Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 John 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
20. If a man say ] We return to the form of statement which was so common at the beginning of the Epistle (1Jn 1:6; 1Jn 1:8; 1Jn 1:10). The case here contemplated is one form of the man that feareth not. His freedom from fear is caused, however, not by the perfection of love, but by presumption. He is either morally blind or a conscious hypocrite. Comp. 1Jn 2:4; 1Jn 2:9.
loveth not ] As we have seen already (1Jn 3:14-15), S. John treats not loving as equivalent to hating.
whom he hath seen ] S. 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.
how can he love ] With B against AKL we should probably read cannot love: the ‘how’ is perhaps a reminiscence of 1Jn 3:17; comp. Joh 3:4; Joh 3:9; Joh 5:44; Joh 6:52; Joh 9:16; Joh 14:5. 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’.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother – His Christian brother; or, in a larger sense, any man. The sense is, that no man, whatever may be his professions and pretensions, can have any true love to God, unless he loves his brethren.
He is a liar – Compare the notes at 1Jo 1:6. It is not necessary, in order to a proper interpretation of this passage, to suppose that he intentionally deceives. The sense is, that this must be a false profession.
For he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen … – It is more reasonable to expect that we should love one whom we have seen and known personally, than that we should love one whom we have not seen. The apostle is arguing from human nature as it is, and everyone feels that we are more likely to love one with whom we are familiar than one who is a stranger. If a professed Christian, therefore, does not love one who bears the divine image, whom he sees and knows, how can he love that God whose image he bears, whom he has not seen? Compare the notes at 1Jo 3:17.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Jn 4:20-21
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar
I.
The lesson is taught with peculiar force which is deserving of attention. The several clauses of the text are so constructed as to cast light upon it. A man may say, I love God. He may say it and think it, and yet not do it. In that case he is self-deceived. Or he may say it and not think it. In such a case he is a hypocrite. In the midst of such self-deception or hypocritical profession the man may hate his brother. The man who so speaks and acts is pronounced to be a liar. There is an entire inconsistency between what he says and does. His conduct towards men is a contradiction to his profession toward God. An argument is next used to prove the inconsistency of professing love to God, while hatred is indulged to men. He that loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? This is assumed to be an impossibility. And it really is so. His brother is the child of God. Can I love a man and hate his child? My brother is to me the representative of God, and in hating him I hate God. To confirm the argument, it is added, and this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also. We say we love God. Of that love the great proof is that we keep His commandments. But one of His commandments is, that we love one another.
II. The incompatibility of the love of God with the hatred of men. It is to be feared that, in this matter, a widespread delusion prevails among men. Many say they love God who are seen to hate men. It may be well, therefore, to notice some of the principal forms under which this incongruity has appeared in both past times and the present.
1. A remarkable example of it may be seen in the national spirit that prevailed among the Jews in the time of our Lord and His apostles. The Jew said he loved God, and yet he was injurious to men. And so far did this spirit prevail that it formed the national character in the time of our Lord.
2. This habit, however, did not arise out of anything peculiar to Judaism; for, it may be observed next, that it is found to prevail in all unenlightened nations. The Mussulman, out of zeal for God, as he alleges, goes forth with his sword to demand subjection from all men; and, when he has the power, to plunge it into the bosom of anyone who dares to resist him. It is the same under other and more aggravated forms in nations that are purely heathen. The Hindoo, out of zeal for God, refuses to eat with his brother of another caste, lest he should be defiled. The Chinaman has been taught from his infancy to reckon all men barbarians beyond the boundaries of his own land. All heathen people entertain the same idea of religion. They regard it as a service of certain forms due to God; but which, it never occurs to them, is designed to regulate their deportment toward one another. The love of God, prompting love to mankind, is nowhere to be found, even as a theory, among men devoid of revelation. Greece and Rome, at the height of their enlightenment, made no such discovery. It is humiliating to see the vanity of their worship, which was neither intended riot fitted to influence their conduct toward men. We may suppose it to be an easy thing to see the connection between the love of God and the love of man. But we should remember we are indebted for the knowledge of it entirely to the Divine Word.
3. But alas! even where the light of revelation shines, this simple truth has been sadly obscured. Men have thought that, because they had been born and lived within certain geographical boundaries, they were not required to seek the good, but rather the injury of those beyond them. They have engaged in the most savage attacks upon one another in the name of religion. How necessary it is that the nations should learn the lesson of the text–that he who loveth God love his brother also.
4. We may go for another illustration beyond the nations of the earth, and fix upon the Christian churches themselves. In some we discover the most uncharitable zeal for their doctrines. They construct a system which they hold is founded on the Word of God, and agreeable to it. Admit that it is so. Its views, they maintain, are essential to salvation. Admit that they are so. Forthwith they proceed to denounce all who do not see with them eye to eye. We have need to be watchful lest our love for God, in maintaining His truth, should degenerate into bitterness against men. In others, again, we discern the uncharitableness of sect. We may go further, and find an example even among those who hold the same truths, and worship in the same sanctuary. We may profess love to God in His ordinance, and yet be indulging ill-will to our brother. Worse than that, we may do him much injury. We may injure him in his good name, in his property, in his peace, and still maintain the profession of love for God. (J. Morgan, D. D.)
Love to God promotive of love to man
There is an element of Christian ethics present in the Gospels, and everywhere attributed to Jesus, which we scarcely find at all in the Epistles. It is the setting up of an antagonism between duty to God and the claims of natural affection. It will, I think, be profitable to inquire whether our duty to God and our love of Him ought ever to override our duty to our families and our natural affection for our nearest and dearest relations. Turning over the leaves of that flesh-bound revelation, we find our home love to be the most precious, most redeeming, most sanctifying of all our spiritual treasures. According to our possession of family love our home is either our heaven or our hell. But love is much more than this–it is our real moral teacher. It is at home that our characters are formed for fatherly, motherly, sisterly, and brotherly lives in the outer world. And how love purifies and restrains! Who, looking back on his past life, cannot remember the many times when he would have fallen before temptation but for the love he bore to his father or mother, or wife or children? Last of all, our actual possession and exercise of love is our only key to the knowledge of the love of God. From this springs all true religion, all true worship of the Father in heaven, and all service acceptable to Him. So I read in our poor human hearts this sublime truth. Love is our highest bliss, our best guide to duty, our strongest impulse to perform it, the most efficient cultivator of a noble character, our surest defence in the face of temptation, and the highest revelation of God Himself. And now I venture to affirm that our duty to God never does conflict with our duty to each other. And why? It needs no argument. It is the very principle of religious morality that our duty to God consists mainly in our duty to each other. We can render to Him no service at all but in and through the service of our brethren who are His children. Our love to God never yet weakened–nay, it has evermore strengthened–our family love. The more conscientious we have become in the discharge of what we thought to be our duty to God, the more loving and faithful we have been to our dear ones at home. (C. Voysey.)
The great commandment
We enter the family circle now. It has become a very large family, and is destined to become still larger, till it includes all the families of the earth. Whether large or small, there is one grand principle which is to flow through the hearts of all its members, and to constitute a bond which neither time nor eternity can dissolve. That one principle is mutual love. Nothing else can take its place. Nothing else can do its work.
I. It will be well for us to look a little carefully at the person for whom this love is claimed–our brother. Our brother, in the New Testament, has a new and definite meaning. It is not our neighbour, as such. To a Jew, it was not his fellow Jew. Nor is it necessarily the son of our own father and mother. There may be many such sons whom, alas! we cannot regard in this high sense as our brothers. There are those who come nearer to us as Christians, and are endeared to us by stronger ties. The elements of the union between us, and which constitute them our brethren, are altogether peculiar. The first of these is faith in our common Saviour. From the moment that faith is exercised a new set of conditions spring up. We have parted company with the world, and shall soon find that we have forfeited its love and its sympathy. Then the faith which unites us to Christ unites us to all who are thus united to Him. And that irrespective of all external differences. Another of these elements is regeneration by the same Spirit. And now there opens before us another view of our subject, although necessarily glanced at already. Our Creator has become not only our God, but our Father. Further, our heavenly Father has embraced us all alike in the arms of His adopting grace.
II. We shall next have to enter into some of the reasons why this love is required. And we need hardly insist on the fact that all the reasons why we are called upon to love our neighbour obtain, and obtain with redoubled force, here. The ethics of the Second Table are not abrogated by the great law of brotherly love. Nay, those ethics are carried up to a higher plane, and enforced by sanctions of a higher order. Then He bases this precept on the deep ground of His own love to us. As I have loved you. We can understand how He can have loved others. But us? There is the difficulty. Yet we have tits own word for it, and that ought to be enough; and most persuasive in its eloquence. Learn from this unique example of My love to you to love one another. My love to you has been unmerited, disinterested, self-sacrificing, all-enduring. Let your love to each other take this as its pattern. Love one another as I have loved you. It will also be seen that the claim of our brother to our love is founded on our love to God. And this commandment have we from Him, that He who loveth God, love his brother also. John, however, touches the deepest foundations of all for this demand in the tenth and eleventh verses of this same chapter. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
III. There must be some practical methods available for the unequivocal manifestation of this brotherly love. Love to our brother is not a mere profession. Nor will this association be a mere formal and external thing; but we shall be led into real and intimate fellowship of heart and spirit with our brother. Readiness to sympathise with and help will, in like manner, present itself as an evidence and display of this love. Love can withhold nothing from its object. The love in question will at the same time lead to mutual charity and forbearance.
IV. A cursory glance at the great importance of the principle which it has been our earnest desire to inculcate. And let us begin at home. We have a deep personal interest in this matter. Nothing tends more to promote our own happiness, profit, and usefulness than that love which we owe to our fellow Christians. It fills the heart with sunshine, if the Church is ever to become the power for good in the world which she was intended to be, this will be the secret and fountain of her strength. Beside and above all these considerations, the honour of our Divine Lord and Head is bound up with this matter. Nothing pleases Him so much as the love which should unite all His disciples together in one close but grand confraternity. Nothing can furnish so powerful a demonstration of the might and benignity of His truth. Nothing can present so worthy and influential an exhibition of His character. (J. Drew.)
Love to God produces love to man
When God comes to man, man looks round for his neighbour. (Geo. Macdonald, LL. D.)
Hes my brother
Dr. Macgregor met in a great Scotch city a little girl carrying in her arms a baby, so bonny that she fairly staggered under its weight. Babys heavy, isnt he, dear? said the doctor. No, replied the winsome bairn, hes not heavy; hes my brother. (U. R. Thomas, B. A.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 20. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother] This, as well as many other parts of this epistle, seems levelled against the Jews, who pretended much love to God while they hated the Gentiles; and even some of them who were brought into the Christian Church brought this leaven with them. It required a miracle to redeem St. Peter’s mind from the influence of this principle. See Acts 10.
Whom he hath seen] We may have our love excited towards our brother, 1. By a consideration of his excellences or amiable qualities. 2. By a view of his miseries and distresses. The first will excite a love of complacency and delight; the second, a love of compassion and pity.
Whom he hath not seen?] If he love not his brother, it is a proof that the love of God is not in him; and if he have not the love of God, he cannot love God, for God can be loved only through the influence of his own love. See note on 1Jo 4:19. The man who hates his fellow does not love God. He who does not love God has not the love of God in him, and he who has not the love of God in him can neither love God nor man.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The greater difficulty here is implied, through our present dependence upon sense, of loving the invisible God, than men that we daily see and converse familiarly with. Hence, considering the comprehensiveness of these two things, the love of God, and of our brother, that they are the roots of all that duty we owe to God and man, the fulfilling of the whole law, Mat 22:37-39, he lets us see the falsehood and absurdity of their pretence to eminent piety and sanctity, who neglect the duties of the second table.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
20. loveth not . . . brother whom hehath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seenIt iseasier for us, influenced as we are here by sense, to direct lovetowards one within the range of our senses than towards One unseen,appreciable only by faith. “Nature is prior to grace; and we bynature love things seen, before we love things unseen” [ESTIUS].The eyes are our leaders in love. “Seeing is an incentiveto love” [OEligCUMENIUS].If we do not love the brethren, the visible representatives ofGod, how can we love God, the invisible One, whose childrenthey are? The true ideal of man, lost in Adam, is realized inChrist, in whom God is revealed as He is, and man as he ought to be.Thus, by faith in Christ, we learn to love both the true God, and thetrue man, and so to love the brethren as bearing His image.
hath seenandcontinually sees.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
If a man say I love God, and hateth his brother,…. Than which profession nothing can be more contradictory, not black and white, or hot and cold in the same degree:
he is a liar; it is not truth he speaks, it is a contradiction, and a thing impossible:
for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen; his person, which might have drawn out his affection to him; and something valuable and worthy in him, which might have commanded respect; or his wants and distresses, which should have moved his pity and compassion:
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; [See comments on 1Jo 4:12].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
If a man say ( ). Condition of third class with and second aorist active subjunctive. Suppose one say. Cf. 1:6.
I love God ( ). Quoting an imaginary disputant as in 2:4.
And hateth ( ). Continuation of the same condition with and the present active subjunctive, “and keep on hating.” See 1John 2:9; 1John 3:15 for use of (hate) with (brother). A liar (). Blunt and to the point as in 1John 1:10; 1John 2:4.
That loveth not ( ). “The one who does not keep on loving” (present active negative articular participle).
Hath seen (). Perfect active indicative of , the form in Joh 1:18 used of seeing God.
Cannot love ( ). “Is not able to go on loving,” with which compare 2:9, (is not able to go on sinning). The best MSS. do not have (how) here.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
He that loveth not his brother, etc. Note the striking inversion of the clauses : He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, God whom he hath not seen cannot love.
How. The best tests omit, and give the direct statement cannot love. So Rev.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “If a man say “ (Greek ean tis) “If or when a certain one says” is (hypothetical). – John asserts that when or if any person claims or affirms “lip-love”, without accompanying love – deeds, or service, “watch out.”
2) “I love God and hateth his brother.” His claim “I love the God,” accompanied by a despising attitude toward his brother, taking lightly or ignoring’ responsibility toward his brother, as Cain who asked “Am I my brother’s keeper”, watch out; he is a fake, a fraud. The love of God begets love for His creation.
3) “He is a liar.” The claimant to love, who doesn’t hold and show it, is a liar. His nature is that of the Devil. His spiritual “identification-station” is Joh 8:44; 1Jn 2:4-5.
4) “For he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen,” If one claims to love God whom he has never seen, yet does not love, or holds in despising, his brother whom he has seen, the necessary inference is that his claim is empty, invalid, and false. The principle of “everything after his kind” prevails in the spiritual as well as physical world.
5) “How can he love God whom he hath not seen?” Rhetorically, John simply asserts he can not, it is not possible for him to love God. His claim is counterfeit. He is a deceiver. John began this chapter admonishing “try or test the spirits.” He then sets forth the method of testing false teachers, prophets, and laymen by the fruits of a love life that follows Jesus. Gal 5:25.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
But this love cannot exist, except it generates brotherly love. Hence he says, that they are liars who boast that they love God, when they hate their brethren.
But the reason he subjoins seems not sufficiently valid, for it is a comparison between the less and the greater: If, he says, we love not our brethren whom we see, much less can we love God who is invisible. Now there are obviously two exceptions; for the love which God has to us is from faith and does not flow from sight, as we find in 1Pe 1:8; and secondly, far different is the love of God from the love of men; for while God leads his people to love him through his infinite goodness, men are often worthy of hatred. To this I answer, that the Apostle takes here as granted what ought no doubt to appear evident to us, that God offers himself to us in those men who bear his image, and that he requires the duties, which he does not want himself, to be performed to them, according to Psa 16:2, where we read,
“
My goodness reaches not to thee, O Lord; towards the saints who are on the earth is my love.”
And surely the participation of the same nature, the need of so many things, and mutual intercourse, must allure us to mutual love, except; we are harder than iron. But John meant another thing: he meant to shew how fallacious is the boast of every one who says that he loves God, and yet loves not God’s image which is before his eyes.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
20. And this love is circumfused around us, encompassing our brother.
Hath seen hath not seen We can love those we have not seen our invisible benefactors. The Americans love Washington. But it is a higher effort, depending on faith and not sight, to love a person of past history. But as said on 1Jn 4:12, we know the unseen God as love only through the blessed atmosphere of love encompassing our seen brethren with ourselves. Without love to the seen, he is a liar who claims to love the unseen God.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘If a man say, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar, for he who loves not his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.’
The result is that we will love all who are true brothers in Christ, those who are of and speak forth the truth. For they share the love that we enjoy, and they too are in His love. And they minister to us of Christ, as we should minister to them. Must they not then be within our love, which He has produced within us? It would be an impossible contradiction to be filled with God’s love and not to love those whom God loves. Thus if a man says, ‘I love God’, but hates his brother he is a liar. That is, he does not love God. This is the test of antichrist and of false teaching. They do not love the brethren because the brethren expose their false teaching for what it is, and refuse to countenance their fantasies.
Those who are our brothers in Christ are in fact what we actually see of God. His work is at work within them as it is in us. His work is being accomplished through them. Each member has his part to play, and without each member we are not whole. If we then do not love them, (purpose well towards them and seek their good and rejoice in the truth we share with them), then we do not love the unseen God Who dwells within them, nor are we aware of the purpose to which He has called us.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Jn 4:20. For he that loveth not his brother, &c. By brother is all along to be understood a real Christian; and if Christian professors are what their religion obliges them to be, that is, more holy than other men, we ought in reason to love them with a greater degree of affection than others. It is intimated, ch. 1Jn 5:1 that every one who loveth God, will of course love all Christians, who are his children, and resemble him. Here we are taught, that he who loveth not Christians, who are the visible image of God, cannot possibly love the invisible God, whose image they are: and that if any man pretends to love God, without loving all Christians, who are his image, he is a liar, and imposes upon himself as well as endeavours to impose upon other men. To this purpose Grotius quotes the following passage out of Philo: “It is impossible that the invisible God should be worshipped in a right manner, by those who behave wickedly towards such as are seen by them and are their neighbours.” It is likely that the false prophets and their disciples boasted that though they did not love all Christians, yet they loved God; and that was the principal thing. St. John knew the men and their conversation, and therefore sharply reproved them for such an idle pretence. If it be our duty to love our Christian brethren, whom we see, and with whom we daily converse; and if love and beneficence to them be the way to manifest that we love God; what shall we say to those, who retire from the world, and shut themselves up in monasteries, abbeys, nunneries, cells, or deserts, to shun the conversation of men, and avoid the sight of their Christian brethren; and that, undera pretence of more than ordinary love to God? Or what can be thought of those, who spend their lives in mere contemplation, without being useful to the community, andto the Christian brethren? Who, while they pretend to the warmest love of God, do not behave with that strict justice, truth, and benevolence towards men, which might be wished and expected? Or, who contend so fiercely for the faith, (or rather for their own opinion,) as to lay aside the spirit of meekness and love, and to forget that of faith, hope, and charity, those three great Christian virtues?The greatest of these is not faith, but lov
Inferences.What a certain test have private Christians, as well as others, in the word of God, to distinguish between those who broach errors concerning the divine person and saving offices of Christ, under pretence of their having the Spirit of God; and those who, under his guidance and influence, preach the truth as it is in Jesus, and cordially own, and bravely profess that he is the only-begotten Son of God, and has really appeared in human nature as the Saviour of lost sinners among both Jews and Gentiles! All pretenders to the Spirit are not of God, nor are to be believed and followed; and they that are born of God, need not be stumbled at them, since there ever have been such in the world; and true believers may see through them and their delusions, and withstand and overcome them; because God, who dwells in them by his Spirit, is infinitely greater, wiser, and stronger than the devil, who works and prevails by his antichristian emissaries upon carnal men. And what wonder is it, that people of a worldly spirit should adhere to those who are like themselves, and accommodate their schemes and discourses to their corrupt taste? But the servants of God speak from, and for him, according to his mind and will; and therefore are suitably regarded by those, and those only, who are well affected in their hearts towards him.How astonishing is the free love of God towards such sinful creatures as we are, that he (as his inspired servants testify,) has sent his beloved Son into the world to be the propitiation for our sins, that we might live in all blessedness and glory for ever with him! This is a high demonstration indeed, that God is Love; and we must be utter strangers to his amiable excellencies, if we do not love him: not that we are or can be beforehand with him in loving; for we love him, because he first loved us, and because we are brought under its influence and manifestation, to know and believe it. This melts our hearts and gains over our affections to him, and to his children for his sake. And what a sure token is this of our being born of God, and of his dwelling by his Spirit in us, and of our union and communion with him! But how vain and preposterous is it, for any to pretend that they have a true and hearty love to that God whom they never saw, if they have enmity in their souls against those in whom his image is visible, and whom they often see and converse with! This is giving the lie to their own profession, and to the declarations of God in his word, who has commanded that he who loves him, should love his brother also. And when perfect love to God and one another is genuine and abounding, how divinely sweet are its workings! It banishes all slavish tormenting fear of him and of his wrath, which is utterly inconsistent with the most affectionate complacential love to him, and to his children as such. But having this evidence of our interest in his love, with what satisfaction may we hope to appear before him with humble boldness in the day of judgment, as those who are accepted of him through his Son.
REFLECTIONS.1st, The apostle,
1. Warns them against seducing teachers. Beloved, believe not every spirit, nor credit rashly each pretender to inspiration; but try the spirits, by the infallible oracles of truth, whether they are of God, and speak agreeably to his revealed will: because many false prophets are gone out into the world, and we need be on our guard, proving all things, and holding fast that which is good.
2. He gives them a certain rule to direct their judgment in this matter. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God, and those who are influenced by it: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, or that confesseth Jesus Christ who is come in the flesh, receiving him in his divine person and mediatorial character and offices, as the true Messiah, from whom alone life and salvation are to be expected, he is of God, and speaks according to his mind and will. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, but denies his divine glory, his real incarnation, and mediatorial undertaking, is not of God, but is under the spirit of Satan and delusion: and this is that spirit of antichrist, which is enmity against Christ and his gospel, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world, the mystery of iniquity having already begun to work, and woe to those over whom it prevails!
2nd, To encourage them against the fears of being drawn aside by seducers, the apostle,
1. Assures them, that, while they keep God on their side, they are safe. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them hitherto, and, if faithful, shall be still superior to all their arts: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world; and he will preserve his faithful people from the power of evil.
2. He describes these seducers. They are of the world: whatever pretences they make, they are wholly engrossed and influenced by the riches, honours, and pleasures of this life: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them, greedily drinking in a doctrine so suited to their carnal hearts.
3. He shews the different character of God’s true ministers and people. We are of God, appointed by him, and owned of him, having his glory singly in view, and walking under the guidance and influences of his word and Spirit: he that knoweth God, heareth us, and receives our testimony as divine; he that is not of God, not enlightened by him, nor born of him, heareth not us, disregarding our doctrine, and counting it foolishness. Hereby know we the Spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Note; They who reject the warnings of God’s ministers speaking according to his holy word, evidently shew themselves to be under the Spirit of error.
3rdly, The apostle returns to recommend the exercise of fervent love, as the genuine evidence of a right spirit. Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, his genuine offspring, and his brightest image; and every one that loveth, is born of God, and knoweth God; he evidences hereby his experimental acquaintance with God, and shews himself a child of his family of love. He that loveth not, knoweth not God, whatever he may pretend; for God is Love, and the true knowledge of him has ever a transforming efficacy to change us into his image. In this was manifested the love of God towards us, and shone forth with the most distinguished lustre, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, to become incarnate, to live and die for us, that we might live through him, redeemed from the sentence of death, quickened to newness of life, and through his infinite merit, entitled to immortal bliss and glory. Herein is love, surpassing strange! not that we loved God! no; just the reverse; we were sinners, ungodly, enemies; but even when we had every thing which could render us the objects of his loathing, even then, that he might magnify the wonders of his grace, he loved us, and gave the most astonishing demonstration of it, when he sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins, with his own blood making atonement for us, and now purging the faithful from all their iniquities through this amazing sacrifice, and by his own divine Spirit. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another: who can possibly offend us so highly as we have offended God? yet he forgives and pardons abundantly; yea, he spared not his own Son, but freely gave him up for us all: what then can we withhold from our brethren, when we have such an example before us? Surely, if we belong to him, we shall be like him, and prove it by this spirit of love. No man indeed hath seen God at any time, for he is a Spirit invisible and incorporeal. But if we love one another, God dwelleth in us, by his Spirit manifesting his presence in our hearts; and his love is perfected in us, our love towards him is entire, unreserved, and unmixed with any idolatry. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit, whereby we become one with him, united to him in faith and love, and experiencing the most gracious manifestations of his presence with our souls. Thou God of life and love, give me more abundantly of this blessed Spirit!
4thly, We have,
1. The apostolic testimony. And we have seen and do testify, that the Father sent the Son, in his infinite grace and love, to be the Saviour of the world, of both Jews and Gentiles, even of all that will accept of his grace, without exception, and placing all mankind within the reach of eternal glory, if they will faithfully submit to the operations of his Spirit.
2. The true evangelical confession. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, owning him as the divine and true Messiah, and making open profession of his faith in the face of every danger, God dwelleth in him, and he in God, being happily joined to God, and living continually within the veil.
3. The experience of all true Christians. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us, the astonishing manifestation of which, in sending his Son, leaves us no room to doubt of his transcendent and infinite grace and love. God is Love, pure, perfect Love, and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him; there subsists a most holy union between them.
5thly, The apostle proceeds to set forth the blessed effects of Christian love. Herein is our love made perfect, entire, unreserved, and unmixed with any alloy, notwithstanding our many acknowledged infirmities, and deviations from the perfect law of innocence, (all of which have an absolute need of the Blood of the Atonement)our love, I say, is made perfect by our union of heart to God, and ardent love to the brethren; and, where this is the case, then,
1. We may have boldness in the day of judgment, and confidently appear before the throne of Jesus, most assured of a glorious and distinguished acceptance: because, as he is, so are we in this world; and he cannot but receive into the bosom of his love those who so fully bear his own bright image.
2. We are delivered from all slavish fear. There is no fear in love, nothing distressing, terrifying, and servile; but perfect love casteth out fear, this entire, unreserved, and pure love of God silences all fearful apprehensions: because fear hath torment; and where it prevails, must proportionably make the soul unhappy: he that feareth with a fear that is accompanied with any anxiety, doubt, or wavering, is not made perfect in love, has not known him, nor loved him who is from the beginning, according to the full privileges of our high dispensation, as a father in God. We love him because he first loved us; his love, shed abroad in the heart, must kindle ours; and the view of those amazing manifestations of it which he has made, should every day add fuel to the sacred fire, and raise the flame of holy affections still higher and higher, till at last we are wholly assimilated to his image in the full consummation of holiness, happiness, and love, in everlasting glory.
3. Love to God necessarily includes love to the brethren. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar; his uncharitableness proves the hypocrisy of his pretensions: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen with his bodily eyes, and whose distresses, which should excite compassion, he has beheld; or the divine image in him, which should engage his regards; how can he love God, whom he hath not seen? how absurd is the supposition! And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God, love his brother also, and prove thereby the unfeigned sincerity of his professions.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
to 1Jn 5:1
1Jn 4:20 to 1Jn 5:1 . Proof of the necessary co-existence of love to God and love to the brethren. The absence of the latter is evidence of the absence of the former; where love to God is, brotherly love also cannot be wanting.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
1Jn 4:20 . This verse divides itself into two parts, the second part confirming the thought of the first.
] The same form of thought as in chap. 1Jn 1:6 ff.
] is used, as frequently, at the commencement of the direct oration.
] With corresponds the subsequent , comp. chap. 1Jn 3:14-15 . Spener: “not only with actual hatred towards him, but even not loving him in perfect truth.” To hate is the positive expression for “not to love” (so also Braune).
] see chap. 1Jn 1:6 . The truth that he who hates (or, does not love) his brother, also does not love God, the apostle confirms by the contrast between and , in which the visibility of the brother is contrasted with the invisibility of God. The perfect indicates the permanent state; comp. 1Jn 4:12 , Gospel of Joh 1:18 . Lcke: = “to have before one’s eyes;” a Lapide: “vidit et assidue videt.” Socinus incorrectly lays a certain emphasis on the preterite when he says: quandoquidem satis est ad amorem per cognitionem alicujus erga illum excitandum, quod quis ipsum aliquando viderit; nee necesse est, ut etiam nunc illum videat. The premiss for the conclusion of the apostle is, that the visible as the object directly presented to the sight is more easily loved than the invisible. Even the natural man turns with love to the visible, [285] whereas love to God, as the Unseen, requires an elevation of the heart of which only the saved are capable. Hence brotherly love is the easier, love to God is the more difficult. In him who rejects the former, the latter has certainly no place. The truth that love to God is the condition of Christian brotherly love, is not in contradiction with this; for that love, as the glorification of natural love, has its necessary basis in the natural inclination which we have to our visible brother, who is like us. It is therefore unnecessary to attach any importance to elements which the apostle here leaves quite untouched, as is the case with Calvin (with whom Sander, Ebrard, etc., agree) when he says: Apostolus hic pro confesso sumit, Deum se nobis in hominibus offerre, qui insculptam gerunt ejus imaginem; Joannes nil aliud voluit, quam fallacem esse jactantiam, si quis Deum se amare dicat, et ejus imaginem , quae ante oculos est, negligat; [286] and with de Wette in his interpretation: “the brother is the visible empiric object of love; whereas God, the ideal invisible object, can really be loved only in him. ” By the interrogative: (comp. chap. 1Jn 3:17 ), and by placing the object first, the expression gains in vivacity and point.
must not be taken: “how can he attain to that?” but: “how can we suppose that he loves?” (Baumgarten-Crusius). Bengel: sermo modalis: impossibile est, ut talis sit amans Dei, in praesenti.
[285] Oecumenius: . Hornejus: Sicut omnis cognitio nostra communiter a sensu incipit, ita amor quoque, unde facilius et prius amatur, quod facilius et promptius cognoscitur. Similarly Luther, Calovius, etc. Compare also the statement of Gregory ( Homil. XI. in Evang. ): Oculi sunt in amore duces; and Philo ( ad Decalog. ): .
[286] The objection of Ebrard, that “it is not easier to love a person who stands visibly before me, and has, for instance, injured me, than a person whom I have not seen at all,” is overthrown by the fact that the apostle does not here make the slightest reference to the conduct of persons standing in visible opposition to us, by whom the natural feeling of love towards our equals is destroyed and turned into hate. As the apostle is contrasting the elements of visibility and invisibility, it is so much the more arbitrary to introduce here a reference to the imago Dei, as this is not something visible, but something invisible, the object, not of sight, but of faith.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
Ver. 20. If a man say, I love God ] If he did so, he would hardly say so in a vaunting way howsoever. “Charity vaunteth not itself; is not puffed up,” 1Co 13:4 . Christ loves secret service,Son 2:14Son 2:14 . They that bear him greatest love make least show thereof before others. Master Bartlet Green, when he had been beaten and scourged with rods by Bishop Bonner, and he greatly rejoiced in the same (saith Master Fox), yet his shamefaced modesty was such that he would never express any mention thereof (lest he should seem to glory too much in himself), save that only he opened the same to one Mr Cotton of the Temple (a friend of his) a little before he suffered martyrdom. (Acts and Mon. 1684.) Vasa quae magis continent, minus sonant. (Seneca.) But empty casks sound loudest: and baser metals ring shrillest.
Whom he hath seen ] Sight usually maketh love. Juvenal greatly wondereth at one, Qui nunquam visae flagrabat amore puellae, who loved a party whom he had never seen.
How can he love God ] That is, saith Dr Rainolds, He that cannot endure to look on that little glimpse and ray of holiness which is in his brother, in one of the same infirmities and corruptions with himself, will much less be able to abide the light of the Sun of righteousness, and the most orient, spotless, and vast holiness that is in him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
20 .] The connexion is most close: and the error great of those who, as e. g. Erdmann, have made a new section begin here. This is universal, necessarily manifested in both of the two great departments of its exercise. Love, living and working in the heart as a principle, will fix first upon objects at hand and seen: those objects being natural objects for it to fix on. How then can a man love God, the highest object of love, who is removed from his sight, and at the same time refuse to love his brother, bearing the mark of a child of God, before his eyes from day to day? Put in a brief form, the argument, as connected with the last verse, is this: His love has begotten us anew in love: in this us are included our brethren; objects of our daily sight: if therefore we do not love them, we do not love Him. If any say (aor. “have said;” i. e. at any time: the saying once, rather than the habit, is the hypothesis) I love God, and hate (pres. of habit) his brother, he is a liar: for (here again the argument is enthymematic, and we must supply from our common sense , c.: “oculi sunt in amore duces,” &c.) he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen (perf.: and continues to feel the influence of that sight. We do not say “I have seen him” of the dead, but of the living only), cannot love God whom he hath not seen (St. John does not say that there is no love without sight; nor that we love all we see better than any thing we do not see: his argument rests on a deeper and truer position: viz. on that assumed in the word , which carries with it the consideration that he of whom it is said is begotten of God. Both and are used within the limits of the Christian life, of which that is true, which is unfolded ch. 1Jn 5:1 , that this as begotten of God is a necessary object of love to one that loves Him that begat him. Here , a lower step of the same argument is taken; but without this great truth, lying beneath the word , it would carry no conviction with it).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Jn 4:20 . Lest the vagueness of the objectless encourage false security, St. John reiterates the old test: Love for the invisible Father is manifested in love for the brother by our side, the image of the Father. Cf. Whittier:
“Not thine the bigot’s partial plea,
Nor thine the zealot’s ban;
Thou well canst spare a love of thee
Which ends in hate of man”.
, see note on 1Jn 1:6 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
a man = any one. App-123.
seen. App-133.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
20.] The connexion is most close: and the error great of those who, as e. g. Erdmann, have made a new section begin here. This is universal, necessarily manifested in both of the two great departments of its exercise. Love, living and working in the heart as a principle, will fix first upon objects at hand and seen: those objects being natural objects for it to fix on. How then can a man love God, the highest object of love, who is removed from his sight, and at the same time refuse to love his brother, bearing the mark of a child of God, before his eyes from day to day? Put in a brief form, the argument, as connected with the last verse, is this: His love has begotten us anew in love: in this us are included our brethren; objects of our daily sight: if therefore we do not love them, we do not love Him. If any say (aor. have said; i. e. at any time: the saying once, rather than the habit, is the hypothesis) I love God, and hate (pres. of habit) his brother, he is a liar: for (here again the argument is enthymematic, and we must supply from our common sense , c.: oculi sunt in amore duces, &c.) he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen (perf.: and continues to feel the influence of that sight. We do not say I have seen him of the dead, but of the living only), cannot love God whom he hath not seen (St. John does not say that there is no love without sight; nor that we love all we see better than any thing we do not see: his argument rests on a deeper and truer position: viz. on that assumed in the word , which carries with it the consideration that he of whom it is said is begotten of God. Both and are used within the limits of the Christian life, of which that is true, which is unfolded ch. 1Jn 5:1, that this as begotten of God is a necessary object of love to one that loves Him that begat him. Here, a lower step of the same argument is taken; but without this great truth, lying beneath the word , it would carry no conviction with it).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Jn 4:20. , whom he hath seen) In this life we are held enthralled by the external senses.- , how can he) A modal expression [See Append. on MODALIS SERMO): It is impossible that such a man should love God, in the present.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
a man: 1Jo 2:4, 1Jo 3:17
not: 1Jo 4:12
Reciprocal: Gen 13:8 – brethren Gen 37:4 – hated him Deu 10:12 – love 1Ki 3:3 – loved Mat 5:22 – his brother Mat 25:40 – Inasmuch Mat 25:42 – General Luk 3:11 – He that hath two Luk 11:42 – and pass Joh 1:18 – seen Joh 5:37 – Ye have Joh 5:42 – that Joh 13:35 – General Joh 14:15 – General Rom 12:10 – kindly 1Co 13:2 – and have Eph 5:2 – walk Heb 13:1 – General 1Pe 1:8 – having 1Pe 1:22 – unto 1Jo 1:6 – If 1Jo 2:22 – Who 1Jo 3:14 – that loveth 1Jo 4:7 – let 1Jo 5:1 – and every 2Jo 1:5 – that we
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
LOVE TO MEN
He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God Whom he hath not seen?
1Jn 4:20
We cannot love Him Whom we do not realise, and to realise the great invisible Influence in which we live and move and have our being, to realise the Person Who is watching over and directing us and directing all this complicated scheme of things, is harder and harder to do. And the world comes close around us and absorbs us. If that is our difficulty we may take the verse which we have read, and we may say that it teaches us that there is a training in the love of God.
I. Love of man is a training for the love of God; for, though it is hard to realise the Invisible, we have the visible. We have men; we have the love of men, which is natural to us, and easy for us in a sense. And I think that is what the Apostle means us to take as a training for the love of Godthe love of our brother whom we have seen; this familiar friend, who is with us at every turn of our life, with whom we are continually thrown in contact. And in our natural life in the world this familiar friend is the means which is to train and draw out this great faculty in usthe love of our friend and of our brother-man. We are to train and exercise ourselves in the love of God by this means. And that simple, natural human affection which we feel for our brotherthat is the very same faculty as that which is required for the love of God. We must not think of this love as something extraordinary, some fresh and unknown faculty which is to be given to us. No doubt all love is of God, is a gift: but all love is alike, the same affection. It is really in its essence the going out of ourselves and loving another and living for another. And whether that other be a fellow-man, or whether it be God Himself, still the impulse is the samethe putting aside of all selfish impulses, and living in and for God or men. That is love. So the love of man is, as I said, a training for the love of God, because it is the same faculty that is needed for both. And in our weakness, when we cannot rise to the love of God, let us remember that we have our Lords own warrant that whatsoever we do unto the least of these His brethren we do unto Him. And when we love our brethren, it is the first step to the love of God. We cannot pass it over; we cannot rise to the love of God unless we love our brethren whom we have seen.
II. But there is a caution required.This lesson on which I have been laying stress is too congenial to our aims, if anything. We are inclined to rest in the love of man, as if that were all our duty. We are apt to think that it is all comprised in loving man, and we forget that it is intended to lead us on to the love of God: that it is training. Our age is nothing if not philanthropic. Universal love is its ideal; its test of religions is, Does it teach the love of man? Its test of a mans own life is as to whether he has shown himself beneficent, benevolent, kindly, loving; and the danger in all that is lest we should forget that to which we are intended to risethe love of God. And I think that the cause of the danger is this, that our love of man is not perfect, our love of man is limited to one side of mans nature; for if we are to learn the love of God through the love of man, we must love that which is God-like in man. If we are to love the invisible eternal God, and to learn it by our love for our brethren, we must love the invisible and eternal in our brethrenthat which is godly, that in which he was created in the image of God.
III. What is the case in our own affections?
(a) Take that general affection of philanthropy.
(b) Take friendship which links men together.
(c) Take the case of our childrenis our love concerned only with their worldly welfare?
In all these respects we must have regard to God-like characteristics.
Bishop A. T. Lyttelton.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
1Jn 4:20. John has previously made this same charge, but he adds a logical reason for it here. It certainly is as easy to love a brother who is with us and whose fellowship we can enjoy, as it is to love God whom we cannot see now and must love on the basis of faith.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Jn 4:20. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar. All the words here point, as we have seen before, to an utterly spurious Christianity, which knows nothing of the revelation of the unseen God in His Son: the first phrase and the last are used only of such false religion, the hating of chap. 1Jn 2:9 became not loving in chap. 1Jn 3:10; they are united as synonymous in this passage alone.
For he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen. There are two condensed arguments here. First, recalling 1Jn 4:10, that the invisible God perfects His love in us by the Spirit through our brotherly love, it is simply a strong repetition: the invisible Fountain of love abides in us, and has its perfect operation in our love to its visible objects, embracing all our fellow-regenerate (chap. 1Jn 5:1). But we have always noted that St. Johns repetitions include something more, and here something is added which the former passage did not contain; that is, the inverted argument from the easier demonstration of love to objects before our eyes. Some copies read, How can he? which would be only a more vivid form of the argument: not how or in what way can he love the unseen save as He is represented by visible objects? for it is the glory of religion that God can be loved in Himself; but it may be merely inferred that he who, supposed to be regenerate, loves not the first and most obvious claimants of his charity, cannot be a lover of the supreme source of all love. He proves himself to be unre-generate. The more general truth that practical charity is in no case absolutely dependent upon seeing its object is not involved here, nor must the apostles simple apostrophe be embarrassed by the consideration of it.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Our apostle in these words prevents an objection. Some might be ready to say, “Who is it that doth not love God? is there any that live who doth not love him?” The apostle replies, That whosoever says he loves God, and yet hateth his brother, is plainly a liar; for it is impossible truly to love God, and not to do what God commands: and if we do not exercise love to our brethren, whom we daily see and converse with, how can it be imagined that we love God, whom we never saw?
Learn hence, first, That as God is infinitely above us, so he needeth not our love, but it is wonderful condescension in God to give us leave to love him, and to suffer himself to be embraced by those arms which have embraced sin and lust before him.
Learn, 2. That though God needs not us, or our love, yet we need him, and stand in need of one another, and for that reason must and ought to love each other.
Learn, 3. That if we love not God’s visible image, it is certain we never loved the invisible God; if when we have our Christian brethren in our daily view, and the objects of our senses are their miseries and wants, and yet we shut up the bowels of compassion from them, can we, or dare we, pretend at the same time to love God whom we have not seen, and who is only present to our minds by raised expectations; as the sight of our brother is a strong inducement to love him, so the not loving him at sight, is a strong argument that we love not God himself; For he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Loving the Brethren
Some may have been thus led to ask, “Who is my brother?” Those who continue to believe Jesus, the man, is also the Christ, deity, are born of God, or His sons. God is the one who begat all Christians ( Jas 1:17-18 ) and those begotten of Him would all be brethren in the Lord. Thus, when one loves God, who begat him, he should also love his brethren, who were likewise begotten of the Father ( 1Jn 5:1 ).
The Christian’s love of God and keeping His commandments is the perfect display of his love for the brethren. For example, Gal 6:1-2 commands all the spiritual ones to restore brethren overtaken in faults and help bear one another’s burdens. Heb 10:24-25 commands Christians to provoke one another unto love and good works by being present at all the assemblies of the saints to encourage them to keep on going despite daily pressures. By giving careful attention to himself and the doctrine, Paul told Timothy he would be able to save himself and his listeners ( 1Ti 4:16 ). So, Christians in the first century were given a number of instructions intended to direct them in properly loving God through displaying love for their brothers ( 1Jn 5:2 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
1Jn 4:20-21. If any man say, I love God And even say it with the utmost confidence; and hateth his brother Which he will do more or less, if he do not love him; he is a liar He affirms what is false, although, perhaps, he may not know it to be so; for he that loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen Who is daily presented to his senses to raise his esteem, or move his kindness or compassion toward him; how can he love God, whom he hath not seen? Whose excellences are not the objects of his senses, but are discovered imperfectly from his works of creation, providence, and grace, or from the declarations and promises of his word; his invisible nature being an obstacle to our loving him, which our weak and carnal minds cannot be expected easily to conquer. Indeed, we never could love him unless, as the apostle observes, his love were shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given to us. And this commandment have we from him Both from God and Christ; that he who loveth God, love his brother in Christ also That is, every one, whatever his opinions or modes of worship may be, purely because he is the child and bears the image of God. Bigotry is properly the want of this pure and universal love. A bigot only loves those who embrace his opinions, and he loves them for that, not for Christs sake.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 20
Hateth, does not love.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
4:20 {15} If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: {16} for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
(15) As he showed that the love of our neighbour cannot be separate from the love with which God loves us because this last gives rise to the other: so he denies that the other kind of love with which we love God, can be separate from the love of our neighbour: of which it follows, that they who say they worship God, and yet do not regard their neighbours lie shamelessly.
(16) The first reason taken from comparison: why we cannot hate our neighbour and love God, that is, because he that cannot love his brother whom he sees, how can he love God whom he cannot see?
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
A claim to love God is a poor substitute for genuine love of the brethren. 1Jn 4:19 left open the possibility of such a claim. John therefore clarified that a claim to love God is not a true demonstration of love. In John’s hyperbolic parlance, failing to love is to hate. Love for the unseen God will find expression in love for our brethren whom we can see. It is easier to love someone we can see than it is to love someone we cannot see.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
V. LEARNING HOW TO LIVE OBEDIENTLY 4:20-5:17
"John no doubt intended his letter to be read publicly to all the members of each congregation-even if the addressed readers of First John were the elders, or leaders, of the church or churches to which this letter went. This public reading would have a twofold effect. First, it would buttress the authority of the local leadership so that they could stand more effectively against the Revisionists. Since the author was an apostle, his endorsement both of their doctrine and personal qualifications (cf. 1Jn 2:12-14) was vital. But second, it would make the letter a teaching vehicle to all the Christians who heard it, and later to untold millions who would read, study, and hear it preached.
"Since the apostle John was unquestionably one of the greatest teachers the church has ever had, he must have known perfectly well that the level of experience he described might seem hard to some of the less mature in his audience. In the final segment of his epistle, which serves as a conclusion to all that has gone before, the writer addresses the practical concerns that his teaching on Christian experience might raise." [Note: Hodges, The Epistles . . ., p. 209.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
A. The Meaning of Brotherly Love 4:20-5:3a
John proceeded to clarify how to love our brethren. In the process, he dealt with potential excuses for not loving them.