-
1
Can a Christian Sin unto Death?
Perseverance and 1 John 5:16
Dr. R. Bruce Compton
Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
INTRODUCTION
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.1
John’s directives in 1 John 5:16 represent a well-known crux in
New Testament interpretation.
The difficulties with this verse are found on at least two
levels. The first level involves its
interpretation. What is this sin not leading to death, and how
is it different from the sin that leads
to death? In addition, how is the expression “brother” being
used, as a description of a true
believer or of one who has made a profession of faith but who is
not saved? Finally, what does
John mean by the expressions “life” and “death,” and why is the
one whose sin is not leading to
death promised life?
The second level of difficulty with this verse concerns its
theological implications. What is the
relationship between the brother sinning in 5:16 and John’s
declaration in 5:18 that one born of
God does not sin (cf. 3:6, 9)? In other words, how can a
“brother” be sinning, as 5:16 states, and
still be described in 5:18 as not sinning? Ultimately, the
theological tension involves
harmonizing what John says about the brother in this verse and
what John and other New
Testament writers teach about the perseverance of the saints.
Perseverance means that a true
believer, one who has been regenerated by God’s Spirit, will
continue in the faith, i.e., continue
to believe the gospel (e.g., Heb 3:14). Perseverance also means
that a true believer will
demonstrate some level of faithfulness to God’s word as
evidenced in good works (e.g., Jas
2:14).2 Returning to the question, how can a “brother” be
sinning and still be described as
persevering in faithfulness to God and his word?”
1All Scripture references are from the New American Standard
Bible, 1995 edition, unless otherwise noted.
2See Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, s.v.
“Perseverance,” by A. H. Leitch, 4:709–10; New
Dictionary of Theology, s.v. “Perseverance,” by R. Kearsley,
506–7; Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, s.v.
-
2
The approach to addressing these questions is, first, to place
the passage in its literary context. In
view here is the identification of the purpose and structure of
the letter in order to understand
how the verse fits within the immediate and larger contexts of
the author’s theme and argument.
Next, the major interpretive options are presented and critiqued
to arrive at the interpretation best
supported by the evidence. Following this, the theological
implications of the verse are addressed
in an effort to resolve the tension between what John says here
about a “brother” engaged in sin
and what John and others say elsewhere about the perseverance of
the saints.
PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF 1 JOHN
John records at least four purpose statements in his first
epistle, 1:3–4; 2:1; 2:26; 5:13.3
Combining these statements, John’s purpose appears two-fold. On
the one hand, John’s purpose
is to counteract the influence of false teachers. This purpose
is brought out most clearly in his
statement in 2:26, “These things I have written to you
concerning those who are trying to deceive
you,” a clear reference to the false teachers (cf. 2:18;
4:1).
On the other hand, John’s purpose is also to establish or
confirm his readers in the truth. This
purpose is expressly stated toward the end of the letter in
5:13, “These things I have written to
you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may
know that you have eternal
life.” Here the emphasis is on linking doctrinal
orthodoxy—“believe in the name of the Son of
God”—with assurance of salvation—“that you may know that you
have eternal life.”4
John accomplishes both purposes by giving his readers a series
of tests of eternal life by which
the readers can identify the false teachers and, at the same
time, gain assurance of their salvation.
In other words, the tests John uses to expose false teachers are
the same tests he uses to identify
genuine believers. John’s intentions in providing these tests
are to ground the readers in the truth,
provide them with assurance of salvation, equip them to combat
the false teachers, and exhort
them to godly living (cf. 2:1).5
“Perseverance,” by R. E. O. White, 2:1647–48; New Dictionary of
Theology: Historical and Systematic, 2nd ed., by
A. T. B. McGowan, 666–667.
3In view here are those passages where John uses the combination
“these things I have written,” addresses his
readers as the recipients, and follows this with an indication
of the purpose or occasion for the letter.
4D. Edmond Hiebert, The Epistles of John: An Expositional
Commentary (Greenville: Bob Jones University
Press, 1991), 19–22; D. A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo, An
Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 677–81, 685; Colin G. Kruse, The
Letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 27; Christopher D. Bass, That
You May Know: Assurance of Salvation in 1 John.,
NAC Studies in Bible & Theology (Nashville: B & H,
2008), 40–54.
5Similarly, Robert Law, The Tests of Life: A Study of the First
Epistle of St. John, 3rd ed. (reprint ed., Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1968), 1–24; Donald W. Burdick, The Letters of
John the Apostle: An In-depth Commentary
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 64–67; D. A. Carson, “Johannine
Perspectives on the Doctrine of Assurance,” in
Justification and Christian Assurance, ed. R. J. Gibson,
Explorations 10 (Adelaide, South Australia: Openbook,
1996), 75–76; Colin G. Kruse, “Sin and Perfection in 1 John,”
Australian Biblical Review 51 (2003), 62–64.
Contra, among others, Judith M. Lieu, who limits John’s purpose
to giving the readers assurance (The Theology
of the Johannine Epistles, New Testament Theology [Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991], 22–23, 49–
51); and Zane C. Hodges, who denies that John’s purpose is to
give his readers assurance of salvation, identifying
-
3
Identifying the structure of 1 John is particularly challenging.
John repeats key topics throughout
his epistle, and his transition from one topic to the next is
subtle at best. As well, 1 John does not
follow a standard epistolary format. There is no conventional
epistolary introduction or
conclusion, nor is there an overall division between instruction
and exhortation. Nevertheless, in
terms of its macrostructure, the consensus among interpreters is
to see a threefold division: (1)
the introduction or prologue, 1:1–4; (2) the body of the letter,
1:5–5:12; and (3) the conclusion or
epilogue, 5:13–21.6
Our verse, 1 John 5:16, is located in John’s epilogue. Following
the various tests by which
eternal life is evidenced and false teachers exposed, John
concludes his letter by addressing the
issue of assurance. The conclusion is divided into four
sections. John begins by restating his
purpose for writing in providing his readers assurance of
salvation (5:13). Following this, he
addresses the confidence believers can have in God’s hearing and
answering prayer (5:14–17).
Next, he briefly restates certain truths established in his
letter as the basis for assurance (5:18–
20). He then finishes with a final exhortation to his readers
(5:21).7
A corollary to believers having assurance of salvation and
eternal life (5:13) is the confidence or
assurance believers can have in God’s hearing and answering
prayer (5:14–17). John divides his
discussion on the believer’s confidence in prayer into two
subsections. He first identifies the
conditions for answered prayer—asking according to God’s will,
5:14–15—and then he gives an
illustration of how God answers such prayer—God’s answering
prayer for a sinning brother,
5:16–17.8
THE MAJOR VIEWS ON 1 JOHN 5:16
Taking into consideration John’s teaching on eternal security
and, specifically, that salvation or
eternal life cannot be forfeited by those who receive it, there
are roughly three views on the
interpretation of 1 John 5:16.9 As such, views that deny eternal
security are excluded. Interpreters
John’s theme as the tests of fellowship rather than the tests of
eternal life (The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light
of God’s Love [Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999], 34,
50, 94–95, 226).
6See, for example, Martin M. Culy, I, II, III John: A Handbook
on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor
University Press, 2004), 13–16; Andreas J. Köstenberger, A
Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, A Biblical
Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009),
125–26, 171–73. In addition, the body of the
letter may be further divided into three sections, with each
section composed of ethical demands followed by
doctrinal demands. See, among others, Burdick, The Letters of
John the Apostle, 85–92; Georg Strecker, The
Johannine Letters, trans. Linda M. Maloney, ed. Harold Attridge,
Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), xlii–
xliv. For recent surveys on the structure of 1 John, see Daniel
L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, New American Commentary
(Nashville, Broadman & Holman, 2001), 37–47; and L. Scott
Kellum, “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John: A
Modest Proposal,” Faith and Mission 23 (Fall 2005): 34–82.
7Among others, see Hiebert, The Epistles of John, 249–50.
8See, for example, John R. Stott, The Letters of John: An
Introduction and Commentary, 2nd ed., Tyndale New
Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 188.
9For a survey of the various views on the interpretation of the
passage, see Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of
John, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), 610–19,
and Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 207–10.
-
4
in this category approach the passage with the understanding
that a true believer can commit sin
that leads to the loss of salvation and eternal death.10
Thus, these views have been excluded in
that they appear to be in conflict with what John says elsewhere
about the believer’s security.11
The underlying premise is that John cannot teach something in
this passage that he denies
elsewhere in his writings. With that in mind, the three views
are distinguished based on their
understanding of who can commit the two sins John mentions: the
sin that does not lead to death
and the sin that does.
First View
Both Sins involve Unbelievers
The first view takes the one committing a sin not leading to
death to refer to an unbeliever and
the giving of life to eternal life. The expression “brother” is
interpreted in this context to depict a
nominal Christian. It is someone who has made a profession of
faith but who is not saved.
Assuming this is the case, John is saying that, if a believer
observes a professing believer
persisting in sin, he should pray for that individual and God
will bring that individual to
repentant faith and eternal life.12
The sin that leads to death and for which the readers are not
directed to pray is variously
understood. The options include one or more of the following
sins: (1) high-handed sins (Num
15:22–31), (2) blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt
12:31–32), (3) a conscious, willful
rejection of Christ and the gospel, and (4) apostasy or a
following away from the faith by those
who at one time professed faith (Heb 6:4–6). In any case, the
sin in view is often linked with the
false teachers John opposes in his letter (e.g., 2:22; 4:3).
Furthermore, a common understanding
among proponents is that this sin brings divine hardening, that
is, God’s withdrawing of common
grace, rendering certain the individual’s eternal condemnation
and death.13
In support of this interpretation, John uses the terms “life”
and “death” elsewhere in his letter to
refer to eternal life and death (1:2; 3:14–15; 5:11–12).
Furthermore, John describes a true
believer as one who does not practice sin (1:6; 3:9; 5:18).
Lastly, this view nuances the sin unto
death in light of the surrounding context to refer to the sin of
the false teachers, John’s
opponents.
10
See, among others, I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, New
International Commentary on the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 245–51; and Stephen S.
Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, rev. ed., Word Biblical
Commentary (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2007), 283–88. Both
Marshall and Smalley argue that a true believer can
commit sin that leads to apostasy and eternal condemnation.
11
See, for example, John 10:27–29, “My sheep hear My voice, and I
know them, and they follow Me; and I give
eternal life to them, and they will never perish….” The Lord’s
expression, “they will never perish,” represents a
“subjunctive of emphatic negation,” the strongest form of
denial. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996), 468–69.
12See, for example, Stott, The Letters of John, 188–93; Irvin A.
Busenitz, “The Sin unto Death,” The Master’s
Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1990): 17–31.
13
For a discussion of divine hardening, see NIDNTT, s.v. “Hard,”
by U. Becker, 2:153–56; Douglas Moo, The
Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996),
110–11, 595–600.
-
5
With that in mind, there are several difficulties with this
interpretation. The first is its
explanation that, other than a final rejection of the gospel,
any sin an unbeliever commits does
not lead to eternal death. The problem with this is that
Scripture appears to teach the opposite. In
other words, Scripture teaches that any sin an unbeliever
commits leads to eternal condemnation
and death.14 As Paul declares “the wages of sin is death” (Rom
6:23; cf. Ezek 18:20).
Proponents of the first view counter. What John means is simply
this. Assuming an unbeliever
has not finally rejected the gospel, any sin the unbeliever
commits does not necessarily lead to
death in that God can intervene to save that individual.
Assuming this is the case, John is
directing his readers to pray for this individual with the
promise that God will save the lost
sinner.15 While this explanation resolves the theological
tension—an unbeliever’s sin short of a
final rejection of the gospel not leading to death—this
interpretation requires some measure of
reading into the text what John does not explicitly state.
Another, perhaps greater, difficulty with the first view is that
it interprets “brother” to refer to an
unbeliever. This interpretation is problematic in that John uses
“brother” consistently throughout
his epistle to refer to a believer (2:9–11; 3:10, 13–17;
4:20–21). The one exception to this is in
3:12 where Abel is described as Cain’s brother. In this case,
John uses “brother” in the sense of
two males having the same biological parents.16
Proponents of the first view respond by pointing to those verses
which describe the unbeliever as
hating “his brother,” where “brother” refers to a believer. For
example, in 3:15, John states,
“Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that
no murderer has eternal life
abiding in him” (2:9, 11; 3:14). The argument is that the
unbeliever in these verses is described
as hating “his brother,” implying that the one hating is
understood in at least a nominal sense as a
brother.17
It must be granted that these verses do imply that the one
hating has at least a nominal
relationship to believers, to those who are called his brothers.
Yet the text does not explicitly use
“brother” to describe those who hate, those who are unbelievers.
John uses the expression
specifically of the one hated, not of the one hating. Thus, the
point still stands. John consistently
uses “brother” in 1 John to describe believers and never
directly to describe unbelievers, as the
first view argues.
14
Even proponents of the first view acknowledge that every sin an
unbeliever commits leads to eternal death.
Stott, for example, concedes that “In a sense all sin ‘leads to
death’ spiritually, for death is the penalty for sin (Rom
5:12; 6:23; Jas 1:15)” (The Letters of John, 189).
15
Busenitz, “The Sin unto Death,” 29–31.
16
TDNT, s.v. “ἀδελφός,” by H. F. von Soden, 1:144; BDAG, 18.
17
Stott, The Letters of John, 192–93; Busenitz, “The Sin unto
Death,” 25–26.
-
6
Second View
The Sin that does not lead to Death involves a Believer
The Sin that does involves an Unbeliever
The second view interprets the sin not leading to death as the
sin of a believer. As such, the life
promised to the sinning believer refers to God’s confirming
eternal life by restoring the sinning
believer to faithful service with its present and future
rewards. In other words, God will answer
this prayer by bringing the sinning believer to repentance and
restoration to spiritual service and
blessing, confirming the believer in eternal life.
The sin leading to death is the sin of an unbeliever and, in
particular, the sin of apostasy, a
complete rejection of the gospel by those who at one time
professed faith in Christ. It is the sin
John’s opponents, the false teachers, have committed. Such sin
is viewed as irrevocable in that it
inevitably brings God’s hardening and, thus, the certainty of
eternal condemnation and death.18
The strengths with this view include its interpreting “brother”
to refer to a believer, consistent
with how John has used the term previously in his epistle
(2:9–11; 3:10, 14–15; 4:20; 5:1). This
view takes “life” and “death” to refer to eternal life and
death, also consistent with John’s use of
these terms elsewhere in the letter. And, it nuances the sin
unto death in light of the larger
context as the sin of apostasy, that which the false teachers
have committed.19
With these strengths in mind, the second view also faces
difficulties. The first difficulty is its
interpretation of the statement “he will give him life.” In what
sense does God give the sinning
believer life, if life means eternal life? John consistently
depicts the believer throughout this
epistle as already possessing eternal life (3:14; 5:13).
Proponents respond by arguing that what is given the sinning
brother is the confirmation of
eternal life by bringing the brother to repentance and restoring
the brother to faithfulness with all
of its accompanying blessings.20 Again, while such a meaning for
the statement “he will give him
life” is possible, this interpretation requires a measure of
reading into the text what John does not
expressly state.
At the same time, perhaps the chief difficulty with the second
view is its interpretation of the sin
that leads to death as the sin of an unbeliever. It is not clear
from the context that such is the
case. John directs the reader to pray for a brother committing a
sin not leading to death. John
18
Similarly, Burdick, The Letters of John, 401–4; Hiebert, The
Epistles of John, 257–63; Kruse, The Letters of
John, 190–94; Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 207–11. Kruse prefers defining
the “life” given to the sinning brother as
confirmation of the resurrection life in the future rather than
as confirmation of eternal life in the present, though he
acknowledges that “for the most part, the letter depicts eternal
life as a present possession of believers” (ibid., 191).
19
Tim Ward, “Sin ‘Not Unto Death’ and Sin ‘Unto Death’ in 1 John
5:16,” Churchman 109 (1995): 226–37.
20
See, for example, David M. Scholer, “Sins Within and Sins
Without: An Interpretation of 1 John 5:16–17,” in
Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies
in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by His
Former Students, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1975), 240. As Scholer notes, “The matter of
the sinning brother’s being given ‘life’ is problematic since
the believer has already been transferred out of death
into life (3:14) and thus possesses life (5:11–13). The ‘life’
that is given to the sinning brother, in the context of 1
John, must be understood as a renewal or reconfirmation (cf.
1:6–10) of the life already possessed (3:14; 5:11–13).”
-
7
adds that there is a sin that leads to death and he states that
he is not directing the readers to pray
for such. At face value, John has the sinning brother in view
with both sins. There is no explicit
reference to a second individual in the verse.21
Some proponents of the second view agree, arguing that John
intended the designation “brother”
to be taken with both sins. In the case of the sin that does not
lead to death, the “brother”
committing such refers to a true believer. However, in the case
of the sin that leads to death, the
“brother” committing this sin is not a believer. He is one who
has made a profession of faith, but
who in reality is not saved.22
However, resolving the tension in this way actually creates a
further problem. In effect, this
interpretation gives two different meanings to the expression
“brother” in the same verse. With
the sin that does not lead to death, the “brother” committing
such is a true believer. But, with the
sin that leads to death, the “brother” committing this sin is an
unbeliever. Giving “brother” two
different meanings in the same verse appears to violate the
univocal nature of language and
single meaning. Thus, in order to maintain coherent hermeneutic,
words should be given one and
only one meaning in a given context.23
Beyond this, John is not prohibiting prayer for the one sinning
unto death. He simply says that he
is not directing the readers to pray for those in this
situation.24 Yet if the sin in view is apostasy
and irrevocable, as the second view argues, how is it that John
is not expressly prohibiting the
readers for praying for such?25
We would expect John to direct the readers not to pray for the
one
committing this sin, if indeed the sin is apostasy and
irrevocable.
21
John Painter, for example, asks, “Is it implied that a brother
might commit such a sin [unto death]?
That…seems probable because reference to this sin is introduced
by a clause about seeing a brother sinning. The
most obvious way to read this is: ‘if it is a sin not to death,
then you will ask (God); but if it is a sin to death I do not
tell you to ask God concerning (the one who commits) that sin’”
(1, 2, and 3 John, Sacra Pagina [Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical, 2002], 317).
22
Randall K. J. Tan, “Should We Pray for Straying Brethren? John’s
Confidence in 1 John 5:16–17,” Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 45 (December 2002): 602–3,
606–9.
23For a traditional defense of single meaning, see Milton S.
Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the
Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments (reprint ed., Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 203–5. For additional
discussion, including the issues of authorial intent and figures
of speech, see among others, E. D. Hirsch, Jr.,
Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1967), 1–6; Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, rev.
and enl. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 80–81; Robert H.
Stein, “The Benefits of an Author-Oriented Approach
to Hermeneutics,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
44 (September 2001): 451–66; Walter C. Kaiser,
Jr., “The Meaning of Meaning,” in An Introduction to Biblical
Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning, ed. Walter
C. Kaiser, Jr., and Moisés Silva, rev. and enl. ed. (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan 2007), 29–46.
24
See for example, Robert W. Yarbrough, 1– 3 John, Baker
Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 309–10; contra, among others,
Marianne Meye Thompson, 1–3 John, IVP New
Testament Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992),
141–45; Kruse, The Letters of John, 192–93.
Kruse offers several options for interpreting John’s statement
and then gives support for it to be taken as a
prohibition (ibid., 193).
25See, for example, Gary M. Burge, The Letters of John, NIV
Application Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996), 215.
-
8
Third View
Both Sins involve a Believer
The third view takes both sins, the sin that does not lead to
death and the sin that does, as the sins
of a believer. Furthermore, the third view takes the statement
“he will give him life” to refer to
the giving of physical life. As such, the sin not leading to
death is any sin that a believer persists
in that has not reached the point where God determines to
intervene and take the believer’s life.
In other words, the phrase “not leading to death” means that the
sin has not come to the point
where God chooses to act and chasten the believer with physical
death.
Correspondingly, the sin leading to death refers to a believer
persisting in some sin to the point
where God determines to act and chasten the believer with
physical death. In such a case, God
resolves to intervene to prevent the sinning believer from
bringing further reproach on the name
of Christ. Physical death, in this instance, is the result of
God’s disciplining the believer for
failure to repent of a persistent sin.
Assuming this is the intent, John is saying that if a believer
observes another believer caught up
in some sin, the observer is to pray for the one sinning. In
response, God will bring the sinning
believer to repentance, cleansing, and restoration to
faithfulness. Thus, the individual is delivered
from physical death that would otherwise be the outcome of
persistent disobedience and God’s
ultimate chastisement.26
The strengths with this view include its interpreting “brother”
to refer to a believer, consistent
with how John has used the term elsewhere in his epistle
(2:9–11; 3:10, 14–15; 4:20; 5:1). As
well, there are other New Testament parallels where a believer
is disciplined with physical death
because of a failure to repent over some specific, ongoing sin
(e.g., 1 Cor 11:30).
With the above in mind, this view too faces problems. One
problem is with the statement “God
will give him life.” Advocates understand the promise of life to
mean that God will intervene in
response to prayer and bring the sinning believer to repentance
and forgiveness. In effect, God
gives life by deterring the sinning believer from continuing in
sin and experiencing physical
death.
While such a reading is possible, it gives a meaning to the
expression “God will give him life”
that requires a level of unpacking. God is giving the sinning
believer life in the sense that God is
preventing the sinning believer from experiencing physical
death. In other words, giving life
means delivering the sinning believer from physical death as the
outcome of persistent sin.
Again, such an interpretation is possible, but requires some
level of reading into the text what
John does not directly state.
Another, perhaps more serious, problem with the third view is
that it interprets “life” and “death”
to mean physical life and death. The problem here is that John
uses the same two expressions
26
See, for example, F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John, (reprint of
1970 ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979),
124–25; idem, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1972), 134; John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study
Bible (Nashville: Word, 1997), 1974; Murray J. Harris,
Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An
Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012), 195–97.
-
9
elsewhere in the epistle to refer to eternal life and death. For
example, John writes in 3:14, “We
know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love
the brethren” (cf. 1:1–2; 2:25;
3:15; 5:11–13, 20). By describing something he and his readers
have already experienced, John
is clearly describing their transition from eternal death to
eternal life. Thus, if John intends a
different kind of life and death in 5:16, it is expected he
would use different words or add
modifiers to make that meaning clear.
Weighing the Evidence and Choosing among the Three Views
Choosing among the three views is challenging. The first view,
which takes “brother” as
referring to someone who is not a true believer, appears the
easiest to harmonize with the
concept of perseverance. Previously in the letter, John has
declared that a believer does not
practice sin (3:6, 9). Consistent with this, the one sinning in
5:16 is an unbeliever, not a believer.
Thus, there is no conflict between what John says elsewhere
about believers’ not practicing sin
and what he says about the individual in 5:16 who is engaged or
persisting in sin.
Having said that, John employs the illustration in this verse as
an example of the kind of prayer
the readers can pray with confidence that God will hear and
answer (5:14–15). That being true,
are the readers to have confidence when they pray that God will
save the lost, as in the first
view? Or, are the readers to have confidence when they pray that
God will restore wayward
believers, as in the second and third views?27
John’s teaching on the perseverance of believers actually points
in the direction of the second
and third views. In other words, the readers can have confidence
in God’s promise to restore
wayward believers so that they indeed persevere, both in faith
and in faithfulness to God’s word.
There is little evidence in John or elsewhere in the New
Testament that supports the first view,
viz., that God promises to save every lost person who becomes
the object of a believer’s prayer
(Rom 10:1; 1 Tim 2:1–4; cf. 2 Pet 3:9).
Even more troubling with the first view, however, is that in
5:16 John refers to the one in need of
prayer as a “brother,” a term John consistently uses throughout
the epistle of a brother in Christ,
a fellow believer. For that reason, it is difficult to imagine
that John would use the term here to
describe someone who is lost and in need of salvation, as the
first view argues. Thus, the
function of the passage within its context—to provide the
readers with confidence in prayer—
and John’s use of “brother” elsewhere in the epistle—to refer to
a fellow believer—render the
first view questionable, if not unlikely.
Choosing between the remaining two views is even more
challenging. The major hurdle for the
third view is defending its interpretation of “life” and “death”
as referring to physical life and
death. As mentioned above, John uses the expressions elsewhere
in 1 John of eternal life and
death. With that in mind, proponents offer the following in
response. The prepositional phrase
27
Although not stated, the subject of the assertion, “he will…give
life,” is God, not the one praying. See, for
example, Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles:
Introduction and Commentary, trans. Reginald and Ilse
Fuller (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 249; Akin, 1, 2, 3 John,
207; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 287; contra Stott, The
Letters of John, 188–89; Judith M. Lieu, I, II, & III John:
A Commentary, New Testament Library (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2008), 228. Both Stott and Lieu see the
one praying as the subject.
-
10
“to death” in 5:16 is found only one other time in John’s
writings, in John 11:4.28 There, when
told that Lazarus was seriously ill, Jesus responds by saying
that this sickness is not “to death.”
Clearly, “death” in John 11:4 refers to physical death, the same
meaning proposed by the third
view for 1 John 5:16.
Critics of the third view counter by arguing that the contexts
of the two passages are distinct and,
thus, the meaning of the prepositional phrase in John 11:4
cannot be used to determine its
meaning in 1 John 5:16.29 It must be granted that the contexts
of the two passages are not
parallel. In John 11:4, the combination “to death” refers to
sickness: it is a sickness not to death.
In 1 John 5:16 the combination refers to sin: it is a sin not to
death.
Furthermore, the combination in John 11:4 means that Lazarus’
sickness will not end in death.
Lazarus dies, but the Lord raises him back to life. Thus, to say
in John 11:4 that the sickness is
not “to death” means that the sickness will result in physical
death, but death will be reversed
and physical life will be restored. The meaning of the
combination in 1 John 5:16, on the other
hand, means that the sin has not reached the point of no return,
the point where God chooses to
intervene and take the believer’s life.
These differences notwithstanding, the point argued with the
third view is that in both passages,
the noun “death” in the prepositional phrase “to death” carries
the connotation of physical death.
In other word, the phrase “to death” in John 11:4, the only
other time this combination is found
in John’s writings, refers to physical death. As such, John’s
use of the phrase in John 11:4
supports the third view and its interpretation of the phrase in
1 John 5:16.
Stating the argument linguistically, the noun John uses for
“death” in 1 John 5:16 has a semantic
range that includes the concepts of both physical death and
eternal death.30 Whether or not the
noun has this range in 1 John is contested. The noun is used
only six times in the epistle, and four
of these are in 5:16–17, the debated text. However, this
semantic range—physical death and
eternal death—is attested in John’s Gospel and in Revelation and
as such is viable in 1 John.31
Furthermore, as was mentioned above, the only other use of the
prepositional phrase “to death”
in 1 John 5:16 is in John 11:4 where the phrase refers to
physical death.
Assuming this to be the case, the other key hurdle with the
third view is its interpretation of
“life” in 5:16 to mean physical life. John uses the noun “life”
a total of thirteen times in 1 John.
In its twelve other uses, “life” refers to eternal life (1:1, 2
[twice]; 2:25; 3:14, 15; 5:11 [twice], 12
28
This assumes, of course, that the same author wrote both
documents. For a recent discussion in defense of the
apostle John as the author of both, see Andreas J. Köstenberger,
L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The
Cradle, The Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New
Testament, 2nd ed. (Nashville: B & H, 2016), 293–
98, 783–90.
29
See, for example, Hiebert, The Epistles of John, 262.
30
TDNT, s.v. “θάνατος,” by R. Bultmann, 3:16–18; NIDNTT, s.v.
“Death,” by W. Schmithals, 435–41; BDAG,
442–43.
31BDAG, 442–43. For a recent discussion and defense of John the
apostle as the author of Revelation, see
Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and
the Crown, 811–14.
-
11
[twice], 13, 20). As well, when John refers to physical life in
1 John, he uses a different noun
(2:16; 3:16).32
Again, the argument can be stated linguistically. Since John
consistently uses the noun “life” in
1 John of eternal life, and since John employs a different
lexeme in 1 John for physical life, the
term in 5:16 should be interpreted as eternal life. In addition,
the only other time John uses the
collocation “life” and “death” in 1 John, the terms refer to
eternal life and death and not to
physical life and death (3:14).
In response, the substantive “life” has a semantic range that
includes the concepts of both
physical life and eternal life.33 Furthermore, this semantic
range is attested in both the Gospel of
John and in Revelation.34 The fact that John uses “life” in both
senses elsewhere in his writings
allows for the interpretation of “life” in 5:16 as a reference
to physical life. Furthermore, John
technically is not contrasting life and death in 5:16, as he
does in 3:14. In 5:16, his contrast
specifically is between sin that does not lead to death and sin
that does. Finally, the other uses of
“life” in 1 John either add the adjective “eternal” or describe
this life in relationship to the Son to
make clear that eternal life is in view. Such is not the case in
1 John 5:16.
Returning to the question of the second versus the third view,
the issue comes down to the matter
of probability. When all of the arguments are weighed, which
interpretation appears the more
probable? In the majority of its uses in John’s writings, the
noun “life” carries the meaning of
eternal life, a meaning that favors the second view.35 On the
other hand, in the majority of its
uses elsewhere in John’s writings, the noun “death” carries the
meaning of physical death, a
meaning that favors the third view.36
In addition, the prepositional phrase John uses in 5:16, “to
death,” is found only one other time in John’s writing, where it
clearly refers to physical death.
Taking into considerations the strengths and weaknesses of both
the second and third views, the
third view is preferred. John appears to be addressing only one
individual in his discussion of the
sin that does not lead to death and the sin that does, and he
calls him a “brother.” The second
view either introduces a different individual with the sin to
death, something the text does not
make clear, or takes the “brother” committing this sin as an
unbeliever, a meaning not attested
elsewhere in John’s writings.
RESOLVING THE THEOLOGICAL TENSIONS
The third view takes the brother committing a sin not leading to
death as referring to a believer.
Yet in 5:18, just two verses later, John declares that the one
born of God, a believer, does not sin.
How is it that, on the one hand, John can describe a believer
engaged in sin and, on the other
32
I. Howard Marshall, ed., Moulton and Geden Concordance to the
Greek New Testament, 6th rev. ed. (London:
T & T Clark, 2002), 457 (ζωή), 151 (βíος).
33
TDNT, s.v. “ζάω,” by R. Bultmann, 2:861–64; NIDNTT, s.v. “Life,”
by, 2:480–81; BDAG, 430–31.
34See, among other references, John 3:16 (eternal life), John
12:25 (physical life); Rev 2:10 (eternal life), Rev
11:1 (physical life).
35Marshall, ed., Moulton and Geden Concordance to the Greek New
Testament, 456–58.
36Ibid., 348–49.
-
12
hand, declare that a believer does not sin? Putting the question
in its theological context, in what
sense can a believer be engaged in sin and still be persevering
in faithfulness to God’s word?
In resolving the theological tensions, two pitfalls must be
avoided.37 The first is that those
passages which speak of believers not sinning cannot be teaching
some form of sinless
perfection. In other words, when John says that the one born of
God does not sin (5:18) or is not
able to sin (3:9), John’s descriptions cannot to be taken as
absolutes. John is not describing
believers in these verses as attaining a state of sinlessness.38
Elsewhere, John expressly denies
that believers are free from sin. In fact, John specifically
declares elsewhere in his letter that
anyone who claims not to sin is self-deceived and devoid of the
truth (1:8–10; cf. 2:1).39
The second pitfall that must be avoided is interpreting these
passages as though they are
depicting the believer’s glorified state or as stating the ideal
or hypothetical, rather than what is
real or actual.40 John’s purpose in writing is to identify
certain tests of eternal life by which the
readers might gain assurance of their salvation (5:13). But if
these verses describe something
other than what believers can presently experience, then
believers will necessarily fail these tests
and be deprived of the very assurance John intends to
provide.41
The best approach to solving the theological tension is to
recognize the force of the tenses in
these passages. In the verses where John describes believers as
not sinning, he consistently uses
the present tense. As such, the verbal aspect of the present
tense is imperfective and, with
fientive verbs or verbs of action, the present tense depicts the
verbal action as in progress.
Furthermore, with fientive verbs, imperfective aspect portraying
action in progress is the default
force of the present tense, unless contextual factors override
and point in a different direction.42
37
Similarly, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Benjamin L. Merkle, and
Robert L. Plummer, Going Deeper with New
Testament Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax
of the New Testament (Nashville: B & H,
2016), 253–54. For a survey of views on relieving the
theological tensions, see Kruse, The Letters of John, 126–32;
Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 151–56; Christopher D. Bass, That You May
Know: Assurance of Salvation in 1 John, NAC
Studies in Bible & Theology (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 2008), 134–42.
38
Contra, among others, Marshall, The Epistles of John,
178–84.
39
See the discussion in Stott, The Letters of John, 129–30,
134–40.
40
See, among others, Sakae Kubo, “1 John 3:9: Absolute or
Habitual?” Andrews University Seminary Studies 7
(January 1969): 47–56. Kubo argues that John is speaking of the
absolute or ideal in these passages rather than the
actual or real (ibid., 50).
41See again Köstenberger, Merkle, and Plummer, Going Deeper with
New Testament Greek, 253–54.
42
Wallace, Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, 514–16;
Köstenberger, Merkle, and Plummer, Going
Deeper with New Testament Greek, 229–41, 255. Contra, among
others, Moisés Silva, God, Language, and
Scripture: Reading the Bible in Light of General Linguistics,
Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 116–17, who argues against resolving
the tension in these passages based on the aspect
of the present tense.
Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, Oxford
Theological Monographs (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1990), 198–240, describes the common aspect in
the majority of the categories for the present
indicative as “progressive” or “in progress.” See also
Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical
Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 40, 63; Stanley E.
Porter, Jeffrey T. Reed, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell,
Fundamentals of New Testament Greek (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2010), 81. Commenting on the present tense,
Porter and the others state, “it conveys the imperfective aspect
and often is used to depict action in progress.”
-
13
No such contextual factors are evident in these texts that would
counter the interpretation of the
present tense as describing something in progress.
At the same time, the contextual evidence in 1 John points to a
more specific use of the present
tense. In 3:9, John states that the one born of God does not
“practice” sin. The verb “practice”
has within its semantic range the idea of committing or carrying
out some activity and, in the
present tense, it can describe this activity as regularly
occurring or as an ongoing state.43 In terms
of pragmatics, the specific category is that of a customary or
habitual present.44 Thus, the thought
is that the one born of God does not to practice sin on a
habitual basis (cf. 3:8).
Putting the verse within the broader theological context of 1
John, what John is saying is that
believers do not continually engage in sin as the habit or
pattern of their lives. John is not
denying in these passages that believers sin. That would
contradict what he says elsewhere in the
letter. Rather, he denies that believers can have lives that are
characterized by the habit and
practice of sin. Thus, John reinforces in these verses the
fundamental distinction between
believers and unbelievers in their relationship to sin.
According to John, the unbeliever is
unregenerate and enslaved to sin and, thus, “practices sin” as a
habit and pattern of life (3:8; cf.
John 8:34). Conversely, the believer is regenerate, no longer
enslaved to sin, and thus does not
and cannot practice sin in this way (3:9; 5:18; cf. Rom
6:1–11).45
Assuming this distinction is correct, the tension comes in
harmonizing what John says about
believers’ not practicing sin with his statement in 5:16 about a
believer “committing” or
engaging in sin. The expression “committing” (lit. “sinning”) is
a participle in the present tense.
In the absence of contextual factors indicating otherwise, the
present participle should be given
its normal imperfective aspect of an activity in progress.46
Furthermore, there is nothing in the
context to indicate the sin in view is of limited duration. So
how can John assert, on the one
hand, that believers cannot practice sin and, on the other hand,
describe a believer in 5:16 as
committing or engaging in sin, both statements involving the
present tense?
43
BDAG, 840.
44
See, for example, A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New
Testament in the Light of Historical
Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 880 (cf. 890, 1081), who
uses the combined designation “iterative and
customary;” Köstenberger, Merkle, and Plummer, Going Deeper with
New Testament Greek, 257–58, who use the
designation “iterative,” but with the same semantic force as
“customary” or “habitual.”
In his discussion of the present tenses in 1 John 3:6 and 3:9,
Fanning allows for a customary or habitual sense,
but prefers the gnomic and, specifically, the generic. He
earlier defined the gnomic present as “similar to the
customary present in that they both express generalized
continuing or repeated occurrence (this is the aspect-
meaning).” And, he includes the generic use within the gnomic
category. However, when discussing the present
tenses in 3:6 and 3:9, he argues, “the sense of a generic
utterance is usually an absolute statement of what each one
does once, and not a statement of the individual’s customary or
habitual activity. This is true particularly when the
present verb is a bounded action…rather than an unbounded STATE
or ACTIVITY…. These verbal expressions
[the present tenses in 3:6 and 3:9] seem most likely to be
bounded actions (to commit sin), rather than ACTIVITIES
or STATES” (Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, 209–17). Why
the present tenses in 3:6 and 3:9 are
“bounded” actions rather than the more common “unbounded” states
or continuing and repeated actions, Fanning
does not say.
45
See, among others, Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle,
244–46, 250–57; Akin, 1, 2, 3, John, 143–44;
148–50.
46
Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, 408–13; Campbell,
Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical
Greek, 122. Campbell states, “Imperfective aspect is a semantic
feature of the present participle” (ibid.).
-
14
The solution is to recognize that in 5:16 the construction John
uses, “committing a sin,”
identifies the believer as engaged in some specific sin. The
construction involves an anarthrous
noun that is singular and, in this case, indefinite.47 John is
not saying in 5:16 that this believer has
a life characterized by the habit and pattern of sin. That would
directly contradict what John says
about believers both before and after this verse. What John is
saying, and what the rest of
Scripture teaches, is that a believer can get caught up and
persist in a specific sin, without having
his or her entire life characterized by sin (Gal 6:1).48
Furthermore, Scripture also teaches that the believer can
persist in a specific sin to the point
where God intervenes to take the believer’s life. Paul, for
example, affirms this in 1 Corinthians
11:30. Addressing the Corinthian believers, Paul says that some
of them were sick and others
were asleep, that is, had died, all of this because of their
ongoing abuse of the Lord’s Supper.49
Yet even in this instance the believer still cannot have a life
that overall is characterized by the
habit and pattern of sin. As such, all of this is consistent
with the third interpretation of 5:16 as
argued above.
The one passage that appears to contradict the above
interpretation is 1 Corinthians 3:15. There
Paul describes a believer standing before the judgment seat of
Christ, whose works are burned
up, and whom Paul describes as still saved, “he will suffer
loss, but he himself will be saved, yet
so as through fire.” The impression from Paul’s description of
the individual in this verse is that
a believer can have a life devoid of good works and still be
saved. However, to describe a
believer’s life as devoid of good works is tantamount to
describing the believers’ life as
characterized by the habit and pattern of sin. Stating it
theologically, how is such a believer
persevering in faithfulness to God’s word, that is, in good
works?
Here the analogy of faith is particularly helpful. Among others,
James teaches that saving faith
must produce good works, not as a condition for salvation but as
the necessary evidence of
salvation. Putting it differently, good works are the necessary
fruit of genuine faith, not the root
of faith. For example, James declares in 2:14 that faith without
works cannot save, that is, such
faith is not a true, saving faith.50 The converse, then, is that
true, saving faith must necessarily
produce at least some good works.
That being true, what Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 3:15 must
be understood as hyperbolic.51 In
effect, Paul overstates the case to make his point. Christ’s
evaluation of the believer’s works at
47
Wallace, Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, 243–54. Wallace
lists three possibilities with anarthrous
nouns: indefinite, qualitative, or definite. He identifies
conditions where an anarthrous noun can be definite, none of
which appear to apply with the construction in 5:16. The same
may be said regarding the qualitative category which,
like a generic noun, emphasizes class traits. Finally, he
defines an indefinite noun as referring “to one member of a
class, without specifying which member” (ibid., 244).
48
See, for example, 2 Sam 11:1–12:25 and David’s protracted sin
with Bathsheba.
49Similarly, David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2003), 553.
50See, among others, Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, PNTC
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 200), 118–24.
51
See, for example, James E. Rosscup, “Paul’s Teaching on the
Christian’s Future Reward with Special
Reference to 1 Corinthians 3:10–17” (Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Aberdeen, 1976), 401–8.
-
15
the judgment seat does not jeopardize the believer’s
justification or standing with God. Using
hyperbole, Paul states that, were it possible for a true
believer to be without good works at the
judgment seat, that believer nevertheless will still be saved.
Taking the use of hyperbole into
consideration, Paul is not suggesting that a believer standing
before Christ at the judgment seat
can actually be devoid of good works. Elsewhere Paul argues for
the importance and necessity of
good works in the life of every true believer (e.g., Eph 2:10).
Paul is simply reinforcing the
security of believers when they stand before Christ and have
their works evaluated.
CONCLUSION
In 1 John 5:16, John directs his readers to pray for a brother
who is caught up in a sin not leading
to death. The readers can have confidence when they pray that
God will hear and answer. John
says that God will give life to the believer not sinning unto
death. God will bring that brother to
repentance and restore him to faithfulness. Moreover, all true
believers will persevere, not only
in faith, but also in faithfulness or good works. At the same
time, not all believers will persevere
in faithfulness to the same level or degree of success.
Furthermore, it is possible for a true
believer to be caught up in some sin, even to the point where
God takes the believer’s life. Yet,
even here, the believer’s overall life will not and cannot be
characterized by the habit and pattern
of sin.