to whom they are applied.
Further, while for the abstract monotheism of the Gnostic
the "Christ" could be nothing more than an emanation
from the Eternal God, for the writer of the Epistle He is
Himself Eternal and Divine. He is the "Word of Life"
(11); and that this title implies relationship and fellowship
within the Godhead itself is signified by the fact that the
life manifested in Him is that Eternal Life which was in
relation to the Father (h!tij h#n pro>j to>n pate<ra, 12). This
relation is otherwise expressed by the terms "Father" and
"Son"; and these terms are employed in no figurative
or merely ethical sense, but in their full signification. The
Son, no less than the Father, is the object of religious
faith (513), hope (33), and obedience (323). He that con-
fesseth the Son hath the Father also (223). Our fellowship
is with the Father and with the Son, Jesus Christ (13).
Believers are exhorted to "abide" in Christ (228), as else-
where to "abide" in God. The very syntax of the
Epistle testifies how the truth of the essential Divinity of
Christ has become the unconscious presupposition of all
the Apostle's thinking; for again and again1 it is left un-
certain whether "God" or "Christ" is the subject of state-
ment, an ambiguity which would be reckless except on the
presumption of their religious equivalence.
It would be a questionable proceeding, indeed, to read
into the Epistle the full Trinitarian doctrine of the
hypostatic Sonship. The problem of recognising personal
distinctions within the Godhead and at the same time
preserving its essential unity—a problem of which the
Trinitarian doctrine is, after all, only the mature statement
1 Thus in 225 and 424 the reference of afros is quite ambiguous. In 23
au]to<n ought grammatically to refer to Christ as the nearest antecedent, but does
refer to God. In 228 au]to<j is Christ; while in 229, without any note of transition,
the unexpressed subject is God. In 31-3 again, au]to<j ought grammatically to
refer to God (taking its antecedent from 239), but actually refers to Christ.
The Doctrine of Christ 99
—has not yet been fully confronted. Yet it is not too
much to say that all the elements of that problem
are present here in the fundamental implication that Jesus
Christ, in His pre-incarnate form of being, existed eternally
in an essential unity of nature with God.
This, however, is only an implication. The crucial
truth of the Epistle is Christological, not theological; its
doctrinal emphasis is not upon the relation of Divine Father
and Divine Son, but upon the relation of the Divine Son
to the historic Jesus. And it will be well to look more
closely at the most explicit of the various forms in which
this relation is defined. "Every spirit that confesseth
Jesus as Christ come in the flesh ( ]Ihsou?n Xristo>n e]n sarki>
e]lhluqo<ta) is of God " (42). The statement, simple as it
is, is of exquisite precision. The verb used (e@rxesqai)
implies the pre-existence of Christ. The perfect tense
(e]lhluqo<ta) points to His coming not only as a historical
event, but as an abiding fact. The Word has become
flesh for ever.1 The noun (sa>rc) indicates the fulness of
His participation in human nature, the flesh being the
element of this which is in most obvious contrast with His
former state of being2 (John 114). Even the preposition
e]n is of pregnant significance. It is not altogether equi-
valent to "into" (ei]j). The Gnostics also believed that
Christ came into the flesh. But the assertion is that He
has so come into the flesh as to abide therein; the Incar-
nation is a permanent union of the Divine with human
nature. Finally, this union is realised in the self-identity
of a Person, Jesus Christ, who is at once Divine and
human.
Again, however, we must not read into this the results
of later Christological developments. It may be argued
1 In 2 John 7 we find the unique expression e]rxo<menon e]n sarki<, emphasising
Christ's continuous activity, or, perhaps, His future coining, in the flesh.
2 It is out of the question to understand by sa<rc; "human nature as having
sin lodged in it" (Haupt).
100 The First Epistle of
that the orthodox formula, "one Person in two natures for
ever," is implied in the teaching of the Epistle; but there
is nothing that asserts it. The truth taught in all its
simplicity, and in all the majesty of its immeasurable
consequences, is that of one Person in two states, a prein-
carnate and an incarnate state of being. Without charge
of personal identity, the Eternal Son of God is become and
for ever continues to be Jesus. Jesus is the Son of God
the Christ come in the flesh.
We next proceed to a most interesting and important
part of our subject—the practical significance of the doctrine,
as this is exhibited in the Epistle. For it is neither in the
interests of abstract theology nor as the champion of
ecclesiastical orthodoxy that
of the Incarnation as the "roof and crown" of all truth,
but solely from a sense of its supreme necessity to the
spiritual life of the Church and the salvation of the world;
because he perceives in the denial of it the extinction of
the Light of Life which the Gospel has brought to mankind.
Thus, in introducing the subject, he first of all sets himself
to awaken in the minds of his readers an adequate per-
ception of its gravity: "I write unto you not because ye
know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no
He is of the truth " (221).1 He writes because they know
the truth. His aim is not to instruct their ignorance, but
to arouse them to realise the significance of their knowledge.
Ile has no actually new elements of Christian truth to
impart, but would quicken their sense of the irreconcilable
opposition of truth and falsehood, and of its stupendous
import in this instance. It was no merely speculative
antagonism that existed between the truth they had heard
from the beginning (224) and the corrupt doctrine of the
antichrists. The matter at issue was no mere difference of
opinion. The alternative was between making truth or
1 See Notes, in loc.
The Doctrine of Christ 101
falsehood, and that on the greatest of all subjects, the guide
of life. "Who is the liar," he passionately exclaims, "but
he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?," and then, without
conjunction or connecting particle of any kind, clause fol-
lows upon clause like the blows of a hammer, "This is the
antichrist, (this is) he that denieth the Father and the Son.
Whosoever denieth the Son hath not even the Father; he
that confesseth the Son hath the Father also" (222. 23).
Here we perceive the first of the great practical conse-
quences which depend upon the Incarnation. (a) It alone
secures and guarantees the Christian revelation of God, and
with its denial that revelation is immediately cancelled, "He
that hath not the Son hath not even the Father"1 (223).
Contrary as it might be to the intention of the Gnostic
teachers or to their interpretation of their own tenets, the
result was that, by taking away the real Divine Sonship
of Jesus, they subverted the Divine Fatherhood itself.
It must be observed that the argument is not one of
abstract logic, namely, that if there be no Divine Son there
can be no Divine Father. It is concrete and experiential.
What is in question is not God's absolute Being, but our
"having" not Fatherhood and Sonship as inherent in the
Divine Nature, but the revelation to men of the Father in
the Son. Refusing to recognise more than a shadowy and
dubious connection between the historic Jesus and the
Eternal Son of God, Gnosticism took away the one
medium through which a sure and satisfying revelation of
the Eternal Father has been given to the world. It was
still true that no man had seen God at any time; but it
was not true that the Only-Begotten Son had declared
Him; not true that he who had seen Jesus had seen the
Father. With the denial of Jesus as the full personal
1 ou]de> to>n pate<ra e@xei. "Has not even the Father"; or, at the least,
"Has not the Father either." Cf. the translation quoted by Augustine:
qui negal Filium nec Filium nec Patrem habet. For the intensive sense of ou]de<,
cf. Gal. 23.
102 The First Epistle of
incarnation of the Divine, the whole Christian conception
of God was but the "baseless fabric of a vision," having no
point of contact with the world of known fact. As regards
Gnosticism, the Apostle's statement was entirely true. Its
God was a being so absolutely transcendent as to be incap-
able of actual relation to humanity; and the gulf between
absolute Deity and finite being remained unbridged by all its
intricate hierarchy of semi-divine intermediaries. But the
Apostle's contention, that to deny the Son is to be unable
to retain even the Father, is no less verified in the history
of modern thought. It is not matter of argument, but of
fact, that the God-consciousness finds its true object most
completely in Jesus Christ; and that when God is not
found in Christ, He is not ultimately found either in
Nature or in History. Theism does not ultimately survive
the rejection of Christ as the personal incarnation of God.
The process of thought that necessitates the denial of the
supernatural in Him has Agnosticism as its inevitable goal.1
(b) But, if the validity of the whole Christian Revelation
of God is involved in the fact of the Incarnation, this is
most distinctly true of that which is its centre. It is
highly significant that the writer whose message to the
world is "God is Love" derives it so exclusively from this
single source. He has nothing to say of that benevolent
wisdom of God in Nature, of that ever-enduring mercy of
God in History, that kindled the faith and adoration of
Old Testament psalmists and prophets. His vision is
concentrated on the one supreme fact, "Herein was the
Love of God manifested towards us, that God sent His
Only-Begotten Son into the world that we might live
through Him" (49). Compared with this, all other revelations
are feeble and dim, are "as moonlight unto sunlight, and
as water unto wine." Here is Love worthy to be called
1 See the convincing historical demonstration of this in Orr's Christian View
of God and the World. pp. 37-53.
The Doctrine of Christ 103
Divine. And the one unambiguous proof of the existence
of such Love in God and of His bestowal of such Love
upon men absolutely vanishes, unless the Jesus who was
born in
Here, again, it is in the practical significance of the Gnostic
theories that we discover the source of
It was not in the metaphysics of Gnosticism so much
as in its ethical presuppositions and consequences that
he discerned the veritable Antichrist. Its theory of the
absolute Divine transcendence denied to God what, to the
Christian mind, is the "topmost, ineffablest crown" of His
glory—self-sacrificing Love. It was, in fact, the transla-
tion into metaphysic of the spirit of the world, of the axiom
that the supreme privilege of greatness is self-centred bliss,
exemption from service, burden-bearing, and sacrifice.1
"They are of the world, and, therefore, speak they of the
world, and the world heareth them" (45). Ignorant of the
Divine secret of Love, having no comprehension that great-
ness is greatest in self-surrender, and that to be highest
of all is to be servant and saviour of all, unable, therefore,
to see the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in
the face of a crucified Jesus, Gnosticism fashioned to its
own mind a God wholly transcendent and impassible, a
Christ who only scarred to suffer and lay down His life
for men, a Gospel drained of its life-blood, a Gospel whose
Divine fire, kindling men's souls to thoughts and deeds of
love and righteousness, was extinguished. And the result
of thus making man's salvation easy, so to say, for God—
salvation by theophany—was to make it easy for man also
—salvation by creed without conduct, by knowledge without
1 "Omnis cnim per se divum natura necesse est
Immortali aevo summa cum pace fruatur,
Semota a nostris rebus, seiunctaque longe.
Ipsa suis pollens opibus, nihil indiga nostri
Nec bene promeritis capitur, nec tangitur ira."
Lucretius, ii. 645-50.
104 The First Epistle of
self-denial for righteousness' sake, without self-sacrifice for
love's sake.
For the Gnostic it was not "hard to be a Christian."
The natural outcome of a Docetic incarnation was a
Docetic morality; righteousness which consisted in the
contemplation of high ideals (24.6 37); love which paid its
debt with fine sentiments and goodly words (317. 18) The
actual meaning of Docetism could not be more truly
touched than by the pathetic question of Ignatius, ei] de>,
w!sper tine>j a@qeoi o@ntej... le<gousin, to> dokei?n peponqe<nai
au]to>n, au]toi> to> dokei?n o@ntej, e@gw ti< de<demai;1
And here again, the significance which
the Incarnation is of undiminished validity for modern
thought. That God is Love has for us the force of an
axiom; it has become part of ourselves. If there be a
God, a Being who is supremely good, He must be Love;
for
"A loving worm within his clod
Were more divine than a loveless God
Amid his worlds."
It may seem as if there were no intuition of the human
spirit more self-evidencing than this; nor is there, when
once it is seen. But, as a matter of history, the conviction,
the idea, that God is Love, has been generated by nothing
else than belief in Jesus Christ as Incarnate God, Who
laid down His life for man's redemption. In the pre-
Christian and non-Christian religions every quality, good
and bad, has been deified except self-sacrificing Love.
Power, beauty, fecundity, warlike courage, knowledge,
industry and art, wisdom, justice, benevolence and mercy—
the apotheosis of all these has been achieved by the
human soul. The one deity awanting to the world's
1 Ad Trail. 10: ''But if, as certain godless men aver, His suffering was
only in semblance, themselves being only a semblance, why, then, am I bound
with this chain?"
The Doctrine of Christ 105
pantheon is the God Who is Love. And if we inquire
what, in the world of actual fact, corresponds to this
conviction that God is Love, we to-day are still shut up to
the answer, "Herein is Love, not that we loved God, but
that God loved us, and sent His Son as a propitiation for
our sins." With that as the key to the interpretation of
the facts of life, we are able to read in them much that
testifies, and are sure that, in the light of God's completed
purpose, we shall find in them nothing that does not testify,
that the universe is created and conducted by the Love
of the Heavenly Father Who is revealed in Christ. Yet,
even to those who are most jealous for the vindication of
this, both nature and history are full of ugly and intractable
facts. And, even at their clearest, the pages of natural
revelation can give evidence for nothing more than a wise
benevolence, a bloodless and uncostly love. If we ask
what God has ever done for His creatures that it cost Him
anything to do, the one fact which embodies the full and
unambiguous revelation of this is that "the Father sent the
Son to be the Saviour of the world" (414). Meanwhile,
it may seem as if the Christian ethic could claim to exist
in its own right, though severed from its historical origin
and living root. The atmosphere is full of diffused light,
and it may seem as if we might do without the sun. But
if the history of thought has shown that, with the denial of
the Incarnation, the Christian conception of the Being of
God is gradually dissipated, into the mists of Agnosticism,
it begins also to appear that Christian ethics have no
securer tenure. To Positivism, with the enthusiasm of
humanity as its sole religion, succeeds neo-paganism, with
the enthusiasm of self as the one true faith and royal
law. Like the giant of mythology who proved invincible
only when reinvigorated by contact with mother-earth, the
Christian ethic, the ethic whose supreme principle is Love,
maintains and renews its conquering energy only as it
106 The First Epistle of
derives this afresh from Him who was historically its
origin, and is for ever the living source of its inspiration.
(c) But, again, the Epistle exhibits the vital significance
of the Incarnation for Redemption. The primary purpose
of the Incarnation is not to reveal God's Love, but to
accomplish man's salvation. God has sent His Son to be
the Saviour of the World (414); to be the Propitiation for
our sins (410). It is the same truth that underlies the
more cryptic utterance of 56: "This is He that came by
water and blood; not by the water only, but by the
water and by the blood." The reference to the Cerinthian
heresy has been already explained; but the peculiar
phraseology in which Christ's Passion is here insisted upon,
the repeated assertion that He came by blood,—not by
water only,—reveals the motive of
hatred of that heresy. For it is "the blood of Jesus, His
Son, that cleanseth us from all sin" (16). "Not by water
only." The tragedy of human sin demanded a tragic
salvation. And the Apostle's whole-hearted denunciation
of the Docetic Christology was due to the fact that it
not only dissolved Christ, but took away from men their
Redeemer.
(d) But the final necessity of the Incarnation, for St.
John, is that in it is grounded the only possibility for man
of participation in the Divine Life, "He that hath the
Son hath Life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not
Life" (512). When Christ came into the world, the most
stupendous of all events took place. The Eternal Life,
the Life that the Word possessed from the Beginning
in relation to the Father (12) was embodied in humanity,
and became a fountain of regenerative power to "as many
as received Him" (John 112 316). This is the ultimate
significance of the Incarnation and the core of the
Johannine Gospel,—a Christ who has power to place
1 An ancient reading in 43.
The Doctrine of Christ 107
Himself in a unique vital relation to men, to pour into
their defilement His purity, into their weakness His
strength, into their deadness His own spiritual vitality;
reproducing in them His own character and experiences, as
the vine reproduces itself in the branches doing that, the
ineffable mystery of which is only expressed, not explained,
when we say that He is our "Life" (John 1419.20 155).
And to deny the truth of the personal Incarnation,
to dissolve the integrity of the Divine-human nature of
Jesus Christ, is either, on the one side, to deny that human
nature is capax Dei, or, on the other side, that it is the life
of God that flows into humanity in Jesus Christ; on either
supposition, to annul the possibility of that communication
of the Divine Life to man on which salvation essentially
consists. And here also the perspicacity with which the
writer of the Epistle discerns the logical and practical
issue is very notable. The history of theology, so far as
I am aware, offers no instance in which the truth of the
Incarnation has been rejected and a doctrine of Atonement
or Regeneration, in anything approaching to the Johannine
sense, has been retained.
Such are the practical aspects of the fact of Incarna-
tion which the Epistle brings out. The full impersonation
of the Divine Life, the perfect effulgence of the Divine
Light, the supreme gift of the Divine Love, is this--"Jesus
Christ come in the flesh."
CHAPTER VII.
THE WITNESSES TO THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST.
THE doctrinal centre in the Epistle is, as we have seen in
the preceding chapter, the Incarnation. The channel by
which the full revelation of God and the gift of Eternal
Life are conveyed to, mankind is Jesus, the Son of God,
the Christ "come in the flesh." Our present task is to
examine the teaching of the Epistle as to the grounds on
which this belief rests.
The correlative, intellectually, of Belief is "witness"
(marturi<a, marturei?n 12 414 56. 7. 9. 10. 11); and although the
apologetic aim of the Epistle is fully disclosed only in
the middle of the second chapter, the note of "witness"
struck in the opening verses shows that this was in the
writer's mind from the first.
The Apostolic Gospel, 11-3
"That1 which was from the beginning, that which we
have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that
which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the
Word of Life (and the Life was manifested, and we have
seen, and announce unto you the Life, the Eternal Life,
which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us);
that which we have seen and heard announce we unto you
also, that ye also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our
fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ."
Here the Epistle opens, as it likewise closes, in a strain
1 For exegetical details, V. supra, pp. 43 sqq., and Notes, in loc..
The Witnesses to the Doctrine of Christ 109
of triumph. The complex periodic structure, unique1 in the
Johannine writings, expresses with stately rhetorical effect
the writer's consciousness of the unequalled sublimity of
his theme, and his exultation in the double apostolic
privilege of having himself seen and believed, and of
bearing witness to those who have not seen, that they also
may have the blessedness of believing (John 2029).
At first he plainly declares his personal acquaintance2
with the facts of the Incarnate Life. He is not, like St.
Luke, a sedulous investigator and recorder of the facts
as certified by the most trustworthy witnesses; but is
himself such a witness. His knowledge is derived from
detailed and intimate observation;3 and the testimony,
certified by every faculty given to man as a criterion of
objective reality, is that He who was from the Beginning
and He who, in His earthly manifestation, lived and died
and rose4 again is (as against the Docetic Conception) the
same Person, embodied in the same form of actual human
existence. But before completing the statement that all
that has been outlined in 11 is the theme of apostolic
testimony, the writer parenthetically anticipates the
question how such testimony comes to be possible.
Human sense has been made the medium of the know-
ledge of the eternal Divine Life. For "the Life was
manifested, and we have seen and bear witness, and
announce5 unto you the Life, the Eternal Life which was
1 The only parallel is the introduction to the washing of the disciples' feet
(John 131-3). where the motive is obviously the same as here.
2 v. supra., pp. 46 sqq.
3 The evidence is stated on an ascending scale—hearing, sight, touch.
Herodotus had long ago made the observation, w#ta ga>r tugxa<nei a]nqrw<poisi
e]o<nta a]pisto<tera o]falmw?n, i. 8.
4 o{ ai[ xei?rej h[mw?n e]yhla<fhsan—a verbal reminiscence of Christ's words to
the disciples after the Resurrection.
5 The fine logical precision with which the words are ordered is noticeable,
a]pagge<llomen, emphasising the fact of communication; marturou?men, the truth,
personally vouched for, of the communication made; e[wra<kamen, the experience
on the strength of which the voucher is given.
110 The First Epistle of
toward the Father and was manifested to us." And
then in the following verse, which resumes and completes
there is repeated insistence upon the fact that the
testimony borne is based upon personal and first-hand
knowledge, "What we have seen and heard we announce
also unto you,1 that ye also may have fellowship with
us." Having such a message to deliver he cannot re-
frain. His rejoicing in the Truth is such that he must
impart it to others also. For this Truth is the medium
of Christian fellowship;2 nay, as he exultingly reminds
himself and his readers, it is the medium not only of
fellowship between Christians, but of their fellowship
with God—to have "fellowship with us" is to have
"fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus
Christ."
Having himself been brought into living fellowship
with God through his knowledge of the facts in which
the Son of God has been revealed to men, and the
Father in the Son, he would now, by making them full
partners in his knowledge, open to them the same door
of entrance into the same fulness of Divine Fellowship."
"As every stream of water makes for the sea, every rill
of truth makes for fellowship of souls." But the crowning
joy of this communication is that by means of it men
are brought unto God and into the possession of Divine
Life.
The apostolic "witness" thus furnishes the permanent
content, the fact-material, of Christian belief. It is this--
"the word which ye heard from the beginning" (224)--
1 "Unto you also" (kai> u[mi?n) implies a contrast, not between former and
present recipients of the message, but between the Apostle himself and his readers.
2 Upon the exegetical intricacies of the verse see Notes, in loc.
It would be impossible to find a more spontaneous expression than these
words of the missionary spirit that is inherent in all truth, but, above all, in
Christian truth. The same Christlike and apostolic feeling breaks out afresh in
the verse that follows: "And these things write we unto you, that our joy may
be fulfilled." v. supra, p. 42, note 2.
The Witnesses to the Doctrine of Christ 111
that reveals the Son of God in the reality of the Incarnate
Life. It is, therefore, the touchstone of truth, the Church's
safeguard against all the freaks of human fancy and the
vagaries of speculation, "If it abide in you, ye also shall
abide in the Son and in the Father" (2241). With un-
erring insight
the Apostolic Gospel, and assigns its permanent function
in the Church. As at the close of the Apostolic era
the watchword of true advance is found to be "back
to Christ," so always Christ is the Alpha and the Omega,
the historical manifestation of the Word of Life, at once
the source and the test of all fruitful developments in
theology or ethics. Whatever rights criticism may claim
with respect to the literary medium by which the Apostolic
Gospel has been transmitted, that Gospel has remained
and must remain the "umpire and test" of truth in all
emergencies, even as it is also the "good seed" of the
The Testimony of the Spirit.
The knowledge of the Divine Revelation given to the
world in Jesus Christ is derived ultimately from the
testimony of the Apostles and a few other contemporary
witnesses: and it is communicated by the same method
as that by which information is ordinarily diffused among
men: those who know tell it to those, who are ignorant.
But is the belief of those who "have not seen and yet
have believed" inferior in point of certitude to that of
the original witnesses? The Epistle assures its readers
that they are in no such position of inferiority. They
have the testimony and teaching of the Spirit.
In the first cycle of the Epistle the paragraph in which
this topic is introduced is 220-27.1 Having in the preceding
1 Regarding the exegetical difficulties of this passage, see Notes, in loc.
112 The First Epistle of
verses characterised the heretical teachers as the true anti-
christs,
stand fast in the Faith, prepares the ground for such ex-
hortation by reminding them of the living Witness they had
in themselves—the Spirit God had given them, who both
set the seal of immediate conviction upon the Truth itself
and enabled them unfailingly to distinguish it from all its
counterfeits (pa?n yeu?doj, 221).
And ye have an anointing (chrism) from the Holy
One,1 and ye know all things" (220). The word "chrism"2
(not the act of anointing, but that with which it is per-
formed) seems to be suggested here by the title "anti-
christs" which has been applied to the schismatics. They
were a]nti<xristoi, counterfeits of Christ. The Apostle's readers
had the true chrism, and, therefore, were able to detect
their falsity. On the other hand, the use of the word
without explanation assumes that it was familiar to both
writer and readers as denoting the abiding gift of the Holy
Ghost. Jesus is the "Anointed." It is He Who received
the true Divine Anointing, " with the Holy Ghost and with
power" (Acts 427 l038). And this anointing He received not
for Himself alone, but for all the members of His spiritual
Body. During His visible presence among men the
conditions of His earthly ministry precluded the full com-
munication of the gift. But when, having overcome the
sharpness of death, He ascended the throne of His
kingdom, the oil of His coronation in the Heavens flowed
down upon His people here on earth (Acts 233-36). The
precious ointment ran down to the skirts of the High
priest's garments (Ps. 1322). The result of this " anoint-
ing is that "ye know all things." The specific office of
the Spirit is to "guide into all the truth," to "take of Mine
and declare it" (John 1613.14)
1 “The Holy One," that is, Christ. v. supra, p. 90.
2 See special Note appended to this chapter.
The Witnesses to the Doctrine of Christ 113
This now leads the writer to reassert (212-14) that the
motive of his writing does not lie in the assumption of his
readers' ignorance. He has no positively new elements to
add to their Christian knowledge, "I write unto you, not
because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it,
and (know) that no lie is of the truth "(221). 1. . . 2 "And,
as for you, the anointing which ye received of Him abideth
in you, and ye need not that any one teach you: but as the
anointing from Him teacheth you concerning all things,
and is true, and is no lie, even as it taught you, ye abide in
Him" (227).3
The distinctive feature of this passage is that the
testimony of the Spirit is regarded as a "teaching." And
the question4 that immediately arises is as to the conception
of this "teaching" it implies. Examining this, we find, in the
first place, that it is not regarded as superseding the Word,
but as concurrent and co-operative with it. Their inter-
dependence is signified, according to the Writer's habitual
method, by alluding to them alternately (220. 21 the Spirit, 22
the Word, 226.27 the Spirit). Their teaching is the same in
1 See Notes, in loc.
2 On the verses here omitted, see Chapter VI
3 “In Him." Not in the "anointing," but in Christ. The purpose of the
Spirit's work, in all its aspects, is the believer's perfect and abiding union with
Christ.
4 In the parallel passage (324b–46) the action of the Spirit is charismatic and
the testimony is objective, being given in the inspired confession of Jesus as the
Christ come in the flesh (so also in 1 Cor. 1228.29 and Eph. 412.13). Is the
"teaching" here referred to also charismatic? Is it given to the Church
through inspired human utterance; or is it the subjective enlightening action of
the Spirit of truth upon the minds of all believers? The latter interpretation is
assumed without question be Protestant commentators ("das fromme Gemeinde-
bewusstsein,'' Holtzmann). The ether view is implied in Catholic expositions,
such as that of Estius (quoted by Huther), "Habetis episcopos et presbyteros
quorum cura ac studio vestrae ecclesiae satis instructae, sunt in iis quae pertinent
ad doctrina. Christianae veritatem.” This interpretation is much too definitely
ecclesiastical; but, in view of the parallel passages, and of all we know regard-
ing the place of inspired "prophets" and "teachers" in the
seems to me that the "anointing" is here to be regarded as charismatic, and the
"teaching" as given to the Church objectively, through those who were the
organs of a special Inspiration.
114 The First Epistle of
substance—Jesus is the Christ (222); and the result is the
same—abiding in Him ("If that which ye heard from
the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the
Son and in the Father" (221); and, again (227, "Even as
it taught you, ye abide in Him"). The teaching, more-
over, is continuous, shedding the light of truth upon all
subjects as they arise in experience (217 "The anointing
abideth in you . . . and teacheth you concerning all things").
But in another sense it was complete from the first (227
"even as it taught1 you"). When the Apostle's readers first
received the, gospel, the Spirit once for all led them to the
centre of all truth. In that first "teaching," that first
revelation to their faith of the Divine truth in Christ, lay
enfolded all that, with the growth of experience and re-
flection, might afterwards be unfolded. Nothing at variance
with it was admissible; nothing really new could be added
to it:—"Even as it taught you, ye abide in Him."
The result of the Spirit's teaching is:—"Ye know2 all
things" (220), and "need not that any one teach you"
(227).2 These assertions cannot be understood as claiming
infallibility for every believer (compared to this, Papal
infallibility would be a trifle), or as denying all need of
human agency in Christian instruction (so declaring the
inutility of the Epistle itself). They must be interpreted
in accordance with the general purport of the passage,
which is to remind its readers that they already possessed
in their fellowship a resource all-sufficient for discerning
the real character of the antichristian doctrine. In view
1 The aorist e]di<dacen points to the definite occasion.
2 oi@date pa<nta. The reading is here uncertain. The alternative oi@date pa<ntej
has strong authority (x, B, Theb. etc., v. Westcott, p. 93), and yields an excellent
sense. Such knowledge is not the prerogative of an intellectual elite. Even if
the "teaching" is a special spiritual gift, the knowledge imparted is the common
property of the Christian fellowship (cf. 520, Eph. 413). It is certain that, on
either reading, the passage contains a reference to and a repudiation of the
esoteric pretensions of Gnosticism. Not the self-styled pneumatikoi< are the
taught of God. To be this taught is the privilege of all believers. They are
the true Gnostics.
The Witnesses to the Doctrine of Christ 115
of what they have "heard from the beginning," and of the
"anointing" which abides in them,
know all things—all that it is needful to know, and all
there is to be known about this matter. It is not required
that I write unto you as if ye were ignorant of the prin-
ciples of Christian truth that are here in question. Ye
are taught not only by the Word, but also by the Divine
Teacher, who continually enlightens your understanding,
strengthens your convictions, and ministers to you an
invincible assurance of the truth of the Gospel. In this
respect ye are independent of other teaching."
Thus the conception of the Spirit's teaching found here
is in perfect accord with that of the Fourth Gospel and
of the New Testament throughout. The Spirit is not a
source of independent revelation, but makes the Revelation
of Christ effectual. And this is done by a process that
may be considered as twofold, teaching and testimony.
There is an operation of the Spirit that is educative, ever
extending the area of the spiritual understanding:—"His
anointing teacheth you concerning all things." The Word
—Christ in the Word--is the Truth; the Spirit is the
living Divine Teacher who works in us a progressive under-
standing of the contents of the Truth embodied in Him—
unfolds its many-sided significance in relation to the various
exigencies that arise for Christian thought and action.
But the illumination wrought by the Spirit is also inten-
sive. It is not only teaching, but testimony:--"He shall
testify of Me " (John 1523). The Word—Christ in the
Word—is the Light, the Truth; it is the Spirit that
makes the light light, and the truth truth, to the soul.
The joyous assurance of faith is His gift. Both of
these elements are included here in the thought of the
"anointing." The former is the more prominent—the
"anointing" teacheth. By means of it the Church un-
erringly detects as a "liar" every one who denieth that
116 The First Epistle of
Jesus is the Christ (222). But, underlying the whole
passage, there is also the thought of the Spirit's testimony,
"Ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know
(oi@date)1 all things" (210). The truth is placed beyond all
reach of controversy, and passes into absolute knowledge.
For it is not the proposition—Jesus is the Christ per se
that is the bulwark against antichristian falsehood; it is
the strength of conviction with which it is held. Not a
correct, clear-sighted orthodoxy, but a firm and fervent
assurance of the truth is the innermost citadel. "As His
anointing teacheth you, and is true and is no lie, even as
it taught you, ye abide in Him" (227).
Thus far, then, the teaching of the Epistle is that
Christian Belief is derived externally from the Apostolic
Gospel, internally and concurrently from the witness of the
Spirit. And each supplies a standard for its right develop-
ment. Stated in modern language, the doctrine of the
Epistle is that all Christian theology must approve itself
as an interpretation of the historic Christ, and also as
satisfying the genuine spiritual instincts of the Christian
life. And no theology meets the one requirement that
does not also meet the other. The continuous develop-
ment of Christian doctrine in the Church furnishes an ever-
growing testimony to the fulfilment of the twofold promise,
hindered as that fulfilment may be by human imperfection,
—"If that which ye heard from the beginning abide in
you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father," and
"His anointing teacheth you concerning all things."
55-12
This, the second passage of importance dealing expressly
with the grounds of Belief, is one of much difficulty and
obscurity.2 We have already considered the meaning of
1 Signifying absolute knowledge.
2 As to the probable explanation of this, see Chapter III, p. 42 (note).
The Witnesses to the Doctrine of Christ 117
the unique phraseology in which the permanent reality
of the Incarnation is here asserted. In opposition to the
Cerinthian heresy, which taught that there was merely
a temporary connection between the heavenly Christ and
the human Jesus, beginning at the Baptism and terminating
on the eve of the Passion, the Apostle testifies that Jesus
is the Son of God (55), and that He "came"--was mani-
fested as the Christ, entered upon His Christly mission--
both by the water of Baptism and the blood of the Cross.
And, as warrant for this belief, he cites the testimony of
five witnesses: the Spirit (57), the Water and the Blood
(58), God (59), the believer's own experience (510).
57.
The Witness of the Spirit.
"And it is the Spirit that witnesseth,l because the
Spirit is Truth."
Almost as many explanations have been offered of
the "Spirit " in this verse as of the "Water and the Blood"
in the preceding verse. Undoubtedly, however, it is
identical with the "Spirit" who inspires the confession of
Jesus as the "Christ come in the flesh" (42), and with the
"anointing" that "teacheth you concerning all things,"—
in short, the Paraclete of the Fourth Gospel.2
As to the substance of the Spirit's testimony, it is not
only that Jesus came by the water and by the blood, it
includes the whole truth advanced, that the Jesuslwho thus
came is the Son of God (55.6). As to the manner in
1 to> marturou?n. The generic neuter (cf. pa?n to> gegennhme<non, 54) emphasises
that precisely this is the function of the Spirit. Everywhere in Johannine Scrip-
ture the office of the Spirit is to teach or testify (John 1426 1526 1613-15)
2 The relation between the work of Christ and that of the Spirit is signified
by a fine parallelism which is to some extent lost in translation, e]stin o[ e]lqw<n
(56), e]stin to> marturou?n (57). Jesus is He that came, once for all fulfilling the
Messiah's mission; the Spirit is that which beareth witness, ever authenticating
its Divine origin, interpreting its purpose and applying its results.
118 The First Epistle of
which the testimony is borne, this may be conceived either
as direct or as indirect. In the Acts of the Apostles the
descent of the Spirit, with all its sensible manifestations,
is cited simply as a supernatural fact, bearing objective
testimony to Christ's Resurrection and Ascension ("This
which ye have seen and heard," Acts 233.36; cf. I Cor. 1425)
Such is the witness of the Spirit to the world; but to the
Church it is given by direct inspiration. The distinction is
clearly drawn by
sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe
not; but prophesying is not to them that believe not, but
to them that believe" (1 Cor. 1422). It is the latter aspect
of the Spirit's testimony that is brought into prominence
in the Epistle. Whether acting charismatically through
the prophets or universally upon the minds of believers, it
is by direct inward "teaching" that the Spirit testifies of
Christ in the Church. Combining both aspects, we may
say that the permanent witness of the Spirit consists,
inwardly, in the Christian's intuitive assurance of the truth
revealed in Christ, and, externally, in the whole manifesta-
tion of a life of supernatural character and power in the
past and present of the Christian Church.
Next is added the reason why the Spirit is "that which
witnesseth":--"because the Spirit is Truth." Again, this
might be understood as signifying simply that the Spirit
is an abiding reality. However the ideas and beliefs of
men may change and oscillate, the presence of the Spirit
is a permanent supernatural fact, and, therefore, is "that
which beareth witness." Probably, however, the meaning is
not different from that expressed in the familiar title, "the
Spirit of Truth"—the Spirit, that is, whose nature it is to
recognise and reveal the eternal Truth1 of God. Perception
1 There is an exact parallelism between what is said of Christ and of the
Spirit. Christ came into the world "to hear witness to the Truth " (John 1837.
And He is also Himself the Truth (John 146), to which the "other Paraclete"
testifies.
The Witnesses to the Doctrine of Christ 119
implies kinship. Only Love can know Love. Only Purity
can understand Purity. Only Truth can recognise Truth.
And it is because "the Spirit is Truth" that He recognises
and reveals Christ who is the embodiment of the Truth
(John 156). The statement, thus understood, points clearly
to the personality of the Spirit; and, indeed, suggests the
Trinitarian conception of the Godhead. The ultimate Truth
is what God is. And as the Father is the Truth in its
essence, and the Son is the Word or outgoing of the Truth,
so the Spirit is the witness of the unity of the Essence and
the Word,—the witness in the Father of His unity with
the Son, and in the Son of His unity with the Father. And
thus the Spirit, imparted to men, becomes the author of
Faith,—becomes in us also the consciousness of God in
Christ, and of the Christ in God.
58.
The Witness of the Water and Me Blood.
"For there are three that bear witness,1 the Spirit, and
the Water, and the Blood: and the three agree in one."
As regards the witness of the Water and the Blood,
it is best to acknowledge that it is impossible to recover
with certainty the precise conception in the writer's mind.2
It is evident, however, that the controversial purpose of
the passage must be taken as the starting-point towards
any sound interpretation. Against the Docetic theory of
1 "For there are three that bear witness." The connecting "for" (o!ti) is
loosely used. It seems to indicate that, though the Water and the Blood were not
at their first mention (56) cited expressly as witnesses, this was already in the
writer's mind. Then the bringing forward of the Spirit's witness suddenly
suggests to him that the witnesses attain to the significant number three, "For
in fact, the witnesses are three in number," etc. It is probable that in the
reiterated emphatic" three there is an allusion to the requirement of the Mosaic
Law, that only in the testimony of too or three witnesses should capital charges
be held as proven (Deut. 176; cf. Matt. 1816, John 817 sqq.). This supposition
is almost necessary to give point to "If we receive the witness of men” in 59.
2 See Chapter III. p. 42 (note).
120 The First Epistle of
a merely temporary habitation of the heavenly Christ in
the human Jesus,
indissoluble Incarnation. The Jesus Who was baptized in
Jordan and the Jesus Who was crucified on
in every respect the same Divine-human person. He
"came"—entered into the sphere of His Messianic action
—by Water and by Blood. His Baptism was the initial
act, His Death the consummating act, of His self-conse-
cration to the work of the world's redemption.1 It is to
this that the Spirit bears witness (42); and since it is said
that the witness of the Water and the Blood is to the
same effect (ei]j to> e!n ei]sin), obviously this must be of such
a nature as to confute the Docetic annulment of the
Incarnation. Now, since in 56 the Water and the Blood
undoubtedly refer to our Lord's own Baptism and Passion,
the natural course is to seek in these, and in the historical
facts connected with them, the "witness" of the Water and
the Blood. Nor is it difficult to see how the Baptism of
Jesus, with its attendant circumstances (the testimony of
John the Baptist ; our Lord's own consciousness of sinless-
ness, implied in the fact that, though John's baptism was a
baptism of repentance, He alone made no confession of
sin ; the descent of the Spirit; the Voice from heaven),
testified to the Messiahship, which with
lent to the Divine Sonship of Jesus. But as to the witness
of the Blood there is serious difficulty. To explain it
(Weiss) by those incidents of the Crucifixion to which the
Fourth Gospel attaches a special significance as fulfilments
of Scripture—"A bone of Him shall not be broken,"
"They shall look upon Him whom they have pierced"
(John 1933.37)--is altogether inadequate.2
1 See Chapter VI. pp. 96, 97.
2 It is sufficiently remarkable that the Resurrection finds no place in the
apologetics of the Epistle, although the proofs" of its reality are so carefully set
forth in the Fourth Gospel. The reason probably is that Cerinthus and his
school did not deny the resurrection of Jesus (Irenaeus, i. 26. I).
The Witnesses to the Doctrine of Christ 121
The only interpretation left open is that the witness of
the Water and the Blood is that of the Christian Sacraments.
The objection to this is that it requires here in 58 a dif-
ferent sense for the Water and the Blood from what they
have in 56. But in view of the extreme condensation of
the whole passage, the objection is not insurmountable.
The transition from the facts themselves to the appointed
and familiar memorials of the facts is thoroughly natural.
The witness of the Sacraments, moreover, would tell with
destructive effect upon the position of the Docetists.
Holding the truth that Christ "came" by Water, they
would, no doubt, accept also the Sacrament of Baptism;
but the Lord's Supper must have presented an insuperable
obstacle to their theory of the Crucifixion. Whether
they retained the observance of it we cannot tell; but it
is difficult to imagine what sacramental significance they
could attach to this memorial of One Who before His
Passion had been reduced to the level of common
humanity.
On the other hand, the Apostle's words may suggest the
question whether the worth of the Sacraments as perma-
nent and, one might almost say, living witnesses to the
historical reality, as well as to the ideal significance, of the
facts they represent, is appreciated and emphasised as it
ought to be. His declaration that Christ came by water,
though not by water only, gives to Christ's own Baptism
an importance that is not always recognised. It is evident
that for the writer of the Epistle the Baptism (though it is
not definitely recorded in the Fourth Gospel) was no mere
incident in the life of Jesus, no merely formal inaugura-
tion of His Messianic ministry. It was by His Baptism
"with the Holy Ghost and with power" that Jesus was
qualified to be the Saviour of the world. The Holy Ghost
by Whom His humanity was begotten in the Virgin's
womb, Who formed and nurtured and trained in Him that
122 The First Epistle of
sinless manhood which brought back the lost image of God
to earth, was then first poured out upon Him "not by
measure," that from Him it might again proceed in life-
giving stream through the world of souls. It was thus
that the Divine Life became in Him a perennial and over-
flowing fountain of regenerative power; and to this as
a fact of history, to say nothing more, the Sacrament of
Baptism is the abiding witness in the Church. Christian
Baptism apart from the Baptism of Christ would be
meaningless. Only He who has the fulness of the Spirit
can impart the Spirit.
But He came not by water only, but by the Water and
the Blood. There was that in the Love of Christ—the
Love of God—which water could not, which only blood
could express. There was that in the need of man which
water could not, which only blood could adequately meet.
By death the grain of wheat must be quickened and be-
come fruitful. The Life of Christ, endued with all fulness
of spiritual power, and with all its fulness of spiritual power
consecrated to God in His Baptism, must be poured out
in the uttermost sacrifice, that it might bring forth the new
life of the children of God. And of this fact, that it was
the Christ, the Son of God, whose Body and Blood were
offered for us upon the Cross, the Lord's Supper is the
perpetual attestation. The Sacraments are impressive and
incontrovertible witnesses to historical realities. Every
successive generation of Christians has baptized, and broken
bread as the first company of believers did, and has re-
ceived in these Sacraments the same testimony to the
foundation-facts upon which our salvation rests. Older
than the oldest of New Testament Scriptures, of an
authenticity which no criticism can impugn, they lead us
back to the birth-hour of Christianity, and perpetuate in the
Church the historical basis of its Faith. And not only does
one generation testify to another in the Sacraments; Christ
The Witnesses to the Doctrine of Christ 123
Himself testifies in them to His Church. If they are His
ordinance, if it is by His appointment that we baptize in
His name and "do this in remembrance" of Him, this
is the surest evidence that He was conscious of being
to men the one and ever-enduring source of regenerative
virtue and propitiatory cleansing; and in them He is ever
repeating that claim and pledging Himself anew to its
fulfilment. But the Spirit also witnesses in the Sacra-
ments. By them He has in all ages revived and
strengthened faith, inspired love, awakened hope, and im-
parted new impulse to Christian lives--has, in short, made
Christ a Real Presence, not in material elements, but in the
hearts of His disciples. Materialised as the conception of
the Sacraments has sometimes become, formal as their
observance in many cases may be, the zealous affection
and honour in which the universal Church has always
held them, as the centre of its fellowship and, as it were,
the very hearth of the household of faith, have written the
best of commentaries upon the Apostle's words, "There
are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the Water, and
the Blood."
Finally, the Apostle adds that these three witnesses
"agree1 in one"; they are to the same effect; they
testify jointly to the truth which is the theme of the entire
paragraph—that Jesus, who was baptized and crucified,
is the Son of God. This combination of the historical
(the Water, the Blood) and the ideal (the Spirit) is the
strength of Christian apologetics. Without the one,
Christianity becomes a mere Idealism, by which faith could
no more conquer the world than the lungs could fill them-
selves in a vacuum. Without the other, the voice of truth
awakens no inward response, lacks that self-evidencing
power which alone makes it truth to the soul.
1 ei]j to> e!n ei]sin "converge upon the same object." Cf. John 1152 1723.
124 The First Epistle of
59.
The Triple Witness considered as the Witness of God.
"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God
is greater: for this is the witness of God, because He hath
borne witness concerning His Son."
The sentence, however it be construed,1 is highly
elliptical, requiring, for a full statement of the sense, to
be supplemented thus: "If we receive the witness of
men, the witness of God is greater (and, therefore, we
ought the rather to receive it; and here this principle
comes into operation), because this witness (of which I
have been speaking) is the witness of God, because He
has borne witness concerning His Son." Rugged and
clumsy as the form of, the sentence is, its intention is
thoroughly clear,—namely, to set forth the threefold
witness of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood as being,
in reality, the witness of God. In the facts which the
Christian Sacraments commemorate, in the Baptism with
the Spirit which inaugurated the Christly ministry of
Jesus, and in the Death and Resurrection in which that
ministry was consummated and by which it passed beyond
all limitations of time, and place, and sense; in the
testimony of the Spirit creating and establishing a world-
conquering faith in the crucified Jesus as the victorious
Son of God:—in these facts, if anywhere at all, God has
uttered Himself in unmistakable testimony to mankind.
And if we receive the testimony of men, as we do,--if
nine-tenths of what we call "knowledge" is derived from
the testimony of men,--the refusal to accept the testimony
of God, thus given, is not due to any uncertainty in it.
God has given to men no other testimony so explicit
and convincing.
1 See Notes, in loc.
The Witnesses to the Doctrine of Christ 125
510.
But there is still another Witness, that of Experience.
"He that believeth in1 the Son of God hath the
witness in himself: he that believeth1 not God hath
made Him a liar; because he hath not believed in the
witness that God hath borne concerning His Son."
By "believing" the testimony of God, we "believe in"
His Son. Our faith is directed towards the personal
Christ, and rests in Him. And he who thus "believes
in" the Son of God hath the witness (to the Divine
Sonship of Jesus) in himself. To the historical evidence,
even to the enlightening testimony of the Spirit, there is
added in the believer a confirmatory witness in his
personal experience of cleansing from sin and renewed
life. He "tastes and sees"; believes and knows.
He not only "sets to his seal" that the object of his
faith is true: more and more he receives from it the
experience of its truth. On the contrary, not to "believe
in" Christ is equivalent to not "believing" God; and
this is to "make Him a liar,”2 because it is not to have
believed in the witness that God hath borne concerning
His Son. Here the deliberate and circumstantial repeti-
tion of what has been already said with emphasis in 59
brings out the gravity of the issue. The thought of
making God a liar is an appalling one; and especially is
it so when it concerns the witness that He hath borne
concerning His own Son.
This argument, that the alternative to believing in
Jesus as the Son of God is making God a liar, is one
1 Sec Notes, in loc., and special note on pisteu<ein, appended to Chapter
XIII.
2 "Hath made Him a liar." Cf. 110. The two ways in which men make
God a liar are—"If we say that we have no sin," and if we do not believe
"five witness He hath borne concerning His Son." The two are related as
closely as possible. If we have no sin, the (gospel of the Water and the Blood
becomes meaningless and incredible.
126 The First Epistle of
that gains cumulative force as the history of the Church
and the world advances. To assert of the Christian
gospel and the Christian Church—the mightiest of all
beneficent influences in the life of men and the develop-
ment of human history—that the one is the proclamation
of a myth, and that the other is founded upon delusion
and has grown up in an atmosphere of vain credulity,—
this is to ascribe to falsehood, instead of to truth, the
power to promote the most Divine ends; it is equivalent
to saying that God, if there be a God, is a liar,---one
whose chosen methods of accomplishing His Will are
those of dissimulation and deceit.
From the summary thus made of the passages that
treat of the basis of Belief, it will be apparent that the
apologetic problem is handled, though in briefest compass,
with no little breadth and fulness. And this chapter
may be closed with a summary of the results. The
whole Christian revelation is contained in the Person
of Jesus Christ, who is known solely by the facts
narrated in the Apostolic Gospel. These facts, em-
braced under the headings, the Water and the Blood,
are themselves evidential (56-8). In them the Divine
mission of Jesus is fully attested, and the eternal Life of
God manifested on earth (12). Knowledge of these facts
is conveyed through the normal channel of human com-
munication (13)—by the Apostolic testimony, the trust-
worthiness of which is strongly asserted (11 414). Upon
this, as its historical foundation, Christian Faith must
always stand (224). But, though Faith is not apart from
human testimony, its certitude is derived from the wit-
ness of the Spirit, which continuously attests the truth
of the human testimony (56b). All this is collectively
the witness of God (59); for if God has spoken at all to
men, it is in the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ,
and in the witness that the Spirit of Truth bears to Him,
The Witnesses to the Doctrine of Christ 127
both in Christian Faith itself and in the whole influence
of that Faith on the world's history. And, finally, he
that believeth hath the witness in Himself. Christian
Faith carries with it the experience of a moral regenera-
tion. While there is no elaboration of any of those topics,
it is with a quite amazing insight that the writer of the
Epistle seizes all the positions in which Christian apologetic
has ever since found its chief strongholds.
This word is the last descendant of a long and interesting Biblical
lineage, the successive steps in which may be briefly indicated.
1. The anointing of the body with oil is practised as a means of
invigoration (upon infants, Ezek. 169; upon the sick, Jas. 514)
2. From the refreshing and pleasurable sensations thus produced,
anointing (especially with fragrant unguents) is an act of courteous
hospitality, betokening favour towards the guest (Ps. 235). Failure to
observe this custom is a mark of perfunctory and ungenerous enter-
tainment (Luke 746).
3. Thus it naturally becomes a symbol of joy and strength (Prov.
279, Isa. 613, Matt. 69), and is symbolically used in the appointment
of persons to high and sacred office as a mark of Divine favour and of
Divine endowment with the gifts and aptitudes required by the office. (a)
Kings are anointed (1 Sam. 101; the anointing being accompanied by
the gift of the Spirit); (b) Priests are anointed (Lev. 812. Ps. 1332) ;
(c) Prophets are anointed (1 Kings 1910, Ps. 10515, Isa. 611); (d) the
title "Anointed" (Messiah, Christ) is applied specifically to the kings
of David's line (Ps. 22 849); and becomes the title of the expected
Deliverer and Redeemer of
4. It is given to Jesus and accepted by Him (Matt. 1616.20 John
669 1127, Luke 2426 etc.), and becomes virtually a proper name of Jesus
(N.T. passim).
5. The xri?sma with which Jesus is anointed is the Holy Ghost (Acts
1038; cf. Luke 418, John 334).
6. This xri?sma is, after His Ascension, fully imparted to the Church
(John 163, Acts 232; cf. Acts 1045, Eph. 48 sqq., 2 Cor. 121).
It does not at all follow from the use of the word xri?sma in 220 (which
is unique in the N.T.) that it was a technical ecclesiastical term, or
that the ceremony of actual Chrism, which very soon became a
recognised adjunct to baptism and the laying on of hands, was already
in use.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE DOCTRINE OF SIN AND THE WORLD
THE Epistle presents no fully articulated doctrine of Sin;
nor does it contain the material for such a doctrine. It
suggests no exceptional preoccupation with the great
Pauline problems of the inherence and operation of sin in
human nature, or of its genesis and development in the
individual and in the race. But if the Epistle adds little
to the stock of New Testament ideas about sin, nowhere
is the common Christian consciousness of sin and of its
determining significance for man's relation to God more
profoundly felt. Nowhere is the sense of sin as creating
an antagonism in the moral universe that transcends
all measurement more passionately expressed. Horror,
hatred, fear, repudiation of sin pervade the whole Epistle.
The essential tragedy of human existence is set forth
in that single awful image of the world—"the whole
world"—lying in the embrace of the Wicked One (519).
It is against the dark background of sin that the inner-
most glory of the Divine Nature shines forth in God's
sending His Only-Begotten Son as a propitiation for
our sins (49.10); and in nothing does the Apostle's own
soul speak more intensely than in the fervid declaration,
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that
ye sin not " (21).
In the Epistle the nomenclature of moral evil contains
but three words—a[marti<a, sin; a]nomi<a, lawlessness; a]diki<a,
128
The Doctrine of Sin and /he World 129
unrighteousness. We shall first consider those passages
in which a[marti<a, or some cognate, is the prominent
term.1
The idea of sin—the conception which the word calls
up in every mind—is twofold. It denotes the character of
an action as morally bad and in itself condemnable, and it
implies the responsibility of the agent. The sinfulness of
sin is the joint product of these two factors; and the
consciousness of sin, universally and necessarily, contains
both. Yet, in the actual view taken of sin, the one or the
other is invariably the more prominent. According to the
standpoint occupied, the emphasis may be either ethical
or judicial—upon the quality of the act and of the moral
nature displayed in it, or upon the culpability in which
such act involves the agent. In the Epistle each of these
aspects of sin is strongly presented. Of the two principal
passages that have a direct bearing upon the subject, the
first (17-22) contemplates sin as guilt, while in the second
(34-9) sin is contemplated in its ethical antagonism to the
nature of God and of the children of God.
17-22
The judicial view of sin characterises the whole para-
1 Logically, the following uses are to be distinguished:
(a) a[marti<a without the article signifies a sinful act (515.17); ai[ a[marti<ai,
sinful acts (19 22.12 35 410); a[marta<nein, to commit a sinful act (110 36). The
unambiguously concrete a[ma<rthma is not found in
(b) a[marti<a without the article is used also collectively, signifying sin in its
concrete totality (35 a[marti<a e]n au]t&? ou]k e@stin=sin, as a whole, is excluded
from the sphere of His being; 39 a[marti<an ou] poiei?=sin, as a whole, is excluded
from the sphere of His doing).
(c) In the phrase a[marti<an e@xein (18, John 941 1522. 24 1911) the idea is more
abstract, the phrase connoting not so much the act of sin as the culpability of
the doer.
(d) With the article, h[ a[marti<a is a pure abstract, signifying sin in its
constitutive principle (h[ a[marti<a, 34. 8, in direct antithesis to h[ dikaiosu<nh, 229 37).
So in 38 o[ poiw?n th>n a[marti<an=he who expresses in actual deed the essential
principle of sin).
130 The First Epistle of
graph.1 According to the law of the moral universe, sin
committed constitutes an objective disability for fellowship
with God, which can be removed only by confession (19),
forgiveness (19), and propitiatory cleansing (17. 9 22). It is
true that 17.8 are very generally interpreted from the
ethical standpoint. But this is groundless. With regard
to 17 ("The blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all
sin"), the significations of "cleansing" and "sin" are
mutually dependent; and if, as I shall maintain in the
next chapter, "cleansing (kaqari<zein) is here attributed to
the propitiatory power of Christ's blood, it follows that
"sin" is regarded primarily as guilt. In 18 ("If we say
that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves") the judicial
sense is unmistakable. The phrase "to have sin" (e@xein
a[marti<an) is peculiar to
sense. Thus in John 1522 our Lord says, "If I had not
come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but
now they have no excuse for their sin." Here, beyond
question, "to have sin" specifically denotes the guiltiness
of the agent. In John 941 1524 1911 the sense is equally
clear; and these parallels must be held as decisive for
the meaning2 here. " If we say that we have no guilt, no
responsibility for the actions, wrong in themselves, which
we have committed, we but deceive3 ourselves." In 19 ("If
we confess our sins,4 He is faithful and righteous to forgive
1 From the point of view of our present topic, that is. The primary matter in
the paragraph is not sin, but the confession or denial of sin, regarded as walking
in the Light and walking in darkness. See Chapter IV,
2 Westcott rightly understands the saying, "that we have no sin," as the
repudiation of responsibility; but he endeavours inconsistently to combine with
this the thought that e@xein a[marti<an connotes the presence of sin "as a principle
in the nature, in contrast with sinful act," or the "contracting of a character
corresponding with the deeds" (p. 38). Plummer also, in full view of the
parallels from the Gospels, which he quotes, explains the verse as, "If we deny
that our nature is sinful."
3 "The condition of inward truth is for every man the acknowledgment of
sin" (Rothe); and, as he adds, "Only when man recognises himself as sinner,
can he believe in the nobility of his manhood."
4 The change to the plural form is significant. We may deny sin as a whole
The Doctrine of Sin and the World 131
us our sins") there is no ambiguity. To confess our sins
is not only to acknowledge the presence in our life of
wrong action, but is to confess this as needing forgiveness
—to lay at our own door the full responsibility for it. In
110 ("If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him
a liar") the emphasis is directly on the fact of wrong-
doing, the culpability of which has been asserted in the
preceding verses. Again, in 21.2 the judicial emphasis
does not admit of doubt. Sin is that which needs God's
forgiveness; and, to this end, an Intercessor and a Pro-
pitiation have been provided.
The doctrine of the paragraph may thus be stated in
three propositions. (a) Sin is action for which the agent
is primarily responsible. Whether his action contain more
or less of the special elements of wrong,—rejection of light,
treason to God, his neighbour, or himself,—his own evil will
is the direct cause of its having existed. And if we say that
such guilt does not belong to us, our error is worse than
ignorance—we lead ourselves astray e[autou>j planw?men) in
outer darkness. Without doubt, the Apostle has here
in view the doctrine of Gnostic Antinomianism, that the
"spiritual" are free from sin, because sin is wholly of
the flesh. But this heresy is older and newer than
Gnosticism. In manifold forms it reappears in modern
thought. For the modern materialist, as for the ancient
Manichee, sin is a question of physiology; moral depravity
only a manifestation of corporeal disorder. Or the evil
in the world is due to the social environment, is the
result of bad education and bad institutions. Against
all such theories
Sin. "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves."
(b) Sin is universal. "If we say that we have not sinned,
(18), but confession must condescend upon particulars. Sin is known only by its
concrete instances. The conscience does not deal with abstractions.
1 v. supra, pp. 32-34.
132 The First Epistle of
we"—not only deceive ourselves—we "make God a liar "
(110). "All the institutions of the Divine economy, God's
entire government and work upon earth, the whole mani-
festation of the Son of God, based upon the presupposition
of human sin, are reduced to one comprehensive lie"
(Haupt). At the contemplation of such denial, be it blind
or wanton, the Apostle's soul is fired to passionate indigna-
tion. (c) The immediate effect of sin is to embarrass and
pervert man's relation to God, to disqualify him for that
fellowship with God for which he was created, and the loss
of which is death (314 516). The sole measure of its other-
wise immeasurable evil is that only by the blood of Jesus,
God's Son, can there be cleansing from its stain and restora-
tion to the Divine fellowship.
3 4-9.
In the paragraph we have just considered the leading
thought was that of walking in the Light; and by this the
view of sin was governed. Sin was regarded only in its
concrete manifestations—as a fact of observation and ex-
perience. In the second cycle of the Epistle the leading
thought is that of the Divine Begetting. The Christian
life is regarded as a Divine sonship—participation in the
essential nature of God. Consequently, sin is now con-
templated in its absolute ethical antagonism to the nature
of God's children. "Every one that is begotten of God
doeth not sin; because His seed abideth in him: and he
cannot sin, because he is begotten of God" (39). Instead
of the concrete a[marti<a, the abstract h[ a[marti<a, denoting sin
in its constitutive principle, becomes the distinctive term.
The phrase "every one that doeth sin" (o[ poiw?n th>n a[marti<an,
34.8) expresses the manifestation in actual deeds of the
essential principle of evil, which is called Sin. Sins are
multiform; Sin is one. A sin is never an isolated act of
wrong-doing. If so viewed, it is not seen in its full
The Doctrine of Sin and the World 133
significance. Individual sins are like islets, which appear
as separate and casual specks on the surface of the ocean,
but are, in reality, the mountain-peaks of a submerged
continent. He who "does sin" only gives particular
embodiment to a universal principle, h[ a[marti<aj; just as the
right-doer embodies h[ a]lh<qeia (229), and as the truth-doer
embodies h[ a]lh<qeia (16). He shows, moreover, that this
principle of evil is rooted in his own nature. He is not a
sinner because he commits sins; he commits sins because
he is a sinner. "Every one that doeth sin is of the devil;
because the devil sinneth from the beginning" (38). The
outward sin is the index to the inward nature.
The word by which
principle of sin (h[ a[marti<a) is "lawlessness" (h[ a]nomi<a)
"Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin
is lawlessness"1 (34). This conception of sin as being
essentially lawlessness corresponds to the strong emphasis
which the Epistle lays upon the commandments of God
and their careful observance (23.4 322.24 52.3). But the
thought is not to be limited by any of the historical
deliverances of the Law. Sin is fundamentally the denial
of the absoluteness of moral obligation--repudiation of
the eternal canon of Right and Wrong, upon which all
moral life is based. In other words, to sin is to assert
one's own will as the rule of action against the absolutely
good Will of God. Thus it is but truth to say that every
sin contains in germ the whole infinite of evil. It
embodies that principle which, given effect to, would
1 The genuine use of the article with both subject and predicate (to which
there is no real parallel in the N.T.) indicates how exactly convertible the two
terms are. There is no sin that is not lawlessness, and there is no lawlessness
that is not sin. a]noimi<a, alike in classical Greek and in the N.T., signifies,
not a state of being without law (though
I Cor. 921), but an act of opposition to law. Elsewhere in our English versions
it is translated "iniquity" (except in 2 Thess. 27, where, as here, R.V. has
"lawlessness"). In the N.T. it is used to translate various O.T. words;—fwaP,
(Rom. 47), txFAHa (Heb. 1017), and fwarA (Heb. 19). Here it must be understood
in its strict etymological sense as " lawlessness."
134 The First Epistle of
overthrow the entire moral order of existence. One little
lie has in it that which would subvert the Throne of God
and extinguish the light of Heaven. All sins have sin in
them, and "sin is lawlessness."
Though it does not occur in this paragraph, we may
here consider another term by which an ethical significance
is stamped upon sin—"unrighteousness" (a]diki<a). The
word naturally suggests the negative aspect of sin—sin as
declension from the standard of rightness (dikaiosu<nh).
And this sense satisfactorily meets the requirements of
the three passages in which alone it occurs in
(John 718, 1 John 19 517)
In the first of these, "He that speaketh of himself
seeketh his own glory; but he that seeketh the glory of
Him that sent him, the same is true, and there is no a]diki<a
in him," the meaning obviously suggested is "unfaithful-
ness to the trust imposed in one," or, more generally,
"dereliction of duty." And the same sense admirably
suits 1 John 517. The Apostle has been distinguishing
between "sin unto death" and "sin not unto death" but
before leaving the subject he adds, "All unrighteousness
is sin." The purpose of the addition is evident. The
danger to be apprehended from emphasising the distinction
between mortal and non-mortal sin is that we may fall
into an attitude of comparative nonchalance toward the
less heinous offences; and to obviate this danger we are
reminded that every deviation from moral uprightness,
however venial it may appear, is sin.1 The same meaning
is most appropriate also in 19, "God is faithful and
righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from
1 This explanation seems much more natural than that according to which
the purpose is to indicate how wide a field there is for brotherly intercession,
even if the sin unto death is regarded as beyond its scope—because all un-
righteousness, which is never awanting, is sin, and its presence an urgent call to
prayer (Westcott, Haupt, Weiss). Westcott here takes a]diki<a as signifying
"failure to fulfil our duty one to another." I am unable to perceive any ground
for this limitation of the meaning.
The Doctrine of Sin and the World 135
all unrighteousness." As God is faithful to His own
revealed character in forgiving our sins, so He is not
unrighteous but righteous in "cleansing" us from every
failure in righteousness, in relieving us, that is, from the
religious disabilities imposed upon us by it.1 Thus a]diki<a
contemplates sin in its negative aspect as non-righteous-
ness, unfaithfulness in the moral stewardship of life (cf.
Luke 168). And the Apostle emphasises the fact that all
such unrighteousness, any morally inferior course of action,
is sin, and contains the elements of positive guilt. This
is continually overlooked. Men often think more of the
distinctions and gradations of sin than of its essential
wrongness. They speak of "peccadilloes," "foibles," "fail-
ings," of things that are "not quite right" (as if they
were not quite wrong). The sinfulness of sin is wrapped
around with euphemisms and circumlocutions. Concern-
ing all this
unrighteousness is sin."
Thus far, then, the Epistle's doctrine of Sin may be
summarised as follows. Sin is that which involves the
culpability of the agent. Sins are of various kinds; but
all failure in duty, all deviation from the right is sin. And
all sin, in its real character, is repudiation of the supremacy
of moral obligation—is revolt against the holy Will of
God.
516. 17
In the third cycle of the Epistle we encounter the per-
plexing topic of " sin unto death." It ought to be observed,
however, that the introduction of this is merely incidental,
and that the main subject of the passage is "sin not unto
1 Here Westcott's interpretation is "the specific sins (ai[ a[marti<ai) are
forgiven; the character (a]diki<a) is cleansed." Thus an entirely different
meaning is given to a]diki<a from that which he adopts in 517, the inconsistency
being necessitated only by the determination to interpret kaqari<zein in an ethical
sense. See Chapter VIII.
136 The First Epistle of
death"; while its actual purpose is to use this as an
example of those things regarding which we may pray
with perfect confidence of success (515)
"If any man see his brother," to whom he is bound by
the ties of Divine kinship (51), regarding whom he is per-
suaded that, at the root, he belongs to Him "in whom
there is no sin" (35)—if he see this brother, nevertheless,
"sinning a sin," plainly not abiding in Christ but taking
the way that leads to certain separation from Christ, yet
not so as to have irrevocably fallen from Him—if he see
this, "he shall ask," and God will grant him in answer to
his prayer, "life for them that sin not unto death." There
is a sense in which every sin tends "unto death." Con-
scious or unconscious, it is fraught with injury and loss
to life. It interrupts some channel of inter-communication
between the Vine and the branch. But the Epistle has
already declared the means by which the interrupted
fellowship may be recovered. The renewed advocacy of
Christ (21) and the renewed cleansing of His Blood (17),
will unfailingly restore fulness of Life. But the condi-
tion of this is that we "walk in the light" (17), that
is, in the present, instance, that there be confession of
sin (19). In the case contemplated, however, the erring
brother has not fulfilled this condition. He is ignorant
of his sin, or is impenitent, or is withheld from confes-
sion by fear or obstinacy (Ps. 323.4). It is in such an
emergency that his brother may come to the rescue and
do for him what he lacks the power or the will to do for
himself—confess his sin and seek his restoration. And
the Apostle affirms that such effort cannot be in vain; that
God has so bound us together in the Body of Christ that
one may by his prayer become the means of obtaining for
another a fresh influx of "Life," by which he will be
renewed unto repentance. Now, it is only by way of con-
trast with this that mention is made of the "sin unto
The Doctrine of Sin and the World 137
death." The Apostle is jealous of misapprehension as to
the Christian's assurance in prayer. It might be extended
beyond its proper scope, with the inevitable result of its
being weakened everywhere; and against this he will guard
his readers. He will not forbid them to place in God's
hands even him who has sinned unto death, with the fervent
supplication that "if it be possible" he may yet be snatched
from his doom. But he does view as a possibility, and
assert as a fact, that there are those for whose restoration
and salvation we cannot pray with unconditional confidence
as for a thing "according to His will."1 "There is a sin
unto death: not concerning this do I say that he should
make request."
What, then, are the characteristics of the "sin unto
death," as we may gather them from this passage?
1. It is a sin which may be committed by Christians,
and it is only as committed by Christians that it is here
contemplated.
2. It is a sin which is visible, or, at least, recognisable.
It is evident that the term "sin unto death" must have
been one well understood by the first readers of the
Epistle; and that it denoted a particular sin or kind of sin
the characteristics of which. were so definite that they were
easy to perceive, and so familiar that they needed no
description. On any other supposition the reference to
this sin as an exception to the full exercise of brotherly
intercession is entirely pointless.2 It seems strange that
1 This must be taken seriously, not as a mere concession to the infirmity
of his readers' faith. It is not serious exposition to say that "some of
disciples may have believed that when a man sinned a certain kind of sin it
was contrary to God's will that he should ever be quickened to life again," and
"that the Apostle does not pause to argue with them, does not even tell them
that, in his own apprehension of it, the scope of the Divine mercy was far wider
than in theirs, and must be of far wider scope than even he was able to con-
ceive" (Cox, Expositions, 1885, p. 258).
2 So Westcott, "Its character is assumed to be unquestionable, and its
presence open and notorious" (p. 210). Plummer, on the contrary, strongly
maintains that we must get rid of the idea that "sin unto death" is a sin that
138 The First Epistle of
what was so recognisable then is so unrecognisable now.
Yet it is conceivable that, in our own religious dialect and
modes of thought, there are phrases that to the Christian
of two thousand years hence will be no less obscure, and
conceptions no less difficult to locate in his religious and
ethical system, than the "sin unto death" is to ourselves.
The singular thing is that even to the earliest Patristic
writers who touch the subject the "sin unto death" is
already an enigma—its meaning as much a matter of
conjecture or inference as to us.
3. It is "unto death" (pro>j qa<naton). What does this
expression signify? (a) It is pointed out that the dis-
tinction of "sins unto death" and "sins not unto death"
is common with Rabbinic writers, and is based on the
Old Testament legislation, according to which the punish-
ment for many offences (cf. Lev. 1829 209-21), especially for
those committed with a "high hand" (Num. 1530. 31) was
death, involving final "cutting off from the people."
This, however, while it may possibly indicate the origin
of the phrase, does not materially help towards an under-
standing of what it signifies in the atmosphere of New
Testament thought. The interpretations which have been
directly based upon the Old Testament usage—that " sin
unto death" is sin punished by the civil authorities with
death or by the Church with excommunication (thus the
can be recognised. "
He implies that some sin may be known to be not unto death; he neither says
nor implies that all sin unto death can be known as such." The commentator
does not state clearly what interpretation of the verse he deduces from this.
Apparently the thought is that we know that there is a sin unto death, but that
all we know of it is that it is not included among those which we know to be
no/unto death; and the purport of the verse would be that we ought to inter-
cede with perfect confidence in cases of sin which we know are not unto death,
and that where this is not known the Apostle does not exhort to intercession,
because thus we might be interceding for one who has sinned beyond hope. But
if this had been the Apostle's meaning, I cannot conceive that he would have
expressed it by the simple positive statement, "There is a sin unto death; not
concerning it do I say that he should make request."
The Doctrine of Sin and the World 139
older Catholic theologians)—do not commend themselves.
Of the former alternative nothing need be said; of the
latter, that not every sin incurring excommunication is
"unto death." In 1 Cor. 55 the offender is excom-
municated "for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit
may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." In such a
case brotherly intercession would be an urgent duty; and,
in any case, excommunication does not constitute the "sin
unto death," but is only the solemn recognition by the
Church that it has. been committed. (b) Nor is the pro-
posal to interpret the passage by the aid of Jas. 514. 15,
as referring to sin that is punished by God with bodily
sickness or death (cf. 1 Cor. 1130), worthy of more con-
sideration. In the whole usage of the Epistle qa<natoj and
have a spiritual significance, and there is nothing in
the context to suggest that here "sin unto death" should
be understood as sin punished by fatal bodily sickness.
(c) And, if it is evident that qa<natoj means spiritual death,
—separation from fellowship with God,—it is also evident
that sin pro>j qa<naton means, not sin "tending towards
death," but sin by which that fatal goal is reached.1 West-
cott2 (p. 210) maintains that "
tending to death, and not as necessarily involving death.
Death is, so to speak, its natural consequence, if it continue,
and not its inevitable issue as a matter of fact." This view
is quite untenable. Intended to put a humane and
merciful interpretation upon the "sin unto death," how
inhumane and unchristian a construction does it place
upon the Apostle's directions regarding it! If there is a
sin that does not already "necessarily involve death," but
to which a special certainty attaches that, if it continues,
death is the "inevitable issue," it is unimaginable that the
1 Cf. John 114 au!th h[ a]sqe<neia ou]k e@stin pro>j qa<naton.
2 So Plummer, "Death is its natural, but not its absolutely inevitable,
consequence."
140 The First Epistle of
Apostle should not enjoin the most urgent intercession,
instead of positively saying that he does not enjoin it.
Of all possible interpretations, this is unwittingly the most
repugnant to Christian feeling. The only question which
the Apostle's language leaves undecided is whether a
resurrection even from this "death" is not possible.
And concerning this his language is noticeably guarded.
In the presence of such sin he does not command nor
encourage intercession, neither does he forbid it. All he
commits himself to is that for those who thus sin, Christian
prayer cannot have that "boldness" which is its prerogative
elsewhere. (d) The question remains—On what grounds
can it be pronounced of any sin that it is "unto death"—
that it effects a total severance from Christ? And the one
answer which the first principles of Christianity permit to
be given to this question is—final impenitence. Every sin
that can be repented of can be forgiven; every sin that is
repented of finds forgiveness. We cannot, however, define
sin unto death simply as the sin of those who are finally
impenitent.1 For this particular sin is recognisable now,
and cannot be now recognised from final impenitence.
The question, therefore, presents itself in this form--what
sins are of such a nature as to render final impenitence, so
far as we have reason to believe, their certain issue? In
the New Testament there is allusion to two sins, if they are
two, by which this dreadful condition is fulfilled.2 There is
the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost—that unpardon-
able sin—which our Lord's adversaries were, as He warned
1 This is one of Augustine's explanations, "Si in hac tam scelerata mentis
perversitate finierit hanc vitam," Westcott, p. 212.
2 There is an approximation to such fulfilment in a third case—that pointed
to in Matt. 1817—where wilful sin is so obstinately persisted in by the offender,
against all brotherly efforts to bring him to repentance, as to involve his exclu-
sion from the Christian fellowship ("Let him be unto thee as a heathen man
and a publican"). But, as has been said, not every sin that involves excom-
munication is "unto death." Excommunication has in view not only the purity
and self-protection of the Church, but the salutary discipline and ultimate
restoration of the offender.
The Doctrine of Sin and the World 141
them, upon the verge of committing, when they accused
Him of casting out evil spirits in the power of Beelzebub
(Matt. 1224-32). In doing so they were deliberately out-
raging the eternal principle of goodness and truth, sinning
against the Spirit of God, and extinguishing the light in
their own souls; and this, because beyond repentance,
would be beyond pardon. Intercession is silenced. Even
the Saviour cannot plead, "Father, forgive them: they
know not what they do." In this instance the blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost (or perilous nearness to it) is ascribed
to malignant unbelievers. Within the Church such sin can
be manifested only in one certainly recognisable form—
deliberate, open-eyed apostasy from Christ (Heb. 64-6).
It is true that the same fatal result may be reached
by other paths. The professing Christian may so wil-
fully and obstinately persist in heinous sin, or may have
become so inveterately and whole-heartedly a lover of the
world that, even in the judgment of charity, he has finally
chosen his sin rather than his salvation. Yet, human
nature being the same in New Testament times as now,
to determine and pronounce upon the merits of such final
hardening of the heart must have been so precarious, if
not impossible, that one is constrained to believe that the
"sin unto death" was the sin of those who by deliberate and
avowed action severed themselves from Christ and from the
Christian community. It does not follow that those who
so acted necessarily reckoned themselves as apostates; and
I think it probable that what
was the sin of the "antichrists" and false prophets, who
"went out from us that it might be made manifest that
they were not of us" (219). Once more, however, it is to
be observed that all the Apostle says of "sin unto death"
is that it does not present an object of confident inter-
cession. And though it was perhaps inevitable, it is
unfortunate that the mention of the perplexing "sin unto
142 The First Epistle of
death" has always awakened a livelier interest than that
which is the central truth of the passage—the Christian
prerogative of fearless and expectant prayer for a restora-
tive gift of Life to them that sin not unto death.
The Derivation of Sin.
According to the teaching of the Epistle, sin is not an
abnormality of human life alone—a phenomenon of the
ko<smoj; it belongs to a more gigantic system in which
it has its origin, and in which, again, it bears its final fruits
and reaches its goal. There are organised kingdoms both of
Righteousness and of Sin, in the one or the other of which
every man has his citizenship. The one has its prototype
in Christ (37); the other, in the devil (38). As it is in Christ
alone that we see what Righteousness is when it becomes
the absolute principle of life, so it is in the devil only that
sin is manifested to its last possibility. Sin in its proper
nature is diabolical; it is what has made the devil to be
the devil.
But the devil, o[ ponhro<j, is not only the prototype to
which all sin tends and is ultimately conformed, he is also,
in some important sense, the source from which all human
sin is derived.1 In what sense, we must more particularly
inquire. The terms in which the relation of human sinning
to diabolic influence, and those in which the relation of
human righteousness to Divine influence are expressed, are
strikingly parallel.
He that sinneth is of the devil (38). We are of God (510).
(e]k tou? diabo<lou e]sti<n.) (e]k tou? qeou? e]sme<n.)
The children of the devil (310). The children of God (310)
Believers have God as their Father Unbelievers, the devil (tou?
(213 etc.). u[mw?n, John 844).
1 In the Pauline scheme, sin is regarded solely as innate in humanity, as
having its temporal beginning and its hereditary source in the sin of Adam
(
to a source external to human nature.
The Doctrine of Sin' and the World 143
Is it to be inferred that the relations thus identically
expressed are identical in fact? Some do not shrink from
drawing the inference." It is an appalling thought that
man may enter into the same relation to the devil in which
he originally stands to God" (Rothe). "The life that
animates the sinner emanates from the devil" (Huther).
But such statements are over-statements. That the devil
is immanently and directly the source of all sin, as the
Holy Spirit is of all holiness, is a thesis that cannot be
seriously maintained. This is to ascribe to his agency an
omnipresence and an omniscience which, so far as one
can conceive, are impossible to a finite being. True, the
Johannine phraseology might bear such an interpretation,
nay, most naturally would bear it, if it could; but it does
not absolutely demand it.1
On the other hand, more is signified than merely moral
affinity or likeness. The devil is an active influence to
which there is a corresponding receptivity in the life of
the "world" (519) That he gave the first impulse to
human sinning (John 844); that he still gives fresh impulse
to it (John 132); that, directly or indirectly, all human evil
may be described as the "works of the devil" (38), and
that thus he is the father of all who do wickedly, is clear
Johannine teaching, "He that doeth sin is of the devil."
He is of the devil's lineage, in the direct line of spiritual
descent from him "who sinneth from the beginning."
Thus the personality of the Wicked One is not only
recognised in the Epistle; it is related in no unimportant
1 The analogous phrases, e]k th?j gh?j, e]k tou? ko<smou, e]k tw?n ka<tw, show that
such rigidity of interpretation as requires e]k tou? diabo<lou to denote precisely the
same relation as e]k tou? qeou? is not linguistically necessary. And while sinners
are called ta> te<kna tou? diabo<lou, it is never said that they are "begotten" of
the devil. Here, also, such expressions as te<kna th?j sofi<aj (Matt. 1119), te<kna
fwto<j (Eph. 58), even ta> e]ma> te<kna (3 John 4), tend to show that te<kna tou?
diabo<lou need not express more than moral affinity (though, in fact, it does
express more). This is recognised by Haupt ("God can beget life, Satan
cannot").
144 The First Epistle of
sense to its doctrine of sin. Yet, regarding his person, St.
John is as reticent as other New Testament writers. In
the Epistle all that is said is that "he sinneth from the
beginning"1 (38a). Plainly, "from the beginning" is here
relative to human history. His is the sin from which human
sin is derived. When and why and how Satan became
Satan is to us unknown. He is the aboriginal sinner; and
what he became he still is. The first to sin, he still abides
in sin (a[marta<nei). But, while there is in the Epistle no
attempt to account either for the existence of the Wicked
One or for his power (the "whole world" is his domain, 519),
there can be no doubt that, underlying all the Apostle's
utterances on the subject, there is the ordinary assumption
that he is a fallen angel. Meagre as is the support which
the idea of the fall of Satan has in the New Testament
(2 Pet, 24; Jude 6), speculation on the subject has no
other possible issue. Any other conception is "incon-
sistent with the absoluteness, or subversive of the good-
ness, of God" (Steven, Johannine Theology, p. 145).
The New Testament conception of diabolic agency is one
for which modern Christian thought has no small difficulty
in finding a place."2 But, as presented in the Epistle, three
great thoughts—all, I believe, of permanent validity--are
contained in it. (a) Sin in its principle has that character
which we call diabolic. There is a darker strain of evil in
1 “The devil sinneth from the beginning," a]p ] a]rxh?j o[ dia<boloj a[marta<nei.
a]p ] a]rxh?j is emphatic by position, and with it may be compared the parallel
statement, "He was a murderer from the beginning" (John 844). The words
a]p ] a]rxh?j cannot be understood absolutely, since then we are stranded upon
an insoluble dualism (this interpretation, nevertheless, is maintained by Hilgen-
feld and others); nor as "from the beginning of that being who is the devil,"
the intolerable consequence of which would be that God is the Creator of a
being inherently evil—dualism 'of the rankest sort. Nor is it satisfactory to
denude the words of all temporal reference, and to understand them as meaning
that "in him is the principle of all the sin of the world" (Rothe). This use
of a]rxh<, familiar in Greek philosophy, is unknown to the N.T. Not more
satisfactory is the interpretation, "from the devil's own beginning as such."
2 In Clarke's Outlines of Theology, e.g., there is not a single reference to it,
The Doctrine of Sin and the World 145
the world than human weakness, ignorance and folly, or over-
powering circumstance can account for. There is the mani-
festation of an essentially evil will, of opposition to good,
enmity against God. (b) The great moral conflict of which
human history always has been and will be the theatre—
which is fought out around every human soul—is a conflict
of personal agencies, not of abstract moral ideas. It may be
said that of impersonal influences, or of actual moral force
residing in impersonal laws, the New Testament knows
nothing. And to this mode of conception modern thought
is in some measure returning. Modern psychology tends at
some points towards the New Testament standpoint. (c) The
third truth is the ultimate triumph of Christ over His great
adversary, in their conflict for the possession of humanity,
"The whole world lieth in the wicked one"; but "to this
end was the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy
the works of the devil." The "strong man armed" has
encountered an antagonist mightier than himself. Evil is
overcome with good. On the downfall of the kingdom of
the devil arises the Kingdom of the Son of God.
The World, the Social Organism of Sin.
In the Johannine writings the word ko<smoj has a
peculiar elasticity of application. Three chief uses (besides
others more occasional) may be distinguished. When the
ko<smoj is material, it signifies (a) the existing terrestrial
creation (e.g. John 110), especially as contrasted with the
sphere of the Heavenly and Eternal.1 When it refers to the
world of humanity, it is either (b) the totality of mankind as
needing redemption and as the object of God's redeeming
love (e.g. John 310) or (c) the mass of unbelieving men,
hostile to Christ and resisting salvation (e.g. John 1518)
In the Epistle the word occurs in the first of these senses
1 Frequently, o[ ko<smoj ou$toj (e.g. John 131), but also o[ ko<smoj (John 1623).
146 The First Epistle of
(317 417), also in the second (22 49 414), but most frequently
and characteristically in the third (215.16.17 31.13 41.3.4.5
54.5.19). Of the world in this sense it is said that it had
no perception of the true nature and Divine glory of Christ
(31; cf. John 110), and that it is equally blind to the true
nature of the children of God (31); that it hates the
children of God as Cain hated Abel (313; cf. John 1518.19
1714); that the spirit of Antichrist dwells in it (43.4), and
that to it belong the false prophets and their adherents
(41.5); that it is wholly subject to the wicked one (519;
cf. John 1231 1430 1611); that whatsoever is begotten of
God conquers it (54; cf. John 1633) by the power of
Christian Faith (55) ; that it is not to be loved (215); that
the constituents of its life are "the lust of the flesh, the
lust of the eyes, and the vainglory of life" (210); and that
it "passeth away" (217). We shall for the present confine
our attention to the last quoted passage:--
215-17
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in
the world. If any man love the world, the love of the
Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the
lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the vainglory of
life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the
world passeth away, and the lust thereof; but he that
doeth the will of God abideth for ever." I shall not
attempt to thread the maze of various interpretations that
have gathered around the term "world" in this passage.
The real possibilities are only two. The word may be
understood as signifying the whole content of material,
sensuous, and therefore transient existence—"the sum of
all phenomena, within the human horizon, which are
sensuous, and which awaken sensuous desires" (Rothe).
This interpretation, however, has serious difficulties, both
logical and moral. How can it be logically affirmed that
The Doctrine of Sin and the World 147
"the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride
of life" which are subjective, constitute "all that is in the
world" which is objective? And if this difficulty be waived,
the more formidable moral objection remains:—How can
it be said that the material and sensuous ko<smoj, which
God has created for man to dwell in, and between which
and human nature He has established so many links of
necessary and also delightful correspondence, has no other
effect than to excite immoral desire and ungodly pride,
or that the natural environment of human life is so ill-
adjusted—so inimical to its supreme spiritual interest;—
that the one command regarding it must be an absolute
"love not," and the one certainty, "If any man love the
world, the love of the Father is not in him?" Had the
writer been a Gnostic of the extreme ascetic type he might
have been credited with such a thought, but it has no place
in the New Testament. Recognising this, the exponents
of this interpretation import into it, in one way or other,
a subjective element. The "world" is the material and
sensuous, not in itself, but in its relation to unregenerate
human nature. Westcott's definition--"The order of finite
being regarded as apart from God"--may be taken as one
now generally accepted.
This definition is admirable as giving the widest idea
that underlies
process of logical abstraction that the idea is obtained.
And it seems to me scarcely imaginable that the Apostle
intended his readers to understand "the order of finite
being regarded as apart from God" as the object of a
command so terse and practical as "Love not the world."
The same objection applies a fortiori to other varieties1 of
the same interpretation.
1 "Quicquid ad praesentem vitam spectat, ubi separatur a regno
vitae eternae" (Calvin). "The world, that is, godlessness itself, through which
a man has not the right use of the creatures" (Luther). "It is not an entity,
an actual tangible thing—it is spun out of these three abuses of God's glorious
148 The First Epistle of
The simple solution, and that which satisfies every
requirement of the passage, is to understand the "world"
as the mass of unbelieving and unspiritual men—the
social organism of evil. This is the sense, except when
another is clearly indicated by the context, which the
word bears throughout the Epistle (and is by far the
most frequent in the Fourth Gospel as well). To the
Apostle's readers "Love not the world" would convey,
as it does more or less to Christians in every age, a very
definite and needful warning, and one that has many
parallels in the Apostolic writings (e.g. 2 Cor. 614-18, Jas.
44), "Love not the world." Do not court the intimacy
and the favour of the unchristian world around you; do
not take its customs for your laws, nor adopt its ideals,
nor covet its prizes, nor seek fellowship with its life.
"Neither the things that are in the world." For what are
the things that are in this "world." This aggregate of
unspiritual persons, with their opinions, pursuits, and in-
fluences—what are the elements of its life? They are
such that "If any man love the world, the love of the
Father is not in him." God lays down one programme of
life for His children; the world proposes another and
totally incompatible programme to its servants. And
in exact proportion as men are attracted by the world's
programme—the life of fullest gratification for all un-
gift of free will to man—the lust of the flesh," etc. (Alexander). "It is the reign
of kingdom of the carnal mind—wherever that mind prevails, there is the world"
(Candlish). "The world is whatever is ruled by selfishness" (Gibbon). "It
is the place which we make for our own souls" (Alexander). There is, of
course, profound truth in all this. We find the world of our own hue it reflects
our own image. But the word ko<smoj, as here used, can scarcely signify such
an abstract idea as the correspondence between the material and sensuous
world and the unregenerate mind. On this interpretation, moreover, the only
meaning that can be given to the Apostle's words is: "We must not love the
world, because, owing to our evil subjectivity, the only effect it can have upon
us is to excite the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life"—
which would be to render
and would be a libel, not upon the world, but upon the power of Christian
Redemption.
The Doctrine of Sin and the World 149
spiritual instincts and appetites—they are tempted to
mistrust and dislike the absolutely different programme of
self-denying love and obedience which God lays out for
them, and by which He would make them trustful, pure,
patient, and strong. For, as the Apostle with inimitable
terseness proceeds to expound, the essential constituents
of the world's life are these, "the lust of the flesh, the lust
of the eyes, and the vainglory of life." This is literally
"all that is in the world"; there is nothing nobler which
it is in its power to give.
A. First, there is the "lust of the flesh" (the sensuous
gratification which the flesh longs for). The evil signifi-
cance of the phrase lies in "lust,"1 not in "the flesh."
Least of all New Testament writers can the Apostle; whose
message of Redemption begins with the announcement
that the Flesh has become the organ of the Divinest life,
be credited with the mystical bias which sees in the bodily
organism an inherent and intractable element of evil.
The bodily appetites are in themselves absolutely
wholesome; without them neither the race nor the
individual could long subsist; nor can anything be more
innocent than the pleasure that accompanies their legitimate
satisfaction. Their degradation comes not from the body
itself, but from the soul. And it comes because life is not
dominated by these nobler aims and affections under the
rule of which the lower fulfil their appointed purpose in
the harmony of nature. It is when the love of God, the
love of one's neighbour, and the love of one's nobler self
1 The fate which the word e]piqumi<a has suffered (and, similarly, "list "
in English) is an illustration of the degrading power of sin. e]piqumi<a is
occasionally found in the N.T. in its original unfallen sense of "desire" (Luke
2215, 1 Thess. 217, Phil. 123). But, distinctively, it characterises desire as evil,
not necessarily because of the object desired, but because in the desire the higher
nature is subordinated to the lower, instead of the lower to the higher. The
"flesh" has not with
express the whole moral corruption of human nature, although, in certain
passages, it naturally enough exhibits a tendency in that direction (John 36 815).
150 The First Epistle of
are shut out from the soul, that natural appetite becomes
the corrupt "lust of the flesh," asserting itself in sloth,
intemperance, and sensuality, or in the tyranny of the
anxious thought, "What shall we eat, what shall we drink,
and wherewithal shall we be clothed?"
"What is he but a brute,
whose flesh hath soul to suit,
Whose spirit works lest arms and legs want play?"
But, in truth, when the higher nature is thus made the
slave and minister of the lower, animalism is no name
for the level of degradation that is reached. The animal
body seeks only its natural food. The "lust of the flesh"
is in reality the hunger of the godlike soul deprived of
its proper nutriment and flying to the body for a substitute,
compelling it to devour "so many more of the husks as
will satisfy the starving prodigal within, and make a swine's
paradise for his comfort."1
B. The second element in the life of the "world" is the
"lust of the eyes." Here we rise from the merely animal2
into the region of the intellect and the imagination, to
which the eye, among the bodily organs, is the chief
ministrant. The most obvious example under this category
—the master-lust of the Eye—is Covetousness.3 But the
phrase includes every variety of gratification of which
sight is the instrument, from the love of mere material
splendour and vulgar display in apparel and personal
adornments, pomp and luxury in the appointments of
public or private life, the spectacular excitements of the
theatre, the arena, and the racecourse, to the most refined
cult of the physically beautiful in nature or in art. Nay,
1 Bushnell, The New life, p. 32.
2 The eye also may minister to the "lust of the flesh" (cf. Matt. 528); but
the construction of the sentence, . . . kai> . . . kai>, shows that the e]piqumi<a
tw?n o]fqalmw?n is not a subdivision of the more general e]piqumi<a th?j sarko<j.
3 "Homo extra Deum quaerit pabulum in creatura materiali vel per volup-
tatem vel per avaritiam," (Bengel on Rom. 129).
The Doctrine of Sin and the World 151
if the Apostle's classification is to be regarded as at all
exhaustive, we must give to the "lust of the eyes" a wider
scope than the merely sensuous. It must include the
craving for novelty of intellectual sensation (Acts 1721),
the whole pursuit of knowledge, science, and art, when
these are severed from the spiritual ends of life and are
made, as in their own right, the object of man's devotion.
The relation of intellectual and aesthetic culture to the
spiritual life is a problem that did not urgently touch
the Hebrew Christian, and probably did not gravely affect
those classes of Greek and Roman society from which the
members of the Church were chiefly drawn in the Apostolic
age; and it is scarcely touched upon in the New Testament.
But the principle on which it must be determined is the
same as that which assigns their right place to the bodily
appetites. The Creator Himself is the original and perfect
artist. The Eye and all that it desires and delights in
are His thought and handiwork. We cannot behold the
beauty with which He has dowered all His works, from
the tiniest crystal to the constellations, without believing
that in all this we see the passing gleams of an Ideal
Beauty, which as truly belongs to the Divine Nature itself
as wisdom or power. In our own nature, made in His
likeness, the sense of beauty seems to be a fact as
ultimate as the sense of truth or of right and wrong. It is
of God and for God.
"All earthly beauty hath one cause or proof
To lead the pilgrim-soul to Heaven above;
Joy's ladder it is; reaching from home to home."
But if the light of God be shut out from the desire for
and the delight in beauty, whether physical or intellectual, it
becomes merely "the lust of the eyes." The love of beauty
divorced from the love of goodness, the art that is the gilding
of idle, selfish lives, the love of knowledge that is merely
the craving of an insatiable yet vain curiosity—these, so
152 The First Epistle of
far from being a ladder that leads up, are, no less than
vulgar avarice, chains by which the soul, which is made
for the Infinite Good, is bound fast to the sphere of
earthliness.
C. Next, the Apostle displays the obverse of the medal.
He has designated the cravings of human nature when it
is without the Knowledge and Love of God, as the
"lust of the flesh" and the "lust of the eyes." Now he
declares what results from the attainment of these--the
"vainglory of life." Vainglory (h[ a]lazonei<a) does not so
much signify arrogance towards one's fellows (u[perhfani<a),
as the fatuous pride of worldly possession and success, the
vain sense of security that is based, like a house on the
sand, upon a false estimate of the stability and worth of
worldly things (cf. Dan. 430 Prov. 1811, 2 Chron. 3225,
Acts 1220-23). But these two varieties of pride, though
distinguishable in thought, are inseparable in fact. The
supercilious consciousness of superiority to one's fellow-men
is possible only when the sense of dependence upon God
has been lost (1 Cor. 47). And here the "vainglory of life"
must be regarded as including both the egotistical and the
atheistical attitude of mind. The same human life, the
cravings of which, in those who are not animated by the
love of God and the quest of Righteousness, are the "lust
of the flesh" and the "lust of the eyes," has for its least
transient satisfaction nothing better than this deluded self-
security and empty self-satisfaction, against which all the
facts of human experience offer in vain their unceasing
protest. To live without looking up to God in dependence
and submission, to live looking down on a larger or smaller
number of one's fellow-men--this, which from the spiritual
point of view is the worst and deadliest life can give, is, in
the world's reckoning, its most enviable prize.
These, then, are the ideals the "world" of unspiritual
men recognises; these are the marks that characterise it, the
The Doctrine of Sin and the World 153
forces that govern it; these are its wants and its wealth;
and plainly to every one who knows the God revealed in
Christ, these things are "not of the Father," have not their
origin in His will, have no affinity with His nature, are
directly antagonistic to the life He intends for men and
to which He calls men. They belong to a life which,
if it could succeed in realising itself, would be without
need of God, righteousness, purity, love or moral sense of
any kind; in which the world, as the sum of all the "per-
manent possibilities" of enjoyment, would take the place
of God as the object of trust and the source of all good;
and whose heaven would be a paradise of sensuous and
egotistical gratifications without limit and without end.
Such a life, in the very idea and principle of it, is not "of
the Father," but is “of the world.” In no sense is it normal
or natural. It exists only as a corruption and caricature.
It is possible only to a nature that is made for fellowship in
the highest order of life, but is used as an equipment for the
role of a more highly-endowed animal. It is "of the world"
—has no other basis or foothold in actual existence than
the perverted human will. It has in it no principle of
individual development; for it presents no object adequate
to the greatness of human nature, has no outlet or outlook
towards the infinite Good for which man is made. And it
has in it no principle of social development. Selfishness
can never make a Kingdom of Heaven; for, in the nature
of the case, every man's selfishness must collide with every
other man's. But the Apostle does not philosophise upon
the theme. He sweeps the whole phantasmagoria of
worldliness aside. "The world passeth away, and the lust
thereof."1 These words might well be understood as St.
John's version of what has been the theme of preachers and
moralisers from the beginning—"Tune to whose rise and
1 "Thereof," autou?, is not the objective genitive= the desire for the world,
but the subjective= the desire felt by the world,
154 The First Epistle of
fall we live and die"—pa<nta r[ei?. But if our interpretation
of the passage is the true one, this is not the direct refer-
ence. The world is still the world of human society which
is "in darkness until now." "Love not the world" is the
sternly affectionate exhortation: "for that world, —that
whole framework of society which is hostile to Christ and
His Kingdom,—imposing as it looks, stable and impreg-
nable and overpowering, is doomed. With all that it
delights in and pursues, it is passing away. Even while
I write it is moribund, its final dissolution is at hand."1
But over against this prophecy of doom, the paragraph
ends with the note of triumph—"He that doeth the will
of God abideth for ever." Here the Will of God stands
as the absolute contrast to the Lust of the World. The
Lust of the world degrades and desecrates all the best
things in life upon which it lays its hand,—renders them
trivial, ignoble, and evanescent. But the Will of God
consecrates, glorifies, imbues with a Divine worth and
permanence even the lowest things of life, the humblest
gift, the most commonplace drudgery, the most unheroic
affliction, renders the lives of men day by day, unevent-
ful as they may seem, of imperishable significance. The
Will of God alone is great, and it lays an equalising
touch upon all who truly serve it (Matt. 1250). The Will
of God is the one Eternal Reality to which the life of the
creature can attach itself, the one bond of permanence
that makes human life and human history, not a thing of
fragments and patches, but a vital part of an ordered and
enduring whole. If a man do the Will of God, his deeds
abide, his works "do follow him." The fruit he brings forth
1 Cf. I Pet. 47. The statement is not to be understood as a prophecy of the
speedy conquest of the world by Christianity, or as pointing to the fact that
this conquest was already visibly beginning (Westcott). The key to the sense
is given in the next verse, "Little children, it is the last hour." The thought
in the Apostle's mind is that of the nearness of Christ's Advent and the world's
Judgment-day.
The Doctrine of Sin and the World 155
"neither withers upon the branches nor decays upon the
ground. Angels unseen gather crop after crop as they
are brought forth in their season, and carefully store them
up in heavenly treasure-houses." Yet what the Apostle
says is that he himself "abideth for ever." Already he has
eternal life and is doing its works. What he is, that he will
ever be. What he does, that he will ever do. The change
will be only from the "few things" in which he has been
found faithful to the "many things" of which he will be
judged worthy. Doing the will of God, he has thrust his
hand through the enclosing screen of the transient and laid
hold of the abiding, and partakes of the immortality of
Him Whose Will he does.
"And the world is passing away, and the lust thereof:
but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."
In all literature there is no more solemn magnificence
of effect than is produced by these few simple words; in
all Scripture there is no more ringing challenge to the
arrogant materialism of the "world" than sounds out of
the depth of their calm.
CHAPTER IX.
THE DOCTRINE OF PROPITIATION.
MUCH that has been written on the Johannine theology
exhibits a singular tendency to minimise its testimony to
the specifically sacrificial and propitiatory aspect of Christ's
redemptive work. It seems to be taken as axiomatic that,
wherever it is possible, an ethical rather than a religious
sense is to be assigned to any Johannine utterance regard-
ing Redemption.1 It is even asserted that the Johannine
writings exhibit no trace of a doctrine of Redemption in
the ordinarily accepted sense.2 Nothing more than an
unprejudiced study of the Epistle is needed to show how
baseless these suppositions and assertions are. The fact of
propitiation is placed in the forefront. The door through
which we are conducted from the Prologue, with its
announcement of Christ as the Life-giver, into the inner
rooms of the ethical and Christological teaching, is sprinkled
on its lintel and posts with the blood of Divine sacrifice.
The most comprehensive soteriological statement is that
"the Father hath sent the Son to be the Saviour3 of the
1 "The Johannine theology emphasises by preference the moral bearings of
the Atonement" (DB iv. 346). So far as the Epistle is concerned, this state-
ment cannot be sustained.
2 Reuss, Hist. Christ. Theo'. ii. 443.
3 o[ path>r a]pe<stalken to>n ui[o>n swth?ra tou? ko<smou. v. Notes, in loc.
Although used in the first Apostolic preaching (Acts 531 1323), the title swth<r
does not seem to have found early currency in the Church. Its earliest use
by
Pastoral Epistles and Second Peter. Of the family of words, sw<zein, swth<r,
swthri<a, etc., swth<r alone is found in the Epistle; on the other hand, the full
title "Saviour of the world" is exclusively Johannine, being found only here
156
The Doctrine of Propitiation 157
world" (414). Salvation, which culminates in the one supreme
good, Eternal Life, includes, as a present possession, the
forgiveness of sins (19), cleansing from all sin and un-
righteousness (17, 9), being "begotten of God " (51 etc.),
fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ
(13), our abiding in Him and His in us (415 etc.), the anoint-
ing of the Spirit (220), fellowship one with another (17),
overcoming the world (54.5), righteousness of life (36 etc.),
love (314 etc.), assurance towards God (319 418), confidence
in prayer (320.21 514). As a possession perfected in the
future, it includes boldness in the Parousia (228) and in the
Day of Judgment (417), complete assimilation to Christ as
He will then be manifested (32) and abiding for ever1 (217).
Here the origin of Salvation in the love of God is exhibited
in the twofold fact of the Father's having sent His Son,
and of the Son's being sent as the "Saviour of the world"
(emphasising, as this does, the human need that drew forth
the manifestation of the Divine Love).
When we pass to the more specific question of the
method by which Christ accomplishes His mission of saving
the world, the answer, still general, is, "Ye know that He
was manifested that He might take away sins" (35).2
Here the thought is only of the purpose for which Christ
appeared on earth—the removal of sins; there is no re-
ference to the definite means by which this is accomplished.
and in the confession of the Samaritans (John 442). In classical writers the
title swth<r is applied to many deities, especially to Zeus; also, in later Greek,
to princes of various dynasties, e.g. to Nero: Ne<rwni . . . tw?i swth?ri kai>
eu]erge<thi th?j oi]koume<nhj (Inscr. quoted by Moulton). Both of these titles were
regularly claimed by the Ptolemies. There is no reason, however, to believe
that this current pagan usage at all influenced the Christian application of the
term. In the Lucan passages (Luke 147 211, Acts 511 1322) it bears evident
trace of its O.T. origin (cf. Deut. 3215, Ps. 245 255, Isa. 1710 etc., where the
LXX translate qeo>j swth>r).
1 It is noticeable that the Epistle contains no direct reference to the
Resurrection; nor does the cosmic view of salvation (Rom. 821, Col. 120) come
within its horizon.
2 v. Notes, in loc.
158 The First Epistle of
The world can be saved only by the abolition of sin; and
to this end all that Christ was and taught and did, by life,
death, and resurrection—the whole human manifestation in
Him of the unseen Divine Life (12)—was directed. This
neither requires demonstration nor permits of argument.
"Ye know,"1 says the Apostle. In the Christian conscious-
ness of Christ and His work this is the first principle.
Thus, from another point of view, the work of salvation
may be regarded as one of destruction. "To this end
was the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy2
the works of the devil" (38b). The "works of the devil"
signify human sin in its entirety regarded as the product
of original Satanic agency; and Christ saves the world
by breaking up and destroying from its foundations the
whole system and establishment of Evil that dominates
human life. This he does by "taking away sins." The
Epistle contemplates no other means by which the de-
struction of the "works of the devil " is to be accomplished
than the taking away of sin through the spiritual forces
of the
to be destroyed, is a question regarding which the Epistle
has no message.
We come closer to the core of our subject when we
ask by what specific mode of action Christ takes away
sin—a result after which morality has toiled and religion
agonised. in vain, which has been at once the quenchless
aspiration of conscience and its burden of despair. The
first, though not the full, answer is, that the mode of action
1 oi@date. Here in its most absolute sense. See special note on ginw<skein
and ei]de<nai.
2 "Might destroy" (i!na lu<s^). Here lu<ein has its characteristic sense (cf.
John 219 2 Pet. 310-12), the disintegration and dissolution of a compact body, the
"works of the devil" thus being pointed to as presenting a solid, organised
opposition to the
A better sense is thus obtained than when the "works of the devil" are
understood as the works men do after the devil's pattern—works that are the
works of men, yet, in principle, the works of the devil.
The Doctrine of Propitiation 159
was that of self-sacrificing Love. The mission of Christ,
while we must think of it as having its inception in the
love of the Father, Who sent the Son as the Saviour of
the world (417), is achieved only by the same self-sacrificing
Love on the part of the Son. "Herein know1 we Love,
because He laid down His Life for us" (316). This is
the absolute revelation of Love—the ideal to which all
that claims that title must conform.2 And it is only as
exhibiting the fact and the magnitude of Christ's self-
sacrifice on our behalf that the "laying down"3 of His
Life is here contemplated. Reference to the Death of
context, in which it is held up specifically as our pattern,
binding on us the obligation to lay down our lives in
like manner for the brethren. No necessity, save that of
Love itself, is indicated for that infinite self-sacrifice.
Nothing is said as to the conditions of human need or
Divine law under which it was indispensable to our salva-
tion and avails for it. All this, however, is done, with
notable emphasis and unmistakable significance, in the
group of passages that next come under consideration.
1 See Chapter XIl.
2 Comparison with John 1011.15.17 and 1337 (if not the tense of the verb
itself, e@qhke) renders it certain that the words do not denote the continuous
self-sacrifice of Christ's life (Gibbon,
of life through death.
3 "He laid down His Life " (th>n yuxh>n au]tou? e@qhken). This expression
is peculiar to
(John 1011. 15). Christ lays down His life that he may take it again (John 1017).
Peter vows to lay down his life for his Master (John 1337). The most illumin-
ative parallel as to the precise meaning of "lay down" (tiqe<nai) is John 134
"He layeth aside His garments" (ti<qhsi ta> i[ma<tia). As in the Upper
Room Christ laid aside His garments, so on Calvary He laid aside life itself.
v. Notes, in loc.
4 The substitutionary idea is not excluded, neither is it necessarily included
by u[pe>r h[mw?n. This idea is definitely expressed by a]nti< (e.g. Matt. 2028).
The distinction between a]nti< and u[pe<r is well brought out by comparison
of Matt. 2028 lu<tron a]nti> pollw?n, and the version of the same logion in 1 Tim.
26 a]nti<lutron u[pe>r pa<ntwn (Moulton, p. 105). Instead of a]nti<,
(in this connection) virtually equivalent peri< (22 410)
160 The First Epistle of
410 "God loved us, and sent His own Son a propitiation
for our sins."
22 "And He Himself (Jesus Christ the righteous) is
the propitiation for our sins."
17b "The blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from
all sin."
19 "God is faithful and righteous to forgive us our
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
In these passages we have a concatenation of ideas—
propitiation, blood, cleansing, forgiveness — which are
directly derived from the sacrificial system of the Old
Testament, which are expressed, indeed, in technical
Levitical terms. To elucidate their meaning, therefore,
it is necessary to examine them in the light of their
Old Testament associations.
Here the primary term is i[lasmo<j,1 which with
its congeners is used by the LXX. to translate the corre-
sponding group, Kipper and its derivatives.2 The root-
idea of Kipper is that of covering over;3 but its use in
the Old Testament is restricted to the "covering" of sin;
and, like so many other ideas, it undergoes a remarkable
process of moral elevation and religious development. The
primitive conception is that found in the patriarchal
narrative (Gen. 3228), where Jacob proposes to "cover"
Esau's face with a gift, that is, to render him blind to
the injury done, by means of the gift thrust upon his
1 Properly, the act, but in the N.T. the means, of propitiation. In the
N.T. the word occurs only in this Epistle ; nor is the verbal family to which it
belongs abundantly represented (i!lewj, Matt. 1622, Heb. 812; i[la<skesqai, Luke
1813, Heb. 217; i[lasth<rion, Rom. 325, Heb. 95). Etymologically, i!lewj is con-
nected with i[laro<j, cheerful; and in classical Greek signifies, as applied to men,
kindly or gracious ; as applied to a deity, propitious.
2 Kipper is rendered by i[la<skesqai (Ps. 653 7838 799), but much more fre-
quently by the intensive e]cila<skesqai; while i[lasmo<j is the regular transla-
tion of Kippurim, " atonement." It also stands for "sin-offering" (Ezek. 4427)
and "forgiveness" (Ps. 1304).
3 By some Semitic scholars the idea of wiping away is preferred. Driver
suggests that both senses have a common origin in wiping over (DB iv. 128b).
The Doctrine of Propitiation 161
attention. Crude as the instance is, it clearly exhibits
the idea that runs through the whole complicated usage of
the metaphor—that of rendering offence invisible, null,
inoperative as a cause of just displeasure and punishment.1
The class of passages that shed the light of clearest
analogy upon our present study are those that deal with
legal or ritual propitiation. In this the agent is the priest;
the means, usually, a sacrifice; the object, the person or
thing on whose behalf the sacrifice is offered. Propitiatory
efficacy is assigned to a large variety of sacrifices, but
especially to the sin-offering and to blood as containing
the " life." And it is peculiarly relevant to the exegesis
of the Epistle to note the effects of propitiation, which are
expressly the forgiveness 2 of sin (19) and cleansing3 (17b. 9).
Upon the whole subject, though one might quote from
more recondite sources, a better statement could not be
furnished of the action which, with its agents, instruments,
and consequences, is denoted by propitiation than is given
by Driver (DB iv. 131b). "It is to cover (metaphorically)
by a gift, offering, or rite, or (if God be the subject) to
treat as covered; the ideas associated with the word being
to make (or treat as) harmless, non-existent, or inoperative,
to annul (so far as God's notice or regard is concerned),
to withdraw from God's sight, with the attached idea of
restoring to His favour, freeing from sin and restoring to
holiness—especially (but not exclusively) by the species
of sacrifice called the sin-offering." Such is the word
and such is the conception employed in the Epistle
to express the mode of action by which Christ has
accomplished and still accomplishes His mission as the
1 Thus Moses proposes to make propitiation for the sins of the people by
intercession (Ex. 3230). Elsewhere it is God who "covers," that is, treats as
covered, overlooks, pardons the offender (Ezek. 1663) or the offence (Ps. 653).
2 e.g. Lev. 420 e]cila<setai peri> au]tw?n o[ i[ereu<j, kai> a]feqh<setai au]toi?j h[
a[marti<a.
3 e.g. Lev. 127 e]cila<setai peri> au]th?j o[ i[ereu<j, kai> kaqariei? au]th<n
162 The First Epistle of
Saviour of the world. "He is the propitiation for our sins;
and not for ours only, but for the whole world" (22).
Two great truths emerge. First, propitiation has its
ultimate source in God. Paganism conceives of propitiation
as a means of changing the disposition of the deity, of
mollifying his displeasure and rendering him literally
"propitious." In the Old Testament the conception rises
to a higher plane; the expiation of sin begins to supersede
the idea of the appeasing sacrifice, and language1 is
chosen as if to guard against the supposition that a feeling
of personal irritation, pique; or resentment, such as mingles
almost invariably with human wrath, mars the purity of
the Divine indignation against sin. And this ascent from
pagan anthropomorphism reaches the climax of all ethical
religion in
for human guilt:—"Herein is love, not that we loved God,
but that God loved us, and sent His Son as a propitiation
for our sins" (410) The action of which, in some sense,
God is Himself the object, has God Himself as its origin.
Propitiation is no device for inducing a reluctant deity to
forgive; it is the way by which the Father in Heaven
restores His sinning children to Himself.
Nevertheless, it is a real work of propitiation in which
this love is exhibited and becomes effective for our
salvation. "And He Himself is the propitiation for our
sins" (22). To interpret the virtue of the i[lasmo<j as
consisting merely in its supreme exhibition of God's
all-embracing, all-forgiving love, as if to assure men that
no barrier to fellowship exists save in their own fears, is
to empty the word of all that it distinctively contains.
One may or may not accept the teaching of the New
1 This is witnessed to (in the LXX.) even by grammatical construction. In
classical Greek the regular construction of (e]c)ila<skesqai is with the person
(deity or man) in the acc., as the direct object. This construction occurs
only in a single O.T. passage (Zech. 72 e]cila<skesqai to>n ku<rion), where the
propitiation seems to be effected by prayer.
The Doctrine of Propitiation 163
Testament; but it is, at any rate, due to intellectual
honesty to recognise what that teaching is. And, beyond
dispute, i[lasmo<j can mean but one thing—that which in
some way (we may not be able to say, and I do not
here attempt to say, in what way or upon what principle)
expiates the guilt of sin, which restores sinful offenders
to God by rendering their sin null and inoperative as a
barrier to fellowship with Him. The fundamental impli-
cation is that not until the moral fact of sin is thus dealt
with, can the relations of God and man be established
on a permanent, that is, on a moral basis. And because
sin is thus dealt with by Christ, He is the "propitiation
for our sins." The ultima ratio of propitiation lies at once
in the Love of God and the guilt of man. It is at once the
act in which alone the pure, spontaneous, all-forgiving
Divine Love finds its total expression, and the act through
which alone that Love, in consistency with its own highest
aims and obligations, can go forth on its mission of
reconciliation. It is through this channel of suffering
and death, determined and cut out by human sin, that the
life-giving stream which arises in the heart of the Eternal
Love must find an outlet into the barren and unclean
waste.
In saying so much, we have been guilty of a slight
anticipation. In the statement that Christ is the propitia-
tion for our sins, nothing more is implied than that, sin
being a valid and by us insuperable obstacle to God's
fellowship with us and ours with Him, the power by
which this obstacle is removed springs from the Person of
Christ.
This must now be considered in the light of the more
definite statement, "If we walk1 in the light as He is in the
light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood
of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin" (17). In the Old
1 v. supra, pp. 59, 60, 65.
164 The First Epistle of
Testament, propitiation was normally effected by the offer-
ing of an animal victim through death. Any other mode
of making over a life to God was unknown to the Levitical
ritual, and, indeed, to any pre-Christian conception of
sacrifice. And thus it is invariably assumed in the New
Testament that the sacrifice of Christ was consummated
and offered in the Death of the Cross. That this is
His Blood.
Neither here, however, nor anywhere in the New
Testament, is the Blood a synonym for the Death of Christ.
In the Levitical ritual the atoning virtue is assigned in
a peculiar degree to the blood as containing the "life"
(Lev. 1711). The warm, fluid blood was considered as the
life of the animal, not a symbol of the life, but the life
itself; and the essence, ritually, of the sacrificial act
consisted in the offering of the life-blood to God; so much
so that it might be regarded as a principle of the whole
ritual system that "without outpouring of blood there is
no remission" (Heb. 922). The meaning of this manipula-
tion of the blood is variously explained; but the points of
real importance are these: that, according to the analogy
of the Old Testament, and in consonance with every type
of New Testament teaching,1 the propitiatory virtue of all
Christ is and has done and does is here regarded as
concentrated in His Blood; and that what this term
connotes is the Life offered to God in His Death, not
death itself regarded as mere deprivation of life. And
now appears the immense significance of the words by
which the Blood is defined. For what manner of life is it
that is offered in this Blood? It is the life of perfect im-
maculate humanity—the life of Jesus; but it is at the same
time Divine life ("the Eternal Life that was with the
Father and was manifested to us")—the life of Jesus, His
1 e.g. Rom. 325 59, Eph. 17 213, Col. 220, Heb. 912.14, 1 Pet. 12.19, Rev. 15.
The Doctrine of Propitiation 165
Son.l It was this Divine-human life that was yielded up
in spiritual sacrifice through physical death 2 in the Blood
of the Cross.
The efficacy of this Blood is that it "cleanses from all
sin"3 (kaqari<zei h[ma?j a]po> pa<shj a[marti<aj). Here, again,
the connection of ideas is strictly Levitical. In the Old
Testament ritual, purification from moral or ceremonial
uncleanness was constantly effected by expiatory sacrifice,
and especially by blood.4 One may almost say that,
"According to the law, all things are purified with blood "
(Heb. 922).
It is usually assumed without question, however, that,
in this passage "cleansing" denotes not the removal of
the guilty stain of sin, but cleansing of the character,
deliverance from the power and defilement of sin itself
(Lucke, Ebrard, Huther, Haupt, Rothe, Westcott; opposed,
however, by Calvin, Weiss, Plummer). It is difficult to
account for this; certainly there is no foothold in the Old
Testament for such an interpretation of kaqari<zein. There,
the object of sacrificial cleansing is never the character;
but is moral or ceremonial offence, regarded as leaving
upon the offender a stain which makes covenant relations
with God impossible till it is removed.4 This impossibility
is conceived either as objective, consisting in the re-
action of the Divine purity against the uncleannesses of
1 The addition of tou? ui[ou? au]tou? is a refutation of the Cerinthian doctrine that
the Divine aeon, Christ, departed from Jesus before the Crucifixion; but the
refutation consists in the assertion of the truth, which is the heart of Christianity,
that it is by Divine sacrifice we are redeemed. "Early Christian writers use very
extreme language in expressing this truth. Clement of
paqh<mata qeou?; Ignatius of ai$ma qeou? and to> paqo>j tou? qeou?. Tatian has tou?
peponqo<toj qeou?; Tertullian, passioiaes Dei and sanguine Dei" (Plummer).
Such language may be extreme, but it is more Christian than the doctrine of
the impassibility of the Divine Nature.
2 As it is in the Epistle, through the laying down of Christ's yu<xh (316).
3 Better, "from every (kind of) sin."
4 e.g. Lev. 1630 e]cila<setai peri> u[mw?n kaqari<sai u[ma?j a]po> pasw?n tw?n
a[marti<wn u[mw?n.
166 The First Epistle of
men, or as subjective, consisting in man's consciousness1 of
such uncleanness, depriving him of confidence to draw
near to God. Elsewhere in the New Testament the usage
is identical with that of the Old.2 Nor is there any
support in the context for a different interpretation in the
present case. True, it is the very glory of salvation by
the Blood of Christ that it cleanses the character from evil
affection at the same time as it removes the guilt of sin,
that Divine pardon and moral renewal are organically
inseparable. And this, moreover, is the truth to the
assertion of which this Epistle is as a whole devoted. But
the question here for the Apostle and his readers is still
only this, how we, being such as we are,—we whose life
and character, when brought into the Light of God, are only
revealed in their actual deformity and guilt,—can neverthe-
less enter into immediate fellowship with Him in Whose
Light we stand thus revealed. And the answer is that,
when we walk in the Light, confessing our sins, "the Blood
of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin"—removes from
us the stain of our guilt, and makes us clean in God's
sight.3
The statement of this is varied and expanded in 19
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and right-
eous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness."4 Still we are in the circle of Levitical
1 Even in Ps. 5110 (according to Davidson, Hebrews, p. 206) a "clean
heart" is a conscience void of offence, the result of forgiveness.
2 The objective sense—cleansing from the guilt of sin in God's sight—is
exemplified in Heb. 13 922.23, Tit. 214, 2 Pet. 19; the subjective deliverance
from an evil conscience, in Heb. 914 to Acts 159. The only passages in
which kaqari<zein has an ethical sense are 2 Cor. 71 and Jas. 48.
3 This interpretation is confirmed by the parallelism of the whole passage.
17. 9 21.2 are parallels: "If we walk in the light" (17)="If we confess our
sins" (19) = "If any man sin" (21 implying, of course, the confession of sin).
So, "the blood of Jesus cleanseth us from all sin" (17) ="He is faithful and
righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness " (19) =
"We have an advocate with the Father, and He is the propitiation for our sins "
(21. 2)
4 a]diki<a. v. supra, pp. 134-35.
The Doctrine of Propitiation 167
ideas,1 in which forgiveness and cleansing are as closely
as possible related to each other, and both to propitia-
tion. For, though unexpressed, the idea of propitiation
is implicit here in the assertion that God is "faithful and
righteous" in forgiving sin and cleansing from unrighteous-
ness. Here "faithful"2 is the wider concept, which includes
the more specific "righteous." When upon our penitent
confession (the psychological condition that makes for-
giveness possible de facto) God sets us free from the
sins and disabilities by which we stand debarred from
His fellowship, He does what is according to His own
unalterable character, because He does what is right.
He is "faithful" to His own nature; and it is His nature
to "delight in mercy" and to be "ready to forgive"; yet to
forgive, not with a weak and injurious mercy, but only in
such a way that no wrong is done, no truth slurred over,
that sin is recognised and dealt with as being what it is.
The human conscience itself, when truly awakened, has
always declined to find a solution of the problem of sin in
forgiveness granted either by arbitrary will or by a leniency
that shrinks from inflicting pain more than from vindicating
right and showing its abhorrence of wrong. The New
Testament proclaims that God is faithful and righteous in
forgiving sin (cf.
and in action the true nature and guilt of sin; and then
freely pardons all who, walking in the light of that revela-
tion,—the light that shines with concentrated power from
the Cross,—confess and forsake their sins. And the human
conscience in every age has borne witness that where men
1 Cf. Lev. 420.26. 36. 33 510. 13 etc. So also in Matt. 2628 our Lord declares
that His Blood is "poured out as an expiation for many, in order to the forgive-
ness of sins."
2 pisto>j kai> di<kaioj. When faithfulness is ascribed to God, the sense is that
He is faithful to Himself, acts in consistency with His essential attributes
(2 Tim. 213); or that, as a consequence, He is faithful in respect of His promises
(Heb. 1023); or that He is faithful to those who trust Him (1 Cor. 1013). The
first and radical sense is that which the word requires here.
168 The First Epistle of
do thus walk in the Light, this result follows: the Blood of
Jesus cleanses away sin in the sight of God; to which He
bears witness in cleansing the conscience from its stain and
giving peace with Himself.
The last of this group of utterances speaks of Christ as
our Paraclete. Earnestly the Apostle affirms the aim of all
his writing to be "that ye sin not" (21). Nevertheless, the
present state being what it is, he contemplates the possi-
bility—may we not say, the certainty?—of sin occurring
in the life even of those who are walking in the Light. In
such an event we are not left without a resource: "We
have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the
Righteous" (21). The word Paraclete1 is exclusively
Johannine (a statement which includes the LXX. as well as
the N.T.); and its meaning is everywhere the same. No
single English word, indeed, covers the whole breadth of
its various applications and suggestions; but these are
always different shades of the same meaning, not different-
meanings. It may be said to signify in general a friendly
representative who defends one's cause, usually by in-
fluential intercession. In the Gospel the Holy Spirit, as
the Paraclete, maintains Christ's cause with the believer
(John 1420 1526 1614), and champions the believer's cause
1 The questions of etymology, sense and usage, have been very fully discussed,
and these discussions are so easily available (Westcott,
of St. John., p. 42; best of all, DB iii. 665) that they may be very briefly dealt
with here. The active meaning "Comforter" is nowhere tenable, the word
being by formation the passive verbal of parakalei?n, to "call to one's aid,"
and being capable of no other sense than "one called in to aid the caller." The
term is most frequently associated with courts of justice, denoting a powerful
friend or learned "counsel" who pleads the cause or interposes on behalf of the
accused (Latin, "advocatus" or "patronus"; but the meaning is wider
than our "advocate"), and is distinctively the opposite of kath<goroj (cf. 22
with Rev. 1210). It is used several times by Philo in the definite sense of
"advocate" or "intercessor" (Westcott, St. John, p. 212). In Lucian, Pseu-
dol. 4. (paraklhteo<j h[mi?n . . . o[ @Elegxoj), the speaker summons the personified
Elenchus or Conviction to aid him in showing up his adversary in his true colours,
—a remote but somewhat interesting parallel to the office of the Paraclete
in John 168-11.
The Doctrine of Propitiation 169
against the world (John 168-11); and here Christ is the
penitent sinner's Advocate, and pleads his cause with the
Father.
In this connection these words, "with the Father"
(pro>j to>n pate<ra), are extremely significant. It is God's
Fatherhood that renders such advocacy possible, and at
the same time demands it. On the one hand, the words
repudiate the caricature of Christ's Intercession as a
process of persuasion acting upon a reluctant will. On the
other hand, the writer could not by conscious intention have
chosen words more directly contradictory of the assumption
that the Divine Fatherhood, rightly understood, excludes
all necessity or possibility of mediation and intercession.
The all-forgiving Love of the Father is like the waves of a
great reservoir, pulsing and throbbing against the barrier
until the flood-gate is opened; when instantly the pent-
up waters are sent bounding along the dried-up channel.
That opening is, from the human side, repentance and
confession (19); but, if New Testament teaching is unani-
mous on any point, it is regarding this, that from the
Divine side also an opening of the flood-gate is needed,
and that this is effected through Christ's work of propitia-
tion and intercession. An Advocate with the Father!
The words seem a paradox. Is not a father's heart the
best advocate of an erring child? Will not a father's love
have anticipated every plea that can be urged in his behalf?
That must be understood. But it must be understood also
that even the Father's love can urge nothing in apology for
sin—nothing that is of force to absolve from its guilt. Yet
there is One who can urge on our behalf what is at once
the most appalling condemnation of our sin, and the only
sufficient plea for its remission—Himself.
This Paraclete the Apostle now names and describes
with reference to His personal qualifications for the office.
He is Jesus Christ. Elsewhere the writer distinguishes
170 The First Epistle of
between those two appellations, and brings out the proper
and original force of each (223 42 51. 6); but here Jesus
Christ is used simply as a proper name, the full designation
by which the Saviour of the World is known in history.
It is as Jesus Christ, the "Word made flesh," that He
is our Paraclete. In virtue of His uniquely intimate union
with humanity in nature, experience, and sympathy, He
remains for ever its perfect and universal representative;
and as, when He was on earth, He pled for friend (John
17, Luke 2231) and foe (Luke 2334), so still in the
Heavenly places He upholds our cause.
But if it is as Jesus Christ that He is qualified to
represent man, it is especially as Jesus Christ the Righteous1
that He is fitted to be the sinner's Advocate. The epithet
may apply directly to His advocacy. Not only without
share in the sin of those for whom He pleads, He is
untainted by any secret sympathy with it. He has resisted
sin unto blood; He has suffered all things on account of sin.
He sees it as it is, and confesses it as beyond apology or
extenuation. His righteousness in interceding corresponds
to the Father's righteousness in forgiving (19). Or we may,
perhaps, better understand "righteous" as applying
universally to the Advocate's nature and character. In
Him the Father sees His own essential Righteousness (229a)
revealed. In Him there stands before God the Divine Ideal
of humanity (229b). It is as man in whom that ideal is
consummated, as Jesus Christ the Righteous that He is
qualified to undertake the cause of mankind before the
Righteous Father (cf. Heb. 726. 27). This interpretation
best agrees with what follows.
"And He2 is the propitiation for our sins. And not
for ours only, but also for the whole world" (22). Here a
1 The proper sense of ]Ihsou?n Xristo>n di<kaion is, "Jesus Christ being, as He
is, righteous.” See Notes, in loc.
2 He (au]to<j) is emphatic, "He himself."
The Doctrine of Propitiation 171
necessary relation between the office of Paraclete and the
fact of propitiation is clearly indicated, again on Levitical
lines. As it was through the blood of sacrifice that the
High priest1 enjoyed the right of entering within the veil
and making intercession for the sins of the people (Heb. 97),
so Christ's prerogative of advocacy is grounded on the
fact that He has made propitiation (Heb. 912). On the
other hand, as it was only in the High priest's appearing
before God with the atoning blood that the act of atone-
ment was completed, so it is by Christ's advocacy that the
propitiation becomes actually operative. The two acts not
only are united in one Person, but constitute the one
reconciling work by which there is abiding fellowship
between God and His sinning people.
But the most notable point is that it is Himself--Jesus
Christ the Righteous--who is the propitiation. (So also
in 410)
propitiation." He Himself, in virtue of all that He is,
He who has lived the Life of God in man, in whom
that Life has triumphed over the world and reached its
last fulfilment in the self-surrender of death He is the
propitiation 2 for sin, and He is our Paraclete through whose
permanent ministry before the Father, propitiation becomes
salvation unto the uttermost (Heb. 725).
What conception can we form of the reality denoted
by Christ's office of Paraclete? It has sometimes been
1 With regard to the identification here of the Paraclete with the High
priest, it is interesting to note the statement that "Philo often uses it (Paraclete)
of the High priest interceding on earth for
or Logos giving efficacy in heaven to the intercession of the priest upon earth"
(Plummer). The one passage usually quoted is not, however, quite to this effect.
"It was necessary that the priest who is consecrated to the Father of the world
should employ, as a Paraclete most perfect in efficacy, the Son, for the blotting
out of sins and the obtaining of a supply of abundant blessings (De Vita
Mosis, III. xiv. 135).
2 Or as the Epistle to the Hebrews has it, it is "through His own Blood"
that "He entered once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption."
172 The First Epistle of
understood in a crassly anthropomorphic sense; and we
must agree with Calvin, who repudiates the materialism of
those "qui genibus Patris Christum advolvunt, ut pro nobis
oret." Our Lord Himself negatives the idea of oral
intercession (John 1626. 27)
On the other hand, His intercession is sometimes
rarefied into a merely symbolical expression of the truth
that His work of propitiation is of enduring validity.
But no such abstract idea adequately represents the
thought and the feeling of the Apostle's words, “If any
man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father.” The
title Paraclete itself suggests, on the manward side, a
ministry that is intensely personal and compassionate,
intimately and sympathetically related to the moral
crises of sin and temptation, distress and need, that
arise in individual lives (Heb. 217 415). And if the New
Testament understands by Christ's Intercession such a
ministry toward men, it is also, without doubt, understood
as containing a correspondent activity toward God. In
what this consists--though it is not essentially more
mysterious than Christ's intercession on earth—is neces-
sarily beyond our conception. More we need not and
cannot know than that Jesus Christ the Righteous--Pro-
pitiation and Paraclete--abideth for ever, and is the living
channel through which the Eternal Love gives itself to
sinful men, and all the spiritual energies of the Divine
Nature stream forth to take away the sin of the world.
From the examination thus made of the principal
passages in the Epistle that bear directly on Propitia-
tion, it must be evident that its type of doctrine, under
this category, exhibits a striking affinity with that of
the Epistle to the Hebrews —an affinity which does not,
perhaps, imply direct derivation, but does imply that
both are so far products of the same school of thought.
For both, the fundamental religious concepts are those of
The Doctrine of Propitiation 173
the Levitical system. Both instinctively run Christian
truth into Old Testament moulds. The entire theological
scheme in Hebrews has as its nucleus the thought of
"religion as a covenant, or state of relation, between God
and a worshipping people, in which necessarily the high
priest occupies the place of prominence" (Davidson,
Hebrews, p. 197).
and "High priest"--possibly because they were unfamiliar
to those for whom he wrote, or, if familiar, debased by
pagan associations. With him "covenant relationship"
becomes koinwni<a (1 3), filial fellowship with God, the mutual
indwelling of God and His people.1 And unmistakably this
is the standpoint from which he approaches the problem of
sin and its removal.
and insists with startling emphasis upon its absolute
antagonism to the nature of God and His children (39);
and it is open to any one to maintain that he ought to have
adhered to this point of view throughout, and to have con-
templated the removal of sin simply by ethical process, so
that the atonement would be "the believer himself brought
into harmony with the Divine mind, purpose, and will through
the Mediator."2 But this
author of Hebrews, he contemplates sin primarily, in its
religious consequences, as an objective disability for fellow-
ship with God. As such, it can be removed only by
"cleansing," which carries with it "remission"; and "cleans-
ing" again is accomplished only by "propitiation" and
specifically by "blood." For these ends a sacrifice and a
priestly mediator are indispensable. The sacrifice is pro-
vided. The "Blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth from all
sin”3 (17). And He who is the propitiation is Himself also
the Priest (Heb. 911-14), who consummates the sacrifice by
1 v. infra, pp. 195-6.
2 Sears, Heart of Christ, p. 501 (quoted by Stevens).
3 Cf. John 1719, where our Lord expressly represents Himself as the
covenant-sacrifice, which consecrates His disciples as the People of God.
174 The First Epistle of
intercessory presentation of it before God; for, though in
the nomenclature of
Priest, the office of the Paraclete is indubitably identical
with that of the great High Priest of God's people, as it is
delineated in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
But it is maintained1 that "The problem of sin, which
was central in the mind of Paul, to John appeared some-
thing secondary. In the true Johannine doctrine there is
no logical place for the view of the death of Christ as an
atonement. So far as that view is accepted we have to do,
not with John's characteristic teaching, but with the ortho-
dox faith of the Church, which he strove to incorporate
with his own at the cost of an inner contradiction." Now,
on any theory of its authorship, the Epistle must be regarded
as essentially a Johannine document; and it is not going
beyond our province to consider how far, if at all, it
sustains these assertions. It is true that we do not find in
it the same fierce grappling with the problem of deliverance
from sin as in the Epistle to the Romans; that the truth
to which the earlier thinker fights his way, as with tears
and blood, the later gets not in possession by his own
sword, but finds and accepts as beyond all controversy.
And yet there is no lack of intensity in his statement
either of the problem of sin (18.10) or of its solution (17. 9
21.2 49.10). These words represent, no doubt, "the orthodox
faith of the Church"; yet what words can possess a clearer
note of immediate spiritual intuition? What more fervent
and memorable expressions of the common doctrine of the
New Testament are to be found? What words are more
constantly used in the devotions of the Church, for the
confession of sin and the expression of confidence in its
removal by the Divine sacrifice, than the words of this
Epistle? It seems strange that these should be the words
1 By the school of which Mr. Ernest Scott is the ablest as well as the most
recent representative among us.
The Doctrine of Propitiation 175
of a writer who was only endeavouring to engraft the
orthodox doctrine upon another truth that was vital to his
own soul.
The doctrine of Propitiation has no "logical place" in
cost of an inner contradiction," only if that can be true of a
doctrine which at the same time is for him the climax of
all truth--the supreme revelation of the supreme principle
of all moral life, human and divine. Organic relation
cannot be closer than that which exists between
doctrine of Propitiation and his doctrine of the moral
nature of God. If "God is Love" is the master-light of
all spiritual vision, this is the sole and perfect medium of
its outshining: "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but
that God loved us, and sent His Son as a propitiation for
our sins" (410). Here is no mere echo of an orthodox
belief; no repetition of a stock idea.
compared the love of God in the Death of Christ with
the utmost men will do for one another (Rom. 57.8); but
"
of view."1 Christ's mission of propitiation not only has
its motive in the Divine Love, it embodies and contains the
complete fulness of that Love. Other acts and gifts are
tokens and expressions of it; but "Herein is Love"—the
whole and sole equivalent in act of what God is in essence.
In this passage we have a conception which, as it seems to
me, surpasses anything to be found elsewhere in the
Apostolic Scriptures,2 of the sacrifice of God in Christ as a
Divine act which, while it is free and optional, as being
unsolicited and undetermined by anything external to the
Divine nature itself, is an absolute self-necessity of that
nature.
1 Denney, Death of Christ, p. 225.
2 The only parallel is that which is implied in the parables of the Lost
Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Lost Son (Luke 15).
176 The First Epistle of
doctrine of God by the logic of moral necessity. If
God is Love, nothing is more necessarily true than
that He suffers on account of human sin; and to deny
Him the power to help and save men by bearing their
burden, is to deny to Him the highest prerogative of
Love.
But it may be said that propitiation stands in no
logical relation to the other and more prominent half of
men by the Divine Begetting, by the direct impartation of
that Eternal Life which has been made communicable to
them through the Incarnation of the Word. How and
why, it may be asked, is this spiritual and ethical salva-
tion from sin conditioned by the expiation of its guilt?
We may not be able to answer this question. It is
conceivable that
does not follow that there is an inner contradiction. The
difficulty does not attach itself to the Johannine theology
exclusively. It belongs in some form to every type of
theology in the New Testament. It only becomes specially
obvious in
is Life—the Life of the Word made Flesh becoming the
new Life of mankind. And if we inquire, as we naturally
do, why the Divine-human Life of Christ must pass through
death, and thereby become a propitiation for human sin,
before it could become the principle of new Life to men, St.
John gives us no explicit answer. He tacitly presupposes
the answer that in its various forms is given or assumed
throughout the New Testament, that God, in bestowing
the sovereign grace of pardon and sonship, must deal
truthfully and adequately with sin as a violation of the
moral order—as a fact, if we may say so, both of the
Divine conscience and of the human conscience, which
is its image. And with
Testament writers, the necessity and the efficacy of sacrifice
The Doctrine of Propitiation 177
as the means by which this is accomplished are simply
axiomatic.
But when we proceed to the endeavour to extract from
the data of the Epistle the principle or principles upon
which we may account for this, we encounter a task to
which exegesis is not adequate, and which constructive
theology has not yet finally achieved. It has become a
commonplace to say that the New Testament contains no
theory of the Atonement. Yet it is evident that the
Apostolic writers were not only religiously conscious of
reconciliation with God by the mediation of Christ, but
were also intellectually interested in the mode of its
accomplishment. The Epistles to the Romans and to the
Hebrews abundantly witness that the fascination which the
problem of Christ's Death has for the modern mind was no
less intensely felt by the Apostolic mind. The tantalising
feature of the case is that its need of explanation seems
to have ended where ours begins. When the work of
Christ was described as a propitiatory sacrifice, and was
seen to embody the full truth which the sacrificial system
of the Old Testament faintly and imperfectly expressed,
no need of further elucidation suggested itself to the writers
of the New Testament.
We are only driven back upon the further inquiries—
what is the root-idea of sacrifice, and what is its relation to
the end in view? How was it conceived by the earliest
Christian teachers and their disciples? Did they feel that
any rationale of sacrifice and its cognate institutions was
either necessary or possible? What was to them the
explanation has become itself the problem.
One intensely illuminating ray
it. The sacrifice of Christ is the sacrifice of God. This is
the Epistle's great contribution to Christian thought—the
vision of the Cross in the heart of the eternal Love. How
1 See the admirable article "Sacrifice," DB (Paterson).
178 The First Epistle of
suggestive are these two statements when placed side by
side: "Herein is Love—that God loved us, and sent His
Son as a propitiation for our sins" (410) and "Herein do
we know Love (recognise what it is), because He laid
down His Life for us" (316)! God's sending His Son and
Christ's laying down His Life are moral equivalents. The
Cross of Christ is but the manifestation of another Cross
that invisible Cross which the sin and folly, the trustlessness
and ingratitude, of His children have made for the Father
who is Love. How hard it has been for human thought
to assimilate the ethics of Christ, needs no stronger proof
than the fact that the impassibility of God had for so long
the place of an axiom in Christian theology. When we
speak of God as Father, when we say that God loves beings
who are false, lustful, malicious, who are stubborn and
impenitent, who in their blindness and perverse wilfulness
rush upon self-destruction, what immeasurable sorrows do
we imply in the depths of the Divine Love! And it is out
of those depths that the Cross of Christ emerges. He who
bled on
what is the Gospel of a crucified Christ, but the proclama-
tion of the infinitely awful, blessed truth that God Himself
is the greatest sufferer from our sin; that the Righteous
Father drinks the bitter cup His children's unrighteousness
has filled ? As in all things, Christ is in this the Word of
the invisible God. He bore our sins in His sufferings and
Death, not by any external infliction, but by the inward
necessity of holy Love,--because He would live out the
Life of God in this hostile world. In this there is nothing
"transactional," "official," "forensic," nothing but inevitable
spiritual reality. Holy Love cannot but bear sin, sorrow
over it, suffer for it, and thereby, according to the redemp-
tive law, become sin's propitiation.
What is that redemptive, law? There is no other
problem over which Christian thought, since "Cur Deus
The Doctrine of Propitiation 179
Homo," has brooded so intently; and there is no doctrine
the history of which more clearly shows that ethical always
precedes theological advance. Its history becomes an
index to the moral development of Christendom, as we
find each successive theory reflecting the moral standards
and ideas of the time in which it arose. And it is idle to
imagine that the theories that find favour in our day will
prove more satisfying to our successors than those of pre-
ceding ages do to us. Always as the Spirit of Christ
comes to more perfect fulfilment in the individual and in
society, shall we come to a more perfect understanding of
the sacrifice of Christ.
Yet the labour of past generations has not been
fruitless.
There is not one of the great historical theories of the
Atonement which, when its crudities and exaggerations
have been carried away by the tide, does not leave some
residuum of solid gain. There is no aspect under which
the work of Christ has revealed itself to reverent minds
but contains some element of essential value. This has
not been sufficiently recognised. Criticism has been prone
to seize upon incidental falsities and exaggerated expres-
ions rather than upon abiding truths. It has been too
generally assumed that the work of Christ is explicable by
some single formula; and the part seen has been taken for
the whole. We cannot doubt, indeed, that a unity there
must be in which all its manifold aspects meet; one prin-
ciple which is the master-key to all its complexities. "If
we could find it, we might be surprised at its simplicity;
we certainly should wonder at its Divine beauty and
naturalness." Meanwhile, may we not recognise that the
different aspects it reveals, when approached from different
points of view, are not mutually destructive, but mutually
complementary?
Inadequate as is the "moral influence" theory, when it
180 The First Epistle of
regards the work of Christ exclusively as the undoing of
the effect of sin in the character, its essential truth is so
obvious that it is the common element in all the theories.
To make sinful men know that God grieves over them,
that He longs to touch and win them to penitence and
newness of life, that for this end He has willed to go to
that length of self-sacrifice, the only measure of which is the
Cross,--who does not acknowledge that this is supremely
aimed at and achieved in the work of Christ?
And if there be taken away from the despised Anselmic
theory its accidental taint of feudalism with its defective
moral ideals, that theory also, when it contemplates the
work of Christ in relation to the Divine personality, con-
tains a profound truth. If we conceive of God as a Being
to whom the notions of moral satisfaction and pleasure and
their opposites are in any way applicable, must we not
also conceive of the obedience of Christ—obedience not
only flawless in will and deed, but obedience which exhausted
the possibilities of obedience, which transcended all the
obedience of earth because perfect as that of heaven, and
which transcended all the obedience of heaven because
wrought out through the pains, humiliations. and tempta-
tions of earth, obedience as perfect and divine as the Will
to which it was rendered,—must we not conceive of that
obedience1 as a perfect satisfaction, "an offering and a
sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour," as, in literal
truth, an atonement, a moral compensation for the sin of
the world? If the race, which without Christ were a tragic
moral failure, so that, to speak after the manner of men, it
would have grieved and repented God that He had created
it, becomes with Christ a moral triumph, so that looking
upon that Face He can rejoice in having said, "Let us
1 "Obedience" is intended here to include, and to include as its chiefest
content, the Death of Christ. Anselm distinguishes between the two. My
purpose is simply to give the essence of the "satisfaction" type of theory.
The Doctrine of Propitiation 181
make man,"-- is not Christ in a very real sense a propitia-
tion for the sin of the world?
Is there not essential truth also in the so-called
"governmental" theories by which the work of Christ is
related specifically to the public moral interests of mankind
and of the whole rational universe? In the universal
Christian consciousness, the Cross of Christ is a solemn and
unique testimony to the guilt of sin. It achieves in the
realm of Divine government that vindication of moral law
which it is sought to achieve in mundane communities by
the infliction of adequate penalties for transgression. The
Cross of Christ has made sin a vastly more appalling thing.
Wherever its influence is felt it has inspired in the con-
science a new sense of the enormity of sin. It becomes
in experience a supreme factor in the moral administration
of God's Kingdom; and can it be supposed that this
lies apart from its essential purpose, or that there is not
in this respect also a real propitiatory efficacy in the
work of Christ?
And is there not essential truth also in the much-
reprobated "penal" theory? More than any other, this
theory has been wounded in the house of its friends.
It has sometimes represented God as one with whom
the quality of mercy is sadly strained, as a vindictive
Shylock who must and will have a quid pro quo. But
God is Love; and Justice, even punitive Justice, is one
of the indefeasible functions of Love.1 There is a law of
retribution inherent in the very constitution of a universe
created and governed by God who is Holy Love,—a
law, that wherever sin is, suffering follows for the sinner
himself or vicariously for others. And may we not con-
ceive that there is an exactness in the operation of this
law, whereby, whenever wrong is placed in the one scale,
suffering is always accumulated in the other until the
1 v. supra, pp. 82-84.
182 The First Epistle of
balance is adjusted; and that only by working itself out
in the full harvest of suffering can wrong exhaust its
power, and make way for the possibility of a new and
happy rightness? And may we not conceive that one truth
—the greatest truth—revealed in the Cross, is that in Christ
God Himself fulfils this law on behalf of His creatures, and
drains the bitter cup men's sin has filled? But, if such
a generalisation be too vast and venturesome, there are
still obvious and undeniable facts. Relieve the penal
doctrine of the forensic technicalities with which it has
been loaded, and the truth remains that God in Christ
has borne the penalty of human sin, as the worthy father
of an unworthy child, or the faithful wife of a profligate
husband bears its penalty, as by the inherent vicariousness
of Love the good always suffer for the bad. Does not
every Christian, whatever his theology, instinctively recognise
this, and say, when he looks to Gethsemane and
"There is the true punishment of my sin; there in the
suffering flesh and spirit of my Saviour, I behold the
genuine fruit of sin; a Divine woe borne for me which I
shall never bear, but which, I pray, shall more and more
bear fruit in my penitence and devotion?" It is fact of
history that Christ has suffered for human sin; it is fact
of faith that God in Him has so suffered, fulfilling on our
behalf the retributive law that balances sin with suffering,
and that now no suffering is left save what is laden with
good to ourselves or to others. In this also we must
recognise a direct and vital element in Christ's work of
propitiation.
If, then, we find in every theory alike that the work of
Christ is the undoing of the work of sin, that in one
theory sin and its undoing are regarded in relation to the
moral disposition of man; in another, to the Personality
of God; in another, to the public interests of the Divine
government; in yet another, to the inherent constitution
The Doctrine of Propitiation 183
of the moral universe,--we may conclude that none of
these different conceptions will be lacking, whatever others
may be present, in the final interpretation of the Apostle's
words, "Herein is Love, not that we loved God, but that
God loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for
our sins."
CHAPTER X.
ETERNAL LIFE.
IN the foregoing chapter it has been made good, I trust,
that the aspect of salvation in which sin is regarded as
a fact of conscience and as a barrier to fellowship with
God—the aspect denoted by the word propitiation—does
not lack adequate and powerful presentment in the
Epistle. But the theme which supremely engages the
writer's thoughts, which he has most profoundly made
his own, is the terminus ad quem of salvation—the Infinite
Good, in the possession of which the reality of fellowship
with God consists, and which is expressed throughout the
Epistle by one word and by no other—Life (with or
without the adjective "eternal"). With this theme the
Epistle begins (12) and ends (520), while the purpose of
the whole expressly is, "That ye may know that ye have
Eternal Life " (513). Its predominance is complete; it is
the centre to which every idea in the Epistle is more or
less directly related. And, indeed, its unique development
of the Christian conception of Life and Regeneration may
be set beside its doctrine of the moral nature of God
and its doctrine of the Incarnation, as one of the three
great contributions of Johannine thought to the teaching
of the New Testament.
Nowhere do the Scriptures furnish a definition of
Life; but for the most part the Biblical conception of
spiritual life is derived directly from experience. It
denotes a rich complex of thought, emotion, and activity,
184
Eternal Life 185
in which man is conscious of that which fulfils the highest
idea of his being. Life consists in the enjoyment of
God's favour (Ps. 305); it is the result of loving God
and obeying His voice (Deut. 3019.20); it is the fruit
of true wisdom (Prov. 318), and of the fear of the Lord
(Prov. 1427). Everywhere in the Old Testament, Life is
conceived as the enjoyment of those blessings that flow
to men from a vivid experience of God's favour and
fellowship. It is upon these things men live, and alto-
gether therein is the life of the Spirit (Isa. 3816). Nor is
it otherwise in the New Testament. Life is an experience
of the supreme and eternal blessings of the Kingdom of
God. It is the goal toward which men are to struggle
onward by the narrow way (Matt. 714); for the attainment
of which no sacrifice is to be deemed too costly, because
in its possession every sacrifice is more than plentifully
recompensed (Mark 1030). The door of entrance to it
is repentance (Acts 1118), and the way of attainment,
patient continuance in well-doing (Rom. 27). It is the
end of that emancipation from sin and servantship to God
of which holiness is the immediate fruit (Rom. 622); the
harvest which they reap who sow unto the Spirit (Gal. 68);
the prize of which we are to lay hold by fighting the good
fight of faith (1 Tim. 612). In these and in all kindred
passages the conception of Life is derived directly from
the data of actual or anticipated experience. Life is a
result, not a cause. It is conscious participation in the
highest good for which man is made, which he can find
only when his whole nature has been redeemed from the
dominion of false ideals, and has been harmonised with the
Divine order, by the perfect knowledge and love of God, and
by unhampered and enthusiastic devotion to His will.
Now the definition of life, so conceived, will simply be
a generalisation from its phenomena, that is, from its
functions and characteristics as experienced and observed
186 The First Epistle of
in the living organism. Thus in the physical sphere, the
physiologist finds that such organisms invariably exhibit
the phenomena of Assimilation, Waste, Reproduction, and
Growth, and defines Life as the co-ordination of these
functions. The biologist, again, regarding the phenomena
from a different point of view, reaches the wider generalisa-
tion that life is correspondence to environment, "the continu-
ous adjustment of internal to external relations" (Spencer).
In the same way, spiritual life may be defined as a corre-
spondence of spiritual faculty to spiritual environment, the
right relation of trust, love, and hope, of conscience, affection,
and will, to their true Divine objects. "The mind of the
flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace"
(
functions and energies with which it is identified; it is
"Righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom.
1427; cf. Gal. 522. 23) And our Epistle, more than any
other New Testament writing, patiently places beneath
our hands the material for such a definition of Life. Its
subject-matter consists chiefly in the delineation of Eternal
Life, positively and negatively, by means of its invariable
and unmistakable characteristics, Righteousness, Love, and
Belief of the Truth. These are its primary functions.
Confronted by the Truth of God in the person of Jesus
Christ, every one in whom the Life is quickened believes—
beholds in Jesus the Incarnate Son of God; confronted
by the Will of God, as moral duty or commandment, he
obeys; confronted by human need, he loves, not in word,
neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth (318). Life,
accordingly, might be defined from the Epistle as consisting
in Belief, Obedience, and Love, as the co-existence of these
in conscious activity, carrying with it a joyful assurance of
1 "Every one that doeth righteousness is begotten of God" (229). "Every
one that loveth is begotten of God" (47). "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is
the Christ is begotten of God" (51)
Eternal Life 187
present fellowship with God (310-24 415-18) and of its glori-
ous consummation in the future (32)
Yet any definition from such a point of view would
omit all that is most distinctive in the Johannine concep-
tion of Life. According to that conception, Life is cause,
not effect; not phenomenon, but essence; not conscious
experience, but that which underlies and produces experi-
ence. Eternal Life does not consist in the moral activities
of Belief, Obedience, and Love, and still less is it a con-
sequence flowing from the activities; it is the animating
principle that is manifested in them, of which they are the
fruits and evidences. Instead of "This do and thou shalt
live" (Luke 1028),
that doeth righteousness is 1 begotten of God"; instead of
"The just shall live by faith" (Rom. 117), "Whosoever
believeth that Jesus is the Christ is1 begotten of God."
The human activity--doing righteousness, believing, loving
—is the result and the proof of life already imparted, not
the condition or the means of its attainment.
Thus the Johannine conception of spiritual Life is
completely analogous to the commonly-held conception of
physical Life. Physical Life, as has been said, may be
defined from its phenomena. It is correspondence to
environment; or it is the association, in a definite individual
form, of Assimilation, Waste, Reproduction, and Growth.
Such a definition covers all the phenomena that distinguish
the organic from the inorganic; and if no other existence
than that of phenomena is recognised, it represents the
furthest limit of thought on the subject. But the mind
does not naturally rest in such a definition. We intuitively
assume a something behind the phenomena, an entity of
which they are the manifestation. To the ordinary way of
1 o[ poiw?n . . . gege<nnhtai (229); o[ a]gapw?n. (47); o[ piste<nwn
. . . gege<nnhtai (51). The tenses sufficiently show that in each case the
Divine Begetting is the necessary antecedent to the human activity. But this
is the presupposition of the Epistle throughout, See Chapters XI., XII., VIII.
188 The First Epistle of
thinking, the "continuous adjustment of internal relations
to external relations" is not a definition of what Life is,
but merely a highly generalised statement of what Life
does. Life is not correspondence to environment; it is
what determines such correspondence. What Life is in
itself we may not be able to say. Indeed, we cannot say.
It is the mystic principle, the natura naturans, of which
Nature is at once the revelation and the veil. Science
fails to throw a ray of light across the gulf between Life
and Death. But the idea of Life as an animating principle,
the essence in which inhere all the potencies developed in
the living organism, is one which, though it expresses
what science is confessedly ignorant of, is necessary to
science itself.
This conception of physical Life is by no means foreign
to Biblical thought. The "life," the animating principle of
the bodily organism (wp,n,), is in the "blood" (Gen. 94,
Lev. 1711 etc.). God is the fountain of all Life (Ps. 369);
and to every creature (Ps. 10430), as to man (Gen. 27), it is
a direct impartation by God's own quickening Breath.
But it is not until we come to the Johannine writings that
we find this mode of conception expressly applied to the
spiritual Life. And we shall now proceed to consider how
it is expressed and applied in our Epistle.
The designation most frequently employed is simply
"the Life" (h[ zwh<, 11. 2 314 512. 16) Elsewhere the Life
is qualitatively described as "eternal" (zwh> ai]w<nioj, 315 511. 13
Twice (12 225) the form h[ zwh> h[ ai]w<noj is used, by which the
separate ideas of "life" and "eternal" are more distinctly
emphasised. A comparison of these passages makes it
certain that these forms of locution are used quite inter-
changeably. The ideas of duration and futurity which are
originally and properly expressed by the adjective ai]w<nioj1
1 ai]w<nioj=belonging to an aeon—specifically, to "the coming aeon," ai]w>n
o[ me<llwn.
Eternal Life 189
have become in Johannine usage only one element,
and that not the primary element, in its significance.
Always Life is regarded as a present reality (e.g. 314 512);
and the adjective "eternal" is added even when the
reference to its present possession is most emphatic (315
"Ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in
him)." Eternal Life is not any kind of life prolonged ad
infinitum. The life of a Dives, though he should be
clothed in purple and fine linen, and fare sumptuously
through everlasting ages, would come never one inch nearer
to the idea of Eternal Life. The category of time recedes
before that of moral quality. Eternal Life is one kind of
life, the highest, the Divine kind of life, irrespective of its
duration. It is the kind of Life that is perfectly manifested
in Christ (12 511). Every hour of His history belonged to
the eternal order. Every word He spoke, every deed of
obedience and love He did, was an outgoing of Eternal
Life. The Divine nature was in it. And in whomsoever
it exists, whether in heaven or on earth, the possession
of that nature which produces thoughts, motives and
desires, words and deeds, like His, is Eternal Life.
But though, abstractly, the idea of Eternal Life might
be considered as timeless, it would not be accurate so to
describe the Apostle's actual conception of it. It was from
"the Beginning" in the "Word" (11). It is the absolute
Divine Life (520), therefore imperishable. It stands in
triumphant contrast to the pathetic ephemeralities of the
worldly life (217). And while there is no passage in the
Epistle (not even 225) where Life, with or without the
adjective "eternal," does not primarily signify a present
spiritual state rather than a future immortal felicity, the
latter is not only implicit in the very conception of Eternal
Life as the summum bonum, but comes fully to light in the
vision of the impending Parousia (217 228 32 417).
Of this Life, God, the Father revealed in Christ, is
190 The First Epistle of
the sole and absolute source. He is the true God and
Eternal1 Life (520) Eternal Life is His gift2 to men;
potentially, when He "sent His Son into the world that
we might live through Him" (49); actually, when we
believe in His name (513). For of this Life, again,
Christ is the sole mediator. If "the witness is that God
gave us Eternal Life," this is because "this Life is in His
Son" (511). By the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son
the Eternal Life in its Divine fulness became incorporate
with humanity, and remains a fountain of regenerative
power to' as many as receive Him" (John 112). And here
Testament thought on this subject a step further than the
Pauline view of Christ as the Second Adam and the "Man
from heaven " (1 Cor. 1522. 45-49) In what sense the Life
of God is in Christ and is mediated through Him, is
unfolded in the opening verses of the Epistle, where it is
said that the subject of the entire Apostolic announcement
is "the Word of Life" (peri> tou? lo<gou th?j zwh?j), this
announcement being possible because "the Life was mani-
fested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare
unto you the Life, the Eternal Life, which was in relation
to the Father, and was manifested unto us " (1 2).
Here the mediation of Life through the historic Christ
(11) is grounded in the relation, eternally subsisting within
the Godhead itself, of the Word to the Father (12). For,
whatever be the exact interpretation of the title, "the Word
of Life,”3 the main intention of the whole passage is to
identify the Life manifested and seen in Christ with "the
Life, the Eternal Life, which existed in relation to the
1 v. supra, p. 54.
2 511 zwh>n ai]w<nion e@dwken h[mi?n o[ qeo<j. The force of the verb dido<nai
and of the aorist tense is as here stated. The tense points to the definite
historical act, the Incarnation, by which Eternal Life was communicated to
humanity; the verb asserts comprehensively that "God has sent His Only
Begotten Son into the world that we might live through Him."
3 See Notes, in loc.
Eternal Life 191
Father" (h!tij h#n pro>j to>n pate<ra).1 And that this refers
to the Life of the pre-incarnate Logos, is plain from the
exact parallelism of expression employed regarding the
Logos Himself (o[ lo<goj h#n pro>j to>n qeo<n, John 12). In
the Gospel it is said that the Logos existed "toward" (pro<j)
God, that is, as a personality distinct from God, yet eternally
and by necessity in relation to God. Here the same state-
ment is made with regard to the Life that is in the Logos.
That "the Logos existed in relation to God," and that "the
Life existed in relation to the Father," are practically
equivalent statements.2 The latter interprets the former.
The Logos is that Person whose Life from everlasting was
found in His fellowship with the Father, in that continual
perfect recipiency toward the Father which corresponds to
the continual and complete self-impartation of the Father
toward Him. It is thus that Christ is the one and only
mediator of the Divine Life. It is His own relation to the
Father that He reproduces in men (John 112 1723). The
Life that was manifested in His Incarnation and that is
given to men through Him is no other than that which He
had as the pre-incarnate Word in His eternal fellowship
with the Father.3
We proceed next to the teaching of the Epistle
regarding the communication of this Life to men.
(a) The necessity of Regeneration is fundamental to the
1 See Notes, in loc.
2 This by no means implies that the Logos and the Life are equivalent terms,
or that the Life is here hypostatised. The Life is impersonal—the common ele-
ment in the personality of God, of the Logos, and of the "children of God."
3 The distinction between the Logos and the Life, and their mutual relation,
are well brought out by the exquisite precision of the Apostle's language in the
parallel statements, "The Word became flesh" (John 114) and "The Life was
manifested" (1 John 12). It could not have been said that the "Life became
flesh," because the Life in both states of the Logos was the same, and just in
this consisted the reality of the Incarnation. Nor could it have been said that
the “Word was manifested”; for the Person of the Logos was not revealed, but
rather was veiled. But it was when the Divine Person became flesh that the
Divine Life was first fully revealed.
192 The First Epistle of
whole theological scheme. Life, which consists in union
with God--which is nothing else than participation in the
Divine Nature--is not inherent in man as he is naturally
constituted. The state of every man is a priori that of
death, of spiritual separation from God ; and those who
know that they have Eternal Life know that it is theirs
because "they have passed from death into life"1 (314)
For those to whom the Apostle is writing, and with whom
he includes himself, the recognition of their present state as
one of Life is heightened by the remembrance of a former
state which they now see to have been one of Death. And
the same contrast between an original self-nature that is
averse to the highest good and a new nature that desires
and pursues it, is present in all Christian consciousness,
though it may not be connected with the memory of a
definitely marked transition. Between these opposite poles,
Death and Life, all Christian experience moves. Always
it is an experience of salvation; of Life as haunted by the
shadow of Death; of good as a triumph over potential evils,
a "following" which is also a "fleeing" (I Tim. 611)
(b) This transition from Death into Life is effected by
that act of Divine self-communication which in the Epistle
is constantly and exclusively expressed by the word "beget”
(genna?n).2 The word, nowhere defined or expounded, is in
1 metabebh<kamen e]k tou? qana<tou ei]j th>n zwh<n. tou? qana<tou, the Death that is
death indeed; th?j zwh<j, the Life that is life indeed.
2 The invariable formula is gege<nnhtai, or gegennhme<noj, e]k tou? qeou? (or e]c
au[tou?). The perfect tense denotes at once the past completion of the act, and
its abiding present result. "Is begotten" is the inevitable translation; yet "has
been begotten" would be, in every case, less ambiguous, making it clear that the
Divine Begetting is the antecedent, not the accompaniment or consequence, of
the action associated with it in the sentence. The phraseology is varied in 54,
where we find pa?n to> gegennhme<non e]k tou? qeou?; and, very remarkably, in 517,
where the normal o[ gegennhme<noj in the first clause becomes o[ gennhqeij in the
second. On both, see Notes, in loc.
A practically equivalent phrase is ei#nai e]k tou? qeou?= to have the source of
one's life in God. This phrase, however, is of wider significance than the former,
and is applied not only to regenerate men (310 44.6 519), but to a "spirit"
(41.2.3) to Love (47), and, negatively, to the "things that are in the world" (216).
Eternal Life 193
itself of far-reaching significance. It implies not only that
salvation—Life--has its ultimate origin in God, but that
its communication, by whatsoever means, is directly and
wholly His act. The human subject of this act cannot,
indeed, be regarded as merely passive; but only because
the gift communicated is itself the gift of Life, of power,
and activity.
Whatever human response of faith, love, and obedience
there is to Divine truth and grace, the power to make that
response is "begotten" of God. It is not the product of
man's own character, but of the new life imparted to him.
Whatever action of the human will there is in passing
from death into life, the human will is necessarily moved
therein by the Divine Will. Death cannot make response
to life. The Divine Begetting is antecedent to all else
(cf. John 113)
(c) As to the instrumentality, Divine or human, through
which this regenerative act is wrought, the Epistle is silent.
And at this point there is a gap in its system of thought
which, so far as I am aware, has not been adequately
recognised. For while, on the one hand, the Divine
Begetting is everywhere regarded simply as the immediate
act of God as the Father, on the other hand the Son has
been sent "that we might live through Him"1 (49), and
the Life which God gave to men is "in Him" (511); but
no attempt is made to supply the requisite link of connec-
tion between the mediating of Life by the Son and the
immediate begetting of Life by the Father.
If it be asked how God begets in men that Life which
is "in His Son," or what necessity or efficacy the Incar-
nation of the Son has in relation to the Divine Begetting,
1 It is never said that Christians are “begotten of Christ” or are “of Christ.”
Christ is the medium, not the source of Life. The distinction is clearly marked
by the prepositional phrases, ei#nai e]k tou? qeou? and zh?n di ] au][tou? (49). Cf. 1 Cor.
86, where the same precision of language is noticeable, o[ path<r, e]c ou$ ta> pa<nta . . . ]Ihsou?j Xristo<j, di ] ou$ ta> pa<nta.
194 The First Epistle of
the Epistle supplies no answer.1 The truth is that here
we find the most noticeable lacuna in the theology of the
Epistle—its silence regarding the work of the Spirit as the
immediate agent in regeneration. The Johannine thought
of the Father as the final but also the direct source of Life,
and of the Son as its sole medium, leads on imperatively to
the Trinitarian doctrine of the Spirit proceeding from the
Father and the Son, and given to men as the Spirit of
Christ. The same Holy Ghost who was the author of the
Incarnation, who begat the full Life of God in the humanity
of Jesus, is now given by Him to men to beget and foster
in them the same Life that is in Him. This is the
supreme gift of the Incarnation, that by the power of the
Divine Spirit the Life of God has received perfect and per-
manent embodiment in our humanity in the person or
Jesus Christ, and that by the power of the same Divine
Spirit acting upon men through the revelation of Christ,
and breathed into their souls by Christ, they are "begotten
of God" unto Life Eternal.
(d) Those who are "begotten of God" are ipso facto the
"children of God" (te<kna qeou?). This te>kna qeou? is peculiarly
Johannine,2 and is to be distinguished from the Pauline "sons
of God"3 (ui[oi<), which is never applied by
tians. While the latter title emphasises the status of sonship
(ui[oqesi<a) bestowed on believers, the Johannine te<kna4 con-
notes, primarily, the direct communication of the Father's
own Divine nature; and, secondarily, the fact that the nature
1 In the Gospel we read (John 521.26) that "As the Father raiseth the dead
and quickeneth them, even so the Son also quickeneth whom He will. . . .
For as the Father hath life in Himself, even so gave He to the Son to have life
in Himself." But this passage itself stands in need of elucidation. For, while
it asserts for the Son a power of "quickening" equal to and co-ordinate with the
Father's, the Father's "quickening" and the Son's cannot be conceived of as
separate Divine activities.
2 John 112 1152, 1 John 31. 2.10 52 But it is also
Phil. 212.
3 Rom. 814. 19, Gal. 326 46.
4 te<kna; from the root tek-, to beget. Cf. the German zeugen,
Eternal Life 195
thus communicated has not as yet reached its full stature,
but contains the promise of a future and glorious develop-
ment. We are children of God, but what it fully is to be
children of God is not yet made manifest (32).
It is, indeed, the surpassing dignity thus bestowed upon
us, the sublimity, beyond all understanding, of the privilege,
that first calls forth the Apostle's exclamation of amaze-
ment (31). That we should be called the children of God1
—"Behold, what manner of love!" But instantly the
subjoined "and such we are" (kai> e]sme<n) arises from the
Apostle's heart, asseverating that the title, magnificent as it
is, is no more than the truth. And in how completely
literal a sense the Apostle's conception of the Divine
Begetting is to be taken appears very strikingly in 39.
"Everyone that is begotten of God doeth not sin, because
His seed abideth in him." This unique spe<rma au]tou? ("His
seed") has been variously2 explained; but unquestionably
it signifies the new life-principle which is the formative
element of the "new man," the te<knon qeou?. It is the
Divine germ that enfolds in itself all the potencies of
"what we shall be," the last perfection of the redeemed and
glorified children of God.
This abides in him who has received it. It stamps
its own character upon human life, and determines its whole
development.3
(e) This Life, as it streams through humanity, creates
a family-fellowship (koiwni<a) at once human and Divine.
In, its human aspect this fellowship is conceived on spiritual
much rather than on ecclesiastical lines. It is realised in
the actual Christian community, and there only. But
there spurious elements may intrude themselves; as is
proved when schism reveals those who, though they have
1 Not au]tou?, which, grammatically, would have sufficed, but qeou?, emphasis-
ing the wondrousness of the fact.
2 See Notes, in loc. 3 v. infra, pp. 221, 226-8.
196 The First Epistle of
belonged to the external organisation, have never been
genuinely partakers of its life (219).1 Only among those
who walk in the same Light of God does true fellowship
exist (17). These are truly "brethren," and are knit
together by the duties (316) and the instincts (51) of
mutual love, and of mutual watchfulness and intercession
( 516).
But this human relationship grows out of a Divine.
It is the fellowship of those who are in fellowship with the
Father and with His Son Jesus Christ—who "abide" in
God, and God in them. No thought is more closely
interwoven with the whole texture of the Epistle than
this of the Divine Immanence, by which the Life of God
is sustained and nourished in those who are "begotten"
of God; and no word is more characteristic of the
Johannine vocabulary, alike in Gospel and Epistles, than
that by which it is expressed--"abide" (me<nein).2
Between the Fourth Gospel and our Epistle, however,
there is a noticeable difference in the statement of this
great doctrine.3 In the Epistle the formuke almost
exclusively employed and constantly repeated are these--
"God abides in us," "We abide in God," "God abides in us
and we in Him." In the Gospel, on the other hand, the
reciprocal indwelling is that of Christ and His disciples
(John 154-10) which has its Divine counterpart in His
"abiding" in the Father (15 10) and the Father's abiding in
Him (1410 1723). This diversity is consistent with the
point of view occupied in the two documents respectively.
The Gospel is Christocentric, the Epistle Theocentric. In
the Gospel we ascend from the historic revelation, the
1 See, further, Chapter XVI.
2 me<nein occurs some forty times in the Fourth Gospel as against twelve times
in the Synoptics; twenty-five times in the Epistles, which is as often as in all the
other N.T. Epistles collectively. Its use to express the fact of God's (or
Christ's) mystical union with His people is peculiar to
3 For details, see Chapter XVII.
Eternal Life 197
visible Christ, to that conception of the invisible God which
He embodies. In the Epistle we start from that conception.
Instead of the concrete presentment of the living Christ,
there is an immediate intuition of the Divine nature
revealed in Him. While the theme common to both is
the "Word of Life," the special theme of the Gospel is the
Word who reveals and imparts the Life; in the Epistle it is
the Life revealed and imparted by the Word. To discover
in this traces of the Monarchianism1 of the second century
is unwarrantable. For here Christian thought is merely
following its natural and inevitable course. It has not been
able to rest in any merely Messianic conception of Christ's
Person and character. It has realised that the question of
questions still is—What is God? and that the ultimate
significance of the life lived from
the answer which is supplied to that question—"He that
hath seen Me hath seen the Father." Thus, while the aim
of the gospel is to display the divinity of Christ, it is the
converse of this which is chiefly presented in the Epistle;
instead of the metaphysical God-likeness of Christ, it is the
moral Christ-likeness of God. And it is the writer's
immediate contemplation of the moral nature of God and
his governing idea of salvation as participation in that
nature that inevitably cause him to carry up the thought
of the indwelling Christ to the ultimate truth of the
indwelling God.
Yet, while this diversity of view exists, there can be
no doubt, it seems to me, that the whole conception in the
Epistle has had its origin in the Gospel similitude of the
Vine and the branches (John 151-10). According to the
analogy there presented, the vitalising union by which the
influx of Divine Life is maintained in those who are
"begotten" of God, consists in two activities, not identical,
1 Holtzmann, J. P. T., 1882, p. 141; followed by Pfleiderer (2, 392, 446, 447),
and by Grill (p. 303) but not by Haring (Theologische Abhandlungen, p. 191).
198 The First Epistle of
not separable, but reciprocal—God's abiding in us, and our
abiding in Him. These are two distinct actions, Divine
and human, yet so bound up together in the unity of life
that either or both can always be predicated regarding the
same persons and certified by the same signs--the three
great tests of Righteousness, Love, and Belief which meet
us everywhere in the Epistle).
The "abiding" of God in us is the continuous and pro-
gressive action of that same self-reproducing energy of
the Divine nature the initial act of which is the Divine
Begetting. By the same power and mode of Divine action
Life is originated and sustained. The Epistle, it is true,
seems to give two slightly diverse conceptions of this matter.
As the human parent once for all imparts his own nature
to his offspring, so, in virtue of the Divine Begetting, the
Divine nature is permanently imparted to the children of
God (39 "His" i.e. God's, "seed abideth in him"). But,
whereas in the human relationship the life-germ thus com-
municated is developed in a separate and independent
existence, in the higher relationship it is not so. The
life imparted is dependent for its sustenance and growth
upon a continuous influx of life from the parent-source.
Thus the analogy followed is taken from the facts of
1 It may be useful to exhibit this in tabular form.
(a) by our keeping His commandments (324a);
(b) by our loving one another (412);
(c by our confessing that Jesus is the Son of God (415), or by (the
exact equivalent of this) the Spirit God hath given us (324b 413)
II. That we abide in God is certified--
(a) if we walk as Christ walked (23), if we sin not (33), if we keep
His commandments (324a);
(b) if we abide in Love (416);
(c) if we have the Spirit that confesses Jesus as the Son of God (413).
III. The full reciprocal relation, that God abides in us and we in Him, is
certified--
(a) if we keep His commandments (324b) ;
(b) if we abide in Love (416);
(c) if we have the Spirit of God (413), the Spirit, namely, that con-
fesses that Jesus is the Son of God (413).
Eternal Life 199
vegetable rather than of animal life; originally, as has been
said, from the similitude of the Vine and the branches.
The branches of a tree are actually children of the tree.
Structurally, a branch is a smaller tree rooted in a larger.
Even a single leaf with its stalk is simply a miniature tree,
exactly resembling what the parent tree was in its first
stage of growth, except that it derives its sustenance from
the parent tree instead of from the soil. Thus a great vine
is, in fact, an immense colony or fellowship of vines
possessing a common life. It is the sap of the parent vine
that vitalises all the branches, "weaves all the green and
golden lacework of their foliage, unfolds all their blossoms,
mellows all their clusters, and is perfected in their fruitful-
ness." So does the Life of God vitalise him in whom He
abides, sustaining and fostering in him those energies—
Righteousness, Love, and Truth,—which are the Divine
nature itself. The language used is in no sense or degree
figurative. Rather are the Divine Begetting and Indwelling
the realities of which all creaturely begettings and in-
dwellings are only emblems. Though the manner of it is
inexplicable, as all vital processes are, this actual com-
munication of the actual Life of God is the core of the
Johannine theology.
But this abiding of God in us has as its necessary
counterpart our abiding in Him. In this reciprocity of
action, priority and causality belong, as always, to God,
without whom we can do nothing; yet not so that the
human activity is a mere automatic product of the Divine.
We can invite or reject the Divine Presence; keep within
or avoid the sphere of Divine influence; open or obstruct
the channels through which the Divine Life may flow
into ours. Hence, "abiding in God" is made a subject
of instruction and imperative exhortation (227.28; cf. 225
518. 21). And when the word "abide" (me<nein) is thus
used, the idea of persistence or steadfast purpose, which is
200 The First Epistle of
inherent in it, comes into view. As the abiding of God
in us is the persistent and purposeful action by which
the Divine nature influences ours, so our abiding in God
is the persistent and purposeful submission of ourselves
to that action. The only means of doing this which
the Epistle expressly emphasises is steadfast retention of
and adherence to the truth as it is announced in the
Apostolic Gospel (224; cf. John 831) and as it is witnessed
by the Spirit (227). Yet, although "keeping God's com-
mandments," "abiding in love," and "confessing" Christ
are exhibited primarily as the requisite effects and tests
of our abiding in God, these effects become in their turn
means. It is by these that practical effect is given to
the message of the gospel and the teaching of the Spirit;
and thus only is the channel of communication kept clear
between the source and the receptacle of Life.
This study of the Epistle's doctrine in detail entirely
sustains the preliminary view of the Johannine conception
of Life with which we began. Life is conceived, funda-
mentally, not as the complex of Phenomena observable in
the living organism, but as the principle or essence that
underlies and produces these. So spiritual Life is not
simply the collective whole of the qualities, activities, and
experiences of the spiritual man; it is the essence in which
these qualities inhere, and from which these activities and
experiences proceed.
But now we can advance to a more concrete conception.
What is this Life? The Apostle says only that God, the
true God revealed in Christ, is Eternal Life. And only
this can be the ultimate definition. Life of every grade is
the result of a Divine Immanence; and Eternal Life is the
Immanence of God in moral beings created after His own
likeness. And, although the Epistle does not directly
represent the Holy Spirit as the agent of this Divine
Immanence, Christian Theology in doing so has only taken
Eternal Life 201
the next step in an inevitable process of thought. Eternal
Life is the Divine nature reproducing itself in human
nature; is the energy of the Spirit of God, of the Father,
and of the Son in the spiritual nature of man.
This whole Johannine conception of Life as an essence
or animating principle is subjected to vigorous criticism.
From the Ritschlian standpoint it is objected that this idea
of Life is purely philosophical, that it is not given in
religious experience, but seeks to interpret it in accordance
with certain philosophical presuppositions.1 This is so far
true. Life in
scious experience, but is an inference from experience.
It is like the wind which is known only by the sound
thereof (John 38). But it is true also that the philosophy
presupposed is not the philosophy of the schools. The
idea of Life as an essence or principle is natural to the
thought, and is presupposed in the ordinary language of
all mankind. To this extent, we are all naturally meta-
physicians. It is to produce a pure phenomenalist that
a philosophical discipline is needed.
Thus, while it is true that early Christian thought was,
in certain directions, influenced and fertilised by contact
with Hellenism, and while it may be true that the Johan-
nine doctrine of Life, in particular, has been formed under
the influence of principles and modes of thought indirectly
borrowed from Greek philosophy,2 it is to be remembered
that the tendency to infer causes from effects and to reason
from phenomena to essence was not the peculiar property of
the Greek intellect.
sooner or later, to emerge in Christian theology; for New
Testament thought it lies in the natural line of development.
It is implicit in that whole strain of thought in our
Lord's Synoptic teaching which regards doing as only
1 See, e.g., the chapter on Life in Scott's Fourth Gospel.
2 v. Scott's Fourth Gospel, pp. 243 sqq.
202 The First Epistle of
the outcome of being, and which is emphasised in such
utterances as "Either make the tree good and its fruit
good; or else make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt:
for the tree is known by its fruit" (Matt. 1233). It is im-
plicitly contained, moreover, in the whole Pauline doctrine
of the new creation and of the mystical indwelling of
Christ in the members of His Body. And it is not
difficult to imagine how, as the fruit of further reflection
upon the facts of Christian experience, it became with
the Johannine doctrine of the Logos the last result, within
the New Testament period, of the Church's endeavour to
furnish a rationale of its own experience in relation to the
Person of Christ, so the Johannine doctrine of the Life is
the ripest fruit, within the same period, of the Church's
reflection upon its own characteristics, of its endeavour
to find a conception intellectually adequate to the new
experiences of faith, holiness, and love which it possessed,
and which it was conscious of as forming the one essential
distinction between its own life and the life of the world.
When the Christian compared himself with his former
self, how were the new vision of truth, the new aims and
affections that arose out of the depths of a new nature to
be accounted for? Or, when he compared himself with
the "World lying in the Wicked One," how came it that
he saw where others were blind, worshipped where others
scoffed; that he stood on this side, others on that, of a
great gulf going down to the foundations of the moral
universe? Christian instinct had from the first repudiated
personal superiority of nature as the answer.
had found the solution of the riddle in a Divine predestin-
ation, fulfilling itself in the operation of a supernatural
Divine grace. The Johannine conception of regeneration
combines and transcends both. The efficient source of
all faith, righteousness, and love is a new life-principle
Eternal Life 203
which is nothing else than the Life of God begotten in the
centre of the human personality. In this alone the children
of God differ from others. It is not because they believe,
do righteousness, and love their brother, that they are
"begotten of God," but because they are begotten of God
that they believe, love, and do righteousness. The Life is
behind and within all.
Finally, the question remains as to the nature of the
change wrought in man by the Divine Begetting. On
this point also the Johannine doctrine has been vigorously
criticised. Thus Mr. Scott in his Fourth Gospel dis-
tinguishes two strains of doctrine in
is purely ethical and religious and in the line of Synoptic
teaching, according to which "the power of Christ when
it takes hold of a human life effects a renewal of the whole
moral nature," so that he "enters on a new life under the
influence of new motives and thoughts and desires"
(p. 280); another which is mystical and philosophical,
according to which "not so much his mind and will as the
very substance of which his being is formed must be
changed " (p. 281). In the one view the birth from
above is regarded as "a, moral regeneration answering
to the meta<noia of the Synoptic teaching," in the other,
as "a transmutation of nature," "a magical and semi-
physical change."1 Without discussing the alleged two-
1 On this topic Mr. Scott writes with less than his usual lucidity. Some
definition of terms would be desirable. He describes the doctrine which he
approves as a "renewal of the whole moral nature," which is otherwise
expressed as renewal of the "moral, temper," as a "radical change of mind,"
more definitely as "entering on a new life under the influence of new motives
and thoughts and desires." But this is not to use the term "moral nature" in
its commonly accepted sense. In that sense a man's "moral nature" does not
consist in the influence which particular thoughts and motives have over him;
it is what makes him susceptible, in this or that way, to their influence.
According as his moral nature is good or had, good or bad motives, thoughts, and
desires find a response within him. The thoughts, motives, and desires that
appeal to a man do not, in the first instance, determine his moral nature they
only reveal what it is, and call it into action.
204 The First Epistle of
fold strain of doctrine, but accepting what Mr. Scott calls
the mystical and philosophical as being the peculiarly
and genuinely Johannine, we take so different a view
of it as to maintain that the renewal of the whole
moral nature (due weight being given to both words)
is the very truth it teaches with singular emphasis and
precision.
It implies a renewal of nature. Mr. Scott is right in
asserting that according to this doctrine more is required
for man's moral renewal than the presentation of new
truths and motives. The very capacity of response to
these is required; and the only possible alternative to the
Johannine doctrine is the familiar one, that this capacity
is inherent in the constitution of human nature itself
(although this only leads back to the impasse--how it
comes that the possession of a common capacity displays
such diversity of result). But this alternative
emphatically rejects, "That which is born of the flesh is
flesh." The chord in man's moral nature that responds
to Christ and to the truths and motives of His gospel is
silent, is broken. It must be restrung; and it is restrung
in those who are "begotten of the Spirit." Only by this
direct Divine agency is a renewal of the "moral temper,"
a "radical change of mind," effected. This for
as for the profoundest Christian thought of subsequent
times, is the unique feature of the moral regeneration of
which Christ is the author. Character is renewed, not as
in other religions and ethical systems, by the sole influence
of new truths and motives, but by the renewal of the soul,
the moral nature itself. All presentation of truth is
unavailing without this concurrent Divine operation from
within. Admittedly, there is no prominent development
of this view in the Synoptics. The Synoptic attitude
is that of the evangelist who delivers his message to
men, trusting that it may awaken a responsive chord in
Eternal Life 205
their hearts, and who presses it home in urgent endeavour
to touch that chord.
theologian. His doctrine is the result of reflection upon
the diverse and opposite issues of evangelism--that result
being that man's response to the Truth and Grace of
Christ is due, in every instance, to a higher will than
his own, is, indeed, the sign and proof that he is "begotten
of God."
But the Divine Begetting is the renewal of the moral
nature. It can by no means be conceded that it implies
a change in the very substance of which man's being is
formed;1 not, at least, if by this is meant an organic
change in the constitution of human nature, or that the
regenerate man is something more or other than man.
The children of God are distinguished by no superhuman
deeds or capacities. Instead of walking in darkness
they walk in the Light; instead of doing sin they do right-
eousness; instead of hating they love; instead of denying,
they confess Jesus as the Divine, and seek to walk even as
He walked, and to purify themselves as He is pure. But
these things they do because their moral nature has been
renewed. The wineskin, so to say, remains the same, but
is filled with new wine. No new faculty is created, but
every faculty becomes the organ of a new moral life;
faith, hope, and love rest upon new objects; conscience
receives new light, and the will a new direction and force.
And what
tion of moral character is explicable only by a renewal of
the moral nature—is due to a change in the sub-conscious
region of personal being, which is wrought directly by Divine
1 This view of regeneration as consisting in a change in the substance of the
soul has never been accepted by any Christian Church. It was advocated by
Flacius Illyricus, one of the most prominent theologians of what is called the
Second Reformation in
definitely condemned in the Form of Concord as virtually a revival of the
Manichaean heresy.
206 The First Epistle of
influence, and which can be conceived only as the communi-
cation of a new life-principle. The point at issue is
clearly brought out by the criticism which Mr. Scott
brings against the Johannine view of regeneration as
implying a change which is "semi-physical." The
epithet does not seem happily chosen. If by "physical"
is meant what is of the material or corporeal order, the
statement cannot be admitted (cf. John 36 424). But
if it is intended to signify that which constitutes and
conveys the fu<sij, the nature or life-principle of the
subject, the modification, of the adjective is uncalled for.
"physical." It is the conception of a vital essence in which
inhere all the energies that form right moral character,
just as there is a corporeal life-principle by which the
development of the body, with all its characteristics and
functions, is determined. It may be said, indeed, that
the crucial truth of the Johannine conception of Life and
Regeneration is, that it is at once spiritual or ethical ,and,
in the sense which has just been defined, physical.1 The life
communicated is a new moral life; a life which is manifested
in a new view of sin and righteousness; in a new view of
Christ and of God; in new desire and power to do the
Will of God, to love one another and to conquer the
world. And the doctrine of
recognition in the New Testament that the conscious
1 The use of the word "physical" lies open to the objection that, in modern
use, it has become exclusively associated with the non-spiritual. But it has
been the word chosen by theologians of repute to express the direct action of
the Divine Spirit upon human nature. Thus Owen in his Pneumatologia says,
"There is a real physical work whereby He infuseth a gracious principle of
spiritual life into all that are really regenerated"; and, again, in speaking of the
work of the Spirit in and through the word, "God works immediately by His
Spirit on the wills of His Saints—that is, He puts forth a real physical power
that is not contained in those exhortations, though He doeth it with them and
by them." So Turretin also, "Ad modum physicum pertinet quod Deus Spiritu
suo nos creat, regenerat, cor carnetnn dat et effcienter habitats supernaturales fidei
et charitatis nobis infundit."
Eternal Life 207
experiences and activities of the Christian life are ulti-
mately rooted in that deeper region of human personality
where God works His own mysterious and inscrutable
work of begetting in human nature, and of renew-
ing and replenishing in it, the energies of the Divine
Life.
CHAPTER XI.
THE TEST OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.
ONE peculiarity of the Epistle among the writings of the
New Testament is that the practical purpose for which it
is avowedly written is a purpose of testing. To exhibit
those characteristics of the Christian life, each of which
is an indispensable criterion, and all of which conjointly
form the incontestable evidence of its genuineness, is the aim
that determines the whole plan of the Epistle, and dictates
almost every sentence: " These things I write unto you,
that ye may know that ye have Eternal Life" (513)
As we have seen, Life, according to the Johannine con-
ception, is the essence or animating principle that underlies
the whole phenomena of conscious Christian experience,
and cannot itself be the object of direct consciousness.
Its possession is a matter of inference, its presence certified
only by its appropriate effects. It may be tested simply
as life, by the evidence of those functions—growth, assimi-
lation, and reproduction--which are characteristic of every
kind of vital energy.
Or it may be tested generically, by its properties, as the
kind of tree is known by the kind of its fruit. The Epistle
adopts exclusively the latter method. It bids its readers
try themselves, not as to the fulness and fruitfulness
of their spiritual life, but as to their exhibiting those
qualities which belong essentially to the Life of God. God
is righteous, therefore whosoever has the Divine Life in him
doeth righteousness. God is Love, therefore His life in men
208
The Test of Righteousness 209
exhibits itself in love. God is conscious of Himself in
His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, therefore His life is
manifested in men by their Belief,--their perception of the
Divine in Jesus.
But God is not only Life, He is Light; and fellowship
with Him is not only essential participation in the Divine
Life; it is also conscious and ethical—“walking in the Light,
as He is in the Light" (17). It is this thought of "walking
in the Light" that governs the first Cycle of the Epistle as
a whole;1 and it is from this point of view that the three
cardinal tests—Righteousness, Love, Belief—are applied
in it.
Righteousness the Test of Walking in the Light.
23-6
This paragraph stands in intimate relation to that which
immediately precedes (17-22).2 There the same test has
been applied negatively. We have been brought under the
searchlight of God's righteousness, and it has been seen that
the first effect of honest submission to this self-revelation
is the confession of sin. Now follows, the positive applica-
tion. Though the immediate effect, of the light is to
expose sin, its primary purpose is to reveal duty. The
confession of sin must not be regarded as an equivalent
for actual well-doing (Ps. 1194, Matt. 721. 24). To have
1 We must acknowledge and obey the light that God's self-revelation sheds
upon every object within our moral horizon; ourselves and our sins (17-10); our
duty our relation to our brother (27-11) and to the world (215-17); the
Person of Christ (218-28). v. supra, pp. 7-11.
2 The progression of thought is clearly marked by the recurring phrase, "if
we say" or "he that saith," both marking the possibility of a spurious profession
16 “If we say that we have fellowship with Him."
18 "If we say that we have no sin."
110 "If we say that we have not sinned."
24 "He that saith, I know Him."
26 "He that saith that he abideth in Him.”
28 "He that saith he is in the Light."
210 The First Epistle of
fellowship with God, we must not only acknowledge what
the light reveals as true; we must realise in action what it
reveals as right.
"And hereby we perceive that we know1 Him (God),2
if we keep His commandments.
“He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His com-
mandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But
whoso keepeth His word, in him verily is the love of God
perfected.”
"Hereby perceive we that we are in Him. He that
saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even
as He walked."3
The paragraph contains a threefold statement both of
the matter to be tested and of the test appropriate to it,
and of both on an ascending scale.
|
WALKING IN THE LIGHT. 23.4 We know God. 25a The love of God is perfected in us. 25b. 6 We abide in Him. |
THE TEST. That we keep His Commandments. That we keep His word. That we walk even as Christ walked. |
The first expression of the fact to be ascertained is the
knowledge of God; and, as has been pointed out in an
earlier chapter, it is used here with evident reference to the
pretensions of Gnosticism.4 "He that saith, I know Him,"
is not an arrow shot at a venture, but has a definite mark
in the Antinomian intellectualist for whom his self-assured
knowledge of Divine things superseded all requirements of
commonplace morality. Yet, with
is no more distinctive expression than "knowing God," for
all that constitutes the essence of true religion—the soul's
sincere response to God's revelation of His character and
will (cf. 213.14 46. 7.8 520, John 183.4). In this he allies
1 See special note on ginw<skein. 2 See Notes, in loc.
3 The logical structure of the paragraph is somewhat obscured by the verse-
division. It consists of a thesis (23), an antithesis (24.5a), and a restatement
of the thesis (25b. 6).
4 v. pp. 28 sqq.
The Test of Righteousuess 211
himself with Old Testament thought (cf. Jer. 3134, Isa. 119
5413, Hos. 41 66); and though contact with the influ-
ences of Hellenic speculation and Gnostic theosophy did,
no doubt, contribute to give to the idea of knowledge that
prominence which it has in his conception of religion, this
was by way of recoil as much as of assimilation. To
"know" God is not to have a speculative notion of the
Being and Attributes of God; it is to have a spiritual percep-
tion of the Divine Father (213), whose moral personality is
revealed in His Son (520); it is to have this perception as
an abiding possession (e]gnwke<nai) that is part of oneself, and
is made the actual basis of life. The proof of this "know-
ing" God is active sympathy with His will,—keeping His
commandments.
The word translated "keep" (threi?n) expresses the
idea of watchful, observant obedience. It is habitually
used, for example, of seamen who carefully observe the
direction of the winds or ocean-currents and shape their
course accordingly. So ought we to keep a heedful eye
on God's commandments. The word "commandments"
(e]ntolai<), again, emphasises the idea of surrender to moral
authority. The "commandments" are the clear, precise
orders that God has laid down, dealing with conduct in
detail, peremptory as military instructions. And although
much more than this is included in the Christian idea of
righteousness, yet with profound wisdom is this made the
first test--that we make conscience of keeping God's
commandments. Other services and tributes may express
more vividly the spontaneous impulses of the soul; but
with these it is always possible that something of self-
pleasing and self-display may mingle. In vain do we
break the alabaster box, if we do not obey. Zeal that is
not zeal for keeping God's commandments is but egotism
subtly disguised. On the other hand, "To know that I
know God, I need not aspire to mystic insight, or
212 The First Epistle of
visionary rapture, or sublime ecstasy. A lowlier path by
far is mine" (Candlish).
For "Whoso keepeth His word, in him verily is the
love of God perfected." Here the unity of the "word" is
substituted for the multiplicity of the "commandments."
The Christian commandments are not a miscellany of
arbitrary requirements or by-laws; they are practical appli-
cations of the one Divine Law to the outstanding facts
and situations of human life. Though many, they are one
in principle and authority--outgrowths from one root;
so Christian Righteousness also, though manifested in
numberless details, is a moral unity. It is to do the will
of God--the revelation of which is His "word" (cf.
Jas. 210).
The apodosis of the sentence, instead of taking the
anticipated form, "This man verily knoweth God," intro-
duces a characteristic variation and enrichment of thought,
"In him verily is the love1 of God perfected." Here the
"love of God" is usually understood as our love to God,
not God's love to us. And plainly it must be taken in such
a sense as to indicate a right moral state in us. But, inter-
preted in the light of the parallel passage 417 (where we find
simply h[ a]ga<ph, "the Love"), the "Love of God" is neither
God's love to us nor ours to Him, separately considered,
but that which unites both in one common conception,--
the Love which is the nature of God (48), and which is the
nature also of those who are "begotten of Him" (47).
That this Divine Love dwells in any man is witnessed by
the fact that he keeps God's "word." For God's "word"
is nothing else than the revelation in Christ of the Divine
character and will as Love, and to keep that "word" is
nothing else than to embody that Divine character and
will in human deed. And in this it is "perfected." "Per-
fected" love, in the phraseology of the Epistle, signifies, not
1 Cf. 412.17.18. See, further, Chapter XIV.
The Test of Righteousness 213
love in a superlative degree, but love that is consummated
in action. Bearing fruit in actual obedience, Love has been
perfected: it has fulfilled its mission, has reached its goal.
"Hereby perceive we that we are in Him. He that saith
that he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even
as He1 walked."
Here, again, the thought is restated in varied form.
Instead of "knowing God," we have "being in Him"
(25b) and "abiding in Him" (26) as expressing the fact of
fellowship with God. These expressions are synonymous,
denoting from the human side the reciprocal indwelling
of God and man, which is for
lying fact of the Christian life. The fact is indicated more
generally by the phrase "to be in Him " (cf. 520); while
the "abiding" in Him may emphasise the element of
persistent purpose that is necessary on man's part to
continuance in union with2 God. From the union of
nature there springs an ethical union of will; and of
this the test is that we "walk even as Christ walked,"3
We cannot observe without admiration the exquisite out-
blossoming of the thought. As the "commandments"
find their ideal unity in the "word," the "word" finds
its actual embodiment in Him who wrought
"With human hands, the creed of creeds,
In loveliness of perfect deeds,
More strong than all poetic thought."
The ideal, and the power no less than the ideal, of all holy
obedience are contained in His word, "Follow Me." And
as His "walk" was the proof of His union with God (John
638 174), so to "walk even as He walked" is the inevitable
test of ours. For it is to be observed that the idea of
1 e]kei?noj=Christ. v. supra, p. 89. 2 v. supra, pp. 199, 200.
3 “Even as He walked." For
with tender personal reminiscences (John 71 1023). He had seen with his eyes
the "walk" of his Master in love and holiness and it had been the purpose of
his Gospel that his readers might as with his eyes behold it (13).
214 The First Epistle of
the test is still dominant. The clause, "He that saith that
he abideth in Him, ought himself also so to walk even as
He walked," is not hortatory but predicative. It is stricty
correlative to the "Hereby we perceive" of the preceding
clause. The whole antithesis between truth and falsehood
is compressed into the ominous “He that saith” and the
incisive "ought" (o]fei<lei, more stringent than dei?). The
assertion is not only that he who makes this profession
incurs this obligation, but that the obligation is of such
a nature that its fulfilment or non-fulfilment is decisive of
the truth or the falsehood of the profession.
This paragraph as a whole, if the structure of the
Epistle has been rightly apprehended, is governed by the
thought of "walking in the Light." If we keep not God's
commandments, if we keep not His word, if we do not
walk as Christ walked, we forsake the path of Light and
enter the region of darkness. The necessity of Righteous-
ness is grounded on the requirements of fellowship with God,
"Who is Light, and in Whom there is no darkness at all."
In the second Cycle of the Epistle the test of Right-
eousness is differently presented. It assumes more
distinctly the character of a direct polemic against Gnostic
Antinomianism; and its necessity is found not in the
revelation of God's Will, but in the Divine nature itself.
Through the whole paragraph devoted to the subject there
runs the idea, not of Light, but of Life. It is an exposition
not of the conditions of ethical fellowship with God, but of
the evidence of the Divine Begetting.
Divine Sonship tested by Righteousness.
229-310a
"If ye know (as absolute truth) that He (God) is
righteous, know (take note) that every one also that
doeth righteousness is begotten of Him" (229).
The Test of Righteousness 215
This, the opening sentence of the paragraph, announces
the purport of the whole. It introduces (for the first time
in the Epistle) the subject of the Divine Begetting, and
indicates that this is to be expounded in all the rigour
of its ethical demands. The Divine nature, to whomsoever
it is imparted, is Righteousness; therefore the test of
possessing it is doing1 Righteousness.
Having thus stated his thesis, the Apostle is immediately
swept away into rapturous digression. The full magni-
ficence of the thought that sinful men should be brought
into such a relation to God smites his soul with amazement:
"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed
upon us!" (31. 2).2 But though these verses to a certain
extent interrupt the sequence of thought, they lead off into
no side-issue. Like the eagle, the Apostle has soared to the
heights, only that he may with mightier impetus swoop
down upon his quarry. We have been led to contemplate
the Christian life in the glory of its future consummation,
only to be brought back once more to the test: "Every
one that hath this hope in Him purifieth3 himself, even as
He is pure" (33). This sentence, again, is not hortatory but
predicative. It is the statement not of a duty, but, of a
fact. The hope of perfect likeness to Christ's glory here-
after is not held out as a motive to strive after present
likeness to His purity; but, conversely, to strive after His
purity is the inexorable test of having the hope of His
glory. Thus "hope" must be taken here in an objective,
not a subjective, sense. Not every one who cherishes
the hope of glory, seeks the life of purity; but he alone4
who aims at the absolute purity of Christ (kaqw>j e]kei?noj)
1 v. infra, p. 219. 2 v. Chapter XVI.
3 On a[gno<j, a[gni<zei, e]kei?noj, supra, pp. 89, 90.
4 "Every one that bath this hope." pa?j o[ e@xwn is more stringent than the
simply descriptive o[ e@xwn. It hints at the "exceptional presumption of men
who regarded themselves as above the common law" (Westcott). In most
instances of its use (cf. 223 34.6.9.10) the phrase pa?j o[ . . . has a distinctly
polemical suggestion.
216 The First Epistle of
and can be satisfied with no lower aim, possesses it in
fact. He alone has in him that Life which will blossom
out in immortal perfection when it is brought into the full
sunshine of Christ's manifested presence. This is involved
in the unity of the Eternal Life here and hereafter. And
were one to argue1 that it is idle (so different are the
conditions of the future from those of the present) to aim
at the purity of Heaven while here one earth, the answer
is that the Life which is begotten of God is by innate
necessity, and in whatever environment, a life of truceless
antagonism to sin. This the writer proceeds to maintain:
(1) in the light of what Sin is; (2) in the light of Christ's
character and mission; (3) in the light of the Divine
origin of the Christian Life; (4), in the light of the fact
that all that is of the nature of sin is of diabolic origin.
34.
"Every one that doeth2 sin doeth also lawlessness;
and sin is lawlessness."3 It is noticeable that this verse
exactly corresponds in thought as well as in position to
23.4. As there Righteousness was exhibited first of all
as the "keeping of God's commandments," so here Sin is,
first of all, repudiation of the whole authority and aim of
1 As Bishop Blougram does in his cynical vision:
“Of man's poor spirit in its progress, still
Losing true life for ever and a day
Through ever trying to be and ever being
In the evolution of successive spheres
Afore its actual sphere and place of life,
Half-way into the next, which having reached.
It shoots with corresponding foolery
Half-way into the nest still . . .
. . . Worldly in this world
I take and like its way of life."
2 "Every one that doeth sin." The direct antithesis to the " purifieth
himself" of 33. Instead of refraining himself (a[gni<zei e[auto<n) from sin, he
does it.
3 For fuller discussion of "sin" and "lawlessness,'' v. supra, p. 133.
The Test of Righteousness 217
God's moral government. This is expressed with singular
emphasis. Sin, in its constitutive principle (h[ a[marti<a),
whatever be the act in which the principle is embodied,
is essentially lawlessness (h[ a]nomi<a), no matter what be
the form in which the Law is delivered. It is to set up,
as the rule of life, one's own will instead of the absolutely
good will of God. The inference does not require to be
explicitly drawn, that to do so stands in fundamental
contradiction to the Life that is begotten of God. But
this argument against moral indifferentism,--that every
act of sin is the assertion of a lawless will and a defiance
of moral authority--while it is a truth that lies at the basis
of Christianity, is not the specifically Christian expression
of that truth. This the Apostle next gives. Indifference
to sin, in whatever degree, on whatever pretext, is the
direct negation of the whole purpose of Christ's mission
and the whole significance of Christ's character.1
35.
"And ye know that He was manifested to the end that
He might take away2 sins; and sin in Him there is not."
He "was manifested." The Being and Work of Christ
are the manifestation of the Eternal in the sphere of history,
of the Unseen Divine Life in the world of our humanity.
And the whole Being and Work of the Incarnate Word—
word and deed, influence and example, action and suffering,
life and death—are directed to this one end, the taking
away of sins. It was for this purpose that He was mani-
fested at all, and by this purpose that His manifestation
was governed throughout. "And in Him is no sin."
The sinlessness of Christ is one of the intuitions of the
1 Again we may observe that the argument follows exactly the same course
of development as in 23-6; 35.6 here corresponding to 26 there.
2 v. supra, p. 158, and Notes, in loc.
218 The First Epistle of
Christian. It is not, in the nature of the case, capable of
complete logical demonstration; but we know that in Him
is1 no sin. Sin is altogether excluded from the sphere of
what He was, and is, and is to be.
The inevitable conclusion from these premises is the
"inadmissibility2 of sin."
36.
"Every one that abideth in Him sinneth not; every one
that sinneth hath not seen Him, neither knoweth Him."
The impossibility of maintaining at the same time the same
kind of connection with Christ and with sin is immediately
evident. Any other attitude towards sin than that of
absolute repudiation and self-denial is fatal disproof of
our living union with Him, and, indeed, of our ever having
had the faintest perception of what Christ is, and of what
He stands for. But here the Apostle's words seem to
assert much more than this;—not only the inadmissibility
in principle, but the non-existence in fact, of sin in the
regenerate life. This assertion, which constitutes one of
the crucial difficulties in the exposition of the Epistle, recurs
in 39; and we shall place ourselves in a more advantageous
position for examining the problem by first completing the
survey of the whole paragraph.
37.
"Little children, let no man deceive you. He that
doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous."
Here, for the first time, the polemical import of the whole
passage is clearly disclosed, and the clue is given that
leads to the solution of its difficulties. The point of
1 “In Him is no sin." The tense is to be taken strictly. The sinless
Lamb of God is still the object of our faith, because what He was He is
eternally.
2 To borrow Professor
The Test of Righteousness 219
prime importance is that we now discover the precise
significance of the phrase o[ poiw?n (“whosoever doeth”),
which is so characteristic of the paragraph (229 34.7. 8. 9. 10)
When it is said, "Little children, let no man deceive you:
he that doeth righteousness is righteous," and when the
same warning is continued in the words, "He that doeth
sin is of the devil" (38), the implication clearly is that
there were persons who taught the contrary doctrine,
namely, that one may be truly righteous apart from the
doing of righteous deeds, and that, on the other hand, the
mere doing of sinful acts is no disproof of inward spirituality,
nor incompatible with the status of Divine sonship. It is
evident that the same persons who held that there is an
essential righteousness which is superior to the "doing" of
righteous deeds would also hold that there may be a "doing"
of sin that does not imply essential depravity in the agent.
These are inseparable aspects of the same doctrine.
Thus the point of the argument is missed when poiei?n
th>n a[marti<an (and, mutatis mutandis, poiei?n th>n dikaiosu<nhn)
is taken as signifying to sin habitually, to live a sinful life.1
It is not the frequency or the unbroken habitualness of the
"doing" that is in view, but the fact that Being is to be
tested and known by Doing, the inward spiritual nature by
the outward conduct which is its product. The object of
attack is the Gnostic Antinomian, to whom, in his proud
intellectualism or his overstrained spiritualism, the prosaic
requirements of common morality were of small moment.
It is true that the tendency to exempt religious claims
from moral tests is not confined to any heretical sect. "We
are too often content with the consciousness that we stand
in some special relation to the Lord, and come to regard
sin as an unavoidable evil which is not so very harmful as
might be thought " (Haupt). This is the ubiquitous and
1 Steven, Johannine Theology, p. 136. Likewise Huther—"whose life is a
service of sin," "who lives in sin as his element."
220 The First Epistle of
inextinguishable heresy. But it was not this universal
tendency that gave occasion to the pointed, tremulously
affectionate appeal, "Little children, let no man lead you
astray." Doing is the test of Being:—"He that doeth
righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous." This
was and is the manner of Christ's righteousness. Im-
measurable in its perfection, it was and is wholly translatable
and translated into deed. In Him the outward life is
wholly commensurate with the inward. And in vain do
men prate of union with the True Vine if they do not in
like manner bring forth fruit.
38.
"He1 that doeth sin is of the devil; because from the
beginning the devil sinneth. To this end was the Son of
God manifested, that He may destroy the works of the
devil."
The proof already advanced of the incompatibility of
sin with the life of the children of God, first from its own
nature (34), then from the character of Christ and the
purpose of His mission (35 6), is reinforced by the further
consideration, that the source from which all that is of the
nature of sin is derived is not uncertain. And we cannot
but recognise an intentionally terrific force in the point to
which the Apostle here brings matters. He who self-
tolerantly commits sin can have no kinship with Christ.
But what then? He is not without spiritual kinship. IIe
has a spiritual father—the Devil—who "sinneth from the
beginning." And "to this end," the Apostle adds, "was
the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy the
works of the Devil." With pregnant force the majestic
title "the Son of God" (used for the first time in the
Epistle) marks the true character of the works of the Devil,
1 For fuller discussion of this verse, v. supra, pp. 142-4, 158.
The Test of Righteousness 221
“Judge ye what they are," the Apostle would say. "It was
no other than the Son of God whose task it was to destroy
them. So abhorrent to God are the works of the Devil
that it was worth His while, yea, He was necessitated by
His own Holiness and Love, to send even His own Son
into the deadly fight for their complete undoing."
39.
"Whosoever1 is begotten of God doeth not sin; because
His seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is
begotten of God." The Apostle advances the fourth and
last proof of the unqualified antagonism to sin that is
inherent in the life of the children of God. As the seed of
physical generation stamps upon the offspring an inefface-
able character, and nothing in after years can alter the
inherited basis of life, so does the germ of spiritual life
from the spiritual Father set the impress of a permanent
organic character upon the God-begotten. On this the
Apostle finally grounds the certainty that the Christian
Life, in its inmost eternal essence (spe<rma au]tou?), is a
life of perfect righteousness; that is, under present con-
ditions, a life of continual opposition to sin, and victory
over it.
“In this the children of God are manifest, and the
children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is
not of God." In our " doing " and also in our "not-doing"
the spiritual affinities, which are in their essence secret,
become manifest—manifest, that is, to all men of spiritual
discernment (cf. Matt. 720, Gal. 519-23). With the solemn
words, "Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God,"
the argument concludes. The end of the paragraph reverts
1 v. supra, pp. 195, 198.
222 The First Epistle of
to and logically completes the assertion with which it began.
That assertion was:—"Every one that doeth righteousness1
is begotten of God"; here the complementary negative is
set forth, "Every one that doeth not righteousness1 is not
of God" (229). The test of righteousness is enforced on
every side. No gap is left in the circle drawn around the
"begotten of God." All who do righteousness are included;
all who do not are excluded.
The writer has thus, with four-fold argument, enforced
the truth that the life of Divine sonship is a life that
necessarily expresses itself in righteousness and in irrecon-
cilable antagonism to sin; and further, that there can be
no righteousness apart from right-doing, and, conversely,
no evil-doing apart from the principle of sin, which has its
arch-embodiment in the Devil. It must be admitted, how-
ever, that the manner in which this truth is presented is fitted
rather to puzzle the exegete than to edify the reader. By
an apparently overstrained identification of persons with the
principles they represent, and by neglect of the fact that
there is in human nature, as it actually exists, a com-
mixture of incongruous elements, the writer seems to
spurn the solid ground of experience and to soar into a
region of mere abstract dialectic. Had he asserted in the
strongest terms the impossibility of maintaining the same
kind of relation to Christ and to sin,—that to believe in
Christ and to believe in sin, to love Christ and to love sin,
to live in Christ and to live in sin as one's element, is as
unthinkable as that one should face North and South at
the same moment, to this every Christian heart would in-
stantly respond. But when he says:--"Whosoever abideth
in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him,
neither knoweth Him" (36); "Whosoever is begotten of
1 Westcott distinguishes th>n dikaiosu<nhn in 229 and dikaiosunhn here,
as respectively, the abstract—“the idea of righteousnes in its completeness"--
and the concrete—“that which bears a particular character, viz., righteousness,”
I find it impossible to realise any exegetical value in the distinction.
The Test of Righteousness 223
God doeth not sin; because His seed abideth in him: and he
cannot sin, because he is begotten of God" (39); and, again,
“We know that whosoever is begotten of God sinneth
not” (518),--he seems to contradict not only the universal
testimony of the Christian conscience (which much rather
assents to Luther's paradox, "He who is a Christian is no
Christian") and the general doctrine of Scripture, but his
own explicit teaching. Has he not said, "These things I
write unto you that ye sin not" (21), thereby recognising
the possibility of what he declares impossible? Has he not
set forth, in view of that possibility, the Divine provision
for it, "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the
Father" (21)? Does he not expressly contemplate the con-
tingency of our seeing "a brother sinning a sin not unto
death" and prescribe the course to be followed in that
event (516)? Undesirable, therefore, as it is, even for the
sake of vindicating a writer's self-consistency, to seek
another meaning for plain words than they carry on their
face, the inconsistency here is of such a nature that we are
compelled to look for some interpretation by which the
discord may be resolved.
We return, therefore, to the consideration of 36 "Who-
soever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath
not seen Him, neither knoweth Him." Attempts to untie
the knot have been made from many sides. (a) A solution
is sought in the Apostle's "idealism" (Candlish, Weiss).
As to
their abundant imperfections, are saints, klhtoi> a!gioi; so
to
of his divinely-begotten nature, "sinneth not." This in no
way meets the requirements of the passage. The writer's
purpose is not to exhibit an ideal, but to apply a test; and
it is precisely against the dangers of a false or vague
idealism that his argument is directed.1 (b) Help has been
1 See on 37 supra.
224 The First Epistle of
sought in the word me<nei. When the Christian sins, he
is not, for the moment, abiding in Christ. "In quantum in
Christo manet in tantum non peccat" (Augustine and Bede,
quoted and adopted by Westcott). But, even if this were
a satisfactory explanation of the first clause (which it is
not), it is unavailing with respect to the second, "Whoso-
ever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither knoweth Him."
(c) The verse refers to mortal sin. But any distinction
between mortal and venial sins is resolutely debarred by
the context, the argument of which is that every sin, of
whatever description or degree, is "lawlessness" (34). (d)
a[marta<nei is explained as meaning a life of unbroken and
impenitent sin—following sin "as a calling" (Stevens,
Gibbon). But this only empties the word of its proper
meaning: a[marta<nein in 36, cannot be other than synony-
mous with poiei?n th>n a[marti<an in 38; and this (v. supra
on 37) connotes not the frequency or other characteristic
of the sinning, but its simple actuality. (e) Finally, a
solution is most commonly sought on the lines of
720.* "A Christian does not do sin, he suffers it " (Besser).
"It is no longer sin, but opposition to it, that determines
his conduct of life" (Huther). "Etsi infirmitate labitur,
peccato tamen non consentit, quia potius gemendo luctatur"
(Augustine). Here, however, the Apostle is not dis-
tinguishing between a man and his deeds; on the contrary,
he is in the most rigorous fashion identifying them (pa?j
o[ poiw?n, 34. 7. 8. 9. 10) With Rom. 720, as a contrite
acknowledgment of sinful weakness,
had no quarrel. But it is against that text abused—
made an apology for sin, and a pretext for moral indifferent-
ism—that the concentrated fire of his artillery is directed.
I venture to suggest that a more satisfactory ex-
planation of this perplexing passage is to be found in
* "But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin
which dwelleth in me."
The Test of Righteousness 225
the obvious fact that it is written in view, of a definite
controversial situation and in a vehemently controversial
strain, the absoluteness of its assertions being due to the
fact that they are in reality unqualified contradictions of
tenets of unqualified falsity. The polemical reference
which underlies the whole paragraph becomes explicit in
37-8:--"Little children, let no man lead you astray. He
that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is
righteous. He that doeth sin is of the devil." Clearly,
as we have seen, this is aimed against a pseudo-spiritualism
for which mere conduct was of minor concern; and here,
if anywhere, we get the desired clue. Let it be sup-
posed that the Apostle and his readers were familiar with
a class of teachers who maintained that true righteousness
is entirely of the spirit, while doing, whether of righteous-
ness or of sin, has its sphere solely in the flesh, and that,
therefore, the truly spiritual man is no more affected by
the deeds of the flesh than are the sunbeams by the
purity or the filth on which they shine; let it be sup-
posed that it is against such a doctrine, disseminating
itself like a plague, that the passage is directed, and its
apparent exaggeration and over-emphasis are naturally
accounted for. Suppose that it were maintained that
one may commit outward sins without injury to his
spiritual connection with Christ, the reply would naturally
be the strongest possible assertion that the very proof of
any one's connection with Christ is his not sinning,—
"Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not." Suppose that it
were affirmed that the man whose spirit is occupied with
the inward vision and knowledge of Christ need not lose
his equanimity over such trivial and transient phenomena
as his deeds of sin, the fitting reply would be, that such an
one has not the faintest apprehension of what Christ and
Christianity stand for (36b); that, indeed, his real affinities are
with the Devil. I have put the case as a supposition; but
226 The First Episte of
there is abundant evidence1 that such tenets and practices
were characteristic of Gnosticism in both its earlier and its
later developments; they were, indeed, the inevitable off-
spring of its fundamental principle of dualism. And it is from
this quarter, I submit, that an explanation of the Apostle's
language in this verse is to be found. It is the language not
of calm and measured statement, but of vehement polemic.
The same explanation holds good for the equally un-
qualified dictum of 39: "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth
not sin, because His seed abideth in him; and he cannot
1 Irenaeus informs us that the Gnostics imagined three classes of men, the
material, the psychical, and the spiritual. They themselves, who had the
perfect knowledge of God, were the spiritual. "Hence they affirm that good
moral conduct is necessary for us" (i.e. for ordinary Christians), "because
without it we cannot be saved; but they affirm that they themselves will
unquestionably be saved, not from moral conduct, but because they are by
nature spiritual. For, as the material are incapable of receiving salvation, so
the spiritual are incapable of receiving corruption, whatever moral conduct they
may practise; for, as gold when deposited in mud does not lose its beauty,
but preserves its own nature, the mud not being able to injure the gold; so
also they say of themselves that, whatever may be the character of their material
morality, they cannot be injured by it nor lose their spiritual substance. Hence
the most perfect among them perform all forbidden things without any scruple,
and some of them, obeying the lusts of the flesh even to satiety, say that carnal
things are repaid by carnal, and spiritual things by spiritual" (Contra Haer. i. 6. 2).
Of the followers of Simon Magus it is reported: "They even congratulate
themselves upon this indiscriminate intercourse, asserting that this is perfect
love. For (they would have us believe) they are not overcome by the supposed
vice, because they have been redeemed. . . . They do whatsoever they please,
as persons free; for they allege that they are saved by grace" (Hippolytus,
Refutatio VI. xiv.).
Of the Nicolaitans it is said: "They quote an adage of Nicolaus, which they
pervert, ‘that the flesh must be abused' (to> dei?n paraxrh?sqai t^? sarki<).
Abandoning themselves to pleasure like goats, as if insulting the body, they
lead a life of self-indulgence " (Clem. Strom. II. lx.).
"These quotations I have adduced in reproof of the Basilidians, who do not
live rightly, either as having power (e]cousi<an) to sin because of their perfection,
or as being altogether assured by nature of future salvation, although they sin
now, because they are by dignity of nature the elect " (Strom. III. i.).
Of the Prodicians the same writer says: "They say that they are by nature
children of the supreme God; but, abusing that nobility and liberty, they live as
they choose, and they choose lasciviously; judging that they are bound by no law
as ‘lords of the sabbath,' and as belonging to a kind of superior race, a royal
seed. And the law, they say, is not written for kings " (Strom. III. iv.).
Such quotations might be indefinitely multiplied.
The Test of Righteousness 227
sin, because he is begotten of God." He in whom a seed
of Divine Life thus abides and determines development
not only does not do sin, he does not because he cannot.
To him it is as impossible as it is, say, for the embryonic
bird to acquire the habits of a serpent. Theoretically this
is true. It was true of Christ; and if in our case the
Divine Begetting were not a re-begetting, if there were
no other element than the seed of God present in our
nature,—no "old man" to put off; but only the "new man"
to put on,—this would be actually true of us also. As the
case stands, nothing is more certain to the consciousness of
those who are "begotten of God" than that, while they
ought to be incapable of sin, they both can and do sin.
An outlet from the impasse is usually sought in the
explanation that the regenerate element in the regenerate
man is sinless, and that the Christian is here spoken of only
in so far as the Divine nature has attained supremacy in
him. "As long as the relationship with God is real, sinful
acts are but accidents. They do not touch the essence of
the man's being" (Westcott). "With his proper self, his real,
completely independent personality, the regenerate man
cannot sin; and so his sinning can never be a sinning in the
full and proper sense of the word, but takes place only
when his proper personality is overcome by the power of
evil—is always sin of infirmity" (Rothe).
These are statements which, to say the least, cannot
be assented to. It is true that the sins of a good man are
foreign to that element in his nature which is deepest and
most permanent, and which will ultimately assert its
supremacy. Nevertheless, there necessarily are elements
in his personality to which his sins are due; and this the
good man sincerely recognises and penitently confesses.
True it is, also, that the good man does not sin spon-
taneously and gratuitously, but only because he is over-
come by the power of temptation. But this is no less
228 The First Epistle of
true of most of the sinning of unregenerate men. No
one, moreover, is overpowered by evil except by his
own consent. The will, though non-resisting, is not non-
existent even in sins of infirmity. This explanation, so
far from realising the Apostle's intention, rather, it seems to
me, reverses it. The whole paragraph is a protest against
the doctrine, that, in the regenerate man, sin is to be
regarded as an "accident," or that his "proper self " is to be
held blameless of his actual deeds. Again, I submit, the
explanation is that the statement is not theoretical but
practical, moulded and warmly coloured by the exigencies
of controversy.
calm dictum, of the theologian, but a word suffused with
holy passion, a vehement repudiation of the adversary's false
du<natai. For it depends upon who the speaker is, and
how it is said, and with what motive, whether it be
true or false to say that the "begotten of God" can sin.
Suppose it to be claimed that he can, that he may be a liar,
a glutton, or unchaste, yet none the less "begotten of
God"; suppose it to be said that his very prerogative is
this--that he can sin without prejudice to his high
standing as a spiritual and enlightened man—"No!" would
be the unhesitating reply, "that is what he cannot do."
What the fact of his being "begotten of God" means, is
just that this has become to him morally impossible.
“Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should
not have compassion on the son of her womb?” It must
be admitted that there are such monstrosities as mothers
who can. But if it be claimed that a mother can be cruel
and neglectful, and that without losing her character as a
mother, the right answer, the morally true answer, is an
indignant denial. In the same sense it is true that the
Christian, because he is "begotten of God," cannot sin;
and to assert the contrary is to assert a blasphemy, a
calumny upon God.
The Test of Righteousness 229
In the third Cycle of the Epistle the writer recurs
finally to the Test1 of Righteousness in 518 "We
know that every one that is begotten of God sinneth
not; but he that was begotten of God keepeth himself,
and the wicked one toucheth him not." Nothing needs
to be added to the explanation already advanced of
the unqualified language in which this last protest is
made against the idea that declensions from actual
righteousness are of small moment or none to the spiritual
man. But the second clause introduces new matter,
"He that was begotten of God taketh heed2 to himself,3
and that wicked one toucheth him not." This is added
obviously as a safeguard against a perverse application of
what has just been said, "Every one that is begotten of
God sinneth not." Might this truth be made a pillow for
laziness instead of a stimulus to action? Might some one,
saying in his heart that he was "begotten of God," and
that to him, therefore, righteousness was assured, fold his
hands and go to sleep? Let him remember that righteous-
ness is possible to man only as victory over a powerful
and sleepless foe ("the wicked one"); that this victory
is won only by man's own vigilant effort ("taketh heed to
himself"); and that, while both this vigilant effort and
its victory are assured by the forces of the Divine Life
operating in the regenerate, it is the effort made and the
victory won that give the required proof of regeneration.
In this practical motive of the clause we may find,
perhaps, the reason for the strange substitution of the
aorist form gennhqei<j for the usual perfect gegennhme<noj).4
1 Also in 53, where the test of love to God is keeping His commandments.
See Chapter XII.
2 threi?. v. p. 211.
3 o[ gennhqei<j . . . e[auto<n. For discussion of the reading, see Notes, in loc.
4 o[ gegennhme<noj=”He who has been begotten of God and who still retains
that character," the perfect tense connoting the act and its abiding result.
o[ gennhqei<j="He who was begotten of God," the aorist merely pointing to
the act as having taken place.
230 The First Epistle of
It is in this gegennhme<noj that danger may lurk. "Be-
gotten of God, therefore now and for ever, whether working
out my salvation with fear and trembling, or living in
somnolent security, I am a child of God." But with the
unique gennhqei<j the Divine Begetting is for the moment
regarded as a past event, not necessarily of present
efficacy. "Were you once begotten of God? Rest not on
that; but take heed to yourself! It is the very mark of
the God-begotten that he takes heed to himself." A
greater might, a more ceaseless and penetrating vigilance
than his own must be his salvation; and will be, but only
on condition of his obedience to the Master's command
grhrorei?te kai> proseu<xesqe.
Then, "the wicked one layeth not hold of him"1
As it was true of the Master, so shall it be true of the
watchful disciple—“The ruler of this world cometh and
hath nothing in me."
1 The translation "toucheth him not" goes beyond the true sense. The
"wicked one" may, indeed, touch him; but there is nothing by which he may
lay hold of him who is thus on his guard.
CHAPTER XII.
THE TEST OF LOVE.
As has appeared very clearly in the preceding chapter,
the purpose of the Epistle is not to exhibit in the abstract
that view of Christianity which may be distinctively called
Johannine, but, by holding up the true standard of Christian
faith and ethics, to expose the antichristian character of con-
temporary Gnosticism. And in pursuance of this object,
the subject-matter of the Epistle consists mainly in the
presentation, from various points of view, of those three
crucial characteristics of all that is genuinely Christian—
Righteousness, Love, and true Belief. In both the first
and second cycles of the Epistle the test of Righteousness
is followed immediately by that of Love. The writer
nowhere correlates these two conceptions of the ethical
principle. Broadly, however, it may be said that Righteous-
ness stands for its negative aspect. Righteousness is to
"keep the commandments," to "walk even as Christ
walked"; but it is to do so in respect of not sinning.
It is to "purify oneself as He is pure," to "guard" oneself
as the begotten of God. The positive element in the
Christian ethic is Love. And, according to the plan of the
Epistle, this is first presented as the condition and test of
"walking in the Light."
231
232 The First Epistle of
Love the Test of Walking in the Light.
27-11.
"Beloved,1 no new commandment write I unto you, but
an old commandment which ye had from the beginning;
the old commandment is that which ye heard. Again, a
new commandment write I unto you, which thing is true
in Him and in you; because the darkness is passing away,
and the true light is already shining" (27. 8)
By a certain stateliness in the introduction of his theme
the writer shows how strongly he is moved by the sense
of its greatness. His desire to come very close to the
heart of his readers breaks out spontaneously in the affec-
tionate and appealing "Beloved"; while, with deliberate
skill, he uses the rhetorical device of reticence in order to
whet their interest. He announces his subject only by
suggesting that there is no need to announce it—wraps it
up in half-revealing, half-concealing paradox. "No new
commandment write I unto you, but an old command-
ment. . . . Again, a new commandment I write unto you."
But he has sufficient confidence in the perspicacity of his
readers to assume that they will at once recognise in the
commandment which is both "old" and "new" the familiar
precept, "Love one another" (cf. 2 John 5).
In this identity, though it has been denied or missed
by some exegetes,2 lies the fine significance of the antithesis.
The commandment is "old," because it is what "ye heard
from the beginning." It is "new," because it is "true (has
its vital realisation) in Him and in you." The command-
ment is "old." It is no novelty the Apostle is about to
urge upon them. The test of walking in the light is
1 These verses have been found susceptible of a bewildering variety of inter-
pretations. v. Notes, in loc.
2 v. Notes, in loc.
The Test of Love 233
nothing erudite or far-fetched. To the readers of the
Epistle it is "old" as the familiar fundamental law of
Christianity which they had been taught among the first
rudiments of the Gospel ("from the beginning," cf. 224)
But in a wider sense it is old as humanity itself, nay,
older. It is the law God has impressed upon all creature-
life; which is seen in the self-sacrificing care of the tigress
for her whelps, of the mother-bird for her nestlings. It
is the Eternal Law--the law of God's own Being. God
is Love. And, therefore, it is always "new," a fresh and
living commandment. Other laws become archaic and
obsolete. Like the ceremonial law of Judaism, for instance,
they are now fossils, relics of modes of thought and of
religious and social conditions that no longer exist. But
never can age antiquate or custom stale this command-
ment. Never can the time come when men shall appeal to
tradition or to statutory authority as a reason for loving
one another. This commandment is always "new," instinct
with vital force, a spark from the Divine fire that kindles
every soul into being.
But to the Christian it is "new" in another and a
special sense:—"which thing1 (not the law itself, but the
fact that it is a new and living law) is true in Him and in
you." There are times when the Law of Love shines out
with a morning splendour, when it reveals a new signifi-
cance to the human conscience and enters upon a further
stage in its predestined conquest of human life. And this
was supremely the case when it was embodied in Christ,
and when He infused into the precept, "Love one another,"
the new dynamic, "as I have loved you" (John 1334)
The Love of Christ, typified by His washing the disciples'
feet (John 131-17), and completely realised in the laying
down of His life for those whom only His love made His
"friends" (John 1513), created a new commandment—gave
1 v. Notes, in loc.
234 The First Epistle of
to mankind a new conception, and imposed a new obligation.
And this commandment is still "new" in Him. His whole
Love expressed but did not exhaust itself in one act. He
laid down His Life that He might take it again. The
Love of
you"--in the Christian life--the commandment is always
"new." It is "old,"—a word once for all heard and
accepted,--but it is also a law continually realising itself
in the movements of life, daily imparting fresh light and
impulse in the experience of all upon whose heart it is
written by their entering into and abiding in that life -
transforming relation to Christ which is declared in the
great words, "as I have loved you" (cf. 2 Cor. 514. 15)
The following clause, "because the true (a]lhqino<n
real) Light is already shining," may be regarded as stating
either the reason why the commandment is "new" in the
experience of the Apostle's readers, or the reason why he
writes to remind them of this. The sequence of thought,
in either case, is far from obvious; but it is less obscure and
more forcible on the latter1 supposition than on the former.
The "true Light" that is vanquishing the darkness is not
the dawning light of the Parousia (Huther), but the light
of the Gospel. It points back to the announcement on
which this whole section of the Epistle is based, "God is
Light" (15). The Light, which is the self-revelation2 of
God, is now shining forth as never before. In former
times it had shone dimly and fitfully: in the Gentile world
only as starlight; in the Old Testament only as a prophetic
dawn. In Christ it is as the sun shining in its strength.
The greater, then, is the necessity that men assure them-
selves of their walking in the Light of God, and the more
is it necessary to remind them that, since the central
1 On this interpretation, "which thing is true in Him and in you" is treated
as a parenthesis, and the clause, "because the darkness passeth away," etc., is
attached to "a new commandment write I unto you." v. Notes, in loc.
2 v. p. 56 sqq.
The Test of Love 235
glory of that Light is now seen, to be the Divine Love, the
inevitable test of fellowship with God is that the command-
ment of Love the law of God's own Being--be fulfilled in
them.
"This old commandment, which ye heard from the
beginning, is, nevertheless, a new, fresh, living command-
ment--a fact that is realised first in Christ and then in
you; and of this commandment I once more put you in
remembrance, that ye may assure yourselves thereby that
ye are walking in the true Light which now is shining
in the world."
In the following verses (29-11) we have the application
of the test.
"He that saith he is in the Light, and hateth his brother,
is in the darkness even until now" (29).
The ominous "He that saith" (cf 24.6) points un-
mistakably to the Gnostic, who, glorying in his superior
enlightenment, despised the claims and neglected the duties
of brotherly love. With regard to such an one, the
Apostle, instead of saying "He lies," states the plain,
concrete inference, "He is in the darkness even until
now." The light that does not reveal the obligation and
impart the impulse of love is but a barren phosphorescence.
Even though the true light is now shining, he that lives
in hate walks in darkness; for God, who is Light, is
Love.
"He that loveth his brother abideth in the Light, and
there is no stumbling-block in him" (210). From the con-
nection between the two clauses, it is evident that here the
stumbling-block (ska<ndalon1) is conceived, not as a tempta-
tion that a man puts in another's way (Haupt), but that
in his own disposition, which is a source of temptation to
himself. (Rothe; Westcott characteristically attempts to
1 ska<ndalon. Cf. Ps. 119165 "Great peace have they that love Thy law,
and nothing shall offend them" (ou]k e@stin au]toi?j ska<ndalon, LXX.).
236 The First Epistle of
combine both ideas.) As in broad daylight obstructions
over which one might trip and fall are seen and avoided,
so, if we live in the habitual disposition of Love, we are
not liable to be taken unawares by any temptation to sin
against our brother. Not only does Love remove such
ska<ndala as pride, envy, jealousy, revenge; it is the one
sure light for the path of duty, the one infallible guide in
all our complex relations to our fellow-men. It is because
self-seeking governs men that life becomes so entangled.
Love is that power of moral understanding1 which, almost
with the certainty of instinct, discovers the way through
the maze to those “good works which God hath before
ordained that we should walk in them.” There is nothing
in love to entrap into sin.
On the contrary, "He that hateth his brother is in
the darkness, and walketh in the darkness, and knoweth
not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded2
his eyes" (211).
The antithesis is complete in every item. Towards a
brother, not to love is to hate.3 There is no third
possibility. And he that hateth is ignorant of the
stumbling-blocks that are in him.
His whole moral being and doing are enveloped in
darkness. Without the guiding light of Love, he knoweth
not whither he goeth4—does not perceive the true character
of his own actions. The selfish man is innocent of any
notion that he is selfish; the quarrelsome person thinks
1 The same thought is finely brought out in Phil. 19.10 "And for this I pray,
that your love may abound more and more in knowledge, and in all perception "
(e]pignw<sei kai> pa<s^ ai]sqh<sei).
2 Literally, "blinded " (e]tu<flwsen). v. Notes, in loc.
3 “Ubi non est amor, odium est; cor non est vacuum" (Bengel). To "hate"
expresses, not instinctive dislike, but a state of moral perversion an evil will.
It is thus the opposite of dyairav not of filei?n (Westcott).
4 The clause is almost a verbatim reproduction of John 1235 kai> o[ peripatw?n
e]n t^? skoti<% ou]k oi#den pou? u[pa<gei. Cf. Prov. 419 "The way of the wicked is
as darkness ; they know not at what they stumble." e]n skoti%a oi@xesqai oi$j a}n
tu<xwmen prosptai<ontej, is quoted as a proverb in Lucian, Hermotimus, 49.
The Test of Love 237
that every one is unreasonable except himself; the revenge-
ful, that he is animated only by a proper self-respect.
"His whole life is a continual error." Even if he does
observe that his relation to his brother is somehow out of
joint, he goes on imputing to him all the wrong and the
mischief, the roots of which are really in himself—“Because
the darkness hath blinded his eyes." The penalty of
walking in the darkness is the extinction of vision. The
Word of God is full of this truth.1 He who will not see,
at last cannot.
The thought that gives unity to the second Cycle of
the Epistle is Divine Sonship (229-46); and here, accordingly,
Love is enforced as a test of participation in the Life of
God. In the previous paragraph, to love one's brother is
the proof of having passed from darkness into Light (210),
here, of having passed from death into Life (314) The
paragraph, however, is not so regular in structure, nor
are its contents knit so closely to the leading thought as is
the Writer's wont. But the leading thought itself is clearly
fixed at the beginning, "Whosoever loveth not his brother
is not of God."
Divine Sonship tested by Love.
310b-24a
"Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God,
neither he that loveth not his brother."
Here the first clause sums up the preceding paragraph;
the second unobtrusively effects a transition to the new2
1 Cf. the fontal passage Isa. 610 ; also Matt. 622.23, John 63".
" He that loveth not his brother" (kai> o[ mh> a]gapw?n) in the second clause
may be regarded as a further definition of "whosoever doeth not righteousness "
in the first (kai> ="namely"). "It carries forward to its highest embodiment the
righteousness which man can reach" (Westcott). Love is the fulfilling of the
Law (
acteristic of the Epistle. It is better, therefore, to regard the two clauses as
strictly co-ordinate.
238 The First Epistle of
paragraph and propounds its thesis: "Whosoever loveth
not his brother is not of God." The ultimate ground for
this assertion is, of course, the impossibility of the loveless
soul's having any community of life with God, Who is Love.
This, however, is advanced only in the third cycle (47.8);
and, meanwhile, the Apostle is content to base his argument
upon the primacy of Love, not in the Divine nature, but in
the revelation of the Divine will.
"Whosoever loveth not his brother is not of God. For
this is the message which ye heard from the beginning,
that we love one “another” (311) What was formerly
announced as a "commandment" (27) is here expressed as
a "message."1 “Love one another” is not only a definite
Christian precept (John 1334), it is the sum of Christian
ethics. All that Christ was and did says to men this
one thing, "Love one another" (John 1512.13). This the
Apostle's readers had heard "from the beginning."2 No
one can learn the Gospel at all without learning this.
In what follows, the Apostle, instead of developing his
theme dialectically, does so pictorially. He sets before us
two figures, Cain (312) and Christ (316), as the prototypes
of Hate and Love, and, therefore, of the children of the
Devil and the children of God.
In John 844 the Devil is represented as the "murderer
from the beginning"; but here a more vivid image of
the diabolical spirit is displayed in Cain, the firstborn of
darkness, in whom that spirit, like Minerva from the brain
of Jove, sprang immediately to full growth.
"Not3 as Cain was of the4 evil one, and slew his brother.
And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were
evil, and his brother's righteous" (312).
1 On the identical import of a]ggeli<a in 15, p. 56.
2 Cf. 27.
3 The construction of the clause is elliptical and irregular ; but the meaning
is clear. We are to love one another, and not do as Cain did. Notes, in loc.
4 "Was of the evil one." Cf. 213. 36.10 519.
The Test of Love 239
The word translated "slew" (e@sfacen)1 suggests the
brutality of the deed. But it was not in the manner of the
deed, it was in its astounding motive that the essentially
diabolic spirit of brother-hatred was manifested. This is
brought out by the vivid interrogation and answer:--"And
for what reason was it that he slew his brother? Incred-
ible as it may seem, it was because his brother's works were
righteous, while his own were evil." His brother's works
were righteous, and he, therefore, hated and slew him. The
goodness he refused to emulate was unendurable; it goaded
his self-love to madness. A sentence was surely never
penned that sheds a more horrifying light upon the evil
capability of the human heart. If we did not know as a fact
and an experience the envy "which withers at another's joy
and hates the excellence it cannot reach," it would seem a
thing entirely preposterous a fantasy from some grotesque
nightmare world. Yet, that man can become such a child
of the Devil as to be filled with envy--what is this but
proof that he is made to be the child of God? How
insatiable must the heart be that seeks to allay its thirst
with the wine of Hate
"Marvel not, brethren, if the world hateth you" (313)
This is most simply and logically taken in close connection
with the verse preceding.2 "Cain still lives, and still hates
Abel for his righteousness' sake. The causeless and inex-
plicable hate that the world manifests towards you need
awaken no surprise. You are to it what Abel was to
Cain. It hates you because its works are evil and yours
are righteous" (cf. John 1518. 20)
"We know3 that we have passed from death into
1 e@sfacen, "butchered." Originally, the word meant to "kill by cutting the
throat," and the idea conveyed by it is always that of brutal slaughter. In the
N.T. it is found only here and in the Apocalypse. Cf. sfagh<, Rom. 836, Jas. 55.
2 v. Notes, in loc.
3 h[mei?j oi@damen. h[mei?j is emphatic in itself and also by position, "As regards
ourselves, we know."
240 The First Epistle of
life,1 because we love the brethren. He that loveth not
abideth in death" (314).
The primary stress of the sentence falls upon the
emphatic "We know."
As Cain, because he was of the evil one, hated and
slew his brother, whose works were righteous, and as the
world, because it is subject to the evil one (519), still
hates the children of God; so, on the contrary, the proof
that we are begotten of a different spirit--that we have
passed from death into life—is that we love the children
of God--"the brethren." The point of immediate emphasis
is not that "we have passed from death into life" (though
this also is necessarily emphatic), but that the test by which
this is ascertained in our own case, is love to the brethren.2
"We have passed from death into life because we
love," contains a profound truth. "The life which is the
highest good is that which enters with ever quick and
fresh responsiveness into the personal relationships in
which our humanity is realised" (Newman Smyth). By
Love the soul lives and grows. Selfishness spends for the
poorest returns the noblest capacities of human nature.
The gold it lays its hands upon turns to dross; the flower
it plucks withers. Love alone discovers and possesses the
highest good that is in all things human and Divine. It
has the magic wand that changes even dross into fine
gold. To love the least of our brethren is to enrich
the soul from the treasury of God. To love is to live.3
"He that loveth not abideth in death." The statement
is more than simply antithetic to what precedes. There
is no clearer proof of the great transition from life to
death than love of the brethren; but the absence of
such love is not only the absence of such proof, it is
1 "Have passed from death into life." v. supra, pp. 191-2.
2 For a different view of the sequence of thought, v. Notes, in loc.
3 In the same spirit as
brother, hut himself (Plummer).
The Test of Love 241
proof that the transition has not taken place. This
strong, severe statement is defended and confirmed in
the verse following, "Whosoever hateth his brother is
a murderer; and ye know that no murderer hath eternal
life abiding in him." Here the "not loving" of the pre-
ceding verse becomes "hate" (cf. 210. 11) In the absence
of Love, Hate is always potentially present. "We
often reckon want of love as mere indifference. But
such it is only while there is no rivalry or collision of
interests. As soon as this occurs indifference reveals its
true character; it becomes actual hate" (Rothe). You have
but to irritate a man's self-love, to render yourself disagree-
able to him ; and, if there be no love in him toward you,
there will presently be hate. "And every one that hateth
his brother is a murderer." The proposition is stated as
one of inherent necessity. (pa?j o[ misw?n) "Hates any
man the thing he would not kill? "Literally, of course,
this is not true. Many hate who do not commit murder,
nay, for whom the desire or dream of doing so is
beyond the limit of the imaginable. Yet, morally, the
proposition is true; not merely because hate is the invari-
able precursor of murder, but because both reveal essentially
the same moral attitude, and differ from peach other only
as a mild differs from a virulent attack of the same
malady, or as a homicidal maniac under restraint differs
from the same maniac at large. In actual manifestation,
hate may proceed no further than the feeling of a certain
satisfaction in the discovery or report of what redounds
to the hated person's discredit; but let hate be released
from all the adventitious restraints of circumstance, of the
conventional morality which sanctions hate but forbids
overt injury, of the sensibilities engendered by civilised
life, to which bloodshed or violence is resthetically
abhorrent; let hate act out its spontaneous impulses, and
infallibly it would--as with the savage or the tyrant
242 The First Epistle of
it does--kill.1 In spite of seeming exaggeration, it is a
profoundly true moral judgment--"He that hateth his
brother is a murderer." A fortiori is this true of the man,
if such there be, who hates the brother beside whom, as he
at least imagines, he lies in the bosom of the same Divine
Love. "And ye know that no murderer hath eternal life
abiding in him." Comment is unnecessary. The word trans-
lated "ye know" (oi@date)2 signifies that the matter- requires
neither demonstration nor even reflection (cf. Rev. 218).
So stringent, so inevitable, in its negative aspect, is the
test of Love.
The development of the subject that now follows
(316-18) differs in two respects from that which has
preceded. The presentation, which thus far has been
negative, becomes positive Hate as personified by Cain
gives place to Love as personified by Christ (316). And
the test, which thus far has been applied in the abstract,
is now brought closer to the facts of life (317.18)
"In this, that He s laid down His life4 for us, have we
learned what Love is, and we ought to lay down our lives
for the brethren" (316). Virtues are best illustrated by their
contraries; and now we discover that the sinister figure of
Cain has been introduced only the more perfectly to
reveal the glory of Another Who is fairer than all the
children of men. Cain sacrificed his brother's life to his
1 "Of the million or two, more or less
I rule and possess,
One man, for some cause undefined,
was least to my mind.
I struck him, he grovelled, of course—
For, what was his force?
I pinned him to earth with my weight
And persistence of hate . . .
. . . I soberly laid my last plan
To extinguish the man."
Browning, Instans Tyrannus.
2 kai> oi@date. v. special note on ginw<skein and ei]de<nai.
3 "He," e]kei?noj=Christ. v. supra, p. 89. 4 v. supra, p. 159.
The Test of Love 243
own wounded self-love; Christ sacrificed His own life in
love to His brethren. Cain slew his brother because his
own works were evil and his brother's righteous;
Christ's works were righteous and His brethren's evil,
yet He took on Himself the burden of their evil deeds,
and laid down His sinless life for their sakes. And every
man belongs to the brotherhood either of Cain or of Christ.
"In this we have learned to know1 what Love is " (316a)
The fine point of the statement is lost by the insertion of
any supplement—"of God" or "of Christ"--after "Love."
This--this devotion of Jesus Christ to sinful men—is
Love ; and in this we have for the first time recognised
what deserves the name. "And we ought to lay down
our lives for the brethren " (316b) We lay claim to
Love. What the nature of Love truly is, we have learned
by this, that He laid down His life for us. And Love
must reproduce in us what it was and did in Him. If we
have, so to say, a drop of the blood of Jesus Christ in our
veins, we are under bond and pledge (o]fei<lomen),3 whensoever
the call comes to us, to manifest our Love in the same way
of uttermost sacrifice. For, though to think of Christ's
Love to us, and then to think after what fashion it may be
repeated in our relations to our fellow-men, is to compare
the infinite with the infinitesimal--the sun with a flickering
candle; yet, as light is light whether in the candle or the
sun, as it has the same properties and the same laws of action,
so Love is Love whether in Christ or in us. Our lives
must exhibit the same properties, obey the same spiritual
laws, must be built upon the same ground-plan, as that Life of
which the Cross was the perfect expression. This is the test
of our union with Him and of our Divine sonship in Him.
1 e]gnw<kamen =have recognised, learned to know. th>n a]ga<phn=Love in its
essence, what Love is.
2 The same necessity that the life of Christ be reproduced in us has already
been asserted with regard to Righteousness (26 and 34).
3 Cf. 26.
244 The First Epistle of
But, though this obligation to lay down our lives for
the brethren ever rests upon us, though our lives are
mortgaged to this extent, opportunity for a full discharge
of this obligation rarely comes (and, necessarily, it cannot
yet have come to any living man, unless he have proved a
recreant). And we must, above all, beware of crediting to
ourselves as Love what is but the mouthing of well-
sounding phrases, the play of the imagination upon lofty
ideals, or the thrill of merely emotional sympathies. This
is a danger which besets Christianity, most, perhaps, of all
religions. Its ideals are so sublime, the emotions they
awaken are so lofty and satisfying, that we are apt to
regard our appreciation of those ideals and our susceptibility
to those emotions as entitling us to a high place in the
moral scale—to feel as if we had paid every debt to Love
when we have praised its beauty, felt its charm, and ex-
perienced its sentiment. There needs some homelier test
of Christian Love than the laying down of life.
"But whoso bath the world's goods, and beholdeth his
brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him,
how doth the Love of God abide in him? (317). The word
"beholdeth " (qewr^?) implies, not a casual glimpse, but a
more or less prolonged view. The case supposed is that
the rich brother's sympathy is naturally drawn out by the
spectacle of his poor brother's necessitous condition, but,
when sympathy is on the point of becoming an impulse
to action, the thought of the price in "the world's goods"
causes him suddenly to call it back and, as it were, turn the
key (klei<s^) upon it. Then, with vivid and even con-
temptuous interrogation, the niggard is held up before our
eyes—“In what fashion does the Love of God dwell1 in
1 "How dwelleth . . . ?" (pw?j . . . me<nei). Neither here nor in does
me<nei contain the idea that the person contemplated is a backslider in whom
the Love of God has formerly been, but is not now, abiding (Haupt, Rothe).
Cf. John 538 kai> to<n lo<gon au]tou? ou]k e@xete e]n u[mi?n me<nonta, where a previous
indwelling is excluded hy the context.
The Test of Love 245
"such a man1 as that?" By the "Love of God" we are
to understand neither the love of God to us (Rothe, "How
can God do otherwise than turn away His love from such
a man?") nor our love to God (Huther, Haupt), but the
Love which is the nature of God, which He has mani-
fested toward us in Christ (316), and in the possession of
which consists our community of nature with Him.2 To
have "the Love of God abiding in us" is equivalent to
having "Eternal Life abiding" in us (315), to being
"begotten of God" (47) and to having God Himself
"abiding in us" (412.16).
The Apostle next sums up the paragraph with an affec-
tionate exhortation to the practice of the truth which has
been elucidated (318) and a restatement of its reality as a
test of our Divine sonship (319. 30)
"Little children, let us not love in word, neither in
tongue; but in deed and in truth" (318)3 It is true, of
course, that "words" are sometimes the best "deeds" of
Love; and also that, as
may be "deeds" without the "truth" of Love.
is content to put the contrast broadly and strongly (cf.
Jas. 215. 16)
"And by this shall we recognise that we are of the
truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him, whereinsoever
our heart condemn us; because God is greater than our
heart, and knoweth all things" (319. 20).
This statement seems to resile from the settled
certainty asserted in 314. "We know that we have
passed from death into life, because we love the
brethren." But this knowledge must still be sustained
by the testing fact--that "we love the brethren"; and
how this testing fact is to be established has just been
shown (318). The future tense, "we shall recognise "
1 e]n au]t&?, emphatic by position. 2 Cf. 25. v. supra, p. 212.
3 v. Notes, in loc.
246 The First Epistle of
(gnwso<meqa), points not to the future fulfilment of the con-
ditions laid down in 318 (Westcott),—that, of course,
is assumed,—but to the future possibility of some shadow
falling upon the clear mirror of the soul, as when our
own heart condemns us. Even then, if we have loved "in
deed and in truth" we shall recognise by its proper
marks the fact that our lives are, in their measure, an
expression of that Divine Truth of which Christ is Himself
the full embodiment (cf. John 146 1837). But this verse
and those that follow (319-22), in which the effect of Love in
"deed and in truth" upon the consciousness of our relation
to God is exhibited, will come under consideration in a later
chapter. We proceed, therefore, to the third Cycle of the
Epistle. Here the place of primacy, which in the first and
second Cycles is held by Righteousness, is given to Love.
Love the Test of
47-12.
In the first Cycle, Love has been exhibited as the great
" commandment " of the Christian Life (27.8). In the
second, it is regarded as the sign and test of Divine
sonship (310b. 14. 17); but this, though assumed, has not
been clearly grounded. That the life begotten of God is
essentially a life of Righteousness has been expressly
deduced from the nature of God:--If ye know that He is
righteous, know that every one also that doeth Righteous-
ness is begotten of Him " (229). But no parallel state-
ment has hitherto been made with regard to Love; and it
is this development of the subject, therefore, that occupies
the present paragraph. Here the Epistle rises to its
sublimest height. It is impossible to conceive that the
theme which is the ethical heart of Christianity could be
more nobly enshrined than in these few sentences of gold
pure and unadorned. Brief as the paragraph is, it is
The Test of Love 247
worthy to be set beside the Prologue to the hourth Gospel,
as the loftiest that man has ever been inspired to indite.
"Beloved, let us love one another, because Love is of
God " (47a). Again the prefatory "beloved" (cf. 27) reveals
how warmly the Apostle's affections are stirred towards his
readers by his thought of the truth he is about to declare
(cf. 27). It urgently commends to their thought the " old
commandment,"--an exhortation so familiar that it might
be in danger of being accepted and neglected as a truism.
"Let us love . . . because Love is of God." This, as
has been said, is a new connection of ideas. It has been
implied, but not hitherto expressed.
Up to this point Love has been regarded as duty rather
than as disposition (27. 8 323). The duty of active Love
has been urged as indispensable to "walking in the Light"
(210), as an obligation bound upon the Christian by the
example of Christ (316), and as a tangible proof that we
are "of the truth" (319). But now the deeper underlying
thought, "Love is of God," reveals a deeper motive for
the duty, "let us love." Let us express in word and deed
the Divine nature which is ours—let us cultivate the
disposition of Love and bring forth its fruits. Thus the
verse emphasises equally the Divine source of Love and its
manifestation in human activity.1 The "exceeding great-
ness of His power toward us who believe "does not super-
sede, but only heightens the power of volition (Phil. 212. 13).
Therefore, "let us love one another, because Love is of
God."
"And every one that loveth is begotten of God, and
knoweth God " (47b). The redemptive relation to God is
here presented in its double aspect as the being "begotten
of God," and as "knowing God"2 (cf. 23.4 46, John 173).
1 The urgent imperative, "Beloved, let us love one another," is, therefore, to
be given its full force, and is not to be regarded merely as an introductory
formula (Haupt) or as a resumption of 323 (Weiss).
2 v. Chapter IV. pp. 62-63.
248 The First Epistle of
And as the reality of this has been already tested, in both
aspects, by Righteousness and Belief (the Divine Begetting
by Righteousness, 229, by Belief, 42.3; the knowledge of
God by Righteousness, 22. 3, by Belief, 46), so now it is sub-
jected, in both aspects, to the test of Love. The inter-rela-
tion of these terms--"loving" "begotten of God," "know-
ing God"—has been variously1 construed. But it is quite
clear that the relation of "loving" to each of the other two
is that of the test to the thing tested. Love is the test,
because the invariable consequence of the Divine Begetting.
Love is the test of the knowledge of God, either because it
is its invariable consequence, or because it is its indispens-
able condition. We may say that only he who loveth
knoweth God, because like is known only by like. Love is
the organ of spiritual insight--the Divine in us which
enables us to apprehend the Divine (29.11). But it is
equally true that Love is the effect and, therefore, the test
of all true knowledge of God. We may choose either form
of the argument, or adopt both. The resulting truth is that
every one who lives the life of Love has therein the realisa-
tion of the fact that he has been made partaker of the
nature of God, and that he has a continuous and progressive
perception (ginw<skei) of what God's nature is.
On the contrary, "He that loveth not has no knowledge
of God, because God is Love" (48). Here the negation is
heightened in proportion as the affirmation is strengthened.
It was said of "every one that loveth" that he has a con-
tinuous perception of what God is (ginw<skei); but what is said
of him "that loveth not" is that he has never had any per-
ception of God at all (ou]k e@gnw).2 The reason is that God is
1 v. Notes, in loc.
2 The R.V. is curiously inconsistent in its translation of e@gnwn. In John
163 "have not known"; in John 1725 "knew"; here "knoweth." Here
the sense is perfective, but this may be rendered in English by the simple past
tense, as in Greek by the aorist. "I never knew such a man" is good colloquial
English for "I have never known such a man." So here we might translate,
"Be that loveth not never knew God."
The Test of Love 249
Love. There is nothing in Him that is not Love. Other-
wise it might be claimed for "him that loveth not" that he
has some perception of God, though not of His love. But
God is Love; and the blindness of the unloving is un-
broken by a single gleam.
The exposition of the next two verses has been given
in an earlier chapter.1 Here, it is enough to indicate their
place in the sequence of thought. The first (49) is closely
linked to the idea of knowledge; the second (410), to the
idea of Love. Begotten of God and loving one another, we
have the faculty for spiritually apprehending the nature of
God, Who is Love. But wherein is God fully revealed for
our apprehension? "Herein was the Love of God mani-
fested toward us, that God hath sent His Only-Begotten Son
into the world that we might live through Him." And
what is the essence of this manifestation, the nature of the
Love thus revealed? "Herein is Love, not that we loved
God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son as a propitia-
tion for our sins."
From this sublime contemplation of the Divine Love,
the Apostle returns to his main theme. "Beloved, if God
loved us, we also are bound2 to love one another" (411). If
it was thus that God loved us, if His love was so transcend-
ently great, and so independent of all worthiness or attract-
iveness in us that our very sinfulness became the occasion
of its supreme activity: then we, if we are partakers of
His nature, are bound,—for us it is a moral necessity--to
love even as He loved (cf. Matt. 543-48 John 1334). But
by what is this debt to be paid? The answer to this
question is highly significant. Instead of the anticipated
"We ought to love God," it is "We ought to love one an-
other"; and why it must be so is immediately explained.
"God (in Himself) no man hath ever seen; if we love
one another, God abideth in us, and His Love is perfected
1 v. supra, pp. 73-77. 2 o]fei<lomen, stronger than dei?; cf. 26 316.
250 The First Epistle of
in us" (412) God is invisible.1 We cannot directly do Him
any good. We can make no sacrifice for His immediate
benefit. He has no need of our help. We cannot give to
Him, but can only receive from Him blessings upon
blessings, numberless as the sand of the shore. We
cannot, in short, love God after the same fashion in which
He has loved us. Yet, if we are "begotten of God" we
have in us the same nature of Love that He has manifested
toward us in Christ. And there is provision by which this
nature may be manifested and exercised in us. "If we love
one another God dwelleth in us, and His Love is perfected
in us."
If we have the Love2 that is not merely liking for the
likeable, admiration for the admirable, gratitude to the
generous—Love whose will to bless men is undeterred by
demerit or unattractiveness, that bears another's burden,
dries another's tears, forgives injuries, overcomes evil with
good,—Love which is prompt to help those who need
our help (hoping for nothing again), instead of those who
need it not (hoping for much in return)--then the Love
that manifests itself in us is that Divine kind of love which
is most worthy of the name; yea, it is God Himself within
us, acting out His Life in ours. It is His Love that is "ful-
filled"3 (tetelei<wtai) in us. Thus the end of the paragraph
answers to the beginning. The Apostle's exhortation and
its ultimate ground are: "Beloved, let us love another--If
we love one another, the Love of God is perfected in us."
The same theme is resumed and developed in the
final paragraph on Love (420-53a) 4
In all that has been said, the necessity and the
sufficiency of Love as a test of genuine Christianity have
1 Almost all the commentators, I have to admit, take a quite different view
of the sense of this verse. v. Notes, in loc. The exposition I have given agrees
in some measure with Rothe's.
2 v. supra, pp. 75-77. 3 v. infra, pp. 236-7.
4 On 418.19. v infra, pp. 233-95.
The Test of Love 251
been established. But before leaving the subject the
Apostle will once more remind us of the tests by which
Love itself is to be recognised as genuine (cf. 316-18)
These are found, first, in its action towards our fellow-men
(420—51) ; and, secondly, in its moral integrity (52.3a).
Love of God tested by Love to Man.
420- 51.
"If any man say,1 I love God, and hateth2 his brother, he
is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath
seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen " (420).
The argument is, at first sight, one which it is difficult
to maintain. For, while it is true that visibility and
neighbourhood conduce to love, that "If the object to be
loved incites to love by the immediate impression it makes
upon us, love is easier than when we have no sensuous
perception of it at all" (Rothe, so also Huther and Weiss);
it is no less true that the impression made may be such as
by no means to incite to love. To love my brother may
be to love one in whom there is little that is amiable, one,
perhaps, who has done me grievous wrong; to love God is
to love Him Who first loved me, Who has forgiven me a
thousand wrongs, Who is Himself all that is glorious,
beautiful, and good. The Apostle must not be held guilty
of making a statement so preposterous as that it is easier
to love such a brother, because he is visible, than to love
God, since He is invisible. The truth is that this inter-
pretation is based on an erroneous notion of what, in the
1 "If any man say." Cf. "If we say" (is); "He that saith" (24.6.9).
"Saying" is, throughout, the writer's target.
2 As always,
Hate. See on 29 and 315 supra.
3 Calvin, Ebrard, and Westcott understand "brother" as signifying what
is Godlike in man. If we do not love the image of God in our brother, we
cannot love God Himself. Cf. Jas. 39. This thought, however, is given in 51,
not here.
252 The First Epistle of
mind of
stand for a passive emotion awakened by the impression
that others make upon us. It is an active principle, a
determination of the will to do good, the highest good
possible, to its object.1 This being borne in mind, the
argument here is both intelligible and absolutely cogent.
It is, in fact, the same argument, in more explicit form, as
we have already found in 412. Visibility and invisibility
signify the presence or absence, not of attraction or
incitement to love, but of opportunity for loving. Your
brother is in sight; and when you will you may do him
good. But God is invisible; your beneficence, your
sympathy, cannot reach unto Him Who is the bearer of all
burdens, the giver of all good gifts (cf. Ps. 509-12, Matt.
2611). In the nature of the case there is no other medium
through which our love to God, who first loved us, can be
realised than by loving our brother, especially if he have not
first loved us.
It is now asserted, moreover, that our relation to our
brother is ordained for this very end. "And this command-
ment have we from Him, that he who loveth God love his
brother also" (421). The first reason why love to God is
necessarily realised in love to men is the consideration of
opportunity (420). The second is the express revealment of
the Divine purpose for man. The ultimate end for which
all social relations exist is that they may be, so to say, the
arteries through which the Divine Life of Love shall flow.
In the following verse a third reason is adduced--
affinity of nature. The commandment that "He who
loveth God love his brother also" is based on the deep
universal law of kinship. "Whosoever believeth that
Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever
loveth Him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of
Him" (51). Here the first2 clause is strictly introductory
1 v. supra, p. 77. 2 On the first clause, see infra, p. 270.
The Test of Love 253
to the second. The statement, "Whosoever believeth that
Jesus is Christ is begotten of God," is made only in order
to define the persons to whom the brotherly love of
Christians is due, and the grounds on which it is due. In
opposition to Gnostic exclusiveness it claims for all believers
the full measure of brotherly love; and it does so, because
all are children of the One Father--"Every one that
loveth Him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of
Him."
He who loves the parent who is the source of his own
life, must love those whose life is derived from the same
origin. Fraternal love follows by psychological necessity
from filial love. He that is "begotten of God" cannot
but love those who share with him the life that unites men
in their deepest convictions, dispositions, aspirations, and
hopes.
Love tested by Righteousness.
52.3a
In the next brief sub-section, containing the Apostle's
last word on this theme, Love, whether towards God or
towards man, is finally tested by Righteousness.1 Genuine
Love must be holy. "Herein we know (recognise) that
we love the children of God, when we love God and do
His commandments" (52). This is a verse the great
significance of which is apt to be overlooked. Its state-
ment of the necessary relation of love to God and love to
man is the exact converse of that which is given in the
preceding verses. There it has been shown that by a
threefold necessity--necessity of opportunity (420), of
obedience to express ordinance of the Divine Will (421),
of the instincts of spiritual kinship (51)—love to God
1 The correlation of Love with Righteousness has been suggested by simple
collocation of the ideas in 310 and in 322.23. Here the bonds are drawn closer.
v.
254 The First Epistle of
can only realise itself in love to man. Here, on the other
hand, it is maintained that love to man is truly love only
when it is rooted in and governed by love to God. Piety
without philanthropy is unreal; philanthropy without
piety may be immoral--may instead of a fish give a
serpent,--at best, it is impotent to bestow the highest
good, and instead of bread gives a stone. It is a great
ethical principle that St. John here enunciates. We
cannot truly bless our fellow-men,—unless in our personal.
lives we follow after the highest good--"love God and do
His commandments." The man who does many generous
actions but lives a licentious or an impious life does, upon.
the whole, more, and more enduring harm than good. The
philosophy of doing good is, first of all and principally to
have a character that will of itself communicate good."
The love of Christ had its supreme activity, not in His
feeding the hungry or giving sight to the blind, but in
this—"For their sakes I consecrate Myself, that they also
may consecrate themselves" (John 1719). The highest
service that any man can render to humanity is to "love
God and keep His commandments."
"For this is the Love of God,1 that we keep His
commandments" (53a). The Apostle re-echoes his Master's
words (John 1415.21) in asserting that to speak of a love
to God that does not essentially signify moral integrity is
to speak of what does not and cannot exist. To love
God is not only a motive impelling to obedience; it is, in
itself, assimilation to the Divine. To love God is to love;
all that is of "righteousness and true holiness." It has no
other meaning than this.
Thus it has been shown that from love to God there
1 In 25 probably, and in 412 certainly, "the love of God" is a true possessive
(= the love that is God's own), Here unmistakably it is a genitive of the
object (= our love to God).
The Test of Love 255
necessarily issue both love to our brother (51) and moral
integrity (52.3a). Hence also it follows that neither of
these can genuinely exist without the other (cf. 310). "By
this we recognise that we love the children of God, when
we love God and keep His commandments" (52). This is
the Apostle's last word on Love.
Of the various themes which are so wonderfully inter-
twined in the Epistle, that to which it most of all owes its
imperishable value and unfading charm is Love. There
are portions of it that are seldom read and more seldom
expounded in our churches; but there are few passages of
Scripture more familiar than those in which
been so divinely inspired to write of the Eternal Life, in
God and in man, as Love. This is due to nothing concrete
or dramatic in the presentation; and insistent as he is that
Love is essentially a practical energy, yet as an exponent of
the practical implications of Love he does not come into
competition with
that is comparable to the thirteenth chapter of First
Corinthians, with its delicate analysis, or to the twelfth
chapter of Romans, with its masterly exposition of the
manifold applications of the New Commandment to the
actual relations of life. On the other hand,
development of the theme, according to his peculiar genius
and for his special purpose, is unapproachable and final.
He has demonstrated from every point of view that Chris-
tianity without Love is a contradiction in terms. Do we
think of the Christian life as a walking in that Light which
is the self-revelation of God, then the central ray of that
Revelation is Love; and to walk in Light is to walk in
Love. Do we think of it as that Life of which Christ is
the Archetype and Mediator, then His spirit of absolute
self-surrender must be reproduced in it. Do we think of it
as participation in the Divine Nature itself, then God is
Love, and every one that loveth, and none else, abideth in
256 The First Epistle of
God and God in Him. Finally, would we be assured that
that Love which is the nature of God is operative in us,
then this must be made manifest in our conduct toward
our fellow-men.
But it is just here that a feature emerges in which
circumscribed and defective--its rigid limitation to the
love of Christians toward their fellow-Christians. The
urgency with which every argument and plea is plied to
enforce love to our "brother," to the "children of God,"
only makes the fact more glaring, that from first to last
there is not the suggestion of an outlook beyond the
Christian community. By the modern reader this limita-
tion is scarcely noticed, for we instinctively give the widest
scope to the language used, and interpret our "brother" as
our fellow-man. But by the exegete the fact has to be
recognised that, in the teaching of the Epistle, there is no
hint that h[ a]ga<ph—the Love that is the replica in man of
the Love of God--is due from us to any other than our
fellow-Christian. The point is one that has received little
consideration. It is not enough to say that it is "only
through the recognition of the relation to Christ that the
larger relation is at last apprehended" (Westcott). How
shall we explain the absence of anything to indicate that
the larger relation has been at all apprehended by the
Writer? Or, again, if all that can be said is that "other
members of the human race are not excluded, they are not
under consideration" (Plummer), it must be admitted that,
in point of Christian insight, the Epistle lags far behind
the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Nor is it inconceivable
that this should be the case. But as we have found, I
hope, a key to some of the perplexities of the Epistle
regarding its doctrine of Righteousness in its immediate
polemical purpose, it is from the same quarter, probably,
that we must seek Light upon the present difficulty. For
The Test of Love 257
it must be observed that it is exclusively as a test, that the
idea of Love is employed in the Epistle. Even when the
utterance is most positive and hortatory, the underlying
thought is that of the test supplied by the obligation enforced.
And if we think of the circumstances of a Christian commun-
ity in the Apostolic age, it is very evident that the most
immediate, practicable, and certain test of Christian Love
was to be found, not in its widest extension, but in the
sphere of its most definite and obvious obligation. This
difference of purpose must be allowed for in comparing the
teaching of the Epistle with our Lord's great parable. There,
He holds up to us the Samaritan as a pattern of the Love
that makes neighbours, and says, "Go and do likewise." Here,
of the lovelessness that declines the claims even of brother-
hood, and says: "If you can thus shut up the bowels of
your compassion from a needy brother, you are a Christian
only in name" (317). And even this he does with direct
polemical aim. He is striking, not at a universal tendency,
but at a special manifestation of that tendency. As has
been shown in a previous chapter,1 the utterances of the
Epistle regarding Love are as directly anti-Gnostic in their
aim as those regarding Righteousness and Belief. The
task thrust upon the writer was not to urge the truth,
"Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto," but to insist,
in view of the arrogant and loveless2 intellectualism of the
Gnostic character, that Love is of the essence of the God-
begotten Life; and, in view of its esoteric and separatist
tendencies, that Christian Love must be extended to the
whole Body of Christ--must comprehend without distinction
all the children of God.
1 v. supra, pp. 30, 31.
2 v. quotation from Ignatius, p. 30 (footnote).
CHAPTER XIII.
THE TEST OF BELIEF.
ONE peculiarity of the Johannine vocabulary is the fre-
quency1 with which the verb pisteu<ein appears in it; and
another is that, in contrast with the usage of other New
Testament writers, the object of this verb is much more
commonly a fact or a proposition than a person, and that
consequently the result of its action is to be expressed in
English by the word Belief rather than Faith or Trust.2
Thus the Epistle speaks only once of "believing in" Christ3
(o[ pisteu<wn ei]j to>n ui[o>n tou? qeou?, 510); whereas in other
passages the object of belief is a truth concerning Him, as
that He is the Christ (51) or the Son of God (55); or a
testimony (God's, 510; a spirit's, 41); or a fact of the
spiritual order, such as the "love which God hath towards
us" (416). This does not signify that the personal Christ
has been in any degree supplanted by Christology; it only
reveals the fact that the writer uses a phraseology and
a mode of thought peculiar to himself. If
"That life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the
faith which is in the Son of God" (Gal. 220),
expresses the same truth when he writes, "And now
little children, abide in Him" (225), or "Our fellowship is
1 The Johannine writings furnish more than a half of the whole occurrences
in the N.T. of pisteu<ein (57 out of 100). Singularly, the cognate name pi<stij
is found only once (1 John 54). This avoidance of pi<stij may have been due
to the fact that it was already finding a place in the terminology of Gnosticism.
2 See special note on pisteu<ein appended to this chapter.
3 Elsewhere, of "believing in His Name" (ei]j to> o@noma, 513; t&? o]no<mati, 323).
258
The Test of Belief 259
with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ" (13).
The fact remains, however, that with him, "believing"
denotes less frequently the action of the will in trust and
self-committal, more frequently the perception of a truth
or the crediting of a testimony which is the prerequisite
to such action; less frequently a direct personal relation
to Christ, more frequently a theological conception of
Christ. And thus, to the modern reader, with whom
credal interests are apt to be at a discount, the tone of the
Epistle, in some of its utterances, may appear to be unduly
or even harshly dogmatic.
In estimating this dogmatism, however, we must take
into account several explanatory--I do not say, modifying
--factors.
(a) In the Epistle the writer reveals himself as one
whose mind is dominated, in an exceptional degree, by the
idea of Truth. To him Christianity is not only a principle
of ethics or even a way of salvation; it is both of these,
because it is, primarily, the Truth—the one true disclosure,
without a competitor,l of the realities of the spiritual and
eternal world. The adjective a]lhqino<j,2 describing that
which both ideally and really corresponds to the name it
bears, and the substantive a]lh<qeia, denoting the reality
of things sub specie aeternitatis, are conspicuous expressions
of Johannine thought. The light of the Gospel is the "true
light" (to> fw?j to> a]lhqino<n, 28), no dim symbolic light
like that of the Old Testament, no illusory phosphorescence,
like Gnostic speculation, but the light of the Eternal Mind
shining out in Christ upon every object in the spiritual
world. The God revealed in Christ is the "true God"
1 "
truth, or even more truth than any religion which had preceded it.
presents Christianity to the soul as a religion which must be everything to it, if
it is not to be really worse than nothing" (Liddon).
2 to>n mo<non a]lhqino>n qeo<n (John 173); to> fw?j to> a]lhqino<n (19); to>n a@rton to>n
a]lhqino<n (632); h[ a@mpeloj h[ a]lhqinh<; (151); o[ a!gioj o[ a]lhqino<j (Rev. 37).
260 The First Epistle of
(o[ a]lhqino>j qeo<j, 520), the God who is, and who is all
that God ought ideally to be; or, again, He is simply the
"True" (o[ a]lhqino<j, 520), the ultimate eternal Reality.
No words are more characteristic of
"No lie is of the truth" (221). Everywhere we find the
same rigorous sense of reality, the same insistence upon
the primary necessity of squaring conduct with facts---of
"doing the truth" (16); and, in order to this, of knowing,
believing, and confessing the great facts in which all true
life is rooted. A mind like
is the only real, and by which every matter of practice is
so clearly seen in the light of its ultimate principles and
issues, necessarily lays a weighty emphasis upon Belief,
and displays an intense dread and hatred of error. "No
lie is of the truth." Truth and untruth cannot blend.
They have no common factor; they are opposite in origin
and issue. Whatever be the subject in question the
"truth" concerning it is one, and is the sole path by seeing
and following which we are "made free" (John 832)--are
brought into saving contact with the universe of realities.
(b) In the Epistle this idiosyncrasy has its edge
sharpened by the controversial situation. If the writer is
vehement in his denunciation of all teaching that subverts
the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation, it is because
this doctrine is in his conviction the centre and compendium
of all Truth.1 Nor is this dogmatic attitude one that
stands in need of apology. It is true that "the Gospel
centres in a Person and not in any truth, even the greatest
about that Person" (Westcott). But it is true also that
the Gospel cannot consist merely in the narrative of a life
and the delineation of a character, apart from the question
who the Person is whose life is narrated and whose
character is pictured. A creedless or merely biographical
1 As to the practical significance attached by
see Chapter VI.
The Test of Belief 261
Gospel is impossible. The boldest humanitarian, no less
than the fullest Trinitarian, conception of Christ implies a
creed. The picture of the historical Jesus has one signi-
ficance, if we can say--That is the ideal man; another, if
we can say—That is very God; still another, if we can
say--That is at once the true God and the true man. But
unless we can say one or other of these things about
Jesus, His personality remains only a picture or a dream;
our knowledge of Him is reduced to that of a mere
phenomenon, standing in no known relation to the facts
of life; and no Gospel of any kind can centre in Him.
But it has been only in process of time, and chiefly under
the stimulus of conflict with antichristian or defectively
Christian estimates of the significance of Christ, that
Christian Faith has become conscious of its own intellectual
contents. In the first generation it had instinctively given to
Christ the significance of true God and true man; but now,
as Hellenic speculation and Oriental theosophy sought to
draw it into their own strangely blended currents and to
assimilate it to their peculiar genius, Christian Faith was
compelled to realise the implications of its own conscious-
ness of Christ, and, in repudiating the fantastic eidolon
that Gnosticism substituted for the Christ of the Gospel, to
develop and formulate those "beliefs" about Christ which,
from the first, were implicit in its "believing in" him. This
was the especial task of the Johannine Theology; and this
explains in part the stringent dogmatic tone of the Epistle.
(c) But there is still another factor to be kept in view,—
the most important of all in estimating
tion of Belief and the emphasis he lays upon it,--Belief is
the touchstone of spiritual life. Belief in itself is an intel-
lectual judgment regarding the truth of a proposition; yet
Christian Belief is essentially more than this. It is an act
of the intellect which has moral and spiritual presuppositions,
which is the response not of the reasoning faculty alone, but
262 The First Epistle of
of the whole moral personality, to the data presented. It
is not belief under coercion of logical proof; it has its
deeper source in the spiritual perception of spiritual realities.
Such perception is ultimately a power bestowed by the
Divine Begetting (51)--a function of the Divine Life
therein imparted. Yet it is conditioned also by moral
sincerity—the will to do the will of God (John 7 17). Thus
Belief is the subject of commandment: “This is His
commandment, That we should believe on the name of
His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave
us commandment" (323). No more than Christian Love
is a merely instinctive or passive emotion, is Christian
Belief a matter either of sheer intellectual compulsion or
of involuntary impulse. It is the gift and the work of
God (Eph. 28, John 644); at the same time it is a work
of man (John 629)—the work in which self-determining
will at its highest is displayed (John 540 717)
218-28.
The paragraph in the first Cycle of the Epistle in which
the subject of Belief is treated is 218-28 The chief interest
this paragraph has for us lies in its exposition both of the
content and the basis of Christian belief; and these topics
have been dealt with in preceding chapters) But it must
not be overlooked that the writer's purpose is not exposi-
tion; his interest is wholly in the practical application of
his cardinal doctrine as the decisive test of Christian and
antichristian tendencies. The warmth of his indignation
breaks out in such an abrupt and peremptory interrogation
as, "Who is the liar, but he that denieth Jesus is the
Christ?" (222). There are many lies and many liars; but
he who utters this lie is the liar. To
perception of Jesus as the Christ, the Divine Redeemer,
1 v. supra, pp. 93. 111-116. Regarding the "antichrists,” v. infra,
pp. 318-324.
The Test of Belief 263
is the ultimate certainty; and he cannot conceive that any
one should be able to deny this truth, unless he has, at
the same time, lost all sense of truth whatsoever.
But the passage which chiefly demands our attention
in this chapter is the important paragraph in the second
Cycle of the Epistle.
324b-46.
Comparing this with the corresponding paragraph
218-28, we find that the Apostle is by no means covering
the same ground a second time.
Here we are confronted by the phenomenon of false as
well as of true inspiration; and while in the former paragraph
the Spirit of Truth was seen to be the source and guarantee
of the True Belief, here, conversely, the "spirits" are them-
selves tested by the belief to which they give utterance.
The paragraph is introduced by the customary formula,
"Hereby we perceive" (e]n tou<t& ginw<skomen). What is
to be established is that "God abideth in us"; and the
reality of this is to be tested "by the Spirit which He hath
given us" (324b).1 But the Apostle is drawn somewhat
aside from the direct line of his argument by consideration
of the actual facts with which he has to deal. The
argument in its essence is, "God abides in all to whom
He has given His Spirit; but only the spirit that confesses
1 That is to say, the possession of the Spirit of God—the Spirit that
confesses Jesus as the Christ (42)—is the objective and infallible sign that
God is abiding in us. I have to admit that a different view is taken by the
commentators whom I have consulted (except, in part, Holtzmann), who,
though by various interpretations of the words, understand the Spirit as
the source of our subjective assurance that God dwelleth in us. But this is
because the connection between 324b and what follows has been missed. When
it is recognised that 324b) really introduces the new paragraph, 324b-45, and
when this is compared with the parallel paragraph 413-16 it becomes apparent
that the Spirit, throughout these passages, is regarded simply as the inspirer of
the True Confession of Jesus. If we make this confession, it is evidence that
the spirit in us is the Spirit of God. Thus "we know that God abideth in us
by the Spirit He hath given us." v. Notes, in loc.
264 The First Epistle of
Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh is the Spirit of God;
if, therefore, the spirit in us inspires this confession of
Jesus, we know that God abideth in us." But the writer
and his readers have to reckon with the fact that there
are in their midst spirits that testify to the contrary effect;
and, therefore, he continues, "Beloved, believe not every
spirit; but try the spirits, whether they are of God; because
many false prophets are gone out into the world" (41). The
reference, of course, is to the psychical manifestations with
which, from whatever cause, the atmosphere of the Apostolic
age was charged in a degree quite unfamiliar to modern
experience. The "spirits" on either side are many, yet
have ,one head and represent one character--the Spirit
of Truth and the Spirit of Error (46). It is not to be
assumed (as by Huther and Haupt) that the plurality of
spirits consists in nothing more than the manifestations of
the one personal Spirit, as these are diversified by the
individuality of the human "medium"--that, in other words,
the "spirits" are simply the "prophets" themselves as the
inspired organs of the Spirit. On the contrary, all that
we learn from the New Testament regarding this matter
points to the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error as
acting upon men through a hierarchy of subordinate
spiritual agents.1 Thus, as the Church had its "prophets,"
who were inspired by spirits of heavenly origin, the adher-
ents of antichrist had their pseudo-prophets, the subjects
of a demonic inspiration. The Apostle accordingly warns
his readers not to believe every spirit simply because it is
a spirit, but to "test the spirits, whether they be of God";
this being the more necessary "because many false2
1 Cf. 1 Cor. 1210 1412.32; more remotely, Matt. 1810, Heb. 114, Rev. 14
31 226. On the other side, abundance of spiritualistic manifestations seems
to have been characteristic of the heretical sects. 2 Thess. 21, I Tim. 41
Rev. 1613.14.
2 Both in the Old Testament and in the New, false prophets arc frequently
referred to (e.g. Deut. 131.5, Acts 136, Rev. 1920). In some instances these are
The Test of Belief 265
prophets," not merely false teachers, "have gone out" as
ambassadors from their native sphere "into the world."
This warning to practise a wise incredulity is not super-
fluous at any time. The tendency to yield a facile homage
to whatever is characterised by violent emotion and dis-
turbances of human nature, to regard anything that is
extraordinary and sensational, rather than what is calm
and normal, as possessing in itself the credentials of truth,
is one that has borne much evil fruit in the religious
world. Enthusiasm is no guarantee of truth.
According to 1 Cor. 1210 there was in the primitive
Church a special charism of "discerning spirits." Here,
however, this is regarded as within the competency of all
Christians. And, indeed, the Apostle immediately proceeds
to ensure this by furnishing one crucial test by which the
Spirit of Truth is to be at once distinguished from the Spirit
of Error. "Hereby recognise the Spirit of God.1 Every
spirit that confesseth2 Jesus as the Christ come in the
flesh3 is of God " (42).
It is by the substance of the confession, not by its
publicity, that the Divine character of the inspiration is to
be tested. To introduce here the idea of contrast between
open confession of Christ and inward faith (Haupt,
Westcott, following Augustine), is entirely beside the point.
It is of "spirits," not of believers, that the passage speaks;
and the antichristian testified no less openly than the
Christian spirits. And, to state the matter with full
logical exhaustiveness: "Every spirit that confesseth not
described as mere impostors, but, for the most part, are regarded as the subjects
of a real inspiration.
1 to> pneu?ma tou? qeou?. The individual " spirits" are said to be e]k tou? qeou?
(41). But it is from the Divine Spirit that they derive their character and
their message. In their manifestations, therefore, it is the agency of the Spirit
of God that is discerned.
2 The confessing here spoken of refers to the inspired testifying of the pro-
phets in the congregation (1 Cor. 123 141-6).
3 As to the exegesis and doctrinal content of the confession, v. supra, pp.
94, 99.
266 The First Epistle of
Jesus1 is not of God"; but, on the contrary, is to be
identified with Antichrist 2 (43). There is no third possi-
bility.
The Apostle then proceeds to congratulate his readers
upon the faithfulness and success with which they have
hitherto resisted and overcome the enemy of their faith.
"Ye are of God" (in contrast with the spirits that "are not
of God"), "my little children, and have overcome them."
And this victory is assured of permanence, because
"greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world"
(44). The spirit that has been identified with Antichrist
is further characterised as having its sphere of operation
and dominion "in the world." They (the spirits who are
agents of him "who is in the world") "are of the world."
And their spiritual affinities determine the character of
their teaching. "They speak as of the world"; and the
character of their teaching reveals the character of their
hearers; "Therefore the world heareth them" (45); for
the world "loveth its own" (John 77 1519) and " listens
to those who express its own thought"3 (Westcott). In
direct opposition to this description of the false spirits and
prophets, the writer asserts of himself and of those whom he
associates with himself as truly unfolding the word of life,
that "We are of God," and that "Every one that knoweth4
God heareth5 us";6 while, on the contrary, the mark of
"Whosoever is not of God," is that he "heareth not
1 to>n ]Ihsou?n. The article defines Jesus in the full sense of the formula in
the preceding verse, which the writer does not deem it necessary to repeat.
The only valid confession of Jesus is that He is "the Christ come in the flesh."
2 Sec Notes, in loc. 3 v. supra, p. 103.
4 "Every one that knoweth God"—ginw<skwn to>n qeo<n—He who has a true
perception of what God really is, who recognises the Divine when it is presented
to him. This, not progressiveness of knowledge (Westcott, "The Christian
listens to those who teach him more of God") is what the word denotes.
5 a]kou<ei; cf. John 10 3.16.20.27
6 The claim of Apostolic authority is based solely upon the inherent truth of
the Apostolic message. Cf. 11-3, Acts 18 232 etc., John 1426 1526.27 etc., I Cor. 216,
Gal. 16-9.11.12 2 Tim. 111-13.
The Test of Belief 267
us " (46). Finally, he sums up the purport of the whole
argument in the words: "From this we recognise the Spirit
of Truth" (i.e. the Spirit given by God, 324), "and the Spirit
of Error."1 The inferential phrase "from this" (e]k tou<tou)
is to be understood, not as referring exclusively to the
last-mentioned test, the "hearing" or "not hearing" of
"us" (Huther, Weiss), but as indicating the accomplish-
ment of the writer's purpose in the paragraph as a whole.
That purpose, as stated at the outset, was to urge upon
his readers this test of God's dwelling in them, namely,
the presence and operation in them of the Spirit of God.
But the very office of the Divine Spirit, the promised
Paraclete, is to testify to Jesus as the Christ come in the
flesh. Every spirit, therefore, that bears witness to this is
of God; and every spirit that does not bear witness to this
is not of God. This test is decisive for the "spirits"
themselves. It is decisive also for those who speak by
their inspiration, distinguishing the false prophets from
those who, like the Apostle himself, are the messengers of
the Truth. But it is decisive also for their hearers. And
this is the point at which, in reality, the paragraph is aimed.
Not all had the prophetic afflatus. There were those who
gave utterance to the Church's confession and moulded its
doctrine; and there were those who only associated
themselves therewith by approval and adherence. For
the majority, the actual test consisted in the confession
they received as true and adopted as their own, and in
the teaching to which they approvingly listened. For all
alike, teachers and taught, their attitude towards the truth
of the Incarnation was decisive of the spirit that was in
them, whether it was the Spirit of Truth or the Spirit of
Error.
1 to> pneu?ma th?j pla<nhj. This designation, unique in the N.T., is naturally
accounted for by the contrast with the "Spirit of Truth." But cf. 226, Matt.
2411, Mark 135, Rev. 129 2010.
268 The First Epistle of
413-16
In the third Cycle of the Epistle the corresponding
paragraph1 is 413-16 And, in fact, this paragraph reproduces
in the simplest and directest form the argument which in
324-46 was somewhat complicated by the reference to the
different "spirits" and their human organs.
"In this, that2 He hath given us of His3 Spirit, we
perceive that we abide in Him, and He in us" (413)
Here, as everywhere in the Epistle, the Spirit is
regarded exclusively as the Spirit of Truth—the Witness to
Christ, and the Author of true Belief.
The first-fruit of this endowment with the Spirit is the
Apostolic testimony itself—"And we4 have beheld and
bear witness5 that the Father sent the Son (as) the Saviour
of the world"; (414)—its full result is the continuous re-
production of the same testimony in others also. Not only
the Apostles have in their vision and testimony the infallible
sign of God's dwelling in them; but "Whosoever shall con-
fess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and
he in God" (415). In 42, the true confession was, "Jesus is
the Christ come in the flesh"; here, it is "Jesus is the Son
of God." The two formuae are equivalent; and here the
1 Having for the third time exhibited Love as the sign and test of Life
(27.11 310b-24a 47-12), the writer again advances the test of belief, likewise for
the third time (218.28 324b 46; and now, 413-16)
2 v. Notes, in loc.
3 e]k tou? pneu<matoj au]tou?. Cf. e]k tou? plhrw<matoj, John 116. The phrase is
peculiar and, taken by itself, might justify the contention that the personality of
the Spirit is not fully realised in the writer's conception. But it does not
necessitate this conclusion. Though the Spirit dwells personally in all who
are "begotten of God," yet, according to the measure of His working in them,
they may be said to have more or less of the Spirit. With this thought the
common N.T. expressions, "full of" or "filled with" the Spirit, agree.
v. infra, pp. 351-52.
4 "And we." The writer and his fellow-witnesses. See Notes, in loc.
5 The Apostolic testimony is not a mere recital of the facts which constitute
the historical manifestation of Christ; it is also a Spirit-taught interpretation of
their significance—that "the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World."
See Notes, in loc.
The Test of Belief 269
latter is preferred as suggesting more directly the revelation
of the Divine Love in the mission of the Son, and as thus
leading up to the statement in which the thought of this
whole section is summed up, "We have perceived and
believed1 the Love which God hath toward 2 us. God is
Love; and he that abideth in Love abideth in God, and
God in him" (416)
It ought to be observed that in this paragraph the
ideas of Belief and Love are knit together in closest
relation. At the beginning (413), the mutual indwelling of
God and man is said to be certified by the presence of
that Spirit Who, alike in the Apostles (414) and in the
whole company of the faithful (415), testifies to the true
Belief. In the end, the same mutual indwelling is certified
by our "abiding in Love" (416). And the transition is
naturally effected through the fact that the whole weight of
our assurance that God is Love, and that, consequently, to
abide in Love is to abide in God, hangs upon the fact that
Jesus is the Son of God, sent by the Father to be the
Saviour of the world.
Love is the fruit of Belief, or Belief of Love. Their correla-
tion consists in this, that both Love and Belief are necessarily
and concomitantly wrought in men by the Divine Begetting
and Indwelling. Because God is Love, the new nature of
the God-begotten also is Love (47). But the fulness of
the Divine Love is manifested only in the mission of the
1 "We have known and believed";—e]gnw<kamen kai> pepisteu<kamen th>n a]ga<phn.
The two verbs form one compound idea. They are found in the same conjunction,
but in the reverse order, in John 669. I cannot agree with Westcott that the
addition of pepisteu<kamen is due to the conscious imperfection attaching to the
e]gnw<kamen. " We know the Love of God, but we believe that it is greater than
we know." (So also Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, 1629, where a reminiscence
of Eph. 319 is suggested.) It cannot be insisted too strongly that ginw<skein
signifies spiritual perception, pisteu<ein the resultant intellectual conviction.
Thus e]gnw<kamen kai> pepisteu<kamen might be translated; we have recognised
(in the fact that Jesus is the Son of God) the Love which God hath toward us,
and are firmly persuaded of its truth.
2 "Toward us"=e]n h[mi?n. See Notes, in loc.
270 The First Epistle o f
Son (49.10), and those who are "begotten of God"
necessarily have the power to perceive this when it is
presented to them,--to recognise in the Incarnation and
the Saviourship of the Son of God, the supreme divinity of
Love. Therefore, "Every one that loveth is begotten of
God" (47); therefore also, "Whosoever confesseth that
Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him and he in
God" (415).
Here, then, the characteristic doctrine of the Epistle
with regard to Belief is unmistakable. Belief is the
outcome, therefore the test, of life. The truth asserted is
not that our abiding in God and God's abiding in us are the
result of our belief in Christ and confession of Him, but,
conversely, that the confession is the result of the abiding.
The same position is categorically affirmed in 51 "Every
one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of
God." Here the tenses (pisteu<wn—gege<nnhtai) make it
clear that the Divine Begetting is the antecedent, not the
consequent, of the believing; that, in other words, Christian
Belief, which is essentially the spiritual recognition of
spiritual truth, is a function of the Divine1 Life as imparted
to men. This is the most distinctive element in the
Johannine conception of Belief; and, unless it is firmly
grasped, the most characteristic utterances of the Epistle
regarding Belief will appear to be the assertions of a hard,
scholastic dogmatism that interprets intellectual assent to
an orthodox formula as the equivalent of spiritual union
with God. Fuller consideration than has yet been given to
this point will, therefore, not be out of place.
The conception of Belief just indicated is most fully
developed in the Fourth Gospel, which it dominates from
beginning to end. A few passages out of many may be
1 Hence, it may be observed, the Epistle nowhere proposes to test Belief by
its fruits in good works, after the fashion of St. James (214-16). Belief, Righteous-
ness, and Love are all concomitantly tests of having Eternal Life.
The Test of Belief 271
quoted. "Unto this end have I been born, and to this end
have I come into the world, that I might bear witness to the
truth; every one that is of the truth heareth My voice"
(1837). "Ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep.
My sheep hear My voice . . . and they follow Me" (10 26.27).
"I have manifested Thy name unto the men whom Thou
gavest
(176 ; cf. 319-21 1237-41 544 644 842. 47). "Every one that
hath heard from the Father cometh unto Me"; "No man
can come unto Me except it be given him of My Father"
(645. 65). In these and all similar passages, in the Gospel
and the Epistle, belief or unbelief, when Christ is presented,
depends upon antecedent spiritual predisposition. The
Gospel does not create the children of God; it finds them,
attracts them, reveals them, draws them forth from the
mass of mankind. Thus
who have not even heard the Gospel as being, at least
potentially, the "children of God" (John 1152). And this
is otherwise expressed in the favourite Johannine view
that Christ's work among men is a work of judgment, of
sifting and separation (kri<sij, John 939 318.19). Christ
comes as a Light into the world; and those who, though
they dwell in darkness, are lovers of the Light, come unto
Him. Christ comes as the voice of Eternal Truth, and all
who are "of the truth" hear His voice. Christ is thrust
as a magnet into the midst of mankind, and draws to
Himself all who have an affinity with Him. Others He
repels; they "see no beauty in Him, that they should desire
Him." Men believe or disbelieve according to the spirit
that is in them. By their attitude to the Revelation of
God they reveal themselves; according as they pronounce
their judgment upon the Truth, it pronounces judgment
upon them. To recognise or not to recognise God in
Christ—there lies the boundary-line between spiritual life
and spiritual death.
272 The First Epistle of
Pfleiderer, however, gives a quite inconsistent statement
of the Johannine doctrine, when he interprets it to the effect
that "The manifestation of Christ brings nothing absolutely
new into the world, but develops and matures the Divine
and undivine germs that already lie implanted in men"
(ii. 490). As well might one say that the spring-sunshine
brings nothing new into the world, because autumn sowed
and winter stored the seeds it brings to germination; or
that the dawn brings nothing new into the world, because it
comes to those who, though sitting in darkness, yet have
eyes. What the Johannine doctrine avers is, that there
exists in some men what is lacking in others, a power of
spiritual vision by which Christ is recognised and welcomed
in His true character—a capacity and a predisposition to
receive Him (John 112.13).
This is, in fact,
doctrine of predestination.1 Pondering the question why
the Gospel reveals so profound a cleavage among men,
predestination;
predisposition. But
inherent in the natural character than
tion. He refuses to find its source in the human
personality (John 113; 1 John 51). The children of God
are not a superior species of the genus homo. They are
men who "have passed from death into life" (314); and
who have done so because they are "begotten of God."
And the motive of
same as that of
the assertion, as against the unbelieving world, of the
inward ground and the intuitive certainty of Christian
Belief. As we need no proof that light is light when
the eye beholds it, so the soul, begotten of God,
beholds and recognises eternal truth (520). Partly, the
1 Cf. Scott's Fourth Gospel, p. 278.
The Test of Belief 273
motive is religious. It is to satisfy the innermost Christian
consciousness that, not even for this vision of the truth,
not even for the appropriation of God's gift in Christ, can
believers take credit to themselves; that in nothing can
the human will do more than respond to the Divine; and
that, in the last resort, this power itself is of God.
It is far-fetched to find, as Pfleiderer does (ii. 490), a
historical kinship between this doctrine and the Gnosis
of Basilides. The connection he suggests with Philo's
doctrine of the separative activity of the Logos is more
credible. But the historical roots of the Johannine con-
ception lie nearer at hand--in the Old Testament, in the
Synoptic Gospels, in the Epistles of
plainly to be traced in the great prophecy (Isa. 610. 11)
quoted in
New Testament; in such Pauline passages as 2 Cor. 215. 16
43-6; in such Synoptic utterances as Luke 234. 35, Matt. 1125. 26
1617. But, in truth, it is not necessary to deduce the
doctrine from any remoter source than the meditation of
a thoughtful Christian mind upon the facts of life. And
when we consider what the facts are;--that, among men
of the same race, traditions, education, manners, and morals
Christ is, on the one hand, the supreme and enduring
attraction, and on the other, an object of frigid indifference
or of keen hostility; that, as when of old He was crucified
between two malefactors, the Cross itself became a throne
of judgment on which He sat separating the sheep from
the goats, so still, under all the apparent identities and
diversities of human life, Christ shows Himself the great
divider of men: when we consider, further, that we can
know and be attracted by that only with which we have
some affinity, that the soul cannot kindle in recogni-
tion admiration and desire of what is alien to its own
nature,—we are constrained to ask whether any truer word
can be spoken concerning all this, than that of the Epistle,
274 The First Epistle of
—that a believing response to the Revelation of Christ,
in whomsoever it is found, is due to the fact that he has
been "begotten of God." "Can you tell why the needle
trembles to the pole, why the buds feel their way to the
spring, the flowers to the sunlight? They are made for
it: and souls are so made for Christ."
The Conflict and Victory of Belief.
Of Divine contents and origin, Christian Belief is also
a Divine power in men, victorious over the evil and false-
hood of the World. The first of the passages that tell of
this victory is that in which the Apostle congratulates his
readers upon their having quitted themselves like true
soldiers of Jesus Christ, by their resolute and successful
resistance to the enemies of their faith. "Ye are of God,
little children, and have overcome them: because greater is
He that is in you, than he that is in the world" (44). Here
the conflict is expressly between Truth and Error; and,
indeed, between the personal Spirit of Truth and the
personal Spirit of Error. As it is said "ye are of God,"
so "He that is in you" can be none other than God,1
acting by "the Spirit He hath given us " (324b)--the
"Anointing" which "teacheth concerning all things " (227).
And " He that is in the world " can be none other than the
dia<boloj2 of 38.10. The human combatants are identified
on both sides with a superhuman personality whose
instruments they directly are and in whose power they
contend. And the victory of Truth is won, and its per-
manence is ensured by the fact that its Divine protagonist
is greater than the opposing Spirit of Error. Great as is
the power of falsehood to captivate and to mislead, the
1 The thought leads back also to the "Son of God Who was manifested that
He might destroy the works of the Devil" (38).
2 o[ tou? ko<smou a@rxwn, John 1231 1430 1611. o[ qeo>j tou? ai]w?noj tou<tou, 2 Cor.
44, Eph. 22 612. o[ ko<smoj o!loj kei?tai e]n t&? ponhr&?, I John 519.
The Test of Belief 275
convincing power of Truth is always, in the end, greater
(John 168-11). This mei<zwn1 is the Christian's sheet anchor
of hope when he contemplates the power of falsehood in
the World.
53b–5
"And His commandments are not burdensome, because
everything that is begotten of God overcometh the world.
And this is the victory that overcometh the world, even
our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he
that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"
Here, as elsewhere2 in the Epistle, the "World" is not
the order of the seen and temporal considered as a power
to hold the soul in bondage and to render it insensible to
spiritual realities; it is the world of ungodly persons, with
the opinions, sentiments, and influences the "lust of the
flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the vainglory of life"—
which they embody. The "World" is, therefore, a prolific
source of temptations that inevitably tend to make God's
commandments burdensome to those who strive to obey
them fully. Its hostility may take the form of overt
persecution; but always the world brings to bear against
those whose aims are spiritual, a force of ideas and
estimates--as of, "success," "happiness," "honour"--and
of social influences, which he must conquer or to which he
must succumb. Such an environment would necessarily
render the requirements of the Christian Life a grievous
and a galling yoke but for this,3—"Whatsoever is
begotten of God overcometh the world." As the human
body is unaffected by an external atmospheric pressure
that would crush it to a pulp, but for the fact that there
1 Cf. John 168-11, Eph. 119-23,
3 pa?n to> gegennhme<non;. The abstract pa?n, instead of the concrete pa?j, seems
to emphasise, not the persons who conquer, but the Divine energy by which
they conquer. It brings out the thought that whatsoever is of Divine origin has
ipso facto a power mightier than the world's.
276 The First Epistle of
is an equal expansive pressure within the body itself; so,
since "Greater is He that is in us, than he that is in the
world," the world's hostile pressure is more than neutralised,
and God's commandments are not burdensome. "And
this is the victory that overcometh (hath overcome,1 R.V.)
the world--our Belief." Belief itself may be regarded as
the victory. Simply to believe in Christ is, in principle,
complete victory over the world. This alone puts the
world, with its false ideals and standards, under our feet.
But the battle has to be fought out in detail; and our
Belief is necessarily the spiritual weapon2 by which every
successive temptation is met and overcome. What this
Belief is the next verse declares: "Who is he that over-
cometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the
Son of God?" The union of the human name "Jesus" with
the full title "the Son of God," expresses vividly the world-
conquering power of this belief. For, from the worldly
point of view, no one was ever more manifestly over-
whelmed by defeat and disaster than was this "Son of
God." To believe that, living and dying, Jesus of
God and to finish His work as Jesus did is the one true
victory life can give—that to minister rather than to be
1h[ ni<kh h[ nikh<sasa. The aorist is difficult, and has been variously explained;
—as indicating that from the beginning (Heb. 11) Faith overcame the world
(Huther. But why then the emphatic h[ pi<stij h[mw?n); as referring definitely
to the victory already mentioned (44) over the false teachers (Weiss. This is
tenable, but the reference seems too remote, and far too narrow for the context);
as referring to the victory of Christ (John 1633), in which believers are by their
faith made partakers (Westcott. There is, without doubt, a reminiscence of
John 1633; but to make the text mean, "We are by our faith made partakers
in the same victory as Christ once gained over the world," seems beyond the
limits of possible exegesis). But the aorist tense does not necessarily indicate a
definite point in the past; and here nikh<sasa seems to be a genuine example of
the "constative" aorist, by which "the whole action is comprised in one view,"
or "the line is reduced to a point by perspective" (Moulton, pp. 108 sqq.). In
English idiom this has often to be translated by the perfect, as here by the
"hath overcome" of the R.V.
2 Thus, by a strong metonymy, the victory itself is identified with the means
by which it is won.
The Test of Belief 277
ministered unto, and to give oneself a ransom for many, is
its "topmost, ineffablest crown," is to be, in thought at least,
emancipated from the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the
eyes, and the vainglory of life." But it is not only by its
loftier ideal that Christian Belief conquers the world. It
combines with the purely ethical ideal both the power of
Love ("This is the Love of God, that we keep His com-
mandments," 53) and the assurance of immortality; setting
over against the world that "passeth away" the vision of
another where the Divine Ideal is in fact, as here it is in
right, supreme. Above all, Belief is victory because it is the
proof of union with Christ Who, Himself victorious over
the world, is the source of all-conquering power to them in
whom He abides (John 1633). "He that hath the Son
hath Life " (512); and, while surrounded by the world's
hostile influences, he is made partaker in Christ's own
triumph over them.
"Remember what a martyr said
On the rude tablet overhead!
I was born sickly, poor and mean,
A slave: no misery could screen
The holders of the pearl of price
From Caesar's envy; therefore twice
I fought with beasts, and three times saw
My children suffer by his law.
At last my own release was earned:
I was some time in being burned,
But at the close a Hand came through
The fire above my head, and drew
My soul to Christ, whom now I see.
Sergius, a brother, writes for me
This testimony on the wall
For me, I have forgot it all.'"
NOTE ON pisteu<ein.
In the Johannine writings this word has the same leading significa-
tions as in classical Greek. In one instance it means to "entrust"
(e]pi<steuen au]to>n au]toi?j, John 224). Elsewhere it means (a) to "believe"
a fact (with the noun in the accusative, as in 416 pepisteu<kamen th>n
a]ga<phn) or the statement of a fact (introduced by o!ti, as in 51.5);
278 The First Epistle of
(b) to "believe" or credit the testimony of a person or thing; (c) to
"believe in" or trust a person or thing. Confining attention to the last
two of these usages, we find that in classical Greek pisteu<ein in either
sense has the object in the dative, never being followed by a pre-
positional phrase.
But it was indispensable that N.T. Greek should possess the means
of distinguishing ideas that are so different for Christian thought as
"believe" and "believe in." In
(=B; Nymix,h,) is, as a rule, pisteu<ein (510). In the three cases in which
pisteu<ein ei]j has a thing, not a person, as it's object (ei]j to> fw?j, John
1236; ei]j th>n marturi<an, I John 510; ei]j to> o@noma, I John 513), it may be
argued that the sense is still to "trust," the reference being really to
the person who is the source of the light, the author of the testimony,
the possessor of the name.
On the other hand, to "believe" is, as a rule, pisteu<ein, c. dat.
Moulton (p. 67), like Westcott and Abbott, will have it that the rule
is invariable for the New Testament. But Acts 1634 188 much the
more natural sense of pisteu<ein, c. dat., is "believe in." In
also, the two constructions are sometimes used interchangeably (cf.
John 629.30 and 830.31) And, in the Epistle, it is impossible, without
pedantry, to assign different shades of meaning to pisteu<ein t&? o]no<mati
(323) and pisteu<ein eo]j o@noma (513). The truth is that, in the nature
of the case, the two ideas "believe" and "believe in" frequently run
into and blend with each other, belief of the thing testified resting
upon trust in the person testifying (cf. John 524.33 with 1244).
CHAPTER XIV.
THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE.
IN the foregoing chapters we have seen with what urgency
inseparable tests by which they may satisfy themselves
that they have Eternal Life (513): "He that keepeth His
commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him" (324);
"He that dwelleth in Love dwelleth in God, and God in
him (410); "Whosoever confesseth that Jesus is the Son
of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God" (415). And,
in general, it has to be asserted that the Epistle acknow-
ledges no certitude of personal salvation other than is
based on the fulfilment of those tests. In its scheme of
thought no place is provided for any immediate, self-
certifying consciousness of regenerate life. The possession
of this is to be recognised (ginw<skein) from the presence
of its appropriate fruits, and thus only. "We know that
we have passed from death into Life, because we love the
brethren" (314). But while thus the effect of the Epistle
is, upon the whole, extremely heart-searching, there are
passages in which the writer pauses in his persistent
probing and testing of souls, and dwells upon the heart-
pacifying aspect of the truths he enunciates.
228.
"And now, little children, abide1 in Him; that, if He
1 "Abide in Him . . . that we may have boldness." The sense is not (as
1 Thess. 219, Phil. 41, Heb. 1317)--"Do ye abide in Him that we, as your
responsible guide and teacher, may give in our account with joy." The
279
280 The First Epistle of
shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not shrink
from Him in shame (ai]sxunqw?men a]p ] au]tou?) at His
corning."1 The phrase to "have boldness" (par]r[hsi<an
e@xein), here introduced, is destined to further service (321
417 514). In classical usage par]r[hsi<a denotes that out-
spokenness or fearless declaration of personal opinion
which was especially the cherished privilege of Athenian
freemen. In the Epistle to the Hebrews and in our
Epistle2 it signifies the confidence of open childlike speech
with our Father in prayer, or, as here, the fearless trust with
which the faithful meet Christ. Its peculiar force is finely
brought out by the contrasted "shrink from Him in
shame." Both are phrases of graphic power, vividly
suggesting the picture of the judgment-seat before which
all must stand, and of the frank confidence with which men
turn to their Judge and look upon His face, or the
speechless confusion in which they avoid His gaze (cf.
Matt. 2212). The ground of this "boldness in His
Parousia" will be that men, though much exposed to the
plausibilities of pseudo-Christian teaching, have held fast the
truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (222-24), as this
is witnessed by the Apostles (224) and taught by the Spirit3
(227). The ascription of this ultimately decisive value to
Belief has been already discussed.4 However remote it may
seem to be from the purely ethical grounds of final judgment
foretold by our Lord (Matt. 2531-46) it is not, in the mind of
its necessary implicates. To believe that Jesus is Incarnate
Apostle violates grammatical construction rather than seem to exclude himself
from what he enjoins on his "little children." He identifies himself with them
as a Christian man "still struggling to effect his warfare " in a world of tempta-
tion (cf. 19 22 319. 20. 21 etc.).
1 e]n t^? parousi<% au]tou?. See Chapter XVI.
2 In the Fourth Gospel the word is used somewhat differently, signifying
plain as contrasted with mystic (524 1114 1629), or open as contrasted with secret
utterance (723 1820).
3 v. supra, pp. 108-16. 4 v. supra, pp. 261-2, 270-4
The Doctrine of Assurance 281
God, is to accept Love as the law of life, as is made evident
by the passage that next comes under consideration.
318-20
"Little children, let us not love in word, neither in
tongue; but in deed and in truth.1 And herein shall we
know (= ascertain) that we are of the truth, and shall
assure our heart before Him, whereinsoever our heart
condemn us; because God is greater than our heart and
knoweth all things."2 It is necessary to distinguish at the
outset between the absolute and the conditional ground of
confidence toward God, as these are here set forth. The
former is that we are "of the Truth"3—that we belong to
the kingdom that is Christ's (John 1837); that our life is
based upon and our character moulded by the Divine and
eternal Reality, the full expression of which is Christ, Who
is "the Truth." But in our own particular case this must
be established by the fact that we "love not in word,
neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth."
This question, whether we are "of the truth," is here
figured as the subject of a trial in which a man's own
"heart" (conscience; that is, the faculty of moral self-
judgment) is the accuser and he himself the defendant,
which is carried on in the presence of Omniscient God, and
is finally referred to His decision. There are thus three
elements to be considered in the case. (a) Our own heart4
1 On the first clause, v. supra, pp. 245-6, and Notes, in loc.
2 On the exegetical difficulties this locus vexatissimus, see Notes. In the
present exposition, I assume the conclusion to which I have come—that, without
emendation of the text, the R.V. best meets the requirements both of grammar
and of sense.
3 To be "of the Truth" denotes substantially the same thing as to be "of
God" (310). Regarding a]lhqei<a, v. supra, pp. 62, 259-60.
4 "Heart" (kardi<a) is rarely found in
the source of impulse to action, in 141.27 166.22 the seat of thought and
emotion. sunei<dhsij, which in the N.T. exactly covers our "conscience," both
as the faculty of self-judgment and in the wider sense of moral discernment, does
not occur in
282 The First Epistle of
may condemn us. We believed that we had passed
from death into life (311); but to ourselves this has
become almost or altogether doubtful.1 When Conscience
summons us to the tribunal within, it declares us guilty.
We have failed in doing the "righteousness" of the
children of God (310) or our faith has faltered—our
vision of the Truth has become dim. The evidence
of our union with Christ is obscured by the consciousness
of inconsistencies which, regarded in themselves, compel
us to question whether we are "of the truth" or have
been self-deceived (cf. 24.6.9 etc.). This is the first
element in the case. (b) The second is, "In this we shall
recognise that we are of the truth." When conscience
brings forward these allegations of insincerity, to what
shall we appeal? To this, says
loved, and that "not in word, neither in tongue; but
in deed and in truth." There are actual things we
can point to--not things we have professed or felt or
imagined or intended, but things that we have done,
and that we know we would never have done but for
the Love which God has put into our hearts. Of ecstatic
emotions, heaven-piercing vision, we may know nothing;
but if, in the practice of Love—in bearing another's
burden, in denying ourselves to give to another's need
(317), we are sure of our ground, hereby we shall
tranquillise our self-accusing hearts—yea, even in the
presence2 of God. (c) "Because God is greater than
our heart, and knoweth all things." But here a diffi-
culty meets us. What may be called the popular inter-
1 This is the explanation of the future "we shall know" (gnwso<meqa). It
does not merely point to the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in 318,—
that, of course, is assumed,—it contemplates the possibility of some shadow
having fallen on the clear mirror of the soul—some future occasion on which
our own heart accuses us.
2 "Before Him " (e@mprosqen au]tou?). The thought is not of the Day of
Judgment, but that the self-examination is brought about by the sense of God's
Presence, and under the sense of the same Presence is carried on.
The Doctrine of Assurance 283
pretation:1—"Since even our own imperfectly enlightened
heart accuses us, how much more must we dread the
judgment of the All-knowing"--is directly opposed to the
requirements of the context. Plainly the fact that "God
is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things,"
must be a reason for pacifying the heart, not for increas-
ing its alarm. Almost all modern exegetes, accordingly,
take "greater than our hearts" as referring to the greater
tenderness of God. Conscience is a "recording chief
inquisitor," who notes without pity all that is done amiss.
God is Love, and, reading in our hearts the Love He
has put there, blots out the handwriting that is against us.
But this is irrelevant. The question under consideration
is not one of merciful judgment, but solely one of evidence
as to whether we are or are not "of the truth." When it is
said that "God is greater than our heart," what is meant is
simply that "He knoweth," that is, takes cognisance of "all
things." Our own heart does not take cognisance of all
things. On the supposition made, its role is solely that
of accuser. It is regarded as occupying itself exclusively
with those facts that cast suspicion upon the reality of
our Christian life, while it needs to be reminded of those
that tell in our favour. But God takes note of all—both
of the inconsistencies that conscience urges against us,
and of the deeds whose witness we can cite in reply to its
accusations. And for this very reason that He knows
all, we can persuade and pacify our hearts before Him.
To the hypocrite, who only seeks a cloak for his sin, the
thought of the All-seeing is full of dread; but to him who,
though conscious of much that may well be thought to
falsify his Christian profession, is also conscious that it is
1 This interpretation is still maintained and powerfully defended by Pro-
fessor
text as he does, his view is obviously sound; and the emendation is tempting.
v. Notes, in loc. But the explanation here given of the text as it stands is, I
think, tenable.
284 The First Epistle of
in facts of a different kind that his deepest life has found
true expression, it is full of comfort. The appeal to
Omniscience is his final resort; his hiding-place is in the
Light itself (Ps. 13923. 24). Thus it was with Simon when
not only his own heart accused him, but his Master so
persistently voiced its accusations "Lord, Thou knowest
all things; Thou knowest that I love Thee" (John 2117.).
And it is not difficult to suppose that the ginw<skei pa<nat of
the present passage is a reminiscence of that memorable
incident (ku<rie, pa<nta su> oi#daj, su> ginw<skeij o!ti filw? se).
Looking at the passage as a whole we find two notable
features in it. On the one hand is the emphasis placed
upon objective facts as the only valid evidence of our
being "of the truth"; on the other hand is the principle
that positive outweighs negative evidence1--that deeds
of love rightly prevail against the consciousness of incon-
sistency and defect. In part, doubtless, this emphasis
is due to the historical situation. It is a repudiation of
the loveless intellectualism of the Gnostic; and it is also
an assurance and consolation of those "little ones" who
were liable to be "offended" by those who based their
claim to be "of the truth" upon a profounder knowledge of
the spiritual universe than was attainable by the simple
believer. Not philosophy but Love has the title to the
tion, but on the Christ-life of self-sacrificing Love was the
stamp of the Truth impressed. Yet the Apostle's doctrine
has respect to the deep common needs of the Christian life.
To the man of self-accusing heart in every age he speaks.
To the man whose belief seems to himself little more than
a struggle with unbelief, who is more conscious of darkness
and doubt than of triumphant faith, he says: "Your life,
1 It needs, perhaps, to be emphasised that the matter under consideration is
wholly one of evidence. There is no question of setting the merit of good deeds
over against the demerit of evil deeds.
The Doctrine of Assurance 285
your actual indubitable deeds in which you embody the
spirit that is in you—what is their testimony? Are these
the fruit of faith or of unbelief?" To the man who mourns
defects of character and lapses of conduct that seem to
vitiate his title to be of those who have the seed of the
Righteous God abiding in them (39), he says: "These
may be the negations and failures of your life, what are
its affirmations and achievements? Is the goal towards
which you strive the goal of Love?" The test is absol-
utely valid. Not the presence of evil, but the absence of
good, is the fact of fatal omen. It is the invariable test
of our Lord Himself, with whom the irremediable sin is
ever the sin of lovelessness, fruitlessness, slothfulness,—the
damning accusation, "Ye did it not." He who loves not in
word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth; who lays
down his life for the brethren, if not in one crowded hour
of glorious self-surrender, yet, perhaps, more nobly, in the
patient well-doing and helpful kindness and unselfish service
which enrich the years as they pass, this man verily bears the
marks of the Lord Jesus. Let no man trouble him; let him
not trouble himself; but herein let him recognise that he is
"of the truth," and humbly assure his heart before God.
The following verses (321.22) introduce the subject of
assurance in Prayer, and so, postponing them, we proceed
to a passage which is as closely as possible allied to that
which we have just considered.
417-19
"Herein is love made perfect with us, that we may
have boldness in the Day of Judgment; because as He is,
even so are we in this world. There is no fear in Love;
but perfect love casteth out fear; because fear hath punish-
ment ; and he that feareth is not made perfect in love. We
love, because He first loved us."
Logically, 417 contains three members:—The purpose
286 The First Epistle of
achieved--"That we may have boldness in the Day
of Judgment"; the ground upon which this confidence
is established--"Because as He (Christ) is, so are we in
this world"; the proof that we are entitled to occupy this
ground--"Herein is Love perfected with us." We shall,
however, consider these clauses in the order in which they
occur. (a) "Herein1 is Love2 perfected (fulfilled) with
us." By the word "herein" the sentence is linked on to the
immediately preceding one:1 "He that abideth in Love
abideth in God, and God in him " (416). What that Love is
and how it is "perfected" is unmistakably defined in 412:
"If we love one another, God abideth in us, and His Love
is perfected in us." The only variation in the phraseology
is that, instead of the "perfected in us" (e]n h[mi?n) of 412, we
have here "perfected with us" (meq ] h[mw?n),3 the latter being
probably intended as a stronger expression of the fact that
it is in the social relations of the Christian community that
the Divine life of Love has its fullest human realisation.
Clearly, then, it is in the exercise of brotherly love
that Love is here said to be perfected. Further, if we
inquire why this is so,—what specific idea the Apostle
intends to convey by the "perfecting" of Love,—this also
becomes clear when we compare the two passages in which
this "perfecting" is described: "Whosoever keepeth His
word, in him verily is the love of God perfected " (25); and.
"If we love one another, God abideth in us, and His
love is perfected in us" (412). Manifestly, the conception
common to "keeping His word" and “loving one another”
is the embodiment of Love in actual conduct. The asser-
tion of perfectness refers, not to the strength or purity of
Love as a sentiment, but solely to its bearing fruit in deeds
which prove its reality and fulfil its purpose. The idea is
1 v. Notes, in loc.
2 h[ a]ga<ph. Not the Love of God to us, nor specifically our Love to God or
to our brother, but that moral nature which is called Love. Cf. supra, p. 212.
3 meq ] h[mw?n. v. Notes, in loc.
The Doctrine of Assurance 287
that, not of qualitative, but of effective perfection; and
tetelei<wtai might be translated more unambiguously by
"fulfilled" or "accomplished" than by "perfected." That
is teteleiwme<non which has reached its te<loj, has achieved its
end, has run its full course.1 And the end of God's Love
to us is attained in our loving one another. As the seed
reaches its goal in the fruit, so the Love of God has
its fulfilment in reproducing itself in the character and
conduct of His children. But, as we have2 seen, the Love
of God to us cannot be directly reproduced in our relation
to Him. It is only when we love one another with the
love of God—the love which is His own, and which He
begets in us—that His love is fulfilled in us. Then Love's
circuit is complete, from God to us, from us to our brother,
and through our brother back to God (cf. Matt. 2540)
Next, the Apostle states a special purpose achieved by
this fulfilment of Love--"that we may have confidence in
the Day of Judgment."3 This is not the only end, but it is
an end; in the present view, indeed, the ultimate end of all
action. All that life most profoundly signifies is contained
in the thought of our final responsibility to God (2 Cor.
19.10). This confidence is a present possession (e@xwmen),4
not only because the Apostle thinks of the Day of Judg-
ment as at hand, but because the thought of that Day and
of its issue for us is, or ought to be, present to our minds.
Finally, the Apostle supplies the necessary connecting
link between "perfected Love" and this "confidence."
Our love, however truly fulfilled, does not in its own right
1 A comparison of other Johannine occurrences of teleio<w confirms this.
Jesus "accomplishes" or "fulfils" the work of the Father (John 435 536 174);
the Scripture is "accomplished " or "fulfilled" (1928). Cf. Acts 2024 teleiw?sai
to> dro<mon mou; Jas. 222 e]k tw?n e@rgwn h[ pi<stij e]teleiw<qh= "in works faith found
fulfilment." "To make perfect (teleio<w) is to bring to the end, that is, the
appropriate or appointed end, the end corresponding to the idea" (Davidson,
Hebrews, p. 65).
2 v. supra, pp. 76, 250-52.
3 The Day of Judgment. See Chapter \V I.
4 e@xwmen. v. Notes, in loc.
288 The First Epistle of
furnish confidence against the Day of Judgment. It does
so, "because as He is,1 so are we"—because it is the proof
that we are spiritually one with Christ.
The statement is, that what Christ is we also are, though
He has gone to the Father and we are still in this world.2
The sign and test of our union with Him has been stated
as "walking even as He walked" (26), "purifying ourselves
as He is pure" (33), being "righteous as He is righteous"
(37). Here, finally, it is that "Love is fulfilled in us."
The heart of all Christ's doing and suffering was the intense
longing He had to make Himself the channel through
which the Love of God might reach men. To this end He
followed the path of love to the crowded city, to the wilder-
ness, to the Cross and the grave. In Him Love had its
absolute fulfilment. And if we also seek to be channels
through which the Love of God reaches our fellow-men, then,
in our small measure and degree, we are "as He is"; and
Love, feeble and poor though it be, has herein reached fulfil-
ment in us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment.
Love will be on the Judgment-seat. Love will be befoe the
Judgment-seat. And Love cannot be condemned or dis-
owned of Love.
418.
"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out
fear, because fear hath punishment: he that feareth is not
made perfect in love."
In the preceding verse it has been asserted that Love
"fulfilled" establishes the Christian in confidence toward
God, as being the fruit and the test of his fellowship with
1 He (e]kei?noj) = Christ; cf. 26 36. 5. 7.16. v. supra, p. 89.
The exactness of the parallelism between this verse and 318.19 ought to be
observed. Here, the purpose to be effected is "that we may have confidence in
the Day of Judgment"; there, "that we may assure our hearts before Him."
Here, the ground of confidence is that "as Christ is, so are we in this world";
there, that we are "of the truth." Here, the proof of this is that "Love is
perfected in us"; there, that we love "not in word neither in tongue; but in
deed and in truth."
The Doctrine of Assurance 289
Christ. Here the same position is maintained from a
complementary point of view: what is hostile to par]r[hsi<a
is Fear, and what delivers from Fear is Love.1 Fear
towards God is the product of the self-accusing heart.
But "there is no Fear2 in Love." In loving one another
there is no matter of self-accusation, there is nothing to
give occasion to Fear.3 Fear is the sentinel of life; the
self-protective instinct that gives warning of danger, and
calls to arms against it; and Fear towards God is the sign
that not all is well in our relation to Him, and that we
instinctively know it. But Love gives no such warning signal.
When we are living in Love we are doing those things which
are "well-pleasing in His sight " (322); we are "abiding in
the Light" (210); we have fellowship one with another, and
the blood of Jesus, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin" (17).
Not only is there nothing in Love to produce Fear; it
banishes Fear where it exists. "But perfect Love casteth
out Fear." It says to Fear, "Begone!" and, so to say,
flings it out of doors.4 "Perfect Love" (h[ te<leia a]ga<ph)
cannot signify anything else than the Love which has
been spoken of in the foregoing verse as "perfected."5
How love becomes "perfect" has been already declared
(25 412); also how it casts out Fear. Even against a
self-accusing heart, Love that is "in deed and in Truth"
1 The verse thus carries on the parallelism to 318-20, expanding the thought
contained in the words, "and shall assure our hearts before Him whereinsoever
our own heart condemn us."
2 The order of words is the most emphatic possible: fo<boj ou]k e@stin e]n t^?
a]ga<p^: "Fear there is none in love." fo<boj is used of reverential fear (2 Cor.
71); but here (as in Rom. 815) of servile, self-regarding fear.
3 fo<boj ou]k e@stin e]n t^> a]ga<p^=In love there is no occasion of Fear—nothing
to make afraid. Cf. the analogous phrase, ska<ndalon e]n au]t&? ou]k e@stin (210)
4 "Casteth out" (e@cw ba<llei). More vivid, and describing more vigorous
action than e]kba<llei.
5 Love is perfect which has its "perfect work." Cf. Jas. 14. Also Shepherd
of Hermas, Vis. I. 2, 1. tw?n a[martiw?n tw?n telei<wn=sins actually committed,
as contrasted with sins only imagined or purposed. Westcott, on the contrary,
has a characteristic note on the difference between "perfect" (te<leia) and
"perfected" (teteleiwme<nh).
290 The First Epistle of
lifts up its testimony that we are "of the truth" (318)
That we in this world are as Christ is (417), forgiving them
that injure us, doing the most and the highest good we
can, loving men with the Love of Christ, "walking in Love
even as He loved us"--there is no attestation of our
fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ,
and no ground of confidence like this. This casts out Fear
by Divine right.1 And it does so,
Fear hath punishment."2 The expression is peculiar and
obscure. The drift of the argument, however, is clear.
Fear itself is of the nature of punishment; it is, in fact,
the first reaction of sin upon the moral nature, the first
conscious penalty of wrong-doing. It is, moreover, the
consciousness of a relation to God of which punishment is
the proper and only issue; and, unless it be legitimately
overcome, drives the sinner to an ever-increasing distance
from God (Gen. 38). And just because this is the nature
of Fear, Love prevails over it and casts it out. Conscious
of loving our fellow-men with a love that God has implanted
in our hearts, we are assured that God is our Father, that
Jesus Christ the Righteous is our Advocate--that our
relation to God is one which holds no place for the idea of
"punishment," in which nothing is possible except fatherly
forgiveness and discipline. If Fear is the natural reaction
of sin upon the soul, no less is confidence the natural
reaction of Love. Nothing can work in us such a loving
assurance of God's love to us as loving one another.
Nothing can make it so clear that God will forgive our
trespasses as our forgiving those that trespass against us.
1 Here the Apostle only reproduces the most emphatic teaching of his Master
(Matt. 614.15 1835 2540, Luke 1025-37 169.19-26 etc.).
2 "Hath punishment" (ko<lasin e@xei). ko<lasij has no meaning except
"punishment," whether retributive or disciplinary (cf. Matt. 2546, 2 Pet. 29)
and cannot be translated by "torment" (A.V.), or any word that expresses merely
a painful feeling. Here the meaning is not that Fear, "as rooted in unbelief, is
itself deserving of punishment" (Huther), but that Fear is itself a punishment or
chastisement.
The Doctrine of Assurance 291
It is by loving that we know God, Who is Love, and are
assured that God dwelleth in us. Therefore "perfect"
Love—Love that has done the work of Love—casts out
the Fear which "hath punishment." The consequence
necessarily follows that "He that feareth has not been made1
perfect in Love." In the sphere of Love his life must be
yet unfulfilled.2 Inasmuch as he fears, his condition is
more hopeful than that of him who "saith he is in the
light, and hateth his brother" (29); but inasmuch as he fails
of genuine fruition in Love he lacks, and rightly lacks, the
consciousness of union with God in Christ; or at least that
consciousness is feeble as against the consciousness of sin.
The Apostle evidently does not contemplate such a type of
Christian as Bunyan's Mr. Fearing. Indoctrinated with the
teaching of the Epistle, that loving and lovable saint might
cease to be Mr. Fearing. Even he might recognise that he
is "of the truth," and assure his "heart before God."
419
The paragraph is now exquisitely rounded by the
return of thought to Him Who is the source of all Christian
Life, all Christian Love, and ultimately, therefore, of all
Christian Assurance.
Having just spoken of him "that feareth" because "he
has not been made perfect in Love," the Apostle adds
the earnest exhortation ‘As for us, let us love,3 because
1 To be "perfected in Love" cannot mean anything substantially different
from having "Love perfected" in one. That love has attained to its true issue in
us as its sphere of action, and that we have reached our proper end or aim in Love
as our sphere of action, are the same idea regarded from converse points of view.
2 Cf. Rev. 32 "I have found no words of thine fulfilled (peplhrwme<na) before
my God."
3 The strong position of h[mei?j, and, in fact, its presence at all, justifies the
translation, "as for us."
By the general consent of textual authorities, au]to<n is omitted after
a]gapw?men. The whole term of the passage makes it clear that a]gapw?men is to
be understood of brotherly love. As regards the rendering, "Let us love,"
v. Notes, in loc.
292 The First Epistle of
He first loved us." This brief sentence contains at once
the ideal, the sovereign motive and the power of realisation
for all Christian ethics. What God is, determines the mark
at which the Christian must of necessity aim (Matt. 545)
What God is--"He first loved us" summons and inspires
heart, soul, strength, and mind to the effort. What God is
--Love that wills to bestow nothing less than the Infinite
Good, Eternal Life, upon sinful men—supplies the unfailing
power to which all moral perfection is possible. Through
the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, we may be holy
as He is holy, righteous as He is righteous, and love as
the children of Him who is Love.
In the exposition of these verses I have ventured upon a wide
departure from the practically unanimous1 exegetical tradition. I have
taken the passage as closely parallel with 318-20, understanding "perfected"
Love as Love fulfilled in "deed and in truth," and as casting out Fear,
because it is objective evidence of union with Christ. But on the
common interpretation, it is the sentiment of Love that is here spoken
of as "perfected," and it casts out Fear, because the two are psycho-
logically incompatible.2 "Where Love to God exists in perfection it
casts out all lingering dread of Him. Love and Fear are antagonistic
principles. Love is a self-forgetting, Fear a self-regarding affection.
Love is blessedness; Fear, on the contrary, ‘hath torment.' It con-
templates the relation to its object as one of hostile opposition, and
brings with it a feeling of distress. But Love has no thought of self, and,
therefore, no Fear. Not every kind of Love, indeed, casts out Fear; but
only perfect Love, which is free from self-seeking. And if any man is
yet subject to Fear, this only proves that he is not perfected in Love.
But this is not true of us. We love God with this unselfish, happy,
fearless Love, because He first loved us."
But this interpretation seems to me to be open to serious objection.
According to it, the central thought of the passage is that the secret of
confidence toward God lies in the psychological necessity by which the
sentiment of Love to God excludes the opposite sentiment of Fear.
But in the first place, this thought does not at all fit into the reasoning
of 417, where the ground of confidence explicitly is, "Because as He
(Christ) is, so are we in this world." Here it is, in my view, indisputable
1 The only supporter I have found for the view I have advanced is J. M.
Gibbon in his Eternal Life.
2 By far the finest exposition of the passage on these lines is Rothe's, which
give here in condensed form.
The Doctrine of Assurance 293
that the “perfected Love” is brotherly love fulfilled in "deed and in
truth," and that it gives confidence toward God because it is the sign
and the test of our being spiritually identified with Christ. But if the
central idea is that the sentiment of Love by its natural operation
casts out Fear, the reference to Christ and to our union with Him is
entirely irrelevant.1
With regard to 418 I acknowledge that this interpretation satisfies
the requirements excellently2 and obviously—more obviously than that
which I have advanced--if 418 can be isolated from 417, and from the
whole Epistle. It is evident that if this is the true interpretation of 418,
the argument of the passage breaks in two. In 417, Love perfected in
action casts out Fear, because it is evidence that "as Christ is, so are
we"; in 418, Love perfected in sentiment casts out Fear by psycholo-
gical necessity. It is not, of course, impossible that the writer should
thus suddenly and insensibly change his point of view. But an inter-
pretation that does not involve this supposition is, to that extent, pre-
ferable.
Besides, when thus interpreted, the passage stands solitary in the
Epistle, without an assignable place in the organism of its thought.
Here we should have the only idea in the Epistle that is not introduced
again and again, and the only passage without a parallel. (a) On
this interpretation, h[ a]ga<ph is Love regarded exclusively as a sentiment,
and exclusively in relation to God. But this is not according to the
usage of the Epistle. h[ a]ga<ph used absolutely, as here, means simply the
disposition which is so called—the disposition which is revealed in God
by His sending His Son as a propitiation for our sins (410), in Christ by
His laying down His life for us (316), and which, according to the
unvarying representation of the Epistle, is manifested and fulfilled in
us by our loving one another. (b) But the strongest objection lies
against the idea itself that confidence toward God is the effect of a
1 This is recognised by Lucke, who in 417 takes h[ a]ga<ph as the brotherly love
that attests our fellowship with Christ, but in 418 as the love to God that casts
out fear by its intrinsic power. Weiss includes brotherly love in the idea of
h[ a]ga<ph—inconsistently, as it seems to me, with the whole scope of his inter-
pretation.
2 I except from this statement the clause, "Perfect Love casteth out Fear,
because Fear hath punishment " (ko<lasin e@xei). Ex hypotkesi, Love casts out
Fear, because it is psychologically impossible that the two should coexist; and it
is difficult to realise any force in the argument that Love casts out Fear, because
Fear is the penalty of sin. By the majority of commentators, indeed, ko<lasij
is (unjustifiably) translated as “pain” or “distress.” The argument might thus
be taken as supplementary to the main one—"There is no fear in Love." Love
and Fear are not only antagonistic in themselves: they produce opposite
effects—blessedness and pain. Therefore, all the more, Love casts out Fear.
Incompatible effects prove their causes incompatible. But to find this argument
in the passage demands a good deal of ingenuity—in addition to the very doubt-
ful translation of ko<lasij.
294 The First Epistle of
sentiment or state of inward feeling. This seems incongruous with the
whole tone and teaching of the Epistle. Everywhere else the writer
drives us back upon the evidence of tangible facts. Everywhere else the
Epistle strenuously insists upon the necessity of testing love to God
by its realisation in action (25 317 412. 20 53). And if Love itself must
submit to such tests, how is this compatible with making it, merely as
a sentiment, the immediate source of assurance? It has just been said
that if we love "not in word neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth,
we shall recognise that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts
before Him." How can we now be told that if any man feareth, it is
because he is deficient in the feeling of love to God? The objective
evidence is indispensable (317); how, then, is the subjective feeling
sufficient? The objective evidence is sufficient (319), how, then, is the
subjective feeling indispensable? Furthermore, this interpretation
seems to involve a considerable departure from the normal lines of New
Testament thought upon this subject. In the evangelical psychology it is
confidence that makes perfect love possible, rather than perfect love that
begets confidence. God is in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself,
taking away the causes of fear, in order that we may love Him with a
free-hearted, unselfish, filial love, much rather than inspiring such a love
in order that we may have confidence toward Him.l We may regard
the Christian's assurance as resting immediately upon Christ, or we
may regard it as resting upon the pledges he has given to Christ (2 Tim.
112),—the work of faith and labour of love that certify his union with
Christ; but is there any other passage in the New Testament that
represents this assurance as dependent upon the subjective perfection
of our love to God?
Finally, one may ask to what purpose is the passage, thus interpreted?
It states a psychological fact—that in proportion as we are possessed by
self-forgetting love we are delivered from self-regarding fear. This is
as true as that two and two are four; and if there are those on whose
behalf it can be claimed that by the very perfection of their love to God,
as a sentiment, they are delivered from all fear, this is, indeed, thank-
worthy. Yet even so they are apparently invited to regard the absence
of fear as the proof of the genuineness and perfection of their love--a
position which is absolutely inconsistent with the whole tenor of the
Epistle, and which receives a direct contradiction in the very next
verse (420). But it is admitted by those who maintain this interpreta-
tion, that in no actual instance is it fully applicable. "Though as certain
1 Thus Rothe unconsciously glides into statements which are the exact con-
verse of what his own exposition of the text requires. "Love to God, to be
perfectly genuine, demands unconditional trust in Him." But what
is that perfect love produces such trust. "So long as, in view of our sins and our
reckoning for them, we have not full trust in God, our love to Him is not per-
fected." But what St. John says is that we cannot have this full trust until
we have the perfect love. It is perfect love that casts out the Fear that has ko<lasin.
The Doctrine of Assurance 295
as any physical law, the principle that perfect love excludes all fear,
is an ideal that has never been verified in fact; like the first law of
motion, it is verified by the approximation made to it" (Plummer).1
That is true; and it follows that all Christians are, in greater or less
measure, included under o[ fobou<menoj. Such a consequence is clearly
against the whole purport of the passage,—a passage which is triumphant
throughout, and could not conceivably have ended with the sternly
sorrowful "he that feareth has not been made perfect in love," if these
words contemplated any other than an abnormal experience. For these
reasons, I have been compelled reluctantly to abandon this interpreta-
tion for 417, and, with more hesitation, for 418 also, temptingly obvious as
it is for the latter.
Having thus completed our exposition of the passages
in which Assurance is specifically dealt with, we may now
briefly consider the broader aspects of
tion of this subject. And, in the first place, let it be said
once more that the whole tone and temper of the Epistle,
in its treatment of this as of other subjects, must be
appreciated in view of its polemical purpose. Its noble
and enthusiastic delineation of the Christian Life is, at the
same time, a manifesto against pseudo-Christianity; and if
it is written to establish the genuine Christian in the
certainty of his salvation (513), this is done only in such a
way as to refute all spurious pretensions. Hence it comes
that the Epistle has much more to say of the immediate
tests than of the ultimate ground of Christian Assurance.
The statement of the latter forms the entrance-hall, so to
say, of the Epistle. And the statement is clear and strong:
"The Blood of Jesus, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin" (17).
"If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the Righteous; and He is the Propitiation for
our sins " (21. 2). The Christian's sole confidence is Christ.
"Bold shall I stand on that great day;
For who aught to my charge shall lay,
While by Thy Blood absolved I am
From sin's tremendous guilt and shame?"
1 To the same effect, Rothe: "By this we may judge how elementary all our
love to God is."
296 The First Epistle of
moment all intermediate thoughts, and beholding with open
face the primal facts of God's Redemption, he breaks forth
into joy:—"Beloved, what manner of love the Father hath
bestowed upon us, that we should be called the children of
God! And such we are" (31). It is the spontaneous utter-
ance of the thoughts and emotions of a lifetime. Yet it is
only for a moment that the Apostle gets him up into the
high mountain. Presently he descends to the plain and,
the testing routine of daily life: "Every one that hath this
hope in Him purifieth himself, even as He is pure" (33)
The question indefatigably urged by
personal right to this "boldness"--as to the verifiable
reality of our saving connection with Christ.
Further, we must observe that, so far as the teaching of
the Epistle shows, this is solely inferential. Salvation—
Eternal Life—is not of the future only, it is a present
reality; and there is no assurance of it except what is a
warrantable inference from its manifestations in character
and conduct.
The characteristic word by which this inference is
expressed is ginw<skein1 (to "recognise" or "perceive" a
fact by its appropriate marks, 23. 5. 29 319.24 413). At times,
indeed, the Apostle seems to rise to an immediate con-
sciousness of Divine sonship, as in "We know (oi@damen)
that we are of God " (519). But this "We know" is only
"We perceive" raised to a higher power by exultant
emotion. Even in its highest moments, Assurance does not
change its ground: "We know (oi@damen) that we have
passed from death into life, because we love the brethren"
(314). The conception, whether right or wrong, of Assurance
as a self-evidencing consciousness of acceptance with God,
for which earnest souls have prayed in tears of agony and
waited in many a darkened hour, is, to say the least, not
1 See special note on ginw<skein.
The Doctrine of Assurance 297
present in the Epistle. Equally remote from its teaching
is that minute inquisition of the religious affections by
which others have sought to eliminate misgiving. With
objective, not subjective; plain and tangible, not micro-
scopic and elusive. They are three, or, rather, they are a
trinity: Belief, Righteousness, Love. By his belief in
Christ, his keeping God's commandments, and his love to
the brethren, a Christian man is recognised and recognises
himself as begotten of God.
The function assigned to Belief, in this regard, is
specially characteristic, and demands consideration.
According to the teaching of the Epistle, Christian Belief
brings assurance of salvation, not by subjective psychological
action as Trust, but because it affords objective testimony
that the believer is " begotten of God "1 (42 54. 5), and has
God "abiding in him" (415). It is the same with the
witness of the Spirit. To every believer the truth
concerning the object of Christian faith—Christ the
Incarnate Son of God—is directly certified by the teaching
and testimony of the Spirit (220.27 42 57). But it is a mis-
conception, though a common one, to regard the Epistle
as teaching that the Spirit bears immediate and self-
evidencing testimony to the Divine sonship of the believer.
What the Spirit witnesses to is the Divine-human person-
ality of Christ (42 57; cf. John 1526 1614). And it is only
as an objective fact and by necessary inference that the
reception of the Spirit's witness and the resultant confession
of Christ give assurance that "we are of God" (44). Thus
when it is said (324), "And hereby we recognise that He
abideth in us by the Spirit which He gave us," it is not
the intuition of a fact, but an inference from a fact, that is
expressed,—not that the Spirit imparts the immediate
consciousness that God abideth in us, but that the indwell-
1 v. supra, pp. 262, 270-4.
298 The First Epistle of
ing of God is recognised by its appropriate sign, the gift of
the Spirit "that confesseth Jesus as the Christ come in the
flesh " (42).
It is thus evident that the Epistle's view of Assurance
stands somewhat apart from
While the same fundamental Christian experience as Paul
asserts, "Ye received not the spirit of bondage again to
fear; but ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we
cry, Abba Father," is no less asserted by "We know and
have believed the Love which God hath towards us," the
fact, nevertheless, is not to be slurred over, that in its
explicit treatment of the subject, which is uniquely
deliberate and systematic, the Epistle recognises no
assurance of fellowship with God which is not matter of
inevitable inference from the facts of life. And it is
precisely when it deals with the subject at closest quarters
that it most rigorously postulates Love, embodied and
"perfected" in actual deeds, as the crucial test by which
"we shall recognise that we are of the truth, and shall
assure our hearts before him . . . " For this proof that
"as He is, so are we in this world," there is no substitute.
Prayer.
We turn now to the second branch of the subject,
Assurance in Prayer. This does not emerge in the first
Cycle of the Epistle, but in the second and the third it is
dealt with in passages which are closely parallel and
mutually explanatory (321. and 514.15). In both places
assurance of our filial relation to God is seen to have as
its immediate result, confidence toward Him in prayer.
This assurance is differently expressed in the two contexts
(319--"we are of the truth"; 513--"ye have eternal life "),
and is differently grounded (on Love "in deed and in
truth,"318 on Belief "in the name of the Son of God," 513),
The Doctrine of Assurance 299
but is to the same effect and leads to the same practical
issue—par]r[hsi<a toward God.
321. 22.
"Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, we have
boldness1 toward God; and whatsoever we ask, we receive
of Him, because we keep His commandments, and do
those things that are pleasing in His sight." par]r[hsi<a
("boldness") is to be understood as including both the
right we enjoy—that of open and free speech—and the
feeling of confidence with which this is exercised. The
condition of this "boldness" is—"If our heart condemn
us not." In the foregoing verse the Apostle has indicated
how the true Christian, loving, "not in word neither in
tongue," but "in deed and in truth," may recognise that
he is "of the truth," and assure his heart, even his self-
condemning heart, before God. And here "If our heart
condemn us not" must be understood as assuming the
whole result of 318-20. It includes not only the case
in which the heart has found no matter of condemnation,
but also the case in which the heart's condemnation has
been silenced in the presence of Him "Who is greater
than the heart." Upon this condition alone is confident
approach to God possible. Unconfessed sin, or doubt as
to our own integrity of heart, offers an insuperable obstacle.
(Ps. 323 6615, Matt. 523.21). But, unembarrassed by the
accusation of conscience, conscious of walking in the Light
as He is in the Light, we have the privilege, and the feeling
which corresponds to the privilege, of open childlike speech
with our Father. This is the glory and perfection of
Christian prayer, and is the Christian's constant encourage-
ment and invitation to pray.
1 We have found the same word, par]r[hsi<a, used to express the faithful
Christian's confidence towards Christ at His coming (228), and toward God at
the Day of Judgment (417).
300 The First Epistle of
And this is no vain confidence we have toward God.
"Whatsoever we ask of Him we receive, because we keep1
His commandments, and do the things that are pleasing in
His sight."2
What principle is expressed in this "because" is not
immediately obvious. The idea of merit is to be abso-
lutely excluded as irrelevant to the thought of the whole
passage, and as opposed to the inmost truth of Christi-
anity. Equally to be rejected, a priori, is the notion that
by our obedience we acquire such favour with God and
such influence in His counsels that He cannot refuse us
what we ask (Candlish). Even if we are compelled to
recognise such a thought in the primitive stages of revela-
tion, it is intolerable in the New Testament. The key to
the interpretation of the present passage is given in
John 157:--"If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in
you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be done unto
you." It is no external and arbitrary but an intrinsically
necessary condition of successful prayer that is here ex-
pressed. Our prayers are answered, because our will is in
inward harmony with God's, the evidence of this being that
we "keep His commandments and do those things that
are pleasing in His sight." In our actions we prove that
God's will is our will; and when we pray, our will does not
change. Our life is a unity. Our deeds and our prayers
are manifestations of the same God-begotten Life, are
operations of the same will,—the will that God's will be
1 The two expressions, "keep His commandments" and "do the things
that are pleasing in his sight," are virtually synonymous, except in so far as
they suggest a twofold motive for obedience—submission to moral authority, and
the loving desire of the children of God to please the Father in all things
(cf. 2 Cor. 59). Catholic exegetes distinguish the two as obedience to what is
enjoined (praecepta) and good works voluntarily undertaken (consilia evangelica),
but this is entirely beside the mark.
2 e]nw<pion au]tou?. Cf. e@mprosqen au]tou? (319). e]nw<pion is especially a Lucian
word, used regularly to translate ynep;li. e@mprosqen conveys more particularly the
idea of man's consciousness of God's Presence, e]nw<pion more directly the reality
of God's perception (cf. Luke 1615, Acts 419 104.31, Rom. 320).
The Doctrine of Assurance 301
clone. Therefore, "whatsoever we ask of Him we receive."
"The effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth
much " (Jas. 516), because, as the man is, so are his prayers
--righteous. The desires of him who delights himself in
the Lord are desires that cannot, because they ought not,
to fail of accomplishment (Ps. 374). The prayers of those
who "keep God's commandments and do those things that
are pleasing in His sight," are nothing else than echoes of
God's own voice, impulses of the Divine Will Itself,
throbbing in the strivings of the human will and, in the
mystical circulation of the Eternal Life, returning to their
source.1
All this is more explicitly set forth in the parallel
passage
514-16
"And this2 is the boldness which we have towards
Him, that, if we ask anything according to His Will,3 He
heareth us" (514). Here the qualification, "according to His
Will," is explicit. The marvellous and supernatural power
of prayer consists, not in bringing God's Will down to us,
but in lifting our will up to His. And thus the words,
1 This view is confirmed by the succeeding context. 323 and 324a are both
explanatory of 322. The first explains what the substance of God's command-
ments is: "This is His commandment, that we believe on the name of His
Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment." The
second explains why, by keeping God's commandments, we are assured of obtain-
ing what we pray for. It is because this is both the condition and the evidence of
our fellowship with God: "And he that keepeth His commandments dwelleth
in Him, and He in him." Since the keeping of His commandments is the
means by which we abide in God (John 1510) and the condition of God's abiding
in us (John 1423), it ensures that our prayers are such as it is meet that God
should answer.
2 Here, it is to be observed, Prayer is related in the context to Eternal Life
(511-13) Prayer is a mode of action in which the Life God has bestowed upon us
in His Son characteristically manifests itself (John 1413 157.10). And as Prayer
itself is an expression of the Eternal Life in us, so joyful confidence in prayer
comes from knowing that we have Eternal Life (513)
3 "According to His Will." This defines not the manner of the asking, but
its object—" anything according to His Will."
The Test of Righteousness 221
“Judge ye what they are," the Apostle would say. "It was
no other than the Son of God whose task it was to destroy
them. So abhorrent to God are the works of the Devil
that it was worth His while, yea, He was necessitated by
His own Holiness and Love, to send even His own Son
into the deadly fight for their complete undoing."
39.
"Whosoever1 is begotten of God doeth not sin; because
His seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is
begotten of God." The Apostle advances the fourth and
last proof of the unqualified antagonism to sin that is
inherent in the life of the children of God. As the seed of
physical generation stamps upon the offspring an inefface-
able character, and nothing in after years can alter the
inherited basis of life, so does the germ of spiritual life
from the spiritual Father set the impress of a permanent
organic character upon the God-begotten. On this the
Apostle finally grounds the certainty that the Christian
Life, in its inmost eternal essence (spe<rma au]tou?), is a
life of perfect righteousness; that is, under present con-
ditions, a life of continual opposition to sin, and victory
over it.
“In this the children of God are manifest, and the
children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is
not of God." In our " doing " and also in our "not-doing"
the spiritual affinities, which are in their essence secret,
become manifest—manifest, that is, to all men of spiritual
discernment (cf. Matt. 720, Gal. 519-23). With the solemn
words, "Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God,"
the argument concludes. The end of the paragraph reverts
1 v. supra, pp. 195, 198.
222 The First Epistle of
to and logically completes the assertion with which it began.
That assertion was:—"Every one that doeth righteousness1
is begotten of God"; here the complementary negative is
set forth, "Every one that doeth not righteousness1 is not
of God" (229). The test of righteousness is enforced on
every side. No gap is left in the circle drawn around the
"begotten of God." All who do righteousness are included;
all who do not are excluded.
The writer has thus, with four-fold argument, enforced
the truth that the life of Divine sonship is a life that
necessarily expresses itself in righteousness and in irrecon-
cilable antagonism to sin; and further, that there can be
no righteousness apart from right-doing, and, conversely,
no evil-doing apart from the principle of sin, which has its
arch-embodiment in the Devil. It must be admitted, how-
ever, that the manner in which this truth is presented is fitted
rather to puzzle the exegete than to edify the reader. By
an apparently overstrained identification of persons with the
principles they represent, and by neglect of the fact that
there is in human nature, as it actually exists, a com-
mixture of incongruous elements, the writer seems to
spurn the solid ground of experience and to soar into a
region of mere abstract dialectic. Had he asserted in the
strongest terms the impossibility of maintaining the same
kind of relation to Christ and to sin,—that to believe in
Christ and to believe in sin, to love Christ and to love sin,
to live in Christ and to live in sin as one's element, is as
unthinkable as that one should face North and South at
the same moment, to this every Christian heart would in-
stantly respond. But when he says:--"Whosoever abideth
in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him,
neither knoweth Him" (36); "Whosoever is begotten of
1 Westcott distinguishes th>n dikaiosu<nhn in 229 and dikaiosunhn here,
as respectively, the abstract—“the idea of righteousnes in its completeness"--
and the concrete—“that which bears a particular character, viz., righteousness,”
I find it impossible to realise any exegetical value in the distinction.
The Test of Righteousness 223
God doeth not sin; because His seed abideth in him: and he
cannot sin, because he is begotten of God" (39); and, again,
“We know that whosoever is begotten of God sinneth
not” (518),--he seems to contradict not only the universal
testimony of the Christian conscience (which much rather
assents to Luther's paradox, "He who is a Christian is no
Christian") and the general doctrine of Scripture, but his
own explicit teaching. Has he not said, "These things I
write unto you that ye sin not" (21), thereby recognising
the possibility of what he declares impossible? Has he not
set forth, in view of that possibility, the Divine provision
for it, "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the
Father" (21)? Does he not expressly contemplate the con-
tingency of our seeing "a brother sinning a sin not unto
death" and prescribe the course to be followed in that
event (516)? Undesirable, therefore, as it is, even for the
sake of vindicating a writer's self-consistency, to seek
another meaning for plain words than they carry on their
face, the inconsistency here is of such a nature that we are
compelled to look for some interpretation by which the
discord may be resolved.
We return, therefore, to the consideration of 36 "Who-
soever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath
not seen Him, neither knoweth Him." Attempts to untie
the knot have been made from many sides. (a) A solution
is sought in the Apostle's "idealism" (Candlish, Weiss).
As to
their abundant imperfections, are saints, klhtoi> a!gioi; so
to
of his divinely-begotten nature, "sinneth not." This in no
way meets the requirements of the passage. The writer's
purpose is not to exhibit an ideal, but to apply a test; and
it is precisely against the dangers of a false or vague
idealism that his argument is directed.1 (b) Help has been
1 See on 37 supra.
224 The First Epistle of
sought in the word me<nei. When the Christian sins, he
is not, for the moment, abiding in Christ. "In quantum in
Christo manet in tantum non peccat" (Augustine and Bede,
quoted and adopted by Westcott). But, even if this were
a satisfactory explanation of the first clause (which it is
not), it is unavailing with respect to the second, "Whoso-
ever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither knoweth Him."
(c) The verse refers to mortal sin. But any distinction
between mortal and venial sins is resolutely debarred by
the context, the argument of which is that every sin, of
whatever description or degree, is "lawlessness" (34). (d)
a[marta<nei is explained as meaning a life of unbroken and
impenitent sin—following sin "as a calling" (Stevens,
Gibbon). But this only empties the word of its proper
meaning: a[marta<nein in 36, cannot be other than synony-
mous with poiei?n th>n a[marti<an in 38; and this (v. supra
on 37) connotes not the frequency or other characteristic
of the sinning, but its simple actuality. (e) Finally, a
solution is most commonly sought on the lines of
720.* "A Christian does not do sin, he suffers it " (Besser).
"It is no longer sin, but opposition to it, that determines
his conduct of life" (Huther). "Etsi infirmitate labitur,
peccato tamen non consentit, quia potius gemendo luctatur"
(Augustine). Here, however, the Apostle is not dis-
tinguishing between a man and his deeds; on the contrary,
he is in the most rigorous fashion identifying them (pa?j
o[ poiw?n, 34. 7. 8. 9. 10) With Rom. 720, as a contrite
acknowledgment of sinful weakness,
had no quarrel. But it is against that text abused—
made an apology for sin, and a pretext for moral indifferent-
ism—that the concentrated fire of his artillery is directed.
I venture to suggest that a more satisfactory ex-
planation of this perplexing passage is to be found in
* "But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin
which dwelleth in me."
The Test of Righteousness 225
the obvious fact that it is written in view, of a definite
controversial situation and in a vehemently controversial
strain, the absoluteness of its assertions being due to the
fact that they are in reality unqualified contradictions of
tenets of unqualified falsity. The polemical reference
which underlies the whole paragraph becomes explicit in
37-8:--"Little children, let no man lead you astray. He
that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is
righteous. He that doeth sin is of the devil." Clearly,
as we have seen, this is aimed against a pseudo-spiritualism
for which mere conduct was of minor concern; and here,
if anywhere, we get the desired clue. Let it be sup-
posed that the Apostle and his readers were familiar with
a class of teachers who maintained that true righteousness
is entirely of the spirit, while doing, whether of righteous-
ness or of sin, has its sphere solely in the flesh, and that,
therefore, the truly spiritual man is no more affected by
the deeds of the flesh than are the sunbeams by the
purity or the filth on which they shine; let it be sup-
posed that it is against such a doctrine, disseminating
itself like a plague, that the passage is directed, and its
apparent exaggeration and over-emphasis are naturally
accounted for. Suppose that it were maintained that
one may commit outward sins without injury to his
spiritual connection with Christ, the reply would naturally
be the strongest possible assertion that the very proof of
any one's connection with Christ is his not sinning,—
"Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not." Suppose that it
were affirmed that the man whose spirit is occupied with
the inward vision and knowledge of Christ need not lose
his equanimity over such trivial and transient phenomena
as his deeds of sin, the fitting reply would be, that such an
one has not the faintest apprehension of what Christ and
Christianity stand for (36b); that, indeed, his real affinities are
with the Devil. I have put the case as a supposition; but
226 The First Episte of
there is abundant evidence1 that such tenets and practices
were characteristic of Gnosticism in both its earlier and its
later developments; they were, indeed, the inevitable off-
spring of its fundamental principle of dualism. And it is from
this quarter, I submit, that an explanation of the Apostle's
language in this verse is to be found. It is the language not
of calm and measured statement, but of vehement polemic.
The same explanation holds good for the equally un-
qualified dictum of 39: "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth
not sin, because His seed abideth in him; and he cannot
1 Irenaeus informs us that the Gnostics imagined three classes of men, the
material, the psychical, and the spiritual. They themselves, who had the
perfect knowledge of God, were the spiritual. "Hence they affirm that good
moral conduct is necessary for us" (i.e. for ordinary Christians), "because
without it we cannot be saved; but they affirm that they themselves will
unquestionably be saved, not from moral conduct, but because they are by
nature spiritual. For, as the material are incapable of receiving salvation, so
the spiritual are incapable of receiving corruption, whatever moral conduct they
may practise; for, as gold when deposited in mud does not lose its beauty,
but preserves its own nature, the mud not being able to injure the gold; so
also they say of themselves that, whatever may be the character of their material
morality, they cannot be injured by it nor lose their spiritual substance. Hence
the most perfect among them perform all forbidden things without any scruple,
and some of them, obeying the lusts of the flesh even to satiety, say that carnal
things are repaid by carnal, and spiritual things by spiritual" (Contra Haer. i. 6. 2).
Of the followers of Simon Magus it is reported: "They even congratulate
themselves upon this indiscriminate intercourse, asserting that this is perfect
love. For (they would have us believe) they are not overcome by the supposed
vice, because they have been redeemed. . . . They do whatsoever they please,
as persons free; for they allege that they are saved by grace" (Hippolytus,
Refutatio VI. xiv.).
Of the Nicolaitans it is said: "They quote an adage of Nicolaus, which they
pervert, ‘that the flesh must be abused' (to> dei?n paraxrh?sqai t^? sarki<).
Abandoning themselves to pleasure like goats, as if insulting the body, they
lead a life of self-indulgence " (Clem. Strom. II. lx.).
"These quotations I have adduced in reproof of the Basilidians, who do not
live rightly, either as having power (e]cousi<an) to sin because of their perfection,
or as being altogether assured by nature of future salvation, although they sin
now, because they are by dignity of nature the elect " (Strom. III. i.).
Of the Prodicians the same writer says: "They say that they are by nature
children of the supreme God; but, abusing that nobility and liberty, they live as
they choose, and they choose lasciviously; judging that they are bound by no law
as ‘lords of the sabbath,' and as belonging to a kind of superior race, a royal
seed. And the law, they say, is not written for kings " (Strom. III. iv.).
Such quotations might be indefinitely multiplied.
The Test of Righteousness 227
sin, because he is begotten of God." He in whom a seed
of Divine Life thus abides and determines development
not only does not do sin, he does not because he cannot.
To him it is as impossible as it is, say, for the embryonic
bird to acquire the habits of a serpent. Theoretically this
is true. It was true of Christ; and if in our case the
Divine Begetting were not a re-begetting, if there were
no other element than the seed of God present in our
nature,—no "old man" to put off; but only the "new man"
to put on,—this would be actually true of us also. As the
case stands, nothing is more certain to the consciousness of
those who are "begotten of God" than that, while they
ought to be incapable of sin, they both can and do sin.
An outlet from the impasse is usually sought in the
explanation that the regenerate element in the regenerate
man is sinless, and that the Christian is here spoken of only
in so far as the Divine nature has attained supremacy in
him. "As long as the relationship with God is real, sinful
acts are but accidents. They do not touch the essence of
the man's being" (Westcott). "With his proper self, his real,
completely independent personality, the regenerate man
cannot sin; and so his sinning can never be a sinning in the
full and proper sense of the word, but takes place only
when his proper personality is overcome by the power of
evil—is always sin of infirmity" (Rothe).
These are statements which, to say the least, cannot
be assented to. It is true that the sins of a good man are
foreign to that element in his nature which is deepest and
most permanent, and which will ultimately assert its
supremacy. Nevertheless, there necessarily are elements
in his personality to which his sins are due; and this the
good man sincerely recognises and penitently confesses.
True it is, also, that the good man does not sin spon-
taneously and gratuitously, but only because he is over-
come by the power of temptation. But this is no less
228 The First Epistle of
true of most of the sinning of unregenerate men. No
one, moreover, is overpowered by evil except by his
own consent. The will, though non-resisting, is not non-
existent even in sins of infirmity. This explanation, so
far from realising the Apostle's intention, rather, it seems to
me, reverses it. The whole paragraph is a protest against
the doctrine, that, in the regenerate man, sin is to be
regarded as an "accident," or that his "proper self " is to be
held blameless of his actual deeds. Again, I submit, the
explanation is that the statement is not theoretical but
practical, moulded and warmly coloured by the exigencies
of controversy.
calm dictum, of the theologian, but a word suffused with
holy passion, a vehement repudiation of the adversary's false
du<natai. For it depends upon who the speaker is, and
how it is said, and with what motive, whether it be
true or false to say that the "begotten of God" can sin.
Suppose it to be claimed that he can, that he may be a liar,
a glutton, or unchaste, yet none the less "begotten of
God"; suppose it to be said that his very prerogative is
this--that he can sin without prejudice to his high
standing as a spiritual and enlightened man—"No!" would
be the unhesitating reply, "that is what he cannot do."
What the fact of his being "begotten of God" means, is
just that this has become to him morally impossible.
“Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should
not have compassion on the son of her womb?” It must
be admitted that there are such monstrosities as mothers
who can. But if it be claimed that a mother can be cruel
and neglectful, and that without losing her character as a
mother, the right answer, the morally true answer, is an
indignant denial. In the same sense it is true that the
Christian, because he is "begotten of God," cannot sin;
and to assert the contrary is to assert a blasphemy, a
calumny upon God.
The Test of Righteousness 229
In the third Cycle of the Epistle the writer recurs
finally to the Test1 of Righteousness in 518 "We
know that every one that is begotten of God sinneth
not; but he that was begotten of God keepeth himself,
and the wicked one toucheth him not." Nothing needs
to be added to the explanation already advanced of
the unqualified language in which this last protest is
made against the idea that declensions from actual
righteousness are of small moment or none to the spiritual
man. But the second clause introduces new matter,
"He that was begotten of God taketh heed2 to himself,3
and that wicked one toucheth him not." This is added
obviously as a safeguard against a perverse application of
what has just been said, "Every one that is begotten of
God sinneth not." Might this truth be made a pillow for
laziness instead of a stimulus to action? Might some one,
saying in his heart that he was "begotten of God," and
that to him, therefore, righteousness was assured, fold his
hands and go to sleep? Let him remember that righteous-
ness is possible to man only as victory over a powerful
and sleepless foe ("the wicked one"); that this victory
is won only by man's own vigilant effort ("taketh heed to
himself"); and that, while both this vigilant effort and
its victory are assured by the forces of the Divine Life
operating in the regenerate, it is the effort made and the
victory won that give the required proof of regeneration.
In this practical motive of the clause we may find,
perhaps, the reason for the strange substitution of the
aorist form gennhqei<j for the usual perfect gegennhme<noj).4
1 Also in 53, where the test of love to God is keeping His commandments.
See Chapter XII.
2 threi?. v. p. 211.
3 o[ gennhqei<j . . . e[auto<n. For discussion of the reading, see Notes, in loc.
4 o[ gegennhme<noj=”He who has been begotten of God and who still retains
that character," the perfect tense connoting the act and its abiding result.
o[ gennhqei<j="He who was begotten of God," the aorist merely pointing to
the act as having taken place.
230 The First Epistle of
It is in this gegennhme<noj that danger may lurk. "Be-
gotten of God, therefore now and for ever, whether working
out my salvation with fear and trembling, or living in
somnolent security, I am a child of God." But with the
unique gennhqei<j the Divine Begetting is for the moment
regarded as a past event, not necessarily of present
efficacy. "Were you once begotten of God? Rest not on
that; but take heed to yourself! It is the very mark of
the God-begotten that he takes heed to himself." A
greater might, a more ceaseless and penetrating vigilance
than his own must be his salvation; and will be, but only
on condition of his obedience to the Master's command
grhrorei?te kai> proseu<xesqe.
Then, "the wicked one layeth not hold of him"1
As it was true of the Master, so shall it be true of the
watchful disciple—“The ruler of this world cometh and
hath nothing in me."
1 The translation "toucheth him not" goes beyond the true sense. The
"wicked one" may, indeed, touch him; but there is nothing by which he may
lay hold of him who is thus on his guard.
CHAPTER XII.
THE TEST OF LOVE.
As has appeared very clearly in the preceding chapter,
the purpose of the Epistle is not to exhibit in the abstract
that view of Christianity which may be distinctively called
Johannine, but, by holding up the true standard of Christian
faith and ethics, to expose the antichristian character of con-
temporary Gnosticism. And in pursuance of this object,
the subject-matter of the Epistle consists mainly in the
presentation, from various points of view, of those three
crucial characteristics of all that is genuinely Christian—
Righteousness, Love, and true Belief. In both the first
and second cycles of the Epistle the test of Righteousness
is followed immediately by that of Love. The writer
nowhere correlates these two conceptions of the ethical
principle. Broadly, however, it may be said that Righteous-
ness stands for its negative aspect. Righteousness is to
"keep the commandments," to "walk even as Christ
walked"; but it is to do so in respect of not sinning.
It is to "purify oneself as He is pure," to "guard" oneself
as the begotten of God. The positive element in the
Christian ethic is Love. And, according to the plan of the
Epistle, this is first presented as the condition and test of
"walking in the Light."
231
232 The First Epistle of
Love the Test of Walking in the Light.
27-11.
"Beloved,1 no new commandment write I unto you, but
an old commandment which ye had from the beginning;
the old commandment is that which ye heard. Again, a
new commandment write I unto you, which thing is true
in Him and in you; because the darkness is passing away,
and the true light is already shining" (27. 8)
By a certain stateliness in the introduction of his theme
the writer shows how strongly he is moved by the sense
of its greatness. His desire to come very close to the
heart of his readers breaks out spontaneously in the affec-
tionate and appealing "Beloved"; while, with deliberate
skill, he uses the rhetorical device of reticence in order to
whet their interest. He announces his subject only by
suggesting that there is no need to announce it—wraps it
up in half-revealing, half-concealing paradox. "No new
commandment write I unto you, but an old command-
ment. . . . Again, a new commandment I write unto you."
But he has sufficient confidence in the perspicacity of his
readers to assume that they will at once recognise in the
commandment which is both "old" and "new" the familiar
precept, "Love one another" (cf. 2 John 5).
In this identity, though it has been denied or missed
by some exegetes,2 lies the fine significance of the antithesis.
The commandment is "old," because it is what "ye heard
from the beginning." It is "new," because it is "true (has
its vital realisation) in Him and in you." The command-
ment is "old." It is no novelty the Apostle is about to
urge upon them. The test of walking in the light is
1 These verses have been found susceptible of a bewildering variety of inter-
pretations. v. Notes, in loc.
2 v. Notes, in loc.
The Test of Love 233
nothing erudite or far-fetched. To the readers of the
Epistle it is "old" as the familiar fundamental law of
Christianity which they had been taught among the first
rudiments of the Gospel ("from the beginning," cf. 224)
But in a wider sense it is old as humanity itself, nay,
older. It is the law God has impressed upon all creature-
life; which is seen in the self-sacrificing care of the tigress
for her whelps, of the mother-bird for her nestlings. It
is the Eternal Law--the law of God's own Being. God
is Love. And, therefore, it is always "new," a fresh and
living commandment. Other laws become archaic and
obsolete. Like the ceremonial law of Judaism, for instance,
they are now fossils, relics of modes of thought and of
religious and social conditions that no longer exist. But
never can age antiquate or custom stale this command-
ment. Never can the time come when men shall appeal to
tradition or to statutory authority as a reason for loving
one another. This commandment is always "new," instinct
with vital force, a spark from the Divine fire that kindles
every soul into being.
But to the Christian it is "new" in another and a
special sense:—"which thing1 (not the law itself, but the
fact that it is a new and living law) is true in Him and in
you." There are times when the Law of Love shines out
with a morning splendour, when it reveals a new signifi-
cance to the human conscience and enters upon a further
stage in its predestined conquest of human life. And this
was supremely the case when it was embodied in Christ,
and when He infused into the precept, "Love one another,"
the new dynamic, "as I have loved you" (John 1334)
The Love of Christ, typified by His washing the disciples'
feet (John 131-17), and completely realised in the laying
down of His life for those whom only His love made His
"friends" (John 1513), created a new commandment—gave
1 v. Notes, in loc.
234 The First Epistle of
to mankind a new conception, and imposed a new obligation.
And this commandment is still "new" in Him. His whole
Love expressed but did not exhaust itself in one act. He
laid down His Life that He might take it again. The
Love of
you"--in the Christian life--the commandment is always
"new." It is "old,"—a word once for all heard and
accepted,--but it is also a law continually realising itself
in the movements of life, daily imparting fresh light and
impulse in the experience of all upon whose heart it is
written by their entering into and abiding in that life -
transforming relation to Christ which is declared in the
great words, "as I have loved you" (cf. 2 Cor. 514. 15)
The following clause, "because the true (a]lhqino<n
real) Light is already shining," may be regarded as stating
either the reason why the commandment is "new" in the
experience of the Apostle's readers, or the reason why he
writes to remind them of this. The sequence of thought,
in either case, is far from obvious; but it is less obscure and
more forcible on the latter1 supposition than on the former.
The "true Light" that is vanquishing the darkness is not
the dawning light of the Parousia (Huther), but the light
of the Gospel. It points back to the announcement on
which this whole section of the Epistle is based, "God is
Light" (15). The Light, which is the self-revelation2 of
God, is now shining forth as never before. In former
times it had shone dimly and fitfully: in the Gentile world
only as starlight; in the Old Testament only as a prophetic
dawn. In Christ it is as the sun shining in its strength.
The greater, then, is the necessity that men assure them-
selves of their walking in the Light of God, and the more
is it necessary to remind them that, since the central
1 On this interpretation, "which thing is true in Him and in you" is treated
as a parenthesis, and the clause, "because the darkness passeth away," etc., is
attached to "a new commandment write I unto you." v. Notes, in loc.
2 v. p. 56 sqq.
The Test of Love 235
glory of that Light is now seen, to be the Divine Love, the
inevitable test of fellowship with God is that the command-
ment of Love the law of God's own Being--be fulfilled in
them.
"This old commandment, which ye heard from the
beginning, is, nevertheless, a new, fresh, living command-
ment--a fact that is realised first in Christ and then in
you; and of this commandment I once more put you in
remembrance, that ye may assure yourselves thereby that
ye are walking in the true Light which now is shining
in the world."
In the following verses (29-11) we have the application
of the test.
"He that saith he is in the Light, and hateth his brother,
is in the darkness even until now" (29).
The ominous "He that saith" (cf 24.6) points un-
mistakably to the Gnostic, who, glorying in his superior
enlightenment, despised the claims and neglected the duties
of brotherly love. With regard to such an one, the
Apostle, instead of saying "He lies," states the plain,
concrete inference, "He is in the darkness even until
now." The light that does not reveal the obligation and
impart the impulse of love is but a barren phosphorescence.
Even though the true light is now shining, he that lives
in hate walks in darkness; for God, who is Light, is
Love.
"He that loveth his brother abideth in the Light, and
there is no stumbling-block in him" (210). From the con-
nection between the two clauses, it is evident that here the
stumbling-block (ska<ndalon1) is conceived, not as a tempta-
tion that a man puts in another's way (Haupt), but that
in his own disposition, which is a source of temptation to
himself. (Rothe; Westcott characteristically attempts to
1 ska<ndalon. Cf. Ps. 119165 "Great peace have they that love Thy law,
and nothing shall offend them" (ou]k e@stin au]toi?j ska<ndalon, LXX.).
236 The First Epistle of
combine both ideas.) As in broad daylight obstructions
over which one might trip and fall are seen and avoided,
so, if we live in the habitual disposition of Love, we are
not liable to be taken unawares by any temptation to sin
against our brother. Not only does Love remove such
ska<ndala as pride, envy, jealousy, revenge; it is the one
sure light for the path of duty, the one infallible guide in
all our complex relations to our fellow-men. It is because
self-seeking governs men that life becomes so entangled.
Love is that power of moral understanding1 which, almost
with the certainty of instinct, discovers the way through
the maze to those “good works which God hath before
ordained that we should walk in them.” There is nothing
in love to entrap into sin.
On the contrary, "He that hateth his brother is in
the darkness, and walketh in the darkness, and knoweth
not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded2
his eyes" (211).
The antithesis is complete in every item. Towards a
brother, not to love is to hate.3 There is no third
possibility. And he that hateth is ignorant of the
stumbling-blocks that are in him.
His whole moral being and doing are enveloped in
darkness. Without the guiding light of Love, he knoweth
not whither he goeth4—does not perceive the true character
of his own actions. The selfish man is innocent of any
notion that he is selfish; the quarrelsome person thinks
1 The same thought is finely brought out in Phil. 19.10 "And for this I pray,
that your love may abound more and more in knowledge, and in all perception "
(e]pignw<sei kai> pa<s^ ai]sqh<sei).
2 Literally, "blinded " (e]tu<flwsen). v. Notes, in loc.
3 “Ubi non est amor, odium est; cor non est vacuum" (Bengel). To "hate"
expresses, not instinctive dislike, but a state of moral perversion an evil will.
It is thus the opposite of dyairav not of filei?n (Westcott).
4 The clause is almost a verbatim reproduction of John 1235 kai> o[ peripatw?n
e]n t^? skoti<% ou]k oi#den pou? u[pa<gei. Cf. Prov. 419 "The way of the wicked is
as darkness ; they know not at what they stumble." e]n skoti%a oi@xesqai oi$j a}n
tu<xwmen prosptai<ontej, is quoted as a proverb in Lucian, Hermotimus, 49.
The Test of Love 237
that every one is unreasonable except himself; the revenge-
ful, that he is animated only by a proper self-respect.
"His whole life is a continual error." Even if he does
observe that his relation to his brother is somehow out of
joint, he goes on imputing to him all the wrong and the
mischief, the roots of which are really in himself—“Because
the darkness hath blinded his eyes." The penalty of
walking in the darkness is the extinction of vision. The
Word of God is full of this truth.1 He who will not see,
at last cannot.
The thought that gives unity to the second Cycle of
the Epistle is Divine Sonship (229-46); and here, accordingly,
Love is enforced as a test of participation in the Life of
God. In the previous paragraph, to love one's brother is
the proof of having passed from darkness into Light (210),
here, of having passed from death into Life (314) The
paragraph, however, is not so regular in structure, nor
are its contents knit so closely to the leading thought as is
the Writer's wont. But the leading thought itself is clearly
fixed at the beginning, "Whosoever loveth not his brother
is not of God."
Divine Sonship tested by Love.
310b-24a
"Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God,
neither he that loveth not his brother."
Here the first clause sums up the preceding paragraph;
the second unobtrusively effects a transition to the new2
1 Cf. the fontal passage Isa. 610 ; also Matt. 622.23, John 63".
" He that loveth not his brother" (kai> o[ mh> a]gapw?n) in the second clause
may be regarded as a further definition of "whosoever doeth not righteousness "
in the first (kai> ="namely"). "It carries forward to its highest embodiment the
righteousness which man can reach" (Westcott). Love is the fulfilling of the
Law (
acteristic of the Epistle. It is better, therefore, to regard the two clauses as
strictly co-ordinate.
238 The First Epistle of
paragraph and propounds its thesis: "Whosoever loveth
not his brother is not of God." The ultimate ground for
this assertion is, of course, the impossibility of the loveless
soul's having any community of life with God, Who is Love.
This, however, is advanced only in the third cycle (47.8);
and, meanwhile, the Apostle is content to base his argument
upon the primacy of Love, not in the Divine nature, but in
the revelation of the Divine will.
"Whosoever loveth not his brother is not of God. For
this is the message which ye heard from the beginning,
that we love one “another” (311) What was formerly
announced as a "commandment" (27) is here expressed as
a "message."1 “Love one another” is not only a definite
Christian precept (John 1334), it is the sum of Christian
ethics. All that Christ was and did says to men this
one thing, "Love one another" (John 1512.13). This the
Apostle's readers had heard "from the beginning."2 No
one can learn the Gospel at all without learning this.
In what follows, the Apostle, instead of developing his
theme dialectically, does so pictorially. He sets before us
two figures, Cain (312) and Christ (316), as the prototypes
of Hate and Love, and, therefore, of the children of the
Devil and the children of God.
In John 844 the Devil is represented as the "murderer
from the beginning"; but here a more vivid image of
the diabolical spirit is displayed in Cain, the firstborn of
darkness, in whom that spirit, like Minerva from the brain
of Jove, sprang immediately to full growth.
"Not3 as Cain was of the4 evil one, and slew his brother.
And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were
evil, and his brother's righteous" (312).
1 On the identical import of a]ggeli<a in 15, p. 56.
2 Cf. 27.
3 The construction of the clause is elliptical and irregular ; but the meaning
is clear. We are to love one another, and not do as Cain did. Notes, in loc.
4 "Was of the evil one." Cf. 213. 36.10 519.
The Test of Love 239
The word translated "slew" (e@sfacen)1 suggests the
brutality of the deed. But it was not in the manner of the
deed, it was in its astounding motive that the essentially
diabolic spirit of brother-hatred was manifested. This is
brought out by the vivid interrogation and answer:--"And
for what reason was it that he slew his brother? Incred-
ible as it may seem, it was because his brother's works were
righteous, while his own were evil." His brother's works
were righteous, and he, therefore, hated and slew him. The
goodness he refused to emulate was unendurable; it goaded
his self-love to madness. A sentence was surely never
penned that sheds a more horrifying light upon the evil
capability of the human heart. If we did not know as a fact
and an experience the envy "which withers at another's joy
and hates the excellence it cannot reach," it would seem a
thing entirely preposterous a fantasy from some grotesque
nightmare world. Yet, that man can become such a child
of the Devil as to be filled with envy--what is this but
proof that he is made to be the child of God? How
insatiable must the heart be that seeks to allay its thirst
with the wine of Hate
"Marvel not, brethren, if the world hateth you" (313)
This is most simply and logically taken in close connection
with the verse preceding.2 "Cain still lives, and still hates
Abel for his righteousness' sake. The causeless and inex-
plicable hate that the world manifests towards you need
awaken no surprise. You are to it what Abel was to
Cain. It hates you because its works are evil and yours
are righteous" (cf. John 1518. 20)
"We know3 that we have passed from death into
1 e@sfacen, "butchered." Originally, the word meant to "kill by cutting the
throat," and the idea conveyed by it is always that of brutal slaughter. In the
N.T. it is found only here and in the Apocalypse. Cf. sfagh<, Rom. 836, Jas. 55.
2 v. Notes, in loc.
3 h[mei?j oi@damen. h[mei?j is emphatic in itself and also by position, "As regards
ourselves, we know."
240 The First Epistle of
life,1 because we love the brethren. He that loveth not
abideth in death" (314).
The primary stress of the sentence falls upon the
emphatic "We know."
As Cain, because he was of the evil one, hated and
slew his brother, whose works were righteous, and as the
world, because it is subject to the evil one (519), still
hates the children of God; so, on the contrary, the proof
that we are begotten of a different spirit--that we have
passed from death into life—is that we love the children
of God--"the brethren." The point of immediate emphasis
is not that "we have passed from death into life" (though
this also is necessarily emphatic), but that the test by which
this is ascertained in our own case, is love to the brethren.2
"We have passed from death into life because we
love," contains a profound truth. "The life which is the
highest good is that which enters with ever quick and
fresh responsiveness into the personal relationships in
which our humanity is realised" (Newman Smyth). By
Love the soul lives and grows. Selfishness spends for the
poorest returns the noblest capacities of human nature.
The gold it lays its hands upon turns to dross; the flower
it plucks withers. Love alone discovers and possesses the
highest good that is in all things human and Divine. It
has the magic wand that changes even dross into fine
gold. To love the least of our brethren is to enrich
the soul from the treasury of God. To love is to live.3
"He that loveth not abideth in death." The statement
is more than simply antithetic to what precedes. There
is no clearer proof of the great transition from life to
death than love of the brethren; but the absence of
such love is not only the absence of such proof, it is
1 "Have passed from death into life." v. supra, pp. 191-2.
2 For a different view of the sequence of thought, v. Notes, in loc.
3 In the same spirit as
brother, hut himself (Plummer).
The Test of Love 241
proof that the transition has not taken place. This
strong, severe statement is defended and confirmed in
the verse following, "Whosoever hateth his brother is
a murderer; and ye know that no murderer hath eternal
life abiding in him." Here the "not loving" of the pre-
ceding verse becomes "hate" (cf. 210. 11) In the absence
of Love, Hate is always potentially present. "We
often reckon want of love as mere indifference. But
such it is only while there is no rivalry or collision of
interests. As soon as this occurs indifference reveals its
true character; it becomes actual hate" (Rothe). You have
but to irritate a man's self-love, to render yourself disagree-
able to him ; and, if there be no love in him toward you,
there will presently be hate. "And every one that hateth
his brother is a murderer." The proposition is stated as
one of inherent necessity. (pa?j o[ misw?n) "Hates any
man the thing he would not kill? "Literally, of course,
this is not true. Many hate who do not commit murder,
nay, for whom the desire or dream of doing so is
beyond the limit of the imaginable. Yet, morally, the
proposition is true; not merely because hate is the invari-
able precursor of murder, but because both reveal essentially
the same moral attitude, and differ from peach other only
as a mild differs from a virulent attack of the same
malady, or as a homicidal maniac under restraint differs
from the same maniac at large. In actual manifestation,
hate may proceed no further than the feeling of a certain
satisfaction in the discovery or report of what redounds
to the hated person's discredit; but let hate be released
from all the adventitious restraints of circumstance, of the
conventional morality which sanctions hate but forbids
overt injury, of the sensibilities engendered by civilised
life, to which bloodshed or violence is resthetically
abhorrent; let hate act out its spontaneous impulses, and
infallibly it would--as with the savage or the tyrant
242 The First Epistle of
it does--kill.1 In spite of seeming exaggeration, it is a
profoundly true moral judgment--"He that hateth his
brother is a murderer." A fortiori is this true of the man,
if such there be, who hates the brother beside whom, as he
at least imagines, he lies in the bosom of the same Divine
Love. "And ye know that no murderer hath eternal life
abiding in him." Comment is unnecessary. The word trans-
lated "ye know" (oi@date)2 signifies that the matter- requires
neither demonstration nor even reflection (cf. Rev. 218).
So stringent, so inevitable, in its negative aspect, is the
test of Love.
The development of the subject that now follows
(316-18) differs in two respects from that which has
preceded. The presentation, which thus far has been
negative, becomes positive Hate as personified by Cain
gives place to Love as personified by Christ (316). And
the test, which thus far has been applied in the abstract,
is now brought closer to the facts of life (317.18)
"In this, that He s laid down His life4 for us, have we
learned what Love is, and we ought to lay down our lives
for the brethren" (316). Virtues are best illustrated by their
contraries; and now we discover that the sinister figure of
Cain has been introduced only the more perfectly to
reveal the glory of Another Who is fairer than all the
children of men. Cain sacrificed his brother's life to his
1 "Of the million or two, more or less
I rule and possess,
One man, for some cause undefined,
was least to my mind.
I struck him, he grovelled, of course—
For, what was his force?
I pinned him to earth with my weight
And persistence of hate . . .
. . . I soberly laid my last plan
To extinguish the man."
Browning, Instans Tyrannus.
2 kai> oi@date. v. special note on ginw<skein and ei]de<nai.
3 "He," e]kei?noj=Christ. v. supra, p. 89. 4 v. supra, p. 159.
The Test of Love 243
own wounded self-love; Christ sacrificed His own life in
love to His brethren. Cain slew his brother because his
own works were evil and his brother's righteous;
Christ's works were righteous and His brethren's evil,
yet He took on Himself the burden of their evil deeds,
and laid down His sinless life for their sakes. And every
man belongs to the brotherhood either of Cain or of Christ.
"In this we have learned to know1 what Love is " (316a)
The fine point of the statement is lost by the insertion of
any supplement—"of God" or "of Christ"--after "Love."
This--this devotion of Jesus Christ to sinful men—is
Love ; and in this we have for the first time recognised
what deserves the name. "And we ought to lay down
our lives for the brethren " (316b) We lay claim to
Love. What the nature of Love truly is, we have learned
by this, that He laid down His life for us. And Love
must reproduce in us what it was and did in Him. If we
have, so to say, a drop of the blood of Jesus Christ in our
veins, we are under bond and pledge (o]fei<lomen),3 whensoever
the call comes to us, to manifest our Love in the same way
of uttermost sacrifice. For, though to think of Christ's
Love to us, and then to think after what fashion it may be
repeated in our relations to our fellow-men, is to compare
the infinite with the infinitesimal--the sun with a flickering
candle; yet, as light is light whether in the candle or the
sun, as it has the same properties and the same laws of action,
so Love is Love whether in Christ or in us. Our lives
must exhibit the same properties, obey the same spiritual
laws, must be built upon the same ground-plan, as that Life of
which the Cross was the perfect expression. This is the test
of our union with Him and of our Divine sonship in Him.
1 e]gnw<kamen =have recognised, learned to know. th>n a]ga<phn=Love in its
essence, what Love is.
2 The same necessity that the life of Christ be reproduced in us has already
been asserted with regard to Righteousness (26 and 34).
3 Cf. 26.
244 The First Epistle of
But, though this obligation to lay down our lives for
the brethren ever rests upon us, though our lives are
mortgaged to this extent, opportunity for a full discharge
of this obligation rarely comes (and, necessarily, it cannot
yet have come to any living man, unless he have proved a
recreant). And we must, above all, beware of crediting to
ourselves as Love what is but the mouthing of well-
sounding phrases, the play of the imagination upon lofty
ideals, or the thrill of merely emotional sympathies. This
is a danger which besets Christianity, most, perhaps, of all
religions. Its ideals are so sublime, the emotions they
awaken are so lofty and satisfying, that we are apt to
regard our appreciation of those ideals and our susceptibility
to those emotions as entitling us to a high place in the
moral scale—to feel as if we had paid every debt to Love
when we have praised its beauty, felt its charm, and ex-
perienced its sentiment. There needs some homelier test
of Christian Love than the laying down of life.
"But whoso bath the world's goods, and beholdeth his
brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him,
how doth the Love of God abide in him? (317). The word
"beholdeth " (qewr^?) implies, not a casual glimpse, but a
more or less prolonged view. The case supposed is that
the rich brother's sympathy is naturally drawn out by the
spectacle of his poor brother's necessitous condition, but,
when sympathy is on the point of becoming an impulse
to action, the thought of the price in "the world's goods"
causes him suddenly to call it back and, as it were, turn the
key (klei<s^) upon it. Then, with vivid and even con-
temptuous interrogation, the niggard is held up before our
eyes—“In what fashion does the Love of God dwell1 in
1 "How dwelleth . . . ?" (pw?j . . . me<nei). Neither here nor in does
me<nei contain the idea that the person contemplated is a backslider in whom
the Love of God has formerly been, but is not now, abiding (Haupt, Rothe).
Cf. John 538 kai> to<n lo<gon au]tou? ou]k e@xete e]n u[mi?n me<nonta, where a previous
indwelling is excluded hy the context.
The Test of Love 245
"such a man1 as that?" By the "Love of God" we are
to understand neither the love of God to us (Rothe, "How
can God do otherwise than turn away His love from such
a man?") nor our love to God (Huther, Haupt), but the
Love which is the nature of God, which He has mani-
fested toward us in Christ (316), and in the possession of
which consists our community of nature with Him.2 To
have "the Love of God abiding in us" is equivalent to
having "Eternal Life abiding" in us (315), to being
"begotten of God" (47) and to having God Himself
"abiding in us" (412.16).
The Apostle next sums up the paragraph with an affec-
tionate exhortation to the practice of the truth which has
been elucidated (318) and a restatement of its reality as a
test of our Divine sonship (319. 30)
"Little children, let us not love in word, neither in
tongue; but in deed and in truth" (318)3 It is true, of
course, that "words" are sometimes the best "deeds" of
Love; and also that, as
may be "deeds" without the "truth" of Love.
is content to put the contrast broadly and strongly (cf.
Jas. 215. 16)
"And by this shall we recognise that we are of the
truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him, whereinsoever
our heart condemn us; because God is greater than our
heart, and knoweth all things" (319. 20).
This statement seems to resile from the settled
certainty asserted in 314. "We know that we have
passed from death into life, because we love the
brethren." But this knowledge must still be sustained
by the testing fact--that "we love the brethren"; and
how this testing fact is to be established has just been
shown (318). The future tense, "we shall recognise "
1 e]n au]t&?, emphatic by position. 2 Cf. 25. v. supra, p. 212.
3 v. Notes, in loc.
246 The First Epistle of
(gnwso<meqa), points not to the future fulfilment of the con-
ditions laid down in 318 (Westcott),—that, of course,
is assumed,—but to the future possibility of some shadow
falling upon the clear mirror of the soul, as when our
own heart condemns us. Even then, if we have loved "in
deed and in truth" we shall recognise by its proper
marks the fact that our lives are, in their measure, an
expression of that Divine Truth of which Christ is Himself
the full embodiment (cf. John 146 1837). But this verse
and those that follow (319-22), in which the effect of Love in
"deed and in truth" upon the consciousness of our relation
to God is exhibited, will come under consideration in a later
chapter. We proceed, therefore, to the third Cycle of the
Epistle. Here the place of primacy, which in the first and
second Cycles is held by Righteousness, is given to Love.
Love the Test of
47-12.
In the first Cycle, Love has been exhibited as the great
" commandment " of the Christian Life (27.8). In the
second, it is regarded as the sign and test of Divine
sonship (310b. 14. 17); but this, though assumed, has not
been clearly grounded. That the life begotten of God is
essentially a life of Righteousness has been expressly
deduced from the nature of God:--If ye know that He is
righteous, know that every one also that doeth Righteous-
ness is begotten of Him " (229). But no parallel state-
ment has hitherto been made with regard to Love; and it
is this development of the subject, therefore, that occupies
the present paragraph. Here the Epistle rises to its
sublimest height. It is impossible to conceive that the
theme which is the ethical heart of Christianity could be
more nobly enshrined than in these few sentences of gold
pure and unadorned. Brief as the paragraph is, it is
The Test of Love 247
worthy to be set beside the Prologue to the hourth Gospel,
as the loftiest that man has ever been inspired to indite.
"Beloved, let us love one another, because Love is of
God " (47a). Again the prefatory "beloved" (cf. 27) reveals
how warmly the Apostle's affections are stirred towards his
readers by his thought of the truth he is about to declare
(cf. 27). It urgently commends to their thought the " old
commandment,"--an exhortation so familiar that it might
be in danger of being accepted and neglected as a truism.
"Let us love . . . because Love is of God." This, as
has been said, is a new connection of ideas. It has been
implied, but not hitherto expressed.
Up to this point Love has been regarded as duty rather
than as disposition (27. 8 323). The duty of active Love
has been urged as indispensable to "walking in the Light"
(210), as an obligation bound upon the Christian by the
example of Christ (316), and as a tangible proof that we
are "of the truth" (319). But now the deeper underlying
thought, "Love is of God," reveals a deeper motive for
the duty, "let us love." Let us express in word and deed
the Divine nature which is ours—let us cultivate the
disposition of Love and bring forth its fruits. Thus the
verse emphasises equally the Divine source of Love and its
manifestation in human activity.1 The "exceeding great-
ness of His power toward us who believe "does not super-
sede, but only heightens the power of volition (Phil. 212. 13).
Therefore, "let us love one another, because Love is of
God."
"And every one that loveth is begotten of God, and
knoweth God " (47b). The redemptive relation to God is
here presented in its double aspect as the being "begotten
of God," and as "knowing God"2 (cf. 23.4 46, John 173).
1 The urgent imperative, "Beloved, let us love one another," is, therefore, to
be given its full force, and is not to be regarded merely as an introductory
formula (Haupt) or as a resumption of 323 (Weiss).
2 v. Chapter IV. pp. 62-63.
248 The First Epistle of
And as the reality of this has been already tested, in both
aspects, by Righteousness and Belief (the Divine Begetting
by Righteousness, 229, by Belief, 42.3; the knowledge of
God by Righteousness, 22. 3, by Belief, 46), so now it is sub-
jected, in both aspects, to the test of Love. The inter-rela-
tion of these terms--"loving" "begotten of God," "know-
ing God"—has been variously1 construed. But it is quite
clear that the relation of "loving" to each of the other two
is that of the test to the thing tested. Love is the test,
because the invariable consequence of the Divine Begetting.
Love is the test of the knowledge of God, either because it
is its invariable consequence, or because it is its indispens-
able condition. We may say that only he who loveth
knoweth God, because like is known only by like. Love is
the organ of spiritual insight--the Divine in us which
enables us to apprehend the Divine (29.11). But it is
equally true that Love is the effect and, therefore, the test
of all true knowledge of God. We may choose either form
of the argument, or adopt both. The resulting truth is that
every one who lives the life of Love has therein the realisa-
tion of the fact that he has been made partaker of the
nature of God, and that he has a continuous and progressive
perception (ginw<skei) of what God's nature is.
On the contrary, "He that loveth not has no knowledge
of God, because God is Love" (48). Here the negation is
heightened in proportion as the affirmation is strengthened.
It was said of "every one that loveth" that he has a con-
tinuous perception of what God is (ginw<skei); but what is said
of him "that loveth not" is that he has never had any per-
ception of God at all (ou]k e@gnw).2 The reason is that God is
1 v. Notes, in loc.
2 The R.V. is curiously inconsistent in its translation of e@gnwn. In John
163 "have not known"; in John 1725 "knew"; here "knoweth." Here
the sense is perfective, but this may be rendered in English by the simple past
tense, as in Greek by the aorist. "I never knew such a man" is good colloquial
English for "I have never known such a man." So here we might translate,
"Be that loveth not never knew God."
The Test of Love 249
Love. There is nothing in Him that is not Love. Other-
wise it might be claimed for "him that loveth not" that he
has some perception of God, though not of His love. But
God is Love; and the blindness of the unloving is un-
broken by a single gleam.
The exposition of the next two verses has been given
in an earlier chapter.1 Here, it is enough to indicate their
place in the sequence of thought. The first (49) is closely
linked to the idea of knowledge; the second (410), to the
idea of Love. Begotten of God and loving one another, we
have the faculty for spiritually apprehending the nature of
God, Who is Love. But wherein is God fully revealed for
our apprehension? "Herein was the Love of God mani-
fested toward us, that God hath sent His Only-Begotten Son
into the world that we might live through Him." And
what is the essence of this manifestation, the nature of the
Love thus revealed? "Herein is Love, not that we loved
God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son as a propitia-
tion for our sins."
From this sublime contemplation of the Divine Love,
the Apostle returns to his main theme. "Beloved, if God
loved us, we also are bound2 to love one another" (411). If
it was thus that God loved us, if His love was so transcend-
ently great, and so independent of all worthiness or attract-
iveness in us that our very sinfulness became the occasion
of its supreme activity: then we, if we are partakers of
His nature, are bound,—for us it is a moral necessity--to
love even as He loved (cf. Matt. 543-48 John 1334). But
by what is this debt to be paid? The answer to this
question is highly significant. Instead of the anticipated
"We ought to love God," it is "We ought to love one an-
other"; and why it must be so is immediately explained.
"God (in Himself) no man hath ever seen; if we love
one another, God abideth in us, and His Love is perfected
1 v. supra, pp. 73-77. 2 o]fei<lomen, stronger than dei?; cf. 26 316.
250 The First Epistle of
in us" (412) God is invisible.1 We cannot directly do Him
any good. We can make no sacrifice for His immediate
benefit. He has no need of our help. We cannot give to
Him, but can only receive from Him blessings upon
blessings, numberless as the sand of the shore. We
cannot, in short, love God after the same fashion in which
He has loved us. Yet, if we are "begotten of God" we
have in us the same nature of Love that He has manifested
toward us in Christ. And there is provision by which this
nature may be manifested and exercised in us. "If we love
one another God dwelleth in us, and His Love is perfected
in us."
If we have the Love2 that is not merely liking for the
likeable, admiration for the admirable, gratitude to the
generous—Love whose will to bless men is undeterred by
demerit or unattractiveness, that bears another's burden,
dries another's tears, forgives injuries, overcomes evil with
good,—Love which is prompt to help those who need
our help (hoping for nothing again), instead of those who
need it not (hoping for much in return)--then the Love
that manifests itself in us is that Divine kind of love which
is most worthy of the name; yea, it is God Himself within
us, acting out His Life in ours. It is His Love that is "ful-
filled"3 (tetelei<wtai) in us. Thus the end of the paragraph
answers to the beginning. The Apostle's exhortation and
its ultimate ground are: "Beloved, let us love another--If
we love one another, the Love of God is perfected in us."
The same theme is resumed and developed in the
final paragraph on Love (420-53a) 4
In all that has been said, the necessity and the
sufficiency of Love as a test of genuine Christianity have
1 Almost all the commentators, I have to admit, take a quite different view
of the sense of this verse. v. Notes, in loc. The exposition I have given agrees
in some measure with Rothe's.
2 v. supra, pp. 75-77. 3 v. infra, pp. 236-7.
4 On 418.19. v infra, pp. 233-95.
The Test of Love 251
been established. But before leaving the subject the
Apostle will once more remind us of the tests by which
Love itself is to be recognised as genuine (cf. 316-18)
These are found, first, in its action towards our fellow-men
(420—51) ; and, secondly, in its moral integrity (52.3a).
Love of God tested by Love to Man.
420- 51.
"If any man say,1 I love God, and hateth2 his brother, he
is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath
seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen " (420).
The argument is, at first sight, one which it is difficult
to maintain. For, while it is true that visibility and
neighbourhood conduce to love, that "If the object to be
loved incites to love by the immediate impression it makes
upon us, love is easier than when we have no sensuous
perception of it at all" (Rothe, so also Huther and Weiss);
it is no less true that the impression made may be such as
by no means to incite to love. To love my brother may
be to love one in whom there is little that is amiable, one,
perhaps, who has done me grievous wrong; to love God is
to love Him Who first loved me, Who has forgiven me a
thousand wrongs, Who is Himself all that is glorious,
beautiful, and good. The Apostle must not be held guilty
of making a statement so preposterous as that it is easier
to love such a brother, because he is visible, than to love
God, since He is invisible. The truth is that this inter-
pretation is based on an erroneous notion of what, in the
1 "If any man say." Cf. "If we say" (is); "He that saith" (24.6.9).
"Saying" is, throughout, the writer's target.
2 As always,
Hate. See on 29 and 315 supra.
3 Calvin, Ebrard, and Westcott understand "brother" as signifying what
is Godlike in man. If we do not love the image of God in our brother, we
cannot love God Himself. Cf. Jas. 39. This thought, however, is given in 51,
not here.
252 The First Epistle of
mind of
stand for a passive emotion awakened by the impression
that others make upon us. It is an active principle, a
determination of the will to do good, the highest good
possible, to its object.1 This being borne in mind, the
argument here is both intelligible and absolutely cogent.
It is, in fact, the same argument, in more explicit form, as
we have already found in 412. Visibility and invisibility
signify the presence or absence, not of attraction or
incitement to love, but of opportunity for loving. Your
brother is in sight; and when you will you may do him
good. But God is invisible; your beneficence, your
sympathy, cannot reach unto Him Who is the bearer of all
burdens, the giver of all good gifts (cf. Ps. 509-12, Matt.
2611). In the nature of the case there is no other medium
through which our love to God, who first loved us, can be
realised than by loving our brother, especially if he have not
first loved us.
It is now asserted, moreover, that our relation to our
brother is ordained for this very end. "And this command-
ment have we from Him, that he who loveth God love his
brother also" (421). The first reason why love to God is
necessarily realised in love to men is the consideration of
opportunity (420). The second is the express revealment of
the Divine purpose for man. The ultimate end for which
all social relations exist is that they may be, so to say, the
arteries through which the Divine Life of Love shall flow.
In the following verse a third reason is adduced--
affinity of nature. The commandment that "He who
loveth God love his brother also" is based on the deep
universal law of kinship. "Whosoever believeth that
Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever
loveth Him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of
Him" (51). Here the first2 clause is strictly introductory
1 v. supra, p. 77. 2 On the first clause, see infra, p. 270.
The Test of Love 253
to the second. The statement, "Whosoever believeth that
Jesus is Christ is begotten of God," is made only in order
to define the persons to whom the brotherly love of
Christians is due, and the grounds on which it is due. In
opposition to Gnostic exclusiveness it claims for all believers
the full measure of brotherly love; and it does so, because
all are children of the One Father--"Every one that
loveth Him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of
Him."
He who loves the parent who is the source of his own
life, must love those whose life is derived from the same
origin. Fraternal love follows by psychological necessity
from filial love. He that is "begotten of God" cannot
but love those who share with him the life that unites men
in their deepest convictions, dispositions, aspirations, and
hopes.
Love tested by Righteousness.
52.3a
In the next brief sub-section, containing the Apostle's
last word on this theme, Love, whether towards God or
towards man, is finally tested by Righteousness.1 Genuine
Love must be holy. "Herein we know (recognise) that
we love the children of God, when we love God and do
His commandments" (52). This is a verse the great
significance of which is apt to be overlooked. Its state-
ment of the necessary relation of love to God and love to
man is the exact converse of that which is given in the
preceding verses. There it has been shown that by a
threefold necessity--necessity of opportunity (420), of
obedience to express ordinance of the Divine Will (421),
of the instincts of spiritual kinship (51)—love to God
1 The correlation of Love with Righteousness has been suggested by simple
collocation of the ideas in 310 and in 322.23. Here the bonds are drawn closer.
v.
254 The First Epistle of
can only realise itself in love to man. Here, on the other
hand, it is maintained that love to man is truly love only
when it is rooted in and governed by love to God. Piety
without philanthropy is unreal; philanthropy without
piety may be immoral--may instead of a fish give a
serpent,--at best, it is impotent to bestow the highest
good, and instead of bread gives a stone. It is a great
ethical principle that St. John here enunciates. We
cannot truly bless our fellow-men,—unless in our personal.
lives we follow after the highest good--"love God and do
His commandments." The man who does many generous
actions but lives a licentious or an impious life does, upon.
the whole, more, and more enduring harm than good. The
philosophy of doing good is, first of all and principally to
have a character that will of itself communicate good."
The love of Christ had its supreme activity, not in His
feeding the hungry or giving sight to the blind, but in
this—"For their sakes I consecrate Myself, that they also
may consecrate themselves" (John 1719). The highest
service that any man can render to humanity is to "love
God and keep His commandments."
"For this is the Love of God,1 that we keep His
commandments" (53a). The Apostle re-echoes his Master's
words (John 1415.21) in asserting that to speak of a love
to God that does not essentially signify moral integrity is
to speak of what does not and cannot exist. To love
God is not only a motive impelling to obedience; it is, in
itself, assimilation to the Divine. To love God is to love;
all that is of "righteousness and true holiness." It has no
other meaning than this.
Thus it has been shown that from love to God there
1 In 25 probably, and in 412 certainly, "the love of God" is a true possessive
(= the love that is God's own), Here unmistakably it is a genitive of the
object (= our love to God).
The Test of Love 255
necessarily issue both love to our brother (51) and moral
integrity (52.3a). Hence also it follows that neither of
these can genuinely exist without the other (cf. 310). "By
this we recognise that we love the children of God, when
we love God and keep His commandments" (52). This is
the Apostle's last word on Love.
Of the various themes which are so wonderfully inter-
twined in the Epistle, that to which it most of all owes its
imperishable value and unfading charm is Love. There
are portions of it that are seldom read and more seldom
expounded in our churches; but there are few passages of
Scripture more familiar than those in which
been so divinely inspired to write of the Eternal Life, in
God and in man, as Love. This is due to nothing concrete
or dramatic in the presentation; and insistent as he is that
Love is essentially a practical energy, yet as an exponent of
the practical implications of Love he does not come into
competition with
that is comparable to the thirteenth chapter of First
Corinthians, with its delicate analysis, or to the twelfth
chapter of Romans, with its masterly exposition of the
manifold applications of the New Commandment to the
actual relations of life. On the other hand,
development of the theme, according to his peculiar genius
and for his special purpose, is unapproachable and final.
He has demonstrated from every point of view that Chris-
tianity without Love is a contradiction in terms. Do we
think of the Christian life as a walking in that Light which
is the self-revelation of God, then the central ray of that
Revelation is Love; and to walk in Light is to walk in
Love. Do we think of it as that Life of which Christ is
the Archetype and Mediator, then His spirit of absolute
self-surrender must be reproduced in it. Do we think of it
as participation in the Divine Nature itself, then God is
Love, and every one that loveth, and none else, abideth in
256 The First Epistle of
God and God in Him. Finally, would we be assured that
that Love which is the nature of God is operative in us,
then this must be made manifest in our conduct toward
our fellow-men.
But it is just here that a feature emerges in which
circumscribed and defective--its rigid limitation to the
love of Christians toward their fellow-Christians. The
urgency with which every argument and plea is plied to
enforce love to our "brother," to the "children of God,"
only makes the fact more glaring, that from first to last
there is not the suggestion of an outlook beyond the
Christian community. By the modern reader this limita-
tion is scarcely noticed, for we instinctively give the widest
scope to the language used, and interpret our "brother" as
our fellow-man. But by the exegete the fact has to be
recognised that, in the teaching of the Epistle, there is no
hint that h[ a]ga<ph—the Love that is the replica in man of
the Love of God--is due from us to any other than our
fellow-Christian. The point is one that has received little
consideration. It is not enough to say that it is "only
through the recognition of the relation to Christ that the
larger relation is at last apprehended" (Westcott). How
shall we explain the absence of anything to indicate that
the larger relation has been at all apprehended by the
Writer? Or, again, if all that can be said is that "other
members of the human race are not excluded, they are not
under consideration" (Plummer), it must be admitted that,
in point of Christian insight, the Epistle lags far behind
the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Nor is it inconceivable
that this should be the case. But as we have found, I
hope, a key to some of the perplexities of the Epistle
regarding its doctrine of Righteousness in its immediate
polemical purpose, it is from the same quarter, probably,
that we must seek Light upon the present difficulty. For
The Test of Love 257
it must be observed that it is exclusively as a test, that the
idea of Love is employed in the Epistle. Even when the
utterance is most positive and hortatory, the underlying
thought is that of the test supplied by the obligation enforced.
And if we think of the circumstances of a Christian commun-
ity in the Apostolic age, it is very evident that the most
immediate, practicable, and certain test of Christian Love
was to be found, not in its widest extension, but in the
sphere of its most definite and obvious obligation. This
difference of purpose must be allowed for in comparing the
teaching of the Epistle with our Lord's great parable. There,
He holds up to us the Samaritan as a pattern of the Love
that makes neighbours, and says, "Go and do likewise." Here,
of the lovelessness that declines the claims even of brother-
hood, and says: "If you can thus shut up the bowels of
your compassion from a needy brother, you are a Christian
only in name" (317). And even this he does with direct
polemical aim. He is striking, not at a universal tendency,
but at a special manifestation of that tendency. As has
been shown in a previous chapter,1 the utterances of the
Epistle regarding Love are as directly anti-Gnostic in their
aim as those regarding Righteousness and Belief. The
task thrust upon the writer was not to urge the truth,
"Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto," but to insist,
in view of the arrogant and loveless2 intellectualism of the
Gnostic character, that Love is of the essence of the God-
begotten Life; and, in view of its esoteric and separatist
tendencies, that Christian Love must be extended to the
whole Body of Christ--must comprehend without distinction
all the children of God.
1 v. supra, pp. 30, 31.
2 v. quotation from Ignatius, p. 30 (footnote).
CHAPTER XIII.
THE TEST OF BELIEF.
ONE peculiarity of the Johannine vocabulary is the fre-
quency1 with which the verb pisteu<ein appears in it; and
another is that, in contrast with the usage of other New
Testament writers, the object of this verb is much more
commonly a fact or a proposition than a person, and that
consequently the result of its action is to be expressed in
English by the word Belief rather than Faith or Trust.2
Thus the Epistle speaks only once of "believing in" Christ3
(o[ pisteu<wn ei]j to>n ui[o>n tou? qeou?, 510); whereas in other
passages the object of belief is a truth concerning Him, as
that He is the Christ (51) or the Son of God (55); or a
testimony (God's, 510; a spirit's, 41); or a fact of the
spiritual order, such as the "love which God hath towards
us" (416). This does not signify that the personal Christ
has been in any degree supplanted by Christology; it only
reveals the fact that the writer uses a phraseology and
a mode of thought peculiar to himself. If
"That life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the
faith which is in the Son of God" (Gal. 220),
expresses the same truth when he writes, "And now
little children, abide in Him" (225), or "Our fellowship is
1 The Johannine writings furnish more than a half of the whole occurrences
in the N.T. of pisteu<ein (57 out of 100). Singularly, the cognate name pi<stij
is found only once (1 John 54). This avoidance of pi<stij may have been due
to the fact that it was already finding a place in the terminology of Gnosticism.
2 See special note on pisteu<ein appended to this chapter.
3 Elsewhere, of "believing in His Name" (ei]j to> o@noma, 513; t&? o]no<mati, 323).
258
The Test of Belief 259
with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ" (13).
The fact remains, however, that with him, "believing"
denotes less frequently the action of the will in trust and
self-committal, more frequently the perception of a truth
or the crediting of a testimony which is the prerequisite
to such action; less frequently a direct personal relation
to Christ, more frequently a theological conception of
Christ. And thus, to the modern reader, with whom
credal interests are apt to be at a discount, the tone of the
Epistle, in some of its utterances, may appear to be unduly
or even harshly dogmatic.
In estimating this dogmatism, however, we must take
into account several explanatory--I do not say, modifying
--factors.
(a) In the Epistle the writer reveals himself as one
whose mind is dominated, in an exceptional degree, by the
idea of Truth. To him Christianity is not only a principle
of ethics or even a way of salvation; it is both of these,
because it is, primarily, the Truth—the one true disclosure,
without a competitor,l of the realities of the spiritual and
eternal world. The adjective a]lhqino<j,2 describing that
which both ideally and really corresponds to the name it
bears, and the substantive a]lh<qeia, denoting the reality
of things sub specie aeternitatis, are conspicuous expressions
of Johannine thought. The light of the Gospel is the "true
light" (to> fw?j to> a]lhqino<n, 28), no dim symbolic light
like that of the Old Testament, no illusory phosphorescence,
like Gnostic speculation, but the light of the Eternal Mind
shining out in Christ upon every object in the spiritual
world. The God revealed in Christ is the "true God"
1 "
truth, or even more truth than any religion which had preceded it.
presents Christianity to the soul as a religion which must be everything to it, if
it is not to be really worse than nothing" (Liddon).
2 to>n mo<non a]lhqino>n qeo<n (John 173); to> fw?j to> a]lhqino<n (19); to>n a@rton to>n
a]lhqino<n (632); h[ a@mpeloj h[ a]lhqinh<; (151); o[ a!gioj o[ a]lhqino<j (Rev. 37).
260 The First Epistle of
(o[ a]lhqino>j qeo<j, 520), the God who is, and who is all
that God ought ideally to be; or, again, He is simply the
"True" (o[ a]lhqino<j, 520), the ultimate eternal Reality.
No words are more characteristic of
"No lie is of the truth" (221). Everywhere we find the
same rigorous sense of reality, the same insistence upon
the primary necessity of squaring conduct with facts---of
"doing the truth" (16); and, in order to this, of knowing,
believing, and confessing the great facts in which all true
life is rooted. A mind like
is the only real, and by which every matter of practice is
so clearly seen in the light of its ultimate principles and
issues, necessarily lays a weighty emphasis upon Belief,
and displays an intense dread and hatred of error. "No
lie is of the truth." Truth and untruth cannot blend.
They have no common factor; they are opposite in origin
and issue. Whatever be the subject in question the
"truth" concerning it is one, and is the sole path by seeing
and following which we are "made free" (John 832)--are
brought into saving contact with the universe of realities.
(b) In the Epistle this idiosyncrasy has its edge
sharpened by the controversial situation. If the writer is
vehement in his denunciation of all teaching that subverts
the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation, it is because
this doctrine is in his conviction the centre and compendium
of all Truth.1 Nor is this dogmatic attitude one that
stands in need of apology. It is true that "the Gospel
centres in a Person and not in any truth, even the greatest
about that Person" (Westcott). But it is true also that
the Gospel cannot consist merely in the narrative of a life
and the delineation of a character, apart from the question
who the Person is whose life is narrated and whose
character is pictured. A creedless or merely biographical
1 As to the practical significance attached by
see Chapter VI.
The Test of Belief 261
Gospel is impossible. The boldest humanitarian, no less
than the fullest Trinitarian, conception of Christ implies a
creed. The picture of the historical Jesus has one signi-
ficance, if we can say--That is the ideal man; another, if
we can say—That is very God; still another, if we can
say--That is at once the true God and the true man. But
unless we can say one or other of these things about
Jesus, His personality remains only a picture or a dream;
our knowledge of Him is reduced to that of a mere
phenomenon, standing in no known relation to the facts
of life; and no Gospel of any kind can centre in Him.
But it has been only in process of time, and chiefly under
the stimulus of conflict with antichristian or defectively
Christian estimates of the significance of Christ, that
Christian Faith has become conscious of its own intellectual
contents. In the first generation it had instinctively given to
Christ the significance of true God and true man; but now,
as Hellenic speculation and Oriental theosophy sought to
draw it into their own strangely blended currents and to
assimilate it to their peculiar genius, Christian Faith was
compelled to realise the implications of its own conscious-
ness of Christ, and, in repudiating the fantastic eidolon
that Gnosticism substituted for the Christ of the Gospel, to
develop and formulate those "beliefs" about Christ which,
from the first, were implicit in its "believing in" him. This
was the especial task of the Johannine Theology; and this
explains in part the stringent dogmatic tone of the Epistle.
(c) But there is still another factor to be kept in view,—
the most important of all in estimating
tion of Belief and the emphasis he lays upon it,--Belief is
the touchstone of spiritual life. Belief in itself is an intel-
lectual judgment regarding the truth of a proposition; yet
Christian Belief is essentially more than this. It is an act
of the intellect which has moral and spiritual presuppositions,
which is the response not of the reasoning faculty alone, but
262 The First Epistle of
of the whole moral personality, to the data presented. It
is not belief under coercion of logical proof; it has its
deeper source in the spiritual perception of spiritual realities.
Such perception is ultimately a power bestowed by the
Divine Begetting (51)--a function of the Divine Life
therein imparted. Yet it is conditioned also by moral
sincerity—the will to do the will of God (John 7 17). Thus
Belief is the subject of commandment: “This is His
commandment, That we should believe on the name of
His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave
us commandment" (323). No more than Christian Love
is a merely instinctive or passive emotion, is Christian
Belief a matter either of sheer intellectual compulsion or
of involuntary impulse. It is the gift and the work of
God (Eph. 28, John 644); at the same time it is a work
of man (John 629)—the work in which self-determining
will at its highest is displayed (John 540 717)
218-28.
The paragraph in the first Cycle of the Epistle in which
the subject of Belief is treated is 218-28 The chief interest
this paragraph has for us lies in its exposition both of the
content and the basis of Christian belief; and these topics
have been dealt with in preceding chapters) But it must
not be overlooked that the writer's purpose is not exposi-
tion; his interest is wholly in the practical application of
his cardinal doctrine as the decisive test of Christian and
antichristian tendencies. The warmth of his indignation
breaks out in such an abrupt and peremptory interrogation
as, "Who is the liar, but he that denieth Jesus is the
Christ?" (222). There are many lies and many liars; but
he who utters this lie is the liar. To
perception of Jesus as the Christ, the Divine Redeemer,
1 v. supra, pp. 93. 111-116. Regarding the "antichrists,” v. infra,
pp. 318-324.
The Test of Belief 263
is the ultimate certainty; and he cannot conceive that any
one should be able to deny this truth, unless he has, at
the same time, lost all sense of truth whatsoever.
But the passage which chiefly demands our attention
in this chapter is the important paragraph in the second
Cycle of the Epistle.
324b-46.
Comparing this with the corresponding paragraph
218-28, we find that the Apostle is by no means covering
the same ground a second time.
Here we are confronted by the phenomenon of false as
well as of true inspiration; and while in the former paragraph
the Spirit of Truth was seen to be the source and guarantee
of the True Belief, here, conversely, the "spirits" are them-
selves tested by the belief to which they give utterance.
The paragraph is introduced by the customary formula,
"Hereby we perceive" (e]n tou<t& ginw<skomen). What is
to be established is that "God abideth in us"; and the
reality of this is to be tested "by the Spirit which He hath
given us" (324b).1 But the Apostle is drawn somewhat
aside from the direct line of his argument by consideration
of the actual facts with which he has to deal. The
argument in its essence is, "God abides in all to whom
He has given His Spirit; but only the spirit that confesses
1 That is to say, the possession of the Spirit of God—the Spirit that
confesses Jesus as the Christ (42)—is the objective and infallible sign that
God is abiding in us. I have to admit that a different view is taken by the
commentators whom I have consulted (except, in part, Holtzmann), who,
though by various interpretations of the words, understand the Spirit as
the source of our subjective assurance that God dwelleth in us. But this is
because the connection between 324b and what follows has been missed. When
it is recognised that 324b) really introduces the new paragraph, 324b-45, and
when this is compared with the parallel paragraph 413-16 it becomes apparent
that the Spirit, throughout these passages, is regarded simply as the inspirer of
the True Confession of Jesus. If we make this confession, it is evidence that
the spirit in us is the Spirit of God. Thus "we know that God abideth in us
by the Spirit He hath given us." v. Notes, in loc.
264 The First Epistle of
Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh is the Spirit of God;
if, therefore, the spirit in us inspires this confession of
Jesus, we know that God abideth in us." But the writer
and his readers have to reckon with the fact that there
are in their midst spirits that testify to the contrary effect;
and, therefore, he continues, "Beloved, believe not every
spirit; but try the spirits, whether they are of God; because
many false prophets are gone out into the world" (41). The
reference, of course, is to the psychical manifestations with
which, from whatever cause, the atmosphere of the Apostolic
age was charged in a degree quite unfamiliar to modern
experience. The "spirits" on either side are many, yet
have ,one head and represent one character--the Spirit
of Truth and the Spirit of Error (46). It is not to be
assumed (as by Huther and Haupt) that the plurality of
spirits consists in nothing more than the manifestations of
the one personal Spirit, as these are diversified by the
individuality of the human "medium"--that, in other words,
the "spirits" are simply the "prophets" themselves as the
inspired organs of the Spirit. On the contrary, all that
we learn from the New Testament regarding this matter
points to the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error as
acting upon men through a hierarchy of subordinate
spiritual agents.1 Thus, as the Church had its "prophets,"
who were inspired by spirits of heavenly origin, the adher-
ents of antichrist had their pseudo-prophets, the subjects
of a demonic inspiration. The Apostle accordingly warns
his readers not to believe every spirit simply because it is
a spirit, but to "test the spirits, whether they be of God";
this being the more necessary "because many false2
1 Cf. 1 Cor. 1210 1412.32; more remotely, Matt. 1810, Heb. 114, Rev. 14
31 226. On the other side, abundance of spiritualistic manifestations seems
to have been characteristic of the heretical sects. 2 Thess. 21, I Tim. 41
Rev. 1613.14.
2 Both in the Old Testament and in the New, false prophets arc frequently
referred to (e.g. Deut. 131.5, Acts 136, Rev. 1920). In some instances these are
The Test of Belief 265
prophets," not merely false teachers, "have gone out" as
ambassadors from their native sphere "into the world."
This warning to practise a wise incredulity is not super-
fluous at any time. The tendency to yield a facile homage
to whatever is characterised by violent emotion and dis-
turbances of human nature, to regard anything that is
extraordinary and sensational, rather than what is calm
and normal, as possessing in itself the credentials of truth,
is one that has borne much evil fruit in the religious
world. Enthusiasm is no guarantee of truth.
According to 1 Cor. 1210 there was in the primitive
Church a special charism of "discerning spirits." Here,
however, this is regarded as within the competency of all
Christians. And, indeed, the Apostle immediately proceeds
to ensure this by furnishing one crucial test by which the
Spirit of Truth is to be at once distinguished from the Spirit
of Error. "Hereby recognise the Spirit of God.1 Every
spirit that confesseth2 Jesus as the Christ come in the
flesh3 is of God " (42).
It is by the substance of the confession, not by its
publicity, that the Divine character of the inspiration is to
be tested. To introduce here the idea of contrast between
open confession of Christ and inward faith (Haupt,
Westcott, following Augustine), is entirely beside the point.
It is of "spirits," not of believers, that the passage speaks;
and the antichristian testified no less openly than the
Christian spirits. And, to state the matter with full
logical exhaustiveness: "Every spirit that confesseth not
described as mere impostors, but, for the most part, are regarded as the subjects
of a real inspiration.
1 to> pneu?ma tou? qeou?. The individual " spirits" are said to be e]k tou? qeou?
(41). But it is from the Divine Spirit that they derive their character and
their message. In their manifestations, therefore, it is the agency of the Spirit
of God that is discerned.
2 The confessing here spoken of refers to the inspired testifying of the pro-
phets in the congregation (1 Cor. 123 141-6).
3 As to the exegesis and doctrinal content of the confession, v. supra, pp.
94, 99.
266 The First Epistle of
Jesus1 is not of God"; but, on the contrary, is to be
identified with Antichrist 2 (43). There is no third possi-
bility.
The Apostle then proceeds to congratulate his readers
upon the faithfulness and success with which they have
hitherto resisted and overcome the enemy of their faith.
"Ye are of God" (in contrast with the spirits that "are not
of God"), "my little children, and have overcome them."
And this victory is assured of permanence, because
"greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world"
(44). The spirit that has been identified with Antichrist
is further characterised as having its sphere of operation
and dominion "in the world." They (the spirits who are
agents of him "who is in the world") "are of the world."
And their spiritual affinities determine the character of
their teaching. "They speak as of the world"; and the
character of their teaching reveals the character of their
hearers; "Therefore the world heareth them" (45); for
the world "loveth its own" (John 77 1519) and " listens
to those who express its own thought"3 (Westcott). In
direct opposition to this description of the false spirits and
prophets, the writer asserts of himself and of those whom he
associates with himself as truly unfolding the word of life,
that "We are of God," and that "Every one that knoweth4
God heareth5 us";6 while, on the contrary, the mark of
"Whosoever is not of God," is that he "heareth not
1 to>n ]Ihsou?n. The article defines Jesus in the full sense of the formula in
the preceding verse, which the writer does not deem it necessary to repeat.
The only valid confession of Jesus is that He is "the Christ come in the flesh."
2 Sec Notes, in loc. 3 v. supra, p. 103.
4 "Every one that knoweth God"—ginw<skwn to>n qeo<n—He who has a true
perception of what God really is, who recognises the Divine when it is presented
to him. This, not progressiveness of knowledge (Westcott, "The Christian
listens to those who teach him more of God") is what the word denotes.
5 a]kou<ei; cf. John 10 3.16.20.27
6 The claim of Apostolic authority is based solely upon the inherent truth of
the Apostolic message. Cf. 11-3, Acts 18 232 etc., John 1426 1526.27 etc., I Cor. 216,
Gal. 16-9.11.12 2 Tim. 111-13.
The Test of Belief 267
us " (46). Finally, he sums up the purport of the whole
argument in the words: "From this we recognise the Spirit
of Truth" (i.e. the Spirit given by God, 324), "and the Spirit
of Error."1 The inferential phrase "from this" (e]k tou<tou)
is to be understood, not as referring exclusively to the
last-mentioned test, the "hearing" or "not hearing" of
"us" (Huther, Weiss), but as indicating the accomplish-
ment of the writer's purpose in the paragraph as a whole.
That purpose, as stated at the outset, was to urge upon
his readers this test of God's dwelling in them, namely,
the presence and operation in them of the Spirit of God.
But the very office of the Divine Spirit, the promised
Paraclete, is to testify to Jesus as the Christ come in the
flesh. Every spirit, therefore, that bears witness to this is
of God; and every spirit that does not bear witness to this
is not of God. This test is decisive for the "spirits"
themselves. It is decisive also for those who speak by
their inspiration, distinguishing the false prophets from
those who, like the Apostle himself, are the messengers of
the Truth. But it is decisive also for their hearers. And
this is the point at which, in reality, the paragraph is aimed.
Not all had the prophetic afflatus. There were those who
gave utterance to the Church's confession and moulded its
doctrine; and there were those who only associated
themselves therewith by approval and adherence. For
the majority, the actual test consisted in the confession
they received as true and adopted as their own, and in
the teaching to which they approvingly listened. For all
alike, teachers and taught, their attitude towards the truth
of the Incarnation was decisive of the spirit that was in
them, whether it was the Spirit of Truth or the Spirit of
Error.
1 to> pneu?ma th?j pla<nhj. This designation, unique in the N.T., is naturally
accounted for by the contrast with the "Spirit of Truth." But cf. 226, Matt.
2411, Mark 135, Rev. 129 2010.
268 The First Epistle of
413-16
In the third Cycle of the Epistle the corresponding
paragraph1 is 413-16 And, in fact, this paragraph reproduces
in the simplest and directest form the argument which in
324-46 was somewhat complicated by the reference to the
different "spirits" and their human organs.
"In this, that2 He hath given us of His3 Spirit, we
perceive that we abide in Him, and He in us" (413)
Here, as everywhere in the Epistle, the Spirit is
regarded exclusively as the Spirit of Truth—the Witness to
Christ, and the Author of true Belief.
The first-fruit of this endowment with the Spirit is the
Apostolic testimony itself—"And we4 have beheld and
bear witness5 that the Father sent the Son (as) the Saviour
of the world"; (414)—its full result is the continuous re-
production of the same testimony in others also. Not only
the Apostles have in their vision and testimony the infallible
sign of God's dwelling in them; but "Whosoever shall con-
fess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and
he in God" (415). In 42, the true confession was, "Jesus is
the Christ come in the flesh"; here, it is "Jesus is the Son
of God." The two formuae are equivalent; and here the
1 Having for the third time exhibited Love as the sign and test of Life
(27.11 310b-24a 47-12), the writer again advances the test of belief, likewise for
the third time (218.28 324b 46; and now, 413-16)
2 v. Notes, in loc.
3 e]k tou? pneu<matoj au]tou?. Cf. e]k tou? plhrw<matoj, John 116. The phrase is
peculiar and, taken by itself, might justify the contention that the personality of
the Spirit is not fully realised in the writer's conception. But it does not
necessitate this conclusion. Though the Spirit dwells personally in all who
are "begotten of God," yet, according to the measure of His working in them,
they may be said to have more or less of the Spirit. With this thought the
common N.T. expressions, "full of" or "filled with" the Spirit, agree.
v. infra, pp. 351-52.
4 "And we." The writer and his fellow-witnesses. See Notes, in loc.
5 The Apostolic testimony is not a mere recital of the facts which constitute
the historical manifestation of Christ; it is also a Spirit-taught interpretation of
their significance—that "the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World."
See Notes, in loc.
The Test of Belief 269
latter is preferred as suggesting more directly the revelation
of the Divine Love in the mission of the Son, and as thus
leading up to the statement in which the thought of this
whole section is summed up, "We have perceived and
believed1 the Love which God hath toward 2 us. God is
Love; and he that abideth in Love abideth in God, and
God in him" (416)
It ought to be observed that in this paragraph the
ideas of Belief and Love are knit together in closest
relation. At the beginning (413), the mutual indwelling of
God and man is said to be certified by the presence of
that Spirit Who, alike in the Apostles (414) and in the
whole company of the faithful (415), testifies to the true
Belief. In the end, the same mutual indwelling is certified
by our "abiding in Love" (416). And the transition is
naturally effected through the fact that the whole weight of
our assurance that God is Love, and that, consequently, to
abide in Love is to abide in God, hangs upon the fact that
Jesus is the Son of God, sent by the Father to be the
Saviour of the world.
Love is the fruit of Belief, or Belief of Love. Their correla-
tion consists in this, that both Love and Belief are necessarily
and concomitantly wrought in men by the Divine Begetting
and Indwelling. Because God is Love, the new nature of
the God-begotten also is Love (47). But the fulness of
the Divine Love is manifested only in the mission of the
1 "We have known and believed";—e]gnw<kamen kai> pepisteu<kamen th>n a]ga<phn.
The two verbs form one compound idea. They are found in the same conjunction,
but in the reverse order, in John 669. I cannot agree with Westcott that the
addition of pepisteu<kamen is due to the conscious imperfection attaching to the
e]gnw<kamen. " We know the Love of God, but we believe that it is greater than
we know." (So also Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, 1629, where a reminiscence
of Eph. 319 is suggested.) It cannot be insisted too strongly that ginw<skein
signifies spiritual perception, pisteu<ein the resultant intellectual conviction.
Thus e]gnw<kamen kai> pepisteu<kamen might be translated; we have recognised
(in the fact that Jesus is the Son of God) the Love which God hath toward us,
and are firmly persuaded of its truth.
2 "Toward us"=e]n h[mi?n. See Notes, in loc.
270 The First Epistle o f
Son (49.10), and those who are "begotten of God"
necessarily have the power to perceive this when it is
presented to them,--to recognise in the Incarnation and
the Saviourship of the Son of God, the supreme divinity of
Love. Therefore, "Every one that loveth is begotten of
God" (47); therefore also, "Whosoever confesseth that
Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him and he in
God" (415).
Here, then, the characteristic doctrine of the Epistle
with regard to Belief is unmistakable. Belief is the
outcome, therefore the test, of life. The truth asserted is
not that our abiding in God and God's abiding in us are the
result of our belief in Christ and confession of Him, but,
conversely, that the confession is the result of the abiding.
The same position is categorically affirmed in 51 "Every
one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of
God." Here the tenses (pisteu<wn—gege<nnhtai) make it
clear that the Divine Begetting is the antecedent, not the
consequent, of the believing; that, in other words, Christian
Belief, which is essentially the spiritual recognition of
spiritual truth, is a function of the Divine1 Life as imparted
to men. This is the most distinctive element in the
Johannine conception of Belief; and, unless it is firmly
grasped, the most characteristic utterances of the Epistle
regarding Belief will appear to be the assertions of a hard,
scholastic dogmatism that interprets intellectual assent to
an orthodox formula as the equivalent of spiritual union
with God. Fuller consideration than has yet been given to
this point will, therefore, not be out of place.
The conception of Belief just indicated is most fully
developed in the Fourth Gospel, which it dominates from
beginning to end. A few passages out of many may be
1 Hence, it may be observed, the Epistle nowhere proposes to test Belief by
its fruits in good works, after the fashion of St. James (214-16). Belief, Righteous-
ness, and Love are all concomitantly tests of having Eternal Life.
The Test of Belief 271
quoted. "Unto this end have I been born, and to this end
have I come into the world, that I might bear witness to the
truth; every one that is of the truth heareth My voice"
(1837). "Ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep.
My sheep hear My voice . . . and they follow Me" (10 26.27).
"I have manifested Thy name unto the men whom Thou
gavest
(176 ; cf. 319-21 1237-41 544 644 842. 47). "Every one that
hath heard from the Father cometh unto Me"; "No man
can come unto Me except it be given him of My Father"
(645. 65). In these and all similar passages, in the Gospel
and the Epistle, belief or unbelief, when Christ is presented,
depends upon antecedent spiritual predisposition. The
Gospel does not create the children of God; it finds them,
attracts them, reveals them, draws them forth from the
mass of mankind. Thus
who have not even heard the Gospel as being, at least
potentially, the "children of God" (John 1152). And this
is otherwise expressed in the favourite Johannine view
that Christ's work among men is a work of judgment, of
sifting and separation (kri<sij, John 939 318.19). Christ
comes as a Light into the world; and those who, though
they dwell in darkness, are lovers of the Light, come unto
Him. Christ comes as the voice of Eternal Truth, and all
who are "of the truth" hear His voice. Christ is thrust
as a magnet into the midst of mankind, and draws to
Himself all who have an affinity with Him. Others He
repels; they "see no beauty in Him, that they should desire
Him." Men believe or disbelieve according to the spirit
that is in them. By their attitude to the Revelation of
God they reveal themselves; according as they pronounce
their judgment upon the Truth, it pronounces judgment
upon them. To recognise or not to recognise God in
Christ—there lies the boundary-line between spiritual life
and spiritual death.
272 The First Epistle of
Pfleiderer, however, gives a quite inconsistent statement
of the Johannine doctrine, when he interprets it to the effect
that "The manifestation of Christ brings nothing absolutely
new into the world, but develops and matures the Divine
and undivine germs that already lie implanted in men"
(ii. 490). As well might one say that the spring-sunshine
brings nothing new into the world, because autumn sowed
and winter stored the seeds it brings to germination; or
that the dawn brings nothing new into the world, because it
comes to those who, though sitting in darkness, yet have
eyes. What the Johannine doctrine avers is, that there
exists in some men what is lacking in others, a power of
spiritual vision by which Christ is recognised and welcomed
in His true character—a capacity and a predisposition to
receive Him (John 112.13).
This is, in fact,
doctrine of predestination.1 Pondering the question why
the Gospel reveals so profound a cleavage among men,
predestination;
predisposition. But
inherent in the natural character than
tion. He refuses to find its source in the human
personality (John 113; 1 John 51). The children of God
are not a superior species of the genus homo. They are
men who "have passed from death into life" (314); and
who have done so because they are "begotten of God."
And the motive of
same as that of
the assertion, as against the unbelieving world, of the
inward ground and the intuitive certainty of Christian
Belief. As we need no proof that light is light when
the eye beholds it, so the soul, begotten of God,
beholds and recognises eternal truth (520). Partly, the
1 Cf. Scott's Fourth Gospel, p. 278.
The Test of Belief 273
motive is religious. It is to satisfy the innermost Christian
consciousness that, not even for this vision of the truth,
not even for the appropriation of God's gift in Christ, can
believers take credit to themselves; that in nothing can
the human will do more than respond to the Divine; and
that, in the last resort, this power itself is of God.
It is far-fetched to find, as Pfleiderer does (ii. 490), a
historical kinship between this doctrine and the Gnosis
of Basilides. The connection he suggests with Philo's
doctrine of the separative activity of the Logos is more
credible. But the historical roots of the Johannine con-
ception lie nearer at hand--in the Old Testament, in the
Synoptic Gospels, in the Epistles of
plainly to be traced in the great prophecy (Isa. 610. 11)
quoted in
New Testament; in such Pauline passages as 2 Cor. 215. 16
43-6; in such Synoptic utterances as Luke 234. 35, Matt. 1125. 26
1617. But, in truth, it is not necessary to deduce the
doctrine from any remoter source than the meditation of
a thoughtful Christian mind upon the facts of life. And
when we consider what the facts are;--that, among men
of the same race, traditions, education, manners, and morals
Christ is, on the one hand, the supreme and enduring
attraction, and on the other, an object of frigid indifference
or of keen hostility; that, as when of old He was crucified
between two malefactors, the Cross itself became a throne
of judgment on which He sat separating the sheep from
the goats, so still, under all the apparent identities and
diversities of human life, Christ shows Himself the great
divider of men: when we consider, further, that we can
know and be attracted by that only with which we have
some affinity, that the soul cannot kindle in recogni-
tion admiration and desire of what is alien to its own
nature,—we are constrained to ask whether any truer word
can be spoken concerning all this, than that of the Epistle,
274 The First Epistle of
—that a believing response to the Revelation of Christ,
in whomsoever it is found, is due to the fact that he has
been "begotten of God." "Can you tell why the needle
trembles to the pole, why the buds feel their way to the
spring, the flowers to the sunlight? They are made for
it: and souls are so made for Christ."
The Conflict and Victory of Belief.
Of Divine contents and origin, Christian Belief is also
a Divine power in men, victorious over the evil and false-
hood of the World. The first of the passages that tell of
this victory is that in which the Apostle congratulates his
readers upon their having quitted themselves like true
soldiers of Jesus Christ, by their resolute and successful
resistance to the enemies of their faith. "Ye are of God,
little children, and have overcome them: because greater is
He that is in you, than he that is in the world" (44). Here
the conflict is expressly between Truth and Error; and,
indeed, between the personal Spirit of Truth and the
personal Spirit of Error. As it is said "ye are of God,"
so "He that is in you" can be none other than God,1
acting by "the Spirit He hath given us " (324b)--the
"Anointing" which "teacheth concerning all things " (227).
And " He that is in the world " can be none other than the
dia<boloj2 of 38.10. The human combatants are identified
on both sides with a superhuman personality whose
instruments they directly are and in whose power they
contend. And the victory of Truth is won, and its per-
manence is ensured by the fact that its Divine protagonist
is greater than the opposing Spirit of Error. Great as is
the power of falsehood to captivate and to mislead, the
1 The thought leads back also to the "Son of God Who was manifested that
He might destroy the works of the Devil" (38).
2 o[ tou? ko<smou a@rxwn, John 1231 1430 1611. o[ qeo>j tou? ai]w?noj tou<tou, 2 Cor.
44, Eph. 22 612. o[ ko<smoj o!loj kei?tai e]n t&? ponhr&?, I John 519.
The Test of Belief 275
convincing power of Truth is always, in the end, greater
(John 168-11). This mei<zwn1 is the Christian's sheet anchor
of hope when he contemplates the power of falsehood in
the World.
53b–5
"And His commandments are not burdensome, because
everything that is begotten of God overcometh the world.
And this is the victory that overcometh the world, even
our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he
that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"
Here, as elsewhere2 in the Epistle, the "World" is not
the order of the seen and temporal considered as a power
to hold the soul in bondage and to render it insensible to
spiritual realities; it is the world of ungodly persons, with
the opinions, sentiments, and influences the "lust of the
flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the vainglory of life"—
which they embody. The "World" is, therefore, a prolific
source of temptations that inevitably tend to make God's
commandments burdensome to those who strive to obey
them fully. Its hostility may take the form of overt
persecution; but always the world brings to bear against
those whose aims are spiritual, a force of ideas and
estimates--as of, "success," "happiness," "honour"--and
of social influences, which he must conquer or to which he
must succumb. Such an environment would necessarily
render the requirements of the Christian Life a grievous
and a galling yoke but for this,3—"Whatsoever is
begotten of God overcometh the world." As the human
body is unaffected by an external atmospheric pressure
that would crush it to a pulp, but for the fact that there
1 Cf. John 168-11, Eph. 119-23,
3 pa?n to> gegennhme<non;. The abstract pa?n, instead of the concrete pa?j, seems
to emphasise, not the persons who conquer, but the Divine energy by which
they conquer. It brings out the thought that whatsoever is of Divine origin has
ipso facto a power mightier than the world's.
276 The First Epistle of
is an equal expansive pressure within the body itself; so,
since "Greater is He that is in us, than he that is in the
world," the world's hostile pressure is more than neutralised,
and God's commandments are not burdensome. "And
this is the victory that overcometh (hath overcome,1 R.V.)
the world--our Belief." Belief itself may be regarded as
the victory. Simply to believe in Christ is, in principle,
complete victory over the world. This alone puts the
world, with its false ideals and standards, under our feet.
But the battle has to be fought out in detail; and our
Belief is necessarily the spiritual weapon2 by which every
successive temptation is met and overcome. What this
Belief is the next verse declares: "Who is he that over-
cometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the
Son of God?" The union of the human name "Jesus" with
the full title "the Son of God," expresses vividly the world-
conquering power of this belief. For, from the worldly
point of view, no one was ever more manifestly over-
whelmed by defeat and disaster than was this "Son of
God." To believe that, living and dying, Jesus of
God and to finish His work as Jesus did is the one true
victory life can give—that to minister rather than to be
1h[ ni<kh h[ nikh<sasa. The aorist is difficult, and has been variously explained;
—as indicating that from the beginning (Heb. 11) Faith overcame the world
(Huther. But why then the emphatic h[ pi<stij h[mw?n); as referring definitely
to the victory already mentioned (44) over the false teachers (Weiss. This is
tenable, but the reference seems too remote, and far too narrow for the context);
as referring to the victory of Christ (John 1633), in which believers are by their
faith made partakers (Westcott. There is, without doubt, a reminiscence of
John 1633; but to make the text mean, "We are by our faith made partakers
in the same victory as Christ once gained over the world," seems beyond the
limits of possible exegesis). But the aorist tense does not necessarily indicate a
definite point in the past; and here nikh<sasa seems to be a genuine example of
the "constative" aorist, by which "the whole action is comprised in one view,"
or "the line is reduced to a point by perspective" (Moulton, pp. 108 sqq.). In
English idiom this has often to be translated by the perfect, as here by the
"hath overcome" of the R.V.
2 Thus, by a strong metonymy, the victory itself is identified with the means
by which it is won.
The Test of Belief 277
ministered unto, and to give oneself a ransom for many, is
its "topmost, ineffablest crown," is to be, in thought at least,
emancipated from the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the
eyes, and the vainglory of life." But it is not only by its
loftier ideal that Christian Belief conquers the world. It
combines with the purely ethical ideal both the power of
Love ("This is the Love of God, that we keep His com-
mandments," 53) and the assurance of immortality; setting
over against the world that "passeth away" the vision of
another where the Divine Ideal is in fact, as here it is in
right, supreme. Above all, Belief is victory because it is the
proof of union with Christ Who, Himself victorious over
the world, is the source of all-conquering power to them in
whom He abides (John 1633). "He that hath the Son
hath Life " (512); and, while surrounded by the world's
hostile influences, he is made partaker in Christ's own
triumph over them.
"Remember what a martyr said
On the rude tablet overhead!
I was born sickly, poor and mean,
A slave: no misery could screen
The holders of the pearl of price
From Caesar's envy; therefore twice
I fought with beasts, and three times saw
My children suffer by his law.
At last my own release was earned:
I was some time in being burned,
But at the close a Hand came through
The fire above my head, and drew
My soul to Christ, whom now I see.
Sergius, a brother, writes for me
This testimony on the wall
For me, I have forgot it all.'"
NOTE ON pisteu<ein.
In the Johannine writings this word has the same leading significa-
tions as in classical Greek. In one instance it means to "entrust"
(e]pi<steuen au]to>n au]toi?j, John 224). Elsewhere it means (a) to "believe"
a fact (with the noun in the accusative, as in 416 pepisteu<kamen th>n
a]ga<phn) or the statement of a fact (introduced by o!ti, as in 51.5);
278 The First Epistle of
(b) to "believe" or credit the testimony of a person or thing; (c) to
"believe in" or trust a person or thing. Confining attention to the last
two of these usages, we find that in classical Greek pisteu<ein in either
sense has the object in the dative, never being followed by a pre-
positional phrase.
But it was indispensable that N.T. Greek should possess the means
of distinguishing ideas that are so different for Christian thought as
"believe" and "believe in." In
(=B; Nymix,h,) is, as a rule, pisteu<ein (510). In the three cases in which
pisteu<ein ei]j has a thing, not a person, as it's object (ei]j to> fw?j, John
1236; ei]j th>n marturi<an, I John 510; ei]j to> o@noma, I John 513), it may be
argued that the sense is still to "trust," the reference being really to
the person who is the source of the light, the author of the testimony,
the possessor of the name.
On the other hand, to "believe" is, as a rule, pisteu<ein, c. dat.
Moulton (p. 67), like Westcott and Abbott, will have it that the rule
is invariable for the New Testament. But Acts 1634 188 much the
more natural sense of pisteu<ein, c. dat., is "believe in." In
also, the two constructions are sometimes used interchangeably (cf.
John 629.30 and 830.31) And, in the Epistle, it is impossible, without
pedantry, to assign different shades of meaning to pisteu<ein t&? o]no<mati
(323) and pisteu<ein eo]j o@noma (513). The truth is that, in the nature
of the case, the two ideas "believe" and "believe in" frequently run
into and blend with each other, belief of the thing testified resting
upon trust in the person testifying (cf. John 524.33 with 1244).
CHAPTER XIV.
THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE.
IN the foregoing chapters we have seen with what urgency
inseparable tests by which they may satisfy themselves
that they have Eternal Life (513): "He that keepeth His
commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him" (324);
"He that dwelleth in Love dwelleth in God, and God in
him (410); "Whosoever confesseth that Jesus is the Son
of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God" (415). And,
in general, it has to be asserted that the Epistle acknow-
ledges no certitude of personal salvation other than is
based on the fulfilment of those tests. In its scheme of
thought no place is provided for any immediate, self-
certifying consciousness of regenerate life. The possession
of this is to be recognised (ginw<skein) from the presence
of its appropriate fruits, and thus only. "We know that
we have passed from death into Life, because we love the
brethren" (314). But while thus the effect of the Epistle
is, upon the whole, extremely heart-searching, there are
passages in which the writer pauses in his persistent
probing and testing of souls, and dwells upon the heart-
pacifying aspect of the truths he enunciates.
228.
"And now, little children, abide1 in Him; that, if He
1 "Abide in Him . . . that we may have boldness." The sense is not (as
1 Thess. 219, Phil. 41, Heb. 1317)--"Do ye abide in Him that we, as your
responsible guide and teacher, may give in our account with joy." The
279
280 The First Epistle of
shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not shrink
from Him in shame (ai]sxunqw?men a]p ] au]tou?) at His
corning."1 The phrase to "have boldness" (par]r[hsi<an
e@xein), here introduced, is destined to further service (321
417 514). In classical usage par]r[hsi<a denotes that out-
spokenness or fearless declaration of personal opinion
which was especially the cherished privilege of Athenian
freemen. In the Epistle to the Hebrews and in our
Epistle2 it signifies the confidence of open childlike speech
with our Father in prayer, or, as here, the fearless trust with
which the faithful meet Christ. Its peculiar force is finely
brought out by the contrasted "shrink from Him in
shame." Both are phrases of graphic power, vividly
suggesting the picture of the judgment-seat before which
all must stand, and of the frank confidence with which men
turn to their Judge and look upon His face, or the
speechless confusion in which they avoid His gaze (cf.
Matt. 2212). The ground of this "boldness in His
Parousia" will be that men, though much exposed to the
plausibilities of pseudo-Christian teaching, have held fast the
truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (222-24), as this
is witnessed by the Apostles (224) and taught by the Spirit3
(227). The ascription of this ultimately decisive value to
Belief has been already discussed.4 However remote it may
seem to be from the purely ethical grounds of final judgment
foretold by our Lord (Matt. 2531-46) it is not, in the mind of
its necessary implicates. To believe that Jesus is Incarnate
Apostle violates grammatical construction rather than seem to exclude himself
from what he enjoins on his "little children." He identifies himself with them
as a Christian man "still struggling to effect his warfare " in a world of tempta-
tion (cf. 19 22 319. 20. 21 etc.).
1 e]n t^? parousi<% au]tou?. See Chapter XVI.
2 In the Fourth Gospel the word is used somewhat differently, signifying
plain as contrasted with mystic (524 1114 1629), or open as contrasted with secret
utterance (723 1820).
3 v. supra, pp. 108-16. 4 v. supra, pp. 261-2, 270-4
The Doctrine of Assurance 281
God, is to accept Love as the law of life, as is made evident
by the passage that next comes under consideration.
318-20
"Little children, let us not love in word, neither in
tongue; but in deed and in truth.1 And herein shall we
know (= ascertain) that we are of the truth, and shall
assure our heart before Him, whereinsoever our heart
condemn us; because God is greater than our heart and
knoweth all things."2 It is necessary to distinguish at the
outset between the absolute and the conditional ground of
confidence toward God, as these are here set forth. The
former is that we are "of the Truth"3—that we belong to
the kingdom that is Christ's (John 1837); that our life is
based upon and our character moulded by the Divine and
eternal Reality, the full expression of which is Christ, Who
is "the Truth." But in our own particular case this must
be established by the fact that we "love not in word,
neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth."
This question, whether we are "of the truth," is here
figured as the subject of a trial in which a man's own
"heart" (conscience; that is, the faculty of moral self-
judgment) is the accuser and he himself the defendant,
which is carried on in the presence of Omniscient God, and
is finally referred to His decision. There are thus three
elements to be considered in the case. (a) Our own heart4
1 On the first clause, v. supra, pp. 245-6, and Notes, in loc.
2 On the exegetical difficulties this locus vexatissimus, see Notes. In the
present exposition, I assume the conclusion to which I have come—that, without
emendation of the text, the R.V. best meets the requirements both of grammar
and of sense.
3 To be "of the Truth" denotes substantially the same thing as to be "of
God" (310). Regarding a]lhqei<a, v. supra, pp. 62, 259-60.
4 "Heart" (kardi<a) is rarely found in
the source of impulse to action, in 141.27 166.22 the seat of thought and
emotion. sunei<dhsij, which in the N.T. exactly covers our "conscience," both
as the faculty of self-judgment and in the wider sense of moral discernment, does
not occur in
282 The First Epistle of
may condemn us. We believed that we had passed
from death into life (311); but to ourselves this has
become almost or altogether doubtful.1 When Conscience
summons us to the tribunal within, it declares us guilty.
We have failed in doing the "righteousness" of the
children of God (310) or our faith has faltered—our
vision of the Truth has become dim. The evidence
of our union with Christ is obscured by the consciousness
of inconsistencies which, regarded in themselves, compel
us to question whether we are "of the truth" or have
been self-deceived (cf. 24.6.9 etc.). This is the first
element in the case. (b) The second is, "In this we shall
recognise that we are of the truth." When conscience
brings forward these allegations of insincerity, to what
shall we appeal? To this, says
loved, and that "not in word, neither in tongue; but
in deed and in truth." There are actual things we
can point to--not things we have professed or felt or
imagined or intended, but things that we have done,
and that we know we would never have done but for
the Love which God has put into our hearts. Of ecstatic
emotions, heaven-piercing vision, we may know nothing;
but if, in the practice of Love—in bearing another's
burden, in denying ourselves to give to another's need
(317), we are sure of our ground, hereby we shall
tranquillise our self-accusing hearts—yea, even in the
presence2 of God. (c) "Because God is greater than
our heart, and knoweth all things." But here a diffi-
culty meets us. What may be called the popular inter-
1 This is the explanation of the future "we shall know" (gnwso<meqa). It
does not merely point to the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in 318,—
that, of course, is assumed,—it contemplates the possibility of some shadow
having fallen on the clear mirror of the soul—some future occasion on which
our own heart accuses us.
2 "Before Him " (e@mprosqen au]tou?). The thought is not of the Day of
Judgment, but that the self-examination is brought about by the sense of God's
Presence, and under the sense of the same Presence is carried on.
The Doctrine of Assurance 283
pretation:1—"Since even our own imperfectly enlightened
heart accuses us, how much more must we dread the
judgment of the All-knowing"--is directly opposed to the
requirements of the context. Plainly the fact that "God
is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things,"
must be a reason for pacifying the heart, not for increas-
ing its alarm. Almost all modern exegetes, accordingly,
take "greater than our hearts" as referring to the greater
tenderness of God. Conscience is a "recording chief
inquisitor," who notes without pity all that is done amiss.
God is Love, and, reading in our hearts the Love He
has put there, blots out the handwriting that is against us.
But this is irrelevant. The question under consideration
is not one of merciful judgment, but solely one of evidence
as to whether we are or are not "of the truth." When it is
said that "God is greater than our heart," what is meant is
simply that "He knoweth," that is, takes cognisance of "all
things." Our own heart does not take cognisance of all
things. On the supposition made, its role is solely that
of accuser. It is regarded as occupying itself exclusively
with those facts that cast suspicion upon the reality of
our Christian life, while it needs to be reminded of those
that tell in our favour. But God takes note of all—both
of the inconsistencies that conscience urges against us,
and of the deeds whose witness we can cite in reply to its
accusations. And for this very reason that He knows
all, we can persuade and pacify our hearts before Him.
To the hypocrite, who only seeks a cloak for his sin, the
thought of the All-seeing is full of dread; but to him who,
though conscious of much that may well be thought to
falsify his Christian profession, is also conscious that it is
1 This interpretation is still maintained and powerfully defended by Pro-
fessor
text as he does, his view is obviously sound; and the emendation is tempting.
v. Notes, in loc. But the explanation here given of the text as it stands is, I
think, tenable.
284 The First Epistle of
in facts of a different kind that his deepest life has found
true expression, it is full of comfort. The appeal to
Omniscience is his final resort; his hiding-place is in the
Light itself (Ps. 13923. 24). Thus it was with Simon when
not only his own heart accused him, but his Master so
persistently voiced its accusations "Lord, Thou knowest
all things; Thou knowest that I love Thee" (John 2117.).
And it is not difficult to suppose that the ginw<skei pa<nat of
the present passage is a reminiscence of that memorable
incident (ku<rie, pa<nta su> oi#daj, su> ginw<skeij o!ti filw? se).
Looking at the passage as a whole we find two notable
features in it. On the one hand is the emphasis placed
upon objective facts as the only valid evidence of our
being "of the truth"; on the other hand is the principle
that positive outweighs negative evidence1--that deeds
of love rightly prevail against the consciousness of incon-
sistency and defect. In part, doubtless, this emphasis
is due to the historical situation. It is a repudiation of
the loveless intellectualism of the Gnostic; and it is also
an assurance and consolation of those "little ones" who
were liable to be "offended" by those who based their
claim to be "of the truth" upon a profounder knowledge of
the spiritual universe than was attainable by the simple
believer. Not philosophy but Love has the title to the
tion, but on the Christ-life of self-sacrificing Love was the
stamp of the Truth impressed. Yet the Apostle's doctrine
has respect to the deep common needs of the Christian life.
To the man of self-accusing heart in every age he speaks.
To the man whose belief seems to himself little more than
a struggle with unbelief, who is more conscious of darkness
and doubt than of triumphant faith, he says: "Your life,
1 It needs, perhaps, to be emphasised that the matter under consideration is
wholly one of evidence. There is no question of setting the merit of good deeds
over against the demerit of evil deeds.
The Doctrine of Assurance 285
your actual indubitable deeds in which you embody the
spirit that is in you—what is their testimony? Are these
the fruit of faith or of unbelief?" To the man who mourns
defects of character and lapses of conduct that seem to
vitiate his title to be of those who have the seed of the
Righteous God abiding in them (39), he says: "These
may be the negations and failures of your life, what are
its affirmations and achievements? Is the goal towards
which you strive the goal of Love?" The test is absol-
utely valid. Not the presence of evil, but the absence of
good, is the fact of fatal omen. It is the invariable test
of our Lord Himself, with whom the irremediable sin is
ever the sin of lovelessness, fruitlessness, slothfulness,—the
damning accusation, "Ye did it not." He who loves not in
word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth; who lays
down his life for the brethren, if not in one crowded hour
of glorious self-surrender, yet, perhaps, more nobly, in the
patient well-doing and helpful kindness and unselfish service
which enrich the years as they pass, this man verily bears the
marks of the Lord Jesus. Let no man trouble him; let him
not trouble himself; but herein let him recognise that he is
"of the truth," and humbly assure his heart before God.
The following verses (321.22) introduce the subject of
assurance in Prayer, and so, postponing them, we proceed
to a passage which is as closely as possible allied to that
which we have just considered.
417-19
"Herein is love made perfect with us, that we may
have boldness in the Day of Judgment; because as He is,
even so are we in this world. There is no fear in Love;
but perfect love casteth out fear; because fear hath punish-
ment ; and he that feareth is not made perfect in love. We
love, because He first loved us."
Logically, 417 contains three members:—The purpose
286 The First Epistle of
achieved--"That we may have boldness in the Day
of Judgment"; the ground upon which this confidence
is established--"Because as He (Christ) is, so are we in
this world"; the proof that we are entitled to occupy this
ground--"Herein is Love perfected with us." We shall,
however, consider these clauses in the order in which they
occur. (a) "Herein1 is Love2 perfected (fulfilled) with
us." By the word "herein" the sentence is linked on to the
immediately preceding one:1 "He that abideth in Love
abideth in God, and God in him " (416). What that Love is
and how it is "perfected" is unmistakably defined in 412:
"If we love one another, God abideth in us, and His Love
is perfected in us." The only variation in the phraseology
is that, instead of the "perfected in us" (e]n h[mi?n) of 412, we
have here "perfected with us" (meq ] h[mw?n),3 the latter being
probably intended as a stronger expression of the fact that
it is in the social relations of the Christian community that
the Divine life of Love has its fullest human realisation.
Clearly, then, it is in the exercise of brotherly love
that Love is here said to be perfected. Further, if we
inquire why this is so,—what specific idea the Apostle
intends to convey by the "perfecting" of Love,—this also
becomes clear when we compare the two passages in which
this "perfecting" is described: "Whosoever keepeth His
word, in him verily is the love of God perfected " (25); and.
"If we love one another, God abideth in us, and His
love is perfected in us" (412). Manifestly, the conception
common to "keeping His word" and “loving one another”
is the embodiment of Love in actual conduct. The asser-
tion of perfectness refers, not to the strength or purity of
Love as a sentiment, but solely to its bearing fruit in deeds
which prove its reality and fulfil its purpose. The idea is
1 v. Notes, in loc.
2 h[ a]ga<ph. Not the Love of God to us, nor specifically our Love to God or
to our brother, but that moral nature which is called Love. Cf. supra, p. 212.
3 meq ] h[mw?n. v. Notes, in loc.
The Doctrine of Assurance 287
that, not of qualitative, but of effective perfection; and
tetelei<wtai might be translated more unambiguously by
"fulfilled" or "accomplished" than by "perfected." That
is teteleiwme<non which has reached its te<loj, has achieved its
end, has run its full course.1 And the end of God's Love
to us is attained in our loving one another. As the seed
reaches its goal in the fruit, so the Love of God has
its fulfilment in reproducing itself in the character and
conduct of His children. But, as we have2 seen, the Love
of God to us cannot be directly reproduced in our relation
to Him. It is only when we love one another with the
love of God—the love which is His own, and which He
begets in us—that His love is fulfilled in us. Then Love's
circuit is complete, from God to us, from us to our brother,
and through our brother back to God (cf. Matt. 2540)
Next, the Apostle states a special purpose achieved by
this fulfilment of Love--"that we may have confidence in
the Day of Judgment."3 This is not the only end, but it is
an end; in the present view, indeed, the ultimate end of all
action. All that life most profoundly signifies is contained
in the thought of our final responsibility to God (2 Cor.
19.10). This confidence is a present possession (e@xwmen),4
not only because the Apostle thinks of the Day of Judg-
ment as at hand, but because the thought of that Day and
of its issue for us is, or ought to be, present to our minds.
Finally, the Apostle supplies the necessary connecting
link between "perfected Love" and this "confidence."
Our love, however truly fulfilled, does not in its own right
1 A comparison of other Johannine occurrences of teleio<w confirms this.
Jesus "accomplishes" or "fulfils" the work of the Father (John 435 536 174);
the Scripture is "accomplished " or "fulfilled" (1928). Cf. Acts 2024 teleiw?sai
to> dro<mon mou; Jas. 222 e]k tw?n e@rgwn h[ pi<stij e]teleiw<qh= "in works faith found
fulfilment." "To make perfect (teleio<w) is to bring to the end, that is, the
appropriate or appointed end, the end corresponding to the idea" (Davidson,
Hebrews, p. 65).
2 v. supra, pp. 76, 250-52.
3 The Day of Judgment. See Chapter \V I.
4 e@xwmen. v. Notes, in loc.
288 The First Epistle of
furnish confidence against the Day of Judgment. It does
so, "because as He is,1 so are we"—because it is the proof
that we are spiritually one with Christ.
The statement is, that what Christ is we also are, though
He has gone to the Father and we are still in this world.2
The sign and test of our union with Him has been stated
as "walking even as He walked" (26), "purifying ourselves
as He is pure" (33), being "righteous as He is righteous"
(37). Here, finally, it is that "Love is fulfilled in us."
The heart of all Christ's doing and suffering was the intense
longing He had to make Himself the channel through
which the Love of God might reach men. To this end He
followed the path of love to the crowded city, to the wilder-
ness, to the Cross and the grave. In Him Love had its
absolute fulfilment. And if we also seek to be channels
through which the Love of God reaches our fellow-men, then,
in our small measure and degree, we are "as He is"; and
Love, feeble and poor though it be, has herein reached fulfil-
ment in us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment.
Love will be on the Judgment-seat. Love will be befoe the
Judgment-seat. And Love cannot be condemned or dis-
owned of Love.
418.
"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out
fear, because fear hath punishment: he that feareth is not
made perfect in love."
In the preceding verse it has been asserted that Love
"fulfilled" establishes the Christian in confidence toward
God, as being the fruit and the test of his fellowship with
1 He (e]kei?noj) = Christ; cf. 26 36. 5. 7.16. v. supra, p. 89.
The exactness of the parallelism between this verse and 318.19 ought to be
observed. Here, the purpose to be effected is "that we may have confidence in
the Day of Judgment"; there, "that we may assure our hearts before Him."
Here, the ground of confidence is that "as Christ is, so are we in this world";
there, that we are "of the truth." Here, the proof of this is that "Love is
perfected in us"; there, that we love "not in word neither in tongue; but in
deed and in truth."
The Doctrine of Assurance 289
Christ. Here the same position is maintained from a
complementary point of view: what is hostile to par]r[hsi<a
is Fear, and what delivers from Fear is Love.1 Fear
towards God is the product of the self-accusing heart.
But "there is no Fear2 in Love." In loving one another
there is no matter of self-accusation, there is nothing to
give occasion to Fear.3 Fear is the sentinel of life; the
self-protective instinct that gives warning of danger, and
calls to arms against it; and Fear towards God is the sign
that not all is well in our relation to Him, and that we
instinctively know it. But Love gives no such warning signal.
When we are living in Love we are doing those things which
are "well-pleasing in His sight " (322); we are "abiding in
the Light" (210); we have fellowship one with another, and
the blood of Jesus, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin" (17).
Not only is there nothing in Love to produce Fear; it
banishes Fear where it exists. "But perfect Love casteth
out Fear." It says to Fear, "Begone!" and, so to say,
flings it out of doors.4 "Perfect Love" (h[ te<leia a]ga<ph)
cannot signify anything else than the Love which has
been spoken of in the foregoing verse as "perfected."5
How love becomes "perfect" has been already declared
(25 412); also how it casts out Fear. Even against a
self-accusing heart, Love that is "in deed and in Truth"
1 The verse thus carries on the parallelism to 318-20, expanding the thought
contained in the words, "and shall assure our hearts before Him whereinsoever
our own heart condemn us."
2 The order of words is the most emphatic possible: fo<boj ou]k e@stin e]n t^?
a]ga<p^: "Fear there is none in love." fo<boj is used of reverential fear (2 Cor.
71); but here (as in Rom. 815) of servile, self-regarding fear.
3 fo<boj ou]k e@stin e]n t^> a]ga<p^=In love there is no occasion of Fear—nothing
to make afraid. Cf. the analogous phrase, ska<ndalon e]n au]t&? ou]k e@stin (210)
4 "Casteth out" (e@cw ba<llei). More vivid, and describing more vigorous
action than e]kba<llei.
5 Love is perfect which has its "perfect work." Cf. Jas. 14. Also Shepherd
of Hermas, Vis. I. 2, 1. tw?n a[martiw?n tw?n telei<wn=sins actually committed,
as contrasted with sins only imagined or purposed. Westcott, on the contrary,
has a characteristic note on the difference between "perfect" (te<leia) and
"perfected" (teteleiwme<nh).
290 The First Epistle of
lifts up its testimony that we are "of the truth" (318)
That we in this world are as Christ is (417), forgiving them
that injure us, doing the most and the highest good we
can, loving men with the Love of Christ, "walking in Love
even as He loved us"--there is no attestation of our
fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ,
and no ground of confidence like this. This casts out Fear
by Divine right.1 And it does so,
Fear hath punishment."2 The expression is peculiar and
obscure. The drift of the argument, however, is clear.
Fear itself is of the nature of punishment; it is, in fact,
the first reaction of sin upon the moral nature, the first
conscious penalty of wrong-doing. It is, moreover, the
consciousness of a relation to God of which punishment is
the proper and only issue; and, unless it be legitimately
overcome, drives the sinner to an ever-increasing distance
from God (Gen. 38). And just because this is the nature
of Fear, Love prevails over it and casts it out. Conscious
of loving our fellow-men with a love that God has implanted
in our hearts, we are assured that God is our Father, that
Jesus Christ the Righteous is our Advocate--that our
relation to God is one which holds no place for the idea of
"punishment," in which nothing is possible except fatherly
forgiveness and discipline. If Fear is the natural reaction
of sin upon the soul, no less is confidence the natural
reaction of Love. Nothing can work in us such a loving
assurance of God's love to us as loving one another.
Nothing can make it so clear that God will forgive our
trespasses as our forgiving those that trespass against us.
1 Here the Apostle only reproduces the most emphatic teaching of his Master
(Matt. 614.15 1835 2540, Luke 1025-37 169.19-26 etc.).
2 "Hath punishment" (ko<lasin e@xei). ko<lasij has no meaning except
"punishment," whether retributive or disciplinary (cf. Matt. 2546, 2 Pet. 29)
and cannot be translated by "torment" (A.V.), or any word that expresses merely
a painful feeling. Here the meaning is not that Fear, "as rooted in unbelief, is
itself deserving of punishment" (Huther), but that Fear is itself a punishment or
chastisement.
The Doctrine of Assurance 291
It is by loving that we know God, Who is Love, and are
assured that God dwelleth in us. Therefore "perfect"
Love—Love that has done the work of Love—casts out
the Fear which "hath punishment." The consequence
necessarily follows that "He that feareth has not been made1
perfect in Love." In the sphere of Love his life must be
yet unfulfilled.2 Inasmuch as he fears, his condition is
more hopeful than that of him who "saith he is in the
light, and hateth his brother" (29); but inasmuch as he fails
of genuine fruition in Love he lacks, and rightly lacks, the
consciousness of union with God in Christ; or at least that
consciousness is feeble as against the consciousness of sin.
The Apostle evidently does not contemplate such a type of
Christian as Bunyan's Mr. Fearing. Indoctrinated with the
teaching of the Epistle, that loving and lovable saint might
cease to be Mr. Fearing. Even he might recognise that he
is "of the truth," and assure his "heart before God."
419
The paragraph is now exquisitely rounded by the
return of thought to Him Who is the source of all Christian
Life, all Christian Love, and ultimately, therefore, of all
Christian Assurance.
Having just spoken of him "that feareth" because "he
has not been made perfect in Love," the Apostle adds
the earnest exhortation ‘As for us, let us love,3 because
1 To be "perfected in Love" cannot mean anything substantially different
from having "Love perfected" in one. That love has attained to its true issue in
us as its sphere of action, and that we have reached our proper end or aim in Love
as our sphere of action, are the same idea regarded from converse points of view.
2 Cf. Rev. 32 "I have found no words of thine fulfilled (peplhrwme<na) before
my God."
3 The strong position of h[mei?j, and, in fact, its presence at all, justifies the
translation, "as for us."
By the general consent of textual authorities, au]to<n is omitted after
a]gapw?men. The whole term of the passage makes it clear that a]gapw?men is to
be understood of brotherly love. As regards the rendering, "Let us love,"
v. Notes, in loc.
292 The First Epistle of
He first loved us." This brief sentence contains at once
the ideal, the sovereign motive and the power of realisation
for all Christian ethics. What God is, determines the mark
at which the Christian must of necessity aim (Matt. 545)
What God is--"He first loved us" summons and inspires
heart, soul, strength, and mind to the effort. What God is
--Love that wills to bestow nothing less than the Infinite
Good, Eternal Life, upon sinful men—supplies the unfailing
power to which all moral perfection is possible. Through
the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, we may be holy
as He is holy, righteous as He is righteous, and love as
the children of Him who is Love.
In the exposition of these verses I have ventured upon a wide
departure from the practically unanimous1 exegetical tradition. I have
taken the passage as closely parallel with 318-20, understanding "perfected"
Love as Love fulfilled in "deed and in truth," and as casting out Fear,
because it is objective evidence of union with Christ. But on the
common interpretation, it is the sentiment of Love that is here spoken
of as "perfected," and it casts out Fear, because the two are psycho-
logically incompatible.2 "Where Love to God exists in perfection it
casts out all lingering dread of Him. Love and Fear are antagonistic
principles. Love is a self-forgetting, Fear a self-regarding affection.
Love is blessedness; Fear, on the contrary, ‘hath torment.' It con-
templates the relation to its object as one of hostile opposition, and
brings with it a feeling of distress. But Love has no thought of self, and,
therefore, no Fear. Not every kind of Love, indeed, casts out Fear; but
only perfect Love, which is free from self-seeking. And if any man is
yet subject to Fear, this only proves that he is not perfected in Love.
But this is not true of us. We love God with this unselfish, happy,
fearless Love, because He first loved us."
But this interpretation seems to me to be open to serious objection.
According to it, the central thought of the passage is that the secret of
confidence toward God lies in the psychological necessity by which the
sentiment of Love to God excludes the opposite sentiment of Fear.
But in the first place, this thought does not at all fit into the reasoning
of 417, where the ground of confidence explicitly is, "Because as He
(Christ) is, so are we in this world." Here it is, in my view, indisputable
1 The only supporter I have found for the view I have advanced is J. M.
Gibbon in his Eternal Life.
2 By far the finest exposition of the passage on these lines is Rothe's, which
give here in condensed form.
The Doctrine of Assurance 293
that the “perfected Love” is brotherly love fulfilled in "deed and in
truth," and that it gives confidence toward God because it is the sign
and the test of our being spiritually identified with Christ. But if the
central idea is that the sentiment of Love by its natural operation
casts out Fear, the reference to Christ and to our union with Him is
entirely irrelevant.1
With regard to 418 I acknowledge that this interpretation satisfies
the requirements excellently2 and obviously—more obviously than that
which I have advanced--if 418 can be isolated from 417, and from the
whole Epistle. It is evident that if this is the true interpretation of 418,
the argument of the passage breaks in two. In 417, Love perfected in
action casts out Fear, because it is evidence that "as Christ is, so are
we"; in 418, Love perfected in sentiment casts out Fear by psycholo-
gical necessity. It is not, of course, impossible that the writer should
thus suddenly and insensibly change his point of view. But an inter-
pretation that does not involve this supposition is, to that extent, pre-
ferable.
Besides, when thus interpreted, the passage stands solitary in the
Epistle, without an assignable place in the organism of its thought.
Here we should have the only idea in the Epistle that is not introduced
again and again, and the only passage without a parallel. (a) On
this interpretation, h[ a]ga<ph is Love regarded exclusively as a sentiment,
and exclusively in relation to God. But this is not according to the
usage of the Epistle. h[ a]ga<ph used absolutely, as here, means simply the
disposition which is so called—the disposition which is revealed in God
by His sending His Son as a propitiation for our sins (410), in Christ by
His laying down His life for us (316), and which, according to the
unvarying representation of the Epistle, is manifested and fulfilled in
us by our loving one another. (b) But the strongest objection lies
against the idea itself that confidence toward God is the effect of a
1 This is recognised by Lucke, who in 417 takes h[ a]ga<ph as the brotherly love
that attests our fellowship with Christ, but in 418 as the love to God that casts
out fear by its intrinsic power. Weiss includes brotherly love in the idea of
h[ a]ga<ph—inconsistently, as it seems to me, with the whole scope of his inter-
pretation.
2 I except from this statement the clause, "Perfect Love casteth out Fear,
because Fear hath punishment " (ko<lasin e@xei). Ex hypotkesi, Love casts out
Fear, because it is psychologically impossible that the two should coexist; and it
is difficult to realise any force in the argument that Love casts out Fear, because
Fear is the penalty of sin. By the majority of commentators, indeed, ko<lasij
is (unjustifiably) translated as “pain” or “distress.” The argument might thus
be taken as supplementary to the main one—"There is no fear in Love." Love
and Fear are not only antagonistic in themselves: they produce opposite
effects—blessedness and pain. Therefore, all the more, Love casts out Fear.
Incompatible effects prove their causes incompatible. But to find this argument
in the passage demands a good deal of ingenuity—in addition to the very doubt-
ful translation of ko<lasij.
294 The First Epistle of
sentiment or state of inward feeling. This seems incongruous with the
whole tone and teaching of the Epistle. Everywhere else the writer
drives us back upon the evidence of tangible facts. Everywhere else the
Epistle strenuously insists upon the necessity of testing love to God
by its realisation in action (25 317 412. 20 53). And if Love itself must
submit to such tests, how is this compatible with making it, merely as
a sentiment, the immediate source of assurance? It has just been said
that if we love "not in word neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth,
we shall recognise that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts
before Him." How can we now be told that if any man feareth, it is
because he is deficient in the feeling of love to God? The objective
evidence is indispensable (317); how, then, is the subjective feeling
sufficient? The objective evidence is sufficient (319), how, then, is the
subjective feeling indispensable? Furthermore, this interpretation
seems to involve a considerable departure from the normal lines of New
Testament thought upon this subject. In the evangelical psychology it is
confidence that makes perfect love possible, rather than perfect love that
begets confidence. God is in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself,
taking away the causes of fear, in order that we may love Him with a
free-hearted, unselfish, filial love, much rather than inspiring such a love
in order that we may have confidence toward Him.l We may regard
the Christian's assurance as resting immediately upon Christ, or we
may regard it as resting upon the pledges he has given to Christ (2 Tim.
112),—the work of faith and labour of love that certify his union with
Christ; but is there any other passage in the New Testament that
represents this assurance as dependent upon the subjective perfection
of our love to God?
Finally, one may ask to what purpose is the passage, thus interpreted?
It states a psychological fact—that in proportion as we are possessed by
self-forgetting love we are delivered from self-regarding fear. This is
as true as that two and two are four; and if there are those on whose
behalf it can be claimed that by the very perfection of their love to God,
as a sentiment, they are delivered from all fear, this is, indeed, thank-
worthy. Yet even so they are apparently invited to regard the absence
of fear as the proof of the genuineness and perfection of their love--a
position which is absolutely inconsistent with the whole tenor of the
Epistle, and which receives a direct contradiction in the very next
verse (420). But it is admitted by those who maintain this interpreta-
tion, that in no actual instance is it fully applicable. "Though as certain
1 Thus Rothe unconsciously glides into statements which are the exact con-
verse of what his own exposition of the text requires. "Love to God, to be
perfectly genuine, demands unconditional trust in Him." But what
is that perfect love produces such trust. "So long as, in view of our sins and our
reckoning for them, we have not full trust in God, our love to Him is not per-
fected." But what St. John says is that we cannot have this full trust until
we have the perfect love. It is perfect love that casts out the Fear that has ko<lasin.
The Doctrine of Assurance 295
as any physical law, the principle that perfect love excludes all fear,
is an ideal that has never been verified in fact; like the first law of
motion, it is verified by the approximation made to it" (Plummer).1
That is true; and it follows that all Christians are, in greater or less
measure, included under o[ fobou<menoj. Such a consequence is clearly
against the whole purport of the passage,—a passage which is triumphant
throughout, and could not conceivably have ended with the sternly
sorrowful "he that feareth has not been made perfect in love," if these
words contemplated any other than an abnormal experience. For these
reasons, I have been compelled reluctantly to abandon this interpreta-
tion for 417, and, with more hesitation, for 418 also, temptingly obvious as
it is for the latter.
Having thus completed our exposition of the passages
in which Assurance is specifically dealt with, we may now
briefly consider the broader aspects of
tion of this subject. And, in the first place, let it be said
once more that the whole tone and temper of the Epistle,
in its treatment of this as of other subjects, must be
appreciated in view of its polemical purpose. Its noble
and enthusiastic delineation of the Christian Life is, at the
same time, a manifesto against pseudo-Christianity; and if
it is written to establish the genuine Christian in the
certainty of his salvation (513), this is done only in such a
way as to refute all spurious pretensions. Hence it comes
that the Epistle has much more to say of the immediate
tests than of the ultimate ground of Christian Assurance.
The statement of the latter forms the entrance-hall, so to
say, of the Epistle. And the statement is clear and strong:
"The Blood of Jesus, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin" (17).
"If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the Righteous; and He is the Propitiation for
our sins " (21. 2). The Christian's sole confidence is Christ.
"Bold shall I stand on that great day;
For who aught to my charge shall lay,
While by Thy Blood absolved I am
From sin's tremendous guilt and shame?"
1 To the same effect, Rothe: "By this we may judge how elementary all our
love to God is."
296 The First Epistle of
moment all intermediate thoughts, and beholding with open
face the primal facts of God's Redemption, he breaks forth
into joy:—"Beloved, what manner of love the Father hath
bestowed upon us, that we should be called the children of
God! And such we are" (31). It is the spontaneous utter-
ance of the thoughts and emotions of a lifetime. Yet it is
only for a moment that the Apostle gets him up into the
high mountain. Presently he descends to the plain and,
the testing routine of daily life: "Every one that hath this
hope in Him purifieth himself, even as He is pure" (33)
The question indefatigably urged by
personal right to this "boldness"--as to the verifiable
reality of our saving connection with Christ.
Further, we must observe that, so far as the teaching of
the Epistle shows, this is solely inferential. Salvation—
Eternal Life—is not of the future only, it is a present
reality; and there is no assurance of it except what is a
warrantable inference from its manifestations in character
and conduct.
The characteristic word by which this inference is
expressed is ginw<skein1 (to "recognise" or "perceive" a
fact by its appropriate marks, 23. 5. 29 319.24 413). At times,
indeed, the Apostle seems to rise to an immediate con-
sciousness of Divine sonship, as in "We know (oi@damen)
that we are of God " (519). But this "We know" is only
"We perceive" raised to a higher power by exultant
emotion. Even in its highest moments, Assurance does not
change its ground: "We know (oi@damen) that we have
passed from death into life, because we love the brethren"
(314). The conception, whether right or wrong, of Assurance
as a self-evidencing consciousness of acceptance with God,
for which earnest souls have prayed in tears of agony and
waited in many a darkened hour, is, to say the least, not
1 See special note on ginw<skein.
The Doctrine of Assurance 297
present in the Epistle. Equally remote from its teaching
is that minute inquisition of the religious affections by
which others have sought to eliminate misgiving. With
objective, not subjective; plain and tangible, not micro-
scopic and elusive. They are three, or, rather, they are a
trinity: Belief, Righteousness, Love. By his belief in
Christ, his keeping God's commandments, and his love to
the brethren, a Christian man is recognised and recognises
himself as begotten of God.
The function assigned to Belief, in this regard, is
specially characteristic, and demands consideration.
According to the teaching of the Epistle, Christian Belief
brings assurance of salvation, not by subjective psychological
action as Trust, but because it affords objective testimony
that the believer is " begotten of God "1 (42 54. 5), and has
God "abiding in him" (415). It is the same with the
witness of the Spirit. To every believer the truth
concerning the object of Christian faith—Christ the
Incarnate Son of God—is directly certified by the teaching
and testimony of the Spirit (220.27 42 57). But it is a mis-
conception, though a common one, to regard the Epistle
as teaching that the Spirit bears immediate and self-
evidencing testimony to the Divine sonship of the believer.
What the Spirit witnesses to is the Divine-human person-
ality of Christ (42 57; cf. John 1526 1614). And it is only
as an objective fact and by necessary inference that the
reception of the Spirit's witness and the resultant confession
of Christ give assurance that "we are of God" (44). Thus
when it is said (324), "And hereby we recognise that He
abideth in us by the Spirit which He gave us," it is not
the intuition of a fact, but an inference from a fact, that is
expressed,—not that the Spirit imparts the immediate
consciousness that God abideth in us, but that the indwell-
1 v. supra, pp. 262, 270-4.
298 The First Epistle of
ing of God is recognised by its appropriate sign, the gift of
the Spirit "that confesseth Jesus as the Christ come in the
flesh " (42).
It is thus evident that the Epistle's view of Assurance
stands somewhat apart from
While the same fundamental Christian experience as Paul
asserts, "Ye received not the spirit of bondage again to
fear; but ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we
cry, Abba Father," is no less asserted by "We know and
have believed the Love which God hath towards us," the
fact, nevertheless, is not to be slurred over, that in its
explicit treatment of the subject, which is uniquely
deliberate and systematic, the Epistle recognises no
assurance of fellowship with God which is not matter of
inevitable inference from the facts of life. And it is
precisely when it deals with the subject at closest quarters
that it most rigorously postulates Love, embodied and
"perfected" in actual deeds, as the crucial test by which
"we shall recognise that we are of the truth, and shall
assure our hearts before him . . . " For this proof that
"as He is, so are we in this world," there is no substitute.
Prayer.
We turn now to the second branch of the subject,
Assurance in Prayer. This does not emerge in the first
Cycle of the Epistle, but in the second and the third it is
dealt with in passages which are closely parallel and
mutually explanatory (321. and 514.15). In both places
assurance of our filial relation to God is seen to have as
its immediate result, confidence toward Him in prayer.
This assurance is differently expressed in the two contexts
(319--"we are of the truth"; 513--"ye have eternal life "),
and is differently grounded (on Love "in deed and in
truth,"318 on Belief "in the name of the Son of God," 513),
The Doctrine of Assurance 299
but is to the same effect and leads to the same practical
issue—par]r[hsi<a toward God.
321. 22.
"Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, we have
boldness1 toward God; and whatsoever we ask, we receive
of Him, because we keep His commandments, and do
those things that are pleasing in His sight." par]r[hsi<a
("boldness") is to be understood as including both the
right we enjoy—that of open and free speech—and the
feeling of confidence with which this is exercised. The
condition of this "boldness" is—"If our heart condemn
us not." In the foregoing verse the Apostle has indicated
how the true Christian, loving, "not in word neither in
tongue," but "in deed and in truth," may recognise that
he is "of the truth," and assure his heart, even his self-
condemning heart, before God. And here "If our heart
condemn us not" must be understood as assuming the
whole result of 318-20. It includes not only the case
in which the heart has found no matter of condemnation,
but also the case in which the heart's condemnation has
been silenced in the presence of Him "Who is greater
than the heart." Upon this condition alone is confident
approach to God possible. Unconfessed sin, or doubt as
to our own integrity of heart, offers an insuperable obstacle.
(Ps. 323 6615, Matt. 523.21). But, unembarrassed by the
accusation of conscience, conscious of walking in the Light
as He is in the Light, we have the privilege, and the feeling
which corresponds to the privilege, of open childlike speech
with our Father. This is the glory and perfection of
Christian prayer, and is the Christian's constant encourage-
ment and invitation to pray.
1 We have found the same word, par]r[hsi<a, used to express the faithful
Christian's confidence towards Christ at His coming (228), and toward God at
the Day of Judgment (417).
300 The First Epistle of
And this is no vain confidence we have toward God.
"Whatsoever we ask of Him we receive, because we keep1
His commandments, and do the things that are pleasing in
His sight."2
What principle is expressed in this "because" is not
immediately obvious. The idea of merit is to be abso-
lutely excluded as irrelevant to the thought of the whole
passage, and as opposed to the inmost truth of Christi-
anity. Equally to be rejected, a priori, is the notion that
by our obedience we acquire such favour with God and
such influence in His counsels that He cannot refuse us
what we ask (Candlish). Even if we are compelled to
recognise such a thought in the primitive stages of revela-
tion, it is intolerable in the New Testament. The key to
the interpretation of the present passage is given in
John 157:--"If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in
you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be done unto
you." It is no external and arbitrary but an intrinsically
necessary condition of successful prayer that is here ex-
pressed. Our prayers are answered, because our will is in
inward harmony with God's, the evidence of this being that
we "keep His commandments and do those things that
are pleasing in His sight." In our actions we prove that
God's will is our will; and when we pray, our will does not
change. Our life is a unity. Our deeds and our prayers
are manifestations of the same God-begotten Life, are
operations of the same will,—the will that God's will be
1 The two expressions, "keep His commandments" and "do the things
that are pleasing in his sight," are virtually synonymous, except in so far as
they suggest a twofold motive for obedience—submission to moral authority, and
the loving desire of the children of God to please the Father in all things
(cf. 2 Cor. 59). Catholic exegetes distinguish the two as obedience to what is
enjoined (praecepta) and good works voluntarily undertaken (consilia evangelica),
but this is entirely beside the mark.
2 e]nw<pion au]tou?. Cf. e@mprosqen au]tou? (319). e]nw<pion is especially a Lucian
word, used regularly to translate ynep;li. e@mprosqen conveys more particularly the
idea of man's consciousness of God's Presence, e]nw<pion more directly the reality
of God's perception (cf. Luke 1615, Acts 419 104.31, Rom. 320).
The Doctrine of Assurance 301
clone. Therefore, "whatsoever we ask of Him we receive."
"The effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth
much " (Jas. 516), because, as the man is, so are his prayers
--righteous. The desires of him who delights himself in
the Lord are desires that cannot, because they ought not,
to fail of accomplishment (Ps. 374). The prayers of those
who "keep God's commandments and do those things that
are pleasing in His sight," are nothing else than echoes of
God's own voice, impulses of the Divine Will Itself,
throbbing in the strivings of the human will and, in the
mystical circulation of the Eternal Life, returning to their
source.1
All this is more explicitly set forth in the parallel
passage
514-16
"And this2 is the boldness which we have towards
Him, that, if we ask anything according to His Will,3 He
heareth us" (514). Here the qualification, "according to His
Will," is explicit. The marvellous and supernatural power
of prayer consists, not in bringing God's Will down to us,
but in lifting our will up to His. And thus the words,
1 This view is confirmed by the succeeding context. 323 and 324a are both
explanatory of 322. The first explains what the substance of God's command-
ments is: "This is His commandment, that we believe on the name of His
Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment." The
second explains why, by keeping God's commandments, we are assured of obtain-
ing what we pray for. It is because this is both the condition and the evidence of
our fellowship with God: "And he that keepeth His commandments dwelleth
in Him, and He in him." Since the keeping of His commandments is the
means by which we abide in God (John 1510) and the condition of God's abiding
in us (John 1423), it ensures that our prayers are such as it is meet that God
should answer.
2 Here, it is to be observed, Prayer is related in the context to Eternal Life
(511-13) Prayer is a mode of action in which the Life God has bestowed upon us
in His Son characteristically manifests itself (John 1413 157.10). And as Prayer
itself is an expression of the Eternal Life in us, so joyful confidence in prayer
comes from knowing that we have Eternal Life (513)
3 "According to His Will." This defines not the manner of the asking, but
its object—" anything according to His Will."
Notes 381
fastly under it. It abides in him (John 157, Col. 318, 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.
224b e]a>n e]n u[mi?n mei<n^ o{ a]p ] a]rxh?j h]kou<sate, kai> u[mei?j e]n t&? ui[&? kai>
e]n t&? 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 e]sti>n h[ e]paggeli<a h{n au]to<j e]phggeilato
h[mi?n, th>n zwh>n th>n ai]w<nion.
The verse presents several peculiarities. e]pagge<llesqai and e]pag-
geli<a are not found elsewhere in
in the accusative by attraction to the h!n of the preceding relative
clause (cf. Phil. 318). au!th may be referred either to what pre-
cedes 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
upon the words th>n zwh>n th>n ai]w<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 127. 28).
382 The First Epistle of
226 tau?ta e@graya u[mi?n peri> tw?n planw<twn u[ma?j.
tau?ta e@graya. Epistolary aorist (cf. 214. 21 513).
tw?n planw<ntwn u[ma?j. Cf. 37 46, Matt. 244. 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> xri?sma o{ e]la<bete ap ] au]tou? me<nei e]n u[mi?n, kai>
ou] xrei<an e@xete i!na tij dida<sk^ u[ma?j, a]ll ] w[j to> au]tou? xri?sma dida<skei
u[ma?j peri> pa<ntwn, kai> a]lhqe<j e]stin kai> ou]k e@stin yeu?doj, kai> kaqw>j
e]di<dacen u[ma?j, me<nete e]n au]t&?.
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 224
a]p ] au]tou?, from Christ (a]po> tou? a[gi<ou, 220). me<nei. The gift once
bestowed is never, from the Divine side, recalled (cf.
xrei<an e@xete i!na (cf. John 225 1630). The telic sense of i!na is, as
so commonly in
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. a]ll ] w[j to> au]tou? xri?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 anoint-
ing 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> a]lhqe<j e]stin
kai> ou]k e@stin yeu?doj being taken as a parenthesis, and kai> kaqw>j
e]di<dacen 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> au]tou? xri?sma. The very unusual position of au]tou? throws
strong emphasis upon the pronoun; cf. 1 Thess. 219 e]n t^? au]tou?
parousi<%.
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 . . .
e]di<dacen. 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.
Notes 383
me<nete, indicative, not imperative,—as is necessitated by the
preceding me<nei e]n 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."
e]n au]t&?. In Christ, not in the anointing. The anointing is not
an end in itself, but the means of abiding in Christ.
228 e]a>n fanerwq^?. 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!tan fanerwq^?, Col. 34) an event which quite conceivably, or even
probably, may happen at any moment.
fanerou?sqai, not a]pokalu<ptesqai,is the Johannine term for the
manifestations of Christ (His Incarnation and Life on earth, 12;
His appearances after His Resurrection, John 211. 14; His Second
Coming, 228. 32). For the implications of the word, v. supra, pp.
315-6.
sxw?men par]rhsi<an. Not in the sense of 1 Thess. 219 or Phil. 41.
For the significance of the strange sequence, me<nete . . . i!na sxw?men,
v. supra, p. 279 (n.).
par]r[hsi<an e@xein. The phrase, introduced here for the first time,
is destined to further service. v. supra, p. 230.
ai]sxunqw?men a]p ] au]tou?. v. supra, p. 280. The converse idea is
expressed in Luke 926.
e]n t^? parousi<% au]tou?. See p. 325 (n.).
229-39.
229. This verse, introducing for the first time the subject of the
Divine Begetting (e]c au]tou? 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 righteous-
ness.
But this connection of thought is not really present.
1. It is not the case that (as Haupt maintains) to be "begotten
384 The First Epistle of
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 begin-
ning 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.
e]a>n ei]dh?te. This use of e]a<n does not, as in classical Greek,
indicate any uncertainty. "If ye know, as ye absolutely do know."
ei]dh?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 e]stin . . .e]c au]tou? gege<nnhtai. The question as to the
subject of di<kaio<j e]stin and the reference of au]tou? is much debated.
Connecting the verse with what precedes, we must refer di<kaio<j e]stin
to the au]tou? of 228, namely, Christ; while universal usage requires
"God" as the antecedent to the pronoun in e]c au]tou? 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
e]stin and the unexpressed antecedent of au]tou? must, therefore, be
the same, namely, "God."
Notes 385
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., 1 Pet. 13).
Instrumentally, they are "begotten of the Spirit" (John 36. 8) and
of the Word (1 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,
1 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,
p. 193 (n.). And, in view of what immediately follows, such an
interpretation is quite impossible.
31 potaph>n a]ga<phn. v. supra, p. 332 (n.). 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 h]ga<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 of
wa as practically equivalent to on. 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 a]ga<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 a]ga<phn.
The anarthrous te<kna is noticeable. Not "the children of
386 The First Epistle 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 ]Ihsou?n
Xristo>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 516.18 847
1017 1218.39) 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."
ou] 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 ou]k e@gnw au]to<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
(e]a>n fanerwq^?, 228.32). For au]to<j used absolutely of Christ, cf.
28.12.27.28 33. With ou]k e@gnw au]to<n cf. John 110, I John 36.
32 nu?n te<kna qeou? e]sme<n 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 e]fanerw<qh ti< e]so<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 tekno<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<
e]smen, not ti< e]so<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.
e]fanerw<qh. To insist (as Westcott does) upon the definite
Notes 387
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 e]fanerw<qh plainly
has a perfective sense (ou@pw e]fanerw<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<xrij ai$matoj a]ntikate<sthte = "Ye have not yet resisted
unto blood"; and Matt. 933: ou]de<pote e]fa<nh ou!twj e]n t&? ]Israh<l=
Nothing like this was ever yet seen in
in
ti< e]so<meqa.
oi@damen o!ti e]a>n fanefwq^? o!moioi au]t&? e]so<meqa, o!ti o[yo<meqa au]to>n
kaqw<j e]stin.
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.
e]a>n fanerwq^?. The question here is as to the unexpressed
subject of fanerwq^?. It may be ti< e]so<meqa (Huther, Haupt, Holtz-
mann, and the majority of commentators), or it may be supplied from
the following au]t&?, 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 seerns preferable, because e]a>n fanerwq^? 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.
e]a>n fanerwq^? is the prerequisite of o]yo<meqa au]to>n kaqw<j e]stin.
o!moioi au]t&? . . . o]yo<meqa au]to<n. The most obvious antecedent
to the pronouns is qeou? (nu?n te<kna qeou? e]sme<n). "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[ Xristo>j fanerwq^?, h[ zwh> h[mw?n, to<te kai>
u[mei?j su>n au]t&? fanerwqh<sesqe e]n do<c^. 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 o]yo<meqa
au]to>n kaqw<j e]stin, to the rest of the sentence. The debate whether
this gives the cause of our being like Him, or of our knowing that
388 The First Epistle of
we shall be like Him, is very much of a logomachy. But the verse
is completely misconstrued when (as by Calvin and Huther) the
"seeing Him as He is" is taken as 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@xwn th>n e]lpi<da tau<thn e]p ] au]t&?.
pa?j o[ e@xwn. v. supra, p. 215 (n.).
e@xwn . . . e]lpi<da . . . e]p ] au]t&?. This phrase, e]lpi<da e]xein e]pi<,
is unique in the N.T., and may be distinguished from e]lpi<da e@xein
ei]j (Acts 2415) or e]lpi<j ei]j (1 Pet. 1 21) as giving the idea of hope
"resting upon" instead of "reaching unto." Westcott is of opinion
that, as compared with the simple e]lpi<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,
1 Thess. 413).
a[gni<zei e[auto<n. On a[gno<j and a[gni<zein, v. supra, p. 90.
e]p ] au]t&? . . . e]kei?noj. This use, in the same sentence, of different
pronouns to represent the same antecedent is not without parallel
in
Christ).
34 kai> h[ a[marti<a e]sti>n h[ a]nomi<a. v. supra, p. 133 (n.).
35 kai> a[marti<a e]n au]t&? ou]k 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 ou] poiei?. a[marti<an, in this negative 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 au]tou?. The absence of the article brings out the
qualitative or causative force of spe<rma. "A seed of Divine
Notes 389
Life abideth in him, therefore he cannot sin"; cf. te<kna qeou?, 31 and
i!lasmoj, 22 and 410. This unique spe<rma au]tou? 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, 1 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 ]Abraa<m, John 833. 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 interpreta-
tion, 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.
310-24.
310 pa?j o[ . . .ou]k e@stin. See note on 219.
o[ mh> poiw?n . . . o[ mh> a]gapw?n. 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 e]sti>n h[ a]ggeli<a . . . i!na a]gapw?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
i!na clause gives the purport, not the purpose, of the announcement
or command (cf. John 225 434 629.40 1150 158 etc., 1 John 227 323 421
53.16). 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 ou] 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 ou] 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
390 The First Epistle of
sentence grammatical, it seems necessary, in either case, to supply
o!j or o!sper before h#n and also to change ou] into mh<. In John 658
the construction with ou] 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> xa<rin ti<noj.
xa<rin, as a preposition (=e!neka, and usually found after its
case, e.g. ti<noj xa<rin), is not uncommon in the N.T., but is here
only in
ta> e@rga au]tou? 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
prohibition is found only once with the aor. subj. (John 37),
everywhere else (19 times) with the present imperative.
ei] misei?. Used thus with the indicative after verbs denoting
strong emotion, ei]= o!ti. Cf. Mark 1544, Luke 1249, Acts 268.23,
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 x, 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 ei]de<nai can 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 ei]de<nai.
o[ mh> a]gapw?n. Although to>n a]delfo<n au]tou? (T.R.) may not
belong to the authentic text, it must be supplied in thought.
Westcott, indeed, takes o[ mh> a]gapw?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, pp. 256-7,
315 kai> oi@date. Ye know it at once, without instruction, or
even reflection.
NOTES 391
a]nqrwpokto<noj. In the N.T. only here and in John 844.
pa?j a]nqrwpokto<noj ou]k e@xei. See note on 219.
zwh>n ai]w<nion=th>n zw<n in 314. The same equivalence of
article and adjective is found in 511. 12.
316 o]fei<lomen. Stronger than dei?. See note on 26.
317 xrei<an e@xonta. For the use of the phrase absolutely, cf.
Mark 225, Acts 245 435, Eph. 423
ta> spla<gxna= MymiHEra. Is found also in classical Greek with
this sense. A favourite Pauline word, only here in
klei<s^. Not found elsewhere with spla<gxna.
318 a]gapw?men. For the use absolutely, cf. 314 47. 8. 19. lo<g& . . .
glw<ss^ . . . e@rg& . . . a]lhqei<%. Haupt and Weiss find here a
double contrast—lo<g& (sincere good wishes) with e@rg& (good
deeds), and glw<ss^ (hollow phrases) with a]lhqei<% (sincerity).
Obviously, however, there is only a single contrast. glw<ss^ is
merely a contemptuous synonym of lo<g&, expressing how cheap
such love is; while a]lhqei<% does not introduce a second idea,
co-ordinate with e@rg&, but declares that only love in "deed" is love
in "truth" (cf. John 424, where pneu<mati and a]lhqei<% stand in
exactly the same relation). lo<g& and glw<ss^ are datives of
instrument.
e]n tou<t&. Here only, in the Epistle, used with retrospective
reference.
co-ordinate with it.
e@mprosqen au]tou?. au]tou? stands for God (cf. 23.4.29), as is
evident from mei<zwn e]sti>n o[ qeo<j following.
kataginw<sk^. kataginw<skein is not found elsewhere in the
N.T. (except in perf. part. kategnwsme<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
(319.20) 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
taken in its ordinary sense, "persuade" or "convince," with ta>j
392 The First Epistle of
kardi<aj h[mw?n as direct, and the clause o!ti me<zwn e]sti>n o[ qeo<j,
k.t.l., as secondary predicate. But it is usually under-
stood 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. In the N.T. the only passage at all parallel is
Matt. 2814—h[mei?j
shall talk him over." The strongest example is 2 Macc. 445
(Westcott), where pro>j to>
in the next verse w[j a]nayu<conta 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
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 e]a>n kataginw<sk^ 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 construc-
tion (acc. rei. c. gen. pers.) is the normal construction after
kataginw<skein; and though the special form o!ti e]a<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 e]a<n, o!pou e]a<n, o!soi e]a<n,
o[sa<kij e]a<n are more or less common, and that the substitution
of e]a<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
"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, wherein-
soever 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
Notes 393
better able to judge whether we are " of the truth." The objection
to this, and to me it seems decisive, is that e]n tou<t& 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
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 transla-
tion 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 con-
demn 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 con-
nection 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 Vulgate, Memphitic and
394 The First Epistle of
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 e]a>n kataginw<sk^ of 320 and the e]a>n mh> . . . kataginw<sk^ of 321.
The last point is a strong one in its favour.
322 o{ e]a<n. See note on o!ti e]a<n, 320.
e]ntola>j throu?men. v. supra, p. 211.
ta> a]resta<. Only here and in John 829 ta> a]resta> au]t&? poiw?.
eu]a<restoj is the Pauline term, Phil. 48, Eph. 510, Col. 320, also
Heb. 1321
323 kai> au!th e]sti>n h[ e]ntolh> au]tou? i!na.
i!na indicates the purport, not the purpose of the command.
Cf. John 1334 1512. 17, I John 421. See note on 311.
i!na pistue<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 com-
mandment 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 t&? o]no<mati. The construction is unique. Elsewhere
it is ei]j to> o@noma, (John 112 223 318, 1 John 513). The meaning,
however, must be the same with both constructions. See note on
pisteu<ein, appended to Chapter XIII.
t&? o]no<mati. The o@noma of Christ is not distinguishable in effect
from Christ Himself. It is the "self-revelation of Christ" (West-
cott), 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 913.) It may be that the phrase pisteu<ein ei]j 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> a]gapw?men a]llh<louj kaqw>j e@dwken e]ntolh>n h[mi?n. The subject
to e@dwken is "His Son, Jesus Christ," not God. In 314 the
command was o!ti a]gapw?men tou>j a]delfou<j: here it is a]llh<louj,
quoting the exact word of John 1334.
Notes 395
324a kai> o[ thrw?n ta>j e]ntola>j au]tou?. ta>j e]ntola<j may refer
to the two great branches of the e]ntolh< in 323; but preferably
o[ thrw?n ta>j e]ntola<j is to be taken as a resumption of the similar
phrase in 322.
324b-46.
324b kai> e]n tou<t& ginw<skomen o!ti me<nei e]n h[mi?n, e]k 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).
e]n tou<t& ginw<skomen . . . e]k tou? pneu<matoj. This collocation of
e]n and e]k 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 e]n tou<t&? ginw<skein is so
much of a formula with the Writer that the proper prepositional
force of e]n is not fully felt. ginw<skein e]k: occurs in 48. Cf. o!qen
ginw<skomen, 218.
I must admit that the exposition I have given of this verse
(v. supra, p. 263 sqq.) is not sustained by the commentators (except,
in part, by Holtzmann and Plummer), who in one way or other all
refer e]n tou<t& 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 e]k 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 e]k 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 e]n tou<t& to
e]k 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
by deeds, not deeds by spirit—the tree by its fruits, not the fruits
396 The First Epistle of
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. e]k 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 me>n panti> pneu<mati pisteu<ete. See note on pisteu<ein, appended
to Chapter XIII.
e]celhlu<qasin ei]j to>n ko<smon. They have gone forth as am-
bassadors from their native sphere, the demonic world, on their
errand of deceit (cf. 1 Kings 2222, 1 Pet. 58, Rev. 208). Probably
these "false prophets" were identical with the "antichrists" who
had gone out from the Church (219).
42 e]n tou<t&= 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? ]Ihsou?n Xristo>n e]n sarki> e]lhluqo<ta; cf.
2 John 7. v. supra, p. 94 (n.).
43 o! mh> o[mologei? to>n ]Ihsou?n. mh< in a relative clause with the
indicative is exceedingly rare in the N.T. (Tit. 111, 2 Pet. 19).
Here it is used with classical correctness, as expressing the sub-
jective 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
defines ]Ihsou?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< e]stin to> tou? a]ntixri<stou. pneu?ma may be supplied both
with tou?to and with to< (Weiss, Haupt, R.V., and most com-
mentators). 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? a]ntixri<stou in a similar general sense (West-
cott). "And this that we have been speaking of--all these un-
divine manifestations—are the fulfilment of the current expectation
of Antichrist." "That affair of Antichrist," as we might colloquially
say.
Notes 397
o! a]khko<ate. o!, not o!n. Antichrist is regarded as a principle or
an event, not as a person. In 218 we find h]kou<sate in precisely
the same connection—a warning not to insist too pedantically upon
tense-values.
kai> nu?n e]n t&? ko<sm& e]sti>n h@dh. Cf. kai> nu?n a]ntixristoi 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 au]toi> e]k tou? ko<smou ei]si<n. au]toi<, in strong contrast to the
preceding u[mei?j and to the succeeding h[mei?j.
e]k tou? ko<smou lalou?sin. Cf. e]k th?j gh?j lalei? (John 331), although
gh? and ko<smoj are not quite equivalent.
46 h[mei?j e]k tou? qeou? e]sme<n. e]k tou? ko<smou . . . e]k 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, pp. 142-3.
h[mei?j . . . a]kou<ei h[mw?n. h[mei?j must refer, not to Christians
generally (Calvin, Lucke, Haupt), but to the Writer himself and
those whom he associates with himself as teachers of the Truth.
e]k tou<tou. Here only in
inferential sense (John 666 1912 in a temporal sense). Cf. e]n tou<t&
ginw<skomen . . . e]k tou? pneu<matoj (324). Westcott suggests that e]n
tou<t& indicates a more direct, e]k 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 xri?sma (220).
47-12.
47 pa?j o[ a]gapw?n e]k tou? 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
398 The First Epistle of
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> a]gapw?n. mh< is used because the phrase is conditional
in effect, though not in form. In
occurs only once, John 1012.
49. The order of the words is finely significant. Observe the
emphatic position of to>n ui[o>n au]tou? to>n monogenh?, also of o[ qeo<j,
following its predicate a]pe<stalken.
e]fanerw<qh. Cf. 12. The Love is everlasting; the aorist points
to the definite occasion of its manifestation.
e]n h[mi?n may be taken as dependent on e]fanerw<qhn—"in us" as
its objects (cf. John 93); or on h[ a]ga<ph tou? qeou?. The latter,
indeed, would seem to require h[ a]ga<ph t.q. h[ e]n h[mi?n. But see
note on 416. For the sense of e]n h[mi?n, see the same note.
410 e]n tou<t& e]sti>n h[ a]ga<ph. Herein is Love. Neither tou? qeou?
nor anything else is to be supplied after h[ a]ga<ph. This is Love in
its purest essence.
ou]x o!ti h[mei?j . . . a]ll ] o!ti au]to<j. This is not an example of
the frequent elliptical ou]x o!ti . . . a]lla<, "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
e]n tou<t& e]sti<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.
h]ga<phsen . . . a]pe<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 414. 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
Notes 399
corresponds to i!na zh<swmen di ] au]tou? in 49. It is because He is a
propitiation for our sins that we live through Him.
412 qeo>n ou]dei>j pw<pote teqe<atai. This is almost a quotation of
John 118 qeo>n ou]dei>j e[w<raken 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 ou]dei<j—the statement thus being made
with the strongest possible emphasis: "God in Himself no man
hath ever seen."
teqe<atai. In
(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, p.
250). teqe<atai is taken in simple and immediate contrast to me<nei e]n
h[mi?n. Though no man hath 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[ a]ga<ph au]tou?. Not the Love of God to us nor the Love
which God commands, but the love which is e]c au]tou? (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."
413-16.
A new paragraph, as is recognised by Huther, Haupt, Ebrard
(vigorously opposed by Weiss).
413. See note on 324b, of which this verse is almost a verbal
reproduction.
e]n tou<t& ginw<skomen . . . o!ti e]k tou? pneu<matoj, k.t.l. The second
On. is in strict apposition to e]n tou<t&. "In this, namely, that He
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
400 The First Epistle of
the words, h[ a]ga<ph au]tou? teteleiwme<nh e]n h[mi?n e]sti<n. "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 (324b–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 manifestede in the
confession of the True Belief; so here (414. 15).
414. The first-fruit of the gift of the Spirit is the Apostolic testi-
mony 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." a]pe<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<s^,
k.t.l.
o[ qeo>j e]n au]t&? me<nei kai> au]to>j e]n t&? qe&?. 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.
e]gnw<kamen kai> pepisteu<kamen. See footnote, p. 269.
th>n a]ga<phn e@xein is simply a stronger expression for a]gapa?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
1621. 22 1715,
Notes 401
qeo<j expresses, perhaps a little more emphatically, th>?n a]ga<phn tou?
qeou? (49).
Thus the question whether e]n h[mi?n is dependent on e@xein or on
a]ga<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@xei, o!ti . . .; Rom. 1523 e]pipoqi<an e@xwn tou? e]lqei?n; Phil. 123 th>n
e]piqumi<an e@xwn ei]j to> a]nalu?sai).
The grammatical point, however, is of minor importance. The
real question here is as to the meaning of e]n h[mi?n. And this, not-
withstanding the protest of Westcott and Huther and the rendering
of R.V., is, I maintain, practically equivalent to ei]j h[ma?j—"toward
us." We may conceive of Love as going forth toward and reaching
its object (as), or as resting on and abiding in its object (EV),
without any real difference of meaning. Both usages are sufficiently
illustrated in the N.T. St. Paul everywhere uses ei]j (Rom. 58,
Eph. 115,
where, with exactly the same meaning, he uses e]n (t^? e]c u[mw?n e]n h[mi?n
a]ga<p^, "Your love to us," R.V.). This proves the interchangeable-
ness of the two prepositions with a]ga<ph. In the three cases where
John 49. 16), the preposition is e]n. But if a]ga<phn e@xhte e]n a]llh<loij
(John 1335) is translated "have love one to another" (R.V.),
why should th>n a]ga<phn h{n e@xei o[ qeo>j e]n 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 e]n 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 49—for
the rejection of such far-fetched subtleties as Westcott's explanation
of "Herein was manifested the love of God, e]n 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
e]n h[mi?n," here in 410:—"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 mani-
fested (410). Herein is our response to the reality of Divine
love thus manifested—we have recognised it and believed it "
(416).
402 The First Epistle of
417-521.
417 meq ] h[mw?n. Instead of e]n h[mi?n (25 412). In grammar and
sense it belongs to tetelei<wtai, not to a]ga<ph. By some corn-
mentators it is understood as signifying the mutual love between
God and us (but
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"?
par]r[hsi<a. v. supra, p. 280.
e@xwmen. The par]h[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,
uses the present conj. also in the same sense (John 164 1724).
kaqw>j e]kei?noj. Cf. 26 33.7, John 1716.
419 a]gapw?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. 227. 28 41. 4). The
exhortation "Let us love" is specially characteristic (47. 11).
au]to<j = God. Cf. 47. 11.
prw?toj for pro<teroj. In John 115 we find even prw?to<j mou h#n.
h]ga<phsen. The aorist points to the historical act in which the
Love was realised (49. 16).
420. The order of words is very expressive. a]gapw? to>n qeo<n, with
the emphasis on a]gapw?—there is profession of warm love to God;
kai> to>n a]delfo>n au]tou? mis^?, with emphasis on to>n a]delfo>n au]tou?--
and yet his own brother is to him an object of hate.
a]gapw? to>n qeo<n. a]gapa?n is not used in the Fourth Gospel of the
Notes 403
feeling of man to God (although it is used of man's feeling to
Christ, John 2015.16), 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 ( ]Ihsou?n Xristo<n).
yeu<sthj e]sti<n. Cf. 16 24. 22.
421 a]p ] au]tou?, 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 command-
ment. 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 (53b-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 ]Ihsou?j e]sti>n o[ Xristo<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, pp. 252-3.
52 e]n tou<t&. Correlative to o!tan to>n qeo<n, k.t.l.
ta> te<kna tou? qeou? =to>n gegennhme<non e]c au]tou? (51)=to>n a]delfo<n
(420. 21).
o!tan. Cf. the e]a<n in 23. Both are used to avoid the clumsiness
of e]n tou<t& ginw<skomen o!ti . . . o!ti.
ta>j e]ntala>j au]tou? is not to be understood of the e]ntolh< of 421
nor as including it (Weiss).
between ai[ e]ntolai<, the moral precepts in general, and h[ e]ntolh<, the
commandment of Love. Thus in 23-6 the former exclusively are
treated of, and then in 27-11 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
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, pp. 219-20.
53 au!th . . . i!na. See note on 311.
barei?ai ou]k ei]si<n. Cf. forti<a bare<a, Matt. 234.
54. pa?n to> gegennhme<non. v. supra, p. 275 (n.).
h[ ni<hk nikh<sasa. v. supra, p. 276.
404 The First Epistle of
h[ pi<stij. The solitary occurrence in
55 o[ ui[o>j tou? qeou?=o[ Xristo<j in 51. Cf. 222, where the same
interchange of Xristo<j and ui[o>j tou? qeou? takes place.
56 di ] u!datoj kai> ai!matoj . . . e]n t&? u!dati kai> e]n t&? ai!mati. “dia<
marks the means by which Christ's office was revealed; e]n the
sphere in which He continues to exercise it " (Westcott). Even in
point of grammar this is untenable, since e]n as well as dia< depends
upon the aorist e]lqw<n, which cannot refer to Christ's continuing to
exercise His office. Here, e]n does 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 59. 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, p. 119 (n.).
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 ei]. pres. Indic., assuming the truth of the supposition
(cf. e.g. John 1317).
The sentence is extremely awkward. v. supra, p. 124. The
second part of it may be construed in three different ways, accord-
ing as the second o!ti is translated "that," "because," or "what-
soever." "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 e]sti>n h[ marturi<a (= this is
par excellence the witness of God).
510 pisteu<wn ei]j to>n ui[o<n . . . o[ mh> pisteu<wn t&? qe&? . . .
pepi<steuken ei]j th>n marturi<an. The distinction between pisteu<ein ei]j
(= 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. ei]j 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
Notes 405
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 . . . ou] pepi<steuken. mh< and ou] are here used
with grammatical nicety. mh< with the participle (equivalent to
e]a<n tij mh<) stating the general case, ou] with the indicative the
definite fact.
511 h[ marturi<a. This may be taken as applying to the "witness
of God," spoken of in 510, or to the "witness in Himself," spoken
of in 510a. Our assurance of possessing Eternal Life rests, in the
one case, on Divine testimony (cf. John 316); in the other,
on a conscious experience confirming Divine testimony. The
former interpretation is preferable, both because au!th e]sti>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 (512. 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@xwn . . . ou]k e@xei. Cf. note on 510.
513 tau?ta e@graya u[mi?n i!na ei]dh?te, k.t.l. These words accur-
ately define the governing aim of the whole Epistle. Contextually,
however, they refer to the contents of 56-12, and most directly to
511.12. 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, p. 308.
ei]dh?te. In such a connection we might have expected the
familiar ginw<skein. But the more absolute ei]de<nai, is justified by
the added clause toi?j pisteu<ousin ei]j 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@xete ai]w<nion. The peculiar order gives a separate emphasis
both to the noun and to the adjective: "Ye have Life, and that
Eternal."
ei]j 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
406 The First Epistle of
consideration of the subject of Belief. Except in a parting word
(520) he does not recur to it.
514-17. Subsection on Prayer.
514 au!th correlative with o!ti e]a>n ti ai]tw?meqa, k.t.l.
par]r[hsi<a. v. supra, p. 280. This par]r[hsi<a springs directly,
not from the zwh>n e@xete ai]w<nion of the preceding verse, but from the
ei]dh?te.
kata> to> qe<lhma au]tou?. 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."
a]kou<ei = hears and answers. Cf. John 931 1141.
This sense of a]kou<ein is peculiar to
515 kai> e]a>n oi@damen. e]a<n, c. indic. is, grammatically, an atrocity,
and is without parallel in
1 Thess. 33. Elsewhere, however, o!tan, o!pou a@n, and o!soi a@n are
found with the indicative, and examples for e]a<n are furnished by the
papyri (Moulton, p. 168). 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 e]a<n c. subj.. (229), and still less
need it be implied with the indicative.
ai]tw<meqa . . . ^]th<kamen. The active and middle forms of ai]tei?n
are used by
The only difference is that he prefers ai]tei?n, c. acc. pers. The only
exception to this is John 1122.
Moulton's suggestion (p. 160), that ai]tei?sqai is the stronger word,
does not seem to be borne out by Johannine usage.
o!ti e@xomen. "We have," not "we shall have." The whole
emphasis of the verse falls on this e@xomen.
a]p ] au]tou?. Connects much more naturally with ^]th<kamen than
with the more remote e@xomen.
516. It is no accident that the one kind of prayer to which
ception 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
Notes 407
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.
e]a<n tij i@d^. 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
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 sub-
jective 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, e]a<n tij i@d^.
ai]th<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 au]t&? zwh>n toi?j a[marta<nousin mh> pro>j qana<ton.
1. The subject to dw<sei may be the intercessor, au]t&? 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—ai]th<sei kai> dw<sei; against
it, the awkwardness of the immediate apposition of au]t&? and
toi?j a[marta<nousin.
2. The subject to dw<sei, may be God, au]t&? 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, emphatic. There is such a
thing as a sin unto death.
ou] peri> e]kei<nhj le<gw i!na e]rwth<s^. The sentence is not a pro-
hibition, in which case the negative must have been attached to
408 The First Epistle of
e]rwth<s^. The ou] does not go directly even with le<gw, so as to
constitute a strong dissuasion, but with peri> e]kei<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.
e]rwth<s^. 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 note-
worthy that e]rwta?n, not ai]tei?n, is the word by which our Lord
always refers to His own prayers (John 1416 1626 179. 15. 20).
517. On the verse as a whole, v. supra, p. 134, and note there.
a]diki<a. v. supra, pp. 134-5.
kai> e@stin a[marti<a ou] pro>j qa<naton. ou] instead of the mh< of 516. 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 ou]
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. 310b 323 53.
518 oi@damen. See special note on ginw<skein and ei]de<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
ei]de<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.
ou]x a[marta<nei. v. supra, p. 229. To supply pro>j qana<ton 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 interces-
sion, not even this "sinning not unto death" but not sinning
at all, is the true characteristic of the Christian Life.
a]ll ] o[ gennhqei>j e]k tou? qeou? threi? e[auto<n. Certainty as to
whether the true reading is au]to<n or e[auto<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 au]to<n, the
ground for doing so is so narrow (A1, B, 105, and Vulgate for
au]to<n; x, the Peshitta, and all other authorities for au]to<n) that
here exegesis may claim to have a voice in the question of text.
(a) If e[auto<n be read, then clearly o[ gennhqei<j is simply a synonym
Notes 409
for the preceding pa?j o[ gegennhme<noj e]k tou? qeou?. To this it is ob-
jected that elsewhere in
himself," but is said to be kept by Divine power (John 1711. 12.15;
cf. Rev. 310, 1 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" (1 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" (33) 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 "im-
possible"; 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. 49.10).
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, pp. 229-30.
(b) If au[to<n be read, o[ gennhqei>j e]k tou? qeou? can only refer to
Christ (for Weiss's proposed explanation with the reading au]to<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 au]tou?
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 ap-
pellation 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[auto<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
au]tou? e]n au]t&? me<nei.
410 The First Epistle of
kai> o[ ponhro<j. Cf. 213. All the influences of temptation are
regarded as proceeding from him in whose personal agency they
are concentrated.
ou]x a!ptetai au]tou? = layeth not hold of him; cf. Ps. 10515.
v. supra, p. 230, and note there.
519 o!ti e]k tou? qeou? e]sme<n. 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 e]k tou? qeou? e]sme<n. 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. 1620 2659, Mark 133 830,
Luke 925 1136, John 453, Acts 2130, 1 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 kosmon (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 (or wholly) in
the Wicked One.
e]n t&? ponhr&?. That t&? ponhr&? 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 e]n 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@rxwn of the world, and it
lies utterly under his dominion and at his disposal. So in Soph.
Oed.
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
Notes 411
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 explana-
tion is occasioned by the statement of the second half—"and
the whole world Beth 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 e]lhluqo<ta (42) or as
e]lqw<n (56); describes His mission by a]pe<stalken (49) or a]pe<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<skomen. Westcott's suggestion, that the quite abnormal
ginw<skomen 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 pro-
nunciation (cf. Moulton, p. 35).
ginw<skein. As throughout the Epistle, to recognise or discern,
not to know with full experiential acquaintance (e]gnwke<nai).
to>n a]lhqino<n. a]lhqino<j, found only once in the Synoptists, once
in
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
412 The First Epistle of
"genuine" or " real "—that which perfectly corresponds in fact to
the idea which its name expresses (cf. John 19 423 632 151 173)
1 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[ a]lhqino<j as
opposed to the idols of heathenism, the God revealed in Christ
is o[ a]lhqino<j in comparison with the limited and symbolical con-
ceptions 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< e]smen e]n t&? a]lhqin&?. 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> e]sme<n, 31). And yet another clause has to be added
to express the fulness of the thought.
e]n t&? ui[&? au]tou? ]Ihsou? Xrist&. This explains how "We are in
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. 223; for the epexegetic construction, 513. 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 a]lh-
qino<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 au]tou? in e]n t&? ui[&? au]tou?, k.t.l., has not as its antecedent the
t&? a]hlqin&? immediately preceding. The objection taken by Weiss,
that to understand e]n t&? ui[&? au]tou? as explaining the possibility of
our being e]n t&? a]lhqin&? (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 e]stin o[ a]lhqino>j qeo>j kai> zwh> si]w<nioj. ou$toj. Not “His
Son Jesus Christ," but He Who is the subject of the foregoing
Notes 413
delineation, He Whom we recognise as the True God by means
of the "understanding" which His Son has given us, and with
Whom we are in fellowship through His Son. This clause was
long a battle-ground between the champions of orthodoxy and
those of heterodoxy. And, no doubt, if it could be made good
that, when the Apostle says, "This is the true God," he means,
"His Son Jesus Christ," we should have the most explicit state-
ment in the N.T. of the Divinity of Christ. But the day is past
when such a truth was thought to be substantiated or invalidated
by proof-texts. Besides, for determining the doctrine of the Apostle
himself, the materials are so abundant that little is to be gained or
lost by the interpretation of a single clause. Apart, however, from
dogmatic interests, it is still urged by some (Weiss, Rothe, Ebrard, e.g.)
that ou$toj refers to ]Ishou? Xrist&?, 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$toj does not necessarily refer to the nearest antecedent, but may
more naturally refer to the main subject of the whole preceding
statement, namely, o[ a]lhqino<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> ai]w<nioj. v. supra, p. 54, and note there. 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<cate e[auta> a]po> tw?n ei]dw<lwn. No writer is
more urgently and severely practical than
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, p. 41, and note there.
fula<cate e[auta<. The command is expressed in the most
414 The First Epistle of
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. 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
(Liddell and Scott, sub voce).
a]po> tw?n ei]dw<lwn. The interpretations of tw?n ei]dw<lwn vary widely,
from "idols" in the literal sense (Plummer, Rothe) to the false
ideas substituted by antichristian teaching for the True God re-
vealed 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.
ei@dwlon 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 teach-
ing, 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.
INDEX I.
THE MORE IMPORTANT EXPOSITIONS.
CHAP. PAGE CHAP. PAGE
11-4 42-50, 108-11. 310b.24a 237-46.
11 97, 98. 314 192.
11.2 190-1. 316 159.
15-22 55-66. 318-20 281-5.
17-22 129-32. 321.22 298-301.
17 106, 163-6. 324 196-200.
19 166-8. 324b-46 263-7.
21.2 168-72. 42.3 94-5, 99-100.
22 160-3. 47-12 246-51.
23-6 209-14. 48-10 70-80.
27-11 232-7. 49 102-6.
212-14 306-14. 410 160-3.
215-17 145-55. 413-16 268-74.
218.19 317-24. 413 196-200.
220-27 111-16. 414 156-7.
221 100-2. 416 196-200.
221-23 93-4. 417-19 285-98.
228 279-81, 324-8. 420-53a 251-5.
229 67-70. 51 270-4.
229-310a 214-28. 53b-5 275-7.
31 194-5. 56 95-7.
31.2 324-36. 57-13 117-27.
34-9 132-5. 512 106-7.
35 157-8. 514-16 301-5.
36 223-6. 516,17 135-42.
38 158. 518 229-30, 408-10.
38.10 142-5. 519-21 410-4.
39 195, 226-8. 520 54-6.
INDEX II.
OTHER REFERENCES.
|
CHAP. PAGE 11-4 359, 360. 11 91, 188, 189, 311, 315, 354-5. 12 106, 184, 188, 189, 311, 315. 13 89, 98, 175, 353. 14 359. 15 53, 234, 355. 16 133, 260. 17 136, 16o, 195-6, 209, 289, 295, 350. 18 33. 19 68, 134, 136, 160, 169, 150. 110 33, 355. 21 8, 9, 41 (n.), 89, 90, 128, 136, 223, 295, 357. 22 146, 295, 351, 357. 23-6 66. 23 216, 247, 355, 362, 365, 366. 24 29, 30, 69, 104, 216, 235, 247, 355, 366. 25 289, 294, 365. 26 29, 89, 104, 198, 235, 288, 355. 27 41 (n.), 77. 28 77, 89, 259. 29 29, 31, 239, 291, 360. 210 247, 289, 360. 211 360, 367. 212-14 42. 212 89. 213 29, 142, 210, 211, 366. 214 210, 355, 366. 215-17 307, 321. 215 199. 216 308. 217 40, 189, 317-8, 327, 352. 218 352, 365. 219 26, 42, 141, 196. 220 90, 91, 297, 351, 357, 366. 221 42, 260, 366. 222 29, 92, 262, 280, 319, 324. 223 98, 101, 170. 224 100, 200, 280, 355, 357, 359. |
CHAP. PAGE 225 188, 189. 226 42. 227 199, 200, 274, 2S0, 297. 228 41 (n.), 89, 98, 189, 199, 352, 353, 355, 357. 229 30, 53, 55, 133, 170, 187 365, 367. 31 146, 194-5, 315, 365, 366. 32 41 (11.), 89, 189, 215, 296, 316, 355, 367. 33 89, 90, 98, 288, 296, 328. 34 34, 69, 132, 224, 351. 35 89, 367. 36 198, 355, 366. 37 41 (n.), 42, 89, 90, 104, 142, 288. 38 39, 67, 69, 220. 39 67, 69, 173, 198, 324. 310 30, 67, 69, 237, 255. 313 146, 360. 314 132, 188, 189, 360, 367. 315 188, 189, 360, 367. 316 72, 89, 165 (n.), 178, 196, 293, 356, 366. 317 72, 104, 146, 257, 294, 355. 318 41 (n.), 104, 288 (n.). 319 42, 247, z38 (n.), 294, 300 (n.), 365. 320 365. 322 289, 355, 356. 323 77, 89, 98, 262, 278, 355. 324 263, 274, 279, 297, 355, 357, 365. 41 26, 40, 41 (11. ), 42, [46, 258, 264-5. 42 39, 42, 91, 120, 170, 265, 268, 297, 365. 43 92, 106 (n.), 146, 265-6, 319, 320. 44 41 (n.), 146, 274, 297. 45 103, 146. |
Index II 417
|
CHAP. PAGE 46 26, 210, 247, 359, 365. 47 31, 41 (n.), 77, 187 (n.), 210, 212, 245, 362, 365. 48 31, 53, 55, 212, 366. 49 56, 128, 146, 190, 193, 315, 356, 360. 410 106, 128, 175, 178, 279, 293, 351, 356, 360. 412 76, 198, 245, 289, 294, 355. 413 351, 355, 357, 360, 365. 414 105, 106, 108, 146. 415 92, 94, 198, 279, 297, 355. 416 245, 258, 277 (n.), 355, 366. 417 89, 146, 189, 212, 329-31, 352, 353. 418. 40. 419 76, 356. 420 29, 76, 294. 421 77, 89, 355. 51 170, 187 (n.), 196, 258, 262, 277 (n.). |
CHAP. PAGE 52 355, 365. 53 294, 355. 54 146, 192 (n.), 297, 356. 55 91, 95, 146, 258, 297. 56 92, 1o6, 108, 170. 57 108, 297. 59 108. 510 108, 258, 278. 511 54, 56, 1o8, 188, 189, 190, 193. 512 188, 189, 277, 353, 357. 513 42, 45, 98, 184, 188, 190, 208, 278, 279, 367. 514 356. 515 136, 367. 516 132, 188, 196, 223, 302-3. 517 34, 134, 192 (n. ). 518 69, 199, 223, 367. 519 128, 142, 146, 296, 367. 520 29, 53, 89, 184, 189, 190, 210, 211, 260, 355, 356, 357, 362, 365, 367. 521 41 (n.), 42, 199. |
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
I. ENGLISH.
|
Abiding, 198-200. Acts of John, 92 (n.). Advocate, 168-74. Anarthrous use of nouns and adjectives, 374, 385, 388, 398. Anointing, 91, 112, 127 (n.). Anonymity of the Epistle, 39, 41-3. Anselmic theory of the Atonement, 180. Antichrist, 103, 266, 318-24, 337, 396. Antichrists, 25, 36, 91, 266, 318-24. Antinomianism, 33, 34, 225-6, 226 (n. ), 228. Antiochus Epiphanes, 337. Aorist, sense of, 47, 276 (n.), 248 (n.), 366, 375, 377, 387. Apologetics, 123-7. Apostolic Testimony, 108-11. Asceticism, Gnostic, 33. Atonement, theories of, 179-83. Attraction, grammatical, 196, 381. Authorship, theories regarding, 46-50. Authorship, traditional, 39, 40. Baptism of Christ, 96, 120. Baptism, Christian, 122. Basilides, 31, 273. Basilidian doctrine, 61 (n.). Beast (in the Apocalypse), 321-2. Begetting, the Divine, 192 sqq. Beliar, 337. Belief, grounds of, 108-27. Belief, Johannine conception of, 270-4. Belief, moral presuppositions of, 262. Blood, 164-5, 188. Blood of Christ, 164-5. Boldness, 280, 285 sqq., 303. Cain, 238-9. Cerinthus, 36-8, 92 sqq. Children of God, 194-5, 215. Children of the Devil, 221-2. Christ, affinities with teaching of, 285. |
Christ, divinity of, 98, 413. "Christ," Gnostic sense of, 93, 98. Christ, the Pattern of Love, 242-3. Christ, sinlessness of, 217-8. Cleansing, 165-6, 350-1. Clement of 226 (n.). Commandment, the old-new, 232-5. Commandments, the, 211-2. Conscience, 281-3. Covenant, 173. Cycles, division of Epistle into, 5-7. Dan, tribe of, 338. Daniel, Book of, 337. Death, 139. Death of Christ, 164. Devil, the, 142-5, 220. Devil, children of, 221-2. Devil, works of, 143, 220-1. Docetic Gospel, 92 (n.). Docetism, 32, 92 sqq., 119-21. Dogmatism of Doing of Righteousness and Sin, 219-20, 225-6. Dorner on the Righteousness and Love of God, 84-5. Dragon-myth, 337. Dualism, 27, 31, 36. Duties of Right and of Love, 81. Duty, 87. Emancipation of the Flesh, 33, 36. Epiphanius quoted, 31. Eternal, meaning of, 188-9. Ethics, Christian, 105. Experience, witness of, 125. Eye, lust of the, 150-2. Faithfulness of God, 68, 167. Faith-mysticism, 47, 48. Father and Son, the Divine, 98. |
418
Index of Subjects 419
|
Fatherhood of God, 169. Fear, 288-191, 292-5. Fellowship, 110, 173, 195-6. Flacius Illyricus, 205 (n.). Flesh, 99, 149-50. Forgiveness, 167, 310, 349-50. Gnosticism, alleged traces of, in Fourth Gospel, 362. Gnosticism, exclusiveness of, 114 (n.), 253. Gnosticism, sketch of, 26-34. Gnosticism, lovelessness of, 30, 251. Gog, 337. Good Samaritan, Parable of, 256. Gospel, Apostolic, Io8-11, 113, 115. Governmental theory of the Atonement, 181. Hate, 236, 236 (n.), 241. Hebraic style, 2-4. Hebrews, Epistle to the, 172-4. Hellenism, influence of, 201. Hermas, Shepherd of, quoted, 289 (n.). High priest, 171. Hippolytus quoted, 226. History, Holy One, the, 90-1. Homer quoted, 329 (n.). Idealism, 316. Ignatius quoted, 30 (n.), 104. Immanence, Divine, 196, 200. Impassibility, Divine, 165 (n.), 177-8. Impeccability of the regenerate, 222-30. Imperfect tense, anomalous, 375. Incarnation, doctrine of defined, 99-100. Incarnation, practical consequences of, 100-7. Incarnation, reality of, 32, 119-20. Indefectibility of the regenerate, 323-4. Intercession, 135, 142, 406-7. Intercession of Christ, 171-2. Irenaeus quoted, 49 (n.), 92, 226. Jesus Christ, as proper name, 89, 170. Johannine Doctrine summarised, 340. John, apocryphal Acts of, 92 (n.). Judgment, 329-31, 353. Justice, 82-84. Knowledge, 62, 63, 210-I, 248, 310-4. Knowledge, Gnostic estimate of, 28-9. Last Hour, the, 317-8, 352-3. Lawlessness, 133, 217, 351. Levitical ritual, 161-5, 167, 171. Life, common Biblical conception of, 185. |
Life, definition of, 186-7, 200. Life Eternal, 53-56, 106-7. Life, mediation of, by Christ, 106-7, 190-1. Light, 56-66, 166, 235-7. Lord's Supper, 121. Love, 79-80, 255-7, 293. Love, commandment of, 232-4. Love, the power of, 86, 240. Love, the summum bonum, 86. Love of God, 163, 212, 292-5. Lucian quoted, 168 (n.), 336 (n.), 376. Lucretius quoted, 103 (n.). Lust, 149. Man of Sin, 321, 337. Manifestation, 315 sqq. Mediating tendency of the Epistle, 361. Missionary spirit, 110 (n.). Monarchianism, 194, 354-7. Moral influence theory of the Atone- ment, 179-80. Moral nature, 203 (n.), 204-7. Name of Christ, 310, 394. Neuter, generic force of, 117 (n.), 275 (n.). Omniscience, the Divine, 283-4. Only-begotten Son, the, 73. Owen quoted, 206 (n.). Papacy, the, and Antichrist, 322. Paraclete, 168-74, 351-52. Parousia, 324-9, 352-3. Particles, use of, 345. Penal theory of the Atonement, 181-2. Perfect and perfected love, 212-3, 286-9, 292-5. Philo, 273. "Physical" applied to Regeneration, 206. Prayer, 136, 137, 142, 298-305. Predestination, 202, 272. Prophets, true and false, 263-7. Propitiation defined, 161-3. Punishment, 82-4, 87, 290-1, 293 (n.). Pure, purity, 90, 213-4. Regeneration, conception of, 203-7. Regeneration, necessity of, 63, 191-2. Resurrection, 353. Resurrection of Christ, 120. Revelation of God in the Incarnation, 101-6. Righteousness, 67, 70, 167, 208-22. Righteousness and Love, correlation of, 80-7. Ritschlian criticism, 201 sqq. |
420 Index of Subjects
|
Sacraments, the, 121-3. Sacrifice, 176-8. Salvation, 157, 331-6. Saviour, 156-7. Schism, 322-3. Second Adam, 190. Seed of God, 198, 221. Sin, Gnostic view of, 32-3. Sin, doctrine of, 128 sqq. Sin unto Death, 135-42. Sinlessness of Christ, 217-8. Spirit, the Holy, 194, 351-2. Spirit of Truth, the, 118, 263 sqq. Spirit, witness of the, 111-9, 263 (n.), 297. Spirits, 263-7. Spiritual Body, the, 336. Summum Bonum, the, 87, 88. Tacitus quoted, 47 (n.). Testimony, the Apostolic, 108—11. Testimony of the Spirit, 111—9, 263 (n.), 297. Theocentric, the Epistle is, 196-7, 355-7. |
Theocritus quoted, 89 (n.). Transcendence of God, the, 102. Trinitarian conception, necessity of, 79, 80, 119. Truth, 62, loci, 118, 250-6o. Turretin quoted, 106 (n. ). Vainglory of life, the, 152. Vine and the branches, 197, 199. Walking in the light, 64-66, 166. Water, the, and the Blood, 95-6, 119- 23. Wicked One, the, 142-5, 229-30. Will of God, the, 154-5, 301-5. Witness, 108. Witness of experience, 125. Witness of God, 124. Word of God, 213. Word of Life, 43-5, 98, 354-5. World, 145-55, 239-40, 266, 275-7, 321. World, the definition of, 146-8. Zoroastrianism, 61 (n.). |
II. GREEK.
|
a]gap?an to>n qeo<n, 402-3. a]ga<ph, 70-1, 293. a]ga<ph e]n (and ei]j), 400-1, a]ga<ph teteleiwme<nh, 212-3, 250, 286-7. a]gaphtoi<, 41. a!gioj, 90-I. a[gno<j, a]gni<zein, 90. a]diki<a, 134-5. ai]tei?n, aitei?sqai, 406. ai]w<nioj, 188 (n.). a]lazonei<a, 152. a]lh<qeia, 62, 259, 372. a]lhqino<j, 259-60, 411-2. all ] i!na (elliptical), 378. a[marti<a, 129 (n.), 132—4. a[marti<an e@xein, 130. a]gagge<llein, 370. a]nomi<a, 133-4, 217, 351. a]nti<, 159 (n.). a]nti<, compounds with, 321 (n). a]pagge<llein, 370. a]po<, 346. a]poka<luyij, 325 (n.). a!ptesqai, 230 (n.), 410. a]rnei?sqai o!ti ou], 379. a]rxh<, a]p ] a]rxh?j, 144 (n.), 369, 380. au]to<j (= Christ), 89, 98 (n.), 386. |
bi<oj, 378. genna?n, 192-3. gennhqei<j, 408. gegennhme<noj, 192 (n.), 229, 409. ginw<skein, 62, 62 (n.), 279, 296, 364-6. gra<fein, 308-9. dia<, 96, 377. dia> tou?to . . . o!ti, 386. di<kaioj, 90, 167, 170. kikaiosu<nh, 67-70. e]a<n, 374, 383, 406. e]a<n, compounds with, 392. ei], 390. ei]de<nai, 296, 366-7, 390. ei@dwla, 414. ei#nai e]k, 192 (lb), J78. ei]j to> e!n, 123 (n.). e]k, 145 (n.), 378. e]k tou<tou, 267, 397. e]kei?noj (=Christ), 89, 213, 215. e@mprosqen, 282 (n.), 300 (n). e]n, 99, 400-1, 404. e]ntolai<, 211, 403. e]nw<pion au]tou?, 300 (n.). |
Index of Subjects 421
|
e]piqumi<a, 149 (n.). e]pifaneia, 325 (n.). e@rxesqai, 99. e]xro<menoj, e]lqw<n, o[, 96. e]rwta?n, 408. e]sxa<th w!ra, 317-18 (n.) zwh<, 54-6, 184, 413. qa<natoj, 139. qauma<zein ei], 390. qea?sqai, 46, 399. qeo<j, 398. i[lasmo<j, 160 (n.). 160-3. i!na, 373. 389. 408. kaqari<zein, 165-6, 350-1. kai<, 370, 378. kai> . . . de>, 371. kardi<a, 281 (n.). kataginw<skein, 391. kei?sqai, 410. koinwni<a, 173, 195-6. ko<lasij, 290-1, 293 (n.). ko<smoj, 145-9. kri<nein, kri<sij, 329, 353. lo<goj th?j zwh?j, o[, 43-5, 190, 354-5, 368-70. lu<ein, 158 (n.). marturei?n, marturi<a, 108, 404-5. mei<zwn, 275. me<nein, 196-200, 380-1. mh<, c. part., 405. mh< of prohbition, 390. monogenh<j, 73. nikh<sasa, 276 (n.). o!loj, 410. o[mologei?n, 265, 373. o@noma, to<, 310, 394. o[ra?n, 46. o!stij, 370. ou]de<, 101 (n.), 380. o]fei<lein, 214, 249, 391. |
paidi<a, 41, 309 (n.), 310 (n.). pa<lin, 375-6. para<, 346. para<gesqai, 376. para<klhtoj, 168, 168 (n.). parousi<a, 325 (n.). par]r[hsi<a, 280, 285 sqq., 303. pa?j o[, c. part., 215 (n.). pa?j . . . ou]k, 379. peri<, 46 (n.), 159 (n.). pisteu<ein, 258, 269 (n.), 277-8, 366. pisto<j, 68, 167, 167 (n.). poiei?n (yeu<sth, and the like), 373. poiei?n ta>j e]ntola<j, 403. poiei?n th>n a]lh<qeian, 372. poiei?n th>n a[marti<an, dikaiosu<nhn, 219-20. potapo<j, 332 (n.). pro>j to>n pate<ra, 98, 374. pro>j qa<naton, 138-40. sa<rc, 99, 149-50. ska<ndalon, 235-6. skoti<a, sko<toj, 371. spe<rma, 198, 2327, 388-9. spla<gxna, 391. sfa<ttein, 239 (n.). su<gxusij a]rxikh<, 61 (n.). te<kna qeou?, 194-5, 385-6. tekni<a, 41, 309-10, 413. te<leioj, 289, 289 (n.), 292-5. teleiou?n, 287, 287 (n.). threi?n, 211. tiqe<nai th>n yuxh<n, 159 (n.). ui[o>j monogenh<j, 73. u[pe<r, 159 (n.). u[perhfani<a, 152. fanerou?sqai, 315 sqq. fula<ttein, 414. xri?sma, 91, 112, 127 (n.), 352. yuxh>n, th>n, tiqe<nai, 159 (n.). w!ra e]sxa<th, 317-18. |
Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt: thildebrandt@gordon.edu