Last call

1 John 5

I: Obey God and Experience the Victory of Faith (5:1–5)

1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

There is some question about whether 5:1–5 belongs with the previous section (4:7–21) or begins a new section. Those who maintain the former argue that this passage further elaborates the theme of love. For example, the word “love” (agapē) in its various forms occurs five times in vv. 1–3. Others, however, see 5:1 as providing a new section, with faith being the primary topic. Obviously, the two themes are related (especially in John’s writings), and here they are combined without a strict break in thought. For John, true faith always leads to love for God and others, and true love always results in obedience. Interwoven then throughout this section are three characteristics of the genuine child of God: (1) right belief (5:1, 5); (2) righteousness or obedience to God’s commands (5:2–3); and (3) love (5:1–3). There is a coherence to this section that may be reflected in the form of a chiastic structure.

A. the one who believes that Jesus is the Christ (5:1a)

B. is born of God (5:1b)

C. love those born of the Father (5:1c)

C′. love the children of God (5:2)

B′. everyone born of God (5:4)

A′. the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God (5:5)

5:1 John states that all who believe that Jesus is the Christ (i.e., the Messiah) have been born of God. As the book has already indicated, this requirement includes believing specifically that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (4:2), that he is God’s Son, and that he is the Savior of the world (4:14–15). One should not think that John is promoting mere intellectual assent as the requirement for being a child of God, since the second half of the verse indicates that Johannine faith includes an ethical dimension. That is, faith and love are inseparable (cf. 3:23). The phrase “Jesus is the Christ” corresponds to 2:22 and is possibly an early creedal formulation.

The text goes on to declare that those who have faith in Jesus as the Messiah are “born of God.” Thus faith is a sign of sonship. John has previously mentioned the theme of sonship in this epistle. He states that being born of God leads to right behavior (2:29), prevents one from habitually sinning (3:9–10), and causes one to love others (4:7). In the fourth Gospel we read that faith is not only a sign but also a condition of the new birth: “To all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12). Marshall writes: “Here, however, John is not trying to show how a person experiences the new birth; his aim is rather to indicate the evidence which shows that a person stands in the continuing relationship of a child to God his Father: that evidence is that he holds to the true faith about Jesus.” The perfect tense of the verb gegennētai suggests a past action with results that continue in the present. In other words, Smalley concludes, “The regenerate Christian (past) must constantly live out (present) his faith in Jesus as Messiah, and also give his sustained allegiance to the love command.”

Having already stated that the true believer is a child of God and therefore has God as his Father, John now declares that the believer will not only love God but also God’s child or offspring. That is, he will not only love the parent but also the child of the parent. Plummer offers two syllogisms to help understand John’s logic:

Every one who believes the Incarnation is a child of God.

Every child of God loves its Father.

Therefore every believer in the Incarnation loves God.

Every believer in the Incarnation loves God.

Every one who loves God loves the children of God.

Therefore every believer in the Incarnation loves the children of God.

The Greek term translated “father” (NIV) is literally “the one who has begotten” (gennēsanta), and “his child” is literally “the one begotten from him” (tov gegnnēmenon ex auto). John is stating that a believer must love his heavenly Father and the other offspring of his heavenly Father (i.e., Jesus and/ or his brothers and sisters in Christ).154

5:2 Having already stated in the previous verse that everyone who is born of God loves God’s children, John now explains how we can know if we are truly accomplishing this task. What follows in v. 2, however, is somewhat unexpected. The word order is indeed surprising. John declares that love directed toward God and carrying out his commands serves as the basis of the knowledge that one loves the children of God. This logic seems to be the reverse of what John has previously used. Elsewhere he has argued that love for others is the basis on which love for God is discerned. For example, in 4:20 John argues that one cannot love God, whom he cannot see, without also loving his brother, whom he can see (cf. 3:14–15, 17–19). But here love for God’s children follows one’s love and obedience to God.

As in the previous instances, there is some debate about whether the phrase en toutō (lit., “by this”; NIV, “this is how”) refers to what precedes or what follows. If one argues that it refers to the preceding sentence, v. 2 would simply be “an application of the rule in v. 1b.” In 1 John this phrase can refer to what precedes (3:19), although this is the exception to John’s normal usage. Marshall, agreeing that en toutō refers to what precedes, claims that “we love” in this context should be taken as an obligation, “we ought to love.” The verse can be paraphrased thus: “By this principle, namely, that we must love our father’s [other] children, we know that we ought to love the children of God whenever we love God and keep his commands.” The relationship between v. 2 and v. 1, however, seems to be one of explanation and not so much application. Also taking en toutō as referring to what precedes does not do justice to the hotan (“when”) clause. Also, if Marshall is correct, John has reversed what he enunciated in v. 1: if we love God, we also love his children.

It is better to interpret the verse straightforwardly. John is arguing once more that love for others is grounded in the love of God (cf. 4:8, 16, 19). When we love God, we will keep his commands, which also involves having love for others (3:11; 4:7, 21). Therefore love for God and love for others are interrelated. Each feeds and strengthens the other, though love for God is the basis for any and every other manifestation of love. Smalley argues, “For the fact is that each kind of love (for God, and for others) demonstrates the genuineness of the other, and reinforces it. Brotherly love is proof of the love of God; but the reverse is also true.” Just as it is impossible to love God without loving God’s children, it is impossible to love God’s children without loving God (cf. 4:21).

John claims that Christians must love God and carry out his commands. In one sense to love God is to carry out his commands. The expression “carrying out his commands” is unique in the New Testament. The usual phrase in 1 John is “keeping his commands” (cf. 1 John 3:22; 5:3). John may be stressing the need for obedient living against those of his congregation who slighted moral conformity to God’s word.

5:3 Love for God is real only when God’s commands are kept. Obedience is not only the outcome of loving God but also a part of it. Or, as Stott succinctly comments, “Love for God is not an emotional experience so much as a moral commitment.” The NIV correctly interprets the construction he agapē tou theou (“the love of God”) as an objective genitive (i.e., our love for God). The idea of showing love to our Lord by keeping his commands is frequently found in John’s Gospel. For example, John 14:15 reads, “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (also see 14:21, 23–24, 31; 15:10).

John adds that God’s commands are not “burdensome.” This does not mean that God’s laws are not exacting or demanding. Rather, it means that God’s laws are not oppressive or crushing. They are not a terrible weight we cannot bear. God’s moral standards are high, but God gives the Christian grace to be able to live up to that standard (cf. 4:4). “Love-prompted obedience is not a crushing burden that exhausts the believer’s strength and destroys his sense of freedom in Christ.” In Matthew, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees because they “tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders” (Matt 23:4). Jesus does not weigh down his people with meaningless laws that do not affect the heart. He gives commands that reveal to us the heart of God and direct our hearts to God. Jesus offers us an easy yoke and a light burden: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matt 11:28–30).

5:4 For the eighth and final time in his letter, John addresses an aspect of the new birth by use of the word gennaō (2:29; 3:9 twice, 4:7; 5:1 three times; 5:4). Everyone who has been born of God is able to keep God’s commands because he has been given power by God to overcome the negative influences that would prevent such obedience. Because of the new birth, the believer is given supernatural power to withstand the forces of the world. As the epistle states earlier (cf. 2:15–17; 3:1, 13; 4:1–6), “world” often has an ethical dimension representing humanity, which is at war with God and his people. Just as Jesus states that he has overcome the world in John’s Gospel (16:33b), here believers are said to overcome the world.

The translation of v. 4 in English obscures the Greek wordplay. The NIV translates the Greek verb nikaō as “overcome” but translates the Greek noun nikē as “victory.” A translation that keeps the root the same in English would read: “For everyone born of God conquers the world. This is the conquering that has conquered the world, even our faith.”167 John uses the present tense, which indicates that believers are currently experiencing the victory.

It should be noted that v. 4 contains the only occurrence of the noun he pistis (“the faith”) in the Johannine writings. Every other time he favors the verb pisteuo (“believe”). It seems clear from the context that his use of “faith” differs slightly from the Pauline usage and stresses the idea of confession, the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Marshall writes, “The fact that we hold the true faith from our hearts is the means whereby the power of the new world operates in us and enables us to overcome the world.” The particular nature of the victory is variously understood.171 It could refer to (1) Christ’s once-for-all victory on the cross over Satan, sin, and the world; (2) the believers’ victory over the heretics;173 or (3) the victory that occurs at the conversion of the individual believer. R. Brown finds it difficult to decide between these three choices and admits, “I see no way to be certain as to which past action John means here.”175 Ultimately, these three elements are all included in the final victory. The ground of our victory is Christ’s death and resurrection. From that work believers will have victory over all that is in opposition to God. Daily victory is also granted to the individual believer, but he must exercise faith in Christ and be active in his pursuit of God.

5:5 Several commentators see 5:5 as beginning a new section, while others break the section midway through v. 4. It appears unnatural to break at 5:4 and best to take 5:5 with the previous section, since the theme of overcoming is continued. Furthermore, the theme of “believing” forms an inclusion in this section (cf. v. 1 and v. 5).

Another evidence that v. 5 belongs with the previous section is that it basically reiterates the truth found in v. 4 and in some sense serves as a summation of vv. 1–4. In v. 4 it was faith that overcame the world, and in v. 5 the content of overcoming faith is unpacked. Faith that overcomes is only faith that believes that Jesus is the Son of God (cf. 2:22; 4:15). In v. 1 belief in Jesus as the Christ was emphasized. In v. 5 it is Jesus as the Son of God that is affirmed. Verses 1 and 5 may indeed be a type of inclusio.

In v. 5 John rhetorically asks who is able to overcome the world except he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. The interrogative pronoun “who” (tis) individualizes the question, asking for the personal identification of one who overcomes the world. Whereas in v. 1 the content of true faith affirmed that Jesus is the Christ, here true faith affirms that Jesus is the Son of God, which suggests that John considered these two titles virtual synonyms. Such a confession was aimed at countering the heretical tendencies of the false teachers because they denied that Jesus was the Son of God. For John, saving faith must have as its foundation belief in the incarnation of the Son of God and all that entails the entire career of the Son. As Hiebert asserts, “This article of faith underlies all the other parts of the Christian message; to destroy this truth is to destroy the whole gospel and effectively to nullify God’s provision for victory over sin and the world.” On the other hand, acceptance of the apostolic message assures the believer of the victory.

John has already encouraged his readers in their dealings with the false teachers: “You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). In Rev 12:11 we also see comfort given to those who persevere: “They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink back from death.” Paul similarly assures us that “in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” (Rom 8:37) and that we should thank God because “he gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 15:57).

Stott aptly summarizes this section: “Christian believers are God’s children, born from above. God’s children are loved by all who love God. Those who love God also keep his commands. They keep his commands because they overcome the world, and they overcome the world because they are Christian believers, born from above.”

II. Believe in the Son and Enjoy Eternal Life (5:6–12)

6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Verses 6–12 are semantically united around the theme of witness or testimony. A form of the word martus, “witness,” occurs no fewer than nine times. John’s purpose is to demonstrate that there is more than adequate evidence to prove that Jesus is the Son of God who provides eternal life to all who believe in him. Testimony presents itself from different but unified voices. John’s polemic in this section focuses in particular on the career of Jesus from baptism to crucifixion. There is a clear refutation of the Cerinthian type of proto-Gnosticism that plagued the churches of Asia Minor at the end of the first century. There is not a clear break between vv. 12 and 13, though v. 13 functions very much like a summary statement of the entire book. It provides a bridge between the “God is love” section (3:11–5:12) and John’s concluding concerns (5:13–21), though its close connection to v. 12 and the concept of [eternal] life must not be ignored.

Jesus is the one who came by water and blood, a fact to which the Spirit testifies. Since it is God who has given these witnesses (the Spirit, the water, and the blood), the believer should readily embrace them. Those who believe God’s testimony have a God-given assurance that confirms this truth in their hearts, and they are granted eternal life as a result. Those who reject God’s testimony in effect call God a liar and cut themselves off from eternal life.

5:6 In 5:11 John has explained that orthodox faith is based on the revelation and reality that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (5:5). He now underscores the reliability of this confession by providing witnesses. John states that Jesus “is the one who came by water and blood” and “he did not come by water only, but by water and blood.” This passage was no doubt clear to the original audience but, unfortunately, is somewhat obscure to us.185 Three main interpretations of this passage have been offered.

1. The “water and blood” refer to baptism (water) and the Lord’s Supper (blood).

This interpretation, which goes back to the time of the Reformers, is not without its difficulties. First, John is concerned with combating false teachers who denied the human nature of Jesus. It is therefore unlikely that John would now switch topics. Second, John uses the past tense (ho elthōn, “the one who came”) which reflects a past, completed event in history, whereas baptism and the Lord’s Supper are recurring observances. Third, although water seems to be a likely synonym for baptism, the same is not true for blood and the Lord’s Supper.

2. The “water and blood” are parallel to John 19:34–35, which speaks of a spear being thrust into Jesus’ side at the crucifixion that produced “blood and water.”

Again, although this view can be found as far back as Augustine, it remains problematic. First, the order has been reversed. First John speaks of “water and blood,” but the Gospel of John reads “blood and water.” Second, if “water and blood” refer to the spear thrust, then how can it be said that Jesus “came” by them? Whereas the Gospel of John indicates that “blood and water” came from Jesus, here it is said that Jesus came “by” water and blood. Third, this view does not account for the statement in v. 8 that affirms that Jesus “did not come by water only, but by water and blood.”

3. The “water and blood” refer to the terminal points in Jesus’ earthly ministry: his baptism (water) and his crucifixion (blood).

This is the best interpretation and is followed by most scholars. Historically, Jesus “came” into his power by the “water” of his baptism and even more so by the “blood” of his cross. Unlike the previous two views, this explanation fits the historical context of John’s epistle. John writes this letter to counter the Gnostic tendencies of the false teachers. These false teachers, who at one time were part of the fellowship (2:19), were denying the humanity of Jesus, and so John emphasizes the reality of the Incarnation. John’s further qualification that Jesus came “not by water only, but by water and blood” is likely a direct renunciation of the false teaching (perhaps that of Cerinthus) that claimed that Jesus was born an ordinary human being but became God’s special agent when the heavenly Christ descended upon him at his baptism. The heavenly Christ abandoned him before his death and, consequently, it was only the earthly Jesus who died on the cross. In seeking to refute this teaching, John emphasizes that it was Jesus Christ who experienced both baptism and crucifixion. Marshall eloquently explains the importance of John’s teaching.

As soon as we reduce the death of Jesus to that of a mere man, so soon do we lose the cardinal point of the New Testament doctrine of the atonement, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; in the last analysis, the doctrine of the atonement means that God himself bears our sins and shows that the final reality in the universe is his sin-bearing, pardoning love, but if Jesus is not the Son of God, his death can no longer bear this significance. So-called theologies, which reduce talk of the incarnation to the status of myth, may be attractive to modern men, but they take away our assurance that God’s character is sin-bearing love.

In support of Jesus’ historical life and death, John appeals to the testimony of the Spirit. The witness of the Spirit is needed because Jesus’ divinity is a scandal and a stumbling block to the world. The Spirit can be trusted since he is the truth and therefore speaks God’s truth (John 14:17; 16:13). The Spirit speaks through the Word, convicting the heart of the individual. Jesus makes a similar statement in John’s Gospel concerning the role of the Spirit: “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me” (John 15:26).

5:7–8 Having previously mentioned the witnesses of the Spirit, John now appeals to the threefold testimony of “the Spirit, the water and the blood.” The “water and blood” have the same meaning as they did in v. 6. These three bear witness to the truthfulness of the person of Jesus as the Christ. “Water” and “blood” are personified because the Spirit is regarded as personal. The Spirit is given priority because it is the Spirit who testifies through the water and the blood.

These three witnesses are said to be one. By this phrase John is “implying that the Spirit, water and blood converge on the same point, and work together toward the same result: that of establishing the truth that Jesus is Messiah and Son of God.”196 It is likely that Deut 19:15—“A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”—has influenced the author’s defense in presenting three witnesses.

5:9 John continues his argument concerning the witness to Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, by stating that this threefold witness is of divine origin. In other words, God’s own authority and approval have been stamped on the truth of the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ.

John uses an argument from the lesser to the greater. Since we believe the testimony of man, how much more should we believe the testimony of God (cf. John 5:36)? In Jewish jurisprudence the testimony of two or three witnesses was sufficient to be received as the truth; how much more if God himself offers three divine witnesses to prove his case? As Smalley comments, “The testimony of God, whose divine being incorporates the divinity of the Son and the Spirit (vv 7–8), is superior in status and force to the testimony of man because it is more trustworthy.” Therefore John’s point is that we should accept God’s testimony precisely because it is God’s testimony about his Son.

What exactly is the testimony given by God? The most likely answer is that John is referring back to the threefold testimony in v. 8. This interpretation fits with the perfect tense of the verb (memarturēken, “he has testified”). God has testified concerning his Son in the past through the Spirit, water, and blood, and this testimony is still valid today.

5:10 John now discusses belief and unbelief. The one who believes in God’s Son is the one who affirms God’s testimony concerning his Son. Therefore, according to John, believing in Jesus as the Son of God is equivalent to accepting God’s testimony about his Son (v. 9). The result is that the Christian has God’s testimony “in his heart.”208 This phrase suggests that John is referring to the inner testimony of the Spirit in the heart of the believer. As Smalley claims, “The inward witness of God’s Spirit shows the Christian that he was right to believe in Jesus; and this ‘internal testimony’ (of the Spirit) balances and complements the external and historical witness of the ‘water and blood,’ the baptism and death of Jesus, which marked the limits of his earthly ministry (vv 6–8).” Or as Plummer succinctly puts it, “The external witness faithfully accepted becomes internal certitude.”210

John turns his attention from those who believe in Jesus and therefore accept God’s testimony to those who reject God’s testimony. All who reject God’s testimony make God out to be a liar. Brooke forcefully comments:

There is no room for ignorance or misconception. To reject the witness is to deny the truthfulness of God. He has spoken and acted deliberately, and with absolute clearness. The testimony has been borne. The things were not done in a corner. The witness must therefore either be accepted or rejected. It cannot be ignored or explained away.

This is because belief in the Father cannot be separated from belief in his Son (cf. 1 John 2:22–25). The charge of making God out to be a liar is obviously a serious one. Early in this epistle John similarly stated that “if we claim we have not sinned, we make him [God] out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives” (1:10). John is likely countering the heretical teachings of those who have left the community. It would also serve as a warning to those of the community who might be considering the same. “It is inconsistent to profess belief in God, as John’s opponents did, and yet to disbelieve what God has said.” “Has made” and “has not believed” are both perfect tense verbs indicating a past event with continuous results.214

5:11 The demonstrative pronoun “this” (hautē) points forward to the rest of the verse. As with the previous verse, the nature of this “testimony” involves God’s witness concerning his Son. Strictly speaking John does not state the content of God’s testimony concerning his Son but the result of that testimony, which is nothing other than “eternal life.” Therefore “the question whether we accept God’s testimony or not is not a merely academic one. Our answer to it will determine whether or not we participate in eternal life.”216

The last part of this verse is perhaps the main point. God’s testimony concerning his Son does result in eternal life, but the point to stress is that this eternal life is only obtainable “in his Son.” God’s testimony is that his Son is the only means by which one can receive the gift of eternal life, which by implication means that God has given his divine approval on the earthly ministry of his Son. In the current theological context, John is clearly and convictionally a “theological exclusivist” with respect to salvation. This conviction is affirmed here in v. 11 and restated with greater force in v. 12.

5:12 This verse consists of a further explication of the last phrase of the previous verse. In parallel clauses John states the relation between having the Son and having life. To possess the Son is to possess life in all its fullness. Holding to the biblical faith means possessing Christ himself, as well as the life the Father grants to those who trust his Son as Lord and Savior. Ultimately, what matters is our relationship to the Son. This life is not something only to be received in the future but is a present possession (“has,” echei = present tense). It should be noted that eternal life is not earned or merited, but rather it is a gift that is given by God to those who have the Son.

Conversely, if we reject the Son, we do not have life. As was stated above, John uses a parallel phrase to balance out the first part of the verse; however, there are two small but significant changes. The first is the addition of tou theou (“of God”) to “the Son.” John reminds his readers that the Father and the Son are inseparable and that it is impossible to have God as one’s Father without also acknowledging Jesus as his Son. The second is that the words tēn zoēn (“life”) are placed before the verb. The second half of the verse literally reads, “The one not having the Son of God life does not have.” This shift stresses the fact that those who reject God’s Son also reject the life the Father gives. They are without [eternal] life and are spiritually dead (cf. Eph 2:1–7). Earlier John similarly stated, “No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also” (cf. John 3:36).

John has again stressed the importance of believing in Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah. Eternal life is not possible apart from such belief. The words of Jesus once again ring true, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

III. Conclusion: The Confidence and Characteristics of the Child of God (5:13–21)

This is the final section of John’s first epistle. It consists of John’s purpose for writing his epistle (5:13), teaching about prayer (5:14–17), a summary section about the believer’s knowledge and sin (5:18–20), and a warning to flee false religion (5:20–21). The theme of knowledge or confidence pervades this section.

(1) Know You Have Eternal Life (5:13)

13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

5:13 “These things” could refer specifically to John’s teaching in vv. 1–12 or may indicate John’s reason for writing the entire epistle.221 Although there are close links in thought and language to vv. 1–12, there are at least four reasons for choosing the latter option. First, the author shifts to the first person singular pronoun (“I”) for the first time since 2:26. Second, the theme of assurance of salvation is one that appears frequently in this epistle. Third, many of the themes found in 5:13 are continued in 5:14–21 (e.g., know, eternal life, and Son of God). Fourth, there is a close parallel between 5:13 and John’s purpose statement for the Fourth Gospel (20:31), which reads, “These [things] 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.”

What is the purpose for John’s writing this epistle? John writes this epistle “so that” (hina) his readers might know they have eternal life. Earlier he stated, “We write this to (hina) make our joy complete” (1:4), and “I write this to you so that (hina) you will not sin” (2:1). Both of these verses also give some indication of John’s purpose for writing this epistle. Now, at the conclusion of his epistle, John not only gives a reason for why he writes to his audience, but he now gives the (main) reason why he writes, “I write these things to you … so that you may know [eidete] that you have eternal life.” It is apparent that many in the church were being led astray by false teachings and made to doubt whether they really possessed eternal life. John therefore assures his readers that they can and should have confidence that they possess eternal life even now (“have,” echete, present tense).

John writes to those “who believe in the name of the Son of God” and not to the heretics who were deceiving God’s people. This fact indicates that “John was therefore writing not to persuade unbelievers of the truth of the Christian faith but rather to strengthen Christian believers who might be tempted to doubt the reality of their Christian experience and to give up their faith in Jesus.”227

(2) Be Confident in Prayer (5:14–17)

14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

16 If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

5:14 Not only can a believer have assurance of salvation, but he also can have assurance that God will hear his prayers and answer them. Moreover, it is the gift of eternal life that allows the believer to come directly before God with boldness or confidence. The truth of vv. 14ff. is the natural result growing out of the truth of v. 13. John has already used the term “confidence” (parrēsia) three other times in this epistle. Twice (2:28; 4:17) it appears in connection with the coming judgment; and once (3:21–22), in connection with the issue of approaching God in prayer. Again, as in the previous three occurrences, the term “confidence” is applied to a believer’s status before God.

John states that “if we ask anything … he [God] hears us.” Whereas the condition of answered prayer in 3:22 is that “we obey his commands and do what pleases him,” here it is that our petitions should be “according to his will.” In his Gospel, John records Jesus making similar statements. In 15:7 Jesus encourages us to “ask whatever you wish, and it will be given to you.” Again there is a condition: “If you remain in me and my words remain in you.” Also on several occasions Jesus indicates that he or the Father will do whatever we ask if we ask it in his “name” (14:13–14; 15:16; 16:24, 26). Smalley writes, “The fundamental characteristic of all truly Christian intercession is that the will of the person who offers prayer should coincide with God’s will.”230 This does not mean that if a believer is sincere God will answer his prayer. Sometimes our desires are not God’s desires for us. Sometimes what we want is not what our heavenly Father wills. Faith will accept that God’s will is best, and it will trust his plan and purpose, even if it does not understand at the time.

The believer has confidence when he prays according to God’s will. Having faith, then, is not the only prerequisite for obtaining what we ask for in prayer. Many pray believing that God will answer their prayers simply because they trust that he will answer them. James warns believers to be careful how they pray: “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures” (Jas 4:3). Stott aptly reminds us:

Prayer is not a convenient device for imposing our will upon God, or for bending his will to ours, but the prescribed way of subordinating our will to his. It is by prayer that we seek God’s will, embrace it and align ourselves with it. Every true prayer is a variation of the theme “your will be done.”

The promise of making our petitions according to the will of God is that “he hears us.” This does not mean that God simply acknowledges that we have prayed but that he hears us favorably or, even better, answers us favorably (cf. John 9:31; 11:41–42). What an encouragement for the believer to pray! In a sermon on this verse, C. H. Spurgeon powerfully gives us the following exhortation: “Brethren, if there be a God, and if this Book be his Word, if God be true, prayer must be answered; and let us on our knees go to the sacred engagement as to a work of real efficacy.”

5:15 This verse further expands the thought of v. 14. John assures the believer that he can know (oidamen, repeated twice in this verse) that God will hear and answer a prayer that is according to God’s will. Because of the context, the use of “if” (ean) cannot indicate an uncertainty. In v. 14 John has made it clear that God does hear the prayer of a believer. The text says that for “whatever” (ho ean) the believer asks, God will hear him. It should be noted, however, that the “whatever” of v. 15 is conditioned by the “according to God’s will” of v. 14.

The second “know” of this verse is that the believer knows that God will grant him his request. Because God hears and listens to us, we can also be sure that God will respond positively to our petition. Often, however, we do not have what we desire because we do not ask God (Jas 4:2). But when we do come to God in prayer, we must come in faith. Jesus says in Mark 11:24, “Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” The present tense “we have” (echomen), and not the future (“we will have”), indicates that God grants our requests immediately, even though his answer may not be immediately revealed. As Plummer notes, “Our petitions are granted at once: the results of the granting are perceived in the future.”

5:16 In vv. 14 and 15 John gives the reader assurance that God will answer prayer. Now he gives a specific encouragement to pray that God would restore a fellow believer (“brother”) who is sinning. There is, however, one limitation to such a prayer. If this person’s sin involves “a sin that leads to death,” prayer should not be offered.

John has often mentioned the theme of sinning in this epistle (e.g., 1:7–10; 2:2, 12; 3:3–5, 8–9; 4:10). The believer is not without sin (1:8), but at the same time he is not characterized by an ongoing sinful lifestyle (3:8–9; 5:18).

When a Christian “sees” his brother sinning a sin that does not lead to death, he is to pray for that person. The verb translated “he should pray” (aitesei) is a future tense verb (lit., “he will pray”), which “expresses not the writer’s command but the Christian’s inevitable and spontaneous reaction.” The result is that God will grant the sinning brother “life” (zōēn).

But not every sinner is granted life as a result of answered prayer. The praying Christian can have confidence if the person’s sin is not of the sort that leads to death. For those whose sin is of this nature John states, “I am not saying that he should pray about that.” John does not strictly forbid prayer for such a person, but it is clear that he is in doubt about its efficacy.

What exactly is the “sin that leads to death”? That John’s readers understood the precise distinction between “a sin that does not lead to death” and a “sin that leads to death” is likely. For the modern reader, however, such precise understanding is difficult, if not impossible, to attain. From the outset it is safe and contextually appropriate to reject any interpretation that refers to a physical death, since “death” is contrasted with spiritual (or “eternal”) life.241

There are three main interpretations of “a sin that leads to death.”

1. A Specific, Deadly Sin. This view maintains that there are certain sins which, if committed, are unforgivable. All sins are punishable, but some sins are so heinous that those who commit them have no hope of ever obtaining eternal life. The Old Testament makes a distinction between inadvertent sins committed in ignorance and deliberate sins committed arrogantly or “with a high hand” (Lev 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:15, 17–18; Num 15:27–31; Deut 17:12). Offering the correct sacrifice to God could cleanse the sinner of the sin committed in ignorance, but deliberate sins could only be removed by death. A similar distinction is made in this text between what later came to be called “mortal” (deadly) and “venial” (nondeadly) sins. Certain designated sins, such as murder, idolatry, injustice, apostasy, adultery, and fornication, were sometimes considered to be “mortal sins.” These sins pushed one over the edge and beyond the reach of God’s grace.

Although the Old Testament’s distinction between lesser (unintentional) and greater (deliberate) sins possibly has some bearing on this text, the view that John is referring to some specific sin cannot be sustained from the context of 1 John.

2. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This view is based on Jesus’ testimony against the Pharisees, who are said to have committed such a sin (Matt 12:32). This sin “was a deliberate, open-eyed rejection of known truth.” It was verbal, knowledgeable and continual. It was claiming that Jesus’ mighty works were done not by the Spirit of God but by the power of Beelzebub. Jesus states that such a sin “against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:29).

Similarly, we are warned in 1 Sam 2:25, “If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?” Hebrews 12:16–17 states that Esau hardened his heart to the point that repentance was impossible.

Although John probably does not have Jesus’ reference to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in mind, this view at least makes a correlation with the other texts in Scripture that support the idea that some people have hardened their hearts to the point that prayer will not even help them.

3. Total Rejection of the Gospel. Whereas the first view contended that specific sins are envisioned in the sin that leads to death, this view holds that the text is referring to total apostasy, the rejection of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and denial of the faith. Plummer states that it “is possible to close the heart against the influences of God’s Spirit so obstinately and persistently that repentance becomes a moral impossibility.”

In connection with this view scholars appeal to the so-called apostasy texts of Hebrews. For example, Heb 6:4–6; 10:26–27 states:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the Word and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.… If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume God’s enemies.

Some scholars more specifically identify this sin with the false teachers who have left John’s community (cf. 2:19). For example, Brown notes that John calls the one whose sin “is a sin not unto death” a “brother” while the one whose sin “is a sin unto death” is unnamed. Therefore, “since in Johannine dualism eternal life is possessed only by those who believe in the name of God’s Son, the sin unto death is a sin by nonbrothers, i.e., those who do not believe in the name of God’s Son.” These “secessionists,” as Brown refers to them, have refused “to believe in Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh and as the Son of God,” and therefore “the author discourages (and implicitly forbids) prayer for them.”248 The strength of this view is that it seeks to interpret 5:16 based on the context of John’s epistle.

The question then arises whether a true Christian can apostatize? It seems clear from John’s epistle that such is not a possibility. John has already stated that a believer cannot persist in sin because God’s seed remains in him (3:9), and he will go on to say that a believer cannot continue in sin because God keeps him safe, not allowing the evil one to harm him (5:18). It does not seem likely that he who cannot “continue in sin” (5:18) is able to commit a “sin that leads to death” (5:16). Furthermore, in 2:19 John indicates that in leaving the true faith, the false teachers demonstrated that they were never really true believers: “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” John is confident the true believer will remain.

All three of the above views have something positive to offer to the interpretation of 5:16. Likewise, each of them has its own difficulties. Nevertheless, the third view makes the most sense in the context of 1 John and offers the fewest difficulties.

5:17 So that he might clear up any misunderstanding, John indicates that he is not soft on sin by stating “all unrighteousness is sin.” No act of unrighteousness is so trivial that it can be ignored or neglected. He has previously declared that sin is “lawlessness” (anomia, 3:3) and here states that it is “unrighteousness” (adikia). The former speaks of rebellion against God, and the latter denotes a violation of God’s standard of what is right.

It should be noted that although most of the scholarly debate is devoted to understanding the “sin that leads to death,” John’s real concern is to encourage believers to pray for those whose sin “is not to death.” Thus, John again states that “there is a sin that does not lead to death.” “The words are added to show the wide scope which is given for the exercise of Christian sympathy and intercession.”

(3) Do Not Continue in Sin (5:18–20a)

18 We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. 19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. 20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true.

Verses 18–20 continue on the theme of assurance or confidence (5:13, 15), but a transition is made from assurance in prayer to the believers’ knowledge and proper attitude toward sin (5:18), the world (5:19), and the Son of God (5:20). Each of these three verses begins with the verb “we know” (oidamen), which indicates an intuitive knowledge. These verses function as summary statements, reiterating John’s main points in his epistle. Verse 18 also reaches back to the previous section as John demonstrates that he is in no way indifferent to sin, as some might (wrongly) have argued, since he speaks about “a sin that does not lead to death.” Rather, John reminds his readers that no one who is born of God continues in sin, since Jesus protects him from the evil one’s influence. Verse 20 actually connects well with John’s surprise ending in v. 21 and provides a natural antithesis to his warning concerning idolatry.

5:18 John maintains that “anyone (lit., “everyone”) born of God does not continue to sin.” This means that there should be no exceptions to this general rule. Verse 18 reiterates the truths found in 3:6, 9 that the believer does not continue in sin (see comment on those verses). The use of the perfect participle (“born of God,” gegennēmenos) suggests a permanent relationship begun in the past with continuing results from this new birth. One of these results is the God-given ability not to fall into long-term, habitual sinning. As Smalley asserts, “John is affirming, new conduct should follow from new birth.”

The reason why the child of God does not continue in sin is because “the one who was born of God keeps him safe.” The identity of “the one who was born of God” is not immediately clear. Some insist that it refers to the believer, since the same verb was used to characterize the believer earlier in this verse.255 Most scholars, however, believe that John is referring to Jesus Christ based on the following reasons: (1) John logically shifts from the perfect tense to the aorist tense (when referring to believers), referring to the birth of Jesus, a specific event in history. (2) If “the one who was born of God” refers to the believer, the text would need a reflexive pronoun (“the one who was born of God keeps himself safe”).257 (3) The idea of a believer being kept (or protected) by Jesus is found elsewhere in the New Testament (John 17:12; 1 Pet 1:5; Jude 24; Rev 3:10). It is therefore Christ’s protection of the believer that allows the believer to keep the commands of God (3:24; 5:3).

Consequently, because of Christ’s protection of the believer, “the evil one cannot harm him.” The word translated (“harm”) literally means “touch” (haptetai). That is, the evil one is not permitted to touch the believer to the point of doing harm to him. Sin and its consequences are to be taken seriously, but in Christ the child of God is given supernatural power to overcome sin and to obey the will of God.

Stott comments, “The devil does not touch the Christian because the Son keeps him, and so because the Son keeps him, the Christian does not persist in sin.”

5:19 What was expressed in v. 18 is now enunciated in terms of a general principle. “We know that we are the children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.” This is the second “we know” of vv. 18–20. God’s people are comforted with the certainty that God is their Father and that he will protect them.

The second half of the assertion is that “the whole world is under control of the evil one.” Again, John’s use of “the world” represents human society under the power of evil and at war with God and his people. “The evil one does not ‘touch’ the Christian, but the world is helplessly in his grasp.”261 There are only two possible positions. Everyone is either “of God” or “under the control of the evil one.” Neutrality is not possible.

5:20a John now gives the third ground for Christian confidence in vv. 18–20. Ultimately, a believer’s assurance in grounded in the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He states, “We know that the Son of God has come.” Even though the verb “has come” (ekei) is present tense in the Greek, it has the force of a perfect. Not only can we be sure that Christ came but also that he also “has given us understanding.” Against the heretics who only claimed to have the proper understanding of things, John assures his readers that through faith in Christ they can take confidence in the truths of Christianity. The term dianoia (“understanding”) occurs only here in John’s writings and contains the notion of “reasoning which leads to perception.”

True believers are given this insight or understanding “so that they might know him who is true.” John uses the word “true” three times in rapid succession. It should be noted that John does not say “so that they might know the truth,” which might come across as abstract and be susceptible to Gnostic teachings. Rather, John proclaims that the object of this Christ-given knowledge is personal. John switches verbs for his second use of “know” (from oidamen to ginōskōmen), the latter focusing on experiential knowledge. The phrase “him who is true” refers to God, the ultimate reality, and is contrasted with the “idols” of v. 21 (cf. John 17:3; 1 Thess 1:9).

(4) Keep Yourself from Idols (5:20b–21)

And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

21 Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.

5:20b Christians are said to be “in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ” (cf. 1:3; 5:11). Being “in Christ” is the means by which the believer enjoys communion with God. Jesus is the mediator not only of the knowledge of God but also of intimate fellowship with God. As John has stated earlier, to know the Father is to know the Son (2:23). But one cannot know the Father without belief in his Son, who is the revealer of the truth.

The final phrase of this verse reads, “He is the true [i.e., real] God and eternal life.” This phrase raises the problem: who is the antecedent to the pronoun, “he,” Jesus or God the Father? The arguments that it refers to Jesus include the following:267 (1) “Jesus Christ” is the nearest antecedent to the pronoun. (2) It would be repetitive to state that God is “true” after having already stated that “who are in him who is true” earlier in the verse. (3) Jesus was designated as the source of eternal life in 1:2 (cf. 5:12; John 11:25; 14:6). (4) First John 5:6 begins in the same way as this phrase (houtos estin), and there it clearly refers to Jesus Christ. (5) John has referred to Jesus as “God” on other occasions (John 1:1, 18; 20:28). Marshall rightly comments, “It is fitting that at the climax of the Epistle, as at the beginning and climax of the Gospel of John (Jn. 1:1; 20:28), full deity should be ascribed to Jesus.”

Others maintain that the text most naturally refers to God (the Father) for the following reasons: (1) The word houtos does not necessarily refer to the closest antecedent (cf. 2:22; 2 John 7) and therefore can refer back to God the Father. (2) It is John’s style to repeat what has already been stated and then add to it. (3) The Father can more properly be described as the source of life (John 5:26). Westcott paraphrases his understanding of the verse, “This Being—this One who is true, who is revealed through and in His Son, with whom we are united by His Son—is the true God and life eternal.”273 Although it is difficult to be absolutely certain, this second view is not as strong as the first. It is best to see this as the meaning: Jesus is the “true God and eternal life.”

5:21 John does not end his epistle with a typical farewell but with a stern warning: “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.” This warning, however, is motivated by John’s love for his readers. It also nicely contrasts with the last part of v. 20. Again he addresses them tenderly and affectionately as “Dear children” (teknia, cf. 2:12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4). It may appear that John’s final address is somewhat anticlimactic, but in reality it confirms a very important truth he has been establishing in this last section of the epistle and in the entire epistle itself: Reject the false and embrace the real.

John commands his readers to keep or guard themselves “from idols.” What are these “idols” (eidolon) against which the author is warning? Many suggest that since the Roman Empire and its rampant paganism was dominant in the first century, John is warning against worshiping pagan idols that were such a large temptation to John’s non-Jewish audience. Against such an interpretation are the following reasons: (1) The literal use of “idols” (eidolon) is rare in the New Testament. (2) It does not fit with the context of the epistle but would represent a change in thought. Therefore, it is best to take “idols” as “anything which occupies the place due to God” (cf. 1 Thess 1:9). This wider understanding of idolatry fits well with other texts of the New Testament (cf. Eph 5:5; Col 3:5).

In specific application and concern John, no doubt, would have in mind the “idols” of the heretical teachers who speak about a Jesus who is less than God. John is very disturbed by the false teachers that the god they proclaim is not merely less than perfect or close to what he holds but is altogether an idol. That is, their god is not real but the god of men’s imaginations. As Marshall argues, “Having emphasized that Jesus is the true God, John warns against being misled into worship of any other alleged manifestation or representation of God.” Applying this text for today, Dodd gives the following exhortation: “It behooves the individual Christian to be on his guard against any such God-substitute, whether it be a political idea, or some fashionable cult, or merely the product of his own ‘wishful thinking.’ ”277

Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who provides eternal life to anyone who comes to him in faith. He is the true revelation of God. Anything else is a counterfeit and a false substitute. On this truth one can be certain. On this truth John brings his letter to a close.