1 John 1:8-10

3. Second Inference.—Perception and Confession of Sins

1 John 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 (1 John 1:8) and positive (1 John 1:9), while the negation (1 John 1:8) is continued (1 John 1:10) with reference to the positive (1 John 1:9), and the parallel is even indicated in the form: ἐὰνεἲπωμεν. 1 John 1:8; 1 John 1:10. The connection of 1 John 1:8 with the presuppositions at the end of 1 John 1:7 (καθαρίσει ) 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,” (1 John 1:5).

1 John 1:8. Perception of Sin.—If we say, cf. 1 John 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 1 John 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 (Romans 8:23) and the second person (John 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 1 John 3:7; Matthew 24:4; Matthew 24:11, and elsewhere. This is also the proper meaning of this verb. It is parallel with ψευδόμεθα of 1 John 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 1 John 1:6, so this sentence concludes parallel with not doing the truth, (1 John 1:6). The truth, ἡ 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 , 1 John 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 1 John 1:6, only its manifestation and expression in our life.

1 John 1:9. Confession of Sins.—If we confess our sins.—The connection of this sentence with the preceding is not like that of 1 John 1:7 with 1 John 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 ”), 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 (Psalms 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 (James 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 1 John 1:10, and on 1 John 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 1 John 1:7, and below in 1 John 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 [1 John 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 1 John 1:10, which re-adverts to the Word of God, although it had already been mentioned in 1 John 1:1; 1 John 1:3; 1 John 1:5, and is in perfect harmony with the grammatical usage of both Testaments and the views they express (cf. Psalms 32:3 sqq.; Ezekiel 18:31 sq.; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 1Co 10:13; 2 Corinthians 1:18-21; 1 Thessalonians 5:24; Hebrews 10:23; Hebrews 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; 2 Thessalonians 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. Psalms 143:1, and notes on 1 John 2:29.

To forgive us our sins.—̓̀Ινα is not =ὢστε, so that, or ὂτι with which it alternates, 1 John 1:5, 1 John 3:11. The difference is, whether we have here simply the contents of the message (1 John 1:5), or its purpose (1 John 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 1 John 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.

1 John 1:10. Conclusion.—If we say.—Cf. 1 John 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 [1 John 1:10 describes the concrete act, 1 John 1:8 the abstract state—M.]; we have here the conduct (1 John 1:10) in a certain relation (1 John 1:8) in connection with ἀδικία, 1 John 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, 1 John 1:9, show that the separate acts, the actuosity [actuositas—M.] of the ἁμαρτία (1 John 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. John 5:18; John 8:53; John 10:33; John 19:7; John 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, 1 John 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, John 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 (1 John 1:8), although it is disappearing more and more (1 John 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, 1 John 1:6; we deceive ourselves, 1 John 1:8; we make God a liar, 1 John 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 precedes the καθαρίζειν (1 John 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 (1 John 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, 1 John 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 Romans 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 (1 John 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 (1 John 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 1 John 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. Luke 15:18-19, compared with Luke 1:21-24.—M.] It is wholly unwarranted that the Concil. Trident. XI 1:100:5, p. 37, cites this passage along with Luke 5:14; Luke 17:14; James 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 ) 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 1 John 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 32:0, 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 2:0. 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 1 John 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:

1 John 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.

1 John 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: 

1 John 1:8; 1 John 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 1 John 5:10.

1 John 1:9; 1 John 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.