Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 4:17 - 4:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_4:17. After the apostle has said in 1Jn_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: ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ .
ἐν τούτῳ τετελείωται ἡ ἀγάπη μεθʼ ἡμῶν ] Several commentators, Luther, Calvin, Spener, Grotius, Hornejus, Calovius, Semler, Sander, Besser, Ewald, etc., understand by ἡ ἀγάπη “the love of God to us,” interpreting μεθʼ ἡμῶν = εἰς ἡμᾶς , 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 1Jn_4:16 : ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἈΓΆΠῌ , as well as in 1Jn_4:18 : Ὁ ΦΌΒΟς ΟὐΚ ἜΣΤΙΝ ἘΝ Τῇ ἈΓΆΠῌ , by ἈΓΆΠΗ is meant the love of man, the love that dwells in us; comp. also 1Jn_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 ΤΕΤΕΛΕΙΩΜΈΝΗ ἘΣΤΙΝ , 1Jn_4:12; comp. also 1Jn_4:18 : Ἡ ΤΕΛΕΊΑ ἈΓΆΠΗ .
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 Ἡ ἈΓΆΠΗ . The underlying idea is that the love which has come from God (for all love is ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ) has made its abode with believers. Here, also, Ἡ ἈΓΆΠΗ is used without more particular definition, as in 1Jn_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. 1Jn_3:18.
ἐν τούτῳ 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 ἵνα παῤῥησίαν ἔχωμεν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως . From 1Jn_4:18 it is clear that the chief aim of the apostle is to emphasize the fact that perfect love ( ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη , 1Jn_4:18) is free from fear, or that he who is perfect in love ( τετελειωμένος ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ ) 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 ἐν τούτῳ … ἵνα (instead of ὅτι , 1Jn_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. 1Jn_3:10, 23: αὕτη … ἵνα (Gospel of Joh_17:3); by ἵνα , παῤῥησίαν ἔχειν 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 παῤῥησίαν ἔχειν , comp. chap. 1Jn_2:28.[276]
The ἡμέρα τῆς ΚΡΊΣΕΩς is the day ὍΤΑΝ ΦΑΝΕΡΩΘῇ ἸΗΣΟῦς ΧΡΙΣΤΌς , 1Jn_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. 1Jn_2:18). The future ΠΑῤῬΗΣΊΑ is to him in his love already present: similarly de Wette, Sander, Besser.[277]
The following words: ὅτι καθὼς … 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: ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως .
The comparison ( ΚΑΘΏς ) does not refer to ΕἾΝΑΙ ἘΝ Τῷ ΚΌΣΜῼ ΤΟΎΤῼ , 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 1Jn_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 1Co_8:2; Eph_4:17; Eph_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 Ὁ ΜΈΝΩΝ ἘΝ Τῇ ἈΓΆΠῌ , 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: Ὡς ἘΚΕῖΝΟς ἮΝ ἘΝ Τῷ ΚΌΣΜῼ ἌΜΩΜΟς ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘΑΡΌς ). Love is the eternal nature of Christ, comp. 1Jn_3:7 : ΚΑΘῺς ἘΚΕῖΝΟς ΔΊΚΑΙΌς ἘΣΤΙΝ . In the concluding words: ἘΝ Τῷ ΚΌΣΜῼ ΤΟΎΤῼ , which belong, not to ἘΣΤΙ , but only to ἐσμεν , it is brought out that we are still in the earthly world ( κόσμος οὗτος 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 ἡ ἀγ . μεθʼ ἡμῶν is neither = ἡ ἀγ . ( τοῦ Θεοῦ ) εἰς ἡμᾶς , nor = ἡ ἀγάπη ( ἡμῶν ) εἰς ἀλλήλους , 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 τοῦ Θεοῦ with ἡ ἀγάπη 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, ἡ ἀγάπη denotes not love, but the love-relationship, then ἡ ἀγάπη μεθʼ 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 ἡ ἀγάπη : “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 1Jn_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 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ , 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 καθὼς ἐκ . 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: ὅτι οἷος ἐκεῖνός ἐστι , τοιοῦτοι καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν , and that even then the passage remains obscure enough;” and “that with this acceptation ἐν τ . 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. 1Jn_2:28, 1Jn_3:21.