For a detailed examination of linguistic similarities and dissimilarities, see Brooke, pp. i – xix, 235–242, and Law, pp. 341–363.
Law, who himself very much modifies his own aphorism.
Brown, Epistles, p. 95; cf. pp. 158–161, 175 and Grayston, p. 3.
Brooke and Barclay, however, think that John did have Jews in mind, who, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, were even more vigorous in their rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus.
3.3. 4. Eusebius also records the story in the Ecclesiastical History, both in 3.28. 6 and in 4.14. 6.
I.e. ‘not liable to pain or injury’ (OED).
Against Heresies, 1.26. 1.
Refutation of All Heresies, 28.1.
Against Heresies, 3.11. 7.
Ibid., 3.11. 1.
Ibid., 3.16. 8.
Against Heresies, 3.11. 1.
Ecclesiastical History, 3.28. 1–2; 7.25. 2–3.
Longer Version, Chapter VI.
See his discussion on pp. 14–22. See also Smalley’s hesitations on pp. 111–113 and 278–279. Brown, Epistles, has an Appendix II entitled ‘Cerinthus’ (pp. 766–771).
Dodd adds in a footnote, however, that it is not necessary to decide between this and ‘the absolute Beginning of the universe’, since ‘the Gospel is by its nature, as the Word of God, an “eternal Gospel” (Rev. xiv. 6)’.
See R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St John, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (Tyndale Press, 1960), pp. 41–42 and Colin G. Kruse, John, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (IVP, 2003).
For the symbolic use of ‘light’ in Scripture, and particularly in the Johannine literature, see the Additional note on this page.
See, e.g., Exod. 40:34–38; Ps. 104:2; 1 Tim. 6:16; Jas 1:17; 1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 21:23; cf. Rev. 22:5. See also Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30.
In the Prologue the Logos is distinguished from John the Baptist. John ‘was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light’ (8). True, in 5:33–35, John’s witness to the truth is described in terms of light, which people ‘chose for a time to enjoy’; yet he was himself not the light, but ‘a lamp that burned and gave light’ (v. 35).
Stephen Neill, Christian Holiness (Lutterworth Press, 1960), p. 35.
Westcott argues in an Additional note (pp. 34–37) that ‘by the outpouring of the Blood the life which was in it was not destroyed, though it was separated from the organism which it had before quickened’. Thus, ‘participation in Christ’s Blood is participation in His life … the simple idea of the Death of Christ, as separated from His Life, falls wholly into the background in the writings of St. John’. With this Brooke agrees, describing the blood of Christ as ‘the power of Christ’s life … set free by death for wider service than was possible under the limitations of a human life in Palestine at a definite date’. But this view has been refuted by A. M. Stibbs in The Meaning of the Word ‘Blood’ in Scripture (Tyndale Press, 1948), where he clearly shows that ‘blood’ in the Bible (e.g. Lev. 17:11) signifies not ‘life’ merely, but ‘life violently ended; it is a sign of life either given or taken in death’ (p. 33).
The NIV translation ‘as an atoning sacrifice’ is better than either ‘expiation’ (RSV) or ‘the remedy for the defilement of our sins’ (NEB). But it is still inadequate, for it omits any allusion to God’s wrath against sin, which is implied in the word ‘propitiation’ (AV). See both the commentary on 2:2 and the Additional note on ‘The biblical concept of propitiation’, pp. 89–92.
Other commentators argue that to ‘have sin’ in the Johannine literature means to ‘have guilt’ or ‘be guilty’. It is thus translated by RSV in John 9:41 (cf. John 15:22, 24; 19:11), and Moffatt translates 1 John 1:8: ‘If we say, “We are not guilty” …’ Law urges that in the Fourth Gospel the phrase ‘specifically denotes the guiltiness of the agent’. In this case the denial here would not be so much of sin itself as of responsibility for it.
Some commentators interpret differently the relation between the faithfulness and the justice, or righteousness, of God, drawing attention to the fact that in the Old Testament God’s righteousness is often not an attribute but an activity equivalent to ‘salvation’ (e.g. Isa. 51:5). Thus Dodd writes: ‘For “John” as for Paul … the mercy or forgiveness of God is a function of His righteousness … If we confess our sins … God forgives … because no other course would be consistent with the perfectly good will by which the whole universe is created and sustained.’ But God’s righteousness (dikaiosynē) is also displayed against sin, and ‘the perfectly good will’ of God does not exclude his ‘wrath’ or antagonism to sin and the consequent need of a ‘propitiation’. See the Additional note, ‘The biblical concept of propitiation’, pp. 89–92.
See the Additional note, ‘The biblical concept of propitiation’, pp. 89–92, for a fuller discussion of the linguistic and theological questions involved in the idea of propitiation.
Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (IVP, 31965), pp. 144–178.
For a more detailed consideration of John’s use of this term see the Additional note, ‘The last hour’ (pp. 111–113).
The verb (gegonasin) may be contrasted with was (ēn), which is used of the eternal Son in 1:1. ‘Christ the Word was from all eternity; antichrists have arisen, have come into existence in time’ (Plummer on 1:1).
See also the Additional note, ‘The meaning of “chrisma” ’, pp. 113–114.
Compare John’s references to the appearing of Christ in 2:28 and 3:2, where the Greek conjunction ean, translated ‘when’, strictly means ‘if’.
‘ “If” implies no doubt as to the fact, it merely implies indifference as to the time’ (Plummer).
NEB (‘when it is disclosed’) and NIV mg. (‘when it is made known’) both follow RV mg. and many commentators in taking as the subject of the verb phanerothē, as of the previous ephanerothē, not Christ but ‘what we shall be’. It could be either. No subject is supplied in the Greek.
See the Additional note, ‘John’s teaching about the devil’, pp. 139–141.
See pp. 131–133 and pp. 133–139 for the Additional notes, ‘The meaning of “God’s seed”’ and ‘The interpretation of 1 John 3:4–9’.
1767 (Epworth Press, 1952).
The Genesis story of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:1–8) does not tell us explicitly why Abel’s sacrifice of the firstlings of his flock was acceptable to God, while Cain’s offering of the fruit of the soil was not. It is, however, implied that Cain had no ground for complaint (6); if he had done what was ‘right’, his sacrifice also would have been accepted (7). According to Heb. 11:4 it was ‘by faith’ that ‘Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did’, and since faith is always a response to God’s word of promise and command, we may assume that God had revealed his will to the two brothers. By faith Abel obeyed; indeed, his righteousness consisted of his believing obedience. Cain, on the other hand, was wilfully disobedient, as is indicated in Jude 11. His murder of Abel exemplified the violent antipathy which righteousness always provokes in the unrighteous (cf. John 3:19–20).
See the Additional note, ‘The meaning of “the world” ’, pp. 105–107.
See the Additional note, ‘The meaning of 1 John 3:19–20’, pp. 148–149, for linguistic and grammatical points.
The verb you can recognize (ginōskete) could be an imperative or an indicative. In favour of the imperative some commentators have argued that John is adding to the two commands of 5:1 not to believe every spirit but to test the spirits, the further instruction to recognize the Spirit of God. Since, however, every other occurrence in the letter of the phrase This is how we know or recognize (although in the first person, while here it is in the second) is followed by an indicative verb, the indicative seems preferable here also. John is making a statement, not issuing a command.
See the Additional note, ‘The interpretation of 1 John 4:2’, pp. 156–157.
Some students do, however, believe that the death and life John is alluding to are physical. They think the situation envisaged is one of serious sickness, whose outcome may or may not be death, according both to the gravity of the sin to which the sickness would be due and to the efficacy of the church’s prayers. By means of intercession the sick person would be brought to repentance and given life, much as in James 5:14–15. The objections to this reconstruction seem to me (1) that sickness is not mentioned, (2) that all the references to life and death throughout the letter, including this context, are spiritual, not physical, and (3) that no guidance is given how to discern between serious illnesses which are, and are not, fatal.
Article ‘Roads and Travel (New Testament)’ in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible.
So Cyril C. Richardson, from whose translation of The Didachē the extracts quoted here are taken (Early Christian Fathers, Vol. 1 of The Library of Christian Classics, SCM Press, 1953, pp. 161–179).