35 - 1Jn 3:1
Ἴδετε ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ πατὴρ, ἵνα τέκνα Θεοῦ κληθῶμεν· διὰ τοῦτο ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς, ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν. The external bond of connection between this verse and what precedes is clear; the Christian sonship, which in 1Jn 2:29 was mentioned in the last place, is resumed by means of the τέκνα Θεοῦκληθῆναι [“called children of God”], in order to make prominent the greatness of the divine gift which is imparted in it. Yet this evident connection decides nothing as to the chain of thought in the following verses; that will have to be detected on a careful consideration of the details. Ἴδετε [“see”], St. John says, ποταπὴνἀγάπηνδέδωκενἡμῖνὁπατὴρ [“what manner of love the Father has given us”]. Into the thought of the glory of this sacred relation our minds should profoundly sink: the emphasis of that high dignity is not alone in ἴδετε [“see”], which announces something most specific, but also in the pronoun ποταπός [“what manner of”]. This never occurs in the New Testament save as introducing an exclamation of amazement. It never serves, however, to indicate merely external greatness (as equivalent to quantus), but always that which is internal (qualis). The meaning is not that it is a special kind of love which we have to wonder at in the divine relation of father, as if in proportion to other kinds of love; but the reference is generally to the wonderfulness of its interior characteristic: the full depth, interiority, and grace of it is marked impressively by this word. Ἀγάπηνδιδόναι [“to give love”], says more than a mere demonstration of love; the full power of divine i love has imparted itself to us as our own, is a free gift to us; not only specific manifestations of the love of God, but that love itself is given to us. And this was the Father’s act, ὁπατήρ [“the Father”]. It might seem obvious, since the subject here is our relation towards God as children, to refer this πατήρ [“Father”]to the relation between God and us, and thus to read it as if it were πατήρἡμῶν [“our Father”]. But a closer consideration teaches that throughout the entire Gospel of St. John the expression πατήρ [“Father”], when it is used absolutely of God, always indicates the Father of Jesus Christ. The only two passages in which it might be thought to have a different meaning are Joh 4:21, John 4:23; as the woman of Samaria did not know the specific relation of Jesus to God, the expression must have been unintelligible to her in that sense. But they need not be made exceptions, especially as the woman certainly understood that the Lord was speaking concerning God, and there was no need that she should apprehend precisely in what sense He used the word. In our Epistle the expression ὁπατήρ [“the Father”] is either obviously to be understood at once of God as the Father of Jesus Christ, as, for example, in 1Jn 2:22 ff.; or it occurs without manifest reference to Christ, as in 1Jn 2:14-16. But even in these last cases it is not obligatory to supply ἡμῶν [“our”]; rather, in harmony with the frequent use of the word in the lips of Jesus, it seems preferable to find in them the standing designation of the first person in the Godhead, so that ὁπατήρ [“the Father”] should correspond to our “God the Father.” If this be so, we are then disposed here also to regard the expression as indicating the way in which God has demonstrated this love to us,—that is, as the Father of Jesus Christ, and through the mission of His Son. That the final clause with ἵνα [“in order that”] is by most expositors softened down, and the philological purism of those rebuked who are not content that it should be so, is easily understood, because in fact, according to the connection, the κληθῆναιτέκναΘεοῦ [“called children of God”] seems to be the content of the ἀγάπη [“love”]. We should, indeed, have a perfectly satisfying interpretation if we take the ἵνα [“in order that”] in its rigorous meaning as stating the design. What a depth and inwardness of love is that which the Father hath given us in order that we might be called His children! The thought would be: “How much it cost Him that I am redeemed!” But since this idea of the mission and death of His Son comes in without any direct mediating link, we must prefer to take the κληθῆναιτέκναΘεοῦ [“called children of God”] as certainly the content of the ἀγάπη [“love”]; but that which is its content and meaning is at the same time its end. The love of God is manifested in this, that He makes us His children; but that very same thing is the goal He aimed at, the object He pursued. Now it is precisely the latter point that is brought into prominence, and there is no reason whatever why we should take the ἵνα [“in order that”] as ecbatic. It is God’s will to make us His τέκνα [“children”]: that it does not run simply τέκνααὐτοῦ [“his children”], but Θεοῦ [“of God”] is placed instead, was intended to point to the height and greatness, past all understanding, of this gift, to be children of the eternal and all-glorious God.
It is well known that St. John has only the expression τέκναΘεοῦ [“children of God”], while St. Paul has by the side of it the υἱοὶΘεοῦ [“sons of God”]. The internal reason of this distinction in the expression will appear when we come to examine the second verse. But the material difference between the two manners of viewing the relation to God we may here at once illustrate. The idea of the γεννήθῆναιἐκτοῦΘεοῦ [“to be born of God”], which, according to the connection, constitutes the τέκναΘεοῦ [“children of God”], is not current in St. Paul’s writings; and when he uses any expressions like them, they have a different signification from that of St. John. We know, indeed, that the former speaks of an ἀνακαίνωσις τοῦ νοός [“renewing of the mind”] (Rom 12:2); of a νέοςἀνθρωποςἀνακαινούμενος εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτὸν [“a new man who is being renewed in the knowledge of the one who created it”] (Col 3:10); of an ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα [“put on the new man created according to God”] (Eph 4:24[N]); of a καινὴ κτίσις [“new creation”] (Gal 6:15). But in all these places the renewal is a formation back into the original human nature as created of God. This is expressly brought into prominence in the passage to the Colossians by the definition τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν [“the one who created it”]. It is a reforming back again which indeed comes to effect through the grace of God; and it has its measure or standard (κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα [“created according to God”]) in the nature of God, because it was simply in the image of God that man was originally created; but it is not on that account said to take place, as it were, out of or from God’s nature. This, however, is the side which St. John brings out in the idea of the παλιγγενεσία [“renewal”], of the γεγεννήσθαιἐκτοῦΘεοῦ [“having been born of God”], and keeps always before him. Even in the passage where St. Paul uses the word παλιγγενεσία [“renewal”], Tit 3:5, we shall, after the analogy of his general habit of thought and statement, be constrained to find only the element of the renewal through the help of the Divine Spirit, through a renewal or reimpartation of the original gift of the Spirit (ἀνακαίνωσις πνεύματος ἁγίου [“renewing of the Holy Spirit”]), while St. John never fixes his eye on the mere outpouring and help of grace, but always on the communication of God’s own divine nature. This difference is in close connection with another which has often been dwelt upon,—namely, that St. Paul regards us as children of God adoptive, and therefore uses the word υἱοθεσία [“adoption”], while St. John regards us as children in nature and reality. The former stands hard by or is closely related to the Pauline emphasis on the Christ for us, his juridical doctrine of satisfaction (this word we use, be it remembered, without the slightest undertone of condemnation); the latter is more in harmony with the Johannaean emphasis upon the Christ IN us. According to St. Paul, we receive for Christ’s sake the rights of children; according to St. John, we receive, through Christ, the children’s nature. According to St. Paul, the old nature of man is transformed into a new according to St. John, an altogether new principle of nature takes the place of the former. It is most evident that the two views are substantially one and true; but they depend on the respective general systems of the two apostles. And this explains, too, how the full meaning of δέδωκεν [“gave”] is in the leading clause: the love of God is a gift; it is particularly the gift of His Spirit; still more I particularly it is the gift of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
There is a remarkable difference of reading in the telic clause. According to the authority of the manuscripts, there should be after the κληθῶμεν [“we would be called”] a very decisive καὶ ἐσμεν [“and we are”] added. Respect for the important witnesses in its favour will not permit us to strike it out absolutely; yet it seems to us in a high degree suspicious; not, indeed, on account of the continuity in the form of the sentence which it mars,—for of this there are examples enough to be adduced,—but on account of the sense of the whole. The greatness of the divine gift does not consist in this, that we are acknowledged as God’s children, but primarily and pre-eminently in this, that we are such in reality; which also the recapitulation of the thought in 1Jn 3:2 by τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμεν [“we are children of God”] makes emphatic. The κληθῶμεν [“we would be called”] of our passage would be suitable on this supposition only, as it includes the εἶναι [“to be”] or ἐσμεν [“we are”]. But if, after the κληθῶμεν [“we would be called”], this latter idea was supernumerarily added, then the former word must mean only the acknowledgment of sonship, and not the being sons. The emerging thought would then be harsh and distorted. We might, indeed, accept ὦμεν καὶκληθῶμεν [“and we may be called”], but not the inverted order. It is preferable, therefore, to regard the καὶ ἐσμεν [“and we are”] as a gloss which came very early into the text; this would explain the many testimonies in its favour as well as its indicative form. The subject of the verb, who calls us children, is not to be regarded as God—for what would there be remarkable in His calling us what we are?—but believers themselves; and in favour of this way of taking it comes in the antithesis in the sequel, ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς [“the world does not know us”]. According to our general exposition of the Epistle, the apostle is occupied from the very beginning with the idea of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of light; the individual comes into consideration not as an individual, but as a member of the whole body, as a stone in the temple of God. This recognition which the single member receives from the church is what lies in the καλεῖσθαι [“to be called”]. And there is a double propriety of the word in this section, which treats of the confirmation or proof of sonship in deed. In the spiritual generation lies the point or characteristic to approve ourselves children of God,—that is, the necessity of proving ourselves such; and the precise counterpart of this is our recognition by others as children.
But, indeed, only on the part of the church. For, precisely in the proportion that we approve ourselves to them as children of God, shall we be unintelligible by the world. The διὰ τοῦτο [“for this reason”] of the last clause in 1Jn 3:1 does not refer to the following ἵνα [“in order that”] any more than it does to the καλεῖσθαι [“to be called”] that precedes, but to the τέκνα Θεοῦ εἶναι [“to be children of God”], or, still better, to the whole of the previous clause. Because we have become partakers of this divine love, which communicates to us its own essence, the world cannot know us, because it knows not Him whom we have come to resemble so much. Substantially, therefore, this proposition is quite naturally proved by that out of which it flows; nevertheless there is a touch of strangeness about it, inasmuch as there is scarcely any allusion throughout the entire section, 1Jn 3:1-10, to our relation to the world. And in fact the significance of this added clause is gathered less from the particular thought precisely touched upon here, than from the whole tenor of the Johannaean habit of thinking generally. It is St. John’s manner, as we have seen it illustrated abundantly throughout the two former chapters, always to think in antitheses: to construct the matter of a positive idea out of its combination or contrast with its opposite. Precisely so is it here. The greatness of God’s love, which admits us into fellowship with God Himself, is to be brought out all the more vividly through this antithesis, that our perfect and absolute separation from the world, even down to a total want of common understanding, is made so prominent. Thus the second hemistich is introduced, not for the sake of the discussion that follows, but purely to illustrate the thought itself and as such now in hand.