Explain Like I'm 5: The "Death Sin"

1 John 5:16-17

If anyone sees a brother or sister committing a sin that does not result in death, they should pray, and God will give life to them—that is, to those who commit sins that don’t result in death. There is a sin that results in death—I’m not saying that you should pray about that. Every unrighteous action is sin, but there is a sin that does not result in death. (1 John 5:16-17, CEB)

I’ve had a busy week with my regular Tuesday article and then two articles (here & here) about Sam Smith & the Grammys so instead of finishing up our Analogies series, I thought I’d do a quick Explain It Like I’m Five article.

To those waiting on the “Gym” analogy, I promise its coming next week.

So what triggered my interest in 1 John 5:16-17?

I follow Jacob Wright on Facebook (you should too!). He is a Jesus follower and a sharp Christian thinker when it comes to viewing theology thru a Jesus lens. What I particularly like is that his comment section gets spicy from time to time.

In the comments, I came across a Catholic guy (this distinction will be important) who was arguing that some of us are irredeemable and on the express path to Hell. To say the least, this is contrary to my theology, but I was curious to know how he was building his argument.

Here is our exchange:

Me: You said “every person will be judged by their deeds”. As every person is a sinner then are we all going to hell?

Catholic guy: All are sinners, but not all are in *mortal sin*.

Me: Are you kind of Catholic in your thought that there are different levels of sin? And which sins are which level?

Catholic guy: Yes, I am Catholic. Scripture teaches that not all sin is deadly, or mortal. (He then cites 1 John 5:16-17 and the Catholic Church’s teaching on sin)

His next comment, though, gave me great pause:

Catholic guy: So, what we have are signs. Jesus says that we will know a tree by its fruit. This is what he is talking about. He is talking about knowing the goodness or wickedness of people by the actions they perform. Even here we only know the sign and not the inner reality directly, and sometimes the signs are ambiguous, so we must always be reserved in our judgment. But this also means we can always hold out hope for anyone because we do not directly see their souls, only God does. We may hope for the salvation of anyone upon their death, not knowing whether God has saved them. Even if there are no signs of grace. Sometimes there seems to be signs to the contrary. We can only pray for God's mercy.

Granted, this is “Facebook Comment Theology”, so people are marshalling their thoughts on the fly and this unfortunate soul was taking fire from all directions so I’m going to cut him some slack that his explanation is somewhat meandering (God knows I suffer from that as well).

With that in mind, let’s dig into it.

I’m operating under the theology that Jesus had already taken care of sin. See Romans 5:12-21, Colossians 2:13-15, John 3:16-17, John 16:33, Romans 8:1, as a small sample.

In my theology, assuming we are believers, Jesus has already done the heavy lifting.

But Catholic guy appears to be saying that some believers can be disqualified from Jesus’ atoning work based on the severity of their sin. What Roman Catholics term a “mortal sin”. We should be able to get a pretty good idea who is going to Hell based on their behavior, their “fruit”. He leaves hope for a last-minute pardon by Governor God, but that seems an iffy proposition.

Again, I’m not a fan of this theology at all.

Seems like we better be toeing the line pretty carefully. And for those of us who have more than a few “mortal sins” on our resume, it appears we’ve got to catch God on good day. Is there an article somewhere like those that tell me the best time to post on Facebook except they give me the best times to petition God? (Never on Holidays and try just after lunch so He is not hangry)

But it doesn’t matter if I’m not a fan of it. What matters is if his theological argument is stronger than mine.

And the linchpin to his theological argument is 1 John 5:16-17. That there is a distinction of sin that DOES NOT lead to death and sin that DOES lead to death.

My argument is that Catholic guy is misreading 1 John 5:16-17. And not just him, but all Roman Catholics as this is the linchpin of Roman Catholic sin theory. So I’m not just arguing with some rando on Facebook but Roman Catholics writ large which sounds like a great idea for a busy week.

Thankfully, there is an explanation in mainstream Protestant theology that I can turn to which is rooted in the environment that Saint John is in.

As Colin Kruse writes in his heralded commentary, The Letters of John, “Anyone seeking to make sense of the Letters of John really needs to have a working hypothesis concerning the events which lie behind them.”

Kruse then gives us a great synopsis of those events:

The Gospel deals primarily with the ministry of Jesus and reflects the conflict between Jesus and some of his Jewish contemporaries. At a secondary level, the way the story of Jesus is written may reflect something of the experience of the Christian community of which the Beloved Disciple was a member when he wrote his Gospel. This community consisted of a number of churches, probably located in and around Ephesus in the Roman province of Asia.

Sometime after the writing this early form of the Gospel, difficulties arose within this community. Some of the members had taken on board certain beliefs about the person and work of Christ that were unacceptable to the author of the letters and those associated with him. These new beliefs involved a denial that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, come in the flesh (1 John 4:2–3), and that his death was necessary for the forgiveness of sins (1 John 5:6–7). A sharp disagreement arose which resulted in the secession of those who embraced these new views (1 John 2:19).

The secessionists (as we shall call them hereafter) were not content to keep their new beliefs to themselves. Instead they organized a group of itinerant preachers who circulated among the churches and propagated their beliefs with a view to winning people over to their understanding of things.

So Saint John has got a mutiny on his hands!

And the purpose of these Letters is to shore up the knowledge and faith of those in his community who hadn’t bailed on him.

As Kruse writes, “The author’s purpose, however, was not to correct the secessionists (the letter was not written for them), but to show his readers that the secessionist claims were false. By doing this he wanted to prevent them from being deceived by secessionist teachings.”

So, with this as the background, let’s revisit a statement I made earlier:

In my theology, assuming we are believers, Jesus has already done the heavy lifting.

But what if you are not a believer? What if you are a secessionist from Saint John’s community? Wouldn’t it make sense that you can’t ask for atonement from a being that you don’t believe has the power to grant it?

If Jesus is the gift of life, then isn’t the denial of him a denial of life? And wouldn’t that be the one and only sin that would result in death?

See I don’t think Saint John is creating a categorization of sins. Instead, he is categorizing people.

He states in v16: “If anyone sees a brother or sister committing a sin that does not result in death, they should pray, and God will give life to them—that is, to those who commit sins that don’t result in death”. These “brothers and sisters” are believers, members of Saint John’s community. And Saint John is saying their sins won’t result in death because they aren’t committing the only sin that does, the sin of unbelief.

Then in v17 he tells them to not bother praying for these secessionists as no prayer can help them as they won’t accept the gift of life that Jesus is and that results in the sin of death.

For some reason this clicked with me before I knew the backstory so I was encouraged to find support in the commentaries I read:

“They are people who deny that Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh, and also deny the significance of his atoning death. This would mean that they place themselves outside the sphere of forgiveness, and their sins become sins unto death.” (Kruse: The Letters of John)

“John has already asserted that the Antichrists “remain in death” because they do not love true believers (1Jn 3:14–15). The “sin that leads to death” is therefore a combination of false doctrine (“idolatry”) and the lack of love the Antichrists have shown by leaving the community over doctrinal issues” (Thatcher: 1, 2, and 3 John)

“On the basis of the teaching in 1 John itself then we may argue that "sin leading to death" alludes to such wrongdoing as is incompatible with walking in the light and living as a child of God…A deliberate refusal to fulfill those conditions leads to the very opposite of light and life; it must end in darkness and death. Those who choose such a path are committing an unpardonable sin (cf. Mark 3:28-29 = Matt 12:31-32 = Luke 12:10); and by their basic denial of Jesus, and their lack of love, they are risking God's denial of them.” (Smalley: 1, 2, and 3 John)

“But what kinds of sin fall into these two categories? Here we turn to the evidence of the Epistle itself. It is plain that the author is most concerned about the sins which are incompatible with being a child of God, and these are summed up in denial that Jesus is the Son of God, refusal to obey God’s commands, love of the world, and hatred of one’s brothers…There is no doubt that when John wrote about it, he was thinking primarily of those who had left the church and whose lives were characterized by deliberate refusal to believe in Jesus Christ and to love their brothers.” (Marshall: The Epistles of John)

So much for a “quick article” but I thought important to include the 600 words of commentary from the foremost scholars regarding the Johannine Epistles, and these commentaries of Kruse, Thatcher, Smalley, and Marshall are considered best in class.

(Note: the historical context in which Saint John’s Gospel & Epistles were written is a phenomenal story, but I didn’t have another 2,000 words to explore it. Nonetheless, I would encourage you to do so.)

Additionally, I thought it important to shine a light on the doctrinal issue of atonement from sin. I’m certain my Catholic brothers and sisters will differ with me, but for those of us who are Protestant or Orthodox, I wanted to demonstrate that John isn’t putting a believers salvation in doubt. He’s just reinforcing the certainty that you can’t get salvation if you reject it.

You can’t win a game you won’t play.

So keep playing, my brothers and sisters. Even you Catholics who want to add complexity where it needn’t be added. Keep playing even when you stumble. Keep playing because in Jesus you have won.

Amen.

God bless you and remember…

Jesus loves you.

References:

Kruse, Colin G. (2000). The letters of John (Pillar New Testament Commentary). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Marshall, I. Howard (1978). The epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Smalley, Stephen S. (1984). 1, 2, and 3 John (Word Biblical Commentary). Word Books

Thatcher, Tom (2006). 1, 2, and 3 John (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary). Zondervan