Down an Unfamiliar Road

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LXXIV) 03/18/21

Aaron Gaebelein (1861-1945) ensures that the Light makes known that sinful tendencies lurk within. If the believer, the child of God, says that they have no sin, the Light contradicts them. If they say we have never sinned, they deceive themselves, and the truth is not in them. The denial of inner sin is a delusion. This evil teaching that the old Adamic nature is gone from the believer is widespread in our day among some Holiness, Pentecostal, and other sects. True spirituality is to confess daily, walking in the Light, that there dwells no good thing in our flesh. And if we commit a sin, it needs to be acknowledged and confessed. He, then, is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all wrongdoing.

Gaebelein goes on to say that the Light also manifests another evil, the claim of sinless perfection. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us. Some have applied this verse to the unsaved; it has nothing to do with the sinner but relates to a true believer, who, in presumption, makes the claim that he or she lives without sinning. And the reason why children of God make such unscriptural claims are caused by inattention to His Word, for the Word makes manifest what sin is, and the Apostle says, “If we say that we have not sinned … His word is not in us.”^[1]

William E. Shepard (1862-1930) imitates John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” by composing a conversation between a Christian depending on the blood of the Anointed One for salvation and a self-righteous sinner who thinks they are good enough and has no need to ask forgiveness for sin through the blood, as follows:

Christian: My friend, did you know that “if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus the Anointed One His Son cleanses us from all sin?” I have proven this to be true, and if you come to Him as I did, you may prove it for yourself and receive cleansing from sin.

Self-Righteous: But I have no sin to be washed away; I do not need the blood of Jesus.

Christian: What? Do you say you have no sin? “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Surely, you are wrong and self-deceived. You should repent, confess your sins, and be saved, for we read, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Self-Righteous: But I have never sinned and do not feel that I have anything to confess or repent for. I pay my honest debts, treat my neighbors well, and support my family, and I believe I am just as good as anyone. I am not a sinner and have never done anything wrong.

Christian: Surely, in saying that, you are making God a liar, for in for it says: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.”

While this helps us get to the meaning of these last four verses, says Shepard, it does not refer whatsoever to one who has been cleansed from all sin, but those who say they have no sin to be cleansed from, even when law-breaking tendencies are active their lives. It is also just as applicable to the unsanctified Christian who denies the further need for cleansing.^[2] It’s a little like a person excusing themselves for breaking the law because they are a police officer.

Harry A. Ironside (1876-1951) points out that under the First Covenant, when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned.^[3] It implies the need for confession. I’m afraid many of us never really get to God by repenting because we are so nonspecific, says Ironside. Someone may pray and say, “O Lord, if You have seen any sin, anything wrong in me, forgive me.” Hold on a minute! Is there any sin? Do you know of anything wrong? The proper way to confess is to come to God, acknowledging the wrong you know you have done.

A lady who came to Charles Wesley, notes Ironside, said, “I want you to pray with me, for I am a great sinner. I am a saint of God, but I fail so dreadfully, and I want you to pray with me.” Mr. Wesley said rather sternly, “I will pray for you, for indeed you need it. You are a great sinner.” “What do you mean?” she asked indignantly; “I have never done anything bad!” Oh, dear friends, if you want a blessing, do not be vague in your confession. Go into the presence of God and tell Him all about your sins. Tell Him about your bad temper, about your scandalous tongue, about all the things you do to grieve His Holy Spirit. Some of you say, “Pray for my husband; I would like him to be converted.” He is more likely to be converted if you will say, “O God, I confess that my bad temper is hindering my husband from being saved and is alienating my children. I am not surprised that my friends are not converted.” Then go to them and confess to them. If you have been saying it was nervousness when it really was a bad temper, acknowledge that it is temper, and stop trying to excuse your sin.[4]

David Smith (1897-1910) sees in verses eight through ten the heresy of Perfectionism. Some might not say that they were excused from any obligation to moral law. However, they maintained that sinning was no longer attractive to them, had no more sinful inclinations, and committed no more sinful acts. In opposition, the Apostle asserts two facts: (1) Inherent corruption. Distinguish “to have sin” and “to sin,” corresponding to the sinful principle and its manifestation in specific acts. Our poisoned natures carry its infection in our blood. Grace is the medicine, but recovery is a protracted process. It begins the moment we submit ourselves to the Anointed One, but all our lives, we continue under treatment as a defense against being “led astray.”^[5]  Perfectionism has two causes, notes Smith: (1) The stifling of conscience: “we make Him a liar, namely, turn a deaf ear to His inward testimony, His voice in our souls. (2) Ignorance of His Word: “is not in us.” Such a delusion is impossible if we drenched our minds in the Scriptures.^[6]

Greville P. Lewis (1891-1976) says that those who claim that after they were born again and cleansed from sin, have remained sin-free ever since are simply making excuses. They may say, “What you call sin, I call it an option.” One of the most often excuse themselves by saying, “I was not myself,” or, “I’m not like that,” “That’s not like me.” Another emergency response is, “I didn’t do it; it sort of ‘happened!’” At other times they blame it on “circumstances.” “I just lost my temper for a moment,” or, “I wasn’t feeling well.” Sometimes, like Eve in the Garden of Eden – who blamed it on the snake, they blame it on others. They don’t know, says Lewis, that they are deceiving themselves. But worst of all, they are making God out to be a liar. By that, Lewis means, if God calls it “sin,” it’s a sin.^[7]

F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) points out that three tests are laid down here in verses six, eight, and ten in the form of false claims. We begin with verse six: “So, if we say,” each of these inflected claims followed by the real thing which is its remedy and cure in verse seven. The first of these infected claims is that at the same time, they are in communion with a righteous God; they are in companionship with unrighteousness that the Apostle John denounces in his Gospel.^[8] It may well be that the infected teachers against whom John puts his readers on guard were wide open to criticism in this respect. Still, it is equally necessary for those who adhere to the apostolic teaching and fellowship to be reminded that following orthodox doctrine is no substitute for living a righteous life.

Then comes the second test in verse eight. “So, if we say,” we are sinless, we are only deceiving ourselves because we don’t know the truth even though it stares us in the face. That makes the Lamb’s death and blood on the cross of no value and is meaningless. But the problem with this infection is that a person makes this claim based on the fact that they claim to have the Holy Spirit’s indwelling. That makes them beyond the reach of evil. If people think that the moral principles, they’ve developed seem good enough to do the job, they are only deceiving themselves. The remedy for this illness is found in verse nine.

We find the third infectious claim in verse ten: “So, if we say,” we have never sinned, we make God out to be a liar. It proves that His Word is not in us. Suppose anyone is convicted of doing something wrong. In that case, that is evidence enough that lawbreaking tendencies are present within them and always find ways to evidence themselves in word, act, and deed. Again, the remedy in verse nine applies here as well. If the Holy Spirit does dwell in a believer, He is not lying when it tells them they’ve done wrong. And if a person claims that it wasn’t wrong, just a minor mistake, that as John said, in verse eight, His Word is not in them. So, when we look at what John said in his Gospel,^[9] we can see how it influenced John here in his Epistle.[10]

---

[1] Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible, op. cit., loc. cit.

[2] Shepard, William E. Wrested Scriptures Made Plain, Ch. 1, pp. 6-7

[3] Leviticus 5:5

[4] Ironside, H. A. Addresses on the Epistles of John (Ironside Commentary Series Book 43) op. cit., p. 11

[5] Cf. Matthew 18:12

[6] Smith, David: The Expositor’s Greek Testament: The Epistles of John, Gorge H. Doran Company. New York, 1897-1910, pp. 172-173 

[7] Lewis, Greville P. The Johannine Epistles, op. cit., pp. 30-31

[8] John 3:20-21

[9] John 5:38

[10] Bruce, F. F. The Epistles of John, op. cit., (Kindle Location 708-775)

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LXXIII) 03/17/21

A. B. Earle (1812-1895), an American Baptist evangelist shares a story about the time he conducted evangelistic services in San Jose, California. He relates the story of a well-known and highly respected gentleman in the city. He founded a local college and applauded for his efforts. At the request of his wife, he came to converse with Earle on the subject of religion. The man said: I will state to you my feelings, then you can give me the proper advice. You see, I believe in God, the Father Almighty, but do not, and cannot, believe in the Son, that is in Jesus. Now sir, what am I to do.

“You will be lost forever unless there can be a change,” replied Earle. He congratulated him for believing in God the Father. But there is no other name under heaven given to people to be born-again, but Jesus. So, there was no possible hope for this gentleman unless he changed his views. But the man was adamant. He never believed in the Son of God and had no plans to start now. Earle told him that settled question as long as he felt that way. Earle informed the man, “The Father has no blood to shed for you, and without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin.”

That’s when Earle asked him if he would kneel and pray with him. Yes, he said, I will pray to the Father. It was a chilly prayer. Earle said to the man that his case was not hopeless. After a little further conversation, he asked him if he would agree not to grieve the Holy Spirit? The man nodded and said he pledged not to resist the Spirit on purpose. Earle prayed with him that the Spirit would reveal Jesus to him.

About three days later, the man knelt and offered this prayer: “O Lord, I promised that I would not resist the Holy Spirit, and He has melted my heart, and I have had a glimpse of Jesus.” A few days later, he stood before a great crowd and made this statement: “Ten days ago, I was nothing more than an infidel, but now I have sweetly embraced Jesus as my Savior.” While it is true that no one can find or come to the Anointed One, except by the Holy Spirit, it is equally valid that if we resist Him, we will be lost forever.[1]

William Kelly (1822-1888) points out that there is something great significance in the creation of humanity. Satan’s work is to make them feel like a lowly creature here on earth, shutting their eyes to all that is coming and thus denying God’s Word and judgment. Many no doubt are experiencing varying degrees of unfaithfulness, especially in our day. Still, we may assume that the first step is denying Scriptures as God’s Word. If it is not outright rejecting the Anointed One in the preached Gospel, then lowering themselves to the level of an animal. That way, there is no reason to love heaven or fear hell. It will remain that way throughout the ever-darkening clouds of faithlessness. But this also carries the danger of presumption, for the flesh will abuse anything and everything. Most of all, the flesh strives to pervert grace and likes to do so unless a person becomes a new creation. And even where there is that nature, the believer is only kept right by dependence upon God in the faith of the Anointed One’s work.[2]

Daniel Steele (1824-1914) notes that verse seven clarifies verse eight, showing that sins before the new birth are used in both passages and not believer’s daily sins. The Gnostics who professed to be Christians denied the fact of past sin. Hence, if they dismissed past sinful acts, they could deny that they had sin. To “have no sin” refers to a sinless state. The whole context of these verses shows that both refer to sin. It includes those committed before regeneration and those done while in a backslidden condition. As such, they’ve lost their kinship with God. In so doing, they also cease to grow into His likeness.

When it comes to how we make Him a liar, says Steele, it is clear that John does not include himself in this word “we,” but he means “anyone” or “they who.” John uses the editorial “we,” as James does,^[3] in which he does not mean that he is guilty of moral “offenses,” nor that he is a horse trainer, nor that he blesses God and at the same time curses people, nor that he should “receive the greater condemnation.” And when it comes to the accusation, “His word is not in us.” John does not include himself or faithful Christians in the word “us.” What John does mean is that God’s word is not in anyone who accuses Him of being a liar by denying that they never did sin, since God has said that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”[4]

Robert Cameron (1839-1904) gives us this scenario: At the last supper, the Apostles had just bathed and were clean. As they passed from the place of bathing to the Passover feast, dust accumulated on their feet, and not until they washed were clean again. When we believe in the Anointed One, we are washed, justified, and sanctified. It does not need repeating. But when we contract defilement in our daily walk, it must be removed, for God wants us to be whiter than snow.[5] Jesus is now “girded with the towel” and present with the water to remove whatever soils the soul. This washing of the feet[6] and cleansing of the walk results from confession.

Cameron adds that there is not the remotest allusion to the modern “confessional booth” in this passage. The sin is against God, we make our confession to God, and then forgiveness will come from God through His Son, Jesus the Anointed One. Moreover, to confess is to say the same thing back to God, to echo from our hearts what He utters in His Word. He declares that we have sinned – identifies the sin – we just own the truthfulness of what He says. It is a scriptural confession.[7] Cameron seems to be a bit more poetic than practical in comparing washing the saint’s feet to removing sins committed as believers. First, believers wash the feet of other believers.[8] There is no confession involved; it is a sign of humility and service. But it does allow for us to see how washing the dust off one’s feet before entering our, or someone else’s, house and illustrate having been forgiven for all unrighteousness and cleansed by the blood of the Lamb is helpful before we enter God’s house.

Ernst Dryander (1843-1922) recalls that we have been born and bred up in an atmosphere of Christianity. We live amid Christian surroundings, and our minds are, more or less, impregnated with Christian ideas. We attend Divine services; we, no doubt, offer up our private prayers at home, and, to a certain extent, we respond to the demands of Christian morality. That, generally speaking, is the sum and substance of our religion. But we do not realize that, after all, this sample of Christian possession does not constitute more than a form of Christianity, not its essence; only the appearance, not the reality; only the husk, not the kernel.

Herein lies that terrible weakness of the Christian position, says Drylander. Those who look beneath the surface can see it on every side and at every turn. Inward truth is lacking, and, therefore, also the capacity for expressing it in action. But the lack of this discriminating quality drags with it a still more dangerous want, that of individual sincerity – genuine faith. Does the severe moral criticism in this truth point to any of us? Do we, in our religion, lack that inner genuineness and integrity without which the world can’t look with respect upon Christianity and those who profess it? Are our piety and inner life wanting in that sincerity without which it is impossible to see God?

Whatever the answers to these questions may be, John’s words point to this danger, which has constantly threatened Christians. Moreover, they urge us to carefully consider the question, whether this very danger is not present with us now. The central point of our passage is the announcement that “God is Light,” by what we have seen and heard (namely, of the manifested Word of Life) that we declare to you. It is what John wrote in the opening words of his Epistle, and now he tells us what he heard. It is a short, simple message, containing all that is needful for us in examining the mentioned danger of becoming disconnected from God.[9]

Charles Gore (1853-1932) says that the object of this stern reminder from the Apostle John is twofold. We should cease to sin and that, when we fail and commit sin, we should know where the remedy lies. We cannot redeem ourselves from sin. But we are not alone as mere individuals guilty before God. We have One near us to speak to the Father for us – Jesus the Anointed One, who, being human like us, is perfectly righteous, free from all taint of sin; and it is to Him, we belong. He, then, is the propitiation for our sins. In Him—by His mediation—we are set free from our sins to begin again. And He is the answer, not only for us, not merely for any class among humanity, but the whole world. All alike can find the same forgiveness and the same freedom in Him.

But to deal with it for the Anointed One’s sake – to be able to feel the assurance of His support – we must belong to Him, says Gore. We must know Him. It is no mechanical process. How, then, are we to “know that we know him”? There is only one ground of assurance – faithful obedience to His commandments. To profess to belong to Him or to know Him without a life of actual submission is to show ourselves liars who are alien to the truth. But the willingness to practice His Word or teaching is the fulfillment in us of the love of God. It is actually to abide in the Anointed One – share His life and know that we share it. And no one can claim to share His life who does not live as He lived.[10]

[1] A. B. Earle, Incidents Used… In His Meetings, published in 1888

[2] Kelly, William: An Exposition of the Epistles of John the Apostle, op. cit., pp. 48–49

[3] James 3:1-3, 9

[4] Steele, Daniel: op. cit., pp. 16–17

[5] Psalm 51:6-7; Isaiah 1:18

[6] John 13:4-5

[7] Cameron, Robert, The First Epistle of John, or, God Revealed in Life, Light, and Love, Philadelphia: A. J. Rowland, 1899, pp. 31–32

[8] John 13:14

[9] Dryander, Ernst. A Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John in the form of addresses, Translated by W. O. E. Österley, Ed, London: Elliot Stock, 1899, pp. 14–16

[10] Gore, C. (1920). The Epistles of St. John,, op. cit., pp. 72–73

---

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LXXII) 03/16/21

Augustus Neander (1789-1862), responding to the Apostle’s message about confession, finds the answer for forgiveness starts here: “If we confess our sins.” Of course, it is not an outward confession of sin but an inward act. It cannot be acquired through rites, rituals, regulations, or ceremonies. It is grounded in truth and under our spirit’s direction through the Holy Spirit. And that which is given and received is needed for the inward spiritual nature. 

Therefore, says Neander, it is that inward confession of sin before God —the consciousness of rebellion both in general and acts committed —whereby, in a spiritual sense, God draws people closer to Himself. It is implied that the individual is deeply convicted of inherited sin’s remaining residue. They recognize that sinfulness in all its most minor forms brings a sense of remorse that begs God for forgiveness and cleansing from all lawbreaking tendencies. In all of God’s communications with humanity, God imparts Himself by process of constraint – no more or less than what is required. All as part of His gift of freedom to those who desire to be free. The acceptance of this freedom is conditioned on the individual’s voluntary acceptance, the free surrender of themselves to the Gospel’s message.[1]

Dr. Gottfried Lücke (1791-1855) says that verses 8, 9, and 10 are directed against those who, although Christians do not sense their constant need for redemption atonement in every moment of their earthly life, which is so essential in every Christian. Now, inasmuch as therein always lies a lack of moral, genuine Christian conscientiousness and uprightness, the zeal for sanctification and renunciation of the world will lose its motivation. Thus, redemption’s full effect by the Anointed One is stopped in its tracks. John draws his readers’ attention to this, that, where the perpetual consciousness of sin, ever-present in this earthly life is lacking, there also the feeling of the redemption must be weak and defective. A person must never deceive themselves. Otherwise, the Anointed One’s work seems to be without cause or object.

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)[2] understands this passage differently, says Lücke. Supported by the words in verse ten, “we have sinned,” which he takes in the sense of a strict perfect tense, he observes in verse eight, that the words: “If we should say that we sin not,” amounts to our saying that we do not need the Anointed One because we have no knowledge of sinning. That can then be taken as our denial that we have missed the mark of God’s expectations for our lives. It does not imply that we cannot be prosecuted if we sin.^[3] And in verse nine, he observes that if we confess our sins and live according to what the Gospel says, there is no need for a remedy.

But this Arminianist explanation is false, [4] says Dr. Lücke, for the following reasons: In the first place, John is not writing to people who recently converted to Christianity. It was also not a case of misunderstanding in the manner they converted to the faith. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul dealt with the contention between the Jews and Gentiles over circumcision. Was it necessary for Jews and Gentiles to have genuine salvation? Paul wrote to those who were Christians for a long time. It was a matter of their becoming lax in their moral and spiritual commitment to holiness. They no longer had sufficient zeal and vigor to proceed in the work of sanctification, and rejection of the world, in whom the Christian principle of holy living had not yet attained any significant influence.

For Lücke, Christians, as long as they live in their human flesh, must contend against sin, confess it, and reject it by repentance and faith. – This refers to the paraclesis (seeking comfort) of the epistle in general, and this passage here in particular. The entire context from verse five shows that John, here, only has to do with his readers’ present moral condition and that he wishes to warn them against standing still, against all luck-warmness in sanctification, and in separating Light from darkness. In this respect, even John could make no difference between greater and smaller sins. It certainly goes against what Grotius taught about mortal and venial sins.[5]

Concerning “living without sin,” Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) supposes that if there are any such people in the world who have been able to keep themselves free from sinful contamination, it surely must be those raised in a Christian home under the strict guidance of devoted parents. It allowed them to stay out of worldly pleasures in keeping with the Gospel and dedicated Christian living. However, says Edwards, we need to go back to the original Christian church under the Apostles’ guidance to find them. That was the era of the church’s most excellent purity. That was the age in which the Apostle John wrote his first epistle. Then Edwards asks the qualifying question: If that was the case, and a significant number of them came to the perfect understanding of living sin-free, then why did John write his epistle at all?^[6]

Frederic D. Maurice (1805-1872) tells us that these expressions were wonderfully fitting for those terminologies John used. The Ephesians paid special worship to Artemis or Diana. They connected her with the moon, the night-ruler. Their paid adoration was in common with the other Greeks. Apollo, they connected with the sun, which rules the day. They associated them with these beautiful heavenly objects, but they were never satisfied with doing so.

Maurice explains that it was the God of Light they sought to manage states, conduct wars, and make peace. They felt that a higher Light than the light which the eyes could see must proceed from him. They needed help in choosing the right path and avoid the wrong one. Without His help, they could never stay in fellowship with each other. But that which could, they were sure, must be a Light. They could not describe it in any language so well. It must be a better, purer, diviner Light than they perceived with their eyes. It must be a more human light; the other affected men in common with animals and plants; this must have to do with how they were different from animals and plants.

So, this is how these old Greeks thought, says Maurice. And the more one reads of them; the more one perceives how much these thoughts produced all that was great in them and their deeds. Yet, they were perpetually confusing the light which came from the sun and moon—the light which they saw only through their eyes—with that Light which they could not see with their eyes at all—which came directly to them. They were continually exalting the lower light above the higher light, supposing the softer light received its brilliance from the higher.

It was their idol worship, explains Maurice. They revered the visible things from which they thought that the Light proceeded. All the time, they felt that men were better than these things; therefore, if they worshiped these things, they were worshiping the God of Light they couldn’t see. They felt they could imitate the works of nature. They could express the thoughts of their minds in pictures and statues. Why should not these be worshiped too?[7] There is in this a lesson for the Church and Christians today. You cannot pray to or honor the true God by proxy. God does not need a go-between.

Robert Candlish says that our venturing to say that we have no sin might seem to be a height of presumption scarcely reconcilable with any measure of sincerity. Any such claim put forward by a child of God the world laughs to scorn. For the world, itself makes no such profession. The children of the world are wonderfully ready to chime in with the general acknowledgment implied in the prayer: “Have mercy upon us miserable sinners.” Others may set up for saints. We are contented to be, and to be accounted, sinners.

We do not deny that we have faults, plenty of flaws, some of them perhaps rather serious at times, although none of them, such as we may not hope that a merciful God and Father will overlook and pardon. They, too, deceive themselves, these children of the world. But their self-deception is not of the same sort as that which John denounces. This last is not, like the former, a vague reliance on indulgence and impunity. It may be the error of a soul working its way, through intense mortification of lust and crucifixion of self, to an ideal of perfection all but divine.[8]

[1] Augustus Neander, The First Epistle of John, Practically Explained, op. cit., pp. 40–41[2]

[2] Dutch jurist and scholar whose masterpiece De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625; On the Law of War and Peace) is considered one of the greatest contributions to the development of international law. 

[3] John. 9:41, 15:22, 24. James 4:17

[4] Arminianism has traditionally taught what is known as the governmental theory of atonement. Drawing primarily from the works of Jacobus Arminius and especially Hugo Grotius, the governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans while still maintaining divine justice. Unlike the traditional Reformed perspective, this view states that Christ was not punished by God the Father in the place of sinners, for true forgiveness would not be possible if humankind’s offenses were already punished. Christ’s suffering was a real and meaningful substitutionary atonement for the punishment humans deserve, but Christ was not punished on behalf of some or all of the human race.

[6] Edwards, Jonathan: The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, Part 2, Ch. 2, Sec. 4, p. 469

[5] Lücke, Gottfried, A Commentary on the Epistles of St. John, Translated by T. G. Repp, Published by Thomas Clark, Edinburgh, 1837, pp. 115–118

[7] Maurice, F. D., The Epistles of St. John, op. cit., pp. 36–37

[8] Candlish, R. S., The First Epistle of John Expounded in a Series of Lectures, op. cit., p. 45

---

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LXXI) 03/15/21

Alfred E. Plummer (1841-1926) sees a different way to translate what John says here: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.”  I would change one word in line with the Greek and Thayer’s Lexicon by saying, “we declare Him to be a liar,” because it is impossible to make God anything other than what He already is. Plummer goes on to say that this is not the same as “that we have no sin” in verse eight, and, therefore, we have not repeated what John said earlier but expanded and strengthened what precedes. “Have no sin” refers to a sinless state; “have not sinned” denotes the actual commission of particular acts of lawbreaking: the one is the inward principle, the other is its outward result. But the whole context shows that neither expression refers to sins committed before baptism: no Christian will continue to deny these since they are forgiven and washed away. Moreover, John does not write to the recently converted but to those who have grown lukewarm and indifferent. Both expressions refer to sin after baptism, which is a result of past action; we are in the condition of not having to sin.^[1]

Alonzo R. Cocke (1858-1901) makes the point that God’s Word represents us as being sinners, seeks to awaken a consciousness of sin, and at infinite cost, sends Jesus to save His people from their sins. Hence, any denial of this doctrine gives the lie to God and reveals that His word cannot be the spring of our inner life; the Anointed One is not in us. Our failure is a fact. We sin, and its roots are still deep in our being, but for all that, the apostle calls us, “My little children.” How sweet it sounds after the confession of sin. God does not cease to love us even when we grieve his heart. John persists in calling believers by this tender term, “little children.” God is our Father, and  we are infants, strong men, or tottering gray-haired saints, we are still, despite our sins, His “little children.” In this phrase, God’s heartthrobs for us.[2]

D. Edmond Hiebert (1928-1995) now takes up the denial of practicing sin.  He says the claim that if we say we haven’t sinned, it is a blatant rejection of any sinful acts in one’s conduct. In contrast to denying a sinful nature in verse eight, this is a disowning of sinfulness in deeds. If John was setting forth the false teachers’ claim as professed Christians, then their claim can be understood to mean “since conversion.” Hiebert notes that John Coleman Bennett (1902-1995)[3] insists that “this interpretation is required by verse eight and the general context.” But the statement is not so limited.

Hiebert points out that this verb in the perfect tense refers to the past. And by being said in the negative sense, it includes the past up to the last minute. It claims that one is now in the state of never having sinned. It is, therefore, a denial that one has ever sinned. Such an individual might acknowledge the reality of sinful human conduct but claim that they never committed such evil deeds.^[4]

Current Bible scholar Douglas Sean O’Donnell focuses on the phrase “God is light” and concludes that this is the real message of verses five through ten. If we are to walk in the light, as God called us to do, our first step is to recognize the darkness within. In a proper assessment of self and sin, we can never say, “we have no sin,” nor can we claim “we have not sinned.” Instead, we confess, “we have sinned” and “we still sin.” It should lead to a life of consistent contrite confessions whereby the Father’s forgiveness and our fellowship with God and others, through the blood of the Anointed One, is renewed. It should also lead to a life that reflects the light of God – a theme that we will see mentioned again in this epistle.[5]

Messianic Bible scholar David Stern gives us a lesson from the Jewish perspective on how we must acknowledge and respond to charges of sin in our lives. As John uses the term “sin,” it is not merely a verbal transaction but, in every respect, the full equivalent of repentance. John correctly outlines the relationship between repentance and blood sacrifice in these verses. Repentance is the sine qua non[6]of forgiveness; with this, non-Messianic Judaism agrees, as is clear from the Mishnah: A sin-offering and a trespass-offering atone for sins committed wittingly. Death, or Yom-Kippur, satisfies God, provided a person repents. Repentance is sufficient for minor transgressions against the Torah’s positive commands and any sin against its negative commands; for more severe violations, repentance suspends punishment until Yom-Kippur arrives and covers them all.

Stern goes on to point out that the Mishnah notes, “If a person says, ‘I will sin and repent,’ God will not allow him to repent! If he says, ‘I will sin, and Yom-Kippur will atone,’ then Yom-Kippur will not atone! Yom-Kippur atones for transgressions from man towards God, but for transgressions between a man and his fellowman, Yom-Kippur does not atone until he has forgiven a person. Yom-Kippur does not atone until he has reconciled with his fellowman. Rabbi Akiva said, ‘… Who cleanses you [from your transgressions]? Your Father in heaven, as it is said, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean.”^[7]  And it also says, “Mikveh-Israel” [which can be translated either “the hope of Israel,” referring to God, or “the ritual-bath of Israel.”^[8] Just as the ritual bath cleanses the unclean, so does the Holy One, blessed be He, cleanse Israel.”^[9] But at the same time, repentance is proclaimed as essential before God can grant forgiveness; the justice of and necessity for a blood sacrifice is clear both from the Torah^[10] and the Final Covenant.[11]

1:10b But as far as John was concerned, there was something more serious than that.  If we say we’ve never made a mistake, … we are calling God a liar and showing that His word has no place in our hearts.

EXPOSITION

Anyone with such an attitude that causes them to say I don’t need to change; everything I do is right, and so I really can’t see any mistakes in my lifestyle, is disputing what God calls sin. Later in the fifth chapter,^[12] John explains what he means here about making God out to be a liar – which is impossible because God is not a human being who tends to lie.^[13] But why try something so defeating and ridiculous when John has already told us in verse nine that if we confess our sins, God will forgive us.

Some scholars believe that John is repeating the Gnostic’s message and teachings in his day. They fancied themselves as being pure, spiritual, and perfect, despite the evidence of impurities as they lived out their aggressive lifestyles in an attempt to Judaize as many Christians as they could, and also endeavored to impress the Jews as being advocates of Torah who were perfect and without sin. No doubt, John knew about the teaching in the verbal traditions concerning those who give themselves to learning and teaching the Law as being declared pure and clean.^[14] He may have also had it in mind to point this out to the believers lest they, too, feel they can achieve purity by reading the Bible or the service of God.

COMMENTARY

John Calvin says we should let those who dream of perfection – making pardon unnecessary, find their disciples among those with itching ears.^[15] Help them understand that such followers have forsaken the Gospel of the Anointed One. It was He who instructed all to confess their guilt to God.^[16] He accepts sinners, not to soothe them, so they are encouraged to keep on sinning but to keep them from sinning. He knows that no believer can ever strip themselves of all lawbreaking tendencies, so they need not fear punishment. Instead, desire to live and do their best so that one day they stand before God pure from every stain.^[17] Yet, although God is pleased to renew His image in us gradually, there will always be a residue of corruption in our flesh.  We must by no means ever forget or neglect to accept the remedy.

But if the Anointed One, says Calvin, according to the authority given Him by His Father urges us, during the whole course of our lives, to implore pardon, who can tolerate those new teachers who endeavor to dazzle the simple, and make them believe that they can render themselves entirely free from guilt? As John declares here in verse ten, it is nothing else than calling God a liar. In like manner, those foolish men mutilate the covenant which contains our salvation. They do so by concealing one central truth, and so destroying it entirely; being guilty not only of profanity in that they separate things which ought to be inseparably connected; but also, of wickedness and cruelty in overwhelming wretched souls with despair – of treachery also to themselves and their followers, in that they encourage themselves in a carelessness opposition to God’s mercy.^[18]

[1] Plummer, Alfred E. Cambridge University Press, Epistles of John, op. cit., pp. 83-84

[2] Cocke, A. R. (1895), Studies in the Epistles of John, op. cit., pp. 23–24

[3] Bennett, John Coleman, United Church of Christ (Congregational) minister, theologian, Christian ethicist, ecumenist, and Union Theological Seminary Professor of Social Ethics.

[4] Hiebert, David E: 1 John, Bibliotheca Sacra, op. cit., p. 336

[5] O’Donnell, Douglas Sean. 1–3 John, op. cit., (Kindle Location 681-685)

[6] Sine qua non means, “something absolutely indispensable or essential”

[7] Ezekiel 36:25

[8] Jeremiah 17:13

[9] Jewish Mishnah, Yoma, Ch. 8:8-9

[10] See Leviticus especially; also, Isaiah 1:16– 17, Malachi 3:2– 4

[11] Stern, David H. Jewish New Testament Commentary (Kindle Locations 21660-21676). Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc. Kindle Edition.

[12] 1 John 5:9-12

[13] See Numbers 23:19

[14] Babylonian Talmud, Seder Kodashim, Masekhet T’murah, folio 15b

[15] 2 Timothy 4:3

[16] Matthew 6:11

[17] Colossians 1:22

[18] John Calvin: Institutes, op. cit., Bk. 3, Ch. 20, pp. 938-939

---

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LXX) 03/12/21

COMMENTARY

Albert Barnes (1798-1870) notes that perhaps some might be disposed to claim “they have never sinned,” the Apostle John is careful to guard every point, here, he states that if a person claimed that in their past life they had been wholly upright, it would prove that they had no true religion. The statement here respecting the past seems to prove that when, in verse eight, he refers to the present – “If we say we have no sin” – John meant to say that if a person claimed to be perfect or to be wholly sanctified, it would demonstrate that they deceived themselves. The two statements prove that neither is about the past nor the present can anyone lay claim to perfection.^[1]

Richard Rothe (1799-1867) mentions that the enormity of denying one’s sin, of which John spoke of in verse eight, flashes in the apostle’s mind, and hence he pens this verse as a supplement to it. He notices that he has said far too little of this denial in it; now, John establishes what he omitted earlier. There he represented such a denial only as a deceiving of oneself and an indication of a lack of an inner sense of truth, but it is also something far worse. Thereby, a person sins against themselves and commits a trespass against God; they sin against Him in that they make God out to be a liar.^[2] In other words, we dismiss everything God said about sin and forgiveness in the First Covenant as untrue. In quoting the Psalms, Paul states that there was not one person found to be right with God.^[3]

Irish Presbyterian minister William Graham (1810-1883) and missionary to the Jews writes about those who deceive themselves when it comes to sin and sinning. He says that there are two classes – those who think they are without sin by nature and those who think they got rid of sin through grace. Of the latter category, there are but few, I believe, in our days, except certain individuals among the Methodists and the Catholics. We need not dwell on their delusion, which arises from defective views of sin imperfect opinions regarding the requirements of God’s law. It does not appear that the apostles and prophets of the Lord claimed sinless perfection, and the Lord’s prayer containing the petition, “Forgive us our debts,” was intended for all the disciples.

The other class of individuals, notes Graham, are of varied sentiments and include some admirable characters, though their religious instincts have become entirely perverted. Some will have it there is no such thing as sin in the creation, and, with Lucretius, cry out, “Timor facit deos” (Fear makes the gods), and all that we are dreading are only phantoms of the brain, without reality in the nature of things. Many others in this country identify sin with crime and, building on this foundation, would be highly offended with the imputation that they are sinners. It was the sentiment of one of the most educated Jewish ladies I met in Germany. Here, too, the words of the apostle may be appropriately applied – “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”[4]

In one of Baptist minister Kazlitt Arvine’s (1819-1851) sermon, there is a great illustration, to sum up, what John says here in verse ten. He notes that the trees and the fields are clothed every year in the freshest and purest hues. In the spring, all the colors are bright and clean. As the summer goes on, the leaves get dark and grimy. Sometimes a shower of rain makes them a little fresher, but they are soon dirtier than ever again. They all fall in the winter: The tree cannot cleanse its leaves, polluted with the city’s smoke, but God in His own time cleanses it and gives it an entirely new suit. The little rain cleansings, soon to be dirtied again, are the partial reformations men make for themselves, saying: “I will stop this habit or that other. I will be a better man” – yet not doing it in God’s strength. The new white robe that God gives the trees is like the Anointed One’s righteousness robe. The difference is that our robe of the Anointed One’s righteousness will never become soiled in the eternal kingdom, where there is none of earth’s defilement.^[5]

Joseph Parker (1830-1902) defines light as a revelation. It shows a thousand things we could not have seen, but for the exact degree of its intensity. A little light is a small revelation; a great light is an enormous disclosure; the light seems to create what it only displays. We point out to one another, as we stand in the valley, objects of beauty on the hill-top; perhaps these objects of beauty are relatively little shrubs, but how well-defined they are against the silvery sky! How clear, how almost eloquent! It seems as if presently they might have something to say to us, returning our admiration with some words of grateful recognition Even a blade of grass looks more beautiful in high light than it ever could look in twilight; we seem to see its green blood running all through its wondrous economy.

The more light there is, says Parker, the more knowledge, the more truth, the more extensive, explicit recognition, realization, and things innermost and things most precious. What we want is more light. Some persons might say, We do not want novel ideas. They have the right to say so. But illumination does not make fun in any sense of unimportance or mere experiment; light reveals, shows things that have been there all the time, and we never saw them because the light was never sufficiently intense and glorious. It is the same with Bible-reading. Some people see things in the Bible which other people do not, simply because they walk in a brighter, more revealing light. It is difficult for twilight to believe in the noonday sun. You cannot persuade morning dawn that it will grow into noontide glory; nor can you convince evening dusk that a few hours ago the whole heaven was dazzlingly brilliance.

Parker notes that there are some persons you cannot persuade concerning the brighter light which other readers possess. Hence, they call those readers novelists, dreamers, heretics, persons who want to be wise above that which the Bible says. Impossible! What is recorded? Yes, that is the question. What message does the blind man receive looking at Scripture? Nothing. Only that which is verbalized to a person of imperfect sight. But what can the person with clear vision see? What was penned for those eagle eyes constantly searching for truth? God, all Love, and Truth, Light and Wisdom.

As Parker sees it, we should rejoice over the biblical insights shared by other scholars. We must admire them as our brothers, sisters, elders, teachers, friends, companions according to their abilities. We should consider all views regarding the need for great-teaching, wide-ranging instruction instead of finding fault with one another due to various opinions or interpretations. Not only that, but we should look at all capable and informed teachers as our helpers in the faith. See them as angels and messengers of heaven.^[6] One of my most significant Seminary challenges was to prove, using Scripture, what I believed was right and why those with differing concepts were wrong. It exposed the weakness and strengths of my beliefs.

Famous Evangelist Dwight L. Moody (1837-1899), in his teaching on a “Believer’s Sin,” says that there are some young converts who say, “I am afraid I have sinned again, and I can never be a Christian.” Let them turn to read what John says in his first epistle: “My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus, the Anointed One, the One who is truly right in God’s eyes.”^[7] I don’t want to make light of sin, notes Moody, but it is a comforting thought that my Master made provision for my sin. In his old age, John wrote this when he knew well enough by his experience whether the Christian sins or not. So, he tells us that the Anointed One is gone up on high as a priest. He was here as a prophet; now He is a priest. His office is to intercede for our sins. When I go wrong, it is useless to try to justify myself; but I can go to my knees and let it all out to God, and it is all settled — all put away. I do this because John said here in verse ten that if we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar. The fact is, we all have sinned.^[8]

Alfred E. Plummer (1841-1926) sees a different way to translate what John says here: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.”  I would change one word in line with the Greek and Thayer’s Lexicon by saying, “we declare Him to be a liar,” because it is impossible to make God anything other than what He already is. Plummer goes on to say that this is not the same as “that we have no sin” in verse eight, and, therefore, we have not repeated what John said earlier but expanded and strengthened what precedes. “Have no sin” refers to a sinless state; “have not sinned” denotes the actual commission of particular acts of lawbreaking: the one is the inward principle, the other is its result. But the whole context shows that neither expression refers to sins committed before baptism: no Christian will continue to deny these since they are forgiven and washed away. Moreover, John does not write to the recently converted but to those who have grown lukewarm and indifferent. Both expressions refer to sin after baptism, which is a result of past action; we are in the condition of not having to sin.^[9]

Alonzo R. Cocke (1858-1901) makes the point that God’s word represents us as being sinners, seeks to awaken a consciousness of sin, and at infinite cost, sends Jesus to save his people from their sins. Hence, any denial of this doctrine gives the lie to God and reveals that his word cannot be the spring of our inner life; the Anointed One is not in us. Our failure is a fact. We sin, and its roots are still deep in our being, but for all that, the apostle calls us, “My little children.” How sweet it sounds after the confession of sin. God does not cease to love us even when we grieve His heart. John persists in calling believers by this tender term, “little children.” God is our Father, and be we infants, strong men, or tottering gray-haired saints, we are still, despite our sins, his “little children.” In this phrase, God’s heart throbs for us.[10]

[1] Barnes, Albert: New Testament Notes, op. cit., pp. 4802-4803

[2] Rothe, Richard: The Expository Times, op. cit., April 1890, p. 161

[3] Romans 3:10-12, 23

[4] Graham, W. (1857), The Spirit of Love, op. cit., pp. 60–61

[5] Kazlitt Arvine: Biblical Illustrator: op, cit., loc. cit

[6] Parker, Joseph: The People’s Bible, published by Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1877-1891, p. 352

[7] 1 John 2:1

[8] Moody, Dwight L. The Homework, Ch. 4, p. 46

[9] Plummer, Alfred E. Cambridge University Press, Epistles of John, op. cit., pp. 83-84

[10] Cocke, A. R. (1895). Studies in the Epistles of John, op. cit., pp. 23–24

---

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LXIX) 03/11/21

Stanley Lewis Derickson (1940-) says that, in Ephesians, John uses the Holy Spirit’s infilling in contrast with being drunk with wine. We are to be controlled by the Holy Spirit as fully as the person is influenced by drinking excessive wine. We are to be governed by the Holy Spirit at all times. It is the case anytime we confess all of our sins to turn all control over to Him. If we control our lives, He does not, and we remain empty.^[1] The idea is not to be out of control but to allow the Holy Spirit to lead, teach, and show His fruit, as Paul tells us in Galatians. Being filled is being under His control.

Derickson then addresses the Holy Spirit’s convicting power: When believers have sin in our lives, we are not in fellowship with God. We will be convicted by the Holy Spirit of that sin so that we will confess it and remove it from our life. It is the same as being convicted in a court of law. We will know when something is hindering our life and walk with God. The Holy Spirit will point out any sin to us as we pray, and we will seek the infilling of the Spirit. John’s message here in verse nine is God’s answer to sin. Confess it, and He will forgive it. “Confess” suggests agreeing with God on what you have done, as well as a decision not to do it again.

Derickson also goes on to point out that when salvation comes on the scene, we are a new creation. How are the Spirit and the soul affected? Are we given a fourth step? A new nature? No. It has to be a transformation of the spirit and soul. Is it a partial change? How could God call us a new creation or new creature if we were only partly new? He can’t! It seems from what we have seen that we, as believers, are in Adam’s prefill state, and we choose to sin as Adam did. It is a decision, or act of the will, not a lost struggle with the old nature. We have one thing that Adam did not have, confession and forgiveness. We can go before the throne of grace to confess our sin and be restored to full union with Him anytime we want.

There is a vast difference between failing the Lord because you couldn’t walk close enough to Him and forsake Him because we decided to turn against Him, says Derickson. The difference is the resulting guilt. If we realize we choose to sin, we recognize how vital John’s message is in verse nine to us. We will also learn that confession relieves us of having to confess the same sin again. On the two-nature side, confessing and forgiving seems to be a crutch for some in life. You sin because you can’t walk close enough to the Lord, which is the way back.

Derickson points out that confessions are, in part, agreeing with God about the sin’s terribleness. If we sin by an act of the will, we are in open rebellion against God. If we sin because we didn’t walk as close to Him as we should, sinning implies we slipped in our walk, and that slip means the Spirit lost control of our life. I see sin as a one nature person in open rebellion and restoration. It is a terrible process to have to go through. We should take John’s promise in verse nine and not lightly look at our problems because we were just a little careless about our walk with the Lord. This prayer won’t work: “Oh, Lord, I forgot my quiet time when I ask you to control me and got a little off track. Sorry. Forgive me. Amen.”

To see law-breaking as rebellion, Derickson confesses that sin is our responsibility, to see evil as God sees it, as filthy unrighteousness. Verse nine describes it as a serious place to find yourself. Forgiveness after salvation should be extraordinary, and we should want to stay clean. Verse nine is not limited. You can use it any time of the day, of the week, and in the year. God provided all that is necessary for us to continue in holiness. All we need to do is to make mental decisions maintaining that provision.^[2]

Even while Jeremiah was locked up for preaching and calling out to God, God spoke to him and said, “They sinned against me, but I will wash away that sin. They fought against me, but I will forgive them.”^[3] So, no wonder John was confident that God was more than willing to forgive. But again, forgiveness is only effective if the person to whom it is extended accepts it as a gift. And the purpose of that gift is to make it possible to continue without making the same mistake twice.

As John Stott (1921-2011) points out, even if a believer does find that their left-over lawbreaking tendencies of the flesh cause them to sin, if they confess that sin, then God is not only ready to forgive them of their sin but rid them of the stains and dirt left by that sin and make them clean and whole again.^[4] That’s because we are not being forgiven as sinners but as disobedient children of God. The same blood of the Lamb that cleansed us from past sins is still available to cleanse us from future sins as long as we repent and ask forgiveness.^[5]

Daniel L. Akin (1957) John offers a positive and correct theological antidote in verse nine. It is one of the most beloved and memorized verses in the Bible. The following paraphrase of verse nine may help us capture its marvelous truth: “If we are characterized as those who are continually agreeing with God about our sin, both its nature and its acts, God is both faithful and just (true to Himself) to forgive us our sins and to purify us from all our wickedness.” It is as if John were saying, “Look! Some try to cover and conceal their sin – they are lying to themselves. Some who confess and acknowledge and admit their sins – are forgiven. The Scriptures remind us, “The one who conceals his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them will find mercy.”^{[6] [7]}

Tom Thatcher (1973) admits that while John is a dualist, he is not a perfectionist. All people— the world, the Jews, and believers— are guilty of sin. Christians are different from the rest in that they acknowledge this fact and receive forgiveness, but those who deny their guilt are only deceiving themselves. John seems to be thinking here of Christian conversion’s initial experience, when those in the world admit their sin, accept Jesus, and subsequently receive “the right to become children of God.”[8] ^[9]

I agree with Simon J. Kistenmaker that this verse comes with conditions. We must first acknowledge our sin, and we do so by confessing it to God. You cannot read, “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,” until you first read, “If we confess our sins.” Unfortunately, I’ve heard too many “sinner’s prayers” repeated where confession and asking forgiveness were never mentioned. It is taking a book out of the old Gnostic manual for salvation. They believe that the knowledge of God alone was equivalent to receiving salvation. We don’t need to defend or justify ourselves. We simply confess our sins to show repentance and our renewal of walking with the Anointed One. John does not tell us where or how to confess, nor does he recommend that it become a daily confession.^[10] Martin Luther did this until God revealed the truth to him. Luther confessed, so often he began to believe he was an unforgivable sinner in God’s eyes.

1:10a However, John reiterates, if we say that we have not committed any grave errors …

EXPOSITION

In other words, there is a price to pay if a person is so proud and egotistical that they refuse to admit responsibility and liability.  As someone once said, such people are like a picture puzzle with one or two pieces missing so that when you hold it up, you can see right through them.  We may think that we have no sin in our lives, but the real question is, what does God think?  That’s important because, as the Psalmist said: “Lord, if you punished people for all their sins, no one would be left alive.”^[11] We may get so absorbed in what others think we forget about God.

Note that each false claim in 6, 8, and 10 denies the truth that immediately precedes it in verses 5, 7, and 9, respectively. The corrective immediately follows the false claim. Now we come to the third false plea. This claim is a denial of having committed any sin at all. Sin is an ongoing reality in the life of Christians because God is a God of absolute perfection. John is still dealing with the idea that “God is light” (1:5). To deny that fact is to fool ourselves and reject the Word of God.

If we claim that we have not sinned, we make God out to be a liar. We say in effect that what God says about Himself in the Bible about our sin is not right. This claim is entirely inconsistent with God’s character. What an awful thing to make God out to be a liar! God’s Word always confronts our sin. We either admit or deny what the Word says about our sins. If we refuse to believe that we have sin in our lives, we fly in the face of the Word of God. We do not appropriate the principles of the Word properly to our experience.

The word “in us” indicates intimate fellowship. The Word of God does not have a personal connection with those who claim to be free from sin. Complete openness to the integrity of the Word of God is essential for fellowship with a holy God.

[1] See Ephesians 5:18

[2] Derickson’s Notes on Theology, An Overview of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, pp. 495-503, 844-846, 864-866, 966

[3] Jeremiah 33:8

[4] Cf. Jeremiah 31:34

[5] Stott, John. The Letters of John, op. cit., p. 82

[6] Proverbs 28:13

[7] Akin, Dr. Daniel L., Exalting Jesus in 1,2,3 John, op. cit., Kindle Locations 415-421

[8] See John 1:12

[9] Thatcher, Tom. 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, op. cit., (Kindle Locations 5449-5452

[10] Kistenmaker, Simon J. op. cit., p. 246

[11] Psalm 130:3

---

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LXVIII) 03/10/21

Furthermore, says Strong, forgiveness is beyond merely taking away penalties. When a person does not suffer the consequences of their crime, does that mean the community has no right to be outraged? There is a distinction between financial and disciplinary satisfaction. Monetary achievement has respect only to what must yet be paid; disciplinary gratification looks out for the offender’s legal and civil rights. Therefore, if a pardon is a matter of justice in God’s government, it is so only respecting the kindness of the Anointed One. To the recipient, it is only mercy. “Faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins,” says John here in verse nine. It emphasizes God’s faithfulness to His promises and doing what is right for the Anointed One’s sake. Neither the atonement nor the promise gives the offender any personal claim for its success.^[1]

Dwight L. Moody (1837-1899) also addresses the promise we find here in verse nine about forgiveness. Moody acknowledges that this principle is recognized in courts of justice. A case came up in a country’s courts, says Moody, I won’t reveal any personal information about the man who had trouble with his wife, but he forgave her but still brought her into court. When it became known that he had forgiven her, the judge said that the case was settled. The judge recognized the principle’s soundness that if after sin is forgiven, that’s the end of it. And do you think the Judge of all the earth will forgive you and me and open the question again? Our sins are gone for time and eternity if God forgives, and what we have to do is confess and forsake our sins.^[2]

Anglican Bishop of Oxford Charles Gore (1853-1932) states that when John speaks of “the blood of Jesus” as “cleansing us from all sin,” we are bound to think of this in his Gospel – the blood that prepares us to receive eternal life, which is “spirit and life.”^[3] The root idea of sacrificial blood is that the victim’s life is in it: therefore, it is the sacrificed life of the Anointed One, as communicated to us by His Spirit, which is to renew us inwardly, in the fellowship of His manhood, into eternal life. We find this teaching in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel and the figure of the vine in chapter nine. It also goes along with the teaching about the Holy Spirit. It is the Apostle Paul’s doctrine as well.

Furthermore, says Gore, this is embodied in partaking of Holy Communion. But there is something to precede this communication of life. That is the restoration of our standing before God – it is a case of regaining favor with God (“propitiation”). Of the moral necessity for this appeasement, Paul gives us some explanation; John simply assumes it. We cannot stand before God based on our merits alone. Our sinfulness prevents this. But another is standing with us. He is our brother man, but sinless. He offered the perfect sacrifice of a human in which God is well-pleased. Furthermore, he is our propitiation; we ask God to look at Him, not at us. He is our advocate; we ask God to listen to Him, not to us.

Gore goes on to say that we can only ask God to do this because we belong to Him. In a sense, everyone belongs to Him. He’s everywhere for humanity, “the whole world.” But our power to claim His advocacy and plead His propitiation depends on our belonging to Him. It is the privilege illustrated in our baptism, which is a symbol of our new birth. But John is not thinking of this. Baptism is relatively ineffective morally without moral identification, without the will to obey, which John emphasizes.  We cannot accept God’s gift of forgiveness wholly on our merit; it is only in the name and by the work of the Anointed One on the cross, but solely if we belong to Him or “know Him.” And to know Him means that we are in union with Him and keep His commandments while we walk as He walked.[4]

J. B. Chapman (1884-1947) was speaking about the second coming of the Anointed One. He said it is folly for us to talk of the second coming of the Anointed One as our hope and prospect unless we gladly and fully accept the full benefits provided for us in His first appearing in the world. And in that first appearance, including His life, ministry, death, and resurrection, He provided a complete solution for the sin problem and a full cure for the disease of sin. “You will give Him the name Jesus because He will save His people from the punishment of their sins.” “That is why Jesus suffered and died outside the city, where his blood washed our sins away.”^[5] “And because you belong to Him, the power of the life-giving Spirit has freed you from the power of sin that leads to death.”^[6] So, we can see why John could give us the guarantee of forgiveness here in verse nine. What more could He promise? What additional benefits could He add? The blood was shed, and it is available now! If it cannot end sinning, it can never do that. We must be ready to admit that neither death nor purgatory or some other real or imaginary thing can assist God in doing the difficult task of ridding His people of sin.^[7]

Aaron Merritt Hills (1848-1935) comments on how sanctification is the cure for depravity. The first three definitions of the usual Greek word for sin are “error, offense, sin,” but the following three descriptions are, “The sinning principle of sin; a sinning predisposition for sin; and a sinning proneness to sin.” These two sets of definitions of a Greek noun in an unbiased dictionary prove that this double use of the word sin in the Final Covenant is no fanciful notion of the author but the actual Bible usage. The Apostle John used the Greek noun hamartia (meaning “to miss the mark”) in the first sense when he put it here in verse nine: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins.” In the second sense, he used hamartia when he wrote: “All unrighteousness is sin.”^[8] In this second sense, Paul used hamartia when he wrote of “the sin that dwells in me.”^{[9] [10]}

Hills goes on to say that the Anointed One Jesus “was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness [“justification” in the Greek] and sanctification and redemption.” Professor Henry Cowles (1803-1881), an American theological scholar and Yale College graduate, says that these supreme moral blessings are found in the Anointed One alone.[11] And what more does a Christian need? Here is wisdom to guide him; righteousness for his acceptance with God; sanctification to fit him for heaven; and redemption to buy him from the curse of the law and the slavery of sin. How wonderfully is the Anointed One who did everything for us, and that, too, by God himself! No wonder Paul should say: “For in the Anointed One lives all the fullness of God in a human body. So, you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.”^[12] Again: He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, says Hill. And for what? “To cleanse us from all unrighteousness” This defines sanctification.^[13]

Greville P. Lewis (1891-1976) tells us that confession includes revelation, repentance, and repudiation. The sinner acknowledges their sins to themselves, no longer excusing themselves but admitting their responsibility. Then in the presence of God, they repent of their sins and pledge themselves before God to do them no more.^[14] They take ownership and responsibility as the ones who committed them. It is both a painful experience and blessed relief. Now they can look the Anointed One in the face and say, “At last, Lord, I now think about myself as You think about me.” They no longer avert their eyes when they pass by His cross.^[15] Instead, they cry out –

“Upon the cross of Jesus

 mine eye at times can see

 the very dying form of One

 who suffered there for me:

and from my stricken heart with tears

 two wonders I confess,
the wonders of redeeming love

 and my unworthiness.”^[16]

Stephen S. Smalley (1931-2018) says that the heretics who claimed they were without sin represented the idea that sin in a believer’s life is not a permanent power controlling their actions. That’s why they could say that there was no sin in them since it was not sticking around long enough to contaminate their soul.^[17] They forgot that John said either you are walking in the Light or you were in darkness. Sin is not an object that blocks out the Light creating a momentary shadow. Sinning begins in the mind, overrides the conscience, rebels against the indwelling Spirit of God, and allows the flesh to have its way. While the injury caused by sin may heal, the scar is still there to haunt the believer for a long time. That’s why it takes the blood of Jesus to wash away sin along with its stain.

[1] Ibid. Vol. 2, pp 663-664, 704

[2] Moody, Dwight L. Way to God, Ch. 8, p. 85

[3] John 6:52–63

[4] Gore, Charles, The Epistles of St. John, op. cit., pp. 86-88

[5] Hebrews 13:12

[6] Romans 8:2

[7] Chapman, J. B. Holiness, The Heart of Christian Experience, Ch. 11, p. 36

[8] 1 John 5:17

[9] Romans 7:17

[11] Cowles, Henry: The Longer Epistles of Paul, D. Appleton & Company, New York, 1880, p. 5

[10] Hills, Aaron M. Holiness and Power, Part II, The Remedy, Ch. 4, p. 70 

[12] Colossians 2:9, 10

[13] Ibid. Ch. 5, p. 90 

[14] Ibid. 5:3-4

[15] Lewis, Greville P., The Johannine Epistles, op. cit., p. 28

[17] Smalley, Stephen, S., 1, 2, 3 John, op. cit., p. 33

[16] “Beneath the Cross of Jesus,” by Scottish songwriter Elizabeth C. Clephane, 1868

---

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LXVII) 03/09/21

Bishop Alexander Penrose Forbes (1817-1875) says that the effect of this mighty outpouring of the life of God is real. It cleanses us from all sin, nor is it mere remission. Neither is it is not an ordinary act of averting the punishment. Nor is it a simple case of pronouncing someone justified when they are, in fact, unjust. Furthermore, is all this and more. By cleansing, we mean making that pure which before was foul, and this is what we attribute to the blood of the Anointed One. We believe that there is sufficient virtue to transform humanity’s sinful nature into the imperfect but real image of the holiness of God in His blood. Not only that, but before its might, all that is filthy and unclean fades away. Like the chemist’s potent vaccine, it transmutes the vile elements that come into contact with a new and more perfect substance.

Again, says Forbes, the Anointed One’s blood suggests to us the same kind of cleansing that comes from washing. That fountain of blood flowing from the Savior’s veins forms a pool wherein our souls are washed from all the soils with which the indulgence of sin defiles them. No harbored guilt, no vain delight, no personal immorality can withstand the rushing flood of grace that pours into the soul. God will not save us without ourselves, and, therefore, the effectiveness of all that God has done for us depends, in one sense, upon ourselves.^[1]

William Lincoln (1825-1888) says we read: “The blood of Jesus the Anointed One His Son cleanses us from all sin,” and not only cleanses us but keeps us clean. Christians are so prone to stop at that passage that they forget something besides the blood. The divisions into chapters are human; they are uninspired, and they are unfortunate. The living Anointed One arose from the dead. We do not glory in His death only – we do not trumpet a dead Savior; in fact, there is no such person as a deceased Anointed One. The Jews and Romans killed a champion, but He lives, and He is living in the resurrection power of that life.

Former President Abraham Lincoln often quoted Romans 5:10, especially in prayer. “For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” We see the same thing, says William Lincoln (1825-1888), in the death and Living One out of death. As the writer of Hebrews wrote, “And so, dear brothers, now we may walk right into the very Holy of Holies, where God is, because of the blood of Jesus. It is the fresh, new, life-giving way that the Anointed One opened up for us by tearing the curtain – His human body – to let us into the holy presence of God.”^[2]

Here is precisely the same double thought in our chapter notes English preacher Lincoln. The blood cleanses; that is, it keeps us clean. It does not mean that it washes us clean again every time. In other words, that would mean that every time you sin, you must be washed again and again. By doing so, you bring the blood of the Anointed One down to the level of the First Covenant sacrifices. The idea is that the blood puts me there and keeps me there, and nothing can tarnish that blood, and then there is that Living One to take possession of me one day and actually lift me to where He is.[3]

Brooke F. Westcott (1825-1901) tells us that the consequences of sins already committed puts the sinner’s need in a clear light. Unless sin is removed, “it remains;”^[4] its effects fall under three main heads. Sinners incur a debt; they fall into bondage, and they become estranged from God. God’s particular act calls for a proportionate compensation, the debtor’s moral discipline coinciding with the satisfaction due to the broken law; the wrong-doing impairs the doer’s powers. It also places a barrier between them and God. We recognize the notion of debt^[5] in “remission of sins.^[6] We see the idea of bondage finds a most emphatic exposition in words, “the love of the Father.” His love is incompatible with the love of the world, out of which sin springs.^[7]

Westcott says that that’s why people need repentance, redemption, and reconciliation. For forgiveness to be complete, it necessitates the remission of the sinful deed’s penalty and the removal of the act’s direct results on the doer. As long debtors see that the Anointed One’s ransom payment covers their debt, no charges will be brought. However, forgiveness is not yet complete. The exercise of such a power of forgiveness corresponds with a new creation. Thus, when the Lord claims as Son of man the power of the forgiveness of sins, He offers as a sign of it a creative act.^[8] And so, John appeals to the divine promise assured to the penitent to “forgive their sins and cleanse them from all unrighteousness.”^{[9] [10]} Let’s put it in modern terms. You may spray a disinfectant on a countertop, but it is still not clean until you wipe the disinfectant and the germs away.

Hannah Smith (1834-1892) states: The fact is, that the same moment which brings the consciousness of having sinned ought to also bring the awareness of being forgiven. It is especially essential to an unwavering walk on the highway of holiness, for no separation from God can be tolerated here for an instant. We can only walk in this path by looking continually toward Jesus, moment by moment, and if our eyes are taken off of Him to look upon our sin and our weakness, we shall leave the path at once. Therefore, the believers who have, as they trust, entered upon this highway, if they find themselves ambushed by sin, must flee instantly to the Lord. They must act on what John says here in verse nine. They must not conceal their sin and seek to hide it from view with the lotion of excuses, nor to push it out of their memory by the lapse of time.

But they must do as the children of Israel did, says Smith: Rise “early in the morning,” and “run” to the place where their idol is hidden, take it out of its hiding-place, and lay it “out before the Lord.”[11] They must confess their sin. And then they must smash it with stones and burn it with fire, and utterly put it away from them, and raise over it a great heap of stones to forever hide it from their sight. And they must believe, then and there, that God is, according to His word, faithful and just to forgive them their sins, and that He does do it, and further, that He also cleanses them from all unrighteousness. By faith, they must claim immediate forgiveness and instant cleansing and must go on trusting firmer and more absolutely than ever.^[12]

In Marvin Vincent’s (1834-1921) word studies, he believes it is essential for us to know that the Greek verb aphiēmi (“forgive”) means to send away, dismiss. For sin, it means to cancel as a debt. “Cleansing” when contemplating the personal character of the sinner. With “remission,” removing the punishment for their ‘acts.’”^[13] And to “forgive” – literally “may forgive.” On John’s use of the Greek subordinating conjunction hina (“just to”) or “so that,” see John’s Gospel.^[14] So it is clear that the sentence could read: “We must confess our sins so that He, who is faithful and just, can dismiss our sins.” Forgiveness answers to the essential purpose of His faithful and righteous being.^[15]

Augustus H. Strong (1836-1921) tells us that the virtue of God’s faithfulness that He fulfills all His promises to His people, whether expressed in words or implied in the constitution He has given them. In His loyalty, we have the sure ground of confidence that He will perform what His love has led Him to promise to those who obey the Gospel. Since His promises are based not upon what we are or have done but upon what the Anointed One is and has done, our defects and errors do not invalidate them, so long as we are truly penitent and believing.^[16]

Strong also points to John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress story and says that it is more accurate to describe the Christian experience than is the Governmental theory.[17] The sinner finds peace, not by coming to God with an observer’s respect for the Anointed One but by coming directly to the “Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world.”^[18] The Anointed One’s words to every conscious sinner are: “Come unto me.^[19] Upon the ground of what the Anointed One has done, salvation is a matter of debt to the believer. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins” — faithful to His promise and righteous to the Anointed One. The Jewish legal, religious theory, on the other hand, tends to discourage the sinner’s direct access to the Anointed One and to render the way to conscious acceptance with God more indirect and less certain.

[1] Forbes, A. P. Biblical Illustrator, First Epistle of John, op. cit., loc. cit.

[2] Hebrews 11:19-21

[3] Lincoln, William: Lectures on the Epistles of St. John, op. cit., pp. 19–20

[4] John 9:41

[5] Matthew 6:12

[6] Cf. 1 John 1:9; John 20:23

[7] 1 John 2:15ff.; cf. Ephesians 4:18; Colossians 1:21

[8] Matthew 9:5ff.; cf. John 5:14

[9] 1 John 1:9

[10] Westcott, Brooke F. Epistles of St. John, op. cit., p. 39

[11] Cf. Deuteronomy 12:2-3

[12] Smith, Hannah Whitall: The Christian’s Secret to a Happy Life, Christian Witness Co., pp. 96-97

[13] See Matthew 6:12; James 5:15

[14] John 14:31; 15:13

[15] Vincent, Marvin: Word Studies in the NT, op. cit., p. 322

[16] Strong, Augustus H. Systematic Theology, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 523

[17] Governmental Theory holds that the Anointed One’s suffering was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve, but it did not consist of the Anointed One receiving the exact punishment due to sinful people. Instead, God publicly demonstrated His displeasure with sin through the suffering of His own sinless and obedient Son for our redemption. The Anointed One’s suffering and death served as a substitute for the punishment humans might have received. On this basis, God is able to extend forgiveness while maintaining divine order, having demonstrated the seriousness of sin and allowing His wrath to “pass over.” It is traditionally taught in Arminian circles that draw primarily from the works of Hugo Grotius.

[18] John 1:29

[19] Matthew 11:28

---

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LXVI) 03/08/21

The “confession,” which characterizes a truly repentant sinner, is not to be understood by mere acknowledgment, says Simeon. It is an acceptance accompanied by repentance and humble faith in the Lord Jesus. It is important to remember the high-priest made such a confession on the Day of Atonement when he laid his hands on the scapegoat and confessed over him all the sins of the children of Israel. The high-priest said: “Please O Lord, they have done wrong they have transgressed they have sinned before You — Your nation the House of Israel. Please, O Lord, forgive them for their doing wrong, for their transgressions and their sins, as is written in Torah of Moses, Your servant: “For on this day He will effect atonement for you to purify you before the Lord.”^{[1] [2]} The scapegoat will then carry the sins of the people away before the eyes of God. Simeon goes on to say that this confession also implies forsaking the sins that were confessed. As it is said, “He that covers his sins will not succeed; but whosoever confesses and forsakes them will receive mercy.”^{[3] [4]}

Adam Clarke (1774-1849) gives us an important lesson on confessing our sin to receive cleansing from all wrongdoing. He says that corruption exists in the soul in two modes or forms: First, in guilt, which requires forgiveness or pardon. Then second, in pollution, which requires cleansing. Guilt, to be forgiven, must be confessed; and pollution, to be cleansed, must also be confessed.

So, to find mercy, says Clarke, a person must know and feel themselves to be a sinner, that they may fervently come to God for pardon. In order to get a clean heart, a person must know and feel its depravity, acknowledge and confess it before God to be wholly sanctified. Few are pardoned because they do not feel and confess their sins, and few are purified or cleansed from all wrong because they do not feel and confess their sinful infection and the plague of their hearts.

As the blood of Jesus, the Anointed One continues Clarke, the value of His passion and death, applied by faith, purges the conscience from all dead works, so the same cleanses the heart from all unrighteousness. All unrighteousness is lawbreaking so that they who are sanctified from all unrighteousness are cleansed from all sin. Anyone who evades this and insists on continuing to live with a corrupt heart is not only ungrateful but evil and even blasphemous, says Clarke. Such a person who pretends there is no sin in them attempts to make God out to be a liar. God has declared just the opposite throughout His revelation. The point is this; they are claiming that the blood of the Anointed One either cannot or will not cleanse us from all sin in this life. It is evident, the Word of God is not in them.^[5] 

German theologian Richard Rothe (1799-1867) says that having thus demanded that Christians acknowledge their sins, John now adds that there is no connection between their case and the torture of despair belonging sinners with this admission. The individual’s sins that still bother them do not hinder their fellowship with God, so long as they don’t deny them but confess and admit they have them. As a Christian, the believer knows what sin is but simultaneously realizes they were redeemed from it; for this very reason, they can quickly look into their sinning problem. So long as we know our sin is not yet forgiven, we shrink back from learning about it to the core cause. Instead, we attempt to minimize it.

This curiosity ceases, says Rothe, as soon as we know our sin is forgiven; yes, it is precisely with this knowledge that we learn to understand divine grace in all its greatness. The Christian experiences deliverance from all bias and prejudice in judging their sin. For this reason and in the interest of thorough repentance, so much depends upon our having our sins forgiven. That comes by believing in the complete, full, unreserved forgiveness of our sins, and that too from pure grace, for only then can we appropriate forgiveness with confidence. It is the assurance of forgiveness that first makes us keenly aware of our sins. To those that have never been born again, this sounds like a contradiction. But the believer knows it from experience, but just knowing about it does not mean they’ve confessed it.^[6] It is crucial to understand that if we confess our sin, He is faithful and ready to forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all wrongdoing.

James Morgan (1799-1873), an Irish Presbyterian minister, talks about those who have a habitual tendency to sin and how they may claim that they have no sin. This describes the condition of the person who does not feel they are guilty of any present sinfulness. It does so by justifying their past conduct as being highly moral. They need to be convinced of their sinfulness since there is no excuse for their past transgressions. It is often the case for those who feel that they have pleased the Church and, therefore, have pleased God. But a person must have the beginning of the Divine life to maintain it. The one consists of the conviction which brings the sinner to the blood of the Anointed One for salvation—the other consists of the habit of repentance which must accompany them as long as they live. 

Let me encourage you to cultivate this habit, says Morgan. Many important goals are met by it. It will keep us mindful of what we once were and how much we are debtors to Divine grace. It will stimulate us to devote ourselves more unreservedly to God in the future. It will promote watchfulness against temptation. It will strengthen faith. Calling to mind how graciously God dealt with us on other days, we are encouraged to trust Him to the end. It will kindle repentance. Like Ephraim of old, it will lead us to say, “What have I to do anymore with idols?”[7] It will promote holiness. It will urge perseverance.^[8]

Daniel D. Whedon (1808-1885), professor of Ancient Languages in Wesleyan University in New York, points out that there is a distinction between forgiveness and cleansing that we must always keep in mind. Forgiveness removes guilt and punishment for past sins; sanctification inspires future sinlessness. One looks back, and the other looks forward. One says, “Your sins are forgiven;”^[9] the other states, “Go, sin no more.”^[10] A father may forgive a disobedient son, but the son remains as corrupt as ever. But when our heavenly Father pardons us, He breathes into our hearts a spirit of obedience, which, if we obey, we never need to incur His displeasure.^[11]

William Edward Jelf (1811-1875) says that God’s promise, which He pledged to perform, is twofold – forgiveness of sins and sanctification. And as the Gospel is, of course, coexistent with this promise, these two make up the immediate benefits of the Anointed One’s Passion[12] for the true believer. It is important, in the same way as some persons, to confine the benefit of the Passion to forgiveness of sins, and hold that God’s promise is fully realized when this is granted.

John describes the stain of actual sin by using the Greek noun hamartia (sin = “to miss the mark”). This is not merely cleansing sin, says Jelf, but rather from the corruption of indwelling sin. This is made more apparent by observing the use of the Greek noun adikia (unrighteousness = “immoral”) instead. It is not outward sinning that affects our souls, but inward sin, embodying the principle of self-love, which mostly shows itself in injuring or despising others. Adikia also implies neglecting that brotherly love John speaks of so strongly as being the Christian life’s goal. This purification from original sin begun in this life but will not be completed until the next, as seen in the next verse.[13]

John Stock (1817-1884) gives us an excellent illustration from a sinner’s point of view who is under conviction. As King Solomon said, if a person tries to cover up their sin, they will not be successful, but the person who confesses their sin will find mercy.^[14] It undoubtedly came from Solomon’s father, King David, who experienced this truth.^[15] David admitted he was unwilling to confess his faults or his resentment with King Saul’s constant hounding. Instead, like Adam, he put the blame on others. Yet, when he remained silent about his wrongdoings, he only became weaker and more miserable. Every day it made life harder for him. He became like a desert in the hot summetime.

But then, says David, he decided to confess his sins to the Lord. He stopped hiding his guilt and confessed all his sins to God. And God forgave him of them all. So, says Stock, his sour bondage was turned into sweet liberty. Likewise, the infinite goodness and merciful blessing that comes to the one who confesses is given to them through the Anointed One. Acknowledgment of sin is one of our most humbling experiences, but one that is indispensable to our salvation. Even though these confessions were not made public, the community benefitted because of the joy and peace it brings to the one who is forgiven.^[16]

[1] Leviticus 16:30

[2] Jewish Mishnah: Moed, Yoma, Ch. 6:2

[3] Proverbs 28:13

[4] Simeon, Charles: Horæ Homileticæ, op. cit., pp. 366-369

[5] Clarke, Adam: First Epistle of John, op. cit., p. 367

[6] Rothe, Richard: The Expository Times, op. cit., April 1890, p. 160

[7] Hosea 14:8

[8] Morgan, James: Biblical Illustrator, First Epistle of John, op. cit., loc. cit.

[9] Matthew 9:5; Luke 7:48

[10] John 8:11

[11] Whedon, Daniel D. Commentary on NT, op. cit., p. 257

[12] The Passion of Christ refers to the week of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. It’s remembering the events of the week beginning with Palm Sunday when Jesus entered the city of Jerusalem and culminating in His suffering.

[13] Jelf, William E, A Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John, London: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1877, p. 12

[14] Proverbs 28:18

[16] Stock, John: Exposition of First John, op. cit., pp. 51-52

[15] Psalm 32:8-5

---

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LXV) 03/05/21

William Perkins (1558-1602) declares that no evil may be done or not done without it being a sin. That means, they are and can do either evil or good based on the circumstances. And here we must remember to discern between convenience, and inconvenience, which happens when a person does not take things seriously. Convenience is when a thing or action is so fitted to the circumstances, and the event is just right, that makes certain sins is a convenient thing to do. On the other side, Inconvenience occurs when something or some action is done in unfamiliar circumstances. It might bring pain or loss to the individual’s life. So, when we do act decently, it makes that Inconvenient. And by this, we can discern when an action is good, evil because of indifferent, convenient, or inconvenient according to the sin’s nature. And here we must initially start a search, what is Sin properly, and what is appropriately a Sinner. In its true nature, as the Apostle John says, sin is an irregularity contrary to conformity.^{[1] [2]}

Hugh Binning (1627-1653 AD) offers a very appropriate illustration of how sin seems to run concurrently in a believer’s life along with the Fountain of Living Water. It’s like the contaminants we find in natural springs, wells, streams, and rivers. These lawbreaking tendencies are produced by the remaining carnal nature elements that our bodies contain even though the Anointed One lives within us, as does His Holy Spirit. Without the Anointed One and the Holy Spirit’s help, the streams would be running at flood level in believers as they do in unbelievers. With the Savior and the Spirit’s help, we can slow the current so that we can deal with such pollution and defilement.^[3] It is the essence of Sanctification.

John Flavel (1627-1691) states that if the Anointed One by dying completely satisfied God’s demand for the sinner’s punishment, God is not in error by pardoning the greatest sinners that believe in Jesus. Consequently, His justice cannot bar anyone from justification and salvation. So it is only fair for Him to forgive us our sins.^[4] It is an excellent argument for a poor believer to plead with God for forgiveness. Lord, if You save me by Jesus the Anointed One, Your justice will be fully satisfied in one payment. Yet, if You condemn me and require satisfaction at my hands, it will never get done. I will be making incomplete payments. Not only will I end up in hell for eternity, but I will still be behind in my indebtedness to You.

Is it not more for you to receive your glory from the Anointed One’s hand, says Flavel, than to require it from your own? One drop of His blood is worth more than all our contaminated blood. O how satisfying it is to the conscience of a poor sinner in the face of multiple charges and accusations involving their sins, piling up against the possibility of their ever being pardoned! Can such a sinner be forgiven? Yes, if you believe in Jesus, you may. God will lose nothing in pardoning the greatest transgressors: “O Israel, hope in the Lord! For there is loving-kindness with the Lord, with Him, we are surely saved.”^{[5] [6]}

John Bunyan (1628-1688) agrees that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive; yes, to this, is connected the promise, “If you confess and reject them, you will receive mercy.”^[7] It made David, as it were, lay claim to the mercy of God — “Wash me inside and out from my wrong-doing and make me clean from my sin. For I know my wrong-doing, and my sin is always in front of me.”^[8] Although you may blush, says Bunyan, own up to law-breaking and immorality, do not hide them — “People who conceal their sins will not be successful.”^[9] Don’t pass them off as unimportant; don’t confess them to God in a dismissive way. “Acknowledge your guilt. Admit that you rebelled against the Lord your God and committed adultery against him by worshiping idols under every green tree. Confess that you refused to listen to my voice. I, the Lord, have spoken!”^{[10] [11]}    

Bunyan goes on to talk about how grace is free and unchangeable. The discovery of this freshness and faithfulness of God’s Covenant of Grace is presented to us this way: First, anyone who has received the grace of God has a gift of God through the Anointed One, Jesus the Mediator of this covenant. Even if they are hostile to Him, including the Anointed One as the foundation-stone, or faith, they will not be shunned as an object of His love. Second, it appears to be unchangeable in this – to be in union with Him.^[12] Once satisfied, justice is not misused to call for the debt to be paid again. No, never let a sinner who comes to Jesus the Anointed One be treated this way. Instead of speaking against the salvation of that sinner, He will say, I am just and faithful to forgive them their sins. When justice itself is pleased with a person and speaks on their behalf, we will proclaim, “Who will condemn?” rather than cry out against them.^[13]

Jonathan Edwards comments on John’s talk about confessing and receiving forgiveness of our sins. He says, the word righteousness is often used in Scripture for God’s covenant faithfulness; as in Nehemiah, “You found his heart faithful to You and made an agreement with him.”^[14] So we are often asked to understand righteousness and covenant mercy for the same things; “He will receive what is good from the Lord, and what is right and good from the God Who saves him.”^[15] “Keep on giving Your loving-kindness to those who know You. Keep on being right and good to the pure in heart.”^[16] “Save me from the guilt of blood, O God cries the Psalmist. You are the God Who saves me. Then my tongue will sing with joy about how right and good You are.”^[17] “Because of all your faithful mercies, Lord, please turn your furious anger away.”^[18] We find this same sentiment in innumerable other places in the Scriptures.^[19]

John Wesley (1703-1791) asks what type of pardoning does the Priest grant upon confession? The absolution is not only declarative but judicial, and the sentence pronounced by the Priest is as if pronounced by the Eternal Judge Himself. When examining the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), we find the following instructions: “Anyone who says, that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a simple ministry of pronouncing and declaring sins to be forgiven them who confesses provided they believe themselves to be pardoned, or (even though) the priest does not forgive them in earnest, is a joke. Anyone who says that the confession of the repentant sinner is not required so that the priest may absolve them; let them be cursed.”[20]

Wesley goes on to say that this is an attempt to perfect what God started. In fact, in the Roman Catholic Catechism, we find the following: “The power to ‘bind and loose’ connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles.”[21] So, says Wesley, to pardon sin, and absolve the sinner judicially, so a person’s conscience can be clear, is a power reserved by God to Himself. Therefore, the Priest’s authority is only ministerial, declarative, and conditional.

In fact says Wesley, one of the early church fathers, Ambrose, made this statement: “Let us now see whether the Spirit forgives sins. But on this point, there can be no doubt, since the Lord Himself said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. Whoever sins you forgive, they will be forgiven.”  See that sins are forgiven through the Holy Spirit. When priests use their ministry for the forgiveness of sins; they do not exercise the right of any power of their own. They do not forgive sins in their name but in that of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. They ask the Godhead gives. Man provides the service, but the gift is of the Power from on high.”[22] It is quite clear where Wesley stands on this subject.^[23]

[1] 1 John 4:4

[2] William Perkins: The Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience, Ch. 2, Sec. 2, p. 9

[3] Hugh Binning: On First John, op. cit., p. 435

[4] 1 John 1:9

[5] Psalm 130:7

[6] John Flavel: The Fountain of Life, Sermon 14, p. 174

[7] Proverbs 28:13

[8] Psalm 51:2-3

[9] Proverbs 28:13

[10] Jeremiah 3:13

[11] John Bunyan’s Practical Works, op. cit., Vol. 7, Justification by an Imputed Righteousness, Ch. 7, p. 144

[12] Romans 5:8, 9; Colossians 1:21, 22

[13] John Bunyan’s Practical Works, op. cit., Vol. 7, Ch. 8, p. 281

[14] Nehemiah 9:8

[15] Psalm 24:5

[16] Ibid. 36:10

[17] Ibid. 51:14

[18] Daniel 9:16

[19] The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 4, A History of the Work of Redemption, p. 3

[20] Council of Trent (1545), Ed. and Trans. By J. Waterworth, Published by Doman, London, 1848, Session 14, Ch. 3, p. 109

[21] Roman Catholic Church Catechism: Part One, The Profession of Faith, Section Two, The Creeds, Ch. Two, Article 3, §553

[22] Ambrose: Bishop of Milan, On the Holy Spirit, Bk. III, Ch. XVIII, §137

[23] The Works of John Wesley, Vol. 10, Letters, Essays, Dialogs, and Addresses, Popery Calmly Considered, A Roman [Catholic] Catechism, Section 3, Of Divine Worship, p. 132

---