Walk in the Light
1 - What is ‘Walking in the Light’?
That light represents the source of life would seem to fit best with the biblical data.
2 - What is your attitude towards sin?
3 - What is your attitude towards obedience?
This suggests that ‘walking in the light’ involves a willingness to be open towards God and his revelation in Christ, while ‘walking in the darkness’ involves a refusal to do this. The author of 1 John, however, is less concerned to define what walking in the light or the darkness means than he is to explain the consequences of doing so. As noted in the commentary on 1:6, the consequences of walking in the darkness while claiming fellowship with God are that ‘we lie and do not live by the truth’. The consequences of walking in the light are spelled out in 1:7.
The first consequence is, we have fellowship with one another. As people walk in the light with God, they have fellowship with one another. This statement comes as something of a surprise. We might expect the consequence to be that people who walk in the light would have fellowship with God. After all, that is what is denied to those who walk in darkness. However, the author says the first consequence is that we have fellowship with one another. This is not to say that those who walk in the light do not have fellowship with God, but rather to assert that those who do have fellowship with God as they walk in the light will also have fellowship with one another. Or, to put it another way, there is no real fellowship with God which is not expressed in fellowship with other believers. It would appear from what is to come later in this letter that this unexpected statement about the consequence of walking in the light is made to rule out the claim of the secessionists who say they do have fellowship with God while not sharing fellowship with other believers (in this case, with those of the author’s persuasion).
The second consequence is the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from every sin. As people walk in the light with God, the blood of his Son Jesus ‘purifies’ them from their sins. When the author speaks of the ‘blood of Jesus’ he is referring to his violent death on the cross, and it is this death which provides purification18 from sins for those who walk in the light with God. By his use of the present tense for the verbs ‘to walk’ and ‘to purify’, the author represents both the walking and the cleansing as ongoing activities. One lesson that may be learned from this second consequence is that walking in the light does not mean that those who do so never sin, but that they do not seek to hide that fact from God. They ‘walk in the light’ with him, and the result of their doing so is that the blood of his Son Jesus purifies them from their sins. Purification from sin, when unpacked, is virtually equivalent to forgiveness of sins, as the use of these two concepts in parallel in 1:9 indicates (the two concepts are also found in parallel in Jer 33:8: ‘I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me’). That the concomitant of walking in the light is being purified from every sin suggests that walking in the darkness might best be interpreted here, not simply as walking in ignorance, but as walking in sin.
From this survey of the use of the word ‘truth’ in 1 John, it is clear that the Johannine understanding of truth (involving ‘doing the truth’, not lying, understanding the message of salvation, acting truly in love, belonging to the truth, and truth personified in the Spirit) is different from Greek notions of truth (that which conforms to reality or logical facts). It is also different from the OT idea of truth as faithfulness and loyalty. There exist some parallels in gnostic writings where the enlightened are said to be indwelt by truth, and in the Dead Sea Scrolls where there are references to the sons/men of truth (1QS 4:5–6; 1QpHab 7:10), and where the Holy Spirit is associated with the truth (1QS 4:21). But none of these parallels comes near the Johannine idea of truth personified in Christ/God/the Spirit, who communicates not only his message but himself to human beings. De la Potterie, commenting on truth in the Fourth Gospel, sums it up well:
The Johannine idea of truth, then, is quite different from the intellectualist conception of the Greeks, for whom the truth was the reality, the essence of being, that is revealed to the spirit. In hellenistic dualism, this reality is transferred to the sphere of the divine, and consequently cannot be attained except by escaping from the world, and fleeing to the realm of light; but the cosmic dualism underlying this conception is liable to cut the world off from God. For John, on the other hand, truth is found in the word of the Father turned to mankind, incarnate in Christ, illuminated through the action of the Spirit. What men are required to do with respect to the truth is not to win it by intellectual endeavour; it is to receive and enter into it in faith, to submit to it and to live by it.
Read in light of 1:5–10, John’s purpose is that his readers should not sin particularly by denying God’s revelation of eternal life in Jesus (cf. 5:9–10).
The conjunction at 2:1a (kai) should be translated “and” rather than the NIV’s “but.”142 After warning his readers against denying sin (and thus denying God and Jesus) like the heretics, John adds the thought about the abiding effects of dealing with sin in the proper way (i.e., through Jesus) for himself and his readers.
The picture gleaned from the above examinations is that of a Helper who helps his followers whenever they sin by his atoning death (1:7), his righteousness (2:1b), and his role as their King (2:1b). Moreover, it is an ongoing work, since his function as their Helper is “with the Father” whenever any of his followers sins.160 Schnackenburg’s suggestion that Jesus’ high-priestly role lies behind this verse commends itself best in light of the evidence gathered above:
The whole picture is strikingly reminiscent of Heb. 7:25ff. The high priest, who is “holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners,” has offered himself once and for all and now lives forever to be the advocate of those who ‘by him draw near to God.’ … In addition to the idea of God as faithful and merciful (1:9), we now have Jesus Christ as the priestly advocate and mediator. He relieves the faithful of all their anxiety about their salvation, now once more endangered by sin, and he assures them that in spite of their weakness they can draw near to the throne of grace (cf. Heb 4:16; 10:19ff.).
In addition, two questions with which Morris challenges proponents of the expiation view have never been satisfactorily answered:
[First,] ‘Why should sin be expiated?’ ‘What would be the consequences to man if there were no expiation?… It seems evident on the scriptural view that if sin is not expiated, if men ‘die in their sins,’ then they have the divine displeasure to face, and this is but another way of saying that the wrath of God abides upon them. It seems that expiation is necessary in order to avert the wrath of God, so that nothing seems to be gained by abandoning the concept of propitiation.… [Second,] [What is] the meaning to be given to expiation[?] As commonly used the term seems to signify the removal of sin or guilt, but neither of these is a thing which can be objectively removed. Expiation can be given an intelligible meaning only when we move into the realm of personal relations. Sin has altered the relations between God and man, and expiation cannot be understood apart from the effects of an expiatory act on these relations. Unless we are prepared to say that in expiation all that happens is a subjective change in man, it would seem that we are committed to the view that expiation has a Godward aspect so that God now treats the sinner differently from before. Instead of God’s severity the sinner experiences God’s grace, which is only another way of saying that propitiation has taken place.
Within 1 John the idea of God’s coming judgment (which implies his wrath against sinners) through the revealing of Jesus a second time is clearly present (e.g., 2:28; 4:17–18). The Gospel of John likewise presupposes God’s judgment and wrath (e.g., 3:16–21, 36 [to which Morris alludes above]; 5:28–29; 8:21–24 [to which Morris alludes]; 15:6; 16:8–11; esp. 1:36; 11:49–52 with the crucifixion of Jesus in chap. 19). Most importantly, in the immediate context of 1:5–2:1, the concepts of the forgiveness of sins, the resulting fellowship with God, and the Advocacy of Jesus (whenever Christians sin) imply that sins are not only an impersonal barrier to fellowship but include the aspect of personal favor and disfavor. The considerations above require that at the very least, Jesus’ “atoning sacrifice” involved the propitiation of God’s wrath by taking on the punishment due for the sins that needed removal (expiation). Fellowship with God is possible because the sins that caused offense to God have been removed through Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, so that God’s wrath no longer abides on those who have fled for refuge in the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.
To be sure, it is a mystery that Jesus’ propitiation is for everyone and yet only some are saved. It is evident, however, that no one is saved unless he believes in Jesus and equally evident that many reject God’s universal invitation and command to believe in this Jesus.
In a grand mystery of redemptive love, God’s sovereign election and his effectual calling of his chosen ones works in beautiful concert with those who believe, persevere, and are saved. Jesus’ propitiation does not produce regeneration. Actual salvation is accomplished by Jesus’ propitiation and the believer’s response of faith.
The fact that Jesus’ propitiation is the only propitiation for all demands that the church proclaim this Jesus to the whole world. Like John, our joy is not complete until the full number of those whom God has given to Jesus believe in him and the whole apostolic fellowship enter into the new heaven and new earth (where God will dwell with his people forever as their God [Rev 21–22]).
Proper applications of this passage to daily Christian living are as follows: daily and continually believe in Jesus, confess your sins, and trust in Christ’s sufficient work for you. If you do these things, assurance is certain to be yours.
The history of Israel provides unmistakable evidence that communion and fellowship with God require obedience to his commands.
Therefore keeping the commandments is “not a condition” of knowing God “but a sign” that one does know God.
When one is born of God, he has been begotten into an intimate relationship with each member of the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and it is the keeping of the commandments that bears witness to this union.
In what seems on the surface like a contradictory statement, John goes on to assert in v. 8 that this command is also new. How? The law of love is new in the sense that it is seen in Jesus and established by him through his death and resurrection. This command is also new in that Jesus by his obedience fulfilled the whole of the law and gave it “a depth of meaning that it had never known before” (John 13:34b, 35). Finally, this command is new because for those who believe it makes possible a new and eternal life in which they are motivated by the grace of God to fulfill the law of self-sacrificing, Christlike love.204
“In it [light] there is no stumbling.”
A believer lives in the light, the very life of God, and gives evidence of his position by loving his fellow believers. This life, lived in this manner, provides no occasion for offense. Christians can walk without stumbling because they see where they are going and the result is they do not cause others to fall.
Those who hate their brothers live in a state of darkness where there is not just an absence of love, but an absence of God. In this darkness the individual is exiled from fellowship with the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the believing community. Far from knowing God, those who hate their brothers walk around confused and lost, not knowing where they are going. “In other words, unethical behavior not only contradicts the claim to be a Christian; it actually contributes to a spiritual downfall.”218
