In yesterday’s study we looked at the first result of walking in the light, which concerns fellowship with other Christians.
Second, John says that the one walking in the light will find the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ available to him for continued cleansing. At first glance this seems a contradiction. For why does the one who already walks in the light need cleansing? Is he not already cleansed? Or, on the other hand, if he is being cleansed from sin, does this not imply that he was walking in the darkness previously? The contradiction is only superficial, for John is merely saying that one who walks in fellowship with God will find forgiveness for any sin that might enter his life. In fact, such forgiveness is already provided for by the sacrifice of Christ. This is not said to encourage sin, as some might think (“Let us do evil, that good may come” Rom. 3:8), but to encourage holiness.
The second false teaching which John denies is the teaching that in the case of a particular Christian sin can have been eradicated. It is the claim that “we have no sin” (v. 8). In itself this statement can have more than one meaning. It can mean that there is no such thing as sin and that, therefore, no one is a sinner. This is a view that has become quite popular in western contemporary thought largely through Freudian psychology, which denies any objective basis for guilt. It is, however, roundly opposed by psychiatrist Karl Menninger, famed founder of the Menninger Clinic, in Whatever Became of Sin? It can also mean that the particular individuals who make the claim have no sin and have never had it. Or, finally, it can mean that they do not have sin now. In view of the fact that there seems to be a progression in the intensity and seriousness of the three claims that John denies, it would seem that the third of these possible interpretations should be preferred. The first false teaching was that it is possible to have fellowship with God and still continue sinning. In this second claim there is the additional error that the individual has, either through the Gnostic process of enlightenment or through spiritual development, ceased to sin at all.
Interestingly enough, in this case John does not say that the person professing such perfection is lying, as he did of the lesser claim in verse 6. He merely says that he has deceived himself. The reason is obvious. In the first case the person is making a claim which he himself, as well as all others, knows to be untrue. But in the second case there is the possibility at least that the person making the claim is deceived. It is far more serious, for it is always better at least to see the facts clearly. Nevertheless, it is error in a different area. The seriousness of the matter emerges in the fact that if a person believes himself not to sin, he therefore excuses his sinful deeds and does not bring them to God for confession and cleansing.
But this is what is needed; indeed, this is what is needed by every Christian. Instead of denying that we sin, we are to admit and confess the sin. Only then can God truly cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
John says that if we confess our sin, God is faithful and just in forgiving it. But why does John use these two particular words? In what sense is God faithful? In what sense is He just? Here the interpreter must draw upon the full biblical teaching. To understand the word “faithful” he must understand that God has promised to forgive sin when it is confessed to Him. Thus Isaiah wrote of God’s promise: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isa. 1:18). Jeremiah declared, “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jer. 31:34). Clearly, if God had spoken such promises and then had refused to forgive sin, he would have been unfaithful. But He is not. He is faithful to forgive in that He has promised to do so and does do so.
