I John Chapter 5 and Bibliography

An Exegetical Commentary by Nate Wilson

5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah has been born out of God, and everyone who is loving the One who gave birth is also loving the one who has been born out of Him.
5:1 Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται, καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα ἀγαπᾷ καὶ^-B,048,33 τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ.

This verse still parallels the dual commandment: "believes that Jesus is the Christ" and "loves the one born of Him," yet Westcott (176) notes that there is a shift in focus from "the confession of Christ in relation to society... [to] faith in relation to the single believer."

John here gives us his third reason that we love the brothers. The first (4:20) was that we SEE them, the second (4:21) was that God COMMANDS it, and the third (5:1) is that we share a common Father (Cotton 495). If I believe in Jesus, I have been born out of God, and for that reason I love the one who gave birth to me--that is, God. (The Greek text says "the one who gave birth," not "father"--the NKJV is about the only modern version that got that one right.) God has also given birth spiritually to other Christians, and thus we are, in a sense, brothers and sisters with a common Father! We Christians are a family with God as our Father!

At this point, Clark has an interesting comment (149): "believes" is in the Present tense, whereas "begotten" is in the Perfect tense. This indicates that being "born again" precedes believing in Jesus and offers proof of the doctrine of election.

But the fact remains that there are people whom we must regard as brothers in the faith who are nevertheless difficult to love. Cotton (499ff) offers some good advice based on this verse:

1. Love them, not so much because they are so loveable, but out of respect for their Father, for "If you show lack of love to those who are begotten, you show lack of love to their Father who begat them."

2. Try to look at them through God's eyes of love. "Look at them as children of a Father who loves them, though they walk in contrary steps... you cannot but love them for God's love toward them."

5:2 In this we know that we are loving the children of God: when we are loving God and keeping His commands.
5:2 ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅταν τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ ποιωμεν^{B,Vg,UBS/ τηρωμενSin,Maj,T.R.}.

Once again, the double commandment is alluded to, and also the theme of God's Fatherhood is carried on from the previous verse. Westcott notes (178) that John uses "the children of God" rather than "the brethren" because "the argument turns upon the relation of Christians to God and not... to one another."

Several times now, in this book, John has given us proofs by which we can know something is true, using the phrase, "in this we know." Apparently, these are important things to test in ourselves:

It is IN the loving of God and of His children that we know that we love the children of God. "The perception comes not as a conviction drawn from a state of obedient love, but in the very exercise of the feeling. The 'this,' as elsewhere, seems to look backward... and forward to the fact and to the manifestation of that love" (Westcott 178). Also, it is not "by" or "if" we love and obey, but "when." The use of "when" emphasizes "the immediate and continuous exercise of this power of knowledge" (Westcott 178).

Now, there is some debate as to whether it is "KEEPS His commands" or "DOES His commands." Clark (150) says, "'Keep' is better attested than the verb 'do' as given in the critical texts." The vast majority of manuscripts (including the 4^th Century Sinaiticus) render the former, while about a dozen (including the 4^th Century Vaticanus and the Latin Vulgate) opt for the latter, but both basically mean the same thing: to observe (NASB), obey (ESV), carry out (NIV).

So we see that, "God requires not only that we should love our brethren, but that we should know it" (Cotton 502). Have you ever evaluated whether or not you are loving? Take the time to stop and consider this.

5:3 For this is the love of God, that we should keep His commands (and His commands are not oppressive).
5:3 αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν· καὶ αἱ ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσίν,

This is simply an expansion on verse 2. The commands of 3:23 continue to be in focus. If we love God, we will do His commands (believe and love). It is not legalism to seek to obey God's commands, if you love Him; it only becomes legalism when you lose your love for God and for your brother! If you love God, you will show that love by keeping His commandments, and those commandments are not oppressive. The word "oppressive" can also be translated "heavy, burdensome, weighty, grievous, severe..." (Pershbacher).

There are two schools of thought on why they are not oppressive: It is my opinion that they are not oppressive because they are simply not burdensome compared to other law systems. God's commands are relatively few and bring joy in fulfillment. John only says there is one command--and even if it has two parts, that's still no more than two--and, what a delight it is to show love to God by believing in Jesus and loving others! Compare that with the tens of thousands of pages of legal code in our country that oppressively controls everything in our loves, from the food we eat to the lawn you water to what you're allowed to do in your job, the way you drive your car, and even the size water tank you can have on your toilet!

There is, however, another school of thought that says God's commands are not oppressive, not because they are relatively easy, but because God gives us supernatural power so that, even though they are actually very difficult, we still feel that they are not oppressive (Westcott 179). They have a point, for it is impossible to perfectly obey even these two simple commands, and it does flow with the statement in the next verse that when we are born of God we are then able to overcome the world.

5:4 Because, whatever has been born out of God is conquering the world, and this is the victory which has conquered the world: our faith.
5:4 ὅτι πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ νικᾷ τὸν κόσμον· καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ νίκη ἡ νικήσασα τὸν κόσμον, ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν.

Westcott (179) continues his exegesis from the second school of thought, "To love the brethren is not a light thing, but with the commandment comes also the power of fulfillment... every faculty... quickened by God… realizes its victory."

The dual command is still in view here, but the focus shifts from the "love" part to the "believe" part. From here to verse 13, John discusses primarily "faith," using words like "evidence," "testimony," and "witness" throughout. Westcott (180) reminds us that this "'faith' is the faith which is summed up in the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." Exercising this faith has both conquered (Aorist tense) and continues to conquer (Present tense) the world. Westcott (180) and Cotton (508) agree that the first conquering (Present) refers to our struggle, and the second (Aorist), refers to Christ's victory on the cross over Satan. The latter is not only the basis for our FAITH, but also for our VICTORY, since we now wrestle with a defeated foe! So, not only do we "not love the world" (2:15), but we actually overcome it just as we have overcome the evil one (2:14) and the antichrist (4:4)!

Now, here's a puzzle: Why would John switch to the neuter gender to say, "whatever has been born of God?" Why not say "whoever...?" Hanna (438) gives the solution: "the neuter may refer to a person, provided the emphasis is less on the individual than on some outstanding general quality. ["Ever"] is often added to make this clear." So the emphasis is on the quality of being born of God as being why a person conquers the world.

Notice also that the verse begins with "because/for." This indicates a reason why God's commands are not burdensome--not only to make them easier to obey, but also to help us overcome the world. Why does our faith overcome the world? Cotton (509-510) offers a reason: "Faith enlightens the mind to see things in another manner than the world sees them (Heb. 11)... Faith lets us see more joy and pleasure in God's favor than in all the contentments of the world... [Therefore] live continually by faith, depend on Christ, look up to the promises, and you shall be too hard for the world... It will overcome Satan and your own lusts, and thus you shall persevere."

5:5 And who is the one who is conquering the world if not the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
5:5 τίς [δε^B,א,+11,UBS] ἐστιν ὁ νικῶν τὸν κόσμον εἰ μὴ ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ;

John expands on verse four by defining what he means by "faith." Faith is believing that Jesus is the Son of God. This doesn't mean just mouthing the words, but rather committing to the correct Biblical theology behind them (Clark 153). The Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Aryans all believe that Jesus is the “son of god,” but they mean something totally different than what the Bible teaches--their beliefs are more in line with the Gnostics that John calls “antichrists” in this letter!

We can build a syllogism with verses four and five here:

1. "Everyone born of God overcomes the world"

2. "who... overcomes the world... believes that Jesus is the Son of God"

3. Therefore, Everyone who believes Jesus is born of God.

Notice lastly that "conquering" is in the Present tense. This indicates that we must continually exercise our faith in who Jesus is to keep conquering the world. Do not let down your guard!

5:6 This is the One who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ--not in the water only, but rather, in the water and in the blood. And the Spirit is the One who gives evidence, because the Spirit is the truth.
5:6 Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι᾿ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ^-א,Maj αἵματι· καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια.

John expounds on who this Jesus is and who the witnesses are that confirm our faith in Him. We should believe because our faith in Jesus is supported by three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood. The first question to answer is, "What is this water and blood bit?" There are two levels of meaning: historical and symbolic. The Living Bible brings out the historical meanings of the water being Christ's baptism by John the Baptizer at the beginning of His ministry and the blood being the death of Jesus on the cross at the end of His ministry years. Clark (154) and Westcott (181) affirm this generally-accepted interpretation. It is not speaking of being saved through the sacraments of baptism and communion, nor is it speaking of the separation of Christ's blood at His death, for if it was, why would John say, "Not with the water only?" This phrase is rather an "insistence that though the baptism marks [Christ's] public coming, He also accomplished His purpose by dying" (Clark 155). On the historical occasion of Christ's baptism, there was further confirmation by the dove which settled on Him and the voice which spoke from heaven saying, "This is my beloved son, listen to Him."

The second level of meaning to blood and water here is sacramental, the water representing purity from sin and the blood representing sacrificial atonement. Westcott (182) and Cotton (514) expound on this sacramental level of meaning. The two levels interact, of course, for the baptism of John was all about forsaking sin, and Christ's death was all about atonement! At this sacramental level, the phrase, "not with the water only" means that Christ's pure life was not enough to make us children of God; He also had to die for us. Since He was both righteous and an atoning sacrifice, we can be assured of the efficacy of His redemptive work--our faith rests secure. (Cotton 516). I'm reminded of the Hymn:

Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness
My beauty are, my glorious dress!
Mid flaming worlds, in these arrayed,
With joy shall I lift up my head!

Hallelujah! We have both Jesus' blood AND His righteousness!

We also must notice the prepositions, most accurately translated "THROUGH water and blood" and IN the water and IN the blood" (Emphasis mine). The idea of water and blood both "accompanying" and being the "instrument" of Christ's coming are present in these prepositional phrases (Hanna 438). Westcott (182) goes so far as to make a distinction between "through"--what happened in the past; "the means by which Christ's office was revealed" and "in"--the present "sphere in which He continues to exercise it." This would relate back to the historical "through blood and water," i.e. Christ's baptism and crucifixion, and the sacramental "in the blood and in the water," i.e. Christ's righteousness and atonement.

So we have these two witnesses, the water and the blood, and to them is added the third witness which John has already mentioned before: the Spirit. The Spirit gives evidence that God abides in us and we in Him (3:24; 4:13) and that Jesus is the Christ (4:2). He is called the "Spirit of Truth;" He confirms both who WE are and who CHRIST is (Westcott 184). He is truth and He confirms truth. He confirms truth in two ways: first, through Scripture, and secondly, in the consciences of God's people (Cotton 517).

5:7 Because the ones who testify are three:
5:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος και τὸ ῞Αγιον Πνεύμα, καὶ οὗτοι οι τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι·^T.R.]

Clark (157) and Westcott (183) agree with my translation that the first word should be "because." What the Spirit says is "truth because three witnesses agree on this point of who Christ is." This is the gist of the passage.

Admittedly, all of those obscure statements about blood and water are confusing, so it is understandable that people would try to clarify the meaning by explanations. This was already happening as early as the third and fourth centuries A.D., and many of the Latin translations of the Bible contained an explanation written right into the text about there being three witnesses in heaven, expounding a doctrine of the Trinity. It was not in any of the original Greek texts, however. When Erasmus pointed out to the Pope that this explanation in the Latin Bible could not be found in any Greek text, a scribe was hired to translate the explanation into Greek and insert it into a Greek text so they could claim that it was still a translation from the original Greek (Clark 156). The only known Greek manuscripts today bearing these extra words are four dating around the 15^th century, and four with dates ranging from the 10^th to the 15^th centuries in which the extra words had been added to the margin later, so there is no evidence that it was accepted as scripture in the first thousand years of the church. When the King James Bible was written, however, the translators decided to keep the addition. At any rate, the division of verses was made before all this came to light, and so with the removal of the added text, this makes for a short verse. It also makes for some confusion on where the breaks in the verses fall--I'm following the NIV here.

5:8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are into one.

The O.T. law states that a legal decision must stand on the testimony of at least two witnesses (Clark 157), so if the Spirit was the only witness, we might be on shaky ground. However, we are assured that there are three witnesses--more than enough. Note also that "testify" is in the Present tense, indicating that the Spirit, the water, and the blood continue to bear witness and assure us (Westcott 184). John has already mentioned how the Spirit testifies. The water and the blood also bear witness in that when we know we are forgiven and have a clear conscience (Blood atonement) and when we see that we are growing in righteousness (water-purity), it is proof that Jesus is the Christ and that He has made us His children (Cotton 528).

Now, in a court of law, if three eye-witnesses were to testify concerning a certain event, they would probably disagree on some details, but with these three witnesses, there is absolute unity. The Greek text says literally that "the three are into one." This is, of course, awkward English, so most English translations use the word "agree." Hanna (438) translates it "at one," which is better, but still a different preposition. With a little paraphrasing, the point comes clear:

• "The three are for the one--to establish one truth" (Westcott 185);

• "These three are in agreement on the one point... that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Clark 157);

• "They all consent to one truth, further they all conspire in one work of our redemption" (Cotton 529).

Given this, let us, in the words of John Cotton (530), "keep our hearts and ears always open to these testimonies."

5:9 If we are receiving the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, because this is the testimony of God, that He has testified concerning His Son.
5:9 εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν· ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἣνοτι^{=א,A,B+8,Lat,Copt,UBS} μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.

The Living Bible provides a pretty good running commentary (although not an accurate translation), "We believe men who witness in our courts, so surely we can believe whatever God declares." John's audience had apparently received some human teachings about Jesus that were false, and they needed to be straightened out by hearing what God and His witnesses say about Jesus. But how often we turn this around! We say we won't believe what the Bible says until human scientists have proven it to be true! How many people doubt creation and the flood because science hasn't proved it yet? How many people don't discipline their children with a rod as Proverbs instructs, because human Psychologists disagree with the Bible? How many Christians charge interest on loans to the poor, against the Bible's teaching, just because the world says you have to? We've got it all turned around! The lesser should bow to the greater! God's witness is greater, just as He is "greater than our heart" (3:20) and "greater than he who is in the world" (4:4). Yet how often do we pay attention to the lesser because it broadcasts in neon, in color, on glossy pages, on flashing screens, and with more fleshly appeal?

The scene of the law court is set: The Antichrists have testified that Jesus is not God and that you can know God without righteousness and love. Then God Himself testifies by the water, the blood, and the Spirit that Jesus is His Son, who set the standard of righteousness and love. God has testified concerning His Son in the three witnesses of v.8 (Cotton 530) – and even audibly at Christ's baptism, saying, "This is my beloved Son..." (Taylor: Living Bible, Clark 157, Matt. 3:17, John 1:33). The reader is a juror who must decide. We must act in faith and reject the world's testimony about Jesus and instead believe God’s word!

5:10 The one who is believing in the Son of God has the evidence in himself; the one who is not believing in God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the evidence of which God has testified concerning His Son.
5:10 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔχει τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐν [ε^א,049,UBS]αὐτῷ· ὁ μὴ πιστεύων τῷ Θεῷ ψεύστην πεποίηκεν αὐτόν, ὅτι οὐ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἣν μεμαρτύρηκεν ὁ Θεὸς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.

To continue the law court theme, the juror, if he is a Christian, already knows that God is true. If the juror decides to reject the fact that Jesus is God, He is saying that the testimony which God brought to the court is false--and therefore God is a liar. We also make God a liar when we say that we have not sinned (1:10). When we deny ANY of God's truth, we make Him a liar; we can't go halfway and say that some of the Bible is true and some of it is false. The liar is the man who disobeys God's twofold command by denying that Jesus is the Christ (2:22) and by hating his brother (4:20). (Verses nine and ten form a chiasm, starting and ending with God bearing witness concerning His Son. The chiasm emphasizes the middle phrase that the one who does not believe makes God a liar.)

But if we believe, God gives us His Spirit, which confirms the truth in us. The "witness/ evidence" is "in himself," in that God abides in him (4:15) and that he loves others (5:1, 3:10). "The witness is not [only] of external testimony, but internal also... the witness of the Spirit and water and blood becomes an inner conviction of life and cleansing and redemption... moreover, it is to be noticed that here the condition laid down is belief in the person of Christ ['believe in'] and not belief in a fact ['believe that']" (Westcott 186).

5:11 And this is the evidence: that God gave eternal life to us, and this life is in His Son.
5:11 καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία, ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεός, καὶ αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν.

The Spirit, the water, and the blood not only testify to the fact that Jesus is God, they also assure us that Jesus has given us eternal life. Verses 10-12 repeat over and over again the interlocking principles of believing in the Son and having eternal life. In fact, all six uses of the phrase "eternal life" in I John include Jesus being the source of eternal life as their context (1:2, 2:25, 3:15, 5:11, 5:13, 5:20). Jesus is the ONLY way; there is NO OTHER! It is true that God's voice of testimony at Jesus' baptism didn't actually say "eternal life is in this man," but, Clark counters (159), God did say, "...hear ye Him," and Jesus taught that He was the life (John 1:4, 11:25, 14:6), so God did, in a sense, confirm this truth by His own voice!

This eternal life is something God "gave to us." This is speaking of the one-time act of justification at which we were "born out of Him," received eternal life, and at which point He also "gave to us" His Spirit (3:24, 4:13). Note also that it is "given" and not "earned" (Cotton 539).

5:12 The one who has the Son has the life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
5:12 ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει τὴν ζωήν· ὁ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει.

This principle, stated both positively and negatively, expands on the teaching in verse eleven that "eternal... life is in His Son." No middle ground exists; either you have (believe in) Jesus and have eternal life, or else you don't have Jesus and don't have eternal life. Which side are you on?

John Cotton gives a lengthy treatise on what it means to "have Christ" as "savior" and "prince... by way of service... purchase... covenant... and acceptance." It goes way beyond the text at hand, so I won't go into it, but you can read it for yourself on pages 545-556.

5:13 These things I write to you in order that you may have known that you have life forever--to [you] who are believing in the name of the Son of God.
5:13 Ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν [τοῖς πιστούουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ^,-א,A,B,UBS] ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον, [καὶ ἵνα πιστεύητε^Maj,TR / τοις πιστευουσιν^{א,A,B+2,Vg,UBS}] εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ.

John gives the final reason why he has written: that his readers may know that they have eternal life. John Cotton reviews how we know we have eternal life, and it is worthy of repeating:

1) We know where life is to be found--Jesus v.12

2) We know how to obtain it:

a) confess sin (1:9)

b) look to Christ as propitiation (2:1)

c)walk in the light (1:8)

3) The signs by which we may know we have it:

a)walking in the light (1:7)

b) keeping God's commands (2:3)

c)purifying ourselves from sin (3:3)

d) loving the brethren (3:14)

e)having boldness toward God (3:21)

John also defines his audience with a dative clause to his verb "I write." He is writing "to the ones who are believing in the name of the Son of God."

The verb stating the purpose "that you may know" is of an interesting construction. It is in the Perfect tense, meaning that we arrived at the knowledge at a certain point and we are resting in that knowledge from that point on. This verb is also in the Subjunctive mood, meaning that John cannot be sure that his audience of believers will actually gain assurance of their faith through his letter. You can be a Christian and not have assurance of salvation, but it is God's best for us to arrive at that assurance. Do you have that assurance? If so, are you seeking to bolster the faith of other believers, following John's example? (Cotton 563). We must be careful to continue discipling new believers so that they are grounded in the faith and are sure of their eternal life!

NOTE: Alexandrinus is slightly different from other Greek mss.

5:14 And this is the confidence which we have before Him, that if we shall request something [for ourselves] according to His will, He is hearing us.

These next few verses turn to focus upon prayer. This is the fourth and last time the concept of "confidence/open conversation" with God is brought up. The first was in relation to abiding in Him (2:2), the second in regard to having a clear conscience (3:21), the third in relation to loving our brother (4:17), and now we see that, in Westcott's words (189), "The consciousness of a divine life brings to the believer perfect boldness in prayer, that is, in converse with God." The flow of thought in this cluster of verses is that if we believe in Jesus, that means we have eternal life, which means God listens to us, and results in us getting what we ask.

Now, we only get what we ask for when we ask "according to His will." What does it mean to pray according to God's will? John Cotton (564) answers the question nicely:

1) "We should ask... what He commands us [in the Bible, i.e. the Lord's Prayer]"

2) "We ask with submission of our will to God's will"

3) "Ask it in Christ's name"

If we know that something is God's will, we can be utterly confident that He will answer that prayer. So often I hear people say that God doesn't seem to hear their prayers--that their prayers just "bounce off the ceiling," but what John is saying here is that God is always listening to us. If we feel that He isn't, it is just a trick of our emotions and not the truth.

5:15 And if we know that He is hearing us--whatever we may be requesting--we know that we have the items that we had requested of[1] Him.

God loves to provide for our needs! He loves to answer prayer, otherwise He wouldn't instruct us to pray! If Jesus instructs us to pray, "Give us this day our daily bread," then God fully intends to provide for our needs each day we pray this! Notice the parallel with 3:22, "Whatever we ask, we receive because we keep His commandments..."

Concerning the "if" at the beginning, Hanna (438) says that it "seems to have a causal sense" here (because God hears us, we know...). Westcott (190) says, "This unusual construction appears... to throw the uncertainty upon the fact of the presence of the knowledge, and not upon the knowledge itself... 'and should it be that we know.'" The fact is that God is always stooping down to hear and bless us. We may not realize it, but it is true nonetheless.

When we need something, we, as children of God, should first ask our heavenly Father rather than first trying to get it in our own strength or asking the government for it or praying to guardian angels or saints. We will get what we ask "of Him." Therefore we should see only GOD as our source of provision and not put our trust in anybody else, no matter how much money or supernatural power they seem to have.

5:16 If someone were to see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he will request, and [H]e will give to him life--to the ones who are sinning not unto death. There is a sin unto death; I'm saying that he should ask, [but] not concerning that.

John is kind enough to even give us an example of a prayer God will answer! "That boldness of access to God which finds its expression in prayer, finds its most-characteristic expression in intercessory prayer... The change of verb from aitein to erwtan ...seems to mark the request which is based upon fellowship... the prayer of brother for brother... to a common father" (Westcott 190, 192). Not surprisingly, the example of how we can pray here is a further application of the principle covered earlier of loving our brother. In 3:17, it was, "If you see a brother in need...;" here it is, "If you see a brother sinning..." we will pray for him.

Notice that the example doesn't say "he should request," but that "he will request" (emphasis mine). It is a characteristic trait of a Christian to care about his brothers and instantly think to pray for them! What is wrong with us? How come this is so seldom characteristic of our prayer meetings? I've been to many prayer meetings, and so often, all people want to pray about is blessing for themselves. Real intercessory prayer is the last thing on their minds! Oh Lord, please give us Your life and love so that we "will pray" for our brothers!

We are so individualistic that we think our sin is our own business and nobody else's, but the Bible instructs us here to pray for God to forgive other people, too! It is God's nature to forgive, and so it should be natural for us to share in that nature and ask forgiveness (1:9, 4:10, 2:2, 2:12, 3:5). However, even in this, we must pray according to God's will (5:14), and it is God's will to pray only for brothers not committing "sin unto death." According to Westcott (192), using the article "a," as in "a sin unto death" is too definite. "The thought is not of specific acts as such, but of acts... which wholly separate from Christ." We'll deal a little more with what this means in the next verse.

The Greek wording puts the negative with the object "this" rather than with the verb "say," so I've tried to keep it that way in my translation, even though it makes for a substantial departure from other English translations which render it, "I do not say that he should ask concerning this." It is awkward wording. The other pronouns in this verse also make it awkward: the word "God" is not in this verse anywhere in the Greek text. The NIV and NASV insert it to try to make better sense of the ambiguous pronouns, but it could honestly be understood "The one who sees his brother sin will ask God to give that brother life, and God will give it," or "The one who sees his brother sinning will ask [God? His brother?] and thus he will be the agent of giving life to his brother" (Westcott 198). But really, either way, it is God/Jesus who is the source of life. Even if we are the agent through which it comes, life ultimately comes from God. This has already been made clear in 5:11 and 2:25; God gives eternal life! This brother for whom we intercede may not actually be sinning unto death, but we seek the opposite of death for him, and that is God's eternal life!

5:17 All unrighteousness is sin, yet there is sin not unto death.

"Every wrong is a sin, of course," says Taylor (Living Bible), for "sin is lawlessness" (3:24). John isn't trivializing any sin, he is just setting a certain class of sin, "sin unto death," apart. Clark (164) echoes Westcott in saying that we're not talking about "one definite, deadly sin. The same sin in one man may be sin unto death, though in another it is not." Clark says that Cotton has the best handle on what this means: "The essential criteria are illumination and malice." However, using the context of I John, I'd say that John is probably considering the following sins to be "sin unto death:"

· Not loving your brother. Such a one "cannot love God" (4:20) and "abides in death" (3:14).

· Practicing sin. The one who practices sin is "of the devil" (3:8) and is not born of God (5:18). Since the verse which immediately follows this discussion of sin unto death is talking about practicing sin, it would naturally follow that there is some relationship.

The death that this is talking about is spiritual--the opposite of eternal life. "Nothing in the epistle supports the view that the death is physical" (Clark 165).

Now, "how may we discern when they commit this sin?" asks Cotton (579), "If they [say] they seek Christ... yet maliciously oppose those ways, do not pray for them. The Pharisees knew Christ to be their heir... [yet said that He] cast out devils through Beelzebub... therefore Christ tells them their sins would never be forgiven them."

We should take all sin seriously and pray that God will forgive a brother who sins, but I suspect that John is saying it's not worthwhile to pray for antichrists.

5:18 We know that everyone who has been born out of God is not sinning, but rather, he who was born out of God guards himself, and the evil one doesn't get hold of him.

John ends his letter with three "we know's." This is fitting for a letter, the purpose of which is to assure people in faith. The whole of verses 17-21 is a chiasm starting and ending with not sinning, stepping in to highlight who Christ is, then touching on the evil one, and finally focusing on the central point: "We are of God." This is the main point John is trying to get across. He has previously stated some things which we know:

· "When He appears, we shall be like Him" (3:2),

· "We have moved from death into life" (3:14),

· Now he says, "No one who is born of God sins."

Westcott (193) notes that, "the power of intercession to overcome the consequences of sin might seem to encourage a certain indifference to sin," so in this and the previous verse, John reminds his readers that "all unrighteousness is [still] sin" and that Christians don't practice sin. (The Greek Present tense of "sin" indicates a continuing practice rather than a one-time act.) This is almost the exact same wording as 3:9, and also echoes 1:6, 2:4, 2:29, and 3:6. John is summing up one of his main points that he has touched on many times in his letter: "we know that everyone who has been born of God is not sinning/practicing sin."

Then he gives the reason we don't sin: "he who was born of God keeps him[self], and the evil one does not touch him" (NASV). The word "keeps/guards" is in the Present tense, indicating a continual vigilance, and the word "touch/get hold" could be translated "contact, meddle" (Pershbacher). Westcott (194) writes that this word indicates more than just a superficial touch. The evil one has been overcome (2:13), and we are under guard so he doesn't mess with us.

Now the question comes, "who is it that does the guarding? Jesus or us?" The difference in Greek is the presence or absence of one letter, and authorities are divided on the issue. While the Greek texts agree on a distinction in tense between the Perfect "everyone who has been born" and the Aorist "He who was born," they don't agree on the objective pronoun. Five Greek manuscripts say "keeps him," and all the rest (including the two oldest-known – a third-century quote from Origen and the Sinaiticus) say "keeps himself." In one camp, we have the Vulgate, NASB, the Living Bible, and Westcott (champion of the Vaticanus reading[3]) writing that it is Jesus who keeps us from the evil one, and that the parallel Perfect and Aorist participles about being born of God refer first to us and secondly to Christ, "emphasizing our kinship with Jesus, yet His unique sonship" (Westcott 194). This would fit John's grammar throughout the rest of the book in which he always refers to Christians with the Perfect participle "has been born of God" and not with the Aorist form anywhere else. However, counters Gordon Clark (166), there is "considerable manuscript evidence" that the object of "keeps" is "himself," as the KJV puts it. This would fit the strong adversive better ("but rather") and could be rendered, "he who was begotten of God keeps himself so well that Satan cannot touch him." John Calvin goes for this interpretation, saying that the child of God "keeps himself in the fear of God," but he concedes that it is really the power of God that He "transfers to us" that keeps us, and not our own strength that keeps us. The source of our power is God, so whether we emphasize our immediate work or not, we must ultimately give the honor to God, who gives life and guards that life.

5:19 We know that we are out of God, and the whole world is lying in the evil one.

Now John states his second concluding we know: "we are out of God." Like the first "we know," this is a summary of a principle that has been already covered in the letter. John speaks of being "out of God" in 3:9, 3:10, 4:1, 4:2, 4:4, 4:6, 4:7, 5:1, and 5:4, and if you were to include references to us also being "in God" you could add at least nine more references to that list! This point is probably the most important in the whole letter. "We are of God." We can be sure of our position in Christ, and we can be sure that the false teachers who claim that we are not as close to God as they are, are dead wrong!

There's a strong us-them feel here: "we are of God, but the world lies in the evil one" (emphasis mine). "The relationship of the church to God is widely different from that of the world to the evil one... 'out of God' and 'in the evil.' The first describes the absolute source of being; the second the actual (but not essential) position... the evil one [is not] 'laying hold on' the world as from without... it has been placed 'in him.'" (Westcott 194ff)

I have rendered the verse literally from the Greek source, but most English translations add a word or two to make it more sensible to our language: "the whole world lies 'in the power of' (NASV) / 'under the control of' (NIV) the evil one." The KJV takes the phrase literally translated "the evil" and renders it "wickedness." I think that "the evil one" is a better translation though, not only because it appears to be a euphemism for Satan, but also because it contains a definite article.

What does it mean to "lie in the evil one?" John has already mentioned how the typical traits of the world are lust, pride (2:16), hate (3:13), and the practice of sin (3:8). These are the antithesis of the traits of a child of God. Which side are you on? Either you are in God or you are in the devil; there is no middle ground!

Notice also that the contact between us and the world/evil can be mutual. We may be kept in such a way that the evil one does not touch us (5:18), but we also, by not loving the world (2:15), do not touch the evil one! Are you striving to keep such contact with the evil one cut off? I know all too many Christians who like to blur the distinction between us and the world, but we must be different. We must not have any traffic with the evil one!

5:20 And we know that the Son of God is arriving and He has given to us insight so that we may recognize the True One, and we are in the True One--in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the True God and eternal life.

The final "we know" regards Christ Jesus. He comes and gives insight, and He is the true God and eternal life. This one verse is a rich study in Christology! Regarding the "coming" part, the Greek word literally means that He is continually becoming or arriving, but most English translations render it in the past tense, "has come." Throughout his letter, John has portrayed Christ as one who "has been from the beginning" (1:1, 2:14), who was "sent" by the Father (4:9, 4:10, 4:14), was "revealed" in the past (1:2, 3:5, 3:8), "came" as a man on earth (4:2, 5:6), "sent" His Spirit to be with us now, and will "come" again (2:28) to be "revealed" in the future (3:2). Perhaps that is why John uses the present tense "is arriving" here, because Jesus is coming and going throughout all of history, from the beginning of creation to the distant past of Old Testament theophanies, to the Incarnation described in the Gospels, to His indwelling Spirit today, to His future coming in glory!

This one who "comes" also "gives" gifts to us. John has already mentioned that Jesus has "given" us His Spirit (2:27, 3:24, 4:2, 4:13), and that He has given us eternal life (5:11, etc.). Now in this verse, Jesus "has given us insight." Pershbacher expands on this word for insight: "thought, intention, mind, understanding, imagination, comprehension." We know what we believe; it is not some mystic mish-mash. "The anointing which you have received from Him... teaches you about all things and is true..." (2:27 NASB). Calvin notes here that it was Christ's life and teachings that gave us much more understanding about God and His ways.

And why did Jesus give us this insight? For two reasons:

1. That we may know that Jesus is God, and

2. That we may know that we are in relationship with God.

Concerning Reason #1, the verse says "that we may know/recognize the true one... Jesus Christ; this is the true God." How much more plain can it be that Jesus Christ is God?! The word for "true" here, despite Clark's assertions to the contrary (167), connotes "genuine" rather than "truth-telling." This is the sterling/real God, not the twisted notion of God that the antichrists preach. (Calvin, Thayer, Pershbacher).

Concerning Reason #2, the verse says, "...we are in the true one--in His Son Jesus Christ. This is... eternal life." Calvin comments that it is through being in Christ that we are in God and have eternal life. "He who has the Son has the life" (5:12). This recaps the many places where John has discussed our status of being "in God" (2:5, 2:24, 2:27, 2:29, 3:6, 3:24, 4:13, 4:15, 4:16).

So, the conclusion of John's letter is that since we know Jesus, we have assurance of eternal life! What a glorious knowledge to have, that we are in right relationship with the True and Living God!

5:21 Dear children, keep yourselves from the idols.

As a parting shot, John closes with an admonition against idolatry. The word "keep/guard" here is different from the "keep/guard" of verse 18. Here, it means "be on watch, have in custody, defend, keep safe, preserve, beware, keep in abstinence, debar" (Pershbacher). It is, perhaps, the negative side of keeping/guarding, focusing on what we are guarding against rather than the positive side (v.18), which focuses on what we are preserving. Hanna (438) notes that the Aorist Imperative form of this word indicates that it is "used for a precept which is valid until the coming of Christ."

The next natural question is, "What does it mean by idols?" The plain sense of the Greek word is: "form, shape, image" (Pershbacher), hence an idol which heathen people worship. Westcott writes (197), "from the thought of 'Him who is true,' St. John turns almost of necessity to the thought of the vain shadows which usurp His place." He insists that John is not just speaking of images, but of things in general which usurp the worship of Christ. Clark (168) is emphatic that, "the idols John has in mind are the heretical doctrines [of the antichrists]." However, I tend to side with Calvin here, that this is really talking of images.

Now, before you dismiss this as irrelevant to today, think again! Our modern culture is SATURATED with images! It is one of the greatest perils which Christians face today. Images of earthly worship, from the human body, to food, to simulations of paradise, and all manner of other things, are plastered over our TV screens, computer monitors, and every available scrap of paper, it seems! The peril lies in the fact that our faith is NOT image-driven, so we have no alternative image on which to focus our worship, only a spiritual God whom "no one has seen." That is why it is so crucial to be vigilant in guarding against the barrage of images in our world. We must guard ourselves with the knowledge that Christians don't sin, that we are of God, and that Jesus is God and has given us eternal life. John doesn't leave us comfortable and complacent in our position in God, but rather leaves us with something to keep us on our toes: "guard yourselves from idols." I'll close with Calvin, "Let us then remember that we ought carefully to continue in the spiritual worship of God, so as to banish far from us everything that may turn us aside to gross and carnal superstitions."

Bibliography

Aland, Kurt, Editor. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (26^th Edition). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979, 1981.

Arndt, William and Gingrich, Wilbur. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, 1965.

Barnes, Albert. Notes on the Bible. E-sword.org, 2012.

Brenton, Lancelot, Tr. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986.

Candlish, Robert. The First Epistle of John. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1869.

Clarke, Adam. Commentary on the Bible. E-sword.org, 2012.

Clark, Gordon. First John. Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1980.

Cotton, John. An Exposition of I John. Evansville: Sovereign Grace, 1657. (Cotton's notes end in the middle of Ch. 5, so John Calvin's commentary on ch. 5 is published with it.)

Dana, H.E. The Epistles and Apocalypse of John. Kansas City: Central Seminary. 1947.

Douay-Rheims Bible. E-sword.org, Accessed 3/21/2015.

Geneva Bible. (1587). Published by E-sword.org. Accessed 4/2/2015.

Gill, John. Exposition of the Entire Bible. E-sword.org, 2012.

Greek New Testament with variants. Published by e-sword. Accessed 8/29/2012.

Greek New Testament, 1904 "Patriarchal" edition of the Greek Orthodox Church. Published by e-sword. Accessed 4/2/2009.

Hanna, Robert. A Grammatical Aid to the Greek N.T. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. E-sword.org, 2002.

King James Version of the Holy Bible (1769), Derivative Work, Copyright © 2002-2008, Rick Meyers, E-Sword.org, 2008.

King, Guy. The Fellowship. Christian Literature Crusade, 1954.

Louw, Johannes and Nida, Eugene. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains. United Bible Societies, 1988

New American Standard Bible, Copyright 1960, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, CA, E-Sword.org, 2008.

Perschbacher, Wesley. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 1990.

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. E-Sword-org, 2000.

Salkinson, Ginsburg, eds. Hebrew New Testament. E-Sword-org, 2000.

Schaff, Philip, ed. St. Augustine: Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2017.

Sublett, Mike. Words to My Children. Council Bluffs, IA: Plain Bible Talk, 1960, 75.

Thayer, Joseph. Greek-English Lexicon. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1901, 1977.

The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, Fifteenth Printing. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. E-Sword.org, 2004.

The Holy Bible, New King James Version, Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc., E-Sword.org, 2008.

The Holy Bible: New International Version. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible Society. E-Sword.org, 2008.

Wesley, John. Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible. E-sword.org. 2012.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistles of St. John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1883, 1966.

Westtcott and Hort. The Greek New Testament. E-sword.org, 2006.

Wycliffe Bible, 1394 (Purvey Revision). Published by e-sword. Accessed 6/21/2011.

Zeller, Dwight. Notes from Intro to Greek Class, 1997.