John 2:11

Verse 11. This beginning of miracles. This his first public miracle. This is declared by the sacred writer to be a miracle-- that is, an exertion of divine power, producing a change of the substance of water into wine, which no human power could do.

Manifested forth. Showed; exhibited.

His glory. His power, and proper character as the Messiah; showed that he had divine power, and that God had certainly commissioned him. This is shown to be a real miracle by the following considerations: 1st. Real water was placed in the vessels. This the servants believed, and there was no possibility of deception.

2nd. The water was placed where it was not customary to keep wine. It could not be pretended that it was merely a mixture of water and wine.

3rd. It was judged to be wine without knowing whence it came. There was no agreement between Jesus and the governor of the feast to impose on the guests.

4th. It was a change which nothing but divine power could effect. He that can change water into a substance like the juice of the grape must be clothed with divine power.

Believed on him. This does not mean that they did not before believe on him, but that their faith was confirmed or strengthened. They saw a miracle, and it satisfied them that he was the Messiah. Before this they believed on the testimony of John, and from conversation with Jesus (Jn 1:35-51); now they saw that he was invested with almighty power, and their faith was established. From this narrative we may learn,

1st. That marriage is honourable, and that Jesus, if sought, will not refuse his presence and blessing on such an occasion.

2nd. On such an occasion the presence and approbation of Christ should be sought. No compact formed on earth is more important; none enters so deeply into our comfort in this world; perhaps none will so much affect our destiny in the world to come. It should be entered into, then, in the fear of God.

3rd. On all such occasions our conduct should be such that the presence of Jesus would be no interruption or disturbance. He is holy. He is always present in every place; and on all festival occasions our deportment should be such as that we should welcome the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is not a proper state of feeling or employment which would be interrupted by the presence of the Saviour.

4th. Jesus delighted to do good. In the very beginning of his ministry he worked a miracle to show his benevolence. This was the appropriate commencement of a life in which he was to go about doing good. He seized every opportunity of doing it; and at a marriage feast, as well as among the sick and poor, he showed the character which he always sustained --that of a benefactor of mankind.

5th. An argument cannot be drawn from this instance in favour of intemperate drinking. There is no evidence that any who were present on that occasion drank too freely.

6th. Nor can an argument be drawn from this case in favour even of drinking wine such as we have. The common wine of Judea was the pure juice of the grape, without any mixture of alcohol, and was harmless. It was the common drink of the people, and did not tend to produce intoxication. Our wines are a mixture of the juice of the grape and of brandy, and often of infusions of various substances to give it colour and taste, and the appearance of wine. Those wines are little less injurious than brandy, and the habit of drinking them should be classed with the drinking of all other liquid fires.

The following table will show the danger of drinking the wines that are in common use : Brandy has fifty-three parts and 39 hundredths in a hundred of

alcohol; or .........................53.39 per cent.

Rum ................................53.68 "

Whisky, Scotch .....................54.32 "

Holland Gin ........................51.60 "

Port Wine, highest kind ............25.83 "

lowest ..................21.40 "

Madeira, highest .............. 29.42 "

lowest .............. 19.34 "

Lisbon .............................18.94 "

Malaga .............................17.26 "

Red Champagne ......................11.30 "

White " ..................... 12.80 "

Currant Wine .......................20.25 "

It follows that a man who drinks two glasses of most of the wines used has taken as much alcohol as if he had taken one glass of brandy or whisky, and why should he not as well drink the alcohol in the brandy as in the Wine? What difference can it make in morals? What difference in its effects on his system? The experience of the world has shown that water, pure water, is the most wholesome, safe, and invigorating drink for man.

(i) "manifested forth his glory" Jn 1:14 (k) "and his disciples" Jn 5:13

John 6:64

Verse 64. Jesus knew from the beginning, &c. As this implied a knowledge of the heart, and of the secret principles and motives of men, it shows that he must have been omniscient.

(y) "knew" Rom 8:29, 2Ti 2:19

John 8:25

Verse 25. Who art thou? As Jesus did not expressly say in the previous verse that he was the Messiah, they professed still not to understand him. In great contempt, therefore, they asked him who he was. As if they had said, "Who art thou that undertakest to threaten us in this manner?" When we remember that they regarded him as a mere pretender from Galilee; that he was poor and without friends; and that he was persecuted by those in authority, we cannot but admire the patience with which all this was borne, and the coolness with which he answered them.

Even the same, &c. What he had professed to them was that he was the light of the world; that he was the bread that came down from heaven; that he was sent by his Father, &c. From all this they might easily gather that he claimed to be the Messiah. He assumed no new character; he made no change in his professions; he is the same yesterday, today, and for ever; and as he had once professed to be the light of the world, so, in the face of contempt, persecution, and death, he adhered to the profession.

The beginning. From his first discourse with them, or uniformly.

John 8:44

Verse 44. Ye are of your father the devil. That is, you have the temper, disposition, or spirit of the devil. You are influenced by him, you imitate him, and ought therefore to be called his children. See also 1Jn 3:8-10, Acts 13:10: "Thou child of the devil."

The devil. Mt 4:1.

The lusts. The desires or the wishes. You do what pleases him. Ye will do. The word will, here, is not an auxiliary verb. It does not simply express futurity, or that such a thing will take place, but it implies an act of volition. This you will or choose to do. The same mode of speech occurs in Jn 5:40. In what respects they showed that they were the children of the devil he proceeds to state:

1st. in their murderous disposition;

2nd. in rejecting the truth;

3rd. in being favourable to falsehood and error.

He was a murderer from the beginning. That is, from the beginning of the world, or in the first records of him he is thus represented. This refers to the seduction of Adam and Eve. Death was denounced against sin, Gen 2:17. The devil deceived our first parents, and they became subject to death, Gen 3:1-24. As he was the cause why death came into the world, he may be said to have been a murderer in that act, or from the beginning. We see here that the tempter mentioned in Gen 3:1 was Satan or the devil, who is here declared to have been the murderer. Comp. Rev 5:12, 12:9: "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent

called the devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the

whole world."

Besides, Satan has in all ages deceived men, and been the cause of their spiritual and eternal death. His work has been to destroy, and in the worst sense of the word he may be said to have been a murderer. It was by his instigation, also, that Cain killed his brother, 1Jn 3:12: "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother." As the Jews endeavoured to kill the Saviour, so they showed that they had the spirit of the devil.

Abode not in the truth. He departed from the truth, or was false and a liar.

No truth in him. That is, he is a liar. It is his nature and his work to deceive.

He speaketh of his own. The word "own" is in the plural number, and means of the things that are appropriate to him, or that belong to his nature. His speaking falsehood is originated by his own propensities or disposition; he utters the expressions of his genuine character.

He is a liar. As when he deceived Adam, and in his deceiving, as far as possible, the world, and dragging man down to perdition.

The father of it. The father or originator of falsehood. The word "it" refers to lie or falsehood understood. From him falsehood first proceeded, and all liars possess his spirit and are under his influence. As the Jews refused to hear the truth which Jesus spoke, so they showed that they were the children of the father of lies.

(r) "Ye are" Mt 13:38, 1Jn 3:8 (s) "abode not in the truth" Jude 1:6

John 15:27

Verse 27. Ye also shall bear witness. You shall be witnesses to the world to urge on them the evidences that the Lord Jesus is the Messiah.

Have been with me. They had for more than three years seen his works, and were therefore qualified to bear witness of his character and doctrines.

From the beginning. From his entrance on the public work of the ministry, Mt 4:17-22. Comp. Acts 1:21,22.

(f) "And ye also shall bear witness" Lk 24:48, Acts 2:32, 4:20,33 2Pet 1:16

(g) "ye have been with me from the beginning" 1Jn 1:2.

John 16:4

Verse 4. These things which are about to happen, Jn 16:1,2. He had foretold then that they would take place.

Ye may remember, &c. By calling to mind that he had foretold these things they would perceive that he was omniscient, and would remember, also, the consolations which he had afforded them and the instructions which he had given them. Had these calamities come upon them without their having been foretold, their faith might have failed; they might have been tempted to suppose that Jesus was not aware of them, and of course that he was not the Messiah. God does not suffer his people to fall into trials without giving them sufficient warning, and without giving all the grace that is needful to bear them.

At the beginning. In the early part of the ministry of Jesus. The expression these things here refers, probably, to all the topics contained in these chapters. He had, in the early part of his ministry, forewarned them of calamities and persecutions (Mt 10:16, 5:10-12; Mt 9:15), but he had not so fully acquainted them with the nature, and design, and sources of their trials; he had not so fully apprised them of the fact, the circumstances, and the object of his death and of his ascension to heaven; he had not revealed to them so clearly that the Holy Spirit would descend, and sanctify, and guide them; and especially he had not, in one continued discourse, grouped all these things together, and placed their sorrows and consolations so fully before their minds. All these are included, it is supposed, in the expression "these things."

Because I was with you. This is the reason which he gives why he had not at first made known to them clearly the certainty of their calamities and their joys; and it implies,

1st. That it was not needful to do it at once, as he was to be with them for more than three years, and could have abundant opportunity gradually to teach these things, and to prepare them for the more full announcement when he was about to leave them.

2nd. That while he was with them he would go before them, and the weight of calamities would fall on him, and consequently they did not so much then need the presence and aid of the Holy Spirit as they would when he was gone.

3rd. That his presence was to them what the presence of the Holy Spirit would be after his death, Jn 16.7. He could teach them all needful truth. He could console and guide them. Now that he was to leave them, he fully apprised them of what was before them, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit to do for them what he had done when with them.

Acts 11:15

Verse 15. And as I began to speak. Or, when I was speaking.

The Holy Ghost, etc. Acts 10:44

(d) "fell on them" Acts 2:4

1 John 1:1

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN.

INTRODUCTION.

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.

(a.) 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, beside 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 Lucke, Einlei. 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, "Beside his gospel, his first epistle is universally acknowledged by those of the present time, and by the ancients; but the other two are contradicted."

(b.) It is found in the old Syriac version, probably made in the first century, though the second and third epistles are not there.

(c.) The genuineness of the first epistle was never extensively called in question, and it was never reckoned among the doubtful or disputed epistles.

(d.) 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 Lucke, Einlei. 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:

EPISTLE. GOSPEL

Chapter i. 1 compared with Chapter i. 1, 4, 14.

ii. 5............................. xiv. 23.

ii. 6............................. xv. 4.

ii. 8; iii. 11.................... xiii. 34.

ii. 8, 10 ........................ i. 5, 9; xi.10.

ii. 13, 14........................ xvii. 3.

iii. 1 ........................... i. 12.

iii. 2 ........................... xvii. 24.

iii. 8 ........................... viii. 44.

iii. 13........................... xv. 20.

iv. 9............................. iii. 16.

iv. 12............................ i. 18.

v. 13............................. xx. 31.

v. 14............................. xiv. 14.

v. 20............................. xvii. 2.

This language in the epistle, as will be easily seen by a comparison, is such as the real 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 tho 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 this 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 d subject, and should express himself the second time without intending to copy what he had said the first.

(b.) 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 endeavoured 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 Jn 19:35, 21:24. Compare 3Jn 12. 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 anything 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.

II.--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 afterwards 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 Lucke, Einlei. Kap. 2; and in Hug, Introduction, p. 456, 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 cannot 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, εσχατηωρα 1Jn 2:18. 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. Isa 2:2; Acts 2:17; Heb 1:2. The object of the writer of this epistle, in the passage referred to, (1Jn 2:18,) 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 doctrines 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 Lucke 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," Einlei. 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 68; and Mill and Le Clerc that it was about the year 97. In this uncertainty, 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, and its want of exact order, and especially in the style in which he addresses those to whom he wrote, as little children-- τεκνια --(1Jn 2:1,12,28, 3:7,18, 4:4; 5:21)--which would seem to be appropriate only to an aged man. Comp. Lucke, Einlei. pp. 23, 25, and Stuart in Hug's Introduction, pp. 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. Lucke supposes that it was a circular epistle addressed to the churches in Asia Minor, and sent from Ephesus.

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 whom 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, or by the sentiments, or 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 opinion 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 Lucke, Enlei. 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.

III.--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. Loeffler supposes that Jews and Judaizers are the persons opposed; Semler, Tittman, Knapp, and Lange suppose that they were Judaizing Christians, and especially Ebionites, or apostate Christians; Michaelis, Kleuker, Paulus, and others, suppose that the Gnostics are referred to; others, as Schmidt, Lucke, Vitringa, Bertholdt, Prof. Stuart, suppose that the Docetae was the sect that was principally opposed. 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 1Jn 2:19, "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 Docetae; or if that sect had not then formally sprung up, and was not organized, they held the opinions which they afterwards embraced. This 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, yet all this was only an assumed form for the purpose of a manifestation to men. The opinions of the the Docetes are thus represented by 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."-- Dic. L. Fall, vol. iii. p. 245, Ed. New York. 1829. Comp. vol. i. 440.

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," 1Jn 1:1,3. "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," 1Jn 4:1-3. Comp. 1Jn 4:9,14,15, 5:1,6,10-12. John had written his gospel to show that Jesus was the Christ, (Jn 20:31;) he had furnished ample proof that he was Divine, or was equal with the Father, (1Jn 1:1-4,) and also that he was truly a man, (Jn 15:25-27) 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 1Jn 5:13: "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 intelligent faith.

In connexion 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.) 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 were in accordance with his peculiarity of mind as "the beloved disciple," the disciple whose heart was full of love, and who made religion consist much in that.

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 fell; 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.

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. CHAPTER I.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

THIS short chapter embraces the following subjects:

I. A strong affirmation that the Son of God, or the "Life," had appeared in the flesh, 1Jn 1:1-3. 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, 1Jn 1:3,4.

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, 1Jn 1:5-10.

(a.) In God is no darkness, no impurity, no sin, 1Jn 1:5.

(b.) If we are in darkness, if we are ignorant and sinful, it proves that we cannot have any fellowship with him, 1Jn 1:6.

(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, 1Jn 1: 7.

(d.) Yet 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, 1Jn 1:8,10.

(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 graces by which our sins may be forgiven, 1Jn 1:9. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The information for Verses 1 and 2 of 1st John is contained in the 2nd verse.

1 John 2:7

Verse 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 1Jn 2:8 that there was 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, the apostle here may have 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 was charged with breaching 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.

But an old commandment. Old, in the sense that it has always been inculcated; that religion has always enjoined it.

Which ye had from the beginning. Which you have always received ever since you heard anything 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. Compare 1Jn 1:1.

The old commandment is the word 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 Jn 1:1,2. 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."

1 John 2:13-14

Verse 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 νεανισκοι, 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. 1Jn 1:1. The argument is, that they had been long acquainted with the principles of his religion, and understood well its doctrines and duties. It cannot 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 froth 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 was 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.

I write unto you, young men. νεανισκοι. This word would properly embrace those who were in the rigour of life, midway between children and old men. It is uniformly rendered young men in the New Testament: Mt 19:20,22, Mk 14:61, 16:6, Lk 7:14, Acts 2:17, 5:10; and in the passages before us. It does not elsewhere occur. It is commonly understood as embracing those in the prime and rigour of manhood up to the period of about forty years.--Robinson.

Because ye have overcome the wicked one. That is, because you have rigour, (see the next verse,)and that rigour 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 combatted 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 vigour 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, be; cause 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 rigour 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 rigour in the sacred cause of religion.

I write unto you, little children". Many Mss. read here, I have written--εγραψα--instead of I write--γραφω. This reading is found in both the ancient Syriac versions, and in the Coptic; it was followed by Origen, Cyril, Photius, and OEcumenius; and it is adopted by Grotius, Mill, and Hahn; and is probably the true reading. The connexion seems to demand this. In 1Jn 2:12,13, the apostle uses the word γραφω--I write--in relation to children, fathers, and young men; in the passage before us, and in the next verse, he again addresses children, fathers, and young men, and in relation to the two latter, he says εγραψα--I have written. The connexion, therefore, seems to demand that the same word should be employed here also. Some persons have supposed that the whole passage is spurious, but of that there is no evidence; and, as we have elsewhere seen, it is not uncommon for John to repeat a sentiment, and to place it in a variety of lights, in order that he might make it certain that he was not misapprehended. Some have supposed, also, that the expression "I have written," refers to some former epistle which is now lost, or to the Gospel by the same author, which had been sent to them, (Hug.,) and that he means here to remind them that he had written to them on some former occasion, inculcating the same sentiments which he now expressed. But there is no evidence of this, and this supposition is not necessary in order to a correct understanding of the passage. In the former expression, "I write," the state of mind would be that of one who fixed his attention on what he was then doing, and the particular reason why he did it--and the apostle states these reasons in 1Jn 2:12,13. Yet it would not be unnatural for him immediately to throw his mind into the past, and to state the reasons why he had resolved to write to them at all, and then to look at what he had purposed to say as already done, and to state the reasons why that was done. Thus one who sat down to write a letter to a friend might appropriately state in any part of the letter the reasons which had induced him to write at all to him on the subject. If he fixed his attention on the fact that he was actually writing, and on the reasons why he wrote, he would express himself in the present tense-- I write; if on the previous purpose, or the reasons which induced him to write at all, he would use the past tense--I have written for such and such reasons. So John seems here, in order to make what he says emphatic, to refer to two states of his own mind: the one when he resolved to write, and the reasons which occurred to him then; and the other when he was actually writing, and the reasons which occurred to him then. The reasons are indeed substantially the same, but they are contemplated from different points of view, and that fact shows that what he did was done with deliberation, and from a deep sense of duty.

Because ye have known the Father. In 1Jn 2:12, the reason assigned for writing to this class is, that their sins were forgiven, The reason assigned here is, that in early life they had become acquainted with God as a Father. He desires that they would show themselves dutiful and faithful children in this relation which they sustained to him. Even children may learn to regard God as their Father, and may have towards him all the affectionate interest which grows out of this relation.

(a) "him" 1Jn 1:1 (*) "little children" "Children" (b) "Father" Jn 14:7,9 Verse 14. I have written unto you, fathers, because, etc. The reason assigned here for writing to fathers is the same which is given in the previous verse. It would seem that, in respect to them, the apostle regarded this as a sufficient reason for writing to them, and only meant to enforce it by repeating it. The fact that they had through many years been acquainted with the doctrines and duties of the true religion, seemed to him a sufficient reason for writing to them, and for exhorting them to a steadfast adherence to those principles and duties.

I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, etc. The two additional circumstances which he here mentions as reasons for writing to young men are, that they are strong, and that the word of God abides in them. The first of these reasons is, that they were strong; that is, that they were qualified for active and useful service in the cause of the Redeemer. Children were yet too young and feeble to appeal to them by this motive, and the powers of the aged were exhausted; but those who were in the rigour of life might be called upon for active service in the cause of the Lord Jesus. The same appeal may be made now to the same class; and the fact that they are thus vigorous is a proper ground of exhortation, for the church needs their active services, and they are bound to devote their powers to the cause of truth. The other additional ground of appeal is, that the word of God abode in them; that is, that those of this class to whom he wrote had showed, perhaps in time of temptation, that they adhered firmly to the principles of religion. They had not flinched from an open defence of the truths of religion when assailed; they had not been seduced by the plausible arts of the advocates of error, but they had had strength to overcome the wicked one. The reason here for appealing to this class is, that in fact they had showed that they could be relied on, and it was proper to depend on them to advocate the great principles of Christianity.

(c) "strong" Eph 6:10 (d) "abideth" Jn 15:7 (e) "overcome" Rev 2:7

1 John 2:24

Verse 24. Let that therefore abide in you. Adhere steadfastly to it; let the truth obtain a permanent lodgement in the soul. In view of its great importance, and its influence on your happiness here and hereafter, let it never depart from you.

Which ye have heard from the beginning. That is, the same doctrines which you have always been taught respecting the Son of God and the way of salvation. 1Jn 2:7.

Ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. Truly united to the Son and to the Father; or having evidence of the favour and friendship of the Son and the Father.

(c) "Let" 2Jn 1:6 (*) "remain" "abide" (*) "continue" "abide"
Copyright information for Barnes