1 John 1

Guy N. Woods Commentary On 1st John 1SECTION ONE (1 John 1:1-4) PROOF OF THE OF THE WORD(1 John 1:1-3) The Epistle opens with an exordium, or introduction (1: 1­4), in which the author sets out the personal experiences which had been his, thus enabling him to offer eyewitness testimony regarding the facts presented and to announce the purpose for which they were offered. This introduction consists of a lengthy and involved sentence, but it may be analyzed as follows: (a) beginning of the sentence in verse 1; (b) its temporary suspension and the insertion of verse 2 as a parenthetical statement to explain verse 1; (c) resumption of the original thought in verse 3 with enough of verse 1 repeated to enable the reader to resume the thought. Omitting the parenthetical statement of verse 2, we may gather up the thought set out in verses 1 and 3 as follows: “ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen, which we beheld, and which our hands handled con­cerning the Word of life, we declare unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us.”

The striking resemblance between this exordium of the First Epistle of John and the “ Gospel” which he wrote is immediately apparent, and will appear clearly in the following parallel:

1 John 1:1 —That which was from the beginning,— Instead of a per­sonal pronoun in the masculine gender which we would ordinarily expect in this instance, the sentence begins with a neuter relative, that which. The reference is thus not to Christ contemplated as a person only, but to the attributes and characteristics which he, as the Word, possesses. It was “ concerning the Word of life” which John purposed to write, hence the neuter to express a collective or comprehensive whole. The words “ from the beginning” are reminiscent of “ In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1), and “ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). However, “ the beginning” in John’ s phraseology does not always indicate the same period; in any given instance, the context must be examined to determine its significance. “ Be­loved, no new commandment write I unto you, but an old com­mandment which ye had from the beginning” (1 John 2:7), “ the beginning” denoting the time when these to whom John wrote be­came Christians. “ He that doeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.” (1 John 3:8.) Here the beginning points to the time when Satan came into possession of his devilish character— the occasion of his sin and fall. “ I have written unto you, little children, because ye know the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him who is from the beginning” (1 John 2:14), i.e., from all eternity.

In our text “ from the beginning” points to that period before creation, and therefore into the eternity which precedes it. It is an affirmation of the eternal characteristics of the Lord and the attributes which he possesses. 1 John 1:1 —That which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled con­cerning the Word of life.—It will be observed that there is a fourfold repetition of the neuter that which (ho) introducing the phrases which follow: (1) that which was from the beginning; (2) that which we have heard; (3) that which we have seen with our eyes; (4) that which we beheld and our hands handled. The first of these, “ that which was from the beginning,” is an affirmation of the eternal character of that to which reference is made; the three which follow indicate John’ s relation thereto. That which was from the beginning he (and others) had (a) heard; (b) seen with his eyes; (c) beheld; and (d) handled. Each of the verbs heard, seen, beheld, and handled, in rising gradation, sharpens the concept and vivifies the thought intended by the writer. The lowest in the scale which he presents is hearing. There is no personal contact in hearing; it may be done from a distance, with­out design or purpose, indeed, unwillingly.

Seeing is likewise involuntary, though the eyes may be averted from that which we do not desire to see. The word “ beheld,” however, indicates con­scious and willful participation; it denotes more than mere seeing (etheasametha), from which it is translated, suggests a steady and penetrating gaze designed to hold the object in view until all its characteristics are noted.

Also inherent in the meaning of the word is the idea of contemplating with pleasure, looking with delight, finding satisfaction in the object thus contemplated. The verb handled suggests the most tangible, intimate, and definite evidence which John offered. In it there was physical contact. Thus three senses— hearing, seeing, and touching— were utilized by the apostle to obtain evidence of the reality of the Word of life about which he testifies here. The reason why the apostle felt it necessary to deal thus minutely with the evidence, and to offer testimony in such detailed fashion is to be seen in the nature of the false doctrines prevalent regarding the person of the Christ. (See under “ Design of the Epistle” in the Introduction.) The Lord was not a mere influence, nor yet a shadowy phantom, but a living, vibrant, tangible personality whose voice John has heard, whose body he had seen, and whom he had touched with his own hands.

The testimony which the apostle offered was “ concerning the Word of life.” This does not mean the gospel, but he who is its source, the logosa (John 1:1), the complete expression of deity. The testimony which John offered was with reference to the Word in the flesh, the second person in the Godhead, the Lord himself. “ Of life” is in apposition to “ word” (logosa) and is descriptive of the Word thus designated. The prepositional phrase “ of life” is frequently used by the Lord to describe his various character­istics. He is “ the life” (John 11:25 John 14:6); “ the bread of life” (John 6:35 John 6:48); “ the light of life” (John 8:12). Thus, the neuter relative, “ that which,” points to the matters concerning, pertaining to, and descriptive of Christ as the Word (the full expression) of life. John was particularly careful to guard his readers against the conclusion that the Word of life was merely some speech or saying delivered by Christ, and hence emphasized that it was the actual, literal, fleshly body of Christ which he had seen, beheld, heard, and his hand had handled.

Here, as in the first chapter of the Gospel by the same writer, is refuted the Gnos­tic heresy that Christ was not really in the flesh but only appeared to be. There, he declared that the “ Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14); here, that he was in possession of tan­gible, definite evidence of his reality.

1 John 1:2 —And the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.— This verse is parenthetical and repeats the sense of verse 1, re­vealing why John and those similarly situated— the other apostles — were able to bear witness of and declare Jesus as the life. To “ manifest” is to make visible in the sense of revelation; to make known matters formerly concealed. Because this life was revealed, John had been privileged through investigation— hearing, seeing, gazing upon, and handling— to obtain sensible knowledge of him thus revealed, and hence to be able to bear testimony regarding him. A progression of ideas is to be noted here, each of which, in ascending order, indicates the care which John exercised in leading his readers to the conclusion he desired: (1) the life was manifest­ed (in the ipcarnation); (2) John had seen it; (3) he was, there­fore, competent to testify regarding it; (4) this he was doing in declaring “ the life, the eternal life,” which, before his advent into the world, had been with the Father. This life had been with the Father prior to the incarnation and is thus eternal. Here is the first of four stages indicated in the sacred writings regarding the second person of the Godhead and points irresistibly to his deity: (1) his pre-existence in eternity as the Word prior to creation; (2) his foreshadowing in the Old Testament period as the angel of Jehovah, the anticipated Mes­siah, etc.; (3) his incarnate life on earth; (4) his present glorified state in heaven at the right hand of God, the Father, on the throne of David. (Acts 2:25-36.) A complete study of the life of our Lord must proceed from each of these heads.

1 John 1:3 —That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us;—The apostle here resumes the thought begun in verse 1, and asserts the pur­pose for which the Word of life is declared: “ That ye also may have fellowship with us.” “ Fellowship” (koinonia) is partner­ship, joint sharing. Through the acceptance of the Word of life a unity of faith, practice, and worship is established, and it was for this purpose that the life was being declared. Here, in the most emphatic fashion, the writer points out that only in unity of faith is there communion in religion. It is possible to have fellowship only when there is a common bond established in faith, work, and love.

1 John 1:3 —Yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ;—Where there is communion among the saints, established through the acceptance of the truth, it leads on to fellowship with the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:9.) Here, indeed, is the only way to church unity; a common faith based on unity of teaching and practice. When such obtains, there is unity among the believers, and the bond of fellowship thus established is extended to include both the Father and the Son. We thus learn that the society of the saints is not limited to the earth: it extends into heaven and consists of an intimate bond of sympathy with deity itself. On the other hand, when there is an alienation of fellowship here, there is an inevitable severance of such in heaven. Brethren cannot allow themselves to become alienated from each other here without suffering similar alienation from the Lord himself. That this unity might prevail, Jesus prayed; “ Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.” (John 17:21.) PURPOSE OF WRITING(1 John 1:4) 1 John 1:4 —And these things we write, that our joy may be made full.—“ These things” were the matters immediately referred to in the early verses of the chapter and, in a secondary sense, in all of the Epistle. The plural pronoun “ we” is a common literary device and does not, of course, mean that others were joined with John in the authorship of this Epistle. (Cf. 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Philem. 1: 1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1.) The purpose for which “ these things” were penned was that the joy of John might abound. Through the announcement of the testimony regarding Christ (verse 1) fellowship would obtain (verse 3), and the effect of this fellowship was joy. The same writer later said, “ I re­joiced greatly, when brethren came and bare witness unto thy truth, even as thou walkest in the truth. Greater joy have I none than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.” (3 John 1:3-4.)SECTION TWO GOD IS LIGHT(1Jn 1: 5-2: 28) OF WITH GOD(1 John 1:5-7) 1 John 1:5 —And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at alL—Again the apostle cites the sensible evidence which he had of the Lord’ s identity, emphasized so strongly in verse 1, as the ground of his readers’ acceptance of the “ mes­sage” which he was announcing, viz., (1) God is light; (2) in him is no darkness at all. This message John and the other apostles had “ heard” from “ him,” i.e., Christ. The affirmation, “ God is light,” is not the same as “ God is the light” or “ God is a light,” but simply God is light, such is his essence; he is of the character of light. The word “ light” sums up the divine character on the intellectual side, as “ God is love,” similarly describes the fullness of his moral nature. He is the “ author” of light (James 1:17) its creator (Genesis 1:3); he is bathed in perpetual light (1 Timothy 6:16) ; and the marvelous light in which Christians are to walk is his (1 Peter 2:9). Moreover, “ in him is no darkness at all.” “ Darkness” is a figure of ignorance, superstition, and sin, as “ light” represents truth, purity, and goodness.

In this manner, God is contrasted with the heathen deities the worship of which promoted immorality, ungodliness, and gross sin. The devil and his agents are styled “ the world rulers of this darkness” (Ephesians 6:12), and their domain is called “ the power of darkness” (Colossians 1:13). Those formerly enmeshed in the mazes of heathenism were said to have been “ once darkness,” but now, as the result of their obedience to the gospel, “ light in the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:8.) Paul gave thanks unto the Father, “ who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.” (Colossians 1:12.)

Though there is much darkness in the world, “ darkness in him there is none whatsoever.” This statement, in the Greek text, is an exceedingly emphatic one, the two negatives, ouk estin oude- mia, signifying “ no, not even one tiny particle!” There is no discoloration, no admixture of darkness in the pure light which streams from the character of God. He is, indeed, “ the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning.” (James 1: 17.)

1 John 1:6 —If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:—This verse con­tains a conclusion drawn from premises in the verse preceding. The situation which he assumes is a hypothetical one: Should one say, “ I have fellowship with God,” and yet walks in darkness, his words are false, and he does not the truth. “ Walk” is a figure of the Christian life, summing up its activities. The Lord said, “ I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (John 8: 12.) To be in fellowship with God, one must walk in the light; he who claims it, yet does not walk therein, sins both in word and in deed. Here, as often elsewhere in the sacred writings, it is made clear that theory and practice in religion are inseparably connected. Truth, properly held, always exhibits itself in obedience. Those who “ walk in darkness” are not only sinful in conduct; their dis­position is one of hatred and envy. “ He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in the darkness even until now.

He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in the darkness, and walketh in the darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes.” (1 John 2: 9-11.)

1 John 1:7 —But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another,—The verb “ walk” here (ean peripatomen) is present active subjunctive, thus literally, “ If we keep on walking in the light . . .” It must be a continuing walk. Moreover, we are to walk in the light in which the Father is. We are in the light only when fellowship with him obtains; and in this light must we remain. It is conditional whether we are in it, but such is his constant habitation. His dwelling is in “ light unapproachable.” (1 Tim. 6: 16.) If the element of our daily walk is the same as God’ s, “ we have fellowship one with another.” “ Fellowship” (koinonia) is partnership, joint participation, com­munion. Thus only through fellowship with God is fellowship with the brethren possible.

Fellowship with the brethren involves mutual assistance in all the difficulties of life; it includes the bear­ing of one another’ s burdens (Gal. 6:2), the sharing of all the sorrows and joys which constitute life. “ And whether one mem­ber suffereth, all the members suffer with it; or one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof.” (1 Cor. 12: 26, 27.)

1 John 1:8 —And the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin.—This clause is coordinate with “ we have fellowship one with an­other,” and is a statement of the means by which it is possible for us to walk in the light. Thus, by walking in the light two results follow: (1) we have fellowship with each other; (2) the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. Cleansing efficacy is thus attributed to the blood of Christ. Many important considerations follow from this passage: (a) It is not the mere example of Christ’ s dying that accomplishes our salvation; (b) it is not simply the contemplation of his death which delivers us from the guilt of sin; it is not belief in the moral implications of Calvary which pro­duces the blessing; nor (d) faith in the suffering of Christ on the cross. It is the blood, the shed blood of the Son of God, that cleanses us from sin. Moreover, it cleanses from sin, not merely or solely the conscience, but sin (amartias), all sin, whether of thought, word, or deed, rash sins, sins of ignorance, of malice, of omission or commission, sins of the flesh, sins of the disposition, sins of pleasure or of pain, sins of every type and kind committed at any time or place.

“ Cleanseth” is from the verb katharizei, in the present tense, thus revealing that it is a constant process, conditioned on our walking in the light. As we thus walk the blood operates to keep us constantly cleansed from the defilement of sin and the condem­nation which attends it. This verse is an exceedingly significant and comprehensive one, in the light of the false doctrines which were in vogue when the Epistle appeared and which it was written to refute. Established beyond reasonable controversy are the fol­lowing important propositions: (1) the reality of the body and blood of Jesus; (2) the sufferings which he experienced on the tree of the cross; (3) the efficacy of the blood which he shed. SIN AND ITS 1 John 1:8-101 John 1:8 —If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not m us.—Inasmuch as there is no article before the word “ sin” in this passage, it is contemplated in essence, ab­stractly considered. These words were penned to refute the pre­vailing notion of the heretics— and some to this day advocate the same view— that it is possible for one to live above sin. Those who so affirm (a) deceive themselves, and (b) exhibit the fact that the truth is not in them. Because of the weakness of the flesh and the ever-present problem of temptation, even the best of peo­ple inadvertently sin, and hence have need of the cleansing power inherent in the blood of Jesus. Aware of such, John was shortly to write: “ My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” (1 John 2:1.) Those who deny that they have sin, add to the sin they already have, and sin in so affirming!

The ever-present problem of sin is adduced by the apostle as the reason why children of God must have the cleansing power of the blood applied. This clearly refutes the notion that men have lived, or may live in this life, without sin. The truth is not in those who so allege. It may be around them or near them, but it is not in them; it does not constitute a part of their character. These to whom John wrote had been forgiven of their past or alien sins; thus reference here is not to any previous state of guilt prior to conversion, but to present sin, sin at the time he wrote, sins of omission and commission, sins of the flesh and of the disposition, all sin, any sin of which we may be guilty. The recognition and confession of sin is a prerequisite to our approval before God.

To refuse such recognition and confession is simply to deceive ourselves and to demonstrate the fact that the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:9 —If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.—The phrase, “ If we say . . .,” a mere formal admission of guilt (verse 8), becomes here “ If we confess . . .,” a much more vivid concept. One may indeed “ say” (eipon) that he has sin without experiencing any deep or abiding sense of guilt or wrong and without being moved to repentance. The confession (homologe) here contemplated is a humble acknowledgment of wrong, a peni­tent attitude essential to forgiveness. The word homologeo, from which the word “ confess” is translated, means to say the same thing, to speak together, and figuratively implies a dialogue be­tween God and the sinner, in which the Father describes the con­dition of the sinner, and the sinner finally accedes to the correct­ness of the description and thus confesses that God is right! The word “ sin” of verse 8, an abstract concept of wrong, be­comes “ sins,” individual and specific acts of wrong-doing in verse 9. It follows, therefore, that the sins we are to confess are the specific and particular manifestations of the sin which all sincere believers of the Word know in their hearts they possess.

The verb “ confess” is translated from a present active subjunc­tive, thus literally, “ If we keep on confessing our sins . . .,” indica­tive of a continuous process. There are two definite and specific types of confession required of the erring in the New Testament: (1) confession before the Father, as here; (2) acknowledgement of sins before others, as in James 5:16. It is scarcely necessary to add that an additional confession before a priest on the pretext that such a one can absolve sins is wholly unknown to the New Testament, is contrary to the teaching of the scriptures, and inim­ical to the genius and character of the Christian religion. With Jesus as our Priest, Mediator, and Advocate, we need no other assistance in approaching the Throne of Grace. (Hebrews 7:25 Hebrews 10:19-20; 1 John 2:1; 1 Timothy 2:5.)

If we keep on confessing our sins, God “ is faithful and righteeous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteous­ness.” “ Faithfulness” and “ righteousness” are attributes of the great Jehovah; and when we confess our sins before him, we enter into and partake of the blessings which result from them.

He has promised to forgive us on condition that we confess our sins; and since he is faithful, he will not fail in the performance of his promises. David joined these attributes in Psalms 143:1 : “ Hear my prayer, O Jehovah; give ear to my supplications; in thy faithfulness answer me, and in thy righteousness.” It is God’ s nature to be faithful and righteous, and it is his purpose to cleanse when the conditions— confession and penitence— are met. “ Unrighteousness,” the opposite of “ righteousness.” is synony­mous with the word sin, of verse 8. Wrong-doing is set forth under various aspects in the scriptures. A collection of terms in­dicative of its different qualities occurs in Exodus 34:7. 1 John 1:10 —If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.—Compare verse 8. Here, again, there is an advance in thought, as in verses 8 and 9. The “ if we say we have no sin” (abstractly considered) becomes here, “ If we say that we have not sinned …” (have not been guilty of specific and concrete acts of sin). Verse 10 designates specific acts of sin; in verse 8 sin is regarded as a state or condition. Those who insist that they have not sinned make God a “ liar” and demon­strate the fact that God’ s word is not in them. Much emphasis is given here to the fact and reality of sin in the lives of us all.

Those who deny this lie (verse 6) deceive themselves (verse 8) make God a liar (verse 10). Taught here, in the most emphatic fashion possible, is the constant and recurring need of pardon on the part of all children of God. Not only is such essential to the alien sinner in order that he may be adopted into the fellowship of God; he must continue to seek it and avail himself of its benefits through­out life. As sin is evermore about us, and, alas, all too often in us, we must continually seek new pardons through the means hereinbefore set forth. This section of the Epistle, far from teach­ing that the Lord forgave us of all sins, “ past, present, and future,” as the advocates of the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy allege, establishes the fact of an ever-present need of the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus Christ our Lord. Happily we have the assurance that “ the blood of Jesus his Son keeps on cleansing us from all sin” (verse 7) as we conform to the conditions on which such depends. Those who deny the fact of sin in their lives make God a liar by contradicting his express statements of man’ s sinfulness before him, and they demonstrate the fact that the truth is not in them by exhibiting ignorance of the truth in their allegation. 1st John Chapter OneVerse 1 JOHN’S FIRST LETTERThe beautiful prologue (1 John 1:1-4) is like the one in John’s gospel, having the profoundest dimensions and embryonically stating the theme as: “God manifested in Jesus Christ, that man may have fellowship with the Father through the Son."[1] The remaining six verses are part of a complicated paragraph running through 1 John 2:28 and which begins with “God is light” (1 John 1:5), the first of three epic statements about God which are usually cited by scholars as marking in a rough sense the three major divisions of 1John. The other two are: “God is righteous” (1 John 2:29) and “God is love” (1 John 4:7-8). As noted in the introduction, however, a satisfactory classical outline of this letter is hardly possible. The echoes of the great prologue in John’s gospel are so pronounced in these first four verses, with just those variations which are believable in John but which no forger would have dared to attempt, that this shorter prologue here has been understood by the Christians of all ages as a convincing Johannine signature. Nobody except John could have written this. ENDNOTE: [1] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 1054. That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life; (1 John 1:1) It will be seen that this verse is not a complete sentence, the entire four verses of the prologue being “but one highly compressed and complicated sentence in the Greek."[2] This complexity has led to different opinions as to how it should be translated. That which … This neuter pronoun seems opposed to the usual view that “Word of life” here is a reference to Jesus Christ; therefore some render it “word of life,” meaning “the message”; however, “Word of life,” meaning Jesus Christ, is far better. “John goes on to speak of hearing, seeing and even touching, which makes it necessary for us to think of Jesus."[3]From the beginning … In the gospel (John 1:1), John wrote “in the beginning”; and based on the variation here, Macknight thought that the beginning of the gospel age is meant, rather than the beginning of all things.[4] However, as Morris pointed out, the gospel did not begin with the Incarnation. “It was always in God’s plan.[5] Paul used such expressions as “from times eternal” and “before the world was” regarding the gospel; and these considerations as well as the thundering echoes of the gospel prologue with which this passage has close affinity convince us that Roberts’ firm comment on this is correct: John is referring to Christ and to his existence with the Father from eternity. In 1 John 2:13, he will speak of Christ as “one who was from the beginning.” Compare John 1:1-2 John 1:14 John 17:5.[6]That which we have heard … Who are the “we” of this clause? The conviction here is that the apostolic eyewitnesses of Christ throughout his ministry and of his death, burial and resurrection are those meant. Heard … seen … handled … Such terms designate the holy apostles and perhaps a few others who might have been eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2). Certainly it is the apostles who are primarily the ones meant here. “This refers to the companionship of John and the other disciples with Jesus on earth."[7] Wilder and other recent commentators have construed the “we” of this passage and in 1 John 1:3 as meaning “all believers, whether eyewitnesses or not … the church … through the generations”;[8] but such a view cannot possibly be right. “It is impossible to make good sense out of this if we think of `we’ as meaning ewe Christians.’ It must mean those believers who actually saw Jesus in the flesh."[9] The great facts of the Christian gospel are founded upon historical events witnessed by people who saw and experienced the things they preached. “We Christians talking to each other” did not “develop” our holy religion; it was revealed, and conveyed to us by competent and authentic witnesses, the Incarnate God in Christ being the source of all of it. That which we have seen with our eyes … Mere hearsay evidence formed no part of basic Christian teaching. The apostles recounted what they had heard, seen, beheld (more intensive investigation than merely seeing), and even handled. Was it not their hands that passed out bread and fishes for a vast multitude? Affirmations in these clauses forbid making “the message” the subject. Could the apostles have “handled” the message? Maybe they read by the Braille method! On the other hand, they did handle Christ. See the Saviour’s invitation for them to do so in Luke 24:39, where again this very unusual word for “touch” is rendered “handle,” a word occurring only three times in the whole New Testament.[10] Many have seen in this word an allusion to the resurrection of Christ. Concerning the Word of life … Those intent on declaring the message of the gospel and not Christ himself as the subject of this prologue prefer the rendition “word of life,” as in the ASV margin, the RSV and a number of other recent translations; but these should be rejected. The same considerations that required the capitalization of “Word” in the gospel also require the capitalization of “Word” here. It is the same word, the words “of life” not altering that fact. Many of the most dependable versions and translations attest this: Word of life – King James Version Word of Life – New Catholic Version, 1946 Logos of life – James Moffatt Word of Life – Richard Francis Weymouth WORD OF LIFE – Emphatic Diaglott Word of life – John Wesley Word of life – Good News for Modern Man Word of Life – Amplified New Testament Word of life himself – J. B. Phillips It is true, of course, that some great names among the scholars have insisted on making “message” the subject. Westcott, Dodd, Scott and White are among them, the most insistent being C. H. Dodd, who went so far as to translate the phrase “the gospel” instead of “Word of life.” However, it should be noted that Scott was influenced by Dodd, and that Dodd had an axe to grind. He was anxious to sustain his theory of a different author for this epistle, one of his big points being that [Greek: logos] was used in a different sense in the epistle from that in the gospel. (See a discussion of this in the introduction.) What he actually did was to contrive a different meaning here and then offer his contrivance as a bona-fide argument against Johannine authorship of 1John! Westcott, one of the most distinguished scholars in a thousand years, in this, made one of his rare mistakes.

He also missed the proper translation of Joh 1:18, significantly, both passages dealing with the ascription of outright deity to Jesus Christ. He justified the error in the gospel on the basis that other New Testament passages fully cover the question anyway and that the additional testimony was unnecessary; and he could have justified the error here in the same way. In spite of the insistence of a few influential men, however, the old meaning should be preserved in this text. But, is not the whole question `much ado about nothing’? In a sense, yes. Roberts pointed out that, “There is little difference between saying that John is proclaiming the personal Word ([Greek: logos]) … and saying that he is proclaiming the message about the life which is eternal.” Our refutation of C. H. Dodd in the introduction was based, not upon the error of supposing a different use of [Greek: logos] in 1John from that of the gospel prologue, but upon the fact that the idea is exactly the same. Christ is the gospel.

Preaching Christ and preaching the gospel are synonymous terms and were so used by the apostle Paul and the Christians of all generations. The word of the gospel is in fact a “living word” (Hebrews 4:12). Despite this, however, the translations which have been accepted for centuries should not be presumptuously set aside, far too many of those doing so having in mind exactly the same kind of attack upon New Testament books that Dodd made. It is one thing to change a translation in the light of new manuscript evidence, and possibly other bona-fide reasons; but many of the proposed changes are indefensible, as is the one in view here. Morris summed up the case thus: While this term (Word of life) might well describe the gospel, we must bear in mind that Jesus is called “the Word,” and that in him was life, and the life was the light of men (John 1:1 John 1:4).[11][2] Leon Morris, The New Bible Commentary, Revised (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1260. [3] Ibid. [4] James Macknight, Macknight on the Epistles, Vol. VI (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, reprint, 1969), 1John, p. 24. [5] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 1261. [6] J. W. Roberts, The Letters of John (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Company, 1968), p. 20. [7] James William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 597. [8] Amos N. Wilder, The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. XII (New York: Abingdon Press, 1956), p. 218. [9] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 1261. [10] R. W. Orr, A New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 609. [11] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 1261. Verse 2 (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)This verse is parenthetical, but it regards the very thing in John’s mind from the first verse, namely, the Holy One, the same who in the beginning was “with God” and “was God” (John 1:1), called in the gospel “the Word” and here “the Word of life” (1 John 1:1). This life manifested … Moffatt was doubtless correct in capitalizing “Life” in both verses. “Manifested” is a term frequently used in the New Testament of the appearance of the Son of God in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16,1 Peter 1:20,1 John 3:5 1 John 3:8). It is further illuminated by the counterpart of it in the gospel, “The word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:31). John also used the same word to describe the resurrection appearances of Jesus (John 21:1 John 21:14). And we have seen, and bear witness … By this, John refers to his gospel, to which, in a sense, this letter is an appendix. His “witness” or “testimony” is incorporated in that which he wrote. Again, “we” refers to the apostles. Macknight paraphrased the words here thus: “We apostles who accompanied him during his abode on earth, etc."[12] Clemance also understood this whole verse as concerning Jesus Christ. He wrote: “From what follows, there can be no question that the apostle here refers to the Lord Jesus Christ."[13] “Bear witness” means to proclaim, testify, or bear testimony, such words appearing no less than nineteen times in these epistles. Thus, John’s assault on error was a thundering reiteration of basic gospel truth. As Hoon said: Because this epistle was occasioned by heresy and misconduct, argument and denunciation frequently appear. But the author did not first engage in apologetics; he knew that error is best met by confronting it with the truth it denies.[14][12] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 27. [13] A. Clemance, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 22,1John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 6. [14] Paul W. Hoon, The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. XII (New York: Abingdon Press, 1957), p. 216. Verse 3 that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that we also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ:That … we declare unto … The word “declare” is here repeated from 1 John 1:2, indicating the close unity of the whole passage. “The proclamation (declaration in our version) need not refer to the Gospel of John specifically. It is the substance of all gospel or apostolic preaching."[15] Furthermore, the present tense shows the established and continual nature of that proclamation through the lives of the apostles and their writings. It is wrong to limit the proclamation to the contents of this epistle. That which we have seen … This repeated stress upon the eyewitness nature of the apostolic gospel is important, as it affirms dogmatically that the writer is himself one of the eyewitnesses. Unto you also, that ye also … One of these words (also) may be construed as applicable to the proclamation, “readers thus being informed that this letter is supplementary to the basic witness of the gospel."[16] “It also means `ye also’ who have not seen Jesus."[17]That ye also may have fellowship with us … Fellowship is from the Greek word [@koinonia], meaning “a close relationship or harmonious association as partners or sharers of the gospel."[18] Note too that a definite purpose of the epistle is the maintenance and extension of Christian fellowship, a fellowship which was threatened by the rise of heresies and the ensuing bitterness and strife which resulted. The purpose of the apostles regarding this essential fellowship of Christians “rebukes much of our modern evangelism and church life."[19]And our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ … Oneness with God in Christ is the basis of Christian fellowship, and it cannot exist without it. That is why the doctrinal and ethical nature of the Christian message should continually be stressed from the pulpit; because, in this essential basis is the principle of cohesion that binds Christians first to God in Christ and then to each other.

Any congregation or church which depends upon a superficial social camaraderie to replace the word and doctrine as its cohesive power blunders fatally. If there would be fellowship, first let the heresies be denied and thwarted and the ethical behavior of Christians restored. This was exactly John’s purpose in this letter. Father … and Son Jesus Christ … The equal dignity of Jesus Christ with the Father is clear in John’s association of their names together at the very outset of his letter. [15] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 23. [16] R. W. Orr, op. cit., p. 609. [17] David Smith, Expositor’s Greek New Testament, Vol. V (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), p. 170. [18] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 24. [19] John R. W. Stott, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Vol. 19 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), p. 64. Verse 4 and these things we write, that our joy may be made full.We write … It has been debated whether this applies primarily to the whole apostolic message just referred to in the prologue or to the epistle about to follow. Scott is likely correct in referring both to the apostolic proclamation “Declare we (1 John 1:3) and write we (1 John 1:4) refer to the same message."[20] Since the epistle itself is part of the apostolic message, this appears to be logical. A NOTE “ETERNAL LIFE” Before leaving this study of the prologue, a little further attention to the subject of eternal life is appropriate. It is well known that both in the gospel and the epistles John often speaks of eternal life as the present possession of Christians. J. W. Roberts has given a thorough discussion of this in his commentary. He cited many passages that indicate that, “In some sense, John sees the Christian as enjoying eternal life here and now,"[21] a proposition that is obvious to any reader or student of John. He concluded that, “The eternal life which the believer has (present tense) is to be interpreted not as quantitative (everlasting) but as qualitative."[22] Those qualities of the Christian’s present “eternal life” are evident in the declarations that he “has passed from death into life,” that he is a “partaker of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4), and that he arises from baptism to walk “in newness of life.” No disagreement whatever is felt with regard to Roberts’ analysis; but it seems appropriate to guard against any misunderstanding of it. The Christian’s possession of eternal life now and here must be understood in the sense of his enjoying the blessed promise of it. The earnest of it (Ephesians 1:13) which he now sheds forth in his heart many qualities of the ultimate eternal life that shall crown the efforts of the faithful in heaven; and, in that possession of the earnest, the Christian certainly enjoys qualitatively the eternal life yet to come; but it should always be remembered that in no sense should the earnest (which of the whole is only a very small part) ever be equated with the entirety of that eternal life, which according to the blessed promise of the Christ himself is the ultimate reward of the faithful in Christ. Nor can it be thought even of those qualities of eternal life enjoyed in the present time, that they are in any sense to be equated completely with the ultimate “eternal life.” The very term earnest forbids this. Not all the joys of eternal life are ours now; nor can it be thought, even of those fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22 f) which we already possess, that they have the same fullness, quality, and intensity of the eternal life to come. Thus, in Roberts’ statement about having eternal life qualitatively, it would be wrong to understand it as totally so.

It is more accurate to view the present possession of eternal life as prospective. It is ours in the sense of our possession of the blessed promise and the confident expectation of receiving the fulfillment of it at “the last day.” There is abundant testimony in the New Testament to the effect that not all of those qualities of eternal life ultimately expected are in the possession of the saints now. Even the apostle John’s joy was not yet full when he wrote this epistle, as indicated by the last verse of the prologue (1 John 1:4) above. Paul’s statement that it would be “better” to depart and be with Christ; John’s declaration that “it is not yet made manifest what we shall be” (1 John 3:2); the absolute inability of any Christian ever to rise completely above all sin; the fact that it has never even entered into the heart of man (1 Corinthians 2:9) the things that God prepared for them that love him; the constant attendance upon human footsteps of sorrow, pain, and tribulations; - all such considerations deny the quality of that eternal life in Christians now as having any complete correspondence to the eternal life given on the last day to them who shall be invited to “enter thou into the joy of thy Lord” (Matthew 25:23). “Entering in” cannot be equated in any complete sense with “You have already entered.” [20] Ibid. [21] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 26,27. [22] Ibid. Verse 5 And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.It is not merely an abstract teaching with regard to the nature of God that John presented here (though some of that is in it). His general theme regarded the fellowship mentioned in the prologue; but as Roberts said, “John’s thoughts are not arranged logically and symmetrically."[23] The most practical organization of the next few verses lies in the arrangement of his thoughts around such words as “if we say,” which are undeniably addressed to the prevailing errors he was exposing. God is light … Orr supposed that a similar grand pronouncement found in 1 John 3:11, introduced by words almost identical with the introductory clause here, might indicate that we have in the words “God is light” an actual saying of Jesus Christ repeated by him at various times.[24] He based this upon the fact that the statement in 1 John 3:11, that we should “love one another” was indeed an actual saying of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. It has the same authority either way. “To the Christians alone, God is revealed as light, absolutely free from everything material, impure, obscure or gloomy."[25] Light is a symbol of all that is lovely, beautiful, holy, good, desirable, righteous and lovable. To the pagans, God was hatred, vengeance and fear; to the ignorant, God was a God of darkness, an unknown Being to be propitiated, not a Person to be loved; to the philosopher, God was an abstraction, an idea, having no connection at all with man; to the Jew, God was a God that hideth himself and a consuming fire. However, John had a practical reason behind this statement about God. “The apostle intended that his words should emphasize the difference between the light which God is and purely intellectual enlightenment, so-called,"[26] which was claimed by the philosophical pretenders who were disturbing the church, and which even today has by no means disappeared from the earth. In high is no darkness at all … Darkness, contrasting with light, is a symbol of all that is wicked, ignorant, gloomy, shameful, depraved and perverted. Paul described the deeds of the wicked as the “works of darkness.” And there are several kinds of darkness. Plummer cited “physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual darkness."[27] Note too that John did not say that there is no darkness in God’s presence, but that there is no darkness “in him.” Now this verse has its application to the problem of fellowship because the false teachers were walking in a moral darkness of the worst intensity, while at the same time claiming to be “in God.” The impossibility of their pretensions having any merit was proved by this very first sentence of the message proper. It is preposterous for one to claim fellowship with God while walking in darkness. The message which we have heard from him … Commentators have difficulty deciding on who is the antecedent of “him,” since both the Father and the Son Jesus Christ were mentioned together in 1 John 1:3. To one with John’s exalted view of Christ, this was no problem. He most likely referred to the personal instruction which he and the other apostles had received from Christ himself. [23] Ibid., p. 28. [24] R. W. Orr, op. cit., p. 609. [25] A. Plummer, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 22,1John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 4. [26] James William Russell, op. cit., p. 597. [27] A. Plummer, op. cit., p. 4. Verse 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:In this verse, the apostle made the application of his remarks in the verse preceding. Smith identified the false teachers refuted by this as “the Nicolaitans who held to the heresy of antinomianism."[28] John did not honor their heresy nor the names of any of its advocates with any identification whatever. Plummer thought that the heresy in view was that of the “Carpocratian Gnostics, who taught that to the enlightened all actions are indifferent, because neither impurity nor filth Can change the nature of pure gold."[29]And do not the truth … This is changed in the RSV to “do not live according to the truth,” but Morris assured us that the ASV is the correct rendition.[30] This very statement is found in John 3:21 and in the Qumran scrolls. “Truth can be a quality of action as well as of speech."[31]The false claim in this verse is that of affirming that we walk with God even while we are walking in darkness. “Walk” in this passage, as frequently in the New Testament, is an idiom for the totality of human conduct. [28] David Smith, op. cit., p. 171. [29] A. Plummer, op. cit., p. 4. [30] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 1261. [31] Ibid. Verse 7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sinIf we walk in the light … When the light from God, as revealed in Christ Jesus and the preaching of the apostles, is entered and walked in by the Christians, “Walking in the light shows up their sins and frailties, revealing the need for constant cleansing."[32]Roberts pointed out that John’s teaching here “implies that only the sinless can have fellowship with a sinless God,” adding that this involves a contradiction between our own “admitted sinfulness and the affirmation that we do have fellowship with God (1 John 1:3)."[33] Roberts resolved the “contradiction” in the considerations of: (1) Christ’s propitiation for our sins; (2) the cleansing action in view in this verse; and (3) the intercession on our behalf of Jesus Christ our advocate. Here indeed is the achievement of that absolute perfection required of all who hope to enter heaven, as announced by Jesus Christ in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:48). The whole doctrine of Perfection requires a great deal more attention to it than is evident in current Christian literature. For a further study of it, see in my Commentary on Galatians, pp. 130-133. For those who walk in the light, the continual, ceaseless and effective cleansing through the blood of Christ is the means of their continuing in a state of absolute perfection. This cleansing, however, is not necessarily automatic. “It is based upon confession, penitence, renewal (1 John 1:9), and keeping his commandments (1 John 2:3)."[34] Even beyond this, however, the cleansing effect of Jesus’ blood is operative unconditionally in instances of the believer’s unawareness of sins that lie hidden from himself. Fellowship one with another … Although not stated in this sentence, this fellowship is also with God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 3). This fellowship stands for membership in the corporate spiritual body of Jesus Christ. Thus the cleansing here mentioned is not that from “old sins” prior to conversion, but from the accrual of sins daily by the Christian. The blood of Jesus his Son … All forgiveness for mortals, in the last analysis, derives from this source. John’s mention of it so early in the epistle shows the high priority of this fundamental truth. Cleanseth us from all sin … “The singular sin sometimes denotes the principle of sin, but this cannot be the meaning here. All sin means `every act of sin.’"[35]This great verse is the source of incredible joy, assurance and consolation to the child of God. He never needs to fear that some impulsive, unintentional, or atypical conduct might overtake him with the result of eternal condemnation. His walking “in the light” can be established by the long term directional thrust of his whole life upon earth and cannot be contradicted and negated by any temporary or insignificant lapse. [32] Charles C. Ryrie, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 1007. [33] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 31. [34] Ibid., p. 32. [35] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 1262. Verse 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.If we say that we have no sin … This is the second false claim John refuted, the first being that of 1 John 1:6. Here the error is that of claiming inherent sinlessness, perfection, the absence of any need of cleansing through the blood of Christ. Such a claim is capable of deceiving the claimant, but not anyone else! Despite the effrontery of such a proposition, entire religions are founded upon just such claims. “There is no sin” - this is the proposition that underlies a great deal of current thinking. See under 1 John 1:9.

Scott and others have supposed that John might also have had in mind “the Gnostic subtlety that sin was a matter of the flesh and did not touch or defile the spirit."[36]If we say … is an expression of remarkable interest, because the apostle here identified himself with the false teachers, not through any agreement with them, but out of a delicate regard for his readers. This identification of an apostle with those addressed is prevalent in the New Testament. Hebrews 2:3 is a remarkable example of the same thing; and yet that instance of it has been perverted to mean that no first generation Christian could have written that epistle! Some have pointed out that the need for John’s teaching here resulted from the most audacious immorality advocated, indulged, and rationalized by heretics such as Valentinus. Irenaeus has a description of such views, which although later associated with the heretic whose name was given to the error, nevertheless existed early in the first century. They hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. It is impossible that spiritual substance (and by this they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions they indulged. For as gold submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, filth having no power to injure gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved.[37]This ancient heresy exists today in a much more sophisticated form in what is heralded as salvation “by faith alone,” which has exactly the same meaning as salvation “not by means of conduct.” Man’s presumptuous blindness in denying the existence of sin, either as a principle, or as existent within himself, is self-deception at its worst. The Lord’s Prayer which enjoined the petitions for daily bread and forgiveness, both assumed and implied the need of daily prayers for forgiveness. “Woe to that soul that presumes to think that he can approach God in any other way than as a sinner asking mercy."[38][36] John R. W. Stott, op. cit., p. 77. [37] Iraeneus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, On Heresies I, 6,2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 324. [38] David Smith, op. cit., p. 172. Verse 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.If we confess our sins … To whom shall sins be confessed? Certainly, the usual concept of a confessional in a church, where confession is a one-way street, is not what is meant here. Macknight paraphrased this: “If we confess our sins to God with a firm resolution to forsake them, etc.” In any confession to other Christians, a mutual confession of sins “to one another” would be the requirement. Even the confession of sins by Christians to each other is a practice that can be very unrewarding and hurtful. Currently, there are outcroppings of a practice among fervidly religious groups of holding confessionals in which the most sensual and reprehensible conduct is unreservedly reported openly and publicly within such groups. In such a context, that is bragging about sins, not confessing them; and it cannot be possible that John had any such thing in mind. There are no New Testament examples of a religious service being built around any such orgy of self-revelation. Confessions of sins “one to another” among Christians means an admission of guilt where it exists as a barrier to their fellowship, a mutual sharing of blame, and a restoration of the broken harmony. It is difficult for man’s ego to admit blame and guilt, society as a whole being hardly capable of any such admission. More and more, the trend is to deny sin exists. Drunkards have merely contracted an unfortunate disease, alcoholism! Adulterers and philanderers are schizophrenic! Thieves, murderers, outlaws, etc. are not criminals at all, but anti-social, a state induced by society itself. Sinful behavior is not that at all, but the natural response to one’s heredity, environment, deprivation or other things beyond the sinner’s control. The apostolic word for all such thinking is “self-deception.” Our sins … It is not the principle of sin merely that is to be acknowledged but the plurality of sins. This has been misunderstood as meaning “all of our sins publicly”; but no such meaning is in it. Rather the need for acknowledging and confessing sin again, and again, as multiple occasions arise requiring it, is the true meaning. The right course is not repetitious confessions of all the sins one can remember, but the admission of sin on the successive occasions when the believer stumbles. If this is done, the aggregate is “confessing our sins,” no less than the indulgence of such things as the group confessionals mentioned above. (God) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins … It is a false view that construes this as meaning that God would not be just and righteous if he did not forgive us wicked sinners! God does not prove his righteousness by forgiving sinners, who in any just frame of reference must be accounted as worthy of eternal death. No, that is not what John meant. Roberts has the truth thus: “He is faithful in that he will not go back on the promise he made in Christ Jesus."[39] Scott also has a wonderful word on this: “He is faithful to forgive us because he has promised to do so, and just because his Son died for our sins."[40] In the forgiveness of Christians of their sins and his continual cleansing them from such sins, God displays loyalty to the sacred covenant he himself established. Furthermore, the theoretical grounds, the rational basis, upon which it is just for God to forgive sins is established in the Person and sacrifice of the Son of God.

God may justly forgive us, because Christ paid the penalty that was due. The justice of God in allowing our participation in the benefits of that sacrifice is vindicated and proved by the manner of incorporating those to be forgiven into the spiritual body of Christ, and then justifying them, not in their own sinful identities, but as Christ and in Christ. [39] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 35. [40] John R. W. Stott, op. cit., p. 77. Verse 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.If we say … These repeated expressions (1 John 1:6 1 John 1:8 1 John 1:10) indicate the principal stream of the apostle’s thought in this section. He is still dealing with evil heresies that had encroached upon the Christian fellowship. If we say that we have not sinned … This is the most blatant and offensive of all the false theories. “To go to the length of denying past sin and present guilt, is not only to becloud ourselves with sophistry but to give the lie to God himself."[41] God gave his only begotten Son upon the cross that man might be saved from sin, a salvation that was impossible for any man apart from God’s redeeming act. If man had not been sinful and utterly helpless to achieve salvation for himself, all of the heavenly outpouring of God’s merciful visitation in the person of his Son was unnecessary; the crucifixion was a useless murder; and every promise of the gospel is essentially a lie. John’s language here is certainly not too strong. People who deny their need of redemption from sin, through the pretense of not ever having sinned, are of all people most guilty and contemptible. “To say that we have not sinned is not just to tell a deliberate lie, or to be self-deceived, but actually to accuse God of lying, to make him a liar."[42]His word is not in us … Characteristic of John’s writings is his use of such words as “word” and “truth” to stand for the whole body of gospel teaching.

Moreover, “the truth” or “the word” in John’s view was not some indefinite and nebulous goal pursued by the Christians seeking to know it; it was something which they already knew, already had, already walked in, already obeyed. The reference, of course, is to the basic gospel of the New Testament which is perfect, complete, final, and sufficient. It is not to be added to nor taken from. Such is the Johannine conception of the message which he and other apostles delivered to people that they might be saved. [41] Amos N. Wilder, op. cit., p. 225. [42] John R. W. Stott, op. cit., p. 79.

“THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN”

Chapter One John begins his first epistle like he does his gospel: with a prologue regarding the Word of Life (Jesus Christ) who dwelt in the flesh among men and made fellowship with the Father possible (1 John 1:1-4). Fellowship with God is maintained as we walk in the light and confess our sins that we might enjoy continual cleansing through the blood of Jesus (1 John 1:5-10).

POINTS TO PONDER

• The witness of John concerning the Word of Life

• The nature of the evidence for faith in Jesus

• The basis of our fellowship with God

REVIEW

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- Prologue: The Word of Life - 1 John 1:1-4- Fellowship with God - 1 John 1:5-10

2. How is John’ s beginning in this epistle similar to his gospel? (1 John 1:1-4, cf. John 1:1-14)- Both begin with a prologue regarding the Word who became flesh

3. How does John describe the pre-incarnation of Jesus? (1 John 1:1)- As “that which was from the beginning”

4. What empirical evidence does John provide concerning the Word? (1 John 1:1)- He has heard, seen with his eyes, handled with hands

5. What does John declare? What does he want to share? Why does he write? (1 John 1:2-4)- Eternal life; fellowship with the Father and His Son; that our joy may be full

6. What message has John heard that he now declares to us? (1 John 1:5)- That God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all

7. If we say we have fellowship with God but walk in darkness, what are we? (1 John 1:6)- Liars who do not practice the truth

8. What do we enjoy as we walk in the light together with God? (1 John 1:7)- Cleansing of all sin by the blood of Christ

9. What if we say that we have no sin? (1 John 1:8 1 John 1:10)- We deceive ourselves, make God a liar, His word and the truth are not in us

10. What’ s required to be forgiven of sin and cleansed of all unrighteousness? (1 John 1:9)- To confess our sins

Questions by E.M. Zerr On 1st John 11. What was from the beginning? 2. Beginning of what? 3. Where did John speak of this before? 4. Who are the “we” that have heard? 5. State how they could see and handle this. 6. Was this handling literal? 7. What was manifested? 8. Who were required to see it? 9. For what benefit was this all done? 10. With whom was eternal life vested? 11. What was to be shown? 12. With what were they to have fellowship? 13. With whom did the apostles have fellowship? 14. For what purpose does John write these things? 15. What declaration was to be made? 16. State the central subject of the writing. 17. What kind of light is meant? 18. Does this principle dwell unmixed with God? 19. Who is the liar first described by the apostle? 20. This liar will not do what? 21. Of what does this darkness consist? 22. What is necessary for light to benefit us? 23. Give meaning of fellowship. 24. Why must we be in light to fellowship Him? 25. From how much sin will the blood cleanse us? 26. Is the blood literally applied? 27. On what condition will it be applied? 28. Where may we find this light? 29. What constitutes walking in it? 30. When are we self-deceived? 31. What is not in us then? 32. On what condition will God forgive us? 33. Why will he do so? 34. How completely will he cleanse us? 35. Through what ransom will he do this? 36. What would make God out a liar? 37. State what confession of sin would also require. 38. Who are meant by “we” in this passage? 39. Does this imply that disciples might sin? 40. To deny existence of sin makes us what? 41. Does this apply only when we are aliens? 42. Distinguish “have no sin” and “have not sinned.” 43. Would saying either make one a liar? 44. If we make God a liar what is not in us? 45. Without that word what is our fate? 46. If God is true then what are those who differ? 47. What saying of Paul teaches this same thing? 48. Can two people be true if they contradict? 49. What being is always right? 50. Those who differ from him are always what?

1 John 1:1

1 John 1:1. This verse is equivalent to the first verse of John’s account of the Gospel. When the words the beginning are used as an abstract term, that is one without any qualifying context, they always have the same meaning. The popular notion is that they mean “the beginning of time.” That is wrong because time (which merely means duration) had no beginning and of course will have no end. The means by which we measure time, such as the movements of the earth and other planets, will come to an end, but that does not mean that time will end then. It would be like saying that if the clocks all stopped that time would stop also.

Not so; the means we were using to measure it only have stopped. The term the beginning means the beginning of the material creation. The reader should see the comments on this subject at John 1:1 in the first volume of the New Testament Commentary. In our present verse John comes to a later period and refers to the circumstance when the word took upon himself that form which could be seen and handled by fleshly man.

1 John 1:2

1 John 1:2. This verse gives some more details of the general truths that are stated in the preceding one. The life is the same as “Word of life” above which was with the Father before the inhabitants of the earth ever heard about it. It was manifested to the extent that it could be seen with human eyes as well as be “handled” as stated in the first verse. The manner in which this was done is expressed somewhat more directly by this same writer in John 1:14 which says that “the Word was made flesh.” Everyone will understand this refers to the fact of the life of Christ in a fleshly body on the earth. Show unto you that eternal life. Such a life is spiritual and thus cannot literally be shown, but John means that when a man sees Christ he is seeing eternal life in that He is the one who gives us the hope of eternal life.

1 John 1:3

1 John 1:3. John was especially concerned with the divinity of Christ, that although He dwelt among men in the flesh (in order that they might see and hear Him), yet he was (and is) the divine Son of God. Have fellowship with us denotes having a share in or being partakers with the apostles in the relationship between God and Christ and their faithful disciples.

1 John 1:4

1 John 1:4. That your joy may be full. The last word is where the emphasis of thought should be placed. Small or partial joy may be possible from many different sources, but the joy that can come from a faith in the only divine Son of God is full both in the sense of being complete in its extent, and perfect in its quality. It will leave nothing that can reasonably be desired further by a firm believer.

1 John 1:5

1 John 1:5. The message which we (the apostles and others through them) have heard of him (the Son of God). The subject of the message is light, brought into the world by Christ which he received from his Father. God not only has light (spiritual truth) but He has nothing else; no darkness at all. Good men and angels have some light but it is limited, while with God it is light unmodified.

1 John 1:6

1 John 1:6. The Lord is all light and truth which is the opposite of darkness. For this reason no man can possibly be a partaker (have fellowship) with Him whose life is one of darkness which is a figurative name for that which is not the truth. Hence it is a logical conclusion that if a man claims to be on both sides of this proposition at the same time he is lying.

1 John 1:7

1 John 1:7. Walk in the light. No man lives who does not make some mistakes and commit sin incidentally. But this phrase means a man whose general life is one of godliness and whose motive principle is the light of the New Testament. This man can truly be said to be walking with the Lord because he is in the pathway that Jesus laid out for him. Being in the fellowship with God the source of all light, is like being constantly in the stream of the blood of His son.

That blood is constantly flowing (figuratively) through the body or church of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the natural body of a man whose blood stream is healthy, if germs slip into the person that blood, being always present, will be like a disinfectant that will destroy the germ. Likewise the blood of Christ is ever present to cleanse away the mistakes and incidental sins that a true Christian does. Hence if a man is a worker in the Lord’s vineyard and his life as a whole is one of obedience to the law of Christ, he does not need to worry about the mistakes he might make which he does not realize, for the blood of Christ will take care of it and wash them away. They will be cleansed by the “fountain opened to the house of David . . . for sin and for uncleanness” (Zechariah 13:1). “There is a fountain filled with blood, drawn from Im-manuel’s veins; And sinners plunged beneath that flood, lose all their guilty stains.”

1 John 1:8

1 John 1:8. This verse does not contradict the preceding one or the comments made on it. To say we have no sin would be like saying we do not have any need for the blood of Christ. Hence even a faithful disciple should admit his weaknesses and understand his dependence upon the blood of Christ for his cleansing.

1 John 1:9

1 John 1:9. Confess our sins. This does not say that we are to confess that we have sins for that would be so general that it would be virtually no confession at all; the sins themselves is what we are to confess. Sometimes persons will come forward in a meeting saying they wish to make a confession, and when given the opportunity will say, “I have not been living as I should.” That does not confess any sin as our verse requires. It may be replied that David made that sort of confession to the prophet because all lie said was, “I have sinned.” That is true but it was after his sin had been pointed out so that his statement was an acknowledgment of the specific sin. It was like the action of a jury that says, “We find the defendant guilty as charged” without naming any particular misdeed.

If a disciple does not know of anything wrong he has done then he has none to confess. Should he have some faults of which he is not aware, verse 7 of this chapter will take care of them. If he has committed sins which only he and the Lord know about, then he needs only to make his confession to Him. Faithful and just. The first word means He will keep his promise to forgive the sins of the penitent, and it is just for Him to do so since the sacrifice of Christ makes it possible for God to be merciful and just at the same time (Romans 3:26).

1 John 1:10

1 John 1:10. Have not sinned differs from have no sin in verse S because it goes back over the past of our lives. When the two are considered together they mean that there never has been a time since we were old enough to be responsible. that we were “as free from sin as the angels” as it is sometimes expressed; hence man has needed a Saviour all the years of his life. Make him. a liar. If a person makes an assertion that contradicts what another has said, it is equivalent to calling him a liar even though no direct reference is made to him. God has said in his word that all men are sinners (Ecclesiastes 7:20), therefore if a man says he has not sinned he contradicts the Lord and that is why John says such a man will make him a liar. His word is not in us because that word declares that all men have sinned.