1 John 1

1 John 1:1-4

1–4. : THE OF THE WRITER, AND OBJECTS OF THE EPISTLE. This Epistle does not begin with an address, properly so called. But there is in this sentence the latent form of an address: the ὑμῖν of 1 John 1:3, and the ἵναἡχαρὰ.… πεπληρωμένη, answering to the more usual χαίρειν, seem to shew that what follows is an Epistle, not a treatise.

The construction of these verses is difficult, and has been variously given. The simplest view, and that generally adopted (Syr., Vulg., Œc., Bullinger, Calv., Beza, Socinus, Grot., Calov., Fritzsche, Lücke, De Wette, Huther, &c.) is, that in 1 John 1:1 a sentence is begun, which is broken off by the parenthetical 1 John 1:2 inserted to explain 1 John 1:1, and carried on again in 1 John 1:3, some words being, for the sake of perspicuity, recited again from 1 John 1:1. This construction was doubted by Winer in the earlier editions of his Grammar, but has now in the 6th edit. been adopted (§ 63, i. 1, note). The smaller clauses, ὃἦν, ὃἀκηκόαμεν, &c., are co-ordinate with each other, not to be arranged as subject and predicate, as Capellus, “quod erat ab initio, hoc ipsum est, quod audivimus, &c.” or, as Paulus, who begins his predicatory apodosis at καὶαἱχεῖρες, “that which, &c., &c., our hands also have handled.” So that there is no need to adopt Calvin’s solution of “abrupta et confusa oratio:” the sentence and construction flow smoothly and regularly.

That which was (not ‘took place,’ as Crell., Schöttg., al. ἦν is not = ἐγένετο, as their very marked distinction in John 1:1 ff. might have shewn. See this idea discussed and refuted in a note to the dissertation de Epistt. Johannearum locis difficilioribus, in the Fritzschiorum Opuscula, p. 284 ff.: and in Düsterdieck’s Comm. in loc. Œc. and Thl. say well, τὸδὲἦντοῦτοοὐχρονικὴνπαρίστησινὕπαρξιν, ἀλλʼ ἐνυποστάτουπράγματοςοὐσίαν) from the beginning (ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς is not synonymous with ἐνἀρχῇ, though in the depth of its meaning it is virtually the same. It sets before us the terminus a quo, but without meaning strictly to define it as such exclusively. So μέχρι, ἄχρι, and words of this kind are not unfrequently used: see Fritzsche on Matt. p. 53 f.: and cf. Acts 20:6, Romans 8:22, 2 Corinthians 3:14.

The interpretation, “Since the beginning of the Gospel,” is connected with the misunderstanding of the whole passage by the Socinian interpreters, and cannot stand for a moment when we consider the context with 1 John 1:2, and the use of ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς by St. John when applied to Christ or to supernatural beings: see reff. Wherever he uses it of the preaching of the Gospel, it is definitely marked as bearing that meaning: cf. ch. 1 John 2:7; 1 John 2:24, 1 John 3:11. On the meaning of this clause, see below), that which we have heard (the perfect extends the reference of the verb from the beginning, and that which the Apostle might have heard concerning Christ, e. g. from John the Baptist, down to the time when he was writing; regards his hearing as a finished and abiding possession. This verb, ἀκηκόαμεν, rules the form of the sentence: hence περί below: see more there), that which we have seen with our eyes (the same is true again. The seeing as well as the hearing is a finished and abiding possession.

The clauses rise in climax: seeing is more than hearing: τοῖςὀφθ. ἡμῶν emphasizes the fact of eye-witness), that which we looked upon (now, the tense is altered: because the Evangelist comes from speaking of the closed testimony which abode with him as a whole, to that of the senses actually exercised at the time when Christ was on earth. Notice the climax again: θεᾶσθαι, ‘intueri,’ to look upon: ὁρᾷν, merely ‘videre,’ to see: so Beza here: “quod ego his oculis vidi, idque non semel nec obiter, sed quod ego vere et penitus sum contemplatus.” See more below), and our hands handled (“attulerunt viri docti John 20:20; John 20:27; Luke 24:39. Sed nihil hujusmodi opus est. An probandum, Johannem, amatissimum et ἐπιστήθιον Christi discipulum, Dominum suum manibus contrectasse?” Fritzsche, Opusc. p. 295. These words are not for a moment to be washed out with a ‘veluti’ or ‘quasi:’ they are literal matter of fact, and form one of the strongest proofs that what is said, is said of no other than the personal incarnate Son of God) concerning the Word of life (the construction seems to be this: the περί depends strictly upon ἀκηκόαμεν, loosely upon the other clauses. The exegesis turns wholly upon the sense which we assign to the words τοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς: and here there has been great diversity among Commentators.

This diversity may be gathered under two heads: those who make λόγου the personal hypostatic Logos, who is ζωή, and those who make it the account, or preaching, or doctrine, concerning ζωή. Of this latter number, are for the most part, Socinus and his school (see an exception below), and some few other expositors, e. g., Grotius, Semler, Rosenmüller. Of recent writers, the most distinguished is De Wette. The former, including Œc., Thl., Aug.[1] (“forte de verbo vitæ sic quisque accipiat quasi locutionem quandam de Christo, non ipsum corpus Christi quod manibus tractatum est. Videte quid sequatur: et ipsa vita manifestata est. Christus ergo verbum vitæ.” In Ep.

Joh. Tract. i. 1, vol. iii. p. 1978), Bed[2], Calvin (gives both), Beza, Luther, Schlichting (“id est de Jesu quem suo more Sermonem appellat”), Episcopius (who however strikes a middle course, “utrumque simul intelligi, Evangelium, quatenus partim ab ipso Christo revelatum est, partim de ipso Chr. J. agit”), Calov., Bengel, Wolf, Lücke, Fritzsche, Baumg.-Crus., Sander, Huther, al., have been most worthily represented among modern Commentators by O. F. Fritzsche, in his Commentatio I. de Epistolarum Johannearum locis difficilioribus, in the Fritzschiorum Opuscula, pp. 276 ff. And with his interpretation, in the main, I agree, diverging from him in some points of more or less importance.

And as this περὶτοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς is the keystone of the sentence, it will be well to set out the interpretation once for all. I regard then ὁλόγοςτῆςζωῆς as the designation of our Lord Himself. He is the λόγος, and is the λόγοςτῆςζωῆς, this gen. being one of apposition, as He describes Himself as being the ζωή, John 11:25; John 14:6,—the ἄρτοςτῆςζωῆς, John 6:35; John 6:48; the φῶςτῆςζωῆς, John 8:12; cf. also 1 John 1:4. This being so, the ὃ—, ὃ—, ὃ—, ὃ—, are all matters concerning, belonging to, regarding, Himself, the Lord of Life: all zeugmatically predicated of Him by the περί, which more properly belongs to the one verb ἀκηκόαμεν (notice that in 1 John 1:5, where the nature of the ἀγγελία is stated, ἀκηκόαμεν alone, of all these verbs, is repeated). The ὃἦνἀπʼ ἀρχῆς is His eternal præ-existence and inherent Life and Glory with the Father: this is what, in a sense slightly, though but slightly differing from the common one, may be said to have been ἀπʼ ἀρχῆςπερὶτοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς: that which was inherent indeed in Him, but by being announced to you, takes the form of being περί Him; His well-known character and attribute. The ὃἀκηκόαμεν, ὃἑωράκαμεντοῖςὀφθαλμ. ἡμῶν, hold a middle place between the eternal and præ-existent and the cosmical and human things περὶτοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς: the hearing of the ear embracing all the teaching of the Lord respecting ὃἦνἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, and the seeing of the eye taking in both His glory, as on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the human Body which He assumed, with all its actions and sufferings: cf.

John 19:35. Then, still lingering on the combined testimony to his præ-existent glory and His human presence in the flesh, he adds, ὃἐθεασάμεθα, which ‘contemplari,’ as he himself tells us, saw through the human into the divine, John 1:14 (so Bed[3]: “perspexerunt, cujus divinam quoque virtutem spiritalibus oculis cernebant”), besides its earnest and diligent observation of His human life (‘mit allem Fleiss und genau beschauet und betrachtet,’ Luther. But when Œc. and Thl. say θεᾶσθαιἐστὶτὸμετὰθαύματοςκ. θάμβουςὁρᾷν, it is more than is in the word or in the context). Finally, he comes down to that which though the most direct and palpable proof for human testimony, is yet the lowest, as being only material and sensuous, the (ὃ) αἱχεῖρεςἡμῶνἐψηλάφησαν. All this concerning Him, who is ὁλόγοςτῆςζωῆς, as recapitulated again in 1 John 1:3 under its two great heads, ὃἑωράκαμενκ. ἀκηκόαμεν, we ἀπαγγέλλομενκαὶὑμῖν. I would refer the reader who wishes to see the various other interpretations discussed, to the dissertation of Fritzsche before named: to Huther’s Commentary: to Brückner’s ed. of De Wette’s Handbuch, where the other view from that taken here is ably defended: and to the Commentary of Düsterdieck, who has gone at great length into the history of the exegesis.

Lücke, in loc., has very fairly stated, and refuted, the Socinian view which makes ὅ to be the teaching of Jesus from the beginning of His official life onwards, and (cf. Socinus in loc.) ὁλόγοςτῆςζωῆς, as in ch. 1 John 2:7, ὁλόγοςὃνἠκούσατε: rightly stating the fatal and crucial obstacle to this view to consist in αἱχεῖρεςἡμῶνἐψηλάφησαν, which none of its advocates can in any way get over: from Œc. and Thl. who interpret it μετὰπολλὴνψηλάφησιν (τουτέστισυζήτησιν, adds Œc.) ἐρευνῶντεςτὰςπερὶαὐτοῦμαρτυρούσαςγραφάς, to Grot., who supplies “panes multiplicatos, Lazarum,” &c., and De Wette, who explains it to mean “die Bestatigung des Gesehenen zur vollen Realitat mit demjenigen Sinne, welcher keine Tauschung zulässt,” evading the direct application of the words to the human body of Jesus). And the life (i. e. the Lord Himself who is the Life,—ἡαὐτοζωή, ἡπηγάζουσατὸζῇν, as Matthai’s Catena: cf. John 1:4, ἐναὐτῷζωὴἦν. This verse is parenthetical, taking up the last clause, and indeed the whole sense, of 1 John 1:1, and shewing how the testimony there predicated became possible) was manifested (from being invisible, became visible: see reff.), and we have seen (it), and bear witness (of it), and declare (the verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν does not, either here or below, refer to the declaration in this present Epistle: it is the general declaration, in word and writing, of which the γράφομεν below, 1 John 1:4, is the special portion at present employed) to you that life which is eternal (it is better thus, with Fritzsche, to supply an object for ἑωράκαμεν and μαρτυροῦμεν from ἡζωή above, than, with Lücke, to carry on the sense from them to τὴνζωὴντ. αἰώνιον below: for if this latter be done, 1) the sentence drags, by the verbal portion of its last clause being overdone; 2) the middle term between the manifestation and the announcement, viz. the sight and testimony of the announcer, would be wanting: 3) it is not the ζωὴαἰώνιος, but the ζωή in Christ, which the Evangelist saw and of which he witnessed, and the predicative epithet ἡαἰώνιος first comes in with the verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν), the which (ἥτις identifies not the individual only, but the species also: and thus gives a sort of causal force, ‘quippe quæ.’ The force of this here, as Düsterdieck remarks, is to refer the ἦνπρὸςτὸνπατέρα back to the ὃἦνἀπʼ ἀρχῆς: q. d. “that very before-mentioned life, which was with the Father”) was with the Father (see on John 1:1. The prep. implies not juxtaposition only, but relation: hardly however, as some here, love: at the same time it sets forth plainly the distinction of Persons: as Basil: ἵνατὸἰδιάζοντῆςὑποστάσεωςπαραστήσῃ … ἵναμὴπρόφασινδῷτῇσυγχύσειτῆςὑποστάσεως), and was manifested to us (here the parenthesis ends, and the construction of 1 John 1:1 is resumed.

But on account of the distance at which that verse now stands, the leading particulars of its sense are recapitulated. Huther objects to the parenthetical view, that ὃἑωρ. κ. ἀκηκ. is not a full resumption, ὃἦνἀπʼ ἀρχῆς not appearing in it. But it is included in the hearing, as the other sensuous clause in the seeing): that which we have heard and seen, we declare to you also (the καί of the old MSS. here seems to give to the Epistle the character of being addressed to some special circle of Christian readers, beyond those addressed at the conclusion of the Gospel, ch. John 20:31, or we may, with Socinus (in Huther), take the καί as indicating “vos, qui nimirum non audistis, nec vidistis, nec manibus vestris contrectastis verbum vitæ.” But the other is more likely: a supposition which is confirmed when we look further into it: see the Prolegomena. It is quite beyond all probability that the καί should have been inserted to suit καὶὑμεῖς which follows, as De Wette imagines: far more probable that the very occurrence of those words so near made it seem superfluous, or even that it was erased to give the Epistle a more general character, as ἐνἘφέσῳ, ἐνῬώμῃ, at the opening of those Epistles), in order that ye also (see above) may have communion with us (not,—as Socinus (“non nos solum, sed vos etiam nobiscum eam communionem cum patre et filio habeatis”), Episcopius (“τό nobiscum nihil aliud sibi vult, quam ‘sicut nos habemus’ ”), Bengel (“eandem, quam nos, qui vidimus”),—the same communion which we have, viz. that presently mentioned: but in the sense of κοιν. μετά immediately following, and in 1 John 1:6-7, communion with us, the Apostle and eye-witnesses (for thus I would take the ἡμεῖς throughout, and not, as Fritzsche, al., of the Evangelist himself only: “nobiscum, i. e. mecum”): τὸγενέσθαιἡμῶνκοινωνοί, as Schol. in Cramer’s Catena; being bound in faith and love to them, as they were to Christ. ἔχειν must not be taken, with Corn.-a-lap., for “pergere et in ea proficere et confirmari,” nor with Fritzsche, for “to obtain,” “assequi,” but in its simple meaning, to have, to possess. It may be very true, as Fr. insists, that here the Evangelist is speaking of his general work in the world, and below, 1 John 1:4, the special object of writing this Epistle comes in: but even thus, the end proposed is simply that they might κοινωνίανἔχειν in the ordinary sense, of course by acquiring it; but this is not of necessity in the word ἔχειν): and indeed (see reff. for καὶδέ.

Here its use is to bring up something connected with what went before by καί, but contrasted with it by the δέ: the contrast here lying in the immeasurably more solemn and glorious character of the second κοινωνία, as compared with the first, which is the inlet to it: q. d. “and this κοινωνίαμεθʼ ἡμῶν will not stop here: for we are but your admitters into &c.” See this same coupled contrast in reff.) our communion is (“pessime vulg. Grot., al. sit.” Fritz. Even Augustine, Bed[4], Erasm. (paraphr., not in notes), Luth., Calv., take this: against which the δέ is decisive) with the Father and with (observe the repeated μετά, distinguishing the Personality, while the very fact of the κοινωνία with Both unites the Two in the Godhead. It is not, communion with God and us, but with us, whose communion is with God, the Father and the Son) His Son Jesus Christ (the personal and the Messianic Names are united, as in John 1:17, where He is first mentioned, as here. The question has been sometimes asked, why we have not here καὶμετὰτοῦπνεύματοςτοῦἁγίου? The answer to which is not, as Lücke, because the divine Personality of the Holy Ghost was not found in the apostolic mode of thought (“scheint mir nicht in der apostolischen Denkweise zu liegen”), but because, the blessed spirit being God dwelling in man, though we may be said to have τὴνκοινωνίαντοῦἁγίουπνεύματος, 2 Corinthians 13:13,—we would hardly be said to have κοινωνίανμετὰτοῦἁγίουπνεύματος).

And these things (i. e. this whole Epistle: not, as Sander, the foregoing, nor as De Wette (altern.), and Düst., the immediately following) we write (the reading ἡμεῖς finds no favour with most of the modern critical editors, as neither does ἡμῶν below. It is objected to the former, that thus an irrelevant emphasis will be introduced into the clause. But it has not been observed, that it is in St. John’s manner thus to use ἡμεῖς with a verb, perhaps without any especial emphasis being conveyed: e. g. John 8:48, οὐκαλῶςλέγομενἡμεῖς …, where as here the pron. follows the verb: ib. John 6:42; John 9:24; John 9:29 (1 John 3:14), al.

Besides which, the ἡμεῖς is by no means otiose here, whether we read ὑμῶν or ἡμῶν below. If the former, the contrast would be plain: if the latter, we must take this ἡμεῖς to be the apostolic first person—“I, as one of the eye and ear witnesses:” and the ᾑμῶν following in a wider sense, “our joy”—“the joy of us and you:”—or, it may be, our joy in accomplishing the end and bringing you into communion with us and through us with the Father and the Son: so Thl.: ἡμῶνγὰρὑμῖνκοινωνούντωνπλεῖστονἔχομεντὴνχαρὰνἡμῶν, ἣντοῖςθερισταῖςὁχαίρωνσπορεὺςἐντῇτοῦμισθοῦἀντιλήψειβραβεύσειχαιρόντωνκαὶτούτωνὅτιτῶνπόνωναὐτῶνἀπολαύουσι. Similarly Œc.: Schol. in catena, ἐπειδὰνδὲταύτηνἔχητεκοινωνίαν, χαρᾶςἐσόμεθαμεστοί, ὅτιτῷθεῷἐκολλήθημεν: Bed[5], “gaudium Doctorum sit plenum, cum multos prædicando ad sanctæ Ecclesiæ societatem, atque ad ejus per quem Ecclesia roboratur et crescit, Dei Patris et Filii ejus Jesu Christi, societatem perducunt:” referring to Philippians 2:2, πληρώσατέμουτὴνχαράν, κ.τ.λ. As regards possibility of change of reading, it is far more probable that the not very obvious ἡμεῖς and ἡμῶν should have been altered to the very obvious ὑμῖν and ὑμῶν, so exactly correspondent to John 15:11; John 16:24), that our (see above) joy may be full (this rendering better represents the perfect than “may be filled up,” which would indicate the process rather than the completion. The joy spoken of is the whole complex of the Christian life here and hereafter; its whole sum is, JOY. As Düsterdieck beautifully says, “The peace of reconciliation, the blessed consciousness of sonship, the happy growth in holiness, the bright prospect of future completion and glory,—all these are but simple details of that which in all its length and breadth is embraced by one word, Eternal Life, the real possession of which is the immediate source of our joy.

We have joy, Christ’s joy, because we are blessed, because we have Life itself in Christ.” He quotes Augustine, Confess. x. 22 (32), vol. i. p. 793: “Est enim gaudium quod non datur impiis, sed eis tantum qui te gratis colunt, quorum gaudium tu ipse es. Et ipsa est beata vita gaudere ad te, de te, propter te, ipsa est et non altera.” It has been noticed before, sub initio, that this verse fills the place of the χαίρειν so common in the opening of Epistles, and gives an epistolary character to what follows).

[1] Aug. Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395–430

[2] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

[3] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

[4] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

[5] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

1 John 1:5

5. In each of these divisions, the first verse contains the ground-tone of the whole. And so here—GOD IS LIGHT. And (καί is not a sequence on what goes before (igitur, Beza) any further than it refers back by the words ἀγγελίαἣνἀκηκόαμεν to ὃἀκηκόαμενἀπαγγέλλομεν above. It serves to introduce the new subject) the message (De Wette supposes ἀγγελία to be a correction from the more difficult ἐπαγγελία. But as Düsterdieck has well argued, the great manuscript authority for ἀγγ., combined with the fact that in ch. 1 John 3:11 ἐπαγγ. is also read, and with this also, that ἐπαγγ. is a very common word in the N.

T., whereas ἀγγ, occurs only in these two places, precludes De W.’s supposition. The correction from ἀγγ to ἐπαγγ. was very obvious from ch. 1 John 2:25, which also suggested transposing ἔστιναὕτη to αὕτ. ἐστ.) which we have heard from Him (viz. from Christ), and announce to you (“quod filius annunciavit a patre, hoc apostolus acceptum a filio renunciat nobis.” Erasm. Düsterd. remarks that St. John seems every where to observe the distinction between ἀν- and ἀπ-αγγέλλειν, to announce and to declare. And to this distinction ἀγγελία here exactly corresponds (as Bengel, “quæ in ore Christi fuit ἀγγελία, eam Apostoli ἀναγγέλλουσι: nam ἀγγελίαν ab ipso acceptam reddunt et propagant”); whereas ἐπαγγελία, which means in the N. T. nothing but “promise” (neither in 2 Timothy 1:1, nor in Acts 23:21 has it any other sense; see note on the latter place), seems to carry no meaning here, and has, as above, evidently crept in from ch. 1 John 2:25), is this (αὕτη predicate, as always in such sentences): that God is light (not, as Luther, “a light:” φῶς is purely predicative, indicating the essence of God: just as when it is said in ch. 1 John 4:8, ὁθεὸςἀγάπηἐστίν.

There it is true the predicative is purely ethical, and thus literal, when used of God who is a Spirit, whereas here, φῶς being a material, not an ethical object, some amount of figurative meaning must be conceded. But of all material objects, light is that which most easily passes into an ethical predicative without even the process, in our thought, of interpretation. It unites in itself purity and clearness and beauty and glory, as no other material object does: it is the condition of all material life and growth and joy. And the application to God of such a predicative requires no transference. He is Light, and the Fountain of light material and light ethical. In the one world, darkness is the absence of light: in the other, darkness, untruthfulness, deceit, falsehood, is the absence of God.

They who are in communion with God, and walk with God, are of the light, and walk in the light), and there is not in Him any darkness at all (it is according to the manner of St. John, to strengthen an affirmation by the emphatic negation of its opposite; cf. 1 John 1:8; ch. 1 John 2:4; 1 John 2:10; 1 John 2:27, &c. Of the ethical darkness here denied, the Schol. says, οὔτεγὰρἄγνοια, οὔτεπλάνη, οὔτεἁμαρτία, οὔτεθάνατος. The οὐδεμία strengthens the negative—“no, not even one speck.” The Greek expositors ask the question respecting this message, καὶποῦτοῦτοἤκουσε;—and answer it, ἀπʼ αὐτοῦτοῦχριστοῦ, ἐγώεἰμιτὸφῶςτοῦκόσμουλέγοντος. Their reply is right, but their reference to those words of our Lord is wrong. It was ἀπʼ αὐτοῦτοῦχριστοῦ: viz. from the whole revelation, in doings and sufferings and sayings, of Him who was the ἀπαύγασματῆςδόξης of the Father.

With that revelation those His words admirably and exactly coincided: but they were not the source of the message, referring as they did specially to Himself, and not directly to the Father. In His whole life on earth, and in the testimony of His Spirit, ἐκεῖνοςἐξηγήσατοαὐτόν. So that this message is the result of the whole complex of 1 John 1:1).

1 John 1:6

6. None can have communion with Him who walk in darkness. If we say (the hypothesis is not assumed,—“If we say, as we do:”—but is purely hypothetical, “say who will and when he will.” This ἐάν with the subj. is repeated in every verse as far as ch. 1 John 2:1. The 1st pers. plur. gives to the sayings a more general form, precluding any from escaping from the inference: at the same time that by including himself in the hypothesis, the Apostle descends to the level of his readers, thus giving to his exhortations the “come,” and not “go,” which ever wins men’s hearts the most) that we have communion with Him (see on 1 John 1:3. “Communion with God is the very innermost essence of all true Christian life.” Huther), and walk in the darkness (περιπατῶμεν, as so often in N. T., of the whole being and moving and turning in the world: as Bengel, “actione interna et externa, quoquo nos vertimus:” see reff. τῷσκότει, τῷφωτί, mark off the two more distinctly than could be done without the art., as two existing separate ethical regions, the God and no-God regions of spiritual being), we lie (ψευδόμεθα is used with reference to εἴπωμεν: our assertion is a false one), and do not the truth (this clause is not a mere repetition, in a negative form, of the preceding ψευδόμεθα, as e. g. Episcopius, “hoc dicentes non facimus quod rectum est:” but is an independent proposition, answering to ἐντῷσκότειπεριπατῶμεν, and asserting that all such walking in darkness is a not-doing of the truth.

Christ is “the Truth:” and all doing the Truth is of Him, and of those who are in union with Him. So that ἡἀλήθεια is objective, not as ἀλήθεια alone might be, subjective, and imports “God’s truth,” καθώςἐστινἀλήθειαἐντῷἸησοῦ, Ephesians 4:21. We may observe how closely the teaching here as to φῶς and ἀλήθεια resembles that in Ephesians 4:5. See also John 3:21)

1 John 1:7

7. (is not merely the contrasted hypothesis to 1 John 1:6, but together with that contains a further unfolding of the subject): but if (see on ἐάν with the subj. above) we walk in the light (this walking in the light is explained by what follows, ὡςαὐτόςἐστινἐντῷφωτί, and by the apodosis, which gives the result of so walking,—viz. communion, &c. See Ephesians 5:8 ff. for the ethical details), as He (God) is in the light (because the Christian is made θείαςκοινωνὸςφύσεως, 2 Peter 1:4. ἔστινἐντῷφωτί is parallel with φῶςἐστίν above, 1 John 1:5. ἔστιν, as of Him who is eternal and fixed; περιπατῶμεν, as of us who are of time, moving onward: so Bed[6], “notanda distinctio verborum, quia Deum esse in luce dicit, nos autem in luce ambulare debere. Ambulant enim justi in luce, cum virtutum operibus servientes ad meliora proficiunt:” see note on ch. 1 John 2:6; τὸφῶς is the element in which God dwelleth: cf. 1 Timothy 6:16. Notice that this walking in the light, as He is in the light, is no mere imitation of God, as Episcopius, al., but is an identity in the essential element of our daily walk with the essential element of God’s eternal being: not imitation, but coincidence and identity of the very atmosphere of life), we have communion with one another (these words, κοινωνίανἔχομενμετʼ ἀλλήλων, are to be taken in their plain literal sense, and refer, not to our communion with God, which is assumed in our walking in the light as He is in the light, but to our mutual communion with one another by all having the same ground-element of life, viz. the light of the Lord, Isaiah 2:5. This has been very commonly misunderstood: e. g. by Œc. (ὥστετῆςκοινωνίαςἐχόμενοιτῆςἀλλήλων, δῆλονδὲὅτιτῆςἡμῶντεκαὶτοῦφωτός, so Thl. also), Schol. in Oxf. Cat., Aug[7] (“ut possimus societatem habere cum illo”), Beza (“interpretor cum illo mutuam: agitur enim nunc de communione non sanctorum inter se, sed Dei et sanctorum”), Calv., Socinus, al.: even De Wette interprets “Gemeinschaft unter einander, namlich mit Gott” and Bengel wavers between the two.

The words are taken rightly by Bed[8] (who however regards them as putting forward mutual love as the necessary result of walking in the light), Erasmus, Lyra, Luther, Grot., Estius, (Bengel,) Lücke, Baumg.-Crus., Neander, Sander, Düsterd., al. The words are evidently an allusion to 1 John 1:3, and as there communion with God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ is expressed, so here it lies in the background, but need not be supplied. De Wette’s remark is most true; Christian communion is then only real, when it is communion with God), and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin (in order to understand rightly this important sentence, we must fix definitely two or three points regarding its connexion and construction. First then, καί connects it, as an additional result of our walking in the light, as He is in the light, with κοινωνίανἔχομενμετʼ ἀλλήλων: just as in ch. 1 John 3:10, end, καὶὁμὴἀγαπῶντὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ. Consequently, the proposition contained in it cannot be as Œc., Thl., Beza, Wolf, Sander, al., imagine, the ground (καὶγάρ) of the former one, that “if we walk, &c., we have communion, &c.,” but follows as a co-ordinate result with κοιν. ἔχ. κ.τ.λ. Secondly, καθαρίζει is the present tense, and must be kept to its present meaning.

This consideration precludes all such meanings as the former of the two given by Jerome (“quod scriptum est ‘et sanguis Jesu filii ejus mundat nos ab omni peccato’ tam in confessione baptismatis, quam in clementia pœnitudinis accipiendum est,” adv. Pelag. ii. 8, vol. ii. p. 750), and Bed[9] (“sacramentum namque (καί) dominicæ passionis et præterita nobis omnia in baptismo pariter peccata laxavit (notice the past tense), et quidquid quotidiana fragilitate post baptisma commisimus ejusdem Redemtoris nostri gratia dimittit”): and as that of Calvin (“hæc igitur summa est, ut certo statuant fideles se acceptos esse Deo, quia sacrificio mortis Christi illis placatus est”), Calovius, Episcopius, al. Thirdly, the sense of καθαρίζει must be accurately ascertained and strictly kept to. In 1 John 1:9, ἵνακαθαρίσῃἡμᾶςἀπὸπάσηςἀδικίας is plainly distinguished from ἵναἀφῇἡμῖντὰςἁμαρτίας: distinguished, as a further process; as, in a word, sanctification, distinct from justification. This meaning then, however much it may be supposed, that justification is implied or presupposed, must be held fast here. Fourthly, the sense of τὸαἷμαἸησοῦ must be also clearly defined.

The expression is an objective one, not a subjective: is spoken of that which is the objective cause ab extra, of our being cleansed from all sin. And this is the material Blood of Jesus the personal Redeemer, shed on the cross as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sin of the world. So we have the same Blood said in Colossians 1:20 to be the great medium of pacification between God and the world: so in Ephesians 1:7, to be the means of our ἀπολύτρωσις: so in Hebrews 9:14, which approaches very nearly to our passage, to cleanse (καθαρίζειν as here) our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. In all these places, and similar ones, whatever application to ourselves by faith or otherwise may lie in the background, it is not that which is spoken of, but the Blood of Christ itself, as the actual objective cause, once for all, of our reconciliation and sanctification. These considerations remove much of the difficulty and possible misunderstanding of the sentence. Thus understood, it will mean, much as in the second clause of Bede’[10] interpretation, that this our walking in light, itself necessarily grounded in communion with the Father and the Son, will bring about, that whatever sins we may still be betrayed into by the infirmity of our nature and the malice of the devil, from them the Blood of Jesus purifies us day by day.

Observe, not, the application of that Blood: for we are speaking of a state of faith and holiness, in which that blood is continually applied: the περιπατεῖνἐντῷφωτί is, in fact, the application: is that, which, as a subjective conditional element, makes that Blood of Christ’s cross to be to us a means of purifying from all sin. The whole doctrine of this verse is fully and admirably set forth in Düsterdieck. The sum of what he says may be thus stated. St. John, in accord with the other Apostles, sets forth the Death and Blood of Christ in two different aspects: 1) as the one sin-offering for the world, in which sense we are justified by the application of the Blood of Christ by faith, His satisfaction being imputed to us. 2) as a victory over Sin itself, His blood being the purifying medium, whereby we gradually, being already justified, become pure and clean from all sin. And this application of Christ’s blood is made by the Spirit which dwelleth in us.

The former of these asserts the imputed righteousness of Christ put on us in justification: the latter, the inherent righteousness of Christ, wrought in us gradually in sanctification. And it is of this latter that he here is treating. Cf. next verse).

[6] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

[7] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395–430

[8] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

[9] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

[10] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

1 John 1:8-2

8–2:2. Unfolding of the idea of purification from sin by the blood of Christ, in connexion with our walking in light. This last is adduced in one of its plainest and simplest consequences, viz. the recognition of all that is yet darkness in us, in the confession of our sins. “Si te confessus fueris peccatorem, est in te veritas: nam ipsa veritas lux est. Nondum perfecte splenduit vita tua, quia insunt peccata: sed tamen jam illuminari cœpisti, quia inest confessio peccatorum.” Aug[11] The light that is in us convicts the darkness, and we, no longer loving nor desiring to sin, have, by means of the propitiatory and sanctifying blood of Christ, both full forgiveness of and sure purification from all our sins. But the true test of this state of communion with and knowledge of God is, the keeping of His commandments (1 John 2:3-6), the walking as Christ walked: and this test is concentrated and summed up in its one crucial application, viz. to the law of love (1 John 2:7-11).

[11] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395–430

1 John 1:10

10. Not a mere repetition, but a confirmation and intensification of 1 John 1:8. Huther well remarks, that this verse is related to 1 John 1:9 as 1 John 1:8 to 1 John 1:7). If we say that we have not sinned (if we deny, that is, the fact of our commission of sins in our Christian state. The perf., so far from removing the time to that before conversion, brings it down to the present: had it been ἡμαρτήσαμεν, it might have had that signification. ἡμαρτήκαμεν answers in time to ἁμαρτίανοὐκἔχομεν: the one representing the state as existing, the other the sum of sinful acts which have gone to make it up), we make Him (God, see above) a liar (this is the climax, gradually reached through ψευδόμεθα 1 John 1:6, and ἑαυτοὺςπλανῶμεν 1 John 1:8. And it is justified, by the uniform assertion of God both in the O.

T. and N. T. that all men are sinners, which we thus falsify as far as in us lies), and His word in not is us (cf. John 5:38. ὁλόγοςαὐτοῦ may be interpreted generally,—“that which He saith.” “Deus dixit ‘peccasti:’ id negare nefandum est. Verbum nos vere accusat, et contradicendo arcetur a corde.” Bengel. οὐκἔστινἐνἡμῖν, as in John l. c., has no abiding place in, within, us: is something heard by the ear, and external to us, but not finding place among the thoughts and maxims of our heart and life. God declares that to be true which we assume to be untrue. It is evident that with Œc., Grot., De Wette, to understand the O.

T. by ὁλόγοςαὐτοῦ is to miss the connexion, seeing that it is of the sins of Christians that St. John is treating, to whom ὁλόγοςαὐτοῦ has become a far higher revelation of His will, viz. that given by Christ, and brought home to the heart by His indwelling Spirit. This final revelation of God includes the O. and N. T., and all other manifestations of His will to us: and it is this as a whole, which we reject and thrust from us, if we say at any time that we have not sinned, for its united testimony proclaims the contrary).