81 - 1Jn 5:17
Πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστὶ, καὶ ἔστιν ἁμαρτία οὐ πρὸς θάνατον.
What had been in the previous words indirectly said, that there are two altogether different kinds of sin, sin unto death and sin not unto death, St. John now in what follows directly declares, ἔστινἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον καὶἔστινἁμαρτίαοὐπρὸς θάνατον [“there is a sin unto death and there is a sin not unto death”]. That these two clauses are thus connected is not generally acknowledged; still less is it the common view that the words πᾶσαἀδικίαἁμαρτίαἐστὶ [“all unrighteousness is sin”] are to be linked with what precedes instead of with what follows. Nevertheless, this view is absolutely necessary. That the two clauses just mentioned correspond to each other in their entire construction, and are in thought fitted to each other, scarcely needs any demonstration; it is, in any case, enforced upon us when we observe that the proposition πᾶσαἀδικίαἁμαρτίαἐστὶ [“all unrighteousness is sin”] cannot belong to what comes after. If it did so, we should scarcely see what induced St. John to introduce here the idea of ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”]: this idea not only has no organic connection with the proposition that all sin is not sin unto death, but it is decisively foreign to it, and somewhat discordant. We should be obliged to take it only in a concessive way: “it is true that all ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”] is sin; do not think too tenderly concerning ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”], it also is sin;” but we should expect to read, “it is not sin unto death.” That, however, we do not read, but only that there is sin which is not unto death. The idea of ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”] is therefore at once dropped again; and it is entirely irrelevant to the proposition ἔστινἁμαρτίαοὐπρὸςθάνατον [“there is a sin not unto death”]. Are we indeed to suppose that the apostle felt himself called to occupy himself with teaching here, in an incidental way and without any necessity, the relation of ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”] to ἁμαρτία [“sin”]?
All is changed, if we connect the words with what goes before: there is sin unto death, but to this (mark the emphatic περὶἐκείνης [“about these”] coming first) my words do not refer; you cannot suppose it the design of my words (οὐλέγωἵνα [“I am not saying that”]) to recommend intercession concerning it. There are indeed other cases quite enough, he proceeds, to which your intercessory prayer may find application, πᾶσαἀδικίαἁμαρτίαἐστὶν [“all unrighteousness is sin”]; wherever there is any measure of unrighteousness, there is sin, and the fit occasion therefore for intercession. Thus the apostle really says that there are sins unto death and sins not unto death. To the former of these two propositions there are added two parenthetical explanations: concerning these sins unto death St. John’s exhortation does not treat, he does not speak of them; and the range of sin for which intercession may be valid is otherwise large enough. This is the general bearing of the clauses; they can be fully understood only through a close investigation of the idea involved in ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”].
Ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”] and ἁμαρτία [“sin”] are often regarded as synonyms varied simply in order to define the nature of sin on all sides: for example, in Heb 8:12, ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν, καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ [“I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more”], where obviously there is no consideration of the distinction in the three expressions respectively. But there are passages where this distinction comes into prominence. Ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”] is the antithesis of δικαιοσύνη [“righteousness”], as well in the sense of justitia distributiva as in that of justitia interna. The former antithesis we find in Rom 9:14, μὴ ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ; [“is God unjust?”] and 2Co 12:13, χαρίσασθέ μοι τὴν ἀδικίαν [“forgive me for injustice”],—that is, pardon me if in this I have been unjust, and dealt with you in a manner not correspondent with justitia distributiva. But we find ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”] much oftener used as the antithesis to justitia interna, internal righteousness; and in this sense only is it a synonym of ἁμαρτία [“sin”]: in the former sense it is only one species of ἁμαρτία [“sin”] as a genus. As δικαιοσύνη [“righteousness”] is one of St. Paul’s fundamental ideas, it is in his writings that we find ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”] most frequently occurring. For its relation to ἁμαρτία [“sin”] we may consult Rom 6:13, as a leading passage, μὴ παριστάνετε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα ἀδικίας τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ [“do not offer the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness”]. Unrighteousness uses the body of man as the means by which it declares itself: this is certainly the sense of ὅπλα [“instruments”], even though we should leave undisturbed its proper signification. And the end of this employment of men’s members, its result—thus we accept the dative—is the ἁμαρτία [“sin”]. This latter, therefore, is the full expression in fact of that former, the form under which the ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”] in every particular case appears; ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”] is the mind which suggests the meaning of ἁμαρτία [“sin”], and what it presupposes.
We are carried one step further by the comparison of ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”] and ἀνομία [“lawlessnes”]. Δικαιοσύνη [“righteousness”] is the ideal which man should set before him, and ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”] is disharmony with that; but ἀνομία [“lawlessnes”] is not simply the falling below a standard or ideal, it is also a violation of right. The idea of obligation is wanting in the ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”], but it is present in ἀνομία [“lawlessnes”]; the notion of guilt inheres in ἀνομία [“lawlessnes”], but not in ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”]. This latter presents the condition of man as one opposed to perfection; ἀνομία [“lawlessnes”] at the same time suggests that it is one of guilt, because it is παράβασις [“transgression”]. If the νόμος [“law”] makes sin exceeding sinful, then ἀνομία [“lawlessnes”] is the definition of this deepest and most aggravated aspect of sin. From what has been said, it now appears that ἁμαρτία [“sin”] marks out the individual act, or even the total character of the man, as evil; while ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”] and ἀνομία [“lawlessnes”] indicate the point of view from which it is thus evil,—that is, either as it is discordant with the idea of δικαιοσύνη [“righteousness”], or as it is violation of positive law, the νόμος [“law”]. When St. John teaches that πᾶσαἀδικία ἐστὶνἁμαρτία [“all unrighteousness is sin”], he intends to say that every instance of declension from the normal character of the Christian, from the Christian ideal, is realized and condensed into ἁμαρτία [“sin”]. No man can be ἄδικος [“unrighteous”] without doingἀδικία [“unrighteousness”]; and the doing of unrighteousness is simply ἁμαρτία [“sin”]. The proposition here laid down is in principle equivalent to saying that the corrupt tree must bring forth evil fruits; only that here more emphasis is laid on the fact that all unrighteousness, everything not right, that is in man, is at the same time ἁμαρτία [“sin”] or positive sin. Every defect of righteousness is concurrently absolute sin; every negative must suggest its corresponding positive; every minus of righteousness employ a plus of sin. Thus the proposition πᾶσαἀδικίαἁμαρτίαἐστὶν [“all unrighteousness is sin”] indicates how wide a range the idea of sin has. While the definition of each sin as ἀνομία [“lawlessnes”], 1Jn 3:4, enlarges the meaning of the idea ἁμαρτία [“sin”], our present sentence enlarges its comprehension or range. And thus this proposition is well adapted to the purpose of showing how little the apostle, speaking of intercession, could have thought of sin unto death: there are, indeed, so many sins with regard to which intercession may be applied, that the sin for which it has no validity may be left altogether out of notice.
If this, then, is the meaning of our two verses, it is plain that St. John neither says nor purposes to say anything about the nature of these sins πρὸςθάνατον [“unto death”]: all he emphasizes is, that intercession and its fruit avail only for sins not unto death. Intercession has only to do with them: that is the deeply important presupposition of the writer, never too much to be considered. That is, when he says ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον, αἰτήσει, καὶ δώσει [“if anyone sees his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask and God will give” cf. 1Jn 5:16
After having thus discussed the details, let us once more glance at the general connection. Supposing a right state of heart (1Jn 5:13), there may be confidence in prayer (1Jn 5:14), in that prayer which has in itself the assurance that it is heard (1Jn 5:15). And hence (as the future αἰτήσει [“he shall ask”] asserts) that must and will be offered wherever it is possible, that is, in regard to sins not unto death. How then, in the apostle’s meaning, is the sin not unto death to be discerned? By this, that for it and only for it are we to pray,—that is, in the sense of 1Jn 5:15, in the name of Jesus and μετὰπαῤῥησίας [“with boldness”]. Such prayer as this is in the case of sins unto death impossible. For as it is essential to this prayer that it has its energy in God, and accords perfectly with His will, it can never be offered where a man has fallen hopelessly into ruin; when, generally, a man is lost, while this takes place undoubtedly through an act of self-determination, it is also according to God’s will, and God cannot possibly by His Spirit prompt to prayer which is contrary to His will. Presupposing that we have the true Christian feeling,—and this presupposition impresses the whole of the conclusion of the Epistle,—I must feel myself urged to intercede for an erring brother; and when I have this impulse, this constitutes the assurance that his sin is not unto death: in regard to a sin unto death, I may indeed entertain good wishes for a brother, but never offer prayer ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ,μετὰπαῤῥησίας [“in the name of Jesus, with boldness”]. And where this strong confidence of petition is wanting to the Christian, who as such is filled with vehement brotherly love, and is conscious of freedom from every personal impulse, οὐλέγωἵναἐρωτήσῃ [“I am not saying that he should ask”]: he must not think himself urged by the apostle’s words, misunderstanding those words, to offer such a prayer; he must not stimulate his heart to that. Thus our passage is made most aptly to accord with what we have discerned to be the issue of the biblical teaching generally, and specially the Johannaean. St. John gives no external mark of the sin unto death; for this it cannot have, inasmuch as it is not the nature of the sin, but that of the sinner, that stamps its signature on sin unto death. He says only that where there is no sin unto death the Christian (the presupposal that he is a true Christian must be made very emphatic) will offer the true and all-acceptable intercession: wherever, then, such a prayer issues from the full heart there can certainly be no sin unto death. But he says nothing positively as to our relation to sinners unto death: he only declares that he does not exhort to intercession for them; they are for the rest altogether left out of his consideration. Nevertheless, it is plain, however indirectly plain, as well from these words as from the nature of the case, that for such sinners the prayer of acceptance is utterly out of the question.1 footnote
1So far as concerns the general apprehension of our text, comparison with the passages of the Gospels respecting the sin against the Holy Spirit, and that of the Epistle to the Hebrews respecting those who cannot be renewed to repentance, is, strictly speaking, irrelevant. Nevertheless it is an interesting question whether the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and apostasy from grace received are of the same import, and of the same import and comprehension as the sin unto death; or whether this last is the genus of which the others are species. For, that all blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is an ἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον [“sin unto death”] seems certain, because the impossibility of forgiveness certainly involves everlasting death; and the same may be said of Hebrews chapter 6. But the sins marked out in these passages might be individual expressions of the sin unto death by the side of others. It is not so, however; but we have in all three places only diverse expressions of one thing; they all have the same range and extent. As it respects Mat 12:31 and the parallels, this is proved by the circumstance that these passages and our present one look back to the same Old Testament fundamental declarations concerning the sins בְּיַדרָמָה [“with a high hand”fn] which are followed by excision. More exactly, Mat 12:31 refers back to Num 15:30. The Septuagint translates גַּדֵּףּ [“blaspheme”] there by βλασφημεῖν [“to blaspheme”];fn and the Peschito gives for the βλασφημία [“blasphemy”] of Mat 12:31 the word standing in Num 15:1-41 in the form of גּוּדוֹפִין [“reviling words”]. Now, if Num 15:1-41 is the original text for Mat 12:1-50, that is very important for the meaning of βλασφημεῖν [“to blaspheme”] in the latter. That is to say, in Numbers, sins not of word but of act are alluded to, and we must therefore take βλασφημεῖν [“to blaspheme”] in the wider sense; accordingly in Mat 12:1-50 also the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is intended not of words only, but also of actions. Indeed, it follows from this passage itself that the βλασφημία τοῦ πνεύματος [“blasphemy the Spirit”] is possible without the Spirit being mentioned: the Pharisees were in danger of committing this in the words they had spoken before, in which the Holy Ghost does not occur. To blaspheme the Spirit means to ascribe to the evil spirit that which men might and must acknowledge to be the work of the Holy Ghost; to ascribe it to the evil spirit against their knowledge and conscience, and thus deliberately to harden themselves against the operation of the Spirit. And this very sinning in spite of the knowledge of the truth and the power to follow it, this hardening, is meant in Heb 6:1-20. But all this is essentially the same which, as we have seen, St. John here signifies by the ἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον [“sin unto death”]: for he alone falls unsalvably and irremediably into death who refuses the power of life brought near to him, and absolutely closes his heart against it.
Textual note
[[*Correction: In Num 15:30, the Septuagint actually translates גַּדֵּףּ [“blaspheme”] as ἐνχειρὶὑπερηφανίας [“with a presumptuous hand”]. Perhaps Haupt was using another version of the Greek OT. But I am unable to find any version with this rendering. —Allan Loder]]