KJV: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
YLT: because of this, then, were the Jews seeking the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.
Darby: For this therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he had not only violated the sabbath, but also said that God was his own Father, making himself equal with God.
ASV: For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Διὰ | Because of |
Parse: Preposition Root: διά Sense: through. |
|
τοῦτο | this |
Parse: Demonstrative Pronoun, Accusative Neuter Singular Root: οὗτος Sense: this. |
|
μᾶλλον | the more |
Parse: Adverb Root: μᾶλλον Sense: more, to a greater degree, rather. |
|
ἐζήτουν | were seeking |
Parse: Verb, Imperfect Indicative Active, 3rd Person Plural Root: ζητέω Sense: to seek in order to find. |
|
Ἰουδαῖοι | Jews |
Parse: Adjective, Nominative Masculine Plural Root: Ἰουδαῖος Sense: Jewish, belonging to the Jewish race. |
|
ἀποκτεῖναι | to kill |
Parse: Verb, Aorist Infinitive Active Root: ἀποκτείνω Sense: to kill in any way whatever. |
|
ὅτι | because |
Parse: Conjunction Root: ὅτι Sense: that, because, since. |
|
μόνον | only |
Parse: Adverb Root: μόνον Sense: only, alone, but. |
|
ἔλυεν | was He breaking |
Parse: Verb, Imperfect Indicative Active, 3rd Person Singular Root: λύω Sense: to loose any person (or thing) tied or fastened. |
|
σάββατον | Sabbath |
Parse: Noun, Accusative Neuter Singular Root: σάββατον Sense: the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work. |
|
καὶ | also |
Parse: Conjunction Root: καί Sense: and, also, even, indeed, but. |
|
Πατέρα | Father |
Parse: Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular Root: προπάτωρ Sense: generator or male ancestor. |
|
ἴδιον | His own |
Parse: Adjective, Accusative Masculine Singular Root: ἴδιος Sense: pertaining to one’s self, one’s own, belonging to one’s self. |
|
ἔλεγεν | He was calling |
Parse: Verb, Imperfect Indicative Active, 3rd Person Singular Root: λέγω Sense: to speak, say. |
|
τὸν | - |
Parse: Article, Accusative Masculine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
Θεόν | God |
Parse: Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular Root: θεός Sense: a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities. |
|
ἴσον | equal |
Parse: Adjective, Accusative Masculine Singular Root: ἴσος Sense: equal, in quantity or quality. |
|
ἑαυτὸν | Himself |
Parse: Reflexive Pronoun, Accusative Masculine 3rd Person Singular Root: ἑαυτοῦ Sense: himself, herself, itself, themselves. |
|
ποιῶν | making |
Parse: Verb, Present Participle Active, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: ποιέω Sense: to make. |
|
Θεῷ | God |
Parse: Noun, Dative Masculine Singular Root: θεός Sense: a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities. |
Greek Commentary for John 5:18
Imperfect active of ζητεω zēteō graphic picture of increased and untiring effort “to kill him” John repeats this clause “they sought to kill him” in John 7:1, John 7:19, John 7:25; John 8:37, John 8:40. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. If this is a passover, this bitter anger, murderous wrath, will go on and grow for two years. Not only brake the Sabbath Imperfect active of λυω luō He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. Λυω Luō means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of λυω luō in this sense like λυειν τα πεντη luein ta penthē (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but his defense had made the offense worse and had given them a far graver charge. But also called God his own Father “His own” Ισος Isos is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means equal. In Philemon 2:6 Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ ισα τεωι isa theōi “equal to God” (plural ισα isa attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be ισος τεωι isos theōi because in John 14:28 he says: “The Father is greater than I.” And yet he says in John 14:7 that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in John 10:33; John 19:7. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defense of his claim to equality with the Father (verses 19-47). [source]
Literally, was loosing: the imperfect tense. See on He did, John 5:16. Not, broke the Sabbath in any particular case, but was annulling the law and duty of Sabbath observance. [source]
Properly, His own Father. So Rev. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for John 5:18
But Westcott and Hort read προσενεγκαι prosenegkai to bring to, after Aleph, B, L, 33, 63 (cf. John 5:18). [source]
Luke puts it in a less damaging way than Mark 3:6; Matthew 12:14. This aorist optative with αν an is the deliberative question like that in Acts 17:18 retained in the indirect form here. Perhaps Luke means, not that they were undecided about killing Jesus, but only as to the best way of doing it. Already nearly two years before the end we see the set determination to destroy Jesus. We see it here in Galilee. We have already seen it at the feast in Jerusalem (John 5:18) where “the Jews sought the more to kill him.” John and the Synoptics are in perfect agreement as to the Pharisaic attitude toward Jesus. [source]
Luke puts it in a less damaging way than Mark 3:6; Matthew 12:14. This aorist optative with αν an is the deliberative question like that in Acts 17:18 retained in the indirect form here. Perhaps Luke means, not that they were undecided about killing Jesus, but only as to the best way of doing it. Already nearly two years before the end we see the set determination to destroy Jesus. We see it here in Galilee. We have already seen it at the feast in Jerusalem (John 5:18) where “the Jews sought the more to kill him.” John and the Synoptics are in perfect agreement as to the Pharisaic attitude toward Jesus. [source]
Strictly, that which hath been born, and consequently is now before us as born. The aorist tense (John 3:3, John 3:4, John 3:5, John 3:7), marks the fact of birth; the perfect (as here), the state of that which has been born (see on 1 John 5:18, where both tenses occur); the neuter, that which, states the principle in the abstract. Compare John 3:8, where the statement is personal: everyone that is born. Compare 1 John 5:4, and 1 John 5:1, 1 John 5:18. [source]
Or, the evil one. This rendering is according to John's usage. See 1 John 2:13, 1 John 2:14; 1 John 3:12; 1 John 5:18, 1 John 5:19; and compare John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11. From ( ἐκ ), literally, out of, means out of the hands of. [source]
Literally, loosened. Wyc., undone. The word is characteristic of John. He uses it of the destruction of the temple (John 2:19); the breaking of the Sabbath (John 5:18); the violation of the law (John 7:23); the destruction of Satan's works (1 John 3:8), besides elsewhere in the physical sense. [source]
This is the proper reading, but one very important manuscript reads ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς , the chosen. By the phrase John means the Messiah. It has the same sense as in the Synoptic Gospels. Compare Matthew 11:27; Matthew 28:19. For the sense in which it was understood by the Jews of Christ's day, see John 5:18, John 5:19; John 10:29, John 10:30-36. The phrase occurs in the Old Testament only in Daniel 3:25. Compare Psalm 2:12. On υἱὸς , son, as distinguished from τέκνον , child, see on John 1:12. [source]
Neuter, not masculine Not one person (cf. εις heis in Galatians 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural συμυς sumus (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by υνυμ unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John 5:18). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (John 5:19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (John 17:11, John 17:21). Note εν hen used in 1 Corinthians 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in John 17:11, John 17:23 of the hoped for unity of Christ‘s disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ‘s claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger. [source]
First aorist active indicative of βασταζω bastazō old verb to pick up, to carry (John 12:6), to bear (Galatians 6:5). The παλιν palin refers to John 8:59 where ηραν ēran was used. They wanted to kill him also when he made himself equal to God in John 5:18. Perhaps here εβαστασαν ebastasan means “they fetched stones from a distance.” To stone him Final clause with ινα hina and the first aorist active subjunctive of λιταζω lithazō late verb (Aristotle, Polybius) from λιτος lithos (stone, small, Matthew 4:6, or large, Matthew 28:2), in John 10:31-33; John 11:8; Acts 5:26; Acts 14:19; 2 Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 11:37, but not in the Synoptics. It means to pelt with stones, to overwhelm with stones. [source]
“Concerning a good deed we are not stoning thee.” Flat denial that the healing of the blind man on the Sabbath had led them to this attempt (John 8:59) in spite of the facts. But for blasphemy See Acts 26:7 where περι peri with the genitive is also used with εγκαλουμαι egkaloumai for the charge against Paul. This is the only example in John of the word βλασπημια blasphēmia (cf. Matthew 12:31). And because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God In John 5:18 they stated the charge more accurately: “He called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” That is, he made himself the Son of God. This he did beyond a doubt. But was it blasphemy? Only if he was not the Son of God. The penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning (Leviticus 24:16; 1 Kings 21:10, 1 Kings 21:13). [source]
The raising of Lazarus brought matters to a head so to speak. It was now apparently not more than a month before the end. They took counsel First aorist middle indicative of βουλευω bouleuō old verb to take counsel, in the middle voice for themselves, among themselves. The Sanhedrin took the advice of Caiaphas seriously and plotted the death of Jesus. That they might put him to death Purpose clause with ινα hina and first aorist active subjunctive of αποκτεινω apokteinō It is an old purpose (John 5:18; John 7:19; John 8:44, John 8:59; John 10:39; John 11:8) now revived with fresh energy due to the raising of Lazarus. [source]
First aorist active subjunctive of αιρω airō (liquid verb). From the evil one Ablative case with εκ ek but can mean the evil man, Satan, or the evil deed. See same ambiguity in Matthew 6:13. But in 1 John 5:18 ο πονηρος ho ponēros is masculine (the evil one). Cf. Revelation 3:10. [source]
Here at last the Sanhedrin give the real ground for their hostility to Jesus, one of long standing for probably three years (John 5:18) and the one on which the Sanhedrin voted the condemnation of Jesus (Mark 14:61-64; Matt 27:23-66), but even now they do not mention their own decision to Pilate, for they had no legal right to vote Christ‘s death before Pilate‘s consent which they now have secured. [source]
Clear use of και kai in the adversative sense of “and yet” or “but.” They marvelled at Christ‘s “ignorance” and boasted of their own knowledge of the law of Moses. And yet they violated that law by not practising it. Why seek ye to kill me? A sudden and startling question as an illustration of their failure to do the law of Moses. Jesus had previously known (John 5:39, John 5:45-47) that the Jews really rejected the teaching of Moses while professing to believe it. On that very occasion they had sought to kill him (John 5:18), the very language used here. Apparently he had not been to Jerusalem since then. He undoubtedly alludes to their conduct then and charges them with the same purpose now. [source]
Another relative clause with the antecedent Recitative οτι hoti again before direct quotation. Because I said Causal use of οτι hoti and regular form ειπον eipon (cf. ειπα eipa in John 10:34). I am the Son of God Direct quotation again after ειπον eipon This Jesus had implied long before as in John 2:16 (my Father) and had said in John 5:18-30 (the Father, the Son), in John 9:35 in some MSS., and virtually in John 10:30. They will make this charge against Jesus before Pilate (John 19:7). Jesus does not use the article here with υιος huios perhaps (Westcott) fixing attention on the character of Son rather than on the person as in Hebrews 1:2. There is no answer to this question with its arguments. [source]
The absolute use of the Son in relation to the Father admitting the charge in John 5:18 and defending his equality with the Father. Can do nothing by himself True in a sense of every man, but in a much deeper sense of Christ because of the intimate relation between him and the Father. See this same point in John 5:30; John 7:28; John 8:28; John 14:10. Jesus had already made it in John 5:17. Now he repeats and defends it. But what he seeth the Father doing Rather, “unless he sees the Father doing something.” Negative condition It is a supreme example of a son copying the spirit and work of a father. In his work on earth the Son sees continually what the Father is doing. In healing this poor man he was doing what the Father wishes him to do. For what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner Indefinite relative clause with αν an and the present active subjunctive Note εκεινος ekeinos emphatic demonstrative, that one, referring to the Father. This sublime claim on the part of Jesus will exasperate his enemies still more. [source]
John‘s favourite general note of the order of events. Bernard conceives that the events in John 7:1-14 follow John 7:15-24 and both follow chapter 5, not chapter 6, a wholly needless readjustment of the narrative to suit a preconceived theory. John simply supplements the narrative in the Synoptics at points deemed important. He now skips the period of withdrawal from Galilee of about six months (from passover to tabernacles). Walked Imperfect active, a literal picture of the itinerant ministry of Jesus. He has returned to Galilee from the region of Caesarea Philippi. He had been avoiding Galilee as well as Judea for six months. For he would not walk in Judea Imperfect active of τελω thelō picturing the attitude of refusal to work in Judea after the events in chapter 5 (perhaps a year and a half before). Sought to kill Imperfect active again, progressive attitude, had been seeking to kill him as shown in John 5:18 where the same words occur. [source]
Outside of Jerusalem (the Galilean crowd as in John 7:11.) and so unfamiliar with the effort to kill Jesus recorded in John 5:18. It is important in this chapter to distinguish clearly the several groups like the Jewish leaders (John 7:13, John 7:15, John 7:25, John 7:26, John 7:30, John 7:32, etc.), the multitude from Galilee and elsewhere (John 7:10-13, John 7:20, John 7:31, John 7:40, John 7:49), the common people of Jerusalem (John 7:25), the Roman soldiers (John 7:45.). Thou hast a devil “Demon,” of course, as always in the Gospels. These pilgrims make the same charge against Jesus made long ago by the Pharisees in Jerusalem in explanation of the difference between John and Jesus (Matthew 11:18; Luke 7:33). It is an easy way to make a fling like that. “He is a monomaniac labouring under a hallucination that people wish to kill him” (Dods). [source]
Direct allusion to the healing of the impotent man when in Jerusalem before (John 5:1.). He had wrought others before (John 2:23; John 4:45), but this one on the Sabbath caused the rulers to try to kill Jesus (John 5:18). Some wondered then, others had murder in their hearts. This crowd here is ignorant. [source]
The people of the city in contrast to the multitude of pilgrims at the feast. They form a separate group. The word is made from Ιεροσολυμα Ierosoluma and occurs in Josephus and 4Maccabees. In N.T. only here and Mark 1:5. These Jerusalem people knew better than the pilgrims the designs of the rulers (Vincent). Is not this? Expecting affirmative answer. Clearly they were not as familiar with the appearance of Jesus as the Galilean multitude (Dods). They seek The plural refers to the group of leaders already present (John 7:15) to whom the Jerusalem crowd probably pointed. They knew of their threats to kill Jesus (John 5:18). [source]
Negative answer expected by μη mē with ablative case of comparison in πατρος patros after μειζων meizōn The question was designed to put Jesus in a difficult position, for Abraham and the prophets all “died.” They do not see that Jesus uses death in a different sense. Whom makest thou thyself? Σεαυτον Seauton is predicate accusative with ποιεις poieis They suspect that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy as they charged in John 5:18 in making himself equal with God. Later they will make it specifically (John 10:33; John 19:7). They set a trap for Jesus for this purpose. [source]
This is reason (causal οτι hoti) enough. He violates our rules about the Sabbath and therefore is a Sabbath-breaker as charged when here before (John 5:10, John 5:16, John 5:18). Hence he is not “from God” So some. How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? This was the argument of Nicodemus, himself a Pharisee and one of the Sanhedrin, long ago (John 3:2). It was a conundrum for the Pharisees. No wonder there was “a division” (σχισμα schisma schism, split, from σχιζω schizō) as in John 7:43; John 10:19. [source]
Better, ye are all sons of God. Note 1. The change of person, ye are. Comp. we, our, us, Galatians 3:23, Galatians 3:24, Galatians 3:25. He now addresses the Galatians, who were mostly Gentiles, and includes all Christians, Jewish and Gentile. 2. The emphasis is on sons of God rather than on all; for his object is to show that, after the coming of faith, they are no more under the care of a guardian. Ὑιοὶ signifies sons of full age (comp. Galatians 4:1) who have outgrown the surveillance of the guardian; so that sons is emphasized as against children. Paul describes Christians both as τέκνα θεοῦ childrenof God (Romans 8:16, Romans 8:21; Romans 9:8; Philemon 2:15), and υἱοὶ θεοῦ sonsof God (Romans 8:14, Romans 8:19; Romans 9:26). Both τέκνον and υἱός signify a relation based on parentage. The common distinction between τέκνον as emphasizing natural relationship, and υἱός as marking legal or ethical status, should not be pressed. In lxx both words are applied ethically to Israel as God's beloved people. See Isaiah 30:1; Wisd. 16:21; Joel 2:23; Zechariah 9:13; and Isaiah 63:6; Deuteronomy 14:1; Wisd. 9:7; 12:19. John never uses υἱός to describe the relation of Christians to God; but he attaches both the ethical relation and that of conferred privilege, as well as that of birth, to τέκνον . See John 1:12; 1 John 3:1, 1 John 3:10; John 1:13; John 3:3, John 3:7; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 5:1, 1 John 5:4, 1 John 5:18. Paul often regards the Christian relation from a legal point of view as υἱοθεσία adoptiona word used only by him. See Romans 8:14, Romans 8:17, we have both υἱοὶ and τέκνα , and both in the ethical sense. In Romans 9:8; Ephesians 5:1, the ethical sense. 3. In Christ Jesus. Const. with faith. The article before πίστεως faithmay point back to the faith previously mentioned, or may have, as so often, a possessive force, your faith. [source]
Ἅπτομαι , A.V., touch, is properly to fasten one's self to or cling to. So John 20:17(note). Frequently rendered touch in the New Testament, and used in most cases of Christ's touching or being touched by the diseased. To get hands on so as to injure, 1 John 5:18. To have intercourse with, 1 Corinthians 7:1; 2 Corinthians 6:17. Thus, in every case, the contact described exerts a modifying influence, and a more permanent contact or effect of contact is often implied than is expressed by touch. “The idea of a voluntary or conscious effort is often involved.” No single English word will express all these phases of meaning. Handle comes, perhaps, as near as any other, especially in its sense of treatment, as when we say that a speaker or writer handles a subject; or that a man is roughly handled by his enemies. This wider and stronger sense does not attach to θιγγάνειν A.V., handle, though the two words are sometimes used interchangeably, as Exodus 19:12, and though θιγγάνειν also implies a modifying contact, unlike ψηλαφάω , which signifies to touch with a view of ascertaining the quality of the object; to feel after, to grope. See Luke 24:39; Acts 17:27. Thus ψηλαφίνδα is blind-man's-bluff. The contact implied by θιγγάνειν is more superficial and transitory. It lies between ἅπτομαι and ψηλαφάω . Thus we have here a climax which is lost in the A.V. Handle not, taste not, do not even touch. Rev., handle not, nor taste, nor touch. [source]
Possibly, from the evil one. Τὸ πονηρόν evilis found Romans 12:9; Matthew 5:39; but general N.T. usage favors the masculine, personal sense. See Matthew 13:19, Matthew 13:38; Ephesians 6:16; 1 John 2:13, 1 John 2:14; 1 John 3:12; 1 John 5:18. In lxx, τὸ πονηρόν evil is very common: ὁ πονηρὸς a few times, but always of men. See Deuteronomy 24:7; Esther 7:6; Job 21:30. In Tobit 3:8,17, τὸ πονηρόν δαιμόνιον thewicked demon. The masculine is favored by the Jewish formularies, of which traces appear in the Lord's prayer; by the unanimous tradition of Greek interpreters; by the interpretations of Tertullian and Cyprian, and by the evidence of the Syriac and Sahidic Versions. [source]
(correct rendition), with a play (paronomasia) on πιστις pistis by πιστος pistos as in Romans 3:3 we have a word-play on απιστεω apisteō and απιστια apistia The Lord can be counted on, however perverse men may be. From the evil one (απο του πονηρου apo tou ponērou). Apparently a reminiscence of the Lord‘s Prayer in Matthew 6:13 ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου rusai hēmas apo tou ponērou But here as there it is not certain whether του πονηρου tou ponērou is neuter (evil) like to πονηρον ponēron in Romans 12:9 or masculine (the evil one). But we have ο πονηρος ho ponēros (the evil one) in 1 John 5:18 and του πονηρου tou ponērou is clearly masculine in Ephesians 6:16. If masculine here, as is probable, is it “the Evil One” (Ellicott) or merely the evil man like those mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 3:2 ? Perhaps Paul has in mind the representative of Satan, the man of sin, pictured in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, by the phrase here without trying to be too definite. [source]
Apparently a reminiscence of the Lord‘s Prayer in Matthew 6:13 ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου rusai hēmas apo tou ponērou But here as there it is not certain whether του πονηρου tou ponērou is neuter (evil) like to πονηρον ponēron in Romans 12:9 or masculine (the evil one). But we have ο πονηρος ho ponēros (the evil one) in 1 John 5:18 and του πονηρου tou ponērou is clearly masculine in Ephesians 6:16. If masculine here, as is probable, is it “the Evil One” (Ellicott) or merely the evil man like those mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 3:2 ? Perhaps Paul has in mind the representative of Satan, the man of sin, pictured in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, by the phrase here without trying to be too definite. [source]
John uses this appeal to knowledge in two forms: we know (1 John 3:2, 1 John 3:14; 1 John 5:18, 1 John 5:19, 1 John 5:20); ye know (1 John 2:20; 1 John 3:5, 1 John 3:15). [source]
John's characteristic appeal to Christian knowledge. Compare 1 John 2:20, 1 John 2:21; 1 John 4:2, 1 John 4:14, 1 John 4:16; 1 John 5:15, 1 John 5:18; 3 John 1:12. [source]
A characteristic form of expression with John, containing “a reference to some who had questioned the application of a general principle in particular cases.” Here to some persons who had denied the practical obligation to moral purity involved in their hope. See 1 John 3:4, 1 John 3:6, 1 John 3:9, 1 John 3:10, 1 John 3:15, 1 John 3:23, 1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 5:1, 1 John 5:4, 1 John 5:18; 2 John 1:9. [source]
See on wickedness, Mark 7:22; see on evils, Luke 3:19; see on evil spirits, Luke 7:21. The prince of darkness is styled by John ὁ διάβολος thefalse accuser (John 8:44; John 13:2; 1 John 3:8, 1 John 3:10. See on Matthew 4:1): ὁ Σατανᾶς Satanthe adversary (John 13:27; compare ὁ κατήγωρ theaccuser, properly, in court, Revelation 12:10): ὁ πονηρός theevil one (John 17:15; 1 John 2:13, 1 John 2:14; 1 John 3:12; 1 John 5:18, 1 John 5:19): ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου theruler of this world (John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11). Note the abrupt introduction of the word here, as indicating something familiar. [source]
To what does this refer? Two explanations are given. (1.) To the following that we may have boldness. So Huther, who argues thus on the ground that 1 John 4:18shows that the drift of the writer's thought is toward the fearlessness of love. According to this, therefore, love has its fulfillment in freeing us from fear, and inspiring us with boldness even in view of the final judgment. (2.) To what precedes, viz., our dwelling in God and He in us. So Westcott: “The fellowship of God with man and of man with God, carries with it the consummation of love.” I prefer the latter, principally on the ground that in such phrases as ἐν τούτῳ inthis, διὰ τοῦτο onthis account, therefore, the pronoun usually refers to something preceding, though more fully developed in what follows. See John 5:16, John 5:18; John 6:65; John 8:47; John 10:17; John 12:18; John 16:15. [source]
Omit Christ. The human name, Jesus, shows that His blood is available for man. The divine name, His Son, shows that it is efficacious. I shall be rendering a service to students of John's Epistles by giving, in a condensed form, Canon Westcott's note, classifying the several names of our Lord and their uses in the Epistles. The name in John, as in the Bible elsewhere, has two distinct, but closely connected meanings. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- 1. The Revelation of the Divine Being by a special title. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- 2. The whole sum of the manifold revelations gathered up so as to form one supreme revelation. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The latter sense is illustrated in 3 John 1:7, where “the name” absolutely includes the essential elements of the Christian creed, the complete revelation of Christ's work in relation to God and man. Compare John 20:31; Acts 5:41. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In 1 John 2:12, the term is more limited, referring to Christ as He lived on earth and gave Himself for “the brethren.” In 1 John 3:23; 1 John 5:13, the exact sense is defined by what follows. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Actual Names Used. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- (I.) His Son Jesus Christ. 1 John 1:3; 1 John 3:23; 1 John 5:20. The divine antecedent is differently described in each case, and the difference colors the phrase. In 1 John 1:2-3, the Father (compare 1John href="/desk/?q=1jo+3:23&sr=1">1 John 3:23, God. In 1 John 5:20, He that is true. Thus the sonship of Christ is regarded in relation to God as Father, as God, and as satisfying the divine ideal which man is able to form. The whole phrase, His Son Jesus Christ, includes the two elements of the confessions which John makes prominent. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- 1. Jesus is the Son of God (John 4:15; John 5:5). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- 2. Jesus is the Christ (John 2:22; John 5:1). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The constituents of the compressed phrase are all used separately by John. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- (1.) Jesus. 1 John 2:22; 1 John 5:1; 1 John 4:3(where the correct reading omits Christ). The thought is that of the Lord in His perfect historic humanity. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- (2.) Christ. 2 John 1:9. Pointing to the preparation made under the old covenant. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- (3). Jesus Christ. 1 John 2:1; 1 John 5:6; 2 John 1:7. Combining the ideas of true humanity and messianic position. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In 1 John 4:15, the reading is doubtful: Jesus or Jesus Christ. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- On 1 John 4:2, see note. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- (4.) The Son. 1 John 2:22, 1 John 2:23, 1 John 2:24; 1 John 4:14; 1 John 5:12. The absolute relation of Sonship to Fatherhood. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- (5.) The Son of God. 1 John 3:8; 1 John 5:10, 1 John 5:12, 1 John 5:13, 1 John 5:20. Compare His Son (1 John 4:10; 1 John 5:9), where the immediate antecedent is ὁ Θεός Godand 1 John 5:18, He that was begotten of God. Combination of the ideas of Christ's divine dignity and divine sonship. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- (6.) Jesus His (God's) Son. 1 John 1:7. Two truths. The blood of Christ is available and efficacious. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- (7). His (God's) Son, His only Son. 1 John 4:9. The uniqueness of the gift is the manifestation of love. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The Son in various forms is eminently characteristic of the First and Second Epistles, in which it occurs more times than in all Paul's Epistles. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Κύριος Lordis not found in the Epistles (omit from 2 John 1:3), but occurs in the Gospel, and often in Revelation. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The expression, the blood of Jesus His Son, is chosen with a profound insight. Though Ignatius uses the phrase blood of God yet the word blood is inappropriate to the Son conceived in His divine nature. The word Jesus brings out His human nature, in which He assumed a real body of flesh and blood, which blood was shed for us.Cleanseth ( καθαρίζει )See on Mark 7:19. Not only forgives but removes. Compare Titus 2:14; Hebrews 9:13sq.; Hebrews 9:22sq.; Ephesians 5:26sq.; Matthew 5:8; 1 John 3:3. Compare also 1 John 1:9, where, forgive ( ἀφῇ ) and cleanse ( καθαρίσῃ ) occur, with an obvious difference of meaning. Note the present tense cleanseth. The cleansing is present and continuous. Alexander (Bishop of Derry) cites a striking passage from Victor Hugo (“Le Parricide”). The usurper Canute, who has had a share in his father's death, expiring after a virtuous and glorious reign, walks towards the light of heaven. But first he cuts with his sword a shroud of snow from the top of Mt. Savo. As he advances towards heaven, a cloud forms, and drop by drop his shroud is soaked with a rain of blood.All sin ( πάσης ἁμαρτίας )The principle of sin in all its forms and manifestations; not the separate manifestations. Compare all joy (James 1:2); all patience (2 Corinthians 7:12); all wisdom (Ephesians 1:8); all diligence (2 Peter 1:5). [source]
A phrase characteristic of John. See John 5:18; John 8:53; John 10:33; John 19:7, John 19:12. [source]
The Cerinthian antichrist denies the identity of Jesus and Christ (1 John 2:22). Hence John insists on this form of faith Nothing less will satisfy John, not merely intellectual conviction, but full surrender to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. “The Divine Begetting is the antecedent, not the consequent of the believing” (Law). For “is begotten of God” (εκ του τεου γεγεννηται ek tou theou gegennētai) see 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 5:4, 1 John 5:18. John appeals here to family relationship and family love. [source]
Present middle indicative of the defective verb κειμαι keimai to lie, as in Luke 2:12. Πονηρωι Ponērōi is masculine, like ο πονηρος ho ponēros in 1 John 5:18. This is a terrible picture of the Graeco-Roman world of the first century a.d., which is confirmed by Paul in Romans 1 and 2 and by Horace, Seneca, Juvenal, Tacitus. [source]