06 - 1Jn 1:6
Ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν, ψευδόμεθα, καὶ οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν·
It is obvious at once that the following verses aim to deduce the consequences which flow from the nature of God being light; and further, that these consequences are two-fold, each of the two being again unfolded into two counterpart sentences. But, before we exhibit the thoughts in their clear connection, it is important here also to define the ideas that constitute the whole. The first consequence is, that we should walk in the light; the second, that we must ever remain conscious of our sin. What is meant by περιπατεῖνἐντῷφωτί [“walk in the light”]? At the very outset we see the incorrectness of the common explanation of φῶς [“light”] by holiness or holy love. For, since in 1Jn 1:7 the presupposition is assumed that we walk in the light as God is in the light, there would be assumed also a holiness in us altogether corresponding to the divine holiness, which is absolute; but how in that case would such a presupposition (ἐάν [“if”]) of absolute holiness be consistent with the necessity of καθαρίζεσθαιἀπὸπάσηςἁμαρτίας [“to be cleansed from all sin”], and of a perpetual consciousness of sin? Such an explanation of the φῶς [“light”] requires the exposition to soften down ἐνφωτὶπεριπατεῖνὡςαὐτόςἐνφωτὶ ἔστιν [“walk in the light as he is in the light ”]in a way that does violence to the plain meaning of the words.
Now, let us see if the interpretation we have given will help us on our way. Our starting-point is, that in our verse it is not, as in the former, Θεὸςφῶς [“God is light”], and accordingly ἡμεῖςφῶς [“we are light”], but αὐτόςἐνφωτὶ ἔστιν [“he is in light”], and, corresponding with it, ἡμεῖςἐντῷφωτί [“we are in the light”]. We saw that Θεὸςἐντῷφωτί [“God is in the light”] defines the divine nature not in itself, but in its self-manifestation before itself, the θείαφύσις [“divine nature”], as St. Peter says [2Pe 1:4]; in short, that it is the sphere homogeneous with His essential being. The expression, therefore, thus carried over to men, would indicate not so much the bearing and character of a being in itself, as the sphere in which he moves. In relation to God, however, it is not ἐνφωτὶπεριπατεῖν [“walk in the light”], an expression which would not do justice to the divine, immutable nature, but simply ἔστιν [“be,” “exist”]. But the former expression is used of men, because the apostle is concerned with a permanent, never-resting confirmation of the ἐνφωτὶεἶναι [“being in the light”]. Thus the writer is not here reflecting upon the sinning or not sinning, the holiness or the unholiness of human conduct; in fact, not upon its ethical quality at all, but purely and simply upon the sphere to which this conduct belongs. This will be made yet more plain when we carefully mark the contrast, ἐνσκοτίᾳπεριπατεῖν [“walk in darkness”]. We read in the Gospel, Joh 8:12, I that he who follows the Lord “shall not walk in darkness;” and it is clear that the darkness there means primarily something that is round about men, even as the light there is primarily a sphere external to men. Similarly, in Joh 3:19 we read that men “loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil;” now here, while certainly there is a connection established between the light and the ethical quality of men, it is clear, on the other hand, that the Saviour distinguishes the light and the darkness themselves from the works. Now, if the light is the divine, taking it thus generally at the outset, then the darkness is the undivine or what is opposed to God,—that is, the nature turned away from God, and not directed to Him.
Hence the σκοτία [“darkness”] coincides with the New Testament idea of the κόσμος [“world”]; it is the principle which animates and governs the κόσμος [“world”], and which comes in it into outward exhibition and form. Similarly, the φῶς [“light”] must be the principle coming into exhibition as opposed to the κόσμος [“world”], which is represented, namely, in the βασιλείατῶνοὐρανῶν, the βασιλείατοῦΘεοῦ [“kingdom of God”]. Thus the ἐνφωτὶπεριπατεῖν [“walk in light”] is in close affinity with the biblical idea of the μετανοία [“repentance”]. The meaning of μετανοεῖν [“repentance”] is the being translated or turning oneself over to the interests of the kingdom of God, instead of being, as before, rooted in the domain of the κόσμος [“world”], with all its thinking, and willing, and nature. Through the μετανοεῖν [“repentance”], as well as through the περιπατεῖνἐνφωτί [“walk in light”], a change passes upon the sphere in which the man lives, the circle of his interests, the powers with which he reckons, only that in the μετανοεῖν [“repentance”] there is reference to the turning to a new sphere of life, while in the περιπατεῖνἐνφωτί [“walk in light”] there is reference to his belonging to it, the latter being the consequence of the former. ὩςὁΘεὸςἐν τῷφωτὶ ἔστιν [“as God is in the light”]: that is, as His self-manifestation is in harmony with and adequate to His internal divine light-nature, so should man ἐνφωτὶπεριπατεῖν [“walk in light”]; his light-sphere should be the same with that of God. The kingdom of God is the element of his life which surrounds him, the air of which he breathes, and the breath of which encircles him with its nourishing influence.
Thus it is now perfectly clear that the idea of the ἐνφωτὶπεριπατεῖν [“walk in the light”] is by no means coincident with that of personal holiness and sinlessness. For as, in Act 11:18,[N] the forgiveness of sins is represented as the consequence of the μετανοία [“repentance”], so in our passage the καθαρίζεσθαιἀπὸπάσηςἁμαρτίας [“to be cleansed from all sin”] is represented as the consequence of the ἐνφωτὶπεριπατεῖν [“walk in the light”]. Only he who opens himself to the light, and has entered into the domain of light, can experience in himself the effects of the light. Only when the father’s house sways all the thoughts of the prodigal son, and he has come back again to this sphere of his home, does the father come to meet him with the announcement of forgiveness. The kingdom of God, and its interests, its views, and its measure of all things, are to the natural man altogether sealed up and strange. But when, instead of this, he obtains an eye and a heart for these, he enters into the sphere of light, and that light begins at once its ethical influence upon him and in him. The ethical deportment of the man is therefore a consequence of his περιπατεῖν [“walk”] in the sphere of light or of darkness respectively. But as the light by its shining reveals, according to the Gospel, the darkness as darkness, so here also the immediate result of the ἐνφωτὶπεριπατεῖν [“walk in the light”]is that the man perceives where in himself the darkness is, and recognises it as darkness. The ἐνφωτὶπεριπατεῖν [“walk in the light”] is, admitting all this, not, so to speak, a predominant, characteristic tendency of the human life only, a series of points of light with which may co-exist another though smaller series of points of darkness; it is rather a thorough and perfect characterization with which no other can co-exist. Every interruption of it, every dissolution of the once established fellowship with God, must fall under the condemnation of Heb 6:4-6. He who has once entered into this κοινωνίατοῦφωτός [“fellowship of light”] walks now habitually in the light. But with this it is quite consistent that the sin is not, so to speak, only a thing past for him, as might be concluded from the perfect ἐὰνεἴπωμενὅτιοὐχἡμαρτήκαμεν [“if we say we have not sinned”], 1Jn 1:10; such an error is at once repelled by the ἁμαρτίανοὐκἔχομεν [“we do not have sin”] in 1Jn 1:8. On the contrary, the σάρξ [“flesh”] yet remains in the man as the stronghold of his sin, from which, indeed, it is not to be ejected in a magical and instantaneous manner. This only is necessary, that, as every fellowship in which we find ourselves reacts against all that is directly opposed to it, so the sphere of light to the empire of which we have become subject reacts against every such indwelling sin. Only he who should refuse to be convicted by the light, who should decline to bring all that is in him before the bar of the light, would be said again to walk ἐντῇσκοτίᾳ [“in darkness”]. Moreover, these individual sinful acts, the presence of which in the Christian life is admitted, and the acknowledgment of which is required, have a deep significance in relation to what constitutes belonging to the kingdom of God; for, after all, the man should not only be ἐν τῷφωτί [“in the light”], but should also be φῶς [“light”] itself. Now, God is first φῶς [“light”], and then afterwards is said to be ἐν τῷφωτί [“in the light”]; but in the case of man the order is inverted: he must first be ἐν τῷφωτί [“in the light”], in order that then, through the energy and operation of the light, he may himself become φῶς [“light”]. Hence here, in the beginning of his exposition, St. John gives the former side of the question precedence, reserving the other for later development.
Let us now descend to the details. It has long since been pointed out, that from 1Jn 1:6-10, 1Jn 2:1-8 the apostle speaks in the form of emphatic conditional sentences; that from that point he applies the participial construction in order to express the conditional clauses: in harmony with which we have in the first chapter the verb ψεύδεσθαι [“to lie”], and in the second chapter the substantival form ψεύστηνεἶναι [“to be a liar”]. It is common to both sections that we find the genuine Johannaean habit of carrying on the process of thought through the medium of antithesis. The sixth verse takes up the idea of κοινωνία [“fellowship”] laid down in the introduction. This is fundamentally a fellowship with God; he, therefore, who will generally be a Christian—as was the case with the readers of this Epistle—must, in virtue of an internal necessity, give utterance to the avowal of such a fellowship with God. Rightly then does the apostle now lay down his proposition in the first person; for the former part of the conditional clause, ἐάνεἴπωμενὅτικοινωνίανἔχομενμετ᾽αὐτοῦ [“if we say we have fellowship with him”], is already an accomplished fact in regard to him and all his readers. Moreover, that αὐτός [“him”] refers to the Father, to God Himself, follows not only from the fact that He is the immediate antecedent, but especially from the explanatory clause, 1Jn 1:7, ὡςαὐτόςἐστινἐντῷφωτὶ [“as he is in the light”]. But if, St. John continues, with this avowal there is connected a περιπατεῖνἐντῷσκότει [“walk in the darkness”], a direction of all the interests of life to the κόσμος [“world”], then we lie. Here, too, we have the first person; not in the spirit of a “modesty that would spare them,” but, conversely, in the spirit of holy severity which yields itself personally up to the common judgment. The lie is evidently here the disparity between word and deed. The second expression, however, demands special notice, οὐποιοῦμεντὴνἀλήθειαν [“we do not do the truth”]. This expression is commonly explained as if it asserted that by our deeds we prove that we are liars. The ψεύδεσθαι [“to lie”] which precedes is thus supposed to be more closely defined by this, that it is made evident by works that it is so. But to signify that, the present expression would be far-fetched; on the other hand, the repetition ἡ ἀλήθειαοὐκἔστινἐνἡμῖν [“the truth is not in us”], 1Jn 1:8, as also the entire phraseology of the New Testament, point to another interpretation. When we read in Joh 18:37,[N]ὁ ὢνἐκ τῆςἀληθείαςἀκούει μου τῆν φωνῆν [“the one who belongs to the truth hears my voice”], and immediately before, ἐγὼ ἐλήλυθαἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ [“I came in order to bear witness to the truth”]; and further, Joh 14:6, ἐγὼεἰμιἡ ἀλήθεια [“I am the truth”], and finally in St. Paul, τῇ ἀληθείᾳοὐπείθεσθαι [“not obeying the truth”] [Gal 5:7]: all these passages urge upon us a peculiar, specific, objective idea of the word ἀλήθεια [“truth”]. We are accustomed to regard truth as a definite relation between two things; whether the congruence between word and deed, or the congruence between nature , and manifestation, or what not. In short, truth is to us an altogether relative idea, an idea of relation between two things. Now this notion does not suit, or very badly suits, the passages which have been quoted from Scripture; in them the truth is something independent and absolute. What shall we make with the relatival idea in such expressions as ἐκ τῆςἀληθείαςεἶναι [“belonging to the truth”], τῇ ἀληθείᾳπείθεσθαι [“doing the truth”]?
It may be attempted to preserve the idea of a relation in the expression ἐγὼ ἀλήθεια [“I am truth”], by saying that in God His actual essence and the notion of Him coincide with each other. For first, on the one hand, we should thereby separate between the notion of God and His essence, which is impossible; for the idea of Him exists only in virtue of His nature, and we should by such a course only reach the empty conclusion that God is such as He is. Secondly, on the other hand, Christ speaks this word concerning Himself, and that in relation to men; but the statement that in Him idea and reality coincide does not permit, so far as we can see, an unforced application to His relation to men. We are driven therefore to conclude that ἀλήθεια [“truth”] must be accepted as expressing a purely absolute and objective truth. It means the being which is absolutely filled with reality, and is substantially real; all generally that is, is in God pre-eminently; and what is not in God has generally no reality, no real being. And this definition of the idea is vindicated in its right when we observe the antithesis,—that is, the ψεῦδος [“lie”]. The κόσμος [“world”] is subjected to the father of the lie, and all its members are therefore liars; this signifies, however, that they have no true, substantial, real being, that their being has no positive substance. The κόσμος [“world”] belongs to death, but God is life; as it is essential to the world to be without real being, to be nothing, so to God it is essential to have a being that is absolutely filled and satisfied. Thus, truth and life are correlative and interchangeable ideas: the former is the substance of the latter; no life would be possible without a being filling it, without a substantial reality. God is accordingly the truth. His kingdom is a kingdom of truth, because here is the seat of all substantial being, the only place where realities are to be found. The Lord came τῇ ἀληθείᾳμαρτυρεῖν [“testify to the truth”], that is, to bring demonstration in His own Person that there is a true being, the counterpart and antithesis of death; and to show in what this ἀλήθεια [“truth”] consists, and how it is to be manifested.
It is obvious, finally, that this notion of ἀλήθεια [“truth”] harmonizes well even with the common application of the word in human affairs; all untruth is mere appearance, being which has only the form of being, to which the substantial contents are lacking; but truth is the presence of a reality. This being, as perfectly and substantially full, God has absolutely and primarily: He is therefore truth. But man must first establish the reality of this truth in himself by his works. We do not, however, read τὰ ἀληθῆοὐποιεῖ [“not practicing what is true”]: for our passage does not mean to intimate that the man in question fails to exhibit in action the individual realities which lie in the collective being of God; but we read οὐποιεῖτὴνἀλήθειαν [“not practicing the truth”]: his action has in it altogether nothing of the divine fulness of truth, of real and substantial being; it is directed only to semblance and death. Not only the individual outbeamings of truth, τὰ ἀληθῆ [“the true things”], but truth itself, conceived as one whole, is absent from his deeds.
Consequently, the meaning of the whole verse is this: If any man makes an avowal of fellowship with God, and yet the darkness, or the κόσμος [“world”], is the object to which his life and action tend (περιπατεῖ [“walk”]), he thereby speaks untruth, and shows that his deeds are not directed to the truth and its realization in himself. The περιπατεῖνἐντῷφωτὶ [“walk in the light”] suggests the existing sphere into which the man has entered; but in the expression τὴνἀλήθειανποιεῖν [“doing the truth”] we have the element of personal activity; for the entering into that sphere does not come to pass without the act of man, without the direction to it of his own will.