1 John 4

The Fifth Circle of Facts, Centering on Spirits, 4:1–6

1 John 4:1

1 The ultimate personal source through whom we know that God is in us, that we are, indeed, savingly connected with him (fellowship, 1:3–7) is God’s own Spirit, who is given to us in Word and sacrament. From him comes this conviction, which in itself and because of this its source is true. This leads John to say still more since he is prompted by loving concern for his readers: Beloved, be not believing every spirit but (ever) be testing out the spirits whether they are from God, because many pseudo-prophets have gone out into the world.

Believe not every man but test out all men because many false men have gone out into the world as false teachers. John refers to the antichrists mentioned in 2:18 although he makes his statement broad so as to include more than Cerinthus and his antichristian following. Of the latter he says (2:19) that they went out from us because they were not from us. Now he says that they went out into the world, i.e., among men generally, to do their wicked work. He calls them ψευδοπροφῆται, “pseudo-prophets,” because they pretend to have the Spirit of God, to be moved by him, to bring God’s true Word to men, while they do nothing of the kind.

John’s readers must not be credulous: “be not believing every spirit.” John begins with “believing” in 3:23 and now develops this term as he continues. Here he again construes this verb with the dative: “Be not placing your confidence and trust in what every man, who calls himself a prophet of God, who claims to be bringing you God’s Word, preaches and teaches and asks you to believe.”

John says: “Do not be believing every spirit but (ever) be testing out the spirits.” He does not use πνεῦμα and πνεύματα to designate the constituent part of a human being, which is the spirit that makes him a personal being and by the ψυχή animates his physical body, as Paul speaks of body, soul, and spirit; nor does John have in mind a supernatural spirit. “Spirit” is the person as such with his inner, spiritual character. There is no need to put more into this word.

Every person reveals what kind of a personality or spirit he is by his word and his action although he may try to hide what he really is. Proper testing will penetrate the deception, will show whether what is in his spirit or heart is “out of, i.e., derived from, God” or from some ungodly, antichristian source. This testing John wants all his readers to apply to all who come to them as prophets in order to teach them. It is vital to find out whether “the spirits,” these prophets and their inner spiritual character, what is in their hearts, “are really from God.” If the source (ἐκ), the spring, is divine and pure, one may drink; if the source is otherwise, it is poison.

Note well that all Christians are told to do this testing. It is not taken out of their hands and reserved for the clergy of the church. What John 7:48, 49 speaks about shall not occur. Papal authority in this matter is usurpation of the rights of Christians. Like unto it is the arrogant authority of some scientists, philosophers, educators, who claim to be sole possessors of the means for making genuine tests, who demand that young and old must without question accept their findings and insult those who propose to test for themselves not only these findings but “these spirits” themselves.

Christians will, of course, help each other in making the proper tests; some are more capable than others, have more experience than others; pastors are especially trained for this work. We accept all such aid; John is here offering it to his readers. Yet in the last analysis every Christian is personally responsible. Whom he believes or does not believe affects himself primarily. John wants himself to be tested by his readers.

Let us add that it is unscientific not to test and still more so to use false tests and not to test for the true source, i.e., whether teachers are ἐκτοῦΘεοῦ or not. This is the unscientific thing that all false teachers demand of us in regard to themselves. Woe to us when we refuse to bow to their demand! They then smite us with their anathema as does the papacy.

“Keep testing for the source, ever become more proficient in this work!” is John’s behest. The world is full of counterfeit coin. It seems that all the apostles loved this word δοκιμάζειν. Paul uses it and its derivatives quite often. In their day metals and coins were constantly weighed and tested before they were accepted.

1 John 4:2

2 In connection with this know the Spirit of God: every spirit who confesses Jesus Christ as having come into flesh is from God; and every spirit who does not confess this Jesus is not from God. And this is the one of the Antichrist, in regard to whom you heard that he is coming, and he is now in the world already.

The durative (iterative) imperatives used in v. 1 are followed by another. “In connection with this” refers to this testing of “every spirit,” etc., as explained in 3:24. John offers the touchstone for sound, sure testing, by the use of which the readers are to know (γινώσκω, with due effect upon themselves—follow this verb through the entire epistle!) “the Spirit of God,” i.e., his actual presence as well as his absence in the case of any “spirit,” of any man who comes to them, especially when he comes as a prophet, i.e., preacher or teacher. The matter to be found out, as already stated, is whether he and what is in him are “from God” as their source.

This is the test to apply: examine the man’s confession. The Scriptures nowhere ask us to look into a man’s heart. They know of no Herzensrichterei. God alone sees the heart; no man can see into another’s heart. It is precarious to assert: “The man’s heart is all right!” when the man’s confession is wrong. The Lord has given us the one safe test, the confession. Beyond this our responsibility ceases. “What is the man’s real confession?” is for us the only question. Since one confesses not only with his lips but also with his practice and his acts, we are to examine both; his heart we are to leave to the omniscient God.

Every spirit who (do not translate “which”) confesses “Jesus Christ as having come in flesh” is from God; we have the same ἐξαὑτοῦ that occurred in 2:29. There is no question that the inward, spiritual character of this true confessor is derived from God and the Holy Spirit as far as any judgment on our part is concerned. There is a difference in force between translating the participle as a participle and translating ἐληλυθότα as though it were the infinitive or equal to it. Our versions do the latter; one Greek text has the infinitive. But this would mean the confession of only a fact: “that Jesus Christ has come in flesh.” The participle is attributive. This man confesses “Jesus Christ” himself “as having come in flesh,” which means as his Lord and Savior.

The fact that this can be truly done only by the Holy Spirit 1 Cor. 12:3 states. In 5:1 John says more.

“As having come in flesh” describes the vital point confessed about “Jesus Christ,” namely his deity incarnate in flesh or human nature, once incarnate and remaining so (perfect participle). This person “Jesus (personal name: Savior) Christ” (the name which is derived from his office: Anointed to be our Prophet, High Priest, and King), who as God’s Son (1:3, 7; 2:22, 23) existed from eternity, “has come” in the fulness of time “in flesh” (John 1:14). Cerinthus and his following denied the Son (2:22, 23) and thereby also the Father. These heretics made Jesus the physical son of Joseph upon whom “the Eon Christ” descended at his baptism but left Jesus again at his passion so that a mere man died on the cross. John says “every spirit who confesses”—to confess is the opposite of to deny—and “every spirit” includes all true confessors just as in v. 3 it includes all deniers, no matter whether they are adherents of Cerinthus or not.

It would be a serious mistake to think that John speaks of confessing only the one fact or doctrine of the Incarnation, of the Virgin Birth, of the two natures, so that it is of minor importance when other facts, doctrines, call them what you will, are either not confessed or are denied in some way. “Jesus Christ as having come in flesh” is not merely the center of the gospel but the whole of it. In Christ there inheres all that John has said and will yet say in this epistle, likewise all that John’s Gospel, yea the whole New Testament and the Scripture contain. Like the seamless garment of Christ, Jesus Christ is one. He who clips off or alters any part never deals with what is immaterial although he may think so.

1 John 4:3

3 The negative is abbreviated in form: “and every spirit who does not confess this Jesus is not from God.” The meiosis and litotes “does not confess” is stronger than “denies” and matches “is not from God.” Τόν is the article of previous reference: “this Jesus” in the full sense of 2b.

“And this is the one of the Antichrist”; τό refers to πνεῦμα, “the spirit of the Antichrist,” the inwardness of him. Some say that this is τό proprium, the action of the Antichrist, i.e., the failure to confess this Jesus, which is true enough. John is, however, dealing with “the spirits” who are recognized as to what they are by confession as by nonconfession. He repeats 2:18 where he says that his readers “heard” about the coming of the Antichrist. While in 2:18 he adds “and now antichrists many have come to be,” he now makes no distinction, for the subject is now “the spirit of the Antichrist,” and of this he can say: “In regard to whom you heard that he is coming (this spirit), and he is now in the world already.” A sample of such a spirit is every person who does not confess as John states. The negative μή appears in relative clauses but not in a conditional or hypothetical sense, “if such there be,” but as not referring to some special person (B.-D. 428, 4; R. 962): “the spirit of the Antichrist” appears in many persons already now.

1 John 4:4

4 According to the very canon here laid down for testing the spirits, namely their confession or non-confession, John certifies regarding his readers: You on your part are from God, little children. He uses the affectionate address that befits his age and his fatherly position so well. Coming from him who teaches them how to test out the spirits and is himself expert at this, this finding of his means much for his readers.

These two kinds of spirits that are of opposite origin never remain peacefully side by side. Those who are not from God constantly attack those who are from God. It is John’s way of writing steadily to advance in stating the facts. He does not stop with telling his readers that they are from God but adds and you have conquered them, have been and continue to be victorious over them (perfect tense). Their efforts against you have left you firmer than ever. According to John’s own test and finding this victory-over them agrees with the origin of his readers as being “from God.” In the Greek τὸπνεῦμα and the plural are neuters, but this is only a grammatical feature; hence John uses the masculine αὑτούς, “them.” From verse 1 onward he is speaking of persons.

No wonder John’s readers are victorious: because greater is the One in you, namely God (reverting to 3:24), than the one in the world, the devil (3:10). John does not say “than the one in them” but again advances the thought by saying “in the world.”

1 John 4:5

5 So he at once adds: They are from the world, the devil’s domain. In the preceding John says only that these nonconfessing spirits are recognized by us (when we test them) as “not from God.” Now he states their origin: “it is from the world,” which matches with the fact that “the greater One,” God, is not in them but only “the one in the world.”

This explains still more: For this reason they speak (ever) from the world, for all their utterance they have no higher source, draw from no divine fountain, and no stream rises above its source. All these facts help us in our testing these spirits. So also does this, that the world hears them, genitive, listens to them as admired and authoritative spokesmen. It likes their speech; this their speech is the world’s own language. It never rises any higher than that which the world considers wisdom. The world hears and nods full approval whenever they speak. This is true to this day. It generally also pays its speakers well. The accusative αὑτούς would refer more to what they speak.

1 John 4:6

6 We on our part are from God. John includes himself (compare verse 4). This, John says, is our origin. The implication is that, when we speak, we draw from a correspondingly high source, from God. We have the light, the truth, the Word, the command-ment, etc., about which John has said so much. Some commentators refer this emphatic “we” to John alone or to him and the other apostles or to these and the other Christian teachers and tell us that John is contrasting only true and false prophets or teachers (v. 1). But the spirit of the Antichrist is to be found in the followers as well as in the leaders, and both certainly speak. John refers to himself and to his readers.

The one knowing God hears us; he who is not from God does not hear us. John once more writes the significant verb γινώσκω (see 2:3, 4 and follow the verb through the epistle). Cerinthus and his followers claimed “to know” God (Gnostics). The Christians alone know him, and know that they know him, and John adds the how and all the evidence. This is no mere intellectual knowing but a living apprehension with full effect on mind, heart, and life.

Note all the objects apprehended by this knowing as John has presented them. When we speak, John says, you and I—meaning on anything pertaining to our religion—“the one knowing God (characterizing present participle) hears us,” again the genitive, really hears and heeds us as being the proper and true speakers. Luke 10:16; John 10:4, 5; 10:14. The genitive = the persons heard, the accusative would refer to what is heard. Some ignore the difference, but it holds throughout although not even to hear the speakers excludes hearing also anything they may speak.

Instead of saying “he who does not know God does not hear us,” John substitutes “he who is not from God does not hear us.” Only we who is from God, born from him and child of his (2:29–3:1, etc.), one of his family, has ears for us who speak from God, for God’s Word, etc. The Pharisees did not even understand Jesus’ language (John 8:43) but continually turned topsy-turvy what he said and mocked him in unbelief. 1 Cor. 2:14. In order to know and thus to hear with blessed results one must “be from God,” born from him, must have “the eyes of your understanding enlightened,” Eph. 1:18. Only thus are the speakers appreciated.

In the one clause John has ὁ with the participle: “the one knowing God”; in the other ὅς with a finite verb: “he who is not from God.” John evidently wants to use expressions that are different in form. The one thus knowing God is in living relation with him as has been set forth at length and thus certainly hears when any of his fellow Christians speak on anything pertaining to God, his Son, etc. John properly uses the substantivized descriptive participle ὁγινώσκων, “the one knowing God.” The fact that he and we “are from God” the preceding clause states. To be from (origin, birth) and thus to know and to hear (effect, result) go together. In the opposite expression John names only the absence of the origin: “he who is not from God,” and lays his finger on the ultimate difference and thus on the visible effect and result: “he does not hear us,” the ones through whom God speaks. John’s statements are most exact.

Now the conclusion: From this that the one hears us and that the other does not hear us, from this plain and open evidence we know the spirit of the deceit, we are able to distinguish the two without difficulty, not merely intellectually, but with inner effect upon ourselves so as to open our hearts to the one spirit and to close them to the other. John uses ἐκτούτου, which is a little stronger than ἐντούτῳ (3:16, 24; 4:2; 5:2). The ἐκ phrase = “from this fact.”

One may regard the genitives as possessive genitives: the spirit that belongs to the truth—to the deceit; or as subjective genitives: the spirit that utters the truth—the deceit (the latter because speaking and hearing the speakers has just been mentioned). Because Jesus speaks of “the Spirit of the truth” in John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13 some conclude that John here refers to the Holy Spirit, and that thus “the spirit of the deceit” refers to the devil. But in verse 1 “be testing the spirits whether they are from God” cannot mean “be testing the Holy Spirit and the devil whether they are from God.” John is stating how to test and to know the spiritual origin, nature, and quality of men, how to know who are pseudo-prophets and who belong to their following, how to know true teachers, apostles, believers who speak. You do not try to look into their hearts; you simply listen to what they confess, to what they utter (λαλεῖν, verse 5), to what they let you hear, and note who gives ear to the one speaker and who to the other speaker. That is how to tell men apart, the spirits of men.

We thus conclude that πνεῦμα is here used as it was in verse 1, to designate the inner, spiritual nature of a man, which belongs to the truth, confesses and speaks it, reveals it to your ears, or belongs to the deceit, fails to confess the truth (verse 3), speaks what pleases the world. The fact that the one confesses and speaks “from the Spirit whom God gave to us” has been noted in 3:24; the fact that the other has not the Holy Spirit and thus speaks as a child of the devil (3:10) has also been brought out. Here, however, not the Holy Spirit and the devil are to be tested by us but the character and the nature of the spirit of men.

John has spoken of “the truth” since 1:6 and as synonyms has used the light, the Word, the commandment. This is what he now means. We should not omit the definite article as our versions do. By ἡπλάνη John means “the deceit” in accord with 1:8 where he has the verb and with 2:26 where he has the participle. “The error” is not exact. The very term “pseudo-prophets” denotes deceivers. The spirit of the deceit is ever active to deceive; it should not be restricted to its prophets, for it is active also in their followers.

The Sixth Circle of Facts, Centering on Love 4:7–5:3

1 John 4:7

7 Just as verses 1–6 develop 2:18, etc., so all that has hitherto been said about love (1:9–11; 3:1, God’s love; 3:13–18) is now fully developed. The basic fact is stated in 1:3, our fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. The elaboration spirals upward from this pivoted fact of fellowship. We are shown all that joins us to God, that we are in him, he in us (“remains in us,” 3:24). All that creates this fellowship, the light, the truth, the Word, the Son’s blood, remission of our sins, constant cleansing, plus all the evidence for our fellowship with God, all the assurance and effective knowledge of it—thread after thread—have been woven in; also the lying claims of fellowship with God (starting at 1:6), the deceivers and their deceits (antichrists 2:18; pseudo-prophets 4:1) have been presented.

Fellowship with God and with his Son involves fellowship with one another; this correlative fact is noted already in 1:7. It combines us in God, in the light, the truth, the confession, etc.; it joins us to each other in love; it separates us from the world and from all heretics who talk of fellowship with God and yet are not in the truth but in the darkness, who deny Christ’s deity and his blood, etc.

All this is now carried still farther; it is centered on love but is enriched by the weaving in anew of other pertinent facts that also have been treated. More glorious light is shed on the whole and on every detail. The whole pattern, woven as a unit, nears completion, grows richer and more beautiful as so much of it is unrolled.

John simply links into 3:10, 11, 23 as a weaver repeats a color in his design. We belong together in love; we do not belong together with those who have the spirit of the deceit (v. 1–6). Beloved, let us be loving one another because this love is from God. And everyone loving has been born from God and knows God; the one not loving did not know God because God is love. John says: “Let us go on loving one another” as we have been doing all along. Such an admonition is well prefaced by “beloved” which voices John’s own love for his readers. The main point, however, lies in the facts which support this admonition.

The first fact is that “this love is from God.” Note the article. When our versions translate “love is of God,” this is not exact. Strictly speaking, this means that love in general is from God as its one fountain and source. But is the love of the world for its own (John 15:19) from God; or the love of publican for publican (Matt. 5:46)? Are we not told not to love the world (2:15)? Only “the love,” the one that John urges, the one of one Christian toward another, is from God. It is the love of our fellowship with one another (1:7) which results from our fellowship with God and with his Son Jesus Christ. It is for “one another”; it is returned as soon as it is bestowed.

There is no need to worry about our loving also our neighbor who is not a Christian. God loves all men and yet loves his children in a special way by bestowing all manner of loving gifts on them. He loves them in a way in which he cannot love the wicked. This is also true with regard to us. John speaks of this narrower range of love because this love exhibits so clearly our fellowship with God, yea, our origin from him.

Here it is: “And everyone loving has been born from God.” “Has been born from God” links back into 2:29 (3:9). The exercise of this love for one another evidences our origin from God, our birth into God’s family as his children (3:1), and proves that we are no longer “the children of the devil” (3:10). “Everyone loving” has no connection with the world’s loving its own. Even our proper love for non-Christians is not considered, for our love for our fellow Christians exhibits our spiritual birth from God in the best way; it does this so clearly because the world does not love us.

John adds “and knows God” and weaves in this true heart knowledge which is always so effective; γινώσκει, as distinguished from οἶδα, has been explained repeatedly. We get the full force of this addition by noting 2:4. This lover of his fellow believers “knows God,” but not as these incipient Gnostics who claim: “I have known God!” i.e., have the real knowledge of him. Thousands still make this false claim today.

1 John 4:8

8 “The one not loving did not know God.” The one who lacks this love for true believers vitiates any claim on his part that he knows God. He never knew him, ἔγνω. The Greek often uses the simple aorist where we mark the relation of time and use the English perfect, “has not known God.” Yet in 3:4 John, too, has the perfect. All that γινώσκω implies of affect and effect on the one who knows is again to be noted. This knowledge is the mark of true fellowship with God and with his Son. What Jesus will say to all those that are described here he states in Matt. 7:23: “never did I know you,” ἔγνων; he uses even the same tense that is employed here.

The reason for the fact that the one not loving has not known God is as prominent as Mt. Everest: “because God is love.” It would be wrong for more reasons than one to use the article with “love.” Compare the other fact: “God is light” (1:5) and John’s repetition: “God is love” (v. 16). It deserves to be preached, sung, and made known in all the world. Because John has the copula ἐστίν in these statements, light and love have been called the essential attributes of God, definitions of the essence of God. This is true, but it does not make God’s other attributes something less. All of them are essential.

Take away any one of them, say his omnipotence, and God ceases to be. God minus omnipotence is not God, is, in fact, unthinkable. All the references to attributes are condescensions on the part of Scriptural revelation to our finite minds which are unable to grasp the infinitude of God in one mental grasp. God is shown to us from various angles which we call his attributes. Even then each of them is infinite and only faintly apprehended. When we contemplate only one side of God we are overwhelmed and bow in the dust and worship.

The fact that love, infinite love, is one of God’s attributes staggers us sinners most of all. No mind and no heart can fathom John 3:16 or what John reveals about God’s love. Love is an energetic and not a quiescent attribute. God’s love reveals itself in wondrous acts of love and reaches out to its object. John is not speaking of the love of the three persons of the Godhead for each other; in this connection it is enough to say that the one not loving has not known God because he has not known the manifestation of God’s love in sending his own Son, etc., (v. 9, 10).

It is unwarranted to state that when we speak of God’s love as an energetic attribute we reduce the force of what John says, change “God’s Love-essence” into mere manifestation of love. Every attribute, whether it is quiescent like his eternity or his aseity, or energetic like his omnipotence or his love, is nothing but his indivisible essence, his entire being revealed and perceived in one respect. The revelation of the supreme manifestation of God’s love (verse 9, “the love of God was manifested”) is for us the revelation that God is love. Without this manifestation no sinner could know God, could know that God is love.

Few will doubt that ὅτι is causal (not declarative in an object clause). This puts the facts in logical relation. The man not loving is not born from God and thus does not know God “because God is love,” and this love of God was manifested by him. By not loving he is far from the loving God. The point of proof lies in what is evident: in the man no activity, in God the greatest activity. It is stated that, unless we include “the Essential Being of God” in the statement “God is love,” the fallacy of an undistributed middle would result.

This statement alters the term regarding the man. This does not merely say that he does not know God but that, not loving, he does not know God. The proof for this is not a fact about the essence of God (which, by the way, is beyond mortal knowing) but the fact of his loving as John says, the fact of his having manifested his love. The truth that all of God’s acts, whether they are done by one or by another energetic attribute, are due to what in human language we term his being, essence, etc., is self-evident as we have already said.

“God is full of love,” “the most benevolent of all beings, full of love to all his creatures,” and similar statements drop far below what John has in mind when he says, “God is love.” The rationalistic views that the God of love cannot punish, cannot damn to hell forever, cannot ask a blood sacrifice for sin, substitute a human conception of love for what God’s love is, has done, and still does.

The words ἀγάπη and ἀγαπᾶν are inadequately, sometimes wrongly defined. The noun is practically unknown to secular Greek; look at it in Liddell and Scott and in C.-K. The long essay in G. K. is disappointing. It places too much feeling into the word and finally arrives at the idea of electing. One looks in vain for something adequate regarding our passage.

C.-K. offers us something better with his Willensrichtung (although this is inexact) to which elegere and negligere are added and finally also Erbarmen, and thus his definition for “love” in our passage is as follows: “God is all that he is, not for himself, but for us.” We have followed the development of the word elsewhere. Warfield’s essay in Christian Doctrines has much of value, but we cannot define “love” as being due to seeing something valuable in the object loved. The author is right when he includes “seeing.”

Ἀγάπη is defined as the love of intelligence, of comprehension and understanding. It always has that meaning in the New Testament, most completely so here where it speaks of God’s love. Combined with this is purpose, a purpose that corresponds to the comprehension of the object, whether this is the Son, the Father, the child of God, the filthy world, the enemy, the things in the world (2:15). Saving ἀγάπη thus accompanies χάρις, ἔλεος, compassion, benevolence. “Love” is the widest term because of what it includes, the other terms have narrower connotations.

From the world’s standpoint it is intelligent and correspondingly purposeful to love only its own; for publicans to love publicans. Our definition holds good. God loved the world = saw all its filthy, damnable state and put his purpose into action in order to cleanse and to save. We are to love our enemies, to see (comprehension) all that is wrong with them, to do all that we can to change them (corresponding purpose). So Christ even died for his enemies. We are not to love the world and the things of the world; only blinded intelligence, coupled with correspondingly blinded purpose, can do that.

We might cite other examples. Φιλεῖν indicate the love of affection; φίλος = friend, φίλημα = kiss, the act of affection, of friendship. Jesus did not like Caiaphas (φιλεῖν), he loved even this wicked fellow (ἀγαπᾶν). Peter was to be even a friend who was full of affection for Jesus (John 21:17; 15:14, 15, φίλοι, intimates). Only to friends does Jesus confide and trust everything.

1 John 4:9

9 In this was made manifest the love of God in connection with us that God has sent his Son, the Only-begotten, into the world that we may live through him.

God is love. Love as well as life reveals its presence by its acts. In 3:1 it is the Father’s gift that makes us his children. What this gift involves is stated already in 1:7 and 2:2 and is now stated anew. Observe that John uses φανερόω, “to make manifest,” in 1:2; 2:28; 3:2, 5, 8. The word is used here as it was in 1:2 but with reference to the love of God in connection with us. Ἐνἡμῖν does not mean “toward us” (A.

V.) although it was toward us; nor an uns (so the German commentators like B.-D. 220, 1); nor “among, with, or at us” (the English writers); nor “in us,” i.e., in our hearts; nor “in our case” (R.V. margin). We, indeed, behold this manifestation, and it fills us with supreme joy; but the phrase ἐνἡμῖν means that the manifestation was “in connection with us,” it involved us as the recipients of God’s love.

John 3:16 states that God’s love includes the whole world, but the world must have its eyes opened to behold this love’s manifestation, and the antichrists deny the manifestation that God made of his love (2:22). “Was made manifest in connection with us” thus names “us,” the believers, as the ones who truly see what God has done in his infinite love. The historical aorist “was made manifest,” like the aorist used in 1:2, does not speak of the time when our eyes and our hearts came to see what God had done (the time of our conversion); this aorist refers to the time when God sent his Son upon his saving mission. The agent of the passive is God; we do not take the passive in the middle sense “became manifest” or “manifested itself.”

Ὅτι is epexegetical of ἐντούτῳ, the phrase emphasizes the clause: in no less than this did God manifest his love, that, etc. The object “his Son” is placed emphatically forward; the verb and the subject are reversed, and thus the subject is emphasized: his Son he has sent, God has sent. The English word order is too rigid to duplicate this twofold emphasis found in the Greek. John repeats “God” eleven times in v. 7–12: God—God—God, who is love. The adjective “the Only-begotten” is added with a second article, thus it is also emphasized and is like an apposition in climax (R. 776), in fact, we may call ὁμονογενής a noun.

On “his Son” see 1:3, 7; 2:22. John alone calls him “the Only-begotten.” We discuss this term at length in The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, 75, etc., and together with it the efforts which would empty it of its meaning. Both “his Son” and “the Only-begotten” avow the deity of the Logos; the latter = the aeterna Filii Dei generatio. Both ὁλόγος and ὁμονογενής extend back into eternity. He was “the Logos,” “the Son,” “the Only-begotten” in eternity ἄσαρκος, before his incarnation, and is that still ἔνσαρκος, in his incarnation. “The Father” (1:3; 2:22, 23) is the correlative term for the first person. Let this suffice here.

Him God “has sent with a commission into the world.” He arrived at the time of the incarnation (John 1:14); he executed that commission. Πέμπειν is also used: God sent the Son. Jesus regularly calls the Father “my Sender,” ὁπέμψαςμε. Ἀποστέλλειν means a little more: “to send with a commission to carry out,” to send in this sense, to commission. The corresponding noun is “apostle,” one sent on a commission, and is commonly used with reference to the Twelve and to Paul; in Heb. 3:1 even Christ himself is so called. The perfect “has sent” adds the idea of the continuance of the commission to the past fact.

The purpose of this sending and commission is “that we may live through him”; διά indicates mediation, he is the personal Mediator, the execution of his commission makes him the channel for bestowing spiritual, eternal life upon us. The aorist is effective: actually live through him. With this verb John reverts to 1:1, “the Logos of the life,” and to 1:2, “the Life, the eternal one.” He is the fount of life for us. “We may live” also links into 2:29; 3:9, our having been born from God, thus being “the children of God,” (3:1). Life goes together with being born. The mission of the Son, the Only-begotten, includes his entire office, the part which he executed while he was here on earth plus the part that he is still executing as our Advocate (2:1), our eternal High Priest, and our King.

To send the Son, the Only-begotten, on this mission and for this purpose is, indeed, the supreme manifestation of God’s love.

1 John 4:10

10 In this is the love, not that we on our part did love God, but that he on his part did love us and sent his Son as expiation regarding our sins.

The point is that God is love, and that God is thus the one source of love. We had no love for him; it was he who had this supreme love for us so that he sent his own Son as an expiation for our sins. When our versions translate: “Herein is love,” and when commentators say that ἡἀγάπη means “love in the abstract,” they forget the fact that the world loves its own like publican loves publican, and that John does not include this love. He writes the article which makes the abstract noun definite: “the love,” the true love that alone deserves the name love. We may also regard this as the article of previous reference: “this love” of which he is speaking. This love has its origin wholly in God who, in fact, is love itself, not in any way in us who had nothing but our sins, the opposite of love for God. Aorists are in place here.

Ἱλασμόν is a predicate accusative: “as expiation in regard to our sins.” This is a repetition of 2:2 where we offer the exposition. This does not cover the entire mission of the Son; “expiation” goes with “the blood of the Son” (1:7) and thus shows the fathomless greatness of this act of God’s love in that he sacrificed his own Son for us sinners. This is, indeed, the climax of the manifestation of God’s love. We sinners were never little fountains or little streams of the love that is love; we were the opposite. The love that is love has its source in God; this supreme manifestation of love for us on his part reveals and proves that blessed fact.

1 John 4:11

11 After having shed all this light on the real love John now reverts to the admonition with which he began. Beloved, if thus God did love us, we, too, ought to be loving one another. As was the case in verse 7, John’s true love calls on his beloved ever to love and to show love to one another. The condition is one of reality. To put an uncertainty into it, to speak of difficulty in rendering it into English, to let this “if” mean “if it be true” (English subjunctive), is to misunderstand the Greek condition of reality. “If thus God did love us” means: God did thus love us, and I submit this fact to you who will not, like the Antichrist, for one moment deny that thus he loved us. The emphasis is on οὕτως, “thus,” sending his Son, the Only-begotten, that we may live through him, in order that his Son might shed his blood in expiation for our sins so that, cleansed from them, we live indeed.

“Thus” is aimed at Cerinthus, at his following, and at all who are of a similar mind. To them Jesus was the son of Joseph; the Spirit, who was bestowed on Jesus at his baptism, left him before his passion and his death. The deity of Jesus, the expiating efficacy of his blood were thereby denied. What these people said about the love of God and about fellowship with God (1:6) was thus as false as what the deniers of Jesus’ deity and his expiation by blood say today. We see why John emphasizes in this way: “in this was manifested the love of God—in this is the love, etc.—if thus God did love,” etc. We must emphasize in this manner to this day. This is the love of God, not what those who do not know God (2:4) make of his love and of their sins (1:8).

But should John not say, “Then we, too, ought to love God who thus loved us”? He does, but in due time, in v. 19–21. John reaches our love to God through the evidence of this love, and this evidence is the fact that we who are in the family of God as “the children of God” (3:1) love one another. John leads us step by step, from fact to fact, until he brings us to the top. Many leap over these intervening steps and shout, “We love God!” They neither understand where alone this love is born (v. 7–10), nor what alone is the evidence of this love, namely that we who have spiritual life through the Son’s expiation (v. 9, 10) love one another, love those born from God to this life, his children indeed (v. 29–3:1). It is thus that John begins with the admonition which he has voiced already in verse 7: “We, too, ought to be loving one another.”

1 John 4:12

12 God no one has ever beheld (has seen, verse 20; John 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16); he is invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 11:27). No human being has ever rested his eyes on God for any length of time (perfect tense). Yet: If we continue to love one another, we who are his children, born from him, God remains in us, God who is love, and his love has been brought to its goal in us. When we love our true brethren, although we have never beheld him, God who is love “remains in us” (3:24). John once again returns to this verb which he has used so often. The fellowship of love with one another is the evidence of our fellowship with God; he uses this term which he has employed in 1:3, 6, 7.

John adds: “and his love has been brought to its goal in us,” his love for us with all that is said about this love in the preceding. Its goal is reached in us when God and this his love enter our hearts in order to remain there. Save for the periphrastic perfect, this is the same statement that was made in 2:5; compare 4:17, 18 in a different connection.

We do not regard ἡἀγάπηαὑτοῦ as having an objective genitive: our love for God. This necessitates the meaning “has been completed” for the verb. It can never be said that our love for God has been completed in this life, nor would this agree with the present tense “if we continue to love one another.” Our versions have translated “his love” (the subjective genitive: his love for us), but their rendering “is perfected in us” is not correct. God’s love is ever perfect, is never subject to perfecting. His love aims at reaching a certain goal in us, the one we have indicated. When we keep loving one another, this goal has been reached by God’s love; our loving one another is the evidence that God’s goal has been attained in us. This is evidence that we can see; the stronger our love, the clearer and the stronger is the evidence.

The perfect “has been brought (by God) to its goal” means that this goal is being retained by God: he has entered into our hearts and remains there. Jesus speaks in the same manner in John 14:23. The periphrastic perfect emphasizes the continuance. One might take it in the sense of the middle: his love has attained its goal; we regard the passive as being preferable.

1 John 4:13

13 Our love for one another is evidence that God is remaining in us, that his love for us has not been in vain but has been brought to this goal, namely God’s union with us. Valuable as this evidence is, it must be taken together with what underlies it, namely God’s gift of the Holy Spirit to us. It is this Spirit who produces the love of one to another in our hearts. All holy impulses and actions are his work, and so also is brotherly love with all its deeds of love. Hence John repeats from 3:24: In connection with this we know that we remain in him, and he in us, that he has given to us from his Spirit. On John’s expression “in connection with this we know (truly realize)” see 3:24. “This”=“that he has given us,” etc. This second ὅτι is epexegetical as it was in 3:16 and not causal.

A strange sense is the result when ἐντούτῳ is referred to the preceding: “in connection with our perfected love” (verse 12 being understood in this manner). Then we could never realize that we remain in God and he in us, for who save a perfectionist dares to say that his love for God has been perfected? Even if a high degree of love gives you this knowledge, are you ready to claim such a degree of love? No; if this is the basis for our really knowing that we are united with God, we should have a slender basis, indeed, and should wrestle with constant doubt. “This” points forward to the second ὅτι, to God’s gift of his Spirit.

In verse 13 John says: “God remains in us.” We have seen how John advanced to this expression in 3:24 although he had before used only “we remain in God.” He now combines the two: “that we remain in him, and he in us”; the one is never without the other. To understand fully what John means follow γινώσκω, μένειν and “in him” through all that precedes. The force of these terms grows stronger as John proceeds. These and other terms of his are diamonds that have many facets, of which the spiritual eye never tires.

Some, like Robertson, say that ἑκ is partitive: “of his Spirit,” part of the Spirit. But 3:24 says that God gave us the Spirit. Is John now saying that he has given us only a part of the Spirit? Since when is the Holy Spirit divided into parts? That very thought is strange. After saying that God gave to us the Spirit, John advances and says that God has also given to us “from his Spirit.” Just as God does not come into our hearts without the greatest gift for us (his Spirit), so, when the Holy Spirit is given to us, he does not enter our hearts without gifts for us.

God gave “the Spirit” to us (3:24) and thereby has given “from his Spirit” to us, has given us a number of gifts, all of which come “from” the Spirit as the source. Among them is this “fruit of the Spirit,” which Paul names as the first in Gal. 5:22, “love,” the love for one another of which John is speaking, which is so great a mark of our connection with God that Paul sings its praise in strains that go even beyond those of John (1 Cor. 13). Ἐκ denotes source, it is not partitive.

Our love for one another is evidence for our union with God, whose children we are; but when we look at the source of this love and see that it is a gift of God from his own Spirit, whom also he gave to us (3:24), we know by “this” that we remain in God, and he in us. We keep the coherence of John’s facts as he builds ever higher and wider.

1 John 4:14

14 Καί adds a still greater assurance of knowledge. And we ourselves have beheld and are testifying, we, the apostles, I, John, being one of them. He repeats and links back into 1:2: “we have seen and are (ever) testifying” that the Father sent the Son as Savior of the world. He resumes v. 9, 10. All that we have said on 1:2 and on 4:9, 10 belongs also here. Yet John now substitutes for the predicate “as expiation regarding our sins,” “as Savior of the world”—note “regarding the whole world” in 2:2.

So great is God’s love. John is one who beheld this deed of God’s, beheld it when he beheld the Savior himself and his glory full of grace and truth (John 1:14). All of this testimony John’s readers have. This, too, God gave them from his Spirit who speaks through the apostles. The new term “Savior of the world” sheds still more light on what John has been saying.

1 John 4:15

15 Linking back into v. 13 but reversing the statements and thus linking back into all the expressions regarding remaining, John adds: Whoever confesses (actually, aorist) that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him, and he in God. In this way the connection with God is made, and in this way it continues. John links back into verses 2, 3. Confession is open evidence for the invisible inward union with God. Its substance is “Jesus Christ having come in flesh” (4:2), and this is proof that one is “from God,” “born from him” (2:29), or in other words, “that Jesus is the Son of God.” Here belongs all that we have said on “Son of God” (1:3, 7; 2:22, 23; 3:23; 4:9, 10), on the denials of his deity, on all that lies in the Sonship, namely the entire gospel with all its facts (“doctrines” when the facts are adequately and correctly worded). Regarding this confession and the Holy Spirit add 1 Cor. 12:3.

1 John 4:16

16 With what John says about the apostles and their testimony and about whoever confesses he connects the further statement: And we on our part have known and have believed this love which God has in connection with us. Because of the predicates the “we” used in verse 14 denotes the apostles; because of the predicates and because of ἐνἡμῖν at the end this new “we” denotes John and his readers. John speaks with Peter as recorded in John 6:69: “We have believed and have known” but reverses the verbs: “we have known and still know, and have believed and still believe” (perfect tenses). This, John implies, is back of our confession. As γινώσκω runs back through this epistle, so πιστεύω resumes 3:23. To know as John speaks of knowing is to believe, and vice versa. No inner realization can be without a corresponding confidence, no true confidence without such a realization.

The object of both verbs is “the love which God has in connection with us.” This is the same ἐνἡμῖν that was found in verse 9. It does not mean “to us” (A. V.), “in us” (R. V.), “in our case” (R. V. margin), the German an uns, etc.; but “in connection with us,” ἐν being used in its original meaning, the connection being the one which the context indicates, here the fact that God’s love succeeded in connecting itself with us. For that reason, too, John says “the love which God has in connection with us” while in the next breath he repeats from verse 8: “God is love.” John’s wording is always most exact.

God is love (see verse 8), and his love has succeeded in connecting itself with us through the Son’s expiation (v. 9, 10); it has been brought to the goal in us, the goal indicated by John (v. 11, 12). So John is able to connect God himself, who is love, with all that he has been saying about “remaining,” beginning with 2:24–28, then in 3:24, and last in 4:12, 15, and he is able to shed more light on this “remaining” by adding to “God is love”: and the one remaining in this love which God has in connection with us, which has succeeded in connecting itself with us, remains in God, and God remains in him. He is in connection with us, he who is love, we are in connection with him. John again uses both expressions as he did in v. 15. The unio mystica is here described as being due to this love. Only by remaining in this love do we remain in God because God is love; only in this way do we remain in him.

Yet all that John has said about the manifestation of God’s love and about the goal that it has attained in us (verse 9, etc.) must be retained. Without the Son’s expiation as the Savior of the world, without our confession of the Son, which means that we know and believe this love of God, this double remaining is impossible. The heretics of John’s time may talk as they please about God’s love while they deny the deity and the expiation by means of the blood of Jesus, they do not remain in God, God does not remain in them. This is still true with regard to all who are like them today.

We see how all this unfolds the κοινωνία (fellowship) with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ, with which John began in 1:3, with which he presented the first development in 1:5–10. True fellowship with God is his remaining in us and our remaining in him and not a mere claim of fellowship (1:6).

1 John 4:17

17 In verse 12 John says that God’s love has been brought to its goal in us by God, this goal being that we continue to love one another. One goal of God’s love is that love be kindled in our hearts, that we ever love all those that are in the family of God. This is, however, not the only or the whole goal which God’s love attains in us. John is now able to say: In this has this love been brought to its goal with us, that we have boldness in connection with the day of the judging because even as that One is, we on our part also are (although still) in this world.

Ἐντούτῳ = ἵνα, etc.; it is an epexegetical substantative clause and not a purpose clause. This, too, is the goal to which God’s love has been brought μεθʼ ἡμῶν, “in company with us,” in its companionship with us, namely that with God’s love as our companion we have boldness whenever we think of the day of judging (the day when God will judge) and have one great goal which God’s love wants to reach in us.

In verse 12 John writes about the goal that is reached “in us”; he might again have used “in us.” When he now uses μετά he makes God’s love our companion, writes as though that love walks arm in arm with us and assures us in regard to the final judgment. John follows Jesus in combining God’s love with the fact that we are not judged on the last day (John 3:16–18: “he that believeth on him is not judged”). On the day of judgment the believer merely comes to the light so that his deeds may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in connection with God (John 3:20). Κρίσις is a word that expresses an action: the day “of judging.”

Ἡἀγάπη has the article of previous reference and thus refers to the same love that was mentioned in verse 16, God’s love. Not only this, it is here said to be μεθʼ ἡμῶν, our companion. This is not our love (whether for God, for our brethren, or for both), and the verb does not mean that our love “has been perfected” (“is made perfect,” our versions), and the thought is not that only when our love gets to this stage, do we have boldness for the judgment day. Let us say that we should then be in a sad state, for we should never know whether our love is perfect enough. We must daily confess that our love falls short of the ideal (1:9). Our boldness for the judgment day rests on God’s love, on v. 9, 10.

John writes: “we have boldness,” have it now. The tense is perfectly plain when we translate ἐντῇἡμέρᾳτῆςκρίσεως “in connection with the day of judging.” We are looking forward to that day and to the fact that on that day we shall stand with God. As we do so now we have no fear but only παρρησία, “boldness.” This word at times has the sense of “confidence.” When ἐν is taken to mean “in” in the sense of “on,” “at,” a clash in dates seems to result. John should then write: we shall have boldness on the day. John’s present tense “we have” is correct when ἐν is properly understood.

Ὅτι is causal. God’s love promptly reaches this goal, that we confidently face the final judgment; we face it with all our sins remitted, with our Advocate and his expiation, with his blood (1:7–2:2), to which add 4:9, 10. So John introduces ἐκεῖνος, “that One,” namely Christ, whom he calls “expiation for our sins,” “Savior of the world,” in verses 10, 14. Yet John does not remain with these facts but advances by saying that we have boldness “because even as that One is, we on our part are (although still) in this world.” The stress is on the subjects, hence ἐσμέν is not enough, but the emphatic ἡμεῖς is added.

“In this world” cannot be the predicate, for that One is in heaven, that One is no longer in this world as we are. His being in this world as we are in this world would also not be a cause for our confidence in regard to the final judgment. This means that the predicate for that One and for us is not expressed but is to be sought in the context. It means that “in this world” applies only to us, that it is added to us because, although we are still in this world, we are already filled with bold confidence at the thought of God’s final judging.

In what respect are we already just as that One is so that this likeness between him and us fills us with such confidence? Many different answers are given. The context points to the love of God, the love that sent the Savior, love that saved us through him and thus attained in us the goal indicated. So we regard as John’s thought: “because even as that One is, God’s love in company with him, also we ourselves are, God’s love in company also with us (μεθʼ ἡμῶν) although we are still in this world.” We think that also for this reason John uses μετά and not ἐν when he speaks of God’s love. If God’s love walks arm in arm with us (μετά) even as his love is ever with Jesus, the coming judgment brings no fear to us.

John has already mentioned this boldness of ours in 2:28 and in 3:21, and it is thus that he now weaves it in anew in connection with God’s love for us.

1 John 4:18

18 There is no fear in connection with this love; on the contrary, this goal-attaining love throws out this fear because this fear has punishment; moreover, the one fearing has not been brought to the goal in connection with this love.

The Greek places the negative with the verb, the English places it with the subject. “Fear” is the opposite of “boldness”; where the one is, the other is not. John’s statement is not axiomatic and general as some regard it, as also our versions regard it. These overlook the fact that ἐντῇἀγάπῃ has the article of previous reference: “in connection with the love,” i.e., with this love of God for us of which John is speaking. There is no place for fear on our part in connection with this love of God for us. This love has removed all our sins (1:9; 2:1, 2; 4:10); what is there left to make us afraid?

“On the contrary (ἀλλά), this goal-attaining love throws out this fear.” Now also τὸνφόβον has the article of previous reference. This love of God for us throws out of our hearts this fear which John has just mentioned and substitutes bold confidence (παρρησία, verse 17) in its place. We have stated how God’s love does this. God does not let those who have been born from him, the children of God (2:29–3:1), quake with fear at the thought of the judgment day; his love pulls this fear up by the very roots and throws it out as though it were a poisonous weed. Whereas John first says “in connection with this love” he now inserts the adjective τελεία, which has the same meaning as the verb he is using here and in verses 12, 17: τετελείωται, “this goal-attaining love.” Having this fear thrown out of our hearts and filling us with confidence instead is the very goal that this goal-attaining love of God promptly reaches in our hearts when God rids us of our sins through Christ.

Such fear (again the article of previous reference) cannot remain where God’s love is brought to its goal in us; God cannot let it remain “because this fear has punishment,” κόλασις, torturing punishment, the A. V. thus translating “torment.” The verb “has” means “has to do with” (B.-P. 690). John states this in order to show why, in being brought to its goal, God’s love necessarily throws out all such fear. This love would not reach its proper goal without that. This is stated with δέ: “moreover, the one fearing,” living in such fear of punishment, “has not been brought to the goal (by God) in connection with this love” of God for us. If you still fear punishment from God you have prevented his love for you from remitting your sins and thus from planting sure confidence in your heart instead of this fear.

There is no danger of misunderstanding John’s thought. All God’s children are ever to fear God in true, childlike fear, are to shrink from offending him. This fear accompanies both God’s love for us and our love for him. John is speaking of the fear which all the wicked, “the children of the devil” (3:10), must sooner or later suffer because of their unforgiven sins.

Our versions and some commentators refer John’s words to our love for God: our love for him throws out fear of him, but it does so only when our love is perfect or has developed to a high degree. This is Catholic doctrine, according to which no one can be certain whether his love is perfect enough. In these verses John is speaking of what God’s love does. He touches upon our love in verses 11, 12a and now returns to that.

1 John 4:19

19 We on our part continue to love because he as first one loved us. We had no love at all (verse 10); God is πρῶτος, “the first one,” who did the loving. The aorist repeats the ἡγάπησεν used in verse 10 and refers to the great manifestation of God’s love there described. That astounding act of his love kindled love in our hearts so that we on our part continue to love. The objects of this our loving are not yet the point, so no objects are named. The emphatic ἡμεῖς is not in contrast with those who do not love. It places us and our loving beside God and his act of love, and ὅτι states that God’s love is the cause of ours; ἡμεῖς balances αὑτός and not ὁφοβούμενος.

1 John 4:20

20 John now mentions the objects of our love. If someone says, I am loving God! and hates his brother he is a liar, for the one not loving his brother, whom he has seen, God, whom he has not seen, he cannot be loving.

This elaborates the brief statement made in verse 12: “God no one has (ever) beheld,” which was connected with our loving one another. The aorist “if someone says” considers the case of a single declaration by some person who asserts, “I am loving God.” The essential thing in our loving is that we love God. This truth no one contradicts or questions so that John simply proceeds by taking this for granted. But this is true only in the Christian sense. Because God loved us God is the supreme object of our love.

There is a simple test by which we may verify both regarding ourselves and regarding others whether the claim: “I love God,” is true or not. He who makes this claim “and hates his brother is a liar.” This also means that he who makes this claim and loves his brother speaks the truth. Γάρ explains how this is to be understood. It is impossible for anyone to love God, whom he has not seen, when he does not love his brother, whom he has seen. To claim that this is possible, to say, “I am doing it,” is to lie. Such supposed love for God is not love, it is a fiction. The God whom this person claims to love is also a figment of his mind, namely a self-made God who lets him hate his brother, which our God, who is love itself, cannot do.

The point lies in the objects. It is sometimes thought to lie only in the relative clauses, namely in the verbs “has seen”—“has not seen,” and the explanation is then given that it is easier to love one on whom our eyes have rested and can rest again and again than one upon whom our eyes have never rested nor rest; that he is a liar who claims to be doing the more difficult when he is not doing even the easier. This seems a somewhat weak thought for such strong language as “he is a liar” (cf. 1:6, 10; 2:22). Add to these verbs and these relatives their nouns “his brother whom he sees”—“God whom he does not see.” These objects of love are even juxtaposed in order to give them a greater effect. John states only a part of the thought when he declares that it is impossible to love the latter while not loving the former; he states the rest in verse 21 and in 5:1–3, especially in 5:1, 2, for there we learn why this is impossible.

The explanation that loving the brother is loving God who is in the brother so that not loving the brother makes it impossible to love God, the brother being visible, God invisible, is on the right track but does not go far enough. John goes much farther.

1 John 4:21

21 In the first place he points to God’s own commandment which was given us through Jesus (John 13:34; 15:12), which was noted already in 3:23, but which goes back to 1:7, to our having fellowship with one another. And this commandment we have from him, that the one loving God love also his brother. We do not go back to Matt. 22:37, 39, for there love to all men is referred to; John refers to the love which we are able to have only for him who is our brother. The word “commandment” recalls all that John says in 2:3–8 regarding our keeping God’s commandment (compare also Jesus’ statements in John 14:21, 23, 24; 15:10, 12, 14). This commandment already shows that one who hates his brother cannot love God, for love to God would most certainly keep God’s commandment.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

G. K Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament, herausgegeben von Gerhard Kittel.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.