1 John 1:8-10
As discussed in the previous note, the verb peripate/w (“walk about”) in vv. 6-7 has a traditional ethical-religious significance, as we see clearly by Paul’s use of the same verb in Galatians 5:16. There Paul establishes a most memorable contrast between sinful “works of the flesh” and holy “fruit of the Spirit”. The overall context of 1:5-2:17 certainly shows that the author has sin (a(marti/a) in mind; and the light-darkness contrast in Old Testament and Jewish tradition often has a similar ethical orientation (e.g., Job 30:26; Eccl 2:13; Isa 5:20).
It may be instructive to consider briefly the other occurrences of peripate/w in the Johannine Letters, to gain a better sense of the ethical-religious focus here in vv. 6-7ff:
-
- 2:6: The true believer will follow Jesus’ example, “walking about” as he did; that is, the conduct/behavior of believers should correspond to the reality of their/our abiding in Christ, and of his abiding in us (through the Spirit).
- 2:11: The image of “walking about” in darkness is explained in terms of hating one’s brother (i.e. a fellow believer); no true believer will hate (i.e., fail to demonstrate proper love to) another believer.
- 2 Jn 4 / 3 Jn 3-4: It is indicated that a characteristic of believers is “walking about” in the truth; in a Johannine context, this refers primarily to the truth about who Jesus is, such as is revealed and confirmed through the witness of the Spirit; in a secondary sense, it refers to the conduct/behavior of believers, i.e., acting in a way that corresponds with the truth.
- 2 Jn 6: The emphasis is on “walking about” in obedience to the duty (e)ntolh/) placed on believers (1 Jn 3:23-24)—most notably, the duty to love one’s fellow believers (cf. on 1 Jn 2:11, above).
Thus, while the general ethical component of following (on a regular, daily basis) the example of Jesus (during his life and ministry) is important (1 Jn 2:6), the primary focus is on obedience to the two-fold ‘command,’ or duty (e)ntolh/) placed on believers (3:23-24), namely—(1) a genuine trust in Jesus (as the Son of God), according to the truth; and (2) showing love to fellow believers. In actuality, the ethical component is subsumed under the ‘love command’, as we see expressed elsewhere in the New Testament (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; James 2:8; cf. Mk 12:31-33 par). Believers are most following Jesus’ example when they/we show love in the way that he did (Jn 13:1, 34-35; 15:9-10ff, etc).
With this emphasis in mind, let us consider briefly the author’s discussion of sin in vv. 8-10ff. In terms of the thematic structure of the passage, note the following outline:
The two statements declaring that believers are not entirely without sin may be compared next to each other:
There is a clear parallel structure to these two statements, with three components to each statement. The first component is a conditional clause (protasis) that sets the condition (“if [e)an]…”). The second component states what results if/when the condition is fulfilled (apodosis), i.e, “if… then…”. The final component states the consequence of what can be shown or inferred as a result of meeting the condition.
The condition involves the thought or claim that believers are without sin—that they (currently) have no sin, and/or that they have not (or, possibly, have never) sinned. If one thinks this way, he or she is clearly wrong, according to the author, and demonstrates a perverse mindset, in two ways: (1) such people lead themselves astray (vb plana/w), and (2) they make out God to be someone who speaks/acts falsely (yeu/sth$, i.e., a ‘liar’). The last point is probably to be implied from the fact that, throughout the Scriptures, God repeatedly has testified to the reality and existence of human sin. That all human beings are prone to such tendencies, even after coming to trust in Jesus, is also evident throughout the New Testament (and other early Christian) writings.
The implication of the third component in the author’s statement(s) is even more forceful, as it suggests quite strongly that anyone who would make such claims of sinlessness is not, in fact, a true believer:
-
- “the truth is not in” (such people)
- “His word is not in” (such people)
Since truth (a)lhqei/a) and word (lo/go$), in the Johannine writings, are fundamental Divine attributes, and are also ways of referring to the presence of God’s Spirit, the rather clear implication is that the Spirit is not in people who would make such claims, even if they claimed to be (or were thought of) as believers.
Many commentators think that the author here is referring specifically to his ‘opponents’, of whom he speaks more directly in the “antichrist” passages of 2:18-27 and 4:1-6. If so, then it is possible that some of these Christians were claiming to be free from sin, presumably as a result of the abiding presence of the Spirit in them. The author would, in a roundabout way, be saying the very opposite of them. Indeed, according to the author’s view, these opponents sin in the most egregious (and unforgivable) way, violating the great dual-commandment of 3:23-24.
The reality is, according to the author, that believers will, at times, sin, in the traditional/conventional sense of moral or religious failure. All such sins will be removed and cleansed (vb kaqari/zw) through the spiritual power of Jesus’ sacrificial death (i.e., his “blood”). The declaration in v. 7 is reaffirmed in the parallel statements of v. 9 and 2:1-2 (cf. above). According to verse 9, all that is required to effect cleansing is an acknowledgement of the sin, expressed by the verb o(mologe/w, which means “give account as one”, i.e., in common, together with others. In an early Christian context, the verb connotes public confession or acknowledgement, in front of other believers, implying a solidarity and common consent of what is believed and felt by the congregation.
In 2:1-2, the sacrificial character of Jesus’ death is again affirmed. Instead of reference to his death as “blood,” it is called a i(lasmo/$, a word that is difficult to translate, but, in a religious context, it refers to a (ritual) means of seeking/gaining God’s favor. In this case, the favor involves the removal of sin (and its guilt). The word i(lasmo/$, in its derivation, carries the connotation of appeasing God’s anger, of soothing it and causing Him to be gentle again. The universal aspect of the sin(s) of the entire world (i.e., of all human beings) may allude to the famous Lamb of God declaration by John the Baptist in Jn 1:29.
It is clear from the author’s words in 2:1 that, even though believers may (and will) occasionally sin, the goal is that they/we should not sin. This, indeed, is a primary goal of all early Christian ethical-religious instruction. There is no indication that the author of 1 John thought about this aspect of Christian life and identity any differently than the other New Testament authors. However, the Johannine theology—and spiritualism—which he inherited gave a very distinctive shape and emphasis to his instruction. This is all the more so if, as I believe, the Johannine spiritualism was an important factor in the crisis which the author addresses. I will begin discussing the question at length in the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament” (the first of a set of articles on 1 John).
The next daily note will touch briefly upon the reprisal of the light-darkness contrast in 2:8-11.