1 John 5:13-17: The Prodigal Brother

These things I wrote [1S 1 Aor Act Indic] to you in order that you may have come to know [2Pl Perf Act Subj] that life you have [2Pl Pres Act Indic] eternal, to believing-ones [Dat MPl Pres Act Part] in the name of the Son of God. 14And this is [3S Pres Act Indic] the confidence that we have [1Pl Pres Act Indic] toward him, that if something we ask [1Pl Pres Mid Subj] according to his will, he hears [3S Pres Act Indic] us. 15And if we have come to know [1Pl Perf Act Indic] that he hears [3S Pres Act Indic] us whatever we ask [1Pl Pres Mid Subj], we have come to know [1Pl Perf Act Indic] that we have [1Pl Pres Act Indic] the requests that we have asked [1Pl Perf Act Indic] from him. If someone sees [3S 2 Aor Act Subj] his brother sinning [Acc MS Pres Act Part] a sin not toward death, he shall ask [3S Fut Act Indic] and he shall give [3S Fut Act Indic] him life, to those sinning [Dat MPl Pres Act Part] not toward death. There is [3S Pres Act Indic] a sin toward death; not concerning this I say [1S Pres Act Indic] that he should pray [3S 1 Aor Act Subj]. 17All unrighteousness sin is [3S Pres Act Indic], and there is [3S Pres Act Indic] a sin not toward death.
16 13

V. 13: Johns statement about writing to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life sounds as though this it he purpose statement for the whole book. John has written about all kinds of matters, but his goal all along has been assurance of the eternal life that we have through believing in the name of the Son of God. Kruse agrees: These things refer to the contents of this letter which is now being brought to its conclusion.1 Probably, this should give us some perspective on some of the more polemical partshe isnt writing that No one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him (1 John 3:6) to cause us to despair, but to give us hope. We who believe in the name of the Son of God have a different quality of living than the false Christians. Moreover, Stott points out that That ye may know (eidete) means, both in word and tense, not that they may gradually grow in assurance, but that they may possess here and now a present certainty of the life they have received in Christ.2 Kruse puts this reassurance in context: The authors purpose in writing, he says, is that you may know that you have eternal life. His readers had been disturbed by the denials and claims of the secessionists. These people denied important elements of the message the readers had embraced from the beginning. They also claimed to be recipients of special revelation through the Spirit to which the readers were not privy. The readers assurance had been shaken by these denials and claims, and the authors primary reason for writing the letter was to bolster their assurance by counteracting the false teaching of the secessionists. The author sought to do this by pointing out that it was his readers who had truly received eternal life, who truly knew God, not [page] the secessionists. It was his readers who manifested the authentic marks of those who have eternal life: they were the ones who continued in the teaching first proclaimed by the eyewitnesses; they were the ones who continued to obey the commands of the Lord; and they were the ones who loved the children of God, which is the essential mark of those who have eternal life. 3 Kruse also notes the remarkable similarity between 1 John 5:13 and John 20:31 (But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name). He writes, The difference reflects the different purposes of the letter and the Gospel. The Gospel has an evangelistic purpose (that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and so have eternal life), whereas the purpose of the letter is to reassure those who are already believers (that you may know that you have eternal life.4 V. 14: Not only do we have confidence in the reality of our salvation, but John writes that because of our confidence, we can confidently pray for anything according to Gods will in the knowledge that God hears us. Although John doesnt mention anything about our relationship with God, this verse seems to assume it. To have confidence that a person will hear you out is a relational; to know another persons will happens through relationship. We have a deep relationship with God through believing in the name of the Son of God. Stott has a helpful note on praying according to Gods will: Prayer is not a convenient device for imposing our will upon God, or bending His will to ours, but the prescribed way of subordinating our will
1

Colin Kruse, The letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 188. John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 184. 3 Colin Kruse, The letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 188-89. 4 Colin Kruse, The letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 189.

to His. It is by prayer that we seek Gods will, embrace it and align ourselves with it. Every true prayer is a variation on the theme Thy will be done.5 Lenski draws our attention to the fact that the verbs to ask are in different voicestwice in the middle (aitometha, v. 14, 15) and twice in the active (etekamen, v. 15, and aitesei, v. 16). He writes: G. K. and others think that there is no difference between these forms, at least, that none is intended. But here and elsewhere, especially where the active and the middle are used side by side, a difference is apparent and certainly seems to be intended. It is admitted that the middle is used in business dealings, where one has the right to ask. Herods oath gave Salome a certain right to ask, a right of which she made full use (Matt. 14:7). Why should the two middle forms that are used here not include this right? Does the phrase according to his will (thelema, what God has willed and has made known as being willed by him) not imply a certain right for our asking?6 However, Burdick notes that Bauers lexicon declares that there is no real distinction between the active and the middle, and James 4:2-3 is pointed out as an example of interchangeable use. Notice also the use of both middle and active voices in verse 15.7 V. 15: Not only do we have confidence in our salvation, and confidence that he hears us, but John now writes that we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him. Seek, and we shall find, John writes. Obviously, we have the requests we ask of him inasmuch as they accord with the will of God (v. 14), but this is an incredible statement! It seems to me, however, that John has a particular set of prayer requests in mind, which he describes in v. 16-17. Kruse takes this connection as Johns amplifying the theme of prayer by applying the general statements of 5:14-15 to the particular need of prayer for believers who fall into sin.8 V. 16: The particular prayer request John explicitly mentions has to do with seeing a brother committing a sin not leading to death, at which point he shall ask, and God will give him lifeto those who commit sins that do not lead to death. All through 1 John, a brother has been a fellow believer. John either refers to pastoral guidance for the wayward or evangelism, if he means the brothers who are not yet officially such. Although there are many who dislike the idea of our giving life to anyone, Stott writes: Since God is the giver of life (cf. verses 11, 20), and since usually asking is mans part and giving Gods (Plummer), some have suggested a change of subject in the middle of this sentence, so that the second he refers to God and not to the intercessor. So RV, RSV. But the verbs are so simply and closely coupled in the Greek (aitesei kai dosei), that a different subject would be very forced. It is better to accept the ascription of real efficacy to prayer (as in verse 15), so that, under God, he who asks life for a man may be said not just to gain it for him but to give it to him. In either case the him to whom life is given is the sinner, not the intercessor.9

John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 185. R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 533. 7 Donald Burdick, The letters of John the Apostle : an in-depth commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 388. 8 Colin Kruse, The letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 190. 9 John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 186.

Lenski has a helpful narrative to explain the situation referenced in the text: Here is a brother that is living in some sin (present, durative participle), and one of us (singular) sees it. Knowing what we all know about asking God and about Gods hearing us, one of us asks God, and God gives this one life for this brother, for those sinning; the plural indicates that there will be other that sin from time to time. The future tenses are perfectly regular and are not intended as imperatives. This cannot be the case as far as dosei is concerned. The subject of the latter is God. This is indicated by the addition of auto, which must mean to him who does the asking. Some, like the R. V. margin, refer it to the sinning brother, but they must then make the plural tois hamartonousi an apposition to the singular auto, which, to say the least, is strange. [In other words, Lenski is arguing that God gives to the one who sees his brother, and who asks on behalf of his brother.] [page] What God does when he gives life for these sinners is to strengthen their damaged, declining spiritual life, which they have not as yet lost. Dosei is used to match aitesei: God shall give to him who shall ask. He also gives not to but for these sinners.10 This is a huge insight into how important our intercession is for one another. God gives life to those brothers who are sinning on the basis of our prayer for one another. The question between Stotts and Lenskis interpretation is whether one is willing to insert a different subject between he asks and he gives (Lenskis view), or whether you are willing to see the singular to him and the plural to those who sin not toward death as the same person(s) (Stotts view). Burdick puts this succinctly: The whole point of verse 16a is that this sinful habit of a believer is an object of confident prayer.11 John suggests that there is indeed sin that leads to death, but that he does not necessarily recommend that we pray for that. I dont have too many ideas as to what this might be, but John has addressed a specific sin throughout the entire bookfalse teaching (i.e., rejecting belief in the name of the Son of God, and particularly that the Son of God has come in the flesh), leaving the fellowship, hatred of the brothers. All of these things are found in the same people. Is this the sin that leads to death? Should we simply abandon the false teachers in our prayers? Kruse makes a very helpful suggestion as to how to interpret that sin that leads to death. Rather than trying to figure out what that sin is (he gives 4 examples), A better approach is to examine who it is in 1 John that the author sees committing sins which do and do not lead to death. It is the brother whose sin is not unto death for whom the readers are urged to pray. This suggests that the sin that does not lead to death is the sin of the believer. If this is the case, then the sin that does lead to death is most likely that of an unbeliever. Within the overall context of 1 John, where the secessionists are now regarded as unbelievers, even antichrists, the sin that leads to death is probably the sin of the secessionists, in particular their denial that Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh and that his death is necessary for salvation. This explanation has the advantage of relating the matter of sins that lead and do not lead to death to the central issues being addressed by the letter.12
R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 534-35. 11 Donald Burdick, The letters of John the Apostle : an in-depth commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 402. 12 Colin Kruse, The letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 194.
10

Kruse makes two interesting biblical correlations of those who do not pray for a group of people: If what the author writes here is an implied prohibition, saying that his readers should not pray for such people [who persist in unrepentance], there is precedent for it in the OT. The word of the Lord came repeatedly to the prophet Jeremiah, ordering him not to pray for Israel because her sins were so repugnant (Jer 7:16-18; 11:14; 14:11). There is also a precedent for it in the Fourth Gospel, where Jesus refrains from praying for the world (John 17:9).13 Stott takes a slightly different interpretation, noting first that: An important point, to which commentators surprisingly give no attention, is that he is given life in answer to prayer. This means that, although his sin is not unto death, he is in fact dead and needs to be given life. How can you give life to one who is already alive? This man is not a Christian, for Christians do not fall into death when they fall into sin. If this is so, neither he whose sin is unto death nor he whose sin is not unto death is a Christian, possessing eternal life. Both are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. ii. 1). [page] The question remains: How can someone who (if the above interpretation be correct) is not a Christian be termed a brother? The only answer is that John must here be using the word in the broader sense of a neighbour or of a nominal Christian, a church member who professes to be a brother.Since Christ died for the ungodly and for His enemies, we can scarcely suppose that we are to limit our self-sacrifice and service exclusively to our Christian brethren, and to have compassion only upon them. We have further confirmation of the interpretation argued above if under the description of sin unto death John is alluding, as many commentators believe, to the false teachers. In Johns view they were not apostates; they were counterfeits. They were not true brothers who had received eternal life and subsequently forfeited it. They were antichrists.Since they rejected the Son, they forfeited life (v. 12). Their sin was indeed unto death.14 I would question a couple of Stotts premises: (1) I dont necessarily think that this life is an all or nothing proposition. To give someone life doesnt necessarily mean that they dont have any of it already; in fact, it would make good sense from the context to say that the sin they are committing is sapping them of life (see Lenski). (2) I question whether his broader of interpretation of the term brother fits what John says about it. Stott points for evidence to (2:9, 11; 3:16-17) where John writes against someone who hates his brother or sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, [so] how does Gods love abide in him? Yet, this is the whole point of Johns Cain-Abel illustration in 3:11-15: Cain represents the world, and Abel represents the brothers. Even though Abel is Cains brother, Cain is not one of the brothershe is one of the world. Cain hates his brother in his heart, and he closes his heart against his brother in need, but that is evidence that Cain is not one of the brothers, but that he typifies the world. (3) I dont see how apostates and counterfeits refer to different people, unless you are prepared to suggest that apostates lose some kind of actual salvation, and counterfeits simply never had any actual salvation. I simply see the difference as one of time and clarity of a persons true heart
13 14

Colin Kruse, The letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 193. John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 189-90.

during the time that such a person remains with the church, but without true faith, that person is a counterfeit. After the time that same person departs from the church, perhaps because his hypocrisy is exposed, that person is an apostate. Still, Stott is right to point out the application of the nominal Christian. There are indeed many who profess to be a brother, yet who are not. Because this is something that we cannot know, we treat everyone as a brother, and as long as they do not commit the sin toward death (persistent, habitual sin whose end result is complete apostasy), we must treat them as such, pursuing them with prayer and love that will confront their sin and point them to the gospel of Jesus. V. 17: John indicates clearly that we should be aware of some kind of tiered approach to our view of sin. All sin is unrighteousness, yes; however, there is a category of sin that does not lead to death. We should, John writes, learn to distinguish between the two. Kruse interprets this distinction pastorally: The reinforcement here of the distinction between the sins that lead to death and those that do not seems to function as an assurance to his readers that, though they may fall into sin from time to time, their sins to not lead to death. Back in 1:9 the author had already told his readers that God forgives those who confess their sins and cleanses them from all unrighteousness, or wrongdoing (adikia).15 Lenski preaches what Kruse explains, although I like Lenskis nuances better: John writes these things so that his readers may not sin (2:1). All sin and all wrong are dangerous to our spiritual life. Who can tell what damage will result for him if he enters on a course of sinning? The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Thank God that all sins and all sinning are not unto death, that by confessing and fleeing to the intercession of our Advocate we may have our sins remitted and be cleansed (1:8-2:2)! So we say that where the way for this is still open, the sinning is not unto death. Our intercession for each other is to the effect that God may help us to use this way. He has his means for driving us to the cross of Christ. Sin unto death, is that sinning which involves the closing of the door to the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son (1:7).Bengel thinks only of a state; the state is there, but John speaks throughout [the epistle] of more than a mere state, he speaks of all the acts that proclaim that state. HE never counsels his readers to look into a mans heart. Clear evidence is the thing.16

Colin Kruse, The letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 193. R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 536.
16

15