Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 4:18 - 4:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_4:18 serves to establish the preceding thought, that love has its perfection in παῤῥησία .
φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ ] The thought is quite general in its character: “where love is, there is no fear” (Ebrard); φόβος is therefore not specially the fear of God, and by ἀγάπη we are not to understand specially love to God, but at the same time this general thought is certainly expressed here in reference to the relationship to God. It is quite erroneous to explain ἀγάπη here, with Calvin, Calovius, Flacius, Spener, etc., as “the love of God to us;”[280] but it is also incorrect, with Lücke and others, to understand by it, specially, brotherly love.[281]
The preposition ἐν is not = with (à Mons: ne se trouve avec la charité); Luther correctly: “Fear is not in love;” i.e. it is not an element in love, it is something utterly foreign to it, which only exists outside it. By the following words: ἀλλʼ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον , the preceding thought is confirmed and expanded: love not only has no fear in it, but it does not even endure it; where it enters, there must fear completely vanish. Beza inadequately paraphrases the adjective τελεία by: sincera, opposita simulationi; it is not love in its first beginnings, love which is still feeble, but love in its perfection, that completely casts out fear. The reason why love does not suffer fear to be along with it is: ὅτι ὁ φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει . The word κόλασις (besides here, only in Mat_25:46; comp. Wis_11:14; Wis_16:2; Wis_16:24; Wis_19:4) has always the meaning of “punishment” (also LXX. Eze_14:3-4; Eze_14:7; Eze_18:30; Eze_44:12, as incorrect translation of îÄëÀùÑÇåÉì ); if we adhere to this meaning, that expression can only mean: fear has punishment, in which case that which it has to expect is regarded as inherent in it, just as on the other hand it could be said: Ἡ ἈΓΆΠΗ ἜΧΕΙ ΖΩῊΝ ΑἸΏΝΙΟΝ (this being considered as future happiness, as in Mat_25:46); this idea has nothing against it, for fear, as rooted in unbelief, is in itself deserving of punishment, and therein lies the reason ( ὍΤΙ ) why perfect love casteth out fear.[282] Several commentators, however, explain κόλασις by “pain,” thinking that “here causa is put pro effectu” (Ebrard), or, in more correspondence with the thought, by “pain of punishment” (Besser, Braune, so also previously in this comm.); similarly Lücke explains κόλασις = “consciousness of punishment.” The thought that then results is indeed right in itself, for “certainly this having of κόλασις does actually show itself in the consciousness or the pain of the expectation of punishment” (Brückner); but such a change in the meaning of the idea κόλασις cannot be grammatically justified. The following sentence: ὁ δὲ φοβούμενος οὐ τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ , which is not connected with the subordinate clause ὅτι ὁ φόβος κ . τ . λ ., but with the preceding principal clause, does not contain a conclusion from this ( δέ is not = οὖν ), but (as Braune also thinks) expresses the same thought in negative form (hence the connection by δέ ); only with this difference, that what was there expressed in an objective way, here receives a subjective aspect. It needs no proof that the apostle has in view in this verse no other fear than that of which Paul says, Rom_8:15 : οὐκ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς φόβον , and therefore not the childlike awe of God arising from the consciousness of God’s glory, which forms an essential element of love to God.[283] The conjectures of Grotius, instead of κόλασιν : κόλουσιν (i.e. mutilationem; so that the sense is: “metus amorem mutilat atque infringit, aut prohibet, ne se exserat”), and instead of φοβούμενος : κολουόμενος (“qui mutilatur aut impeditur in dilectione, is in ea perfectus non est”); and that of Lamb. Bos: instead of κόλασιν , κώλυσιν , are not merely useless, but even rob the thought of the apostle of its peculiar force.
[280] Calovius interprets: charitas divina, quae apprehensa per fidem, omnem servilem timorem expellit, whereby a reference foreign to the context is plainly introduced.
[281] For justification of this interpretation Lücke refers to the words: ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον , and remarks: “it cannot be said of the love of God in its perfection, that it casts out fear of God, for it has not got any.” But John does not say that love casts out fear out of itself; the idea rather is: it drives fear out of the heart in which it dwells before it (love) obtains its entrance. If ἀγάπη and φόβος ere meant to have different references, the apostle would certainly have indicated this.
[282] It is unnecessary to take the abstract ( ὁ φόβος ) for the concrete ( ὁ φοβούμενος ), as de Wette and Düsterdieck do; de Wette incorrectly interprets ἔχει by “receives,” and Baumgarten-Crusius by “keeps, tenet, thinks of … punishment” (so that the sense is: “Fear knows nothing of mercy, of love”).
[283] That the fear which the apostle means has its necessary place also in the development of the spiritual life, Augustine strikingly expresses thus: Timor quasi locum praeparat charitati. Si autem nullus timor, non est qua intret charitas. Timor Dei sic vulnerat quomodo mediei ferramentum. Timor medicamentum, charitas sanitas. Timor servus est charitatis. Timor est custos et paedagogus legis, donee veniat charitas.—The different steps are thus stated by Bengel: varius hominum status: sine timore et amore; cum timore sine amore; cum timore et amore; sine timore cum amore.