1 JOHN I. PROLOGUE AND PREMISES: 1 JOHN 1:1-10 A. The Life Appeared (1:1-4)
BEHIND THE TEXT How the author uses language is a part of understanding this small writing. This holds especially for 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. In vv 1-4 there are ten first-person plural Greek verbs (“we”) and six related pronouns—“us” twice and “our” four times. These pronouns situate the author among a group of like-minded Christians (we), while writing to another group of Christians (you, vv 2-3, always in the plural). He then shifts from addressing the readers as you, choosing rather to identify with them, using “we” (vv 6-10). Common themes throughout the Johannine writings, as well as small hints like John’s use of language, suggest the existence of a “school” of disciples identified with John the Apostle (Brown 1979; Culpepper 1975). The prologue to 1 John (vv 1-4) introduces the apostolic proclamation of the Gospel. John does this with declarations that point to what he seeks to emphasize throughout the remainder of the letter. The prologue of 1 John is reminiscent of the prologue of the Gospel of John (1:1-18), but falls short of being a commentary on it (Smith 1991, 36). One does need, however, some knowledge of the prologue of the Gospel to make sense of the opening verses of 1 John. John 1:1-18 and 1 John 1:1-4 share much common vocabulary and concepts (beginning, word, light, life, witness, and what has been seen).
IN THE TEXT ■ 1 What is frequently called the letter of 1 John lacks most of the formal aspects of Greco-Roman letters of the period (see Introduction). The document fails to identify the sender, the recipients, or their locale. John includes no customary greetings, nor assurance of prayers or well-wishes. The conclusion lacks the expected farewells. At the same time, 1 John gives evidence of being a letter of some sort. In 2:19 John’s wording (“they went out from us”) depicts him and his readers as an identifiable community of faith. Also, John employs forms of graphō (I write,) thirteen times in ten verses (1:4; 2:1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26; 5:13). Thus, as a decidedly written document, 1 John addresses specific readers. Its frequent use of affectionate address (“children,” fifteen times; “dear friends,” six times) has the feel of a personal letter (see Introduction). The word beginning (archēs) somewhat echoes the prologue of the Gospel, which draws readers back to Genesis 1:1. But numerous scholars see the beginning in 1 John 1:1 as referring to Jesus (Strecker 1996, 57; Brown 1982, 158, 175), the beginning of Christianity (Jones 2009, 19-20; Bruce 1970, 35), or specifically the incarnation itself (Bultmann 1961, 9). The term may highlight the inauguration of the gospel message especially in Johannine circles (Smith 1991, 36-37). 2 What was from the beginning had been heard (also v 3). But this was more than a proclaimed message. Verbs of seeing, hearing, and touching argue for an incarnate and personified logos, not merely a preached message. 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, 163-66). This gospel was both heard (akēkoamen) and seen (heōrakamen). The Greek perfect tense of both verbs indicates that John’s and the community’s past experience of Christ had an “abiding” (Brooke 1912, 2) or “enduring” effect (Strecker 1996, 12). The words of the gospel still reverberated in their ears. What they had seen burned an indelible image in their mind’s eyes. The verbs then shift to the aorist (simple past tense) with the verbs we have looked at (etheasametha; see John 1:14) and have touched (epsēlaphēsan). This shift suggests that John’s previous use of the perfect tense was intentional, for emphasis. Bruce suggests that the apparent duplication of visual verbs—seen and looked at—may be instead an attempt to echo the language of John 14:9. What was seen went beyond mere outward vision and discerned the inward glory (1970, 36). Brooke similarly links the use of the aorist to the character of what was seen (Brooke 1912, 4). John stresses the visual experience—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 stresses the tactile evidence, that Christ was experienced in all sensory ways (Brooke 1912, 5). The claims John makes in these opening lines are bold, first-person plural (we) assertions. Some interpreters understand 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). Thus they presume that John the Apostle was the author. Such is a possibility. But if John is making a strong claim to having been a personal eyewitness of the events of Jesus’ life, why did he not use the first-person singular? He could easily have written “that which I have heard, which I have seen.” John employs the first-person singular often (fourteen times in the balance of the writing). A first-person singular claim would have clearly asserted his unique apostolic authority as an eyewitness. This would seem a natural tactic given his theological and ethical struggle with formidable opponents. The words of the prologue admittedly claim an encounter with Jesus that is a highly personal and present reality. But they need not require that the author was an eyewitness. The language may be a standardized way of expressing confidence that the message of the gospel came faithfully to the readers in an unbroken chain from the beginning. The use of we may indicate that the author is a spokesman for a Johannine “school” (see Introduction), which preserved and passed on the traditions about Jesus originating from the Beloved Disciple (Brown 1982, 175). The words—heard, seen, looked, and touched—underline the importance of personal witness to Jesus (Brown 1982, 163). Jesus is the Word of life (tou logou tēs zoēs). Yet John delays until verse three to mention Jesus specifically. While the Gospel stresses the person of the Word, here the emphasis shifts to the life itself. But this life, truly seen, heard, and touched, was inconceivable apart from the incarnate Son through whom it is imparted (the “subject matter,” the life, is Christ the person; Bultmann 1961, 8). The language is strongly experiential. As a fully human incarnation of the invisible God, he was visible, audible, and tangible (Smith 1991, 39). This with its implications is a theological issue at the heart of these epistles. John is eager to advocate a Christology that fully embraces Jesus’ humanity. The Gospel of John 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). This is an apparent response to the docetic claims of one-time members of the Johannine community. 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 (see Phil 2:16; Flemming 2009, 124). In v 1 the words this we proclaim are not in the Greek text but supplied from v 3. Verse 1 is, strictly speaking, an anacoluthon, that is, a broken construction. John 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 delays stating an explicit subject or verb (see NASB). 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—appeared or “was 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 root of the Greek verb ephanerōthē influences the English word “epiphany” and can refer to the appearance of a deity. It often conveys the idea of making visible that which is invisible. Several NT passages use the term of an appearance of the risen Lord (Mark 16:9, 12, 14; Luke 24:34; John 21:1, 14). All of the five instances of phaneroō 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. By using the passive, rather than the active voice, biblical writers were able to specify God as the agent who accomplished an action without mentioning his name. This “divine passive” 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.
[Begin Sidebar] Divine Passive The divine passive form in the NT derives from the Hebraic habit of avoiding 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” (God will give, Matt 7:7). When believers need words so as to give faithful witness before authorities, they “will be given what to say” (Matt 10:19). In Revelation divine passive forms include provision of purity “each of them was given a white robe” (Rev 6:11) and protection (Rev 12:14). The divine passive affirms God as actively engaged in history but without being overtly named in the text. It also conveys the idea that all things occur within the permission of God; that nothing will happen that can surprise or derail the divine purpose. [End Sidebar]
An interpretive paraphrase of v 2 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: “the world did not recognize him. . . . his own did not receive him” (John 1:10-11). They saw him for who and what he truly was. Thus, life, identified as eternal life, was placed on display, set before human eyes clearly. By examining him who was life, people could come to know the nature of God. Athanasius spoke of this as “becoming by grace what God is by nature” (Inc., I), thus highlighting the knowledge of God not merely as information but crucially as transformation. These opening lines are similar in tone to the experience of Thomas in the Gospel (John 20:24-29). He would not believe unless he could see for himself, and touch the risen Jesus’ wounds. In both instances hearing, seeing, and touching provide conclusive evidence that Jesus’ death was not the end of the story. This truly significant fact made the story of Jesus good news that had to be told. The crucified and risen Jesus was experienced as alive and victorious over death. Otherwise, life was hopeless. As Paul said it well, “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is our faith” (1 Cor 15:14). The words life and eternal are combined frequently into eternal life (tēn zoēn tēn aiōnion) elsewhere in the NT (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 (sixteen times) and in 1 John (six times: 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20). John perceives eternal life as “life from another eon (aiōn . . .) or sphere. Indeed, it is the life of God Himself” (Brown 1982, 168). It is life of a different quality, not merely the life of this present age continued into eternity. The Word (John 1:1) has now become the incarnate Jesus bringing to us God’s age-to-come life by his word (John 6:68; 10:28; 12:50; 17:2). Jesus is the true life (1 John 5:20), revealing the life of God from and for all eternity. Jesus is the past, present, and future of God (Rev 4:8; see 1:4, 8). John differs importantly from the Gnostics 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 of eternity resides in us (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. The implication is that whoever has this life will not be lost in eternity (John 6:40; 10:28). The 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). Apostolic and Christian authority is thus twofold, that of personal experience and that of commission. Translating we are continually testifying and proclaiming highlights a continuous aspect. Authentic witness is ongoing, the story that never ends. The Greek word gives us the English word “martyr.” Later in Christian circles witness came 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). 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. 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). The statement “be faithful unto death and I will give you a crown of life” (Rev 2:10), and 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 Bruce distinguishes between 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). Faithful witnessing about Jesus comes from a community of faith. The author speaks with a corporate voice, using the first person plural—we—in three verbs in this one verse. This collective testimony indicates that their experience of Jesus was not a solitary religious practice. It was something entered into as part of a worshipping group. The main verb for vv 1-3, we proclaim (apangellomen), anticipated in v 2, finally arrives. The word connotes a messenger bearing news and may be employed in both secular and religious contexts. The word appears in reports of resurrection (Matt 28:8, 10; Luke 24:9; Mark 16:10, 13); of the message of God (Matt 11:4; Luke 7:22); and declaring Jesus as the Messenger of God (Matt 12:18; Heb 2:12; Schniewind 1964, 56-73). A number of compound words with angellō 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 a new age to come, so much as it is to recall and make something clear that was already known (Becker and Mϋller 1978, 3:46-47). John’s piling up of experiential, testimony verbs and withholding the main verb emphasizes the content of the message rather than 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 would have his readers embrace the one who was seen and heard and so embrace 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 Christians 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 a natural outgrowth of the incarnation (Strecker 1996, 20). Because the life of God was revealed in Christ, authentic, spiritually valuable relationships may develop between persons. 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 human connections. In a real sense the relation between Christians, at its deepest level, is simply Jesus! John was apparently troubled by some readers who were not closely tied to him and his message. Consequently, he wrote to call them away from a potentially eroding commitment to the apostolic teaching as he understood it. Further evidence of this may be seen in subsequent sections of the epistle about walking in light versus 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 sphere of ministry. Verse three expresses the aim of his proclamation: that you may also have fellowship with us. This desire for fellowship will mean resisting the threat posed to the community by the erring teachers. ■ 4 This verse touches on a vital aspect of the advance of the gospel, namely the importance of writing—we write (graphomen). John stresses this means of pastoral care from a distance an inordinate number of times for such a short letter (write appears ten times—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 Bible is available to modern readers because many wrote. Authors and countless scribes faithfully copied manuscripts by hand before the invention of the printing press. Biblical prophets put pen and paper together, understanding they were doing so in response to divine command (Isa 30:8; Jer 30:2; Hab 2:2). The Book of Revelation records the command (from God or Christ or an angel) to “write” 12 times (1:11, 19; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5). John writes to enable joy. The word joy (chara, related to charis, ”grace”) appears seven times in the words of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (3:29; 15:11; 16:20-24; 17:13). The words in 1 John 1:4 are identical to those of John 16:24: “that your joy may be full” (hina hē chara hymōn hē peplērōmenē) except in manuscripts of 1 John that have “our” rather than “your.” 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 (John 16:24). Or, a scribe could have heard incorrectly when a reader in a scriptorium was dictating to a group of scribes making multiple copies of 1 John. The difference between the words—hēmōn, hymōn—to the ear, would be hard to catch. The NIV (also NASB, NRSV) translators preferred the reading our (hēmōn) in v 4 on the basis of two important fourth-century uncial manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is also the more unexpected, thus more likely, reading. A later editor would have smoothed out the reading, not made it more difficult. Besides here the word joy appears only four times (2 John 4, 12; 3 John 3, 4). The mutual joy experienced in their shared commitments led then to preserve their written communications and looked forward to face-to-face contact. The readers of 1 John no doubt heard echoes of the joy emphasized in Jesus’ last discourse in the Upper Room (John 15:11; 16:24; 17:13; see John 3:29). The pattern in John 15 is similar to here where a shared relationship—fellowship—results in joy. The meaning in both Gospel and epistle reaches out to include the joy of salvation. John writes so the joy of the Johannine circle may be made complete (peplērōmenē, “filled up”), experienced in abundance (see 2 John 12). The perfect tense of the participle suggests a joy brought to fullness and sustained. Furthermore, the passive voice reminds the readers that their joy is a gracious gift from God. This gift is best experienced when received in a faithful, corporate setting in which the hearers obey what they have been taught by apostolic authority. In summary, vv 1-4 present in essence the message, the theological witness, of the entire letter. Implied first is the continuity of revelation between the Father and the incarnate Son. Second, John stresses the biblical truth that the life of the Christian is a relationship that comprehends both Gospel and Ethic. Held together is both “What God has done” and “What we are to do”—the inherent unity of the horizontal and vertical dimensions of Christian life. It is imperative for our spiritual welfare and the health of the Church that these two are kept in balance. Necessary is not only the presence of both, but also their inter-penetrating relationship to each other. “This life, . . . the eternal life,” is “fellowship with us” and “ with the Father and with the Son.”
FROM THE TEXT
1. A Challenge to Witness Faithfully. Those who experience “eternal life” (v 2) have an obligation to be faithful examples of and spokespersons for this life. Hearers in every generation tell the story and share the life it offers. From the first Christians, through those who brought the Scriptures to us, and passed on by our faithful witness, the story never ends. How do we witness faithfully? We do so by personally embracing the Christian faith and the person of Jesus Christ. Faithful testimony happens as we immerse ourselves in that faith. By studying and living its message, we become confident embodiments and re-tellers of the story. Also, our ability to be faithful witnesses improves with practice. 2. A Concern to Maintain the Christological Paradox. The ancient struggle to hold in creative tension both Christ’s full divinity and full humanity, evident in this letter, continues in the modern era. Jesus was a Jewish man of his times, a rabbinic teacher who lived in first-century Israel. Thus, he is, for some, a courageous social revolutionary (Crossan 1991), though certainly not to be understood as deity (Crossan 1994; similar is Borg 1995; for critique of their skepticism see Johnson 1996). 9]). But the over-arching testimony of the NT affirms Jesus as “God” (John 1:1) in whom “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell” (Col 1:19), “in very nature God” (Phil 2:6), and “the Son [who] is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb 1:3). 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 never became truly incarnate. This was precisely the problem faced in 1 John. Some denied that Christ had come “in the flesh” (4:2-3). Maintaining both aspects of Christology, even as they stand in paradoxical 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. In the NT joy is associated especially with Jesus’ birth (Matt 2:10; Luke 1:14, 44; 2:10); and his resurrection (Matt 28:8; Luke 24:41, 52). Joy naturally flows from a transformed life (Luke 15:7, 10), and within a community that has experienced spiritual renewal (Acts 8:8). Joy is not dependent on circumstances. That is, joy can be present whether or not all the aspects of our lives are flowing smoothly. Rather, joy consists of an inner and abiding peace, knowing that, whatever comes, one is rightly related to God and others. This already enjoyed eschatological joy (resurrection faith insures it, John 16:20-22) also surely anticipates a not-yet fulfillment (1 Cor 2:9; see Bultmann 1961, 14 n 28, who sees an eschatological salvation on the basis of John 17:13). One may sense joy individually; but it is best experienced in the company of others. Our allegiance to Jesus Christ is nurtured by other believers. 1 John encourages us to experience the richness of human friendships, anchored and enriched by fellowship with God.
B. Forgiveness and Cleansing (1:5-10)
BEHIND THE TEXT The theological vocabulary of this section strongly resembles that of several non-biblical manuscripts called the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls, and the Essenes who probably composed, collected, and preserved them, espoused a strongly dualistic theology. Those who were properly allied with God and righteousness were “sons of light” and those who were hostile to God and would be judged were “sons of darkness.”
Begin Sidebar The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) In 1947, near the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, a wealth of ancient manuscripts began to be discovered in the caves of the area. The site, called Qumran, provides significant data for understanding the religious thought-world of a separatist Jewish community as well as some aspects of early Christianity. The DSS include copies of every book of the OT except Esther, as well as a large number of non-canonical writings. For introductory material on the Qumran community, English translations of the scrolls and extensive bibliography see Vermes (2004); for a short history of the DSS see Fields (2008). End Sidebar
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 Vermes 2004, 77-84). 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.” This sectarian Jewish group was contemporaneous with the developing Christian movement. Both were Jewish expressions of religious faith with similar language and worldview. Each group intended to perpetuate the best of Judaism and both affirmed a coming Messiah. But the Essenes anticipated a messiah (or two; 1QS VIII, 10; Vermes 2004, 86) to come, while the Johannine Christians celebrated the messiah who had already come. The Essenes and the Johannine Christians embraced a sharply dualistic outlook (truth/lies, light/darkness, for example). Insert para from next page below? Both viewed the future as nearing an apocalyptic, face-off between good and evil. The references in 1 John to “the last hour” and “antichrists” (2:18) reflect a religious viewpoint akin to those at Qumran. Both groups practiced 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. Essenes were, like Jesus, 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 than the Synoptic Gospels, details about the event. John locates this tension-packed action by Jesus at the beginning of the Gospel (in the Synoptics it occurs near the end of Jesus’ life). The event heightens the tension between the Temple leadership and Jesus (John 7:32; 8:20, 59). Jesus’ statement “destroy this temple” (John 2:19), though spoken in reference to his body, ironically points forward to the actual destruction of the Temple by the Romans in A.D. 70. The Essenes’ self-identity as true light is much like the language of 1 John (Vermes 2004, 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 become love for one’s “brother or sister” (NRSV 2:9, 10). The preaching of John the Baptist in the Jordan valley also contains themes found in the Johannine and Qumran literature. Like the Essenes, he preached 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 (see Matt 3:7-12) reflect the kind of dualism found at Qumran and evident in 1 John.
IN THE TEXT
1 John 1:1-4 introduces the fundamental fabric of the Christian proclamation. Namely, the comprehensive concern of how Christians relate to God and each other, woven out of the threads of an adequate ethic and an appropriate Christology. In the content and grammatical structure of 1:5-10, John now moves into a more detailed exploration of the inner or theological structure of his witness to the Gospel. This is the 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 (angelia) had been heard and still sounds in their ears (akēkoamen, perfect tense). But this announcement is 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 a key announcement for John’s interpretation of the Gospel to his readers. It is “the theological core of his world picture” (Houlden 1973, 57). The association between God and light appears on the opening page of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 reports “darkness . . . over the surface of the deep.” It is dispelled by 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 employs the language of the 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 twenty-three 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). Thus the “true light” is both a necessity that belongs to God’s moral nature and the source of all moral illumination. John’s language seems to counter a Gnostic use of life and light as secret knowledge to a few. Instead the terms mean the revelation of God clearly to all. In the dualistic images of the literature from Qumran, light and darkness typified the radical difference between good and evil. The Dead Sea sectarians referred to themselves as “sons of light” (War Scroll 1QM, 1Q33, 4Q491-7, 4Q471; see Vermes 2004, 161-85; Ritt 1993, 3:448). They 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). TLevi 19:1, a Jewish document, speaks of the “sons of light” and the “sons of darkness” (see John 12:35-36, 46; also 1 Thess 5:5: “You are all sons of the light and sons of the day”). The imagery of light in contrast to darkness in 1 John identifies those allied with John’s position. To walk in the light (v 7) is to live by the truth (implied in v 6). To journey in the light of God’s self-revelation in Jesus is to experience fellowship with God’s people and cleansing from all sin (v 7). God is light and “God is love” (1 John 4:16), and by inference, God is “truth” (v 6). God as light, love, and truth is good, and evil cannot co-exist with good (Marshall 1978, 109). ■ 6 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. John expresses the heretical false claims in climactic order, that is, the problems he faces move from the general to the specific, and then to the most personally condemning (vv, 6, 8, 10). The solutions follow the same pattern, from the general to the specific and then to the down-to-earth life of the disciple (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 are present in the “consequences” and “explanations.” These latter two put 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. The verbs in the three pairs of claims are in the subjunctive mood, suggesting 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 translation to capture the ideas would 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 or possibly within the Johannine churches, have said what John seeks to correct (Smith 1991, 43). John considered such aberrant views a serious danger to his readers. Some were perhaps swayed already to these positions. It is risky 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). John, by using we, may be identifying with the group to whom he writes (Strecker 1996, 29), standing as one of them in order to persuade them away from the dangers of the secessionists. However, the repeated if we claim (vv 6, 8, 10) may be a stylistic variation only. Bogart may be correct in seeing the threefold first-person plurals as equivalent to the three instances in 1 John 2 of the impersonal pronoun of the participle ho legōn (the one saying, 2:4, 6, and 9; Bogart 1977, 28). 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, shared (koinōnia) relationship with Christ, yet our life is inconsistent with the claim, we are presently walking in the darkness. To do so is to walk contrary to truth (v 6): we are not doing the truth (ou poioumen tēn alētheian; see John 3:21). This would involve believing a different teaching than that of the Johannine churches (2 John 9-11). At issue also would be not loving the “brother” (v 7; 2:9-11; 3:23). To so walk in the darkness is to engage in blatant self-deception: we lie (pseudometha) and are failing to live by the truth.
Begin Sidebar Truth The concept of “truth” (alētheia) appears more than two-dozen times in the Gospel of John, twice as many as in the Synoptic Gospels combined. Truth is the most frequent key word in the letters (Thomas 2004, 20, 39). In the Gospel of John truth can mean content to be believed—“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (8:31-32; see vv 40-46). God’s “word is truth” (17:17). But truth also assumes living in right relationship with “the only true God” (17:3). Jesus is truth incarnate as God’s revelation (1:17; 14:6; Bultmann 1961, 97, 99), and the Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of truth” (14:17; 15:26; 16:13). The individual who receives God’s truth will “live by” it (3:21), worship “in spirit and truth,” and be sanctified by the truth (17:17). The world, a domain of darkness and falsehood, has been invaded by Christ “the true light” (1:9). Jesus, active in creation (1:10), comes into the world he helped shape, but “his own did not receive him” (1:11). Ironically, as Jesus is tried and condemned, the world is on trial for its rejection of truth (Köstenberger 2009, 288-89, 437-41). In the letters John assures his readers that they “have an anointing from the Holy One, and . . . know the truth” (1 John 2:20; see 2 John 1; John 8:32). In 3 John 8 believers are to be co-workers in the truth (Jones 2009, 268). The five instances of “truth” in 2 John 1-4, and five more in 3 John, may signal the elder’s concern over doctrine as he calls his readers to “walk in the truth” (3 John 3). But the picture is not of static creedal orthodoxy (Jones 2009, 268; see Lieu 1991, 94-96). The image of walking presents a picture of truth as a dynamic, ongoing, shared relationship. Truth can be personified and so give testimony in behalf of another (3 John 12). Believers walk in truth, indeed, may live in truth forever (2 John 2; 3 John 3, 4). For the elder, truth signifies both the Christian message but also the incarnate Jesus who by the Spirit can enter into a believer (Marshall 1978, 62, n 17). Christ is not only the revealer of truth but also he himself is the truth. Thus knowing the truth means more than hearing Christ’s words; it involves personal union with him (Dodd 1968, 177-78). End Sidebar
The theme of 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 2004, 98, 103, 109). Truth spurs to action. In 1 John doing the truth includes acting lovingly toward one’s brother (2:9-10) and being generous with material support to “his brother in need” (3:16-18). This is strikingly similar to James for whom true faith is always demonstrated by actions (Jas 2:14-26). Also doing the truth means not being led astray from what “you have heard from the beginning” (1 John 2:24). The emphasis on fellowship with God and the mention of “the blood of Jesus, his Son” in v 7 indicates that Christology as well as ethics is in view. Walking, having fellowship, and doing the truth are related, continuous activities. Cessation of one reflects cessation of the others. The ancient metaphor of walking naturally became a part of the Christian vocabulary. Jesus said “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12; also 11:9-10; 12:35). The apostle Paul employed the image often (Rom 6:4; 8:4; 1 Cor 7:17; 2 Cor 12:18; Gal 5:16; Eph 4:1; 5:20). The metaphor appears several times in the Psalms (1:1; 15:2; 86:11; 128:1). To walk with another was to be in agreement with him (Amos 3:3), to keep in pace with another (Gal 5:15). Remaining aligned with the Johannine churches was “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, present tense), and may be understood as having a continuous aspect—is continually purifying. The purifying continues as we walk with God. Cleansing is both what God does for us and an unfolding reality as our obedience enables us to live in a purifying relationship to God. The blood of Jesus speaks of his suffering on the cross unto death. John offers it as the sufficient basis to cleanse from all sin. This purity, conditioned upon a continuing obedient response to God’s grace, means this work of God is not accomplished once-for-all in a moment. As 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. Yet we must never assume that we are cleansed from sin by our own efforts. Walking in the light enables believers to have fellowship with one another. The image of walking in light is found in the Psalms (Pss 56:13; 89:15), as well as in Isaiah “let us walk in the light of the LORD” (2:5). In the Gospel of John the image is of believing and loving discipleship toward Jesus (John 8:12). The Essene community stressed walking in light as evidence of being one of the sons of righteousness. In contrast, walking in darkness revealed one to be a son of wickedness (1QS III, 20; Vermes 2004, 101). Walking in the light is to walk with God who is light (v 5). It is to experience God’s presence and be shaped by God’s character as revealed in Jesus, his son. Previously in v 6 the claim “we . . . have fellowship with him” (koinōnian echomen met’ autou) was negated by walking “in the darkness.” So one might now expect to find John saying that walking in the light leads to fellowship with God. Instead, John extends the thought a step further (Brooke 1912, 15). The result of walking in the light means we have fellowship with one another (koinōnian echomen met’ allēlōn). For the Johannine Christians, fellowship with the Father and the Son was inextricably woven together with fidelity to the community of faith (1:3). 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 that 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 on 1 John 2:2). The word purifies (katharizei, v 9), in a variety of usages in the NT and LXX, suggests making clean. It means to cleanse from sin in Heb 9: 22, 23; 10:2. Luke, reporting Peter’s words about the outpouring of the Spirit upon Gentiles in Cornelius’ household, describes the giving of the Holy Spirit as achieving the katharisas of their hearts (Acts 15:9). The primary point in both Hebrews and Acts is the removal of all that hinders relationship to God. In the Gospel of John forms of katharizo appears in 15:2-3 to describe the cleaning away of branches not producing fruit. In John 13:10-11 the idea is applied metaphorically to explain that not all the twelve disciples were katharoi, a reference to Judas the betrayer as having a heart alien to Jesus. In Matthew the term describes one being cleansed from leprosy (8:2, 3; 10:8). This transformation enables ceremonial, ritual acceptance for the one so cleansed. John, here in v 7, 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 when brought into 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). The work of God being stressed in 1 John calls for an ethical ordering of one’s life as a natural result of a new relationship. It is a holiness that, though certainly and always derived from Christ, and achieving reconciliation to God through him, becomes a transformative reality in the life of the disciple of Jesus. How thorough is the cleansing? It is from all (pasēs) sin. Brooke understood the phrase purifies us from all sin as indicating “the removal of sin” from the life of the believer (1912, 15). Brooke further poses that John envisions sin as an active power, and is not here 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 writes that “purification signifies the removal not only of the guilt of sin but also of the power of sin in the human heart” (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). The phrase from all sin (apo pasēs hamartias) thus conveys wonderful promise. God’s cleansing activity that flows from Christ’s death is a deep and thorough work, attending to “all that is called sin” (Blaney 1967, 355). 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). The cleansing addresses all sin (or “every sin,” NIV margin). Forms of pas are translated three times as “every” in 1 John 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 implication remains that God’s remedy for sin is without limit. Sin cannot continue to defile the person, or faith community, that continually walks in the light. Two instances in 1 John might be taken as approaching a definition of sin. “Sin is lawlessness” (anomia, 3:4) and “All wrongdoing (adikia) is sin” (5:17). The statement in 3:4 suggests sin as a condition. In 5:17 the obvious sense is that of violations. In John 16:9 Jesus speaks of sin as unbelief. This lack of a proper belief placed in Jesus (Christology) is one of the foundational problems faced in the letter. So in the Johannine writings sin is against God’s law, against righteousness, and a failure to believe in Jesus. While “law” only occurs once in the letters, “command” appears twelve times. The commands 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. Liberation from sin through the atoning death of Christ is offered to all, for sin is universal (Strecker 1996, 31). John, in this well-structured set of verses (1:5—2:2) brings strong language to bear on the pastoral challenges at hand. Sin is real, personal, serious, and pervasive. But divine correction is all these as well. ■8 The claim to be without sin, (present tense, thus perhaps having a continuous aspect, if we are claiming we presently have no sin), creates a challenge for interpretation. Later, John calls his readers to live no longer under the dominion of sin (2:1). But he does, however, clearly acknowledge that sin may intrude into our lives. John obviously does not agree with what his opponents are saying. Two different types of perfectionism appear in 1 John, “heretical” and “orthodox” perfectionism (Bogart 1977, 47-49). Proponents of the rival “heretical perfectionism” perverted the Johannine understanding. It arose from Gnostic influences which viewed the material universe, including the human body, as evil. Against this, John vigorously strives, seeing it as a theological and practical danger for his churches (vv 6, 8, 10). For the other (“orthodox perfectionism”) John energetically contends. This type is that of being “born of God” (3:9), with sins forgiven and God’s purifying work a present reality by the blood of Jesus (1:7, 9). This orthodox perfectionism is marked by avoiding sin through abiding in Christ—“No one who lives in him keeps on sinning” (3:6). Here in v 8 those who claim to be without sin are claiming to have knowledge of a superior kind. As essentially “spiritual” rather than physical beings, sin is of no moral issue to them, sin does not relate as such to their lives. 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). To claim to be without sin is to engage in intentional self-deception. The Greek word order, heautous planōmen, can be emphatically translated as ourselves we are deceiving. Against this John repeatedly warns his readers (2:26; 3:7). Earlier (v 6) John linked walking in the darkness with not doing the truth. Similarly here he says the truth is not in one who wrongly claims sinlessness. ■ 9 In contrast, John poses to his readers—if we confess (ean homologōmen). To whom the confession is to be made is not stated. The proposal and the promise are to the readers corporately—we and us. Thus, John may be calling, as does James, for mutual confession—“to each another” (Jas 5:16). Ultimately the confession is intended toward God/Christ who grants the forgiveness and purity. In the Didache XIV the confession of sins is something done on “the Lord’s day.” It was also commended 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 a few (Matt 3:6; Mark 1:5; Jas 5:16) are related to the confessing of sins. Secular Greek texts employ homologeo for admission of guilt or error though not with a religious connotation (Hofius 1991, 515). In the face of human sinfulness, and especially when sins are confessed, God is faithful (pistos). The word can mean “trustworthy” or “dependable” (BDAG, 820—see Matt 25:21; 2 Tim 2:2) or said of promises that are certain. God’s character is just (dikaios, 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, 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). In vv 6-8, John has used present tense verbs to discuss what God does and what persons do. 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 views the act as being done, not its duration or result (Haas 1972, 38). At times, however, it can carry the sense of a completed action, even a decisive one. It is intriguing that just here the aorist tense appears in reference to what God does with cleansing from all unrighteousness (apo pasēs adikias). The “a” (the Greek alpha) at the beginning of the word adikias negates the word to which it is attached. All that is not righteous is addressed. The connection between the words used by John to speak of the nature of God and what God can do for persons is seen when it is translated by he is . . . righteous (dikaios) and . . . will . . . purify us from all unrighteousness (adikias). Earlier (vv 6-8) John stressed the continuous, ongoing aspect of God’s work (and the believer’s response) by using present tense verbs. By the use of aorist verbs it may be that now John is emphasizing an action by God, thought of not so much as a continuous activity, but as a decisive act. The forgiveness and cleansing are in conjunction with the confessing. As we confess from time to time as necessary (present tense, see 2:1), forgiveness and cleansing are given by God in Christ (v 7). God’s work speaks to the universal human need to be pardoned and also 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 purification. 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 resisted a thorough addressing of sin in the present; he identified sinning too much with being in the body. This 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). Only God can purify. But also clear is that God does not override the human will to accomplish the purifying. The verbs (forgive—aphēi; and purify—katharisēi), both in the subjunctive mood and combined with ean, become an “if . . . then” construction. 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 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 (heretical perfectionists) appear to have gone so far as to say 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 term liar here recalls we lie in v 6. 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). The perfect tense indicates that the sins were past actions with 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, John strikes a blow at either notion by his choice of the perfect tense verb. In this he agrees with Paul who asserted “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). All continue to be affected by past sins, 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. But John asserts that their beliefs and practices undermine God’s teachings. Denial of sin, saying we have not sinned, declares God 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; see Rom 3:4). Significantly liar appears five times in 1 John. The usage 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). The message of the Gospel has neither been heard nor responded to, that is, Christ has not been received! False claims lead to ever increasing delusion. In v 6 claiming close relationship with God while living in disobedience is a lie told to others. Then in v 8 a denial that sin affects our lives 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. When we conduct ourselves in morally corrupt ways and continue to claim we are still Christians, we blatantly live a lie (v 6). But the severity worsens, we “deceive ourselves” (v 8). Eventually, the boundary between lies and truth becomes so blurred that we could call God a liar by denying even that we have sinned (v 10). Tragically, we might believe ourselves spiritually in need of nothing (see Rev 3:17). 2. The Necessity of Divine Cleansing. Sometimes, as with the opponents of John, the most significant flaw in us might be the self-deception that we have no flaws! Refusal to acknowledge one’s sins (not confessing) means God is blocked, called a “liar,” and God’s word is absent “in our lives” (v 10). God will cleanse “from all sin” (v 7) and “from all unrighteousness” (v 9). John Wesley understood “all sin” in v 7 to refer to “both original and actual, taking away all the guilt and the power” (Wesley 1983, n. p.). Adam Clarke, similarly, spoke of sin in two “modes”; in “guilt which requires forgiveness or pardon” and in “pollution, which requires cleansing” (Clarke n.d., 904). Martin Luther, the reformer monk, citing Augustine, differentiated between sin as condition (“indwelling sin”) and sinful acts (Pelikan 1967, 228). Adam Clarke makes 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). God’s wants to purge us from all that is unlike God. By this cleansing, “all sin” (v 7) and “all unrighteousness” (v 9) are defeated. God also works over time to smooth out the lingering flaws that are inconsistent with the character of God. 3. The Relational Nature of Holiness. The theme of “fellowship” (vv 4, 6), highlights the critical nature of righteousness as relational. Being cleansed from all sin does not mean that one has experienced a surgical intervention, as if sin was organic. Rather, being cleansed from sin means having entered into a cleansing relationship with God. One is cleansed by being rightly related to the God who is pure and who always cleanses what is given into his possession. Cleansing results from living in Christ. When John uses all (vv 7, 9) he expresses the confidence that God’s work does not nibble away at sin in our lives. God’s intention is to decisively defeat sin. Thus “holy” and “righteous” are words that appropriately describe the true character, not simply the position, or standing, of God’s people. 4. The Limits of Christian Fellowship. To what degree can one participate with other Christians who have different views and practices? When does fellowship go beyond shared lives and become compromise on key doctrinal matters, or lifestyle practices? There is 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 divergent theologies and practices to the degree that one stands for little that is clear, and much that is unbiblical. John Wesley dealt with the matter in his sermon “Catholic Spirit.” He urged steadfastness in what one “believes to be the truth as it is in Jesus” (not having “a muddy understanding”). Settled in one’s own theological convictions, and active in a local congregation, the person of a catholic spirit yet has a “heart . . . enlarged toward all” who love Jesus Christ, love others, and seek always to please God (Wesley 1978-79, 5:502-504).