I. 1 stands better in the Revised Version, which not only makes each verse more distinct, but correctly distinguishes the tenses. It is in each “that which;” whilst the two later are not perfects, but simply preterites. But there is no need for the awkwardness of “the life, the eternal life” in 2, any more than for “that eternal life” in the Authorized Version. Nor should the verse open with “For,” but “And.” In 3 is not the true force “report” rather than “declare,” or “show?” “Yea,” &c., well represents καὶ δέ The first serious difference of reading is in 4, ἡμεῖς, “we,"(à Ap.m. B P &c.) for ὑμῖν, “unto you” (Acorr C K L &c.); and “our” (à B L., many cursives and versions), for ὑμῶν (A C K P, the majority of cursives, and many ancient versions). R. Stephens followed the Complutensian editors in preferring “our,” Elzevir followed Erasmus and Beza in adopting “you;” and so respectively the Revised Version and the Authorized Version. If “our” be right, it would join the believers with the apostles in the same joy through fellowship with the Father and with His Son. But is it not strange that the Revisers adopt a text so ill supported as αὕτη ἐστίν (A, &c.), when there is such strong and united authority for the more emphatic;—ἕστιν αὕυτη (à B C K L P, the mass of cursives, &c.), “And there is this message,” &c.? Certainly the early editors, Erasmus, the Complutensian, and Colinaeus all give the emphatic form according to ancient authority, but not R. Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir. Was it Beza that influenced the Authorized translators in “This then?” He ventures in his notes to take καί as equivalent to οὖν, where it is clear that it merely adds an entirely new subject; and this a “message,” not “promise,” as would be true if the text of all the older editors could stand. But it is really ἀγγελία, not ἐπαγγ., in spite of C P and some cursives. It is remarkable that our translators, in misrendering their text, stumbled on the version of the right text. There is good authority (à B C P, &c.) for omitting “Christ” in 7, though most witnesses insert it: which one would think should have been stated in the margin.
2:2 is a great improvement on the Authorized Version, where the words added in italics overstep the truth, and unwittingly imply a serious error. If “the sins of” the whole world were expiated, what would there be to judge? Never does Scripture so teach, save as to believers. Yet Christ died for every man—gave Himself a ransom for all; but only of believers is it said that He died and suffered for their sins, or bore them in His body on the tree. But He is the propitiation for the whole world, as well as for our sins; and so the gospel can go forth freely to all the creation. Is 3 adequately rendered by the Revisers? Who could gather the difference between the present and the perfect in the opening clause? Even the Authorized Version makes a faint effort; the Revised Version none. Surely ἐγν. (the second “know”) means “we acquired and possess the knowledge of.” So it is at the beginning of 4 also.
Further, is it an intelligent division of the Epistle to make 3-6 a part of the paragraph beginning With ch. 2? To my mind verses 1, 2, form the necessary supplement to the doctrine of chapter 1 in both its parts (1-4, and 5-10), intimating not only the responsibility of the family of God, but the provision of grace to restore in the case of sin. Then 3 begins to unfold the qualities or characteristic ways of the life given us in Christ, the eternal life of the believer: obedience (3-6) and love (7-11), with their opposites. But this points to two paragraphs to be marked accordingly, which the Revisers have utterly missed by grouping 2:1, 2 with 3-6 as if they were continuous; whereas the great break is after 2; and 3-11 might bettor have gone together, though it is perhaps more strictly correct to give first 3-6, and then 7-11 as distinct.
In 7 the true reading “beloved” is rightly followed, as fitly introducing the commandment—love. Also the Revisers as rightly expunge “from the beginning” at the end of the verse, however important these words are in the middle of it. In 8 the rendering of the Revised Version is correct— “passing away,” not “past,” as in the Authorized Version. Past it will never be till Christ reigns in power and glory. Yet the same thing being true in Him and in the saints (whatever the difference of measure), the darkness passes away, and the true light does now shine.
Is not the arrangement of 12-29 objectionable? It gives evidence that the structure of the Epistle was not understood. For 12 is the comprehensive address to all the family of God (τεκνία) on the ground of their sins forgiven for Christ's name. Then 13 divides the family into the, three classes of (1) fathers, (2) young men, and (3) babes (παιδία), respectively and specifically addressed again in (1) 14, (2) 14-17, and (3) 18-27; 28 and 29 resuming the general designation to the entire family as in 2:1, 3:7, 18, 4:4, and 5:21. Clearly therefore, if this be true as I feel assured, a new paragraph should not begin at 18 as in the Revised Version; as it might also have conduced to clearness if 12 had stood alone, and a new paragraph had begun with 28. No doubt the Revised Version has sought to distinguish τεκνία from the class contained under it (παιδία) by adding “my;” but is this the best way of marking the distinction? Is it not due to the same lack of appreciating the truth intended that the Revisers like others adopt the well nigh absurd variant ἔγραψα instead of γράφω in the last part of 13? It is contrary to the plain facts of the context, and the necessary bearing of the verse. The Apostle had not written before to the babes; he was now writing to them as such for the first time, as in the same verse to the fathers and to the young men. Then he goes over the ground again to the three in 14-27, where ἔγραψα is requisite, not γράφω. It is granted that diplomatic evidence is decidedly in favor of the misreading ἔγ. in the end of 13. In fact, only K, a Moscow uncial, with a fair amount of cursives and some ancient versions, stands opposed to the great mass of ancient authority. It is one of the very few cases where a few witnesses of less value contain the true reading disfigured from an early date, so that the error was widely diffused. The effect is most disastrous on the interpretation, as any English reader may see in Dean Alford's work, where we are thereby landed in the bewildering conclusion that we have three classes of readers, denoted the first time by τεκνία! πατέρες, νεανίσκοι, and the second time by παιδία, πατέρες, νεανίσκοι: a strange confusion, where the fathers are made the central group, first introduced by τ. and then by π. as if these were identical, whereas there is the necessity of admitting that τ. and π. are differently addressed; a singular thing if they were the same class, to the loss of the truth that the first is the general designation, as the latter described particularly the youngest class. The inference is that τ. and π. address all the readers alike! and that “nothing satisfactory” comes out, which is very true. If γράφω, be accepted all through 13, light dawns, and the beautiful order of the truth shines unmistakably. After speaking of all in 12, the writer first briefly addresses each of the three subdivisions, and then a second time more fully, as need required, which gives so much the force to the “fathers” where he could only repeat, without adding one word more; for Christ is all. In 18 “there have arisen” or “come” is better than the Authorized Version, as last “hour” is more vivid. In 19 it is rightly “they all are not of us,” i.e., none are of us. The margin, like the Authorized Version, is in error, if not nonsense.— In 23 the true text is reinstated from the ignominy of italics on ample and unimpeachable authority (à B C P, about thirty-five cursives, Vulg. Cop. Syrr. Arm. Aeth, &c.). In 24 οὖν, “therefore,” is rightly dropt. In 27 “the same” or “his” is a rather evenly-balanced question; but it is “true,” not “truth;” and it is a question between “abide,” or “shall abide,” at the end.
In 28 “if” is better than “when,” as the question is one of contingent consequence, and not exactly time. The margin has to be brought in to supply the deficiency of the Revised Version in rendering ἀπ' αὐτοῦ. “From before Him” has been suggested. In 29 the imp. form of the margin is better than the ind. of the Revised Version; but there is no indication of the difference between the two words for “know.” “Also” is by the Revisers adopted in the last clause; but in this epistle we have the older authorities agreeing in strange readings.
3:1 is an instance of what appears to be an enfeebling gloss appended to the first part of the verse. ἐσμεν is admirable in 2; but here καί ἐσμεν seems justly questioned, though attested by à ABC P, many cursives, and the Vulgate with other ancient versions. The Revisers rightly say “children,” not “the sons” as in the Authorized Version. The apostle John brings out eternal life and to be born of God; not the position of sons in contrast with slaves. Compare John 1:12, 1312But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12‑13). In 2 they have corrected “it doth not yet appear” into “it is not yet made manifest,” though it does not accord with their claim of precision for the aorist, which Dean Alford would render “it never yet was manifested.” Of course actual appearing is meant, not making known by the word to faith, for this is already and clearly made; as the next clause indeed declares, without the copula of the Text. Rec “We know that, if He shall be manifested, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” The “it” of the margin for “He,” though approved by Tyndale, &c., seems uncalled for. In 3 there is a strong effort to guard against the misconstruing of ἐπ' αὐτῷ “on him,” by the italic addition of set. At length there is an adequate public version of 4, so long misrendered to the inculcation of endless error in theology: “Every one that doeth [or, practiseth] sin doeth [or, practiseth] also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness,” not the transgression of the law, which is not imperfect only but false. Compare Rom. 2:12; 4:15; 5:13, 1412For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (Romans 2:12)
15Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. (Romans 4:15)
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:13‑14); and 1 Cor. 9:20, 2120And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. (1 Corinthians 9:20‑21). In 6 “knoweth” in the text is a loose rendering of ἔγνωκεν, inferior to the Authorized Version. From 13 “my” is rightly omitted; but the omission of τὸν ἀδελφόν near the close is questionable, the general truth being reserved for a later statement. In 16 again we have the perfect έγν rendered “know;” but while permanent effect is meant, a past act ought also to be implied: “We have known” or “have come to know.” The Text Rec. adds μου in 18: why should the Revisers supply “my"? In 19 it is “shall we know,” not “we know” as in the vulgar text followed by the Authorized Version. I doubt greatly the soundness of the rendering of 20, though it is plain that the Authorized Version is rather free and breaks the connection. Some critics and grammarians are much perplexed to find or make the construction smooth, as omission seems to have been resorted to with the same purpose by the copyists. That Lachmann and Tischendorf should make a new paragraph after this verse, breaking the manifest and weighty link between 20 and 21, might seem incredible if it were not before our eyes. I do not see how one can evade rendering 23 as in the margin, not as in the text, however unusual it may sound, which no doubt led to the tampering in 5. 58lect εἰς τὀ ὄνομα. Compare John 5:2424Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24), and other instances of like construction.
4:2 is badly rendered, repeating the old failure of all our English Versions from Wiclif downward, the Rhemish being as often the worst. As the proposition stands in them all, the result is a grave and manifest error. For evil spirits do not shrink from confessing the bare fact stated. What they do not own is the person thus predicated; for this supposes His glory, yet in the humiliation of manhood. It would be senseless to talk of Moses or David, of Homer, Alexander, or Caesar, coming in flesh; for not one of them could have come otherwise. But the Son of God might have come in His own glory, or as an angel, or in any form He pleased. He was pleased to come in flesh, to come of woman, in the accomplishment of infinite grace. Hence the point here is the person that came in flesh, not the fact that He so came, which would be expressed by the infinitive or an equivalent and appended statement, whereas here we have the participle. It should be therefore “confesseth Jesus Christ come in flesh.” This is confirmed in the most direct manner, if we accept (as most modern critics do) the words τὸν Ἰησοῦν without further addition in 3. It is easy to understand in copies accretion more or less from the preceding verse. In 5 there is an effort by inserting “as” to guard against the inference which the Authorized Version might convey, that it is about (περἰ) the world, whereas it means out of it (ἐκ): a worldly source rather than subject. But “in us” will never do for 9, though a seemingly faithful or literal rendering, as in the Rhemish alone of English Versions. It either deprives of all sense, or conveys a false idea. The true force of ἐν ἡμῖν in this connection is “in regard to us,” or in our case. The Authorized Version renders as if the Greek were εἰς ἡμᾶς the converse of their error in Rom. 8:1818For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans 8:18), where from the English we might suppose ἐν ἡμῖν must have been in the text. See the same thing again in 16. In 17 the Revisers of course rightly say “with us,” nearly as in the margin of the Authorized Version, instead of their barbarous textual rendering “our love,” which is the destruction of the truth intended. Our love could never give us boldness in the day of judgment; whereas if divine love has been perfected with us, even to the giving the Christian now to be in this world as Christ is, we may well have such boldness. How wondrous is our identification with Him who is perfect! More wondrous if this be so now in this world that we should have boldness in that day. There is in 20 a rather bold adoption of οὐ on small but good authority, instead of πῶς, but doctrine is not affected by it.
In 5:5 the Revisers may be justified in introducing the copula, for which there is good authority. In 6 there is a difficulty in fitly representing the change from δι' ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος to ἐν τῷ; thrice in the latter clauses (ἐν being omitted in the last instance in Text. Rec. with most copies, but not the oldest save à). Christ came by water and blood, not in the power of the water only, but in the power of the water and in the power of the blood. The believer's blessing is through the death of the Second man, not of the first; and this in virtue of His death, not only to purify but to atone. We need expiation, as well as purification; and both we have in the death of Christ; as the Spirit also bears witness, who is, and because He is, the truth. It is needless to discuss verses 7, 8, as it is clear and known that the last half of the former and the first half of the latter are spurious: three (not six) witnesses, and one testimony. Without the living energy of the Holy Spirit the other two witnesses to the death of Christ were of no avail for us. The three unite to assure the believer on God's part that life is in the. Son and nowhere else, as His death alone purifies and expiates. There is needed correction in the text and translation of 13, which is encumbered in the Text. Rec. and Authorized Version, where there ought to be nothing about “and that ye may believe,” &c. Minor points might be added after this as before; but nothing further occurs to me just now as of any great moment in the revision of this deep and blessed epistle.