COMMUNITY
INSPIRATION
RESOURCES
PARTNERS
| ||
|
FAMILYCOMMUNITY
INSPIRATION
RESOURCES
PARTNERS |
|
 |
|
 |
In the opening paragraph of this epistle (1:1-4), John has laid the foundation for all that will follow. First, he has affirmed that Christian faith is uniquely related to history (i.e., things he had heard, seen, and touched); contrast that view with the tales of Greek gods on Olympus who were detached from the material world and human experience. Second, he has stated his personal eagerness to “declare to you (all)” what he knows for a fact; this stands in contrast to some hard-to-identify opponents of his who claimed to be more enlightened that the apostle about God’s nature and actions. Third, he has boldly declared the centrality of fellowship in holy community to the right understanding and application of the gospel; this stands over against his arrogant opponents who were willing to disrupt the church over their reinterpretation of the gospel – a reinterpretation that ultimately made the doctrine of the Incarnation offensive and unacceptable to them. Just who were these opponents? It is hard to say. My personal opinion is that they were a hodgepodge of people so steeped in what was a very common Greek worldview of the time that they recast the original message about Jesus into their own familiar categories. This worldview embraced a sharp distinction between spirit and matter – believing that a true philosopher (i.e., lover of wisdom) would invest himself in intellectual pursuits and care little about the passing shadows of this world. The one thing these varied philosophies had in common was a sense that God (i.e., pure spirit, ineffable light, unutterable truth) was detached from the physical world (i.e., coarse matter, sense experience, trivial mortal life). So the very idea of an incarnation of God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth was contemptible to many of these people. So Porphyry, a third-century scholar who helped found what we call Neoplatonism, was emphatic about the irrationality of a divine being entering flesh. “How can one admit that the divine should become an embryo,” he asked in his vicious Against the Christians, “that after his birth he is put in swaddling clothes, that he is soiled with blood and bile, and worse things yet?” The thought of such a thing was absurd, childish, anti-intellectual. But that is exactly how the story of Jesus begins, is it not? Porphyry’s sentence is rooted in ideas already circulating among many of John’s peers. He will soon call them anti-Christs: “Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!” (2 John 7; cf. 1 John 2:22; 4:1-3). Such a false view of the nature of God has obvious implications for ethics. If God is hostile to matter and detached from sense experience, anything human beings do in their bodily life is ultimately insignificant. There were various schools of thought that would have had no problem whatever with this dictum: Pursue God with your mind, and satisfy your passions with your flesh. John clearly was horrified by the sort of reinterpretations of the person and work of Jesus that would come from straining the gospel through the sieve of Greek philosophy. He knew it would have both doctrinal and moral consequences for anyone who bought into such a heresy. In today’s text, we begin to grasp how seriously John took the matter. We hear him inveighing against the elitism, arrogance, and divisiveness these people have introduced into the community of faith. And we hear him clarifying an orthodox Christian position over against these pseudo-intellectuals who cannot find it in themselves to remain with “the word of life” delivered to them earlier. Let me put it this way: Both John and his opponents would say that sin doesn’t look the same in light of the gospel, but they would mean something very different by the claim. Sin is what separates people from God and puts humans under condemnation. “Sin isn’t what it used to be!” the false teachers might say; it doesn’t mean anything, and we don’t have to battle our addictions, discipline our lusts, or frustrate ourselves in a pointless pursuit of holiness. “Sin isn’t what it used to be!” John might say; Jesus has brought pardon and broken its power over us, and the key to holiness is not to deny our vulnerability to sin but to confess it humbly before both God and one another. John quite clearly uses a formula in this section to introduce the statements and claims of the false teachers whose influence he fears. And that formula is interesting in itself. He could have said “If someone says . . .” or “If some among you say . . .” Instead, his formula is “If we say this or that . . .” This is not merely an “editorial we” as opposed to the first-person singular. It is part of his emphasis on the fact that Christ’s church is a fellowship, a body in which each member is a vital part, a holy community under Christ. So there is really no such thing to John as personal views that don’t matter to the group, no such thing as individual behaviors apart from their impact on the full association of believers. This is not only important to keep in mind for interpretive purposes but for the sake of how we should see ourselves as a community of faith. The teachings of those false teachers are highlighted at verses 6, 8, and 10. The positive truths that John affirms in response to them are in verses 7, 9 and 2:1-2. And the entire section is set against this background: “This is the message we have from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1:5). First John divides into natural halves around the Johannine motifs of light (1:5-3:10) and love (3:11-5:12). Think of light as foundation and love as structure. Or see light as a summary for right thinking and love as the summary for right living. And keep in mind always that the two are never separable in John’s understanding of the holy community that is Christ’s church: People who live in the light of God’s message manifest their love for one another in practical ways. Or, to say it in the negative: Anyone who does not exhibit love within the community of faith has not yet seen the light of the gospel. In the Old Testament writings that John knows so well, there is no better figure to sum up God’s self-disclosure than light. The brilliant cloud by day and fire by night guided Israel in the wilderness; it illuminated (i.e., shed light on) the path. Thus David would sing: “Let the light of your face shine on us, O Lord!” (Psa. 4:6). And still another psalmist wrote: “O send out your light and your truth; let them lead me; let them bring me to your holy hill and to your dwelling” (Psa. 43:3). In the Fourth Gospel, John himself writes of Jesus, and says: “The true light, which enlightens everyone was coming into the world” (1:9). And he quotes this claim from Jesus’ lips: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life” (8:12). The first half of First John is pervaded by this theme of light. It is an exploration of what is involved in true enlightenment – knowing God, having fellowship with God, confessing the Son of God, dealing with sin, etc. And the Beloved Apostle launches directly into the chasm created between him and his opponents by their very different views of divine light or human enlightenment or light-versus-darkness mentality. (1) “If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true” (v.7). John’s opponents were claiming that entering the light (i.e., spiritual enlightenment) was to escape the mundane world and its obligations. Thus what they did by way of drugs or drunkenness, lust or lewdness, materialism or money-grubbing was irrelevant to their intellectual status as enlightened (i.e., brilliant!) persons. John was abrupt in his reply and said that the church (i.e., “we”) would fail the practical test of faith by walking in the darkness of such ungodly behaviors. More than that, we would be lying to ourselves and others to think or say that some set of superior doctrinal insights somehow relieves us from the duty of imitating Christ in our behaviors. (2) “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (v.8). On the view of the false teachers, sin just isn’t what it used to be for anyone who has their enlightenment! It isn’t a problem anymore. It’s no threat. Knowing what they knew about spirit and matter, intellect and conduct would take away the “naďve fear” that so many ordinary people still had of sin! You can practically hear John laughing at such a claim as he calls it either self-deception or a deliberate lie for someone to make such an absurd claim. (3) “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (v.9). Talk about a new view of sin! Some of those arrogant reinterpreters of the gospel were even willing to tell themselves and the other community members that they had never actually been guilty of sin at all! You can just hear them: “Once you understand the true nature of enlightenment and grasp the fact that these once-taboo experiences are simply the natural and expected – even programmed-by-God – responses of our bodies to physical things, you realize how incorrect it is to call these things ‘sin,’ do you not?” John’s response to this pompous view is harsh: Anybody who says that is simply calling God himself a liar and showing that he does not know the gospel. If any of this sounds vaguely familiar, it’s because new varieties of this sort of thinking are always surfacing. Humans are always changing life’s price-tags and calling good evil and evil good. We tolerate and teach worldviews that confuse our children, excuse inexcusable behaviors, and create a moral-spiritual environment that is hostile to God. For example, our own culture has pulled off a slick caricature of all Christian faith as hypocritical, judgmental, and emotionally unhealthy in order to affirm that the only truth is that which we create for ourselves and that the old moral taboos must be banished from our world. So premarital sex is a rite of passage, homosexuality is only an alternative lifestyle, and adultery is my right to be happy. Sex with eight- or ten-year-old children might be “sick,” but we dare not call it sin for fear of being laughed at. Stealing is the understandable response of have-nots to the cold, unfeeling haves of our time. Why not cheat on your taxes, your expense report, or your insurance claims? Everybody else does. And, besides, government, the people we work for, and big corporations are ripping us off! Drugs should be legalized. Pornography is free speech. And the only things anybody can be dogmatically certain of is that dogmatic certainty about anything is perverse! Do you see now that John’s sense of spiritual horror at what was happening in his time and place are very germane to what is going on in our own? Abercrombie & Fitch defends soft-core pornography as the staple of its advertising with this: “We market to twenty-somethings. That sort of ad catches their attention. We expect older people to be offended by our strategy, but they’re not our target market.” Last year they marketed thong underwear to ten- and twelve-year-old girls with the words “eye candy” and “wink wink” printed on the front. “The underwear for young girls was created with the intent to be lighthearted and cute,” the company said. “Any misrepresentation of that is purely in the eye of the beholder.” Let me get this straight: Anybody who objects to racial slurs is too sensitive. Anybody who opposes selling biological agents or nuclear weapons to al-Qaeda is anti-capitalist. Anybody who thinks it is wrong to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater doesn’t believe in free speech. And anybody who dares object to selling backless underwear to fourth-graders has a dirty mind. Right! Who do they think they’re kidding! What we have come to call “political correctness” makes it impossible for many people to speak up for the things they know intuitively. And if you really want to be pilloried as a redneck ignoramus, let someone know that you believe the Bible really is the Word of God. Or affirm your belief that human life was purposefully created by God in his own image rather than through purely naturalistic processes. Or tell someone that you believe that Jesus of Nazareth really was God enfleshed who died to save us from sin and that Easter is your affirmation of faith in his bodily resurrection three days after he was crucified. Not only kids in junior high but students in graduate and professional schools are intimidated by unbelief. Not only teens but their parents don’t want to be embarrassed in certain settings by being asked about their spiritual convictions. Not only college students but their professors can be so caught up in the modern philosophies of self-fulfillment and self-indulgence that they can be persuaded to violate the norms of the university, the state, or the Scripture. John replies to his opponents who have reinterpreted, twisted, and undermined the gospel quite directly and forthrightly. Based on the incarnational theology of the gospel, he states the Christian view of things. He will not sit by while others deny the reality of the physical Christ whom – if you recall verse 1 – he heard with his own ears, saw with his own eyes, and touched with his own hands. God is not detached and distant; as Jesus of Nazareth, he is Emmanuel – which means “God is with us” (cf. Matt. 1:21-23). Neither will he hold his tongue when these false teachers say that the personal (i.e., bodily) behaviors of Christians are irrelevant to their spiritual status. The inward condition of a person’s heart and soul is expressed in his actions within the community of faith; how Christians view others, treat them, and live in relation to them in the church is at the very heart of their true identity. God knows us in totality – heart, soul, mind, and strength – and expects us to reflect the light of his goodness in our own lives. So here is the true perspective of an orthodox Christian toward sin, fellowship, and forgiveness. (1) “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” (1:7). For anyone who is walking in the light of the gospel, sin is not something to deny or minimize but must be taken very seriously. What we do in our bodily existence does matter. Sin is both against God and against the faith community in which God has placed us, and for one to embrace and deny his sinfulness is to break fellowship with both. So an enlightened believer has turned from darkness toward the light, is moving toward God in partnership with his brothers and sisters, and is experiencing an ongoing cleansing from sin through the power of Christ’s blood. Far from denying his sinfulness, he senses it all the more acutely precisely because he is standing in the radiant light of God’s holiness. But he has rested his faith in what God did for him in providing atonement for sin at Calvary. (2) “If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1:9). So long as a Christian is spiritually sensitive enough to confess – not deny, not minimize, not explain away – her sins, the divine promise is that they will not be able to bring her under condemnation. What irony here! The worldview of flesh, arrogance, and spiritual elitism feels compelled to structure a take on the Christian message that either intellectually eliminates sin as a category or practically forces one to live in denial. But the truth is that sin loses its power only when we name it, recognize its damning power, confess our inability to undo it, and lay it at the foot of the cross. There our faithful and just God supplies pardon for what is past and power for what lies ahead in overcoming it. The primary human need with regard to sin is simple honesty about our powerlessness in the face of it and humble dependence on God alone for pardon, renewal, and victory over it. (3) “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (2:1-2). The set-the-bar-high ideal for my life as a Christian is to hate sin, avoid sin, and not commit sin. The true-to-life-experience reality for me is that I do still sin. And for a confessing sinner like me, the role of Jesus as my “advocate” is key to everything. The original word here (Gk, hilasmos) is variously translated “propitiation” (KJV) or “atoning sacrifice” (NIV, NRSV). It signifies that the death of Jesus accomplished everything that was necessary to remove our guilt, change our relationship with God, and give us confidence about the future. In the face of either Satan’s claim that we belong to him by allegiance or our own self-judgment that we are too unworthy to belong to God’s holy community, Jesus speaks up as our advocate (Gk., parakletos = defense counsel, helper; “one who speaks in our defense,” NIV) to affirm that we do not belong to Satan; we have been bought for God by Christ’s blood (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20). He speaks back to our own guilty consciences as well; our standing with God is not based on our flawed performance but on Christ’s completed work of redemption. What paradox there is to the gospel of Jesus Christ! To be exalted, we must humble ourselves. To live, we must die. To be set free of sin, we must admit how vulnerable we are to it. Because we participate now in the community of light, sin looks different to us. What can still seduce and entrap us nevertheless looks hateful now. And when we succumb to temptation, we feel more grief than excitement, more remorse than desire to continue in it or repeat it. In the light now, it is far less attractive than it has ever been. Battling it confessionally rather than living with it defensively, its hold is gradually broken. Because of Christ’s death for us, it cannot defeat it. Sin just isn’t what it used to be. Praise God! media   |
|
FAMILYCOMMUNITYINSPIRATIONRESOURCESPARTNERS |