1 John 1:5-2:2

Walking in the Light 

“Now this is the gospel message we have heard from him and announce to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him and yet keep on walking in the darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth. 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. If we say we do not bear the guilt of sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous, forgiving us our sins and cleansing us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us.”

— ‭‭1 John‬ ‭1‬:‭5‬-‭10‬‬

“(My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.) But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous One, and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.”

— ‭‭1 John‬ ‭2‬:‭1‬-‭2‬‬

First two verses of chapter two complete the first section of 1 John. Per the NET, prologue is vv 1-4, then v 5 is the key theme of the entire book (content of the apostles’ message), then there are three claims (v 6, 8, 10) and counter claims (v 7, 9, 2:2)

Prologue informs the “message” of v. 5, but the author is reaching back to the apostolic testimony/eyewitness about Jesus’ ministry and attempting to persuade believers with how to live. For us, it probably seems weird for the gospel to be as simple as “God is light,” but in this context, it’s what readers need. Why? We always have to keep in mind the opponents, most clearly identified in 2:18-19. Important for this section, John never attacks anything the opponents do. They are not the immoral, filthy, pagan type of heretic. The worst John says about them is they don’t love the believers. Their beliefs fall in line with proto-Gnosticism, similar to Plato’s dualism on many accounts. 

This is why John talks in absolutes so much. We like this picture of God as light—signals His purity, holiness, etc. But we get in trouble when we try to categorize all that exists as light or dark. Not every decision is right/wrong. (Thus, wisdom literature). But John has a distinct purpose, and he needs to argue against this idea that living in sin isn’t really so bad. Why would they say this? Because it’s probable they believed something like all that matters is the soul. Body is part of this earth/creation. It will die/decompose, so whatever we do with it/in it doesn’t matter. 

If we say: so clearly trying to point out the hypocrisy and deceit in this lifestyle. We are lying, because we cannot have fellowship with light while walking in darkness. Think of Paul in 2 Cor—what fellowship has light with darkness?

“Walking” makes clear here—and leads to chapter 3, that this is lifestyle stuff. Habitual sinning without any concern for consequences. 

Walk in light—wise decisions. Pure choices. Again, also not a one time thing but a lifestyle. Notice John brings in fellowship not only with the Light, but also with other believers. Sin alienates us from others, too. Perhaps there was some dissension in the church over how to treat these opponents.

Blood of Jesus cleanses us. Obviously referring to His death. People try to distinguish pre-conversion and post-conversion sins. Sometimes they point to the singular or plural for sin(s). Passages don’t always allow for clean cut distinction. In this passage, John seems to be discussing those in the church, so initial conversion has probably happened. The truth remains, though, that Jesus’ blood offers cleansing from all sin—all time.

2nd claim: Bearing the guilt of sin. Special construction of the word to “have” + sin. Only used in John’s writings. There are places where “have” is used with another abstract noun, which supports NET’s translation. Talks about being in a state of something. Again, opponents were probably saying sin wasn’t that big of a deal. Probably not to the point of Paul’s argument in Rom 6 that we can do whatever we want because of grace, but that sin doesn’t really affect fellowship with God.  John again says this is deception. It’s not true.

Much better to confess sin. It restores fellowship. God is faithful and righteous/just. The following participles explain what flows from those characteristics—forgiveness. This word for “cleansing” is also the same as John 15 when God cleans branches so they bear more fruit.

3rd claim: Now we say we haven’t even sinned? It’s getting worse for these opponents. Of course, this is a lie, but it makes Christ a liar. The gospel/message/word does not live in us. We can’t have truth and untruth in us at the same time. 2:2 is probably the best counterclaim. But if we sin, we have an advocate. Jesus is on our side, defending us. Because of His sacrifice, fellowship is restored. Throughout this whole section, we see emphasis on His death, but we have to be honest about the situation.

Atoning sacrifice is debated term, whether propitiation, expiation, mercy seat. Deals with whether this is just satisfying wrath or just atoning for sins. The problem is the word can speak to both ideas. In some cases, “mercy seat” is used —see Hebrews—because the location signifies the importance of what Jesus did. Definitely like the idea of sacrifice for “us” and whole world. 

More debate about “whole world.” Could be taken as universalism. Definitely the one verse that argues against Jesus only dying for “elect.” There are other verses that support that idea, but hyper-Calvinists have to wrestle with this verse. Comes down to who “we/us” is. Probably not Jews, so whole world is Gentiles. John is usually connected to Ephesus, so Gentiles were probably already in this church. “Us” may just be this church, and “whole world” is what is means. The problem then is how effective is the death of Jesus. 

If He died for all—serving as propitiation for their sins—then we do reach a universalist position. It may not be logical, but it does limit the power of the atonement to make it depend on people’s choice. I’m not saying that’s wrong, but this is a good example of where theological categories don’t always line up with what the authors are trying to say.