Notes on the Old and New Testaments

Comp. Notes on Col. i. 10. To know the Lord Jesus Christ; to possess just views of his person, character, and work, is the sura and essence of the Christian religion; and with this injunction,therefore, the apostle appropriately closes this Epistle. He who has a saving knowledge of Christ, has in fact all that is essential to his welfare in the life that is, and in that which is to come; he who has not this knowledge, though he may be distinguished in the learning of the schools, and may be profoundly skilled in the sciences, has in reality no knowledge that will avail him in the great matters pertaining to his eternal welfare. IT To him be glory, etc. Comp. Notes on Rom. xvi. 27; 2 Tim. iv. 18. With the desire that honor and glory should be rendered to the Redeemer, all the aspirations of true Christians appropriately close. There is no wish more deeply cherished in their hearts than this; there is nothing that will enter more into their worship in heaven. Compare Rev. i. 5, 6; v. 12,

§ I.. The Authenticity of the Epistle.

Little need be; said respecting the authenticity of this Epistle, or the evidence that it was written by the apostle John. There are, in general, two sources of evidence in regard to ancient writings: the external evidence, or that which may be derived from the testimony of other writers; and the evidence which may be derived from some marks of the authorship in the writing itself, which* is called the internal evidence. Both of these are remarkably clear in regard to this Epistle.

1. The external evidence. (1.) It is quoted or referred to by the early Christian writers as the undoubted production of the apostle John. It is referred to by Polycarp in the beginning of the second century; it is quoted by Papias, and also by Irenaeus. Origen says: ' ' John, besides the Gospel and Revelation, has left us an Epistle of a few lines. Grant also a second, and a third, for all do not allow these to be genuine." See Lardner, vi., 275, and Liicke, Einleit., i. Dionysius of Alexandria admitted the genuineness of John's First Epistle; so also did Cyprian. All the three Epistles were received by Athanasius, by Cyril of Jerusalem, and by Epiphanius. Eusebius says: "Besides his Gospel, his First Epistle is universally acknowledged by those of the present time, and by the ancients; but the other two are contradicted." (2.) It is found in the old Syriac version, probably made in the first century, though the Second and Third Epistles are not there. (3.) The genuineness of the First Epistle was never extensively called in question, and it was never reckoned among the doubtful or disputed epistles. (-4.) It was rejected or doubted only by those who rejected his Gospel, and for the same reasons. Some small sects of those who were called "heretics " rejected all the writings of John, because they conflicted with their peculiar views, but this was confined to a small number of persons, and never affected the general belief of the Church. See Liicke, Einleit., p. 9 seq.

2. There is strong internal evidence that the same person wrote this Epistle who was the author of the Gospel which bears the same name. The resemblance in the mode of expression, and in the topics referred to, are numerous, and at the same time are not such as would be made by one who was attempting to imitate the language of another. The allusions of this kind, moreover, are to what is peculiar in the Gospel of John, and not to what is common to that Gospel and the other three. There is nothing in the Epistle which would particularly remind us of the Gospel of Matthew or Mark or Luke, but it is impossible to read it and not be reminded constantly of the Gospel by John. Among those passages and expressions the following may be referred to:

This language in the Epistle, as will be easily seen by a comparison, is such as the author of the Gospel by John would be likely to use if he wrote an epistle. The passages referred to are in his style; they show that the mind of the author of both was turned to the same points, and those not such points as might be found in all writers, but such as indicated a peculiar mode of thinking. They are not such expressions as Matthew or Mark or Luke or Paul would have used in an epistle, but just such as we should expect from the writer of the Gospel of John. It must be clear to any one that either the author of the Gospel was also the author of this Epistle, or that the author of the Epistle meant to imitate the author of the Gospel, and to leave the impression that the apostle John was the author. But there are several things which make it clear that it is not a forgery, (a) The passages where the resemblance is found are not exact quotations, and are not such as a man would make if he designed to imitate another. They are rather such as the same man would use if he were writing twice on the same subject, and should express himself the second time without intending to copy what he had said before. (£») If it had been an intentional fraud or forgery, there would have been some allusion to the name or authority of the author; or, in other words, the author of the Epistle would have endeavored to sustain himself by some distinct reference to the apostle, or to his authority, or to his well-known characteristics as a teller of truth. See John xix. 35; xxi. 24. Comp. 3 John 1 2. But nothing of the kind occurs in this Epistle. It is written without disclosing the name of the author, or the place where he lived, or the persons to whom it was addressed, and with no allusions to the Gospel, except such as show that the author thought in the same manner, and had the same things in his eye, and was intent on the same object. It is, throughout, the style and manner of one who felt that his method of expressing himself was so well understood that he did not need even to mention his own name; as if, without any thing further, it would be apparent from the very Epistle itself who had written it, and what right he had to speak. But this would be a device too refined for forgery. It bears all the marks of sincerity and truth.

§ 2. The Time and Place of Writing the Epistle.

Almost nothing is known of the time and place of writing the Epistle, and nearly all that is said on this point is mere conjecture. Some recent critics have supposed that it was in fact a part of the Gospel, though in some way it afterward became detached from it; others that it was sent as an Epistle at the same time with the Gospel, and to the same persons. Some have supposed that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and some long after, when John was very aged; and these last suppose that they find evidences of the very advanced age of the author in the Epistle itself, in such characteristics as commonly mark the conversation and writings of an old man. An examination of these opinions may be found in Liicke, Einleit., Kap. 2 j and in Hug, In trod., p. 550 seq., p. 732 seq.

There are very few marks of time in the Epistle, and none that can determine the time of writing it with any degree of certainty. Nor is it of much importance that we should be able to determine it. The truths which it contains are in the main as applicable to one age as to another, though it can not be denied (see § 3) that the author had some prevailing forms of error in his eye. The only marks of time in the Epistle by which we can form any conjecture as to the period when it was written are the following: (1.) It was in what the author calls the last time (iaxarr] wpa). Chap. ii. 18. From this expression it might perhaps be inferred by some that it was just before the destruction of Jerusalem, or that the writer supposed that the end of the world was near. But nothing can be certainly determined from this expression in regard to the exact period when the Epistle was written. This phrase, as used in the Scriptures, denotes no more than the last dispensation or economy of things — the dispensation under which the affairs of the world would be wound up, though that period might be in fact much longer than any one that had preceded it. See Notes on Isa. ii. 2; Acts ii. 17; Heb. i. 2. The object of the writer of this Epistle, in the passage referred to (chap. ii. 1 8), is merely to show that the closing dispensation of the world had actually come; that is, that there were certain things which it was known would mark that dispensation, which actually existed then, and by which it could be known that they were living under the last or closing period of the world. (2.) It is quite evident that the Epistle was composed after the Gospel by John was published. Of this no one can have any doubt who will compare the two together, or even the parallel passages referred to above, § 1. The Gospel is manifestly the original; and it was evidently presumed by the writer of the Epistle that the Gospel was in the hands.of those to whom he wrote. The statements there made are much more full; the circumstances in which many of the peculiar doctrine^ adverted to were first advanced are detailed; and the writer of the Epistle clearly supposed that all that was necessary in order to an understanding of these doctrines was to state them in the briefest manner, and almost by mere allusion. On this point Liicke well remarks: '; The more brief and condensed expression of the same sentiment by the same author, especially in regard to peculiarities of idea and language, is always the later one; the more extended statement, the unfolding of the idea, is an evidence of an earlier composition." Einleit., p. 21. Yet, while this is clear, it determines little or nothing about the time when the Epistle was written, for it is a matter of great uncertainty when the Gospel itself was composed. Wetstein supposes that it was soon after the ascension of the Saviour; Dr. Lardner that it was about the year G8; and Mill and Le Clerc that it was about the year 97. In this uncertainly, therefore, nothing can be determined absolutely from this circumstance in regard to the time of writing the Epistle. (3.) The only other note of time on which any reliance has been placed is the supposed fact that there were indications in the Epistle itself of the great age of the author, or evidences that he was an old man, and that consequently it was written near the close of the life of John. There is some evidence in the Epistle that it was written when the author was an old man, though none that he was in his dotage, as Eichhorn and some others have maintained. The evidence that he was even an old man is not positive, but there is a certain air and manner in the Epistle — in its repetitions, in its want of exact order, and especially in the style in which he addresses those to whom he wrote, as little children — rtKvia — (chap. ii. 1, 12, 28; iii. 7, 18; iv. 4; v. 21) — which would seem to be appropriate only to an aged man. Comp. Lucke, Einleit., p. 23, 24, and Prof. Stuart in Hug's Introd., p. 732, 733.

As little is known about the place where the Epistle was written as about the time. There are no local references in it; no allusions to persons or opinions which can help us to determine where it was written. As John spent the latter part of his life, however, in Ephesus and its vicinity, there is no impropriety in supposing that it was written there. Nothing in the interpretation of the Epistle depends on our being able to ascertain the place of its composition. Hug supposes that it was written in Patmos, and was sent as a letter accompanying his Gospel to the Church at Ephesus. Introd., § 69. Lucke supposes that it was a circular Epistle addressed to the churches in Asia Minor, and sent from Ephesus. Einleit., p. 27.

To whom the Epistle was written is also unknown. It bears no inscription, as many of the other Epistles of the New Testament do, and as even the second and third of John do, and there is no reference to any particular class of persons by which it can be determined for whom it was designed. Nor is it known why the name of the author was not attached to it, or why the persons for wrhom it was designed were not designated. All that can be determined on this subject from the Epistle itself is the following: (1.) It seems to have been addressed to no particular Church, but rather to have been of a circular character, designed for the churches in a region of country where certain dangerous opinions prevailed. (2.) The author presumed that it would be known who wrote it, either by the style, by the sentiments, by its resemblance to his other writings, or by the messenger who bore it, so that it was unnecessary to affix his name to it. (3.) It appears to have been so composed as to be adapted to any people where those errors prevailed; and hence it was thought better to give it a general direction, that all might feel themselves to be addressed, than to designate any particular place or Church. There is, indeed, an ancient tradition that it was written to the Parthians. Since the time of Augustine this has been the uniform opin&n in the Latin Church. Venerable Bede remarks that "many of the ecclesiastical writers, among whom is St. Athanasius, testify that the First Epistle of John was written to the Parthians." Various conjectures have been made as to the origin of this opinion, and of the title which the Epistle bears in many of the Latin MSS. {ad Parthos), but none of them are satisfactory. No such title is found in the Epistle itself, nor is there any intimation in it to whom it was directed. Those who are disposed to examine the conjectures which have been made in regard to the origin of the title may consult Lticke, Einleit., p. 28 seq. No reason can be assigned why it should have been sent to the Parthians, nor is there any sufficient evidence to suppose that it was.

§ 3. The Object of the Epistle.

It is evident from the Epistle itself that there were some prevailing errors among those to whom it was written, and that one design of the writer was to counteract those errors. Yet very various opinions have been entertained in regard to the nature of the errors that were opposed, and the persons whom the writer had in his eye. Lceffler supposes that Jews and Judaizers are the persons opposed; Semler, Tittman, Knapp, and Lange suppose that they were Jtidaizing Christians, and especially Ebionites, or apostate Christians;

Michaelis, Kleuker, Paulus, and others, suppose that the Gnostics are referred to; others, as Schmidt, Lilcke, Vitringa, Bertholdt, Prof. Stuart, suppose that the Docctai was the sect that was principally intended.

It is impossible now to determine with accuracy to whom particularly the writer referred, nor could it be well done without a more accurate knowledge than we now have of the peculiarities of the errors which prevailed in the time of the author, and among the people to whom he wrote. All that we can learn on the subject that is certain is to be derived from the Epistle itself, and there the intimations are few, but they are so clear that we may obtain some knowledge to guide us.

1. The persons referred to had been professing Christians, and were now apostates from the faith. This is clear from chap. ii. 19. " They went out from us, but they were not of us," etc. They had been members of the Church, but they had now become teachers of error.

2. They were probably of the sect of the Docetce; or, if that sect had not then formally sprung up, and was not organized, they held the opinions which that sect afterward embraced. That sect was a branch of the great Gnostic family, and the peculiarity of the opinion which they held was that Christ was only in appearance and seemingly, but not in reality, a man; that though/he seemed to converse, to eat, to suffer, and to die, yet this was merely an appearance assumed by the Son of God for important purposes in regard to man. He had, according to this view, no real humanity; but, though the Son of God had actually appeared in the world, all this was only an assumed form for the purpose of a manifestation to men. The opinions of the Docetes are thus represented by Mr. Gibbon: "They denied the truth and

authenticity of the Gospels, as far as they relate the conception of Mary, the birth of Christ, and the thirty years which preceded the first exercise of his ministry. He first appeared on the banks of the Jordan in the form of perfect manhood; but it was a form only, and not a substance; a human figure created by the hand of Omnipotence to imitate the faculties and actions of a man, and to impose a perpetual illusion on the senses of his friends and enemies. Articulate sounds vibrated on the ears of his disciples; but the image which was impressed on their optic nerve eluded the more stubborn evidence of the touch, and they enjoyed the spiritual, but not the corporeal presence of the Son of God. The rage of the Jews was idly wasted against an impassive phantom, and the mystic scenes of the*passion and death, the resurrection and ascension of Christ, were represented on the theatre of Jerusalem for the benefit of mankind." — Decline and Fall, vol. iii., p. 245, ed. New York,

That these views began to prevail in the latter part of the first century there can be no reason to doubt, and there can be as little doubt that the author of this Epistle had this doctrine in his eye, and that he deemed it to be of special importance in this Epistle, as he had done in his Gospel, to show that the Son of God had actually come in the flesh; that he was truly and properly a man; that he lived and died in reality, and not in appearance only. Hence the allusion to these views in such passages as the following: ' ' That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life — that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you. " Chap. i. 1, 3. "Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know we the spirit of God. Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God; and this is that spirit of Antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come." Chap. iv. 1-3. Comp. vs. 9, 14, 15; v. 1, 6, 10, 11, 12. John had written his Gospel to show that Jesus was the

Christ (chap. xx. 31); he had furnished ample proof that he was divine, or was equal with the Father (chap. i. 1-14), and also that he was truly a man (chap. xv. 25-28); but still it seemed proper to furnish a more unequivocal statement that he had actually appeared in the flesh, not in appearance only, but in reality, and this purpose evidently was a leading design of this Epistle.

The main scope of the Epistle the author has himself stated in chap. v. 1 3: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God;" that is, that you may have just views of him, and exercise an intelligenffaith.

In connection with this general design, and keeping in view the errors to which they to whom the Epistle was written were exposed, there are two leading trains of thought, though often intermingled, in the Epistle, (a) The author treats of the doctrine that Jesus is the Christ; and (b) of the importance of love as an evidence of being united to him, or of being true Christians. Both these things are characteristic of John; they agree with the design for which he wrote his Gospel, and they are in accordance with his peculiarity of mind as "the beloved disciple" — the disciple whose heart was full of love, and who made religion consist so much in love.

The main characteristics of this Epistle are these: (1.) It is full of love. The writer dwells on it; places it in a variety of attitudes; enforces the duty of loving one another by a great variety of considerations, and shows that it is essential to the very nature of religion. (2.) The Epistle abounds with statements on the evidences of piety, or the characteristics of true religion. The author seems to have felt that those to whom he wrote were in danger of embracing false notions of religion, and of being seduced by the abettors of error. He is therefore careful to lay down the characteristics of real piety, and to show in what it essentially consists. A large part of the Epistle is occupied with this, and there is perhaps no portion of the New Testament which one could study to more advantage who is desirous of ascertaining whether he himself is a true Christian. An anxious inquirer, a man who wishes to know what true religion is, could be directed to no portion of the New Testament where he would more readily find the instruction that he needs, than to this portion of the writings of the aged and experienced disciple whom Jesus loved. A true Christian can find nowhere else a more clear statement of the nature of his religion, and of the evidences of real piety, than in this Epistle.

THAT which was from the a beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen'6 with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have c handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the Life was manifested,

This short chapter emb races the following subjects: I. A strong affirmation that the Son of God, or the "Life," had appeared in the flesh. Ver. 1-3. The evidence of this, the writer says, was that he had seen him, heard him, handled him; that is, he had had all the evidence which could be furnished by the senses. His declaration on this point he repeats by putting the statement into a variety of forms, for he seems to regard it as essential to true religion. II. He says that he wrote to them, in order that they might have fellowship with him in the belief of this truth, and might partake of the joy which flows from the doctrine that the Son of God has actually come in the flesh. Vs. 3, 4. III. He states that the sum and substance of the whole message which he had to bring to them was that God is light, and that if we profess to have fellowship with him we must walk in the light. Ver. 5-10. (a) In God is no darkness, no impurity, no sin. Ver. 5. (b) If we are in darkness, if we are ignorant and sinful, it proves that we can not have any fellowship with him. Ver. 6. (c) If we walk in the light as he is in the light; if we partake of his character and spirit, then we shall have fellowship one with another, and we may believe that the blood of Christ will cleanse us from all sin. Ver. 7. (d) We are to guard ourselves from one point of danger. We are not to allow ourselves to feel that we have no sin. We are to bear with us the constant recollection that we are sinners, and are to permit that fact to produce its proper impression on our minds. Vs. 8, 10. (e) Yet we are not to be desponding though we do feel this, but are to remember that if we will truly confess our sins he will be found faithful to his promises, and just to the general arrangements of grace by which our sins may be forgiven. Ver. 9.

1. That which was from the beginning. There can be no doubt that the reference here is to the Lord Jesus Christ, or the "Word" that was made flesh. See Notes on John i. 1. This is such language as John would use respecting him, and indeed the phrase "the beginning," as applicable to the Lord Jesus, is peculiar to John in the writings of the New Testament, and the language here may be regarded as one proof that this Epistle was written by him, for it is just such an expression as he would use, but not such as one would be likely to adopt who should attempt to palm off his own writings as those of John. One who should have attempted that would have been likely to introduce the name John in the beginning of the Epistle,or in some way to have claimed his authority. The apostle, in speaking of "that which was from the beginning," uses a word in the neuter gender instead of the masculine (o). It is not to be supposed, I think, that he meant to apply this term directly to the Son of God, for if he had he would have used the masculine pronoun; but though he had the Son of God in view, and meant to make a strong affirmation respecting him, yet the particular thing here referred to was this: whatever there was respecting that incarnate Saviour that furnished testimony to any of the senses, or that pertained to his character and doctrine, he had borne witness to. He was looking rather at the evidence that he was incarnate — at the proofs that he was manifested; and lie says that those proofs had been subjected to the trial of the senses, and he had borne witness to them, and now did it again. This is what is referred to, it seems to me, by the phrase "that which" (o). The sense may be this: " Whatever there was respecting the Word of life, or him who is the living Word, the incarnate Son of God, from the very beginning, from the time when he was first manifested in the flesh; whatever there was respecting his exalted nature, his dignity, his character, that could be subjected to the testimony of the senses, to be the object of sight, or hearing, or touch, that I was permitted to see, and that I declare to you respecting him." John claims to be a competent witness in reference to every thing which occurred as a manifestation of what the Son of God was. If this be the correct interpretation, then the phrase "from the beginning" (d7r' apxvs) does not here refer to his eternity, or his being in the beginning of all things, as the phrase "in the beginning" (h apxv) does in John i. 1; but rather means from the very commencement of his manifestation as the Son of God — the very first indications on earth of what he was as the Messiah. When the writer says (ver. 3) that he "declares" this to them, it seems to me that he has not reference merely to what he would say in this Epistle, for he does not go extensively into it here, but that he supposes that they had his Gospel in their possession, and that he also means to refer to that, or presumes that they were familiar with the testimony which he had borne in that Gospel respecting the evidence that the "Word was made flesh." Many have indeed supposed that this Epistle accompanied the Gospel when it was published, and was either a part of it that became subsequently detached from it, or was a letter that accompanied it. See Hug, Introd., P. II., § 68. There is, it seems to me, no certain evidence of that; but no one can doubt that he supposed that those to whom he wrote had access to that Gospel, and that he refers here to the testimony which he had borne in that respecting the incarnate Word. II Which we have heard. John was with the Saviour through the whole of his ministry, and he has recorded more that the Saviour said than either of the other Evangelists. It is on what hesaid! of himself that he grounds much of the evidence that he was the Son of God. \\ Which we have seen with our eyes. That is, pertaining to his person, and to what he did. "I have seen him; I have seen what he was as a man; I have seen how he appeared on earth; and I have seen whatever there was in his works to indicate his character and origin." John professes here to have seen enough in this respect to furnish evidence that he was the Son of God. It is not hearsay on which he relies, but he had the testimony of his own eyes in the case. Comp. Notes on 2 Pet. i. 16. Tf Which we have looked upon. The word here used seems designed to be more emphatic or intensive than the one before occurring. He had just said that he had "seen him with his eyes," but he evidently designs to include an idea in this word which would imply something more than mere beholding or seeing. The additional idea which is couched in this word seems to be that of desire or pleasure; that is, that he had looked on him with desire or satisfaction, or with the pleasure with which one beholds a beloved object. Comp. Matt, xi. 7; Luke vii. 24; John i. 14; x. 45. See Rob., Lex. There was an intense and earnest gaze, as when we behold one whom we have desired to see, or when one goes out purposely to look on an object. The evidences of the incarnation of the Son of God had been subjected to such an intense and earnest gaze. If And our hands have handled. That is, the evidence that he was a man was subjected to the sense of touch. It was not merely that he had been seen by the eye, for then it might be pretended that this was a mere appearance assumed without reality, or that what occurred might have been a mere optical illusion; but the evidence that he appeared in the flesh was subjected to more senses that one— to the fact that his voice was heard; that he was seen with the eyes; that the most intense scrutiny had been employed; and, lastly, thathehadbeen actually touched and handled, showing that it could not have been a mere appearance — an assumed form — but that it was a reality, This kind of proof that the Son of God had appeared in the flesh, or that he was truly and properly a man, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal Life, "which was with the is repeatedly referred to in the New Testament. Luke xxiv. 39: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." Comp. John xx. 25-27. There is manifest allusion here to the opinion which early prevailed, which was held by the Docetes, that the Son of God did not truly and really become a man, but that there was only an appearance assumed, or that he seemed to be a man. See the Introd., § 3. It was, evidently, with reference to this opinion that the apostle dwells on this point, and repeats the idea so much, and shows by a reference to all the senses which could take any cognizance in the case that he was truly and properly a man. The amount of it is, that we have the same evidence that he was properly a man which we can have in the case of any other human being: the evidence on which we constantly act, and in which we can not believe that our senses deceive us. H Of the Word of life. Inspecting, or pertaining to, the Word of life. "That is, whatever there waspertaining to the Word of life which was manifested from the beginning in his speech and actions, of which the senses could take cognizance, and which would furnish the evidence that he was truly incarnate, that we have declared unto you." The phrase " the Word of life" means the Word in which life resided, or which was the source and fountain of life. See Notes on John i. 1, 3. The reference is undoubtedly to the Lord Jesus Christ.

2. For the Life was manifested. Was made manifest or visible nnto us. He who was the Life was made known to men by the incarnation. He appeared among men so that they could see him and hear him. Though originally with God, and dwelling with him (John i. 1, 2), yet he came forth and appeared among men. Comp. Notes on Rom. i. 3; 1 Tim. iii. 16. He is the great source of all life, and he appeared on the earth, and we had an opportunity of seeing and knowing what he was. y And we have seen it. This repetition, or turning over

Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3 That which we have seen and the thought, is designed to express the idea with emphasis, and is much in the manner of John. See John i. 1-3. He is particularly desirous of impressing on them the idea that he had been a personal witness of what the Saviour was, having had every opportunity of knowing it from long and familiar intercourse with him. H And bear witness. We testify in regard to it. John was satisfied that his own character was such that credit would be given to what he said. He felt that he was known to be a man of truth, and hence he never doubts that faith would be put in all his statements. See John xix. 35; xxi. 24; Rev. i. 2, 3; 3 John 12. HAnd show unto yon that eternal Life. That is, we declare unto you what that Life was — what was the nature and rank of him who was the Life, and how he appeared when on earth. He here attributes eternity to the Son of God — implying that he had alwrays been with the Father. If Which was with the Father. Always before the manifestation on the earth. See John i. 1: "The Word was with God." This passage demonstrates the pre-existence of the Son of God, and proves that he was eternal. Before he was manifested on earth he had an existence to which the word Life could be applied, and that was eternal. He is the Author of eternal life to us. TI And was manifested unto us. In the flesh; as a man. He who was the Life appeared unto men. The idea of John evidently is, (1) That the being here referred to was forever with God; (2.) That it was proper before the incarnation that the word Life should be given to him as descriptive of his nature; (3.) That there was a manifestation of him who was thus called Life on earth; that he appeared among men; that he had a real existence here, and not a merely assumed appearance; and (4) That the true characteristics of this incarnate being could be borne testimony to by those who had seen him, and who had been long with him. This second verse should be regarded as a parenthesis.

3. That which wc have seen a?id heard declare we unto you. We announce it, or make it known unto you— referring either to what he proposes to say in this Epistle, or more probably embracing all that he had written respecting him, and supposing that his Gospel was in their hands. He means to call their attention to all the testimony which he had borne on the subject, in order to counteract the errors which began to prevail. 1] That ye may have fellowship with us. With us the apostles; with us who actually saw him and conversed with him. That is, he wished that they might have the same belief, the same hope, and the same joy which hehimself had, arising from the fact that the Son of God had become incarnate, and had appeared among men. To " have fellowship" means to have any thing in common with others; to partake of it; to share it with them (see Notes on Acts ii. 42); and the idea here is, that the apostle wished that they might share with him all the peace and happiness which resulted from the fact that the Son of God had appeared in human form in behalf of men. The object of the apostle in what he wrote was that they might have the same views of the Saviour which he had, and partake of the same hope and joy. This is the true notion offellowship in religion. ^ And truly our fellowship is with the Father. With God the Father. That is, there was something in common with him and God; something of which he and God partook together, and which they shared. This can not, of course, mean that his nature was the same as that of God, or that in all things he shared with God, or that in any thing was he equal with God; but it means that he partook, in some respects, of the feelings, the views, the aims, the joys whicli God has. There was a union in feeling, in affection, in desire, and in plan, and this was to him a source of joy. He had an attachment to the same things, loved the same truth, desired the same objects, and was engaged in the same work; and the consciousness of this, and the joy which attended it, is what is meant by fellowship. Comp. Notes on 1 Cor. x. 16; 2 Cor. xii. 14. The fellowship which Christians have with God relates to the following points: (1.) Attachment to the same truths and the same objects; love for the same principles and the same beings. (2.) |

The same kind of happiness, though not in the same degree. The happiness of God is found in holiness, truth, purity, justice, mercy, benevolence. The happiness of the Christian is of the same kind that God has; the same kind that augels have; the same kind that he will himself have in heaven— for the joy of heaven is only that which the Christian has now, expanded to the utmost capacity of the soul, freed from all that now interferes with it, and prolonged to eternity. (3.) Employment, or cooperation with God. There is a sphere in which God works alone, and in which we can have no co-operation, no fellowship with him. In the work of creation; in upholding all things; in. the government of the universe; in the transmission of light from world to world; in the return of the seasons, the rising and setting of the sun, the storms, the tides, the flight of the comet, we can have no joint agency, no co-operation with him. There God works alone. But there is also a large sphere in which he admits us graciously to a co-operation with him, and in which, unless we work, his agency will not be put forth. This is seen when the farmer sows his grain; when the surgeon binds up a wound; when we take the medicine which God has appointed as a means of restoration to health. So in the moral world. In our efforts to save our own souls and the souls of others, God graciously works with us, and unless we work, the object is not accomplished. This co-operation is referred to in such passages as these: " We are laborers together (crwipyoi) with God," 1 Cor. iii. 9. " The Lord working with them," Mark xvi. 20. " We then as workers together with him," 2Cor.vi.l. "That we might be fellow-helpers to the truth," 3 John 8. In all such cases, while the efficiency is of God — alike in exciting us to effort, and in crowning the effort with success — it is still true that if our efforts are not put forth the work will not be done. In this department God would not work by himself alone; he would not secure the result by miracle. (4.) We have fellowship with God by direct communion with him, in prayer, in meditation, and in the ordinances of religion. Of this all true Christians are sensible, and this constitutes no

heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship a is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

4 And these things write we unto you, that6 our joy may be full.

5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare

small part of their peculiar joy. The nature of this, and the happiness resulting from it, is much of the same nature as the communion of friend with friend — of one mind with another kindred mind — that to which we owe no small part of our happiness in this world. (5.) The Christian will have fellowship with his God and Saviour in the triumphs of the latter day, when the scenes of the judgment shall occur, and when the Redeemer shall reappear that he may be admired and adored by assembled worlds. Comp. Notes on 2 Thess. i. 10. See also Matt. xix. 28; Rev. iii. 21. \And with Jiis Son Jesus Christ. That is, in like manner there is much which we have in common with the Saviour— in character, in feeling, in desire, in spirit, in plan. There is a union with him in these things, and the consciousness of this gives peace and joy.

4.. And these things write we unto you. These things respecting him who was manifested in the flesh, and respectin"; the results which flow from that. 1 That our joy may be full. This is almost the same language which the Saviour used when addressing his disciples as he was about to leave them (John xv. 11), and there can be little doubt that John had that declaration in remembrance when he uttered this remark. See Notes on that passage. The sense here is, that full and clear views of the Lord Jesus, and the fellowship with him and with each other which would follow from that, would be a source of happiness. Their joy would be complete if they had that, for their real happiness was to be found in their Saviour. The best editions of the Greek Testament now, instead of the common reading "our joy," read "your joy."

5. This then is the message which toe have heard of him. This is the substance of the announcement (lirayyt- \ia) which we have received of him, or which he made to us. The message here refers to what he communicated us the sum of the revelation which he made to man. The phrase " of him "

(«7r' uvtou) does not mean respecting him, or about him, but from him; that is, this is what we received from his preaching; from all that he said. The peculiarity, the substance of all that he said, may be summed up in the declaration that God is light, and in the consequences which follow from this doctrine. He came as the messenger of him who is Light; he came to inculcate and defend the truths which flow from that central doctrine, in regard to sin, to the danger and duty of man, to the way of recovery, and to the rules by which men ought to live. 1f That God is light. Light, in the Scriptures, is the emblem of purity, truth, knowledge, prosperity, and happiness, as darkness is of the opposite. John here says that "God islighV {(pthi) — not the light, or a light, but light itself; that is, he is himself all light, and is the source and fountain of light in all worlds. He is perfectly pure, without any admixture of sin. He has all knowledge, with no admixture of ignorance on any subject. He is infinitely happy, with nothing to make him miserable. He is infinitely true, never stating or countenancing error; he is blessed in all his ways, never knowing the darkness of disappointment and adversity. Comp. Notes on James i. 17; John i. 4, 5; 1 Tim. vi". 16. ^ And in him is no darkness at all. This language is much in the manner of John, not only affirming that a thing is so, but guarding it so that no mistake could possibly be made as to what he meant. Comp. John i. 1-3. The expression here is designed to affirm that God is absolutely perfect; that there is nothing in him which is in any way imperfect, or which would dim or mar the pure splendor of his character — not even as much as the smallest spot would on the sun. The language is probably designed to guard the mind from an error to which it is prone — that of charging God with being the author of the sin and misery which exist on the earth; and the apostle evidently intends to teach that what-

unto you, that God is light," and in him is no darkness at all.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in

darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

7 But if we walk b in the light, as he is in the light, we have fel-

ever is the source of sin and misery, it is not in any sense to be charged on God. This doctrine that God is a pure Light, John lays down as the substance of all that he had to teach; of all that he had learned from him who was made flesh. It is, in fact, the fountain of all just views of truth on the subject of religion, and all proper views of religion take their origin from this.

6. If we say that we have fellowship with him. If we reckon ourselves among his friends, or, in other words, if we profess to be like him; for a profession of religion involves the idea of having felloicship with God (comp. Notes on ver. 3), and he who professes that should be like him. If And walk in darkness. Live in sin and error. To "walk in darkness" now commonly denotes to be in doubt about our religious state, in contradistinction from living in the enjoyment of religion. That is not, however, probably the whole idea here. The leading thought is, that if we live in sin, it is a proof that our profession of religion is false. Desirable as it is to have the comforts of religion, yet it is not always true that, they who do not are not true Christians, nor is it true by any means that they intend to deceive the world. IT We lie. We are false professors; we are deceived if we think that we can have fellowship with God and yet live in the practice of sin. As God is pure, so must we be, if we would be his friends. This does not mean necessarily that they meant to deceive, but that there was an irreconcilable contradiction between a life of sin and fellowship with God. 1 And do not the truth. Do not act truly. The profession is a false one. Comp. Notes on John iii. 22. To do the truth is to act in accordance with truth, and the expression here means that such a one could not be a Christian. And yet, how many there are who are living in known sin who profess to be Christians! How many there are whose minds are dark on the whole subject of religion — who have never known any thing of the real peace and joy which it imparts — who nevertheless entertain the belief that they are the friends of God, and are going to heaven! They trust in a name, in forms, in conformity to external rites, and have never known any thing of the internal peace and purity which religion imparts, and in fact have never had any true fellowship with that God who is light, and in whom there is no darkness at all. Religion is light; religion is peace, purity, joy; and though there are cases where for a time a true Christian may be left to darkness, and have no spiritual joy, and be in doubt about his salvation, yet still it is a great truth that unless we know by personal experience what it is to walk habitually in the light, to have the comforts of religion, and to experience in our own souls the influences which make the heart pure, and which bring us into conformity to the God who is light, we can have no true piety. All else is but a name, which will not avail us on the final day.

7. But if we walk in the light. Comp. Notes on ver. 5. Walking in the light may include the three following things: (1.) Leading lives of holiness and purity; that is, the Christian must be characteristically a holy man, a light in the world by his example; (2.) Walking in the truth; that is, embracing the truth in opposition to all error of heathenism and infidelity, and having clear, spiritual views of truth, such as the unrenewed never have (see 2 Cor. iv.-6; 1 Cor. ii. 9-15; Eph. i. 18); (3.) Enjoying the comforts of religion; that is, having the joy which religion is fitted to impart, and which it does impart to its true friends. Psa, xciv. 19; Isa. lvii. 8; 2 Cor. i.3; xiii. 11. Compare Notes on John xii. 35. ^ As he is in the light. In the same kind of light that he has. The measure of light which we may have is not the same in degree, but it is of the same kind. The true Christian in his character and feelings resembles God. If We have fellowship one with another. As we all partake of his feelings and views, we shall resemble each other.

lowship one with another, and the blood" of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, 6 we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Loving the same God, embracing the same views of religion, and living for tlic same ends, we shall of course have much that is common to us all, and thus shall have fellowship with each other. H And the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. See the sentiment here expressed fully explained in the Notes on Heb. ix. 14. When it is said that his blood cleanses us from all sin, the expression must mean one of two things — either that it is through that blood that all past sin is forgiven, or that that blood will Ultimately purity us from all transgression, and make us perfectly holy. The general meaning is plain that, in regard to any and every sin of which we may be conscious, there is efficacy in that blood to remove it, and to make us wholly pure. There is no stain made by sin so deep that the blood of Christ can not take it entirely away from the soul. The connection here, or the reason why this is introduced here, seems to be this: The apostle is stating the substance of the message which he had received. Ver. 5. The first or leading part of it was that God is light, and in him is no darkness, and that his religion requires that all his friends should resemble him by their walking in the light. Another, and a material part of the same message, was that provision was made in his religion for cleansing the soul from sin, and making it like God. No system of religion intended for man could be adapted to his condition which did not contain this provision, and this did contain it in the most full and ample manne:\ Of course, however, it is meant that that blood cleanses from all sin only on the conditions on which its efficacy can be made available to man— by repentance for the past, and by a cordial reception of the Saviour through faith.

8. If we say that ice have no sin. It is not improbable that the apostle here makes allusion to some error which was then beginning to prevail in the Church. Some have supposed that the allusion is to the sect of the Nicolaitancs, and to the views which they maintained, particularly that nothing was forbidden to the children of God under the Gospel, and that in the freedom conferred on Christians they were at liberty to do what they pleased. See Notes on Rev. ii. 6, 15. It is not certain, however, that the allusion is to them, and it is not necessary to suppose that there is reference to any particular sect.that existed at that time. The object of the apostle is to show that it is implied in the very nature of the Gospel that we are sinners, and that if, on any pretense, we denied that fact, we utterly deceived ourselves. In all ages there have been those who have attempted, on some pretense, to justify their conduct; who have felt that they did not need a Saviour; who have maintained that they had a right to do what the}' pleased; or who, on pretense of being perfectly sanctified, have affirmed that they were able to live without the commission of sin. To meet these, and all similar cases, the apostle affirms that it is a great elementary truth, which on no pretense is to be denied, that we are all sinners. We are at all times and in all circumstances to admit the painful and humiliating truth that we are transgressors of the law of God, and that we need, even in our best services, the cleansing of the blood of Jesus Christ. The fair interpretation of the declaration here will apply not only to those who maintain that they have not been guilty of sin in the past, but also to those who profess to have become perfectly sanctified, and to live without sin. In any and every way, if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. Comp. Notes on James iii. 2. H We deceive ourselves. We have wrong views about our character. This does not mean that the self-deception is willful, but that it in fact exists. No man knows himself who supposes that in all respects he is perfectly pure. H And the truth is not in us. On this subject. A man who should maintain that he had never committed sin could have no just views of the truth in regard to himself, and would show that ho was in utter error. In like manner, according to the obvious interpretation of

9 If we confess a our sins, lie is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse h us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

this passage, he who maintains that he is wholly sanctified, and lives without any sin, shows that he is deceived in regard to himself, and that the truth, in this respect, is not in him. He may hold the truth on other subjects, but he does not on this. The very nature of the Christian religion supposes that we feel ourselves to be sinners, and that we should be ever ready to acknowledge it. A man who claims that he is absolutely perfect, that he is holy as God is holy, must know little of his own heart. Who, after all his reasoning on the subject, would dare to go out under the open heaven at midnight, and lift up his hands and his eyes toward the stars, and say that he had no sin to confess — that he was as pure as the God that made those stars? Comp. Notes on Job xxv. 3-6.

9. If we confess our sins. Pardon, in the Scriptures, always supposes that there is confession, and there is no promise that it will be imparted unless a full acknowledgment of guilt has been made. Comp. Psa. li.; xxxii.; Luke xv. 18, seq.; vii. 41, seq.; Prov. xxviii. 13. 1 He is faithful. To his promises. He will do what he has assured us he will do in remitting our sins. H And just to forgive us our sins. The word just here can not be used in a strict and proper sense, since the forgiveness of sins is never an act of justice, but is an act of mercy. If it were an act of justice, it could be demanded or enforced, and that is the same as to say that it is not forgiveness, for in that case there could have been no sin to be pardoned. But the word just is often used in a larger sense, as denoting upright, equitable, acting properly in the circumstances of the case, etc. Compare Notes on Matt. i. 19. Here the word may be used in one of the following senses: (1.) Either as referring to his general excellence of character, or his disposition to do what is proper; that is, he is one who will act in every way as becomes God; or (2) that he will be just in the sense that he will be true to his promises; or that, since he has promised to pardon sinners, he will be found faithfully to adhere to those engagements; or perhaps (3) that he will be just to his Son in the covenant of redemption, since, now that an atonement has been made by him, and a way has been opened through his sufferings by which God can consistently pardon, and with a view and an understanding that he might and would pardon, it would be an act of injustice to Mm if he did not pardon those who believe in him. Viewed in either aspect, we may have the fullest assurance that God is ready to pardon us if we exercise true repentance and faith. No one can come to God without finding him ready to do all that is appropriate for a God to do in pardoning transgressors; no one who will not, in fact, receive forgiveness if he repent, and believe, and make confession; no one who will not find that God is just to his Son in the covenant of redemption, in pardoning and saving all who put their trust in the merits of his sacrifice. H And to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. By forgiving all that is past, treating us as if we were righteous, and ultimately by removing all the stains of guilt from the soul.

10. If we say that we have not sinned. In times that are past. Some perhaps might be disposed to say this, and as the apostle is careful to guard every point, he here states that if a man should take the ground that his past life had been wholly upright, it would prove that he had no true religion. The statement here respecting the past seems to prove that when, in ver. 8, he refers to the present — "if we say yvahaveno sin" — he meant to say that if a man should claim to be perfect, or to be wholly sanctified, it would demonstrate that he deceived himself; and the two statements go to prove that neither in reference to the past nor the present can any one lay claim to perfection. T[ We make him a liar. Because he has every where affirmed the depravity of all the race. See Notes on Rom. i., ii., iii. On no point have his declarations been more positive and uniform than on the fact of the universal sinfulness of man. Comp. Gen. vi. 11, 12; Job xiv. 4; xv. 16; Psa. xiv. 1, 2, 3; li. 5; lviii. 3; Rom. iii. 9-20; Gal. iii. 21. If And his word is not in its. His truth; that is, we have no true religion. The whole sj'stem of Christianity is based on the fact that man is a fallen being, and needs a Saviour; and unless a man admit that, of course he can not be a Christian.

(1.) The importance of the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God. Vs. 1,2. On that doctrine the apostle lays great stress; he begins his Epistle with it; he presents it in a great variety of forms; he dwells upon it as if he would not have it forgotten or misunderstood. It has all the importance which he attached to it, for (a) it is the most wonderful of all the events of which we have any knowledge; (b) it is the most deeply connected with our welfare.

(2.) The intense interest which true piety always takes in this doctrine. Vs. 1, 2. The feelings of John on the subject are substantially the feelings of all true Christians. The world passes it by in unbelief, or as if it were of no importance; but no true Christian can look at the fact that the Son of God became incarnate but with the deepest emotion.

(3.) It is an object of ardent desire with true Christians that all others should share their joys. Vs. 3, 4. There is nothing selfish, narrow, or exclusive in true religion, but every sincere Christian who is happy desires that all others should be happy too.

(4.) Wherever there is true fellowship with God, there is with all real Christians. Vs. 3, 4. There is but one Church, one family of God; and as all Christians have fellowship with God, they must have with each other.

(5.) Wherever there is true fellowship with Christians, there is with God himself. Vs. 3, 4. If we love his people, share their joys, labor with them in promoting his cause, and love the things which they love, we shall show that we love him. There is but one God, and one Church; and if all the members love each other, they will love their common God and Saviour. Evidence, therefore, that we love Christians becomes evidence that we love God.

(6.) It is a great privilege to be a Christian. Vs. 3, 4. If we are Christians, we are associated with (a) God the Father; (b) with his Son Jesus Christ; (c) with all his redeemed on earth and in heaven; (d) with all holy angels. There is one bond of fellowship that unites all together; and what a privilege it is to be united in the eternal bonds of friendship with all the holy minds in the universe!

(7.) If God is light (ver. 5), then all that occurs is reconcilable with the idea that he is worthy of confidence. What he does may seem to be dark to us, but we may be assured that it is all light with him. A cloud may come between us and the sun, but beyond the cloud the sun shines with undimmed splendor, and soon the cloud itself will pass away. At midnight it is dark to us, but it is not because the sun is shotn of his beams, or is extinguished. He will rise again upon our hemisphere in the fullness of his glory, and all the darkness of the cloud and of midnight is reconcilable with the idea that the sun is a bright orb, and that in him is no darkness at all. So with God. We may be under a cloud of sorrow and of trouble, but above that the glory of God shines with splendor, and soon that cloud will pass away, and reveal him in the fullness of his beauty and truth. Light, too, often shines on the "fringes" of that cloud itself, showing what is above and beyond.

(8.) We should, therefore, at all times exercise a cheerful confidence in God. Ver. 5. Who supposes that the sun is never again to shine when the cloud passes over it, or when the shades of midnight have settled down upon the world? We confide in that sun that it will shine again when the cloud has passed off, and when the shades of night have been driven away. So let us confide in God, for with more absolute certainty we shall yet see him to be light, for we shall come to a world where there is no cloud.

(9.) We may look cheerfully onward to heaven. Ver. 5. There all is light. There we shall see God as he is. Well may we, then, bear with our darkness a little longer, for soon we shall be ushered into an abode where there is no need of the sun or the stars; where there is no darkness, no night.

(10.) Religion is elevating in its nature. Vs. 6, 7. It brings us from a world of darkness to a world of light. It scatters the rays of light on a thousand dark subjects, and gives promise that all that is now obscure will yet become clear as noonday. Wherever there is true religion the mind emerges more and more into light; the scales of ignorance and error pass away.

(11.) There is no sin so great that it may not be removed by the blood of the atonement. Ver. 7, last clause. That blood has shown its efficacy in the pardon of all the great sinners who have applied to it, and its efficacy is as great now as it was when it was applied to the first sinner that was saved. No one, therefore, however great his sins, need hesitate about applying to the blood of the cross, or fear that his sins are so great that they can not be taken away.

(12.) The Christian will yet be made wholly pure. Ver. 7, last clause. It is of the nature of that blood which the Redeemer shed that it ultimately cleanses the soul entirely from sin. The prospect before the true Christian that he will become perfectly holy is absolute, and whatever else may befall him, he is sure that he will yet be holy as God is holy.

(13.) There is no use in attempting to conceal our offenses. Ver. 8. They are known, all known, to one Being, and they will at some future period all be disclosed. We can not hope to evade punishment by hiding them; we can not hope for impunity because we suppose they may be passed over as if unobserved. No man can escape on the presumption either that his sins are unknown or that they are unworthy of notice.

(14.) It is manly to make confession when we have sinned. Vs. 9, 10. All the meanness was in doing the wrong, not in confessing it; what we should be ashamed of is that we are guilty, not that confession is to be made. When a wrong has been done, there is no noblenessln trying to conceal it; and as there is no nobleness in such an attempt, so there- could be no safety.

(15.) Peace of mind, when wrong has been done, can be found only in confession. Vs. 9, 10. That is what nature prompts to when we have done wrong, if we would find peace, and that the religion of the Gospel demands. When a man has done wrong, the least that he can do is to make confession; and when that is done, and the wrong is pardoned, all is done that can be to restore peace to the soul.

(16.) The ease of salvation. Ver. 9. What more easy terms of salvation could we desire than an acknowledgment of our sins? No painful sacrifice is demanded; no penance, pilgrimage, or voluntary scourging; all that is required is that there should be an acknowledgment of sin at the foot of the cross, and if this is done with a true heart the offender will be saved. If a man is not willing to do this, why should he be saved V How can he be?

The subjects which are introduced into this chapter are the following:

I. A statement of the apostle that the great object which he had in writing to them was that they should not sin, and yet if they sinned, and were conscious that they were guilty before God, that they should not despair, for they had an Advocate with the Father who had made propitiation for the sins of the world. Vs. 1, 2. This is properly a continuation of what he had said in the close of the previous chapter, and should not have been separated from that. II. The evidence that we know God, or that we are his true friends, is to be found in the fact that we keep his commandments. Ver. 3-6. HI. The apostle says that what he had been saying was no new commandment, but was what they had always heard concerning the nature of the Gospel; but though in this respect the law of love which he meant particularly to enforce was no new commandment— none which they had not heard before—yet in another respect it was a new commandment, for it was one which in its peculiarity was originated by the Saviour, and which lie meant to make the characteristic of his religion. Ver. 7-11. A large part of the Epistle is taken up in explaining and enforcing this commandment requiring love to the brethren. IV. The apostle specifies (ver. 12-14) various reasons why he had written to them — reasons derived from the pecul-

Y little children, these things write rI unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate a with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

iar character of different classes among them: little children, fathers, young men. V. Each of these classes he solemnly commands notto love the world, or the things that are in the world, for that which constitutes the peculiarity of the "world" as such is not "of the Father," and all "that there is in the world is soon to pass away." Ver. 15-17. VI. He calls their attention to the fact that the closing dispensation of the world had come. Ver. 18- 20. The evidence of this was that Antichrist had appeared. VII. He calls their attention to the characteristics of Antichrist. The essential thing would be that Antichrist would deny that Jesus was the Christ, involving a practical denial of both the Father and the Son. Persons of this character were abroad, and they were in great danger of being seduced by their arts from the way of truth and duty. Ver. 21-26. VIII. The apostle, in the close of the chapter (ver. 27- 29), expresses the belief that they would not be seduced, but that they had an anointing from above which would keep them from the arts of those who would lead them astray. He earnestly exhorts them to abide in God the Saviour, that when he should appear they might have confidence, and not be ashamed at his coming;.

1. My little children. TsKvia fxov. This is such language as an aged apostle would be likely to use when addressing a Church, and its use in this Epistle may be regarded as one evidence that John had reached an advanced period of life when he wrote the Epistle. H These things write I unto you. To wit, the things stated in chap. i. 1 That ye sin not. To keep you from sin, or to induce you to lead a holy life. 1[ And if any man sin. As all arc liable to do with hearts as corrupt as ours, and amid the temptations of a world like this. This, of course, does not imply that it is proper or right to sin, or that Christians should have no concern about it; but the meaning is that all are liable to sin, and when we are conscious of sin the mind should not yield to despondency and despair. It might be supposed, perhaps, that if one sinned after baptism, or after being converted, there could be no forgiveness. The apostle designs to guard against any such supposition, and to show that the atonement made by the Redeemer had respect to all kinds of sin, and that under the deepest consciousness of guilt and of personal unworthiness we may feel that we have an Advocate on high. H We have an Advocate with the Father. God only can forgive sin, and though we have no claim on him, yet there is one with him who can plead our cause, and on whom we can rely to manage our interests there. The word rendered advocate (7ra/oa«rX>)T09 — paraclete) is elsewhere applied to the Holy Spirit, and is in every other place where it occurs in the New Testament rendered Comforter. John xiv. 16, 26; xv. 26; xvi. 7. On the meaning of the word, see Notes on John xiv. 16. As used with reference to the Holy Spirit (John xiv. 16, et al.), it is employed in the more general sense of helper, or aid, and the particular manner in which the Holy Spirit aids ns may be seen stated in the Notes on John xiv. 16. As usual here with reference to the Lord Jesus, it is employed in the more limited sense of the word advocate, as the word is frequently used in the Greek writers to denote an advocate in court; that is, one whom we call to our aid, or to stand by ^ls, to defend our suit. When it is applied to the Lord Jesus, the language is evidently figurative, since there can be no literal pleading for us in heaven; but it is expressive of the great truth that he has undertaken our cause with God, and that he performs for us all that we expect of an advocate and counselor. It is not to be supposed, however, that he manages our cause in the same way, or on the same principles on which an advocate in a human tribunal does. An advocate in court is employed to defend his client. He does not begin by admitting his guilt, or in any way basing his plea on the conceded fact that he is guilty; his proper business is to show that he is not guilty, or if he be proved to be so, to sec that no injustice shall

2 And lie is the propitiation ° for our sins: and not for ours only,

but also for the sins of the whole

be done him. The proper business of an advocate in a human court, therefore, embraces two things: (1.) To show that his client is not guilty in the form and manner charged on him. This he may do in one of two ways, either (a) by showing that he did not do the act charged on him, as when he is charged with murder, and can prove an alibi, or show that he was not present at the time the murder was committed; or (b) by proving that he had a right to do the deed —as, if he is charged with murder, he may admit the fact of the killing, but may show that it was in self-defense. (2.) In case his client is convicted, his office is to see that no injustice is done to him in the sentence; to stand by him still; to avail himself of all that the law allows in his favor; or to state any circumstance of age or sex or former service or bodily health which would in any way mitigate the sentence. The advocacy of the Lord Jesus in our behalf, however, is wholly different from this, though the same general object is pursued and sought — the good of those for whom he pleads. The nature of his office as Advocate may be stated in the following particulars: (1.) He admits the guilt of those for whom he pleads, to the full extent charged on them by the law of God and by their own consciences. He does not attempt to hide or conceal it. He makes no apology for it. He neither attempts to deny the fact nor to show that they had a right to do as they have done. He could not do this, for it would not be true; and any plea before the throne of God which should be based on a denial of our guilt would be fatal to our cause. (2.) As our Advocate, he undertakes to be security that no wrong shall be done to the universe if we are not punished as we deserve; that is, if we are pardoned, and treated as if we had not sinned. This he does by pleading what he has done in behalf of men; that is, by the plea that his sufferings and death in behalf of sinners have done as much to honor the law, and to maintain the truth and justice of God, and to prevent the extension of apostasy, as if the offenders themselves had suffered the full penalty of the law. If sinners are punished in hell, there will be some object to be accomplished by it; and the simple account of the atonement by Christ is that his death will secure all the good results to the universe which would be secured by the punishment of the offender himself. It has done as much to maintain the honor of the law, and to impress the universe with the truth that sin can not be committed with impunity. If all the good results can be secured by substituted sufferings which there would be by the punishment of the offender himself, then it is clear that the guilty may be acquitted and saved. Why should they not be? The Saviour, as our Advocate, undertakes to be security that this shall be. (3.) As our Advocate, he becomes a surety for our good behavior; gives a pledge to justice that we will obey the laws of God, and that he will keep us in the paths of obedience and truth; that, if pardoned, we will not continue to rebel. This pledge or surety can be given in no human court of justice. No man, advocate or friend, can give security when one who has been convicted of stealing a horse is pardoned, that he will not steal a horse again; when one who has been guilty of murder is pardoned, that he will never be guilty of it again; when one who has been guilty of forgery is pardoned, that he will not be guilty of it again. If he could do this, the subject of pardon would be attended with much fewer difficulties than it is now. But the Lord Jesus becomes such a pledge or surety for us (Heb. vii. 22), and hence he becomes such an advocate with the Father as we need. ^ Jesus Christ the righteous. One who is eminently righteous himself, and who possesses the means of rendering others righteous. It is an appropriate feeling when we come before God in his name that we come pleading the merits of one who is eminently righteous, and on account of whose righteousness we may be justified and saved.

2. And he is the propitiation for our sins. The word rendered propitiation QXaafxo^) occurs nowhere else in the

New Testament, except in chap. iv. 10 of this Epistle; though words of the same derivation, and haying the same essential meaning, frequently occur. The corresponding word, IXaaTvpuw (hilasterion), occurs in Romans iii. 85. rendered propitiation — ''whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood;" and in Heb. ix. 5, rendered mercy-seat—" shadowing the mercy -seat." The verb i\d- <rKOfiai(hUa-skomai) occurs also in Luke xviii. 3 — "God be merciful to me a sinner;" and Heb. ii. 17 — "to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." For the idea expressed by these words, see Notes on Rom. iii. 25. The proper meaning of the word is that of reconciling, appeasing, turning away anger, rendering propitious or favorable. The idea is that there is anger or wrath, or that something has been done to offend, and that it is needful that something should be done to turn away that wrath, or to appease. This may be done by a sacrifice, by songs, by services rendered, or by bloody offerings. So the word is often used in Homer. — Passow. We have similar words in common use, as when we say of one that he has been offended, and that something must be done to appease him, or to turn away his wrath. This is commonly done with us by making restitution, or by an acknowledgment, or by yielding the point in controversy, or by an expression of regret, or by different conduct in time to come. But this idea must not be applied too literally to God; nor should it be explained away. The essential thoughts in regard to him, as implied in this word, are: (1.) That his will has been disregarded, and his law violated, and that he has reason to be offended with us. (2.) That in that condition he can not, consistently with his perfections, and with the good of the universe, treat us as if we had not done it. (3.) That it is proper that, in some way, he should show his displeasure at our conduct, either by punishing us, or by something that shall answer the same purpose; and (4) that the means of propitiation come in here, and accomplish this end, and make it proper that he should treat us as if we had not sinned; that is, he is reconciled or appeased, and his anger is turned away. This is done by the death of the Lord Jesus accomplishing, in most N important respects, what would be accomplished by the punishment of the offender himself. In regard to this, in order to a proper understanding of what is accomplished, it is necessary to observe two things: what is not done, and what is. I. There are certain things which do not enter into the idea of propitiation. They are such as these: (a) It does not change the fact that the wrong was done. That is a fact which can not be denied, and he who undertakes to make a propitiation for sin does not deny it. (6) It does not change God. It does not make him a different being from what he was before. It does not buy him over to a willingness to show mercy; it does not change an inexorable being to one who is compassionate and kind, (c) The offering that is made to secure reconciliation does not necessarily produce reconciliation in fact. It prepares the way for it on the part of God, but whether they for whom it is made will be disposed to accept it is another question. When two men are alienated from each other, you may go to B and say to him that all obstacles to reconciliation on the part of A are removed, and that he is disposed to be at peace; but whether B will be willing to be at peace is quite another matter. The mere fact that his adversary is disposed to be at peace determines nothing in regard to his disposition in the matter. So in regard to the controversy between man and God. It may be true that all obstacles to reconciliation on the part of God are taken away, and still it may be quite a separate question whether man will be willing to lay aside his opposition, and embrace the terms of mercy. In itself considered, one does not necessarily determine the other, or throw any light on it. II. The amount, then, in regard to the propitiation made for sin, is that it removes all obstacles to reconciliation on the part of God; it does whatever is necessary to be done to maintain the honor of his law, his justice, and his truth; it makes it consistent for him to offer pardon; that is, it removes whatever there was that made it necessary to inflict punishment, and thus, so fur as the word can be applied to God, it appeases him, turns away his anger, renders him propitious. This it does, not in respect to producing any change

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep a his commandments.

4 He that saith, I know him, and

keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in God, but in respect to the fact that it removes whatever there was in the nature of the case that prevented the free and full offer of pardon. The idea of the apostle in the passage before us is that when we sin we may be assured that this has been done, and that pardon may now be freely extended to us. ^ And not for ours only. Not only for the sins of us who are Christians, for the apostle was writing to such. The idea which he intends to convey seems to be that when we come before God we should take the most liberal aud large views of the atonement; we should feel that the most ample provision has been made for our pardon, and that in no respect is there any limit as to the sufficiency of that work to remove all sin. It is sufficient for us; it is sufficient for all the world. ^ But also for the sins of the whole world. The phrase '■'-the sins'11 is not in the original, but is not improperly supplied, for the connection demands it. This is one of the expressions occurring in the New Testament which demonstrate that the atonement was made for all men, and which can not be reconciled with any other opinion. If he had died only for a part of the race, this language could not have been used. The phrase " the whole world" is one which naturally embraces all men; is such as would be used if it be supposed that the apostle meant to teach that Christ died for all men; and is such as can not be explained on any other supposition. If he died only for the elect, it is not true that he is the "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" in any proper sense, nor would it be possible then to assign a sense in which it could be true. This passage, interpreted in its plain and obvious meaning, teaches the following things: (1.) That the atonement in its own nature is adapted to all men, or that it is as much fitted to one individual, or one class, as another. (2.) That it is sufficient in merit for all; that is, that if any more should be saved than actually will be, there would be no need of any additional suffering in order to save them. (3.) That in its own nature it has no special adaptedness to one person or class more than another; that is, that it did not render the salvation of one more easy than that of another. It so magnified the law, so honored God, so fully expressed the divine sense of the evil of sin in respect to all men, that the offer of salvation might be made as freely to one as to another, and that any and all might take shelter under it and be safe. Whether, however, God might not, for wise reasons, resolve that its benefits should be applied to a part only, is another question, and one which does not affect the inquiry about the intrinsic nature of the atonement. On the evidence that the atonement was made for all, see Notes on 2 Cor. v. 14; and Heb. ii. 9.

3. And hereby we do know that we know him. To wit, by that which follows we have evidence that we are truly acquainted with him, and with the requirements of his religion; that is, that we are truly his friends. The word him, in this verse, seems to refer to the Saviour. On the meaning of the word know, see Notes on John xvii. 3. The apostle had stated in the previous part of this Epistle some of the leading points revealed by the Christian religion, and he here enters on the consideration of the nature of the evidence required to show that we are personally interested in it, or that we are true Christians. A large part of the Epistle is occupied with this subject. The first, the grand evidence— that without which all others would be vain — he says, is that we keep his commandments. T[ If we keep his commandments. See Notes on John xiv. 15. Comp. John xiv. 23, 24: xv. 10, 14.

4. He that saith, I know him. He who professes to be acquainted with the Saviour, or who professes to be a Christian. T[ And keepeth not 7iis commandments. What he has appointed to be observed by his people; that is, he who does not obey him. 1 Is a liar. Makes a false profession; pro-

in liiin verily is the lovo of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. G He that saith he abidetli a in him, ought himself also so to walk,* even as he walked.

7 Brethren, I write no new commandment "unto you, but an old

fesscs to have that which he really has not. Such a profession is a falsehood, because there can be no true religion where one does not obey the law of God.

5. But whoso keepeth his word. That is, what he has spoken or commanded. The terra word here will include all that he has made known to us as his will in regard to our conduct. If In Mm verily is the love of God perfected. He professes to have the love of God in his heart, and that love receives its completion or filling up by obedience to the will of God. That obedience is the proper carrying out, or the exponent of the love which exists in the heart. Love to the Saviour would be defective without that, for it is never complete without obedience. If this be the true interpretation, then the passage does not make any affirmation about sinless perfection, but it only affirms that if true love exist in the heart, it will be carried out in the life; or that love and obedience are parts of the same thing, that one will be manifested by the other; and that where obedience exists, it is the completion or perfecting of love. Besides, the apostle does not say that either the love or the obedience would be in themselves absolutely perfect; but he says that one can not fully develop itself without the other. If Hereby know we that we are in him. That is, by having in fact such love as shall insure obedience. To be in him is to be united to him; to be his friends. Comp. Notes on John vi. 56; Rom. xiii. 14.

0. He that saith he abideth in him. Gr., remains in him; that is, abides or remains in the belief of his doctrines, and in the comfort and practice of his religion. The expression is one of those which refer to the intimate union between Christ and his people. A great variety'of phrase is employed to denote that. For the meaning of this word in John, see Notes on chap. iii. 0. H Ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. Ought to live and act as he did. If he is one with him, or professes to be united to him, he ought to imitate him in all things. Comp. John xiii. 15. See also Notes on chap. i. 6.

7. Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you. That is, what I am now enjoining'is not new. It is the same doctrine which you have always heard. There has been much difference of opinion as to what is referred to by the word commandment, whether it is the injunction in the previous verse to live as Christ lived, or whether it is what he refers to in the following verses, the duty of brotherly love. Perhaps neither of these is exactly the idea of the apostle, but he may mean in this verse to put in a general disclaimer against the charge that what he enjoined was new. In respect to all that he taught, the views of truth which he held, the duties which he enjoined, the course of life which he would prescribe as proper for a Christian to live, he meant to say that it was not at all new. It was nothing which he had originated himself, but it was in fact the same system of doctrines which they had always received since they became Christians. He might have been induced to say this because he apprehended that some of those whom he had in his eye, and whose doctrines he meant to oppose, might say that this was all new; that it was not the nature of religion as it had been commonly understood, and as it was laid down by the Saviour. In a somewhat different sense, indeed, he admits (ver. 8) that there teas a "new" commandment which it was proper to enjoin — for he did not forget that the Saviour himself called that "new;" and though that commandment had also been all along inculcated under the Gospel, yet there was a sense in which it was proper to call that new, for it had been so called by the Saviour. But in respect to all the doctrines which he maintained, and in respect to all the duties which he enjoined, he said that they were not new in the sense that he had originated them, or that they had not been enjoined from the beginning. Perhaps, also, he may have

commandment, which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the oeginning.

8 Again, a new a commandment I write unto you; which thing is

true in him and in you, because the darkness b is past, and the true light now shineth.

9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness c even until now.

some allusion to false teachers who were in fact scattering new doctrines among the people, things before unheard of, and attractive by their novelty; and he may mean to say that he made no pretensions to any such novelty, but was content to repeat the old and familiar truths which they had always received. Thus, if he were charged with broaching new opinions, he denies it fully; if they were advancing new opinions, and were even "making capital" out of them, he says that he attempted no such thing, but was content with the old and established opinions which they had always received. ^f But an old commandment. Old in the sense that it has always been inculcated; that religion has always enjoined it. If Which ye had from the beginning. Which you have always received ever since jrou heard any thing about the Gospel. It was preached when the Gospel was first preached; it has always been promulgated when that has been promulgated; it is what you first heard when you were made acquainted with the Gospel. Comp. Notes on chap. i. 1. If The old commandment is the toord which ye have heard from the beginning. Is the doctrine; or is what was enjoined. John is often in the habit of putting a truth in a new form or aspect in order to make it emphatic, and to prevent the possibility of misapprehension. See John i. 1, 2. The sense here is, "all that I am saying to you is in fact an old commandment, or one which you have always had. There is nothing new in what I am enjoining on you.''

8. Again, a new commandment I write unto you. "And yet that which I write to you, and particularly enjoin on you, deserves in another sense to be called a new commandment, though it has been also inculcated from the beginning, for it was called new by the Saviour himself." Or, the meaning may be, "in addition to the general precepts which I have referred to, I do now call your attention to the new commandment of the Saviour, that which he himself called new." There can be no doubt here that John refers to the commandment to "love one another" (see ver. 9-11), and that it is here called new not in the sense that John inculcated it as a novel doctrine, but in the sense that the Saviour called it such. For the reasons why it was so called by him, see Notes on John xiii. 34. If Which thing is true in him. In the Lord Jesus. That is, which commandment or law of love was illustrated in him, or was manifested by him in his intercourse with his disciples. That which was most prominent in him was this very love which he enjoined on all his followers. If And in you. Among you. That is, you have manifested it in your intercourse with each other. It is not new in the sense that you have never heard of it, and have never evinced it, but in the sense only that he called it new. If Because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. The ancient systems of error, under which men hated each other, have passed away, and jtou are brought into the light of the true religion. Once you were in darkness, like others; now the light of the Gospel shines around you, and that requires as its distinguishing characteristic, love. Religion is often represented us light; and Christ spoke of himself, and was spoken of, as the light of the world. See Notes on John i. 4, 5. Comp. John viii. 12; xii. 35, 36, 46; Isa. ix. 2.

9. He that saith he is in the light. That he has true religion, or is a Christian. See chap. i. 7. 1 A?id hateth his brother. The word brother seems here to refer to those who professed the same religion. The word is, indeed, sometimes used in' a larger sense, but the reference here appears to be to that which is properly brotherly love among Christians. Comp. Lucke, in loc. 1 Is in darkness even until now. That is, he can not have true religion unless he have love to the brethren. The command to love one another was

10 He that loveth his brother abidcth in the light, and there is none ' occasion of stumbling in him.

11 But he that hateth his broth-

er is in darkness, and walketh a in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes. 12 I write unto you, little chil-

one of the most solemn and earnest Which Christ ever enjoined (John xv. 17); he made it the peculiar badge of diseipleship, or that by which his followers were to be every where known (John xiii. 35); and it ^therefore, impossible to have any true religion without love to those who are sincerely and truly his followers. If a man have not that, he is in deep darkness, whatever else he may have, on the whole subject of religion. Comp. Notes on 1 Thess. iv. 9.

10. He that loveth his brother abhleth in the light. Has true religion, and enjoys it. H And there is none occasion of stumbling in him. Marg., scandal. Greek, "and there is no stumbling" [or scandal— GK&v8a\ov — in him]. The word here used means any thing against which one strikes or stumbles; and then a stumbling-block, an impediment, or any thing which occasions a fall. Then it is used in a moral or spiritual sense, as denoting that which is the occasion of falling into sin. See Notes on Matt. v. 29, and Rom. xiv. 13. Here it refers to an individual in respect to his treatment of others, and means that there is nothing, so far as he is concerned, to lead him into sin. Rob., Lex. If he have love to the brethren, he has true religion; and there is, so far as the influence of this shall extend, nothing that will be the occasion of his falling into sin in his conduct toward them, for "love worketh no ill to his neighbor." Rom. xiii. 10. His course will be just and upright and benevolent. He will have no envy toward them in their prosperity, and will not be disposed to detract from their reputation in adversity; he will have no feelings of exultation when they fall, and will not be disposed to take advantage of their misfortunes; and, loving them as brethren, he will be in no respect under temptation to do them wrong. In the bosom of one who loves his brother the baleful passions of envy, malice, hatred, and uncharitableness can have no place. At the same time, this love of the brethren would have an important effect on his whole Christian life and walk, for there are few things that will have more influence on a man's character in keeping him from doing wrong than the love of the good and the pure. He who truly loves good men will not be likely in any respect to go astray from the paths of virtue.

11. But he that hateth his brother. The word here used would, in this connection, include both the mere absence of love and positive hatred. It is designed to include the whole of that state of mind where there is not love for the brethren. *ft Is in darkness. Ver. 9. TI And walketh in darkness. He is like one who walks in the dark, and who sees no object distinctly. See Notes on John xii. 35. If And knoweth not whither he goeth. Like one in the dark. He wanders about not knowing what direction he shall take, or where the course which he is on will lead. The general meaning is that he is ignorant of the whole nature of religion; or, in other words, love to the brethren is a central virtue in religion, and when a man has not that, his mind is entirely clouded on the whole subject, and he shows that he knows nothing of its nature. There is no virtue that is designed to be made more prominent in Christianity, and there is none that will throw its influence farther over a man's life.

12. I write unto you, little childre?i. There has been much difference of opinion among commentators in regard to this verse and the three following verses, on account of the apparent tautology. Even Doddridge supposes that considerable error has here crept into the text, and that a portion of these verses should be omitted in order to avoid the repetition. But there is no authority for omitting any portion of the text, and the passage is very much in accordance with the general style of the apostle John. The author of this Epistle was evidently accustomed to express his thoughts in a great variety of ways, having even the appearance of tautology, that the exact idea might be before his readers, and that his meaning might not be misapprehended. In order to show that the truths which he was uttering in this Epistle pertained to all, and to secure the interest of all in them, he addresses himself to different classes, and says that there were reasons existing in regard to each class why he wrote to them. In the expressions "I write" and "I have written" he refers to what is found in the Epistle itself, and the statements in these verses are designed to be reasons why he brought these truths before their minds. The word here rendered little children (TEKvia) is different from that used in ver. 13, and rendered there little children (Traidia), but there can be little doubt that the same class of persons is intended. Some have, indeed, supposed that by the term little children here, as in ver. 1, the apostle means to address all believers — speaking to them as a father; but it seems more appropriate to suppose that he means in these verses to divide the body of Christians whom he addressed into three classes— children, young men, and the aged— and to state particular reasons why he wrote to each. If the term little children here {tzkvLcl) means the same as the term Traidia, little children, in ver. 13, then he addresses each of these classes twice in these two verses, giving each time somewhat varied reasons why he addressed them. That by the term "little children" here he means children literally seems to me to be clear, (1) because this is the usual meaning of the word, and should be understood to be the meaning here unless there is something in the connection to show that it is used in a metaphorical sense. (2.) Because it seems necessary to understand the other expressions, "young men" and "fathers," in a literal sense, as denoting those more advanced in life. (3.) Because this would be quite in character for the apostle John. He had recorded, and would doubtless remember, the solemn injunction of the Saviour to Peter (John xxi. 15), to " feed his lambs," and the aged apostle could not but feel that what was worthy of so solemn an injunction from the Lord himself was worthy of his attention and care as an apostle; and

(4) because in that case each class, fathers, young men, and children, would be twice addressed in these two verses; whereas, if we understand this of Christians in general, then fathers and young men are twice addressed, and children but once. If this be so, it may be remarked (1) that there were probably quite young; children in the Church in the time of the apostle John, for the word would naturally convey that idea. (2.) The exact age can not, indeed, be determined, but two things are clear: (a) one is that they were undoubtedly under twenty years of age, since they were younger than the "young men'''' (vEavio-Koi), a word usually applied to those who were in the vigor of life, from about the period of twenty up to forty years (see Notes on ver. 13), and this word would embrace all who were younger than that class; and (6) the other is that the word itself would convey the idea that they were in quite early life, as the word children —a fair translation of it — does now with us. It is not possible to determine from the use of this word precisely of what age the class here referred to was, but the word would imply that they were in quite early life. No rule is laid down in the New Testament as to the age in which children may be admitted to the communion. The whole subject is left to the wise discretion of the Church, and is safely left there. Cases vary so much that no rule could be laid down; and little or no evil has arisen from leaving the point undetermined in the Scriptures. It may be doubted, however, whether the Church has not been rather in danger of erring by having it deferred too late than by admitting children too early. (3.) Such children, if worthy the attention of an aged apostle, should receive the particular notice of pastors now. Comp. Notes on John xxi. 15. There are reasons in all cases now, as there were then, why this part of a congregation should receive the special attention of a minister of religion. The hopes of the Church are in them. Their minds are susceptible to impression. The character of the piety in the next age will depend on their views of religion. All that there is of value in the Church and the world will soon pass into their hands. The houses, farms, drcn, because your sins arc forgiven you for his name's0 sake.

13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him b that is

from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, be-

factories; the pulpits, and the chairs of professors in colleges; the seats of senators and the benches of judges; the great oilices of state, and all the offices in the Church; the interests of learning, of benevolence, and of liberty, are all soon to be under their control. Every thing valuable in this world will soon depend on their conduct and character; and who, therefore, can overestimate the importance of training them up in just views of religion. As John wrote to this class, 6hould not pastors preach to them? 1 Because (o-ri). This particle may be rendered for, or because, and the meaning may be either that the fact that their sins were forgiven was a reason for writing to them, since it would be proper on that ground to exhort them to a holy life, or that he wrote to them because it was a privilege to address them as those who were forgiven, for he felt that in speaking to them he could address them as such. It seems to me that it is to be taken as a causal particle, and that the apostle, in the various specifications which he makes, designs to assign particular reasons why he wrote to each class enjoining on them the duties of a holy life. Comp. ver. 21. 1" Tour sins are forgiven you. That is, this is a reason why he wrote to them and enjoined these things on them. The meaning seems to be that the fact that our past sins are blotted out furnishes a strong reason why we should be holy. That reason is founded on the goodness of God in doing it, and on the obligation under which we are brought by the fact that God has had mercy on us. This is a consideration which children will feel as well as others; for there is nothing which will tend more to make a child obedient hereafter than the fact that a parent freely forgives the past. H For his name's sake. ' On account of the name of Christ; that is, in virtue of what he has done for us. In ver. 13 he states another reason why he wrote to this same class — " because they had known the Father."

13. I write unto you, fathers. As there were special reasons for writing to children, so there were also for writing to those who were more mature in life. The class here addressed would embrace all those who were in advance of the vzaviauoi, or young men, and would properly include those who were at the head of families. ^Because ye have known him that is from the beginning. That is, the Lord Jesus Christ. See Notes on chap. i. 1. The argument is that they had been long acquainted with the principles of his religion, and understood well its doctrines and duties. It can not be certainly inferred from this that they had had a personal acquaintance with the Lord Jesus, yet that this might have been is not impossible, for John had himself personally known him, and there may have been some among those to whom he wrote who had also seen and known him. If this were so, it would give additional impressiveness to the reason assigned here for writing to them, and for reminding them of the principles of that religion which they had learned from his own lips and example. But perhaps all that is necessarily implied in this passage is that they had had long opportunity of becoming acquainted with the religion of the Son of God, and that having understood that thoroughly, it wras proper to address them as aged and established Christians, and to call on them to maintain the true doctrines of the Gospel against the specious but dangerous errors which then prevailed. 1 1 write unto you young men (veavia-Koi). This word would properly embrace those who were in the vigor of life, midway between children and old men. It is uniformly rendered young men in the New Testament (Matt. xix. 20, 22; Mark xiv. 51; xvi. 5; Luke vii. 14; Acts ii. 17; v. 10), and in the passages before us. It does not elsewhere occur. It is commonly understood as embracing those in the prime and vigor of manhood up to the period of about forty years. Rob., Lex. 1 Because ye have overcome the wicked one. That is, because you have vigor (see the next verse), and that vigor you have shown by overcoming the assaults of the wicked one— the devil. You have triumphed over the passions which prevail in early life; you have combated the allurements of vice, ambition, covetousness, and sensuality; and you have shown that there is a strength of character and of piety on which reliance can be placed in promoting religion. It is proper, therefore, to exhort you not to disgrace the victory which you have already gained, but to employ your vigor of character in maintaining the cause of the Saviour. The thing to which John appeals here is the energy of those at this period of life, and it is proper at all times to make this the ground of appeal in addressing a church. It is right to call on those who are in the prime of life, and who are endowed with energy of character, to employ their talents in the service of the Lord Jesus, and to stand up as the open advocates of truth. Thus the apostle calls on the three great classes into which a community or a church may be considered as divided— youth, because their sins were already forgiven, and, though young, they had actually entered on a career of virtue and religion, a career which by all means they ought to be exhorted to pursue; fathers, or aged men, because they had had long experience in religion, and had a thorough acquaintance with the doctrines and duties of the Gospel, and they might be expected to stand steadfastly as examples to others; and young men, those who were in the vigor and prime of life, because they had shown that they had power to resist evil, and were endowed with strength, and it was proper to call on them to exert their vigor in the sacred cause of religion. 1 1 write unto you, little children. Many MSS. read h ere, Ihave written (Jypa\\ra\ instead of I write (ypacpw). This reading is found in both the ancient Syriac versions and in the Coptic; it was followed by Origen, Cyril, Photius, and (Ecumenius; and it is adopted by Grotius, Mill, and Halm, and is probably the true reading. The connection seems to demand this. In vs. 12, 13 the apostle uses the word ypdfpo) (I write) in relation to children, fathers, and young men; in the I