A Study of 1 John
A Study of 1st, 2nd, & 3rd John
A. Basic principles of fellowship (1:5-2:2).
1:5. In the prologue the author asserted that he was writing about things he had heard, seen, and touched. Here he began with something he had heard. This is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you. By the words “from Him,” John no doubt meant from the Lord Jesus Christ whose Incarnation he had just referred to (vv. 1-2). The content of this “message,” as John expressed it, is that God is Light; in Him there is no darkness at all. This precise statement is not found in the recorded words of Jesus, but the author was an apostle who heard much more than was “written down” (cf. John 21:25). There is no reason to think that John did not mean just what he said. This is a truth he had learned from the Lord.
In describing God as Light, which John frequently did (John 1:4-5, 7-9; 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36, 46; Rev. 21:23), he was no doubt thinking of God as the Revealer of His holiness. Both aspects of the divine nature figure in the discussion of sin and fellowship in 1 John 1:6-10. As Light, God both exposes man’s sin and condemns it. If anyone walks in darkness, he is hiding from the truth which the Light reveals (cf. John 3:19-20). Thus revelatory terms such as “the truth” and “His Word” are prominent in 1 John 1:6, 8, 10.
It is important that the “message” John had heard is the one he directed to his readers (“we . . . declare to you”). Some scholars have maintained that the false assertions which are condemned in verses 6, 8, and 10 are those of the false teachers, or antichrists, about whom John wrote later. But there is no proof of this. The writer continued to use the word “we” throughout as though both he and his readership were in view. When carefully considered, the kind of claims which John refuted are precisely the kind which may be made by Christians who lose touch with spiritual realities and with God. The effort to find in verses 6-10 the doctrinal beliefs of heretical teachers lacks adequate exegetical foundation.
1:6. Since “God is Light,” it follows that a Christian cannot truly claim communion with Him while living in the darkness. As John warned, If we claim to have fellowship with Him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. John knew, as does every perceptive pastor, that Christians sometimes feign spirituality while engaging in acts of disobedience. The Apostle Paul had to deal with a case of incest in the Corinthian assembly (1 Cor. 5:1-5) and laid down a list of sins for which church members should come under church discipline (1 Cor. 5:9-13). Spurious claims to fellowship with God have been a tragic reality throughout the history of the church.
A Christian who says he is in fellowship with God (who “is Light”) but who is disobeying Him (walking “in the darkness”) is lying (cf. 1 John 2:4). Ten times John used “darkness” to refer to sin (John 1:5; 3:19; 12:35 [twice]; 1 John 1:5-6; 2:8-9, 11 [twice]).
1:7. There can be only one sphere of real communion with God—the light itself. Thus John insisted that this is where a Christian will find that communion: But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another. It is strange that many commentators have understood the expression “with one another” as a reference to fellowship with other Christians. But this is not what the author is discussing here. The Greek pronoun for “one another” (allēlōn) may refer to the two parties (God and the Christian) named in the first part of the statement. John’s point is that if Christians live in the light where God is, then there is mutual fellowship between Himself and them. That is, they have fellowship with Him and He has fellowship with them. The light itself is the fundamental reality which they share. Thus true communion with God is living in the sphere where one’s experience is illumined by the truth of what God is. It is to live open to His revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ. As John soon stated (v. 9), this entails believers’ acknowledging whatever the light reveals is wrong in their lives.
It is significant that John talked of walking in the light, rather than according to the light. To walk according to the light would require sinless perfection and would make fellowship with God impossible for sinful humans. To walk in it, however, suggests instead openness and responsiveness to the light. John did not think of Christians as sinless, even though they are walking in the light, as is made clear in the last part of this verse. For John added that the blood of Jesus, His Son, purifies us from every sin. This statement is grammatically coordinate with the preceding one, “We have fellowship with one another.” The statement of verse 7, in its entirety, affirms that two things are true of believers who walk in the light: (a) they are in fellowship with God and (b) they are being cleansed from every sin. So long as there is true openness to the light of divine truth, Christians’ failures are under the cleansing power of the shed blood of Christ. Indeed, only in virtue of the Savior’s work on the cross can there be any fellowship between imperfect creatures and the infinitely perfect God.
1:8. But when a believer is experiencing true fellowship with God he may then be tempted to think or say that he is, at that moment at least, free from sin. John warned against this self-deluding conception. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us (cf. v. 6; 2:4). If Christians understand the truth that God’s Word teaches about the depravity of the human heart, they know that just because they are not conscious of failure does not mean that they are free from it. If the truth is “in” them as a controlling, motivating influence, this kind of self-deception will not take place. Whether someone claims to be “without sin” for a brief period of time or claims it as a permanent attainment, the claim is false.
1:9. In view of verse 8, Christians ought to be ready at all times to acknowledge any failure which God’s light may expose to them. Thus John wrote, If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. Though the NIV‘s translation “our sins” (after the words “forgive us”) is quite admissible, “our” is not in the Greek text. The phrase (tas hamartias) contains only an article and noun and it is conceivable that the article is the type which grammarians call “the article of previous reference.” If so, there is a subtle contrast between this expression and the “all unrighteousness” which follows it. John’s thought might be paraphrased: “If we confess our sins, He . . . will forgive the sins we confess and moreover will even cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Naturally only God knows at any moment the full extent of a person’s unrighteousness. Each Christian, however, is responsible to acknowledge (the meaning of “confess,” homologōmen; cf. 2:23; 4:3) whatever the light makes him aware of, and when he does so, a complete and perfect cleansing is granted him. There is thus no need to agonize over sins of which one is unaware.
Moreover, it is comforting to learn that the forgiveness which is promised here is both absolutely assured (because God “is faithful”) and also is in no way contrary to His holiness (He is “just”). The word used here for “just” (dikaios) is the same one which is applied as a title to Christ in 2:1 where it is translated “the Righteous One.” Dikaios is also used of God (either the Father or the Son) in 2:29 and 3:7. Obviously God is “just” or “righteous” when He forgives the believer’s sin because of the “atoning sacrifice” which the Lord Jesus has made (see 2:2). As is already evident from 1:7, a Christian’s fellowship with God is inseparably connected with the effectiveness of the blood which Jesus shed for him.
In modern times some have occasionally denied that a Christian needs to confess his sins and ask forgiveness. It is claimed that a believer already has forgiveness in Christ (Eph. 1:7). But this point of view confuses the perfect position which a Christian has in God’s Son (by which he is even “seated . . . with Him in the heavenly realms” [Eph. 2:6]) with his needs as a failing individual on earth. What is considered in 1 John 1:9 may be described as “familial” forgiveness. It is perfectly understandable how a son may need to ask his father to forgive him for his faults while at the same time his position within the family is not in jeopardy. A Christian who never asks his heavenly Father for forgiveness for his sins can hardly have much sensitivity to the ways in which he grieves his Father. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Himself taught His followers to seek forgiveness of their sins in a prayer that was obviously intended for daily use (cf. the expression “give us today our daily bread” preceding “forgive us our debts,” Matt. 6:11-12). The teaching that a Christian should not ask God for daily forgiveness is an aberration. Moreover, confession of sin is never connected by John with the acquisition of eternal life, which is always conditioned on faith. First John 1:9 is not spoken to the unsaved, and the effort to turn it into a soteriological affirmation is misguided.
It may also be said that so long as the idea of walking in the light or darkness is correctly understood on an experiential level, these concepts offer no difficulty. “Darkness” has an ethical meaning (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “skotos,” 7:444). When a believer loses personal touch with the God of light, he begins to live in darkness. But confession of sin is the way back into the light.
1:10. However, after a believer sins, he should not deny that sin. If we claim we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar and His Word has no place in our lives. This statement should be read in direct connection with verse 9. When a Christian is confronted by God’s Word about his sins, he should admit them rather than deny them. To deny one’s personal sin in the face of God’s testimony to the contrary, is to “make” God “out to be a liar.” By contradicting His Word, a person rejects it and refuses to give it the proper “place” in his life.
2:1. Some of John’s readers might have thought his insistence on the sinfulness of Christians somehow would discourage holiness. The opposite was John’s intention as he affirmed: My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. He addressed them affectionately as an apostle with a fatherly concern (The Gr. word for “children” [“dear” is not in the Gr.] is teknia [lit., “little born ones”], used seven times by John in this epistle [vv. 1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21] and once in his Gospel [John 13:33]. A similar word tekna [“born ones”] occurs in John 1:12; 11:52; 1 John 3:2, 10 [twice]; 5:2; 2 John 1, 4, 13; and 3 John 4. On the other hand paidia [“children”] occurs only twice in 1 John [2:13, 18].)
The statements in 1:8, 10 about believers’ sinful tendencies do not encourage sin; they actually put perceptive Christians on guard against it. If a believer tries to make the claims denounced in 1:8 and 10, then he is most likely to fail to recognize and reject sin. But sin is nevertheless a reality, however much John wished his readers would not commit it. Accordingly he assured them, But if anybody does sin, we have One who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ the Righteous One. John did not want his readers to sin, but he knew that none of them was perfect and that all would need the help available from their Advocate.
The words “One who speaks . . . in our defense” translate a single term (paraklēton). Its essential meaning is captured by the KJV‘s familiar “Advocate.” John is the only New Testament writer to use it of the Holy Spirit (four times in his Gospel: John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). In these four verses the NIV renders it “Counselor” each time (cf. kjv‘s “Comforter”). The thought here in 1 John 2:1 is of a defense attorney who takes up the case of his client before a tribunal. The way in which the advocacy of the Lord Jesus works for His sinning people is admirably illustrated in His prayer for Peter (Luke 22:31-32). In anticipation of Peter’s approaching denial, Jesus asked the Father to prevent Peter’s faith from collapsing. He also had in mind Peter’s future helpfulness to his Christian brethren. There is no reason to suppose that Christ must ask God to keep a Christian from going to hell as a result of his sin. Eternal life is fully guaranteed to those who have trusted Jesus for it (John 3:16; 5:24; etc.). But the consequences of a believer’s failure, his restoration, and future usefulness are all urgent matters which Jesus takes up with God when sin occurs. His own personal righteousness (He is “the Righteous One”; cf. 1 John 1:9, God is “just”) is what uniquely suits Christ for His role as a Christian’s Advocate after he sins.
2:2. If God extends mercies to a sinning believer—and the believer does not reap the full consequences of his failure in his personal experience—that fact is not due to the merits of that believer himself. On the contrary, the grace obtained through the advocacy of Christ is to be traced, like all of God’s grace, to His all-sufficient sacrifice on the cross. Should any sinning believer wonder on what grounds he might secure God’s mercy after he has failed, the answer is found in this verse. So adequate is Jesus Christ as God’s atoning Sacrifice that the efficacy of His work extends not merely to the sins of Christians themselves, but also to the sins of the whole world. In saying this, John was clearly affirming the view that Christ genuinely died for everyone (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 19; Heb. 2:9). This does not mean, of course, that everyone will be saved. It means rather that anyone who hears the gospel can be saved if he so desires (Rev. 22:17). In context, however, John’s point is to remind his readers of the magnificent scope of Christ’s “atoning sacrifice” in order to assure them that His advocacy as the Righteous One on their behalf is fully consistent with God’s holiness.
In recent times there has been much scholarly discussion of the Greek word hilasmos, which the NIV renders as “atoning Sacrifice.” (The word occurs in the NT only here and in 1 John 4:10.) Some say the term is not the placating of God’s wrath against sin, but rather is an “expiation” or “cleansing” of sin itself. But the linguistic evidence for this interpretation is not persuasive. The view has been capably discussed and refuted by Leon Morris in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965, pp. 125-85).
God’s wrath against sin may not be a concept congenial to the modern mind, but it is thoroughly biblical. Hilasmos could be fittingly rendered “propitiation” (cf. the noun hilastērion, “propitiation,” in Rom. 3:25 and the verb hilaskomai, “to propitiate,” in Luke 18:13 and Heb. 2:17). The Cross has indeed propitiated (satisfied) God and has met His righteous demands so thoroughly that His grace and mercy are abundantly available to both saved and unsaved alike.
[1]
----
[1]Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (2:884). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.