The Confession of Sins – Is 1 John 1:9 a Part of God’s Will for the Present Dispensation of Grace?

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

Guilt is a killer. A killer of our joy, our peace, our enjoyment of intimacy with God. It is one of Satan’s most effective weapons against the sons of men. Psychiatrists and doctors tell us that unresolved guilt is the number one cause of mental illness and suicide. Over half of all hospital beds are filled by people who have emotional illnesses. Guilt kills relationships, both among people and with God. We cannot freely forgive others until we first receive that forgiveness from God.

Our gracious and loving Father has provided a full and complete deliverance from sin and guilt. But if we believe a lie and fail to deal with guilt in the way God has dealt with it, we fall into a snare and
it becomes a most grievous and cruel weapon against us.

Guilt is that moral sense of blameworthiness that each of us feels when we know that we have done wrong. It is not necessarily bad, for it tells us that we have sinned and that something must be done about it. Just as our bodies should hurt when they are diseased or injured, so our God-given conscience should hurt when we violate what we know is right.

At the beginning, we must realize that God has not dealt with the guilt problem in the same way throughout Bible history. This is of utmost importance to know, for so many of the problems regarding guilt are made worse by people trying to obey God’s commands given to people of other dispensations. For example, under the law of Moses, the children of Israel were commanded to “afflict your souls” as the high priest made atonement for their sins through animal sacrifice (Lev. 16:29-31). The writer of Hebrews elaborates on this Day of Atonement and the inability of the law to provide complete forgiveness.

“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

“For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

“But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

“For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Heb. 10:1-4).

Although this was a merciful provision in Israel for the time then present, the law was inadequate to make the worshippers perfect in conscience in relation to the guilt problem. The very fact that the sacrifices had to be repeated was a constant reminder that God’s forgiveness was given out piecemeal, i.e., on an installment plan. It was never completed. God’s people were expected to lament and afflict their souls, which is the antithesis of a perfected conscience. Indeed, far from being a satisfactory answer for guilt, Paul tells us in no uncertain terms why the law was given.

“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom. 3:19).

God graciously provided the sacrificial system of the law to temporarily atone (cover) the sins of his people until the “precious blood of Christ” could be shed to purchase eternal redemption for us.
Those living before the Cross were “saved on credit,” so to speak, until the fullness of time arrived for the complete removal of our sins. Even in portions of what we call the New Testament, forgiveness was conditional and therefore not complete (Matt. 6:12,14,15; 18:34,35; Mark 11:25,26; Luke 6:37c). The revelation of the Mystery through the Apostle Paul by the ascended, glorified Christ was yet future from the perspective of Matthew-John. And so the capstone of divine revelation concerning the total forgiveness of sins remained missing until that time. All of this is essential to understand throughout the remainder of our study.

With this in mind, there is one Scripture which in this writer’s view has caused untold harm and detriment to the people of God. Not because the verse itself is faulty, for all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable, but because religious leaders have so miserably misinterpreted and misapplied its original intent. What makes this all the more tragic is that it comes not from the enemies of Christ but from sincere, well respected, Bible-believing Christians. The verse I speak of is 1 John 1:9.

In order to view the verse within its context, I ask you simply to prayerfully consider the following passage from 1 John 1:1-10.

1. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2. (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

3. That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

4. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

5. This then is the message which we have heard of Him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.

6. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.

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.

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

9. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us.

Are you confident that you understand verse 9 in context? Let us see. Although men have many variations of interpretation on this verse, we will mention here only three of the most popular.

1. It is a salvation verse which tells the sinner how to receive the forgiveness of sins today.

2. It is a restoration verse.

a. Restoring one to salvation or,

b. Restoring one to fellowship

3. It is a verse pertaining to the Jews under the Kingdom program of Prophecy and has little if any application to the Gentiles today under the Body of Christ program of the Mystery.

For the time being, I would like to pass over numbers 1 and 3 and deal directly with number 2. The other two will take care of themselves as we come to understand the passage. Part 2-a is the most easily answered. This is the view that a saved person can become lost again through backsliding, carnality, losing faith, etc.

Often a person is told that his sins are forgiven up to the time he is saved. From that point forward the merits of Christ’s death are beneficial to him only as he is faithful to confess his sins to God and thus stay cleansed in His sight.

First of all, regeneration or the new birth is spoken of as a one time experience. No Bible passage speaks of being born again and again and again. During my college years, I attended a tent meeting for three nights with some friends. I couldn’t help noticing that the same people went forward each night after the sermon to receive forgiveness. One night the evangelist quoted 1 John 1:9 and made the statement that no one with unconfessed sin will enter heaven. When I pressed him about this after the meeting, he finally conceded that John probably meant the grosser forms of sin. This underscores another problem with this view. How many sins did God allow Adam and Eve before they were cast out from His presence in the garden of Eden? Only one. And all they did was eat a piece of fruit that the Lord told them not to. How many unforgiven sins do you suppose it will take to banish you to the everlasting burnings? Only one. God is holy and of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity. If your forgiveness depends on your confession of sins, you better be diligent not to forget even one.

The second reason 1 John 1:9 cannot refer to a restoration to salvation is that eternal life is a free gift. It is given by God’s grace not merely to the undeserving, but to those who deserve the exact opposite. If God rescinded His gift, that would make Him more gracious to His enemies than to His own children. God does not take back the gift if you become unworthy. We were never worthy to begin with.

Thirdly, God wishes for us to enjoy the gift of salvation. Salvation is of the Lord. Man’s only responsibility is to believe. Does God want us to walk through our Christian lives with a cloud over our heads? Those who believe that their forgiveness depends on their continual confession of sins soon find that their Christian experience has turned into “a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness.”

The Scriptures tell us that upon believing that the Lord Jesus died for us and rose again we are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. Nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Eph. 1:13,14; Rom. 8:31-38). With the gospel of the grace of God, we have the pleasure of declaring the total forgiveness of sins. This brings peace, joy, and stability. More about this later.

Number 2-b above also speaks of restoration, not to salvation or even to maintain it, but rather to fellowship. Those who hold this view understand clearly the teaching of eternal security and the
preservation of the saints. The issue this time is intimacy with their heavenly Father. Our relationship is like the Rock of Gibraltar, steadfast and immovable. On the other hand, our fellowship (we are told) is like a tiny thread which the slightest sin in thought, word, or deed can break. Perhaps the best illustration of this view is the fellowship between a father and son. If the son sins against his father, the intimacy formerly enjoyed by both is broken and the pleasure of each other’s company is strained. The blood relationship of father and son remains intact, but the fellowship must be
restored by confession of wrongdoing. Likewise, Christians have a blood relationship to our heavenly Father through His Son Jesus Christ. While nothing can break our relationship as sons of God, fellowship
can only be restored by acknowledging the sin and an apology made, preferably with a pledge not to repeat the offense. This re-establishes the sweetness of fellowship and the pleasure with which both
Father and son can relate to each other.

Believers who seek to practice this often speak of “keeping short accounts with God,” that is, making sure you confess sins regularly so your account does not build up with unconfessed sin. Psalms
32, 51, and John 13:1-20 are often quoted to confirm this position.

This view of 1 John 1:9 has more to commend it than the previous one. “Confession is good for the soul” is a truism which holds good for all ages and dispensations. Indeed, Proverbs 28:13 says,

“He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth1 and forsaketh them shall have mercy.”

In my formative years as a Christian, this view seemed to me to be logical, balanced and right. I knew many respected Bible teachers who taught this. Through the years, however, I believe the Spirit of God was pricking my conscience to show me things which revealed the shortcomings of this approach. Among them were:

1. It is based on a performance system of conditional blessing, and shifted my gaze away from Christ and His grace to my own faithfulness (or usually failure) to confess.

2. If what I believed concerning confession was true, I was probably “out of fellowship” much of the time, and so were most believers.

3. There were many things in 1 John Chapter 1 which are inconsistent with this view.

4. Concerning the popular father-son illustration, several rhetorical questions could be asked to show its weakness. What if the son fails to confess wrongdoing? Should the father continue to show him the cold shoulder until he does? What kind of father would that make him? Would this be a fitting picture of how our loving heavenly Father deals with His children today under grace? Further, the phrase “faithful and just” more aptly describes the judge in a courtroom than a father in the family room.

5. I had to honestly admit to myself that I found it extremely difficult to confess all my daily sins on a consistent basis.

6. This view of 1 John 1:9 must, of necessity, occupy a major plank in a person’s belief system. Without regular confession of sin, the promise of continual cleansing is rendered null and void resulting
in broken fellowship. And who wants to be out of fellowship with God?

7. Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, is silent in all his writings on confession of sins for forgiveness, parental or otherwise.

8. Paul’s epistles give us a positive affirmation of total, complete and unconditional forgiveness for all those in Christ Jesus.

A few examples should suffice,

New Way of Negotiation

Think back to a recent negotiation that you were involved in. Were you apprehensive that your counterpart in the negotiation would be better prepared or more skillful? Perhaps you were hopeful that the facts favored you and that your alternatives were much better than those of your counterpart. Were you nervous because your processional possibilities were tied to the outcome? During the negotiation, were you surprised by some new facts you didn’t know or made angry by the patronizing attitude of the other negotiator? And at the end, were you thrilled at the outcome.

Don’t let them get to you, good advice for negotiating? But what is the way to become the expert negotiator? I have experienced the new way of negotiation, which is very intrinsic, primary and fundamental part of human experience. We often negotiate under the influence of emotions, it plays many important roles: it motivates us to act; it provides us with important information about ourselves, the other party, and the negotiation; it helps organize and sharpen our cognitive processes; and it enhances the process and outcome of a negotiation when used strategically. While the emotion we experience provides us with information, the emotion we display provides information to others that can be an incentive or deterrent to their behavior. 

Initially, emotion was considered to be an obstacle to a good negotiated outcome and a foe to an effective bargaining process. Emotion in negotiation is a very common thing. Yet, many people suggest that being emotional is a sign of a weakness or is the behavior of an unsophisticated negotiator; some say that emotions must be repressed. 

There are many advantages to being an emotionally intelligent negotiator. For example, an emotionally intelligent negotiator is able to gather more and richer information about the other side’s underlying interests and reservation points; can more accurately evaluate risk, which leads to better decision making; can better perceive opportunities to use negotiation strategies and tactics that involve emotions; and can more successfully induce desired emotions in negotiation opponents. 

Negotiations often suggest a variety of emotions, especially anger and excitement. Angry negotiators plan to use more competitive strategies and to cooperate less, even before the negotiation starts. However, expression of negative emotions during negotiation can beneficial: legitimately expressed anger can be an effective way to show one’s commitment, sincerity, and needs. Excitement provides the high charge of negotiation.

The Presentation of Denmark in the Opening Act of Hamlet

The presentation of Hamlet’s Denmark is first seen in the opening scene of Hamlet where the two guards enter and the first thing that is said is “who is there?” This immediately sets the mood of the whole play and to a certain extent what kind of state Denmark is in which is in a state of high alert, also the darkness and the mystery of who is there sets an ominous tone for the play and also sets an ominous mood for Denmark. It also suggests that the opening scene of Hamlet is set in the dark of night as they are unable to identify one another and so are on edge as to who the other person could be exactly.

Also when Bernardo says “long live the king” it shows that he is loyal to the current king of Denmark and by doing so proves that he is on the side of the other guard. This whilst establishing that both guards on the same side also shows that there could be an enemy and so the audience are able to conclude that currently Denmark is in a state of war. Throughout the whole of Act 1 scene 1 there is stichomythia where both Bernardo and Francisco have alternating lines and also there are blank verses that are broken up when Francisco says “Bernardo?” to which Bernardo replies in the same form of broken up blank verses “He.” By using this dramatic technique it suggests that the lines are spoken rather quickly one after the other which hints that there is some sort of tension between the two guards which is rather strange as they are only changing shifts and again this hints at the possibility that at that time there is some form of military instability in Denmark leaving everyone on edge.

In Act 1 scene 1 when Marcellus and the two sentinels see the ghost for the first time and they see that the ghost looks exactly like the late king hamlet “in the same figure like the king that’s dead.” Despite this they view it as a bad omen that maybe the men should have a military build up in Denmark in response to Fortinbras recruiting an army. Although Fortinbras’s army is supposed to be used against Poland, they fear he may attack Denmark to get revenge for his father’s death, and reclaim the land his father lost to King Hamlet. This is also backed up when they see the ghost in its full armour as the old king used to wear “such was the very armour he had on.” This again shows the risks that impose Denmark and how it is on the brink of war and the fact that the old king hamlet’s armour is discussed suggests that the old king was very much a war like king who was a hero to the people and so Denmark is going from a traditional war like place to a more political and diplomatically Denmark which can be seen when the new king Claudius sends a messenger to the king of Norway rather than confront the army which is being prepared to ensure that the army does not attack Denmark but merely passes through and goes to Poland.

In Act one scene 4 again the ghost is viewed as an omen on the fate of Denmark when Hamlet says to the ghost “Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damned,” so here it would be that Hamlet is asking the ghost is it an omen fro good health possibly to Denmark or is it a goblin. Then he goes on to say “Bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell” this brings about the contrast and again an ominous mystery as to whether the ghost here is to bring gentle breezes or violent blighting gusts.

Also in scene 1 act 4 Marcellus says “something is rotten in the state of Denmark” this could refer to a number of things such as the new king Claudius marrying his bothers wife and becoming king or it would also be hinted at the ghost and it being an omen of bad news. Horatio replies to this “heaven will direct it.” This can be seen as Horatio saying that all that is currently wrong in Denmark in the end heaven will direct it all too good and that the heavens will make everything okay.

In conclusion the presentation of Denmark in Hamlet is very well done as it shows how the influential people of within Denmark affect the country as a whole.