Chapter 2

1 John 1:5–10

Literary Context

After the author has established the basis of his authority in 1:1–4, this pericope opens the body of the letter by making a major theological statement, “God is light …” (1:5), from which all of John’s subsequent teaching flows. He introduces the topic of sin, one of the three major foci of the letter. (The other two are Christology and the ethical mandate to love.) Discussion of this subject extends at least through 2:6, and the topic is raised again in chapter 3. Because John chooses to introduce this topic first, one could argue that his concern about his readers’ understanding of sin is prominently in mind.

  1. I. John Claims the Authority of the Apostolic Witness (1:1–4)
  2. II. Announcement of the Message (1:5–10)
    1. A. God Is Light (1:5)
    2. B. First Two Contrasting Conditional Clauses (1:6–7)
    3. C. Second Two Contrasting Conditional Clauses (1:8–9)
    4. D. Fifth Conditional Clause: If We Say That We Have Not Sinned … (1:10)
  3. III. Dealing with Sin (2:1–6)

Main Idea

God himself defines the standard of human morality and spirituality that is necessary in order to have fellowship with him, a state that John refers to as being “in the light.” Sin is the opposite and violation of that standard, which makes fellowship with God impossible and is described as walking “in darkness.” God sent his Son into history to die the atoning death that cleanses sin and restores fellowship with God, and so any claim that denies sin implicitly calls God a liar and is itself the essence of sin.

Translation

Structure

The major theological statement in 1:5 stands as a heading and foundational premise over all that follows. The author announces the message that he has heard and proclaims to his readers, that God is light, in whom there is no darkness. This statement invokes a duality between light and its opposite—darkness—which characterizes the Johannine conceptual universe and carries through the discourse. The pericope is then structured by five third class conditional clauses, each introduced by “if” (ἐάν) in verses 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The first and second conditional clauses form a contrasting pair (vv. 6 and 7), as do the third and fourth conditional clauses (vv. 8 and 9). The fifth conditional clause may function as a final statement that reiterates the previously stated conditions. The repetition of “if we say” (ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, vv. 6, 8, 10) creates the powerful rhetorical effect of revealing a logical progression toward the disastrous conclusion of making God a liar (v. 10). The negative “if … then” statements are as follows:

The claim to be in fellowship while sinning is a lie, which turns into self-deception when not confessed. Sustained self-deception that rationalizes sin implicitly calls God a liar and puts one on the side of darkness. The remedy that interrupts and prevents the progression is found in vv. 7c, 9d: Jesus’ blood cleanses sin when it is confessed and not denied.

Exegetical Outline

  1. II. Announcement of the Message (1:5–10)
    1. A. God is light (1:5)
    2. B. First two contrasting conditional clauses (1:6–7)
      1. 1. If we claim to have fellowship with God … (1:6)
      2. 2. but if we walk in the light … (1:7)
    3. C. Second two contrasting conditional clauses (1:8–9)
      1. 1. If we claim to have no sin … (1:8)
      2. 2. [but] if we confess our sin … (1:9)
    4. D. Fifth conditional clause: if we say that we have not sinned … (1:10)

Explanation of the Text

1:5 And this is the message that we have heard from him and announce to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all (Καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία). After establishing his authority to deliver a message that is rooted in both the historical facts about Jesus and his true significance (1:1–4), John transitions from the introduction about the source and authority of his teaching to its first major point: “God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all.” Using the binary opposites of light and darkness from the natural world, the statement invokes a conceptual dualism that characterizes Johannine thought and that will be carried throughout 1 John. (See “In Depth: The Johannine Dualistic Framework” below.)

Light is an apt metaphor for God, for it is the first fundamental property of the universe created by God (Gen 1:1), it allows and sustains all life, it makes life far more pleasant and safer than living in the dark, and it reveals what is hidden. The statement “God is light” (ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν) is not a metaphysical statement about God, which would lead to a type of pantheism, as if the photons in the universe had some divine quality. Rather, the statement describes a fundamental axiom about God that is important for John’s teaching. Just as light and darkness cannot physically coexist in the same space, John uses this duality to explain what constitutes fellowship with God and what disqualifies a person from fellowship, because sin and righteousness are as mutually exclusive as light and darkness.

The opposition of light and darkness was a ubiquitous motif in ancient religions, just as it remains today, with light representing the positive value and darkness the negative. Therefore, scholars debate which connotations associated with light the author had in mind and what he was intending to communicate about God. One could look to the OT or to ancient Jewish tradition preserved, for instance, at Qumran or in Philo’s writings.1

The polarity between light and darkness is found in the Qumran documents as they describe the “lot” of the righteous: “And you, [O God,] created us for yourself as an eternal people, and into the lot of light [wbgrl ʾwr] you cast us” (1QM 13.9, cf. 13.10). In Philo, the creation account is shown to be the root of the Jewish moral categories: “And after the shining forth of that light, perceptible only to the intellect, which existed before the sun, then its adversary darkness yielded, as God put a wall between them and separated them, well knowing their opposite characters, and the enmity existing between their natures” (Opif. 33, italics added). Philo also describes God as dwelling in pure light, which accounts for his omniscience:

For it is impossible for us, who are but men, to foresee all the contingencies of future events, or to anticipate the opinions of others; but to God, as dwelling in pure light, all things are visible; for he, penetrating into the very recesses of the soul, is able to see, with the most perfect certainty, what is invisible to others. (Deus 29, italics added)

The presence of the polarity in both Qumran and Hellenistic Jewish thought shows that John is not being distinctively creative when he associates God with light and insists that those who have fellowship with God must live in the light where God is. Because this duality pervades his writings, the first, but perhaps not final, source for understanding this polarity must be John’s gospel, which has twenty-three occurrences of “light” (φῶς) in sixteen verses (see John 1:4, 5, 7, 8, 9; 3:19, 20, 21; 5:35; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9, 10; 12:35, 36, 46). That gospel first refers to light in reference to the incarnation of Jesus Christ: “In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind” (John 1:4, italics added); and, “The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world” (1:9). A primary association of light in John’s thought seems to be life that results when one comes into the true light that has come into the world, the Lord Jesus Christ (1:12).

In addition to the three verses just noted, John’s gospel identifies Jesus as the Light of Life in many statements (italics added):

This association of light with life is apt also in 1 John with the stated purpose of the letter, to reassure its readers that they have eternal life in the name of the Son of God (5:13). But 1:5–10 brings out the moral aspect of the metaphor. The statement that God is light and that in him there is no darkness at all is a definition of ethical and moral goodness, for John goes on to say that those who “walk in the darkness” cannot be in fellowship with God. This thought has metaphorical coherence with the use of light as a symbol for life in John’s gospel, for God is the source of life, and to have fellowship with God means to have life, as Adam and Eve did before they were deceived. When they turned away from God, the very source of life, the inevitable consequence was to suffer death. Even today when people criticize God for imposing such a harsh penalty, they fail to recognize that God did not say, “If you sin, I will kill you,” but “You will die.” To remove oneself from God’s presence through sin is of necessity to remove oneself from the source of life, and therefore, death is the only place to go.

The identification of God with light is given as the content of the message that “we” have heard and is, therefore, the logical starting point of the duality of light and darkness in John’s thinking. Living after the invention of electric lights, we rarely feel the power of this duality. But if you have ever had a power failure after sunset or experienced absolute darkness in the depths of a cave when the tour guide turned off the light, that memory may help you to feel the force of the duality. The symbol of darkness represents all that defeats life. The duality is stated explicitly with John’s comment, “there is no darkness in [God] at all” (σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία). Notice the two negatives “no … none” (οὐκ … οὐδεμία), emphasizing the complete absence of darkness in God. With this John draws the sharpest of lines to position God and light on one side of the duality; on the other side, darkness represents all that is not of God.

Although the statement formally introduces the topic of sin in 1:6–10, the statement of the message can also function as a heading for the entire letter. Everything that John will address about sin, Christology, and love throughout the letter takes its starting point from the defining idea that God is light and that in him there is no darkness. It is a summary statement of the message that John claims “we” have heard from “him.” The first plural pronoun in v. 5 still functions to identify the author as an authoritative witness of the spiritual truth found in Christ. The nearest antecedent of the pronoun “him” is Jesus Christ in v. 3, preceded immediately by “the Father.” John clearly claims divine revelation about God from Jesus, perhaps from Jesus’ statement, “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5). The statement need not be taken as a quotation from Jesus, but may be read as a theological summary of what Jesus taught and embodied about God as John heard it.

Both in this pericope and in John’s gospel, the moral dimension of the metaphor is clear (John 11:10; 12:35, 36, 46). Jesus expected his followers to be “children of light” (12:36), children who have been given life by the Father and who therefore reflect the moral attributes of their Father. To be in darkness is to be without the light, which results in evil thoughts and behaviors that cannot claim fellowship with Jesus Christ or the Father.

The closest statements elsewhere in the Bible to “God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all” are the statements that God is “a faithful God who does no wrong” (Deut 32:4 NIV 1984) and “the LORD is upright … there is no wickedness in him” (Ps 92:15 NIV 1984). The binary opposition of light and darkness expresses symbolically the two ways to walk—an expression that is characteristic of Jewish Second Temple tradition found, for instance, in the Testament of Asher: “God gave mankind two ways and two dispositions and two types of action and two manners and two goals … two ways, of good and evil” (T. Ash. 1:3–5). A similar construction is found in Qumran’s Community Rule and other documents from that community.

John’s gospel also speaks of light as a moral category (italics added below):

The primary implication of John’s introductory statement about God is that, if God is light, then God himself by virtue of his being and character defines the moral standard of human life.

Many voices compete for the prerogative of defining morality in our times, and it was no less so in the first century. Philosophers, pagan priests and priestesses, and rulers who legislated, as well as other individuals who felt entitled to do so, made claims about moral truth, just as many people today wish to assume that prerogative (see Theology in Application). But it is only God himself, the creator and sustainer of all life, who can authoritatively define moral truth. To know God is therefore to know truth about how to live in the way that he intends. It is only within a life of obedience to God’s moral truth that a relationship with God, what John calls fellowship, can be sustained. What follows in 1:6–2:2 is an unpacking of the implications of this theological statement that God is light for those who claim to have fellowship with him, especially for those whose lives do not bear out the truth of their profession.

1:6 If we say, “We have fellowship with him,” and walk in the darkness, we lie and we do not do the truth (Ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν, ψευδόμεθα καὶ οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν). John begins his teaching that a profession of faith in Christ requires a life that matches it. He does not here specify what walking in the darkness entails, but based on the light/dark duality, it clearly means walking in a way that is totally antithetical to God, in whom there is no darkness at all. Therefore, any claim to be in fellowship with God while walking in darkness is clearly a lie.

“To walk” in Hebrew idiom refers to the way one lives and behaves (e.g., Gen 5:24; Deut 5:33; Ps 1:1). “To walk in the light” means allowing God’s revealed will to motivate and guide one’s actions and decisions. To live and behave in a way that is antithetical to God means that one is not living out the truth. In modern Western culture, “truth” is a mental, cognitive entity, but one of the distinctives of Johannine thought is that truth is not a doctrine to be believed and accepted cognitively; it is something that must be done (“I do”; ποιέω), something to be embodied by the person claiming to have the truth (see “In Depth: ‘Truth’ in John’s Letters,” below). To do the truth means to live in accordance with God’s definition of truth in all our words and decisions. Clearly John here aligns lies and self-deceit with darkness.

The present tense of the verbs “walk” (περιπατῶμεν) and “do” (ποιοῦμεν) is sometimes pressed to add the nuance of customary or habitual behavior.5 However, tense alone cannot bear that weight. Rather, this tense is chosen to be compatible with the semantic sense of the verbs in context, which provides the nuance of customary or ongoing behavior. “To walk” as used for an idiom for living is by its nature an ongoing process. The negative added to the verb “do” (ποιοῦμεν) explains in negative terms what it means to walk in darkness, and therefore also connotes ongoing or habitual process.

Verse 6 is the first of three occurrences of the conditional, subjunctive phrase “if we say” (ἐὰν εἴπωμεν), a phrase found elsewhere in deliberative logic (e.g., Matt 21:25–26//Mark 11:31–32//Luke 20:5–6; LXX 4 Kgdms 7:4). It introduces a major theme in the letter, the topic of sin’s effect on fellowship with God and with each other. This third class conditional is used to present a hypothetical situation that may or may not be in direct reference to those who left the Johannine church(es) under less than amiable circumstances (1 John 2:18–19).

Although the third class conditional “if” (ἐάν plus a verb in the subjunctive mood in the protasis) is often taught in Greek classes as a “future probable condition” or a “general condition,” this does not prohibit the idea that the conditional is a present reality in some contexts. Daniel Wallace points out the overlap between the first class conditional, often called a condition of fact (εἰ plus a verb in the indicative mood, where the protasis is assumed true at least for argument’s sake), and the third class conditional.6 Furthermore, David Washburn’s study of the third class conditionals in 1 John argues that most of them (twenty-two out of twenty-eight by his count) “focus on present time.”7 The resolution need not rest solely on the syntax of the third class conditional but may lie, rather, on the rhetorical effect of the statements.

Given the repeated language, it certainly sounds as if someone was in fact saying these things, or at least was inclined to do so. The “if we say …” clauses need not be taken as direct quotes from the opponents, but may be understood as ideas that needed correction regardless of their origin. As Lieu points out, “Although 1 John was written in the wake of a schism, it does not necessarily address the causes of that schism, only perhaps its effects.”8

Rhetorically, the phrase “if we say” achieves a definition of a group some of whom may say such things, whether they are the ones who went out or are still among the congregation left behind. This likely accounts for the use of “if” (ἐάν) with the subjunctive, for as Wallace points out in his comment on 1 John 1:9, this is “a present general condition in which the subject is distributive (‘if any one of us’). The subjunctive is thus used because of the implicit uncertainty as to who is included in the we.”9 In other words, the use of “if” (ἐάν) and the subjunctive does not necessarily argue against the inference that someone or some group was actually saying these things. The repetition of the phrase certainly sounds as if John believes it is something that is in danger of being said or is actually being said. His purpose is to show the logical consequences of such thinking. The sense of the general condition extends the force of the argument beyond the present situation and people (i.e., “if we ever say …”) and may explain why the author chose ἐάν rather than εἰ.

The referent of the first plural pronoun shifts here in verse 6. It is no longer the “we” of authoritative testimony as in 1:1–4 but is likely the rhetorical “we,” meant to create a sense of unity based on the congenial assumption of fellowship (1:3). It softens the challenge of the more blunt “if you say …” by including the author rhetorically among the hypothetical offenders, expressing the unity he hopes for within his church.

1:7 But if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin (ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί, κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ’ ἀλλήλων καὶ τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας). In contrast to claiming fellowship with God but walking in darkness, when one walks in the light as God himself is in the light, fellowship with one another is achieved, and one is cleansed from all sin by the blood of Jesus, God’s Son.

Surprisingly, John does not say that by walking in the light one achieves fellowship with God, which might be expected to follow from v. 6, and this no doubt accounts for the textual variant “with him” (μετ’ αὐτοῦ). The more unexpected statement that mentions fellowship with “one another” (ἀλλήλων) introduces the thought that fellowship with God and fellowship in the Christian community are intimately related. Only when believers are walking in the light can we have fellowship with God, a fellowship that is embodied as fellowship with one another.

Moreover, John associates being cleansed from sin by Jesus’ blood, a reference to his death, with walking in the light. The word “sin” (ἁμαρτία) makes its first appearance in the letter here. By implication, sin and walking in the darkness are associated, but cleansing from sin is associated with walking in the light. Uncleansed sin breaks fellowship with one another and with God.

After the statement that God is light (v. 5), it is striking to see the simile that John’s readers are to “walk in the light as [ὡς] he [God himself] is in the light.” Note that the emphatic personal pronoun “himself” (αὐτός) must refer to God, because John goes on to refer to Jesus as “his” Son. Witherington sees this as a reference to God’s behavior, which “can stand the light of day or close scrutiny.”10 The simile has biblical parallels, such as the “Lord of lords … who lives in unapproachable light” (1 Tim 6:15–16). God himself is the source of the light, and those who wish to be in fellowship with him must dwell in that same light of moral truth that God has revealed in Jesus Christ.

The blood of Jesus, God’s Son, cleanses those who walk in the light of God’s moral truth and have fellowship with one another. “The blood of Jesus” refers to his death on the cross and argues against those who claim that it is Jesus’ ethical teachings that form the heart of the Christian gospel. To walk in the light means to be cleansed from sin. People don’t need just more good ethical instruction; rather, they need purification from all that separates them from the presence and purposes of God. Christ’s atonement for sin achieves a reconciliation with God that restores fellowship.

1:8 If we say, “We have no sin,” then we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us (ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν, ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν). John now begins to develop the association between sin and truth. This second pair of contrasting conditions involves one’s attitude toward sin. John claims that if anyone should say that they have no sin to deal with, they are self-deceived.

The issue of self-deception regarding sin in one’s Christian life is perennial. Fallen human nature leads us to rationalize our sin and thereby deny it. Vigilance all throughout life is called for, with each decision to speak or act. How many ways are there to deny sin? One might claim perfection in Christ. One might reason that anything a Christian does must be okay. Or one might simply define what one does as not sin—a phenomenon increasingly seen in societies where what is legal is not necessarily morally righteous as God defines it.

But there is more to it: the very duality between light and darkness that John teaches raises the question of whether those who are walking in the light as believing Christians can sin. In John’s strong duality between light and darkness, sin is on the side of darkness, and John describes no twilight that might allow for an admission of sin in the lives of light-dwellers. This could lead believing Christians to conclude that by definition they cannot sin and therefore say, “I have no sin.” If the gospel of John was written before this letter, John may here be correcting a misinterpretation of the light duality found there. Thus, John will spend considerable ink in this letter explaining how the existential presence of sin in the life of Christians is related to the light-dark duality, which would seem to exclude its presence in the life of a believer (see also comments on 3:1–10).

Regardless of whether the denial of one’s sin comes from the rationalizations of a fallen heart or from a misunderstanding of John’s duality, if anyone says they have no sin, they are self-deceived and the truth revealed by Christ is not in them. John is addressing believing Christians, and yet he explains that to deny one’s sin is itself an act of darkness. The truth cannot be in those who deny their sin, because by definition a Christian is one who lives by the truth that Jesus died to cleanse their sin. Thus, to reassure his readers of their eternal life (5:13), John must address the problem of ongoing sin in the Christian’s life (see the Theology of John’s Letters).

1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous, to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας). The alternative to denying one’s sin is to confess it. Denying one’s sin is inconsistent with walking in the light, which entails the recognition of sin and a willingness to confess it.

John does not specify the setting or scope for confession, but wisdom suggests that the confession of sin should be confined to those with knowledge of the sin. Confession is not a magic incantation or a ritual that in and of itself is efficacious. The efficacy of confession of sin lies not in the confessor but in the faithfulness (πιστός) and righteousness (δίκαιος) of God, whose Son’s blood was shed for this very purpose (v. 7). Because the Father sent Jesus Christ to be the atonement for sin, he would be unfaithful to that purpose if he ignored the confession of sin or withheld the grace promised. John declares the impossibility of the confessor being turned away because God is faithful and righteous to his purposes in the atoning work of Jesus Christ, with both the intention and result (ἵνα) that he cleanses those who confess from all unrighteousness.

The language of God’s faithfulness and justice reflects his covenant (cf. Exod 34:6–7; Deut 7:8–10; 32:4).11 Under the old covenant God defined sin and specified the consequences of living in ways that defied his moral law. The provisions for atonement under the old covenant pointed ahead to the day when Christ’s blood would seal the final covenant of grace. Words of new covenant promises announced by the prophet Jeremiah are echoed throughout 1 John.12 Both the forgiveness and the cleansing promised under the new covenant (Jer 33:8 [LXX Jer 40:8]) are here declared fulfilled in Christ. Because of his gracious provision for forgiveness, God would be unfaithful to his covenant promises and consequently unjust if he withheld forgiveness from those who confess their sin, or if he allowed those who deny sin to stand on the same footing as those who confess.

Because of God’s character and his faithfulness to his promises that Christ fulfilled, cleansing from confessed sin is assured. Clearly, John teaches that walking in the light requires ongoing cleansing from sin in order to maintain fellowship with God, a fellowship that cannot be sustained if one concludes for whatever reason that one does not have sin and consequently that cleansing is no longer needed.

1:10 If we say, “We have not sinned,” we make him a liar and his word is not in us (ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν, ψεύστην ποιοῦμεν αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν). The denial of sin is itself a profound sin that implicitly calls God a liar. This fifth and final third class conditional, “if we say …” (ἐὰν εἴπωμεν …), is a summary of the content of vv. 6–9 and presses home the severity of denying sin.

The perfect tense of the verb “have sinned” (ἡμαρτήκαμεν) suggests a persistent state of denial of sin in the past that has led to the present state, rather than an individual and temporary instance. It may hint that some of John’s readers were reconsidering whether atonement really is at the heart of the Christian gospel. If there was a way they could understand themselves to have never sinned either before their Christian conversion or after, the focus of their “gospel” might shift away from the cross and, perhaps, onto Jesus’ teaching or life example (as in fact has happened in liberal Protestantism). When sin becomes passé, atonement is unnecessary.

I have known professing Christians, even Christian clergy, who at some point in their Christian lives decided that their understanding of God’s work in the world had matured beyond the need for a sacrificial atonement, which they consider to be a primitive idea of the ancient world that is no longer necessary in today’s more sophisticated understanding of religion. Whenever one denies the need for atonement, it is an implicit presumption of one’s own innocence, in effect saying, “I have not sinned.”

For any who think, for whatever reason, that they have not sinned, John holds the strongest accusation. Rather than being faithful Christians, they are in fact making God a liar because God says we have sinned and he sent his Son into the world to atone for the very sin that it has become so popular to deny. As Lieu comments:

The very fact of divine forgiveness demonstrates the reality of sin, and since God’s character both defines sin and inspires the forgiveness that God offers, then any denial of sin calls into question God’s fidelity and truthfulness, [and] treats God as a liar.13

Whether this was the actual position of those who went out from the Johannine church(es) or was only a possibility raised in the wake of their leaving, John condemns the thought in the strongest terms.

Taken to refer to an individual, the statement that God’s word (λόγος) is not in “us” means that people who stand in the state of denying sin are not truly regenerate, even if they consider themselves Christian. Taken as a collective, to believe and communicate this error means that the word of God is not being preached in such a community. In either case, God’s truth is not in “them” (cf. v. 8). As Strecker points out:

The dualism of “light and darkness” (vv. 5–7) is paralleled and interpreted by the contrast of “truth and falsehood” (vv. 6, 8, 10). The accent in both instances is ethical, since ψεύδεσθαι (“lying”) is identical with “not doing the truth” (οὐ ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν) = “walking in darkness” (ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατεῖν, v. 6).14

In this opening of his letter, John is building and defining the conceptual duality of light and darkness, based on the presupposition that “God is light” in v. 5. In the next section he will discuss atonement as the heart of the gospel and what it means to live as people of the light.

Theology in Application

There are three essential and related theological points made in this pericope: (1) God’s nature and being define the ethical and moral standard for human life; (2) the atonement of Jesus’ death is central to having fellowship with God and is therefore at the heart of the gospel; and (3) to deny the reality of sin in general or the sin in one’s own life is in essence to consider God a liar and destroys relationship with him.

God Defines the Standard of Human Morality

In a culture such as ours that values independent thinking and autonomy, it is often difficult for people to acknowledge the most basic principle of Theology 101: God is God and I am not. By virtue of the fact that he is the creator of the universe and all life within it, and in his ongoing role in sustaining all he has created, God’s authority extends to the spiritual and moral universe in which human beings live. John’s implicit claim that it is God himself who defines spiritual light and darkness is perhaps the foremost principle that seekers and converts to Christianity need to embrace. God is entitled to set the standards for human life and to judge each person according to those standards, whether or not they recognize his existence or authority. My role as a creature of God is to bend my will to his, to walk in the light as he has defined it, and to live with the moral consequences of my decisions. Without that fundamental understanding of God’s sovereign right over all human beings, one cannot truly know God, accept Christ, or have a mature spiritual nature.

The Preeminence of Jesus’ Death

John’s letters do not describe the physical details of Jesus’ death, but they assume the atonement of Jesus’ death as central to having fellowship with God. The Fourth Gospel explains more deeply the crucifixion of Jesus, his resurrection, and the impartation of the Spirit to his disciples, and is intended to bring people to faith in Jesus Christ (John 20:30–31). The letters are written to those who have already professed faith in a crucified Lord but who are needing reassurance of eternal life during confusing times (1 John 5:13). John points out the inherent and profound contradiction between professing to be a Christian on the one hand, and denying that sin exists in one’s life on the other. As Köstenberger puts it, “Hence it is not the claim of sinlessness that carries the day but the humble confession of the need for the cleansing blood of Christ that enables believers to continue ‘walking in the light’ and thus to enjoy fellowship both with Jesus and with other believers.”15

The Reality of Sin

Readers today need to hear the third point made in this passage, which declares the reality of sin. There is in modern society a rationalization about sin that prevents even the word from being used beyond the walls of the church, for sin implies a moral responsibility to God. Wrong behavior is attributed to bad parenting, genetic propensities, or lack of adequate education, or it is embraced to affirm a perceived entitlement of individuals to define moral principles for themselves. The claim that there is a God and that violation of his moral standard is sin invites harsh social disapproval in a culture that no longer believes in absolute truth and sees any such claim as a wrongful and arrogant assertion of power.

Furthermore, it is increasingly difficult to define sin in a society where what is legal is not necessarily ethical and moral by God’s standards. Collectively, modern mankind has said, “We have no sin,” and “We have not sinned.” Unfortunately, many preachers and churches have bent under that social pressure and largely avoid the “s” word. This will no doubt continue to be one of the greatest challenges to the church’s proclamation of the gospel in the years ahead. This denial of sin by society, even with the complicity of the church, is itself sin. To deny sin is to call God a liar, for God has declared his moral standard and has paid dearly for our sin by sending Jesus Christ to die as our atonement. What serious business it is to deny sin in any of the many ways we humans, starting with Adam and Eve, have found to do it!