Gosp. xiv. 20-23; xvii. 11, 20-23; 1 Joh. i. 6, sqq.; ii. 3, sqq., it clearly appears, that St. John considered this mutual nowvwvía of Christians with each other, as well as with the Father and the Son, as a pure ethical relation, grounded on knowledge and faith, on active love and lively hope; and that it accordingly was remote from his view (although the contrary has been maintained) to represent this communion by the mystic type of an efflux, conflux, and reflux of divine powers.

V. 4. Indicates more precisely the object of the present epistle. Grotius, with very good reason, referred raura ygάpouer to what follows. The words ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν (not ἡμῶν, which reading has been adopted by some insignificant authorities, which we find in Griesbach, for the purpose of rendering more common place a sentiment which seemed difficult) πεπληρωμένη—recall to our remembrance cognate passages in Christ's last addresses, Gosp. xv. 11; xvi. 20-24; xvii. 13. Only here the notion is more comprehensive and cognate with St. Paul's rigývn zai χαρὰ ἐν πν. ἁγ., Rom. xiv. 17 ; χαρὰ τῆς πίστεως, Phil. i. 25; and with the xaige iv zugíw, Phil. iii. 1; iv. 4, and other similar expressions. St. John understands it of the joy arising from the communion with the Father and the Son, i. e. joy in the Lord.16 For the communion with the Redeemer, and, through him, with God the Father, gives to the Christian that peculiar sigývn, that tranquillity and serenity, ἐπειδὰν δὲ ταύτην σχῆτε τὴν κοινω νίαν, χαρᾶς ἐσόμεθα (according to the reading, ἡμῶν) μεστοί, ὅτι τῷ θεῷ ἐκολλήθημεν.

16 Schol. Matthäi, p. 214.

which elevates him above all earthly pain and sorrow, even the misery of sin, and fills him with increasing joy on account of his salvation (his (wń). But in as far as the communion with the Father, and with Christ, and the consciousness of redemption, is something ever and infinitely increasing, yet, on account of sin and frailty still cleaving even to him who is redeemed, in this life is never rendered quite complete, so is also the Christian zagà ever increasing; and every increase in knowledge and in the life of light is to be considered as its enhancement (its λngwo15), cfr. i. 8, 9.17

SECTION SECOND.

CHAPTER I. 5.-CHAPTER II. 2.

If the communion of Christians mutually with each other, as well as with the Father and the Son, is to be intimate and firm, they must, because God is light, separate from themselves all sin and darkness, and entirely walk in the divine light. Such is the exhortation of St. John to his readers, i. 5-10. And he adds the consolation, ii. 12, that whosoever zealously contends for living in the light, and shuns sin, if he still errs from frailty, he may yet be assured of

17 Luther, in the Schol., says most truly: Dicit autem pleпит. Nam principium hujus gaudii est, quum incipimus credere; postea, quum fides quotidie augescit meditando, docendo, studendo, tum fit plenum gaudium.

forgiveness with God, through Jesus Christ, our intercessor with the Father, the world's Saviour.

All remissness in the zeal for moral sanctity among Christians, is intimately connected with a partial obscuration and extinction of the idea of God in general, but especially of that of his holiness. Very suitably, therefore, St. John commences his paraclesis with the ayyɛdía of God's absolute holiness, which necessarily excludes not only from his essence, but also from every communion with himself, every sin, and all that is impure. God is light, he says, v. 5, ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστι. Φῶς without an article, alone expresses St. John's meaning. In this context sò pus would be false. Luther's translation, "ein Licht" is also erroneous and weakens the idea. St. John adds emphatically: "And there is no darkness whatever in him, (καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία). But light and darkness, in the language of St. John, are symbols of ethical notions, and more specially of that primary ethical antithesis of good, in which alone there is life, and evil in which death is.18 When it is said, that God is light, simply, that is nothing else but an expression for his absolute holiness, see James i. 17, cfr. 13. The Old Testament, indeed, taught that God was holy. But as in general, the doctrine of God in the New Testament is more perfect and pure than in the Old Testament, so the full revelation of the divine essential light, of the divine holiness, and all God's attributes therewith connected, is first communicated by Jesus

18 Schol. Matthäi, p. 111: οὔτε γὰρ ἄγνοια, οὔτε πλάνη, οὔτε ἁμαρτία, οὔτε θάνατος.

Christ, Gosp. i. 15.* Now since, on the idea that God is light, and no darkness in him, is grounded the entire work of man's illumination and revival effected by Christ, and the xgions of St. John also therein has its root, St. John speaks as if this were the main object of the gospel: xai aûrn soriv ǹ ȧyγελία ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ, i. e. of Jesus Christ, &c. Here the Apostle is certainly not speaking of a promise, unless we, disregarding the clear context and all hermeneutical rules, suppose, along with Wolf and some others, that ȧyyɛλía does not merely refer to or immediately following, but to all that the doctrine of Christ contains of promises, and here is not expressly mentioned. Accordingly, tayyɛλía either denotes annunciation, i. e. no more than άyyɛλía, or the reading άyysia, which is to be found in several MSS. of authority, is to be considered as the original.19 The subsequent avayyiλλou also countenances this opinion. Perhaps H. Stephanus, who conjectures that άrayyλía is the true reading, is right. Genuine Greek, as the word is, this would indeed be άağ yóuevos in the whole New Testament;

This explanation suggests the idea, that the difficult passage in Exod. xxxiii. 18–23, may be typical of God's holiness, and v. 18, in a manner synonymous with the pas of St. John, then would signify that objective knowledge of God which unredeemed and unsanctified man can obtain. The verse in the gospel, which Dr. Lucke quotes, seems to countenance this theory. 77, v. 23.-Transl.

19 The best among the ancient versions support άyyɛλía: against these the authority of Philox. is insignificant. In iii. 11, too, we find ἐπαγγελία instead of ἀγγελία in some MSS.

but since St. John frequently uses the verb, nay, even twice immediately before, this conjecture seems to be the more strongly supported, as the corruption ἀπαγγελία from ἐπαγγελία most easily could be explained. The word ȧyyɛλíɑ itself occurs in the whole New Testament, only here, and in iii. 11.20

The construction of iàv v. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, is quite regular.21 Probably many a one in St. John's congregation did so think and act, as here in v. 6, 8, 10, is, in a communicative and hypothetical manner pourtrayed. But, by such a form, the address in one respect, gained a more delicate softness, and, in another, a more universal applicability and efficacy.

With v. 6, cfr. 2 Cor. vi. 14. To say that one is a Christian, (this is the meaning of zov. 7. MET aurou.) and still be devoted to sin, (the figurative phrase ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατεῖν is more than actual sinning, it is sinful life,) is a contradiction in terms, it is deceit and falsehood. The phrase ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, both here and Gosp. iii. 21, which is peculiar to St.. John, completely corresponds with St. Paul's a

Jú, Eph. iv. 15, as also the subsequent oIEN TÙY δικαιοσύνην, ii. 29, with δίκαιον εἶναι.

V. 7, is thus connected with v. 6, and its meaning is as follows: Only he who in deed and in truth is in communion with God, and accordingly, like God himself, is in the light, and likewise removes from

20 The proposition of Artemonius Crell, in Wolf, " to put a stop after the words ἀπ ̓ αὐτοῦ and refer ἐπαγγελία to the zavavía mentioned in v. 3," needs only to he mentioned in order to be rejected.

21 Winer's Gramm. p. 93.