Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 1 John 4:7 - 4:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_4:7-21
Exhortation to brotherly love founded on the Being of God. 1Jn_4:7-8.
1Jn_4:7. Beloved, let us love one another.— Ἀãáðçôïß , ἀãáðῶìåí , a very emphatic expression; being loved we must love; being in the enjoyment of love we are and dare not be without love; the exhortation, as ἀëëÞëïõò shows, must be restricted to brotherly [Christian—M.] love and not be extended to general love of man. [But the ground, on which this exortation is based, viz. that God is Love (1Jn_4:8) and that He sent His Son åἰò ôὸí êüóìïí (1Jn_4:9), shows that the love of man in general is not excluded here. Cf. 1Jn_3:13; so Ebrard.—M.].
Because the love is of God, and every one, that loveth, is born of God and knoweth God.— Ὅôé indicates the ground on which the preceding exhortation is made to rest. The demonstration is conducted on a general axiom of truth: Omnis amor ex Deo est (Bengel), originem habet a Deo (Calov). This thought especially strengthened by ἐê , must not be weakened into caritas res divina maxime laudabilis (Socinus, Episcopius), Deo maxime placet (Grotius), love is Divine as to its nature (de Wette), Deus caritatis auctor est, quatenus nobis mutuæ caritatis causas abunde suppeditat (Schlichting). Neither must we add with A. ôὸí èåὸí , nor supply “the brother” with S. Schmidt, Lücke and al.—[Didymus singularly understood ἀãáðÞ here of Christ,— ἥôéíá ïὐê ἀëëçí åἶíáé íïìéóôÝïí ἢ ôὸí ìïíïãåíῆ , ὥóðåñ èåὸí ἐê èåïῦ , ïὕôù êáὶ ἀãÜðçí ἐî ἀãÜðçò ὄíôá :—and Augustine fitting together “Dilectio est ex Deo,” and “Dilectio est Deus” infers that “Dilectio est Deus ex Deo,” which comparing with Rom. 1Jn_4:5, he infers that love is the Holy Spirit (Tract. 7:6). Alford—M.].—Now since love and life are and spring from God, a man that is born of God proves that he is born of God by loving; for he must have part of that which is in God and comes from Him. The Perfect also alongside the Present shows that here again being born of God is regarded as the antecedent fact, as the cause of love, and love as a consequence warrants and necessitates the back-inference of the truth and reality of being born of God. Cf. 1Jn_2:29. Every one that is born of God knows also in his belonging to God, in his fellowship with God, God as the Source of love, and love as the Essence of God, and hence he must insist upon love and practise love, so that thereby he may prove his knowledge of and familiarity with God; to love and to know God are correlates, because love is of God. Hence Grotius (ostendit se Deum nosse sicut oportet) errs less than Calvin (vera Dei cognitio amorem Dei necessario in nobis generat).
1Jn_4:8. He that loveth not hath never known God.—Consequently: he that lacks love in general, has not known God, has never learnt to know Him at all (Lücke), has never made even the beginning of the knowledge of God (Düsterdieck); this rendering is required by the Aorist ἔãíù joined to ὁ ìὴ ἀãáðῶí . The reason of this is given in the following:
Because God is love.—A proposition which in the negative formula, according to the well-known manner of the Apostle, still further defines the former assertion that “love is of God.” This relation of the two propositions and of their contents requires us to give to ὅôé a causal construction; hence it indicates the reason and not the contents of ἔãíù (Tirinus: non novit, Deum esse caritatem); in that case ὁ èåὸò also ought to be wanting and it would be: ïὐê ἔãíù ôὸí èåüí , ὅôé ἀãÜðç ἐóôßí . Cf. Act_14:13. Winer, p. 469. Ὁ èåὸò ἀãÜðç ἐóôßí =Deus nihil est quam mera caritas (Luther), Dei natura nihil aliud est, quam caritas, quam bonitas, quam summum bonum, sui ipsius communicativum (Hunnius). The Being of God is Love; therefore love springs from God. The word is to be taken essentialiter with most Catholic [Anglican—M.] and Lutheran Commentators, and not ἐíåñãçôéêῶò with Calvin and Beza: Dei natura est homines diligere; for this construction makes God’s Love-Essence give place to God’s manifestation of love and adds the limitation of its application to men, whereas angels and even the Trinitarian God are objects of the love of God. Still farther removed from the depth of this saying, even to shallowness, are the expositions of Socinus (caritas est Dei ipsiusque voluntas effectus et is quidem maxime proprius), Grotius (Deus est plenus caritate), Rosenmüller (benignissimus). In this, that God is love as to His essential Being, lies the reason, why he that is born of God, must also have love and live in love and why the love of God must be allied with the love of the brethren who are also born of God. [Equally shallow are the explanations of Benson: “God is the most benevolent of all beings; full of love to all His creatures,” Whitby: “The Apostle intends not to express what God is in His Essence … but what He is demonstrative, ἐíåñãçôéêῶò , showing great philanthropy to men,” and Hammond “God is made up of love and kindness to mankind.”—Alford reviewing these quotations says that in them the whole force of the axiom as it stands in the Apostle’s argument is lost; “unless he is speaking of the Essential Being of God, quorsum pertineat, to say that he that loveth not never knew God, because “God is love?” Put for these last words, “God is loving,” and we get at once a fallacy of an undistributed middle: He that loveth not never knew what love is: God is loving: but what would follow? that in as far as God is loving, he never knew Him: but he may have known Him as far as He is just or powerful. But take ὁ èåὸò ἀãÜðç ἐóôßí of God’s essential Being,—as a strict definition of God, and the argumentation will be strict: He that loveth not never knew love: God is love [the terms are co-essential and co-extensive]: therefore he who loveth not never knew God.”—M.].
Revelation of the love of God through Christ. 1Jn_4:9-10.
1Jn_4:9. In this was manifested the love of God in (on) us.—“We hear the lovely, the living echo of Christ, Joh_3:16.” (Heubner). Ἐí ôïýôῳ points to the sequel. Ἐöáíåñþèç as contrasted with the hidden Being of the invisible God, annexes the objective, actual appearing and manifestation of the ἀãÜðç ôïῦ èåïῦ , of the love which is God’s, in God, as in 1Jn_1:2; 1Jn_3:5; 1Ti_3:16; there is no reference whatever to subjective knowledge. [Huther: “The Apostle does not want to say that the love of God has been known by us through the sending of His Son; cf. 1Jn_4:16, but that therein it stepped forth from its concealment, and did in reality manifest itself.”—M.].— Ἐí ἡìῖí defines either the sphere in which, or the object at which [with regard to which—M.] the manifestation took place; it should be connected with the verb and rendered, either among us, with us, or at [in, with regard to] us. But the context does not introduce us merely as spectators but as receivers of the Divine love ( ἵíá æÞóùìåí ); and this love is not only to us an object of contemplation, which would be expressed by the Dative ἡìῖí without the preposition; but we ourselves are objects of this love, every one of us believers has experienced it; hence we ought not to leave the matter undecided (Lücke), but must decide for the rendering at [in, with regard to—M.] us (Düsterdieck), according to the manifest analogy of Joh_9:3, where ἐí must be thus construed and explained; hence we may not connect it with ἀãÜðç ôïῦ èåïῦ (Huther and al.); for it was not the love of God in believers which was manifested, as if the believers existed before the manifestation of God’s love in Christ, but the love of God appeared in Christ and was manifested not to, but at [in] the believers. On this account Bengel’s explanation: “Amor Dei, qui nunc in nobis est,” is equally untenable. Still less admissible is it to make ἐí ἡìῖí = åἰò ἡìᾶò , as is done by Luther, Spener and al. Cf. Winer, pp. 231, 436.— Ἐöáíåñþèç is explained by what follows:
That God hath sent His son, the only-begotten, into the world.
This is the fact of the manifestation. The designation ôὸí ìïíïãåíῆ the only child (Luk_7:12; Luk_8:42; Luk_9:38; Heb_11:17; Joh_1:14; Joh_1:18; Joh_3:18), ad auxesin valet (Calvin); what love, that He sent His only son (Huther)! It is therefore not= ἀãáðçôüò , omnium creaturarum longe carissimus, sibi dilectissimus (S. G. Lange, Socinus, Grotius). John thus marks the exaltation of the Son, just as the term ἀðÝóôáëêåí åἰò ôὸí êüóìïí denotes His pre-existence (Joh_3:17; Joh_10:36): to be sent, to be sent into the world can only be true of one already born, not of one who is only born in the world, but one existing above and before the world, 1Jn_1:1.
That we might live through Him.—Thus ἐí ἡìῖí is explained. This indication of the purpose, ἵíá , points as much to the life-fulness in Christ as to our poverty. Cf. 1Jn_3:16-17. [Baumgarten-Crusius: ÌïíïãåíÞò and æÞóïìåí are the two emphatic words: The most exalted One—for our salvation!—M.].
1Jn_4:10. In this exists love.—[German like Greek “the love,” i.e. love in the abstract.—M.]. ἈãÜðç is to be taken quite general, as at 1Jn_3:16 (Neander, Düsterdieck, Huther), without the supplement of ôïῦ èåïῦ (Spener, Lücke, Sander, de Wette, Brückner and al.), as at Rom_5:5.
Not that we loved God, but that He loved us.—The simplest construction is to supply ἐí ôïýôῷ to ïὐ÷ and ἀëëÜ . Thus preparation is made for the comprehensive term ðñῶôïò 1Jn_4:19; the initiation of loving is with God; the beginning and origin of love is in God ( ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ ); ἡìåῖò and áὐôὸò are here emphatically contrasted like ôὸí èåüí ; amari dignissimum, and ἡìᾶò , indignissimos (Bengel), the self-existence, independence, of the Divine love are intimated by the prevenience of that love absolutely unconditioned by any merit on the part of men; the former is what is really said here (Huther), the other, as we may justly infer from what follows, ( ἱëáóìὸí ) and from what precedes ( ἵíá æÞóùìåí ), is implied (Düsterdieck). Hence there is no reason whatsoever for rendering ὅôé once “because” and then “that” (Baumgarten-Crusius), or for translating both times “because” but only as protases, thus: not because we loved Him but because He loved us, did He send His Son (Lachmann), or for a transposition of the words as if we did read: ὅôé ïὐê (Grotius), or for taking the first proposition as a dependent clause= ἡìῶí ìὴ ἀãáðçóÜíôùí (Meyer: that although we have not loved God before, yet did He love us). a Lapide erroneously assigns to the implication the first place saying: “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.”
And sent His Son (as) a propitiation for our sins.—This is the proof in fact of áὐôὸò ἠãÜðçóåí ἡìᾶò . The Aorist ἀðÝóôåéëåí , like ἠãáðÞóáìåí , ἠãÜðçóåí , simply narrates, while the Perfect ἀðÝóôáëêåí 1Jn_4:9 absolutely presentiates Christ’s having been sent (Lücke). ἈðÝóôåéëå stands emphatically in ante-position in order to set the act of God in relief; ἱëáóìὸí ðåñὶ ôῶí ἀìáñôéῶí ἡìῶí has an explanatory and substantiating reference to æÞóùìåí äé ’ áὐôïῦ 1Jn_4:9. Cf. 1Jn_2:2; 1Jn_3:16. Insufficient: testatum fecit, se velle condonare (Rosenmüller).
Brotherly love inferred. 1Jn_4:11. [from, 1Jn_4:9-10, and substantiating the exhortation 1Jn_4:7.—M.]
1Jn_4:11. Beloved— ἀãáðçôïß has a peculiar emphasis and distinct meaning, i.e. it designates those who stand in the enjoyment of the experience of the love of God.
If God so loved us.—Because åἰ with the Indicative introduces the aforesaid fact, it is described as an indubitable ground for an inference to be built upon it. [Alford calls attention to the difficulty of rendering this åἰ with an Indicative in English, which is neither any expression of uncertainty, nor=since, or seeing that; he describes it as “a certainty put in the shape of a doubt, that the hearer’s mind may grasp the certainty for itself, not take it from the speaker.” If (it be true that).—is perhaps the nearest filling up of the sense.”—M.]. Ïὕôùò denotes the preceding description of love; it is here=hac ratione, prevenient without any merit on our part, in the sending of His Son for the propitiation of our sins; but it is not=tanta caritate, as in Joh_3:16 (where ïὕôùò — ὥóôå requires such a construction, as Düsterdieck rightly observes). There is no warrant for the interpretation; nullo hominum discrimine (Grotius).
We also ought to love one another.—In the first place we have to take notice of ἡìåὶò — ἀëëÞëïõò : we, first the object of the glorious love of God ( ἡìᾶò ) must, now also regard and treat every Christian as an object of Divine love and consequently become the subjects of such experienced Divine love; to this necessitates us the brother whom God loves, and to this compels us the love with which we ourselves are loved. Hence the Apostle uses the word ὀöåßëïìåí not only because there is extant for it an objectively given commandment and example, but also a subjective preparation for it; as God’s children, born out of Him who is Love, born out of His Love-Being, we must love one another.
There is no fellowship with God without brotherly love. 1Jn_4:12-13.
1Jn_4:12. No one hath ever beheld God.—. Cf. Joh_1:18 : ἑþñáêåí . The Perfects there, like ôåèÝáôáé here are on account of ðþðïôå to be emphatically referred to the past with respect to its separate course and periods, and must not be construed according to a Hebraism, as carrying present force (Estius), or as comprehending the past and the present (Lücke). The word ôåèÝáôáé denotes calm, continued looking at and contemplation of a thing, but it is real seeing [in the literal sense of the word as distinguished from spiritual beholding, inward vision—M.]; this is the view of the Greek Commentators, (Augustine, Spener, Lücke and al.), as in 1Jn_4:14 and= ἑþñáêåí also 1Jn_4:20. The sense is: God is invisible (1Ti_6:16). Passages like Exo_33:20, and Gen_12:7; Gen_17:1 etc., are not contradictory, since where God did appear, it was not His face, but some assumed form that became visible. Consequently the passage must not be interpreted in a spiritual sense, as if it imported spiritual seeing and that God cannot be known and apprehended by man’s own, natural powers (Piscator), or immediately (Rickli), or as He is (Estius), that He is consequently inscrutable (Neander). The explanation of this axiom follows from,
If we love one another, God abideth in us and His love is perfected in us.—The proposition: èåὸí ïὐäåὶò ðþðïôå ôåèÝáôáé , obviously refers not to the proposition ἀãáðᾷí ἀëëÞëïõò which contains a presupposition and a condition, but to the leading thought: ὁ èåὸò ἐí ἡìῖí ìÝíåé . The Apostle is wholly concerned with the inward life-fellowship, with the inward relation between God and man which is to be carried on to perfection and which manifests itself in brotherly love; hence brotherly love is only the presupposition and condition of the assertion and assumption of such life-fellowship with God, but not of that relation itself (contrary to Frommann). So especially Düsterdieck, Huther. The invisibility of God surely does not exclude our love to God (1Jn_4:20. cf. 1Pe_1:8); nor is the invisibility of God used here to direct us to brotherly love, as if we should show to the brethren what we cannot show to Him (Lücke and al.); in that case èåὸí ïὐê èåᾶóèáé and not ἀãáðᾷí ἀëëÞëïõò would have been introduced with ἐὰí . ἈãÜðç èåïῦ denotes His love, the love of God, even the love peculiar to and inhering in Him, which is in us, if He ἐí ἡìῖí ìÝíåé . In this life-fellowship with Him we participate in His love, which is ôåôåëåéùìÝíç , has become perfected [i.e. has reached its full completion and maturity.—M.]. This love has its history of growth and completion in us and corresponds pari passu with brotherly love: where the one is, there is also the other; they mutually conditionate each other; it is loving with God, (out) of God, in God, which with Him is in us as His Being; dutiful loving ( ὀöåßëïìåí 1Jn_4:11) is natural in believers. Hence the reference is not to God’s love to us (Hunnius, Calov, Spener, Beza, Sander and al.), for the predicate would not suit such a construction; nor to our love to God (Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Lücke, Neander, Düsterdieck and others), nor to ea dilectio quam Deus præscripsit (Socinus), nor to the mutual relation of love between God and us (Ebrard).
1Jn_4:13. In this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, that He hath given us of His Spirit.—The mark of recognition of the life-fellowship of God with us, and among ourselves with God, agrees exactly with the description at 1Jn_3:24, as does also the reference to the gift of the Spirit ( ἐí ôïýôῳ ): ὅôé ἐê ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò áὐôïῦ äÝäùêåí ἡìῖí . Neither ïὖ 1Jn_3:24, nor the preposition ἐê here, has partitive force; it rather answers to ἀðὸ ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò , Act_2:17; Joe_3:1 (LXX.), while the Vulgate in conformity to the original text renders spiritum meum effundam, and denotes the origin and source of the Spirit in us, although we, as distinguished from Jesus who has the Spirit ïὐê ἐê ìÝôñïõ (Joh_3:34), have only part in Him; the coarse notion of a divisibility or dismemberment of the Spirit must be strenuously excluded. The Spirit Himself is given to us; nothing is said here of His gifts; there is no reference to the äéáéñÝóéò ôῶí ÷áñéóìÜôùí , 1Co_12:4; 1Co_12:11—(in opposition to Estius). His Spirit ( ôὸ ðíåῦìá áὐôïῦ , the Love-Spirit of God) answers to ἀãÜðç áὐôïῦ and confirms the explanation of 1Jn_4:12, as given above, and supplements the fact that His Spirit mediates in us His love and its perfections.
Evidence of this inward life-fellowship as a certain fact. 1Jn_4:14-16.
1Jn_4:14. And we have beheld and testify.—Antithesis to 1Jn_4:12 : No one has ever beheld God, but we have seen the Son of the Father. Ἡìåῖò designates the Apostles and their associates, and this reference is confirmed by ôåèåÜìåèá êáὶ ìáñôõñïῦìåí , which verbs point to an immediate, personal beholding as contrasted with the knowledge mediated by others (1Jn_1:1-2; Joh_1:14), to their eye-and ear-witness (Joh_1:34). What they have beheld, that they testify also; both verbs have the same object:
That the Father hath sent the Son as Saviour of the world.—In Jesus, the Sent One from God, they have beheld äüîáí áὐôïῦ , äüîáí ὡò ìïíïãåíïῦò ðáñὰ ðáôñὸò , ðëÞñçò ÷Üñéôïò êáὶ ἀëçèåßáò (Joh_1:14), and therefore they beheld Him as the Sent One of God. Ôïῦ êüóìïõ (cf. 1Jn_2:2; Joh_3:16; Joh_4:42), implies that He is sent for every man, not only for the electi in omnibus populis (Piscator); the universality of salvation is also confirmed by the sequel:
1Jn_4:15. Whosoever confesseth that Jesus is the Son of God.—This ὁìïëïãåῖí is the consequence of the reception of the ìáñôõñåῖí of the Apostles. Cf. 1Jn_2:2; 1Jn_2:23. The reference here is neither to the confession in the fact of brotherly love (Bede), nor to the testimony of a holy life accompanying the confession with the mouth (Augustine, Grotius); but the faith of the heart, which receives the Apostolical ìáñôõñßá is taken for granted. Cf. 1Jn_4:16.
God abideth in Him and He in God.—The confession, therefore, is to be taken as connected with the life-fellowship with God, and an ungodly conversation surely will not belie the confession; God in Christ Jesus will have appropriated salvation to the believer.
1Jn_4:16. And we have known and believed.—The beginning êáὶ ἡìåῖò exactly as in 1Jn_4:14. But ἐãíþêáìåí and ðåðéóôåýêáìåí is matter of the disciples of Jesus without any exception whatsoever (Estius, Calov, Spener, Lücke, de Wette, Düsterdieck, Ebrard, Huther), not of the Apostles only, as in ôåèåÜìåèá êáὶ ìáñôõñïῦìåí (in opposition to Episcopius, Rickli and al.). Cf. Joh_6:69 : ðåðéóôåýêáìåí êáὶ ἐãíþêáìåí ; cf. Lange in this Commentary, Vol. 4., p. 166, German edition. “True faith is, according to John, a faith of knowledge and experience: true knowledge of faith” (Lücke); both are in one another; each conditions and promotes the other. Hence it is really immaterial which of the two is put first; the moral act of faith and the intellectual act of knowing are ultimately not without the working of God in His Spirit on our spirit. For the reception of the word of truth in faith is a receiving from the Lord of the word, just as the shining of this bright word into the heart and the luminous rise of the truth of the word in the heart, come also from Him. The two constitute the foundation of man’s confession. Hence the Perfects which continue to operate in the present confession. The object follows, viz.:
The love which God hath in us.—Cf. Joh_13:35 : ἵíá ἀãÜðçí ἔ÷çôå ἐí ἀëëÞëïéò . The Present is emphatically placed first after the preceding Perfects; ἐí is used here as in 1Jn_4:9. It is, as in Joh_6:69 ( ὅôé óὺ åἶ ὁ ἅãéïò ôïῦ èåïῦ ), something objective, God’s love on us, namely in Christ Jesus, wherefore Bede says: “Quia videlicet cum haberet filium unicum, noluit illum esse unum, sed ut fratres haberet, adoptavit illi, qui cum illo possiderent vitam æternam.” Hence neither the subjective love of God erga nos (Estius, Luther, Socinus, Grotius, Rickli and al.), nor the love of God indwelling in us (Wilke, Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, 11, 64,), nor our love, kindled in us by God’s love (Ebrard).—Now follows the concluding summary,
God is love and he that abideth in love, abideth in God and God abideth in him.—A combination of 1Jn_4:8; 1Jn_4:15. Ἐí ôῇ ἀãÜðῃ denotes Love absolute, as the element of those who are born of God, and neither brotherly love (Lücke and al.), nor God’s love to us (Ebrard); it occurs here without any qualifying addition. ÌÝíùõ , however, denotes the love of man in which he abides and which dwells in him.
Perfecting of love in fearlessness. 1Jn_4:17-18.
Ver 17. In this, love is perfected with us.— ἈãÜðç is again absolute as in 1Jn_4:16; 1Jn_4:18, and must neither be construed as God’s love åἰò ἡìᾶò , nor as our love åἰò ἀëëÞëïõò (Socinus), nor to God (Lange), but simultaneously as the disposition and activity of love (Huther), as at 1Jn_3:18; and ìåè ’ ἡìῶí must receive its full force of among, between, with us; see Winer, p. 336 sq.—Were it not parallel with ἐí ἡìῖí 1Jn_4:12 we might think of fellowship, ecclesiastical fellowship, the Christian Church, within which love has been perfected; the context also points to the individual life and perfection of Christians and not to the life and perfection of the Christian Church as such. Its most natural construction is with the verb ôåôåëåßùôáé (Lücke, de Wette, Düsterdieck and al.), not with ἀãÜðç , of which it cannot be the object, since it is not= åἰò ἡìᾶò , as supposed by Luther, Calvin, Spener, Bengel, Sander, Besser and al. The position of the words is not more decisive for the connection with ἀãÜðç here than at 1Jn_4:9 (in opposition to Huther); ìåè ’ ἡìῶí denotes the place where love was perfected. Hence ἡìῶí must not be resolved into God and we (Rickli) and construed as the mutual love of God and Christians, which would be wholly inadmissible and repugnant to the spirit of the Gospel. Ôåôåëåßùôáé should be construed like ôåôåëåéùìÝíç ἐóôßí , 1Jn_4:12, and ôåëåßá and ôåôåëåßùôáé in 1Jn_4:18, this ἀãÜðç in and on us is something to be perfected, and this perfection itself is not ready and accomplished at once; it has its stages and degrees. This is inconceivable and unpredicable of the love of God. But wherein is it primarily perfected? ἐí ôïýôῳ — ἵíá ðáῤῥçóßáí ἔ÷ùìåí :
That we have confidence in the day of judgment.—On ðáῤῥçóßá see Notes, on 1Jn_2:28 in Exegetical and Critical. Ἵíá , which follows áὕôç , 1Jn_3:11; 1Jn_3:23; Joh_17:3 and also ἐí ôïýôῳ , Joh_15:8, gives the purpose of God in the perfecting of love with us; we shall have confidence. Ἐí ôïýôῳ therefore must neither be referred to what goes before 1Jn_4:16 (Spener), nor, with the assumption of a trajecta anticipatio, connected with ὅôé (Grotius, Beza and al.), nor must ἵíá be construed in the sense of ὥóôå (Episcopius, Bengel and al.). The ἡìÝñá ôῆò êñßóåùò is ὅôáí öáíåñùèῇ 1Jn_2:28. Of course ἐí has its usual sense and must not be explained= åἰò ; for the reference here is not to the confidence of expectation, the desire of its drawing near (Augustine, Calvin), where men are liable to deceive themselves. Of course, he that may and will have confidence in the judgment, will also have confidence before it takes place; however, it is to be borne in mind that even believers, notwithstanding their activity of love, will be surprised in the judgment (Mat_25:31 sqq.); the reference is solely to confidence in the judgment, not to confidence beforehand. It is incorrect to combine the two with Rickli, Huther and al.; nor must ôåôåëåßùôáé be taken as a futurum exactum. [It is doubtful whether Braune’s exegesis will carry conviction to the mind of the reader. It seems to be rather contradictory, for while he condemns the interpretation of Rickli and Huther, he seems to adopt it when he says that “of course he that may and will have confidence in the judgment, will also have confidence before it takes place.” On the whole, Huther’s explanation, which is substantially that of Alford, seems to be the most natural. He says: “The difficulty that something future (our attitude in the day of judgment), is to be valid as a mark of perfect love in the present, vanishes by the assumption that ἐí involves both the ðáῤῥçóßá of believers in the day of judgment, and their present ðáῤῥçóßá in anticipation of that day; this combination was natural to the Apostle who thought of the day of judgment not as very remote but as already dawning (1Jn_2:18). In his love this future ðáῤῥçóßá is to him already present.”—M.].
Because as He is, we also are in this world.— Ὅôé annexes the reason of our confidence in the day of judgment. Ἐêåῖíïò is Jesus and not God (Augustine, Calvin and al.). The Present ἐóôß must not be construed= ἦí (a Lapide, Grotius, Rickli and al.), nor must the words ἐí ôῷ êüóìῳ ôïýôῳ be referred to Christ. The comparison must be gathered from the context: it is very strict, êáèὼò — êáὶ . The point in hand is the ìÝíåéí ἐí ôῇ ἀãÜðῃ , which ìÝíåéí perfects love even unto filial confidence in the day of judgment (so Huther who cites Lorinus, “reddit nos caritas Christo similes et conformes imagini filii Dei”). Hence not likeness in suffering (Luther) or temptability (Rickli), not likeness in that, though we are in the world, we are not of the world (Sander); for nothing is said on these points; neither is here any reference to the adoption (Lücke), nor to äéêáéïóýíç (Düsterdieck). Love is the eternal Being of Christ, cf. 1Jn_3:7 (Huther). [The last named author lays stress on ἐóôὶí and compares in the passage cited the words: êáèὼò ἐêåῖíïò äßêáéüò ἐó ôé í .—Alford adopts the explanation of Düsterdieck, who thus develops his view: St. John does not say that Love is perfected in confidence in us, because we resemble Christ in Love; but he refers to the fundamental truth on which our Love itself rests and says: because we are absolutely like Christ, because we are in Christ Himself, because He lives in us, for without this there cannot be likeness to Him; in a word, because we are, in that communion with Christ which we are assured of by our likeness to Him in righteousness, children of God, therefore our love brings with it also full confidence. Essentially, the reason here rendered for our confidence in the day of judgment is the same as that given, 1Jn_3:21 sq., for another kind of confidence, viz., that we keep His commandments. This also betokens the äéêáéïóýíç , of which Christ is the essential exemplar and which is a necessary attribute of those who through Christ are children of God.—M.]. Ἐí ôῷ êüóôῳ ôïýìῳ applied to ἐóìÝí , denotes the place of abode, the earthly sphere of life, whereas Christ is in heaven, and is not an ethical idea, though we should supply with Bengel: amoris experte judicium timente.
1Jn_4:18. Fear is not in love.—Antithesis of ðáῤῥçóßá ἐí ôῇ ἡìÝñᾳ ôῆò êñßóåùò . Quite general: In love is not fear; fear is not a part of love, it is something wholly foreign to it, which is only outside of it (Huther). According to the well known phrase: oderint, dum metuant, hatred and fear are congruous, but love and fear are wholly incongruous. There is nothing said of the fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom (Psa_111:10), nor of love; hence neither our love to God, nor brotherly love (Lücke), and still less God’s love to us (Calvin, Calov, Spener).
But perfect love casteth out fear.— Ôåëåßá is more than sincera, opposita simulationi (Beza), and ἔîù is not out of itself (Lücke), as if it were in it, but out of the heart. “Love not only does not contain fear, but it also does not suffer it alongside of itself; the love which wholly drives away fear is not love in its first beginning, love as yet weak, but love in its perfection.” (Huther). [Alford says of ἀëëÜ that it is not here the mere adversative after a negative clause, in which case it would refer to something in which fear is, e.g. öüâïò ïὐê ἔóôéí ἐí ôῇ ἀãÜðῃ , ἀëë ’ ( ἐóôéí ) ἐí ôῷ ìéóåῖ : but it is the stronger adversative, implying, “nay, far otherwise:” “tantum abest ut.… ut;” and renders: Fear existeth not in love, nay, perfect love casteth out fear, etc.—M.].—Where such love fills the heart, there is no room for fear,
Because fear hath punishment.—This is the reason why love does not suffer fear alongside itself. Êüëáóéò often used in the LXX., [Eze_14:3-4; Eze_14:7; Eze_18:30; Eze_44:12, cf. Wis_11:14; Wis_16:2; Wis_16:24; Wis_19:4.—M.], as in Mat_25:46 in the sense of punishment, pain of punishment (Besser) under the menace of the êñßóéò . Bengel: “tormentum habet; nam diffidit, omnia inimica et adversa sibi fingit ac proponit, fugit, odit.” Hence it is not consciousness of punishment (Lücke), for the punishment has not yet set in; nor condemnation pronounced in the final judgment on him who does not stand in the fellowship of love (Düsterdieck). Ὁ öüâïò is neither pro concreto: he that fears (de Wette, Düsterdieck), nor is ἔ÷åé =receives; and least of all: fear holds fast to, tenet, thinks of punishment, knows nothing of clemency and love (Baumgarten-Crusius).—[“The pain felt in expectation of the punishment of Him who is feared” (Huther); “Fear by anticipating punishment has it even now” (Alford).—M.].
But he that feareth is not perfected in love.—Negative connected with the main proposition: ἡ ôåëåßá ἀãÜðç ἔîù âÜëëåé ôὸí öüâïí , and application to the beginning: öüâïò ïὐê ἔóôéí ἐí ôῇ ἀãÜðῃ . Hence äὲ is by all means to be retained, and neither to be cancelled, nor to be construed= ïὖí or êáὶ [ äὲ is strictly adversative.—M.]. It is accordingly both owing to a want of perfection in the individual and to a want of perfection of love ( ôåôåëåßùôáé ἐí ôῆ ἀãÜðῃ — ἡ ôåëåßá ἀãÜðç ), if fear is present, fear, as in Rom_8:15 : ïὐê ἐëÜâåôå ðíåῦìá äïõëåßáò ðÜëéí åἰò öüâïí . Unnecessary [and diluting—M.]. are the conjectures of Grotius, who proposes to read êüëïõóéí (mutilationem) instead of êüëáóéí (metus amorem mutilat atque infringit, aut prohibet, ne se exserat), and êïëïõüìåíïò instead of öïâïýìåíïò (qui mutilatur aut impeditur in dilectione), and of Lamb. Bos who reads êþëõóéí instead of êüëáóéí . [Oecumenius says that there are two kinds of godly fear, öüâïò ðñïêáôáñêôéêüò , which afflicts men with a sense of their evil deeds and dread of God’s anger, and which is not abiding; and öüâïò ôåëåéùôéêüò , of which it is said, “The fear of the Lord is clean and endureth forever,” Psalms 19, and which äÝïõò ôïéïýôïõ ἀðÞëëáêôáé .—M.].
The love of God is necessarily united with brotherly love. 1Jn_4:19-21.
1Jn_4:19. We love God.— Öïâïýìåíïò is contrasted with ἡìåῖò ἀãáðῶìåí èÝïí , without an address, like ἀãáðçôïß , 1Jn_4:7. There is nothing here to indicate the Conjunctive or an exhortation. Ἡìåῖ s,—emphatically placed first, who are born of God, His children,—rather notes the fact, the Indicative (Calvin, Beza, Aretius, Socinus, Spener, S. Schmidt, Bengel, Rickli, Neander, Ebrard, Erdmann, Huther, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis II. 2, 338); it corresponds, like the whole 1Jn_4:19, with ïὐ÷ ὅôé ἡìåῖò ἠãáðÞóáìåí ôὸí èåüí . Neither the comparison with 1Jn_4:7, nor the ground and the further development in 1Jn_4:20-21, can warrant the interpretation that we must assume here an imperative Conjunctive (as Düsterdieck does). For the majority of authorities favour the addition of the object, even the ïὖí of A. implies as much. [Alford, who is on the same side, fixes the connection thus: “He that feareth is not perfect in love. Our love (abstract, not specified whether to God or our brother) is brought about by, conditioned by, depends upon His love to us first; it is only a sense of that which can bring about our love: and if so, then from the very nature of things it is void of terror, and full of confidence, as springing out of a sense of His love to us. Nor only so: our being new begotten in love is not only the effect of a sense of His past love, but is the effect of that love itself.”—M.]. In the ground
Because He first loved us, ðñῶôïò is emphatic, and this seems to sugge