First John 1:9: Confession As A Test, But Of What?

By James E. Allman

[James E. Allman is Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Abstract

A reexamination of 1 John 1:9 has found a range of options available for its interpretation. This study proposes that the following reading best accounts for the data reviewed to this point. False teachers had left the congregation, but they seem to have been at one time trusted leaders. Their departure left those who remained confused about whom to trust. John—after a statement of one of his basic theses—offered tests for leadership to assist believing readers to know whom to trust among their leaders.

Trustworthy leaders pass certain tests that are introduced in 1 John 1:6-10. First, they walk in the light. This means that they live by faith and practice righteousness, but also that their message coheres with that of other authoritative teachers of the church. Second, they are able to publicly admit their sins. These tests (and others given by the apostle) demonstrate who is credible and dependable as a teacher for the church.

* * *

Νo biblical book demonstrates more obviously the impact of context on meaning than 1 John. Choice of a hypothesis for its purpose determines the options for its interpretation in a more obvious way than for some other books of the Bible. This study suggests a refinement on other proposals of purpose for the book, a refinement that redirects the interpretation. The special aim is to suggest a significantly different reading of 1:5-10 and particularly of verse 9. The thesis is that verse 9 in John’s argument gave evidence to use to identify reliable teachers in view of the recent secession of false teachers from the community. The importance of 1 John 1:9 in Christian life teaching must surely make the study crucial. But if the thesis of this study is correct, it bears profoundly upon one’s conception of Scripture and ecclesiastical practice.

The Purpose Of 1 John

Students of 1 John cite 5:13 as stating the book’s purpose: “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.” Some add other statements of purpose, such as 1:3, “that you may have fellowship with us,” or 2:1, “that you may not sin.”[1] From these and similar references, the implication is that John’s book aims at one of two goals, to give either tests of fellowship or tests of life. The test of fellowship view[2] addresses the question of intimate relationship with God, or how one may live in close fellowship with God. The test of life addresses assurance of salvation, or what is a genuine Christian.[3]

Rarely do commentators include 1 John 2:26 as a purpose statement, “These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you.”[4] Is this a statement of purpose? In form, it is not, but in function it is, and the immediate context supports this. Chapter 2:18-25 prepares the reader for verse 26. And 4:1-3 adds to this emphasis. The readers must guard against false prophets and test “to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (v. 1).[5] Akin acknowledges this, but he sees the major issue differently: “Whereas the Gospel of John is written with an evangelistic purpose, 1 John is penned to provide avenues of assurance whereby a believer can know he has eternal life through the Son.”[6]

But why was this assurance necessary? What role does 2:26 play in explaining the purpose of John in writing? Material from 1 John 2 and 4 suggests that questions had arisen in the minds of the original audience about their own relationship with God in view of the departure of the false teachers. Those who left seem to have been trusted members of the community, even leaders (4:1-3). Their departure resulted from charges of being false prophets, even antichrists: “Even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of us” (2:18-19). This departure left the audience without clear understanding of two decisive issues. First, if these formerly trusted teachers were so wrong, how is right relationship with God determined? Second, who now can be trusted? These are the questions that John must address and bring to resolution.

What contextual data impel such a reading? Several points need to be addressed. First, to whom does “we” refer in chapter 1? Second, what does verse 3 mean? Why is it necessary for the reader to have “fellowship with us”? Does this express cause-effect or something else? Third, what is the relationship between the subordinate clauses and main clauses of verses 6-10? Fourth, what do the terms “confess,” “forgive,” and “cleanse” mean? Several implications grow from answering these questions.

Addressing The Difficulties Of 1 John 1:9

The Referent Of “We”

The referent of the pronoun “we,” common in this passage, may seem so rudimentary as to be needless to address. Some commentators simply ignore it in favor of more theological concerns. It becomes important in verses 5 to 10, where differing views arise about the identity of the pronominal reference. In verses 1 to 5 it is much clearer. Thus Strecker says, “One could more correctly judge that the author uses ‘we’ in order to assert membership in the ‘circle . . . of “apostolic” witnesses.’”[7]

Expositors of 1 John consistently assume a change in the referent in the first chapter.[8] They argue for a broadening of the referent of the pronoun “we.” Hiebert is representative: “The claims indicated in verses 6, 8, and 10 seem clearly to represent views advanced by the false teachers. John’s ‘we’ is inclusive, embracing himself and his readers, as well as the false teachers.”[9] Only rarely do the authors explain why they make this shift. Christie offers five reasons, one of which is most cogent for this study: an exclusive view of the referent “‘we’ has difficulty explaining how the apostles could ever be characterized as not having the truth or the Word in them, as well as the fact that it does not harmonize with the other tests, or with John’s purpose.”[10]

But the problem Christie raised remains. How could the apostles be included? Two comments will suffice here. First, the syntax assists in understanding how the apostles are involved. Verses 6-10 are, after all, examples of a third-class condition. Debate goes on whether one should analyze the conditions as present general or future more probable. Given the discussion to follow, the condition is present general. It relates to all time (to all who present themselves as “tradition bearers”), and this conclusion leads to the second comment. Apostles are not less subject to confirmation of their divine appointment than are other tradition bearers. No further evidence for the truth of this idea is necessary than Paul’s second Corinthian epistle. People do make claims to apostolic authority, even today. Their claims must be open to testing.

How should this material be evaluated? In response to Christie’s argument, it is not at all necessary that the testimony be solely apostolic. Paul mentioned over five hundred brothers (1 Cor. 15:6) who saw the risen Jesus. More narrowly, in seeking a replacement for Judas, the apostles identified two men from the number of those who “accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us” (Acts 1:21). Any number of people who had witnessed the incarnation and resurrection appearances of Jesus may have been present in Ephesus as John was writing. These would be authoritative witnesses, but they would not be people for whom apostasy was impossible. In short, John addressed a situation that involved a group of tradition bearers or authoritative teachers of the church, which might include even second-generation believers who had heard the consistent testimony of the apostles. Wider issues, though, also need to be surfaced.

In this passage determining the referent of “we” affects the interpretation of the whole passage. If it is an inclusive “we,” then the choice for understanding 1 John 1:9 is between the “tests of fellowship” and “tests of life” approaches. Yet neither of these tests resolves the difficulty of addressing 2:26 and 5:13 in the construction of the message and purpose of the book.

In the book’s opening verses, it seems best to identify the referent of the pronoun as original apostolic witnesses of the resurrection.[11] Kruse rightly states, “When he [John] writes about having heard the message from the lips of Christ, or having seen him and touched him, or about bearing witness to the message of eternal life, he always uses the first person plural form.”[12] At least for verses 1-5 there is wide consensus in identifying “we” as apostolic witnesses. Meanwhile, the referent of this pronoun does not change throughout chapter 1.

It is theoretically possible that at some point in chapter 1 John could have had a different referent in mind. However, if there were a change, one would expect a contextual marker. Just such a marker comes in 2:1-2. Those verses give three key indications that the author is moving on from the concepts he developed in chapter 1. First, is the personal address that begins verse 1, τεκνία μου. While the audience is surfaced in the first chapter (with references to “you” in verses 3 and 5), 2:1 contains the first direct identification of the audience and address to them. Second, the chain of first-person plurals is broken with ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν, establishing a new development in the discourse. Third, the text moves away from the simple opposition of “we—you” with the new conditional clause, καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ, the indefinite pronoun generalizing the reference beyond the twofold pattern established in the first chapter. Without obvious contextual markers to the contrary, chapter 1 is best understood if one allows the first-person plural to remain consistent through verse 10. The authoritative teachers of the church are in view. It is their credibility that is at stake with the bona fides that mark them out.

The importance of these observations cannot be overstressed. As 1:7 states, it is the testimony of these authoritative witnesses of the Word of Life that causes the scales to turn in favor of John’s teaching against the views of the secessionists. Without the consistent testimony of the eyewitnesses, the debate between John and his opponents becomes merely a balance of probabilities between two options. The consistent testimony and life pattern of the apostolic witnesses confirm the truth of John’s position.

This study proposes that the following reading best accounts for the data reviewed to this point. False teachers had left the congregation, but they seem at one time to have been trusted leaders. Their departure left John’s readers confused about whom to trust. Thus John—after a statement of one of his basic theses—offers tests for leadership. How could believing readers know whom to trust among their leaders? John uses “we,” not because he was in danger of going astray himself, but because some with whom he had been allied had gone astray in practice and doctrine, and he feared others would do so in the future. “We” then refers to authoritative teachers of the church. The conditional sentences in 1:6-10 are third class, not warning that John himself would go astray, but that there might be others in the future who would.

This approach does not rule out relevance or application to those who are not leaders or in authority, but it does allow the reader to see three things. First, it explains why John included himself. Second, it explains what impact the false teachers had on the message of the book. And third, it explains why John wrote “so that you might know that you have eternal life” (5:13).

The Meaning Of “Fellowship”

“The word fellowship is difficult to define. Various suggestions for English translations have been ‘fellowship,’ ‘partnership,’ ‘communion,’ or ‘community.’”[13] Harris, rightly suggests that the word implies some shared reality, in particular, “the apostolic (eyewitness) testimony about who Jesus is.”[14] The word is relatively rare in the New Testament, occurring only seventeen times, and only four times in John’s writings, all of them in 1 John 1:3, 6, 7. This makes determining John’s meaning all the more difficult.

This κοινωνία is something that John wants the readers to maintain (note the present subjunctive ἔχητε), but by implication, the false teachers did not have it. To fellowship with John and the other authoritative teachers of the church (all of whom bear the testimony about the incarnate Son of God) is in fact to fellowship with God and His Son (1:3). One may infer from this, then, that κοινωνία is relationship with God, beginning with salvation. Akin insightfully addresses this very issue with three points. First, the apostolic preaching of the incarnation was the means of bringing about fellowship with God for John’s readers (v. 3). Second, fellowship expressed itself as they walked in the light as God is in the light (v. 6). This implies loving the brothers, since God himself is love (4:7-8, 16). Akin concludes, “Fellowship with the Father and his Son, then, is essentially the same thing as having eternal life.”[15] The implication is that one who claims “fellowship” with God but has none with the authoritative teachers actually has no relationship with God. This interpretation fits well with 1:5, which introduces what is likely John’s opposition to basic positions of the false teachers. So, to shun fellowship with the authoritative messengers is to reject fellowship with God.

Verses 6 and 7 draw out this conclusion. If apparently authoritative teachers claim fellowship with God, but they “walk in darkness” (in the context, they reject the interpretation of the message of God that other apostolic teachers have given),[16] it is obvious that they have rejected fellowship with God. There can be no fellowship with God without the apostolic testimony.[17]

If this is the correct reading, then 1:3 offers no support for the idea of “losing fellowship”[18] with God that is advocated by such commentators as Duffy, who states, “Unconfessed sin results in a barrier between God and the Christian as far as fellowship is concerned.

It has eternal consequences only in that being out of fellowship with God reduces one’s opportunities for reward.”[19]

The Protases And Apodoses In 1 John 1:6-10

Verses 1:6-10 share a common syntactical arrangement. Each begins with a conditional clause (a protasis with ἐάν and the subjunctive) followed by the apodosis at the end of each verse. In English readers tend to think of them as expressing cause and effect. On the condition that “A” happens, the result, “B” will follow. It is difficult to break free of this framework. It results in statements like the following: “This forgiveness and cleansing, issuing from the faithfulness and justice of God, are conditional upon confession.”[20] Akin comments, “There are basically three kinds of relationships between the ‘if’ part (protasis) and the ‘then’ part (apodosis) of all conditional sentences. The relationship can be cause and effect, evidence and inference, or equivalence. . . . In 1 John 1:6 the effects of ‘lying’ and ‘not doing the truth’ are caused by the claim of fellowship with God and yet living in death.”[21] Even those who propose other categories of relationship have difficulty removing from their discussion of this passage the cause-effect relationship. What follows examines these verses to see if cause-effect will work.

After the statement of his first thesis, “that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (v. 5), John proceeds to apply it to the circumstances he addresses in the book. In verses 6, 8, and 10 he takes up claims made by his opponents and shows them to be false.[22] He intersperses statements that give his own point of view in verses 7 and 9.

In verse 6 John offers the (negative) claim: “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness.” For modern English readers this clause can be slightly confusing, but it is offering two claims. The first part of the conditional clause claims fellowship with God. The second claim of the clause is that the person making the claim walks in darkness. From John’s point of view, walking in darkness includes at least three things: that darkness is the sphere of sin, false teaching about Christ, and hating the brothers. These are the charges that John will continue to bring against the false teachers. His readers would likely agree with him as to his definitions.[23] What is essential is to compare the statement with verse 5: “there is no darkness in God at all.” One who has fellowship with God should be in the light, yet the claimant is in the darkness.

The apodosis of the sentence follows in verse 6: “we lie and do not practice the truth.” Here it becomes important to test Akin’s view that the protases and apodoses of the passage should be read as cause and effect.[24] Did the claimants suddenly become liars by claiming to have fellowship with God, all the while walking in darkness? Or, were they already liars? Is that the reason they claimed fellowship though walking in darkness? It seems reasonable to conclude that they were already liars. What, then, does it mean that they were lying and not doing the truth?

John’s writings are rich in use of the ἀληθ- word group. Accordance lists 93 instances in John’s works (55 in John; 16 in 1 John; 10 in Revelation; and the rest in the remaining two letters). But John’s use of its antonym, ψευδ- terms, has only 14 recorded instances (once in John; four times in 1 John; and nine times in Revelation). They classify anyone described by the term with Satan (John 8:44; Rev. 3:9; 16:13) or with false prophets or false apostles (1 John 4:1; Rev. 2:2). Is this a result of an accomplished condition?

Rather than cause and effect, the relationship between the protasis and apodosis must be “evidence-inference,” what Cotterell and Turner call a “Grounds-CONCLUSION relationship.” They state, “In the case of grounds-CONCLUSION relations, one kernel offers the evidence on the basis of which the second is to be accepted.”[25] It turns out that there are quite a few of these in the New Testament. One example will illustrate the point: “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:13). Faith in the resurrection of Jesus is evidence that one should believe in the resurrection of those who have already fallen asleep in him. It is the contention here that all of the conditional statements in 1 John 1:6-10 should be read this way. Thus, in verse 8, the claim that one “has no sin”[26] is the evidence that the claimants were self-deceived and had no truth in themselves (on this compare John 8:44, again, and Satan, again!). In the same way one could read 1 John 1:7 and 9 with the pattern of evidence-conclusion. These verses have a structure parallel to the other verses in the context, so the reader would naturally assume a parallel relationship.

Verse 7 becomes much more important because of this approach. The protasis gives information, not about the Christian life in general, but about the reliability of leaders in the Christian community. How do Christians who are troubled about their own relationship with God, troubled especially because of false teaching, know whom to trust? How do they know what message to embrace? The seventh verse provides an answer: “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.” Again, the pronoun “we” retains its referent from verses 1-6: the authoritative teachers. Those who may be trusted are people who walk in the light because God is light, and they meet the three tests of 1 John: they practice righteousness (e.g., 2:1-6);[27] they teach truth about Jesus (e.g., 2:18-25); and they love the children of God (e.g., 3:10-12). A reliable teacher is one whose way of life coheres with the way of life that the apostles pursued. Accordingly, they fellowship with John and the apostolic band and, more importantly, with the God the apostles represent. Furthermore, their doctrine also coheres. These two evidences make it clear that “they walk in the light,” and more, “that the blood of Jesus God’s Son cleanses them from all sin.” Walking in the light is the evidence that they are cleansed through the continuing work of Jesus in their lives. Von Wahlde’s comment is apt: “The most extensive means of refuting the opponents is by providing tests and ways to know if the claims are true and actual. Specifically the author insists that every prerogative claimed by the opponents . . . has to be tested in terms of both correct belief and ethics.”[28]

The Meaning Of Confession, Forgiveness, And Cleansing

The most important issues of this study revolve around the key concepts in verses 7 and 10—confession, forgiveness, and cleansing—though few commentaries on 1 John spend much time explaining forgiveness or cleansing. This leaves several options for interpretation.[29] Often in devotional literature confession is counted as a means of restoring or maintaining fellowship with God.[30]

The view of this study is that 1 John 1 aims to identify those who in reality have relationship with God so that the people of the community will know whom to follow. What then would forgiveness and cleansing mean in such a setting?

Forgiveness and cleansing. As to cleansing, John uses the verb καθαρίζω and related words only a few times.[31] Perhaps the most important uses are in John’s Gospel. In John 15:2-3 Jesus uses the image of “cleansing” or “purifying” to convey the idea of preparation for fruitfulness. The vinedresser “purges” (καθαίρει) the branch so that it will be καθαρός. The effect is that the branch will bear more fruit. The branch was not fruitless before; its purging is not punitive but enhancing. A leader who walks in the darkness is not fit for the life of the community and will not be fruitful in it.

Forgiveness, by contrast, would seem to be a simple issue. It is the cancellation of the penalty due to sin. Yet the Bible uses the word in a variety of contexts. Two are immediately important. One relates to the cancellation of the eternal penalty for sin (because it has been paid by the work of Christ). Key references on this are found throughout the New Testament, but especially in Matthew 26:28 and Colossians 2:13. The other category of forgiveness is temporal, the cancellation of the temporal consequences of sin. The evidence for this is more limited in the New Testament, but a case can be made from passages such as James 5:15[32] and John 5:14. To the man healed at the pool of Bethesda Jesus said, “Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore,” so that nothing worse happens to you.” The implication of Jesus’ statement appears to be that the malady from which the healed man suffered was initiated by his sin. Now that he is healed, the temporal consequence of his sin is removed. But there remains the possibility that further sin would bring worse suffering into his life. The Old Testament contains abundant evidence for the category of temporal forgiveness, especially in Leviticus 4 and 5, since the penalties remitted to the worshiper who brings either the sin (or purification) offering or the guilt (or restitution) offering would be temporal.

One other category is possible, derived from the difficult passage in Matthew 6:12-15. There Jesus grounds forgiveness on the sinner’s prior forgiving of others (see the parallel in Luke 6:17; see also Mark 11:25). If God’s forgiveness in Matthew 6:12-15 is eternal forgiveness, a problem arises. Faith alone is no longer enough for salvation. If the forgiveness is temporal, it is not clear what the temporal consequence would be. The Sermon on the Mount appears to be talking, not about specific Christian life issues but about the conditions for entry into the kingdom (see Matthew 5:17-20 and 7:13-27).[33] If this is the context, forgiveness could be eschatological, amounting to permission to enter the kingdom. Only those who forgive have the righteousness that goes beyond that of the Pharisees and so are allowed to enter the kingdom. This category may help solve the problem posed in Matthew 18:35.

One result of this study is recognition of the lack of a passage that clearly defines forgiveness as restoration to intimacy in the family. The question is, which category of meaning for forgiveness best fits the context of 1 John 1:9? It appears that the first is best—the eternal cancellation of sin’s penalty. If fellowship is a synonym in John’s works for salvation; if the issue is the distinction to be made between light and darkness, categories that exclude one another, especially in John; if the problem is false teachers who are the spirit of antichrist—then the proper way to read forgiveness is as eternal, the cancellation of the eternal penalty for sin because Jesus has paid the penalty by his work. This forgiveness cannot, then, be conditioned upon confession.

Confession. The Greek word ὁμολογέω is often treated etymologically. The λογ- part of the word means “to say,” and the ὁμο- part means “same.” Thus Hiebert can say, “To ‘confess’ means literally ‘to say the same thing, to agree with.’”[34] To be sure Hiebert does not hold that simple agreement is all that is necessary. Anyone who follows this view has sensed that more is needed than agreeing with God. Thus, Hiebert explains,

More is involved than a general acknowledgment of one’s sinfulness; it is the confession of sinful deeds to God. . . . A believer must frankly be willing to say the same thing about his sins (the sins he is conscious of having committed) that God says about them. Christians must acknowledge their sins for what they are, rather than using some flowery designation that conceals their true character. The present tense calls for such confession as their standing practice. The confession should be as wide as the actual guilt.[35]

For those who see 1 John 1:9 as a key to gaining forgiveness from God, simple confession is never enough; what is required is true confession.[36] It is an act of prayer in which one acknowledges sin to God. After all, the verse continues that God is faithful and righteous in forgiving sins and cleansing from all unrighteousness. Consequently, true confession, brings about cleansing and forgiveness of sin.

Is this, though, a sound way of approaching the meaning of a word? It is clear that ὁμολογέω can mean “to agree,” as in ἐξομολογέω in Luke 22:6, where Judas “agreed” to the plan to hand Jesus over to his enemies for pay. The standard lexicon for New Testament Greek, though, records for ὁμολογέω itself only one example of such a meaning in the New Testament, Acts 23:8 (where it may not mean “agree” at all; it appears to fit with the lexicon’s third category better than with the second[37]). The various forms of ὁμολογέω and ἐξομολογέω occur thirty-six times in the New Testament. The lexicon lists most of the uses of the uncompounded verb (nineteen out of twenty-six), not as meaning confess in prayer but “to acknowledge someth., ordinarily in public, acknowledge, claim, profess, praise.”[38] The compounded verb occurs ten times, none of which occurs in prayer in the New Testament. All are used, one way or another, to refer to a public acknowledgement. The word group does appear in the context of confession of sin, but in the New Testament (1 John 1:9 aside) never in prayer. In the Septuagint confession in prayer using this word group does occur, but rarely, as in 1 Kings 8:31-35; 2 Chronicles 6:24; Daniel 9:4 and 20. But out of 135 occurrences of the various forms of the word group, these are the only places where such usage occurs. Most of the time the reference is to some sort of public proclamation with special reference to public praise of God (and this includes virtually all of the references in Psalms where ἐξομολογέω translates ידה).

In the New Testament the rarity continues:

Confession of sin is not a theme that is found often in the NT. It is found in only four other places. It occurs in the Synoptic accounts of the ministry of John the Baptist when people came confessing their sins to be baptised by him (Matt 3:6; Mark 1:15). It is also found in James 5:16, where, in the context of praying for the sick, people are urged to confess their sins and pray for each other that they may be healed. People in Ephesus confessed their ‘evil deeds’ and burned their magical books during the ministry of Paul in that city (Acts 19:18). In each of these cases confession of sin was public, not private (i.e., not just between the individual and God). It may then be the case that here in 1:9 the author also has in mind public confession of sin.[39]

To make matters even more pointed, John never elsewhere uses the word group for prayer. He uses it most often in one of two ways. For example, John 1:20 says, “And he confessed, and did not deny, and he confessed, ‘I am not the Christ.’”[40] Here the expression seems to mean something like “he went on record” or “made a public statement for the record.” The other major usage is common in 1 John, of making public statements, as in 1 John 4:2-3, where a prophet may be tested by his statements about Jesus. One last use may be mentioned that appears in both testaments and also in John’s writings, where it describes publicly identifying with someone (e.g., John 9:22; Rev. 3:5; compare also Matt. 10:32 and the opposite 7:23). The Septuagint’s language of prayer may be preserved in Matthew 11:25, where the New American Standard reads, “I praise Thee, O Father,” translating ἐξομολογοῦμαι as “praise.”

This discussion prompts doubt that 1 John 1:9 is even about prayer. John never uses the “confess” word group that way, and the Bible broadly only rarely does.[41] This means that reading the word “confess” should not lead to a default assumption that prayer is in view.[42] Additionally it should be clear that 1 John 1:9 does not say that confession is made to God.[43] What else could it be, then? This review of usage suggests one option: the public acknowledgement of one’s sins. Can it be that God expects of everyone, as a condition of being forgiven, public acknowledgement of sins?

The course of the argument in this study leads in another direction altogether. “We” in 1 John 1 refers to authoritative teachers, and the relationship between the clauses in verses 6-10 is evidence-inference or grounds-CONCLUSION, to use the terms introduced earlier. The implication is that confession is a public act of leaders that alerts the hearers that they are reliable teachers.[44] Kruse supports at least this part of the argument: “The author projects a situation in which people acknowledge their sins in an ongoing way. He portrays authentic Christian living as involving honest and ongoing acknowledgement of one’s sins.”[45]

Then what must Christian leaders do? Must reliable leaders publicly announce all their sins? Of course not. However, it is a mark of authenticity when Christian leaders allow people to enter their lives, know some of their weaknesses, identify with them in their struggles.

In this area, discernment is necessary. “Need to know” must be the standard. People do not need to know every possible failing and struggle, but they need to know some. When in public ministry, whether pulpit, lectern, or counseling room, a personal acknowledgement of weakness, an anecdote of failure will actually serve the purpose of communication, illustrating the very point at issue.

Summary And Implications

John wrote to a community that had seen schism. False teachers who were the spirit of antichrist (4:3) had left the church, but they had gained a hearing before they left and apparently had been trusted. Their departure left people troubled, not knowing whom to trust or what to believe about themselves and their relationship with God. Thus John had two goals in writing—to show readers how to identify reliable teachers, and to confirm believers in their faith (5:13; cf. the poetic passage in 1 John 2:12-14).

The tests for reliable teachers begin, but do not end, in chapter 1 and they include walking in the light and confession (that is, public acknowledgement) of sins. It now seems clear that walking in the light includes verse 9. Those who live by faith make it plain that they do not deserve the status they have. They make it plain that they live depending entirely upon Jesus by their freedom to discuss their sins. It is that freedom that makes it clear that they are forgiven and cleansed from all sin. Additionally, walking in the light includes fellowshipping in the doctrine of Christ with the apostles and other authoritative teachers of the church. So, as verse 7 says, by walking in the light they prove, not only that they are cleansed, but also that they share fellowship with the apostles, whose fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ (v. 3). Therefore both their doctrine and their behavior cohere with the apostolic doctrine and life.

No church and no ministry group can claim to be genuinely Christian that does not meet these criteria. Christians are indeed called to service, and that service must be rooted in a commitment to the apostolic message and the apostolic life pattern. These are tests of reliable ministry.

Notes

1. See Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 46.
2. For a brief survey of the tests of life and tests of fellowship views, with a listing of their proponents, see Gary W. Derickson, “What Is the Message of 1 John?” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (January–March 1993): 89-105. A variant of the tests of fellowship approach comes from Yarbrough, who says that John “writes in order to stabilize and enhance the existence of ‘church’ in the locale he addresses: ‘The term “church” is not used, but koinōnia meaningfully interprets the reality of the believing community’ (Painter 2002: 128)” (1-3 John, 41).
3. A fuller treatment of these views follows in the discussion of verses 6-10.
4. Daniel Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, New American Commentary, ed. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 31-32, is an exception. Akin holds the tests of life view. Brown also identifies 1 John 2:26 as a major issue in the book: “Above (Introduction IV) the thesis was proposed that 1 John is a response to a struggle with Johannine adversaries” (Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John: Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 180). Implicitly Stephen S. Smalley accepts this as an important theme for the book, though on page 17 he indicates his view of the book’s purpose as “concerned essentially with the conditions for true Christian discipleship. The two main divisions of the letter set out these conditions and exhort the readers to live in the light (1:5-2:29) as children of God (3:1-5:13)” (1, 2, 3 John, Word Biblical Commentary. Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. [Waco: Word Books, 2007], 15).
5. Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John: Commentary on the Three Johannine Letters, vol. 3, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 17. He says, “At the time 1 John was written, there was an internal theological crisis dividing the Johannine community. This crisis was caused by two divergent interpretations of the community’s traditions. The crisis had gotten to the point that some in the community had left, evidently to form their own community guided by their own beliefs. “It is clear that 1 John was written to deal with this crisis. However, the Letter is not aimed primarily at the opponents but at the author’s own followers. The author speaks to those who have remained faithful to him and faithful to the tradition as he understood it. The author is not in direct dialogue with his opponents. Consequently, the majority of his Letter explains how his views differ from those of the opponents and why the opponents have no right to make their claims.” For similar views see also Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 51; I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, New International Commentary on the New Testament. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 14-15; Georg Strecker and Harold W. Attridge, The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 19-20.]
6. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 31-32.
7. Strecker and Attridge, The Johannine Letters, 12. This interpretation for verses 1-5 is all but a consensus. Brown calls the group “the tradition-bearers and interpreters” (Epistles of John, 95). See also Yarbrough, 1-3 John, 40-41; and W. Hall Harris III, 1, 2, 3 John—Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis (Galaxie Software, 2003), 59. However, Harris sees a change with verse 5: “The author goes on to explain the ethical implications of this description in the following verses, both for the claims of the opponents and for the author’s readers” (ibid., 60).
8. Yarbrough titles this section “C. Implications of God’s Character for the Christian Life (1:6-10)” (1-3 John, 52). See also for similar approaches Gary M. Burge, The Letters of John, ed. Terry C. Muck, NIV Application Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 64; W. Hall Harris III, 1, 2, 3 John, 60-61; Marshall, The Epistles of John, 109-110; Strecker and Attridge, The Johannine Letters, 28-29; and Brooke Foss Westcott, ed., The Epistles of St. John: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays, 4th ed., Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1902), 18; D. Edmond Hiebert, “An Expositional Study of 1 John: Part 2: An Exposition of 1 John 1:5-2:6, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (July–September 1988): 332. References could be further multiplied. Marshall says concerning verses 6-10, “In each case, the writer’s reply is to compare the statement with the actual way of life of the persons who made it and hence to show that the claims were false. Then he goes on to indicate in each case how people who wished to have fellowship with God could really have it.”
9. Hiebert, “An Expositional Study of 1 John,” 332. For other representatives see also Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, 18-19; Marshall, The Epistles of John, 109-110; Strecker and Attridge, The Johannine Letters, 28-29; Brown, The Epistles of John, 197; and Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 20-21.
10. George Brian Christie, “An Interpretive Study of 1 John 1:9” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975): 33-34.
11. For a good discussion of the alternatives for 1:1-4, see Brown, The Epistles of John, 158-61.
12. Kruse, The Letters of John, 61. He further argues (p. 52) that the editorial “we” is ruled out by the sense perception verbs that fill the opening three verses. Strecker likewise writes, “One could more correctly judge that the author uses ‘we’ in order to assert membership in the ‘circle . . . of “apostolic” witnesses.’ In any case, the emphatic backward reference to the past time of salvation and the stress on the eye- and ear-witness have a ‘historically’ accentuating function” (The Johannine Letters, 12). He continues, “It is not really possible to understand the terminology used in vv. 1-4 as nothing more than a transferred, spiritualistic manner of speaking” (ibid., 14). This he holds in spite of rejecting an eyewitness author for the book!
13. Harris, 1, 2, 3 John—Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis, 55.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid. Compare a similar view in Brown, The Epistles of John, 170, who commented on 1 John 1:3: “The ‘you’ are the ‘Those who have not seen and yet have believed’ of John 20:29.” See also Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 56; Harris, 1, 2, 3 John, 55-56; and Kruse, The Letters of John, 60-61.
16. See Charles P. Baylis, “The Meaning of Walking ‘In the Darkness’ (1 John 1:6),” Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (April–June 1992): 221. Yarbrough comes to a similar conclusion: “This is the means whereby sinners become children of God; otherwise they are children of the devil, a state of affairs that Christ has come to undo” (1-3 John, 41).
17. See on this Kruse, The Letters of John, 57-58; and Strecker and Attridge, The Johannine Letters, 19-20. Von Wahlde extends the discussion. In commenting on verse 3 he says, “Within the context of the community dispute it has a specific polemical intent, for the author will explicitly argue later (2:22-24) that unless one believes properly in the Son one cannot be said to believe properly in the Father” (The Gospel and Letters of John, 34).
18. Contra Hiebert, “An Expositional Study of 1 John,” 336; and Thomas S. Baurain, “The Development of the Johannine Concept of Fellowship” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 39.
19. R. Michael Duffy, Review of “The Judgment Seat of Christ in Theological Perspective, Part 1: The Judgment Seat of Christ and Unconfessed Sins,” by Samuel L. Hoyt, Bibliotheca Sacra, January–March 1980, 32-39, in Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 5 (1992): 92.
20. John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. IVP/Accordance electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 83.
21. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 71, note 122; see also Marshall, The Epistles of John, 108. Consult Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 698-99. In addition to Wallace, see an extended discussion of the possible relationships between “kernels” in Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989), 188-229. Akin is not entirely consistent in dealing with the relationship between the clauses. On page 56 he observes: “The reality of this fellowship is shown in the readers’ walking in the light as God is in the light (cf. 1 John 1:6-7). Loving one’s brothers and sisters in Christ is, in turn, evidence of being in the light (cf. 1 John 2:9-11; it is the equivalent of knowing God [cf. 1 John 4:8; also 4:16]).” This is the view that the present study takes (what he calls evidence and inference, but it is not the same as the cause and effect interpretation he offers. It is not uncommon among the commentaries to analyze the relationships between the clauses ambiguously, leaving the concept undefined. As an example, von Wahlde simply calls the apodosis the “consequence” of the protasis (The Gospel and Letters of John, 46).
22. See Marshall, The Epistles of John, 109-110.
23. Baylis makes a good case that faith in the gospel is at the heart of the idea: “Those who do not receive eternal life through Jesus Christ reject that revelation from God (light). They walk ‘in the darkness’; they do not believe His word” (“The Meaning of Walking ‘In the Darkness’ [1 John 1:6],” 221). If the main object of verses 6-10 were to teach about Christian life, his view would suffice. However, given the context of 1 John, there must be some moral element to walking in the light. Baylis’s view is sound but needs tweaking. Akin escapes the problem of his cause-and-effect reading of these verses by defining obedience out of “walking in the light,” a move that the very next section of the book makes impossible (1, 2, 3 John, 72-73). For the “morality view” see for example Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 23: “‘Living in the light’ thus implies a ‘conscious and sustained endeavour to live a life in conformity with the revelation of God’ (Brooke, 15). . . . In Pauline language this means living in complete openness to him who ‘searches our hearts’ (Rom 8:27), and meeting the challenge to behave morally while living ‘a new life’ (Rom 6:4; cf Matt 5:14-16; Luke 16:8b; Eph 5:8-14; Col 1:12-14; Phil 2:15; 1 Thess 5:5). It is in God’s light that ‘we see light’ (Ps 36:9).” See also Hiebert, “An Expositional Study of 1 John: Part 2: An Exposition of 1 John 1:5-2:6, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (July–September 1988): 332; and Marshall, The Epistles of John, 110.
24. This study is not in debate with Akin. Most of the major commentaries treat the conditional sentences in this passage the same way. Akin, in a well-argued commentary, has simply given a very clear and concise discussion of the issues.
25. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, 211.
26. Though older commentators hold that the claim made in verse 8 is a claim to sinlessness (see David Smith, “The Epistles of John,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament: Commentary [New York: George H. Doran, n.d.], 172), it is far less common in more recent studies, since John’s usage is against it. Brown, for example, proposes the translation “We are free from the guilt of sin” (The Epistles of John, 205). His discussion properly refers the reader to the same phrase (ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν) in John 9:41; 15:22, 24; 19:11 (ibid., 205-06). The implication of the phrase is that those who have committed sin are liable to punishment for it. The clearest of these references is 15:22. The penalty of those who have seen Jesus’s work without a response of faith is greater than if they had seen none of his works. The distinction made here between reatus culpae and reatus poenae goes at least as far back as Anselm, Summa Theologica (Rome: Forzani, 1894), Question 80, Article 8, Objection 4, and elsewhere; see also Richard Baxter and William Orme, The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, vol. 12, The Life of Faith (London: James Duncan, 1830), 302.
27. Marshall holds that one must live “a life that is compatible with being in the light, a life that is free from sin” (The Epistles of John, 109-110). To his credit he attributes this to the cleansing work of Christ, not the believer’s moral strength.
28. Von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John: Commentary on the Three Johannine Letters, 21. See also Marshall’s summary of 1:6-10 (The Epistles of John, 109-110).
29. A former student of mine believed that she was not saved unless she had confessed all her sins. More to the point, Brown says, “Perhaps the best explanation (Hoskyns, Schneider, B. Weiss, Wilder) is to stress that the author of I John is not worried about initial justification but about the forgiveness of sins committed as a Christian. When people first believe and come to the light, their sins are forgiven. They may sin again; yet if they try to walk in the light, the blood of Jesus, which cleanses from all sin, cleanses from these sins as well” (The Epistles of John, 202). There are two sorts of forgiveness here, but it is not entirely clear what Brown, a Roman Catholic, might mean by the distinction. Harris uses the same language as Brown but surely means something different: “The author is not worried about the initial justification (salvation) of the people to whom he is writing. Rather he is reassuring them about forgiveness of sins committed after having become Christians” (1, 2, 3 John, 63-64). See also Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 26. Yet these contrasting ends of the theological spectrum do not clearly spell out what is meant by forgiveness.
30. “From a human standpoint, our fellowship can be marred by sin. The promise of confession is forgiveness and cleansing” (Eric E. Kress, Notes for the Study and Exposition of 1st John [The Woodlands, TX: Kress Christian Publications, 2002], 35).
31. John 2:9; 3:25 for ritual purification; 13:10-11 and 15:3, with a pun on καθαίρω in 15:2; in the epistles, only in 1 John 1:7 and 9. Revelation has six more occurrences, but with substantially different senses.
32. See Daniel R. Hayden, “Calling the Elders to Pray,” Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (July–September 1981): 258-66, who argues for this position.
33. Entering the kingdom is not synonymous with entering salvation. Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. . . . Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. . . . Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:3, 5, and 8). This is about entering into the final experience of salvation, future salvation, what Paul called in Romans 8:30, glorification. The only way to enter the kingdom, according to the sermon, is to have an “exceeding righteousness.” A full exposition of this concept would require more space than is available here, entailing reviewing the meaning of the introduction and conclusion of the sermon and a discussion of what “father” and “brother” mean in the sermon.
34. Hiebert, “An Expositional Study of 1 John,” 335. Against this view see Yarbrough, 1-3 John, 63, note 13: “The oft-heard claim that it means ‘to say the same thing as’ (Hiebert 1991: 66), while technically true in some Classical Greek passages (LSJ 1226), lacks lexical backing in NT usage. The claim owes its existence to a semantic root fallacy (cf. Carson 1996a: 28-33). In few if any NT passages where ὁμολογέω appears can one make sense of a text by using the translation ‘to say the same thing as.’” The etymology of a word may be useful if the context makes it clear that the author is playing on the etymological background of the word. Otherwise contextual usage must guide analysis of the meaning of any word.
35. “An Expositional Study of 1 John,” 335.
36. See also Marshall, The Epistles of John, 113; Yarbrough, 1-3 John, 64.
37. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 708.
38. Ibid.
39. Kruse, The Letters of John, 68. The comment applies only to the use of the verb ὁμολογέω, not to the concept, which is clearly implied in the so-called Lord’s prayer in both of its appearances. It should be added that the noun, ὁμολογία occurs only five times (2 Cor. 9:13; 1 Tim. 6:12-13; Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 10:23) and never relates to prayer or the confession of sin. It relates to confession of the faith or of Jesus.
40. Brown gives the same evidence: “The idea of public confession also receives support from the four uses of homologein in GJohn (1:20; 9:22; 12:42) which involve public professions in relation to Jesus” (The Epistles of John, 208).
41. “Confession of sin is not a theme that is found often in the NT. It is found in only four other places [he cites Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:15; Acts 19:18; and James 5:16]. In each of these cases confession of sin was public, not private (i.e., not just between the individual and God). It may then be the case that here in 1:9 the author also has in mind public confession of sin” (Kruse, The Letters of John, 68). Even in the Apocrypha, the one use associated with confession of sin (Sir. 4:26) is about public confession, not prayer.
42. “All the parallels and background given thus far suggest that the Johannine expression refers to a public confession rather than a private confession by the individual to God (although the latter view was held by Augustine, Oecumenius, Bede, and Theophylact)” (Brown, The Epistles of John, 207-08).
43. “The fact that in the rest of 1 John 1:9 God alone is the agent of forgiveness does not prove that the confession is to God rather than to the Community (pace Schnackenburg, Johannesbriefe 86), for both 1:7 (the previous ‘But if’ condition) and 1:3 show that relations to God are in a Community context” (Brown, The Epistles of John, 208; contra Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 75, note 132, and Strecker and Attridge, The Johannine Letters, 32).
44. Dike takes a similar view: “After investigation the verdict was made that the individual walking in light is the one confessing his sins—the believer, while the individual walking in darkness is the person denying his sins—the non-believer. The conclusion was amplified further with the resolution that the believer could not be described as ever walking in darkness (denying his sins), but that he is always characterized as walking in light (confessing his sins)” (Darryl G. Dike, “The Confession Question” (Th.M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1986), 48. See also von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, 52-53: “In this sense, ‘confess’ does not refer to a ritual act. It is a public acknowledgment of one’s overall attitude and conviction regarding the possibility/reality of sin.”
45. Kruse, The Letters of John, 68.