Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 2:15 - 2:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_2:15. μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον ] The meaning of ἀγαπᾶν depends on that of the idea κόσμος .
κόσμος is with John eminently an ethical conception = mankind, fallen away from God, and of hostile disposition towards Him, together with all that it lives for and has made its own; comp. on Jam_1:27; Jam_4:4 (similarly Gerlach, Besser, Düsterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune[132]). The explanations that deviate from this are divided into three leading classes—(1) Those in which ΚΌΣΜΟς is regarded as a total number of men indeed, but in a limited way; either = “the heathen world” (Lange), or more indefinitely: “the mass of common men” (Oecumenius: Ὁ ΣΥΡΦΕΤῸς ὌΧΛΟς , Ὃς Οὐ ΤῊΝ ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡῸς ἜΧΕΙ ἈΓΆΠΗΝ ἘΝ ἙΑΥΤῷ ; Calovius: homines dediti rebus hujus mundi), or “the greater part of men” (Grotius: humanum genus, secundum partem majorem, quae in malis actionibus versatur); Storr limits the idea here “to that part of the world which the antichristians constituted.” (2) Those which understand κόσμος not of the human world itself, but of the evil dwelling in it; so says the Scholiast: ΚΌΣΜΟΝ ΤῊΝ ΚΟΣΜΙΚῊΝ ΦΙΛΗΔΟΝΊΑΝ ΚΑῚ ΔΙΆΧΥΣΙΝ ΛΈΓΕΙ , Ἧς ἘΣΤῚΝ ἌΡΧΩΝ Ὁ ΔΙΆΒΟΛΟς ; Luther: “the world, i.e. godlessness itself, through which a man has not the right use of the creatures;” to this class belong also the explanations of Calvin, Morus, S. Schmid, Semler;[133] but in this abstract sense the word never appears elsewhere; and besides, taking this view, difficulties appear in the sequel which can only be overcome by arbitrary interpretations. (3) Those explanations in which κόσμος is regarded as the total of perishable (actual) things; these things being regarded as purely physical, there lies in the idea κόσμος , in and by itself, no ethical meaning, but this appears only through the ἀγαπᾷν which is connected with it; the κόσμος as a creature of God is in itself good and irreproachable, but the love to the κόσμος , through which man centres his affections on it, and makes it the single aim of his activity, is to be blamed, because amid all association with earthly things it is not they, but God, that must be loved; thus there results for the command: μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον , certainly an appropriate idea; but what follows in 1Jn_2:16-17 has induced almost all commentators who accept this view to give, nevertheless, to the idea κόσμος itself, more or less distinctly, an ethical reference; thus Lücke indeed says: “ ὁ κόσμος is, as the sum total of the temporal and sensuous, in contrast (!) to the πνεῦμα , always only the objective sphere of evil, i.e. to which it tends as ethical direction and disposition,” but immediately afterwards he explains the same idea “as the sum total of all sensuous appearances, which excite the desire of the senses;” still more definitely de Wette says: “the sum total of that which attracts desire, the temporal, sensuous, earthly—regarded in contrast with God;” but this connection of the ethical reference with the idea of actual things is itself rather unsuitable; not in the things, but in man himself, lies the cause of the seductive charm which things exercise upon him; besides, it is not possible to retain this conception of the word without modification to the end of the 17th verse.[134] It is true some commentators[135] distinctly say that John here makes a sort of play upon the word, but such an assumption does too much violence to the clearness and certainty of the thought for us to approve of it. The right view, therefore, is to take ὁ κόσμος here in the same sense that the word prevailingly has throughout John’s works, so that it signifies the world lying ἘΝ Τῷ ΠΟΝΗΡῷ . This ΚΌΣΜΟς , this is the meaning of the apostle’s warning, is not to be the object of the ἈΓΆΠΗ of believers. From this it follows that ἈΓΑΠᾷΝ here means neither “to love too much,” nor “to love with unhallowed sense,” but love in the strictest sense of the word, consisting in a life of inner fellowship.[136]
μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ] As κόσμος is an ethical idea, natural objects as such cannot be meant by τὰ ἐν τ . κ ., but only these in so far as they are taken by the ungodly world into its service; or better, the apparently good things which the world pursues, or with which it delights itself, and which therefore belong to it, as riches, honour, power, human wisdom, and such like. Ebrard erroneously understands thereby “the different kinds of sinful impulse, thought, and action, e.g. avarice, ambition, sensuality, and such like,” for either of these is plainly a love (although a false, unholy love) which cannot itself again be regarded as the object of love.
ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον , οὐκ ἔστιν κ . τ . λ .] By this sentence the apostle confirms the previous exhortation, expressing the incongruity of love to the κόσμος with the ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός ; Bede: Unum cor duos tam sibi adversaries amores non capit. By ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός is to be understood neither the love of God to us (Luther II., Calovius), nor the charitas quam Pater praescribit (Socinus); but, as by far the most of commentators (Bede, Beza, Grotius, Vatablus, Spener, etc., and all the modern commentators, even Ebrard, despite his erroneous interpretation of 1Jn_2:5), interpret, love to God.[137]
If πατρός is the correct reading, then the name Father is here to be explained from the filial relationship of Christians to God, and points to their duty not to love the world, but God.
Between the two sorts of ἀγάπη there is the same exclusive contrast as between the Θεῷ δουλεύειν and μαμωνᾷ δουλεύειν , Mat_6:24. Compare also Jam_4:4 : ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου , ἔχθρα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστίν .
[132] It might not be incorrect to suppose that John, when he here and afterwards in his Epistle places the κόσμος in sharp contrast with believers, specially understands the sum-total of those who, as the light has come into the world, love the darkness rather than light (Gospel of Joh_3:13), and therefore not unsaved humanity as such, but those of mankind who resist salvation, while by ὅλος ὁ κόσμος (1Jn_2:2) the whole human race, as needing salvation, is to be understood.
[133] Calvin: Mundi nomine intellige, quiequid ad praesentem vitam spectat, ubi separatur a regno Dei et spe vitae aeternae. Ita in se comprehendit omne genus corruptelae et malorum omnium abyssum. Morus explains κόσμος by: malum morale; S. Selimid by: corruptio peccaminosa; Semler by: vulgata consuetudo hominum, res corporeas unice appetentium. Here may be enumerated also the interpretation of Erdmann: totus complexus et ambitus mali, quatenus hoc non solum toti generi humano, verum etiam propter hominum a Deo defectionem omnibus rebus humanis totique rerum naturae inhaeret.
[134] Thus Lücke finds himself compelled in the case of πᾶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ to make an abstraction of the things themselves, and to understand thereby their ethical reference; and here results the certainly unjustifiable thought that this ethical reference of things has its origin in the things themselves ( ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ). Still more decidedly, de Wette says that in the words ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστί , ver. 16, “ ὁ κόσμος is not regarded as the sum total of earthly things, but as the sensuous life alienated from God, or as the sum total of worldly men who enjoy this;” somewhat differently Brückner: “that the sum total of earthly evil, of the κόσμος , is here regarded rather of real things, is clear from the subordinate clause μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κ .; in ver. 16 the personal aspect prevails.” Neander, on ver. 16, equally deviates from the explanation which he had given of ver. 15; in the latter he regards ὁ κόσμος as “the world and earthly things,” but in the former as “the predominating tendency of the soul to the world, the growing worldliness of the soul, which blends itself with the world.”
[135] Thus a Lapide says (after he has assigned to the word three meanings, namely (1) homines mundani, in his proprie est concupiscentia; (2) orbis sublunaris, in hoe mundo proprie et formaliter non est eoncupiscentia; sed in eo est concupiscentia materialis i.e. objectum concupiscibile; (3) ipsa mundana vita vel concupiscentia in genere): omnibus hisce modis mundus hic accipi potest et Johannes nunc ad unum, nunc ad alterum respicit; ludit enim in voce mundus.
[136] Lücke groundlessly thinks the idea of love must necessarily be weakened to that of “mere longing for,” if by κόσμος the human world is understood.
[137] A combination of both interpretations: amor patris erga suos et filialis erga patrem (Bengel), is clearly unjustifiable.