From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain 1 to 3 John Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2018
List of All Sources
Quoted At End of File
CHAPTER 4:1-21
4:1 Translations
WEB: Beloved,
don't believe every spirit, but test the spirits,
whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the
world.
Young’s: Beloved,
every spirit believe not, but prove the spirits, if of
God they are, because many false prophets have gone forth to the world;
Conte (RC): Most
beloved, do not be willing to believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see
if they are of God. For many false prophets have gone out
into the world.
4:1 Beloved. As in 1 John
A
man must either take somebody for his infallible guide, or he must try and
judge for himself. How much soever some churches or particular Christians have
condemned the liberty of private judgment, the Christian religion encourages
the most generous and extensive liberty, or freedom of inquiry: and all
Christians ought to assert that liberty, and make the proper improvement of it;
neither lightly receiving, nor rejecting what is proposed to them. [36]
believe not every spirit. The “spirits” and the
“false prophets” are one. They are
“antichrists” in chapter 2; but the predominant reference to the Holy Ghost in
this section gives occasion for the use of these two terms: “spirits” as professing to be His organs, and
“false prophets” as professing to be moved by Him. [34]
The true and the false teachers of
religion alike claimed to be under the influence of the Spirit of God, and it
was of importance that all such pretensions should be examined. It was not to
be admitted because anyone claimed to have been sent from God that therefore he
was sent. Every such claim should be
subjected to the proper proof before it was conceded. [18]
Or: “The
spirits” are principles and tendencies in religion: these need to be
tested, for earnestness and fervor are no guarantee of truth. And to test these
principles is the duty of the individual Christian as well as of the Church in
its official capacity. Just as every
Athenian was subjected to an examination δοκιμασία as to his origin and character
before he could hold office, so the spirit of every religious teacher must be
examined before his teaching can be accepted.
[24]
but try the
spirits. By the rule which follows. We
are to try all spirits by the written word:
To the law and to the testimony!
If any man speak not according to these, the
spirit which actuates him is not of God.
[2]
The word “spirits” becomes a designation of the
man himself inspired by the spirit. So
the demoniac of
There were those in the early
Christian church who had the gift of “discerning spirits” (see 1 Corinthians
Meaning
of “try:” There are two words in N.T. meaning “to try, test,
prove;” the one which we have here (δοκιμάζειν),
and the one which is used where the Jews try or tempt Christ (Mark
whether they are of God. By the rule which God hath given. We are to try
all spirits by the written word: To
the law and to the testimony! If
any man speak not according to these, the spirit which
actuates him is not of God. [35]
because many false prophets. There were many false
teachers in that age as well as in ours, and some claimed to be inspired. [3]
The
caution is against no imaginary or merely possible danger; it already exists. [23]
Both the old Church [= Judaism], Deuteronomy 13:1, and the new, Acts
Broader
application of the concept: The
words “prophets” and “spirits” are here used as synonyms, both of them
signifying preachers. Prophets are
preachers. Good prophets are preachers
through whom the Spirit of God, the Holy Ghost, teaches and preaches, whether
it be by direct inspiration, as in the Old Testament, or whether it be by the
teaching of the pure Gospel, as in the case of all true ministers today. In that sense they are spirits. [15]
Relationship
of “false prophets” and “antichrists:” The many false
prophets are the same as the many antichrists of
are gone out into
the world.
i.e., out of the
community of Christ, which they have left or been
compelled to leave (
The announcement contains a useful
admonition; for if Satan had then already seduced many, who under the name of
Christ scattered [= spread?] their impostures, similar instances at this day
ought not to terrify us. For it is the case perpetually with the Gospel, that Satan attempts
to pollute and corrupt its purity by variety of errors. This our age has brought forth some horrible
and monstrous sects; and for this reason many stand amazed; and not knowing
where to turn, they cast aside every care for religion; for they find no more
summary way for extricating themselves from the danger of errors. They thus, indeed, act most foolishly; for by
shunning the light of truth, they cast themselves into the darkness of
errors. [27]
4:2 Translations
WEB: By this you know the Spirit of
God: every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of
God,
Young’s: in
this know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit that doth confess Jesus Christ in
the flesh having come, of God it is,
Conte (RC): The Spirit of God may be known in this way. Every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has arrived in the flesh is of God;
4:2 Hereby. Greek, “By this;” that is,
by the test which is immediately specified.
[18]
know ye the Spirit
of God.
You may discern who are actuated by the Spirit of
God. [18]
Every spirit. Everyone professing to be under the influence of the Spirit of God. The apostle uses the word “spirit” here with
reference to the person who made the claim, on the supposition that everyone
professing to be a religious teacher was animated by some spirit or foreign
influence, good or bad. If the Spirit of
God influenced them, they would confess that Jesus Christ had come in the
flesh; if some other spirit, the spirit of error and deceit, they would deny
this. [18]
that confesseth. That is, that makes a
proper acknowledgment of this; that inculcates this doctrine, and that gives it
a due place and prominence in his instructions.
It cannot be supposed that a mere statement of this in words would show
that they were of God in the sense that they were true Christians; but the
sense is, that if this constituted one of the doctrines which they held and
taught, it would show that they were advocates of truth, and not apostles of
error. If they did not do this, 1 John 4:3, it would be decisive in
regard to their character and claims. [18]
Not merely once, but right on. The
confession is something uttered before men. Unexpressed confession is a
contradiction of terms, and a thing impossible. As Lange suggests, the very word means
the oral confession of a truth or reality.
Such confession is one of the fixed laws of the new life. There is no heavenly promise for him who is
unwilling to confess Christ before men. The
Bible does not own such an one as having salvation
(Romans 10:9-10). [52]
that Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh. He Himself, therefore, is
something more than flesh. The heresies,
which deny the truth of the flesh of Jesus Christ, presuppose, and by this very
thing confirm, His Deity,
since they were not able to reconcile with this His flesh, as worthy of
it. [11]
Thus the clause, hath come in the flesh, implies that He might have come in
another manner than in the flesh, namely, in the form of God, as mentioned Philippians 2:6-7. It implies that He existed before He came in
the flesh, and chose to come in that manner, rather than in any other;
consequently that He is more than a mere man.
[35]
is of God. Is
true; teaches the truth. [12]
This
does not necessarily mean that everyone who confessed this was personally a
true Christian, for it is clear that a doctrine might be acknowledged to be
true, and yet that the heart might not be changed; nor does it mean that the
acknowledgment of this truth was all which it was essential to be believed in
order that one might be recognized as a Christian; but it means that it was
essential that this truth should be admitted by everyone who truly came from
God. [18]
In depth: The issue was not whether Jesus was the
Christ but whether the Divine had taken human form [18]. Benson
and some others propose to render this, “That Jesus, who came in the flesh, is
the Christ.” But this is liable to serious objections.
(1) It is not the obvious interpretation.
(2) It is unusual to say that Jesus “had come in
the flesh,” though the expression “the Son of God has come in the flesh,” or
“God was manifested in the flesh,” would be in accordance with the usage of the
New Testament.
(3) This would not, probably, meet the real point
in the case. The thing denied does not appear to have been that Jesus was the
Messiah, for their pretending to be Christian teachers at all implied that they
admitted this; but that the Son of God was “really a man,” or that He actually
assumed human nature in permanent union with the divine.
The point of the remark made by
the apostle is, that the acknowledgment was to be that Christ assumed human
nature; that He was really a man as he appeared to be: or that there was a real incarnation, in
opposition to the opinion that he came in appearance only, or that he merely
seemed to be a man, and to suffer and die.
It is quite probable that the apostle here refers to such sentiments as
those which were held by the “Docetae;” and that he
meant to teach that it was indispensable to proper evidence that anyone come
from God, that he should maintain that Jesus was truly a man, or that there was
a real incarnation of the Son of God.
John always regarded this as a very important point, and often refers to
it, John 19:34-35,
It is as important to be held now
as it was then, for the fact that there was a real incarnation is essential to
all just views of the atonement. If he
was not truly a man, if he did not literally shed his blood on the cross, of
course all that was done was in appearance only, and the whole system of
redemption as revealed was merely a splendid illusion. There is little danger that this opinion will
be held now, for those who depart from the doctrine laid down in the New
Testament in regard to the person and work of Christ, are more disposed to
embrace the opinion that he was a mere man; but still it is important that the
truth that he was truly incarnate should be held up constantly before the mind,
for in no other way can we obtain just views of the atonement.
4:3 Translations
WEB: and
every spirit who doesn't confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not
of God, and this is the spirit of the Antichrist, of whom you have heard that
it comes. Now it is in the world already.
Young’s: and
every spirit that doth not confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come, of
God it is not; and this is that of the antichrist, which ye heard that it doth
come, and now in the world it is already.
Conte (RC): and
every spirit who contradicts Jesus is not of God. And this one is the
Antichrist, the one that you have heard is coming, and even now he is in the
world.
4:3 And every spirit. Without
exception; an universal rule that absolutely must be
met to have acceptability with God. [rw]
that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. That does not confess Jesus as the historical
person who is Christ and the Son of God and the Savior of the world. [49]
Textual issue of “is come in
the flesh” (omitted by ESV, NASB): After the word Jesus we must
[mentally] understand “as him who has been made flesh”—which is added in one of
the old and many of the later manuscripts—but the shorter expression actually
employed is very emphatic, intimating that the long and short of the Gnostic
view is that it is a rejection of Jesus as the one Redeemer. Herein, therefore, every one has a simple
test whereby to distinguish that which, according to verse 3, is an elimination
of the essence of Christianity. [50]
A difference in the Latin language
version of the text: This alludes to the heresy of Cerinthus, the contemporary of John, who taught that Jesus
was merely the son of human parents, but that the Christ was an aeon, or superhuman being who descended upon Jesus at his
baptism; thus separating the person of Jesus. [33]
The Latin Vulgate here reads “qui solvit Jesum,” “who dissolves or
divides Jesus;” and Socrates (H. E. vii. 32) says that in the old copies of the
New Testament it is written ὅ λίει
τὸν Ἱησοῦν (“who dissolves
or divides Jesus”); that is, who “separates” his true nature or person, or who
supposes that there were “two” Christs, one in
appearance, and one in reality. This
reading was early found in some manuscripts, and is referred to by many of the
Fathers, but it has no real authority, and was evidently introduced, perhaps at
first from a marginal note, to oppose the prevailing errors of the times. The common reading, “who confesseth
not,” is found in all the Greek manuscripts, in the Syriac
versions, in the Arabic; and, as Lucke says, the
other reading is manifestly of Latin origin.
The common reading in the text is that which is sustained by authority,
and is entirely in accordance with the manner of John. [18]
Are
the closing words even part of the original text [omitted
by ESV, NASB]? On overwhelming evidence (AB, Coptic, Aethiopic, Vulgate, &c.) we must omit the words “that
Christ is come in the flesh,” retaining only confesseth
not Jesus: the additional
words are an obvious interpolation by one who wished to make the two sides of
the antithesis exactly equal. But, as we
have repeatedly seen (1 John 1:5-8; 1;10;
is not of God. Does not have God’s
approval or endorsement. Hence anyone who is foolish
enough to advocate this position has laid aside the true reality for their own
preferred delusion. [rw]
and this is that
spirit of antichrist. This is one of the things
which characterize antichrist. John here
refers not to an individual who should be known as antichrist, but to a class
of persons. This does not, however,
forbid the idea that there might be some one individual, or a succession of
persons in the church, to whom the name might be applied by way of
eminence. [18]
“From this, as well as from John 2:18, it appears that antichrist is not any particular person, nor
any particular succession of persons in the church, but a general name for all
false teachers in every age, who disseminate doctrines contrary to those taught
by the apostles; especially if these doctrines have a tendency to derogate from
Christ’s character and actions as the Savior of the world.” — Macknight. [35]
This is the spirit answering to, and identified
with, the spirit of antichrist.
The Christian
professor who has this spirit is an antichrist. Let it be recalled and emphasized, that an
antichrist is not one who denies Christ outright; but one who, claiming to
receive Him, attributes to Him such a nature, work, or doctrine as really makes
another [=different] Christ of Him. The
name may be given to one so doing, or to the common spirit pervading all who do
this. Along all the gospel age, this “man
of sin” (2Thesalonians 2:3) has his types, men who, claiming the Christian
name, are perverting the fundamental doctrine it represents. [52]
whereof ye have heard that it should come. From our Lord and us, that it
cometh. [2]
and even now
already is it in the world. The spirit of antagonism to Christ has passed from “the invisible
world of spiritual wickedness” to the visible world of human action. The
addition of “already” hints that something more may be expected to follow. Compare “The mystery of lawlessness doth
already work” (2 Thessalonians 2:7). [23]
4:4 Translations
WEB: You
are of God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is he who
is in you than he who is in the world.
Young’s: Ye --
of God ye are, little children, and ye have overcome them; because greater is
He who is in you, than he who is in the world.
Conte (RC): Little sons, you are of God, and so you have overcome him. For he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
4:4 Ye are of God. You
are of his family; you have embraced his truth.
[18]
The ὑμεῖς is in emphatic opposition to the false
teachers. They are on one side, and the
apostle's readers on the other, and it is from this standpoint that they are to
“prove the spirits.” John knows nothing
of any neutral position from which the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error
can be criticized “with absolute
impartiality.” “He that is not with me is against
me.” This assumed neutral position is
already within the domain of error. [24]
little children. In comparison with what they could yet become spiritually they are yet in
the childhood phase—and yet even there they have been able to see
through the spiritual futility of the false prophets. [rw]
As a reference to social
“rank:” The errorists
might be more eloquent, higher up in the social scale, more learned, but the “little
ones” having the truth were the conquering people. [52]
and have overcome
them.
Have triumphed over their arts and temptations; their
endeavors to draw you into error and sin.
The word them in this place seems to refer to
the false prophets or teachers who collectively constituted antichrist. The meaning is, that
they had frustrated or thwarted all their attempts to turn them away from the
truth. [18]
Nothing has misled them in the
past and he implies the confidence that this will remain true in the
future. For why should things be
different since they have laid a strong foundation and pattern of faith? [rw]
because greater is he that is in you. Not in their own strength has the victory been won,
but in His whose word abideth in them (1 John
than he that is in
the world.
Saying it concisely: [T]his is the devil, the prince of this world. [22]
Satan, as its
inspirer and prince. [33]
Saying it in more detail: ”The ruler of this world” (John
4:5 Translations
WEB: They
are of the world. Therefore they speak of the world, and the world hears them.
Young’s: They
-- of the world they are; because of this from the world they speak, and the
world doth hear them;
Conte (RC): They are
of the world. Therefore, they speak about the world, and the world listens to
them.
4:5 They. Those false prophets. [2]
are of the world. This follows, though it has not yet been stated,
from their not being “of us” (1 John
They are of the world, therefore
they talk as of the world, and the world listens to them. No matter what their pretense and their glamour,
the false teachers belong to the world, they have the
world’s manner and mind. This is shown
also in their talking, in their teaching and preaching, for its substance is
not divine and leading to godliness, but it is inspired by the world, by its
manner of thinking and acting. False
teachers usually have messages that tickle the itching ears of their
hearers. The children of the world will
gladly hear them, the world receives their doctrines
with enthusiasm. It is an almost
unfailing criterion: if a certain
preacher is widely advertised and acclaimed as a prophet for our times, he has
probably managed to accommodate the old Scriptural language to some of his own
philosophy in denying the fundamentals of the Bible. Witness the so-called Christianity of the
social gospel. [15]
therefore speak they of the world. This may mean either that
their conversation pertained to the things of this world, or that they were
wholly influenced by the love of the world, and not by the Spirit of God, in
the doctrines which they taught. The
general sense is, that they had no higher ends and aims than they have who are
influenced only by worldly plans and expectations. It is not difficult to distinguish, even
among professed Christians and Christian teachers, those who are heavenly in
their [orientation] from those who are influenced solely by the spirit of the
world. “Out of the abundance of the
heart the mouth speaketh,” and the general turn of a
man‘s conversation will show what “spirit is within him.” [18]
and the world heareth them. The people of the
world--the frivolous ones, the rich, the proud, the ambitious, the
sensual--receive their instructions, and recognize them as teachers and guides,
for their views accord with their own.
See John 15:19. A professedly
religious teacher may always determine much about himself by knowing what class of people are pleased with him. [18]
For it hears from them nothing which wounds its self-conceit—nothing which makes it really uneasy—nothing about the doom which awaits it. [42]
4:6 Translations
WEB: We
are of God. He who knows God listens to us. He who is not of God doesn't listen
to us. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
Young’s: we --
of God we are; he who is knowing God doth hear us; he
who is not of God, doth not hear us; from this we know the spirit of the truth,
and the spirit of the error.
Conte (RC): We are of God. Whoever knows God, listens to us. Whoever is not of God, does not listen to us. In this way, we know the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error.
4:6 We. Broadly interpreted: True teachers of Christ; in contrast to them. [4]
Narrowly
interpreted:
Apostles. [2]
are of God. He
takes it for granted that those to whom he wrote would admit this, and argues
from it as an indisputable truth. [18]
he that knoweth God heareth us. For “he that is of God heareth the words of God” (John
In short: “We”
here seems to mean the apostles. If it
is considered “broad enough to include all who have truly received Christ by
faith,” it leaves no one to be the hearers.
[24]
In more detail: Here once more we have that magisterial tone of
Apostolic authority which is so conspicuous in the Prologue (1 John
1:1-4). It underlies the whole Epistle,
as it does the whole of the Fourth Gospel, but here and there comes to the
surface. It is the quiet confidence of
conscious strength. Compare “He that is
of God heareth the words of God; for this cause ye
hear them not because ye are not of God;” and, “Every one that is of the Truth heareth My voice” (John
he that is not of
God heareth not us. How can this possibly be otherwise?
Why in the world would a person who rejects the binding authority
of God’s revelation possibly “hear” (i.e., embrace) the teaching of those who
are teaching God’s revelation? [rw]
It is not the spiritual mind (John 10:8), but the unspiritual, that goes
after the errorists, that prefers human philosophy to
the true word. [52]
Hereby know we
the spirit of truth. The Holy Spirit; John 14:17;
and the spirit of
error. The one who embraces the
teaching of God’s Spirit represents one human option. The other is the person who embraces false
teaching of any sort—“embodying” it (so to speak) as if it were itself a
revelatory source, though not from God.
Perhaps a good parallel today are denominational creeds and related
authoritative works that can be cited in infinite detail as definitively
establishing truth--even where they justify the abandonment of the truth that
has actually been revealed by God’s Spirit in Scripture. Just like these ancients typically meant
well (though we often suppress that thought), both reject the authority of
where the Spirit really speaks in the written word of God. [rw]
4:7 Translations
WEB: Beloved, let us love one
another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God, and knows
God.
Young’s: Beloved,
may we love one another, because the love is of God, and every one who is loving, of God he hath been begotten, and doth know God;
Conte (RC): Most
beloved, let us love one another. For love is of God. And everyone who loves is
born of God and knows God.
4:7 Beloved. For the third and last time in this Epistle the Apostle introduces the
subject of brotherly love. First it was
introduced as a consequence and sign of walking in the light (1 John
2:7-11). Next it was introduced as a
special form of righteousness and mark of God’s children (1 John
let us love one
another.
“Love one another”
here, as in 1 John
for love is of God. And “we are of God” (1 John 4:6), and “ye are of
God” (1 John 4:4); therefore there should be the family bond of love between
us. [23]
Love is not merely an attribute of
God, it is His very Being. Hence to be
without love is to be without God: compare
1 John 4:16. [7]
It is a necessity of His nature, it is His very nature, to love. He cannot exist without loving. He cannot but love. From all eternity, from before all worlds, God
is love. Love never is or can be, never
was or could be, absent from his being.
He never is or can be God, He never was or
could be God—without being also love; without loving. It has
ever been, active, forth-going, self-manifesting, self-communicating. [37]
and every one that
loveth is born of God. Every one, in whose heart this divine
principle reigns, and conquers the selfish and contrary passions, shows by it
that he is regenerated and transformed into the divine image. [35]
and knoweth God. He comes by experience to know Him by thus
sharing the Divine nature. [23]
For I cannot love until I
have first won faith in God’s love in Christ and I cannot arrive at
faith until I have attained a knowledge of God in Christ. [49]
4:8 Translations
WEB: He
who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
Young’s: he who
is not loving did not know God, because God is love.
Conte (RC): Whoever does not love, does not know God. For God is love.
4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God. Literally, knew not God, i.e. never attained to a knowledge of Him.
This is a remarkable instance of John’s habit of not making the second
part of an antithesis the exact counterpart of the first, but an advance beyond
it. Instead of saying “is not born of
God” he says “never knew God,” which is much stronger. Not to have known love is not to have known
God. [23]
for God is love. In this, that God is love as to His essential Being, lies the reason, why he that is born of God, must
also have love and live in love and why the love of God must be allied with the
love of the brethren who are also born of God.
[20]
“Love
is not so much a quality which God has, as rather the all-embracing
total of what He is.” (Besser). [49]
This is the third of John’s great statements
respecting the Nature of God: “God is
Spirit” (John
4:9 Translations
WEB: By
this God's love was revealed in us, that God has sent his one and only Son into
the world that we might live through him.
Young’s: In
this was manifested the love of God in us, because His Son -- the only begotten
-- hath God sent to the world, that we may live through him;
Conte (RC): The love
of God was made apparent to us in this way: that God sent his only-begotten Son
into the world, so that we might live through him.
4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us.
That is, in an eminent manner, or this was a most
signal proof of it. The apostle does not
mean to say that it has been manifested in no other way, but that this was so
prominent an instance of His love, that all the other
manifestations of it seemed absorbed and lost in this. [18]
because that God sent his only begotten Son. Not
only proof of His love, but its incarnation and embodiment. [33]
“Sent” shows that Jesus was on
a mission authorized and approved by someone else—the heavenly Father
Himself. [rw]
This verse is a reminiscence of John 3:16-17. The term only begotten occurs here only in
this letter. For instances of its use
see Luke
into the world. This world was where the problem was;
therefore this was where the Son needed to be sent. [rw]
This is the echo—the reproduction of John
that we might live
through him. These are the important words, setting forth that in which God’s love
is so conspicuous and so unique. The
only Son has been sent for this purpose (ἵνα), that we
may live, and not die, as we should otherwise have done: compare 1 John 3:14; 1 John 5:11; John
3:16-17; John 3:36. [23]
WEB: In
this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son as
the atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Young’s: in
this is the love, not that we loved God, but that He did love us, and did send
His Son a propitiation for our sins.
Conte (RC): The love
of God was made apparent to us in this way: that God sent his only-begotten Son
into the world, so that we might live through him.
not that we loved
God.
The superiority of
God’s love does not lie merely in the fact of its being Divine. It is first in order of time and therefore
necessarily spontaneous: ours is at best
only love in return for love. His love
is absolutely disinterested; ours cannot easily be so. [23]
but that he loved
us. Not
that He approved our character, but that He desired our welfare. [18]
Thus Paul, “God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet
sinners (and unreconciled sinners must be alienated
from God) Christ died for us” [Romans 5:8]; and Titus 3:4, “We ourselves were
some time foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures,
living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But after the kindness and love of God our
Savior toward man appeared,” &c. Man
could form no conception of such a way of Reconciliation as is set forth in the
Gospel. In the very nature of things
such an exhibition of love could only come from God. [42]
and sent his Son
to be the propitiation for our sins. “To be the propitiation” is literally “as a propitiation;” it is
parallel to “that we might live through Him” in the previous verse; but at the
same time is an expansion of it. It
states the manner in which life is won for us.
[23]
The
only atonement for human beings which God can accept must be the outcome of a
will—of a will which submits to God under circumstances of such intense
devotion, that it can be accepted on behalf of the race. And the Son of God alone could accomplish
this. And to all of this must be added
His sinlessness and His Divine greatness. And so we can see, faintly it is true, but
yet with much certainty, how the submission of the God-Man, because He
witnessed to goodness, and truth, and love, and trust in God, was sufficient to
be accepted on behalf of the [human] race.
[42]
WEB: Beloved,
if God loved us in this way, we also ought to love one another.
Young’s: Beloved,
if thus did God love us, we also ought one another to love;
Conte (RC): Most
beloved, if God has so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
if God so loved
us. The fact is stated gently, but without any doubt: here “if” is almost equivalent to “since;”
“If, as is manifest, to this extent
God loved us.” Compare, “If I then, the
Lord and the Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s
feet” (John
we ought also to
love one another. If God gave His Son in sacrifice for us, we must in return give something
in sacrifice to God, and the sacrifice most pleasing to Him is that in which we
deny ourselves for the sake of our necessitous [= needy] brethren. [42]
As
children of God we must exhibit His nature, and we must follow His example, and
we must love those whom He loves. Nor is
this the only way in which the Atonement forms part of the foundation of
Christian Ethics. It is only when we
have learned something of the infinite price paid to redeem us from sin, that
we rightly estimate the moral enormity of sin, and the strength of the
obligation which lies upon us to free ourselves from its pollution. [23]
Only in this
way can we show our love to God and our possession of His spirit. True love cannot be hid in the heart, it must go out toward others. We may reciprocate God's love to us by giving
our love to others. [51]
WEB: No
one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God remains in us, and
his love has been perfected in us.
Young’s: God no
one hath ever seen; if we may love one another, God in us doth remain, and His
love is having been perfected in us;
Conte (RC): No one
has ever seen God. But if we love one another, God abides in us, and his love
is perfected in us.
None
has seen God in His Essence. No one hath
seen [the] Godhead, but the eternal Word so took human nature, that they who
saw Him saw God. One, when he was
permitted to handle Him, exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” [John
If we love one another. The apostle now turns to the reward of brotherly love—rather
than its obligation and duty. [rw]
God dwelleth in us. Better, as R.V., “God abideth in us”: He is not a momentary visitant but a
permanent friend and guest. [23]
Though
God is invisible, nevertheless, if we exercise brotherly love, we know
that God is in us, for love is of God. [49]
and his love is
perfected in us. Has its full effect. [2]
Reach
its full completion and maturity. [49]
Is this the love of God toward us or is this our
love toward God—case for the latter. ”His love” to us can scarcely
be meant; for in what sense would our loving one another perfect that? Moreover, as already noticed, “the love of
God” in this Epistle commonly means man’s love to Him, not His to man (1 John
2:5;
WEB: By
this we know that we remain in him and he in us,
because he has given us of his Spirit.
Young’s: in
this we know that in Him we do remain, and He in us, because of His Spirit He
hath given us.
Conte (RC): In this
way, we know that we abide in him, and he in us: because he has given to us
from his Spirit.
and he in us. He is “part” of us and we are “part” of
Him. We are inseparably linked so long
as we are faithful Christians. [rw]
because he hath given us of his Spirit. We
know that God dwells in us by the Spirit given us. But we know we have the
Spirit by its fruits. The first and
greatest of these is love. See Galatians
5:22. [3]
To
think about: Some
commentators understand the apostle as speaking here of the extraordinary gifts
of the Spirit; but surely these gifts, of whatever kind they might be, never
were to any man a certain evidence of his possessing real piety and union with
God, as is manifest from our Lord’s words [in] (Matthew 7:22), Many will say
to me in that day of final
judgment, We have prophesied
in thy name, &c.; then will I profess unto them, I never knew you, &c. And St. Paul (1 Corinthians 13;2) declares,
that though a man had such a measure of miracle-working faith, that he could remove mountains, yet if he had not love to God and
mankind, it would profit him nothing.
The ordinary graces of the Spirit, such as are enumerated Galatians 5:22-23; Ephesians 5:9; Colossians 3:12-17; Romans 12:9-21, are certain evidences
of a person’s being a child of God; but the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit
are not, inasmuch as they sometimes have been and still may be possessed by
persons destitute of true religion. [35]
WEB: We
have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as the Savior of the world.
Young’s: And we
-- we have seen and do testify, that the Father hath sent the Son -- Saviour of the world;
Conte (RC): And we
have seen, and we testify, that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of
the world.
The language of this verse, as of 1 John 1:1 and 1 John 1:3,
would be strained and rather unreal in one who had not seen the Christ in the
flesh. [24]
and do testify. Both in the past and continue to do so in both
our preaching and writing. [rw]
that the Father
sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. As the apostle had said in chapter 2:2, “Not for our sins only, but for
the sins of the whole world.” [42]
See
the same phrase, John 4:42, and compare John
3:17. [1]
“Of the world” is important; not of the Jews only, or of
the “enlightened” Gnostics only, but of all.
There is no limit but the willingness of men to accept salvation by
believing on the Savior. “For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but
that the world should be saved through Him” (John
Saviour. To those who
receive him, the Son of God is Savior from what? From guilt and condemnation, from despair,
from a nature of sin, from error, from a body of death, from the world, from
Satan, from an eternal hell; requiring a great Savior, with all His deity and
all His humanity, all His blood and all His Spirit. [52]
Greek language notes: Σωτήρ Savior, occurs in John
only here and John 4:42. Elsewhere it is applied both to God (1 Timothy
1:1; 2:3; Titus 1:3; 2:10; Titus 3:4; Jude verse 25), and to
Christ (Luke 2:11; Acts 5:31; 13:23; 2
Timothy 1:10; Titus 1:4,
etc.). The title is found in Paul's
Epistles of the Captivity (Ephesians
In
classical writings the term is applied to many deities, especially to Zeus
(Jupiter); also to Hermes (Mercury), Apollo, Hercules, and even to female
deities, as Fortune and Aphrodite (Venus). “Zeus Soter” (Zeus
Savior) was used as a formula in drinking at banquets. The third cup was dedicated to him. Compare Plato: “Then, by way of a third libation to the
savior Zeus, let us sum up and reassert what has been said” (“Philebus,” 66).
The
drinking of this cup was a symbol of good fortune, and the third time came to
mean the lucky time. “Twice then has the
just man overthrown the unjust; and now comes the third trial, which, after
Olympic fashion, is sacred to Zeus the savior, . . . and
surely this will prove the greatest and most decisive of falls” (Plato, “Republic,” 583). Hence the proverb, τὸ τρίτον
τῳ σωτῆρι,
lit., the third to the savior; i.e., the third or lucky time. The name was also given later to princes or
public benefactors.
The
kindred noun σωτηρία
salvation, does not occur in John's Epistles, and appears only once in the
Gospel (John
WEB: Whoever
confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him, and he in God.
Young’s: whoever
may confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God in him doth remain, and he in
God;
Conte (RC): Whoever
has confessed that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
shall confess. This was what the false prophets refused to do. [23]
that Jesus is the
Son of God. The Christ, the Savior of
the world. [35]
God dwelleth in him. There is a blessed union
between God and his soul, so that it is, in the language of Scripture, the
habitation of God; who, as it were, lives and walks in him, Ephesians 2:22; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:18. [35]
and he in God. This completes the expression of the perfect
living union of God and the regenerate soul.
[52]
Even
Apostles, who have beheld and borne witness, can have
no more than this Divine fellowship, which is open to every believer. [23]
WEB: We
know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who
remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
Young’s: and we
-- we have known and believed the love, that God hath in us; God is love, and
he who is remaining in the love, in God he doth remain, and God in him.
Conte (RC): And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love. And he who abides in love, abides in God, and God in him.
the love that God
hath to us.
And hath manifested, not only by giving his Son to die
for us (1 John 4:9-10), but [also] by making us His children in and through His
Son, 1 John 3:1. [35]
God is love. The
apostle repeats what he had declared 1
John 4:8. [35]
and he that dwelleth in love. Namely,
in love to God, His people, and all mankind. [35]
John has here three abidings:
abiding in love, abiding in God, abiding
in the believer. Abiding in love is
regarded as the condition of abiding in fellowship with God. The term, love, is here used in its widest
sense. It takes two forms, love to God, love to men. [51]
dwelleth in God and God in him. His union and communion
with God are hereby continued and increased.
[35]
The terms abiding in God, and God abiding in us, are both used, so that
one is not found apart from the other. God
may be said to abide in us by His personal watchcare
and love. Above all, the expression
signifies that the Holy Spirit abiding in us, is in
reality, God abiding in us. [51]
dwelleth in God and God in him. There is a two-way “indwelling:” God (His commands and teaching) being
embedded deep within us—and since they come from the Divine we can rightly
speak of His “personal” presence as well--and knowledge of our love and loyalty
being deeply lodged within His mind and concerns so that He is as concerned
with us as a good shepherd is with his sheep.
[52]
WEB: In
this love has been made perfect among us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment, because as he is, even so are we in this
world.
Young’s: In
this made perfect hath been the love with us, that boldness we may have in the
day of the judgment, because even as He is, we -- we also are in this world;
Conte (RC): In this
way, the love of God is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence on
the day of judgment. For as he is, so also are we, in
this world.
is our love made
perfect. The meaning seems to be that love, which is of God (1 John 4:7), takes
up its abode with
us and is developed
until it is perfected. “Love” here evidently means our love towards God: His love towards us can have no fear about it
(1 John
that we may have
boldness.
The day of judgment, whether
near or remote, is regarded as so certain that it is a present fact influencing
our conduct. [32]
in the day of
judgment.
The full phrase here
used, “the day
of the judgment” occurs nowhere else: the usual form is “day of judgment” (Matthew
because as he is, so are we in this world. Imitation of His example extends broadly into our lives: As whilst sojourning in this world He loved,
so do we. We follow, distantly no doubt,
but still really, in His footsteps of love; and in other respects, also, we
take Him as an example: as He purified
or consecrated Himself, so do we; as He obeyed His Father, so do we; as He for
the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, so do
we. He cannot condemn us if we thus
endeavor to make ourselves like Him. [42]
WEB: There
is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has
punishment. He who fears is not made perfect in love.
Young’s: fear
is not in the love, but the perfect love doth cast out the fear, because the
fear hath punishment, and he who is fearing hath not
been made perfect in the love;
Conte (RC): Fear is not in love. Instead, perfect love casts out fear, for fear pertains to punishment. And whoever fears is not perfected in love.
The meaning is,
that as there is nothing more miserable than to be harassed by continual
inquietude, we obtain by knowing God’s love towards us the benefit of a
peaceful calmness beyond the reach of fear.
It hence appears what a singular gift of God it is to be favored with His
love. Moreover from this doctrine, he
will presently draw an exhortation; but before he exhorts us to duty, he
commends to us this gift of God, which by faith removes our fear. [27]
but perfect love casteth out fear. “Love not only does not contain fear, but it also does not suffer it
alongside of itself; the love which wholly drives away fear is not love in its
first beginning, love as yet weak, but love in its perfection” (Huther). [20]
It is self-interested love that
fears; pure and unselfish love has no fear.
Yet nothing but perfect love must be allowed to cast out fear. Otherwise this text might be made an excuse
for taking the most unwarrantable liberties with Almighty God. To cease to fear without attaining to perfect
love is to be irreverent and presumptuous.
Hence the apostle is once more pointing out an ideal to which Christians
must aspire, but to which no one attains in this life. [24]
but perfect love. Love in its fullest development, when its
strength is not grievously compromised by any form of fear. [rw]
casteth out fear. Desirable versus undesirable forms of fear: What is meant by this fear? It
cannot well be the fear of God which is so insisted upon by the Savior and by
His apostles. Thus Paul speaks of our
“perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1), and “of our
submitting ourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Ephesians
because fear hath torment [has to do with punishment, ESV, NIV]. The
idea that fear itself is a form of punishment may be
present, but the context (“day of judgment” [verse 17]) requires the
interpretation that fear implies a consciousness of shortcoming and a
consequent expectation of punishment. Where
love is perfected, no such expectation can exist. [10]
“Fear
hath punishment” is true in two ways; (1) fear involves the idea of punishment;
(2) fear is a foretaste of punishment. [23]
We know we are guilty and therefore recognize that there is no escape
from the consequences. [rw]
Greek language note: The word for “punishment” (κόλασις)
occurs nowhere else in [the] N.T., excepting Matthew
25:46, but it is not uncommon in LXX nor in
classical Greek. Its radical
signification is “pruning,” and hence it gets the notions of “checking,
correcting, punishing.” “Torment” as distinct from “punishment” is
expressed by a different word (βάσανος),
which occurs Matthew 4:24; Luke 16:23, 28. Both words are found together in Wisdom 19:4; “That they might fulfill
the punishment which was wanting to their torments.” [23]
He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
Greek note: The present tense indicates a constant condition: the habitual fearer is necessarily imperfect
in his love. [23]
WEB: We love
him, because he first loved us.
Young’s: we --
we love him, because He -- He first loved us;
Conte (RC): Therefore,
let us love God, for God first loved us.
Who is being loved—an argument
from the best Greek manuscripts [“him” omitted by ESV, NASB]: Omit “Him,” which is a later addition to the true
text: some authorities for “Him” add “God,”
and some have “God” for “He” in the next clause. No accusative is expressed, and none, whether “God”
or “one another,” is to be understood: Christian love of every kind is
meant. Authorities are much divided
between “we love” and “let us love;” for the Greek (ἀγαπῶμεν)
may be either indicative or hortative subjunctive. [23]
because he first loved us. In eternity; and so sent Christ into the
world to save us (verse 9.) His love to
us preceded our love. It was the cause
or reason of ours, which implies in the apostle's thought that it furnished the
model or type of ours. Our love is a
thing rising from God's love, and so is naturally like it. But God's love went out to men. Ours therefore, to be full and perfect, must (verse
12) go out to men, even our brethren. [52]
One last word, “We love Him,
because He first loved us.” Do you? Or is it rather true of you: “I do not love God, though He has loved
me”? I saw not long since, up on the
flank of a mountain, an obstinate patch of snow, that had fronted, in unmelted cold, months of the summer sun. There are some of us who lift a broad shield
of thick-ribbed ice between ourselves and the radiance of the warm heart of
God. [31]
WEB: If a
man says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he
who doesn't love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has
not seen?
Young’s: if any
one may say -- 'I love God,' and his brother he may hate, a liar he is; for he
who is not loving his brother whom he hath seen, God
-- whom he hath not seen -- how is he able to love?
Conte (RC): If anyone says that he loves God, but hates his brother, then he is a liar. For he who does not love his brother, whom he does see, in what way can he love God, whom he does not see?
A man may say, “I love God,” a
general sort of way. He may even say it
in a highly elaborated style: he may
address God as though in the spirit of worship, expressing beautiful thoughts
and using endearing words. Still, it
must all be tested; for God is unseen, and to some active minds beautiful
thoughts and words come easily and cheaply.
What will test the genuineness of such a profession as this? Why, there is the brother who can be
seen! If I myself am born of God, every
other who is also born of God is a brother to me. The God whom I cannot see is presented to me
in the one who is begotten of Him, this brother whom I can see. [8]
and hateth his brother. As we have seen already (1 John
he is a liar. It is not truth he speaks,
it is a contradiction, and a thing impossible.
[16]
for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen. John does not say “whom he can see,” but “whom he
has continually before his eyes.” The
perfect tense, as so often, expresses a permanent state continuing from the
past. His brother has been and remains
in sight, God has been and remains out of sight. “Out of sight, out of mind” is a saying which
holds good in morals and religion as well as in society. And if a man fails in duties which are ever
before his eyes and are easy, how can we credit him with performing duties
which require an effort to bear in mind and are difficult? And in this case the seen would necessarily
suggest the unseen: for the brother on earth implies the Father in heaven. If therefore even the seen is not loved, what
must we infer as to the unseen? The seen
brother and the unseen God are put in striking juxtaposition in the Greek: “He that loveth not
his brother whom he hath seen, the God whom he hath not seen cannot love.” But in English this would be
misunderstood. [23]
how can he love
God whom he hath not seen? It
cannot be thought he should; the thing is not reasonable to suppose; it is not
possible he should. [16]
In
a similar spirit Philo says parents may be regarded as “visible gods,” and “it
is impossible that the Invisible should be revered by those who have no
reverence for the visible.” [23]
Life
cannot have two supreme motives, two opposing ruling principles. Hatred for men is a proof that love is not
controlling the life; it shows one to be a liar if he is boasting his love for
God. [44]
WEB: This
commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should also love his
brother.
Young’s: This
commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should also love his
brother.
Conte (RC): And this
is the commandment that we have from God, that he who loves God must also love
his brother.
that he who loveth God love his brother also. Not
only we may, but we must. It
is a divine invariable law, that the lover of God be a lover of his brother. Our highest blessedness is our highest
duty. [33]
Bigotry
is properly the want of this pure and universal love. A bigot only loves those who embrace his
opinions, and receive his way of worship; and he loves them for that, and not
for Christ's sake. [2]
BOOKS/COMMENTARIES
UTILIZED IN THIS STUDY:
All commentaries are in the public domain; the copyright
having expired or never been on them.
1 Marvin R.
Vincent, D.D. Word
Studies in the New Testament.
1886. Internet edition.
2 John Wesley. Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible. 1754-1765. Internet edition.
3 Barton Johnson. People’s New Testament. 1891.
Internet edition.
4 Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole
Bible. Unabridged
edition. Internet
edition.
5 Charles Simeon. Horae Homileticae.
1832. Internet edition.
6 James Gray. Concise Bible Commentary. 1897-1910. Internet edition.
7 John Dummelow,
editor. Dummelow’s
Commentary on the Bible. 1909. Internet edition.
8 Frank B. Hole. Old and New Testament
Commentary. Internet edition.
9 E. M. Zerr. Commentary on Selected
Books of the New Testament. Internet edition.
10 Arthur Peake. Commentary on the Bible. 1919.
Internet edition.
11 John A. Bengel. Gnomon of the New
Testament. 1897. Internet edition.
12 John S. C. Abbott. Illustrated New
Testament. 1878. Internet edition.
13 Joseph Sutcliffe. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments.
1835. Internet edition.
14 Matthew Poole. English Annotations on
the Bible. 1685. Internet edition.
15 Paul E. Kretzmann. Popular Commentary. 1921-1922. Internet edition.
16 John Gill. Exposition of the Entire
Bible. 1746-1763. Internet
edition.
17 Adam Clarke. Commentary. 1832.
Internet edition.
18 Albert Barnes. Notes on the New
Testament. 1870. Internet edition.
19 Heinrich Meyer. Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the New Testament.
1832. Internet edition.
20 Johann P. Lange. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical. 1857-1884. Internet edition.
21 William R. Nicoll,
editor. Expositor’s Greek Testament. 1897-1910. Internet edition.
22 Henry Alford. Greek Testament Critical
Exegetical Commentary.
1863-1878.
Internet edition.
23 Alfred Plummer.
24 The Pulpit Commentary. 1897.
Internet edition.
25 John Trapp. Complete Commentary. Lived 1601-1669. 1865-1868 reprinting. Internet edition.
26 William Godbey. Commentary on the New Testament. Internet edition.
27 John Calvin. Commentary on the Bible. Internet edition.
28 Joseph C. Philpot (1802-1869). Commentary on Select
Texts. Internet
edition.
29 George Haydock
(1774-1849). Catholic
Bible Commentary. Internet edition.
30 H. A. Ironside. Ironside’s Notes on Selected Books. 1914.
Internet edition
31 Lost source; rather than delete the
material, I felt it better to simply list the unidentifiable volume and admit
my error.
32 Charles J. Ellicott, editor. Ellicott’s
Commentary for English Readers. Internet edition.
33 Daniel D. Whedon. Commentary on the Bible. Internet edition.
34 Philip Schaff,
editor. Schaff’s
Popular Commentary on the New Testament.
Internet edition.
35 Joseph Benson (born 1748). Commentary of the Old
and New Testaments. Internet edition.
36 Thomas Coke (published 1801-1803). Commentary on the Holy
Bible. Internet
edition.
37 Robert S. Candlish. The First Epistle of John Expounded In A
Series of Lectures. 1877 edition. Internet edition.
38 Arno C. Gaebelein. The Annotated Bible.
Internet edition.
39 Joseph Parker. The People's Bible. Internet edition.
40 Thomas Scott. Commentary on the Bible. Volume Six. Fifth Edition. London:
L. B. Seeley et al, 1822.
41 Bernhard Weiss. Commentary on the New
Testament. Volume
Four.
42 M. F. Sadler. The General Epistles of
SS James, Peter, John and Jude.
43 [Robert S. Hunt?] The
Cottage Commentary: The Epistle to the
Hebrews and the General Epistles.
44 Charles
Erdman. The General Epistles: An Exposition.
45 W. H. Bennett. The Century Bible: The General Epistles—James, Peter, John, and
Jude.
46 John B. Sumner. A Practical Exposition
of the General Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude.
47 James C. Gray. Biblical Museum: Hebrews to the End of the New Testament.
48 William G. Humphry. A Commentary on the
Revised Version of the New Testament.
49 Revere F. Weidner. The Lutheran Commentary: Annotations on the General Epistles of James,
Peter, Peter, John, and Jude.
50 A Short Protestant Commentary on the
New Testament. Volume
3. Translated
from the Third German Edition.
51 O. P. Eaches.
52 Henry A. Sawtelle. Commentary on the
Epistles of John.