1 John 3

3:1) John begins to unfold what lies in the astounding fact that we, who by nature are nothing but poor sinners (1:8), have been born from God who is righteous. In the first place, this makes us “God’s children.” See what great love the Father has given to us that we are called God’s children! And we are!

The aorist imperative is punctiliar: “Just take a look at this love!” Ἴδετε is plural, and hence it is not an interjection (A. V.) but governs an object clause. Ποταπὴνἀγάπηι = “what manner of love” with the idea of both quality and quantity: “what glorious, sublime love,” Luther. To see it aright is to sink down in adoration before it. It is beyond all comprehension.

Ἀγάπη is the love of comprehension and full understanding coupled with adequate purpose. As such it knows and in this knowledge moves toward its purpose. It is a pure gift; those are right who see that nothing in us called forth this love. “Has given” matches the perfect used in 2:29, “has been begotten”; this gift remains. The subject and the verb are transposed in order to emphasize both, the force of which is lost in the English: “what love has given to us the Father.” “To us” is not emphatic. “The Father” is the same father that was mentioned in 1:2, 3; 2:1, the Father of the Son but in Jesus Christ also our Father (Matt. 6:9). These two relations are kept distinct (John 20:17) although they are joined.

The ἵνα clause is appositional and not final. It does not mean “that we should be called” but expresses a fact: “so that we are called,” the aorist meaning “actually called,” the passive indicating that this was done by the Father himself. He, from whom we have been born in infinite love, acknowledges us as his children; all his love and all the gifts that it is able to bestow upon us are ours. John adds emphatically: “And we are” God’s children. We cannot be called his children by him without actually being his children.

Here we have a definition of fellowship with God (1:6, 7); it is the fellowship of the Father and his children. There are other fellowships. There are some in which one gives as much as another gives, like friend and friend, husband and wife. In this fellowship all is one-sided: God gives, we only receive in gratitude. Here the only true religion is defined; it is actual fellowship with God and not merely fellowship claimed, imagined (1:6); it is a birth from God, being actual children of God. This is Christianity; all other religions are false. Only those who receive Christ by faith are “God’s children” (John 1:12).

For this reason the world does not know us because it did not know him. Διὰτοῦτο makes the previous statement the reason that the world does not know us, and ὅτι substantiates by pointing to something additional that the world does not know. The verb οἶδα could not be used here; γινώσκω is the proper verb (John 1:10; 16:3; 17:25). The world sees that we are here and thus knows us (οἶδα); but as “God’s children” we are utterly foreign to the world because even our Father is utterly foreign to the world. The world has no conception of what we are as those who are born from God and thus God’s actual children, and the deepest reason for this ignorance is the fact that it has no conception of our Father. 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 6:9a.

The world is proud of its knowledge, but the real things worth knowing it does not know. The mystery of regeneration is foolishness in its eyes; those who are children of God in Christ it considers deluded. Its own idea of a universal fatherhood of men without redemption and regeneration it regards as the height of wisdom. Let no true spiritual child of God count on recognition from the world. It simply does not know (γινώσκω). The names of God’s greatest saints are not engraved on the tablets of the world’s temple of fame.

This cannot be otherwise; if it were, the world would not be the world, and we should not be God’s children. Grieve not that the world does not know you; this is one proof that you are God’s child. If the world knows you, you should grieve, for then there is proof that you are not God’s child.

The aorist “did not know him” states the fact historically; since it never knew him it does not now know you. There is no need to modify the sense of the verb into “does not accept you as its own” or into “hates you”; to know in actual realization is enough. The world has only fictional, false conceptions regarding our Father and regarding us, his children. “The world” includes all unregenerate men; it is a collective and is not to be changed into an abstract such as “ungodliness.”

1 John 3:2

2 The greatness of God’s love in making us his children appears fully in view of the future that awaits us. Beloved (see 2:7), now are we God’s children, and not yet was it made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if it is made manifest, similar to him shall we be because we shall see him as he is.

As one of God’s children John addresses other such children in the love that binds them together as he now lifts their eyes to the glory that awaits them. “Now are we God’s children” repeats this fact for the third time; but “now” fixes attention on the present time. We look very much like other people; the world does not comprehend that we are really anything higher and laughs at such an idea.

“And not yet was it made manifest (in the English idiom we use the perfect when we point backward; the Greek is content with its aorist) what we shall be”; not yet has God made a public display of the glory that belongs to his children, of the inheritance incorruptible, unstained, unfading, reserved for us in heaven (1 Pet. 1:4). Not yet do we wear the white robes of heaven; not yet does the crown of glory sparkle on our brow. The robe of Christ’s righteousness, our crown of hope, the diamond of faith, the pearls of love, are invisible to physical eyes. We still wrestle with the flesh; in a sinful world and with a mortal nature we plod on wearily. A child of God is here and now, indeed, like a diamond that is crystal white within but is still uncut and shows no brilliant flashes from reflecting facets.

This shall be changed completely. “We know (οἴδαμεν, know the fact) that, if it is made manifest (as it certainly will be), similar to him we shall be because we shall see him as he (actually) is.” Here again (2:28) and with the same verb John uses ἐάν almost as though it were ὅταν, “when, whenever”; it is the “if” of strongest expectancy. One may hesitate as to whether ἐὰνφανερωθῇ has the same meaning here that it had in 2:18 and that ἐκεῖοςἐφανερώθη has in 3:5, thus: “when he (Christ) shall be made manifest” (as in our versions). But here the impersonal “it was made manifest” precedes so closely that both surely have the same meaning. Thus: “when what we shall be is made manifest” we know “that similar to him (placed forward for the sake of emphasis) we shall be because we shall be even as he is.”

The question arises as to whether John refers to the Father or to Christ with these pronouns. One cannot argue that God is invisible (1 Tim. 6:16), for we shall, indeed, see God (Ps. 17:15; Matt. 5:8); this is the visio Dei. So we shall also be similar to God in the imago Dei of perfect righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:25) including the glorificatio. Yet v. 5 speaks of Christ (although of his being made manifest in the flesh) as all agree; it is also best to refer v. 3 to Christ. So we do the same with the pronouns occurring in v. 2b. We have seen that in 2:28, 29 John turns from Christ to God; now from v. 1 and 2a he in 2b turns from God to Christ.

The observation is thus correct that, as far as John is concerned, God and Christ need but a slight verbal distinction. When this is referred to Christ, we may cite passages such as Phil. 3:20, 21 which includes the glorification of also our body as made similar to Christ’s glorious body, and all those passages which describe the visible φανέρωσις (“manifestation, appearance”) of Christ at his Parousia (2:28) such as Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:16.

There is no stage of existence beyond being “children of God” to which we shall be raised by God at the time of Christ’s coming. Ὅμοιος expresses similarity. Non erirmis idem, quod Deus, sed similes erimus Dei (Luther, who interprets this as a similarity to God). Non dantur gradus ὑιότητο (Calov) but only stages in our condition as children. Here on earth we are in a humiliation that is similar to that of Christ, eventually we shall be in a glory that is also similar to that of Christ. Hence the verb which is used, the passive of which at times has the sense of the middle: “to appear” (so in the A. V.).

The aorist subjunctive “if it is made manifest” refers to the one great final manifestation. Ah, how all the children of the world will then look at us whom they now disregard, despise, and at times persecute!

1 John 3:3

3 John now develops the “everyone doing the righteousness” which he wrote in 2:29. We are children of God and know that at the last God will make us glorious, similar to Christ. In John’s simple way of writing the καί unfolds what this means regarding our conduct. We read the whole of v. 3–10a together as one continued series of incontrovertible facts and in the formulation note five successive πᾶςὁ, four with the present, the fifth with the perfect participle, and two ὁ with present participles. This is continued in 10b where John specifies the essentials of brother love.

And everyone having this hope (set) on him continues to purify himself even as that One is pure. There is no exception. He who stops purifying himself has dropped this hope from his heart. The present tense is important. If this were perfectionism, an aorist would be required: “did purify himself.” We have a plain mark by which to judge ourselves. To claim that we are God’s children, who have been born of him, to claim the hope of heaven and glory and yet to stop self-purification is to be lying (1:6).

“Everyone having this hope” objectivizes the hope in the heart like having faith, having love, etc. Ἐπαὑτῷ = set or resting “on him” as the One who will fulfill this hope for us. The world is full of men who have a certain kind of hope, but see on what it rests—not on Christ, on his blood and expiation (1:7; 2:2), on his promise (2:25). They invent their own foundation for the hope they have. It is sand, is swept away when the great flood comes (Matt. 7:24–27).

“Even as that One is pure,” Christ in his whole earthly life. John does not say “even as that One was purifying, did purify himself.” Jesus never had even a trace of sin. “Is pure” = purity is his inherent quality. “Is” does not equal “was,” nor does “is” refer only to Christ’s present state in heaven. It is like the “God is righteous” occurring in 2:29 as far as time is concerned: was—is—will be, this is immaterial. There is no incongruity between the clauses because our constant purifying is an action Christ’s a state of purity. To keep striving after a perfect model is perfectly congruous.

The way in which the pronouns ἐναὑτῷ and ἐκεῖνος are used in 2:6, the one referring to God, the other to Christ, leads some to regard them in the same way here and thus also to refer the pronouns used in v. 2 to God. This is a real question. In trying to answer it one should not forget that ἐκεῖνος also refers to what immediately precedes and thus only resumes it even without emphasis (B.-P. 272, 1b). We have a plain case in v. 7, which it is well to consider since it follows so closely and is not remote as 2:6 is.

1 John 3:4

4 Everyone doing the sin is also doing the lawlessness; and the sin is the lawlessness. This is a fact, and there are no exceptions. “Everyone doing” is the same as it was in 2:29 where we have “doing the righteousness.” Doing the righteousness—doing the sin—doing the lawlessness means being given to do; the participle and the verb are durative. The governing habitus is referred to as this is operative and apparent in action, in doing. The articulated nouns make the abstracts definite, which the ordinary English does not note. The righteousness, the sin, the lawlessness are not these manifestations in general but the righteousness that God declares to be such, the sin that misses the mark set by God, the lawlessness that violates God’s law. We introduce no qualifiers such as mortal sin, willful, conscious transgressions of law, sin against conscience, or the limitation to deeds of sin.

We have the opposite of v. 3 and also of 2:29: the one keeps purifying himself, ever by the grace of God sweeping sin out of himself, ever giving himself to the righteousness (in thought, word, and deed) that has God’s approval. The other gives himself over to the sin, the lawlessness despite God who abhors both. The one is a child of God; the other is a child of the devil (v. 10a).

It is John’s habit to place simple facts side by side and to let them speak for themselves as they certainly do. We may express their relation to each other by logical particles, but when we do, the logic lies in the facts as facts even without the use of particles. So John says regarding the sin: “and the sin is the lawlessness.” The two are identical, interchangeable, which is the force of the articulated predicate (R. 769, note his explanation on page 768). We often define by using interchangeable or even only synonymous terms; hence it should not be denied that this is that type of a definition. It serves to bring out that side of “the sin,” namely “the lawlessness” (opposition to and disregard of God’s law), which makes “the sin” the very opposite of “the righteousness.” Both “the righteousness” and “the lawlessness” are strong forensic terms: as the righteous Judge God declares what is righteous (2:29) and what violates his law.

No one who is given to doing the lawlessness can possibly have fellowship with the God of light (1:5, 6) and of righteousness (2:29), be his child to enjoy his fatherly love, to have the hope of glory.

1 John 3:5

5 Beside the two statements: Everyone with the great hope purifying himself even as Christ is pure, and: Everyone doing the sin, thereby also doing the lawlessness in direct opposition to God and Christ—beside these John places the statement: And you know that that One was made manifest in order to take away the sins, and sin in him there is not. The readers themselves know these facts as well as John knows them, and they may now apply them to the other facts that he has just stated in v. 3, 4.

The one is the fact that Jesus Christ was made manifest (became flesh, lived, suffered, died, rose again) in order to take away the sins. Compare “he was made manifest to us” (the apostles). He who existed from all eternity asarkos was made manifest in time ensarkos as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. John 1:14, 29. This was his great mission, and he carried it out.

Αἴρειν has three meanings: to lift up from the ground; to lift up in order to bear; to carry or take away. The third meaning is to be preferred here. “The evangelist thought of the expiatory power of the death of Jesus so that we must translate (John 1:29): ‘Behold, this is God’s Lamb, the one taking away (by the expiatory power of his blood, 1 John 1:7) the sin of the world’” (G. K. 185). There is thus no reason in connection with John 1:29 or our passage for being uncertain whether to translate “take away” or “bear” as the R.V. and its margin seem to be uncertain. Isa. 53:4–12. On ἅρειν, “to take away,” in other connections see John 11:48; 17:15; 19:31, 38. Ἀφίημι and ἄφεσις, “to remit, send away,” “remission,” are regularly used with reference to the acts which God (Christ) performs in personal absolution (justification) and not to Christ’s universal expiation. We should not confuse the two.

In John 1:29 we have “the sin of the world,” here “the sins,” which spreads them out in their multiplicity whereas in v. 4 “the sin” is the abstract made definite. Since Christ came for the very purpose of taking away the sins, it is plain that he who is given to do the sin, the lawlessness, scorns Christ’s expiation or imagines that he can abuse it and thus demonstrates that he has prevented Christ’s blood from putting him into fellowship with God (1:7) as a child of God and an heir of heaven (2:29–3:3).

“And sin in him there is not” is similar to v. 3: “even as that One is pure”; it also uses the present tense “is” in the same way. The anarthrous ἁμαρτία, anything of the nature of sin, is correct. As the absolutely Sinless One Christ was, indeed, able to be the sacrifice to take away the sins of others. John states the fact on this account, but also in connection with Christ’s taking away the sins on account of his readers, who cannot be God’s children through Christ’s blood and expiation (1:7; 2:2) if they are still given to doing the sin. As Christ is pure, and sin is not in him, they must ever be purifying themselves, and when they find themselves sinning must flee to their Advocate with his expiation for such sins (2:1, 2).

1 John 3:6

6 Thus John advances to the facts: Everyone remaining in him does not go on sinning; everyone sinning has not seen him, nor has he known him.

Both facts are true without exception. John introduces “remaining,” on which he rings the changes in 2:19, 24–28. Every person that is joined to Christ by faith and by faith remains in Christ simply does not go on sinning. These two facts exclude each other. The durative present “does not go on sinning” is vital for John’s meaning; it has the same force that it had in v. 4, “everyone doing the sin,” given to doing it. Not to go on sinning implies a decisive break with sinning. Remaining in Christ, the expiator of sins, the Sinless One, means faith in him and in his expiation and thus a steady fight against sinning, a constant self-purification by his grace and his help. It cannot mean anything else.

Perfectionists misunderstood this statement and think that it refers to total sanctification: has stopped sinning altogether. They disregard the tense. They ignore 1:8–10; 2:1, 2; 3:3. In 1:8, 9 John makes confession also of his own sins: “If we keep confessing our sins.” So in Rom. 7:14–25 Paul deplores the fact of his still sinning, of the sin power trying to make him its war captive (v. 23). Phil. 3:12, 13. Perfectionism takes John’s statement out of its connection and disregards the tense which John uses.

John states the opposite but again with an advance in thought: Everyone continuing to sin (going on with sinning) has not seen him, nor has he known him. If he says: “I have known him,” he is a liar (2:4). John uses “seeing him” as Jesus uses θεωρεῖν, “behold,” (in John 6:40) because he speaks positively: “everyone beholding the Son and believing on him.” The true believer ever keeps his eyes on Jesus. John says that the one going on in sinning “has not seen Christ,” has never as much as caught a glimpse of him. The eyes of his understanding (Eph. 1:18) have remained blinded by the darkness (2:11), have never been opened or have become closed again.

The fact that this refers to spiritual seeing is made plain by the addition: “neither has he known him,” which introduces the true, inward, spiritual knowing that was mentioned in 2:3–6. John regularly builds up his thought by interlocking and interweaving, by repeating and, when repeating, by adding new angles of view. Here γινώσκω is the fitting verb. This is not a mere intellectual comprehension but one that produces its spiritual affect and effect in him who knows. This sinner may talk about Christ, but his soul has not come to know him, has not made true contact with him. His gnosis, if he is a Gnostic, is false.

1 John 3:7

7 John turns to admonition. Little children (see 2:1), let no one try to deceive you! The one doing the righteousness is righteous even as that One is righteous. The one doing the sin is from the devil because from the (very) beginning the devil keeps sinning. For this there was made manifest the Son of God, to destroy the works of the devil.

The admonition shows why John is writing this. There are antichristian deceivers (2:18, 19) who were seeking to deceive or lead astray (πλανάω, 1:8) the readers. What they claimed about not having sin 1:8 indicates. Their entire doctrine on this subject has not been preserved. Yet from 1:6 plus 2:29 and now 3:7 we safely conclude that they thought that they were righteous without doing the righteousness. The aorist imperative would mean: “Let no one succeed in deceiving you!” The present: “Let no one engage in it, i.e., even try it!” Obsta principiis! It is a mistake to think that the fact of being a Christian is proof against cunning deceivers. The young, the inexperienced, the unfortified are not proof of this.

Here is the simple fact: “The one doing the righteousness (see 2:29) is righteous.” Apply it to yourself, apply it to all around you. There is no appreciable difference between ὁποιῶν and the preceding πᾶςὁποιῶν. In neither case is an exception permitted; after twice using the latter John is now content with the former. John is, of course, speaking about conduct, but as conduct is the result of what a person is. What one is, his conduct shows, and vice versa. “Is righteous” and “is from the devil” are the opposites.

Δίκαιος is, as always, forensic. Yet ἐκ God (2:29), ἐκ the devil, and “having been born” (2:29; 3:9), and “God’s children” let us think of regeneration. This does not, however, exclude justification. These two occur in the same instant. In the instant of the divine birth the divine verdict is ours; in the instant of its pronouncement we are reborn. Gal. 3:26–29. While John dwells on the birth and the new nature with its plain results that are evidenced in the conduct he does not ignore the righteous Judge (2:29) and his verdict on the δίκαιοι.

“Even as that One is righteous” refers to Christ (2:1; “pure” in 3:3). In 2:29 this refers to God, now it is referred to Christ. Here we have a plain case where αὑτός and ἐκεῖνος denote the same person, which must be considered when we are studying v. 3 and the preceding pronouns. God’s verdict of approval ever rested upon Jesus. Only the righteous remain in him, in the Righteous One, and the fact that they are righteous is evidenced by their doing the righteousness. Jesus is our model, yet he is more than our model because of our union with him (1:3), our remaining in him, from which comes all that we are.

1 John 3:8

8 “The one doing the sin” betrays his origin, “he is from the devil.” This man is described already in v. 4: “everyone doing the sin.” John does not say “is or has been born from the devil.” Such a verb would not be apt because “to be born” implies life, and all that comes from the devil is death. Yet the devil is the father of those doing the sin (John 8:44), they are “the children of the devil” (v. 10). This is not a fatherhood of begetting like the high fatherhood of our Father but a fatherhood that is due to the derivation of our sins from the devil’s sinning: “because from the (very) beginning the devil sins” (2 Pet. 2:4), sins and sins (progressive present, gathering up the past and the present in one phrase, Moulton; R. 879, etc.). Those who follow him by steadily doing the sin are ἐκ, “from him,” are his “children” in this way.

Let no one try to deceive you in regard to this! The gulf is as wide as that between heaven and hell. They are liars who tell you that they have bridged it. Either you are with God in righteousness, under his acquitting verdict, or you are in the devil’s family. Tertium non datur.

Not only are those persons who are mentioned in v. 7, 8 so far apart, the one being with Christ, the other with the devil, but also another fact must be stated: “For this there was made manifest (see v. 5) the Son of God, that he destroy the works of the devil,” aorist, actually destroy. Christ came to destroy effectively the works of the devil, the havoc which he wrought among men with his sinning. A pronoun will not do as a reference to Christ; John uses “the Son of God” (1:3, 7) and names him according to his deity. It is incorrect to say that his greatness, his power, and his majesty in contrast with those of the devil are not expressed. But he does not destroy the devil’s works by means of his omnipotence: “he was made manifest,” he came in his human nature in order by this to destroy the devil himself and his power of death, Heb. 3:11.

“The works of the devil” are all that he has wrought. Some restrict the thought to the sins that he has produced (v. 5), but John expands. Consider Luke 11:21. Why exclude the consequences of sin on the plea that these are the judgments of God? The effects accompany their cause, the Son destroys both and even him who is the personal cause of them (Heb. 3:11). This destruction began decisively when the Son came to earth; it goes forward inexorably now; it will be consummated at the Son’s Parousia. Woe to those who are the devil’s children! Εἰςτοῦτο makes the appositional accusative ἵνα clause (R. 699) emphatic.

1 John 3:9

9 Linking back into 2:29 (“born from God”) and into 3:5 (“doing the sin”), John unfolds the thought still farther: Everyone that has been born from God does not go on doing sin because his seed remains in him; and he is not able to go on sinning because he has been born from God.

To this extent the Son of God has already destroyed the devil’s works in everyone that has been born of God, that by regeneration has been born into a new life, has become a child of God, has God as his Father. Everyone who is so born “does not go on sinning.” The present durative ποιεῖ is as vital for John’s meaning here as it was in v. 6. Οὑχἁμαρτάνει (v. 6) = ἁμαρτίανοὑποιεῖ: “does not go on sinning”—“does not go on doing sin” (anarthrous: what is of the nature of sin). He keeps purifying himself (v. 3), is constantly busy sweeping out sin.

The cause of this great change lies in the fact of his “having been born from God.” John explains more fully: “because his seed continues to remain in him,” and once more he introduces this significant verb “remain.” What is meant by this person’s seed and this seed’s remaining in him, exerting such a power in him that he does not, in fact, cannot go on in his old way, sinning and sinning? The answer that this seed is the Holy Spirit is accepted by some, but they feel that calling the Holy Spirit “the seed” of the Christian will not do. So they say that the person of the Spirit is not referred to; but when they then state what is referred to they offer abstractions such as das Goettliche, “a gift from him and his nature.”

This “seed” is the Word of God (1:10; 2:5, which he guards; 2:14), the light (1:6, 7), the truth (1:8; 2:4); the commandment (2:7, etc.). Here belong 1 Pet. 1:23 and James 1:18. It makes no difference whether we say that the word remains in us, or that we remain in the Word, the truth, etc. “Seed” is figurative, but the figure extends only to the fact that a seed has life in it. The Word of God is a living power (1 Pet. 1:23). It is not necessary to extend this figure, to talk about vegetable seed and human seed, life germ, and to seek for analogies in natural life, seed growth, etc. Jesus and the holy writers dominate their figures and are not dominated by them.

Does this interpretation of the “seed” as the Word lose the Holy Spirit? Indeed not! The great means by which the Spirit quickens, kindles life, keeps life alive, is the Word, in which he is, by which he works.

When he has the living Word in his reborn heart no one is able to go on sinning simply “because he has been born from God.” The matter is axiomatic. All that can be done by way of explanation is to insert that the Word of God remains in the person and thus to shift the emphasis in the subject: “everyone born of God” does not, cannot go on sinning because of this seed in him, and to emphasize in the predicate that “from God this person is born.” Note the position of ἐκτοῦΘεοῦ; it occurs first after the participle and then before the verb.

1 John 3:10

10 John closes the whole discussion: In connection with this manifest are the children of God and the children of the devil, so manifest that only the blind do not see who is who and the liars, the self-deceived, who make God a liar (1:6, 8, 10). On “children of God” see verse 1. Here we at last have “the children of the devil.” There are none who are half and half; there is only an either-or. John has presented the manifest, plain, even visible difference. Every cloud that the antichristians (2:18) may have raised for his readers is swept completely away.

The New Birth and Our Relation to the Brethren 10b–24

10b) The division into verses and also the R. V.’s paragraphing seem to be faulty at this point. John now begins the development of the truth that those who have been born from God and are his children are by the fact of that birth brothers and love each other as brothers, and—what is most important in John’s presentation—that through this love each brother furnishes evidence that he is a brother, a member of God’s family. By its hatred of us the world shows that it does not belong to the divine family.

At this point John develops the thought expressed in 1:3: “you have fellowship with us,” the apostles, those who first gathered around Jesus, the Son, and were made his witnesses to all other men; in addition the thought expressed in 1:7: “we have fellowship with each other” as being cleansed by the blood of Jesus, God’s Son. The first additional circle of thought, a small one, which shows that this means love between brother and brother appears in 2:9–11, where it is in strong opposition to hate, for the antichristians are not of us but went out from us (2:18, 19) and hate us who are in the light because they prefer the darkness. In this smaller circle John uses “the light” and “the darkness” and reverts to 1:5–7. John now advances this thought in accord with what he has added about our relation to God. We now see what “brother” really means. He is one of “the children of God,” one born into God’s family. We see how all such brothers naturally love, must love each other, how this love is the evidence of the fact of being a brother.

Into this wider circle (3:10b–24) John weaves in much more that he has already said: “remaining” (2:24–28 and elsewhere), “the commandment” (2:3–8 and elsewhere), “knowing” (2:3–6 and elsewhere), “the world” (2:15), “boldness” (2:28); especially also Christ’s sacrifice (1:7; 2:2; 3:16). Finally, John combines faith and love in verse 23. Then he reaches out still farther in his development (4:1, etc.) yet, as he has done before, retains all that he has said.

Unless this is clearly seen and appreciated we shall not understand the structure of John’s letter and shall fail to note that it starts from its basic facts in 1:1–4 and spirals upward in gradually widening circles and retains all that precedes in every advance. The whole is one weave in one pattern with new colors introduced that reappear again and again. It is a perfectly designed, rich Oriental rug.

John begins as he did in 2:29b but now writes negatively: Everyone not doing righteousness is not from God, is not born of God, is not one of God’s children (3:1), is, in fact, one of “the children of the devil” (v. 10a). All that is said in 2:29–3:10a is again brought to mind in this summary statement of fact. On what “doing righteousness” and “to be from God” means see 2:29.

And the one not loving his brother introduces the additional fact that is now to be unfolded, that our relation to God at once involves our relation to each other. It is introduced negatively because in 2:29b the positive has already been presented; the negative is its complement. At the same time, by saying that “the one not loving his brother” is not of God, John draws a decisive circle about “the children of God” and presents them as being separated from “the children of the devil.” They are separated at the very source, their respective fathers; the one is the heavenly Father, God, the other the devil (John 8:44). This origin and source is itself secret and invisible, but the tangible, visible evidence is plain: love and the absence of love.

The reason John says “not loving his brother” instead of “not loving God” he will tell us in 4:20; his pattern will be completed in due time. Love for the brother is a part of “doing the righteousness.” It is, we might say, a good example, and exempla docent. Yet this love and its absence mean more to John; they are so much evidence that is easily to be seen. Twice (v. 19 and 25) John says: “in connection with this we know” (γινώσκω). We know also in connection with other facts and other evidence; read again 2:3, 5b, 13, 14. To know that we know (2:3), i.e., know with full effect upon ourselves, is essential.

Hence true evidence that is fully understood by what it reveals is so important, and John points it out to his readers. The evidence furnished by love is both clear and unmistakable. John is as much the apostle of knowledge as of love; so is Paul who really wrote the grandest description of love (1 Cor. 13).

1 John 3:11

11 The negative fact just stated is at once proved by what John’s readers have heard from the very beginning of their connection with God through Christ (ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς as in 2:7). Because this is the report (ἀγγελία, repeated from 1:5) which you heard from the beginning, that we keep loving one another.

The ἵνα clause is in apposition with ἥν. This is not the Mosaic commandment of love to one’s neighbor but what Jesus says in John 15:12, 17 to the effect that his disciples love one another. We love all men as our fellow creatures, but as spiritual brothers we can love only those who are such brothers. Because of love we do all manner of good to all men as opportunity offers, but especially to our spiritual brothers who are of the household (family) of faith, Gal. 5:10. This is true with reference to God himself. He is able to give gifts of love to his children which those who are not his children will not receive.

1 John 3:12

12 John inserts a pertinent negative illustration. Not as Cain was from the wicked one (the devil, verse 10a, a child of the devil) and slew his brother. This is not an anacoluthon, nor is anything to be supplied. No main clause is needed in order to express the sense, the subordinate clauses convey it completely. The main point is not the fact that Cain slew Abel but the reason that he did so. In χάριντίνος (χάριν is placed before the interrogative) there lies neither the idea of purpose nor of Grund.

And why did he slay him? The answer shows that the point to be stressed is the fact that Cain’s murder evidences that he “was of the wicked one.” As one is ἐκ God and ἐκ the devil, so are one’s works; and especially some of the outstanding works furnish plain, incontrovertible evidence concerning whence Cain’s murder is such a work. Hence the answer. Because his works were wicked while his brother’s (were) righteous. Cain was undoubtedly “from the wicked one,” his deed of murder notoriously advertises the fact that his deeds were wicked, and that he was thus of the wicked one. “The devil” (verse 10) is here called “the wicked one” because of Cain’s “wicked deeds.”

It is not enough to regard “while his brother’s were righteous” as saying only that Cain thus had no reason whatever for slaughtering, butchering his brother (this is the meaning of the verb which is significantly repeated). This addition regarding Abel’s works brings out fully the point of the wickedness and its origin as this is noted also in Gen. 4:4 and Heb. 11:4 although not in Jude 11. The devil’s children hate God’s children just because the righteous works of these condemn their own works as the wicked works that they are. So they crown their other wicked works as Cain crowned his and thereby more than ever evidence the fact that they are “from the wicked one” who is the murderer from the beginning (John 8:44).

Note that δίκαια matches the δικαιοσύνην occurring in v. 10; both are forensic as always, see 2:29. Why such an extreme exemplification in this first murderer? The answer is found in v. 15 plus Matt. 5:21, 22. We often fail to see what wickedness is in its first origin until after it produces its full-blown works.

1 John 3:13

13 The new paragraph begins at 10b and not here (R.V.). Be not marvelling, brethren, if the world keeps hating you. This is a condition of reality. The world certainly continues to hate, the world being the world, not “having been born from God,” not being “the children of God” (2:29–3:1) but “the children of the devil,” “from the wicked one,” their deeds being “wicked” (v. 10–12). Jesus has made this very plain in John 15:18–21 where he uses the same “if” clause. This hatred should never cause the least surprise.

According to 2:19 John includes in “the world” all the antichristians who especially try to break up the fellowship of the true Christians with one another. It is for this reason also that John says so much about our relation to each other and our love for each other. “Brothers” or “brethren” is the proper form of address here and not “little children,” for John is a brother and now speaks of brotherhood.

1 John 3:14

14 We on our part (emphatic ἡμεῖς) know (the fact, οἴδαμεν) that we have stepped over out of the death into the life (we know it by this evidence) because we are loving the brothers. Ὅτι states the evidential reason; another and an important instance of this use of ὅτι is found in Luke 7:47. John expounds “having been born from God”; it means “that we have stepped over (βαίνω to take steps, μετά, over) out of the death into the life.” God’s grace, his Spirit, his Word led us out of the one into the other; being spiritually dead, we were made spiritually alive. This is the same perfect tense that was used in 2:29 and 3:9, and it has full present connotation.

“The death,” “the life” are as definite as “the truth,” “the Word,” “the commandment,” “the righteousness,” etc.; they are not simply “death” and “life” in general. It is well to note that both the physical life and the spiritual life are not seen directly but are apparent only from their evidence, their activity. The plainest activity of the spiritual life is that of loving those who are one with us, are our spiritual brothers. We are not merely being friends with them (φιλεῖν), but, understanding our spiritual relation to them, we act with a purpose that is according (ἀγαπᾶν).

The one not loving (thus) remains in the death; his not-loving being the plain evidence. John once more writes the verb “remains,” which appears throughout this letter. The fact that love always shows itself, just as does the absence of love, John will add presently.

1 John 3:15

15 It startles us when John adds: Everyone hating his brother is a man-murderer. So the world hates us and thereby attests its Cainlike nature. Whether blood is actually shed or not makes no difference (Matt. 5:22). Ἀνθρωποκτόνος is the very word that Jesus used with reference to the devil in John 8:44; it applies to all the devil’s children (v. 10b); included among these are the antichristians who have gone out from us (2:19). John has called the latter liars (1:6, 10; 2:22) and combines liar and man-murderer as Jesus does in John 8:44. Let the deniers of the deity and of the expiation of Jesus (1:7; 2:2) read this double verdict on them!

And you know—I need not tell you—that every man-murderer does not have life eternal remaining in him. John says “life eternal.” It is a rather superficial interpretation to say that this refers to the fact that murderers are put to death by execution of the government. John speaks of the murderers who murder by hating. This is not a crime in the eyes of the world; it is what the world does the world over. Worldly governments have killed even God’s children; many thought that they thereby did God a service. Not to have life eternal is to be damned by God.

The view that by “has not remaining in him” John means: once had life eternal but has lost it again, stresses μένουσαν unduly and disregards ἔχει. Whether such a murderer ever had life eternal and then became apostate is immaterial and not the point. This certainly cannot be said of “the world” which hates us and thereby commits this murder and thus together with any apostates who have gone back to the world “has not eternal life” so that this life could remain in them at death.

So much for the hating that is murder in God’s judgment. It is the evidential mark of the world, of all those who remain in death, who have not eternal life as an abiding possession, and who, like Cain, hate us who have stepped over out of their death into life and want to rob us of this life and often, therefore, persecute or even kill us physically. They thereby reveal the fact that the devil is their father who murdered from the beginning, who has no life to give birth to anyone but only the power of death, to hold men in this death or to draw them back into it (Heb. 2:14).

1 John 3:16

16 Now “the love” which marks the children of God. In connection with this we have known (with the strongest affect and effect upon ourselves) the love (articulated: the love that is love indeed) that that One in our behalf laid down his life. It is important, first of all, to realize just what love is. The Germans have an advantage in that they can use die Liebe with the article like the Greek: “the love” that is love and not merely “love” in general. The same is true with regard to love as with regard to life: neither is visible to the eye, tangible to the hand; both are known as being present only by their activity. So John names the evidence. We Christians have truly realized in our hearts (perfect: and do still realize) just what love is, namely “in connection with this that that One in our behalf laid down his life.” No evidence of love can go beyond this. Ὅτι is epexegetical and explains “this” (B.-D. 394); “because” in our versions is an inadequate rendering.

John uses ἐκεῖνος repeatedly as a reference to Christ. In Rom. 5:6–10 Paul states in so many words why this evidence of Christ’s love is supreme. What person in all the world ever laid down his life for another except in the rare cases where the other was a good man? But Christ did this for “ungodly ones,” for actual enemies. O love divine, all love excelling! John uses the expression τίθημιτὴνψυχήν which he borrows from Jesus (John 10:11, 17, 18); it is not found in the papyri by M.-M. It means to go into death voluntarily. We know what this death meant for the Son of God.

Robertson 630, etc., The Minister and his Greek New Testament, 35, etc., has done much to answer the views that refused (and still refuse) to give ὑπέρ the resultant meaning “instead of”; but read this for yourself. On our passage he remarks: “Surely the very object of such death is to save life.” Again: “Theological prejudice must be overruled.” The secular linguistic evidence also overrules it.

Translate as you prefer: “on our behalf,” “for us,” “for our benefit,” “instead of,” substitution remains because without it Christ’s death would be of no benefit to the ungodly. In 1:7 John says: “The blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin”; in 2:2: “He himself is the expiation (ἱλασμός) for our sins,” etc. It is sacrificial, substitutionary blood that expiates. Such love “that One” put into action and evidence, and we have realized it, we have stepped over from the death into the life by means of his substitutionary death. Note that ἐκεῖνος and ὑπὲρἡμῶν are juxtaposed: “that One in our stead.”

And we on our part (ἡμεῖς emphatic) ought in behalf of the brothers to lay down the lives. This evidence of our love ought not to be beyond us. Ἀδελφοί does not mean neighbors or men in general but “brothers” who are in the same family with us, begotten from God, God’s children (2:29, etc.). Ὀφείλομεν means that the obligation rests upon us, i.e., when danger requires it, we willingly step in and lay down our lives to save the lives of our spiritual brethren. Ὑπέρ has the same force that it has in the statement about Christ.

The present tense is used in general statements. The love we have realized begets like love in us with a like visible evidence. John restricts the love of Christ and its evidence to us, to God’s children; but he does so only because in our imitation of his love the supreme evidence we ought to be willing to furnish is restricted to our brothers in God’s family. The fact that our dying for our brothers can do no more than to save them from physical death while Christ’s dying gives us spiritual and eternal life (v. 14) is understood.

1 John 3:17

17 From the supreme evidence of love, namely giving up life itself for our fellow believers, John descends to the common evidence of giving bread to our needy fellow believers. Only rarely will the supreme sacrifice be asked of us by the Lord who died for us all; this lesser sacrifice will often be requested. On the other hand, whoever has the life sustenance of the world and beholds his brother having need and locks his compassion away from him, how does the love for God remain in him?

Δέ places this case beside the supreme one as being one that is different and one that deals with far less, only with earthly provisions for a needy brother. Yet because it deals with less—we may say with the least sort of evidence of love—it the more warrants the great conclusion: where this least evidence of love for one’s brother does not appear, how can there be any love in the heart for God, the Father of us all?

Although it is now worded in the singular the statement is just as general as is the preceding one that has the plural. Βίος is used in its third meaning, Lebensunterhalt, one’s “living,” as it is in Mark 12:44, the poor widow’s entire “living.” We say: “I am making a living,” enough to live on. The genitive “living of the world” helps to bring out the meaning. This is not in contrast with “life eternal,” for the two are not comparable. Spiritual life is sustained by Word and sacrament; physical life in the world by provisions of the world.

John uses θεωρεῖν which does not mean merely to “see” (A. V.), which may be only a superficial look, but “to behold,” to see fully the case of a brother who is to be truly loved as a brother, who has need, who lacks enough for a living. John uses three coordinate verbs (subjunctives) as is his habit: he has—he beholds—he locks or shuts, and subordinates none of the three by the use of a participle.

The Greek uses the plural τὰσπλάγχνα, the nobler viscera, heart, lungs, liver (the seat of the emotions) to express these tender emotions themselves. We use “the heart” in the same manner. The A. V.’s translation “bowels” is inadequate, for it leads us to think of the intestines. We translate: “And locks his heart or his compassion away from” the needy brother, i.e., closes it up so that it does not go out to this poor brother. See how James 2:15, 16 pictures this heartlessness, this putting off the destitute brother with empty words.

John asks the readers themselves how “the love for God” remains in one who refuses to show this small evidence of love for a needy brother. The genitive is objective as 4:20 shows. Where such common evidence of love for a brother does not appear, there is evidently no love for the brother, and thus there “remains” (once more this important verb) also no love for God. The presence of love, as we have said, is assured only by its activity, its deeds, the evidence. John himself will consider this as he continues (4:7, etc.), for there is much more to be said. In 2:9–11 the subject is only begun; now we have only its first expansion. It is John’s beautiful way to expand gradually.

1 John 3:18

18 Little children (2:1, tender address, so fitting here where love is urged), let us not be loving (John includes himself) with word, neither with the tongue, but in connection with deed and with truth. Let us not pretend love with sham, empty evidence, but let us furnish genuine evidence. The first two datives are datives of means. To use only “word” and “the tongue” is mere hypocritical pretense of loving. Anarthrous λόγῳ = “something that we say”; articulated τῇγλώσσῃ = “the tongue” which each person has for saying something. James 2:15, 16 applies here still more.

For the positive thought John uses ἐν: “in connection with work (or deed) and with truth” (reality), both nouns are anarthrous, qualitative. Some mere word spoken by the tongue is no real evidence of love, which need not be stressed to mean that love never uses some word and the tongue for expressing itself. But love can never stop with this. It moves the hand to some corresponding deed of love, and that not for show (Acts 5:1, etc.) but combined with reality. Ἀλήθεια is properly added, for hypocrites may imitate love even by a deed. Our versions use “in” throughout and thus erase the difference. “In connection with” deed and truth joins these two to the activity of love and thus makes them the evidence of the presence of the love hidden in the heart; mere means, like some word spoken by the tongue, are not yet such evidence, no matter who seeks to palm them off as sufficient evidence.

19, 20) All that was said about love for the brother and the true evidence for such love is so vital because it reflects our relation to God. The question asked about our love for God in v. 17 reverts to this; but it does so because of what precedes, see v. 14 and recall the whole of 2:29–3:12. “The children of God” cannot be such children if they do not love also each other and show the evidence of such love. Hence John proceeds with our relation to God and offers the sweetest promise whereas without it, after what he said about our obligation to love the brethren, grave, disturbing doubt might assail us. In connection with this we shall know that we are from the truth and shall persuade our hearts before him, if in regard to anything (ὅτι) the heart condemns us, that God is greater than our heart and knows everything.

We regard this as one sentence and not as two (A. V.); we do not punctuate with a semicolon (R. V.). We prefer the reading ὅτιἐάν (R. V.) and not ὅτι (A. V., “for”). Also: “In connection with this … that God is greater than our heart,” etc., and not: “because God is greater,” etc. (R. V.). Those who prefer the reading that has two ὅτι do not know what to do with the second except to make it a redundant repetition of the first which is to be omitted in translation (A. V.). No one has satisfactorily explained the insertion of this second ὅτι.

Think of what John has said in v. 16 about the real evidence of love! Many an honest Christian heart will question whether it is able to go that far. Even regarding v. 17, 18 many a heart will question whether it has always lived up to that as it should. Note that “we” includes John himself as it did in 1:10. This is what John means with “if in regard to anything the heart condemns us.” The adverbial accusative ὅτι is placed forward, and ἡμῶν is the genitive object of the verb. The English cannot duplicate the beautiful play on γινώσκω and καταγινώσκω, which is even repeated.

The German can: erkennen—gegen uns erkennen. The second is forensic: a judge recognizes something as being valid against us, on which he must pronounce against us. The judge is in this instance our own heart which knows our inner motives (like conscience) and how often, at least inwardly, our love for a brother falls short of what it ought to be.

John does not deny the finding and the verdict of our heart or imply that our falling short escapes God or amounts to nothing in his sight. That would be lying, to use John’s own expression. No; “in connection with this great fact shall we know that we are from the truth and shall persuade our hearts before him” when we come into his presence, for instance, when we pray (v. 22), namely the fact (epexegetical ὅτι) “that God is greater than our heart,” so much greater that “he knows everything.”

To be sure, he knows all our failures in love, all that our own heart finds against us; but he knows vastly more, namely all about our real spiritual state, that the measure of love we do have shows that we have stepped over from the death into the life (v. 14), that although we are as yet imperfect in love, and our own hearts penitently acknowledge it, we have been born from him and are his children (2:29, etc.).

Ἐκτῆςἀληθείας = ἐξαὑτοῦ (2:29; 3:9 twice). “The truth” (1:8, etc.) = the light, the Word, as the source of our life. The anarthrous “truth” in v. 17 is not the same. The future tenses are certainly a blessed promise: “we shall know—shall persuade or assure our hearts,” but they are also the regular tenses after protases with ἐάν. They are proper here: after we have tried to live up to v. 16–18, our hearts bring accusations against us, and then the question arises: “How shall we recognize that we are from the truth, persuade ourselves in God’s presence?”

1 John 3:21

21 John has shown how the condemnation of our hearts is to be answered and silenced. We recall 1:9 and 2:1, 2 which cover all the sinning of believers. So he proceeds: Beloved, if (thus) the heart does not condemn us, we (indeed) have boldness as regards God, and whatever we ask we receive from him because we are keeping his commandments and are doing the things pleasing in his sight.

As was the case in v. 18, this assurance also deserves a loving address. This is not the case of a heart that fails to accuse us when it ought to, but of one that does so and yet does not do so because of v. 19, 20. Because John says only “if the heart does not condemn us,” some interpret: if, in the first place, it never did this because it already knows what John says, and if, in the second place, it now does not after having heard what John says. John’s own heart belongs in the former group. But John builds verse 21, etc., on what precedes. The cases are the same. The heart’s condemnation always starts up anew; it would be a bad sign if it did not. John, you, and I will always be in the one class; the supposed first class does not exist.

The main point is the dealing of our heart with God, v. 19, ἔμπροσθεναὑτοῦ, which is a juridical phrase that refers to an appearance before God as the Judge. So now, when we are sure of God’s verdict despite our faults, “boldness have we πρός, face to face with God,” παρρησία is to be understood as it was in 2:28 in the sense of assurance, confidence, joyful fearlessness. Robertson calls πρός the “face-to-face” preposition which is used to indicate intimate contact. In 2:28 it is boldness at the Parousia; now the boldness that we already have to step into God’s presence.

1 John 3:22

22 “And” completes the thought. John is thinking of our being face to face with God when as his children we come to ask things of him in prayer. Asking something is the test, hence prayers of adoration, praise, thanksgiving are not referred to here. As he has done previously, John is speaking about evidence. We are children of God when we show the evidence of love in deed and in truth. We want as much of this evidence as possible, so valuable is it for us.

Now on God’s side we again need and want evidence that he, indeed, despite our shortcomings accepts us as his children in love. Besides what he himself declares about us in his Word there is a most convincing evidence, indeed, on his part, one that we can see every day: he treats us as his beloved children. “We constantly are receiving from him whatever we keep asking.”

This clause: “because we (as his children) are keeping his commandments” (on which John has spoken at such length in 2:3–8) recalls all that he has said; he now weaves it in anew. To show what he means John adds “and are doing the things pleasing in his sight” and now adds the new phrase ἐνώπιοναὑτοῦ to ἔμπροσθεναὑτοῦ and to πρὸςτὸνΘεόν. Our Father watches us and sees that we are doing the things that please him, of which he tells us in his Word, his commandments. Every answer to our petitions is thus the clearest factual evidence that he treats us as children. Blessed are we indeed (verse 1)!

“Whatever we ask we are receiving from him” is expounded still farther in 5:14, 15. John has no more restrictions and reservations than Jesus has in Matt. 7:8; Mark 11:24; John 14:13; 15:7; 16:23. Unfilial minds may think that these promises mean no matter what we ask; scoffers challenge us to ask this or that folly which they propose and feel sure that we shall not get what we ask; unbelief simply sets all such divine promises aside as being illusions of primitive minds. John addresses children of God. Will or can children of God ask from their Father anything that the children of the devil (verse 10) would like to have? We daily receive a thousand gifts and blessings from our Father beyond even what we know and ask; he even makes all things work together for our good, for us who love him. On God’s side there are mountains of evidence for his love to us as his children (verse 1).

The only question for us is regarding the evidence on our side. Thank God, we do keep his commandments, we do do the things pleasing in his sight, and our Father accepts them. Not that he needs this our evidence, he knows all things (verse 20) before they make themselves evident. We are the ones who need our own evidence of love to assure our own hearts to the extent of such evidence and therefore ought to supply it in greatest abundance. It cannot equal the evidence that God furnishes us for his love. Where it falls short we supply the evidence of true repentance in the confession of sin and have the assurance given in 1:9 and 2:1, 2.

1 John 3:23

23 John speaks of gospel commandments in v. 22 and now sums them up for us. And this is his commandment that we believe the name of his Son Jesus Christ and keep loving one another even as he gave us commandment.

When we look at his gospel we see scores of places where he tells us what is pleasing in his sight; hence John uses the plural “commandments.” Yet when we look at all of them, they coalesce into just one, the one that John names. These are not two commandments: to believe and to love. These two are one. You cannot believe without loving nor love without believing. The previous mention of “commandments” and “commandment” (2:3–8) is again taken up and elucidated; we have what the term actually means.

The ἵνα does not denote purpose; it introduces a subject clause in apposition with “this” and with “his commandment.” The reading varies between the aorist πιστεύσωμεν and the present πιστεύωμεν. The latter means that we “ever continue believing” just as the next present tense says that we “ever continue loving.” But it seems as though the aorist was changed to the present in order to make both verbs alike. The aorist is effective: definitely, effectively, once for all believe. It is not ingressive “come to believe,” i.e., get to the point where we believe (R. 850). Nor does the aorist indicate that believing is basic as compared with loving. It is not the tense that conveys this idea; faith would be just as grundlegend if John had used the present tense. It is the nature of faith as compared with the nature of love that makes it basic whether we use the noun “faith” or the verb “to believe” in any of its tenses.

Some offer these distinctions in the meaning: πιστεύειντινι is assensus, (so here); πιστεύειντινα is notitio; πιστεύεινεἴςτινα is fiducia. These distinctions are specious. C.-K. 901, etc., discusses John’s phraseology and in the case of our passage gives the meaning anerkennen was jemand sagt, seinen Worten trauen, acknowledge what one says, trust his words. The idea of trust and confidence lies in the verb itself and is never removed by the construction that follows: dative, accusative, a phrase, or a ὅτι clause. The idea that our heavenly Father wants only our assent and not our fullest confidence is palpably wrong.

The dative is in place because it is “the name of his Son Jesus Christ.” John does not say “that we believe in or on his Son,” or “in or on Jesus Christ, his Son.” He says more. The onoma is the revelation. We regard the genitive as possessive. This name or revelation “of his Son” the Father sent us. The entire gospel reveals his Son Jesus Christ. It contains this revelation in prophecy and in fulfillment by the Son’s own manifestation (“was made manifest,” 1:2; 3:5, 8; 4:9). By his name alone is the Son brought to us; by his name alone we apprehend him in faith. We are baptized in connection with his name (revelation), Acts 2:38; we believe in his name, John 1:12; and that means “on the Lord Jesus Christ,” Acts 16:31. All that John has said about the light, the truth, the Word = the name.

Once again he emphasizes the deity: “his Son Jesus Christ” (1:3, 7) over against the antichristians who deny the Father and the Son (2:22)—see the significance of this in these passages. Note, too, that “Jesus Christ” (1:3), in 1:7 simply “Jesus,” points to the Son incarnate in Jesus and includes his blood by making it “the blood of his Son.”

Our present-day modernists deny the ὄνομα as it is expressed in terms like “the Messiah,” “the Logos,” “the Son of God” by making these old, outworn categories or patterns of thought for which we must produce up-to-date, modern terms from which the deity is eliminated; coming generations will find also our modern terms outworn and will, of course, then produce their own as modernists do today. It seems that the old antichrists of John’s day (2:18, 22) have not advanced much in their modern representatives. The denial is quite the same; the only new feature is the fact that the written testimony of the apostles must be nullified, which is done as indicated (outworn categories or patterns of thought).

John expands his elaboration by introducing the word “to believe.” Follow this through from here onward in 4:1, 16; 5:1, 5, 10 (three times), 13. He weaves in this new, significant thread: love for our fellow children of God is the evidence of faith. We attach the last clause “even as he gave us commandment” to the whole ἵνα clause and not merely to the love as some do. The final word “commandment” cannot mean less than this word at the head of the sentence.

1 John 3:24

24 And the one keeping his commandments remains in him, and he himself in him.

John repeats anew all that he has said in 2:3–8 about God’s commandments (now once more using the plural) together with all that he said in 2:19, 24–28; 3:6, 9, 17 about remaining. The exposition of these passages belongs also here. To remain in him = the fellowship mentioned in 1:3, 6, 7, with which the development starts. It is this that constitutes true religion.

Yet even here John advances when he adds God’s remaining in us to our remaining in God (in true living connection with him). The two ever involve each other. This double remaining is repeated in 4:16. The Father’s remaining in us rests on the statement of Jesus made in John 14:23.

The point has constantly been that of our knowing, γινώσκειν, with decisive effect upon ourselves, so decisive as not to be shaken by the lies of the antichristians. Pursue the word through 2:13, 14, 18, 29; 3:1, 6, 16, 19; and through the epistle. The light, the truth, the Word, the commandment enable us to know in this way. John now comes to the ultimate source of our thus knowing. And in connection with this ye know that he remains in us: from the Spirit whom he gave us. He names the Spirit as the ultimate source (ἐκ).

He reserves this statement for this place where he reaches the ultimate object which we know, namely that God our Father remains in us. Thus, too, he now mentions “the Spirit” directly by name. In 2:20, 27 he does so indirectly in “the anointment” we received and have, which teaches us everything. This anointment consists in the abiding bestowal of the Holy Spirit in baptism.

All else that we know is subsidiary to this supreme fact and this supreme object of knowledge, namely “that God remains in us.” True evidence for this is important, indeed, but much more important is the source of this knowledge. Its source is the Holy Spirit whom God himself gave us. John uses ἐντούτῳγινώσκομεν with different appositions for “this”: “in connection with this … that,” (3:16; 4:13); “in connection with this: every spirit confessing” (4:2); “in connection with this … when,” etc. (5:2). John always has an apposition to “this,” but each one is different: once it is a ὅτι clause, again a “when” clause, a clause without a particle, and here in 3:24 it is just the phrase ἐκτοῦΠνεύματος, “from the Spirit.” There is no incongruity between ἐν and ἐκ because the ἐκ phrase is the apposition only to “this.”

To say that God gave us the Spirit “immediately,” and that from the Spirit so given we know in an “immediate” way that God remains in us, is to open the door to fanatical ideas, fancied revelations from the Spirit, morbid mysticism, etc. On Pentecost Christ sent the Spirit immediately, miraculously. He sent him to remain, to work in all the world. The Spirit was ever after given by Word and sacrament. Peter preached at Pentecost, the Twelve baptized 3, 000. So God gave the Spirit to John’s readers; so we have him as God’s gift today.

As he is given us by Word and sacrament, so he is now ours only by Word and sacrament. He speaks to us and in us, works in and through us, only by Word and sacrament. There we actually hear his voice, experience his power, and thus know fully with affect and effect (γινώσκομεν) that God remains in us. Those who attribute to him anything that is different from Word and sacrament do so without him. He is the source from whom by Word and sacrament we know, indeed, “that God remains in us.”

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

G. Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament, herausgegeben von Gerhard Kittel.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Nonliterary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.