Praying for capital and non-capital sins.

1 John 5.16-17.

In going through the Law of Moses, you’re going to notice a few of the sins listed in there are capital crimes; capital meaning “liable to the death penalty.” If an ancient Israeli committed any of those sins, the city’s judges were authorized to sentence them to death. Most of American society figures murder, rape, and treason are the only capital crimes, although way too many of us are pretty murdery and have no problem with killing people for simply being in the wrong neighborhood. Or being the wrong color.

Some years ago I read an English translation of the Septuagint. The bit which in the KJV is translated “that soul shall be cut off from his people,” Ge 17.14, Lv 7.20, Nu 15.30 which we usually interpret to mean ostracizing them from society or banishment, got translated, “that soul shall be utterly destroyed from among his people”—emphasis mine. That certainly doesn’t mean banishment; that means death. I checked the original languages, and yep, the Greek says ἀπολεῖται/apoleíti, “will be destroyed.” But the Hebrew has נִכְרְתָ֛ה/nikhrétha, “must be cut off,” which doesn’t necessarily mean death; it can mean, as we usually mean, banishment. Considering how excessive death appears to be for these crimes, you can see why most of us think it only means banishment.

But clearly the ancient Jews who translated the Septuagint disagreed. They regularly interpreted “cut off” to mean death—which means they saw far more sins as capital crimes. So… having sex with a woman on her period was a capital crime. Lv 20.18 Skipping Passover would be a capital crime. Nu 9.13 Yikes. Good thing the Romans didn’t let the Judeans practice the death penalty!

Because of injustice—like the obvious injustice of Christ Jesus getting sentenced to death and crucified—a number of Christians believe there shouldn’t be any death penalty; our governments clearly can’t be trusted to apply it fairly. Roman Catholics, Quakers, and Anabaptists are decidedly against it. Other sects of Christendom have no problem with it, and their members gleefully reflect the popular culture’s attitudes about executing criminals.

Me, I believe some crimes certainly merit the death penalty… but I also firmly believe in grace, and believe it’s wholly inappropriate to execute a repentant sinner who wants to try to make restitution for their crimes. And I likewise don’t trust the government to execute people fairly. Time and again, people have been found to be falsely accused, unjustly imprisoned, and sometimes unjustly executed. There should be fewer executions, not more. But because of the many bloodthirsty Christianists in this country, some states are most definitely pushing for more.

But enough about them. The apostle John lived in the Roman Empire, where the death penalty was regularly enacted by the Romans. Beheading for their citizens; crucifixion for everyone else. Hence Paul was beheaded and Simon Peter crucified during the Neronian persecution (64–68CE). John himself was exiled, which is how he ended up on Patmos, having visions of the End. Rv 1.9 Their crime, of course, was being Christian; the Romans considered “disturbing the peace” a capital crime, and anything could be labeled “disturbing the peace” if they so chose.

I bring up capital crimes because John brings up capital crimes in today’s passages. Or, as he puts it, an ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον/amartía pros thánaton, “sin unto death.” Roman Catholics have extrapolated this verse into their idea of deadly sins, but no, John is not talking about lechery, gluttony, greed, laziness, wrath, envy, and pride. He’s talking about sins where the legal consequence is the death penalty.

And, in context, he’s talking about boldness in prayer—in being able to come to our Father with our requests, and knowing our Father hears us. And in this passage, fellow Christians whom they can pray for. If they’re committing non-capital sins, go ahead and pray for them. If they’re committing capital sins… well, John’s not talking about that today. I’ll quote him, shall I?

1 John 5.16-17 KWL

16When anyone sees their¹ fellow Christian

sinning a non-capital sin,

one will ask

and God will give them¹ life—

to the one sinning a non-capital sin.

There is such a thing as capital sin;

I don’t say one should pray about that.

17Everything unjust is sin,

and sin which isn’t capital.

Boldness in prayer. ’Cause God’s listening.

1 John 5.13-15.

We Christians can get mighty bold when we approach God. As we should; we’re his kids, and our relationship with him is not a dysfunctional one, where every prayer request has some sort of quid-pro-quo God expects of us in return. True, it can definitely be dysfunctional on our part, where we’ll take God’s grace for granted. And some of us might think God does expect to make some deal with us before he’ll grant requests. But really, none of the dysfunction comes from God’s side. We’re encouraged to “come boldly unto the throne of grace,” He 4.16 and ask God for anything.

And one of the reasons John wrote his first letter was to remind his readers of this:

1 John 5.13-15 KWL

13I write you² these things

so you² might fully know

you² have life in the age to come,

granted to believers

in the name of God’s son.

14This is the boldness we have towards God:

When any of us ask according to his will,

he hears us.

15And when we know God hears us,

whatever we might ask him,

we fully know we have

the request which we asked of him.

The word παρρησία/parrisía in verse 14 is regularly translated “boldness,” and actually stems from the phrase πάς ῥῆσις/pas rhísis, “every [sort of] speech.” The sense is we Christians are able to say anything to God. Anything. Again, he’s our Father.

I used to shock people from time to time by talking to God as if I’m talking to anyone else; as if I’m talking to my dad. Which he is, after all; it shouldn’t shock people. Yet it does. Too many Christians are only comfortable with approaching God formally—with a built-in social distance between them and him, because he’s holy and they’re not. They don’t realize by adopting us as his kids, God’s made us holy too. We just have to act holy, for once—and stop mixing up solemnity or religiosity with holiness, ’cause that’s not what it means.

Anyway they think God should only be approached in a regal manner, with formal titles; he’s “thee,” not “you.” Lots of self-abasement, lots of special Christianese, lots of effort made to create a gap between us and our Father, and in so doing, undo everything Jesus came to earth to do. Jesus came to bring God near. But if you don’t understand what Jesus is all about, of course you’ll be happy to keep him far.

Witnesses to eternal life through God’s Son.

1 John 5.6-12.

Previously I wrote about the Johannine Comma, the textual variant found in the KJV and in the footnotes of current-day bibles, which inserts the trinity into verse 7. It kinda changes this passage substantially; it makes verses 7-8 read like so:

1 John 5.7-8 KWL

7For three are the witnesses {in heaven:

The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.

These three are one.

8And three are the witnesses on the earth}:

The Spirit, the water, and the blood.

The three are in the one.

The part in brackets comes from the Textus Receptus, which includes the comma—a clause which wasn’t found in Greek New Testaments until the 1100s. Yep, it was added to the bible in medieval times; John didn’t write it. Doesn’t belong there. Even if it does support the doctrine of the trinity; just because God really is a trinity doesn’t mean the comma should be in our bibles. Especially since the comma interrupts what John’s trying to teach.

In verse 5, John stated, “Who’s the winner over the world, if not one who trusts that Jesus is God’s son?” 1Jn 5.5 KWL Then he states Jesus has come into the world:

1 John 5.6-8 KWL

6This Christ Jesus is the one who comes by water and blood.

Not only by water,

but by water and by blood,

and the Spirit is the witness,

for the Spirit is the truth.

7For three are the witnesses:

8The Spirit, the water, and the blood.

The three are in the one.

Jesus is the one who comes by water and blood; and three are witnesses of this—the water and blood, plus the Holy Spirit. And these three are in the one, i.e. Jesus.

Now, insert the Johannine Comma into the text, and suddenly “the one” in verse 8 doesn’t appear to be referring to Jesus anymore. Now it’s referring to the trinity—“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. These three are one.” John’s trying to make a point about who Jesus is, but the Johannine Comma hijacks his point and makes it about the trinity—and says the Spirit, the water, and the blood testify to the trinity, not to Jesus.

What does water and blood have to do with the Father and the Holy Spirit? They don’t, ’cause neither of these persons of the trinity became human. Only the Word, the Son, the Second Person, became the man Jesus. Only he became incarnate. Only he “comes by water and blood,” which is an ancient euphemism describing childbirth. Jesus didn’t only appear to be human; he is human. Fully human. (And fully divine; I’m not denying that part, but John wants to emphasize Jesus’s humanity here.)

This is why the Johannine Comma doesn’t belong in 1 John. If you love that passage ’cause you can teach the trinity from one verse… well I can understand that; it’s handy. But it’s not what John wrote, and interferes with what John wrote. Teach the trinity from other, legitimate verses. (Jesus is God, Jn 1.1 Jesus’s Father is God, Jn 8.54 the Holy Spirit is God, Ac 5.3-4 and God is One. Dt 6.4) Don’t poke a hole in 1 John just because that verse is so convenient.

Historically, John’s whole water-’n-blood childbirth euphemism went right over Christians’ heads. Still does. So they either assume one of three things:

• It has something to do with the water of Jesus’s baptism and the blood of Jesus’s sacrificial death—the beginning and end of his earthly ministry.
• Or it has to do with the water and blood which poured out of Jesus’s side when the Roman soldier speared him. Jn 19.34
• Or the water refers to the sacrament of water baptism, and the blood refers to the sacrament of holy communion. How, it’s hard to say, but Martin Luther and Jean Calvin really, really liked this interpretation.

But properly, the water and blood testify to Jesus’s humanity. And so does the Holy Spirit, who indwelt Jesus same as he did the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament Christians; who empowered Jesus same as he can the rest of us Christians. These three are witnesses to Jesus’s humanity—the Spirit, the water, and the blood. ’Cause these three were in Jesus. “In the one,” as John put it.

And since the Holy Spirit is God, his witness isn’t a minor witness. It’s hugely important.

The Johannine Comma.

Today I’m gonna discuss a passage which looks very different in different bibles. And it’s not a minor, irrelevant passage; some Christians consider it an important proof text for how God is a trinity. Not that there aren’t other passages in the New Testament which reveal God’s a trinity, but this passage puts it all in one verse, and some Christians are enraged about how they find they can’t find this passage in every present-day translation.

I’ll start by comparing the King James Version with the American Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible. KJV first:

1 John 5.6-8 KJV

6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

This matches what we find in the Textus Receptus, and the Geneva Bible. But once the Revised Version was produced—and its American edition, the ASV—in those bibles the passage now looked like this.

1 John 5.6-8 ASV

6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

Shorter. Y’notice verse 7 in the KJV is gone. It got replaced by the second sentence of verse 6. Now, when the RV was updated by the Revised Standard Version, and the ASV was updated by the NASB, the verses were reshuffled again: Verse 6 was restored, verse 7 was shortened to “For there are three that testify,” verse 8 was shortened to “the Spirit, water, and blood,” etc.

1 John 5.6-8 NASB

6This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

So what’s going on here? Why’d the “Father, Word, and Holy Ghost” get dropped from verse 7? Simply put, John didn’t write it. It was added to the text in the 900s. It’s a textual variant which can’t be supported by serious scholarship.

John didn’t write it, but it’s nonetheless named after him: Scholars call it the Comma Johanneum, or Johannine Comma. No, “comma” doesn’t refer to our punctuation mark; the ancient Greek word κόμμα/kómma means a short clause in a rhetorical argument.

And as I’ve said, it has its fans. Fans who have embraced many foolish theories about why it’s been “edited out of the bible”—complete with conspiracy theories involving liberal theologians, anti-trinitarian textual critics, Satanists, Catholics, and every other boogeyman they fear. I come across such preachers from time to time, and I’d have a little more respect for them if they bothered to quote any of the bible in context. Scholarship just ain’t their thing.

Victory in Jesus… hidden in the Law.

1 John 5.2-5.

In the Council of Jerusalem, Simon Peter got up and rebuked the Pharisees among the Christians—those who insisted before gentiles become Christian, they gotta first become Pharisees, follow the Law of Moses, and undergo ritual circumcision if they’re male.

In his rebuke, he said something which is traditionally translated,

Acts 15.10 NASB

“Since this is the case, why are you putting God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our forefathers nor we have been able to bear?”

The assumption many Christians make is Peter was speaking of the Law: Yeah, you silly Pharisees, why are you making these gentiles follow the Law to be saved, when the Law never did save anyone?

But in context, that’s not what Peter meant. The “yoke” he meant was Pharisaism. The “traditions of the elders,” the interpretations of the Law which Pharisees upheld—and which Jesus regularly violated—were the yoke both Peter, his parents and grandparents and great-grandparents and a few more generations back, had been obliged to bear. But not too many generations back: Contrary what you might’ve been expecting, Pharisaism wasn’t that old. They claimed they went all the way back to Moses himself, but nah; more like 150BC or so.

Pharisaism is the yoke. Not the Law. Jesus upheld the Law. Y’know how we Christians say Jesus never sinned? He 4.15 Sin is when you transgress the Law. 1Jn 3.4 Jesus never did. He transgressed the heck out of Pharisee traditions, but never the Law. It is, he said, not passing away; not even after heaven and earth do. Mt 5.18 I should quote him more:

Matthew 5.19-20 NASB

19“Therefore, whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20“For I say to you that unless your righteousness far surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Christians were always meant to uphold the Law, same as Jesus did. But upholding it before turning to Jesus, as if being Law-abiding facilitates our salvation, is putting the cart before the horse. We’re not saved by following Law, but by following Jesus. We don’t lose our salvation by Law-breaking, by sin. Yep, even great big deadly sins. God saves us by his grace. Nothing else.

But now that we’re saved, now what are we to do? Duh; follow Jesus. And part of following him is doing God’s will. And part of God’s will is obeying his commands. You know, the Law.

1 John 5.2-5 KWL

2This is how we know we love God’s children:

When the we love the Father,

we also do his commands.

3For this the love of God:

We should keep his commands.

His commands aren’t hard!

4Since everyone fathered by God

wins against the world,

this is the win which conquers the world:

Our trust in God.

5Who’s the winner over the world,

if not one who trusts

that Jesus is God’s son?

Obviously plenty of Christians don’t wanna follow the Law, and have come up with every excuse they can to ignore it. And teach others to do the same. Me, I’d recommend we not follow those people who are gonna be the very lowest in God’s kingdom. Stick to Jesus.

If we don’t love others, we don’t love God.

1 John 4.16 - 5.1.

As John famously said in verse 16, God is love. Those who love—legitimately love, and aren’t just using a pop-culture definition of “love,” but are doing the sort of love as defined by scripture—are, whether they know it or not, interacting with God to some degree.

In today’s passage, John adds if we don’t love, particularly if we hate people whom God’s called us to love, we’re not interacting with God. How could we be?—we’re hating the people he loves.

And between loving our family and friends, loving our fellow Christians, loving our neighbors, and loving our enemies, Jesus has pretty much instructed us to love everyone. Indiscriminately. No, not with “tough love,” which is simply anger disguised as love, and also frequently used to justify a whole lot of hateful behavior. Actual love, which is kind and gentle and patient. Which isn’t trying to manipulate people into conforming to the way we think they oughta behave, but bears all things and hopes all things. 1Co 13.7

If we stick to love, actual love, we abide in God and he in us. If we ditch love in favor of society, even Christian society—which, whenever it encourages us to not love, isn’t all that Christian—in what way are we abiding in God? We’re not following him. We’re not fulfilling his love by displaying it to others. We’re not making him known. In fact we’re leading pagans to think the very worst things about the God we believe in. Christians who lack love are monstrous—and the god of monstrous people must himself be a monster, right?

All the more reason we Christians need to exhibit God’s love towards one another, and everyone. And if you’re afraid loving too widely might lead you into error, that’s an irrational fear. Love, done properly, gets rid of that fear. John says that too in today’s passage.

1 John 4.16 - 5.1 KWL

16We knew and believed the love

which God has in us.

God is love,

and one who remains in love

remains in God,

and God remains in them.¹

17This is how love was brought to completion by us:

We can be bold on Judgment Day,

because just as God is,

we also are, in this world.

18Fear isn’t in love.

Instead, a complete love throws fear out,

because fear has negative consequences.

Those who fear

haven’t completed love.

19We love {God}

because he loves us first.

20When anyone says “I love God,”

and hates their¹ fellow Christian,

they’re¹ a liar.

For one who doesn’t love their¹ fellow Christian

whom they¹ were able to see,

aren’t able to love God,

whom they¹ weren’t able to see.

21We have this command from God,

so one who loves God

might also love their¹ fellow Christian.

1All who believe Jesus is Christ

were fathered by God.

All who love the fatherer

also love those¹ fathered by him.

No one has ever seen God. Except 74 ancient Hebrews.

Most of the reason we Christians are pretty sure John bar Zavdi wrote both the gospel with his name on it, and the letters with his name on them, is ’cause the same ideas and themes (and wording, and vocabulary) come up in them. Including today’s bible difficulty, the idea nobody’s ever seen God. John wrote it in both his gospel and his first letter.

John 1.18 NET

No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

1 John 4.12 NET

No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God resides in us, and his love is perfected in us.

The reason it’s a difficulty? Because people have seen God. In Exodus 24, we have this interesting little story:

Exodus 24.9-11 NET

9Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up, 10and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear like the sky itself. 11But he did not lay a hand on the leaders of the Israelites, so they saw God, and they ate and they drank.

Wait, what?

Yeah, nobody bothers to read their Old Testament, so it stands to reason they’d utterly miss this one. Or any of the other God-appearances in the scriptures.

In the OT, on a regular basis, humans freak out when there was any possibility they’d see God. Jg 13.22 ’Cause a common ancient rumor was if a mortal looked upon the actual face of one of the gods, they’d die. God’s pure, holy awesomeness would consume them like a volcano taking out stupid tourists. Although you do get the occasional dark Christian claim that God would be unreasonably pissed about it, and destroy them for daring to approach his majesty. Pretty sure that second idea only reflects their twisted secret wishes about how they’d like their subordinates to approach them. God’s cool with his kids approaching him. Ep 3.12, He 4.16 But I digress.

Yeah, it was a rumor. And sometimes rumors are true. The LORD himself warned Moses he’d only get to see God’s back, because his front was much too much for the prophet.

Exodus 33.20 NET

But he added, “You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live.”

Yet we have this story in the middle of Exodus, where apparently 74 people saw God, had lunch with him, and lived to tell of it.

And it’s not the only instance! Abraham had lunch with God too. Ge 18.1-7 Well, more like served him lunch. Isaiah and Ezekiel saw God on his throne. Jeremiah even experienced God touching him. Jr 1.9

Whenever I point out this rather vast discrepancy, Christians flinch, then usually respond one of two ways. Either they dismiss the passages where people got to see God, or they dismiss the passages where seeing God should get you struck down. The authors of the bible must not really have meant what the text clearly says.

So John didn’t literally mean nobody’s ever seen God. What he meant was nobody’s ever known God; at least not to the level Jesus knows God, ’cause Jesus is God; “The only one, himself God, who is in closest relationship with the Father” and all that. After all, since Jesus is God and humans have seen Jesus, logically people have seen God. Jn 14.9 But have they known God?—there’s the quandary.

Or nobody has literally seen God: The 74 Hebrew elders didn’t really see him. They saw the pavement beneath his feet, and that’s all. Somehow they knew his bronze feet Rv 1.15 were on this pavement, but didn’t really see the feet; maybe he had really nice boots on, though that’s unlikely because you don’t wear shoes on holy ground. Ex 3.5 Anyway, not actually seeing God is why the Exodus passage emphasizes the sapphire pavement—it’s the only thing they could see. But they never saw his face.

So if Christians were taught to believe in inerrancy, this is how they achieve inerrancy: One of these passages must be wrong must not be literal. Which idea would you rather was true? Embrace that one, and put aside t’other.