1 João 5
A.T. Robertson · Citado em PreceptAustin
1 João 5:14
Robertson adds that He hears us "Even when God does not give us what we ask." God wants to give you what you would want God to give you if you were wise enough to want it. -- Daniel Akin Kenneth
1 João 5:16
Robertson notes that use of erotao in "this sense of beg or petition is common in the papyri and Koine generally. The original use of asking a question survives also." See also Trench's Synonyms above for his discussion of aiteo and erotao. Zodhiates adds that "A very distinct meaning of the verb erōtaō is “to pray,” but it is in contrast to the verb aiteo. Erotao provides the most delicate and tender expression for prayer or request with the one asking and the one being asked being on an equal level, such as the Lord Jesus asking of the Father. The contrast is made clear in Jn 14:13-14, where the word aiteo is used in the case of our asking God as an inferior to a superior, leaving it up to Him to do that which pleases Him. However, in John 14:16 ("I will ask [erotao] the Father and He will give you another Helper"), when the Lord Jesus is praying to the Father or asking the Father, the verb erotao is used, as also in John 17:9, 15, 20." And so erotao is generally more conversational than aiteo and at times may express a more intimate relation between the parties than aiteo would. Jesus always used erōtaō in prayer to His Father (John 14:16), whereas the disciples use aiteo in prayers to God. Aiteo and erotao are used in the same verse in Jn 16:23, John 16:26, 1Jn 5:16. "And in that day you will ask (erotao) Me no question. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you shall ask (aiteo) the Father for anything, He will give it to you in My name. (Jn 16:23) ""In that day you will ask (aiteo) in My name, and I do not say to you that I will request (erotao) the Father on your behalf; (Jn 16:26) If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask (erotao) and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request (erotao) for this. (1Jn 5:16) Friberg on erotao - (1) as seeking information ask, inquire, question (Mt 19.17); (2) as making a request ask, demand, beg someone to do something (Jn 4.40); as making a request to God ask, pray (Jn 16.26) NIDNTT on erotao - It commonly mans to ask, inquire. Jesus’ asking and counter-questions were part of his teaching method, designed to expose the person concerned to the implications of his own questions or make him reflect on his attitudes (e.g. Mt. 16:13; 19:17; 21:24; Mk. 8:5; Lk. 20:3). But it is also used of the theological questions put by the disciples (Mk. 4:10; Lk. 9:45; Acts 1:6). Jn. 16:23 implies that in the future salvation there will be no need to ask Jesus further questions. Asking implies imperfect knowledge which will be overcome by perfect fellowship with Jesus (cf. Jn. 16:30; cf. Jn 16:5, 19). Conversely Jesus does not need to ask questions, for he knows already what is in man (Jn. 2:25). Apart from Jn. 9:2 and the final discourses, the disciples are never said to ask Jesus. In John asking is characteristic of the doubting, contentious questions of the Jews (Jn. 1:19, 21, 25; 4:31, 40, 47; 5:12; 8:7; 9:15, 19, 21, 23; 18:19, 21; 19:31, 38). But it may be compared with the question of the Greeks (Jn 12:21) and those of Jesus (Jn 14:16; 17:9, 15, 20; of the intercession of Jesus, where Jesus asks things for his disciples of the Father). The verb is used of the efficacy of intercession in 1Jn. 5:16. The use here of the verb of the praying believer extends to him a sense of the verb which in Jn. is only applied to Jesus. H. Greeven thinks that the use of erōtaō in the sense of to pray may be a Semitism (TDNT II 686 f.). In 2 Jn. 5 it describes the action of the author in begging his readers to follow love (cf. 2Jn 1:6). In Acts 1:6 it means to ask (a question). Elsewhere it generally means to request: of the disciples to Jesus (Mt. 15:23; Lk. 4:38); of the Jews to Pilate (Jn. 19:31); and in the Lucan writings of invitations (Lk. 7:36; 11:37; Acts 10:48; 18:20). In Lk. 14:18f. it has the polite, weakened sense of “I pray you”. Vine on erotao - more frequently suggests that the petitioner is on a footing of equality or familiarity with the person whom he requests. It is used of a king in making request from another king, Luke 14:32; of the Pharisee who "desired" Christ that He would eat with him, an indication of the inferior conception he had of Christ, Luke 7:36; cp. Luke 11:37; John 9:15; 18:19 . In this respect it is significant that the Lord Jesus never used aiteo in the matter of making request to the Father. "The consciousness of His equal dignity, of His potent and prevailing intercession, speaks out in this, that as often as He asks, or declares that He will ask anything of the Father, it is always erotao, an asking, that is, upon equal terms, John 14:16; 16:26; 17:9,15,20 , never aiteo, that He uses. Martha, on the contrary, plainly reveals her poor unworthy conception of His person, that … she ascribes that aiteo to Him which He never ascribes to Himself, John 11:22 " (Trench, Syn. xl). In passages where both words are used, the distinction should be noticed, even if it cannot be adequately represented in English. In John 16:23 , "in that day ye shall ask Me nothing," the verb is erotao, whereas in the latter part of the verse, in the sentence, "If ye shall ask anything of the Father," the verb is aiteo. The distinction is brought out in the RV margin, which renders the former clause "Ye shall ask Me no question," and this meaning is confirmed by the fact that the disciples had been desirous of "asking" Him a question (arotao, John 16:19 ). If the Holy Spirit had been given, the time for "asking" questions from the Lord would have ceased. In John 14:14 , where, not a question, but a request is made by the disciples, aiteo, is used. Both verbs are found in 1 John 5:16 : in the sentence "he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death," the verb is aiteo, but with regard to the sin unto death, in the sentence "not concerning this do I say that he shall make request," the verb is erotao. Later, the tendency was for erotao to approximate to aiteo. (Vine's Expository Dictionary) In classical Greek erōtaō usually means “to ask a question” in order to gain information. It may also mean “to challenge a person” or “to request something from someone.” In the Septuagint the primary meaning of erōtaō is “to ask for information.” Another use of erōtaō in the Septuagint is in connection with prayers to God. Prayers using erōtaō are generally requests for guidance. The Christian use of erōtaō in prayers to God is documented by an inscription in a Roman catacomb (Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary) Webster on request - To ask; to solicit; to express desire for. To express desire to; to ask. We requested a friend to accompany us. Erotao - 63x in 61v - NAS Usage: ask(15), ask a question(1), asked(14), asking(11), asks(3), beg(1), begging(1), implored(1), imploring(1), make request(1), please(2), question(5), questioned(2), request(4), requesting(1), urging(1). Note the majority of uses in John. Matt. 15:23; Matt. 16:13; Matt. 19:17; Matt. 21:24; Mk. 4:10; Mk. 7:26; Mk. 8:5; Lk. 4:38; Lk. 5:3; Lk. 7:3; Lk. 7:36; Lk. 8:37; Lk. 9:45; Lk. 11:37; Lk. 14:18; Lk. 14:19; Lk. 14:32; Lk. 16:27; Lk. 19:31; Lk. 20:3; Lk. 22:68; Lk. 23:3; Jn. 1:19; Jn. 1:21; Jn. 1:25; Jn. 4:31; Jn. 4:40; Jn. 4:47; Jn. 5:12; Jn. 8:7; Jn. 9:2; Jn. 9:15; Jn. 9:19; Jn. 9:21; Jn. 9:23; Jn. 12:21; Jn. 14:16; Jn. 16:5; Jn. 16:19; Jn. 16:23; Jn. 16:26; Jn. 16:30; Jn. 17:9; Jn. 17:15; Jn. 17:20; Jn. 18:19; Jn. 18:21; Jn. 19:31; Jn. 19:38; Acts 1:6; Acts 3:3; Acts 10:48; Acts 16:39; Acts 18:20; Acts 23:18; Acts 23:20; Phil. 4:3; 1 Thess. 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:12; 2 Thess. 2:1; 1 Jn. 5:16; 2 Jn. 1:5 Erotao - 54v in the Septuagint - Ge 24:47, 57; 32:17, 29; 37:15; 40:7; 43:7, 27; 44:19; Ex 3:13; 13:14; Deut 6:20; 13:14; Josh 4:6, 21; Jdg 4:20; 13:6, 18; 18:5, 15; 20:18, 23; 1Sa 10:4; 19:22; 22:10, 13, 15; 23:4; 25:5, 8; 30:21; 2Sa 5:19; 8:10; 20:18; 1Chr 14:10, 14; 18:10; Ezra 5:9-10; Neh 1:2; Job 21:29; 38:3; 40:7; 42:4; Ps 35:11; 122:6; Isa 41:28; 45:11; Jer 6:16; 18:13; 23:33; 30:6; 36:17; 37:17; 38:14, 27; 48:19; 50:5; Da 2:10 In the Septuagint the primary meaning of erōtaō is “to ask for information.” A fairly common use of erōtaō in the Septuagint is in connection with prayers to God. (Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary) Psalm 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: "May they prosper who love you. Oswald Chambers - Heedfulness v. hypocrisy in ourselves If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and He shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. 1 John 5:16. If we are not heedful of the way the Spirit of God works in us, we shall become spiritual hypocrites. We see where other folks are failing, and we turn our discernment into the gibe of criticism instead of into intercession on their behalf. The revelation is made to us not through the acuteness of our minds, but by the direct penetration of the Spirit of God, and if we are not heedful of the source of the revelation, we shall become criticizing centres and forget that God says—“… he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death.” Take care lest you play the hypocrite by spending all your time trying to get others right before you worship God yourself. One of the subtlest burdens God ever puts on us as saints is this burden of discernment concerning other souls. He reveals things in order that we may take the burden of these souls before Him and form the mind of Christ about them, and as we intercede on His line, God says He will give us “life for them that sin not unto death.” It is not that we bring God into touch with our minds, but that we rouse ourselves until God is able to convey His mind to us about the one for whom we intercede. Is Jesus Christ seeing of the travail of His soul in us? He cannot unless we are so identified with Himself that we are roused up to get His view about the people for whom we pray. May we learn to intercede so whole-heartedly that Jesus Christ will be abundantly satisfied with us as intercessors. SIN UNTO DEATH 1 JOHN 5:16 - James Bolick INTRODUCTION. This Epistle of John was written to the saved; however, there is a sin unto death for the sinner as well as the saint. The Bible holds that God will kill either, sinner or saint, when they are guilty of committing a sin unto death. I. THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT A MAN’S LIFE CAN BE SHORTENED BY SIN. A. Sin results in death. James 1:14, 15. B. Wickedness will cause a man’s life to be cut off. Prov. 10:27. C. The “bloody, and deceitful man shall not live out half his days.” Ps. 55:23. II. WHAT IS THIS SIN UNTO DEATH? A. I cannot be dogmatic; But, I believe that it can be almost any sin, and I do know that it can be committed. B. When a person is continually warned of some sin in their life by the Holy Spirit, and willfully disobeys, he is in danger. III. SINS IN THE BIBLE THAT WERE UNTO DEATH. A. Putting off salvation—leaving God out of our lives. Luke 12:16–20; Prov. 29:1. B. Rebellion against God, and leading others to rebel. Jer. 28:16, 17. C. Murmuring against God, and God’s man. Num. 16:41–48. D. Lying to the Holy Spirit of God. Acts 5:1–11. E. Refusing to judge ourselves. 1 Cor. 11:30–32. NOTE: In the above references you will see that God not only killed some who were saved, but He killed some who were lost. Norman Geisler - When Critics Ask 1 JOHN 5:16—What is a sin unto death? Is it forgivable? PROBLEM: On the one hand, the Scriptures speak of God’s free and unconditional forgiveness to all who want it (cf. Acts 13:38–39; Rom. 5:20; 1 John 2:1). On the other hand, Jesus spoke of an unpardonable sin that can never be forgiven. And John declares here that there is a “sin leading to death.” SOLUTION: Bible commentators differ on just what John had in mind here. Some say he was referring to repeated sin (see comments on 1 John 3:9). Others believe he was speaking of a grave sin. Still others believe he had apostasy in mind (cf. 2 Peter 2). Whatever John envisioned, there is no reason that it could not refer to a sin so serious that it would eventuate in physical death. Paul mentioned that the Corinthians had so participated in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner that some were sick and others were dead as a result (1 Cor. 11:29–30). In fact, the priests Nadab and Abihu were smitten dead for their disobedience to the Lord (Num. 3:4), as were Ananias and Sapphira for their sin (Acts 5:1–9). So, it is entirely possible that John has some such serious sin in mind here whereby the believer is turned over to Satan for “the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5). Walter Kaiser - HARD SAYINGS - 5:16–17 A Sin That Leads to Death? Is there a sin from which there is no recovery? There is certainly no problem with the concept that one should pray for a fellow Christian who sins. With John, Christians recognize that “all wrongdoing is sin” and that all of it separates individuals from God. Thus prayer and restorative counsel (Gal 6:1) appear to be in order when we observe a fellow believer who has sinned. Where John causes problems, however, is in mentioning “a sin that leads to death,” for which prayer is not in order (not that it is necessarily wrong, but that it is useless). What type of sin is this? And what type of death is intended—physical or spiritual death? Since we ourselves fall into sin at times, the questions are of practical importance to each of us. This is no mere resolving an academic problem of Scripture. This passage occurs at the end of 1 John, right after an encouragement to pray (1 Jn 5:13–15). According to John, it is because “we know that we have what we ask from him” that one should pray for the “brother” who sins. James has a similar structure in the conclusion of his letter. After talking about prayer for healing (Jas 5:13–16), he notes the encouragement to pray that Elijah’s example gives (Jas 5:17–18) and then talks about turning a sinner from the error of his or her way and thus saving him or her from death (Jas 5:19–20), the purpose of his book. This structure of health wish plus purpose statement in the conclusion of a letter was typical of one form of Greek letters. Thus it is not surprising that in his conclusion John also has a modified health wish before reaching his final purpose statement (probably 1 Jn 5:20). But what type of life and death is John talking about? This is a modern question; it was not one for John’s readers, for the brevity of his reference assumes that they would know what he was talking about. We have to discover this from the rest of his letter. We note, then, that 1 John uses the term life thirteen times, seven of them in this chapter. Since he means spiritual life (eternal life) in every other case in which he uses the term, we would expect that this would also be the meaning here. Likewise the two other places where he uses death (both in 1 Jn 3:14) refer to spiritual death, not physical death. So even though in the New Testament sin can lead to physical death (1 Cor 11:30; compare Acts 5:1–11; 1 Cor 5:5) and physical sickness (Jas 5:15–16), it is unlikely that that is the meaning here. This is especially true in that in both his Gospel and epistle John sees physical death as something already transcended by the believer (Jn 8:51; 11:26; 1 Jn 3:14). What, then, is the sin (not specific acts of sin, but a quality of sin) that leads to this spiritual death? In the Old Testament some sins carried the death penalty, while others did not (Num 18:22; Deut 22:26). In particular, deliberate or willful breaking of the commandments required death, while inadvertent sin did not (Lev 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:15, 17–18; Num 15:27–31; Deut 17:12). Both of these distinctions were common in first-century Jewish literature as well. While all of these Old Testament references are to the physical death of the offender, it would not be surprising for John to reinterpret the concept in terms of spiritual life and death, for that is his focus. In this he had help from Jesus, who referred to a category of sin that would not be forgiven (Mk 3:28 and parallels). What type of sin is this? For Jesus it was observing the activity of the Holy Spirit and calling it the devil’s work. Similarly, John has been concerned with a group of apostates, people who were part of the Christian community and have left. What is their sin? They are continuing in (and therefore condoning) sin, they are hating and separating from their fellow Christians (thus not living out the command of love), they love the world and they even deny that Jesus has come “in the flesh” (probably a denial that Christ had a real human body). These are not casual errors or lapses into this or that sin, but a knowing and deliberate turning away from the truth they experienced in the Christian community. While they would probably still consider themselves Christians, John knows that their standards and their doctrines are quite different from those of his group. The answer is because such prayer is useless. It is not that it is absolutely wrong to pray. Why, then, doesn’t John say that one should pray for them? The answer is because such prayer is useless. It is not that it is absolutely wrong to pray. While John clearly does not intend Christians to pray for the forgiveness of such people, he words himself carefully so as not to forbid it. The issue is that these people are not repenting or about to repent. Like the people envisioned in Hebrews 6, they have known the truth and experienced the fullness of what God has, but have turned away. While God would surely forgive such people if they did repent, no argument will change their minds. They have left the true Christian community. They “know” they are right and John’s group is wrong. Asking for their forgiveness is useless. Forgiveness comes to the repentant, not those willfully persisting in sin. But that is not John’s focus. His point is that Christians should pray for other members of the Christian community who sin. Why should they do this? First, God seems to prefer to grant forgiveness through confession to another and the other’s praying (as in Jas 5:15–16). Psychologically this makes the repentance much more concrete and thus lasting. Second, sin is to be taken seriously. Today’s slip, if persisted in, could turn into deception, and the brother or sister could slip farther and farther from God until they become part of the apostate group. The time to intervene is not when the person has become hardened in turning away from God, but when the first sin is observed. If one prays then, life will be granted and the individual will not slip further away from God. John, then, is calling for two things that are often poorly practiced in the church today. The first is the taking of responsibility for the spiritual well-being of fellow Christians; that is, for observing errors (the point is that one “sees” the sin; it is observable), correcting the sinners (Gal 6:1–2) and praying for their forgiveness. The second is the taking of sin seriously, realizing that it can indeed lead to grave consequences if persisted in, and thus living in and calling others to live in a holy fear before God. John has no intention of our living in fear that we have sinned “the sin that leads to death,” for the very fear is an indication of our repentance and thus that we have not sinned such a sin. John has every intention of calling us to lead lives open to each other so that we give and receive correction and thus not only keep each other from deliberate rebellion and its consequences, but also assist each other in walking in close fellowship with the God who is light (1 Jn 1:5). See also comment on MARK 3:28–29; HEBREWS 6:4–6; 10:26. Lehman Strauss - (1 John 5:16) I have found this verse to be one of the most difficult to interpret in the entire Epistle. But we must proceed prayerfully, for surely there is something here for us. One important observation should be reiterated, namely, the Epistle is addressed to the children of God. The words “brother” and “pray” would substantiate that this verse likewise fits into the category of the redeemed ones. We may conclude, therefore, that for the child of God, “there is a sin unto death,” the reference being, of course, to physical death. This seems to indicate, not any one particular kind of sin, but rather a state of sinning in which the Christian continues. It most assuredly is not the unpardonable sin. Here the brother who is in fellowship with God is exhorted to pray for his brother whose fellowship with God has been severed because of sin. An erring brother should motivate us to unselfish prayer that God will deliver him from the error of his way, thereby prolonging his life. Do not become a censorious critic, but pray for him. To continue in sin is to “sin unto death,” for sin tends toward death. “When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death” (James 1:15). In the case of the unbeliever it is both physical and eternal; in that of the believer it is physical only, as in the case of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:48–52), Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1–2), Korah (Numbers 16:31–34), Achan (Joshua 7:16–26), Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:1–7), Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11), the moral delinquent in the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:1–5), and those who partake of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:27–30). Whenever God deals with one of His own in stern discipline, it has passed beyond the slightest comment from any of us. We can only leave the entire matter with our heavenly Father. (Borrow The Epistles of John : Strauss, Lehman - devotional commentary) Sam Storms - Can a Christian commit the Sin Unto Death? (see also the following article) “If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that” (ESV). The problems posed by this passage are innumerable and therefore so are the interpretations placed upon it. Here are the more cogent views and my critical interaction with each. A. Sin unto Death is Apostasy This interpretation of the passage is one proposed by many Arminians, those who believe a Christian can apostatize from the faith (i.e., fall from grace) and lose his/her salvation. I. Howard Marshall represents this position. The principal elements in his explanation of the text are these. The “brother” about whom John speaks is a genuine, born-again believer, as the usage of the term brother in 1 John would appear to demand (see 1 John 2:9; 10, 11; 3:10, 12[twice], 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; 4:20[twice], 21; 5:16). The kind of “death” John has in mind is spiritual, eternal death, even as the “life” with which it is contrasted is spiritual and eternal. That “sin” which leads to death or results in death is any sin that is incompatible with being a child of God. What sins qualify? According to 1 John, “Sin that leads to death is deliberate refusal to believe in Jesus Christ, to follow God’s commands, and to love one’s brothers. It leads to death because it includes a deliberate refusal to believe in the One who alone can give life, Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (248). On the other hand, sin or sins that do not lead to death “are those which are committed unwittingly and which do not involve rejection of God and his way of salvation. The sinner is overcome by temptation against his will; he still wants to love God and his neighbor, he still believes in Jesus Christ, he still longs to be freed from sin” (248). Marshall makes this distinction between deliberate apostasy (“sin that leads to death”) and unwitting transgression (“sin that does not lead to death”) on the basis of the Old Testament distinction between “unintentional” or “unwitting” sins, for which atonement was possible, and “deliberate” or “high-handed” sins, for which the Levitical sacrificial system provided no forgiveness (see Lev. 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:15, 17–18; Num. 15:27–31; Deut. 17:12). Christians can commit both types of sin. If someone sees a brother committing sin that does not lead to death, one should pray for him and God will use the prayer to give him life. However, if someone sees a Christian brother engaged in open refusal to repent and believe, he is on his way to death. John did not require (but neither does he forbid) that anyone pray for him. Consequently, some Christians may in fact apostatize from the faith by committing sin that leads to their eternal death. The doctrine of eternal security is obviously incompatible with this view. Several comments should be made about this interpretation. First, the text does not say that the “brother” commits sin that leads to death. John refers to a brother only with regard to sin that is not to death. Second, if the sin of the Christian brother is not the kind that leads to death, why must we pray that God would give him life? Marshall’s answer is that “there is always the danger that a person who sins unconsciously or unwittingly may move to the point of sinning deliberately and then of turning his back completely on God and the way of forgiveness. Because of this danger, it is essential that Christians pray for one another lest any of their number cross the line that leads to open and deliberate rejection of the way of life. No sin is of such a kind as to prevent forgiveness, provided that we repent of it. We are to pray for our brothers that they will repent of all sin. When we do this, we have God’s promise that he will hear our prayers” (248–49). But John does not say that the brother was about to “cross over” some such line. Indeed, he says just the opposite. It was to the brother who was not committing sin unto death that God promised to give life. Furthermore, it would be difficult to think of another New Testament author who affirms the doctrine of eternal security with any greater conviction or frequency than the Apostle John (John 6:37–44; 10:11–18, 27–30; 17:1–2, 7–12; 1 John 5:18). Other texts likewise deny what Marshall affirms (Rom. 8:29–39; 1 Cor. 1:4–9; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:23–24; 2 Thess. 2:13–15; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 Pet. 1:5; Jude 24). Finally, why would John not require us to pray for an apostate? Marshall says it is because “where a person himself refuses to seek salvation and forgiveness there is not much point in praying for him” (249). But isn’t that a description that applies to everyone in the world who is not a Christian? Are we not to pray for unbelievers at all? Raymond Brown (Epistles of John), a Roman Catholic scholar, seems to argue for a position similar to Marshall’s. Those who sin unto death, he says, are “former brothers and sisters who have opted to be children of the devil by going out to the world that prefers darkness to light. Since Jesus refused to pray for such a world (John 17:9), the author’s adherents should not pray for those who belong to the world (1 John 4:5). When his readers came to faith and joined the Johannine community of ‘brothers,’ they passed from death to life (1 John 3:14). By leaving the Community the secessionists have shown that they hate the ‘brothers’ and have reversed the process by passing from life to death. In that sense theirs is a sin unto death” (636). But then in a footnote Brown balks, saying that it is unclear “whether the author would admit they ever had life, since he says that the secessionists never really belonged to the Community (1 John 2:19)” (636, n. 17). Stephen Smalley also argues for a position in many ways identical to Marshall. Whereas John “expected his readers to walk in the light as sons of God … he did not ignore the possibility that some believing but heretically inclined members of his community might become apostate.… We conclude that John attributes the possibility of ‘sin which does not lead to death’ to believers, but ‘mortal sin’ to unbelievers who are, or believers who have become, antichristian” (299; emphasis mine). B. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit Others say the “sin unto death” is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This view finds its most able proponent in John Stott. His arguments are as follows. The brother about whom John speaks is not a Christian man. The term brother is being used in “the broader sense of a ‘neighbor’ or of a nominal Christian, a church member who professes to be a ‘brother’ ” but who in reality is a counterfeit (190). He appeals to 1 John 2:9–11 for an example of this broad use of the term. Also, how can a Christian with eternal “life” (1 John 3:14) be given “life” as John affirms? “How can you give life to one who is already alive? This man is not a Christian, for Christians do not fall into death when they fall into sin” (189). Stott agrees with Marshall that both the “life” and “death” of which John speaks are spiritual and eternal in nature. However, neither individual in verse 16 is a Christian. The individual in verse 16b who commits “sin that leads to death” is no more a believer than the “brother” of verse 16a. He is, most likely, one of the false teachers about whom John has been warning his readers, a counterfeit Christian who is exposed by his eventual departure from the church (1 John 2:19). The sin which “leads to death” is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:22–32), that is to say, deliberate, open-eyed, and persistent rejection of Jesus Christ. Sin that leads to death, therefore, is not some solitary sin, but a settled state of sin. It is the high-handed and obstinate repudiation of the claims of Christ as made known in the gospel. Although John did not forbid us to pray for someone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit, he did not recommend it because he could not be certain that God would answer it. Again, several observations are in order. First, although it is possible, I think it is highly unlikely that John would here refer to a non-Christian as a “brother.” Most commentators agree on this point. Second, if both men in verse 16 are nonbelievers, men who reject and disbelieve the gospel of Jesus Christ, how are we to know which one has committed sin that does not lead to death and which one has committed sin that does lead to death? How are we supposed to differentiate between an unbeliever and a so-called “hardened” unbeliever, in order that we might pray for the former but not the latter? If John was supposed to be giving us guidance for knowing when and when not to pray, he was uncharacteristically fuzzy about it. Third, Stott’s view must also face a problem that plagues every interpretation. When we read verse 16 in the light of its immediately preceding context (verses 14–15), one gets the impression that John was describing a particular kind of prayer that we could know would always be answered. In other words, prayer for a brother whose sin is not unto death is always according to God’s will. Consequently, John assured us that in response to such prayer God would give life to the errant brother. If this is correct, the implications are astounding, for it would mean that any non-Christian for whom we pray, assuming that he has not sinned unto death, will be saved, will be given eternal life. Even were we to interpret “brother” as referring to a Christian, the problem remains. In the latter case, it would imply that any sinning Christian for whom we pray will be restored and renewed. This, however, ascribes more to the power of prayer than the rest of Scripture would allow. And although it is not a final authority, experience itself teaches us that not every believer for whom we intercede responds and repents. Also, what about the man who commits sin that leads to death? In Stott’s view, John was saying that he does not recommend we pray for him because it is doubtful if that prayer will be answered. If “sin that leads to death” is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as Stott argues, then whoever commits this sin will never be saved. But if it is never God’s will to give life to a man who is committing sin unto death, why doesn’t John explicitly forbid prayer for him? The fact is, whereas John does not require that we pray for this man, neither does he prohibit such prayer. But why doesn’t he forbid it if by definition (on Stott’s view) the sin he has committed is unforgivable? Donald Burdick, although not agreeing in every particular with Stott (he said the “brother” is a believer), suggests that one reason why God may not answer prayer for the man sinning to death is because “the stubborn will of the sinner may not bend. God,” says Burdick, “though sovereign, chooses not to coerce the will and thus violate the integrity of the personality he created in his own image” (408). But God’s effectual grace in converting the sinner is persuasive, not coercive. More important still, if Burdick’s point is valid, why would it not also apply to the brother who commits sin not unto death? Why should we think that God’s activity with regard to the brother not sinning to death is any less “coercive” or any less a “violation” of the integrity of his personality than God’s activity with regard to the man whose sin is unto death? Sin is a stubborn, rebellious act of one’s will, both in the believer and unbeliever, regardless of who commits it. The alleged coercion or violation that concerns Burdick, irrespective of its degree or intensity, is coercion and violation nonetheless. Perhaps a way to avoid this problem is to understand John to be saying that giving life to brethren who do not sin unto death is something that God often desires to do. Therefore, we should pray to that end. There is no guarantee that it is always God’s will to answer such prayers, even though the language of verse 16a is seemingly unconditional. But even this does not explain why John does not forbid prayer for those who, by definition (on Stott’s view), can never be forgiven of their sins (for remember, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is, according to Jesus, “unforgivable”). Finally, if the man who commits sin unto death is a non-Christian, he is already dead. What, then, could John have meant by saying that if he sins deliberately and persistently, that is, if he blasphemes the Holy Spirit, he will die? Stott agrees that the man is already dead, but by persisting in unbelief he will die the “second death” (Rev. 20:11–15). “Spiritually dead already, he will die eternally” (190). C. Sins Within and Sins Without This third view is difficult to label. It is somewhat of a mediating position between the views of Marshall and Stott. David M. Scholer is its most convincing defender. Scholer agrees with Marshall that the “brother” is a Christian man and that “death” is spiritual and eternal in nature. He also agrees with Marshall that “sin that leads to death” must be identified and defined from within the epistle of 1 John itself. It consists primarily of hating the brethren and denying that Jesus is the Christ. However, unlike Marshall he insists that believers do not commit sin that leads to death. Nowhere in the passage, Scholer strenuously claims, is it ever said that a true believer, a “brother,” commits sin that leads to death. Believers do commit sin that does not lead to death (1 John 1:8; 2:1), and the Christian community is to intercede for them. Prayer for such sinning Christians will be used by God to renew and reconfirm the “life” they already have in Christ (1 John 3:14). John is not primarily concerned with the sins of unbelieving outsiders, such sins that lead to death, and therefore does not speak in order that anyone should pray about it. “Prayer,” says Scholer, “is not absolutely forbidden concerning the matter, nor is it said that one who commits the ‘sin unto death’ is forever beyond the hope of becoming a member of the believing community. But throughout 1 John there is a radical separation between the believing community and the unbelieving world so that prayer for the unbelieving world would not be a ‘normal’ or ‘effective’ practice” (“Sins Within and Sins Without: An Interpretation of 1 John 5:16–18,” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, ed. Gerald Hawthorne [Eerdmans 1975], 243). Scholer proceeds to interpret 1 John 3:6, 9 and 5:18 in the light of 5:16–17. Simply put, the “sin” that Christians cannot commit is not a reference to the practice of sin in general or persistence in sin. Rather, the sin the believer can’t commit is “sin that leads to death,” namely, hatred of believers and denial of Jesus. Essential to this view is a rephrasing of the closing statement in verse 16. The New American Standard Bible translates this phrase, “I do not say that he should make request for this.” The New International Version renders it, “I am not saying that he should pray about that.” Both of these translations make it appear that John was recommending we not pray about the sin unto death or for the one who commits it. Scholer would translate this phrase in another way: “I am not speaking concerning that (i.e., sin unto death), in order that you should pray.” In other words, John’s purpose is not to enlist prayer concerning sin unto death and those who commit it, although in another context and at another time it may be legitimate to do so. Rather, it is the sin of believers, sin that is not unto death, that he is speaking about and for which he asks that his readers pray. To sum up, “sin that leads to death” consists principally of hating believers (what John called “murder”) and not confessing Jesus (what John called “lying”). This sin cannot be committed by believers for the simple reason that, by definition, this is the sin that makes one an unbeliever. Believers are guilty of sin that does not lead to death, that is, “they do break fellowship with God (1:6–2:1), but without participating in hating the brothers or denying Jesus” (242). Sin unto death is a sin of those who are “disruptive, heretical outsiders” (242). Consequently, John is not here concerned with them or their sin. His concern is with the sin of “insiders,” that is, believers within the community of faith. This view has much to commend it. First, it looks for the meaning of “sin that leads to death” within 1 John itself and interprets “brother” and “death” in keeping with their usage in this epistle. Second, this view has the advantage of restricting sin unto death to unbelievers. Similar to Stott’s interpretation, the “death” into which the sin of these unbelievers leads them is the second, eternal death. Third, Scholer’s interpretation supplies us with a cogent solution to other problem texts in 1 John, namely, those that assert that the one born of God cannot or is not able to sin. When 1 John 5:18 (literally, “no one who is born of God sins”) is read in the light of 5:16–17, one can see the sense in taking verse 18 to mean, “no one who is born of God sins sin that leads to death.” The only problem one might have with this view is the phrase “God will give him life.” To say this means “he will renew and reconfirm the life he already has” lacks explicit parallel in 1 John and is not, so far as I can tell, stated in precisely these terms elsewhere in the New Testament. But given the number of difficulties the other interpretations face, this one problem is slight by comparison. D. Physical Death The interpretation of Benjamin B. Warfield is one deserving of careful attention. Warfield agrees with Marshall on two points. The “brother” is a Christian, and it is possible for him/her to commit “sin that leads to death.” Where Warfield disagrees with Marshall (in addition to his affirmation of eternal security, which Marshall denied), is in his belief that the death in view is physical, not spiritual. The New Testament does refer to believers suffering illness and occasionally physical death because of persistent and unrepentant sin (see Acts 5:1–11; 1 Cor. 5:5(?); 11:29–30; James 5:14–15, 19–20). According to Warfield’s interpretation, this brother is not sinning in such a way that his physical life is in jeopardy, and since he is a Christian he already has spiritual life. What, then, could John have meant when he said that God would give him “life” in response to our prayers? Warfield writes: “We may suppose that by giving life there is meant rather the maintaining or perfecting than the initiating of life. He who lives below his privileges, in whom the life which he has received is languid or weak in its manifestations, is made by our prayers the recipient of fresh vital impulses, or powers, that he may live as the Christian should live. Hitherto living on a plane which can be spoken of only as sinful—though not mortally sinful—he will through our prayers receive newness of life” (“Praying for Erring,” Expository Times XXX, Summer 1919, 537). In saying that some sin leads to death and other sin does not, John is not giving us a criterion by which we may examine the lives of other believers in order to determine whether or not we should pray for them. He differentiates between these two kinds of sin simply to tell us why it is that some of our prayers are answered and others are not. Warfield explains: “He is merely saying that of those whom we observe to be sinning in the community, some are, in point of fact, sinning to death, and others not; and that, in point of fact, our prayers will be of benefit to the one and not to the other. Who they are who are sinning to death, we do not in any case know. John does not suppose us to know. Only, in urging us to pray for our sinful brethren, and promising us an answer to our prayers, the gift of life to them, he warns us that there are some for whom our petitions will not thus avail. But he warns us of this, not that we may avoid praying for these unhappy ones, but that we may be prepared for the failure of our prayers in their case” (539). That no sinner is to be excluded from our prayers is proved, says Warfield, by noting the difference between two Greek words John uses in verse 16 (the NIV translation renders both of these words by the single English term, “pray”). The word in verse 16a translated “he should pray” (aiteo) refers to genuine Christian prayer. But the word in verse 16b (erotao), likewise translated “he should pray,” does not refer to intercessory prayer. Rather it denotes the asking of questions, the seeking of information, perhaps for the purpose of debate or discussion. If this understanding of the two words is correct, “the passage would no longer have even the surface appearance of excluding one kind of sinners from our prayers.… It would, on the contrary, expressly require us to pray for all sinners, intimating that though there is a sin to death, that is a matter about which we are not to make anxious inquiry before we pray, but, leaving it to God, we are for ourselves to pray for all our brethren whom we observe to be living sinful lives” (539). The purpose of this passage, therefore, is not to set us upon the task of determining what the sin unto death is or who may or may not have committed it. The message of the apostle is that sin is deadly, and that if we would have life we must avoid it. Let us therefore come to the aid of our brethren by praying for one another. If the sin of the brother for whom we pray is, in point of fact, sin unto death, our prayers will not be answered. His sin has taken him beyond the point at which our prayers will restore him. However, that his sin is unto death is not something we can know before we pray. On the other hand, if the sin of the brother for whom we pray is not, in point of fact, sufficiently severe and persistent to put his physical life in jeopardy, God will answer our prayer and restore this brother to the fullness of joy and spiritual energy in his daily life with Christ. But again, that his sin is not the kind that leads to death is not something we can know before we pray. Although Warfield’s interpretation is intriguing, like the others it is subject to several objections. In the first place, it is unlikely that “death” means physical death, that is to say, the chastisement by God of an errant believer. Scholer reminds us that in 1 John “death is the state in which one is before he becomes a believer and out of which he is transferred unto life (3:14; see John 5:24). The one who does not love the brothers (that is, believers) remains in death (3:14). Those who do not love (unbelievers; see 3:9–10; 4:7–8) are not of God (3:10), are in darkness (2:11; see 1:5) and do not know God (4:8; see 4:7). Thus it is clear that a ‘sin unto death’ is one which signifies the complete absence of any fellowship with God” (240). Of course, this is not to say that it was impossible for John to shift his emphasis from spiritual to physical death, but only that it seems improbable for him to have done so. Second, Warfield says that John did not mean to tell us that before we pray we could actually know whether a brother’s sin is unto death or not unto death. We are to pray, and if his sin is not to death God will answer our prayer. If it is to death, our prayer will fail. But this seems overly subtle of John, if not downright obscure. A straightforward reading of verse 16 appears to indicate that the brother for whom we are to pray is the brother whom we see sinning the sort of sin that is not to death. If John did not expect us to be able to know whether his sin was to death, he surely chose an odd way of saying so. Finally, there is some doubt to the validity of drawing a sharp distinction between the Greek words aiteo (used in verse 16a) and erotao (used in verse 16b). There are several verses in John’s gospel (John 14:14; and 16:19, 23) in which the distinction most likely does apply. In 1 John 5, however, most modern commentators insist that the words are synonymous and that the apostle’s shift from one to the other is purely stylistic. Note well, though, that even should one accept the distinction between these two terms as a valid one, it doesn’t necessarily follow that “death” is physical. It is conceivable that all the views we have examined are compatible with this distinction. Dr. Sam Storms Enjoying God Ministries The Sin unto Death Irvin A. Busenitz Associate Dean and Professor of Old Testament The Master’s Seminary The “sin unto death” in 1 John 5:16 has provoked widespread discussion. The correct meaning revolves around the nature of the sin and the nature of the death referred to. The context and word selection point to the conclusion that the individual “committing a sin not unto death” is an unsaved man who professes to be a believer, but who is, in actuality, in need of salvation. On the one hand, John refers to one who is sinning but is not doing so to the point of the impossibility of being granted eternal life. The apostle encourages intercessory prayer for such an individual, that God may grant to him eternal life. On the other hand, he asserts that if a man does sin to such an extent that repentance and forgiveness are impossible, it would be “unto death,” spiritual death in the sense that his condition is irrevocable (cf. Matt 12:31–32). * * * * * Diversity of opinion has abounded concerning the interpretation of the problematic portion found in 1 John 5:16 where the apostle John writes, If any one sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.1 The OT frequently mentions specific sins which merit punishment by death. Num 15:30–31 indicates that the one who willfully and defiantly sins “shall be cut off from among his people.” The sin of coming near to the tent of meeting was punishable by death (Num 18:22). Ps 19:13 suggests the same penalty for presumptuous sins.2 The NT has similar examples, the most prominent being that of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–10). Other examples include that of Herod (Acts 12) and those who had taken the Lord’s Supper unworthily (1 Cor 11:30). There are two notable differences between the other passages and this one, however. First of all, in the above cases, the sin which led to the punishment is more or less evident; in this instance, it is not revealed. Secondly, the exact nature of the death penalty is ambiguous here, while elsewhere it is not. So the problem encountered here is unique. Can the sin be committed today by Christians? Two basic questions call for a response in this passage: (1) What is the nature of the sin? And (2) What is the nature of the death? The answers to these will essentially answer a third, namely, can the sin be committed today by Christians? The Context The entirety of 1 John deals with tests of life, tests designed to give assurance of salvation to believers (cp. 1Jn 5:13 with 1Jn 1:4; 2:12–14) and to expose those who are not really believers: “We shall know by this that we are of the truth, and shall assure our heart before Him” (1 John 3:19).3 The fact that one is or is not a believer is not always obvious; rather, continuation in the truth is a test which will ultimately reflect the validity of the profession.4 In the preceding verses (1Jn 5:14–15), John speaks about prayer and the confidence a believer may have concerning the acceptance of that prayer before God and the granting of the request. In 1Jn 5:16–17, he gives a specific illustration and limitation within which the prayer of a Christian may be benevolently and effectually employed, namely, in rescuing a brother from death. It is not now a case of petition, but of intercession. The assurance of eternal life which the Christian should enjoy (1Jn 5:13) ought not to lead him into preoccupation with himself to the neglect of others. On the contrary, he will recognize his duty in love to care for his brother in need…. The future tense he shall ask expresses not the writer’s command but the Christian’s inevitable and spontaneous reaction.5 Thus it is that when one comes to the throne of God in prayer, the standing of his brother is immediately brought into focus. This connection has led Cameron to remark, “Our holiest hours of prayer and worship should be marked by benevolence toward our brethren.”6 The Nature of the Sin Various attempts in satisfactorily resolving the difficulties regarding the character of the sin have been made. Some of the many interpretations include: (1) the sin against the Holy Spirit, (2) any great sin, such as murder or adultery, (3) rejection of Christ as Messiah, (4) deliberate and willful sins, (5) apostasy, and (6) post-baptismal sins.7 The most significant of these will be examined. Mortal sins The Church of Rome has consistently maintained that the “sin unto death” is a grave, post-baptismal sin.8 This sin is commonly referred to as “mortal” sin, as compared with the less significant sin which is called “venial.” Although the designations are not specifically named in Scripture, it is asserted that the distinction between the two types of sin is clearly affirmed. In general, mortal sins are said to be those which exclude the offender from the kingdom (e.g., Eph 5:5; Gal 5:19–21) and venial sins are those which do not (e.g., James 3:2; 1 John 1:8; Eccl 7:21).9 Additional proof for such distinctions is given by Dens, as quoted by M’Clintock and Strong: “It is, moreover, certain,” says Dens, “not only from the divine compassion, but from the nature of the thing, that there are venial sins, or such light ones, as in just men may consist with a state of grace and friendship with God; implying that there is a certain kind of sin of which a man may be guilty without offending God.”10 A more specific basis for these definitions is provided by Aquinas. Describing the distinctiveness of the two types, he explains, The difference between venial and mortal sin follows upon a diversity of disorder inherent in the concept of sin itself. This disorder is twofold: the one involves the abandonment of the very source of order, the other only involves departure from secondary elements in that order…. Hence, when the soul is so disordered by sin that it turns away from its ultimate goal, God, to whom it is united by charity, then we speak of mortal sin. However, when this disorder stops short of turning away from God, then the sin is venial.11 Venial sins, therefore, do not make one the offender of God; they do not cause a diminution of sanctifying grace. Though they constitute a violation of God’s law, they are too small and insignificant to divert one from his ultimate goal, God. Mortal sin, on the other hand, constitutes an act in which the offender deliberately chooses “some created good as a final end in preference to the Supreme Good, with a consequent loss of sanctifying grace.”12 The NT does teach that sins differ in magnitude (cf. Matt 10:15; 11:22, 24; Luke 10:12, 14; 12:47, 48). Nevertheless, holding such an interpretation as set forth by the Roman Church entails several difficulties. First, the definition of venial and mortal is imprecise, essentially destroying any real distinction between the two. Because their general definition of sin specifically states that “sin is a deliberate and voluntary act,…an act marked by a want of conformity with the law of God,”13 they are forced to make some fine differentiations and to conclude that venial sin is “imperfectly deliberate” while mortal sin is “fully deliberate.”14 Such terminology makes a distinction virtually imperceptible. Furthermore, the definition is untenable in light of certain scriptural examples. Paul persecuted the first century Christians in ignorance (1 Tim 1:13), yet he designates himself as the chief of sinners (1 Tim 1:15). Eve was deceived by Satan (1 Tim 2:14) but bore the consequences of mortal sin. Secondly, Scripture teaches that every offense is deadly and subject to the claims of divine justice. Thus Ezek 18:20 declares, “The person who sins will die.” Likewise Rom 6:23 asserts, “The wages of sin is death.” The malicious motivation behind the sin, or the lack of it, makes no difference, as James 2:10 indicates: “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” On the other hand, the Bible explicitly and implicitly declares that no sin is too great to be beyond the scope of God’s forgiveness (cf. 1 Tim 1:15). Thirdly, that the kind of sin does not determine whether its punishment is temporal or eternal but merely results in greater or lesser punishments is illustrated by the appointed sacrifices of the OT. Different sins demanded different sacrifices; nevertheless, “without the shedding of blood there was no remission” (cf. Heb 9:22). Though sins differ in degree, the essential character of sin does not vary. The classification of sins as adumbrated by the Roman Catholic Church has no basis in Scripture, neither in 1 John nor elsewhere. The NT gives no precedent for such a practice nor does it warrant such an arbitrary conclusion. Apostasy Some authors have suggested that the “sin unto death” refers to total apostasy, exemplified by the renunciation of the faith. Brooke, a proponent of the view, maintains that the sin is a deliberate rejection of Christ and His claims, for such “was probably the most prominent in the writer’s thought.”15 That this is so, it is contended, is evident from 1 John 2:18–19 where the false teachers are reported to have left the fellowship of believers.16 Brooke further explains that since apostasy exhibits itself apart from any specific act of sin, this conclusion dovetails with the fact that no specific sins are mentioned here. He concludes that “in the author’s view any sin which involves a deliberate rejection of the claims of Christ may be described as ‘unto death.’“17 Lenski concurs with this assessment: Since ζωή (zōē) “life eternal” (1Jn 5:13), which, as we now “have” it, is spiritual, “death” must be its opposite, namely the loss of spiritual life, which is spiritual death. Once having been born from God (1Jn 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:4, 18) into the new life, “death” means that this life has been lost.18 The major difficulty with this conclusion, however, is the fact that Scripture nowhere teaches that the genuinely regenerated person can apostatize. This same writer in his Gospel contends that the believer is secure (John 10:28, 29). Elsewhere in this Epistle, he reiterates that the one who is born of God does not habitually sin (1 John 3:9; 5:18). Scholer elaborates, There is no reference to apostasy. This is made very clear in 1 John 2:19…. After stating that many antichrists, already present and active (1Jn 2:18; cf. 4:1–5), have come from the Christian community (1Jn 2:19), the statement is modified in such a way as to negate it. In actuality the antichrists were not from the Christian community, for if they had been they would not have left it. The fact that antichrists left the community was a good thing; it showed conclusively that they were never real members of it in the first place; they had been pretenders only.19 The fact that they were never regenerated is also indicated by John’s use of the imperfect verb ἦσαν (ēsan, “they were”) in 1Jn 2:19: The imperfect tense, used twice, indicates that those who depart were not real Christians in the past. This agrees with the use of the perfect tense in the epistle to indicate that a man’s life reflects evidence whether he has or has not been born of God in the past.20 Furthermore, the preposition εἰς (eis, “in, into”) is usually employed by John when referring to entrance into the new life in Christ (John 5:24; 1 John 3:14). The same preposition could be expected if he had in mind a reversal of that act. Rather, πρὸς (pros, “toward, unto”) is used here, indicating motion toward. Brooke explains that πρὸς θάνατον (pros thanaton, “toward, unto death”) must, of course, denote a tendency in the direction of death, and not an attained result.21 Passages within the Johannine corpus, as well as many references outside it (cf. Rom 8:29; Phil 1:6; Jude 1), lend strong evidence that the Christian will not apostatize, but will persevere in the faith. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit A third view suggests that John is referring to the “unpardonable sin” spoken of in Matt 12. Sawtelle explains, It is a sin that John has terribly marked again and again in our Epistle, that of willfully rejecting the testimony of the Holy Spirit as to the true nature and Messiahship of Jesus, the denying of Christ in his true nature. That it is a sin which connects itself with one’s treatment of Christ is a fair inference from the doctrine of ver. 12.22 Stott embraces this view also, contending that the one who is depicted in Matt 12:31–32 as deliberately and willfully rejecting known truth is also referred to here. “In John’s own language he has ‘loved darkness rather than light’ (John 3:18–21), and in consequence he will ‘die in his sins’ (John 8:24). His sin is, in fact, unto death.”23 Support for this conclusion is obtained primarily from the polemic of John which is evident throughout the Epistle and especially in the context of the fifth chapter. The apostle frequently expresses the necessity of recognizing and believing that Jesus is God in the flesh (1Jn 1:1–3; 2:22–24; 4:2–3, 15; 5:1). In chapter five, he specifically notes how the Holy Spirit bears witness to this very fact (1Jn 5:6–10).24 Consequently, the argument proceeds, John’s comments regarding the witness of the Spirit may have been intended to recall the warning against blaspheming the Holy Spirit recorded in the Synoptics. This interpretation has much to commend it and is certainly a possible solution. However, the view has some problems. First, the passage really does not connect itself with the “unpardonable sin” of Matt 12. It contains no concrete evidence that such a connection was intended by the writer.25 Second, the one who had committed the “unpardonable sin” would not be considered a “brother” in the local fellowship. Willful and deliberate rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit, as described in the gospels, would be difficult to disguise. One guilty of such would hardly be accepted as a brother. Such open antagonism could not be masked and go unnoticed by the others in the fellowship. Habitual Sinning A fourth possibility is that the “sin unto death” refers to one who persists in committing sin. He habitually practices sin to the extent that his character and lifestyle ultimately show others within the local body of believers that he is not a believer. The main thematic thread of the Epistle supports this contention, for the true believer does not practice sin (1Jn 2:1; 3:4, 6, 8, 9). The immediate context supports this conclusion also, for the following verse reiterates the same fact. This teaching is not limited to the Johannine corpus, for such a teaching is also found in Gal 5:21; 6:8; and Rom 6:21–23. Although there may be occasional sins, the believer’s life will not be characterized by sin as a lifestyle. The NT elsewhere teaches that those who are immoral, covetous, idolatrous, revilers, drunkards, and swindlers shall not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor 5:9–13; 6:9–11; Gal 5:19–21; Eph 5:5), for their works are the works of the flesh (Gal 5:19; so also 1 Pet 4:3–5; 1 John 3:15; Rev 21:7–8; 22:14–15). Continuation in and habitual pursuit of such activity is inconsistent with a believer’s life in Christ. An isolated act does not necessarily deny one an inheritance in the kingdom of God, but the constant practice of such things does. The major difficulty which this view faces is the fact that 1 John 5:16 refers to a sinning “brother.” Scholer, for example, asserts that the above argument “breaks down completely because of the use of the present tense of hamartanein in 1Jn 5:16 with reference to the sinning of a believer as well as the use of the present tense in 1Jn 1:8.”26 However, neither 1Jn 1:8 nor 1Jn 5:16 furnish conclusive evidence that the one sinning is definitely a saved man. In fact, the designation of “brother” may also include one who has only professed but does not actually possess eternal life. This kind of brother is inferred in 1Jn 2:9, 11, and 1Jn 3:15, for “the one who hates his brother is in the darkness until now” (cf. 1Jn 4:20). It is not uncommon for the Scriptures to speak to professing believers when addressing the church, such as in 1 Cor 5:11; 2 Cor 11:26; and Gal 2:4. Even the unregenerate of 1 John 2:19 were most probably called brothers.27 Furthermore, the use of the present active participle ἁμαρτάνοντα (hamartanonta, “sinning”), suggests that John has an unsaved man in view, for he consistently employs the present tense to refer to the sins which characterize the unsaved (1Jn 3:4, 6, 8; 5:18).28 Other evidences of an unregenerate heart in 1 John are spoken of in the present tense, such as loving the world (1Jn 2:15), not keeping the commandments (1Jn 2:4), hating a brother (1Jn 2:9, 11; 3:10, 14ff; 1Jn 4:8, 20), walking in darkness (1Jn 1:6; 2:12), lying (1Jn 1:6), and denying that Jesus is the Christ (2:22ff).29 Those who hold to the “believer” view attempt to circumvent this clear indication by attributing a “one time occurrence” to the punctiliar action of the aorist subjunctive ἴδῃ (idē, “sees”). But the punctiliar action of the aorist does not rule out the idea of continual, ongoing occurrence; it cannot be restricted to a “one time occurrence/once for all” idea. To hide behind the screen of a “particular occasion of practicing sin” greatly obscures and even negates the obvious Johannine practice of employing the present tense to denote continuing, ongoing, characteristic-of-life issues. Furthermore, even if the “seeing” were conceded to be point action, the “sinning” is still clearly habitual and ongoing, a fact demonstrated by John’s repeated use of the present active participle to denote durative action. At best, the aorist subjunctive only indicates that the ongoing practice of sin was not actually observed on a continual basis. In light of the above evidence, the most plausible explanation for the sin which leads to death is that it refers to habitual and continual sinning of a professing brother. The apostle probably has no particular sin in mind, for the present participle, hamartanonta, denotes not an act of sin but a continuing state. The Nature of the Death The second issue which confronts the interpreter in 1 John 5:16 is the nature of the death which results from the sinning described by John. The apostle states that the sin either is not πρὸς θάνατον or is πρὸς θάνατον (pros thanaton, “toward, unto death”). Virtually all grammarians and commentators maintain that the πρὸς (pros, “toward, unto”) does not denote “until,” for it nowhere has this meaning in the NT. Rather, it designates that which eventuates in or tends toward death. The Greek (ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον, [hamartia pros thanaton, “sin unto death”]) would mean properly a sin which tends to death; which would terminate in death; of which death was the penalty or would be the result, unless it were arrested; a sin which, if it had its own course, would terminate thus.30 Although many different views have been propounded,31 there are basically two views held by present-day scholars regarding the nature of this death. Physical death Probably the most common interpretation is that the death refers to the physical death of a believer. It is a physical punishment or chastisement which God executes as a result of sin in the believer’s life. The sin unto death means a case of transgression, particularly of grievous backsliding from the life and power of godliness, which God determines to punish with temporal death, while at the same time he extends mercy to the penitent soul…. The sin not unto death is any sin which God does not choose thus to punish.32 The major support for this position is the interpretation of “brother.” “The text is explicit. It refers to a ‘brother,’ which term is never used of the unregenerate, and declares definitely that a Christian may sin in such a way that the chastisement of death may fall upon him.”33 Thus it is concluded that since a believer cannot apostatize, John must be speaking of physical death and not spiritual death. However, as was noted earlier, the term “brother” cannot be so restricted; rather, it may be used sometimes to refer to one who is only professing to be a believer, for John does employ the term at times in a more universal sense. Another proof used for this view is the fact that other passages suggest that sin does sometimes result in the believer’s physical death. The most prominent incident is noted in 1 Cor 11:30, where Paul indicates that the partaking of the Lord’s Supper unworthily (11:27) has been the reason that “many among you sleep.”34 It is granted that the physical death of a believer may be in view in 1 Cor 11. However, this does not prove that physical death of a believer is in view in 1 John 5:16. In addition to the fact that “nothing in this part of 1 John indicates that ‘sin leading to death’ must be understood as sin punished by fatal bodily illness,”35 there is significant evidence that suggests otherwise. Spiritual death A second view maintains that the death referred to in 1 John 5:16 is spiritual death. This interpretation hinges primarily upon John’s use of ζωήν (zōēn, “life”) and, by comparison, θάνατον (thanaton, “death”), for these two are natural opposites and must correspond when in antithesis to each other. If physical death is being referred to, then the life must be physical life; conversely, if spiritual death is in view, then the life must be spiritual life. One cannot “mix-n-match” and still maintain a natural understanding of the death-life antithesis in the passage. If correspondence is maintained, then proponents of the physical death view are faced with the difficulty of explaining why one should pray that God will give the sinning one in 5:16a extended physical life when in fact he is committing sin not leading to premature physical death. First of all, it should be noted that the apostle significantly employs βιός (bios, “life”) (2:16) and ψυχή (psuchē, “life, breath”) (3:16 twice) to refer to physical life, but reserves z to refer to spiritual life elsewhere in the Epistle. The nominal form is used eleven times elsewhere (1:1, 2 [twice]; 2:25; 3:14, 15; 5:11, 12 [twice], 13, 20), always meaning eternal or spiritual life. The verbal form, ζάω (zaē, “I live”), is used only once (4:9), also with the same meaning. This fact strongly suggests that John has spiritual life in view in 5:16 also. Furthermore, this trend characterizes John’s Gospel, for zōē, the term used in 5:16, always refers to eternal life, and the verb zaō designates eternal life in all but three (John 4:50, 51, 53) instances. While John does use these terms to refer to physical life in Revelation, the predominant usage is in reference to spiritual life. Second, John’s use of thanatos in the Epistle lends additional support. Apart from its use in the phrases under discussion in 5:16–17, the term occurs only in 3:14. In this passage, John employs the term twice to denote spiritual death: “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.” Consequently, if physical life had been meant by John in 5:16, it is most likely that he would have used one of the other two terms he employed earlier to refer to physical life. And, since it is likely that zōē refers to spiritual life, then thanatos, following its usage in 3:14, must have reference to spiritual death. It is conceded that while all persons are born spiritually dead, they certainly are not confirmed in that state. However, following the apostle’s teaching here, there may come a time prior to their physical death when their condition becomes irreversible, when divine forgiveness is no longer available to them (cf. Matt 12:31–32).36 Third, the immediate context offers important credence to this conclusion, for both before and after the sixteenth verse, zōē is used to refer to eternal, spiritual life (1Jn 5:11, 12, 13, 20). Says Cameron, “If a different kind of life were meant, it would be natural to expect him to indicate it by the use of a different word, elsewhere used for natural life.”37 Conclusion The apostle John appears to have in view an unsaved man who professes to be a believer, but who is in actuality in need of salvation. On the one hand, John refers to a man who is sinning but is not doing so to the point of the impossibility of being granted eternal life; he has not yet come to the place where the possibility of divine forgiveness has been revoked. In such cases, as a result of the intercessory prayer of a “brother,” God would grant spiritual life. On the other hand, the apostle asserts that if a man does sin to such an extent that repentance and forgiveness is impossible, it would be “unto death”’spiritual death, spiritual death in the sense that his condition is irrevocable (cf. Matt 12:31–32). Thus the sin can be committed by a Christian when “Christian” is used in the broader sense to include those whose Christianity is merely a matter of profession, but it cannot if “Christian” means one who has actually been regenerated. It is clear that “brother” in Scripture normally refers to a saved individual, but John’s usage of the term implies that in some cases there will be a difference between what is professed and what is actually true. Furthermore, experience has vividly illustrated the power of God to regenerate the most reprobate of sinners, and therefore the believer should be careful not to judge the status of another too quickly. Nevertheless, John asserts that the habitual practice of sin does indicate the spiritual state of a man (cf. Gal 5:21). Consequently, while the believer is to pray for this sinning brother until God reveals otherwise, John reminds him that the efficacy of his prayer may not extend to that person and that the believer’s confidence should not be diminished thereby. This is not an adumbration of the Roman Catholic doctrine regarding mortal sin, for which the consequence is spiritual death (unless it is reversed during this lifetime through confession and penance or after this lifetime while in purgatory through the efforts of relatives still alive). On the contrary, it only maintains that, in keeping with the Johannine theme, persistent sin in the life of anyone who professes to be saved indicates that he is not saved, and that the ultimate end of such is spiritual death. Although acts of sin do not cause one to die spiritually (man is born spiritually dead), the habitual practice of sin may lead to an irreversible state, a condition in which forgiveness will be no longer available. The limitation has only to do with the unbeliever, however, for the believer’s full forgiveness was procured by the death of Christ at Calvary. BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] 1Scripture quotations in this essay are taken from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwise noted. "Sin unto death" in the essay title and used frequently throughout the essay is phraseology derived from 1 John 5:16 in the King James Version. [2]Also cf. Lev 4:2; 5:15; Num 14:2-4; 20:12; and 1 Sam 2:25. This same philosophy was continued in the Qumran Community, as the Manual of Discipline gives evidence (1QS 8:21-9:2). During the first centuries A.D., this concept was taken even further: "Tertullian went a stage further and listed the grosser sins (including murder, adultery, blasphemy and idolatry) as beyond pardon" (John R. W. Stott, The Epistles of John [Tyndale's New Testament Commentaries, ed. by R. V. G. Tasker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976] 187). [3]See Robert Law, The Tests of Life (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914). [4]Cf. 1 John 2:19 where some who professed Christ and were a part of the local body of believers were ultimately exposed by their departure. [5]Stott, Epistles 186. [6]Robert Cameron, The First Epistle of John (Philadelphia: A. J. Rowland, 1899) 242. [7]A list of additional interpretations is given by Barnes, "The First Epistle General of John," Barnes' Notes on the New Testament Testament, X (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975[rpt.]) 348-49, and Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John (vol. 30 of The Anchor Bible; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982) 611-620. [8]Deadly sins committed prior to the time of baptism are said to be cleansed at the time of that sacrament (James Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers [Baltimore: John Murphy, 1905] 303 ff.). For this reason many have waited until their deathbed to be baptized. [9]I. McGuiness, "Sin (Theology of)," The Catholic Encyclopedia, XIII (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967) 245. [10]John M'Clintock and James Strong, "Sin," Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theo-logical, and Ecclesiastical Literature, IX (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969[rpt.]) 767. [11]Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (XXV, trans. by Timothy McDermott; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969) 43. [12]McGuiness, "Sin" 241. [13]Ibid. [14]Ibid. [15]A. E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles (in the International Critical Commentary, ed. by C. A. Briggs, et. al.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1971) 147. Marvin Vincent appears to embrace this view also, for he states that "whatever breaks fellowship between the soul and Christ . . . is unto death for there is no life apart from Christ" (Word Studies [Vol. II; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1911] 371). [16]Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-29 are usually associated with this view and are frequently employed as proof of its veracity. [17]Brooke, pp. 146-47. Lenski agrees, stating that this sin results in "the loss of spiritual life, which is spiritual death" (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961] 535-36). [18]Lenski, St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude 535-36. [19]David M. Scholer, "Sins Within and Sins Without: An Interpretation of 1 John 5:16-17," Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 242. [20]James E. Rosscup, "Paul's Teaching on the Christian's Future Reward With Special Reference to 1 Corinthians 3:10-17" (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, 1976) 448. [21]Brooke, Johannine Epistles 147. [22]Henry A. Sawtelle, Commentary on the Epistles of John (in An American Commentary on the New Testament, ed. by Alvah Hovey; Valley Forge: Judson, 1888) 61. [23]Stott, Epistles 189. Also cf. George G. Findlay, Fellowship in the Life Eternal (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, n.d.) 406-07, and Baird Tipson, "A Dark Side of 17th Century English Protestantism: the Sin against the Holy Spirit," HTR 77/3-4 (July-Oct 1984) 301-330. [24]Stott (Epistles 188 ff.) contends that both parties in 5:16 are unbelievers while John Murray maintains that only the one who commits a sin unto death is not a believer, citing John 9:41; 15:22; 1 John 4:2-3; 5:1 as proof. Nevertheless, they both agree as to the nature of the sin unto death, namely, "the denial of Jesus as come in the flesh" (John Murray, "Definitive Sanctification," Calvin Theological Journal 2:1 [April, 1967] 11). [25]Brooke, Johannine Epistles 147. [26]Scholer, "Sins Within" 231. Scholer, with Murray ("Definitive Sanctification" 11), contends that when John speaks of the believer as not sinning, he is not speaking of habitual sinning; rather, such references refer to the fact that the believer does not sin sin unto death, i.e. he does not and cannot deny Jesus as come in the flesh. The believer may, however, sin sin not unto death (246). Also cf. Henry W. Holloman, "The Meaning of `Sin unto Death' in 1 John 5:16-17" (paper read at Far West Section of the Evangelical Theological Society, Apr 23, 1982) 1-6. [27]Cf. Stott, Epistles 189-90, for a helpful discussion. [28]Scholer ("Sins Within" 246) and Murray ("Definitive Sanctification" 11) seek to answer the Johannine use of the present tense by suggesting that the believer does sin (present tense) not unto death but does not sin (present tense) unto death. But 5:18 says nothing of the believer not sinning unto death; it merely says that the believer does not sin (present tense). [29]Rosscup, "Paul's Teaching" 447-48. [30]Barnes, Barnes' Notes 249. Lenski concurs: "John says twice that in these cases the sinning is `not unto death'; prw is used as it was in v. 14 with the meaning not facing death as the inevitable result" (St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude 535). [31]Cf. Barnes, Barnes' Notes 348-49, for a list of additional interpretations. [32]Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments With a Commentary and Critical Notes (New York: Abingdon, n.d.) VI, 925. [33]Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947) III, 310. Cook similarly contends, "The implication is, however, that `sin unto death' will sometimes lead to untimely physical death despite our prayers because God knows that chastisement, not forgiveness in this life, is the best thing" (W. Robert Cook, "Hamartiological Problems in First John," BSac 123:491 [July-September, 1966] 259). [34]A number of other biblical examples have been cited, such as Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10), Korah and his sons (Num 16), Achan (Josh 7), the disobedient prophet (1 Kgs 13), and Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5). However, these accounts are somewhat ambiguous concerning the actual spiritual standing of the individuals before God. [35]Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John (vol. 51 of Word Biblical Commentary; Waco, TX: Word, 1984) 297. [36]The difference between the case described in Matt 12 and the one found in 1 John 5 appears to be that those in the former instance are guilty of open, blatant opposition and rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit, while in the latter instance, the action appears to be more covert and disguised, occurring among those who profess to believe but in reality do not (cf. 1 John 2:19). In both cases, however, the result is the same, an irreversible, confirmed condition in which divine forgiveness is no longer available. [37]Cameron, First Epistle 243.
1 João 5:18
Robertson says the idea is that labor is an annoyance, bad, evil; Noun poneria derived from poneros) means evil including evil, malignant character, pernicious (see Webster 1828 definition below), that which is morally or socially worthless, wicked, base, bad, degenerate. Poneros denotes determined, aggressive, and fervent evil that actively opposes what is good. Poneros is not just bad in character (like kakos - see below), but bad in effect (injurious)! Poneros describes evil in active opposition to good. It means not only evil in its nature but viciously evil in its influence and actively harmful. Poneros used to describe Satan (ho poneros = "Evil one"), the god of this age, who is corrupting man and dragging him to destruction. This denotes someone who is not content in being corrupt themselves. They seek to corrupt others and draw them into the same destruction! There are two Greek words for evil - poneros and kakos, the latter describing that which is inherently evil. Poneros on the other hand refers to the one who (or the thing that) is not only evil but is not content unless it carries out active evil, evil is actively harmful, hurtful and corrupting. It is therefore not surprising that poneros is one of the synonyms for "Satan" himself. John repeatedly refers to the evil one... 1 John 2:13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because you know the Father. 1 John 2:14 I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one. 1 John 3:12 not as Cain, who was of the evil one, and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous. 1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one Touch (681)(hapto/haptomai where haptomai is the middle voice which constitutes the majority of uses) means to grasp, to lay hold of with the basic meaning of touching for the purpose of manipulating. Used of touching as a means of conveying a blessing (divine working by a touch of the hand (Mk 10:13, Lk 18:15) Zeus transforms by touching (mythology of course). To partake of someth with cultic implications, to have contact with as things unclean (2 Cor 6:17 cf Lxx = Nu 16:26; Is 52:11). To touch intimately or have sexual contact thus describing intercourse with a woman (Lxx - Ge 20:6, Pr 6:29). To make contact with a view to causing harm, touch for the purpose of harming or to injure (Lxx - Ps 104:15; 1Ch 16:22; Zech 2:12) Figuratively no evil shall touch you (Lxx Job 5:19). Hapto conveys the sense handling of an object as to exert a modifying influence upon it or upon oneself. Hapto can mean eat, like our ‘touch food.’ The majority of the 39 uses are in the Gospels and are associated with Jesus touching someone (or someone touching Him) usually with a beneficial effect. In contrast the use in 1Jn 5:18 speaks of touching with the intent of a negative or harmful effect (cp harmful sense in Lxx of Ge 26:11, Ex 19:12). Four uses refer to lighting a lamp (Lk 8:17, 11:33, 15:8) or kindling a fire (Acts 28:2). Paul uses it of touching a woman, apparently a euphemism for sexual contact (2Cor 7:1, cp Abimelech "had not come near" [Lxx = haptomai] Sarah - Ge 20:4,6; see hapto in Pr 6:29). In Ge 32:25 (cp Ge 32:32) Hapto/haptomai is used over 100 times in the Septuagint (Lxx). The first use of hapto in Ge 3:3 is by the woman who misquoted God's command saying "You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.’” God touched the socket of Jacob's thigh resulting in dislocation while they wrestled! Hapto/haptomai is used in Leviticus numerous times of touching something with a negative impact (the majority of uses are negative and refer to touching something unclean e.g., Lev 5:2) or positive impact (consecrated - Lev 6:27). In Jdg 6:21 the Angel of the LORD touched Gideon's offering of meat and it was consumed (cp 1Ki 19:7). In Ru 2:9 Boaz instructed the servants not to touch Ruth apparently referring to touching her roughly. (cp Ru 2:9NLT). 1Sa 10:26 refers to God touching hearts of the valiant men. Of the wings of the cherubim touching each other (1Ki 6:27, 2Chr 3:11). Of an angel touching Elijah (1Ki 19:5). In 1Chr 16:22 hapto/haptomai is used in a negative sense - "Do not touch My anointed ones, And do My prophets no harm." In Isa 6:7 (hapto used twice) the angel touched Isaiah's mouth and his iniquity was taken away. Jehovah touched (Lxx - hapto) Jeremiah's mouth, placing His words in his mouth. (Jer 1:9) Alexander is severely wounded in the chest by an arrow and his soldiers cannot believe that he is still alive. When he appears among them, recovered from his wound, they take hold (hapto) of his hands, knees, and clothing in astonishment and delight). NIDNTT - Classic uses of hapto - In Homer the act. haptō has basically the meaning to fasten to, then to take hold of, kindle (i.e. to take hold of with fire). It is far more frequently found in the middle haptomai, touch, eat (i.e. touch food), attack (i.e. touch with hostility). In the classical writers of the 5th cent. it is used also for sexual relationships with women, and also means to seize, attack, concern oneself with (a work or philosophy) and finally to understand. Aristophanes tells ironically how the god of healing, Asclepius, healed miraculously by a touch. Other stories of healing by touch, whether by Asclepius, Serapis or other gods, come mostly from the 2nd and 3rd cent. A.D. Vine explains that in this context hapto signifies “to lay hold of.” The evil one assaults, but he cannot sever the vital connection between the believer and Christ. However grievously a child of God may sin, he can never be snatched out of the hand, either of Christ or of the Father (John 10:28-29 = "no one shall snatch them out of My hand… and no one is able to snatch [them] out of the Father’s hand.")." (Comment: I would submit the truth of this verse is another one which substantiates the doctrine of our eternal security in Christ. Safe forever from being touched and snatched by the devil! Do you believe this beloved?)
1 João 5:19
Robertson says the idea is that labor is an annoyance, bad, evil) means evil including evil, malignant character, pernicious, that which is morally or socially worthless, wicked, base, bad, degenerate. Poneros denotes determined, aggressive, and fervent evil that actively opposes what is good. Poneros is not just bad in character (like kakos), but bad in effect (injurious)! Poneros describes evil in active opposition to good. It means not only evil in its nature but viciously evil in its influence and actively harmful. See also devil (diabolos). We meet this nefarious player (poneros) five times in this short epistle - 1Jn 2:13+, 1Jn 2:14+, 1Jn 3:12+, 1Jn 5:18+, 1Jn 5:19+. “LIETH IN THE WICKED ONE.” 1 JOHN 5:19 (R.V.) - James Smith In this passage there are two startling statements. I. The Word “In.” This is the same word used of the believer when he is said to be in Christ, as branches in the Vine. This is a staggering word. It teaches us that just as believers in Christ are united to Christ, drawing from Him life and blessing, so the ungodly are united to Satan, and are being energised by him. II. The Word “Lieth.” Literally “Lieth asleep,” depicting a state of unconsciousness. The saved are in the Father’s hand, and have beneath them the Everlasting Arms; but the great mass of humanity is in the arms of Satan, and by his subtility lulled to sleep, therefore unconscious of their dread position. Lehman Strauss - And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. (1 John 5:19) The word wickedness should be translated “the wicked one” in contrast to the “Holy One” in chapter 2:20. But more of this when we take up our study of the devil. It is this spirit of Satan that denies that Jesus is the Christ. John says it is “in the world” (4:3–4). The subjects of this system are the hosts of unbelieving men and women, many of them religious, intellectual, refined, and cultured. The person who goes on loving this world system as a practice of life cannot love God. He is an unsaved person. “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4). In such a person the love of the Father does not exist, because the love of the world is incompatible with the love of the Father. Dr. J. H. A. Ebrard calls it the “extra-Christian world,” the mass and multitude of the unregenerated, still untouched internally and experientially by Christ. The Christian is exhorted to “be not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2). More literally this should read, “Be not fashioned according to this world.” To be fashioned according to the world is to have and look and act as does the unregenerated mass of mankind. The child of God has been divorced from the sentiments of the world’s morals. He lives in this world, but he is not like it nor for it. His sphere of activity is in Christ. My attitude toward this world system must be shaped by the Word of God, and the Word describes the world’s attitude toward the children of God. (Borrow The Epistles of John : Strauss, Lehman - devotional commentary)
1 João 5:20
Robertson adds "Grammatically houtos (this) may refer to Jesus Christ or to “the True One.” It is a bit tautological to refer it to God, but that is probably correct, God in Christ, at any rate. God is eternal life (John 5:26) and He gives it to us through Christ." The NET Note favors this (one) as referring to Jesus Christ - The pronoun This one (οὗτος, houtos) refers to a person, but it is far from clear whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ. R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 625) comments, “I John, which began with an example of stunning grammatical obscurity in the prologue, continues to the end to offer us examples of unclear grammar.” The nearest previous antecedent is Jesus Christ, immediately preceding, but on some occasions when this has been true the pronoun still refers to God (see 1 John 2:3). The first predicate which follows This one in 5:20, the true God, is a description of God the Father used by Jesus in John 17:3, and was used in the preceding clause of the present verse to refer to God the Father (him who is true). Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20, eternal life, appears to refer to Jesus, because although the Father possesses “life” (John 5:26, 6:57) just as Jesus does (John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The Christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life. (NET Note) True (228)(alethinos from alethes = true, one who cannot lie) is an adjective which pertains to being in accordance with historical fact - genuine, real, true, valid, trustworthy (worthy of confidence, dependable). Alethinos describes that which has not only the name and resemblance, but the real nature corresponding to the name, in every respect corresponding to the idea signified by the name -- thus genuine not spurious, fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated or pretended. Vine explains that John means "true as opposed to what is spurious and unreal, not true as opposed to what is false (which would be expressed by alethes). Again, God is not only the source of truth, He is the one and only genuine God."