In yesterday’s study, we concluded by looking at the first view of the “sin unto death.” Today we look at two other approaches.
2. A second view, supported in part by the concern of this letter, is that John is thinking of what we would call apostasy, namely a deliberate repudiation of the Christian faith by one who once was a Christian. Those who take this view find support for it both in 1 John, in regard to the Gnostics who had professed faith in Jesus as the Christ but who had later repudiated Him, and in other select New Testament passages which speak of falling away from Christianity. Hebrews provides the best examples of such texts, for it speaks of those who, like Esau, are “rejected,” finding “no place of repentance” though they seek it “with tears” (Heb. 12:17; cf. Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-27).
But is it really possible for one who is truly a Christian to apostatize? Or, laying aside the whole of biblical teaching which is clearly against this conclusion, is such a view even consistent with the theology that we find in this letter? Here Stott writes, “Surely John has taught clearly in the Epistle that the true Christian cannot sin, that is, persist in sin (3:9), let alone fall away altogether. He is about to repeat it: ‘we know that anyone born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him’ (v. 18). Can he who does not sin, ‘sin unto death’?”1 In these verses John is teaching the doctrine of eternal security or perseverance; but if this is so, then there is no such thing as apostasy by a genuine believer. The Gnostics, for example, were just not Christians to begin with (2:19). Similarly, those touched upon in the problem texts in Hebrews are best understood as being merely external adherents to Christianity.
3. A third view is that John is speaking of that “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” about which Jesus warned His disciples. He warns of it in Matthew 12, defining it as that extreme form of rejection of truth seen in ascribing God’s work to Satan. On this occasion the Pharisees had claimed that Jesus did His works of healing by Satan’s power. He countered by saying, “Wherefore, I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, neither in the age to come” (Matt. 12:31-32).
The major objection to this view is that it is hard to see how John could call such a hardened sinner a brother, as he seems to do. Stott, who holds to this interpretation, argues correctly that strictly speaking John does not call such a one a brother. He uses the word only for that one who does not thus sin, saying, “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death.” However, says Stott, in actual fact neither one can be thought of as a brother in the sense of being a true child of God. For the prayer is that even the brother might be given “life”; if this is so, then he must have been dead in sin originally.2 In this case, according to Stott, the prayer that John has in mind is a prayer for the salvation of unbelievers, with the promise that God will save such, as the Christian prays.
But is John using the word “brother” in a way which does not mean another child of God? Stott points out that the word can be used in a broader sense to designate one whom we might call a “neighbor,” citing 2:9, 11 and 3:16-17 as examples. But it is not so clear that these cases do support a broader use of the word. Nor is it easy to feel that John can be departing from the more precise usage at this point of his letter.
1John R. W. Stott, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 188.
2Ibid., 189-190.