The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 57

mode to tho two sncrnmcnts, and is a. less spiritnal interprctntion. "If t;,.:i one p1s 9,,,,, doeigneclly refers to tho other, the fact of their difTercnt acceptations implies <l,ffc;·'.·nt writers." 'l'his is a most. entirely ~re.t_uHous interpretation of b,Jlh passages (~lather). If there were nny eymbohcal moaurng ID th~e portent of the Gospel, the evan,,.elist c',oc 9 not empbasizo it, but makes use of it a~ proof of the veritable death of Ch~·ist; ancl, on tho other hnncl, the writer of the Epistle does not refer, in the water and blood. wherewith Christ came, to the sacramenta. If" bread" instead of or with " bloou" had been mentioned, this suggestion would have been more plausille. As it stands, it has reference to tlie blood of his atonement which cleanses from all sins, and the water of bis Spirit (the xpCu,,a.), the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which has no reference whatever to the" blood and water" of the gospel narrative. Further- more, the reference to blood and water did. -...ot (eh. xix. 34), however, accompany Christ's coming so much as liis going. To impress upon these two passages meanin,c:s that are by no means obvioW!, and are certainly not expressed by either writer; to insist, moreover, that the writer of the Epistle embodied in veifad form a sacramental reference to an event recorded in the Fourth Gospel, and this for the sake of instituting a con- trast between them,-does not appear reasonable. (g) Hilgcnfeld urges that the Epistle stands in more intimate relationship with the Old Testament Law than the Gospel does ; but his entire argument turns on the defini- tion of "sin" given in 1 John iii. 4-, where it is equated with l,.1101'-la., or lawlessness. It is, however, on the contrary, certain that the writer never uses or makes obvious reference to 110},l-or, while the Gospel does show the writer's acquaintance with it and reverence for it (eh. i. 17; vii. 10, 23). (h) Dr. Davidson insists that the idea of redemption expressed in the Epistle cor- responds with the doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews rather than with that of the l~ourth Gospel; that whereas the latter speaks of Jesus "taking away sin,'' and "giviDg his flesh for the life of the world," the Epistle speaks of his " blood cleansing from all sin" (1 John i. 7), and that he is the lll.a.ufl-&s for the sins of the whole world (1 John ii. 2; iv. 10). Let it be remembered that tlie New Testament writers at different times use different phrases for the atoning quality of Christ's work. The same argument might show that because St. Paul speaks of Christ being set forth as lll.a.trT{ip,011, in Rom. iii. 25, and states tliat Christ was made 1<a.Tdpe for ns, in Gal. iii. 10, 13, he could not have written these two Epistles, which are nevertheless universally admitted to be his, even by impugners of the Fourth Gospel. St. John, when writing the Gospel, had the synoptic narrative before him, and, while penning this Epistle, all tl::e Epistles of Paul and Peter, and it may be that to the Hebrews was before him, and he adds those final touches which blend the Pauline doctrine of ill.ufl-&s and ll.6Tpo11 with that of tlie Gospel of love and of sacrificial and vicarious dcatli. (i) Tile distinction between "venial" and "deadly" sins is urged by many as a. proof that the Epistle was produced in post-apostolic times. The "sin unto death," it is said, cannot be the unpardonable sin ngninst tile Holy Spirit, because it i, not a. single act as that is-a point on which, however, the ablest critics and theologians differ. Ilaur finds the expl:ination of the two classes of sin in tho Mo!ltanistic doctrine of the second contw-y, and in Tertullian's enumeration of mortal sins. Even Hilgenfelcl opposed thia interpretation of the difficnlt passage 1 John v. 16. But tlie most satisfactory explanation is that John clearly se.w that there was a kind of apostasy from Christ and life which precluded hope of amendment, which shut out the possibility of repentance, and concerning which the Christian could not pray for pardon as in harmony with the will of God. This view of the irremissibility of some forms of sin is more than once hinted in the Gospel (iii. 36; viii. 34:; ix. 39). 'l'here is no hint of tho later ecclesiastical doctrino of "venial aud deadly sins." The loose charges against tlie Epistle, that it is weaker in sentiment, more monotonou~ in style, more charged with unnecessary repetitions, can only be met by detailed exegesis. The teaching of the apostle is undoubtedly for less wonderful and original than the sayings of J csus recorded by him iu the Gospel, and it partakes of the didactic and tlieologic characteristics of one who sought to put into words of speculative I\Ild practical bearing the inferences which his lower inspiration drew from the remembered words of the Master. But all the essential truths concerning God and man tmcl the Person of Christ and the means of redemption are repented. !xiv INTRODUCTIO~ TO