The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the First Epistle of S. John
Nay more, this death of the soul is absolutely termed death in our deeper teaching, for that death of the body which we dread so much is but a shadow and image of that true death, and not to be compared with it. See S. Gregory (Mor. iv. 17). And S. Augustine (de Civ. vi. cap. ult.), “ If the soul lives in everlasting punishment, it should rather be called everlasting death, and not life.” And S. Basil (Hom. v. on the Martyr Julitta ) says, “ Sin is the death of the soul, which would else be immortal. It deserves to be lamented with inconsolable grief,” &c. And S. Jerome, on Isa. xiv. (Lib. vi.), terms a sinner “ the devil’s carcase, for no one can doubt that sin is a most foetid thing, when the sinner himself says, ‘ My wounds stink and are corrupt.’”
Ver. 15. — Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer . As he said before, “He that loveth not abideth in death.” S. John counts ‘not loving’ and ‘hating’ as the same thing, by miosis , when little is said, but more is meant, and also because want of love is counted as constructive hatred. Moreover, he who hates his brother is in will and desire a murderer. See S. Jerome (Epist. xxxvi. ad Castorin.) and S. Matt v. 28, and hatred moreover disposes to murder, as desire disposes to adultery.
Mystically . He who hates his brother murders his own soul. As S. Ambrose says, “He who hates murders himself in the first place, slaying himself with his own sword.” And S. Gregory (Mor. x. 11) says the same thing more at length. Again, “ he who hates his brother, ofttimes destroys his soul, by provoking him to anger and contention.”
[Pseudo]-Alexander says, “ He who calumniates his brother is a murderer, and no murderer hath any part in the kingdom of God.” For, as Dionysius says, there are three kinds of murder, Bodily, Detraction, and Hatred.
Hath not eternal life abiding in him . Hath not grace abiding in him, nor doth he abide in that grace whereby eternal life is obtained. It is a metonymy, say Cajetan and others. Or else he will not have eternal life ; he cannot have it, the present being taken for the future tense. Which comes to this, He who hateth, hath no hope of eternal life, but abideth in the death of sin. As S. Augustine says (Præf in Ps. xxxi.), “ As an evil conscience is full of despair, so is a good conscience full of hope ; as Cain said, ‘ From Thy face shall I be hid, and shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth,’” &c. ; as S. Jerome says, “ Whosoever finds me out, from the trembling of my body and the agitation of my mind, will know that I deserve to die.” Just as Orestes for the murder of his mother was continually harassed by the Furies.
Ver. 16. — Hereby we know the love of God, because He laid down His life for us : and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. S. John here goes back to the law and living pattern of perfect charity, even Christ, who by laying down His life for us, taught us in like manner to lay down our lives for the brethren. For in Him there shone forth that boundless love which far exceeds the love of all parents and kinsfolk. For He, the Infinite God, laid down His life for us unworthy and ungrateful sinners, with great suffering and shame to Himself, and thus tacitly gave us a pattern for us to imitate, by laying down our lives for the brethren.
But yet we must not risk our own salvation in order to save the souls of others, though we are bound to risk our life for their salvation, which is of more value than our own earthly life, which we must undoubtedly sacrifice for the eternal good of others, as S. Paul did and the other martyrs.
But you will ask, are we bound to risk our own lives for the sake of the lives of others? In ordinary cases, No, but in extraordinary cases, Yes. As when bound by oath or promise, or in defence of our country. But a friend is not bound to risk his own life for that of his friend, since that would be to love his neighbour even more than himself, which, S. Augustine says (de Mend. cap. 10), goes beyond the rule laid down. But yet to do so would be laudable, for a man would risk his life for the sake of honour, and for the virtue of friendship. And this is a spiritual good, higher than life itself. So S. Augustine teaches (de Amic. cap . 10) ; and S. Jerome on Micah vii. says, “ When a man was asked, What is a friend ? he replied, ‘A second self.’ And accordingly two Pythagoreans gave themselves up to the tyrant as mutual pledges for each other.” (See S. Ambrose, Off. lib. iii. ; Fr. Victoria, Relect. de Homicid. ; Soto, de Just. i. 6 ; and S. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 26, art. 4, ad 2). And Valentia adds this case, “ Ought a man to suffer himself to be killed rather than kill his assailant?” And he rules that he ought rather to be killed himself, than kill another who would die in the very act of sin. We should also risk our life to preserve another's chastity. As the soldier who saved Theodora by changing clothes with her in prison, and who in the end suffered with her. And Paulinus, who became a slave in the place of a widow’s son (slavery being a kind of civil death), and who was highly praised for his act by S. Augustine and other fathers.
Instances are also given from heathen authors of those who gave up their lives for their friends, which is the highest proof of love. See John xv. 13.
Ver. 17. — But whoso hath this world's goods , and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him ? He deduces this as a consequence from the former verse. It is an argument from the less to the greater. If the love of Christ obliges us to lay down our lives for our brethren (which is most difficult), much more does it oblige us to give alms to the needy, which is most easy. And again, our laying down our lives for the brethren is a case which seldom happens, the duty of relieving the needy frequently occurs. So Œcumenius and S. Augustine.
Many doctors argue from this passage that the precept of almsgiving is binding not only in extreme but even in grave cases of necessity, so that a rich man is obliged to give up, not only superfluities , but even things necessary for his station, if he can avert in this way a grave loss to his neighbour. (See Gregory, de Valent. Tom. iii. Disput. iii. ; and Bellarmine, de bonis Oper. lib. iii. See Eccles. iv. 1, S. Ambrose, de Off. iii 31 ; S. Gregory Nazianzen, de cura pauper ; and S. Chrysostom, de Eleemos.)
And shutteth up his bowels from him. The bowels being the seat of compassion and pity. See Lam. ii. 11 ; Col. iii. 12. They are the symbols of paternal as well as of maternal love. See Phile. 7, and Is. lviii. 7. This teaches that alms should be given with much kindness and affection. As S. Gregory says (Moral, xx. 16), " Let the hard and merciless hear the thundering words of the wise man,
Salvian, lib. iv., exhorts the faithful to put on these bowels of mercy, when teaching that Christ, in the persons of the poor, is a mendicant and in need of everything, and that they are cruel who squander their goods on their relations who are in no need, and suffer Christ in the person of the poor to be in want, . . . He shows that they have no faith, and that they do not believe in Christ, who promised abundant rewards to His almoners. . . . And next he shows that they greatly sin, not only because they do not relieve the poor, but also bestow those goods which they have laboriously acquired, on those who misapply them for purposes of display, gluttony, and luxury. " If thou wishest to have eternal life ” (he continues), “ and to see good days, leave thy substance to the saints that are in want, to the lame, the blind, the sick ; let thy means be sustenance to the wretched, thy wealth the life of the poor, and may the refreshment thou givest them be thy own reward, that their refreshment may thus refresh thee.” He concludes by severely inveighing against them, and more especially against ecclesiastics, who are particularly bound to relieve the poor, and not to enrich their kinsfolk out of the funds of the Church, which Prosper calls the patrimony of the poor. See S. Bernard ( Epist. xxiv.), who says that a bishop must not indulge in luxuries, but merely live on the funds of the Church : everything more which thou takest out of them is robbery and sacrilege. See, too, S. Basil on Luke xii. 18. The Stoics thought, on the contrary, that pity was no virtue, but rather the mark of a weak mind. See Seneca (de Clem . ii. 5) and Plautus, as quoted by Lactantius, xi. 11, who condemns any giving of alms as being a waste, and an injury to the recipient. Valerius (Max. iv. 8), on the other hand, records with approval the bountifulness of a certain Silleus.