THE REAL MEANING OF 1 JOHN 1:9

OK!  I'm going to take a chance here and post my new way of thinking about the meaning of 1 John 1:9. I think my friends will, while maybe not agreeing with me, cut me some slack on trying to at least stay true to what I see in the text.

I know I’m neither a theologian nor a scholar, so what I’m about to write will leave anyone in either of those categories quite unhappy with my conclusions and writing. But since I’m a communicator I will present what I’m understanding about 1 John 1:9 in what I hope will be a sensible and understandable, not to mention true to the text, rendition of the verse.

Generally speaking, I have always read this verse in the context of keeping up to date with confessing personal sins in order to stay in fellowship with God. So I would summarize it this way:

“When we confess our sins and ask God to forgive us we are keeping short sin accounts with God. This is so we can enjoy fellowship. As God convicts us of our sin it is our duty to confess them knowing that when we do He will forgive and cleanse us so we don't grieve the Holy Spirit and fellowship will result.”

But was I, in fact, correct in what I thought the verse to be saying? I'm wondering!

Commentators generally agree that John is writing this epistle to oppose false teachers and teachings. That's certainly ONE of his purposes I think. For example, John says in 1:8,  "If we say [as some teachers were doing] that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." However, John’s purpose seems to me to be slightly more complex than JUST correcting erroneous theology or teachers.

I'm thinking that 1 John 5:13 exposes the main purpose of his writing with 1:4, 2:1, 2:12 showing several other purposes as well. But all other purposes seem to be actually wrapped up in his number one purpose as revealed in 5:13, So, I think we can safely say that John’s goal in writing this epistle seems to be primarily that “they might know that they genuinely possess eternal life."

[Chapter 5 verse 13 is, after all, a summary statement near the end of the book.]

Apparently, those false teachers had created a lot of doubt and uncertainty about personal salvation in the minds and hearts of the people resulting in their question becoming, "How do I REALLY know I'm saved?" So, John, using his personal relationship with Jesus as his authority attempts to convince his hearers about what a real believer actually looks like.

Simply stated, throughout his letter John is not only correcting a lot of false teaching about Jesus’ deity, His humanity, the necessity of love, and what it means to have “fellowship with God,” but he is doing so in an attempt to bring  them CERTAINTY about the genuineness of their own conversion.

His method of doing this was, as I read one theologian say,  "One of offering different “tests" as evidence of true faith." Those tests showed that true believers will (1) believe that Jesus truly is the Christ come in the flesh, and because of this belief they will  (2) walk in Light and not darkness, and(3) walk in Love instead of hatred, and (4) confess sin when convicted and convinced of it, and (5) walk in obedience. I'm thinking that the paragraph that contains 1 John 1:9 is smack dab in the middle of these tests has to be viewed as a test as well.

Now, while it is certainly possible for John to have had secondary purposes in mind as he writes a verse like 1:9, it's wise to keep his overall goal in mind as we read it along with all the other verses.

With this as our background notice that John's greeting and introduction of this letter shows him jumping immediately into his main purpose of giving those “tests” of genuine Christianity. Chapter 1 verse 6 declares that if “we walk in darkness instead of the light, we are lying and are not practicing the truth,” which is the first “test.” One way to look and see whether you have genuine Christianity or not, is to see if you’re walking in the light. Chapter 1 verse 8 continues by telling us that claims to sinless perfection are grounds for failing the “test.” Finally, chapter 1 verse 10 repeats it again by linking a claim to sinless perfection with not having “His Word” in us.

So I'm simply contending that verse nine is a test as well and that's why it's found in this paragraph. Trying to interpret chapter 1 verse 9 as a command to confess IN ORDER TO GET forgiveness denies the surrounding context completely and just doesn't make good sense with this in mind.

Now for some EXEGESIS...

1 John 1:9 is a conditional sentence. In biblical Greek there are technically five classes of conditions with three of those five classes being the ones most commonly used in the New Testament.

A first class condition are statements in the indicative mood that are assumed true for the sake of an argument. Since "confess" in verse 9 is in the subjunctive mood, we can rule out the first class.

Second class conditions are statements that are assumed false for the sake of an argument. They are in the indicative as well. Again, verse 9 is not in the indicative so it can't be a second class condition.

A third class condition is presented as an uncertain you may or you may not kind of emphasis. Many Greek grammarians and scholars place 1 John 1:9 into this category,

But I'm thinking it is more likely that 1 John 1:9 should be categorized as a FIFTH class condition statement which is structurally very similar to a third class condition but isn't tied to a future time [sequence] element as the third class is. Fifth class conditions are a “present general condition,” [remember the context] where the author’s presentation is neutral. [Not a command] Greek scholars also point out that, “a Greek verb can have time significance [sequence] only in the indicative. The only significance that a verb in the subjunctive has, which 1:9 is, is one of aspect.”

This means the argument I once made that this sentence was describing a future [or sequential] event, [forgiveness and cleansing being conditioned upon confession and coming after] was a misunderstanding of the subjunctive mood and the fifth class of conditions completely.

This verse does not comment upon sequence of events at all. Instead, it simply shows a general, logical connection between two ideas. Those two ideas are our confession of sin and something else, namely, an evidence of God’s forgiveness and cleansing already being present when confession happens.

In simple language, a willingness to "confess" sins for a Christian is to EVIDENCE God's already present forgiveness and cleansing in them. In other words, their salvation is genuine. The focus is on a contrast between someone who denies the existence of their sin and someone who willing to admit their sins.

So my contention is that the meaning of the verse is that our confession neither CAUSES forgiveness to be received, nor RESULTS in forgiveness in any way. It simply identifies a person who confesses sin as already having become a recipient of God’s faithful justice and forgiveness.

One final exegetical argument to examine. The parallel nature of verses seven and nine are evident. Technically, verse seven, verse eight, and verse nine are all parallel in structure. In fact, verse seven, is almost identical to verse nine, structurally, since it includes the present tense. In verse eight John specifically shows the intention behind the conditional statement of verse 7: namely, giving evidences or tests of genuine Christianity.

So, our only option in verse seven is to interpret it like this: “If we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have true fellowship with each other and evidence is in, namely, that Jesus’ blood HAS INDEED already cleansed us from all our sin.”

The same is true for verse 9.  “If we continually confess our sins, then the evidence is in that we HAVE INDEED already experienced God’s faithful justice in the forgiveness and cleansing of all our injustices.”

This reading not only allows for the structure of the paragraph and the meaning of the included words, but it also aligns with John’s purpose of writing, as seen in the two adjacent verses, the surrounding paragraph, and the entire letter.

At the risk of saying it over and over again, one more time I say, our confession of sin needs to be seen as a sign of our identity as a believer, not a necessary event in order to acquire forgiveness. When one sees confession AS THIS, when they are broken over personal sins and name them as such, they can have confidence that they are already a forgiven and cleansed child of God.

So how are we to correctly understand chapter 1 verse 9 when properly translated?

The verse DOES NOT TEACH the need for forgiveness or cleansing from God throughout a believers life, nor does it connect future events, confession causing forgiveness and cleansing. 1 John 1:9 is simply another test of genuine Christianity.

One last time! When a person is willing to confess to being a sinner and actions of sin, they can have confidence that they have ALREADY EXPERIENCED the justice of God through His forgiveness and cleansing.

[Dealing with sins is of course necessary for fellowship as shown in the foot washing incident of John 13 and this will be looked at a later time in a later post. But it's not the purpose of 1 John 1:9.]

Paul B.

IN CHRIST BARRIERS ARE TRULY GONE

Galatians 3:28 says..."There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." [NIV]

I sure like the following paragraph from a much longer editorial by Columnist Walter Williams who is himself an African-American journalist. It seems to me he nailed it. I thank him for doing so.

"Race is no longer the problem that it once was. That doesn't mean there are not white and black bigots or that every vestige of racial discrimination has been eliminated. But what racial discrimination remains is nowhere near the insurmountable barrier it once was. For the most part, white bigots are no longer respected among whites and I look forward to the day when black bigots are no longer respected among blacks......"

Columnist Walter Williams.

What Williams said reminds me of how our message of the gospel sets us straight as Christians on THAT topic whether society ever sees it or not.

Our text at the top says it all.

It goes without saying that for Christians the race issue is settled. We are a new Kingdom people and neither race nor gender is permitted to add or detract from our value or our relationship with each other. Anyone who names Jesus as Lord is equally my brother or sister in the Kingdom of God or the Body of Christ and anyone who denies that is being unbiblical in thought. There is an equality in Kingdom living that society may or may not understand depending on the culture in which, or of which, one is speaking, but it is to be EVER PRESENT in the present Kingdom of God.

Paul's culture of the NT time did not understand this equality and consequently did not permit slaves or women that free status. But the gospel did. And while Paul did not fight the societal distinctions that existed per se, he laid down the Kingdom principles of grace and life that did eventually fight against slavery in any form in the mind and lifestyle of believers. One would hope that our culture would follow suit, but whether it does or not, the Kingdom remains our hope in this matter.

Women and slaves were chattel property basically in the NT times but that did not keep Paul from declaring a different thing for the Kingdom while not taking on gender or slavery per se.  [As you are aware "per se" means "in and of itself."]  Paul had only one focus and that was the doing and dying of Jesus and the resulting grace embodied in any human who is found to be in Christ. It's called "The Gospel."

Eventually, Christians, as people "in Christ," had to learn to live totally different than their society as they made full application of that gospel and that difference was to be seen in slaves, females, husbands and wives, and every relationship one might can have with another person. Christians WERE different that's for sure. But they were ONE with each other in value AND relationships when the gospel did it's work. "You shall know the Truth [Jesus] and the Truth shall set you free,"

As said already, all this does NOT dispute the fact that people ARE DIFFERENT whether it be race, gender, age, abilities, strengths, giftedness, and a host of things left unmentioned. But the Body of Christ is not to be structured or viewed on the basis of any of those differences. We are to use our differences, under His anointing and authority, for the good of all and I believe, when properly understood, the scriptures will not allow for value OR relationships to be based on anything in our differences, but the grace of God alone.

This is not to say that the color of skin does not remain white or black or red or yellow and people don't remain male or female or deny that one does not remain young or old, obviously. But that is only a biological reality that does NOT alter the biblical reality.

Using Walter Williams words in this context I would say that I look forward to the day when racial bigots or gender bigots are no longer respected among anyone in Kingdom living. Then we ALL could serve our Lord by loving and serving each other as the highest privilege we have as we live out the gospel while sharing it with our world. This is the example that act as light and salt yo our culture and what a difference that can make. I think it all needs to begin in me. How about you?

You can tell I believe there is only ONE head of the Body, the Church, or the Kingdom and only ONE Lord and issues such as race, marriage, or church relationships in Kingdom living are not to be one of "authority over" [men rule and women submitting for example] but one of serving "one another" out of our giftedness and uniqueness under His authority. He rules and we all submit and serve Him and one another.

Paul B.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO CIVILITY?

I've noticed, for the umpteenth time, a grievous problem that plagues professed Christians, it appears to me at least, as badly as it plagues our culture. And it is a curse within our culture Thus, the title, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO CIVILITY? 

I'm going to illustrate the problem of the loss of civility and give a response to it that pictures what true grace looks like from my perspective. My source for the illustration is a story I read on the internet but have greatly adapted to give no hint of anything or anyone personal. 

The illustration is an exchange between two men I'll name Leroy and Jethro. Those two guys are talking about women in ministry. Leroy holds that women are scripturally qualified for ministry to the whole body when the scriptures are really interpreted correctly and Jethro disagrees with that because he interprets the scriptures differently. Each has been commenting on their position on the issue. Each using their understanding of scripture as they talk. So far so good.

Then it gets a bit rancorous in tone. Here is Jethro's final comment to Leroy...."My position is not just my own. I'm standing on the shoulders of historical, orthodox Christianity."  (Jethro is appealing to church history which is not bad within itself at all.)  But then he says this, "Those FOR women in pastoral ministry are standing on the past 50 years of the woman's movement in America." He continues with, "If you want culture to dictate your hermeneutics, then you've got a big problem being tossed to and fro from every wind of doctrine."

Do you see the problem? 

How about Jethro's statement here, "Those FOR women in pastoral ministry are standing on the past 50 years of the woman's movement in America." In other words, Jethro is saying, if you disagree with my position you do so because you have been influenced by the women's liberation movement of the past fifty years. That's a problem because it is stated AS FACT without any supporting documentation. It is reported AS FACT when it is simply an opinion. Jethro thinks it's valid, obviously, but he says it as if there is no question as to the invalid nature of any other view on it. But making matters worse is the dismissive, condescending, even judgmental words said to a brother in Christ.

Therein is, in fact, the problem. Stating an opinion with no appreciation of differing views and stating it with an implied "end of discussion" tone which smacks of an "I'm superior to you" view of one's self is far from grace. It is this obvious arrogance and lack of civility with people who hold differing views that is permeating our culture AND CHURCHES.

I believe it is a major problem and one we Christians will have to address WITHIN OURSELVES if and when the Spirit of God ever moves us to renewal or personal revival, or for revival in churches for that matter.

Now I want you to see how grace responds.  A blogger named Scot McKnight responded to exactly this situation, though I'll continue my illustration using the name Jethro, I'm giving Scot's ACTUAL answer to my imagined Jethro. Read it carefully...

"Jethro, I can't say I've seen you on this blog very often, so we are glad you have joined in. Blogs have cultures and approaches, and the one thing this blog fights for is civility and trusting that we are here for the glory of God and for the good of one another. Hence, we do what we can to avoid calling one another names. But there's another element that comes into play here as well: there is a history of how this blog has addressed the women's issues in ministry. It can't be said this blog has failed to discuss the Bible, and you can dip into the Women category and find plenty of discussion. Furthermore, I have a book called The Blue Parakeet where one third of the book deals with the biblical passages. Those discussions are assumed on this blog.'"

'Furthermore, it is a little testy of you to suggest these issues are based on the last 50 years of the feminist movement for not only can you not prove that we are each anchoring our ideas in a cultural feminist movement, but you have plenty of passages in the Bible that reveal women leading and at significant (your word, not mine) "roles." We have to deal with Junia, who is an apostle; with Phoebe and with Priscilla.'

"One more point: to suggest that the views of many here are culturally based and yours is not is a little gamesmanship that will be contested every time at this site. Why? We humbly admit here that each of us is shaped by culture and that every theologian in the Church was shaped by culture and that the biblical authors themselves were shaped by culture. Cultural illiteracy then is unwise and unfair, and puts you into a position of being pushed into a similar corner. I did a series on a book by a Catholic historian who had good arguments for showing that the decisive change that restricted women happened in the 12th Century, some of which was passed on among Protestants, and one would have to be conversant with some of the comments and beliefs by early theologians that are not only objectionable (Augustine) but flat out contrary to the approach of what the Bible describes in women leaders. Deborah, Miriam, Huldah come to mind.'

"In light of all the biblical discussions I -- and many of us here -- have come to a conclusion that the Bible endorses women leadership, including teaching and preaching and pastoring, and this letter is one suggestion of a way to get such a conversation started at a local church.'

"I'm sorry to be so direct, but your words are strong enough that they deserve a firmer response."

Scot McKnight

Paul speaking now...

I've come to the firm conclusion I want my demeanor and words on my blog or Facebook and any comments I ever make about any truth as I see it in scripture on another blog or FB to reflect the spirit of Scot McKnight's response whether it's in response to someone named Jethro or whatever their name might be.

May God give us ALL a baptism of just that spirit.

Paul B.

HEROES__THEN AND NOW

I have an embarrassing confession to make. 

Were I to have made a list of who my heroes were many years ago, that list, while having many men's names and some you would know, would NOT have had a single woman's name on it. The problem was not that I had no female heroes, my sister Betty would come to mind immediately, but because back in those days the only way I thought of most women was as a "wife" even if she was "just" the "wife" of one of my heroes. [There is no downplaying of the significance of being a wife here at all. It IS sad that a "role" said more to me than did being a "person." Thus, the embarrassment part of the confession.] 

In our early pastorates the folks would sometimes forget Mary's name because they so seldom heard or used it as she was basically referred to as "our pastor's wife." That role-playing kind of thinking and environment also made me a perfect candidate for a hierarchical system of authority [That's a REAL problem] that left men in charge of everything. I read the scriptures with this filter in place for several years which was unfortunate for my own family and the churches I pastored.

I'm glad I can now say that hierarchical filter has been removed, both scripturally, since it was NEVER in the text correctly understood anyway, and personally. Were I to create a list of heroes now,  Mary, my wife, would HEAD the list. She is quick of mind, superior in intelligence, has a heart in the right place and knows as much [or more] about life, theology, the Lord, controversial issues politically, you name it, as ANYONE I know. A list of my heroes today would also contain, for differing reasons, the names of each of our daughters, our daughters-in-law, granddaughters,  and many others such as my sister, Betty,  Marcia, my pastor's wife, my niece, Sherry__well__ you see where I'm going with this. It would be a LONG list and it would NOT be gender specific. 

Truth be known,  I'm thinking every person on my imaginary list of heroes would probably object to being there. I'm thinking they should object. Heroes may be more for kids than anyone else anyway. We adults have lived long enough to see that all our supposed heroes fail in some way and they've seen us fail as well. Maybe there really is only one true Hero and if we see Him for Who He REALLY is and how He REALLY is to us, it will enable us to love, accept, forgive, enjoy and even like people right where they are since that's the way we will find He relates to us.

Perhaps our lists as adults should be called our "Most admired." If this is true consider the list of women I've mentioned above to be on my list. [Along with several un-named men for sake of brevity.]

Maybe with Him as our "hero" we need no other heroes because He's "hero enough."  Right!

Paul B