1 John 3:18

18. After τεκνία omit μου with [641][642][643][644] against [645][646]. Before γλώσσῃ insert τῇ with [647][648][649][650][651] against [652], and before ἔργῳ insert ἐν with [653][654][655][656][657] against [658].

[641] 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and now at Petersburg. All three Epistles.
[642] 5th century. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. All three Epistles.
[643] 4th century. Brought to Rome about 1460. It is entered in the earliest catalogue of the Vatican Library, 1475. All three Epistles.
[644] 5th century. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it. In the National Library at Paris. Part of the First and Third Epistles; 1 John 1:1 to 1 John 4:2; 3 John 1:3-14. Of the whole N.T. the only Books entirely missing are 2 John and 2 Thessalonians.

[645] 9th century. All three Epistles.
[646] 9th century. All three Epistles.
[647] 5th century. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. All three Epistles.
[648] 4th century. Brought to Rome about 1460. It is entered in the earliest catalogue of the Vatican Library, 1475. All three Epistles.
[649] 5th century. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it. In the National Library at Paris. Part of the First and Third Epistles; 1 John 1:1 to 1 John 4:2; 3 John 1:3-14. Of the whole N.T. the only Books entirely missing are 2 John and 2 Thessalonians.

[650] 9th century. All three Epistles.
[651] 9th century. All three Epistles.
[652] 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and now at Petersburg. All three Epistles.
[653] 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and now at Petersburg. All three Epistles.
[654] 5th century. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. All three Epistles.
[655] 4th century. Brought to Rome about 1460. It is entered in the earliest catalogue of the Vatican Library, 1475. All three Epistles.
[656] 5th century. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it. In the National Library at Paris. Part of the First and Third Epistles; 1 John 1:1 to 1 John 4:2; 3 John 1:3-14. Of the whole N.T. the only Books entirely missing are 2 John and 2 Thessalonians.

[657] 9th century. All three Epistles.
[658] 9th century. All three Epistles.

18. τεκνία, μὴ�. λόγῳ. The Apostle, as in 1 John 2:28; 1 John 3:13; 1 John 4:1; 1 John 4:7, hastens on to a practical application of what he has been stating as the principles of Christian Ethics; and in each case he prefaces his gentle exhortation with a word of tender address. ‘Dear children, do not think that I am giving you a series of philosophical truisms; I am telling of the principles which must govern your conduct and mine, if we are children of the God who is Light and Love.’ Note the present subjunctive after μή, indicating a continuous feeling, somewhere in existence, which is to be discontinued or avoided: ‘Do not let us go on loving in word, as some people do.’ In N.T. when μή prohibitive is joined with the third person, the verb is always in the imperative (Matthew 6:3; Matthew 24:17-18; Romans 6:12; Romans 14:16; &c.): when it is joined with the first person, as here, the verb is in the subjunctive (John 19:24; 1 Corinthians 10:8; Galatians 5:26; Galatians 6:9; &c). Winer, 629. The above examples shew that both present and aorist are used frequently in both moods.

μηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ. As R.V. (emended reading), neither with the tongue; “the tongue as the particular member for the expression of the word” (Huther). Perhaps ‘with word’ would be better than ‘in word,’ if ‘in word’ were not the usual idiom. The simple datives, λόγῳ and τῇ γλώσσῃ, seem to indicate the instruments with which the false love is shewn, the preposition, ἐν. λ. καὶ�., the sphere in which it is shewn. For the contrast between λόγος and ἔργον, so common in Thucydides, comp. Luke 24:19; Acts 7:22; Romans 15:18; 2 Corinthians 10:11; Colossians 3:17. Is there any difference between loving in word and loving with the tongue? And is there any difference between loving in deed and loving in truth? The answer must be the same to both questions. The oppositions between ‘word’ and ‘deed’ and between ‘tongue’ and ‘truth’ are so exact as to lead us to believe that there is a difference. To love in word is to have that affection which is genuine as far as it goes, but which is so weak that it never gets further than affectionate words: such love is opposed, not to truth, but to loving acts. To love with the tongue is to profess an affection which one does not feel, which is sheer hypocrisy: it is opposed, not to deeds, but to truth. It may shew itself also in hypocritical acts, done (as Bede points out) not with the wish to do good, but to win praise, or to injure others. Tyndale and the Rhemish Version have no second ‘in’ before ‘truth’: it should of course be omitted, as in R.V. Comp. James 2:15; Romans 12:9.

What follows, though intimately connected with the first part of the section (see next note), almost amounts to a fresh departure. The subject of love and its opposite is transformed into the security and serenity of conscience which genuine and active love is able to produce.