Expositor's Bible: The Epistles of St. John Part 20

Ver. 12. A second reference to the Book of Genesis within a few lines (see ver. 8). It is characteristic of the historical spirit of St.

John that he does not entangle himself with the luxuriant upgrowth of wild fable in which traditional Judaism has ever enveloped the simple narrative of Cain and Abel in Genesis.

Ver. 15. St. John may refer to another pa.s.sage in Genesis. "And Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob" (Gen. xxvii. 11-41).

Ver. 17. A Rabbinical saying is worth recording as an ill.u.s.tration of the spirit in which the "living of this world" should be held. "He that saith, Mine is thine, and thine is mine, is an idiot; he that saith, Mine is mine, and thine is thine, is moderate; he that saith, Mine is thine, and thine is thine, is charitable; but he that saith, Thine is mine, and mine is mine, is wicked; even though it be only saying it in his heart, to wish it were so." Paulus f.a.gius. _Sentent. Heb._

Vers. 19, 20, 21. These verses probably present more difficulties than any other portion of this Epistle. (1) For their construction. The following note from a _fasciculus_ (now no longer to be procured) written by a master of sacred studies seems to us to say all that can be said for a rendering different from that of the R. V. and our own.

"Ver. 20: ?t? ea? ?ata????s?? ??? ? ?a?d?a, ?t? e???? est?? ? Te??.

The difficulty is in the second ?t?, which is ignored by the Vulgate and A. V. The Revisers (after Hoogeveen, _De Partic._ p. 589, ed. Schutz.

and others) point ?,t? ea? in the first clause, which they join with the preceding verse: 'and shall a.s.sure our heart before him, whereinsoever our heart condemn us; because G.o.d' etc. But this is quite inadmissible, since nothing can be plainer than that ea? ?ata????s?? (ver. 20) and ea?

? ?ata????s?? (ver. 21) are both _in protasi_, and in strict correlation with each other. Dean Alford suggests an ellipsis of the verb substantive before the second ?t?, and would translate: 'Because if our heart condemn us, (it is) because G.o.d' etc. He instances such cases as e? t?? e? ???st?, (he is) ?a??? ?t?s??, which are quite dissimilar; but the following from St. Chrysostom (T. X. p. 122 B) fully bears out this construction; ? ????? ?? ???st?? ?.t.?. e? de ??? a?s?a?? t??

???f?t?t??, ??? p?????a? e???e??? ??? e?e??; where I have expunged d???? before ?t? on the authority of three out of four MSS. collated for these Homilies, the fourth, with the old Latin version, for ?t?

p?????a? reading ? ?a?as??, p?????a? ?a?. In my note on that place I have pointed out that the ellipsis is not of d????, but of t? a?t???, _causa est, quia_. So in the present instance we might translate: 'For if our heart condemn us, (the reason is) because G.o.d is greater,' etc., were it not for the difficulty of explaining how the fact of G.o.d's being greater than our heart can be a valid reason for our heart condemning us. I would, therefore, take the second ?t? for _quod_, not _quia_, and suppose an ellipsis of d????, as in 1 Tim. vi. 7, where see note."--_Otium Norvicense_, by Frederic Field, M.A., LL.D. (pp. 153, 15).

Dr. Field s rendering then is: "For if our heart condemn us, (it is evident) that G.o.d is greater than our heart."

(2) For the meaning of these verses. All interpretations appear to fall into two cla.s.ses; as St. John is supposed to aim at (_a_) _soothing_ conscience, or (_b_) _awakening_ it. But may he not really intend to leave people to think over a something which he has purposely omitted, and to apply it as required? The saying "G.o.d is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things," probably cuts two ways. If my heart condemn me justly, and with truth, much more so does G.o.d who is greater than my heart. But, if my conscience is tenderly sensitive, scrupulous because full of love, G.o.d's knowledge of my heart tells in this case on the brighter side, as truly as in the other case it told on the darker side. We may lull our heart. "A tranquil G.o.d tranquillises all things, and to see His peacefulness is to be at peace." (_St. Bernard in Cant._)

FOOTNOTES:

[230] Ver. 11.

[231] John xv. 12-17. See also the stress laid upon the unity of believers; surely including love as well as doctrine in the great High-Priestly prayer, John xvii. 21-23.

[232] "The message that ye heard _from the beginning_," conf. 1 John ii. 24.

[233] "Contrariorum eadem est scientia."

[234] This is one of the few references to the Old Testament _history_ in St. John's Epistle (Gen. iv. 1-8). To the _theology_ of the Old Testament there are many references; _e.g._, light and life. 1 John i.

1-5; John i. 4; Ps. x.x.xvi. 9. There is, however, another historical reference a few verses above (1 John iii. 8)--a pa.s.sage of primary importance because it recognises the whole narrative of the Fall in Genesis, and affords a commentary upon the words of Christ (John viii.

44). The writer has somewhere seen an interesting suggestion that ver.

12 may contain some allusion to the visit of Apollonius of Tyana to Ephesus. Apollonius incited the mob to kill a beggar-man for the purpose of placing himself on a level with Chalcas and others who caused the sacrifice of human victims. The date of this incident would apparently coincide with the closing years of St. John's life (_Philostrat. vita Apollon._, Act. ii., S. 5).

[235] Ver. 14.

[236] Vers. 14, 15.

[237] Ver. 12.

[238] Ver. 16.

[239] Ver. 17.

[240] Vers. 18, 19.

[241] Vers. 20, 21.

[242] "For _The Love_ I rather beseech thee" (Phil. v. 9). The addition in the A.V. (_of G.o.d_) rather impairs the sweetness and power, the reverential reserve of the original.

[243] Of Prof. Westcott.

[244] Ver. 17.

[245] It is suggestive that on Quinquagesima Sunday, when 1 Cor. xiii.

is the Epistle, St. Luke xviii. 31 sqq., is the Gospel. The lyric of love is joined with a fragment of its epic. That fragment tells us of a love which not only proclaimed itself ready to be sacrificed (Luke xviii. 31-33), but condescended individually to the blind importunate mendicant who sat by the wayside begging (vers. 35-43).

[246] The word here is ??? not ???. "???? period of life; hence the means by which it is sustained, means of life." (Archbp. Trench.) It is to be wished that the R. V. had either kept "the good" of the A.

V., or adopted the word "living"--the translation of ??? in Mark xii.

44; Luke xxi. 4.

[247] 2 John 3.

[248] 1 John i. 4, ii. 28, iii. 21, iv. 17, v. 14, iii. 19.

[249] 1 John i. 4.

[250] ta sp?a???a (ver. 17). This however is the only occurrence of the word in St. John's writings. The substantive sp?a???a = _emotions_, is found in cla.s.sical poets. But the verb sp?a??????a? occurs only in LXX.

and New Testament--and thus, like a?ap?, is almost born within the circle of revealed truth. The new dispensation so rich in the mercy of G.o.d (Luke i. 78), so fruitful in mercy from man to man, may well claim a new vocabulary in the department of tenderness and pity.

[251] 1 John v. 6, conf. John xix. 34.

[252] ?e???, ver. 17.

[253] "The love of which G.o.d is at once the object, and the author, and the pattern." (Prof. Westcott.)

[254] 1 John iv. 19.

[255] Lord Meath.

SECTION VII.

GREEK. LATIN.

??ap?t??, ? pa?t? Carissimi, nolite omni p?e?at? p?ste?ete, spiritui credere, sed a??a d???a?ete ta probate spiritus si ex p?e?ata, e? e? t?? Deo sint, quoniam multi Te?? est??? ?t? p????? pseudoprophetae exierunt ?e?d?p??f?ta? e?e?????as?? in mundum. In e?? t?? ??s??. hoc cognoscitur spiritus e? t??t? ????s?ete t? Dei. Omnis spiritus ??e?a t?? Te??? pa? qui confitetur Iesum p?e?a ? ?????e? Christum in carne ??s??? ???st?? e? venisse, ex Deo est: sa??? e??????ta, e? et omnis spiritus qui t?? Te?? est?. ?a? solvit Iesum Christum pa? p?e?a ? ? ?????e?t?? ex Deo non est; et his ??s??? ???st?? est Antichristus quod e? sa??? e??????ta, e? audistis quoniam venit t?? Te?? ??? est?? ?a? et nunc iam in mundo t??t? est? t? t?? est. Vos ex Deo estis, a?t????st??, ? a????ate filioli, et vicistis eum, ?t? e??eta?, ?a? ??? e? quoniam maior est qui t? ??s? est?? ?d?. in vobis est quam qui ?e?? e? t?? Te?? este, in mundo. Ipsi de te???a, ?a? ?e?????ate mundo sunt: ideo de a?t???? ?t? e???? est?? mundo loc.u.n.tur, et ? e? ??? ? ? e? t? mundus eos audit. Nos ??s?. ??t?? e? t?? ex Deo sumus: qui ??s?? e?s?? d?a t??t? novit Deum audit nos; e? t?? ??s?? ?a???s?, qui non est ex Deo, ?a? ? ??s?? a?t?? non audit nos. In hoc a???e?. ?e?? e? t?? cognoscimus spiritum Te?? ese?? ? ????s??? veritatis et spiritum t?? Te??, a???e? ???? erroris.

?? ??? est?? e? t?? Te??, ??? a???e? ???. ??

t??t?? ????s??e? t?

p?e?a t?? a???e?a?

?a? t? p?e?a t??

p?a???.

AUTHORISED VERSION. REVISED VERSION.