1 John 3:12

12. A brother’s love suggests its opposite, a brother’s hate, and that in the typical instance of it, the fratricide Cain.

Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one] Better, as R.V., Not as Cain was of the evil one: there is no ‘who’ in the Greek, nor any pronoun before ‘the evil one.’ Here as in Joh_1:21; Joh_1:25; Joh_6:14; Joh_6:48; Joh_6:69; Joh_7:40, the definite article has been turned into a demonstrative pronoun in A. V. See on 1Jn_1:2. In ‘from the beginning’ (1Jn_3:8) S. John has gone back to the earliest point in the history of sin. The instance of Cain shewed how very soon sin took the form of hate, and fratricidal hate. It is better not to supply any verb with ‘not’: although the sentence is grammatically incomplete, it is quite intelligible. ‘We are not, and ought not to be, of the evil one, as Cain was.’ Commentators quote the “strange Rabbinical view” that while Abel was the son of Adam, Cain was the son of the tempter. Of course S. John is not thinking of such wild imaginations: Cain is only morally ‘of the evil one’. Here, as elsewhere in the Epistle (1Jn_2:13-14, 1Jn_5:18-19), S. John uses ‘the evil one’ as a term with which his readers are quite familiar. He gives no explanation.

and slew his brother] This was evidence of his devilish nature. The word for ‘slay’ (σφάζειν) is a link between this Epistle and Revelation (Rev_6:4, &c.; see below), occurring nowhere else in N. T. Its original meaning was ‘to cut the throat’ (σφαγή), especially of a victim for sacrifice. In later Greek it means simply to slay, especially with violence. But perhaps something of the notion of slaying a victim clings to it here, as in most passages in Revelation (Rev_5:6; Rev_5:9; Rev_5:12, Rev_6:9, Rev_13:3; Rev_13:8, Rev_18:24).

And wherefore slew he him?] S. John puts this question to bring out still more strongly the diabolical nature of the act and the agent. Was Abel at all to blame? On the contrary, it was his righteousness which excited the murderous hate of Cain. Cain was jealous of the acceptance which Abel’s righteous offering found, and which his own evil offering did not find: and ‘who is able to stand before envy?’ (Pro_27:4). Cain’s offering was evil, (1) because it ‘cost him nothing’ (2Sa_24:24); (2) because of the spirit in which it was offered.

and his brother’s righteous] The last mention of the subject of righteousness with which this section opened (1Jn_2:29; comp. 1Jn_3:7; 1Jn_3:10). Neither ‘righteousness’ nor ‘righteous’ occur again in the Epistle; righteousness being merged in the warmer and more definite aspect of it, love. This is a reason for including from 1Jn_2:29 to 1Jn_3:12 in one section, treating of the righteousness of the children of God. Comp. ‘By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous’ (Heb_11:4).

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.

1Jn_3:12

Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother

The worlds hatred of the godly

I.

A reference to the example of Cain.

1. His character--he was of that wicked one. He inherited his disposition. He was under his influence. He did his will. Had anyone warned Cain of the danger to which he was exposed, there is no doubt he would have treated it as the grossest insult. The fact proves there is no iniquity to which Satan will not prompt, and which he may not one day induce us to perpetrate. We are, therefore, farther warned to resist his encroaches upon our minds. They are deceitful and gradual. We need to be ever watchful against his devices. Let us remember the counsel of the apostle (1Pe_5:8).

2. The conduct of Cain--he slew his brother. How shall the deed be designated?

(1) It was unnatural. Nature was outraged by the force of violent temptation.

(2) It was irremediable. Satan will ever endeavour to plunge us into some iniquity that cannot be recalled.

(3) It was extreme in its enormity. We cannot give life, and without a Divine permission we should not take it away.

(4) It was a sin which once committed ensures the bitterness of the offenders future life. Cain soon found reason to cry, My punishment is greater than I can bear. No doubt Satan sought to persuade him repentance was vain, and forgiveness impossible.

3. But how are we to account for it? Wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brothers righteous. It was envy that first moved him to the unparalleled iniquity. His offering was rejected, while Abels was accepted. He was mortified by the distinction, and would be avenged. It is very instructive to mark the progress of his mind under the influence of his envious feelings. The first notice is, He was wroth. It is then added, His countenance fell. So he rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. What an instructive history! It is the progress of envy till it ended in fratricide. We need to be watchful over the movements of our own minds. Impressions may be guided or removed if early dealt with, but if they are allowed to strengthen, it is impossible to restrain them. We may be borne away by them as by a resistless torrent.

II. A reflection founded upon it--Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. The world, of which Cain was a type, hates the godly, who are represented by Abel.

1. Surely, then, they who know the history of the world and the Church should not marvel. It begins with Cain and Abel. The same spirit has appeared in all ages, in all places, and under all circumstances. It has been carried on upon the wide theatre of nations, the narrower scene of communities, within the circle of friends, and in the bosom of families.

2. The causes of the enmity of the world to the Church remain as they were at the beginning, and therefore we should not wonder at it.

(1) One is the exclusive claim of truth. It asserts its own supremacy. He that is not with Me, says Christ, is against Me. This is intolerable to the world, and it hates the assertion of it.

(2) Another cause is the nature of the truth asserted. The gospel offers a way of salvation that gives no credit to man.

(3) We must add the life which the gospel requires is still more offensive than the ground on which it offers salvation (see 1Pe_4:4).

3. Important purposes are served by the hatred of the world, and therefore we need not wonder at it. It belongs to God to make the wrath of man to praise Him. He brings good out of evil, light out of darkness, and joy out of sorrow. It shows what man is. His mind is enmity against God. Thus the grace of God is exalted. That alone can change the human heart. At the same time the believer is thus subjected to a wholesome influence. As he is useful and holy so does the world watch him with a malignant eye. He needs to remember the injunction watch unto prayer.

(1) Do not fear the world. With Cain it may persecute the righteous Abel. But the God of Abel lives and has prepared mansions of rest and glory above.

(2) Do not provoke the world. Give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. With well-doing put him to silence. (J. Morgan, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3:12-13 Cain had been doing what was evil: Cain was jealous that Abel received approval from God; this jealousy led to murder (Gen 4:8). Hatred is judged, just as the outward act that results from it (see Matt 5:21-22).

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

1Jn 3:12. Οὐ καθὼς) not as. An ellipsis. See ch. 1Jn 2:27, note.—Κάϊν, Cain) The Scripture speaks more mildly respecting Adam himself, than respecting Cain and persons like him.—ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ, from the Evil One) Afterwards πονηρὰ, evil. It is antithetical to, of God, 1Jn 3:10.

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

1Jn_3:12. The converse of Christian brotherly love is the hatred of the world, which has its example in Cain.

οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν κ.τ.λ.] Contrary to the opinion of Grotius, with which Lücke agrees, that before καθώς we must supply οὐκ ᾦμεν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ dependent on ἵνα, de Wette has shown the clumsiness of speech that would result with this construction; it is unjustifiable, however, on the side of the thought also, for it is impossible that John would say that to Christians the commandment has been given from the beginning, not to be ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῖ. Most commentators supply after οὐ the thought we should be disposed, and after Κάϊν the relative ὅς. Thus there certainly results a good sense; but if the apostle had thought thus, he would also have expressed himself thus; at least he would not have left out the ὅς. De Wette rightly finds here an inexact comparison of contrast, as Joh_6:58, only still more difficult to supply, and just on that account not to be supplied, i.e. by a definitely formulated sentence (so also Braune). Christians are (and therefore should also show themselves as) the opposite of Cain; they are ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Cain was ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ; τοῦ πονηροῦ is not neuter, but masculine; ὁ πονηρός = ὁ διάβολος; comp. especially Mat_13:38.[220]

ΚΑῚ ἜΣΦΑΞΕΝ ΤῸΝ ἈΔΕΛΦῸΝ ΑὐΤΟῖ] This murder of his brother is the evidence that Cain was ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΠΟΝΗΡΟῦ. The verb ΣΦΆΖΕΙΝ (besides here, only in the Apocalypse), strictly used of slaughter, indicates the violence of the action;[221] the diabolical character of it is brought out by the following: καὶ χάριν τίνος κ.τ.λ.; the form of the sentence in question and answer serves to bring out emphatically the thought contained in it, that the hatred of Cain towards his brother was founded in his hatred towards the good, i.e. that which is of God, for it is just in this that the hatred of the world towards believing Christians is also founded.[222] The correspondence between ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ and τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρά, which J. Lange and Düsterdieck have already noticed, is to be observed.

[220] The strange Rabbinical view of the devilish nature of Cain in Zohar on Gen_4:1 : Rabbi Eleazar 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 diverse fuerunt viae istius ab illius viis. Equidem Cain fuit filius spiritus innnundi, qui est serpens malus; Abel vero fuit Alius Adami; et propterea quod Cain venit de parte Angeli mortis, ideo interfecit fratrem suum.

[221] From the fact that σφάζειν is used in the Revelation of slaying in a holy service, as the martyrs are slain, even though by the godless (which is never quite appropriate, comp. Rev_6:4), it cannot be concluded that John here used the expresssion in order to mark the death of Abel as a martyrdom by the hand of a godless man, or as a sacrifice which Cain offered to his god, the devil.

[222] That Cain slew his brother because his own works were evil and his brothers righteous, does not seem to correspond to the Mosaic narrative, for τὰ ἔργα are not the offering, but the works in general (Spener: the whole manner of life); but there is no real contradiction, for the narrative in Genesis does not exclude the idea that the piety of Abel had already excited in Cain hatred towards his brother, and that, when God despised his offering, but had respect unto his brothers, this hatred went so far that he became guilty of murder. Cain with this hatred, and Abel in his suffering on account of his δικαιοσύνη, serve the apostle as prototypes of the world and of the children of God. On the similar view in Philo and in the Clementine Homilies, see Lücke on this passage.

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 3:12 . οὐ καθὼς , κ . τ . λ ., a loose, almost ungrammatical expression, analogous to Joh 6:58 . Were there no οὐ , 1Jn 3:11 might be regarded as a parenthesis: “he that loveth not his brother, even as Cain was, etc.”. The phrase is elliptical: “We must not hate our brethren, even as Cain was, etc.”. τοῦ πον ., see note on 1Jn 2:18 . ἔσφαξεν , a strong word, “slaughtered,” “butchered,” properly by cutting the throat ( jugulare ), like an ox in the shambles.

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

12. A brother’s love suggests its opposite, a brother’s hate, and that in the typical instance of it, the fratricide Cain.

οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν. As R.V., Not as Cain was of the evil one. In A.V. the definite article has been exaggerated into a demonstrative pronoun, ‘that wicked one.’ The same fault occurs Joh 1:21; Joh 1:25; Joh 6:14; Joh 6:48; Joh 6:69; Joh 7:40. For ὁ πονηρός see on 1Jn 2:13. In ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ἁμαρτάνει (1Jn 3:8) S. John took us back to the earliest point in the history of sin. The instance of Cain shewed how very soon sin took the form of hate, and fratricidal hate. It is better not to supply any verb with ‘not’; although the sentence is grammatically incomplete, it is quite intelligible. ‘We are not, and ought not to be, of the evil one, as Cain was.’ Commentators quote the “strange Rabbinical view” that while Abel was the son of Adam, Cain was the son of the tempter. Of course S. John is not thinking of such wild imaginations: Cain is only morally ‘of the evil one.’ Here, as elsewhere in the Epistle (1Jn 2:13-14; 1Jn 5:18-19), S. John uses ‘the evil one’ as a term with which his readers are quite familiar. He gives no explanation. To render τοῦ πονηροῦ ‘that wicked one’ while πονηρὰ is translated ‘evil,’ mars the Apostle’s point. Cain’s πονηρὰ ἔργα prove that he is ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

καὶ ἔσφαξεν τ. ἀδελφόν. This is special proof of his devilish nature. The devil ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς (Joh 8:44). Σφάζειν is a link between this Epistle and the Apocalypse: it occurs nowhere else in N.T. Its original meaning was ‘to cut the throat’ (σφαγή), especially of a victim for sacrifice. In later Greek it means simply to slay, especially with violence. But perhaps something of the notion of slaying a victim clings to it here, as in most passages in Revelation (1Jn 5:6; 1Jn 5:9; 1Jn 5:12; Joh 6:9; Joh 13:3; Joh 13:8; Joh 18:24).

καὶ χάριν τίνος. S. John puts this question to bring out still more strongly the diabolical nature of the act and the agent. Was Abel at all to blame? On the contrary, it was his righteousness which excited the murderous hate of Cain. Cain was jealous of the acceptance which Abel’s righteous offering found, and which his own evil offering did not find: and ‘who is able to stand before envy?’ (Pro 27:4). Cain’s offering was evil, (1) because it ‘cost him nothing’ (2Sa 24:24); (2) because of the spirit in which it was offered. The καί emphasizes the question. Comp. καὶ τίς ἐστιν, κύριε; (Joh 9:36): καί τίς ἐστί μου πλησίον; (Luk 10:29): καὶ τίς δύναται σωθῆναι; (Luk 18:26). Winer, 545. Elsewhere in N.T. χάριν follows its case, as commonly in classical Greek. The exceptional arrangement seems to emphasize the χάριν: ‘And because of what?’

δίκαια. This is the last mention of the subject of δικαιοσύνη, with which the section opened in 1Jn 2:29: comp. 1Jn 3:7; 1Jn 3:10. Neither δικαιοσύνη nor δίκαιος occurs again in the Epistle, righteousness being merged in the warmer and more definite aspect of it, love. This is a reason for including from 1Jn 2:29 to 1Jn 3:12 in one section, treating of the righteousness of the children of God. Comp. ‘By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous’ (Heb 11:4).

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.

A short digression: Let us not marvel that we are hated by the world for doing our duty, for such was the condition of Abel who was a just person: and who would not rather be like him than Cain?

An amplification, taken of the contrary example of Cain, which slew his brother.

He bringeth forth a very fit and very old example, wherein we may behold both the nature of the sons of God, and of the sons of the devil, and what state and condition remaineth for us in this world: and what shall be the end of both at length.

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

who--not in the Greek.

of that wicked one--Translate, "evil one," to accord with "Because his own works were evil." Compare Jo1 3:8, "of the devil," in contrast to "of God," Jo1 3:10.

slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous--through envy and hatred of his brother's piety, owing to which God accepted Abel's, but rejected Cain's offering. Enmity from the first existed between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.

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 12. Not as Cain] Men should not act to each other as Cain did to his brother Abel. He murdered him because he was better than himself. But who was Cain? εκτουπονηρουην, he was of the devil. And who are they who, through pride, lust of power, ambition, gain, c., murder each other in wars and political contentions? εκτουπονηρουεισι. To attempt to justify the principle, and excuse the instigators, authors, abettors, &c., of such wars, is as vain as it is wicked. They are opposed to the nature of God, and to that message which he has sent to man from the beginning: Love one another. Love your enemies. Surely this does not mean, Blow out their brains, or, Cut their throats. O, how much of the spirit, temper, and letter of the Gospel have the nations of the world, and particularly the nations of Europe, to learn!

And wherefore slew he him?] What could induce a brother to imbrue his hands in a brother's blood? Why, his brother was righteous, and he was wicked and the seed of the wicked one which was in him induced him to destroy his brother, because the seed of God-the Divine nature, was found in him.

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

12 Not as Cain This is another confirmation, taken from what is contrary; for in the reprobate and the children of the devil hatred reigns, and it holds, as it were, the chief place in their life; and he brings forward Cain as an instance. It served in the meantime to give them consolation, as he at length concluded by saying, Marvel not, if the world hate you.

This explanation ought to be carefully noticed, for men ever blunder as to the way of living, because they make holiness to consist of fictitious works, and while they torment themselves with trifles, they think themselves doubly acceptable to God, as the monks, who proudly call their mode of living a state of perfection; nor is there any other worship of God under the Papacy but a mass of superstitions. But the Apostle testifies that this righteousness alone is approved by God, that is, if we love one another; and further, that the devil reigns where hatred, dissimulation, envy, and enmity prevail. We ought, however, at the same time, to bear in mind what I have already touched upon, that brotherly love, as it proceeds from the love of God as an effect from a cause, is not disjoined from it, but on the contrary is commended by John on this account, because it is an evidence of our love to God.

By saying that Cain was driven to slay his brother, because his works were evil, he intimates what I have already stated, that when impiety rules, hatred occupies the first place. He refers to Abel’s righteous works, that we may learn to endure patiently when the world hates us gratuitously, without any just provocation.

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.

Not as Cain,.... That is, let us not be like him, or do as he did, hate the brethren. The apostle illustrates brotherly love by its contrary, in the instance of Cain, who was the first instance and example of hatred of the brethren, and of fratricide, and a very detestable one, by which he would dissuade from so vile and abominable a practice:

who was of that wicked one; Satan, a child of his, an imitator of him, one that appeared to be under his influence, and to belong unto him. So the Jews say of Cain (n), that

"he was of the side of the serpent (the old serpent the devil); and as the way of the serpent is to slay and to kill, so Cain immediately became a murderer.''

And again,

"because Cain came from the side of the angel of death, he slew his brother (o);''

though they say that he afterwards repented, and became worthy of paradise (p).

And slew his brother; see Gen 4:8. According to the tradition of the Jews (q) he struck a stone into his forehead, and killed him:

and wherefore slew he him? what was the cause and occasion of it? what moved him to it?

because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous; or "his work", as the Ethiopic version reads: the sacrifice which he offered up, which, though it was not evil as to the matter and substance of it, yet was so, being offered with an evil mind, and with an hypocritical heart, and without faith in the sacrifice of Christ, and so was unacceptable to God; whereas, on the other hand, the sacrifice his brother brought was offered up in the faith of Christ, by which he obtained a testimony that he was righteous, and that the work he did was a righteous work, being done in faith, and so was acceptable to God; which Cain perceiving, was filled with envy, and this put him upon killing him. The Jews (r) relate the occasion of it after this manner;

"Cain said to Abel his brother, come, and let us go out into the open field; and when they were both out in the open field, Cain answered and said to Abel his brother, there is no judgment, nor Judge, nor another world; neither will a good reward be given to the righteous, nor vengeance be taken on the wicked; neither was the world created in mercy, nor is it governed in mercy; or why is thy offering kindly accepted, and mine is not kindly accepted? Abel answered and said to Cain, there is judgment, and there is a Judge, and there is another world; and there are gifts of a good reward to the righteous, and vengeance will be taken on the wicked; and the world was created in mercy, and in mercy it is governed, for according to the fruit of good works it is governed; because that my works are better than thine, my offering is kindly accepted, and thine is not kindly accepted; and they both strove together in the field, and Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.''

In the Hebrew text in Gen 4:8; there is an extraordinary large pause, as if a discourse of this kind, which passeth between the two brothers, was to be inserted. Philo the Jew says (s), that in the contention or dispute between Cain and Abel, Abel attributed all things to God, and Cain ascribed everything to himself; so that the controversy was about grace and works, as now; and as then Cain hated his brother upon this account, so now carnal men hate and persecute the saints, because they will not allow their works to be the cause of justification and salvation: and from hence also it may be observed, that a work may be, as to the matter of it, good, and yet as to its circumstances, and the end and view of it, evil.

(n) Midrash Ruth in Zohar in Gen. fol. 42. 4. (o) Zohar in ib. fol. 43. 1. (p) Ib. fol. 41. 1, 2. (q) Targum Jon. in Gen. iv. 8. Pirke Eliezer, c. 21. (r) Targum Hieros. & Jon. in Gen. iv. 8. (s) Quod Det. Potior. p. 161.

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

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.

Ver. 12. Who was of that wicked one] Tertullian calleth Cain the devil’s patriarch. Cain is dead, saith another, but I could wish that he did not still live in his heirs and executors, Qui clavam eius sanguine Abelis rubentem, ut rem sacram circumferunt, adorant et venerantur, who bear about and make use of Cain’s club, to knock on the head God’s righteous Abels. (Bucholcer.)

And slew his brother] Gr. εσφαξε cut his throat. Acerbissima sunt odia (ut ita nominem) Theologica, saith one. These divinity hatreds are most deadly. Such fratricides were Alphonsus Diazius, and Charles, king of France, stirred up by Pope Urban to kill his brother Manford, king of Sicily.

Because his own works, &c.] The old enmity, Gen 3:15. So Num 22:3-4. Moab was irked because of Israel, or did fret and vex at them, as Exo 1:12, yet they were allied, and passed by them in peace, and, by the slaughter of the Amorites, freed them from evil neighbours which had taken away part of their land, and might do more, as one hath well observed.

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.

Not as Cain - Not manifesting the spirit which Cain did. His was a most remarkable and striking instance of a want of love to a brother, and the case was well adapted to illustrate the propriety of the duty which the apostle is enjoining. See Gen 4:4-8.

Who was of that wicked one - Of the devil; that is, he was under his influence, and acted from his instigation.

And wherefore slew he him? - Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” He acted under the influence of envy. He was dissatisfied that his own offering was not accepted, and that his brother’s was. The apostle seems desirous to guard those to whom he wrote against the indulgence of any feelings that were the opposite of love; from anything like envy toward more highly favored brethren, by showing to what this would lead if fairly acted out, as in the case of Cain. A large part of the crimes of the earth have been caused, as in the murder of Abel, by the want of brotherly love. Nothing but love would be necessary to put an end to the crimes, and consequently to a large part of the misery, of the world.

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

And what again, on the other hand, (q.d.) can be more devil-like, than such a temper as Cain’s was, whose hatred of his brother brake out into actual murder, upon no other account but because his brother was better than he? Which showed him to be

of that wicked one, of the serpent’s seed: so early was such seed sown, and so ancient the enmity between seed and seed.

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

12. Not as Cain—Who is a model to avoid. And Cain and Abel are types of the world and the brethren through 12-16. Cain is selected, apparently, from association of the idea, moral and bodily, of the word brother; and the first two brothers of mankind are presented as types of the two classes of mankind. 1Jn_3:10 says, Love your brother; this verse says, Not as Cain who slew his brother, being a son of the devil and brother to the devil’s children; 1Jn_3:14 quotes love of the brethren as token of our sonship; and so the further verses. Of, or from that wicked one. But was Cain born of the devil? It must be remembered that regeneration is a figurative term. When the power of the Spirit conforms us more or less to the image of God, we are said to be born of God, children of God; while conformed to the image of Satan, we are called children of the devil. The old Jewish legends fabled that Cain was the physical son of Satan by Eve. But his sonship, like our divine sonship, was in fact spiritual. Slew his natural, not moral, brother.

Evil… righteous—The antagonism of sons of God and children of the devil was the dividing line between them.

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

The sentence is of an elliptical form, common in language. The full sense is, "Not that we should do even as Cain, who was of the evil one, and slew his brother." Cain"s conduct typifies the attitude of the world towards Christians. Sfazein in the New Testament occurs only here and in Revelation. In the LXX and the New Testament it seems to mean "slay" without necessarily implying the cutting the throat of a victim. That Cain"s works were evil is not stated in Genesis, but is inferred from God"s rejection of him. Compare carefully the remarkably parallel passage, Heb_11:4. The wicked envy the good the blessedness of their goodness, and try to destroy what they cannot share. The war between good and evil is one of extermination; but the wicked would destroy the righteous, while the righteous would destroy wickedness by converting the wicked.

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

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.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

12. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one. Cain, who hated and slew his brother, is an extreme type of children of the devil. This hater and murderer is condemned far more severely in the Scriptures than the disobedient Adam.

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.

12.] Not as Cain was of the wicked one and slew his brother (the construction is elliptic, or rather brachylogic, for nothing is to be supplied, as ἐσμέν (Sander), or ὦμεν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ, as Grot., Lücke, or diligamus, as Corn.-a-lap.; or a relative ὅς before ἐκ τ. πον. ἦν, as Beza and Socinus. The construction is just as in Joh 6:58, and in the passage of Demosth. p. 415 a, which Winer adduces, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ πολιτικῆς αἰτίας, οὐδʼ ὥσπερ Ἀριστοφῶν … ἔλυσε τὴν προβολήν. It would be simpler, οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν ἔσφαξε τὸν ἀδ. αὐτοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ὤν. The word σφάζω properly means to kill by cutting the throat. It is said to occur in LXX and N. T. in the general sense of killing (so Düsterd.); but I cannot find any instances which will not bear the precise meaning as well as a more general one. It is remarkable however, that St. John only of N. T. writers uses the verb, and that in every place there is nothing requiring the proper sense: so that any inference from its occurrence here as to the manner of Cain’s murder of Abel would be unsafe. In ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν we have a resumption of ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν from above, ver. 8: the word πονηροῦ being used probably on account of τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν following. Observe, the ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν is the inference from that great proof which he gave of it by killing his brother: as is also the reason given in what follows: see below. So that here the assertion of his being of the wicked one is, as above, strictly ethical, and in no way physical or dualistic: “Cain erat filius non Dei sed diaboli, non generatione, sed imitatione et suggestione,” Corn.-a-lap.). And for what reason (reff.) slew he him? because his (own) works were wicked, and those of his brother righteous (it has caused some difficulty, that no mention of this ethical difference is made in the narrative in Genesis. It has been supposed, e. g. by Socinus, that the Apostle gathers it from God’s differing acceptance of the offerings of the two: others, as Lyra, have called the ethical characters of the two the “occasio prævia,” whereas the immediately exciting cause was the “occasio propinqua,” of the murder. But properly considered, the Apostle’s assertion here is only a “deductio ex concesso.” Cain murdered his brother: therefore he hated him: and hate belongs to the children of the evil one,—classes him at once among those whose works are evil, and who hate those who, like Abel, are testified to (Heb 11:4) that they are of the children of God who work righteousness. Whatever might be the exciting occasion of the murder, this lay at the root—the hatred which the children of the devil ever bear to the children of God. The various legends, about Cain being the child of the serpent by Eve, and the characters of Cain and Abel, see in Lücke, edn. 3, pp. 317, 318, notes; and the former in Huther, p. 148).

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

12. The story of Cain is the typical example of the “want” of brotherly love. The form of the reference here is conditioned by what the writer has to say about the hatred which Christians must expect from the world. Men’s deeds are the natural outcome of their character and inclinations. Evil deeds are the expression of a character which takes pleasure in what is evil. Righteousness must always provoke the hostile feeling of those whose delight is in evil. And feelings must sooner or later express themselves in action.

οὐ καθώς] Cf. 2Co 8:5, καὶ οὐ καθὼς ἠλπίσαμεν ἀλλὰ ἑαυτοὺς ἔδωκαν: Joh 14:27, οὐ καθὼς ὁ κόσμος δίδωσιν, and especially Joh 6:58, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον, where the construction is irregular, as here. The comparison is incomplete in form. It may be paraphrased “the feelings of Christians for each other must not be like, rather they must be the exact opposite of, those of Cain, whose hatred of righteousness led him to the violent murder of his brother.” Schlatter aptly quotes in illustration (p. 149), בְּאֵיזֶה אָח ·לֹא בְקַיִן לְהֶבֶלֹ קַיִן הָרַג אֶת־הֶבֶל, Pes. Kah. 16. 126a.

ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν] Every man must draw his life and power from one source or the other. His deeds show to whom he belongs and has attached himself. The writer never denies the individual freedom of choice. He only traces things back to what he believes to be their ultimate spiritual sources.

ἔσφαξεν] The verb always includes the idea of violence. In the N.T. σφάζειν is found only here and in the Apocalypse. Cf. Rev 6:4, ἵνα ἀλλήλους σφάξουσιν: 9, τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἐσφαγμένων διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ: 18:24, πάντων τῶν ἐσφαγμένων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. It is also used of the Lamb, and of the “head” of the beast (13:3). In the LXX its most frequent use is sacrificial (cf. Gen 22:10, of Isaac; Exo 29:11; Lev 1:5; Num 11:22, etc.); but see also Jdg 12:6 (A), σφάζουσιν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὰς διαβάσεις τοῦ Ἰορδάνου: 1 K. 15:33, ἔσφαξε Σαμουὴλ τὸν Ἀγὰγ ἐνώπιον Κυρίου: 1 Mal 1:2, καὶ ἔσφαξε βασιλεῖς, etc.χάριν τίνος] The violent deed was only the last expression of that antipathy which righteousness always calls out in those who make evil the guiding principle of their life. This view, that the cause of the murder of Abel is to be found in the character of Cain as manifested in his actions, is hardly in accord with the narrative of Genesis (4:8 ff.), but it is quite in keeping with the suggestions read into that narrative by the adherents of the allegorical method of exegesis. We may compare Philo’s treatment of the subject, who finds indications of Cain’s φιλαυτία in the fact that he only offered his sacrifice “after several days,” and not at once, with the readiness which should distinguish the service of God; and that he offered of the fruits, not of the first fruits. Cf. also Heb 11:4, where the stress is laid on the character of the sacrifices offered (πλείονα θυσίαν), rather than on the general character of all the actions of the two men.

του (? 1o) om. Ia 397ffff (96) | τον] pr. Abal, sahd.

om. και … αυτον aeth.

τινος χαριν Isa_55 (236).

ου] pr. et sahd.

αδελφου αυτου] αβελ Ia 264 (233).

δικαια] bona arm.

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

Cain who was [καιν ην] . Who is not in the Greek. The construction is irregular. Lit., as Rev., not as Cain was of the evil one.

Slew [εσφαξεν] . The verb occurs only in John, and only here outside of Revelation. Originally, to slay by cutting the throat; so in Homer, of cattle :

"the suitor train who slay [σφαζουσι] His flocks and slow - paced beeves with crooked horns." " Odyssey, " 1, 92.

To slaughter victims for sacrifice :

"Backward they turned the necks of the fat beeves, And cut their throats [εσφαζαν] , and flayed the carcasses." " Iliad, " 1, 459.

Thence, generally, to slay or kill.

Wherefore [χαριν τινος] . Lit., on account of what. Carin for the sake of, on account of, is elsewhere placed after the genitive. See Eph 3:1, 14; 1Ti 5:14; Gal 3:19.

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

12. ov καθως...} not as... The construction is irregular and elliptical. Comp. John vi. 58. The clause without the negative would have run on naturally with Ὁ. 10 ...‘that loveth not his brother, even as Cain was of the evil one and slew his brother.’ Cain shewed his dependence on the devil by want of love and hatred of righteousness. But the insertion of v. 11, the positive rule of Christians, leads to the insertion of the negative before the typical example of the opposite character. ‘We do not (or We shall not) present the

type of selfishness, even as Cain was of the evil one...’ ‘The case is not with us as it was with Cain; he was of the evil one...’ The use of the direct negative ov requires that the sentence should be treated as independent and not connected with ἵνα (μηδὲ ὦμεν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ καθὼς Καίν...

The history of the first death naturally attracted wide attention as presenting in a representative and impressive form the issues of selfishness, self-will, sin. Comp. Jude 11; Heb. xi. 4; xii. 24. Philo discusses the history in a special book. In Clem. ἦν καὶ ψεύστης καὶ μετὰ ἁμαρτιῶν ἡσυχάζειν μηδὲ ἐπὶ τῷ ἄρχειν θέλων.

ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν] ex maligno erat V., was of the evil one. Comp. Ὁ. ὃ ἐκ πονηρόν note. The name is chosen here in order to connect the works of Cain (πονηρὰ ἦν) with their spiritual source.

ἔσφαξεν] occidit V., slew. The word occurs elsewhere in the N.T. only in the Apocalypse. It expresses properly the slaughter of a victim. Here it seems to point to the deliberate determination of the murder. |

καὶ χάριν τίνος... σὲ propter quid © V., and wherefore... This unusual mode of expression (comp. %. 17), appears to be adopted in order to bring out sharply that the murder of a brother came from hatred of righteousness. Cain lost practical sympathy with his brother; and so in the end he slew him.

This use of χάριν occurs in this place only in the writings of St John. Elsewhere in the N.T. it stands (as generally) after its case. It expresses

living. Terrible as Cain’s history is, it is still realised in essence.

Μὴ θαυμάζετε] Nolite mirari V., Marvel not. For the thought compare John xv. 18 ff., xvi. 1 ff.

The words occur again John v. 28, and in another form John iii. 7 μὴ θαυμάσῃς. The latter place is the only example in the Gospel or Epistles (John xix. 24 is not strictly parallel) of the imperative construction of μή with aor. subj. which occurs more frequently than the construction with pres. imp. in the Apocalypse (vi. 6, vii. 3, X. 4, Xi. 2, xxii. 10). A comparison of John iii. 7 with the present passage brings out the difference of meaning in the two constructions. There the thought is of the special feeling aroused by the single statement, here of the continuous feeling stirred by the whole temper of men (comp. ii. 15, iv. 1. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 17; John il. 16 note.

For θαυμάζειν εἰ see Mark xv. 44.

ἀδελφοί brethren. This is the only place in the Epistle where this title of address is used (ii. 7 is a false reading). It contains an implicit argument. By emphasising the new relation in which Christians stand one to another it implies that this position of necessary

me syrr.

mutual affection is characteristic of them as distinguished from other men (‘the world’). The title is common in St James (ἀδελφοί, ἀδελφοί pov), and not unfrequent in St Paul and in

found in the first Epistle of St Peter or St Jude.

The three forms which St John borrows from the family to express Christian relations preserve each their proper meaning. ‘ Brethren’ expresses the idea of Christian equality in virtue of the common life: ‘Children’ (rexvia) that of spiritual dependence in the order of the new life with the prospect of growth: ‘Little ones’ (παιδία) that of subordination and immaturity. In contrast with these ‘Beloved’ is simply the personal manifestation of feeling.

el μισεῖ] σὲ odit V., tf...hateth you. This is assumed as a fact (comp. c. iv. II; v. 9; John xv. 18); and by the order the stress is thrown here upon the verb and not (as in John xv. 18 ff.) upon the pronoun or the subject. Hatred is characteristic of ‘the world’ (mundus V., hic mundus F.).

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889) and The Epistles of St John (1883) — public domain (pre-1929). Text recovered from Internet Archive / Google Books OCR scans. Westcott’s Gospel of John commentary is not included (its OCR lost the chapter running-heads required for reliable verse-keying). Some Greek quoted in the Hebrews volume is imperfectly rendered by the OCR.