t^ ^ 3^— 6 5 f THEOLOGICAL SEMINAEY, ^ Princeton, N. J. 55^-^31 BS 413 .B58 V.15 Leucke, Friedrich, 1791- 1855. A commentary on the Epistles of St. John / THE BIBLICAL CABINET HERMENEUTICAL, EXEGETICAL, AND PHILOLOGICAL LIBRARY. VOL. XV. LUCRE'S COMMENTARY ON ST. JOHN'S EPISTLE!' EDINBURGH: THOMAS CLARK, 38. GEORGE STREET J. G. & F. RIVINGTOX, LOXDOX ; AXD W. CURRY, JUX. & CO. DUBLIN. MDCCCXXXVII. J. THOMSOX, PRINTER, MTLNE SQUARE. COMMENTARY ox THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN, DR. FRIEDRICH LÜCKE. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES, THORLEIF GUDMUNDSON REPP. EDINBURGH : THOMAS CLARK, 38. GEORGE STREET. MDCCCXXXVII. TRANSLATOR'S ADDRESS TO THE READER. Christianity has two phases or aspects; the one theoretical, the other practical. All inquiry into dogmatics, all interpretation of the Scrip- tures, all divinity, considered as a science, refers to the former. Still the views which are enter- tained respecting the nature and the very essence of divinity, and specially that branch of it which here is more immediately our object, (Exegetics) are extremely various : these views differ not merely according to the variety of sects, into which the Christian community is now divided ; but even within the limits of each sect, we find these views multifariously modified. In a scien- tific survey, we may divide this endless variety of views into two grand classes ; or rather, pro- ceeding from a central point, or from a point at some distance from and within the two extremes, we instantly discover two diametrically opposite tendencies in these views ; the one class of views has for its object the eternal and immutable pre- servation of something given or established ; the other class of views scarcely recognises any thing, TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. beyond certain general principles, as eternally immoveable or unalterably fixed. Opinions of the former class, may not unsuitably be characterised as Conservative, and, speaking typically, it is not improper to say that they are crystallized : those of the latter are progressive, variable, and fer- menting. Theological views and opinions entertained in Germany are always of this latter class. A Ger- man School of Divinity, whether embracing the principles of rationalism, or of supernaturalism ; whether orthodox or heterodox ; whether neolo- gical, or adhering to the ecclesiastical symbols ; in short, of whatever denomination it may be, is in every case progressive, and, in its own sphere, of a movement party. The excuse for, or we should rather say, the cause of this state of things with the Germans is : That, according to the estimation of all par- tics among them, theology is an infinite, liberal, speculative, and transcendental science, and not an exact or mathematical science ; and being so conditioned, it, like all other speculative sciences, in its historical development, follows laws, which are not of man's making or creation, but which he receives from above exactly as he receives his mental and spiritual powers and faculties. Ac- cording to this view, theology would be removed from its own sphere, and greatly degraded, by {)rescribing to it any bounds or limits, or by sub- TRANSLATORS PREFACE. Vll jecting it to such laws as the exact sciences re- cognise, and ever ought to recognise. From this view, it follows, that if we recognise two modes or forms of Divine revelation : one physical^ and the other moral or special,^ the problem : of ana- lysing the whole of matter down to dynamical atoms, and of displaying all imaginable physical laws in a perfect system, is, as to magnitude, a very insignificant problem indeed, when compared with that other problem which embraces the clear and perspicuous display of the moral rela- tion existing between God and man. It is clear, that where theology is thus viewed, it may indeed be subject to an endless variety of changes in mode, form, and fashion, but it is equally clear, that the opinions of the vulgar can never have the slightest influence upon it. In all theological fashions in Germany, flocks and congregations must always /o/Zözo their teachers, but can never take the lead. The Germans are thus completely secured against gainseeking sec- tarianism : Religion can, w ith them, never, in any shape, become an article of traflic. And it also is altogether owing to this view of theology, as a sublime speculative science, that the Ger- man ecclesiastical establishments are so firmly secure and so popular. That the Germans consider divinity as a liberal, and speculative, and unlimited science, ^ Rom. i. 20. b Rom. i. IC, 17- Vlll TRArvSLATOE S PREFACE. does, however, nowhere appear more strongly than in their scriptural exegesis. All parties, with them, recognise the insufficiency of the common versions ; all recognise the necessity of carefully and conscientiously examining the au- thentic text, and all recognise that, for this pur- pose, a very extensive and profound erudition is required, and that here great philological, his- torical, and antiquarian knowledge, is indispen- sable. All parties are, in an equal degree, de- pendent on a right understanding of the original text ; since every theological sorites, in which the paramount authority of the vernacular ver- sions forms a link, necessarily breaks at that link, and every system of doctrine, sustained by such a sorites, unavoidably falls to the ground. Ever since the days of Luther, the Germans have been conscientious searchers of the Scrip- tures ; but first, when they attained their pre- sent high distinction in classical and oriental philology, they became skilful and enlightened searchers. It affords the Translator of this present work much pleasure, thus to introduce to British divines a very distinguished, and strictly ortho- dox Lutheran interpreter. He feels confident, that the many high qualifications which Dr. Lücke possesses as an exeget : his diligence, his learning, his acuteness, his candour, his freedom from prejudice, and the Christian spirit parti- TRAXSLATOH S PREFACE, IX cularly observable in his polemics, will be ap- preciated by discerning theologians in this country. Dr. Llicke's high competence to in- terpret the works of St. John, may also in no small degree be ascribed to this, that he not only sincerely admires, but with equal sincerity loves his author ; therefore, he recognises no higher law^ in his interpretation than this, " above all things endeavour to ascertain the author's true meaning." In the present work, the Translator finds such a spirit, and such a principle, manifest on every page. The Author w^as, during several years, an or- nament of the Prussian University of Bonn. On account of the eminence of its teachers, this University holds a very high rank among the Universities of Germany. Here Niebuhr taught history ; here Christian Erandis taught and still teaches Philosophy; and Aug. Schlegel the In- dian languages — in such a place. Dr. Lücke was distinguished as a Divine. Dr. Lücke has previously written a voluminous commentary on St. John's Gospel. Thus he has, during many years study, made himself fa- miliar with the Apostle's spirit and style and manner. The author's extensive research, and his wealth of resources, will appear in the work itself. Of his own work, the Translator may say thus much, that he has executed his task conscien- tiously and w ith pleasure ; and if his success shall X TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. appear to be proportionate to the labour be- stowed on the work, the translation must be fair. The Translator has added seventy notes, which, for the most part, are of a philological and critical nature. In a few of these, he has expressed dissent from the author in matters of minor importance. Who can agree with an author on every point through the whole extent of 380 pages ? Of this the Translator is certain, that he in no instance felt that admiration and esteem weakened in his mind, w^iich is so emi- nently due to Dr. Lücke, as a scholar, as a divine, and as a Christian. Several misquotations have been corrected, and where it was apparent that these were mere misprints, no notice has been taken of such cor- rections in the notes. But, in cases of greater importance, and where the misquotation led to critical inferences, as p. 133, where two erroneous quotations of Lange's have been corrected ; or, where misquotations have arisen from the diffe- rence of arrangement in chapters and verses, in different copies of the Scriptures ; such a circum- stance has been mentioned in the Translator's notes. The Translator hopes that he has not inadvertently introduced other misquotations in- stead of those he has corrected. In correcting the proofs, he certainly has found this figure, bu- siness most troublesome. He know^s that he has l»estowed much care and attention on the correc- TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. tion of the work, while passing through the press ; still, he has already discovered one mis- print, p. 16, where, in the last line of the text, the Reader is desired to read no instead of an. The introduction of a few technical terms, which are unusual in English, was found to be unavoidable ; but the appellation of Doketists, which some English divines have called Docetists, was deliberately adopted on philological grounds, not merely because the word is of Greek and not of Latin origin, but because some image at least is thus preserved of the English parallel root : jio/„v/x5/ is in Enghsh methinks; and the Do- ketists had their name from maintaining that Christ's manifestation in the flesh Avas a mere appearance : In ancient Scotch they would say, " the Apostles thocltt that they saw Christ." Dr. Lücke has given a German version of St. John's Epistles, along with his Commentary: the Translator perceived that justice could not be done to the Doctor's work, without translating this version : it is a version of such a Greek text as Dr. Lücke has deliberately adopted, and is also in conformity with the interpretation given in the Commentary. It is, in many instances, m.uch more clear and perspicuous than the ver- sion of the English Bible. We beg leave to accompany Dr. Lücke's ex- cellent work with the sincere wish, that his ex- ample may be fruitful among divines, both of TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. this and of many other countries : that the com- mendation earned by the Bereans, Acts xvii. II, may ever be the highest object of ambition for Christian teachers — that they may never shun the labour of acquiring a competent knowledge of the ancient and the oriental languages, hav- ing in view an object of so high importance, as is the right understanding of God's revealed word — that they may become ever more and more familiar with the works of the Fathers, with the ancient versions, and with other critical sources — and that they may thus acquire and es- tablish for themselves a doctrinal competence and authority to which neither heretics, nor fa- natics, nor demagogical innovators can ever as- pire. We feel persuaded, that wherever such a spirit is universal among the teachers of the Church, the Ecclesiastical Establishment must necessarily flourish and prosper ; for, in such ^ case, the Establishment is in truth and in reality — oh >.oyw bhhi yXu^TTTty aX}' Sg'/w xa/ a'Arj^sia, — an enlif/htened Christian Establishment. Translator. Edinburgh, 10 th November, 1836. INTRODUCTION. CHAPTER I. AUTHENTICITY. If Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians, be neither spurious — and it cannot be proved that it is — nor interpolated — and that has not been proved hitherto — we have in that epistle a clear testimony establishing the existence of our epistle in the commencement of the second century ; for Polycarp, in chap. vii. suc- cinctly describing the antichristian heresies of his age, thus expresses himself respecting Doketism : era? yao cl; av [myi oiMoKoy^ 'irjffovv X^idrov sv 6ao/ii sX'/jXv'^svai, uvriy^^ißTog kriv. No unprejudiced man can doubt that the passage, 1 John iv. 3, is latently contained in these words. It is true that Eusebius, who, gene- rally speaking, is an accurate observer of quotations from the New Testament, in writings of the second century, only mentions the first Epistle of St. Peter as having been quoted in Polycarp's Epistle. But it is only incidentally that he speaks of the subject, and he has also left unnoticed, allusions to some of St. Paul's Epistles in the Epistle of Polycarp. The word dvrr/^piffrog too, is, in the New Testament, in B a INTRODUCTION. frequent use only with St. John; in the patristic- language of the second century it seems very rarely to occur. First again by Irenaeus, a disciple of Poly- carp, it is used more frequently ; and, is it not likely that the use of it, in this passage, indicates that Poly- carp had before him the first epistle of his apostolic master? This is indeed a mere subsidiary proof, and let us admit, it is one that is uncertain, since this phenomenon may be accounted for in a different manner. Dr. Bretschneider endeavours, by the vagueness of the quotation, to weaken the force of Polycarp's tes- timony. This is a vain endeavour. None of the apostolical fathers use to quote passages from the New Testament, with accuracy and precision ; they do not even so quote passages from the Old Testa- ment. Nor do we find any greater precision in the apologetical writers. But were we to go the full length with Dr. Bretschneider, and suppose, either that this antidoketic passage was derived from an earlier source, which was common to the author of the first Epistle of St. John and to Polycarp, or, that the later pseudo-John borrowed it from Polycarp, a more ancient writer ; we would, in the first case, have to establish a mere fiction ; and, in the second, we would entirely subvert the irrefragable critical maxim, according to which, " the more perfect and more complete expression is generally considered as the original, and as the source of the more imperfect and abridged." Now, the passage of St. John is clearly more original than the passage in St. Polycarp. The next author after Polycarp who supports, with INTRODUCTION. ö his testimony, our epistle, as a writing of St. John's, is Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, who lived before the middle of the second century. Irenaeus says of him, that he was 'lojdvvov /ih d'/.o-j(fTrig, IloXyxaPcr« ds sra/^og.^ Eusebius,^ seems to doubt that he was a disciple or hearer of St. John, and to prefer making him a dis- ciple of John the Presbyter. It is not easy to decide whether Eusebius is right in this particular. But, having the works of Papias before him, Eusebius says, that in these he made use of passages from the first Epistle of St. John, and first Epistle of St. Peter.^ According to the manner of the age, Papias too, in all likelihood, did not quote with precision, nor men- tion by name the apostolic writers to whose works he alluded. But as Eusebius is right in asserting that Poly carp, in his epistle, has made use of passages from the first Epistle of St. Peter, there is no reason to suppose he is wrong in what he says respecting Papias. Subsequent to the middle of the second century, the testimonies in favour of our epistle, as a genuine epistle of St. John's, become more frequent and more decisive. Irenaeus, who, as to origin, was from Asia Minor, and, being Polycarp's disciple, indirectly a pupil of St. John's, according to Eusebius,^ repeated- ly quoted passages from St. John's first epistle in his writings. In his work against heretics,^ which is ^ " John's hearer, but Polycarp's companion." Advers. haer. v. 33. 2 Churchh. iii. 39. ^ j^. (., 4 ^ c. ^ Iren. Adv. Haeret. v. 16. Grabe's edition, where 1 John ii. 18, 19, 21, 22, (somewhat abridged and altered;) and iv. I, 2, 3j and v. 1, are quoted. 4 INTRODUCTION. Still preserved, he frequently quotes our epistle, mentioning its author expressly by name. So does also Clemens Alexandrinus.^ Still more frequently is this epistle quoted, and its authenticity similarly recognized, in the works of TertuUian^ and Cyprian.*^ The anonymous fragment on the canon, probably of the Roman Church in the second or the third cen- tury, which we find in Muratori, mentions two Epistles of St. John as canonical.^ Origen too, speaking of the second and the third Epistle of St. John, and stating that their genuineness is not uni- versally recognized, commends and quotes the first as an unquestionably genuine work of St. John the Evangelist ;'o ^^i^^ moreover, Dionysius of Alexandria endeavours to prove that the Apocalypse is a spu- rious work, particularly from its difference in form and substance from the recognized genuine works of St. John, {i. €. the Gospel and the Catholic epistle,)^^ and thus Eusebius, being countenanced by so many favourable testimonies from Polycarp downwards, and supported by the circumstance, that the epistle 6 Strom. Ed. Col. p. 380, 419, 444, 445, &c. ' Contra Marc. v. 16. Adv. Prax. 15, 28. Adv. Gnostic. 12, &c. ^ De Orat. dom. p. 430. De Opere et Elemos. p. 436. De bono patient, p. 450. Ed. Oberthur. ^ Muratori Antiquit. Ital. Med. Mvi, Tom. III. p. 854. " Joannis duse in Catholica habentur." 1 John i. 1, 4, is al- so there quoted in an abridged form, and the citation is thus expressed : " Joannes in epistoiis suis." 1° Commentary on ]\Iatth. xvi. Confr. Eusebius's Cburchli. yi. 25. " Euseb. Churchh. vii. 25. INTRODUCTION. 5 has, in the church, been used and considered as ca- nonical from the very beginning, ^^ is quite justified in counting it among the Homolog umena.^^ Now, if before the age of Eusebius, no doubt respecting the genuineness of the epistle was ever entertained, still less was any such doubt heard of after his time. The teachers of the church, of the occidental as well as of the oriental countries, have always been unanimous with regard to it, considering it as genuine and ca- nonical.^''^ The silence, or the almost imperceptible opposi- tion of a few heretics against our epistles, dwindles into nothing before such complete evidence of the primitive Catholic church in its favour. It is extremely probable, although Epiphanius does not expressly state it, that the A/ogi, in as much as they generally rejected the writings of St. John, also rejected the first epistle.^^ But, whoever these people were, and where, and when, and howsoever ^'^ TäJv Ti 'ludvvou ffvyy^a/Auaruv ^r^o? tm ihuyylX'toa ku.) h T^o- XiKTos u^uXoynTon. Churchh. iii. 24. ^^ Churchh. iii. 25. ^* In a homily on 3Iatthew xxi. 23, which, indeed, is erro- neously attributed to St. Chrysostoin, but which, in his time, undoubtedly was delivered in Antioch, we find these words : TäJv tX Ixxkfjiria^o/üiviuv, oh tuv uTOK^utpuv fih h t^uty) iTicrrokri, Tnv ya.^ oivri^otv x,oc) t^ittiv ol -TTaTt^is aTcxavovi^ovtn' t*iv /niv and least of all for the Epistle of St. John. This, how- ever, is what Lange has evidently done. The indi- viduality and personality of the epistle rather dis- 21 See what has been stated agtiinst it by Fritzsche in Henkes JMuseum, ^^ol. III. Part 1 ; Welcker in his Philol. Exeget. Clavis to the N. T., Vol. II. Divis. 2, p. 115, sqq. ; and Bertholdt's Introduction, Vol. VI. § 701. 10 INTRODUCTION. tinctly appears to the attentive observer in the fol- lowing passages : In i. 1 — 4, the author characterizes himself as Apostle, and seems to refer to his gospel ; in ii. 1, 18, he indicates a more intimate connection betwixt himself and his readers ; in ii. 7, 14, he pre- supposes an earlier correspondence; in ii. 18, 19; iii. 7, and iv. 4, the heretics are indeed more distinct- ly alluded to ; still the allusions are so slight, that we may easily perceive that St. John wrote under known circumstances, and addressed himself to a definite class of readers, who were well acquainted with the subject. There is something local too in the admoni- tion V. 21, and there something known is brought before the reader's remembrance. There are several other passages of the same kind. Secondly. The affinity between the epistle and the gospel is indeed very great, but altogether of such a kind that, according to the rules of sound criticism, we are led to conclude, that the author of both is the same, and, consequently, the genuineness of the gos- pel being pre-supposed, and this is done by Lange, that of the epistle must follow. In the epistle there is nowhere to be found the smallest trace of servile imitation. On the contrary, it appears throughout as a free and original production of the spirit of St. John. An interpolator would have taken great care, even outwardly, to impress on his counterfeit the stamp of St. John, in every possible manner ; he would have mentioned the name of the Evangelist ; he would not have forgot to put a prolix superscription and a formal salutation ; he would have interspersed the epistle, in many places, with personal and local al- INTRODUCTION. 1 1 liisions, and made the time and the circumstances of St. John as conspicuous as possible. But, at the same time, such an author, however able an imitator of the manner of St. John, would, according to the custom of the interpolators of the second century, never have failed to introduce both his own senti- ments, and circumstances, and those of his age, and scarcely would he have been able entirely to avoid contortions and misrepresentations of the ideas of St. John and of his mode of expression. But where is there the slightest trace of all this in the epistle? Form and language, doctrine and manners, heresies exposed and attacked, in short, the entire substance of the epistle, establish it as a production of the Apostolic age, and of the canonic literature. Who- ever is acquainted with the apocryphal counterfeits bearing Apostolic names, of later ages, or whoever has carefully explored the relation between the second, probably not genuine,* Epistle of St. Peter, and the First, and also the Epistle of St. Jude ; and like- wise the idiomatical agreement between the Apoca- lypse and the unquestionably genuine writings of St. John, will sooner admit everything apocryphal and doubtful to be genuine and canonical, than that our epistle is a forgery of the second century. Thirdly. It is objected that this epistle exhibits manifest indications of the decay of age. If thereby is meant the decrepitude of St. John, (for it cannot be that of the interpolator), this of itself would tend to confirm the authenticity of the epistle. * The Editoi- protests against the opinion here advanced with regard to the genuineness of the 2d Epistle of St. Peter. 12 INTRODUCTION. For it is by no means admissible, that an imitator should have the adroitness or the design of writing as St. John would have written when very old. But where are there any traces of this senile decay ? It is said to be in the repetitions, in the disorder, in the uniformity. Certainly the style is somewhat tauto- logical, apparently more so here than in the gospel. But the tautological form of style is peculiar to St. John, and even in the gospel appears always where the subject is not narrative, and where the author intro- duces his own remarks. See Gosp. i. 1, sqq. 12, 37, sqq. The cause of the epistle's being somewhat more tautological than the gospel is, that it is throughout parainetic and meditative. But parainesis loves re- petition ; and the Hebrew form of meditation which prevails in the epistle, and by which it differs from the more Greek, dialectical, and analytical method of the Pauline epistles, is somewhat cycloidal. The absence of strict order, which is observable in some places, is sufficiently justified by the epistolar form in which even the youngest authors, whose mental powers are unimpaired by age, disengage themselves from a strict arrangement of their ideas, and write down what comes uppermost. Uniformity, in as far as it actually exists, may reasonably be ascribed to the shortness of the epistle, to the unity of its subject, and to the singleness of the mind from which it proceeded. But he who interprets this epistle with circumspection, will, not unfrequent- ly, where an inaccurate exegesis discovers nothing but disorder and monontonous repetition, nay, even in expressions most intimately cognate and simi- INTRODUCTION. 13 lar, observe nicely delineated distinctions ; and, in the apparent repetition and disorder, progress and good arrangement. Thus vanish in all directions the pretended indications of decrepitude. At the destruction of Jerusalem, St. John was in- deed of advanced age, at all events old enough to render it probable that he might, in this epistle, have committed those errors of old age with which he has been charged. Let us then suppose that such defects are observable in the epistle, still that would not compel, nor justify our assuming that the epistle had been composed after the destruction of Jerusalem. What hinders us from believing that it may have been ^vTitten shortly before that event ? Fourth, and lastly, it is maintained, that if the epistle was written subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, the silence respecting it, specially in ii, 18, is an inexplicable riddle, and this, too, is an error. For it cannot be proved that St. John, in the words sGyaTYi (^oa, at all referred to the destruction of Jeru- salem. As St. John, in his gospel, takes the coming of Christ so much in a spiritual sense, it is much more probable that, by sff^drr] ojoa, he meant the rela- tion, in point of time, between the pseudo-apostoli- cal Antichrist, then already appearing, and the mani- festation of Christ and the perfection of his king- dom. But let us even admit that St. John, in re- spect of time, considered the so'^drri oj^a and the de- struction of Jerusalem as identical, and that he wrote his epistle after the destruction of that city ; what justifies the assumption that St. John, in that case, must necessarily have explained how and why the 14 INTRODUCTION. destruction of Jerusalem took place, without bringing along with it the victory of Christianity ? St. John wrote for Christians of Asia Minor, who, for the mOst part, had previously been heathens : and it cannot be proved, that among these the expectation ever was prevalent, that the destruction of Jerusalem would bring along with it the end of all things, and the per- fection of Christ's kingdom. Since, then, the conca- tenation of ideas, in the epistle, by no means neces- sarily led in that direction, and only the relation, as to time, between the anti-christian errors already ap- pearing, and the coming of Christ, was to be explain- ed, what would have been the object of alluding to, and correcting an error, which, probably, no person among the readers ever had entertained ? Thus Lange's argument appears in every parti- cular untenable, and incapable of rendering doubtful the authenticity of our epistle. Of still less importance is the assertion of Cludius : " that both epistle and gospel are spurious, originally a forgery by a converted Jew, but subsequently recast by a Gnostic ; the epistle, however, less al- tered than the gospel."^^ Cludius finds in the re- petitions, ii. 12, 13, 14, 15, the principal indica- tions of interpolation. It is singular that the inter- polator should choose this place, of all others, for corrupting with Gnosticism, since he could have found others that seemed more convenient. But such is the nature of the passage, that an unprejudiced interpreter may discover in it rather any thing else *^^ Uransichten des Christenthumes, {i. e. Primitive Views of Cliristianity), p. 52, sq. INTRODUCTION. 15 than the interpolations of a Gnostic. In short, in order to find in our epistle, in its present form, only a web, of which the woof is Judaic- Christian and the warp Gnostic, we must first, along with the author of " the Primitive Views of Christianity," have determined to consider everything occurring in the epistle, respecting the Messiahship of Jesus, and respecting the redemption and atonement by Christ, as uncanonical and unjohanneic judaical Christianity ; but every thing respecting the divine Logos, respecting the yvusig of God, and the Mimvia with his light, &c., as Gnostic pseudo-christianity, and to reject every passage of either kind. But who will do this ? It is manifest that, after the manner of Cludius, one might declare almost every book of the New Testament spurious, or at least interpolated ; nay, being consistent, we would necessarily arrive at that conclusion. I confess that I cannot consider our epistle as a compound of Judaic- Christianity and Gnoticism, (taking that word in its true sense.) It carries in its standard opposition to Gnosticism and Judaism. More important, and more deserving of an accurate examination, are Dr. Bretschneider's objections. What he has said respecting the validity of the external evidence in this inquiry, has been stated above, and confuted. And, in as far as he rests his argument on the presupposed spuriousness of the gospel, this is not the place to confute it. Here is only to be considered, that he says : that the logology and an- tidoketic tendency of the epistle betrays an author of the second century, and that since all the three ] 6 INTRODUCTION. epistles can only be the work of one man, the superscription of the second and the third epistle, (where no reason for counterfeiting an Apostolical person and authority existed), clearly shews, that not the Apostle St. John, but his more modern namesake John the Presbyter, is the author of the first epistle too.2 3 The Logos doctrine of the gospel, is indeed, but only by way of allusion, repeated in the epistle. In general, the christology of the gospel is the ground- work of our epistle. Now, if the doctrine of the Logos manifested in Christ, demonstrably had first arisen in the second century, and its appearance in the Apostolical and canonical literature were im- possible, then the genuineness of the epistle and the gospel would indeed be very questionable. But the very reverse can be proved. For it is undeniable that the Logos doctrine of St. John, substantially, although not fully developed, existed in the Jewish theological notions respecting the Son of God ; but we find it distincly ^expressed, although in diflTerent words, in the Pauline representation of Christ's ex- alted dignity. Col. i. 15, sqq. (comp. Heb. i. 1, sqq.) As to the form and mode of expression, the rudiments of it already appear in the preparations to, and gradual devolopment of, the theologumenon of St. John, in the canonical and apocryphal, specially the Chaldaic and Alexandrian literature of the Jews ; but at the time of Christ and the Apostles it was, in Philo for example, so far developed, that on this account it is g^ auacronism to maintain the apostolic '•^ Probabilia, p. 166, sqq. INTRODUCTION. 17 character, and the authenticity of the gospel and Epistle of St. John. Moreover, the logology of the second century, is in form and kind quite different from that of St. John. What in St. John is only hinted at, appears in the Fathers of the second cen- tury as fully developed ; with the first, we find that form of the theologumenon which still is simple, popular, nay, Hebraizing, and altogether canonical ; with the latter the developed, complicated and gnosti- cally erudite form. These logologies, although essen- tially identical, bear to each other the same relation as apostolical text and patristic interpretation. St. John wishesby A070J rS SsS sufficiently to express the divine essence of Christ, but the patristic logology attempts more accurately to determine, and to search to the bot- tom, the relation between the Johanneic logos and the invisible God, on the one side, and the world on the other. The logologists among the fathers, moreover, even the earliest, support their doctrine by an eccle- siastical tradition (Paradosis), which accordingly must have had its root in doctrines which were known in the first century.^'i Nay more, they make use of St. John's modes of expression. So does Justin, for example, 2 5 and Tatian still more distinctly. But, from Theophilus of Antioch downwards, they express- ly, mentioning their author by name, connect their elucidations with the canonical foundation in the Gospel of St. John. 26 In short, without the prece- ^* MUnscher's Dogmengeschichte, (History of Dogmas), Vol. I. p. 424. ^<^ Dial, cum Tryph. p. 3S2, 74, G8. ^'^ See Martin's pragm. Geschichte des Dogmas, v. d. Gotth. C 18 INTRODÜCTIOX. dent and guaranty of a canonical logos doctriiis, tlif* patristical logology of Justin would be inexplicable. Accordingly, on this side too, the authenticity of the gospel and epistle remains unassailable.^'^ That an antidoketic tendency is observable in our epistle, is as undeniable as, at the same time that it is very slight, and not brought out very conspicuous- ly. This latter circumstance is of considerable weight against Bretschneider's argument. It is true that the more complete development and the name of the doketic heresy, belongs to the second century. But Dr. Bretschneider's assertion : that doketism first arose in the second century, and that in the first no vestige of it is to be found is untrue ; and, in this particular, he is contradicted by Mosheim, and even by the cautious Walch. The last inquiry respecting doketism, 2 8 shews most truly, that the germs and roots of this heresy existed, even before the age of Christ, in the Jewish theology and oriental theoso- phy of those times. Vestiges are to be found in the Epistles of St. Paul, of Jewish theology and oriental theosophy having been applied to the Christian doc- trine even in the Apostolic age, and of its having occasioned all manner of errors among the Christians. More especially, an early application to the wonder- ful history of Jesus Christ, of this proposition of Christi (Martini's Pragmatical History of the Dogma of the Divinity of Christ), Vol. I. p. 58, sqq. '^^ Confr. Olshauseu liber die Echtheit der vier Ev. (On the Genuineness of the Four Gospels), p. .30G, sqq., and J. G. Crome Probabilia haud Pi-obabilia, &c. p. 30G, sqq. 28 Comment. Hist. Theolog-, de Docetis, Scrips. Herrn. Aga- tho Niemeyerus. Halai_, IÖ23— 4. INTRODUCTION. 19 idealistic theosophy : " that all manifestations of tlie divine being, of higher spirits, of angels, &c. in hu- man form (fi/ ffa^zi) are a mere appearance (hö-/.rtCii;)y'' was so much to be expected, that, indeed, it would be very surprising if no such opinion had been started, even in the Apostolic age. And, in that case, the completely developed doketism, which we find in the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, would make its appearance in the history of the anti-christian heresy as it were by a saltus. If Cerinthus, a con- temporary of the Apostle St. John, taught respecting the person and history of Christ, as by Irenaeus he is said to have taught, then doketism, in that simple form in which it seems to be attacked in 1 John iv. 1 — 3 ; ii. 22. 2 John 7, is far from being an ana- chronistic phenomenon in the age of St. John, and the genuineness of the epistle is also, in this point, proof against every attack. The objection drawn from tlie superscription, o -^ic- ßvrsooc, of the second and third epistle is still more easily confuted. It is manifest that neither here the expression 6 'rpsaßvrsoog, nor in I Pet. v. 1, that of ffviJ^TPSßß-j-soog can be considered as an apostolic official title. St. Peter's exhorting the presbyters of the congi'egation, from motives of modesty, calls himself (Ty/xrssö^S-jrs^oc, and with no respect to his age. But St. John, as it seems, calls himself 'TPiffß. on ac- count of his age, and in a similar manner St. Paul, in the Epistle to Philemon, which is not apostolic- official, but a friendly private letter, calls himself UauXog 'xozüß-jrr^c. John the Presbyter, who scarcely can have been known ]jy the title of Presbyter alone, 20 INTRODUCTION. without any name accompaying it, surely would in the second and third epistle, (where it is admitted he had no motive for forgery or for omitting his name), when he styled himself Presbyter, also have added his name, or, if his design was to deceive, he would have preferred to style himself John, without any further addition. Unless the Presbyter was in the habit of mentioning himself by name, it would be difficult to conceive how the pseudo-Johannic writ- ings so early could be attributed to St. John the Evangelist. At all events, the reticence of the name is better suited to the renowned Apostle St. John than to his imitator the Presbyter. But that the de- ceitful pseudo-John, who in the first epistle styles himself an Apostle, or at least an eye-witness and apostolic recorder of the life of Jesus, but in the gospel decidedly declares himself the Lord's fa- vourite disciple, and in both these works carries on the deception so finely and adroitly, that, the Alogi excepted, the whole ancient church Mas imposed upon, and even the most ingenious criticism does not entirely succeed in undeceiving the modern — that such an one, in both the smaller epistles, which, indeed, it is maintained a mere accident has pre- served, should so incautiously, and at the sametime in such a vexatiously ambiguous manner, have be- trayed himself, as to render it difficult to hold fast the impostor even when caught in the deed — is a conjecture so improba])le, that even if the authen- ticity of the epistle neitlier were confirmed by the consentient testimony of antiquity, nor sufficiently supported by internal evidence drawn from the epistle INTRODUCTION. 21 itself — and if it thus rested on mere conjecture, — still this latter conjecture would, at all events, seem ad- missible in preference to the former. 2 9 In short, even Bretschneider's criticism is not able to render, in any manner doubtful, the well esta- blished authenticity of our epistle. Yet we honour and respect the unprejudiced divine, whose modest doubts ever will have the merit of having promoted once more the scientific appreciation, and established certainty repecting the genuineness and canonical dignity, of such a noble portion of the apostolical literature ! CHAPTER II. WHEN AND WHERE THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN. Ecclesiastical antiquity knows nothing for certain either as to the time when, or the place where, our epistle was written ; it scarcely hazards even a con- jecture on this subject. The epistle itself is, accord- ing to the genuine manner of St. John, so silent on this point, that even modern criticism, penetrating as it is in such matters, has not succeeded in eliciting from it any certain or satisfactory answer. As to the time when the epistle was written, this only seems to be certain, that it was subsequent to the writing of the gospel. The gospel, undoubtedly, is referred to, and it is presupposed, that it either already was in the hands of the readers, or, as others 2^ Crome Probabüia baud Probabilia, &c. p. 337—340, 366, sqq. 22 INTRODUCTION. conjecture, that it arrived along with the epistle ac- companying it, (1 John i. 1 — 4.)3o But in general, the more concise and abridged expression of the same author, speciall}^ of ideas which are peculiarly his own, is the later ; but the more explicit, the one which, as it were, developes and forms the idea, is the earlier. And accordingly, the abridged formula of our epistle, respecting the Logos, i. I, 2. b \6yoc TYig ^oiTig, and t] i^mti aldovioc, riric tjv T^hg rov 'Tra.rha zai s(puv£ou)^T^ Tj/xTv, — must undoubtedly have been written subsequent to the more explicit and more intelligible one of the gospel, i. 1, sqq. Similar is the case with the formula 'Itjgovv XPiffrov sv ßa^yJ sXy}7^v^6ra, iv. 2, compared with the gospel, i. 14. And when, in ad- dition to this, we consider that the entire epistle is founded on such a view of the person, and the life of Jesus, as is displayed only in the gospel of St. John — that this view is presupposed as known — and finally, that the whole epistle is interspersed with reminiscences and allusions to the speeches of Jesus, as we find them in the gospel, — we will find nothing more probable than that the epistle is written sub- sequent to the gospel. But when was the gospel written, and how long after it the epistle ? The period when the gospel was written, accord- ing to the averments of tradition and modern criti- cism, fluctuates between the sixth and the ninth decennium of the first century. A more precise determination of the time is, in absence of all certain ^" The passages 2, 14, 21, 26, to which Hänlein refers in his Introduction, Vol. iii. p. 230, are not apphcable to the gospel. IXTRODÜCTIOX. 23 recoi'ds and definite indications of the gospel itself, impossible.^ ^ But let us suppose that the time when the gospel was written could be precisely determined ; still how are VvC to know for certain, and from what shall we infer, how soon, or how late after the gospel, the epistle was written ? On this point, the opinions are very much divided. Modern authors, who consider it as a dedication or an accompanying epistle to the gospel, say that it is of the same date as the gospel.^ ^ Others conclude from its style, as betraying old age, that St. John wrote it when highly advanced in years, and conse- quently long after the gospel, which thej"^ suppose was written when the author still was in the vigour of manhood.^ ^ Others again, from ii. 18, fix upon the destmction of Jerusalem, as the point with which they connect their inferences ; but while the greatest number of these suppose tliat the epistle is written before that event,^'* there still are others, who, found- ing their conjecture on the same passage, maintain the very reverse.^-^ ^^ See the Author's Commentary on the Gospel, ^''ol. i. p. 130. ^^ Thus Hug, Storr and Berger. ^^ Ambrosius says, Psalm 3ö, " Johannem jam senem scribere ccepisse Evangelium et Epistolas." But modern authors, such as Lange, Bertholdt and others, assume that the epistle only is written in old age, but the gospel in the age of manhood. •''* Thus Hammond, Grotius, Calovius, Lange, Michaelis, Hänleiu and otliers. •'^ Thus Baronius, Basnage, Mill, Le Clerc and others. 24 INTRODUCTION. But none of these determinations of the time are satisfactory or certain. For the opinion of Storr and others, " that the epistle is the second part of the gospel," cannot be proved. Whether it was, as Hug supposes, a dedi- catory, or accompanying epistle to the gospel, is at all events extremely problematical. The identity of date of these two works, when founded on such an hypothesis, is accordingly at least very doubtful. Still more insecure is the determination of time, founded on the senile tone of the epistle. For it is natural to ask at what period St. John was an old man ; or how old he must have been, in order to ^vTite such a senile letter as it is pretended that it is ? The chronology of his life is extremely uncertain. But as to the senility of the epistle's style, as has been above observed ; the proof of it becomes difficult, nay, impossible, in proportion to the candour and accuracy employed in its interpretation. The determination of the time from ii. 18, is equally unsatisfactory and destitute of foundation. For it cannot be proved that the f(r%ar?j w^a of St. John has any reference to the destruction of Jerusa- lem. In as much as the Apostle, ii. 18, sqq., from the appearance of antichristian heretics generally, infers the approach of antichrist, and from thence again the near coming of Christ, no reference whatever was necessary, either to the imminent, or already effect- ed destruction of Jerusalem. But let us admit the defenders of the chronological term, in ii. 18, to be in the right, and that the epistle, (which is the only thing that reasonably can be supposed in this case), INTRODUCTION, '2o was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, — who would venture to determine more precisely how long before St John may have AVTitten the epistle, since even St. Paul speaks of the last times as being near at hand? confr. 2 Tim. iii. 1 ; 1 Tim. iv. 1. Since then, none of these determinations of time are certain or sufficiently precise, and since also no definite chronological indication is observable in the epistle, it seems advisable to take our stand at that which is generally admitted and demonstrable, and say, that at all events, the epistle is written subse- quent to the gospel, and that, resembling the latter in its apologetical and polemical allusions, it likewise indicates such a state of the Christian doctrine and community, that thereby its date is shown to be pos- terior, even to the last Epistles of St. Paul.^^ If this is right, then the ancient church would be justified in classing this along with the collection of catholic epistles, whose chronological character is, that they are in point of date posterior to the Epistles of St. Paul. Secondly. To the question respecting the place where St. John wrote the epistle, it is still more dif- ficult to give a satisfactory answer. That the epistle is written at the same place as the gospel, is a conjecture of many ancient and modern interpreters, which it is equally difficult to confute and to justify. But, as to the gospel, the oldest tra- dition avers, that it is written in Asia Minor, and, more particularly, at Ephesus ; another less authen- ^^ See the Author's Commentary on the Gospel, Vol. I. p. 130. 26 INTRODUCTIOX. ticated report points out the Isle of Patmos.^^ If the epistle is dedicatory of the gospel, or even its second part, then the place where it was written must be either Ephesiis or Patmos, for it depends on whether we adopt the more ancient or the more mo- dern tradition, which of these places we will assign to it. But, if the epistle is of a later date than the gos- pel, it may have been written in any other place. The decision of this question partly depends on the local situation of the first readers. If it origin- ally and exclusively was directed to the Ephesian congregation, it cannot have been ^'ritten at Ephesus. In this case we would either, with Hug, have to sup- pose that it was written in Patmos, or on a mission- ary journey, or during a visitation in Asia Minor, un- dertaken by the Apostle. There is but little that supports the first conjecture. The sojourn of the Apostle in Patmos is, at least, uncertain. But, even if it ^'s^ere certain, who can prove that the Apostle wrote the epistle while in exile in that island ? It is natural to suppose that some faint allusion to the exile would, in that case, occur in the epistle. But where is there even the slighest hint of it ? Plug, in- deed, making the second epistle of the same date as the first, but, supposing all the three epistles to be written in the same place, infers, from the lack of writing materials indicated in 2 Epist. 12, and 3 Epist. 13, that Patmos is the place where all the three epistles were composed. But, even if in 2 Epist. 12, instead of ovz rßouXrßrjv dice yjioro-j xal ^7 See Author's Commentary, Vol. I. p. 120, sqq. INTRODUCTION. 27 liihavoc, there had been written, ou/C j^^uv^^'/ji/ x. r. /.., and, in 3 Epist. 13, instead of oh %>m bia, (uXavog x.ai zaAd/j^ou, the author had put ov dvvcc/j^ai, could such an inference from such words be justified ? Much more probable it is, if the epistle originally, and exclusively, was destined for Ephesus, that the Apostle wrote it somewhere in Asia Minor, (we shall not attempt to determine where), while on a mission- ary journey, or engaged in an apostolic visitation, (confr. Euseb. Churchh. iii. 23.) However, this too is a mere hj^othesis, for which there is no foundation in the epistle itself. But if we suppose that the epistle is an apostolic circular, destined for St. John's congregation in Asia Minor, (for such congregations seem to be alluded to in the Apocal}^se, chapter ii. and iii.) then Ephesus, the ordinary residence of the Apostle in the latter years of his life, may very probably be the place where the epistle was composed and dispatched. This opinion seems to have prevailed among the ancients, particularly in the Greek church.^^ But even that conjecture, which is least improba- l)le, has no precise historical warrant. And the most general, as well as the most indefinite determination : " that the epistle, like the gospel, seems to be written in Asia Minor," is, since criticism only seeks cer- tainty, the most secure and the least hazardous. "' See the hypographes in Codd. c. f. d. m. in !I\Iattliäi. 28 INTRODUCTION. CHAPTER III. TO WHOM THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN AND WHITHER DIRECTED. In the Latin church, at least since the time of St. Augustine, this epistle frequently bears the super- scription " ad Partliosr Not only in the title to St. Augustin's Treatises on our Epistles is this super- scription to be found, but also in the context of an- other work of St. Augustin.^9 The Spaniard Ida- cius Clarus follows St. Augustin,'*'^ and Griesbach states, that the epistle bears this title in several Latin MSS. The venerable Beda observes : Multi scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, in quibus est S. Atha- nasius, Alex, prassul ecclesiae, primani Joannis epis- tolam, scriptam ad Parthos esse testantur."* ^ It is nowhere more definitely asserted, that St. Athana- sius thus superscribed the epistle. And as for the rest, the Greek church is unacquainted with this su- perscription. There is only one colophon to the second Epistle of St. John in Griesbach's Code 62, which has these words : 'Iwavvj? ß. rr^og Ilag^r/jc, but as the error is manifest, no inference can be drawn from it. If •'^3 Quasst. Evang. II. 39. *'^ In the Treatise " Contra Veriraudum Arianum Diaco- num," if it only is by him. See Cave Hist. Litt. Tom. I. p. 2Ö0. ^^ Prolog-US super VII. epp. canon in Cave Hist. Litt. Tom. I. p. 614. INTRODUCTION. 29 the tradition that St. John did preach the gospel to the Parthians were any thing more than a legend of modern times, and not clearly arisen from the apo- cryphal superscription of our epistle, the latter per- haps ought not unconditionally to be rejected. But since, in the most ancient and authentic tradition of the church, no mention occurs of the Apostle's hav- ing gone on a mission to the Parthians, and St. Je- rome's notice too,^'^ which states that St. John preach- ed in Judea, is without foundation, yet appears to be connected with the tradition of St. John's mission to the Parthians : Since, moreover, the much more ancient tradition of the Apostle Thomas having con- verted the Parthians, uncertain and improbable as even that is,'*^ contradicts this tradition of St. John — and finally since (if we suppose that St. John did convert the Parthians, or taught those who were pre- viously converted by St. Thomas), he probably would not have addressed to them a Greek epistle, but much more probably one in Aramaic,'*'* the conclu- sion must be, that criticism is fully warranted in re- jecting St. Augustin's superscription unconditionally. It is not probable that St. Augustin was the first who *'- Catalog. Script. Cap. IX. ^^ See on this subject, " Thilo Acta Thomae," p. 87, sqq. ^"^ See Joseph, de B. Jud. Proem. Cap. I. and II. Joseph, wrote his History of the Jewish War originally in Aramaic, for the avu ßa^ßx^oi, by which expression he, according to chap. ii. means Jews in Parthia, Babylonia, Arabia, &c. Confr. J. A. Fabric. Bibl. Graeca, L. IV. c. 17, ij 2, and Haverkamp on the above passage. Se also Michaelis, Introd. to the N. T. p. 1228. 30 INTRODUCTIOX. committed this error ; he must have followed the authority of more ancient authors. But it is a vain attempt, as criticism never was St. Augustin's /c/r^^, to extricate this father of the church from his erroi*, by the absence of the words " ad Parthos' in some MSS. in the superscription to his treatises (Possidius proves that the words are genuine,^-^ and his autlumty supersedes that of the said MSS.) ; or by reading in the chief passage (" Qusest. Evang. II. 39"), instead of " ad Parthos" — " ad Pathmios" as Serrarius does ; or still more boldly with Semler,^6 " adpertius," there being no satisfactory ground or warrant for such emen- dations ; although it ever will appear singular that St. Augustin, frequently as he quotes the epistle, in no other place gives this superscription to it — nay, and contrary to expectation, in his treatises no where by a single syllable explains the unusual superscription. The question, what may be the origin of such an en-oneous superscription, is thus answered by Whis- ton ;^7 that the true original superscription of the epistle was rsk Tczc^ivoy; (/. e. according to Whiston *' to the virginly, pure, and uncorrupted congrega- ^•'' Indiculus, 0pp. S. August. Cap. IX. ^^ See liis History of the Christian Doctrine at the begin- ning of Banmgarten's Theological Controversies, Vol. I. p. 7ß> note. In the Prolegg. to the first Epist. of St. John, Semler defends the superscription " ad Parthos," inasmuch as it sup- ports his view, that the epistle was written to converted, or even to unconverted Jews residing beyond the boundaries of the Roman empire. See " ParajoÄr." p. 27. *' Commentary on the Three Catholic Epistles of St. John. Lond. 1710, p. G. INTRODUCTION. 31 tions of Asia Minor,) that next, by an abbreviation, it was converted into -rfog 'rdo^vg' and that thus ul- timately arose the Latin superscription ad Parthos. The improbability of this conjecture is manifest. Hug gives a more satisfactory explanation.^* At the outset, he states, that the second epistle is by the an- cients also called Epistola ad virgiues, rrpog crac'i:^g!/ci»:- and that even Clemens Alexandr. in his Adumbra- tiones, makes use of these expressions : " Secunda Joannis Epistola, qucB ad virgixes scripta est, sini- plicissima est.'^^ Further, that the colophon of the second epistle " Tohg ■ttuo^ovc,'" occurring in some MSS. is manifestly a corruption, probably arising out of the abridged ergo; rra^'^svoug' but that this colophon of the second epistle, in some MSS. appears as a su- perscription ; and finally, that this superscription ap- pearing unsuitable to the second epistle, which was addressed to the sycXsy.rn xjp/«, and less so to the first epistle, it was put as a colophon to that epistle, and that thus arose the Latin superscription ad Parthos. Natural as it is, entirely to approve of this explana- tion, it is equally difficult to reject Wegscheider's more simple conjecture,^^ according to which, the epistle being in an ancient MS. superscribed and subscribed cr^og rov; dtaG-raosa/j^svouc, which in Latin would be " ad sparsos" it is supposed that from thence ad Parthos may easily have drawn its origin. It is to be regretted that Dr. Wegscheider has not *^ Introduction to the New Testament, 2d Vol. p- 22(>, note. *^ Clem. Alex. Opp. ed. Potter. Fragm. p. 1011. ''^ Wegscheider's Introduction to the Gospel of St. John, p. 37. 32 INTRODUCTION. given a more precise account of this MS. We seek it in vain in the collections of various readings made since the time of Wetstein. However, our epistle is very early, for example, by Dionysius Alexandrinus, called s'rriffroXri '/mJ^oXizt!, (which, according to CEcu- menius, is equivalent with syzvx.Xix/j,) and this de- signation is intimately cognate with the above men- tioned superscription, and might easily have occa- sioned its origin, and thus we see little reason to dis- trust Wegscheider's statement.* Hug^' mentions that in a Latin Bible of the eleventh century, in the library of Geneva, there appears before the first Epistle of St. John, the superscription " ad Spartos ;" and as there is no extant or probable Greek foun- dation for this singular superscription, it clearly is more natural to consider it as a corruption of " ad sparsos,'* than as Hug has done, suppose it arose from an inaccurate division of letters, which first pre- * Here the Translator begs leave to observe, that Whiston's conjecture, as improved by Hug, seems the most probable, and completely satisfactory. Wegscheider quotes only one MS. which nobody else has seen, and it seems evident that the words ^^os rovs ^latrTrK^g-xfi'svov?, is a mere gloss, introduced by some re- flecting transcriber, who was staggered by the t^os -rd^Bovs^ which he thought absurd, and thus led to substitute what to him appeared more reasonable. It is extremely probable that this gloss was translated ad Sparsos in a few Latin Bibles, and hence arose the ad Spartos of the Bible of Geneva, which is a mere blunder. — Transl. ^' L. c. Confr. Scholz. Biblisch. Krit. Reise, (Journey for Biblical Criticism,) p. 67, where, moreover, is made an obser- vation which occurs nowhere else ; " that ' ad sparsos^ is to be found in a great number of Latin MSS." INTRODUCTION. 38 sented t^o s-rrd^^ov;, and next, a correction liaving been attempted, c^os c-rdp^oug. And thus the Geneva MS. would give a considerable support to Wegschei- der's conjecture. But whatever may be the origin of St. Augustin's Latin superscription,^^ gQ much is certain, that the epistle cannot have been written to Parthian Christians. Even the ingenious manner in which Grotius defends and decorates this opinion, does not render it the least more probable. Grotius is of opinion,^^ " that the epistle is written to trans-Euphratic converted Jews, who were Parthian subjects, and forwarded to them by Ephesian merchants. But that the cautious Apostle, foreseeing that such a correspondence of Ephesian Christians with an hostile country, if dis- covered, would be hurtful to Christians in the Roman empire in general, omitted the usual beginning and conclusion." But is there any good reason to sup- pose, that the police regulations against Christians in the Roman empire were so much after a modern fashion as Grotius has made them to be ? In the times of persecution, the Roman police, no doubt, was abundantly cruel against Christians, but, that they searched for prohibited correspondence with travelling Christians is no where mentioned. The absence of an epistolar form, too, would have been a ^^ Lately Dr. Paulus has, Avith no great probability, conjec- tured, that it may have arisen from a misunderstanding of a supposed superscription " ad Pantas.'''' See Heidelberger Jahr- bücher, November 1824, p. 1071. ^^ In the " Annotatt. Prolegom." I> 34 INTRODUCTION. very insufficient precaution against such a searching police. As before is observed, if addressed to Par- thian converted Jews, the epistle would originally have been written in Aramaic ; and St. John would, some where in the epistle, have alluded to the Jewish origin of his readers. Now, even Grotius does not deny that the epistle is originally written in Greek ; and it is manifest that its entire didactic and pole- mical manner, presupposes converted heathens. Inasmuch as the Latin superscription, " To the Parthians," by no means can be defended, but the epistle itself furnishes no definite account respecting the locality, or the religious and moral character of its first readers, — it is natural, that inquisitive rambl- ing conjecture has fixed, now upon this now upon another congregation, or circles of congregations, to which it was supposed that the epistle had been ad- dressed. Thus Benson, for example, thinks it was written to Christians of Galilee, before the destruc- tion of Jerusalem ; but Lightfoot supposes that, be- ing of the same date as the second and third, (as he finds that Caius of the last, must be the Corinthian Caius, 1 Cor. i. 14), it is addressed to the congrega- tion of Corinth. It is not worth while to confute the Bensonian conjecture ; in a similar manner, some one might suppose that the second epistle, being perhaps of the same date as the first, was addressed to the chosen, — and, as it were , the gentlemen s congregation of Jerusalem, — a conjecture which scarcely will meet with any man's approbatio n . But Lightfoot's opinion may be considered as unfounded, as long as it re- mains undemonstrated, nay, indemonstrable, that INTRODUCTION. 35 St. John ever was placed in such relations to the Corinthian congregation as our epistle presupposes ; and that, in the apostolic age, there existed only one Caius, and no more, confr. Acts xx. 4, 19, 29. The most advisable course is, to abandon all such conjectures, and far-fetched locahties, and be satisfi- ed with what the epistle generally indicates respect- ing the character of its original readers. And that is very nearly the following : From the cautions against idols v. 21, against the abuse of the Christian liberty, of vofj^og iii. 3 ; against the Doketic denial of the adp^ of Christ, iv. 2, 3,^4 as also from the absence of references, or rather the unfrequent and only allusive references to the Old Testament; the inference is warranted, that the ^^ The Jews, indeed, were not unacquainted with Doketism ; and it is possible that Jewish Theosophs did first apply it to Christianity. But the Doketic view of the unreal* manifes- tations of what is divine in the world, is essentially of an anti- Jewish origin, and must, in its progress, ever have become more so. Except in Palestine and in Egypt, it is much more natural to derive Doketism among the Christians from the heathen theosophy. * The Translator apprehends, that here the expression unreal is ambi- guous, and perhaps misleading. For what were the Doketists in reali- ty ? From the imperfect, and no doubt somewhat oblique view of their system which the Fathers have presented to us, what inference must we make as to their essential tenets ? Why, nothing more nor lets than this, that they were Neoplatonic Idealists, i. c. Anti-materialists. That they were ultras of that school— that they denied the esscntialiti/, scarcely the reality, of matter in every instance; and if they did admit, as is probable, relative degrees, (higher and lower,) of reality, it would only have been consistent in their system to disavow more effectually and strongly ma- teriality, in that which was divine and absolute ; \{ every hody was a mere appearance, the body of Christ was still more so according to their view. The Translator agrees with the Author in considering this system as exo- tic in Palestine.— T/'fl^i*;. 36 INTRODUCTION. epistle was addressed to congregations of converted heathens, who needed to be warned against those heresies into which converted heathens were apt to fall. Now, as these congregations, (which the whole tone of the epistle, and certain passages expressly shew,) revered the Apostle as their apostolic teacher, admonisher, and friend ; but such relations, accord- ing to the authentic history of St. John, only existed in and about Ephesus, and in general among the congregations in the southern part of Asia Minor, we will be farthest from error by supposing, that the epistle is addressed to one or more of these congre- gations of Asia Minor. The opinion, that the epistle was exclusively in- tended for the Ephesian congregation, some, (and Hug is one of these,) attempt to render probable, by saying, that the didactic, the admonishing and warn- ing subject of the Apocalyptical Epistle to the Ephe- sians, Apocal. ii. 1, seqq., completely agrees with the subject of our epistle, and particularly, that the re- peated exhortation to love in the latter, well agrees with the most important reproach of the Apocalyptic epistle, " that the congregation had forsaken its first love," Apocal. ii. 4. This argument might deserve attention, were it established, that our epistle were of the same date as the Epistle to the Ephesians, of the Apocalypse — if the genuineness of the Apo- calypse, as a work of St. John, were certain — and the characters given to the different congregations in the Apocalyptical letters in every particular, histori- cally accurate and certain. But as this is by no means the case, and as to the character given to the INTRODUCTION. 37 congregations, it being granted, that it partly, and even in general, may have an historical basis, much in it, undoubtedly, must be ascribed to the peculiar comi^osition of the Apocalypse — nay, since the mean- ing of that reproach, which is said best to agree with our epistle, is apparently doubtful ;^^ it seems most advisable to abandon the argument drawn from it, and also the opinion founded on that argument. Had the epistle been addressed only to one congre- gation, it unquestionably would be much more indi- vidual than it is. Not being epistolar in its form, it is much more probable that it was an apostolic circu- lar, addressed to several congregations, which, in ethnographical and geographical respects, were con- tiguous — all in common stood in the same relation to the Apostle — generally had attained the same degree in Christian culture, were, with regard to their Chris- tian life, subject to the same failings, and threatened and assailed by the same pagan heresies. If the Catholic epistles received this appellation, from having a more universal destination than the Pauline epistles, or from their being circular let- ters ; the ancient church, in classing this along with the Catholic letters, must have considered it as not destined for one, but for several congregations. These congregations, as we said before, are to be sought in Asia Minor. Now, since the number of St. John's Apoealj^ptic congregations, even though the number itself belongs to the poetic form of the work, seems to be historically true — since, likewise, ^^ See the Interpreters of the Apocalypse on Apoc. ii. 4. 38 INTRODUCTION. the religious and moral state of the congregations, as pourtrayed in the Apocalypse, upon the whole may be correctly represented, and since it also very well coincides with our epistle, it appears so much the less hazardous to assume that these congregations of Asia Minor, Apocal. ii. 3, were the original readers of our epistle. CHAPTER IV. OF THE epistle's EXTERNAL FORM, SPECIALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. The ancient church unanimously considered the work before us as an epistle. The Protestant church of fonner times was the more readily satisfied with this view, because the absence of an external episto- lar form seemed sufficiently compensated by an in- ternal. The supposition of certain readers and their circumstances — the genuine epistolar address, which is not unfrequent — and the prevailing use of the 2d pers. plur. (confr. ii. 1, 7, 13, 14, 18, 28 ; iii. 18, 21 ; iv. 1, 7, 11, &c.) — finally, the somewhat lax conca- tenation of ideas, along with that which is allusive and iterative in the style — all this seemed abundantly to justify the judgment and the tradition of the ancient church. But since J. D. Michaelis,^^ (who, as far as I know, is the first that took this view,) on account of the ^^ In his Introduction to the N. T. Vol. 1 1, p. 1230. INTRODUCTION. 39 absence of an external epistolar form, called this work a treatise, and would tolerate the appellation of epistle only in as far as " Wolf's Elements of Mathe- matics" also might, (on account of a direct address to the readers frequently occurring in that book,) be called a letter to the Germans — several other authors have declared the epistle to be a treatise, and even the second part of the gospel. Michaelis is easily confuted. He measures the Catholic epistles by a Pauline standard ; does not at- tend to the peculiar manner of St. John ; and judges of the form of the apostolic literature according to the form of the modern. The views of Storr and Berger are more deserving of attention. The lat- ter^7 considers the epistle as the practical part of the gospel ; the former,^'* as properly speaking, its po- lemical part, in which the application of the histori- cal materials of the gospel, for the purpose of demo- lishing heresies, is more precisely indicated.^ ^ It is undeniable, or, at all events, highly probable. ^^ Berger's Versuch einer Moralischen Einleitung ins N. T. (Essay towards an Ethical Introduction to the N. T.) Vol. II. p. 118. ^8 Storr über den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte und Briefe Johannis. (On the Object of the EvangeUcal History and Epistles of St. John,) p. 383, sqq. ^^ Against this view see Ziegler's Tract entitled, " Der Erste Brief des Johannis ein Sendschreiben an eine bestimmte Gemeinde und Keine Allgemeine Abhandlung oder Buch." (The First Epistle of St. John, a Missive Letter to a certain Congregation, and no general Treatise or Book,) in Henke's Magazine, Vol. VI. Part 2d. 40 INTRODUCTION. that the epistle bears a certain internal relation to the gospel, and presupposes the latter as known to the readers. But from that does not follow that both works were originally connected even in external respects. Certainly, the epistle contains propositions which may be considered as practical consequences and ap- plications of the doctrine of Jesus in the gospel. But this does not make the epistle the second and practical part of the gospel. Thus every epistle of St. Paul's might be considered as a second and prac- tical part of some gospel or other. It is true the epistle discovers its polemical ten- dency more distinctly than the gospel ; the polemic of the latter is more clearly brought out when com- pared with that of the former ; and, moreover, in the beginning the epistle manifestly refers to the gospel. But to make it a subsequent part or appendix to the gospel, it would need to be dressed in such a form, and to indicate more distinctly an external connec- tion with the gospel. But if it were the second, the more definitively polemical part of the gospel, its polemical form must needs appear, even externally, and, indeed, in the very beginning : the polemical ap- jDlications of the historical materials in the gospel must be frequent and much more distinct. The identity of date of both works would also have to be demonstrated. The gospel would not be complete in itself, which, however, it is ; nor could it have its object within itself, which yet it has, and which it ex- pressly declares, xx. 30, 31. Its defectiveness and its mutual inseparability from the gospel, would, of INTRODUCTION. 41 itself, be manifest. But, so far is this from being the case, that the epistle, as well as the gospel, has its own object within itself, and is, like it, an indepen- dent whole. To the question, why this work has the internal form of an epistle, if it originally was a treatise, or even the second part of the gospel ? those who hold the former opinion without the latter, answer, that the epistle was destined for a more limited circle of readers than the gospel, perhaps merely for the Apostle's own disciples, but the gospel for a larger and less definite circle,^^ but that the absence of the form and arrangement of a treatise is to be ascribed to the author's senile decay. But, it is self-evident that this explanation and apology is extremely unsa- tisfactory. Equally unsatisfactory is the answer given by Storr, and by those who hold the epistle to be the second part of the gospel. For, what Storr says: " that the internal epistolar form is to be explained from the different plan and different object of the historical gospel, from that of the purely didactic and applicative epistle, is a circle in demonstration. For, even on account of the absence of the epistolar form, it is pretended that the epistle is a treatise belonging to the gospel as its second part ; and, immediately after, the existing vestiges of the epistolar form, and the internal indications of it, are ascribed to the dif- ferent plans and objects of these two works. Storr has been still less successful in removing another dif- ficulty in which his opinion is involved. If the epistle *^ Eichhorn in his Introduction to the N. T. Vol. II. p. 307. 42 INTRODUCTION. originally was a second part of the gospel, whence arose in the canon the early and the universal sepa- ration of a connected work ; and how did it happen that the ancients unanimously called this second part of the gospel an epistle? To this Storr^i replies, in the following manner : he ßrst points out a similar phenomenon in the work of St. Luke, which, being in two originally connected parts, still was early sepa- rated in the canon : in the next place, he says, that the first part of St. John's polemical work was joined to the gospels on account of its biographical subject and secondary object, and also because there, for the same reasons, early existed separate copies of the gospel: the second part, he saj^s, was embodied in the collection of Catholic epistles, partly from fear that it might be lost in separate copies, and partly because it was not like a gospel in its form. But who should not discover that the comparison with the Acts is rather unfavourable to Storr's view than otherwise ? The separation in the canon of St. Luke's apostolic history from his gospel, is clearly founded on this, that the latter was earlier written than the former, and that these two works existed as separate works from the very beginning ; and, by this cir- cumstance, it is to be explained, as the gospel, from the very beginning, had a more universal object, and possessed a more universal interest, or very soon ac- quired it, that the Acts were not equally early used, or mentioned in the church. If the gospel and epistle of St. John had originally been one work in two parts, ^' In the work above mentioned, p. 401 — 405. INTRODUCTION. 43 and if both had been written and published in an es- sentially identical form, and at the same date, some vestiges of this would somehow or other be dis- covered in the most ancient MSS. and the earliest Fathers who, naming its title, have mentioned the epistle, would have communicated some notice re- specting it. By adhering to Storr's view, it is, and remains inexplicable, that the epistle, from a very early period, through the whole of antiquity, was con- sidered an epistle, and classed along with the collec- tion of Catholic epistles. Cognate to that of Storr is the opinion that the epistle is indeed an epistle, but, according to Dr. Augusti, ^2 a kind of prolegomenon or anakephalaio- sis of the gospel ; according to Mich. Lilienthal, ^^ even a dedication to all the four gospels ; but, ac- cording to Hug,^'* an accompanying or commenda- tory epistle to St. John's gospel. Augusti's and Hug's opinion only can here be taken into consideration. If the references of the epistle to the gospel were more frequent and distinct ; if what there is of such references could not other- wise be satisfactorily explained; if the identity of date of the two works, instead of remaining proble- matic, were established, one would not withhold assent to this opinion, unsupported as it is by ecclesiastical tradition. But since the epistle has not the proper form of an accompanying letter or epistle dedicatory — since even in the beginning an external reference 62 Kathol. Briefe (Catholic Epistles,) 2d Vol. p. 182, sqq. 65 Select. Hist, et Litt. cont. Obs. IV. ^ Introduction to the N. T., Vol. 2d., § 62, sqq. 44 INTRODUCTION. to the gospel is far from being definitely expressed — since the references to the gospel, which undoubted- ly is written before the epistle, may satisfactorily be explained by the identity of author and readers — since too, the epistle has its own aim and object within itself, and, of consequence, probably also its peculiar motive — the hypothesis proposed by Au- gusti and Hug remains without any cogent ground. There is not a single passage in the whole epistle, for the interpretation of which this hypothesis would be necessary. I should not wish to oppose to this opinion, Berthold's objection : " That if the epistle originally was an accompanying letter or ad- ditional inclosure sent along with the gospel, it would have found its place immediately after the gospel, and not among the epistles." The division and the arrangement of the books of the New Testament, was in different ages different, and it is well known that the present arrangement of the canonical books is not the most ancient. The phenomenon in the Cambridge MS., noticed by Hug.^^ proves that in ancient times there also existed MSS. in which the works of St. John, the gospel and the epistles, were placed to- gether before the Acts. But from that does not follow that the ancient authorities considered the gospel and epistle of St. John as connected, as Hug and some others have done. fi^ In the vol. quoted above, p. 221. INTRODUCTION. 45 CHAPTER V. THE SUBJECT OF THE EPISTLE AND ITS INTERNAL FORM. The aphoristic style of the epistle renders it very difficult to characterize and arrange its subject. Nay, the great apparent disorder of ideas, seems to render every arrangement impossible. However, the greater care we bestow upon the interpretation of the epistle, the more this disorder will vanish, and an internal vital connection and progress of ideas be- comes apparent. But still, how difficult is it to con- strue rightly the subject and the concatenation of the epistle. This epistle speaks the language of feeling ; although, taken as a whole, it is clear, simple and arranged, in particulars it does not unfrequently de- spise strict precision and unequivocal connection of thoughts. But a good arrangement ought to exhibit a faithful and distinct image of the work. For this end it must smoothe saltuses in the concatenation of thoughts, complete what is defective, strip what is figurative, abridge what is explicit, and express what is faintly indicated more distinctly and more pre- cisely. But all this is, even in St John's epistle, so apt to lead into mistakes — there is so much risk of doing either too little or too much — that there is no epistle in the New Testament, whose arrangement it is more difficult to exhibit. Arrangements which, deceived by the seeming disorder of the epistle, ar- bitrarily draw out here this thing and there another, 4lß INTRODUCTION. joining these together without any connection, destroy the beautiful image of the epistle as a whole. On the other hand, more accurate constructions easily err in this, that they exhibit in the arrangement, or- der, precision, and completeness, where these are not to be found in the epistle. In this way an incon- gruous unhistorical image is created, and the arrange- ment makes a false impression. The more difficult it is here to steer the true middle course ; the more the indulgence of the readers is claimed for the following attempt : in which Knapp's disposition shall be our basis.^^ St. John i. 1 — 4, having given an assurance, that what he (or the Apostles generally) had declared respecting the essence and the life of the divine Logos, is founded on an unnerring evidence of sight and hearing, and that this declaration has no other object than to promote the communion of Christians with the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ, and by means of it their beatitude, in i. 5, sqq. he proceeds, more properly, to exhort and teach his readers. In the first place, he teaches that God is light (pure and holy), and that he excludes from his presence every darkness of sin and error, so that, accordingly, whoever wishes to have communion with God, must walk in the light of godly life. That, to have com- munion with God and yet walk in darkness, is a contradiction in terms and a lie. That only on con- dition of sanctification and purity the Christian com- munion with God can subsist, and the Redeemer's ^^ Script. V. arg. p. 177; sqq. INTRODUCTION. 47 powel' be effectual, i. 5 — 7. But that the redemption by Christ, and its efficience, depends on man's need of redemption — on the consciousness and sincere con- fession of sin. Accordingly, that he who denies the consciousness of sin in himself, abolishes the scheme of salvation by Christ, and renders it useless for his own person. But when received into the Redeemer's communion, every one must think of a continu- ally progressive sanctification and abstain from sin. That only on this condition, the Christian (as long as he walks in the flesh subject to sin) can be sure of forgiveness for his sins of frailitj^, since the world- redeeming power of Christ, as intercessor with God, is continual, i. 8. — ii. 2. But that the communion with God is productive of a true knowledge and love of God, and that its highest perfection consists in keeping God's commandments, and walking as Christ walked, in the light, confr. i. 7. That this com- mandment to walk as Christ, and to keep his com- mandments, is the old commandment, the sum of the whole Christian life, with which the announcement of the gospel to the readers also did commence ; but that albeit it is the old and primitive, it still is, with reference to human fraility and imperfection, ever a new commandment, whose truth and correct- ness not only has its ground in Him, i. e. in Christ ; but also is more and more established in the readers, in as far as the darkness of sin and error vanishes also in them, and makes room for the true light. Now, as the principal of Christ's commandments is that of brotherly love, and as it again is the tec* Christ's discipleship, that in this respect toe 48 INTRODUCTION. tinned what just now has been said. For, what a contradiction in terms to pretend to be a Christian and to hate one's brother ! Only he who loves his brother lives in the light ; hatred to one's brother is a work of darkness, ii. 2 — 11. Chapter ii. 12, — sqq. St John, as it seems, wished to impress on the minds of his readers, that what he had hitherto vTitten to them, and still was writing, did take place, and would be effected, only under the presupposition that they, young and old, bore within them a lively conscious- ness of their redemption, and of the atonement by Christ accomplished for them, v. 12 — that they had recognised the Son of God, and overcome the Evil one (the Prince of this world) ; but, above all, that they had gained a true knowledge of the Father of Jesus Christ, and that they firmly retained that knowledge of the truth, and that dominion over the world, which they ah'eady had acquired. Even under this presupposition, and with particular reference to the rising generation of Christians in the congrega- tions, he now exhorts them to renounce the world, (which already is conquered by them,) and worldly life, inasmuch as love of the world is incompatible with love to the Father — that the former is perishable, and brings perdition on those who devote themselves to it ; but that the latter promises eternal life, ii. 13—17. That thus to renounce the world, and to walk in God's light, is now so much the more necessary, since the last hour with its judgment is already ap- proaching. That the indication of this approach is the appearance of anti-Christian heresies, and the INTRODUCTION. 49 separation of anti-Christs from the Christian com- munion. That he fears not indeed that his readers in this respect are accessible to seduction, because he supposes that thej', as Christians, had gained knowledge of the truth, and firmly retained it. But that, even because he has confidence in them, he makes known to them the essence of anti-Christianitj', which consists in denying that Jesus is Christ. That in calling their attention to this, that whoever denies the Son also must deny the Father, he only in ge- neral wishes to exhort them to perseverance in faith, Mhich establishes the communion with the Father and the Son, and has the promise of eternal life. That, faithfully preserving the unction of the Holy Ghost, they needed no further teaching ; but that they would understand to reject the false doctrine, and in every case to distinguish truth from falsehood. Thus they might remain firm in the communion with the Redeemer, in order to be enabled, on his ap- pearance, to stand joyfully before his judgment, ii. 18—28. That whosoever knows that He (God) is righteous, he must also, in devoting himself to righteousness, be assured that he is the child of God. Now, St. John, as in a parenthesis, having shewn how the ca- pability of Christians of being God's children is a great proof of God's fatherly love, but that the essential qualities of God's children are unknown to the world, which is estranged from God ; nay, that the full glory of the former, as consisting in the contempla- tion of, and resemblance to God, cannot now be known, but first in the life hereafter, (iii. 1 — 2), from E 50 IXTRODÜCTIOX. this hope of the children of God, of a future glory- he draws a new motive for progressive purification and sanctification of the Christian life. He says, that every sin (error) must be avoided, it being con- trary to the divine order and law. And since Christ himself has appeared free from sin, in order to anni- hilate sin, that every one who wishes to remain in communion with him, nmst separate sin from himself. That here is no middle measure or instalment, but either complete purity and righteousness, according to the prototype given by the Lord, or sinning ac- cording to the devil's manner and instigation. But since the Son of God has appeared in order to de- stroy the devil's dominion on earth, that no man who, by Clirist, is born of God, and has received the seed of Divine life can sin at all, (confr. i. 6.) That this is the difference between being God's and the devil's child : That the children of God do what is right before God, and specially love the brethren according to the primitive commandment of the gospel, en- joining to love the brethren. Quite the contrary the devil's children : That as Cain, instigated by a de- vilish mind, by envy and hatred, slew his more pious brother, (after a manner similar to the present fate of the Christians in the world, v. 13,) thus also every one who is of the devil hates his brother, and is thus far a murderer. But that every murderer deserves death and has forfeited eternal life. And, on the contrary, that whoever loves his brother, has thereby already passed over from death to life, and is in possession of life eternal, iii. 3 — 15. St. John having shortly described the nature of INTRODUCTION. 51 Christian brotherly love — that it is like to Christ's love, who sacrificed his own life, and that it must consist not in words but in deed and in truth, iii. 16 — 18, he concludes this part of the epistle with the consol- ing and encouraging observation, that whoever is conscious of steadfastness in faith, and in the true brotherly love, and in this respect is not condemned by his own conscience, has nothing to fear before the judgment of an omniscient God, but may rely upon God's mercy, and that his prayer will be heard. That, accordingly, every thing depends upon remain- ing in communion with Christ and keeping his com- mandments ; but that the Avarrant for the conscious- ness of communion Avith the Redeemer, is contained in the possession of the Divine Spirit Avhich he im- parts to us, iii. 19 — 24. Out of this, the latter point, arises a ncAv exhorta- tion, by no means to believe every spirit ; but con- sidering the false phrophesies in the world, to try the spirits Avhether they be of God (confr. ii. 18 — 27.) That this is the sure test of the divine and the anti- christian spirit, that the former does acknoAA'ledge the humanity, the true manifestation of the Messiah in Christ, the latter doth deny it. That as God and the Avorld are opposed to each other, and mutually exclude each other, the spirit of truth from God, and the spirit of error, AA^iich is of the Avorld, do the same. That they, the readers, are of God, and have through him overcome the world : and accordingly that It is so much the more necessary, and so much the more easy to guard against the spirit of error, and remain faithful to the spirit of truth, iv. 1 — 6 52 INTRODUCTION. Now, as the spirit of truth which is born of God, specially exhibits itself in Christian brotherly love, (confr. Gosp. St. John xiii. 35.) St John again passes over to exhort his disciples to this love, and forcibly to impress on their minds its necessity, its importance, and its nature. He says that love is of God, nay, that God is love itself, and that love accordingly is an essential test of our possessing the true knowledge of God and being his children. That the love of God to us consists in this, that he sent his only be- gotten Son into the world, in order that we, who had not loved him before, might through the Son have eternal life. That such love demands love in return^ and a firm faith and confession, that Jesus is the Son of God. But that the true love of God, in which the communion with God consists, must necessarily de- monstrate itself, and fully manifest itself in the Chris- tian brotherly love. That thus the Holy Spirit of God, being love itself, shews itself forth in Christians. But that where the true love of God and communion with him prevails, there the terror for God and his judgment vanishes. That perfect love di'ives terror away ; that tormenting fear and blissful love ai'e in- compatible. That Christian brotherly love also ne- cessarily arises out of the faith in Jesus Christ. For that, since the faithful is born of God, every one of such an origin must, just as the child loves its father and brothers, love his heavenly father, and his bre- thren at the same time. That genuine brotherly love is founded on a genuine love of God, but that the latter shews itself in the observance of the divine com- mandments, which are to those who, through faith in INTRODUCTION. 53 Jesus the Christ, have overcome the world, not grievous, iv. 7 — v. 5. But that this faith is not a faith destitute of foun- dation ; for what the Messiah was to do, that he had done ; and as he was to appear, so he did appear. That he did come with the water (baptism,) and the blood (the atonement). That the Holy Spirit of God gives the power and the stamp of truth to these two factical testimonies. That thus there are three bear- ing witness, and that these three testify the same thing. And that this triple testimony for the Son is the testimony of God himself. That, accordingly, whosoever does not believe the Son, does not either believe God, and makes him a liar. Now, the con- tents of the above mentioned testimony being, that God has given us eternal life in Christ, every one who has the Son can obtain his portion of everlasting life, V. 6—12. Then St. John passes over to the conclusion of the epistle, V. 13 — 21. He says, that the object of the epistle is forcibly to impress on the mind of the rea- ders, that only he who sincerely believes in Jesus Christ, (and in this faith purifies and sanctifies him- self, and consequently loves the brethren,) has ever- lasting life, and can be sure of his prayer being heard. That, with regard to the common prayer of Chris- tians, specially intercessional prayer, this is to be observed in praying for sinning brethren to God, that although every unrighteousness and sin is against God's commandment and law, a distinction is to be made betwixt the sin unto death, and the sin not un- to death. That the Christian shall pray to God on- 54 INTRODUCTION. ly for those who have committed no mortal sin, but (tliat divine holiness and justice allows,) not, praying for those who have sinned unto death. St. John once more having exhibited the contrast betwixt the sinful world which is under the devil's dominion, and the children of God, the faithful, who possess the knowledge of the true God, who being in communion with the Father and the Son, keep themselves pure from sin and the world, and thus are sure of everlast- ing life : he concludes the epistle with the short ex- hortation : " Children, keep yourselves from idols." Thus the total impression is not that of a senile incoherent writing, although it has been so consider- ed by many.ö7 The epistle is equally far from mak- ing the impression of a polemical writing. It is al- together without any polemical form, quite in the tone of a calm but forcible admonition and exhorta- ^' Even. Joach. Oporinus, in his Commentary : " Prima Joannis Epistola nodis liberata," Goetting. 1744, 4to. confutes the erroneous notion of incoherency in the First Epistle. He is fully supported by Heumann in the Hebdomas Joannea h. e. Explicatio septem locorum primae Joann. Epistolae, p. 2. (Nova Sylloge, P. II.) The latter has this additional obser- vation on the interpretation of the epistle : admixtum autem esse summse hujus epistolae dulcedini non nihil amari, negari non potest. Ea dico loca, quorum sensum non statim capimus, et quae etiam saepius relecta nostram fugere videntur intelli- geutiam. Hinc tantae interpretum discordiae. Nos autem clavem hanc harum obscuritatum esse putamus, ut observetur, realem magis quam verbalem esse Joannis eloquentiam. Quare, earn qui legit, non tam ad ipsa verba, quam ad scopum ejus, ad antecedentia et consequentia, ad rem ipsam, quae tractatur, intentissimam tenere debet mentis suae aciem. INTRODUCTION. 55 tion, more allusive than explicit, rather calling to re- uiembrance and presupposing, than teaching or ex- plaining any thing new, and, to make use of a modern expression, it is, proper!}^ speaking, a cordial letter of the apostolic paraclesis. Its grace and cordiality, its depth and simplicity ; in spite of this simplicity, so much freshness ; in spite of obscurity in particu- lars, so great perspicuity in the whole ; in spite of apparent disorder and abruptness, so much of inter- nal order and connection ; in spite of explicitness in the prevailing ideas, so much of slight allusions and touches on truths that have been expressed ; and then, above all, this elevated and pure light and love- image of Christianity. All this has, from the earliest ages, had such an enchanting effect on all nobler minds,''^ and made this epistle a favourite book, es- pecially of those who more particularly take up Christianity as a religion of love, a religion of the heart; and who, however much rejoicing in the light and in the knowledge of that which can be known, however zealous for science and intelligible notionsy still rather receive the gospel by means of the imme- diate feeling,^ who seek no light without warmth ; ^''' See the Eiieliomium on the yXv^vTrs;, the Suavitas of the epistle ill Carpzov. Epp. Catholic. Septenarius, in the Preface. • Immediate feeling, a technical term of German psychology, in whicli three principal or fundamental faculties are establish- ed, and, since the time of Kant, ever have been admitted ; these are, the cognitive faculty, the feeling, and the will. They are often relatively characterized by opposites, as, for example, the cogn. fac is, along with the will, universal ; the feeling indivi- dual. The cogn. fac. and the will are objective, the feeling sub- .56 INTRODUCTION. no faith and no knowledge without love and deed, and who endeavour to render the communion with the Redeemer effective in the love to the brethren. If such Christians are to be called Mystics, let them be so called. The pure and simple Mystique* is as essential and legitimate form of Christianity as the Christian intellectuality and Christian science ; and should be carefully distinguished from that impure spirit of mj^sticism of ancient and modern times, which perverts faith into superstition, the chaste word and expression of divine things into phantastical toy, and the light and life of the intellectual gospel into absurdity, stupidity, and darkness ; and which is no less repugnant to true Christianity than every other confusion of what is divine and human. The elevat- ed Christian Mystique this epistle may represent. But it should be observed, that it does this no more than every one of St. Paul's epistles, and that it con- tains more than will satisfy or soothe the mere Mystic. But this epistle contradicts on every page the impure anti-christian Mysticism, be it gnostical or ascetical, and it calls the same falsehood and darkness. jective. The cogn. fac. and the feeling are receptive, the will spontaneous. The cogn. fac. is partly mediate, (indirect,) and so is the will ; the feeling is altogether immediate. * Liicke establishes mystique in a good sense, and distin- guishes it from mysticism, which always is taken in a bad sense. The Transl. has, for the abstract noun, adopted the French termination in que, as it is still retained in a few Eng- lish words, and thus also a distinction from the epithet mystic is obtained. INTRODUCTION. 37 CHAPTER VI. THE epistle's MOTIVE x\ND OBJECT. If the epistle, as some suppose, were the accom- panying or dedicatory epistle, or, as some other« maintain, even the second illustrative or practical part of the gospel, there could be no doubt as to its most immediate motive, or its object. But, since the one supposition as well as the other, is extremely im- probable, the inquir}^ into this particular is rendered so much the more difficult, by the epistle's silence re- specting it, conformable as that silence is to its whole manner. When we consider its encyclical form, the uni- versal character of its exhortations, as also the ab- sence of more precise personal or local relations, we might be led to believe, that the epistle neither had a particular external motive, nor any specific object whatever. But quite a contrary view has become prevalent in modern times. The epistle, it is main- tained, at all events, had a particular external motive, and a corresponding specific object, viz. that of con- futing and subduing certain heretics or heresies in St. John's congregations. But the opinions are very much divided as to what kind of heretics the epistle is particularly directed against.^^ Some say that it ''^ Car. Chr. Flatt. Diss, qua variae de Anti Pseudo-prophetis in prima Joannis Epistola notati^ modesto examini subjiciuntur. Tub. 1809, 4to. I ÖS INTRODUCTION. is opposed to Jews and Jewish teachers J ° Others make the epistle opposed to Judaizing Christians, to Ebionites, or even to converted Jews, who had be- come apostates again.^i Others again maintain, that St. John is combating the Gnostics.72 Others speak more precisely, and say that he here writes against the Doketists of his time.^^ Some say that Cerinthus and his sectj^-* and some, that the disciples of St. John the Baptist occasioned this polemical epistle, and vrere its object.^^ And, finally, many are of '" Loeffler Dissert. Joan. Epist. I. Gnosticos imprimis im- pugnari lieg, (in Comm. Theol. Vol. I.) Against this, Wun- der Diss. Utrum I. Joan. Ep. coetui e Judseis et Judaeo-chris- tianis mixto Scripta sit. Witt. 1799. "1 Semler Paraphr. Ep. Joan. p. 28, and on II. 22. Titt- mann de Vestig. Gnostic, p. 179. Schroeckh Churchh. Vol. II. p. 320. Knapp. Script, v. Argum. p. 157, sqq. confr. Tertull. de Prsescript. hser. cap. 33. Lange declares in favour of con- verted Jews having become apostates, in his Schriften d. Joh. Vol. III. p. 19, sqq., and so does Eichhorn in the Introd. Vol. II. p. 291, sqq. '-' Michaelis Introd. to the N. T. Vol. II. § 222. Kleuker Joh. Petr. und Paul, als Christologen, p. 63, sqq. and on the Origin and Object of the Apostohc Epistles, p. 519, sq. 72 Schol. Matthäi (Epp. Cathol.) on IV. 3, p. 130, and on IV. 2, p. 224. cfr. Tertull. de carne Chr. 24. Vitringa, Observatt. Sacraä lib. V. cap. 20. Oporinus Dissert. Joan. Faraenesis ad primos Chr. nodis liberata, &c. 1741. J. G. AValch I\Iisc. Sacr. p. 853, sqq. Schmidt's Bibl. fur Kr. und Ex. Vol. I. p. 69, sqq. and Bertholdt and others. "^ Particularly Vitringa, 1. c. Oporinus. Storr Ueber d. Zweck der ev. Gesch. &c. p. 43 and 180, sqq. "5 Nie. Barkey Bibl. llagana Class. 3, Fasc. 3, Class. 4, Faso. 2. Storr, Keil and others. INTRODUCTION. 59 opinion that the epistle is directed against several classes of heretics at once.''^ Now, if the question is put universally : whether the polemic against such heretics was the most imme- diate motive and principal object of the epistle : care- fully, and without prejudice, considering the whole manner and form of this missive letter, we must al- together answer that question, so put, in the nega- tive. In the contrary case, St. John would not only ha\e commenced with the polemic against the here- tics, but also continued it in such a manner, that on account of the precise description and confutation of heresies, which, in this case, would have been indis- pensable, the didactic par^nesis would completely have receded into the background. But we find exactly the contrary, unless we are determined, as some have done, to force a polemical colouring and tendency upon the most indifferent expressions and sentences. First, after having spoken of many other subjects — of the certainty of the apostolical testimonies con- cerning Christ, the Logos of life — of the uncondi- tional and undivided communion of Christians with the pure divine light — and, first, after having ex- horted to progressive sanctifi cation, genuine brother- ly love, and renouncing the world, the Apostle, ii. 18, sqq., mentions the antichristian heresies of the age, and this, indeed, in such a context, as to make it ap- parent that he only occasionally, and in passing, "'' Tertull. de Praescr. 33. Vitringa, Oporinus, iMichaelis, StoiTj Flatt and others. 60 INTRODUCTION. takes notice of these. But, in ii. 21, he expHcitly assures his readers, that he has not spoken of the antichristian heresies, because he already considered them as a prey to the seducers, but only in order to exhort them to keep firmly the acknowledged truth of the gospel. Nay more, having shortly stated the principal error of the heretics, with its necessary con- sequences, he cuts short the discussion on that sub- ject, with the declaration that, in this respect, he con- fidently leaves them to the protecting Spirit of God, wherewith they are anointed, which will lead them in- to all truth, and that, entertaining this confidence, he needs not to instruct them more at length respecting that matter, ii. 26, 27. It is true that St. John re- turns to the heretics again, iv. 1, sqq., but, at the same time, not for the purpose of confuting them, but rather in order to warn his readers against them, and to exhort them anew to watchfulness in the danger ; to try the spirits, and to preserve that filial relation to God which already is acquired ; and, in iv. 7, he passes over to a quite different subject. In V. 6, sqq. too, the polemical tendency against anti- christianism is so slight that it scarcely is observable. Only, in order to shew that the faith in Jesus the Christ which overcomes the world, is not at all without foundation, he draws the attention to the triple testi- mony in its favour, and shews how foolish the world is in believing the testimony of man, rejecting that of God. Since then, what is polemical in the epistle is, in proportion to the purely paraenetic and didactic, nearly as one to five, and the polemic, without any INTRODUCTION. 61 polemical form, accompanies the apostolic paraclesis only in a few passages, and indeed with a light step, and since St. .John also, in the conclusion, expressly tells his readers, v. 13, (confr. i. 4,) that he has writ- ten to them for no other purpose than strengthening them anew in the faith in Jesus the Christ, the Apostle has, I think, done every thing possible to guard against the opinion : that the mischief done by heretics, and their confutation, was the epistle's nearest motive and principal object. But, manifest as it is, that not polemics, but rather the simple apostolic paraclesis^^ is the nearest motive and chief oh]Qci of it, we still are far from altogether excluding polemics from the occasion and object of the epistle. That it has a certain polemical tenden- cy, is as undeniable, as that this tendency is very subordinate and only indirect, and subservient to another and a higher object. Nor is it at all impro- l^able that the antichristian heresies in the congrega- tions of the Apostle's age, indirectly may have fur- nished the occasion for our epistle. But this clearly is the simple state of the whole case : that St. John, in respect of the pastoral duty resting on him, to ad- vance, in every possible manner, the readers commit- ted to his charge in the knowledge of Jesus's doc- trine, and in Christian life, as well as also to preserve them against all manner of error — found himself '' Respecting the object of the epistle, this is the concise and correct view of Heumann : Paraenesin esse ad fideles in com- munione cum patre ac prsesertim cum fiHo constanter retinen- dos tendentem. 62 INTRODUCTION. pressingly called upon, b\' the more or less defective and vacillating state of his congregations, (they be- ing in many ways oppressed by an unchristian world, and by the agitation of antichristian heretics, more and more troubled and endangered), to address to them a circular, and thus also in writing, (as he in all likelihood had previously done by word of mouth,) ex- hort them to constancy and firmness in faith, draw their attention to their chief defects in Chrstianity, but specially impress on their minds the commandment of sanctifi cation and brotherly-love, and tlms to pre- serve them from the seductions of Antichrist. Such seems to have been the most immediate occasion for writing the epistle. 7» It is possible that the gospel may owe its origin to a similar motive, and that it, too, had a corresponding object, xx. 30, 31, so that St. John made the historical instruction of the gospel precede, and the epistolar paraclesis follow im- mediately after it. Thus the manner and form of the epistle, its catho- lical character, and the proportion of what is paraene- tical to what is polemical in it, would most simply and suitably be explained. But now the question arises : To what refers the indirect polemical tendency of the epistle ; and of '8 Luther has expressed himself in a similar manner : Scholia et Sermones in primam Joannis Epistolam, &c. ed. Paul. Jacob Bruns Lubecae, 1797, in the preface p. 3 and 4. Occasio au- tem epistolze scribendse fuit haaec, quod tempore S. Joannis haeretici qixidam falsa doctrina turbaverant ecclesias, tum sin- gularis- inter Christianos erat pigritia. Joannes igitur et didacticns est et adhortatorius. i>;teoductiox. 63 what description were those antichrisls and seducers against whom the apostle's paraclesis was directed ? The source of all antichristian disorder is, ac- cording to St. John, the world, the ■/JjCfj.oc,. The Apostle generally describes antichristianity as the denial of the Messiah dignity of Jesus. But by %oö;«,o?, he means the sum total of all (not from nature or originally necessary, but from moral liberty arisen) ungodly habits and modes of thought and mind, which are under the sway of the Prince of this world, the Devil — which are estranged from that truth and life which is of God — and which, of consequence, deny the Messiah dignity of Jesus, and the manifestation of the Son of God, (iv. 5, and other passages.) His- torically considered, at the time of St. John this xoö-^aoc, generally speaking, consisted in antichristian Judaism and paganism. Since, according to St. John, Christianity and the world (taken in this sense) are incompatible, and continue in perpetual enmity to each other, so that the victory of the one necessarily is the other's destruction ; according to him, too, the chief problem of the Christian life therefore is, by faith and love of Christ to overcome the antichristian world. But when we now consider, that the more the gospel and the community of Christian brethren, spread and estabhshed themselves in the world, the more was the infidel ?coV/Aog of Jews and Heathens excited to hostility against them, and employed all means in its power : violence and stratagem, seduction and deception, in order to impede and destroy the Christian faith : we can find nothing more natural than that St. John most immediately and particularly 64 INTRODUCTION. directed his paraclesis to the children of God, in order to warn them against the world, and against every intermeddling with it, that might impede the true internal victory over the world, as well as also against every half measure and division of interests between God and the world, i. 5, sqq. — in order to encourage them to fight against its pleasures and arts, its violence and seduction ; and, finally, in order to exhort them to firmness and constancy in the truth of Christ, confr. iii. 12, iv. 3 — 6, v. 4 — 6, sqq. and 19 — 21. Thus it is also explained how the apostle, with reference to the heathen xöV/a,oc, ex- pressly warns against idols, v. 21 ; and how again many, founding their opinion on v. 6, sqq. ii. 22, 23, not without a certain degree of verisimilitude, have been led to say, that the epistle is directed against infidel Jews. But although the exhortation to renounce and fight against the antichristian '/.oS'Log^ generally speaking, is to be considered as the main polemical idea of the epistle, still its indirect polemical tendency must not be confined to that alone. The history of the age of St. John, as well as also explicit passages in the epistle, ii. 18, sqq., lead to the conjecture that St. John in his epistle alluded to more special antichris- tian errors and seductions of that age, which indeed were to be found within the boundaries of the Chris- tian community. During a considerable time past, infidel and re- fractory Judaism and paganism, had no longer been the only, or the most dangerous foes of Christianity. Already in the age of the Apostle Paul, there had, INTKODUCTlbN. 65 within the boundaries of the Christian community, from the unavoidable conjunction and amalgamation of what was old and what was new, of Christian and not Christian, of partly Jewish partly heathen, of religious and philosophical elements, arisen a much more suspicious and dangerous antichristianity, (the Pseudologia, pseudadelphia, pseudodidaskalia, the pseudoapostole or pseudoprophetia,as they were called) which Paul, this most undaunted Apostle, by all pos- sible means had fought against, but in vain attempted to extirpate from the Christian congregations. In- deed, he thus far succeeded in vanquishing the first ma- nifestion of the pseudoprophetia — of judaizing pseu- dology which stickled for the law of Moses — that his doctrine respecting justification by faith, and not by the works of the law : respecting the liberty of God's children, &c., from his time downwards, obtained and preserved universal authority among Christians. However, not only did the judaizing pseudodidaskaly, although deprived of its power, subsist after the Apos- tle's death ; but new, and partly more dangerous spe- cies of pseudophrophets continued to arise in the con- gregations. Of this description more particularly was that pseudology, the origin and first movements of which St. Paul was acquainted with, which he at- tacked, whose growth and ever more threatening danger he foretold, and which he characterised as a -^svdijjrjfiog yvujffig, as (piXo(jo:pia xai -/.ivri d-:rdrri yM.ra:. rraoddoffiv rojv ay^^goGcraiv, xxra rd, crot-^sTcc rov '/.oßiMis, ■/Ml oj Tiard XPi6rov, cfr. 1 Tim. vi. 20, Col. ii. 8, 18, 19. This theosophical, not to say gnostical pseu- dophrophetia, which derived its origin from the con- 66 INTRODUCTION. fused oriental theosophy of the age, (a more or less idealistic dualism and mysticism,) and in its eclecti- cal and partly pantheistical tendency, pretended to unite in itself all existing forms of religion,* and to embody and assimilate with itself Christianity as well as Judaism — was the system, which at the time when the writings of St. John were composed, every- where, more and more, but particularly in Asia Minor, spread and developed itself, brought confusion into the Christian religion, and more and mOre deprived it (ffvXaywyuv, Col. ii. 8,) of its peculiar power, perspi- cuity, and essential character. Originally confused in itself, and threatening, and seducing only from a distance, it now had nestled in the midst of Christen- dom, more distinctly unfolded its purposes, gradually received a more plausible, seductive, and individual form, but particularly, in order more easily to draw within its sphere, and more speedily to amalgamate with its own theosophical \dews, refractory Chris- tianity, whose very essence resisted it, it had com- menced to um*ealize the real, the historical and posi- * As ilkistrative of what the author here has said, ApoUonius of Tyana may be referred to. His doctrine and opinions are preserved in his Life by Philostratus. ApoUonius was a Py- thagorean, an Eclectic, an Indian theosophist, an admirer of all religions and all superstitions, unless Philostratus has greatly wronged him. It is commonly believed that he was })orn in the same year as Christ, and as his life extended to the fourth quarter of the first century ; as he travelled much, and often taught and spoke in public, and certainly made some sensation ; it seems highly probable that some of the early Christians might have come in contact with him, or his disci- ples. — Translat. INTRODUCTION. 67 live basis of the Christian faith, and to extenuate into a mere ilkision the history and the person of Jesus. It is a matter of no moment whether, according to 1 Tim. vi. 20, and Col. ii. 8, we call these heresies gnosticism ; or, adopting the language of the Igna- tian epistles, 7 9 the doketism of the apostolic age. But all those, who are acquainted with the age of St. John,so must admit that in it such a doketism, such a -vl/sj^wtu/xos y\Z:^^'^ seems rather to denote an internal than an external act. And where is it indicated that the seceders had been Jews before they became Christians ? The seceders undoubtedly were Chris- tians, whose faith had been shipwrecked. Certainly they were not, as some suppose, infidel Jews ; how could the author, in that case, have said gJ^X^ov and /xg/xir/^xr/ffccv ,a£^' r,{jM'i ? But if the heretics were nei- ther infidel Jews, nor converted Jews who had publicly renounced Christianity, but rather, as it seems, anti- christians, who still externally kept up their connec- tion with the Christian community, then it is mani- fest that the formula ii. 22, d^i-., 6V/ 'I. ou% söT/f 6 X. necessarily must be taken in a more indirect and complicated sense. Some indeed suppose that St. John here meant the Ebionites of his time ; and there is much that appa- rently supports this opinion. For although the fun- damental error of the Judaeo- Christian -vj/sUoog, most immediately had reference to the law, there gradual- 70 INTRODUCTION. ly arose out of it, (perhaps as early as the age of St. John,) the erroneous notion of the latter Ebionites, that Jesus had only been a distinguished prophet and restorer of the law. Now, inasmuch as Ebionitisni reduced the Messiahship of Jesus to a mere Prophet- ship, and only recognized Christ according to the flesh, but not the higher dignity of Jesus, as the Son of God in an eminent sense of the word: to St. John, who taught the doctrine of the Logos, it might, in- deed, appear that the true Messiahship of Jesus was really denied by the narrow-minded Judaeo-Chris- tians. If we farther observe, that monotheism more rigid than elevated, and only, strictly antipolytheisti- cal, partly was the cause of the lower notions which these Judaeo- Christians entertained respecting Christ's person — that they accordingly being sticklers for the absolute monarchy of Jehovah, could not lift their minds up to St. John's Son of God, the Logos in Christ — the opinion, that St. John here, by the antithetical formula ii. 23, 'zag 6 d^vov/j^svog rov u'm ovds rov 'xars^a, g^g/* 6 öfjjokoyuv rov uiov xai rov 'jrars^a s^g/, means the Judseo- Christian -^^ivdog — gains much in point of probability. Neither is it in itself improbable, that St. John, in this case, would at once contend against two distinct classes of antichristian errors prevailing in his time, i. e, Doketism as in i. 1, sqq., and Ebionitism, as in ii. 18, sqq. Ignatius does the same in his Epis- tles, ^^ warning Christians with equal zeal against ^•^ Ad Magn. 8, 10. In the latter place, we find these words : ecroTov itrriv, X^iittov 'itja-ovv KaXi7v x,a,\ ^lovha:iZ,iiVy according to Avhich, our passage ii. 22, might well be explained in con- formity with this view. INTKODUCTION. 71 Judaism and Doketism, and frequently in the same epistles. It is true, that the chief conflict against Judaism, particularly in the congregations of Asia Minor, had long ceased. The error, however, sub- sisted, although not with such vigour as in the age of the Apostle Paul. And if Ignatius found it still necessar}^ to contend against judaical errors in his congregations, it may be presumed that St. John's polemic too, had to fight against this kind of -^s^dog. At the same time, it is extremely surprising that St. John delineates the Judaeo- Christian error, ex- actly thus, and in no other manner, and that he does not, either here or anywhere else in the epistle, bring out more prominently, and confute the main point of what subsequently was called Ebionitism : the ^fjv zara vofj^ov 'lovoa/xovor 'lovba'/cfiov, as St. Ignatius de- scribes it. But zeal for the law was, and continually remained, the fundamental character of the Ebionitic heresy, and to that St. Ignatius, in his polemic,* ex- clusively confines himself. But St. John not only never alludes, as we said before, to this fundamental error of the Ebionites, but in some places, as it seems, he contends against the diametrically opposite error, of Antinomian libertinism, see iii. 4, cfr. v. 17. And when we further observe, that St. John could scarcely say of the Judaists of his time : zai vuv dvri-^PKjroi 'TToKKoi ysyovaffpj ii. 18, (because at the time St. John wrote, neither the antichristian Judaeo- Christianity first arose, nor did it then first become frequent and dangerous : it would seem that we must no more • i. e. against the Ebionites ; for we have seen above that St. Ignatius also contended against the Doketists — Transl. 72 INTRODUCTION. think of connecting the Judaeo- Christian -^sudog with our passage, or at least that we must consider that connection as extremely problematic, and search for some other explanation. It is, as we above observed, not at all in itself unreasonable to suppose a manifold, or, according to the plan of the Ignatian epistles, at least a double polemical tendency in our epistle. But quite an- other thing it is to exhibit this multiple or double polemical tendency in the epistle, as there actually existing. It is true that polemical allusions are here found dispersed in several places. But from that it does not follow that each is a new and particular one different from the others. By mutually compar- ing the polemical passages, and more carefully con- sidering the whole mode and manner of the epistle in general, we will discover more and more dis- tinctly, that besides the above-mentioned polemical passages of a universal character against the -/.off/j^og, those of a more special description, sometimes less sometimes more definitely, allude to only oTie princi- pal kind of anti christian error, in such a manner, that the one passage has reference to the other, and the one illustrates and determines the meaning of the other. The passage before us, is indeed the first in which the antichristians are more specifically characterized. But the delineation of this kind of -^svdog in ii. 22, is much too general and vague to afford a distinct his- torical conception of the antichrists of St. John. But by comparing this passage to the other polemi- cal allusions of the epistle, (and without here consi- INTRODUCTION. 73 dering iii. 4, a passage which, at the first view ani- madverts upon something quite different), it is ren- dered manifest that the error which St. John ii. 22, in general, calls the denial of the Messiahship of Jesus, and the separation of the Son of God from the Father ; according to the indirect delineation of chap. i. 1 — 3, as well as the more direct and precise ofiv. 1 — 3, is no other than the doketism of the age, which abolished and denied the real and human manifestation of Christ. As to the passage iv. 1, sqq., and its harmony with ii. 18, sqq., and more particularly with ii. 22, we have the following to observe : As, according to iv. 2, the Christian UvsvfMa acr knowledges 'I^o'cuv Xoig-ov h GaoyJ sXriX-J^ora, so the antichristian pseudoprophetia, according to iv. 3, con- sists in not acknowledging rov 'IyigoZv \yi'Ji6Th h ca^xi sXTjXv'^oTa.'] What kind of denial of Christ is here indicated ? For answering this question it is, in the first place, indifferent whether the words in brackets, in verse 3, are spurious or not. In every case they must, even if they are spurious, be added from the more com- plete affirmative formula, in order to render the more abridged, and, of itself, unintelligible negative for- mula complete and intelligible. But here everything depends on the sense of the words 'I. X. iv ßapyti sXriXu^ora. According to Eichhorn, this formula is altogether equivalent with the more abridged, or/ 'irißovg s ° X^iffrog, and he thinks it contains no more than this proposition : Jesus, who had a frail and perishable 74 IXTRODUCTION. human body, is the Messiah. Others maintain that iv ffao'/J ic'^-.a'^ai expresses no more than el; xoV/xov so^ic^M, or simply ^ri'Kcx,^^(ra,rs ,ai, (1 John i. 1,) xcii 'Ihn on ohx sJ/mI dai/jjoviov dßui/jjccrov , — and then he mentions how he did eat with his dis- INTRODUCTION. 79 ciples wg (faoxixoc, &c. In the conclusion of chap, iv., this martyr says of himself, that he suffers all things willingly for Christ's sake, abrcv /xs hdova/j^ouv- rog rou nAiiov ds'^^wTou yivo/jLsvov, ov rivsg dyvoovvng döi/ouvra/, &c. It is not at all doubtful, that by these deniers, he means the doketists. Still more precise- ly, and almost after the manner of St. John, he al- ludes to them in chapter v. exclaiming : rl ydo /xs o(pi'ksTrigy u l/xs I'ltaiviT, rh ck xvoiov fi8 ßkaG^rifxsT, /j^Ti ofxoXoyoJv avTov (ju^zooo^ov. In the Epistle to the Ephe- sians, chap, vii., he calls Christ the true Physician for body and soul, yiwTjrbv zat dyswriTov Iv caoyj yiwfjjivov, (which last expression quite corresponds with St. John's Iv 6(10X1 sAyj7.v'^6ra.) Equally antidoketic is a passage, almost resembling an orthodox creed, in the Epistle to the Trallians, chap, ix., where it is said of Christ, that he is dXr/^i^g, (and in a simi- lar passage in the Epistle to the Magnesians, chap. xi. he adds to that ßsßaiüjg,) born, persecuted, cruci- fied, dead, &c. The resemblance between these passages and the polemical allusions in I John i. I — 3, iv. 1, sqq., is so manifest, that it must be admitted, that the more dis- tinct and definite polemic of St. Ignatius, in a consi- derable degree confirms the supposed antidoketic tendency in the Epistle of St. John. Now, if it is required that we should demonstrate also in ii. 22, 23, that antidoketism which is manifest in i. 1 — 3, and iv. 1 — 3, then that no doubt is very difl^icult, but by no means impossible. If we compare the formula ii. 22, 6 d^vov/j^ivog, on 'iriffoug obx. iGrtv ö Xotffrhg, with the abridged formula of 80 INTRODUCTION. doketism iv. 3. 'rrav rrv. o [lt, b'xokoyzi' tov 'T/iffovv, &Cm and this latter again with the more complete anti- doketic formula iv. 2 ; and if we bear in mind that doketism, even by denying the true humanity of Christ, annihilated the complete real Messiahship of Jesus : we only need to understand the indefinite dovov,u,ivov ii. 22, in a doketic sense, as Ignatius has done in the Epist. to the Smyrnseans, (v. in princ.) and the harmony betwixt the two principal polemi- cal passages of our epistle, ii. 22, and iv. 3, will be mani- fest. More difficult it is to demonstrate the anti- doketic force of ii. 23. However, this difficulty too, vanishes, when the following is observed and duly con- sidered. In the first place, we must not forget, that the expression v'lhg th QzU in St. John, as well as in St. Paul, and elsewhere in the New Testament, does not merely denote the Aoyog in the most restricted sense, but the Messiahnic person and manifestation of the Lord altogether, and clearly is equivalent to 6 Xoyog coco'^ ymijjzwg, Gosp. i. 14. Now, if such is the case, the identification of the formula ii.'^S : -Trag 6 ä^vou/M- vog Tov vm, and ö ofj.oXoyoJv rov v}bt/, with the more com- plete formula, iv. 2, 3. 'Ojmo}., and [xn o/lloX. 'lyjaovv X^icfTüV SV (Taoxl sXtjXv'^oto,, is not at all difficult. But when, i?i the second place, St. John says, that whosoever does not acknowledge the Son (in the sense here in- dicated) has not the Father, and the converse ; or, in otliers words, that the acknowledgment of the Son essentially conditions the genuine acknowledgment of the Father ; is it not likely that these words indi- cate as much as this : that the doketists, even be- cause they boasted of a purer, a more speculative INTRODUCTION. 81 knowledge of the divine being, and would not, other- wise than in mere appearance, amalgamate and unite the divine, in its manifestation, with the cao^ of the impure — denied and annihilated the real humanity and manifestation of their ideal Messiah ? This is rendered very prol3able by considering the theosophy of the latter Gnostics and Doketists ; if we admit tliat from them, in spite of all differences, an infe- rence may be made to the Doketists of St. John, from whom they derived their origin. One passage, which, indeed, is to be found in the interpolated Ig- natian epistles, seems, in some degree, to justify this opinion. We find, in the epistle to the Trallians, chap, vi., where the author undoubtedly is speaking of the Doketists : Thv /xb yap Xoiff-o\/ dXAor^iovffi rov '7cc- One passage (iii. 4,) is still remaining, in which, likewise, a special polemical point seems to be con- tained. But what is that point ? The error to which St. John here alludes, clearly refers to the v6/xoc, the revealed law of God. If we are not mistaken, the error consisted in this, that some, perhaps ultra-PauUne Christians, so grossly misinterpreted St. Paul's doctrine concerning the law, that they, being impure of heart and destitute of an internal spiritual discipline, perverted the Christian liberty into an antichristian libertinism, confounded ethical distinctions rä diuzs-^ov-a, and decided what was sin or not, what was permitted or not permitted, not according to the positive revealed law of God, but rather according to an indefinite Christian feel- ing and their own pleasure. Thus, the notion of 8^ INTRODUCTION. a^a^r/a became a mere plaything, and sin lost its point, its immediate reference to the divine penal law. It is, of itself, manifest, that such a confusion was opposed to the judicial earnestness (z^/Vic), the moral chasity of the gospel, and the essential object of the redemption by Christ, and that it most wicked- ly confounded and mingled together again, what Christianity, according to St. John, had so distinct- ly separated, viz. light and darkness, God and the world. To guard against this antichristian error seems to be one of the main problems of our epistle. St. John repeatedly returns to it, warning his readers against it, and exhorting them to the contrary, i. e. to the moral xg/V/g betwixt light and darkness, God and the world, Christ and the devil, i. 5, sqq., ii. 15, iii. 5, sqq. The Catholic epistles in general, particularly contend against this abuse of the Christian liberty, cfr. 2 Pet. ii. 1, sqq., 19, sqq., Jud. iv. 8, 12, sqq. It is certain that this error was more prevailing among converted heathens than among converted Jews. It clearly belongs to the antijudaic heresies, and is one of the overstrainings of St. Paul's princi- ples, which arose in the age of the Catholic epistles. Now, if we propose the question, whether this error was, in the congregation of St. John, connected with doketism, or existed as different and isolated from it, the reply will be very difficult, and a complete decision of this matter almost impossible, because the polemi- cal bearing of the passage iii. 4, however special it may be, is much too indefinite and incompletely brought out. INTRODUCTION. 8*3 In itself, it is not improbable that tins error may, specially in congregations founded by St. Paul, which was the case with those of St. John, have existed as isolated, as it also, indeed very indistinctly, but at the same time forcibly pourtrayed, seems to occur as isolated, in the 2d Epistle of St. Peter, and in the Epistle of St. Jude. Neither does St. John directly indicate any connection betwixt doketism, which he contends against, and this antinomian indifferentism. Moreover, in the general case, speculative doketism leaned rather to strictness in ethics, and to Enkratia, indifferentism and libertinism. The more finished systems of the later Gnostics commonly include rigid ethics and ascetics, but which, being in no relation to the positive moral law, and destitute of moral liberty, are purely physical. On the other hand, we find among the later doketists, a great number of those, who from doketic principles in ethics, were addicted to the most unbridled antinomianism and anomism. We will only mention Karpokrates and his sect. Far be it from us, from these latter, to make any bold inference as to the doketists of the time of St. John. But since doketism, although some Jewish theosophists were addicted to it, in its nature was rather anti-judaic than judaical^^ — since it was essen- tially opposed to the realistic character of Judaism, and altogether had an antipositive tendency : it may ^'* The history of Gnosticism in the second century teaches this most expHcitly. The later Gnostic systems are all anti- nomian ; nay, those who formerly had not been hostile to Judaism, became the more antijudaic and antinomian, tlie further they advanced in doketism. We need only mentiiHi the Basilidians. 84 INTRODUCTION. easily, on account of such qualities, early have leagued itself with ultra-Pauline antinomianism of the age, which recognized ä[j.ao-ia, in deed, but not as ävo'ua. Among those Gnostics, who were not Chris- tians, the idealistic theosophists of the earlier ages, the Simonians for example, there existed, according to Clem. Alex., a party called Entychites, who, while the others were strict ascetics, lived cra^öci/o'/xw^ or a^/ac^o^ioj. Nay, Irenaeus maintains this of the native sect of the Simonians.sö jf the interpolated Ignatian epistles could at all be relied upon as a source for the here- siology of the age of St. John, we might, from the Epistle to the Trallians, [chap, vi.] infer, that as there doketism and antinomianism appear united, thus also, in the congregations of St. John, the doketism of heretical teachers may have been associated with antinomian opinions. For the following passage which we find there, undoubtedly refers to the do- ketists : Ttai ob voijjOv 6-j6rriGov6tv, dXX' ha a\o^oufiiv. ^ See the literature of this contention in Wolfii Cur. Phil, and Calovius on this passage. CHAPTER I. 1 — 4. SlJ This explanation found many patrons among the modern interpreters, by whom it has been defend- ed,^ sometimes unaltered, sometimes with all man- ner of modifications, although the other explanation, which lias been considered as more orthodox, has not entirely lost all its friends.'* The Socinian opi- nion has, at first view, and when ably defended — which has been done, particularly by Grotius — much in its favour. In the first place, the neutral o, and then the expression «a äf%'/5?, which both by St. John, and elsewhere in the New Testament, is not unfrequently used for the period when Christ enter- ed on his functions as a teacher, (Gosp. St. John xv 27 ; Mark i. 1 ; Luke i. 2 ; Acts ii. 25 ; 1 Joh. ii. 7, 24 ; iii. 11: in the three last mentioned places, how- ever, it is only used in a parallel sense, for the com- mencement of the preaching of the gospel by the Apostles in particular congregations) ; but what par- ticularly recommends it is the phrase, crjo/ rS Xoya Trig ^Cfjyjc, which comprehends and collects together all that precedes, if Xoyog, as in i. 10 ; ii. 7, and fre- quently elsewhere, is understood of the doctrine, and Ti^g ^m\g as an objective genitive case of the essen- tial contents and object of the gospel ; like St. Paul's Ao'/og r'/js -/.arr/Xkayrig, tou arav^S, rS svayysXlii, &c. The easy sense, too, which this interpretation gives, does much recommend it. If we point out to its patrons the analogy of the commencement of St. ^ Grotius, Semler, Lange, and others. * Among these are ^\'o\i, Bengel, Carpzovius, Aiigusti, Welcker, (in his Philol. Exeget. Clavis to the N. T.) and others. 94 INTEBPRETATION OF TIIE FIRST EPISTLE. John's gospel, which clearly ought to be preserved ; and object that this interpretation seems to disagree with that analogy : then there are some who think that this scruple is resolved by the difference betwixt the historical and relative acr' d.oyj^c in this place, and the prashistorical and absolute h aoyj^i in the gospel ; but Grotius, who, with reason, considers this difference as a mere imagination,* answers much more sagaciously, that the analogy with the prologue to the gospel must indeed be preserved; but that the meaning of the passage & ^v wt' a^%^t, &c. is this : eas res, quas Apostoli sensibus suis percepere, fuisse a Deo destinatas jam ab ipso mundi primor- dio, et ab eo tempore multis umbris praefiguratas, vaticiniis praedictas — and all this, he adds, is said against those, qui Evangelii doctrinam novitatis ac- cusabant.^ * With reason — as a mere imagination ? — Considering the apparent school strictness with which several terms seem to be used, both in the commencement of the gospel, and the Epistle of St. John, — a strictness rarely to be met with elsewhere in the Bible, — a strictness too, which seemingly is of an exotical cha- racter, (viz. not Rabbinical,) the Translator does not feel quite so sure that the distinction between iv u^xv ^^^ '*"'' ^iZ^^ '^^ ^^' together imaginary. The Beginning — the 'A^x,^ — both of the Gospel and the First Epistle of St. John, is not yet satisfacto- rily explained in any of the interpretations given heretofore, the literature of the period in which the Apostle wrote, has not been taken so much into consideration as it ought to have been. ^ Similar is tlie explanation in the Scholia of Matthf^i, ]>. 10f{, TOUTo ail ct3 — ' O ^v «-tt' a^yjig. And now con- tinuing with the assurance, that what he in the gos- pel had related of this Xoyog r. ^. was founded on his own infallible personal evidence, gathered by all the senses,^ he forgets in v. 1, to state more precisely the fundamental condition of all experiences and evi- dences respecting the Redeemer, (viz. Christ's mani- festation in the flesh) : but in v. 2, parenthetically, (by the words -/.ai ri ^oor, £(pa\ispui^yi,) bringing up what had been omitted, and enlarging that parenthesis by indicating that the object of this (pavs^uffic is the com- munication of eternal life by the means of faith — he not only connects this parenthesis with the imper- fect commencement in v. 1, by the words ring ^v T^ig rbv 'TTUTB^a, but he even there begins the apodosis too, xa/ f^KPTvoou/Mv xat d-ra'yysXAOfxsv, which he then, in the beginning of v. 3, along with the reassumed prodosis, takes up again and brings out more fully. If this is the origin and sense of this complicated passage, all single parts in it retain their true bearing, ^ Camerarius on this passage in the Notatio says : quibos declaratur -rXn^oipo^ict a.'XoarokiKn, CHAPTER I. 1 4. 101 and St. John's peculiar mode of expression and of thought remains uninjured. The question has been raised, whether l^satra/xsaa is synonymous with the preceding sojsdxa/xev roTc 0^^. 57/xw!/, V. 1, or of a different meaning? In classical usage 60a v and ^satr^a/ probably occur as often synonymous words, as words of a different meaning. But it is clear, that originally, and in pre- cise language, these words differ in signification. ' Opuv rather signifies perceptive vision, vision in general ; '^zaff'^a.i, on the contrary, surveying, beholding, con- templation, contemplari. In the N. T. too, this di- versity of signification is to be found. Thus, for example, in Gosp. St. Joh. i. 14, where we find j^saö'a/xsäa analogous with our passage, it can hardly be considered as equivalent with iJjoa-A.i in i. 18 ; and as little in i. 32 and 34. As our passage manifestly contains a gradation, and represents the cXjj^o^op/a dcööToX/y.'/^ in its advancement from one stage to another, from mere seeing and hearing (autopsy 7o7g 6^^. 'hiMcöv,) to a closer contemplation and contact, in short, to a most intimate familiarity with the Sa- viour ; here certainly no tautology exists, and Eras- mus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius and others are incon- testably right in understanding this i^gacra/xg^^a of an abiding, closer beholding and contemplation. * But it is wrong to thrust upon the word the secondary • 'O^av not only is seeing in its most general, but specially seeing in its passive sense ; SsäirS-a/ is seeing more actively, — an actual and spontaneous application of the visual faculties to visible objects. We sometimes cannot avoid seeing ; we always can avoid beholding an object. — Transl. 102 INTERPKETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. signification of cum admiratione, stupore, voluptatc, &c., as CEciimenius and some modern authors have done. If our passage has reference to the gospel, there can, in spite of 1 John i. 10, ii. 7, and other pas- sages where Xo^ög is used in the sense of doctrine, by \(jyog TTJg ^w^c nothing else be understood, but the personal Xoyog tov ^sou^ who is the life of man — who is the source of the life of man.^ As before has been observed, this is the abridged formula of the propositions in the gospel i. 1 — 4. Now, as St. John in the gospel, does not by Aoyog understand any particular divine attribute, but collectively all the powers of the deity manifesting themselves in the world ; the manifestation of God in the world in contradistinction to his occult nature ;''^ thus also he takes the word here in that sense and no other. But St. John, bringing out more strongly the most essential attribute, and the principal act of this Aoyog rov ^iovf with reference to the human world, calls it here succinctly 6 "koyog rrig Z^unc^ nay, immediately after, still more briefly Z^myi, the life, the divine it- self, simply. This ^m the Evangelist considered, before the Xoyog became aäo^ in Christ, as effective in the world indeed, but not completely manifest, and only perceptible in particular effects. His full manifestation and revelation, its entire abiding acti- vity among mankind first commenced in and by ^ Schol. Matthäi, p. 109, rvt? icar,g, rm avro^utis, rm ^nya.- ^^ See the Author's Commentary on Gosp. i. 1, sqq. CHAPTER I. 1 4. 103 Christ, the Logos incarnate. Thus the words tj Xj^r^ s(payiP(L'^rii v. 2, in connection with Gosp. St. John i. 14, are to be understood. The first zai in v. 2, clearly is explicative, but to take it simply for yao, as Beza and some others have done, is, considering the irre- gularity and simplicity of the construction, unwar- ranted. The before sw^axa/z^svin v. 2, although supported by the authority of Code B, and although it seems to render the construction more easy, has too much the character of a grammatic emendation, to be con- sidered as genuine. Either the object belonging to £W5axa/X£v zcci fji^aoru^ou/Msv is left out, a thing which might easily happen in a diction so compact and ani- mated, and then, what is omitted is to be supplied out of ^ ^(/rh s^paveodo:}'/-} jjrobably thus, Tr,v ^uyiv. Oavsooj^iTffav — or, both the verbs along with the sub- sequent '/.ai ä~ayyiX}.ofj.s'>, jointly belong to the com- mon object rijv i^or^v rrjV aiojv/ov. The former con- struction is more easy and simple. It seems that originally St. John also joined d-ra.yysXXofXiv to the words zai lojo. ytai [Maor., and referred all these verbs to the object which was to be supplied out of r, ^M'/i s(p,%viP., and that, wishing to express the notion oi^m more definitel}^ and more completely, he after- wards, by way of explanation, added r-z^v ^ojtjv rr,v * This explanation of the construction, as we now find it, the Translator begs leave to say is excellent, and in every way satisfactory ; and he entirely agrees with Dr. Lucke in thinking that the original plan of the period was somewhat departed from, or modified, when rhv X'^h tJ?» a'lmiov was put, whosoever 104 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. It is commonly supposed that j^V/g, v. 2, is put in- stead of jj. The irregularity of the language of the New Testament, perhaps also a certain solicitude for euphony on account of the subsequent rj'j^ seems, if not to justify, at least to excuse this exchange. With the classics 6Vr/r, even when referring to a definite object, which not unfrequenth* is the case, is never quite identical with o;, but, corresponding with the Latin ut qui, it always expresses a more or less dis- tinct aitiological or amplifying relation to that which precedes.^^ Now, if this regular use of ocrig were no- where to be found in the New Testament, we should have reason to say, that in our passage too, n'li was put instead of yi simply. But the contrary is demon- strable. In St. Paul, and in the Epistle to the He- brews, the regular use of 06- ig is everywhere obser- did put it. But it is not preferable to consider r. ^. r. aim. as a marginal gloss added by a later hand, and entered in the text by an ignorant transcriber ? Under similar circumstances this would be what criticism would recommend in any profane author. In all probability the verse originally run thus, xa) r, l^uri i(pavi^d3-n xeil \u^a,x,oe.fji,iv xa) f^a^rv^ouuiv x-eti aTayyikkofiit* vfjuv ail rhv, nris «, &c. after the marginal gloss, r. %. t. a'la*. had been taken into the text, the word «yr^v, became not only su- perfluous but awkward, and probably was expunged by a critic, who did not perceive that rhv Z,ü)hv rhv aicuviov was a gloss. If the Translator had not confined himself to a very short note, he could easily show many critical advantages from adopting the reading he proposes — Transl. ^^ Hermann on Sophocl. (Edip. R. v. 688, offrts est gui^ scili- cet aliquis, i. e. aliquis qui. Hinc primo signiticat quicunque. Diende, quum reddendae rationi adhibetur, non ut «, y% restrin- git, sed dilatat rem. — Id plane exprimitur Latino, ut qiii. CHAPTER I. 1 — 4. 105 vable. Cfr. Rom. i. 25, 32 ; ii. 15 ; (vi. 2 ; ix. 4 ; xi. 4 ; xvi. 4, 6, 7, 12 ; (the four last passages are particularly remarkable^* 1 Cor. iii. 7 ; v. 1 ; vii. 13. Gal. iv. 26. Eph. i. 23; vi. 2. Phil. i. 28. Col. iii. 5, 14. Tit. i. 11, &c. Heb. ii. 3 ; viii. 6 ; ix. 2, 9; X. 8, 11 ; xiii. 7. In every one of these places, an accurate exegesis will not fail to observe the difference we have stated betwixt ogr/j and oc. And since St. John, in places where he makes use of (iGTic, and 0, Ti follows the regular usage, (cfr. Gosp. viii. 53, when ' AßsaäiJj, öcTig}^ ä'Zi':^avi must be thus translated: " Who, however, was such, that he died.") We are compelled to take ^V/c too, in our passage in its strict sense. The sense of the passage after -/.at d-ayy^ accordingly is : And thus we an- nounce to you eternal life, inasmuch as it (ut quae) was (conceaUd^) with the father, but (-/.at) now has been revealed. The present tense ä'ra'yyiXXofjjSv b/ji,Tv in v. 3, does not refer to the present epistle, for it contains no his- torical dyysyJa, but either generally to St. John's • Nay, more, they are very doubtful, for, if taken in the sense which the Author ascribes to them, these passages would imply that the Apostle greets several individuals, inasmuch as they bestowed much labour on him, &c. The English ver- sion of James I. has here simply ivho and which, and accord- ingly takes ea-ns for a simple relative, which undoubtedly ap- pears more dignified. For, no doubt, in presenting compli- ments to these persons, the Apostle may well, in passing, make an honourable mention of their merit ; but would he say, " greet these persons from me, becaltse they are distin- guished AMONG the apostles ?"— Travis. ^- Instead of offrts. Cod. D. has here «Ti. 106 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTEE. apostolical office, and constant activity in preaching the gospel ; or particularly to his historical gospel, which the readers either had already obtained, or even now received along with the epistle. But the object of all apostolical annunciations was the growth of Christ's community, both externally and internal- ly. The expression sytzXrisia does not occur in the genuine writings of St. John, except in the third epistle, V. 6, 9, 10, and there it denotes a single con- gregation. In St. John, we do not find this word used in an equally extensive, or specifically the same sense, as in St. Paul's Epistles. ^'^ (hzXr/ffia rou ^iov, or r. X^. or ßaffiA. r. a., or coofMa r, X?.) St. John seems never to have passed beyond the more original and simple conception, referring to things internal, (cfr. Acts ii. 42.) Of the mutual xonojvia of the dis- ciples of Christ, and the communion of each indivi- dual with the Father and the Son. Also with regard to converting the world into a community of Christ, he seems never to have departed from the most simple notions. This is his view, Christ having chosen the Apostles to be his friends and witnesses, the community of Christ is formed, and increases, when the Apostles preach the word, and when those who are of God hear and receive it, and being faith- ful, join the mutual communion of the disciples, and at the same time enter into communion with the Father and the Son. St. John is not familiar with the Pauline view, according to which the church is form- ed by the hSkoyri and the '/.7^,Gig r. ä. '^ Leonhard Usteris Entwickelung d. Paul Lelirbegr. (De- velopment of the Dogmatic System of St. Paul,) p. 123, sqq. CHAPTER I. 1 — 4. 107 In the words xa/ i] zoivuvia di — Grotius considered the zai, on aecount of the subsequent ds, as redund- ant. To the ancient grammarians the ds was ob- noxious, and they expunged it, as, for example, Cod. C, 13, 27, and others. In like manner, in the Gosp. vi. 51, (/ta/ 6 apTog ds), xa/ is by Grotius deemed su- perfluous, and Cod. D and other authorities expunge it. This mode of speech, however, is quite correct. When the precedent is more precisely to be deter- mined and to be enlarged by an additament, the Greeks make use of %«/ — os, (the epic writers join, the dramatists and prose writers separate them), and in that case xa/ is equivalent to the Latin etiam, but the adversative junction is made by the 6?, as in the German aber auch.^^ And in this sense it is put here,* and in the Gosp. vi. 51 ;^5 viii. 17 ; xv. 27 ; Acts iii. 24 ; 2 Tim. iii. 12. In order to guard against the misconception, that the mutual communion of the disciples of Jesus with each other, and with him, is only a human and arbi- trary institution, St. John, by way of explanation, adds, that the Apostolical Christian communion, has its root, and is grounded in the communion with the Father and the Son. By comparing with this the ^* Seidler on Eurip. Electr. 1112. Hermann on Viger, p. 84/. Buttmann's Gr. Gramm, p. 433. * In English, but also. In the version, however, it appears that Dr. Lncke has agreed with Grotius in considering the xai as redundant. Indeed, it is manifest that the classical sense of these conjunctions here is inapplicable. ^^ See the Author's Comment, on this passage. Vol. II. p. 03, note ; but there 2 Tim. ii. is a misprint for 2 Tim. iii. 108 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. Gosp. xiv. 20—23; xvii. 11, 20—23; 1 Joh. i. 6, sqq. ; ii. 3, sqq., it clearly appears, that St. John considered this mutual %o/vwv/a of Christians with each other, as well as with the Father and the Son, as a pure ethical relation, grounded on knowledge and faith, on active love and lively hope ; and that it accordingly was remote from his view (although the contrary has been maintained) to represent this communion by the mystic type of an efflux, conflux, and reflux of divine powers. V. 4. Indicates more precisely the object of the present epistle. Grotius, with very good reason, re- ferred TouTa 'ypd(po/j,iv to what follows. The words 'I'm 'h yj^iä "^/^wf (not yiij.Zjv^ which reading has been adopted by some insignificant authorities, which we find in Griesbach, for the purpose of rendering more common place a sentiment which seemed difl[icult) ^ '■rs-x'krioojiMsvYi — recall to our remembrance cognate pas- sages in Christ's last addresses, Gosp. xv. 11 ; xvi. 20 — 24; xvii. 13. Only here the notion is more comprehensive and cognate with St. Paul's iiptivti xa/ yjccpä SV rrv. a^., Rom. xiv. 17 ; %a^a Tr\i 'rriciTiUjCy Phil, i. 25 ; and with the xolIozd) h xvoiuj, Phil. iii. 1 ; iv. 4, and other similar expressions. St. John understands it of the joy arising from the communion with the Father and the Son, i. e. joy in the Lord.'^ For the communion with the Redeemer, and, through him, with God the Father, gives to the Christian that peculiar £/W;i/>3, that tranquillity and serenity, ^^ Schol. Matthäi, p. 214. Wii^av Ti ravTriv (r^^tJTt tviv xetva- v/'av, ;^ag«j lirofAiB-a (according to the reading, fjfAuy) fiifro), on CHAPTER I. 1 — 4. 109 which elevates him above all earthly pain and sor- row, even the misery of sin, and fills him with in- creasing joy on account of his salvation (his ^w^). But in as far as the communion with the Father, and with Christ, and the consciousness of redemp- tion, is something ever and infinitely increasing, yet, on account of sin and frailty still cleaving even to him who is redeemed, in this life is never rendered quite complete, so is also the Christian %apa ever increasing ; and every increase in knowledge and in the life of light is to be considered as its enhance- ment (its rr'AyjPOjßtg), cfr. i. 8, 9. *7 SECTION SECOND. CHAPTER I. 5. — CHAPTER II. 2. If the communion of Christians mutually with each other, as well as with the Father and the Son, is to be intimate and firm, they must, because God is light, separate from themselves all sin and darkness, and entirely walk in the divine light. Such is the exhortation of St. John to his readers, i. 5 — 10. And he adds the consolation, ii. 12, that whosoever zeal- ously contends for living in the light, and shuns sin, if he still errs from frailty, he may yet be assured of ^'' Luther, in the Schol., says most truly: Dicit autem/jZe- num. Nam principium hujus gaudii est, quum incipimus cre- dere ; postea, quum fides quotidie augescit raeditando, docen- do, studendo, tum fit plenum gaudium. 110 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. forgiveness with God, through Jesus Christ, our in- tercessor with the Father, the world's Saviour. All remissness in the zeal for moral sanctity among Christians, is intimately connected with a partial obscuration and extinction of the idea of God in general, but especially of that of his holiness. Very suitably, therefore, St. John conmiences his parade - sis with the a/ys/./a of God's absolute holiness, which necessarily excludes not only from his essence, but also from every communion with himself, every sin, and all that is impure. God is light, he says, v. 5, ^ibg ^ojg hn. ^us without an article, alone ex- presses St. John's meaning. In this context rb ooö; would be false. Luther's translation, " em Lic/if is also erroneous and weakens the idea. St. John adds emphatically : " And there is no darkness what- ever in him, (jia/ Gzoria Iv ahrt^j ovz ißriv oudsßia). But light and darkness, in the language of St. John, are symbols of ethical notions, and more specially of that primary ethical antithesis of good, in which alone there is life, and evil in which death is.^^ When it is said, that God is light, simply, that is nothing else but an expression for his absolute holi- ness, see James i. 17, cfr. 13. The Old Testament, indeed, taught that God was holy. But as in ge- neral, the doctrine of God in the New Testament is more perfect and pure than in the Old Testament, so the full revelation of the divine essential light, of the divine holiness, and all God's attributes there- with connected, is first communicated by Jesus '^ Schol. Älatthäi, p. 111; gSt: yk^ ciyvaix, ovr- vXavn, ovri CHAPTER I. 5— II. 2. Ill Christ, Gosp. i. 15.* Now since, on the idea that God is light, and no darkness in him, is grounded the entire work of man's illumination and revival effected by Christ, and the -/.oiffig of St. John also therein has its root, St. John speaks as if this were the main object of the gospel : zai aurr] sariv /} ay- yik'ta. ?iv dxyjxoafMv kt avrov, i. e. of Jesus Christ, &c. Here the Apostle is certainly not speaking of a pro- mise, unless we, disregarding the clear context and all hermeneutical rules, suppose, along with Wolf and some others, that äyyzXia does not merely refer to or I immediately following, but to all that the doc- trine of Christ contains of promises, and here is not expressly mentioned. Accordingly, I'zayyiXla either denotes annunciation, i. e. no more than ayyzX'ia, or the reading äyyzXia, which is to be found in several MSS. of authority, is to be considered as the ori- ginal.^^ The subsequent ävayy'iXkoiMv also counte- nances this opinion. Perhaps H. Stephanus, who conjectures that a-ayyiXia is the true reading, is right. Genuine Greek, as the word is, this would indeed be «vt«^ /.syoasi/öv in the whole New Testament ; * This explanation suggests the idea, that the difficult pas- sage in Exod. xxxiii. 18 — 23, maybe typical of God's holiness, and ^^3 V. 18, in a manner synonymous with the ^us of St. John then would signify that objective knowledge of God which unredeemed and unsanctified man can obtain. The verse in the gospel, which Dr. Lucke quotes, seems to countenance this theory. "IHK, v. 23. — Transl. ^^ The best among the ancient versions support «.yyiXia : against these the authority of Philox. is insignificant. In iii. 11, too, we find sTayyjX/a instead oi «.yyiX'ta, in some MSS. 112 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. but since St. John frequently uses the verb, nay, ever twice immediately before, this conjecture seems t( be the more strongly supported, as the corruption avayyiXia from z'KayyiKia most easily could be ex- plained. The word äyyzkla itself occurs in the whole New Testament, only here, and in iii. 11. 20 The construction of lav v. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, is quite regular.2i Probably many a one in St. John's con- gregation did so think and act, as here in v. 6, 8, 10, is, in a communicative and hypothetical manner pour- trayed. But, by such a form, the address in one respect, gained a more delicate softness, and, in an- other, a more universal applicability and efficacj^ With V. 6, cfr. 2 Cor. vi. 14. To say that one is a Christian, (this is the meaning of xoiv. 'iy^. (jjir auTov ) and still be devoted to sin, (the figurative phrase sv rui tfxoVs/ 'Trs^iirar&Tv is more than actual sin- ning, it is sinful life,) is a contradiction in terms, it is deceit and falsehood. The phrase 'rronTv rriv aXr^iiavy both here and Gosp. iii. 21, which is peculiar to St. John, completely corresponds with St. Paul's a- 7.r^i'jiiv, Eph. iv. 15, as also the subsequent 'xonTv rr\y ör/.a.irj(j-jvrj\i, ii. 29, with bixaiov uvai. V. 7, is thus connected with v. 6, and its meaning is as follows : Only he who in deed and in truth is in communion with God, and accordingly, like God himself, is in the light, and likewise removes from 20 The proposition of Artemonius Crell, in Wolf, " to put a stop after the words ä^r' aurov and refer \-rayyiXia to the Koivuv'ia mentioned in v. 3," needs only to he mentioned in order to be rejected. ^^ Winer's Gramm, p. 93. CHAPTER I. 5 — II. 2. 113 himself all darkness, and walks in the divine light, (sv ruj ^oori), i. e. strives to become like imto God — only such an one is a true Christian — only such an one reall}^ belongs to the holy fraternal community of Christians — only such an one can become conscious of Christ's redeeming power, and experience its ef- fect on himself. If St. Paul, in his time, had par- ticularly to insist on the doctrine, that without a liv- ing faith in Jesus Christ there could not exist among mankind any life in the lights any moral improve- ment, any sanctity, any communion of lo^'e : now, when moral sloth and lukewarmness were satisfied with the mere outward appearance of the t/öt/s and the xo/i-ww«, it became the duty of St. John to shew, that, without earnestness in improvement and holi- ness — without walking in the light, faith was dead, the fraternal communion of Christians without sub- stance or consistency, and the redemption by Christ without any effect. The xoivmla of Christians is a communion of saints, (of the children of God and the light), its bond the pure and spotless fraternal love. Accordingly, to walk in the darkness and be of the world, and yet pretend to be of this zoivuvia, is a contradiction in terms. Only he who truly is God's child, can love the brethren ; in the world, in the darkness, hatred prevails. And it follows that, if the redemption which is obtained by Christ, and appro- priated by faith, is not to remain a mere empty no- tion, the power to sanctification must necessarily grow out of faith, and thus the idea of redemption in us become active, and a living truth. If this is the right construction of the passage, I 114 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. then also the reading [mzt dXXyjXoiv alone, is the right one. At the first glance, indeed, /mt a\jTou, which we find in TertuUian and in Clem. Alex., and which, consequently, is very ancient,^^ seems to be easiei* and more correct. But a more attentive considera- tion will shew, that thus the sentiment becomes somewhat stationary and tautological, and the transi- tion to the subsequent -/mJ ctT/xa, &c. is rendered much more difficult. And St. John, however fond of cy- cloidal composition, clearly does not intend here to repeat v. 6, but, as may be seen from the conclusion of V. 7, proceeding further, wishes the reader to con- clude regressively from the existing faith in the a//xa of Christ, and the subsisting fraternal communion, to the necessity of a living communion with God, and of a zealously advancing sanctifi cation. It, therefore, is manifest, that the /xgr auT2 reading has arisen from the difficulty of the reading /nsr dXXrjXuv. However, still less tenable is what St. Augustine, Beza and Calvin, have done, reading, indeed, /-tsr aXXyjXuvy but inter- preting as if there had been written /mt aOroD* for this clearly is contrary to the ustis loquendi of St. John iii. 28, iv. 7, 12; 2 Epist. 5, where dXkyjXoi al- ways applies to the mutual relation of Christians. Beza and Calvin understand it of the mutua commu- nio Dei et Sanctorum. And thus it is also taken by Lange. Semler translates the ?ca/ before ro a//xa by namque. ^2 Griesbach V. L. Clemens has both readings, Cod. A. as it seems from correction. TertuUian reads thus, De pudic. cap. 20, CHAPTER I. 5 — II. 2. 115 But thereby the context, as above explained, is de- stroyed. Exactly as with St. Paul djix,(x 'I. Xo. r. j/oD a-jroi;, according to the Hebrew idiom, denotes the l^Ioody death of Christ, the principal point of his redeeming activity on earth. St. Paul chiefly con- nects with this expression the power of dtzaiuffig and of d'TTo'kvrPuffic, or a^sff/g ruv äficc^r. cfr. Rom. iii. 25 ; V. 9 ; Ephes. i. 7 ; Col. i. 14 ; but St. John here con- nects with it the power of purifying from sin. The notion is essentially one, the form only differs : St. John's form approaches nearer to the Scriptural sym- bols of the Old Testament, cfr. Heb. ix. 14. But, from V. 9, we see that this -/.a^aptff'üg, through the blood of Christ, more closely resembles St. Paul's hr/taict)(Stg, than the aiuio6vr^ tov ^sov is sometimes used by St. Paul in an active and tran- 2^ Calvin and Beza on this passage, cfr. with Calovius and Wolf on the same. 124 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. sitive sense, still dizaiog never occurs with him in the sense of dtzaiojv ; on the contrary, these words being in close juxtaposition in Rom. iii. 26, are strictly dis- tinguished. But St. John is unacquainted with the transitive dr/.aio()VV7i rov äsou, as well as also with the Pauline notion of dr/.cciSjv, and accordingly the active and transitive signification of di-Aaiog cannot at all be supposed to occur with him. It is more simple and more correct here to con- sider dixajog as synonymous with tt/c-oc, the more comprehensive notion bhiaiog enlarging, and serving as a basis to the more restricted notion <7n(iTÖg. The meaning of the words of St. John is this : God is faithful, because he is righteous. His righteousness makes him keep what he has promised and revealed as the law of the new covenant to the repenting sin- ner, viz. that the sinner, when he repents and con- fesses his sins, shall from him receive pardon and a new power of life. ' Abr/Ja and a/xa^r/a are cognate notions ; the for- mer denotes an opposition to the divine Oixuiov, the latter is a deviation from the divine v6,(Log. The ä(pi(jig -orj aiMaor. and the za^^ahztv ä'rrh 'Trdßyjg dor/Jag are correlate ; the former refers more to the past, the latter to the future ; the former denotes that ideal act of God, when he, instead of the o^yn against the sinner, shews mercy and love (ß?.iog) to him, and puts grace in the place of law ; but this denotes the effi- cacy of the divine grace in the sancl'ificalion of man, Ver. 10. The sense is ; Man denying the con- sciousness of sin in himself, does not only deceive him- self; no, God, the faithful and the just, he thereby CHAPTER I. 5 II. 2. 125 also makes a liar, and contradicts and lenounces the word of God. As in V. 9, so likewise here, God and not Christ is the grammatical subject to which aurov and avT8 refers. The Xoyog r^ '^sh, of which St. John says, that it is not in him who does not confess his sins (xa/ 6 Xoyog avr^ ovz sffnv Iv 57/x?!/) is God's revelation, more especially the gospel of Jesus Christ.^^ Start- ing from this, and proceeding to the more explicit interpretation of the verse, we will find that this is the simple idea of St. John : that while the gospel is founded on the fisrdvoia, but the latter on the con- sciousness of sin, he who bears not in himself this consciousness, is not a true Christian. God's entire scheme of salvation in Christ is based upon this, that all men are sinners before God, and unable to redeem themselves. Inasmuch as this proposition, which natural man (6 yjjaijjoz) is so prone to deny, can in its whole extent and full force only be ap- prehended through the revelation of the divine light and the divine law — the dizaioffvvT) and the os^yy roZ '^soj, Rom. i. 18 ; iii. 23, cfr. Ps. xix. 13, and it ac- cordingly must be considered as God's word, as /Jyog rov ^}sov : St. John thus far says, that he who pretends to be no sinner makes God a liar, cfr. llom. iii. 4, and that the word of God is not in him, i. e. is not by him received and believed in. Chap. ii. 1. He who considers that God is light, and tliat without a continual sanctification and puri- lication, there can be no communion with him, no -■' For other interpretations, See Calovius. 126 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. salvation in Christ ; further, he who is, as he ought to be, every moment conscious of his human weak- ness, and his need of redemption, he must ever more and more strive to be delivered from sin. This is the transition and the paraenetical point of ii. 1. But, considering that even the most zealous Chris- tian, while walking in the flesh, can never be com- pletely liberated from sin, St. John adds to the un- conditional exhortation against all sinning, the con- solation, that when in spite of all his zeal for sanctifi- cation^ a man still sins, he, through Christ, will find forgiveness with God. In the gospel, the Holy Ghost is called the Ua^d- zA'/jTog of the disciples, in as far as he, as the Spirit of truth, was their supporter, helper, and adviser in the work of the gospel. Here Christ is called the Paraclet, in another, although in a cognate sense, in as far as he, as St. Paul says, Rom. viii. 34, at the right hand of God. (here 'rrfog rh crarsja) intercedes for us, or, as it is expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews vii. 25, cfr. ix. 24, prays for us, as the eter- nal High Priest. Exactly in this sense, Philo very often makes use of the words cra^axaXs/i/ and 'jra^d- TiXriTog of the Jewish High priest, as the advocate and intercessor with God for the sins of the people.^^ The meaning of this figurative view, which is bor- rowed from the sacrificial and sacerdotal symbolic of the Jews, is no other than this, that Jesus Christ in his do^cc with the Father, continues his work of ^° Carpzov« Exercitatt. in Ej). ad Hebr. e PhilonC; p. 154, and Loesner Observ. in N. T. e. Pliil. p. 4Q6. CHAPTER I. 5 — II. 2. 127 atoning intercession. The consolatory force of this idea is manifest. If Christ were not the eternal Pa- raclet for us with God, his redeeming and atoning activity would be limited only to his earthly life, and thus far could not be conceived to be eternal and perfect. In that case, redemption would only appear to be an isolated symbolical act, it would not have any complete reality, and it would be difficult to se- cure it against carnal misconceptions and misappre- hensions. Or, in other words, without Christ's eternally effective redeeming and atoning spirit, without the cn/sD/xa XpiffrS, Christ would be no per- fect, no living Christ, but only an isolated and sterile earthly manifestation.^ ^ It is with good reason that St. John here makes use of the communicative first pers. pi. s^o/Miv, for he too constantly required Christ's Ta^axXTjö-/; with the Father. But Grotius understood this differently, " Non dicit," says he, " habet ille advocatum sed ecclesia habet, quae pro lapso precatur. Preces au- tera ecclesiae Christus more advocati deo patri com- mendat." Already before he has observed : " Si quis tamen peccaverit, adde, et se ecclesiae regendum sa- nandumque tradiderit," &c. But where is there here even so much as a syllable respecting the intervention of the church ? It is equally erroneous, that Grotius here too, takes dixaiog only in the sense of bonus lenis. Here, if any where, dlx.aio; should be taken in its strictest sense. ^^ Such passages as 1 Pet. üL 18. Hebr. ix. 20, 27, 28, are not at all contrary to this view, for the aVa| only refers to the redeeming and atoning moment in Christ's death. 1-28 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. Christ alone who is righteous and guiltless,^ '^ can be an intercessor for others with God, Hebr. vii. 26. 1 Pet. iii. 18, cfr. John xvi. 8, 10. These passages are incompatible with any other explanation, even with that which takes the word in an active sense.^^ The connection with the subsequent v. 2, is not so much definitively causal, as explicative and ampli- ficative. This is distinctly indicated by the words Jia; a-jToc — which here are not so correctly translated by •' nam, quia" — as by " et ipse," " idemque ille." But this is the context : The office of Christ as paraclet with God, is founded on this, that he himself has become the iXacrfcog for our sins, nay, for the sins of the whole world. The word iXaff/xog refers to Christ's atoning office on earth, more specially to his death, cfr. Rom. iii. 25. Without Christ's redeem- ing and atoning activity on earth, his activity in Ireaven could not be conceived. The former was the necessary historical commencing and connecting moment of his heavenly paraclets office, in time and among men.* Grotius is right in saying that jXaff/xog ■''- The Arm. Transl. adds the explanation xai a,f/.u/:/.os. '^ Le Moyne in Wolf, in the Curee on this passage. * This may appear obscure to the English reader, yet it is humbly conceived that the translation is fair. But this is the sense : Christ, the Aoyos, is an eternal paraclet in heaven, i. e. as co-existent with God in an absolute and infinite form of existence, but there is a great gulf betwixt that which is in- finite and that which is finite — betwixt the absolute and re- lative — the earthly and the heavenly-^-the temporal and the eternal. Since humanity cannot of itself transcend this gulf, if redemption is to be etiected, divine power must, i. e. the CHAPTER I. 5 II, 2. 129 is a Hebraism for /Xaffr^g. Caloviiis observes that here the abstract is, not without an emphasis, put for the concrete : the emphasis, if here really is one, could only be this, that whereas Christ could be called }Xaff-7i^ when effecting atonement by means of something external, /T^aff/j^og would denote that he made a sacrifice of his own person, cfr. Heb. ix. 12 — 14. Grotius says, that }Xd(fxsiv means, facere ut cessent peccata, and that the meaning of the whole is : Christus vires prsestat, nepeccemus in posterum ;24 but this is erroneous. Thus the original sense of the figurative expression would be entirely sacrificed, this would be taking the indirect effect for the thing itself, and breaking the connection between this verse and the conclusion of v. 1. As often as Christ in the New Testament is called /Xaa/Mog, 't'kaffr'/j^iog, &c., cfr. Rom. iii. 25, Heb. ii. 17, this symbolical expression refers to his office of atonement and peace-making, to his manifestation of the divine 's>.26c, of the divine mercy and love, as contrasted with the o^yri of the divine justice, and so it does here too. Aoyo; of God must descend into a form finite, relative, earthly and temporal ; in other words, there must be an historical as well as an eternal Christ ; and thus Christ's paraclets oflSce, in as far as it refers to those on earth, must there (on earth) have a starting point or moment of commencement, in order to secure to those on earth an interest in Christ's eternal and heavenly paraclesis — for besides, how in any other way could we have any knowledge of the existence of the heavenly para- clesis ? — ^ Transl. ^* Calovius has confuted Grotius from Grotius' own work, De Satisfactione Christi, cap. 7 and 10. K 130 INTERPRETATION OF THE PIRST EPISTLE. What St. John adds, ou 'Trifi ruv rjfj.srsooov d'i ijjWvj^ afXa. YMJ 'Xzo] ÖAOV rou xoff/j^ov, does not refer to the distinction between Jews and heathens,^^ but rather to the distinction between Christians and not Chris- tians generally .^6 According to St. John, Christ was the 2ojTriP rou 'Aoff/xov, iv. 14, Gosp. iv. 42. Christ's redemption and atonement, although in its historical development, and actually, it only comprehends those who are x\7}roi at the time, extends, according to its idea, (^-/.ara, ditm/Mtv) to all mankind, as still to be redeemed, (oaoi/ rov zög/xo)/.) But what is St. John's purpose in thus representing the oracle of Christ's redemption and atonement, extended, as it were, to its utmost periphery? Does he wish to subdue the pride of Jemsh particularism ? That can scarcely be his object ! The majority of his readers at least were converted heathens. And at the time when St. John wrote, Jewish particularism in general, in congregations out of Palestine, specially in Greek ones, had been long on the wane, or per- haps did no longer exist. In these regions it neces- sarily must have receded more and more before the growing preponderance of the Gentile- Christian ele- ment. But specially in the Gentile- Christian con- gregations there gradually arose, instead of Jewish particularism, another that was Christian^ viz. arro- gance and spiritual pride against all who were not "•'' The opinion of Cyrillus. 5^ Some other opinions, as well as also who among the Hncient interpreters entertained ours, see in Galovius ou this pass.^.ge. CHAPTER II. 3 — 17. ISl Christians, against the %66iJ,og of sin and error. Now as even St. Paul, warring against this. Tit. iii. 2 — 7, 1 Cor. V. 9 — 13, recommends meekness to all men, and puts the Christians in mind that they formerly were like those whom they now despised, and that they were now redeemed, not through any merits of their works, but through the divine mercy and (ptXa^^m-rria. thus, also St. John, wishes to warn his rsxvia against this Christian particularism, and recall to their re- membrance, that Christ is come as a Saviour and Redeemer to the tvhole world. In as much as St. John, in other parts of the epistle, so strongly exhibits the contrast between the children of God — the Chris- tian brethren^ — and the world, it was here so much the more necessary to direct the reader's attention to God's universal grace. SECTION THIRD. CHAPTER II. 3 17. In analogy with the commencement of the pre- ceding section, and in order to develope more fully what was said in i. 5, 6, St. John here in v. 3 — 5, shews, that without keeping God's commandments, (without walking in the light, i. 6,) there cannot be or subsist any true knowledge, nor any true love of God, and accordingly no communion with him, or remaining in him. St. John writes to Christians, who were, and wished tobe such, cfr. v. 13, sqq., and 132 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. consequently to men who believed that they had knowledge of God, and that they loved him. Of so much the greater force is the syllogism on M'hich the exhortation v. 3 — ö is based. In opposition to the illusive morally barren Chris- tianity of many in that age, the Apostle says, v. 3 : By this alone the true knowledge of God shews it- self, that we do what he has commanded. Axjrh and ai/roD here, .as well as in v. 4 and 5, can onl}^ be referred to God as the predominating gram- matical subject in the preceding section. This rule is followed by CEcumenius, the Schol. in Matthäi,^'' Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Piscator and others. But Luther, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, Semler, and se- veral others, refer ahrh and auroS, v. 3 — 5, to Christ, as the locally nearest preceding grammatical subject, V. 2. But V. 2. is only a parenthesis. As a sure sign that v. 3 — 5 do not apply to Christ, St. John, in V. 6, where he speaks of Christ, makes use of v/tmog as a pronoun referring to what is more remote. If we suppose that in v. 3 — 5, the knowledge and the commandments oj Christy and not God's, are spoken of, the connection and the analogy of these verses with those of i. 5, sqq., is destroyed, the meaning of V. 5 is rendered obscure, and that inseparableness, (which St. John expressly maintains in iv. 7, sqq.), of the knowledge and love of God, as the two most essential parts of the communion with him, is abo- lished. Some, for example Carpzovius, from predilection ^7 p. 216. CHAPTER II. 3 — 17. 133 to the emphatic, others, for instance Lange, on ac- count of the seeming identity of sentiment in v. 3 and V. 5, understand l/vw^ca/xsv and h/vMTia ahrh^ v. 3 and 4, not of the knowledge but of the love of God. Lange here appeals to the usus loquendi both of the Old and New Testament, according to which he pre- tends that JTTS Gen. xviii. 19 ; Prov. xxiii. 27 ; Job ix. 21, and yivJiSzuv, John x. 14 ; 2 Tim. ii. 19 ; Rom. vii. 29, signify to love. But in none of these passages where yT» and yivojffx.siv actually occur, (for in Prov. xxiii. 27, and Rom. vii. 29, we seek these words in vain*), is this signification demonstrable. The word, particularly when it signifies to recognise, to observe, to knoiv thoroughly and intimately, has, indeed, the more or less remote secondary signification of loving, of being solicitous about, and so forth ; still it never is, neither in the Old nor New Testament, exactly tantamount to love, but the fundamental signification of knowing always predominates.^^ But, let us suppose that * True : but here are clearly two misprints ; by reading Prov. xxvii. 23, and Rom. viii. 29, all will appear to be right as far as concerns the quotations ; for yivuffKitv certainly is con- tained in the celebrated T^o'tyvu of Rom. viii. 29. Still the Trans- lator doubts whether these passages are of any material use to Lange in support of his opinion. It is not only a philological, but a controversial question too, whether translating " Those he did previously love he also did predestinate," is preferable to the received version. ■"^ Wahl and Bretschneider, too, make yivuffx-uv in the New Testament, ea? hebraismo, signify to love. Wahl appeals to Matth. vii. 23; Job. x. 14, 15, 27; 1 Cor. viii. 3; Gal. iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 19; Ps. i. 6, xxxvi. 10. Bretschneider adds, Rom. 1:34 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. yrjuj(S'/.iiv actually did occur in the Old and New Tes- tament, in the sense of loving^ here it cannot at all have that sense, not even as a remote secondary sig- nification. In V. 3, h/vJJxufisv follows immediately X. 19 ; Heb. xiii. 23, where its meaning is said to be benigni- ter excipio. Wisd. iv. 1 ; Hos. viii. 4 ; Ps. xxxvii. 18 ; Jerem. xxiv. 5 ; Amos iii. 2. But, in none of these passages does yr» or ytvuffKuv, properly speaking, signify to love, and only in some of them, it is, as a secondary signification, only faintly perceptible. This is the case in Matth. vii. 23 ; 2 Tim. ii. 19 ; i Cor. viii. 3 ; Gal. iv. 9 ; Joh. x. 14, 15, 27 ; Wisd. iv. 1, where it denotes to recognize something as one's own, as the true, as the genuine, &c. In Gal. iv. 9, if yvaa-^ivris were translated by beloved, the beautiful play upon the words would be de- stroyed;* Joh. X. 14, 15, 27, the figurative speech demands the word's fundamental signification, and in 1 Cor. viii. 3, where the preceding a.ya.'^u. seems to fix upon 'iynugTai, the secondary signification of loving, the allusion to v. 1 and 2, and the anti- thesis, would be quite lost, were we to translate tytuara.i simply by, is loved. Rom. x. 19, ynuffnuv denotes to know, perceive. Heb. i. 23, simply to know. Ps.'i. 6; xxxvi. 10 ; xxxvii. 18 ; Jerem. xxiv. 5 ; Hos. viii. 4 ; Amos iii. 2. J?1> signifies to observe, attend to, perceive, &c. but not at all to love. Dr. Gesenius has, with reason, under J^T», in his Dictionary, omitted the signification to love, and, with a genuine philologi- cal tact, instead of it, put under No. 8, the signification to be solicitous about a thing, (attend to, esteem, revere). * No doubt it would in the translation ; so much the better, however, is the pun, as the Author calls it, in the original. There would be no play, noptm whatever, if the signification of ytvatrxstv were the same in yvovTis and yvuff^ivri?. Gal. iv. 9. The common version, " or rather are known of God," is intolerable, since the converse of it would be a blas- phemy, and by saying afm- that we are knoivn of God, the Apostle would seem to pre-suppose a-time when ice were not known, &c. The Translator thinks that this passage, as well as 1 Cor. viii. 3, strongly supports the Author's opponents ; and, in Dr. Gesenius's signification. No. 8, there are, at all events, all the main ingredients of loving. CHAPTER II. o 17 135 after yirnQxaihiv. This yrjui6%on.iv no man ever under- stood in any other than its usual and principal sense. But, in the same sentence, particularly in one so short as this, to use a word in two different significa- tions, is altogether contrary to rule, and allowable only in cases of necessity. The case would be diffe- rent if St. John did not know the word ayci-av. But, on the contrary, in our epistle, he carefully distin- guishes the knowledge and the love of God ; and although he considers them as two elements, so inse- parable, and so thoroughly penetrating each other, that he will not recognize any true knowledge of God without the love of God, exactly on the separa- tion of the two, in practice as well as in ordinary parlance, is founded the assertion and the exhorta- tion, that both must be united when each of them are genuine and perfect, cfr. iv. 7, sqq. As y/vwo-xs/y .(-01/ a-T ciLP-)(7]g, TO'/ rrarha, rov ^soi/,) v. lo, 14; iv. 7, 8 ; V. 20, does not denote loving, — as St. John no- •where in his gospel has used the word^^ in that sense, — he certainly does not here use it in that acceptation. St. John, in this place, undoubtedly speaks of the knowledge of God, in an eminent sense of the word, but not in as far as it is identical with the love of God, but only in as far as it, being truly practical, leads man to the observance of the divine command- ments, and thus shews itself in an increasing love of that God who has been recognized as Light.'^o Neither ^^ See the Author's preceding note. '**' Schol. IMatthäi, p. 113, (öV/ iyvtux.i/.y.iT) rovriirri, 'TiTpccv al- Tou Iff^yix-oifAiv, iivsif/,z^cCf xeu avxxix^dfiiB-a avToi, cfr. p. 21G, on V. 3. 13ß INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EFISTLE is V. 5, as Lange supposes, only the logical conver- sion of V. 3 ; but St. John proceeding and enlarging, '^^ as is indicated by the di, v. 5, after having shewn in V. 4, the inconsistency between the knowledge of God and the non-observance of his commandments,'^^ intends to make plain, that that love of God which necessarily is combined with a living knowledge of God, exhibits and perfects itself in the faithful ob- servance of the divine Xoyog (i. e. the total of the h- 7o7.ai revealed through Christ,) and that, accordingly, a true communion with God only exists where the Christian knowledge and love of God shews itself, lively and fertile, in a pure moral conduct. With great empasis St. John puts the aXri^ug which belongs to 7} ayd'rrri tov ^jou rsrsX. even before h TO'jTU).^^ It has a retrospective reference to h ro'jTU) Y, aX'/jSs/a odx jVr/v, v. 4. The greatest number of the ancient and modern interpreters understand ayd'jTri rov '^sov to mean man's love to God. This sense also best agrees with the context, particularly with the h avru) sfff^sv in the con- clusion of the verse. Generally dyäi:y\ rov %ou with St. John, means love to God, cfr. Gospel v. 42, (xv. 10, 13.) Our epistle ii. 15; iii. 17 ; v. 3. Where the reverse is the case, and rov %ov is a genitive of ■^^ Grotius on v. 5, says very truly : Is iion novit tantum Deum, sed et perfecte amat. Amor praesupponit cognitionem. Itaque oppositio hießt cum accessione. '^'^ Similarly St. Paul, Rom. i. 18, sqq. Ephes. iv. 17, sqq. V. 8, sqq. Tit. i. 16. ^^ GersdorPs Sprach-charakt : des N. T- (The character of he language of the New Testament.) vol. i. p. 477, sqq. CHAPTER II. 3 — 17. 137 the gramm. subject, the context either is quite diffe- rent, as in iv. 9, or something that determines the sense is added, as in iv. 16. Man's love to God is something infinite. Its in- creasing perfection towards man's absolute moral union with God, is the problem, the object of the Christian life ; but who does ever completely attain this object? The Christian's love to God, even when his conduct is most pure, is always imperfect. How then can St. John say aXri^uc, b tovtui tj ayccT^ Tov '^sov rsrsAs/wra/ ? Because the Roman Catholic dogmatists of the 16th century took this proposition in a false sense, and in the controversy against the evangelical doctrine of justification, made an er- roneous application of it ; several protestant interpre- ters of that age, have, either as Flacius and Calovius, explained dyoc^ri^ r. ^. as God's love to us, or, what is still more arbitrary, divested the word rsrsXsiojrai of the sense of perfection, and believed that it only de- noted the demonstration of love in deed and in truth, as contrasted with mere appearance and hypocrisy. This latter opinion was espoused, for example, by Oslander, Beza,^* and others ; and likewise by many modern authors, whom the seeming practical untruth of the proposition does offend.'*^ But how entirely futile it is to deprive rsriksiojrai^ *** Beza compares it with the French : mettre en execution. ■^^ They either take ay«*»» t. S. for God's love to us ; this Bengel has done ; or, as Carpzovius and Lange, they under- stand ririXiimrai to denote the real existence, the vere obtinere^ of the intensity and truth of the love to God. Carpzovius ap- 138 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. of its ordinary signification in the passage before us, is shewn by St. John's use of this word, in such clear passages as Gosp. iv. 34, v. 36, xvii. 4, 23, xix. 28. 1 Epist. iv. 18.* St. Luke too, St. Paul, St. James ; but particularly the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, never use the word in any other than its ordinary sense, cfr. Luke ii. 43. Acts xx. 24. Phil, iii. 12. Heb. ii. 10, v. 9, &c. And why should we require any other? The proposition is quite true, and free from any difficulty, when we only recollect that St. John, in the epistle in general, refers to the ideals of moral perfection, and considers ttj^^sTv rov Xoyov r. % as something that is perfect. His lan- guage too, is even in its form clearly hypothetical : and Calvin observes very truly: Breviter indicare voluit, quid a nobis deus exigat, et in quo posita sit fidelium sanctitas. — Si quis objiciat, neminem un- quam fuisse repertum, qui deum ita perfecte diligeret : respondeo, sufficere modo quisquis pro gratiae sibi datse mensura ad hanc perfectionem aspiret. Inte- rim constat definitio, quod perfectus dei amor sit legitima sermonis ejus observatio. In ea nos pro- gredi, sicut in notitia proficere debemus.'*^ peals to iv. 12, 17, and refers to the Latin usage of perficere for obtinere. Least to be recommended is Semler's mode of solving the difficulty, and no demonstration is required to shew its falsity ; he thus paraphrases the proposition : hie solus per- fectissimam et inßnitam dei in homines caritatem, recte didicit. ^ Luther in his Scholia : Christian! habent duo privilegia. Primum et summum est cognitio Christi seu ipse Christus, in quo habent non solum caritatem perfectam, sed perfectas omnes alias virtutes Christianas. — Deinde habent etiam primitias CHAPTER II. 3 — 17. 139 The meaning of the conclusion of the proposition, which is connected with i. 6, is this : By this, by the keeping of the commandments only, we ascertain that we (in knowledge and in love), have communion with God, i. e. that we are true Christians. In order to determine more precisely, in v.liat measure and degree, the keeping of the command- ments should be found with Christians, St. John v. 6, refers to the example of Jesus Christ the righteous. As He, while on earth, always did that which pleased God, Gosp. viii. 29, — kept the Father's command- ments, and thus remained in him, xv. 10: thus also the true Christian, if he wishes perse veringly to re- main in the communion with God, (Xsyuv — sv uvtuj /Asyf/f) : — has nothing less required of him, than to become like unto the Lord, and unconditionally to follow his footsteps, 1 Pet. ii. 21, 22. Phil. ii. 5. As the gospel of the Apostles always combined the commandment of sanctification and imitation of Jesus, with the announcement of Christ's mani- festation, so St. John, in v. 7, reminds his readers, that even this, what he now is impressing on their minds, i. 5, 6, sqq., ii. 1,5, 6, is no new commandment, but an old one, the very same which they heard from the very beginning, (since they had become Chris- tians.) What here is meant, is not any single com- mandment in particular ; but the entire Xoyog of the Spiritus et donum faciendse, legis aliquo usque. It may be seen that Luther too interpreted this passage according to the analogy of his faith — he did not exactly hit the mark : still, how much more sagacious and spirited is his interpretation than that of tlie polemical divines of his party ! 140 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. gospel, (see our epist. i. 5), concerning the walking in the light, that those who are redeemed ought to abstain from sin, &c., is the old commandment given to the Christians from the beginning Thus is ex- plained, the seemingly redundant addition, which Lange considers as one of the many tautologies in St. John, 7} svrokri 57 craXa/a s^tiv 6 Xoyog (see v. 5), ov 717L0V6OLT& ^ä'n^ ^^'X/li-'y^ As air oi^y/ii, in both places, only can refer to the initiation of the readers into Christianity, and as from i. 5, downwards, no other svtoati has been mentioned, than that of walking in the light, of abstaining from sin, of imitating Jesus the righteous ; and as also the epistle manifestly is more addressed to converted heathens than to converted Jews, — those are in error, who, like Flacius, Beza, Clarius, Grotius, Carpzovius and others,'*^ understand the svtoXti in ^'^ The words in brackets are omitted in some important MSS., in A B C, &c. Bnt this omission being satisfactorily accounted for by the ofiotoriXiurov, and the words being de- manded by the context, Griesbach has with reason retained them in the text. ■^'^ Among the ancients, St. Augustine did rightly understand this passage. Quite erroneous, and manifestly arising from a misunderstanding of the words ut' a^x^s, which it was thought necessary to take here in the same sense as in i. 1, is the ex- planation in the Schoh Matthäi : 11 f/Xv — 'lov^aiois ravr» jTuv iTijyyuXeiTO. it "hi ov^ ol 'lov^aim yjirav, u? Ta^lffTyi/TI 70 TiXos Tij; ST/fTTöX^J, /U,'^ TOT OVV IvToXv} TUXCHX XUi OfT ^^PC^S 'JTa^^ovffa xec) uxova-Biia-a croiirtv uvä-^uTois iirrh, h xutk t«s (pvffiKccs ivvotx; (piXiK'/j ^lu^ifft;. TIkvtis ykp (piffii YtfJt'i^Bt, aou koi- vcoviKK ^uct ovTii ayaTU(ri roh; TXntriov, cfr. tlie minor Schol , p. 114, lh">, where Ave find similar expx'essions. CHAPTER II. 3 — 17. 141 this place as applying to the commandment of brotherh^ love, and the antithesis between the Old and New, as referring to the Old Testament, where this commandment first was given. Lev. xix. 18, and the New, where the same commandment was recon- firmed and enlarged.'*^ First in v. 9, St. John speaks of brotherly-love in a more special manner, and indeed, as it seems, rather by way of example, or, at all events, as proceeding from generals to particulars, than as having implied in the words svroXij xatm '/cai •ra?.a/a, the love-commandment of the Old and New Testament. If the interpretation here alluded to were the right one, not only the 7th verse would be unconnected with that which precedes, but the 8th verse too would be almost destitute of sense and de- sign. The inaccuracy of this interpretation, which had not entirely escaped Calvin's observation, shews itself more specially in this, that for its justification it re- quires that the words uyj'rz acr' oL^yj\i and 7i%o\)6ari do imply an allusion to the Old Testamental olim, and to the ancestors of the Jewish readers of the epistle. This is maintained by Grotius, who, in support of his opinion, quotes Matt, xxiii. 35. Mark x. 3. John vi. 32; vii. 19, 22. Acts iii. 22; vii. 38. But inasmuch as these passages occur in addresses delivered to real Jews, it is evident that the support which they afford is of small weight ; and it is indeed surprising that Grotius did not observe this difference. *'^ Clemens, in his Adumbrat, also explains the words vaX. ivToX. hy the paraphrase : per legem et prophetas, but he does not understand them as referring exclusively to the love-com- mandment. 142 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. Equally arbitrary is Carpzove's explanation : he makes the sense of the words 'iyji'^ kt' cioyjic, to be habuisse semper, idque vel in ipso V. T. ; but the words axo-jziv a-' aoyjic he refers to the gospel, as being a re- petition of the law of the Old Testament. The opinion that St. John, from apologetical motives, and because the novelty of the gospel was offensive to the readers of the epistle, calls the commandment of which he is here speaking, an old commandment, is also erroneous : it is satisfactorily confuted by v. 8. The supposed allusion to the discourse of Jesus in the gospel xiii. 34, is very remote, and does by no means justify our conforming to that passage the in- terpretation of the passage before us. In the gospel Christ speaks of his love-commandment, which, in respect of its comprehensiveness and intensity, was altogether new, and there he distinctly expresses the contrast betwixt the -/.atvi] IvroXri, and the cra/.a/a of the Old Testament. But here the stated contrast is immediately again removed, and the relation between the Old and the New is, on account of the words d-' K^yr.c, quite different. Still, this contrast is by no means here insignificant ; it is put with a serious paraenetical design. The new commandment at first frightens the slothful mind. On that account, and also because St. John trusts that his readers are true Christians, and wish to be such, he says : This com- mandment is not new, but old, it has long been known to you, and put in practice by you. But be- cause man so easily forgets his duty, and never fully and satisfactorily gets by heart God's commandments, the Apostle, wishing to reprove the forgetfulness, CHAPTER II. 3 17. 143 even of the best, and to spur them on, adds, v. 9, as if wishing to correct what m as put in v. 8, caX/u ^^ svtoXy,v %ai\iT,v yod(po) bixTv : accordingly not in the sense, as Bengel thought, that he now first writes to them, what they before had only heard, nor in the sense, that the isolated love-commandment of the Old Tes- tament is renewed through Christ, and has become a commandment of the New Testament ; but only and exclusively in this sense, that even the most ancient of commandments (in this place specially the hro'^i; of walking in the light,) commonly are forgot by an ay-ooaTYig i'TriXo^ff/jjo'^ric, * a designation more or less applicable to every man ; and that they are new to him, as often as he is admonished to observe them — or perhaps also in this sense, that what is new gene- / rally has the greatest charm, and that new laws, | as long as they are new, are most zealously observed. ) In both cases the paraenetic design of the idea is manifest. Only in the latter case, the short proposi- tion would require to be resolved, as it has been re- solved by Dr. Knapp, in the following manner. ^^ Illampr3eceptionem,quam vobis dudum cognitam esse dixi, sic vobis denuo commendo atque injungo, tan- quam si nova esset, nee vobis antehac unquam audita, as if St. John had \vTitten, aCryj t] svtoXtj %am--r^i'7rr,g £öTw v/j,Tu zai dsl xaiv/j. Although this explanation is pleasing, I still prefer the former, which presupposes ^'^ Grotius says, tccXiv — est iTavooScunxov. * Hearer of forget fulness, a Hebraizing expression for For- getful hearer. — [ Transl.\ ''^' In his Script, var. argum. p. 340, 347. 144 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. no sort of imperative in the proposition, and makes it merely monitory and expressive of a universal ex- perience ; the former is also more simple, and har- monizes better with the commencement of v. 7. Still more controverted is the interpretation of what follows : o icriv dXr^sg on tj 6-/,oTia : As to the construction of this proposition it may be observed, that that analysis of it which Dr. Knapp has adopted is the only right one : 9raX/v (wc) hroXr^v '/.atvYiV y^, biMv (jovro) ö hriv dX. But, conformably with this solution, which renders correct a sentence by many considered as incorrect, the word on can only be considered as a causal conjunction, and not sidixüJCy as it has been taken to be by Castellion and others. It is uncertain whether we ought, in this place, to read sv v/jlTv, or Iv 7]/xTv. The latter reading is found in the Alexandr. MS., and besides in a few authori- ties of no great weight ; it seems to owe its origin to a false generalizing interpretation of the passage. The common reading v/mTv, which is supported by the greatest number of authorities, merits preference, even because it better corresponds with y^. i,aTv, both here and in v. 7, and because it conveys a more dif- ficult as well as also a more delicate meaning. The context, and the sense of the difficult words Ö i6nv dXr^'ig on 6'/.ona, &c. differs with the in- terpreters according to their conception of what is implied by the word hro7.ri, and by the contrast be- tween TuXaiov and zocivov. According to my view, the context and the sense is a.s follows : St. John having said of the imitation CHAPTER II. 3 17. 145 of Christ, V. 6, and of the walking in the light, v. 6, that this is for his readers an old, long known, yet never an obsolete, but ever a new commandment, he adds, with reference to this contrast, that this si/ro/.y; is certainly true and established (dXyßsg), and that its truth and certainty is grounded, partly on the ex- ample of Christ, who thus walked in the light, v. 6, partly on the experience of his readers. For, as to the latter point, he means to say, that among them (inasmuch as they do now walk in the light) the darkness of error and sin (in which they lived ere they became Christians) is already vanishing, tcz- ^dys-ai,^^ and that the genuine light of the true knowledge and love of God is now shining forth among them. We ought ever to bear in mind, that St. John writes to men in whom he has the confidence that they are, and that they wish to be, ' true Christians, and whom he only desires to spur on to become such, more fully, and more perfectly. The paraenetic force is grounded on this, that the commandment which already is established as true and genuine — which by an exalted example, and by the experience of those to whom the epistle is addressed, has been shewn to be practicable and salutary, will, in all probability. ])e considered as more sacred, and more easily put in practice. This interpretation agrees best with Dr. Knapp's, ^2 St. John uses diis verb here, and in ii. 17, in a middle accep- tation ; but St. Paul, in 1 Cor. vii. 31, gives it a neutro-passive sense in an active form ; the classic authors, Avheu they use the ivord in this sense, do inflect it in the same manner as St. Paul. 146 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. and only in this respect differs from it : that Knapp, conceiving the Christian love-commandment to be meant b}^ the si/roXri^ understands the words 6 ssriv dX7i^\g h dvru), to express the ratification of this com- mandment by Christ's love in his death on the cross, iii. 16. But whereas the words : xo^m:: iZiTvog 'rson- 7rccT'/j(jB, to which the expression dXyßs; h avrOj un- doubtedly refers, must be quite generally understood of Christ's pure and spotless life ; — further, since the conclusion of the verse only speaks of the general moral contrast between the darkness of sin and er- ror, and the light of the true communion with God, confr. i. 5, 6, — and, finally, since first in v. 9 and 10, the more special contrast betwixt brotherly love and hatred to the brethren, is developed as a consequence from the general moral contrast : — it appears mani- fest, that the commandment and example of Christ must here be taken in a much more comprehensive sense, and indeed in no other than that in which we have taken it. A more careful examination of such interpretations as differ from the one we have proposed, may tend to place ours in a clearer light. Those interpreters who suppose that the svroXri means the love-commandment, and that the words ■TraXaihv and xa/voi/ refer to the contrast betwixt the Old and New Testament, fall, by such a supposition, into the greatest embarrassment when they come to deal with the passage before us, and from this em- barrassment they can only, by the most constrained interpretations, extricate themselves. Thus Grotius, for example, explains the words o Igtiv dXri^sg h CHAPTER II. 3 17. 147 a\j-M 'Aai sv v/j^Tv thus : " Quod in ipso, i. e. in Christo verum, fuit, i. e. re ipsa (dXr^zg for dXr^ojg) apparuit^ et in vobis, sc. debet." " Christus," he adds, " non paucos homines, sed omnes dilexit, et ita, ut prse ip- sorum sakite ne vitam quidem suam caram haberet. Sic et nos debemus facere, iii. 16. Then he takes the ßTioria for the age of the Mosaic la^y, and the ^ujg for Christ and the economy of the New Testament, and, presupposing the readers of St. John's Epistle to have formerly been Jews, he makes rjdodyiroii serve instead of a past tense. Several have followed the example of Grotius. That this explanation is arbitrary and constrained, is very manifest. How can it be justified to explain S6TIV almost as if it were quite absent : — at one time referred to Christ, as a past tense, and as put for (pavzooj^r,vaiy and next, when referred to h hfuv^ as an imperative ? It is also unjustifiable to refer aXyjasg, as an abverb, merely to Christ, and not to h I'mv, since the double relation of this word both to hv ahrOj, and to h -jimTv, is sufficiently indicated by the prefixed söT/v. When and where, in the New Testament, is the age and economy of the Old Testament called 6/coTia?^^ Such an expression would seem almost Marcionitic, in as much as ffzorJa, in the New Testa- ment, never denotes what is merely imperfect, but always sin and error. But let us suppose that czorla ^•^ The ancient intei-preters, who thus understood the con^ trast betwixt the Old and New, observed this difficulty, and, ap- parently on that account, read ffuloc,. This reading we find iii the Alexandr. MS, and in d with Matth;ii, both here and in v. 9. But why not also in v. 11 ? 148 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. in some place or other is used in that sense, how can it be used in such a sense here, since the love-com- mandment of the Old Testament (if that is meant in V. 7) is by no means repealed, but recommended and stated to be reinforced ; and since 6-/.oria and cpojg, throughout the Epistle and Gospel of St. John, are only used to designate the contrast betwixt the dark- ness of error and of sin, and the light of truth and godly life ? Even if all the readers to whom St. John's epistle was addressed were converted J§ws, how ar- bitrary it would be to assume that cra^aysra/, which is quite parallel and synonymous with r,bn (palvsi, is to be taken in a preterite sense, and the latter not ! As improper as it would be to consider hrh and (pami, as preterites, as improper it is to consider 'Traodysrat as such. Still more awkward is the manner in which those endeavour to extricate themselves, who suppose that rra/.atov and d-' a^p^'/j» refers to the innate love- propension of human nature. As if the text were, not sv a-jToj, but sv iavrOj, they translate, "quae res in se vera est." Nay, with OEcumenius, this explana- tion reaches the highest grade of arbitrariness and confusion, as h aurOj, is both taken for sv savroj, and at the same time referred to God.^"* '^* The ancient Greek interpreters seem to have been quite at a loss with regard to this passage. They, for the most part, take oTt in the sense of that (quod), and interpret thus : Ivrokiiv Ti xxtvhv, on at/Tos 'kttiv o (puvi^uBus ^.oyo;, ri aX^^na, xxt /u-trahi- dootriv yifzTv t?,; uvtou yvutnu;, on h (tkotIix, Ta^uy. k. to (pco; . 114. Another Scholion says: '!ro7xv (pyicrn hrokm xonvm ; CHAPTER II. 3 17. 149 Many, and more particularly modern interpreters, ivho find it grammatically offensive to refer o to zaivr, svroXri, and cannot discover any suitable meaning in the word aXri^sg, propose to take the article o for the mascuUne article, — to consider the sentence o xat sv -jiu'j as a more accurate elucidation of the hT6>Jr\ Y.ai\r\ — and then translate thus : Every true Christian is united with him (with Christ), as well as with you. This is Lange's interpretation. Again, in a different way, others take this proposition thus : I write to you the new commandment, — to you who are united (taking o for o/'), with Christ, as he (as if there was a/orlc, before h htuy) is with you. But not to mention the lamentable obscurity of these inter- pretations, how can such an enallage of gender and number, and, in general, such a confusion in the con- struction, in any way be justified in an author, whose stile is so simple as is the stile of St. John ? Less harsh indeed, but still arbitrary and subversive of the perspicuity and clearness of St. John's simple idea, is the interpretation of those who refer o only to the predicate xa/i/?^, and take ä\'r\^\c, for a\'/^Z)c,, as if St. John's meaning had been this : which {viz. 7ieiv^) the kvroX'fi really is, both with regard to Christ, who has loved us after a manner which is entirely new, and also with regard to you, among whom the new light is shining forth. This is Morus's explana- tion. Semler's is similar, only the '/.air}i IvroXri, he supposes to mean the gospel of Jesus generally. But 70 .(pog, is here equivalent to 6 '^Xrißiov. Also in order to give a better form to the idea, and because it is maintained that the proposition : " he who hateth his brother, waiketh in darkness," is perfectly plain, the signification of negligere has been given to the word /x/fff/l/.^'' Both these suppositions are erroneous. Writing to Christians respecting their mutual relation to each other i. 7, and, at the same time, alluding to Christ's new commandment, Gosp. St. John xiii. 34, the Apostle could only speak of the Christian bro- therly love, in the more restricted sense, and not of universal philanthropy. And in as much as St. John uses strong antitheses in the epistle throughout, and considers every lack of love to the brethren as hatred, the signification of imkhTv cannot here by any means be softened. Because St. John presupposes readers who were Christians, he uses in v. 10 the expression h rw ^w-/ i/svzi. Love is the right, the free course of Christian vir.tue : before it all obstacles, all stumbling-blocks vanish, cfr. 1 Cor. xiii. 4 — 7. In illustrating the words '/.at ßy.ävbaT-.ov sv auruj ohx Iotiv Grotius justly compares them with Ps. cxix. 165, where the phrase is similar i'loyjvri <7:oWri rue, ciyci'riZiGi rh vofMov, xcci ov'/, sffriv au-oTg ffzdvdccKov, h^VJ^i'Q. The following pas- sage in v. 11, and a comparison with the Gospel of ^' Thtis John Price, and others. 152 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. St. John xi. 9, 10, render the meaning of the word ry/Avhako'} here incontrovertible. It means every stumbhng-bloek for the virtue and sanctification of a Christian. The words h avruj are not put instead of aurw, as Grotius supposes, but, according to the usage of St. John, they ought to be joined with shai, and this phrase with St. John is often synonymous with 'ix^ir here the most suitable version would be ; " for such an one no CAdvoaXov exists." As illustrative of the figurative speech, v. 11, cfr. the Gosp. xi. 9, 10. Grotius does here make this distinction between h TV] 6-A.oria, her I and sv r. ffx. irz^frariT- that the former denotes the disposition of the mind, the latter the act. Probably more correctly the relation be- tween these two phrases would be thus stated : St. John proceeds from that which is less, to that which is more figurative, and then further enlarges the latter. The words oxj-a, oJds 'ttov Uvrayg/, correspond with the words l% o rra.- '/Mil; 5:,a=ewi, has a quite different meaning from our b d-' diyj,g. As an alhision to Christ, immediately precedes in v. 12, as the antithesis rhv -Troy/.fov would apply with more propriety to Christ than to God, and as the words o h acr' a.o'/r,c, i. 1, is an undoubt- ed parallel passage, the words before us must neces- sarily be referred only to Christ. Others are of opinion, that the words l^i/wxars rh «-' äiyj,g denote the personal acquaintance of the fathers of the congregation with Christ. But, in the congregations of Asia Minor, at this period, there could hardly be any body who had personally known the Lord, except St. John himself. And if we ad- mit that a few such might have existed, how could St. John, without distinction, say to all the fathers, in this sense : i/vouxarr rov ärr a.oyj^i't Neither would he have said l/i/oü/.ars, nor -ov a-' af;/;^?, but for the former he would have put sw^axarj, or some such word, and for the latter '\r,G(rjv X?. And, finally, it cannot be supposed that this Apostle, spiritual as he is, in the most elevated sense of the word, should ponsider the personal acquaintance y.ara cd^'/.a. of a fevr with the Lord, as being of any importance, and that he should have placed such a knowledge of Chrst as equally essential, in a parallel with n'jzr,y.a-i rbv •-ö'r/,^ov and syyjüKurs rh --arha. More particularly the ancient interpreters, consider the words -ar=5=r, vrctwVxo/, rra.iöia. as figurative desig- nations of the different grades of Christian know- ledge and morality. The only one of these that 158 INTEr.PRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. could be so understood would, perhaps, be <::a.ihio.^ see 1 Cor. xiv. 20, but so to explain ca-sosg and ViaviG/ioi is, more specially in this context, utterly in- admissible. The supposition, moreover, that St. John is here speaking of different gradations of Christian knowledge and morality is entirely erroneous. Here he speaks, not of these, but only of certain moral and spiritual dispositions, which predominate in the dif- ferent ages of human life. The word cra/ö/a, too, as will be immediately shewn, does not here denote children, and thus the infantine degree of knowledge is done away. And as to the fathers and the youths : the knowledge of Christ, and the victory over Satan, are, indeed, different things ; but the former is no higher degree of Christian life than the latter; on the contrary, the one sustains and supports the other, and, where one of these elements is present, there the other is also. In conformity with the symmetrical relation be- twixt the triple 'iyoa-^a. and the triple y^d^poj, 'rraioia is here equivalent to rs'/.via v. 12, which is St. Jolin's common address. No more here than in v. 18, does St. John, by cra;5/a, mean children, in the ordinary acceptation of the term. And for what reason could St. John be supposed thus expressly to address the children of the congregation? Indeed, it is said, that children, without any further knowledge of God, still are able to recognise and love him as father, and that the words ymi(S%. r. 'xarsoa most suitably express this infantine knowledge of God. But here, crarj^^ expresses no infantine notion, but it has, as every- wliere in the epistle, i. 2, 3 ; ii. 1, 23, and elsewhere, CHAPTER II. S — 17. 159 a reference to Christ the Son of God. The know- ledge of the Father, in this sense, St. John, surely, no more expected from childi'en than we vrould ex- pect it. Now, if syoa^f/u iz/xTv, rratolcc is parallel to yodxco •üimTv, rsy.via, v. 12, then there must also be a certain relation between : on iyvw/.ars rov cra-ha and on uzs'jjvrai ufxr,, Sec» v. 12. But this relation consists in this : that the knowledge of the Father, who from love has sent his Son as Saviour into the world. commences and advances along with the conscious- ness of forgiveness of sins through Christ. What relation is there between the triple syja-v^a and the triple yodzu) ? To suppose that sy^a-^a alludes to an earlier, now perhaps lost epistle, ^^ or to the earlier written gos- pel, ^^ is inadmissible : the parallel between the triple syoa-^a, or/, &c., and the triple ^^af w, o-i^ &c. would be too identical. Since St. John refers sy^a-vj/a, as often as he uses it elsewhere in the epistle, to this present epistle, as in verse 21, 26 ; v. 13, it must here too be referred to it. But for what purpose then are the same propositions, with little modifications, repeated : and more especially for what purpose is the variation of y^d^^jj and 'iypor^a introduced ? On account of the great difficulty of finding out the right meaning of this repetition and variation, we might feel inclined, with Calvin and W. Wall,^^ ^^ See 3Iichaelis's note on this passage. ^^ Thus Lange on this passage. •^^ The former in his Comm. on this ])as5age ; the latter ia the Not. Crit. ad X. T., p. 370. 160 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. to consider the whole of v. 14 as an interpolation. Calvin ascribes this interpolation to the misunder- standing of ignorant readers, who, erroneously sup- posing that, in the preceding verses, the children were twice addressed by the word rsMia, in v. 12, and by 'rratoia. in v. 13,* had supplied in v. 14 the r)ther propositions thus apparently wanting. Wall ■supposes that the whole of v. 14 owes its origin to a mere marginal varia lectio to v. 13, subsequently re- moved into the body of the text by transcribers. The omission of the words 'iyoa-^ci -j/jjv 'zarspsg, on syvwMn Tov d'r a^^'^s in some copies, would render this conjecture highly probable, if these copies were more numerous and important,^^ ^nd if also the latter part of the verse, syo. v/xTv vsavlffzoi rov T0VJJ56!/ were omitted in any copy at all. But this is not the case, and the omission of the words 'iyo. a-' aoyj,g is easily explained from their biwiori- ro'.-f with V. 13. If V. 14 were spurious, or in- }.iJ7 * i, e. with a prefixed 'iy^cf^x; for thus it is apparent that Calvin must have read iy^a-^/a and not y^dtpu, in the last place of V. 13, viz: y^a. xoV/xw) sTi'^vfj.iac, or Lusts, and here the act of desiring, and that which is de- sired, the subjective and the objective notion seem to coincide, yet after such a manner, that the former predominates. 'Er/^y/x/a cannot here be considered as purely objective, and denoting only the physical things of the world. Would St. John, in that case, have said, that Trav sv ruj -/.offfj^u) is not of the Father ? So understood, this proposition would have an air of Manicheism. Of the sTi^vfilcii zoff/jjizui (Tit. ii. 12), more byway of example, than as fully exhausting tSv to b rCi ■/.6o[LU), St. John mentions here only three. But these are even the principal points of worldy lust. In analogy with Icr*^. rw o^^aX/xwi», 7Y\g ffaoKog must not here be considered as a genitive of the object (that which is desired), but rather as a genitive of the subject, (that which desires.) 2«^^, when put anti- thetically to irviZiLa. in the New Testament, and also with St. John, means the sensual principle in man generally ; that which brings him in contact with the 1 world of sense, andimpellshim to desire things worldly. Thus here too. Accordingly, by icr/^u/x/a -rig (ra^xog j no other thing can be meant here, but what the Apostle Paul means by it. Gal. v. 16, sqq., viz. the carnal sensual lust in general, wliich is the contrast. 164 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. of 'rtn'ofhari Tsei'äaTiTv and ayscf^ai, cfr. Ephes. ii. 3, 1 Pet. ii. 11. What here is meant by l-Trt^. tojv o^^aXfxuv, rightly translated by Luther by Angenlust, we best ascertain by comparing Matt. v. 29, Genes, iii. 6, and above all, that passage in the Testament of the twelve patriarchs, where, among the seven spirits of seduction, •TiVivixa opaGsoog, //,sl^' ri g ymrai sTrt'^vßla is mentioned as the second.^^ As ca^^ is the principle and source of all sensual desires in man, so the eyes are the gates, as it were, of that sensual lust, whose object is the external world. It is more difficult to determine, what the aXaCpma ToZ ßiov means. By ßioc St. John understands the ex- ternal life of sense, cfr. iii. 17 ; Luke viii. 14, where we find ridomi rou ßiovß'^ ' AXa^on'ia, with the Greeks, denotes every kind of ostentation and arrogance. Now, as Polybius, in enumerating the elements of the increasing internal corruption of a state, besides ^/Xc- vii'/Ja. and (piXaoyja, more specially mentions a luxu- rious, proud, and arrogant mode of life,^^ 7] <7T2^i roug ßio'jg ahaC^onia y.al rroXvrsAiia, and in another place^^ pourtrays dXa^oysia, when joined with uKai^ta, as ar- rogance, luxury, and extravagance ; even so St. '^^ See Test. Rub. ed. Fabr. p. 522. ^"^ Polybius uses ßioi similarly both in singular and plural, VI. 57, § 5 ; XI. 8, 4, cfr. Raphelius' Note, p. 711. «^ Hist. VI. 57, 6. ^9 Hist. XI. 8, 4, cfr. IV. 3, 1, when he says of the ^to- lians and their greediness of plunder : 'Xlj av tlBifff^ivot /u.iv ^Sr ^ovuav, '/I dovXivovTi$ xeci TkioviicTixov xeti ^Ti^iu^n ^uffi ßiov. CHAPTER II. 3 — 17. 165 Jolm seems here by dXa^. r. ßiov, only to mean the fastus vitcB, as Beza expresses it, the Ciceronian magni- ßci apparatus, vitceque cultus cum elegantia et copia ;70 in short, extravagance, ostentation, incontinence, and excess in sensual life ; when every carnal desire and every lust of the eyes is gratified and over satiated, without any limit. But Grotius and several others understand this passage quite differently. By svT/^. r. ßaozhg, we are, according to them, to understand pleasure, in the re- stricted sense of the term, but in Grotius's opinion, specially, cupido carnis circa epulas, ventrem et si quid simile ; and in justification of this opinion he adds : ea enim per ipsam carnem expletur. 'Er/^. rcov d:p% they suppose to mean avarice, covetousness, -rXso- vsg/a.71 But dXa^. r. ßiov, they explain by (piXodo^ia '^ Cicero de Officiis, 1. 8. [Surely this passage of Cicero is not happily chosen here, as a parallel. There is indeed nothing to be found, either in the life or writings of Cicero which would in any degree justify the supposition, that he would have called " ostentation, inconti- nence, and excess in sensual life," cultum viice cum elegantia. Or the contrary, it would be easy to prove that Cicero's senti- ments on these subjects were not essentially diiferent from those of the Apostle. See Tusc. Qusest. Lib. V. 21 and 22. Hav- ing in the preceding chapter described the magnificence of Dio- nysius's domestic establishment, he says, in Lib. V. chap. 22, OMNI CULTU, ET viCTU HÜMANO CAREBAT, SO that it plainly appears that Cicero did not consider extravagance and sensua- lity as cultus vitcs cum elegantia — Trans.^ ^^ Augusün de Symb. III. 1, supposes it even to denote the enjoyment of heathen dramatic entertainments. In the tractat. on this passage, he explains it by curiositas in spectaculis, in theatris, in sacramentis diaboli, in magicis artibus, in maleficiis. 166 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. They say : that voluptuousness, covetousness, (avarice) and ambition, are, according to the views of the an- cients, the cardinal vices of man, or the sources of all other moral defects.'' 2 St. John does not here speak of any of man's car- dinal vices in particular, but rather of the principles, the sources, and the chief forms of the worldly sense generally. The analogy with the maxims of the ancients on this subject, is contrary to the context and purpose of our passage. If St. John meant these three vices in particular, why did he not express him- self more distinctly and more precisely ? If, how- ever, we would, with Grotius, take l-rri^. Tr,g au^xoc for the pleasure of eating and drinking, for drunken- ness, or rather for the Greek (piXrjdov/a, in its more restricted sense (only the usus loquendi of the New Testament, with regard to ffa^J, is against this), and even if aXa^. r. ßio\j denoted (piXodo^la, and nothing else (yet the adjoined ßlov is adverse to such a sense) — how would it be possible to understand It/^. tuv 6p^., without any modifying clause being adjoined, in the sense of crXgot/gg/a, or in any way philologically to justify such an acceptation? As if the eye saw nothing more, and coveted nothing else, but monej- and property ! Grotius and Wetstein quote Eccl. iv. 8 ; V. 10. Prov. xxvii. 20. Matt. vi. 22, 23, in their support. In Matt. vi. 22, 23, however, Christ does not speak of avarice and covetousness, but, as is At all events, this is much too restricted a notion to be ad- missible here. '* See in "Wetstein on this passage, quotations from the ancients referring to this subject. CHAPTER II. 3 17. 167 shewn by the parallel, Luke xi. 34, sqq., where the col- location of this sentence is more apt, proverbially ol" the healthy and diseased eye of the mind, generally Eccl. iv. 8, seems to yield some support. Yet, if we examine this passage more attentively, we shall find that it proves only this, that covetousness also can be considered as lust of the eyes, and this nobody denies. And, at the same time, it makes this manifest, that St. John, if he meant T?.soi/s^/a, must have expressed himself more distinctly and precisely, as Salom. has done, for with him we read z.a/ yi o^'^aXfjuog ovz J/a-vT/'/xcrXa-a/ 'rrXovrov. The other passages, Eccl. v. 10. Prov. xxvii. 20, to which may be added, Prov, xxiii. 5 ; xxii. 9, prove nothing more than this, that the He- brews imagined the seat of the desires, the good,^^ as well as the evil, to be in the eyes. And so did the Greeks and Romans. 7^ Very natural ! The eye awakens a desire of things which it sees ; in the eye greediness, voluptuousness, envy, covetousness, are reflected, and also every other lust and joy and de- sire of the soul. And thus St. John does not here by £T/ä. ru)v o:p% mean only covetousness and avarice, but lust of the eyes of every kind. Because worldly lust is fond of this excuse, that the world is the work of God, and consequently good and destined for enjoyment, cfr. Wisd. ii. 6 — 9. St. John says — not of physical things, but only of world- '^ ^>1'-:21Ü. Prov. xxvii. 20, where tlie LXX. translate iXiuv. ^^ i5ee \retstein and Grotius on this passage. [And Shakespear too, says : " It is engendered in the eyes." Merchant of Ven. Act III. So, 2d Transl] 168 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. ly lusts, that they are of a worldly, earthly origin, and not of God. The words ri st/3. till the words rou ßlov, are to be considered as an explanatory pa- renthesis to 'rrav ro h -Oj 'kööijm^ introduced to prevent a misunderstanding. Thus taken, the idea and con- struction of the sentence are quite unexceptionable and regular. Not so much the love to the world, but rather worldly lust, is denoted by J-/^. avrov,^^ ver. 17. The entire sensual, visible world, along with the lust which it excited perishes. In the antithesis, some- thing seems to be wanting, viz. this, that God is eter- nal, that he is the eternal good. But this is latent in what follows.''' 6 The antithesis between perishable worldly lust, and the love of God, which leads to eternal life, St. John considered as the principal point. SECTION FOURTH. CHAPTER II. 18 28. Not so much, because the heretical teachers were worldly men, 77 but rather because the perishableness of the world led him to it, St. John introduces here the Ic-xärri oj^a, the approaching time of judgment, "^ The Rabbins express it by nTTT obip nixn or ^i^ayn. See ychöttgen. Hor. Hebi-. et Talm. on this passage. 7^ Some authorities in Griesbach, but unimportant ones in this case, supply at the end of the verse: quomodo et deus manet in ozternum. "' In that way Grotius took up the context. CHAPTER II. 18—28. 169 and of the Parusia of the judging Saviour, where only he can stand, who has renounced the world — done the will of God, and abidden in God and in Christ, cfr. v. 28. The paraenetical point which is latent in the context, is rendered more apparent by comparing this passage with Rom. xiii. 11, sqq., 1 Thess. V. 1, sqq., 2 Peter iii. 1, sqq. As to the io-/[drri w^a, ver. 18, it is equally erroneous entirely to deny the historical relation of this expres- sion, and to take it up too narrowly. According to Schöttgen and Carpzov, ss^. upu is equivalent to /.aifog ^ccXs-hc, (extremely bad times). But, not to mention the insignificance and irrelative- ness of the idea thus brought out in ver. 18, how can such an explanation be justified on philological grounds. Neither in the Old nor in the New Testa- ment is pnriK, S(r;/;aroc, equivalent to ^aXs'jrog or any similar word. When joined to ojoa it never is, and in no place, divested of its original signifi- cation. The Pauline sentence : h iG^draig yj/j/s^aig svffTTjffovrai xai^oi ^aXicroi, 2 Tim. iii. 1, renders manifest the different import of these two expres- sions in the New Testament. Classical tisus lo- quendi is supposed to favour the above mentioned sense of hyarog in such phrases as, hyjoLTCfig xivdu- vsvsiv, räsß^ara 'TTu^sTv, sff-^drojg diazsTff^ai, &c. But how different are these formulae from our h^arTj öooa ! and can it escape any man's observation, that in these phrases, the merely indirect notion of yaXi'n^ly is com- municated to hyjxTov by the verbs which are joined to it? That the expression refers to time admits of no 170 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. doubt. It is also universally admitted that this ex- pression is to be explained from the phrophetic technical language of the Jewish Messiah-theology. But how ? Grotius finds in it a phrophetic allusion to the de- struction of Jerusalem, which event, he thinks, was in apostolical phrophecy considered as the end of the present course of time, and the precise period for Christ's manifestation in judgment. But, in this case, the epistle must have been written before the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, since after that event the reference of the Icp^. ^pa to it, must have been abandoned. Now, what shall we say if the epistle was written after the destruction of Jerusalem ? In this respect it is quite impossible to determine the time when it was written. It is possible that St. John, along with the other Apostles, formerly believed that the de- struction of the holy city would be the sß'/ßrri w^a, but this is certain, that at the time he wrote his gos- pel and this epistle, whether that was before or after Jerusalem's destruction, he no longer entertained this opinion. Grotius states in his support, Dan. ix. 26, 27, Matth. xxiv. 6, 14, Acts ii. 17. But in none of these passages is 'ißyjiraj Tj/Jt^soai, or any similar term, without any thing further, used as equivalent to the destruction of the holy city. In Dan. ix. 26, 27, and Matth. xxiv. 6, 14, the phrophetic reference to it is only indirectly contained ; but of Acts ii. 17 not even so much can be said. Since in our passage there can nowhere be dis- covered even a remote allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem, hyjarn wo«, (for which St. John in other CHAPTER II. 18 28. 171 places uses s&^drr) r/fjbspcc,) according to the analogy of 2 Tim. iii. 1 ; 1 Tim. iv. 1 ; James v. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 5 ; 2 Pet. iii. 3 ; Jude 18. and other places, can only be understood with a ^e/zera/ reference to the Messiah, as denoting the end of the then present era, which com- menced with the first manifestation of Christ in the flesh, ending with his reappearance in judgment, cfr, V. 28. The Judaeo- Christian views on which this is founded are in substance as follows : The Jewish Messiah-theology divided the entire era of the world, roug uJoümc, into the present and the future Aeon.78 The end of the present era, at which the long- wished for Messiah was to appear, to redeem his people, judge the nations, and commence his do- minion on earth, the Jews called yp or pjid, or nnnK D"'DTT, TO TikoQ^ vffTssot yMJPOi, '^ffyarai r^/j^spai, sffy. w^a, &C.79 Evil and difficult times, replete with moral corruption, pseudoprophecies, war and devastations, and other such calamities, by which the manifesta- tion of the Messiah would be as much externa//?/ hindered, as internaUy promoted, were considered as a sure sign of the coming of the Messiah. Now, as all felicity was connected with the person of the Messiah, there early arose a notion of combining in one ideal person, in a countertype of the Messiah, afterwards called the antichrist, all the calamities of the above-mentioned evil and distressing times, all anti-Messiahnic sway and power. This notion, which was sometimes more, sometimes less crude and ma- ''^ See Koppe Exc. I. on Epist. Ephes. p. 138, sqq. '^ ^'ee Schottgen. Hor. Heb. et. Tahn. on 2 Tim. iii. 1. 172 IXTERPEETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. terial, was founded on Ezekiel's fiction of Gog, and on Daniel's description of the antichristian Antiochus Epiphanes.s^ As in the proverb, " When need is great- est aid is nearest," the Jewish Messiah-theology con- cluded, from the growth of the antichristian principle, that the end was fast approaching, and that Clirist, the Saviour, was about to appear. These notions, and their various forms, passed over together with the idea of the Messiah, into the New Testament. The fundamental ideas, as well as their former concatenations remained the same ; but their contents, their meaning and extent, as well as also their internal relations, in detail, were changed. Since Christ had appeared in the flesh, since he al- ready had commenced his kingdom on earth, and had returned to his father, the Messiahnic eras and epochs necessarily obtained, with Christians, another signi- fication, and entered into another relation to the his- tory of the development of Christ's kingdom. Thus the alojv ovTog of the Jews, in which the Messiah and his kingdom were only expected — became, in the New Testament, the time of the earthly establish- ment and development of Christ's kingdom, the foundation to which had already been laid in tribula- tions and strife against the unchristian world. But the ?(r;:/ar75 a's«, in which the Jews expected the first manifestation of the Messiah, and the first institution of his kingdom, became now, in the hope of Chris- tians, the end of God's kingdom militant on earth, 80 See Schmidt's Bibl. of Crit. and Exeg., Vol. I. p. 25, sqq. De Wette's Bibl. Theologie, § 198 ; Bertholdt's Christologia. CHAPTER n. 18—28. 173 at which Christ was to reappear^ in the glory of his Father, to judge the world, and, finally, to accomplish the victory of his kingdom. Thus, too, the idea of antichrist obtained a more spiritual import, and a purer moral signification. But the transformation and complete Christianizing of these Jewish notions of the Messiah was, with the Apostles, only effected by degrees. Thus the Apostles, not having taken up the expressions of our Lord on the subject, in a manner sufficiently spiritual, at first formed a very material conception of the reappearance of Christ, and imagined that it was very soon to take place. They made chronological calculations, and connect- ed it with some external signs of the times or other, in a manner somewhat arbitrary. Undoubtedly the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the Jewish com- monwealth, which had been foretold by the Lord, must hasten the reappearance of Christ in the spirit- ual sense of that term, and promote the prosperity of his kingdom ; this event, too, was indeed and in truth a glorious act of that cecumenic jurisdiction which he had continually exercised since he appeared as the life and light of the world. But the Apostles, full as they were in the beginning with the expecta- tions of sense, and looking without sufficient per- spectives into the future, saw, in the destruction of Jerusalem, the close of the development of Christ's kingdom, and the visible manifestation of their ardent- ly wished for Lord in a final cecumenic judgment» And, in a like manner, they at first took up the idea of antichrist, rather sensually, politically, and accord- ing to Jewish doctrines. But particularly after Jerusalem had been destroyed, and the Lord ha"^ 174 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. not visibly appeared ; and as they continually gain- ed a more profound knowledge of the essence and true purpose of the person and kingdom of Christ, their hopes respecting the Messiah became ever more and more spiritual ; and although they did not relinquish the hope of surviving to witness personally the Lord's return, they gradually ceased to calculate the precise time, and to seek beyond the internal sphere of Christ's kingdom, in accidental and arbi- trarily interpreted political events of every kind, the signs and conditions of that Parusia, which they ever more and more understood in a spiritual sense. In the Apocalypse, indeed, we still find the more material view of the subject, yet dressed in a poetic language, which indicates the more spiritual sense. But St. John, in the gospel and epistle, has manifestly attained the more elevated point of view. It is true, he seems to consider the coming of Christ as near, even in respect of time — but how far is he, in the gospel as well as in the epistle, from adopting such a view of it as might please the senses !* The anti- christ he considers as the principle of falsehood, and of worldly life in general, resisting the truth and the kingdom of Christ ; and the signs and conditions of Christ's reappearance, he only finds in the internal laws, and in the opposition to the laws of the king- dom of God, in the growth of anti christian corruption, in the progressive /cp/ö'/c of light from darkness, and between the world and the children of God. * The Author has not here quoted any particular passage of the gospel. It seems not unlikely that he more particularly alludes to John xxi. 2o. — Trunsl CHAPTER II. IS 28. 175 Christ himself had foretold of pseudo-prophets in the church, Matt. xxiv. 11, 24. Mark xiii. 22, 23, Subsequently, St. Paul had, more specially in the congregations of Asia Minor, predicted the growing- corruption of the antichristian -^svdog, Acts xx. 29, 30. 2 Tim. iii. 1, sqq. Now when that, which St. Paul had prophecied actually happened, when the antichristian disorder manifested itself, ever more and more boldly in Asia Minor, took root even with- in the congregations, and thus continually became more dangerous : — St. John puts his readers in mind that this phenomenon ought not to surprize them, in as much as they had heard (both from himself and others), and must know that the antichrist was to come, s^;j/STa/, and that Christ's manifestation in judg- ment was conditioned by the antichrist's previous coming, cfr. 2 Thes. ii. 3. From the appearance of many antichrists, (anti-christian heretics a\riyj>. croXXo/ yzyövaöiv), St. John concludes the presence and activity of the antichrist xar IJ^^^rif, and from that again the near approaching Parusia of Christ, on l6y^. ws«. The expression ö avriyoiarog only occurs in the Epistles of St. John, (here and ver. 22 ; iv. 3. 2 Epist. 7, where it is found in juxtaposition with ö ^Xdvoc.) The origin of this name for an idea, with which the Jewish doctrine of the Messiah had long been fami- liar, is obscure. It appears to have first arisen in the apostolic age, and indeed among those whose native language was Greek.^i This name is unknown to ^^ The Rabbinic passage in Bertholdt's Christol. p. 71, note 2, is remarkable : there we read : Hie erit adversarius ]t2U'r7 quem nominabunt antichristum. 176 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. St. Paul ; but St. John seems to presuppose its being known. The signification and use of the Pauline 6 dvr/zi/- /J.SVOC, 2 Thess. ii. 3, is similar. Both are collective notions ; but as St. Paul speaks of many dvriTtil/xsvoi^ so also St. John speaks of many uvr/^oiGroiy meaning the individual manifestations of the antichristian principle, 6 avriyjiarog. The Pauline dvrmsi(j!.svog, how- aver, seems to belong to an earlier stage of the notion than St. John's dvrlypioi/ denote either the in- ternal or external origin of the antichrists, but, as is distinctly shewn by the subsequent ^s/zsvy/jcs/cav, their going out, and their separation from the Christian communion, and their doing this of their own accord and from internal motives. St. John here evidently part justifies the explanation of Grotius, by Aristophanes's dv- ■TiXiMVy which, (as the Homeric avriBio?, Godlike,) signifies Lionlike, 'Wt. v. 1044, ed. Dindorf. But such a sense of the composition with avrJ is more rare. The notion of opposition or contrast commonly predominates in it. In the passage of Aristophanes, a joke is contained, and the Homeric dvrtB-ios al- so denotes a counter god, (Where? — Tr.) Both meanings are at all events cognate, as in the German word Gegenstück, Engl, counterpart. In the Acta Martyr, ed. Galura, Tom. I. p. 339, with reference to 2 Cor. xi. 14, the antichrist is explain- ed by quasi Christus. Hippolytus De Antichristo, js 17, p. 7. Ed. Fabr. gives a similar explanation. Beausobre also refers to this. But these explanations and interpretations of the terra, being more modern, prove nothing with regard to the sense in which it was used by St. John. N 178 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. distinguishes between an internal and real^ and a merely external and apparent Christian communion. He who belongs to the former, can never again for- sake it ; their faith, and that spirit which is born of God holds them fast. Even this was a great conso- lation for those, who, by the appearance of error and unbelief in the midst of the community of the faith- ful, might feel any doubt respecting the power and truth of the gospel. But St. John adds another still greater consolation and comfort, viz., that this phe- nomenon is not accidental, or even detrimental to Christ's faithful community, and that, on the contrary, it is absolutely required for the accomplishment of the divine Tio'tGic betwixt truth and semblance, betwixt light and darkness, and that it promotes that x^lffig. That this xoigtg took place, even among the Chris- tians themselves, was owing to the mode and manner in which Christ's community must be gathered from among the world, and formed in the world ; the for- mation proceeded from without, inward ; it appro- priated even the slightest commencement and germ of faith, and continued its advancement without any encroachment on individual liberty. Before the words ha (pavsoM^o^jffiv (not (pavs^cj^p, a reading adopted by certain authorities, that have not understood the Greek idiom of the construction,) we ought to supply touto lyhiro.. The a7Xä before ha is likewise elliptical, and refers to a possible ob- jection that might be made by scrupulous minds. If the readers, at a time when so many antichrists appeared, were solicitous about the integrity of their own faith, they received from St. John, ver. 20, the CHAPTER II. 18 — 28. 179 fullest assurance and consolation respecting it. This verse contains a contrast to ver. 19, and thus xa/ is rendered adversative. We may see from iii. 24, com- ])ared with ii. 27, (where the Vatican MS. has the gloss yJ/.oi6ij.a for yj^'ißij^a,) that by the words y^iofia drb Tov ayiov is meant the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Christ. There is no allusion here to the anointing of the Athletes before the fight, such an allusion would be too far-fetched — but much more simply the sense and the figure of the expression may be thus ex- plained : as Christ, the Holy One, cfr. Acts iii. 14, Apocal. iii. 7, is anointed with the Holy Ghost, (cfr. Ps. xlv. 8; Isa.lxi. 1 ; 1 Kings xix. 16,) and with refe- rence to this, is xar' s^oyj,v^ called, o X^jsrog, even so may the true fellows of Christ, be designated as " those, who have been annointed with the Holy Ghost." ^-^ To every true Christian the Holy Ghost was com- ^^ The custom of anointing those who were to be baptized with holy oil, which was not apostolical, but perhaps had be- come univ^ersal, even in the second century, is, by TertuUian, De Baptisrao, cap. 7, in the Constit. Apostol. Lib. III. cap. 17, and in other places, considered to have reference to the reception of the Holy Ghost, and its explanation is deduced frofu the above mentioned concatenation of ideas. The author of theResp. ad Orthod. Qujest. 137, says : ;^c^^=Sa -f TaXa/f Ixec'iu "vx yivufiiBx, ;^oi(r-oi. It is evident that St. John could not allude to this custom, and not indeed think of any actual unction. But perhaps this very passage has become the apos- tolical and canonical basis, on which this custom was subse- quently founded, and now this custom, in its turn, throws- some light on this sentence of St. John. 180 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. mimicated, he was filled with Christ's Spirit. He received this gift as soon as he entered into the Saviour's communion, and was conscious of possess- ing it, as long as he continued in that communion. This is the main point of the idea. As the com- munication of the Holy Ghost to the faithful, was effected in baptism by the laying on of hands, cfr. Acts viii. 15; x. 44, some authors have supposed that St. John here refers to that ceremony. ^'^ But the idea is put with too much simplicity and open- ness for such a purpose, and St. John addresses him- self too much to the present consciousness of his readers, to bring out this allusion in strong relief, though it might possibly have its place in the back- ground. In as much as the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Christ, (2 Cor. iii. 17, 18 ; Ephes. iii. 16 ; Phil. i. 29,) is by Christ himself called the spirit of truth, who was to teach his disciples and guide them into all truth, Gosp. St. John xiv. 17 ; xv. 26 ; xvi. 13, we find here, in conformity with these declarations, jtuJ o'/dars crdvrix, viz. all that concerns the truth of the gospel. For such as are well skilled in the truth, and established in faith, no prolix warning or explana- tion is required, a brief indication is suflScient. For this reason the Apostle says in verse 21. ouzsy^. v/xTvy (viz. of the heretics, cfr. verse 26.) 'AXrj'^sia here re- •^* See Schol. Matthäi on this passage, p. 220, where x,z'i°'f^'^ is referred to baptism ; also Bretschneid. Lexicon, under the word ;(j^; refers to that which fol- lows ; the word s-TrayysAia, which here can can only denote a promise, shews a'jryj cannot refer to that * To suppose an Anakoluthon in any author, sacred or pro- fane, ought surely to be a last resource ; here indeed it seems not required, and the repetition of a similar construction, in ver. 27, seems to indicate, that here is no slip, but that the construction, unusual as it is, is yet put advisedly. Here only the order is slightly inverted. The common order would be, Ö ouv vf/,i7s riKouffuTi a.'TT cc^^T^;, IV vfiTv f/,iv'iTtii), and, according to that order, the passage has been translated, I think rightly, in most of the modern versions. — Transl. 184 IIVTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. which has preceded. In ahroc Christ is implied, he being the main »ubject [nominative] in all that pre- cedes, ver. 20, sqq. The construction rr^v Zj^riv ttiv a/uiviovy^^ is completely explained by ascribing it to conciseness and grammatical attraction. More par- ticularly, the next preceding srrr/ys/Xaro seems to have led the author to this construction. The pro- mise — Christ the promiser — promises eternal life ; this, apparently, was St. John's sentiment. In V. 28 St. John breaks off his remarks on the heretics. In v. 27, he resumes the exhortation of V. 24, and enlarges it. HXavJjvrm by.ag — those who are about, those who seek to seduce you. In v. 27, (x'svu h vfj.Tvy is not put instead of Jv y/x/y /xsvsrw, v. 24 ;^^ but it rather forms a kind of antecedent to the con- sequent y.ai ou yjilo.v 'i'/irz^ so that the sense of the proposition is as follows : " If the yjisiJ^a, which you have received of Christ, remains in you, you do not require, &c." The following words ha r/g diddffxr, bixag, I understand thus : " that any one should be at pains to teach you." And this either declares any further instruction on the Apostle's part, respecting the heretics, to be dispensable ; or it refers to the intrusiveness of the heretics, {^zuoobthäßy.cckoi), who seductively promised to impart a more profound wisdom and knowledge respecting the essence of ^^ Grotius compares with this the well-known phi-ase : Ur- bem, quam statuo, vestra est. Cfr. Winer's Gramm, p. 52, 68. 136. Buttmann in his Greek Gramm. § 130, note 2, fur- nishes the most analogous examples. *^ Some copies mentioned by Griesbach, do here too, in ver. 27, by a mistake, adopt the reading /AiviTu. CHAPTER II. 18—28. 185 Christianity. I prefer the former explanation, partly on account of what is said in ver. 20 and 21, and partly because the latter allusion seems too remote. This is the Apostle's meaning : The spirit of truth, with which you, as true Christians, are anointed, will, if you preserve it, (and that which you have heard from the beginning), faithfully, sufficiently instruct you respecting these heresies, and teach you what course you ought to follow respecting them. The construction of that which follows is most satisfactorily unravelled, by considering ;i'.aä&;s sdida- Jsv 0,aa5 as a resumption of the main antecedent d?X ug — and /xsi-s/rs sv ahrrZ as a consequent. To com- mence the consequent earlier, as, for example, at the words 'Aai aXri^ig sff-tv, is, by the mutual relation of the ideas, rendered inadmissible ; fisviTrs iv aOrw, and not Tioci dT'.Yj'^sg iß-iv, (which only contains a sub- ordinate proposition), is the main idea connected with aA>.' wj. Instead of [Mvun many respectable copies, (A. B. C. and others), perhaps being misled by the /^svsrs which follows in ver. 28, read {jJinn, But the future is clearly more suitable here, as expressing confidence : est bene speratitis et ominaMis, says Grotius. Instead of to auro x^'"^'^^" some copies read ro avrov y^i' '^^® former reading being supported by the most numerous and the best authorities, is preferable, because it is more emphatic. The mean- ing is, even that very p/^'/V/xa, and none other than it. As to TTSg; cavrwy cfr. ver. 20. K«/ kXr^'ig hri y.ai o'j/c 'ißri -vJ^sl/oö; is to be considered as a parenthesis. The meaning is : You may safely depend upon the instruction of this /^^/V--« of the spirit of truth ; it is 186 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. genuine truth, and there is no error in it. Kai before Tca^cüg here means, afqtie ita, cfr. Matt. vi. 33, and other places. The aorist sdida'^sv is here put with the signification of a present tense, and, correspond- ing with ug — diddffxsi above, it implies the notion of habit.^*^ As in ver. 28, sv aWuJ here too, refers to Christ. In ver. 28, St. John returns to the subject of ver. 18, and concludes this part of his epistle with an exhor- tation which has reference to the kc^^drri w^a. The context shews that in (pavi^^u^rimi here, is implied the manifestation of Christ for judgment, h sff^drp ojpcc. Here again St. John makes use of the figure of com- munication, as if he had said before : Let us there- fore remain in him ! — crag^^jcr/a, which, in iii. 21 ; v. 14, with TT^og, denotes reliance, is here put, rather as the reverse of bashfulness, in the sense of frankness, courage, the confidence of good conscience in the judgment, cfr. iv. 17 ; Philipp, i. 20 ; Luke xxi. 36, and other places. The phrase a/ff^. oct' avrou corre- sponds with the Hebrew p ^uil. In Hebrew, both the thing of which we are ashamed, and also the ob- ject of hope or expectation, in which we are deceived, is put with ]r2.^^ A/ff^' dit avTou is here put in the last mentioned signification, (cfr. iii. 3.) in opposition to the frank reliance on the Lord. Uapovffia X^. is the definite apostolical expression for Christ's mani- festation in judgment. Accordingly, the addition of '•*" See Buttmann's Greek Gramm, p. 391, Note 4. -' See Gesenius's Hebr. Dictionary under U?12.. CHAPTER II. 29 III. 10. 187 the words iv rfj Tapovffia avrou does more accurately define the meaning of the indefinite ^avs^oi^^ta/. SECTION FIFTH. CHAPTER II. 29 — CHAPTER III. 10. In connection with the idea of judgment, which none that is impure, none that is unrighteous, can abide, and in which only he, who has remained in the com- munion with Christ, and is a true child of God, can have good courage and confidence, St. John displays, in the subsequent passage, the idea of the Christian dixaiocr-j.'r!, and the contrast between the children of God and the children of the devil. Now, this con- trast being quite absolutely propounded, the Chris- tian righteousness is also displayed in its pure ideal form, as it appears when we make the divine x^ißig the point of view from which we contemplate it. - In ver. 29, it is doubtful to what hr/,a.ioc, is to be re- ferred : Both on account of chap. iii. 7, cfr. ver. 3, and because Christ is the next preceding subject, [nominative] Christ seems to be meant. But the words i^ avrou yiyhwirai are adverse to this, for since the New Testament generally speaks of being born of God, and not of Christ, and only of God's chil- dren, not of Christ's children, they cannot be sup- posed to refer to anything else, but to the state of man born of God. Thus yiysm^rai is expressly ex- plained, immediately after, in iii. 1, sqq. Inasmuch, 188 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. as no other subject can be latent in dizcuoc, than that to which the pronoun in the words s^ avroZ yzyswriTcci refers : on dizaiog k-i must necessarily be referred to God. The exchange of the grammatical subject in ver. 28 and 29, may be thus accounted for : that, in ver. 28, St. John had the judgment before his mind, as the judgment of God, in which Christ was to act with full powers ; but, in ver. 29, had in his eye sx SsoC yivvri^Yivat (rkva SsoD), as the leading notion of that which afterwards follows. This is the meaning of ver. 29. As true as it is that God is just (is the light) as true and certain it also is, that whoever practises righteousness {rv]v dixaioßvvrjv, not any kind of righteousness, but righteousness it- self, absolute righteousness,) is born of God, and a child of God. This proposition is founded on the following genuine Johanneic axioms : in the first place, that only he who is of God (a child of God, in opposition to those ix rov z6(r/xov, sz ruv -/Atm) can be truly righteous and good ; in the next place, that beside the true godlike righteousness none other exists that is deserving of the name ; and that every kind of half-measure, every state in this respect di- vided, belongs to worldly life. By a display of the dignity, the essence, and the purpose of the fihal relation to God, iii. 1, 2, the further development of these ideas is broken off. Chapter iii. 1. If we take bovvai in the sense 01 exhibiting, giving, we need not translate aya-rrj!/, as Grotiushas done, by demonstration of love. I can- not admit that KA'/ßoö/jyiv denoted nothing more or CHAPTER II. 29— III. 10. 189 different from the gloss -/.al h/Msv. The Christians really called themselves God^s children. St. John alludes to this exalted appellation. The motive for the subsequent ö/ä roZro — seems to have been the condition of Christianity at the time, v/hen the heart of many an unenlightened and not firmly established Christian might, in the growing contest with the vrorld, be led to doubt of the felicity promised to God's children. In order to instruct such Chris- tians, and to comfort them, as well as himself, against the misrepresentations and hatred of the world, St. John makes the incidental observation, dice rov-o avrov, cfr. ver. 13. The sense is as follows: Since only he who is of God can know and recog- nise God and things divine ; but the world is estranged from God, and is ignorant of God and of all that is godly : we can for this very reason (ö/ä Tovro\ that we are born of God, not be recognised by the world as God's children. It is impossible that it should be otherwise ! In the very same man- ner the Lord once taught and comforted his dis- ciples with regard to the persecutions of the world which awaited them, Gosp. St. John xv. 18, sqq., xvi. 1, sqq. Some authors ^^ take ou yivuiffzsi in the sense of /jjösT, ver. 13. undoubtedly hatred is the consequence of misrepresentation or non-recognition, still these are not identical. The parallel passage too, Gosp. xvi. 3 ; xv. 21, is unfavourable to this in- terpretation. Grotius explains oj yrj^ffKn thus (rnun- ^'^ Sucli as Calovius, Carpzov, Lange and others. 190 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. dus) non agnoscit pro suisj immo odit. But the sub- sequent ojx 'iyvu avTov is against this. The context of ver. 2 with ver. 1, and its meaning, is as follows : In spite of the w orld's disowning, we still really are God's children, (how great is that dig- nity,) and as yet it is not even made manifest, zai ou'TTM s)ä?5, ver. 5, does, as in 1 Tim. iii. 16, apply to the first manifestation of Christ, for the purpose of the CM-rjS/a, cfr. 1 Peter i. 20, and other passages. A'/osiv rag äf/jaoriag i]fj,uv, corresponds with the phrase y.a^aoi^uv a^io tccö'tjs ä/xac- -/ac, i. 7, and denotes Christ's work of redemption in liere, and on which R. David observes : peccatum nKlon mi- nus est, quam iniquitas p J*, nam saepenumero usurpatur de eo, qui per errorem aliquid committit. See Drusius on the Passage. [Dr. Lücke here correctly quotes ver. 9, in the 12th chap, of Hosea ; but in the English version this is ver. 8, owing to the circumstance that there the two first Hebrew verses have been thrown together into one Trans.\ O 194 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. its whole comprehension, as well the office of ex- terminating sin, in ideal respect, through the act of pardoning sins, as also, in real respect, through the act of sanctification accomplished in those who are redeemed. The same phrase seems to be differently used, Gosp. i. 29, of the Lamb of God, that beareth the sin of the world, cfr. Isa. liii. 4. Similarly the Hebrew pjr awi, both denotes the abolition, annihi- lation, and pardon of sin (Ps. xxxii. 5. Gen. e. 17), and also the suffering for, atoning for sin (Isa. liii. 12, and other passages). The subsequent proposition zat äij.a^-ia, &c. must not be considered as the ground or reason of the preceding proposition ; and Ttai is not to be taken in the sense of yds. For the Apostle is not here speaking of the power of Christ's redemp- tion, but only of Christ's effective example, as one part of his redeeming achievements, and with refer- ence thereto is mentioned, his purity in ver. 3, his righteousness in ver. 7, and here his exemption from sin. The operation of Christ's exemplary life is here on earth, continual and ever present to the memory — therefore hn, cfr. ver. 3, 7.^7 Since after h/.imc, verse 3. not God, but Christ, is the predominating grammatical subject, and since h ahrSj, V. 5, must be referred to Christ, both h ahroj and aWhv, twice occurring in verse 6. must be referred to Christ. It is obvious, that in o'jy^ ä[Maprdvn, the sins of frailty are excluded, (cfi*. ii. 1.) Here, however, is not meant the mere struggle against sin, and the '*' Lange translates " for he does not tolerate sin," whichMs quite incorrect, and contrary to the import of umt h in the phraseology of St. John. CHAPTER II. 29 — III. 10. 195 mere endeavour for äyvÖTTic,' still less can ä;jM^r. here be understood in a pre-eminent sense of gross sins ; . but, adapting his point of view to the divine x^/V/f, St. John speaks here of sin and not-sin, indeed, in the most comprehensive sense of these terms, yet taking up the notion altogether strictly and anti- thetically. His mind being fixed on the ideal of Christ, who was free from sin, no conditionality or limitation of his proposition occurs to him. It is clear that both moay.vj and 'iyvo-Atv are preterites, to be taken in a present sense. But what difference is therebetween gw^axsv and syvw/csi/? The disjunc- tive ohhi seems to indicate a difference. It is said, that yrjdj6-/Mv here signifies to love. The juxtaposi- tion of l(^oa,7ts, which, although different from, still is synonymous with syi/wxs, is adverse to this. Refer- ring the latter word to an external personal acquain- tance with the Redeemer, is inadmissible, because these two preterites here clearly have, in an equal degree, the signification of a present tense, and be- cause an external acquaintance with Christ's person, per se, is with St. John, of no ethical importance, when the belief in the Messiah is not combined with it. St. John by ooav sometimes expressed intuitive perception, spiritual contemplation. Perhaps here too it may be so understood ; in that case, yivuxszs/v would denote perception generally, and ovd's, (meaning, not even,) would indicate an anti-climax, descending from the intuitive and more profound knowledge, to the mere knowledge of Christ. But, surely it is more correct to suppose that o^av denotes the mere historical knowledge and contemplation of Christ ; 196 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. but yivu)(f'/.iiv, the more' profound and intimate percep- tion and knowledge. ' Opuv, thus denoting the know- ledge of experience, occurs in the Gospel of St. John i. 34 ; iii. 11, 32, and here i. 1. In order to express the difference here stated, oud's might be translated " still less.'' V. 7. Against the seductive, loose ethics of half- Christianity, which engenders love of the ^Aorld in the mind, from which all z^/trig and all moral ideals are absent, St. John opposes the strict genuine Christian proposition : that beside the perfect brytato- G-jvr) as it was, in Christ no true br/taioß-bvri exists. We should ever bear in mind that St. John here every- where speaks, not of the different degrees of perfec- tion which struggling Christians have reached ; but of the ideal and absolute difference between Chris- tian virtue and piety, and sin in general. And in a similar sense we also read in, V. 8. Whosoever does sin is, in as far as he sins, of the devil, the devil's child, cfr. Gospel viii. 44. Since God is light, and there is no darkness in him, but whosoever is good, whosoever walketh in the light is born of God, and whosoever is born of God cannot sin, cfr. ver. 9. St. John concludes that all sinning, and all that is sinful, is of the devil. With reference to the ethical x^/V/c, there is, according to St. John, no medium between God and the filial re- lation to God, on the one side, and the communion with the devil on the other. But why is every one who sins of the devil ? St. John answers, because from the beginning, (not since the devil's fall, but CHAPTER II. 29 — III. 10. 197 since the fall of man, Gen. ii. cfr. John viii. 44,)^^ the devil sins, (ever continues sinning aiLaorcLm^ i.e. because the devil, since he brought sin into the world, never has ceased, as ao-^M'j rov zoV/xo-j, to se- duce man to sin, so that all man's sin comes from him, he being the author of sin. E/c rovro s:pav. is again connected with ver. .5, and forms the transition to the subsequent passage, but at the same time contains this idea, that because Christ has destroyed the devil's power, every one who believes in Christ has the s^ovffioc to become God's child, cfr. Gospel i. 12. By soya r. haß. the seductive activity and energy — the power of the devil, is to be understood. But the devil's power and activity Christ has destroyed, QJozi, cfr. Gosp. ii. 19,) by his work of redemption and atonement, cfr. ver. 5. Gosp. xii. 31 ; xvi. 11. l-v'ioijM a\j7(A> (rov äsoD,) ver. 9, is by Clem. Alex. Augustine, Grotius, and others, understood as mean- ing the seed of God's word. In support of this opi- nion are quoted, Matth. xiii. 23. 1 Pet. i. 23. Jam. i. 18. But these passages prove nothing ; their figu- rative context is quite different. The figurative ex- pression would in this case be indirect, and lacking motive ; being obscure without an illustrative oppo- sition, it would hardly be excusable with an author whose figures generally are perspicuous and pleasing. Moreover, the idea thus produced, would, in respect of form, not be Johanneic. Not Xoyo; r. äsöCi the word of God ; but 'xnxt'jja r. ^£oj is, according to St. John, the generating princi- ^* See the Author's Commentary on this passage of the Gospel. 198 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. pie of God's children, cfr. Gosp. St. John iii. 6, sqq. Yet, clearly (f-hfj^a has a reference to yj^r/j^Jj!/«/ sx. Tov '^iou, and must be considered as an amplification of this figurative expression ; it is the divine power, by which the children of God are, as it were, gene- rated, and, by this word, St. John expresses either the innate godly principle in man, sz rov '^sov shau in sensu latiori ; or, since he is here speaking of re- generation and the filial relation to God through Christ, he denotes by it the crs/sD/xa äyiov^ by which man is born anew of God, cfr. Gospel iii. 6, sqq. through which he, as St. Paul says, calls God Father, in short, the '^rvivij.a v/o^sffiag.^^ The Scholion in Matthäi says, very correctly, that here is meant to TVeV/J.arr/tov ^doißjuua, o >j.'svov sv '/j/xTv dvi'rwizrov a/Ma^riac rov vovv 'zoisT. As St. John takes the birth of God, and the filial relation to God, in its fullest and most ideal sense, the sentiment contained in ver. 9 is easily un- derstood. If man is, quite and entirely, and in the most perfect manner, born again of God, the divine (T-so/xcc or -rviv/Ma must necessarily remain in him. Every diminution, every loss of this seed, is a proof that the birth of God was not perfect. St. John, however, far from wishing to instil the doctrine of the irresistibility of the divine grace, saj'^s no more ^'^ Lange takes crTi^f^tt. in the same sense as the Hebrew l**")], giving to it the signification of offspring ; he refers both alroZ and £v ttlru to God, and translates thus : " for his (God's) child- ren remain in him, (continue faithful to him.") But the pa- rallel conclusion of the proposition, as well as the whole context of the figure and the ideas, is adverse to tliis. CHAPTER II. 29 III. 10. 199 than this : that in God, and in godly life, absolutely considered, there is nothing imperfect, nothing weak, HO half-and-half of light and darkness. Neither is there ajiy difficulty in the last proposition of the verse, xa/ ov b-jvarai aiLaor.^ we only must bear in mind, that St. John's point of view here is, that of the ideal and absolute divine x^/V/;. In such a con- text as that of our passage, it is literally true, that as little as sin and evil can be imagined in God, as little can he, who is really born of God, as long as he is, and continues such, commit sin^ in that sense of the word which was laid down in verse 8.^^^ 06 ö6vara/ must, accordingly, not be softened or modified by the substitution of any other notion implying oj Ss>.£/, but it is to be taken quite strictly, and, of course, in a moral sense.^^^ "Or/, likewise, here in both places, St. John uses in the acceptation of because^ cfr. verse 14. What St. Jerome observes against Jovian, and Calovius approves, that or/ here is equivalent to quamdiu, quatenus, quousque, very much tends to '•^^ Jovianus seems to have understood our passage in the same manner, when, taking it and v. 18 for his warrant, and, follow- ing Jerome, he maintained : eos, qui plena fide in baptismate renati sunt, a diabolo non posse subverti. Quicunque tentati fuerint, ostendi eos aqua tantum et non spiritu baptizatos. Jo- vianus had adopted an ideal point of view, similar to that of St. John, and the principal object of his reforming moral-critical endeavours, which were directed against the hypocrisy, outside fairness and lookwarmness of Christian life in his age, was to re-establish the fundamental principles and ideals of the gospel in their full clearness, precision and truth. ^'^^ CEcumenius says : Oy xara (pva-txhv a^waf^cizv rouro kiyn, 200 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. render the idea more perspicuous from another point of view than that of St. John. The paraenetic import of ver. 7 — 9, seems to be this : As betwixt the true life which is of God, ac- cording to this pattern given by Christ : and the devil's servitude : there can exist for man no third or inter- mediate thing, and moral man, accordingly, in ideal respect, must either entirely belong to God, or en- tirely to the devil : — the motive for abandoning all moral half-measures and irresolution is very urgent. He, then, who has rightly appreciated the. character, the force and the power of God's children, and well considered what, as a child of God, he ought to do. and what, by means of the divine seed which he has received, he can do, will the more decidedly renounce the world, and endeavour to acquire the divine ayvo- 7i^g and diTccciotrvvri, as it was in Christ, since he only b}' that means can participate in the communion with God, and in the glory of God's children, (ver. 2, 3.) Because the world neither knows nor appreciates the difference between God's children and those who are not God's children, St. John adds, with great emphasis, in ver. 10, 'Ev rovru) yoj(j7(.6fxs':^a. The common reading is well support- ed, partl}^ by the great majority of witnesses in its favour, and partly by the usus loquendi of St. John. The tMo other readings evidently are corrections ^^^ See Samuel Andreae Diss. De corde condemnante in Ha- saeiet Ikenii Thesaur. Nov. Tbeol. Philol. Tom. II., p. 990, sqq., cfr. Wolf, Curai on this passage. We specially recom- mend here Nösselt Interpretatio Grammatica loci, 1 Joann III., 19—22. Halfp, 1804, in Pott Sylloge Commentat. Theol., Vol. VII. p. 1, sqq. CHAPTER III. 10 — 24. 213 introduced for the purpose of rendering the proposi- tion more regular (yf&jffo/^saa, on account of the sub- sequent 'TTikofL^v) — 'Ex TT^g dXri'^siag ihai (cfr. John xviii. 37,) here denoted, being a Irue Christian, a genuine disciple of Jesus, John xiii. 35 ; dXr^ita. does not here mean truth or sincerity in the general sense,* but as it is put in 2 John 1, 2. 3 John 3, 4, 8, the truth of the gospel, beside which, according to St, John, every thing else was mere illusion and •vjysuöoc. The context requires this interpretation. If f% 7, dXrß. ihat were equivalent to being sincere in a general sense, an intolerable tautology would arise, and the sign would be identical with that which is to be recognized by the sign. Genuine fraternal love is not only the sign of true Christianity, and of our being true disciples of Jesus, but it also is, and for this very reason too, the ground of tranquillity of mind and of peace with God, xal (jv rovruj) s^arrgocr- -"^sv a-jTou (^iov, see ver. 21, 'Trfog tov Ssöv) T&iffo/jjsu * Without determining what it means here, the translator affirms, w ithout hesitation, that in the parallel quoted, j;, John xviii. 37, dk'^Bna. means truth, in its most universal and comprehensive sense. For the Saviour is here undoubtedly establishing the univer- sality, the catholic character, of his own doctrine. The Sa- viour at no time established or implied any duplicity or spe- ciality in truth, or a plurality of truths, but here, speaking to ä cultivated man, and one who may be supposed to have been acquainted with Greek and Roman systems, he solemnly affirms the co-extensive univ^ersaHty of his own doctrine with truth it- self: the essential identity between that truth, which even Pilate had the means of knowing (cfr. Rom. L 18, 20, 21, 22), and liis own doctrine. :214 INTERPBETxVTION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. rac, xaediag %/xoJv. i. e. if we are conscious of the genuine fraternal love, we may (this is expressed by the future ttj/Vo/xs!/) set our hearts at ease before God, "7 i, e. with regard to his judgment (not con- vince our hearts as some authors express it). See ver. 21, where cra^ö^^ff/ai/ £%ö/>tsi/ is correlate to ^si%iv rag 'Aa^h., cfr. Acts xii. 20. Matth. xxviii. 24,"» The sentiment of Matth. vi. 14. John v. 24, is similar. Ver. 20. Both the construction and the sense are difficult ; the common reading of the verse seems un- assailable. For, although Cod. A, along with other authorities of less importance, omit 6V/, it is manifest that its difficulty, and the opinion generally received among the ancient interpreters, that it is redundant (-ragsXxs/, says the Scholion in Matthäi,) has led to the omission. No reasonable critic would despise the aid of conjecture in a passage so difficult as this is, if any truly advantageous and probable conjecture were offered. Henr. Stephanus, from conjecture, substitutes sr/ for ori^^^^ a conjecture easy in itself, which also has the approbation of Beza, Piscator and Priceus, and to which the Syriac version too, seems to be favourable, inasmuch as it translates on by N?2l. But, although this renders the construction ' '^ Thus the Syriac version expresses it. 1^8 Xenophon. Histor. I. 7- 7- Plato de Legib. X. p. 960. [If Steph. Plato is meant, here must be a misquotation or mis- print. Page 960 is in the 12th book of that edit., there the participle TuBofcivog occurs, but in the sense of obeying, obe- dient — Transl*^ ^''* Prefatio N. T. in the last §. See conjectures on tlie l^ew Testament by Bowyer, in the German Translation by Schulz, p. 584, sqq. CHAPTER III. 10 24. 215 easier, it does not at all render the context more clear. It is also difficult to conceive how 'in, if such was the original reading, could have entirely disappeared from the MSS., and have been exchanged for the more difficult reading on. Now, if the common reading is, in every case, to be preserved, the question arises, how on is to be taken in both cases, and to what it refers ? The vagueness, nay, the ambiguity of /xe/^wv, in this context, greatly enhances the difficulty of the solution of this question, and partly is the cause of our passage having been liable to many, not only different, but even contradictory interpretations. Some authors^-^ refer hi (taking the one as well as the other in the sense of that,) to Truso/x^v, make the latter on to be a repetition of the first, and then explain the passage as follows : We can (will) com- fort ourselves (our hearts) when our heart reproaches us, with this idea, that God is greater, i. e. more be- nign, and knows us better than we know ourselves. But, without here inquiring whether (JjZiQw can be referred to the divine grace, and whether the context warrants such an interpretation or not, we certainly find that the repetition of 6V/, after such a very short parenthesis, is, even in St. John's style, far from be- ing probable,^^^ and also, that referring both oV/s as an object-proposition-particle, to ^j/Vo/z-si/ which, con- sidered as a correlate to •ra:55'/^'/ay lynv --^o; rov ^s&v, 120 -pfjj. exaip.ple, Dr. Au^sti in bis version of the Bible, Wahl in his Clavis, p. (>G0. ^^^ Wahl quotes in his support Xenoph. Anab. V, 6. 1Ü, VII. 4. 5. 216 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. ver. 21, can here only signify, to tranquillize, cannot easily be justified. Others, and this is the prevailing opinion among the ancient interpreters,^ ^^ consider the first or/ as a causal-particle, and the second as a redundancy, or as mere indication of the apodosis [the consequent] meaning then^'^^ (the Hebrew "»D is sometimes si- milarly used, for example Gen. xxii. 16 ; xxxi. 42, and in other places), or even as a particle of asseve- ration, (profecto certe). This interpretation gives the foliov/ing meaning : For when our heart (con- science) condemns us, then truly (or how much more) God is greater, i. e. stricter or better knowing than our heart, (conscience,) &c. But, however much the context, particularly ver. 21, seems to favour this in- terpretation, a strict philological demonstration is yet wanting to prove that 6V/ is ever used in this manner afore stated, either in the Greek of the New Testa- ment, or even in the classical Greek. Only after £/Vs/V, /iys/v, or words of that description, it sometimes is redundant, but never in a construction like the one before us. Nor does it anywhere occur as a sign of the apodosis, either in the classics or in the Old or New Testament. The Alexandrinian Translators never put any expression whatever for the Hebrew O, when put in the apodosis in the sense of then, cfr. ^''^^ For example, St. Augustin, Theophylact, the Syriac Ver- sion. The Seholion in Matthai, on this passage, says; t« ^ivrt^ov"0'Tl Ta.QiXxsi.0 oi kiyii, TotovToviffTiv, tlya,^ af/.x^TuvovTSs ■rhv xa^'tKv iocvTuv Xa.^i7v eh ^vvccfiiBx, v'^o i^tov vurrofiivoi trvvsihorosy ^^^ Lanjje, Welker and others. CHAPTER III. 10 — 24. 217 Gen. xxii. 16 ; xxxi. 42 ; Numb. xxii. 33 ; Job viii. 6 ; xxxvii. 20. Faithfully adhering to the sense given by the ancient exegesis, Camerarius, Episcopius, Calovius, Carpzov and others, endeavoured to aid the construction by unanimously translating the first on by since, or be- cause, and considering the second as elliptical, but, according to their different ways of completing the ellipsis, they interpreted it sometimes as a/rioXoyr/,ov, sometimes as hirr/ri;j.arr/.(jv. Thus Camerarius sup- plies : nihil relinquitur bonae spei apud deum quia, &c. Episcopius : eheu, quam male nobiscum agetur, nam — ; Calovius : scimus aut scire debemus, quod — ; Carpzov: yivdjöxn uvrriv (j.aoh'ia^) i^thc ,6V/ (be- cause). The last mentioned author also proposes to take the second on in the sense of briXovon. But an ellipsis like this, for which the fervor ora- tiojiis, mentioned by Carpzov, is but an indifferent apology, is at best improbable, even while no better remedy can be found. But what remedy can be found ? Sam. Andreöe.^^s thought that he had removed all difficulties, by taking the first or/ joined to lav, for ore äv or for orocv, refer- ring the second on, as causal particle, more directly to xara'yivu)6'/.ri, and thus translating the whole ; Coram ipso sedabimus corda nostra, si quando cor nostrum nos arguendo condemnet eo quod (on) Deus major sit corde nostro et norit omnia. But neither in Matt. V. 31. Acts XV. 1. Rom. x. 9, which Andreae quotes ^''^'^ In the Treatise before mentioned " De Corde Condem- nante," § i-i, 17« :218 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. in his support, nor any where else, is on lav used for orav. Moreover, according to the clear context of our passage, the condemning judgment of conscience is not so much founded on the idea of God's om- niscience, as on the consciousness of lack of fraternal love. The philologist Hoogeveen,^-^ seems to remove, with much greater success, the philological difficulties - of the passage, by joining more directly the proposi- tion, on sccv x.araytvüjffzri j^/xcov tj -/.apdia, with the con- clusion of ver. 19, but taking on, not for a conjunc- tion, but for a compound relative joined to iav, in the same sense in which it occurs, Colos. iii. 23 : — for quod- cunque, quiquid demum, and then translating the passage (ver. 19, 20,) thus: et hinc cognoscimus, nos ex veritate esse, et coram ipso secura reddemus corda nostra quocunque tandem crimine damnat nos cor : quia vel nam major est deus corde nostro. Morus and Nosselt adhere to this interpretation. The latter more especially has defended it with much ■spirit, and displayed it more at large.^^^ Nosselt maintains, that it not being St. John's purpose here to awaken, or to sharpen the sleeping, but much more to tranquillize and console an anxious conscience ; none of those interpretations can here be admitted, in which the comparison betwixt the condemning con- science, and the omniscience of a punishing God, creates an idea, which is alarming to the anxious heart of the Christian. That, on the contrary, the ^^^ See Doctrina particularum Graecarum, Ed. Schütz, p. 589, sqq. '-'' 111 the treatise afore-mentioned. CHAPTER III. 10 — 24. 219 context even requires a consolatory sentiment like that afforded by Hoogeveen's interpretation, and that St. John's meaning clearly is this : " That the true Christian, when conscious of a perfect and unmingled fraternal love, may, however much in other respects condemned by his conscience, yet be well assured of God's mercy ; for, that he, the God of love, is greater in pardoning than our heart, and his omniscience knows better than we ourselves, our weakness, our contrition for sin, and, at the same time, our chari- table disposition, and our struggles." As Peter, once asked by the Lord, whether he loved him, finally comforted himself by answering : Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest also that I love thee ! — that even so St. John, recollecting this fact, John xxi. 15, sqq. seems to comfort the anxious minds of his readers by reminding them of the omniscience of a gracious God. That the objection to this interpretation, which, perhaps, may be found in ver. 21, will disap- pear, whenit is considered that the xa-ayvoicr/; r-^c xa^- b'tag Tjfxojv, ver. 21, is quite different from that of ver. 20 ; that the former refers to the lack of brotherly - love, the latter to all other sins, the lack of brotherly- love only excepted. And that, as in Matt. vi. 14, the Saviour said : If you forgive men their trespasses, yoiu- heavenly Father will also forgive you, — even so St. John here grounds on the consciousness of love to the brethren, the hope of forgiveness of sins. I confess that I cannot go along with Hoogeveen's interpretation, not even so justified and enlarged as it has been by Nosselt ; and these are my reasons : In the ßrst place, as to its most brilliant, I mean its 220 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. philological aspect, this only scruple occurs to my mind, that, since y.arayi^/üjß-Kiiv in ver. 21, is put neu- trally without the object of accusation, its being also neutrally put in ver. 20, is much more probable than the reverse. Even because, according to Nosselt, the '/.aräyvuGig in ver. 21, is referred to something different from that to which the xoi^rayvMaic of ver. 20 refers, it was, in my opinion, indispensable in ver. 21, definitively to state its object. Still this may be jus- .tified, and this scruple removed. But, secondly, it appears to me quite impossible to justify the Hoogeveen-Nosselt interpretation with respect to the idea which it conveys, and with regard to its connection with the context. The end and purpose of this epistle is not consolation merely, but also, and in this passage, ver. 11 — 18, 23, in a much greater degree, exhortation and warn- ing, with reference to God's judgment against every kind of unrighteousness, every deception and hypo- crisy of the heart, see ver. 17, 18. If St. John either here, or anywhere else in the epistle, did consider fraternal love merely as an isolated virtue, in the pos- session of which, man may sin a good deal, the sen- timent which Nosselt finds in our passage might be tolerated. But the fundamental idea of the epistle is the very reverse. St. John considers fraternal love as the fulfilment of the whole of dizaiocrvvyj — as that virtue in which the whole of the Christian's life in the light, the ayDorrig and the love of God, to- gether with the knowledge of God, are to shew them- selves in their highest perfection, cfr. ii. 9 — 1 1 ; iii. 14, 23; iv. 20. 21 ; v. 1, sqq. In a similar sense, it is said, that when this Apostle was dying, he cried CHAPTER III. 10 — 24. 221 repeatedly : Little children love one another, — this is the Lord's commandment, and when this one com- mandment is fulfilled, it is sufficient I Accordingly, when our conscience bears us witness that we possess in us the true, the perfect brotherly love, there can- not, in that case, according to St. John, at all exist any -/.aTaym^iz, rJjc '/.a^d'iag r^fj^ojv. Nösselt's interpre- tation then, is so far from being necessary for the context of our passage, that it is not even compatible with it, and does in general not agree with St. John's doctrine in our epistle. In the view presented by the ideal divine crisis betwixt righteousness and sin, St. John can find no rest for the heart as long as man is in any way conscious of sin, as such, before God who is holy and just. It is impossible there- fore that St. John means to say, that fraternal love, considered as an isolated virtue, compensates before God the lack of all other virtues ; he says no more than this : that love being a perfect fiüfilment of the law, gives to the heart a complete confidence and peace with God. But, according to the interpreta- tion of Hoogeveen and Nösselt, St. John would here be thinking of a mind divided between tranquillity and disquietude of conscience, as also between righteousness and sin. For such a mind the omni- science of God can only be alarming and not con- solator3\ Christ encourages only quiet and unpre- tending piety, Matth. vi. 6, 18, by the idea of an omniscient God. A conscience that still is in any de- gree charged Avith sin, can find its consolation and its peace only in faith — in the mercy and paternal love of God through Christ, ii. 1, sqq. No support 222 INTEEPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. can be gained for Nosselt's interpretation, from a com- parison between our passage and John xxi. 15, sqq., even were we to suppose that this chapter was genuine ; for there Peter, when the Lord is inquiring after his love, comforts himself by the consciousness of his love, and by this too, that the Lord knows him^ and also his sincere love to the Lord — a case which bears no resemblance whatever to that of man hav- ing to derive consolation from God's omniscience, while he is as yet oppressed with sin, but at the same time conscious of his love to the brethren. In- deed, Nosselt refers the indefinite /xs/^wv to the di- vine love and grace, and thus endeavours to make his interpretation conform with the general doctrine of Scripture in this matter. But in vain ! Chap. iv. 4, /xs/^wv is used of God's greater potver, v. 9, of the fuller evidence of divine testimony ; nowhere in the New Testament does it occur, being absolutely used, as denoting God's greater love. Some authors, on account of the subsequent >tai ytv(^s%ii 'xavra sup- pose that God's omniscience is expressed by it.^"^'^ But, from the comparison with the condemning heart, it appears that it is much more correctly explained by referring it to God's strictness in judgment. Since, then, a similar reference of the two corre- sponding expressions, sav '/.arayitCj^yM^ ver. 20, and lav >Mi -/.aTayivuiGKii, ver. 21, to the lack of brotherly- love, is much more probable than the dissimilar one proposed by Nosselt, which cannot be justified by any thing but necessity ; the interpretation of Hoogeveen *-" The Scliolia in rv^atthiii a;ul Clem. Alexandr. CHAPTER III. 10 — 24. 223 appears to me to be much more strongly opposed by arguments drawn from the context, than it is sup- ported by philological arguments. The very same reasoning which brings me to speak against the exegesis of Hoogeveen and Nos- selt, impels me to choose among the different in- terpretations, one which establishes a strict antithesis between verses 20 and 21, and at the same time con- siders verse 20 as syntactically distinct from verse 19, making of the whole passage, verse 20—22, the following sense and context : For when we (do not possess the full and genuine brotherly-love, and ac- cordingly) our heart (conscience) condemns us (in this respect) (we know) that God's judicial strictness is greater than that of our hearts, and that he knows all. When (on the contrary) our heart does not con- demn us (for lack of brotherly-love), we have cheerful- ness, (confidence, tranquillity of mind) towards God, and, whatever v. e ask, we will receive of him, be- cause we (loving the brethren) keep his command- ments, and do that which pleases him. The second or/ causes the only difficulty in this interpretation. I take it elliptically as an object-proposition-particle, dependent on the omitted y/vwtrxo.asy * or Jöa/xsv, * Dr. Lücke here, I do not in the least doubt, correctly sup- plies yivuffxofjciy, but in his version he has supphed yrjc>,ffKiri, (so wisset). I am greatly surprised that the real remedy for all difficulties in this passage has not occurred to so many eminent and learned divines and critics as have commente in verse 20. Perhaps on in both the clauses of verse 20, are object-proposi- tion-particles, anglice that. I am aware that thus the second »Ti stül is, in reality, superfluous, but in St. John's style it would in this collocation be by no means unnatural or unex- pected. The words of the Scholiast too, materially support this conjecture : he might well say to ^ivn^ov on Ta^sX^s/, if in the beginning of the verse he read xat on lav, &.C., but if he read not »«', the construction was by no means cleared up by merely saying : to divr. on -ra^iXx." It is not worth while here to demonstrate how the xett may have been omitted even ill the oldest copies : it is a word more easily dropt than others, on account of its frequency and not uncommon redun- dancy ; and here the preceding verse 19 also commenced with xoUf which circumstance perhaps suggested to a careless trans- criber the notion that here it was dispensable. By adopting this indispensable xeci, the construction, the version and interpretation, remain exactly as proposed by Dr. Lücke, with the exception only of the first on, which he makes causal, and the syntactic separation he establishes between verse 19 and 20. According to my reading, I translate the whole passage, ver. 18 — 21, thus : " My little children ! let us not love by speech and by tongue, but in deed and in truth : and by this [by the charity which is in us], we know, that Ave are of the truth, and that we shall be able to render our hearts confident be- fore him : — and Ihal — if our hearts condemn us — (we knoiv, i say), that God is greater than our hearts, and knows all CHAPTER III. 10 — 24. 225 Chap. V. ver. 14, shews that the --aooriffia t^'o; tov ^iov, ver. 21, has a special reference to confidence in praj^er, and that, accordingly, ver. 22 is immediately connected with ver. 21, as its epexegesis. Inasmuch as the true Christian, m^io keeps God's command- ments, and does what pleases God, cannot ask for anything which is not in conformity with the will of God, he always is well assured that his prayer will be heard, v. 14, (cfr. John xvi. 24, sqq.) According to St. John then, the ground of our prayers being heard is purely moral. The sum of all God's commandments, the com- pendium as it were of that life which is pleasing in the sight of God, is ver. 23 — the dydirrj sx, rrkn^g, (1 Tim. i. 5), the 'rriang bt dyä'rTrig svs^yov/jAvrj (Gal. v. 6), cfr. Gal. v. 14. Brotherly-love, according to St. John's view, has its root in the belief in Jesus Christ's Messiahnic ovo//,«, he being the founder of the Christian xoivowa. — Kaäwg s^wxjJ' li/ro?.?^!/ tj/x?^ only refers to ha things : IMy friends ! If our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence towards God." Charity is a standard — an index — which imparts information to us in two ways : by its presence and by its absence : When it is present, we know by it, 1st, That we are of the truth ; and, 2d, That we can render our hearts confident before (iod : When it is absent — when we feel conscious of its ab- sence — and when our heart accordingly condemns us, we there- by know : That our condemnation is great indeed, and exceeds our worst fears, for God, our judge, is greater than our hearts, and knows all things. Having established this as a general rule, the Apostle adds emphatically ^ and in a direct address : Dear friends ! " It is only when our heart does not condemn us (on the score of brotherly- love), that we can have confidence towards God." — Transl.^ Q 226 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. äya-roj'xzv uAXyjAovg and ought to be understood in conformity with John xiii. 34, cfr. here ver. 16. We (jiight to love each other in that degree which Christ has ordered in the new commandment. In ver. 24, it is doubtful to whom auroD, sv aura), and avrbg should be referred. As the last gramma- tical subject, ver. 23, was Christ (za^ug sdoj7tsv — ,) it seems that here too, all these expressions ought to be referred to Christ. Christ also, according to ii. 20, 27. John xvi. 7, gives the spirit and belief, and brotherly-love is most closely connected with the communion with Christ, cfr. John xiii. 35 ; xiv. 20, 21 ; XV. 4 — 10. However, as God is the main grammatical subject in that which precedes, and the Apostle has been speaking more particularly about communion with God, and a filial relation to God, and in the subsequent passage speaks of that spirit which is of God ; and as God is also spoken of by St. John as a giver of the Spirit ; it seems preferable in this verse to refer avrog to God,^"^^ cfr. ii. 3 — 5, and the most decisive passage, iv. 13. God's abiding, or dwelling in man, is effected through the communion of the Holy Ghost, by the fruits of which, viz. faith and brotherly-love, we per- ceive whether. God is in us, and whether we are his children, cfr. iv. 15. Rom. viii. 16. — Thus purely ethical, thus clear and perspicuous, is that which has been termed the Mystique of St. John ! The Anakoluthon, iv roüruj — Jx rov 'rrvsv/z^aToc — has arisen from conciseness, cfr. iv. 13. ^^^ This was done by all the ancient Interpreters. CHAPTER IV. 1 6. 227 SEVENTH SECTION. CHAPTER IV. 1 6. How easily may man deceive himself with regard to the divine Spirit in himself and in others, for there is also a spirit of illusion and error, which most un- warrantably calls itself divine. Therefore, nothing is of greater moment for the Christian — particularly in times of great spiritual ferment, when illusions and a hypocritical pretence of the divine Spirit so easily arise, and truth and error are deceitfully blended together — than the do'/,i,u.cc6ia roov 'rvivfj^drcfjv, (diazoiffii Tvsv/J^drojv, 1 Cor. xii. 10), ii S/C SsoD söt/v. Now, St. John, establishing this trial of the spirits as a duty for his readers, gives them at the same time the true touchstone for it, iv. ^3, and likewise consoles and encourages them by this sentiment, that they, as true believers, had already gained a victory (over the illusive spirits), and that the divine Spirit dwelling in them is greater than the spirit of the world, the spirit of seduction, iv. 4 — 6. Ver. 1. by Tv^v/^ara — 'jrav TviZfLu — the -ysO/xara ■r^o:pr,TclJv 1 Cor. xiv. 32, the XaXovvng h 'jrvvjfj.ari, 1 Cor. xii. 3, are here to be understood, cfr. 1 Cor. xii. 10. 2 Thes. ii. 2. 1 Tim. iv. 1. As there existed, even in the age of the Old Testament, both true pro- phets and also hypocritical or false prophets, Deut. xiii. 1,* so also in the church, as the Lord himself * Deut. xiii. ver. 1 ? This quotation is correct by the English Bible, and the ordinary versions : but by the correct 228 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. had foretold, Matt. xxiv. 11, 24, there arose from the very beginning a pseudo- Christian prophetship, be- side that which was genuine The yJf.^iGiJ.ci of the dioczoiffig 'rrvsvfiaTuv, which St. Paul establishes as a corrective for the prophetic ^d^iff/j.a, 1 Cor. xii. 10 ; xiv. 29, has reference to this. In a similar sense, St. John says : Believe (-larsvsrs), not every pro- phetic spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God ; for there are already many false prophets gone out into the world, (i. e. they have appeared among us, f^sX'/jXu^acT/'; £/; roi/ ^oV/xof, cfr. John vi. 14 ; xvi. 28 ; xviii. 37, where the simpler phrase, sj;/;. s/'? rov •/.öß'j.ov is used to express the coming forward of God's true messengers.) Concerning the idea of prophetship in the New Testament, and its partial difference from that of the Old Testament, see 1 Cor. xiv. 1 — 4, 24. Ephes. iv. 11.129 Verse 2. By this ye know (y/nwcxsr?, which being supported by the most numerous and most important authorities, seems to be more like St. John's mode of expression, than yivojG'KiTai), the Spirit of God (in the prophets ;) every (prophetic) TtsD/xcc* which ac- knowledges, that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is of God. Similar is the criterion of the genuine Christian prophetship, 1 Cor. xii. 3. Respecting the historical relation, and the true meaning of the phrase 'l'/^ö". Xo. h 6aorJ sXrjAv^o-a (not iXrtXv^hai, which Hebrew Bibles, Halm's for example, the verse here alhided to is the sEcoxD ; because in the common versions, the first verse of chap. xiii. had been appended to chap, xii Transl. 12^ See Koppe N. T., Ep. ad Ephes. Exc. III. De Pro- phetis inter prinios Christianos. CHAPTER IV. 1 — 6. 229 reading clearly owes its origin to translations and quotations), see the Introduction, where all that is most indispensable is stated on the subject.^^^ Here the following may be added : As in iii. 23, so here also, 'I'/jff?; Xp/ßrog must be taken as a historical no- tion, cfr. V. 6. As to the expression sv y^d(poig is written thus : on tuv Tysy/A«, Avsi -01/ 'l^ffoCiv, d-o rov ^sov ouz 'ic-i. And then he adds: Tavri^v — rviv oidvotuv sx rm 'rrcikoLiujv dvTr/pd:pc/yj 'TTsotsTXov ot %w|/^«/v uto tov rrjg otzovofx/ag dv^pdJ-TTov ßovX6,aivoi rrjv SsoV^jra.^^^ The same reading, as Socrates found in his ancient MSS., has been adopted by the Vulgate, by several Latin fathers, ( Augustin, Leo,^^^ and others), and by the old Latin translator of Irenaeus, and some of these have the ad- dition ifi came venisse. Tertullian combines both readings, and reads thus (Adv. Marc. V. 16): "ne- gantes Christum in carne venisse — et solventes," (cfr. Adv. Psychic. Cap. 1, " nee quod lesum Christum solvant," and De Carne Chr. 24. " Qui negat Christum in carne venisse — hie antichristus est) ; the same expressions are used by Tychonius and Au- gustin : " Qui solvit lesum et negat in carne ve- nisse." — But the common reading is found in all the Greek MSS., in the Syriac versions, and, from Poly- carp downwards, in all the Greek fathers, only a few copies have not the article before 'Iriffovy but of '■'^ H. E. VII. 32. Valesius conjectured that Socrates in his MS. read thus : kvii rov 'itiaovv üto rod B-tev Ix, .>?- 232 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. repetitions, cfr. ver. 6. The shorter reading is too obscure for St. John's style,^^^ and seems to owe its origin to an early conflict between the more complete phrase, and the reading : o Xbu rh 'iriGovv. It is also to be remembered that the lectio recepta is supported both by the earliest (Polycarp) and the most nume- rous authorities. Only, this one correction of the common reading, I should deem allowable, viz. to strike out the article before 'l'/ißoZv, which is omitted in some, although indeed less important MSS., and also by Polycarp and Theophylact. It appears to have arisen from the reading : Xhu -ov '1yi<3o\jv : every where else in the epistle, St. John writes 'I?3ö'6l/c, with- out an article. Ka/ rovro — to rov 'Avriy^oiffTov can, in the context before us, only be referred to, and com- pleted from -Trav irvivfia. "O ax'/^/C. too, refers to it, and Henry Stephans' conjecture, ov, is quite unneces- sary.* Where and how had the readers heard that the antichrist was to come, s^yjrai ? Clearly not for the first time in this epistle. As in ii. 18, St. John here too alludes to an earlier information on the sub- 1^^ S troth's conjecture, therefore, that there originally was written o fji.n is quite untenable. [This is too concise to be understood by some of our readers Stroth's conjecture was : That this had been the original reading, ver. 3, Ka.) -7rot.v -Trtiv- fjt.a fji-ri, \k tov ^ioZ ovx iffri, " and every spirit that \^doeii'\ not, is not of God.'''' — Transl.'\ * I wonder that Dr. Lücke declares Stephans' conjecture quite unnecessary, for surely it would be less awkward to read : " This is that spirit of antichrist of whom you have heard that he should come, and who already now is in the world," than 'what we find in the English text, faithful as the version there is to the received Greek original Transl. CHAPTER IV. 1 6. 233 ject. The doctrine concerning the antichrist was an essential part of a complete system of instruc- tion respecting the Christian sat/V, s. 2 Thess.ii. l,sqq. Ver. 4. True Christians are born of God. But all that is born of God overcomes the world, nay, through the faith in Jesus the Christ, the antichristian world is already overcome, cfr. ii. 13, 14 ; v. 4, 5. But those who are sure of the victory, those Avho al- ready have it, as it were, in their hands, fight more courageously, and more readily obtain the victory. It is not, therefore, because the readers had already before overcome heretics, as Grotius supposes, but because, as faithful, and born of God, even through the faith in Jesus Christ, they already had overcome the antichristian principle, the world i?i general^ and because this total victory conditions and secures the victory in detail, over the separate powers of the antichristian world, that St. John, comforting and en- couraging them to constancy, and to an exercise of their right of conquest over the world, says : xa/ vivuTj/iart aurovg (viz. the antichristians, rov ävTi-^Picrov, ver. 3, taken as a collective, cfr. ii. 18). By way of explanation he adds : For he who is in you, o sv {//x7v, viz. God (the Spirit of God), of whom you are born, and who remains in you, iii. 24, is greater, i. e. mightier, than he who is in the world, 6 aoyjj^v roD ^iöV/xoL/, 6 ■-ovTj^oc, whose tztcvo, the antichrists are, cfr. 1 Cor. XV. 57, but more specially, Ephes. vi. 10 — 17. Ver. 5 and 6 are again founded on the absolute xoiöic betwixt the world and God, between infidel antichristianity and genuine Christianity. By the worldly principle, only worldly things are produced, 234 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. i. e. antichristian doctrine and the world's approbation, cfr. John iii. 31 ; viii. 23, " But we," St. John adds, communicatively, ver. 6, " We are of God, and we do therefore not listen, to worldly doctrine." But whosoever knows God, and consequently belongs to the godly race, (cfr. John viii. 43, 47,) hears us, (follows us,) us, who believe in Jesus the Messiah the Son of God, and propagate this faith, cfr. ii. 23. But whosoever is not of God, hears us (follows us) not, (denies that Jesus the Christ has appeared in the flesh,) see ver. 3. By this then, {i. e. by the confess- ing or denying of Jesus the Christ, in the true sense of the word,) by this we know, (z. e. distinguish) the prophetic spirits, whether they be of God or not, whether they are the instruments of the Spirit of truth, (John xv. 26 ; xvi. 13,) or of the spirit of er- ror and seduction, ryjg cAa^jj?, cfr. 1 Tim. iv. 1, (roD The Ix, 70U äjöu ihat^ is, according to St. John, both universal, and also special, or Christian, cfr. John viii. 47, the birth of God in its general sense, is the basis of the filial relation to God in Christ. But, considered in the light of the divine -/.oiatg, as here, the universal consciousness in God, or life in God, coincides with that which is more special or Chris- tian, and St. John does not conceive as possible the existence of a godly man, in the universal sense of the word, who, at the same time, either is not a Christian, or, when the word of God comes to him, would not immediately become a Christian. CHAPTER IV. 7 V. 5. 235 SECTION EIGHTH. CHAPTER IV. 7 CHAPTER V. 5. After this digression concerning the oox///>aff/a roJv crvsvfjArojv, iv. 1 — 6, St. John resumes the subject of iii. 23, 24, cfr. ver. 18, in order to enforce the para- cusis to brotherly-love with still stronger motives, and more specially in order to place in its true light the relation betwixt brotherly-love, and love to God, and faith in Jesus the Messiah. Chap. iii. ver. 23, 24, may be considered as a short summary of this whole section. Ver. 7 and 8. The filial relation to God, (h rou ':)so\j yswrj^T^vaif) consists in a resemblance to God ef- fected by the knowledge of the divine cliaracter. Now, since with regard to the redemption, God's most essential attribute is love, ver. 8, and love has no earthly origin, but has its source in God, ver. 7, it naturally follows, that whoever rightly knows God, and is born of God, loves the brethren, and vice versa, he who practices love, is born of God, and knows him. Ver. 7 and 8 are founded on this reasoning. St. John places the last first, because the conneclion with ver. 6 naturally led him to such an arrange- ment. This is St. John's meaning ; ver. 7, '' Let us love one another, as those who truly are of God, and rightly know him, (ver. 6,) for love (brotherly-love) is not sx. rov zoff/j^ov, but sz rov "^sov, (it belongs to that 236 INTERFKETATION OF THE FIBST EPISTLE. life which is of God,) it is an essential criterion of a filial relation to God, and of right knowledge of him. The Alexandr. MS. reads rov '^shv after dyaTr^v. But both here and in ver. 8, as is clearly seen, both from the context and from comparison with ver. II, 20, and 21, ö dya'jruv is absolutely used, and denotes hrotherly-love. Thus, St. Paul too uses ayac/j abso- lutely in the sense of brotherly-love, cfr. 1 Cor. xiii. 1. Philipp, ii. 2. The filial relation to God, and the knowledge of God condition each other according to St. John, ver. 6. For this reason, St. John puts the one instead of the other, and always considers the one as implied in the other. Accordingly, the reading sx rov '^soij ovx sffrh after aywrruv, ver. 8, in Cod. 9 of Griesbach, is evidently spurious. Since God is love, cfr. ver. 16, i. e. entirely love, (love itself) no man who has ob- tained a right knowledge of God (and accordingly is born of God), can do otherwise than, in imitation of him, love the brethren. St. John puts the attribute of love as God's essence, (in a similar manner as in the Gospel iv. 24, ■ri/sC/Act 6 ^gk), because God, in the redemption through Christ, is more specially and most perfectly recognized and felt to be love essen - tially.135 To this ver. 9 and 10, (in ^vhich God's love in the redemption of the world, through Christ, is more accurately described,) are beautifully sub- joined. The closer connection betwixt ver. 8 and 9, is as follows : God can be recognized by us as love, ^^^ A more copious scientific explanation of this sentence of St. John's is tobe found in Schleiermacher's " Glaubenslehre," (Doctrine of the Faith,) Vol. II. p. 672. CHAPTER IV. 7 V. 5. 237 becaiise^^^ h to-j-oj f^avs^oj^'/j yj dyd~ri rov ^soD h tj/j^Tv (this sv r,[jJrj being put instead of j^/x/V, is to be referred to j^avs^w^T;), oti rh v'/ov avrov rov /j.ovoyivr,^^'^ d'-hra/,- ■A.iv ilg rov -/.offf^o'^ (cfr. Gosp. iii. 17), ha, l^ri(JMfMv (in- stead of '(^oj/jv ahJ^viovh/j:/)!Mv) m avrov, (i. e. 'Triori-jovng fig ro ovoiLci avrov, v. 13), cfr. Gosp. iii. 16 ; Rom. viii. 32, sqq. In ver. 10, the Apostle makes the greatness of God's love in the sending of Christ, more specially apparent, by shewing that this love was not God's re- turn for our love to him, or, as it were, love of the second rank ; but rather a pure love of mercy. In this, he says, God's love consists, (sv rovrcfj icriv r, äyd-'/j, viz. rov '^sov), not in this (^ovz h rovr'J-^^ ori\ that we had (previously) loved God, but (in this \sv roZrui] on), that he loved us (first^^^ cfr. v, 19), and from love hath sent his Son as a propitiation, (an atoner, or on purpose to atone, cfr. ii. 2), for our sins, cfr. John iii. 16 ; Rom. v. 6, sqq, ; viii. 32, sqq. Even without considering the redemption through Christ, man's love to God, is only love in return, and God is always the first in his love ; in this respect too, the dyu-i^ is always iz rov äso'3, v. 7. 1^' Some of Griesbach's authorities have on or Kiel on before i» TovTu), but this clearly is a gloss. '■' ^ ee the Author's Commentary on the Gospel, i. 14. Vol. J. p 420. ^•'^ Thus 1 think ov^ on — «■ A.' on is to be resolved. Gro- tius's and Lange's transposition, on oix, — appears to me less correct. ^^-' The Vulgate has here " prior," which is borrowed from ver. 19. 238 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. Ver. 11. Since, (ii,^^^ cfr. Gosp. xiii. 14, 17, and other places), God hath so greatly (olirwc, ver. 9, 10), loved us : we also must (imitating God in his love to man, or, from a feeling of the communion established between God's children by God's love in Christ), love one another as brothers in Christ, cfr. v. 1, 2. Ver. 12. Here the interpretation is controverted. Carpzov connects ^ih ovdslg rruTrors rs'^sccrai with ver. 14, as if St. John had written ^sov fisv ovdsig -TruiTors Ts^sarar dXX' ij/nsTc dXyßcog rs^sdfjL,i^a, and his meaning had been as follows: nemo quidem deum conspicere naturam do^ocrov potest in vita hac, nedum comprehendere. Ipse tamen indicia dedit sui amoris luculenta, praecipue eo, dum se praebuit conspicien- dum in lesu äsai^^^wcrw filio suo, quem in mundum miserat loan. xiv. 9. Eundem et ego (Joannes) et apostoli reliqui, discipuli etiam complures, vidimus omnes atque contemplati smnus, i. 1, sqq. But Lange has justly rejected this interpretation. The intermediate proposition, from the beginning of ver. 12 to ver. 14, is not only too long, but its substance also is too essential, and does too much belong to the leading train of ideas, to be considered as a pa- renthesis. Nor is there any conjunctive particle in- dicating, even in the remotest degree, a mutual re- lation betwixt the two propositions of ver. 12 and ver. 14. Lastly, and this is most important, the pro- position ^dv ohhlg TOü-rors rs^sccrai is so categorically put, that, (in the absence of intermediate propositions '""' Concerning il with the Praeterite Indie, see Winer's Gramm p. 92, and Wahl's Clavis, p. 220. CHAPTER IV. 7 V. 5. 239 respecting the visibility, or rather cogiioscibility* of God latent in Christ, as defined in Gosp. xiv. 9,^"*^ ver. 14, can by no means be considered as its limita- tion. The right interpretation of the passage appears to me to be this : Considering this as granted, that human love without a visible, without an imme- diately present object, is not easily kindled or sup- ported, — and likewise, in order to explain why he did not say in verse 11, since God hath thus loved us, let us love him again ! but rather : Since God liatli so greatly loved us, we must also love one another ! — St. John evidently wishes to express as much as this : Man cannot immediately return to the invisible God, that love which he hath shewn to us, for no man hath ever seen God, (i. e. no man can ever see him). But when we love one another, (love the brethren who are visible,) then God re- mains in us, he is present to us with his favour, and thus the love to God, who is invisible yet spiritually present, cfr. ver. 19 — 21, is accomplished in us through the love to the brethren. These words in ver. 21, xa; ruvri^v ty^'j svrokrtv sp(;o/a,2v a--' ccuroD, ha. ö dyu'zcö]) rov ^sov ayaza xai tov adsX^ov alrov, — contains the key to our passage ; and we have, in the inter- pretation of it, followed GEcumenius, Augustin and Grotius. It is rather on account of dogmatical timi- * CognoscihUity. In the absence of any recognized Enghsh equivalent, the Translator has ventured to \x^e cognoscibUUy for the German erkennharkeit. ^*^ Inasmuch as in the Gospel xiv. 9, God's cognoscibilUy tlirough Olirist, and here evidently the impossibility of a bodily contemplation of God is spoken of, that passage can- not, by any means, ]>e compared with the passage before us. 240 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. dity, than from valid exegetical reasons, that Calo- vius and others suppose that ayaor-zj aurov means God's love to us. But this is at variance with the context, (for God's perfect love to us has already ap- peared in Christ,) and also with the usus loquendi of our epistle, where dyd'Trrj to\j ^iov or a-orou always* denotes the love to God, cfr. ii. 5 ; iii. 17 ; v. 3, and, with regard to the sense, cfr. also ver. 21. In verse 13, the context and the sense is this ; The love to God is founded on a mutual communion with him, but that communion depends on our con- sciousness of the Holy Ghost which we have re- ceived from God operating within us, cfr. iii. 24, through whose power, and in the faith in the Son * No, not always, — not, for example, in iv. 9, where Dr. Lücke translates ayd-^'/i tov ^lov like everybody else, by God's love to man, and where indeed it is evident it cannot be other- wise translated. What here is meant by Calovius's dogmalical timidity is this : that Calovius dared not establish man's perfect love to God as a possible case ; but, after all, I see no great objection to Calovius's interpretation, nor that it it is irrecon- cileahle either to the context or to Dr. Liicke's excellent in- terpretation of the preceding passage ; for making «.yd-rn uütoZ God's love toman, I would thus explain: No man hath ever seen God, (and. no man can therefore be said to love God directly,) yet if we love one another God abides with us, (is present to us with his favour,) or rather God then abides with us, because there then prevails amongst us a spirit and temper which is pleasing to God ; or, more metaphysically thus : If we love one another, God abides in us essentially (why ? because God is love, verse 9,) and God''s love is per- fected in us, i. e. there does then appear in our life and con- versation a perceptible effect of God's love to us. If we love one another it will appear that God hath loved us to some purpose. — Transl. CHAPTER IV. 7 V. 5. 241 of God, as Redeemer of the world, we are God's children. The construction is here somewhat dif- ferent from iii. 24. There we read h to'otu) yivb^ay.u^^iv — v/. 70V «^v., here h tovtuj yiv. — on stc t. cv. airov dsoMxsv rjfxTi^, and accordingly the sense is here some- what different : our abiding in God, and his abiding in us, we know from this, that he has communicated to us, and still does communicate of (^z) his Spirit. The ha'ioißig Tujv yjxDi6[i,äro)\/, 1 Cor. xii. 4, 11, is therefore here more distinctly expressed than in iii. 24.* Inasmuch as, according to St. John, verse 9 — 12, the love to God and to the brethren is first lively awakened and excited by the (pavi^ojGig of God's love in the ä-oG7(>\ri of his Son, for the redemption of the world, it is a matter of the highest importance that this cLTcodrd'kTi and cwr^j^/a, be well ascertained^ and that it be by Christians rightly recognized^ believed, 2iW^known, Thus ver. 14, 15, and 16, are connected with the preceding passage, ver. 7 — 13. Verse 14. The apostolical testimony of Christ's mission for Gojrri^iu rov -/.off/xou is founded on the ocular evidence of the Apostles, (here specially on that of St. John,) n'^sdfMs'^a xai fia^ruPoZiJ-sv, cfr. i. 1, sqq. Verse 15. He then (cl; oiv b[j.6Koyr,6yi, i'^^ QQgp^ • And even here I should say that the ^lai^nri; tüv _^a^/v d}JjjAOü'j, (which is analogous to zotvojvia /x=^' rjfjtyOjv, fj,iT d'AXTjXojv, i. 3, 7.) It is ob- vious that za'^'Jjg sxzTvog sdri, just as iii. 3, 7, refers to Christ, and to his life of love for the brethren, iii. 16. But, if we supply sv t'jj zcxj/xm after söti, the present tense, instead of yjv, certainly is unlocked for. It would have been less surprizing if St. John had un- derstood after iö"-/, uywTruv rovg adsXcpoug (^yj/Moig,) or some such word. It is much more difficult to deter- mine whether sv rovru) nrsXiioj-ai is to be referred to the next /Va, or to the remoter on. St. John makes quite an ordinary use of si> rovru) — öV/, in the epistle, cfr. ii. 3, 5; iii. 16, 19; iv. 13. If we here too sup- pose such a construction, we have the genuine Jo- lianneic sentiment, that perfect brotherly -love is that CHAPTER IV. 7 V. 5. 245 which resembles Christ's love, cfr. iii. 16. But how can the trajection of iVa 'xaopyjffia.v sy^oofMv, which, in this case, is rendered indispensable, be justified ? In no part of St. John's writings is an example of this kind to be found. And why should St. John have antici- pated, thereby occasioning confusion both in the sentiment and construction ?* Was it perhaps for the sake of emphasis, because the confidence, the fearlessness of genuine brotherly-love is the leading idea of ver. 17, which is further displayed in ver. 18 ? But, even in this case, we would have to con- strue differently, and join sv tovt'jj to /Va, which is nearest at hand. It is also difficult to determine and render plain and perspicuous the trajected sense of the proposition, and the relation of hcc to cri — sv rip xoö/AO) ro{jr(jj. Grotius supplies thus : ideo Deus hoc^ (i. e. our suffering along with Christ,) sic disponit, ut. But this supplement will please us so much the less, since we take the words aydirri fM^ ti/xuv, and ori xa- ^ojg differently from Grotius. No other resource is left, therefore, than to connect ha rraoh. g^. directly with h rovruj rsrsX. The same construction occurs in John xv. 8 : iv rovru) s^o^a^rä^/j 6 tocttjo /xov, hoc, xa^- 'Tzh 'TOA-jv (phrjTB, cfr. John xvii. 2 ; iv. 34. This is the sense: Therein the highest perfection of our mutual love shews itself, that we, (or, then our love is perfect, when we,) on the day of judgment, can have confidence, because (öV/) we, (or, inasmuch as we, cfr. iii. 9 ; but more specially iii. 14, where, in- * This question is, indeed, not fair, when we consider i. 1- 3, where the construction presents far greater difficulties. 246 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. stead of ha and on, we find a double 6V/,) do walk in the world as Christ (hath walked, loving the breth- ren.) "On za^ojg — sv rOj '/.6c[xo) rovroj, accordingly is to be considered as an epexegetical corollary to ha ■rao'p. g;^. The logical connection between ver. 17 and 18, as well as also the analogy of iii. 19 — 22, shews that the confidence arising from perfect brother- ly-love, is the leading idea of ver. 17, and that, ac- cordingly, the proposition must be construed in no other way than we have construed it. Hammond, Bahrdt, and Lange, suppose, that by yjfj/sor/. 7r\g Tioißiojg are meant the judicial investigations and persecutions of heathen magistrates. But the context of our passage is adverse to this, as well as also the spirit of the whole epistle, cfr. ii. 28 ; iii. 20 — 22 ; and lastly, the usus loquendi of the New Tes- tament, where, by j^/xs^a xptßsug is always meant the day of divine judgment. Ver. 18. As Christian brotherly-love, at the same time implies a perfect fulfilment of the divine com- mandments, ver. 21 ; it is, when like Christ's love, in this respect, full of confidence on the day of judg- ment, and conscious of its innocence, approaches God in judgment without fear, cfr. iii. 19, 20. But, in general, St. John continues, ver. 18, terror (of God) is incompatible with (true Christian) love. True love and terror mutually exclude each other, because love and cheerful confidence are inseparable, for (on) the terror (of God in judgment,) is grounded on consciousness of merited punishment, but (^s) fear of punishment annihilates the perfect and cheerful love which is full of confidence. This proposition is per- CHAPTER IV. 7 V. 3. 247 fectly understood, when it is recollected, that St. John makes Christian fraternal love identical with the love to God, and considers the former as a necessary manifestation of the latter, so that perfect brotherly- love is, at the same time, perfect love to God. 'O (poßog zoXccGiv 'iyjh means not, as some suppose, fear is punished, but, there is a punishment in fear, fear is combined with the consciousness of punishment, xo- >.a(r/?,i'i4 cfr. Matth. xxvii. 46.* 2 Maccab. iv. 38.145 'A/a-co/xsi/ Beza, Calvin, and others, consider as an indicative, on account of the preceding riiLuc. But this is no sure criterion, and here so much the less, since j^/i-s/c has an emphatic reference to the subse- quent aJjTÜg. And as no clear sentiment or context is thus produced, it appears but reasonable to adhere to the interpretation of the Vulgate, where dya-oj'M'j is taken as a subjunctive. In ver. 18, aydcTTj being put antithetically to (pöQog (äsou,) means the love of ^** Grotius's conjecture is: KoXovtnv tx^t, (i. e. terror silences love,) and o 1\ xoXovo/:/.svo; ol — a conjecture which is as unneces- sary as it is unsuccessful. The same may be said of the conjec- ture of Lamb, Bos : xaXvinv. * Matth. xxvii. 46, can scarcely be a right quotation. It is more probable that the author meant Matth. xxi. 46, for there, at all events, is something to shew that (poßo; x.oXcc.r„ iv. 21 (viz. the indissoluble connection between the love of God and fraternal love), is to be displayed from another point of view, and enforced and illustrated by new motives. Since none, who is not born of God, can believe that Jesus is the Christ, cfr. iv. 5, 6. John viii. 43 ; it follows, that whoever really has this faith, is born of God. Now*, as in the family-life of man, the child naturally loves its father, but the love to common parents is the basis of the love of brothers and sisters ; even so in the family of God's children, love to their common Father in heaven, is the common and primary feeling with them all, from which love to the brethren, as God's children, must necessarily spring. Genuine love of God and fraternal love, are in- separably connected, they serve each other as a mu- tual basis and condition. And as brotherly-love is tiie indispensable manifestation of the love to God, so the latter is again the basis of the former. The genuine love to God's children, accordingly, is ground- ed on the genuine love to God ; but this latter con- sists in a faithful keeping of the divine command- ments. This is St. John's meaning in ver. 2. The Apostle does not here speak so much of the outward criteria of genuine brotherly-love, as of the internal consciousness and internal recognition and foundation of the one species of love on the other, and by the other. Ver. 2, may, accordingly, be considered as an antithetical parallel, as an inversion^^'^ of ver. 1 and of iv. 20, and as the colophon of that Johanneic ^^" Thus OEcumenius. 250 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. sentiment : that brotherly-love and love to God are essentially one. If the sense and context of ver. 2 are taken in this manner,^'^^ it will not be necessary either to consider a/aTw/xgi/ in both places as futur. 2d, and translate orav by quamdiit., as Carpzov has done ; or, as the anonymous author in Bowyer (Mangey), to interchange on and orav ; or even to transpose the propositions thus : oti äya'rrufisv rov ^sov, sav ra tstivo, Tou ^.>£oi> dyuTcof^sv, as has been done by Grotius. Carpzov's interpretation is not essentially different from ours, but it is too constrained, and weakens the idea. Mangey's conjecture does not harmonize with the simplicity of St. John's style. But both conjec- tures unwarrantably charge the Apostle with a tauto- logy, which no expression, or even hint, either in the preceding or subsequent part of the epistle, gives us the slightest reason to admit. Moreover, if St. John had written as Grotius supposes, the conclusion of ver. 2 : xa/ rag hroXag auroO Ttioüj'Mi]}^^ would be in logical respects incongruous, and the connection be- tween ver. 2 and 3 would be extremely constrained. Since the reading of the text is supported by all authorities without exception, it would be unassail- able even by conjectures, which, in exegetical re- spects, might be much more happy than the two afore-mentioned. Of ver. 3. Ai)-^ ya^ — rnouiMiv — the object is, to state more precisely the connection between oVav rh ^■•8 Thus Beza, Calvin, Beausobre. ^'*^ Cod. B. and some other authorities read -^ra/ftJ^ev, but S John ordinarily writes ; Tn^i7v Tag Ivrokas. CHAPTER IV. 7 V. 5. 251 ^lov ayccrru/'j.Bii and xai rag ivroXag avroii rrj^cjfxsv, ver. 2. Even this is the love of God, that /Va,i50 ^^^ By way of encouragement St. John adds : but his commandments are not grievous, ßapsTai, cfr. Matth. xi. 30. The whole of the obstacle which prevents us from keeping the divine commandments, lies in the resistance, in the dominion, in ourselves and others, of the world which is estranged from godly life, (i-T/^t;////« rou z6(j/Mov, or rriC (japxhc, as St. Paul says). Accordingly, for him, who is born of God, (who has made predominant in himself the higher vital principle, the divine TPsD/xa), the commandments of God are not grievous. For (öV/)^^! ^11 (-av rh ysy. cfr. John vi. 39 ; xvii. 2, instead of ca; 6 ysy. : the neuter expresses the totality more forcibly), that is born of God (by the power of the new, the higher life), overcomes the world, i. e. all that contends against the divine will, within man or without man, ver. 4. With a limita- tion more precise the Apostle adds : The world, overcoming victory, or that victory which did over- come, vizTisaffa (cfr. iv. 4; ii. 13, 14, i/gy/x'/jxar;) the world (in us who are born of God), or, that by which we, who are born of God, have overcome the world, is the faith that Jesus is the Christ, cfr. v. 1 ; Hebr. xi. Instead of further demonstrating this proposition, St. John, addressing himself to the conscience and experience of his readers, exclaims : (But) who (ds 15" See Wahl's Clavis, p. 404. 3. ' '1 Bentley's conjecture, sn, is not only unnecessary, but even contrary to the context of the passage. 252 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. is supplied by some authorities, by others yao) ex- cept he who has faith in Christ, is capable of over- coming the world ? And truly, no other power lias, according to the testimony of history, so much over- come the world as the Christian faith ! But it is stated in John xvi. 11, 33; xii. 31, 32; Hebr. xii. I, 2, how even the faith in Jesus, the Messiah (the vanquisher of the world, of death, and the prince of this world), is that principle in the Christian which overcomes the world. SECTION NINTH. CHAPTER V. 6 12. Transition and context : Who can doubt that Jesus really is the Christ, the Son of God ? For, as he was to appear in the quality of Messiah, so he has ap- peai'ed : and what he was to bring as a purifying and atoning Saviour to the world, that he has brought ! He did come with the water of baptism, and with the blood of atonement. The divine Spirit also, the Spirit of truth, bears testimony in favour of his dignity. Now, if human testimony, given by three, when unanimous, is considered as valid, how much more must God's testimony for the Son, being like- wise triple, and, at the same time, unanimous, be re- ceived and believed ! Whosoever does not believe this testimony of God makes, by his unbelief, God a liar, and himself a loser of eternal life, which is the portion of the faithful. CHAPTER V. 6 — 12. 253 Ver. 6. ^^2 The first words are to be resolved thus : OvTog {h -j'thg r(i\) ^goD ver. 5), Jöt/i/ 'iriffoZg Xpiffrijc, h ?/.i>wv hi '-Jöaroi zal a/'/xaröCj^^s ^xioh an one, viz. the Son of God, is Jesus Christ, He, who (because he) is come (sX^wi/, very often in the sense of a perfect, instead of eXrj/.u^w?, like the English came) with water and blood. A/a corresponds with the subse- quent sv both the one and the other is put instead of ai,v^ cfr. 1 Cor. xvi. .3. Heb. ix. 12,* where we find iiGrt'/^.)iv — ö/a toZ ahuxroc, ver. 25, where it is written : iiGrf/jrat — iv aiiLciri, and ver. 7, where oh yy{ii ai'jjci- roc. As in iv. 2, hyj6\\ai is here used of tlie uroirroXr, of Jesus Christ as Messiah, cfr. John iii. 2 ; vii. 28, 31, and other places. '•^^ Cfr. here more particularly, Dr. Knappe's Commentatio in locum, 1 Joann. v. 6 — 11, fin the Scriptis Varii argum. p. 155, sqq.) Wc here have entirely adopted the conclusions of that treatise. ^^^' The reading -^rvivf^xros instead of a'l/Ltaros, or even with the omission of ülares — alfiaros xa) wtuf/.ciTo;, which is found in some authorities, and even in Cod. A. arose from a misunder- standing of the passage, and a false analogy with John iii. 5. " Without pretending to call in question Dr. Liicke's main proposition, that " S/a and b are iieke put instead «f o-y»," I do not find that the parallels here given are satisfactory ; for in 1 Cor. xvi. 3, we could not with any propriety substitute iv or ffi/v for ^/a- — we could not say ^oxtftoiairi s» (or ffvv) tTurroXaTs instead of ot' IthttoXuv. In Heb. ix. 12, there certainly is a Hebraism, (here too, perhaps, there is one), but ^/a there surely is not equivalent to iv or ffvv. The phrase : ilff^ixB^i triiv t« I'S'iM a'iju.»Tt would be odd indeed ; nay more, much as the Apostle's figurative demonstration might reciuire irvv, he seems to have avoided that expression on account of its impropriety. — Transl. 254 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. All agree in this, that the symbolical expressions 'Cd'jjp and aJ/xa are to be explained from the symbolic of the Old and New Testament in general, and more particularly from the symbolic of St. John. But what meaning they convey in this place, is a point very much contested, particularly among the modern interpreters.^^* Let us, first of all things, from the total impression and the context of the whole, endeavour to gain such hermeneutic views as may securely guide our judg- ment of the several disagreeing interpretations. 1. Inasmuch as this passage contains no special polemical point, but the entire reasoning, as is quite evident from the context with the preceding passage, ver. 1 — 5, as well as also with the subsequent ver. 13, has no other object than to justify the belief of Christians in the Son of God, and to confound the world's unbelief: it naturally follows that that ex- planation of the difficult expressions which are founded on any special or direct polemical purport of the epistle, must be false. 2. The context requires that uowj and «Taa shall be referred, not so much to any thing characteristic in the person^ as to some matter of fact in the acro- öToX'/^ of Jesus Christ. If any thing of the former kind had been meant, x^bojo and a//xa would not have been represented as something independently sub- sisting, and distinct from Christ, bearing witness in favour of liis personal dignity. But the facts here ^•^' See Matt. Polus, *' Synopsis Criticor. et Commentato- rum" on this passage. Calovius and Wolf's Cure on the same. CHAPTER V. 6 — 12. 255 alluded to, must clearly be of such a nature, that, ill conformity with the prophecies of the Old Tes- tament, and with the expectations respecting the s^'^/ofjAvoc, entertained at the time of Christ, the prin- cipal and most essential credentials for the Messiah - ship of Jesus are contained in them, and, indeed, a particular reference to Christ's work of atonement, or to Christ's purifying world-overcoming power. 3. By the emphatic addition : 6u% h rw Docct/ /xoi-o!-, aXX' h ru) '-obart '/.ai t'jj a\a,aTi, St. John intimated that he meant such facts in the life of Jesus as were some how distinct, as facts, each of which contained a Messiahnic credential, but which, in their import being essentially one, and mutually serving each other as a complement, only united together and in conjunction with the •rs'sD/xa, could first afford the perfect ficc^rv^ia rou ^sou concerning the Messiahnic dignity of Jesus Christ. And lastly, 4. By vdoj^ and aT,aa, only such facts can be meant as, in the Christian consciousness of the readers were, by their recollection, both of the history of Jesus and of the whole tenor of the sj^mbolic of St. John, easily recognized. If this is right, it follows that the interpretation of Clem. Alex., '55 who supposes that 'Jöwo means regene- ratio et fides, and aJ/^a cogjiifio, is much too inde- finite and arbitrary. Equally erroneous is that in- terpretation — it might almost be called chemical or physiological — according to which Uow^ xa/ a///,« and even -vc-CJ/xa express the mortal (animal) nativity and '•^■^ Adumbrationes, wl locum. 256 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. nature of Jesus, it being presumed that an antido- ketic or antignostic allusion is contained in these words. Thus Wetstein, for example, supporting his opinion by the authority of the physicians of anti- quity, maintains, that by udoo^, aJfjua and <7rvivii>a here, is denoted the triple substance of Christ's animal life, and that the antidoketic sense of the passage is : Probavit se non phantasma, sed verum hominem esse, qui ex Spiritu, sanguine et aqua sive humore constaret, cfr. John xix. 34, 35. But since irviuiMo, can- not here have any physiological import, Schultess ^^^ admits, indeed, the CTsD.aa as a witness of the di- vinity of Jesus, but having declared that JX^wi/ 6/' uhaTOc xai cclfj^arog is equivalent to the phrase h ccc^zi sXTjXv^ojg, iv. 1,^^7 and that fp-^sff^ai here means nasci, he thus propounds the antidoketic meaning of the passage: " Water and blood are evidences of the animal nature, the humanity of Christ, not only in his birth but also at his death, when water and blood issued from his side, from whence his having come by water and blood might be concluded, John xix. 34, and such an evidence establishes in every one a his- torical knowledge derived from sense." But the anti- doketic or the antignostic tendency is quite gratui- tously ascribed to this passage. St. John is not here demonstrating the reality of Christ's humanity, but rather that he was the Son of God, and that he had es- tablished this by satisfactory credentials, cfr. ver. 5. 9. '^s Die Biblische Lehre vom Abendmahl. (The Biblical Doc- trine of the Lord's Supper), p. .344 — 349. '^'' Schultess says : He, who is come in the flesh, is born of the flesh, 1% alfj^u.-cav, ^i v^XTOs xa) cc'i/xaros, rod Xix,fi^'iov. CHAPTER V. 6 — 12. 257 But supposing tliat St. John is here attacking Doke tism in the manner stated, why does he not write as iv. 1 : sv ffa^/u sXtjXv'^ojc, or as in the Gospel i. 14, 3w5 to the baptism administered by John the Baptist to Jesus. Some Scholia in Matthäi^^^ do this too, and in modern times Jac. Cappellus, Heumann, Stroth, ^^o Lange, Ziegler, ^^^ and others. The main argument in sup- port of this interpretation is, that, because God in ^'^ De BaptismOj cap. 16. ^^''See the Scholion of 3Iaximus, p. 138, and the fefcholion ill Cod. H. and D., and in the catena inedita, p. 230. '^•^ In Eichhorn's Repertorium, Vol. XII. p. C4. ^«1 In Gabler's Latest Theol. Journal, Vol. III. p. 111. CHAPTER V, 6 — 12. 259 the baptism of Jesus testified unto the Baptist : ojVoc 36TIV 6 v'log fjjov (J aya'Tn^Tog, h ui sbdozriffa ! — it is supposed that the Evangelist refers to the water of baptism as a {jjaoru^lci rov ^sou. But Knapp makes the well- founded objection that sX^wi/ hi uharog and h vdari would in this sense apply with more propriety to John the Baptist than to Christ, who came for the purpose of being baptized by John. Moreover, Christ's baptism in Jordan (the water itself) was not God's testimony in favour of his Son, but rather God's voice, which was heard on that occasion, was the testimony. St. John should accordingly have said in this case, not Zdus, but ovy Hebr. xii. 24. 1 Pet. i. 2. A Scholion in Matthäi,^^^ says very cor- rectly : TO (jjh (bi vdaTog) sv rui j3a'7rri(}/j.a,ri, ro bz (Or at,accTog) sv rui ßrau^OJ, äfL(poTs^oic, rif^äc xa^aipuv}^"^ Our passage, however, is first fully understood, by comparing it with Hebr. ix. 19, 22, sqq., x. 22, cfr. Levit. xiv. 5, sqq. Even in the Mosaic law, there were two species of purification, the one by water, the other by blood: xai ff^sdbv iv aifji^ari 'Trdvra KO^a^i- (^gra/ xard tov v6f/,ov, zai %w^''s a/fjjarsz^vGjag oh ylvsrat ä(pißig, Hebr. ix. 22. Now, as the most perfect pu- rification and redemption was expected of the Mes- siah, and Christ actually has accomplished it by his death, (the centre and the starting point of the ytaivri ^/aä^xTj, cfr. Col. i. 21, 22. 1 Pet. i. 2, 18; ii. 24, 16G Page 137. 167 Thus also Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Beaiisobre, Heumann, and Knapp. CHAPTER V. 6 — 12. 263 Sec.,) it is plain, that St. John, only in reference to this, could say : 6 sX'^m d/ udaro; -/.al al^arog}^^ And even on this account, that uömp denotes, as it were, the commencement of the purification, but the per- fect purification, (acoXur^wtr/c, gr/vr/ff/xog,) is contained in the al/xa, St. John adds emphatically : ovx, sv rw •J dart /x6-^ov. (St. John the Baptist had appeared with the water only, and he, accordingly, was not the Messiah, Matth. iii. 11,) dXX' sv rQj 'jdar/, -/.al ruj The subsequent words: '/mi ro rtvzZiMi hn rb jmup- ru^ov'j are usually taken thus : " And the Spirit also bears witness that Jesus is the Son of God." More correctly, specially on account of the to Qxaoruoom,) and because it had not, as yet, been stated of the blood and water, that they bore witness, it appears to me that the proposition should be thus explained. And to this Jesus Christ, — to him who is come with the water of baptism and the blood of atonement ; '^^ It is quite in the spirit of this symbolic, what we find in the Amphiloch. of Photius, (Wolfii Curae, Tom V. p. 704,) on John xix. 34 : rourofjiXv hf^Tv Suo ßce.-rTiir/u.xra xxtvov^yovfuvos ts xai fT^orv^uv, iv f/,iv TO Ol' vooiTos, iTi^ov oi Oi' a.'Ifz,ciTo;. Cfr. with thi» Apollinarius in the Catena on John xix. p. 444. 169 Thus also, Barnabas in his Epistle, chap. xi. sqq., con- joins the l^M^ and ffrctv^og, as the principal points prefigura- tively indicated in the Old Testament, in the Messiahship of Jesus : ?,yiTYia-uf/.iv — £/' hf^'t'kna'i tm kv^lm 'jrgo(^a,n^üacci Tioi rov il^xTos, (i. e. the purifying baptism by water,) Kai tov (rrocvpov (i. e. the death of Jesus for the remission of sins,) as it is ex- pressed, chap. V. in the old Latin version, — propter hoc Domi- nus sustinuit tradere corpus suum in exterminum, ut remissione peccatorum sanctificemur, quod est sparsione sanguinis illius. 264 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. the Spirit gives the ratifying testimony^ (ro/AasToi^oDi/) that he is the Son of God. It is not repugnant to this intei-pretation, that in ver. 8, both (water and blood) are expressly numbered among the witnesses, for through the 'xvixj^a^ and in conjunction with it, both are also rendered witnesses. It is quite plain, both from the context and the usus loquendi, that TcsDjaa means the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit. In this almost all interpreters agree, but in determining more pre- cisely the testifying point in ctvsD/a«, they again are greatly at variance. Stroth and Ziegler agree in this, that ro cTvsi;,^«, at least in the former place, re- solves itself into 'jTvrüiJMrr/.hg, and is to be referred to St. John the Evangelist, as a teacher and apostle in- spired by God. And, it is maintained by Stroth, that he attests the Messiahship of Jesus, (as in John xix. 35 ; xxi. 24,) because he was present on the mountain of transfiguration, (Matth. xvii. 1, sqq.) and had heard God's testifying voice ; but, Ziegler says : because he was conscious of the divine Spirit within himself, and at the same time convinced that Jesus was the Christ. But, this is rendering inex- plicable what only is difficult to explain ! Not to mention that to 'itnZij.a^ loitliout anything further^ and directly^ is never, in the New Testament, put for 'irnMiLo.-r/M^ (iv. 1, ii. 3, and even 1 Tim. iv. 1, proves nothing, because cvjD/xa, in such a sense, is, in the former two places, partly put without the article, partly in the plural number ; but, in the last, there is really meant the cri/sj/xa rox) ^solJ, in the prophets :) where is it, even remotely, indicated, that crvsuju^a here refers to the personal testimony of St. John ? And, CHAPTEU V. 6 — 12. 265 how could St. John, as a matter of course, call his personal testimony, which does not even mention rb 'Trvzv/j.cc and tj /z,a^Tjo/a rou Ssou — how could he enjoin it with the vdoo^ and aJ/Ma of Christ in one identical testimony ? The Moscow Catena in Matthäi, declares, that by 'avsv/j^a, is to be understood tj (poivr^ rou ^ar^hc, tj sX^ovda s-TT avrov, (Matth. iii. 17 ; xvii. 5. 2 Pet. i. 17,) m/sv^aa yao (prjaiv o ^soV. But, such meaning of the absolute expression, rh -n-siz/xa, is partly in historical respect too limited, partly too far-fetched and ob- scure. Nor is it likely that St. John, by ti/sD/xo, meant God himself.* Ver. 9 proves nothing, be- cause {MaoTuoia rou SsoD is not the ti/su/xcc exclusively, but all the three witnesses collectively, ver. 6. Carp- zov believed that Tvsvfxa. denoted, in both places, Christ's spiritual doctrine, 2 Cor. iii. 6. John vi. 63. But crvsty/xa alone, never signifies the doctrine of Jesus. 2 Cor. iii. 6, and John vi. 63, only its es- sence or character, as contrasted with yga/x.aa, and with 0"«^^, is denoted by ci/su/xa. The context of our passage too, is repugnant to this interpretation. The cri/sD/xa, even in conjunction with the water and the blood, is to establish the divinity of the persoUy and consequently also, of the doctrine of Jesus. As ubcuo and al/xa have reference to Christ's person, Ti/sD///« too, must directly refer to it. Accordingly, • The Translator is perfectly convinced, that no heterodox opinion is here insinuated or implied ; but, by a mere slip, God himself (Gott selbst) has been put here instead of God the Father. 266 INTERPUETATION OF THE FIEST EFISTLE. by 'jTnv[Ma. here, must be understood the Spirit of God, in as far as it is the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of truth and of power, by which Jesus was powerfully de- clared'^ to be the Son of God, Rom. i. 4, justified as such, 1 Tim. iii. 16, and testified of, and glorified, John XV. 26; John vi. 7— 11, 13, 14, 15. More especially in John xvi. 13, 14, 13, the real key to our passage is to be found. The Spirit of God, as operating in Christ wonders and miracles, is not so nmch meant here, as in a genuine Johanneic sense, that same Spirit, in as far as it proceeded from Christ, and was poured out upon all that was born of God- in as far as it attests and glorifies the history of Jesus here on eai'th, his u^w^ and aifjjci (^sxijvog — to rrviv/xa rrig aÄJ^^s/ac — ij^aorv^r^ffsi Tsei I'mv, John xv. 26), — and in as far as it is truth itself, and Christians being anointed with it know all things, and through it are sealed in the faith in the Son of God, cfr. ii. 20, 27 ; iii. 24; iv. 13. Thus is most easily explained, that St» John calls the 'jrvzviMa, in an eminent sense t-o /Ma^TVPovv, and immediately adds : Because (on) the Spirit is truth (itself), as tv. rijg äXvßn'ag, it can give " The Translator begs leave to dissent from this incidental in- terpretation of St. Paul's text. St. Paul has certainly not said powerfully declared, or potverfully demonstrated, but the pre- positions Iv, KKTu. and i| are synonymous in the verse quoted, an»! the variation is only rhetorical. This is what St. Paul has written : " Who, in respect of his power, (miracles) by tlie Spirit of holiness (in his life and conversation), and by the resurrection from the dead, was definitely shewn to be the Son of God." ThuSj it is obvious, that St. Paul too, hke St. John, appeals to three evidences, although not in more than one instance identical with the witness of St. John — Transl. CHAPTER V. 6 — 12. 267 no testimony different from truth. ' If or/ here is translated, that, either a very confused half-tauto- logical idea is produced, or when, in order to avoid this, crvsDaa in the latter place is supposed to mean the doctrine of Jesus, there is by that — not to men- tion that TViviMa, in so close succession cannot mean two different things — a sense obtained which is quite foreign to the context. Ver. 7. As to the words of the common reading, £1/ rOj o'joav'jjy 6 'xarrio, 6 Xoyog, '/.al to ayiov •Ti'£L//xa zai ovroi 0/ TPsTg sv ilffi. Kai r^sTg siffiv o/ /jjU^TV^ovvrsg Iv rfj yfi, which ever have been doubted since the time of Erasmus and Luther, it is to be observed that they are demonstrably spurious. No result of modern criticism ^70 ig more certain, than that this passage is spurious. Inasmuch as these words are to be found only in two quite insignificant Greek MSS, (the Cod. Montfortianus or Britanniens, M'hich demonstrably only dates from the beginning of the 16th century ; and in the Cod. Ravianus, a mere copy of the un- critical text, partly of the Edit. Complut., partly of the Steph. Stia), but do not occur anywhere else, '"** The most important treatises on this subject are : Rich- Simons' Critical History of the Text of the N. T., Vol. II. Wetsteiu's N. T. on this passage. J. D. ^lichaehs' Introduc- tion to the N. T., Vol. IL p. 1531, sqq. Semler's Historical and Critical Collections relative to the probative places, as tliey are called, of Dogmatics. First Part on 1 John v. 7« But above all others, Griesbach's Diatribe in locum, 1 John v. 7, ^5. Ed. 2d. Vol. II. Append, p. 1, sqq. And Matthäi, (who commonly is inclined to defend all orthodox readings), Kpp. Cathol. p. 138—143, cfr. Prefat. p. LV. sqq., and N. T. Graec. Tom. II. 297—299. 268 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. neither in any Greek MS., nor in any of the ancient versions, nor even in MSS. of the Vulgate, which are of an earlier date than the 10th century — further, inasmuch as these words are never noticed by any of the Greek fathers, not even the most modern, nay, not even by those who never overlooked even the most constrained and far-fetched probative places for the doctrine of the Trinity, and who were satis- fied with places that had no probative force what- ever — inasmuch as it is demonstrable, that they have been mentioned by the Latin fathers only since the time of Vigilius of Thapsus, in the conclusion of the fifth century ; — and, finally, inasmuch as the origin of this interpolation can be satisfactorily explained from a dogmatic allegorical interpretation of the genuine words : either all criteria of truth and falsehood in the critique of the New Testament are deceptive, or these words are spurious ; — unless, indeed, we are to believe in critical miracles, and console ourselves after the same manner as J. A. Bengel, who wrote i^"^^ Et tarnen etiam atque etiam sperare licet, si non autographum loanneum, at alios vetustissimos codices Graecos, qui hanc periocham habeant, in occultis pro- videntiae divinae forulis adhuc latentes suo tempore productum iri. But that which was a consolation, and that which was allowable to this pious and con- scientious critic in his age, is in our times forbidden, even to the most pious and conscientious, and would only be an opposition to truth ^72 unbecoming a Christian. 171 Appar. Critic, p. 770. i'2 Bengel has reproved such stubbornness in the above men- tioned work, p. 745, § 2 : JMale strenous ii se praebent in beUis CHAPTER V. 6 — 12. 269 Internal exegetical criticism completely agrees with the results of the external and historical. Nay, even if the latter were doubtful, or even if its decision were favourable, the former would either have to in- sist upon the spuriousness of the words in question, or to abandon all claims of determining what there was apostolical and Johanneic, and what not.* If the words are genuine, every thing is in the highest degree obscure and confused ; if spurious, the con- text, the meaning, and the phraseology of St. John are clear, easy, and unimpaired. As to the phraseo- logy, it is to be remarked, that St. John never uses 6 <7rarrio and o Xoyog as correlates, but ordinarily, like St. Paul, and every other writer of the New Testa- ment, he assocaties 6 v/og with 6 'Trarrip, cfr. ii. 22, 23 ^ iv. 14 ; V. 9, 11, 20, and other places ; but when he speaks of the Xoyog in Christ, he always refers the domini, qui ita animum inducunt : " dogmati elenclioque meo opportunus est hie textus ; ergo me ipse cogam ad eum protinus pro vero habendum, eumque ipsum et omnia, quae pro eo corradi possunt, obnixe defendam." Atqui Veritas non eget fulcris fal- sis, sed se sola multo melius nitilur ! * The Translator certainly thinks the latter alternative pre- ferable. The internal criticism is, in fact, never to be trusted, except in cases where the interpolated text makes a prudent, consistent, and conscientious author contradict himself; and yet, even Cicero says somewhere : difficile esse in longo sermone ita disserere ut nihil sibi repugnet. In all other cases than that of downright contradiction, or, indeed, of manifestly diverse idiom, internal criticism is of small value to determine what an author might have or might not have said. In this passage of St. John, however, the external or historical criticism is so satis- factory as to leave no room for a doubt as to the spuriousness of the words in question.— rran«/. 270 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. same to 6 '^sog not to 6 'jrarTi^, John i. 1, (Rev. xix. 13). Only, in later ages, the Fathers use Xoyog and ■j'log ToZ SsoD as synonymes, and join ö Xoyog and 6 cra- TTiP as correlates. To ay/ov TvsD/xa, too, appears to me not to harmonize with the phraseology of our epistle, as in iii. 24; iv. 13, and even here, ver. 6 and 8, we everywhere find only to TvsDjOoa. If we look to the meaning and context of the interpolated words, we shall find, that when omitted, they are missed by no- body ; but every one, even he who is most favour- able to them, feels himself embarrassed when they are retained and have to be interpreted. No point can be discovered in the context, either before or after, by which the allusion to the heavenly witnesses could have been occasioned, or in any way condi- tioned. Quite unexpected and without motive, in the argumentation of the passage as those words are, they, moreover, betray their incongruity by this : that, although immediately before the water, the blood and the testifying Spirit on earth were spoken of, still the heavenly witnesses precede, and the earthly witnesses follow. Some patrons of these words have devised the remedy of transposition, imi- tating the example of some Latin MSS. which, from perceiving the bad condition of the text, have put ver. 8 before ver. 7. But, even by that, the context is not improved, and the design and meaning are not rendered more clear. How can the three persons of the Godhead (for tliat is the sense of the words), in heaven, give testimony unto man concerning the Messiahship of Jesus ? Who can imagine any intel- ^ CHAPTER V. 6 12. ii/l ligible parallel betwixt the Trinity of the heavenly witnesses, and the triplicity and concordance of the witnesses on earth, the water, the blood, and the Spirit ? And yet it is plain that it is intended to establish some sort of antithesis and relation between the heavenly and earthly witnesses. Well, and what has the Father to do with the water ? and what the Logos, as such, with the blood ? And how is the ciym 'zvvjij.a. in heaven put in an opposite parallel to the -TTi/gD.aa on earth, and is there one in heaven and another on earth ? It is impossible not to recognize, in these words, the playful allegory, and the dogmatizing character of later ecclesiastical teachers. No Apostle of the Lord has ever thus allegorized, or ever thus dogmatized on the subject of the Trinity. In short, either these words are genuine, and the epistle, in that case, a production of the third or fourth century ; or the epistle is a genuine work of St. John's, and then these words spurious. Tertium non datur.* Their origin is manifest, it being the allegorical dogmatizing interpretation of the genuine words of St. John, Avhich kind of interpretation, ever since the time of TertuUian and Clemens of Alexandria, was in general use,^73 \^ ^jj^ Geeek as well as in the • This conclusion the Translator thinks too strong, in as far as it is founded on mere internal evidence, and here it is found- ed on nothing else. But why should criticism here have re- course to internal evidence at all, where it is altogether inde- pendent of such a support, the historical evidence being abun- dantly strong to shew that the words are spurious. — Transl. ^'^ Tertull. c. Prax. cap. 25, Clem. Alesandr. Adumbrat. on this passage. Cfr. ^Vetstein on this passage. 272 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. Occidental church. The r^sTg — fia^rv^ovvrsg — sig rb 'sv were considered as cv/jyßoXa r^$ r^iddog, more particu- larly, because St. John, speaking of vdu^, al/xa, and 'jrvsu/j.a, makes use, not of the neuter numeral r^/a, but expresses himself in the masculine gender, (^d^ösvfzug) by T^sTg, — and calls their testimony /la^rup/a tov ^£6L/.^74 This allegorical interpretation, having ori- ginally entered as a marginal gloss into the Latin version, was subsequently received into the text as its integrant part, and has ever since the 4th century there firmly maintained its place, as a welcome and irrefragable probative passage, supporting the eccle- siastical doctrine of the Trinity. But exegetical conscience will, in our age, forbid even the most ortho- dox to apply this passage, although it were genuine, for such a purpose ; because kv ihai here has quite a different sense from that which is required by the doctrine of the Trinity. "Or/, in the beginning of ver. 7, is to be taken rather in an expUcative than in a causal sense ; its meaning here is ergo scilicet. It is specially by the -jrvsD/y^a that the witnesses obtain vitality, according to St. John. Thus we have r^i7g instead of r^la. In ver. 8, St. John places the 'jrnuiLCL first, as endowing the two others with a testifying power. He lays a stress on the witnesses being three, according to the ancient rule, Deut. xvii. 6 ; xix. 15, cfr. Matt, xviii. 16. John viii. 17, 18. This is a popular mode of demonstration, an argumentum ad hominem. But ''" Schol. Matth. page 138, 139. Epistola Eugeuii Cher- sonis and Slabinii Archiepiscopi in Matth. Praefat. p. LX— LXII. CHAPTER V. 6 — 12. 273 that which first gives to the triple testimonj^ its full validity^ is the uc. to h zhat, the concordance of the declarations. In John xvii. 21, 22, St. John has h ihai instead of tie to sv zivrxi, but here the 'iv being definite and already expressed, and a point being supposed to which the declaration of all the witnesses tend, he puts s/$ ro h ihai, cfr. John xi. 52, G-jvay. uc gy, xvii. 23, TZTO^iKfiiMvoi sic £J/.^75 Verse 9, is an elliptical syllogism, a niinori ad majus, to be thus resolved : If ^ve receive (Xa/jßdvsiv, to consider as valid, cfr. John iii. 11, 32, 33), the testimony of men (being tlie declaration of two or three witnesses), how much more must we then re- ceive the (triple and concordant) testimony of God, it being greater /^s/i^wv, i. e. more probative (because TO rrnv^Lod sgtiv t] aX'/j^s/a, ver. 6), than every testimony of man ? But if we receive God's testimony, we must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. For this the testimony of God avers. To this refers the (elliptical) o-i oc^ttj (jam vero) Instead of tjv the best authorities (A. B. and others), read oti, which reading is more correct and more in conformity v/ith St. John's mode of expression. Ver. 10. (Accordingly) he who believes in the Son of God, has in himself the testimony (viz. the testimony of God : — Cod. A. and other MSS. also read Tov '^2ü'j)f i. e. he not only receives it, but also firmly retains it, cfr. John v. 38. Heb. x. 34. This is first rendered perfectly plain by the antithesis : But '^•^ Deinosth, Adv. Lept. i^ iO. tls 'iv sfPi-Ss Ed. Fr. A. ^*Volf, (.omnieiit. p. 22['. T 274 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. whosoever does not {^'J^y^^ believe God (in that which concerns his Son ; Cod. A. and other MSS. read rGj v'/OJ, instead of toj 5s w, which only seems to be a simplifying gloss), he has even by that, by not (ov) believing the testimony of God in favom' of his Son, made him a liar, as if it were possible that God could attest what was false. The perfect tenses ■rs-rroiyizs\^ — 'Trs-Triffrsvx.sv are here to be taken not en- tirely in a present sense, but ts'ttoitixsv is dependent on 'Ti-Tr/fSrsvzsv, and the latter denotes the isolated act of not believing, or of not having believed in times past, whereby a person has been rendered an unbeliever. According to St. John, ö /j.t} '7n='/5Xaro/;,) or with bodily death, ^^^ according to the language and legislation of the Old Testament and of the synagogues. Still less can such sins be meant as were deemed to be capital crimes by the civil authority, and, ac- cordingly, punished with death, or visited with other severe penalties.^^^ St. John would hardly have based his precept respecting intercession, on a notion ^''^ In Eichhorn's Repertor. for Oriental and Bibl. Literat. Vol. Xir. p. GO, CI, 72, sqq. "'^ Zachariä, MichaelivS, and others. ^^^ Werenfel's Sylloge Dissert. Theol. p. 470, sqq. ^^'^ See Moms and Lange. 282 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. SO vague as that of morbi ^sTjÄccro/ of his age. Even what tlie Lord said of him who was born blind, John ix. 3, must have prevented him. Further, as his readers chiefly were converted heathens, living un- der entirely different laws, St. John could not well allude to any Jewish ecclesiastical distinction betwixt sins unto death, and not unto death. His address would have been either entirely unintelligible, or it must have been misunderstood by uninformed readers. Least of all can this passage have any reference whatever to the heathen laws of the Apostle's age, these being, in some respects, so repugnant to the Christian principle. Even the strict contrast between the fraternal community of Christians and the heathen Kosmos, on which our epistle is founded, rendered such a reference impossible. In a word, the distinc- tion betwixt sin unto death, and not unto death, must be one that is peculiarly Christian. In the ancient church it was not unusual, by cc/xac- t'ici 'TToog ^dvarov to understand blasphemy, or the sin against the Holy Ghost, cfr. Matth. xii. 21.^86 Beza, Calvin,^ ^7 Flacius, Calovius, Wolf, Heumann and others, are of the same opinion. Undoubtedly the sin against the Holy Ghost belongs to the species of ä,'MUPr. Tfog '^d'^arov. But if St. John meant that sin, T>6 Augustin de Sermone Domini in monte, sec. Matth. cap. 22, § 73. Here, however, we find this view somewhat modified, of which more hereafter. The Schol. Matthäi. p. 230, a/a. vol; 3-av. ixuvriv (P'/]TcivovTs: -oh:. ':)dm-ov from no other motive than this, that otherwise the essential distinction betwixt good and evil, be- twixt light and darkness, betv. ixt the communion with God and the communion with the world, would be weakened and obfuscated in the Christian's conscience. If, according to God's eternal law and judgment, the loss of eternal life in Christ (spiritual death), is in- separably combined with the sins of infidelity, world- liness and uncharitableness, because they directly abolish the Christian princij^le : the true (the critical) Christian cannot, and may not implore God to give ^s° I find a vestige of this interpretation in St. Aiigustin, in the place above mentioned : Peccatum fratris ad mortem puto esse, cum post agnitionem dei per gi-atiam domini nostri lesu Christi quisqne oppugnat fraternitatem et adversus ipsam gia- tiam, qua reconcihatus est Deo, invidentiae facibiis agitatur; (subsequently he added, si in hac perversitate finierit banc vitam). Peccatum autem non ad mortem est si quisquam non atnorem a fratre alienaverit, sed officia fraternitatis debita per aliquam infirmiiatem animi iiou exhibuerit. 0pp. August, Tom. III. P. II. p, 197. Cfr. p. 163, 1G4. 286 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTI.E. life to those who commit mortal sin. He would be asking what cannot be granted ; he would be praying for that which is repugnant to God's will ; he would confound light with darkness, in God who is holy and just, and thus suppose a repugnance in God» The Christian may ask ^w^ of God, only for such as do not sin unto death, and, consequently, do not an- nihilate the (^w?5 in themselves ; for in that case only his alrruMa is xara to %Xri!J.a rou ä=oD, and can be granted, ver. 14, 15. It will appear from ver. 17 and 18, that this is the right interpretation of the passage. For, as it might seem that the distinction betwixt the ä'xaor. '^x'^a-ixr,, and fj^'/j '^KvariTiYi (as Qlcumenius calls it), were repug- nant to the above established absolute antithesis (iii. 7 — 9), betwixt sinning and not sinning : St. John shews, ver. 17, that indeed every adf/Ja (every action, and every intention which is contrary to the divine law, every infringement on the bixaioß-jr/i) is in its essence sin {a.n,agr'ia the common Christian notion), but that still there exists a difference as t(j the degree of intensity and effect of sin, betwixt the äf/MPT. TT^og ^dvarov and ov 'Tr^hg ^dvarov). The true Christian can, as such, according to St. Jolm, not sin unto death ; he is subject to the sins not unto death, as long as he walketh in the flesh, cfr. ii. 1. St. John, therefore, adds this consolation, ver. 18 : But we (also) know, that every one who is born of God, does not sin, cfr. iii. 9 (in this sense — a/xa^r. -Trohg ^ararov,) but that {on is to be supplied), he who is born of God (being ever intent on sanctifying him- self), keepeth himself from so sinning (rn^sTsavrov, i.e. CHAPTER V. 13 — 21. 287 äyi-oi/, oc'-o rov zö(j,'j.ov, cfr. James i. 27. 1 Tim. v. 22. Wisd. X. 5), and thus is unassailable to the evil one (6 'TTovTifog o\jy^ ä-nTat alirov^^'^^ cfr. Wisd. xviii. 20), the prince of this world, who maintains the sway of darkness and death over his own, cfr. Col. i. 15. Eph. vi. 12, sqq. Ver. 19. The devil then has no power over us — over us who know that we are of God, and not of the world ; the world only, aye, the whole of it, is in his power, -/.cfJ 6 zofffji-og oXog (as contrasted with God's children — the entire non-christian and anti-christian yc6^ a/^wc.-, as a predicate, is much more naturally referred to Christ than to God, cfr. i. 2. John i. 4 ; and, finally, 3. That when understood as referring to God, the pro- position is much too identical with the preceding, and that it would appear to be without an object. But against this maybe remarked : 1. That oiroc, particu- larly when so emphatically put as here, is not always to be referred to the locally nearest subject, but often to that which, according to the context, is the chief sub- ject of the preceding proposition, cfr. ii. 22 ; 2 John 7. tliodox, has had its influence on tlie reading of the text : im- provements were attempted, ^ee Griesbach's collection of variants. ^9" Erasmus even, from philological reasons, departed fiom the orthodox interpretation, see his Annoi. on this passage. Among the socinians it was, from philological reasons, sanc- tioned by ecclesiastical authority, to refer ovros to God, see Catech. Rac. Quaest. 120, p. 181. Grotius, Benson and others, have adopted this view. See btroth's interpretation of this pas- sage in the Repertory for Oriental and Biblical Literature, Vol. XII. p. 75, sqq. U 290 INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTI.E. Accordingly, to say the least of it, it is not neces- sary to refer olrog to Christ, 2. 'H ^(av\ aAu^noc, can hardly be, as a predicate, referred to Christ. Christ is indeed, by St. John, called ^w^^ ; but never, not even in i. 2, and least of all in constructions so simple as the present one, ^(jjr\ atmiac, ; by which latter ex- pression St. John ordinarily denotes, not Christ's substantial life, but that life which he communicates to the faithful. But, what shall we say, if ri <^w>5 aiojviog is not to be referred as a predicate, either to God or to Christ, and if a third mode of referring it would be found, which, being philologically more difficult, still, in the context, would appear to be the only right one ? 3. When referred to God, the pro- position neither is identical with the preceding, nor without an object. For, in the former proposition, the Apostle only spoke of the knowledge of the true God, and of the communion with him, but not of this, that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God. Now, when St. John brings out this last idea in strong relief, he plainly does so, by way of antithesis to the s/^wXa, against which, in ver. 21, he warns his readers so emphatically. Thus then is removed the objection, that the proposition would be without an object. The untenableness of the arguments for the ortho- dox reference of oZrog to Christ, at once renders the opposite interpretation more probable. But the pro- bability is rendered certainty by the following con- siderations: — 1. The emphatic tone of the proposi- tion renders it necessary to refer ourog to the pre- vailing chief subject of the preceding proposition. CHAPTER V. 13—21. t291 But this is God, 6 akrl^mg, and not Christ, who only is mentioned parenthetically, as he through whose mediation the zhai Iv ruj dXrßivuj is effected. 2. Fur- ther, as God above is xar ht^oyjiv, and without any word additional, called 6 dXrj^/vo^, cfr. John xvii. 3, and Christ never is so styled by St. John ; ouroc can, according to all rules of logical interpretation, not be referred to Christ, but to God, unless we are deter- mined to charge St. John with an intentional confu- sion of ideas. 3. The authors of the New Testa- ment never use the same predicate and name for the Father and the Son of God, when they speak of each distinctly. Here, it is plain that they are distinctly spoken of. If then, olrog here ought to be referred to Christ, we would have a confusion of names and predicates, to which there would be no parallel in the New Testatment. Finally, 4. St. John indeed calls the Aoyog rov ^io\J in Christ, God, John i. 1, but the historical Christ he never does so designate, but always as -o'log roZ ^soD. But, let us suppose that St. John intended to designate Christ as dik'n^m; 'isk, for what reason does he introduce that designation in this particular place ? Are we to suppose, that, without demonstration, without preparation of any kind, nay, even contrary to the nearest context, he introduced such an important, and with him unusual proposition, in such an equivocal form, as a straggler at the end of the epistle — that he did so introduce a proposition, to which nothing resembling occurs in the whole epistle, and to which no satisfactory clue is to be found in the gospel, which mentions as ^-M only the Aoyoc in Christ, always speaks of the Christ 292 INTEEPBETATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. who appeared in the flesh, as v/hg rov 3=0?, and says of the Father of Jesus Christ, John xvii. 3, that he is the only true God, /Ji>6vog dXri^mc ^sog ? Never ! And the warning against idols, plain and well ground- ed as it appears, if ovrog is referred to God, how ob- scure and unconnected, nay, how confused must it appear to the readers, when, besides God, Christ also is mentioned as o aAr,'^ivog ^sog ! These are sufficient grounds for declaring, that the onl}^ right construction is : to refer ovrog iß-iv 6 dXr^nog '^sog to God. The proposition and construc- tion are to be resolved and explained according to the analogy of John xvii. 3 (ha yivoiöxMGi es rov [mvov äXrt^mv äs&y). '^^ The diflScult expression Kal vj Z,u)r[ uJwiog, I accordingly ascribe to conciseness, and con- sider it elliptical : and I supply what is wanting thus : Ka/ auTTj sßriv (which is to be taken from ovrog sgtiv) 7} ^uij ccimtoc. And the meaning of the entire pro- position is : This (^sv w iff/Mv kv rOj v'/oj avrov, 'I. Xö.) is the only true God, and in this onh^, (in the know- ledge of him, and in the communion with him through the Son,) consists eternal life. Ver. 21. Now, since the God and Father of Jesus Christ is the only true God, and since eternal life only exists in the communion with him through Christ, and since beyond the sphere of this commu- nion, there is only death, do beware, little children, (not as Carpzov will have it, " children of the only true God,") of the idols, (cfr. 1 Cor. viii. 4, and other ^^^ Some Authors refer ovto? to the subsequent ^ih, and construe thus : oSro; 3-io; l(r~)v o uArt^ms ku) — but this is too artificial. CHAPTER V. 13—21. 293 places,) and of every communion with them ! The danger against which the Apostle is warning, never entirely ceased in the apostolical age, in those com- munities which had been converted from heathen- ism, cfr. 1 Cor. X. 14. At the time when St. John wrote, this danger was so much the greater, and the warning so much the more necessary, since the per- secution and seduction of the heathen y.d^ijjoi was be- coming ever more and more threatening, and con- stantly made a more and more easy prey of slothful half- Christians, who were satisfied with the mere ap- pearance and name of Christianity. It is contrary, as well to the usus loquendi as also to the context, to suppose that anything different is implied in the idols, as for example, gnostic heresies,^^^ or any thing similar to these. '"^^ An opinion entertained by Hammond and others- INTRODUCTION SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. CHAPTER I. OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. Decidedly favourable as the tradition of the church is to the first epistle, as unfavourable and full of doubt it is with regard to the second and third ; but particularly with regard to the last. The testimonies and the judgments of the ancient church respecting these two epistles, are as follows : In the church, and in the school of Alexandria, both epistles seem very early to have been in con- stant use, and to have been there favourably received. Clem. Alex, undoubtedly had in his canon several of St. John's Epistles. For, speaking in his Miscella- neous Notes ^ of the difference of sins, and appealing to the testimony of the Apostle St. John in the first epistle, v. 16, he calls this the greater epistle. The fragment of his Adumbrations,"^ on the second ^ Strom. II. 15. ed. Potter. ^ Opp. et Potter p. 1011, Secunda Joannis epistola^ quae ad virgines scripta est, simplicissima est. Scripta vero est ad quan- dam Bavloniam Electam nomine — 296 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE lesser epistle, shews at least that it was known to him, and that he made use of it. These Adumbrations most probably are identical with Clemens' Hypoty- poses on the entire Holy Scriptures. But we know from Eusebius,^ that they comprized the whole of the Catholic epistles, and, consequently, both the second and third Epistle of St. John, both of which were, in Eusebius's age, reckoned among the seven Catholic epistles. Origen, who was more strict than his master Clemens in distinguishing what was genuine and spurious, says : John has left, besides the Gospel and the Apocalypse, also an Epistle, but consisting only of a few Siichoi, — it may be also a second and a third, for all authors do not consider these two as genuine ;'* both of them, however, da not contain a hundred stichoi. But Dionysins of Alex- andria, tlie disciple of Origen, the most strict and the most expert of all the Alexandrian fathers in the critique of St. John's vmtings, appears to be still more favourable to our two epistles than his Master, and to pay less attention to their non-recognition out of Alexandria. For although he draws the chief ar- guments against the genuineness of the Apocalypse from its discrepancy, more specially with the gospel and with the first epistle, as the universally re- cognized genuine writings of the Evangelist : he •' Hist. Eccl. Vf. 14, 'Ev'hl rais vTrorvTruinffi ^vviXovra, uTiTv, li nrcci avTikiyofiivecs Tet^iXB&iy. Triv 'lov^tx Xiyca xec) ras XoiTUf xa^oXncd; WtffroXds. Cfr. Photii Bibl. Cod. 109. ^ Or;genis Comment, in Joannem, Lib. V. p. 88, cfr. Eu- seb. Hist. Eccl. VI. 26. SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 297 does not hesitate to appeal to the second and third epistle also, on account of their genuine Johan- neic style, in support of his accusation against the Apocalypse.^ Indeed, in mentioning them, he notices the doubts respecting their genuineness, which existed in the church, ^sgo'/xsva/ 'loiavi/ou (i.e. quse feruntur esse Joannis) ;* but the first epistle also, Eusebius calls rriv (ps^o/Msvrjv 'lojdvvov 'xoors^av.^ Still it clearly appears that Dionysius was indeed very far from doubting the genuineness of our Epis- tles, more specially from the circumstance : that although much inclined to consider the Apocalypse as a work of John the Ephesian Presbyter, he not only scorns to draw smy argument from the anony-^ mous superscription of the second and third epistle 6 'TrPißßO-spo:, for the purpose of supporting a conjec- ^ Euseb. H. E. VIT. 25. 'AkX\vTi Iv ~r> tiuTi^a, (pi^of^ivri 'ludt- 10V x.at t^/t>?, KUiTOt ßea.^ii/zi5 oixretts iTiiTToXaT;, o 'l uavvfii eva- fAXffr) T^oxurat' aXT^ävcovvfMJüs o •Tr^itrßuTi^o; y'iy^a.-TTra.t. * This is rathei- more than mentioning existing doubts ; it is indeed as much as adopting them. And Dionysius might quite well make use of these epistles as arguments against the genuineness of the Apocalypse Avithout supposing therefore that they were genuine. He probably admitted only thus much in their favour, that the manner and style of St. John was better preserved in them : Still, even their genuineness was doubted ; and if the geimineness of such writings as reaBy were composed in St. John's style and manner was doubted, how much more doubtful must then be the genuineness of such writings, as exhibit little or nothing of St. John's style and manner. — Transl. ^ Hist. Eccl. III. 25. Here it is doubtful whether (pt^of^i>vf is to be referred to ^^ori^av or to 'luawou. The latter appears to me more probable. 29® OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ture, already advanced by several authors before the time of Eusebius : that this very presbyter of Ephesus probably might be the author of these epistles ; but he, on the contrary, considers this superscription as an indication of their genuineness. After the time of Dionysius the judgments of the Alexandrians respect- ing our epistles, particularly the second, become ever more and more favourable and unhesitating. The Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, in a missive to the bishops of his diocese, justifies the excommu- nication of Arius and of his adherents, by a direct appeal to 2 John ver. 10. 7 Athanasius, ^ and the author of the Synopsis,^ are equally favourable, at least to the second epistle. And Didymus, in his commentary on the canonical epistles, interpreted both these epistles as belonging to those which were termed Catholic, and as being genuine writings of St. John the Evangelist. Still more favourable, at least to the second epistle, are the testimonies and judgments of the Occidental church, in the second and third century. Irenasus appeals ^^ to the second epistle, (ver. 11,) di- rectly mentioning the author by name, (Joannes Domini Discipulus). Nay more, he is in such a degree con- " Socrates Hist. Eccl. 1. 6. ^ Ep. Festalis, and Epist. ad Monachos, opp. Athanas., Ed. Patav., Tom I. p. 11, p. 767 and 772. ^ Synops. Script. S. in the Opp. Athanas. Ed. Col. Tom. II. p. 139. ^^ Adv. Haer. I, 13, loannes enim Domini discipulus super- extendit damnationem in eos, neque ave a nobis eis dici volens : qui enim dicit, inquit, ave, etc. SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 299 vinced of this epistle's being a genuine writing of St. John's, that in another passage, where he literally quotes its seventh and eighth verse, he either by slip of memory confounds it with the first epistle, or con- siders it, and makes use of it, as an appendix to the same. ^^ As Irenaeus's native country was Asia Minor, and as he was St. Polycarp's disciple, his testimony, being the most ancient of all, is decisive in favour of the genuineness, at least of the second epistle. The anonymous fragment in Muratori, ^^ in which two epistles of St. John are reckoned in the canon of the Roman Church, shews that this epistle was in that church very early ascribed to St. John, and made use of as such. But perhaps in this frag- ment the second epistle was considered as an integrant part of the first, and thus only two epistles made of the three. This anonymous author, in quoting 1 John i. 1, 4, makes use of this rather strange expression : Joannes in epistolis suis. Did he perhaps consider the two or three epistles which he had, as a con- nected whole epistolary ? The African church too, in the 3d century, considered the second epistle at least to be wTitten by St. John. In a Synod held at Carthago, under Cyprian, De Hereticis Baptizan- dis, Aurelius, the Bishop of Chullabi, gives his vote in the words of 2 John, verse 9, saying : Joannes ^^ L. C. III. 16. 8. Et discipulus ejus Joannes in praedicta epistola, (i. e. the first,) fugere eos praecepit dicens : 3Iulti se- ductores exierunt in hunc mundum, qui etc. ^^ Antiqq. Ital. med. aevi Tom. III. p. 874; Epistola sane ludae et supradicti loannis duas (ae) in catholica (eis) baben- tur 800 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE in Epistola sua posuit dicens, etc. ^^ It is diffi- cult to determine what opinions the ancient Syriac church held respecting our epistles. The copies of the Peschito, of a date as ancient as the 6th century, had not the Epistle of Jude, nor the 2d of St. Peter, nor the 2d and 3d of St. John : neither are these epistles contained in subsequent copies of the Peschito. That version of these epistles which at present exists, was, according to the judgment of connoisseurs, not originally a part of the Peschito. Did the Peschito (a version which was made in the earlier part of the third century), originally recognize as genuine and canonical, only the three larger ca- tholic epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John, and James ? And were the other catholic epistles unknown to it, (2d and 3d of St. John inclusive), or did it reject them ? Ephraem, (of the 4th century), in his works, makes use of the Epistle of Jude, the 2d of St. Peter, and the 2d of St. John, apparently considering them as genuine and canonical.^"^ As this father did not know the Greek language, he must, undoubtedly, have read them in a Syriac translation. But whether that version of these epistles which Ephraem had, originally formed an integrant part of the Peschito or not, is a very different question. In the former case, it would be inconceivable how, and why, the Syriac church should, after the age of Ephraem, have rejected this part of its own version, particularly since the judgment of the churches of that country, " Opp. Cypriani ed. Oberthür, Tom. II. p. 120. " The 2d Epist. of St. John is quoted : Ephr. Opp. Gr. Tom. I. p. 76. Tom. III. p. 52. SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 301 generally, was more favourable to tliese four epistles than that of other churches. It is far more reason- able to suppose that these epistles are not to be found in any genuine MS. of the Peschito, because they had not originally been incorporated in that version, and that the version which Ephraem had, is subse- quently made, at a time when the opinion had gained ground in Syria too, that the seven catholic epistles were canonical. It is quite possible that, during a certain period, this more modern translation of the epistles was joined to that more ancient version of the other books of the New Testament, which the church recognized. But if, in that case, it subse- quently was separated from the version of the church, the cause of that separation clearly v* as no other than that originally it had not been a part of that version. This also is expressly stated by a Syriac writer of the I2ih century, and there is so mucli the less any good ground for slighting this testimony, since the Indian traveller Cosmas (of the 6th century), confirms it.^^ Thus it appears that the Syrian church did, before the 4th century, neither use nor recognize either the one or the other of our epistles. Perhaps it is with a special reference to the canon of the Syrian church, (in which neither of these epistles seems to have had a place in the third cen- tury), that Eusebius says, that, in every case, '^^ On this subject see Hug's Introduction to the New Tes- tament, Vol. [.p. 329, 337 : that which here has bsen said, has a reference to what there is stated, cfr. Hassenkamp's remarks on the last § of Michaehs' introduction to the New Testament, p. 1-i, 15. 802 or THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE whether deriving their origin from St. John the Evangelist, or from another author of the same name, they must be reckoned among the Antilegomena.^^ But, after the time of Eusebius, in whose age they seem already to have been incorporated in the eccle- siastical collection of the sevefi, so called. Catholic epistles,*^ the judgments of churches and synods re- specting them become ever more and more favour- able. The apostolical canons,^^ the 60th canon of the Synod of Laodicea, the Council of Hippo, and the Council of Carthago, in tlie fourth century, with- out hesitation place them in the canon of the Catholic epistles. But still, in the age of St. Jerome, as he observes, there were some who did not consider the second and third epistle as genuine, but ascribed them to John the Ephesian PreshyterP Nay, even CEcumenius deemed it necessary to confute those who, (more particularly, because they thought it improper that a catholic epistle should have been addressed to a single individual), " believed that this (the 2d), a?id the following epistle ivere not luritten by John the Lord's beloved disciple, but by that other John his name-sake.* 1^ Hist. Eccl. III. 25. 1' Hist. Keel. II. 23. 1« Can. Ö5. ^'■^ JHieronym. de viris illustr. cap. 9 : Scripsit autem loan- lies et unam epistolam — , quae ab universis ecclesiastieis et eruditis viris probatur. Reliquae autem duae, quarum princi- pium. Senior loannis Presbyteri asseruntur, cujus et liodie alteriim sepulchrum apud Epliesios osteiiditur. • eö'^ä-mav, ravT'/iv, xxt jU,iT' avrhv i-TiffToXriv f^h uvxi 'luivtou -rou riyu-yrij/u-iviv, ukk' iti^ov, of/.coyvfjt.ov tovtm. SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 303 But, even in the age of St. Jerome, these epistles had gained th.e process against the doubters, and they have ever since been more and more generally recognized by the church as genuine and canonical writings of St. John. In the middle ages of tliß church, every doubt against them had vanished. Even Protestant criticism did not, before the time of Grotius, assail the authenticity of these epistles. But, since Grotius,^» he being, as far as I know, the first of modern authors who questioned the genuine- ness of these epistles, had expressed some modest doubts, modern critics have decidedly denied that the epistles were genuine,^ ^ and revived again the conjecture of some ancient authors, that the Ephesian Presbyter John might probably be their real author. The doubts of modern critics are grounded on what follows : — In the first place, the vagueness and the bifurcation of early tradition ; 7iext, that the author, in the superscription of both these epistles, has not styled himself in the usual manner, as an Apostle should have done, 6 ä'rroGTCi^ocy but called himself 6 rroiüß-jTiPoi' further, the discrepancy of style from the First Epistle and the Gospel ; it is maintained, that we here have a medley of Pauline and Johanneic elements, and that this seems to indicate an author who had indeed carefully read the writings of both Apostles ; but appropriated more of St. John's than '■^•^ Annotationes in Ep. II. Proem. '^' J. D. Beck Observationes critico-exeget. Spec. I. Lips. 1798, 4to. Fritzsclie's Remarks on the Epistles of St. John in Haukes' Museum of Religious Knowledge, Vol. HI. P. 1. Bretschneider in the Probabilia and others. 304 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OP THE of St. Paul's manner ; and, finally, that in the second epistle, the precept, ver. 10, is irreconcileable to the character of St. John the Evangelist, as known from other sources ; and that, in the third epistle, the op- position of Diotrephes to our author's admonitions and recommendations, is not in conformity with that ab- solute and universally prevailing authority of an Apostle like St. John, which was maintained in the apostolic age. But, against this, may be reasonably made the fol- lowing objections : — In. the first 'place, as to the vagueness and the bi- furcation of the ecclesiastical tradition, it would have some probative force, only in case the genuineness of our epistles were incompatible with it. But that cannot be maintained. The circumstance, that no allusion to our epistles occurs before the close of the second century, and that, after that period, the se- cond only is more particularly mentioned — and that, down to the fourth century, the most esteemed teachers of the church, and those who were best in- formed respecting early tradition, (although Ireneeus fully guarantees the authenticity of the second epistle,) entertained more or less of doubt respecting them ; is accounted for, partly by the insignificance of both epistles, (and specially of the third,) as to their didactic substance, and partly by the mode and manner, according to which the primitive church proceeded, in the first collection and establishment of the New Testamental canon. The former circum- stance explains why, even in churches like the Occi- dental, which seem to have incorporated both these SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 305 epistles in the ecclesiastical canon, the teachers of the church, in their writings, so seldom make any use of them, and, when they do so, only allude to the second, aye, and confine themselves to its 10th and 11th, and still more rarely quote its 7th and 8th verse. Nay more, as that which Mas in didac- tical respect important in the second epistle, seem- ed to be of a polemical character, it was at first most frequently made use of for polemical pur- poses. We owe to polemics the first definite testimonies respecting this epistle. And the third epistle, on the contrary, is scarcely ever mention- ed, for this very reason, that it seemed not to contain anything of importance, either for dog- matics or polemics. It was, therefore, clearly no historical conviction of their spuriousness, that hindered the more rapid propagation, and the more general and certain use of our epistles in the second and third century ; but partly their brevity, and partly also, and still more, their insignificance in didactical respect. Now, as the churches, when the canonical books were first collected, and the canon fixed, admitted only what was universally recognized and used (öfMo/.cyovßzvov) — only what had been shewn to be didactically important and genuine Apostolic, it is not diflScult to comprehend how it happened that the Syrian church did not incorporate our epistles in its first version or in its canon — that the church of Alexandria was undecided on this point, — and that Eusebius, the attentive observer of ecclesiastical tradition and usage in the first three centuries, en- tertained doubts respecting them, and reckoned them 306 or THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE among the antilegomeiia. From the manner iii which Clemens, Origen, Dinonysius of Alexandria, Eusebius and others, always speak jointly of the second and third epistle, it seems clear that they had been very early conjoined, and that the third, al- though less attended to, and more frequently passed by in silence, was an inseparable companion to the second. But when Irenaeus, the anonymous fragment, and the African Bishop Aurelius, mention only the second, that circumstance must not by any means be considered as a proof of their not knowing the third epistle, or of their holding it to be spurious I it only shews that they paid less attention to it than to the second, which so strongly supported the ex- communication of heretics. It is difficult to say how old may be the conjecture : that not the Apostle St. John, but John the Ephesian Presbyter, is the author of both these epistles. Ap- parently neither Origen nor Dionysius is as yet acquainted with it. But Eusebius already knows it. Thus much, how^ever, is manifest, that those who perhaps first in the age of Eusebius, broached this conjecture, had no historical ground for it, and in general, no other ground than the uncertainty of the ancient tradition, and, as St. Jerome has hinted, the unusual title : h 'rr^söiS-jn^oc, which the author has adopted in both epistles. In modern times, the very existence of this Presbyter has been doubted, but without any good reason. Eusebius sufficiently gaurantees it.^^ But only the existence of this ^' Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. SO? presbyter was known to the ancients : nobody had any certain knowledge of his authorship.* Thus the genuineness of our epistles is, indeed, quite reconcileable with the tradition of the church, although it certainly was for a long time doubtful and bifurcated. But thus is also removed the chief difficulty which affects the authenticity of our epistles. For, as to the other objections against it, it must indeed be admitted that they are of much less con- sequence. Grotius considers this as an insurmountable ob- jection, that the Apostle St.^ John, in both epistles, styles himself 6 ir^-sß'jnoog. If this is an official de- signation, it undoubtedly is difficult to explain why St. John should not have made use of the ordinary title of his dignity and his office. It is here of small avail, to refer to 1 Pet. v. 1, for the case is differ- ent.f It has been said,^^ that St. John was at that time the oldest among the surviving Apostles, and • True. — And even if it were fully proved that he really had written those epistles which the canon entitles second and third Epistle of St. John, his authorship might well have remained unnoticed or ignored by the ancients. But, on the other hand, we can hardly imagine that a person who had acquired a his- torical name, and held an office in the church, should not, during his official career, even if short, have written official or private letters of equal extent and importance to those in ques- tion. Thus nothing can be inferred from the silence of anti- quity respecting the authorship of John the Presbyter of Ephesus. — Transl. ■f And wherein the difference consists is ably stated by Grotius, in his preface to this epistle Transl. " Wolf, Cur. Phil, on 2 John 1. 308 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE that, as their senior, he thus designates himself. A futile conjecture, and an empty title ! Neither does this account for the title of -TTPSGß-jrsoog : that presbyter and bishop at that time were equivalent terms,^* for the Apostles did not use to style themselves bishops. Bertholdt is of opinion, 2 ^ that St. John had adopted this style, as a chief of all the congregations in Asia Minor. But, in that case especially, he would rather have used the term s-Trh'/.o'rrog, and not have omitted to add a more precise determination of his official character. And how incredible it also is, that the same Apostle, who in his official missive, the first epistle, neither puts a name nor designation of any kind, should in these smaller private letters to fa- miliar friends, where he had nothing to apprehend with regard to the transmission, have prefixed a high- sounding title without any name ! Much more na- tural it is to suppose, that St. John the Apostle, in that circle in which his activity was exerted in the latter end of his life, was, on account of his great age, called by way of distinction, 6 'Trfsößvrsooc, and that, particularly among his intimate friends, being suffi- ciently known by this honourable designation, with - out any more precise designation of his person and dignity, he, in confidential letters like those before us, commonly made use of it.^^ In the beautiful ■-* (Ecunaenius mentions this explanation in his Commentary on 2 John 1 . ■"' Einleitung, (Introduction), Vol. VI. p 3645. -^ (Ecumenius says, in the Comment, on 2 John 1, that St. John does not style himself Apostle, perhaps, because not he, but St. Paul, did first preach the gospel in Asia Minor : nor the servant of God, because he IS-cippu ota Toäyuv riya-^nir^ai %%&> voZ SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 309 narrative of St. John and the youth in Clem, of Alexandr. homily : rig 6 trw^o/y.jK); TKovaiog^'^ not only St. John in his affecting address to the recovered youth, calls himself rov ysso^ra,^^ but he is also b}' Clemens, in the midst of the narrative, so styled — simply 6 yhuv. The case is different it is true ; St. John does here call himself, and is called 6 yso^^jv. chiefly by Avay of contrast to the youth ; still we here see the possibility established, that St. John might, in our epistles, with reference to his age, have called himself o -ssßSürsPoc. Similarly St. Paul, in his con- fidential letter to Philemon, does not in the super- scription, as in an official missive, style himself 6 d--r6(fTo}.og, but UavXoc, diOfiioc'J.Xp., (writing from his prison in Rome,) in verse 9, however, he says, dice r-riv dyd-7Tr,v /xaX/^ovcra^axaXw, roiovrdg uj'^, ojg IlaS/.oc, T^sff- ß{jTr,g, vvvt ds xai diö/j^iog 'Itjgov Xoiff-ov. But why does not St. John, like St. Paul, call himself cisff/S-jr^j; ? Perhaps he designed some kind of allusion to his official title, or wished to express a more advanced age, than what is denoted by 'iroscß-oryig. At all events, it is easier to explain why the Apostle St. John calls himself 6 rroiaß'jrioog without mentioning his name, tlian to account for John the Presbyter so styling himself. •j-Jjj tovXilcti iTvKi (poßov, (is full of confidence on account of his being greatly beloved, and remote from that fear which is in- herent in servitude.) And that he styles himself Presbyter ytoKio; uv >fS'/] (being now an aged man.) ^^ Ed. Segaar Cap. 42, cfr. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. III. 23. ''^ T/ /U,i (piVyiiS, TiXVOV, TOV fflOCVTOU -TCK'Ti^a,. TOV yVf^VOV TOT y i^ovra. :510 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE Tlie opponents to the authentity of our epistle say, that their style is not purely Johanneic. and that it is mixed with Pauline modes of expression. Pauline expressions are said to occur, 2 John ver. 3, (cfr. 2 Tim. i. 2,) ver. 8 ; 3 John ver. 2, vyiatvuv, vjohovG^ai, ver. 6, 'TrocTrs/xTuv, a^/w; SsoD, ver 9, (piXo- ■TTpMTsvojv, verse 10, (pXvaooöv. But a great number of isolated Pauline expressions are also found in the first epistle, and in the gospel. Isolated expressions never determine the character of a work's style and dic- tion. Otherwise, the Epistles of St. Paul may one day be considered as Johanneic. The salutation, 2 John 1 — 3, is so far from being exclusively Pauline, that, when we except the general and usual apostolical formula of salutation, verse 3, we shall find it diffi- cult to construe out of it a single peculiarly Pauline proposition. The word (piXcrpuriVMv, 3 John 9, does not even occur in St. Paul's writings. * And, * Those who call this expression Pauline cannot mean to assert that St. Paul has used this particular word ; it occurs nowhere in the New Testament but in 3 John 9 ; they cannot mean anything but this : that the compounds of (piXo; are more frequently used by St. Paul than by any other author of the New Testament ; and this undoubtedly is true : he uses several words of this class which are not used by any of the other New Testamental writers, such as : (ptkovuKog, (ptXo^tv'ta, (ptko^svos, (St. Peter uses the last once,) (ptXo3-ios, ^iX^'^ovo;, (piXotrro^yos, ^/Xa- riKvoi. Finding that these and several more compounds of (p'lXos are used by St. Paul exclusively, and that such compounds are very uncommon indeed with the other sacred writers, more particularly with St. John, (who I believe never used any such) it is not very wrong thus far to maintain that (piXo-Tr^urivm is a Pauline expression. — Transl. SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 311 ill general, we would have to renounce all charac- teristics of style, and to repudiate all philological dis- cernment, if we should fail to recognize the most perfect idenit}^ of style in our epistles, and the first, which is observable even in the most minute turns of the construction.^^ Nay, in so great a degree the style of our epistles is Johanneic, that we would feel inclined only on that account to recognize their au- thenticity. But all doubts vanish when we compare the tone, and the leading ideas of our epistles. The similarity, nay, the identity, is so manifest, that the most modern opponent of the first epistle. Dr. Bret- schneider, founds on it a main argument for establish- ing its spuriousness. Here undoubtedly the dilemma applies : All the three epistles together are genuine Avritings of St. John, or they are all spurious. But it is asserted that 2 John 10 and 11, is re- pugnant to the character of St. John. It is said, that one of the Lord's disciples, who had most com- pletely appropriated the charitable spirit of the gos- pel, and who preached it on every page of his first epistle, could not possibly have been the author of such an intolerant precept as here is given in ver. 10 — that Christian love corrects those who err^ but does not harshly repel them ; but that our epistle for- bids even hospitality and Christian salutation to be offered to such. But if St. John, the author of the first epistle, was incapable of writing this, the pro- blematic author of the second epistle even, was equally incapable. For if the substance of verse 10 and 11, ^^ Eichhoni's Introduction, Vol. II. p. 320, sqq. 312 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE is repugnant to the first epistle, it is equally repug- nant to the 5th verse in this epistle, where brotherly- love is also expressly stated to be a fundamental pre- cept of the gospel. But the repugnance is only ap- parent, and the precept, harsh as it may seem, is genuinely Johanneic. ^^ It is a natural consequence of the Johanneic -/.plffic, according to which the dyd'TrT} is grounded on that äXyj'^sia which is free from error, and that again on the faith in Jesus the Christ, as also on the knowledge of God as the purest light. That objection of Grotius : that the opposition of Diotrephes, 3 John, against St. John the Apostle, is incredible in an age when a Christian would hardly oppose the divine authority of an Apostle, is of still less importance. For not to mention that the relation in which Diotrephes stood to St. John is not sufl^iciently clear, and that it cannot be determined wherein, and why he was inattentive to the Apostle's entreaties and admonitions : it is not at all strange that in the apostolic age there should appear an am- bitious ruler of a church like Diotrephes. Dio- trephes' refractoriness against the Apostle is not without a parallel in this age ; even St. Paul had to endure much from ambitious men, 1 Cor. i. 12^ ^^ Cfr. the narrative in Irenaeus of the meeting between St. John and Cerinthiis in the bath at Ephesus, Adversus Haereses III. 3. Irenaeus adds : Et ipse autem Polycarpus Marcioni ali- quando occurrenti sihi et dicenti : cognosce nos, respondit : cog- nosco te, primigenitum Satanae. Tantum apostoli et horum discipuli hahuerunt timorem, ne verbo tenus communicarent alicui eorum, qui adulteraverant veritatem. Et ipse, etc. SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 313 (vi. 9, sqq. ; *) 2 Tim. iv. 15, and other places. 3' It is much more incredible that the Ephesian John, a mere presbyter, even without mentioning his name, or producing any proof of his authority, should in this age have possessed such an authority in any place as that with which the author of our epistles must have been invested, when he, 2 John 10, prohibited receiving and greeting of heretics, and since he could say, 3 John 10, " If I come I will remember the deeds of Diotrephes." Thus it appears that the authenticity of our epistles can be satisfactorily testified. As long as the genuine- ness of the gospel and the first epistle remains un- questionable, every attempt to render doubtful the ge- nuineness of the former will be futile and vain. They cannot be a forgery ; for such a purpose they are too insignificant and destitute of design. If they are the work of John the Ephesian presbyter, it is, con- sidering their substantial insignificance and brevity, equally difficult to conceive what made the ancient church consider them as Johanneic and apostolical, as in this case it would be inexplicable, wh}^, at a much later period, they were ascribed to John the presby- ter than to the Apostle St. John. * I suspect that there is here a misprint : for in 1 Cor. vi. 9, there is indeed nothing to shew that St. Paul had to endure much from ambitious men. We probably ought to read 1 Cor. ix. 6, sqq. ; the earlier part of the ninth chapter shews, that by a party at Corinth, many of St. Paul's apostolic privileges were disputed. It is even possible that the intended quota- tion, is 1 Cor. iv. 9, sqq — Transl. ^^ See Hammond against Grotius, in the Preface to the 2d Epistle. 314 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CHAPTER SECOND. OF THE SXXszrn Kuoi'a, TO WHOM THE SECOND, AND OF Taiog, TO WHOM THE THIRD EPISTLE IS WRIT- TEN. /. Of the hJ-.i-KTri Kyw« in the former Epistle. Even the ancients differed in opinion respecting this lady.^^ Some believed, that here was meant some Christian matron or other, whose name was either 'E'/Skr/tTri or KvoiaP But others,^''^ either be- cause they found it unbecoming that the Apostle should write to a lady,^^ or, perhaps, in order to make this epistle of more importance, and more fit to appear in the collection of Catholic epistles, main- tained, (being favoured at least, although not war- ranted, by comparing with 1 Pet. v. 13,^6 that St. ^^ See Schol. Matthäi, p. 232, and CEcumenius on this pas- sage- ^' This opinion we find in the uTo^nris of the 2nd Epistle in JVlatthai, p. 150, also in the Synops. Script. S. and in CEcu- menius on this passage. ^* See Clemens in the Adumbrat., where we read : significat autem electionem Ecclesiae Sanctse. St. Jerome, Ep. XI. ad Ageruchiam. The Schol. Matthäi, p. 151, on ver. 1, and Cassiodorus on Ep. ii. ^'* Here may be mentioned the Apologetical remark of CEcu- menius : n^os 01 yvvettxa 'y^d(pisov '?r:Trfiv ouäiv v-reffTsiXaro, ort i* X^. 'lijffav ovTi eippiv, ay^s S^X« oT^i. •''' How could Clemens, in the Adumbrations, say: " Scripta SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 315 John, by this appellation, denotes some particular congregation, which is not more precisely designated, or the Christian church in general.)^^ Xhe last opi- nion, fanciful and untenable as it is, and manifestly an offspring of the allegorical interpretation of the ancients, has still, amongst modern authors, met with many friends and protectors, ^^ who partly have gone even further than its inventors, the ancients. It is believed, that, because it is in every way diffi- cult, more precisely to determine the name of the Christian matron ; — because, ver. 5, %«/ i/Dv sooj-oj 6i, zv^ic/., — /Va dya'rrojfMsv dX/J/Xou;, is liable to be misun- derstood by scoffers, and seems to offend against de- corum ; — and because it cannot well be conceived how a mere note to an individual Christian matron could liave been received into the collection of Catholic epistles ; it would be much more reasonable to sup- pose, that the epistle either was addressed to the Christian church generally, or, being too brief, and too individual for such a purpose, to a particular Christian congregation, perhaps to the congrega^tion est — ad qiiandam Babyloniam Electam nomine," unless he alluded to 1 Pet. v. 13 ? ^" The latter is maintained by St. Jerome, the former by ( 'assiodorus, who says : Joannes Senior, quoniam aetate pro- vectus, electse Dominae scribit Ecclesiae, filiisque ejus, quos sacro fonte genuerat., cfr. the Schol. I\Iatthäi. ^ See Wolfii Cur. on 2 Epist. ver. 1, where the ancient lite- rary sources of this opinion are enumerated. Among modern authors, J. D. Michaelis, in his Introduction to the New Tes- tament, and Dr. Augusti on the Catholic Epistles, Vol. II. p. 202j have declared in its favour. 316 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE of Philadelphia,^ 9 or of Jerusalem, which was direct- ly founded by the Lord himself ;'*o or to any other Christian congregation not named, which regularly used to assemble on Sundays.^ ^ The only thing which might seem, in some degree, to excuse or justify this view, is the supposed diffi- culty of satisfactorily accounting for the reception of a private letter to an individual, into the collection of the Catholic epistles. The third too, is addressed to an individual, yet no man ever thought of making a congregation of Caius. But it is altogether very doubtful what the ancients meant by a Catholic epistle, at the time when the Catholic epistles were lirst collected. If they meant by that term circulars, the reception of our epistle among the Catholic epistles would not at all be explained, by supposing it to be addressed to one particular congregation ; in this case, we would rather have to suppose that it was addressed to several congregations jointly, or to the whole Christian church generally: but, such a supposition is entirely repugnant to the superscrip- tion, as well as also to ver. 12 and 13. If, by the term Catholic epistles, are understood all genuine ^■^ This is Whiston's opinion. *° Therefore " Kv^lex, :" the opinion of Dr. Augusti and others. *' By IxKXijtria xv^ia, v.'ere, according to Suidas, understood popular assemblies, which were kept regularly. On this J. D. Michaelis, in the above-mentioned place, founds the most untenable of all conjectures. He himself observes against it, that Kv^ia thus alone, and without ixxXna-ia nowhere else is found to be used in this sense. SECOXD AKD THE THIRD EPISTEE. 317 apostolical letters, St. Paul's (o u-oßroXog) only ex- cepted, the above-mentioned difficulty is entirely re- moved. But, even in the other case, — if the ancients originally called only such epistles Catholic, as real- ly were encyclical (circulars,) — we have only to bear in mind, that in several churches, the second as well as the third epistle, was not at first incorporated in the collection of Catholic epistles, and that, where they were, sooner or later, received into that collec- tion, this may have been done, either because they were considered as integrant appendices or accom- paniments to the first epistle, or because no more suitable place in the canon could be found for their canonical preservation, than the place beside the first epistle, which arrangement, as they were so brief, did not in the least alter the original signification of the term Catholic epistles. If thus the supposed difficulty arising from the reception of our epistle in the collection of Catholic epistles can, in every case, be satisfactorily removed : the hj-^othesis, that szkizrri -/.u^la denotes either the whole Christian church, or a particular congregation, falls spontaneously to the ground. This hypothesis can never have the smallest claim to a philological justification, since no rational ground can be ima- gined why St. John, contrary to the usus loquendi, and contrary to all apostolic usage, should have de- signated the church generally, or a particular con- gregation and its members, in a manner so mystical and so allegorical. It would be vain to seek in the entire Apostolical and Apocryphal literature for an example bearing any resemblance to the case here 318 OF THE AUTHEXTICITY OF THE supposed. An epistle to a whole congregation, not to mention the entire Christian church, would also, no doubt, have been more extensive and copious. If then, in every case, by ska. -/.u^. a single indivi- dual must be understood : the next question will be, what was the name of this Christian lady, who was St. John's friend, probably a widow of advanced age, and a mother of several Christian children (apparent- ly sons, ovg, ver. l,y^ — was her name ' Ez/.s-/.-ri or Kuo/a ? Her name cannot have been ' EytXiZTrj, as is sup- posed by Grotius, Wetstein and others. This is re- pugnant, partly to the collocation of the words, (in this case the Apostle would have written either rjj y-uD/cc 'E'/,Ar/,rfi, or "ETiXiTirfj rfj Tcuw'a), — partly to ver. 13, where the sister of this lady is called skXsztt,, and clearly in no other sense than that in which St. Paul, Rom. xvi. 13, does so style Rufus, i. e. with reference to the divine szXoy/i — and lastly, as it seems, also to the emphatic address Kug/a, in ver, 5. Neither does ' E/iXsxr/] appear to have been a usual woman's name, at least in the Apostolic age, even because this word, like uyiog and other such, was a more general desig- nation for all Christians.'*^ KvPia as a woman's name, not being unusual in this age,*^ it is much more probable, that this Christian *- Because these Tiy,vcc were supposed to be daughters, the su- perscription ad virgines, tt^o; TaoS-ivovs, was given to the epistle. " ElectKS is to be found as a man's name. Herodian Lib I. Tzetzes Chil. VI. Hist. 55. *' See Corp. Inscript Gruter. p. 1127, Num. XI; ^^ivcrtiras K&i h yuvh xItov Kvn'ioe, cfr. Lexicon Hagiologic. Lips. 1719, p. SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 3^9 woman was called Ku^/a.-^s jf gj;^ John had been a strict classic author, we undoubtedly would, in this case, have required that he should have written Kv^icc rfi szAiX-fi, cfr. ver. 13, and Rom. xvi. 13, in which latter place, however, the expression sv Kuw'a», which follows after szXi/c-ov, seems to have rendered it necessary that the proper name should be placed before it. But St. John is not a classic, and the pre- location of sxAr/.rfi is satisfactorily accounted for, partly by the omission of the article, and partly by the usage of the adjective sx.}.. which probably, at that time, had lost much of its emphasis-'^^* There is in no case any reason to adopt the opinion 448, where we find two female martyrs of this name. Inscript. Florent ed, Gorius, p. 63, num. 173, where we find Cyria (Curia) Felicula, which Felicula also occurs in junction with other proper names, for example with Claudia Aemilia, &c, Symmachus Lib. V. ep. 16, and Lib. X. ep. 45, 46, where we find Cyriades. Ky^/aj, as a man's name, is not uncommon : cfr. Heumann Poecile de Cyria Joannis, Tom. 11. p. 421, sqq. Tom. III. p. 14, sqq. •^ This opinion is held by Heumann, Bengel, Carpzov and others. ^" See 1 Pet. i. I, where we read Uirooi a.Toa'roXo; 'I. X. * The words of the text " in der damahls vielleicht schon wenig mehr accentuirten Gebräuchlichkeit des Beyworts ikX" I have expressed : " which probably, at that time, had lost much of its emphasis," by which undoubtedly is meant that Christian» ol IxXixro), had, at that time, become so numerous, that the ad- jective IxX. had lost much of that emphasis which it naturally had while the Christians were but few, and when a Christian or an elect was in the world considered as a byword. — Transl. S20 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE of Ritmeier and Wolf: that both hX. and zv^., are appellative nouns, and that the lady is not at all mentioned by name. This would be repugnant to the analogy of the third epistle, and to the epistolary style of the ancients. But whether Kvoia, perhaps, was a deaconess or not ; where she lived in Asia Minor ? Such and si- milar questions may, no doubt, be made. But who can answer them? 2. Of Td/oc, to whom the third epistle is written. Besides the one mentioned in our passage, there are three Caiuses mentioned in the New Testament : Caius of Corinth, Rom. xvi. 23 ; 1 Cor. i. 14 : Caius a Macedonian, Acts xix. 29, and Caius of Derbe, Acts XX. 4. If any of these is our Caius, it can only be the last.^^ But, as the name of Caius was every- where very common, and the persons of the Johan- neic age must have been, partly, quite different from those who were St. Paul's companions, our Caius may be altogether a diiFerent person from any of these. He seems, however, to have been a dis- tinguished man in his congregation, but it cannot be determined whether he held any ecclesiastical office, or where he held any such. At all events, he lived in a different community from that of Kveia. If both had resided in the same place, it would be inexplicable that there is not any material reference from the one of these letters to the other. *' Wolfii, Curae on 3 Jolin 1. SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE, -3:21 CHAPTER IIL OF THE OCCASION AND OBJECT OF THESE TWi) EPISTLES, AND WHEN AND WHEKE THEY AVEKE COMPOSED. If both th€se epistles were, as some authors siip- pose,"^^ accompanying and dedicatory missives, sent along with the first epistle and the gospel : this o1j~ ject would have been more precisely expressed, and these two works would, in some way or other, have l)een therein mentioned, and, indeed, designated more distinctly. But this is not the case. Not the remotest reference to the gospel can be found any- where. In the second epistle we find again certain leading ideas of the first, for example in ver. 5, 6 and 7, but without any reference whatever to that epistle. St. John appears to presuppose only an earlier oral instruction. If the second epistle onlj'^ was an ac- companying epistle sent along with the first, what was the use of repeating in the former certain lead- ing ideas of the latter ? In this case, too, the precept, ver. 9 — 11, in which there is nothing personal, would, with more propriety, have been put into the first, which, at all events, was the principal epistle. Ver. 12 is also repugnant to this opinion. An epistle *^ See Kleucker Ueber den Urspr. und Zweck der A post. Br. (On the Origin and Object of the Apostolic Epistles), p. 324, sqq. and other authors. y 322 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE to the congregation in Mhicli Caius lived is mention- ed, 3 John 9. But there is a question, whether St. John really had written* this epistle to the congrega- tion, or only intended to write it, if Diotrephes were less refractory than he was. Even, in the former case, our First Epistle of St. John cannot be meant, inasmuch as that epistle is not addressed to a parti- cular congregation, and contains nothing of what the missive here alluded to must, according to 3 John 10, have contained. These two epistles, the second and the third, evi- dently are mutually independent, and also indepen- dent of, and unconnected with, the first epistle : they are private missives, having reference to two diffe- rent congregations. The occasion and object of the Second Epistle^ ai'e contained in the personal relations of St. John to Kyria and her children, which personal relations here are but imperfectly alluded to. It seems that St. John had at this time an opportunity to write to his friend. But, as he expected soon to have a personal interview, he writes briefly, and onl}^ what was most necessary, not for the purpose, of announcing his arrival — this he does only incidentally in the con- clusion — but particularly in order to congratulate his friend on account of the truly Christian conduct of * The author seems, in the commentary, to have justly de- cided that the Apostle had really written such an epistle. In- deed this cannot be doubted : ty^oe.'^a seems here quite de- cisive : i'y^a-v^a «v would 1 e too classical; and too Attic for St. John's stvle. — Transl. SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. ^:il> her sons, which he had, in all probability, but lately had the satisfaction of observing. Yet, at the same time, he exhorts her faithfully to abide in the Chris- tian truth and love, and ever more and more strictly to separate from herself, and keep at a distance, every tiling antichristian ; not as if Kyria were in this latter respect imprudent, or in any way implicated in anti christian errors, but evidently because he wished to preserve his friend from every possible injury, and because he would not allow any opportunity to pass by, without pointing out, at all times, the necessity of the zoißig. If Kyria was a distinguished lady in her congregation, it is easily explained why, particu- larly to her, (cfr. 1 Tim. v. 10), St. John should givt- the precept of refusing Christian hospitality to anti- christian heretics. The Third Epistle y if we may judge by ver. 6, seems to be a letter of introduction for travelling Christians. Perhaps this was the most direct occasion and object of this letter. At the same time, it appears to be St. John's intention to commend Caius for the kind- )i8ss and friendship which he had at some former period shewn to travelling brethren. Caius v/as, as already has been observed, in all probability a dis- tinguished man in that congregation in which Dio- trephes, the ruler, had shewn unkindness to strangers, and refractoriness to the Apostle. It is not clear, whether Demetrius, ver. 12, was amongst those tra- vellers whom St. John recommends to Caius, or whether he perhaps was the bearer of the letter ; but this is, at all events, more probable, than that he ^^ as resident in Caius's congregation. Because St. Johii 324 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE expected to see Caius very soon, this letter is also very brief and only allusive. Impossible, as it is, with any degree of probability, to determine where Kyria and where Caius lived, it is equally impossible to say with any certainty, from what place St. John wrote either to the one or to the other. If Ephesus was at this time the Apostle's ordinary place of residence ; and if 2 John 12, as well as 3 John 14, has a reference to an intended Apostolical visitation, it is most probable that both epistles were written at Ephesus, and that the congre- gation in which Kyria and Caius resided, were in Asia Minor — that they belonged to St. John's circle of congregations — and that the Apostle used to visit them from Ephesus.'^^ Hug's opinion : that botli these letters were written in Patmos, and sent to Ephesus, has already above been confuted.^ ^ The time when these two Epistles were ivritten is un- decided, and must remain undecided. St. John can no more have written these in exile than the first ; 2 John 12, and 3 John 13, prove nothing.^^ Both are probably written about the same period, shortl}^ before the Apostle set out on a journey ; but perhaps the third is written somewhat later than the second ; since 3 John 14, the Apostle writes : iXcr/^w rJ^zug ihu'j ßk' but 2 John 12, only: iXcr/ä^w f/.Ss/v 'rrfog vfiug. St. John's age was much advanced when he a\ rote these letters, but what more can be said ? The epistles *^ Such a visitation, undertaken by St. John from Ephesus, is mentioned by tusebius. Hist. Lccl. 111. 23. ^^' See Introduction to the First tpistle. *' Ibid. SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 325 themselves contain no hint by which the time could l)e determined. It is difficult to say whether both are written before^" or after the first epistle. Yet the latter is more probable, because the second epistle seems to presuppose a fuller information respecting heretics, like that which indeed had been communi- cated in the first epistle ; but an explicit reference to that epistle was not necessary. The intended journey, however, and the less senile tone and style which some authors imagine they have observed in the second and third epistle, does in no case afford any ground for believing that they are written earlier tlian the first epistle. It is utterly unknown how long and how laborious the journey was, and also that St. John may not, even in a highly advanced age, have undertaken such journeys ;^^ neither can the supposed difference between the more vigorous and the more senile tone and style at all be proved.^* -■''^ This is maintained by Lange and Eichhorn. ■^^ We see from Euseb. Hist. Eccl. III. 23, that St. John, even in old age, undertook long and laborious journeys. ^* See Introduction to the First Epistle. COMMENTARY ON THE SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. SECOND EPISTLE. The enlarged superscription and salutation ver. 1 — 1>, may be compared with those of the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians and Titus. By roTg rszvioc, ver. 1, on account of the subsequent ovc, cfr. ver. 4, in all probability onl?/ so?is are to be understood. Carpzov maintains the contrary ; but the passage, Matth. xxviii. 29 ; Acts xv. 17 ; Gal. iii. 16 ; Gen. iii. 15, to which Carpzov appeals, prove nothing. The words ayccTroj h ä7^r^iia, cfr. with 1 John iii. 18. CEcumenius says : "EöT/ yä^ xai «T/crXaoTw; dywrav GTOfJ^ar/. * Uuvng o/ iyvcuxong rr,v dX^'^siav, i. e. all the Christians (here, who know Kyria's sons.) Ver. 2. Carpzov joins the words öiä r'},v aX'/jSj/av — with ver. 3, which construction scarcely affords any, not to mention a fit and convenient sense ; the Apostles also use to put their salutations as free and in- dependent propositions, exactly as here would be the case if ver. 3 is considered as unconnected with ver. 2, cfr. all the salutations in the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter. Construction and context render it imperative, directly to join ver. 2 to ver. 1, and indeed after such * For there is also a feigned love — a love of the mouth.] SECOND AXD THP: THRD EI^ISTLE. 327 a manner, that oia rrcj cc7S^^uav. is referred to oug syoi cj.yr/.~Z) — '/.al o\jz syoj /mjvoc, 'xaXu, zai ':rd)/TBC. — Only the parenthesis of the words : (xa/ ov rrjv dXr,- l^=/r/v,) ver. 1, which has become fashionable in mo- dern editions, must be omitted, it renders the re- ference less clear, and is not altogether accurate, since verse 2 refers not merely to syco but also to -rcivrsc. This is St. John's meaning : " I and all the Christians (here) on account of the truth abiding in us, love thy children (who walk in the Christian truth, cfr. ver. 4.)" The communion of Christian truth, but particularly constancy in the faith, is a cogent motive for Christian brotherly -love. The idea would be simpler if instead of fj/s:o-jios u^Yivn -xoL^a, Glov, or as St. Paul usually expresses it, a^o (=>tod is only oriental, and by no means exclusively apostolic ; but the addition — 'prar^o?, xoii crcc^a. av^lov 'l'/](rou X^/^tow, was first introduced by the Apostles. The concluding salutation ^l^'Avn a-m which our author observes, is put instead of the worldly or secular 'ipputro, h only oriental TransL] ^' As to the imperative 'ia-Toct both here and in verse 2, see Winer's Gramm., p. 97. 3. ' Cod. A. and Syr. P. omit these words here; but the analogy of St. Paul's salutation formula is manifestly the cause of this. 'Tf/Sjv is the only reading here admissible. SECOND AND THE THIRD EriSTLE. 329 pears to be borrowed from St. Paul's formulas of saluta- tion. GEcumenius observes : ' Ev ak'^^iia st/^s^-/ /ca/ «7«,- dyd'Trjc. More correctly and with more perspicuity Grotius refers sv dXri^. vma ä'yd':rr to the words : sG-rai fj^s^ -jijjor^ : per cognitionem veri et dilectionem mu- tuam ; nam per haec in nos Dei beneficia provoca- mus, conservamus, augemus. Ver. 4. Declares the epistle's most immediate motive. 'Ex twi/ -s;'.vwv — either some only of Kyria's children were Christians, or St. John had become acquainted only with some of his friend's children, all of whom were Christians. Ver. 1. favours the latter opinion : %al roTc, r'sxvoig air^;, oilc. — St. John does not merely praise them for being Christians, but also for walking in the truth, and living in con- formity with the love-commandment : xocSwr, &c., accordingly must be considered as a more precise limitation of ctsp/c h dXr/^. The h^roXri is more ac- curately stated, ver. 5 and 6, cfr. 1 John iii. 16 ; iv. 21 ; V. 3. -TTa^d rw 'raroog — revealed through Christ, and not as CEcumenius says : --ra-spa rtv X^ißrov xaXsT, i~zl %ai rrary^s lari rcov did rr,g oty.ovofjjiag aurOj Ta^d rov Tar^og do'^sv-C/rj v'lZji. Ver. 5. The entreaty (hoj-uiy cfr. John iv. 31. 1 John V. 16), to zv^icf : ha dya-'c/j/Msv d/.Xri/.ovCy does not imply that the mother was less Christian in her life and conduct than her sons. This exhortation does not cease to be necessary, even to the most charitable. And it seems manifest from ver. 8, that here the children were also exhorted. The words o\j^ w? svToXiiv %aivr,v — cfr. with 1 John ii. 7, 8. Kar/ri :330 COMMENTARY ON THE and d.r: c.cyß:, are here to be taken in the same sense as in that place. But there the hroXri was the imita- tion of Jesus, the walking in the light; here it is brotherly-love ; but these are essentially identical. CEcumenius says, respecting the paraenetic point of the parenthesis : ov-^ u; — d~* aoyjiz : wj rCi'c, '/■',ori s:pc/jdiVfJySvoig aOrriV (si/roXriv) -Trapißra -/.at ojv 'zshav 'iXaßov 1/ dzoKvryirira.1 rOj dr^n rY,g iy^np'/jasojc. Ver. 6. here cfr. 1 John v. 3 ; ii. 5. John xiv. 21. ' Ayd-Tfyj here denotes Christian love simply, of which the basis is the love to God, and whose essential manifestation is love to the brethren. Aurrj hnv r, vjTOKi] (the sum total of God's commandments is this.) KaSil'c — dr: d^yj^g refers to the subsequent ha hj aliTT] (viz. dyd'Trri) rrsoi--aT?iTS, which is the substance of the s]iro}.%, cfr. ver. 5. Some authors refer h avrfj to s'^roATj. But St. John never uses to say : 'm^i'r. sv rfj svroXfi, but xard rag svroXccg and ~spi-. sv he con- strues v/ith dXr/^sia, (puri, gkotsi, and other similar expressions. The same does also St. Paul, cfr. Rom. vi. 4. 2 Cor. iv. 2 ; x. 3, and otjier places. Moreover, if sv avrr, were referred to a-orri iö-lv r, ivro'Ari, the proposition would be as insignificant as well can be imagined. Ver. 7. here cfr. 1 John iv. 1 — 3. Some authors consider on rroX/.oi as an aitiological prodosis to the subsequent ß/.s-7rsrs savrovg ver. 8. But this is too periodical for St. John's style ; the parenthesis : cvrog iari'j — is also repugnant to it, for thereby the conse- (^uent would be too much separated from the antece- dent, and this *is altogether incompatible with the SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 331 simplicity of St. John's writing. Bengel observes veryjustl}^: on. Ratio, cur jubeat retinere audita a principio, ver. 5, 6. GEcunienius takes up the con- text in the same manner. Cfr. 1 John ii. 18, where there is a similar concatenation of ideas. Instead of :}ar,A':)ov s/g rov z6fffj,o'j, some authorities read s^ri/})rov, which indeed may have been borrowed from 1 John iv. 1, but seems to be more Johanneic. Even CEcum- menius started at hyJ.u.i'A,'j h cra^x/ instead of ly,r^K\j^u-a 1 John iv. 2. The former expression he referred to r7;v oiürbai/ riZ Kvoicv 'TraPouffiav, but that opinion sureh^ no man will adopt. ' Bp-^/o/j.svov is much more reason- ably accounted for by St. John's frequent usage of the present tense, instead of tlie preterite or imper- fect, cfr. 1 John i. 5 ; iv. 17. St. John does here put as present the historical manifestation of Christ. It also may be said, that hyj/jbsujv expresses the negation of the heretics more strongly and absolutely, inasmuch as they did not only deny the historical fact of Christ's manifestation in the flesh, but also its possibility. In this case, the propo- sition ought to be rendered thus : who will not admit that Jesus Christ doeth appear (/. e. that he can at all appear) in the flesh. This explanation, however, I think is too far-fetched. On ojro; hm, CEcumenius observes : -TrPoff-j'TrazovGrsov rovroig, si; hn- /.S6~hav drjAOJGr^, ro' " og cjv fjurj raZ-a, o/jto/.oys?." Ver. N. /Sxi-sT-g loiurovg here cfr. Mark xiii. 9, and as to the construction of ha, cfr. 1 Cor. xvi. 10. In- stead of a-o'hiGoiiJjZ'j — ihyaaüiJji^^o: — aTo/.a/Sw/xsv seve- ral authorities have the second person plur. But St. John has a predilection for the ligure of connnunica- tion, see ver. 4 and 6, and it is not unlikely that 332 COMMENTARY ON THE ßXs-rsre might occasion the correction. With i'/^ya- cä'Lz^a, cfr. John vi. 27. It refers to the 'ioyov Tr,z ■■:ri6ri0i; and the 'KÖ~og tyi; ayacrjj^, 1 Thess. i. 3. The iMiG^oc, -TrA^rig is the ^or/i aidj'jioc, cfr. 1 John v. 12. Ver. 9, cfr. 1 John ii. 23, 24. The Christian bioayji is by St. John conceived to be an svTo'/.rr and thence 6 'TraoaßaivMv, viz. rriv oioa-^riv^ not sx r^g btbayj,;, cfr. Matth. xv. 2, 3. 02&v (viz. iisov ä\ri^mv, 1 John V. 20), o-j7i 'iyy cfr. 1 John v. 12; ii. 23. Ver. 10, 11. e7 r/s — ou (p'ion is a periphrasis of the TAavo/, ver. 7. They are not to receive such an one hospitably in their house, nay, not even to greet him. This prohibition is thus to be accounted for : that, as al\va3'^s is the case, in times of great and vital con- tests, so also hospitality and salutation were, in the apostolic age, full of expression and signs of the Christian communion of faith and of brotherly- love. It would have been harsh if St. John had commanded to refuse salutation and hospitality to heathens and Jews. But he clearly speaks of here- tics who, as Chris.tians, claimed an hospitable recep- tion and fraternal salutation. To refuse it to these was enjoined by the zoiffic, which, considering the increasing amalgamations of Christian and antichris- tian elements, ever became more and more necessary, and, according to which, no dydrry) and no xo/i^wv-'a could exist, if it was not based upon the common con- fession of unadulterated truth. Without this -/.^iaic, which outwardly too, must, of necessity, have mani- fested itself more or less, Christianity could scarceh^ have been preserved in its purity, and would, no ^ Clem. Adumbrat : in intellectu perceptibiliter. Didymus and Gi^cumenius explain i^nv from John xiv. 23. SECOND AKD THE THIKD EPISTLE. 333 doubt, very soon have become a medley of Christian and antichristian elements. Ver. 11 contains the ijround of the prohibition. The Christian yjx\ou\^ (cfr. James i. 1), was, according to St. John, not to be an empty salutation of words and tongue, cfr. iii. 18, but an expression of the perfect -/.moma.^ CEcu- menius says: 'A;i5/,3a;5 Tajra /iywi', w; rJj; --TTPOGPTiffsuji Tuvrr,; roTg hijjoroörroiz 7\ij.Z}y) (j.ü^oic, -/.a! ö/xo-iGroig 6^«/>.o- ,'x'svr,g. Tim yap ^ahsiv sl/^J/x;^« «a// yj roT; c/j^oT^O'rro/g y,ai (j'iorr'iGTbig ; And, therefore, xorjojvsT roT; 'ioyoig ahroii ToTg '-o'^ri^oTg, (viz. in the adulteration of the bthcyji roD Ver. 12. indicates that this epistle was not trans- mitted along with the more prolix first epistle. St. John concludes^ his epistolary instruction : he hopes to come himself, xa/ öTo'/^a rt^hg 6r6{jja Xa/.J^tra/, (coram loqui, cfr. Num. xii. 8 ; Jer. xxxii. 4, ns hv ns ; the classical expression Grofj^a rroog cro/j^a refers to the kiss).8 As to the: r^ay-j yo-iä r,iLMv, (not thejoy of meet- ing again, but joy arising from the Christian com- munion), ^ 'm-TTy.Tt^oiijjiy/i^ cfr. 1 John i. 4. The precise circumstances of Kyria's Christian {ty.'Lb'/.-Yi) sister, as well as those of her children, ver. 13, are entirely unknown. It only appears that the latter, at the time when this epistle was written, re- sided at the same place as St. John. '' Cfr. Arrian III. 22, and Lampritl. Alex. Sev. 18. This Emperor nisi honestos et bonse famae homines ad salutationem non admisit, cfr. cap. 25. ' i^'or Arclieological notices relative to this^ see in Hug's In- troduction to the New Testament, \'ol. I. p. 03, ö-J. * Xenoph. ;^.'emorab. II. 6. ^2. 334 COMMENTARY ON THE THIRD EPISTLE. The wish, ver. 2, is here made use of instead of the salutation, 2 John iii. Usoi Tai-wi' is, by Beza, re- ferred to i'ü-)(p{jMj, and taken in the sense of 'tz^o 'jrd^j- rm. This construction, undoubtedly, is the most na- tural, and this meaning the most suitable. But how- can C7£p/ vTcci/rwi/ be justified, being used in the sense of -TPo -ccvrwi/ ? Used in this sense, it does not any- where else occur, either in the New Testament or in the Septuagint. Beza appeals to Homer's usage : II. I. 287, 'AXX' 00' avril J^sXs/ crsg^ «rai/rwi/ 'i[jjiM^vas aX- Xui/, cfr. ii. 831 ; v. 325. But, it may be doubted whether this Homeric usage ever was adopted b}^ prose writers. It seems, that in Attic prose, it is not recognized.^ But the zoivrj, (the Comm. dial.) which frequently did introduce into prose, phrases that only had been used by the most ancient poets, might have received it. Dionysius of Halicarnassus uses crso/ cravrw!/, in one place at least, (Lib. VI. p. 375, line 36,) exactly in the same sense as Homer, >.&%«- youg rs Irspovg %at tsö/ rravroiv a^y^ovra rov l,i7thviov vnhi^avng. Another passage, (Lib. VI. p. 384, line 35,) is more doubtful: o/ de do/ßroxparoi Ts^i rrdvro; ^sKovng, fj^Tj zmTa^ai sz rov •TaT-^/ou Kofffiov riyj •ToX/rg/av.'" At all events, therefore, the Homeric usage of --rrsfi 9 Stepli. Thesaur, under {tj^/. ^° Another passage in Dionysius, which is pointed out by Reiske in the Index to his edition, Khetor. p. 310. 2. is a quotation from Homer. SECOND AXD THE THIRD EPISTLE. 335 •Toci/rwi/ was not unknown, although rare, in the com- mon dialect. But, such being the case, its occur- rence in the dialect of the New T(^stament is still less surprising, and Piscator's conjecture, that the origi- nal reading was cr^o -chrcjv, is, to say the least of it, unnecessary.^ ^ Other interpreters, to v/hom the philological justification of ~spi --ai/rojv, being used in- stead of '7TP0 'Tclvruv, appears impossible, take crsi»/ in its usual sense, and refer it to hodovö'^^ui. Then this would be the sense : " In all things, (in every re- spect,) I wish that thou mayest prosper, and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." But, the very collocation of 'rrsoi rrd^jTOJv makes this interpretation liable to suspicion. It is also arbitrary to refer c-aw' -di^TOJv only to iboooud^ai, a,nd not to byiaivnv also ; but when it is referred to both, an extremely unclear meaning is produced. Finally, also, since the spiri- tual prosperity is particularly mentioned, -e^/' cravrwy v/ould be much limited, and have to be translated somewhat like this : " In all other things." But the collocation which indicates, that ■■rrcivTOiv is here used vrithout any limitation, is again repugnant to this. 'E.\jobov6^oUy cfr. Rom. i. 10. 1 Cor. xvi. 2, is, both with regard to form and signification, also known to the classical authors.^-^ Cfr. also 2 Chron. xiii. 12 ; '^ It would also be inconceivable, that the easier and more; common reading ioD, which is thus to ^^ tiee Winer's Gramm, p. 95. 2, and 96. 3, note. ^^ Gesenius's System, p. 845, note 5, y. '^''^ Then the sense would be : Whom you will, having treat- ed them kindly, send further on their journey. Grotius madf the conjecture ^oimcct -r^o'Tif/.^pnts, but without any good rea'son. z 338 COMMENTARY ON THE be resolved : ovg T^o'Trsfjij'^ag a^luc rov SsoD zay.oji 'xoiTjGsig. The aorist partieip. 'zoo-Tr'sfji.'^^ag is here put quite regularly.^ 8 YlPCTrsfM-Tr, has here the same sense as in Tit. iii. 13, and 1 Cor. xvi. 11, meaning curare profecturos. I refer a^/ws roD ^sou to T^o-Tsz-t-vj^ag not to •-dtrißnc^ a» by this is denoted all that kindness and care and attention, which promotes that work of God, which tlie brethren are carrying on (ver. 7.) Ver. 7. Those who here are recommended, are more precisely characterized as missionaries. By the o'vo/iA«, absolutely put, there can only be under- stood the 7iame of God in a context like that before us ; this is also hinted by the lectio recepta, which puts abrov after hvoiJ^aroc, cfr. John xvii. 11, 12. They had started Q^nX^ov, Acts xv.40) for the sake of this name ("^crsi), in order to propagate it ; and they had taken nothing (received no reward, Matth. xvii. 24) from the nations (the heathens, — i^n'/.oj\j is a reading which we find in important authorities, such as A.B. C. and others), to whom they preached the gospel. Such was the custom of the apostolical missionaries, cfr. 1 Cor. ix. 18. 2 Cor. xi. 7, sqq. ; xii. 16, sqq.; 1 Thess. ii. 9, sqq. This is differently taken by Beza, Wolf, Carpzov, and Morus ; they refer d-Trh rcijv ?%mv to \^ri7,^ov, and thus explain the passage : Nam ejecti erant propter religionem ab extraneis, nihil que se- cum asportaverant (Carpzov). But to this is re- pugnant, more especially the present participle XaiJ.ßd- 'jovTsg, and the collocation of the words dcro tuiv s^vGjv. Moreover, if the Apostle had been speaking of men ^5 Buttmann's Greek Gramm., p. 413, note 7- SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 339 who were persecuted and in exile, he would have ex- pressed such a circumstance more definitively and strongly. And finally, ver. 8, ha. cwioyoi yiwJiij.'-^^rx -j] ri/.'/j^iE/a agrees better with our explanation than with the last mentiond. Ver. 8. Now, we, says the Apostle, — we who lead a more quiet and less laborious life in the congrega- tions, — must readily receive such labourers of the Lord, and take care of them (d-7ro'Aa/jjßcii^nv^ for which some authorities read v-TroXa/jß. CEcumenius ob- serves, that this is here instead of dvaXa/j.ßd^.ia'i^a,/, ■^-(jQiyjG^ai) in order to aid, thus indirectly at least, the propagation of the truth of the gospel. Thus St. John propounds to his friend the most exalted point of view from which his p/Ä6^2w>/ can be con- sidered, and at the same time introduces what he had to say of Diotrophes, verse 9, 10. Verse 9. If av after g/ga-vj/a were an authentic reading, the Vulgate would be justified in translating scripsissem. If the context, from other reasons, ren- dered such a translation necessary, it might he said, that even with good authors, the aorist indicative is sometimes without the ay put conditionally. But vv'hat compels us here to suppose any such deviation from the rule ? Nothing ! Nay, it is much more natural to suppose that the ambitious Diotreplies had, by his turbulent spirit, weakened in the congre- gation the authority and effect of an epistle already '»\Titten and circulated, and that the Apostle com- plains of this, — than that St. John, from fear of Diotreplies as an influential man, had preferred, not at all to write such an epistle to the 340 COMMENTARY ON THE If lyo. refers to an epistle actually written, it is quite as likely that it may have been lost, as that it should have been preserved. Among the Epistles of St. John which we have, only the first could possibly be meant. ^^ But the epistle here alluded to, was ad- dressed to one particular congregation, — it seems to have been a mere letter of business, and to have re- ferred to an especial case of the Christian ^/X^gcwa. The first Epistle of St. John, on the contrary, is de- monstrably a circular, it is entirely didatic, and con- tains nothing that has a direct reference to Christian hospitality. It is therefore undoubted that the epistle in question has been lost. Probably it was an £r/(TroA// 6'ü6Tarr/.Yi to the congregation, for the benefit of the same travelling brethren, who, in our epistle, were privately introduced to Caius. Perhaps the letter to Caius was to secure an undoubted reception for the brethren, in case the epistle to the congrega- tion should fail, and Diotrephes, as St. John appre- hended, should prevent the congregation from shew- ing them any hospitality. But if the epistle to the congregation was a mere letter of introduction, with- out any didatic substance, the circumstance that it was lost, while the private letter to Caius was pre- served, is easily accounted for. It is difficult to say what kind of person the in- Huential, ambitious, (p^Äocriw-ai/wi/j^o Diotrephes may liave been in the congregation : whether a presbyter, ^'' WoM Cur. on this passage. " A word of rather modern formation. See Lobeck. Phryn. p. 566. Polyb. Fragm. 115, has (ptXer^uro;. The Schol. Malthii, p. 162, ö öpa^^d^uv ra tputuci. SECOND AND THE THIBD EPISTLE. 341 which is probable, or a deacon. He seems to have been of that class, who rather wish to be lords than pastors of their congregations, 1 Pet. v. 3. That he was a heretic cannot be proved. In this case, St. John would otherwise have characterized him and spoken of him with greater severity. What it was that brought this ambitious man to resist St. John's authority — to sUght (oux l-xooiyjrat ^i 7i,'j,äc,,) his en- treaties and recommendations, — nay, even to prate all manner of wicked nonsense against the Apostle (^'Koyotz ^o'J7io(>Tg ^X-jao^jv ^'^ yjfJ^oic), — and how and in what manner he did all this — it is as impossible more precisely to determine, as how and why, not content with slighting and slandering the Apostle, he not only himself refused reception to the travel- ling brethren, but «kk^ hindered those of the con- gregation who would (Sr/j/.o/xsvoyj ^^) receive them, (jr/ös;/g(T^a/ ro-jg ddiX:p.) and even punished them by excluding them from the congregation, (sx. TTjc £-/,/iXri(iiag szßdXXn.) This last seems to indi- -' Only here in the New Testament. It occurs in Polybius in both the senses in which we find it here, verse 9 and 10: a5in verse 9, in Lib. VI. 24-7; as in verse 10, in XXII. 1. .3, cfr. 1 INIacc. xii. 8. ^'- Only here in the New Testament, cfr. Xenoph. Anab. 11]; 1. 26. St. Paul in 1 Tim. v. 13, has (pXvxoo;. (Ecumenius : Xoy. •provn^. (pXvcc^MV vifAoi;, uvri rod' Xoiooouv, xaxoXoyuv. ''^ BovXofiivov; is not to be referred to the travelling brethren, but only to the members of the congregation, and the passage must be supplied after the manner which is shewn above. Those authorities which read iTi^'c;^o/u,ivou; instead of ßovXofici. vous, did also interpret this passage as we have done. 342 COMMENTARY ON THE cate that Diotrephes possessed a very great, and scarcely credible authority. At the sametime, it appears that the words cannot signify anything else. Carpzov takes szßdXXsi in a hiphilical * sense, and refers it to the travelling brethren, who were com- pelled by Diotrephes to leave the congregation and seek refuge in some other place. But v/.ß. sx rr^g s'AZA. can scarcely signify any thing but exclusion from the congregation, cfr Luke vi. 22. 'Ex,/3aX/.j/ too, could hardly be referred to any other word than ßrj'jXo/j,s>r/jc. Still the conciseness of the style and diction may excuse Carpzov's interpretation. The words : dia rovro, sav sX^C/j, l-ou.vrjGO)^^ avrou ru spya, a -TroiiT, &c. seem to indicate this, that Diotrephes, probably before unaccustomed to apostolical autho- rity, would, from ambition, not recognize the superior episcopacy of the Apostle, who perhaps only a * Hiphilical sense. It is perhaps superfluous to remind our biblical readers that this term is taken from Hebrew Gram- mar. The grammatical character of the form or voice Hiphil is the short syllable Hi, prefixed to the root, and an attenuating vowel change in the root itself. As to the sense, the Hiphil form expresses, that another is caused to do an action ; it is an active form by depute. Thus of "^pB (Pacad) visitavit, we have in Hiphil: "n^pDH (Hiphkid) /eciY, reZ effecit vt alius visitaret. 0' he hiphilical sense of IxßaXXii which Carpzov supposes, would be very constrained indeed : it would be this : Diotrephes causes the travelling brethren to be cast out of the congregation. — Transl. '^^ See Tit. iii. 1 ; 1 Tim. ii. 14; it is equivalent to the Ger- man Vorhalten, [or the English to reprimand.] SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE. 343 short time before had entered on his office in the congre- gations of Asia Minor — and it may be that Diotrephes therefore required St. John's immediate personal presence and authority to teach him obedience. But it is also possible that Diotrephes might misunder- stand the prudential rule, which in this age was ne- cessary, and which St. John, in 2 Epist. 10, had given to Kyria respecting travelling Christians — and that he (Diotr.) from ambition, enforced such a rule with despotic rigoiu", because strange brethren might easily weaken his authority. It is a quite unfounded conjecture : that, being a converted heathen, he would not receive converted Jews.^^ The example of such an influential man as Dio- trephes, and his despotic strictness in ecclesiastical discipline, might have become very injurious to the congregation. Therefore, St. John warns Caius, ver. 11, not to follow this evil example. This warning or exhortation is couched in general terms, and there- fore the expression ro aya^h needs not to be referred to any particular good example in the congregation, as, for instance, to that of Demetrius, who seems to have been rather a traveller than a resident in the community to which Caius belonged. 'Aya^oTo/wv and ■/.a'M'xotojv is also quite general, cfr. 1 Peter iii. 17, and does not particularly refer to Christian hospitality. The idea is plain, when this passage is compared with 1 John ii. 29, and iii. 9. 'Ewca^ig : cfr. 1 John iii. 6. If Demetrius had been a resident in Caius's con- -^ For many conjectures respecting Diotrephes, see Chr. Gottw. Wabst's Treatise "De Diotrephe." Lips. 1758. 4to. 344 COMMENTARY, &C. gregation, he would, in ver. 12, have been spoken of in other terms, and not commended exactly after the manner here adopted, which makes the reader sup- pose that he was an unknown man to Caius. Per- haps he took the lead among those who were recom- mended in ver. 6, and was the bearer of the letter. The addition -Aal jt' av-rig rrig dXri^. is equivalent to our formula of recommendation : he recommends him- self [he only needs to be known to be esteemed]. But by dXyßua here is only to be understood the Christian aX'/jäs/a.^e The conclusion, ver. 12, xa/ r,[x,z7g — ytai oiban (Caius and the other friends ; — re- gardless of this, some authorities correct the text and read olbag) — implies that introductions of travelling Christians were not always to be relied upon, and that they often were deceptive. But the Apostle's /xaPTu^/a was tried, cfr. John xix. 35. Ver. 13, and 14, cfr. 2 John 12. E/'^jj^jj aoi, instead of the secular salutation sf^uffo,* see 1 Peter v. 14. ^'' OEcumenius is of opinion, that it is no mistake to extend iivo TavTov, ver. 12, also to unbelievers. In this context, how- ever, such an interpretation can hardly be approved. Here the x\postle is speaking of peculiarly Christian conduct. * As to iffuiro, see Translator's note, above, p. 32Ü. TRANSLATION. FIRST EPISTLE. CHAPTER I. 1 4. I. I. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have beheld and handled with our hands, of the word of life, 2. (and the life has been manifested, and we have seen it, and we bear witness, and announce unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and which was manifested unto us). 3. That which we have seen and heard we do announce unto you, in order that you also may have communion with us ; but our communion is the communion with the Father, and v/ith his Son Jesus Christ. 4. And this we write unto you, in order that your joy may be per- fect. CHAPTER I. 5. II. 2. I. 5. And this is the declaration which we have heard of him, and which we relate unto you : that God is light, and that there is no darkness in him. 6. If we say that we have communion with him, and (yet) walk in darkness, we lie, and act not ac- cording to the truth. 7. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have communion one with another ; and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleansetli us from all sin. 8. If we say that we have 346 TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. no sin, we mislead ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9. But if we confess our sins, he is so faithful and just as to remit our sins,^ and cleanse us of all unrighteousness. 10. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. Chap. ii. 1. My little children, these things I write unto you that ye sin not, and when any man sins we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. 2. And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. CHAPTER II. 3 — 17. II. 3. And by this we recognize that we know him,* by keeping his commandments. 4. Whoever ^ Thus Luther, 1522, " darz er uns die Sünden erlasset." * It is not easy to translate this : The Greek words : KaJ iv TovTM yivcutrxof/,iv oti XyvuKKfjt.iv ccurov. Dr. Lücke renders : " Und daran erkennen wir, dasz wir ihn kennen," and these words I haA'e expressed in English as closely as I could. I think the Doctor would have better expressed the Greek original if he had said : Und daran kennen wir dasz wir ihn erkannt haben — in English : And by this we know that we have recognized (or rightly known) him. To me it appears evident, that, in the perfect tense lyvcuxafiiv there is a Hebraism, and that this tense is here emphatic, expressing a more accurate and perfect cogni- tion. I have before me a Spanish version (made from the Vul- gate), and I find it entirely supports my view : the Spanish vi^ords are : Y en esto sabemos, que le hemos conooido. Thus also the Portuguese version by Pereira : E nisto sabemos que o conhecemos. The Polish version of 1738, which is made from the Greek original, is here equally precise and accurate : '* A przezto iviemrj, z'es'mygo poznali." It v/ill appear in the Ap- pendix, that (Ecumenius seems to support my opinion — Transl. TRANSLATION OF TIIE FIRST EPISTLE. 347 says, I know him, and keepeth not his command- ments, is a liar, and there is no truth in him. 5. But whosoever keepeth his word, in him the love of God is perfected. By that we know that we are in him. 6. Vv'hosoever saj'^s that he abides in him, he must also walk as he hath walked.* 7. Brethren, I write unto you no new commandment ; but an old com- mandment, which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. 8. Again, a new com- mandment I write unto you, which is true in him and in you ; because the darkness is past, and the true light already shines. 9. Whosoever says, that he is the light, and hateth his brother, is still in dark- ness. 10. Whosoever loveth his brother abides in the light, and there is nothing objectionable (no of- fence) in him. 11. But whosoever hateth his brother, is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whether he is going, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes. 12. I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven on account of his name. 13. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him who is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have vanquished the evil one. I have written unto you, children, be- cause ye have known the Father. 14. I have writ- ten unto you, fathers, because ye have known him, who is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of * I have retained this Heljraism, apprehending that it would l;e missed if an appropriate English word were substituted. 348 TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. God abideth in you, and ye have vanquished the evil one. 15. Have no aiFection for the world, nor for that which is in the world. If any man has af- fection for the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the ostentation of life, is not of the Father, but of the world. 17. And the world and its lust passeth away ; but he who doeth the will of God abideth for ever. CHAPTER II. 18 — 28. II. 18. Children, this is the last hour, and as ye have heard that the antichrist is to come, so now many antichrists have arisen, by which we know that this is the last hour. 19. They went out from among us, but they were not of us ; for, if they had been of us, they surely would have remained with us : but it was to be made manifest, that they are not all of us. > 20. But you have the unction from him, who is holy, and ye know all things. 21. I have not written unto you, as if ye knew not the truth, but be- cause ye know it, and because ye know that no lie Cometh of the truth. 22. Who is a liar, if not he, who denieth that Jesus is the Christ ? Such an one is the antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23. Whosoever denieth the Son, hath not the Father, and whosoever confesseth the Son, hath the Father also. 24. Now, that which ye have heard from the beginning, let that abide in you. If that, which you have heard from the beginning abideth in you, you will also abide in the Son and in the Father. 25. And this is the promise which he has made unto us : it is TRANSLATION OF TUE FIRST EPISTLE. 349 the promise of eternal life. 26. This I have written unto you respecting those who seduce you. 27. And as to you, if the unction whicli ye have received of him remains in you, ye need not that any man shall instruct you ; but, as the unction instructs you re- specting all things, and as it is the truth itself and no falsehood, and as it has thus taught you, so do re- main in him ! 28. And now, little children, do abide in him, in order that when he shall appear, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before him at his coming. CHAPTER II. 29 — III. 10. II. 29. If ye know that he is righteous, ye also know that every one that doeth.righteousness is born of him. III. I. Behold what love the Father has shewn unto us, that we should be called the children of God ! Therefore the world does not recognise you,* because it knows not him. 2. Beloved, now we are God's children, and it is not yet manifested what we shall be. But this we know, that when it shall be manifested, we shall be like unto him, for we shall see him as he is. I and every one who hatli such a hope of him, purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 4. Whosoever committeth sin, does what is contrary to right (acts contrary to the law) for sin is that which is contrary to right (sin is against the law, * This difters from Griesbach's text (for he reads «^Sj and not i/ttaj), as well as also from the common versions ; yet this departure from the ordinary text is not accounted for in the Commentary : this makes me suspect that Euch is here only a misprint for Uns. — Transl. 350 TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. or contrary to the law). 5. And ye know that he was manifested, that he might take away our sins, and there is no sin in him. 6. He who abides in him sinneth not : whosoever sinneth hath learned nothing respecting him, and never known him. 7. Little children, let no man deceive you : whosoever doeth right is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8. Whosoever committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth from the be- ginning. For this purpose the Son of God has ap- peared, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9. Whosoever is born of God committeth no sin, for his (God's) seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10. By this are made manifest the children of God and the children of the devil. CHAPTER III. 10 24. III. 10. No man who doeth not what is right is of God, neither is he who does not love his brother. 11. For this is the message, which ye have heard from the beginning, that we shall love one another, and 12, not like Cain, who was of the devil and siew^ his brother. And why did he slay him ? because his works were evil, but his brother's works were righteous. 13. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. 14. We know that we have passed from death into life, because we love the brethren. Who- soever doth not love his brother abideth in death. 15. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer, and ye knov^^ that no murderer hath eternal life abiding ill him. IG. By this we have known love : (what it is), that he laid down his life for us. Thus we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17. TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. 351 But if some one hath the goods of this world, and sees his brother in distress, yet shuts up his ear to him,* how can the love of God be abiding in such an one? 18. My little children: let us not love with word and with tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19. Thereby also we recognise that we are of the truth, and by that too, we can tranquillize our hearts before him. 20. For, when our heart condemns us, know, that God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all. 21. Beloved, but when our heart con- demns us not, we have confidence toward God. 22. And whatsoever we ask we will receive of him, for we keep his commandments, and do what pleaseth him. 23. And this is the commandment, that we shall believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another as he hath commanded. 24. And whosoever keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in him. And his abiding in us we re- cognise b}'^ the spirit which he hath given us. CHAPTER IV. 1 — 6. IV. 1. Beloved, believe (trust) not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God ; for many false prophets have gone out into world. 2. By this '■ The Hebraism : " Shutteth up his bov/els from him," i« utterly incompatible with the idioms of western Europe : and the equivalent idiom here suljstituted seems to be judiciously chosen. It is t^ie non-recognition of a most important phi- lological principle, here followed by Dr. Lücke, which so great- ly detracts from the utility of the common versions of tlie Bible, and renders a thorough revision of them so highly necessary.— Transl. 352 TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. you know the Spirit of God : Every spirit that con- fesseth, that Jesus Christ hath appeared in the flesh, is of God ; 3. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ hath appeared in the flesh, is not of God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, of which ye have heard that it is to come, and which already is in the world. 4. Ye are of God, little children, and ye have vanquished such spirits, for he that is in you is greater than he that is in the world. 5. They are of the world, therefore they speak that which is of the world, and the world listens to them. 6. We are of God, and whosoever knoweth God, listenetli to us ; whosoever is not of God, listeneth not unto us. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. CHAPTER IV. 7. V. 5. IV. 7. Beloved, let us love one another ! for love is of God ; and every one who loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8. He vv'ho loveth not, doth not know God, for God is love. 9. In this the love of God towards us manifests itself, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world, in order that we might live through him. 10. In this the love con- sisted, not (in that) that we have loved God, but that he hath loved us, and hath sent his Son to be a pro- pitiation for our sins. 11. Beloved, if God hath thus loved us, we ought also to love one another. 12. No man hath ever beheld God. (But) if we love one another, God abides in us, and the love towards him is perfected in us. 13. By this we know that we abide in him and he in us ; by his having given TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. 353 US of his Spirit. 14. And we have beheld and bear witness, that the Father hath sent the Son to be the world's Saviour. 15. Now, whosoever confesseth that Jesus is the Son of God, in him God abides, and he in God. 16. And we have recognized and be- lieved the love which God hath towards us. God is love, and he who abides in love, abides in God, and God in him. 17. In this consummate love amongst us shews itself : in our having confidence (cheerful- ness), in the day of judgment, (because in so far as) even as he, so we also are in this world (viz. loving the brethren). 18. In love there is no fear, but per- fect love expelleth fear ; for fear is painful, but he who fears is not perfect in love. 19. Let us love him for he hath loved us first. 20. If any man say : I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar, for he who doth not love his brother, whom he sees, how can he love God whom he sees not? 21. And this commandment we have from him, that whosoever loveth God, must also love his brother. V. 1. Who- soever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And whosoever loveth the parent, who begat him, loveth also him who is begotten of the same parent. 2. We know by this, that we love God's childi-en ; by our loving God and keeping his commandments. 3. For this is the love to God : to keep his command- ments, and his commandments are not grievous. 4. For all that is born of God, overcometh the world, and our faith is the victory that hath vanquished the world. 5. (But) who is it that overcometh the world, if not he, who believeth that Jesus is the Son of God ? 2a 354 TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE CHAPTER V. 6 12. V. 6. This is he, who has come with the water, and the blood, even Jesus Christ — not with the water only, but with the water and the blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three bearing witness.^ 8. The spirit and the water, and the blood, and these three are one. ^ * 9. If we receive the testimony of '^ Luther has never translated the spurious words ver. 7, 8 ; he considered them as spurious. Dr. Bugenhagen, his friend, who assisted him iu the great work of translating the Bible, pronounced an anathema on the reception of the spurious pas- sage into Luther's Bible. It is certain that Feyerabend's Folio Edition of 1573, Avhich was made without any theological oi- ecclesiastical control, was the first that ever received the spu- rious words, and that lack of critical sincerity only, has tolerated and propagated the interpolation. Now, inasmuch as Luther's genuine version has ecclesiastical authority, and the spurious- ness of the words here omitted is now estabhshed beyond a doubt, we ought fiom henceforth, with conscientious strictness, and without mercy, to separate the forgery, or, at least, make the reader aware how the matter stands with regard to this passage. ' Thus Luther's version of 1522. * It is surprising Aat the very obvious difficulty of the text : tls TO 'iv tlffnt has scarcely been noticed by critics, although the idiom here is so manifestly corrupt, that even, if we demonstra- bly had the Apostle's own i\lS., we would be justified in here supposing a slip. E/V to 'iv uiriv is not only not Greek, but it is in accordance with no idiom whatever. The passages which have been considered as parallel, and which have l)eeu collected with great care from the Old and New Testament, for the pur- pose of justifying sli TO iv tlaiy: (iMatth. xix. 5; Gen. ii. 24; JMark X. 8; 1 Cor. iv. 0; vi. iG; xiv. 22; 2 Cor. vi. 18; TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. 355 men, the testimony of God (surely) is greater ; but God's testimony is, that which he hath given cou- cerning his Son. 10. He who belie veth in the Son of God, hath this testimony within himself. He who doth not believe God, maketh him a liar, because he believeth not the testimony which God hath given of his Son. 11. And this is the testimony that God Jerem. xxxi. 1 ; Ephes. v. 31), are of no force whatever, and have no application here : even their number is deceptive, for they do, in reality, amount to no more than two, the others be- ing quotations ; but, in these tvto, the construction is entirely different from the construction of our passage. It is true, how- ever, that the IM SS. which we have, read sis to 'iv ucnv, and tiiat some of the ancient versions seem to countenance such a read- ing: a weighty consideration this, no doubt, and it shews, at all events, that the error is very ancient : yet its force is not such as to make the critic hug a text equally otFensive to gi-am- mar and logic, more especially if we can shew, with the highest degree of probability, the word which the Apostle wrote or thought of. I can the less doubt that the Apostle wrotei'asr/y and not £/V/v, since this would not only make a perfectly good idiom, but most of the modern versions, lieing imable to make any sense whatever of tlffiv, have so twisted it as to give it here the sense of "ocffii : E. 100, sqq. in the Avork quoted above. ^^ In Rosenm. liistor. Interpret. Didymus is not even nien- tioned, although St. Jerome praises him as his teacher, and al- ways mentions him among those of whose commentaries he had made use in his own. But Richard Simon mentions him veiy honourably, although bi'iefly, in the Histoire des Princip. Com- ment, p. 456, 5, sqq. APPENDI?v. 367 hitherto, that considerable fragments of the Greek original have been preserved in the Scliol. Matthäi on the Catholic Epistles, a circumstance which is the more satisfactory, since by this means the sometimes corrupt and unintelligible text of the Scholia of Matthäi can be corrected by the Latin version, and it again, being often obscure and confused, by the Scholia. Now, we will here subjoin the most important of Didymus's interpretations referring to St. John's epistles, in juxtaposition with the Greek original from the corresponding Scholia. Didymus observes : p. 326, H.^^ on John i. 1, Multi per haec verba putant praesentiam Salvatoris post resurrectionem factam discipulis demonstrari, as- serentes, quia dixerit haec Joannes de se caeterisque discipulis, quia prius audierint, quoniam Dominus resurrexit, postea vero oculis suis inspexerint, ita ut contrectarent pedes et manus (cfr. Luc. xxiv. 39). — Alii vero profundius haec verba suscipiunt, eo quod non simpliciter dixerit, manus nostrae contrectave- runt, sed adiecerit, de verbo vitae ; iusuper et ii- lud: quod erat ab initio — and then he more ex- plicitly explains the passage, referring it to the per- sonal Logos. And with reference to the word nh he says, p. 327, H : " Singula namque creaturanmi aliquid esse dicuntur, ut et esse angelum, coelmii, solus autem Salvator est omnino, quod est, quo par- ticipantia universa veniunt ad essentiam. Hujus autem quiiibet auditum prius per introductionem '•^^ Quated according to the Bibl. T^'axima. 3GS APPENDIX. doctrinae suscipiens ad hoc venit, ut eum discipli- nabiliter possit iiispicere, post multam scilicet exer- citationem, quae contractio de verbo vitae vocatur. Qui utique vere dixit: Ego sum vita Exponitur autem etiam sic de eo, qui erat in principio, per legem audivimus et prophetas, quia venturus esset, hunc venientem aperte oculis nostris vidimus, non fatuite consentientes ei, qui in came visus est, sed cum multa contrectatione perscrutantes scripturas de ipso testimonia perhibentes : et ita credidimus de verbo vitae. The original of this passage from " singula namque" is easily recognised in the Schol. Matthäi, p. 213 : "Ey.affrov ruv ysw/iruv ri ihai Xsysrai, oifjv iivai ciyysXoc, sJvai riXtoc, ihai ovpavog. /xovog ds 6 GMTYto zc/.^d-7ra'^ uiv rvy^dvBi, ou /j.sTs^ovrot rd 'rdvra £/';. Dcraö^/i' 'ioy^zrai. Tovtov ^'aoocigiv 'ttdotb^ov xard s/Va- y(fjyrÄ7]v didaffKaXiccv ds^dfMvog rig so^irai,^^ sJg ro IdiTv avrbv srriffri^/j^ovix.ojg ßird 'rroXXriv yu/j.vaß/av, 7irig-^r^dj- fflov. The original to the observation on ii. 15, p. 328, E. : that, by xoff/Mog, not the physical world, but worldly-disposition, is to be understood, is to be found quite literal, as far as the words, " militare adversus animam designatur," in the Scholion of Matthäi, onver. 15, p. 218, fj^n dya-Trars — artfj^aivofMvT) di' i'Tr/^vf/j'iag ffccpzog, rrig (jT^arsvofjjSvr,g xaru Tr,g -^u^t^c, [xa/ b(p^rik[jjuv os-s^/;.] The words in brackets, which are unconnected with that which immediately pre- cedes, are an imperfect commencement of an expla- nation of 's<7:i^uf.ua TU)]/ d(p^aA,aujv, which runs thus in the translation : Ad haec autem oculorum coiicvpis- centia est omne, quod per aspectum ad dilectionem ir- rationalem usque perducit. The conclusion of the APPENDIX. 371 Scholion on ver. 15, b-ovarh hs — %«/ dyccTuv tov ^ebv, we find literally in Didymus, p. 328, G.: Possibile est ex preesentibus — permanet in 8eternum. What Didymus observes, p. 328, G. H. merits attention : Non de omnibus, qui fallacem doctrinam habent, haec scribuntur, sed de soils declinantibus ad falsam sectam post instructionem evangelicam, qui tamquam ex Christianis facti noseuntur antichristi. On ii. 29, the Schol. Matthäi, p. 221, literally corresponds with Didymus's explanation, p. 329, B. : Qui disciplinari- ter (IvT/öT'/j/y.owxwg) animadvertit (^dmX'-.^pojg) de Deo, qui substantialiter Justus est, mox seit, quoniam ex eo generatur, qui justitiam ejus facit. On iii. 2, the context is correctly and simply given by Didymus, p. 329, D. : Per ea, quae scribit — mundus corde con- sistens. On iii. 8, the Schol. Matthäi, p. 221, 222. precisely corresponds with Didymus's explanation, p. 339, B., respecting the devil's name and character, and the former may be completed, corrected, and explained from the latter : " Quoniam prae cunctis, (we should accordingly read r^o 'rrdvrojv,) diabolus versus est ad peccandum, ex eo nomen habet (s'rrnoi] ydo {■TT^C)) 'rdvruv r^arrstg 6 didßoXo; sv rip (slg to) d/JM.^- rdvsiv ysyo'^iv, s^ avrov yj^r^iMari^ii,) Diabolus ergo graeco vocabulo seductor sen accusator, vel deroga- tor significat, (probably is the Translator's observa- tion.) Et omnis, qui operatur peccatum, potest tali appellari vocabulo, (the Schol. quite brief: ^dc, o d- fj^aoTizoÖg, instead of which Cod. D. has d/xa^rrr/Sjg, probably more correct is d/jbas-iav sus^yuv.) Possibile enim (autem) hoc — etiam sic intelligi. Qui omni homine faciente peccatum diabolus per eum ab initio, 372 APPENDIX. habens principatum in eo, qui peccat, per submls- siones malignarum cogitationum, sicut in luda fac- tum, tum, cum mississet diabolus in cor ejus, etc. The Scholion : 'XPodo'/zTat yä^ sv rOi äfiocprdiovri 6/ v'TripßoX'^v, (instead of which, Matthäi rightly conjec- tured V'TToßoX'^r perhaps we should read 6/ V'TroßoXojv) y.oytff/jbojv TTor/j^ojv, ojg It/ rou 'lovda. Also the Scholion : g'j ds zai TO s/Vs/P, 'TToiojv, duX oh <7roir;(jag, rov /jjiravorjffav- rog o-j7i 'in ovrog sz diaßoXov, dXXd /JjOvov tou svs^yr/ffavTog avrrtv sri. we find in the very same words in Didy- mus, p. 330, F., where the last clause is thus more distinctly expressed ; sed ille sit ex eo, qui operatur ad peccatum. On s^ya toZ diaßoXov : Opera diaboli sunt ea, quae Satanse voluntate perficiuntur. On iii, 9, the Schol. Matthäi, p. 222, is almost entirely taken from Didymus, p. 330, H. to 331, B., only in the former, all is jumbled together, and in the lat- ter, it is put in its natural order : " Quia non possit peccare, qui ex deo natus est, etiam causam dixit. Idem dicens, (T-Ayuv in the Schol.) quia semen ejus in eo manet, quod divinitus venit. Hoc semen aut virtus est aut spiritus filiorum adoptionis, et si prop- terea peccare nequit, possibilitas haec naturalis non est. On iii. 12, the resolution of the construction is worthy of remark : " ne in maligno secundum Cain esse reperiamur, qui." — On iv. 1, the Schol. Matthäi, p. 224, corresponds very precisely with Didymus's explanation : " Quemadmodum ante adventum Chr. — ut alii quidem credamus, alii resistamus. By comparing the two, we find that the right reading of the Scholion is rr^osßXrj^^yjffav, not cr^6£xX^3'^(rc/>, (the translation has producti,) and that Matthäi, in the APPENDIX. 373 conclusion of tlie Scliolion, has rightly corrected rh /Av rb d'cy and put rut /ih — rSj bs. Didymus's explanation, why, and in what sense the plural, cn/sj/xara is here put, is deserving of notice : Idem spiritus in diversis describitur, qui eo participantur. — Possibile est, — et uniuscujusque sacri doctoris disciplinam spiritum ejus dici : there are also useful observations on ^svdo<7r^o.'/j\j^/g to mean the 7iotitia,) yiwarat Ix äsou — can be corrected and explained from the translation : non solam confessionem hujus de assumptione Chr. : — we, accordingly are to read, -tts^/ r^g raX) X. ävaKri-^ii^g, cfr. p. 333. H. dispensatione completa, etc. The Schol. Matthäi on v. 3, is again entirely taken from Didymus, page 333, H. 334. A. : Subsistentia et ut ita dicam materia caritatis a conversatione praesentis mundi. Chapter v. 14, St. John's idea is well explained. Chap. v. 18, 19, is also prudently explained, and secured against Manichean misappre- hension, p. 334, C. The Schol. Matthäi, p. 231, on V. 18, entirely corresponds with Didymus's observa- tions : so does also the Schol. on v. 1 9, according to the sense ; and that on v. 20, according to the very words, cfr. p. 334, F. and 335, A : Intellectus, quern dedit, — in quo cognoscit eum, — by which the Schol. is to be amended and explained. The Schol. on v. 21, too, is entirely taken from Didymus, p. 334, C. It may be seen that Didymus considered the epistle as a circular, and a truly Catholic epistle. He, how- APPENDIX. 375 ever, is acquainted with the other interpretation of sJdojXojv, according to which that word is supposed to denote idola facta el plasmata of the heretics. The Schol. Matthäi, p. 232, 233, on 2 John 6, we find, word for word, in Didymus, p. 335, C. F. : Quod enim actuales, — ambulat utique secundum mandata. Likewise the Schol. Matthäi on 3 John ll,cfr. Didy- mus, p. 336, A. B. Amongst all the Greek Commentaries which have been preserved on the Catholic Epistles, and parti- cularly on those of St. John, the most distinguished unquestionably is that of (Ecumenius, Bishop of Trikka, (circa, 960). The character of this interpre- ter is in general pretty well known. ^^ As I unfor- tunately had not access to his Commentary on St. John's Epistles, when I was preparing my Com- mentary on the First Epistle, I will here communi- cate his principal Scholia on it. ^^ The 'JTroasfr/c and the xs^aXa/a of CEcumenius are quite the same as those of Matthäi. Both are those of Euthales. On i. 1, CEcum. makes this remark : roZro 'TTPog 'lovda/oug zat 'apog " EXXyj'jac, o/ zai vs'Jjtspdv diaßdXXovffi to xaä' rj/jbag fjjUffrrjOiov, dsr/.rjffi ovv, wg 7i(xl 'TraXuiov rovrr. Grotius does also here suppose such an ''^^ See Rich. Simon Hist, des princ. comment, p. 458. Ro- senmiiller Hist, interpret. Tom IV. p. 2G3. Noesselt (Agus- tin) de catenis Patrum Graecorum, § IX. 25 Having in vain attempted to get into my possession tlie Paris Edition, Opp. CEcum. Ifi30. I have been obliged to make use of a less known edition of the Catholic Epistles, bearing title : Olxövf/.. \%yiyytffis s/V -ra; xxSoX/xaf J^iyoju. WitrroXcci ed. Earth. Coppen, Rostochiensis, Erankof. lölO. 376 APPENDIX. allusion ; but in this CEcum. differs from him, that by Xhyoc Trig «Jw^g, the latter understands the substan- tial Logos, John i. 1, sqq. In the ulterior demon- stration of the proposition, he seems to have made use of Didymus ; but is more concise and more clear. To fJJjg of the complicated proposition, ver. 1 — 3, he states to be as follows: o riv, — l-^l^yjXd^i^eav (which he explains like Didymus,) rrs^i rod Xoyov rrig ioi7\c, r\rtg Z^cari s(pavi0üü^7jy rjv xal soj^dxa/iisv Jtal fia^- T-jPOVfMsv 'Aai dTray'ysXXo/j.sv v/j^Tv, Xsyu ds rriv ^(ariv r7\v aiujviov, T^Tig hcriv (jiv) rrfog rov Tarsia xa/ s(pavs^u)^7i, TjfjjTv, — roiv'jv hc/jod/iafisv, rovro '/.at aitayyiWaiLiv vfjjTv^ hrav^a roivvv hriv yj d'TTodoffic, &c. where he makes this very good observation : that the proposition is to be explained from the Xi^^'^ ^^^ «ruvrsr/x^j/xsvoy Xoyov. Cap. i.4, he explains p^a^acrscrX^jP.asdenoting the joy arising from the communion with God. But he evidently read r.f/jojv, for he explains this passage also, as denoting the joy of the Apostles at the propagation of the gospel, as the reward of their official labours. On i. 5, he expresses himself in a manner similar to Didy- mus. On /xsr' aAATjXuv, i. 7, he observes : ot^Xov ds, on Trig xoivomag rj/j^ijüv ts zai tov (poiTog. The transition to Ticc/ TO aT/xa 'l. X. he thus explains : he considers the assurance of the atonement through Christ as a consolatory answer to the question : crw? 'ierai tovto rjfiTv, which question conscience, charging itself with sin, naturally proposes. On i. 8, 9, he shews the paraenetic point, in the emphatic repetition of the sentiment establishing the consciousness of sin. He says that this is St. John's didatic method, which is formed after the method of Jesus Christ. A/xce/o?, he says, APPENDIX. 377 denotes that God's attribute (his goodness) accord- ing to which he never repels a repentant sinner. Aoyog rov äsoo, i. 10, he explains as denoting God's word in the Old and New Testament. Chap. ii. 1, he correctly states the transition and the context. Chap. ii. 2, he remarks that ts^/ 6'Xou rou ■/.dciMu, either refers to the particularism of the Jews, who held that the heathens were excluded from salvation, or to the contrast betwixt those who al- ready had become Christians, and the fiWi^xiira 'ttuvtsc. On Tra^axXTjT-oc, he remarks, that it denotes rov v-tts^ rj/j^oov rov rrarspa '^a^azaXovvra,, r,Toi -Tr^or^s-o/MSMOv. 'Ai^- '^^oci'TTimrioov öS raura '/mJ Oixo'yo/Mzojrsoov uQTirai. On ii. 3, he first points out the connection of what fol- lows with i. 5, 6, and next he observes that St. John, in ii. 3, has used yivf^mnv first in its ordinary sense, (hi/ ro'oTix) yrj(J)G7io!Xi\>) afterwards in an emphatic sense, implying the xoivoy/ia, the dvaTt^äßtg t^oc riva (lyi/wxa/xsi/ rhv ^ih\ and he says, that it is St. John's manner, o/jjuvvfitaig ^pt^g^c/j xara ravrov. The transition from ii. 6, to what follows, he states thus : That here St. John speaks of love to the brethren, inasmuch as in it the love to God most distinctly shews itself. Oddly enough, he puts (poög --^hg rh äbiX rr^g zaodiag cru^/oi) xcV/./.w tu zaTcc T7]V s-TTt^'jijjiav T7)g ffcc^'/Jjg sKTsKov/MSva, d did, tojv c/.}(>'^riTrioicA)v, tt,]/ s-vßu'jjiav dvay.iveÜ. Aidyd^ tuv o^^aX/xwv, Tou KvPioTdTov Tojv aiü^riTY^oiw, xa/ ra Xo/ra '^rsoisXaßs APPENDIX. 379 By the äXa^onia, he understands to I-zp 'jrdv-ag shai v-TroßaAXovGyjg rr/g s-TTi^v'j/iagy ojg civ ddsojg crav to i-TrsÄ- %v 'Aarsoyaa^siri tui dXa(^6vi. Being attentive to the paraenetic objects of the epistle, he adds to ii. 17, ovz SOT/ ds (rüj:p^6vcijv, tu /mv kffTco-a zaTaO^ovyjTixojg crajo- ^av, Tojv ds d,(pavi^o/j.s'juv dvTiyjG^ai. Chap. ii. 18, Here he seems not correctly to apprehend the his- torical notion of the sVp/ar^j wW. After the manner of Chrysostom, he understands it to mean, the time sub- sequent to the Redeemer's advent, because crairw; tI a-iro Tov fLS6o\j 'ttolv 'iß-^ccrov "hsyid^ai ohbh d'rrsr/.o;. But he thinks it here may also be equivalent to to yjk'- GTov, w; orav (pafMv, iig IßyjxTov ä^lyiMai /caxöD. Chap. ii. 19, he does not apprehend the plain meaning of the text : he would here supply %ai '-ö^si/ oZtoi o'l d'^Ti- y^oiffTor but he thinks that St. John, perhaps, designs to express by the (jvyyucrig tov Xoyou to rrsoi avTovg di^dsg, M^hicli, certainly, would be odd enough. 'AXX' iva he thus supplies : viJy ös tovto 'Trs-ov'^affiv. The con- text and the transition from ii. 19 to ii. 20, 21, he thus propounds wö-vTscs/ 'iXsysv : ccÄXa r/ tcivto, rr^og •jfidg syoj dtst,'s^XOfxai, ujg 'jrsog dyvoowTag. Chap. ii. 22, he wishes, for perspicuity's sake, to supply -/.ai before Tig. Kcci, in the commencement of ver. 25, he takes in the sense of ydf. The s'Trayys/Ju he refers to John xvii. 21 and 23. Ver. 27 he construes so as to make /xsvirrs h a-oTO) an apodosis to the whole; but the irregular construction : ycai hiLctg to yjA^ijja.^ he re- solves thus : '/mI b;jjiTg — =-=/ to p/^/V/xa — /xsVs/, c\j y^^stoL^ 'iyjTi. Ver. 28, 29, lie displaj^s the context by sup- plying, betwixt the two verses, the question : Thja y.a- To^wA-OTeg svd^sGTOi avTui yhoivTo. To ver. 29 he adds the explanation : o d'r/.a.iog dr/Mwvg ysvvd. 380 APPENDIX. Oll chap. iii. 2, he gives the explanation: s/ os i^ri Tihri s^paviooj^r} rovro (viz. cV/ sJg v/oijg ^tou dv£?4^3?j//,£v) fMTi '^o^vßiTff'^i, TO yap vvv abrikov aP'/J sXtjX. he understands of the Lord's 'xaoo'oßia h ffa^zl. Chap. iv. 7. As/^ag r'tva, y^^yi dya.'Trclv, on rovg o/j^oior^o-rrovc, i'^srai Koi-ttov tcov st, d^ynric, sz TOV' '^sov slvai Xsyc/jv xai tyiV dyaTTiV xai rov dya,~cüvra. Chap. iv. 11, he thus states the context: E/ ouv o'jrcfjg rjyd'Trrjffsv rj^t^dg 6 '^sog, xairoi f^Tjöh sig (pbßiv avrui /ioivc/jvoijvrag, 'rroXXu) tXsov o(psiAo/xsv y.ai yjfJ^sTg rovg i'jjO- rovroj, he thus explains: wj sKsTvogrjv h ruJ 'ä6(J/JjOJ d/J^uifJ^og xa/ x.a'^a^og, cfr. John xiv. 30,) ovroo %ai ^fJ^sTg hofM^a iv rüj y.offfjjU). To yu^ sffrl noLi sff/j^sv '/lard d,vri^Pov/av ytiirai, Mg r'?\ yoa(pfi 'z^og. Relative to iv. 20, he has the following : s(piXzv(rTr/.ov yup ooa- (Sig slg dyü.-YiV. E/ ös rovro, o ro ,ad7.Xov s(psX-/,6/Mvov zig ayd-T'/jv 'Trap ovdh 'rrotov/xsi/og y.al rov ddsX(pov, ovsoopuks, {mti dya'iroiv^ crw; rov ^söv, ov ovy^ sojpazs, joi;, but tha.t all birth of God is effected by baptism, he here uses these words: ourog, &c. That the context of the whole accordingly is this : Since all that is born of God overcometh the world, the question arises ; crwg sysw'/;^?] ; A/' udccro;