Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

Christ, not by water only, but by water and blood." Now these words, which in themselves are not very intelligible, become perfectly clear, if we consider them as opposed to the doctrine of Cerinthus, who asserted that Jesus was by birth a mere man, but that the

on, Christ, descended on him at his baptism, and left him before his death. But if what St. John says, ch. v. 1-6. was opposed to Cerinthus, the Antichrists, of whom he speaks, ch. ii. 18, 19. and who, according to ver. 22. denied that Jesus was the Christ, as also the false prophets mentioned ch. iv. 1-3. must be Cerinthians or at least Gnostics. That they were neither Jews, nor heathens, may be inferred from ch. ii. 19. where St. John says, "they went out from us. "" Further, he describes them ch. ii. 18. as persons, who had lately appeared in the world. But this description suits neither Jews, nor heathens, who, when this epistle was written, had not lately begun to deny, that Jesus was the Christ. Lastly, in the same verse he describes them as tokens of the last time, saying: have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there are many Antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time." But this inference could not be drawn from the refusal of the Jews to acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah.

[ocr errors]

as ye

Now as soon as we perceive, that the position" Jesus is the Christ," is a counterposition against Cerinthus, we may infer, as I have already observed, that the Antichrists who denied that Jesus was the Christ, or who denied that Christ had appeared in the flesh, were Cerinthians: or perhaps the latter were Docetes. It is therefore highly probable, that the whole epistle, which in various places discovers an opposition to false teachers, was written against Ĉerinthians, or at least against Gnostics and Magi. A proposition can never be completely understood, unless we know the author's design in delivering it. For instance," God is light, and in him is no darkness," appears to contain a tautology, if we consider it, as a detached dogma: and if it be considered as an admonitory proposition, it may be thought to contain a severe reproof. But if we regard it in a polemical view, it will present itself under a very different form. This epistle abounds with exhortations: but no man who wishes to understand it, will be satisfied, without asking the following questions. Why did St. John give these admonitions? Why has he so frequently repeated them? Why has he admonished, if he thought admonition necessary, merely in general terms, to holiness and brotherly love? And why has he not sometimes descended to particulars, as other apostles have done? An answer to these questions will throw great light on the epistle; and this light I will endeavour to procure for the reader, by pointing out the several propositions, which, in my opinion, are laid down in opposition to Gnostic errors.

1. In the first chapter, the four first verses are opposed to the following assertion of the Gnostics: "that the apostles did not deliver the doctrine of Jesus, as they had received it, but made additions to it, especially in the commandments, which were termed legal, whereas they themselves (the Gnostics) retained the genuine and uncorrupted mystery." St. John therefore says, "that he declared that, which was from the beginning, which he himself had

:

seen and heard:" that is, that he taught the doctrine of Christ, as it was originally delivered, as he had heard it from Christ's own mouth, whose person he had seen and felt, and that he made no additions of his own, but only reported as a faithful witness. In like manner he appeals ch. ii. 13. 14. to the elder Christians, whom he calls fathers," because they knew him, that was from the beginning," that is, because they knew how Christ had taught from the beginning and ver. 24. he says, "Let that abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning." Further, he says, ch. ii. 7. "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment, which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word, which ye have heard from the beginning." In the next verse, he adds, "Again a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you, because the darkness is past, and the light now shineth." Now Christ himself had given his disciples a commandment, which he called a new commandment: and this was, "that they should love one another." The term "new commandment" St. John borrowed therefore from Christ: but in the present instance he appears to have applied it to a different subject, because the special command, which Christ gave to his disciples, that they should love each other, and which he called a new commandment, could not be well called an old commandment, being very different from the general commandment, that we should love our neighbour. St. John therefore probably meant that the commandment of love and sanctification was no new commandment, as the Gnostics pretended, but was the old commandment of Christ, which the Christians had heard from the beginning. It was indeed become a new commandment, in consequence of the false doctrines, which then prevailed: or rather, it appeared to be so, because the Gnostics had endeavoured to banish it from their system of theology. But whether a new, or an old commandment, St. John thought proper to enforce it.

2. The Gnostics, who contended, that those commandments, which were legal, were not given by Christ, but were added by the apostles without his authority, counteracted, by so doing, the whole doctrine of sanctification. St. John therefore devotes the greatest part of his epistle to the confirmation and enforcement of this doctrine. In the first chapter, ver. 5-7. he asserts, as a principal part of the message, which he had heard from Christ, that no one, who walks not in the light, has fellowship with God. In the three following verses he limits this proposition in such a manner, as was necessary, in arguing with an adversary: and ch. ii. 1. 2. he removes the objection, that, according to his doctrine, a Christian, who was guilty of wilful sins, lost thereby all hopes of salvation. He then maintains, ver. 3-5. and apparently in allusion to the word ywis (knowledge), the favourite term of the Gnostics, that he who boasted of profound knowledge, and at the same time rejected the commandments of Christ, had not real, but only a pretended knowledge and that in him only the love of God is perfected (TETEXEIWTXL), who keeps God's word. The expression TETEλEIWTO is a term, which was used in the schools of the philosophers, and applied to the scholars called esoterici, who had made a considerable progress

in the inner school. Now the Gnostics were, in their opinion, scholars of this description: but since they, whose imaginary system of theology annuls the commands of God, are so far from being perfect, that they are not even beginners in the science, St. John very properly refuses to admit their pretensions, and opposes to them others, who were perfect in a different way, and who were more justly entitled to the appellation. With respect to the expressions keeping the commandments of God," or "not keeping his commandments," it must be observed, that, when used in a polemical work, they denote, not merely the observance or violation of God's commands in our own practice, but the teaching of others, that they are to be observed or rejected. What St. John says, ver. 7. 8. has been already explained in the preceding paragraph.

66

[ocr errors]

The whole of the third chapter, and a great part of the fourth, are devoted to the same doctrine of sanctification, on which I have to make the following remarks.

When St. John says, ch. iii. 7. "Let no man deceive you, he who doeth righteousness, is righteous," he probably intends, not merely to deliver a precept, but to oppose the doctrine of those, who asserted, that a man, though he sinned, might be righteous in respect to his spiritual soul, because sin proceeded only from the material body. A similar observation may be applied to ver. 4. "Who soever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law," which, consider, ed by itself, appears to be an identical proposition, but, when considered as an assertion opposed to the Gnostics, it is far from being superfluous, because, evident as it appears to be, they virtually denied it. From the passage above quoted from the works of Irenæus, we have seen that they rejected the legal commandments, as parts of the Christian religion, which were not warranted by the authority of Christ consequently they denied, that sin was a transgression of the law. Further, it was consistent with their principles, to regard sins as diseases for they believed in a metempsychosis, and imagin. ed that the souls of men were confined in their present bodies, as in a prison, and as a punishment for having offended in the regions above. According to this system, the violent and irregular passions of anger, hatred, lust, &c, were tortures for the soul, they were diseases, but not punishable transgressions of the law. I will not assert, that all, who believed in a transmigration of souls, argued in this manner; but some of them certainly did so, and against these it was not superfluous to write, "Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law."

The love of the brethren, which St. John enforced as a chief commandment, is generally understood of that special love, which Christ commanded his disciples to have toward each other. But I rather think that St. John means the love of our neighbour in general, which Christ commanded, as comprehending the half of the law: for this general love St. John might very properly call the love of our brother, since God has created us all, and is our common father. Besides, as St. John calls Cain, Abel's brother, ch. iii. 12. he could not intend to signify by this term a person of the same religious sentiments. Nor would it have been consistent with candour, to have censured the Gnostics, for not having Christian brotherly

love toward St. John, and other true believers: for in this particular sense they were not brethren; and St. John himself in his Second' Epistle, ver. 10. forbids the exercise of Christian brotherly love toward those, who teach false doctrines. I believe therefore, that the brotherly love, of which St. John speaks in the third chapter of this epistle, is not confined to that special love, which we owe to those who are allied to us by religion, but denotes the love of our neighbour in general. Nor do I except even the 16th verse, where some think that St. John would require too much, if he meant brotherly love in general, or charity toward all men, But are there not cer

tain cases, in which it is our duty to hazard and even sacrifice our lives, in order to rescue our neighbour? Is not this duty performed by the soldier? And is it not performed by him, who visits those, that are infected with contagious diseases? It is true, that this is not a duty which every man owes in all cases to his neighbour: but then, on the other hand, is it not a duty, which every man owes in all cases to his spiritual brother? Nor was it St. John's design so much to enforce this duty, and to recommend the exercise of it, as to argue from the acknowledgement of this duty in certain cases, to the necessity of performing the less painful duty of supporting our brethren in distress by a participation of our temporal possessions. But though I believe, that in the third chapter St. John speaks of the love of our neighbour in general, I do not mean to affirm, that he no where understands that special love which Christians owe one to another, of which we meet with an instance in ch. v. 1. 2.

With respect to the moral conduct of the Gnostics, against whom St. John wrote, we may infer therefore, that the apostle found more reason to censure them, for their want of charity toward their neighbour, than for dissoluteness or debauchery. This want of charity they probably displayed by a hatred of the true be lievers.

• What St. John says, ch. v. 3. that "God's commandments are not grievous," appears in the clearest light, when we consider it as opposed to the Gnostics, to whom the divine commandments, as de, livered by the apostles, appeared to be too legal.

3. St. John declares, ch. i. 5. as the message which he had heard from Christ, "that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." Now, if this proposition had then been as generally admitted, as it is at present, there could have been no necessity for declaring it at the very beginning of the epistle, with so much energy, to be the grand message of Christ. We may reasonably infer therefore, that it was opposed to certain persons, who delivered a contrary doctrine. Further, the words "light" and "darkness," which are here applied to the Deity in a manner which is not usual in the Bible, remind us of the technical terms used by the Persian magi, and after wards by the Manicheans. It is true, that in the Bible we meet with the expressions, "works of the light," "children of the light," "to walk in the light," and others of the same kind: but in these instances the term "light" is not synonymous to "holiness," works of the light denoting nothing more, than works, which no man need be ashamed to perform openly, and in the face of the whole world, This explanation of the word "light" is inapplicable in the propo

sition "God is light," because there would be an impropriety in representing God, either as fearing, or not fearing, to act in the face of the whole world. St. John therefore uses the term "light," as equivalent to holiness.

Now the Gnostics admitted that the Supreme Being was perfectly holy, and pure light: but they denied that the Supreme Being was the God, whom the Jews and the Christians worshipped. For the Jews and the Christians worshipped the Creator of the world: and the Gnostics asserted that the Creator of the world was either a spirit of darkness, or, if he was a spirit of light, that he was not free from darkness.

From chap. ii, 23. where St. John says, that he who denies the Son, rejects also the Father, it appears that his adversaries did not deny the Father in positive terms, since the apostle argues only, that they virtually did so by denying the Son. Now the Gnostics did not positively deny the Father of Christ, whom they allowed to be the Supreme Being: but then they did not allow that he was the Creator. The terms therefore "God," and the "Father of Christ," though they denote in reality the same person, must not be considered as having precisely the same import: since the adversaries of St. John admitted, that the father of Christ was the Supreme Being, and pure light, but denied that the Creator, who is in fact God, was light without darkness.

4. In some places, especially ch. iv. 2. 3. St. John opposes false teachers of another description, namely, those who denied that Christ was come in the flesh. Now they, who denied this, were not Cerinthians, but another kind of Gnostics, called Docetes. For, as on the one hand Cerinthus maintained, that Jesus was a mere, and therefore real, man, the Docetes on the other hand contended that he was an incorporeal phantom, in which the Eon Christ, or the divine nature, presented itself to mankind. Ch. i. 1. our hands have handled," appears likewise to be opposed to this error of the Docetes.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

5. In ch. v. 1-6. the expressions "Jesus the Christ," and Jesus the Son of God," are manifestly used as synonymous. But in our systems of theology the word "Christ" is used to denote the office of our Saviour, and the expression "Son of God" to denote his divine nature. Consequently we use one of these two expressions in a sense, which is different from that, in which it is here used by St. John. Some writers therefore, who have observed this, have proposed to alter the meaning, which we ascribe to the term "Son of God," and to explain this term, as well as the word Christ, as equivalent to Messiah, and expressive of our Saviour's office. But in my opinion we shall be better able to explain the Epistle of St. John, if we take the term "Son of God" in its usual sense, and ascribe to the word "Christ a meaning different from that, which it has in our theology. For the Gnostics, against whom St. John wrote, did not deny the divine nature and the divine mission of Jesus: but they asserted, especially Cerinthus, that Christ was the personal name of the Eon, or divine nature, which, according to their system, accompanied Jesus from the time of his baptism, and to which the voice from heaven, "this is my beloved son," related. When

« ElőzőTovább »