Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 4:10 - 4:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_4:10. ἐν τούτῳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη ] i.e. “herein consists love,” love is in its nature of this kind. Oecumenius inaccurately: ἐν τούτῳ , δείκνυται , ὅτι ἀγάπη ἐστὶν ὁ Θεός ; for ἐστί is not = δείκνυται ; nor is τοῦ Θεοῦ to be supplied with ἡ ἀγάπη (with Lücke, de Wette, Brückner, etc.), but the expression means love in general, as in 1Jn_4:7 in the words: ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστί (Düsterdieck, Ebrard, Braune).
οὐχ ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠγαπήσαμεν τὸν Θεόν , ἀλλʼ ὅτι κ . τ . λ .] Grotius and Lange arbitrarily render οὐχ ὅτι here = ὅτι οὐχ . Several commentators take the first part as, according to its sense, a subordinate clause = ἡμῶν μὴ ἀγαπησάντων ; 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 1Jn_4:7 has said that love is ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ , 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 οὐχ ὅτι 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.
ΚΑῚ ἈΠΈΣΤΕΙΛΕ ΤῸΝ ΥἹῸΝ ΑὐΤΟῦ Κ . Τ . Λ .] states the actual proof of ΑὐΤῸς ἨΓΆΠΗΣΕΝ ἩΜᾶς ; here also the special emphasis rests, not on ἈΠΈΣΤΕΙΛΕ , but on ἹΛΑΣΜῸΝ Κ . Τ . Λ ., which corresponds to the ἽΝΑ ΖΉΣΩΜΕΝ of 1Jn_4:9, inasmuch as it states the basis of the ΖΩΉ ; with ἹΛΑΣΜΌΝ , comp. chap. 1Jn_2:2. The aorists ἨΓΑΠΉΣΑΜΕΝ , ἨΓΆΠΕΣΕ , ἈΠΈΣΤΕΙΛΕΝ , are to be retained as historical tenses (de Wette); by the perfect ἈΠΈΣΤΑΛΚΕΝ , 1Jn_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.”