The Epistles of John, Part 25: Choosing the Good Part

A story is told of two sisters.  These siblings shared a home together.  Responsibilities for the care and upkeep of their home were split between the two of them.  However, they had very different personalities.  One sister was detailed, no-nonsense, all business.  Her greatest priority in life was to see to it that things were accomplished in the most efficient and productive manner possible.  The other lady was fascinated by beauty.  Although she shared her sister’s desire to be responsible she often found herself distracted by the simple pleasures of life.  While her sister tended to have her sights set squarely upon the destination, this woman was delighted in the journey itself.

Needless to say, this difference of perspective led to some not insignificant contention between the two of them.  Not surprisingly, the conflict came to a head one day.  A dear friend was to visit their home.  This was a man of surpassing beauty.  Not so much in appearance but in character.  He was neither famous nor wealthy.  But he was possessed of a singular ability to love others that the sisters had rarely found in people.  And to top it off, their friend was exceedingly humble.  He never drew undue attention to himself.  He unfailingly put others first.  And when he visited they were always, without fail, the focus of his attention.  The sisters always felt like they were the center of his world when he was with them.  Needless to say, they were over the moon with excitement about his visit.

On this particular occasion their friend’s arrival was imminent and the sisters worked together to try to get everything ready for him.  They cleaned, they cooked, they straightened.  Unfortunately, despite their best efforts, all was not in order when he arrived.  And much to the first woman’s dismay, her sister, rather than continuing to help her get things in order, immediately dropped what she was doing and sat down with their friend to spend time with him.

Obviously, this seemed like the height of rudeness and inconsideration to the first sister.  While she continued to slave away, desperately trying to finish her work, her flighty sister just sat there in the presence of their friend.  And as she beheld the situation she grew increasingly frustrated and angry.  Finally, her irritation boiled over and she could contain herself no longer.  She marched up to the two of them and let loose with a heated plea for their friend to pay attention to the injustice of what was transpiring.  She thought to herself that surely this wonderful man, who always put others first, would see how unfair the situation was.

But instead, much to her chagrin, he responded quite differently than what she had expected.  We can read His response in Luke 10:41-42: But the Lord answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

As I begin to contemplate the second epistle of John, I am reminded of this story of Martha and Mary from the Scriptures.  I find myself convinced that all too often, when it comes to studying the Bible, we unwittingly find ourselves in the shoes of Martha, hurriedly and mistakenly fixing our attention upon what is not of greatest significance.

But before we get to that, let us consider some details about this letter that John wrote.  Measured by words it is the second shortest book in the entire Bible, clocking in at only 219 words in the original language.  In our modern era we probably would not even call it a letter.  Instead it might be classified as a memo.  And what is particularly fascinating is that this ancient “memo” seems to have been between churches.  We will see this in verse 1, in a moment, but in a nutshell I believe the evidence points to John having sent this epistle from whatever church he was currently ministering at, to another church elsewhere in the world.  As such, by having 2^nd John in our Bibles we become privy to sort of a private communication between the leaders of two churches.  We get to listen in on their ancient discourse as the proverbial “fly on the wall”.

John opens with a typical salutation in verses 1 and 2: The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth, for the sake of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever.  A number of points and questions must be addressed right off the bat.  First is the acknowledgement that this is classic Johannine style on display.  In almost all of his written works John consistently preferred not to refer to himself by name.  In the Gospel of John, he called himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.  In his first epistle, that we have already examined, he never even acknowledges himself at all.  Both 2^nd John and 3^rd John bear the moniker of simply “the elder”.  Revelation differs in that John does name himself as the author.  But the variance there is that he is merely relaying something on behalf of someone else; namely Christ.  He is serving as a messenger in Revelation, whereas in his other works he is communicating directly from his own person and initiative.

And in that context John fervently desires that he not be made much of.  He does not wish to draw attention to himself.  He does not want to distract from the single-minded fixation upon Jesus that he wants his readers to possess.  This is a principle that we would do well to pause and linger over.  Grand-standing and attention-seeking is the name of the game in our culture.  First place in line goes to the one bold enough to bypass others and then be dismissive of their outrage.  The best test results are obtained by the student crafty enough to cheat without being caught.  Sporting medals are won by the fastest, the strongest, the most agile.  Debates are dominated by the person who is the most adept with their tongues and brains.

Now, I acknowledge that much of the traditions of the United States still work against these types of sinful excesses.  Many parents continue to teach their children to be honorable.  Public education systems resoundingly condemn and punish any form of cheating.  Corporations write codes of ethical business conduct, expecting their employees to abide by the principles set forth, and terminating those who are found to violate them.

But my point is that this is window dressing.  The dominant school of thought in the modern secular, affluent, and educated world is that of natural selection, otherwise known as evolution.  The full title of the book published by Charles Darwin in 1859 that launched modern evolutionary thought is “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.”  Implicit in the title of his book is the idea that nature favors certain races over others, selects them for adaptation to their environment, resulting in one race surviving while another dies out.  In crude terms it is the principle of “survival of the fittest” or “only the strong survive”.

Regardless of cultural mores pointing the other direction, toward humility, the mass of modern humanity is going to be impacted tremendously by an evolutionary, and therefore essentially prideful, foundational understanding of how life works.  This is particularly evident if the rest of the world outside of the United States is considered.  For all of its faults, its depravity, its rapidly accelerating slide into debauchery and godlessness, America is in some ways still governed by basic tenets found in the Bible such as honor and humility.  But if you replace this implicit assumption of theism with an explicit enforcement of atheism and humanism you get countries such as Russia and China.

All one has to do in order to see this is look at the leadership of the countries mentioned.  There is an aura of unrepentant and unapologetic self-interest inherent in their actions and attitudes toward the rest of the world.  The phrase “might makes right” comes to mind as a description of their state agendas and policies.  Pertinent to this discussion is the reality that these countries were influenced by the systematic and comprehensive elimination of spirituality from their collective consciousness under communism.  They exist now in a mostly theistic vacuum that exalts man and finds no place for anything other than the supremacy of the creature rather than the creator.  In other words, they present a raw and unfiltered glimpse of the pride of the human heart played out on a national scale.

So, do not be too quick to gloss over John’s desire to consciously and deliberately be humble.  You live in a world that is guaranteed to be increasingly opposed to such attributes.  This world and its propaganda, in the form of media, entertainment, and politics, may well be influencing your thoughts and attitudes toward biblical principles in ways you are not even aware of.  I am mindful of Colossians 2:8 at this point: See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 

Most dangerous of all is the reality that these factors are perfectly designed and suited to play upon your own ingrained lust for pride and desire for autonomy.  As the prophet famously wrote in Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” Don’t think that this curse does not apply to you and that you are not susceptible to the basic predilection of all humans to pride and arrogance.  Cast your mind and your heart upon John’s example.  It is well worth your time to follow in his footsteps.

Now then, in considering John’s salutation in this letter a question emerges.  Namely, who is the addressee.  He writes “to the chosen lady and her children.”  On the surface, taking the words at face value, it might seem that the apostle is writing to a specific woman, perhaps a widow, along with her family.  But I think this is not likely and there is a better explanation that fits the text and the clues given to us more closely.  I alluded to it earlier.  I believe John, in a position of leadership at whatever church he was ministering in at the time, is writing to the leadership of another sister church regarding the fallout resulting from a split in the church at large over Christology, or the doctrine of Christ. 

There are some very detailed and technical treatments of this view available on the Internet.  I am only going to skim the surface here.  And I am going to do it by focusing on four simple points.

First, it strikes me as odd that if John were writing to an individual Christian woman that he would refer to her as “the chosen lady”.  We can see in 3^rd John that he addresses his intended recipient by name.  So it seems strange to me that if he was writing to a female acquaintance of his that he would address her so mysteriously and impersonally.  John, throughout his first epistle, demonstrated a tremendous capacity for expressing, pursuing, and teaching the love of God.  Over and over he demonstrated his conviction that loving one another was of paramount importance in the life of a Christian.  So for him to turn around now and be so cold and impersonal raises a red flag for me.

Furthermore, notice the word he uses.  The English word “lady” in verse 1 is a translation of the Greek word “kuria” (kyoo-ree-ah).  This word is the feminine form of the word “kurios”, meaning lord or master.  It is used nowhere else in the New Testament, other than this letter.  So we have little evidence to compare with.  But we know that “kurios” is undeniably a term of respect and/or submission.  It connotes authority and/or power to the one to whom it is ascribed.  In point of fact, it is quite often used to refer to Christ Himself by several different New Testament writers.  One example of this is Acts 1:6, as follows: So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord (“kurios”), is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”

So I find it exceedingly strange to believe that John would use a related form of the same word of honor, and apply it to any individual, let alone a woman.  That is not to imply that women were less important or relevant to John.  To the Roman culture at large, sure, but not to an Apostle of Jesus Christ, who would have undoubtedly been on the same page as his fellow Apostle, Paul, who wrote “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” in Galatians 3:28.  But at the same time, although women were loved and respected in their own right, they were clearly not given the same level of authority in the church as that reserved for men.  The qualifications for elder given in 1^st Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 are exclusively pointed at men.  I do not find it credible that John would have given any individual woman the same or a similar level of respect and authority as that which he applied to his master, Jesus.

We need to peek ahead at the end of the letter for the next point.  Verse 13 reads: the children of your chosen sister greet you.  There are two possibilities.  One is that John is writing a letter to a specific female individual.  And this person has a sister who is a member of John’s church.  Therefore, he closes his letter by telling the lady, not that her sister greets her, but that her nieces and nephews greet her.  He doesn’t even bother to say good-bye himself.  This seems utterly ludicrous to me.  Why would he not give the names of the people involved?  It would be very strange indeed.

Instead I believe it makes much more sense and is more natural to conclude the following.  The “chosen lady” of verse 1 is a church.  Her children are the members of that church.  Therefore, the chosen sister is John’s church and the children are the members of his church.

The final point that I believe supports the idea of “inter-church communication” is the context of the letter itself.  John warned of antichrists, those opposed to Christ, within the church in 1^st John 2:18-19.  Subsequent to that letter, he wrote this missive of encouragement and exhortation to one of the churches, probably of Asia Minor, dealing with the same problem.  This will be made clear when we get to verse 7 because John gives an explicit reference back to his former teaching.  This issue was a church wide concern.  It was an overarching error of doctrine and theology that John addressed in a “global” capacity which covered the entirety of the church or churches he was writing to.  So it is much more logical that now, in writing a follow up that addresses the same problem, he would be communicating to a church rather than a person.

The relevance for us is this.  If indeed John wrote this letter to a church body, and I believe the weight of evidence points to that, then we need to understand and interpret his writing in that context.  We need to see this book as being specifically applicable to whatever local church we are associated with.  The issues he will present to us are of universal significance to the body of Christ as a whole. 

So in that sense, this letter dovetails perfectly with 1^st John which was also addressed to a wide audience of Christians.  In fact, the two letters have a particularly interesting relationship with each other.  In 1^st John, as we have seen, although John may have had a specific local church in mind when he wrote, he purposely left his teaching broad in scope and general in application.  So we could say that 1^st John was addressed to the whole of Christendom.

But now, with 2^nd John, he is going to narrow the focus of his lense a bit and zero in on a single church within the greater whole of the body of Christ.  I find this fascinating because it presents the idea of a sort of spiritual funnel where John’s teaching starts out very wide and then begins to narrow down to a more precise focus.  The harmony between these letters is really quite amazing.

I think this beauty and harmony between two letters written by John are one of many examples in Scripture of the beauty inherent in God Himself.  Students of the Bible can sometimes fall victim to the tendency to take a pragmatic approach to Scripture.  In other words, we read God’s word constantly looking for the bottom line.  We bring an unspoken expectation of finding out “what’s in it for me” to our study time.  We rush through the passage in question, trying to juice out the application as quickly as possible, in an effort to squeeze God into one of the segmented time bound compartments of our day.  And in the process we may fail to recognize beauty when it is staring us right in the face.

This is exactly what happened to Martha in the situation described earlier from Luke chapter 10.  She was so pre-occupied with her petty human concerns that she failed to recognize the far greater thing that was right in front of her face; Christ Himself.  Jesus rightly rebuked her for this oversight.  Mary, on the other hand, saw the Lord for what He was; the single most important and beautiful thing possible for her to experience.  And so, captivated by His splendor, she focused all of her attention upon Him with a single-minded devotion that drove her sister crazy.

As stated, I personally find one aspect of the beautiful face of God in the contemplation of John’s letters that I have been writing about for the past several pages.  Does the question of whether John wrote 2^nd John to a particular woman or a church, and the resulting conversation which flows from the answer to that question, specifically and quantifiably impact your life in a demonstrable and actionable manner?  No, probably not.  But what it does accomplish, if you allow it, is to direct your attention to the source of utmost glory, majesty, and splendor in all the created order.  Namely, the One responsible for that created order, the Lord God Almighty.

Does this sound like hyperbole to you?  If it does then you may be unfortunate enough to have never gazed fully upon the face of God as revealed in the Scriptures.  You may be hapless enough to have never had your attention captured by God’s character and your vision fixed on His pure and undiluted goodness.  You may be a Martha instead of a Mary.  And if that describes you then you may find that the conclusions I will draw as I continue through 2^nd John may be of little interest to you.  Make no mistake my friend, this is not a good or healthy state of affairs for you.  There is absolutely, unequivocally, nothing better you will ever find than the God who made you, His Beloved Son who died for you, and His Spirit which indwells those who place their faith and trust in Him. 

This is not about avoiding hell.  This is not about attending church.  This is not about improving your life.  This is not about being a good moral person.  This is about fulfilling the purpose for which you were made and for which you continue to draw breath even as you read this.  And in that process finding the greatest source of joy you have ever dreamed of.  That is, the worship and adoration of God.  Christian or non-Christian, do not waste another second pursuing anything less than that.  Come to the end of yourself even now, recognize the Lord as the best you can get, pursue Him until your dying breath, and as a start join me in this exposition of one of the shortest books in the Bible.

The Epistles of John, Part 24: Affirmations 3

If you knew that the next conversation you were going to have with a friend or relative would be the last time you were ever able to speak to them, how would it alter your perspective?  Would you choose different words, or maybe even a completely different theme altogether?  Maybe you would try to make the conversation last longer, savoring the time you have with your friend, knowing that it will not last.  Perhaps you would be kinder or gentler in how you treat them.

I was 13 years old the last time I spoke to my father.  He and my mother had been divorced for most of my life.  He lived in Florida and I lived in West Virginia, so I was used to him not being around; an occasional visit or phone call was the extent of our relationship.  One fall evening I was watching a VHS movie (if that doesn’t date me I don’t know what will) with my mother and step-father.  VCRs and movies on tape were new experiences for me at the time, so I didn’t know that they could be paused and resumed.  In the middle of our film, my father called to talk to me.  However, being young and selfish as well as interested in the movie and afraid I was going to miss it, I told him I didn’t have time to talk right then.  We hung up the phone and he died from a heart attack about a month later.

Now, I do not obsess over this.  It is merely one in a lengthy list of mistakes I have made in my time on earth.  And I am not here to talk about my life.  But I think this topic is relevant because of the passage we will be looking at; 1^st John 5:18-21.  These are the last four verses of John’s letter to the church.  Although he would do more writing after this with his second and third epistles as well as the book of Revelation, for all he knew if some brother or sister in Christ somewhere in the world was to obtain a copy of his letter, this could be the last words from him they ever read.  So I think it is insightful and noteworthy to consider how John decided to close out his missive. 

This elderly apostle had lived for the better part of a century at this point.  He had experienced the Messiah in person and participated in the most significant formative stages of the birth of the Christian church.  This man so clearly had a deep and abiding affection for his “little children”, those saints younger in the faith than he was.  Was he perhaps contemplating the end of his own life approaching, with all the perspective that gives a person regarding what is really important?  With all of these factors possibly playing into John’s thoughts, what is it that he wanted to leave us with?

It seems to me that John desired to leave us with affirmations, or supports and encouragements.  Three affirmations to be exact: God is faithful, God is just, and God is truth.  He begins with verse 18: We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.  This verse has some surprising interpretive twists, so let’s break it down into parts.

First John says that we know, or it could be translated as you know.  He begins verse 18, 19, and 20 with the same word; “eido” in Greek.  We have seen it a number of times throughout the letter.  It means simply to see or perceive with the eyes or senses.  Additionally, “eido” has the idea of a careful inspection.  It is interesting that John chose this word.  He apparently does not believe that he is giving us new information.  He is not delivering new teaching to us.  Rather, he is bringing to our attention something that has come before; something that we have already perceived and come to know.  In this case, John is re-iterating something he taught us back in 3:9, as follows: No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Notice the word I underlined.  This point is actually quite critical to make.  Reading 5:18 by itself one could get the impression that John is teaching a type of sinless perfection here.  If so, it would be particularly troubling because it would put him at odds with himself.  In both 1:8 and 1:10 we were assured in no uncertain terms that we most definitely do sin.  Furthermore, anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.  Most damning of all, such a person also makes God Himself out to be a liar. 

If John is now saying that we don’t sin at all it would make no sense.  Thus, the clarifying point from 3:9 is absolutely crucial to bear in mind.  John is not claiming that anyone born of God commits no sins.  Rather, he is teaching that those who are part of God’s family do not make a practice of sinning.  This is in contrast to the practitioners of sin mentioned in 3:4. These are people who consistently, intentionally, and deliberately violate the law of God by manufacturing evil.  In light of all this, verse 18 stands as yet another excellent example of why it is so critical to interpret the Bible contextually.  If we were to read 5:18 in a vacuum, we could easily construe it to mean something it does not.

Next I’m going to skip to the end of the verse and deal with the last phrase.  John tells us that the evil one, meaning Satan the great adversary of God, cannot hurt the one born of God.  We are kept from him.  John is echoing the words of Christ here.  In John 17:15 He said: I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.  There is a tremendous security and reassurance in this.  Think about it.  We literally have nothing to fear from the devil.  He cannot hurt us.  Although Christians may suffer pain at his hands, it is only through the allowance of God that Satan is permitted to do anything at all; as in the case of Job.  So in a sense, any damage the enemy may do to us is not even of himself at all.  He is functioning as the Lord’s agent in our sanctification.  James makes this point in 1:2-4 of his letter: Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.  And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. 

Now then, moving back to 1^st John, the key point of 5:18 is found in the middle of the verse.  It answers a crucial question for us; namely, why or how are we protected and kept from the evil one?  The phrase presents some interpretive challenges, but as we will see, the overall point is clear regardless of which way it is translated.  The difficulty arises from the manner in which John put his sentence together.  He is notorious for vague or obscure word constructs in his writings.  And this one is no exception.  Without diving too deeply into the Greek, there are three primary ways this middle part of the verse could be translated, all depending on how you interpret the pronouns being used:

• The one fathered by God (the Christian) protects himself
• The one (Jesus) fathered by God protects him (the Christian)
• The one fathered by God (the Christian), he (God) protects him (the Christian)

The first option clearly makes no sense and is completely inconsistent with Biblical thought.  For John to assert that the Christian is the one who guards his own self from Satan would be absurd.  Just to take one simple example from this same letter, we could turn to 3:8b: The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the words of the devil.  It was part of Christ’s ministry to oppose and ultimately defeat the devil.  Even Michael the archangel, who led the army of heaven in war against the dragon, Satan, would not confront him directly on his own, but instead turned to God for assistance (Rev. 12:7; Dan. 10:13).

The second and third options are both plausible.  Most modern translations take the approach of number two.  But an argument could be made for number three as well.  However, I am not going to make that argument here.  Because in my opinion, it doesn’t alter the point of the verse.  Either way, it is God who protects us.  Whether we see that as being accomplished by the Father or the Son makes little difference.  The key thing to remember is that it is a work of God to keep us safe from the perils of this evil world and the god, Satan, who rules it (2 Cor. 4:4).

This is quite frankly a rather astonishing thought.  In Romans 14:4 the apostle Paul wrote this: Who are you to judge the servant of another?  To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.  The context of this verse is Christians judging each other over relative strengths or weaknesses of faith.  But the point for us is the reality that we do not stand on the solid rock of Christ on our own.  God literally makes us stand firm.  He keeps us from falling away.  He will bring to completion that which He began in us (Phil. 1:6).

Yet, in spite of this divine oversight of our spiritual futures, the Bible is also clear that we are expected to take ownership of our Christian conduct.  Sometimes the Scriptures present these two competing elements almost in the same breath, as in Romans 6:12 and 14: Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts.  For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.  John himself has repeatedly emphasized that we must walk like Christ walked (1 Jn. 2:6).  But at the same time, even the very way he phrases our salvation, being “born of God”, implicitly conveys the idea of something we do not do for ourselves, considering that no one births themselves.

So what are we to make of all this?  How can God be the One who completely secures our salvation in Christ yet we are simultaneously expected to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12)?  How do we reconcile these two conflicting spiritual realities?  Frankly, I don’t think that we capable of doing so.  The reason is that our minds, limited as they are, are not possessed of the faculties to understand how God’s sovereignty over our salvation and sanctification along with our responsibility in them can mesh smoothly.  I recommend that rather than spend time trying to force your mind to wrap itself around something it will never completely grasp you instead just accept both as truth.  Then pay careful attention to the part of the equation God has made you responsible for, walking like Christ walked and abiding in Him. 

And finally, glory and exult in God’s faithfulness.  This is a God who has promised you an inheritance beyond your wildest dreams.  He has guaranteed that you will possess, starting right now, a new quality of life that mirrors His own.  You will have this life for all of eternity.  And in the meantime, in this present physical world, He will protect you and keep you from anything He does not wish to bring into your life for the purpose of making you stronger in Him.  This is truly a God to delight in and place your faith and trust in!

Moving on, we can see that John continues his affirmations in verse 19 by confirming that God is just: We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.  Perhaps you are wondering how a statement about the world being under the control of Satan has anything to do with God’s justice.  Allow me to explain.

First, we need to clarify what John means when he writes “whole world”, or “kosmos holos” in Greek.  Does he mean literally everything in the world?  We considered this question back in 2:2, which reads: He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.  This is a very important point to understand correctly, because it has implications for how we understand the biblical doctrine of soteriology, or the study of salvation.

I will approach this from two angles: grammar and logic.  First, notice the difference between verse 18 that we just looked at and verse 19.  The prior verse contains the Greek word “pas” to express the idea that no single individual person who is born of God continues in the practice of sinning.  “Pas” means each, every, everyone, all things, etc.  It is the word the New Testament writers used when they wanted to convey the idea of every single detail.

We can see this at work in John’s own writings.  In 1^st John 1:7 we find the following phrase: and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.  The word all in that verse is the translation of “pas”.  John specifically highlights the fact that every single sin we are guilty of is fully and completely covered by the blood of Christ.  He wants to ensure that all bases are covered with this blanket cleansing.  Again we see “pas” in 1^st John 2:23: Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.  In this case it is critical that John clarify that anyone, at any time, from any culture, with any circumstances, who denies Jesus has no part with the Father either.

We could continue examining verses where “pas” is used, but you should be able to see the point by now.  And what is noteworthy about this is that “pas” is not found in 5:19. John used the phrase “kosmos holos” to communicate the idea of the whole world.  If he had wanted to tell us that every single person on earth was under the power of the evil one, he would have used “pas” instead of “holos”.

Furthermore, even if he had used “pas” it would still be inconclusive.  The Greek phrase for world and all are used several different ways in Scripture, and they rarely mean every person in the world.  Let’s consider just one of them, briefly.  Matthew 3:5 states the following: Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan.  Both occurrences of the English word all in that verse are translations of “pas”.  Did Matthew mean to say that every person who lived in Judea went down to the Jordan to be baptized by John?  I hardly think so.  At the very least, we know with a great deal of certainty that the Pharisees refused to be baptized by him.  I don’t think they would have been very enthusiastic about submitting themselves to a man who had just called them a brood of vipers (Matt. 3:7).

Ok then, but what about the world “holos” itself.  Perhaps John uses that word as a synonym for “pas”.  In John 11:50 we read the words of Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, spoken to the assembled Sanhedrin: “nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.”  Did Caiaphas mean that if Jesus were not put to death that every single Jew would be killed by the Romans?  Of course he didn’t.  He may have been an unbelieving sinner but he was not an idiot.

The clear sense of the Bible is that all or whole combined with world does not indicate everyone.  Frankly, this should not be difficult to understand because we do the same thing today in our modern vernacular.  If we instruct our children to “rake all the leaves”, does that mean that if we come home and there is even a single leaf still left in the yard that they have disobeyed us?  Of course it doesn’t.  The writers of Scripture may be separated from us by 2,000 years of history as well as a completely different culture.  But they were still human beings just like us, with many of the same idiosyncrasies, or unique mannerisms.

The second angle is one of logic.  Quite simply, it would make no logical sense whatsoever if John is saying that all people in the world are under the power of the evil one.  Why?  Because he has literally just told us, in 5:4, that: whatever is born of God overcomes the world.  Is that not specific enough for you because that verse does not contain the words “evil one”?  Then how about 2:12: I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.  So we have two options.  Either John is completely inconsistent and from one chapter to the next, or even one part of a chapter to another part of the same chapter, he changes his mind about who is under the power of the evil one.  Or he does not mean that literally everyone on earth is under Satan’s thumb.

This concept becomes extremely important to understand when it comes to how you understand what the Bible teaches regarding salvation.  For example, consider the familiar verse of John 3:16.  When John wrote that God loved the world, he did not mean that God loved every person in the world individually with the same love.  Remember that the love of God, “agape”, is an affection that results in sacrificial choices.  It is a surrendering of one’s own time, comfort, etc. for the sake of another.  Now consider that not everyone since the advent of Christ has come to Him in repentance.  Some have died in their sins, clearly.  So if God loved the whole world in the same way, then that would mean that God chose not to rescue people He loved sacrificially from sin and death.  That would not make any logical or consistent sense.

2 Peter 3:9 tells us that the Lord: is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.  An interpretation of that verse which says that God wants all people everywhere to repent but is stopped short due to people’s insistence on unbelief is logically inconsistent with the extreme level of sovereignty over the affairs of the world that we see God ascribing to Himself in the Bible with verses such as Proverbs 16:33: The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.  Besides, Peter’s letter was written to believers.  It is they who are in view in terms of God not wishing for any of His elect to perish.  Peter is not talking about the whole world there.

But what about God’s justice?  We still haven’t seen how John’s statement about the whole world being under the power of Satan demonstrates the justice of the Lord.  Consider Romans 8:20, which reveals that: the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope.  The word futility in that verse is the Greek “mataiotes” (mah-tah-yo-tace’).  It means perverseness, depravity, or devoid of truth and appropriateness.  Who caused the whole of creation to suffer like this?  Who is behind the decay, disorder, and chaos that we have observed in the world all our lives?  Paul reveals in that verse that it is the Lord Himself who has done this.  When your body ages and begins to break down, when the engine of your car stops running, when the ocean rages with the fury of a hurricane and causes property destruction and loss of life, when your favorite pet turns feral and begins to attack people resulting in you being forced to put it down.  All of these situations and more that are completely undesirable and cause stress or heartache in our lives are what is in view here.  The responsibility for this state of affairs in the world can be laid squarely at the feet of God.

Does that distress you?  Does it seem incompatible with your concept of a loving and holy God that He could have done this to the place you will live all of your days?  Does it strike you as unjust that God has permitted the whole world to lie under Satan’s power?  If so, then perhaps it will help to answer the following question: why did He do this?  We can trace the roots of the issue all the way back to Genesis 3:17 and the single phrase spoken to Adam: Cursed is the ground because of you.  Adam was God’s surrogate representative for the whole of creation.  When he rose the whole universe rose with him.  And when he fell it all came tumbling down after him. 

The curse that God spoke of is the futility that Paul described and the subjection to the enemy that John is talking about in our verse today.  It was a judicial decree or a penal judgment.  To be sure, Adam was the one who was at fault.  But it was God who chose the form and the function of the punishment.  If you struggle with this idea, then perhaps the following illustration will help.  Suppose a man is married with two children.  The Lord has blessed him with a good job that has enabled his wife to stay home and educate their kids.  It has also enabled the family to purchase a comfortable home to live in.  Subsequently, the man gives in to temptation and embezzles from his company.  His sin is found out and his employment is terminated.  This results in the loss of their home due to an inability to pay the mortgage payments each month.  They have to move into a cramped two-bedroom trailer with the kids sharing a room, whereas before they had their own separate rooms.

Now then, in this example, who is the one at fault?  Is it the company for firing him?  Is it the bank because they foreclosed on the home?  No.  Obviously, it is the husband and father.  He committed the crime and his wife and children are innocent of any wrongdoing in the matter.  Yet, because he was the surrogate representative for the family, exemplified by his status as the breadwinner, now they are all suffering because of his mistake and the subsequent just and righteous decision by the company to terminate him and the bank to foreclose.

This is very much the state of affairs in the world as it relates to Adam’s sin, God’s just punishment, and our present state of suffering which has resulted.  And frankly, if you are unable to wrap your mind around the concept that God could do this and remain perfectly righteous and holy, then you will have a difficult time truly and accurately understanding Him as He has revealed Himself in Scripture.  You will question why He allows tsunamis to devastate coastal areas or earthquakes to bury little children under tons of rubble.  You will decide that a loving God could not possibly allow your relative to develop cancer. 

And ultimately, you will call into question God’s honor in the matter of salvation, considering that He has not chosen to rescue all people from sin and death, thus essentially condemning them to an eternity of torment.  The issue of God’s justice is not some ivory tower doctrine fit only for professors and scholars to debate amongst themselves.  It is decisively relevant to our everyday lives.  And we must come to an accurate understanding of it from the Bible if we are to have any hope of not sinning via defamation of the Lord’s character.

The third and final affirmation that John gives us as he closes out his epistle is that God is truth.  We can see this in verse 20 of chapter 5: And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.  This is the true God and eternal life.

It didn’t occur to me until I was in the middle of writing this, but John’s statement here, this single verse, is actually a wonderful summation of the Christian experience as a whole.  Being a Christian, a true Christian, is not about avoiding hell.  It is not about having a comfortable life.  It is not about being active in church.  It is not even about being a morally good person.  Some of those things are byproducts of being a Christian.  But the real meat and potatoes of what it means to follow Christ is right here in this verse.

Jesus came in the form of a man for one single reason.  He gave this reason to Pilate the very day He was executed.  John 18:37 reads: Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?”  Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king.  For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth.  Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”  The purpose of Christ’s birth was so that humanity would be able to know God.  The Son is the perfect image (Col. 1:15) and visible physical representation of the Father (Heb. 1:3).  In Christ the complete picture of God dwells in bodily form (Col. 2:9).  This is why He told Pilate that He had come to testify to the truth.  

How did He provide this testimony?  In word of course.  In deed to be sure.  But over and above any individual act Jesus performed and even out shadowing the totality of His earthly ministry, is simply the fact that He existed and continues to exist as a person.

Were it not for the incarnation of the Son of God we would fail to have an accurate and complete understanding of who God is.  The only way to truly know this God who is our Creator is to come to know Jesus.  And the not so secret ingredient of the eternal life that the Bible talks about all the time is that this life, as we have discussed previously, is not bound to the concept of length of years.  Rather, it has to do with quality of existence.  The reason is because the life that we are given is in some mysterious way a portion of God’s own being.  Not that we become gods, worthy of worship ourselves (Rev. 22:9).  But that we come to know the only true God who is the only source of true life.  This is why, in John 17:3, Jesus prayed to His Father: This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.  That is the same sentiment John is now echoing for us some 60 years after Jesus first spoke it in his presence.

The fact that John is pushing knowledge of God as the reality of the Christian existence should come as no surprise to us.  This has been the theme of his letter all along.  In 1:2-3 he told us he was proclaiming to us what he had experienced about God so that we could share in fellowship with him and with the Lord.  In 2:6 he pointed out that the proof of our coming to know God is whether we walked like Christ walked.  In 2:13 and 14 he reminded the spiritual fathers that they have known the Father.  In 2:24 we found that we are to abide in the Son and in the Father so that, in 2:28 we may have confidence before Him when He appears rather than shrinking away in shame from His presence.  In 3:1 John implied that we know God by stating that the world does not know Him.  In 3:24 we were told to keep God’s commandments so as to abide in Him.  In 4:7-8 John taught that whoever loves knows God and whoever does not love does not know Him.  In 4:15-16 we found that an authentic unashamed public confession of Jesus as the Son of God results in God abiding with us and us coming to know Him and believe Him.  In 5:12 we learned that through belief in Christ we actually come to possess the same quality of life that is in Him.

This letter, from beginning to end, has been eminently practical.  In a modern secular society such as ours, where faith is cheap, prayers are supposedly on everyone’s tongue, and all roads lead to heaven the first epistle of John stands out as a beacon of practical theology.  John takes the notion that one can profess to be a Christian without practicing the life of a Christian and utterly eviscerates it.  He takes “easy believism”, turns it on its head, and throws it out the window.

Even the final six words of his letter resound with this message.  Verse 21 reads: little children, guard yourselves from idols.  What a strange way to end we might think.  A seemingly random comment, thrown in as if by an afterthought.  But think it through.  What is idolatry?  Is it the act of worshiping an idol?  That is certainly the evidence of it.  But where does this idol worship begin?  It starts in the heart.  It launches with a refusal to submit to God as the rightful owner of all our affections.  Idolatry is a sin of the mind, not a sin of the hands or the feet or the mouth.

So John tells us to guard ourselves against such things; but how?  Simply by using the instructions he has given us for the last five chapters as ammunition to fight against our own perversions and distortions.  He has just done a masterful job of summarizing the whole letter for us.  John has re-affirmed that God is faithful in guarding and protecting us from Satan.  He will keep us in Him because otherwise we would fall away if left to our own devices.  John has also reminded us that God is just.  We cannot trust our own interpretation of fairness or of what is right and wrong.  Our perception is warped and as changeable as the autumn leaves.  But God’s sense of justice is perfectly accurate and uniformly consistent.  Finally, John has pointed out that God is truth.  The real perk to becoming a Christian is getting the privilege of knowing God.  This is at once the simplest and most elegant of paradigms while simultaneously being the most complex and indescribable of miracles. 

I think John is telling us to use these truths in our struggle against idolatry.  This idolatry starts within one’s own heart.  It is not about the images you see, the words you hear, or the temptations you are subjected to.  It is about who occupies the place of utmost pre-eminence in your soul; Christ or you.  So because it is within us that the real war against idolatry will be won or lost, John is entrusting us with this spiritual ammunition in the confidence that we will use it to guard and protect ourselves.  These are the words the apostle John chose to leave us, his beloved little children with, in case we were to never hear from him again.  He was interested in spiritual matters of eternal significance rather than physical issues of relative worthlessness.  What sorts of words will you leave with your loved ones?

The Epistles of John, Part 23: To Die or Not to Die

Any teacher worth his or her salt knows that examples are instructional gold.  The most complex subject in the world can be understood and applied in the mind of a student with far greater precision and clarity if the instructor is able to provide a concrete illustration of the concept they are teaching that is relevant to the lives of their pupils and is clear enough to be easily understood and processed on the fly.  You have probably heard the phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words.”  This may be an old cliché, but like most old clichés, it is old because it has survived and stood the test of time.  And it has stood the test of time because it is true.

Those that know me well know that I love to play board games.  The types of games I enjoy are typically deep, rich, and complex strategy games.  I am equally delighted to play a strategic recreation of Operation Barbarossa (the German invasion of Russia in 1941) as I am a political simulation of The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union from the mid-1940s to the late-1980s.

In these types of games there are often many pages of rules, usually double columned, in smallish print, with few pictures.  The voluminous instructions are provided in an attempt to recreate the complex situations being modeled by the game in question.  So the rules are intricate by both design and by necessity.  But without question the games that are easiest to learn are the ones that, in addition to the main rule book, provide a play book of sorts with detailed examples of play, including photos of the board, positioning of pieces, and hypothetical moves by real or imaginary players.  It is these samples of game play that elevate the learning experience to a thing of beauty and enjoyment.

This principle, of illustrated instruction, is nowhere more helpful and necessary, than it is in Bible education.  The plan of salvation that God has provided to mankind is extraordinarily simple.  But the rich and majestic theologies and doctrines which lie beneath the surface of the Scriptures are the stuff of years to understand and lifetimes to master to any great degree.  This should hardly be a surprise, because the word of God is nothing less than a partial revelation of the mind and nature of an infinite Being who is endlessly complex in His character.  Because of this, the best Bible teachers are the ones who are capable of presenting the truth of Scripture through not only sound exegesis (or pulling from the text what is really there), careful interpretation, and deep meditation.  But they are also possessed of the ability to bring the characters, situations, places, settings, and concepts of the Bible into razor sharp focus and relevance through interesting and clear illustrations and examples.

In fact, such teachers are really just mirroring the Scriptures themselves when they do this.  Anyone who is at least passingly familiar with the ministry of Jesus is probably aware of His preferred method of teaching; the parable.  The word in Greek is “parabole” (pah-ru-bo-lay’).  It means literally to place one thing by the side of another.  It is a comparing, a simile, or similitude.  Jesus was a master of taking the Old Testament Scriptures and bringing them directly and immediately into a first century context by communicating them through stories that His audience clearly understood.  These stories were filled with cultural connotations and physical object lessons.  And although in many cases He was intentionally obscure because He did not want casual observers to understand His message, at other times He was frighteningly precise with a razor wit and piercing comprehension that skewered the sinful hearts and minds of those in earshot.

The Apostle John, as one of the Lord’s best and brightest students, must have learned everything he knew about teaching from his Master.  Here in chapter 5 of his first letter, he is going to take Christ’s principle of teaching via illustration, and use it to great effect.  You see, in verses 14 and 15, that we examined previously, John has taught us that we are blessed with an extraordinary privilege of coming before God in prayer.  Not only are we both allowed and encouraged to do this, but John says that when our prayers are according to the will of God He guarantees that He will hear us.  And the perks don’t stop there, because we are also guaranteed to be given that which we have asked for if it is according to that perfect will of the Lord’s.  This is truly a marvelous reality for the disciple of Christ to understand and live by.  But John is not content to leave the subject alone quite yet.  In the next two verses, 16 and 17, he is going to present us with an example scenario of how this process of requesting, hearing, and granting works in actual practice.

But when we first consider John’s example, we might be inclined to conclude that he either did not learn the teaching methods of Jesus very well or he is going for the latter style of parable that Jesus taught; that of the mysterious and difficult to grasp illustrations.  This particular passage of Scripture ranks as one of the most difficult to interpret and understand in the entire New Testament.  Scholars, priests, theologians, pastors, and professors have debated John’s meaning in these two verses for centuries.  It is truly what some theologians call a “crux interpretum”.  This is a Latin phrase.  “Crux” means a vital, basic, decisive, or pivotal point.  Alternatively, it refers to something that torments by its puzzling nature.  “Interpretum” means what it probably sounds like; to interpret or translate.  So a “crux interpretum” is a passage of Scripture that is of exceeding importance, only matched by its exceeding, indeed maddening, complexity and difficulty to understand.

From a personal standpoint, I can state without any hesitation whatsoever that 1^st John 5:16-17 has been the most difficult work of interpretation and understanding that I have ever attempted in a teaching capacity.  In fact, in the process of straining to understand what John is communicating here I turned to the work of two eminent and learned men, much more so than myself; Irvin Busenitz, professor of Bible and Old Testament at The Master’s Seminary, and W. Hall Harris III, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.  And here’s the thing; neither of them completely agree with each other and in fact come to rather different conclusions about certain aspects of the text.  And to top it all off, I find myself in the unenviable position of not entirely agreeing with either of these men who are unquestionably more skilled at Bible exegesis than I am.

Allow me to try to illustrate the thorny problems this passage presents.  First let us look at the actual text itself: If anyone 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.  All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

I think there are three critical questions that we must answer as we search for an understanding of these verses.  One, who is the brother that John is referring to?  Is he an authentic believer or is he a false Christian?  Two, what constitutes the “sin unto death” that this brother apparently does not commit in John’s example?  Is John talking about any general sin or does he have in mind something specific and possibly even of greater degree than the “average” sin, such as the unforgiveable sin Jesus spoke of in Matthew chapter 12?  Three, how are we to understand the nature of the death itself?  Is it a physical or a spiritual death?

Now then, with only two possible answers to each question that I will be considering, and a total of eight possible combinations of answers, you might think this shouldn’t be that difficult.  But the trouble is that these are neither black and white questions or answers.  Frankly, it is difficult to see a clear and obvious answer in each situation.  And to make matters worse, every single one of the combinations of answers presents its own set of problems.  Consider:

• If brother refers to a Christian, the “sin leading to death” refers in general to any sin, and death is spiritual death, then why would we ask God to give life to one who already has life?
• If brother refers to a non-Christian professing to be a Christian, the “sin leading to death” refers in general to any sin, and death is spiritual death, then how can he be committing a sin not leading to death, since all unsaved sin leads to death?
• If brother refers to a Christian, the “sin leading to death” refers to something specific such as the “unforgiveable sin”, and death is spiritual death, then how can a Christian even be capable of committing such a sin in the first place?
• If brother refers to a non-Christian professing to be a Christian, the “sin leading to death” refers to something specific such as the “unforgiveable sin”, and death is spiritual death, how are we supposed to know when they are beyond hope?
• If brother refers to a Christian, the “sin leading to death” refers in general to any sin, and death is physical death, then how are we supposed to know when a brother commits a “death worthy” sin so that we know whether to pray for them or not?
• If brother refers to a non-Christian professing to be a Christian, the “sin leading to death” refers in general to any sin, and death is physical death, then why would we pray for their physical life when we should be praying for their spiritual life?
• If brother refers to a Christian, the “sin leading to death” is something specific such as the “unforgiveable sin”, and death is physical death, why would the issue of physical death even be on the table alongside such matters of eternal significance?  And as already stated, how can a Christian even be capable of committing such a sin in the first place?
• If brother refers to a non-Christian professing to be a Christian, the “sin leading to death” refers to something specific such as the “unforgiveable sin”, and death is physical death, then why would we pray for them since they are doomed anyhow?

Is your head spinning yet?  It should be.  I don’t include that list of bullet points with the intention of delaying or avoiding the actual exegesis.  Nor do I expect you to go through them carefully and analyze each one in detail.  I merely want to illustrate the logical interpretive challenges in these verses so that you come to the text with a healthy respect for it.

With that ridiculously long preamble out of the way, let’s get right to the meat of the issue; our three questions.  I will begin with what I think is the easiest question to answer; number three.  In verse 16 John mentions a sin not leading to death twice.  He follows this with the inverse; a sin that does lead to death.  Again in verse 17 the apostle calls to attention this sin that does not lead to death.  We will consider the sin itself shortly.  But what kind of death is John talking about; physical or spiritual?  If we can establish an answer to that question as a baseline it will aid in our analysis of the other two questions.

It will be helpful for us to consider the words that John chose to use here; specifically, death as well as its opposite, life.  The purpose in examining the type of life John has in mind is because these two words form a sort of symbiotic relationship with each other when they are used together like this.  The one is the antithesis, or opposite, of the other.  Therefore, when John writes of physical life alongside death he is most likely referring to physical death as well.  Conversely, if it is spiritual life in view then it is almost certain to be spiritual death also.

There are three words for life that John primarily uses in his writings: “zoe” (zo-ay), “bios” (bee-os), and “psuche” (p-soo-kay).  “Bios” very simply means life, or that by which life is sustained.  It appears twice in 1^st John.  One is in 2:16: for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.  This corresponds to the first definition given above.  The other is in 3:17: but whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?  Here John is describing the material goods that facilitate continued life (i.e. the second definition).  In both cases the contextual meaning is clearly a form of physical life.  Either worldly life that is enmeshed in the principles of the world, or a more neutral depiction of life as a simple process of breathing, eating, sleeping, etc. and the physical items that serve to assist in these endeavors.

“Psuche”, on the other hand, usually refers to the breath of life that fills living beings and demonstrates their quality of being alive.  John uses this word only once in his letter, in 3:16.  In this verse he writes the following: We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.  It goes without saying that it was not His spiritual life that Jesus gave up for our sake.  It is impossible for Him to die spiritually, since He is God.  Rather, it was the breath of physical life in His lungs that suffered death and defeat and endured the grave.

But neither of those two words is what John used in 5:16. In that verse he wrote “zoe”, one of ten occurrences in 1^st John.  Without exception, John chose this word when he wanted to convey the idea of spiritual life.  Let’s look at two other places where John used “zoe”.  1^st John 1:1-2 reads: What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life – and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.  1^st John 2:25 tells us: this is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.

It is obvious what the type of life is that John has in view when he uses “zoe”.  It is the life that is possessed by the Father, Son, and Spirit of the godhead.  It is the quality of spiritual life God has promised to us via the blood of Christ on the cross.  And in 5:16 it almost certainly references that same quality of life.

So if John is talking about spiritual life in verse 16, he is undoubtedly talking about spiritual death in the same verse.  To back that up even further, consider the lone other use of “thanatos” in 1^st John; in 3:14: we know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren.  He who does not love abides in death.  When John describes passing from death to life in this verse he can be talking about nothing other than spiritual birth, or salvation. 

Because of this evidence it is best to understand the death and life of 5:16-17 as having a spiritual rather than a physical meaning.  This interpretation will assist us when we seek to answer question number one.  Namely, who is the brother that John is talking about in this hypothetical scenario?  Is this person a Christian or a non-Christian? 

The first point to make is that throughout the New Testament, the word brother (“adelphos” in Greek), almost always points to fellow Christians.  John’s own work bears this out.  1^st John 3:10 draws a sharp dividing line between two sets of children: by this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.  This verse is clearly phrasing “adelphos” in the context of a family situation.  And it is the family of God that is in view.  The only possible meaning for brother in this situation is that of a fellow believer.

Adding to that is 3:16: we know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.  In Ephesians 5:25 Paul is instructing husbands in how they ought to love their wives.  He says that they are to love them as Christ loved the church and: gave Himself up for her.  The physical life that Jesus surrendered on the cross was specifically for authentic believers who would come to populate His church.  Those true Christians are the “brethren” spoken of in 3:16.

However, the evidence given above is solid, but inconclusive.  Just four verses prior to 3:16 John gives us the example of Cain and Abel.  His point is that we ought not to be evil as Cain was.  Instead, we ought to love our brother rather than murder him.  And although it is likely that John intended that biological sibling relationship to point to the church and the spiritual sibling relationships within it, the illustration does muddy the waters a bit.

It gets even dirtier when we consider 2:9: the one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now.  John cannot possibly be talking about a Christian here because he actively hates those who are supposed to be his brothers, thus confirming the darkness as his place of residence.  Or how about 3:15: everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.  I hardly think John would refer to real followers of Christ as murderers and those who are devoid of eternal life.

So we have a conundrum.  It is safe to say that someone completely outside the church is not in view with John’s use of brother.  There seems to be only two possibilities; either the brother is an authentic disciple of Christ or he is a false disciple who only professes the name of Christ.  Let’s examine both of these possibilities.

If the brother is a Christian then Scripture, including John’s writings, exclude him from the possibility of sinning to the point of spiritual death.  This would seem to fit with John’s description of someone committing a sin that does not lead to death.  But it does not resolve all of our difficulties.  Because this same Christian brother, while being incapable of spiritual death, is also possessed of spiritual life.  Why then would John tell us to request that God grant him life?

On the other hand, if the brother is a non-Christian in the church why would John call him a brother?  One likely possibility is that this could be one of the antichrists John spoke of in chapter 2.  These are people who profess to be Christians but who are really wolves in sheep’s clothing.  However, this still does not answer all possible objections.  Because while such a person would certainly be in need of God to grant him life, how can we possibly make the claim that his sin does not lead to death?

The solution that I believe makes the most sense is a melding of these two disparate elements.  Consider John’s illustration from the perspective of the one observing the sin (i.e. you).  Your assumption is that those who are in the church with you are fellow Christians.  While it is true that given enough evidence to the contrary we may come to doubt the salvation of some within our fellowship, that is not the normative manner in which we conduct ourselves.  No, we operate under the assumption that a man’s testimony of salvation is accurate and honest.

Therefore, when we observe them sinning, we already have the belief that they are our brother.  It would follow then that, being a brother of ours and of Christs as well as a child of God’s, that their sin will not result in spiritual death because God has promised to hold them fast.  However, we do not ever truly know for sure what is in the heart of another man.  Only the man himself and the Lord are privy to that information.  Thus, while we may believe them to be saved the possibility exists that they are not.  And if they are not then they are in huge trouble because they are not covered under the blood of Christ, meaning that the sin they just committed most definitely does lead to ultimate spiritual death.

The unifying thread through all of this is our lack of clarity on our perceived brother’s spiritual status.  Because of this fog that shrouds our vision, what should our default response be?  John says we should pray.  We should ask God on behalf of our sinning brother, that if he is not truly born again that God would grant this spiritual life to him, causing him to be our brother in truth rather than word only.

To put it succinctly, I believe the brother John is referring to is one whom we believe to be our brother.  However, due to our lack of perfect knowledge we may be in error about his spiritual status.  This interpretation of brother leads me straight to my answer to the final question remaining; namely, what constitutes the “sin unto death” spoken of here?  In other words, what kind of sin is it?

The first part of the answer has already been alluded to.  If we understand the death as spiritual death and the brother as a perceived Christian, then it naturally follows that any sin committed by such a one would also be assumed to stop short of death.  In this view, the sin would be non-specific.  It is any general sin that any Christian is capable of committing at any time.  However, if that is the case then why does John insert the additional sentence at the end of verse 16: There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.

I think our beloved apostle’s intention here is one of encouragement.  John recognizes that he has presented us with a pattern for prayer and a real-life example in which the very supplication before the Father that John is exhorting us to may never see the results we anticipate.  Think about it like this.  What is likely to happen to our mental fortitude if the brother we observe in sin, and then subsequently pray for, continues to repeat that sin and maybe others as well?  If we see, over a period of time, that our prayers on his behalf are apparently resulting in no change, then wouldn’t it be likely that we, in our frail humanity, would begin to doubt God or grow frustrated with Him?

John wants to guard against that potential.  So he brings up a truth of Scripture.  One example of it is taught by John’s fellow apostle, Paul.  In Romans chapter 1 we find Paul describing the consequences of sin.  He outlines a process of judgment that grows progressively harsher and more absolute.  It culminates in verse 28 with the following judicial sentence: and just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.  The issue seems to be that there is a certain point past which God will no longer choose to absolve the continued, hardened, intentional, and unrepentant sinning of a person.  Although He could save them from themselves He decides not to do so.  At this point He removes His restraint of common grace from their lives, opening the door to further and further debauchery.

Jesus seems to teach a similar principle in Matthew 12:31-32: “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.  Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”  This is a challenging passage to interpret in its own right and it is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to do so.  And I do not think John is referring to this “unforgiveable sin” back in his epistle.  But suffice to say that for our purposes in 1^st John, Jesus is teaching about a similar principle as Paul is in Romans. 

That is, the possibility exists for a sinner to be so embroiled in sin, for such a prolonged period of time, and with an obstinate and intractable disregard for repentance, that God deliberately alters His position toward them.  He therefore condemns this person to remain in spiritual death.  Given this circumstance, all the prayer in the world we might do on their behalf, will ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, amount to nothing.

So to our point in 5:16, I think John is reminding us of such truth.  He wants us to be aware of this potential.  But he also does not want us to think that we are wrong to continue to pray for someone even after all apparent hope of salvation has been lost.  Notice what he says: There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.  John is not telling us that we cannot continue to pray for our wayward brother.  He is simply letting us off the proverbial hook by assuring us that he is not commanding prayer in such a case.  And given our aforementioned inability to know with certainty, the best practice is probably to go ahead and keep on praying with the awareness that our prayers might be in vain if they are not in accordance with the will of God in our brother’s life.

Then John moves to verse 17 in order to give us a warning.  He recognizes the all too likely human response to his example here.  That is, we may be prone to think to ourselves that the sin of a believer is of low or no consequence because it is not to death.  And therefore we may tend to undervalue the heinous nature of our own sins as well as the sins of others.  So he clarifies for us that any sin, whether committed by believer or unbeliever, in any circumstances, with any level of motivation, containing all degrees of ignorance, is unrighteous.  Meaning, it is opposed and contrary to the perfectly righteous character of God.  So, John says, remember that all sin is evil and worthy of condemnation before the Lord.  But the sins of a believer do not lead to death because there is no such thing as a loss of genuine salvation.

Allow me to attempt to summarize what we have covered to this point.  If you see a fellow Christian sin, his sin is not to the death because he is already possessed of life; but you don’t know that for sure, he could be one of the antichrists of chapter 2, so you ask for life on his behalf.  On the other hand, there is sin that leads to death.  This is the sin of the unregenerate.  And sometimes that unregenerate person has been abandoned by God, unbeknownst to us.  Nevertheless, continue to pray that the sinner would repent thus having the sin you observed plus all others covered by the blood of Christ.  In the meantime, don’t forget that all sin is equal to unrighteousness, therefore all men are capable of sin, even Christians.  But there is sin, among Christians only, that does not lead to death.

You might be thinking that my interpretation is rather ambiguous.  I have to admit there are an awful lot of unknowns in the previous paragraph.  But I think that actually strengthens my argument because I think God has purposely left this example vague.  In the preceding teaching (vv.14-15) on praying according to God’s will, we must admit to ourselves that we will not always, or perhaps rarely, or possibly even never, fully and clearly perceive what God’s will is.  The point in those verses is not to give us specifics about the day-to-day, humdrum, decisions of ordinary life on earth as they relate to what God’s will is.  Rather, the point is to pray that His will be accomplished in the situation you are facing.

Therefore, when we come to verses 16 and 17 John presents us with a scenario that is similarly almost or completely impossible to have a full and clear understanding of.  We have a brother, either practicing or professing (i.e. authentic or false), who commits a sin that we observe.  Barring evidence to the contrary we must assume the brother is genuine.  Therefore, we must also implicitly assume that his sin will not lead to death because he has been raised into new life with Christ. 

However, we don’t really know for sure, do we?  So John instructs us to pray for that brother, that God would grant him life.  Meaning, we pray in two different directions.  First, that he is genuine and that his sin that we have observed will not lead to death.  Second, if he is not genuine that God would grant him repentance therefore leading to life.  This may feel ambiguous and undefined to you.  But honestly it meshes perfectly well with the preceding verses about praying according to God’s sovereign will.  The whole point is that we don’t know all the details.  The crux of the issue is that we lack the foresight and perspective of the Lord.  It is critical for us to bear in mind that only with His guidance can we possibly have any hope of success in life and practice.  In this light, the ambiguity present in John’s puzzling example is actually a strength because it blatantly directs us straight to God.

And there is a second powerful element that I think John is conveying with his teaching here.  That is, the need and the power and the value of prayer.  Consider the following.  You are at church.  You observe a fellow Christian being rude or obnoxious.  Or perhaps they are not managing their children well.  Maybe they are gossiping with others.  They may even be talking bad about the leadership of your church.  Whatever the sinful action is that you observe, it stands as unrighteous behavior before the Lord and in front of anyone who happens to be witnessing it.

Now, what is your typical response?  Do you think negatively about your brother in a self-righteous mental high five to yourself?  Are you offended personally and you quickly sequester that offense away in your heart for safe-keeping, ready to be unveiled at a future time and place in a supreme act of bitterness and resentment?  Maybe you find yourself in a conversation later with someone else and you exclaim, aghast at the corruption in your church, about how so and so did such and such and can you believe it?

There could be many more responses to finding oneself in such a situation.  But how often has it crossed your mind to ensure that the first meaningful response to the sin you have observed is prayer?  As soon as you are home or in private somewhere do you fall on your knees and plead for God’s intervention in the life of your brother?  Do you intentionally and lovingly intercede for them before the Lord?  Is your primary mentality that of restoration and unity?  Or is it divisiveness and judgment?

I think that is the second major take-away from this passage for us.  The first has already been stated; that we must simply trust God and pray that His will would be accomplished, whatever it may be and regardless of whether His will is our personal first choice of outcome in a given situation.  The second major point is simply to pray unceasingly for our fellow Christians.  This does not necessarily exclude the possibility and requirement of confrontation.  The Scriptures are quite clear on the proper biblical process of restoring a brother caught in sin via a loving and restorative act of Christ-like confrontation.  But I think John’s point here is that our very first, immediate, instinctive response should be to drop to our knees in humble supplication before the Lord, crying out to Him for wisdom and for life for our wayward brother.

I leave you with Ephesians 6:18 and the words of Paul: With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints.