1 John 3:1

what manner of The same word (ποταπός) occurs Matthew 8:27; Mark 13:1; Luke 1:29; Luke 7:39; 2 Peter 3:11: it always implies astonishment, and generally admiration. The radical signification is -of what country", the Latin cujas; which, however, is never used as its equivalent in the Vulgate, because in N. T. the word has entirely lost the notion of place. It has become qualisrather than cujas: -what amazinglove". In LXX. the word does not occur.

love This is the key-word of this whole division of the Epistle (1 John 2:19 to 1 John 5:12), in which it occurs 16 times as a substantive, 25 as a verb, and 5 times in the verbal adjective -beloved". The phrase -to bestow love" occurs nowhere else in N. T.

the Father … upon us In the Greek these words are in striking juxtaposition: to usmiserable sinners the Fatherhath given this priceless right. -The Father" rather than -God", because of what follows: He who is theFather is ourFather.

that we should be called Literally, in order that we should be called: it is S. John's characteristic construction (ἵνα), as in 1 John 1:9. "The final particle has its full force" (Westcott): comp. 1Jn 3:11; 1 John 3:23, 1 John 4:21; John 13:34; John 15:12; John 15:17. This was the purpose of His love, its tendency and direction. -That we should be" must not be understood as future: we already have the title.

the sons of God So the earlier English Versions: better, as R. V., children of God. There is no article in the Greek; and we must not confuse S. Paul's expression, -sons of God" (υἱοί) with S. John's (τέκνα). The confusion has arisen in English Versions through the filii Deiof the Vulgate. Both Apostles tell us that the fundamental relation of believers to God is a filialone: but while S. Paul gives us the legal side (adoption), S. John gives us the natural side (generation). The latter is the closer relationship of the two. But we must remember that in the Roman Law, under which S. Paul lived, adoption was considered as absolutely equivalent to actual parentage. In this -unique apostrophe" in the centre of the Epistle two of its central leading ideas meet, Divine love and Divine sonship; a love which has as its end and aim that men should be called children of God. After -children of God" we must insert on overwhelming authority (א ABC and Versions), and we are: God has allowed us to be calledchildren, and we arechildren. The simusof the Vulgate and S. Augustine and the -and be" of the Rhemish are probably wrong. The present indicative after ἵνα is not impossible: but would S. John have put -called" in the subjunctive, and -are" in the indicative, if the two verbs were co-ordinate?

therefore Better, as R. V., for this cause (διὰ τοῦτο), reserving -therefore" for a particle (οὖν) which is very frequent in the narrative portions of the Gospel, but does not occur in this Epistle (it is not genuine in 1 John 2:24 or 1 John 4:19). Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan and the Rhemish all have -for this cause": the A. V., as not unfrequently, has altered for the worse. It may be doubted whether the R. V. has not here altered the punctuation for the worse, in putting a full stop at -we are". -For this cause" in S. John does not merely anticipate the -because" or -that" which follows; it refers to what precedes. -We are children of God; and for this cause the world knows us not: because the world knew Him not". The third sentence explains how the second sentence follows from the first. Comp. John 5:16; John 5:18; John 7:22; John 8:47; John 10:17; John 12:18; John 12:27; John 12:39. For -the world" see on 1 John 2:2. S. Augustine compares the attitude of the world towards God to that of sick men in delirium who would do violence to their physician.