I don’t remember who preached the sermon, or even if it was in my home church. But sometime while I was a teenager, I heard a lesson that just astonished me — a most excellent lesson still being taught in even very conservative Churches of Christ based on 1 John 1:7 —
(1Jo 1:7 ESV) 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
Here’s a very typical example from Wayne Jackson’s very popular Christian Courier website —
While many Bible students are aware of the fact that the blood of Jesus is applied to their souls in their initial obedience to the gospel, which occurs at the point of baptism (Acts 22:16), some do not realize that the Lord’s cleansing blood continues to function on their behalf as they struggle with sin in their Christian lives.
John speaks to this very point. He says “if we walk in the light. . . the blood of Jesus. . . cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).
The point is then made that —
if this habitual walking in the light is devoutly pursued, the Lord’s blood will keep on cleansing (present tense – sustained activity) the child of God.
Excellent! This is teaching that needs preserving. However, Jackson wraps this simple promise in a series of caveats, whereases, and conditions.
First, the promise of the passage is conditional. Circle the term “if” and note that point. Second, the verb “walk” is a present tense form, denoting a consistent pattern of life. It represents the activity of one who is sincerely striving, on a sustained basis, to serve God. It does not suggest that he is perfect, but that he is trying diligently.
I agree. Exactly. This is the opposite of rebellion. And in my experience, the vast majority of Christians fit this category easily. However —
Third, the “walking” must be “in the light,” i.e., in harmony with the revealed will of God, the New Testament.
Huh? So I can sin and yet remain saved, unless I violate the New Testament, in which case I’m damned. This is incoherent, self-contradictory nonsense.
Of course, what Jackson wants to do, in the face of contrary scriptural authority, is damn people who sing with an instrument while sincerely striving and trying diligently to obey God. Some sins, Jackson thinks, are just too big for God’s continuous cleansing.
As we’ve covered here before, in the 19th Century, some legalistic preachers began to distinguish “positive commands” from “moral commands.” The idea was that commands not rooted in love or morality — such as the “command” not to use an instrument — are higher, stricter commands because (a) God issued them to test our faithfulness and (b) we are capable of performing these perfectly, whereas we cannot love or be moral perfectly.
Of course, as we’ve seen, the story of God’s sending of his Spirit reveals that love is in fact the highest command. And Jesus himself said exactly this — as did Paul and James. So the idea that 1 John 1:7 doesn’t apply to instrumental music and other such questions is sheerly about institutional pride rather than serious Bible study.
Let’s take a closer look a 1 John and then dig more into Jackson’s “logic.”
(1Jo 1:5 ESV) 5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
In God, there “is no darkness at all.” That is, if we are “in God,” we are totally removed from the darkness because God’s light intensely drives the darkness away.
The point isn’t that God is sinless, but that God’s forgiveness is so vast that it is utterly complete.
(1Jo 1:6 ESV) 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
If we “walk in darkness” (apart from God), then we have no fellowship with God and do not practice the truth. That is, either we are “in God” and there is no darkness at all, or else we are outside of God’s fellowship, and we walk in utter darkness. There is no twilight. There is no gray.
(1Jo 1:7 ESV) 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
As Jackson concedes, the “if” doesn’t mean “if we are perfect,” but if we walk true to the penitence that first brought us to salvation, if we’re true to the faithfulness that faith requires — that is, it’s not so much how well we walk but where we walk.
Hence, if we are saved at all, we are utterly saved. “Now there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1) says the same thing. The cleansing is present tense, implying continuous cleansing.
Rather than having to be 90% perfect and hoping God will make up the difference, it’s a matter of our hearts. And if the Spirit is shaping our hearts to become like Jesus’ heart, and if we are not in outright rebellion, we remain saved — continuously cleansed.
But Jackson argues that we must first pray for forgiveness for any sin to be forgiven.
Implied in all of this, of course, is the fact that the erring Christian must repent of, and confess, his transgressions.
Uh … but if I’m damned for a sin until I repent of it and confess it, then I’m damned until I’ve repented of and confessed all my sins — that is, until I’m perfect — which is impossible. This supposed implication entirely eliminates the promise and so is obviously wrong.
How shall we view those who publicly argue that the New Testament establishes no pattern for acceptable worship? For them, the Lord’s supper may be eaten whenever the notion strikes one, and the use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship is a matter of indifference. Shall such teachings be allowed to go unchallenged? Does the Bible teach that altering God’s plan of worship is of serious consequence? Take a good look at Leviticus 10:1-2.
And so, while we reject the Old Testament’s authorization of instruments, we follow the Law of Moses when God condemns Nadab and Abihu for disobedience? And so Nadab and Abihu overrule 1 John? What utter nonsense.
Consider this beautiful passage from Romans —
(Rom 5:6-8 ESV) 6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person — though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die — 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Even though we were weak and sinners — even “enemies” of God (5:10) — Jesus died for us so that we could be saved. After all, we didn’t become children of God until after we were saved. He died for his enemies!
(Rom 5:9-11 ESV) 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
V. 9 speaks to what happens not that we have been saved. And the promise is that we will be “much more … saved” from the wrath of God as his children than while we were his enemies.
V. 10 says much the same thing, repeating the “much more” theme. At baptism, we were saved by the death of Jesus. Having been saved, we are now alive in the life of Jesus, and so we will be “much more” saved by his life than by this death.
Therefore, even “more than that,” we rejoice because of this amazing reconciliation! (v. 11).
In short, Paul declares the incredible — that our salvation after baptism is much more than our salvation at baptism. As white as our souls became when we were lifted out of the baptismal waters, they are now whiter yet.
Often, tender-hearted Christians cannot feel forgiven for a particular sin, and so they seek a new baptism, hoping that the super-cleaning power of baptism will remove their guilt — not realizing that they are asking for second best! The forgiveness of God for his children greatly exceeds the forgiveness for those only just becoming children.
I’ve never adopted a child, but surely I would love that child more five years after the adoption than at the moment of the adoption. I might not give my life for a child I’ve only seen in a nursery for an hour, who might not ultimately be mine. But once that child becomes mine, then I’ll certainly die for him.
It’s incredible that Jesus died for strangers, enemies, people who did not know him at the time, but he did. But that doesn’t change the fact that once we become a part of God’s family, once he becomes our Abba, our relationship changes — and God will be all the more forgiving.
This is, of course, hard to grasp. But it’s what the Bible says, and so it’s true.
Romans 3:21-26 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through FAITH in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by FAITH. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has FAITH in Jesus.
Romans 4:7,8 are not Wayne Jackson’s favorites.
Jay, I have questions regarding the phrase “if we walk in the light”. When Jackson commented that it means – “…in harmony with the revealed will of God, the New Testament”, you replied: “Huh?” You interpreted his statement to be, “incoherent, self-contradictory nonsense.”
Personally, I believe you not only misinterpreted the man, but were also overly and unjustifiably harsh in your disagreement. Do you deny that walking “in the light” means “in harmony with the revealed will of God, the New Testament (which is what Jackson wrote)? If so, what exactly does that mean? What is included under that umbrella?
So as to prove this is not an interpretation limited to the conservative and/or “legalistic” CoCs, I have copied an article from “Bible Gateway” that seems to say the same thing as did Jackson.
Bible Gateway Resources » Commentaries » 1 John » Chapter 1 » exegesis
View 1 John 1:5–2:27
Walking in the Light: The Fundamental Pattern
“The next section of 1 John (1:5–2:27) tackles this question, for the church to which John was writing debated this very issue. What does God ask of us? What does it mean to be a disciple of Jesus? What does it mean to be a faithful Christian? To address this issue, John uses the image of “walking in the light.” And he lays out certain expectations of those who desire to walk in the light. We can summarize these expectations briefly: imitation of God’s character (1:5-7); dependence upon the cleansing from sin provided by Jesus’ death (1:7, 9; 2:1-2); obedience to the com mands of God (2:3-6), especially the command to love (2:7-11); and steadfast resistance to the lure of the ways of the world (2:15-17) and to false teaching (2:18-27).”
Do you agree with the above comments from Bible Gateway?
Does “walking in the light” require resistance to false teaching?
Honestly brother, I am not trying to fight here. I just wonder what you understand that phrase to be limited to? Either way, even if you disagree with Jackson, do know that your disagree is not ONLY with traditional CofCs, but with traditional Baptists and the traditional everybody else’s.
Pretty much everybody but the new(ish) progressives.
BTW, my apologies for any part I played in forcing you to unplug the other thread. I believe my statements and questions above are fair and acceptable.
Have a good day.
“Striving” or “doing our best” is NEVER a condition of God’s forgiveness or of our salvation. It’s a construct intended to allow us to demand complete obedience from the pulpit while not accomplishing it in fact ourselves, to reconcile our judgement of others with our own sins, which are really okay because WE are striving, unlike those other guys.
“We must obey!”
“Well, I’m doing my best!”
“Well, okay, then!”
This is not the gospel. If doing our best were of value, we would not need a savior.
Hank,
Wayne Jackson is a very precise writer, and he has made it clear that those who contrary to his understanding of the silences are not part of the true church. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/893-controversy-regarding-christian-fellowship-the and https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1544-pauls-condemnation-of-will-worship.
(It’s ironic that he uses the old will-worship argument, when Paul was teaching against imposing restrictions that God does not impose.
Now, I plainly agreed with Jackson when he stated,
“Sincerely striving” does not mean “doing your best.” I take it to mean “penitent” or “faithful,” and doubt that Jackson would disagree.
Jackson then adds,
Literally read, this means being perfect because only sinlessness is in complete harmony with God’s revealed will. I don’t think Jackson meant that.
But if he meant sincerely striving, well, he’d just said that and Jackson is way too precise to create such a redundancy. So what other possibilities are there?
The only one that comes to mind is what he has said in other places, which is a failure to honor the silences regarding worship and such like. And notice the use of “complete” harmony. He’s speaking of standards that must be kept exactly — not merely trying to do right but actually meeting that standard.
Search for “revealed will” on his site, and you find such teachings as —
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/290-divine-pattern-of-acceptable-worship-part-2-the
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/731-is-it-wrong-to-dispute-religious-error
Hence, it sure seems plain to me that Jackson is speaking of positive commands — the rules for how to worship, how to organize, and even how to pray gleaned from the distinctive doctrines of his brand of the Churches of Christ.
I can think of no other possible interpretation.
PS — I’ve spent many hours reading Jackson’s material. I believe it’s important for me to know the other side of the issues as well as those I disagree with.
Jay,
I can’t help but to notice that although Jackson wrote, “…i.e., in harmony with the revealed will of God”, you respond – “Literally read, this means being perfect because only sinlessness is in COMPLETE (emph. mine) harmony with God’s revealed will.”
Isn’t there a difference between “in harmony” and “in complete harmony”? To me, one implies perfection (the way you wrote it), and one does not.
Did I miss where he in fact wrote “complete harmony”? If so, I’ll stand corrected. If not, then you were (unintentionally perhaps), unfair. I mean, surly even you believe that Christians must live “in harmony with the will of God” to be in the light?
Lastly, I can only imagine how busy you must be, given all that you do, but I am really curious as to what you specifically believe regarding “walking in the light” and how that compares to all the scholars and preachers of the past? Take the Bible Gateway article for example, where they argued it included several things, one of which was “avoiding false teaching”. Would you agree?
If “avoiding false doctrine” (teaching) is NOT required, then I am forced to ask again about the JW’s, Mormons and such. Would that not be a fair progression of inquiry?
Hank,
I concluded that Jackson did NOT mean “complete harmony” —
So where do we disagree?
“Walking in the light” must be interpreted in light of the context, not what someone thinks makes sense. I am traveling and so away from my commentaries. So I can’t give you much in the way of historical exegesis. But I’ve taught 1 John many times and did a series on it here. 1 John is very black and white throughout.
Therefore, I agree with this from the IVP Commentary at BibleGateway —
John is saying that if we (people who have been saved) walk in the light — if we are attempting to keep in step with the Spirit or live as God wills or to be faithful or to be penitent, we are in utter light — and therefore the blood of Jesus continually washes away our sin–meaning that no sin is charged to us and so there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus because salvation is a free gift from God.
The test is all about our hearts — and 1 John speaks quite a lot about the heart.
And to this extent, Wayne Jackson and I agree. It’s just that Jackson wants to carve out a failure to be in harmony with God’s revealed will in the NT. But he’s not referring to a failure to love, to submit, to sacrifice, or countless other plainly revealed NT commands. He is referring, I’m confident, to the doctrinal distinctives of his segment of the Churches of Christ — instrumental music, Cessationism, and others — most inferred from the silences — as though a sin against a silence is worse than a sin against a plainly stated, direct command — such as “Love one another.”
This happens to damn virtually everyone outside and many within. That may not be his goal but it’s certainly the result of such teaching. In fact, such teaching leaves many within the Church miserable because they are unsure that they got each item of God’s “revealed will” exactly right. What if it was actually sin to have a piano at our daughter’s wedding in the church building? What if it was really sin to give money to build a fellowship hall? What if the water fountain in the building is sinful? (I know a church that ripped theirs out because of 1 Cor 11:22 —
There’s quite a long list of issues that have been inferred as part of God’s revealed will. Who can possibly get every single one right?
Jay, Jackson wrote:
“Third, the “walking” must be “in the light,” i.e., in harmony with the revealed will of God, the New Testament.”
To which precise quote, you replied:
“Literally read, this means being perfect because only sinlessness is in complete harmony with God’s revealed will.”
That was my main question. How does “in harmony” when “literally read” ever mean “in complete harmony”?
There is a big difference. Granted, you next wrote that you don’t believe he meant what you implied his statement meant when ” literally read”, but then you seemed to double back.
But why ever claim that “harmony” means “complete harmony” in the first place?
I understand your traveling. Be safe brother
Hank does well to seek additional light on comments which may be less than fully explanatory of the thought. As a lifelong student of the Word, I know of no passage which ever speaks of a Christian “worship service.” Most of the sects within the churches of Christ are based on disagreement about items of “worship.” All seem to agree that the apostles should have spoken of assemblies as “worship services” and should have described exactly what is permitted and what is excluded in such assemblies. The same with the government of congregations. The apostles just didn’t write enough laws. So we have to make up for their lack! So we make laws, and condemn those who don’t obey our laws.
What must be preserved is what the apostles taught and are reported to have practiced. Anything beyond that is non-apostolic. Everything we choose to do which is non-apostolic is surely acceptably decided by the leaders of each congregation. I’m prejudiced. I like what the Hills church in Ft. Worth, Texas is doing throughout the world. I like to be able to listen to sermons preached there even when I can’t be physically present. I hope the church is furnishing funds to allow their preachers to go many places and there speak up for Jesus. I like the fact that Jay Guin takes time to share his thoughts with others!
I agree with Ray! I am so glad to be in agreement with Ray on this comment.
The idea that we can be perfect in matters of religion while acknowledging imperfection in matters of love and morals has created the great hypocrisy; and those not of the church see it. And it is not only the Church of Christ. Other conservative churches claim perfection in their own way.
In conservative churches there has arisen a plague of members who either live with the timber in their own eye while trying to remove the splinter from the eye of the world; or think that by removing the timber from their own eye they are elevated to perfection and authority. But let us not forget that pride, arrogance and judgment are timbers also.
The non-churched are not looking for perfection in any area of our lives. Yet, so many church members actually think the world is so unfair when they point out sins within the church. But it is not so much sins they are pointing to; it is the hypocrisy of those trying to tell them how to live. It is the arrogance of “I believe and practice the truth; you don’t understand that I am in God’s grace. How dare you point a finger at me”. But they will, and think, “How pathetic”.
As much as it is ignored and thought powerless, even by some who consider themselves progressive, compassion is what captures the hearts of people. Yet while compassion is thought by so many church members as giving the wrong idea of grace being a license, again, it is legalism that takes a hand full of commands and claims that these commands make the vessel that hold an eternity of grace; grace that cleanses “only us, no one else”.
John,
I agree and know that is the thinking of so many that have left for other places to worship or in most cases go no where at all.
How I hear older folks muttering to those close by at funerals exactly what you said.
More and more are scheduling a remembrance meeting for their dead loved one since they are all about telling and hearing positive things about a person instead of a funeral of a loved one already in hell.
“Third, the “walking” must be “in the light,” i.e., in harmony with the revealed will of God, the New Testament.”
Since earlier in the passage, John has said that “God is light,” would it be correct to say that “walking in the light” is the same thing as “walking in God”?
Of course, that means in harmony with God, which of course involves harmony with his revealed Word. John 17 comes to mind. I think Jay and Wayne would agree on those points…The question is how does this practically play out? Does walking in communion with God, in harmony with his will mean necessarily that we must get every doctrinal point correct? Does it mean that we must get some correct? Both extremes (no doctrinal correctness is expected/perfect doctrinal correctness is necessary) are not correct. One is universalism; the other is legalism. The question is where is grace and faith? I know for my part as long as I pursue him in faith then I know grace covers me, and I want to help others get as close as possible to what God wants and I pray that God will cover us all with his grace as we honestly pursue him. Is that over simplifying it?
“Third, the “walking” must be “in the light,” i.e., in harmony with the revealed will of God, the New Testament.”
That interpretation seems a bit of a stretch to me. As the NT did not exist at the time, it seems to me to be unlikely that it was the conditional of which John is speaking here. Besides this, this interpretation requires an answer to a question which the passage itself does not even approach: Just how much “harmony” constitutes “walking in the light”? Justin’s answer is to say as long as we honestly pursue God in faith, we are walking in the light. That leads us to the question, “Since most of us will admit that we do not always walk by faith nor do we always obey, how do we know we are ‘honestly pursuing’ and who makes this judgment?” Justin recognizes that doctrinal perfection is problematic as the standard here, but does not see that some particular degree of human effort is equally problematic as the standard.
I think a better clue to the meaning here is found in the text itself. When I read the whole chapter as a piece, I think John here is talking about honesty and transparency about our own lives, transparency both with ourselves and with each other. John contrasts “walking in the light” with refusing to acknowledge our own sinfulness. Hiding part of our lives limits our fellowship with one another. John is admonishing believers to honestly admit our sins to one another, for the sake of fellowship, for the sake of intercession and healing, and to align ourselves with the truth of God– the only One who is without any darkness at all.
In fact, the idea of inserting doctrinal correctness into this context actually runs counter to the intended result. When we do not agree with one another on a doctrine, does this make us more transparent, or more defensive? Does it make us more likely to expose our thoughts, or to cover up any weaknesses in our arguments? Does it lead us to declare our own rightness or to admit our own faults? Does it bring us closer into fellowship or divide us? A little observation leads me to doubt seriously that our efforts to be right about the Bible take us in the direction of which John is speaking in this part of his letter.
John himself, explains (in part, at least), what he himself meant by walking “I’m the light.” For, in the next chapter, he wrote: “He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.”
So, “walking in the light at least, entails loving and not hating ones brother”.
Which does take a particular degree of human effort. In fact, sometimes, it seems impossible.
For sure, “walking in the light” is not limited to admitting our sins to one another. I believe most commentaries do in fact argue that it means to walk “in harmony” with the revealed will of God. As Jackson argued.
Basically, if one is not loving (agape) his brothers (enough), he is not walking “in the light”.
And, biblically speaking, “loving our neighbor” entails every other command of God. So, in essence, walking “in the light” = obeying the commands of God (Romans 13:8-10).
Walking in the light = loving ones brother
Loving ones brother = obeying the commands of God
Justin wrote,
I believe you have it exactly right. Pursue God in faith and 1 John 1:7’s promise of continuous forgiveness will be honored. That is, be true to the faith in which you were saved in the first place.
Isa 9:2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jhn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
I believe if you walk within the” Word of God ” you will do well.
Its interesting that folks that have died and while they wrere dead all saw a light ahead they were headed for.
Then they came back and missed the fellings they had for leaving that light.
What do you think that light was? Some doctors say lack of oxygen, others blood from brain, most I know say spiritual like Jesus or heaven.
What would the Bible say it is?
Jesus? I saw a private screening of the movie “Heaven is for real” this past Monday. It is based on a true story. I would advise anyone to go see it and decide for yourself. Great acting and family friendly content.