Down an Unfamiliar Road

• 

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

---

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LXIV) 03/04/21

Can we get forgiveness for our sins after we are in the grave has long been a question through the ages. An explanation from Catholic St. Thomas University reads: In Christian tradition, death is the end of individual life on earth, but not the end of personal consciousness, which survives the body’s death as the soul.  Death, then, represents the separation of the soul from its earthly body. Christians have always hoped for the reunification of the soul with a resurrected, transformed body. It implies that the soul will once again have a body to encompass it for all eternity. What this script does not say is that “Yes,” you can get forgiveness of your sins in Purgatory. When you were baptized as an infant, you were sealed for heaven.

The process of death is complicated for most people, they say. Not only does it entail pain, but increased dependence on others. Consequently, many people hope for a quick and painless death. But in the Christian tradition, sudden and unexpected death is not a good death. Christians believe that at death, one comes into the presence of God and, therefore, of judgment. A believer needs to prepare for this moment. That is why Jesus teaches that we must always repent,^[1] learn to love one another,^[2] and forgive those who have wronged us; otherwise, forgiveness is impossible.^[3]

Therefore, they conclude, at the time of one’s death, we must forgive others, say goodbye to loved ones, settle one’s material affairs, and, most importantly, make one’s peace with God. Death is the end of our earthly journey, but it is the beginning of a much longer journey in the afterlife. In Christian teaching, this afterlife journey can be a beautiful and fulfilling experience or traumatic.^[4] Having served as a hospital and hospice chaplain, this is what I would call “wishful thinking.” Most patients are in pain at the point of death or anesthetized against pain and do not control their mental faculties. To this, the Apostle Paul would echo what God said through the prophet Isaiah: “At just the right time, I heard you. On the day of salvation, I helped you. Yes indeed, the “right time” is now. Today is the day of salvation.”^[5]

Matthew Henry (1662-1714) makes an important statement here. He says that the Apostle John instructs believers in the way to obtain continued pardon of their sin. Here’s what he means; It’s our duty to confess our sins. That means repentant confession and acknowledgment of sin are the believer’s business and the means of their deliverance from their guilt. Puritan preacher, Jonathan Edwards, agrees by saying that “Confession and repentance of sin are spoken of as duties proper for ALL,” as well as a prayer to God for pardon and forgiveness.^[6]

Furthermore, the Apostle John offers encouragement and assurance of a happy outcome. It is the accuracy, righteousness, and forgiveness of God, to whom He makes such confession: He is faithful and unbiased in forgiving them of their sins and cleansing them from all unrighteousness. God is faithful to His covenant and Word, wherein He promised forgiveness to penitent believing confessors. He was unselfish with Himself and His glory by providing a sacrifice by which His righteousness justification for sinners was declared available to all.

He is fair to His Son, not only by sending Him for such service but promised Him that those who come through Him, He would forgive on His account. By His knowledge (by the believing in Him) will my righteous servant justify many.^[7] He is kind and gracious also, and so will forgive, to the contrite confessors, all their sins, cleanse them from the guilt of all unrighteousness, and in due time deliver them from the power and practice of wrongdoing.^[8]

William Sinclair (1850-1917) states, “He,” from the context, cannot possibly be any other than God. Here another excellent progression of thought meets us. Not merely “we are in the truth,” but are actually and gloriously on God’s side; faithful and just on account of the Anointed One’s sacrifice and our repentance. Sinclair invites us to view the double notion of forgiving and cleansing. Unfortunately, the Vatican interpreters limit the cleansing here to purgatory in a very arbitrary way.^[9]

Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) feels John inserted verse nine between verses eight and ten to warn about considering oneself sinless. That’s why he calls for us to confess our sins in order to receive cleansing. Reading verse eight and then verse ten makes the insertion more obvious. John did not want his readers to think that by not admitting they have lawbreaking tendencies that express themselves in sinful acts, they were making God a liar. This confession of sins must correspond to “walking in the Light” in verse seven. For Bultmann, the importance of recognizing that while we are confessing our sins, we have fellowship with God and one another. That is what “walking in the Light” actually means. 

1:9b In one of the most awesome prayers in the First Covenant, Daniel declares his faith in God’s forgiveness.^[10] John had the same confidence when he says; We can trust God to do this.  He always does the right thing. He will make us clean from all the wrong things we have done.

COMMENTARY

Œcumenius (circa 700-800 AD) instructs us that when we say that God is faithful, it means that He is reliable. Faithful, as a word, applies to those who believe as well as to those who prove to be reliable. It is in this second sense that it is applied to God. He is also just in that He does not refuse anyone who comes to Him, however seriously they may have sinned.[11] Sometimes when we slight a person, we’re not sure if they will listen to us, even if we say we are sorry. But not God. He is faithful to His word.

John Calvin (1509-1564 AD) advises that the whole matter of sin and confession can be clearly stated. First, define “confession of sin” as explained in the Word of God. Second, announce acceptable forms in doing so – not everything a person or Church can think of, that would be too much for anyone to swallow. But those only which contain honest, repentant confessions to God and the Anointed One. I feel grieved, says Calvin, to mention how frequently the old Latin interpreters rendered the word confessionis as “confess” instead of “praise,” something the most illiterate are notorious for doing. If it were not fitting, says Calvin, to expose their hardheadedness in rewriting what is written in God’s Word concerning praises and translating it as confess. Unless you are a Latin scholar, this may sound foreign to you and leave you wondering why Calvin is so troubled.

The Latin version by Roman Catholics used in Calvin’s day was known as the “Vulgate.”^[12] To prove their point that confession has the effect of exhilarating the mind, they misuse a passage in the Psalms that render it: “And I will enter, and go up to the altar of God, to God who enlivens my youthfulness. To you, O God, my God, I will confess upon a stringed instrument.” The Complete Jewish Bible has: “As I enter my feelings well up within me, with sounds of joy and praise from the throngs observing the festival.”^[13] In Calvin’s mind and experience, confession to God, in the Catholic doctrine, had little to do with praising God.

Calvin is perturbed and says that anything is valid for them if they can do this. They will be able to make the Bible say anything they want it to say. In speaking of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, Calvin is troubled that they seem to have lost all shame. So, he cautions every true believer to reflect on how God, as the Apostle Paul said, has abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that never should be done.^[14]  If we allow ourselves, says Calvin, to give in to such a simple method of plagiarizing of Scripture, there is a danger of our being misled by other such marginalized interpretations on critical doctrines. It was a problem in Luther and Calvin’s day and continuing in the ensuing years up to today. 

One method of confessing is prescribed; since it is the Lord who forgives and wipes away sins, let us confess them, that we may obtain pardon. He is the physician; therefore, let us show our wounds to Him. He is hurt and offended because of our lawbreaking tendencies; let us seek peace with Him. He is the discerner of the heart and knows all one’s thoughts; let us hurry to pour out our hearts before him. It is He who invites sinners; let us not delay in drawing near to him. “I acknowledge my sin to You,” says David, “and I did not hide my immorality from You. I said I would confess my wrongdoings to the Lord, and You forgave the injustice of my sin.”^[15]

Another specimen of David’s confessions is as follows: “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness.”^[16] The following is Daniel’s confession: “We have sinned. We have done wrong and have acted in sin. We have turned against You and Your Laws.”^[17] Other examples occur in Scripture: their quotation would almost fill a volume. “If we confess our sins,” says John, “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,” To whom are we to confess? Surely, it’s to Him – that is, we are to fall before Him with a grieved and humbled heart, and sincerely accusing and condemning ourselves, seek forgiveness of His goodness and mercy.^[18]

[1] Mark 1:14

[2] Matthew 22:36-40

[3] Ibid. 6:14-15

[4] Ibid. 5:25, 31-46

[5] 2 Corinthians 6:2

[6] The Works of Jonathan Edwards: Vol. 2, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, Part 1, Ch. 1, p. 452

[7] Isaiah 53:11

[8] Matthew Henry: An Exposition with Practical Observations, of the First Epistle General of John, Vol. VI, p.836

[9] Sinclair, William: First Epistle of John, op. cit., p. 476

[10] See Daniel 9:4-20

[11] Œcumenius: Bray, G. (Ed.), op. cit., p. 173

[12] Vulgate means, “common day language.” It is the root word for our phrase “vulgar.”

[13] Psalm 42:4

[14] Romans 1:28

[15] Ibid. 32:5

[16] Psalm 51:1

[17] Daniel 9:5

[18] John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bk. 3, Ch. 4, op. cit., pp. 659-660; 893-894

---

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LXIII) 03/03/21

Ben Witherington points to these two views of “no sin” or “not sinned” as hypothetical but with danger. When they say “no sin,” this is a claim seen as the ultimate form of self-deception and a clear sign that they do not recognize the truth. They present themselves as perfectionists who, once they were born again, all sin and sinning were canceled and have never been allowed to return. There is no reason to compare them with those who fail over and over, attempting perfect obedience to the Law. That’s because their deception causes them to claim that Grace allows them to always be in Grace. That way, any sins they may commit are automatically deleted from their record.^[1] Although Witherington does not mention it here, the same holds true for those who say that since they’ve been born again and sanctified, they have not sinned.

Colin G. Kruse begins where John states that “if a person claims to be without sin…” (lit. ‘If they say that they do not have any sin’), they are making of the claim of sanctification as a completed act.  But what the Apostle John refers to as “being without sin” is presented as an ongoing action. Contrary to what some people proclaim: “If we claim to be without sin…” does not reflect the pretenders’ assertion that they have a sinless nature but are free from the sin principle that operates in other human beings. The expression “to have sin” is found only here in 1 John, but it occurs four times in the Fourth Gospel.^[2] In each case, it means to be guilty of sin. Allowing this usage to guide us, we would be saying that what the claimants were asserting was not that they were by nature free from the sin principle but that they were not guilty of committing sins at all. They probably meant they had no unforgiven sins since they came to know God and experienced the anointing.[3]

David Jackman tells how he counseled new believers who became discouraged in the Christian journey with the Anointed One because they now see themselves as more of a sinner than they did before their conversion. But notice what is happening, says Jackman. Their sense of sin is a result of walking in the Light! They see specific actions, words, or attitudes as sin now, which never bothered them before. Their consciences are being educated and sensitized by the Spirit through God’s Word. One of God’s projects in a growing Christian’s life is to peel back more and more layers of our hidden depravity and sinfulness so that we start to see ourselves as we are in God’s Light. But this project of God has a glorious end-purpose. We should become clean deep down. We are not as vulnerable to lawbreaking tendencies as we used to be. Likewise, we do not just walk with the Anointed One; we are progressing with Him toward our goal of irreversible sanctification. Unfortunately, some try to dodge the issue; they look for an escape route, a sure path to the road of darkness.^[4]

Simon J. Kistenmaker gives us an essential piece of information in understanding the word “sin.” As a noun, sin describes the cause and the consequence of an act of disobedience to God’s Word. As a verb, it represents the act itself.^[5] So in verse eight, it is used as a noun, and verse ten as a verb. We might say that we are not sinning as long as we are only thinking about it. But Jesus had a different opinion. Jesus said, if a man looks at a woman with lust, he has committed adultery in his heart.^[6] King David had a similar idea when we prayed, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. Point out anything in me that offends you, and lead me along the path of everlasting life.”^[7]

1:9a     That’s why John offers this remedy. But if we confess that we have made mistakes, God will forgive us . . .

EXPOSITION

God laid down this standard with the children of Israel in the Sinai desert when He had Moses tell them that if the people were to confess their sins and the sins of their ancestors, maybe they will admit they turned against Me and sinned against Me. Suppose these disobedient people are sorry for what they did and accept punishment for their sin. In that case, I will remember My covenant with Jacob, My agreement with Isaac, and My promises to Abraham, and I will remember their nation.^[8] This truth even followed them into their exile.^[9] If you want to read a real sinner’s prayer, look at the prophet Nehemiah’s words.^[10]

King David learned this lesson first-hand. He was under so much conviction because of his adultery with Bathsheba, and their first child died. He felt so desperate and despondent that he decided to confess his sins to the Lord. Furthermore, he stopped hiding his guilt and told God about his sins. And God forgave them all! Amen!^[11] That’s why his son Solomon could say with certainty that whoever hides their sins will not be successful, but whoever confesses their sins and stops doing wrong will receive mercy.^[12] Nowhere do we find it said in Scripture to “beg” God for forgiveness, nor does it say we might be successful if we try giving Him gifts or a bribe – Lord, if You do this for me, I’ll do that for You.

No, says John. All it takes is an honest confession, hoping for forgiveness, and the resolve never to do what we did wrong again. Moses assured the people of Israel that the Lord their God is the only God, and you can trust Him! He keeps His agreement. He shows His love and kindness to all people who love Him and obey His commands. Not only that, but he continues to show His love and kindness through a thousand generations. Jeremiah says that God’s faithfulness is great; His loving-kindness begins afresh each day.^[13] That’s why the Apostle Paul could tell the Corinthians to put their trust in God. He is the One who chose them to share life with His Son, Jesus the Anointed One, our Lord.^[14] And the writer of Hebrews said that we must never lose hope; we should never hesitate to tell people about the truth that you can trust God to do all that He promised to do.^[15]

David was not satisfied to just confess his sins and have them forgiven; he even told the LORD to find any sins that might be lurking in his heart along with hidden faults.^[16] In other words, he not only wanted a forgiven heart but a clean heart. That’s why Jeremiah was only too happy to inform the children of God that He will cleanse away all their sins against Him and pardon them.^[17]

After God used Moses to lead Israel’s children out of Egyptian bondage, they found themselves continually falling back into old habits.  So, Moses told them: “Remember that the Lord your God is the only true God, and you can trust Him!  He keeps His agreement.  He shows His love and kindness to all people who love Him and obey His commands. Not only that, but he continues to show His love and kindness generation after generation.”^[18]  In other words, God will never revise, edit, or change His way of dealing with those who make errors and are willing to repent. 

David talks about how he kept trying to deal with his sin.  He says: “But then I decided to confess my sins to the Lord.  I stopped hiding my guilt and told Him about my sins.  And He forgave them all!”^[19]  It was true, especially after David’s dark sin with Bathsheba and her husband’s ordered death.  He cried and prayed but couldn’t get it out of his mind, so finally, he calls out, “God, be merciful to me because of Your faithful love.  Because of Your great compassion, erase all the wrongs I have done.  Scrub away my guilt.  Wash me clean from my sin.”^[20]  David would have never prayed this if he didn’t believe it.  So here, John echoes the words of Solomon: “Whoever hides their sins will not be successful, but whoever confesses their sins and stops doing wrong will receive mercy.”^[21]

COMMENTARY

Bede the Venerable (672-735) says that since we cannot live in this world without sin, the first hope we have of salvation is through confession. No one should be so proud as to claim they are already right in the eyes of God. The next step is love, which John often commends to us in this letter because love covers a multitude of sins. Each of these things encourages us to pray for our sins and to ask God’s forgiveness when we do so. It is why John says that God is faithful and will forgive our sins, pointing to the reliability of His promise, for Jesus, who taught us to pray for our sins and trespasses, has also promised the Father’s mercy and the forgiveness which flows from His heart.

Bede then points out that John also says that God is just because He will forgive anyone who honestly confesses their sins. In this life, God forgives the elect’s every day, trivial sins, which we cannot avoid as long as we are here on earth. Now He forgives those who admit their greatest temptations so that they will not overpower them, and He forgives those with the least amount of sins as well so that they will not suffer any harm. So far so good, but then Bede goes on and claims that after we die, He cleanses us from all sin and brings us into that life in which no one wants or can sin so that there will no longer be any sign of wickedness in the eternal kingdom of the blessed.^[22]

[1] Witherington III, Ben: Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: op. cit., Kindle Location 6061

[2] John 9:41; 15:22, 24; 19:11

[3] Kruse, Colin G., The Letters of John, op. cit., (Kindle Locations 1402-1410)

[4] Jackman, David, op. cit., p. 34

[5] Kistenmaker, Simon J., op. cit., p. 245

[6] Matthew 5:28

[7] Psalm 139:23-24

[8] Leviticus 26:40, 42

[9] 1 King 8:47; 2 Chronicles 6:37-38

[10] Nehemiah 1:6-7

[11] Psalm 32:6

[12] Proverbs 28:13

[13] Lamentations 3:23

[14] 1 Corinthians 1:9

[15] Hebrews 10:23

[16] Psalm 19:12; 51:2

[17] Jeremiah 33:8

[18] Deuteronomy 7:9

[19] Psalm 32:5; See Psalm 51:2-5

[20] Ibid. 51:1-2

[21] Proverbs 28:13

[22] Bede: Bray, G. (Ed.), op. cit., pp. 172–173

---