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 5:1-21
5:1 Translations
WEB: Whoever
believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. Whoever loves the Father also
loves the child who is born of him.
Young’s: Every
one who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, of God
he hath been begotten, and every one who is loving Him who did beget, doth love
also him who is begotten of Him:
Conte (RC): Everyone
who believes that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.
And everyone who loves God, who provides that birth, also loves him who has
been born of God.
5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ.
Is the Messiah; the anointed of God. Of course, it is meant here that the
proposition, that “Jesus is the Christ,” should be believed or received in the
true and proper sense, in order to furnish evidence that anyone is born of
God. It cannot be supposed that a mere
intellectual acknowledgment of the proposition that Jesus is the Messiah is all
that is meant, for that is not the proper meaning of the word “believe” in the
Scriptures. That word, in its just
sense, implies that the truth which is believed should make its fair and legitimate
impression on the mind, or that we should feel and act as if it were true. See Mark
16:16. If, in the proper sense of the
phrase, a man does believe that Jesus “is the Christ,” receiving Him as He
is revealed as the Anointed of God, and a Savior, it is undoubtedly true that
that constitutes him a Christian, for that is what is required of a man in
order that he may be saved. [18]
John lays stress in this Epistle on
several aspects of our Savior’s Person and Work. (1)
Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament (here
and
is born of God. This is the third virtual repetition of this
truth. He had said, 4:2, “Every spirit
that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh is of God;” and again he had said, “Whosoever shall confess that
Jesus is the Son of God God dwelleth in him, and he in God,” 4:15. And now, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is
the Christ is born of God.” [42]
and every one that
loveth him that begat. Any and all believers
who have this love in their hearts. [rw]
loveth him also that is begotten of him. One’s fellow believers. [rw]
Because he recognizes a brother begotten of
the same Father and a member of the same confraternity of love. [42]
5:2 Translations
WEB: By
this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his
commandments.
Young’s: in
this we know that we love the children of God, when we may love God, and His
commands may keep;
Conte (RC): In this
way, we know that we love those born of God: when we love God and do his
commandments.
5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God when we love
God. This the love of God
necessarily produces. [17]
By this we know that we love the children of God. This
is a plain proof. [35]
when we love God and
keep his commandments. This
last [item] includes brotherly love and if we therefore truly love God,
we know that we are also loving the brethren,
because brotherly love is the necessary result of love to God. [49]
If we keep not His commandments we deeply
injure the souls of our brethren by setting them a bad example and lowering the
standard of religion among them. [42]
If we don’t keep His commandments, then our
love for God manifests the arrogance that intellectual commitment is a
fully acceptable substitute for doing anything with that commitment. “Words are
cheap” and demand nothing; action is far different. It is a test
of whether our words really mean anything.
[rw]
5:3 Translations
WEB: For this is the love of God,
that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
Young’s: for
this is the love of God, that His commands we may keep, and His commands are
not burdensome;
Conte (RC): For this
is the love of God: that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not
heavy.
5:3 For this is the love of God.
This is its nature, its natural working.
[52]
The only sure proof of it. [2] [35]
that we keep his
commandments. A still
more explicit identification of love with
obedience. [33]
Love is like faith—without
works to prove its existence all we have are idle words if not outright
self-delusion. [rw]
and his
commandments are not grievous. Oppressive
and impracticable. [12]
[This is true] for two reasons:
1. Because He gives us strength to bear them; juvat qui jubet (Philippians
John
does not say God’s commandments are never grievous to
any. What he does say is that in
themselves they are not grievous, as said the Holy One, “My yoke is easy,
and My burden is light” [Matthew 11:30]; neither are they grievous to any who
have continued with their Father, and not been weakened by sinful ways the
grace of the new birth—the grace which can, yea has, and does, overcome the
world. [43]
5:4 Translations
WEB: For
whatever is born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has
overcome the world: your faith.
Young’s: because
every one who is begotten of God doth overcome the world,
and this is the victory that did overcome the world -- our faith;
Conte (RC): For all
that is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that overcomes
the world: our faith.
5:4 For whatsoever [everyone, ESV, NIV] is born of God.
Anyone and everyone who falls into this
category. [rw]
Or: Here the word “whatsoever” (πᾶν) is in the neuter
gender. It is not the man, but his birth
from God which conquers the world, and his birth from God is his power of
believing and will to believe, for “this is the victory which overcometh the world, even our faith.” [42]
overcometh the world. This overcoming “the world” is a
key-note to John’s apocalypse:
Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26. It
implies that the hostile world seeks, both by temptations and by persecutions,
to seduce or to destroy the sons of God.
It is “faith” in Christ that
causes, and even constitutes, the victory of the faithful over all the
hostilities of “the world.” [33]
and this is the
victory that overcometh the world. The source of victorious power. As faith gains in
strength the world loses its power. [3]
Faith is
both the victory and the victor.
It is that which fights and which from the beginning of the Gospel
message has gained the victory over the world.
[49]
even our faith. The
faith which is the evidence of
things not seen, and the subsistence, or anticipation, of things hoped for; a full persuasion especially, 1st,
That Christ is the Son of God (1 John 5:5) and consequently that all His
doctrines, precepts, promises, and threatenings, are
indisputably true, and infinitely important; 2d, That there is another life
after this awaiting us, wherein we shall be either happy or miserable beyond
conception, and for ever; 3d, That Christ has overcome the world for us (John
16:33) and hath obtained grace for us to enable us to overcome it; and that we
have an interest by faith in all he hath done, suffered, or procured for
us. [35]
The
uniqueness of this reference: It is of interest to notice that this
is the only place where the word “faith” is found, not only in this epistle but
in all the writings of John. The verb
“believe” is frequent. Possibly it may
be the purpose of John to call attention to the object of “faith” or to
the content of belief, for he at once adds: “And who is he that overcometh
the world, but he that believe that Jesus is the Son of
God.” It does matter what one believes
relative to Jesus Christ; yet moral victory is secured not by the acceptance of
certain truths about Christ, but by a definite act of faith in which the whole
being is committed to him, in obedience and trust and love. [44]
5:5 Translations
WEB: Who
is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of
God?
Young’s: who is
he who is overcoming the world, if not he who is believing
that Jesus is the Son of God?
Conte (RC): Who is
it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God!
5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world.
Here
the present tense is right. The Apostle
appeals to the daily experience of every victorious Christian. [23]
Same truth [of the previous verse] in triumphant and personal form. [23]
He
who in union with “the Son of God”—the name that always opposes Him to the
world and its prince—partakes His victory: ‘I have overcome the world” (John
but he that
believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? The faith that conquers is no mere vague belief in the existence of
God, but a definite belief in the Incarnation.
The one sole Victor, who is such in the highest and unique sense, is
Christ. Compare “Thanks be to God, which
giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ”
(1 Corinthians
The
believer and none other gains the victory over the
world. John appeals to the daily
experience of his readers and hearers. [49]
5:6 Translations
WEB: This
is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but
with the water and the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the
Spirit is the truth.
Young’s: This
one is he who did come through water and blood -- Jesus the Christ, not in the
water only, but in the water and the blood; and the Spirit it is that is
testifying, because the Spirit is the truth,
Conte (RC): This is the One who came by water and blood: Jesus Christ. Not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit is the One who testifies that the Christ is the Truth.
5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ.
This does not mean that when He came into the world he
was accompanied in some way by water and blood; but the idea is, that the water
and the blood were clearly manifest during His appearing on earth, or
that they were remarkable testimonials in some way to his character and
work. [18]
There have been many fanciful interpretations of the water
and blood; but the best commentators now
agree that the “water” was the water of Christ’s baptism, and the “blood” the propitiating “blood”
of His crucifixion. And thus, as Huther well notes, the commencement and the ending of our
Lord’s ministry are symbolized by these two elements. The “came,"
therefore, refers not to His birth, but to His office and earthly life,
which are thus one extended
coming. Yet John uses the
past tense “came” to denote that definite historical fact, and not any
continuous spiritual coming through ages. [33] [For more detailed discussions, see at
end of verse. rw]
not by water only,
but by water and blood. John the Baptist came “by
water only;” that is, he came to baptize the people, and to prepare them for
the coming of the Messiah. Jesus was
distinguished from him in the fact that His ministry was characterized by the
shedding of blood, or the shedding of His blood constituted one of the
peculiarities of His work. [18]
And it is the
Spirit that beareth witness. Of Jesus Christ, namely, by Moses
and all the prophets, by John the Baptist, by all the apostles, and in all the
writings of the New Testament. And against his testimony there can be no
exception, because the Spirit is truth. [2]
Here
again there are great diversities of interpretation. Augustine, who makes the water and blood
refer to the effusions of Christ’s side, takes “the spirit” to mean the spirit
which He committed to His Father at His death (John 19:30; Luke 23:46). But in what sense could Christ’s human spirit
be said to be “the Truth”? Far more
probably it is the Holy Spirit that is meant (1 John
because the Spirit is truth. The very God of truth.
[2]
Evidently the
Holy Spirit. [He] is so eminently
true that He may be called truth itself, as God is so eminently benevolent that
He may be called love itself. See 1 John
4:8. [18]
In
depth: Two Alternative
Explanations of “by water and blood” [1]. Water refers to Christ's baptism at the beginning of His Messianic
work, through which He declared His purpose to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew
Other explanations are substituted for this or combined with it. Some refer the words water and blood to the
incident in John 19:34. To this it is
justly objected that these words are evidently chosen to describe something
characteristic of Christ's Messianic office, which could not be said of the
incident in question. Nevertheless, as
Alford justly remarks, “to deny all such allusion seems against probability. The apostle could hardly, both here and in
that place, lay such evident stress on the water and the blood together,
without having in his mind some link connecting this place and that.” The readers of the Epistle must have been
familiar with the incident, from oral or from written teaching.
Problems with the crucifixion
scenario [18]. This
would be the obvious interpretation, and would be entirely clear, if John did
not immediately speak of the “water” and the “blood” as “separate” witnesses,
each as bearing witness to an important point, as separate as the “Spirit” and
the “water,” or the “Spirit” and the “blood;” whereas, if he refers to the mingled
water and blood flowing from his side, they both witness only the same
fact, to wit, his death. Here was no
“special” significancy in the water, no distinct
testifying to anything different from the flowing of the blood; but together
they bore witness to the “one” fact that he actually died. But here he seems to suppose that there is
some special significancy in each.
On the other hand, the explanation that
linking together the water and the blood at the time of the crucifixion
was intended as definitive rebuttal of a Gnostic heresy [44]. John specially emphasizes the crucifixion: “Not with the water only, but with the water
and with the blood.” He was probably
seeking to rebuke the heretics of his day, who were attempting to separate between
the human Jesus and the heavenly “Christ.”
They held that the divine Being, ‘Christ,” came
upon Jesus at the baptism but left Him just before His crucifixion. John affirms that the Being who was baptized was
identical with the Being who was crucified; He was the Son of God, both in
His life and in His death. A similar
error needs to be met today: first, in
those who deny the divine person of our Lord, as they attempt to distinguish
between “Jesus” and “the Christ;” and, second, in those who deny the atoning
work of our Lord, as they praise His power to purify and ennoble life, but
refuse to regard His death as a sacrifice for sin. We need today this message of John [that such
dual roles can’t be rightly separated].
“Water” as reference to convert baptism
[18]? Some, by the “water” here, have
understood the ordinance of baptism as it is appointed by the Savior to be
administered to his people, meaning that the ordinance was instituted by Him. So Beza, Calvin,
Knapp, Lucke, and others understand it. According to this the meaning would be, that He
appointed baptism by water as a symbol of the cleansing of the heart, and shed His
blood to effect the ransom of man, and that thus it might be said that He “came
by water and blood;” to wit, by these two things as effecting the salvation of
people.
But it seems improbable that the
apostle should have grouped these things together in this way. For (a) the “blood” is that which He shed;
which pertained to Him personally; which He poured out for the redemption
of man; and it is clear that, whatever is meant by the phrase “He came,” His
coming by “water” is to be understood in some sense similar to His coming by
“blood;” and it seems incredible that the apostle should have joined a mere
“ordinance” of religion in this way with the shedding of His blood, and placed
them in this manner on an equality.
([b]) If this be understood of baptism, there is no natural connection between that and the “blood” referred to; nothing by which the one would suggest the other; no reason why they should be united. If he had said that He came by the appointment of two ordinances for the edification of the church, “baptism and the supper,” however singular such a statement might be in some respects, yet there would be a connection, a reason why they should be suggested together. But why should baptism and the blood shed by the Savior on the cross be grouped together as designating the principal things which characterized his coming into the world?
“Blood” as reference to convert baptism as well [42]? The words
“not by water only, but by water and blood,” seem to indicate baptism as being far
more than the application of water.
It is the application of [Christ’s] blood as well.
5:7 Translations
WEB: For
there are three who testify:
Young’s: because
three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;
Conte (RC): For
there are Three who give testimony in heaven: the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And these Three are One.
5:7 For there are three that bear record [witness, NKJV].
The truth has both the exactness of one testimony and the certainty of
more than one. [46]
It is very doubtful whether the Trinity is even
remotely symbolized. Perhaps John wishes
to give the full, complement of evidence recognized by law (Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; Deuteronomy 19:15; compare John 8:17). [23]
The textual issue briefly
summed up: It will be assumed here,
without discussion, that the remainder of this verse and the first clause of 1 John 5:8 are spurious. Words
which are not contained in a single Greek uncial manuscript, nor in a single
Greek cursive earlier than the fourteenth century (the two which contain the
passage being evidently translated from the Vulgate), nor are quoted by a
single Greek Father during the whole of the Trinitarian controversy, nor are
found in any authority until late in the fifth
century, cannot be genuine. [24]
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost: and these three are one [omitted by ESV]. Identifying
who the three are. [rw]
in heaven. The present “location”
of all three. Although they are working on earth, though
human intermediaries, their personal “abode” is heaven itself. [rw]
the Father. Who clearly testified of the Son, both at His
baptism and at His transfiguration. [2]
the Word. Who testified of Himself on many occasions, while He
was on earth; and again, with still greater solemnity, after His ascension into
heaven, Revelation 1:5;
and the Holy Ghost. Whose testimony was added chiefly
after His glorification, 1John
and these three
are one.
They are one in
essence, in knowledge, in will, and in their testimony. [2]
Or: When
he says, These three are one,
he refers not to essence, but on the contrary to consent; as though he had said
that the Father and his eternal Word and Spirit harmoniously testify the same
thing respecting Christ. [27]
In depth: Whether interpolation or not, the concept behind
the verse is fully scriptural [5]. Any one who should preach
on this subject can use his own discretion about the mode of introducing
it. If he be perfectly assured that the
words are an interpolation, he can state his views of that matter, and adopt
the text, in order to show, that, though the words themselves are not
authentic, the truths contained in them are truly scriptural, and important: or he can take verse 9. for
his text. The unity of God may be
deduced even from reason itself: but it
is repeatedly affirmed in Scripture (compare Deuteronomy
6:4 with Mark
Though
there is only one God, yet there are three distinct Persons in the Godhead—In
reference to this subject, we use the term persons,
because there is no other so suitable: but we mean not that these persons are in all respects as distinct from each other as Peter,
James, and John; but only that in
some respects they are
distinguished from each other, though they subsist together in one undivided
essence.
It
is certain that there are
three persons mentioned in the Scripture: for baptism is ordered to be
administered, not in the name of God merely, but “in the name of the Father, of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19). These three are represented as
distinct from each other; for
the Son has told us, that “he will send the Holy Spirit from the Father” (John
15:26). They are moreover
spoken of as performing separate offices in the work of redemption: the Father elects (Ephesians 1:4); the
Son redeems (Ephesians 1:7); the Spirit sanctifies (Romans 15;16);
and Peter, comprising in few words the whole mystery of redemption, ascribes to
each of these persons His proper office (1 Peter 1:2). They are also declared to be
sources of distinct blessings to the Church:
the Apostle prays, that “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the
love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, may be with us
all” (2 Corinthians 13:14)
To
each of these belong the same names as unto the Father. Is the Father God? so is the
Word (John 1:1; as Christ is called in the text). He is “Emmanuel, God with us” (Matthew
To
the Holy Spirit also these names belong.
Ananias, in lying unto the Holy Ghost, lied
unto God (Acts 5:3-4). And we, in being
the temples of the Holy Ghost, are the temples of God (1 Corinthians
To
each of these the same attributes also are ascribed as characterize the
Father. Is the Father eternal, omnipresent, omniscient,
almighty? So is the Son
(Micah 5:2 and Hebrews 13:8; Matthew
What
now is the conclusion to be drawn from these premises, but that which is
asserted in the text, that “there are Three that bear record in heaven; and
that those Three are One”?
5:8 Translations
WEB: the
Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three agree as one.
Young’s: and
three are who are testifying in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the
blood, and the three are into the one.
Conte (RC): And there are three who give testimony on earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. And these three are one.
5:8 And there are
three that bear witness in earth [omitted by ESV]. These words also are part of the spurious
insertion. The true text of 1 John 5:7-8 runs: For those who bear witness are three, the Spirit, and the water,
and the blood; and the three agree in one. [23]
As a Trinitarian proof text: Literally, And
three are they who bear witness. It
is remarkable that the words “there” are
masculine, implying persons, and one is neuter, implying thing or
substance. It is not without a
shadow of reason, therefore, that Augustine found an
indication of the Trinity in the words.
Very similar is the Greek in the words “I and my Father are one,” where
“one” is neuter. [33]
the Spirit. In the word, confirmed by
miracles. [2]
Evidently the
Holy Spirit. The assertion here is, that that Spirit bears witness to
the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, (1 John 5:5). The testimony of the Holy Spirit to this fact
is contained in the following things:
(1) He did it at the baptism of Jesus (Matthew
and the water. Of
[our] baptism, wherein we are dedicated to the Son, (with the Father and
Spirit,) typifying his spotless purity, and the inward purifying of our nature. [2]
Or: That is, the
baptism of Jesus, and the scenes which occurred when He was baptized,
furnished evidence that He was the Messiah.
This was done in these ways: (1) It was proper that
the Messiah should be baptized when He entered on His work, and perhaps it was
expected; and the fact that He was baptized showed that He had in fact entered
on His work as Redeemer. See Matthew
3:15. (2) An undoubted attestation was then furnished
to the fact that he was “the Son of God,” by the descent of the Holy Spirit in
the form of a dove, and by the voice that addressed Him from heaven, Matthew 3:16-17. (3)
His baptism with water was an emblem of the purity of His own character,
and of the nature of His religion.
(4) Perhaps it may be implied
here, also, that water used in baptism now bears witness to the same thing, (a)
as it is the ordinance appointed by the Savior; (b) as it keeps up His religion
in the world; c) as it is a public symbol of the purity of His religion; (d ) and as, in every case where it is administered, it is
connected with the public expression of a belief that Jesus is the Son of
God. [18]
and the blood. Represented in the Lord's Supper, and applied to the
consciences of believer. [2]
Or [18]: There
is undoubted allusion here to the blood shed on the cross; and the meaning is,
that that blood bore witness also to the fact that He was the Son of God. This it did in the following respects:
(1) The shedding of the blood showed that He was
truly dead--that His work was complete--that He died in reality,
and not in “appearance” only. See John
19:34-35.
(2) The remarkable circumstances that attended
the shedding of this blood--the darkened sun, the earthquake, the rending of
the veil of the temple--showed in a manner that convinced even the Roman
centurion that He was the Son of God. See
Matthew 27:54.
(3) The fact that an “atonement” was thus
made for sin was an important “witness” for the Savior, showing that He had
done that which the Son of God only could do, by disclosing a way by which the
sinner may be pardoned, and the polluted soul be made pure.
(4) Perhaps, also, there may be here an allusion
to the Lord‘s Supper, as designed to set forth the shedding of this blood;
and the apostle may mean to have it implied that the representation of the
shedding of the blood in this ordinance is intended to keep up the conviction
that Jesus is the Son of God. If so,
then the general sense is, that that blood--however set before the eyes and the
hearts of people--on the cross, or by the representation of its shedding in the
Lord‘s Supper--is a witness in the world to the truth that Jesus is the Son of
God, and to the nature of His religion.
Compare 1 Corinthians 11:26. [18]
and these three
agree in one. Literal Greek, these three are into one. The three persons converge into a unit. [33]
In bearing the same testimony--that Jesus Christ is
the divine, the complete, the only Savior of the world. [2]
They agree in one thing; they bear
on one and the same point, to wit, the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. All are appointed by God as witnesses of this
fact; and all harmonize in the testimony which is borne. The apostle does not say that there
are no other witnesses to the same thing; nor does he even say that these are
the most important or decisive which have been furnished; but he says that
these are important witnesses, and are entirely harmonious in their
testimony. [18]
5:9 Translations
WEB: If we receive the witness of
men, the witness of God is greater; for this is God's testimony which he has
testified concerning his Son.
Young’s: If the
testimony of men we receive, the testimony of God is greater, because this is the
testimony of God that He hath testified concerning His Son.
Conte (RC): If we
accept the testimony of men, then the testimony of God is greater. For this is
the testimony of God, which is greater: that he has testified about his Son.
5:9 If we receive the witness of men.
As we are accustomed to do, and as
we must do in courts of justice, and in the ordinary daily transactions of
life. We are constantly acting on
the belief that what others say is true; that what the members of our families,
and our neighbors say, is true; that what is reported by travelers is true;
that what we read in books, and what is sworn to in courts of justice, is
true. We could not get along a single
day if we did not act on this belief; nor are we accustomed to call it in question,
unless we have reason to suspect that it is false. The mind is so made that it must credit the
testimony borne by others; and if this should cease even for a single day, the
affairs of the world would come to a pause.
[18]
On
the testimony of two or three unimpeached oaths of men we take the life of a
fellow-being by the courts: Deuteronomy
17:6;
the witness of God
is greater.
Is more worthy of belief; as God is more true, and
wise, and good than people. People may be deceived, and may undesignedly bear witness to that which is not true--God
never can be. Men may, for sinister and
base purposes, intend to deceive--God never can. People may act from partial observation, from
rumors unworthy of credence--God never can.
People have deceived--God never has.
[18]
for this is the
witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. Hence not mere human testimony, but that of Deity itself. [rw]
WEB: He
who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who doesn't
believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony
that God has given concerning his Son.
Young’s: He who
is believing in the Son of God, hath the testimony in
himself; he who is not believing God, a liar hath made Him, because he hath not
believed in the testimony that God hath testified concerning His Son;
Conte (RC): Whoever believes in the Son of God, holds the testimony of God within himself. Whoever does not believe in the Son, makes him a liar, because he does not believe in the testimony which God has testified about his Son.
hath the witness in
himself.
In
short: The testimony, the “witness,” the “record,” is within us as a divine
intuition, possessing the highest conceivable certainty. [33]
In detail: The evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. Compare Romans 8:16. This cannot refer to any distinct and
immediate “revelation” of that fact, that Jesus is the Christ, to the soul of
the individual, and is not to be understood as independent of the external
evidence of that truth, or as superseding the necessity of that evidence; but
the “witness” here referred to is the fruit of all the evidence, external
and internal, on the heart, producing this result; that is, there is the
deepest conviction of the truth that Jesus is the Son of God. There is the evidence derived from the fact
that the soul has found peace by believing on him; from the fact that the
troubles and anxieties of the mind on account of sin have been removed by faith
in Christ; from the effect of this in disarming death of its terrors; and from
the whole influence of the gospel on the intellect and the affections--on the
heart and the life. These things
constitute a mass of evidence for the truth of the Christian religion. [18]
Some
authorities add “of God,” which is right as an interpretation, though not as
part of the text. [23]
he that believeth
not God hath made him a liar. He that has not even enough faith to induce him to believe what God
says. [23]
The
witness of the God of the Old Testament is so explicit
as to Jesus Christ being His true and only Son—that he who receives not this
witness cannot believe in the truth of God at all. He rejects the evidence of prophecy,
miracles, holy character, unique teaching, voices from heaven, the
Resurrection, the descent of the Holy Ghost, the unexampled [= unprecedented]
spread of Christianity, and the lives of the Christians. [42]
because he believeth not the record [testimony, NKJV] that God gave
of his Son.
Our apostle allows not the unbeliever the chance of
saying, “Perhaps it is not God who testifies.”
It is not only a sure testimony, but it is just as sure that the
testifier is God. If, therefore, the truth of the testimony is
denied, the divine veracity is impeached.
It is a personal issue between man and God. [33] Does any sane person really
want to get into an argument about who could be a more reliable source than God
Himself? [rw]
WEB: The
testimony is this, that God gave to us eternal life,
and this life is in his Son.
Young’s: and
this is the testimony, that life age-during did God give to us, and this -- the
life -- is in His Son;
Conte (RC): And this
is the testimony which God has given to us: Eternal Life. And this Life is in
his Son.
that God hath given
to us eternal life. Has
provided, through the Savior, the means of obtaining eternal life. See
John 5:24; John 17:2-3. [18]
“Gave”
must not be weakened into “offered,” still less into “promised.” The believer already possesses eternal
life. [23]
and this life is
in his Son.
Whose doctrine hath revealed it; whose merits have
procured it; whose Spirit hath imparted the beginning
of it; and whose example will conduct us to the complete possession of it. In other words, by whom it is purchased, and
in whom it is treasured up; so that He has all the springs, and the fullness of
it, in Himself, to communicate to His body, the church, first in grace and then
in glory. “Though the apostle, in what
goes before, has spoken particularly of the three in heaven, and of the three
on earth, who bear witness continually, he deferred mentioning, till now, what
it is they are witnessing; that by introducing it last of all, and after so
much preparation, it might make the stronger impression on the minds of his
readers.” [35]
“I
am the way, the truth, and the life.”
“As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have
life in himself.”
“He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him
up at the last day.” “When Christ who is
our Life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.” [42]
WEB: He
who has the Son has the life. He who doesn't have God's Son doesn't have the
life.
Young’s: he who
is having the Son, hath the life; he who is not having the Son of God -- the
life he hath not.
Conte (RC): Whoever
has the Son, has Life. Whoever does not have the Son, does not have Life.
and he that hath
not the Son of God. Regardless of the reason or excuse, this is always the situation. This is the inescapable conclusion if the
initial assertion is true. [rw]
hath not life. He
that does not believe on Him will not attain to eternal life. See John 3:36. [18]
“Hath not the life.” And yet he
has natural life, proving wholly another sort of life to be meant by John.
It is only as we touch Christ that we live.
Our regeneration is in connection with Christ (Ephesians
WEB: These
things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that
you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe
in the name of the Son of God.
Young’s: These
things I did write to you who are believing in the
name of the Son of God, that ye may know that life ye have age-during, and that
ye may believe in the name of the Son of God.
Conte (RC): I am
writing this to you, so that you may know that you have Eternal Life: you who
believe in the name of the Son of God.
Literally, “I wrote.” Aorist. Imagine a pause, or interruption, between the
preceding section and the present one, and the tense becomes natural. [52]
unto you. The Christian circle for
which John wrote. [52]
that believe on the
name of the Son of God. To believe on His name, is
to believe on himself--the word “name” often being used to denote the
person. See Matthew 28:19. [18]
that ye may know
that ye have eternal life. That you may see the
evidence that eternal life has been provided, and that you may be able, by
self-examination, to determine whether you possess it. [18]
This
is the special aim of this epistle. He
aims to bring about a living consciousness of eternal life that our joy may be
complete (1:4). [49]
and that ye may
believe on the name of the Son of God. That you may continue to
believe, or may persevere in believing.
He was assured that they actually did believe on Him then; but he was
desirous of so setting before them the nature of religion, that they would
continue to exercise faith in Him. It is
often one of the most important duties of ministers of the gospel, to present
to real Christians such views of the nature, the claims, the evidences, and the
hopes of religion, as shall be adapted to secure their perseverance in the
faith. [18]
In depth: Speculation
that verses 13-21 are not part of the original letter
of John [23]. Some modern writers consider that 1
John
Not much can be urged in favor of these views. No MS or version seems to exist in which
these concluding verses are wanting. Tertullian quotes 1
John 5:16-18 (De Pudicitia xix.) and 1 John
Against
such evidence as this, arbitrary statements that the division of sins into sins
unto death and sins not unto death, the sternness of 1 John
WEB: This
is the boldness which we have toward him, that, if we ask anything according to
his will, he listens to us.
Young’s: And
this is the boldness that we have toward Him, that if anything we may ask according
to his will, He doth hear us,
Conte (RC): And this is the confidence which we have toward God: that no matter what we shall request, in accord with his will, he hears us.
This is the
boldness or confidence of
that, if we ask any
thing.
Temporal
or spiritual, for ourselves or for others. [52]
according to his will. His revealed will--for his
word shows us what things we may lawfully ask.
[35]
This is the proper and the
necessary limitation in all prayer. God
has not promised to grant anything that shall be contrary to His will, and it
could not be right that He should do it.
We ought not to wish to receive anything that should be contrary to what
He judges to be best. No man could hope
for good who should esteem his own wishes to be a better guide than the will of
God. [18]
he heareth us. “Heareth” of course means that He hears and grants what we ask (John
Not only observes and takes notice
of our petitions, but favorably regards them, and will assuredly grant them if He
sees, and as far as He sees, that it will be for our present and eternal good
to have them granted: see 1 John 5:15. Archbishop Tillotson
supposes that this refers particularly to the apostles. “But so few of the apostles could be concerned
in this advice of John, and there are so many promises of the answer of prayer
scattered up and down in the Old and New Testaments, that I,” says Dr.
Doddridge, “would by no means thus confine the interpretation.” [35]
In depth: The limits
of what God will grant in response to our prayers [18]. The
limitation here, “according to his will,” probably implies the following
things:
(1) In accordance with what He has “declared”
that He is willing to grant. Here the
range is large, for there are many things which we know to be in accordance
with His will, if they are sought in a proper manner--as the forgiveness of
sins, the sanctification of the soul (1 Thessalonians 4:3), comfort in trial,
the needful supply of our wants, grace that we may do our duty, wisdom to
direct and guide us (James 1:5), deliverance from the evils
which beset us, and our final salvation.
Here is a range of subjects of petition that may gratify the largest
wishes of prayer.
(2) The expression, “according to his will,” must
limit the answer to prayer to what He sees to be best for us. Of that we are not always good judges. We never perceive it as clearly as our Maker
does, and in many things we might be wholly mistaken. Certainly we ought not to desire to be
permitted to ask anything which God would judge not to be for our good.
(3) The expression must limit the petition to
what it will be consistent for God to bestow upon us. We cannot expect that he will work a miracle
in answer to our prayers; we cannot ask him to bestow blessings in violation of
any of the laws which He has ordained, or in any other way than that which He
has appointed. It is better that the
particular blessing should be withheld from us, than that the laws which He has
appointed should be disregarded. It is
better that an idle man should not have a harvest, though he should pray for
it, than that God should violate the laws by which he has determined to bestow
such favors as a reward of industry, and work a special miracle in answer to a
lazy man‘s prayers.
(4) The expression, “according to his will,” must
limit the promise to what will be for the good of the whole. God presides over the universe: and though in him there is an infinite
fullness, and he regards the wants of every individual throughout his immense
empire, yet the interests of the whole, as well as of the individual,
are to be consulted and regarded. In a
family, it is conceivable that a child might ask for some favor whose
bestowment would interfere materially with the rights of others, or be
inconsistent with the good of the whole, and in such a case a just father would
of course withhold it. With these
necessary limitations the range of the promise in prayer is ample; and, with
these limitations, it is true beyond a question that He does hear and answer
prayer.
WEB: And
if we know that he listens to us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the
petitions which we have asked of him.
Young’s: and if
we have known that He doth hear us, whatever we may ask, we have known that we
have the requests that we have requested from Him.
Conte (RC): And we
know that he hears us, no matter what we request; so we know that we can obtain
the things that we request of him.
whatsoever we ask. Either in the things themselves or
some blessed equivalents. [33]
we know that we
have the petitions that we desired [have asked, NKJV] of him. We have the assurance (= “know”) that He will
give the best possible answer to our prayer.
We know it now even though the actual fulfillment may lie in the
future. [rw]
Not merely that we shall have: our prayers are already granted, although no
results may be perceptible. If we know that he hear us …
we know that we have. The one certitude depends upon the other: if we trust God’s goodness, we are perfectly
certain that our trust is not misplaced.
Compare “All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye
have received them, and ye shall have them” (Mark
The prophetic
word of Isaiah 65:24 is fulfilled [“And
it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are
yet speaking, I will hear”]. [52]
WEB: If
anyone sees his brother sinning a sin not leading to
death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for those who sin not leading
to death. There is a sin leading to death. I don't say that he should make a
request concerning this.
Young’s: If any
one may see his brother sinning a sin not unto death,
he shall ask, and He shall give to him life to those sinning not unto death;
there is sin to death, not concerning it do I speak that he may beseech;
Conte (RC): Anyone
who realizes that his brother has sinned, with a sin that is not unto death,
let him pray, and life shall be given to him who has sinned not unto death.
There is a sin which is unto death. I am not saying that anyone should ask on
behalf of that sin.
see. The supposed case is one in which the sinner is seen in the very
act. [23]
a sin which is
not unto death. A sin you still have the opportunity and strength to escape from rather
than it becoming habitual and a lifestyle.
[rw]
Or: Rather, there is sin: not a
sin. Not a particular sin, but a sinful
state. There is no article in the
original. [46]
he shall [will,
NKJV] ask.
Future for
imperative; or, he will ask,
i.e. a Christian in such a case is sure to pray for his erring brother. The latter seems preferable. [23]
and he shall [will,
NKJV] give him life for them that sin not unto death. Conditional upon repentance: The
prayer of one human being can never cancel another's free-will. If God's will does not override
man's will, neither can a fellow-man's prayer.
When a human will has been firmly and persistently set in opposition to
the Divine will, our intercession will be of no avail. And this seems to be the meaning of "sin
unto death; "willful and
obstinate rejection of God's grace and persistence in unrepented
sin. [24]
“He” taken as the person
intervening via prayer: The
Greek is ambiguous. “He” may mean either
God or the intercessor, and “him” may mean either the intercessor or the sinner
for whom he intercedes. If the latter
alternatives be taken, we may compare “he shall save a soul from death” (James
There is a sin
unto death.
Not any special sin which can be recognized as “unto
death.” Sin cannot be divided into
“mortal” and “venial” on the authority of this passage. Sin may be of such a character as to lead to
total separation from Christ, which is spiritual death. “Sin unto death” is not any act of sin, however heinous, but a state or habit of sin willfully chosen and persisted
in: it is constant and consummate
opposition to God (Plummer). [7]
A sin which is of such a character
that it throws the offender beyond the reach of mercy, and which is not to be
pardoned. The apostle does not here say
what that sin is; nor how they might know what it is;
nor even that in any case they could determine that it had been committed. He merely says that there is such a
sin, and that he does not design that his remark about the efficacy of prayer
should be understood as extending to that.
[18]
I do not say
that he shall pray for it. Huther
correctly says that “I do not say” is
no absolute prohibition. It is only a
declining to advise prayer if the deadly nature were known. Let him leave that to God, pray in hope, but
be not disappointed, or discontented with God, if it prove the unpardonable
sin. [23]
Not applicable in actual
practice? There
were instances in the times of the prophets in which the sin of the people
became so universal and so aggravated, that they were forbidden to pray for
them. Isaiah 14:11: “then said the Lord unto me, Pray not for
this people for their good;” Isaiah
15:1: “Then said the Lord unto
me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward
this people; cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth.” But these were cases in which the prophets
were directly instructed by God not to pray for a people. We have no such instruction; and it may be
said now with truth, that as we can never be certain respecting anyone that he
has committed the unpardonable sin,
There may be those who are so far gone in sin that there may seem to be
little, or almost no ground of hope.
They may have cast off all the restraints of religion, of morality, of
decency but still, while there is life it is our duty to pray for them, “if
peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth,” 2 Timothy 2:25. [18]
John is making prayer optional in such cases rather than
obligatory? (1) Note carefully that John, even in this extreme
case, does
not forbid intercession: all
he says is that he does not command it.
For one who sins an ordinary sin we may intercede in faith with
certainty that a prayer so fully in harmony with God’s will is heard. The sinner will receive grace to repent. But where the sinner has made repentance
morally impossible John does not encourage us to intercede. Compare Jeremiah
(2) Note also that, while distinguishing
between deadly and not deadly sin, he gives us no criterion by which we may distinguish the one from
the other. He thus condemns
rather than sanctions those attempts which casuists have made to tabulate sins
under the heads of “mortal” and “venial.”
Sins differ indefinitely in their intensity and effect on the soul,
ending at one end of the scale in “sin unto death;” and the gradations depend
not merely or chiefly on the sinful act, but on the motive which
prompted it, and the feeling (whether
of sorrow or delight) which the recollection of it evokes. Further than this it is not safe to define or
dogmatize. This seems to be intimated by
what is told us in the next verse. Two facts are to be borne in mind, and
beyond them we need not pry. [23]
In depth: Weakness of
the scenario that the “sin unto death” is the sin leading to physical
rather than spiritual death [33]. The much mooted question here encounters us, What
is this “sin unto death?” The phrase was familiar to the
Jews. Upon Numbers
In depth: “Sin unto
death” interpreted as the kind of persistent sin that so hardens the heart that
one has destroyed one’s own ability to repent and change for the better [23]. Or, There is sin unto death;
we have no τις or μία in the Greek, a fact which is against
the supposition that any act of
sin is intended. In that case would not
John have named it, that the faithful might avoid it, and also know when it had
been committed?
The
following explanations of “sin unto death” may be safely rejected:
1. Sin punished by the law with death.
2. Sin punished by Divine visitation with death
or sickness.
3. Sin punished by the Church with
excommunication.
As
a help to a right explanation we may get rid of the idea which some
commentators assume, that “sin unto death” is a sin which can be recognized by those among whom the one who
commits it lives. John’s very guarded
language points the other way. He
implies that some sins may be known to be “not unto
death:” he neither
says nor implies that all “sin unto death” can be known as such.
As
a further help we may remember that no sin, if repented of, can be too great
for God’s mercy.
Hence
John does not speak even of this sin as “fatal” or “mortal,” but as “unto death”
(πρὸς θάνατον). Death is its natural, but not its absolutely
inevitable consequence. It is
possible to close the heart against the influences of God’s Spirit so
obstinately and persistently that repentance becomes a moral impossibility.
Just as the body may starve itself to
such an extent as to make the digestion, or even the reception, of food
impossible; so the soul may go on refusing offers of grace until the very power
to receive grace perishes.
Such
a condition is necessarily sin, and “sin unto death.” No passing over out of death into life (1
John
In depth: “Sin unto
death” interpreted as Gnostic-specific (i.e., denying that Jesus both lived and
died as Christ) [50]. Intercession for brethren, i.e., for the members of the community which
we are here concerned, is not to be offered in all cases. It must not be made in case of mortal sin. Commentators have been severely exercised
about this sin. The meaning is
remarkably simple [in light of what John has discussed]. The whole Epistle is a warning against
anti-Christianity, the denial of the Father and of the Son (4:1-4;
WEB: All
unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.
Young’s: all
unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not unto death.
Conte (RC): All that
is iniquity is sin. But there is a sin unto death.
and there is a sin
not unto death. A warning against despair, whether about ourselves or about others. [23]
This is added for the relief of weak believers, who
hearing of a sin unto death, not to be prayed for, might fear that theirs were
of that kind, whereas none of them are; for though they are guilty of many unrighteousnesses, yet God is merciful to them and
forgives, Hebrews 8:12, and so
they are not unto death. [16]
WEB: We
know that whoever is born of God doesn't sin, but he who was born of God keeps
himself, and the evil one doesn't touch him.
Young’s: We
have known that every one who hath been begotten of God doth not sin, but he
who was begotten of God doth keep himself, and the evil one doth not touch him;
Conte (RC): We know that everyone who is born of God does not sin. Instead, rebirth in God preserves him, and the evil one cannot touch him.
that whosoever is
born of God. That is, a convert who is persistently attempting to live as he or she
should. [rw]
sinneth not. Is not habitually and
characteristically a sinner. [18]
Once
more the Apostle is not afraid of an apparent contradiction. He has just been saying that if a Christian
sins his brother will intercede for him; and now he says that the child of God
does not sin. The one statement refers to
possible but exceptional facts; the other to the habitual state. A child of God may sin; but his normal
condition is one of resistance to sin. [23]
but he that is
begotten of God keepeth himself. Watches
and guards himself.
[33]
It is
not said that he does it by his own strength [alone], but he will put
forth his best efforts to keep himself from sin, and by divine assistance he
will be able to accomplish it. Compare 1
John 3:3; Jude, verse 21. [18]
and that wicked
one.
This refers to Satan, the evil one preeminently who
seduced Adam (Genesis 3:6); who tempted Jesus (Matthew 4:1); who filled the
heart of Judas (John 13:2); who beguiled Peter for a time (Luke 22:31). [51]
toucheth him not. The great enemy of all good
is repelled in his assaults, and he is kept from falling into his snares. The word “toucheth”
(ἅπτεται) is used here in the sense of harm or injure. [18]
Examples: The man spoken of in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 ; Hymenteus and Philetus (2 Timothy
WEB: We
know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
Young’s: we
have known that of God we are, and the whole world in the evil doth lie;
Conte (RC): We know
that we are of God, and that the entire world is established in wickedness.
and the whole
world.
The term “world” here
evidently means not the material world, but the people who dwell on the earth,
including all idolaters, and all sinners of every grade and kind. [18]
lieth in wickedness [lies under the sway of the wicked one, NKJV]. It remains in his power. It has not passed
over, as they have done, out of death into life; but it abides in the evil one,
who is its ruler (John
The figure may suggest several
different ideas. A stranded vessel lying
embedded in the sand; a lost sheep lying engulphed in
the treacherous swamp; a sow contented to lie wallowing in the mire; a Samson,
lying bewitched in Delilah's lap—these are the images called forth; and they
are all but too appropriate. [37]
WEB: We
know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding, that we
know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God, and eternal life.
Young’s: and we
have known that the Son of God is come, and hath given us a mind, that we may
know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ;
this one is the true God and the life age-during!
Conte (RC): And we know that the Son of God has arrived, and that he has given us understanding, so that we may know the true God, and so that we may remain in his true Son. This is the true God, and this is Eternal Life.
and hath given us
an understanding. Not an “understanding”
considered as a faculty of the mind, for religion gives us no new faculties;
but He has so instructed us that we do understand the great truths referred
to. Compare Luke 24:45. [18]
that we may know. Literally, “that we may continue
to recognize, as we do now” (ἵνα with the indicative). [23]
him that is true. That
is, the true God. See John 17:3. [18]
“True”
does not mean “that cannot lie’ (Titus 1:2), but “genuine, real, very,”
as opposed to the false gods
of 1 John
and we are in him
that is true. That is, we are united to Him;
we belong to Him; we are His friends.
This idea is often expressed in the Scriptures by being “in him.” It denotes a most intimate union, as if we
were one with Him--or were a part of Him--as the branch is in the vine, John 15:4, 6. [18]
even in his Son
Jesus Christ. The singular “Son” expresses the unique sonship
relationship that no one else can ever share.
[rw]
This is the
true God.
Does “this” refer to God or to Christ? We must be content to leave the question
open; both interpretations make excellent sense, and none of the arguments in
favor of either are decisive. The
question is not important. “That Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God,” who was with the Father from all eternity, is
the very foundation of John's teaching in Gospel and Epistles; and it is not of
much moment whether this particular text contains the doctrine of the Divinity
of Christ or not. But if, with St. Athanasius, we interpret “this” of Christ, the conclusion
of the letter is brought into striking harmony with the opening of it, in which
(1 John 1:2) Christ is spoken of as “the Eternal
Life which was with the
Father, and was manifested to us.”
Moreover, we obtain a striking contrast with what follows. “This Man, Jesus Christ, is the true God: it
is no idolatry to worship him. Whosoever
says that He is not God makes us idolaters.
But idolatry is to us an abomination.”
[24]
and eternal life. God is the Source and Giver of life that
continues immeasurably far beyond that of our mortal, earthly one. [rw]
In depth: Does “the
true God” in this verse refer to the Father or to the Son [23]? The evidence for both
sides. It is impossible to determine with certainty whether “This” (οὗτος)
refers to the Father, the principal substantive
of the previous sentence, or to Jesus Christ, the nearest substantive. That John teaches the Divinity of Jesus
Christ both in Epistle and Gospel is so manifest, that a text more or less in
favor of the doctrine need not be the subject of heated controversy.
The
following considerations are in favor of referring “This” to Christ.
1.
Jesus Christ is the subject last
mentioned.
2.
The Father having been twice called “the
true One” in the previous verse, to proceed to say of Him “This is the true God”
is somewhat tautological.
3.
It is Christ who both in this Epistle (1
John 1:2;
4.
S. Athanasius
three times in his Orations against the Arians interprets the passage in this way, as
if there was no doubt about it (III. xxiv. 4, xxv. 16; IV. ix. 1).
The
following are in favor of referring “This” to the Father.
1.
The Father is the leading subject of all
that follows “understanding.”
2.
To repeat what has been already stated
and add to it is exactly John’s style.
He has spoken of “Him that is true:” and he now goes on “This (true One)
is the true God
and eternal life.”
3.
It is the Father who is the source of
that life which the Son has and is (John
4. John 17:3 supports this view [“And
this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom thou hast sent”].
5.
The Divinity of Christ has less special
point in reference to the warning against idols: the truth that God is the true God is the
basis of the warning against false gods: compare 1 Thessalonians 1:9 [“For they themselves shew of
us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from
idols to serve the living and true God”].
WEB: Little children, keep yourselves from idols.
Young’s: Little
children, guard yourselves from the idols! Amen.
Conte (RC): Little
sons, keep yourselves from false worship. Amen.
A title that
reminded them of their relation at once to God and to him, inspired them with
Christian confidence, and laid the basis for strong admonition and appeal. [52]
keep yourselves. Here the verb is in the aorist imperative; “once for
all be on your guard and have nothing to do with.” The use of the reflexive pronoun instead of
the middle voice intensifies the command to personal care and exertion (φυλάξατε ἑαυτά). [23]
from idols. Flee
from idolatry, the besetting sin of that age.
So too we need to flee from the idols of our age. Whatever takes our worship from God is an
idol. [3]
An idol is anything which usurps
in our hearts that supreme place which belongs to God alone. If we live in the reality and power of verse
twenty, we shall certainly say like Ephraim, “What have I to do any more with
idols?” (Hosea 14:8). [8]
Amen. Here, as at the end of the Gospel and the Second
Epistle, “Amen” is the addition of a copyist. אAB and most Versions omit it. Perhaps that in Galatians
In depth: Whatever applications
of the principle that idols are inherently wrong that we might reasonably make,
the text itself does not have those directly in mind [23]. There is no
need to seek far-fetched figurative explanations of “the idols” when the
literal meaning lies close at hand, is suggested by the context, and is in
harmony with the known circumstances of the time. Is it reasonable to suppose that John was
warning his readers against “systematizing inferences of scholastic theology;
theories of self-vaunting orthodoxy . . . tyrannous shibboleths of aggressive
systems,” or against superstitious honor paid to the “Madonna, or saints, or
pope, or priesthood,” when every street through which his readers walked, and
every heathen house they visited, swarmed with idols in the literal sense;
above all when it was its magnificent temples and groves and seductive
idolatrous rites which constituted some of the chief attractions at
Ephesus? Elsewhere in N. T. the word is invariably used literally. Moreover, if we interpret this warning
literally, we have another point of contact between the Epistle and the
Apocalypse (Revelation
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.