The Epistles of John, Part 4: The Heart of the Matter

Works of literature have several defining characteristics.  They have an opening, also known as “the hook”, designed to catch the reader’s attention.  A main point is necessary.  This is the theme that runs through the piece, overshadowing all that is written.  A purpose, while often being synonymous with the main point, can sometimes be different.  Climaxes, denouements, prologues, and epilogues are among the other features that are usually present.  We have already discussed the fact that John chose to dispense with several of the typical characteristics of a letter in his first epistle.  But what he doesn’t leave out is his main point.  And it is found in verses five to ten of chapter one.  Bear in mind that this is not John’s purpose for writing the letter.  That won’t come until chapter five and verse 13.  But what he reveals here is the fulcrum upon which the pendulum of 1^st John swings.  This is the crux of the issues he is presenting.  What we will find in these few verses is the grounds which enable John to drive toward that purpose to be revealed later.  To state it clearly, this is the heart of the matter.

John has spent considerable effort already in detailing his authority as an eyewitness of the manifestation of God the Father in the person of God the Son, Jesus Christ.  We have seen how John’s firsthand experiences with Jesus overwhelmed his senses and contributed to a comprehensive understanding and contemplation of this revelation of God’s character.  So when he comes to verse 5 it should come as no surprise that he continues to draw on that authoritative position he enjoys: This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you.  Remember that this is no mere preacher seeking to exegete the Bible.  The speaker is not someone whose words may be casually ignored or even judiciously considered for accuracy.  This is the Apostle John and his words carry the same weight of authority as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

And what words they are!  This is the critical point upon which 1^st John hangs: God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.  We looked at this verse briefly a few weeks ago.  John is capitalizing on a Biblical metaphor here.  He did not invent it.  In fact, this illustration of light and dark is from antiquity.  Consider Psalm 119:105: Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.  Or perhaps Proverbs 6:23 would be helpful: For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching is light; and reproofs for discipline are the way of life.  Repeatedly Scripture gives us this image of light as a good and helpful thing.  Light illumines our way forward to aid us in not becoming lost.  It is associated with heat, as from the Sun, to warm our bones on a cold winter’s day. 

By contrast, darkness is confusing and mysterious, even fearful.  Temperatures fall in the dark, causing us to shiver and feel a sense of dread or foreboding.  We instinctively know and understand that darkness is worse than light.  This is because the dark represents the unknown.  We fear the unknown on a primal level because of the sundering of our relationship with God.  So in all these ways, in every way possible, it makes absolute sense to our minds that light is good and dark is bad.  Therefore, when John uses this metaphor it feels right to us.

But, do we truly play it out to its logical conclusion?  If God is light, or good, and if there is no darkness, or evil, in Him then what is our response to evil in the world?  There are only two possibilities.  To be fair, there is a third, that God Himself is evil.  But that option is so ludicrous as to not even be worthy of consideration.  Thus we are left with the following.  Either we ascribe to God the full ruler ship and authority over His creation, including the evil parts of it that are due to sin.  Or we divorce Him from this evil and maintain that agents outside of God are the causal forces responsible for the evil that is present in the world.  The problem with the latter solution is that it removes a portion of God’s sovereignty over His creation.  The difficulty with the former is that if God allows, permits, or ordains that evil exist in His world then how can He be perfectly light with no darkness at all in Him?

This is one of the most perplexing and divisive issues in the Bible.  And I’m not going to be very fair here because I’m not going to get side-tracked and delve too deeply into it.  My purpose is rather to cause you to reflect and contemplate.  I want you to process this apparent Scriptural difficulty.  So I will say this.  The fundamental reason that humans grapple with this issue is because we struggle to reconcile the possibility that two truths can run parallel to each other without intersecting or contradicting each other.  In our minds there is a finite, or two dimensional cause.  Similarly there is a finite, or two dimensional effect.  And to be sure, many doctrines of Scripture are this way.  One of them is in this very passage and we will get to it in a few minutes.  But some Biblical truths are not like this, such as the issue at hand of how God’s sovereignty and goodness co-exist and relate to the evil in the world.  There is a very clear principle in Scripture that God can be sovereign in ordering circumstances to His whim yet at the same time when those circumstances involve the commission of acts of evil, the human beings perpetrating the offense are the ones who are guilty, not God, for their conduct in spite of the fact that they were operating under the auspices of the Lord.

Two passages among several come to my mind to reinforce this point.  I will allow them to speak mostly for themselves and then I will move on from this topic.  Both references involve the death of Christ.  The first is in Mark 14:21.  Jesus is speaking and He references the pre-ordained path He was on that would ultimately lead to His death.  But at the same time, even though this was part of God’s plan, Jesus places the burden of responsibility squarely on Judas’s shoulders: “For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!  It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”  The second citation I will give comes from Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost, found in Acts chapter 2.  In verse 23 Peter makes it clear that the death of Jesus was according to God’s plan yet the ones responsible for that death were held accountable for their actions: “this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”

These passages prove that the parallel truths of God’s sovereignty over evil and man’s responsibility for his evil actions can and do co-exist in harmony.  We may not understand how that can be.  But honestly our ability to comprehend it is quite irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is true.  And we need to come to terms with the fact that, however we want to settle this issue in our minds, the Bible makes allowance for this peaceful co-existence. 

In addition, we need to be clear on our understanding of who God is.  John reveals Him here as light with no hint at all of darkness.  The whole rest of this letter hinges upon understanding that.  So we must be sure that our understanding lines up with reality as best it can.

With this foundational unveiling of God’s nature out of the way, John now moves on to draw some practical conclusions from what he has just said.  In 1^st John 1:6 we read: If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.  Immediately a question comes to my mind.  Namely, what exactly is walking in darkness?  What does that look like on a practical level?  Let’s engage in a little bit of logical deduction and see where it takes us.  We will pre-suppose that we already know good is the opposite of evil.  We will also assume an understanding that light is the opposite of darkness.  Therefore, if God’s nature, His fundamental character quality, is equivalent to good and light then it stands to reason that evil and metaphorical darkness are similarly equivalent to that which is opposite of God’s own essence.  So with very broad but accurate brush strokes we can say that to walk in darkness is to live and act in a manner which is not consistent with who God has revealed Himself to be.

To further clarify our understanding on this matter, remember that the fellowship John is speaking of is the same word he used in the preceding passage: koinonia.  This is infinitely more than an acquaintance.  It is vastly deeper than even a close friendship.  Koinonia as the Greeks thought of it was a comprehensive and intimate communion that bonded two entities together in a shared relationship of sacrificial love and unconditional affection.  This causes the offense John is describing to ratchet up significantly in terms of its putrescence.  He is describing a situation where people claim this sort of bond with God that practically transcends human ability it is so special.  Yet while making such assertions the very same people are gleefully stabbing the Lord right in His proverbial heart with their lifestyles that are flat contradictions of everything He is.

As I mentioned just a minute ago, some Biblical truths are quite clear cut and plain.  This is one of them.  It’s really a black and white issue.  If we claim to be born of God yet we act contrary to Him then we are liars.  It is as simple as that because the Bible clearly says so.  This is strong language.  I think we often, especially in this age of politically correct speech, tend to shy away from making such blunt pronouncements.  It feels somehow cruel and unusually harsh to call someone a liar.  Yet John, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and speaking to this issue of walking in darkness while claiming the light, pulls no punches in labeling the behavior he is condemning.

Furthermore, notice the connection that John makes between works and words.  He could have written that we are liars.  Or he could have said that we do not practice the truth.  But instead he throws them both into the verse.  Those who claim fellowship with God yet don’t act like Him are both liars and practitioners of falsehood, also known as darkness, also known as evil.  The works follow the words or the words follow the works.  Either way, one goes with the other, always.  This is the point Jesus was making with his tree metaphors in Matthew 7:15-20: “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.  You will know them by their fruits.  Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?  So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.  A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  So then, you will know them by their fruits.”

To reinforce his own illustration John now provides us with the counterpoint to this dark and gloomy description of unfaithfulness and lies.  Verse 7 presents a far different picture of how to live: but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.  This is the exact polar opposite of what John has previously described.  We have seen that walking in darkness is equivalent to acting contrary to God’s own nature.  Therefore, walking in the light is necessarily defined as acting in accord with God’s own nature.

There is a logical paradigm implicit in what John is saying about the blood of Jesus.  Cleansing cannot occur unless dirt is present to be cleaned.  If there is no dirt then washing is unnecessary.  In fact, it becomes irrelevant.  Because of this John doesn’t have to specify that sin is present in those who are in fellowship with God.  All he has to say is that Christ’s blood will cleanse us from sin.  And because of this we are automatically categorized as being sinful because if we weren’t then the blood of Jesus would have nothing to clean.  Why is this important?  Because it refutes the claims of those who would say that we are not inherently sinful.  John places himself firmly in lockstep with the other New Testament Apostolic witnesses (Romans 3:10-18) as well as the Old Testament prophetic record (Psalm 14:1-3) with his statement.  But to eliminate any possibility of still being misunderstood on this point he proceeds to lay out three arguments in the form of potential responses to what he has said followed by the conclusions drawn based on the truth or falsehood of the responses given.

The first possible reply that John foresees is found in verse 8 and I am going to categorize it as John’s response to those who profess past sinless origination: If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.  This first clause links very nicely with the preceding point.  As John has already implied the presence of indwelling sin he now argues specifically against any denials of it.  He does this by using a Greek word that connotes a state or a condition.  The word is “echo”.  It is usually translated into English as “have”.  The idea is to hold or contain something, or perhaps to be in a condition or state of something.  In this case the something being held onto or the condition present is that of sin. 

Jesus uses the same verbal construct in John 19:11: You would have no authority over me, unless it had been given you from above.  In this verse Christ is describing Pilate’s power to pronounce judgment upon Him.  He is describing the authority invested into Pilate as the Roman governor of Palestine.  This authority is a state of being that Pilate is currently in or a condition he is holding onto. 

Another usage of “echo” that bears more similarity to our current location in 1^st John is found in John 9:41: If you were blind you would have no sin, but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.  Jesus is not describing a situation in which a person can potentially free themselves from their sinful condition.  He is making the point that if any person anywhere would or could actually admit that they are hopeless in and of themselves and consequently confess their need for God, they would in that case be sinless.  But this is purely a hypothetical exercise that He is using to prove a point.  Because the reality is that no mere human has existed since The Fall that is capable of making such an admission.  

Therefore, all people’s sin remains.  And again we see Jesus using the word “echo”, translated once again as “have” to express the idea of a condition or a state of sin.

With that point in mind, look at John’s opinion of those who deny their sinful condition.  He says they deceive themselves and the truth is not in them.  This is a strong parallel to verse 6 that we have already looked at.  But here the offense is amplified and the shame is intensified by revealing that these people are not just lying externally but they are lying internally as well.  They are deluding themselves.

I recall the sheer lunacy of the people described in Isaiah’s sarcastic description of idol worshipers, found in Isaiah 44:9-20.  The prophet is describing the idiocy of a man who plants a tree, watches it grow, chops it down, uses it to build a fire, cooks his food on the fire, eats and is filled.  Oh yes, and then he takes the rest of the clearly inanimate wood, fashions it into an idol, and prostrates himself before it in heinous worship.  It is the very definition of insanity; to deny that which is real.  And then in verses 18 to 20 Isaiah says this: They do not know, nor do they understand, for He has smeared over their eyes so that they cannot see and their hearts so that they cannot comprehend.  No one recalls, nor is there knowledge or understanding to say, “I have burned half of it in the fire and also have baked bread over its coals.  I roast meat and eat it.  Then I make the rest of it into an abomination, I fall down before a block of wood!”  He feeds on ashes; a deceived heart has turned him aside.  And he cannot deliver himself, nor say, “Is there not a lie in my right hand?”

The man in the story is clearly out of touch with reality.  He doesn’t understand or comprehend.  The passage makes it clear that God is the one who has caused the blindness.  Yet we once again see elements of the parallelism that I talked about above in that it is his own deceived heart that has turned him aside.  It matters not that God is the one who has smeared over the eyes.  Foolish and sinful man is still held accountable for his blindness.  It matters not that man cannot deliver himself.  He is still fully under the wrath of God and destined for hell should something not intervene to alter his fate.

This is the depth of divinely ordained and self-deluded damnation that people are headed for who deny the reality of their own indwelling sin.  To deny one’s sinful condition is to cut the legs out from under the very foundation of the gospel.  If we refuse to admit that we are sinners by not just action and commission, but by condition and classification, then we refute the necessity of forgiveness and cleansing.  It’s a bit like a child, covered in mud after a hard day’s playing outside, who adamantly resists his parent’s exhortations to wash before dinner.  He looks them boldly in the face and says “But I’m not dirty!”  And the whole time his obtuseness is evident to all except himself.

Moving on from the sad and pitiable state described in verse 8, John now gives us a pleasant interlude of God honoring behavior in verse 9.  I’m going to call this John’s response to those who confess their sinful conduct: If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  What we find in this verse is nothing less than a textbook definition of repentance.  The word confess doesn’t just mean an admission of guilt.  It is more than that.  To confess in this context means to agree with one’s accuser.  The One who accuses the world of sin is God, specifically His Holy Spirit (John 16:8-9).  So when we confess as the Bible dictates, we are agreeing with God that our standard of thought, word, and deed has missed His holy and righteous mark which is established and delineated by His own character.  Furthermore, we agree with His assessment of the punishment due to us by virtue of the guilty verdict which has been delivered.  And finally, we agree to turn away from our former lifestyle and conform to a new standard, God’s standard, the only perfect standard which is acceptable in His sight.  This is the pre-requisite attitude that God demands before He will consent to absolve us of our guilt before Him.

But notice how John is very careful to draw our attention, even in this moment of repentance, back to the character and reputation of the Lord.  He specifically points out that God is both faithful and righteous.  His faithfulness is exhibited in the fact that He has previously promised this forgiveness (John 3:16; Acts 2:38).  Therefore, His trustworthy nature dictates that He will follow through and be true to His word.  His righteousness, as the visible portrayal of His holiness in quantifiable actions, is displayed because He doesn’t just nonchalantly excuse away our trespass.  Rather, God has followed His own paradigm of justice in providing a substitutionary sacrifice in the person of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18).  This is precisely why it is the blood of Jesus that is the cleaning agent which cleanses us from all sin, as John stated back in verse 7.  Christ’s blood on the cross is the catalyst that enables God to remain perfectly just when He righteously forgives our sin and declares us not guilty.

This is terribly, critically important for Christians to bear in mind.  Our salvation from death and adoption as children of God is not dependent on our own sometimes half-hearted and at all times imperfect efforts to live righteously.  The rock on which we stand is built upon the character of God and what He has said.  Our transient minds are extremely capable of delusion and error.  Satan is very well aware of this and is exceedingly proficient at exploiting our vulnerability.  He plants doubt in our minds about our salvation.  He sows seeds of fear over some horrific sin from our past.  He lustfully covets our joy in Christ and exerts all of his considerable skill in attempting to rob us of it by accusing us daily of our imperfections.  Jesus described the efforts of the devil in John 10:1: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.”

Our defense against these seditious acts of spiritual sheep rustling is to implant firmly into our minds the truths of God’s faithfulness and righteousness.  That is why John is calling our attention to those divine qualities in this verse.  He knows that it is imperative for his “little children”, as he will refer to us in the next chapter, to throw up a solid and defensible shield wall against the onslaught of the enemy’s attacks.  I believe that John’s purpose in giving us this defense is twofold.  First, just as any parent or older sibling doesn’t want a child to be in danger or in pain, so this Apostle desires for his spiritual children to be safe, happy, and contented. 

To this end I think he would echo the sentiments of his apostolic brother Paul in Philippians 3:12-14: Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.  Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.  Just like Paul, John wants us to grab ahold of the truths of God’s character and use them as both an anchor to hold us steady and a raft to keep us afloat.  Then he wants us to run with abandon and vigor toward the finish line of glorification.  He wants us to cast away doubt and fix our gaze firmly forward.  If we will do this we are assured of a confidence and a joy in our Christian life.  But as glorious and hopeful as this sentiment is, it’s the lesser of his two motivations.

The far more important issue at stake is one of sin.  Let’s connect the dots here.  God has stated emphatically that He will save us purely on the basis of biblical saving faith in the person of Jesus; both His sacrificial work on the cross and His nature as God in the flesh.  To disbelieve or even mildly doubt what God has said is to imply that He is untruthful.  This is a slander against His name, which is sinful and evil.  Jesus affirms this warning in His wonderful and masterful teaching about worrying in Matthew 6:25-33.  To worry about God’s provision of what we need is a sin.  Likewise, if we doubt our own salvation we are effectively making a statement about the trustworthiness and validity of what God has said, and we are falling into sin in the process.  To put it bluntly, we are making God Himself out to be a liar.  Not only that but we are perverting the genuine and pure repentance we started with when we originally confessed, into a sad parody and wicked caricature of what God has commanded.  We cast ourselves into a vicious cycle where we sin, repent for it, but then fall back into sin by doubting the forgiveness that is granted by our repentance.

And this leads perfectly into the final point of this section in verse 10.  This is John’s response to those who claim present sinless perfection: If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.  Although in English we see the same word, have, as in verse 8, the meaning here is different.  Actually, there are three words in this verse that come from a single word in the original Greek: we, have, and sinned.  That original word is a different tense of the same verb also found in verse 8, which is itself an expression of the original Greek noun for sin, “hamartia”.  If you are feeling confused at this point, don’t be.  Just remember that the English word “have” in verse 10 has nothing to do with the original Greek word like it does in verse 8.  In verse 8 “echo” modifies “hamartia”.  In verse 10 “echo” is not present but we translate the concept into “we have sinned” for ease of understanding.  Then the verb is modified by a negative which comes into English as “not”.  And so we are left with the phrase “we have not sinned”.

What’s the point of all this language gibberish?  It is that John is stressing a different emphasis in this verse than in verse 8.  In the former he was talking about a state, or a condition, of being sinful.  Here he is referring to our current existence, the choices we make, and the actions we do.  He is talking about a person who claims they do not currently sin.  They might say this either as an extension of the verse 8 point, that they don’t believe they have a sin nature at all.  Or perhaps they think they have advanced beyond the capacity to sin.  In other words, they have achieved a sinless perfection in this life.  This is blatantly, obviously, contrary to the biblical record.  One example of many we could draw on to prove this is Ecclesiastes 7:20: Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.

Why does John feel the need to express a denial of sin in these two different ways?  After all, isn’t this kind of like two sides of the same coin?  Perhaps, but by doing it this way John delivers a comprehensive killing blow to any form, shape, or fashion of a denial of sin.  I think he is trying to eviscerate any possible objection to his teaching here.  And in the process he ratchets up his rhetoric to new levels by plainly stating what we have already inferred from the previous verse: namely, that by acting this way what we are doing, in effect, is calling God a liar.

Consider the condemnatory cross-examination delivered by Paul in Romans 2:21-24: you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?  You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?  You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?  You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?  For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.  He is talking directly to two-faced Christians who from one side of their mouth teach others not to sin, while from the other side they engage in the very same acts they preach against.  This type of hypocrisy blasphemes the name of God.  It taints His reputation.  Because of people like this God’s glory is diminished.

The same sort of behavior is what John has in mind here in verse 10.  By refusing to own up to one’s own sinful activities we not only condemn ourselves but we impugn God’s honor.  This is a terrible crime.  It is the most evil of actions possible for a human being to commit, seeing as how it seeks to do harm to the only perfectly holy being in the universe; the Lord Himself.  John emphatically says “Don’t do this!  Don’t act like this!  Don’t be like this!”

In the interest of drawing this to a conclusion, I want to point your attention back to what I think is the main point of this section.  It is the heart of the issue of how we respond to sin.  God Himself is the standard by which all of reality is measured.  He Himself is light and all that that entails.  Matthew Henry, writing his commentary on 1^st John in the 17^th century, stated it this way:

He is all that beauty and perfection that can be represented to us by light. He is a self-active uncompounded spirituality, purity, wisdom, holiness, and glory. And then the absoluteness and fullness of that excellency and perfection. There is no defect or imperfection, no mixture of anything alien or contrary to absolute excellency, no mutability nor capacity of any decay in him

This essential goodness of God is the motivational grounds of all that follows in this first epistle of John to the Christian church.  It is not acceptable for us to be primarily moved by a desire to escape judgment and wrath.  It is insufficient for believers to view righteous Christian conduct as a rigorous and unyielding list of rules that serve to steal their joy and bring monotony to their existence.  The Lord God is the best and brightest standard of measure that exists.  He graciously and mercifully loved us and extended an olive branch of peace to us while we were yet sinners.  The only correct response to this wonderful truth is to be filled with a sense of wonder and a determination to strive to love Him back as sacrificially as He first loved us.  And it is in this, this decisive ordering of one’s life not out of requirement but out of affection, that we will live life to the fullest measure possible.

The Recipe For Genuine Repentance

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” 

“I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You; therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes.” 

“Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place – unless you repent.”  

God is a righteous judge, and a God who has indignation every day.  If a man does not repent, He will sharpen His sword, He has bent His bow and made it ready. 

“Woe to you, Chorazin!  Woe to you, Bethsaida!  For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” 

“Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Repent and turn away from your idols and turn your faces away from all your abominations.”’ 

Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Those are seven of the 184 occurrences of either the word or the idea of repentance that are scattered across both the Old and New Testaments.  And although this word is not the most frequently used religious term in the Bible (faith occurs 929 times and holy shows up in 1286 places) the importance of gaining an accurate understanding of it cannot be overstated.  The reason is that the idea and the action of repentance are the grounds by which created human beings gain any sort of access into the good favor and acceptance of God, the creator.  As such, when we consider the massive eternal implications bound up in the concept of repentance or the lack thereof, it quickly rises to a critical level of importance.  Furthermore, whether we think we know what repentance is or is not is only as relevant as our understanding lines up and matches what God says it is.  In other words, we must not rely on our own wisdom and understanding.  We must turn to the Bible for education.  Our eternity hangs on this so we absolutely must get it right.  And thankfully, I believe that God in His great compassion delivers to us a recipe, or a formula, or a pattern that characterizes exactly what He means when He commands a person or a group of people to repent.  This recipe for genuine repentance is found buried in the middle of the minor prophets of the Old Testament, in the book of Joel.

But before we dig into that we need to define our terms to ensure we are on the same page.  In other words, before we can study how to do repentance we need to understand what it is.  In Matthew chapter 3 it is recorded for us that John the Baptist ministered as a forerunner for the incarnation of God in the form of Jesus Christ.  His ministry was prophesied by Isaiah hundreds of years previously when he wrote: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight!”  So John and his teaching heralded the arrival of the Messiah and revealed to humanity that which they needed to know prior to His arrival.  To accomplish this, the Scripture tells us he began to preach in the wilderness of Judea.  And undoubtedly, he taught on a variety of topics.  But Matthew tells us in verse 2 what the primary foundation of John’s message was: 

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”  John reinforced this message with a warning to the Jewish religious leaders of the day in verse 8: Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance.  Mark in the gospel that bears his name underscores the point in chapter 1 and verse 4: John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.  The point of John’s ministry was to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord.  He accomplished this by informing the people what God desired so as to smooth the way for Jesus’s earthly ministry, thus “making His paths straight.”  John said that what God desires is genuine repentance and the fruit that characterizes it.  So what is genuine repentance?  Quite simply, it is to change one’s mind for the better.  In this context, the implication is that we are to change our minds about the sin that we are enslaved to, no longer preferring it and instead prioritizing that which is in accordance with the character of God.  This is the only way to have forgiveness of those sins.  And because the Bible unmistakably teaches that from birth we face the unmitigated wrath of God over our rebellion and sinfulness, it follows that to be separated from His favor is to exist in a precarious position indeed.  Put simply, without repentance we are doomed.

So then, as stated above, due to the eternal ramifications of this topic, it is critical to our future well-being to learn accurately and completely how God sees repentance.  What is the fullness of meaning, according to His standard, of the act of repenting and what process should we follow when entering into the presence of God with an intention to repent?  But before we delve into that question, I want to take another moment and clarify one more point; namely, who this message is for.  Who is it that ought to give heed to this teaching on repentance; those who would gain forgiveness for their sins or those who have already received that forgiveness?

We have already seen in the message John preached that repentance is a pre-requisite for obtaining forgiveness for sins.  The Bible calls this salvation, or being born again.  Sinners are called to acknowledge their sinful state, turn away from that state, and embrace the truth that Jesus was punished and died for their sins.  Through Him this repentant sinner is declared not guilty and no longer threatened with God’s wrath.  The Spirit of God Himself takes up residence in this person’s heart and soul, causing a desire to please God to well up from within and be evidenced by good works, which the Bible calls spiritual fruit.  But what happens after that?  Once a person has been saved from their sins is repentance relevant to them?  After all, aren’t their sins already covered and paid for?  What would they need to repent of?  The Bible itself seems to confirm the idea that repentance is exclusively a saving act.  Almost every time the New Testament uses the Greek word for repent it is in the context of an initial turning away from sins unto salvation.  However, there is what we might call an expectation or an attitude of penitence and repentance pervades the New Testament Scriptures.  Furthermore, there are at least two instances that I know of where it is used with a clear intent that leads me to believe there is a repentance leading not to salvation but rather leading to sanctification. 

Consider the text of Luke 17:3-4: Be on your guard!  If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.  And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”  Jesus is speaking to His disciples in this passage.  More specifically, He is giving instructions to those who had not already fallen away after the harsh teaching on the cost of discipleship in Luke chapter 14 and John chapter 6.  In other words, He is teaching genuine followers here.  These are the people who would later form the structure of the beginning of the church age on the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2.  And in case there is any lingering doubt, notice the reference to “the apostles” in verse 5.  In light of these clues, we can say confidently that Jesus was not just giving instructions here about how to deal with a biological brother or any random acquaintance in the world.  He is speaking explicitly about inter-personal relationships between fellow Christians.  And He indicates that there will be opportunities for repentance in these situations among those who have already received the gift of saving faith.

In addition to that, we have Christ’s message to the church at Ephesus in Relevation 2:1-7.  

The relevant portion for our topic today is verse 5, which I read earlier: Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place – unless you repent.  It’s important to remember here that this is not Laodicea we’re talking about.  That church was filled mostly with unbelievers and was about to be completely rejected by Jesus.  In contrast, the church at Ephesus was for the most part on the right track.  They were in error in the critical area of love, but they still had the ability to discern truth and reject heresy.  So these are genuine followers of Christ, perhaps not so very much unlike us, who are being commanded to repent.

But this begs the question; repent of what?  Their sins past, present, and future are already covered by the blood of Christ on the cross.  The answer is really quite simple and it should be obvious to you at this point.  But allow me to briefly turn to Romans 8:12-14 to provide a solid biblical response to the question: So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh – for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.  For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.  Notice the phrase in the middle of this passage: “by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body”.  This phrase implies two things.  First, it tells us that the Spirit is present.  This lets us know that this is someone who is truly born again because the Spirit of God does not take up residence with those who are not His own adopted children.  We can see that in the very next verse, number 15, of Romans 8.  Second, even with the Spirit present in the believer there still exists the deeds of the flesh, otherwise known as sins, which must be put to death.  So the answer to the question of what is it that a Christian is repenting of, is simply the sins they continue to commit even after being born again and declared justified before the Lord.

With this evidence before us, I believe we can confidently say that repentance is applicable to both those pre-conversion people who are under the wrath of God and genuine disciples of Jesus who have been set free from bondage to sin and are somewhere along the path of conformity to the image of Christ.  I’m going to call these parallel types of repentance “saving repentance” and “sanctifying repentance”.  The ultimate point for all of us is that no matter your spiritual condition, the call to repentance and therefore the need to have a clear and accurate understanding of it applies to you directly.  It doesn’t matter whether you are in rebellion against God, playing with the fires of hell and gambling your eternal state on the hope that you will have time to turn to Jesus before you die, or you’re a fresh faced new Christian who is still in the honeymoon phase of your relationship with Jesus, or you are a spiritually mature stalwart of the faith who is more than ever before aware of and repulsed by your own sin.  In any of these scenarios biblical repentance is desperately important to you because it is a command from God, the One who is described as a consuming fire who will purge sin from His universe one day.  And as such, to be cavalier with your sin and your need to repent is to be extremely foolish.

This brings us finally to the topic at hand; namely what should this genuine repentance look like?  We know what it is and we know who and how it applies to each of us.  But when we find ourselves in a situation where we think we are repentant before God, does that repentance look the same as what He describes as genuine repentance?  What we are going to do is hold up the mirror of Scripture and compare it against our own lives.  We are going to carefully examine our patterns of behavior to see if they align with God’s design.  And if we find ourselves lacking, I hope and pray that you will join me in a concerted effort toward spiritual renovation.  I believe we can find this mirror in Joel 2:12-14.  In these verses the Lord gives us an exact blueprint of what He expects of those who would come before Him in an attitude of repentance.

Joel is a book of parallels; multiple layers of parallel imagery in fact.  Like several of the minor Old Testament prophets we have very little information about this man.  It seems likely that he was from Judah.  Some scholars postulate that he wrote in the late pre-exilic period; in other words, shortly before the Babylonian conquest of Judah which would eventually result in the complete destruction of Jerusalem.  In point of fact, we don’t know exactly when the book was written and a few different ideas have been floated throughout church history.  But the dating of the book is really of little significance because the import and meaning are abundantly clear.  Joel begins in the very first chapter with an opening layer of prophecy by describing a locust invasion that completely devastates the country.  There is literally nothing left after this in-sectile army completes its conquest.  The people don’t even have enough grain remaining to offering sacrifices to God.  That is how desperate their circumstances become after this invasion.

Then in chapter two he reveals a second depiction of this invading army and the conquest and devastation they bring.  Only this time, it takes a more supernatural twist.  References to the sky growing dark, fire consuming both before and behind, the earth quaking, and the heavens trembling.  If this book was written prior to the exile then this second description of conquest could be seen as pointing to the Babylonians.  But whether locusts or Chaldeans the ultimate meaning is made clear with references in verse 15 of chapter 1 and verses 1 and 11 of chapter 2 to something called the “Day of the Lord”.  This phrase in Old Testament prophetic context refers to impending judgment against the world.  This is a time when God will pour out His wrath upon mankind over sin.  When this phrase is used in prophecies that is always what it is referring to.  So we know from this huge clue that what is in view here is an eschatological sequence of events that will ultimately result in the complete and utter devastation described by the coming of the locusts earlier in the chapter.

And this brings us to what is really the heart of the book.  After prophesying of the judgment and doom that is coming, the Lord through His prophet issues a call to repentance.  This is the issue of greatest significance that rises above the details of Joel and is what makes this book so relevant for the question I am trying to answer.  In verses 12 to 14 God unveils a comprehensive recipe for genuine repentance that will serve us as the perfect litmus test to determine whether we are in alignment with His design.

First we are presented with the components of repentance.  These are the building blocks that must be present in order for genuine heart change to take place.  They fall into three categories: a whole hearted effort, visible evidence, and authentic desire.  We’ll tackle these one at a time. 

In verse 12 the Lord says “Return to Me with all your heart.”  Before anything else He makes it crystal clear that genuine repentance must be a total and complete effort.  In God’s mind, to repent is an all or nothing affair.  We have often heard the phrase uttered between couples, “I love you with all my heart.”  The meaning is obvious.  Everything within me, every fiber of my body and soul, the totality of my existence is what I am pouring into my love for you.  That’s exactly what God is looking for here in the repentance of His creations.  Make no mistake, God does not tolerate a careless, flippant, apathetic, or disinterested demeanor. 

Remember the terrifying condemnation of the church in Laodicea, found in Revelation 3:15-17:  ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.  Water has value for refreshment when it is cold.  And it is beneficial for soothing when it is hot.  But when it is merely lukewarm and good for neither cooling nor heating, refreshing or soothing, then it is a mostly useless liquid.  Just like lukewarm water, the members of this church were utterly worthless to God.  There is a disgust or loathing here in how He views such people.  And in the conclusion of the metaphor the Lord will spit these people out of His mouth just as we might spew out tepid water that we take a swig of.

Continuing to the next phrase we see that it is not enough to merely say the words.  This sorrow over sin must be accompanied by visible evidence.  God says there must be: “fasting, weeping and mourning.”  What we are dealing with here is attitude.  Will I submit to my flesh and my own cravings or will I deny myself?  Is my repentance of such conviction that I am willing to abstain from that most quintessential of all human desires; food?  Furthermore, am I really broken over my sin?  Is my sorrow such that it overwhelms me both internally with mourning and externally with weeping? 

Notice how another Old Testament prophet, Habakkuk, responds to a terrifying revelation of future prophecy that he is given in Habakkuk 3:16.  I heard and my inward parts trembled.  The idea is that his bowels turned to water and his stomach roiled and boiled like the surface of a storm tossed ocean.  At the sound my lips quivered.  Picture a small child.  They have just fallen and skinned their knee.  They aren’t sure yet whether they’re upset or not.  But as the pain begins to mount and perhaps their parent comes running, communicating louder than words to the youngster how dire the situation is, their lip begins to tremble and shake just prior to the flood of tears that pours forth.  That is how the prophet feels here.  Decay enters my bones.  The body feels weak, fragile, and incapable of action.  All one wants is to lay down and rest.  The thought of any type of physical activity is abhorrent.  And in my place I tremble.  Habakkuk is over come with tremors.  His limbs rebel against him and shake uncontrollably.  We are talking about a comprehensive dread and horror of mind and body that is completely overwhelming.  Now in Habakkuk’s case he is responding not to his own sin directly.  Rather, he is utterly terrified of the vision of the future that God has given him and what it means for his country, Judah.  But the response is perfectly aligned with how we should respond to the conviction and guilt that comes when the Holy Spirit points out our transgressions to us.

Do these descriptions seem over the top to you?  Do they seem extreme and excessive?  Do you resist the idea of humbling yourself to this degree?  If so, then you need to understand that you are in opposition to the model of genuine repentance that God outlines for us in Scripture.  And you need to have an honest dialogue with yourself and with God to determine whether a genuinely repentant attitude exists within you at all.  Don’t make the mistake of trifling with this issue, because God doesn’t take it lightly.  He makes this abundantly clear in the final component of repentance given to us in Joel 2:13.

“Rend your heart and not your garments,” God says.  This is a reference to the ancient Middle Eastern custom of tearing one’s garments as an outward display of extreme emotion.  We can see an example of this in Matthew 26:65.  Jesus is in the mock trial at the high priest’s house.  He has remained silent throughout the false accusations that have been leveled against Him.  But when Caiaphas finally, probably out of exasperation, asks him directly whether He is the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus finally breaks His silence and confirms the truth.  In verse 65 we read Caiaphas’s reaction: Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed!”  This is really a perfect example of the point being made back in Joel.  Caiaphas and the other ungodly members of the Sanhedrin were basically a bunch of hypocrites.  Jesus said of the Jews such as them: “These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me.”  He also condemned them as whitewashed tombs that appear beautiful on the outside but inside are full of dead men’s bones and filth.  Caiaphas’s reaction to Jesus’s claim was actually the proper response for a Jew when someone blasphemed against the name of God.  But the descriptions of these men as terrible hypocrites makes it clear that he was false in his denial of the Messiah.  He was straight up consciously lying or he had convinced himself subconsciously that Jesus was a blasphemer.  Either way, his public response was a cover up for a truth he refused to admit.

In the same way, here in Joel God commands us to dispense with useless tearing of the clothes that cover our skins but don’t reflect a truly broken heart inside our breasts.  Brought into modern vernacular we might say “don’t bother putting on your suit and tie and going off to church when your life is just as carnal as your next door neighbor.  We confront this issue from the pulpit every time we have a communion service.  But honestly this issue ought to be confronted by each and every one of us on a daily basis, quite apart from whether we are expected to show up at church on that particular day of the week.

So those are the components, or ingredients if you will, of an attitude of genuine repentance.  If your repentance lacks those then it is not repentance the way God has defined it.  But He’s not done.  Just as someone who posts a recipe on the Internet might spend a few moments describing the taste of the dish they are promoting, God now proceeds to tell us just exactly why we should have this mindset of repentance.  What should our motivation be?  And now it really gets good.  Check out the remainder of verse 13: Now return to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness and relenting of evil.  What an incredibly powerful sentence of exaltation toward God!

He is a “gracious” God.  This means He shows favor to those who don’t deserve it.  And please understand, although you may be penitent over your sin, just the fact that you committed the sin in the first place is enough to qualify you for annihilation.  Romans 6:23 lets us know that the wages, or paycheck, that you earn from sinning is nothing less than death.  It is only God’s matchless grace that saves you from such a fate.  Don’t make the mistake of thinking that your repentance entitles you to anything from God. 

Not only is He gracious but he is “compassionate”.  He cares for us and feels sorrow over our pitiable state, alternatively enslaved to sin prior to salvation or shackled with the presence of indwelling sin after salvation.  When is the last time one of your children deliberately, defiantly, and shamelessly broke one of your house rules and you genuinely felt compassion for their miserable state of having succumbed to temptation?  Or are you the type of parent that ruthlessly eschews mercy in favor of a rigid, unyielding, and quite possibly unloving determination to see your rules upheld at any cost?  I ask this question so pointedly because I am unfortunately describing my own tendencies, much to my shame.

God also says He is “slow to anger”.  I think what He is doing here is making a point of contrast or comparison with us.  The phrase “slow to anger” implies a type of wrath that is not entered into thoughtlessly or rashly.  Rather, it is a carefully considered and methodical fury that is applied in measured and controlled doses.  Now it should go without saying that this type of clarification should not even be necessary with the Lord.  Of course He is not going to be characterized by an unrighteous type of anger.  But we most definitely are characterized that way, probably almost exclusively.  So I take this statement to be one of contrast with us for the purpose of making a point.  We should be genuinely repentant precisely because God is a god of holy and righteous anger.  He is not going to fly off the handle at the drop of a hat over the stupid and repeated infractions we are guilty of.

That leads right into the next attribute that Joel ascribes to the Lord.  He is “abounding in loving-kindness”.  This is a word in the Hebrew that really encapsulates multiple ideas into one.  It’s not just love.  It’s not just kindness.  It’s a love that is characterized by kindness and applied with faithful consistency that can be counted on.  It’s the same love that God would display six centuries later when He, at great personal cost, condemned His Son to horrific and unthinkable torture and death for no other reason than to be benevolent to a race of people who, with every fiber of their being, desired nothing less than to spit in His face, spurn His advances, and utterly reject His influence in their lives.  It’s the kind of love that overcomes such fierce opposition by remaining constant regardless of the circumstances.

Finally, God describes Himself through His prophet as being “relenting of evil”.  This bears a moment of explanation.  Is Joel saying that God is capable of evil acts but that He is willing to relent from carrying them out?  I thought God was incapable of evil.  What’s going on here?  The answer can be found by considering the definition of the Hebrew word translated here as evil.  It’s the word “ra” and it has a variety of meanings: evil, distress, misery, injury, or calamity.  So how do we know which one is appropriate here?  We turn to other Scriptures to see if they shed any light on the question.  And indeed they do.  Just a few books away, Hosea 14:9 reveals that: the ways of the Lord are right.  Further off in the New Testament, John describes God like this in 1^st John 1:5: God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.  John is using the concept of light to represent good and darkness to act as a verbal surrogate for evil.  So we know from these and many other passages that God is perfectly good rather than evil.  Therefore we can conclude with confidence that Joel is not using “ra” in the sense of evil, but rather distress, misery, injury, or calamity.  And I think any of those four could apply here.  In fact, several of our modern English Bible translations use those words rather than the one used here in the NASB, evil.  

The prophet is reminding us that God is willing to stay His hand of judgment and not bring down the disaster upon our heads that our sins justifiably make us worthy of.

In light of these phenomenal characteristics of our God, Joel is saying “Look, I shouldn’t have to convince you of the need to repent.  When you consider the wonder of who God is, how gracious He is, how compassionate He is, how righteously He applies His burning anger, how loving and kind and faithful He is, and how willing He is to stay His hand of judgment, why in the world would you not want to repent?”  This is a painfully obvious conclusion isn’t it?  It’s only our stubborn “sin-stupid” brains that complicate the issue beyond what it ought to be.

The final piece of this puzzle is found in verse 14, and it is my favorite bit: Who knows whether He will not turn and relent and leave a blessing behind Him, even a grain offering and a drink offering for the Lord your God?  I call this the “Nike principle”.  I think that does a bit of a disservice to the text, but I can’t help it.  Every time I read it I think of the old Nike slogan “Just do it!”  Joel is communicating the idea that he doesn’t know whether God will actually stay His hand of judgment or not if we repent.  But whether He does or He doesn’t, the repentance is still on us to do.

My favorite passage of Scripture to illustrate this is found in Daniel 3:16-18.  The setting is Babylon.  Daniel and many of the young nobles from Judah have been taken into captivity.  Among them are Daniel’s friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah who have been renamed by their captors as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego.  The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar thought it would be a good idea to have a giant golden statue constructed and force the people to worship it on pain of death in a heated furnace if they refused.  Daniel’s friends, being devout Jews and committed to the Lord their God, chose to remain standing when the time came rather than bending knee to this abomination.  

Nebuchadnezzar predictably flips out over this and confronts them about it.  And it is their collective response that sends shivers down my spine with the beauty of it: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego replied to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter.  If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king.  But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” 

Wow!  What courage!  What bald-faced defiance in the face of certain death.  What an unwavering commitment to doing what’s right regardless of the consequences.  That is what makes this passage in Joel so powerful to me.  It appeals to me as a demonstration of honor and integrity.  I like it because there’s a certain “devil may care” attitude at work here, in the sense that the penitent person doesn’t give a rip what problems Satan might trump up.  God is in control and will take care of business if and when He chooses.  And, with apologies to any female readers, this concept gets me fired up because to me, it is a demonstration of true manliness.  A real man does what’s right no matter the cost.  And I think that’s what Joel is really going after here.  At the end of the day, after listing all the reasons why we should want to repent, he says that it doesn’t matter what response God gives.  He might relent or He might not.  He might restore the fortunes of Judah after this terrible locust invasion so that they can finally offer up grain and drink offerings to Him, or He might not.  He might safeguard your job after you stand up for your faith in opposition to governmental regulations, or He might not.  He might keep you from getting beat up by the bully at school, or He might not.  He might save your marriage, or He might not.  But it does not matter one single iota what personal circumstances result from your genuine repentance.  You just do it.  Period.  End of issue.

In closing out this essay I want to make one final point by underscoring the argument that I began with.  The teaching found in Joel is of supreme and absolutely monumental significance for every person reading this, whether you’re a Christian or not.  If you’re not a Christian, then understand that your eternal future hangs in the balance of whether you come before the Lord in sorrow and repentance over your sinfulness.  You have only one life to get this right in.  If you blow this opportunity and wind up dead tomorrow, that’s it.  There are no second chances, no further opportunities to pass “Go”, and no time to change your mind and get a “do-over”.  To put it bluntly, your goose will be cooked.

If you are already a Christian then consider the following.  I think that most of us have messed up our model of repentance as it pertains to daily Christian living.  I am convinced that whether we would openly acknowledge this or not, our concept of repentance as evidenced by our actions would be something like this.  Picture a graph of your Christian life.  What is being measured is your level of repentance on a timeline, from conversion through sanctification to eventual death or glorification, whichever occurs first.  I think that for most of us, the graph would start out very high but then gradually taper off over time without ever seeing a return to our “moment of conversion” levels.

I believe this is so for two reasons.  The first is the evidence in my own heart and mind of unreliability, laziness, and apathy.  I think humans, steeped in sin as we are, are wired from the womb to be complacent about the things we should be passionate about and excited about the things we should be avoiding.  In other words, I think we get everything backwards, most of the time.

That is why the New Testament authors preached so vigorously and consistently about the need to remain vigilant.  Paul to the church at Corinth in 1^st Corinthians 9:24-27 describes us as runners training hard because we should be intending to in our race.  In 2^nd Timothy 1:6 he exhorts his son in the faith to fan into flame the gift he has been given by God.  James, in his epistle makes the astonishing claim that faith without works is dead.  1^st Peter 1:13 instructs us to prepare our minds, keep our spirits sober, and fix our hope.  And Jesus in His parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:1-13 implores us to stay alert and prepared for the coming of the Lord.  I could go on and on with this but I’m sure you get the point.

I think the Bible teaches this way because God knows exactly just how undependable we are.  And I think this tendency plays itself out in how we tend to view repentance as gradually less important over time.  This is completely backwards of how we should be.  I would agree that the biblical model of salvation should begin with a massive measuring of repentance like nothing ever seen before.  But I believe from that point the line should go up, not down.  As we delve ever deeper into the word of God, as the Spirit unveils the mind of the Lord in ever increasing measure to us, as our personal body of Scripture authenticating experience builds behind us, our capacity and passion for genuine repentance should climb to monumental crescendos of presence within our hearts and minds.  We should become more convicted over our own sin as we become more like Christ, not less. 

The former concept of sanctifying repentance simply doesn’t make any sense at all in light of Scripture.  But unfortunately I fear that our increasingly dominant evil culture appeals to our carnal flesh.  We are numbed to apathy and lifelessness by the overwhelming assault of ungodliness on our spiritual senses.  And we make the critical error of sidelining the only weapon we have or need in this battle; the Bible.  And so we meander through a broken shell of cultural or nominal Christianity, re-assuring ourselves that we’re just fine thank you very much.  All the while the Holy Spirit of God is grieved over our blindness and hardness of heart.   And in the due course of time, perhaps it will be revealed that we were never authentic Disciples of Christ in the first place, and that just as with the church in Laodicea the Lord Jesus will return, find us wanting, and proceed to spew us out of His mouth.

The Epistles of John, Part 3: The Joy of Fellowship

And so we come at last to the beginning of John’s epistles.  Previously we have considered how we should approach our study of these books in terms of both mindset and methodology.  We also examined the life of the author and what can be learned from the amazing transformation of his character that is evident in Scripture.  Now it is time to sink our teeth into the text itself.

Immediately an anomaly is apparent.  Most correspondence of this era followed certain best practices and norms of custom, just as we do today.  A letter would usually include an introduction, greeting, and a concluding salutation.  But John doesn’t do that.  1^st John 1:1 simply launches directly into the meat of the message: What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life.  There is no mention of the author’s name or who the intended recipients are.  It could be that as the last surviving Apostle and a man of considerable fame, respect, and authority John felt no need to provide the customary elements.  Yet in 2^nd and 3^rd John as well as Revelation we do see these features present.  So he clearly didn’t always do this which causes me to wonder why it’s different with this book.

I believe the answer is that John intended this first epistle to be a continuation, an extension, or a sequel if you like to his gospel account of Christ’s life.  There are a few clues that lead me to this conclusion:

1. Both books were written around the same time.  Most scholars date the Gospel of John c. A.D. 80-90.  The accepted dating for 1^st John is c. A.D. 90-95.  The relatively close proximity of these works would have led John to a familiarity and easier remembrance of what had previously been written.
2. Both the gospel and the letter seem to be addressed to a general audience rather than a specific congregation or group.
3. Both books open in a similar manner:
• John 1:1 – In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
• 1^st John 1:1 – What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life.
4. The author’s purpose in writing seems to be a logical flow or progression from one book to the next:
• John 20:31 - but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
• 1^st John 5:13 – These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

I think these clues point very strongly to John’s intention for both books to be read, studied, and understood together.  I think he viewed them as pieces of the same whole.  Furthermore, I think John viewed his first epistle as an essential part of Christian education.  I think he intended for students to read the Gospel According to John and then, having come to faith in Christ, to follow it up with a firm foundation of solid assurance and practical Christian living which can be found in 1^st John.  This means that the letter we are about to explore is critically important to our modern daily lives in the 21^st century.  And it is just as relevant now as when it was written 20 centuries ago because the issues that face us today are the same as those of the past.  The names and the places may have changed.  But the principal actors, Jesus Christ, His bride the church, fallen human hearts, and Satan the god of this age, are still on the marquee and selling out shows every night of the week.

With that being said, let’s get back to the text of this letter.  Again, it opens rather abruptly with a reference to something being from “the beginning”.  I am of the mind that John has a two-fold purpose in using this terminology.  I think he is pointing to the beginning of creation as the causal agent in all that has come to exist as well as the beginning of Christ’s public ministry as the vehicle through which the glory of God has been displayed.  Now granted we have not yet clearly identified Jesus as the object of John’s description here.  So technically I’m jumping the gun a bit.  But I felt it necessary in order to explain what I think he is getting at.

The Greek word that is translated here as “the beginning” is transliterated as "arche" (ar-khay).  It can mean either beginning or origin, but also first place, principality, or ruler.  It is the same word used in Jude 9 in reference to Michael the archangel.  This is not an uncommon occurrence in translation, to have multiple definitions for a single word, not all of which may be applicable to the text at hand.  The trick of a good translator is to sift through the available data, utilize the context of the passage, and determine which meaning should be applied. 

There are two clues that point to “the beginning” as the preferable rendering.  The first is the preposition "apo" (ah-pah) which proceeds it.  This word means “from” or “away from” and indicates a temporal or spatial relationship between two things.  The second clue is the reference to something being made manifest, or revealed in verse 2.  This points the attention of the reader, having hopefully (in John’s mind) just finished the Gospel of John, right at the incarnation of the Christ, which certainly had a definable beginning.

 

Remember that John’s gospel opens very similarly.  In fact, it is so similar that the only difference is the preposition employed.  Instead of "apo" that we find here in 1^st John, He uses "en" (in, on, or among) in his gospel account.  Thus we have the rendering familiar to most of us; “In the beginning was the Word.”  In that context John is clearly referencing God’s eternal nature.  But in 1^st John he is using the beginning to point to his own first-hand experience with what was revealed.  Thus I think we can take his use of “the beginning” here to mean both the pre-incarnate existence of Christ as well as the start of His ministry.  It is doubtful that John has “ruler” or its similar definitions in mind even though that definition could certainly be applied to Jesus if so desired.

After establishing the point of origin for what he wants to discuss, John now takes great pains to describe his own familiarity with it: what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands.  This is really quite interesting.  Although John uses language that points to multiple senses of the human body, there is a similarity of meaning hidden behind the scenes.

Heard is "akouo" (ah-koo-ah) in the Greek.  It can mean “understand, learn, find out, or comprehend”.  Christ used the same word many times in His famous exhortations to hear, such as Matthew 13:9: he who has ears, let him hear.  Jesus is not just talking about sound waves that the human ear captures, get transmitted into the brain, and are converted into concepts.  He is referring to comprehension.  He wants people to listen to and understand His teaching.

Seen is the Greek word "horao" (hor-ah-o), which means perceive, know, or experience.  1^st John 3:6 is instructive here: No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.  Although the word is translated “seen” once again the implication is quite obviously getting to know someone intimately.  As with the reference to hearing, we are not strictly talking about physical sight.  The seeing of the thing is only a means to the end of knowing it fully and completely.

Looked at comes to us from the Greek "theaomai" (the-ah-o-my), meaning to view attentively or contemplate.  Consider its usage in Acts 1:11: They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”  The Apostles were most certainly not merely casually glancing skyward.  They were staring rigidly, every fiber of their being trained on the last spot they saw their Lord.  If you have ever let a helium filled balloon rise into the air on a clear summer’s day then you know their posture in this situation.  As the balloon rises higher it becomes increasingly difficult to see.  Eventually, your perception of it begins to fluctuate.  Now you think you can make it out, now you can’t.  Your eyes begin to water as you continue to stare long after the point at which it is well and truly lost to view in the vain hope that you catch just one last glimpse of it.  This is the sense in which John “looked at” this thing that was from the beginning.

Finally we have the word for touched, "pselaphao" (psay-lah-fah-o).  This word means to seek after, handle, or grope.  Turn your attention once again to Acts, this time chapter 17 and verse 27, for a usage example: that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.  What Paul has in mind here is a human mind, endowed as it is with a sense of the supernatural and mysterious, yet lacking the faculties or tools with which to satisfy the inner craving to know and understand.  This mind strains outward, beyond itself, desperately seeking answers to a question it only partially understands.

All of these sense driven elements add up to and orbit around the same basic idea.  Whatever John is going to be talking about is something that transcends the surface level of sensory perception.  It extends deep into the consciousness and the psyche and becomes something that is not just heard but understood, not just seen but perceived, not just looked at but contemplated, and not just touched but sought after.  I believe John wanted to convey the depth of comprehension that comes with being an eye-witness.

In addition, these pieces describe a thing that is very definitely concrete and real and temporal.  When this letter was written, in the last decade of the first century, the first rumblings of Gnosticism were already being felt by the church.  This was one of the most predominant heresies that would plague Christianity for the first few centuries of its existence.  Gnosticism teaches, in part, that spirit is inherently good and flesh is inherently evil.  To support this belief while not being so flagrant as to call Christ evil, the Gnostics came up with the notion that Jesus was not truly human.  There were several adaptations of this core heretical concept.  But they all stem from the original idea: flesh is bad and therefore anything related to the flesh automatically shares in its depravity and must be squelched without mercy.  So it is quite revealing that John makes such an effort to say “NO!  I have touched this thing that I am describing.  I have felt it, understood it, and comprehended it as a tangible fact.  This is not just hearsay for me.  I am an eye-witness to these things.”

And so we finally come to the object of John’s descriptions to this point.  He has given us several clues to this point and I’ve already let the cat out of the bag earlier in this essay.  But let’s take it one step at a time and allow the text to confirm our suspicions.  First, John said “It” was from the beginning.  As stated above this parallels the opening of his gospel where he is clearly talking about God the Son.  Further, John has understood, perceived, contemplated, and sought after this thing.  He has told us in no uncertain terms that his senses were overwhelmed and his mind was blown by what he observed.  This dovetails very well with the effect that Jesus had on people who came into His presence.  Remember the response of the guards who had come to arrest Him in John 18:6: So when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

We have excellent evidence already that John is talking about Jesus.  But he wants to make it plain.  So he pens the following words in verse 3 of 1^st John 1: concerning the Word of Life.  All of the major English translations render this construct the same way: the word of life.  The NASB and the KJV capitalize it to give the reader a clue as to their interpretive opinion of what the word of life is.  And I don’t think we can do any better than this and still maintain proper English as well as consistency with other New Testament writings such as the Gospel of John.  But I want to sidetrack a moment and look at this from the perspective of the Greek language because I think it will add a fascinating and critically important nuance to our understanding.

The form that John uses here is called the Genitive case.  It is the construct in Greek that shows ownership or possession.  It is the equivalent of our modern English rule of placing an apostrophe and the letter s on the end of a word.  In this form the word that comes last is the one that gets the ownership.  Therefore the word for life is the recipient of this possessive characteristic because it follows everything else.  Thus a literal rendering of what John wrote would be “the life’s word”, or even better “the word that belongs to the life”.

I think this is important because it takes the emphasis of the phrase off of “the word” and places it instead on “the life”, which is probably opposite of how most of us tend to see this. Our minds tend to trigger on “Word” due to familiarity with John’s gospel.  But it is the life that is the key here.  John is describing something that is life giving, a source of sustenance, and a fountainhead of nourishment.  When we consider the way Jesus was both described by John (John 1:4 – In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.) and described Himself (John 14:6 – Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”) it becomes crystal clear who the object of John’s sensory description is.  It is none other than Jesus Christ Himself.

Furthermore, John is speaking to the fullness of Christ’s existence as “the life”.  He is not just the Incarnate Word that reveals the character and nature of God.  That would be enough in and of itself.  But Christ is more than that.  He is the source of all life in the universe, both physical and spiritual, temporal and eternal.  John expresses it this way in John 1:3: All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.  Not only is He the source of life but He is the sustainer of life, as Paul reveals in Colossians 1:16: He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.  If it wasn’t for Christ’s work nothing would have been made.  And if it wasn’t for His ever present vigilance all things would…cease.  Also, the very nature of eternal life is bound up in who He is.  All life is given and sustained by as well as sourced from Him and Him alone.  Looking several weeks ahead to 1^st John 5:11-12 we read the following: And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.  He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

Now consider how John continues his letter in verse 2: and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us. We looked at this two weeks ago, but it is important enough to go over it again here.  We must see the importance of what John is saying: this Life and the Word that belongs to it was made manifest.  A manifest is that which exposes something to view so it can be plainly recognized.  In customs, a manifest is a detailed list of the cargo, passengers, and crew of a ship, aircraft, or vehicle.  In the same way, the incarnation of the Son of God is a fully detailed listing of all that can be temporally and materially known about God, or at least those elements He wishes to make known.  He is the perfect record of what is contained inside the Father.  This is exactly why Colossians chapter 1 says of Christ that: He is the image of the invisible God.  Irenaeus, writing in the 2^nd century A.D. as he composed his seminal work, “Against Heresies”, says it this way: And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, although all did not equally believe in Him; but all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father.  Are you getting the idea that to say Jesus “reveals God” or “shows us the Father” is an understatement stemming from the inability of language to convey the fullness of what is going on here?

As if all that wasn’t enough to chew on, consider the following.  This eyewitness experience that John was privy to.  This unfathomable unveiling of the wellspring of life that is Jesus Christ.  This complete and total sensory experience that borders on information overload.  John wants us to partake of that.  His fellowship is with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, and he wants us to be involved in it as well.  Consider the text of verse 3: what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

The word for fellowship here is koinonia (koy-no-nee-a).  It has an extensive list of definitions, including communion, participation, intercourse, intimacy, and a share of something.  What John has with the Father and the Son and that which he wants us to partake of is far more than social interaction.  It is a unifying oneness, harmony, and solidification of purpose, preference, and pleasure (the 3 ‘P’s?).  It is nothing less than a model of the Trinitarian existence of God Himself.  And quite frankly, if we are honest with ourselves we must admit that this is a bit of a mystery.

Jesus refers to this oneness two times in His high priestly prayer in John chapter 17.  The first occurrence is in verse 11: Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.  The “them” in this verse refers to the Apostles.  He was praying for them and their ministries after He departed to Heaven following His impending death.  So at this point, technically speaking, those of us believers who came after the Apostles are not included in the bargain here.  But then wonderfully, beautifully, and mind-bogglingly, Christ expands the image in verses 20 and 21: “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 

We are the “those also who believe in Me through their word”!  In fact, all believers who have ever lived are included in this sort of umbrella category because anyone who has ever come to faith in Christ can trace the roots of their salvation, their spiritual family tree if you like, all the way back to one of the original twelve Apostles, or at the very least one of the 120 who were in the upper room in Acts chapter 2 on the Day of Pentecost when the church was given birth.

And notice what Jesus is saying here.  We all are to be one.  We are to be unified.  This unity is not just with each other.  It’s not just with those in our specific local church.  It is a concrete and tangible union with all believers everywhere in the world.  And it’s not even limited by temporal boundaries.  The picture Jesus is painting here is one that transcends generational barriers and enfolds the entire history of the Christian church into one massive community of mutual harmony and shared love of Christ.

But hang on a minute.  It’s not even just a union of humans with fellow humans.  Jesus said that as He was in His Father and His Father was in Him, in that same way all Christians across all of time and space are also to be somehow, some way, mysteriously and majestically grafted into the oneness of the God-head that has always existed.  If that doesn’t blow your mind, then quite frankly you have become numb to the wonders of the gospel of God and the joy of the Christian life.  It’s time to recharge your spiritual batteries and open your eyes, because John and the Holy Spirit through him are calling us to a life of utter and absolute joy.

This is why John refers to having this fellowship as something that will make his and our joy complete in verse 4: These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.  To be blunt, if we truly enter into this fellowship with whole hearts as authentic disciples and followers of Jesus, how in the world could our joy not be full to bursting?  What does it say about your view of your own personal unity in the oneness of the Trinity if you tend to mope around and view everything as negative?  What does it say about your appreciation of being united with the body of Christ in this fellowship if you tend to keep your brothers and sisters in Christ at arm’s length?  What does it say about your priorities in life if you place material possessions or biological family members on a pedestal of greater significance in your life than the Lord Jesus and His bride, the church?

If you are satisfied being a defeated Christian who is not contagious with enthusiasm for the glory of God then by all means continue your self-destructive pattern of excluding yourself from the fellowship John is talking about here.  But if you would like to actually be victorious in Christ then I suggest you do as John did and give yourself over wholeheartedly to both the service and the joy of the Lord.