1 John 3:9 – Those “Born of God” Do Not Sin?

I thought this was fairly straightforward if you looked at the tense (continuous) that would thus read:

“Each one having been begotten (or born) of God does not continuously/habitually do sin because His (God’s) seed in him remains, and he (or it) is not able to continuously/habitually sin because He (or it) has been begotten (or born) of God.”

Thus it very easily fits with the 3rd view.

The 4th view is clearly nonsensical given we already know God is sinless - what's the point in writing about that? It is clearly talking about the person, and since the person can indeed sin as 1 John 1:8-10 clearly points out: this view is ruled out too.

I believe Carson argues that it is wisdom type language, similar to a parent saying to a child, "You can't talk to me like that." Of course the child can (and just did), but the point is that it is incompatible with being a child of the father.

The simplest way to understand I John is to recognize two sins: the unpardonable sin -- the sin unto death (apostasy) and sin in general.

If we say that we are not sinning in a general way, we are lying (I John 1:8).

Someone truly born of God cannot commit the sin unto death. Those who commit such a sin were "never of us" (I John 2:19-20) and never truly anointed by the Spirit.

Simple, clear, and warranted by the context.

Ed,

By what exegetical and theological cause to you assign the reference in 1 John5:16 (the sin unto death) the unpardonable sin?

It appears to me somewhat clear that in vs 16:

That when John states anyone seeing a "brother" committing a sin that does not lead to death (meaning they could also see a brother commit a sin that does lead to death because if no such thing exists then stating "if anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death" is invalid in its rhetorical structure seeing such a construction is for the purpose of being presented as an "as opposed to" case with another possibility, which is the possibility of a brother committing a sin that leads to death ), this carries with it the rather plain implication that the alternative is also possible, meaning that they can also see a brother commit "a sin that leads to death".

Additionally, at no point in the text is there the introduction of non-believers being in view with regard to the sin unto death. One might "reason" this must be in the mind of John but this is far from sufficient to argue that John switched from "brother" to "non-brother" when he went to those who commit a sin that does not lead to death to those that commit a sin that does lead to death.

And as well, the unpardonable sin, which is found in Mark 3:28-30, Matthew 12:30-32, and Luke 12:8-10, are separate from this text and at no place do I see John offering reference to them either explicitly or implicitly. So from what I can see, to superimpose the unpardonable sin (which is identified as the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) onto this text and specifically to the "sin that leads to death" one has to offer both substantial exegetical and theological force.

And two rather immediate obstacles I see for this is:

1. As I mentioned, John's statement presents, in the least, the implied assumption and more strongly with the "as opposed to" rhetorical construction, that a "brother" can be seen committing both, a sin that does not lead to death and a sin that leads to death. In which case this would eliminate the possibility of the context being interpreted as a reference to the unpardonable sin seeing that the unpardonable sin, by default, is one that a believer cannot qualify for seeing his sins are forgiven.

2. Secondly, the unpardonable sin is one that has, with respect to context and consequences, not death, particularly temporal death which is what John is referring to in 1 John 5:16. Rather its context has reference to forgiveness of sin ("but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come").

I would be interested in hearing the force of your exegetical and theological reasons and considerations regarding my observations if you get time. It is a large request so if you are willing, I certainly have no expiration on the request (I did note your citation of 1 John 2:18-19, however I cannot see its reference being with respect to the sin unto death which is no longer in view here, rather those who are antichrists and refers to those departing the fellowship).

*And (per mods) if this question or line of consideration departs too greatly from the topic, then I will happily post it in another thread but for the moment I do ask it be considered relevant with respect to its impact on how the topic is handled and viewed and I will endeavor to keep any heavy pursuits of the matter subdued and try to enlist it only for the help of discussing the topic and not overtake it.

Alex

I must say that this little essay has left me entirely confused. First, his objection to the third view baffles me. He points the reader to factor #1, which is not an argument at all, but simply the author's own preferred translation of the text. There is nothing more "literal" about the author's translation than mainstream versions, and he is not clear about how his "literal" translation undermines #3, or how his combination with #4 rehabilitates it. A translation is not the starting point of interpretation; you cannot translate a verse until you already know how to exegete it. Translation itself is a drawing of conclusions, and thus the entire argument is circular.

Second, the author's suggestion is syntactically awkward to the point of being dubious. I'm specifically referring to

According to this analysis, the first οτι clause along with the following και clause (the omitted words from the quote) modifies ποιει, but then the last οτι clause also refers back to ποιει. For this to be possible, the οτι clauses would have to be understood as being either in a coordinated series or in apposition. There are two syntactical problems with this. First, on a linear reading of the sentence, there is an awkward and unmarked shift of subject - "Whoever is born does not commit sin ... because seed remains ... and seed cannot sin ... because he has been born of God." Between the third and fourth clauses ought to be some kind of marker of subject shift. It's much more natural in Greek to place the equivalent of a semicolon after clause 2, and read clauses 1, 3, and 4 as all sharing the same subject. Second, and a much greater issue, is that coordinating the οτι clauses that way is just absurd. If you want to make them a coordinate series, there should be a και connector. Understanding them in apposition without some kind of appositive phrase (such as τουτʼ εστιν) would be introducing a syntactical feature that is not, to my knowledge, found in NT Greek (and I looked). Simply put, the second οτι clause modifies the clause before it; it does not reach back over two clauses to connect with the main verb.

Third, the verse makes perfect sense if it is construed in a form similar to Hebrew parallelism. It reads like a proverb:

Everyone who has been born of God does not sin,
---because his seed remains in him;
And he is not able to sin,
---because he has been born of God.

Fourth, I will just jump in and say that the "habitual present" view is firmly warranted by the pragmatics of the context and is not strained in any way. If anyone wants to discuss that, I'll be happy to do so in another post.

I cannot recall ever running into this interpretation of Deut. or the view that:

to all be "the same idea". While they may have within them similar concepts, categorizing all of these as the same idea is something I have never run across. Nevertheless I asked for an explanation of your position and you provided one so I thank you and don't feel the need to pursue any further clarity.

Alex

What I mean is the view that turns all references to "do" into "practice." While it's true that a present tense/aspect in Greek can have the English idea of progressive action (ongoing) it's still going another step further to turn "whoever is doing sin" into "whoever practices sin."

I'm still undecided on it. Certainly, the view that takes the broader context of the NT into it and reads it "practices sin" is the majority view.
But it doesn't solve everything. How many sins = "practicing"? How long must one be involved in sinning to be "praticing sin"? See what I mean? So there are theological problems to work out in the area of sactification... if you go beyond "practices sin" and make it "practices habitual sin" as I've heard many preachers do. But this is certainly far more than John wrote. Whether it is what John meant is another question. His style is terse, so it's not like you absolutely shouldn't read into it from other passages.

I'm inclined to agree.

Hadn't looked at it that way. I'm just about sold.

Tell me more.

Thanks, Alex.

Charlie, what are your thoughts on the use of the present tense in I John 1:8? I have no trouble translating both of these verses as durative.

No, it's speaking of not continually sinning. The negative part "not" doesn't have any aspect or tense, all of that comes from the verb.
So the verb itself Charlie (and just about everybody) says is "continually sinning" ... then you add the "not."

Charlie:
I think I follow most of what you posted on the verb grammar there, Charlie. It's interesting that after a heap of Greek analysis we end up in almost the same place we are just taking a very literal English reading... that is, determining the meaning from the context. I'm not suggesting here that the grammatical analysis is not of value though. Because every generation has to produce a solid group of language-competent people to keep the translations connected to the original.
(And I also believe pastors should be skilled enough to make good use of the tools)
At the same time it's comforting--whenever possible--to be able to go to the pulpit and make a case for 'interpretation A' that folks in the pews could have arrived at themselves via the context.

I believe it will be a while before I feel that I have a good handle on John. I think part of the answer may lie in repeatedly reading through entire epistles aloud. There is something very non-western about how John communicates. (Perhaps he is just far less Greek in his thinking than Paul, having not had that education).

Edit: one more note.... I'm thinking someone has probably done a whole dissertation--or at least full length paper--on present tenses in John's epistles. I'll have to scour the journals I have access to (which is not many without driving to Minneapolis/St.Paul)

I'm in my second year of studying Greek so someone please correct me if I am wrong. The reason why the action of sinning is continual in 1 John 3:9 is because the verb ποιέω is a present active indicative. So it is fair to add the word "continually" to it. The word πιστεύων that you quote in John 5:24 is a present active participle so it doesn't necessarily contain a continual aspect to it.

Ed, I would venture (haven't really studied) to say that 1:8 is not particularly affected by aspect in such a way that naming it a particular use helps us understand it better. I think the point is that is, if at any point I say "I don't have any sin," at that time, I am deceiving myself.

Jerry, your objections are... off topic. Of course John uses present tenses in all sorts of different ways. That doesn't really matter, and however John uses πιστευ- verbs is likewise irrelevant (although you might want to check Wallace, GGBB, 620-21 and fn. 22).

Of course, the crux of your position (which, Aaron, I don't think is like Houghton's) is that "God's seed abides in him" means "the believer's new nature abides in God." Therefore, there is a dualism throughout 1 John. Whenever sin is talked about, it's the old nature; whenever inability to sin is the topic, John is talking about the new nature. Have I understood you correctly?

If I have, I must object. Sin is not the action of a nature, but of a person. Also, natures are not "born again"; people are. Believers do not have two natures, but one nature that is progressively being renewed in the image of Christ. As such, Christians many times feel as if they are two people (Rom. 7) but ultimately must recognize that who they most truly are is who they are in Christ and who they will one day fully be (Rom 7 + 8).

So, question. To whom or what exactly does Πας ̔ο γεγεννημενος ̓εκ του θεου in 1 John 3:9 refer?

Aaron, here is a link to a fairly brief paper that focuses on the verbs in question in 1 John. It explains more thoroughly some ideas that I presented in this post. http://www.alwaysreformed.com/publicdocs/papers/Tim%20Black%20-%20Exeges...

Aaron, if we are to determine just exactly what John is speaking about when he says that those born of God "doth not commit sin" then we should examine the context, and especially the immediate context where this concept is first introduced:

"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him" (1 Jn.3:6).

The key to understanding what John is saying here is determining the meaning of the word "abide." From the Lord Jesus' words at the fifteenth chapter of the book of John it appears that to "abide" in Christ (Jn.15:4) is the same thing as being in "fellowship" with Him. This refers to the Christian's "walk" as opposed to our position "in Christ," being raised up with Him and sitting together with Him in heavenly places (Eph.2:6).

When the Christian is abiding in Christ he is walking after the Spirit and when that is happening he is free from the law of sin and death:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (Ro.8:2).

It is when the Christian is walking in the Spirit that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in him:

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Ro.8:4).

The "righteousness of the law" refers to a life of holiness so the righteousness of the law can be fully met when the Christian walks after the Spirit. The provision of a deliverance from the power of sin in the Christian's daily walk comes through the controlling power of the Holy Spirit, and that is what John means when he refers to abiding in Him."

So when a Christian is abiding in Him he does not sin because of the controlling power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore 1 John 3:6 is speaking of not sinning at all and it is not speaking of "not continually sinning." It would be rather ludicrous to assert that one can fulfilling the righteouness of the law by sinning as long as that sinning is not continuous.

I also know from personal experience that when I am walking after the Spirit I do not sin. When I walk after the Spirit I am yielding to the control of the Spirit, and while under that control it is impossible for me to sin.

In His grace,
Jerry

I'm sorry, Jerry, I drew some inaccurate conclusions about your position. I understand much better now what you are saying. On the other hand, I still disagree strenuously, and I think one post should be sufficient to show how and settle the matter (at least to the extent that we both understand each other.)

I'd like to start with the verse you brought up: 1 John 3:6 - No one who abides in him [̔αμαρτανει]; no one who [̔αμαρτανων] has either seen him or known him.

You have interpreted the first half to mean whenever a Christian is abiding, he doesn't sin. Sin here is being taken as a simple present - he doesn't sin at all. This cannot account, though, for the last half of the verse. Unless the participle is communicating habitual aktionsart, we are left with the unfortunate conclusion that whoever commits a sin has not seen or known God. In John, both "seeing" and "knowing" are metaphors for salvation. So, your contrast is lopsided. Either someone always abides in Christ, which you conceive to be an action which may or may not be true of a Christian at any given point, or he is unsaved. Thus, this very verse rules out the possibility of an unabiding Christian. The result is a reductio ad absurdum against your position.

The only possible escape route is to suggest that the person who has not seen or known God actually refers to the "old man." But this too is entirely untenable because masculine substantival participles refer to persons, not "natures." Also, v. 10 clearly expresses that John's purpose is to distinguish between two kinds of people, the children of God and the children of the devil. He is not distinguishing between two "parts" of believers, or between believers at two different moments.

Your explanation suffers from the further difficulty that v. 9, by your own admission, speaks of the Holy Spirit abiding (or remaining) in the believer, not the believer abiding in Christ. If you equate the two, you are doing so out of mere conjecture. It is much easier to recognize that the Holy Spirit's abiding is continual and thus has an effect, not totally prohibiting sin but keeping the believer from the kind of continual sin that characterizes the Devil (continual present, v. 8) and his children.

Also, on a more pastoral note, I believe that you have, in this thread, already said you have no sin, and have thereby deceived yourself. Your personal experience be what it may, you have never lived a moment of your life in absolute righteousness before God. Note that your theology of sanctification absolutely rules out progressive sanctification, a massive theological error. According to your scheme, the believer is either abiding, and thereby temporarily sinless, or not abiding, and presumably in complete sin. There is no room for a progressive renewal of the nature in such a system. You are either on or off, and all the biblical language about progressive renewal, transformation, and conformation is nonsensical.

Charlie, you still do not understand my position. You said:

Where did I ever say that I have no sin? I recognize that I am a sinner and I know that even after being saved I have sinned. I did say that when I am walking after the Spirit I do not sin but I never said that I am always walking after the Spirit.

Since I have received the imputed righteousness of God (Ro.4:24). then it is obvious that I have indeed lived a moment of my life in absolute righteousness before God. Perhaps you cling to the Romanist view of justification which denies the teaching of imputed righteousness? Do you not believe that a Christian can live in absolute holiness before God? Certainly Paul understood that a Christian can, and he refers this as a Christian's "reasonable service" (Ro.12:1).

Yes, when a Christian is abiding in Christ or walking after the Spirit he doesn't sin. And that is exactly what Paul is referring to when he says the following:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (Ro.8:2).

It is when the Christian is walking in the Spirit that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in him:

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Ro.8:4).

Certainly the righteousness of the law cannot be fulfilled when one commits a sin.

Also, when the Christian is carnally minded, or walking after the the flesh, he is at enmity against God and he is not subject to the law of God:

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Ro.8:7).

The Christian who is walking after the flesh is not abiding in Christ and can be described as being at enmity against God and not subject to the law of God. And that is exactly what John is referring to when he speaks of the one who sins as having not seen or known the Lord:

"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him" (1 Jn.3;6).

John is saying that sin is a product of ignorance and blindness toward God and that is exactly the state of the Christian at the time he is walking after the flesh.

Charlie, what do you think John is referring to when he speaks of "abiding in Him" at verse 6?

Verse 6 speaks of "abiding in Him," and that is in regard to the believer abiding in Christ. So unless you want to say that verse 6 has nothing to do with verse 9 then it is obvious that I do not have to prove anything about this. But please answer the question, What do you think that it means when the believer is "abiding" in Christ?

Here John is speaking about the fundamental way in which God's children are manifested over against the children of the devil.

According to your view someone who is "continually practicing sin" cannot be a saved person and we can see that Paul does speak of someone who was indeed continually practicing sin:

"It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife" (1 Cor.5:1).

Paul is talking about a member of the church at Corinth who was having an affair with his father's wife which was prohibited in the OT (Lev.18:8; Deut.22:22). According to your ideas it would be impossible for this person to be saved. But Paul has a different opinion:

"To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor.5:5).

How do you explain that?

In His grace,
Jerry

Jerry, I am going to clarify one thing I said and then let this thread go. I think the explanation and interaction has been sufficient that anyone reading this thread can reach an informed opinion on the matter, and I'm not interested in pursuing the discussion down all the roads you want to go. I know that you didn't say that you never sin. However, I do believe that even your assertion that there are times when you are walking in the Spirit and it is impossible for you to sin is a self-deception.

in my latest reply to Charlie I made a mistake when I said the following:

Of course I meant to say:

"I have already quoted verses where Paul states in no uncertain terms that that when the Christian is walking after the Spirit then the law is being fulfilled (Ro.7:4) but I have received no response to that."

but the last time i heard this book taught through by Chuck Bonadies in Greenville, SC, he took Ed's interp. i have the notes penciled in my Bible and they are like this: The book is about (context) the sin of denying the Deity of Christ (first verses of book I John 1:1-3). This particular sin is referred to in several verses like I John 3:6and I John 3:9 and I John 5:16.

I'm popping back in this thread for a moment because I have something new to add. It struck me as I came across a familiar construction in John that there was an element of the case for broad-band presents that I had forgotten. Several times in 1 John, John does not use a simple verb but instead uses the participle ̔ο ποιων (the one who does/practices....) and supplies the object of the action with an accusative noun. Looking through the NT, and especially in the context, I am convinced that John often uses this construction specifically to point to continual action.

John 3:21 - ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν This seems to mean one who practices the truth as a lifestyle, in contrast to the wicked lifestyle in v. 20.

John 8:34 - πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν δοῦλός ἐστιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Once again, this occurs in a context dividing saved from unsaved, see the next verse, v.35. The slave practices a lifestyle of sin, but has no power over the son.

Now, in 1 John, it becomes even more apparent.

1 John 2:17 - ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. In contrast to those whose lives are characterized by "this world" (see vv. 15-16), these practice the will of God.

1 John 2:29 - πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται. I suppose it is conceivable that one would translate this "everyone who does a righteous act," but the context seems to indicate that being born of God results in a particular kind of lifestyle change, so that the one born of God "(habitually) does righteousness."

(By the way, Revelation 21:27 and Revelation 22:15 also use this construction, and they appear to be broad-band presents to me.)

Then, I John 3:4, 3:7, 3:8, and 3:10 all use this construction. So, in addition to my earlier comments on the broad-band indicatives, we have a participle construction often used to convey broad-band and habitual action, especially in the context of separating believers from non-believers, saturating this passage.

Charlie, According to your view someone who is "continually practicing sin" cannot be a saved person. In the following verses Paul speaks of someone who was indeed continually practicing sin:

"It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife" (1 Cor.5:1).

Paul is talking about a member of the church at Corinth who was having an affair with his father's wife which was prohibited in the OT (Lev.18:8; Deut.22:22). According to your ideas it would be impossible for this person to be saved. But Paul has a different opinion:

"To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor.5:5).

How do you explain that?

At 1 John 3:6 the reference is to "abideth in Him":

"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him" (1 Jn.3:6).

Surely when a Christian abides in Him he is also abiding in the light. And here is what ohn says in the same epistle regarding those who walk in the light:

"He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him" (1 Jn.2:10).

There is "none" occasion of stumbling in Him. That same idea is according to what Paul says here:

"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would" (Gal.5:14-17).

He says walk in the Spirit and "ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh." He doesn't say "walk in the Spirit and you might or might not fulfill the lust of the flesh." Instead he says that "ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh." It is when the Christian is walking in the Spirit that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in him:

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Ro.8:4).

The "righteousness of the law" refers to a life of holiness so the righteousness of the law can be fully met when the Christian walks after the Spirit. But if the Christian sins just once then he can no longer be said that the righteousness of the law is being fulfilled in him:

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (Jms.2:10).

With all of this in mind we can conclude that the words "sinneth not" in the following verse refers to not sinning even once:

"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him" (1 Jn.3:6).

In His grace,
Jerry