From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain 1 to 3 John Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2018
List of All Sources
Quoted At End of File
CHAPTER 2:1-14
2:1 Translations
WEB: My little children, I write
these things to you so that you may not sin. If anyone sins, we have a
Counselor with the Father, Jesus Christ, the
righteous.
Young’s: My
little children, these things I write to you, that ye may not sin: and if any
one may sin, an advocate we have with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous
one,
Conte (RC): My
little sons, this I write to you, so that you may not sin. But if anyone has
sinned, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the
Just One.
2:1 My little children. Τεκνίον, little child. Used as a
term of affection, or possibly with reference to the writer's advanced age. [1]
This
expresses the warm feeling of a father’s heart, but at the same time it claims
filial respect. [50]
So the apostle frequently addresses the whole body
of Christians. It is a term of
tenderness and endearment, used by our Lord himself to His disciples, John
13:33. [2]
It is probable that John was the
only surviving apostle when he wrote this epistle and probably was the oldest
Christian on earth at that time; none could ever with such propriety adopt
[this language.] [40]
these things write I
unto you.
Concerning the purity and
holiness of God, who is light itself; concerning fellowship with him, which no
one that lives in sin can have. [16]
Probably refers to the preceding paragraph (1 John
1:5-10) rather than to what follows. On
the one hand they must beware of the spiritual pride which is one of the worst
forms of sin: on the other they must not think that He is bidding them
acquiesce in a state of sin. [23]
that ye sin not. Thus he guards them beforehand against abusing the
doctrine of reconciliation. [2] [35]
The
Apostle is not giving a command, but stating his reason for writing
thus; in
order “that ye may not sin.” That is his aim; to lead them onward to
perfect holiness, to perfect likeness to God. Those who are on the one hand warned of their
liability to sin, and on the other are told of what cleanses them from sin, are
put in the way towards this high ideal. [23]
And if any man sin. Everyone that believes in Christ, and is justified
through His righteousness, and pardoned by his blood; everyone of the little
children; for the apostle is not speaking of mankind in general who sin, for
Christ is not an advocate for all that sin, but of these in particular. [16]
The moment a believer becomes
self-occupied, undisciplined, and negligent in prayer, he sins. Remember that sin consists not only in doing
overt evil acts, but also in not doing the good that you know you
should. “To him that knoweth
to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James
He adds, at once, a ground of consolation to those
who fall under the
power of temptation, and commit sins of infirmity, of
ignorance, of weakness. Had John stopped
with his exhortation, the believer might be tempted to despair. [51]
we have. The change from the indefinite third person, any
man, to the first person, we have, is significant. By the we
have, John assumes the possibility of sinful acts on the part of Christians, and
of himself in common with them, and their common need of the intervention
of the divine Advocate. So Augustine: “He said, not ‘ye have,’ nor ‘ye have me,’ nor
‘ye have Christ himself;’ but he put Christ, not himself, and said ‘we have,’
and not ‘ye have.’ He preferred to place
himself in the number of sinners, so that he might have Christ for his
advocate, rather than to put himself as the advocate instead of Christ, and to
be found among the proud who are destined to condemnation.” [1]
an advocate. Who
pleads with the Father not to withdraw his love because we may have been
betrayed into sin.
[3]
A most powerful Advocate, because
He Himself is the propitiation
[verse 2]. [11]
We
have for our advocate, not a mean person [=a nobody], but him of whom it was
said, This is my beloved son. Not a guilty person, who stands in need of
pardon for himself; but Jesus Christ the righteous; not a mere petitioner, who
relies purely upon liberality, but One that has merited, fully merited,
whatever He asks. [2]
[This
verse] does not say, “If any man repent, we have an advocate; if any man
confess his sins, we have an advocate; if any man weep over his sins, we have
an advocate.” Instead it says, “If any
man sin, we have an advocate with the Father.”
It is not just when I am repentant that I have an Advocate, but the very
moment I fail, Christ takes up my case, even before I
am sorry about it. The moment that
unkind word left my lips, the moment I did that spiteful thing, the moment I
was thoughtless in some business matter, that very moment before my conscience
was exercised and I was troubled, the devil was in the presence of God to
accuse me. But the same instant the Son
of God was there to represent me. As a result of His advocacy, the Spirit takes
the Word of God and applies it to my conscience, and I confess my sin. [30] At the very least the intervention of
the Son secures for us time to repent.
[rw]
Why Jesus’ advocacy works: “O Lord, you have pleaded the
causes of my soul; you have redeemed my life” (Lamentations
On the assumption of a
personally indwelling of the Holy Spirit--rather than just through the
scriptures He inspired--is also envolved: The office of an
advocate is to appear for his client in a court of justice, and to plead his
cause. Now this office also the Lord Jesus Christ executes in behalf of his
people: He is gone up to the court of heaven, where “he appears in the presence
of God for us” (Job 33:24).” The Holy
Spirit also is our advocate [Romans 8:26-27]: but there is a very wide
difference between the advocacy of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit: the Spirit
intercedes in us at the throne of grace; Christ intercedes for us at the throne of glory; the Spirit assists us to pray
according to the will of God; Christ presents those prayers unto the Father,
and renders them acceptable in his sight.
[5]
with the Father. Here, of course, an intercessor, as Paul
says, “Jesus . . . who is on the right hand of God, who ever liveth to make intercession for us’ (Romans 8). [42]
“The
Father” rather than “God, to bring out the point that our Advocate is His Son, and that through Him we also are made sons. It is not a stern judge but a loving Father
before whom He has to plead. [23]
How Christ executes His office of
Advocate with the Father, John does not say.
John considers the living Christ as personally operating in His work, as
operating in His glorified position with His Father, with the same holy love
with which He accomplished His work on earth as a mediation
for sinful man. [19]
Jesus Christ
the righteous. One who is eminently righteous
himself, and who possesses the means of rendering others righteous. [18]
His
sinlessness and holiness as manifested in His
life. [20
In depth: The two key
dangers being warned/protected against in these first verses of chapter two [21]. He
foresees the possibility of a two-fold perversion of his teaching:
(1) “If we can never in this life be done with
sin, why strive after holiness? It is
useless; sin is an abiding necessity.”
(2) “If escape be so easy, why dread falling into
sin? We may sin with light hearts, since
we have the blood of Jesus to cleanse us.”
“No,” he answers, “I am not writing these things to you either to discourage you in the pursuit of holiness or to embolden you in sinning, but, on the contrary, in order that (ἵνα) ye may not sin.” Cf. Augustine: “Lest perchance he should seem to have given impunity to sins, and men should now say to themselves, ‘Let us sin, let us do securely what we will, Christ cleanses us; He is faithful and righteous, He cleanses us from all iniquity,’ he takes from thee evil security and implants useful fear. It is an evil wish of thine to be secure; be anxious. For He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, if thou art always displeasing to thyself and being changed until thou be perfected.”
As a physician
might say to his patient: “Your trouble
is obstinate and it will take a long time to eradicate it. But I do not tell you this to discourage you
or make you careless; no, on the contrary, to make you watchful and diligent in
the use of the remedy”; so the Apostle says: “My little children, these things
I am writing to you in order that ye may not sin.”
In depth: Multiple reasons exist for John calling them
“little children” [52]. The aged
apostle, great in gentleness, so calls the Christians whom he addresses. He may have been led to the use of these words
by many reasons:
1. Because he was a very old man,
by whom even middle-aged people would be thought of as young.
2. Because he was conscious of a
fatherly care and love for the disciples of Christ.
3. Because he had been
instrumental in the conversion, or rather regeneration, of many of those to
whom he wrote. Paul uses the same words
for this reason in Galatians 4:19; compare 1 Corinthians 4:15.
4. Because they possessed a
humble, simple, childlike nature, after conversion (see Matthew 18:3-6,10), which drew them to him as their spiritual guide and
overseer.
5. Because in their present imperfect and dependent state, they needed
to be led by further instruction into the light of doctrine and life. The term “little” is undoubtedly expressive of
endearment. And John uses the whole
phrase in the most eager affectionate solicitude for the welfare of the persons
to whom it applies. The phrase itself is
a loving appeal and protecting assurance.
In depth: Should “advocate” be the translation of the
same Greek word when used in the Gospel of John [23]? An argument that “Yes” is the
right answer: Advocate
or Paraclete (παράκλητος)
means one who is summoned to the side of another, especially to serve as his
helper, spokesman (causae patronus), or
intercessor. The word occurs in [the] N.T.
only in John; here in the Epistle and four times in the Gospel (John 14;16, 26; John
Two
renderings compete for acceptation, “Comforter” and “Advocate”. Both make good sense in the Gospel, and
(though there is by no means agreement on the point) “Advocate” makes the best
sense. “Advocate” is the only rendering
which is at all probable here: it
exactly suits, the context. “We have a Comforter with
the Father” would be intolerable. The
older English Versions (excepting Taverner, who has
“spokesman”) all have “Advocate” here; and (excepting the Rhemish,
which has “Paraclete”) all have “Comforter” in the
Gospel: and of course this unanimity influenced the translators of 1611. But “Advocates” as the one rendering which
suits all five passages should be adopted throughout.
Then
we see the full meaning of Christ’s promise (John
2:2 Translations
WEB: And
he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for
ours only, but also for the whole world.
Young’s: and he
-- he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the
whole world,
Conte (RC): And he
is the propitiation for our sins. And not only for our sins, but also for those of the whole world.
2:2 And he is the propitiation.
The atoning sacrifice by which the wrath of God is
appeased. [2]
That
by which God's favor is secured for sinners.
The propitiation is Jesus Himself, since His own humanity, perfected
through suffering, is the sacrifice which He as Priest brings to God. His offering has world-wide efficacy. [10]
The act or
offering which makes an injured person favorable to the offender, Christ is the
propitiation as well as the propitiator:
the offering itself as well as the sacrificing priest who makes it. [7]
is. It should be observed the Apostle says “is,” and not “was,” the propitiation, because that precious blood avails as truly at this hour to cleanse, as it did when first He shed it; also because He “ever liveth to make intercession for us.” [43]
for our sins. Believers:
not Jews in contrast to Gentiles; for he
is not writing to Jews (1 John
Or: It is not for us apostles that he has died,
nor exclusively for the Jewish people, but περι ὁλου του κοσμου,
for the whole world, Gentiles as well as Jews, all the descendants of
Adam. The apostle does not say that He
died for any select part of the inhabitants of the earth, or for some out of
every nation, tribe, or kindred; but for all Mankind; and the attempt to limit
this is a violent outrage against God and his word. [17]
and not for ours
only.
The significance of
“ours” (i.e., including John himself in the blessing): Observe how the Apostle classes himself with
his readers: “we have,” “our sins”—a rebuke of priestcraft. Cf. Augustine: “But some one will say: ‘Do not holy men pray
for us? Do not bishops and prelates pray
for the people?’ Nay, attend to the Scriptures,
and see that even the prelates commend themselves to the people. For the Apostle says to the common folk
‘withal praying for us’. The Apostle
prays for the folk, the folk for the Apostle.
We pray for you, brethren; but pray ye also for
us. Let all the members pray for one
another, let the Head intercede for all.”
[21]
Not only for the sins of us who
are Christians, for the apostle was writing to such. The idea which he intends to convey seems to
be, that when we come before God we should take the most liberal and large
views of the atonement; we should feel that the most ample provision has been
made for our pardon, and that in no respect is there any limit as to the
sufficiency of that work to remove all sin. It is sufficient for us; sufficient
for all the world.
[18] If
the world but obeys Him! [rw]
but also for the
sins of the whole world. Without
distinguishing between contemporaneous and successive generations. [20]
Just as wide as sin extends, the propitiation extends
also. [2]
The work of Christ was wrought for
all, not for a chosen few. There are
none who may not share its benefits if they will. [7]
the sins of. More literally, but also for the whole world:
“the sins of” is not repeated in the Greek and is not needed in English.
Once more we have a parallel with the
Gospel, and especially with chapter 17. “Neither for these only do I pray, but for
them also that shall believe on Me through their word . . . that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me .
. . that the
world may know that
Thou didst send Me, and lovedst them, even as Thou lovedst Me” (John 17:20-23): “Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29): “We know that
this is indeed the Saviour
of the world” (John 4:24).
Compare 1 John 4:14. John’s
writings are so full of the fundamental opposition between Christ or believers
and the world, that there was danger lest he should seem to give his sanction
to a Christian exclusiveness as fatal as the Jewish exclusiveness out of which
he and other converts from Judaism had been delivered. Therefore by this (note
especially “the whole world”) and other plain statements
both in Gospel (see John
In depth: Use of
“propitiation” in other texts [23]. The word for “propitiation” occurs nowhere in [the] N.T. but here and
in 1 John
2:3 Translations
WEB: This
is how we know that we know him: if we keep his commandments.
Young’s: and in
this we know that we have known him, if his commands we may keep;
Conte (RC): And we
can be sure that we have known him by this: if we observe his commandments.
2:3 And hereby. By our loyal obedience.
[3]
we do know that
we know him. By this fact. [rw]
The token of our having this
knowledge is stated hypothetically; not because, but if, we obey. To serve under another and obey him is one of
the best ways of knowing his character.
The knowledge is no mere intellectual apprehension, such as the Gnostic,
postulated, but a moral and spiritual affection and activity. It is possible to know and hate. Again, the knowledge is not a mere emotional
appreciation. Christianity knows nothing of piety without morality. To know Christ is to love Him, and to love Him
is to obey and imitate Him. [24]
if we keep his
commandments. The words themselves do
not warrant the opinion of Augustine and Bede, that John insists here upon love. He only demands the unexceptional keeping of
the commandments of God, and by the use of the Article and the plural (τὰς ἐντολὰς),
excludes any and every arbitrary selection [between them]. [20]
The apostle Paul speaks of those who “profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” Here the Apostle seems to assert the difference between the knowledge of God and all other knowledge. We may know other things perfectly and not be affected by our knowledge: not so with God. We cannot be said to [truly] know Him unless we do His will. We may believe intellectually that there is a God. We may defend the truth of His existence or His attributes, but we cannot know Him (savingly that is), unless we obey Him, and for the plain reason that He will not allow us. [42]
In depth: Implications of this verse [23]. John is again condemning that Gnostic doctrine
which made excellence to consist in mere intellectual enlightenment. Divorced from holiness of life, says John, no
enlightenment can be a knowledge of God. In his system
of Christian Ethics the Apostle insists no less than Aristotle,
that in morals knowledge without practice is worthless: “not speculation
but conduct” is the aim of both the Christian and the heathen philosopher. Mere knowledge will not do: nor will knowledge “touched by
emotion” do. It is possible to know, and
admire, and in a sort of way love, and yet act as if we had not known. But John gives no encouragement to devotion
without a moral life (compare 1 John 1:6). There is only one way of proving to ourselves
that we know God, and that is by loving obedience to His will. Compare the very high standard of virtue set
by Aristotle: he only is a virtuous man
who does virtuous acts, “first, knowingly; secondly, from deliberate preference,
and deliberate preference for the sake of the acts (and not any advantages
resulting from them); and thirdly, with firm and unvarying purpose” (Nic.
Eth. II. iv. 3). [23]
In depth: Old Testament precedents for this verse’s
assertion that to “know God” inherently envolves the
requirement to obey His teaching [46]. It is said of Samuel in his early youth: “That Samuel did not yet know the Lord,
neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him” (1 Samuel 3:7). He had not that communion with God which
arises from a sense of His presence and gracious communications.
Jeremiah, again, says of Josiah, king of
The same prophet has left on record a
remarkable promise: “After those days, saith the Lord, they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the
Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least to the greatest, saith the Lord” (Jeremiah 31:34).
To know the Lord, therefore, is to
have raised our minds toward Him whom our eyes cannot discern, and to have
applied our hearts to seek His love and favor:
to acknowledge His will as the rule of our will, and His law as the
standard of our lives. Not merely to
acknowledge that there is a God, or that there is
a Savior: but to have sought
acquaintance with our God and Savior through the thoughts and intents of the
inward heart.
To keep the Lord’s commands involves three distinct things
: 1. To regard them with watchful
interest and approval. 2. To guard and
preserve them as something precious. 3. To
do them, to obey them. [52]
2:4 Translations
WEB: One
who says, "I know him," and doesn't keep his commandments, is a liar,
and the truth isn't in him.
Young’s: he who
is saying, 'I have known him,' and his command is not keeping, a liar he is,
and in him the truth is not;
Conte (RC): Whoever claims that he knows him,
and yet does not keep his commandments, is a liar,
and the truth is not in him.
2:4 He that saith. Anyone—everyone who does so. [rw]
The previous statement is enforced by denying the
opposite of it. The construction, “he
that saith,” “he that loveth,”
&c. now takes the place of “if we say,” “if we walk,” &c., but without
change of meaning. [23]
I know him. The case being hypothetical—if
there be such a man, he is a liar, and has no idea of truth. He must have lost the very power of
recognizing truth to maintain that he knows Christ, when he habitually
transgresses His commands. It is no
great thing, as Bode says, to know as the devils do, who
"believe and tremble." [24]
and keepeth not his commandments. What
He has appointed to be observed by his people.
[18]
Do we claim to be children of
God? Then we must prove it by our
lives. [30]
is a liar. From
the [inevitable] connection between the knowledge of God and the observance of
His commandments, it follows that he who boasts of the former, but is wanting
in the latter, has not the truth in him, but is a liar. [19]
The
words “he is a liar” are stronger than “he lies”
(1John 1:6), or “he deceives himself” (1John 1:8). Not a single act, but his whole nature and
being, is thus designated; the lie reigns
in him. There may first of all be
wanting self-examination in the light of divine truth, or it may be
self-deception and unconscious hypocrisy, but the conscious lie will follow;
one desires to appear more than one is. [20]
and the truth is
not in him.
Gives emphatic prominence to the status, the
emptiness of such a person. [20]
No
boasted acquaintance with sacred truths, no glib acceptance
of a lengthy creed, are proofs of divine fellowship. [44]
Not a mere
repetition, in a negative form, that the person lies; but a more radical and
condemnatory statement--that he is utterly lacking in the gospel principle, the
new nature, the true religion. [52]
2:5 Translations
WEB: But
whoever keeps his word, God's love has most certainly been perfected in him.
This is how we know that we are in him:
Young’s: and
whoever may keep his word, truly in him the love of God hath been perfected; in
this we know that in him we are.
Conte (RC): But
whoever keeps his word, truly in him the charity of God is perfected. And by
this we know that we are in him.
2:5 But whoso keepeth his word. Conscientiously observes his
doctrine, the spirit and letter of the religion of Christ. [17]
Moses
also said the same thing, when he stated the sum of the law. “Choose life, even to love the Lord thy God,
to serve him and to cleave to him” (Deuteronomy 30:19). [27]
in him verily is
the love of God. Some, indeed, interpret “the love of God to us” is in 4:9, but the
context shows that John had in view the love the believer has towards
God (so Luther, Calvin, etc.). [49]
The term “verily” (ἀληθῶς) here means
not only in reality, but also, in accordance with the principle of truth in the
new man; harmonizing naturally somewhat with the similar word “truth” (ἀλήθεια) just before
used [in verse 4]. [52]
perfected. Exemplified
and fulfilled. [12]
The
full force of the Greek means “has been made perfect and remains so.” [23]
He professes to have the love of
God in his heart, and that love receives its completion or filling up by
obedience to the will of God. That
obedience is the proper carrying out, or the exponent of the love which exists
in the heart. Love to the Savior would
be defective without that, for it is never complete without obedience. If this be the true interpretation, then the
passage does not make any affirmation about sinless perfection, but it only
affirms that if true love exists in the heart, it will be carried out in the
life; or that love and obedience are parts of the same thing; that one will be
manifested by the other; and that where obedience exists, it is the completion
or perfecting of love. [18]
hereby know we that we are in him. In communion
with him, and in conformity to him.
[25]
In depth: “Know” as a
euphemism for “love” [23]? This declaration shows that it is quite wrong to make “we know Him” in 1 John 2:3 and “I know Him” in 1 John 2:4 a Hebraism for “love
Him.” Even if “know” is ever used in the
sense of “love,” which may be doubted, John
would hardly in the same sentence use “know” in two totally different senses (1
John 2:3). John’s mention of love here
shows that when he means “love” he writes “love” and not “know.” He declares that true knowledge involves
love, but they are not identical, any more than convex and concave. “The love of God” here means “the love of man
to God:” this
is the common usage in this Epistle (1 John
2:6 Translations
WEB: he who says he remains in him
ought himself also to walk just like he walked.
Young’s: He who is saying in him he doth remain, ought according as
he walked also himself so to walk.
Conte (RC): Whoever declares himself to remain
in him, ought to walk just as he
himself walked.
2:6 He that saith. He who declares his position is morally bound to act
up to the declaration which he has made. To profess to abide in God involves an
obligation to imitate the Son, who is the concrete expression of God’s
will. [23]
he abideth. Abideth
-- a condition lasting, without intermission and end. [4]
It denotes a permanent life-union with God, holding fast by faith what
has been received. [51]
Greek,
“remains” in him; that is, abides or remains in the belief of his doctrines,
and in the comfort and practice of religion. The expression is one of those
which refer to the intimate union between Christ and His people. [18]
in him. To
be in Christ, verse 5, is to be
converted to the Christian faith, and to have received the remission of sins. To abide in Christ, verse 6, is to continue in that state
of salvation, growing in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus
Christ. [17]
The
ambiguity of “in him” in many verses of the epistle: Here,
in light of the previous verses and that which follows in
this verse, clearly of Christ. [rw] This figure is most simply expanded by
comparing the influence, spirit, and presence of God to an atmosphere which is
the constant “environment” and the determining condition of the Christian
life. Cf. Acts 17:28, “In him we live,
and move, and have our being.” John
often speaks of “being” or “abiding” “in God” and “in him,” “him” being
sometimes clearly God the Father, sometimes perhaps used with intentional ambiguity,
so that it may be understood either of God or Christ. John never uses Paul’s favorite phrases, “in
Christ,” “in Christ Jesus.” [45]
ought himself. Otherwise they are vain words. [2]
Expresses the
duty, the obligation inherent with the claim of being a true child of God. [rw]
John
does not say “must” (δεῖ)
which might seem to imply constraint.
The obligation is internal and personal.
“Must” (δεῖ),
frequent in the Gospel, does not occur in these Epistles. [23]
also so to walk. Ought
to live and act as He did. If he is one with Him, or professes to be united to Him,
he ought to imitate Him in all things.
Compare John 13:15. [18]
God
wants a genuine keeping of His will. He
abhors sham and hypocrisy. A mere
outward profession of faith, a mere crying, “Lord, Lord,” may make the desired
impression upon men, especially since genuine good works may be imitated. God examines the condition of the works very
closely; He knows the motive which prompts every word and deed of every person. The hypocrite may deceive others, but he
cannot really deceive himself, and his efforts to deceive God are vain and
foolish. [15]
ought. An obligation, put as a debt. [1]
So
that his deeds may be consistent with his words. [4]
even as he walked. “It is not Christ's walking on the sea, but His ordinary walk, we are called on to imitate” (Luther).
What is [it] to walk as He
walked? Is it not to live as He lived,
to bear as He bore, to love as He loved, to hate what
He hates? [43]
2:7 Translations
WEB: Brothers,
I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you had from
the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the
beginning.
Young’s: Brethren,
a new command I write not to you, but an old command, that ye had from the
beginning -- the old command is the word that ye heard from the beginning;
Conte (RC): Most
beloved, I am not writing to you a new commandment, but the old commandment,
which you had from the beginning. The
old commandment is the Word, which you have heard.
2:7 Brethren. Beloved: ἀγαπητοί, not ὀδελφοί, is the true reading. [24]
If one remains with “brethren” as the translation: Although
not of the same family as in regard to earthly stock, he is of the same spiritual
family as they and as a long term Christian—not to mention apostle—has a
natural “family interest” in preserving their moral and religious
integrity. [rw]
If
one prefers “beloved” as the translation:
This epithet naturally introduces some expressions on the love commandment.
It recognizes those addressed as persons
who have entered into the circle of the divine love, and are especially dear to
God and His people. It marks John's own feeling
toward them. Standing in this relation to
him, he could be the surer of their interest in what he was about to urge, and
of their faithful application of it. [52]
I write no new
commandment unto you. A reference to verse 6’s
admonition to imitate the example of Jesus or to verse 8’s insistence upon
love? It is the same doctrine which
you have always heard. There has been
much difference of opinion as to what is referred to by the word “commandment,”
whether it is the injunction in the previous verse to live as Christ lived, or
whether it is what he refers to in the following verses, the duty of brotherly
love. Perhaps neither of these is
exactly the idea of the apostle, but he may mean in this verse to put in a
general disclaimer against the charge that what he enjoined was new. In respect to all that he taught, the views of
truth which he held the duties which he enjoined, the course of life which he
would prescribe as proper for a Christian to live, he meant to say that it was
not at all new; it was nothing which he had originated himself, but it was in
fact the same system of doctrines which they had always received since they
became Christians. [18]
Interpreted
as a reference to the following verse: The commandment of love is both old and new. Old, because John's readers have had it from the beginning of their
Christian experience. New, because, in the unfolding of Christian experience, it has
developed new power, meaning, and obligation. [1]
“New” as referring to Christ’s further refinement of the
“old” commandment to love others: It was
exemplified in him, and is now fulfilled by you, in such a manner as it never
was before. “The new commandment,” says Macknight, “of which the apostle speaks, is that contained
in verse 6. That Christ’s disciples ought to walk even as
He walked; and in particular that, as Christ laid down His life for His people,
they ought to lay down their lives for one another, 1 John 3:16. Thus, to walk as Christ walked, John, with
great propriety, termed a new
commandment, because,
notwithstanding the precept to love one another was strongly enjoined in the
law of Moses, consequently was not a new commandment, the precept to love one another as Christ loved
us, was certainly a new
commandment, and so is termed by Christ Himself (John 13:34) and is thus
explained and inculcated [in] 1 John
3:16: He laid down his
life for us, therefore we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” [35]
Why the need to emphasize that the teaching was not new? He
might have been induced to say this because he apprehended [= understood] that
some of those whom he had in his eye, and whose doctrines he meant to oppose,
might say that this was all new; that it was not the nature of religion as it
had been commonly understood, and as it was laid down by the Savior. Perhaps, also, the apostle here may have some
allusion to false teachers who were in fact scattering new doctrines among the
people, things before unheard of, and attractive by their novelty; and he may
mean to say that he made no pretensions to any such novelty, but was content to
repeat the old and familiar truths which they had always received. Thus, if he was charged with breaching new
opinions, he denies it fully. [18]
but an old
commandment. viz.
the commandment of love, which was given in the old law, but was renewed and extended by Christ. (Challoner) [29]
The word new may mean with
reference to its age or date. In that
sense the divine law is not new because God has placed governing law before man
ever since he has existed. On that basis
it is the old commandment and they had heard it from the beginning. [9]
It was part of the original law
written in the heart of mankind. It was renewed
in the law of Moses, “Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself,” and was constantly brought out in different
shapes in the Old Testament. Thus, “Love
ye the stranger, for ye were strangers in the
which ye had from
the beginning. Their
first hearing of the gospel. [3]
John has invented No new teachings, prescribed no new duties, but simply
taught what was, of necessity, bound up in their received beliefs, and held by
them from the first. [51]
Other
alternatives: The meaning of “beginning” must always depend upon
the context. Several interpretations
have been suggested here, and all make good sense. (1) From the beginning of the human race: brotherly love is an original human
instinct. Christian Ethics are here as old as humanity. (2) From the beginning of the Law: “Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself” (Leviticus
The old
commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. The second “from the beginning” is not genuine. [23]
2:8 Translations
WEB: Again,
I write a new commandment to you, which is true in him and in you; because the
darkness is passing away, and the true light already shines.
Young’s: again,
a new command I write to you, which thing is true in him and in you, because
the darkness doth pass away, and the true light doth now shine;
Conte (RC): Then too,
I am writing to you a new commandment, which is the Truth in him and in you. For the darkness has passed away, and the true Light is now
shining.
2:8 Again, a new commandment. The “Again” introduces a new view: that which from one point of view was an old
commandment, from another was a new one.
It was old, but not obsolete, ancient but not antiquated: it had been renewed in a fuller sense; it had
received a fresh sanction. Thus both
those who feared innovations and those who disliked what was stale might feel
satisfied. [23]
a new
commandment. The commandments of the
Lord are new in the sense of being fresh and vigorous (not infirm as with old
age). The newness or liveliness of the
laws of the Lord is manifested in their being able to dispel the darkness of
ignorance, and shed the light of knowledge in the Lord. [9]
There
can be no doubt here that John refers to the commandment to “love one another,”
(see verses 9-11), and that it is
here called new, not in the sense that John inculcated it as a novel doctrine,
but in the sense that the Savior called it such (John 13:34) [18]
It
was a new commandment also, because since the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus
there is a new motive to love, even the love of Christ (4:10), and a new
example of love, even “the man Christ Jesus” (3:16); and a new kind
of love is required of us, who have been incorporated into Christ, even to
“love as brethren” (1 Peter 3:18), to love as Christ hath loved us. [43]
I write unto you. This way it will be a permanent reminder to everyone who reads these
words or hears the words read. It will
serve as an ongoing reminder of your duty and responsibility. [rw]
which thing. The reference
is to the contents of the new commandment,
the walking in brotherly love. [51]
is true. I.e.
evident, or verified, fulfilled, exemplified.
[14]
in him. In the Lord Jesus. That is,
which commandment or law of love was illustrated in Him, or was manifested by Him
in His contact with His disciples. That
which was most prominent in Him was this very love which he enjoined on all His
followers. [18]
and in you. Among you. That is,
you have manifested it in your contact with each other. It is not new in the sense that you have
never heard of it, and have never evinced it, but in the sense only that He
called it new. [18]
because the darkness is past. Rather, is passing away: present
tense of a process still going on (1 John
We have two options: [The pleased reaction]—“The darkness is passing.”
Is this my stay, my hope, my joy in the hour of its fiercest power? When it gathers thickest and falls heaviest,
hiding God's face from me; when all about me and in me is so dark that I cannot
see my sins; when a sense of guilt sinks me as in a dark pit, and “the sorrows
of death compass me, and the pains of hell get hold upon me, and I find trouble
and sorrow;”—let me fasten on this “thing which is true in Christ and in me,
that the darkness is passing.”
[The partially regretful
reaction]--But is it passing—this
darkness? Is it passing with my own
consent? Do I make it free and right
welcome to pass? Or do I cleave to it as
if I would still have a little of it to abide with me? Ah! this darkness,
this shutting out of God! How apt am I,
if not to ask it, at least to suffer it, to return and remain. “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me,
and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked
way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.”
[37]
and the true light
now shineth. “True” in this sense means “genuine,” or “that which
realizes the idea formed of it,” and hence “perfect.” Christ and
the Gospel are “the perfect light” in opposition to the imperfect light of the
Law and the Prophets and the false light of Gnostic philosophy. This form of the word “true” is almost
peculiar to John: it occurs 4 times in
this Epistle, 9 times in the Gospel and 10 times in the Apocalypse: elsewhere
in the N.T. only 5 times. It is
comparatively unimportant whether we interpret “the perfect light” here to mean
Christ, or the light of the truth, or the kingdom of heaven: but John
1:5, 9 will certainly incline us to the first of these
interpretations. The contrast with the
impersonal darkness does not disprove this here any more than in John 1:5. Darkness is never personal; it is not an
effluence from Satan as light is from God or from Christ. It is the result, not of the presence of the
evil one, but of the absence of God. Compare “Ye were once darkness, but now light
in the Lord: walk as children of light” (Ephesians 5:8). [23]
2:9 Translations
WEB: He
who says he is in the light and hates his brother, is in the darkness even
until now.
Young’s: he who
is saying, in the light he is, and his brother is hating, in the darkness he is
till now;
Conte (RC): Whoever
declares himself to be in the light, and yet hates his brother, is in the
darkness even now.
2:9 He that saith. His saying
[it] does not weigh or prevail against the moral fact. Profession against truth is lighter than air. [52]
he is in the light. Namely, “the true light” of the last verse,
Jesus the propitiator. It is
under the imagery of “light” and “darkness”
now (in [verses] 9-11) that the antithesis between the Christian and the errorist is presented:
The “light” is
the emblem of truth and purity blended in one; the “darkness” is the unity of error and
sin. [33]
and hateth. “Hate” μισεῖν is not to be watered down into
“neglect” or “fail to love.” John knows
nothing of such compromises. Love is
love, and hate is hate, and between the two there is no neutral ground, any
more than between life and death, or between Christ and antichrist. “He that is not with me is against me.” “Love is the moral counterpart of
intellectual light. It is a modern
fashion to represent these two tempers as necessarily opposed. But John is at once
earnestly dogmatic and earnestly philanthropic; for the Incarnation has taught
him both the preciousness of man and the preciousness of truth” (Liddon). [24]
his brother. Does this mean “his fellow-Christian” or “his
fellow-man,” whether Christian or not?
The common meaning in [the] N.T. is the former; and though there are
passages where “brother” seems to have the wider signification, e.g. Matthew 5:22; Luke 6:41; James 4:11, yet even here the
spiritual bond of brotherhood is perhaps in the background. In John’s writings, where it does not mean
actual relationship, it seems generally if not universally to mean “Christians:” not that other
members of the human race are excluded, but they are not under consideration. [23]
is in darkness. ἕως ἄρτι, up to this moment:
notwithstanding any apparent change which may have taken place in him when he
passed into the ranks of nominal Christians.
[22]
His supposing that hatred is
compatible with light proves the darkness in which he is. Nay, more, it shows that, in spite of his
having nominally entered the company of the children of light, he has really
never left the darkness. “If ye loved only
your brethren, ye would not yet be perfect; but if ye hate your brethren, what
are ye? where
are ye?” [24]
[“Darkness” =] in a state of
spiritual blindness, of sin, perplexity, and entanglement. For his malevolence blinds his reason to such
a degree that he does not see what is right, and it extinguishes every virtuous
inclination which would lead him to practice what is right, and puts him wholly
under the power of bad passions; so that, in this darkness, he is in danger not
only of stumbling, but of destroying himself; not knowing whither he goeth. [35]
even until now. i.e. in spite of the light which “is already shining,” and of which he has so
little real experience that he believes light and hatred to be compatible. Years before this Paul had declared (1
Corinthians 13:2), “If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and
all knowledge, . . . but have not love, I am nothing.” The light in a man is darkness until it is
warmed by love. The word for “now” (ἄρτι) is specially frequent in John’s Gospel: it indicates the present moment not
absolutely, but in relation to the past or the future. [23]
WEB: He
who loves his brother remains in the light, and there is no occasion for
stumbling in him.
Young’s: he who
is loving his brother, in the light he doth remain,
and a stumbling-block in him there is not;
Conte (RC): Whoever loves his brother abides
in the light, and there is no cause of offense in him.
abideth in the light. Not only has entered into it but has made it his abode: see 1 John 2:24 [“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.”] [23]
and there is none
occasion [cause, NKJV] of stumbling in him. Options in interpreting this [23]: There are several ways of taking this. 1. He has in him nothing likely to ensnare him or cause him to stumble. 2. He has in him nothing
likely to cause others to stumble. 3. There is in his case nothing
likely to cause stumbling. 4. In the light there is nothing likely to cause
stumbling;—the Greek for “in him” being either masculine or neuter, and
therefore capable of meaning “in it.”
All make good sense, and the last makes a good antithesis to “knoweth not whither he goeth” in 1 John 2:11: but the first is to be preferred on account
of 1 John 2:11.
Yet
in favor of the second it is worth noting that σκάνδαλον is commonly, if not always, used of
offence caused to others. The
parallel expressions “the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4), “His word is not
in us” (1 John
Moreover,
there is the very close parallel in John
11:9-10, “If a man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth
the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth,
because the light is not in him.”
Compare Psalms 119:165, “Great peace have they
which love Thy law: and nothing shall offend them;” i.e. there is no
stumbling-block before them. Where the LXX is very similar to this passage, omitting the
preposition “in.”
WEB: But
he who hates his brother is in the darkness, and walks in the darkness, and
doesn't know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
Young’s: and he
who is hating his brother, in the darkness he is, and
in the darkness he doth walk, and he hath not known whither he doth go, because
the darkness did blind his eyes.
Conte (RC): But
whoever hates his brother is in the darkness, and in darkness he walks, and he
does not know where he is going. For the darkness has blinded his eyes.
is in darkness. The
brother-hater has darkness as his habitual condition and as the atmosphere in
which he lives and works. [24]
and walketh in darkness. The darkness is his home and the scene of his activity. “The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble” (Proverbs
Cf. "They know not, neither
will they understand; they
walk on in darkness" (Psalms
82:5); "The fool walketh in darkness" (Ecclesiastes
and knoweth not whither he goeth. Like
one in the dark. He wanders about not
knowing what direction he shall take, or where the course which he is on will
lead. The general meaning is, that he is
ignorant of the whole nature of religion; or, in other words, love to the
brethren is a central virtue in religion, and when a man has not that, his mind
is entirely clouded on the whole subject, and he shows that he knows nothing of
its nature. [18]
Compare
John 12:35, which is almost word for word the same as
this, forming another point of contact between Gospel and Epistle [“Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the
light with you. Walk while ye have the
light, lest darkness come upon you: for
he that walketh in darkness knoweth
not whither he goeth”]. [23]
because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. “Blinded” must not be weakened into “dimmed:” the verb means
definitely “to make blind” (John
WEB: I
write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his
name's sake.
Young’s: I
write to you, little children, because the sins have been forgiven you through
his name;
Conte (RC): I am
writing to you, little sons, because your sins are forgiven for the sake of his
name.
little children. In this and the two verses
following the writer uses the different age groups in a natural family to
compare the ones with different talents and experiences in the family of
God. Little children, therefore, cannot
mean those usually designated by the term, since they do not have sins to be
forgiven. It is used in view of some of
them who were recent additions to the divine family by the spiritual
birth. [9]
Or: The phrase “little children” (John
Trying to turn it into a chronological reference: He
addresses as fathers,
those who had witnessed the time of Jesus
Christ engaged on earth: as young men, those who, having
overcome the wicked one, ought also boldly to have subdued the world lying in the
wicked one, and the lust of the world: as little
children, those whom, after the departure of the fathers and the young men,
the last hour was unexpectedly coming upon, and in it Antichrist. [11]
Are
we trying to impose a preciseness on the meaning of
the language that the author did not intend? Many conjectures have been offered in regard
to the distinctions intended by the writer in the several classes of persons
addressed in this passage (1 John
because your sins are forgiven you. Past forgiveness implies also present
forgiveness. [49]
Alternate translation option: Some
would render “that your sins are forgiven you;” and so in
each of these sentences substituting “that” for “because.” This is grammatically quite possible, but is
otherwise highly improbable: compare 1
John 2:21. John is not telling them what he is writing, but why he writes it. The forgiveness of sins is the very first
condition of Christian morals (1 John 1:7); therefore he reminds them all of
this first. [23]
for his name's
sake.
Of
course Jesus Christ’s. It was by believing on His Name that they acquired the right to become
children of God (John
WEB: I
write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write
to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you,
little children, because you know the Father.
Young’s: I
write to you, fathers, because ye have known him who is from the beginning; I
write to you, young men, because ye have overcome the evil. I write to you,
little youths, because ye have known the Father:
Conte (RC): I am
writing to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the
beginning. I am writing to you,
adolescents, because you have overcome the evil one.
Or
as reference to time of conversion:
By fathers it is very likely that the apostle means persons who had
embraced Christianity on its first promulgation in Judea and in the Lesser
Asia, some of them had probably seen Christ in the flesh; for this appears to
be what is meant by, “ye have known him from the beginning.” These were the elders and eye witnesses, who
were of the longest standing in the Church, and well established in the truths
of the Gospel, and in Christian experience.
[17]
Improbability
of having seen Jesus personally:
Very few of John’s readers could have
done that. Besides which to express
this we should expect “ye have seen Jesus Christ,” rather than “ye have
come to know Him that was from the beginning.” [23]
because ye have known him. Not known Christ in the
flesh but have walked with him long and realized his presence. [3]
that is from the
beginning.
Observe John’s name
for our Redeemer, “Him from the beginning,” from all eternity, as he spake of Him in his gospel, “In the beginning was the
Word.” [43]
I write unto
you, young men. These were confirmed
disciples of Christ; persons who were well-grounded in the truth, had been
thoroughly exercised in the Christian warfare, were no longer agitated by doubts
and fears; hence they are said to have overcome the wicked one, verse 14. They were persons in the prime of life, and
in the zenith of their faith and love. [17]
This statement concerning the
young men was also true of the older members of the Church, “but John
attributes this pre-eminently to the young men, because they, in
accordance with their age, had just recently obtained this victory, and their
care therefore must be especially this, not to lose again what had been lately
won” (Huther).
[49]
because ye have overcome. Compare John 16:33. Throughout
both Gospel and Epistle John regards eternal life as a prize already won by the
believer (John
John is not here addressing those
who have failed in the struggle and not repented, but those who have got the
better of such temptations, or are in process of getting it. [32]
The word “overcome” (νικάω) is Johannean;
being used sixteen times in Revelation, six times in our Epistle, and only four
times in the rest of the New Testament. [52]
the wicked one. The head of the kingdom of darkness, alluded
to in 1 John 2:8, in whom “the
whole world lieth” (1 John
I write unto
you, little children. i.e., persons
intermediate between spiritual infancy and manhood. [26]
Or: These are
the little ones, new believers in Christ.
A little while ago they were walking with the world in darkness, but
they heard the gracious invitation of the loving Savior, “Come unto me, all ye
that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew
because ye have known the Father. Known, understood His demands and requirements—and obeyed them. [rw]
Hence what had been said of the spiritual knowledge of the fathers, in
the former part of the verse, is true of all the disciples. [52]
WEB: I have written to you, fathers,
because you know him who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young
men, because you are strong, and the word of God remains in you, and you have
overcome the evil one.
Young’s: I did
write to you, fathers, because ye have known him who is from the beginning; I
did write to you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God in you
doth remain, and ye have overcome the evil.
Conte (RC): I am
writing to you, little children, because you have known the Father. I am
writing to you, young men, because you are strong, and the Word of God abides
in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
fathers. People may be very old in Christ and yet not be fathers in
a spiritual sense. Sadly, many who have
been Christians for years are still very worldly minded and know little of true
fellowship with Christ. Paul earnestly
prayed, “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the
fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death”
(Philippians
because ye have known him. To know Him means vastly more than to know about
him (Philippians
that is from the
beginning.
i.e.,
Jesus Christ. Addressed, as it is to older Christians, the
reference also carries the connotation that they should deeply appreciate the
long time that they have known of and about their Lord. They have set down deep, long lasting
roots. [rw]
I have written
unto you.
The tense is now changed from the present to the
aorist, I wrote. The Received
version has I write four times, hence this appeal is embraced in verse
13. Many explanations of this change
have been given. Some have attributed
the appeals in the present tense to the present and following parts of this
letter, and the appeals in the past tense to the parts already written. This is the view of Meyer. Some refer the past tense to John's other and
previous writings. It is better to
regard both tenses, the present and the aorist, as
referring to this letter in its entirety, but regarding
it from different standpoints. The present
tense applies to John's immediate act of writing; the aorist to the reader's
act of reading when completed. This is
sometimes called the epistolary aorist, used when regarding the letter as a
whole when finished. [51]
young men. John applies this term to those less mature
in the Christian life, embracing naturally the young disciples, immature in
years, or immature in character. Young
life is fitted for conflict and conquest. The young man is full of life, enthusiasm,
energy. [51]
Or: These are
the strong Christians who, although they may not have walked with God for as
many years as the fathers, have yet gone on with Him into spiritual
maturity. They have learned the secret
of overcoming. In the book of Revelation
we read, “They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their
testimony” (Revelation
because ye are strong. That is, that they
were qualified for active and useful service in the cause of the Redeemer. Children were yet too young and feeble to
appeal to them by this motive, and the powers of the aged were exhausted; but
those who were in the vigor of life might be called upon for active service in
the cause of the Lord Jesus. [18]
and the word of
God abideth in you. The Word is not merely to
be known, it is to abide in
us. It is to dwell in our
thoughts and in our affections; in this way it will control us, governing the
whole of our lives. If that point is
reached by any of us, then it can be said that we are strong, for our lives
will be founded upon the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture. [8]
An
echo of John 15:7 [“If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall
ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you”]. This is the secret of their
strength and the source of their victory.
They conquer because they are strong, and they are strong because God’s
word is ever in their hearts. They have
God’s will, especially as revealed in Scripture, and in particular in the
Gospel, as a permanent power within them: hence the
permanence of their victory. [23]
and ye have
overcome.
The conflicts of life come in the early years ; the life will then, as a rule, overcome or be
overcome. He does not assert that there
will be no struggles in after years ; but the same overcoming
spirit should lead them to a final overcoming.
[51]
the wicked one. The
Devil, but overcoming him also requires overcoming the hindrances of
nonbelievers in unknowing alliance with the Devil and his purposes. [rw]
The assaults of the evil one will be especially against
the young. Their
passions and inexperience make them open to his assaults
(Psalms 25:7; 2 Timothy
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.