18 - 1Jn 2:7-8
Ἀδελφοὶ, οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐντολὴν παλαιὰν, ἣν εἴχετε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς· Πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία παράγεται, καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει.
We enter on that sequel with a double expectation. First, that is, we are obliged to expect a closer definition of the contents of 1Jn 2:6, as we have seen in our general remarks upon the section that we are still on the way to its central point in 1Jn 2:9. But what constitutes the closer relation between 1Jn 2:6 and the sequel can, in the absence of any external bond of connection, be shown only by a penetrating study of the particulars. But, secondly, the appeal, so emphatic and disconnected, which stands at the beginning, and so obviously springs from a vehement feeling, points us to the fact that the apostle attaches a special importance to what is about to follow. As to the ἀδελφοὶ [“brothers”] of the Textus Receptus, however aptly it may suit a section on love of brethren, we are obliged by external reasons to prefer the reading ἀγαπητοί [“beloved”]. But the main question is, what we are to understand by the ἐντολὴκαινή [“new commandment”] and παλαιά [“old”]. There has been a disposition to interpret them of two distinct commandments: in which case, probably, the ἐντολὴπαλαιά [“old commandment”] would be brotherly love, and the ἐντολὴκαινή [“new commandment”] the imitation of Christ; or the order might be inverted; or a third interpretation might be supposable, since the section itself furnishes no key, and the idea of two separate commandments of course opens the way for all kinds of solutions. But the notion of thus dividing them is as a theory full of insurmountable difficulties, both formal and in the matter. The expression itself opposes it, as it seems to us; for we should in such a case expect, not οὐκἐντολὴν καινὴνἀλλὰπαλαιάν [“not a new but an old commandment”], but “as well a new commandment as an old,” or something like this; and similarly, in 1Jn 2:8, instead of πάλινἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω [“on the other hand, I am writing a new commandment”], we should expect “and yet again I write,” and so forth. For if the apostle, in fact, announced two commandments an old one and a new one, it would be impossible for him to have said, without any further explanation, that one of then he did not announce. Thus we must understand that only one commandment is meant, which, viewed from different points, may now be considered as new and now as old. But there are material as well as formal difficulties in the theory of two separate commandments. For it would be most obvious on that supposition to describe the command to follow Christ as the ἐντολὴπαλαιά [“old commandment”], and that of brotherly love as the καινή [“new”]. But it is impossible to admit that the former of these was older than the other; even in the sense that the churches received the precept to follow Christ before they received that of loving one another. For where can we imagine a church which had not been taught to include this among the elements of the faith? Still less can we conceive that St. John should call that commandment old because it had been communicated in what he had said above, and the other new because he was about to communicate it: for how can a commandment be called old because it has just been announced? Thus we must regard the ἐντολὴκαινή καὶπαλαιά [“a commandment new and old”] as one and the same commandment viewed under different aspects. This being so, of course it can mean no other than that of brotherly love, of which the section before us treats. Even if the commandment in question were referred to the περιπατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν [“walk just as he walked”], that would make no material difference, for we have seen that even these words have for their substance nothing but the example of brotherly love. Formally, of course, there would then be a certain difference introduced into the thought; but we will for the time assume that brotherly love in general is the matter of the precept. Further consideration will show whether 1Jn 2:7 and 1Jn 2:8 are to be referred forwards to 1Jn 2:9, that is, to the ἀγαπᾶν τοὺςἀδελφούς [“love the brothers”], or backwards to 1Jn 2:6, the περιπατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν [“walk just as he walked”]. In what sense, then, is the commandment of brotherly love an old one? It seems obvious and plausible at the outset to consider this as meaning that it had been already given in the Old Testament, and that it was called also an ἐντολὴκαινή [“new commandment”], because Christ had in an altogether new way established it as a law. Nor would it be a valid objection to this that the readers were for the most part Gentile Christians, to whom the Old Testament had no authority; for the New Testament regards the whole kingdom of God as one unity, so that the Gentile Christians were the legitimate heirs of the ancient oracles. But, certainly, were this the right interpretation, we should expect to find the apostle using the plural, as including himself and all: ἣν ἔσχετε, ἣνἠκούσαμεν [“which you have received, which you have heard”]. But by speaking in the second person he distinguishes himself from his readers as his disciples; and this of itself makes it probable that the ἀπ᾽ἀρχῆςἔσχετε [“you have received from the beginning”] refers to the beginning of their Christianity. Moreover, we have seen that λόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ [“word of God”] in 1Jn 2:5 points to the announcement made through Christ, and it would seem obvious to refer the λόγος [“word”] of 1Jn 2:7 also to this; accordingly, the λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε [“word which you have heard”] is the announcement of salvation communicated through the apostles. We must note how delicately careful is the insertion and omission of the article in our verse; not a new commandment write I unto you, the author says, but an old one, which ye have had since the beginning of your Christianity; and the saving announcement which ye then heard (the second ἀπ᾽ἀρχῆς [“from the beginning”] at the end of the verse must be struck out), the entire λόγος [“word”] concerning the personal Logos, has only this meaning, the very same old commandment (here the article comes in) concerning which I speak. And now, once more, how can this commandment be termed a new one? The answer of this difficult question, or the way to it, is indicated evidently enough; for in Joh 13:34 we have a quite similar utterance. The Lord says in connection with the last Passover: ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν, ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους· καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους [“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another”]. In this verse we find the constitutive elements of our present passage: here as there brotherly love is called an ἐντολὴ καινή [“new commandment”]; here as there the same closer definition is appended, for the περιπατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν [“walk just as he walked”] corresponds precisely to the ἀγαπᾶνκαθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς [“love just as I have loved you”]. But the same question arises as to the passage in the Gospel itself, how far brotherly love could be there called a new commandment; since it was not only prescribed in the Old Testament, but had been by Christ Himself, during the course of His ministry, again and again imprinted upon His disciples’ minds as the second great commandment, like unto the first. But when we narrowly examine it, we find a difference. So to love as He Himself loved, the Lord had never before commanded; and it will be evident that in this appendage not only is there a new and stronger incentive to brotherly love, but that also the precept in fact receives an altogether new colour. Brotherly love on this foundation, and enforced by this example, does in very deed become a perfectly new commandment. To apprehend this more fully, we must take a step onward in the evangelical history. The evangelist begins the second great division of the Gospel, the narrative of the passion, with the words, Ἰησοῦς ἀγαπήσας τοὺς ἰδίους εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς [“Jesus loved his own, he loved them to the end” cf. John 13:1]. It is manifest that this does not say merely that our Lord also, in the last days of His earthly life, advanced in the love which He had all along displayed: for how should it occur to the thought of any one to deny that? What was there in this general idea that could have moved the apostle to place it in the foreground with such deep emphasis? We are constrained rather to believe that the justification of an utterance thus made emphatic lay in this, that a peculiar power of love was manifested in the passion of Christ, that it was a specifically arduous love, a higher degree of love, which enabled the Lord to continue, even εἰς τέλος [“to the end”], in the course of love which He had always displayed. And, in fact, it would have been—to speak humanly—natural if the Lord had been frightened back from this ἀγαπὴεἰς τέλος [“love to the end”], which imposed upon Him such an unspeakable burden; and it signalized the full glory of His power to love, that it was capable of sustaining such a test. Thus the verse of the Gospel distinguishes two grades or kinds of love with which the Lord loved His own. The same result emerges from a closer examination of Joh 13:12 ff., especially of the Joh 13:15. The most superficial glance shows at once that the Lord Himself and His evangelist exhibited the feet-washing as a demonstration of love bearing a peculiar character, such as His former life had not yet displayed. And with this we now connect the remark, that precisely on this occasion, and on this occasion alone, Jesus required of His disciples to love one another as He had loved them. The washing of their feet is the theme which runs through its variations in the whole of the following section. See Joh 13:15: ὑπόδειγμα γὰρ ἔδωκα ὑμῖν, ἵνα καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα ὑμῖν, καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιῆτε, [“for I gave you an example, that just as I have done to you, you should do also”], with Joh 13:34: ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν [“a new commandment I give to you”]. If, then, we ask wherein the distinctiveness of this proof of love lay, as distinguished from all the other demonstrations of love which the hand of the Redeemer’s love had wrought out during His previous life, the answer is threefold. First, in all the other deeds through which the Lord’s love dispensed grace and help, He acted, according to His own express testimony, on the suggestion of His heavenly Father: they were tokens of love, but He wrought them not as expressions of love, but as expressions of obedience. But we cannot say the same in precisely the same sense concerning this act of the feet-washing: beyond all other acts, it leaves the impression that it sprang from a perfectly spontaneous and instantaneous impulse. It was indeed in absolute harmony with the Father’s will; but the Lord performed it not as of obedience , but as from the source of His own love gushing forth in unwonted power. Secondly, in all the previous demonstrations of His love, the Lord had ever maintained His position of κύριος [“Lord”] and διδάσκαλος [“teacher”]; they were the manifestations of Himself precisely as of a loving διδάσκαλος [“teacher”]. But in the feet-washing He denied Himself this very position, and was constrained to deny Himself of it in order to accomplish the act. In this deed of humility He was no longer the διδάσκαλος [“teacher”], but rather the διακονῶν [“one serving”]. And there especially is the emphatic love which, according to John Chapter 13, was manifested in the passion, that He surrendered the supreme and exalted place which, despite His humiliation, was always His, and descended from the dignity of the prophet to the deep renunciation of the cross. Thirdly, in all the other demonstrations of Christ’s love we receive the impression that He must act as He did, and that if He did not so act there would have been a blot on His image; we know also that His disciples and the people expected from Him His miracles. On the other hand, the feet-washing was expected by no one, nor could anyone have expected it; yea, if we suppose Him to have pretermitted it, no blot would have rested on His person.
Thus we have, in connection with our Lord Himself, two different kinds of demonstration of love. Only in the latter did He present Himself as a pattern to His disciples; and it is this precise love, exercised in imitation of Him, that He Himself described as the ἐντολὴ καινή [“new commandment”]. Now, as the Lord’s love εἰς τέλος [“to the end”], that which He showed in the feet-washing, was related to His earlier demonstrations, so must, among His disciples, the love which He commands them to exercise in imitation of Himself be related to the love with which they had hitherto loved, such as they had found prescribed in the Old Testament. As the Lord, according to our remarks above, until the night of the passion had performed His acts, not in the first instance as from love, but rather from obedience, so until the night of the passion it had been for the disciples a commandment obligatory to love their neighbour; they practised love as a duty, and in every particular act were constrained to remember the obligation. For it is obvious that the question is here not of those testimonies of love which spring from natural and instinctive sympathy,—these do not generally lie at the basis of any ethics,—but of such love as is exercised in conscious self-denying acts. Such acts of self-denial it was necessary for men before Christ, and it is necessary to every man now, especially in the beginning of the Christian life, to constrain himself to perform. As, again, in all the earlier demonstrations of His love, Christ had still remained the διδάσκαλος [“teacher”] and κύριος [“Lord”], so also the natural position of man in the first stage of love thus considered remains uninvaded and untouched: in His loving acts the King remains what He is: He is simply a loving King, even as the Lord among His own was a loving διδάσκαλος [“teacher”]. But when this same Lord presents Himself, that is to say, more particularly His feet-washing, as the pattern of love, it is His will to put an end to this love from mere obedience: from that time His disciples were to love after the model He gave them generally, and gave them specifically at that very hour; in such a way, namely, that the individual act should spring, not from the obligation of law, but from the direct and compulsory pressure of the heart. Further, as the Lord surrendered His position as Lord in the feet-washing, and in His passion generally, so should we also so love as that all human distinctions may cease in its presence: no longer loving the πλησίον [“neighbour”], but the ἀδελφόν [“brother”], as it stands written: οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαίοις καὶ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος καὶ ἐλεύθερος·πάντεςὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ [“There is neither Jew or Greek, neither slave or free; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” cf. Gal 3:28]. It is love when the Lord exhibits Himself as a loving Master towards slaves; but love as the ἐντολὴ καινή [“new commandment”] is commended to us, to be regarded and to be felt, not as Lord, but as itself δοῦλος [“slave,” “servant”]. And this touches the third mark which we perceived to be the peculiarity of the feet-washing: this love will not limit itself to cases in which there is a visible occasion or external necessity for its display; but its unrestrained vehemence as a living spring will go beyond all expectations, and approve itself literally without measure or degree. Further, it is clear that this ἐντολὴ καινή [“new commandment”] can be called such only in a broader sense of the word commandment: it is, namely, a goal set before men, for ever to be striven after; not, however, as properly speaking an obligatory law; for as soon as it is exercised as such, it ceases to be the new commandment. Rather the matter stands thus: that the new spring of love, which in the passion issued forth from the Redeemer’s heart, streams, through His return to the Father, His glorification, and the consequent mission of the Spirit, into the hearts of Christians as an active energy of their life; and thus the commandment comes of itself into fulfilment, not qua commandment, but as an irrepressibly energizing power. Finally, we may be permitted to complete this biblical disquisition by pointing out how both the kinds or stages of love which we have distinguished in the spiritual domain are reproduced in all human relations. As well the love of friendship as the conjugal love exhibit them in their degree, seeking especially all individual opportunities for their manifestation. But the more internal the relation is, the more surely does this necessity of seeking cease; because the whole life and being are more and more fashioned into one entire demonstration of love.
Having thus established the meaning of ἐντολὴ καινή [“new commandment”] in the passage of the Gospel, we may easily apply it to our present passage, and it will be found to harmonize with the whole in the completest and most satisfactory manner. The commandment of love, St. John says, is to you a παλαιόν [“old”]; for it is the λόγος [“word”] which ye heard from the beginning. There is no evangelical annunciation possible without this precept: indeed, the whole Gospel itself is nothing but this precept. That is the first stage of Christian brotherly love; and, as the benediction upon it, it is most pertinently assured by the apostle that the love of God, as that of the Father, dwells in us after a perfected manner. That is to say, God cannot deprive Himself of His nature: it is true that His love flows not from any obligation, but out of the inexhaustible source of His being, which is love; yet He remains ever the loving God, the loving Lord. Hence it is this blessed consequence of our brotherly love,—why speak we of consequence? it is this blessed ground of it,—to wit, that His nature of love abides in us, and in us makes its dwelling, which the apostle makes prominent first of all. But this is not the highest blessing of it. That the love of Christ dwells in us is yet more, and a higher stage of love; for His was the self-renouncing, self-denying, all-surrendering, and self-sacrificing love. And this love is the καινὴἐντολή [“new commandment”] which is proclaimed to us. The στοιχεῖα [“way of life”] of Christianity had been long embraced by the church; now the great point was that they ἐπὶτὴντελείωσινφέρεσθαι [“pressed on to perfection”] (Heb 6:1). To the τελείωσις [“perfection”], especially to the τελείαχαρά [“perfect joy”] would the apostle lead them on; and we have already seen in 1Jn 1:4 that this perfect joy rests in one sense iipon the perfectness of brotherly love. The one passage has the other in view. At the point thus carefully secured we are in a position to decide whether our verses look forward to the expression ἀγαπᾶν τοὺςἀδελφούς [“love the brothers”], or backwards to the περιπατεῖν καθὼς Χριστὸς περιεπάτησεν [“walk just as Christ walked”]. The latter is obviously favoured by the circumstance that the readers, when they came to the words οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν [“I am not writing a new commandment to you”], must necessarily have at once thought that the apostle was referring to the commandment just given to them; but a still stronger reason is, that he expressly describes the καινὴἐντολή [“new commandment”] as the λόγος, ὃν ἤκουσαν [“word, which you heard”], thus taking up again the λόγος [“word”] of 1Jn 2:5. The weightiest argument, however, is found in what we have already perceived, that the commandment thus impressed upon them was no other than that they should walk after the example of Christ. The matter, strictly speaking, stands thus: First, he describes the conversation, or rather the whole life of Jesus quite generally as the commandment; but then he goes on, more definitely, to exhibit the love of Christ manifested in the passion, and the imitation of it he makes into a commandment by means of the word ἐντολὴ καινή [“new commandment”]: this word being naturally understood by the readers acquainted with the Gospel, without any express reference to the passage on which our exposition has been based. Thus, moreover, we may justify to ourselves the remark already made, that Christ is presented to us as a pattern only in His passion,—that is to say, after we have heard a quite general exhortation to the following of His life of love, the emphasis in our passage declines upon the ἀγάπη εἰς τέλος [“love to the end”], upon the love which the Lord manifested on the night of His sorrows. For the rest, it may be observed once more, that not all the thoughts which we have brought in here were by the apostle himself expressly set forth. They are rather only the premises which must have been living in his spirit when he used the word which he did use. We may infer from his utterance here, that all this was in the background of his mind. But a new difficulty emerges, after all our exposition, in consequence of the appended clause, ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν. The words admit of a double grammatical construction. Either they are regarded as the proper object of γράφω [“I write”], and the preceding ἐντολὴ καινή [“new commandment”] as an attributive describing it: I write now to you this, which in you is the truth, as a new commandment. Or, inverting it, we may take the ἐντολὴκαινή [“new commandment”] as the object, and the relative clause as merely a declarative closer definition: I write to you a new commandment, namely, that which in you is truth. When we now observe that the idea of the ἐντολὴκαινή [“new commandment”] is the fundamental theme of 1Jn 2:8, that, further, the ἐντολὴν παλαιά is certainly the objective of the γράφειν in 1Jn 2:7, which formally and materially corresponds with this, we are constrained to decide in favour of the latter. But we must remember that the sentence with ὅ [“which”] is by no means the same as the sentence with ἥ [“which”], or to be taken as simply a closer definition of the ἐντολή [“commandment”]. Apart from the question,—which, however, we ought not to omit,—why the apostle in that case did not use the feminine pronoun, the thought would on that supposition be altogether different. If we had a relative clause with ἥ [“which”] belonging to the ἐντολή [“commandment”], we should have generally only one objective definition; brotherly love would be simply called a new commandment; but as it is, we find two parallel definitions of it,—one as a new commandment, and the other as something that is truth in the readers. But if we regard the form as settled, the matter of the sentence meets us with new questions. For instance, how comes it to pass that what is truth in the readers—that is, according to the firmly fixed idea of the word, living reality in them—is yet exhibited as a commandment? This would seem indeed to place the reality of what is commanded before the readers as their aim, and not regard it as a present experienced fact. Again, how is it possible that what is supposed to be a reality in the readers, is nevertheless described to them as a new announcement? But the view we have established of the ἐντολὴκαινή [“new commandment”] itself suggests the possibility of giving right answers to these questions.
We have seen that objectively, in relation to brotherly love, there has been a twofold commandment; for, while it was taught from the beginning, both in the Old Testament and in the New, it was so taught by the passion of Christ as to become an altogether new commandment. Not only so; we have seen, further, that subjectively also in the life of every Christian the same twofold characteristic approves itself: in the beginning of the Christian career love is of the former, in its further stages it is of the latter kind. Further, we have discerned that brotherly love as an ἐντολὴκαινή [“new commandment”] can by no means be fulfilled as an obligatory law; that its nature is rather to flow from its own free and independent personal impulse, while at the same time it is effectual only through the Spirit of Him who exercised it symbolically and in its original and perfect character. Now, if the readers of the Epistle have received this Spirit, there must be in them at least the commencement or starting-point of this new and higher brotherly love; in some definite degree it must have become in them ἀληθής [“true”]. It is therefore a new commandment only in as far as now, in virtue of the apostle’s word, they are, on the one hand, made conscious of its possession, the old precept becoming a new one because now it has become their own conscious possession; and, on the other hand, that word presents to them that which they already had, being Christians, as now to be a conscious end, the realization, and indeed perfect realization of which must be their problem and goal: thus this higher kind of brotherly love becomes after all an ἐντολή [“commandment”] to them. What we, in our remarks upon Joh 13:34, saw to be a feature of the new commandment,—that it was at once a commandment and yet not a commandment, because springing directly from the impulse of the heart,—that the apostle says here expressly; and this, as we think, impresses on our exposition the seal of its approval. Thus, as the previous words present the brotherly love which the apostle commends as at once an old and yet a new commandment, so in our verse it is presented as a commandment, and yet again as not a commandment. But this double character of the idea is designedly not exhibited as an antithesis,—as if it were ἐντολὴν παλαιάν γράφω ὑμῖν, πάλιν δὲ καινήν [“I am writing to you an old commandment, but on the other hand, new”],— but as perfectly interwoven and one. Hence the first time it is the πάλιν [“again”], merely marking a new starting-point; the second time, the simple appositional clause ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς [“which is true”].
Thus upon the complete sentence, as appended, ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν [“true in him and in you”], there now falls a clear light,—that is, the brotherly love now in question as ἐντολὴκαινή [“new commandment”] has been brought into the world only through the example of Christ, and can by us be attained only through fellowship with Him. Hence the apostle, by ἐν αὐτῷ [“in him”], assigns the reason on account of which this brotherly love was in them, so far as it really dwelt in their souls. But how it comes to pass that what in Christ is truth is truth also in them, the last words of the verse explain: ὅτι ἡ σκοτία παράγεται, καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει [“that the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining”]. That this ὅτι [“that”] is not declarative, and to be taken as stating the contents of the ἐντολὴκαινή [“new commandment”], is obvious from the very matter of the sentence. It describes, forsooth, a purely objective historical fact, while the idea of ἐντολή [“commandment”] in its very nature contains a subjective element: I may indeed represent a fact as at the same time involving a requirement, as indeed this clause shows; but a mere objective fact cannot as such be called an ἐντολή [“commandment”]. Thus the words simply announce a reason. But of what must a reason be given? We might think of the ἐντολὴκαινή [“new commandment”], and say that the apostle gives this command because of the fact now impressively stated: “since now the darkness recedes, the true light now unfolds its reality; walk then as it becomes you, like τέκναφωτός, [“children of light”], in this light.” The warranty for the precept would then be essentially parallel with that of Rom 13:11-14.
Against this we have nothing really material to urge; but still the reason assigned is more pointed, and appears to us more natural also, if we refer the causal clause to the immediately preceding sentence, ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν [“which is true in him and in you”], thus making it explain how that commandment has its reality in us: to put it more plainly, a reason is given for the καί in the words referred to. “Ye are indeed already under the power of the light; therefore that which is ἐν αὐτῷ [“in him”] is also ἐν ὑμῖν [“in you”], and the law which I demand has its reality in you; but the great consideration is, that it be brought into full consciousness and to its perfection.” The darkness is passing away, St. John writes. He does not add, in connection with it, ἐν ὑμῖν [“in you”]: the proposition is therefore to be taken in its universality. The place in which the darkness reigns is, as we saw on chapter 1, the world in its biblical meaning; and with the appearing of Him who has overcome the world, both it and its prince are judged and condemned, and the power of darkness is broken. It has not yet passed away, but it is in the act of passing; the spread of the kingdom of God, and, what is equivalent to that, the passing away of the world, are the signature and the very matter of all church history. But alongside of this negative, the παράγεσθαι [“departure”] of the darkness, there runs a parallel positive, τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει [“the light is already shining”]. This expression is a distinct remembrancer of Joh 1:4, 1Jn 1:9, in which latter verse we find it in the same words; and if we add that St. John always understands by φῶς [“light”], Christ, or, as in 1Jn 1:5 here, God, it will commend itself to think of the Lord Himself as here directly signified. It is not a contradiction to this, that in the previous words the σκοτία [“darkness”] does not expressly refer to a person; for we have already shown on 1Jn 1:5 that here lies the all-pervading distinction, that while the light is concentrated in a person, the darkness never is. All goodness is in the power of divine light, a lesser jet from the greater Flame; but all evil, while it is occasioned by Satan, is not in the same sense an effluence from him as the light is an out-beaming from God.
Christ, however, is not called φῶς [“light”] merely, but φῶς ἀληθινόν [“true light”]: a genuine Johannaean appendage. While ἀλήθεια [“truth”] signifies the objective truth which is absolute fulness and reality, ἀληθινόν [“true”] signifies that a specified person is that which is predicated of him in the fullest possible degree. It is the application of the ἀλήθεια [“truth”] to one particular question or point; yet so that ἀληθινός [“true”], as compared with ἀληθής [“truly”], specifies the form as opposed to the matter: φῶς ἀληθές [“true light”] would mean that the light is a true one, and not merely has the semblance of it; φῶς ἀληθινόν [“true light”], on the contrary, declares that the idea φῶς [“light”] must be taken in its full reality. The true light “already” shineth: the ἤδη [“already”] is the correlative of the present παράγεται [“passing away”] in the preceding sentence; the light has already commenced its activity. This clause also is altogether general and objective,—spoken without any external or obvious reference to the readers. But when we consider that, as the σκοτία [“darkness”] comes to manifestation in the κόσμος [“world”], so the light developes its energy in the βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ [“kingdom of God”]; and again, that the readers are supposed to be τῷ φωτὶ περιπατοῦντες [“walking in the light”], living under the power of the light,—it will be clear that these general statements also specifically indicate that the light appears in them, that they have their portion in that love which is gathered up in the φῶς ἀληθινόν [“true light”].
How far this is the case, thus how far brotherly love can be exhibited as the consequence of walking in light; that is to say, further, how far the close of the eighth verse demonstrates the beginning of it; and lastly, how far the whole section results from the one sentence θεὸς φῶς [“God is light”],—is now the concluding question which requires summary answer. The collective elements of the answer lie in the words of the apostle. If Christ, namely, like God, is φῶς [“light”],—if His walk was a walk in love,—it is clear that fellowship with His light-nature is and must be fellowship with His walk in love. What inwardly, in the subjects themselves, approves itself as ἀλήθεια [“truth”], shows itself outwardly in relation to other subjects as ἀγάπη [“love”].