I JOHN I. 8.

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

THERE are very few passages in the whole circle of the Word of God, that demand a more careful study than the one before us. We have, undeniably, in this passage, a revealed test of Christian character. Every individual, who, in the sense in which the words, "we have no sin," are here employed, does say, "I have no sin," is not, and cannot be, a Christian.

To affirm of an individual, that he is self-deceived, and that the truth is not in him, is in the strongest language known in the Bible, to affirm his unregeneracy. That the apostle intends to specify here a self-deceived, unregenerate person is evident also from the manner in which he employs similar language in the fourth verse of the next chapter: "He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in Him." To be " a liar," to " deceive ourselves," which is the worst form of lying, and not to have "the truth in us," must designate impenitency, or no language of Scripture can do it. Let us keep in mind, then, that it is not a believer who may have misapprehended his real spiritual state, "not knowing what manner of spirit he is of," but a person void of the truth, and who has added self-deception to a want of integrity, that is here spoken of.

We would remark further, that it is of known, or conscious, sin of which the apostle here speaks. When the apostle Paul, for example, says (Gal. vi. 3), "lf a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself," the obvious meaning is, that the individual practises deception upon himself---that is, in blind and wilful disregard of conscious facts, he assumes that he is not what, in his interior conciousness, he really knows himself to be, or that he is what he, in fact, is conscious of not being. In a similar manner does the apostle John, in the passage before us, affirm, that "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves," that is, we deny the fact of sin, while we are really conscious of its presence. The class of individuals, therefore, to whom the apostle refers in this passage, are, without a question, such as are not and cannot be Christians at all, and who, in addition to this, are self-deceived hypocrites, individuals who "say we have no sin," when they are, in fact, conscious that they are sinners. We judge, that no candid reader will question the validity of our exposition thus far. The question which here arises, and which requires a careful and prayerful answer, is this: What class of self-deceived unregenerates does the apostle refer to in. this passage?

As preparatory to a true answer to this question, let us carefully consider the verse which next follows the one before us, " If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." There are, undeniably, two distinct and separate blessings promised to our faith, when we confess sins of which we are conscious, namely, "the forgiveness of our sins "---and entire purification from the power of sin, or "cleansing from all unrighteousness." To the same effect, we read (Verse 7), "But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." To say, "we have no sin," in the sense of the words, as here employed, is to affirm that we have no sin to be cleansed from, to be forgiven, and no unrighteousness from which to be purified. We must bear in mind that those who say this are, as inspiration positively affirms, self-deceived unregenerates, and not believers who have erred in judgment in regard to "what manner of spirit they are of." What then is the real meaning of the apostle in the passage before us?

His meaning, we reply, can by no possibility be this, what the passage is extensively supposed to mean, namely---If any one should say, "I serve God with a pure conscience"; "I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offence, both toward God and toward man"; "I know nothing by (against) myself" or "my heart (conscience) does not condemn me," that such individual has "deceived himself, and the truth is not in him." This exposition would compel us to rank as among the self-deceived unregenerates, Paul and hosts of the holiest men and women of all ages. Language is without meaning, if Paul did not claim for himself "a pure conscience," "a conscience void of offence"; "a heart sprinkled from an evil conscience," or separated from the consciousness of present sin. The exposition before us convicts the apostle John also, of the most palpable contradiction and absurdity. Take two or three examples---" Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not." Whosoever " abideth in Him," and says, "I have no sin," that is, am not conscious of present sin---in other words still, am not conscious of actually sinning at the present time---" deceiveth himself; and the truth is not in him." "If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things," that is, much more does He condemn us in such a case. "Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God, and whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." "If we say that we have no sin," that is, are not conscious of present sin--- in other words, if we say that "our heart condemns us not "---" we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Once more, "If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from unrighteousness still." If we say, after we have confessed our sins that He has "cleansed us from all our unrighteousness," "we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." What must we think of an exposition of a passage of the Word of God---an exposition which necessarily and undeniably imputes such contradictions to the Holy Spirit through His inspired apostle? We must bear in mind that it is to verify the doctrine of the present conscience sin of all believers, that the passage under consideration is adduced, as the use made of Rom. vii, and other kindred passages evinces. Permit us in all sincerity to ask those who press this passage into the service of that doctrine, whether they are ready to accept and adopt, and that openly and avowedly, the deduction to which that exposition undeniably leads, namely, that all those who profess to "serve God with a pure conscience"; "a conscience void of offence," and affirm that "their heart does not condemn them," have deceived themselves and the truth is not in them, that is, are self-deceived unregenerates? Must there not be a fundamental error in an exposition which leads inevitably to such a conclusion as that?

Let us now see if we cannot find a class of persons who did, at that very time, affirm openly, "We have no sin," the class, consequently, to whom the apostle must have referred. The Jew, at that time, every where openly confronted the offer of pardon and eternal life through "the blood" (or atonement) "of Christ," with the denial that he (the Jew) was a sinner, and needed such salvation. When told that" the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin," his (the Jew's) reply was, "I have no sin" to be cleansed from, and do not need the pardoning grace offered through Christ. While the Jew made this denial, he was, in reality, as inwardly conscious of the fact of personal sinfulness, as any other individual. Yet, he boldly made the deniaI, and thereby, prevented multitudes from embracing the truth, and seduced weak believers from the faith. To refute and rebuke this fatal error, an error which Paul refutes in the first three chapters of Romans, is the object of the apostle John (i John i. 7---10): "If we say," he says, "that we have no sin," Verse 8, or repeating the same thought in another form, Verse 10 "If we say that we have not sinned," "we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us," on the one hand, and "make God a liar," on the other. In saying, "I have no sin," or which means the same thing, in. saying, "I have not sinned," the Jew stood revealed as the identical character to whom the apostle must have referred. In saying, "I have no sin," or "I have not sinned," the Jew belied the absolute testimony of his own interior consciousness, on the one hand, and thus betrayed a total want of real integrity, on the other---that is, he had "deceived himself; and the truth was not in him." No man can exist without the consciousness of the fact that he has sinned. No man consequently can say, "I have no sin," or "I have not sinned," without revealing by the utterance itself; the fact that he has "deceived himself, and the truth is not in him," in other words, that he is self-deceived and unregenerate.

The use of the present tense, "If we say we have no sin," evinces, it is said, that the apostle is speaking of present, and not of past, sin. Here we have the only show of evidence that can be adduced from this passage in favour of continued conscious sin in all believers. In reply, we remark:

1. Well-known Greek usage required, in this case, the use of this tense, although past sin was referred to. In reference to forgiveness, cleansing, &c., this one tense is exclusively employed. In representing, in such connections, the denial of the fact of sin, the same tense, whether present or past sin is referred to, should be employed ¹2. It is perfectly common in the New Testament, in speaking of past sins and past events, to employ the present tense. When Paul says, for example, "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I'm chief," he referred, as no one doubts, to the sins ---which he had perpetrated prior to his conversion. When he said again, "I HAVE whereof I may glory," he referred to acts performed many years then gone by. When Christ said, "Let him that is without sin among you first cast a stone at her," He obviously meant, Let him do this who is conscious of never having sinned. Nothing can be more obvious than is the fact that mere tense determines nothing whatever in regard to the question, whether present or past sin is referred to. 3. But, above all, the words, "I have no sin," and "I have not sinned," were the identical forms of expression which the Jew, and all who embraced his error, were accustomed to employ in denying their need of the grace of God through Christ. When pressed to confess his sins and seek pardon and cleansing through the blood of Christ, the impious reply was in these very words, "I have not sinned," or "I have no sin," and do not need the pardon and cleansing to which you refer. The apostle would not have represented the case of the Jew as it was, had he employed any other forms of expression, in representing the denial under consideration. No shadow of reason exists, therefore, for pressing the passage under consideration into the service of the doctrine of the continued conscious sin of all believers; nor can any revealed truth be more evident than is the conclusion that the apostle had no thought or intent to verify that doctrine when he penned the passage under consideration.

1 We have in John xx. 29 a very striking example of what is called the Greek law of assimilation in the use of tenses. "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me thou hast believed ; blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." The real meaning evidently is: "Blessed shall they be who shall not see Me, and yet shall believe." Why is the past tense used to express this truth? Because that tense had been used in speaking of the faith of Thomas. So in the case under consideration. The present tense is used in all previous statements. That tense should be used in this case, though past sin is referred to. So in Romans vii. 14, after the apostle had said, "The law is spiritual," he was required by the law of the language in which he was speaking, to say "I am carnal," though he ref erred to his past legal state and experience. Nothing can be more unauthorised than a determination of time by mere tense.