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 3:1-24
3:1 Translations
WEB: Behold,
how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called
children of God! For this cause the world doesn't know us, because it didn't
know him.
Young’s: See ye
what love the Father hath given to us, that children of God we may be called;
because of this the world doth not know us, because it did not know Him;
Conte (RC): See what
kind of love the Father has given to us, that we would be called, and would
become, the sons of God. Because of this, the world does not know us, for it
did not know him.
3:1 Behold. Inspired by the
subject of which his mind was full, the apostle here
breaks forth in an expression of wonder at the infinite mercy and goodness of
God displayed in the Gospel. [46]
What love, in “kind” and in “degree.” In kind the most tender and the most ennobling, in
adopting us into His family, and in permitting us to address Him as our Father;
in “degree” the most exalted, since there is no higher love that can be shown
than in adopting a poor and friendless orphan, and giving him a parent and a home. [18]
Whole volumes might be written
upon this and the two following verses, without exhausting the extraordinary
subject contained in them, viz., the love of God to man. The apostle himself, though evidently filled
with God, and walking in the fullness of his light, does not attempt to
describe it; he calls on the world and the Church to behold it, to look upon
it, to contemplate it, and wonder at it.
[17]
what manner of love. What
great love, both as to quantity and quality; for these ideas are included in
the original term. The length, the
breadth, the depth, the height, he does not attempt to describe. [17]
Greek
note on “what manner of:”
The word (ποταπός)
always implies astonishment, and generally admiration. [23]
the Father hath
bestowed upon us. God, regarded as a Father,
or as at the head of the universe considered as one family. [18]
that we should be
called the sons of God. What greater glory than to
be acknowledged as sons of the King of Kings!
[3]
That is, that we should “be” the sons of God--the word “called” being often used in
the sense of “to be. [18]
If Jacob was at such pains and
patience to become son-in-law to Laban, if David held
it a great matter to be son-in-law to the king, what is it then to be sons and
daughters to the Lord Almighty? 2 Corinthians
[Critical
text adds here (NASB): and such we are.] Now these
words come with a very great weight of manuscript authority, and of internal
evidence. They are parenthetical, a kind
of rapid “aside” of the writer’s, expressing his joyful confidence that he and
his brethren are sons of God, not only in name, but in reality. They are the voice of personal assurance, the
voice of the spirit “by which we cry Abba, Father,” breaking in for a moment on
the flow of the sentence, like an irrepressible, glad answer to the Father’s
call. [31]
These words are now generally
admitted to be genuine. The sense is not really affected, whether they are
allowed or excluded; for undoubtedly, according to common usage, “being called
the sons of God” means actually becoming the sons of God. But they add to the emphasis of this noble
appeal. [37]
therefore the world knoweth us not. Does not understand our principles; the reasons of our conduct; the
sources of our comforts and joys. The people of the world regard us as
fanatics or enthusiasts; as foolish in abandoning the pleasures and pursuits
which they engage in; as renouncing certain happiness for that which is
uncertain; and as practicing needless austerities, with nothing to compensate
for the pleasures which are abandoned. [18]
Thus the Lord said: “If the world hate
you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love
his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the
world, therefore the world hateth you” (John
A fashionable and cultured world, not influenced by the spirit of
Christ, can be an intolerant and persecuting world. Sneers and ridicule are as effective weapons
of persecution as the stake and the jail.
[51]
because it knew him not. That is, the world had no
right views of the real character of the Lord Jesus when He was on the
earth. [18]
Knoweth us not and does not recognize our supernatural
parentage, our knowledge of another world, even a spiritual one. This is not within reach of the world’s
vision; and so it was with our Master, the Son of God Himself. The world of His day, though possessing a
God-given religion and worship, knew Him not.
They asked: “Is not this the
carpenter’s son?” Some said: “If this man were a prophet he would have
known” etc. (Luke
3:2 Translations
WEB: Beloved,
now we are children of God, and it is not yet revealed what we will be. But we
know that, when he is revealed, we will be like him; for we will see him just
as he is.
Young’s: beloved,
now, children of God are we, and it was not yet manifested what we shall be,
and we have known that if he may be manifested, like him we shall be, because
we shall see him as he is;
Conte (RC): Most beloved, we are now the sons of God. But what we shall be then has not yet appeared. We know that when he does appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
3:2 Beloved. This form of address only occurs once in the first part of the Epistle
(1 John 2:7), just where the subject of love appears for a few verses: it becomes the more common form of address (1
John 3:2, 21; 4:1, 7, 11) now
that the main subject is love.
Similarly, in 1 John
now are we the
sons of God. “Now” in contrast with what once was.
Then we had temporal “legitimacy,” but not spiritual. We had earthly ties, but not heavenly. Now we have “family”—so to speak—in both
places. [rw]
No matter how poor, how persecuted, how
despised we are, we are yet the children of the Highest. [42]
and it doth not
yet appear what we shall be. Even to ourselves. [2]
It is yet an unrevealed thing, Romans 8:18; a veil is drawn before
it, which is to be drawn aside at the appointed season. [14]
“Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of
man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him” (1 Corinthians
2:9). [42]
but we know that. The
word to know, shows the certainty of faith, in
order to distinguish it from opinion. Neither
simple nor universal knowledge is here intended, but that which every one ought
to have for himself, so that he may feel assured that he will be sometime like
Christ. Though, then, the manifestation
of our glory is connected with the coming of Christ, yet our knowledge of this
is well founded. [27]
when he shall
appear.
A
s Paul says, a “glory shall be revealed in us.”
And then will be “the manifestation of the sons of God.” Romans 8:18-19. [33]
we shall be like
him.
He does not [say] that we shall be equal to him; for
there must be some difference between the head and the members; but we shall be
like him, because he will make
our vile body conformable to his glorious body, as Paul also teaches us in Philippians 3:21 [“Who shall change our vile body, that it may be
fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is
able even to subdue all things unto himself”]. [27]
He himself has said it: “Where I am, there also shall my servant be”
(John
for [because,
NASB] we shall see him as he is. “Because” or “for” may give the cause either (1) of our knowing that we shall be like Him, or (2) of
our being like Him. Both make good sense; but, in spite of “we
know” being the principal sentence grammatically, the statement which most needs
explanation is the subordinate one, that we shall be like God. “We shall be like Him,” says the Apostle, “because,
as you know, we shall see Him.” Compare “But
we all, with unveiled face reflecting as
a mirror the
glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory” (2 Corinthians
In depth: Why is it that we aren’t permitted to
know “what we shall be” in the future [18]? It
is not fully revealed what we shall be hereafter; what will be the full result
of being regarded as the children of God.
There are, indeed, certain things which may be inferred as following
from this. There is enough to animate us
with hope, and to sustain us in the trials of life. There is one thing which is clear, that we
shall be like the Son of God; but what is fully involved in this is not
made known. Perhaps, (1) it could not be
so revealed that we could understand it, for that state may be so unlike the
present that no words would fully convey the conception to our minds. Perhaps,
(2) it may be necessary to our condition here, as on probation, that no
more light should be furnished in regard to the future than to stimulate us to
make efforts to reach a world where all is light. For an illustration of the sentiment expressed
here by the apostle, compare 2 Peter 1:4. [18]
3:3 Translations
WEB: Everyone
who has this hope set on him purifies himself, even as he is pure.
Young’s: and
every one who is having this hope on him, doth purify
himself, even as he is pure.
Conte (RC): And
everyone who holds this hope in him, keeps himself
holy, just as he also is holy.
3:3 And every man. Every person—without exception. [rw]
that hath this hope
in [on, NASB] him. That is, upon Christ, the ground on which
the hope rests; the hope, namely, of resurrection glory and likeness to Christ. [52]
The hope rests on him as on a foundation. The Christian life does not exhaust itself in
dreams of heaven, but shapes the life that now is into accord with the life
that is to be. [51]
Why to substitute “on” for
“in.” This [KJV reading] is certainly wrong: the
preposition is “on,” not “in,” and “Him” is either the Father or Christ;
probably the former. It is precisely the
man who has the hope, based upon God,
of one day being like Him, that purifies himself. For the construction “to have hope on” a
person compare, “On Him shall the Gentiles hope” (Romans
purifieth himself. In LXX this verb (ἁγνίζειν)
is used chiefly in a technical sense of ceremonial purifications, e.g. of the
priests for divine service: and so also
even in [the] N.T. (John
Tension in John’s teaching on the subject:
Augustine on the subject: “See how He does not take away free-will, in that he
saith ‘purify himself.’ Who purifieth us
but God? Yea, but God doth not purify
thee if thou be unwilling. Therefore in
that thou joinest thy will to God, in that thou purifiest thyself; thou purifiest
thyself not by thyself, but by Him who cometh to inhabit thee.” (Augustine)
[42]
even as he is pure. The same kind of purity here,
the same degree hereafter. That
is, the tendency of such a hope is to make him holy now, though he may be
imperfect; the effect will be to make him “perfectly” holy in the world to
come. [18]
A reference to the Father or
the Son? It is
not easy to determine with certainty whether “He” means the Father or Christ.
There is a change of pronoun in the Greek from “on Him” (ἐπ' αὐτῷ) to “He”
(ἐκεῖνος),
and this favors, though it does not prove, a change of meaning. Probably throughout this Epistle ἐκεῖνος means Christ (1 John 3:5, 7, 16; 1
John 2:6; 1 John
Not sinless perfection in the
current world.
It cannot be shown from this passage that the apostle meant to teach that
anyone actually becomes as pure in the present life as the Savior is, that is,
becomes perfectly holy; for all that is fairly implied in it is, that those who
have this hope in them aim at the same purity, and will ultimately obtain it. But the apostle does not say that it is
attained in this world. If the passage
did teach this, it would teach it respecting everyone who has this hope, and
then the doctrine would be that no one can be a Christian who does not become
absolutely perfect on earth; that is, not that some Christians may become
perfect here, but that all actually do.
A true Christian does not, indeed, habitually and willfully sin; but no
one can pretend that all Christians attain to a state of sinless perfection on
earth, or are, in fact, as pure as the Savior was. But unless the passage proves that every
Christian becomes absolutely perfect in the present life, it does not prove
that in fact any do. It
proves: (1) that the tendency, or the
fair influence of this hope, is to make the Christian pure; (2) that all who
cherish it will, in fact, aim to become as holy as the Savior was; and, (3)
that this object will, at some future period, be accomplished. There is a world where all who are redeemed
shall be perfectly holy. [18]
A note on the word “he:” A specially emphatic term in the Greek, for
which we have no equivalent. [45]
3:4 Translations
WEB: Everyone who sins also commits
lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness.
Young’s: Every
one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the
lawlessness,
Conte (RC): Everyone who commits a sin, also commits iniquity. For sin is iniquity.
3:4 Whosoever committeth sin.
A universal fact. There are no exceptions. [rw]
Note that throughout these verses (3–15) John uses
the strong expression, “Every man that” and not simply “He
that.” It has been suggested that “in
each case where this characteristic form of language occurs there is apparently
a reference to some who had questioned the application of a general principle
in particular cases” (Westcott): compare
1 John 2:23, 29; 4:7; 5;1, 4, 18; 2 John
verse 9. [23]
transgresseth also the law [also commits lawlessness, NKJV]. As all law supposes a lawgiver, so it
supposes reward and punishment. [47]
On the proper translation of
the text: This
[KJV rendering] is very unfortunate, destroying the parallelism: Every man that doeth
sin, doeth also lawlessness.
It is imperative to have the same verb in both clauses and
also in 1 John 2:29: to do sin is to do lawlessness, and this is
the opposite of to do righteousness. The
one marks the children of God, the other the children of the devil. [23]
Why the point needed to be
made: “Lawlessness” both in English and Greek (ἀνομία)
means not the privation [= lack] of law, but the disregard of it : not
the having no law, but the acting as if one had none. This was precisely the case with some of the
Gnostic teachers: they declared that
their superior enlightenment placed them above the moral law; they were neither
the better for keeping it nor the worse for breaking it. Sin and lawlessness, says the Apostle, are
convertible terms: they are merely different
aspects of the same state. And it is in
its aspect of disregard of God’s law that sin is seen to be quite
irreconcilable with being a child of God and having fellowship with God. [23]
Arguing that this is a case
where strict accuracy undermines the actual point being made by John: John evidently intends to intensify the evil of sin by saying that it is anomia, but lawlessness is in our day applied to many who
cannot be called iniquitous or wicked. A
tribe who are living without settled law are called lawless without at all
imputing to them actual wickedness. A
number of clergymen of the highest moral character were recently accused of
lawlessness because they felt it their duty to a rubric which they conceived
they had sworn to obey at their ordination.
No doubt the word “anomia,” as to its
derivation, means lawlessness, but the question is,
does our use of the term lawlessness represent the Apostle’s meaning? I believe it does not. Bengel, following
Augustine, translates it by “iniquity.”
The meaning of John is better reproduced by Augustine: “Let no man say, Sin is one thing, iniquity
is another: let no man say, I am a
sinful man, but not a doer of iniquity.”
[42]
for sin is the
transgression of the law [sin is lawlessness, NKJV]. That
is, all sin involves this as a consequence that it is a violation of the
law. The object of the apostle is not so
much to define sin, as to deter from its commission by stating what is its essential nature--that God has given a law to people to
regulate their conduct, and that whatever is a departure from that law
in any way is held to be sin. The law
measures our duty, and measures therefore the degree of guilt when it is not
obeyed. The law determines what is right
in all cases, and, of course, what is wrong when it is not complied with. The
law is the expression of what is the will of God as to what we shall do; and
when that is not done, there is sin. [18]
A “sin” and a “transgression of the law” are one and
the same thing, so that the act at variance with the “law” is “sin,” and liable to all the
condemnation of “sin,”
or violated divine “law.” [33]
Doctrinal
point:
The Roman Catholic commentators make a mistake in referring this
statement to what are called mortal sins in distinction from venial sins. John is dealing with sin in its innermost
nature; as such the statement is true of all sins. [51]
The
line of argumentation in verses 4-6: Four arguments against committing sin,
or transgressing the law, are here suggested; all of them connected with Him
whose essential purity is to be our model in purifying ourselves:
In depth: Why might they have come to the conclusion
that sin was an irrelevancy to the Christian [18]? It
seems evident that the apostle is here combating an opinion which then existed
that people might sin, and yet be true Christians, 1 John 3:7; and he apprehended [=
understood] that there was danger that this opinion would become
prevalent. What ground this opinion was
held is unknown. Perhaps it was held
that all that was necessary to constitute religion was to embrace the doctrines
of Christianity, or to be orthodox in the faith; perhaps that it was not
expected that people would become holy in this life, and therefore they might
indulge in acts of sin; perhaps that Christ came to modify and relax the law,
and that the freedom which He procured for them was freedom to indulge in
whatever people chose; perhaps that, since Christians were heirs of all things,
they had a right to enjoy all things; perhaps that the passions of people were
so strong that they could not be restrained, and that therefore it was not
wrong to give indulgence to the propensities with which our Creator has formed
us.
All these opinions have been held
under various forms of Antinomianism, and it is not at all improbable that some
or all of them prevailed in the time of John.
The argument which he urges would be applicable to any of them. The consideration which he here states is, that all sin is a transgression of law, and that he who
commits it, under whatever pretence, is to be held as a transgressor of
the law.
3:5 Translations
WEB: You
know that he was revealed to take away our sins, and in him is no sin.
Young’s: and ye
have known that he was manifested that our sins he may take away, and sin is
not in him;
Conte (RC): And you
know that he appeared in order that he might take away our sins. For in him
there is no sin.
3:5 And ye know. The Apostle once more (1 John
that he was
manifested.
That is, appeared upon this
earth. [12]
That
he came into the world for this very purpose. [2]
The manifestation of the Word in becoming visible to
human eyes is meant; the Incarnation.
The expression necessarily implies that He existed previous to being
made manifest. [23]
to take away our
sins.
The essential argument here is, that the whole work of
Christ was designed to deliver us from the dominion of sin, not to furnish us
the means of indulgence in it; and that, therefore, we
should be deterred from it by all that Christ has done and suffered for
us. He perverts the whole design of the
coming of the Savior who supposes that His work was in any degree designed to
procure for His followers the indulgences of sin, or who so interprets the
methods of His grace as to suppose that it is now lawful for him to indulge his
guilty passions. [18]
“To
take away” (αἴρειν)
is the safest rendering; for this is all that the Greek word necessarily means
(see John
and in him is no
sin.
There was in Christ a
sinless nature and therefore a sinless life.
[51]
And therefore he is properly
qualified to be the atoning sacrifice for the sins of men. [17]
The
order of the Greek is impressive; sin in Him does not exist. [23]
The complete
moral purity of Christ is here recalled for several reasons: 1. To show that He was prepared in character
to be a sin-bearer for others; 2. To suggest that He would specially
desire the purity of his people; 3. To
give them a strong motive to this in His own example and position with regard
to sin; 4. To prepare the way for the
doctrine of the next verse. [52]
In depth: The sinlessness of Jesus [51]. It is needful to maintain the spotlessness of the
character of Christ. Only in this way
can we maintain the divinity of His nature and His fitness to be a mediatorial sacrifice.
His sinlessness is maintained by all the New
Testament writers in a formal or in an incidental way. The book of Hebrews shows the superiority of His
priesthood in that he was not forced to make an offering for Himself (Hebrew
The strongest proof of Christ's sinlessness is
found in His attitude toward God. Other good
men like Payson, Judson, Brainerd, Spurgeon have been
burdened in
their confessions and prayers with a sense of their own
infirmities. Jesus never betrays any
sense of His own sin, though He reproves others. He worships God, but He makes no confession of
wrong-doing. He asserts that He is always
well pleasing to God (John
3:6 Translations
WEB: Whoever
remains in him doesn't sin. Whoever sins hasn't seen him, neither knows him.
Young’s: every
one who is remaining in him doth not sin; every one who is sinning, hath not
seen him, nor known him.
Conte (RC): Everyone
who abides in him does not sin. For whoever sins has not seen him, and has not
known him.
3:6 Whosoever abideth in him.
While he so abideth. [2]
The
word here employed (μένων menōn) properly means
to remain, to continue, to abide. It is
used of persons remaining or dwelling in a place, in the sense of abiding there
permanently, or lodging there, and this is the common meaning of the word, Matthew 10:11, 26:38; Mark 6;10; Luke 1:56. In the writings of John, however, it is quite
a favorite word to denote the relation which one sustains to another, in the
sense of being united to him, or remaining with him in affection and love; being
with him in heart and mind and will, as one makes his home in a dwelling. The sense seems to be that we have some sort
of relation to him similar to that which we have to our home; that is, some
fixed and permanent attachment to Him.
We live in Him; we remain steadfast in our attachment to Him, as we do
to our own home. In the passage before
us, as in his writings generally, it refers to one who lives the life of a
Christian, as if he were always with Christ, and abode
with him. [18]
sinneth not. Habitually and willfully. [43]
These texts however do not mean an
impossibility of sinning, because John says, If any man sin, we have an
advocate with the Father. He also
cautions the saints to abide in Christ, and to keep themselves from idols. [13]
The
Apostle sets forth “abiding in Christ and sinning as irreconcilable opposites;
but he does not mean to say that believing Christians entirely cease to sin or
that those, who are yet sinning, are not yet in Christ ( 1John 1:8–10; 2:1, 2;
3:3)” (Huther).
“John is here dealing with realities and about to give us the signs
whereby we may know whether we love the Lord or not, whether we are the
children of God or of the wicked one” (Sander).
[20]
By these apparently contradictory statements put
forth one after another John expresses that internal contradiction of which
every one who is endeavoring to do right is conscious. What John delivers as a series of aphorisms,
which mutually qualify and explain one another, Paul puts forth dialectically
as an argument. “If what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it,
but sin which dwelleth in me” (Romans
whosoever sinneth. Which is not to be
understood of a single action, but of a course of sinning. [16]
hath not seen him
neither known him. Has had
no just views of the Savior, or of the nature of true religion. [18]
Has not had either a vision of Him, or an experience of Him; is now in a
state of spiritual blindness and ignorance.
“The Greek perfect denotes an abiding present effect resting on an event
in the past. In the Greek perfect the
present predominates” (Alford). John
states antithetically a truth implied in the former part of the verse—a truth that
comes out from the mutual exclusiveness of the sin character and the Christ
character. John states here the law, or
tendency, of the sin character. He who
sins as his law, the on-going, developing law of his life, knows nothing of the
saving vision or purifying knowledge of Christ. Sin is blinding. Sin is the foe of divine fellowship. If this be the total effect in the
unregenerate, is it not to the Christian dust in his spiritual sight and a palsy in his spiritual love? [52]
In depth: The case
against the text implying a doctrine of sinless perfection [18]. There
has been much difference of opinion in regard to this expression, and the
similar declaration in 1 John 3:9. Not a few have maintained that it teaches the
“doctrine of perfection,” or that Christians may live entirely without sin; and
some have held that the apostle meant to teach that this is always the
characteristic of the true Christian.
Against the interpretation, however, which supposes that it teaches that
the Christian is absolutely perfect, and lives wholly without sin, there are
three insuperable objections:
(1) If it teaches that doctrine at all, it
teaches that all Christians are perfect; “whosoever abideth
in him,” “whosoever is born of God,” “he cannot sin,” 1 John 3:9.
(2) This is not true, and cannot be held to be
true by those who have any just views of what the children of God have been and
are. Who can maintain that Abraham, or
Isaac, or Jacob; that Moses, David, or Job; that Peter, John, or Paul, were
absolutely perfect, and were never, after their regeneration, guilty of an act
of sin? Certainly they never affirmed it
of themselves, nor does the sacred record attribute to them any such
perfection. And who can affirm this of
all who give evidence of true piety in the world? Who can of themselves? Are we to come to the painful conclusion that
all who are not absolutely perfect in thought, word, and deed, are destitute of
any religion, and are to be set down as hypocrites or self-deceivers? And yet, unless this passage proves that
“all” who have been born again are absolutely perfect, it will not prove it of
anyone, for the affirmation is not made of a part, or of what any favored
individual may be, but of what everyone is in fact who is born of God.
(3) This interpretation is not necessary to a
fair exposition of the passage. The language used is such as would be employed
by any writer if he designed to say of one that he is not characteristically a
sinner; that he is a good man; that he does not commit habitual and willful
transgression. Such language is common
throughout the Bible, when it is said of one man that he is a saint, and of
another that he is a sinner; of one that he is righteous, and of another that
he is wicked; of one that he obeys the law of God, and of another that he does
not. John expresses it strongly, but he
affirms no more in fact than is affirmed elsewhere.
3:7 Translations
WEB: Little
children, let no one lead you astray. He who does righteousness is righteous,
even as he is righteous.
Young’s: Little
children, let no one lead you astray; he who is doing the righteousness is
righteous, even as he is righteous,
Conte (RC): Little
sons, let no one deceive you. Whoever does justice is just, even as he also is
just.
3:7 Little children. The renewed address, “Little children,” adds
solemnity and tenderness to the warning.
[23]
let no man deceive
you.
Do not be deluded into the belief that any one can be
righteous unless he practices righteousness.
[3]
This caution implies the zealous
endeavor of the seducers of that time, to instill their poisonous doctrine and
principles; and his own solicitude, lest these Christians should receive them,
and be mischiefed [= injured] by them. [14]
The
popular idea of the Apostle John is strangely unlike the real man. He is supposed to be the gentle Apostle of
Love, the mystic amongst the Twelve. He
is that, but he was the “son of thunder” before he was the Apostle of Love, and
he did not drop the first character when he attained the second. And because he loved the Love and the
Light, he hated and loathed the darkness.
[31]
he that doeth
righteousness is righteous. As in 1 John 3:6, we
have the present participle; he who habitually does
righteousness, not merely one who does a righteous act. If faith without works is dead (James
We
must not only talk of righteousness, but must also practice it, exhibit it in
our lives, just as Jesus proved by His acts that He is the righteous one. [50]
even as he is
righteous.
The quality of the righteousness of the believer is
of the same kind as that which dwells in God, but far inferior in degree, in
quantity. [51]
As
in 1 John 3:3, we are in doubt
whether “He” means the Father or Christ.
It is the same pronoun (ἐκεῖνος)
as in 1 John 3:3, but there is
not here any abrupt change of
pronoun. Here also it seems better to
interpret “He” as Christ (1 John 2:2), rather than God (1 John 1:9). [23]
3:8 Translations
WEB: He
who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To
this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the
devil.
Young’s: he who
is doing the sin, of the devil he is, because from the beginning the devil doth
sin; for this was the Son of God manifested, that he may break up the works of
the devil;
Conte (RC): Whoever commits sin is of the devil. For the devil sins from the beginning. For this reason, the Son of God appeared, so that he might eradicate the works of the devil.
3:8 He that committeth sin is of the
devil. A sinful life is a proof of
the devil's power. Christ came to
destroy the works of the devil, and it is his work to destroy sin in all His
disciples. [3]
Not everyone that sins, or commits acts of sin [is
meant for] then every man is of the devil, because no man lives without the
commission of sin; but he who makes sin his constant business, and the
employment of his life, whose life is a continued series of sinning, he
is of the devil; not as to origin and substance, or by proper generation, as
some have literally understood the words; but by imitation, being like
him. [16]
There is a personal devil, at the opposite
moral pole from God. Through him sin
entered the moral universe, through him the human race
was corrupted. All sin is, therefore, an
imitation of Satan; all who sin are moved by the impulses that move him. Satan stands as the representative of sin;
those who sin are bound to him by spiritual ties. [51]
for the devil sinneth from the beginning. The beginning of the world; or from the first account we have of him. It does not mean that he sinned from the
beginning of his existence, for he was made holy like the other angels (Jude,
verse 6). The meaning is, that he
introduced sin into the universe, and that he has continued to practice it ever
since. [18]
The
present tense indicates continuousness. He
sinned in the beginning, and has never ceased to sin from the beginning, and
still sinneth.
[1]
Hence
“he that committeth sin is of the devil” is the one
who both sins and continues in persistent evil for that is the pattern
cited as being manifested in the Devil himself.
[rw]
For this
purpose the Son of God was manifested. The Apostle now proceeds to state the purpose which the Son of God had in
view in becoming incarnate and in taking up His visible abode here on
earth. [49]
The object of the incarnation was to reconcile all things to God (Colossians
that he might
destroy the works of the devil. The works of the devil are both moral and physical and Jesus Christ came
to destroy both. He came to destroy sin
and to purify any member of the human race that would accept Him, from all sin
and its effects. He came to make men at
peace with God and with one another and in themselves. [42]
There is a personal
agency of Satan in leading men astray, in begetting sins of all kinds (Galatians
destroy. Lit., dissolve, loosen. Compare Acts
27:41; Acts
3:9 Translations
WEB: Whoever
is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he
can't sin, because he is born of God.
Young’s: every
one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not,
because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God
he hath been begotten.
Conte (RC): All
those who have been born of God do not commit sin. For the
offspring of God abides in them, and he is not able to sin, because he was born
of God.
3:9 Whosoever is born of God. The Greek implies “has been made and remains
a child of God.” Cf. verse 18. [45]
doth not commit sin. Does not make it his trade and business; it is not
the constant course of his life. [16]
The practical application of this is that just so
far as the birth from God is perfected in any one, the man in whom it is
perfected no longer lives in sin. [50]
If it can be used as referring to
the doctrine of absolute perfection at all, it proves, not that Christians may
be perfect, or that a “portion” of them are, but that all are. But who can maintain this? Who can believe that John meant to affirm
this? [18]
for his seed remaineth in him. There is much obscurity in
this expression, though the general sense is clear, which is, that there is
something abiding in the heart of the true Christian which the apostle here
calls “seed,” which will prevent his sinning.
The word “his” in this phrase, “his seed,” may refer either to the
individual himself --in the sense that this can now be properly called “his,”
inasmuch as it is a part of himself, or a principle abiding in him; or it may
refer to God--in the sense that what is here called “seed” is “His,” that is,
he has implanted it, or it is a germ of divine origin. The word “seed” (σπέρμα sperma) means properly seed
sown, as of grain, plants, trees; then anything that resembles it, anything
which germinates, or which springs up, or is produced. It is applied in the New Testament to
the word of God, or the gospel, as that which produces effects in the heart and
life similar to what seed that is sown does.
Compare Matthew 13:26, 37-38. Grotius, Rosenmuller, Benson, and Bloomfield, suppose that this is
the signification of the word here. The
proper idea, according to this, is that the seed referred to is truth, which
God has implanted or sown in the heart, from which it may be expected that the
fruits of righteousness will grow. The
exact idea here, as it seems to me [however], is not that the “seed” refers to
“the word of God,” as Augustine and others suppose, or to “the Spirit of God,”
but to the germ of piety which has been produced in the heart by the
word and Spirit of God, and which may be regarded as having been implanted
there by God himself, and which may be expected to produce holiness in the
life. [18]
and he cannot sin. That is to say, it is contrary
to his nature. [50]
The Christian has two natures, the
old nature and the new nature. The old
nature is not eradicated; a believer when he sins does so because he has given
way to that old nature, has acted in the flesh.
But the new nature followed will never lead to sin, for it is a holy
nature, and for that nature it is impossible to sin. [38]
If the words prove that a
regenerate person cannot become a sinner, then Romans 8:7 proves that no
carnally minded man can ever become subject to the law of God; for the same
word for cannot is there used. [33]
Not, Because a man was once for
all born of God he never afterward can sin; but, Because he is born of God, the
seed abiding now an Him, he cannot sin; so long as it energetically abides,
sin can have no place. Compare Genesis
39:9, Joseph,
“How can I do this great . . . sin against God?” The principle within is at utter variance
with sin, and gives a hatred for all sin, and an unceasing desire to resist
it. “The child of God receives wounds
daily, and never throws away his arms, or makes peace with his deadly foe”
(Luther). The exceptional sins of the
regenerate are owing to the new life being suffered to lie dormant, and to the
sword of the Spirit not being drawn instantly.
Sin is ever active, but no longer reigns. The believer's normal direction is against
sin; the law of God after the inward man is the ruling principle of his true
self, though the old nature, not yet fully deadened, rebels. [4]
because he is born of God. Is inwardly and universally changed. [2]
This
[inability to sin] must be taken not as implying a physical, but a moral
impossibility. We constantly say of an
honest man that he could not do such an act of fraud, or of a pure man that he
cannot break the seventh commandment, and so John, looking at the new birth as
proceeding from God, and making us partakers of the Divine Nature, says he
cannot sin because he is born of God. [42]
WEB: In
this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever
doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his
brother.
Young’s: In
this manifest are the children of God, and the children of the devil; every one
who is not doing righteousness, is not of God, and he who is not loving his
brother,
Conte (RC): In this way, the sons of God are made manifest, and also the sons of the devil. Everyone who is not just, is not of God, as also anyone who does not love his brother.
A man’s principles are invisible, but their results
are visible: “By their fruits ye shall
know them” (Matthew
and the children
of the devil. “The devil made no one, he begot no one, he created no one; but
whosoever imitates the devil, is, as it were, a child of the devil, through
imitating, not through being born of him” (Augustine). [1]
The
expression occurs nowhere else in [the] N.T., but we have “son of the devil,” Acts
whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God. John's
“teaching about the devil is not at all agreeable to those who dwell
exclusively on the sunny aspects of the world and of life, and would shut their
eyes to what is dark and terrible. They
like to hear of a Being who is all-gracious and loving; the vision of one who
is the enemy of all that is gracious and loving shocks them—they wish to
suppose that it belongs to the world's infancy, and that it disappears as we
know more” (Maurice). [24]
neither he that loveth not his brother. This
forms the link with the next section (verses 13-24), on brotherly love. Of all failures in doing righteousness this
is the most conspicuous—failing to love one's brother. And who is my brother? The answer is the same as to the question,
“And who is my neighbor?” Mankind at large. The
meaning cannot be limited to the children of God. [24]
However just as we owe a special
degree—a superior degree, if you wish—of love to our family members
when contrasted with the world at large, the same is true of that special / “superior”
degree of love that we owe those who are fellow children of God—spiritual
brothers and sisters of ours in the Lord.
[rw]
And: The brother spoken of is not here the universal
human race, but a brother in the household of God. The Christian is under a deeper obligation to
a fellow-disciple than to one not of the household of faith (Galatians
WEB: For
this is the message which you heard from the beginning, that we should love one
another;
Young’s: because
this is the message that ye did hear from the beginning, that we may love one
another,
Conte (RC): For this
is the announcement that you heard from the beginning: that you should love one
another.
Jerome, in his “Commentary on
Galatians” ([on] Galatians
that we should love
one another. It is self-evident that the Christian has to fulfill the general
commandment of love even to those who are not Christians. Yet John does not here enter on that, as it
would be inappropriate, for he has here to do with the ethical antithesis
between Christians as children of God and those who are opposed to them as
children of the devil. [19]
WEB: unlike
Cain, who was of the evil one, and killed his brother. Why did he kill him? Because his works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
Young’s: not as
Cain -- of the evil one he was, and he did slay his brother, and wherefore did
he slay him? because his works were evil, and those of
his brother righteous.
Conte (RC): Do not be like Cain, who was of the evil one, and who killed his brother. And why did he kill him? Because his own works were wicked, but his brother’s works were just.
John
has gone back to the earliest point in the history of sin. The instance of Cain showed how very soon sin
took the form of hate, and fratricidal hate.
[23]
Cain’s
offering was evil because it was the offering of a proud man, choosing for
himself what he would offer instead of humbly doing as God had bidden him. Hence he failed to win acceptance with
God. Hence also sprang the jealousy and
hatred towards Abel, which led to the murder.
[43]
Or: A
singular reason is given by many commentators for the mention of Cain, viz.,
that a sect of the Gnostics made Cain an important person in their religious
system. The account of them given by Irenaeus is as follows (I.21): “They declare that Cain derived his being
from the Supreme power, together with Esau, Korah,
and the Sodomites. . . . They say that
Judas the traitor had diligently studied the truth, and that it was because his
knowledge of it was in advance of all others that he brought about the mystery
of the betrayal.” [42]
who was of that
wicked one.
Of the devil; that is, he
was under his influence, and acted from his instigation. [18]
Commentators
quote the “strange Rabbinical view” that while Abel
was the son of Adam, Cain was the son of the tempter. Of course John is not thinking of such wild
imaginations: Cain is only morally “of the evil one.” Here, as elsewhere in the Epistle (1 John
Was Cain born of the
devil? It must be remembered that
regeneration is a figurative term. When
the power of the Spirit conforms us more or less to
the image of God, we are said to be born of God, children of God; while
conformed to the image of Satan, we are called children of the devil. [33]
and slew his
brother.
Cain's conduct typifies the attitude of the world
towards Christians. σφάζειν in the New Testament occurs only here
and in Revelation. In the LXX and the New Testament it
seems to mean “slay” without necessarily implying the cutting the throat of a
victim. That Cain's works were evil is
not stated in Genesis, but is inferred from God's rejection of him. Compare carefully the remarkably parallel
passage, Hebrews 11:4. The wicked envy the good the blessedness of
their goodness, and try to destroy what they cannot share. The war between good and evil is one of
extermination; but the wicked would destroy the righteous, while the righteous
would destroy wickedness by converting the wicked. [24]
And wherefore
slew he him? He acted under the
influence of envy. He was dissatisfied
that his own offering was not accepted, and that his brother‘s was. The apostle seems desirous to guard those to
whom he wrote against the indulgence of any feelings that were the opposite of
love; from anything like envy toward more highly favored brethren, by showing
to what this would lead if fairly acted out, as in the case of Cain. A large part of the crimes of the earth have
been caused, as in the murder of Abel, by the want of brotherly love. Nothing but love would be necessary to put an
end to the crimes, and consequently to a large part of the misery, of the
world. [18]
Because his own works were evil. Was Abel at all to blame? On
the contrary, it was his righteousness which
excited the murderous hate of Cain. Cain
was jealous of the acceptance which Abel’s righteous offering found, and which
his own evil offering did not find: and
“who is able to stand before envy?”
(Proverbs 27:4). [23]
Both were religious,
manifesting their understanding of the appropriateness, needfulness, even
essentiality of sacrifice to God. But recognizing that fact did not result in God automatically
accepting the sacrifice as pleasing.
It has to be the type of sacrifice authorized by God and it needed to be
offered with the right frame of mind and desire to please God rather than as an
“empty” religious ritual—such as many people practice by going to church and
never thinking about what is being said and done. [rw]
and his brother's
righteous. His behavior; his
actions. His measured up to the highest standard;
Cain’s collapsed to the lowest level. [rw]
WEB: Don't
be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you.
Young’s: Do not
wonder, my brethren, if the world doth hate you;
Conte (RC): If the
world hates you, brothers, do not be surprised.
my brethren. Here
only does John use the address, “brethren,” which is appropriate to the subject
of brotherly love. Elsewhere his readers
are “children” or “beloved.” [24]
if the world hate
you.
If Cain is the type of the world, it is not to be
wondered at that the children of God are hated by it. Neander: “it must
not surprise Christians if they are hated by the world; this is to them the
stamp of the divine life, in the possession of which they form the contrast to
the world.” [19]
The
fact is stated gently, but not doubtfully.
The verse is another echo of Christ’s last discourses as recorded in the
Gospel: “If the world hateth you (same construction as here), ye
know that it hath hated Me before it hated you” (John
WEB: We
know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers.
He who doesn't love his brother remains in death.
Young’s: we --
we have known that we have passed out of the death to the life, because we love
the brethren; he who is not loving the brother doth remain in the death.
Conte (RC): We know that we have passed from death to life. For we love as brothers. Whoever does not love, abides in death.
Or: As one of the tests. [33]
that we have passed
from death unto life. From spiritual death
(Ephesians 2:1) to spiritual life; that is, that we are true Christians. [18]
Better, have passed over out of death into life, have left an abode in the
one region for an
abode in the other: another reminiscence of the Gospel (John 5:24
[“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me,
hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from
death unto life”]). The Greek perfect here has the common meaning
of permanent result of past action: “we
have passed into a new home and abide there.”
The metaphor is perhaps taken from the passage of the
Death marks
the state out of which they have come, the state of spiritual alienation from God.
Not to have God's fellowship is to be
dead (Ephesians 2:1; 1 Timothy 5:6). Life means far more than existence, it means a
blessed life springing from God, in fellowship with God, finding its goal in
God. Love for the brethren is not the cause
of this passage from death to life, but the mark and proof of it. [51]
because we love the brethren. The
ground, not of passing over out of death into life, but of our knowing that we
have. Love is the evidence of our
justification and regeneration, not the cause.
“Let each go to his own heart: if he find there love to the brethren,
let him feel assured he has passed from death unto life. Let him not mind that his glory is only
hidden: when the Lord shall come he shall appear in glory. He has vital energy, but it is still winter: the root has vigor, but the branches are dry: within there is vigorous marrow, within are
leaves, within fruits; but they must wait for summer” (Augustine). [4]
He that loveth not his brother abideth in
death.
[It] implies that
death is the original condition of all.
The believer passes out of this by becoming a child of God and thereby
of necessity loving God’s other children.
He who does not love them shows that he is still in the old state of
death. [23]
[In other words:] He remains dead in sins; that is, he has never been converted. [18] This far overstates the case for John clearly treats them
as if they were brethren just as much as those among them who were doing
the right thing. Perhaps the situation
is better described this way: such a
person wants to enjoy the advantages of salvation without having to take upon
the ethical obligations that go with it.
Therefore they have fallen back into the negligence that was an
ongoing spiritual death. Being
“paper Jews” had no more gotten them out of that state than being “paper
Christians.” God always knows
what we really are. [rw]
Textual note on this section: “His brother” is commonly omitted on grounds of lack of inadequate
supporting textual evidence: ESV, NASB,
NET. However since this is the group of
individuals just mentioned in the verse, this is clearly the point being made.
[rw]
In depth: How do we
reconcile this with natural human resentment at being mistreated by one’s
co-religionists [42]? Many difficult questions arise
respecting this [verse]. If a man has
been ill-treated and he harbors resentment, does he abide in death? No, if he is willing to take [=
accept] the proper means of reconciliation.
All depends upon that—at least if we are to be guided by the words of
the Lord in Matthew
[15 Moreover
if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between
thee and him alone: if he shall hear
thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But
if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the
mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall
neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect
to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto
you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven. 19 Again
I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on
earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of
my Father which is in heaven. 20 For
where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
them. 21 Then
came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and
I forgive him? till seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until
seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.]
The implacable man, the bearer of hatred and malice, the man who out of revenge would do another an injury, such an one abides in death. “From envy, hatred, and malice, and from all uncharitableness, Good Lord deliver us.”
Again,
look at the bitterness occasioned by parties and sects, both in politics and
religion. Are these the signs of
death? They seem very near it. Should we not pray that we may hold the truth
in charity, that in meekness we may instruct “those that oppose themselves; if
God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth”
(1 Timothy
WEB: Whoever
hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life
remaining in him.
Young’s: Every
one who is hating his brother -- a man-killer he is,
and ye have known that no man-killer hath life age-during in him remaining,
Conte (RC): Everyone
who hates his brother is a murderer. And you know that no murderer has eternal
life abiding within him.
his brother. Of all places to find hatred, the most
notorious and extreme—even to people of the world who have minimal moral
considerations—is within the bonds of one’s family. If love is to be found anywhere this
is the place we most naturally expect it and are most horrified when it is
brazenly lacking. John applies this
“logic of the emotions” from those of physical kin to those who are spiritual
kin. [rw]
is a murderer. In the spirit and temper of his mind. [12]
This
is only applying to the sixth commandment the principle which the Lord Himself
applies to the seventh (Matthew
The private malice, the secret
grudge, the envy which is cherished in the heart, is murderous in its tendency,
and were it not for the outward restraints of human laws, and the dread of
punishment, it would often lead to the act of murder. The apostle does not say that he who hates
his brother, though he does not in fact commit murder, is guilty to the same
degree as if he had actually done it; but he evidently means to say that the
spirit which would lead to murder is there, and that God will hold him
responsible for it. Nothing is missing
but the removal of outward restraints to lead to the commission of the open
deed, and God judges people as he sees them to be “in
their hearts.” [18]
and ye know that
no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Here we have a reference to the Old Testament law, that a murderer must
die, but the words of the law are spiritualized and applied to the true, higher
life. In a murderer eternal life has no
place. [50]
John,
of course, does not mean that murder is an unpardonable sin; but he shows that
hate and death go together, as love and life, and that the two pairs are
mutually exclusive. How can life and the
desire to extinguish life be compatible?
It is very forced to interpret ἀνθρωποκτόνος as either “destroyer of his own soul,” or “destroyer of the hated
man's soul,” by provoking
him to return hate for hate. [24]
WEB: By this we know love, because he
laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.
Young’s: in
this we have known the love, because he for us his life did lay down, and we
ought for the brethren the lives to lay down;
Conte (RC): We know the love of God in this way: because he laid down his life for us. And so, we must lay down our lives for our brothers.
We understand it, we grasp its meaning and how great and profound the very
idea is. [rw]
the love of God. “Of God” is not in the original.
[4]
Though we cannot, because of deficiency in MSS Authority, read “of God,” yet is clear that such is the meaning. No mere man, no angel could lay down his life to redeem his fellow creatures. The Church of God hath been purchased by the Blood of God (Acts 20:28) [“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood”]. [42]
because he laid down his life for us. It means a voluntary self-sacrifice. [52]
There can be no doubt that the
Savior is here referred to, though His name is not mentioned particularly. There are several instances in the New
Testament where He is mentioned under the general appellation “he,” as one who
was well known, and about whom the writers were accustomed to speak. [18]
This is the echo of John 15:13,
“This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” [42]
and we ought to
lay down our lives for the brethren. For the good of our fellow Christians,
if it be necessary. That is,
circumstances may occur where it would be proper to do it, and we ought always
to be ready to do it. The spirit which
led the Savior to sacrifice his life for the good of the church, should lead us
to do the same thing for our brethren if circumstances should require it. That this is a correct principle no one can
doubt; for:
(1) The Savior did it, and we are bound to
imitate his example, and to possess His spirit;
(2) The prophets, apostles, and martyrs did it,
laying down their lives in the cause of truth, and for the good of the church
and the world; and,
(3) It has always been held that it is right and
proper, in certain circumstances, for a man to lay down his life for the good
of others. So we speak of the patriot
who sacrifices his life for the good of his country; so we feel in the case of
a shipwreck, that it may be the duty of a captain to sacrifice his life for the
good of his passengers and crew; so in case of a pestilential disease, a
physician should not regard his own life, if he may save others; and so we
always hold the man up to honor who is willing to jeopardy his own life on
noble principles of self-denial for the good of his fellow-men. In what cases this should occur the apostle
does not state; but the general principle would seem to be, that it is to be
done when a greater good would result from our self-sacrifice than from
carefully guarding our own lives.
In what way this injunction was
understood by the primitive Christians, may be perceived from what the world is
reported to have said of them, “Behold, how they love one another; they are
ready to die for one another.” -- Tertullian, Apol.
c. 39. So Eusebius (Eccl. His. vii. 22) says of Christians, that “in
a time of plague they visited one another, and not only hazarded their lives,
but actually lost them in their zeal to preserve the lives of others.” We are not indeed to throw away our lives; we
are not to expose them in a rash, reckless, imprudent manner; but when, in the
discharge of duty, we are placed in a situation where life is exposed to
danger, we are not to shrink from the duty, or to run away from it. [18]
WEB: But
whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and closes his
heart of compassion against him, how does the love of God remain in him?
Young’s: and
whoever may have the goods of the world, and may view his brother having need,
and may shut up his bowels from him -- how doth the love of God remain in him?
Conte (RC): Whoever
possesses the goods of this world, and sees his brother to be in need, and yet
closes his heart to him: in what way does the love of God abide in him?
The general meaning of this verse,
in connection with the previous verse, is, that if we ought to be willing to
lay down our lives for others, we ought to be willing to make those
comparatively smaller sacrifices which are necessary to relieve them in their
distresses; and that if we are unwilling to do this, we can have no evidence
that the love of God dwells in us. [18]
and seeth his brother have need. Need of food, of raiment, of shelter; or sick, and poor, and unable
to provide for his own wants and those of his family. [18]
Better, and beholdeth his brother having need.
The verb implies that he not only sees him (ἰδεῖν), but looks at
him and considers him (θεωρεῖν). It is a word of which the contemplative
Apostle is very fond; and outside the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts it occurs
nowhere but in John’s writings and Hebrews
7:4. [23]
This
does not mean sees with a hasty, passing glance, but contemplates his misery,
regards his wretched condition, and hardens himself against all feelings of
compassion. [42]
and shutteth up his bowels of compassion [heart, NKJV] from him. There is no “of compassion” in the Greek and we
hardly need both substantives. The
ancients believed the bowels to be the seat of the affections (Genesis 43:30; 1 Kings
There is in brotherly love the spirit of the Good Samaritan, helpfulness
to the needy. Jesus fed the multitude (Mathew
how dwelleth the love of God in him? Our
Lord in the most practical way connects the love of our brother with Himself,
and so with His Father, when He says that He will say at the last day to those
on His right hand, “Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it to one
of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” [Matthew
25:40]. [42]
Augustine on the concept: “Thy
brother hungers, he is in necessity, belike he is in suspense, is distressed by
his creditor: he is thy brother, alike
ye are bought, one is the Price paid for you; ye are both redeemed by the Blood
of Christ. See whether thou have mercy,
if thou have the world’s means.
Perchance thou sayest, ‘What concerns it
me? Am I to give my money,
that he may not suffer trouble?’
If this be the answer thy heart makes to thee, the love of the Father abideth not in thee.”
[42]
WEB: My
little children, let's not love in word only, neither with the tongue only, but
in deed and truth.
Young’s: My
little children, may we not love in word nor in tongue, but in work and in
truth!
Conte (RC): My little sons, let us not love in words only, but in works and in truth.
let us not love in
word, neither in tongue but in deed and in truth. Is
there any difference between loving in word and loving with the tongue? And is there any difference between loving in
deed and loving in truth? The answer
must be the same to both questions. The
oppositions between “word” and “deed” and between “tongue” and “truth” are so
exact as to lead us to believe that there is a
difference. To love in word is to have
that affection which is genuine as far as it goes, but which is so weak that it
never gets further than affectionate words: such love is opposed, not to truth, but to
loving acts. To love with the tongue is to profess an
affection which one does not feel, which is sheer hypocrisy: it is opposed, not to deeds, but to truth.
It may show itself also in hypocritical acts, done (as Bede
points out) not with the wish to do good, but to win
praise, or to injure others. [23]
neither in tongue. I.e., the tongue alone as shown by the fact that this empty kind
of “love” that never rises above empty rhetoric and is contrasted with the kind
we should have—must have if we are to be faithful Christians
rather than being a mere hollow shell with the label “Christian” on the
outside. [rw]
but in deed. In behavior, in action. [rw]
and in truth. Demonstrating that love really is there; showing that our claim
to love exists far beyond mere empty words.
[rw]
WEB: And
by this we know that we are of the truth, and persuade our hearts before him,
Young’s: and in
this we know that of the truth we are, and before Him we shall assure our
hearts,
Conte (RC): In this
way, we will know that we are of the truth, and we will commend our hearts in
his sight.
we know that we
are of the truth. That we
are not deceived in what we profess to be; that is, that we are true
Christians. To be of the truth
stands opposed to cherishing false and delusive hopes. [18]
“We are of the truth,” of one nature with the truth, as if born of it. To be of the truth is more than to be truthful
or true men. It is to be in a state of
spiritual affinity with the truth of God as it is in Jesus, and including Him. It is to be of the light of God (sons of light,
John
and shall assure
our hearts before him. i.e.
and in and by this same sign, shall still the questionings of our hearts before
God, by the assurance that we are His true children. This meaning has been acquiesced
in by almost all Commentators both ancient and modern. [22]
Shall enjoy the assurance of His favor, and the
testimony of a good conscience toward God. The heart, in John's language,
is the conscience. The word conscience
is not found in his writings. [2]
The
heart is here conceived of as the seat of the whole spiritual life as in James
5:8, 1 Peter 3:4, and as the seat of consciousness of the truth as in James
1:26. John here uses the word heart
as including the conscience, for it is the conscience which excites and
disquiets the heart, and which needs to be guided and pacified. [49]
Textual note: In the
margin, as in the Greek, the word rendered “shall assure,” is “persuade.” The Greek word is used as meaning to
“persuade,” e. g., to the reception and belief of truth; then to persuade
anyone who has unkind or prejudiced feelings toward us, or to bring over to
kind feelings, “to conciliate,” and thus to pacify or quiet. The meaning here seems to be, that we shall
in this way allay the doubts and trouble of our minds, and produce a state of quiet
and peace, to wit, by the evidence that we are of the truth. Our consciences are often restless and
troubled in view of past guilt; but, in thus furnishing the evidence of true
piety by love to others, we shall pacify an accusing mind, and conciliate our
own hearts, and persuade or convince ourselves that we are truly the children
of God. [18]
before him. Before God or the Savior. [18]
The judgment day does not seem to be referred to as the day of final
revelation, but the present period of experience, as the preceding sentence and
the following verse make most natural. [52]
WEB: because
if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.
Young’s: because
if our heart may condemn -- because greater is God than our heart, and He doth
know all things.
Conte (RC): For even
if our heart reproaches us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows all
things.
God is greater
than our heart. Are these words meant to
inspire awe or to afford consolation? Is
God regarded as more exacting or more merciful than conscience? Opinion is much divided. The contrast in 1 John 3:21 suggests
the former alternative, but the whole context rather favors the latter. “We shall then still our heart in whatsoever
it may condemn us, because we are in fellowship with God, and that fact assures
us of His sovereign mercy” (Westcott). [7]
If our conscience condemns us of want of
sincerity in our love towards our brother, then our conscience is, in so far,
the verdict of God within us. God knows
the state of our interior souls or spirits better than we do ourselves, for He knoweth all things, and He has put conscience within us as
His representative. If conscience, then,
be His witness within us, its verdict against us is true if it condemns
us. [42]
and knoweth all things. [This] explains the special character of God’s superiority when the soul stands
before the judgment-seat of conscience.
He knows all things; on the one hand the light and grace against which
we have sinned, on the other the reality of our repentance and our love. It was to this infallible omniscience that
Peter appealed, in humble distrust of his own feeling and judgment, “Lord, Thou
knowest all things; Thou knowest
that I love Thee” (John
WEB: Beloved, if our hearts don't
condemn us, we have boldness toward God;
Young’s: Beloved,
if our heart may not condemn us, we have boldness toward God,
Conte (RC): Most
beloved, if our heart does not reproach us, we can have confidence toward God;
if our heart
condemn us not. An argument à
fortiori: if before God we
can persuade conscience to acquit us, when it upbraids us, much more may we
have assurance before Him, when it does not do
so. It is not quite evident whether “condemn
us not” means “ceases to condemn us,” because we have
persuaded it, or “does not condemn us from the first,” because it has had no misgivings
about us. Either makes good sense. The same word for “condemn” occurs [in] Galatians 2:11 of Peter’s
dissimulation at
then have we
confidence [boldness, ASV, WEB] toward God. We feel the full assurance
of sin forgiven, of divine acceptance, of blessed communion, of a “title clear
to mansions in the skies.” [33]
Is conscience, then, an infallible guide? Practically it is on this matter of loving “in deed and in truth.” We can surely tell perfectly well the motives which lead us to assist our brethren, whether we do it to be seen of men, or from any selfish motive whatsoever, or because we love “in deed and in truth.” [42]
WEB: and
whatever we ask, we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do
the things that are pleasing in his sight.
Young’s: and
whatever we may ask, we receive from Him, because His commands we keep, and the
things pleasing before Him we do,
Conte (RC): and
whatever we shall request of him, we shall receive from him. For
we keep his commandments, and we do the things that are pleasing in his sight.
John speaks with the utmost confidence; he had tested the promise
through many years. There are always
limitations to the seemingly unlimited promises, as that there must be faith (Mark
we receive of him. The present is to be taken quite literally; not as
the present for the future. It may be a
long time before we see the results of our prayer; but it is granted at
once. As Augustine says, “He who gave us
love cannot close His ears against the groans and prayers of love.” [23]
because we keep his commandments. This is in harmony with the Gospel and with Scripture generally: “We know that God heareth
not sinners: but if any man be a
worshipper of God, and do His will, him He heareth”
(John 9:31); “The Lord is far from the wicked, but He heareth
the prayer of the righteous” (Proverbs 15:29; compare Psalms 66:18-19; Job 27:8-9; Isaiah 1:11-15). [23]
and do those
things that are pleasing in his sight. As
a parent is disposed to bestow favors on obedient, affectionate, and dutiful children,
so God is on those who please Him by their obedience and submission to His
will. We can have no hope that He will
hear us unless we do so live as to please Him.
[18]
In depth: Our behavior not the only factor in whether God answers our prayer [42]. The keeping of God’s commandments is not the meritorious cause of the granting of our prayers, i.e., on strictly theological grounds; the grounds are, of course, the merits and intercession of Christ; but it stands to reason that, if we endeavor to please God, He will hear us more readily than if we take no pains to do so.
God constantly teaches us that He will do to us as we behave ourselves in His sight. Thus Psalms 18:25: “With the merciful thou wilt show thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt show thyself upright; with the pure thou wilt show thyself pure, and with the forward thou wilt show thyself forward.” And similarly: “If I regard iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me” (Psalms 66:18).
There are at least four or five conditions of acceptable prayer laid down in God’s Word—
(1) Asking in the Name of Christ (John
(2) Asking in faith, believing that we shall receive (Mark
(3) Asking in a forgiving spirit (Mark
(4) Keeping God’s commandments.
(5) Asking perseveringly. If we ask
once or twice, and then discontinue, it is because we have no real wish for the
spiritual grace or benefit we ask for.
WEB: This
is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus
Christ, and love one another, even as he commanded.
Young’s: and
this is His command, that we may believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ,
and may love one another, even as He did give command to us,
Conte (RC): And this
is his commandment: that we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus
Christ, and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
In
this short verse we have the whole of Christianity embodied in one command—not
in two, but in one—for the Apostle welds together in one command believing in
the Son of God and loving one another.
[42] This
combination and linkage surely, at least in large part, grows out of the fact
that the necessity of love played such a major role in the teaching of the
Son. [rw]
That we should
believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ. What is the meaning of “believing the Name πιστεύειν τῷ ὀνόματι”? We can believe a document (John
and love one
another. Piety and morality cannot live without each other. [51]
This implies that we should be kind to one
another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another even as God for Christ’s sake
hath forgiven us; it implies that we should be very careful not in the least
degree to set an evil example; that we should sympathize with our fellow
members of Christ’s Body; that we should be conformed to all that law of
charity [= love] which the Holy Spirit has enjoined upon us in the words of St.
John’s brother Apostle, St. Paul (1 Corinthians 13). [42]
as he gave us
commandment. Active
love [is presented] as the necessary effect of living faith. [23]
If “he” were
God, the present statement would only repeat practically the first words of the
verse. But making it Christ, the writer adds
the confirmation and pattern of a well known historical fact. [52]
WEB: He
who keeps his commandments remains in him, and he in him. By this we know that
he remains in us, by the Spirit which he gave us.
Young’s: and he
who is keeping His commands, in Him he doth remain, and He in him; and in this
we know that He doth remain in us, from the Spirit that He gave us.
Conte (RC): And
those who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And we know that
he abides in us by this: by the Spirit, whom he has given to us.
“Abiding in him” has been spoken of before in this letter (2:6, 27, 28;
3:6). The believer abides in him for
safety, security, guidance, eternal life, joy, blessedness, peace. [51]
and he in him. In Christ Jesus, or in God the Father. This seems to be an allusion to our Lord’s
words, John 14:23: If a man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will
love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. That is, in this way we obtain
fellowship with the Father, as well as with the Son; yea, the most intimate
acquaintance, friendship, and communion with Him. [35]
And hereby we
know that he abideth in us by the Spirit which he
hath given us. He testifies to our spirit through the word He has inspired that this is
the case—for it is the Spirit guiding what the apostle John writes in this
epistle and the revelation of the Spirit is what we are to firmly embrace and
hold to. [rw]
Spirit. The first mention of the Spirit in
the Epistle. Never found with “Holy” in the Epistles or
Revelation. [1]
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.