4:17-21  17In this the love becomes mature with us, with the result that we have boldness in the day of judgment, because just as that one is, we also will be in this world system. 18 Fear does not exist in this love, but rather mature love will cast out this fear, because this fear incorporates retribution. Now the one who is afraid has not become mature in this love. 19 We should love, because he first loved us. 20If someone should say, “I love God,” and should have his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, is unable to love the God whom he has not seen. 21And this command we have from him, that the one who loves God should also love his brother.

4:17-21  17ἐν τούτῳ τετελείωται ἡ ἀγάπη μεθ’ ἡμῶν, ἵνα παρρησίαν ἔχωμεν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως, ὅτι καθὼς ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ. 18φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, ἀλλ’ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον, ὅτι ὁ φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει, ὁ δὲ φοβούμενος οὐ τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ. 19ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς. 20ἐάν τις εἴπῃ ὅτι ἀγαπῶ τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῇ, ψεύστης ἐστίν· ὁ γὰρ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ὃν ἑώρακεν, τὸν θεὸν ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακεν οὐ δύναται ἀγαπᾶν. 21καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔχομεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν θεὸν ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ.

Verse 17:  The repetition of the verbs τελειόω and ἀγαπάω link this section tightly with what precedes (vv. 11-12). In this section J discusses the relationship between ἀγαπάω and φοβέομαι in relationship to the impending day of judgment and its κόλασις. I suspect that ἐν τούτῳ is retrospective referring to the declarations in v. 16. J encourages these believers by affirming that their actions demonstrate that God’s love “has become mature” (τετελείωται – perfect middle indicative [see v. 12]) μεθ’ ἡμῶν) with us. We might expect J to repeat the usual phrase ἑν ἡμῖν. Perhaps he intends to reference the love expressed among the believers (ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους).

The ἵνα clause probably expresses a future result that the subject (“we”) can anticipate based upon their current experience of God’s love. For παρρησίαν (“boldness when facing intimidating circumstances”) see 2:28. It is the direct object of ἔχωμεν and is positioned in the focal point of the clause before the verb. The adverbial prepositional phrase defines the temporal frame when boldness is experienced. The genitive κρίσεως defines the ‘day’ and perhaps functions as an attributive genitive.

The third clause in the complex clause is a subordinate clause of clause (ὅτι) and explains why the believers can expect to experience boldness when judgment day occurs. It begins with a clause of comparison marked by καθώς. The demonstrative ἐκεῖνος may refer to Ἰησοῦς mentioned in 4:15, who is their savior (4:14). J does not define exactly “how” Ἰησοῦς is, but it may refer to status in the heavens where he enjoys the resurrected condition and experiences no ‘judgment’ because he is δίκαιος. The main statement in the ὅτι clause is καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν. J affirms that believers share this same reality even as they presently are “in this world system.” καί is ascensive and the subject ἡμεῖς receives prominence. The prepositional phrase expresses a locative idea.  

Verse 18:  J continues his discussion of the relationship between φόβος and ἀγάπη. He begins with an equative clause in which he characterizes φόβος as totally absent from relationships governed by ἀγάπη. Given the reference to the day of judgment in v. 17, φόβος is not referencing pious reverence, but rather visceral terror at imminent judgment. The negative adverb οὐκ modifies the verb ἔστιν and in this context this combination probably means “does not exist.” The adverbial prepositional phrase ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ functions as the predicate descriptor and ἐν may have a locative sense, namely “in the same space/context as love.”

The οὐκ…ἀλλ’ construction indicates that clause B asserts a strong contrast in relation to clause A. The subject of clause B, namely ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη, continues the use of terms related to the verb τελειόω. If the verb has the sense “mature” in this context, then the cognate adjective presumably would continue this meaning. The article gives specificity to this ἀγάπη.  G places the locative adverb ἔξω “outside” in the focal point of the clause just before the verb that it modifies. There is a compound verb ἐκβάλλω that J could have used to communicate the same idea. τὸν φόβον is the direct object. The present indicative active verb expresses imperfective action or process, with the sense “this mature love is casting this fear out.” Note again the chiastic arrangement φόβος…ἀγάπῃ…ἀγάπη…φόβον.

The second declarative clause is modified by a causal clause marked by ὅτι. It gives the rationale for this complete incompatibility between φόβος and ἀγάπη. J employs the present active indicative verb ἔχει to declare that φόβος is involved with/arises because of certain retribution (κόλασιν).

In my opinion δέ marks a new topic in the argument and J uses it to signal the conclusion of this discussion about φόβος and ἀγάπη. Perhaps “now” would be a good translation. J uses an articulated substantival present middle participle as the subject (ὁ φοβούμενος). The negative adverb οὐ modifies the perfect middle indicative verb τετελείωται. If a person continues to have strong, visceral fear of final judgment, then this shows that they have not become mature “in this love” – first expressed by God and now expressed by believers.  

Verse 19:  J issues an instruction, using a first person plural imperative (cohortative) – we must be loving – employing a present active subjunctive verb ἀγαπῶμεν. He continues with a pronoun as explicit subject (ἡμεῖς), applying this instruction to himself. The subordinate conjunction ὅτι probably marks a causal clause expressing the rationale for the command. The subject αὐτός probably is God (see v.16b). J argues that when believers express mature love, they only do so because they have the paradigm of God’s love to model and his resources to implement it. Presumably the ‘first’ expression of God’s love occurs in the sacrifice of his son (see vv. 7-10). Once again J uses chiasm (ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν…ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς).

Verse 20:  J has to deal with the issues of false confessions of love for God. He does this employing a third classcondition (ἐάν + subjunctive) whose subject is an indefinite pronoun (τις). He uses an aorist active subjunctive form of λέγω, whose aspect suggests a general perfective activity or process. The subordinate conjunction ὅτι marks direct discourse (note the shift to first person ἀγαπῶ) that functions as the object of εἴπῃ. The direct discourse is limited to ἀγαπῶ (present active indicative) τὸν θεόν. καί marks the second part of the compound protasis. The third person singular present active subjunctive verb μίσῃ describes the main action in the second clause. J places the object τὸν ἀδελφὸν before the verb in the focal point of the clause. αὐτοῦ is genitive of relationship. J has used this contrasting set of verbs ἀπαπάω/μισέω previously. The apodosis is an equative clause that identifies the implicit subject (the subject of the conditional clause) as a ψεύστης.

The second part of the verse gives an explanation for this stark contrast. It is marked by γάρ. J employs a negatived substantival present participle as the subject (ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν). It is modified by the direct object τὸν ἀδελφόν that in turn is qualified by the genitive of possession αὐτοῦ and the relative clause ὃν ἑώρακεν. The relative pronoun serves as object of ἑώρακεν 1°, a perfect active indicative verb form. The object of ἑώρακεν 2°, the main verb, is τὸν θεόν and it also is qualified by a relative clause (ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακεν). The inability to love the present and visible brother declares the person’s inability to love the invisible deity. J employs δύναμαι + complementary present active infinitive (ἀγαπᾶν) as the main verb phrase. Although the subject and object in this clause have extended modifiers, the structure is subject-object-verb. J introduced this theme of “seeing God” in v. 12, but he has used a different verb for seeing (see also v. 14).

Verse 21:  J ends this section by reiterating his primary instruction. Is καί 1° ascensive or conjunctive? J fronts the direct object ταύτην τὴν ἐντολήν and this noun characterizes the content of the indirect command marked by ἵνα. He uses a present active indicative verb form (ἔχομεν) to indicate that they continue to possess this command and it remains in effect. J includes himself in the subject. The adverbial prepositional phrase indicates the source of this command (ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ) and the antecedent is the previous θεός.

J uses ἵνα + present active subjunctive to express the indirect imperative. The subject is a substantival present active participle (ὁ ἀγαπῶν) modified by a direct object (τὸν θεόν). The present active subjunctive verb ἀγαπᾷ might be translated as “should/must be loving….” It expresses a continuing activity. καί 2° is ascensive and modifies the following nominal phrase. τὸν ἀδελφόν functions as the direct object and is modified by a genitive of relationship (αὐτοῦ) whose antecedent is the subject.