Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 2:5 - 2:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_2:5. In this verse the apostle confirms the idea of 1Jn_2:3, in the form of an antithesis to 1Jn_2:4, and with the introduction of a new element.
ὃς δʼ ἂν τηρῇ αὐτοῦ (i.e. Θεοῦ ) τὸν λόγον ] The particle δέ , which refers not to 1Jn_2:3 (Lücke), but to the words καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ μὴ τηρῶν , 1Jn_2:4, shows that this verse stands in the same relationship to 1Jn_2:4 as chap. 1Jn_1:7 to 1Jn_2:6; “ τηρῇ is with emphasis put first, and similarly αὐτοῦ before τὸν λόγον ” (Braune).
αὐτοῦ ὁ λόγος is synonymous with αἱ ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ , 1Jn_2:3-4 : “the essence of the divine commandments;” a Lapide: Dicit verbum ejus in singulari, quia praecipue respicit legem caritatis; haec enim caeteras omnes in se comprehendit.
The predicate does not run: οὗτος ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν , but: ἀληθῶς ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ τετελείωται , whereby “a new side of the thought comes into view” (Ebrard).
ἀληθῶς ] “in truth,” opposed to appearance and mere pretence; it is emphatically put first, as in Joh_8:31; with reference to the preceding ἡ ἀλήθεια (de Wette); and serves to bring out not a quality of the τετελείωται (Ebrard), but the actuality of the ἐν τούτῳ … τετελείωται (so also Brückner).
ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ τετελείωται ] ἡ ἀγάπη τ . Θεοῦ is not here, as in chap. 1Jn_4:9 : “the love of God to us” (Flacius, Calovius, Bengel, Spener, Russmeyer, Sander, Lange, etc.), nor: “the love commanded by God” (Episcopius), nor: “the relationship of mutual love between God and man” (Ebrard: “the mutua amicitia et conjunctio between God and the Christian”);[95] but: “love to God,” as in chap. 1Jn_2:15, 1Jn_3:17, 1Jn_4:12, 1Jn_5:3 (Bede, Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Lorinus, Hornejus, Paulus, de Wette-Brückner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lücke, Düsterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Braune, etc.). This interpretation is required by the context; for “the love of God” appears here in place of the “knowledge of God,” 1Jn_2:3-4. As in the latter, so in the former also, consists fellowship with God. Both, love and knowledge, are so inseparably connected, and are so essentially one in their principle and nature, that the one is the condition of the other.[96]
The idea ΤΕΤΕΛΕΊΩΤΑΙ is not to be weakened, as in Beza: ΤΕΛΕΙΟῦΝ hoc in loco non declarat perfecte aliquid consummare, sed mendacio et simulationi opponitur, ut hoc plane sit, quod dicimus: mettre en exécution; but it is to be taken in its constant meaning: “has been perfected,” as in chap. 1Jn_4:12; 1Jn_4:17-18.[97] The objection, that nevertheless no Christian can boast of perfect love to God, does not justify an arbitrary change of meaning. The absolute idea τηρεῖν αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον demands for its counterpart an idea quite as absolute (so also Brückner).[98] Where the word of God is perfectly fulfilled, there love to God is perfect; in perfect obedience perfect love is shown. That the Christian has not attained this perfection at any moment of his life, but is ever only in a state of progress towards it, is no doubt true; but John is not here considering that aspect (so also Braune).[99]
ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ] ἐν τούτῳ refers neither to the thought contained in 1Jn_2:6 (Socinus, Ewald), nor to ἡ ἀγάπη … τετελ ., but to the keeping of the commandments (so also Düsterdieck, Ebrard, Brückner, Braune). Obedience is the evidence for the knowledge that we are ἐν αὐτῷ .
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐσμεν ] The expression signifies the inward fellowship of life (differently Act_17:28); it combines the preceding ἐν τούτῳ … τετελ . and the former ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν , and is identical with κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετʼ αὐτοῦ (chap. 1Jn_1:6), which it defines in its internal character. The knowledge and love of God is being in God (so also Brückner).[100]
Grotius, who understands αὐτῷ of Christ, enfeeblingly explains: Christi ingenii discipuli sumus.
[95] Similarly Besser: “ ‘The love of God in us’ usually embraces both God’s love to us, by which, and our love to God, in which we live. This is the case in this passage also.” This interpretation can be just as little grammatically justified as that of Ebrard; neither a duplicity nor a mutual relationship is expressed in the phrase ἡ ἀγ . τοῦ Θεοῦ .
[96] Grotius, it is true, is not wrong when he says: Amor praesupponit cognitionem; but it is just as correct to say: Cognitio praesupponit amorem.
[97] Even Bengel’s interpretation: perfectum regimen nactus et perfecte cognitus est (viz. amor Dei erga hominem), does not correspond to the idea of the word.
[98] Ebrard, it is true, wants the idea τετελείωται to be retained unweakened, but finds himself compelled by his interpretation of ἡ ἀγ . τ . Θ . to agree with Beza’s explanation, because “in the case of a relationship its perfection is nothing else than its conclusion.” Ebrard’s opinion, that if ἡ ἀγ . τ . Θ . = “love to God,” John must have written τελεία ἐστίν instead of τετελείωται , is—besides being contrary to John’s usus loquendi—without foundation.
[99] In Calvin’s explanation: Si quis objiciat, neminem unquam fuisse repertum, qui Deum ita perfecte diligeret, respondeo: sufficere, modo quisque pro gratiae sibi datae mensura ad hanc perfectionem aspiret, and in that of Socinus: “Est autem perfectio ista earitatis in Deum et obedientia praeceptorum ejus ita intelligenda, ut non omnino requiratur, ne ei quiequam deesse possit, sed tantum ut ejusmodi sit, qua Deus pro sua ingenti erga nos bonitate contentus esse voluit,” limitations are introduced which are foreign to the apostle’s train of thought.
[100] In substantial agreement with this Weiss says: “In vv. 3 and 4 it was stated that in the keeping of God’s commandments we recognise that we have known God. If, therefore, there is a continuous train of thought here, the being in God must only be a new expression for the knowing of God, or must be directly given along with it.”