Skip to content
mannafest.faith

John 15:23

in John 15

Whoever hates Me hates My Father as well.

BSB

The same verse in ASV and KJV

ASV

He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

KJV

He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

This verse in John 15

Commentary

20 notes on this verse
He makes a definite charge of atheism against those who choose, in the impiety of their minds and the estrangement of their hearts, to hate Him. And the charge is a true one. For those who dishonour the Son will not be guiltless of transgression against the Father, convinced of the justice of their hatred.

This site's exposition

they have no excuse for their sin

on John 15:22-25

The coming and the speaking took away the excuse, prophasis in Greek, a covering held over the deed. Hating the Son is hating the Father, and the works no one else did are laid beside the words as a second ground of guilt. The line quoted comes from the Psalms, 35:19 and 69:4.

The record, by era

The Church Fathers5 voices

A commentator

Augustine of Hippo

Tractates on John 90 · Written in the 5th century.

proposed

The Lord says, as you have just been hearing, "He that hateth me, hateth my Father also:" and yet He had said a little before, "These things will they do unto you, because they know not Him that sent me." A question therefore arises that cannot be overlooked, how they can hate one whom they know not? For if it is not God as He really is, but something else, I know not what, that they suspect or believe Him to be, and hate this; then assuredly it is not God Himself that they hate, but the thing they conceive in their own erroneous suspicion or baseless credulity; and if they think of Him as He really is, how can they be said to know Him not? It may be the case, indeed, with regard to men, that we frequently love those whom we have never seen; and in this way it can, on the other hand, be none the less impossible that we should hate those whom we have never seen. The report, for instance, whether good or bad, about some preacher, leads us not improperly to love or to hate the unknown. But if the report is truthful, how can one, of whom we have got such true accounts, be spoken of as unknown? Is it because we have not seen his face? And yet, though he himself does not see it, he can be known to no one better than to himself. The knowledge of any one, therefore, is not conveyed to us in his bodily countenance, but only lies open to our apprehension when his life and character are revealed. Otherwise no one would be able to know himself, because unable to see his own face. But surely he knows himself more certainly than he is known to others, inasmuch as by inward inspection he can the more certainly see what he is conscious of, what he desires, what he is living for; and it is when these are likewise laid open to us, that he becomes truly known to ourselves. […]

A commentator

Augustine of Hippo

Tractates on John 90 · Written in the 5th century.

proposed

But in such cases our credulity is frequently at fault; for sometimes even history, and still more ordinary report, turns out to be false. Yet, it ought to be our concern, in order not to be misled by an injurious opinion, seeing we cannot search into the consciences of men, to have a true and certain sentiment about things themselves. I mean, that in regard to this or that man, if we know not whether he is immodest or modest, we should at all events hate immodesty and love modesty: and if in regard to some one or other we know not whether he is unjust or just, we should at any rate love justice and abhor injustice; not such things as we erroneously fancy to ourselves, but such as we believingly perceive according to God's truth, the one to be desired, the other to be shunned; so that, when in regard to things themselves we do desire what ought to be desired, and utterly avoid what ought to be avoided, we may find pardon for the mistaken feelings which we at times, yea, at all times, entertain regarding the actual state of others which is hidden from our eyes. For this, I think, has to do with human temptation, without which we cannot pass through this life, so that the apostle said, "No temptation should befall you but such as is common to man." For what is so common to man as inability to inspect the heart of man; and therefore, instead of scrutinizing its inmost recesses, to suspect for the most, part something very different from what is going on therein? […]

A commentator

Augustine of Hippo

Tractates on John 90 · Written in the 5th century.

proposed

But amid all these darknesses of human hearts, it happens as a thing much to be wondered at and mourned over, that one, whom we account unjust, and who nevertheless is just, and in whom, without knowing it, we love justice, we sometimes avoid, and turn away from, and hinder from approaching us, and refuse to have life and living in common with him; and, if necessity compel the infliction of discipline, whether to save others from harm or bring the person himself back to rectitude, we even pursue him with a salutary harshness; and so afflict a good man as if he were wicked, and one whom unknowingly we love. This takes place if one, for example's sake, who is modest is believed by us to be the opposite. For, beyond doubt, if I love a modest person, he is himself the very object that I love; and therefore I love the man himself, and know it not. And if I hate an immodest person, it is on that account, not him that I hate: for he is not the thing that I hate; and yet to that object of my love, with whom my heart makes continual abode in the love of modesty, I am ignorantly doing an injury, erring as I do, not in the distinction I make between virtue and vice, but in the thick darkness of the human heart. Accordingly, as it may so happen that a good man may unknowingly hate a good man, or rather loves him without knowing it (for the man himself he loves in loving that which is good; for what the other is, is the very thing that he loves); and without knowing it, hates not the man himself, but that which he supposes him to be: so may it also be the case that an unjust man hates a just man, and, while he opines that he loves one who is unjust like himself, unknowingly loves the just man; and yet so long as he believes him to be unjust, he loves not the man himself, but that which he imagines him to be. And as it is with another man, so is it also with God. […]

A commentator

Augustine of Hippo

Catena Aurea by Aquinas · Written in the 5th century.

proposed

(Tr. xc. 1) But He has just said, Because they know not Him that sent Me. How could they hate one whom they did not know? For if they hated God, believing Him to be something else, and not God, this was not hatred of God. In the case of men, it often happens that we hate or love persons whom we have never seen, simply in consequence of what we have heard of them. But if a man's character is known to us, he cannot properly be said to be unknown. And a man's character is not shown by his face, but by his habits and way of life: else we should not be able to know ourselves, for we cannot see our own face. But history and fame sometimes lie; and our faith is imposed upon. We cannot penetrate into men's hearts; we only know that such things are right, and others wrong; and if we escape error here, to be mistaken in men is a venial matter. A good man may hate a good man ignorantly, or rather love him ignorantly, for he loves the good man, though he hates the man whom he supposes him to be. A bad man may love a good man, supposing him to be a bad man like himself, and therefore not, properly speaking, loving him, but the person whom he takes him to be. And in the same way with respect to God. If the Jews were asked whether they loved God, they would reply that they did love Him, not intending to lie, but only being mistaken in so saying. For how could they who hated the Truth, love the Father of the Truth? They did not wish their actions to be judged, and this the Truth did. They hated the Truth then, because they hated the punishment which He would inflict upon such as they. But at the same time they did not know that He was the Truth, who came to condemn them. They did not know that the Truth was born of God the Father, and therefore they did not know God the Father Himself. Thus they both hated, and also knew not, the Father.

A commentator

Augustine of Hippo

Tractates on John 89 · Written in the 5th century.

proposed

"He that hateth me," He says, "hateth my Father also." Here it may be said to us, Who can hate one whom he knows not? And certainly before saying, "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin," He had said to His disciples, "These things will they do unto you, because they know not Him that sent me." How, then, do they both know not, and hate? For if the notion they have formed of Him is not that which He is in Himself, but some unknown conjecture of their own, then certainly it is not Himself they are found to hate, but that figment which they devise or rather suspect in their error. And yet, were it not that men could hate that which they know not, the Truth would not have asserted both, namely, that they both know not, and hate His Father. But such a possibility, if by the Lord's help we are able to show it, cannot be demonstrated at present, as this discourse must now be brought to a close.
13 more voices on this verse

The Church Fathers3 voices

A commentator

Hilary of Poitiers

ON THE TRINITY 6.30 · Written before 367.

proposed

For when the Son says, He that hateth Me hateth My Father also, this My is the assertion of a relation to the Father which is shared by none. On the other hand, He condemns the man who claims God as his Father, and loves not the Son, as using a wrongful liberty with the Father's name; since he who hates Him, the Son, must hate the Father also, and none can be devoted to the Father save those who love the Son. For the one and only reason which He gives for loving the Son is His origin from the Father. The Son, therefore, is from the Father, not by His Advent, but by His birth; and love for the Father is only possible to those who believe that the Son is from Him.

A commentator

Methodius of Olympus

Methodius Oration on the Psalms · Written before 311.

proposed

Ye think, indeed, under a pretence of piety, to avenge the glory of God, not understanding that he that despiseth Me despiseth My Father also.

A commentator

John Chrysostom

Homily on the Gospel of John 77 · Written in the 5th century.

proposed

"He that hateth Me, hateth My Father also." From this also proclaiming beforehand no small punishment against them. For, since they continually pretended that they persecuted Him on account of the Father, to deprive them of this excuse He spake these words. "They have no excuse. I gave them the teaching which is by words, that by works I added, according to the Law of Moses, who bade all men obey one speaking and doing such things, when he should both lead to piety, and exhibit the greatest miracles." And He spake not simply of "signs," but...

The Medieval Church4 voices

A commentator

Bonaventure

Commentary on John, Chapter 15 · Written in the 13th century.

proposed

Whoever hates me hates my Father also; raised up by their own pride, according to that of the Psalm: "The pride of those who hate you ascends continually." Because therefore they refused to hear out of malice, they were inexcusable; Matthew twelve: "The Queen of …

A commentator

Alcuin of York

Catena Aurea by Aquinas · Written before 804.

proposed

For as he who loves the Son, loves the Father also, the love of the Father being one with that of the Son, even as their nature is one: so he who hateth the Son, hateth the Father also.

A commentator

Thomas Aquinas

Commentary on John · Written before 1274.

proposed

2050 This is why he adds, He who hates me hates my Father also. This is like saying: Their sin is not ignorance of me, but hatred for me, and this involves hatred for the Father. Since the Son and the Father are one in …

A commentator

Theophylact of Ohrid

Commentary on John · Written before 1107.

proposed

Then, since they everywhere appealed to nothing other than the claim that they were defending the Father (for they say: "This man is not from God," and the like (John 9:16)), He therefore adds: "He who hates Me hates My Father also." Thus, even this …

The Puritans and the Awakening2 voices

A commentator

John Wesley

1703–1791

Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (1755)

He that hateth me - As every unbeliever doth, For as the love of God is inseparable from faith, so is the hatred of God from unbelief.
He that hateth me, hateth my Father also.

The Nineteenth Century4 voices

He that hateth me ... - To show them that this was no slight crime, he reminds them that a rejection of himself is also a rejection of God. Such is the union between them, that no one can hate the one without also hating the other. See Joh 5:19-20; Joh 14:7, Joh 14:9.

A commentator

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

1802–1910

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)

If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin--comparatively none; all other sins being light compared with the rejection of the Son of God. now they have no cloak for their sin--rather, "pretext."
In these verses our Lord Jesus Christ handles three subjects of great importance. They are difficult subjects, no doubt, subjects on which we may easily fall into error. But the words before us throw much light upon them. We should observe, for one thing, how our Lord speaks of the misuse of religious privileges. It intensifies man's guilt, and will increase his condemnation. He tells His disciples that if He had not "spoken" and "done" among the Jews things which none ever spoke or did before, "they would not be guilty of sin."
In these verses our Lord Jesus Christ handles three subjects of great importance. They are difficult subjects, no doubt, subjects on which we may easily fall into error. But the words before us throw much light upon them. We should observe, for one thing, how our Lord speaks of the misuse of religious privileges. It intensifies man's guilt, and will increase his condemnation. He tells His disciples that if He had not "spoken" and "done" among the Jews things which none ever spoke or did before, "they would not be guilty of sin." By this, we must remember, He means, "they had not been so sinful and so guilty as they are now. But now they were utterly without excuse." They had seen Christ's works, and heard Christ's teaching, and yet remained unbelieving. What more could be done for them? Nothing. absolutely nothing! They wilfully sinned against the clearest possible light, and were of all men most guilty. Let us settle it down as a first principle in our religion, that religious privileges are in a certain sense very dangerous things. If they do not help us toward heaven, they will only sink us deeper into hell. They add to our responsibility. "To whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required." (Luke 12:48.) He that dwells in a land of open Bibles and preached Gospel, and yet dreams that he will stand in the judgment day on the same level with an untaught Chinese, is fearfully deceived. He will find to his own cost, except he repents, that his judgment will be according to his light. The mere fact that he had knowledge and did not improve it, will of itself prove one of his greatest sins. "He that knew His Master's will and did it not, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47.) Well would it be for all professing Christians in England, if this point was more thoroughly considered!

The words behind it

8 Greek words

Every Greek word of this verse in the order it stands, with what it means and the door to its own study. The last column counts the times a word stands in the whole Bible: the rarer the word, the more the places it appears belong together.

A shaded row is a word that stands 400 times or fewer in the Bible.

The walk

8 stops

Each card is a verse this one points to, and under it the verses that one points to in turn. Where several paths arrive at the same place, that place is listed first: the text keeps returning to it.

  • Through

    2 John 1:9

    Anyone who runs ahead without remaining in the teaching of Christ does not have God. Whoever remains in His teaching has both the Father and the Son.

    it leads to

    • John 7:16–17

      “My teaching is not My own,” Jesus replied. “It comes from Him who sent Me.

    • Colossians 3:16

      Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to…

    • 1 John 2:22–24

      Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son.

    • John 15:6

      If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are gathered up, thrown into the fire, and burned.

  • Through

    1 John 2:23

    Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well.

    it leads to

    • 1 John 4:15

      If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

    • John 8:19

      “Where is Your Father?” they asked Him. “You do not know Me or My Father,” Jesus answered. “If you knew Me, you would know My Father as well.”

    • John 5:23

      so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

    • John 10:30

      I and the Father are one.”

Where this verse is studied

About John

The Word Made Flesh, Gustave Doré, 1866. Public domain.
The Word Made Flesh, Gustave Doré, 1866. Public domain.
This page draws on 18 works. Open the list of works

This page draws on Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments (1832-1869); Alcuin of York, Catena Aurea by Aquinas; Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John 90; Augustine of Hippo, Catena Aurea by Aquinas; Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John 89; Bonaventure, Commentary on John, Chapter 15; Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John; Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 10; Hilary of Poitiers, ON THE TRINITY 6.30; J.C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: John (lightly modernized text, Grace Gems edition); Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; John Chrysostom, Homily on the Gospel of John 77; John Gill, Exposition of the New Testament (1746-1748); John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament; Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible; Methodius of Olympus, Methodius Oration on the Psalms; Theophylact of Ohrid, Commentary on John and Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John.