1 John 1:8

Here, I. The apostle, having supposed that even those of this heavenly communion have yet their sin, proceeds here to justify that supposition, and this he does by showing the dreadful consequences of denying it, and that in two particulars: - 1. If we say, We have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, Jo1 1:8. We must beware of deceiving ourselves in denying or excusing our sins. The more we see them the more we shall esteem and value the remedy. If we deny them, the truth is not in us, either the truth that is contrary to such denial (we lie in denying our sin), or the truth of religion, is not in us. The Christian religion is the religion of sinners, of such as have sinned, and in whom sin in some measure still dwells. The Christian life is a life of continued repentance, humiliation for and mortification of sin, of continual faith in, thankfulness for, and love to the Redeemer, and hopeful joyful expectation of a day of glorious redemption, in which the believer shall be fully and finally acquitted, and sin abolished for ever. 2. If we say, We have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us, Jo1 1:10. The denial of our sin not only deceives ourselves, but reflects dishonour upon God. It challenges his veracity. He has abundantly testified of, and testified against, the sin of the world. And the Lord said in his heart (determined thus with himself), I will not again curse the ground (as he had then lately done) for man's sake; for (or, with the learned bishop Patrick, though) the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, Gen 8:21. But God has given his testimony to the continued sin and sinfulness of the world, by providing a sufficient effectual sacrifice for sin, that will be needed in all ages, and to the continued sinfulness of believers themselves by requiring them continually to confess their sins, and apply themselves by faith to the blood of that sacrifice. And therefore, if we say either that we have not sinned or do not yet sin, the word of God is not in us, neither in our minds, as to the acquaintance we should have with it, nor in our hearts, as to the practical influence it should have upon us.

II. The apostle then instructs the believer in the way to the continued pardon of his sin. Here we have, 1. His duty in order thereto: If we confess our sins, Jo1 1:9. Penitent confession and acknowledgment of sin are the believer's business, and the means of his deliverance from his guilt. And, 2. His encouragement thereto, and assurance of the happy issue. This is the veracity, righteousness, and clemency of God, to whom he makes such confession: He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, Jo1 1:9. God is faithful to his covenant and word, wherein he has promised forgiveness to penitent believing confessors. He is just to himself and his glory who has provided such a sacrifice, by which his righteousness is declared in the justification of sinners. He is just to his Son who has not only sent him for such service, but promised to him that those who come through him shall be forgiven on his account. By his knowledge (by the believing apprehension of him) shall my righteous servant justify many, Isa 53:11. He is clement and gracious also, and so will forgive, to the contrite confessor, all his sins, cleanse him from the guilt of all unrighteousness, and in due time deliver him from the power and practice of it.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Jn_1:8-10

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves

Assumptions of sinlessness

This is a strong and clear statement, the utterance of an apostle who speaks out of the fulness of a long and ripe Christian experience, not simply in his own name, but as the organ or representative of the whole Church.

Let us consider its bearing:--

I. On our conceptions of truth. Truth is a wide word, but I use it here in St. Johns sense as equivalent to the truth of the gospel--the truth which regulates the kingdom of God. It is only by patient study and the contributions furnished by prayerful research on the part of her members, the Church can enrich herself with the full contents of Divine revelation. An infallible judgment can only exist in a perfect or sinless character. Prejudice prejudges a question in accordance with its own bias, and unduly discounts the evidence that looks in another direction. Personal feeling blinds us to considerations whose force would otherwise be recognised. Attachment to a theory, or a traditional interpretation, makes us unwilling to acknowledge frankly what tells against it, and tempts us to do violence to the natural meaning of words. To assume, therefore, that because a man is a Christian, sincere, devout, and earnest in his faith, he must be unquestionably right in his views of Scripture, is to assume what the apostle here condemns. It is to suppose that he is absolutely free from all that can limit, warp, or obscure the understanding, that is, that he has no sin. But you may ask--Does not this destroy the infallibility of the apostles themselves? They never claimed to be sinless. I answer to this that for special purposes the apostles were enriched with supernatural gifts. But still farther you may ask--What, then, does St. John mean when he says: Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things? All things, if you look at the verse that follows, St. John uses as equivalent to the truth--the distinctive truth of the gospel. As a man who does not know his own mind is at the mercy of every wind of opinion, and exercises no determining influence upon events, so the Church of Christ unless it knew her Lord, and the peculiar truths which centre in His Person, would be simply and hopelessly lost amid the conflicting eddies of the world. But this is quite a different matter from affirming that every individual Christian will come to correct conclusions on all the debatable subjects that lie within the compass of revelation. Let us, therefore, while we hold fast the faith and rest upon it, as the broad foundation of all our hope, ever remember our own proneness to go astray and to attach a disproportionate importance to secondary truths.

II. In relation to guidance in practical conduct. When we know the gospel we wish to act in accordance with it. In other words, we desire not only to be led into right views of truths, but also into right conceptions of duty. In reality these two are one. To think truly will secure our acting rightly. If we should require to be perfect or sinless men in order to be sure that our conclusions in regard to all matters connected with Revelation are certainly right, we should require to be the same kind of men to be sure that our decisions in points of duty are never wrong. In both cases we must remember that if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and that wherever sin is there is liability to error, just as there is to pride, or hatred, or open transgression. Perhaps you will say: Nobody seriously doubts this; but do we not receive in answer to prayer what will neutralise this confessed liability, and guide us to a right decision? How, then, does God answer our prayer for guidance? He gives us what the Scripture calls grace, inward enlightenment, or strength, according as the occasion may require. But you must not imagine that grace, any more than sin, is a physical quantity which may occupy a definite space within a mans nature. Grace operates throughout our whole nature, renewing the will, cleansing the affections, stimulating and purifying thought, acting as an antidote in all these directions to the power of sin. Without it sin works unqualified by any Divine control, with it sin is always under restraint. Hence no act or perception on the part of a Christian man is wholly the result of grace, but more or less of grace and more or less of sin. In short, it is the outcome or exercise of a sinful nature in which both co-exist. We may interpose an obstacle that will seriously hinder His working or wholly arrest it. Conscience may have been deadened through previous inconsistency or unfaithfulness. The heart may have grown sluggish through neglect. Our affections may have spent themselves too lavishly upon earthly things, and grown dull and indifferent towards things above. Temptation may have prevailed against us, and through pride or unwatchfulness we may have admitted strange and alien guests into the sanctuary of the soul. Is it possible that in such circumstances we should be keenly sensitive to the motions of the Divine Spirit? May we not miss the intimations we might otherwise detect, or yield but a halting and imperfect response to their monitions? The truth is, we conceive of prayer and its results in too mechanical and unspiritual a way. We imagine we are always ready and able to receive, no matter what our petitions may include. It does not always occur to us that spiritual blessings must be spiritually discerned and spiritually used. And hence a double danger ensues. When Christians pray, and the answer does not correspond to the request, their faith in prayer is apt to be shaken. They fail to realise that His answer can never be heard so long as the ear is stopped; that His grace can never enter as long as the heart is preoccupied with other things, and unwilling to surrender itself wholly to Him. Or, on the other hand, they may assume that a Divine light is leading them on, where they are following in reality the sparks of their own kindling. They become dogmatic and opinionative, when there is no warrant for their being so. They contract a self-confidence, and conviction that they are always right, which is apt to blind them to many pitfalls, and dig a ditch for their own feet. (C. Moinet, M. D.)

Self-delusion as to our state before God

It is among the most potent of the energies of sin, that it leads astray by blinding, and blinds by leading astray.

I. The apostle declares that the imagination of our own sinlessness is an inward lie. To believe or to deny the possibility of Christian perfection is to leave the motives of the spiritual life almost wholly unchanged, as long as each man believes (and who on any side doubts this?) that it is the unceasing duty of each to be as perfect as he can, and, in the holy ambition of yet completer conquest, to think nothing gained while aught remains to gain. Were a perfect man to exist, he himself would be the last to know it; for the highest stage of advancement is the lowest descent in humility. As long as this humility is necessary to the fulness of the Christian character, it would seem that it is of the essence of the constant growth in grace to see itself lowlier as God exalts it higher. Besides this operation of humility, it must be remembered that the spiritual life involves a progressively increasing knowledge of God. Now, though the spirit of man assuredly must brighten in purity as thus in faith and love it approaches the great Source of all holiness, it must also appreciate far more accurately the force of the contrast between itself and its mighty model; and thus, as it becomes relatively more perfect, it may be said to feel itself absolutely less so. Nay, I doubt not but it is the very genius of that Divine love which is the bond of perfectness, to be lovingly dissatisfied with its own inadequacy; and such a worshipper in his best hours will feel that, though love be, indeed, as these divines so earnestly insist, the fulfilling of the law, his love is itself imperfect, deficient in degree, and deficient in constancy; and that in this life it can, at best, be only the germ of that charity which, never-failing, is to form the moving principle of the life of eternity. But it is not of those, whom some would not only pronounce perfect, but enjoin to feel and know themselves such; it is not of those, who (as I would rather represent it) doubt all in themselves while they doubt nothing in Christ, that I have now to speak, but of those whose cold hearts and neglectful lives utter the bold denial of a sinlessness which the lips dare not deny; who cry out of the depths! indeed, but not for rescue or redemption; who cannot know God as a Redeemer, for they cannot feel from what He is to redeem!

II. It would be vain to think of specifying the particular, causes of the evil; we can only speak of some of the general principles on which it rests. The whole mystery of deceit must be primarily referred to the governing agency of Satan--in this sense, as in every other, the ruler of the darkness of this world. It is a living spirit with whom we have to contend, as it is a living God whom we have to aid us. The cunning of the Serpent alone can reach the master subtlety of making the soul of man do his work by being its own unpitying enemy, and traitor, and cheat; it is only the father of lies that thus can make the wretched heart a liar to itself. But then it is certain, that as God is pleased to work by means, and to approach circuitously to His ends, so, still more, is His enemy bound to the same law; and that, therefore, as the Creators path of light, through providence and grace, is occasionally discoverable by experience, and directed on principles already prepared to His Almighty purposes, so also may the crooked ways of the Evil One, similarly adjusted, be similarly sought and known.

1. The first and darkest of his works on earth is also the first and deepest fountain of the misfortune we are now lamenting--the original and inherited corruption of the human soul itself. It is ignorant of sin, just because it is naturally sinful. We cannot know our degradation, we cannot struggle, or even wish, to rise, if we have never been led to conceive the possibility of a state higher than our own. Nature can teach discontent with this world, but there her lesson well nigh closes; she talks but vaguely, and feebly, and falsely of another! Now, if this be so, have we not for this mournful unconsciousness of our personal depravity a powerful cause in that depravity itself?

2. If Nature alone--treacherous and degraded nature--is silent in denouncing sin--if she has no instinctive power to arouse herself, what shall she be when doubly and trebly indurated by habit; when the malformed limb becomes ossified; when that faculty which was destined to be, under Divine guidance, the antagonist of nature, a second nature, as it is truly called, to reform, and resist, and overlay the first--is perverted into the traitorous auxiliary of its corruption? We know not ourselves sinners, because from infancy we have breathed the atmosphere of sin; and we now breathe it, as we do the outward air, unceasingly, yet with scarcely a consciousness of the act! The professional man, for example, who may become habituated to the use of falsehood or duplicity, as little knows how to disentangle this, even in conception, from the bulk and substance of his customary business--to regard it as something separately and distinctively wrong--as men think of mentally decomposing into their chemical constituents the common water or air, every time they imbibe them. The mass of men know these, as they know their own hearts, only in the gross and the compound. Is it not thus that constant habit persuades us we have no sin by making us unceasingly sin; and increases our self-content in direct proportion as it makes it more and more perilous?

3. As men copy themselves by force of habit, they copy others by force of example; and both almost equally foster ignorance of the virulence of the evil they familiarise, and perpetually reconcile the sinner to himself. Mankind in crowds and communities tend to uniformity; as the torrents of a thousand hills, from as many different heights, meet to blend in one unbroken level. And in that union, the source of so much happiness and of so much guilt, each countenances the other to console himself; we are mutual flatterers only that the flattery may soothingly revert to our own corruptions.

4. How the power of this universality of sin around us to paralyse the sensibility of conscience is augmented by the influence of fashion and of rank--not merely to silence its voice, but to bestow grace, and attraction, and authority upon deadly sin--I need not now insist. Philosophers tell us that the least oscillation in the system of the material universe propagates a secret thrill to its extremity; it is so in the every act of social man; but the disorders of the upper classes are publicly and manifestly influential--they are as if the central mass itself of the system were shaken loose, and all its retinue of dependent worlds hurled in confusion around it.

5. But to example and authority, thus enlisted in the ranks of evil, and thus fortifying the false security of our imaginary innocence, must be added such considerations as the tendency of pleasure itself, or of indolence, to prolong this deception, and our natural impatience of the pain of self-disapproval. Now you know there are two ways of easing an aching joint--by healing its disease or by paralysing the limb. And there are two ways of escaping an angry conscience--by ceasing from the evil that provokes it or by resolutely refusing to hear its voice, which soon amounts to silencing it forever. And all this proceeds in mysterious silence! There are no immediate visible attestations of Gods displeasure to startle or affright. All our customary conceptions of the justice of heaven are taken from the tribunals of earth, and on earth punishment ordinarily dogs the heels of crime. Hence, where the punishment is not direct, we forget that the guilt can have existed. The very immutability of the laws of visible nature, the ceaseless recurrence of those vast revolutions that make the annals of the physical universe, and the confidence that we instinctively entertain of the stability of the whole material system around us, while they are the ground of all our earthly blessings, and while they are, to the reason, a strong proof of Divine superintendence, are as certainly to the imagination a constant means of deadening our impressions of the possibility or probability of Divine interposition. Surely the God will break forth at length from His hidden sanctuary, and break forth, as of old upon the Mount, in fire and the smoke of a furnace. (Prof. W. A. Butler.)

Deceiving ourselves

How many are there in this congregation, I wonder, who would really say to themselves, We have no sin? I do not mean, would say it just in that form. Of course not. We are too well educated for that. But practically would say it, and would resent with considerable indignation that anyone else should call them sinners. I want you to consider how thus we do deceive ourselves.

1. In the first place, we balance off against our sins certain pseudo virtues. We keep, not very correctly, and certainly not with very good bookkeeping, a debtor and creditor account. Over against the evil in our lives we set certain credit marks. We attend church with regularity--perhaps we say our prayers, as the phrase is; perhaps we read our Bible, if we are not too much driven in the morning with engagements, or too sleepy at night to take it in. And therefore we are virtuous. It is very curious how loth men are to accept this most fundamental and simple truth of religion that God is a righteous God and demands righteousness of His children, and demands nothing else. So the ancient Jew was ready to give Him sacrifice and fast days and pilgrimages; and the ancient Pharisee stood up and prayed within himself, saying, I thank God I am not as these other men are, extortioners, adulterers, unjust, or even as this publican; I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all I possess. Mr. Pharisee, are you fair minded in your dealing and honourable in your work with other men? I fast twice a week. Are you kind in your family, patient with your children, chivalric to your wife? I fast twice every week. Did you ever cheat a man in a bargain? I give tithes of all I possess. Have you ever had a share in political corruption? Oh, it is an old trick, this balancing of one thing over against another, and thinking ourselves excused from righteousness by something else than righteousness. We wonder that in the Middle Ages men would put money into the coffers of the Church and think that balanced their iniquity. We will have no such system of indulgences as that; but there is many a person today in the nineteenth century who lives a life as grasping, as selfish, as covetous, as greedy, as ambitious as his neighbour, and thinks the account is balanced because he goes to church and says his prayers, or because he has at times ideals in which he rejoices. He thinks he is a Christian because he admires Christ; because sometimes his heart fills with emotion as he sings.

2. We assume virtues that are not our own, and think ourselves virtuous because of them. Men pride themselves on their family. Yes, it is a good thing to belong to a good family. But what have you and I done in our family? How much wiser or richer or better or nobler or worthier is it because we are members of it? Men glorify themselves because they are Americans. I thank God that I am not a Turk, that I am not a Russian, that I am not even an Englishman--I am an American. What have you done that is worthy of the name America? That is the real question. What have you done to make politics purer, to make honour brighter, to make the America of the future more assured? So men pride themselves on their Church. I am a member of a benevolent church--look at the list of its contributions; I am a member of a working Church--see its activities, how much it is doing. How much are you doing? How much did you put into that list of benefactions? You are not generous because you belong to a generous Church. Men that laugh openly at the theological doctrine of imputation practise it continually, only they impute to themselves, not the virtues of their God or of their Christ, but the virtues of their fellow men. Men believe in the solidarity of the race for the purpose of satisfying their pride, but not for the purpose of developing their humility.

3. As men take the virtues that do not belong to them, see them and rejoice in them, so they do not take the vices that belong to them. They see the sins of others--not their own. The spendthrift can read you a homily on the vices of the miser, but it never occurs to him that there is any vice in the life he is leading; the miser will read you an eloquent sermon on the vices of the spendthrift, but it never occurs to him that there is no sin in clutching a dollar until it cries. How quick are we to see the vices of our neighbours; how slow to turn our eyes upon our own!

4. We disguise our vices. We give them false names; we dress them up as virtues and call them such, and really think they are. And this young man who never has earned a dollar in his life by solid, honest industry, takes the money that his father has earned by hard industry and throws it freely, hither and yon, among his fellows, and calls it generosity, and thinks it is. He does not know that it is mean to spend in lavish living what another has toiled to acquire.

5. We change the form of our sin, and then think we are done with it. We think that sin consists in the shape it assumes; we do not know that it consists in the evil heart that beats within. We read our Ten Commandments over and say to ourselves, Thou shalt not kill. Thank God we do not live in a murdering age, when men go forth to slay and kill. Thou shalt not steal. Thank God there are no robber barons left that ravage the land and leave it desolate. Thou shalt not commit adultery. We are in America, and we will have no polygamy under our flag. And still the cry of the children goes up from the slums, and the polluted air squeezes the life out of the little ones, and they die three times as fast as they would in healthy atmosphere, because greed walks the earth. Lust there, as in polygamy. Covetousness there, as in robber barons. Murder there, as in unsheathed swords. We have not ceased to sin because we have changed the form of our sinning.

6. And when we can no longer disguise from ourselves that we are doing wrong, we hide behind all manner of excuses. We say: Yes, I admit this is not quite right, but everybody does it. Or, I admit this is not quite according to the Gospel idea], but the Gospel ideals are not practicable in the nineteenth century. Or, I could not help it; I was made so. And so, little by little, we creep up to that excuse so common in our day: There is no real moral evil, there is no real sin. What men call sin is only good in the making. It is the greenness of an apple that by and by will be ripe. It is the foolishness of a child who by and by will be wiser. The fall is only a fall upward. Let us not trouble ourselves, therefore, but wait. There is a good God, and by and by He will bring all things right. Think Canada thistles are wheat in the making; think a broken arm is an athletes arm in the making; think that diphtheria and scarlet fever are health in the making; but do not think that to be estranged, self-willed, and self-indulgent is holiness and righteousness and goodness in the making. But more than of any other class deceive themselves by not thinking about the matter at all. They cast up accounts to see how their finances balance; disease comes into the house, and the doctor inquires as to their health, and so they ascertain their physical health balance, but they never strike a balance in the moral realm. No captain on the Atlantic Ocean will allow twenty-four hours to go by without taking his reckoning, if he can, and finding out where he is. But it will be very strange if in this congregation this Sabbath morning, large as is the proportion of professing Christians, there are not many of us that never have taken an observation and do not know or even ask ourselves what is our moral latitude and longitude. (Lyman Abbott.)

The heart sinful

The seeds of all my sins are in my heart, and perhaps the more dangerous that I do not see them. (R. McCheyne.)

Sins of heart

Motives that seem to you as white as the light may prove, when seen through His prism, to be many coloured. Aims that seem straight as a line may, when tested by the right standard, prove indirect and tortuous. We shall find at last that, in many cases, what we have thought devotion was indevout; what we have thought love was struck through with the taint of selfishness; what we have thought faith was utterly vitiated with the poison of unbelief. (C. Stanford, D. D.)

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive--

The primary condition of the Divine fellowship fulfilled in the believing compression of a guileless spirit

I. It is not deliberate hypocrisy that we are (verse 8) warned against; but a far more subtle form of falsehood, and one apt more easily to beset us, as believers, even when most earnestly bent on walking in the light as God is in the light. In its subtlest form it is a kind of mysticism more akin to the visionary cast of ancient and oriental musing than to the more practical turn of thought and feeling that commonly prevails among us. Look at yonder attenuated and etherealised recluse, who has been grasping in successive philosophic systems, or schools of varied theosophic discipline, the means of extricating himself out of the dark bondage of carnal and worldly pollution, and soaring aloft into the light of pure spiritual freedom and repose. After many trials of other schemes, Christianity is embraced by him; not, however, as a discovery of the way in which God proposes to deal with him, but rather as an instrument by which he may deal with himself; a medicine to be self-administered; a remedy to be self-applied. By the laboured imitation of Christ, or by a kind of forced absorption into Christ, considered simply as the perfect or ideal, his soul, emancipated from its bodily shackles and its earthly entanglements, is to reach a height of serene illumination Which no bodily or earthly stain can dim. From such aspirations, the next step, and it is a short one, is into the monstrous fanaticism which would make spiritual illumination compatible with carnal indulgence and worldly lust; his inward and sinless purity being so enshrined in a certain Divine sublimity and transcendentalism of devotion that outward defilement cannot touch it. Church history, beginning even with the apostles own day, furnishes more than one instance of men thus deplorably deceiving themselves, saying they have no sin,

II. As to the confession (verse 9), it is the confession of men walking in the light, as God is in the light; having the same medium of vision that God has; it is the continual confession of men continually so walking and so seeing. For the forgiveness, on the faith of which and with a view to which we are thus always to be confessing our sins, will always be found to be a very complete treatment of our case. What is the treatment? The sins we confess are so forgiven that we are cleansed from all unrighteousness with regard to them. The forgiveness is so free, so frank, so full, so unreserved, that it purges our bosom of all reserve, all reticence, all guile; in a word, of all unrighteousness. And it is so because it is dispensed in faithfulness and righteousness; He is faithful and just in forgiving our sins. He to whom, as always thus dealing with us, we always thus submit ourselves, is true and righteous in all His ways, and specially in His way of meeting the confidence we place in Him when we confess our sins.

III. If, in the face of such a faithful manner of forgiveness on the part of God, we continue to shrink from that open dealing and guileless confession which our walking in the light as God is in the light implies--we not only wrong ourselves and do violence to our own consciousness and our own conscience; but, saying that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and His Word is not in us (verse 10). To prefer now, even for a single instant, or with reference to a single sin, the miserable comfort of wrapping ourselves in fig leaves and hiding among the trees of the garden, to the unspeakable joy of coming forth and asking God to deal with us according to His own loving faithfulness and righteousness and truth--that surely is a high affront to Him and to His Word, as well as a foolish mistake for ourselves. There can be no fellowship of light between us and Him if such unworthy sentiments of dark suspicion and reserve as this implies are insinuating themselves into our bosoms. Let me rather, taking Him at His word, try the more excellent way of carrying with me always, in the full confidence of loving fellowship, into the secret place of my God, all that is upon my mind, my conscience, nay heart; all that is harassing, or burdening, or tempting me; my present matter of care or subject of thought, whatever that may be. I would keep beck nothing from my God. I will not deceive myself by keeping silence about my sin. I will not make my God a liar--I will not do my God and Father so great a wrong as to give Him the lie--by refusing entrance into my soul to that Word of His which gives light, even the light of life. (R. S. Candlish, D. D.)

Denial of sin and confession of sin with their respective consequences

I. The denial of sin. If we say that we have no sin, etc. To the enlightened Christian mind it is a matter of wonder how any sane man could deny his own sinfulness.

1. Some claim an absolute exemption from sin. Such were the Pharisees of old.

2. Some say they have no sin, by claiming a relative exemption from sin. They lay stress upon their religious observances, their morality, their benevolence, their fair dealing, etc.

II. The consequence of this denial of sin. We deceive ourselves, etc. In worldly matters to be deceived is a grave consideration. For thus to deny our sin is--

1. To deny indisputable facts.

2. To deny the infallible testimony of the Word of God.

3. To deny the moral propriety of the scheme of redemption. The whole need not a physician, etc. No sinner, no Saviour.

III. The confession of sin. If we confess our sin, etc.

IV. The consequence of confession of sin. He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (D. Clark.)

Honest dealing with God

God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all; and consequently He cannot have fellowship with darkness. Our tendency to be false is illustrated in the chapter before us, for we find three grades of it there. There is first the man who lies: If we say we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. We say and do that which is untrue if while abiding under the influence of sin and falsehood we claim to have fellowship with God. If this tendency is unchecked, you will find the man growing worse and doing according to the eighth verse, wherein it is written, We deceive ourselves. Here the utterer of the falsehood has come to believe his own lie; he has blinded his understanding and befooled his conscience till he has become his own dupe. He will soon reach the complete development of his sin, which is described in the tenth verse, when the man, who first lied, and then, secondly, deceived himself, becomes so audacious in his falseness as to blaspheme the Most Holy by making Him a liar. It is impossible to say where sin will end; the beginning of it is as a little water in which a bird may wash, and scatter half the pool in drops, but in its progress sin, like the brook, swells into a torrent deep and broad. Our only safe course is to come to God as we are, and ask Him to deal with us, in Christ Jesus, according to our actual condition.

I. Let us consider the three courses laid open before us in the text. I will suppose that we are all earnestly anxious to be in fellowship with God. Our deceitful heart suggests to us, first, that we should deny our present sinfulness, and so claim fellowship with God, on the ground that we are holy, and so may draw near to the Holy God. I mind not how honest your parentage, nor how noble your ancestry, there is in you a bias towards evil; your animal passions, nay more, your mental faculties are unhinged and out of order, and unless some power beyond your own shall keep your desires in check, you will soon prove by overt acts of transgression the depravity of your nature. It is not uncommon for others to arrive at the same conclusion by another road. They have attained to the audacity to say that they have no sin by divers feelings and beliefs which they, as a rule, ascribe to the Holy Spirit. Now, if any man says that all tendency to sin is gone from him, that his heart is at all times perfect and his desires always pure, so that he has no sin in him whatsoever, he may have travelled a very different road from the character we just now warned, but he has reached the same conclusion, and we have but one word for both boasters, it is the word of our text--If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Some, however, have reached this position by another route. They plead that though it may be they have sin, yet they are not bad at heart; they look upon sin as a technical term, and though they admit in words that they have sin, yet they practically deny it by saying, I have a good heart at bottom; I always was well intentioned from the very first. I know I have--of course we all have--erred here and there, but you cannot expect a fellow to be perfect. I cant say I see anything to find fault with. In so saying or feeling you prove that the truth is not in you--you are either deplorably ignorant as to what holiness is, or else you are wilfully uttering a falsehood; in either case the truth is not in you. A fourth sort of persons say the same thing, for albeit they confess that they have sinned, they think themselves now to be in a proper and fit condition to receive pardon. We have prayed, say they; we have repented, we have read the Scriptures, we have attended public worship, and are as right as we can be: we have tenderness and contrition, and every right and proper feeling; our wonder is that we do not receive salvation. The idea of fitness is only another form of the vain notion of merit, and it cannot find an inch of foothold in the gospel. True penitents can see nothing in themselves to commend them to mercy, and therefore they cast themselves upon undeserved favour, feeling both unworthy and unfit, but hoping to receive forgiveness freely. The second course which is open to us is the one which I trust the Divine Spirit may lead us to follow, to lay bare our case before God exactly as it stands. Lord, I own with shame that as my nature is corrupt such has my life been; I am a sinner both by nature and by practice. Make the confession of the two things, of the cause and the effect, of the original depravity--the foul source, and then of the actual sin which is the polluted stream. When a sinner feels he has no natural fitness for receiving the grace of God; when a broken spirit cries, Oh, what a wretch I am! Not only my past sin but my present feelings disqualify me for the love of God; I seem to be made of hell-hardened steel, he is confessing that sin is in him. It is in your vileness that sovereign grace oer sin abounding will come to you and cleanse you, and therefore the sooner you come to the honest truth the better for you, for the sooner will you obtain joy and peace through believing in Christ. The text means just this--treat God truthfully, and He will treat you truthfully. The blood of Jesus Christ has made a full atonement, and God will be faithful to that atonement. He will deal with you on the grounds of the covenant of grace, of which the sacrifice of Jesus is the seal, and therein also He will be true to you. Now, there are still some who say, Well, yes, I think I could go to God in that way, sir, but oh! my past sins prevent me. I could tell Him I am sinful, I could ask Him to renew my nature, I could lay myself bare before Him, but oh 1 my past sins; all might yet be well if I had not so sinned! Ah, that brings out a third course which lies before you, which I hope you will not follow, namely, to deny actual sin. The very thing which you cannot do would seal your doom, for it would lead you to make God a liar, and so His Word could not abide in you.

II. Let us now consider how we can follow this course, which is the only right one, namely, to confess our sin. Do not shirk the facts or shrink from knowing their full force, but feel the power of the condemning law. Then recollect your individual sins; recall them one by one--those greater sins, those huge blots upon your character, do not try to forget them. If you have forgotten them, raise them from the grave and think them over, and feel them as your own sins. Think of your sins of omission, your failures in duty, your short, comings in spirit. Repent of what you have done, and what you have not done. Think of your sins of heart. How cold has that heart been towards your Saviour! Your sins of thought, how wrongly your mind has often judged; your sins of imagination, what filthy creatures your imagination has portrayed in lively colours on the wall. Think of all the sins of your desires and delights, and hopes and fears. Let us take care that we confess all. And then let us try to see the heinousness of all sin as an offence against a kind, good, loving God, a sin against a perfect law, intended for our good.

III. Let us consider why we should confess sin.

1. I shall say first, do so because it is right. Religious lie telling is a dreadful thing, and there is plenty of it; but if I could be saved by masking my condition before God, I would not like to be saved in that way.

2. Moreover, upon some of us it is imperative, because we cannot do anything else.

3. Besides, suppose we have tried to appear before God what we are not, God has not been deceived, for He is not mocked. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The conviction and confession of sin

The apostle had said, The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. But who are understood by us? Certainly not all men. The impenitent, and unbelieving, and ungodly, have not been cleansed from their sin.

I. Conviction of sin. If we say that we have no sin, etc. Many will own they are sinners, and yet think they may come to God as they are, independent of Christ and His blood. They do not say so, but they act so. Listen to their prayers, and they call upon God without any mention of His Son. It is obvious they have no sense of their real position in His sight. They have not entered into the spirit of Christs words, No man cometh unto the Father but by Me. In this sense they say they have no sin. The same may be said of their fellowship with Christ. They may think of Him as a model of perfection. But His death does not specially affect them. They attach no peculiar efficacy to the shedding of His blood. And the reason is, they have no adequate sense of their sin. So also as to fellowship with believers. They can meet them as friends, and neighbours, and brethren, but they have no perception of the communion arising out of the blood of Christ. They do not feel either its necessity or influence as a bond of union. Of all such the apostle testifies they deceive themselves. They are deceived by an imagination of their own excellence, while in reality they are dead in sin. It is said of them farther, the truth is not in them. Its light may be all around them, but it has never penetrated to the inner man. Such was the condition of the church at Laodicea (Rev_3:17-18). The same admonition and counsel are applicable to all who have not an adequate idea of their sinfulness, such an idea as to make them feel that their only hope is the blood of Christ.

II. Confession of sin. If we confess, etc. There is a close and natural connection between conviction and confession. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. If the heart be touched by a sense of sin it cannot be restrained from pouring forth the accents of humiliation. What are the features of such confession? It is sincere, coming from the heart. It is full, no attempt being made to hide anything from God or ourselves. It is special, not satisfied with acknowledging sin generally, but noting special offences and dwelling on their aggravations. It fills the mind with grief for sin. It rouses to the hatred of it. It constrains to an immediate and total abandonment of it. It is such as was exemplified by David (Psa_2:1-12). To such confession there is the most gracious encouragement in the text, If we confess our sins. This is all we are required to do. We are not sent on some toilsome pilgrimage, or subjected to some round of self-mortification. We are to come to God as we are--now--and with the whole burden of our sin upon our hearts. Then God is faithful to forgive us our sins. He has said in His Word He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. It is not presumption, therefore, to expect pardon on confession. On the contrary, it is distrust of God to doubt it. And observe the gracious yet warning words that follow, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. They are designed to meet the jealousy of the awakened soul. We are taught that God will accompany His pardon with sanctifying grace. Our plan would be to put purity first and pardon next. But Gods plan is the reverse. We are to accept pardon at once, and it will be accompanied and followed by holiness.

III. Habitual penitence for sin. If we say we have not sinned, etc. Observe the difference between this verse and the eighth. There the expression is, if we say we have no sin; here it is, if we say that we have not sinned. The former describes the condition of the man who does not feel his present sinfulness, the latter of him who justifies his past conduct. The former needs to be convinced of his sinfulness, the latter to be exercised aright about his past transgressions. In the one verse there is reference to the beginning of the Divine life, in the other to the maintenance of it. The one consists in the conviction which brings the sinner to the blood of Christ for salvation, the other in the habit of penitence which must accompany him as long as he lives. Let me exhort you to cultivate this habit. Many important ends are served by it. It will keep us mindful of what we once were, and of how much we are debtors to Divine grace. It will stimulate us to devote ourselves more unreservedly to God in the future. It will promote watchfulness against temptation. It will strengthen faith. Calling to mind how graciously God dealt with us in other days, we are encouraged to trust Him to the end. It will kindle repentance. Like Ephraim of old, it will lead us to say, What have I to do any more with idols? It will promote holiness. It will urge perseverance. (James Morgan, D. D.)

Confession of sin

There are two ways in which men are wont to make confession of their sins, which appear to my mind the same as making no true confession at all. One is to acknowledge sin, in general terms, as a customary and proper part of public, domestic, or private devotion, but without any accompanying feeling of contrition, desire of amendment, or even thought of personal application. The other is to confess our sinfulness in such extravagant terms that the force of the confession is destroyed by its palpable discordance with nature and truth. It is to confess that we are all utterly vile and abominable. In a common congregation of worshippers such language is senseless and nugatory. It is so, because it is felt to be inapplicable, even by those who think it religious to use and assent to it.

I. Do we then say that we have no sin? Certainly not. If we say so, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. There is not one of us who will not see loads of sin pressing heavily upon his life if he will send his reflections back and impartially retrace its history.

1. We can all of us look back on our childhood. And what see we there? Perfect innocence, spotless virtue, blameless affections? Who is there of us who never caused his parents hearts to ache--I do not mean ignorantly, but knowingly and recklessly?

2. Is our survey more or less satisfactory, do our reflections become more or less gratifying, when we leave the days of our childhood and come forward to those of our youth? Youth is lifes seedtime. Did we prepare ourselves for the harvest as we ought to have done? Did we acquire all the knowledge that was within our reach? What attention did we pay to the formation of our character? Did we guard it anxiously, and mould it carefully, and keep it away from polluting influences, and lay strong foundations for it, and build it up, and beautify it, after the best and purest models; or did we give it over to chance, to custom, and to the world? Did our Maker have as much of our time, thoughts, desires and obedience as was due to Him?

3. And I call on those who have advanced into the middle regions of life to say whether, when youth passed away, folly and sin went with it, and left their maturer years to the peaceful and undisturbed dominion of wisdom and virtue. Have they acquired such habitual self-command that they constantly and willingly obey the commandments of God? Do they walk within their houses with perfect hearts? Do they never take a hard and griping advantage of their neighbours weakness, or ignorance, or necessity?

II. What then will be the effect of a true confession of sin? The mere verbal confession of sin can be of no possible benefit to us; can do us no more good than the repetition of any other words, with or without meaning. But if our confession is accompanied by a sincere conviction of sin, we shall be forgiven and cleansed by a faithful and just God. There is nothing vindictive in the government of God. We shall not be made to suffer for sins which we have renounced, and which our spirit now looks upon with abhorrence, as foreign and hateful to it. The character which we have formed here will accompany us to the unseen world; and as it has worked out our pardon here, so has it prepared for us eternal felicity. (F. W. P. Greenwood, D. D.)

Confession

Prayer (in the wide sense of the word) is a varied melody, now rising, now falling upon the ear. It has its bass notes and its high notes, its plaintive cadences and its jubilant cadences, or (to transfer the imagery from the domain of sound to that of sight), it has its gleams of sunlight and its depths of shadow. It is with the low and plaintive cadences of prayer that we purpose to deal, in other words, we shall speak of confession of sin.

I. Confession of sin should be a real element in the devotional system of each one of us. Confession is nothing more nor less than the practical recognition of our sinfulness and of our sins. Now both our sinfulness and our sins are always with us in this life. As saith the Scripture, There is no man that sinneth not.

II. If Confession is to become in reality part and parcel of the religious system of each individual--if it is to enter as an element into his devotion--it must not be pointless and vague, but definite and precise. It must turn upon those particular faults of conduct and character, of which we are personally conscious. It must aim, not merely at bringing to light erroneous conduct, but at ascertaining the general drift and current of our character. It must not rest contented with a general survey of our faults; but must unmask, if possible, the ruling passion. But it may be asked, Does not our Church place in the forefront of her public worship a general confession; a confession whose ample terms embrace all mankind universally, and which seems to eschew all details of wrong sentiment and wrong action? No doubt she does so; but her intention, here and elsewhere in her formularies, is that under the general expression should be represented in the mind of each individual that individuals case. Each man is to glance mentally at his own sins as he repeats the general confession; at his own wants as he follows the collects and Lords Prayer; at his own mercies as he follows the general thanksgiving. It is to be found in that ordinance of the Levitical law, which prescribes the expiation of the sin of the whole congregation of Israel. In every genuine act of public confession, hearts from all quarters encircle the Victim, and bring each one its own burden and each one its own bitterness, to lay it with the outstretched hand of faith on that sacred and devoted Head.

III. But does the Church of England recommend to her sons and daughters in the matter of confession nothing of a more specific character than what we have announced? What the Prayer book says amounts to this: If, on examination of your state of health, you find yourself sick, I recommend your seeking out and resorting to a discreet and learned physician. The implication clearly is, whatever some devout and good men may have conceived to the contrary, that, if we find ourselves well, or at least able to treat our own case, we shall not resort to him. Is not this the plain rule of reason in the analogous case of the treatment of the body? I am not ignorant of the answer which may be made. Is there my one of us, our opponents ask triumphantly, who enjoys spiritual health, who has not a sin-sick soul--any one of us who has not to take up into his mouth this testimony respecting himself, There is no health in me? Then, if all be spiritual invalids, all should resort regularly and habitually to the physician. We reply by admitting fully that every soul of man is sinful, and as such has in it the seeds of spiritual disease. But this is a totally different thing from saying that every conscience of man is morbid, perplexed with scruples, agitated with timid doubts, and unable by Gods grace to guide itself. Confession to our Lord Jesus Christ, and that self-scrutiny which must precede it, are most healthful practices; but they require to have their tendencies counterbalanced and held in equipoise by devotional exercises of a contrary kind. Self-introspection may easily, and will certainly, become morbid if it be not checked by a constant outlooking of the mind. Look into yourself to see your own vileness, look out of yourself to Christ. The knowledge and deep consciousness of thy dark guilt is only valuable as a background on which to paint more vividly to thy minds eye the rainbow colours of the love of Jesus. Walk abroad ever and anon, and expatiate freely in the sunlight of Gods grace and love in Christ. A religion, if it is to be strong, must be joyous; and joyous it cannot be without the light of Gods love in Christ shining freely into every corner of the soul. (Dean Goulburn.)

The true comfort

Suppose the case of a man, the victim of a mortal disease, yet clinging eagerly to life: that man may find comfort from persuading himself that his complaint is but trifling and will speedily disappear; this is a false, deceitful comfort. Or he may derive comfort from knowing that, though his complaint be in itself deadly, yet he has at hand an infallible specific, in the use of which his disease will be eradicated, and his health restored. This is a true and solid comfort. It is even so in the concerns of the soul. The sinner may find comfort from trying to persuade himself that his sins, if any, are inconsiderable, and do not seriously affect the safety of the soul. This is a false and unscriptural source of comfort. Or else he may have a deep, overwhelming sense of his own vileness, of his naturally guilty, hopeless state, and yet be comforted by the assurance of Gods forgiving love in Christ. This is a sure, Scriptural, and solid ground of comfort.

I. There is a false ground of comfort that is here condemned. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. While all, in so many words, allow that they are sinners, yet very many so qualify that confession as in effect to say that they have no sin.

1. One, for example, when appealed to, says, Oh, I know, of course, that Im a sinner. All are sinners, but Im not a great sinner. I am not, perhaps, what I ought to be; I have no doubt done many things that were wrong. Everyone does the same; but I have committed no sin of a gross or heinous character.

2. Others, while admitting that they are sinners--grievous sinners--yet so extenuate and explain away their sins as virtually to affirm that they have no sin. They have done very wickedly; but then it has been through surprise, or ignorance, or the influence of others: the temptation has been so strong, and their natural weakness so great, that they were overcome; they had, however, no deliberately wicked purpose, and God will, they trust, on that ground, mercifully overlook their sins.

3. Others, again, while admitting that their sins are neither few nor trifling, yet trust that their good deeds so preponderate as that God will in His mercy overlook what they have done amiss. They open a kind of debtor and creditor account with heaven. May it not be feared that much of almsgiving, much of attendance at the house of God, and at sacraments, is to be ascribed to motives not very different from these?

II. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. The confession here meant must be, of course, not a mere cold and formal one--the mere confession of the lip. No; it must be sincere and earnest, the unveiling of the heart to Him to whom all hearts be open. It must, furthermore, be penitent and contrite; we must be taught to mourn over sin. We must confess our sins, then, with a sincere, penitent, believing heart; and, if so, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. But are not Gods faithfulness and justice pledged to punish sin and to destroy the sinner? Yes, out of Christ it is so, but in Christ God stands to the sinner in a new covenant relationship, and He who was faithful and just to destroy is, in Christ, faithful and just to forgive us our sins. God is faithful to forgive; for God has promised, through Christ, forgiveness to the believing penitent; and He is faithful that promised. (W. A. Cornwall, M. A.)

Compression of sins and the power of absolution

If we say that we have no sin, we sin in saying so, for we give God the lie (verse 10).

I. The necessity of confession. If we confess God will forgive, not otherwise. Though we cannot of ourselves avoid those sins without the grace of God, yet we might, if we would have that grace which would enable us to avoid them. And if man hath not this grace of God, the want is not in God, but in ourselves. Our confession must be with a purpose of obedience for the time to come. Not everyone that confesseth, but he that confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall have mercy.

II. Where is any to take our confessions? Here is none in the text to confess to, if we had a mind to it. None indeed expressly named, but here is one plainly enough described, that can pardon our sins and purge us from all our iniquities; to whom can we better confess than to Him that hath the power of absolution? Would you know who this He is? I, even I, saith God, am He who blotteth out all your iniquities, and that forgiveth your sins (Isa_43:25). (Bp. Sparrow.)

Confession of sins the sure condition of forgiveness and cleansing

I. Confession of sin. What is it? Everyone admits, in a general way, that confession of sin is a necessary condition of forgiveness. But in how many cases is this confession altogether unreal!

1. Every sin must be confessed. We must deal honestly with God. We must tell Him all that is in our hearts.

2. No sin must be excused. It must be confessed precisely as it is. Nothing must be added to it, nothing taken from it; there must be no false or affected exaggeration, and still less must there be any attempt at palliation.

3. Sin when once confessed must be at once forsaken. Joined with this inward abandonment of sin there must of necessity be the outward abandonment also. We must forsake our sins, both in disposition and in action. We must forsake our sin and follow righteousness.

II. Forgiveness of sins and cleansing from unrighteousness. God bestows this double blessing on those who confess their sins. Two benefits are spoken of; yet, though separable in idea, they are not divided in fact.

1. Forgiveness of sins. To understand what this is we must consider what effects sin produces on those who commit it in their relations towards God.

(1) It calls forth the anger of God.

(2) It condemns the sinner to the punishment of death. The soul that sinneth, it shall die; the wages of sin is death.

2. Cleansing from unrighteousness is the second benefit which God bestows on those who confess their sins. Righteousness is not only imputed to us, it is also implanted within us. We are renewed unto righteousness.

III. The certainty that where sin is confessed, it will be forgiven and cleansed away.

1. Because He is faithful. God is always true to Himself; He cannot deny Himself. One is true to himself when he does that which he must do, according to the constitution of his whole being. And so it is with God … God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all; He is only, altogether, and always, Light; He must, therefore, ever manifest Himself as such. He has bound Himself to us by His covenant of mercy, and His covenant is inviolable. If we confess our sins, we are walking in the Light; and God, who is Light, cannot deny Him self, cannot prove unfaithful to that fellowship of Light.

2. But, again, our confidence rests not only upon the faithfulness of God, but also upon His righteous ness. The righteousness of God not only prompts Him to punish unrighteousness; it also prompts Him to cleanse and deliver from unrighteousness. And surely, if the righteousness of God is vindicated and magnified in the punishment of men for their unrighteousness, much more thoroughly is it vindicated, and much more illustriously is it magnified, in delivering men from their unrighteousness. Have we not here a hopeless schism, a division of righteousness against itself? The solution of this problem depends on the following considerations:

(1) All things are possible with God. His resources are infinite. His wisdom is unsearchable. We may be sure that He is able to solve the problem, that He is able to meet and satisfy both demands of righteousness.

(2) God, in His manifold wisdom, has solved the problem. The Cross of Christ, the death of Gods Son, supplies a full answer to every question. Righteousness has been satisfied, in all its requirements, by the sacrifice which was offered once for all on the accursed tree. All unrighteousness of men has been judged, condemned, and punished in the death of Christ; all unrighteousness of men has been abolished, cleansed, and purged away in the death of Christ.

(3) But, again, both aspects of righteousness are conserved by the way in which we become partakers of the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. It is, as we have seen, by confession of our sins that we attain this. Now, when we confess our sins we do two things, we condemn our sins, and we renounce them. We cease to yield our members as weapons of unrighteousness unto sin; we henceforth yield our members as weapons of righteousness unto God. Being made free from sin, we become the servants of righteousness. All this is brought about through our being made partakers of Christs death. (J. J. Glen-Kippen.)

Confession of sin

I. Confession must be particular. While you confess only in general terms, you confess others sins rather than yours; but this is it to descend into our own hearts, and find out our just and real debt; to charge ourselves as narrowly as we can, that He may discharge us fully, and forgive us freely.

II. Confession must be universal, that is, of all sin, without partiality or respect to any sin. I doubt if a man can truly repent of any sin, except he in a manner repent of all sin, or truly forsake one sin, except there be a divorcement of the heart from and forsaking of all sin; therefore the apostle saith, If we confess our sins, not sin taking in all the body and collection of them. Then there lies a necessity upon us to confess what we have; we have all sin, and so should confess all sins.

III. Confession should be perpetuated and continued as long as we are in this life. That stream of corruption runs continually, let the stream of your contrition and confession run as incessantly; and there is another stream of Christs blood, that runs constantly too, to cleanse you. (H. Binning.)

Honest confession best

If you have done wrong, dont go days and weeks under conviction of sin. Suppose that I had lied to my partner in business. Suppose he were to charge it upon me, and I were to try to evade the matter, and were to oblige him to chase me through a whole week, until at last he cornered me so closely that, seeing escape to be impossible, I gave in, and said, Well, I have lied, and I am sorry, just because I could not help yielding. How mean a spirit should I thus show! How much better if, upon sudden press of temptation I had sinned, for me to stop at once when the lie was charged upon me, and say honestly, blushing with shame, Yes, I am wrong, all wrong. I am sorry, and will do so no more. Why will not men, when they see their guilt and danger, face right about, and make short work with themselves? (H. W. Beecher.)

Insincere confession

Pastor R., of Elberfeld, was once sent for to see a dying man. He found the patient really very ill, and entered at once into an earnest conversation about the state of his soul. The patient began, in the strongest terms, to describe himself as the very chief of sinners, and declared that his past life filled him with abhorrence. He continued so long in this strain that the pastor could scarcely find an opportunity to speak. At last, taking advantage of a pause, he remarked gently, It was then really true what I heard of you? The patient raised himself in the bed, stared in astonishment at the pastor, and demanded, What, then, have you heard? No one, in truth, can say anything against me; and continued, in a strain of unbounded self-satisfaction, to tell of his virtues, and recount all his good deeds, pouring out at the same time a torrent of execrations against the slanderers who had tried to injure his character. It was not from foes or slanderers, said the pastor, that I heard it, but from yourself; and now it grieves me to hear that you do not believe what you said. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Divine forgiveness

Consciousness of sin in every man. Hence the inevitable need of forgiveness. Is there any answer on the part of God to this need? Current answers--

1. He never forgives: He cannot, in the nature of the case. Moral forces are as irresistible, moral laws as inexorable as physical laws. The man who breaks law must take the consequences. This is the answer of the positivist and the Deist. A terrible response to our keen need.

2. He forgives capriciously: Those born of good parents, who have lived in Christian society, who have a fortunate mental constitution, who have done nothing flagrantly bad, such are forgiven. This answer is still more terrible than the other; it shows favour to those who have had better opportunities. It cannot be admitted.

3. He forgives universally: without reference to circumstances, or distinction of character, because He is kind. This is the worst answer of all. By it moral law is aunulled, and chaos comes into the spiritual universe. God ceases to have regard to His holiness. It is incredible that this should be the answer to mans need of forgiveness.

4. The answer of the gospel: God forgives universally on the ground of the atonement, on the condition of repentance and faith. This answer suits Gods character and mans need. It makes forgiveness attainable, and upholds moral order. It shows the preciousness of the Bible, argues its Divine origin, the privilege of accepting Gods offer, and the infinite hazard of neglecting or refusing it. (R. S. Storrs.)

Justice satisfied

(with Rom_3:27):--When the soul is seriously impressed with the conviction of its guilt, it is afraid of God. It dreads at that time every attribute of Divinity. But most of all the sinner is afraid of Gods justice. The sinner is right in his conviction that God is just, and he is moreover right in the inference which follows from it, that because God is just his sin must be punished. Except through the gospel, justice is thine antagonist. It cannot suffer thee to enter heaven, for thou hast sinned. Is it possible, then, that the sinner cannot be saved? This is the great riddle of the law, and the grand discovery of the gospel.

I. How has justice been put aside? Or rather, how has it been so satisfied that it no longer stands in the way of Gods justifying the sinner? And through that second representative of manhood, Jesus, the second Adam, God is now able and willing to forgive the vilest and justify even the ungodly, and He is able to do so without the slightest violation of His justice.

1. Note the dignity of the victim who offered Himself up to Divine justice.

2. Think of the relationship which Jesus Christ had towards the great Judge of all the earth, and then you will see again that the law must have been fully satisfied thereby.

3. Furthermore, consider how terrible were the agonies of Christ, which, mark you, He endured in the stead of all poor penitent sinners, of all those who confess their gins and believe in Him; I say when you mark these agonies, you will readily see why justice does not stand in the sinners way.

II. It is an act of justice on Gods part to foil, give the sinner who makes a confession of his sin to God. The same Justice that just now stood with a fiery sword in his hand, like the cherubim of old keeping the way of the tree of life, now goes hand in hand with the sinner. Sinner, he says, I will go with thee. When thou goest to plead for pardon I will go and plead for thee. Once I spoke against thee; but now I am so satisfied with what Christ has done that I will go with thee and plead for thee. I will not say a word to oppose thy pardon, but I will go with thee and demand it. It is but an act of justice that God should now forgive. Sinner! go to God with a promise in your hand Lord, thou hast said, He that confesseth his sin, and forsaketh it, shall find mercy. I confess my sin, and I forsake it: Lord, give me mercy! Dont doubt but that God will give it you. Take that pledge and that bond before His throne of mercy, and that bond never shall be cancelled till it has been honoured. But, again, not only did God make the promise, but according to the text man has been induced to act upon it; and, therefore, this becomes a double bond upon the justice of God. Do you imagine when God has brought you through much pain and agony of mind to repent of sin, to give up self-righteousness, and rely on Christ, He will afterwards turn round and tell you He did not mean what He said? It cannot be. No, He is a just God, Faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. One more aspect of this case. Gods justice demands that the sinner should be forgiven if he seeks mercy, for this reason: Christ died on purpose to secure pardon for every seeking soul. Now, I hold it to be an axiom that whatever Christ died for he will have.

III. I must just enter into some little explanation of the two great duties that are taught in the two texts. The first duty is faith--believeth in Christ; the second text is confession--if we confess our sins. I will begin with confession first. Whenever grace comes into the heart it will lead you to make amends for my injury which you have done either by word or deed to any of your fellow men; and you cannot expect that you shall ,be forgiven of God until you have forgiven men, and have been ready to make peace with those who are now your enemies. If you have done aught, then, against any man, leave thy gift before the altar, and go and make peace with him, and then come and make peace with God. You are to make confession of your sin to God. Let that be humble and sincere. Then the next duty is faith. Whosoever believeth on the Son of God hath eternal life, and shall never come into condemnation. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Gods justice in forgiveness

Any consideration of the justice of forgiveness must be based upon a true estimate of what sin is, and what punishment is. We must clearly recognise that sin is evil in itself and in its inherent effects and not merely evil by the arbitrary decree of the lawgiver. Sin is that which is absolutely bad for man, and generally speaking it is not bad because forbidden, but forbidden because bad. When man sins he is doing something unworthy of himself, something contrary to nature, (if by nature we understand the original nature in which God first created him). Sin being thus mans evil, the good God, because He is good, will do all that is possible to keep His children from sin. And one of the ways of keeping man from sin is by ordaining punishment for sin. Punishment is made conditional on sin in three ways. Sometimes it is simply a sentence pronounced upon sin by arbitrary decree. Sometimes it is the fruit of sin, growing out of and resulting from the sin, in the nature of things. Sometimes it is the sin itself intensified, robbed of its pleasure and pressed as a burden and a curse upon the man. For example: if a schoolboy is habitually idle and neglects his studies we may trace out a retribution connected with the sin in each of these three several ways.

1. The master punishes the boy for his idleness. This is a punishment which conies a simple sentence upon the sin, not as a natural or necessary consequence of the sin.

2. A worse retribution comes upon the boy when he grows up. He finds himself not fitted for the position in life which he might have occupied if he had had a better education.

3. He may experience a still more terrible punishment, he did not learn industry at school and his idleness clings to him all his life. Thus he has a triple punishment. I may give you from the Bible an allusion to each of these. For the first case we have the sentence pronounced upon the murderer in Genesis (Gen_9:6). For the second we may think of idleness leading to want, that natural law endorsed by St. Paul when he wrote (2Th_2:10). For the third we may take the solemn sentence (Rev_22:11). With this third class of punishment the human legislator and the human judge have little or nothing to do. God alone can make sin to be its own punishment. With the second class the legislator rather than the judge is concerned, lest unwise legislation should promote wrong doing by viciously shielding the offender from the natural consequences of his sin. The first class of punishment, attending upon the wisdom of the lawgiver and the sentence of the judge, is that which man can ordinarily inflict or remit. And it is in studying the application of such punishment that we shall find that human justice which is to be a light to show us something of Divine justice. Gods ordinance in punishment may operate to keep men from sin in either of two ways:

(1) by exhibiting Gods sense of the badness of sin, and so training men to see for themselves the badness of sin, and to avoid it; or

(2) by holding forth retribution as a terror, that those who are too degraded to recognise the evil of sin may be deterred from sin by fear of the evil which they do recognise, the evil of pain or loss. This is the purpose of righteous punishment. However wicked a person may be, to inflict pain or loss upon him, which is not calculated to do some good in the way of remedying sin, either by reforming the particular offender or by deterring others from wrong, would be torture, not correction, cruelty and not righteousness. It follows that if the end which punishment is designed to accomplish has been attained by some other means, punishment becomes unrighteous, for it is only the end which justifies our infliction of pain or loss; upon our brother. If no good will come either to the individual or to the world from our inflicting the punishment, it is right to remit the punishment. This surely must be the key to our interpretation of the statement that God is righteous or just to forgive us our sins. If His justice is analogous to mans justice then His purpose in punishment is to exhibit His own sense of the sinfulness of sin and to deter from sin. It is plain that before He can remit the punishment which we deserve, some other means must be taken to show the world how God esteems sin. It is plain that the lesson of Gods true regard for sin must be learned by the sinner, and it must produce in him the penitence which will restrain him from sin. A simple gospel of the forgiveness of the penitent without the death of Christ would not have fulfilled these three conditions. If the gospel proclaims the remission of the punishment which was to evidence Gods condemnation of sin, this evidence must be displayed to the world in some other way. It is displayed from the Cross of Christ. God exhibits the deathliness of sin, not in the death of the sinner but in the death of Christ. But the sinner to be forgiven must have learnt this lesson. Here you see the necessity of faith in Christ crucified as a condition of pardon. And your faith in the Cross must produce penitence: otherwise there is nothing to supply the place of punishment to deter from sin. But it is obvious that if the final penalty of sin is not merely attached to it by arbitrary decree, but is something which follows as the fruit and consequence of sin, the pardon which is given us must be something more than an arbitrary warrant of acquittal; it must involve in some way a change in our spiritual growth and bearing; for the fig tree cannot bear olive berries neither the vine figs, nor can sin grow into holiness nor a wicked heart bear fruit unto eternal life. This teaches us again that repentance is an absolute necessity as a condition of pardon. Perhaps we may sometimes have thought of repentance as a condition arbitrarily imposed: we may have said that God does not choose to forgive us unless we repent. But in the light of our present consideration this would seem to be an imperfect statement of the case. We must rather say that in the nature of things (if punishment is the growth and fruit of sin) there can be no such thing as the remission of punishment without a change--a conversion--of the man. It is this thought of sin becoming ultimately its own punishment that stands in the way of a belief in a universal restoration, a universal salvation. But even if we take the other view of hell and think of it simply as pain arbitrarily imposed as a penalty for sin and capable of being arbitrarily withdrawn, there is yet an objection to our believing in any ultimate restoration. We might, of course, believe that when a sufficiency of punishment has been inflicted, the soul might then be delivered from hell. But what then? If it be still evil, it will be a hell to itself. Yet again, the good God will do all that may be for us; for He is just to forgive us our sins. But it may be said--if the forgiveness of our sins is thus a matter of justice, what have we to do with prayer for pardon? God will forgive us if it is right: He will not forgive us if it is not right to forgive us. What is the use of confession and prayer? The answer is, that the right or wrong of forgiveness depends on the disposition of the sinner. Has he or has he not learned the lesson of the Cross? Is he or is he not firmly convinced of the deathliness of sin? that it is an evil upon which God cannot look with indifference? that it is and ever must be the object of Gods wrath and condemnation? And if the sinner is in that state of heart and mind which makes forgiveness fit for him, then confession and prayer are the spontaneous expression of his penitence. (W. A. Whitworth, M. A.)

Gods justice in forgiveness

In a conversation which the Rev. Mr. Innes had with an infidel on his sick bed, he told him that when he was taken ill he thought he would rely on the general mercy of God; that as he had never done anything very bad, he hoped all would be well. But as my weakness increased, he added, I began to think, Is not God a just being as well as merciful? Now what reason have I to think He will treat me with mercy, and not with justice? and if I am treated with justice, he said, with much emotion, where am I? I showed him, says Mr. Innes, that this was the very difficulty the gospel was sent to remove, as it showed how mercy could be exercised in perfect consistency with the strictest demands of justice, while it was bestowed through the atonement made by Jesus Christ. After explaining this doctrine, and pressing it on his attention and acceptance, one of the last things he said to me before leaving him was, Well, I believe it must come to this. I confess I see here a solid footing to rest on, which, on my former principles, I could never find. (K. Arvine.)

Spiritual cleansing

The trees and the fields are clothed new every year in the freshest and purest hues. In the spring all the colours are bright and clean. As the summer goes on the leaves get dark and grimy. Sometimes a shower of rain makes them a little fresher, but they are soon dirtier than ever again. They all fall in the winter: The tree cannot cleanse its own leaves, dirty with the citys smoke, but God in His own time cleanses it, and gives it an entirely new suit. The little rain cleansings, soon to be dirtied again, are the partial reformations which men make for themselves, saying: I will stop this habit, or that other. I will be a better man--yet not doing it in Gods strength. The new white robe which God gives the trees is the robe of Christs righteousness. The difference is that in the eternal kingdom our robe of Christs righteousness will never be soiled, for there is none of the defilement of the earth.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn 1:8-10. If we say — Before Christ’s blood has cleansed us; that we have no sin — To be cleansed from; or if, even after we have experienced the cleansing virtue of his blood, and are acquitted through the merit of it from all past guilt, and saved from all evil tempers, words, and works; if, even after this, after we are both justified, regenerated, and sanctified, we say we have no sin, but are perfectly sinless, and that our spirit and conduct can bear the scrutiny of God’s holiness and justice, as exhibited in his spiritual and holy law; we deceive ourselves — And that in a very capital point; and the truth is not in us — Neither in our mouth nor in our heart; we must be destitute even of that self-knowledge which, in the nature of things, must necessarily precede every other branch of experimental and practical religion. If we confess our sins — With penitent and believing hearts; he is faithful — Having promised this blessing by the unanimous voice of all his prophets; and just — Surely then he will punish: no; for this very reason he will pardon. This may seem strange, but, upon the evangelical principle of atonement and redemption, it is undoubtedly true. Because when the debt is paid, or the purchase made, it is the part of equity to cancel the bond, and consign over the purchased possession; both to forgive our sins — To take away all the guilt of them, and to give us peace with himself, and peace of conscience; and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness — From all iniquity of heart and life, and to purify our souls from all vile affections and unholy dispositions, from every thing contrary to the pure and perfect love of God. Yet still we are to retain, even to our lives’ end, a deep sense of our past sins: still, if we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar — Who saith, all have sinned; and his word is not in us — We give it no place in our hearts.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. Second Inference.—Perception and Confession of Sins

1Jn_1:8-10

8If we say that we have no19 sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.20 9If We confess our sins, he is faithful and just21 to forgive us our sins,22 and to cleanse23 us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned; we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Connection.—The structure of these verses is unmistakably the same as that of those immediately preceding them: negative (1Jn_1:8) and positive (1Jn_1:9), while the negation (1Jn_1:8) is continued (1Jn_1:10) with reference to the positive (1Jn_1:9), and the parallel is even indicated in the form: ἐὰνεἲπωμεν. 1Jn_1:8; 1Jn_1:10. The connection of 1Jn_1:8 with the presuppositions at the end of 1Jn_1:7 (καθαρίσει ἀπὸπάσης ἁμαρτίας) that sin is still inhering in us, is equally unmistakable. But it is just as unmistakable that the perception and confession of sins are here emphatically dwelt upon as following and accompanying the true fellowship with its walk in the Light. The continuance of the Plural form (we, us, our) denotes also the general character both of what is said here and in the preceding verses. After all, we have here a second inference drawn from the leading thought that “God is Light,” (1Jn_1:5).

1Jn_1:8. Perception of Sin.—If we say, cf. 1Jn_1:6, above in Exegetical and Critical.

That we have no sin.—̔Αμαρτία in the Singular denotes sin in general; the absence of the Article points out that the reference is neither to a particular sin, nor to the whole, full sin [but to any sin.—M.]. Hence the application of the term to original sin as contrasted with actual sins (peccata actualia), as maintained by Augustine, Bede, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Calov, Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, Sander and Düsterdieck, is as inadmissible as that which refers it to a particular sin or a particular kind of sins, as in 1Jn_5:16; ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον, or μὴ πρὸς θάνατον, sins of infirmity, light offences, against which so early a writer as Augustine remarks: “Multa levia (peccata) faciunt unum grande.” Nor can ἁμαρτία designate the guilt of sin, as held by Socinus, Episcopius, Löffler and Grotius, the latter saying: “Habere peccatum non est: nunc in peccato esse, sed: ob peccata reum posse fieri,” nor describe sins committed or inhering anterior to entrance into fellowship with God the Light, where the Greeks Oecumenius, Theophylact and the Scholiasts have the precedence. ̔Αμαρτία is simply sin, nothing more or less, but it is certainly sin. Nor does ἒχομεν make any change in the matter, so as to designate the state “in which sin has not yet wholly disappeared” (Lücke). But it is less the state which is the result of continued sinning, than the state from which results such sinning, i.e., the state which is not the product of former sin, but the producer of new sin. John says: We have sin, and that denotes, both that original sin gives us still trouble, and that we still do sin in thought, in word and in deed; if not as servants, under the dominion of sin, who looking for reward are in the service of sin, yet by hastiness, infirmity or ignorance, now only suffering it by the force of habit or because of its congenital strength, or again by offering it too little resistance; sin insinuates itself into our good and our good works, even into prayer, partly in affectu (self-love, hardness in firmness, etc.), partly in defectu (gentleness even to parting with virtue, the love of our neighbour, as well as the love of self with fear, etc.). ̔Αμαρτία is a sinful demeanour of any kind, falling away from true, godliness, from that which is well-pleasing to God; here we may name particular inclinations, tendencies, principles, and especially the forms of the life of the imagination [German: Artung des Phantasielebens, an expression of Ebrard, who alludes to the impure representations of a depraved imagination preceding the overt acts of vice and sin.—M.]. This we must not deny. The sentence with its substance and bearing becomes clearer if we take it in connection with περιπατεῖν ἐν σκότει. The darkness is the territory of the undivine, well marked off in every direction and containing the whole system of sin,—the sphere of the walk, the life and doings of men. A Christian cannot and may not be said to walk thus in the darkness, but he still has sin. There is still within him a territory which is constantly receiving some kind of admixture from the territory of darkness. He is no longer in sin, but sin is in him; the degrees, indeed, are infinitely different and adjusted to the degree of the cleansing and growth of the inner man. But even John is constrained to say: “We have sin.”

We deceive ourselves.—Here we have the Active, not the Middle Voice; ἑαυτὸν πλανᾶν. This form brings out the self-activity which sinks more into the background by the use of the Middle with its Passive form. This brings out a difference like that in the German, “ich selbst ärgere mich—ich ärgere mich selbst.” In the latter case the cause is excluded in others, while in the former it is definitely laid within myself, and thus gives prominence to my own guiltiness, whereas the second case describes only a suffering without any one else’s guilt. The pronoun of the third person εἁυτοῦ in the Plural is used frequently both for the first (Rom_8:23) and the second person (Joh_12:8). See Winer, p. 163, No. 5. The context removes all doubt that the reference is here to deception, to lying and error, as in 1Jn_3:7; Mat_24:4; Mat_24:11, and elsewhere. This is also the proper meaning of this verb. It is parallel with ψευδόμεθα of 1Jn_1:6, but gives greater prominence to self-guilt; there he lies before others in word or deed, here he lies to himself and this sin works into himself greater perdition. There an unregenerate man wants others to believe that he is a Christian, here a regenerate man deceives himself through pride. [Augustine: Si te confessus fueris peccatorem, est in te veritas: nam ipsa veritas lux est. Nondum perfecte splenduit vita tua, quia insunt peccata: sed tamen jam illuminari cœpisti, quia inest confessio peccatorum.”—M.]

And the truth is not in us.—Since deceiving oneself runs parallel with the lying of 1Jn_1:6, so this sentence concludes parallel with not doing the truth, (1Jn_1:6). The truth, ἡ ἀλήθεια is to be taken objectively (Düsterdieck, Ebrard, Huther); the subjective lies in ἐν ἡμῖν (Bengel: non in corde, neque adeo in ore”). It is the Divine truth in Christ; the absolute principle of life from God, received into our heart. Hence it is neither studium veri (as maintained by Grotius and Episcopius), nor a truthful disposition (Lücke), nor the truthfulness of self-knowledge and self-examination, of purity (de Wette), nor that which is true in general (S. G. Lange, Paulus), nor better moral perception, melior rerum moralium cognitio, as Semler interprets. Moreover, the being, the existence of the Divine truth as the principle of life in us is also denied (οὐκ ἒστιν). Hence this is even stronger than the former οὑποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 1Jn_1:6; the latter is without the deed of the truth, the former without its existence; here the truth being in us is denied, in 1Jn_1:6, only its manifestation and expression in our life.

1Jn_1:9. Confession of Sins.—If we confess our sins.—The connection of this sentence with the preceding is not like that of 1Jn_1:7 with 1Jn_1:6, by δὲ, as Luther renders; the negatives of the preceding verse are strongly and abruptly antithetical to the positive of this verse; [Ebrard: “Now follows the second thought-member in a conditional sentence which introduces the opposite case. ̓Εὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίς ἡμῶν. Here also John scorns a merely tautological repetition; he does not say: ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν ὂτι ἁμαρτίαν ἒχομεν, but where he opposes to the negative the positive, Confession, he does not speak of sin in general (as a state), but of definite, concrete, specific sins. For this is the form which the confession of sins must assume, in order to be inwardly true and efficacious. The mere confession in abstracto that we have sin, would be without truth and value and shrink into a hollow phrase, unless it be attended by the perception and acknowledgment of concrete particular sins. It is much easier to make pious speeches concerning repentance and the greatness of the misery engendered by sin, than in a specific case of sin to see one’s wrong, admit and repent it, and to be sorry for it. John requires the latter.”—M.].—The Apostle is not satisfied with εἲπωμεν as before, but uses ὁμολογῶμεν, which is much more comprehensive than the former, and of course involves it as well as the inward opining, thinking, saying and feeling convinced, which finally develops into audible utterance and declaration before men; nor is this all, for it involves the additional particular of confessing one’s guilt before God, and this confession of guilt must be so lively and profound as to become public and ecclesiastically ordained, and stands in nothing behind the former εἰπεῖν. It is therefore not enough to see here only a perception or recognition (Socinus: “Confiteri significat interiorem ac profundam suorum peccatorum agnitionem.” Baumgarten-Crusius: “ὁμολογεῖν is to perceive, to be sensible, and to become conscious of, as contrasted with εἰπεῖν μὴ ἒχειν ἀμαρτὶαν”), or “an inward act grounded in the whole inward bias of the mind” (Neander), all which is taken for granted. Nor is it only the real utterance of sin inwardly identified and confessed to oneself (Huther, Düsterdieck), for this also is implied as a consequence. Nor must we exclude the acknowledgment before God, and “the confession” ordained for the comfort of a disquieted conscience, from which no truly penitent man will withdraw himself, and which is gladly sought and made by such as are of a contrite heart. [The reference here is to the Lutheran “confession,” which must not be confounded with the R. C. auricular Confession., Luther himself distinguishes three kinds of confession: the first, before God (Psa_32:6), which is so essential that it ought to be the sum-total of a Christian man’s life; the second, towards our neighbour, and is the confession of love as the former is that of faith (Jam_5:16. This confession, like the former, is necessary and ordained. The third is that ordered by the Pope to be made secretly into the ears of a priest with an enumeration of sins. Luther condemned compulsory private confession, and left it optional with individuals to determine if, and what they should confess. Still he commends private confession, saying, “it is advisable and good.” The Augsburg Confession, II., IV., says: “Confession has not been abolished in our Churches, and the usage is not to give the Lord’s Body to those who have not been previously examined and absolved,” and Luther in his Larger Catechism supplies a form of confession which is very full of private matters (Catech. Minor., IV., 16–29). The present practice varies in different Lutheran establishments, some retaining private confession, others substituting general confession. The latter custom prevails, I believe, among Lutherans in the United States.—M.].—The proud εἰπεῖν stands in antithesis with the humble ὁμολογεῖν, which includes all the aforesaid particulars. The original ὁμολογεῖν signifies to speak together [hence to hold the same language.—M.], then to accord, assent to, and points to a dialogue between God accusing and reproaching us in our consciences by His Word and His Spirit, and man assenting thereto in humility, faith and prayer, even unto pouring out his heart before loved fellow-men, from his nearest friend to the spiritual guardian of his soul, the servant of the Word, the Minister of the gifts and Steward of the mysteries of God. Hence the object is designated by τὰς ἁμαρτίας. The sins are “the particular manifestations of ἁμαρτίαν ἒχειν” (Huther), “definite, concrete, specific sins” (Ebrard), of whichever kind they may be, lesser and even the least sins, even as repentance goes ever deeper and deeper and attains more clear and distinct perceptions of sin in its endless turns, in its hideousness and wrong. See below on 1Jn_1:10, and on 1Jn_3:4.

He is faithful and righteous.—That is only God the Father (so Lücke, de Wette and the majority of commentators), who is the ruling subject in the work of redemption, since for Christ’s sake, and through Christ the Mediator, He forgives and makes us happy, although Christ is referred to in 1Jn_1:7, and below in 1Jn_2:1. The reference to the Father and the Son is inadmissible (J. Lange, Sander, S. Schmid). The subject is not defined, because the reference is to God the Father, who is the principal subject throughout [1Jn_1:5-10]. God is faithful, He does not become so through forgiveness consequent upon our repentance. God is faithful because His Essence accords with His workings, and these in all particular manifestations accord with one another and all of them together. The primary reference is to God’s faithfulness towards us, to the truth-and-light-essence which reigns in us, if we confess our sins, and is related to and in accordance with His Own Essence (Ebrard); but to this must be added a secondary reference to His Word with its promises of help, blessings, redemption and remission of sins (Düsterdieck, Huther, al.), and this secondary reference follows from the context 1Jn_1:10, which re-adverts to the Word of God, although it had already been mentioned in 1Jn_1:1; 1Jn_1:3; 1Jn_1:5, and is in perfect harmony with the grammatical usage of both Testaments and the views they express (cf. Psa_32:3 sqq.; Eze_18:31 sq.; 1Co_1:9; 1Co_10:13; 2Co_1:18-21; 1Th_5:24; Heb_10:23; Heb_11:11). And more than this, the term πιστός, held thus absolute and undefined, has surely a wider bearing. It concerns something which He has produced as Creator and suggested as Regent in dispensations, to which the Father and the Lord have given consciousness in the Word, and which is in perfect harmony with the Light-nature of God. He is faithful to His Own Being, to His doings for, and in man as Creator, Preserver, Governor, Redeemer and Revealer. He is “stiff and firm” (Luther) in cleaving to His holy purpose of grace, that is, His faithfulness; πιστός therefore is not only misericors (S. Schmid). Besides this we have the epithet δίκαιος, righteous, just, which applies to one who acts in accordance with the duties arising from his position; it denotes the disposition and righteousness which gives to every man his due. God is righteous or just when He punishes those who walk ἐν σκότει, 2Th_1:5; 2Th_1:7, where the reference is to δικαία κρίσις, then He κατακρίνει but blesses those who walk ἐν φωτί, forgiving, cleansing and ultimately glorifying them. It is only the juxtaposition of πιστός and the context which render the limitation of δίκαιος to the judicial character of God with reference to the penitent admissible in this passage. Faithful towards the penitent, agreeably to His Love, His eternal purpose of grace, His Word of promise and His work of redemption, He is also righteous, just, to them as promising them forgiveness and cancelling what is still unrighteous in them in conformity to His appointed laws. Hence δίκαιος is not =bonus, lenis (Grotius, Schöttgen, Rosenmüller, nor = æquus, benignus (Semler, G. S. Lange, Carpzov, Bretschneider), nor again =πιστός (Hornejus, “in promissis servandis integer”), nor = δικαιῶν (Ebrard). Nor does the righteousness of God appear here as justitia vindicativa, which was revealed in the death of Christ, so that the forgiveness of sins is Christo justa non nobis (Calov), or in that the sinner, appealing to the ransom paid in the blood of Christ, has his sin cancelled, because it would be unjust to insist upon a twofold payment (Sander). Luther’s explanation is excellent; he says, “God is righteous who gives to every man his due and accords to those who confess their sins and believe, the righteousness acquired through the death of Christ, and thus makes thee righteous.” This righteousness of God is closely connected with His faithfulness. But we must guard against the distinction that πιστός relates to peccata mortalia, δίκαιος to peccata venalia, “quia sc. justi per opera pœnitentiæ, caritatis etc. merentur de condigno hanc condonationem” (Suarez). Faithfulness is rather the soil and foundation from which righteousness springs up. [The blessings conferred upon Christians conformably to the δικαιοσύνη of God, are in fulfilment of the Divine promises.—M.]. In Holy Scripture goodness and righteousness, truth and righteousness are syzygies (Nitzsch, System, 6th ed., p. 176). Cf. Psa_143:1, and notes on 1Jn_2:29.

To forgive us our sins.—̓̀Ινα is not =ὢστε, so that, or ὂτι with which it alternates, 1Jn_1:5, 1Jn_3:11. The difference is, whether we have here simply the contents of the message (1Jn_1:5), or its purpose (1Jn_3:11). The meaning here seems to be: “He is faithful and righteous for the purpose of forgiving. It is His Law and Will to forgive (de Wette), but of course the Will manifests its energy in action (contrary to Huther). [I should prefer putting this with Winer thus: “He is faithful and righteous in order to forgive us,” i.e., the Divine attributes of faithfulness and righteousness are exercised in order to our pardon, as Wordsworth puts it.—M.]. The sins which have been confessed He remits. Pardon, forgiveness of sins, i.e., the cancelling of the debt of sin and its culpability as well as of the consciousness of guilt or of an evil conscience; justification and reconciliation are therefore the first consequence of the confession of sin; the second consequence is:

And cleanse us from all unrighteousness.—Neither an epexegetical addition (Semler) nor an allegorical repetition of the preceding (Lange). It is a coördinated clause describing sanctification as the continuation of justification, or redemption as the consequent of reconciliation. On καθαρίζειν see notes on 1Jn_1:7. Unrighteousness, ἀδικία, is synonymous with ἁμαρτία, and consequently not =pœna peccati (Socinus); the latter denotes the formal, the former the material side of sin; the latter indicates the genesis of sin (or its course of development) which does not coincide with the law, the former the fact of the effect of sin as violating, transgressing and offending against the Law, and on that account liable to punishment and conducing to ruin and perdition.

1Jn_1:10. Conclusion.—If we say.—Cf. 1Jn_1:8, of which this verse is not merely the repetition, but the intensification and continuation.

That we have not sinned goes back to ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἒχομεν, but οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν is a much stronger expression; the former denotes a state or condition of which the latter is the actual expression [1Jn_1:10 describes the concrete act, 1Jn_1:8 the abstract state—M.]; we have here the conduct (1Jn_1:10) in a certain relation (1Jn_1:8) in connection with ἀδικία, 1Jn_1:9. The use of the Perfect does not warrant an exclusive reference to sins anterior to entrance into the Church (Socinus, Paulus), but denotes active sinfulness reaching down to the present and sins just committed; τὰςἁμαρτίας, 1Jn_1:9, show that the separate acts, the actuosity [actuositas—M.] of the ἁμαρτία (1Jn_1:8) are here dwelt upon. [Huther: “The Perfect does not prove that ἡμαρτήκαμεν denotes sinning prior to conversion (Soc. Russmeyer, Paulus, etc.); the reference here, as well as in all the preceding verses, is rather to the sinning of Christians; for no Christian would think of denying his former sins. The Perfect is in part accounted for by John’s usus loquendi, according to which an activity reaching down to the present is often expressed by the Perfect tense, and in part by the fact that confession always has respect to sins committed before.—M.]

We make Him a liar.—This clause answers to ψευδόμεθα and ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν, but is a much stronger expression; we not only lie for ourselves, we not only deceive ourselves, but we make God (αὐτὸν) a liar, and this takes place not without pride, stubbornness or bitterness even unto blasphemy (cf. Joh_5:18; Joh_8:53; Joh_10:33; Joh_19:7; Joh_19:12). He who is πιστός is blasphemed as. ψεύστης, of course only by such men.

And His word is not in us, i.e., His word of promise containing the ἀλήθεια, 1Jn_1:8; not only the truth and its knowledge are wanting to such persons, but they are also without the Word, the frame and vessel of the truth. As the reference is to Christians, His word probably designates the Gospel of, or concerning Jesus (Socinus, Calov, Neander, Luther, Huther, Düsterdieck), and not the Old Testament in particular (Oecumenius, Grotius, de Wette, al.), or only the New Testament (Lachmann, Rosenmüller, nor in general the revelation of God absolutely, His entire self-disclosure, including the λόγος, Joh_1:1 (Ebrard).—It is not stamped into the heart in living characters (Spener), it has remained or become again “outwardly or inwardly strange to us” (Huther); for the regenerate may fall from grace. A man that is not conscious of sin still adhering to him, not conscious, therefore, of the true nature of the holiness for which he was born and born again, cannot be or have been wont to contemplate and examine himself in the mirror of the Divine Law, in the Light of the Divine Word, by the pattern held up to us in the revelation of Jesus Christ. Such a one does actually, carelessly or maliciously accuse of falsehood the Word of God and the God of the Word, who looks upon us sinners and calls us to the consciousness of sin. Such men may remember the Word of God, know it by heart, but it is not to them an animating life-principle and impelling power; it is not extant in their inward life and consciousness.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The want of redemption which is universal is also permanent, which even in the Church of the redeemed has not disappeared (1Jn_1:8), although it is disappearing more and more (1Jn_1:9). The certainty of the difference between walking in the darkness (περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ σκότει) and walking in the light (περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί) is not greater than the certainty that those who are walking in the light have sin adhering to them (ἁμαρτίαν ἒχομεν). Vast as is the difference between these two modes and spheres of life, yet the import of the difference among Christians still affected with sin, but experiencing a daily growing redemption from sin, vanishes before the purity of God the Father, no matter how marked and important the difference may be between a John and individual Church members. The perception and cognition of sin, especially of one’s own sin, and the clear consciousness of it in all humility, are indispensable requisites for the walk in the Light. Though your sin, as compared with that of the unregenerate, be light, take care lest you esteem it light. The smallest stain soils a clean garment. If you despise it when you weigh it, be afraid when you count it up. Many little sins make one great sin; many drops make a river.

2. Self-deception is so fearful because it will progress to the denial of the truth and the truthfulness of God and His Word, even to open and formal blasphemy (we lie, 1Jn_1:6; we deceive ourselves, 1Jn_1:8; we make God a liar, 1Jn_1:10). Christians are saints, but only in process of being, and not already complete and perfect. [German:—becoming, not yet become.—M.]. This contradicts the Donatist error.

3. Justification is before sanctification, its antecedent; τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφιέναι precedes the καθαρίζειν ἀπο πάσης ἀδικίας (1Jn_1:9); this is the fixed order in the kingdom of God.—Both are acts of God; the first an act occurring once only, the second involving the continuous doing of God [the first is a solitary act, the latter a continuing process—M.]. Although the former is only a solitary, momentary act, and not a process like the latter, the former repeats itself whenever there occurs an interruption in the walk in light, or a loosening or sundering of the fellowship with God (1Jn_1:9).

4. The forgiveness of sins, as the principal part of justification, consists of different elements: 1. cancelling or diminishing of the punishments of sin; 2. cancelling of the debt of sin and the culpability connected therewith (culpæ et debiti); 3. removal of the consciousness of guilt or of an evil conscience; 4. the inclination of Divine grace to the sinner as actually evidenced in the communication of positive, and especially of spiritual and eternal riches; 5. abrogation of the strength and power of sin, wherewith the blotting out of sin did begin, redemption, loosening from the power of evil, the purification of the reconciled sinner from sin. While the two last elements (Nos. 4. 5) mark the transition from the realm of justification to that of sanctification (καθαρίζειν, 1Jn_1:7) that named first and relating to the punishment of sins is so externally related to the subject needing the forgiveness of sins, that its centre may be sought and found only in the other two, viz., the cancelling of the guilt and the removal of the consciousness of guilt, in perfect analogy with the confession of a justified man, as supplied by St. Paul in Rom_5:1-5, a passage which may be called classical in this matter: εὶρήνην ἒχομεν. The centre of the forgiveness of. sins is the non-imputatio peccati. Temporal ills appointed as punishments of sin cease to be punishments to one who has received the forgiveness of sins, they are to him only δοκιμασία or παιδεία; they are not always or altogether cancelled and removed, and are not the worst, particularly as they do not terminate in damnation, ἀπώλεια, whereas guilt and an evil conscience disquiet and cause pain. The forgiveness of sins simply changes the sinner’s relation to and before God, but afterwards there springs up a different conduct of God towards the sinner and of the sinner towards God in sanctification, wherein sins are forgiven and forgotten, the sinner is no longer regarded by God as a sinner, but as another man, and God appears to, and is felt by the sinner no longer as Judge, but as a merciful Father. But such a relationship springing from the forgiveness of sins may indeed be disturbed and impaired and needs therefore repeated renewing and quickening.

5. The factor of the forgiveness of sins is God the Faithful and Righteous with His purpose of grace and its revelation (1Jn_1:9). No man can forgive his sins to himself; self-redemption is a lie. Very beautifully says Luther in execrable Latin: “Amor Dei non invenit, sed creat suum diligibile; amor hominis fit a suo diligibili.”

6. The condition of the forgiveness of sins is the confession of sins (ὁμολογεῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας) resting upon and conditioned by perception of sins and self-knowledge. After the death of Christ with its sufferings as well as with the proof of His perfect obedience (1Jn_1:7) has operated on the sinner’s conscience and caused him by that light to perceive his own sinfulness, and to feel at the same time the mercy of God, as having special regard to, and influence upon him, he ceases in the love of faith in Christ to love himself and sin within himself, is afraid of himself in his ugliness, afraid of sin and its perdition reaching to the bottom of his heart and to eternal damnation, afraid of the wrath of God in the holy energy of holy love, and confesses his sin, which he has discovered, before himself, before God and before men. Thus penitent he not only confesses his sins, but he is also another man, he is regarded as such by God, who now remits to him the debt of sin. This is the initial phase of sanctification, which begins with the forgiveness. The reconciliation of sinners is effected through the reconciliation in the bloody sacrificial death of Jesus, so that as the sons of God by grace, through the Son of God by nature, they make experience of the further communication of His grace, and in virtue thereof grow up into heirs of His glory. This was very correctly perceived by Luther: “Here John meets the objection: ‘What must I do then? my conscience reproaches me with my many sins, and John says, Confess thy sins. Thereby he confounds all such objections as if conscience says: What must I do to be saved? How shall I set about to grow better? Nothing else, says he, but this: Confess thy sins to Him, and pray Him to pardon thy grievous guilt.’ ” “This must be the form of confession,” says Ebrard, “in order to be inwardly true and efficacious.” The mere confessing in abstracto that we have sin, etc. [See above in Exegetical and Critical on 1Jn_1:9.—M.] The child after the deed and with his deed, which is evil, is a very different child, if he goes and sorrowfully and truthfully confesses his sins to his father. [“I will arise and go to my Father and will say unto Him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called Thy son,” etc. Luk_15:18-19, compared with Luk_1:21-24.—M.] It is wholly unwarranted that the Concil. Trident. XI 1:100:5, p. 37, cites this passage along with Luk_5:14; Luk_17:14; Jam_5:14, in proof of auricular confession, that auricularis carnificina and alleges “Dominus noster Jesus Christus, e terris ascensurus ad cœlos, sacerdotes sui ipsius vicarios reliquit tamquam praesides et judices, ad quos omnia mortalia crimina deferantur.” Likewise à lapide says: “Quam confessionem exigit Johannes? Hæretici solam, quæ fit deo, admittunt; catholici etiam specialem requirunt. Respondeo, Johannem utramque exigere. Generalem pro peccatis levibus, specialem pro gravibus.” Equally unwarranted is the inference drawn in favour of purgatory from καθαρίση as if the forgiveness (αφιέναι τὰς ἁμαρτίας) took place here and the cleansing from all unrighteousness (καθαρίζειν ἀπὸ τῆς πάσης ἀδικίας) not until hereafter in another state of existence; even the reading καθαρίαει would not warrant such a construction. It is Paul’s particular aim to guard his readers against all such false satisfactions and hopes as those in which auricular confession and purgatory entangle men, and pastors and friends also should bear this in mind in private confessions. [See above note on 1Jn_1:9.—M.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The truth that we are altogether sinners is very bitter, universal in its application and reaches deep. But those who flatter themselves, and think higher and better of themselves than they really are, lose the truth. If you think any thing of yourself, you ruin yourself. God only knows and is able to make something of man. Without the perception of sin no confession of sin, without confession of sin no forgiveness of sin, without forgiveness of sin no cancelling of sin, ergo without grace no salvavation. The denial of our sin and sinfulness will hardly avail with a human judge, but it will ruin us with the Judge Eternal. Without truthfulness and the love of truth you will have no room for God and His word in your heart and lose all susceptibility for them. Be afraid of desiring to know any thing, and especially thy heart, better than God, the Lord.

Starke:—We must not look for perfect holiness in this world; those who entertain the fancy that they may be or are perfect are like those who walk on stilts or over precipitous cliffs: before they are aware of it they will

fall and come to naught. Whoso seeks righteousness in absolute deliverance from sin, will lose it if he has it already, and never get it if he has it not. Confession of sins before God is necessary to the forgiveness of sins; but we cannot merit forgiveness by confession of sins. The confession of sins is here simply adduced as a sign of hearty, contrite repentance; it comprises all these parts and is founded on a thorough knowledge accompanied by a perfect hatred and detestation of sin; but it must take place without all cloaking and concealment, sincerely and from the heart. Moreover it must take place with the heart and with the mouth, first and foremost before God whom we have offended therewith and who, we hope, may forgive it us; but also before men, whom we have either offended or vexed thereby. It is a congenital fault of men to love making themselves innocent by their own efforts [literally “to burn themselves white”—M.]; but let none act the hypocrite to himself; for God has concluded all under sin, and no man living is righteous before him.

Spener:—Those also who walk in the light, stand in fellowship with God and are cleansed by the blood of Christ, have sins adhering to and remaining in them, from which they still require to be cleansed. If God has forgiven your sins, He will also cleanse you from all unrighteousness: now if you desire the one benefit without striving for or refusing to receive the other, you seek to overturn the righteousness of God and therefore cannot get it; for God has ordered that they must remain together. If the word of God is to be profitable to us, it must be kept and planted within us in order that it may be powerful and efficacious in us.

[Collect for second Sunday in Advent: “Blessed God, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest them, that, by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which Thou hast given us in our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.”—M.]

J. Lange:—If God daily forgives penitents their sins, how much more ought we to forgive one another’s sins; if we have been offended by men and we do not willingly and truly forgive them, neither will God forgive us.

If one thinks himself perfectly holy and pure, he comes short of,

1. Daily renovation;

2. The sense of godly poverty of spirit;

3. The daily prayer for the forgiveness of the sins and transgressions he has committed;

4. Spiritual watchfulness and carefulness;

5. Avoiding what may excite his inward desires and appetites;

6. The right use of the means of grace which are appointed for the furtherance of virtue;

7. The proper regard and daily appropriation of the blood of Christ for cleansing from all unrighteousness;

8. Bounden sympathy with, and compassion on his faulty and erring brethren. Thus he will at last fall from the grace of God into abominable selfishness and spiritual pride; and, unless he turn from the error of his ways, into eternal perdition.

Whiston:—Although we should like David and Peter fall from fellowship with God, He will, if we humbly and penitently confess those repeated sins and beg for mercy for Christ’s sake, forgive them also and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. We must not however boldly go on sinning, but rather shun sin the more.

Heubner.:—The beginning of all wisdom is to know one’s sin. There is a difference between having and doing sin. The first is partly former guilt, partly the remaining bias to sin which misleads us to the commission of many sins of infirmity; the second is living in some master sin, to be wholly the servant of sin. The matter stands thus: God says on every page of His Book: All men, consequently you and I also, are sinners; but man says, I am not a sinner. One or the other therefore must lie. If man denies his sin, he affirms that God has lied in His Word; yea, the whole Christian religion, Christ’s coming into the world would become a lie; for He came for the salvation of sinners—and there would be no sinners! Hence pride, self-righteousness is so dangerous, hateful and loathsome to God, because the proud accuse God of lying.

Nitzsch:—I. The warning against the false method of getting acquitted of the burden of our guilt before God. The Apostle warns,

1. Against the false interpretation and depreciation of the law; the precepts, which I have not violated, cannot preserve my righteousness and innocence in the one which I have broken; nor is ignorance of any avail to me, how often I have unconsciously or half-consciously transgressed; more malice may lie concealed in a word than in a deed, and more still in a thought. Knowledge of sin is the only gain we can derive from the law.

2. Against excuses of sin from external or internal circumstances (the world, fate, human nature); we lose more by taking from God what is His, than if we give up all self-praise. Why did you not threaten or entice with God when men threatened or enticed you with the world, and seek to lead those to virtue who wanted to mislead you to vice? and have you always done the good you knew and were able to do? That ignorant sinner remains to be found who has not knowingly transgressed the Divine precepts.

3. Of false satisfactions; for they contain one and all an untrue and unhappy release from the state of guilt.

II. The true way of getting acquitted of our guilt before God:

1. Ask what the confession of our sins is; and,

2. Consider how on the right confession of sin God the True and Righteous will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The man who confesses his sins in Psalms 32, does not make a show of his wickedness, nor regard his transgressions with the fear or carelessness of the natural man, nor say yea to the general situation and complaint, and yet feel his guilt as he feels the regular pulsation of his heart, satisfied with his condition. No, his whole being, thinking, moving and life fully participate in his confession, which insists upon the full act and truth of our separation from sin and the accomplishing of all that to which grace in Christ will lead us. It is full knowledge of sin and of our sin in us; we feel truly the guilt and misery of sin and that sin imperils our life, we confess in despair unto salvation, yet not without faith, but in faith in holy Love. This is the way with the beginning and progress of being cleansed from all unrighteousness.

T. A. Wolf:—Of the true constitution of those who live without the knowledge of sin.

1. Its marks: rude security, tender selfishness, self-contented pride.

2. Its consequences: without the light of the truth, without the consolation of forgiveness, without strength for real amendment.

3. Its end: either dying without the knowledge of sin, partly with fearful presumptuousness, partly with a firm courage that might make us doubt our belief, or attaining to a penitent and sincere knowledge of our sin.

Krummacher:—The throne of grace—1. Is concealed from ignorant or bad self-righteous men; 2. Unveiled—to believers; 3. Left too soon by levity, idleness, or culpable opinionativeness.

Friedrich:—Either God is a liar, or we are altogether sinners. 1. A call to decision as to whether we will believe God’s Word in general or not. 2. A call from sleep whether we will continue to yield ourselves to the dream of self-deception or not. 3. A call of the judgment, whether we will seek the grace of the forgiveness of our sins, or be lost forever.

Clauss:—The Confession: 1. What it ?Isaiah 2. What are its effects?

Besser:—God grant that the truth be written not only in our confessions, but in our hearts!—No sanctification unless its root be forgiveness; and no forgiveness unless its fruit be sanctification.

[Stanhope:—On 1Jn_1:9, “That the true purport of this condition be not mistaken, it is fit we remember that nothing is more usual in Scripture than to express a man’s duty by some very considerable branch of it. Thus the whole of religion is often implied in the love or the fear of God; and thus confession here, no doubt, denotes not only an acknowledgment of our faults, but all that deep humility and shame, all that afflicting sorrow and self-condemnation, all that resolution against them, all that effectual forsaking them for the future, all that diligence to grow and abound in the contrary virtues and graces, all that entire dependence on the merits and sacrifice of our crucified Redeemer, all that application of His Word and sacraments ordained to convey this cleansing blood to us, which accompany such acknowledgments, when serious and to the purpose, and which are elsewhere represented as constituent parts of repentance and necessary predispositions to forgiveness. In the mean while, as the mention of this singly was sufficient, so was no part of repentance as proper to be mentioned as this; for it was directed to persons vain and absurd enough to suppose themselves void of sin, and thereby evacuating, so far as in them lie, the whole Gospel of Christ; for the Gospel propounds a salvation to all men, to be obtained only by His death,—a death undergone on purpose that it might propitiate for sin, and consequently a death needless to them who had no sin; a death of none effect to any who do not allow the necessity and trust to the virtue of it, for the remission of their own sins; but to all who do, so beneficial that God can as soon renounce His Word, as disappoint their reasonable expectations. His promise is passed, and He is faithful; the Judge of all the earth cannot but do right; His Son has paid the debt, and He is just; He will not therefore require from the principal what the Surety has already discharged. So sure are we to be happy, if we be but sensible how miserable we have made ourselves; so sure to be miserable, if puffed up with vain confidence in our own real impotence, and insensible that to Jesus Christ alone we owe the very possibility of our being happy.”]

[Barrow:—“When from ignorance or mistake, from inadvertency, negligence or rashness, from weakness, from wantonness, from presumption we have transgressed our duty and incurred sinful guilt; then, for avoiding the consequent danger and vengeance, for unloading our consciences of the burden and discomfort thereof, with humble confession in our mouths, and serious contrition in our hearts, we should apply ourselves to the God of mercy, deprecating His wrath and imploring pardon from Him, remembering the promise of John: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”—M.].

[Sermons:

1Jn_1:8-9. Augustine: If we say that we have no sin, etc. Libr. of the Fathers, 20. 947.

Trench: Sin forgiven by a faithful and just God.

1Jn_1:9. Burnet, Gilbert: God’s readiness to receive returning sinners. Pract. Serm., 2. 321.

Hook, W. T.: Auricular Confession. Controversies of the Day, 187.—M.].

Footnotes:

[19]1Jn_1:8. [ German: “If we say that we have not gin,” but the rendering of E. V. is better and idiomatically more correct, for ἁμαρτίαν ἒχειν is to have sin, and ἁμαρτίαν οὑκ ἒχειν denotes to have no sin, to be absolutely free from it.—M.]

[20]ἐν ἡμῖν οὐκ ἒστιν A. C. K. al. [Lachm., Tischend., Wordsw.—M.] is a more authentic reading than οὐκ ἒστιν ἐν ἡμῖν B, G. al. Sin. Vulg.; which is probably a correction according to 1Jn_5:10.

[21]1Jn_1:9. [German: “He is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins.” δίκαιος “ocurs other five times in this Epistle, and is always in E. V. so rendered. The opposition, moreover, between God as δικαιος and the ἀδικία from which the Church is cleansed, is lost in E. V.” Lillie.—The omission of our, supplied in E. V., is idiomatic German, but hardly English.—M.]

[22]ἠμῶν, Cod. Sin., but otherwise feebly sustained, is probably added from the first clause of the verse.

[23] καθαρίσει A. al. [perhaps also in C**] cannot be received as the original reading. καθαρίση has the the weightier authority of Sin. B.

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1:8 If we claim we have no sin: This is the second false claim of the Gnostics (see 1:6). They claimed that they were or could be sinless since Christ had abolished their sins once and for all—their higher knowledge would lift them above the realm of sin. But Christians do still sin when they live in their old nature (see Rom 7:14-25). The true Christian both acknowledges this sin (1 Jn 1:9) and trusts in Christ to take it away.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Jn 1:8. Ἁμαρτίαν, sin) There is an opposition between those who say, We have no sin, and those who confess their sins (plural). He is therefore speaking of actual sins, which flow from original sin. In proportion as each person has contracted less or more, so he deems it necessary to confess less or more; Pro 28:13; and that either respecting the past, 1Jn 1:10, or the present, 1Jn 1:8. John comprises in his discourses all to whom that declaration comes, both good and bad; without distinction, according to their measure. But there were even then some who extenuated sin, and therefore also disparaged grace.—ἡ ἀλήθεια, the truth) John often comprises faith also together with the notion of truth: ch. 1Jn 2:4. אמת and אמונה are conjugate words.—οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν, is not in us) is not in our heart, and therefore not in our mouth. The fault is in us; is ours: the glory belongs to God: 1Jn 1:9.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn_1:8. Purification from sin presupposes the existence of sin even in believers; the denial of this is self-deception.

ἐὰν εἴπωμεν] as in 1Jn_1:6; thereby is meant not merely the speech of the heart (Spener), but the actual expression and assertion.

ὅτι ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν] The view of Grotius,[59] that this refers to sinning before conversion, and that ἁμαρτία therefore means the guilt of sin, is rightly rejected by Lücke, Sander, etc.

The question, especially of earlier commentators, whether ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑ is here original sin (or sinfulness, as Weiss still thinks) or actual sin (pecc. actuale), desire (concupiscentia) or deed, is solved by the fact that the idea is considered quite generally by the apostle (so also Braune)only, of course, with the exception of the sin spoken of in chap. 1Jn_5:16. The 1st person plural ἜΧΟΜΕΝ is to be noticed in so far as the having sin is thereby represented as something that is true of all Christians. The expression ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν describes in a quite general way the taint of sin; only of the absolutely pure, in whom no trace of sin exists, is it true that he ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΝ ΟὐΚ ἜΧΕΙ; the relation of this ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΝ ἜΧΕΙΝ to ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖΝ ἘΜ Τῷ ΣΚΌΤΕΙ (1Jn_1:6), in which the will of man serves sin (or in which sin is the dominating principle of life), is therefore not that of contrast (say in this way, that ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΝ ἜΧΕΙΝ is a being tainted with sin, where no act of will takes place),[60] but is to be defined thus, that the latter (ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖΝ ἘΝ Τῷ ΣΚΌΤΕΙ) is a particular species of ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΝ ἜΧΕΙΝ. Even though as Christians, who are born of God, we have no longer sin in the sense that ΠΕΡΙΠ. ἘΝ Τῷ ΣΚΌΤΕΙ is true of us, nevertheless we do not yet cease to have sin; if we deny this, if we maintain that we have no sin at all, then what John says in the following words is the case with us. ἙΑΥΤΟῪς ΠΛΑΝῶΜΕΝ] not = we are mistaken, which ΠΛΑΝΏΜΕΘΑ would mean;[61] but, as Sander explains: we mislead ourselves, take ourselves astray from salvation (or better: from truth); by that assertion, which is a lie (not an unconscious mistake), the Christian (for the apostle is not here speaking of non-Christians) deceives himself about the truth, for which he leaves no room in himself. Braune rightly observes that ἑαυτὸν πλανᾶν emphasizes the self-activity, which the middle with its passive form leaves in the background.

καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐν ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔστιν] is not a mere repetition of ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν, but adds to this another new element.

ἡ ἀλήθεια, as in 1Jn_1:6, is neither = studium veri (Grotius), nor = castior cognitio (Semler), nor even = uprightness, or truthfulness (Lücke in his 2d ed.), or, as de Wette explains: the veracity of self-knowledge and self-examination;[62] but truth in its objective character (Lücke in his 1st ed., Baumgarten-Crusius, Düsterdieck, Brückner, Braune). Baumgarten-Crusius rightly says: ἀλήθεια does not need to be taken in subjective sense, the subjective lies in οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν. The expressions used here: ἑαυτ. πλανῶμεν and ἡ ἀλ. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν, are not milder (Sander) than the corresponding expressions in 1Jn_1:6 : ψευδόμεθα and οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, but stronger (Ebrard), since in ἑαυτ. πλ. the self-injury, and in ἡ ἀλήθ. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν the negation of possession of the truth, are more sharply marked.

[59] Habere peccatum, non est: nunc in peccato esse, sed ob peccatum reum posse fieri.

[60] Even Ebrard does not correctly state the relation of the two expressions to one another, when he says that in ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν man is not in ἁμαρτία, but ἁμαρτία is in man, for plainly he also who is in ἁμαρτία has this in himself.

[61] When Ebrard, in opposition to this, remarks that it cannot be asserted that the middle πλανᾶσθαι means to be mistaken, and πλανᾶν ἑαυτόν, on the other hand, to mislead oneself, this is not at all to the point, since it is not said that πλανᾶσθαι has always the meaning to be mistaken, but that the German sich irren [Engl. to be mistaken] is expressed in Greek not by πλανᾶν ἑαυτόν, but by πλανᾶσθαι.

[62] Ewalds explanation is also unsatisfactory: truth about this relation of things, and therefore easily about every other also.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn 1:8-10 . The heresy of Perfectionism. Some might not say, with the Antinomians, that they were absolved from the obligation of the moral law, but they maintained that they were done with sin, had no more sinful propensities, committed no more sinful acts. In opposition hereto the Apostle asserts two facts: (1) Inherent corruption . Distinguish ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν (“to have sin”) and ἁμαρτάνειν (“to sin”), corresponding to the sinful principle and its manifestation in specific acts. Our natures are poisoned, the taint is in our blood. Grace is the medicine, but recovery is a protracted process. It is begun the moment we submit ourselves to Christ, but all our lives we continue under treatment. πλανῶμεν , “lead astray” ( cf. Mat 18:12 ). ἡ ἀλήθεια , in Johannine phraseology not simply “der Wahrheitssinn, die Wahrhaftigkeit der Selbstprüfung und der Selbsterkenntniss” (Rothe), but the revelation of “the True God” (ver. 20; Joh 17:3 ), which came “through Jesus Christ” (Joh 1:17 ), Himself “the Truth” (Joh 14:6 ). Nearly equivalent to ὁ λόγος (1Jn 1:10 ). The Truth is a splendid ideal, never realised here, else it would cease to be an ideal; always as we pursue it displaying a fuller glory, And thus the nearer we approach it the further off it seems; when we walk in the light we see faults which were hidden in the darkness. Self-abasement is a characteristic of the saints. When Juan de Avila (A.D. 1500 69) was dying the rector of his college approached him and said: “What joy it must be to you to think of meeting the Saviour!” “Ah!” said the saint, “rather do I tremble at the thought of my sins.” (2) The frequent falls of the believer . We all “have sinned ( ἡμαρτήκαμεν ),” i.e. , committed acts of sin ( ἁμαρτίας ) manifesting the strength and activity of the sinful principle ( ἡ ἁμαρτία ) in our souls. This, however, is no reason for despair. There is a remedy forgiveness and cleansing in the blood of Jesus; and there is a way of obtaining it confession. πιστός , i.e. , to His promise ( cf. Heb 10:23 ). δίκαιος : He would be unrighteous if He broke His promise ratified by the blood of Jesus. Peace is not got by denying our sinfulness and our sins, but by frankly confessing them and availing ourselves, continually and repeatedly, of the gracious remedy. “Woe to that soul which presumes to think that he can approach God in any other way than as a sinner asking mercy. Know yourself to be wicked, and God will wrap you up warm in the mantle of His goodness” (Juan de Avila). “Remission of sins cannot be sundered from penitence, nor can the peace of God belong to consciences where the fear of God does not reign” (Calv.).

Perfectionism has two causes: (1) The stifling of conscience : “we make Him a liar, i.e. , turn a deaf ear to His inward testimony, His voice in our souls. (2) Ignorance of His Word : it “is not in us”. Such a delusion were impossible if we steeped our minds in the Scriptures. Consider the lapses of the saints, e.g. , David, Peter.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

8–10. CONSCIOUSNESS AND CONFESSION OF SIN

8–10. Walking in the light involves the great blessings just stated,—fellowship with God and with our brethren, and a share in the purifying blood of Jesus. But it also involves something on our part. It intensifies our consciousness of sin, and therefore our desire to get rid of it by confessing it. No one can live in the light without being abundantly convinced that he himself is not light.

8. ἐὰν εἴπωμεν. The second of the false professions: see on 1Jn 1:6. Some probably did say so, and others thought so: εἴπωμεν need not mean more than ‘say in our hearts.’ Portions of S. John’s own teaching (1Jn 3:9-10) might easily be misunderstood as countenancing this error, if taken without his qualifications. Ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν is a phrase peculiar to S. John in N.T. It differs from ἀμαρτάνειν much as ἁμαρτία or ἡ ἁμαρτία, sin as a whole, from ἁμαρτίαι or αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, the separate sinful acts. Comp. Joh 9:41; Joh 15:22; Joh 15:24; Joh 19:11. We need not enquire whether original or actual sin is meant: the expression covers sin of every kind. Only one human being has been able to say ‘The things pleasing to God I always do’; ‘Which of you convicteth Me of sin?’; ‘The ruler of the world hath nothing in Me’ (Joh 8:29; Joh 8:46; Joh 14:30). The more a man knows of the meaning of ‘God is light’, i.e. the more he realises the absolute purity and holiness of God, the more conscious he will become of his own impurity and sinfulness: comp. Job 9:2; Job 14:4; Job 15:14; Job 25:4; Pro 20:9; Ecc 7:20.

ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν. Not the middle, nor the passive, but a form of expression which makes it quite clear that the erring is all our own doing. Not ‘we err,’ or ‘we are deceived,’ but we lead ourselves astray, with an emphasis on ‘ourselves.’ Ipsi nos seducimus. We do for ourselves what the archdeceiver Satan (Rev 12:9; Rev 20:10) endeavours to do for us. Πλανᾶν in the active is frequent in S. John (1Jn 2:26; 1Jn 3:7; Joh 7:12; Rev 2:20; Rev 12:9; Rev 13:14; Rev 19:20; Rev 20:3; Rev 20:8; Rev 20:10). These passages indicate that the verb is a strong one and implies serious departure from the truth. For ἑαυτούς with the first person comp. ἀνεθεματίσαμεν ἑαυτούς (Act 23:14), ἑαυτοὺς διεκρίνομεν (1Co 11:31). It occurs with the second person 1Jn 5:21; 2Jn 1:8 (see note), Joh 5:42; and frequently in S. Paul’s writings. Winer 178, 179, 321, 322. ‘To deceive’ would be rather ἀπατᾶν (Jas 1:26), ἐξαπατᾶν (1Co 3:18), φρεναπατᾶν (Gal 6:3), ἡ ἀλήθ. ἐν ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔστιν. Once more the positive statement is enforced by a negative one (1Jn 1:5-6). We are in an atmosphere of self-made darkness which shuts the truth out. It may be all round us, as sunlight round a closed house; but it does not enter into us, still less has a permanent place in us. All words about truth are characteristic of S. John’s writings; ἀλήθεια, Gospel and all three Epistles; ἀληθής, Gospel, and 1 and 3 John; ἀληθινός, Gospel, 1 John, and Revelation; ἀληθῶς, Gospel and 1 John. ‘The truth’ is the correlative of ‘witness’, which, as shewn above (1Jn 1:2), is also characteristic of the Apostle.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

There is none but needeth this benefit, because there is none that is not a sinner.

This place doth fully refute that perfectness, and works of supererogation which the Papists dream of.

So then John speaketh not thus for modesty’s sake, as some say, but because it is so indeed.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

The confession of sins is a necessary consequence of "walking in the light" (Jo1 1:7). "If thou shalt confess thyself a sinner, the truth is in thee; for the truth is itself light. Not yet has thy life become perfectly light, as sins are still in thee, but yet thou hast already begun to be illuminated, because there is in thee confession of sins" [AUGUSTINE].

that we have no sin--"HAVE," not "have had," must refer not to the past sinful life while unconverted, but to the present state wherein believers have sin even still. Observe, "sin" is in the singular; "(confess our) sins" (Jo1 1:9) in the plural. Sin refers to the corruption of the old man still present in us, and the stain created by the actual sins flowing from that old nature in us. To confess our need of cleansing from present sin is essential to "walking in the light"; so far is the presence of some sin incompatible with our in the main "walking in light." But the believer hates, confesses, and longs to be delivered from all sin, which is darkness. "They who defend their sins, will see in the great day whether their sins can defend them."

deceive ourselves--We cannot deceive God; we only make ourselves to err from the right path.

the truth-- (Jo1 2:4). True faith. "The truth respecting God's holiness and our sinfulness, which is the very first spark of light in us, has no place in us" [ALFORD].

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 8. If we say that we have no sin] This is tantamount to 1Jo 1:10: If we say that we have not sinned. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; and therefore every man needs a Saviour, such as Christ is. It is very likely that the heretics, against whose evil doctrines the apostle writes, denied that they had any sin, or needed any Saviour. In deed, the Gnostics even denied that Christ suffered: the AEon, or Divine Being that dwelt in the man Christ Jesus, according to them, left him when he was taken by the Jews; and he, being but a common man, his sufferings and death had neither merit nor efficacy.

We deceive ourselves] By supposing that we have no guilt, no sinfulness, and consequently have no need of the blood of Christ as an atoning sacrifice: this is the most dreadful of all deceptions, as it leaves the soul under all the guilt and pollution of sin, exposed to hell, and utterly unfit for heaven.

The truth is not in us.] We have no knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus, the whole of which is founded on this most awful truth-all have sinned, all are guilty, all are unholy; and none can redeem himself. Hence it is as necessary that Jesus Christ should become incarnated, and suffer and die to bring men to God.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

8. If we say. He now commends grace from its necessity; for as no one is free from sin, he intimates that we are all lost and undone, except the Lord comes to our aid with the remedy of pardon. The reason why he so much dwells on the fact, that no one is innocent, is, that all may now fully know that they stand in need of mercy, to deliver them from punishment, and that they may thus be more roused to seek the necessary blessing.

By the word sin, is meant here not only corrupt and vicious inclination, but the fault or sinful act which really renders us guilty before God. Besides, as it is a universal declaration, it follows, that none of the saints, who exist now, have been, or shall be, are exempted from the number. Hence most fitly did Augustine refute the cavil of the Pelagians, by adducing against them this passage: and he wisely thought that the confession of guilt is not required for humility’s sake, but lest we by lying should deceive ourselves.

When he adds, and the truth is not in us, he confirms, according to his usual manner, the former sentence by repeating it in other words; though it is not a simple repetition, (as elsewhere,) but he says that they are deceived who glory in falsehood.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

8. If we say] See on 1Jn_1:6. Doubtless there were some who said so, and more perhaps who thought so; ‘say’ need not mean more than ‘say in our hearts’. S. John’s own teaching might easily be misunderstood as encouraging such an error, if one portion of it (1Jn_3:9-10) were taken without the rest.

we have no sin] ‘To have sin’ is a phrase peculiar to S. John in N. T. There is no need to inquire whether original or actual sin is meant: the expression is quite general, covering sin of every kind. Only One human being has been able to say ‘The things pleasing to God I always do’; ‘Which of you convicteth Me of sin?’; ‘The ruler of the world hath nothing in Me’ (Joh_8:29; Joh_8:46; Joh_14:30). The more a man knows of the meaning of ‘God is light’, i.e. the more he realises the absolute purity and holiness of God, the more conscious he will become of his own impurity and sinfulness: comp. Job_9:2; Job_14:4; Job_15:14; Job_25:4; Pro_20:9; Ecc_7:20.

we deceive ourselves] Not merely we are mistaken, or are misled, but we lead ourselves astray. In the Greek it is neither the middle, nor the passive, but the active with the reflexive pronoun: the erring is all our own doing. See on 1Jn_5:21. We do for ourselves what Satan, the arch-deceiver (Rev_12:9; Rev_20:10) endeavours to do for us. The active (πλανᾷν) is frequent in S. John, especially in the Apocalypse (Rev_2:26; Rev_3:7; Rev_2:20; Rev_12:9; Rev_13:14; Rev_19:20; Rev_20:3; Rev_20:8; Rev_20:10). An examination of these passages will shew that the word is a strong one and implies serious departure from the truth: comp. Joh_7:12.

the truth is not in us] Because we are in an atmosphere of self-made darkness which shuts the truth out. The truth may be all round us, but we are not in contact with it: it is not in us. One who shuts himself in a dark room has no light, though the sun may be shining brightly. All words about truth, ‘the truth, true, truly,’ are characteristic of S. John. Note the antithetic parallelism, and see on 1Jn_1:5.

8–10. Consciousness and Confession of Sin

8–10. Walking in the light involves the great blessings just stated,—fellowship with God and with our brethren, and a share in the purifying blood of Jesus. But it also involves something on our part. It intensifies our consciousness of sin, and therefore our desire to get rid of it by confessing it. No one can live in the light without being abundantly convinced that he himself is not light.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If we say that we have no sin,.... Notwithstanding believers are cleansed from their sins by the blood of Christ, yet they are not without sin; no man is without sin: this is not only true of all men, as they come into the world, being conceived in sin, and shapen in iniquity, and of all that are in a state of unregeneracy, and of God's elect, while in such a state, but even of all regenerated and sanctified persons in this life; as appears by the ingenuous confessions of sin made by the saints in all ages; by their complaints concerning it, and groans under it; by the continual war in them between flesh and spirit; and by their prayers for the discoveries of pardoning grace, and for the fresh application of Christ's blood for cleansing; by their remissness in the discharge of duty, and by their frequent slips and falls, and often backslidings: and though their sins are all pardoned, and they are justified from all things by the righteousness of Christ, yet they are not without sin; though they are freed from the guilt of sin, and are under no obligation to punishment on account of it, yet not from the being of it; their sins were indeed transferred from them to Christ, and he has bore them, and took them and put them away, and they are redeemed from them, and are acquitted, discharged, and pardoned, so that sin is not imputed to them, and God sees no iniquity in them in the article of justification; and also, their iniquities are caused to pass from them, as to the guilt of them, and are taken out of their sight, and they have no more conscience of them, having their hearts sprinkled and purged by the blood of Jesus, and are clear of all condemnation, the curse of the law, the wrath of God, or the second death, by reason of them; yet pardon of sin, and justification from it, though they take away the guilt of sin, and free from obligation to punishment, yet they do not take out the being of sin, or cause it to cease to act, or do not make sins cease to be sins, or change the nature of actions, of sinful ones, to make them harmless, innocent, or indifferent; the sins of believers are equally sins with other persons, are of the same kind and nature, and equally transgressions of the law, and many of them are attended with more aggravating circumstances, and are taken notice of by God, and resented by him, and for which he chastises his people in love: now though a believer may say that he has not this or that particular sin, or is not guilty of this or that sin, for he has the seeds of all sin in him, yet he cannot say he has no sin; and though he may truly say he shall have no sin, for in the other state the being and principle of sin will be removed, and the saints will be perfectly holy in themselves, yet he cannot, in this present life, say that he is without it: if any of us who profess to be cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ should affirm this,

we deceive ourselves; such persons must be ignorant of themselves, and put a cheat upon themselves, thinking themselves to be something when they are nothing; flattering themselves what pure and holy creatures they are, when there is a fountain of sin and wickedness in them; these are self-deceptions, sad delusions, and gross impositions upon themselves:

and the truth is not in us; it is a plain case the truth of grace is not in such persons, for if there was a real work of God upon their souls, they would know and discern the plague of their own hearts, the impurity of their nature, and the imperfection of their obedience; nor is the word of truth in them, for if that had an entrance into them, and worked effectually in them, they would in the light of it discover much sin and iniquity in them; and indeed there is no principle of truth, no veracity in them; there is no sincerity nor ingenuity in them; they do not speak honestly and uprightly, but contrary to the dictates of their own conscience.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Ver. 8. If we say that we have] If any should be so saucy, or rather silly, as to say with Donatus, Non habeo, Domine, quod ignoscas, I have no sin for Christ to cleanse me from, he is a loud liar, and may very well have the whetstone. St James for his innocent conversation was surnamed Justus; and yet, putting himself into the number, he saith, "For in many things we offend all," Jas 3:2.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If we say that we have no sin - It is not improbable that the apostle here makes allusion to some error which was then beginning to prevail in the church. Some have supposed that the allusion is to the sect of the Nicolaitanes, and to the views which they maintained, particularly that nothing was forbidden to the children of God under the gospel, and that in the freedom conferred on Christians they were at liberty to do what they pleased, Rev 2:6, Rev 2:15. It is not certain, however, that the allusion is to them, and it is not necessary to suppose that there is reference to any particular sect that existed at that time. The object of the apostle is to show that it is implied in the very nature of the gospel that we are sinners, and that if, on any pretence, we denied that fact, we utterly deceived ourselves. In all ages there have been those who have attempted, on some pretence, to justify their conduct; who have felt that they did not need a Saviour; who have maintained that they had a right to do what they pleased; or who, on pretence of being perfectly sanctified, have held that they live without the commission of sin. To meet these, and all similar cases, the apostle affirms that it is a great elementary truth, which on no pretence is to be denied, that we are all sinners. We are at all times, and in all circumstances, to admit the painful and humiliating truth that we are transgressors of the law of God, and that we need, even in our best services, the cleansing of the blood of Jesus Christ. The fair interpretation of the declaration here will apply not only to those who maintain that they have not been guilty of sin in the past, but also to those who profess to have become perfectly sanctified, and to live without sin. In any and every way, if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. Compare the notes at Jam 3:2.

We deceive ourselves - We have wrong views about our character. This does not mean that the self-deception is willful, but that it in fact exists. No man knows himself who supposes that in all respects he is perfectly pure.

And the truth is not in us - On this subject. A man who should maintain that he had never committed sin, could have no just views of the truth in regard to himself, and would show that he was in utter error. In like manner, according to the obvious interpretation of this passage, he who maintains that he is wholly sanctified, and lives without any sin, shows that he is deceived in regard to himself, and that the truth, in this respect, is not in him. He may hold the truth on other subjects, but he does not on this. The very nature of the Christian religion supposes that we feel ourselves to be sinners, and that we should be ever ready to acknowledge it. A man who claims that he is absolutely perfect, that he is holy as God is holy, must know little of his own heart. Who, after all his reasoning on the subject, would dare to go out under the open heaven, at midnight, and lift up his hands and his eyes toward the stars, and say that he had no sin to confess - that he was as pure as the God that made those stars?

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Not that we say or pretend we have no sin;[4] thus truth would not be in us, and we should even make God a liar, who has declared all mankind guilty of sin. We were all born guilty of original sin; we have fallen, and still frequently fall into lesser sins and failings. We can only except from this number our Saviour Christ, who, even as man, never sinned, and his blessed Virgin Mother, by a special privilege, preserved from all kind of sin: and of whom St. Augustine[5] says, "that for the honour of our Lord, when we speak of the holy Virgin Mary, he will have no mention at all made of any sin." (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Quoniam peccatum non habemus, &c. By which are confuted the errors of the Pelagian heretics, who denied original sin, and pretended that men by their natural strength could and did live free from all sins.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. Augustine, lib. de Nat. et Gra. chap. xxxvii. Excepta S. V. Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini, nullam prorsus, cum de peccato agitur, haberi volo mentionem.

====================

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

In pursance of which scope, he fitly adds: If we should say, i.e. either profess it as a principle, or think in our minds, or not bear in our hearts a penitential, remorseful sense, correspondent to the contrary apprehension; such as is implied in confessing, 1Jo 1:9; for saying usually signifies the habitual bent and disposition of the heart and practice, Job 21:14; Jer 22:21.

That we have no sin; viz. that we are so innocent creatures as not to need such an expiatory sacrifice as that above mentioned, and such purifying influence thereupon, but that we may be admitted to communion with God upon our own account, and for our worthiness’ sake, without being beholden to the blood of Christ.

We deceive ourselves, delude our own souls.

And the truth; i.e. the system and frame of gospel doctrine, as 2Jo 1:1,2,4.

Is not in us; cannot be duly entertained, lies not evenly and agreeably with itself in our minds, or hath no place with effect in us, as Joh 8:37.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

8. If we say—As the Nicolaitans (or antinomian Gnostics) do. See notes on Rev_2:15, and Introduction to this epistle.

Have no sin— Whether we say by denying we have done wrong, or by affirming that no wrong we commit is sin.

Deceive ourselves—We are not merely mistaken or deceived, but we are also our own deceivers. We are the deceived and deceivers in one. We have the misfortune to be mistaken, and the guilt of framing the deception by which we mistake.

The truth—It is not said that there is not truth in us, for all men have some truth. But the divine truth of pure fellowship with God through Christ is not in us, the only truth by which we are saved. Huther and Alford maintain that this saying, we have no sin, refers even to the true Christian. But, 1. Surely of a Christian who is by forgiveness freed from all guilt of sin, and by sanctification cleansed from all unrighteousness, it may be truly said in an evangelical sense that he has no sin. God imputes to him no sin. And to say that such a non-imputation to the Christian of sin makes God a liar, is, to say the least, very severe language. 2. Very plainly, the apostle is showing how the sinner may come into fellowship with the divine light. He tells such sinner that it is not by denying his sins, but by confessing them, that he can become right. The deceive ourselves refers to the man, therefore, before justification. 3. But in truth, the four instances in this chapter of if we say, are quotations of the language of Nicolaitan antinomians, who maintained that however bad their conduct they were still sinless.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

After the great message," God is Light" (verse 5) and its application to ourselves (verses 6, 7), we are now told what walking in the light involves:

(1) consciousness of sin and confession of sin (verses 8-10);

(2) accepting the propitiation of Jesus Christ the Righteous; (1Jn_2:1-2)

(3) obedience. (1Jn_2:3-6)

If we say that we have not sin. The present e]comen again shows that the daily falls of those who are walking in the light are meant, not the sins committed in the days of darkness before conversion. The Lord"s Prayer implies that we must daily ask forgiveness. We lead ourselves astray from the truth, and have no right estimate of the gulf between our impurity and God"s holiness, if we deny this habitual frailty. In the sunlight even flame throws a shadow; and that man is in darkness who denies his sin. The truth may be near him; but it has not found a home with him it is not in him. Planan is specially frequent in the Revelation, and always of arch-deceivers Satan, the beast, antichrist, false teachers; it seems to imply fundamental error. (comp 1Jn_2:26)

Vers. 8-10.

Man"s attitude towards his own sins.

we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves," etc. It is implied that man is a sinner, that even Christian men "have sin." The renewed nature is not, in our present condition, an altogether sinless nature. The saintly apostle includes himself in the "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves," etc. But this is not the same moral condition as "walking in the darkness" (verse 6). In that condition the man "is in the darkness;" in this, the sin is in the man. In that, darkness is the moral region in which the sinner lives and moves and has his being; in this, he lives and walks in the light, but is not altogether free from sin. Our text sets before us two contrasted attitudes of men towards their own sins.

I THE DENIAL OF PERSONAL SINS. "If we say that we have no sin," etc. (verse 8). "If we say that we have not sinned," etc. (verse 10). Notice: 1. This denial itself. It may be made variously.

(1) By affirming that we are flee from sin. There may be persons whose view of the exalted claims of God"s holy law is so deficient, and whose estimate of their own character and conduct is so exaggerated, that they think and assert that they have no sin.

(2) By pleading the merit of certain good actions as a set-off against our sins. In this case certain small and venial sins are acknowledged, but very many virtuous and generous deeds are claimed, and great merit is ascribed to them, and they are held to far more than counterbalance the slight offences. Or, like the Pharisee, (Luk_18:11, Luk_18:12) a man may conclude that he has no sin by comparing himself and his good works with others whom he deems very much his inferiors.

(3) By extenuating the character of sin. There are not a few who virtually deny the fact of sin altogether. What the Bible calls sin they speak of as misdirection, imperfect development, inherited tendencies to errors of life; and thus they seek to get rid of personal guilt.

2. The consequences of this denial.

(1) The self-deception of the denier. "He deceiveth himself." By closing his eyes to the light of truth and holiness, he is wandering into moral error, falsehood, and danger. He sins against his own soul.

(2) The manifestation of the solemn fact that the truth of God is not in him. Saying that he has no sin, he testifies that neither the truth of the perfect holiness of God, nor that of the sinfulness of man, is realized by him.

(3) The negation of the Divine veracity. "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar." God has repeatedly declared that all men are sinners. (Rom_3:10-18) All the provisions and arrangements for man"s redemption imply that he is a sinner and spiritually lost. But if any man has not sinned, these declarations are untrue, and redemption itself is based upon falsehood. How dreadful a thing it is to "make him a liar"!

(4) The manifestation of the fact that the Word of God is not in him. By "his Word" (verse 10) we do not understand the eternal and personal Word (as in verse 1), but, as Ebrard says, "the collective revelation of God, not merely that which is contained in the written words of the Old and New Testaments, but the entire self-annunciation of the nature of God, who is Light." The whole revelation of the mind and will of God teaches that man is a sinner; he who says that he has not sinned contradicts that revelation, and in so doing shows that the spirit of that revelation is not in him.

II THE CONFESSION OF PERSONAL SINS. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1. The confession itself. The confession, to be valid, must be sincere; it must be the expression of penitence. The apostle means more than a vague, general confession of sin. It is to be feared that many join in the "general confession" in church every Sunday without any true realization of their personal guiltiness, and whose confession, consequently, cannot be acceptable unto God. Our confession must be personal and particular; it must spring from the heart, and its sincerity must be evinced in the life. Confession must be made to God. In our text there is no suggestion whatever of confession to a priest. Confession to man is binding only when we have injured man, and then the confession should be made to the injured person or persons. But the confession and forgiveness of which our text speaks are things which transpire between the penitent soul and the pardoning God.

2. The consequences of this confession.

(1) Forgiveness of our sins. As a consequence of genuine personal confession of sins, God exempts us from their spiritual penalties, sets us free from their guilt, and delivers us from condemnation. How completely and graciously God forgives (Psa_103:12; Isa_38:17 Isa_44:22 Isa_55:6, Isa_55:7; Mic_7:10; ! Luk_15:20-24)

(2) Cleansing from our sins. "And to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Purification is promised as well as pardon; sanctification as well as justification. Of this sanctification we have already spoken (verse 7).

(3) The guarantee of these blessings. "He is faithful and just Revised Version, "righteous to forgive us our sins," etc. The character of God is a pledge that the penitent shall receive pardon and purification. He has promised these blessings; he is faithful, and will fulfill his promises. He is faithful, not only to his promises, but to his own holy nature. "God is Light," and he is true to himself in forgiving and sanctifying those who sincerely confess their sins. It seems to us that his righteousness here does not mean that, Christ having borne our sins and satisfied Divine justice, the forgiveness of all who believe on him is due to him or to them in him. That may be taught elsewhere, but we cannot discover it here. The justice or righteousness is that of the character of God; and pardon and purification from sin are bestowed in harmony with his righteousness. It may be, as Alford observes, that "in the background lie all the details of redemption, but they are not here in this verse: only the simple fact of God"s justice is adduced." "Justice and mercy are forms of love. The same is true of righteousness, or right this requires both justice and mercy; for no being can ever think himself righteous who does not exercise mercy where mercy is possible and just" (righteous), says an apostle, "to forgive us our sins." God will be just, retributively, because he is righteous. He will also be merciful and forgiving because he is righteous.

Our subject presents the strongest reasons to dissuade us from attempting to cloak or deny our sins, and the strongest encouragement to humbly and heartily confess them unto God. "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. W.J.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If we say - Any child of man, before his blood has cleansed us. We have no sin - To be cleansed from, instead of confessing our sins, 1 John i, 9, the truth is not in us - Neither in our mouth nor in our heart.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Sin and its forgiveness:

v. 8. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

v. 9. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

v. 10. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us.

What St. John here discusses is the heresy of perfectionism, the idea which is held by many people to this day, namely, that they can attain to such a perfect state in this world that they are completely free from sin in their own persons, "in an uninterrupted obedience. " To these the apostle says: If we say that sin we do not have, ourselves we deceive, and the truth, not is it in us. The very position of the words expresses the horror which John must have felt at the mere suggestion of such blasphemy. There is no such thing as perfect sanctification in our own persons in this life, making the forgiveness of sins superfluous so far as we are concerned. If anyone should hold this foolish notion and even confess it, he is deceiving himself, he is leading himself astray, he is leaving the eternal truth as revealed in the Word of God. He is denying the truth that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God, that there is none that doeth good, no, not one. He has left the truth that we sinners are justified before God by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith. Thus the truth will no longer be in such a person, he is lost in the blindness of self-righteousness, he has lost the fellowship with God and with Jesus Christ, his Savior.

But, on the other hand: If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just, that He forgives the sins and cleanses us from all unrighteousness. That is the custom which the Christians have, to bring their transgressions before their heavenly Father in contrition and repentance, to confess them all without excuse or attempt at mitigation. We can do that so freely because we know that God is reconciled to us through the blood of His Son. He forgives us our sins for the sake of Christ, He cleanses us from all our imperfections and unrighteousnesses, from the sins which still cling to us and make us laggards in the fulfillment of God’s will. This He can do because the righteousness of Christ is there in sufficient quantity to outweigh all our trespasses; His expiation is great enough to cover all our sins. What is more, in doing this, our heavenly Father is proving Himself faithful to His promises, Heb 10:23. And He is just; having accepted the redemption of Christ, His perfect reconciliation, it would be an act of unrighteousness and injustice on His part to break His promise ratified by the blood of Jesus. If Christ were still in the grave, then our hope were vain; but with the risen Christ exalted to the right hand of God we are courageous and defiant in faith.

The apostle again lifts his finger in warning to check the pride and self-righteousness of our hearts: If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word, not is it in us. If any person that is at all acquainted with the Word of God is so blind and perverse as to deny his own sinfulness, he is stifling the voice of his conscience, he is setting aside the entire Word of the Gospel, he is rejecting the entire experience of mankind. Thus he makes God a liar; for the entire content of His Word may be given in the two words, sin and grace; and he most assuredly has not the faintest conception of the truth of God as it is contained in His revealed Word. Let every Christian, therefore, guard against such a delusion with all vigilance, and to that end make the study of God’s Word a daily practice. Then his own sin, but above all the greatness of God’s mercy, will be revealed to him with ever greater emphasis.

Summary.The apostle gives a brief summary of the doctrine concerning the person and the office of Christ, showing at the same time that God is Light and that we should walk in this light, recognizing and acknowledging our sins, but also the forgiveness of God through the blood of Christ.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If we say, we apostles, we cannot say we are free from sin; much less can the proud Gnostics say so, who suppose and assert themselves to be in a state of perfection; and observe, he doth not say, If we say we had no sin, we deceive ourselves; but that if now we say we have none; intimating, that Christians, as as well after as before conversion, continue sinful persons; a perfect freedom from all sin being altogether unattainable in this life, not only by ordinary Christians, but by the most eminent saints.

The church of Rome will have it that this is magis humiliter quam veraciter dictum, rather spoken humbly than truly; but the apostle doth not say, humility is not in us; but, the truth is not in us; he saith not, we extol ourselves, and there is no lowliness in us; but we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us, no truth of knowledge in our understandings, no real holiness in our hearts.

Who can say he has made his heart clean?

We can neither ascribe what purity we have to ourselves, nor yet attribute perfection to our purity; and if so, how should we long for the day of redemption, when no sin shall affect us, no sorrow afflict us; when we shall be clothed with unspotted purity, perfect felicity, and that to all eternity.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

8–10. If we say that we have no sin. To say that we have reached a sinless state in which we no longer need the blood of Christ to cleanse us is a deception. This language is in square opposition to the claims of the “Perfectionists” of all ages.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

Here the words "he," "him," and "his" refer to God. (See: 1 John 1:5)

have no sin

"never sin"

are deceiving

"are tricking" or "lying to"

the truth is not in us

The truth is spoken of as if it were an object that could be inside believers. AT: "we do not believe what God says is true" (See: Metaphor)

to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness

These two phrases mean basically the same thing. John uses them to emphasize that God will surely forgive our sins. AT: "and will completely forgive us of what we have done wrong" (See: Parallelism)

we make him out to be a liar

It is implied that a person who claims to be without sin would be calling God a liar since he said that everyone is a sinner. AT: "it is the same as calling him a liar, because he said we have all sinned" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

his word is not in us

"Word" here is a metonym for "message." Obeying and honoring God's word is spoken of as if his word were inside the believers. AT: "we do not understand God's word nor obey what he says" (See: Metaphor and Metonymy)

translationWords

sin

deceive

true

confess

faithful

forgive

clean

righteous

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

8-2:2.] Unfolding of the idea of purification from sin by the blood of Christ, in connexion with our walking in light. This last is adduced in one of its plainest and simplest consequences, viz. the recognition of all that is yet darkness in us, in the confession of our sins. “Si te confessus fueris peccatorem, est in te veritas: nam ipsa veritas lux est. Nondum perfecte splenduit vita tua, quia insunt peccata: sed tamen jam illuminari cœpisti, quia inest confessio peccatorum.” Aug. The light that is in us convicts the darkness, and we, no longer loving nor desiring to sin, have, by means of the propitiatory and sanctifying blood of Christ, both full forgiveness of and sure purification from all our sins. But the true test of this state of communion with and knowledge of God is, the keeping of His commandments (2:3-6), the walking as Christ walked: and this test is concentrated and summed up in its one crucial application, viz. to the law of love (2:7-11).

8.] If we say (see on ἐάν with subj. above, ver. 6) that we have not sin (i. e. in the course and abiding of our walking in light: if we maintain that we are pure and free from all stain of sin. St. John is writing to persons whose sins have been forgiven them (ch. 2:12), and therefore necessarily the present tense ἔχομεν refers not to any previous state of sinful life before conversion, but to their now existing state and the sins to which they are liable in that state. And in thus referring, it takes up the conclusion of the last verse, in which the onward cleansing power of the sanctifying blood of Christ was asserted: q. d. this state of needing cleansing from all present sin is veritably that of all of us: and our recognition and confession of it is the very first essential of walking in light. The Socinian interpreters, Socinus, Schlichting, and following them Grotius, go in omnia alia, and understand the passage of sins before conversion, or of the general imputation of sin. And our own Hammond has been entirely led away from the sense of the passage by the unfortunate notion of Gnostics being every where aimed at in this Epistle: imagining that their profession of perfection while living impure lives was here intended. See these erroneous interpretations refuted at length in Lücke and Düsterdieck), we are deceiving ourselves (causing ourselves to err from the straight and true way), and the truth (God’s truth, objective) is not in us (has no subjective place in us. That truth respecting God’s holiness and our own sinfulness, which is the very first spark of light within, has no place in us at all. It would be mere wasting of room and of patience, at every turn to be stating and impugning the inadequate interpretations of the Socinian Commentators and of their followers, Grotius, Semler, &c. It may be sufficient here just to notice Grotius’s “non est in nobis studium veri,” and Semler’s “castior cognitio.” Even Lücke has gone wrong here; “die Selbsttäuschung verubet auf Mangel an innerem Wahrheitssinn und ist dieser Mangel selbst.”

ἑαυτούς = ἡμᾶς αὐτούς, see Winer): if we confess our sins (it is evident, from the whole sense of the passage, which has regard to our walking in light and in the truth, that no mere outward lip-confession is here meant, nor on the other hand any mere being aware within ourselves of sin (as Socinus: “confiteri significat interiorem ac profundam suorum peccatorum cognitionem”), but the union of the two, an external spoken confession springing from genuine inward contrition. As evident is it, that the confession here spoken of is not confined to confession to God, but embraces all our utterances on the subject, to one another as well as to Him; cf. Jas 5:16: and see more below), He (God, the Father; not, Christ, though this may at first sight seem probable from ver. 7 and ch. 2:1; nor, the Father and Christ combined, as Lange and Sander hold. God is the chief subject through the whole passage: cf. ὁ θεός, ver. 5: μετʼ αὐτοῦ, ver. 6: αὐτός, and τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, in ver. 7. It is ever God’s truth (1Co 1:9, 1Co 1:10, 1Co 1:13; 2Co 1:18; 1Th 5:24) and righteousness (Joh 17:25; Rom 3:25; Rev 16:5) that are concerned in, and vindicated by, our redemption) is faithful and just (His being faithful and just does not depend on our confessing our sins: He had both these attributes before, and will ever continue to have them: but by confessing our sins, we cast ourselves on, we approach and put to the proof for ourselves, and shall find operative in our case, in the ἀφῇ and καθαρίσῃ, &c., those His attributes of faithfulness and justice.

On the former of these adjectives, πιστός, almost all Commentators agree. It is, faithful to His plighted word and promise: see reff. and citations above. Œc. and Thl. alone have given a singular and not very clear interpretation: πιστὸν δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀληθῆ εἴρηκε. πιστὸς γὰρ οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ πεπιστευμένου, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πιστωτικοῦ εἴρηται, ὃς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ ἀληθοῦς τρόπου ἔχει καὶ τὸ τοῖς ἄλλοις τούτου μεταδιδόναι. The latter, δίκαιος, has not been so unanimously interpreted. The idea of God’s justice seeming strange here, where the remission of and purification from sin is in question, some Commentators have endeavoured to give δίκαιος the sense of good, merciful: so Grot., Rosenm.; or, which amounts to the same, fair, favourably disposed: so Semler, Lange, Carpzov Bretschn. Lex. But Lücke has shewn, that in none of the O. T. passages which are cited to substantiate these meanings, have they really place; but in all, righteousness, justice, is the fundamental idea, and the context only makes it mean, justice in this or in that direction. See note on Mat 1:19. The meaning then being just, we have still to decide between several different views as to what particular phase of the divine justice is meant. Some, as Calov., Wolf, al., understand that God’s justice has been satisfied in Christ, and thus the application of that satisfaction to us if we confess our sins, is an act of divine justice: is due to us in Christ. But this is plainly too much to be extracted from our verse. In Rom 3:26, where this is asserted, the reason is given, and all is fully explained: whereas here the ellipsis would be most harsh and unprecedented, and thus to fill it up would amount to an introduction into the context of an idea which is altogether foreign to it. (The notion that δίκαιος = δικαιῶν need only be mentioned to refute itself: Rom 3:26 is decisive against it.) The correct view seems to be, that δίκαιος as well as πιστός here is an attribute strictly to be kept to that which is predicated of it under the circumstances, without entering upon reasons external to the context. God is faithful, to His promise: is just, in His dealing: and both attributes operate in the forgiveness of sins to the penitent, now and hereafter; and in cleansing them from all unrighteousness. The laws of His spiritual kingdom require this: by those laws He acts in holy and infinite justice. His promises announced it, and to those promises he is faithful: but then those promises were themselves made only in accordance with his nature, who is holy, just, and true. In the background lie all the details of redemption, but they are not here in this verse: only the simple fact of God’s justice is adduced) to forgive us our sins (ἵνα here is not = ὥστε: it is not “so as to forgive, &c.,” but “that He may forgive, &c.” His doing so is in accordance with, and therefore as with Him all facts are purposed, is in pursuance of, furthers the object of, His faithfulness and justice. “So that He is faithful and just, in order that He may, &c.” See Joh 4:34 note: reff. here: and Winer, § 44. 8 c. With regard to the particular here mentioned, ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας is the continued remission of the guilt of each committed sin, which is the special promise and just act of God under the Gospel covenant: see Heb 10:14, Heb 10:18), and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (the explanation of the sense, see above. Here ἀδικίας is used, in reference to δίκαιος above, as corresponding to ἁμαρτίας in ver. 7. The divine δικαιοσύνη is revealed in God’s law: every transgression then of that law (ἁμαρτία, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν τοῦ σκόπου: cf. Theodorus Abukara in Suicer, s. v. ἁμαρτία) is of its nature and essence an ἀδικία, an unrighteousness, as contrary to that δικαιοσύνη. Observe, the two verbs are aorists, because the purpose of the faithfulness and justice of God is to do each as one great complex act—to justify and to sanctify wholly and entirely.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

8. The second false plea denies the abiding power of sin as a principle in one who has committed sins. To those who hold such a view, sin ceases to be of any importance. It is merely a passing incident which leaves behind it no lasting consequences. The plea rests on self-deception. It can only be maintained by those who shut their eyes to the teaching of experience, in themselves or in others. And they lead themselves astray. The consequences must be fatal unless men acknowledge their mistake and retrace their steps.

ἐὰν εἴπωμεν] For the general idea, cf. Pro 20:9, τίς παρρησιάσεταικαθαρὸς εἶναι ἀπὸ ἁμαρτιῶν, and 28:13, ὁ ἐπικαλύπτων ἀσέβειαν ἑαυτοῦ οὐκ εὐοδωθήσεται.

ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν] Cf. πίστιν ἔχειν, to have faith, as an active principle working in us and forming our character. To “have sin” is not merely a synonym for to commit sins. This is necessitated by the contrast demanded by ver. 10 between ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν and οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν.“Sin” is the principle of which sinful acts are the several manifestations. So long as a Christian commits sins, sin is an active power working in him; and its power still remains after the forgiveness of sins which he received at his baptism. To deny this is to refuse to accept the teaching of experience.In the N.T. the use of the phrase ἁμαρτίαν ἒχειν is confined to this Epistle and the Fourth Gospel (9:41, 15:22, 24, 19:11). The meaning of the phrase in the Gospel has been raised as an objection to the interpretation given above. It is maintained that in the Gospel it has a quite definite sense, and that it “specifically denotes the guiltiness of the sin” (Law, The Tests of Life, p. 130); and it is suggested that the meaning here must be, “If we say that we have no guilt, no responsibility for the actions, wrong in themselves, which we have committed.” It is probably true that as compared with the simple verb the phrase accentuates the ideas of guilt and responsibility. And in the passages in the Gospel where the phrase occurs these ideas are prominent. But they are contained in the Hebrew conception of sin, emphatically developed in the teaching of the N.T., rather than in the one expression as opposed to the other. He who has committed sin is responsible for his action, just as much as he who “has sin” and who feels, or should feel, in himself the presence of a power which manifests itself in his sinful acts. And though the idea of guilt is prominent in the use of the phrase in the Gospel, especially in 15:22, where the antithesis, “Now they have no excuse for their sin,” must be noticed, it does not exhaust the meaning of the phrase as used there. Cf. 9:41, εἰ τυφλοὶ ἦτε οὐκ ἄν εἴχετε ἁμαρτίαν. If they had been as ignorant, and conscious of their ignorance, as the man whom they had condemned, they might have learned, and whatever “sin” they had would have lost its power. But their refusal to see the truth when it was presented to them, and their insistence that they knew, in spite of this, gave their sin an abiding power over them. Henceforth it could prevent any possibility of their seeing the truth. And the same idea is present in ch. 15. The rejection of Christ’s words by His opponents had given sin a power over them, which it could never have had but for their missing the opportunity of better things. As it was, they not only had “sin” as an active power established in them and working its will, but they had no excuse to offer for its presence there (πρόφασιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν περὶτῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν, which cannot mean “they have no excuse for their guilt,” and which is not merely antithetical but adds a further point). This meaning is especially clear in ver. 24. The “sin” which had got its hold, in consequence of their rejecting Him in spite of what He had done among them, had conceived and brought forth hate (νῦν δὲ καὶ ἑωράκασιν καὶμεμισήκασιν is the contrast to ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἴχοσαν). And the phrase may possibly be used with something of the same meaning in 19:11, ὁ παραδιδοὺς … μείζονα ἁμαρτίαν ἔχει, though in this case the simpler meaning “the greater guilt” is more plausible. But even here the thought may be of the power which sin acquires over him who admits it. Sin could now work with more fatal power in the High Priest, who knew the relative power of God and of the Roman governor, and who incited him to his crime against justice, than in Pilate, who in spite of his greater power was more ignorant than the Jew. Even if the phrase meant no more in the Gospel than the denotation of the “guiltiness of the agent,” it would not necessarily bear exactly the same meaning in the Epistle. The writer likes to put new meaning into the phrases he repeats. But probably, though the exact nuance may be different in the two writings, the fundamental idea expressed is the same. It is the special characteristic of the writer that he loves to use his phrases, of which his store is but scanty, with slightly different shades of meaning.

ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν] The phrase, as contrasted with the simple πλανώμεθα, emphasizes the agent’s responsibility for the mistake. The evidence is there; only wilful blindness refuses to accept it. We have no excuse for the sin which we “have,” in spite of our denial of the fact. See Findlay, p. 106.

πλανᾶν always suggests the idea of leading astray from the right path (cf. 2:26, 3:7; Joh 7:12; Rev 2:20, Rev 12:9, etc.). The mistake must have fatal consequences until we lead ourselves back into the way of truth.καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια κ.τ.λ.] The statement that we have not sin, shows that those who make it have not “truth” working in them as an inner and effective principle. For the meaning of “truth,” cf. note on ver. 6. It is more than the sense of truth, uprightness and honesty of self-examination and self-knowledge (cf. Rothe, ad loc.). It can be regarded both objectively and subjectively, either as something that can be done (ver. 6), an external standard in accordance with which actions must be shaped, or as an inner principle, working from within and moulding a man’s inner life.

ουκ εστιν א B L al. pler. sah. syrp aeth. Tert. Oec.] post ημιν A C K P 5. 13. 31*. 65. 69. 137. 180 ascr Rev_2 scr cat. m 75 vg. syrp arm. Thphyl. Cyp. Lcif. Aug. Probably an accidental alteration, possibly due to Latin influence, and, at any rate, naturally maintained in Latin authorities.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That we have no sin. %Oti that, may be taken merely as a mark of quotation : "If we say, sin we have not." On the phrase to have sin, see on Joh 16:22, and compare have fellowship, ver. 3. Sin [αμαρτιαν] is not to be understood of original sin, or of sin before conversion, but generally. "It is obvious that this ecein aJmartian (to have sin), is infinitely diversified, according to the successive measure of the purification and development of the new man. Even the apostle John does not exclude himself from the universal if we say" (Ebrard).

Heathen authors say very little about sin, and classic paganism had little or no conception of sin in the Gospel sense. The nearest approach to it was by Plato, from whose works a tolerably complete doctrinal statement might be gathered of the origin, nature, and effects of sin. The fundamental idea of aJmartia (sin) among the Greeks is physical; the missing of a mark (see on Mt 1:21; Mt 6:14); from which it develops into a metaphysical meaning, to wander in the understanding. This assumes knowledge as the basis of goodness; and sin, therefore, is, primarily, ignorance. In the Platonic conception of sin, intellectual error is the prominent element. Thus : "What then, I said, is the result of all this? Is not this the result - that other things are indifferent, and that wisdom is the only good, and ignorance the only evil ?" (" Euthydemus, "281)." The business of the founders of the state will be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which has been already declared by us to be the greatest of all - they must continue to rise until they arrive at the good "(" Republic," 7, 519). Plato represents sin as the dominance of the lower impulses of the soul, which is opposed to nature and to God (see "Laws," 9, 863. "Republic," 1, 351). Or again, as an inward want of harmony. "May we not regard every living being as a puppet of the gods, either their plaything only or created with a purpose - which of the two we cannot certainly know? But this we know, that these affections in us are like cords and strings which pull us different and opposite ways, and to opposite actions; and herein lies the difference between virtue and vice" (" Laws, "1, 644). He traces most sins to the influence of the body on the soul." In this present life, I reckon that we make the nearest approach to knowledge when we have the least possible communion or fellowship with the body, and are not infected with the bodily nature, but remain pure until the hour when God himself is pleased to release us. And then the foolishness of the body will be cleared away, and we shall be pure, and hold converse with other pure souls, and know of ourselves the clear light everywhere, which is no other than the light of truth "(" Phedo," 67). 62 We find in the classical writers, however, the occasional sense of the universal faultiness of mankind, though even Plato furnishes scarcely any traces of accepting the doctrine of innate depravity. Thus Theognis : "The sun beholds no wholly good and virtuous man among those who are now living" (615). "But having become good, to remain in a good state and be good, is not possible, and is not granted to man. God only has this blessing; but man cannot help being bad when the force of circumstances overpowers him" (Plato, "Protagoras," 344). " How, then : is it possible to be sinless? It is imp

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.