1 John 5

1 John 5:1

1 John 5:1 shows that the believer, as born of God, necessarily loves his brother. The two elements of the Christian life, faith and love, are represented in their real unity.

πᾶςὁπιστεύωνὅτιἸησοῦςἐστινὁΧριστός] refers back to chap. 1 John 4:15; comp. 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:2; instead of ὁΧριστός, the apostle in 1 John 5:5 puts: ὁνἱὸςτοῦΘεοῦ; comp. 1 John 3:23, from which, however, it does not follow that ὁΧριστός and ὁυἱὸςτοῦςΘεοῦ are to the apostle exactly identical ideas, but certainly that he only is Christ to him, who is also Son of God. That John says here ὁΧριστός, is occasioned by the antithesis to the false teachers; comp. on this Weiss, p. 155 ff. Grotius erroneously explains: qui credere se ostendit: it is not the manifestation of faith, but faith itself, that is the subject.

ἐκτοῦΘεοῦγεγέννηται] for faith is not a human, but a divine work in us.[292] This first sentence forms the premiss from which the apostle draws his conclusion. He does not specially emphasize the self-evident intermediate thought: ΠᾶςὉΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΈΝΟςἘΚΤΟῦΘΕΟῦἈΓΑΠᾷΤῸΝΘΕΌΝ, but presupposing it,[293] he says: ΚΑῚΠᾶςὉἈΓΑΠῶΝΤῸΝΓΕΝΝΉΣΑΝΤΑ, ἈΓΑΠᾷΚΑῚΤῸΝΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΈΝΟΝἘΞΑὐΤΟῦ] ὉΓΕΓΕΝΝ. ἘΞΑὐΤΟῦ is not “Christ” (Augustine, Hilarius, a Lapide, etc.), but “the believer;” Calvin correctly: Sub numero singulari omnes fideles Ap. designat. Est autem argumentum ex communi naturae ordine sumptum. By the last thought Calvin rightly indicates why the apostle here says “ΤῸΝΓΕΝΝΉΣΑΝΤΑ” instead of ΤῸΝΘΕΌΝ, and “ΤῸΝΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΈΝΟΝἘΞΑὐΤΟῦ” instead of ΤῸΝἈΔΕΛΦΌΝ.

ἈΓΑΠᾷ is not subjunctive “let him love,” but indicative: “he loves;” John is here expressing not an exhortation, but a fact.

[292] The relationship between being born of God and faith is not to be expressed thus, that first the latter and then the former follows; but neither is it first the former and then the latter, but being born of God happens in this way, that God works faith in man; “the new birth is,” as it runs in the Mecklenburg Catechism, “the working and gift of faith.” The πιστεύειν, which begins with the gift of πίστις, is therefore the result, and hence also the token, of being born of God, as the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην (chap. 1 John 2:29) and the ἀγαπᾷν (chap. 1 John 3:7).

[293] That this thought is presupposed by John, which Ebrard and Braune erroneously deny, is proved by the fact that John does not say here: ὁἐκτοῦΘεοῦγεγεννημένος, but instead of it: ὁἀγαπῶντὸνγεννήσαντα.

1 John 5:2

1 John 5:2 states how love to the “children of God” is to be recognised. The sign of it is: ὅταντὸνΘεὸνἀγαπῶμενκαὶτὰςἐντολὰςαὐτοῦτηρῶμεν (ποιῶμεν). The difficulty, that whereas elsewhere the keeping of the commandments or brotherly love is mentioned as the evidence of love to God (or of knowing God), comp. 1 John 2:3, 1 John 4:20-21 here the converse relationship is represented, so that, as de Wette says, “the apostle here makes the cause (love to God) the token of the effect (love to the brethren),” cannot be solved by the arbitrary assumption of an attraction, which Oecumenius supposes when he interprets: δεῖγματῆςεἰςΘεὸνἀγάπηςτὴνεἰςτὸνἀδελφὸνἀγάπηντίθεται, and which Grotius distinctly expresses when he paraphrases: ἐντούτῳγινώσκομενὅτιτὸνΘεὸνἀγαῶμεν, ὅτανἀγαπῶμεντὰτέκνααὐτοῦκαὶτὰςἐντολὰςαὐτοῦτηρῶμεν; nor even with de Wette by the view “that τὰςἐντολὰςαὐτοῦτηρῶμεν is the principal clause, and τὸνΘεὸνἀγαπῶμεν only the anticipated confirmation of it, so that the one result of love to God is put for a token of the other;” but the explanation lies in this, that these two elements, “love to God” and “love to the brethren as children of God,” in reality mutually prove one another.[294] By the addition of the words: καὶτὰςἐντολὰςαὐτοῦτηρῶμεν, it is brought out that love to God necessarily shows itself in the obedient keeping of His commandments. This obedience, rooted in love to God, is equally with the former the token of true brotherly love, because the commandments of God include the duties which we owe to the brethren. He therefore who regards it as incumbent on him to fulfil God’s commandments, possesses therein the evidence that he loves his brethren, the τέκνατοῦΘεοῦ, that his love to them is not mere appearance, but reality; similarly Lücke, Sander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Düsterdieck, Braune, interpret; Calvin, on the other hand, gives the thought an erroneous direction when he says: “nunc docet, recte et ordine amari homines, quum Dens priores obtinet; vult sic mutuam coli inter nos caritatem, ut Deus praeferatur.”

It is further to be observed that the first ἀγαπῶμεν is neither subjunctive nor used instead of the future (Carpzov, Lange), but is simple indicative; and that ὅταν is not = quamdiu (Carpzov, Lange), but conditional particle, as ἐάν, chap. 1 John 2:3.

[294] He who loves God has therein an evidence that he loves the brethren also—as τέκνατοῦΘεοῦ, because brotherly love is the necessary result of love to God; but it is also quite as true that he who loves the brethren has therein an evidence of love to God, because the latter is the necessary cause of the former.

1 John 5:3

1 John 5:3 refers to the last two ideas, which were simply mentioned co-ordinatively, and expresses their unity: αὕτηγάρἐστινἡἀγάπητοῦΘεοῦ] αὕτη is explained by the following ἵνα.

ἐστίν is to be kept in its proper meaning, though ἵνα follows; the paraphrase: “it brings this with it, it includes the endeavour” (de Wette), weakens the thought; ἵνα states the import of the ἀγάπητ. Θεοῦ, to the realization of which it is directed. Quite incorrectly Grotius takes ἡἀγάπη metonymically for: ostensio dilectionis.

καὶαἱἐντολαὶαὐτοῦβαρεῖαιοὐκεἰσίν is connected with the preceding as a new idea; βαρεῖαι = “heary, as an oppressive burden;”[295] comp. Luke 11:46: φορτίαδυσβάστακτα, and Matthew 11:30: φορτίονἐλαφρόν. It is grammatically incorrect to explain βαρεῖαι: “difficult to fulfil” (Ebrard). The idea is, indeed, expressed absolutely, but from the confirmation that follows in 1 John 5:4 it is evident that the apostle meant it in special reference to those who are born of God.

[295] Spener: “We are to understand the heaviness of a burden that is so oppressive that one cannot bear it, that is, painful.” Calovius: “dicit ea non esse gravia, quia non aggravant, aut instar molis onerosae praemunt renatum.” The commandments of God, as the demands of His love on man who is made after His own image, cannot be grievous to the latter; if, however, they are so, that is because man has departed from his original relationship to God; to the believer they are not grievous, because as the child of God he has gone back to the original relationship of love to God.

1 John 5:4

1 John 5:4. Confirmation of the preceding thought.

πᾶντὸγεγεννημένονἐκτοῦΘεοῦ] The neuter is used here as in Gospel of Joh 3:6; John 6:37; John 17:2; it serves “to bring out the general category;” see Meyer on John 3:6; comp. Winer, p. 160; according to the sense = πάντεςοἱκ.τ.λ.; it is not the disposition, but persons that are meant. Quite erroneous is the remark of Baumgarten-Crusius: “the γεγενν. ἐκτ. Θ. has here only an external signification: whatever has the position of God’s children.”

νικᾷτὸνκόσμον] for: μείζωνἐστὶνὁἐναὐτοῖς, ἢὁἐντῷκόσμῳ, chap. 1 John 4:4.

νικᾷ is the simple present; in the conflict between the κόσμος and him who is born of God, the latter is constantly gaining the victory. Baumgarten-Crusius unsatisfactorily explains νικᾷν by “to keep oneself innocent;” this does not exhaust the idea of victory; that is not obtained when we take our stand against the enemy, but only when the enemy is overcome. The completion of the victory in its full sense certainly only takes place with the second coming of Christ.

Rickli and de Wette explain κόσμος by “love of the world and of self;” better Lücke, Calvin, Sander, Düsterdieck, Brückner, etc.: “all that strives against the will of God within and without man;” but even this is too abstract. It is the kingdom of the wicked one which, under its prince the devil, striving against the kingdom of God, seeks to tempt the believer to unbelief and disobedience to the divine commands.

As the apostle wants to show how he that is born of God overcomes the world, he continues: καὶαὕτηἐστὶνἡνίκηἡνικήσασατὸνκόσμονἡπίστιςἡμῶν. The pronoun αὕτη refers to ἡπίστιςἡμῶν, which in its import is no other than the πίστις, ὅτιἸησοῦςἐστὶνὁυἱὸςτοῦΘεοῦ, 1 John 5:5. The expression is peculiar, inasmuch as faith is described as the νίκη itself, and the νικᾷν is ascribed to it. Lorinus rightly remarks: victoria proprie non vincit, sed comparatur pugnando, sed energiam continet ea formula, denotans in quo sita sit vincendi ratio, unde victoria parta.[296] The aorist ΝΙΚΉΣΑΣΑ is not to be turned into the present (a Lapide, Lorinus, Grotius, etc.); even though the victory is a continuous one, in which every believer is constantly taking part, the aorist nevertheless indicates that faith from the beginning overcame the world. The explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius: “it is already victory won that ye have become believers” (similarly Neander), is incorrect; it is not here intended to commend faith as the result of a fight, but as that which fights, and which has won the victory; hence the active ἩΝΙΚΉΣΑΣΑ (so also Braune).

[296] Ebrard opposes this explanation with the arbitrary statement that ἡνίκη “is the action which conquers the world” (!).

1 John 5:5

1 John 5:5. Confirmation of the preceding thought by an appeal to the experience of the readers (Lücke).

τίςἐστινὁνικῶνκ.τ.λ.] The same form of speech as in chap. 1 John 2:22. The thought is: “Credens omnis et solus vincit” (Bengel). With ὅτιἸησοῦςἐστὶνκ.τ.λ. comp. 1 John 5:1, chap. 1 John 2:22, 1 John 3:23.

The believer is victorious because he is born of God; 1 John 5:1; 1 John 5:4 (Düsterdieck).

1 John 5:6-12

1 John 5:6-12. That Jesus is the Son of God, is confirmed by divine testimony.

1 John 5:7

1 John 5:7. By means of the witness of the Spirit, water and blood also attain to the position of witnesses. As such John now adduces them in connection with the Spirit, in order by the weight of this threefold witness to confirm the truth that the Son of God, who is identical with Jesus, is the Messiah.

The ὅτι which begins the verse means neither: “jam vero” (Grotius, Calov), nor: “hence” (Meyer), nor: “consequently” (Baumgarten-Crusius), but: “for.” This connection with the foregoing is explained by the fact that the truth of the testimony of the Holy Ghost (who is the truth itself) is strengthened by the circumstance that it is not He alone that bears witness, but that with Him the water and the blood bear witness also, as the two elements by means of which the atonement took place (similarly Lücke);[312] de Wette unnecessarily supplies: “and, humanly considered, the witness is also true, for.” Paulus connects 1 John 5:9, as consequent, with this verse as antecedent: “because there are three, etc., then, if, etc., the witness of God is much greater.” This construction, which is contrary to the style of John, is the more to he rejected as an erroneous idea arises from it.

τρεῖςεἰσινοἱμαρτυροῦντες] The masculine is used because the three that are mentioned are regarded as concrete witnesses (Lücke, etc.), but not because they are “types of men representing these three” (Bengel),[313] or symbols of the Trinity (as they are interpreted in the Scholion of Matthaei, p. 138, mentioned in the critical notes). It is uncertain whether John brings out this triplicity of witnesses with reference to the well-known legal rule, Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16, etc., as several commentators suppose. It is not to be deduced from the present that ὕδωρ and αἷμα are things still at present existing, and hence the sacraments, for by means of the witness of the Spirit the whole redemptive life of Christ is permanently present, so that the baptism and death of Jesus—although belonging to the past—prove Him constantly to be the Messiah who makes atonement for the world (so also Braune). The participle οἱμαρτυροῦντες, instead of the substantive οἱμάρτυρες, emphasizes more strongly the activity of the witnessing.

τὸπνεῦμακαὶτὸὕδωρκαὶτὸαἷμα] All these three expressions have here, of course, the same meaning as previously.[314]

καὶοἱτρεῖςεἰςτὸἕνΕἸΣΙΝ] Luther inaccurately: “and these three are one;” ΤῸἝΝ is the one specific object of the witness; “the three are directed to this one,” namely, in their thus unanimous witness. Storr inaccurately: “they serve one cause, they promote one and the same object, namely, the object previously mentioned (v. 1, 5).”

[312] “In ver. 6 it was said that the witnessing Spirit is the truth, and hence it is implied that, to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Spirit unites with the water and blood, as the testimony of the truth. As John now assumes this conclusion from ver. 6, he adds, passing on to another subordinate confirmatory proof: for,” etc.

[313] Tropum … Ap. Adhibet … ut hoc dicat: tria sunt genera hominum, qui ministerio testandi in terra funguntur: (1) illud … genus testinni, quod praeconio evangelii vacat; (2) illud gen. test., quod baptismum administrat, ut Johannes baptista et caeteri; (3) illud gen. test., quod passionem et mortem Domini spectavit et celebrat.

[314] Weiss erroneously refers the witness of the baptism here to that which was given at the baptism of Christ, and the witness of the death to that which was given at the outflowing of His blood.—It is not by what happened in connection with them, but in themselves, that ὕδωρ and αἷμα are the μαρτυροῦντες.—According to Ebrard, ὕδωρ here “is the baptism of water instituted by Christ, as an external institution … as the representation of every means of grace to be administered by men, above all in its connection with the preaching of the word;” and αἷμα is “the blood of Christ, i.e. His atoning death, … not, however, the blood of Christ alone, but also the power of the blood of the testimony, which is shed from time to time by His disciples for the sake of confessing Jesus.” To this Ebrard further adds: “we may say that in the water of baptism is embodied the confession which by its firmness overcomes the lie, and in the blood of testimony that love which by patience overcomes the power of the flesh.” This interpretation needs no refutation.

REMARK.

According to the Rec., after οἱμαρτυροῦντες appear the words: ἐντῷοὐρανῷ … οἱμαρτυροῦντεςἐντῇγῇ (see the critical notes). Luther says in reference to them: “It appears as if this verse was inserted by the orthodox against the Arians, which, however, cannot suitably be done, because both here and there he speaks not of witnesses in heaven, but of witnesses on earth.” With this most modern commentators agree, with the exception of Besser and Sander. It is true that, if we consider the contents of the whole Epistle, the idea of the three witnesses in heaven may be brought into connection with something or other that appears in the Epistle; but it does not follow from this that that idea has here a suitable or even a necessary place. This plainly is not the case, so much the more, as neither in what follows nor in what immediately precedes, with which 1 John 5:7 is closely connected by ὅτι, is there the slightest reference to such a witness of the Trinity. There are clear and intelligible grounds in the foregoing for adducing the three witnesses: πνεῦμα, ὓδωρ, αἷμα, but not for adducing the three witnesses: ὁπατήρ, ὁλόγος, τὸπνεῦμαἅγιον; this trinity appears quite unprepared for; but the sequel is also opposed to it, for it makes it unintelligible what witness is meant by the μαρτυρίατοῦΘεοῦ, 1 John 5:9, whether that of the three in heaven, or that of the three on earth.

To this it may be added that these two different classes of witnesses appear together quite unconnected; it is said, indeed, that these three witnesses agree in one, but not in what relationship the two threes stand to one another.

Besides, however, the idea in itself is utterly obscure; for what are we to understand by a witness in heaven? Bengel, it is true (with whom Sander agrees), says: “non fertur testimonium in coelo, sed in terra: qui autem testantur, sunt in terra, sunt in coelo; i.e. illi sunt naturae terrestris et humanae, hi autem naturae divinae et gloriosae.” How untenable, however, this is, is shown, on the one hand, in the fact that ἐντῷοὐρανῷ does not belong to εἰσιν, but rather to μαρτυροῦντες, and the text therefore does not speak of being, but of bearing witness, in heaven; and, on the other hand, in the fact that according to it the πνεῦμα which is connected with ὓδωρ and αἷμα must be regarded as something earthly and human.

There is further the un-Johannean character of the diction, as by John ὁΘεός and ὁλόγος, and similarly ὁπατήρ and ὁυἱός, are certainly conjoined, but never ὁπατήρ and ὁλόγος; Sander avails himself of the assumption, which is certainly very easy, of a ἅπαξλεγόμενον; but this is here unwarrantable, for those ideas are so frequently occurring in John—and that mode of conjunction is not accidental, but is grounded on the nature of the case. We see that the interpolator wrote λόγος, because this suggested itself to him as a genuine Johannean expression, without reflecting that its connection with πατήρ is un-Johannean. Finally, the καὶοὗτοιοἱτρεῖςἕνεἰσι is also strange. Bengel interprets: unum sunt essentia, notitia, voluntate, atque adeo consensu testimonii. Bengel with justice puts the essentiality first, for it is just this that is denoted by the expression—but just this is unsuitable here, where the subject rather is the unity of the witness.

1 John 5:9

1 John 5:9 brings out the greatness of the witness of God, and our obligation to accept it. The two clauses which are here connected with one another do not perfectly correspond in form; for in the antecedent clause the idea that corresponds to the μείζων of the consequent clause is not expressed, nor in the consequent clause the idea that corresponds to the λαμβάνομεν of the antecedent. The sentence, if completed, would run: If we receive the witness of men because it is of some value, much more must we receive the witness of God, as it has a much greater value (comp. A. Buttm. p. 338). The sentence contains a conclusion ex minore ad majus. The conjunction εἰ, as frequently, is not dubitative.

Brückner justly says, in opposition to Baur: “The witness of men is only alluded to on the side of its judicial value; there is not assumed to be in it an import which would be equal to that of the witness of God by water and blood and spirit.”[315]

ἩΜΑΡΤΥΡΊΑΤΟῦΘΕΟῦ is here used quite generally; the more particular definition is only given by the sequel (so also Düsterdieck).

ὍΤΙΑὝΤΗἘΣΤῚΝἩΜΑΡΤΥΡΊΑΤΟῦΘΕΟῦ] With ὍΤΙ it seems necessary to supply a thought to which it refers; Lücke supplies the thought: “if we accept the witness of God, we must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;” Düsterdieck, with whom Braune agrees: “a witness of God now really exists, namely this …;” but such a supplement is not necessary if we suppose that the clause beginning with ὍΤΙ is intended to give the reason of the contrast of the human and of the divine witness which here appears, in this sense: “I say, ἡμαρτυρίατοῦθεοῦ, for …”

In the reading: ὍΤΙ (instead of ἭΝ) ΜΕΜΑΡΤΎΡΗΚΕΠΕΡῚΤΟῦΥἹΟῦΑὐΤΟῦ, which is attested by the best manuscripts, this second ὍΤΙ may be taken as causal particle, in which case ΑὝΤΗ would be referred to the witness spoken of in 1 John 5:6-7, in this sense: “for this is the witness of God, since He has testified (it) of His Son;” but the want of an ΑὐΤΌς before ΜΕΜΑΡΤΎΡΗΚΕ is an obstacle to this view; it is therefore better to interpret ὍΤΙ by “that,” and to refer αὕτη to this sentence which begins with ὍΤΙ (Lücke, Erdmann, Düsterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Ewald, Brückner, Braune), so that the sense is: for this is (therein consists) the witness of God, that He has testified of His Son. By this witness we are to understand no other than that which was spoken of in the preceding, namely, the objective witness of the Spirit, not the internal witness, of which the apostle does not speak until afterwards (contrary to Düsterdieck), but still less, as Ebrard interprets, the witness in John 1:33.

With the reading ἭΝ, ΑὝΤΗ must be referred back to the preceding; the sense then is: “for that (1 John 5:6-7) is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.”[316]

The perfect ΜΕΜΑΡΤΎΡΗΚΕ is here to be taken in the same way as John frequently uses the perfect, namely, in this way, that the witness which God has given is to be regarded as permanently remaining.

[315] It is quite erroneous for Storr to understand by the witness of men specially the witness of John the Baptist.

[316] Lücke erroneously thinks that with the reading ἥν there results only an imperfect sense, when he says: “the witness of God, which He has testified, consists—in what?” This appearance of incompleteness disappears, however, as soon as αὕτη is referred to the preceding.

1 John 5:10

1 John 5:10. God’s testimony of His Son has for its object faith in the Son of God. Hence: “He that believeth on the Son hath the witness in himself.”

τὴνμαρτυρίαν, i.e. the witness of God which was previously spoken of; ἔχειἐνἑαυτῷ, i.e. the witness is no longer merely external to him, but by virtue of his faith he has it in (not as Luther translates: “with”) himself; the external has become internal to him. This thought forms the transition to that contained in 1 John 5:11. The believer, namely, has the objective witness in himself, inasmuch as he experiences in his soul the power of the truth attested by God; yet τὴνμαρτυρίαν must not here be understood—as in 1 John 5:11—of this operation itself (contrary to Düsterdieck). In the interpretation: “he accepts the witness,”—for which, corresponding to the ἔχει, it should at least be put: “he has accepted it,”—the preposition ἐν does not receive due justice.

In the following negative sentence, by which the thought expressed is strengthened and extended, we must supply with τῷΘεῷ (instead of which τῷυἱῷ is not to be read), “τῷμεμαρτυρηκότι.

ψευστὴνπεποίηκεναὐτόν] see chap. 1 John 1:10. In his unbelief, the witness of God is regarded by him as a lie, and God, who has given it, therefore as a liar.

This thought is confirmed by the following words: “for he believeth not (has not become a believer) in the record which God has given (as a permanent record) of His Son.”

With the participle πιστεύων, which describes a general class (not a single particular individual), μή is used; but with the finite verb πεπίστευκεν it is οὐ, because thereby the πιστεύειν of those that belong to that class is exactly and directly denied (comp. chap. 1 John 2:4, 1 John 3:10; 1 John 3:14, 1 John 4:8).[317]

[317] It is different in John 3:18, where ὅτιμὴπεπίστευκεν follows ὁμὴπιστεύων, but as the reason for ἤδηκέκριται, and where, therefore, it is considered as the reason of the condemnation operating in the mind of the judge; differently Winer, p. 420 ff.; VII. p. 441 ff. The distinction lies in this, that by ψευστὴνπεποίηκεναὐτόν it is an act of the subject, but by κέκριται the action of the judge (i.e. of God) that is indicated.

1 John 5:11

states in what way that witness of God shows itself as internal to the believer; to him who, by believing, has the objective witness of God in himself, it is no longer purely objective, but he experiences it in himself as a divine power, or as the ζωὴαἰώνιος which God has given him

1 John 5:11 states in what way that witness of God shows itself as internal to the believer; to him who, by believing, has the objective witness of God in himself, it is no longer purely objective, but he experiences it in himself as a divine power, or as the ζωὴαἰώνιος which God has given him.[318] Hence the apostle says: “And this is the record, ὅτιζωὴναἰώνιονἔδωκενἡμῖνὁΘεός.” With ἩΜῖΝ, ΤΟῖςΠΕΠΙΣΤΕΥΚΌΣΙΝ is to be mentally supplied.

ΖΩῊΑἸΏΝΙΟς is not “the hope of eternal life” (Bede: dedit nobis vitam aeternam, sed adhuc in terra peregrinantibus in spe, quam daturus est in coelis ad se pervenientibus in re), but it is this itself, the divine life, of which the believer is even here a partaker; what the believer hopes for, that he has already.

ζωὴναἰώνιον, as the principal idea, is put first.

ἜΔΩΚΕΝ means: “he gave;” it is not = promisit (Socinus), nor does it express merely the firmitatem et certitudinem promissionis divinae (a Lapide).

Myrberg incorrectly finds the import of the μαρτυρία of God stated in ὍΤΙΚ.Τ.Λ., which is in opposition to the context. The second part of the verse: ΚΑῚΑὝΤΗἩΖΩῊἘΝΤῷΥἹῷΑὐΤΟῦἘΣΤΙΝ, which is not dependent on ὍΤΙ (Baumgarten-Crusius), but forms a co-ordinate principal clause, gives a further explanation in regard to ΖΩῊΑἸΏΝΙΟς. Several commentators find this thought expressed in these words, that we possess the ΖΩῊΑἸΏΝ. in the Son, i.e. in fellowship with the Son; but this the words do not say; they rather state where the ζωὴαἰών., which God gave to believers, had its original place, namely, in the Son; comp. John 1:4. Frommann (p. 405): “the eternal life of which the Christian is by faith a partaker, is one with the life that dwells in Christ” (so also Düsterdieck, etc.). Braune incorrectly separates ΑὝΤΗ from ἩΖΩΉ, as he puts ἘΣΤΊΝ between them in the thought, and refers ΑὝΤΗ to the idea ΑἸΏΝΙΟς: “and this … namely, ΑἸΏΝΙΟς … is the life,” etc.

[318] According to Braune, by ὅτι the import of the record is meant to be stated; but then John would be speaking of a different record from that which he mentioned before.

1 John 5:12

1 John 5:12 states the inference from the immediately preceding thought. If the ζωή is originally in the Son, then he who has the Son has with him also the ζωή. With ὁἔχωντὸνυἱόν, comp. chap. 1 John 2:23. Changing and weakening the sense, Grotius puts for τὸνυἱόν: verba ilia quae Pater Filio mandavit; even ἔχειτὴνζωήν he erroneously explains by: jus certum ad vitam aeternam. Whilst John in the first clause says simply τὸνυἱόν, in the second he adds τοῦΘεοῦ; on this Bengel remarks: habet versus duo cola; in priore non additur Dei, nam fideles norunt Filium; in altero additur, ut demum sciant fideles, quanti sit, non habere.

1 John 5:13

1 John 5:13. Many commentators (Lorinus, Spener, Bengel, Rickli, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lücke, Sander, Düsterdieck, Braune) make the conclusion of the Epistle begin with this verse (“a sort of concluding section,” Ebrard), referring ταῦτα to the whole Epistle. This, however, is incorrect. That this verse also belongs to the last leading section beginning at 1 John 3:23, is shown not only by the idea ζωὴναἰώνιον, which refers to what immediately precedes, but also by the idea πιστεύεινεἰςτὸὄνοματοῦυἱοῦτοῦΘεοῦ, which refers back to 1 John 3:23; besides, it is to be observed that the following sentences, 1 John 5:14-15, correspond to the thought with which the preceding leading section ended; comp. 1 John 3:21-22. Accordingly, ταῦτα is not to be referred to the whole Epistle, but to the last section, 1 John 5:6-12 (Brückner), which reaches its climax in the thought: ὁἔχωντὸνυἱὸνἔχειτὴνζωήν; comp. 1 John 2:1; 1 John 2:21; 1 John 2:26. In the words: ἵναεἰδῆτε, ὅτιζωὴνἔχετεαἰώνιον, John states the object for which he wrote that which is contained in the foregoing.

The certainty of the life which is bestowed on him is so much the more necessary to the Christian’s mind, as this is sometimes hidden from him in the struggles of life—the life is there, but at times like a hidden treasure. That the possession of this life, however, is conditioned by faith, the apostle brings out especially by an additional clause, which indeed runs differently in the different codices (see the critical remarks), but in its different forms expresses essentially the same thought; according to the probable reading, it is connected with ὑμῖν; according to A, however, with ἔχετε. The second clause in the Rec: καὶἵναπιστεύητεεἰςτὸὄνοματοῦυἱοῦτοῦΘεοῦ, indicates as the second object the adherence to faith; with the phrase: πιστεύεινεἰςτὸὄνομα, comp. chap. 1 John 3:23.

1 John 5:14

1 John 5:14, as the preliminary καί shows, is not the beginning of a new section (contrary to de Wette); but the thought expressed here is in close connection with the foregoing, inasmuch as the παῤῥησία is an essential element of the ζωὴαἰώνιος. As in chap. 1 John 3:21-22, so here also, παῤῥησία is the confidence which the believer experiences in the certainty that his prayer is heard.

αὕτηἐστὶνἡπαῤῥησία does not mean: “hence arises also a happy spirit” (Ziegler), but “herein consists the confidence” (de Wette).

ἣνἔχομενπρὸςαὐτόν] αὐτόν does not refer to the Son, but to God; though God is not previously mentioned as the subject, yet He is nevertheless considered as the principal subject, as the One who gives life through the Son.

ὅτι] Lücke (with whom Ebrard agrees, with the incorrect remark that ὅτι does not depend on αὕτη, but simply on παῤῥησία) supplies before ὅτι: “that we have the confidence;” but the concise thought of the apostle is thereby weakened, and besides the παῤῥησία is itself this confidence (Düsterdieck).

ἐάντιαἰτώμεθακατὰτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ] By means of κατὰτ. θέλ. αὐτοῦ, i.e. τοῦΘεοῦ, prayer is more particularly defined as to its substance and character.

ἀκούειἡμῶν] In chap. 1 John 3:22 it is put instead of this: λαμβάνομενἀπ̓αὐτοῦ.

ἀκούειν includes the idea of granting, which, however, is not brought definitely out until the following verse.

1 John 5:15

1 John 5:15. καὶἐὰνοἴδαμεν. By the indicative after ἐάν (see on this, Winer, p. 264; VII. p. 277; Al. Buttmann, p. 191 ff.) this knowledge is emphasized as something undoubtedly belonging to the believer; differently 1 John 5:16: ἐάντιςἴδῃ.

ὅτιἀκούειἡμῶν, ὅἐὰν (ἂν) αἰτώμεθα] Resumption of what was previously stated.

οἴδαμεν, ὅτικ.τ.λ.] In the certainty that God hears us lies also the certainty: ὅτιἔχομεντὰαἰτήματαἃᾐτήκαμενἀπ̓ (παῤ) αὐτοῦ.

ἔχομεν is neither = λαμβάνομεν, nor is the present put for the future (Grotius); the present is rather to be kept in its proper meaning; the believer always has that for which he has asked God (κατὰτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ); he has God, and in Him all things.

τὰαἰτήματα are the res petitae (Lorinus).

ἀπ̓αὐτοῦ from its position is not to be connected with ἔχομεν, but with ᾐτήκαμεν; comp. Matthew 20:20; Acts 3:2; differently chap. 1 John 3:22: λαμβάνομενἀπ̓αὐτοῦ.

1 John 5:16

1 John 5:16. The apostle applies the general thought expressed in 1 John 5:15 to a particular case, namely, to a prayer for one’s brother when one sees him committing sin.

ἐάντιςἴδῃτὸνἀδελφὸναὑτοῦ] By ἐάν with the subjunctive the possibility is simply stated. By ἀδελφός we are to understand, according to the usus loquendi of the Epistle, not the neighbour in general (Calovius), but the Christian brother (αὑτοῦ), not exactly the “regenerate” (Düsterdieck); Ebrard erroneously: “first of all members of the Christian Church, yet without excluding those who are not Christians.”

ἁμαρτάνονταἁμαρτίανμὴπρὸςθάνατον] The phrase ἁμαρτάνεινἁμαρτίαν is stronger and more expressive than ποιεῖνἁμαρτίαν.

The sort of ἁμαρτία is more particularly defined by the addition μὴπρὸςθάνατον. The negative μή (instead of which οὐ is used in 1 John 5:17) is explained by the fact that the idea is regarded as dependent on ἐάντιςἴδῃ (comp. Winer, p. 421). The apostle distinguishes between the ἁμαρτίαοὐπρὸςθάνατον and the ἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον. What sin is to be understood by the latter? The idea חֵטְא לָמוּת, LXX.: ἁμαρτίαθανατηφόρος, is found already in the O.

T. Numbers 18:22, whence the Rabbis distinguish between חטאח למיתה and חטאה לא למיתה (Schoettgen, Hor. hebr.); in accordance with this, as Schoettgen also interprets, the ἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον would be that sin to which the Mosaic law assigned the punishment of death, as idolatry, adultery, etc.; but even if that Old Testament definition is the basis of John’s expression, yet it does not follow that he used the idea in the same sense; θάνατος may here, as distinguished from ζωή (καὶδώσειαὐτῷζωήν), not mean bodily death. For this reason alone, therefore, the explanation of Morus and S. G. Lange is to be rejected, according to which that sort of sin is meant which is punished by the authorities with death or with other severe punishments (!), even apart from the fact that it makes the prayer of the Christian dependent on the penal decrees of civil law. But the opinion of Zachariae, Michaelis, and Linder (in the Zeitschrift für d. luth.

Theol. of Rudelbach and Guericke, vol. IV. 1862), that here, as in James 5:14 ff., it is those who are in bodily sickness that are spoken of, and that such sin is meant as God punishes with deadly sickness or sudden death, is for the same reason unfounded.[319]

If θάνατος is not bodily death, then by πρὸςθάνατον the period to which the sin lasts cannot either be meant.

With reference to the ecclesiastical discipline exercised in the Church, the older Catholic theologians especially understood by the ἁμ. πρ. θάν., without further comment, all those sins which were punished by the punishment of excommunication. But even if the Church had always punished in that way the sin which John here has in view, yet that expression could not be explained by that practice.

As θάνατος is not bodily death, it is only spiritual death or damnation that can be meant by it; ἁμ. πρὸςθάνατον is therefore the sin which leads to damnation. But what sin is this? It is much too general to regard every grievous transgression as such. As Christ Himself refuses forgiveness absolutely only to one sin, the commentators who assent to the above view find themselves driven to an arbitrary weakening of πρὸςθάνατον; so Ambrosius (lib. de poenit.), when he says: quodvis peccatum gravissimum, quod vix remittitur; and still more strangely a Lapide: peccatum quodvis gravissimum, quod … juxta legem communem per gratiam, quam Deus ordinarie dare solet, est quasi immedicabile, incorrigibile et insanabile. It is more correct, indeed, to regard it as sin which is not repented of, and to find the characteristic of the ἁμ. πρ. θάν. in the impenitence of the sinner who will give heed to no exhortation (Grotius, Socinus, etc.); but even this cannot be the feature which John here has specially in view, because at the time of the commitment of a sin it cannot be decided whether it will be repented of or not. John must mean a ἁμαρτία, which in itself is characterized as a ἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον.

Many commentators accordingly fix the meaning of it on a single particular sin; thus Tertullian, who understands by it, moechia post baptismum commissa; Bede, who, following the precedent of Augustine,[320] understands by it the peccatum invidentiae, quo quis invidet fratri gratiam, virtutem et salutem; but then we do not see why John did not specifically and definitely mention this particular sin. We might therefore agree with those who take ἁμαρτία here as the description of a state, as Bengel, who thus interprets: talis status, in quo fides et amor et spes, in summa, vita nova exstincta est; but this is opposed by the apostle’s mode of expression, which plainly refers to a sinful deed, and not to a state. Though, on the one hand, a single sin cannot be meant (Calvin: non est partialis lapsus, nec praecepti unius transgressio), yet we must only think of a whole species of sins, or better, of such sinning as is characterized not by the object with which it is connected, but by the disposition from which it proceeds. For the further definition it is to be observed, as Lücke with justice points out, that it can “only be a class of sins of Christians, and not of those who are not Christians,” that is spoken of, and that “the distinction between the sin unto death and sin that is not unto death must be capable of being known.” It is true, every sin can be called a ἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον, inasmuch as it tends in the direction of θάνατος, but every sin does not infallibly lead to θάνατος; so long as along with the ἁμαρτία there still exists an ἔχειντὸνυἱόν (1 John 5:11-12), the sinning Christian is still in fellowship with the αἷμαἸησοῦΧριστοῦ which cleanses him ἀπὸπάσηςἁμαρτίας (chap. 1 John 1:7), and so long as he has a παράκλητοςπρὸςτὸνπατέρα, namely, Jesus Christ the righteous (chap, 1 John 2:1), sin does not deprive him of the ζωὴαἰώνιος, and is not therefore ἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον; this it only is when it involves an actual falling away from Christ; de Wette and Lücke therefore rightly say that the sin unto death is the sin by which the Christian falls back again from the Christian’s ζωή into the θάνατος (comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 340), only it is not exactly the falling away itself that is to be understood, for this is an internal act which, as such, is invisible,[321] but rather the sinful conduct by which the internal loss of life with Christ externally operates and reveals itself (so also Braune).[322] It is incorrect of Düsterdieck (and similarly Ebrard) to understand by the sin unto death the antichristian denial that Jesus is the Christ; for if John had meant this, he would have expressed it definitely, so much the more as in the Epistle he is carrying on a polemic against that antichristianity. Just as little has Myrberg arrived at the correct explanation when on ἜΣΤΙΝἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΠΡῸςΘΆΝΑΤΟΝ he remarks: varia genera peccatorum, quae mortem in sensu loci nostri adferant, vide enumerata, Galatians 5:18-21; for although Paul says: ὍΤΙΤᾺΤΟΙΑῦΤΑΠΡΆΣΣΟΝΤΕςΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝΘΕΟῦΟὐΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΉΣΟΥΣΙΝ, yet it does not follow from this that no return is possible from such sins.

In the face of the apostle’s words the possibility of knowing the ἉΜΑΡΤΆΝΕΙΝΠΡΟςΘΆΝ. cannot be denied, yet it is difficult to distinguish amongst the particular concrete manifestations; but, on the one hand, the Christian mind which is fitted for the ΚΡΊΣΙς will not decide without scrupulous examination; and, on the other hand, John himself shows by the ΜΉ that the decision can at any time be only a subjective one. The meaning of the sentence accordingly is: If any man see his brother sin in such a way that the sin which he commits does not involve absolute renunciation of Christ, and therefore does not necessarily bring condemnation with it, he shall pray for him.[323]

αἰτήσει is not to be understood of the united prayer of the Church as such (so Neander; Ewald also says: “Christian prayer, especially in the consecrated bosom of the Church”), but of every prayer of one for another. The future is not exactly used instead of the imperative; it rather expresses the certainty that, in the case stated, the Christian will pray, but in this there is certainly involved the injunction actually to do it. The substance of the prayer is indicated by the following.

καὶδώσειαὐτῷζωήν] denotes the result of the prayer; very many, perhaps most commentators (Socinus, a Lapide, Lorinus, Grotius, Spener, Lücke, Sander, Erdmann, etc.), supply with δώσει as subject ὁΘεός or ὁαἰτούμενος (so also Winer, p. 463; VII. p. 487; Al. Buttm. p. 116, Anm.); a similar change of subject occurs in Acts 8:6; but considering the close connection of αἰτήσει and δώσει, along with which the similarity of the verbal form is also to be noticed, it is preferable, with Jerome, Sander, de Wette-Brückner,[324] Baumgarten-Crusius, Frommann (p. 674), Düsterdieck, Myrberg, Braune, etc., to assume the same subject with ΔΏΣΕΙ as with ΑἸΤΉΣΕΙ; then the sense is: he that prays gives the ΖΩΉ, inasmuch as God grants him his prayer. The idea finds its explanation in the fact that every sin brings with it a weakening of the ΖΩΉ; in order that he that sins may not remain in tins want, he requires a new infusion of life, and this is procured for him by the prayer of his believing brother. In addition to this, of course, the confession of his sin, with trust in the cleansing power of the blood of Christ (comp. chap. 1 John 1:7), is necessary on his part; but it is just in this that the blessing of the prayer consists, that he receives as the result of it the needful inclination for this.[325]

τοῖςἁμαρτάνουσιμὴπρὸςθάνατον] apposition to αὐτῷ; the plural serves only for generalization (de Wette, Winer, etc.); Bornemann (Bibl. Studien der süchs. Geistlichen, I. p. 71; and Alex. Buttm. p. 156) erroneously explains τοῖςἁμαρτάνουσι as the dative commodi, referring αὐτῷ to the person that prays himself. By the following words: ἔστινἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον, the apostle brings out that there is really a sin unto death, with which he connects the observation: οὐπερὶἐκείνηςλέγωἵναἐρωτήσῃ. Most commentators find in this a prohibition, even though mildly expressed, of prayer in reference to the sin unto death; but this is not contained here, as Grotius, Hornejus, Besser, Myrberg, Ebrard, Brückner, etc., rightly observe; for the negative οὐ does not belong to ἐρωτήσῃ, but to λέγω; if the negative was to be referred to the former, it would have had to be μή. The sense is: My injunction does not mean (οὐλέγω) that a man is to offer prayer (ἵναἐρωτήσῃ) in reference to (περί) the sin πρὸςθάνατον.[326]

The words do not express more than this, although it is admitted that in the emphasizing of ΟὐΛΈΓΩ a warning is indicated (similarly Braune); John does not want to make a duty of a prayer, to which the certain assurance of being granted is wanting; he therefore adds this limitation to his exhortation to prayer (so also Besser): a formal prohibition would only he appropriate if the ἁμαρτάνεινπρ. θάν. was always cognizable as such. It is observable that John does not say here ΑἸΤΉΣῌ, but ἘΡΩΤΉΣῌ; ἘΡΩΤᾷΝ (lit. “to ask”) is a milder idea than ΑἸΤΕῖΝ (lit. “to demand”); the apostle warns against the ἘΡΩΤᾷΝ, and, of course, much more against the more urgent ΑἸΤΕῖΝ.[327]

[319] Linder, it is true, remarks against this that a new section begins with ver. 13, but even in that verse ζωή is used in the spiritual sense. The above view is also opposed by the fact that it assumes in John the opinion that deadly sickness or sudden death is always divine punishment for a special sin, which can neither be justified by Acts 5 nor by 1 Corinthians 11:30. The appeal to James 5:14 ff. is so much the more inappropriate, as John hero in no way suggests that he is speaking of those who are in bodily sickness. It is therefore quite arbitrary for Linder to interpret καὶδώσειαὐτῷζωήν: “God will grant to him pardon and recovery.”

[320] Augustine (de serm. Dei in monte Matt. lib. l. c. 22, § 73) says: Peccatum fratris ad mortem puto esse, cum post agnitionem Dei per gratiam.… Jesu Christi quisque oppugnat fraternitatem et adversus ipsam gratiam … invidentiae facibus agitatur. Yet Augustine is not consistent in his interpretation; in the Retractations he adds further: si in hac perversitate finierit vitam; in his work, de corrept. et gratia, c. 12, § 35, he explains the idea by: fidem, quae per dilectionem operatur, deserere usque ad mortem.

[321] This also contradicts Ebrard’s interpretation, according to which the ἁμ. πρ. θάν. is “the act of inward rejection;” although Ebrard is correct when he says: “πρὸςθάν. is that sort of sinning which has resulted in a corruption of the soul, from which the return to πίστις and ζωή is no longer possible to him.”

[322] Several commentators, as Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Heumann, Sander, etc., identify this sin with the sin against the Holy Ghost in Matthew 12:31 ff.; certainly the ἁμαρτία meant here is not imaginable without a βλασφημίατοῦπνεύματος; and the βλασφημίατ. τν. has θάνατος as its reward; but the ideas do not quite coincide, for (1) the βλασφημίατ. πν. may occur even on the part of non-Christians, but it is the sin of the Christian that is spoken of here; and (2) the former is completed in words (εἰπεῖνκατὰτοῦπνεόματοςτ. ἁγ.), but the ἁμ. πρ. θάν. can only consist in further action.

[323] When Linder (as above quoted) remarks against this explanation that “the decision whether a sin is a ἁμ. πρ. θ. or not is objectively made by God Himself, and must be cognizable in some outward manifestation,” we may reply that even the occurrence of bodily death cannot be regarded as a certain proof; for even though God sometimes ordains it as a punishment of the sinner, yet it occurs also when it is not to be concluded that there is special guilt.

[324] Brückner seems, however, to be doubtful, as he remarks: “if there were only an αὐτός, or a similar indication!”

[325] It is to weaken the thought of the apostle if, with Rickli, we find the blessing of the prayer only in this, that he who prays is himself led thereby to a right relation toward his brother. According to the apostle’s view, the prayer rather brings blessing directly to the brother, for as James (1 John 5:16) says: πολὺἰσχύειδέησιςδικαίουἐνεργουμένη.

[326] As Neander thinks that it is only Church prayer that is spoken of here, he interprets: “one who sins πρὸςθάνατον is not to be included in the united prayer of the Church for sinners in general, so that he may not be confirmed in his sin and be led to a false trust in the prayer of others;” but John in no way indicates that he is speaking only of Church prayer.

[327] Braune unsuitably says that “αἰτεῖν implies conversation; ἐρωτᾷν, on the other hand, equalization of him who prays with him whom he addresses.”

1 John 5:17

1 John 5:17. To guard against indifference to transgressions occurring in the Christian’s life, the apostle continues: πᾶσαἀδικίαἁμαρτίαἐστί.

ἀδικία is not synonymous with ἀνομία, chap. 1 John 3:4; for whilst ἀνομία there serves to strengthen the idea ἁμαρτία, the idea ἀδικία is here more particularly defined and strengthened by ἁμαρτία; ἀδικία, namely, is the character of every offence against that which is right, “every breach of duty” (Meyer). Though, on the one hand, every such transgression is sin; yet, on the other hand, it must be maintained that every sin does not lead to death; hence καὶἔστινἁμαρτίαοὐπρὸςθάνατον: καί is not adversative, but serves to emphasize the thought.

οὐπρὸςθάνατον does not belong to ἐστιν (Luther: “some sin is not to death”), but to ἁμαρτία: “there is sin not unto death.”

1 John 5:18

, it is true, is closely connected with the foregoing, but at the same time forms the commencement of the conclusion of the Epistle, which is indicated as such by the successive thrice-repeated οἴδαμεν (Ebrard), and in which the apostle describes the position of believers in brief vigorous strokes

1 John 5:18, it is true, is closely connected with the foregoing, but at the same time forms the commencement of the conclusion of the Epistle, which is indicated as such by the successive thrice-repeated οἴδαμεν (Ebrard), and in which the apostle describes the position of believers in brief vigorous strokes.

As in 1 John 5:16-17 it was admitted that even in Christians ἀδικία, and hence ἁμαρτία, still exist, the apostle finds himself compelled to repeat, confirmingly, what was said in chap. 1 John 3:6-10, as a truth known to Christians (οἴδαμεν, in which there does not lie “an appeal to the fact that he has already said it,” Ebrard), in order that it may be thoroughly impressed on them that all sin is in the sharpest antagonism to their essential principle of life.

οἴδαμεν, ὅτιπᾶςγεγεννημένοςἐκτοῦΘεοῦ, οὐχἁμαρτάνει] This appears to be in contradiction with what is previously admitted; John does not solve the contradiction; many commentators seek to do so by supplying πρὸςθάνατον as a more particular definition of οὐχἁμαρτάνει, or by interpreting it of remaining in sin; both are, however, arbitrary; the solution lies rather in the fact that the apostle wants simply to emphasize the antagonism between being born of God and sinning. Though sin is still found in the life of the believer, who as such is γεγεννημένοςἐκτοῦΘεοῦ, yet it is nevertheless foreign to him, opposed to his nature, and in the strength of his faith he is ever becoming more and more free from it.[328]

ἈΛΛ̓ὉΓΕΝΝΗΘΕῚςἘΚΤΟῦΘΕΟῦΤΗΡΕῖἙΑΥΤΌΝ] This second clause is not dependent on ὍΤΙ, but is to be regarded as an independent sentence (Düsterdieck, Braune). Bengel erroneously states the difference between the form ὉΓΕΝΝΗΘΕΊς and the preceding ὉΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΈΝΟς thus: Praeteritum grandius quiddam sonat, quam aoristus: non modo qui magnum in regeneratione gradum assecutus, sed quilibet, qui regenitus est, servat se; it is rather the same distinction that occurs here as that by which these two verbal forms are generally distinguished; ὉΓΕΝΝΗΘΕΊς is: “he who was born,” regarded as a historical fact.

In 1 Timothy 5:22, ἅγνον, and in James 1:27, ἌΣΠΙΛΟΝ, are put with ΤΗΡΕῖἙΑΥΤΌΝ as more particular definition. It is, however, unnecessary to supply such a predicate (de Wette); ΤΗΡΕῖἙΑΥΤΌΝ denotes the self-preservation of the believer in his proper character (so also Braune);[329] the more particular definition results from the following; καὶὁπονηρὸςοὐχἅπτεταιαὐτοῦ] is the result of the ΤΗΡΕῖἙΑΥΤΌΝ; Ebrard incorrectly: “Satan dare not touch him; God does not permit it;” the present simply expresses the fact, but this, according to the context, is the case, because the devil is prevented from ἅπτεσθαι by the ΤΗΡΕῖΝἙΑΥΤΌΝ of him who is born of God. With ὉΠΟΝΗΡΌς, comp. chap. 1:13. By ἍΠΤΕΣΘΑΙ we are to understand touching in order to do harm; Psalms 105:15, LXX. (see Raphelii Annot. ex Polybio). Compare James 4:7: φεύξεταιἀφ̓ὑμῶν. It is true the believer is still tempted by the devil (comp. 1 Peter 5:8, etc.), just as sinful desires still arise in him; but being in his most inner nature redeemed from the fellowship of sin, he suffers from these temptations no injury to the life that has come to him from God: in the ΠΑΝΟΠΛΊΑΤΟῦΘΕΟῦ he is protected against all the ΜΕΘΟΔΕῖΑΙΤΟῦΔΙΑΒΌΛΟΥ (Ephesians 6:11 ff.).[330]

[328] It needs no proof that the thought of the apostle is perverted by the explanation of de Wette: “the apostle expresses his confidence that the occurrence of the sin unto death and of sin in general cannot often (!) take place in the Christian Church.”

[329] It is less suitable to explain τηρεῖνἑαυτόν here, with Ebrard = τηρεῖσθαι, “to be on guard, to take care;” for, in the first place, it is opposed to the usus loquendi of the N. T. to assign this meaning to the word; and secondly, it is not expressive enough for the context.

[330] Calvin: Utut malignus renatum ad peccatum solicitet, tela tamen illius irrita cadunt, quoniam renatus scuto fidei munitus ea repellit et diabolo per fidem resistit.

1 John 5:19

marks the antithesis between believers as being born of God, and the κόσμος, as belonging in its whole extent (ὅλος) to the πονηρός; and this is done by the apostle vindicating for himself and his readers—who are united with him in faith—the εἶναιἐκτοῦΘεοῦ

1 John 5:19 marks the antithesis between believers as being born of God, and the κόσμος, as belonging in its whole extent (ὅλος) to the πονηρός; and this is done by the apostle vindicating for himself and his readers—who are united with him in faith—the εἶναιἐκτοῦΘεοῦ.

ἐκτοῦΘεοῦἐσμεν finds its explanation in the preceding: ὁγεννηθεὶςἐκτοῦΘεοῦ. Socinus incorrectly: a Deo pendemus.

καὶὁκόσμοςὅλοςκ.τ.λ.] probably as an independent sentence, not depending on ὅτι (Düsterdieck); καί is not = δέ; it is just the connecting καί that brings out the antithesis which exists between the two parts of the verse, still more clearly than if this had been done by an adversative particle. ὁκόσμος is here used in the ethical meaning of the word, which is peculiar to John.

ἐντῷπονηρῷκεῖται] τῷπονηρῷ is not neuter (Socinus, Episcopius, Rickli, Erdmann), but masculine, as is clear both from ὁπονηρός in 1 John 5:18, as also from the antithesis to ὁΘεός.

By the preceding ἐκτ. Θεοῦ and Luther’s translation of Isa 46:3, some commentators have been led erroneously to refer the expression ἐν … κεῖται to the relation of the child to its mother (Spener: “as a child in its mother’s womb”); by ἐν it is expressed that the κόσμος is as it were surrounded by the devil, i.e. is quite in his power; κεῖται, stronger than ἐστί, indicates, if not, as Lücke thinks, the permanent, yet certainly the passive state (so also Braune), and hence the complete domination of the devil, which is in the most pronounced contrast with the preceding: καὶὁπονηρὸςοὐχἅπτεταιαὐτοῦ.

1 John 5:20

1 John 5:20. In conclusion, the apostle indicates whence the εἶναιἐκτῷΘεῷ (the result of the εἶναιἐκτοῦΘεοῦ) has come to him and his readers; and he does this by expressing it through οἴδαμεν as the substance of their Christian consciousness.

οἴδαμενδέ, ὅτιὁυἱὸςτοῦΘεοῦἥκει] The conditioning cause of the former is the coming of the Son of God.

The particle δέ is here used to indicate the antithesis to the immediately preceding thought; Brückner has with justice decided in favour of this reading (contrary to καὶοἴδαμεν; see the critical notes).

ἥκει is not = adest (Bengel), but: “has come;” the reference is to the incarnation of the Son of God.

καὶδέδωκενἡμῖνδιάνοιαν, ἵναγινώσκομεντὸνἀληθινόν] Still dependent on ὅτι.

The subject of δέδωκεν is not: ὁΘεός (Bengel), but: ὁυἱὸςτοῦΘεοῦ, as the close connection of this clause with that immediately preceding clearly shows; τὸνἀληθινόν, on the other hand, is not a description of the Son (Bengel), but of God.

By διάνοια we are not to understand, with Lücke and de Wette, “knowledge,” or even “insight,” but the capability of knowledge (Düsterdieck, Ebrard), yet in its living activity, hence “the faculty of knowing.”[331]

By ἵναγινώσκομενκ.τ.λ. it is neither the purpose: “in order that,” nor even the result: “so that,” that is stated, but the object to which the διάνοια is directed, and which it attains. We can only regard ἵνα as the particle of purpose, if we unjustifiably understand by διάνοια “the spiritual disposition” (contrary to Braune).

The idea γινώσκειν is here used with the same force as in chap. 1 John 2:4-5, where it is similarly connected with ἐναὐτῷεἶναι. By τὸνἀληθινόν God is described, in distinction from all idols, especially from the idol which the false teachers made of God, as the true God; Calvin: Verum Deum intelligit, non veraccm, sed cum qui re vera Deus est, ut cum ab idolis omnibus discernat; comp. John 17:3[332] (similarly Lücke, de Wette, Neander, Erdmann, Düsterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, etc.). He is the true God, who has sent His Son into the world; the coming of Christ has not been ineffectual, but has produced in believers the knowledge of God—a knowledge which is one with being in God. Therefore the apostle continues: ΚΑῚἘΣΜῈΝἘΝΤῷἈΛΗΘΙΝῷ. These words are not dependent on ὍΤΙ (Vulg.: et simus), but form an independent sentence.

The ἘΝΤῷἈΛΗΘΙΝῷ refers back to ΤῸΝἈΛΗΘΙΝΌΝ; considering the close connection of the two sentences, it must be the same subject, namely God, that is meant by the same word (Brückner, Braune); it is arbitrary to understand by τὸνἀληθινόν God, and by ΤῷἈΛΗΘΙΝῷ, on the other hand, Christ, and it is, moreover, forbidden by the context, in accordance with which the ΚΑῚἘΣΜῈΝἘΝΤῷἈΛΗΘΙΝῷ states the consequence of the preceding, namely of the fact that the Son of God has come and has given to us the capability of knowing the true God.[333] Therefore also the following words: ἐντῷυἱῷαὐτοῦἸησοῦΧριστῷ, are not to be taken as apposition to ἐντῷἀλ. (Weiss), against which even the αὐτοῦ testifies, for then it would have to be referred, not to τῷἀληθινῷ, but beyond it to τὸνἀληθινόν. The additional clause shows in what the εἶναιἐντῷἀληθινῷ has its ground and stability (Brückner, Braune); ἐν is not = per, but indicates, as generally in the formula ἐνἸησ. Χριστῷ, the relationship of intimate fellowship: the believer is in God, inasmuch as he is in Christ.

Before the last warning, connected with this (1 John 5:21), the apostle expressively concludes with the statement: οὗτόςἐστινὁἀληθινὸςΘεὸςκαὶζωὴαἰώνιος. As is well known, views have differed from old times about the meaning of οὗτος. While the Arians understand οὗτος of God, the orthodox refer it to the immediately preceding ἐντῷυἱῷἸ. Χρ., and use this passage as a proof of the divinity of the Son. This interpretation remained the prevailing one in the Church, even after Erasmus had remarked: “hic est verus Deus” referri potest ad Deum verum Patrem qui praecessit; and against this the Socinians, and then Grotius, Wetstein, the English Antitrinitarians, and the German Rationalists followed the opposite view. It is not to be denied that on both sides the different dogmatic interests did not remain without influence on the interpretation, until in more recent times a more unbiassed consideration has led the way. Among the latest commentators, Rickli, Lücke, de Wette, Neander, Gerlach, Frommann, Düsterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, even Brückner and Braune (who, however, leave room for doubt), similarly Hofmann (Schriftbew. 2d ed.

I. p. 146), Winer (p. 142; VII. p. 148), and Al. Buttmann (p. 91), have decided in favour of the reference to God; Sander, Besser, Ebrard, Weiss, etc., for the reference to the Son. The dispute cannot be settled on grammatical lines, for οὗτος can be referred both to τὸνἀληθινόν[334] and also to τῷυἱῷ; the addition: καὶζωὴαἰώνιος, seems to support the latter reference, for Christ, in the Gospel of John, calls Himself precisely ἡζωή, and also in the beginning of this Epistle it is the Son of God that is to be understood by ἡζωή and ἡζωὴἡαἰώνιος. The former reference, on the other hand, is supported by the expression: ὁἀληθινὸςΘεός; for, in the first place, it is more natural to understand here the same subject as is previously designated by ὁἀληθινὸς, than any other; and, in the second place, the Father and the Son, God and Jesus Christ, are always so definitely distinguished throughout the whole Epistle that it would be strange if, at the close of it, and, moreover, just after both subjects have been similarly distinguished immediately before, Christ—without further explanation, too—should be described as ὁἀληθινὸςΘεός, especially as this designation is never ascribed to the Son in the writings of John, definitely though the divinity of the Son is taught in them.[335] To this it may be added that, after John has brought out as the peculiar characteristic of the Christian’s life, of which he partakes in the Son of God, the ΕἾΝΑΙἘΝΤῷἈΛΗΘΙΝῷ, the clause in question has its right meaning only if it states who that ἈΛΗΘΙΝΌς is, namely that he is the ἈΛΗΘΙΝῸςΘΕῸςΚΑῚΖΩῊΑἸΏΝΙΟς. Now, though elsewhere it is only Christ that is called exactly ἩΖΩΉ, yet He has the ΖΩΉ—according to His own words, John 5:26—only from the Father, who originally has the life in Himself (ὉΠΑΤῊΡἜΧΕΙΖΩῊΝἘΝἙΑΥΤῷ), and may therefore be called ΖΩῊΑἸΏΝΙΟς no less than the Son. Besides, it is to be observed that ΖΩῊΑἸΏΝ. is here used without the article, so that the expression comes under the same category as the expressions: ὉΘΕΌςἘΣΤΙΦῶς (1 John 1:5), ἈΓΆΠΗ (1 John 4:16), ΠΝΕῦΜΑ (Gospel of Joh 4:24).

The objection that “it would be a feeble repetition, after the Father had twice been called ὉἈΛΗΘΙΝΌς, again to say: this is the ἈΛΗΘΙΝῸςΘΕΌς” (Ebrard, similarly Weiss; also Schulze, Menschensohn, etc. p. 263[336]), is the less valid, as the apostle has already in view the warning of 1 John 5:21, and by ἘΝΤῷΥἹῷΑὐΤΟῦἸ. ΧΡ. it is indicated that He alone is the true God, with whom we are in fellowship in Christ: it is only the Father of Jesus Christ that is the true God.

The connection of the words: ΚΑῚΖΩῊΑἸΏΝΙΟς, as a second predicate, with ΟὟΤΟς, has appeared a difficulty to many commentators. Socinus wanted to take ΟὟΤΟς = ΤΟῦΤΟ, with reference to the whole preceding thought, and then he paraphrases ΤΟῦΤΟ by ἘΝΤΟΎΤῼ and interprets: in eo, quod diximus, est ille verus Deus et vita aeterna; nam quatenus quis habet et cognoscit Christi Patrem et ipsum Christum, habet et illum verum Deum et aeternam vitam; similarly Ewald, when he paraphrases: “this, both these things together, that we know and that we are all this, this is the true God and eternal life.” The arbitrariness of this explanation is self-evident. Others, as Clarke, Benson, Lücke (in his 1st ed.), supply before ΖΩῊΑἸΏΝ. an ΑὝΤΗἘΣΤΊΝ out of ΟὟΤΌςἘΣΤΙΝ, referring ΑὝΤΗ either to ὉΥἹΌς or to the idea ΕἾΝΑΙἘΝΤῷἈΛΗΘ. Lücke has rightly withdrawn this explanation in his 2d edition as unwarrantable, and correctly says: “ΚΑῚΖΩῊΑἸΏΝ. can certainly not be grammatically connected directly with ΟὟΤΟς;” Lücke, however, thinks that there is an ellipsis in the expression, and that it is to be interpreted: “this … the true God is eternal life, which can either be understood of the fact that God is the cause and source of eternal life, or thus: His fellowship is eternal life.” But why could not John have described by ζωὴαἰών. the substantial character of the divine nature? If God has ΖΩΉ in Himself (John 5:26), namely the ΖΩΉ which He has given to the Son, and which believers possess through the Son (John 5:24), then God in His very nature is ζωή, and ΖΩῊΑἸΏΝΙΟς too. As John mentions this as the characteristic of God’s nature, there certainly lies in this the indication that God is the source of life for us.

[331] It is quite arbitrary, with Semler, to interpret the idea διάνοια = μετάνοιακαὶπίστις. Paulus lays a special emphasis on διά: “thinking through (out) in contrast to a vague acceptance and thoughtless belief” (!).

[332] Baumgarten-Crusius thinks that ἀληθ. means more here than in John 17:3, namely: “he who gives a satisfaction, in quo uno acquiescendum est;” but if this were really contained in the idea here, that would be the case in John 17:3 also.

[333] This explanation is so much the more justifiable, as it is to be expected from John that at the close of his Epistle he would express in brief language the highest thing that can be said of the life of the believer, and this is the εἶναιἐντῷΘεῷ (τῷἀληθινῷ).

[334] It lies in the very nature of the case that οὗτος may refer to the principal subject, nay, that this is the reference most suitable to the word; comp. 1 John 2:22; 2 John 1:7; Acts 4:11; Acts 7:19. Calvin’s rule, which Sander repeats, is erroneous: Pron. demonstr. οὗτος ordinarie, nisi evidenter textus aliud requirat, immediate antecedens nomen respicit ac demonstrat.

[335] It is only through a superficial consideration that, for the refutation of this assertion, appeal can be made to John 1:1; John 20:28, and the passages in the Apocalypse in which the predicate ἀληθινός is ascribed to Christ.—How little care is sometimes exercised in the proof of the truth that what is stated by John of Jesus Christ really proclaims Him as the true God, is shown, amongst others, by Schulze, in the way in which he appeals on behalf of this to John 17:23; John 14:20, since it would follow from this that even the disciples of Jesus could be described as the true God.

[336] Brückner and Braune also consider the “tautology” at least as something not quite out of the question; but a real tautology is here so far from being the case, that “Θεός” is here added to ἀληθινός, and the idea ζωὴαἰώνιος is directly connected with the idea ὁἀληθινὸςΘεός.

1 John 5:21

1 John 5:21. If believers have come to the true God through Christ, they have to take care that they do not lose this eternal and highest good by giving themselves up to any vain idol. In this train of thought John closes his Epistle with the short exhortation, so impressive, however, in its brevity: τεκνίαφυλάξετεἑαυτοὺςἀπὸτῶνεἰδώλων. In the address τεκνία we may see the depth of the feeling with which John utters these concluding words.

εἴδωλα are properly images; this signification is retained here by many commentators (Tertullian, Oecumenius, Lyranus, Lorinus, Salmeron, Lücke, Baumgarten-Crusius, Erdmann, Düsterdieck, etc.), whilst some of them, however, extend the idea to that of “false, heathen gods;” others, again, refer the expression to the arbitrary self-made representations of God which the false teachers had—thus Bede, Rickli, Sander, Thiersch (Versuch zur Herstellung, p. 241), etc.

Others combine both views, and understand by εἴδωλα here all sorts of images which men arbitrarily make for themselves of God (Ebrard, Braune). If the warning is not to be regarded as a detached appendix, foreign to the contents of the Epistle, we cannot rest satisfied with the first interpretation. As the apostle, just in the antithesis to the false teachers, who belong to the κόσμος, has so decidedly referred to the ἀληθινὸςΘεός, he certainly has in view in this warning, if not altogether, yet principally, the untrue mental images of those teachers.[337] It is only if so taken that the warning to keep themselves from idols forms the appropriate conclusion of the whole Epistle.

[337] That the apostle here also means the res mundariae, inasmuch as man is attached to them (Myrberg), is so much the more improbable as the foregoing contains no reference to them.