1 John 4

1 John 4:1-6

1 John 4:1-6. Resumption of the warning against the false teachers; comp. chap. 1 John 2:18 ff. The connecting link is formed by ἐκτοῦπνεύματος, chap. 1 John 3:24; the object is to distinguish between the πνεῦμα which is of God and the πνεῦμα which is not of God (1 John 4:2-3), between the πν. τῆςἀληθείας and the πν. τῆςπλάνης: the distinguishing mark is the confession; the former confesses, the latter denies Jesus; the former is mightier than the latter; therefore the believers have overcome the ψευδοπροφήτας; the words of the former spring ἐκτοῦκόσμου, and are pleasing to the κόσμος; the words of the latter are accepted by him who is ἐκτοῦΘεοῦ.

1 John 4:2

1 John 4:2. Statement of the token by which the πνεῦματοῦΘεοῦ is to be recognised.

ἐντούτῳ refers to the following sentence: πᾶνπνεῦμακ.τ.λ.

γινώσκετε is imperative, comp. πιστεύετε, δοκιμάζετε, 1 John 4:1.

πᾶνπνεῦμαὃὁμολογεῖἸησοῦνΧριστὸνἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθότα] It is arbitrary not only to change the participle ἐληλυθότα into the infinitive ἐληλυθέναι, but also to change ἐν into εἰς (so Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Sander); by ἐνσαρκί the flesh, i.e. the earthly human nature, is stated as the form of being in which Christ appeared. The form of the object is explained by the polemic against Docetism; it is to be translated either: “Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” (Lücke, de Wette, Düsterdieck, Ebrard, etc.); or: “Jesus, as Christ come in the flesh;” the last interpretation has this advantage, that it not only brings out more clearly the reference to the Cerinthian Docetism,[254] but it makes it more easy to explain how the apostle in 1 John 4:3 can designate the object simply by ΤῸΝἸΗΣΟῦΝ. It might, however, be still more suitable to take ἸΗΣΟῦΝ … ἘΛΗΛΥΘΌΤΑ as one object = “the Jesus Christ who came in the flesh,” so that in this expression the individual elements on which John here relied in opposition to Docetism have been gathered into one; so perhaps Braune, when he says: “the form is that of a substantive objective sentence,” and “in ἐνσ. ἐλ. it is not a predicate, but an attributive clause that is added.” That the apostle has in view not only the Cerinthian, but also the later Docetism, which attributed to the Saviour only a seeming body, cannot be proved from the form of expression used here. The commentators who deny the reference of the apostle to Docetism find themselves driven to artificial explanations; thus Socinus, who expands the participle by quamvis, and Grotius, according to whom ἐνσαρκί refers to the status humilis in which Christ appeared, in contrast to the regia pompa in which the Jews expected the Messiah.[255] To exact unbelievers there can here be no reference, as, according to chap. 1 John 2:2, the false prophets had previously belonged to the Church itself.[256] That John brings out as the token of the Spirit, that is, of God, just the confession of this particular truth, has its ground in the circumstances that have been mentioned; while it is also so very much the fundamental truth, that, as Lücke on ch. 1 John 2:22 with justice says: “every ψεῦδος is contained in this and amounts to this, the denial of that truth in any sense.”[257]

[254] In the first interpretation the antithesis to the Corinthian Docetism lies not merely in the combination of ἸησοῦνΧριστόν as one name (Ebrard), but also in this, that this subject so described, which contains in it the idea Χριστός, is more particularly defined as having come in the flesh.

[255] Socinus: Qui confitetur Jesum Christum i.e. eum pro suo servatore ac domino et denique vero Christo habet, quamvis is in carne venerit h. e. homo fuerit, non modo mortalis, sed infinitis malis obnoxius. Without any ground, Baumgarten-Crusius asserts: “If any force were to be assigned to the predicate: come in the flesh, the infinitive would have been used.”—Brückner thinks that if in ver. 3 the shorter reading (without the apposition) be the correct one, the reference to Docetism is here uncertain and unnecessary; but the uncertain expression is plainly to be interpreted in accordance with the more certain, and not, contrariwise, the latter in accordance with the former.

[256] Comp. with this passage Polycarp, ep. ad Philipp.: πᾶςγὰρὃςἂνμὴὁμολογῇἸησοῦνΧριστὸνἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθότα, ἀντίχριστόςἐστικαὶὃςμὴὁμολογῇτὸμαρτύριοντοῦσταυροῦἐκτοῦδιαβόλουἐστί.

[257] Augustine peculiarly turns this sentence against the Donatists, whom he reproaches with a denial of their love, on account of their separation from the Catholic Church, when he says that John speaks here of a denial of Christ not merely by word, but also by deed: quisquis non habet charitatem negat Christum in carne venisse; so Bede: ipse est Spiritus Dei, qui dicit Jesum Christum in carne venisse, qui dicit non lingua, sed factis, non sonando, sed amando.

1 John 4:3

1 John 4:3. In the reading: ὁμὴὁμολογεῖτὸνἸησοῦν, the article (which is not, with Lücke, to be deleted) must not be overlooked, for it indicates Jesus as the historical person who is Christ. The false teachers did not confess Jesus when they ascribed the work of healing, not to Jesus, but to the Aeon Christ. The particle μή indicates the contradiction of the true confession, whilst οὐ would only express the simple negation. At the words: καὶτοῦτόἐστιτὸτοῦἀντιχρίστου, almost all commentators (even Brückner and Braune) supply with τό the word πνεῦμα; but Valla (with whom Zegerus agrees) interprets: et hic est antichristi spiritus, vel potius: et hoc est antichristi i.e. proprium antichristi; if this latter interpretation be correct, then τοῦτο refers to μὴὁμολογεῖν, and τὸτοῦἀντιχρίστου is “the antichristian nature.” As it is not easy to see why John should have left out πνεῦμα, this interpretation is to be preferred to the usual one (so also Myrberg; Ewald similarly interprets: “the work of Antichrist;” the same form of expression in Matthew 21:21; 1 Corinthians 10:24; 2 Peter 2:22; James 4:14).[258]

ὃἀκηκόατεὅτιἔρχεται] compare chap. 1 John 2:18. Stephanus, groundlessly, would read “ὅν” instead of ὅ; the relative does not refer to ἀντιχρίστου, but to τὸτ. ἀντιχρ.

καὶνῦνἐντῷκόσμῳἐστὶνἥδη] i.e. in the false prophets; comp. 1 John 4:1. John does not say here that Antichrist, but only that the antichristian nature (or the spirit of Antichrist) is already in the world; ἤδη is doubtless added, not merely to intensify the νῦν, but to point to the future time of the appearing of Antichrist, which is already being prepared for. According to Ebrard, the last sentence depends on ὅ; this, however, is not likely, as ὅ is the accusative; it is rather connected, as an independent sentence, with the preceding one.

[258] Braune thinks that in these passages it was of importance to form a substantive conception, but that here the simple genitive would have been sufficient; it is plain, however, that the substantive idea τὸτοῦἀντιχρ. is here also more significant than a mere genitive connected with ἐστίν.

1 John 4:4

1 John 4:4. After the apostle has characterized the twofold πνεῦμα, he directs the attention of his readers to the relationship in which they stand to the false prophets.

ὑμεῖςἐκτοῦΘεοῦἐστε] A contrast to those who are ἐκτοῦκόσμου; believers are of God, because the πνεῦμα which animates them is the πνεῦματοῦΘεοῦ.

καὶνενικήκατεαὐτούς] αὐτούς is not = antichristum et mundum (Erasmus), but τοὺςψευδοπροφήτας, in whom the antichristian nature dwells.

νενικήκατε is to be retained as perfect, comp. chap. 1 John 2:13; Calvin inaccurately interprets: in media pugna jam extra periculum sunt, quia futuri sunt superiores. John could say to his readers: νενικήκατε, not only inasmuch as in them was mighty the strength of Him who had said: θαρσεῖτε, ἐγὼνενίκηκατὸνκόσμον, and inasmuch as they in Him were sure of ultimate success (Neander, Düsterdieck), but also inasmuch as their opponents with their seductive arts must have been put to shame by their faithfulness, and must have been repulsed by them (Ebrard, Braune). The cause of this victory, however, did not and does not lie in the human power of believers, but in the fact ὅτιμείζωνἐστὶνὁἐνὑμῖνἢὁἐντῷκόσμῳ;

ὁἐνὑμῖν, i.e. ὁΘεός (according to Grotius, Erdmann, and others: ὁΧριστός); as the believer is of God, God remains in him as the soul of his life; ὁἐντῷκόσμῳ, i.e. ὁδιάβολος, “whose children the antichrists are” (Lücke). Instead of the more particular ἐναὐτοῖς, John uses the more general ἐντῷκόσμῳ, in order thereby to signify that they, although they were for a while in the Church, belong nevertheless to the κόσμος, which the following words expressively bring out.

1 John 4:5

1 John 4:5. In chap. 1 John 2:19, John had said of the false teachers: οὐκεἰσὶνἐξἡμῶν; now he states from what source they spring; this is the κόσμος; the antichristian nature in them belonged to the world, quatenus Satanas est ejus princeps (Calvin). The manifestation of life corresponds with the source of it; because they are of the world, διὰτοῦτοἐκτοῦκόσμουλαλοῦσι; ἐκτ. κόσμουλαλεῖν means: to speak that which the κόσμος supplies, to take the burden of their speech from the κόσμος, ex mundi vita ac sensu sermones suos promere (Bengel). This is not identical with ἐκτῆςγῆςλαλεῖν (John 3:31), for ἡγῆ is not an ethical idea like ὁκόσμος.

καὶὁκόσμοςαὐτῶνἀκούει] The false prophets had gone out from the Church into the world, to which they inwardly belonged, and proclaimed to it a wisdom which originated in it; therefore the world heard them, i.e. gave to their words applause and assent: τῷγὰρὁμοίῳτὸὅμοιονπροστρέχει (Oecumenius); in contrast to which believers were hated and persecuted by the world.

1 John 4:6

1 John 4:6. ἠμεῖς] Antithesis of αὐτοί, 1 John 4:5; either specially John and the other apostles (Storr, Düsterdieck, Brückner, Braune, etc.) as the true teachers, or believers generally (Calvin, Spener, Lücke, de Wette, etc.); in favour of the former interpretation is the fact that believers are addressed in this section in the second person, together with the following ἀκούειἠμῶν, as also the antithesis to ψευδοπροφῆται indicates teachers.

With ἐκτοῦΘεοῦἐσμεν we are to supply, according to 1 John 4:5, the thought διὰτοῦτοἐκτοῦΘεοῦλαλοῦμεν; the following words: ὁγινώσκωντὸνΘεὸνἀκούειἡμῶν, contain the proof of the thought just expressed.

ὁγιν. τὸνΘεόν forms the antithesis of ὁκόσμος, and is synonymous with ὅςἐστινἐκτ. Θεοῦ, for it is only he who is a child of God that possesses the true knowledge of God. According to Lücke and others, the apostle means by this those to whom belongs the “general ἐκτοῦΘεοῦεἶναι, i.e. the divine impress and instinct, which is the condition of childhood of God in Christ;” but the expression itself is opposed to this, for the knowledge of God is necessarily conditioned by faith in Christ.

In the second clause: ὃςοὐκἔστιν … οὐκἀκ. ἡμῶν, ὃς … Θεοῦ forms the antithesis to ὁγινώσκωντ. Θεόν. This is the antithesis between “world” and “church of the children of God.”

In the concluding clause: ἐκτούτου … τῆςπλάνης, it is to the immediately preceding thought that ἐκτούτου refers. According to the usual view, with which Düsterdieck agrees, the sense of this passage is: He who hears the apostles shows thereby that the πνεῦματῆςἀληθείας is in him; he who, on the contrary, does not hear them, shows that the πν. τῆςπλάνης is in him; it is in his relation to the apostolic teaching that any one shows of what spirit he is the child.[259] But, according to the train of thought in this section, it is not the spirit of the hearers, but that of the teachers that is the subject (so also Myrberg and Braune); the sense therefore is: That the πνεῦματῆςπλάνης prevails in the false prophets, may be known by this, that the world hears them; that in us, on the contrary, the πνεῦματῆςἀληθείας dwells, may be perceived by this, that those who know God, i.e. the children of God, hear us. The πν. τῆςἀληθείας cannot be in him whom the world hears, nor can the πν. τῆςπλάνης be in him whom the children of God hear; Braune: “the πν. τῆςπλάνης is certainly in him whom the world hears, and the πν. τῆςἀληθείας in him whom the children of God hear.”

τὸπνεῦματῆςἀληθείας; comp. John 14:17; John 15:26; John 16:13; a description of the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as He not only produces a knowledge of the truth, but “makes the truth His very nature” (Weiss).[260] τὸπν. τῆςπλάνης, the spirit that emanates from the devil, which seduces men to falsehood and error; comp. chap. 1 John 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:1.

[259] Luther: “If we hear God’s true messengers, that is a plain token of true religion; if, however, we despise and mock them, that is a plain token of error.”

[260] The thought of this passage corresponds with that of Joh 10:3-5, where Christ appeals for a proof that He is the Good Shepherd to the fact that the sheep know and hear His voice, whilst they do not know the voice of the stranger, and flee from it.

1 John 4:7-21

1 John 4:7-21. After the apostle, induced by the appearance of the antichristian nature, has characterized the spirit of truth and the spirit of error, he passes on directly to a detailed account of the elements of faith and love alluded to in chap. 1 John 3:23.

1 John 4:9

1 John 4:9. The manifestation of the love of God is the sending of His Son.

ἐντούτῳ refers to the following ὅτι.

ἐφανερώθηἡἀγάπητοῦΘεοῦἐνἡμῖν] ἐφανερώθη expresses the objective fact, not the subjective knowledge; the apostle does not mean that the love of God is known by us through the sending of His Son (comp. 1 John 4:16), but that it has by that means come forth from its concealment, has manifested itself in act. ἐνἡμῖν is therefore neither “in” nor “among” us; neither must it be explained = εἰςἡμᾶς; ἐν is here, as in 1 John 4:16 and John 9:3 = “to;” either connected with ἐφανερώθη or with ἡἀγάπητ. Θ.; hence either: “it has been manifested to us” (Düsterdieck, Brückner, Braune, etc.), or: “the love of God to us” (Ewald) has been manifested. With the first interpretation the sentence: ὅτι … εἰςτὸνκόσμον, makes a difficulty which has been overlooked by the commentators;[263] with regard to the second, the article Ἡ is wanting before ἘΝἩΜῖΝ; but a direct connection of an attributive clause with a substantive, without a connecting article, is very often found in the N. T., and is therefore not “ungrammatical” (as Düsterdieck thinks); the idea is here, then, the same as that which John in 1 John 4:16 expresses by: ἩἈΓΆΠΗἫΝἜΧΕΙὉΘΕῸςἘΝἩΜῖΝ.[264] The difference between ΕἸςἩΜᾶς and ἘΝἩΜῖΝ is this, that the former indicates only the tendency towards the goal, the latter the abiding at the goal. By ἩΜῖΝ we are to understand not mankind in general, but believers in particular, so also 1 John 4:10 in the case of ἩΜΕῖςΚ.Τ.Λ.

In the following sentence: ὍΤΙΤῸΝΥἹῸΝΑὐΤΟῦ … ἽΝΑΖΉΣΩΜΕΝΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ, the special emphasis rests on the last words, for the love which God has towards us is manifested in the fact that He sent His Son into the world for this purpose, that we might live through Him, i.e. become partakers through Him of the life of blessedness. It is especially in its purpose that the sending of His Son is the manifestation of God’s love to us. The more particular description of the Son of God as ὁμονογενής, which is frequently found in the Gospel of John, appears only here in his Epistles. In Luke (Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38) and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 11:17), ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΉς denotes the only child of his parents. So the expression is used by John also to denote Christ as the only Son of God, “besides whom His Father has none.” This predicate is suitable to Him, inasmuch as He is the λόγος who is ἘΝἈΡΧῇ, ΠΡῸςΤῸΝΘΕΌΝ, ΘΕΌς. Lorinus arbitrarily explains ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΉς = ἈΓΑΠΗΤΌς; comp.

Meyer on John 1:14. Calvin rightly remarks: “quod unigenitum appellat, ad auxesin valet.” How great the love of God, in that He sent His only-begotten Son in order that we might live! Baumgarten-Crusius: “ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΉς and ΖΉΣΟΜΕΝ are the principal words: the most glorious … for our salvation!”

[263] Even Ebrard has not perceived the difficulty. It lies in this, that by ὅτικ.τ.λ. something is mentioned which happened for us, but not which happened to us; differently in John 9:3. Brückner thinks that the difficulty is removed by the fact that “in the purpose of the sending of Christ there also lies something which happened to us;” incorrectly, since even if the purpose of that is our life (ἵναζήσωμεν), yet it cannot be said that the love shown in the sending of Christ has manifested itself to us; the result is then that ἑφανερώθη is taken = “has operated,” and that an emphasis is laid on ἐνἡμῖν which it does not receive from the context.

[264] Lücke incorrectly observes that with this connection there is in ἐνἡμῖν “something superfluous and unsuitable.” This is so far from being the case, that it is just in this that the apostle arrives at the consideration of the relationship between God and the believer. True, the love of God relates to the whole world, John 3:16 : ἠγάπησενὁΘεὸςτὸνκόσμον, and to all, without exception, He has given, by sending His Son, the possibility of not being lost, but obtaining eternal life, but the loving purpose of God is accomplished only in them that believe; the unbelieving remain ἐνὀργῇτοῦΘεοῦ; hence the love of God to the world is more narrowly limited than His love to believers, who are His τέκνα.

1 John 4:10

1 John 4:10. ἐντούτῳἐστὶνἡἀγάπη] i.e. “herein consists love,” love is in its nature of this kind. Oecumenius inaccurately: ἐντούτῳ, δείκνυται, ὅτιἀγάπηἐστὶνὁΘεός; for ἐστί is not = δείκνυται; nor is τοῦΘεοῦ to be supplied with ἡἀγάπη (with Lücke, de Wette, Brückner, etc.), but the expression means love in general, as in 1 John 4:7 in the words: ἡἀγάπηἐκτοῦΘεοῦἐστί (Düsterdieck, Ebrard, Braune).

οὐχὅτιἡμεῖςἠγαπήσαμεντὸνΘεόν, ἀλλʼ ὅτικ.τ.λ.] Grotius and Lange arbitrarily render οὐχὅτι here = ὅτιοὐχ. Several commentators take the first part as, according to its sense, a subordinate clause = ἡμῶνμὴἀγαπησάντων; Meyer: “Herein consists love, in that, although we had not previously loved God, He nevertheless loved us;”[265] this, however, is incorrect; as John in 1 John 4:7 has said that love is ἘΚΤΟῦΘΕΟῦ, so here also he would emphasize the fact that love has its origin not in man, but in God; it is originally in God, and not first called forth in Him by the love of men; the latter is rather first the outcome of the divine love;[266] the words οὐχὅτι therefore serve to specify love as something divine, not, however, as Düsterdieck (who otherwise interprets correctly) thinks, to emphasize the fact that “the love of God to us is entirely undeserved;” this is a thought which is only to be derived from the statement of the apostle (Braune).

ἩΜΕῖς and ΑὐΤΌς are emphatically contrasted with one another.

ΚΑῚἈΠΈΣΤΕΙΛΕΤῸΝΥἹῸΝΑὐΤΟῦΚ.Τ.Λ.] states the actual proof of ΑὐΤῸςἨΓΆΠΗΣΕΝἩΜᾶς; here also the special emphasis rests, not on ἈΠΈΣΤΕΙΛΕ, but on ἹΛΑΣΜῸΝΚ.Τ.Λ., which corresponds to the ἽΝΑΖΉΣΩΜΕΝ of 1 John 4:9, inasmuch as it states the basis of the ΖΩΉ; with ἹΛΑΣΜΌΝ, comp. chap. 1 John 2:2. The aorists ἨΓΑΠΉΣΑΜΕΝ, ἨΓΆΠΕΣΕ, ἈΠΈΣΤΕΙΛΕΝ, are to be retained as historical tenses (de Wette); by the perfect ἈΠΈΣΤΑΛΚΕΝ, 1 John 4:9, the sending of Christ is merely stated, whereas the aorist employed here narratively depicts the loving act of God in the sending of His Son (Lücke).

[265] Similarly a Lapide: Hic caritatem Dei ponderat et exaggerat ex eo, quod Deus nulla dilectione, nullo obsequio nostro provocatus, imo multis injuriis et sceleribus nostris offensus, prior dilexit nos.

[266] With this interpretation it is not at all necessary, as Baumgarten-Crusius thinks, to give a different meaning to the ὅτι in each case: “not as if … but in the fact that;” but ὅτι has the same meaning both times, as the sense is: “this is not the nature of the love that we were the first to love, but that God was the first to love.”

1 John 4:11

1 John 4:11. Conclusion from 1 John 4:9-10, giving the motive for the exhortation in 1 John 4:7.

The love of God (previously described: οὕτως) to us obliges us, believers, to love one another. The obligatory force lies not merely in the example given by God’s act of love, but also in this, that we by means of it have become the children of God, and as such love as He loves (Lücke). At the same time, however, the correspondence between ἡμᾶς and ἀλλήλους is to be observed; the Christian, namely, as a child of God, feels himself bound to love his brother because he knows that God loves him, and him whom God loves God’s child cannot hate.

1 John 4:12

1 John 4:12. The blessing of brotherly love is perfect fellowship with God.

Θεὸνοὐδεὶςπώποτετεθέαται] comp. 1 John 4:20 and Gospel of Joh 1:18. In opposition to Rickli’s view, that these words were spoken in polemic reference to the false teachers who pretended to see God, i.e. to know Him fully, Lücke rightly asserts that in that case the apostle would have more definitely expressed the polemic element; τεθέαται does not here at all denote spiritual seeing or knowledge (Hornejus, Neander, Sander, Erdmann), but seeing in the strict sense of the word (de Wette, Düsterdieck, Braune). John, however, does not here emphasize this invisibility of God (in which He is infinitely exalted above man; comp. 1 Timothy 6:16) in order to suggest that we can reciprocate the love of God, not directly, but only through love to our visible brethren (Lücke, Ebrard; similarly Hornejus, Lange, etc.), but in order thereby to emphasize still more the following: ὁΘεὸςἐνἡμῖνμένεικ.τ.λ. as the Scholiast in Matthiae indicates by paraphrasing: ὁἀόρατοςΘεὸςκαὶἀνέφικτοςδιὰτῆςεἰςἀλλήλουςἀγάπηςἐνἡμῖνμένει; a Lapide correctly interprets: licet eum non videamus, tamen, si proximum diligamus, ipse invisibilis erit nobis praesentissimus (so also de Wette, Düsterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Braune). The πώποτε which is added shows that τεθέαται is regarded as the simple perfect, and does not “include past and present” (Lücke); nevertheless with the thought: “no one has seen God at any time,” the further thought: “no one can see Him,” is tacitly combined. That the apostle had in view the passage Exodus 33:20 (Sander), is the more improbable, as both thought and expression are different. In reference to the appearances of God which the O. T. in Genesis 12:7; Genesis 17:1, and elsewhere, relates, Spener rightly remarks: “All such was not the seeing of the Divine Being Himself, but of an assumed form in which His being manifested itself.”

ἐὰνἀγαπῶμενἀλλήλους, ὁΘεὸςἐνἡμῖνμένει] In these words the blessing of brotherly love is stated: With brotherly love fellowship with God is associated, because, indeed, love is of God. The explanation of several commentators: “if we love one another, then it may thereby be known that God is in us,” weakens the thought of the apostle.[267] God’s dwelling in us is certainly not meant to be represented here as a result or fruit of our love to one another (as Frommann, p. 109, interprets); and just as little is it the converse relation; but it is the inseparable co-dependence of the two elements, which mutually condition each other (so also Braune).

ΚΑῚἩἈΓΆΠΗΑὐΤΟῦΤΕΤΕΛΕΙΩΜΈΝΗἘΣΤῚΝἘΝἩΜῖΝ] ἩἈΓΆΠΗΑὐΤΟῦ is not here “the love which God has to us” (Calovius, Spener, Russmeyer, Sander, Erdmann, etc.), for the idea ΤΕΤΕΛΕΙΩΜΈΝΗἘΣΤΊΝ does not agree with this, comp. 1 John 4:18, but the love which the believer has; ΑὐΤΟῦ may, however, be either the objective genitive (so most commentators) or the subjective genitive; but in the latter case we must not interpret, with Socinus: “ea dilectio, quam ipse Deus nobis praescripsit,” nor, as Calvin thinks probable: “caritas, quam Deus nobis inspirat,” but “the love which is inherent in God” (which is His nature and ἐξαὐτοῦ); this, however, considered as dwelling in believers (ἘΝἩΜῖΝ) as the soul of their life (so also Brückner and Braune). This explanation, in which no object which would restrict the general idea of love has to be supplied (comp. 1 John 4:7-8; 1 John 4:16; 1 John 4:18), deserves the preference, because the specific love to God is first mentioned in 1 John 4:19. Quite unjustifiably Ebrard asserts that ἩἈΓ. ΑὐΤΟῦ denotes “the mutual loving relationship between God and us; comp. 1 John 2:5.”

[267] Weiss insists on this interpretation, because “it is meant to be shown how we have in brotherly love the visible evidence of an existence of God who is in Himself invisible;” incorrectly, for (1) Christians need no visible proof of the existence of the invisible God, and, besides, it is not the existence of God, but God’s dwelling in us, etc., that is the subject here; (2) the conjunction ἐάν shows that the subordinate clause states the condition under which what is stated in the principal clause takes place; (3) the supplement of a γινώσκομεν is purely arbitrary.

1 John 4:13

1 John 4:13. The token of our fellowship with God (ἐναὐτῷμένομεν corresponds to the preceding: ἡἀγάπηαὐτοῦ … ἐνἡμῖν) is: ὅτιἐκτοῦπνεύματοςαὐτοῦδέδωκενἡμῖν; comp. 1 John 3:24. The expression: ἐκτοῦπνεύματος (instead of τὸπνεῦμα), is explained by the fact that the πνεῦμα of God is the entire fulness of the life of God operating in believers, of which his share is given to each individual. The expression is not to be connected with the διαίρεσιςτῶνχαρισμάτων, of which Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 12:4; 1 Corinthians 12:11. Compare Acts 2:17; in reference to Christ it is said: οὐκἐκμέτρουδίδωσιτὸπνεῦμα, Gospel of Joh 3:34. Against the view that by πνεῦμα here “love” or a similar quality is to be understood, Spener says: “it is the Spirit Himself, and not His gifts only, that we receive.”[268]

ὅτι does not mean “if” (Baumgarten-Crusius), for John supposes that his readers are believers, and as such are certainly partakers of the Spirit.

[268] Weiss incorrectly uses this passage as a proof that, whilst Jesus considered the Holy Ghost as a personal being, John had not yet perfectly taken hold of this conception; for even if it be admitted that the expression used here does not specify the personality of the Spirit, yet it is in no way contradictory to it. Besides, Weiss himself admits that the passage: τὸπνεῦμάἐστινἡἀλήθεια. (chap. 1 John 5:6), points to the personality of the Spirit.

1 John 4:14-15

1 John 4:14-15. That love brings with it fellowship with God, is caused by the fact that God is love and love springs from God. But God’s love was made manifest by the sending of His Son, and this is testified by the apostles, who themselves have seen Him. The last thought which 1 John 4:14 expresses serves as an introduction to the thought that follows in 1 John 4:15, in which the believing confession (and therefore faith) is described as the condition of fellowship with God, and hence also of true love.

καὶἡμεῖς] By ἡμεῖς John means here himself and his fellow-apostles; comp. 1 John 4:6.

τεθεάμεθακαὶμαρτυροῦμεν, comp. chap. 1 John 1:1-2. τεθεάμεθα expresses the direct seeing (Gospel of Joh 1:14), not knowledge through the medium of others. The apostles saw that the Father sent the Son, inasmuch as they saw the Son Himself—and not after the flesh merely, but also as the μονογενὴςπαρὰπατρός. With τεθεάμεθα corresponds the closely-connected idea μαρτυροῦμεν, which presupposes one’s own direct experience; comp. Gospel of Joh 1:34.

The subject of this testimony is: ὅτιὁπατὴρἀπέσταλκετὸνυἱὸνσωτῆρατοῦκόσμου, comp. 1 John 4:9-10; σωτῆρατ. κ. states the purpose of the sending, which does not refer to particular elect ones, but to the whole number of sinners (comp. chap. 1 John 2:2 and Gospel of Joh 3:16).—1 John 4:15. With ὁμολογήσῃ, comp. 1 John 4:2. The subject of the confession is: ὅτιἸησοῦςἐστινὁυἱὸςτοῦΘεοῦ; this is precisely what the antichrists deny; comp. 1 John 4:2-3.

Weiss erroneously interprets: “Whosoever abides in this confession, in him it is seen that God is in him;” the words “in him it is seen” are a mere interpolation.

1 John 4:16

1 John 4:16. The beginning of this verse: καὶἡμεῖς, is indeed of the same import as the beginning of 1 John 4:14; but ἡμεῖς here does not merely mean the apostles (Myrberg), for otherwise ἐνἡμῖν also would have to be referred to them, and a contrast, here inappropriate, would be drawn between the apostles and the readers, but it is used in its more general sense (as most commentators take it), which is also indicated by the connection of this verse with the preceding one.

With ἐγνώκαμενκαὶπεπιστεύκαμεν, comp. John 6:69. As the object of faith must have been previously made known to us, and hence made the subject of knowledge before we can take hold of it in faith, and as, on the other hand, it is only through faith that knowledge becomes the determining principle of our life, and these two elements mutually condition each other continually in the Christian life, knowledge, therefore, can be put before faith, as here, and faith can also be put before knowledge, as in John 6:69.[269]

τὴνἀγάπην, ἣνἔχειὁΘεὸςἐνἡμῖν] is not, with Wilke (Hermeneutik des N. T. II. 64), to be interpreted: “the love which God has in us, i.e. as a love dwelling in us,” or, with Ebrard: “God’s love which He has kindled in us, by means of which, as by His own nature, He works in us,” for the verbs ἐγνώκαμεν and πεπιστεύκαμεν show that the subject here is not something subjective, and therefore not our love (which only in so far as it is the outcome of the divine love is described as the love which God has in us), but something objective, and therefore the love of God, which has manifested itself in the sending of His Son for the propitiation for our sins. ἐν is used here just as in 1 John 4:9. The following words: ὁΘεὸςἀγάπηἐστὶκ.τ.λ., which are closely connected with what immediately precedes, form the keystone of the foregoing, inasmuch as the particular ideas of the previous context are all embraced in them.

On ὁΘεὸςἀγ. ἐστί, see 1 John 4:8.

καὶὁμένωνκ.τ.λ. is the inference from the thought that God is love, in this way, namely, that all true love springs from Him. The idea of love here is not to be restricted to brotherly love (1 John 4:12, ἐὰνἀγαπῶμενἀλλήλους), but (as also Düsterdieck, Braune, and Weiss remark)[270] is to be understood quite generally.[271] The idea of fellowship with God is here expressed just as in 1 John 4:15. If John makes it at one time dependent on knowledge, and at another dependent on love, this is explained by the fact that to him both knowledge and love are the radiations of that faith by means of which the new birth operates.

[269] Lücke: “True faith is, according to John, intelligent and experienced; true knowledge is a believing knowledge. Both together form the complete Christian conviction, so that John, when he wants to express this very strongly, puts them both together, in which case it is indifferent whether the one or the other comes first.” Comp. also Neander on this passage, and Köstlin, der Lehrbegr. des Ev. etc., pp. 63, 215 ff.

[270] Weiss further erroneously observes that “here also being in God is not to be made dependent on love, but love on being in God.”

[271] Ebrard introduces a reference foreign to the passage when he includes in μένεινἐντῇἀγάπῃ also the “dwelling in the love of God to us, in faith in God’s love;” Erdmann also incorrectly interprets: “τῷμένεινἐντῇἀγάπῃ eadem animi nostri ad caritatem Dei relatio denotatur, quae verbis ἐγνώκαμενκαὶπεπιστεύκαμεν significatur.” Had the apostle meant this, he would have added to ἀγάπῃ, as a more particular definition, τοῦΘεοῦ. Comp. Gospel of Joh 15:10.

1 John 4:17

1 John 4:17. After the apostle has said in 1 John 4:16 that he that dwelleth in love (and therefore no one else) has fellowship with God, he now indicates wherein love shows itself as perfected; the thought of this verse is accordingly connected with the preceding: ὁμένωνἐντῇἀγάπῃ.

ἐντούτῳτετελείωταιἡἀγάπημεθʼ ἡμῶν] Several commentators, Luther, Calvin, Spener, Grotius, Hornejus, Calovius, Semler, Sander, Besser, Ewald, etc., understand by ἡἀγάπη “the love of God to us,” interpreting μεθʼ ἡμῶν = εἰςἡμᾶς, and τετελείωται as referring to the perfect manifestation of the love of God; Grotius: hic est summus gradus delectionis Dei erga nos.[272] This interpretation, however, has the context against it, for in 1 John 4:16: ὁμένωνἐντῇἈΓΆΠῌ, as well as in 1 John 4:18: ὉΦΌΒΟςΟὐΚἜΣΤΙΝἘΝΤῇἈΓΆΠῌ, by ἈΓΆΠΗ is meant the love of man, the love that dwells in us; comp. also 1 John 4:12. Here also, therefore, ἈΓΆΠΗ must be understood of this love, with Estius, Socinus, Lange, Lücke, de Wette, Neander, Gerlach, Düsterdieck, Braune, etc.; ΤΕΤΕΛΕΊΩΤΑΙ is used in the same sense as ΤΕΤΕΛΕΙΩΜΈΝΗἘΣΤΙΝ, 1 John 4:12; comp. also 1 John 4:18: ἩΤΕΛΕΊΑἈΓΆΠΗ.

It is not the object of the love that is described by ΜΕΘʼ ἩΜῶΝ, for ΜΕΤΆ is not = ΕἸς, but it means “in;”[273] it either belongs to the verb: “therein is love made perfect in us” (Lücke, de Wette, Düsterdieck, Braune, etc.; Erdmann, who explains ΜΕΤΆ = ἘΝ), or to ἈΓΆΠΗ: “the love which exists (prevails) in us is,” etc. With the first construction, the addition appears rather superfluous; besides, its position would then be more natural before ἩἈΓΆΠΗ. The underlying idea is that the love which has come from God (for all love is ἘΚΤΟῦΘΕΟῦ) has made its abode with believers. Here, also, ἩἈΓΆΠΗ is used without more particular definition, as in 1 John 4:16, and is therefore not to be limited to a specific object (so also de Wette, Düsterdieck, Braune); it is therefore neither merely “love to the brethren” (Socinus, Lücke,[274] etc.), nor merely “love to God” (Lange, Erdmann); Baumgarten-Crusius not incorrectly explains the idea by “the sentiment of love;” only it must not be forgotten that true love is not merely sentiment, but action also; comp. chap. 1 John 3:18.

ἐντούτῳ does not refer to the preceding, nor to dwelling in love, nor to fellowship with God, but to what follows; not, however, to ὅτι, as Beza,[275] Grotius, etc., assuming an attraction, think, but to ἵναπαῤῥησίανἔχωμενἐντῇἡμέρᾳτῆςκρίσεως. From 1 John 4:18 it is clear that the chief aim of the apostle is to emphasize the fact that perfect love (ἡτελείαἀγάπη, 1 John 4:18) is free from fear, or that he who is perfect in love (τετελειωμένοςἐντῇἀγάπῃ) experiences no fear, but has confident boldness (παῤῥησία). The thought of this verse is no other than this, that love has its perfection in the fact that it fills us with such παῤῥησία; the clause beginning with ἵνα therefore contains the leading thought, to which the following ὅτι is subordinated. It is true, the combination ἐντούτῳ … ἵνα (instead of ὅτι, 1 John 4:9-10, and frequently) is strange, but it is quite John’s custom to use the particle of purpose, ἵνα, not seldom as objective particle; the same combination is found in the Gospel of Joh 15:8 (Meyer, indeed, differently on this passage); comp. chap. 1 John 3:10, 23: αὕτη … ἵνα (Gospel of Joh 17:3); by ἵνα, παῤῥησίανἔχειν is indicated as the goal, not “which God has in view in the perfecting of love in us” (Braune), but which the ἀγάπη in its perfection attains (Düsterdieck). With παῤῥησίανἔχειν, comp. chap. 1 John 2:28.[276]

The ἡμέρατῆςΚΡΊΣΕΩς is the day ὍΤΑΝΦΑΝΕΡΩΘῇἸΗΣΟῦςΧΡΙΣΤΌς, 1 John 2:28. The preposition is not to be interpreted = ΕἸς, and ἜΧΩΜΕΝ is not to be taken as a future (Ewald: “that we shall have”) the difficulty that anything future (behaviour on the judgment-day) should be taken as the evidence of perfect love in the present (ΤΕΤΕΛΕΊΩΤΑΙ is not to be taken as future complete, but as perfect: “has been made perfect,” or “has become perfect” = “is perfected”), is removed if we take it that in ἘΝ the ΠΑῤῬΗΣΊΑ, which the believer will have at the judgment-day, and which he already has when he thinks of the judgment, is included, which could the more easily occur in John, as in his view the judgment-day did not lie in far-off distance, but was already conceived as begun (chap. 1 John 2:18). The future ΠΑῤῬΗΣΊΑ is to him in his love already present: similarly de Wette, Sander, Besser.[277]

The following words: ὅτικαθὼς … τούτῳ, serve to establish the foregoing thought. By ἘΚΕῖΝΟς we are not to understand, with Augustine, Bede, Estius, Lyranus, Castalio, etc., God, but, with most commentators, Christ, who is also suggested by the idea: ἡἡμέρατῆςκρίσεως.

The comparison (ΚΑΘΏς) does not refer to ΕἾΝΑΙἘΝΤῷΚΌΣΜῼΤΟΎΤῼ, so that the sense would be: “as Christ is in this world, so are we also in this world,” for (1) Christ is no longer in this world (comp. Gospel of Joh 17:11), and (2) in the fact that we are in this world lies no reason for ΠΑῤῬΗΣΊΑ at the day of judgment. By ΚΑΘῺς … ΚΑΊ it is rather the similarity of character that is brought out, as in 1 John 2:16, where καθώς does not refer to the idea of ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖΝ in itself, but to the character of the walk, so that it is to be interpreted: “as the character of Christ is, so is our character also;” in the second clause ΟὝΤΩς is to be supplied, as in 1 Corinthians 8:2; Ephesians 4:17; Ephesians 4:21. What sort of character is meant must be inferred from the context; it is entirely arbitrary to find the similarity in the temptation (Rickli) or in the sufferings of Christ (Grotius), or in the fact that Christ was in the world but not of it (Sander), for there is no such reference in the context. But it is also inadmissible to regard as the more particular definition of ΚΑΘΏς the ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ (Düsterdieck), or the Sonship of God (Lücke: “as Christ is the Son of God, so are we also children of God”), for neither do these ideas appear in the context. We are rather to go back to ὉΜΈΝΩΝἘΝΤῇἈΓΆΠῌ, and accordingly to refer ΚΑΘΏς to love (so Lorinus: “reddit nos charitas Christo similes et conformes imagini filii Dei;” Bengel, de Wette, Ewald, Myrberg, Braune, etc.[278]), so that the sense is: “if we live in love, then we do not fear the judgment of Christ, because then we are like Him, and He therefore cannot condemn us.”[279] The present ἐστί is to be retained as a present, and not to be turned into the preterite (Oecumenius: ὩςἘΚΕῖΝΟςἮΝἘΝΤῷΚΌΣΜῼἌΜΩΜΟςΚΑῚΚΑΘΑΡΌς).

Love is the eternal nature of Christ, comp. 1 John 3:7: ΚΑΘῺςἘΚΕῖΝΟςΔΊΚΑΙΌςἘΣΤΙΝ. In the concluding words: ἘΝΤῷΚΌΣΜῼΤΟΎΤῼ, which belong, not to ἘΣΤΙ, but only to ἐσμεν, it is brought out that we are still in the earthly world (κόσμοςοὗτος is not an ethical idea), whereas Christ has already ascended from it into heaven.

[272] Sander: “That it is made perfect must only mean: this love of God which was manifested in the sending of His Son is manifested in its might and glory in this, that, as overcoming everything, it brings us so far that we,” etc.—Calovius: Perficitur dilectio Dei in nobis, non ratione sui, sic enim absolute perfecta est, sed ratione nostri, non quoad existentiam, sed quoad experientiam.

[273] Hence ἡἀγ. μεθʼ ἡμῶν is neither = ἡἀγ. (τοῦΘεοῦ) εἰςἡμᾶς, nor = ἡἀγάπη (ἡμῶν) εἰςἀλλήλους, as Lücke in his 1st ed. interprets (“our love among ourselves, i.e. our mutual love”); still less justifiable is the interpretation of Rickli: “the mutual love between God and the believer;” for John never includes God and men in ἡμεῖς. When Ebrard, admitting this, nevertheless accepts the interpretation of Rickli as far as the sense is concerned, explaining “the love of God with us” by “the love which exists between God and us,” this is purely arbitrary, for even though μετά is frequently used to denote a reciprocal action (see Winer, p. 336; VII. p. 352 ff.), yet this reference is here unsuitable, for it is not God and we, but love and we, that are placed together. Moreover, to supply τοῦΘεοῦ with ἡἀγάπη is at the best only defensible if in μεθʼ ἡμῶν the subject to which the love refers is stated; but this is grammatically impossible. If, as Ebrard thinks, ἡἀγάπη denotes not love, but the love-relationship, then ἡἀγάπημεθʼ ἡμῶν may only mean “the loving-relationship that exists among us;” this idea, however, as Ebrard with justice says, does not suit the context.

[274] According to Bertheau’s note in the 3d ed. of Lücke’s Commentary (p. 364), Lücke has, however, in the edition of 1851 interpreted ἡἀγάπη: “brotherly love combined with love to God.”

[275] Beza’s interpretation runs: Charitas adimpletur in nobis per hoc quod qualis ille est, tales et nos simus in hoc mundo, ut fiduciam habeamus in die judicii.

[276] In Luther’s version, παῤῥησία is here, as elsewhere frequently, translated by “Freudigkeit;” this is not a word derived from “Freude” (joy), but the old German word “Freidikeit” (from “freidic, fraidig”) = haughtiness, boldness, confidence (comp. Vilmar’s pastoral-theol. Blätter, 1861, vols. I. and II. p. 110 ff.); in the older editions it is written sometimes “freydickeyt” (Wittenb. ed. 1525), sometimes freydigkeit (Nürnberg ed. 1524), but in 1537 (in a Strasburg ed.) “freudigkeit.” In what sense Luther understood the word is clearly seen from a sermon on 1 John 4:16-21 (see Plochmann’s ed. XIX. 383), in which he says: “he means that faith should thus show itself, so that when the last day comes, you may have boldness and stand firm.” It is to be observed also that such Hebrew and Greek words as contain the idea of joy Luther never translates by that word (“boldness”), but by “joyous,” “joy.”

[277] Braune, though he explains correctly the particular thought, denies that these two elements are here to be regarded as combined; but without entering into the difficulty which lies in the expression. Ebrard states the meaning of the words incorrectly thus: “In the fact that the will of God, that we should have boldness in the day of judgment, is internally revealed to us, and manifests itself as a power (of confidence) in us (even now), the loving relationship of God with us is shown to be perfect.” How many elements foreign to the context are here introduced!

[278] The reference of καθώς to love is the only one demanded by the context, so that it is not suitable to regard love only as a single element in the likeness of believers to Christ which is here spoken of, as is the case with Lücke, for instance. Erdmann lays the chief emphasis not so much on love as on fellowship with God, which exists in love; but by καθὼς … ἐστι it is not a relationship, but a quality that is indicated.

[279] Ebrard in his interpretation arrives at no definite result; as, on his supposition that the centre of the tertii comparationis lies in the words ἐντῷκόσμῳτούτῳ, the present ἐστί is objectionable to him, he would prefer to conjecture “οὕτως” instead of ἐστί; but “as a faithful attention to the requirements of Biblical exegesis would scarcely permit such a conjecture,” he thinks that nothing else remains but either to suppose that ἐστί (in the sense of a historical present) “is added as an indifferent, colourless word,” or to refer καθὼςἐκ. ἐστιν to the fact that Christ even now “still exists in the wicked world to a certain extent, namely, in the Church, which is His body.” Ebrard regards the second conjecture as the more correct, and in accordance with it thus states the sense: “We look forward to the judgment with boldness, for, as He (in His Church) is still persecuted by the wicked world (even at the present day), so are we also in this world (as lambs among wolves)” (!). Ebrard groundlessly maintains, against the explanation given in the text, “that with it an οὕτως could not be omitted, nay, that even this would not suffice, but that it would have to read: ὅτιοἷοςἐκεῖνόςἐστι, τοιοῦτοικαὶἡμεῖςἐσμεν, and that even then the passage remains obscure enough;” and “that with this acceptation ἐντ. κ. τ. almost appears quite superfluous and foreign.” Against the statement that “our confidence in view of the judgment could not possibly be founded on our likeness to Christ, but only on the love of God as manifested in Christ,” it is a decisive answer that John in other passages as well makes the παῤῥησία dependent upon our character, comp. 1 John 2:28, 1 John 3:21.

1 John 4:18

1 John 4:18 serves to establish the preceding thought, that love has its perfection in παῤῥησία.

φόβοςοὐκἔστινἐντῇἀγάπῃ] The thought is quite general in its character: “where love is, there is no fear” (Ebrard); φόβος is therefore not specially the fear of God, and by ἀγάπη we are not to understand specially love to God, but at the same time this general thought is certainly expressed here in reference to the relationship to God. It is quite erroneous to explain ἀγάπη here, with Calvin, Calovius, Flacius, Spener, etc., as “the love of God to us;”[280] but it is also incorrect, with Lücke and others, to understand by it, specially, brotherly love.[281]

The preposition ἐν is not = with (à Mons: ne se trouve avec la charité); Luther correctly: “Fear is not in love;” i.e. it is not an element in love, it is something utterly foreign to it, which only exists outside it. By the following words: ἀλλʼ ἡτελείαἀγάπηἔξωβάλλειτὸνφόβον, the preceding thought is confirmed and expanded: love not only has no fear in it, but it does not even endure it; where it enters, there must fear completely vanish. Beza inadequately paraphrases the adjective τελεία by: sincera, opposita simulationi; it is not love in its first beginnings, love which is still feeble, but love in its perfection, that completely casts out fear. The reason why love does not suffer fear to be along with it is: ὅτιὁφόβοςκόλασινἔχει. The word κόλασις (besides here, only in Matthew 25:46; comp. Wis 11:14; Wis 16:2; Wis 16:24; Wis 19:4) has always the meaning of “punishment” (also LXX.

Ezekiel 14:3-4; Ezekiel 14:7; Ezekiel 18:30; Ezekiel 44:12, as incorrect translation of מִכְשַׁוֹל); if we adhere to this meaning, that expression can only mean: fear has punishment, in which case that which it has to expect is regarded as inherent in it, just as on the other hand it could be said: ἩἈΓΆΠΗἜΧΕΙΖΩῊΝΑἸΏΝΙΟΝ (this being considered as future happiness, as in Matthew 25:46); this idea has nothing against it, for fear, as rooted in unbelief, is in itself deserving of punishment, and therein lies the reason (ὍΤΙ) why perfect love casteth out fear.[282] Several commentators, however, explain κόλασις by “pain,” thinking that “here causa is put pro effectu” (Ebrard), or, in more correspondence with the thought, by “pain of punishment” (Besser, Braune, so also previously in this comm.); similarly Lücke explains κόλασις = “consciousness of punishment.” The thought that then results is indeed right in itself, for “certainly this having of κόλασις does actually show itself in the consciousness or the pain of the expectation of punishment” (Brückner); but such a change in the meaning of the idea κόλασις cannot be grammatically justified. The following sentence: ὁδὲφοβούμενοςοὐτετελείωταιἐντῇἀγάπῃ, which is not connected with the subordinate clause ὅτιὁφόβοςκ.τ.λ., but with the preceding principal clause, does not contain a conclusion from this (δέ is not = οὖν), but (as Braune also thinks) expresses the same thought in negative form (hence the connection by δέ); only with this difference, that what was there expressed in an objective way, here receives a subjective aspect. It needs no proof that the apostle has in view in this verse no other fear than that of which Paul says, Romans 8:15: οὐκἐλάβετεπνεῦμαδουλείαςπάλινεἰςφόβον, and therefore not the childlike awe of God arising from the consciousness of God’s glory, which forms an essential element of love to God.[283] The conjectures of Grotius, instead of κόλασιν: κόλουσιν (i.e. mutilationem; so that the sense is: “metus amorem mutilat atque infringit, aut prohibet, ne se exserat”), and instead of φοβούμενος: κολουόμενος (“qui mutilatur aut impeditur in dilectione, is in ea perfectus non est”); and that of Lamb. Bos: instead of κόλασιν, κώλυσιν, are not merely useless, but even rob the thought of the apostle of its peculiar force.

[280] Calovius interprets: charitas divina, quae apprehensa per fidem, omnem servilem timorem expellit, whereby a reference foreign to the context is plainly introduced.

[281] For justification of this interpretation Lücke refers to the words: ἔξωβάλλειτὸνφόβον, and remarks: “it cannot be said of the love of God in its perfection, that it casts out fear of God, for it has not got any.” But John does not say that love casts out fear out of itself; the idea rather is: it drives fear out of the heart in which it dwells before it (love) obtains its entrance. If ἀγάπη and φόβος ere meant to have different references, the apostle would certainly have indicated this.

[282] It is unnecessary to take the abstract (ὁφόβος) for the concrete (ὁφοβούμενος), as de Wette and Düsterdieck do; de Wette incorrectly interprets ἔχει by “receives,” and Baumgarten-Crusius by “keeps, tenet, thinks of … punishment” (so that the sense is: “Fear knows nothing of mercy, of love”).

[283] That the fear which the apostle means has its necessary place also in the development of the spiritual life, Augustine strikingly expresses thus: Timor quasi locum praeparat charitati. Si autem nullus timor, non est qua intret charitas. Timor Dei sic vulnerat quomodo mediei ferramentum. Timor medicamentum, charitas sanitas. Timor servus est charitatis. Timor est custos et paedagogus legis, donee veniat charitas.—The different steps are thus stated by Bengel: varius hominum status: sine timore et amore; cum timore sine amore; cum timore et amore; sine timore cum amore.

1 John 4:19

1 John 4:19. ἡμεῖςἀγαπῶμεν] According to this reading (omit αὐτόν), ἀγαπᾷν is here to be taken in the same comprehensive way as ἀγάπη in 1 John 4:16 (Düsterdieck, Myrberg,[284] Ebrard), and must not be restricted to “brotherly love” (Lücke).

ἀγαπῶμεν, in analogy with ἀγαπῶμεν in 1 John 4:7, and with ὀφείλομεν, 1 John 4:11, is taken by Hornejus, Grotius, Lorinus, Lange, Lücke, de Wette-Brückner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, Düsterdieck, Myrberg, etc., as imperative subjunctive; but it might be more correct to regard this verse, just as 1 John 4:17, as an expression of the actual character of true Christians, with whom, in 1 John 4:20, by ἐάντιςεἴπῃ the false Christian is contrasted, and therefore to take ἀγαπῶμεν, with Beza, Socinus, Spener, Bengel, Rickli, Neander, Ebrard, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 338), Braune, etc., as indicative, in favour of which is also the prefixed ἡμεῖς.

The reason of ἡμεῖςἀγαπῶμεν is stated in ὅτιαὐτὸςπρῶτοςἠγάπησενἡμᾶς, in which the chief emphasis rests on πρῶτος; comp. 1 John 4:9-10.

[284] Myrberg remarks: totum genus amoris hic proponitur; sed ubi totum genus amoris nuncupatur, ibi mens ante omnia fertur ad considerationem amoris erga Deum.

1 John 4:20

1 John 4:20. This verse divides itself into two parts, the second part confirming the thought of the first.

ἐάντιςεἴπῃ] The same form of thought as in chap. 1 John 1:6 ff.

ὅτιἀγαπῶτὸνΘεόν] ὅτι is used, as frequently, at the commencement of the direct oration.

καὶτὸνἀδελφὸναὑτοῦμισῇ] With μισῇ corresponds the subsequent ὁμὴἀγαπῶν, comp. chap. 1 John 3:14-15. Spener: “not only with actual hatred towards him, but even not loving him in perfect truth.” To hate is the positive expression for “not to love” (so also Braune).

ψεύστηςἐστίν] see chap. 1 John 1:6. The truth that he who hates (or, does not love) his brother, also does not love God, the apostle confirms by the contrast between ὃνἑώρακε and ὃνοὐχἑώρακεν, in which the visibility of the brother is contrasted with the invisibility of God. The perfect indicates the permanent state; comp. 1 John 4:12, Gospel of Joh 1:18. Lücke: ἑωρακέναι = “to have before one’s eyes;” a Lapide: “vidit et assidue videt.” Socinus incorrectly lays a certain emphasis on the preterite when he says: quandoquidem satis est ad amorem per cognitionem alicujus erga illum excitandum, quod quis ipsum aliquando viderit; nee necesse est, ut etiam nunc illum videat. The premiss for the conclusion of the apostle is, that the visible—as the object directly presented to the sight—is more easily loved than the invisible. Even the natural man turns with love to the visible,[285] whereas love to God, as the Unseen, requires an elevation of the heart of which only the saved are capable.

Hence brotherly love is the easier, love to God is the more difficult. In him who rejects the former, the latter has certainly no place. The truth that love to God is the condition of Christian brotherly love, is not in contradiction with this; for that love, as the glorification of natural love, has its necessary basis in the natural inclination which we have to our visible brother, who is like us. It is therefore unnecessary to attach any importance to elements which the apostle here leaves quite untouched, as is the case with Calvin (with whom Sander, Ebrard, etc., agree) when he says: Apostolus hic pro confesso sumit, Deum se nobis in hominibus offerre, qui insculptam gerunt ejus imaginem; Joannes nil aliud voluit, quam fallacem esse jactantiam, si quis Deum se amare dicat, et ejus imaginem, quae ante oculos est, negligat;[286] and with de Wette in his interpretation: “the brother is the visible empiric object of love; whereas God, the ideal invisible object, can really be loved only in him.” By the interrogative: πῶςδύναταιἀγαπᾷν (comp. chap. 1 John 3:17), and by placing the object τὸνΘεόν first, the expression gains in vivacity and point.

πῶςδύναται must not be taken: “how can he attain to that?” but: “how can we suppose that he loves?” (Baumgarten-Crusius). Bengel: sermo modalis: impossibile est, ut talis sit amans Dei, in praesenti.

[285] Oecumenius: ἐφελκυστικὸνγὰρὅρασιςἀγάπην. Hornejus: Sicut omnis cognitio nostra communiter a sensu incipit, ita amor quoque, unde facilius et prius amatur, quod facilius et promptius cognoscitur. Similarly Luther, Calovius, etc. Compare also the statement of Gregory (Homil. XI. in Evang.): Oculi sunt in amore duces; and Philo (ad Decalog.): ἀμήχανονεὐσεβεῖσθαιτὸνἀόρατονὑπὸτῶνεἰςτοὺςἐμφανεῖςκαὶἐγγὺςἀσεβούντων.

[286] The objection of Ebrard, that “it is not easier to love a person who stands visibly before me, and has, for instance, injured me, than a person whom I have not seen at all,” is overthrown by the fact that the apostle does not here make the slightest reference to the conduct of persons standing in visible opposition to us, by whom the natural feeling of love towards our equals is destroyed and turned into hate. As the apostle is contrasting the elements of visibility and invisibility, it is so much the more arbitrary to introduce here a reference to the imago Dei, as this is not something visible, but something invisible,—the object, not of sight, but of faith.

1 John 4:21

1 John 4:21. Alterum argumentum cur amare proximum (or, more correctly: fratrem) debeamus: quia Deus id praecepit (Grotius).

καί] not = and yet (Paulus); for this verse does not contain an antithesis, but an expansion of the preceding thought.

ταύτηντὴνἐντολὴνκ.τ.λ.] Lange interprets ἐντολή here by: “teaching;” and Grotius paraphrases ὁἀγαπῶντὸνΘεόν by: qui a Deo pro amante ipsius haberi vult; both false and unnecessary; for although brotherly love is the natural fruit and activity of love to God, yet at the same time the practice of it is the habitual task which he who loves God has to perform, as one appointed him by God. It is doubtful whether we are to understand by αὐτοῦ God (Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Düsterdieck, etc.) or Christ; that in the latter case ἐκείνου must be read is unfounded; because τὸνΘεόν follows, the second view seems to be the more correct; but as in the context there is no reference here at all to Christ, it might be safer to understand by αὐτοῦ God.

By ἵνα referring back to ταύτην, it is here, as frequently after verbs of wishing and commanding, not so much the purpose as the purport of the commandment (the realization of which is certainly the aim and object of the commandment) that is stated, which Braune here also incorrectly disputes.