This is the 26th part in an ongoing series on the Epistles of John.
| English Standard Version | Nestle-Aland 27 |
|---|---|
| Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. | Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία. καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἄρῃ, καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν. πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει· πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν. |
This is one of those passages that a pastor of mine would have called: “a hard Word.” It is. On the one hand, it is perfectly reasonable for John to describe those who “practice sinning” as “practicing lawlessness.” This is not surprising; we should not be taken aback. [I think it should be noted that "lawlessness" probably has little to do with Mosaic law.]
The second bit works quite easily too: “You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.” I can get on board with that. Jesus came to take away sin, and He Himself was sinless. Right on.
Finally, John says that “no one who abides in Him keeps on sinning.” At first, this makes me think that maybe the bar is set pretty high for what “abiding in Him” really means. Perhaps “abiding in Him” is not possible here on Earth, because my understanding is that we all sin. Then, however, John goes on to say that “no one who keeps on sinning has either seen Him or known Him.” Well, what am I supposed to do with that? I continue to sin, but I wouldn’t say that I’ve never seen Him or known Him. What is John getting at?
The short answer is: “I’m not entirely sure.” It seems to me that it can’t mean what it sounds like, largely because it would contradict what we’ve already read in 1 John 2:1. If anyone who sins has an advocate in Christ, it would seem that these people do indeed know Him. That’s the way it seems to me anyway.
So what does John mean here in 3:6? I’d love to hear some opinions down in the comments…
Article Series - The Epistles of John
- The Epistles of John (Part 1): 1 John 1:1–4
- The Epistles of John (Part 2): 1 John 1:5
- The Epistles of John (Part 3): 1 John 1:6–7
- The Epistles of John (Part 4): 1 John 1:8–10
- The Epistles of John (Part 5): 1 John 2:1
- The Epistles of John (Part 6): 1 John 2:2
- The Epistles of John (Part 7): 1 John 2:3–6
- The Epistles of John (Part 8): 1 John 2:7–8
- The Epistles of John (Part 9): 1 John 2:9–11
- The Epistles of John (Part 10): 1 John 2:12
- The Epistles of John (Part 11): 1 John 2:13
- The Epistles of John (Part 12): 1 John 2:14
- The Epistles of John (Part 13): 1 John 2:15
- The Epistles of John (Part 14): 1 John 2:16
- The Epistles of John (Part 15): 1 John 2:17
- The Epistles of John (Part 16): 1 John 2:18
- The Epistles of John (Part 17): 1 John 2:19
- The Epistles of John (Part 18): 1 John 2:20
- The Epistles of John (Part 19): 1 John 2:21
- The Epistles of John (Part 20): 1 John 2:22
- The Epistles of John (Part 21): 1 John 2:23–25
- The Epistles of John (Part 22): 1 John 2:26–27
- The Epistles of John (Part 23): 1 John 2:28
- The Epistles of John (Part 24): 1 John 2:29
- The Epistles of John (Part 25): 1 John 3:1–3
- The Epistles of John (Part 26): 1 John 3:4–6
- The Epistles of John (Part 27): 1 John 3:7–10
- The Epistles of John (Part 28): 1 John 3:11–12
- The Epistles of John (Part 29): 1 John 3:13
- The Epistles of John (Part 30): 1 John 3:14-18
- The Epistles of John (Part 31): 1 John 3:19–22
- The Epistles of John (Part 32): 1 John 3:23–24
- The Epistles of John (Part 33): 1 John 4:1–3
- The Epistles of John (Part 34): 1 John 4:4–6
- The Epistles of John (Part 35): 1 John 4:7-8
- The Epistles of John (Part 36): 1 John 4:9
- The Epistles of John (Part 37): 1 John 4:10
- The Epistles of John (Part 38): 1 John 4:11-12
- The Epistles of John (Part 39): 1 John 4:13–14
- The Epistles of John (Part 40): 1 John 4:15
- The Epistles of John (Part 41): 1 John 4:16–17
- The Epistles of John (Part 42): 1 John 4:18–19
- The Epistles of John (Part 43): 1 John 4:20–21
- The Epistles of John (Part 44): 1 John 5:1
- The Epistles of John (Part 45): 1 John 5:2-3
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I see you’ve got to the difficult part. keeping on sinning… just how does this get dealt with?
First, law: knowledge of the law comes not from knowing in advance what is right and what is wrong, but from knowledge of him. Only by abiding in him is such knowledge granted. If I had to summarize what I have learned about living, it is remembering by whom you are loved and living in that love. There is a danger of legalism and antinomianism but John avoids this by citing the authority of the anointing.
The warning is that if you think you know the law without the anointing, you will be acting in the flesh – to use Paul’s term or in John’s term, you will be not abiding in him and will not be knowing him.
This is hard for everyone because it is so easy – the covenant dialogue must be opened and lived in. I am convinced it is the same covenant dialogue as is portrayed in the psalms. Both my blogs work from this premise. We know we open our dialogue through the entrance he has given us.
I did not figure this out in advance! It is a reflection on abiding in him and learning from the anointing. It doesn’t mean we don’t make mistakes – without mistakes even sometimes to the point of shame, we would never learn the power and depth of his love nor would we know our own energy and power even if there is a risk we will learn it from a mistake.
(cf Philemon 6 – that he might learn the extent of the gifts he has in Christ – but the learning may be hard for Philemon since Onesimus wronged him in the eyes of the Roman law!)
it depends on your understanding of sinning. i don’t know the greek here well enough (i’m learning), but i know that one of the hebrew understandings of sinning is ‘falling short.’ do you feel sin takes place, even if we are unaware of it? or is it only sin if we know it is wrong? i think the passage makes most sense when the sin is “known, ‘ or ‘willfull.’ if you sin willfully, you are not ‘in him.’
do you know about teshuvah?
I extended my response a bit at http://stenagmois.blogspot.com/2007/07/theological-engineering.html
I defined what I understand as sin there.
bob–
great post…much to think about.
i like your list, even if a bit ‘mechanical.’ i like your understanding that sin is ‘failure to engage.’ my best understanding has always been that sin is the erosion, destruction, dismissal, or anything other than nuturing, of relationships. your definition and mine overlap, but have differences, too. when we engage in relationships, we will make mistakes in them that require patching. if we worry about sinning in relationships, we may choose not to engage so as not to sin, but then your definition says not to engage is sin, too. i love it!
it seems we need to do as you say, engage, and do as i say, patch when the relationship is hurt. teshuva is the patching model.
(had to put this here, bob, cause i can’t get google to start an account for me–an engineering problem….)
thanks you all, for such interesting things to think about.
scott gray
I would contend that to “keep on sinning” implies “sinning with impunity.” In other words, to say, “I know it is wrong but I’m going to keep doing it anyway,” or to be able to keep on sinning even with the knowledge of what it does to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Or, to be able to keep on sinning without being affected by it. These things are incompatible with the redeemed nature.
Bob McCluskey’s last blog: "Confession of Your Sins to One Another: Why Would You Want to do That?"