By Dan Strathman
INTRODUCTION
Throughout John’s first epistle, he stresses that it is critical for believers to abide in Jesus Christ so that they can have confidence when He returns (1 John 2:28). To underscore that point, he gives several tangible examples of how the benefits of the abiding experience are manifest in believers’ interactions with one another. One such manifestation is the ultimate expression of love, with Jesus’ death serving as the example that believers who pursue fellowship with Him ought to follow (1 John 3:16-17). John’s choice of words in these verses is precise. By employing the verb opheilō, he gives a specific instruction that summarizes believers’ responsibility—not compulsion.
THE MEANING OF OPHEILŌ
The basic meaning of opheilō is “to be indebted to someone in a financial sense,” or regarding “social or moral expectations” (BDAG, p. 743). Another sense is “to be obligated”––that is, that “one must” or “one ought” to do some action (BDAG, p. 743). The latter sense is dependent upon the syntactical structure—the arrangement of words in a sentence—in which a second verb in the infinitive follows the verb opheilō. There are three such examples in 1 John (2:6; 3:16; 4:11).
JOHN’S USE OF OPHEILŌ IN 1 JOHN
In all three examples, John uses a verb in the present tense and active voice, followed by another verb in the infinitive. First, he tells his readers that they “ought… to walk” (1 John 2:6), then that they “ought… to lay down” their lives for others (1 John 3:16), and lastly, that they “ought… to love” one another (1 John 4:11). In all three examples, John also gives his readers an instruction in the form of an obligation with the model example for the fulfillment of that obligation: God Himself. Furthermore, the way that John uses opheilō is consistent throughout the letter. This is an example of a complementary infinitive in Greek, where the meaning of the main verb—in this case opheilō—is complemented by the subsequent infinitive verb.i This is a construction that we routinely use in English when we say something like, “I ought to go to the store,” or “I ought to study for my test.” Without the infinitive, the idea is incomplete. This syntactical construction requires the “helper” infinitive verb to complete the thought,ii and the verbs work together to prompt a desired action. The main verb in all examples therefore expresses an obligation, but an obligation to do what? The subsequent complementary verb in the infinitive answers that question.
A PROBLEM FOR REFORMED THEOLOGY?
John uses opheilō to provide instructions to his audience to prompt some action on their part. But because the directive is given first, it implies that his audience has the option, or capacity, to ignore the instruction. After all, if the desired action were automatic, why would there be a need to instruct a person to do that action? The reality is that John gives his audience instructions, but the way he guides them acknowledges that they have the option to ignore the instruction. This also supports the notion that the primary audience of 1 John was spiritually mature since John simply needed to highlight their responsibility rather than compel their action (cf. 1 John 2:13, 20, 27). Because of their spiritual maturity, and because John has already explained to them what is at stake, his audience would have been able to conceive of the consequences if they were to ignore his instructions. This means that believers are not automatically compelled to obey and follow Jesus’ commandments. John’s instructions leave room for the individual to choose whether to comply. This issue of the individual believer’s choice is where Reformed doctrine shows weakness. Reformed theology faces a challenge when reconciling the meaning of these verses, because these instructions conflict with the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Wayne Grudem explains that those who are born again will persevere to the end, and only those who persevere to the end are born again. This reasoning is essentially circular, and John’s instructions would be irrelevant to this view. Note Grudem’s explanation:
The perseverance of the saints means that all those who are truly born again will be kept by God’s power and will persevere as Christians until the end of their lives and that only those who persevere until the end have been truly saved.iii
Grudem implies that this is our responsibility. However, Berkhof explicitly states that perseverance is not a responsibility of man, but of God:
It is, strictly speaking, not man but God who perseveres. Perseverance may be defined as that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer, by which the work of divine grace that is begun in the heart, is continued and brought to completion. It is because God never forsakes His work that believers continue to stand to the very end.iv
But if faithfulness—exemplified by the actions that John instructs—is guaranteed, then his instructions are superfluous. From the Reformed point of view, someone truly born again would have no need of such instructions since perseverance is ensured by God. Why, therefore, would John need to provide those instructions? Even if, in their view, someone is not perfect, but God is and is responsible for a believer’s perseverance, why would an individual believer’s faithfulness really matter at all? On the one hand, a person who is truly saved would have no need of such instruction, so why would John provide it? On the other hand, if a person is not truly saved, they would likewise have no need for such instruction. Even if someone not of “the elect” wanted to, they would have no ability to respond because, according to the Calvinist, the non-elect are “totally depraved” and—from their own theological perspective—unable to persevere in good works.v Vos noted:
Total depravity, on the other hand, does mean that by nature no love for God is present as the motivating principle of our life: that it does not dwell in us as a disposition and therefore never determines our deeds, thoughts, and words; and, conversely, that in our entire life there is an undertow of hostility toward God that only needs an external stimulus to develop into conscious opposition toward the Lord. There is no spiritual good in us.vi
Calvinists are left with a conundrum and must choose one of two options. Either John is instructing those who are truly saved to do something that will automatically happen, or he is instructing unbelievers to do something that they are totally incapable of. To reconcile this discrepancy, some might try to explain that these are instructions given for believers to follow to prove to themselves, or to others, that they are indeed truly saved. Aside from the difficulties in logic already mentioned, they would have to contend with the fact that John explicitly associates himself with these instructions; in two of the three examples of opheilō, John uses we in the instruction (1 John 3:16; 4:11). To harmonize their theology with the text would force them to conclude that John himself was perhaps not saved, despite Jesus’ own words to the contrary (John 13:10).
TO HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD, WE OUGHT TO WALK IN THE LIGHT
The straightforward explanation for these verses, and an honest and consistent analysis of John’s use of opheilō, have nothing to do with the Calvinist concept of “the elect,” nor with the topic of assurance of everlasting life. John directed these verses—and the entire letter—to mature believers. He was not giving a set of tests to validate their regenerate status as children of God. He was teaching them how they may continue to abide in Christ and have ongoing fellowship with Him (1 John 1:3-4). It is this fellowship with God—not actions in and of themselves—that will allow faithful believers to be confident and not ashamed when He returns (1 John 2:28).
____________________
Dan is a GES Seminary student. He lives in Colorado with his wife, Ellie, and daughter, Zoe.
__________
i William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 4th ed (Logos), Zondervan language basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019), 372.
ii Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 598.
iii Wayne A. Grudem, “Chapter 40. The Perseverance of the Saints (Remaining a Christian),” in Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 788, italics his.
iv Louis Berkhof, “XI. Perseverance of the Saints,” in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1938), 546.
v Douglas Mangum, “Depravity,” The Lexham Glossary of Theology (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).
vi Geerhardus Vos, “Volume 2: Anthropology,” in Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., vol. 1–5 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016), 58. Vos (1862-1949) taught at Princeton Theological Seminary for thirty-nine years (retiring in 1932) and has been called the father of Reformed Biblical theology.
