1 John 5:17

Chapter 18

SIN UNTO DEATH

1Jn_5:17

THE Church has ever spoken of seven deadly sins. Here is the ugly catalogue. Pride, covetousness, lust, envy, gluttony, hatred, sloth. Many of us pray often "from fornication and all other deadly sin, Good Lord deliver us." This language rightly understood is sound and true; yet, without careful thought, the term may lead us into two errors.

1. On hearing of deadly sin we are apt instinctively to oppose it to venial. But we cannot define by any quantitative test what venial sin may be for any given soul. To do that we must know the complete history of each soul; and the complete genealogy, conception, birth, and autobiography of each sin. Men catch at the term venial because they love to minimise a thing so tremendous as sin. The world sides with the casuists whom it satirises; and speaks of a "white lie," of a foible, of an inaccuracy, when "the white lie may be that of St. Peter, the foible that of David, and the inaccuracy that of Ananias!"

2. There is a second mistake into which we often fall in speaking of deadly sin. Our imagination nearly always assumes some one definite outward act; some single individual sin. This may partly be due to a seemingly slight mistranslation in the text. It should not run "there is a sin," but "there is sin unto" (e.g., in the direction of, towards) "death."

The text means something deeper and further reaching than any single sin, deadly though it may be justly called.

The author of the fourth Gospel learned a whole mystic language from the life of Jesus. Death, in the great Masters vocabulary, was more than a single action. It was again wholly different from bodily death by the visitation of God. There are two realms for mans soul coextensive with the universe and with itself. One which leads towards God is called Life; one which leads from Him is called Death. There is a radiant passage by which the soul is translated from the death which is death indeed, to the life which is life indeed. There is another passage by which we pass from life to death; i.e., fall back towards spiritual (which is not necessarily eternal) death. There is then a general condition and contexture; there is an atmosphere and position of soul in which the true life flickers, and is on the way to death. One who visited an island on the coast of Scotland has told how he found in a valley open to the spray of the northwest ocean a clump of fir trees. For a time they grew well, until they became high enough to catch the prevalent blast. They were still standing, but had taken a fixed set, and were reddened as if singed by the breath of fire. The island glen might be "swept on starry nights by balms of spring"; the summer sun as it sank might touch the poor stems with a momentary radiance. The trees were still living, but only with that cortical vitality which is the trees death in life. Their doom was evident; they could have but a few more seasons. If the traveller cared some years hence to visit that islet set in stormy waters, he would find the firs blanched like a skeletons bones. Nothing remained for them but the sure fall, and the fated rottenness.

The analogy indeed is not complete. The tree in such surroundings must die; it can make for itself no new condition of existence; it can hear no sweet question on the breeze that washes through the grove, "why will ye die?" It cannot look upward-as it is scourged by the driving spray, and tormented by the fierce wind-and cry, "O God of my life, give me life." It has no will; it cannot transplant itself. But the human tree can root itself in a happier place. Some divine spring may clothe it with green again. As it was passing from life toward death, so by the grace of God in prayers and sacraments, through penitence and faith, it may pass from death to life.

The Church then is not wrong when she speaks of "deadly sin." The number seven is not merely a mystic fancy. But the seven "deadly sins" are seven attributes of the whole character; seven master ideas; seven general conditions of a human soul alienated from God; seven forms of aversion from true life, and of reversion to true death. The style of St. John has often been called "senile"; it certainly has the oracular and sententious quietude of old age in its almost lapidary repose. Yet a terrible light sometimes leaps from its simple and stately lines. Are there not a hundred hearts among us who know that as years pass they are drifting further and further from Him who is the Life? Will they not allow that St. John was right when, looking round the range of the Church, he asserted that there is such a thing as "sin unto death"?

It may be useful to take that one of the seven deadly sins which people are the most surprised to find in the list.

How and why is sloth deadly sin?

There is a distinction between sloth as vice and sloth as sin. The deadly sin of sloth often exists where the vice has no place. The sleepy music of Thomsons "Castle of Indolence" does not describe the slumber of the spiritual sluggard. Spiritual sloth is want of care and of love for all things in the spiritual order. Its conceptions are shallow and hasty. For it the Church is a department of the civil service; her worship and rites are submitted to, as one submits to a minor surgical operation. Prayer is the waste of a few minutes daily in concession to a sentiment which it might require trouble to eradicate. For the slothful Christian, saints are incorrigibly stupid; martyrs incorrigibly obstinate; clergymen incorrigibly professional; missionaries incorrigibly restless; sisterhoods incorrigibly tender; white lips that can just whisper Jesus incorrigibly awful. For the slothful, God, Christ, death, judgment have no real significance. The Atonement is a plank far away to be clutched by dying fingers in the article of death, that we may gurgle out "yes," when asked "are you happy?" Hell is an ugly word, Heaven a beautiful one which means a sky or a Utopia. Apathy in all spiritual thought, languor in every work of God, fear of injudicious and expensive zeal; secret dislike of those whose fervour puts us to shame, and a miserable adroitness in keeping out of their way; such are the signs of the spirit of sloth. And with this a long series of sins of omission-"slumbering and sleeping while the Bridegroom tarries"-"unprofitable servants."

We have said that the vice of sloth is generally distinct from the sin. There is, however, one day of the week on which the sin is apt to wear the drowsy features of the vice-Sunday. If there is any day on which we might be supposed to do something towards the spiritual world it must be Sunday. Yet what have any of us done for God on any Sunday? Probably we can scarcely tell. We slept late, we lingered over our dressing, we never thought of Holy Communion; after Church (if we went there) we loitered with friends; we lounged in the Park; we whiled away an hour at lunch; we turned over a novel, with secret dislike of the benevolent arrangements which give the postman some rest. Such have been in the main our past Sundays. Such will be our others, more or fewer, till the arrival of a date written in a calendar which eye hath not seen. The last evening of the closing year is called by an old poet, "the twilight of two years, nor past, nor next." What shall we call the last Sunday of our year of life?

Turn to the first chapter of St. Mark. Think of that day of our Lords ministry which is recorded more fully than any other. What a day! First that teaching in the Synagogue, when men "were astonished," not at His volubility, but at His "doctrine," drawn from depths of thought. Then the awful meeting with the powers of the world unseen. Next the utterance of the words in the sick room which renovated the fevered frame. Afterwards an interval for the simple festival of home. And then we see the sin, the sorrow, the sufferings crowded at the door. A few hours more, while yet there is but the pale dawn before the meteor sunrise of Syria, He rises from sleep to plunge His wearied brow in the dews of prayer. And finally the intrusion of others upon that sacred solitude, and the work of preaching, helping, pitying, healing closes in upon Him. again with a circle which is of steel, because it is duty-of delight, because it is love. Oh, the divine monotony of one of those golden days of God upon earth! And yet we are offended because He who is the same forever, sends from heaven that message with its terrible plainness-"because thou art lukewarm, I will spew thee out of my mouth." We are angry that the Church classes sloth as deadly sin, when the Churchs Master has said-"thou wicked and slothful servant."

Chapter 19

THE TERRIBLE TRUISM WHICH HAS NO EXCEPTION

1Jn_5:17

LET US begin by detaching awhile from its context this oracular utterance: "all unrighteousness is sin." Is this true universally, or is it not?

A clear, consistent answer is necessary, because a strange form of the doctrine of indulgences (long whispered in the ears) has lately been proclaimed from the housetops, with a considerable measure of apparent acceptance.

Here is the singular dispensation from St. Johns rigorous canon to which we refer.

Three such indulgences have been accorded at various times to certain favoured classes or persons.

(1) "The moral law does not exist for the elect." This was the doctrine of certain Gnostics in St. Johns day; of certain fanatics in every age.

(2) "Things absolutely forbidden to the mass of mankind are allowable for people of commanding rank." Accommodating Prelates and accommodating Reformers have left the burden of defending these ignoble concessions to future generations.

(3) A yet baser dispensation has been freely given by very vulgar casuists. "The chosen of Fortune"-the men at whose magic touch every stock seems to rise-may be allowed unusual forms of enjoying the unusual success which has crowned their career.

Such are, or such were, the dispensations from St. Johns canon permitted to themselves, or to others, by the elect of Heaven, by the elect of station, and by the elect of fortune.

Another election hath obtained the perilous exception now-the election of genius. Those who endow the world with music, with art, with romance, with poetry, are entitled to the reversion. "All unrighteousness is sin"-except for them.

(1) The indulgence is no longer valid for those who affect intimacy with heaven (partly perhaps because it is suspected that there is no heaven to be intimate with).

(2) The indulgence is not extended to the men who apparently rule over nations, since it has been discovered that nations rule over them.

(3) It is not accorded to the constructors of fortunes; they are too many, and too uninteresting, though possibly figures could be conceived almost capable of buying it. But (generally speaking) men of these three classes must pace along the dust of the narrow road by the signpost of the law, if they would escape the censure of society.

For genius alone there is no such inconvenient restriction. Many men, of course, deliberately prefer the "primrose path," but they can no more avoid indignant hisses by the way than they can extinguish the "everlasting bonfire" at the awful close of their journey. With the man of genius it seems that it is otherwise. He shall "walk in the ways of his heart, and in the sight of his eyes"; but, "for all these things" the tribunals of certain schools of a delicate criticism (delicate criticism can be so indelicate) will never allow him "to be brought into judgment." Some literary oracles, biographers, or reviewers, are not content to keep a reverential silence, and to murmur a secret prayer. They will drag into light the saddest, the meanest, the most selfish doings of genius. Not the least service to his generation, and to English literature, of the true poet and critic lately taken from us, was the superb scorn, the exquisite wit, with which his indignant purity transfixed such doctrines. A strange winged thing, no doubt, genius sometimes is; alternately beating the abyss with splendid pinions, and eating dust which is the "serpents meat." But for all that, we cannot see with the critic when he tries to prove that the reptiles crawling is part of the angels flight; and the dust on which he grovels one with the infinite purity of the azure distances.

The arguments of the apologists for moral eccentricity of genius may be thus summed up:-The man of genius bestows upon humanity gifts which are on a different line from any other. He enriches it on the side where it is poorest; the side of the Ideal. But the very temperament in virtue of which a man is capable of such transcendent work makes him passionate and capricious. To be imaginative is to be exceptional; and these exceptional beings live for mankind rather than for themselves. When their conduct comes to be discussed, the only question is whether that conduct was adapted to forward the superb self-development which is of such inestimable value to the world. If the gratification of any desire was necessary for that self-development, genius itself being the judge, the cause is ended. In winning that gratification hearts may be broken, souls defiled, lives wrecked. The daintiest songs of the man of genius may rise to the accompaniment of domestic sobs, and the music which he seems to warble at the gates of heaven may be trilled over the white upturned face of one who has died in misery. What matter! Morality is so icy and so intolerant; its doctrines have the ungentlemanlike rigour of the Athanasian Creed. Genius breaks hearts with such supreme gracefulness, such perfect wit, that they are arrant Philistines who refuse to smile.

We who have the text full in our mind answer all this in the words of the old man of Ephesus. For all that angel softness which he learned from the heart of Christ, his voice is as strong as it is sweet and calm. Over all the storm of passion, over all the babble of successive sophistries, clear and eternal it rings out-"all unrighteousness is sin." To which the apologist, little abashed, replies-"of course we all know that; quite true as a general rule, but then men of genius have bought a splendid dispensation by paying a splendid price, and so their inconsistencies are not sin." There are two assumptions at the root of this apology for the aberrations of genius which should be examined.

(1) The temperament of men of genius is held to constitute an excuse from which there is no appeal. Such men indeed are sometimes not slow to put forward this plea for themselves. No doubt there are trials peculiar to every temperament. Those of men of genius are probably very great. They are children of the sunshine and of the storm; the grey monotony of ordinary life is distasteful to them. Things which others find it easy to accept convulse their sensitive organisation: Many can produce their finest works only on condition of being sheltered where no bills shall find their way by the post; where no sound, not even the crowing of cocks, shall break the haunted silence. If the letter comes in one case, and if the cock crows in the other, the first may possibly never be remembered, but the second is never forgotten.

For this, as for every other form of human temperament-that of the dunce, as well as of the genius-allowance must in truth be made. In that one of the lives of the English Poets, where the great moralist has gone nearest to making concessions to this fallacy of temperament, he utters this just warning: "No wise man will easily presume to say, had I been in Savages condition I should have lived better than Savage." But we must not bring in the temperament of the man of genius as the standard of his conduct, unless we are prepared to admit the same standard in every other case. God is no respecter of persons. For each, conscience is of the same texture, law of the same material. As all have the same cross of infinite mercy, the same judgment of perfect impartiality, so have they the same law of inexorable duty.

(2) The necessary disorder and feverishness of high literary and artistic inspiration is a second postulate of the pleas to which I refer. But, is it true that disorder creates inspiration; or is a condition of it?

All great work is ordered work; and in producing it the faculties must be exercised harmoniously and with order. True inspiration, therefore, should not be caricatured into a flushed and dishevelled thing. Labour always precedes it. It has been prepared for by education. And that education would have been painful but for the glorious efflorescence of materials collected and assimilated, which is the compensation for any toil. The very dissatisfaction with its own performances, the result of the lofty ideal which is inseparable from genius, is at once a stimulus and a balm. The man of genius apparently writes, or paints, as the birds sing, or as the spring colours the flowers; but his subject has long possessed his mind, and the inspiration is the child of thought and of ordered labour. Destroying the peace of ones own family or of anothers, being flushed with the preoccupation of guilty passion, will not accelerate, but retard the advent of those happy moments which are not without reason called creative. Thus, the inspiration of genius is akin to the inspiration of prophecy. The prophet tutored himself by a fitting education. He became assimilated to the noble things in the future which he foresaw. Isaiahs heart grew royal; his style wore the majesty of a king, before he sang the King of sorrow with His infinite pathos, and the King of righteousness with His infinite glory. Many prophets attuned their spirits by listening to such music as lulls, not inflames passion. Others walked where "beauty born of murmuring sound" might pass into their strain. Think of Ezekiel by the river of Chebar, with the soft sweep of waters in his ear, and their cool breath upon his cheek. Think of St. John with the shaft of light from heavens opened door upon his upturned brow, and the boom of the Aegean upon the rocks of Patmos around him. "The note of the heathen seer" (said the greatest preacher of the Greek Church) "is to be contorted, constrained, excited, like a maniac; the note of a prophet is to be wakeful, self-possessed, nobly self-conscious." We may apply this test to the distinction between genius and the dissipated affectation of genius.

Let us then refuse our assent to a doctrine of indulgences applied to genius on the ground of temperament or of literary and artistic inspiration. "Why," we are often asked, "why force your narrow judgment upon an angry or a laughing world?" What have you to do with the conduct of gifted men? Genius means exuberant. Why "blame the Niagara River" because it will not assume the pace and manner of "a Dutch canal"? Never indeed should we force that judgment upon any, unless they force it upon us. Let us avoid, as far as we may, posthumous gossip over the grave of genius. It is an unwholesome curiosity which rewards the blackbird for that bubbling song of ecstasy in the thicket, by gloating upon the ugly worm which he swallows greedily after the shower. The pen or pencil has dropped from the cold fingers. After all its thought and sin, after all its toil and agony, the soul is with its Judge. Let the painter of the lovely picture, the writer of the deathless words, be for us like the priest. The washing of regeneration is no less wrought through the unworthy minister; the precious gift is no less conveyed when a polluted hand has broken the bread and blessed the cup. But if we are forced to speak, let us refuse to accept an ex post facto morality invented to excuse a worthless absolution. Especially so when the most sacred of all rights is concerned. It is not enough to say that a man of genius dissents from the received standard of conduct. He cannot make fugitive inclination the only principle of a connection which he promised to recognise as paramount. A passage in the Psalms, {See Psa 15. Cf. Psa_24:3-7} has been called "The catechism of Heaven." "The catechism of Fame" differs from "the catechism of Heaven." "Who shall ascend unto the hill of Fame? He that possesses genius." "Who shall ascend unto the hill of the Lord?" "He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; He that hath sworn to his neighbour and disappointeth him not" (or disappointeth her not) "though it were to his own hindrance"-aye, to the hindrance of his self-development. Strange that the rough Hebrew should still have to teach us chivalry as well as religion! In St. Johns Epistle we find the two great axioms about sin, in its two essential aspects. "Sin is the transgression of the law": there is its aspect chiefly Godward. "All unrighteousness" (mainly injustice, denial of the rights of others) "is sin": there is its aspect chiefly manward.

Yes, the principle of the text is rigid, inexorable, eternal. Nothing can make its way out of those terrible meshes. It is without favour, without exception. It gives no dispensation, and proclaims no indulgences, to the man of genius, or to any other: If it were otherwise, the righteous God, the Author of creation and redemption, would be dethroned. And that is a graver thing than to dethrone even the author of "Queen Mab," and of "The Epipsychidion." Here is the jurisprudence of the "great white Throne" summed up in four words: "all unrighteousness is sin."

So far, in the last chapter, and in this, we have ventured to isolate these two great principles from their context. But this process is always attended with peculiar loss in St. Johns writings. And as some may think perhaps that the promise {1Jn_5:15} is falsified we must here run the risk of bringing in another thread of thought. Yet indeed the whole paragraph has its source in an intense faith in the efficacy of prayer, specially as exercised in intercessory prayer.

(1) The efficacy of prayer. This is the very sign of contrast with, of opposition to, the modern spirit, which is the negation of prayer.

What is the real value of prayer?

Very little, says the modern spirit. Prayer is the stimulant, the Dutch courage of the moral world. Prayer is a power, not because it is efficacious, but because it is believed to be so.

A modern Rabbi, with nothing of his Judaism left but a rabid antipathy to the Founder of the Church, guided by Spinoza and Kant, has turned fiercely upon the Lords prayer. He takes those petitions which stand alone among the liturgies of earth in being capable of being translated into every language. He cuts off one pearl after another from the string. Take one specimen. "Our Father which art in Heaven." Heaven! the very name has a breath of magic, a suggestion of beauty, of grandeur, of purity in it. It moves us as nothing else can. We instinctively lift our heads; the brow grows proud of that splendid home, and the eye is wetted with a tear and lighted with a ray, as it looks into those depths of golden sunset which are full for the young of the radiant mystery of life, for the old of the pathetic mystery of death. Yes, but for modern science Heaven means air, or atmosphere, and the address itself is contradictory. "Forgive us." But surely the guilt cannot be forgiven, except by the person against whom it is committed. There is no other forgiveness. A mother (whose daughter went out upon the cruel London streets) carried into execution a thought bestowed upon her by the inexhaustible ingenuity of love. The poor woman got her own photograph taken, and a friend managed to have copies of it hung in several halls and haunts of infamy with these words clearly written below-"come home, I forgive you." The tender subtlety of love was successful at last; and the poor haggard outcasts face was touched by her mothers lips. "But the heart of God," says this enemy of prayer, "is not as a womans heart." (Pardon the words, O loving Father! Thou who hast said "Yea, she may forget, yet will I not forget thee." Pardon, O pierced Human Love! who hast graven the name of every soul on the palms of Thy hands with the nails of the crucifixion.) Repentance subjectively seems a reality when mother and child meet with a burst of passionate tears, and the polluted brow feels purified by their molten downfall; but repentance objectively is seen to be an absurdity by everyone who grasps the conception of law. The penitential Psalms may be the lyrics of repentance, the Gospel for the third Sunday after Trinity its idyll, the cross its symbol, the wounds of Christ its theology and inspiration. But the course of Nature, the hard logic of life is its refutation-the flames that burn, the waves that drown, the machine that crushes, the society that condemns, and that neither can, nor wilt forgive.

Enough, and more than enough of this. The monster of ignorance who has never learnt a prayer has hitherto been looked upon as one of the saddest of sights. But there is something sadder-the monster of over cultivation, the wreck of schools, the priggish fanatic of godlessness. Alas! for the nature which has become like a plant artificially trained and twisted to turn away from the light. Alas! for the heart which has hardened itself into stone until it cannot beat faster, or soar higher, even when men are saying with happy enthusiasm, or when the organ is lifting upward to the heaven of heavens the cry which is at once the creed of an everlasting dogma and the hymn of a triumphant hope-"with Thee is the well of Life, and in Thy light shall we see light." Now having heard the answer of the modern spirit to the question "What is the real value of prayer?" think of the answer of the spirit of the Church as given by St. John in this paragraph. That answer is not drawn out in a syllogism. St. John appeals to our consciousness of a divine life. "That ye may know that ye have eternal life." This knowledge issues in confidence, i.e., literally the sweet possibility of saying out all to God. And this confidence is never disappointed for any believing child of God. "If we know that He hear us, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of Him."

On the sixteenth verse we need only say, that the greatness of our brothers spiritual need does not cease to be a title to our sympathy. St. John is not speaking of all requests, but of the fulness of brotherly intercession.

One question and one warning in conclusion; and that question is this. Do we take part in this great ministry of love? Is our voice heard in the full music of the prayers of intercession that are ever going up to the Throne, and bringing down the gift of life? Do we pray for others?

In one sense all who know true affection and the sweetness of true prayer do pray for others. We have never loved with supreme affection any for whom we have not interceded, whose names we have not baptised in the fountain of prayer. Prayer takes up a tablet from the hand of love written over with names; that tablet death itself can only break when the heart has turned Sadducee.

Jesus (we sometimes think) gives one strange proof of the love which yet passeth knowledge. "Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus"; "when He had heard therefore" [O that strange therefore!] "that Lazarus was sick, He abode two days still in the same place where He was." Ah! sometimes not two days, but two years, and sometimes evermore, He seems to remain. When the income dwindles with the dwindling span of life; when the best beloved must leave us for many years, and carries away our sunshine with him; when the life of a husband is in danger- then we pray; "O Father, for Jesus sake spare that precious life; enable me to provide for these helpless ones; bless these children in their going out and coming in, and let me see them once again before the night cometh, and my hands are folded for the long rest." Yes, but have we prayed at our Communion "because of that Holy Sacrament in it, and with it," that He would give them the grace which they need- the life which shall save them from sin unto death? Round us, close to us in our homes, there are cold hands, hearts that beat feebly. Let us fulfil St. Johns teaching, by praying to Him who is the life that He would chafe those cold hands with His hand of love, and quicken those dying hearts by contact with that wounded heart which is a heart of fire.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

5:17 not every sin leads to death: Those sins that do not involve ultimate apostasy can end in repentance and restoration (see Jas 5:20).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Jn 5:17. Πᾶσα ἀδικία) all wickedness. Instances of sin not unto death are of constant occurrence in life.—καὶ, and) and that too. The enunciation is this: Every wickedness is sin, (but) not (necessarily sin) unto death: but lest any one should interpret that too lightly, he prefaces it with the words, is sin.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn_5:17. To guard against indifference to transgressions occurring in the Christians life, the apostle continues: πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστί.

ἀδικία is not synonymous with ἀνομία, chap. 1Jn_3:4; for whilst ἀνομία there serves to strengthen the idea ἁμαρτία, the idea ἀδικία is here more particularly defined and strengthened by ἁμαρτία; ἀδικία, namely, is the character of every offence against that which is right, every breach of duty (Meyer). Though, on the one hand, every such transgression is sin; yet, on the other hand, it must be maintained that every sin does not lead to death; hence καὶ ἔστιν ἁμαρτία οὐ πρὸς θάνατον: καί is not adversative, but serves to emphasize the thought.

οὐ πρὸς θάνατον does not belong to ἐστιν (Luther: some sin is not to death), but to ἁμαρτία: there is sin not unto death.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn 5:17 . A gentle warning. “Principiis obsta.” Also a reassurance. “You have sinned, but not necessarily ‘unto death’.”

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The taking away of an objection: Indeed all iniquity is comprehended under the name of sin, but yet we must not despair therefore, because every sin is not deadly, and without hope of remedy.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

"Every unrighteousness (even that of believers, compare Jo1 1:9; Jo1 3:4. Every coming short of right) is sin"; (but) not every sin is the sin unto death.

and there is a sin not unto death--in the case of which, therefore, believers may intercede. Death and life stand in correlative opposition (Jo1 5:11-13). The sin unto death must be one tending "towards" (so the Greek), and so resulting in, death. ALFORD makes it to be an appreciable ACT of sin, namely, the denying Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God (in contrast to confess this truth, Jo1 5:1, Jo1 5:5), Jo1 2:19, Jo1 2:22; Jo1 4:2-3; Jo1 5:10. Such wilful deniers of Christ are not to be received into one's house, or wished "God speed." Still, I think with BENGEL, not merely the act, but also the state of apostasy accompanying the act, is included--a "state of soul in which faith, love, and hope, in short, the new life, is extinguished. The chief commandment is faith and love. Therefore, the chief sin is that by which faith and love are destroyed. In the former case is life; in the latter, death. As long as it is not evident (see on Jo1 5:16, on 'see') that it is a sin unto death, it is lawful to pray. But when it is deliberate rejection of grace, and the man puts from him life thereby, how can others procure for him life?" Contrast Jam 5:14-18. Compare Mat 12:31-32 as to the wilful rejection of Christ, and resistance to the Holy Ghost's plain testimony to Him as the divine Messiah. Jesus, on the cross, pleaded only for those who KNEW NOT what they were doing in crucifying Him, not for those wilfully resisting grace and knowledge. If we pray for the impenitent, it must be with humble reference of the matter to God's will, not with the intercessory request which we should offer for a brother when erring.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 17. All unrighteousness is sin] πασααδικια, Every act contrary to justice is sin-is a transgression of the law which condemns all injustice.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

17 All unrighteousness This passage may be explained variously. If you take it adversatively, the sense would not be unsuitable, “Though all unrighteousness is sin, yet every sin is not unto death.” And equally suitable is another meaning, “As sin is every unrighteousness, hence it follows that every sin is not unto death.” Some take all unrighteousness for complete unrighteousness, as though the Apostle had said, that the sin of which he spoke was the summit of unrighteousness. I, however, am more disposed to embrace the first or the second explanation; and as the result is nearly the same, I leave it to the judgment of readers to determine which of the two is the more appropriate.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

17. All unrighteousness is sin] A warning against carelessness about breaches of duty, whether in ourselves or in others. All such things are sin and need the cleansing blood of Christ (1Jn_1:9, 1Jn_2:2). Here, therefore, is a wide enough field for brotherly intercession. The statement serves also as a farewell declaration against the Gnostic doctrine that to the enlightened Christian declensions from righteousness involve no sin. Comp. the definition of sin as lawlessness in 1Jn_3:4.

there is a sin not unto death] Or, as before, there is sin not unto death: Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan here omit the indefinite article, though they all insert it in 1Jn_5:16. A warning against despair, whether about ourselves or about others. Not all sin is mortal:—an answer by anticipation to the unchristian rigour of Montanism and Novatianism.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

All unrighteousness is sin,.... All unrighteousness against God or man is a sin against the law of God, and the wrath of God is revealed against it, and it is deserving of death; yet all unrighteousness is not unto death, as the sins of David, which were unrighteousness both to God and man, and yet they were put away, and he died not; Peter sinned very foully, and did great injustice to his dear Lord, and yet his sin was not unto death; he had repentance unto life given him, and a fresh application of pardoning grace:

and there is a sin not unto death; this is added for the relief of weak believers, who hearing of a sin unto death, not to be prayed for, might fear that theirs were of that kind, whereas none of them are; for though they are guilty of many unrighteousnesses, yet God is merciful to them and forgives, Heb 8:12, and so they are not unto death.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

Ver. 17. There is a sin not unto death] All sins and blasphemies shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, &c. {See Trapp on "Mat 12:31"} {See Trapp on "Mat 12:32"} Every sin (in the desert considered) hales hell at the heels of it. Flagitium et flagellum ut acus et filum. There is no venial sin in itself. But the unpardonable sin is here distinguished from all other sins; 1. By the nature of it; it is not any one sin against the law, nor yet is it the direct breach of the whole law, Heb 10:28; but it is a sin against the gospel, a wilful and malicious refusing of pardon upon such terms as the gospel offereth it, scorning to be beholden to God for any such free favour. 2. By the effect, it is a sin unto death, it is infallibly damning, there is no expiation, but a certain fearful expectation of fiery indignation to devour these adversaries, Heb 10:27. God not suffering himself to be derided, nor his Spirit to be despited, smites them with an incurable blindness and reprobacy of mind; whereupon follows, 1. An impossibility of repentance, Heb 6:6; Heb 2:1-18. A desperate fury whereby they continue raving and raging both against the physic and the physician, to their own endless ruth and ruin.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

All unrighteousness is sin ... - This seems to be thrown in to guard what he had just said, and there is “one” great and enormous sin, a sin which could not be forgiven. But he says also that there are many other forms and degrees of sin, sin for which prayer may be made. Everything, he says, which is unrighteous - ἀδικία adikia - everything which does not conform to the holy law of God, and which is not right in the view of that law, is to be regarded as sin; but we are not to suppose that all sin of that kind is of such a character that it cannot possibly be forgiven. There are many who commit sin who we may hope will be recovered, and for them it is proper to pray. Deeply affected as we may be in view of the fact that there is a sin which can never be pardoned, and much as we may pity one who has been guilty of such a sin, yet we should not hastily conclude in any case that it has been committed, and should bear constantly in mind that while there is one such sin, there are multitudes that may be pardoned, and that for them it is our duty unceasingly to pray.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

All iniquity [4] is sin. The sense here is, that sin is always an injury or an injustice done to God; but though every sin implies such an injury and an offence against God, yet there are different degrees in such injuries, which are not always such an injustice as St. John calls the sin unto death. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Omnis iniquitas, Greek: pasa adikia, properly injustitia. It is not here Greek: anomia, as Chap. iii. 4.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

He intimates they should be cautious of all sin, especially more deliberate, (which the word αδικια seems to import), but would not have them account that every sin would make their case so hopeless, as such sin, which he called sinning unto death, would do.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

17. Unrighteousness—All wrongdoing or voluntary wrong-being. It may be an offence against man; it may be a corrupting of our own nature; it may be a small act, even a thought; but in each and every case it is appropriated by God as an offence against himself, and so is a sin.

Not unto death—It may be a small offence, a shortcoming, a moral error, and then, though a sin, it is not unto death. There may be an underlying spirit of repentance, of elastic repellance, so that it may not forfeit our justification or destroy our regeneration. And even if it render us unregenerate, it is not, therefore, necessarily unpardonable. Repentance may restore our sonship of God.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

All unrighteousness is sin. "Among the faithful this ought to be an indubitable truth, that whatever is contrary to God"s Law is sin, and in its,nature mortal; for where there is a transgression of the Law, there is sin and death" (Calvin). But this terrifying truth brings with it a word of encouragement. For if all unrighteousness without exception is sin, it follows that not every sin is unto death. It is incredible that the slightest departure from righteousness should involve eternal damnation (see notes on chapter 1:7).

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

All deviation from perfect holiness is sin; but all sin is not unpardonable.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

17. All unrighteousness. All wrong doing is sin, but the condition of soul that sets it against righteousness and against Christ as steel is a sin unto death. Such a soul repels Christ the life.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

17. πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστίν. A warning against carelessness about breaches of duty, whether in ourselves or in others. All such things are sin and need the cleansing blood of Christ (1Jn 1:9; 1Jn 2:2). Here, therefore, is a wide enough field for brotherly intercession. The statement serves also as a farewell declaration against the Gnostic doctrine that to the enlightened Christian declensions from righteousness involve no sin. Comp. the definition of sin as lawlessness in 1Jn 3:4.

ἔστιν ἁμαρτία οὐ πρὸς θάν. As before, there is sin not unto death. Luther has etliche Sünde here; eine Sünde in 1Jn 5:16: Wiclif, Purvey, Tyndale, Cranmer and the Genevan omit the indefinite article here, although they insert it in 1Jn 5:16. While the preceding statement is a warning against carelessness, this is a warning against despair, whether about ourselves or about others. Not all sin is mortal:—an answer by anticipation to the heathen rigour of Stoicism and to the unchristian rigour of Montanism and Novatianism.

Note the change in 1Jn 5:16-17 from ἁμαρτ. μὴ πρὸς θάν. (in a supposed case) to ἁμαρτ. οὐ π. θ. (in a statement of fact). Tertullian, the Vulgate, Harcleian Syriac, and Thebaic omit the negative and read et est peccatum (or delictum) ad mortem.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17.] Join together the confidence concerning prayer just expressed, and the all-essential Christian principle of brotherly love, and we have following, as matter of course, the duty, and the practice, of intercession for an erring brother. And of this, with a certain not strictly defined limitation, these verses treat. If any man see (on any occasion, aor. “shall have seen”) his brother (as throughout the Epistle, to be taken in the stricter sense: not “proximus quicunque,” as Calov., but his Christian brother, one born of God as he is himself) sinning (Düsterd. remarks, that the present part. is not merely predicative, as would be the infin. ἁμαρτάνειν, but more graphic, as describing the ‘brother’ actually in the act and under the bondage of the sin in question) a sin not unto death (see below), he shall ask (the future conveys not merely a permission, “licebit,” but a command, taking for granted the thing enjoined as that which is to happen), and shall give him life (viz. the asker shall give: not, as Beza, Piscator, Socinus, Grot., Benson, Bengel, Lücke, Sander, al., God shall give, though of course this is so in reality: but the words mean, he, interceding for his brother, shall be the means of bestowing life on him: “rogans vivificabit,” as the æthiopic version. The vulg. evades it by “dabitur ei vita.” This bestowal of life by intercessory prayer, is not to be minutely enquired into, whether it is to be accompanied with “correptio fraterna,”—whether it consists in the giving to the sinner a repentant heart (Grot., al.), but taken as put by the Apostle, in all its simplicity and breadth. Life, viz., the restoration of that divine life from which by any act of sin he was in peril and indeed in process of falling, but his sin was not an actual fall) for them that sin not unto death (the clause takes up and emphatically repeats the hypothesis before made, viz., that the sin of the brother is not unto death. It does so in the plural, because the αὐτῷ before being indefinite, all such cases are now categorically collected: q. d. “shall give this life, I repeat, to those who sin not unto death”). There is a sin unto death: concerning it I do not say that he should make request (leaving for the present the great question, I will touch the minor points in this verse. First, it necessarily by the conditions of the context involves what is equivalent to a prohibition. This has been denied by many Commentators, “Ora si velis, sed sub dubio impetrandi,” says Corn.-a-lap. And it is equally denied, without the same implied meaning being given, by Socin., Schlichting, Grot., Carpzov., Neander, Lücke, De Wette, Huther: some of these, as Neander, thinking it implied, that prayer may be made, though the obtaining of it will be difficult,—others, as De Wette, that it will be in vain, others as Huther, that St. John simply says such a case was not within his view in making the above command. And most of even those who have recognized the prohibition, strive to soften it, saying, as e. g. Lyra, that though “non est orandum pro damnatis,” yet we may pray for such a sinner, “ut minus peccaret et per consequens minus damnaretur in inferno:” or as Bengel, “Deus non vult ut pii frustra orent, Deu 3:26. Si ergo qui peccatum ad mortem commisit ad vitam reducitur, id ex mero provenit reservato divino.” Calvin indeed holds fast the prohibition in all its strictness, but only in extreme cases: adding, “Sed quia rarissime hoc accidit, et Deus, immensas gratiæ suæ divitias commendans, nos suo exemplo misericordes esse jubet: non temere in quem-quam ferendum est mortis æternæ judicium, potius nos caritas ad bene sperandum flectat. Quod si desperata quorundam impietas non secus nobis apparet, ac si Dominus eam digito monstraret, non est quod certemus cum justo Dei judicio, vel clementiores eo esse appetamus.”

Certainly this seems, reserving the question as to the nature of the sin, the right view of the οὐ λέγω. By an express command in the other case, and then as express an exclusion of this case from that command, nothing short of an implied prohibition can be conveyed.

The second point here relates to the difference between αἰτεῖν and ἐρωτᾷν. The first is petere, the second rogare: as in Cicero, Planc. x. 25, “Neque enim ego sic rogabam ut petere viderer, quia familiaris esset meus.” Cf. Trench, N. T. Synonyms, pp. 140-143, edn. 1865. αἰτεῖν is more of the petition of the inferior: “in victum quasi et reum convenit,” as Bengel: ἐρωτᾷν is more general, of the request of the equal, or of one who has a right. Our Lord never uses αἰτεῖν or αἰτεῖσθαι of His own requests to God, but always ἐρωτᾶν, Joh 14:16, Joh 14:16:26, Joh 14:17:9, Joh 14:15, Joh 14:20. It is true, Martha says, ὅσα ἂν αἰτήσῃ τὸν θεόν, δώσει σοι ὁ θεός, Joh 11:22, but it was in ignorance, though in simplicity of faith, see Bengel in loc.: Trench, p. 142: and my note, Vol. I. And this difference is of importance here. The αἰτειν for a sin not unto death is a humble and trusting petition in the direction of God’s will, and prompted by brotherly love: the other, the ἐρωτᾷν for a sin unto death, would be, it is implied, an act savouring of presumption—a prescribing to God, in a matter which lies out of the bounds of our brotherly yearning (for notice, the hypothesis that a man sees a brother sin a sin unto death is not adduced in words, because such a sinner would not truly be a brother, but thereby demonstrated never to have deserved that name: see ch. 2:19), how He shall inflict and withhold His righteous judgments.

And these latter considerations bring us close to the question as to the nature of the sin unto death. It would be impossible to enumerate or even classify the opinions which have been given on the subject. Düsterdieck has devoted many pages to such a classification and discussion. I can do no more than point out the canons of interpretation, and some of the principal divergences. But before doing so, ver. 17 must come under consideration).

17.] All unrighteousness is sin (in the words πᾶσα ἀδικία we have a reminiscence of ch. 1:9, ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα ἀφη ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἠμᾶς ἀπὸ πὰσης ἀδικίας, and also, but not so directly, of ch. 3:4, which is virtually the converse proposition to this. Here the Apostle seems to say, in explanation of what be has just written, “Sin is a large word, comprehending all unrighteousness whatever: whether of God’s children, or of aliens from Him.” The thoughts which have been brought into these words,—that ἀδικία is a mild word, meant to express that every slight trip of the good Christian falls under the category of sin, and so there may be a sin not unto death,—or, on the other hand, that it is a strong word, as Grot., “ἀδικίαν vocat non quamvis ignorantiam aut obreptionem subitam, sed quicquid peccatur aut cum deliberatione aut dato ad deliberationem spatio,”—or thirdly, as Beza, that “peccata omnia hactenus paria sunt, ut vel minima minimi peccati cogitatio mortem æternam millies mereatur …” and “omnia per se lethalia esse peccata,”—are equally far from the meaning of the words, whose import is, as above, to account for there being a sin not unto death as well as a sin unto death); and there is a sin not (in this case not μή, because no hypothetical case is put, nor one dependent on judgment, but an objective fact) unto death (not having death for its issue: within the limit of that ἀδικία, from all of which God cleanseth all those who confess their sins, ch. 1:9).

Our first canon of interpretation of the ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον and οὐ πρὸς θάνατον is this: that the θάνατος and the ζωή of the passage must correspond. The former cannot be bodily death, while the latter is eternal and spiritual life. This clears away at once all those Commentators who understand the sin unto death to be one for which bodily death is the punishment, either by human law generally, as Morus and G. Lange, or by the Mosaic law, as Schöttgen,—or by sickness inflicted by God, as our Whitby and Benson; or of which there will be no end till the death of the sinner, which Bede thinks possible (“Potest etiam peccatum ad mortem, p. usque ad mortem, accipi.” But he rejects this himself), and Lyra adopts. This last is evidently absurd, for how is a man to know whether this will be so or not?

Our second canon will be, that this sin unto death being thus a sin leading to eternal death, being no further explained to the readers here, must be presumed as meant to be understood by what the Evangelist has elsewhere laid down concerning the possession of life and death. Now we have from him a definition immediately preceding this, in ver. 12, ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει τὴν ζωήν· ὁ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει. And we may safely say that the words πρὸς θάνατον here are to be understood as meaning, “involving the loss of this life which men have only by union with the Son of God.” And this meaning they must have, not by implication only, which would be the case if any obstinate and determined sin were meant, which would be a sign of the fact of severance from the life which is in Christ (see ch. 3:14, 15, where the inference is of this kind), but directly and essentially, i. e. in respect of that very sin which is pointed at by them. Now against this canon are all those interpretations, far too numerous to mention, which make any atrocious and obstinate sin to be that intended. It is obvious that our limits are thus confined to abnegation of Christ, not as inferred by its fruits otherwise shewn, but as the act of sin itself. And so, with various shades of difference as to the putting forth in detail, most of the best Commentators, both ancient and modern: e. g. Aretius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Corn.-a-lap., Tirinus, Baumg.-Crus., Lücke, Huther, Düsterd.

Our third canon will help us to decide, within the above limits, what especial sin is intended. And it is, that by the very analogy of the context, it must be not a state of sin, but an appreciable act of sin, seeing that that which is opposed to it in the same kind, as being not unto death, is described by ἐάν τις ἴδῃ ἁμαρτάνοντα. So that all interpretations which make it to be a state of apostasy,—all such as, e. g. Bengel’s “peccatum ad mortem est peccatum non obvium, neque subitum, sed talis status animæ in quo fides et amor et spes, in summa, vita nova, exstincta est,”—do not reach the matter of detail which is before the Apostle’s mind.

In enquiring what this is, we must be guided by the analogy of what St. John says elsewhere. Our state being that of life in Jesus Christ, there are those who have gone out from us, not being of us, ch. 2:19, who are called ἀντίχριστοι, who not only “have not” Christ, but are Christ’s enemies, denying the Father and the Son (2:22), whom we are not even to receive into our houses nor to greet (2Jn 1:10, 2Jn 1:11). These seem to be the persons pointed at here, and this the sin: viz. the denial that Jesus is the Christ the incarnate Son of God. This alone of all sins bears upon it the stamp of severance from Him who is the Life itself. As the confession of Christ, with the mouth and in the heart, is salvation unto life (Rom 10:9), so denial of Christ with the mouth and in the heart, is sin unto death. This alone of all the proposed solutions seems to satisfy all the canons above laid down. For in it, the life cast away and the death incurred strictly correspond: it strictly corresponds to what St. John has elsewhere said concerning life and death, and derives its explanation from those other passages, especially from the foregoing ver. 12: and it is an appreciable act of sin, one against which the readers have been before repeatedly cautioned (ch. 2:18 ff., 4:1 ff., vv. 5, 11, 12). And further, it is in exact accordance with other passages of Scripture which seem to point at a sin similarly distinguished above others; viz. Mat 12:31 ff., and, so far as the circumstances there dealt with allow common ground, with the more ethical passages, Heb 6:4 ff., Heb 10:25 ff. In the former case, the Scribes and Pharisees were resisting the Holy Ghost (Act 7:51) who was manifesting God in the flesh in the Person and work of Christ. For them the Lord Himself does not pray (Luk 23:34): they knew what they did: they went out from God’s people and were not of them: receiving and repudiating the testimony of the Holy Ghost to the Messiahship of Jesus.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17. πᾶσα ἀδικία] Unrighteousness is one manifestation of sin, just as lawlessness is another. The most natural interpretation of the verse is that which sees in it a statement of the wide scope which exists for the exercise of Christian intercession, in spite of certain necessary limitations of its sphere. Windisch suggests that the difficulty might be removed by placing ver. 17 before 16c (ἔστιν ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον).

καί ἐστιν ἁμαρτία οὐ πρὸς θάνατον] The fact is stated objectively (οὐ). The distinction between sins “unto death” and “not unto death” is illustrated by Schöttgen from Rabbinic writers. His first quotation, however, from Yoma 50. 1, is not convincing (חטאת שׁמתו בעליה למיתה חטאת ציבור היא ולא למיתה), as חטאת seems to refer to the animal offered or set apart as a sin-offering (see Goldschmid). The expression in Sota 48. I, שׁ בו עצון מיתה, offers a more satisfactory parallel.

παντα [? πασα] pr. αρα Ia ὅ 454, 175 (794) | αδικια] post αμαρτια 1:0 H δ6 (Ψ): in iustitia arm-ed. | om. ου 13 67**. vg. sah. syr. arm. aeth. Tert.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Unrighteousness [αδικια] . This is the character of every offense against that which is right. Every breach of duty is a manifestation of sin. Compare 1Jo 3:4, where sin is defined as ajnomia lawlessness, and lawlessness as sin. See Rom 6:13.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

17. πᾶσα ἀδικία... omnis iniquitas... V., all unrighteousness... The words are added to shew the wide scope which is given for the exercise of Christian sympathy and intercession. Apart from such sins as are open manifestations of a character alien from God, there are other sins which flow from human imperfection and infirmity, and in regard to these Christian intercession has its work. All unrighteousness (c. i. 9), all failure to fulfil our duty one to another, is sin; and in this ample field there is abundant opportunity for the exercise of prayer. There is a sin not unto death, of which the consequences may be removed by the brother's petition.

The statement that ‘all unrighteousness is sin’ must be compared

1 It is interesting to notice that ἐρωτᾷν is used in this sense of Christian prayer for Christians in a very early inscription KG) KAl EPWTA YTTEP HMWN (Northcote and Brownlow, Roma Sotterranea, il. 159).

The first describes the absolute source of being: the second the actual (but not essential) position.

ἐκ τοῦ 6. ἐ.)}) See Additional Note on iii. 1.

καὶ ὁ x. 6.) This clause like the corresponding clauses in vv. 18 (ἀλλὰ ὁ yevv.), 20 (καί ἐσμεν), is an inde-

Syriac text has no reference to the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet see Harnack, Text. u. Untersuch. i. 114.

οὗτος.. «ζωὴ αἰών. The phrase is not exactly parallel with those which describe (as far as we can apprehend it) the essential nature of God (John iv.

24, 6. 1. 5, iv. 8). See Additional Note ..

on iv.8. It expresses His relation to men, and so far is parallel with Hebr. xii. 29 (Deut. iv. 24).

On ‘Eternal life’ see Additional Note.

4. A final Warning (21).

From the thought of ‘Him that is true’ St John turns almost of necessity to the thought of the vain shadows which usurp His place. In them the world asserted its power. They forced themselves into notice on every side in innumerable shapes, and tempted believers to fall away from the perfect simplicity of faith. One sharp warning therefore closes the Epistle of which the main scope has been to deepen the fellowship of man with God and through God with man.

Litlle children, guard yourselves from idols.

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889) and The Epistles of St John (1883) — public domain (pre-1929). Text recovered from Internet Archive / Google Books OCR scans. Westcott’s Gospel of John commentary is not included (its OCR lost the chapter running-heads required for reliable verse-keying). Some Greek quoted in the Hebrews volume is imperfectly rendered by the OCR.