11 JOHN I. PROLOGUE AND PREMISES: 1 JOHN 1:1-10 A. The Life Appeared (1:1-4)
BEHIND THE TEXT Though it may at first seem a minor aspect of 1 John, part of understanding this small writing happens as one notices how the author uses language. This is true especially in regard to the verbs and pronouns in this section. The characters in the ancient story of the text go unnamed in 1 John, but there are characters, nevertheless. Noticing these references can give the modern reader a window into the circumstance of these first century Christians. How is this so? In the first four verses there are ten first person plural Greek verbs (“we”) and six related pronouns—“us” twice and “our” once. These pronouns identifies the author as situated among a group of like-minded Christians. This Johannine circle, or perhaps even “school” (Brown 1979; Culpepper 1975), can be thought of as disciples closely identified with the expressions of Christian faith associated with John the Apostle. There is a long and varied scholarly discussion as to authorship of all the books traditionally associated with John. Some view John the Apostle as the author of all the Johannine writings (the Gospel of John; 1, 2, and 3 John; and Revelation). Others opt for the likelihood of three authors. John the Apostle is considered the author of the Gospel. John the “elder,” is self-identified as the author in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1 and was perhaps also the anonymous author of 1 John. The third is John the Revelator (“servant” of Jesus Christ / God, Rev 1:1; “brother and companion” of the Christians of the seven churches of Asia, Rev 1:9) who wrote the Apocalypse. The above is a simplistic summary, for numerous variations about authorship appear in the scholarly literature (see Introduction). We cannot be certain whether all the Johannine writings came from a single author or from several who wrote under the influence of the disciple named John. But there is certainly a commonality of theme and language throughout. The existence of a “school” of like-minded disciples, perpetuating the Christian heritage received from John the Apostle, has solid merit (Culpepper 1975). This circle or school had distinctive ways of expressing the Christian message. The nuances of language in 1, 2, and 3 John, as well as the Gospel of John demonstrate this. The vocabulary of the Gospel of John and the Johannine letters bear more similarities to one another than to other parts of the NT (Smith 1991, 36). John writes from a group of Christians to a group of Christians—you (vv 2-3, always in the plural—you all). As he addresses the recipients of 1 John, he will shift so as to position himself among his readers. In vv 1-4 John spoke to the readers from a group (“we”), but then beginning at v 6 he stands with the readers as he uses the pronoun “we.” Knowledge of the prologue of the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18) serves the readers of 1 John well. One is hard pressed to make sense of the opening verses of 1 John without a familiarity with the Gospel’s prologue. John 1:1-18 and 1 John 1:1-4 share identical vocabulary and concepts (beginning, word, light, life, witness, and what has been seen). The author of 1 John writes as if his audience has the Gospel’s content already in mind. The prologue of 1 John 1:1-4 is reminiscent of the prologue of John 1:1-18, but falls short of being a commentary on it (Smith 1991, 36). These words, ideas, and other similarities will be discussed in the verse-by-verse sections of the commentary.
IN THE TEXT ■ 1 What is frequently called the letter of 1 John lacks virtually all of the formal aspects of Greco-Roman letters of the period (see Introduction). The opening lines fail to identify the sender or mention the recipients and their locale. Neither polite and customary greetings, nor assurance of prayers and well-wishes are offered. The conclusion of 1 John similarly lacks the typically expected farewells and greetings. At the same time, there is evidence of this short writing being a letter of some sort. In 2:19, the language clearly indicates a sense of John and his readers as belonging to a common community of faith. Further, John employs forms of the verb graphō, I write, thirteen times in ten verses (1:4; 2:1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26; 5:13). The work is a decidedly written document. Thus, it addresses a specific group of readers. Although it lacks the formal aspects of a Greco-Roman letter, its frequent use of warm and affectionate address (“children,” 15 times; “dear friends,” 6 times) has the feel of a personal letter. The first words of this work echo the prologue of the Gospel of John. Reference to the beginning (archēs) utilizes language familiar from the Gospel. There “the beginning” (John 1:1) speaks of the beginning of creation. As such, it draws readers further back, to the creation onarrative of Gen 1:1. But in 1 John the beginning seems to point more to the coming of Jesus and the developed tradition around him. That is, the beginning refers to the inauguration of the gospel message passed on in Johannine circles and the origins of the Christian faith (Smith 1991, 36-37). This may mean the beginning of their acquaintance with the gospel (Bruce 1970, 35) or the initial revelation of Jesus to the disciples after he was pointed out by John the Baptist (Brown 1982, 175). Later however, 1 John does use the beginning to refer to God (1 John 2:13, 14), more in keeping with the Genesis sense, and this may also be implicit in v 1 (Brooke 1912, 2). What was from the beginning had been heard (also in v 3). The use of logos, “word” in John 1:1 similarly suggests a proclaimed message. Yet, the verbs of seeing in 1 John 1:1 argue for more. They express the idea of an incarnate and personified logos not merely a heard word, a preached message, or a printed document. Thus, some translations attempt to clarify the identity of the logos here as Christ by means of capitalization—Word (so the NASB, NIV, KJV but not NRSV ; see Brown 1982, 163-166). This gospel was heard (akēkoamen) and seen (heōrakamen). The Greek perfect tense of both verbs indicates a past event that continues to affect the present. The past experience of Christ still shaped what John and the community heard and saw. The results of Christ’s coming had an “abiding” (Brooke 1912, 2), or “enduring” effect (Strecker 1996, 12). John and his community had heard the gospel message and the words still reverberated in their ears. What they had seen burned a persistent and indelible image on the retina of their mind’s eyes. They had seen evidence of the gospel’s truth and power; and those visions were still clear and centered before them. It seems more than coincidental that the tense shifts to the aorist (the simple past tense) with the verbs we have looked at (etheasametha; also in John 1:14) and have touched (epsēlaphēsan). This seems to demonstrate that John’s use of the perfect tense was intentional, perhaps for emphasis. F. F. Bruce suggests that the apparent duplication of visual verbs—seen and looked at—may instead be an attempt by the author to echo the language of John 14:9. This might mean that the seeing had gone beyond what was available to merely outward vision and penetrated to a discerning of the inward glory (1970, 36). Brooke links the use of the aorist to the quality, or character, of what was seen (Brooke 1912, 4). John stresses the visual experience by the words with our eyes (tois ophthalmois). This addition of eyes emphasizes and personalizes the account, giving immediacy to the report of the experience of Christ (Marshall 1978, 101; Brooke 1912, 2). In the same fashion the functionally unnecessary our hands again stresses the tactile evidence as experienced in all sensory ways (Brooke 1912, 5). This allows that the language can be understood as either literal or metaphorical (Brooke 1912, 9). The claims John makes in these opening lines are bold, first-person assertions. But they are first-person plural—we. Some interpreters have understood them as the words of an eyewitness of Jesus’ life, who speaks with a representative, collective voice (“we,” meaning “I” and the first generation of believers). This inclined such commentators to presume that John the Apostle was the author. But this does not adequately address the use of we in these opening lines. If John is making a strong claim to having been a personal eyewitness of the events of Jesus’ life, why did he not just use the first-person singular? He could easily have written “that which I have heard, which I have seen . . .” He is quite willing to utilize the first person singular elsewhere (see in ch 2). A first-person singular claim would have clearly asserted his unique apostolic authority. And he is, as we shall see soon enough, in a theological and ethical struggle with formidable opponents. Bruce distinguishes betweeen the “exclusive” and “inclusive” use of we. He argues that it is exclusive in v 3: “we had this experience and you did not.” He insists that the lines of the prologue are best understood as a first generation Christian addressing later Christians (1970, 38). The words of the prologue certainly claim an encounter with Jesus that is a highly personal and present reality. But they need not require the conclusion that the author was an eyewitness. They seem instead to be a standardized way of expressing confidence that the message of the gospel came faithfully to these readers in an unbroken chain from the beginning. Theophylact, a twelfth century commentator, interpreted some of the key words in v 1 in a figurative sense. He identified seen to mean that the disciples understood the meaning of the gospel message (as in the idiom, “Oh, I see it now.”). He likewise took touched to claim that the disciples thoroughly investigated the gospel message (Bray 2000, 167). The use of we may indicate only that the author is a spokesman for a Johannine “school” (see the Introduction), which sought to preserve and pass on the traditions about Jesus originating from the Beloved Disciple (Brown 1982, 175). The language—heard, seen, looked, touched—underlines the importance of personal witness to Jesus (Brown 1982, 163). The language is strongly experiential and sensual. The words reflect three of the five senses (hearing, sight, and touch). No doubt this auditory, visual, and kinesthetic language was employed to express a deep confidence in the full incarnation of Jesus Christ, a theological issue that is at the heart of the concern of these epistles. Thus Jesus is the Word of life (tou logou tēs zoēs). Yet John delays until verse three to mention him specifically. While the Gospel stresses the person of the Word, here the emphasis shifts to the life itself. This life, truly seen, heard, and touched, was inconceivable from the incarnate Son in whom it is imparted. As a fully human incarnation of the invisible God, he was visible, audible, and tangible (Smith 1991, 39). The expression Word of life appears in the NT only in Phil 2:16. There it refers to “the gospel message that brings life to other people” (Flemming 2009, 134). John here says nothing immediately about the content of this life, but depicts it as conveyed in a person, Christ.
It is clear that John is eager to advocate for a Christology that fully embraces the humanity of Jesus. He cannot allow the name Jesus and the title Christ to be separated. In the Gospel of John the text presupposes the humanity of Jesus and elaborates on his divinity. In 1 John the emphasis is inverted to a significant stressing of his humanity (Black 1990, 40; see 1 John 1:1-3; 2:2; 4:2, 10). Apparently in response to the docetic claims of onetime members of the Johannine community, 1 John especially insists upon the full humanity of Jesus Christ. The Christian faith was firmly grounded in a person, Jesus, and also anchored in history—time, place, and event. Therefore, John may be giving a subtle, layered meaning, of logos as both incarnation—Word—and the written and preached message—word—about Christ.
There is no basis in the Greek text of v 1 for the words this we proclaim. These are supplied from v 3, since v 1 is, strictly speaking, an anacoluthon. That is, it is a broken construction. The author does not grammatically complete the sentence he begins. He starts the sentence with a series of direct object phrases—That which . . . , which . . . , which . . . , which . . . .” But he never provides an explicit subject or verb for this abandoned sentence. The NASB accurately reflects the original language: “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—”. After a parenthesis in v 2, John finally clarifies his point in v 3, providing the subject and verb he left unexpressed in v 1. ■ 2 Jesus Christ—this person, who was life embodied—was made manifest or “revealed” (NRSV). The idea of life “manifested” (NASB), or embodied, has its basis in the Fourth Gospel: “In him was life” (John 1:4) and “I am . . . the life” (John 14:6). The translation appeared may not adequately express the force of the Greek verb ephanerōthē in John’s usage. The root of this word influences the English word “epiphany” and can refer to a manifestation or appearance of a deity. It often conveys the idea of making visible that which is invisible. Several NT passages use the term to refer to an appearance of the risen Lord (Mark 16:9, 12, 14; Luke 24:34; John 21:1, 14). All of the five instances in four verses in 1 John (1:2; 3:5, 8; 4:9) refer to Christ’s coming into the world. This appearing was soteriological—“to take away our sin” (3:5); “to destroy the devil’s work” (3:8); so “that we might live through him” (4:9). Jesus reveals God’s love and this same revelation continues in the living witness of the churches (Mϋller 1993, 414). The verb appeared is in the passive voice, indicating action done by another. Biblical language often employs what is called a divine passive. By using the passive, rather than the active voice, speakers/writers were able to avoid the divine name but still able to specify God as the agent who accomplished an action. This was one aspect of the post-exilic Jewish attempt by the surviving remnant to avoid the error of their ancestors. They were especially concerned not to take God’s name in vain as their forefathers and –mothers had done. [Begin Sidebar] Divine Passive The divine passive form in the NT, wherein God goes unnamed, is a residual practice from the Hebraic habit of avoiding saying the divine name. This extra measure of caution around speaking the name is tied both to a reverential posture towards God, who is worthy of honor above all, and a certain holy dread before the fearsome holiness of the divine presence. Those who place the kingdom and righteousness first “will be given” (by clear inference given by God) the things necessary for life (Matt 6:33). Faithful asking in prayer means “it will be given to you” (that is, God will give to you, Matt 7:7). When believers need words of faithful witness before authorities the promise is that they “will be given what to say” (Matt 10:19). In Revelation examples of divine passive forms include provision of purity “each of them was given a white robe” (Rev 6:11) as well as protection “The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach” (Rev 12:14). The divine passive affirms God as actively engaged in Scripture but without being overtly named. It also conveys the idea that all things happen within the permission of God; that nothing can happen that can surprise or derail the divine purpose. [End Sidebar] An interpretive paraphrase of v 2, accounting for the root of the verb and the unexpressed divine subject of the passive verb, would be: God fully revealed to us in the person of Jesus the very life of God, which was formerly unknown to us. It was not so much that they saw Jesus as eyewitnesses. Rather they were allowed to see what his enemies failed to see (see John 1:10-11: “the world did not recognize him. . . . his own did not receive him.”). They saw him for what he truly was. Thus, life, a later identified as eternal life, was placed on display, set before human eyes clearly, so that examination could be done. By examining him who was life, people could come to understand the nature of God. Athanasius spoke of this as “becoming by grace what God is by nature” (Athanasius, De Incarnatione, I), thus highlighting knowledge of God not merely as information but also, and crucially, transformation. Thomas said he would not believe unless he could see for himself, and touch the risen Jesus’ wounds (John 20:24-29). This challenge, taken up by Jesus when he appeared to the disciples a week later, has a similar tone to the opening lines of 1 John. In both instances hearing, seeing, and touching provide conclusive evidence that Jesus’ death was not the end of the story; far from it. In many ways, it was the truly significant fact that made the story of Jesus one that had to be told, and one that made the story truly good news. The crucified and risen Jesus could be experienced as alive and victorious over death. Otherwise, life through him was hopeless. Paul said it well in 1 Cor 15:14: “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is our faith.” The words life and eternal are combined into eternal life (tēn zoēn tēn aiōnion) elsewhere in the NT with some frequency (eight times in the Synoptic Gospels; nine times in Paul’s letters; twice in Acts). But eternal life is especially prominent in the Gospel of John (16 times) and in 1 John (six times: 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20). For John eternal life preceded the incarnation. It is life from another age (aiōn) or sphere, the life of God himself (Brown 1 982, 168). The Word (John 1:1) has lived eternally with the Father as divine life and power. The incarnate Jesus reveals God, bringing God’s final kind of life, the very life of God by his word (John 6:68; 10:28; 12:50; 17:2). Jesus is the true life (1 John 5:20),the life of God from and for all eternity—the past and future of God. John differs from the Gnostics importantly here. The Gnostics located eternal life in an almost inaccessible realm beyond time and space. But the Johannine view brings eternal life into the present and firmly anchors it to the person of Jesus Christ (John 17:3). The life experienced by the Christian has the seeds of eternity in it (John 4:14; 6:27; 12:25;Link 1976, 482). Jesus gives life and light (John 8:12); indeed he is “the light of the world” (John 8:12), giving light and life even to the creation itself (John 1:3-5). The eternal life that Jesus offers is eschatological—it belongs to the future in kind and duration. Namely, whoever has this life will not be lost in eternity (John 6:40; 10:28). And eternal life is also, in Johannine understanding, a present reality, something one has now (John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47; Schottroff 1991, 2:108). Verse 2 reports in the present tense, we . . . testify (martyroumen) and we proclaim (apangellomen). Translating it we are continually testifying and proclaiming highlights a continuous aspect. Authentic witness is ongoing. It is the story that never ends. The Greek word gives us the English word “martyr.” Though later in Christian circles witness had come to mean a willingness to die rather than recant one’s uncompromising devotion to Christ, such is not yet the case in 1 John (Beutler 1991, 2:392-93). [Begin Sidebar] Faithful Witness and Martyrdom In the book of Revelation, the title “faithful witness” (ho martys ho pistos) is ascribed first and foremost to Jesus Christ (Rev 1:5). In the introductory address to the church at Laodicea, the risen Lord identifies himself as “the faithful and true witness” (Rev 3:14). Witnessing for one’s faith did not initially mean to die for one’s faith. The witness of one’s life and faithful verbal witness—“go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:19)—all have strong merit. But martyrdom eventually became a synonym for faithful witness even unto death. This was due, in part, to the expanding persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire. The early tendency for association of these ideas appears already in a reference to “Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city” (Rev 2:13). Thus, he was one who fulfilled the call, and experienced the promise found a few lines earlier, “be faithful unto death and I will give you a crown of life” (Rev 2:10). Reference to “those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus” (Rev 20:4) further accentuates the growing issue of martyrdom in the late first century (adapted from Menoud 1962, 288). [End Sidebar]
■ 3 Faithful witnessing about Jesus comes from a community of faith. The author speaks with a corporate voice—we proclaim. The text uses the first person plural—we—in three verbs in this one verse. This collective testimony indicates that their experience of Jesus was not isolated, not a solitary religious practice. It was something entered into as part of a worshipping group. Not only did John write in behalf of a Christian congregation, he wrote to readers who were members of a Christian congregation—to you (plural, you all). In the Greek syntax the main verb for vv 1-3—we proclaim (apangellomen), anticipated in v 2.—finally arrives. The word connotes a messenger bearing news, with perhaps a more official sense. NT usage indicates that the word and its synonyms may be employed in both secular and religious contexts, and to describe official and unofficial declarations. The word is used in reports of resurrection accounts (Matt 28:8, 10; Luke 24:9; Mark 16:10, 13); of the message of God (Matt 11:4; Luke 7:22); and of Jesus as the Messenger of God (Matt 12:18; Heb 2:12)(Schniewind 1964, 56-73). A number of compound words with angello occur in the NT having essentially the same meaning (see v 5 anangellomen, “declare”). These related words often carry a special technical sense, the proclamation of God’s intention to save. This is not a declaring of something that is to come (a new age), so much as it is to recall and make effective what has been from the beginning (v 1), to make something clear that was already known (Becker and Mϋller 1978, 3:46-47). The piling up of experiential, testimony verbs and withholding the main verb as John does gives emphasis to the content of the message rather than to the act of proclaiming (Marshall 1978, 100). In v 3 the verb order is seen . . . heard, a reversal from v 1, heard . . . seen, which along with seen in v 2 provide a poetic repetition that intensifies the impact. John seeks to secure his readers to his understanding of the gospel and to himself. He calls them to embrace the Johannine community’s message of what was seen and heard. To do so would include them in the fellowship (koinōnian). To have fellowship was to have things in common—as to be business partners (Luke 5:10); to share a common faith (Titus 1:4); to enter with others into God’s grace (Phil 1:7); to participate in Christ (1 Cor 1:9); and to share the benefits of the spiritual blessings of Jews to Gentiles (Rom 15:27). Following Pentecost, Luke describes the life of the first Christtians simply as tēi koinōniai (Acts 2:42). In view no doubt was their “sharing-together quality of life” in the Holy Spirit now understood afresh in terms of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The word koinonia occurs only in this chapter in the letters (1 John 1:3, 6, 7) and never in the Gospel of John. Nevertheless, the word menō (“I remain”) in the Gospel conveys much the same idea and appears frequently (Smith 1991, 38; Bruce 1970, 38-39). The fellowship of 1 John was made possible and developed on the basis of a faithful proclamation of the gospel. Such a web of rich relationships, between one’s self and God, and with fellow believers is especially based on the incarnation (Strecker 1996, 20). Because the eternal life of God was revealed, and Christ entered into relationship with humanity, Christ makes possible and enhances authentic, spiritually valuable relationships between persons. The use of the present tense of the verb, exēte (you . . . may have), suggests that John addresses those who are already Christians, encouraging them to remain faithful (Marshall 1978, 105). To be in fellowship with Christ was to belong to a community of believers—you (plural) and with us (meth’ hēmōn). Here are described horizontal relationships, persons rightly relating to other persons. John also writes of connections between his readers and the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. In these vertical relationships, worshippers relate to God, who is the object of worship and author of all right relationships. Such common vertical partipation becomes the very substance of their horizontal relatonships. John was apparently troubled by some readers who were not closely enough tied to him and his message. Consequently, he wrote to call the readers away from a potentially eroding commitment to the apostolic teaching; he; rather, he sought to propagate it as he understood it. Further evidence of this may be seen in subsequent sections of the epistle about walking in light vs. darkness (1:5-7) and the labeling as “antichrists” those who “went out from us” (2:18-19). John does not write in a vacuum, but out of real pastoral concerns in his time and sphere of ministry. ■ 4 This verse touches on a vital, but easily overlooked, aspect of the advance of the gospel, namely the importance of writing—we write (graphomen). John stresses the importance of this essential means of pastoral care from a distance an inordinate number of times for such a short letter (write appears ten times in seven verses in 1 John—1:4; 2:1, 12, 13, 14, 21; 5:13). In the shorter letters he minimizes the value of writing (while writing!) and expresses his preference for a personal visit (2 John 12; 3 John 13). But in 1 John he writes quite a bit. The document we call the Bible is available to modern readers because many wrote. Included are both original authors and countless others who faithfully copied manuscripts by hand and cared for them through the ages before the invention of the printing press. Biblical prophets put pen and paper together, understanding they were doing so in response to divine command (e.g., Isa 30:8; Jer 30:2; Hab 2:2). The Book of Revelation records the command from God / Christ / an angel to “write” 12 times (Rev 1:11, 19; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5). Here, John considers writing the means of bringing to completion the joy of the senders (our joy), or of the readers (some mss. read “your” joy). The word joy (chara, related to the Greek word for grace, charis) appears nine times in the Fourth Gospel, seven of these among the words of Jesus (3:29; 15:11; 16:20-24; 17:13). The words here repeat those of John 16:24: “that your joy may be full” (hina hē chara hymōn hē peplērōmenē). The language is identical, except in manuscripts that have “our” rather than “your.” The NIV translators preferred the reading our (hēmōn) on the basis of early and strong manuscript evidence (the two oldest uncial manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both from the 4th century). It is also the somewhat more unexpected, thus more likely, reading. A later editor would have been inclined to have smoothed out the reading, not to have made it more difficult. The variant reading your (hymōn) in 1 John may have been introduced by a scribe attempting to harmonize the epistle with the text from the Gospel of John (John 16:24). Or, it may have been the result of a scribal misunderstanding when a reader in a scriptorium, dictating to a group of scribes making multiple copies of 1 John, was heard incorrectly. The difference between the words—hēmōn, hymōn—to the ear, would be somewhat hard to catch. The word joy appears in the Johannine letters just three times: here, in 2 John 12 (“so that our joy may be full”), and in 3 John 4 (“no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth”). Due to the mutual joy they experienced in their shared commitments they preserved their written communications and looked forward to face-to-face contact. The readers of 1 John no doubt heard echoes of the Gospel of John, which emphasized joy in Jesus’ last discourse in the Upper Room (see John 15:11; 16:24). The discourse on “abiding” in John 15 concludes with a promise of a filling with joy (see John 3:29; 16:24; 17:13). The pattern in John 15 is similar to the one here, in which a shared relationship—fellowship—results in joy. John writes that the joy of this Johannine circle may be made complete (peplērōmenē). That is, he wants to contribute to their joy being “filled up,” so that they may have joy in abundance. The same phrase appears in 2 John 12. The perfect tense of the participle suggests the idea of a joy that had been brought to a fullness that is sustained. Their fullness of joy was not to be a memory, but to be continually true, to have an unending impact. Furthermore, the passive voice of the participle reminds the readers that joy is a gracious gift from God. As a gift, joy is experienced when received in a faithful, corporate setting in which the hearers obey what they have been taught by apostolic authority.
FROM THE TEXT 1. A Challenge to Faithful Witness. The message of these verses challenges the readers to be faithful witnesses for the gospel. Those who saw and still see displayed the life which leads to “eternal life” (v 2) have an ongoing obligation to be faithful examples of and spokespersons for this life. Hearers in every generation become stewards of the gospel story they have received. They are called to tell the story and share the life it offers. The best and most effective witness is the cumulative effect of many believers. A long line of faithful witnesses, both present (family, friend, neighbor, work associate) and past--reaching across the ages (the first Christians, those who translated scripture, etc.), collectively contribute to the telling of the gospel. The story never ends. How do we become faithful witnesses? We witness faithfully, first, by personally embracing the message of the Christian faith and the person of Jesus Christ. Second, faithful testimony happens as we immerse ourselves in that faith. By studying and living its message, we become confident and competent embodiments and re-tellers of the story. This requires study of the Scriptures and obedience to the truths and ways of living we discover there. Third, our ability to be faithful witnesses improves with practice, as we take occasion to speak a word when the opportunity arises. 2. A Concern to Maintain the Christological Paradox. Christology is at the heart of 1 John and an issue for every generation. The ancient struggle over how to hold in creative tension both Christ’s full divinity and full humanity, evident in this letter, continues in modern expressions of faith. At times in the modern era the tendency has been to stress the one to the neglect of the other. It is legitimate to remind ourselves that Jesus was a man of his times, a rabbinic teacher, of Jewish heritage, who lived in first-century Israel. Still, we cannot dismiss the passages in the Gospels in which Jesus claims significant, even divine, status (e.g., “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” [John 14:9]). On the other hand, some well-intentioned Christians have been fearful of anything that might diminish the divine claims made in Scripture and in early creeds about Jesus. So they end up with a Christ who could never be said to have become truly incarnate. This was exactly the problem faced in 1 John. Some denied that Christ had come “in the flesh” (1 John 4:2-3). Maintaining both aspects of Christology, even as they stand paradoxically in tension, reflects historic Christian faith. Both the divinity and the humanity of Christ are equally true. The early creedal statement from the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) that was later adapted at Chalcedon (A.D. 451) declared that Christ was “true God of true God” but also “was made flesh . . . and became man” (Bettenson 1971, 26). 3. A Call to Joy in Christian Community. The rich theme of joy in the Christian life merits close attention. Elsewhere in the NT joy is associated especially with Jesus’ birth (Matt 2:10; Luke 1:14, 44; 2:10); and with his resurrection (Matt 28:8; Luke 24:41, 52). Joy also naturally flows from a life that has been transformed (Luke 15:7, 10), or a community that has experienced spiritual renewal (Acts 8:8). Joy need not be dependent on, or driven by, circumstances. It is anchored by relationships. That is, joy is present not so much when all the events and aspects of our lives are flowing smoothly, but rather more from an inner and abiding steadiness of peace, knowing that, whatever comes, one is rightly related to God and others. One may sense joy individually; but it is often best experienced in the company of others. Part of the celebration of life comes in knowing others, and mingling our lives with them, whether it be by letter, or phone, or face-to-face. What the letter encourages us to experience is not only the gift of relationships with other people but also the richness of experiencing fellowship with the Father and the Son. Each relationship enriches the other. Authentically Christian faith is always in community, in company with others. Our allegiance to Jesus Christ cannot be adequately nurtured in isolation from other believers. The reality of fellowship and the connections through personal communication and visits, by shared worship and mission, all make for strong interlinked lives. The message of 1 John especially calls all generations of readers to draw from the refreshing fountain of relationships.
B. Forgiveness and Cleansing (1:5-10)
BEHIND THE TEXT The language of this section strongly resembles the theological vocabulary of several non-biblical manuscripts found in 1947 near Qumran, situated on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea Scrolls (and the Essenes who probably composed, collected, and conserved them) espoused a strongly dualistic theology. This is reflected in the imagery of light and darkness to contrast those who were properly allied with God and righteousness (“sons of light”) and those who were hostile to God and would be judged (“sons of darkness”). The Qumran community and its literature were sharply critical of the Sadducean leadership of the Jerusalem Temple. These Jews at Qumran had removed themselves from participation in the religious practices at Jerusalem. Instead, they had retreated into the desert and became a separatist group. They understood their function in the Jordan valley as a fulfillment of Isa 40:3: “In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.” There are several apparent similarities between this Jewish community and Johannine Christianity. They shared a sharply dualistic outlook (truth/lies, light/darkness, for example) and a critical stance toward the Temple’s leadership. Both viewed the future as nearing an apocalyptic, decisive face-off between good and evil. In this regard, the references in 1 John to “the last hour” and “antichrists” (1 John 2:18) reflect a religious viewpoint akin to those at Qumran. The sectarian Messianic Jewish group at Qumran, contemporaneous with the developing Christian movement, shared a great deal of similar language and worldview. Both the Qumran community and the early Christians were thoroughly Jewish expressions of religious faith that intended to preserve the best and the true of Judaism. Both groups affirmed a coming Messiah. But the Essenes anticipated a messiah (or two; 1QS VIII, 10; Vermes 1997, 86) to come, while the Johannine Christians celebrated the messiah who had already come. Both practiced rituals of water baptism, though whether the meaning for the groups was all that similar is disputable. The ritualistic lustrations in Judaism were repeated again and again (prior to entrance to the Temple for instance). In contrast the baptism associated with John the Baptist, and embraced by followers of Jesus, had a “once for all” transformative sense to it. Both groups were critical of the Jerusalem Temple’s leadership. In John 2:13-22 (the cleansing of the Temple) the Gospel of John provides additional and harsher details about the event. Also, by locating this tension-packed action by Jesus at the beginning of the Gospel (the Synoptics place it where he enters Jerusalem for the last time), John early heightens the tension between the leadership and the followers of Jesus (see also John 7:32; 8:20, 59). Plus, the language of Jesus saying “destroy this temple” (John 2:19) must have disturbed many in the capital. The Qumran community had so given up on the established Temple at Jerusalem that they located some distance away at the Dead Sea. This physical separation, in itself a sharp rejection of Temple leaders, was coupled with critical language directed toward Jerusalem (1 QS VIII, 8-9, 14-15; IX, 4-5; see also Vermes 1997, 77-84). The Essenes’ self-identity as true light is much like the language of 1 John (Vermes 1997, 84-85; 1QM I, 1-15). In 1 John 2:8 “the true light is already shining” (see John 1:4-9) in the Johannine community, which is the light of God’s moral essence (1:5), something to be walked in (1:7). Obedient walking will mean love for one’s “brother” (2:9, 10). The preaching of John the Baptist also contains themes found in the Johannine literature. John the Baptist, like the Essenes, ministering in the Jordan valley, preached sharp words of warning against the religious leaders (“Pharisees and Sadducees”) to flee the “coming wrath” of a certain fiery judgment. The images of a coming great separation between “wheat” and “chaff” and not depending on Abraham as father reflects the kind of dualism found at Qumran and evident in this section of 1 John (see Matt 3:7-12). The Gospel of John reflects a sharp distinction between Johannine Christians and “the Jews.” This term is used in the Gospel mostly to indicate Jewish leadership in opposition to Jesus. There are parallels to the situation of the Gospel and the setting of 1 John. But in 1 John, rather than a group of Johannine Christians developing within Judaism and experiencing the tension of disagreement, there is a group arising within the Johannine community that is adversarial to John. Who is “in” and who is “out” has changed, but in both cases people are attempting to discern and practice a true faith. IN THE TEXT 1 John 1:1-4 introduces the fundamental fabric of the Christian proclamation. Namely, the comprehensive concern of reconciliation, how Christians relate to God, woven out of the threads of an adequate ethic and an appropriate Christology. The content and grammatical structure of 1:5-10 moves us into a more detailed exploration of the inner or theological structure of John’s witness. This is his first and foundational exposition of his proclamation. As we understand these verses, we understand the message of the entire epistle. In them John utilizes either explicitly or implicitly all of his essential concepts in their inner relation. ■ 5 The message or announcement (angelia) had been heard and still sounded in their ears (akēkoamen, perfect tense, we have heard and still hear). The announcement is present and ongoing—we are declaring (anangellomen). The ultimate source of the announcement is God, or perhaps Christ (see v 3). The content of this message is that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all. This is John’s key announcement for his interpretation of the Gospel to his readers. It is “the theological core of his world picture” (Houlden 1973, 57). This association between God and light appears in the OT, first on the opening page of the Bible. Genesis 1 records the presence of “darkness . . . over the surface of the deep” (Gen 1:1), dispelled by the God who speaks light into existence and declares the light “good” (Gen 1:3). Psalm 104:2 describes God as clothed “in light as with a garment.” Psalm 27 equates salvation and light and identifies God as the source of both. The prologue of the Gospel of John exploits the language of the Genesis creation narrative to say of Christ: “In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it” (1:4-5). The Fourth Gospel speaks of light 23 times, and presents Christ as “the light” (“light of the world” in John 8:12; 9:5). But in 1 John, only God is light. Life and light express the salvation offered to those who will believe in Christ (John 1:4). But light also speaks of God’s self-revelation as “the true light that gives light to every man” (John 1:9). Light expresses this both as a necessity that belongs to God’s moral nature and as the source of all moral illumination. This language of John seems to counter a Gnostic use of life and light (as secret knowledge to a few) to mean instead the revelation of God clearly to all. Certain dualistic imagery of early Jewish texts appears here with the divide between light (God) and darkness (anti-God). T. Levi 19:1 speaks of the “sons of light” and the “sons of darkness” (War Scroll 1QM, 1Q33, 4Q491-7, 4Q471; see Vermes 1997, 161-77; Ritt 1993, 3:448). As will be seen, light and darkness imagery in 1 John is used as a means of identifying those allied with John’s position. To walk in the light (v 7) is to live by the truth (implied in v 6). When we journey in the light of God’s self-revelation in Jesus, we experience fellowship with God’s people and cleansing from all sin (v 7). The language of vv 5-10 answers to several similar statements in the Gospel of John (John 1:4-9; 3:19-21; 9:39-41; 12:46). As noted already, the contrasting themes of light and darkness are found also in the dualistic images of the literature from Qumran. For them, light and darkness typified the radical differences between God and evil. The Dead Sea sectarians referred to themselves as “sons of light” (see John 12:35-36, 46; also 1 Thess 5:5 “You are all sons of the light and sons of the day”). The Essenes were ruled by “the Prince of Light” as opposed to the great enemies of God, who were led by “the Angel of Darkness” (IQS III, 13-IV, 1). The tone of the language is clear. God is light and “God is love” (1 John 4:16), and by inference, God is truth (v 6). God is light, love, and truth. God is good, and evil cannot co-exist with good (Marshall 1978, 109). ■ 6 Here a series of “false claim” statements begins. The false claims in vv 6, 8, and 10 are matched with truthful antidotes in vv 7, 9; and 2:1. Each set is introduced by if we claim (ean eipōmen). In v 6, if we claim is followed by but if we walk (v 7). In v 8, if we claim is paired with if we confess (v 9). In v 10, if we claim (v 10) has its corollary in 2:1. The heretical false claims in climactic order are 1) sin is no barrier to their fellowhip with God (v 6), 2) sinfulness is not a reality in their human condition (v 8), and 3) sinning has not taken place in their personal conduct. The corollaries are 1) there is cleansing for sin (v 7), 2) there is for forgiveness for sins and cleansing from unrighteousness(v. 9), and there is an Advocate for sinning (2:1-2). Thus both the problem and the solution that John has set up are both ethical and Christological in character. ALTERNATIVE PARAGRAPH: John expresses the heretical false claims in climactic order, that is the problems he faces move from the general to the specific, and to the most personally damning (vv, 6, 8, 10). The solutions or gospel response follow the same pattern, from the general to the specific to the practical—where the disciple lives(vv 7, 9; 2:1-2). The structure of each verse in the sequence is almost identical—condition, consequence, and explanation (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 2:1b-2). Verse six is typical: “if we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in darkness” is the condition, “we lie” is the consequence, and we “do not live by the truth” is the explanation (Nauck, 1957, 23f.). The ethical character of the problem is stressed primarily in the three “conditions” in verses six, eight, and ten, and its Christological implications in the “consequences” and “explanations,” which together balance out the verses in a more formal view of their structure. Thus the problems and the solutions that John has set up are both ethical and Christological in character.
All the verbs in the three pairs of claims are in the subjunctive mood, suggesting the idea of probability but not certainty (Wallace 1996, 461). Thus, a person might or might not make such a claim. Also, to walk in darkness is not a certainty. An expanded translations to capture the ideas might be—if we claim to have fellowship with him (though one might make such a claim, or one might not)—and if we . . . walk in the darkness (though that doesn’t have to happen). The repeated phrase if we claim indicates that some, either outside the Johannine churches, or very possibly within these churches, have said what John seeks to correct (Smith 1991, 43). John considered those who held an aberrant view John a serious danger to his readers, some of whom were perhaps swayed already to this position. John, by using we, may be entering into identification with the group to whom he writes (Strecker 1996, 29. Thus, he stands with them in order to persuade them, as one of them, away from the dangers of the secessionists. Bogart, however, understands we within the verb eipōmen in each claim (vv 6, 8, 10) as an impersonal and a stylistic variation only (1977, 28). He sees the threefold first person plural use as equivalent to the three instances in 1 John 2 of the impersonal pronoun of the participle ho legōn (the one saying). These are translated variously as “The man who says” in 2:4; “Whoever claims” in 2:6; and “Anyone who claims” in 2:9. Bogart fails to consider that John may have used we to identify with his readers as a response to what the secessionists were teaching. Admittedly it is risky to attempt to reconstruct the views of a group by reading materials critical of them written by others But the opponents of John seem to have been close at hand, even people formerly within the Johannine churches (1 John 2:19). John no doubt understood all too well what the opponents were teaching (Bogart 1977, 28-29). It is significant here that both verbs in the first clause, we claim and [we] have, are in the present tense. So if we claim to be in a present, common/shared (koinōnia) relationship with Christ, yet our life is inconsistent with the claim, then we are presently walking in the darkness. To do so is to walk contrary to truth (v 6). That is, they are not doing the truth (ou poioumen tēn alētheian; see John 3:21). This would involve believing a different teaching than the view taken by the Johannine churches (2 John 9-11) and not loving the “brother” ( v 7; 2:9-11; see 3:23). To so walk in the darkness is to engage in blatant self-deception: we lie (pseudometha). The statement sharply points out that if our lives do not express the values we claim to hold then we are not only falling short, but living a lie; we are failing to live by the truth. The theme of doing, or practicing truth appears also in the Qumran literature—1QS I, 5 “that they may abstain from evil and hold fast to all good; that they may practice truth, righteous, and justice . . .”; V, 3 “They shall practice truth and humility in common, and justice and uprightness and charity and modesty in all their ways”; VIII, 2 “They . . . shall atone for sin by the practice of justice” emphases added; see Vermes 1997, 98, 103, 109). Truth spurs to action, John urges. In these letters of John doing the truth would include acting lovingly toward one’s brother (1 John 2:9-10); being generous with material support to “his brother in need” (1 John 3:16-18). The similarity is striking to the writings of James for whom true faith is always demonstrated by actions (James 2:14-26). Involved significanctly in doing the truth would also be not being led astray from what “you have heard from the beginning” (1 John 2:24). The emphasis on fellowship with him [God] and the mention of “the blood of Jesus his Son in the response of v 7 would demand that Christology as well as ethics is in view. Walking, having fellowship, and doing the truth are related, continuous activities. Cessation of one demonstrates cessation of the others. In the ancient world the metaphor of walking would naturally become a part of the Christian vocabulary. Jesus used it (John 8:12 “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life”; see also 11:9-10; 12:35). The apostle Paul used the imaga often (e.g., Rom 6:4; 8:4; 1 Cor 7:17; 2 Cor 12:18; Gal 5:16; Eph 4:1; 5:20. The metaphor appears with some frequency in the OT (see Ps 1:1; 15:2; 86:11; 128:1). To walk with another was to be in agreement with him (Amos 3:3). Remaining aligned with the Christian faith in the circle of Johannine churches was to be “walking in the truth” (2 John 4; 3 John 4), and to “walk as Jesus did” (1 John 2:6). ■ 7 God’s work in us purifies (katharizei, a present tense verb), and may be understood as having a continuous aspect—is continually purifying. The purifying continues as we walk in ongoing obedience of faith and life. Thus, cleansing is what God does for us, and also is an unfolding reality as our obedience enables us to live in a relationship that is marked by purity. The blood of Christ, meaning his suffering on the cross unto death, is offered by John as the fully sufficient basis to cleanse from all sin all who walk in obedient trust and love. This purity is relational. It is conditioned upon a continuing response to the grace that comes from God in the person of Christ, toward all who walk in the light. If the walking and doing of the truth keeps working itself out in our lives daily, then the cleansing is also current. The ongoing nature of the work of God means it is not fully accomplished in a moment (though it is a thorough work). Harvey Blaney rightly stressed It is a mistake to think that all which John implies here can be attained on one occasion or in response to a momentary total surrender to God. Jesus said “Follow me.” Only those who begin to follow and walk in the light can experience the results spoken of (Blaney 1967, 354-45). We keep walking, and God keeps the purifying efficacy of the merits of Christ’s death applied to our lives. We must never assume to be cleansed from sin by our own efforts. Bede taught well that the initial cleansing associated with the new birth and baptism, continues through living in love, a daily confession of shortcomings, faithful observance of the sacraments, and a forgiving spirit toward others (Bray 2000, 171). Walking in the light enables believers to have fellowship with one another. A bit later in 1 John (2:10) being “in the light” is equated with loving one’s brother, a nearly identical sentiment as expressed here. The image of walking in light is found in the Psalms (Pss 56:13; 89:15), as well as in Isa 2:5—“let us walk in the light of the Lord.” In the Gospel of John walking in light is to walk in believing and loving discipleship with Jesus (John 8:12). The Essene community stressed walking in light as evidence of being one of the sons of righteousness, while walking in darkness revealed one to be a son of wickedness (1QS III, 20; Vermes 1997, 101). Walking in the light is to walk with God, to experience God’s presence and be shaped by God’s character. It is to walk where God is, in harmony with God who is light (v 5). Having just read of a claim that we . . . have fellowship with him (v 6, koinōnian echomen met’ autou) that is negated by walking in the darkness one might expect to find John now saying that walking in the light leads to fellowship with God. Instead, the thought is extended a step further (Brooke 1912, 15). John says that the result of walking in the light will mean we have fellowship with one another (koinōnian echomen met’ allēlōn). For the Johannine circle of Christians, fellowship with the Father and the Son was inextricably woven together with fidelity to the community of faith (1:3). Proper faith tied one to the Church. In these letters, that seems to have meant allegiance especially to the Johannine circle of churches as opposed to being lured away to other views. John is careful to stress the fact that it is God, through Jesus, his Son, who does the cleansing. Most specifically, it is the blood of Jesus which purifies. Many modern minds are deeply resistant to the imagery of blood sacrifice. However John, the collective witness of the NT, and indeed, the entire Bible, all point toward the concept of reconciliation between sinful humanity and the holy, loving God, as accomplished by a death, by the shedding of blood. Christ’s death conceived as a blood sacrifice appears in the NT in numerous places (Mark 14:24; Rom 3:25; 1 Cor 11:25; Eph 1:7; Heb 9:11-14) and will soon appear in this letter (see discussion at 1 John 2:2). The nature of the word purifies (katharizei, also in v 9) contends for a thorough-going work. The word, in a variety of usages in the NT (and the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), suggests making clean, purifying, being unsoiled. It can mean to cleanse from sin (Heb 9: 22, 23; 10:2) and is used by Luke as he reports Peter’s words about the outpouring of the Spirit on the household of Cornelius. The giving of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles there is described as achieving katharisas of their hearts (Acts 15:9). The primary point in both is relational, removing all that hinders their relationahip to God. The work of God being stressed in 1 John calls for an ethical ordering of one’s life. It is a holiness that, though certainly and always derived from Christ, becomes a personal and transformative reality in the life of the disciple of Jesus. Brooke understood the phrase purifies us from all sin as indicating the removal of sin as a barrier to fellowship with God (1912, 15, emphasis added). In the Gospel of John katharizo appears in 15:2-3 to describe the cleaning away of branches not producing fruit, the removal of that which makes a person (or believers) unfruitful. In John 13:10-11 the idea is applied metaphorically to explain that not all the twelve disciples were katharoi, a reference to moral transformation. The term describes one being cleansed from leprosy (Matt 8:2, 3; 10:8), a real and personal transformation that then enables ceremonial, ritual acceptance for the one so cleansed. So here, John asserts that God does more than view a person differently due to Christ’s death and a person being “in” Christ. God purifies so that a person becomes morally different in relation to him. What was unclean is made clean; the defilement of sin, the fact and the effects of living contrary to God’s will, is cleansed (see on 1:9). Such purity is not by human effort but by the matchless grace of God in Christ. The word all (pasēs) raises important interpretive matters. Understanding pasēs to mean all may support the idea of sin as not only acts of violation toward God’s laws, but also sin as a condition, as sinfulness. Brooke poses that John is here envisioning sin as an active power, and not referring to specific acts of sin (Brooke 1912, 16-17). Smith speaks of sin as first a root cause, a condition of alienation from God that leads to expressions that are sinful (Smith 1991, 46). Marshall allows that most commentators regard the terms sin (v 7) and unrighteousness (v 9) as synonymous, but objects—“it is possible that purification signifies the removal not only of the guilt of sin but also of the power of sin in the human heart” (Marshall 1978, 114, emphasis added). The idea of an inner condition of sinfulness is readily apparent in other NT passages, notably Paul’s treatment of sin in Romans as a power at work in persons (Rom 6:12-14; 7:11, 13). Indeed, in a short while John will say “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4), sounding very much like he is describing a condition of sinfulness. The phrase from all sin (pasēs hamartias) conveys wonderful promise. God’s cleansing activity that flows from Christ’s death is a deep and thorough work, attending in one’s relation to God to “all that is called sin” (Blaney 1967, 355). The cleansing addresses all sin (or “every sin,” NIV margin). The word pas is rendered “all” in three instances in 1 John when the word is used as an adjective with a singular noun—here in v 7 all sin (pasēs hamartias); v 9 all unrighteousness (pasēs adikias); and at 5:17 “all wrongdoing” (pasa adikia). This term is translated three times as “every” in 1 John when used as an adjective with a singular noun—in 4:1 “every spirit” (panti pneumati); and in 4:2-3 “every spirit” (pan pneuma). Whichever translation is used the clear implication is that God’s remedy for sin is without limit. Sin cannot continue to defile the person, or faith community (noting the plural pronoun, us), that continually walks in the light, doing God’s will. John offers only two instances in 1 John that might be taken as something of a definition of sin—“Sin is lawlessness” (anomia, 3:4); and at 5:17 “All wrongdoing (adikia) is sin” (see the later discussion of these verses). The statement in 3:4 sounds like sin as a condition, as sinfulness. In 5:17 the obvious sense is that of violations. Only one verse in the Gospel might be added to this discussion. In John 16:9 Jesus speaks of sin as unbelief, specifically not believing in him. This lack of an proper belief placed in Jesus (Christology) may be the foundational problem needing correction. So in the Johannine writings sin is that which is against God’s law, against righteousness, and a failure to believe in Jesus. While “law” only appears once in the letters of John, the related concept of “command” appears 12 times in 10 verses. The content of the commands given are two-fold: 1) “believe in the name of his son Jesus Christ” (3:23; 5:10, 13); and 2) “love one another” (3:11, 23; 4:7, 11, 12). When John writes of a cleansing from all sin and from all unrighteousness he points toward a divine remedy for all that is anti-God’s law, anti-God’s character, and anti-Christ. What we need, God provides. This liberation from sin through the atoning death of Christ is a universal one, offered to all, for sin is universal (Strecker 1996, 31). John, in this well structured set of verses (1:5—2:1) brings strong language to bear on the pastoral challenges at hand. Sin is real, personal, serious, and pervasive. But divine correction is also all these as well. Sin needs forgiveness and cleansing. ■8 The claim to be without sin, (this present tense verb could be read as having a continuous aspect, if we are claiming we presently have no sin), creates a certain amount of challenge for interpretation. A few lines later John calls his readers to live no longer under the dominion of sin (1 John 2:1). He does, however, clearly acknowledge the intrusion that sin can make into our lives. John is obviously not agreeing with what his opponents are saying. Two different types of perfectionism appear in 1 John (see John Bogart 1977, 47-49). Against one (“heretical perfectionism”) John vigorously strives, seeing it as a theological and practical danger for his churches (vv 6, 8, 10). It arose from Gnostic influences, holding radically divergent views on the physical as evil. Proponents of this heretical system perverted the Johannine understanding, creating a rival type (Bogart 1977, 4). The other (“orthodox perfectionism”) John energetically contends for in the letter. This latter type is that of being “born of God” (1 John 3:9), with sins forgiven and God’s purifying work a present reality by “the blood of Jesus” (1 John 1:7, 9). This orthodox perfectionism is marked by avoiding sin through abiding in Christ—“No one who lives in him keeps on sinning” (1 John 3:6). Brown translates v 8 as “we are free from the guilt of sin” (1982, 191; see also his note on 1:8a on 205-206). For support he turns to John 9:41; 15:22, 24; and 19:11. These verses in the Gospel of John are rendered in some translations with “guilt,” or “guilty” (NIV, NLT, ESV) as an interpretive expansion of the Greek phrase “to have sin” (hamartian echein). Brown’s understanding is that those making the claim know that the deeds they are doing are wrong, but that they have no effect, that is, no guilt accrues to them (1982, 235). In John 9:41, the meaning is that those who know they have sinned must assume responsibility for their wrong actions. Knowledge of sin and the resultant culpability for it is also clearly the intent of John 15:22, 24. The association of “sin” and “have” in John 19:11 is of a different sort than the others, since it has reference to “greater sin” (meizona hamartian) because of greater awareness of who Jesus was. But Brown’s case fails in 1 John when we notice that the opponents in 1 John 1:8 are not individuals who claim not to have sin because of their lack of knowledge about such. Rather they apparently claim not to have sin because they do have knowledge of a superior kind. John combats this with his reassurance to his readers that they have an “anointing” and “do not need anyone to teach” them (see discussion at 1 John 2:20-27). So a comparison of how the Gospel uses the phrase “to have sin” and its meaning in 1 John may not have much weight. The use of sin (singular) and the contrast that follows in v 9, where sins are addressed, might permit hamartian here to be thought of as sinfulness, a condition rather than acts of disobedience. Bede understood the term in this way, as inherited sinfulness, and as in opposition to Pelagians, who taught that babies were born without such a sinful propensity (Bray 2000, 172). The claim to be without sin is to engage in intentional self-deception (heautous planōmen, using the Greek word order and emphatically translated as ourselves we are deceiving), leading away from the right path. John repeatedly warns his readers against being led astray (1 John 2:26; 3:7). Earlier (v 6) John had linked walking in the darkness with not doing the truth. Similarly here he says the truth is not in one who wrongly claims sinlessness. Truth is a heavily Johannine word. Over half of all NT instances of alētheia (and the closely related alēthēs and alēthinos) occur in the Johannine writings. John uses alētheia to highlight reality in contrast to mere appearance or falsehood (Thiselton 1978, 889). ■ 9 John poses to his readers—if we confess (ean homologōmen). To whom the confession is to be made is not stated explicitly. The call and the promise are to the readers corporately—we and us. Thus, John may be calling, as does James, for mutual confession—that is, “to each another” (5:16). But the confession is primarily intended toward God/Christ, who is the one granting the forgiveness and purity. In the Didache XIV the confession of sins is something done either on “the Lord’s day” or as preparation for it—“on the Lord’s day assemble and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure” (Bettenson 1971, 66). Forms of confess are relatively infrequent in the NT and only seldom related to the confessing of sins (Matt 3:6; Mark 1:5; Jas 5:16). In secular Greek texts admission of guilt or error was represented by homologeo though not with a religious connotation. In biblical passages confession may have included an open acknowledgement of sins before others (Hofius 1991, 515). Even in the face of human sinfulness, and especially when the sins are confessed, God is faithful (pistos). The word can mean “trustworthy” or “dependable” (BDAG 2000, 820—see Matt 25:21; 2 Tim 2:2) or said of promises that are sure or certain. God’s character is just (dikaios, sometimes rendered as righteous. God’s righteousness is manifested as faithfulness in spite of human unfaithfulness (see Heb 10:23). The divine act, to forgive (aphēi) . . . sins, can mean to send them away. But it can also mean to remit a debt, or to let off from penalty. Brooke understood that forgiveness of sins might be thought of as a symbolic act whereby the barrier which sins had created between God and persons was removed (Brooke 1912, 20). Up until now, especially in vv 6-8, John has used present tense verbs to discuss what God does and what persons do. But here, at a strategic point in his argument, he uses the aorist tense to speak of what God purposes to do, namely, forgive us and purify us. The aorist tense in Greek is the simple past tense and does not necessarily make a specified statement about when something occurred, but simply shows that the reference is more about the act being done, not to the duration or result (Haas 1972, 38). It at times, however, can carry the sense of a completed action, even a decisive one. This is described as a punctiliar use of the aorist. Context is important in determining the kind of usage being employed. It is somewhat intriguing that just here the aorist tense appears in reference to what God would do with the aim of a cleansing from all unrighteousness (apo pasēs adikias). Note the “a” (called alpha in Greek letter designation) at the beginning of the word—adikias. This alpha prefix negates the word to which it attaches. All that is not righteous, all that is contrary to God’s character, must be addressed. The connection between the words used by John to speak of the nature of God and what God can do for persons is better served by translating he is . . . righteous (dikaios) and . . . will . . . purify us from all unrighteousness (adikias). Earlier statements by John stressed the continuous, ongoing aspect of God’s work (and the believer’s response) by using several present tense verbs in vv 6-8. But by the use of aorist verbs it may be that now John is emphasizing an action by God in people that is not thought of so much as a continuous activity but as a decisive act. The forgiveness and cleansing are in conjunction with the confessing. As we confess, forgiveness and cleansing are given by God in Christ (v 7). God’s work speaks to the universal human need to be pardoned and to receive the purifying of our lives that enables relational restoration and personal healing. John urges the reader to understand and experience both forgiveness and purity. John Calvin rightly saw that confession occasioned a twofold fruit . . . That God, who is reconciled by the sacrifice of Christ, forgives us; and that He corrects and reforms us (Parker 1959, 241). Yet Calvin’s resistance to a thorough addressing of sin in the present, because too much identifying sinning as due to being in the body, shows in comments that immediately follow where he dismisses the clear intent of v 9, saying “but John is not telling us what God performs in us now” (Parker 1959, 241). That the work of purifying is from God and is presently offered is clear. Only God can truly purify. But also clear is that God does not override the human will to accomplish the purifying. The verbs (forgive—aphēi; and purify—katharisēi) are both in the subjunctive mood, which when combined with ean, becomes an “if . . . then” construction. It suggests possibility but not certainty. It is a conditional statement, indicating something that may or may not happen (Mounce 2003, 293). God can purify, wants to do so, and is fully capable. The accomplishing of the forgiveness and purifying depends upon whether we allow it or not. The pardon and purity offered by God is conditioned upon our response as moral agents who can either respond positively toward, or resist, the offer of grace. ■ 10 Some first century readers appear to have been saying they had committed no sins from which to be forgiven or delivered. But John will not allow such. Claiming no sins on our record is to call God a liar and gives evidence that God’s word is not residing in us. The liar usage here recalls we lie in v 6 and these may be something of an inclusio (a “packaging” of a text portion with literary bookends, so to speak) for the section (Brown 1982, 225). John disputes any who would say we have not sinned (oux hēmartēkamen). This verb is perfect tense. This indicates that the sins were past actions, which have continuing effect into the present. John’s opponents were saying that they had not committed sins in the past that needed forgiveness. Or, they claimed that their past sins were of no consequence in the present. Regardless which or both, John strikes a blow at either notion by his choice of the perfect tense verb. “All have sinned” (Rom 3:23). And all continue to be affected by past sins, regardless of whether forgiven and cleansed or not. We cannot claim to have no sin in our past. And we cannot imagine that past sin does not impact the present. What a perilous thing to call God a liar (pseustēn). To be clear, John surely does not assume that the secessionists say this in so many words. John is asserting that their beliefs and practices undermine God’s teachings about human beings. Our denial of sin, saying we have not sinned, declares God as being wrong. The word for liar appears only eight times in the NT. It occurs twice in the Gospel of John, where Jesus calls the devil and those who listen to him “liar” (John 8:44, 55). Paul uses it once in Romans 3:4, where he declares God as true and faithful even if people are not. Significantly it appears five times in 1 John. The usage in 1 John includes two times when a person’s words or beliefs make God out to be a liar (1:10; 5:10) and three times to identify persons who don’t keep God’s commands, deny Christ, and fail at loving their brothers and sisters (2:4, 22; 4:20). John says that a denial of having sinned means his word has no place in our lives. This phrase is virtually identical in Greek to the concluding portion of v 8: 1:8 the truth is not in us (hē alētheia ouk estin en hēmin)
1:10 his word is not in us (ho logos autou ouk estin en hēmin) Further, these two lines sustain the thought from earlier. When we lie we (obviously) do not do the truth (v 6). When we deceive ourselves we give evidence that the truth is not in us (v 8). And when we make God out to be a liar then his word is not in us (v 10). The parallelism in these verses suggests that the truth (alētheia, vv 6, 8) is to be equated with God’s word (logos, v 10). This linkage of truth and God’s word can be seen also in the Gospel “Sanctify them by the truth (alētheiai); your word (logos) is truth” (John 17:17). There is a progression (downward) in the section that merits mention. In v 6 claiming close relationship with God while living in disobedience is a lie told to others. Then in v 8 denial of sin in our life is to deceive (lie to) ourselves. Finally, in the most unthinkable of charges, in v 10, to deny having sinned is to call God a liar!
FROM THE TEXT 1. The Danger of Hypocrisy. Discerning the difference between truth and lies is at the core of what one believes and teaches to others. The section deals with living a lie or doing the truth. As v 6 instructs, when we conduct ourselves in morally corrupt ways and continue to claim we are still Christians, we are blatantly living a lie. But the severity of the matter worsens. The absence of truth in an individual leads us to “deceive ourselves” (v 8). The incoherence of our claimed status and our unworthy lives turns our failure to obey God or our active disobedience of God into something even worse. Our lives become a lie. Such hypocrisy (whether conscious or unconscious) suggests that we are trying to portray ourselves as something we are not. Eventually, the boundary between lies and truth becomes so blurred that we indirectly call God a liar by denying even that we have sinned (v 10). Sin’s effect on a person or within a system, if unchecked, grows and worsens over time. Sin and its impact are progressive and cumulative. We live in a lie when living apart from God. The temptation is to convince ourselves of the rightness of our ways, to the extent that we, and not God, become the standard by which “truth” is measured! To be sure, the secessionists of the Johannine letters would have considered themselves to be superior Christians. Still, a self-assessment as superior can create an attitude of a so-called “advanced” spirituality. The result may be that we build a case for our lives, as they are now, as fully correct and in need of nothing further (see the indictment of the church at Laodicea, “You say . . . ‘I do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (Rev 3:17). A perilous idea this is, indeed. God, not lesser beings, is the standard for truth and holiness, and the cleansing and correction needed in us is God’s work. Twice in the section John urges upon his readers the truth that God is at work in their lives with the aim being to “purify” them (vv 7, 9). The cleansing is God’s accomplishment, not ours. 2. The Necessity of Divine Cleansing. God does not override our self-determination. The cleansing is contingent upon us walking “in the light” (v 7). The cleansing, as the walking, is present and continuous. God’s cleansing activity in v 9 is a divine response to the confession of sins by a person and leads to righteousness. The infusion of God’s character into the Christian works to remove all characteristics that are hostile to God, and also over time to smooth out the lingering flaws that are inconsistent with the character of God. And sometimes, as would have likely been the case with the opponents of John, the most significant flaw in us might be the self-deception that we have no flaws! The cleansing that God seeks to accomplish is conditional. It can happen, but may not. Refusal to acknowledge one’s sins (not confessing) means God is blocked, called “liar,” and God’s word is absent in one’s life (v 10). God’s work is a thorough and deep work. What God seeks to do is “to purify for himself a people that are his very own” (Titus 2:14) who have been deeply and radically transformed. God will cleanse “from all sin” (v 7), “from all unrighteousness” (v 9). John Wesley, commenting on v 7 understood “all sin” to refer to “both original and actual, taking away all the guilt and the power” (Wesley 1983). In similar language Adam Clarke wrote of sin in two “modes”; namely, in “guilt which requires forgiveness or pardon” and in “pollution, which requires cleansing” (Clarke n.d., 904). Martin Luther, the reformer monk some two centuries prior to Wesley, citing with approval thoughts from Augustine, differentiated between sin as condition (“indwelling sin”) and sinful acts (Pelikan 1967, 228). While Martin Luther could use concepts like “washed” and “forgive” in reference to vv 7-9, he omits any reference in his lectures on 1 John to the strong language in the epistle that promises purification from “all sin” and “all unrighteousness” (Pelikan 1967, 228-232). This statement by Clarke is a powerful affirmation: And being cleansed from all sin is what every believer should look for, what he has a right to expect, and what he must have in this life, in order to be prepared to meet his God. Christ is not a partial Saviour; he saves to the uttermost, and he cleanses from ALL sin” (Clarke n.d., 904). The extent of God’s purpose is not simply to gain a majority-vote in the control of our lives. God wants to purge us from all that is anti-God. By this cleansing, “all sin” (v 7) and “all unrighteousness” (v 9) are defeated. 3. The Relational Nature of Holiness. The theme of “fellowship” (vv 6, 7), highlights the relational aspect of this holiness. Some in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition have preached the human condition in such a way as to make sinfulness (sin as a condition, or sin nature) so substantive that it is something physical which could be “rooted out” and removed from the life. Once such a dramatic spiritual event happened, one became nearly unable to commit sin, or so it was thought. Since sin (as substance) had been removed, how could one sin if the sin nature was gone? But John keeps before the reader the critically important matter of how righteousness is relational. Being cleansed from all sin does not mean that one has experienced a surgical intervention. Rather, being cleansed from sin means having entered into a close spiritual relationship out of which cleansing continually flows. One is cleansed as an outcome of being rightly related to the God who is pure and who always cleanses what is given to God’s possession and use. Christian living should be more about up-to-date relationship than simply recalling a time when an experience happened. Cleansing results from living close to, abiding in, and living in Christ. This cleansing is ongoing and unending—in the present tense—so long as we sustain a right relationship with him. When John uses “all” (vv 7, 9) he expresses the confidence that God’s work is not to nibble away at sin in our lives. It is God’s intention to decisively defeat sin and continually cleanse us. Thus “holy” and “righteous” are words that appropriately describe the true character, not simply the position, or standing, of God’s people. This cleansing is proven in our daily lives. Language of purification appears frequently in Numbers, referring to cleansing of persons prior to access to the Temple and to activities in the Temple and the vessels used to conduct such (Num 8:7, 21; 19:12, 13, 19, 20; 31:19, 20). The cleansing work of God to equip one for service appears in Isaiah’s temple vision, where a fiery coal from the altar purged his lips and symbolized the removal of his guilt and sin (Isa 6:1-7). John the Baptist preached of the baptism with the Holy Spirit as one of fire (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16), a purging experience. Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel of John speaks of a cleansing work—“every branch that does bear fruit he trims clean (kathairei) so that it will be even more fruitful” (John 15:2). 4. The Limits of Christian Fellowship. The text of 1 John 1 also raises an initial consideration of the matter of keeping fellowship with others and the related issue of theological integrity. To what degree can one participate with others who are Christians, but with different views and practices? When does fellowship enter into such a degree of accommodation that the result is not shared lives but compromise on key doctrinal matters, or lifestyle practices? There is a danger in too quickly labeling those with whom one disagrees as being in “darkness” (vv 5, 6). There is also danger in too quickly welcoming any and all divergent theologies and practices, to the degree that one could end up standing for little that is clear, and much that is unbiblical.