{"commentary":{"id":"adam-clarke","name":"Adam Clarke Bible Commentary","website":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clarke","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Adam Clarke Bible Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"92e28c9363c876d215e296f2fe04abb3ab7e34a2aacebdf06bd62ae79c6e3dba","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":57,"totalNumberOfChapters":854,"totalNumberOfVerses":13318,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"1JN","commentaryId":"adam-clarke","name":"1 John","commonName":"1 John","introduction":"Preface to the First Epistle of John As the author of this epistle is the same who wrote the gospel, I need not detain the reader with any particulars of his life, having taken up the subject pretty much at large in my preface to his gospel, to which I must refer for that species of information. Two questions have been urged relative to this epistle, which are very difficult to be solved: 1. When was it written? 2. To whom was it sent? The precise year it is impossible to determine; but it was probably written before the destruction of Jerusalem; and perhaps about the year 68 or 69, though some think not before 80. The second question Michaelis answers thus: - \"This question is still more difficult to decide than the preceding. In the Latin version it was formerly called The Epistle of St. John to the Parthians; and this title was adopted by some of the ancient fathers, and in modern times has been defended by Grotius. But if St. John had intended this epistle for the use of the Parthians, he would hardly have written it in Greek, but would have used either the language of the country, or, if he was unacquainted with it, would have written at least in Syriac, which was the language of the learned in the Parthian empire, and especially of the Christians. We know, from the history of Manes, that even the learned in that country were for the most part unacquainted with the Greek language; for to Manes, though he united literature with genius, his adversaries objected that he understood only the barbarous Syriac. That a Grecian book would not have been understood in the Parthian empire, appears from what Josephus says in the preface to his History of the Jewish War, where he declares that a work intended for Parthian Jews must be written, not in Greek, but Hebrew. However, it is worth while to examine whence the superscription 'ad Parthos' took its rise. Whiston conjectures that an ancient Greek superscription of this epistle was προς παρθενους, (to virgins), because this epistle is chiefly addressed to uncorrupted Christians, and that this title was falsely copied προς Παρθαυς, whence was derived the Latin superscription, 'ad Parthos.' But this conjecture is without foundation; for since the faithful are not called in a single instance throughout the whole epistle by the name of παρθενους, it is very improbable that the title προς παρθενους was ever affixed to it. I would rather suppose, therefore, that the frequent use in this epistle of the words 'light' and 'darkness,' which occur in the Persian philosophy, and on the same occasions as those on which St. John has used them, gave rise to the opinion that St. John wrote it with a view of correcting the abuses of the Persian philosophy; whence it was inferred that he designed it for the use of the Christians in the Parthian empire. That St. John really designed his epistle as a warning to those Christians who were in danger of being infected with Zoroastrian principles, is very probable, though the language of the epistle will not permit us to place St. John's readers in a country to the east of the Euphrates. \"Lampe, who appeals to Theodoret, contends that it, was not designed for any particular community, but that it was written for the use of Christians of every denomination; and this is really the most probable opinions since the epistle contains no reference to any individual Church. The only difficulty attending this opinion lies in the name 'epistle,' because the frequent use in an epistle of the terms 'light and darkness,' taken in the Persian sense of these words, seems to imply that it was written to persons of a particular description. But if we call it a treatise, this difficulty will cease; and in fact, the name 'epistle' is improperly applied to it, since it has nothing which entitles it to this appellation. It does not begin with the salutation which is used in Greek epistles, and with which St. John himself begins his two last epistles; nor does it contain any salutations, though they are found in almost all the epistles of the apostles. It is true that St. John addresses his readers in the second person; but this mode of writing is frequently adopted in books, and especially in prefaces: for instance, in Wolfe's Elements of Mathematics, the reader is addressed throughout in the second person, I therefore consider that which is commonly called the First Epistle of St. John as a book or treatise, in which the apostle declared to the whole world his disapprobation of the doctrines maintained by Cerinthus and the Gnostics. However, as I do not think it worth while to dispute about words, I have retained the usual title, and have called it the First Epistle of St. John. \"That the design of this epistle was to combat the doctrine delivered by certain false teachers, appears from Jo1 2:18-26; Jo1 3:7; Jo1 4:1-3 : and what this false doctrine was may be inferred from the counter doctrine delivered by St. John, Jo1 5:1-6. The apostle here asserts that Jesus is the Christ,' and that he was the Christ, 'not by water only, but by water and blood.' Now these words, which are not in themselves very intelligible, become perfectly clear if we consider them as opposed to the doctrine of Cerinthus, who asserted that Jesus was by birth a mere man; but that the Aeon, Christ, descended on him at his baptism, and left him before his death. But if what St. John says, Jo1 5:1-6, was opposed to Cerinthus, the Antichrists of whom he speaks, Jo1 2:18, Jo1 2:19, and who, according to Jo1 2:22, denied that Jesus was the Christ, as also the false prophets, mentioned Jo1 4:1, Jo1 4:3, must be Cerinthians, or at least Gnostics. That they were neither Jews nor heathens may be inferred from Jo1 2:19, where St. John says, 'They went out from us.' Farther, he describes them, Jo1 2:18, as persons who had lately appeared in the world. But this description suits neither Jews nor heathens, who, when this epistle was written, had not lately begun to deny that Jesus was the Christ. Lastly, in the same verse, he describes them as tokens of the last time, saying, 'As ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there are many Antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time.' But this inference could not be drawn from the refusal of the Jews to acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah. Now, as soon as we perceive that the position, 'Jesus is the Christ,' is a counter position against Cerinthus, we may infer, as I have already observed, that the Antichrists who denied that Jesus was the Christ, or who denied that Christ had appeared in the flesh, were Cerinthians; or perhaps the latter were Docetes. It is, therefore, highly probable that the whole epistle, which in various places discovers an opposition to false teachers, was written against Cerinthians, or at least against Gnostics and Magi. A proposition can never be completely understood, unless we know the author's design in delivering it. For instance, 'God is light, and in him is no darkness,' appears to contain a tautology, if we consider it as a detached dogma; and if it be considered as an admonitory proposition, it may be thought to contain a severe reproof; but if we regard it in a polemical view, it will present itself under a very different form. This epistle abounds with exhortations; but no man who wishes to understand it will be satisfied without asking the following questions: Why did St. John give these admonitions? Why has he so frequently repeated them? Why has he admonished, if he thought admonition necessary, merely in general terms, to holiness and brotherly love? And why has he not sometimes descended to particulars, as other apostles have done? An answer to these questions will throw great light on the epistle; and this light I will endeavor to procure for the reader, by pointing out the several propositions which, in my opinion, are laid down in opposition to Gnostic errors. \"1. In the first chapter the four first verses are opposed to the following assertion of the Gnostics: 'That the apostles did not deliver the doctrine of Jesus as they had received it, but made additions to it, especially in the commandments which were termed legal; whereof they themselves (the Gnostics) retained the genuine and uncorrupted mystery.' St. John therefore says: 'That he declared that which was from the beginning, which he himself had seen and heard;' that is, that he taught the doctrine of Christ as it was originally delivered, as he had heard it from Christ's own mouth, whose person he had seen and felt; and that he made no additions of his own, but only reported as a faithful witness. In like manner he appeals, Jo1 2:13, Jo1 2:14, to the elder Christians, whom he calls fathers, 'because they knew him who was from the beginning;' that is, because they knew how Christ had taught from the beginning; and Jo1 2:24, he says: 'Let that abide in you which ye have heard from the beginning.' Farther he says, Jo1 2:7 : 'Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment, which ye had from the beginning.' In the next verse he adds: 'Again a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you, because the darkness is past, and the light now shineth.' Now Christ himself had given his disciples a commandment which he called a new commandment, and this was, 'that they should love one another.' The term 'new commandment,' therefore, St. John borrowed from Christ; but in the present instance he appears to have applied it to a different subject, because the special command which Christ gave to his disciples, that they should love one another, and which he called a new commandment, could not well be called an old commandment, being very different from the general commandment, that we should love our neighbor. St. John, therefore, very probably meant that the commandment of love and sanctification was no new commandment, as the Gnostics contended, but the old commandment which the Christians had heard from the beginning. It was, indeed, become a new commandment, in consequence of the false doctrines which then prevailed; or rather, it appeared to be so, because the Gnostics had endeavored to banish it from their system of theology. But whether a new or an old commandment, St. John thought proper to enforce it. \"2. The Gnostics, who contended that those commandments which were legal were not given by Christ, but were added by the apostles without his authority, counteracted, by so doing, the whole doctrine of sanctification. St. John, therefore, devotes the greatest part of his epistle to the confirmation and enforcement of this doctrine. In Jo1 1:5, Jo1 1:7, he asserts, as a principal part of the message which he had heard from Christ, that no one who does not walk in the light has fellowship with God. In the three following verses he limits this proposition in such a manner as was necessary in arguing with an adversary; and Jo1 2:1, Jo1 2:2, he removes the objection, that, according to his doctrine, a Christian who was guilty of wilful sins lost thereby all hopes of salvation. He then maintains, Jo1 2:3-5, and apparently in allusion to the word γνωσις, knowledge, the favourite term of the Gnostics, that he who boasted of profound knowledge, and at the same time rejected the commandments of Christ, had not a real but only a pretended knowledge; and that in him only the love of God is perfected, τετελειωται, who keeps God's word. The expression τετελειωται is a term which was used in the schools of the philosophers, and applied to the scholars called esoterici, who had made a considerable progress in the inner school. Now the Gnostics were, in their own opinion, scholars of this description; but since they, whose imaginary system of theology annuls the commands of God, are so far from being perfect that they are not even beginners in the science, St. John very properly refuses to admit their pretensions, and opposes to them others who were perfect in a different way, and who were more justly entitled to the appellation. With respect to the expressions, 'keeping the commandments of God,' or 'not keeping his commandments,' it must be observed that, when used in a polemical work, they denote, not merely the observance or violation of God's commands in our own practice, but the teaching of others that they are to be observed or rejected. What St. John says, Jo1 2:7, Jo1 2:8, has been already explained in the preceding paragraph. \"The whole of the third chapter, and part of the fourth, is devoted to the doctrine of sanctification, on which I have to make the following remarks. When St. John says, Jo1 3:7, 'Let no man deceive you; he who doeth righteousness is righteous,' he probably intends, not merely to deliver a precept, but to oppose the doctrine of those who asserted that a man, though he sinned, might be righteous in respect to his spiritual soul, because sin proceeded only from the material body. A similar observation may be applied to Jo1 3:4 : 'Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law;' which, considered by itself, appears to be an identical proposition; but when considered as an assertion opposed to the Gnostics, it is far from being superfluous, because, evident as it appears to be, they virtually denied it. From the passage above quoted from the works of Irenaeus, we have seen that they rejected the legal commandments as parts of the Christian religion which were not warranted by the authority of Christ; consequently, they denied that sin was a transgression of the law. Farther, it was consistent with their principles to regard sins as diseases; for they believed in a metempsychosis, and imagined that the souls of men were confined in their present bodies as in a prison, and as a punishment for having offended in the region above. According to this system, the violent and irregular passions of anger, hatred, etc., were tortures for the soul; they were diseases, but not punishable transgressions of the law. I will not assert that all who believed in a transmigration of souls argued in this manner, but some of them certainly did so; and against these it was not superfluous to write, 'Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law.' \"The love of the brethren, which St. John enforced as a chief commandment, is generally understood of that special love which Christ commanded his disciples to have towards each other. But I rather think that St. John means the love of our neighbor in general, which Christ commanded, as comprehending the half of the law; for this general love St. John might very properly call the love of our brother, since God has created us all, and is our common Father. Besides, as St. John calls Cain, Abel's brother, he could not intend to signify by this term a person of the same religious sentiments. Nor would it have been consistent with candour to have censured the Gnostics for not having Christian brotherly love towards St. John and other true believers, for in this particular sense they were not brethren; and St. John himself, in his second epistle, Jo2 1:10, forbids the exercise of Christian brotherly love towards those who teach false doctrines. I believe, therefore, that the brotherly love of which St. John speaks in the third chapter of this epistle, is not confined to that special love which we owe to those who are allied to us by religion, but denotes the love of our neighbor in general. Nor do I except even Jo1 3:16, where some think that St. John would require too much, if he meant brotherly love in general, or charity toward all men. But are there not certain cases in which it is our duty to hazard and even sacrifice our lives, in order to rescue our neighbor! Is not this duty performed by the soldier? And is it not performed by him who visits those who are infected with contagious diseases? It is true that this is not a duty which every man owes in all cases to his neighbor; but then, on the other hand, is it not a duty which every man owes to his spiritual brother? Nor was it St. John's design so much to enforce this duty, and to recommend the exercise of it, as to argue from the acknowledgment of this duty in certain cases, to the necessity of performing the less painful duty of supporting our brethren in distress, by a participation of our temporal possessions. But though I believe that in the third chapter St. John speaks of the love of our neighbor in general, I do not mean to affirm that he nowhere understands that special love which Christians owe one to another, of which we meet with an instance in Jo1 5:1, Jo1 5:2. \"3. With respect to the moral conduct of the Gnostics, against whom St. John wrote, we may infer, therefore, that the apostle found more reason to censure them for their want of charity toward their neighbors, than for dissoluteness or debauchery. This want of charity they probably displayed by a hatred of the true believers. \"What St. John says, Jo1 5:3, that 'God's commandments are not grievous,' appears in the clearest light when we consider it as opposed to the Gnostics, to whom the Divine commandments, as delivered by the apostles, appeared to be too legal. \"St. John declares, Jo1 1:5, as the message which he had heard from Christ, that 'God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.' Now if this proposition had been then as generally admitted as it is at present, there could have been no necessity for declaring it at the very beginning of the epistle, with so much energy, to be the grand message of Christ. We may reasonably infer, therefore, that it was opposed to certain persons who delivered a contrary doctrine. Farther, the words 'light' and 'darkness,' which are here applied to the Deity in a manner which is not usual in the Bible, remind us of the technical terms used by the Persian Magi, and afterwards by the Manicheans. It is true that in the Bible we meet with the expressions 'works of the light,' 'children of the light,' 'to walk in the light,' and others of the same kind; but in these instances the term 'light' is not synonymous with 'holiness;' works of the light denoting nothing more than works which no man need be ashamed to perform openly, and in the face of the whole world. This explanation of the word 'light' is inapplicable in the proposition 'God is light;' because there would be an impropriety in representing God either as fearing or not fearing to act in the face of the whole world. St. John, therefore, uses the term 'light' as equivalent to holiness. \"Now, the Gnostics admitted that the supreme Being was perfectly holy and pure light; but they denied that the supreme Being was the God whom the Jews and the Christians worshipped. For the Jews and the Christians worshipped the Creator of the world; and the Gnostics asserted that the Creator of the world was either a spirit of darkness, or, if he was a spirit of light, that he was not free from darkness. \"From Jo1 2:23, where St. John says, that 'he who denies the Son, rejects also the Father,' it appears that his adversaries did not deny the Father in positive terms, since the apostle argues only that they virtually did so by denying the Son. Now, the Gnostics did not positively deny the Father of Christ, whom they allowed to be the supreme Being, but then they did not allow that he was the Creator. The terms, therefore, 'God' and the 'Father of Christ,' though they denote in reality the same person, must not be considered as having precisely the same import; since the adversaries of St. John admitted that the Father of Christ was the supreme Being, and pure light; but denied that the Creator, who is in fact God, was light without darkness. \"4. In some places, especially Jo1 4:2, Jo1 4:3, St. John opposes false teachers of another description, namely, those who denied that Christ was come in the flesh. Now they who denied this were not Cerinthians, but another kind of Gnostics, called Docetes. For as, on the one hand, Cerinthus maintained that Jesus was a mere and therefore real man, the Docetes on the other hand contended that he was an incorporeal phantom, in which the Aeon, Christ, or Divine nature, presented itself to mankind. Jo1 1:1 : 'Our hands have handled,' appears likewise to be opposed to this error of the Docetes. \"The doctrines which St. John has delivered in this epistle he has not supported, either by arguments drawn from reason, or by quotations from the Old Testament; for neither of them are necessary, since the bare assertion of an apostle of Christ is sufficient authority. It is true that, in one respect, this epistle has less energy than St. John's gospel, because in his gospel he warrants his doctrines by the speeches of Christ. But then, on the other hand, St. John declares in this epistle, Jo1 3:24; Jo1 4:4; Jo1 5:14, Jo1 5:16, that God sent his Spirit to the apostolic Church, and heard their prayers. And it is evident that St. John alludes to the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, and to the miraculous powers obtained by prayer. \"The close of this epistle, 'Keep yourselves from idols,' has no immediate connection with the preceding discourse. I am therefore in doubt whether St; John meant to warn his readers against taking part in heathen sacrifices, which was allowed by these Gnostics, who are called Nicolaitans in the Apocalypse; or whether he meant to describe the system of the Gnostics in general as a system of idolatry, which in fact it was.\" Dr. Macknight has some judicious observations on the authenticity of this epistle, from the similarity of the style to that of the gospel of John. \"The authenticity of any ancient writing is established, first, by the testimony of contemporary and succeeding authors, whose works have come down to us, and who speak of that writing as known to be the work of the person whose name it bears. Secondly, by the suitableness of the things contained in such writing to the character and circumstances of its supposed author, and by the similarity of its style to the style of the other acknowledged writings of that author. The former of these proofs is called the external evidence of the authenticity of a writing; The latter, its internal evidence. When these two kinds of evidence are found accompanying any writing, they render its genuineness indubitable. \"The external evidence of the authenticity of John's first epistle has been amply detailed by Dr. Lardner, who shows that the earliest and best Christian writers have all, with one consent, and without any hesitation, ascribed the first epistle to him. And their testimony is confirmed by this circumstance, that the Syriac translator, who omitted the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, and the Epistle of Jude, because some doubts were entertained concerning them in the first age, or perhaps because they had not come to his knowledge, has translated John's first epistle, as an apostolical writing of which there never was any doubt in that or in any other Christian Church. \"In this preface, therefore, we shall state the internal evidence of the authenticity of John's first epistle, by showing, first, that, in respect of its matter, and, secondly, in respect of its style, it is perfectly suitable to the character and circumstances of its supposed author. In respect of the matter or subject of the epistle under consideration, the writer of it has discovered himself to be John the apostle, by introducing a number of sentiments and expressions found in the gospel, which all Christians from the beginning have acknowledged to be the work of John the apostle. Epistle Gospel Jo1 1:1. That which was from the beginning - ὁ εθεασαμεθα, which we have contemplated, concerning the living Word. Joh 1:1. In the beginning was the Word: Joh 1:14; And εθεασαμεθα, we beheld his glory: Joh 1:4; In him was light: Joh 1:14; The Word was made flesh. Jo1 2:5. Whosoever keepeth his word truly, in that man the love of God is perfected. Joh 14:23. If a man love me he will keep my words, and my Father will love him. Jo1 2:6. He who saith he abideth in him, ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. See Jo1 3:24; Jo1 4:13-16. Joh 15:4. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bring forth fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. Jo1 2:8. I write to you a new commandment. Jo1 3:11. This is the message which ye heard from the beginning, that ye should love one another. Joh 13:34. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Jo1 2:8. The darkness passeth away, and the light which is true now shineth. Joh 1:5. The light shineth in darkness. Joh 1:9. That was the true light. Jo1 2:10. Abideth in the light, and there is no stumbling block to him. Joh 11:10. If a man walk in the night he stumbleth, because there is no light in him. Jo1 2:13. Young children, I write to you, because ye have known the Father. Jo1 2:14. Because ye have known him from the beginning. Joh 17:3. This is the eternal life, that they might know thee, the only true God, And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Jo1 3:7-9. Every one who worketh righteousness is begotten of God. See also Jo1 5:1. Joh 3:3. Except a man be begotten again, Joh 3:5; Except a man be begotten of water and of the Spirit. Jo1 3:1. Behold how great love the Father hath bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God! Joh 1:12. To them he gave power to become the sons of God, even to them who believe on his name. Jo1 3:2. We shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Joh 17:24. Be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory. Jo1 3:8. He who worketh sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. Joh 8:44. Ye are of your father the devil; he was a murderer from the beginning. Jo1 3:13. Do not wonder, my brethren, that the world hateth you. Joh 15:20. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you. Jo1 4:9. By this the love of God was manifested, that God sent his Son, the only begotten, into the world, that we might live through him. Joh 3:16. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have eternal life. Jo1 4:12. No man hath seen God at any time. Joh 1:18. No man hath seen God at any time. Jo1 5:13. These things I have written to you, who believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life; and that ye may believe in the name of the Son of God. Joh 20:31. These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name. Jo1 5:14. If we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us. Joh 14:14. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. Jo1 5:20. The Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Joh 17:2. Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. Joh 17:3 : And this is the eternal life, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. \"From the above comparison of the first epistle of John with his gospel, there appears such an exact agreement of sentiment in the two writings, that no reader who is capable of discerning what is peculiar in an author's turn of thinking, can entertain the least doubt of their being the productions of one and the same writer. Farther, since John has not mentioned his own name in his gospel, the want of his name in the epistle is no proof that it was not written by him; but rather a presumption that it is his; especially as he has sufficiently discovered himself to be an apostle, by affirming, in the beginning of the epistle, that he was an eye and an ear witness of the things he has written concerning the living word. \"The style of this epistle being the same with the style of the gospel of John, it is, by that internal mark likewise, denoted to be his writing. In his gospel, John does not content himself with simply affirming or denying a thing; but, to strengthen his affirmation, he denies the contrary. In like manner, to strengthen his denial of a thing, he affirms its contrary. See Joh 1:20; Joh 3:36; Joh 5:22. The same manner of expressing things strongly, is found in this epistle; for example, Jo1 2:4 : 'He who saith, I have known him, and doth not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.' Jo1 2:27 : 'The same unction teacheth you concerning all things, and is truth, and is no lie.' Jo1 4:2 : 'Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh, is from God.' Jo1 4:3 : 'And every spirit which doth not confess that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh, is not from God.' \"In his gospel likewise, John, to express things emphatically, frequently uses the demonstrative pronoun this. Joh 1:19; Αὑτη· 'This is the testimony.' Joh 3:19; Αὑτη· 'This is the condemnation, that light,' etc. Joh 6:29 : Τουτο· 'This is the work of God.' Joh 6:40 : Τουτο· 'This is the will of him.' Joh 6:50 : Οὑτος· 'This is the bread which cometh down from heaven.' Joh 17:3 : Αὑτη· 'This is the eternal life.' In the epistle the same emphatical manner of expression is found, Jo1 1:5; Jo1 2:25 : 'This is the promise.' Jo1 3:23 : Αὑτη· 'This is the commandment.' Jo1 5:3 : Αὑτη· 'This is the love of God.' Jo1 5:4 : 'This is the victory.' Jo1 5:6 : Οὑτος· 'This is he who came by water.' Jo1 5:14 : Αὑτη· 'This is the boldness which we have with him.' \"Such is the internal evidence on which all Christians, from the beginning, have received the First Epistle of John as really written by him, and of Divine authority, although his name is not mentioned in the inscription, nor in any part of the epistle.\" On the term epistle, as applied to this work of St. John, it may be necessary to make a few remarks. There is properly nothing of the epistolary style in this work: it is addressed neither to any particular person, nor to any Church. The writer does not mention himself either in the beginning or ending; and, although this can be no objection against its authenticity, yet it is some proof that the work was never intended to be considered in the light of an epistle. 1. Is it a tract or dissertation upon the more sublime parts of Christianity. 2. Is it a polemical discourse against heretics, particularly the Gnostics, or some of their teachers, who were disturbing the Churches where John dwelt. 3. Is it a sermon, the subject of which is God's love to man in the mission of Jesus Christ; from which our obligations to love and serve him are particularly inferred. 4. Or is it a collection of Christian aphorisms, made by John himself; and put together as they occurred to his mind, without any intended order or method. Much might be said on all these heads of inquiry; and the issue would be, that the idea of its being an epistle of any kind must be relinquished; and yet epistle is its general denomination through all antiquity. It is a matter, however, of little importance what its title may be, or to what species of literary composition it belongs; while we know that it is the genuine work of St. John; of the holiest man who ever breathed; of one who was most intimately acquainted with the doctrine and mind of his Lord; of one who was admitted to the closest fellowship with his Savior; and who has treated of the deepest things that can be experienced or comprehended in the Christian life. As to distinct heads of discourse, it does not appear to me that any were intended by the apostle; he wrote just as the subjects occurred to his mind, or rather as the Holy Spirit gave him utterance; and, although technical order is not here to be expected, yet nothing like disorder or confusion can be found in the whole work. As Professor Michaelis has considered it in the light of a polemical treatise, written against the Gnostics, and other false teachers of that time, I have thought it right to give his view of the work considered in this light; but as I, in general, pursue another plan of interpretation in the notes, I have inserted his elucidations in the preceding pages of this preface. On the controverted text of the three heavenly Witnesses I have said what truth and a deep and thorough examination of the subject have obliged me to say. I am satisfied that it is not genuine, though the doctrine in behalf of which it has been originally introduced into the epistle is a doctrine of the highest importance, and most positively revealed in various parts both of the Old and New Testament. The stress which","order":62,"numberOfChapters":5,"sha256":"632e609d96b6cca280615add5a6a933ebb891fdac87146e1c84da527c03caf75","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/1JN/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"1JN","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":5,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/1JN/5.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"1JN","chapter":5},"totalNumberOfVerses":103},"chapter":{"number":3,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["Behold, what manner of love - Whole volumes might be written upon this and the two following verses, without exhausting the extraordinary subject contained in them, viz., the love of God to man. The apostle himself, though evidently filled with God, and walking in the fullness of his light, does not attempt to describe it; he calls on the world and the Church to behold it, to look upon it, to contemplate it, and wonder at it.\nWhat manner of love. - Ποταπην αγαπην· What great love, both as to quantity and quality; for these ideas are included in the original term. The length, the breadth, the depth, the height, he does not attempt to describe.\nThe Father hath bestowed - For we had neither claim nor merit that we should be called, that is, constituted or made, the sons of God, who were before children of the wicked one, animal, earthly, devilish; therefore, the love which brought us from such a depth of misery and degradation must appear the more extraordinary and impressive. After κληθωμεν, that we might be called, και εσμεν, and we are, is added by ABC, seventeen others, both the Syriac, Erpen's Arabic, Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Slavonic, and Vulgate.\nTherefore the world - The Jews, and all who know not God, and are seeking their portion in this life; knoweth us not - do not acknowledge, respect, love, or approve of us. In this sense the word γινωσκειν is here to be understood. The world Knew well enough that there were such persons; but they did not approve of them. We have often seen that this is a frequent use of the term know, both in Hebrew and Greek, in the Old Testament and also in the New.\nBecause it knew him not - The Jews did not acknowledge Jesus; they neither approved of him, his doctrine, nor his manner of life. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":2,"content":["Now are we the sons of God - He speaks of those who are begotten of God, and who work righteousness. See the preceding chapter.\nAnd it doth not yet appear what we shall be - Ουπω εφανερωθη· It is not yet manifest; though we know that we are the children of God, we do not know that state of glorious excellence to which, as such, we shall be raised.\nWhen he shall appear - Εαν φανερωθη· When he shall be manifested; i.e., when he comes the second time, and shall be manifested in his glorified human nature to judge the world.\nWe shall be like him - For our vile bodies shall be made like unto his glorious body; we shall see him as he is, in all the glory and majesty both of the Divine and human nature. See Phi 3:21; and Joh 17:24 : Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory. John had seen his glory on the mount when he was transfigured; and this we find was ineffably grand; but even this must have been partially obscured, in order to enable the disciples to bear the sight, for they were not then like him. But when they shall be like him, they shall see him as he is - in all the splendor of his infinite majesty. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":3,"content":["And ever man that hath this hope in him - All who have the hope of seeing Christ as he is; that is, of enjoying him in his own glory; purifieth himself - abstains from all evil, and keeps himself from all that is in the world, viz., the lusts of the flesh, of the eye, and the pride of life. God having purified his heart, it is his business to keep himself in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. The apostle does not here speak of any man purifying his own heart, because this is impossible; but of his persevering in the state of purity into which the Lord hath brought him. The words, however, may be understood of a man's anxiously using all the means that lead to purity; and imploring God for the sanctifying Spirit, to \"cleanse the thoughts of his heart by its inspiration, that he may perfectly love him, and worthily magnify his name.\"\nAs he is pure - Till he is as completely saved from his sins as Christ was free from sin. Many tell us that \"this never can be done, for no man can be saved from sin in this life.\" Will these persons permit us to ask, how much sin may we be saved from in this life? Something must be ascertained on this subject:\n1. That the soul may have some determinate object in view;\n2. That it may not lose its time, or employ its faith and energy, in praying for what is impossible to be attained.\nNow, as he was manifested to take away our sins, Jo1 3:5, to destroy the works of the devil, Jo1 3:8; and as his blood cleanseth from all sin and unrighteousness, Jo1 1:7, Jo1 1:9; is it not evident that God means that believers in Christ shall be saved from all sin? For if his blood cleanses from all sin, if he destroys the works of the devil, (and sin is the work of the devil), and if he who is born of God does not commit sin, Jo1 3:9, then he must be cleansed from all sin; and, while he continues in that state he lives without sinning against God, for the seed of God remaineth in him, and he cannot sin because he is born, or begotten, of God, Jo1 3:9. How strangely warped and blinded by prejudice and system must men be who, in the face of such evidence as this, will still dare to maintain that no man can be saved from his sin in this life; but must daily commit sin, in thought, word, and deed, as the Westminster divines have asserted: that is, every man is laid under the fatal necessity of sinning as many ways against God as the devil does through his natural wickedness and malice; for even the devil himself can have no other way of sinning against God except by thought, word, and deed. And yet, according to these, and others of the same creed, \"even the most regenerate sin thus against God as long as they live.\" It is a miserable salvo to say, they do not sin so much as they used to do; and they do not sin habitually, only occasionally. Alas for this system! Could not the grace that saved them partially save them perfectly? Could not that power of God that saved them from habitual sin, save them from occasional or accidental sin? Shall we suppose that sin, how potent soever it may be, is as potent as the Spirit and grace of Christ? And may we not ask, If it was for Gad's glory and their good that they were partially saved, would it not have been more for God's glory and their good if they had been perfectly saved? But the letter and spirit of God's word, and the design and end of Christ's coming, is to save his people from their sins. Dr. Macknight having stated that ἁγνιζει, purifieth, is in the present tense, most ridiculously draws this conclusion from it: \"In this life no one can attain to perfect purity; by this text, therefore, as well as by Jo1 1:8, those fanatics are condemned who imagine they are able to live without sin.\" Yes, doctor, the men you call fanatics do most religiously believe that, by the grace of Christ cleansing and strengthening them, they can love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and their neighbor as themselves; and live without grieving the Spirit of God, and without sinning against their heavenly Father. And they believe that, if they are not thus saved, it is their own fault. But a blind man must ever be a bad judge of colors. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":4,"content":["Sin is the transgression of the law - The spirit of the law as well as of the Gospel is, that \"we should love God with all our powers, and our neighbor as ourselves.\" All disobedience is contrary to love; therefore sin is the transgression of the law, whether the act refers immediately to God or to our neighbor. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":5,"content":["And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins - He came into the world to destroy the power, pardon the guilt, and cleanse from the pollution of sin. This was the very design of his manifestation in the flesh. He was born, suffered, and died for this very purpose; and can it be supposed that he either cannot or will not accomplish the object of his own coming?\nIn him is no sin - And therefore he is properly qualified to be the atoning sacrifice for the sins of men. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":6,"content":["Whosoever abideth in him - By faith, love, and obedience.\nSinneth not - Because his heart is purified by faith, and he is a worker together with God, and consequently does not receive the grace of God in vain. See on Jo1 3:3 (note).\nHath not seen him - It is no unusual thing with this apostle, both in his gospel and in his epistles, to put occasionally the past for the present, and the present for the past tense. It is very likely that here he puts, after the manner of the Hebrew, the preterite for the present: He who sins against God doth not see him, neither doth he know him - the eye of his faith is darkened, so that he cannot see him as he formerly did; and he has no longer the experimental knowledge of God as his Father and portion. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":7,"content":["Let no man deceive you - Either by asserting that \"you cannot be saved from sin in this life,\" or \"that sin will do you no harm and cannot alter your state, if you are adopted into the family of God; for sin cannot annul this adoption.\" Hear God, ye deceivers! He that doeth righteousness is righteous, according to his state, nature, and the extent of his moral powers.\nEven as he is righteous - Allowing for the disparity that must necessarily exist between that which is bounded, and that which is without limits. As God, in the infinitude of his nature, is righteous; so they, being filled with him, are in their limited nature righteous. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":8,"content":["He that committeth sin is of the devil - Hear this, also, ye who plead for Baal, and cannot bear the thought of that doctrine that states believers are to be saved from all sin in this life! He who committeth sin is a child of the devil, and shows that he has still the nature of the devil in him; for the devil sinneth from the beginning - he was the father of sin, brought sin into the world, and maintains sin in the world by living in the hearts of his own children, and thus leading them to transgression; and persuading others that they cannot be saved from their sins in this life, that he may secure a continual residence in their heart. He knows that if he has a place there throughout life, he will probably have it at death; and, if so, throughout eternity.\nFor this purpose - Εις τουτο· For this very end - with this very design, was Jesus manifested in the flesh, that he might destroy, ἱνα λυσῃ, that he might loose, the bonds of sin, and dissolve the power, influence, and connection of sin. See on Jo1 3:3 (note). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":9,"content":["Whosoever is born of God - Γεγεννημενος, Begotten of God, doth not commit sin: \"that is,\" say some, \"as he used to do, he does not sin habitually as he formerly did.\" This is bringing the influence and privileges of the heavenly birth very low indeed. We have the most indubitable evidence that many of the heathen philosophers had acquired, by mental discipline and cultivation, an entire ascendency over all their wonted vicious habits. Perhaps my reader will recollect the story of the physiognomist, who, coming into the place where Socrates was delivering a lecture, his pupils, wishing to put the principles of the man's science to proof, desired him to examine the face of their master, and say what his moral character was. After a full contemplation of the philosopher's visage, he pronounced him \"the most gluttonous, drunken, brutal, and libidinous old man that he had ever met.\" As the character of Socrates was the reverse of all this, his disciples began to insult the physiognomist. Socrates interfered, and said, \"The principles of his science may he very correct, for such I was, but I have conquered it by my philosophy.\" O ye Christian divines! ye real or pretended Gospel ministers! will ye allow the influence of the grace of Christ a sway not even so extensive as that of the philosophy of a heathen who never heard of the true God? \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":10,"content":["In this the children of God are manifest - Here is a fearful text. Who is a child of the devil? He that commits sin. Who is a child of God? He that works righteousness. By this text we shall stand or fall before God, whatever our particular creed may say to the contrary.\nNeither he that loveth not his brother - No man is of God who is not ready on all emergencies to do any act of kindness for the comfort, relief, and support of any human being. For, as God made of one blood an the nations of men to dwell upon the face of the whole earth, so all are of one family; and consequently all are brethren, and should love as brethren. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":11,"content":["For this is the message - See Jo1 1:5. From the beginning God hath taught men that they should love one another. How essentially necessary this is to the comfort and well-being of man in this state of trial and difficulty, every sensible man must see. All are dependent upon all; all upon each, and each upon all. Mutual love makes this dependence pleasant and doubly profitable. Nothing can be more pleasing to an ingenuous and generous mind than to communicate acts of kindness. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":12,"content":["Not as Cain - Men should not act to each other as Cain did to his brother Abel. He murdered him because he was better than himself. But who was Cain? Εκ του πονηρου ην, he was of the devil. And who are they who, through pride, lust of power, ambition, gain, etc., murder each other in wars and political contentions? Εκ του πονηρου εισι. To attempt to justify the principle, and excuse the instigators, authors, abettors, etc., of such wars, is as vain as it is wicked. They are opposed to the nature of God, and to that message which he has sent to man from the beginning: Love one another. Love your enemies. Surely this does not mean, Blow out their brains, or, Cut their throats. O, how much of the spirit, temper, and letter of the Gospel have the nations of the world, and particularly the nations of Europe, to learn!\nAnd wherefore slew he him? - What could induce a brother to imbrue his hands in a brother's blood? Why, his brother was righteous, and he was wicked; and the seed of the wicked one which was in him induced him to destroy his brother, because the seed of God - the Divine nature, was found in him. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":13,"content":["Marvel not - if the world hate you - Expect no better treatment from unconverted Jews and Gentiles than Abel received from his wicked and cruel brother. This was a lesson to the Church, preparatory to martyrdom. Expect neither justice nor mercy from the men who are enemies of God. They are either full of malice and envy, hateful, hating one another, or they are specious, hollow, false, and deceitful.\n\"A foe to God was ne'er true friend to Man.\" \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":14,"content":["We know that we have passed from death unto life - Death and life are represented here as two distinct territories, states, or kingdoms, to either of which the inhabitants of either may be removed. This is implied in the term μεταβεβηκαμεν, from μετα, denoting change of place, and βαινω, I go. It is the same figure which St. Paul uses, Col 1:13 : Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love. The believers to whom St. John writes had been once in the region and shadow of death, in the place where sin and death reigned, whose subjects they were; but they had left that kingdom of oppression, wretchedness, and wo, and had come over to the kingdom of life, whose king was the Prince and Author of life; where all was liberty, prosperity, and happiness; where life and love were universally prevalent, and death and hatred could not enter. We know, therefore, says the apostle, that we are passed over from the territory of death to the kingdom of life, because we love the brethren, which those who continue in the old kingdom - under the old covenant, can never do; for he that loveth not his brother abideth in death. He has never changed his original residence. He is still an unconverted, unrenewed sinner. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":15,"content":["Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer - He has the same principle in him which was in Cain, and it may lead to the same consequences.\nNo murderer hath eternal life - Eternal life springs from an indwelling God; and God cannot dwell in the heart where hatred and malice dwell. This text has been quoted to prove that no murderer can be saved. This is not said in the text; and there have been many instances of persons who have been guilty of murder having had deep and genuine repentance, and who doubtless found mercy from his hands who prayed for his murderers, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do! It is, however, an awful text for the consideration of those who shed human blood on frivolous pretences, or in those wars which have their origin in the worst passions of the human heart. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":16,"content":["Hereby perceive we the love of God - This sixteenth verse of this third chapter of John's first epistle is, in the main, an exact counterpart of the sixteenth verse of the third chapter of St. John's gospel: God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, etc. Here the apostle says, We perceive, εγνωκαμεν, we have known, the love of God, because he laid down his life for us. Of God is not in the text, but it is preserved in one MS., and in two or three of the versions; but though this does not establish its authenticity, yet του Θεου, of God, is necessarily understood, or του Χριστου, of Christ, as Erpen's Arabic has it; or αυτου εις ἡμας, his love to us, as is found in the Syriac. A higher proof than this of his love Christ could not have possibly given to the children of men.\nWe ought to lay down our lives for the brethren - We should risk our life to save the lives of others; and we should be ready to lay down our lives to redeem their souls when this may appear to be a means of leading them to God. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":17,"content":["But whoso hath this worlds good - Here is a test of this love; if we do not divide our bread with the hungry, we certainly would not lay down our life for him. Whatever love we may pretend to mankind, if we are not charitable and benevolent, we give the lie to our profession. If we have not bowels of compassion, we have not the love of God in us; if we shut up our bowels against the poor, we shut Christ out of our hearts, and ourselves out of heaven.\nThis world's good. - Του βιον του κοσμου· The life of this world, i.e. the means of life; for so βιος is often used. See Mar 12:44; Luk 8:43; Luk 15:12, Luk 15:30; Luk 21:4, and other places.\nHow dwelleth the love of God in him? - That is, it cannot possibly dwell in such a person. Hardheartedness and God's love never meet together, much less can they be associated. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":18,"content":["My little children - Τεκνια μου, My beloved children, let us not love in word - in merely allowing the general doctrine of love to God and man to be just and right;\nNeither in tongue - In making professions of love, and of a charitable and humane disposition, and resting there; but in deed - by humane and merciful acts;\nAnd in truth - Feeling the disposition of which we speak. There is a good saying in Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 145, 4, on this point: \"If love consisted in word only, then love ceaseth as soon as the word is pronounced. Such was the love between Balak and Balaam. But if love consisteth not in word, it cannot be dissolved; such was the love of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the rest of the patriarchs which were before them.\" \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":19,"content":["Hereby we know that we are of the truth - That we have the true religion of the Lord Jesus, and shall assure our hearts - be persuaded in our consciences, that we have the truth as it is in Jesus; as no man can impose upon himself by imagining he loves when he does not: he may make empty professions to others, but if he loves either God or man, he knows it because he feels it; and love unfelt is not love, it is word or tongue. This the apostle lays down as a test of a man's Christianity, and it is the strongest and most infallible test that can be given. He that loves feels that he does love; and he who feels that he loves God and man has true religion; and he who is careful to show the fruits of this love, in obedience to God and humane acts to man, gives others the fullest proof that he has the loving mind that was in Jesus. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":20,"content":["If our heart condemn us - If we be conscious that our love is feigned, we shall feel inwardly condemned in professing to have what we have not. And if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, for he knows every hypocritical winding and turning of the soul, he searches the heart, and tries the reins, and sees all the deceitfulness and desperate wickedness of the heart which we cannot see, and, if we could see them, could not comprehend them; and as he is the just Judge, he will condemn us more strictly and extensively than we can be by our own conscience. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":21,"content":["If our heart condemn us not - If we be conscious to ourselves of our own sincerity, that we practice not deceit, and use no mask, then have we confidence toward God - we can appeal to him for our sincerity, and we can come with boldness to the throne of grace, to obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. And therefore says the apostle, \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":22,"content":["Whatsoever we ask - In such a spirit, we receive of him, for he delights to bless the humble, upright, and sincere soul.\nBecause we keep his commandments - Viz., by loving him and loving our neighbor. These are the great commandments both of the old covenant and the new. And whoever is filled with this love to God and man will do those things which are pleasing to him; for love is the very soul and principle of obedience.\nThe word heart is used in the preceding verses for conscience; and so the Greek fathers interpret it, particularly Origen, Nicephorus, and Ecumenius; but this is not an unfrequent meaning of the word in the sacred writings. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":23,"content":["That we should believe on the name of his Son - We are commanded to believe on Christ, that for the sake of his passion and death we may be justified from all things from which we could not be justified by the law of Moses; and being through him redeemed from the guilt of sin, restored to the Divine favor, and made partakers of the Holy Ghost, we are enabled to love one another as he gave us commandment; for without a renewal of the heart, love to God and man is impossible, and this renewal comes by Christ Jesus. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":24,"content":["Dwelleth in him - i.e. in God; and he - God, in him - the believer.\nAnd hereby we know - We know by the Spirit which he hath given us that we dwell in God, and God in us. It was not by conjecture or inference that Christians of old knew they were in the favor of God, it was by the testimony of God's own Spirit in their hearts; and this testimony was not given in a transient manner, but was constant and abiding while they continued under the influence of that faith that worketh by love. Every good man is a temple of the Holy Ghost, and wherever he is, he is both light and power. By his power he works; by his light he makes both himself and his work known. Peace of conscience and joy in the Holy Ghost must proceed from the indwelling of that Holy Spirit; and those who have these blessings must know that they have them, for we cannot have heavenly peace and heavenly joy without knowing that we have them. But this Spirit in the soul of a believer is not only manifest by its effects, but it bears its own witness to its own indwelling. So that a man not only knows that he has this Spirit from the fruits of the Spirit, but he knows that he has it from its own direct witness. It may be said, \"How can these things be?\" And it may be answered, By the power, light, and mercy of God. But that such things are, the Scriptures uniformly attest, and the experience of the whole genuine Church of Christ, and of every truly converted soul, sufficiently proves. As the wind bloweth where it listeth, and we cannot tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth, so is every one that is born of the Spirit: the thing is certain, and fully known by its effects; but how this testimony is given and confirmed is inexplicable. Every good man feels it, and knows he is of God by the Spirit which God has given him.\n\n"]}],"introduction":"The extraordinary love of God towards mankind, and the effects of it, Jo1 3:1-3. Sin is the transgression of the law, and Christ was manifested to take away our sins, Jo1 3:4-6. The children of God are known by the holiness of their lives, the children of the devil by the sinfulness of theirs, Jo1 3:7-10. We should love one another, for he that hateth his brother is a murderer; as Christ laid down his life for us, so we should lay down our lives for the brethren, Jo1 3:11-16. Charity is a fruit of brotherly love; our love should be active, not professional merely, Jo1 3:17, Jo1 3:18. How we may know that we are of the truth, Jo1 3:19-21. They whose ways please God, have an answer to all their prayers, Jo1 3:22. The necessity of keeping the commandment of Christ, that he may dwell in us and we in him by his Spirit, Jo1 3:23, Jo1 3:24. \n"},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/1JN/3.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"1JN","chapter":3},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/1JN/4.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"1JN","chapter":4},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/1JN/2.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"1JN","chapter":2},"numberOfVerses":24}