Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 3:15 - 3:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_3:15. πᾶς ὁ μισῶν ] instead of the preceding: μὴ ἀγαπῶν ; not loving and hating are one and the same thing:[226] for pure indifference is not possible to the living human soul.
ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἐστί ] This word (except only in Joh_8:44, used of the devil) does not signify the murderer of the soul, whether one’s own or one’s brother’s, but the murderer in the strict sense. Every one who hates his brother is a murderer, not merely inasmuch as hatred sometimes leads to murder, but because by his nature he is inclined to the destruction of his brother, and if he does not attain this object is only hindered from it by other opposing forces. As in the moral life it is not the outward act in itself, but the intention, that is of consequence, every one who lives in hatred towards his brother must by the moral consciousness (or by God, Drusius, Hornejus) be regarded as a murderer; comp. Mat_5:21 ff., Mat_5:27-28.
Hence it is clear that the real thought of the apostle is missed when μισεῖν is here limited to the odium perfectum (Hornejus). Baumgarten-Crusius erroneously denies that ἈΝΘΡΩΠΟΚΤΌΝΟς refers to Cain, 1Jn_3:12; this reference is clearly patent.
ΚΑῚ ΟἼΔΑΤΕ ] de Wette: “whence? from the Christian consciousness in general.”
ὍΤΙ Πᾶς ἈΝΘΡΩΠΟΚΤΌΝΟς Κ . Τ . Λ .] He who takes his brother’s life cannot and must not retain life himself, his life decays in death; that is the order appointed by God; comp. Gen_9:6. Accordingly he who in his heart murders his brother, cannot be in possession of the life which dwells in the heart, i.e. of “eternal life.” By ζωὴ αἰώνιος we are to understand the same thing as in 1Jn_3:14 was described by the simple word ΖΩΉ ; and ἜΧΕΙ is to be retained as the actual present; erroneously a Lapide: non habebit gloriam vitae.
The adjective ΜΈΝΟΥΣΑΝ Lücke, with whom Sander agrees, appealing to the parable of the unmerciful servant, explains by the fact that John is speaking to Christians who already had some part in eternal life. But the expression Πᾶς Ὁ ΜΙΣῶΝ shows that John is here speaking quite generally, and, indeed, in order to confirm the preceding thought: Ὁ ΜῊ ἈΓΑΠῶΝ ΜΈΝΕΙ ἘΝ Τῷ ΘΑΝΆΤῼ ; it must therefore be the condition of those who form the ΚΌΣΜΟς (to whom also the mere nominal Christians belong), of those accordingly who have no part in the ΖΩῊ ΑἸΏΝΙΟς , that is stated. By ΜΈΝΟΥΣΑΝ is therefore not suggested the loss of a previously possessed good; just as little as in the corresponding passage, Gospel of Joh_5:38 : τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ὑμῖν μένοντα , where also the meaning is not that those addressed have previously had the word of God, for this is distinctly denied in Joh_5:37. The ΜΈΝΟΥΣΑΝ is rather explained by the fact that he alone really has the ΖΩῊ ΑἸΏΝΙΟς in whom it abides (comp. chap. 1Jn_2:19); ΜΈΝΕΙΝ expresses here also, according to John’s usus loquendi, the idea of being in a strengthened degree, and may accordingly be used quite apart from any reference to the previous state; μένουσαν is to be connected with ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ; he has not the life abiding, i.e. surely and firmly existing, in him.[227]
[226] Wrongly Nicol. de Lyra: odisse pejus quam non diligere.
[227] It is incorrect to say, with Braune: “by μένουσαν the existence of eternal life from baptism, etc., is indicated,” since in the context there is no reference whatever to baptism, instruction, etc., and the advantage resulting therefrom. Weiss artificially explains: “John supposes the case of a person having eternal life, and now goes so far as to say that even such an one may not have it permanently at least, but may be in the condition of losing it if by hating his brother he becomes a murderer;” such a case John would not and could not at all assume. Very strange is Ebrard’s interpretation: “supposing that the murderer had at the time the ζωὴ αἰώνιος in him (which, however, according to ver. 9, is not possible in the full (!) sense), yet this would not remain in him, he would again fall away from the ζωή (which just for this reason could not be genuine),” as well as his assertion that ζωὴν αἰών . is here used without the article, because John could not ascribe to him who is not a true child of God “the eternal life,” but “eternal life,” i.e. powers of the future world. Comp. against this, 1Jn_5:13.