1 John 3:11

The apostle, having intimated that one mark of the devil's children is hatred of the brethren, takes occasion thence,

I. To recommend fraternal Christian love, and that from the excellence, or antiquity, or primariness of the injunction relating thereto: And this is the message (the errand or charge) which you heard from the beginning (this came among the principal parts of practical Christianity), that we should love one another, Jo1 3:11. We should love the Lord Jesus, and value his love, and consequently love all the objects of it, and thereupon all our brethren in Christ.

II. To dissuade from what is contrary thereto, all ill-will towards the brethren, and that by the example of Cain. His envy and malignity should deter us from harbouring the like passion, and that upon these accounts: - 1. It showed that he was as the first-born of the serpent's seed; even he, the eldest son of the first man, was of the wicked one. He imitated and resembled the first wicked one, the devil. 2. His ill-will had no restraint; it proceeded so far as to contrive and accomplish murder, and that of a near relation, and that in the beginning of the world, when there were but few to replenish it. He slew his brother, Jo1 3:12. Sin, indulged, knows no bound. And, 3. It proceeded so far, and had in it so much of the devil, that he murdered his brother for religion's sake. He was vexed with the superiority of Abel's service, and envied him the favour and acceptance he had with God. And for these he martyred his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous, Jo1 3:12. Ill-will will teach us to hate and revenge what we should admire and imitate. And then,

III. To infer that it is no wonder that good men are so served now: Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you, Jo1 3:13. The serpentine nature still continues in the world. The great serpent himself reigns as the God of this world. Wonder not then that the serpentine world hates and hisses at you who belong to that seed of the woman that is to bruise the serpent's head.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

(4) BROTHERLY LOVE THE NECESSARY FLOWER OF THE DIVINE LOVE IN THE DIVINE BIRTH (1Jn_3:11-18).—In 1Jn_2:10 St. John showed the necessary connection between righteousness and love; there is no contradiction between the two: the one is necessary to the other. Justice will become sternness without love; love will be weakness without justice. The two thoughts are introduced and connected in both halves of the Epistles. (See 1Jn_2:3-11.) Here the duty of love is still more strongly insisted on, as the general subject is the love of God, as in the first half of the Epistle it was the light of God. We have (a) the command or message of Christ; then (b) the contrast of Cain; then (c) the similar conduct of the world (a thought which had occurred before, in 1Jn_2:1); then (d) the comfort of the connection between love and life, as contrasted with hatred and death; then (e) the identification of the hater with the murderer, and the impossibility of associating the idea of eternal life with the destroyer of temporal life; then (f) the example of God’s love in the death of the Son, urging us even to the same extremity of self-sacrifice; then, (g) as a minor premise, the thought thrust home, for a practical conclusion, that the smaller self-sacrifice of daily assistance to others is an, essential to the Christian life.

(4 a.) (11) For states the reason why brotherly love was added to righteousness at the end of the last paragraph: because it was the earliest and most prominent feature of Christianity presented to them.

Love one another.—The injunction is perfectly general, without the restrictions of society; wherever Christian love is due, there it must immediately be paid. (Comp. 1Pe_1:22.)

(4 b.) (12) Not as Cain, who was of that . . .—Rather, Not as Cain was of that . . .; an abrupt conversational form. (Comp. Joh_6:58.) Cain is introduced as the prototype of envy, jealousy, and the inward hatred which the evil feel at the good.

(4 c.) (13) The conduct of the world to Christians is of a piece with this invariable characteristic of those who are in darkness, exemplified in Cain. (Comp. Joh_15:18-19; Joh_17:14; 2Ti_3:12.)

Marvel not is equivalent to “Be not dismayed; be of good courage.”

(4 d.) (14) This is a characteristic instance of St. John’s logic. From the terseness and pregnancy of his style, he does not give all the steps of an argument, but frequently turns it upside down, in order more speedily to bring out a forcible spiritual truth. But for this he would have written, “We love the brethren, because we have passed from death unto life; but he that abideth in death loveth not.” But wishing to put these ideas in the form of a direct encouragement, in face of a hating world, he puts the reason as the conclusion, and the conclusion as the reason. This unexpected turn rivets the attention far more than a rigid deduction. Another ground of assurance has been stated in 1Jn_2:2 : keeping the behests of Christ, of which (as we have seen) love is the most prominent. “The brothers” means all the members of the human family: the love of Christ which, in 1Jn_2:16, we are bidden to imitate, was for the whole world of sinners. (Comp. Mat_5:44; 1Co_4:12.)

Passed from death unto life.—This dates from the beginning of the new birth, the dawn of eternal life in the converted heart. And just as the perfect Christian love embraces all other Christian virtues, so not only does actual hatred, but the absence of love, indicate absolute spiritual deadness.

(4 e.) (15) Regarding the absence of love as of one class with the presence of hatred, St. John here puts more prominently forward the active member of the class than the quiescent. The statement is intended as an illustration of the fact that where no love is there can neither be eternal life. The full argument would be “Where love is not, there is hatred; where hatred is, there is murder; where murder is, there can be no eternal life.” (Comp. Mat_5:21-26.)

(4 f.) (16) Hereby perceive we the love of God.—Rather, Hereby know we the true love; meaning, of course, that perfection of love which is God Himself. Christ, the Word made flesh, is regarded as identical with this love, so only the pronoun is used. The highest proof of love is the sacrifice of that which is most precious: nothing could be more precious than the life of the Word made flesh. (Comp. Joh_10:11; Joh_10:15; Joh_10:17-18; Joh_13:37-38; Joh_15:13; Gal_2:20; Eph_5:2; Eph_5:25.)

For us.—Rather, on our behalf. (See Rom_5:8.)

And we ought.—The reason of this consequence is that we are to be like Christ in everything; as our being is orbed in His, so whatever was His spirit will be ours: even His unparallelled act of self-sacrifice must be reproduced in us, at however great a distance. For the good of our fellows we must be even ready to die. (Comp. Joh_13:34; Joh_15:12-13; Rom_9:3; Rom_16:3-4.)

(4 g.) But implies a progress from the greater duty to the less; if the less is neglected, far more completely is the command disobeyed.

Good.—Rather, sustenance, or “necessaries of life.”

World is not here used in a bad sense, but merely of such elements of existence as are not spiritual.

The word “see” is strong, and implies calm and attentive contemplation.

The word translated “bowels of compassion” is used in the LXX. (Pro_12:10) for “tender mercies.” It is used in the New Testament as we use “heart,” and has nothing to do with bowels. It should be translated “compassion.”

How abideth.—In 1Jn_2:15 it was eternal life; here St. John thinks of our love to God as one of the two chief signs and products of eternal life: eternal life bringing into activity its relation to its source.

(18) The words “My little children,” are, as usual, a mark of a sudden access of warmth, tenderness, and earnestness. “Word,” of course, is antithetical to “deed,” “tongue” to “truth.” The construction of the first pair (which is different from that of the second) implies merely the instruments of the love; that of the second implies its whole condition. St. John hints that there is some danger of this conventionality amongst his friends, and earnestly exhorts them to genuineness. He forbids all the traitorous babble of heartless insincerity, and urges that just, active, straightforward, all-embracing affection which was complete in Christ alone. (Comp. Rom_12:9; Eph_4:15; Jas_2:15-17; 1Pe_1:22; 2Jn_1:1; 3Jn_1:1.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn 3:11-14. For, &c. — As if he had said, I have just declared that the want of brotherly love is a proof that a man is not of God, and a little consideration may convince you of the truth of the assertion: for this is the message that ye heard of us — The apostles and ministers of Christ; from the beginning — Of our ministry among you; that we should love one another — A doctrine frequently inculcated by our Lord Jesus in person: not as Cain, (see the margin,) who was of the wicked one — Who showed he was a child of the devil, by killing his brother. And wherefore slew he him? — For any fault? No: but just the reverse; for his goodness. Because his own works were evil — In a very high degree; and his brother’s righteous — And he could not bear that his brother’s sacrifice was accepted of God while his own was rejected; a circumstance that, instead of humbling him and bringing him to repentance, as it ought to have done, only excited his envy and hatred, which at length settled into the most rancorous malice, and produced that horrible effect. Marvel not, &c. — As if he had said, Since there is a great deal of the same malignant temper remaining in the carnal part of mankind, and there are many who are, in that sense, though not by natural descent, of the seed of Cain, marvel not if the world hate you — Remembering they lie in the wicked one, and are under his influence. We know, &c. — That is, we ourselves could not love our brethren, unless we were passed from spiritual death to spiritual life — That is, unless we were born of God. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death — Namely, in spiritual death, and is obnoxious to eternal death. In other words, he is not born of God: and he that is not born of God cannot love his brother. See on chap. 1Jn 4:7. Reader, observe this: all mankind, being born in sin, are in a state of spiritual death, and in the way to eternal death, till they are born again; and none are born again who do not truly love both God and his people.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. This purification is manifested in love to our brother and in actual benefaction, 1Jn_3:11-18.

11. The message… from the beginning—The original announcement by Christ was the law of love.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. Brotherly Love is the Sum-Total of the Divine Law

1Jn_3:10-18 (10b-18)

10b Whosoever20 doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither21 he that loveth not his 11brother. For22 this is the message23 that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one,24 and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own25 works were evil, and26 his brother’s righteous. 13Marvel not, my brethren,27 if the world hate28 you. We know that we 14have passed from29 death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not 15his brother30 abideth in death. Whosoever31 hateth his brother is a murderer:32 and 16ye know that no murderer13 hath eternal life abiding in him. Hereby perceive33 we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down34 our lives for the brethren. 17But whoso hath this world’s good,35 and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion36 from him,37 how dwelleth the38 18love of God in him? My39 little children, let us not love in word, neither in40 tongue; but in deed and in truth.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The transition. 1Jn_3:10 b.

1Jn_3:10 b. Every one that doeth not righteousness, is not of God.—Thus the Apostle compresses the one, positive, formally taken and described side of the preceding section and having thus fully, concisely and distinctly recapitulated, he now quickly adds the essential characteristic of that righteousness as the leading theme of what follows, viz.:

And he that loveth not his brother.—Calvin: “Hoc membrum vice expositonis additum est.” It is interesting to compare the progress of thought in this part with that in the first part: this section 1Jn_3:10-18 is related to 1Jn_2:29; 1Jn_3:1-10 like 1Jn_2:6-11 to 1Jn_1:5 and 1Jn_1:6 to 1Jn_2:5; 1Jn_2:6-7; 1Jn_2:11 : ἡ ἐντολὴ, ὁ λόγος, ἡ ἀγγελία brotherly love, and 1Jn_3:11 the ἀγγελία, 1Jn_2:7 : ἣν εἴχετε—1Jn_3:11 : ἣν ἠκούσατε ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς as in 1Jn_3:11; the ὀφείλειν 1Jn_2:6; 1Jn_3:16; and both times after the example of Christ; respectively disclosing our relation to death and life here (1Jn_3:14-15) and to light and darkness there (1Jn_2:9-11). But this section draws more on life (Cain and Abel 1Jn_3:12, poverty and benevolence 1Jn_3:17-18) and reaches more into life.

Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην refers back to 1Jn_2:29; 1Jn_3:7, but the omission of the Article renders the idea more general and indicates the leading thought with the self-evident reference to God and Christ. Thus ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι denotes here both to be born of God and to be the child of God. Καὶ before ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ is epexegetical, and explains δικαιοσύνη as ἀγάπη; hence it is neither=proinde (Episcopius) nor adds a new particular, something different (Rickli, Socinus, who defines ἀγάπη as Christian virtue excelling Jewish legality); nor is ἀγάπη a part or moment of δικαιοσύνη (Bengel, Spener, Neander, Gerlach), but its “substance and nature” (Huther,41 also Düsterdieck). Cf. Rom_13:8-10; Gal_5:14; Col_3:14; 1Ti_1:5; Joh_13:34 sq.; Joh_14:15; Joh_15:12; Joh_15:17. “Brotherly love is the sum-total of all right-doing” (Besser), love is the fulfilling of the law. Ἀλλήλους, in the Johannean passages like ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ here, denotes brotherly love, the love which Christians have for one another; so also in the corresponding sections 1Jn_2:9-11; 1Jn_4:20-21. Ἀδελφὸς is consequently not=πλησίον Luk_10:36 (Ebrard, who sees here a contradiction to Mat_5:44; 1Co_4:12, but without sufficient reason; Rickli and others).

The commandment of Christ, 1Jn_3:11.

1Jn_3:11. Because this is the message which ye have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.—He that loves the brother must be (out) of God, and brotherly love is the deed of righteousness, because the commandment is from Him. Ἀγγελία is here=ἐντολὴ 1Jn_2:7. Bengel’s remark is only half true: “liberalissima appellatio, nunquam legem appellat;” ἐντολὴ occurs often, but νόμος never. But the message implies the commandment as indicated by ἵνα. The reading ἐπαγγελία, promise, cannot be sustained without a forced interpretation: it is the goodness, power and grace of God that we should love one another. The commandment of brotherly love has been given from the beginning, since the Gospel has been preached, since you have been Christians; it is and remains indissolubly united with the Gospel and Christianity; ἠκούσατε ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς applies to the first and to all Christians. Ἵνα denotes the purpose, the work to be done and not only the substance or contents of the ἀγγελία (Huther), for the reference is not only to the substance of a commandment, but to a commandment specified by means of the message, which lies in the message given as a task, a work to be done.

The opposite in Cain. 1Jn_3:12-13.

1Jn_3:12. Not, as Cain was of the wicked one and slew his brother.—The sentence is imperfect like Joh_6:58, and is a breviloquentia, of frequent and diversified occurrence in the classics; cf. Winer, p. 646, who cites in a note a parallel sentence from Demosthenes (Mid. p. 415). The comparison is left incomplete, as in animated conversation when there is no room for misunderstanding; there is nothing to be supplied; the reader or hearer knows from the context what is meant. In the present case: Not, as Cain was of the wicked one and slew his brother, (shall it or may it be so with us). [See note 5 in Apparat. Crit.—M.]. Hence it is neither an independent exclamation (Sander); nor need we supply ὦμεν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ (Grotius, Lücke), nor ὃς (Beza, Socinus), nor sitis or the like.—Ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ refers back to 1Jn_3:8 as contrasted with ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ 1Jn_3:10 b. Hence the reference is to the wicked one. The sentence specifies the reason of that action, even as 1Jn_3:8. ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν and ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνελ are correlates. [The wild notion of the Rabbis concerning the diabolical nature of Cain may be interesting to the student (Zohar in Genes, Gen_4:1): “Rabbi Eeazar dixit: Cum projecisset serpens ille immunditiem suam in Evam, eaque illam suscepisset, remque cum Adam habuisset, peperit duos filios, unum ex latere illo immundo et unum ex latere Adami; fuitque Cain similis imagine superiorum h. e. angelorum et Abel imagine inferiorum h. e. hominum, ac propterea diversæ fue-runt viæ istius ab illius viis. Equidem Cain fuit filius spiritus immundi, qui est serpens malus; Abel vero fuit filius Adami; et propterea quod venit de parte angeli mortis, ideo interfecit fratrem suum.”--M.]. The verb σφάζειν denotes cultro jugulum aperire ut sanguis effluat, then to kill, in sacrifice, as the martyrs were slain by the ungodly. Rev_5:6; Rev_6:4; Rev_6:9; Rev_18:24. Hence the word does not warrant the inference that the knife was the instrument of the murder (Piscator), but rather denotes that the death of Abel was martyrdom inflicted by an ungodly hand, or finely intimates that Cain, in his hatred, offered a sacrifice to his God, the devil. The next clause, at all events gives prominence to the diabolical character of Cain’s deed, the eager question “And wherefore slew he him?” being promptly answered thus: “Because his works were wicked, but his brother’s righteous. Τὰ ἕργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἧν answers to ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν, and denotes Cain’s whole manner of life” (Spener), of which the murder of his brother was one form of expression, his whole manner of life as well as this specific exhibition of it being identical as to cause and origin—namely the devil. For if the wicked one had not influenced Cain’s whole manner of life and if that had not been wholly wicked, he would not and could not have committed this specific act of fratricide. The term πονηρὸς, as distinguished from κακός is very significant. πονηρὸς, from πονεῖν or πόνος, denotes toil or hardship (and is opposed to χρηστός, good, honest, useful, friendly, serviceable) and then malignity, malignus; κακός, bad, malus, is the opposite of ἀγαθός, good and valuable. Rev_16:2; Sir_31:4; Mat_7:11; Mat_12:35; Mat_5:11; Luk_12:35; 3Jn_1:10. The inwardly evil nature is κακόν, that which is inimical, hurtful and displeasing to others is πονηρόν. Ὁ πονηρὸς is the most suitable term to describe the nature of Satan, the enemy of God, His kingdom and His people, as well as the works of the devil’s children. The additional clause τὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ δίκαια the context requires us to refer to ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι, as pointing out that the piety and the walk of the children of God exactly answering to the law of God are loathsome to the anti-divine world. That devilishness continues still Joh_3:19; Joh_7:7; Joh_17:14. Hence the monition:

1Jn_3:13. Marvel not, brethren, if the world hateth you.—The same idea is already expressed in 1Jn_3:1 (διὰ τοῦτο) Cain is the type of the; κόσμος 1Jn_2:15-17). “Magis esset mirabile, si diligerent eos.” (Didymus). The address ἀδελφοὶ in this connection exerts a beneficial influence: John expresses his love of those whom the world hates and this expression contains a ground of their rejoicing and conveys to them the sweet consolation of the fellowship of love. The particle εἰ is and remains=if; if it had been the Apostle’s object to describe the hatred of the world as actually present, he might have used ὅτι; but he signifies by εἰ that the readers collectively or individuals at the time being, will not in the end have to endure hatred; but the Indicative μισεῖ denotes that the case will doubtless arise. So Mar_15:44 (Vulgate falsely: si jam odisset); Act_26:8; Winer, Grammar p. 307; Kühner, 2:480 sq. Hence Sander, who makes εἰ=ὅτι, S. Schmidt who makes it=etiamsi, and Ebrard who explains=if ever the case occurs, are in the wrong, for the reference is to a necessary condition. [“Εἰ denotes neither a doubt nor only a possibility, for it is not only possible but from the nature of the case necessary, that the world hates the children of God; only the form of the sentence is hypothetical, not the thought it expresses. Cf. Joh_15:18.” Huther.—M.].

Amplification of the Antitheses: Love and Life, Hatred and Death; 1Jn_3:14-15.

1Jn_3:14. We Know.—In ἡμεῖς John includes himself among those he had just called ἀδελφοὶ and expresses their confident assurance, the world and its hatred notwithstanding, which is and ought to be a source of strength and consolation. The object affirmed in the sequel shows that the reference is to the experience of believers, of the children of God, and not to the Apostles only, (Lyra) or that it is only the conclusion drawn on the ground of a good conscience, (Estius).

That we have passed over out of Death into Life.—The Prefect μεταβεβήκαμεν signifies an action of the past or the past of an action still continuing in the present, in the condition that has been effected: we are those who have passed over, Winer, Grammar, p. 288, 299. The Perfect must not be taken per enallagen, for the Future (Schlichting) or the Present (Didymus, Oecumenius), or the verb must not be construed =jus or spem habere ad vitam (Grotius, Carpzov). Cf. Joh_5:24 : ὁ πιστεύων—μετεβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωὴν. Of course ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωὴν cannot be taken physically but spiritually, but it must be taken as a real fact; it is=γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, 1Jn_2:29 : for ἡ ζωὴ is the real life, divine, eternal life (1Jn_1:1-2; 1Jn_2:17; 1Jn_2:25),=the φῶς and the ἀλήθεια (1Jn_1:5; 1Jn_2:21-22) of which the children of God are partakers; the θάνατος is the opposite of this life,=the σκοτία and the ψεῦδος, all of which belong to the ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου. The Apostle, therefore, does not speak of a sentiment (Paulus) or caligo, infelicitas moralis (Semler), but of relations and conditions, of regeneration, of the new life of the reconciled child of God. This implies that those who have, not yet passed over, are still or will be ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ before this transition into life in Christ; hence there is not the faintest colour for the assertion of Hilgenfeld, that the Apostle did share the gnostic view of the original metaphysical difference of men.

Because we love the brethren.—From this conduct we may know that relation, from these acts of brotherly love that state of adoption by God. Hence the former is the first and this the second and it is false to consider brotherly love as the cause of regeneration or even as a part of justification in order to complete it, and as conditio gratiose a Deo requisita, as do the R. Catholics (Estius, Lyra) and the Pelagians (Episcopius). Brotherly love is only the condition of the certainty of the knowledge that we are justified and the children of God, and not the condition of this new life itself. [ζωή and ἀγάπη are really one and the same thing with this difference that ζωή is the state and ἀγάπη the activity of the believer; from this blissful, eternal life groweth love, and love in its turn worketh happiness and eternal life; hence the Apostle adds—(Huther)—M].

He that loveth not, abideth in death.—As usual (1Jn_1:8, sqq., 1Jn_2:22, sqq.), the negative is added in a concise, pregnant form. [See note 11 in Appar. Critic.—M]. The statement is quite general “he that loveth not,” without specifying the object, viz. the brother. The force of the Present μένει should be retained. To be in death is connected, as something permanent, with not loving. They are one in the other, yet not so that the not loving is the cause of the abiding in death, but, as is manifest from the context, so that we may know the abiding in death from the not loving. [The two are identical. Besser, “Where hatred is there is death, where love is there is life; yes, love is life itself.”—M.].

1Jn_3:15. Every one that hateth his brother is a man-killer.—Πᾶς denotes the universal application of this thought. Not loving is described as equal to hating one’s brother. [Not to love=to hate.—M.]; “pure indifference is impossible to the living spirit of man” (Huther). Luther rightly observes: Nova sententia coram mundo, quod non diligere sit occidere.” Bengel: “Omne odium est conatus contra vitam; at vita vitam non insectatur; qui odit fratrem, aut ilium autse ipsum vult occidere.” Lyra (odisse pejus quam non diligere.”), Schlichting (“Qui non amat, nec bene vult nec male; qui vero odit, male vult ”); and others are wrong. Not loving is only the state of quiescence exhibited in acts of hatred. According to our Lord’s exposition of the fifth commandment (Mat_5:21-26) he is an ἀνθρωποκτόνος that hateth his brother. “Nam quem odimus, vellemus periisse” (Calvin); hatred is not only a beginning or cause of murder, but a murder in heart, be it a wish, a thought or a purpose or only the passion which afflicts the brother’s life without thinking of his death. “Latro es, antequam inquines manum” (Seneca). Here is evidently a reference to Cain, 1Jn_5:12; the case of Cain shows plainly how hatred of one’s brother and homicide go together. The word ἀνθρωποκτόνος, only here and Joh_8:44, in this place applies to Cain who slew Abel, his brother, in the Gospel to Satan who destroyed, murdered Adam. Notwithstanding this difference, the two passages are connected with each other, the one shedding light on the other. Cf. Lange on Joh_8:44; Vol. IV. p. 244 sq.—The devil, having seduced Eve, and Adam through her to sin, to the transgression of the divine law of which death was the penalty fixed by God.—Sin causing mortality is itself a kind of dying, the fall or falling into death [German: The fall of sin, i.e. the fall, a fall of death.—M], and sin, born of lust, when it is finished, bringeth forth death (Jam_1:15); the first sin was a falling from the life created (out) of God into death threatened as a punishment. Thus Satan became the murderer of Adam and Eve in the strictest sense of the word (Wis_1:11-13; Wis_2:23-24). With the entrance of sin, moreover, there died in Eve the love of her husband whom she had seduced, and in Adam the love of his wife whom he accused to God and on whom he laid the guilt. There hatred and death are again together. In Cain also there was the hatred of his brother united with the murder of his brother, whereby he showed that he was ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου. Cf. Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. I 3:414 sqq.

And ye know that no man-killer hath eternal life abiding in him.—This concludes the thought: μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν 1Jn_3:10 b led the Apostle to speak of μὴ ἀγαπῶν 1Jn_3:14, then of μισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν 1Jn_3:15 and in remembrance of Cain of ἀνθρωποκτόνος; he first said οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ 1Jn_3:10 b μένει ἐν θάνατῳ, but here οὐχ ἕχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐν αὐτῷ μένουσαν. Before he said, he is in death, but now, in him is not eternal life, consequently death is in him. The Apostle denies that he “possesses permanently and fully” (Lücke) eternal life and thus denotes the “permanent state of death” (Düsterdieck) of him that hates and kills his brother. The Present ἄξει has respect to this present life; it is not habebit (a Lapide). Hence ζωὴ αἰώνιος not the future glory (a Lapide, Bede and others). Μένουσαν certainly intimates the existence of eternal life, of baptism, etc., out of or in the word of God by means of Christian instruction and the Christian family-discipline; for the Apostle speaks of and to Christians. But even such gifts of God are consumed by hatred abiding; hence he loses entirely the possession of eternal life, so that nothing thereof abideth in him; μένουσαν is therefore not an intensified to be (Huther), nor must the want of the Article be pressed as if the reference were only to powers of the future world (Ebrard). This the Apostle lays down as an undeniable fact of Christian experience and consciousness (οἴδατε); hence they know it not from the fifth commandment (S. Schmidt) or from the Old Testament with its death-penalty in the case of murderers, spiritually interpreted (Grotius, Lücke).

Description of brotherly love, 1Jn_3:16-18.

1Jn_3:16. Hereby have we known love that He laid down His life for us.—S. Schmidt: “Ne quis vel se ipsum decipiat, vel ab aliis decipiatur, exponendum etiam erit, quæe sit vera et Christiana caritas.” First after the example of Christ. On ἐν τούτῳ cf. on 1Jn_2:3; on ἐκεῖνος, 1Jn_3:3; 1Jn_3:7; 1Jn_2:6; ἐγνώκαμεν = cognitum habemus. Τὴν ἀγάπην should be taken in a general sense without any further qualification: love.—Bengel: “Amoris natura.” In Christ may be known love, the being and nature of love. Hence we must not supply τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Carpzov and others), or τοῦ θεοῦ (Grotius, Calov, Spener, al.); the Vulgate (amorem Dei) constrains the Romanists to do so. Ebrard’s explanation is rather forced: “we have known love as consisting in this,” as if we had ἐν τούτῳ οὖσαν, and this were described in the following ὅτι as the predicate and as if ἐγνώκαμεν had only an introductory and secondary sense. Both the form (the position of the words) and the thought (to give His life = love) render that exposition untenable. The point is that whereby love is known: τὴν ψυχὴν τιθέναι (Joh_15:13; cf. Joh_10:11; cf. Joh_10:15; cf. Joh_10:17-18; Joh_13:37-38)=vitam ponere (Cicero ad Fam. 9:24); this is the highest proof of love; for love imparts her very best, her most precious goods, παραδοῦναι the ψυχή or ἑαυτόν (Gal_2:20; Eph_5:2); this makes Christ the object of the Father’s love (Joh_10:17). The context required here ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, for our protection; literally over us, who had fallen, were wounded, in danger, of perishing from our wounds or in the hands of enemies, fighting against the enemies, protecting us, becoming our substitute and assuming the fight for us: hence it is not exactly identical with ἀντὶ, and yet the two prepositions touch each other in thought “in indissoluble correlation” (Düsterdieck) cf. 1Jn_2:2.

And we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.—From the act of Christ’s love for us springs a duty towards our brethren, incumbent on us (ὀφείλομεν); the thought is similar to 1Jn_2:3; 1Jn_2:6. The example of Christ must not be without corresponding works on our part (1Jn_3:3; 1Jn_3:7). The essential union of believers to Christ must exhibit itself in the real moulding of their life after the pattern of Christ, in the use of the imparted gifts and the solution of the task assigned to us by the bestowal of that gift. Cf. Joh_13:34; Joh_15:12-13; Joh_21:18-19; Rom_16:3-4.

1Jn_3:17. But whoso has the world’s goods (sustenance of life).

By the adversative δὲ “John denotes the progress from the greater, which is justly insisted upon, to the less, the non-performance of which, therefore, appears as a correspondingly greater violation of the rule just laid down.” (Düsterdieck), Ὅς δ̓ ἂν makes the sentence quite general. The proverb quoted by Grotius: “βίος βίου δεόμενος οὐκ ἔστι βίος” gives the double sense of life, and the necessaries of life, or the means of sustaining life. Cf. Mar_12:44 (Luk_21:4); Luk_8:45; Luk_15:30. Col. 5:12. Beza: “res mundanæ,” “des biens de ce monde.” The Genitive τοῦ κόσμου simply points to the sphere to which the βίος belongs, and, according to 1Jn_2:17, denotes the profane and worthless character of these goods, as contrasted with the eternal love and the eternal life in Christ. Βίος τοῦ κόσμου is the antithesis of ζωὴ αἰώνοις; the Christian shares the latter with Christ, the former with the world. The reference is not to uncommon wealth, but rather to any kind of property (ἕχῃ, emphatically in anteposition), though it be in limited circumstances, a mere mite, or bread and potatoes. He that hath the means to give and

Seeth his brother have need.—θεωρεῖ pictorially describes the attitude and activity of the spectator; it is not a hasty look, but permanent looking on and into it (Mat_27:35; Mar_15:40; Mar_15:47; Mar_12:41; Luk_21:6; Luk_23:35; Joh_2:23; Joh_6:19; Joh_6:62; Joh_7:3; Joh_9:8; Joh_10:12; Joh_14:17; Joh_16:10; Joh_16:16); he has it before him like a picture which he contemplates with calmness and attention, τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχοντα. On the expression and the thought cf. Eph_4:28; Mar_2:25. Act_2:45; Act_4:35; Act_20:34; Act_28:10; Php_4:6. [He beholds the brother’s need with unmoved eye—M.].

And shutteth up his bowels [inwards] from Him.—After the analogy of the Hebrew רַחֲמִים, σπλάγχνα is =καρδία, Pro_12:10 and very often in the New Testament. Bengel: “Cum visceribus clauditur vel aperitur res familiaris. Aspectus miserorum corda spectatorum illico pulsat vel etiam aperit.” The heart ought to open itself in compassion and sympathy and move and open the hand to communicate; but it is under the aggravating circumstances of his having the means and beholding his brother’s need that he shutteth up his heart and turns away from him (ἀπ̓ αὐτοῦ). The same pregnancy of thought occurs at 1Jn_2:28. A similar use of κρύπτειν ἀπὸ may be seen at Luk_19:42; Joh_12:36 b. Hence we need neither supply ἀποστρεφόμενος (Carpzov), nor ἀπὸ̀=coram (Socinus). [This was the case of Dives. He saw Lazarus flung at his gate, Lazarus desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table, but he desired in vain; Dives saw him lie in misery; the dogs had pity and sympathized with the poor man, but Dives, who fared sumptuously every day, looked with unpitying eye on his brother’s distress; he saw in him a beggar, not a brother. See Augustine, Serm. 178, c. 3, and Massillon’s beautiful Lent Sermon on this subject.—M.]—The negative is emphatically expressed with an implied paracletical inference in the interrogative sentence:

How abideth the love of God in him?—A similar construction may be seen 1Jn_4:20; Joh_3:12; Joh_5:47. The substance of the question answers to 1Jn_3:15 : οὐκ ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐν αὐτῷ μένουσαν, where eternal life not abiding and even not being in him is inferred from the non-existence of brotherly love, while here the non-existence of the love of God is inferred from the same premises. Ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ is our love to God and indicates the motion of eternal life to its fountain, as in 1Jn_2:5. This love to God does not abide, where it does not become operative and preserve its vitality in the active exhibition of brotherly love. Hence it is neither God’s love to us (Calov), nor the love prescribed by God (Socinus, Grotius), nor the love which answers to that of God and Christ (S. Schmidt).

Final exhortation, 1Jn_3:18.

1Jn_3:18. Little children, let us not love [German: that we do not love] in word, nor with the tongue, but in deed and in truth.—The affecting address, τέκνια, denotes at once the geniality and zeal of John; his earnestness is brought out in the rapid, hortatory, all-embracing expression: μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν. The four substantives occur in pairs and as correlates. First: λόγῳ and τῇ γλώσσῃ to describe false love; then: ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ and (ἐν) ἀληθείᾳ. It is important to note that the first pair in the Dative indicates only the means by which love is or becomes operative, while the preposition ἐν which by the copula καὶ belongs also to ἀληθείᾳ denotes the element wherein it moves (Joh_4:24). The first pair simply denotes the outwardness of a love which only makes use of words and the tongue, while the contrast indicates that it is destitute of deed and truth, that it is of real activity and inward heartiness which are the characteristics of true love. The Apostle accordingly annexes to λόγος, the word, which possibly might announce or accompany the deed, the emphatic μηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ, the Article serving the purpose “of rendering the expression more conspicuous” (Lücke); the tongue, “as the member appointed to utter the word” (Huther); so that love is not simply the word which might flow from the heart and be the instrument of its application, but stops with the tongue, the means and sole instrument of the word which does not proceed from the heart. Therefore λόγῳ is contrasted with ἐν ἔργῳ and τῇ γλώσσῃ with ἐν ἀληθείᾳ—Ἔργον and λόγος frequently connected together, as in Luk_24:19; Act_7:22; sometimes λόγος and δύναμις (1Co_4:19-20), or λόγος and δύναμις καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον καὶ πληροφορία (1Th_1:5) are placed in opposition. Bengel: “Sermone otioso, lingua simulante.” Lyra says excellently: “Verbo, facto nihil; lingua fallaci; hic amor non solum, fictitius et nanus, sed etidm proditorius.” Τῇ γλώσσῃ denotes “the hollow nothingness,” “the purely outward babble which without inward truth produces only a hypocritical show” (Düsterdieck). Hence we need not supply μόνον to λόγῳ (Bede, Socinus, Sander and others); and Grotius is also wrong who chiastically [i e. crosswise—M.] opposes: λόγῳ and ἀληθεία, γλώσσῃ ἔργῳ, thus: “Verbo amat qui prædicat a se diligi proximum, non autem vere diligit; lingua diligit qui egenti dat bona verba.” Nor is Huther right, who takes τῇ γλώσσῃ and ἀληθείᾳ as epexegetical additions without introducing a difference to λόγῳ and ἕργῳ respectively, as if the two words of each member expressed only one idea [He says, to express the idea mathematically, that λόγῳ: γλώσσῃ=ἐν ἕργῳ: (ἐν) ἀληθείᾳ.—M. Compare ἀγαπᾷν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ 2Jn_1:1; 3Jn_1:1, and Jam_2:15-16.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. All the doings (ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην 1Jn_3:10 b, ἔργα δίκαια and ἔργα πονηρὰ 1Jn_3:12) and all the dispositions (ἀγαπῶν 1Jn_3:10 b and 1Jn_3:14, ὁ μισῶν 1Jn_3:15) of men points to a deeper ground, a fellowship with God or with Satan which is not discernible per se, neither to others nor to the respective persons themselves, but discernible by their disposition and doing.

2. The grossest transgression, e.g. the fratricide of Cain, is never alone, but exhibits itself as one of many, as one of a greater complex of manifold transgressions and plainly indicates, that matters must be bad in other respects, because otherwise this would not have happened (1Jn_3:12).

3. Like attracts like, unlike repels unlike: love and antipathy are reciprocal. The Christian need not be surprised that the world from which he has separated himself, has turned away and remains alienated from him, dislikes and hates him; it is just so with himself, with this difference, that the world hates to persecute and destroy, whereas the Christian strives to improve and to overcome.

4. Before it can be said: μεταβεβήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου (1Jn_3:14), we are ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ, ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. Consequently:

1. Before such a stepping forth has taken place and without it, no one is a child of God.

2. Such stepping forth is indispensable in the case of any and every one who desires to become a child of God.

3. It is possible to all who are called to become the children of God.

4. The children of God and the children of the world are perfectly alike in kind and nature before the difference connected with such transition sets in.

5. Consider that those who are not yet brethren, may and shall become brethren as well as thou.—Indeed, it is not said here how it comes to pass, but it is plainly stated and may be seen at Joh_5:24, a passage to which the Apostle unmistakably refers here, and from which may be inferred what is said here and well expressed by Scholiast II.: τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ δεξάμενοι, of course ἐν πίστει. But we must not by any means say with the Roman Catholics that although faith produces the beginning of our justification before God, yet the love to God and to our neighbour increases the same. This love is simply the sign and mark of recognition that our justification has taken place, that we are justified. Augustine accordingly says very correctly: “Redeat unus quisque ad cor suum; si ibi invenerit caritatem fraternam, securus sit—jam in dextera est.”

5. The principle affirmed at 1Jn_3:16 as a duty (ὁφείλομεν) with reference to the example of Christ that we also should lay down our lives, is a general one. We must not regard it with the Roman Catholics as a counsel (consilium), but view and observe it with Evangelical Christians as a precept (præceptum). It applies not only to priests or saints, but to all Christians: “Ministri verbi non debent fugere in periculo pestis” (Luther); neither physicians in case of a pestilence, nor parents and brothers and sisters, nor the government in seasons of insurrection, nor soldiers in war, in the fight, before a battle, nor a mother when she has to nurse her child, nor a man when duty calls. This saying, moreover, must not be treated casuistically after the manner of Socinus, who thinks a Christian ought to die for a non-Christian if thereby his soul may be saved, or if the preservation of a brother is more necessary to the common weal than his own; or after that of Ammon (Sittenlehre 3, 24 sq.) be set aside, who thinks it right that in common danger of shipwreck, fire or self-defence, men are justified to kill others if they cannot save their own life in any other way. Düsterdieck rightly observes: “Concrete directions respecting the practical application of the principle can only be given in the connection of a complete system of Ethics in which especially the duties of Christian self-preservation and the virtues of Christian prudence and simplicity as well as those of Christian self-denial and Christian courage must be exhibited not as limitations, but as sacred ordinances of the fully valid evangelical principle as described by St. John.” As St. Paul says 1Co_3:22 : πάντα ὑμῶν ἐστιν—εἴτε ζωὴ εἴτε θάνατος and at Php_1:21 calls: τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος, so the giving up of one’s own life in the calling and for the love of Christ is an άποθανεῖν τῷ κυρίῳ (Rom_14:8). Cf. Mat_10:39; Mat_16:25.—

6. The duty of beneficence is universal; it relates as much to the rich as to the poor; it is immaterial whether a man has much or little of the βίος τοῦ κόσμου. The having much or little determines the giving with or without self-denial, with or without deprivation, consequently the giving with ease or with difficulty. But nothing is said here on that head or on the situation of the necessitous, his greater or lesser need, which may be very extraordinary; nor is any thing said of the worthiness or unworthiness of the necessitous. But the remark of Luther has a very important bearing on the care of our parochial poor; he says: “Vult nos de nostro largiri; non de alieno aut communi, sicut stulti Anabaptistæ faciunt, qui tollunt proprietatem rerum, sine qua non possunt respublicæ consistere.” Private charity, even personal charity, is here distinctly referred to. In this connection it must be supposed as ranged under the fifth commandment.—Its opposite is Stoicism which includes also compassion among the passions to be left off: σοὶ μὴ ὀργὴν εἶναι, μὴ μῆνιν, μὴ φθόνον, μὴ ἔλεον.

7. We must not think lightly of the word and its instrument, the tongue. But as the mouth-work of hypocrisy is hateful to the Lord (Mat_6:5), so the mouth-work of brotherly love is equally hateful to John, since neither the word nor the tongue is in the service of the love of the heart and speaks or is spoken separate from the heart and contrary to the life in the heart. The friendly utterance of the mouth must and ought to be in the case of Christians the friendly utterance of the heart. Otherwise it is only a μόρφωσις τῆς εὐσεβείας without the δύναμις (2Ti_3:5). For the contrary see, Mat_12:34-35; Rom_10:8-10.

8. These concrete particulars of the laying down of our lives, of communicating the sustenance of life and of the love to our brother in deed and in truth plainly and pathetically indicate that regeneration and adoption by God, (1Jn_2:29) if it is a reality, penetrates, as the central life-power the whole periphery of life, so that we read not only of a εὐσέβεια but of εὐσέβειαι, 2Pe_3:11 and even of the θεοσέβεια δἰ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν (1Ti_2:10). For the diversity of good works induced by the faith of the heart makes it evident to others that the Christian sonship is not a show, but power and truth; his conduct towards the brethren reveals his relation to God the Father and this relation produces such conduct.

[The Apostle’s declaration that every one that hateth his brother is a murderer or man-killer embodies the well known ethical principle that the moral quality of an action does not belong to the outward act, nor to the conception of it, nor to the resolution to carry it into effect, but to the intention. Hatred in St. John’s view, is murder committed in intention, and he that cherishes hatred towards his brother stands convicted of murder before God and at the bar of his own conscience.—M.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The twofold piety of a child of God; 1. Obedience to the Father; 2. Love of the brethren.—Like the elder brother thou mightest stay with the Father and work in His field, be envious of and take offence at the friendly reception accorded to the younger son by the Father in the parable of the prodigal (Luke 16). Cain was the elder brother. This applies primarily to the servants of the Church but it applies also to many others. Cain did not hate Abel because of his herds, for he had his fair fields; or because of his parent’s love, for he was his mother’s pride; or because of personal beauty or any outward, temporal good; but he hated him because of his piety, on account of the favour he found before God.—Cain [קיִן a lance a spear, a weapon.—M.], called by Eve in feminine rashness her weapon, and in maternal vanity favoured and spoiled by her, made his offering of anything he found without any particular discrimination as to its quality, while Abel, disregarded and neglected, carefully selected the best of the best and presented it as an offering to his God.—Thou art able to take the life of thy brother’s body but in doing so thou forfeitest thy own immortal life; thou becomest a man-killer in respect of thy brother’s body, but in respect of thyself, a suicide, even a suicide of thy soul; depriving thy brother of his bodily, earthly life, thou deprivest thyself of thy spiritual, eternal life.—Three difficult questions: 1. Canst thou hate those whom God loves? 2. Darest thou shorten or waste the term of grace which God accords? 3. Wilt thou cast from thee the gift of God in thee, eternal life?—Threefold exhibition of brotherly love: 1. Laying down one’s life for the brethren at duty’s call. 2. Communication of one’s possessions to the needy brethren. 3. Friendly and sincere readiness to oblige and aid the brethren.—Three things thou hast for the benefit of others: Body and life, goods and property, hand and heart.

Epistle to Diognetus [cap. 6]:—As the soul is in the body, so are Christians in the world. The soul dwells in the body but is not of the body; so Christians also dwell in the world, but are not of the world. The invisible soul is, as it were, keeping guard in the visible body; this is the mark of Christians as long as they remain in the world: their piety is invisible. The flesh hates and wars against the soul, which (the soul) is, however, by no means wronged [ἀδικομμένη=affecta injuria.—M.] by it because it (the soul) forbids the indulgence of the lusts of the flesh; so the world hates the Christians, although they by no means wrong it but only resist the lusts of the world. The soul loves the flesh and the members which hate it; so also Christians love their enemies. [Cf. Mat_5:44.—M.]

Basilius:—Because the devil’s hatred cannot reach God, he seeks to hurt and destroy man, the image of God.

Augustine:—The Christian lives, but, as it were, in winter; the root is alive but the boughs look dry; the living pith and marrow is within, and within are hidden the leaves and the fruits—but they wait for summer.

Ambrose:—“Nemo dicat proprium, quod commune est; esurientium panis est, quem tu detines; nudorum indumentum est, quod tu recludis.”

Luther:—The world is a den of murderers, subject to the devil. Would we live on earth we ought to be satisfied with being guests therein and putting up at an inn whose host is a roguish host, whose house bears the sign and title over the door: “Murder and lie.” For Christ Himself did affix such a sign and title to his house right over the door by saying that He is a murderer and a liar. A murderer to destroy the body; a liar to seduce the soul.

Starke:—Because God is Love and loves those who are born of Him, therefore love of the brethren is also the mark of the regenerate.—Art thou tempted with the thought that thou art without the grace of God, without the adoption, without salvation: be of good courage! If thou really and heartily lovest the godly, yea even the wicked and thy foes, thou mayest be quite sure that all these blessings are thy own.—Good Christian, whenever thou readest and hearest some portion of Divine truth, consider well the purpose of God in announcing it and shape thy course accordingly.—Contrary dispositions are not uncommon among actual brothers; the one may be good, the other bad, the one may be saved, the other damned.—The power of Satan over those children is so great that he changes even natural love into hatred.—Mad features of the ungodly! they cannot bear that the works of others are good—why? What is it that envy will not do? They also do not like it because it puts them to shame and sometimes becomes the means of their punishment.—Happy state of believers as contrasted with that of unbelievers! The former truly live, the latter are dead though their body is alive. We mourn for the dead—how much more ought we to mourn for the ungodly, for they are spiritually dead, before they die, and if they die, they fall into eternal death.—God has not only connected the hand but also the mouth and the heart with the fifth commandment.—Hatred is not a trifling sin of infirmity compatible with a man’s continuing in a state of grace, but so great a sin as to entail the loss of eternal life, which is irrecoverably lost while hatred lasts. He that hates is a double murderer, he wants to hurt others and deprives himself of eternal life.—To have had life does not render us blessed; but he is blessed with whom eternal life abides.—It is one thing to have this world’s goods and another to covet them: the one is the blessing of God, the other covetousness.—Poverty is no disgrace: a man may be poor and yet be the child of God, the brother of Christ and of good Christians.—Doing good to the poor is not only incumbent upon the rich, possessed of great abundance, but to every one who has this world’s goods and is able to communicate; even as every one has to work, also for this purpose, that he may have something to give to the poor.—Love is blind in not having respect to the person of the poor, whether it be known or unknown, strange or native; but it is not blind in taking cognizance of the need it is to relieve.—Do not always wait for a poor brother’s application, begging, supplication and appeal to thy love; many are ashamed to disclose their need; but if thou knowest thy brother’s case, show pity unasked and joyfully.—If unable to do anything else, thou canst love with the tongue by words of good counsel and consolation; but see that thy heart be with thy tongue.—The greatness of a benefaction does not determine its worth before God, nor does its smallness lessen it; a great benefaction without sincere love is small, even nothing before God; but a small benefaction prompted by sincere and hearty love is great in God’s sight.

Neander: As Cain hated and slew Abel in consequence of the contrast between a godly and an ungodly disposition, so the world hates and slays the children of God in consequence of the same contrariety of disposition. Hence the world and the children of God are ever at war like love and selfishness. Hence Christians need not be surprised, if the world hates them. This is to them the stamp of the divine life, the possession of which renders them the opposite of the world.

Heubner. Being without love makes men like Cain, whose kind is not extinct. The mind of Cain is to destroy the hated children of God;

literary murder also belongs to this head. As to its secret, inmost tendency, all hatred aims at murder.—The duplicity of mankind was prefigured in the case of Cain and Abel; this dichotomy runs through the whole Bible. Cain is the prototype of the evil and unloving, Abel the prototype of Christ.—A Christian Nil admirari, Psalms 37. Hatred and enmity is that which disquiets, vexes, excites and disconcerts the natural man most. But the Christian is bidden not even to be surprised at it! He knows the world, is aware of what he has to expect of it, he is at peace with God, lives a life of introversion, is so well rooted and grounded in God, so abundantly satisfied with the grace of God, that the world’s hatred does not disturb him. God is his fortress: but he must not leave that fortress.—Where the hatred of the world has not yet fully developed, there is most surely a want of decided Christianity.—Love displays its most glorious beauty under the world’s hatred. The Christian loves while the world has no idea of the existence of his love.—Formerly this world was extra-Christian, but now there is a world on the soil of the Christian Church. Is it offensive, hostile, presumptuous to speak of this difference? then it is the fault of the Bible, of Jesus Christ. We ought to hold up a mirror to all: you are either this or that. But it would be presumption to refer individuals to the class to which they belong, for this is the prerogative of God.—Death is the state of insensibility and impotence with respect to whatever is good and godly, the conscience is blunted and without receptivity, the heart is dead without any emotion, or interest in religion. Life is activity, emotion, a sense for, an impulse to and ability for the holy, a work after the will of God, a state of holiness, of a walk well-pleasing to God. Brotherly love is mentioned as a criterion, as a test of life.—Think of hatred as the root and beginning of murder. Often a bitter grief is to others more deadly and vitally injurious than a gross bodily injury.—Distinguish between that which passes with men and that which passes with God.—Never make room for secret anger: or life, the Holy Ghost will depart from thee.—The unloving thinks more highly of lifeless, worthless metal than of the living man created in the image of God.—What can you accomplish with the metal? Refresh the weary, comfort their hearts and dry their tears! Then you transmute stones into bread, earthly treasures into heavenly.—The word is only the shadow of the deed and by no means an equivalent of love or gratitude. (Themistius).

Besser:—Where hatred is, there is death: where love is, there is life; yea, love itself is the life.—Thus Luther showed that he was willing to lay down his life for the brethren when in the year 1527 he stayed at Wittenberg with those who were stricken with the plague. So the ancient historian Eusebius narrates how a pestilence at Alexandria brought out the difference between the Christians and the pagans. So Hans Egede laid down his life when for the sake of the poor Greenlanders he exchanged his comfortable parish for hunger and cold, for unspeakable toil and sufferings; and the coast of Africa, also, lined with grave-hills with the seed of the negroes proclaims the love which is stronger than death. Would that it might be said of the Christians of our time what Tacitus said of the Christians, viz.: that they are as inflexible concerning their faith, as they are ready in the exhibition of mercy.—How can he live on God’s compassionating love in whom no compassionating love does live?

On the Epistle for the second Sunday after Trinity, 1Jn_3:15-18.

Heubner, during the siege of Wittenberg, in 1813, preached on the hatred of the world to which Christians are exposed, and said, notwithstanding the presence of the French garrison, when he came to speak of deserved hatred: the hatred is deserved, which visits the tyrant who sacrifices thousands and the welfare of thousands to his lust of rule.

The Christian under the hatred of the world.

1. How dignified is his demeanour in bearing it a. with calmness, composure and patience (1Jn_3:13); b. with the consciousness of his innocence, his love, as known to God (1Jn_3:14); c. with the hope of being one day justified (1Jn_3:2); 2. how holily he uses it: a. as a warning against all the motions of hatred (1Jn_3:15); b. as a challenge to become more like Christ in love (1Jn_3:16); c. as an instrument to reconcile the world to himself by love (1Jn_3:17-18).

Motives of comfort for Christians under the world’s hatred. 1. (1Jn_3:13). They are unknown and misunderstood; 2. (1Jn_3:14); they become conscious of their life; 3. (1Jn_3:15); they are encouraged to fight against all unlovingness; 4. (1Jn_3:16); they resemble Christ; 5. (1Jn_3:17); become more and more assured of the love of God; 6. (1Jn_3:18); they hope to gain their enemies over.

The mind of the Christian and of the world opposed to each other in love and hatred. 1. To hate is natural to the world, to love to the Christian (1Jn_3:13-14); 2. Hatred destroys, love sacrifices the life (1Jn_3:15-16); 3. The world shuts up, the Christian opens the heart (1Jn_3:18).

Whither do we come if the spirit of love leaves us? 1. Answer: we come from the fellowship of the saints to the fellowship of the world (1Jn_3:13), from the life of God to spiritual death (1Jn_3:14), to vice and shame (1Jn_3:15), to forfeiting our salvation and the fruits of the death of Christ (1Jn_3:16).—2. Application: learn the worth of true love (1Jn_3:16), fight against every motion of unlovingness (1Jn_3:17), practise love in deed and in truth (1Jn_3:18).

The strong warnings given to Christians against an unloving mind.—Love appears most beautiful under the world’s hatred.—Love, a sign of life.—It is only by love that a Christian can know whether he is a child of God or regenerate. 1. The truth. 2. The laying to heart being reminded of this truth.

F. A. Wolf:—The Apostolical refutation of the principal errors prevailing on the subject of Christian love: 1. The fate of love, 2. The reign of love, 3. The value of love, 4. The origin of love.

Caspari:—Of the nature of true love: 1. Its consolation, 2. Its powers, 3. Its purity.

Kapff:—How necessary true brotherly love Isaiah , 1. As a test of our spiritual life; 2. As a condition (?) of eternal life.—The Law and the Testimony: Of Brotherly Love. I. Motives. 1. The contrast of Cain; 2. Marks of discipleship and regeneration; 3. The passing away and perdition of the hater. II. Marks. 1. Laying down one’s life; 2. Communication of one’s goods; 3. Love in deed.

The true life in love and certain death in hatred: 1. The ground, fruit and nature of the true life; 2. Certain death in hatred of the brethren, as to ground and nature.

Brotherly love. 1. Who are our brethren? 2. How do we love the brethren? 3. What moves us to such love?

How operative is the love which flows from the living knowledge of the sacrificing love of Christ! 1. It takes us from death to life; beloved of God in Christ, we love. 2. It alone is able to bear the hatred of the world without ceasing to love (Mat_5:39-42). 3. It is not only love in words and with the tongue, but in deed and in truth.

We know that we are born of God, for, 1. The world hates us; 2. We love the brethren; 3. We hate hatred, but not the hater; 4. We lay down our life for the brethren.

A heart-test of what spirit we are (Luk_9:55-56; Jer_8:6). 1. For the satisfaction of the righteous who in their love grieve over the world’s hatred; 2. For the terror of the ungodly who hate their neighbour without fear or anxiety; 3. for the awakening of the hypocrites who love their neighbour only in appearance.—Questions of Confession.

[Ignatius:—(ad Smyrm, 6.): “Observe those who are heterodox with regard to the grace of Christ, how contrary they are to the mind of God. They have no regard for love,—περὶ ἀγάπης οὐ μέλει αὐτοῖς—they do not care for the widow, or the orphan, or the hungry or the thirsty.”—M.].

[Wordsworth: (on 1Jn_3:16).—“And we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren;” a remarkable saying on the duty of Christian martyrdom. It was probably suggested by the seductive tenets of the false teachers (αἱ πλανῶντες mentioned 1Jn_2:26; 1Jn_3:7), who courted popularity in times of persecution; by alleging that provided a man had knowledge of the doctrines of Christianity as delivered by them, and adopted their theories, it was not necessary for him to expose himself to any danger in the maintenance of the faith, much less to endure martyrdom and to lay down his life for the brethren: but that he might freely associate with the heathen in their worship, and eat things offered to idols. This was particularly the doctrine of the Simonians (Origen c. Cels. VI. p. 282; Euseb. II. 13), and of the Nicolaitans (Rev_2:15. Irenæus I. 23) and of the Cerinthians (Philastr. hær. c. 36).—Tertullian wrote his book called Scorpiace against these notions and he refers to this passage in proof of the duty of martyrdom, c. 12.—M.].

[Macknight: (1Jn_3:14-15):—According to the Apostle in this place, the surest mark, by which we can know our actual state, is to consider whether we possess that characteristic disposition towards our brethren, which the Christian religion enjoins. The high encomiums, passed in this and the following verse on love to mankind, are not to be so understood, as if no virtue but benevolence were necessary to complete the Christian character. The virtues have all such a connection with each other, that they cannot subsist separately. And therefore, if one really loves his brethren, he will not only be charitable to the poor, but he will be just in his dealings, true to his promises, faithful in all the trusts committed unto him. In short, he will carefully abstain from injuring his neighbour in any respect, and will perform every duty he owes to him, from a sincere principle of piety towards God, whereby his whole conduct will be rendered uniformly virtuous.—M.].

[Secker:—If we do a person no harm, yet if we wish him harm, St. John has here determined the case, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.” For indeed, hatred not only leads to murder, and too often, when indulged, produces it unexpectedly; but it is always, though perhaps for the most part in a lower degree, the very spirit of murder in the heart; and it is by our hearts that God will judge us.—M.].

[Clarke: (on 1Jn_3:15).—This text has been quoted to prove, that no murderer can be saved. This is not said in the text; and there have been many instances of persons who have been guilty of murder, having had deep and genuine repentance; and who, doubtless, found mercy from His hands who prayed for His murderers, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” It is, however, an awful text for the consideration of those who shed human blood on frivolous pretences; or in those wars which have their origin in the worst passions of the human heart.

(On 1Jn_3:17).—Here is a test of this love: if we do not divide our bread with the hungry, we certainly would not lay down our life for him. Whatever love we may pretend to mankind, if we are not charitable and benevolent, we give the lie to our profession. If we have not bowels of compassion, we have not the love of God in us: if we shut up our bowels against the poor, we shut Christ out of our hearts and ourselves out of heaven.

(On 1Jn_3:18). There is a good saying in Yalcut Rubeni, p. 145, 4. on this point: “If love consisted in word only, then love ceaseth as soon as the word is pronounced. Such was the love between Balak and Balaam. But, if love consists not in word, it cannot be dissolved; such was the love of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the jest of the patriarchs which were before them.”—M.].

[Trower: (on 1Jn_3:17).—“What a picture is here brought before us, of a Christian possessed of this world’s good, and seeing his brother have need; yet turning away his eyes, and hardening his heart against the claims of charity, shutting up his bowels of compassion from him! How unlike Him who, though He was rich, yet for our sake became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich. May we learn more and more that whatever share we enjoy of “this world’s good,” is intrusted to us as stewards for God; and that all pretence of possessing Christian love is vain, unless we minister freely to the necessities of our brethren what we have so freely received. Hereby alone can we know that we are of the truth, and can assure our hearts before Him.”—M.].

[Stanhope:—The good we would do, but cannot, shall be rewarded; and the evil, which we are disposed to do, though not actually done, shall be punished. Hence, if a man keep malice, though but in his heart, if he wish or rejoice at the misery or harm of his brother, this man is, in the eye of God, and of the Gospel dispensation, a murderer.—If some sudden change befalls my neighbour’s fortunes, the diminution of his honour or estate, the blemishing his credit and reputation, and I feel a secret pleasure in such calamities, can it be charity that ties up my tongue from bitterness or slander, or my hands from invasion and cruelty? No, certainly.—He that triumphs in mischief and doth not act it himself; he that is fond of and cherisheth a scandal, but forbears to raise or spread it; it is not religion, but some other consideration, by which even this man is restrained. But alas! how few are there, in comparison, who think themselves bound to stop here! How few who, while they hold their hands from action, make no scruple to give their tongues a liberty of speaking “all words that may do hurt,” and so contribute to the disgrace and grief of their injured and afflicted brother! and if they, with these sharp razors, wound and mangle a bleeding reputation, would not the same malice unsheath their sword and thrust it into his bowels, if their own safety, the fear of human laws, or some other prudential consideration, did not bind their hands, which leaves their tongues and thoughts at liberty? For, were religion, were the fear and love of God, their check, they would prevent the very beginnings of malice. This tells us that we must be compassionate and kind; that we must do to every man whatsover we would that he should do unto us; that but to meditate or delight in evil is a sin, and that no instance of goodness should be wanting which the circumstances of any brother render seasonable for him to receive, and ours have put in our power to give; that a design of making him uneasy is not one whit less murderous and guilty, because not prosecuted in tenderness to one’s self, and not to be effected with impunity. Thus God interprets it, and by this rule He will proceed with us; for He declares Himself a trier of the heart, and that in our last great reckoning, “every secret thing shall be brought into judgment.”—M.].

Footnotes:

[20][1Jn_3:10 b. πᾶς ὁ=“ Every one that.” So German.—M.]

[21][καὶ=“And.” So German, and most foreign versions.—M.]

[22][1Jn_3:11. ὅτι=“Because.” So German.—M.]

[23] ἀγγελία A. B. G. K.; ἐπαγγελία C. Sin. and a few, unimportant Codd.—The context admits the sense “promise” only on the artificial interpretation that it is a gift and a happiness to love.

[24][1Jn_3:12. οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν. German: “Not as Cain was of the wicked one.”—Lücke: “Some supply after οὐ: ἀγαπῶμεν, others ποιῶμεν and the like. But in the first case there arises an irony unsuitable in this connection; and in both cases a second supplement becomes necessary, to wit, of ὅς after Κάϊν, which, as. the omission of the relative pronoun is in classic as well as in N. T. Greek without example, could hardly be justified. Much simpler is it with Grotius to complete the sentence thus: οὐκ ὦμεν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ, καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν.” Winer: “Properly, there is nothing to be supplied (ὦμεν or ποιῶμεν would not suit οὐ), but, the comparison being negligently expressed, the reader easily adjusts the clauses for himself: that we love one another, not as Cain was of the wicked one, etc., shall it or may it be so with us.” For further authorities see Lillie.—M.]

[25][German: “Because his works were wicked, but his brother’s righteous.” It is difficult to determine the right reading, whether it is αὐτοῦ, αὑτοῦ or ἑαυτοῦ (B.) Most probably αὑτοῦ.—The correspondence between Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν and τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν should by all means be brought out.—M.]

[26][δὲ=“but,” not “and,” as E. V.—M.]

[27][1Jn_3:13. German: “Marvel not, brethren,” agreeing with Sin. G. K. Rec. al. in omitting μου.—M.]

[28][μισεῖ. German, Wiclif. al. retain the Indicative mood.—M.]

[29][1Jn_3:14. German: “We have passed out of death into life.”—M.]

[30]Ἀγαπῶν without τὸν ἀδελφὸν, A. B. Sin.; with it C. G, K., although less authentic, and rather inserted than omitted. [German: omits the words, and renders: “He that loveth not abideth in death.”—M.

[31][1Jn_3:15. πᾶς ὁ=Every one.—M.]

[32][ἀνθρωποκτόνος; German: “man-murderer,” but better to render, “man-killer” (Lillie following Rhemish vers. at Joh_8:44), which is free from the extenuating force suggested by the technical use of such words as “homicide” or “man-slaughter.”—M.]

[33][1Jn_3:16. German: “Hereby have we known.”—M.]

[34]θεῖναι A. B. C. Sin. al., decidedly preferable to τιθέναι G. K. al.

[35][1Jn_3:17. German: “Life-sustenance.” Goods might be used in that sense.—M.]

[36][German: “His inwards;” but “bowels” without the supplement “compassion” should by all means be retained.—M.]

[37]ἀπ̓ αὐτοῦ A. B. C. Sin.; the words are omitted only by several unimportant Codd.

[38][German: “Abideth.”—M.]

[39]μου after τεκνία occurs in Rec. after G. K., but is wanting in the best Codd.—M.

[40]The Article τῇ before γλώσση is wanting in Rec. Sin., but found in A. B. C. G. K. and most of the Codd. verss. and editions. [German: “with the tongue.”—M.]; ἐν, omitted by K., is found in almost all the authoritative Codd., including Sin.

[41]Huther in a note [2d ed. p. 163] replies to the objection of Ebrard and Myrberg that this could only apply to our love of God and not to our love of the brethren, that in John’s opinion Christian love of the brethren is identical with the love of God, because the Christian loves his brother as one born of God. He suggests also that ἀγάπη might be better denned as the “essential exhibition” of δικαιοσύνη—M.].

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3:11-22 John now focuses on the believers’ need to love one another (see John 13:34).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Jn 3:11. Ἀγγελία, the announcement) An appellation most characteristic of Gospel liberty [as contrasted with, the bondage which the law gendereth]. He never applies this appellation to the law.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn_3:11. ὅτι confirms the thought expressed in the foregoing, that he who does not love his brother is not of God.

αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία] αὕτη refers to the following ἵνα, with a retrospective allusion to ἀγαπῶν τ. ἀδ. αὑτοῦ. The word ἀγγελία = message, is here to be taken in the meaning of commission, commandment. With the reading ἐπαγγελία, comp. 1Jn_1:5. By the words ἥν … ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς, which do not refer to the Old Testament period (Grotius: etiam sub lege), or to the beginning of history (Ebrard), the commandment of brotherly love is characterized as the ἀγγελία which is necessarily connected with the preaching of the gospel; comp. chap. 1Jn_2:7.

ἵνα κ.τ.λ.] states, not the purpose for which the ἀγγελία is given, but the import of it, as frequently with words of wishing, commanding, etc.; comp. Buttm. p. 203 ff.[219] The ἈΓΑΠῶΜΕΝ ἈΛΛΉΛΟΥς shows that the apostle is in this section treating of the love of Christians towards one another; it is self-evident that the Christian has to fulfil the general commandment of love even to those who are not Christians. Yet John does not here enter on that, as it would be inappropriate, for he has here to do with the ethical antithesis between Christians as children of God and those who are opposed to them as children of the devil; it is only on the ground of this antithesis that it can be said: ΜῊ ἈΓΑΠᾶΤΕ ΤῸΝ ΚΌΣΜΟΝ, 1Jn_2:15.

[219] Braune would have the idea of purpose retained; but in his interpretation: it is not merely the substance of a commandment that is treated of, but a commandment which is contained as a task in the gift of the message, he quite overlooks the fact that if ἵνα = in order that (and only thus is the original idea of purpose retained), it cannot refer to αὕτη.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn 3:11 . ἵνα ecbatic, expressing not the aim but simply the substance of the message. Cf. Joh 17:3 . See Moulton’s Gram. of N.T. Gk. , p. 206; Moulton’s Winer , p. 425.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The first reason, taken of the authority of God, which giveth the commandment.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

the message--"announcement," as of something good; not a mere command, as the law. The Gospel message of Him who loved us, announced by His servants, is, that we love the brethren; not here all mankind, but those who are our brethren in Christ, children of the same family of God, of whom we have been born anew.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 11. For this is the message] See 1Jo 1:5. From the beginning God hath taught men that they should love one another. How essentially necessary this is to the comfort and well-being of man in this state of trial and difficulty, every sensible man must see. All are dependent upon all; all upon each, and each upon all. Mutual love makes this dependence pleasant and doubly profitable. Nothing can be more pleasing to an ingenuous and generous mind than to communicate acts of kindness.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10 Whosoever doeth not righteousness. To do righteousness and to do sin, are here set in opposition the one to the other. Then, to do righteousness is no other thing than to fear God from the heart, and to walk in his commandments as far as human weakness will permit; for though righteousness in a strict sense is a perfect keeping of the law, from which the faithful are always far off; yet as offenses and fallings are not imputed to them by God, righteousness is that imperfect obedience which they render to him. But John declares that all who do not live righteously are not of God, because all those whom God calls, he regenerates by his Spirit. Hence newness of life is a perpetual evidence of divine adoption.

Neither he who loveth not his brother. He accommodates a general doctrine to his own purpose. For hitherto he has been exhorting the faithful to brotherly love; now, for the same end, he refers to true righteousness. Hence this clause is added instead of an explanation. But I have already stated the reason why the whole of righteousness is included in brotherly love. The love of God holds, indeed, the first place; but as on it depends love towards men, it is often, as a part for the whole, comprehended under it, and also the latter under the former. Then he declares that every one who is endued with benevolence and humanity, is thus just, and is to be so deemed, because love is rite fulfillment of the law. He confirms this declaration by saying that the faithful had been so taught from the beginning; for by these words he intimates that the statement which he made ought not to have appeared new to them.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

11. For this is the message that ye heard, &c.] Or, Because the message which ye heard from the beginning is this: ‘this’ is probably the predicate (see on 1Jn_1:5). ‘From the beginning’ as in 1Jn_2:7 : it was one of the very first things conveyed to them in their instruction in Christianity and had been ceaselessly repeated, notably by the Apostle himself. Jerome tells us that during S. John’s last years ‘Little children, love one another’ was the one exhortation which, after he had become too old to preach, he never ceased to give. “It is the Lord’s command,” he said; “and if this is done, it is enough.” ‘Love one another’ addressed to Christians must primarily mean the love of Christians to fellow-Christians; and this shews what ‘loving his brother’ must mean. But the love of Christians to non-Christians must certainly not be excluded: the arguments for enforcing brotherly love cover the case of love to all mankind.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For this is the message,.... Sent from God by Christ, or what he in his ministry declared, and is the commandment which was so frequently urged by him, Joh 13:34;

that ye have heard from the beginning; of the preaching of the Gospel to them, and of their conversion; see Jo1 2:7;

that we should love one another; to which the command of Christ, the reason with which it is enforced, and the early notice of it, should engage.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

Ver. 11. That we should love, &c.] This beloved disciple was all for love. {See Trapp on "1Jn 2:9"} {See Trapp on "1Jn 2:5"}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For this is the message - Margin, “commandment.” In the received text, this is ἀγγελία angelia - “a message brought;” in several manuscripts, and in later editions, it is ἐπαγγελία epangelia - “annunciation, announcement;” an order given, or a commandment, Act 23:21. It is not very material which reading is followed. The word “command” or “rule” would express the sense with sufficient clearness. The reference is to the law given by the Saviour as a permanent direction to his disciples.

That ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another - See the Joh 13:34-35 notes; 1Jo 2:7 note.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

From the beginning: see 1Jo 2:7,8; q.d. They cannot be of God, therefore, that cross so fundamental a precept, so expressive of his nature and will.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Because the message: (ajggelia see on 1Jn_1:5) which ye heard from the beginning is this. Not merely in the beginning, but from the beginning; it was among the first announcements, and it had never ceased to be in force. Jerome, in his "Commentary on Galatians", (Gal_6:10) tells us that when St. John became too infirm to preach, he used often to say no more than this, "Little children, love one another." His hearers at last wearied of it, and said, "Master, why dost thou always say this?" "It is the Lord"s command," he replied; "and if this alone is done, it is enough."

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Our apostle comes now to enforce his exhortation unto brotherly love, by many weighty arguments:

1.He assures them, that this precept concerning brotherly love was given them by Christ and his apostles, from the beginning of the preaching of the gospel: This is the message ye heard of him from the beginning.

Note here, 1. That the word of God is a message sent from God unto us, a message for our information and instruction, a message for our guide and direction.

2. That the duty of brotherly love is an ancient message that God has sent and has continued to send us, from the beginning; God help us to learn this lesson, so anciently taught us, and so long pressed upon us by God himself! This is the message which ye heard from the beginning.

A second argument to exite brotherly love is drawn from the evil of hating our brother, which appears in the person and practice of Cain, whom our apostle describes.

1. By his pedigree, He was of that wicked one; that is, the devil, of his diabolical dispostion, of his envious and malicious inclination, and, as such, was not so much Adam’s son as the devil’s son.

2. By his practice, he slew his brother: He first hated him, and then slew him. His hatred was causeless and unjust, implacable and deadly, and ended in his brother’s death and his own destruction.

3. The reason is assigned why he slew him, Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous; not for any harm he had done, or for any evil he had deserved, but because Cain was bad himself, and his works bad; to hate godliness, and to persecute the godly, is the very nature and disposition of a wicked man.

Observe, lastly, The inference drawn by the apostle from this example of Cain’s hating his holy and innocent brother; Marvel not, my brethren, says he, if the world hate you; intimating, that the world always did, and ever will hate God’s children; and that the children of God are not to marvel or wonder at it, but to prepare for it; it is no new thing, but what has been from the beginning: Though Cain be dead, the spirit of Cain is alive; the prosecutor goes about with Cain’s club in his hand, redded with blood; marvel not then if the world hate you.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11, 12. This is the message. God's charge has always been that we should love each other.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Here John teaches believers how they can recognize each other by the way they live; he teaches his readers to love each other.

General Information:

Cain and Abel were the first sons of Adam and Eve, the first man and woman.

We should not be like Cain

"We should not do as Cain did"

brother

This refers to Cain's younger brother Abel.

Why did he kill him? Because

John uses a question to teach his audience. This can be translated as a statement. AT: "He killed him because" (See: Rhetorical Question)

his works were evil and his brother's righteous

The words "works were" are also understood in the second phrase. AT: "Cain's works were evil and his brother's works were righteous" or "Cain did evil things and his brother did what was right" (See: Ellipsis)

translationWords

love

Cain

evil

works

righteous

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

11. [611][612] have ἐπαγγελία for ἀγγελία ([613][614][615][616]).

[611] 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and now at Petersburg. All three Epistles.

[612] 5th century. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it. In the National Library at Paris. Part of the First and Third Epistles; 1Jn 1:1 to 1Jn 4:2; 3Jn 1:3-14. Of the whole N.T. the only Books entirely missing are 2 John and 2 Thessalonians.

[613] 5th century. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. All three Epistles.

[614] 4th century. Brought to Rome about 1460. It is entered in the earliest catalogue of the Vatican Library, 1475. All three Epistles.

[615] 9th century. All three Epistles.

[616] 9th century. All three Epistles.

11. ὅτι αὕτη ἐστίν. Because the message is this; this is what it consists in (see on 1Jn 1:5). For ἵνα see on 1Jn 1:9. “Here the notion of purpose is still perceptible” (Winer, 425). The first ἀγγελία told us the nature of God (1Jn 1:5); the second tells us our duty towards one another. Ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς as in 1Jn 2:7: it was one of the very first things conveyed to them in their instruction in Christianity and had been ceaselessly repeated, notably by the Apostle himself. Jerome tells us that during S. John’s last years ‘Little children, love one another’ was the one exhortation which, after he had become too infirm to preach, he still insisted upon as sufficient and never obsolete. “It is the Lord’s command,” he said; “and if this is done, it is enough.” ‘Love one another’ addressed to Christians must primarily mean the love of Christians to fellow-Christians; and this shews what ‘loving his brother’ must mean. But the love of Christians to non-Christians must certainly not be excluded: the arguments for enforcing brotherly love cover the case of love to all mankind.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11-24.] Of brotherly love, as the sum and essence of δικαιοσύνη: as Christ’s command (ver. 11): whereas in the world there is hate (12, 13): bound up with life, as hate with death (14, 15): finding its great pattern in Christ (16); to be testified not in word only but in deed (17, 18); as the ground of confidence toward God and the granting of our prayers to Him, being obedience to His will (19-22); which obedience consists in faith and love (23), and is testified to by the witness of His Spirit (24).

Before entering on ver. 11, the latter half of ver. 10 must be considered, as belonging properly, in its sense, to this section, though in arrangement inseparable from the last. The καί, which binds on the additional particular in the last clause, serves, as in ver. 5, to co-ordinate that clause with the foregoing: not in this case as excluded from the forementioned category, but as one particular, taken out from among the general category, and put into a co-ordinate position with it. And it is thus put, as being the most eminent, and most of the nature of a summary, and criterion, of the rest, of any of those graces which are necessarily involved in δικαιοσύνη. Aug. beautifully says, “Dilectio sola discernit inter filios Dei et filios diaboli. Signent se omnes signo crucis Christi: respondeant omnes Amen: cantent omnes Halleluia: baptizentur omnes, intrent ecclesias, faciant parietes basilicarum: non discernuntur filii Dei a filiis diaboli nisi caritate.” And this love, thus constituted into “magnum indicium, magna discretio” (Aug.), is necessarily the family love of brother for brother within the limits of those who are begotten of God. Universal love to man is a Christian grace—but it is not that here spoken of: it neither answers the description of the ἀγγελία given in ver. 11, nor corresponds to the context here in general, the drift of which is that a test of our belonging to God’s family is our love towards His children who are our brethren in that family: cf. ch. 5:1 ff. But, while there can be no doubt that this is the right understanding of the brotherly love here insisted on, we incur at once a formal difficulty in applying this meaning to the negative or exclusive side of the test. He who does not love his brother, has in strict fact no brother to love, for he is not a child of God at all. Hence we must understand, strictly speaking, τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ in this case as importing his hypothetical brother: him, who would be, were he himself a true child of God, a brother, and if so, necessarily beloved. That this love does not exist in him, demonstrates him not to be of God’s family.

11.] Because (proof that absence of love of the brethren excludes from God’s family) the message which ye heard from the beginning (the announcement which from the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel was made to you. ἀγγελία is not here = ἐντολή, though that which is cited is a commandment: but it is an ἐντολή conveyed in words and by messengers, and thus become an ἀγγελία) is this (in all such sentences as this, the demonstrative pronoun which begins them is in reality the predicate, and often might in English be transposed to the end with advantage), that we love one another (on ἵνα, see note, ver. 1. It is impossible here, as there, to press the strong telic sense. The particle carries that combination of purpose and purport which we have so many times had occasion to notice: see e. g., note on 1Co 14:13).

12,

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11. The original message of the Gospel, nay, the whole history of God’s revelation of Himself to men from the earliest times, is summed up in the command to exercise mutual love. He therefore who does not love his brother shows thereby that he cannot be ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.

αὕτη … ἵνα] The αὕτη, which refers to what follows, excludes the possibility of any “telic” force being retained by ἵνα here; cf. Joh 17:3, and the close parallels in Joh 13:34, Joh 13:15:12; 1Jn 3:23, 1Jn 4:21, 1Jn 5:16. See also 1Jn 5:3; 2Jn 1:5, 2Jn 1:6; cf. note on 1:9. The declarative, or definitive, use of ἵνα to introduce the contents of a command, or the like, is fully established for S. John.

ἀγγελία] The message of the Gospel, of which the law of love is the basis. The reading ἐπαγγελία does not suit the context, and it is obviously due to the careless substitution of a commoner word. Except in this passage, ἀγγελία is found only once in the N.T. (1Jn 1:5). On the other hand, ἐπαγγελία occurs 51 times, but only once in the Johannine writings (1Jn 2:25).

ἣν ἠκούσατε ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] The law of love was an essential part of the earliest presentation of the Gospel. It formed part of the earliest teaching which the readers had received. The contents, however, of ver. 12 suggest that in the words ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς the writer’s thought goes back to still earlier times. The earliest stories of the beginnings of the race bear witness to the fatal consequences of disobedience to the law of love.

αγγελια A B K L al. plu. cat. Thphyl. Oeccom vg. Aug.] επαγγελια א C P 27. 29. 40. 66**. 69. 99 ascr nscr al. mu. harl. syr. sahwb cop. arm. seth. Did. Cyr. Oectxt Lcif.: uerbum sahd.

ινα αγαπωμεν] ut diligatis boh-ed. armusc: ινα αγαπατε Ia 113 (235).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

From the beginning. See on 1 1.

That [ινα] . The purport and aim of the message. See on Joh 14:13.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.