1 John 3:24

Abideth in Him and He in Him. "Therefore let God be a home to thee, and be thou the home of God : abide in God, and let God abide in thee" (Bede).

Spirit. The first mention of the Spirit in the Epistle. Never found with Holy in the Epistles or Revelation.

CRITICAL NOTE ON 1 John 3:19-22.

The second great division of John's First Epistle treats of the conflict of truth and falsehood. This section extends from ch. 2 18. to ch. 4 6, and is subdivided under the following topics :

1. The revelation of falsehood and truth (ii. 18 - 29).

2. The children of God and the children of the devil (iii. 1 - 12).

3. Brotherhood in Christ and the hatred of the world (iii. 13 - 24).

4. The Rival Spirits of Truth and Error (iv. 1 - 6).

This passage lies within the third of these subdivisions; but the line of thought runs up into the second subdivision, which begins with this chapter, - the children of God and the children of the Devil.

Let us first briefly review the contents of this chapter down to the point of our text.

God shows His wonderful love in calling us children of God [τ ε κ ν α]; as expressing community of nature, rather than uiJoi (sons), which expresses the position of privilege.

The world, therefore, does not know us, even as it did not know Him. We are children of God; and in this fact lies enfolded our future, the essence of which will be likeness to God, coming through unveiled and transfiguring vision.

The result of such a relation and hope is persistent effort after moral purity. "Every one that hath this hope in Him, purifieth himself, even as He is pure."

This attempt to purify corresponds with the fulfillment of our true destiny which Christ has made possible. Sin is irreconcilable with a right relation to God, for Christianity emphasizes the law of God, and "sin is lawlessness." The object of Christ's manifestation was to "take away sin;" therefore, "everyone that abideth in Him sinneth not." " He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous. " He that committeth sin is of the devil;" but the Son of God was manifested in order to destroy the works of the devil. The divine seed - the divine principle of growth - the germ of the new life is in the true believer; and the ideas of divine sonship and sin are mutually exclusive.

The being a child of God will manifest itself not only in doing righteousness, but in love - the love to God, taking shape in love and ministry to the brethren. This is the highest expression of righteousness. The whole aim of the Gospel is the creation and strengthening of love; and the type of life in God through Christ is therefore the direct opposite of Cain, who being of the evil one, slew his brother.

Over against this love is the world's hatred. This is bound up, as love is, with the question of origin. God's children share God's nature, which is love. The children of the world are the children of the evil one, whose nature is lawlessness and hatred. Love is the outgrowth of life; hatred, of death. He that loveth not, abideth in death. For ourselves, children of God, we know that we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren.

Christ is the perfect type and revelation of love, since He gave His life for us. We, likewise, ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. The practical test of our brotherly love is ministry. The love of God does not dwell in us if we refuse to relieve our brother's need.

The fruit of love is confidence. " In this, we perceive that we are of the truth; and, perceiving this, we shall assure our hearts in the presence of God, in whom we live and move and have our being. It is of the very essence of Christian life that it is lived and tested before God. No assurance or confidence is possible except from being in right relation to God.

Through the consciousness of love, then, which is of God, and which marks the children of God, we perceive that we are children of God - of the truth; and in this knowledge we find assurance and confidence before the very highest tribunal. "We shall assure our heart before Him."

This brings us to the heart of our passage. What is the specific character and direction of our assurance? Of what are we confident? Here we strike the differences in the exposition of the passage. The questions resolve themselves into three :

1. What is the meaning of peisomen (we shall assure or persuade)?

2. How are the otiv (that or because) to be explained?

3. What is the meaning of meizw (greater)? Peisomen may be taken either according to its primitive meaning, persuade, induce, prevail upon (Acts 19:26; Acts 18:4; 2 Corinthians 5:11), or in its secondary and consequent sense, to assure, quiet, appease (Matthew 28:14).

1. If we render persuade, two courses are possible.

(a.) Either we may use it absolutely, and mentally supply something as the substance of the persuasion. "Hereby know we that we are of the truth, and shall persuade our hearts before Him." The mind might then supply : We shall persuade our heart to be confident in asking anything from God. Objection. This would anticipate ver. 21. "If our heart condemn us not, then have we boldness toward God, and whatsoever we ask of Him we receive," etc.; or, We shall persuade our heart to show love in life and act.

Objection. This does not suit the connection; for we recognize ourselves by our love as children of faith, and do not need first to move our hearts to love which already dwells there; or, We shall persuade our heart that we are of the truth.

Objection. This is tautological. We know or perceive that we are of the truth, by the fact of our love. We therefore reject the absolute use of peisomen.

(b.) Still rendering persuade, we may attempt to find the substance of the persuasion in the following clauses. Here we run into the second of our three questions, the double oti, for oti becomes the sign of definition of peisomen. The different combinations and translations proposed center in two possible renderings for oti : because or that.

If we render because, it leaves us with the absolute peisomen which we have rejected. We have then to render - "Hereby perceive we that we are of the truth, and shall persuade our heart before Him : because, if our heart condemn us, because, I say (second oti), God is greater than our heart," etc.

All the other renderings, like this, involve what is called the epanaleptic use of oti; the second taking up and carrying forward the sense of the first. This is very objectionable here, because

1. There is no reason for it. This use of oti or similar words is appropriate only in passages where the course of thought is broken by a long, interjected sentence or parenthesis, and where the conjunction takes up again the thread of discourse. It is entirely out of place here after the interjection of only a few words.

2. There is no parallel to it in the writings of John, nor elsewhere in the New Testament, so far as I know (but see 1 John 5:9).

The case is no better if we translate oti that. Here indeed we get rid of the absolute peisomen, but we are compelled to hold by the resumptive oti. For instance, "We shall persuade ourselves that, if our heart condemn us, that, I say, God is greater than our heart."

Moreover, some of these explanations at least, commit the apostle to misstatement. Suppose, for example, we read : "We shall persuade our heart that God is greater than our heart :" we make the apostle say that the consciousness of brotherly love, and of our consequent being "of the truth," is the basis of our conviction of the sovereign greatness of God. Thus : "Herein (in our brotherly love) do we perceive that we are of the truth, and herein we shall persuade ourselves that God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."

The case is not improved if we render the first oti as pronominal, and read as follows : "We shall persuade ourselves in whatever our heart condemn us, that God is greater than our heart." The object of persuasion, then, is the greatness of God. The sense of condemnation is the occasion of our persuading ourselves : the foundation of our persuasion of God's greatness is our consciousness of being of the truth.

We conclude therefore,

1. That we must reject all renderings founded on the absolute use of peisomen.

(a.) Because it leaves the mind to supply something which the text leads us to expect that it will supply.

(b.) Because the conception of persuasion or assurance takes its character from the idea of condemning or accusing [κ α τ α γ ι ν ω σ κ η], and becomes vague if we separate it from that. 1 John 3

:2We must reject explanations founded on the epanaleptic use of oti for the reasons already given.

We turn now to the rendering adopted by the New Testament Revisers. This rendering takes the first oti with ejan as relative pronominal, and the second as casual; and is as follows :

"Herein do we know (or, more properly, perceive) that we are of the truth; and shall assure (or quiet) our heart before Him in whatsoever our heart may condemn (or accuse) us; because God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things."

The only grammatical objection to this rendering, which is entitled to any weight, is that the exact pronominal phrase oti ejan does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament; but this is little better than a quibble, since we have really the same combination under another form, viz., Galatians 5:10, ostiv ejan (so Lach., West. and H., Tisch., Lightfoot), and possibly in Acts 3:23, where Tisch. reads htiv ejan. In Colossians 3:17, West. and H., Lightfoot, and Ellicott, read oti ejan (" whatsoever ye do in word or deed "). Moreover, it is born out by the frequent use of ejan for ajn after relatives (Matthew 5:19; Matthew 8:19; Matthew 10:42; Matthew 11:27; John 14:7). See Moulton's "Winer," 2nd ed., p. 390.

This rendering introduces the third question : What is the meaning of meizwn? Shall we take it as indicating judgment or compassion on the part of God ? i e. :

1st. Shall we allay the accusation of heart by saying : "God is greater than our heart, His judgment is therefore stricter than ours; and so, apart from fellowship with Him we can have no hope;" or, as Meyer puts it, "Only in conscious brotherly love shall we calm our hearts, for, if we do not love, our heart condemns us, and God is greater than our heart, and there is no peace for the accusing conscience: "or, again, as it is popularly interpreted :

"If our heart condemn us, then God, who is greater than our hearts, and knows all things, must not only endorse, but emphasize our self - accusation." If our heart condemn, how much more God ?

Or, 2nd. Shall we take meizwn as the expression of God's compassionate love, and say, " when our heart condemns us, we shall quiet it with the assurance that we are the proved children of God, and therefore, in fellowship with a God who is greater than our heart, greater in love and compassion no less than in knowledge ?

The choice between these must be largely determined by the drift of the whole discussion, and here, therefore, we leave the textual and grammatical side of the question, and proceed to the homiletical aspect of the passage. Generally, we may observe that the whole drift of the chapter is consolatory and assuring. The chapter is introduced with a burst of affectionate enthusiasm. "Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the children of God, and such we are." The darker shades - the origin and nature of sin; the truth that sinners are of the evil one; the hatred of the world, springing out of this radical opposition between the origin and motive of children of God and children of the evil one - are thrown in to heighten and emphasize the position and privilege of God's children. They are to be left in no doubt as to their relation to God. They are thrown for decisive testimony upon the su