New Perspective on the Meaning of 1 John 3:9







Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Various Views and Evaluations

2.1. The First Six Views and Their Evaluations

2.2. The View of the Opponents" Position and Its Evaluation

2.3. The View of Specific Sin and Its Evaluation

2.4. The View of Habitual Sin and Its Evaluation

2.5. The View of New Nature and Its Evaluation

3. New Perspective on the Meaning of 1 John 3:9

3.1. The Doctrine of Sin

3.2. The Literary and Structural Discussion

3.3. New Understanding of 1 John 3:9c

4. Conclusion











1. Introduction



1 John 3:9 goes as follows: "Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God"s

seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God.ˇ°(NRSV). This verse

along with its closely related ones in 3:6 and 5:18 is generally considered as one of the most

difficult passages in the New Testament.1) Difficulties arise out of the fact that this strong passage

appears to contradict the perspicuous statement on the actual possibility of committing sins on the

part of genuine Christians (1 John 1:8-10; 2:1). The views on this widely vary between the common

view of habitual sin and the absolute view of utter impossibility to sin within which there exist

multiple variations of these opposing positions. Most studies on this issue swings either to the right

or to the right in this major pendulum.2) In approaching this text, scholars cannot but humbly

1) Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, eds., When Critiques Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible

Difficulties (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1992), 539; Peter H. Davids, More Hard Sayings of

the New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP, 1991), 207-09; Leon Eloy Wade, "Impeccability in 1

John: An Evaluation (Ph.D., Andrew University, 1986). Brown acutely points out the seriousness

of this perplexing problem by saying: No other NT author contradicts himself so sharply within

such a short span of writing, and much scholarly energy has been devoted to proving that no

contradiction exists. (R. E. Brown, The Epistles of J ohn: A New Translation with Introduction

and Commentary, AB 30 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1982), 413.

2) Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John: An Exegetical and Theological Expostion of Holy Scripture, ed. NAC

(Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001); Neil Alexander, The Epistles of John: Introduction and

Commentary, Torch Bible Commentaries (London: SCM, 1962); A. E. Brooke, The Johannine Epistles, ICC

(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912); R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John: A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary, vol. 30, AB (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1982); Rudolf Bultmann,

The Johannine Epistles, trans. R. Philip O"Hara with Lane C. McGaughy and Robert W. Funk, Hermeneia

(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973); J. du Preez, "SPERMA AUTOU IN 1 JOHN 3:9," Neotestamentica 9

(1975): 105-112; J. L. Houlden, A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles (London: SCM, 1973); Kerry

Inman, "Distinctive Johannine Vocabulary and the Interpretation of 1 John 3:9," WTJ 40 (1977-78): 136-44;

Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle of James and the Epistle of John (Hertfordshire: Evangelical

Press, 1987); P. P. A Kotze, "The Meaning of 1 John 3:9 With Reference to 1 John 1:8 and 10,"

Neotestmentica 13 (1979): 68-83; Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, The Pillar New Testament

Commentary (Grand Rapids/Leicester: Eerdmans/Apollos, 2000); Sakae Kubo, "John 3:9 Absolute or

recognize that their own suggestions will add to these complexities another possible and yet not the

definitive solution to it. My own proposal is not to be exempted from this situation.

This paper is intended to provide a new perspective on this passage, which deserves its

due attention in understanding the meaning of 1 John 3:9. The thesis of this article is that in 3:9

the author confirms the absolute impossibility of committing sin at all on the part of the regenerate

human spirit; their regenerate spirits (or new nature) does not and even cannot sin at all, while

those born of God actually commit sin. To achieve this goal, I will review various approaches on it

and point out problems with these views. It is also prerequisite to put things in its proper

perspective to understand the proper meaning of the passage. This will also involve a literary and

structural discussion. With this background in mind, we will suggest a new insight into our chosen

text.







2. Various Views and Evaluations



While recognizing extreme conundrum in pinpointing the exact meaning of the phrase "does

not sin" and "cannot sin" in 3:9, scholars usually never fail to stop from suggesting their own

proposals. Here I will review most views and make a necessary evaluation on these. Some views

require a lengthy discussion, while others not. Here the author will selectively use the summaries of

Brown, Marshall, Kotze and Thomas in presenting many suggested views.3) Ten solutions, though

not equally weighty nor supported by scholars, are made as follows.

(1). It is a warning in the sense of "you dare not commit sin."

(2). It is applicable only to some super Christians.

(3). It refers to ideal Christians, not all.

(4). The view that the sin in unbeliever in God"s eyes is not so in case of believers.

(5). The view that 3:9 and 5:18 were later added to the text by some editors.

(6). The eschatological view that recognizes a tension between "already" in 3:9, 5:18 and "not yet"

in 1:8-2:2.

(7). It is the position of the author"s heretical opponents.

(8). It refers to some special kinds of sin, not all sins.

(9). It refers to habitual and customary sin, not wilful and intentional one.

(10). It refers to committing sin as an expression of believer"s true character.

Habitual?," Andrews University Seminary Studies 7 (1969): 47-56; Judith Lieu, The Theology of the

Johannine Epistles, NTT (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991); I. H. Marshall, The Epistles of John,

NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978); S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, WBC 51 (Waco: Word, 1984); John R.

W. Stott, The Message of John"s Letters, BST (Downers Grove: IVP, 1988); H. C. Swadling, "Sin and

Sinlessness in 1 John," Scottish Journal of Theology 35 (1982): 205-211; M. M. Thompson, 1-3 John, The

IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992); Leon Eloy Wade, "Impeccability in

1 John: An Evaluation (Ph.D., Andrew University, 1986); B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St John: The

Greek Text with Notes and Essays (London: Macmillan and Co, 1883).

3) I. H. Marshall, The Epistles of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978),180-82; R. E.

Brown, The Epistles of John: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 30

(Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1982),413-15; P. P. A Kotze, "The Meaning of 1 John 3:9

With Reference to 1 John 1:8 and 10," Neotestmentica 13 (1979): 78-80; R.L. Thomas, "Exegetical

Digest of 1 John," copyright R.L. Thomas, 253-61 as quoted by Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 J ohn: An

Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture , ed. NAC (Nashville: Broadman &

Holman Publishers, 2001), 143, note 373.



2.1. The First Six Views and Their Evaluations

Items in the above list need proper treatment. First of all, the first five views (1-5) do not

deserve a significant discussion. These views find no support from scholarship since these were

separately suggested. To make the case even worse, 1 John does not provide any contextual

support in their favour; from beginning to end, the author has in view all regenerated Christians,

not some super clubs or only their portions, Nevertheless, the reason these are mentioned show us

that scholars had genuine trouble in dealing with this passage in 1 John.

Secondly, the sixth view, that is, the eschatological one, is suggested as a best way to do

due justice to the legitimate tension between 1:8-2:2 and 3:9 with its related passages. Scholars

commonly consider that 1:8-2:2 presents the "not yet" aspect of the eschatological reality, whereas

3:9 and its associates, its "already" aspect. Scholars in favour of this view are Marshall, Kotze,

Davids, Smalley and still others. Marshall insists that in 3:9 the author depicts "the eschatological

reality, the possibility that is open to believers, which is both a fact ("he cannot sin") and

conditional ("[if he] lives in him")."4) To him the message of the author here is "become what you

are."5) In a resembling manner, Kotze contends that, while taking the twofold dualism in 1 John for

granted, believers do not and even cannot sin already, but not yet live a sinless and perfect life.6)

Davids attributes the seemingly paradoxical reality of both the believer"s impossibility of sinning

and his possibility of sinning to the eschatological tension of his living in this age with already

having the life of the coming age in himself and yet without experiencing its fullness.7) Smalley

also expresses that believers live now in the tension between his capability not to sin and his

inability not to sin.8) What these scholars attempt to say is that what 3:9 states will be genuinely

possibly in the time of the final consummation. In that sense, it describes the potential reality of

believers, not their actual and real one.

My simple response to this perspective is that, while to affirm the already and not yet

aspect of salvation believers enjoy is one matter, to argue that 3:9 reflects on this double aspect is

still another matter. It is evidently on the basis of the given reality of regeneration and the Divine

seed"s indwelling that in 3:9 the author makes his strong case for the incapability to sin on the part

of the believer; he does not argue for the potential reality from the eschatological viewpoint. The

author describes what is now true and real to every regenerate believer as the indicative of their

identity in God. This inevitable fact excludes the possibility of taking 3:9 from the eschatological

perspective.



2.2. The View of the Opponents" Position and Its Evaluation

The seventh view deserves mention because it was suggested by some in a serious

manner. Kubo and Swadling independently proposed this point as the definitive solution to the

apparent contradiction between two major statements on sin in 1 John. What is common to them is

their argument against the relative view on 3:9. Kube was probably the first one to take serious

issues at the popular view that sin in 3:9 and 5:18 refers to habitual or customary one.9) The

4) Marshall, The Epistles of John, 182.

5) Ibid., 183.

6) Kotze, "The Meaning of 1 J ohn 3:9," 81.

7) Davids, More Hard Sayings of the New Testament, 209.

8) Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 164.

9) Sakae Kubo, "1 John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?,"ˇˇAndrews University Seminary Studies 7 (1969):

47-56.

subtitle of his article, "Absolute or Habitual?" well reveals his real concern for the matter. He first

establishes his point that the habitual view destroys the absolute nature of the author"s language in

3:9 and thereby weakens his intention.10) He thus argues for the absolute or categorical nature of

the statement which is not to be qualified by the realistic statement in 2:1. However, he insists that

the absolute impossibility of sinning on the part of believers is not the view of the author, but that

of the heretics who define sin as ignorance, not as lawlessness.11) He thinks that 1:8 and 3:9 both

deal with the same heretics as to their false claim on sinlessness.12) Thus its position is not true to

every believer.

Swadling similarly contends that the teaching in 3:9 that believer does not sin and even

cannot sin is the view of heretics, not of the author, since to him "the Christian ought not to sin,

but in fact does."13) It is to the slogan of the heretics that he attributes this false teaching. He

regards the statement in 3:6 and 3:9 as "slogans used by the heretics" or "the actual sayings of his

opponents".14) In this regard he states:15)

Let us imagine then that 3:6 and 3:9 are actually slogans used by the heretics. They are so well

known in the Johannine church that they can be quoted without any need to preface them with an

introductory note declaring their heretical nature. That is self-evident, and our author"s

predilection for quoting his opponents is already well established.

My response to the similar views of Kube and Swadling are a mixture of Yes and No. I

can say Yes to them in a sense that there is some validity of their affirmation on the absolute

sense of 3:9, while the definitive No to them because there is no contextual support form 1 John

that the statement in 3:9 is the view of the opponents, not that of the author. It is no wonder that

scholars do not support their argument.16)



2.3. The View of Specific Sin and Its Evaluation

This view strongly suggests that sin in 3:9 is not general, but limited to some specific

sins. Scholars in favour of this particular view are different from one another in pinpointing the

specific type of sin which the regenerate do not and cannot commit sin at all. Yet their common

agreement lies in that 3:9 does not propose any possibility of sinning on the part of genuine

Christians. To them it is a specific type of sin that believers cannot commit, not all types of sin.

The suggested particular sins are sin against love,17) the sin of rebellion or apostasy against Christ,

willful and intentional sin, and the sin that leads to death as in 1 John 5:16-17.18) It deserve some

10) Ibid., 50. Here he says: To say in this context that the author means only that the Christian

does not habitually sin is appreciably to weaken his point.

11) Ibid., 54, 56.

12) Ibid., 56. Here he further states: In 1:8 the reason their claims are denied is that they continue

to walk in darkness; in 3:9 because they sin.

13) H. C. Swadling, "Sin and Sinlessness in 1 John,"ˇˇScottish Journal of Theology 35 (1982): 205.

14) Ibid., 207, 211.

15) Ibid., 207-08.

16) David Rensberger, The Epistles of J ohn, WBC (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox,

2001), 50. Here he raises a possibility that the statement in 3:9 "actually originated with the

author"s opponents," while contending that the author used it to refine it for his own purpose.

17) Brown attributes this view to Augustine, Bede and Luther (The Epistles of John, 413).

18) For John Murray, the sin the regenerate does not and even cannot commit is the sin unto death

(5:16). This sin believers can never commit is none other than is "the denial of Jesus as come in

the flesh, or indeed the failure to confess Jesus Christ as come into the flesh."(Collected Writings

of John Murray, Vol. 2: Systematic Theology [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], 283).

discussion of the similar views of Wade, Vitrano and Kruse in this regard. First, Wade insists that

most suggestions "does not do justice to the categorical language of the epistle."19) He contends that

what 1 John 3:9 declares is the impossibility of committing a specific sin, not all sins in general.

The particular sin Christians are incapable of committing is the sin of anomia, which is defined by

him as "rejection of, and apostasy from, Christ."20) This definition, however, is hard to be sustained

by the context of 1 John where sin and anomia are interchangeable or synonymous in meaning.

Vitrano further develops this view in his own particular way.21) His thesis, as he declares

at the outset, is "that for John a particular attitude toward and relationship to Jesus/God issues

forth in a particular orientation to sin.... and that the term "lawlessness" in this context is a symbol

or catchword for that orientation characteristic of the "world"."22) He considers that the author of 1

John deals with two radically different groups in view, that is, the children of Devil and the

children of God. He defines the sin of the children of Devil as that of anomia (lawlessness) while

that of God"s children as adikia (unrighteousness).23) This clear distinction makes him possible to

argue that the sin in 3:9 which genuine Christians cannot commit is that of anomia. Whether one"s

sin is mortal or not depends upon his or her relation to Christ the heavenly advocate.24) In doing

some injustice to his above differentiation, he also allows some room for the possibility of

committing a mortal sin on the part of believers.25) The problem with his suggestion, again, is that

such a clear-cut distinction between terms related to sin does not exist in 1 John where sin,

anomia, and unrighteousness are interchangeably employed (3:4; 5:17). His attempt to load anomia

with a specific technical meaning as defined above is not sustainable from the data of 1 John.26)

Kruse"s view is similar to the position under current discussion. He strongly opposes the

habitual/occasional distinction, the idealistic and realistic one, and the eschatological tension.27) He

argues that the sin that 3:9 has in mind is a specific kind of sin, which separates the children of

God form the children of Satan. To him, anomia does not mean transgression of the law or Mosaic

law, but "opposition to and rebellion against God, like the opposition and rebellion of Satan."28) It is

this sin that regenerated believer cannot commit because God"s seed remains in him.29) He,

however, does not relate this sin of 3:9 to the sin that leads to death in 5:16, which he considers as

the sin of secessionists.30) The same objection mentioned above is appropriate to his argument.

Probably the best argument against the similar views of three scholars is that there is no definitive

answer to the question why God"s indwelling seed prevent believers from committing this type of

sin, not sin in general. Marshall"s keen question is pertinent when he aptly states that "it is hard to

19) Leon Eloy Wade, "Impeccability in 1 John: An Evaluation"ˇˇ(Ph.D., Andrew University, 1986),

dissertation abstract. Unfortunately, I could not gain access to this work in full.

20) Ibid.

21) S. P. Vitrano, "The Doctrine of Sin in 1 John," AUSS 25.1 (1987): 123-131.

22) Ibid., 126.

23) Ibid., 127-28.

24) Ibid., 129.

25) Ibid., 130, note 10.

26) That, without presenting the specific data from 1 John, he makes full use of Rom 6:3, 5-7,

12-14, 19; 8:1-8 to define the word anomia, seems to weaken his argument in favor of his technical

definition of the word.

27) Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids/Leicester:

Eerdmans/Apollos, 2000), 131-32.

28) Ibid., 128-29.

29) Ibid., 132.

30) Ibid., 192.

see why God preserves him from some sins, but not from all sin."31) Brown is also right in

perceiving from the context of 1 John 3 no definitive evidence for the view of some specific sins.32)

That 3:8 refers to the sin in general of those who belong to Satan as well that of Satan makes it

impossible for anyone to limit the concept of sin in 3:9 to a certain scope.



2.4. The View of Habitual Sin and Its Evaluation

This view needs our extensive attention because it is the most popular and predominant

one among many scholars.33) It argues that sin in 3:9 refers to a habitual practice of sin or a life

characterized by sin, not willful and purposeful one. This position is mainly built upon two major

foundations; the one is a real harmony between this passage and 1:8-2:2, while the other appeals to

the use of the present tense in 3:9. The former argument naturally compels 3:9 to be interpreted in

the light of 1:8-2:2 where the author clearly states the actual possibility of committing acts of sins.

Since 1:8-2:2 functions as the key to rightly catch the real meaning of 3:9, this passage cannot be

properly understood as excluding or contradicting the evident meaning of the earlier passage. This

essential fact makes one predisposed or prejudiced to interpret 3:9 as stating something other than

the absolute impossibility of committing acts of sin; as a result, 3:9 is generally explained away as

touching on habitual or customary sinning.

In addition to this factor, the use of present tense in the main verb and the infinitive of 3:9

seems to lend a weighty support for the preceding understanding. Scholars usually make a big case

out of this usage. For example, Alexander argues that the Greek tense denotes "habitual, persistent

action."34) In basing his argument upon the significance of the present tense, Stott asseverates that

"If the infinitive had been an aorist it would have meant "he is not able to commit a sin"; the

present infinitive, however, signifies "he is not able to sin habitually".35) A more stronger argument

than this probably comes from Robertson who finds in 3:9 "the most prominent durative notion" in

his discussion of the present tense.36) His poignant statement deserves a full quotation which shows

31) The Epistles of J ohn, 180.

32) Brown, The Epistles of John, 415.

33) Some of these are John A. Bengel, Bengel"s New Testament Commentary, trans. C.T. Lewis and M.R.

Vincent, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1981); John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John, Revised

ed., TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); David Jackman, The Message of John"s Letters, BST (Downers

Grove: IVP, 1988); A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 6: The General Epistles and

the Revelation of John (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1933); Kerry Inman, "Distinctive Johannine Vocabulary

and the Interpretation of 1 John 3:9," WTJ 40 (1977-78): 136-44; D. Edmond Hierbert, The Epistles of John :

An Expositional Commentary (Greenville, South Carolina: Bob Jones University, 1991); Simon J. Kistemaker,

Exposition of the Epistle of James and the Epistle of John (Hertfordshire: Evangelical Press, 1987); Morgan

and Cox, The Epistles of John (Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1982); Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John: An

Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, ed. NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman

Publishers, 2001); David Smith, "The Epistles of John," in The Expositor"s Greek New Testament 5 (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988); M. M. Thompson, 1-3 John, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers

Grove: IVP, 1992). Marshall points that most English scholars support this view in one way or

another (The Epistles of John, 180).

34) Neil Alexander, The Epistles of John: Introduction and Commentary, Torch Bible Commentaries (London:

SCM, 1962), 87.

35) John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John, 131.

36) A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville,

TN.: Broadman Press, 1934), 1081.

his support for the view of habitual sin:37)

This is a wrong translation, for this English naturally means, "and he cannot commit sin" as if it

were "kai ou dunatai hamartein or hamartesai (second aorist or first aorist active infinitive). The

present active infinitive hamartanein can only mean "and he cannot go on sinning, as true of

hamartanei in verse 8 and hamartaneon in verse 6.... A great deal of false theology has grown out

of a misunderstanding of the tense of hamartanein here.

Furthermore, several English versions support this understanding in their particular

translations of 3:9. Two verbs, one in present Indicative and the other in present infinitive, are

rendered diversely as "continue to sin" and "go on sinning" (NIV), "practice sin" and "sin" (Darby,

NASB), "make a practice of sinning" and "keep on sinning" (TLB), "continue to sin" and "continue

to sin" (TEV). Minor variations among these versions do not altar the fact that producers of these

versions take it as referring to the continual practice of sinning. In these lines, scholars confirm the

same point though employing different terms such as "fall into sin, but not walk in it,"38) "go on

sinning or dwell in it,"39) "deliberately and consistently sin,"40) "continually practice sin,"41) "persist

in sin,"42) and "live in continual sin."43) These points can be summarized as confirming the

impossibility of leading a life of sin on the part of Christians who can occasionally commit acts of

sin.44) Since this being the case, the tremendous burden of proof appears to fall heavily upon the

shoulders of those who try to refute this predominant position.

How do we respond to this seemingly insurmountable view? As having made clear in the

foregoing discussion, it is evident that not all scholars adopted this standpoint. It can be pointed

safely without adopting their perspective that those who opted for some specific sins refute this

kind of argument. Some also well point out that too much overstress on the use of the present

tense in drawing out its significance betrays their overconfidence. Marshall warns against putting

the interpretative significance on "a grammatical subtlety."45) Davids correctly recognizes that the

habitual view of sin "forces too much out of a Greek tense that John does not use with the

precision claimed."46) Kotze asserts that "to base the solution on the aspect of the verb alone is

overcharge the semantic value of the verb."47) Kubo also sharply indicates that those who take the

37) A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 6: The General Epistles and the Revelation

of John (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1933), 223.

38) Smith, The Epistles of J ohn, 182.

39) M. M. Thompson, 1-3 John, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992),

97.

40) Alexander, The Epistles of John, 87.

41) Geisler and Howe, When Critiques Ask, 539. Cook similarly uses the phrase "continually sin"

(W. R. Cook, The Theology of J ohn [Chicago: Moody Press, 1979], 135).

42) Inman, Distinctive Johannine Vocabulary, 142. Here he insists that the author"s intended point in 3:9

is "not that one born of God will never commit a sinful act but that he will not persist in sin."

43) Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 143.

44) About a century ago, Stevens affirms, with regard to the meaning of 3:9, that "the true disciple

of Christ cannot, in the nature of case, lead a life characteristically sinful, although he still commits

acts of sin."(G. B. Stevens, The Theology of the New Testament [New York: Charles Scribner"s

Sons, 1914], 586).

45) Marshall, The Epistles of J ohn, 180. Smalley similarly criticizes that "it depends stressing

artificially the continuous element in the present tense of the verb." (1, 2, 3 J ohn, 159).

46) Davids, More Hard Sayings of the New Testament, 208.

present verb in 3:9 as a habitual sense does not the same one with the same tense in 1:8.48)

At this point it is prerequisite to point out the serious inconsistency in the translation of

the present tense. This observation will lay bare how artificial it is to translate the present tense in

3:9 as "continue to sin". Some of this problem is already indicated in the above. The phrase to be

discussed here is the verb ?????????????? modified by the present infinitive ??????????????????????? in 3:9. We have

already mentioned that Robertson took advantage of this phrase to justify its translation as "cannot

go on sinning". It is undeniably clear that this translation on the basis of the present tense has no

grammatical foundation at all. The verb ?????????????? + present infinitive construct occurs twelve times

in the New Testament out of which seven cases are found in the author"s writings (John 8:43; 9:33;

10:29; 12:39; 15:9; 1 John 3:9; 4:20).49) The examination of these seven passages will clearly show

how impossible it is to translate this construct in the way it was in 3:9. Let us look at these case

by case in a brief fashion.



(1). John 8:43: Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say

(????? ???????????????????????????? ????? ?????????????? ??????). Here our concern is with the causal cause "because

you are unable to hear my word," which contains the construct ?????????????? + present infinitive. Is it

possible to translate this clause as "because you cannot go on hearing my word"? Does it involve

some understanding of Jesus" word on the part of Jews? The answer to these questions is clearly

negative; the Jews cannot understand Jesus" word at all.



(2). John 9:33: If this man were not from God, he could do nothing (????? ???????????? ?đ????????? ????????).

We need to pay attention to the apodosis. This one cannot be properly translated as "he could not

keep on doing nothing." If this rendering were possible, it would imply that Jesus could do

something, though he could not do it habitually. The context of this passage shows that nothing(?????

???) Jesus was supposed to be unable to do is related to the opening of the blind"s eyes; it means

that Jesus could do nothing about opening the eyes of the blind. This apodosis does not contain the

meaning that Jesus could open their eyes once for a while, though couldn"t do it regularly.



(3) John 10:29: My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them

out of my Father"s hand (??????????????????????????đ????????? ??? ????????????????????đ????????).

The same construct concerned again does not imply any possibility for anyone to take

Jesus" sheep away from the hands of God his Father; it can never happen. If anyone were to try to

translate this one as meaning "it is possible sometimes to snatch God"s people out of his mighty

hand," it would raise a serious problem; how can will there be the absolute security of believers in

God"s almighty hand?

47) Kotze, ˇ°The Meaning of 1 John 3:9,ˇ± 79.

48) Kube, "1 John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?," 51.

49) The remaining five passages are Luke 14:26, 27, 33; Rom 8:7-8. The careful examinations of

these non-Johannine passages with the same construct evidently go against its customary

understanding. Three Lucan passages show the absolute impossibility of becoming disciples on the

part of the group of people discussed. Romans 8:7-8 insist that those in the realm of the flesh

cannot submit to God"s law at all; here there remains no room for the possibility of submitting

themselves under God"s authority.



(4) John 12:39: For this reason they could not believe (?????????????? ????? ?????????????? ?đ???????????????), because,

as Isaiah says elsewhere.

Does this sentence with the same phrase concerned the possibility of Jews" coming to

genuine faith in Jesus? It is certain not; it clearly confirms the absolute inability for the involved

Jews to believe in Jesus the messiah. Can they occasionally believe in Jesus though not habitually

nor customarily? It contains no such meaning at all.



(5-6) John 15:4-5: Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit (????????????????????đ

??? ???????????) by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in

me. (5) "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear

much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing (??????????????đ????????? ????????).

Here we find the same construct twice in verses 4 and 5. It is clear in the first construct

that no branch of a vine cannot bear fruit by itself; there is no point at which it can possibly bear

fruit without remaining in the vine. it suggests the absolute impossibility of bearing fruit at all. The

understanding of the second and same construct, which is very similar to 9:33, produces the same

result; the last section of verse 5 shows no indication of the possibility of believers" bearing fruit

apart from abiding in Jesus. It is utterly impossible to state that sometimes Christians bear fruit

without remaining in Jesus and his word. These two confirm the definitive inability or impossibility

of doing so.



(7) 1 John 4:20: If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who

does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God (??????????????????????đ???), whom he has

not seen.

The same syntax that concerns us is "cannot love" (??????????????????????đ???) in the later part of

verse 20. Does it and its context indicate any possibility on the part of the involved person to love

God whom he has not seen? Can this phrase be rendered as "cannot continue to love or keep on

loving"? Its immediate context definitely denies the possibility of making such a rendering. The

author does not teach at all that he who hates his brothers can sometimes love God, though not live

the life of continual love for God. To deny such impossibility, he had the object noun, God, preceded

the infinitive phrase. The new translation of this middle sentence goes like "for he who does not

love his brother whom he has seen, the God whom he has not seen, he could not love." It is very

interesting to note that English versions (NIV, TEV, TLB), which rendered the duvnamai + present

infinitive construct in 3:9 as "continue to" or "keep on," does not do so with the same syntax in

4:20.



Summing up the observations of the above seven passages, the same construct we have

examined in these Johannine passages does not present any support for the dominant view of

habitual or customary sin in 3:9. The syntactical evidence wrestles against it. The same phrase in

3:9 has to be translated in the way it was consistently done in these cases; it is fortunate that

several English versions rendered it in a proper way.50) Therefore I contend that

the well-known view of the habitual sin in 3:9 is not only inappropriate but also unacceptable at all.

50) Other versions render the related verbs simply as "commit sin" and "sin" (KJV, RSV), "sin"

twice (NKJV, NRSV), "does no sin" and "sin" (ASV), and stronger than these renderings, "sundigt

nicht mehr" and "weitersundigen" (Die Bibel in heutigen Deutch). These translations do not buttress

the customary or habitual sinning.





2.5. The View of New Nature and Its Evaluation

This view holds that sin in 3:9 refers to committing sin an expression of the regenerate"s

true or new character. This perspective is sometimes called the view of new nature.51) This view

teaches that "the Christian does not sin in his new nature."52) Although this view is not well known

or represented by many scholars, it does not imply the lack of supporters. Several scholars in its

favor are Plummer, Brooke, Bruce, and Thomas. Already in 1884, Plummer suggested that in 3:9 the

author makes a clear distinction between the old nature and the new nature.53) He believes that

when the author said that the regenerate do not and even cannot commit sin, he has in mind the

impeccable character of the new nature which the regenerate have as the result of the regenerating

work of the Holy Spirit. He insists that, in the sense that the old nature cannot sin, while the old

nature sins, "the Christian does not sin, and is incapable of so doing."54) In independence from the

work of Plummer, Brooke says:55)

The fact that he has been begotten of God excludes the possibility of his committing sin as an

expression of his true character, though actual sins may, and do, occur, in so far as he fails from

weakness to realize his true character.

It is undeniably clear from the above quotation that Brooke implies that the believer"s true character

does not sin at all. Sin takes place only when believer fail in expressing his new character. Bruce

also recognizes the radical change in the human nature of the regenerate believers.56) For those who

experienced the new birth from God, "sin is unnatural-so unnatural, indeed, that its practice

constitutes a powerful refutation of any claim to possess the divine life."57)

To my understanding, this argument needs a more firm foundation for its legitimate

validity. Scholars mentioned above suggested this position without presenting the sure evidence for

it. If their arguments will be supplemented with the more thorough evidence from the context of 1

John and its related materials, this will best fit the intention of the author in 3:9. The next section

is entirely devoted to the consolidating work.







3. New Perspective on the Meaning of 1 John 3:9

I have maintained in the above discussions that the sin in 3:9 is not limited to some

specific sins, and does not refer to the habitual sin. Rather it has been made clear that it points to

sin in general and 3:9 confirms the absolute impossibility of sinning at all on the part of regenerate

believers. We have reached to the point of agreeing that the new nature in the believer does not

nor cannot sin at all without providing any sufficient support for this view. This section will

present supportive data for this view in a more strengthened and specified way. Our discussion here

includes the doctrine of sin, the structural consideration, and the specific meaning of 3:9. I will

51) Bob Wilkin, "Do Born Again People Sin?" in http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1990/90march2.html

52) Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 143, note 373. This quotation appears in his summary of Thomas"

presentation of nine views ("Exegetical Digest of 1 John," 253-61). It is to be noted that both of

them do not endorse this position.

53) A. Plummer, The Epistles of St. John: With Notes, Introduction and Appendices, The Cambridge Bible for

Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1884), 124-25.

54) Ibid., 125.

55) A. E. Brooke, The Johannine Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 89.

56) F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John (Old Tappen, N. J.: Revell, 1975), 92.

57) Ibid.

contend that 3:9 implicitly teaches that the regenerate spirit does not and even cannot commit sin,

whatever it may be.





3.1. The Doctrine of Sin

What needs to be clarified here is that the absolute impossibility of sinning on the part of

regenerate believers should not be led to deny the crystal-clear teaching of the author that believer

can sin and actually sin in their daily life. The earlier section of 1 John seriously deals with the

problem of sin in the Christian life. One of the main purpose of 1 John was to provide a right

perspective on the problem of sin. Scholarly commonly indicate that, no matter how one may

specify the identity of the author"s opponents in 1 John, they have false doctrines of sin(1:8, 10)

and of Christology (2:18-19; 4:1-3).58) They either deny the objective existence of sin or the

seriousness of sinning or both. Those who deny the reality of sin claim that they have no sin (1:8)

or that they have committed no sin (1:10), while those who completely ignore the seriousness of

committing sin dare to sin since it is not indifferent to them at all because of their sophisticated

spiritual knowledge; they plunge themselves into all kinds of sins (3:4-8).

In response to this heretical teaching on sin, the author teaches several important things

about sin. First, sin essentially originated from Satan who began to sin from the beginning of the

creation (3:8). Secondly, those who live a life of sin belong to Satan as his children and thus are

not the children of God (3:8-10). The believer"s real identity is revealed and confirmed by his

negative or negating relation to sin in general. Thirdly, even genuine believers can and actually sin

against God (1:8-10; 2:1-2; 5:16-17). That the regenerate Christians neither do nor can commit sin

at all falsely invalidate one purpose of the author"s writing 1 John (2:1); his purpose of writing this

letter was to discourage believer from committing sin. Fourthly, since the author takes into a

serious consideration of the actual possibility of sinning on the part of believers, he insists that they

have to confess their particular sins before God (1:9-10; 2:1). The only proper way to deal with the

sins they committed is to sincerely confess them before God by appealing to the expiation work of

Jesus the only advocate (1:10; 2:1-2). The heretics who separated themselves from the author"s

community are the ones who do not deal properly with their actual sins either by denying their

objective existence or by thinking that whatever sin they may and actually commit does not matter

to them at all because bodily activities do not affect their spiritual status. Fifthly, despite the

undeniable reality that believer can and does commit sin, there exists within them the impeccable

part, whatever may it be specified, because of new birth from God and its continuing result (3:9;

5:18).

3.2. The Literary and Structural Discussion

The epistle of 1 John is well-known for its extreme difficulty with the its structural

division.59) There is no consensus among scholars on where to draw the lines of proper divisions.

3:9 is no exception to this problem. Whether one has to divide chapter 3 into 2:28-3:1060) or 3:1-3,

4-961) or 2:28-3:3, 4-1062) is hard to tell. It is probably right to follow the middle one, that is, the

division of Smalley in our discussion. He names the section 3:1-3 as "God is Father" and 3:4-9 as

58) Akin, 1, 2, 3 J ohn, 33-34; Kruse, The Letters of J ohn, 33-36.

59) For specific detail, see Akin"s extensive discussions in his commentary (1, 2, 3 J ohn, 37-48).

60) Akin, 1, 2, 3 J ohn, 48; Brown, The Epistles of John, 379.

61) Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 138, 151.

62) Marshall, The Epistles of J ohn, 164, 175.

"First Condition for Living As God"s Children: Renounce Sin."63) Here our concern is with the

structure of 3:4-9. The careful examination of this pericope results in the following chiastic

structure:

A: The definition of those who sin (v. 4)

B: The purpose of his appearance and his relation to sin (v. 5)

C: The identity of those who abide in him (v. 6a)

D: The reality of those who sin (v. 6b)

E: Warning against being deceived (v. 7a)

D": The reality of those who do right (v. 7b)

C": The identity of those who commit sin (v. 8a)

B": The purpose for the appearance of God"s Son (v. 8b)

A": The definition of those who do not sin (v. 9)

The above structure hangs around the central piece E, which encourages the readers not to

let no one deceive them about the opposing identities of two groups. All other surrounding elements

enforce this central warning. The whole pericope reveals two radical differences, first between the

Son of God and Satan, and second between the children of God and the children of Satan; these

substantial incompatibilities are linked with each part"s relationship with sin. First, let discuss the

contradictory relationship between the Son of God and Satan with respect to sin. The sections B (v.

5) and B"(v. 8b) display the negative relation of Jesus the Son of God to sin. These parts teach the

readers about two things about Jesus the Son of God. First, the Son of God has no sin at all in

him. The author emphasizes that it is in him that sin does not exist at all (v. 5). This negative

statement about Jesus with respect to sin is positively explained in verse 7 as his being righteous.

This sinless existence of the Son of God stands in the absolute opposition to the sinning and sinful

existence of Satan from the beginning (v. 8). Secondly, The purpose of His appearance is to remove

sins (v. 8b). Here sins are further defined as the works of the Devil. To remove sins is to destroy

the works of Devil. It is clear from these two statements that who the Son of God is and what he

does is fundamentally against sins and thereby against the Devil who cannot exist without sinning.

Secondly, just as the relationship between the Son of God and Satan are essentially

antithetical to each other with respect to sin, so are the relationship between the children of God

and the children of Satan. First, C (v. 6a) and C" (v. 8a) make a big contrast between the believer

who abides in Jesus and those who commit sin; while those who abide in Him do not sin, those

who sin belong to Satan. he who does not sin abide in Jesus, but he who belongs to Satan sin.

Then it is clear that the contrast is between those who sin and those who do not sin. This

irreconcilable incompatibility between those who abide in Christ and those who belong to Satan

would be severely damaged or weakened if someone tries to translate the present tense ?t?????????????

as "continue to sin" as NIV did. D (v. 6b) and D" (v. 7b) again show the irrevocable disparity

between those who sin as the ones who have never seen nor known Jesus and those who do right

as the ones who is righteous in conformity to His righteousness. Here it is evident that their

having seen and known Jesus naturally results in their being righteous and their doing right just as

he is righteous. Those who did not have that saving experience are the one who sins and thereby

show that they belong to Satan. Just as there exists no room for the possibility of doing right on

the part of those who sin, so does neither of committing sin on the part of those who do right;

63) Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 138, 151.

either cases are ruled out in principle.

Summing up these two major observations, we cannot but realize that the essential

incongruity between the Son of God and Satan (or the Devil) naturally brings about such dissention

between those who belong to Jesus and those who belong to Satan. The contradiction between

these two opposing groups exists on the levels of their respective identity and practice in their

particular conduct.

At this juncture we need to pay a more careful attention to 3:9 (A"). If A (v. 4) puts its

concentration on those who commit sin and the definition of sin as lawlessness, A" (v. 9) is

centered around the identity of those who do not sin. Here the author"s discussion goes much

deeper than his earlier point in explaining why they does not and even cannot sin. We notice again

the chiastic structure of verse 9 as follows:64)

A: (9a) everyone who has been born of God (?????????????????????????????? ????????????)

B: (9b) does not commit sin (?????????????? ????đ???????)

C: (9c) because His seed remains in him (????? ???đ?????????????????? ???????????????)

B": (9d) and cannot sin (???????????????????????????????????????)

A": (9e) because he has been born of God (????? ??? ???????????????????????????????)

The structure shown above indicates well how carefully did the author arrange this verse.

A and A" perfectly match each other in that these refer to the already realized fact of God"s

regeneration; one in the present perfect Participle a??nd the other in the present perfect Indicative.

This surrounding framework like an inclusio sends an important interpretative signal to readers that

everything the author talks about here is applicable only to those who have experienced new birth

from God. Further this interpretative boundary suggests to the reader that what he says in between

has to been seen from the perspective of new birth from God. Secondly, B and B" show the

practice of those who have experienced God"s given new birth with respect to sin. B states that

those in this category does not commit sin, while B" further stresses that such people cannot even

sin. B" intensifies the statement in B; B" supplies readers with the interpretative key to understand

what B affirms. B" categorically prevents his readers from interpreting B as meaning that the

regenerate do not continue to sin or keep on sinning.

Here it is necessary to carefully examine the phrase "commit sin" (?????????????? ????đ???????).

First, By placing the accusative noun before the verb, the author emphasizes that it is sin that the

regenerate does not commit. This fact weakens the contention that the author says that they do not

continue to sin. Secondly, notice that the author does not use the definitive article before the noun

aJmartiva. If the author would wish to limit the idea of sin in view to some specific area, it would

have been far better for him to put the article, though this phenomenon should not be stretched too

much. Thirdly, this phrase occurs four times in the author"s writings, three in 1 John (3:4, 8, 9) and

one in the Gospel of John (8:34).65) Two of these in 1 John 3 appear in the present Participle (vv.

64) J. du Preez, ""SPERMA AUTOU" IN 1 JOHN 3:9,"ˇˇNEOTESTAMENTICA 9 (1975): 110;

Kotze, "The Meaning of 1 John 3:9," 76; Kruse, The Letters of J ohn, 125. These three and others

detect this chiasm.

65) The same phrase occurs three times in the remaining New Testament (2 Cor 5:21; 1 Pet 2:22;

Jas 5:15). The phrase in 2 Cor 5:21 is not relevant at all to our discussion since it talks about

Jesus" being made sin in the sense that he became the substitutionary sin offering. That in 1 Pet

2:22 shows that Jesus did not commit sin; it means that Jesus never committed sin at all. Jas 5:15

3, 8) with the definitive article. The same phrase does not have the article only in verse 9. As the

sin those commit who belong to Satan is not limited only to some types of sin, so it is true to the

sin the regenerate cannot commit. The presence of the article in describing the sin of those who

belong to Satan (vv. 4, 8) and its absence in depicting the sin Christian does not cannot, does not

make any significant difference at all. What is common to the use of the article in 3:4, 8 and John

8:34 is that these describe the sin of those who have not experienced new birth, that is, unbelievers.



3.3. New Understanding of 1 John 3:9c

Now turn our attention to the center piece (C:9c). If A and A" is about what have

happened in the past and its continuing result, C is about the ongoing and ever present reality of

those who have been born of God. This causal clause that God"s seed remains in him definitely

demonstrates why the regenerate do not commit sin at all; The continual remaining of God"s seed

within the regenerate is the reason why they do not sin. We have already pointed out earlier that it

is ridiculous to think that God" seed remaining in him stops the regenerate from committing some

sins, while it does not do so from committing other sins.

Here two important questions are raised; one about the meaning of God"s seed and one

about the perspective from which the author says in 3:9. First, what does the author mean by "his

seed" (??e?đ???????????????)? The relatively easy one to determine is the referent of the personal pronoun

"his" (????????). It refers to God the agent of new birth in 9a. It is, however, not easy to determine

the meaning of God"s seed. This phrase has been variously understood in six ways: children of

God, the proclaimed word of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, new life from God and the new nature.66)

Since the interpretative grid of God"s seed is the regenerating work of God, whatever view one

may take, it is to be understood from the regeneration perspective. The view that it indicates the

children of God, in which case it means that the children of God remain in Him, is not acceptable

on the ground of grammatical difficulty.67) The more common view among scholars that it points to

the proclaimed word of God is not contextually based on the text, but on the teaching of other

writings (1 Pet 1:23; Jas 1:18). Even the view that it signifies Christ is not likely because there is

no reason for the author to use this phrase instead of using the phrase Jesus Christ (1:7; 2:1, 22;

3:8, 23, 4:2-3, 4:9-10, 14). The fact that Jesus is called the Begotten of God does not render support

to this view (5:18). Some take it as referring to the Holy Spirit along with the Word,68) while still

others see here the allusion to the Holy Spirit.69) Though it is undoubtedly clear in 1 John that both

the word of God and the Holy Spirit dwell in the believer (2:14, 20, 24; 3:24; 4:13), it is not

necessary to think that these are signified. If it were so, it is extremely hard to see the purpose of

the author"s saying it because his stress falls on the immediate significance of new birth from God.

The remaining options are two associated items, new life and new nature. It seems best to

take God"s seed as alluding to the new nature of God-likeness as the immediate result of His

regenerating work. Since this new nature itself presupposes new life that arises from new birth,

accepting this view does not necessarily cancel out its foundation, that is, new life. du Preez seems

deals with the hypothetical situation: if the sick brother has committed sins.

66) du Preez, ""Sperma Autou"," 105-06. Others refer to his list of six different views (Akin, 1, 2, 3

J ohn, 148, note 387; Kruse, The Letters of J ohn, 125, note 122).

67) Brooke, The J ohannine Epistles, 89.

68) Marshall, The Epistles of J ohn, 186; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 173-74.

69) Brown, The Epistles of John, 410-411; Kruse, The Letters of J ohn, 124. Here Brown lists

those who support this view.

to be right in saying that the one born of God "reveals a new attitude which goes hand in hand

with the new life arising from it."70) It appears to very wise for the author to use the phrase

spevrma aujtou to metaphorically refer to the God-like nature of those born of Him.

The author states that this nature dwells in the regenerate and thus they do not commit

sin at all. Since the author has already made it perspicuous that the regenerate actually commit acts

of sin in chapters 1-2, we need to pinpoint from which perspective the regenerate do not and ever

cannot commit sins. To put this in other words, what has he in mind in saying this categorical

statement. To answer this tough question properly, it is imperative to examine which part of the

human person was the direct object of regeneration; Knowing this will naturally enable us to

understand the perspective from which the author states in 3:9 the absolute impossibility of sinning

on the part of the regenerate without gainsaying the actual reality of their sinning in their life. It is

absolutely clear that the whole person experience the new birth, but it is not right and even

impossible to say that thus the whole person is regenerated or born of God. Systematic theologians

are almost unanimous in affirming that the human spirit or soul is the object of regeneration,

though its result affects the whole person.71) The delicate difficulty in telling the spirit from the

body cannot overthrow this understanding.

What concerns us here is that, is there any evidence for this understanding in 1 John. The

answer to this is affirmative. Here a pertinent but much neglected passage is 1 John 5:4a where

Greek text says: ?)???? ?đ??? ????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????. Some versions well

translate the subject Participle phrase ?đ??? ????????????????????????????? ????????????as "whatever is born of

God" (RSV, NRSV, NASB). This neutral phrase stands in a big contrast with the author"s twice

mentioned one ?đ???????????????????????????? ????????????(3:9; 5:18). If the author would have wanted this

phrase to simply refer to all those who are born of God, he could have used his natural and

common phrase as in 3:9 and 5:18. By utilizing this neutral Participle Substantive it seems that the

author wished to communicate to his readers that the neutral object in the whole person has gone

through regeneration. The author, however, did not clarify at this point what that element is.

Nevertheless, it appears that here the author has in mind the human spirit as the object of

regeneration.

This view seems to be right not simply because spirit (?đ:?????????) in Greek is a neutral noun,

but also because the author assumes in 4:1-2 that some human spirits are regenerated from God,

while others are not. The context of 1 John 4 clearly shows that ?đ???? ?đ?????????in verses 1-3 and ???

?đ?????????????in verse 1 refer to the human spirits. When in verse 1 the author encourages his readers

to test the spirits (????đ?????????????) whether they are from God (??? ????????????), he appears to ask them

whether their spirits are regenerated. The only criterion by which their spirits are born of God or

not is the confession that Jesus has come in the flesh (v. 2). The more direct evidence for this

view exists in John 3 where Jesus declares to Nicodemus the absolute necessity of birth from

above. The particular phrase that needs our attention is "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit"

70) du Preez, ""Sperma Autou"," 108.

71) H. C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 279; L.

Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 4th revised and enlarged, 1991), 468; Hoeksema,

Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1966), 462; C. Hodge,

Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Reprinted 1989), 3:31-36. Grudem, however, is cautious

against saying that "the only thing that happens in regeneration is that our spirits are made alive (as

some would teach), for every part of us is affected by regeneration."(Wayne Grudem, Systematic

Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994], 701).

(????????????????????????????? ??????đ???????????????đ?????????????????) in verse 6. Notice that this phrase is almost the

same with the one in 1 John 5:4 (?đ??? ????????????????????????????? ????????????). The same Participle phrase is

used here. The Participle substantive in 1 John 5 is modified by the attributive adjective ?đ??? and

has the prepositional ?d?? ????????????, while that in John 3:6 does not have and has ??? ??????đ??????????????

instead of the ??? ????????????. John 3:6 clearly indicates that it is the human spirit that has been born

of the Spirit of God. This understanding strengthens our contention that the author has in mind the

regenerated spirit in 1 John 5:4; when he says that whatever has been born of God overcomes the

world, he is implicitly saying that every spirit that has been born of God overcomes the world. It is

also to be noted that just both ?đ???????????????????????????? ????????????and ?đ??? ????????????????????????????? ???????

?????appear in 1 John, so does the similar phrases, ????????????????????????????? ??????đ??????????????and ?đ???????

????????????????????? ??????đ?????????????? in John 3:6 and 3:8.

Having been established that the author considers the human spirit as the immediate object

of God"s regeneration, now apply this plausible observation to the thorny passage in 3:9. It is on

the basis of our foregoing discussions that 3:9 confirms neither the view of customary or habitual

practice of sin nor some particular sins on the part of the regenerate believers. It, rather, affirms

the absolute impossibility for the regenerate to commit sin in general. This understanding is not to

be explained away as flatly contradicting the author"s explicit teaching about the actual practice of

sinning on the believer"s part. A right interpretation of this passage has to rule out these three

ideas. A right and possible understanding of this one comes to the foreground only when we apply

to it our discovery that for the author the human spirit is born of God. Thus when he states in 3:9

that everyone born of God does not and even commit sin at all, he means by this that the

regenerate spirit does not and even cannot sin in an absolute sense. Since every regenerated

Christians have their spirits born of God the Spirit, their new spirits never sin nor can commit sin.

When the author says that God"s seed, that is, God-like nature, remains in every regenerate one, he

seems to insist that Christian"s regenerate spirit has this nature. Only in this way we can do due

justice both to the fact that Christians actually commit sin though not like the children of Satan

and to the fact that, at the same time, their regenerate spirits cannot sin at all. The sin in the life

of every regenerate believer is an inevitable phenonenon in the present "already" and "not yet"

situation of salvation in Jesus Christ. If it were that what is now true and real to the regenerated

spirits with respect to sin is also actually valid to the whole person including each member and

faculty of the body, believers would never commit sin at all. That reality will be only realized at

the coming of Jesus at which point every regenerate child of God will become exactly like Jesus

the unique Son of God (1 John 3:1-2). It is until that climatic point of the final consummation that

every believer is seriously encouraged to warn himself against all kinds of sin.

Here one can raise an important question. If the above proposal is right, why is it, then,

that the author has not made it explicit in 3:9? Was it not easy for him to say unambiguously that

the regenerate spirit cannot sin at all because the sinless and impeccable nature of God remains in

it? The answer to this finds its proper expression in understanding the theological background of

the author"s heretical opponents. Even if the author would have wished to affirm it so, the author

could not have expressed it evidently in the treacherous situation where his opponents insist that

what matters is only the human spirit excluding his body; for to them salvation is only of the

spirit. To say so clearly in such a situation is to strengthen their false theology and thereby worse

the troubling situations of his church instead of providing a right solution for the perplexing

problem. This fact shows why it was wise and strategic for the author to express his point

implicitly.







4. Conclusion



Having examined various views on the exact meaning of 1 John 3:9, we are now ready to

draw up the implications of this study in a summary fashion. Our argument is built upon the

accumulative evidences. In the first half of our study, I have pointed out that various attempts at

the understanding of 1 John 3:9 are not appropriate sufficiently to be accepted as a right

interpretation of our text. Some views are mentioned in passing without extensive treatment, while

some such as the view of the opponents" position and that of habitual sin are more extensively

discussed. At length I have argued against the most predominant and popular view of habitual and

customary sin on the basis of the contextual and linguistic evidences of the text. Our discussions

and evaluations of these approaches provide an important interpretative control over how to

understand 3:9 in a better and right way; these interpretative grids are that both to argue that 3:9

contradicts the author"s clear teaching about sin in chapters 1-2 and that it refers either to some

specific sins or a habitual practice of sin without gainsaying the possibility of committing some acts

of sin are in danger of either weakening or twisting the author"s categorical point.

In the latter half of the work, I have maintained that the author clearly endorses the actual

possibility for regenerate Christians to commit sin, while at the same time confirming the

impossibility of sinning on their part in an absolute sense. The only plausible way to accept both

points as genuine is to understand 3:9 as teaching implicitly that the regenerate spirit does not and

even cannot commit sin at all. I have come to reach this conclusion by showing that the author

assumes that the believer"s spirit is the object of God"s new birth; the evidences are available in 1

John 5:4 and 4:1-3 as well as in John 3:6-8. In all, What the author wants to say in 3:9 is that

every spirit born of God does not sin and even cannot commit sin at all; does he so only in an

implicit way to avoid the misuse of his teaching by his heretical opponents.