From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain 1 to 3 John Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2017
List of All Sources
Quoted At End of File
CHAPTER 1
1:1 Translations
WEB: That
which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen
with our eyes, that which we saw, and our hands touched, concerning the Word of
life
Young’s: That
which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen
with our eyes, that which we did behold, and our hands did handle, concerning
the Word of the Life --
Conte (RC): He who
was from the beginning, whom we have heard, whom we
have seen with our eyes, upon whom we have gazed, and whom our hands have
certainly touched: He is the Word of Life.
1:1 That which. With the neuter “that which” the Socinian
interpretation [is] that “that which” means the doctrine of Jesus, and not the Incarnate
Word. [This] cannot stand: the verbs, “have seen,” “beheld,” “handled,”
are fatal to it. In using the neuter
John takes the most comprehensive expression to cover the attributes, words and
works of the Word and the Life manifested in the flesh. [23]
The reason why John uses the
neuter “that which” (which might
as well have been the English compound relative what,) instead of the masculine him whom, is because the heretics questioned
not that he, Christ, really appeared, but
questioned his nature. He was, they
said, a docetic, incorporeal phantom; or the Jesus
was a mere man upon whom the superhuman Christ descended and rested. [33]
By
those who wish to consider that this sublime utterance does not refer to a
person, but to such a thing as a manifestation or a revelation, stress has been
laid upon the neuter relative being used and not the masculine. [However] we cannot with any propriety be
said to handle a manifestation unless the manifestation is absolutely
identical with a person, which in this case it is. [42]
was from the
beginning. When everything
that ever had a beginning began, the Word was.
He had no beginning but was the eternally existing Son subsisting in the
bosom of the Father. [30]
In
the words “from the beginning,” the writer looks back to the initial point of
time, and describes what has been in existence from that point onward. Thus, “in the beginning” characterizes the
absolute divine Word as He was before the foundation of the world and at the
foundation of the world. “From the
beginning” characterizes His development in time. [1]
A possible Old Testament allusion:
Thus Proverbs 8:22, “The Lord
possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from
the beginning, or ever the earth was.”
If the Word was in the beginning, then it is right to say He was from
the beginning. He was in eternity and He
was from eternity. Before all things,
before men, before angels were brought into being, there the Word existed in
the bosom of the Father. [42]
Alternative interpretation: [This] means from the very commencement
of his manifestation as the Son of God, the very first indications on earth of
what he was as the Messiah. [18]
Argument that the usage of such language through the epistle makes it refer to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry [30]: There are several verses that support this interpretation. 1 John 2:7: “Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment, which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.” This refers to the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, the commandment given by Him. When was that given? From the beginning of Christianity, the beginning of the new dispensation. In other words, John was saying, “Do not take up with anything new; go back to that which was from the beginning of Christianity.”
Then read verse 1 John 2:14, “I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning.” He was writing to the “fathers” who had known Him from the beginning of this new age of grace. Then in verse 1 John 2:24 we read, “Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.”
In 2 John verse 5 we
find these words, “And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new
commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love
one another.” In other words, don’t fall
for something new. The message you
received at the beginning is the message you must cling to and is the message
that must abide in you. These passages
make it clear that this term “from the beginning” does not, as some have
thought, refer to eternity. It refers to
the start of a new era. [30]
Objections to this alternative: The meaning
of “beginning” must always depend upon the context. Here it is explained by “was with the Father”
in verse 2. It does not mean the beginning of the gospel,
or even of the world, but a beginning prior to that. It is equivalent to “from all eternity.” The Gospel is no new-fangled invention, as
Jewish and heathen philosophers contended.
The same Greek phrase is used in [the] LXX for “Art Thou not from everlasting,
O Lord my God?” (Habbakuk
He dwelt in eternity, He exists from the beginning. Unitarians and those who deny the eternal
preexistence of Christ make the expression “in the beginning” refer to the beginning of the gospel dispensation. But it is
evident from the term "manifested” in verse 2 that John refers to
something that had a prior spiritual existence, and then was manifested, became
open to the examination and testimony of the senses. The one manifested was also a person who had
been with the Father (verse 2). [51]
which we. John’s “we” includes Himself
personally, and all the apostles representatively, whose office it was to be witnesses of what Jesus said, and did, and
was. “We” apostles, are original authorities; whereas the heretics are
strangers, basing their speculations on third or fourth hand testimonies,
supplemented by their own fancies. And
as “we” saw His
miracles, heard His own account of Himself, and “handled” His very physical body, so
our account is original and ultimate, the first and last word. [33]
have heard. Attentively considered on various occasions. [2]
John was with the Savior through
the whole of his ministry, and He has recorded more that the Savior said than
either of the other evangelists. It is
on what He said of himself that he grounds much of the evidence that He was the
Son of God. [18]
With
this clause we pass from eternity into time. The first clause refers to something prior to
the Creation. Here both the Creation and
the Incarnation have taken place. [23]
which we have seen with
our eyes. Emphasizing the direct, personal experience. [1]
“Seen,” namely,
His glory, as revealed in the transfiguration and in His miracles; and His
passion and death, in a real body of flesh and blood. [4]
By
these expressions John intends to declare, emphatically, that he had every
conceivable means of knowledge that his testimony in respect to the life,
death, and resurrection, of Christ was true.
[12]
With all the language at his command he insists on the
reality of the Incarnation, of which he can speak from personal knowledge based
on the combined evidence of all the senses.
The Docetic heresy of supposing that the
Lord’s body was unreal, and the Cerinthian heresy of
supposing that He who “was from the beginning” was different from Him whom they
heard and saw and handled, is authoritatively condemned by implication at the
outset. In the Introduction to the
Gospel there is a similar assertion; “The Word became flesh and dwelt among
us—and we beheld His glory” (John
which we have looked
upon. Steadfastly,
deeply, contemplatively.
Appropriate to John's contemplative character. [4]
“Which we looked
upon with steadfast gaze.” The
word is the same that is used in Acts 1:11 of the apostles beholding the
ascension of the Lord. [48]
Why
this was important: That is what we want to know. We do not want to know what you have imagined
and speculated and doubted; we do not want a history of your mental wrigglings and turmoils and
tumults and terrors; we have enough of that kind of literature of our own; it
you can tell us what you saw and what you heard, let us hear it. [39]
and our hands have
handled. Heard . . . seen . .
. looked upon . . . handled. A gradation. Seeing
is a more convincing proof than hearing of; handling, than even seeing. [4]
The
reference is, probably, to handle me (Luke 24:39), and to John
The
apostles themselves were slow to believe the resurrection of Jesus. It was necessary that their eyes should see
and their hands handle. So, likewise,
when Peter was delivered from prison, and knocked at the gate where many
disciples were together praying, the damsel who came to hearken, “when she
heard Peter’s voice, opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how
Peter stood before the gate. And they
said unto her, Thou art mad” (Acts
As an indictment of an early
heresy:
That is, the evidence
that He was a man was subjected to the sense of touch. It was not merely that He had been seen by
the eye, for then it might be pretended that this was a mere appearance assumed
without reality; or that what occurred might have been a mere optical illusion;
but the evidence that He appeared in the flesh [and] was subjected to more
senses than one; to the fact that his voice was heard; that he was seen with
the eyes; that the most intense scrutiny had been employed; and, lastly, that
he had been actually touched and handled, showing that it could not have been a
mere appearance, an assumed form, but that it was a reality. This kind of proof that the
Son of God had appeared in the flesh, or that he was truly and properly a man,
is repeatedly referred to in the New Testament. Luke 24:39:
“behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and
see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.” Compare John
20:25-27. There is evident
allusion here to the opinion which early prevailed, which was held by the Docetes, that the Son of God did not truly and really
become a man, but that there was only an appearance assumed, or that he
seemed to be a man. It was evidently with reference to this opinion, which
began early to prevail, that the apostle dwells on this point, and repeats the
idea so much, and shows by a reference to all the senses which could
take any cognizance in the case, that he was truly and properly a man. The amount of it is, that we have the same
evidence that he was properly a man which we can have in the case of any other
human being; the evidence on which we constantly act, and in which we cannot
believe that our senses deceive us. [18]
of the Word of life. In view of the Prologue in John 1
(cf. especially “In him
was life”), this phrase is best taken as meaning “the life-giving Word” or
“Logos,” and not (as
The two alternative approaches to the text: The question
is whether λόγος is
used here of the Personal Word, as John 1:1, or of the divine message or
revelation. In the four passages of the Gospel where λόγος
is used in a personal sense (John 1:1, 14), it is used absolutely, the Word
(compare Revelation
1:2 Translations
WEB: (and
the life was revealed, and we have seen, and testify, and declare to you the
life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was revealed to us);
Young’s: and
the Life was manifested, and we have seen, and do testify, and declare to you
the Life, the age-during, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us
--
Conte (RC): And that Life has been made manifest.
And we have seen, and we testify, and we announce
to you: the Eternal Life, who was with the Father,
and who appeared to us.
1:2 (For the life was manifested. Thus
“as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life
in himself” (John
The
Word became flesh, contemplates simply the historic fact of incarnation. The life was manifested, sets forth the
unfolding of that fact in the various operations of life. [1]
“Was manifested” means became such that He could be
known by man. [23]
Jesus
Christ is here called the
Life, not only as having life
in himself, but as the author of eternal life, or that great and glorious
Person, who revealed, and will bestow, that immortal glory. [36]
and we have seen
it. This
repetition, or turning over the thought, is designed to express the idea with
emphasis, and is much in the manner of John.
See John 1:1-3. He is particularly desirous of impressing on
them the thought that he had been a personal witness of what the Savior was,
having had every opportunity of knowing it from long and familiar contact with
him. [18]
and bear witness. We
testify in regard to it. John was
satisfied that his own character was known to be such that credit would be
given to what he said. He felt that he
was known to be a man of truth, and hence he never doubts that faith would be
put in all his statements. See John
[We
give] testimony to the truth, with a view to producing belief in the Truth, on
which eternal life depends, is one of his frequent thoughts. But the frequency of “bear witness” in his
writings is much obscured in A.V., where the same verb is sometimes rendered “bear
record” (1 John 5:7), “give record” (
and shew unto you. The
Apostle emphatically reiterates that what he has to communicate is the result
of his own personal experience. “He that hath seen hath borne witness, and his
witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe” (John
that eternal life. Literally, “we have seen, and bear witness,
and announce to you the life, the eternal one, which was with the Father.” [42]
which was with the
Father.
“The which;” inasmuch as it was with the Father “from the beginning” (cf. 1 John 1:1; John 1:1). This proves the distinctness of the First and
Second Persons. [4]
and was manifested
unto us.)
It wasn’t hidden; it wasn’t kept covert. [rw]
1:3 Translations
WEB: that
which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have
fellowship with us. Yes, and our fellowship is with
the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
Young’s: that
which we have seen and heard declare we to you, that ye also may have
fellowship with us, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son
Jesus Christ;
Conte (RC): He whom
we have seen and heard, we announce to you, so that you, too, may have
fellowship with us, and so that our fellowship may be with the Father and with
his Son Jesus Christ.
1:3 That which we have seen and heard.
Referring either to what he purposes to say in this
Epistle, or more probably embracing all that he had written respecting Him, and
supposing that his Gospel was in their hands.
He means to call their attention to all the testimony which he had borne
on the subject, in order to counteract the errors which began to prevail. [18]
“We:” He does not
stand alone, but like him all the Apostles have heard, seen and handled, and
bear witness with him. [20]
That which we have seen. In 1 John
1:1 he is thinking mainly of what he
has to declare, viz. One existing from all eternity and intimately known to
himself: in 1 John 1:3 he is thinking mainly
of why he declares this, viz. to promote
mutual fellowship. [23]
and heard. From Jesus’ own lips. [rw]
declare we unto you. For the following purpose. [rw]
Where does John declare Him who was from the beginning and
was so well known to him and to others?
Not in this Epistle, for no such declaration is found in it; but in the
Gospel, which consists of such a declaration.
We shall miss the purport of the Epistle if we do not bear constantly in
mind that it was written as a companion to the Gospel. Parallels between the two abound: in what follows we have a striking one. Note the sequence of ideas: 1. the evidence on
which their conviction was based, “have seen;” 2. their
declaration of these convictions as Apostles, “bear witness;” 3. their
declaration of them as Evangelists, “declare.” [23]
that ye also may
have fellowship with us. In hearing, seeing, and handling of Christ in a
spiritual sense; and by enjoying the same privileges in God's house and family,
the same ordinances and spiritual provisions; joining and partaking with them
in all the immunities and advantages of a Gospel church state here; and by
being with them to all eternity hereafter.
[16]
What is fellowship with the Father
and with His Son Jesus Christ? It is but
little understood in its real meaning:
Fellowship means having things in common. [38]
“Fellowship:” The “sharing in
common,” “sharing,” “collective participation” in spiritual feelings, duties,
and privileges. The verse suggests that
fellowship with the apostles is the condition of true fellowship with
Christ. [45]
and truly our
fellowship is with the Father. Compare “that they may be one, even as We
are” (John
This grand fellowship,
that of the saints with the Father and the Son, is simply a guarantee
that no good thing will be withheld from us; that “all things are ours.” There is a fellowship of peace, of concord,
of eternal life and glory. [3]
and with his Son
Jesus Christ. The
repetition of “with” before the “Son” distinguishes the persons, while the
fellowship with both Father and Son implies their unity. It is not added, “and
with the Holy Spirit;” for it is by the Holy Spirit of the Father and Son in us
that we have fellowship with the Father and Son (cf. 1 John
In depth: The nature
of a Christian’s fellowship with the Father and Son [18]. That is, there was
something in common with him and God; something of which he and God partook
together, or which they shared. This
cannot, of course, mean that his nature was the same as that of God, or that in
all things he shared with God, or that in anything he was equal with God; but
it means that he partook, in some respects, of the feelings, the views, the
aims, the joys which God has. There was
a union in feeling, and affection, and desire, and plan, and this was to him a
source of joy. He had an attachment to
the same things, loved the same truth, desired the same objects, and was
engaged in the same work; and the consciousness of this, and the joy which
attended it, was what was meant by fellowship.
The fellowship which Christians have with God relates to the following
points:
(1) Attachment to the same truths, and the same
objects; love for the same principles, and the same beings.
(2) The same kind of happiness, though not in the
same degree. The happiness of God is
found in holiness, truth, purity, justice, mercy, benevolence. The happiness of the Christian is of the same
kind that God has; the same kind that angels have; the same kind that he will
himself have in heaven--for the joy of heaven is only that which the Christian
has now, expanded to the utmost capacity of the soul, and freed from all that
now interferes with it, and prolonged to eternity.
(3) Employment, or
cooperation with God. There is a sphere in which God works alone, and in
which we can have no cooperation, no fellowship with Him. In the work of creation; in upholding all
things; in the government of the universe; in the transmission of light from
world to world; in the return of the seasons, the rising and setting of the
sun, the storms, the tides, the flight of the comet, we can have no joint
agency, no cooperation with Him. There
God works alone. But there is also a
large sphere in which he admits us graciously to a
cooperation with Him, and in which, unless we work, His agency will not
be put forth.
This is seen when the farmer sows his grain; when the surgeon binds up a wound; when we take the medicine which God has appointed as a means of restoration to health. So in the moral world. In our efforts to save our own souls and the souls of others, God graciously works with us; and unless we work, the object is not accomplished.
This cooperation is referred to in
such passages as these: “We are laborers
together with God,” 1 Corinthians 3:9. “The Lord working with them,” Mark
(4) We have fellowship with God by direct
communion with Him, in prayer, in meditation, and in the ordinances of
religion. Of this all true Christians
are sensible, and this constitutes no small part of their special joy. The nature of this, and the happiness
resulting from it, is much of the same nature as the communion of friend with
friend--of one mind with another kindred mind--that to which we owe no small
part of our happiness in this world.
(5) The Christian will have fellowship with his
God and Savior in the triumphs of the latter day, when the scenes of the
judgment shall occur, and when the Redeemer shall appear, that He may be
admired and adored by assembled worlds.
1:4 Translations
WEB: And
we write these things to you, that our joy may be fulfilled.
Young’s: and
these things we write to you, that your joy may be full.
Conte (RC): And this we write to you, so that you may rejoice, and so that your joy may be full.
1:4 And these things write we unto you. Concerning the deity and eternity of Christ, the
Word and concerning the truth of His humanity, and the manifestation of Him in
the flesh; and concerning that eternal life and salvation which is declared in
the Gospel to be in Him; and concerning the saints' fellowship one with
another, and with God the Father, and with Jesus Christ. [16]
The
expression “these things” refers not simply to what has here been stated, but
to the contents of the entire Epistle. He
had already announced the general aim of the apostolic proclamations. [51]
On
the other hand:
The expression, “these things” (ταῦτα), is used
two hundred and forty-five times in the New Testament, and always, with half a
dozen exceptions, with reference to things preceding. The reader, coming to the word in our passage,
naturally thinks of the great things just mentioned by the writer. The “and,” introducing the statement, helps the
impression. [52]
write. The apostles heard, saw and
handled. We must read. [8]
that your joy. According to the better reading
and rendering, that our joy may be fulfilled. “Our joy” may mean either the Apostolic joy at the good results of Apostolic
teaching; or the joy in which the recipients of
the teaching share—“yours as well as ours.”
[23]
The apostle could not write these
words without having full in his memory, and in his heart, the Lord's own
thrice-repeated intimation of a similar sentiment in His farewell discourses
and farewell prayer: “These things have
I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be
full” (John 15:11); “Ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full”
(John 16:24); “These things I speak in the world, that they”—“those whom thou
hast given me”—“might have my joy fulfilled in themselves” (John 17:3). [37]
joy. Meaning
either their spiritual joy in this life, which has Christ for its object or
else it may intend the joy of the saints in the world to come, in the presence
of Christ, where are fullness of joy, and pleasures for evermore. [16]
The joy is that of knowing that,
though in the world, they are not of it, but are one with one another, and with
the Father and with the Son. The gospel
is always joy: “Rejoice always” (1
Thessalonians
may be full. By
full joy, he expresses more clearly the complete and perfect happiness which we
obtain through the Gospel; at the same time he reminds the faithful where they
ought to fix all their affections. True
is that saying, “Where your
treasure is, there will be your heart also” (Matthew
The last word is where the
emphasis of thought should be placed.
Small or partial joy may be possible from many different sources, but
the joy that can come from a faith in the only divine Son of God is full both
in the sense of being complete in its extent, and perfect in its quality. It will leave nothing that can reasonably be
desired further by a firm believer. [9]
This is almost the same language
which the Savior used when addressing his disciples as he was about to leave
them, John 15:11 [“These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy
might remain in you, and that your joy might be full”]; and
there can be little doubt that John had that declaration in remembrance when he
uttered this remark. [18]
In depth: “Joy” as a
benefit of adhering to Jesus [52]. The things just written [collectively]
produce supreme joy—joy, and not mere peace or happiness. A cardinal object of the ministry (2 Corinthians
1:5 Translations
WEB: This
is the message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is
light, and in him is no darkness at all.
Young’s: And
this is the message that we have heard from Him, and announce to you, that God
is light, and darkness in Him is not at all;
Conte (RC): And this
is the announcement which we have heard from him, and which we announce to you:
that God is light, and in him there is no darkness.
1:5 This then is the message.
“This” is the
predicate, as so often in John: “But the
judgment is this” (John
“Message”
includes the entire doctrine of the epistle. [33]
which we have heard
of him.
The phrase “of him” does not mean
respecting him, or about him, but from him; that is, this is what we received
from His preaching; from all that he said.
The peculiarity, the substance of all that He
said, may be summed up in the declaration that God is light, and in the
consequences which follow from this doctrine. He came as the messenger of Him who is light; He
came to inculcate and defend the truths which flow from that central doctrine,
in regard to sin, to the danger and duty of man, to the way of recovery, and to
the rules by which men ought to live. [18]
and declare unto
you.
What the Son had received from the Father, this the Apostles were to report to the world. [32]
Modern application: In fulfilling the
ministerial office, it is not sufficient that we set before our people the
evidences of Christianity, or inculcate the performance of some moral duties: we are messengers from God to men; and we must
“declare to them the message which we have received from Him.” We must not alter or conceal any part of that
which we have been commanded to deliver; but must make known the whole counsel
of God; and, having declared it with all plainness and fidelity, must urge the
acceptance of it with all the energy we possess. [5]
that God is light. Light was God’s garment in Psalms 104:2; to Ezekiel (Ezekiel
1:2), the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord was brightness;
to Habakkuk (Habakkuk 3:4), His brightness was as the light; Christ had called
the sons of God children of the light (John 12:36), and announced Himself as
the Light of the World (John 8:12); in the Hebrews (Hebrews 1:3), Christ was
the refracted ray of the Father’s glory, “the express image of His person;” to James,
the Almighty was the Father of all lights (James 1:17); to Paul, He dwells “in
the light that no man can approach unto” (1 Timothy 6:16); to Peter, the
Christian state is an admission “into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). [32]
Interpreted in broadest sense: The light of
wisdom, love, holiness, glory. What light is to the natural eye, that God is to the spiritual eye. [2]
The source whence all light,
whether it be physical, or moral or spiritual, comes;
the Enlightener of the universe. [3]
This denotes the perfection of
God; it excludes alike the evil and the worthless. [50]
Interpreted
in a narrower sense: Light,
as here contrasted with darkness, means not intellectual illumination (for
which cf. John
There are several of the divine
perfections which might be represented metaphorically by light. That holiness is the one here intended, is
evident from 1 John 1:7, where it
appears that it is an attribute of God, in respect to which men are bound to
conform to Him. [12]
Why Satan is called the prince of
darkness is sufficiently evident. When,
therefore, God on the other hand is called the Father of light, and also light,
we first understand that there is nothing in Him but what is bright, pure, and
unalloyed; and, secondly, that he makes all things so manifest by his
brightness, that he suffers nothing vicious or perverted, no spots or filth, no
hypocrisy or fraud, to lie hid. Then the
sum of what is said is, that since there is no union between light and
darkness, there is a separation between us and God as long as we walk in
darkness; and that the fellowship which he mentions, cannot exist except we
also become pure and holy. [27]
and in him is no
darkness at all. No contrary principle. He is pure, unmixed light. [2]
Strong
negation: “no, not even one speck of
darkness”; no ignorance, error, untruthfulness, sin, death. [4]
Or, retaining the telling order of the Greek, and darkness in
Him there is none at all.
This antithetic parallelism is characteristic of John’s style. He frequently emphasizes a statement by
following it up with a denial of its opposite.
Thus, in the next verse, “We lie, and do not the truth.” Compare “We lead ourselves astray, and the
truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8); “Abideth in the
light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him” (1 John
In depth: “Light” as
representing the essence of God [24]. That
God is, in His very nature, light, is an announcement peculiar to John. Others tell us that He is the Father of
lights (James
Of all phenomena it best
represents the elements of all perfection.
"This word 'light' is at once the simplest and the fullest and the
deepest which can be used in human discourse.
It is addressed to every man who has eyes and who has ever looked on the
sun." It tells not only “of a
Goodness and Truth without flaw; it tells of a Goodness and Truth that are
always seeking to spread themselves, to send forth rays that shall penetrate
everywhere, and scatter the darkness which opposes them” (Maurice).
In like manner, darkness sums up
the elements of evil—foulness, secrecy, repulsiveness, and gloom. In all but the lowest forms of existence it
inevitably produces decay and death.
Everything of the kind is excluded from the nature of God. And hence John, in his characteristic manner,
immediately emphasizes the great announcement with an equivalent negative
statement: “Darkness in him there is not
any at all.” He does not say, “in his presence,” but “in Him.” Darkness exists, physical, intellectual,
moral, and spiritual; there is abundance of obscurity, error, depravity, sin,
and its consequence, death. But not a
shade of these is “in him.” The Divine
Light is subject to no spots, no eclipse, no twilight, no night; as a Source of
light it cannot in any degree fail.
In depth: The cycle
of thought from 1:5-2:28 [6]. If “God is light” (1:5),
how is fellowship to be maintained with Him (1 John 1:6-7)? [By walking in the light.] If fellowship is to be maintained by walking
in the light, how may we walk in the light?
1.
By perceiving and confessing sin in the faith of Jesus Christ (1 John
1:8-2:2));
2. By keeping
God’s commandments (1 John 2:3-8);
3. Especially the
commandment of love to the brethren (1 John 2:9-14);
4. This keeping of
God’s commandments is incompatible with the love of the world (1 John
5. It is
incompatible with the fellowship of false teachers (1 John
1:6 Translations
WEB: If we
say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and
don't tell the truth.
Young’s: if we
may say -- 'we have fellowship with Him,' and in the darkness may walk -- we
lie, and do not the truth;
Conte (RC): If we claim that we have fellowship with him, and yet we walk in darkness, then we are lying and not telling the truth.
1:6 If we say. “If,” here
with the subjunctive, presents a supposable condition, an “objective possibility”
(Winer). “If we
say”—that is, I, you, or any one else. [52]
Either with our tongue, or in our heart, if we
endeavor to persuade either ourselves or others. [2]
that we have
fellowship with him. If any profess to be partakers of the divine nature,
to be like unto God, and to have communion with Him, to have the light of His countenance, and the
discoveries of His
love. [16]
“Communion with God is the
very innermost essence of all true Christian life.” -- Luther [47]
and walk. Either inwardly or
outwardly. [2]
A familiar
Scriptural figure to describe a regular course of life. [10]
For walking as a description of
the spiritual state, compare 1 John 2:6; 2 John verse 6; Romans 6:4, 8:4; Ephesians 4:17; Philippians 3:20. [32]
Walking implies continuance. It does not mean fall into some sin through
stress of temptation or through being momentarily off one’s guard, but it means
habitual, and we may say, willful commission, for walking implies some
determination. [42]
in darkness. Live
in sin. [12]
Darkness would include any
conscious habit which was opposed to God’s example of perfection. [32]
Or: This
“walking in darkness” does not mean necessarily to live in vice or immorality,
but to pursue the daily task without reference to the will of God, to live
according to worldly standards, to seek selfish goals, to exclude the light
offered in Christ; this is to make impossible our fellowship with God. [44]
we lie. It is a contradiction, the
thing is impossible and impracticable. [16]
The [core] heresy of the errorists; claiming that divine communion is perfectly
compatible with wicked conduct; professing that they “know God,” and are
thereby relieved from all obligation to do right. [33]
It is impossible to twist the multiplication table
into the utterance of an untruth; it is just as impossible to harmonize a life
that rejoices in sin with a life that has a fellowship with God. Godliness is holiness. [51]
and do not the
truth.
Our actions prove, that the truth is not in us. [2]
[We] do not act
consistently with truth. [12]
We must both practice and believe the truth
for either to do us any good: One man hopes to be saved by his
works, while he disregards faith in Christ: another hopes
that his faith will save him, though it never produce good works. But both of these deceive their own souls:
for no man can do such works as the Gospel requires, unless he embrace the
truths which it reveals: and, if he could do them, they would be utterly
insufficient to justify him before God.
On the other hand, “the faith that is without works, is dead:” and as it
differs not from the faith of devils, so will it bring us no better portion
than theirs. Knowledge is necessary to
produce holiness; and holiness is necessary to evince that our knowledge is
truly spiritual and saving. It is not by
separating them from each other, but by uniting them together, that we are to
“walk in the light as God is in the light.”
[5]
1:7 Translations
WEB: But
if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one
another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.
Young’s: and if
in the light we may walk, as He is in the light -- we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son doth cleanse
us from every sin;
Conte (RC): But if
we walk in the light, just as he also is in the light, then we have fellowship
with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all
sin.
1:7 But if we walk in the light.
Which is a continued and progressive motion, i.e. do
persevere and improve in holiness. [14]
In all
languages, light is the natural symbol for three things: knowledge, joy, purity. John’s intense moral earnestness makes him
mainly sensitive to the symbolism which makes light the expression, not so much
of knowledge or of joy, as of moral purity.
And although that is not exclusively his use of the emblem, it is
predominately so, and it is so here. To
“walk in the light” then, is, speaking generally, to have purity, righteousness,
goodness, as the very element and atmosphere in which our progressive and
changeful life is carried on. [31]
as he is in the
light. The “as,” as Bishop Alexander says, here expresses similitude, not
equality. Thus Paul: “Ye were sometime darkness, but now are in
light in the Lord: walk as children of
light. For the fruit of the spirit is in
all goodness and righteousness and truth” [Ephesians 5:8-9]. [42]
we have
fellowship one with another. i.e. with other
Christians, the result of fellowship with God.
[7]
There are plenty of other bonds
that draw us to one another; but these, if they are not strengthened by this
deepest of all bonds, the affinity of souls, that are
moving together in the realm of light and purity, are precarious, and apt to
snap. Sin separates men quite as much as
it separates each man from God. It is
the wedge driven into the tree that rends it apart. [31]
Or: Not with the
saints, with the apostles, and other Christians, but with God: “we have mutual communion,” as the Arabic
version renders it; God with us, and we with Him. Some copies read “with him,” as in 1 John 1:6; and such a reading the
sense requires; and agreeably to this the Ethiopic version renders it, “and we
are partakers among ourselves with him;” that is, we all jointly and mutually
appear to be like Him, and partake of His nature, and have communion with Him. [16]
Or both envolved: In
fact the one idea implies the other.
They are inseparable. [21]
and the blood of
Jesus Christ his Son. This is included both because it is true and to protect against the
delusion that our moral purity alone is of such a quality that it could
possibly result in our forgiveness of sins standing by itself and alone. [rw]
his Son. Not redundant: (1) it is a passing contradiction of Cerinthus, who taught that Jesus was a mere man when His
blood was shed, for the Divine element in His nature left Him when He was
arrested in the garden; and of the Ebionites, who
taught that He was a mere man from His birth to His death; (2) it explains how
this blood can have such virtue: it is the blood of One who is the Son of
God. [23]
cleanseth us from all sin. The principle of sin in all its forms and
manifestations; not the separate manifestations. Compare all
joy (James 1:2); all patience (2 Corinthians
Taking away all the guilt and all the power. [2]
The present tense denotes a
continuous process—the progressive sanctification of the believer's soul. [7]
“For
this is the virtue of the Lord’s blood, that such as it has already purified
from sin, and thenceforward has set in the light, it renders thenceforward
pure, if they continue steadfastly walking in the light” (Tertullian, De Mod. XIX.).
One who walks in spiritual darkness cannot appropriate that cleansing
from sin, which is wrought by the blood of Jesus, shed on the cross as a
propitiation for sin. [23]
1:8 Translations
WEB: If we
say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Young’s: if we
may say -- 'we have not sin,' ourselves we lead astray, and the truth is not in
us;
Conte (RC): If we claim that we have no sin, then we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin. Whether “we say” by denying we have
done wrong, or by affirming that no wrong we commit is “sin.”
[33]
To say
that we have reached a sinless state in which we no longer need the blood of
Christ to cleanse us is a deception. This
language is in square opposition to the claims of the “Perfectionists” of all
ages. [3]
Confession of sins flows from
“walking in the light” (verse 7). “If thou shall confess thyself a sinner, the
truth is in thee; for the truth is light.
Not yet has thy life become perfectly light, as sins are still in
thee; yet thou hast already begun to be illuminated, because there is in
thee confession of sins” (Augustine). [4]
“We:” John
includes himself in this statement. [52]
we deceive
ourselves.
Not God (Galatians 6:7): we only make ourselves to err. [4]
Literally, “lead ourselves
astray.” [7]
No test is propounded in regard to
this wicked pretension. None was needed
since they must of necessity soon be found out. They were deceiving themselves,
and John tells them so plainly. They
would hardly deceive anyone else; and if for a moment they did, the deception
would soon be dispelled by sin being manifested in them all too plainly. [8]
and the truth. On this subject. [18]
Using the immediate subject as representative of a
broader problem of theirs: i.e.
the system and frame of gospel doctrine, as 2 John 1:1. [14]
is not in us. Neither in our mouth nor in our
heart. [2]
Perfectionism has two causes: (1) The
stifling of conscience: “we make Him a liar, i.e., turn a deaf ear to His
inward testimony, His voice in our souls. (2) Ignorance
of His Word: it “is not in us.” Such a delusion were
impossible if we steeped our minds in the Scriptures. Consider the lapses of the saints, e.g., David, Peter. [21]
[In]
some
cases the claim arises from a mistaken definition of sin, referring it to some
flagrant act alone. Sometimes there is a
lack of knowledge of one's own heart, so that a proud self-sufficiency arises. [51]
1:9 Translations
WEB: If we
confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and to
cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Young’s: if we
may confess our sins, stedfast He is and righteous
that He may forgive us the sins, and may cleanse us from
every unrighteousness;
Conte (RC): If we
confess our sins, then he is faithful and just, so as to forgive us our sins
and to cleanse us from all iniquity.
1:9 If we confess our sins.
Man acknowledges, God forgives. [25]
Note
the plural, as compared with the singular, sin, in the previous verse. The plural indicates that the confession is
to be specific as well as general. [1]
There must be no keeping
back. We must plainly say to ourselves
what we have done; we must write down in blackest ink everything we have done
that is wrong. By no euphemism, by no
crafty ambiguity of expression, are we to avoid the devil that we have created
within ourselves. He must be delineated,
portrayed, graphically, lineally, appallingly; and when we see the hideous
sight we must say, My transgression is ever before me:
God be merciful to me a sinner! [39]
Admission
of guilt and personal responsibility to others: It is a
great mistake to suppose that confession of any wrong which we have done to our
neighbor is not a confession to God. It
is confession to God if done as in His sight and with a view to His approval
and the reception of His grace. [42]
Confession
needs to go hand-in-hand with the effort to change rather than be a substitute
for it:
To confess our sins would be of no value if it led to
nothing more. To confess our sins
without lamenting them or to lament them without striving to correct them,
would be an abuse of God’s mercy. To
argue, God is merciful: if we confess
our sins, He will forgive our sins—therefore we need use no diligence to keep
ourselves pure from sin;--this would be to turn the grace of God into a reason
for [further] offending Him. The
Christian confesses his sin not because he is satisfied with it, but because he
is striving against it; because he sets before him a standard which he has not
reached, yet can never be contented without reaching. [46]
he is faithful. To His promises. He
will do what He has assured us He will do in remitting them. [18]
Having promised this blessing by the unanimous voice of all his
prophets. [35]
and just. He is “just” and accordingly treats
differently him who confesses his sins from him who claims that he has no
sins. [41]
The word “just” here cannot be
used in a strict and proper sense, since the forgiveness of sins is never an
act of justice, but is an act of mercy.
But the word “just” is often used in a larger sense, as denoting
upright, equitable, acting properly in the circumstances of the case, etc. Here the word may be used in one of the
following senses:
(1) Either as referring to His general excellence
of character, or His disposition to do what is proper; that is, He is one who
will act in every way as becomes God; or,
(2) That he will be just in the sense that He
will be true to His promises; or that, since He has promised to pardon sinners,
He will be found faithfully to adhere to those engagements; or perhaps,
(3) That He will be just to His Son in the
covenant of redemption, since, now that an atonement has been made by Him, and
a way has been opened through His sufferings by which God can consistently
pardon, and with a view and an understanding that He might and would pardon, it
would be an act of injustice to Him if He did not pardon those who believe on Him.
Viewed in either aspect, we may
have the fullest assurance that God is ready to pardon us if we exercise true
repentance and faith. No one can come to God without finding him ready to do
all that is appropriate for God to do in pardoning transgressors; no one who
will, in fact, not receive forgiveness if he repents, and believes, and makes
confession. [18]
to forgive us our
sins.
Freely,
fully, forever. [47]
This
is not a repetition in different words; it is a second and distinct result of
our confession: 1. We
are absolved from sin’s punishment; 2. We are freed from sin’s pollution. The forgiveness is the averting of God’s
wrath; the cleansing is the beginning of holiness. [23]
forgive . . . and to cleanse. “Forgive” refers to
the remission of punishment, “cleanse” to the removal of pollution. [7]
and to cleanse us
from all unrighteousness. All without exception; why
then should we put in conditions, and as it were interline God’s covenant? He is a sin pardoning God, Nehemiah 9:31; no God like him for
that in heaven and earth, Micah 7:18;
He multiplieth pardon, as we multiply sin, Isaiah 55:7; He doth it freely, for His
own sake, naturally, Exodus 34:6;
constantly, Psalms 130:4. [25]
In depth: How
specific does the confession need to be [9]? This
does not say that we are to confess that we have sins for that would be so
general that it would be virtually no confession at all; the sins themselves is
what we are to confess. Sometimes
persons will come forward in a meeting saying they wish to make a confession,
and when given the opportunity will say, “I have not been living as I should.” That does not confess any sin as our verse
requires. It may be replied that David
made that sort of confession to the prophet because all he said was, “I have
sinned.” That is true but it was
after his sin had been pointed out so that his statement was an acknowledgment
of the specific sin. It was like the
action of a jury that says, “We find the
defendant guilty as charged” without naming any particular misdeed. If a disciple does not know of anything wrong
he has done then he has none to confess. Should he have some faults of which he is not
aware, verse 7 of this chapter will take care of them. If he has committed sins which only he and
the Lord know about, then he needs only to make his confession to Him.
Alternative approach: Not to one other; for though it is our duty to confess our faults to our fellow creatures and fellow Christians which are committed against them, yet are under no obligation to confess such as are more immediately against God and which lie between Him and ourselves; or at least it is sufficient to confess and acknowledge in general what sinful creatures we are, without entering into particulars; for confession of sin is to be made to God, against whom it is committed, and who only can pardon. [16]
WEB: If we say that we haven't
sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Young’s: if we
may say -- 'we have not sinned,' a liar we make Him, and His word is not in us.
Conte (RC): If we
claim that we have not sinned, then we make him a liar, and his Word is not in
us.
“I deceive myself, and the truth
is not in me." I am fast sinking
into my old natural habit of evasion and equivocation, of self-excuse and
self-justification. “Guile” is taking
the place of “truth,” the truth of God, “in my spirit,” “in my inward
parts.” I cease to be as sensitively
alive as I once was to whatever in me or about me cannot stand the light. I am thus incurring a serious hazard; the
hazard of being again found walking in darkness, and so disqualifying myself for fellowship with Him who is light. And I am apt to lose a very precious
privilege: the privilege of continual
and constant confession, in order to continual and constant forgiveness. [37]
we make him a
liar.
God says we have sinned. He declares “There is none righteous; no, not
one.” Hence, if we affirm that we are
sinless we make God a liar. [3]
Our sinfulness is so
obvious—except to the self-blinded—that in denying its existence we are not
only deluded but add an implicit insult to God as well. [rw]
Self-deception is so fearful because it will progress to the denial
of the truth and the truthfulness of God and His Word, even to open and formal
blasphemy: we lie, 1 John 1:6; we deceive
ourselves, 1 John 1:8; we make God a liar, 1 John 1:10. [20]
and his word is
not in us.
Since He has in so many ways declared that the conduct
and characters of all men are entirely inconsistent with the requirements of His
law. [12]
If there is one thing more clearly revealed in God’s word than another, it is that we have a constant warfare to maintain. Now the man who says that he has not sinned gives the lie to all such declarations as “Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day;” “be sober and vigilant, because your adversary the devil [walketh about seeking whom he may devour];” “Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God; toward them that fell severity, but towards thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness.” Such words of warning and severity are not [found in such a] man. He denies their relevancy as regards himself and as these words are God’s words, he practically makes God a liar. [42]
In depth: Our very human tendency to judge ourselves of better character than we really are—ways to rationalize our effective sinlessness while never explicitly claiming it [46]. There are few who would plainly state it. But without asserting so in plain terms, there are many ways of practically saying it.
To excuse our offences against the Divine law, on the plea of a corrupt or weak nature, and to pretend that we are as free from blame as that nature would allow:--this is one way of saying that we have no sin. And whoever does so deceives himself. Has he studied to amend that nature by all the means which God has put into his power? To “purify his heart through the Spirit?” To “keep his body in subjection?”
Others
form to themselves a law and profess to be governed by it, and say they have
no sin [in the sight of God], if they keep within the boundaries of their
law of their own. They set up an
imaginary charity and an imaginary sincerity—some standard of duty fixed by themselves—and with this they are satisfied. Like the Pharisees, who devoted to some other
purpose the money which might have assisted their needy parents, and then
thought themselves free from the obligation of the commandment, “Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother” (Mark
BOOKS/COMMENTARIES
UTILIZED IN THIS STUDY:
All commentaries are in the public domain; the copyright
having expired or never been on them.
1 Marvin R.
Vincent, D.D. Word
Studies in the New Testament.
1886. Internet edition.
2 John Wesley. Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible. 1754-1765. Internet edition.
3 Barton Johnson. People’s New Testament. 1891.
Internet edition.
4 Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole
Bible. Unabridged
edition. Internet
edition.
5 Charles Simeon. Horae Homileticae.
1832. Internet edition.
6 James Gray. Concise Bible Commentary. 1897-1910. Internet edition.
7 John Dummelow,
editor. Dummelow’s
Commentary on the Bible. 1909. Internet edition.
8 Frank B. Hole. Old and New Testament
Commentary. Internet edition.
9 E. M. Zerr. Commentary on Selected
Books of the New Testament. Internet edition.
10 Arthur Peake. Commentary on the Bible. 1919.
Internet edition.
11 John A. Bengel. Gnomon of the New
Testament. 1897. Internet edition.
12 John S. C. Abbott. Illustrated New
Testament. 1878. Internet edition.
13 Joseph Sutcliffe. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments.
1835. Internet edition.
14 Matthew Poole. English Annotations on
the Bible. 1685. Internet edition.
15 Paul E. Kretzmann. Popular Commentary. 1921-1922. Internet edition.
16 John Gill. Exposition of the Entire
Bible. 1746-1763. Internet
edition.
17 Adam Clarke. Commentary. 1832.
Internet edition.
18 Albert Barnes. Notes on the New
Testament. 1870. Internet edition.
19 Heinrich Meyer. Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the New Testament.
1832. Internet edition.
20 Johann P. Lange. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical. 1857-1884. Internet edition.
21 William R. Nicoll,
editor. Expositor’s Greek Testament. 1897-1910. Internet edition.
22 Henry Alford. Greek Testament Critical
Exegetical Commentary.
1863-1878.
Internet edition.
23 Alfred Plummer.
24 The Pulpit Commentary. 1897.
Internet edition.
25 John Trapp. Complete Commentary. Lived 1601-1669. 1865-1868 reprinting. Internet edition.
26 William Godbey. Commentary on the New Testament. Internet edition.
27 John Calvin. Commentary on the Bible. Internet edition.
28 Joseph C. Philpot (1802-1869). Commentary on Select
Texts. Internet
edition.
29 George Haydock
(1774-1849). Catholic
Bible Commentary. Internet edition.
30 H. A. Ironside. Ironside’s Notes on Selected Books. 1914.
Internet edition
31 Lost source; rather than delete the
material, I felt it better to simply list the unidentifiable volume and admit
my error.
32 Charles J. Ellicott, editor. Ellicott’s
Commentary for English Readers. Internet edition.
33 Daniel D. Whedon. Commentary on the Bible. Internet edition.
34 Philip Schaff,
editor. Schaff’s
Popular Commentary on the New Testament.
Internet edition.
35 Joseph Benson (born 1748). Commentary of the Old
and New Testaments. Internet edition.
36 Thomas Coke (published 1801-1803). Commentary on the Holy
Bible. Internet
edition.
37 Robert S. Candlish. The First Epistle of John Expounded In A
Series of Lectures. 1877 edition. Internet edition.
38 Arno C. Gaebelein. The Annotated Bible.
Internet edition.
39 Joseph Parker. The People's Bible. Internet edition.
40 Thomas Scott. Commentary on the Bible. Volume Six. Fifth Edition. London:
L. B. Seeley et al, 1822.
41 Bernhard Weiss. Commentary on the New
Testament. Volume
Four.
42 M. F. Sadler. The General Epistles of
SS James, Peter, John and Jude.
43 [Robert S. Hunt?] The
Cottage Commentary: The Epistle to the
Hebrews and the General Epistles.
44 Charles
Erdman. The General Epistles: An Exposition.
45 W. H. Bennett. The Century Bible: The General Epistles—James, Peter, John, and
Jude.
46 John B. Sumner. A Practical Exposition
of the General Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude.
47 James C. Gray. Biblical Museum: Hebrews to the End of the New Testament.
48 William G. Humphry.
A Commentary on the
Revised Version of the New Testament.
49 Revere F. Weidner. The Lutheran Commentary: Annotations on the General Epistles of James,
Peter, Peter, John, and Jude.
50 A Short Protestant Commentary on the
New Testament. Volume
3. Translated
from the Third German Edition.
51 O. P. Eaches.
52 Henry A. Sawtelle. Commentary on the
Epistles of John.