45 - 1Jn 3:12

1Jn 3:12

Οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν, καὶ ἔσφαξε τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ. καὶ χάριν τίνος ἔσφαξεν αὐτόν; ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν, τὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ δίκαια. As to the detail, the apostle orders his exhortation to the exhibition of brotherly love in this way: in 1Jn 3:12-15 he warns against hatred as the ungodly principle, which is the token of death; and in 1Jn 3:16-18 exhorts positively to active love. The example of Cain, adduced to affright us in 1Jn 3:12, might seem at the first glance fitted to support that reference of ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς [“from the beginning”]; to the Old Testament which we have denied to exist here: “in the very first pages of the Bible the deterring example of Cain preaches the duty of brotherly love.” But ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆςἀκούειν [“to hear from the beginning”] is, after all, something different from ἀκούειν ἂἐν ἀρχῆγέγονεν[“came to hear in the beginning”]; and while the deed of Cain showed the horror of hatred, that is something different from the ἀγγελία [“message”], ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους [“that we should love one another”]. As to the construction of the sentence, it is not enough for the explanation of the words καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν [“just as Cain who was of the evil one”] to assume a simple ellipsis, and therefore to supply ὦμεν [“we may be”]; for that would leave the οὐ [“not”] to be accounted for, as μή [“not”] ought then to have been found instead of οὐ [“not”]. It is obvious that this is a case of simple attraction. The thought present to the apostle’s mind was obviously this: μή ὦμεν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν [“may we not be of the evil one as Cain was of the evil one”]. First of all, the point of comparison, the ἐκ τοῦπονηροῦεἶναι [“to be of the evil one”], is only once uttered, and that as a subordinate clause; and then the negative, which belonged to the cohortative sentence generally (μή [“not”]), is by attraction drawn to the subordinate clause, which is merely declaratory, and thus, instead of the subjective negation, the objective (οὐ [“not”]) appears. The apostle’s thought was—to make the grammatical point clearer by an example—in its form similar to that of 1Co 10:8, μὴ πορνεύωμεν καθώς τινες αὐτῶν ἐπόρνευσαν [“let us not commit fornication as some of them committed fornication”]: which was under the apostle’s pen so changed as if in the cited passage it stood ou οὐ καθάς τινες αὐτῶν ἐπόρνευσαν [“not in accordance with some of them who committed fornication”]. In 1Jn 3:10 it had been declared that brotherly love was a sign of divine sonship; and, conversely, that the absence of it was a proof that regeneration was wanting. Hence the apostle’s exhortation is directed in the first place, not against the σφάζειν [“to slay”], which was only evidence of the ἐκ τοῦπονηροῦ [“of the evil one”], but against this latter itself, and subordinately against its evidence in murder. The part of the Epistle now before us does not, indeed, refer to works in themselves, but to these as the marks and signs of the internal condition. The second half of this verse shows the internal connection between the relation to the brethren, of which the apostle will now speak, and the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”],—that is, the relation to God of which he had already just spoken. The former, that is, depends upon the latter: because Cain’s works, the collective expression of his inner man, were not righteous like those of his brother, therefore there arose in him hatred to that brother. Ποιεῖντὴνἁμαρτίαν [“to practicesin”] and οὐκἀγαπᾶντὸνἀδελφὸν [“to not love the brother”] are not simply co-ordinate evidences of the εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ [“to be of the evil one”], as the καί [“and”] in 1Jn 3:10b declared this co-ordination; but the latter is, on the other hand, the plain result of the former. That the unrighteousness of Cain is here exhibited as the ground of his hatred to his brother, is altogether in harmony with the Old Testament record. For there we see that the motive of his hatred to Abel was his envy, because Abel was more acceptable to God; but this latter was founded, according to the express divine declaration, in the הֵיטִיב [“the good”], the “good work” of Abel, which was wanting to Cain. It is extremely appropriate that St. John does not speak of the μισεῖν [“hate”] of Cain, but of the σφάζειν [“to slay”] in which that hatred found expression; for he is treating generally of the outward evidence of the internal disposition, through which outward evidence the internal disposition appears manifestly and incontrovertibly to the man himself; and that he uses the word σφάζειν [“to slay”], which occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in the Apocalypse, and there used, so to speak, as a vox solemnis, with a special fulness of meaning, was designed to exhibit before the reader’s eyes the unmitigated fearfulness of the act of Cain. But St. John does not pre sent the fratricide of Cain only as one individual result of the general unrighteousness of his works, but rather as specifically evoked by the opposite character of the works of Abel. As everywhere, so here also evil is brought to its full maturity by means of juxtaposition with the light, which reveals its character and makes it truly dark. The wicked man who feels himself miserable at heart grudges the good man the blessedness he has in his righteousness; and therefore has the disposition to rob him of it by annihilating the good himself. As it is in the nature of the devil, so it is in the nature of the child of the devil; they are alike ἀνθρωποκτόνοι [“murderers”]. And the mention here of envy as the cause of the murder accords with the record of Genesis: Cain was urged to his sinful act by knowing that his offering was not acceptable to God, while his brother’s was acceptable.