- Mar 14, 2011
- 2,348
- 149
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
3:5–6. The seriousness of sin is further underscored by the consideration that Christ appeared so that He might take away our sins. And in Him is no sin. The Incarnation brought into the world the One who is totally sinless and who had as an objective the removal of sin from the lives of His own (cf. John 1:29; Heb. 9:28a). It follows logically from this that a person who is (“abides”) in a sinless Person must himself be sinless, for he has a sinless, regenerate nature.
This is the inescapable logic of the text. But a different point is suggested by the NIV‘s rendering: No one who lives (menōn, “abides”) in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him. A widely held explanation of this verse is that a believer “does not sin habitually,” that is, sin is not his way of life. However, the Greek text has no words to represent phrases such as “keeps on” or “continues to” or “habitually.” These phrases are based on an understanding of the Greek present tense which is now widely in dispute among New Testament scholars (see, e.g., S. Kubo, “1 John 3, 9: Absolute or Habitual?” Andrews University Seminary Studies 7. 1969:47–56; C.H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, pp. 78–81; I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, p. 180). It cannot be shown anywhere in the New Testament that the present tense can bear this kind of meaning without the assistance of other words. Such a view is invalid for this verse and also for 1 John 3:9.
Nor is John saying that sinless perfection must be achieved, and that those who fail to do so lose their salvation. Such a notion is foreign to John’s argument and to all of Scripture.
John’s point is simple and straight-forward. Sin is a product of ignorance and blindness toward God. “No one who sins has seen Him or known Him” (v. 6b).
Sin can never come out of seeing and knowing God. It can never be a part of the experience of abiding in Christ. “No one who abides in Him sins” (v. 6a). But though the meaning of this is not really open to question, there has seemed to be an inconsistency between such assertions and John’s earlier insistence that a believer can never claim to be without sin (1:8). The solution to this problem has been suggested by the statement in 3:3 in which the purification of the one “who has this hope in Him” is comparable in its nature to the purity of Christ (“just as He is pure”). From this it follows that the regenerate life is, in one sense, an essentially and fundamentally sinless life. For the believer sin is abnormal and unnatural; his whole bent of life is away from sin.
The fact remains, however, that Christians do not experience the sinless life perfectly on this earth; hence 1:8, 10 remain true. The two ideas are not really incompatible. The Christian still experiences a genuine struggle with the flesh and overcomes its impulses only by the help of the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:16–26).
Paul’s thinking also conforms with this view. In his struggle with sin he was able to conclude, “Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it” (Rom. 7:20). In this way Paul could perceive sin as not a real part of what he was at the most inward level of his being (cf. Rom. 7:25). When he wrote, “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20), he implied the same thing. If Christ alone really lives, sin can be no part of that experience. Insofar as God is experienced by a believer, that experience is sinless. (Cf. comments on 1 John 3:9.)
3:9. As was pointed out in connection with verse 6, adding such phrases as “continue to” and “go on” to John’s statements about sinning is not justified on the basis of the Greek text. As before, the statements are absolute. One who is born of God (cf. 2:29; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18) does not sin precisely because God’s seed remains in him, and he cannot sin because he has been born of God. “God’s seed” is His nature, given to each believer at salvation (John 1:13; 2 Peter 1:4). The point here is that the child partakes of the nature of his Parent. The thought of a sinless Parent who begets a child who only sins a little is far from the author’s mind. As always, John dealt in stark contrasts. All sin is devilish (1 John 3:8); it does not stem from the believer’s regenerate nature, God’s seed, but the child of God cannot and does not sin. The explanation here is the same as that given in verse 6. The “new man” (or “new self”; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) is an absolutely perfect new creation. By insisting on this point, John was seeking to refute a false conception about sin. Sin is not, nor ever can be, anything but satanic. It can never spring from what a Christian truly is at the level of his regenerate being.
Bible Knowledge Commentary
Taken from the Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letters of John
It is very difficult to decide between these various options, and maybe no solution is entirely satisfactory. The habitual/occasional distinction fails because the meaning of the present tense in Greek does not support this distinction as those who advocate this view claim. The idealistic/realistic distinction which implies that believers idealistically do not sin but realistically do sin does not provide an adequate basis for distinguishing the children of God from the children of the devil on the grounds that the children of God do not sin, whereas the children of the devil do. The already/not yet distinction fails for the same reason. To distinguish two forms of perfectionism, the orthodox and the heretical, which acknowledge and deny the possibility of believers sinning respectively, does not provide a key to understanding the way the children of God and the children of the devil can be distinguished on the grounds of their not sinning and sinning respectively. The suggestion that the claims to sinlessness mentioned in 3:6–9 are quotations of the slogans of the secessionists, something his readers would have recognised, does not allow a distinguishing of the children of God from the children of the devil on the grounds of not sinning and sinning respectively. None of these suggestions, therefore, is satisfactory.
It may be that there is no satisfactory resolution of the tension between 2:1 and 3:6–9. However, if we recognize the connection between sin and anomia (rebellion) in 3:1–10, we might say that the sin which distinguishes the children of the devil is the sin of the devil, rebellion or anomia, and it is this sin that it is impossible for believers to commit because God’s ‘seed’ remains in them and they cannot commit it.
This is the inescapable logic of the text. But a different point is suggested by the NIV‘s rendering: No one who lives (menōn, “abides”) in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him. A widely held explanation of this verse is that a believer “does not sin habitually,” that is, sin is not his way of life. However, the Greek text has no words to represent phrases such as “keeps on” or “continues to” or “habitually.” These phrases are based on an understanding of the Greek present tense which is now widely in dispute among New Testament scholars (see, e.g., S. Kubo, “1 John 3, 9: Absolute or Habitual?” Andrews University Seminary Studies 7. 1969:47–56; C.H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, pp. 78–81; I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, p. 180). It cannot be shown anywhere in the New Testament that the present tense can bear this kind of meaning without the assistance of other words. Such a view is invalid for this verse and also for 1 John 3:9.
Nor is John saying that sinless perfection must be achieved, and that those who fail to do so lose their salvation. Such a notion is foreign to John’s argument and to all of Scripture.
John’s point is simple and straight-forward. Sin is a product of ignorance and blindness toward God. “No one who sins has seen Him or known Him” (v. 6b).
Sin can never come out of seeing and knowing God. It can never be a part of the experience of abiding in Christ. “No one who abides in Him sins” (v. 6a). But though the meaning of this is not really open to question, there has seemed to be an inconsistency between such assertions and John’s earlier insistence that a believer can never claim to be without sin (1:8). The solution to this problem has been suggested by the statement in 3:3 in which the purification of the one “who has this hope in Him” is comparable in its nature to the purity of Christ (“just as He is pure”). From this it follows that the regenerate life is, in one sense, an essentially and fundamentally sinless life. For the believer sin is abnormal and unnatural; his whole bent of life is away from sin.
The fact remains, however, that Christians do not experience the sinless life perfectly on this earth; hence 1:8, 10 remain true. The two ideas are not really incompatible. The Christian still experiences a genuine struggle with the flesh and overcomes its impulses only by the help of the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:16–26).
Paul’s thinking also conforms with this view. In his struggle with sin he was able to conclude, “Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it” (Rom. 7:20). In this way Paul could perceive sin as not a real part of what he was at the most inward level of his being (cf. Rom. 7:25). When he wrote, “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20), he implied the same thing. If Christ alone really lives, sin can be no part of that experience. Insofar as God is experienced by a believer, that experience is sinless. (Cf. comments on 1 John 3:9.)
3:9. As was pointed out in connection with verse 6, adding such phrases as “continue to” and “go on” to John’s statements about sinning is not justified on the basis of the Greek text. As before, the statements are absolute. One who is born of God (cf. 2:29; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18) does not sin precisely because God’s seed remains in him, and he cannot sin because he has been born of God. “God’s seed” is His nature, given to each believer at salvation (John 1:13; 2 Peter 1:4). The point here is that the child partakes of the nature of his Parent. The thought of a sinless Parent who begets a child who only sins a little is far from the author’s mind. As always, John dealt in stark contrasts. All sin is devilish (1 John 3:8); it does not stem from the believer’s regenerate nature, God’s seed, but the child of God cannot and does not sin. The explanation here is the same as that given in verse 6. The “new man” (or “new self”; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) is an absolutely perfect new creation. By insisting on this point, John was seeking to refute a false conception about sin. Sin is not, nor ever can be, anything but satanic. It can never spring from what a Christian truly is at the level of his regenerate being.
Bible Knowledge Commentary
Taken from the Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letters of John
It is very difficult to decide between these various options, and maybe no solution is entirely satisfactory. The habitual/occasional distinction fails because the meaning of the present tense in Greek does not support this distinction as those who advocate this view claim. The idealistic/realistic distinction which implies that believers idealistically do not sin but realistically do sin does not provide an adequate basis for distinguishing the children of God from the children of the devil on the grounds that the children of God do not sin, whereas the children of the devil do. The already/not yet distinction fails for the same reason. To distinguish two forms of perfectionism, the orthodox and the heretical, which acknowledge and deny the possibility of believers sinning respectively, does not provide a key to understanding the way the children of God and the children of the devil can be distinguished on the grounds of their not sinning and sinning respectively. The suggestion that the claims to sinlessness mentioned in 3:6–9 are quotations of the slogans of the secessionists, something his readers would have recognised, does not allow a distinguishing of the children of God from the children of the devil on the grounds of not sinning and sinning respectively. None of these suggestions, therefore, is satisfactory.
It may be that there is no satisfactory resolution of the tension between 2:1 and 3:6–9. However, if we recognize the connection between sin and anomia (rebellion) in 3:1–10, we might say that the sin which distinguishes the children of the devil is the sin of the devil, rebellion or anomia, and it is this sin that it is impossible for believers to commit because God’s ‘seed’ remains in them and they cannot commit it.
