Daily Readings | 20 Feb 25 | The Conclusion of 1 John; Jesus before Pilate and the Crowd
Scripture Readings: 1 John 4:20–5:21; Mark 15:1–15
I have decided to attempt doing a short reflection on the Byzantine Church’s daily readings when I am able. We will see how long this lasts, but I hope to keep me (and hopefully you) reading and contemplating Scripture.
These daily reflections are more of what am thinking when I read through these texts. I will put in hardly any research—if any at all. These should be read in that spirit: what do I find interesting and wish to discuss in the moment, and what happened to pop in my head.
Feast Day: Leo of Catania, Bishop
Readings: 1 John 4:20–5:21; Mark 15:1–15
Today I will comment on both passages because the ending of 1 John has always irked me—the whole book is rather frustrating, really. And, this passage in Mark plays into the misunderstanding irony that I have discussed the past few days.
Are There Different Types of Sin? Can Christians Even Sin?
The impetus for distinguishing between different types of sins derives directly from 1 John 5:16–17,
|16| If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal (ἔστιν ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον); I do not say that one is to pray for that. |17| All wrongdoing is sin (πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστίν, but there is sin which is not mortal (καὶ ἔστιν ἁμαρτία ⸀οὐ πρὸς θάνατον).
Frustratingly, the author never defines what qualifies as sin that leads “toward death” (lit).
Parsenios, First, Second, and Third John, 125 notes, “Many commentators have long understood this distinction in relation to OT texts that speak of sins and violations of the law of Moses that do or do not lead to death (Num. 18:22; Deut. 22:26).”
But, that solution does not really fit the context. Those sins that literally lead to a physical death in the Torah do not seemingly apply to the overarching point of the message.
Parsenios then comments, “The next and final verses might explain the sin unto death in a very different way, though, and in a way that is connected to the opponents and their departure from the community.”
This assumes a Johannine community, which I have never been fond of—a forthcoming book from Méndez brings the whole hypothesis into serious question, an inspiration behind this analysis.
In turn, The Church has developed their hamartiology—specifically the distinction between mortal and venial sins—on these verses, as seen in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC):
1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,*n* became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.
*n* Cf. 1 Jn 5:16-17.
The extrapolation is understandable since the epistle writer clearly has a view of tiered sins—even if never defined and delineated.
That said, looking at these verses, the author did not have this fully developed idea as the CCC. Afterall, he goes on to say in v. 18, which seems to entirely contradict vv. 16–17:
We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.
This passage certainly indicates an idea of a perfectionist sentiment—once one becomes a Christian, he or she will no longer sin. So, if that is the case, why discuss sins and praying for another if those “born of God” do “not sin”? They seem completely irrelevant,—vv. 16–17—if we are not to sin.
Even more aggravating, many other key ideas in the book are discussed in more detail (though still elusive).
Antichrists
This term is definitively defined by the author:
Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. (2:22)
In no uncertain terms, the antichrists are those who deny the Father and the Son, which he repeats again in chapter 4:
and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already. (4:3)
It certainly seems that the text states that the antichrist—all of them—are those who deny Jesus. In other terms, it appears that these are apostates, those who have left the Faith.
Redemption of Sins
The epistle lays out very clearly at the outset what dealt with our sins (presumably if this is a perfectionist text, those before conversion):
…but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1:7)
Then, again, in almost contradictory terms to 5:16–17, he wrote in chapter 2:
|1| My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; |2| and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (2:1–2)
There is an idea, though, that one should remain perfect. He is writing so that you may not sin. It is obviously a text centered on this point. But, again, he never defines what that is, much less the distinction between sin and sin towards death.
A potential cipher may come in chapter 3. 1 John states,
|4| Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. |5| You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. |6| No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him… He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. (3:4–6, 8)
Again, there is the perfectionist concept, but at least he more clearly defines what sin is: lawlessness, i.e., not keeping the commandments of God (cf. 5:1–5).
Certainly the author does not believe, though, that if one sins post-conversion, you are “of the devil” and there is not coming back to being '“of God,” right?
Solution?
The author does not clearly make his point known. This text has always been confusing, and it has befuddled commentators for centuries. Looking at any commentary or speculation on this text will reveal this rather quickly.
Although developed and expanded in greater detail though the centuries, the Roman Catholic reading may be a proper lens through which to read this text, which is why there is such an emphasis on remaining in a state of Grace in Catholic doctrine.
We certainly see a vein of this in 1 John. The author wishes to convey that those who sin do not abide in God (3:6). There is certainly an idea of redemption through the blood of Christ (1:7; 2:1–2), but it is unclear if this is an ongoing process. There is no clarification in the text on how one— if he should sin after becoming a Christian—might go about seeking forgiveness.
That said, the author has an opaque avenue for redemption: prayer. Those sins that do not lead to death have a simpler redemptive path. The sin toward death, though, he does not offer a solution.
As for what sin toward death is, in this text, it may seem that apostasy is the big sin for him. He describes the antichrists as rejecting Jesus and God (2:22; 4:3); going out from “us”—seemingly the Church as a collective—(2:19); and to sin is to be “of the devil” (3:8). The last verse of the epistle could be key to understanding this: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (5:21).
Nowhere else has idolatry been mentioned. The only sin specifically mentioned is murder with an example from Cain (3:12). So, why here, is there a mention of idols? It—on the surface level reading—appears to be a non sequitur.
John Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 330 points out,
The warning against idolatry in 1 John 5:21 may seem to us to come unexpectedly, from out of “left field.” That is because we live outside the pervasive reality of idolatry in the Roman empire. The probability is that 1 John relates the problem of idolatry to the opponents.
Although I agree with the sentiment, I believe this is an allusion to what the sin toward death might be—at least one of them because I do believe it is not one singular act and no other.
As this reads, it appears that this final statement is directed at Christians who apostatized back to their former Roman gods. The flow of the letter hinges on the idea of being without sin because Christ died to expunge them. So, to revert back to idols would be a slap in the face to God and his actions to save humanity. The close of the epistle is a warning to avoid the temptation of idols and the life any Christian might have had prior to converting to the Faith, especially since “the whole world is in the power of the evil one” (5:19).
Even though I am at peace with this understanding of the ending of 1 John, I am not satisfied. The confluence of these concepts—perfectionism, redemption, antichrists, apostasy, and sin—makes for a confusing epistle.
Jesus, the “King of the Jews,” or Barabbas?
As we have discussed in the past few Daily Readings, identity of Christ is a significant theological feature of Mark’s Gospel. We have read Peter declare Jesus to be the Christ;—though does not understand what that entails—the High Priest ironically declare Jesus as Christ; and Pilate has called Jesus “King of the Jews.”
Thus, we have a disciple make the statement, and there is an ironic and tacit confession from the Jewish Officials (High Priest) and the Romans (Pilate).
Now, we need the assent from the people.
This pericope sets the parameters of what choice the people have before them in vs. 7:
And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barab′bas.
The text makes an exceedingly clear statement here: Barabbas is a murder and an insurrectionist, someone who actually attempted to overthrow the Empire.
The crowd then requests Pilate to release a prisoner as he was accustomed to doing for “the feast” (vv. 6, 8). He then asks the crowd,
Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews (τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων)?" (15:9)
The crowd does not deny the reality of the title. Instead, they are riled up by the chief priests to release Barabbas, and so Pilate acquiesces their request.
The exchange continues with Pilate asking
|12| “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” |13| And they cried out again, “Crucify him.” |14| And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him.” (15:12–14)
The people acknowledge Jesus tacitly as “King of the Jews,” and then they send him off to his mock coronation (15:16–20) and enthronement on the cross (15:21–32).
The entire dramatic irony is playing out so that all the major figures required to seat Jesus on the throne as the coming Messiah have played their role. The entire narrative is dripping with irony because the fulfillment of all the foreshadowing in the Gospel is happening, just not how the characters—e.g., James and John; Peter—thought that it would.
Concluding Remarks
Today I rambled a bit more than I have in the previous Daily Readings, but the confusing nature of 1 John drove me down the rabbit hole a bit. I hope it was relatively coherent.
Despite how illusive understanding the exact message of 1 John might be, one can conclude with certainty: we as Christians should avoid sin. He we are truly committed to Christ and his Church, we should strive to abide in him and keep his commands, for they are not burdensome. We should love our brothers and sisters in Christ and help them along the way to perfection—or, at least the best we can.
If you have enjoyed this brief reflection on today’s Byzantine readings and wish to read more about NT studies, would you kindly share this post and subscribe.
