1 John 3:4

The apostle, having alleged the believer's obligation to purity from his hope of heaven, and of communion with Christ in glory at the day of his appearance, now proceeds to fill his own mouth and the believer's mind with multiplied arguments against sin, and all communion with the impure unfruitful works of darkness. And so he reasons and argues,

I. From the nature of sin and the intrinsic evil of it. It is a contrariety to the divine law: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also (or even) the law (or, whosoever committeth sin even committeth enormity, or aberration from law, or from the law); for sin is the transgression of the law, or is lawlessness, Jo1 3:4. Sin is the destitution or privation of correspondence and agreement with the divine law, that law which is the transcript of the divine nature and purity, which contains his will for the government of the world, which is suitable to the rational nature, and enacted for the good of the world, which shows man the way of felicity and peace, and conducts him to the author of his nature and of the law. The current commission of sin now is the rejection of the divine law, and this is the rejection of the divine authority, and consequently of God himself.

II. From the design and errand of the Lord Jesus in and to this world, which was to remove sin: And you know that he was manifested to take away our sins, and in him is no sin, Jo1 3:5. The Son of God appeared, and was known, in our nature; and he came to vindicate and exalt the divine law, and that by obedience to the precept, and by subjection and suffering under the penal sanction, under the curse of it. He came therefore to take away our sins, to take away the guilt of them by the sacrifice of himself, to take away the commission of them by implanting a new nature in us (for we are sanctifies by virtue of his death), and to dissuade and save from it by his own example, and (or for) in him was no sin; or, he takes sin away, that he may conform us to himself, and in him is no sin. Those that expect communion with Christ above should study communion with him here in the utmost purity. And the Christian world should know and consider the great end of the Son of God's coming hither: it was to take away our sin: And you know (and this knowledge should be deep and effectual) that he was manifested to take away our sins.

III. From the opposition between sin and a real union with or adhesion to the Lord Christ: Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not, Jo1 3:6. To sin here is the same as to commit sin (Jo1 3:8, Jo1 3:9), and to commit sin is to practise sin. He that abideth in Christ continues not in the practice of sin. As vital union with the Lord Jesus broke the power of sin in the heart and nature, so continuance therein prevents the regency and prevalence thereof in the life and conduct. Or the negative expression here is put for the positive: He sinneth not, that is, he is obedient, he keeps the commandments (in sincerity, and in the ordinary course of life) and does those things that are pleasing in his sight, as is said Jo1 3:22. Those that abide in Christ abide in their covenant with him, and consequently watch against the sin that is contrary thereto. They abide in the potent light and knowledge of him; and therefore it may be concluded that he that sinneth (abideth in the predominant practice of sin) hath not seen him (hath not his mind impressed with a sound evangelical discerning of him), neither known him, hath no experimental acquaintance with him. Practical renunciation of sin is the great evidence of spiritual union with, continuance in, and saving knowledge of, the Lord Christ.

IV. From the connection between the practice of righteousness and a state of righteousness, intimating withal that the practice of sin and a justified state are inconsistent; and this is introduced with a supposition that a surmise to the contrary is a gross deceit: "Little children, dear children, and as much children as you are, herein let no man deceive you. There will be those who will magnify your new light and entertainment of Christianity, who will make you believe that your knowledge, profession, and baptism, will excuse you from the care and accuracy of the Christian life. But beware of such self-deceit. He that doeth righteousness in righteous." It may appear that righteousness may in several places of scripture be justly rendered religion, as Mat 5:10, Blessed are those that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, that is, for religion's sake; Pe1 3:14, But if you suffer for righteousness' sake (religion's sake) happy are you; and Ti2 3:16, All scripture, or the whole scripture, is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine - and for instruction in righteousness, that is, in the nature and branches of religion. To do righteousness then, especially being set in opposition to the doing, committing, or practising, of sin, is to practise religion. Now he who practiseth religion is righteous; he is the righteous person on all accounts; he is sincere and upright before God. The practice of religion cannot subsist without a principle of integrity and conscience. He has that righteousness which consists in pardon of sin and right to life, founded upon the imputation of the Mediator's righteousness. He has a title to the crown of righteousness, which the righteous Judge will give, according to his covenant and promise, to those that love his appearing, Ti2 4:8. He has communion with Christ, in conformity to the divine law, being in some measure practically righteous as he; and he has communion with him in the justified state, being now relatively righteous together with him.

V. From the relation between the sinner and the devil, and thereupon from the design and office of the Lord Christ against the devil. 1. From the relation between the sinner and the devil. As elsewhere sinners and saints are distinguished (though even saints are sinners largely so called), so to commit sin is here so to practise it as sinners do, that are distinguished from saints, to live under the power and dominion of it; and he who does so is of the devil; his sinful nature is inspired by, and agreeable and pleasing to, the devil; and he belongs to the party, and interest, and kingdom of the devil. It is he that is the author and patron of sin, and has been a practitioner of it, a tempter and instigator to it, even from the beginning of the world. And thereupon we must see how he argues. 2. From the design and office of the Lord Christ against the devil: For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil, Jo1 3:8. The devil has designed and endeavoured to ruin the work of God in this world. The Son of God has undertaken the holy war against him. He came into our world, and was manifested in our flesh, that he might conquer him and dissolve his works. Sin will he loosen and dissolve more and more, till he has quite destroyed it. Let not us serve or indulge what the Son of God came to destroy.

VI. From the connection between regeneration and the relinquishment of sin: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin. To be born of God is to be inwardly renewed, and restored to a holy integrity or rectitude of nature by the power of the Spirit of God. Such a one committeth not sin, does not work iniquity nor practise disobedience, which is contrary to his new nature and the regenerate complexion of his spirit; for, as the apostle adds, his seed remaineth in him, either the word of God in its light and power remaineth in him (as Pe1 1:23, Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever), or, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit; the spiritual seminal principle of holiness remaineth in him. Renewing grace is an abiding principle. Religion, in the spring of it, is not an art, an acquired dexterity and skill, but a new nature. And thereupon the consequence is the regenerate person cannot sin. That he cannot commit an act of sin, I suppose no judicious interpreter understands. This would be contrary to Jo1 1:9, where it is made our duty to confess our sins, and supposed that our privilege thereupon is to have our sins forgiven. He therefore cannot sin, in the sense in which the apostle says, he cannot commit sin. He cannot continue in the course and practice of sin. He cannot so sin as to denominate him a sinner in opposition to a saint or servant of God. Again, he cannot sin comparatively, as he did before he was born of God, and as others do that are not so. And the reason is because he is born of God, which will amount to all this inhibition and impediment. 1. There is a light in his mind which shows him the evil and malignity of sin. 2. There is that bias upon his heart which disposes him to loathe and hate sin. 3. There is the spiritual seminal principle or disposition, that breaks the force and fulness of the sinful acts. They proceed not from such plenary power of corruption as they do in others, nor obtain that plenitude of heart, spirit, and consent, which they do in others. The spirit lusteth against the flesh. And therefore in respect to such sin it may be said, It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. It is not reckoned the person's sin, in the gospel account, where the bent and frame of the mind and spirit are against it. Then, 4. There is a disposition for humiliation and repentance for sin, when it has been committed. He that is born of God cannot sin. Here we may call to mind the usual distinction of natural and moral impotency. The unregenerate person is morally unable for what is religiously good. The regenerate person is happily disabled for sin. There is a restraint, an embargo (as we may say), laid upon his sinning powers. It goes against him sedately and deliberately to sin. We usually say of a person of known integrity, "He cannot lie, he cannot cheat, and commit other enormities." How can I commit this great wickedness, and sin against God! Gen 39:9. And so those who persist in a sinful life sufficiently demonstrate that they are not born of God.

VII. From the discrimination between the children of God and the children of the devil. They have their distinct characters. In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil, Jo1 3:10. In the world (according to the old distinction) there are the seed of God and the seed of the serpent. Now the seed of the serpent is known by these two signatures: - 1. By neglect of religion: Whosoever doeth not righteously (omits and disregards the rights and dues of God; for religion is but our righteousness towards God, or giving him his due, and whosoever does not conscientiously do this) is not of God, but, on the contrary, of the devil. The devil is the father of unrighteous or irreligious souls. And, 2. By hatred of fellow-christians: Neither he that loveth not his brother, Jo1 3:10. True Christians are to be loved for God's and Christ's sake. Those who so love them not, but despise, and hate, and persecute them, have the serpentine nature still abiding in them.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

(3) THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE DIVINE BIRTH ON HUMAN CONDUCT (1Jn_3:4-10).—This paragraph is an expansion of the thought of 1Jn_2:3, which was the practical conclusion of the meditation on the divine love as seen in the new birth. In thinking of the nature of righteousness, of the new birth, and of purity, the Apostle is led to dwell on their opposite, lawlessness, the synonym and essence of sin. His object being to bring purity and righteousness into relief, and to determine who are the children of God and who of the devil, he pursues the contrast by a series of antitheses, introducing, after his manner, reflections suggested by particular stages of the thought.

1st Contrast: Purity, and the act of sin regarded as lawlessness (abstract).

Reflection: Christ manifested to take away our sins.

2nd Contrast: Abiding in Christ, we sin not; sinning, we have neither seen nor known (practical).

3rd Contrast (in the form of a warning): The righteous are like God; sinners are of the devil (hortatory).

Reflection: Christ manifested to destroy the works of the devil.

4th Contrast: The sons of the devil sin; the sons of God keep the germ from Him, and sin not (explanatory).

5th Contrast: The criterion between the two sonships is doing righteousness and (a new thought in this passage) loving the brother (the test).

(4) Transgresseth also the law.—Rather, doeth lawlessness.

The transgression of the law.—Or, lawlessness. He is not thinking of the law of Moses, but defining and analysing the nature of sin in general: it is acting from caprice instead of on principle, disobeying the conscience, neglecting the will of God, rebelling against His commandments.

(5) And ye know . . .—The Incarnation is here mentioned with the purpose of strengthening the appeal to purity. The very object of Christ’s coming was to take away our sins by atonement, and their power in us by reformation. He is Himself sinless. Those who really rest firm in Him cannot be habitual sinners, nor, on the other hand, can habitual sinners be really in Him.

To take away our sins.—See Joh_1:29. For the use of the word “take away,” compare Joh_11:48; Joh_15:2; Joh_17:15; Joh_19:31; Joh_19:38. The idea of sacrificial substitution was uppermost in 1Jn_2:2. Here it is rather that of sanctification; but the other is not excluded. The two are always connected in St. John’s mind. (Comp. 1Jn_1:7; 1Jn_4:9-11.) The purpose of Christ’s coming was not so much to teach a new doctrine as to produce a new life; the first was the means to the second.

And in him is no sin.—The fact that Christ is perfectly sinless is dwelt on because He is the vital element of the Christian’s being, and if present in him must produce a result like Himself.

(6) Abideth in him.—See 1Jn_2:6; 1Jn_2:24, and Joh_15:4. The whole nature must consciously repose in Christ, breathe His spiritual atmosphere, draw all nourishment from Him, have no principle of thought or action apart from Him. This intimate union is regarded as the direct consequence of Christ’s manifestation, and of His sinless character as manifested.

Sinneth not.—See Rom_7:17. Although the Christian does not always do what is best, he does not willingly commit sin; his real self is on the side of God’s law.

Whosoever sinneth.—Adopts the lawless disposition deliberately. In the moment of conscious wilful sin, any former partial sight or knowledge he may have had of Christ becomes a thing of the past, as if it were not, and proves its own inadequacy. Ignatius says, “None who professeth faith sinneth, and none who hath love hateth. They who profess themselves Christians will be manifest by what they do.” (Comp. 1Jn_2:19, and Mat_7:23.) A real saving sight of Christ is when our mind becomes conscious of the convincing truth, beauty, perfection, love, and power of His existence. The corresponding knowledge is when that sight has become experience, the soul having learnt the effect of His strengthening, purifying grace; having proved the happiness of spiritual intercourse with Him; and having meditated continually on the records of the sayings and doings of His earthly manifestation. There may be here a reference to the Gnostics, who said that their “knowledge” was so great that they had no need to work righteousness: grace would be enough, without works.

(7, 8) By the solemn appeal, “My little children,” the practical contrast of 1Jn_2:7 is introduced in the form of a warning in 1Jn_2:7-8. The words “is of the devil,” in the second branch of the antithesis, show that the words “is righteous, even as he is righteous,” are meant to claim for the true Christian a likeness of nature to Christ. Although there is no allusion to it here, the teaching of the Epistle to the Romans shows that the eternal righteousness of Christ may be an object of faith, even though His name and earthly manifestation be unknown.

(8) Of the devil.—See on Joh_8:44. Not that the devil has created the sinner, but that the sinner has allowed him to generate his evil nature, until gradually the whole nature may have become evil, and therefore generated by the devil, to the exclusion of any elements of goodness. By making the devil the antithesis to Christ, St. John insists as strongly as it would be possible for him to insist on the moral importance of remembering the existence and kingdom of an allowed power of evil. The work of the Messiah cannot be fully understood without acknowledging this fact of human consciousness.

For the devil sinneth from the beginning.—“For” states the reason why sinners are of the devil. By “from the beginning,” therefore, we understand, not the date of the devil’s existence, or of the creation of the earth and solar system, or of human history, or of the devil’s fall, but the beginning of human sin. As soon as human sin began, then the devil was at work and claiming his parentage.

The Son of God was manifested.—The devil is not honoured by being placed over against the whole Almighty Deity, but is regarded as the special antagonist of the Son. (Compare 1Jn_2:5.) In taking away our sins Christ would be destroying the works of the devil, which are every possible variety of sin. The consequences of sin—affliction, death, condemnation—are rather the wholesome discipline of God.

1Jn_2:9 repeats, in a more perfect form of contrast to 1Jn_2:8, the thought of 1Jn_2:7. (Comp. 1Jn_2:29; 1Jn_3:6.) We have seen that the birth of the new nature is not complete till we enter into our rest; so also the freedom from sin is progressive. His seed is the Holy Spirit: that influence proceeding from God, imbued with divine vitality, regenerating, renewing, refreshing, causing the nature of holiness to spring, to grow, to bloom, to bear fruit. The result is the same whether the metaphor is regarded as animal or vegetable. The Christian does not say, “I have the seed of God within me, so I need not mind if I am betrayed into sin.” That would alone be enough to prove that the seed of God is not there. If he is betrayed into sin, he trembles lest the seed of God should not be there. He struggles to free his permanent will from all participation in what was wrong. He claims the help of the Spirit in his struggle; and his sincerity shows that it was a genuine bond fide betrayal, not a pre-conceived moral choice. “Sinneth not,” therefore, looks rather to the Christian’s course as a whole. “He cannot sin,” means that if he is really born of God it is an impossibility for him deliberately to choose evil. If he deliberately chooses evil he is not born of God. “A child of God in this conflict receives indeed wounds daily, but never throws away his arms or makes peace with his deadly foe” (Luther).

1Jn_2:10 sums up the matter in a terse distinction: all mankind are either children of God or children of the devil—they who try to do good, and they who deliberately and consciously choose evil. It is not even for an Apostle to judge which man belongs to which class; at any rate, the true Christian can never be a wilful rebel. And here, as the importance of brotherly love is so constantly before his mind, St. John allows the note which he struck in 1Jn_2:9 to enter again into the melody of his thoughts. Brotherly love, the most prominent part of Christian righteousness, may well be mentioned in the contrast between sin and holiness, as it is the most comprehensive of all virtues.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law - The law of God given to man as a rule of life. The object of the apostle here is to excite them to holiness, and to deter them from committing sin, perhaps in view of the fact stated in 1Jo 3:3, that everyone who has the hope of heaven will aim to be holy like the Saviour. To confirm this, he shows them that, as a matter of fact, those who are born of God do lead lives of obedience, 1Jo 3:5-10; and this he introduces by showing what is the nature of sin, in the verse before us. The considerations by which he would deter them from indulging in sin are the following:

(a)All sin is a violation of the law of God, 1Jo 3:4;

(b)The very object of the coming of Christ was to deliver people from sin, 1Jo 3:5;

(c)Those who are true Christians do not habitually sin, 1Jo 3:6;

(d)Those who sin cannot be true Christians, but are of the devil, 1Jo 3:8; and,

(e)He who is born of God has a germ or principle of true piety in him, and cannot sin, 1Jo 3:9.

It seems evident that the apostle is here combating an opinion which then existed that people might sin, and yet be true Christians, 1Jo 3:7; and he apprehended that there was danger that this opinion would become prevalent. On what ground this opinion was held is unknown. Perhaps it was held that all that was necessary to constitute religion was to embrace the doctrines of Christianity, or to be orthodox in the faith; perhaps that it was not expected that people would become holy in this life, and therefore they might indulge in acts of sin; perhaps that Christ came to modify and relax the law, and that the freedoM which he procured for them was freedom to indulge in whatever people chose; perhaps that, since Christians were heirs of all things, they had a right to enjoy all things; perhaps that the passions of people were so strong that they could not be restrained, and that therefore it was not wrong to give indulgence to the propensities with which our Creator has formed us. All these opinions have been held under various forms of Antinomianism, and it is not at all improbable that some or all of them prevailed in the time of John. The argument which he urges would be applicable to any of them. The consideration which he here states is, that all sin is a transgression of law, and that he who commits it, under whatever pretence, is to be held as a transgressor of the law. The literal rendering of this passage is, “He who doeth sin (ἁμαρτίαν hamartian ) doeth also transgression” - ἀνομίαν anomian. Sin is the generic term embracing all that would be wrong. The word transgression (ἀνομία anomia) is a specific term, showing where the wrong lay, to wit, in violating the law.

For sin is the transgression of the law - That is, all sin involves this as a consequence that it is a violation of the law. The object of the apostle is not so much to define sin, as to deter from its commission by stating what is its essential nature - though he has in fact given the best definition of it that could be given. The essential idea is, that God has given a law to people to regulate their conduct, and that whatever is a departure from that law in any way is held to be sin. The law measures our duty, and measures therefore the degree of guilt when it is not obeyed. The law determines what is right in all cases, and, of course, what is wrong when it is not complied with. The law is the expression of what is the will of God as to what we shall do; and when that is not done, there is sin. The law determines what we shall love or not love; when our passions and appetites shall be bounded and restrained, and to what extent they may be indulged; what shall be our motives and aims in living; how we shall act toward God and toward people; and whenever, in any of these respects, its requirements are not complied with, there is sin.

This will include everything in relation to which the law is given, and will embrace what we “omit” to do when the law has commanded a thing to be done, as well as a “positive” act of transgression where the law has forbidden a thing. This idea is properly found in the original word rendered “transgression of the law” - ἀνομία anomia. This word occurs in the New Testament only in the following places: Mat 7:23; Mat 13:41; Mat 23:28; Mat 24:12; Rom 4:7; Rom 6:19; 2Th 2:7; Tit 2:14; Heb 1:9; Heb 8:12; Heb 10:17, in all which places it is rendered “iniquity” and “iniquities;” in 2Co 6:14, where it is rendered “unrighteousness;” and in the verse before us twice. It properly means lawlessness, in the sense that the requirements of the law are not conformed to, or complied with; that is, either by not obeying it, or by positively violating it. When a parent commands a child to do a thing, and he does not do it, he is as really guilty of violating the law as when he does a thing which is positively forbidden. This important verse, therefore, may be considered in two aspects - as a definition of the nature of sin, and as an argument against indulgence in it, or against committing it.

I. As a definition of the nature of sin. It teaches.

(a)That there is a rule of law by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated and governed, and to which it is to be conformed.

That there is sin in all cases where that law is not complied with; and that all who do not comply with it are guilty before God. That the particular thing which determines the guilt of sin, and which measures it, is that it is a departure from law, and consequently that there is no sin where there is no departure from law.

The essential thing is, that the law has not been respected and obeyed, and sin derives its character and aggravation from that fact. No one can reasonably doubt as to the accuracy of this definition of sin. It is founded on the fact:

(a)That God has an absolute right to prescribe what we may and may not do;

(b)That it is to be presumed that what he prescribes will be in accordance with what is right; and,

(c)That nothing else in fact constitutes sin. Sin can consist in nothing else. It does not consist of a particular height of stature, or a particular complexion; of a feeble intellect, or an intellect made feeble, as the result of any former apostasy; of any constitutional propensity, or any disposition founded in our nature as creatures.

For none of these things do our consciences condemn us; and however we may lament them, we have no consciousness of wrong.

(In these remarks the author has in view the doctrine of original sin, or imputed sin, which he thinks as absurd as sin of stature or complexion. His views will be found at large in the notes at Rom. 5 throughout, and by comparing these with the supplementary notes on the same place, the reader will be able to form his own opinion. There does not seem to be anything affecting the point in this passage.)

II. As an argument against the commission of sin. This argument may be considered as consisting of two things - the wrong that is done by the violation of law, and the exposure to the penalty.

(1) The wrong itself. This wrong, as an argument to deter from sin, arises mainly from two things:

(a) Because sin is a violation of the will of God, and it is in itself wrong to disregard that will; and,

(b) Because it is to be presumed that when God has given law there is a good reason why he has done it.

(2) The fact that the law has a penalty is an argument for not violating the law.

All law has a penalty; that is, there is some suffering, disadvantage, forfeit of privileges, etc., which the violation of law draws in its train, and which is to be regarded as an expression of the sense which the lawgiver entertains of the value of his law, and of the evil of disobeying it. Many of these penalties of the violation of the divine law are seen in this life, and all will be certain to occur sooner or later, in this world or in the world to come. With such views of the law and of sin - of his obligations, and of the evils of disobedience - a Christian should not, and will not, deliberately and habitually violate the law of God.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1Jn_3:4-5

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law

Sin

I.

A general account or declaration concerning Whosoever committeth sin. What such an one doeth. He transgresseth the law. By the law is here to be under stood the law of God, in and by which He hath commanded perfect obedience to every precept of it. Which law is as immutable as the nature and will of God: it can no more change than God Himself.

II. What sin is in its consequences: even in any, in the least act of it: yea, in any act of it: Sin is the transgression of the law. It is therefore most carefully to be avoided. Sin in its nature and quality, matter and manner, may seemingly to us be more or less sinful; yet it is one and the same as to the essence of it. Herein it is we are ourselves so often deceived and overcome by it. If we can dish up the sin we are in our own persons most inclined to, so as to have the gross parts of it so refined as to render it palatable, and that it may go down glibe, we are then able to act the same; yet as the nature of sin cannot be changed, so it is not the less pernicious, because we have so contrived as to swallow it most easily. It is in many instances so much the more poisonous. Sin is like a poisonous plant. The root, the leaves, the every part is full of it. Be it weaker or stronger in any part of it, yet it diffuses itself in and throughout the whole. There is the nature of sin in every act of it: and this more than we can, or ever shall be able to comprehend.

III. The antidote these saints had, which was all-sufficient to bear up their minds, and lift up their hearts with holy confidence, above and beyond the law, sin, and its curse. And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin. (E. S. Pierce.)

Sin the transgression of the law

I. Show that all mankind is under the law of God, which still remaineth in force as an inviolable rule of righteousness.

1. That man is Gods creature, and therefore His subject. The subjection of man to God is built upon his absolute dependence upon God, both as to creation and preservation.

2. Man being Gods subject, hath a certain law given to him, which doth require obedience from him, and doth determine his duty, particularly wherein it shall consist (Mic_6:8).

3. Man being under a law, should be very tender of breaking or disobeying it, for God never dispenseth with it, as it is purely moral, and standeth much upon keeping up His legislative authority; which may appear by these considerations

(1) If man could have kept it, he would have gotten life by it; that was Gods first intention; and the reason why it succeeded not was through our sin.

(2) In that God would not release the penalty of the law, nor pardon any sin against it without satisfaction first made by the blood of Christ; the law is both the rule of our duty and Gods judgment; it showeth what is due from us to God, and also what is due from God to us in case of disobedience.

(3) Before man can have actual benefit by this satisfaction, he must consent to return to the duty of the law, and live in obedience to God (Act_26:18).

(4) Christ merited regeneration, or the spirit of holiness, that all new creatures might voluntarily keep this law, though not in absolute perfection, yet in sincere obedience (Tit_3:5-6).

(5) The more we keep this law, the more pleasing we are to God, and the more communion we have with Christ.

(6) That we cannot have full communion with God till we are perfectly conformed to His law; for we are not introduced into the heavenly glory till we are perfect and complete in holiness (Eph_5:27).

(7) That the law is the rule of all Gods judgments in the world, and His righteous process, whether against nations or persons (Rom_1:18).

(8) That He will not spare His own children when they transgress it by heinous sins (Pro_11:31).

(9) That Christ came not to dissolve our obligation to God, or ever intended it, but to promote it rather.

II. The nature and heinousness of sin is to be determined by a contrariety or want of conformity to this law; for sin presupposeth a law and law giver, and a debt of subjection lying upon us.

1. By omitting what is commanded as a duty to God or man; as suppose invocation of God (Jer_10:25).

2. By committing what God hath forbidden, or breaking through the restraints God hath laid upon us, in worshipping idols, or satisfying our revenge, or fulfilling our lusts.

III. That those that live in sin, or any allowed breach of this law, are still under the curse of it, and cannot look upon themselves as Gods adopted children.

1. It is certain that when we come to take the law out of the hand of a redeemer, we are all sinners and transgressors before God.

2. Though God findeth us sinners, and we apprehend ourselves to be so, yet when He taketh us into His family He doth not leave us so; but on Gods part regeneration maketh way for adoption (Joh_1:12-13).

3. None are so exact with God in the obedience of His law but that still they need the same grace that brought them into the family to keep them in the family, and to pardon their daily failings.

4. Though Gods adopted children may through infirmity break His law, yet there is a manifest difference between them and others that live in a state of sin, either in enmity to godliness, or in a course of vanity, sensuality, or any kind of rebellion against God, rejecting His counsels, calls, and mercies, which should reclaim them. (T. Manton, D. D.)

Nature of sin

I. What law the apostle mentions in the text. There is no reason to think that He means any law given to Adam, or to Noah, or any law given by Moses, except the moral law, which is founded in the reason of things, and is of perpetual obligation. This He calls the law, in distinction from all positive laws and particular precepts. By the law, therefore, he means the first supreme and universal law of Gods moral kingdom, which is binding upon all rational and accountable creatures.

II. What this moral law, which is binding upon all mankind, requires. It certainly requires something that is reasonable, because it is founded in reason. Our Saviour perfectly understood the true import and perpetual obligation of the law, and came to fulfil and magnify it. There are but two things really valuable and desirable in their own nature. One is happiness, and the other is holiness. Happiness is valuable and desirable in its own nature, or for what it is in itself. And holiness is valuable and desirable in its own nature, or for what it is in itself. The moral law therefore which is founded in the nature of things, requires men to love and seek holiness and happiness for themselves and others. It requires them to love and seek the holiness and blessedness of God supremely; because He is supremely great and good. And it requires men to love and seek one anothers holiness and happiness as their own. And when they exercise such disinterested love to God and man, they fulfil the law, or do all that the law requires them to do.

III. What it forbids. Every law has both a precept and prohibition. It forbids whatever is directly contrary to what it requires, and requires whatever is directly contrary to what it forbids. It appears from what has been said under the last head that the Divine law requires disinterested love to God and man; and from this we may justly conclude that it forbids whatever is directly contrary to disinterested love to God and man. Improvement:

1. If the transgression of the Divine law consists in positive selfishness, then it does not consist in a mere want of conformity to it.

2. If the Divine law requires pure, disinterested love, and forbids selfishness, then every free, voluntary exercise of the heart is either an act of obedience or disobedience of the law of God.

3. If every selfish exercise be a transgression of the law, then those are under a deep deception who imagine that they have no sin.

4. If every selfish exercise is a transgression of the law, and every transgression of the law is sin, then every sin deserves Gods wrath and curse, both in this life and in that which is to come.

5. If the law of God forbids all selfish and sinful affections upon pain of eternal death, then mankind are all naturally in a very guilty and wretched condition. (N. Emmons, D. D.)

The evil of sin

1. There is folly in it, as it is a deviation from the best rule which the Divine wisdom hath given unto us. They who reject that which is able to make them wise to salvation, that in which all true wisdom consisteth, how can they be wise men? Every soul in hell is brought there by sinful folly.

2. Laws are not only rules to direct, but have a binding force from the authority of the lawgiver. God doth not only give us counsel as a friend, but commands as a sovereign. Therefore the second notion whereby the evil of sin is set forth is that of disobedience and rebellion; and so it is a great injury done to God, because it is a contempt of Gods authority.

3. It is shameful ingratitude. Man is Gods beneficiary, from whom he hath received life and being, and all things, and is therefore bound to love and serve Him according to His declared will.

4. It is a disowning of Gods propriety in us, as if we were not His own, and God had not power to do with His own as He pleaseth. It robbeth God of His propriety. If we consider His natural right, so sill is such an injury and wrong to God as theft and robbery. If we consider our own covenant by which we voluntarily own Gods right and property in us, so it is breach of vows. If we consider this covenant as being made in a way of devoting and consecrating of ourselves from a common to a holy use, so it is sacrilege; all which aggravate sin, and should make it more odious to our thoughts.

5. It is a contempt of Gods holiness and purity, as if He were indifferent to good and evil, and stood not upon His law, whether men broke it or kept it, and would not call them to an account, and judge them for it. Whereas God standeth punctually and precisely upon His law; the least point is dearer unto Him than all the world in some sense (Mat_5:18).

6. It is a denial of the goodness of God, as if He were envious of the happiness and welfare of mankind, as if He had planted in us desires which He would not have satisfied, only to vex and torment us, and had fettered us unreasonably, and His commands were grevious and His yoke intolerable; yea, ensnared us by keeping us from that which is good and comfortable for us.

7. It is a depreciation and contempt of Gods glorious majesty. What else shall we make of a plain contest with Him, and a flat contradiction to His holy will?

8. It is a questioning, if not a flat denial, of Gods onmiscieney and omnipresence, as if He did not see or regard the actions of men, since we dare do that in the presence of God which we would scarce do before a little child.

9. It is the violation of a law which is holy, just, and good. The matter of it recommendeth itself to our con sciences, as tending to the glory of God, and conducing to preserve the rectitude of our natures.

10. It is a disorder in nature, or a breach in the moral order and harmony of the world, whilst man, the most excellent of all visible creatures, is so perverted and depraved, like the chief string to an instrument broken and out of tune.

11. It is a disbelief of the promises and threatenings wherewith the law is enforced; for in the law, besides the precept, there is a sanction by penalties and rewards.

12. It is a slighting of all those providences by which He would confirm and back His law. The Lord knoweth how apt we are to be guided by present sense. So all those chastisings by which God will show us the bitter fruit of sin (Jer_2:19).

13. It is a contempt of all those means by which God useth to enforce His laws and quicken the sense of our duty upon our hearts; such are the strivings and pressing motions of His Spirit (Gen_6:3).

14. The slenderness of the temptation that irritates us to break the laws of God doth also show the malignity of sin; for what is it but the pleasing of the carnal faculty (Jam_1:14).

Practical lessons:

1. We see hence the folly of them who make a mock and sport of sin (Pro_14:9).

2. It showeth the folly of those that do not only make a light reckoning of sin themselves, but think also that God makes little account of it.

3. How just is God in appointing eternal punishment as the fruit and reward of sin.

4. If all sin be so odious, how much more a life of sin!

5. The necessity of entering into the gospel covenant. Now this is done by repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

6. The necessity of persevering in the gospel estate by new obedience, and a continual dependence on the grace of the Redeemer.

7. What reason we have to submit to the sharpest providences which God in His corrective discipline puts us under (Isa_27:9).

8. That a renewed heart should be affected, not only with the evil after sin, but with the evil in sin; for to persuade Gods children to a conformity to their Father, he urgeth this argument, that it is a breach of the law. (T. Manton, D. D.)

Sin and its removal

I. Sin is denounced as a transgression of the law. How fitted is such a representation to warn us against it! It teaches us what sin is. The very fact that a law exists to direct our conduct is enough to claim our attention. Do this, and live; in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die: these announcements may be regarded as beacons set up to warn us against shipwreck on the sea of life, or lights to guide us into a safe and peaceful haven. Not only, however, is it a solemn thing to know there is a law to which we are subject, but the responsibility is greatly increased when we remember it is the law of God. He is the lawgiver, and knows what to require, and has authority to enjoin it. It is the transcript of His mind, and to disobey it must be rebellion against Him. In its nature the law is absolutely perfect, being alike worthy of God and adapted to advance the best interests of those who are subject to it. It is holy--distinguishing in all eases between right and wrong, good and evil. It is just--never claiming anything beyond what God is justified to require and man is bound to render. And it is good--securing the highest advantages to all who obey it. It is well for time, and better for eternity. This law it is the purpose of God ever to maintain. No change in man can produce a change in it. It never was and can never be broken without entailing sorrow and suffering on the transgressor. Sin has been the cankerworm at the root of human happiness and prosperity. We must esteem it the enemy of God, the enemy of holiness, justice, and goodness; the enemy of man, of his peace and prosperity; the prolific source of all sorrow, because the transgression of that law which God has established as the directory of man and the safeguard of righteousness.

II. In pursuance of his argument, the apostle declares that the very purpose of Christs mission was to destroy sin.

III. It strengthens these views still further to observe that the apostle represents the believers union with Christ to be productive of the same result (1Jn_3:6).

IV. The distinguishing characteristic of the Christian is declared to be righteousness. He that doeth righteousness. He does it. He has laid the law of God before him, and seeks to walk in conformity to it. (J. Morgan, D. D.)

The nature of sin

Very little consideration may show us the importance of seeing wherein consists the real nature of sin. The empiric who sets himself, in dealing with any disease of the body, merely to counteract its external symptoms, often aggravates the malady with which he ignorantly meddles; and he assuredly runs a far greater risk of working a far wider ruin who attempts in such presumptuous ignorance to deal with the disorders of the soul. Weigh the effects of sin, and you must appreciate something of its deadly character; look what it has wrought in the heavenly world; remember that those natures, framed according to the wise design of the All-Wise and the All-Mighty with the largest capacities for blessedness with which created beings could be gifted, have all those vast capacities filled with anguish, unconceivable, unalleviated, and then see what sin has wrought, and measure as you can in that awful shattering of Gods great work of love what sin is. Or turn to this world, and compare what it was when, as very good, Gods blessing rested upon its rejoicing dawn; and then gather into one heap the sadnesses of this present earth--its darkened imaginations, its toiling, wearied, suffering multitudes--and remember that all these are the work of sin, and see what a poison must be in it. Or look to Calvary, and know that this too is sins work. For, secondly, all this belongs not to some distant world, not to beings of another kind from us, not to devils in hell; but it belongs to us, it touches us, nay, it is in us, in every one of us, ruling in some, struggling in ethers, present in all. What, then, is its nature? Sin is the transgression of the law. But, then, what is the law? It is the manifestation to reasonable creatures by the unapproachable and incomprehensible Lord of so much of the perfection of His own necessary character as can be comprehended by the creature to whom it is revealed, in order that the character of the supreme Lord may be formed and maintained, according to his limited capacity, in the creature also. This connection of the reasonable creatures happiness with the existence of a true harmony between his own spiritual being and the character of God, is a necessary consequence of the inalienable relation between the perfect Creator, from whom we have our being and in whom we subsist, and the reasonable creatures of His hand. First, because only by this harmony of his own will with the will of his Creator can the perfection of the creatures own nature be reached or maintained. And next, because only in the Creator can the creature, created with capacities for knowing, loving, serving, resting on his Creator, ever find complete happiness. By whatever means, then, the supreme Lord reveals Himself to His reasonable creatures, that revelation is to them the law. And as in keeping this law there is for the creature all blessedness, so in the transgression of it there is certain and inevitable misery. For, first, every variation from it is a disturbance, it may be a fatal disturbance, of the intricate and marvellous machinery of his own being, all of which was planned and executed with Divine wisdom for a purpose to which he in his waywardness is running counter. Here, doubtless, we may find the cause and the history of the fall of the apostate angels. Under some temptation of self-will they quitted that order in which Gods loving wisdom had placed them; and violating that, the indwelling grace of God, whereby alone the creature can ever stand upright, was first resisted and then quenched in them, and their nature became incapable of the bliss for which they had been created. And as it was with them, so it must be with every other creature; in choosing that which is at variance with the will of Him who created them, they reject all possible perfectness in their own nature. Again, they lose that which alone can fill with perfect and enduring happiness the reasonable soul created capable of knowing it, the loving revelation to itself of the Lord of all as its abiding portion. For the creature whose will, affections, and spiritual nature are diverse from those of the Almighty, cannot rejoice in Him; the contradiction between them makes it impossible; all the boundless reach of the Creators perfections becomes to such a fallen one the occasion of a more energetic repulsion of his own nature from that, the only true centre and rest of his being. All this leads to some most practical conclusions.

1. First, we have here some light thrown on the awful mystery of eternal death, and of the steps down which the creatures of the God of love are dragged into it. Malignity, hatred, despair, the last and blackest sins into which the smaller pleasurable sins have run, are often, even in this life, a visible anguish to their victim; and the reason of all this, and its end, is taught us as we gaze into the nature of sin. For sin is not a thing, but a certain mode of action by a reasonable creature, and that action affects his own inward constitution; and the misery of eternity is not the mere retribution appointed for something which happened in this life, but is a continuous and most intense course of action into which action here has by necessary steps run on.

2. Secondly, see here the true evil of the least allowed sin. For this, which is the consequence of the deadly nature of sin, must be in every sin; and when we give way to the least sin, we yield ourselves to it, and we cannot know how far it may prevail over us. The mere allowing our earthly hearts to fix with too much delight upon lawful things short of their true Lord--this of itself may destroy us, by being the first step which leads us away from Him as the centre of our being. Still more, one habit of sin, one allowed evil temper, one permitted lust, may be the acting of our soul against God which insures for us the eternal rebellion of a lost spirit in the blackness of despair. Doubtless, as some poisons destroy the life of the body more suddenly than others, so some sins lay waste the soul with a more awful rapidity than others, because they concentrate into themselves a more energetic contradiction of the holiness of the blessed God: but all have the evil nature in them; and one therefore which possesses the soul may, and if it remains, must, shut it out from heaven and blessedness, not because God is a severe exactor of a threatened penalty, but because sin must part the soul which it possesses from Him, who, by the necessity of His own blessed nature, cannot bear iniquity.

3. And again, see here the need we have of crying constantly to God for larger and yet larger gifts of His converting grace.

4. And, lastly, let us learn hence that lesson without which prayer for the gifts of Gods grace is nothing but delusion--the lesson of striving in act against sin. (Bp. S. Wilberforce.)

Sin

A right knowledge of sin lies at the root of all saving Christianity. Without it such doctrines as justification, conversion, sanctification, are words and names which convey no meaning to the mind. The material creation in Genesis began with light, and so also does the spiritual creation.

I. I shall supply some definition of sin. Sin is that vast moral disease which affects the whole human race, of every rank, and class, and name, and nation, and people. A sin, to speak more particularly, consists in doing, saying, thinking, or imagining, anything that is not in perfect conformity with the mind and law of God. The slightest outward or inward departure from absolute mathematical parallelism with Gods revealed will and character constitutes a sin, and at once makes us guilty in Gods sight.

II. Concerning the origin and source of this vast moral disease called sin I must say something. Let us, then, have it fixed down in our minds that the sinfulness of man does not begin from without, but from within. It is a family disease, which we all inherit from our first parents, Adam and Eve, and with which we are born. Of all the foolish things that parents say about their children there is none worse than the common saying, My son has a good heart at the bottom. He is not what he ought to be; but he has fallen into bad hands. Public schools are bad places. The tutors neglect the boys. Yet he has a good heart at the bottom. The truth, unhappily, is diametrically the other way. The first cause of all sin lies in the natural corruption of the boys own heart, and not in the school.

III. Concerning the extent of this vast moral disease of man called sin, let us beware that we make no mistake. The only safe ground is that which is laid for us in Scripture (Gen_6:5; Jer_17:9). Sin is a disease which pervades and runs through every part of our moral constitution and every faculty of our minds. The understanding, the affections, the reasoning powers, the will, are all more or less infected. Even the conscience is so blinded that it cannot be depended on as a sure guide, and is as likely to lead men wrong as right, unless it is enlightened by the Holy Ghost.

IV. Concerning the guilt, vileness, and offensiveness of sin in the sight of God, my words shall be few. The blind man can see no difference between a masterpiece of Titian or Raphael and the Queens Head on a village signboard. The deaf man cannot distinguish between a penny whistle and a cathedral organ. The very animals whose smell is most offensive to us have no idea that they are offensive, and are not offensive to one another. And man, fallen man, I believe, can have no just idea what a vile thing sin is in the sight of that God whose handiwork is absolutely perfect--perfect whether we look through telescope or microscope--perfect in the formation of a mighty planet like Jupiter, with his satellites, keeping time to a second as he rolls round the sun--perfect in the formation of the smallest insect that crawls over a foot of ground. But let us nevertheless settle it firmly in our minds that sin is the abominable thing that God hateth; and that nothing that defiles shall in any wise enter heaven (Jer_44:4; Hab_1:13; Jam_2:10; Eze_18:4; Rom_6:23; Rom_2:16; Mar_9:44; Psa_9:17; Mat_25:46; Rev_21:27).

V. One point only remains to be considered on the subject of sin, which I dare not pass over--its deceitfulness. It is but a little one! God is merciful! God is not extreme to mark what is done amiss! We mean well! One cannot be so particular! Where is the mighty harm? We only do as others! Who is not familiar with this kind of language?

1. A Scriptural view of sin is one of the best antidotes to that vague, dim, misty, hazy kind of theology which is so painfully current in the present age.

2. A Scriptural view of sin is one of the best antidotes to the extravagantly broad and liberal theology which is so much in vogue at the present time.

3. A right view of sin is the best antidote to that sensuous, ceremonial, formal kind of Christianity, which has swept over England like a flood, and carried away so many before it.

4. A right view of sin is one of the best antidotes to the overstrained theories of perfection, of which we hear so much in these times.

5. A Scriptural view of sin will prove an admirable antidote to the low views of personal holiness, which are so painfully prevalent in these last days of the Church. We must return to first principles. We must go back to the old paths. We must sit down humbly in the presence of God, look the whole subject in the face, examine clearly what the Lord Jesus calls sin, and what the Lord Jesus calls doing His will. (Bp. Ryle.)

The lawless nature of sin

What do we mean when we say of others, or of ourselves, that we are sinners? And what is the kind and degree of feeling which ought to accompany this utterance?

I. Sin consists in action, in doing something. Sin, it is said, is the transgression of the law. Everyone, then, who sins acts, or does something; for transgressing is certainly acting. But in saying this, let me not be understood to imply that sinning is limited to mere external actions. In fact, we more properly say that the sin resides in the mind, and consists in the purpose there formed, even when the purpose is manifested in outward action. The outward act does not give character to the internal disposition and purpose; but the internal disposition and purpose give character to the outward act. The outward act is the internal spirit embodied; and in every case of open sin, both the mental purpose and this external embodying are sinful.

II. Sin always implies knowledge--knowledge of the law of which it is a transgression. It is the moral law, which is always made known, first of all, in the conscience. This peculiar faculty gives to every human being, in proportion as his nature is unfolded, the sense of moral obligation, makes him accountable, and capable of such actions as we call right and wrong, worthy of reward or of punishment. The law, in this form, is as old as man. He finds it in himself; and it reveals, in some degree, its binding power wherever man is seen on earth; though it speaks more clearly in proportion as the human faculties are improved, and man becomes more truly human. But since to the generality of men conscience, in the absence of an extraordinary revelation, speaks but feebly, God has more fully proclaimed His law in His Word. On the principle that to whom much is given, of the same will much be required, the possessors of this Word, if they fail to live answerably to it, will involve themselves in deeper and more inexcusable transgression than the heathen.

III. Sin always implies voluntariness, or that the action to which it is ascribed is the free action of its author. We may search indwelling grace of God, whereby alone the creature can ever stand upright, was first resisted and then quenched in them, and their nature became incapable of the bliss for which they had been created. And as it was with them, so it must be with every other creature; in choosing that which is at variance with the will of Him who created them, they reject all possible perfectness in their own nature. Again, they lose that which alone can fill with perfect and enduring happiness the reasonable soul created capable of knowing it, the loving revelation to itself of the Lord of all as its abiding portion. For the creature whose will, affections, and spiritual nature are diverse from those of the Almighty, cannot rejoice in Him; the contradiction between them makes it impossible; all the boundless reach of the Creators perfections becomes to such a fallen one the occasion of a more energetic repulsion of his own nature from that, the only true centre and rest of his being. All this leads to some most practical conclusions.

1. First, we have here some light thrown on the awful mystery of eternal death, and of the steps down which the creatures of the God of love are dragged into it. Malignity, hatred, despair, the last and blackest sins into which the smaller pleasurable sins have run, are often, even in this life, a visible anguish to their victim; and the reason of all this, and its end, is taught us as we gaze into the nature of sin. For sin is not a thing, but a certain mode of action by a reasonable creature, and that action affects his own inward constitution; and the misery of eternity is not the mere retribution appointed for something which happened in this life, but is a continuous and most intense course of action into which action here has by necessary steps run on.

2. Secondly, see here the true evil of the least allowed sin. For this, which is the consequence of the deadly nature of sin, must be in every sin; and when we give way to the least sin, we yield ourselves to it, and we cannot know how far it may prevail over us. The mere allowing our earthly hearts to fix with too much delight upon lawful things short of their true Lord--this of itself may destroy us, by being the first step which leads us away from Him as the centre of our being. Still more, one habit of sin, one allowed evil temper, one permitted lust, may be the acting of our soul against God which insures for us the eternal rebellion of a lost spirit in the blackness of despair. Doubtless, as some poisons destroy the life of the body more suddenly than others, so some sins lay waste the soul with a more awful rapidity than others, because they concentrate into themselves a more energetic contradiction of the holiness of the blessed God: but all have the evil nature in them; and one therefore which possesses the soul may, and if it remains, must, shut it out from heaven and blessedness, not because God is a severe exactor of a threatened penalty, but because sin must part the soul which it possesses from Him, who, by the necessity of His own blessed nature, cannot bear iniquity.

3. And again, see here the need we have of crying constantly to God for larger and yet larger gifts of His converting grace.

4. And, lastly, let us learn hence that lesson without which prayer for the gifts of Gods grace is nothing but delusion--the lesson of striving in act against sin. (Bp. S. Wilberforce.)

Sin

A right knowledge of sin lies at the root of all saving Christianity. Without it such doctrines as justification, conversion, sanctification, are words and names which convey no meaning to the mind. The material creation in Genesis began with light, and so also does the spiritual creation.

I. I shall supply some definition of sin. Sin is that vast moral disease which affects the whole human race, of every rank, and class, and name, and nation, and people. A sin, to speak more particularly, consists in doing, saying, thinking, or imagining, anything that is not in perfect conformity with the mind and law of God. The slightest outward or inward departure from absolute mathematical parallelism with Gods revealed will and character constitutes a sin, and at once makes us guilty in Gods sight.

II. Concerning the origin and source of this vast moral disease called sin I must say something. Let us, then, have it fixed down in our minds that the sinfulness of man does not begin from without, but from within. It is a family disease, which we all inherit from our first parents, Adam and Eve, and with which we are born. Of all the foolish things that parents say about their children there is none worse than the common saying, My son has a good heart at the bottom. He is not what he ought to be; but he has fallen into bad hands. Public schools are bad places. The tutors neglect the boys. Yet he has a good heart at the bottom. The truth, unhappily, is diametrically the other way. The first cause of all sin lies in the natural corruption of the boys own heart, and not in the school.

III. Concerning the extent of this vast moral disease of man called sin, let us beware that we make no mistake. The only safe ground is that which is laid for us in Scripture (Gen_6:5; Jer_17:9). Sin is a disease which pervades and runs through every part of our moral constitution and every faculty of our minds. The understanding, the affections, the reasoning powers, the will, are all more or less infected. Even the conscience is so blinded that it cannot be depended on as a sure guide, and is as likely to lead men wrong as right, unless it is enlightened by the Holy Ghost.

IV. Concerning the guilt, vileness, and offensiveness of sin in the sight of God, my words shall be few. The blind man can see no difference between a masterpiece of Titian or Raphael and the Queens Head on a village signboard. The deaf man cannot distinguish between a penny whistle and a cathedral organ. The very animals whose smell is most offensive to us have no idea that they are offensive, and are not offensive to one another. And man, fallen man, I believe, can have no just idea what a vile thing sin is in the sight of that God whose handiwork is absolutely perfect--perfect whether we look through telescope or microscope--perfect in the formation of a mighty planet like Jupiter, with his satellites, keeping time to a second as he rolls round the sun--perfect in the formation of the smallest insect that crawls over a foot of ground. But let us nevertheless settle it firmly in our minds that sin is the abominable thing that God hateth; and that nothing that defiles shall in any wise enter heaven (Jer_44:4; Hab_1:13; Jam_2:10; Eze_18:4; Rom_6:23; Rom_2:16; Mar_9:44; Psa_9:17; Mat_25:46; Rev_21:27).

V. One point only remains to be considered on the subject of sin, which I dare not pass over--its deceitfulness. It is but a little one! God is merciful! God is not extreme to mark what is done amiss! We mean well! One cannot be so particular! Where is the mighty harm? We only do as others! Who is not familiar with this kind of language?

1. A Scriptural view of sin is one of the best antidotes to that vague, dim, misty, hazy kind of theology which is so painfully current in the present age.

2. A Scriptural view of sin is one of the best antidotes to the extravagantly broad and liberal theology which is so much in vogue at the present time.

3. A right view of sin is the best antidote to that sensuous, ceremonial, formal kind of Christianity, which has swept over England like a flood, and carried away so many before it.

4. A right view of sin is one of the best antidotes to the overstrained theories of perfection, of which we hear so much in these times.

5. A Scriptural view of sin will prove an admirable antidote to the low views of personal holiness, which are so painfully prevalent in these last days of the Church. We must return to first principles. We must go back to the old paths. We must sit down humbly in the presence of God, look the whole subject in the face, examine clearly what the Lord Jesus calls sin, and what the Lord Jesus calls doing His will. (Bp. Ryle.)

The lawless nature of sin

What do we mean when we nay of others, or of ourselves, that we are sinners? And what is the kind and degree of feeling which ought to accompany this utterance?

I. Sin consists in action, in doing something. Sin, it is said, is the transgression of the law. Everyone, then, who sins acts, or does something; for transgressing is certainly acting. But in saying this, let me not be understood to imply that sinning is limited to mere external actions. In fact, we more properly say that the sin resides in the mind, and consists in the purpose there formed, even when the purpose is manifested in outward action. The outward act does not give character to the internal disposition and purpose; but the internal disposition and purpose give character to the outward act. The outward act is the internal spirit embodied; and in every case of open sin, both the mental purpose and this external embodying are sinful.

II. Sin always implies knowledge--knowledge of the law of which it is a transgression. It is the moral law, which is always made known, first of all, in the conscience. This peculiar faculty gives to every human being, in proportion as his nature is unfolded, the sense of moral obligation, makes him accountable, and capable of such actions as we call right and wrong, worthy of reward or of punishment. The law, in this form, is as old as man. He finds it in himself; and it reveals, in some degree, its binding power wherever man is seen on earth; though it speaks more clearly in proportion as the human faculties are improved, and man becomes more truly human. But since to the generality of men conscience, in the absence of an extraordinary revelation, speaks but feebly, God has more fully proclaimed His law in His Word. On the principle that to whom much is given, of the same will much be required, the possessors of this Word, if they fail to live answerably to it, will involve themselves in deeper and more inexcusable transgression than the heathen.

III. Sin always implies voluntariness, or that the action to which it is ascribed is the free action of its author. We may search among the Divine commandments in the Bible as long as we please, we shall not find one addressed to man which it is not in his power to obey, if rightly disposed. Thus falsehood, theft, and all kinds of dishonesty are sins, because everyone who chooses can refrain from these acts. The power of the will extends to everything which man can be said to do. It is a power over the movements of the body, and over the general state and exercises of the mind. It is seen in controlling the thoughts, restraining the imagination, regulating the affections, and subordinating the appetites and the desires. In confining sin to the voluntary actions, we give it then all the scope which it can have in fact, and a very wide scope; for as all our properly human actions are voluntary, they may conceivably all be sinful.

IV. Sin is a wrong act, or, as the text denominates it, a transgression. Holiness is the whole of that moral state, by which a temper of obedience to the Divine law is expressed. Sin is whatever appears in the form of disobedience. It is any and every state of mind and act of the life by which the precepts of the law are contravened or evaded. The object aimed at by the transgressor is not the commission of sin, but simply the gratification of an appetite or desire; sin, in other words, is not his end, but merely a means to his end: while yet in order to gain the end to which some whetted desire points, in order to secure a certain amount of pleasure, he commits the sin, sometimes recklessly, sometimes coolly and deliberately. Any desire of the mind, any freak of caprice or passion, the sensual appetites, the love of fame, the love of power, or the love of accumulation, may thus urge him across the boundary line which separates right from wrong, holiness from sin. Sin is thus, according to the true import of the Greek word in the text, lawlessness. No matter what the sin may be, whether evil-speaking, or dishonesty in business, or intemperance in any of its forms, or any of the legion of sins of which men render themselves guilty, all may be traced directly to that lawlessness, that denial of Divine restraint which is given as the fundamental characteristic of sin in the text. Conclusion:--

(1) From this exhibition of the subject we infer that all sin is personal, by which we mean that it belongs to some personal being who has committed it; and that in the sin of one being no other being whatever can have a share.

(2) Sin cannot be ascribed to the mere nature or mind of man, or to any latent principle of the mind. Everything sinful in man is his own act, or work.

(3) Keeping, then, this in view, we are conducted to the further inference, that sin is a great evil. It is a virulent, positive mischief, consisting in treason against the Divine government, and resistance of the supreme source of all rightful authority. (D. N. Sheldon,, D. D.)

The perpetual obligation of the moral law; the evil of sin and its desert of punishment

I. What we mean by the moral law.

1. The moral law signifies that rule which is given to all mankind to direct their manners or behaviour, considered merely as they are intelligent and social creatures, who have an understanding to know God and themselves, a capacity to judge what is right and wrong, and a will to choose and refuse good and evil.

2. It is found in the Ten Commands; it is found in the Holy Scriptures, scattered up and down through all the writings of the Old and New Testaments, and it may be found out in the plainest and most necessary parts of it, by the sincere and diligent exercise of our own reasoning powers.

II. This moral law is of universal and perpetual obligation to all mankind, even through all nations and all ages.

1. It is a law which arises from the very existence of God and the nature of man; it springs from the very relation of such creatures to their Maker and to one another.

2. This law is so far wrought into the very nature of man as a reasonable creature that an awakened conscience will require obedience to it forever.

3. This law is suited to every state and circumstance of human nature, to every condition of the life of man, and to every dispensation of God; and since it cannot be changed for better law, it must be everlasting.

4. It appears yet further that this law is perpetual, because whatsoever other law God can prescribe or man can be bound to obey, it is built upon the eternal obligation of this moral law.

5. Scripture asserts the perpetuity and everlasting obligation of the moral law (Luk_16:17).

III. The evil nature of sin.

1. It is an affront to the authority and government of a wise and holy God, a God who has sovereign right to make laws for His creatures, and has formed all His commands and prohibitions according to infinite wisdom.

2. Sin carries in the nature of it high ingratitude to God our Creator, and a wicked abuse of that goodness which has bestowed upon us all our natural powers and talents, our limbs, our senses, and all our faculties of soul and body.

3. Sin against the law of God breaks in upon that wise and beautiful order which God has appointed to run through His whole creation (Pro_16:4).

4. As it is the very nature of sin to bring disorder into the creation of God, so its natural consequences are pernicious to the sinful creature!

5. Sin provokes God to anger, as He is the righteous governor of the world; it brings guilt upon the creature, and exposes it to the punishments threatened by the broken law.

IV. The proper demerit of sin, or what is the punishment it deserves.

1. When God made man at first, He designed to continue him in life and happiness so long as man continued innocent and obedient to the law, and thereby maintained his allegiance to God his Maker.

2. By a wilful and presumptuous transgression of the law, man violated his allegiance to God his Maker, and forfeited all good things that his Creator had given him and the hope of all that He had promised.

3. This forfeiture of life, and the blessings of it by sin, is an everlasting forfeiture.

4. There is scarce any actual, i.e., wilful sin, but carries with it some particular aggravations, and these deserve such further positive punishments as the wisdom and justice of God shall see reason to inflict.

Conclusion:

1. Is the law of God in perpetual force and is every transgression of it so heinous an evil?--then let us take a survey how wretched and deplorable is the state of mankind by nature.

2. Is the moral law of such constant obligation, and is death the due recompense of every transgression of it?--then it is necessary for ministers to preach this law, and it is necessary for hearers to learn it.

3. What a holy regard and jealousy has God shown for the honour of His everlasting law, and what a sacred indignation has He manifested against sin, when He sent His own Son to obey this law, and to suffer for our disobedience of it!

4. How glorious is the wisdom and the mercy of the gospel, which does honour to the law in every respect, which prepares an honourable atonement and pardon for guilty rebels who have broken this everlasting law, and provides grace and power to renew our nature according to the demands of it!

5. Happy is the world above, where such natural and such easy obedience is forever paid to this law of God without the least transgression. (Isaac Watts, D. D.)

What sin is

Sin is the transgression of law. It is doing contrary to or without law. The first thing, in ascertaining the real nature of sin, is to get a clear notion of law, What is it? How does it arise? There seems to me but one possible way for us in this nineteenth century to ascertain what is law; and that is, by the observation of the consequences and tendencies of actions. The study of the laws of different peoples can only help us in this thus far--it enables us to see what they found to be useful and good to them, and so gives us a presumptive notion that the same may, in similar circumstances, be good and useful to us. But it is only by observing what are the consequences to which the action actually does tend under our circumstances that we can be sure of its real character in its relation to us. By our own observation alone we can arrive at certainty. But now, what is it that we are to observe in actions, in order to find out Gods law? What is the test by which we may discern what we should and what we should not do? The tendency of an action to promote the highest and most perfect happiness upon the whole is the sure criterion of its being according to the law of God. There is no other which does not resolve itself into this. For, just think a little within yourselves, how can you know that it is the will of God you should act in a certain way, but from the fact that God has so created you and others that, if you do so act, it will promote your highest and truest happiness? There is no mark, no sign put upon actions, distinguishing one from another, that all men can recognise, but this. On the other hand, this test is clear, adequate, and such as every man can appreciate and feel the force of. Whatever tends to promote human happiness upon the whole, and in the long run, must be good and according to the will of God. Whatever tends, ultimately and in the end, to produce suffering, pain, or misery, must be evil and opposed to the Divine will. The only point where the test can seem to fail, is where temporary consequences are mistaken for ultimate results. Self-denial for the sake of doing good to some one, may bring temporary suffering; but the pleasure arising from the contemplation of the good conferred, the vigour and high tone imparted to the mind by the act of self-denial, and the approbation and love secured by it from our fellow creatures, together constitute an amount of happiness which, while immeasurably compensating for the trifling suffering, declare the action to be according to Gods will. And so, too, the test requires that the kind or degree of happiness be taken into the account, in order to ascertain the whole law of God and our complete duty. We find, for example, that whilst some actions bring pleasure through our physical organisation, others bring pleasure through our mental constitution; and that those affecting us through the latter means, induce a more perfect sense of happiness than those affecting us through our physical organisation. And so, again, acts of kindness, love, truthfulness, honour, forgiveness, etc., bring a greater, intenser, more complete degree of happiness than mere culture of intellect; and the suffering or pain brought by neglecting them is, upon the whole, much greater; so that the Divine law requiring these is higher and more imperative than that requiring the intellectual culture. Still, in every case you will see that it is the happiness or pain which determines and makes plain the law or will of God; and it is the relative character or degree of the happiness which determines the relative stringency and imperativeness of the law. But, observe, I do not say that it is the tendency of an action to promote happiness which constitutes it virtuous, and the tendency of an action to promote misery or pain which constitutes it or causes it to be sin; but only that it is the tendency which is to us the test, criterion, or sign by which we know it to be good or bad, virtuous or vicious. But now, if you accept this test, and consider Gods law as requiring whatever tends to promote happiness, you will see that sin includes a much wider range of actions than is generally contemplated. For human happiness is dependent upon physical actions as well as upon moral, and the violation of the laws of our physical and intellectual being is, therefore, quite as much sin as is the violation of the laws of our moral nature. And you have no right to select this law or the other, and say, the transgression of this is sin, whilst the transgression of the other is only an act of imprudence and folly. The same authority which renders the laws relating to morals imperative, renders the laws relating to the intellect and body imperative. The tone of Greek thought and feeling was much higher and truer upon this subject than the mediaeval and later Christian thought and feeling. To the Greeks the body was as sacred as the soul--the senses and intellect as divine as the moral powers. And they were right. They are as essential to mans happiness; they are, at least, in our present mortal condition, the very foundation of all other good--their healthful existence is the condition of all other forms of happiness. Leave the moral powers unguided by the intellect, and they lead into all sorts of errors and follies. Leave the physical powers a prey to disease, and the intellectual and moral powers sooner or later suffer the evil consequences. And you will at once discern for yourselves how this condemns the too common tendency amongst religionists to create artificial sins, that is, to denounce things which they them selves are not disposed to enjoy. No one can lawfully condemn anything which does not tend to diminish human happiness upon the whole; and therefore, however uncongenial an action may be to our own tastes, we have no right to reprove it, unless we can show that it necessarily tends to such diminution. Nay, we must go further than this. The different constitutions and temperaments of individuals are such that, what is perfectly consistent with the purest and most perfect happiness of one man, is altogether inimical to that of another. Each man must, therefore, be left free to follow his own course, and to determine for himself what is the will of God concerning him, excepting when he begins a course which, if universally followed out, would be injurious to mankind at large. From these principles there follow certain practical conclusions. First, we see the law of life allows of many modifications, according to individual circumstances and necessities. Physically, mentally, and morally, men have different requirements, which each one for himself must determine before God. Again, we may see human duty is necessarily a progressive thing, changing and purifying itself with mans advancing culture. Many actions are necessary to happiness in a barbarous state which are altogether inadmissible in a more advanced stage. Civilisation, also, gives rise to many requirements to which the savage is a stranger. There can be no stereotyped law laid down, excepting in very rudimental and fundamental principles, as I said; but the law will always be rising higher, purer, and freer as men advance. (James Cranbrook.)

Sin

I. What is that law whereof sin is the transgression? It is the law of God, even any law of His whereby He lays any duty upon any of the children of men.

1. There is a law engraven upon the hearts of men by nature, which was in force long before the promulgation of the law from Mount Sinai. This is the light of reason, and the dictates of natural conscience concerning those moral principles of good and evil, which have an essential equity in them, and show man his duty to God, to his neighbour, and to himself.

2. There is another law which was given to the Jewish nation by the ministry of Moses (Joh_17:19). By this we are to understand the whole system of Divine precepts concerning ceremonial rites, judicial processes, and moral duties.

3. There is the moral law.

II. Wherein the nature of sin consists. It consists in a want of conformity to the law of God, or a disconformity thereto. The law of God is the rule; whatsoever is over this rule is sin.

1. Sin is no positive being, but a want of due perfection, a defect, an imperfection in the creature; and therefore it is

(1) Not from God, but from the creature itself.

(2) It is not a thing to glory in more than the want of all things.

(3) It is a thing we have reason to be humbled for, and have great need to have removed.

(4) It is not a thing to be desired, but fled from and abhorred as the abominable thing which God hateth.

2. Original sin is truly and properly sin.

3. The first motions of sin, and the risings of that natural corruption in us, before it be completed with the consent of the will to the evil motion, are truly and properly sin.

4. All consent of the heart to and delight in motions towards things forbidden by the law of God are sins, though these never break forth into action, but die where they were born, in the inmost corners of our hearts (Mat_5:28).

5. All omissions of the internal duties we owe to God and our neighbours are sins, as want of love to God or our neighbours.

6. Hence a man sins by undue silence and undue speaking, when the cause of God and truth require it; seeing the law bids us speak in some cases, but never speak what is not good.

7. Hence also a mans sins, when he omits outward duties that are incumbent on him to perform, as well as when he commits sin of whatever kind in his life.

8. The least failure in any duty is sin; and whatever comes not up in perfection to the law is sinful.

III. Wherein the evil of sin lies.

1. In the wrong done to God, and its contrariety.

(1) To His nature, which is altogether holy.

(2) In its contrariety to Gods will and law, which is a sort of a copy of His nature. And God being all good, and the chief good, sin must needs be a sort of infinite evil.

2. In the wrong it doth to ourselves (Pro_8:36).

(1) It leaves a stain and spiritual pollution on the soul, whereby it becomes filthy and vile (Isa_1:15), and shame and Confusion on the sinner himself (Gen_3:7).

(2) It brings on guilt, whereby the sinner is bound over to punishment, according to the state in which he is, until his sin be pardoned. This ariseth from the justice of God and the threatening of His law, which brings on all miseries whatsoever.

1. It is high rebellion against the sovereign Majesty of God, that gives the life of authority to the law.

2. It is an extreme aggravation of this evil, that sin, as it is a disclaiming our homage to God, so it is in true account a yielding subjection to the devil; for sin is in the strictest propriety his work. More particularly, sin strikes at the root of all the Divine attributes.

(1) It is contrary to the unspotted holiness of God, which is the peculiar glory of the Deity.

(2) Sin vilifies the wisdom of God, which prescribed the law to men as the rule of their duty.

(3) Sin is a high contempt and horrid abuse of the Divine goodness, which should have a powerful influence in binding man to his duty.

(4) The sinner disparages the Divine justice, in promising himself peace and safety, notwithstanding the wrath and vengeance that is denounced against him by the Lord.

(5) Sin strikes against the omniscience of God, and at least denies it implicitly. Many who would blush and tremble if they were surprised in their sinful actings by a child or a stranger are not at all afraid of the eye of God, though He narrowly notices all their sins in order to judge them, and will judge them in order to punish them.

(6) Sin bids a defiance to the Divine power. He can with one stroke dispatch the body to the grave, and the soul to the pit of hell, and make men as miserable as they are sinful: and yet sinners as boldly provoke Him as if there were no danger.

Conclusion:

1. If ye would see your sins, look to the law of God. That is the glass wherein we may see our ugly face.

2. See here what presumption it is in men to make that duty which God has not made so, and that sin which God has not made so in religion.

3. Flee to Jesus Christ for the pardon of sin, for His blood and Spirit to remove the same. All the waters of the sea will not wash it out, but that blood alone. And repent and forsake your sin, or it will be your ruin. (T. Boston, D. D.)

The knowledge of sin necessary to repentance

1. The text supposes that there is some law given by the Almighty which sin transgresses. Now, the laws of God are of various kinds, and made known in different ways. The law of God requires certain dispositions and tempers. Now, if a man is not actuated by these dispositions, he is guilty of habitually breaking the Divine law, and therefore is habitually living in a state of sin. The law of God requires you to be heavenly minded, to be meek and kind, and to love your neighbour as yourself; it requires you to be pure and chaste, and to be holy even as Christ is holy: the man, therefore, who does not in the fullest degree possess these dispositions, is living, in the hourly commission of sin, however unconscious he may be of his transgression and guilt.

2. Sin is the transgression of the law. But, their, it is the transgression of a law of which the spirit is to be regarded rather than the letter. In criminal cases the judge will not suffer a penal statute to be strained beyond its literal meaning in order to condemn a prisoner; but the law of God, which requires the highest conceivable purity, both of heart and life, is to be interpreted in the most extensive sense: it forbids not only the sin, but everything connected with it, everything leading to it. It is not necessary, therefore, to the guilt of the criminal, that the particular crime of which he is guilty should be expressly named in Scripture. It is sufficient that the general class of sins under which it may be ranked, be forbidden; or that the disposition from which, in common with many other sinful acts, it proceeds, be contrary to the pure and holy law of God.

3. Again, Sin is the transgression of the law. But it is not necessary to the guilt of such transgression, either that the law should be distinctly known, or the transgressor be conscious that he has committed a sin in breaking it. The law may be broken, and man fall under its condemnation, without knowing or suspecting the consequences of his misconduct. For, in this case, as in that of human laws, it is sufficient that the offender might have known what the law was. How many deceive themselves by, first, so narrowing the bounds of sin as to allow only the grossest acts to be criminal; and then, by deeming themselves guiltless, merely because their consciences are at easel Mans conscience, however, is not the legitimate interpreter of the Divine law. It is the office of conscience, indeed, to accuse and reprove us when we have done wrong: but if conscience fails in its duty; if it be uninformed, or blind, or corrupt; if it becomes, as it too often does, partner in the crime, this will not alter the nature of sin, or the responsibility of man: sin will still be the transgression of the law of God, and not merely the doing of what we may know or feel to be wrong.

4. Sin is the transgression of the law. By keeping this definition in view we shall avoid the error of those who place the guilt of sin solely in the intention with which it is committed. The drunkard, the man of pleasure, the sabbath breaker, will tell you that they did not intend anything sinful; they had no express purpose of disobeying or offending God. In short, all the various classes of sinners mean, according to their own statement, simply their own gratification. But if we gratify ourselves in a way which God has forbidden, we are guilty of sinning against God, whatever be in this respect our wish or intention.

5. Another mistake into which many persons are apt to fall, is that of judging of sin rather by its probable effects than by its intrinsic heinousness as a violation of the law of God. Without doubt, everything which God has forbidden would be injurious to man: yet the principle on which we should abstain from evil is reverence for the authority of God, rather than any view of utility or interest. Besides, were the principle true, that the evil of sin is to be estimated simply by its effects; yet who is to be the judge of those effects?

6. Another mode of judging of sin, equally common, and equally contrary to the Word of God, is that of estimating it by the opinions of the world rather than by Scripture. The chief evil of sin consists in the insult which it offers to the majesty and greatness of Him who is the Creator and Lord of all things. That this law is strict, far too strict for man in his fallen state to fulfil, cannot be denied; but a less holy law would fail of conveying to us adequate ideas of the greatness and holiness of the Being whose transcript it is. Besides, the obligation of man to obey is infinitely strong. For what is the relation in which he stands to God? Is not God the author of his being, the giver of his faculties, the bestower of all his comforts? Is the law to be relaxed to accommodate the weakness and corruption of man? Or, rather, ought not that very weakness and corruption to be exposed and corrected by the purity of the law? (John Venn, M. A.)

What is sin

I. Sin is a missing the mark. It is a failing to arrive at that high purpose which God has prepared for us; and as in the natural world the failure to fulfil the law imposed upon us would lead to the most fearful results, so the terrible results of our aberration are visible in the sorrows and sufferings of our kind.

II. Sin is a deliberate setting ourselves against God. This is clear if we ask what mark it is we miss. The law imposed upon us by God. Now every sin, of whatever kind, partakes of this character.

III. Therefore the least sin is mortal in its character. (J. J. Lias, M. A.)

Sin, the transgression of the law

I. The nature of the divine law.

II. The nature and demerit of sin, which is the transgression of it.

1. Consider against whom it is committed.

2. The humiliations and sufferings appointed, and submitted to, in order to atone for it.

3. The dreadful consequences which still result from it,

4. What would be its consequences, did it universally prevail. (D. Savile.)

The law of God

St. John has set before us the child of God as striving to shape his inner and outer life after the pattern of Gods purity. This is to him a law: he must in each thought and act make himself as like God as he can. He must give himself no freedom of choice. His will must be to do what he knows to be the will of the all-wise, and truthful, and loving God. Over against him St. John puts the man who has no rule of life, who simply pleases himself, obeying the desires of his own flesh and mind, allowing neither God nor man to pass within the edge of the circle he has drawn round himself. All within it is his own, and all of that he will keep to himself; no one has any claim upon it, no one has a right to tell him what to do with it. This is lawlessness, which is indeed a form of selfishness. Nothing can be further from the mind of God. For there is no act of God which is not wrought under the great laws of truth, and justice, and love. Every time we sin, we not only set ourselves against authority, we also deny the truth of Gods witness to some eternal facts. We put ourselves outside of the laws which give order, and firmness, and strength to all the world and to God. St. John goes on to give another reason why all the children of God should be righteous. It was, he says, for the sake of taking away sins, or of making man righteous that God manifested Himself to us. It may not be clear to us why, for this end, so costly a sacrifice must be made. But we know that made it was, and we see from the greatness of it that it could not but be made, and thus learn that to the laws which God lays on His children He submits Himself, and that these laws therefore have not their rise in His mere will, but are themselves eternal. There is in God a must and a must not, which set bounds to Him, even as they set bounds to us. To reach this truth through the manifestation of God in Christ is in itself a large step towards righteousness. It would be well if all Christians quite understood that the great end of God when He manifested Himself in Christ was to bring men to be like Himself, in goodness and happiness, by taking away sins, or, as it is put in the kindred passage (v. 8), by destroying the works of the devil. (C. Watson, D. D.)

What is sin

More literally: Whosoever committeth sin committeth lawlessness; for sin is lawlessness. The Bible does not contain many definitions. It does define sin. Sin is lawlessness. That is, it is the violation or careless disregard of law. There is what we call the criminal class in the community; that is, there are those in the community who either openly set themselves against the laws which the community has made, or who live in careless disregard of those laws. They live as if there were no law. A sinner is to Gods law what a criminal is to social law. That is to say, a sinner is a man who sets himself against the Divine law. He may be a sinner in broadcloth or in fustian, he may be a sinner in a big stone house or in a common lodging house; but if in his life he counts the will of God as though it were not, and lives without regard to it; or if in any part of his life he leaves God out, not considering what God would have him do in that particular part, he is a sinner, for just in so far he is living a lawless life. Men may be divided into three generic classes. There are a few men who have seriously considered that there is a moral order in the universe, God and a law of righteousness that proceed from Him, and who endeavour to conform their life to that law of righteousness. There are also a few men at the other extreme who have said to themselves--practically, if not in words--I am going to get what I can out of life; I am going to live as though there were no future life, no judgment, no God, no law in the world. And between these two bodies of men, one at the one extreme, and the other at the other, is the great mass of men who sometimes think of Gods law and often forget it, who bring it into a part of their life and leave it out of a part of their life. All men, in so far as they live thus, live lawless--that is sinful lives. What shall we say is the generic law of life? It is love. To live regardless of the law of love, or to live any part of ones life regardless of that law of love, is lawlessness. Now, what does this law of love require? What is the law of government--that is, what does love require of government? The Psalmist says, Justice and judgment are the habitation of Gods throne, so justice and judgment should be the habitation of human government: For He shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy. Will any man, looking on the governments of the world, say that that is the ideal according to which governments are organised? There is not a government which is not, in some measure, a lawless government if it be measured by the law of God. What shall we say the law of love requires of the great commercial and industrial world? What does God organise that world for? Love. And if you translate love into terms of political economy, it means the wise and equitable distribution of wealth. Business, according to the law of God, means benevolence. I leave you to judge how far business, as it is carried on today, means benevolence. What is the law of the teaching profession? Truth. What is the teacher for? what the editor? what the preacher? Primarily this: that he may give to listening people truth, absolute truth, uncoloured, unchanged; that he may speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Will any teacher here today say that truth is the atmosphere of the schoolroom? Is there any man who will take a daily paper today and say that the one inspiration and purpose of the editors is to give us the absolute truth, in all its correct proportions--without sensationalism, without misinterpretations? What is the law of society? What has God made society for? This interchange of men and women, what does it mean? What has God made the reception for? what the party for? what the social calling for? Or did not He make it--was it made in the other world? Society has for its purpose the interchange of life. The Divine function of society is the interchange of life and the impartation of life. It is said that Christ went into society; that He went wherever He was invited; but I do not think a great many Christians follow Christs example when they go to parties and receptions. Wherever He went, because His own heart was full of the love of God and of His fellow men, love bubbled out from Him. How do we go? I wonder how many of us have worn mask and domino; how many of us have pretended to be somebody we were not that we might be polite and courteous, and keep our lives to ourselves and not give our true life forth to others. And every social circle, every social interchange that has not for its inspiration love, the ministration to the highest life of manhood and womanhood, is lawless, it is sin. Continue what I have begun; take this law of love and apply it to one phrase of life after the other. Let the lawyer ask himself how much of the law of love there is in the courtroom; and the medical man ask himself how much there is in the practice of his professional life; and the artist ask himself how much there is in the handling of his brush; and the musician ask himself how much there is in the music of his voice and the ministry of his instrument; and the writer ask himself how much there is in the writing of his story; and each individual ask himself how much there is in his individual life: how much he subjects his will to the will of God, in questions of what he shall eat, and what he shall drink, and what he shall read. Go into a great factory full of spindles and wheels and all intricate machinery; all are connected with some great water wheel below; and, when the band is connected, all the wheels begin to revolve and all the spindles to play their music. Now, imagine every wheel and every spindle with a will or purpose of its own, and keep the bands off and let every spindle dance to its own tune, every wheel revolve at its own pleasure--what product would you get from your factory? The world is out of gear with God, that is the trouble; and you and I, if we are lawless, are just in so far out of gear with God, and nothing can make our life right save bringing ourselves back into oneness with God, to will what He wills to do, do what He would have us do. (L. Abbott, D. D.)

Sin and penalty

Infraction of law must be followed by infliction of penalty. This is a principle to which common sense subscribes. It is older than historical Christianity. Before we open the Bible, we learn it from the grand and tranquil regularities of nature. There is a law in the fire; break it, and you will be burned. There is a law in the water; break it, and you will be drowned. There is a law in mechanical force; break it, and you will be crushed. There are laws for souls as well as for bodies; these laws are all wrapped up in one: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, etc. Let the soul break it, and the soul will die. The full penalty does not follow close upon the transgression, but it is inevitable. (C. Stanford, D. D.)

Sins, small and great

As there is the same roundness in a little ball as in a bigger, so the same disobedience in a small sin as in a great. (J. Trapp.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn 3:4-5. The truth asserted in the preceding verse is so important, and the apostle knew so well that carnal men would be prone to flatter themselves that they might be admitted into heaven after they die, without being holy while they live, that he here enlarges on the important subject. Whosoever committeth sin — That is, as the apostle here means, known sin, whether by doing actions which God hath forbidden, or by omitting duties which he hath enjoined, or by uttering words which are false, profane, slanderous, malicious, passionate, or trifling and foolish; or by indulging tempers contrary to those of Christ; transgresseth also the law — The holy, just, and good law of God, and so sets his authority at naught; for sin is the transgression of the law — Which is implied in the very nature of sin. The apostle’s meaning is, That no one should think lightly of his sins, because every sin, even the least, being a violation of the law of God, if not repented of and pardoned, through faith in Christ, will most certainly be punished. And ye know that he, Christ, was manifested — That he came into the world for this very purpose; to take away — The guilt, power, and pollution of our sins — By his atoning sacrifice, and the sanctifying influences of his word and Spirit; and in him is no sin — So that he could not suffer on his own account, but to expiate our sins, and to make us like himself.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. The Way of God’s Children Passes Through God’s Law

1Jn_3:4-10 a

4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law1: for sin2 is the transgression of the law3 5And ye know that he was manifested to take away our4 sins; and in him is no6sin5. Whosoever6 abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever7 sinneth hath not seen him, 7neither known him. Little children8 let no man deceive you9:he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8He that committeth10 sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose11 the Son of God was manifested,9that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever12 is born of God doth not commit sin; for13 his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Connection. The Apostle having traced the glory of the sonship up to the power (which it derives from hope in God) of working out self-purification, annexes 1Jn_3:4 with a more general antithesis which, as usual, contains a progression of the argument. The positive: “Every one that hath this hope purifieth himself;” is contrasted with the negative: “Every one that doeth sin, doeth lawlessness.” He does not negatively resume the notion of the subject (“every one that hath this hope”), but that of the predicate (“purifieth himself”). However, by this annexation of the notion of the predicate he denies also, by implication, that such an one is the child and heir of God, and adds a new point, viz. such an one not only injures himself and his portion but he violates also the law and ordinance of God, at the same time, referring back to the leading thought in 1Jn_2:29, since all doing of sin is repugnant to the righteousness of God revealed in the law (1Jn_3:4) and in Christ (1Jn_3:5-7), and delineates rather the children of the devil (1Jn_3:8-10), than the children of God, who, abiding in Christ, do righteousness and not sin (1Jn_3:6; 1Jn_3:9-10).

The nature of sin. 1Jn_3:4.

1Jn_3:4. Every one that committeth sin, committeth also lawlessness.—“The Apostle is anxious to show that the truth of the thought is unexceptionable.” (Huther.)—The first point to be determined here is the notion ἁμαρτία. Suidas derives ἁμαρτία from μάρπτω to grasp, to seize, consequently=missing the mark (Rom. 21:8, 302, 311, 23, 62); then moral omission. Oecumenius: ἀποτυχεῖν σκοποῦ, ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀπόπτωσις, on the other hand ἀνομία=ἡ περὶ τὸν θετὸν νόμον πλημμέλεια πλὴν–μέλος contrary to the melody, a false note, an error). ̔Αμαρτία, of course, is as much an opposition to the Divine righteousness (ἀδικία), as a departure from the Divine law, a violation of the same (ἀνομία), and this ἡ ἀνομία is here not only a not having the law (as ἄνομος 1Co_9:21 denotes one who has not law), but signifies the refractoriness opposed to the law. Neither ἁμαρτία nor ἀνομία are qualified by anything which would narrow this their meaning, nor may such a qualification be added from the context. Although the Article distinctly takes sin in the sense of an offence [old English: missing. M.] towards God, and ἀνομία as an opposition to the law of God, and removes all indefinite generality, yet no qualification within this ethico-religious sphere is admissible. But we must not attach too much importance to this, since the Article is wanting in 1Jn_3:9 : ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖν and ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν and ἁμαρτάνειν (1Jn_3:4; 1Jn_3:6; 1Jn_3:8-9) are used promiscue, so that we must not attach too much importance to ποιεῖν. To this must be added that καὶ before τὴν ανομίαν conveys the idea that the doing of the ἁμαρτία is as such also as the doing of the ἀνομία.” (Düsterdieck.) “Quishquis committit peccatum, idem committit iniquitatem.” (Erasmus.) Καὶ must neither be taken in a causal sense, nor changed into “yea” (Brückner); but we have to hold with Ebrard that the fuller idea, ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, in the beginning helps to qualify the other terms, ποιεῖν ἁμαρτίαν, and ἁμαρτάνειν, and that the antithesis ἁγνίζειν ἑαυτὸν is also coëfficient, and that the reference, so far from being to sins of haste or infirmity, is rather to sin, though only a single act, yet a voluntary act. Hence the following explanations cannot be received: that ἁμαρτία denotes peccatum mortale (Estius and the Roman Catholics), or “grave, unrepented sins” (Luther, al.), or that ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν is=peccare contumaciter (Aretius), contra conscientiam el impœnitenter (Rosenmüller), or peccato operam dare (Beza), peccare scientem et volentem (Spener), or the actual moral bias of life (Brückner). It is equally inadmissible to assume an intensification of the notion ἁμαρτία into ἀνομία (Baumgarten-Crusius, Bengel), or that ἀνομία includes crimes and vices proper, as if ἁμαρτία were the principle and source of the ἀνομία (de Wette). Paraphrases of ποιεῖν ἀνομιαν, such as Deum offendere (Grotius) and religioni adversari (Carpzov), do incorrectly weaken the idea. The two ideas, although distinguished from each other, are not convertible. We have here the general proposition: “whoever doeth sin, of whatever kind it be, doeth also lawlessness, violates the Divine rule and order,” which is not directed against Antinomians, but against all those who are loose on the subject of sin; the idea of ἀνομία imparts a peculiar severity to that of sin.

And sin is lawlessness.—We must of course take ἁμαρτία here in the same sense, as in the clause immediately preceding, and in the same generality. Hence the first ἁμαρτία is not sinful doings, and the second an offence against God (Köstlin). The Article also forbids our taking ἁμαρτία as the predicate of the subject ἀνομία, as in Joh_1:1. ̔Ο θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (Köstlin). Ἁνομία also is as general here as in the preceding clause. Νόμος denotes not only the Mosaic law of the O. T. but also the law of the N. T. in Christ, and by Him explained in the word and exhibited in the life (1Jn_2:16; 1Jn_2:7; 1Jn_4:21; 1Jn_5:3. cf Mat_5:17-19), as the law written in man’s heart for his special direction; it embraces the whole complex of the divine ἐντολαί. Hence this proposition contains not so much a definition (Sander), as the nature of sin viewed from that side on which its absolute opposition to every Divine fellowship shows itself in the most decided form (Brückner); “the Apostle could not have more sharply drawn the contrast of the nature of a believer who is a τέκνον θεοῦ and will be ὅμοιος θεῷ than by declaring ἁμαρτία to be ἀνομία.” (Huther); or he that leads an ungodly life, abrogates the Divine rule of life to which he is subject as a Christian (Hofmann). Hence Hilgenfeld’s exposition disfigures the thought: “not every one who deviates from the ceremonial laws, but the sinner only falls under the category of ἀνομία.” Calvin also goes far beyond the contents of the verse in affirming the sum and substance of the thought to be that the life of those who yield themselves to sin is hateful and unendurable to God.—The Apostle annexes the sentence with καὶ and not with ὅτι, because he thereby gives the thought a more independent form. We cannot agree with Bengel in explaining καὶ by imo, as if before there had been only conjuncta notio peccati et iniquitatis, but now eadem; the identity is already expressed in the first sentence.—[The following definitions will shed additional light on this passage. Ambrose: “Quid est peccatum nisi prævaricatio legis divinæ, et cœlestium inobedientia præceptorum.”—Augustine: “Peccatum est factum vel dictum vel concupiltum aliquid contra æternem legem.”—“Quid verum est, nisi et Dominum dare præcepta, et animas liberiæ esse voluntatis, et malum naturam non esse, sed esse aversionem a Dei præceptis?”—“Neque negandum est hoc Deum jubere, ita nos in facienda justitia esse debere perfectos, ut nullum habeamus omnino peccatum; nam neque peccatum erit, si quid erit, si non divinitus jubeatur, ut non sit.”—M.]

Aid against sin. 1Jn_3:5-6.

1Jn_3:5. And ye know that He was manifested in order that He might take away our sin.—Appealing to their own consciousness, as at 1Jn_2:12-14; 1Jn_2:20; 1Jn_2:27, the Apostle now refers to the Lord and affirms of Him two things: First: the purpose of His manifestation is the redemption from sin. Ἐκεῖνος denotes Christ, as in 1Jn_3:3. It is wholly untenable to understand here the Gospel (Socinus, Episcopius, Grotius), concerning which it surely cannot be said that it τὰς ἁμαρτίας αἴρει, or that this is its end and aim.—̓Εφανερώθη the context requires us to apply to Christ’s manifestation in the flesh. Cf. 1, 2. It points to Christ’s previously hidden existence in heaven (Huther). The purpose of this manifestation is, ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἄρῃ. The reading ἡμῶν is well authenticated and intensifies the appeal to personal experience, without restricting the forgiveness of sins to those only who “suffer the beneficial purpose of the incarnation of the Son of God to be carried out on them in faith” (Düsterdieck), and to set back the universality of the Divine purpose of salvation (1Jn_2:2.); we would rather say that paracletic element, which after all is the main point here (1Jn_3:3), comes out more strongly; the οἴδατε, at least, does not contain sufficient ground for finding here a specific indication of the doctrinal. Nor is there any necessity for extending ἡμῶν to all men (Spener). “The Plural, τὰς ἁμαρτίας, affords a far more lucid and forcible view than if we had here, as in 1Jn_3:4, τὴν ἁμαρτίαν; John does not take sin in its general character, but he adverts to all the forms of it.” (Düsterdieck). It is wrong to explain it by peccati reatum, dominium, pœnam (J. Lange and others); but it signifies: the sins themselves. The αἴρειν connected here as at Joh_1:29, with ἁμαρτία signifies in John’s writings (Joh_11:48; Joh_15:2; Joh_17:15; Joh_19:31; Joh_19:38) auferre, to carry away, to take away. The ἀμνός, Joh_1:29, the idea of the sacrificial lamb, implies what is expressed at 1Pe_2:24, with reference to Isa_53:4 sqq., by the verb ἀνάφερειν: to take upon oneself by way of atonement, substitution, death and reconciliation, while αἴρειν indicated a taking away by sanctification; Joh_1:29 we have a blending of both meanings, while Peter adverts to one, the first, and John to the other, the second work of Christ, the former to His atonement, the latter to His work of redemption. John, who discusses the former at 1Jn_2:2, dwells here upon the latter, and hence denies neither; nor does he separate the one from the other, as if the first were without this consequence, and the latter without that cause (1Jn_1:7; 1Jn_4:9; 1Jn_4:11; 1Jn_5:6). But the context with its ethical import, that sin must be avoided and shunned, suggests the reference to the fact that Christ came for the purpose of removing sin, of taking it away from us; what Christian would then oppose or frustrate the design of Christ! Hence Oecumenius correctly observes that Christ came ἐπ̓ ἀναιρέσει τῆς ἁμαρτίας (so also Luther, Calvin, Neander, Ebrard, Düsterdieck, Huther, and al.)—Bede’s remark, “Tollit peccata et dimittendo, quæ facta sunt, et adjuvando, ne fiant, et perducendo ad vitam, ubi fieri omnino non possunt,” is perfectly true, but considerably transcends the measure of what is contained in this passage. The same applies to those who combine here said two references, e.g. Spener, Bengel (explains indeed “tolleret,” but refers to his exposition of Joh_1:29 : “primum a mundo in se recepit, deinde a se ipso devolvit peccati sarcinam”), Lücke (in his 1st ed.), Sander, Besser.—Lücke (in the later edition), de Wette and others take αἴρειν=carry; false!

Secondly: He is sinless.

And sin is not in Him.—Καὶ coördinates this clause with the former. Oecumenius errs in his καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ διότι as well as in the paraphrase: καθ̓ ὅτι ἀμέτοχος ἦν ἁμαρτίας. So also Augustine: “In quo non est peccatum, ipse venit auferre peccatum; nam si esset et in illo peccatum, auferendum esset illi, non ipse auferret,” and a Lapide: “Ideο Christus potens fuit tollere peccatum, quia carebat omni peccato, imo potestate peccandi.” So also Sander, Neander and al. Ἐστι also must be retained and is not to be taken in the sense of ἦν Oecumenius, Grotius: “peccatum in eo non erat, nempe, cum vitam mortalem ageret,” and al.); the reference here, as in 1Jn_3:3, is “to the nature of Christ in its eternal consistence” [Huther]. Hence we may not say with Winer (p. 283) that “the sinlessness of Christ is considered as still present in faith.” Ἐν αὐτῷ, the reference of which has always to be determined by the context, denotes Christ understood in ἐκεῖνος, it denotes Christ Himself as to His Person and not (as Calov supposes) totum corpus, the Church, or as if we ought to explain ἐν αὐτῷ by ἐν κοινωνίᾳ μετ̓ αὐτοῦ. Thus the clause “and sin is not in Him” coördinated with that preceding it, is the foundation of the sequel, since the Sinless, Pure and Righteous One is held up not as an example or pattern, but as the vital power and element of life in which the Christian must be and abide.

The immediate consequence.

1Jn_3:6. Every one that abideth in Him sinneth not.—By all means retain the full force of μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ to be and abide in Him, to derive nourishment from Him and His life (1Jn_1:3; 1Jn_1:6; 1Jn_2:5-6; (1Jn_2:23 sq.; 1Jn_2:27 sq.), and do not exchange it for credere in Christum, of weaken it into Christi discipulum esse (Semler and al.); nor is ἁμαρτάνειν to be taken as = persistere in peccato (Luther), sinere regnare peccatum (Hunnius), sceleratum esse (Capellus), peccata mortalia committere (Roman Catholics), and to be thus enforced. The Apostle sets forth “abiding in Christ and sinning as irreconcilable opposites; but he does not mean to say that believing Christians entirely cease to sin or that those, who are yet sinning, are not yet in Christ (1Jn_1:8-10; 1Jn_2:1-2; 1Jn_3:3)” (Huther). “John is here dealing with realities and about to give us the signs whereby we may know whether we love the Lord or not, whether we are the children of God or of the wicked one” (Sander). Hence it is rather hazardous to refer here with de Wette and Düsterdieck to the Apostle’s ideal mode of representation, and a misapprehension of the fact that the Christian, though he sins, is yet free from sin, has actually-parted company with it, and it is his properly Christian and inmost being in decided opposition to it, so that not sin, but his opposition to it (as something alien to his being), determines the conduct of his life, exactly as St. Paul puts it (Rom_7:17): “νυνὶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι αὐτὸ, ἀλλ̓ ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία.” Augustine: “Etsi infirmitate labitur, peccato tamen non consentit, quia potius gemendo luctatur.”—“In quantum in ipso manet, in tantum non peccat.” Besser excellently says: “A Christian does not sin, but suffers it.”

Every one that sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him.—As usual John turns the thought and develops it by an antithesis. The verb ἁμαρτάνειν has the same sense as in the preceding clause; actual sinning in word, or work or in the thought of the heart. Of such an one he says quite generally οὐ χ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτὸν. First of all we have to take οὐδὲ disjunctively (Winer, p. 509 sqq.); and although this does not decide the question which of the two verbs ὁρᾷν and γινώσκειν is the stronger and more important, yet it does indicate that they are different from each other. The pronoun αὐτὸν requires us to think in both verbs of the Person of Christ. Hence the sentence: ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν is not the object of ὁρᾷν, nor is the sentence: ἐφανερώθη ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἅρῃ the object of γινώσκειν, in order to indicate the purpose of the whole redemptive work of Christ (Rickli, Neander).̔Ορᾷν, to see, physically (1Jn_1:1; 1Jn_1:3; 1Jn_4:20; Joh_1:18; Joh_6:36; Joh_6:46; Joh_8:57; Joh_9:37; Joh_15:24), spiritually (3Jn_1:11; Joh_3:11; Joh_3:32; Joh_6:46; Joh_8:38; Joh_14:7; Joh_14:9), and that directly and immediately if used of Christ in heaven, or indirectly and mediately if applied to believers in consequence of their illumination,—denotes consequently in this passage “seeing Christ,” “when we become absolutely conscious of the glory of Christ so that our spiritual eye beholds Him as He is in the totality of His Essence” (Huther); γινώσκειν means to know as the result of searching contemplation of His word, His life, the history of His kingdom, or of one’s own experience in the life around us, or within ourselves, and indicates here “the right understanding of Him,” brought about by said instrumentality, “so that we have become fully conscious both of His Nature and of His relation to us” (Huther). This intimates already that in the case of the former, viz. spiritual intuition and contemplation, the efficient agency belongs more to the object which represents itself before the eye of the spirit, and that in the case of the latter, viz. knowledge acquired by reflection in the way of reasoning and inquiry, the efficient agency belongs more to the subject, which makes it the object of contemplation (Sander, Huther). Hence it follows that ἑώρακεν is not something less, and οὐδὲ=“much less” (Sander, Lücke 1st ed. al.), nor something more than ἔγνωκεν and οὐδὲ=“and not even” (Socinus, Neander and al.); there is no reference whatever to a difference in degree. Although despite all their difference the two have something in common, we cannot, because of this latter circumstance, overlook or underrate the former [the difference] and say with Düsterdieck that the two notions are essentially equal and that ἔγνωκεν is simply added in order to indicate the spiritual import of ἑώρακεν. Of course it is impossible to interpret (with Lücke) ὁρᾷν of outward knowledge in spite of which one may sin, and γινώσκειν of real, spiritual knowledge. This connection is analogous to that of πιστεύειν and γινώσκειν (1Jn_4:16; Joh_6:69), so that ὁρᾷν and πιστεύειν might be combined yet so as to keep up the difference of πιστεύειν=ὁρᾷν from γινώσκειν. The force of these notions is very shallow in the explanation of Grotius: “Neque de Christo sic cogitat, ut oportet, neque facto ostendit, se scire, quanti sit habenda Christi voluntas.”—The Perfects, ἑώρακεν, ἔγυωκεν are to be preserved; they point to the past when the beginning of seeing and knowing took place, yet so that that which had its beginning in the past still acts and continues in the present, which is especially noticed by Erasmus (cognitum habet), Lücke, Brückner, Düsterdieck and Huther. It is wholly unwarranted to take the Perfect in the sense of the Present (Didymus: “non videt eum;” Augustine: “non credit;” Bede, Grotius, Estius, who construes the Perfect as a Hebraism for the Present). John’s idea therefore is this: Every one that sinneth, and that while he is sinning, is one in whom seeing and knowing Christ is a fact of the past, but without continuing to act and to last to the present. Hence Bengel says not amiss: “In ipso peccati momento talis fit, ac si eum nullo viderit modo.”—Instructive is the reference to 1Jn_2:19 (J. Lange, Sander) and the comparison with Mat_7:23 : οὐδέποτε ἔγυων ὑμᾶς (i.e. as mine). The reference is, as the ancients rightly observe, to an efficax scientia (Dydimus), an affectiva et dilectiva (Estius), although Lyra goes as much beyond the mark with his fides formata caritate, as Ebrard with his loving knowledge, or S. G. Lange with his γινώσκειν=amare. [Ignatius, the disciple of John, says: “No one who professeth faith, sinneth; and no one who hath love, hateth. They, who profess themselves Christians, will be manifested by what they do.” (Ignatius, ad Eph.; also Jerome in Jovin. 1Jn_2:1, and contra Pelagianos I. 3).—M.]

The issue 1Jn_3:7-9.

1Jn_3:7. Little children, let no one seduce you.—This impressive address, (unchanged whether we read παιδία or τεκνία) introduces an admonition in respect of the clearly-perceived and ruin-fraught danger, unless they avail themselves of the aid provided in their glorious Lord and Saviour. The Apostle speaks of ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν, 1Jn_1:8. Here, however, he adverts not to self-deception, but refers “in matters affecting the energizing and outwardly operative exhibition of the Divine life” (Düsterdieck), to deception and seductions coming from without, not springing from relations and events, but from men (μηδεὶς), who are more dangerous by far than relations or events. But there is no reason why we should think here of distinct forms of error, say e.g. those of the antinomian Gnostics (Düsterdieck, Huther). [On the other hand Ebrard and Wordsworth see here an unmistakable reference to the Gnostics. The latter observes: “that these verses cannot he understood without reference to their tenets and practices,” and then mentions the followers of Simon Magus, who said that they could please God without righteousness, and that whatever might be the case with others, who had not their spiritual gnosis, they themselves had no need to work righteousness, but that they would be saved by grace, whatever their works might be. “Liberos agere quæ velint; secundum enim ipsius (Simonis) gratiam salvari homines, sed non secundum operas jusias.” Irenæus I. 20 ed. Grabe. Hippolytus, Philosoph. p. 175; Theodoret, Haer fab. i. 1, who testifies that on the presumption of the indefectibility of special grace within themselves, they fell into all kinds of lasciviousness.”—M.].—This admonition is in point of form like 1Ti_4:12; Tit_2:15, in point of sense like μὴ πλανᾶσθε, 1Co_6:9; 1Co_6:15-20; Luk_21:8. But that form at the same time exhibits a more lively sense of danger.

He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.—On δικαιοσύνην ποιεῖν and δίκαιος, see notes on 1Jn_2:29. The Apostle does not say here πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν, but only ὁ ποιῶν; the idea of unexceptional universality makes room for the importance of the fact. Instead of the predicate ἑώρακε αὐτὸν καὶ ἔγνωκεν αὐτὸν (1Jn_3:6), or μένει ἐν αὐτῷ (1Jn_3:5), or ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται (1Jn_2:29), there follows, as usual with the addition of a new particular, the consequence thereof, viz.: δίκαιός ἐστιν, either with reference to ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα (1Jn_3:2) or in order to denote the corresponding attitude towards the law. It is evident that the predicate is not acquired after that which is affirmed in the subject-sentence has taken place; the predicate is immanent in the subject, the nature of the righteous appears from his doing righteousness, it is already in its existence and does not only become so, as held by the Roman Catholics (Lyra, Emser, Estius, al.), and the Socinians, Arminians and Rationalists (Socinus, Grotius, al.) against the Protestants (Luther, Calvin). “He that doeth not righteousness, proves thereby that he is not righteous” (Huther). [Compare the words of Ignatius in the last note on 1Jn_3:6. M.] The additional clause refers to the righteousness of Christ, as manifesting the righteousness of God and standing out as a bright pattern. The Apostle once more uses ἐκεῖνος, although the previous αὐτὸς designated Christ, so that he might have put αὐτὸς without giving rise to misunderstanding, and thus have absolutely removed any and every want of clearness, that αὐτὸς in 1Jn_2:29 had reference to Christ. By Him the Christian should ever measure and adjust himself. Baumgarten-Crusius’s explanation is altogether irrelevant; viz.: “he that is good, follows the example of Christ,” or “he only that hath been righteous through Christ, doeth righteousness.” [Huther justly observes, that as there is no reference whatever to justification in this passage, a Lapide’s assertion, that the thought of this verse contradicts the Protestant Dogma of justification by faith, is altogether futile. The explanation of Lorinus also, that “ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is =qui habet in se justitiam, i.e. opus gratiæ, videlicet virtutem infusam,” is manifestly false.—M.].

1Jn_3:8. He that committeth sin, is of the devil.—This is the progressive antithesis. On ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν compare note on 1Jn_3:4. It is “the more significant and precise” expression for ἁμαρτάνειν 1Jn_3:6 (Düsterdieck). Of such an one John does not say: ἄδικός ἐστι but ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν and thus states the final cause of the thought. The phrase ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου εἶναι must be interpreted after the analogy of ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι (cf. on 1Jn_2:16), and this is the more incumbent upon us because 1Jn_3:10 specifies τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ and τά τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, and the paternal name is actually given to Satan at Joh_8:44. Still there is wanting an analogy to γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. on 1Jn_2:29) both for the adherents of the devil and the κόσμος, although we have ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἶναι at 1Jn_2:16 and οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου at Luk_16:8. Hence, although ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου εἶναι contains no reference to a regeneration from beneath,—as if the devil had created the sinner, into whom he has only infused evil (Russmeyer), so that the Apostle adverts simply to corruptio and not to generatio (Bengel), and that consequently the phrase must be construed ethically and not physically (so that we cannot say τέκνον τοῦ διαβόλου in the same sense and with the same right as we say τέκνον θέου, see note on 1Jn_3:10 a),—yet are we obliged to think of an origin from the devil and of a sameness in kind and an intimate union with the devil as well as of an inheritance of woe in hell to be meted out to the devil and his adherents, and to reject the volatilization of the idea by perversion into a mere belonging to (de Wette), following (Semler), resembling and spiritual affinity with the devil (Grotius, Socinus, al.). Nor does the analogy warrant the assertion that it is not at all necessary to assume John to believe the existence of the devil, that this is only a mode of representation current among heretical Jewish Christians (Semler), or a Jewish formula of teaching without all dogmatical importance, or used only for the purpose of intensifying the idea of sin as hostility to God (Baumgarten-Crusius). See no. 4 below in “Doctrinal and Ethical.”

Because the devil sinneth from the beginning.—The connection by ὅτι specifies the reason of the sentence, “He that doeth sin is of the devil;” hence the reference is to man’s sinning and his relation to the devil. For this reason ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς emphatically put first, is to be interpreted of the beginning of man’s sinning, like Joh_8:44, and the Apostle declares that from that beginning the devil has been showing himself as the sinner [the sinning one], he is not only a sinner in himself, but he did also bring about the first sin of man as a seducer, and not the first sin only, but he does bring about every sin even until now (the Present ἁμαρτάνει); sinning is his work from the beginning. Bengel: “Omnium peccatorum causa est; nunquam satiatur.” Hence there is no reference here to the beginning of the devil’s existence from the creation of the world (Bede; for that would contradict Joh_8:44, οὐκ ἔστηκεν), or to the beginning of the creation of the earth and the solar system (Estius), or to the beginning of the res humanæ (Semler), or to the beginning of the devil’s fall (Calvin, Calov, Bengel: “Ex quo diabolus est diabolus; minime diu tenuisse videtur tatum primitivum,” Neander, Sander and others.). Nor may we interpret ἁμαρτάνει like Bengel: “Peccat et ad peccandum inducit,” but rather compare Rom_7:17. The influxus, suggestio, inspiratio, directio, coöperatio of the devil (Calov) lie not in the verb ἁμαρτάνει, but in the whole context: because the devil has sinned from the beginning and goes on sinning, every one that is sinning is of the devil; for the real connection of the person sinning with the devil or of the devil with the person sinning, is here evidently presumed, yet so that the first proposition describes the state of the sinner as essentially belonging to the sphere of the devil’s life and kingdom, while the second proposition, connected with the former by ὅτι, marks the continuing activity of the devil, so that the latter is the cause of the former.

For this was the Son of God manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil.—Bengel: “Diabolus peccandi finem non facit; peccatum solvere filii dei opus est.” Without using a conjunction the Apostle rapidly and in terse language specifies with sharpness and distinctness of outline the antithesis: διάβολος—υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ; ἐκεῖνος would have been too weak and inadequate here, and contrasts the hidden seduction of Satan with the manifestation (ἐφανερώθη) of the Son of God for the destruction of the works of the devil (Joh_12:31; Joh_16:11; Mat_12:29; Luk_10:18). He is not only δίκαιος (1Jn_3:7) but He also destroys sins (λύσῃ). This is the end of His coming, as in 1Jn_3:5 : αἵρειν τὰς ἁμαρτίας is parallel to λυειν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου. The last expression consequently denotes sins and, with reference to διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει, as the works of the devil who committeth them. Hence the reference is here to the ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου, sins, not to the wages of sin—affliction, death, condemnation (Calov, Spener). For these are rather the works of God who is righteous and decrees the penalty, and only by way of consequence the object of the redemptive work of Christ, but not the object of λύειν. This verb signifies the destruction of a building (Joh_2:19; 2Pe_3:10-12), or of a ship (Act_27:41) and also the loosing of chains (Act_22:30). Bengel: (“Opera confortissima quæ solvere res digna erat filio Dei”), Spener, Besser and others retain the sense of “loosening, untying’ as if sins were the cords or bands of Satan; but this is manifestly a departure from the plain sense of the words and although useful for practical purposes, a rather artificial interpretation. Since nothing is said here of the three offices of Christ concurring in this work, or how that concurrence is to take place, the text neither authorizes us to assume that the officium sacerdotale and the officium regium without the officium propheticum will be engaged in the destruction of the works of the devil and to think only of the passion of our Lord, nor to infer anything for or against that sentence from “Etiamsi Adam non peccasset, Christus incarnatus esset.” Besides, John adverts only, as he had written (ἐφανερώθη—λύσῃ.) “to what Christ did purpose and achieve by His manifestation in the flesh” (Düsterdieck), without intending to describe or even to deny the continuous victory of Christ; he refers to that 1Jn_1:7; 1Jn_2:1-2; 1Jn_2:13-14; 1Jn_4:4; 1Jn_4:14; 1Jn_5:5, but not primarily here. [Ignatius, the disciple of John, uses λύειν in the sense of the text, viz., the destruction of evil, ad Eph_1:3; Eph_1:19, λύεται ὄλεθρος, ἐλύετο πᾶσα μάγεια.—M.].

1Jn_3:9. Every one that is born of God, doth not commit sin, because his seed abideth in him.—This is the antithesis of 1Jn_3:8 a, and ὅτι here like there denotes the reason why; the structure of the sentences too is alike, with the sole difference that by the usual inversion the subjects and predicates have changed places. Ὀ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ opp.: ἐκ διαβόλου ἐστιν,—ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ opp.: ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν,—ὅτι ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει opp.: ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει. Thus John contrasts sinning in its extreme and inmost nature with the children of God in the possession of their highest and most glorious gift and an attitude conformable thereto. Πᾶς denotes the general character of the sense. We know from 1Jn_2:29; 1Jn_3:6, that being born of God, doing righteousness or not sinning belong together and that the former is incompatible with the commission of sin. Cf. 1Jn_1:5. Hence ἁμαρτίαν stands emphatically in ante position; the Apostle regards sin as devilish, and righteousness as divine; and hence righteousness and sin are as absolutely and diametrically opposed to each other as are God and the devil. The clause annexed by ὅτι specifies the reason why one born of God does not commit sin, and being parallel to the similar clause in 1Jn_3:8, sheds a light on the latter in confirmation of the interpretation given here. The reference of σπέρμα αὐτον͂ to θεοῦ is obvious. The seed of God necessarily denotes something that proceeds from God, is instinct with vital power and full of life, develops itself, blossoms and bears fruit, and begets the Divine. We cannot see here a reference to the word of God (with Clement of Alex., Augustine, Bede, Luther, Calov, Spener, Bengel, Besser, Socinus, Grotius and others), notwithstanding Mat_13:3 sqq.; Jam_1:18; 1Pe_1:23; cf. 1Co_4:15; Gal_4:19, because that simile from the vegetable kingdom does not answer to the reference to begetting and birth, and because the Word of God or the Gospel in other passages is mentioned only as the instrument of begetting, as a carrier and conductor of the Divine σπέρμα, but not the σπέρμα itself. [Alford, who takes the view impugned here, says: “But whether we regard the generation of plants, or animal procreation, which latter is more in question here, what words can more accurately describe the office of the seed, than these? And what is the word of God but the continually abiding and working seed of the new life in the child of God? Nay, it seems to be that exactly of which we are in search: not the Holy Spirit, the personal agent; not the power of the new life, the thing begotten; but just that which intervenes between the two, the word, the utterance of God,—dropt into the soul of man, taking it up by Divine power into itself, and developing the new life continually. This is in the most precise and satisfactory sense the σπέρμα τοῦ θεοῦ; and in this all Scripture symbolism is agreed: cf. 1Pe_1:23; Jam_1:18. In fact, the very passage which is the key to this, is Joh_5:38, τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν. Nor should any exception have been taken by Huther and Düsterdieck to the comparison with the parable of the sower (“wie viele ältere Ausleger mit ungeschickter Vergleichung von Mat_13:3 sqq.” Düsterdieck), for though the attendant circumstances of generation are different, the analogy is the same.”—M.] It follows from this that the reference is to the Spirit of God, even the Holy Spirit, who communicates Himself in and of His own. Hence σπέρμα must not be applied to His whole Person but as the πνεῦμα radiating from Him which is at once He Himself and His gift, a gift from Him and of His Nature. This construction is rendered imperative by ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ in the final and substantiating clause of this verse which runs parallel to σπέρμα. Just as one who is born of God is not on that account God and has not like Christ the fulness of God bodily indwelling, so σπέρμα is not the full Person of the Spirit of God, of the Holy Spirit, but something that comes forth from His Being, which, while it cannot be separated from Him, must be distinguished from Him. Therefore we have to say with the Greek expositors that σπέρμα is πνεῦμα υἱοθέσιας, τὸ πνευματικὸν χάρισμα, the Spiritus Sanctus et ejus virtus (Calvin, Beza, Düsterdieck), nativitas spiritualis (Estius), vires regenerations (S. Schmidt), Divine life-powers (de Wette, Neander), the πνεῦμα begotten of the Holy Spirit (Sander), the germ of the new life, of the new man, Christ implanted in us (Ebrard, Lücke, Huther). But it is not σπέρμα as analogous to זֶרַע =τέκνον (Bengel: “semen dei i.e. qui natus est ex deo”), or “semen quasi divinum” (Semler), the formative principle of the good (Paulus), or religion (Fritzsche).—It is important to recollect that while μένει is used of σπέρμα, μένει is also said of the believer (1Jn_3:6), and that he is bidden notwithstanding: μένετε=(1Jn_2:28). On this account, and because the reference is not to a full ear of grain gathered in the barn, but to σπέρμα cast into the earth destined to grow under the influence of all kinds of weather, we need not suppose, that therefore it must abide and could neither be lost again nor perish. Nothing is said on this point, it is neither affirmed nor denied, and therefore we are not warranted to introduce or assume it here; the subject in question is simply and solely that in the σπέρμα and its abiding in conformity with its nature, the child of God receives the power of not committing sin. Although we cannot explain ὅτι by ἐφ̓ ὅσον as if it wepe=quantum, quamdiu, quatenus, it is involved in the thought (The Greek, R. Catholic and Evangelical commentators).

And he cannot sin, because he is born of God.—Now the Apostle adds the most important particular, viz., his inability of sinning on the ground of his having been born of God, with which St. John began, as he now concludes this section. With reference to the seed of God abiding in the child of God, he now asserts the absolute contrariety of a child of God and sinning in the words: οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν. Non potest peccare is at all events much stronger and more than potest non peccare; it declares not the possibility of not sinning, but the impossibility of sinning. A servant of sin has become a servant of righteousness (Rom_6:16-23); in virtue of the seed of God abiding in him he only wills and only can do the Divine, righteousness (Düsterdieck and most expositors); hence ἁμαρτάνειν must neither be intensified into “committing mortal sins” (the Romanists), to sin diabolically (Besser), to sin deliberately and intentionally (Ebrard), nor be limited to hating the brethren (Augustine, Bede), nor must οὐ δύναται be weakened into ægre, difficulter est (Grotius, “res aliena est ab ejus ingenio;” Paulus, “his whole spiritual nature and Habit resist it”). Nor must it be changed into οὐ βούλεται (the Greek commentators) or non debet. Nor is this declaration of the Apostle only a goal and standard far above the reality of the Christian life on earth, only of relative importance and without reality. Bengel: “Res se habet, ut in abstemio, qui non potest vinum bibere, et in variis antipathiæ generibus.” On the substantiating clause Bengel strikingly observes: “priora verba ex deo majorem habent in pronunciando accentum; quod ubi observatur, patet, non idem per idem probari, collato initio versus.” Because he is born of God, he that is born of God cannot sin; the child of God cannot sin, because it is the child of God. Very pertinent also is the note of Luther: “In summa nos Christiani nascimur, nec fuco quodam aut specie, sed ipsa natura sumus Christiani, quare non est possibile ut peccemus.” [Wordsworth: “He that hath been born of God, and liveth as a son of God cannot be a sinner. It is inconsistent with the essential condition of his spiritual birth, by which he is dead to sin. It is contrary to the nature which he has as a child of God. This is well expressed by Didymus here, who says, “St. John does not assert that the man who has been born of God will never commit sin; but he asserts that he does not work sin.—Non scriptum est non peccabit, sed non peccatum facit, non idem est peccare et peccatum facere; a child of two days old, by reason of his natural childhood, cannot sin, but a child of God cannot be a sinner.” This distinction he draws from the difference between the Present Infinite and the Aorist Infinitive; see Winer § 44, p. 346, 348, 349, who quotes from Stallbaum, Plat. Euthyd., p. 1John 140: “Aoristus (Infin.) quia nullam facit significationem perpetuitatis et continuationis, prouti vel initium vel progressus vel finis actionis verbo expressæ spectatur, ita solet usurpari, ut dicatur vel de eo, quod statim et e vestigio fit ideoque etiam certo futurum est, vel de re semel tantum eveniente, quæ diurnitatis et perpeluitatis cogitationem aut non fert aut certe non requirit, vel denique de re brevi et uno veluti temporis ictu peracta.” Thus e.g. πιστεῦσαι is to make a profession of faith, or an act of faith, at a particular time; but πιστεύειν is to believe, to be a believer; δουλεῦσαι is to do an act of service, δουλεύειν, to be a slave; οὐδεὶς οἰκέτης δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δούλεύειν, no servant can be a slave to two masters; so ἁμαρτεῖν is to commit a sin, but ἁμαρτάνειν is much more than this, it is to be a sinner.”

Ignatius, ad. Eph. 8 says: “Let no one deceive you. They who are carnal cannot do the things which are spiritual; nor can they who are spiritual do the things which are carnal. Faith cannot do the works of unbelief, nor can unbelief do the works of faith. The works which ye do in the flesh are spiritual, because ye work all your works in Jesus Christ.”—M.].

Conclusion. 1Jn_3:10 a.

1Jn_3:10 a. In this are manifest the children of God and the children of the devil. —Ἐν τούτῳ refers back to the preceding. Cf. on 1Jn_2:3. The point under notice is ἐκ τοῦ δεοῦ and ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου εἶναι. This is apparent in the doing of righteousness or in the working of sin, the sinner entangling himself in sin, as a child of the devil, while the believer, as being born of God, resists it. Being a child of God or a child of the devil is hidden and manifest in doing. Hence this clause must not be referred to the sequel (Grotius, Spener, Ebrard and others) as there is not the least occasion for it; de Wette, Sander, and others leave this point undetermined. It is not said here to whom τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ and, τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου φανερά ἐστιν but 1Jn_3:1 (κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς) renders it certain that it is not manifest to the world but only to the Christian. That difference is only manifest in the light of the divine κρίσις, the uncritical world blends together and confounds good and evil, God and the devil (Lücke, Sander). “To the children of the devil their own moral nature remains a mystery until they accept the judgment of the Holy Spirit and through the divine seed are born of God and become the children of God.” Cf. Mat_7:16-21; Luk_6:43-46.—The phrase τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου occurs only here in the New Testament although we encounter the following variations: υἱὸς διαβόλου said of Elymas Bar-Jesus, Act_13:10; ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας said of Judas, Joh_17:12; and υἱοὶ τῆς ἀπειθείας and τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, Eph_2:3, instead of which τέκνον τοῦ διαβόλου might have been used, if that expression had not been studiously avoided in order to prevent the misunderstanding that we might as well speak of a birth (out) of the devil as of a birth (out) of God (see notes on 1Jn_3:8) and in order not to give nourishment to the dualistic notion that their conversion or regeneration is impossible, to intimate, on the contrary, that it is more probable to see a child of the devil become a child of God than a child of God become a child of the devil. But it cannot be inferred from these different expressions that the terms τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ and τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου denote the two extremes between which other men are found. This antithesis embraces rather the totality of mankind just as ἁμαρτάνειν and οὐχ ἁμαρτάνειν comprise the whole attitude of men. Socinus is surely right: “Ex apostoli verbis satis aperte colligi potest, quod inter filios dei et filios diaboli nulli sint homines medii.”

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The nature of sin. The word ἁμαρτία while indicating aberration from the right way, the right goal, the straight direction and order does not tell us wherefrom said aberration takes place. On this account the word ἀνομία is added. It is evident that sin is in direct antagonism to the νόμος, the divine ordinance. Hofmann pertinently compares 2Th_2:7 (Schriftbeweis I., 487). The first thing is that sin contradicts the divine ordinance. The extent of ἀνομία is also that of ἁμαρτία; whatever does not accord with the divine ordinance of life, be it little or small or as it please, is ἁμαρτῖα, which is always to be regarded primarily as an injury done to God who has appointed the νόμος. Hence the notion of guilt adheres at all events to the notion of sin, although the sinner be not conscious of it at the time or soon after the act; the sense of guilt is sure to come sooner or later, but invariably with the knowledge of sin, even as David expresses it: “Against thee only, have I sinned” (Psa_51:4) and St. Paul ὑπόδικος τῷ θεῷ (Rom_3:19). The injury done to one’s own soul which lies at the bottom of ἁγνίζειν ἑαυτὸν, and is declared in τηρεῖ αὐτὸν as contrasted (ἀλλὰ) with ἁμαρτάνειν is likewise the reason why the sinner is outside of fellowship with Christ who is life, gives life and takes away sin.

[Pearson (p. 539) says: “The law of God is the rule of the actions of men, and any aberration from that rule is sin: the law of God is pure and whatsoever is contrary to the law is impure. Whatsoever therefore is done by man, or is in man, having any contrariety or opposition to the law of God, is sin. Every action, every word, every thought, against the law, is a sin of omission, as it is terminated to an object dissonant from, and contrary to, the prohibition of the law, as a negative precept. Every omission of a duty required of us is a sin, as being contrary to the commanding part of the law, or an affirmative precept. Every evil habit contracted in the soul of man by the actions committed against the law of God, is a sin constituting a man truly a sinner, even then, when he actually sinneth not. Any corruption and inclination in the soul, to do that which God forbiddeth, and to omit that which God commandeth, howsoever such corruption and evil inclination came into the soul, whether by an act of his own will, or by the act of the will of another, is a sin, as being something dissonant from, and repugnant to the law of God. And this I conceive sufficient to declare the nature of sin.”—M.].

2. The nature of righteousness, as the opposite of sin, is therefore a conduct consonant with the νόμος, a doing regulated by the divine ordinances of life, from the work of our hands to the act of thinking and the power of the will.

3. The corruption of sin is manifest in that it entangles men in a relation to Satan which at once defines his attitude and shows itself in it. It comes from Satan and is the act of Satan, so that living in sin and the working of sin are evidences of the sinner’s dependence on the devil, his appurtenance and similarity of nature to the devil. Although man’s sin is the sin of the seduced, in virtue of such seduction he is yet as much doomed to the power of the kingdom of the Evil One as he is guilty before God; and he that ought and might have become a child of God, has become a child of the devil. As surely as fellowship with God and righteousness are gained in Christ, so surely does sin evidence fellowship with the devil.

4. Satan is a person, opposed to God, the opposite of God and not only of Christ, who came to take away sin and to destroy the works of the devil. Strauss (Dogmatik II. 15) justly observes: “The whole idea of Messiah and His kingdom is as impossible without its counterpart of a kingdom of demons with a personal head, as the north pole of a magnet without the south pole. If Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, there was no necessity for His coming if there was no devil; if there is a devil, but only as the personification of the principle of evil—well, then we ought also to be satisfied with a Christ as an impersonal idea.” Besides to deny the existence and personality of the devil is to give up the personality of God Himself. God would be the Absolute and not the absolute Personality, if in this Johannean complex of ideas we are permitted to understand Satan to be only a principle, though it be the cosmical.—But there are here no data whatsoever for a dualistic conception. Two things are certain; First: the devil’s opposition to God cannot be so construed as to give the devil the character of the contestant counter-god from all eternity and to divest him of the attributes of the creature; the text contains no warranty for either; the purpose of Christ’s manifestation and the circumstance that this purpose must be supposed to be fully accomplished and accomplishing in all essential points, warrant us rather to conclude that said true assumptions, as a perfectly dualistic opposition of the devil and God, are incompatible with the fundamental views of the Apostle. Secondly: it cannot be inferred from this passage that men are naturally and essentially devilish. For John plainly declares that not the devil’s nature (to which he does not make the faintest allusion), but the devil’s work shows itself in the sins of men and that Christ came not to destroy the nature of the devil but to destroy the works of the devil. Nor must it be overlooked that, as contrasted with the terms γεγεννημένος ἐν τοῦ θεοῦ, σπέρμα θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐκ θεοῦ εἶναι, ἐκ αὐτῷ μένων, τέκνον θεοῦ, the Apostle is very sparing in his reference to the devil and does not go beyond saying ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου εἶναι and τέκνον τοῦ διαβόλου, opposing the latter term, as it were by constraint, to the phrase “child of God,” so that Augustine justly refers to an imitari diabolum, observing: “Omnes peccatores ex diabolo nati sunt, in quantum peccatores. Adam a deo factus est. sed quando consensit diabolo, ex diabolo natus est, et tales omnes genuit qualis erat.” There is not the faintest intimation for the supposition that man does not sin of his own will, not voluntaria but naturaliter, and that the sin which he commits is not his fault, but solely the devil’s fault; the contrary is evident from the exhortation in 1Jn_3:7 and the paracletical tendency which lies at the bottom of the whole. Neither dualism nor determinism can be deduced from this passage. But concerning subjection and personal transactions reference is made to cosmical powers in God the Father with the Son and in the devil, as the ultimate and chief factors of all personal development.

5. The work of Satan is sin, and sin from the beginning, i.e. from the beginning of sin on the part of mankind, which is the only subject under notice here. Hence he is most truly the sinner, the original sinner. As he was actively engaged in the first sin, so he still is actively engaged in every sin. But beyond this fact nothing is said as to the nature of his activity, as to its concurrence with that of man which is not excluded, and as to the manner how sin comes to pass. But it is intimated that contrary to Christ who was manifested and did appear in order to destroy the works of the devil, the devil was not manifested but remained and continued to walk in concealment, and that the children of God and the children of the devil cannot be identified at once, even as the world (which knows neither God nor the children of God (1Jn_3:1), nor itself) does not discover the devil’s work in its own sin; for the reference is to πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας (Eph_6:12). It is just the man, who, as St. James says (Jam_1:14 sq.), is incited and enticed by his own lust (ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἐξελκόμενος καὶ δελεαζόμενος) and commits sin without an inward struggle, without offering any resistance, in a calm course of development (ἡ ἐπιθυμία συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει τὴν ἁμαρτίαν), has the devil as the father of sin and is himself a child of the devil. In sins it becomes manifest that the anti-divine on earth is intimately and vitally connected with the kingdom and influence of the devil and that ultimately the whole matter resolves itself into a world-combat between God and the devil, and a world-victory of God in Christ over the devil (compare Harless, Ethics § 28. ***: Nitzsch, System. p. 244. sqq.)

6. Redemption from sin is the work of the Sinless One, the purpose of the manifestation of the Sinless One, whose aim it is not to bring a new doctrine but to produce a new life. According to this the most important thing is, of course, not the exposition of the law marked by the utmost profoundness of apprehension and lucidity of statement, but the exhibition of the law to its full extent in a pure life, which not only evinces its strength in suffering and the assumption of human sin, but also satisfies and reconciles the Father, so that for the Son’s sake He now once more turns to mankind as hallowed and mankind overcome and attracted by the Sinless One, parts company with sin and turns away from it. It is inconceivable to have known and understood the Sinless One and yet to continue in sin all the same; to abide in Christ and to abide in sin are incompatible opposites; the one excludes the other. John, to be sure, has respect only to the principle or the result, as the issue is a life that terminates not in a moment but has its historical course and internal development. This is predicated of the life in Christ (1Jn_3:2-3,) and by analogy we are constrained to assume it of the life in sin.

7. Being determines the doing, the doing does not determine the being, but we know the being from the doing. The being is the cause, the doing the effect. Hence he that does not commit sin but worketh righteousness (1Jn_3:6-9) must be born of God (1Jn_2:29; 1Jn_3:9-10) and have seen and known Christ (1Jn_3:6), but he that is of the devil, commits sin and worketh no righteousness (1Jn_3:8). So Luther (Erlangen ed. 27, 191): “Good, pious works nevermore make a good, pious man, but a good pious man will do good, pious works. Evil works nevermore make an evil man, but an evil man will do evil works. Consequently the person must everyways be good and pious prior to all good works, and good works must follow and proceed from the good, pious person (Mat_7:18).” Hence a man must have become righteous by justification, before he can act righteously in sanctification. This is the truth and the right of the Lutheran and Reformed confessions in opposition to Rome; but on the subject of becoming righteous John confines himself to saying that it takes place (out) of God in Christ by regeneration and propitiation; hence it simply indicates the objective ground and not the subjective accomplishment. On this point no other particulars can be inferred from our passage.

8. While the not-sinning and the impossibility of sinning on the part of a Christian born of God, must be held fast as a fact, we must be on our guard against hasty inferences therefrom, for which John gives us no warrant. In the first place this passage (1Jn_3:9) must be susceptible of a construction that does not contradict 1Jn_1:8 sqq., for John could not have made both statements, if they were incompatible with one another. Hence the Roman Catholics are as much in the wrong for holding, as de Lyra says, that it is the prerogative of the saints, i.e. only individuals in virtue of special grace in regeneration, not to sin and not being able to sin, as are the Lutherans for contending that all truly regenerated persons live without sin; for such an assertion is as arrogant as that contained in the sentence of Seneca, the Stoic (see Düsterdieck II. 148 from Wetstein): “Vir bonus non potest non facere, quod facit; in omni actu par sibi, jam non consilio bonus, sed more eo perductus; ut non tantum recte facere possit, sed nisi recte facere non possit.” 1Jn_1:8 sqq. forbids such a construction of 1Jn_3:9. The Gichtelites, who in virtue of Mat_22:30 used to call themselves the brethren of the angels and refusing to be considered a sect laid claim to being the invisible Church, and the Molinists who were Quietists, claimed with some Pietists such a state of perfection, and being called Perfectists by their adversaries, called them in turn Conatists; the Methodists who maintain that they stand daily and hourly in need of the atoning merits of Christ do not belong to this category although they hold the sinless perfection of the regenerate; but this certainly exposes them like the Roman Catholics to the danger of regarding or treating concupiscence as a matter of indifference. The Synod of Dort, moreover, cannot on the strength of this passage reject the following proposition (see Niemeyer, p. 719 sub III): “Vere credentes et regenitos non tantum posse a fide justificante, item gratia et salute totaliter et finaliter excidere, sed eitam reipsa non raro ex iis excidere atque in æternum perire,” nor is Calvin warranted to say: “Johannes non solum docet, quam efficaciter agat semel deus in homine, sed clare affirmat, spiritum suam gratiam in nobis ad extremum usque persequi, ut ad vitæ novitatem inflexibilis perseverantia accedat,” because the Apostle teaches here not a word on that subject. He neither says 1Jn_1:8 sqq. that the regenerate in reality does not seldom fall from grace and perish eternally (!), but only, that his sinning notwithstanding, his sins would be forgiven him, nor here at 1Jn_3:9, that the gift of sonship and regeneration can never be lost again or impaired, or that the σπέρμα is and must be brought to perfection in every child of God, or that the donum perseverantiæ is added by God to the gift of His grace, so that the two are intimately united and inseparable. A view hitting the truth may be found already in Jovinian (at the end of the fourth century) as stated in the controversial writing of his opponent (Hieronymus adv. Jovinianum libri II), if we remember that he said besides what here follows, viz: “eos, qui plena fide in baptismate renati sunt, a diabolo non posse subverti,” or “a diabolo non posse tentari; quicunque autem tentati fuerint, ostendi eos aqua tantum et non spiritu baptizatos”—that the Christian is not called upon to fight and to labour “ut majora præmia accipiat” but only “ne perdat quod accepit,” and that he did add “qui suum baptisma servaverint.” For John neither affirms nor excludes by an intimation that the work and act of God to man must be accepted and received by man, that man with the divinely-given strength must become self-acting so that he not only do not resist and thus not resisting, obicem non ponens, become sanctified after having been justified, but also that entering into the work and act of God he exercise himself by his own personal efforts and thus appropriate more and more and receive into his own nature that which is God’s, by giving up and sacrificing his self without doing injury to his seity. All these things John does not touch upon because he is not concerned with subjective execution but solely with the objective ground and foundation. Hence he says: he that is born of God, as such (as God’s child), without any reference to his former condition and its reaction, does not really sin in the literal acceptation of the term; sin may still take place in him, but he himself, as the child of God, in the power of regeneration, does not and cannot commit it (cf. Harless Ethics § 26. **).—Hence we cannot see at all why the regenerate, if he neglects, in conflicts and collisions which may arise, to be on his guard and to hold fast all that God has given to him, done for him and is offering to him, may not by degrees fall entirely from grace, and such an issue necessitates or justifies the assumption that God did not seriously intend, energetically will and efficiently accomplish his regeneration and that lastly the lapsed was right and God in the wrong, that it is God’s fault that he, though already redeemed from the power of the devil, had again fallen a prey to the devil. Heb_6:4 sqq. which only declares that it is impossible to recover those who have fallen away from such true regeneration has no connection with this passage (in opposition to Ebrard), but we ought rather to take note of μένων in 1Jn_3:6., which points to that unexpressed train of thought. Cf. Rom_7:15 sqq. where mention is made of the ἔσω ἄνθρωπος as the σπέρμα θεοῦ and the ἐγὼ of the regenerate warring against the old ego.—[Düsterdieck: “The difference between the older and more modern expositors14 lies in this, that the former are more anxious to moderate the details of the Apostle’s sentiment, and to tone down his assertion to the actual life of Christians, while the moderns recognize the full precision of the text as it stands, but then remind us that the ideal truth of the principle announced by St. John continually, so to speak, floats above the actual life of believers as their rule and aim and that, in so far, the Apostle’s saying finds in such actual life only a, relative fulfilment. None however of all the expositors, who in any way has recognized the ideal character of St. John’s view, has overlooked the fact, that even in the actual life of all that are born of God there is something which in full verity answers to the ideal words “they cannot sin.” The children of God, in whom the Divine seed of their eternal life abides, have, in reality, a holy privilege, as Steinhofer says,—they sin not and they cannot sin, just in proportion as the new Divine life, unconditionally opposed to all sin, and manifesting itself in godlike righteousness, is present and abides in them. Expositors of all these logical tendencies, in all times, e.g. Didymus, Oecum., Estius, Schlichting, Luther, Hunnius, Seb. Schmidt, Calov, Bengel, Joachim Lange, Rosenmüller, Lücke, Neander, etc. point to this, that the new life of believers, veritably begotten by regeneration from God, is simply incompatible with sin15; the life which essentially alienates the spirit from all sin,16 fills it with an irreconcilable hate against every sin, and urges it to an increasing conflict against all unrighteousness. Luther excellently says, that a child of God in this conflict receives indeed wounds daily, but never throws away his arms or makes peace with his deadly foe. Sin is ever active, but no longer dominant; the normal direction of life’s energies in the believer is against sin, is an absence of sin, a no-will-to-sin and a no-power-to-sin. He that is born of God has become, from being a servant of sin, a servant of righteousness; according to the Divine seed remaining in him, or, as St. Paul says, according to the inner man17, he will and he can work only that which is like God,—righteousness, though the flesh not yet fully mortified, rebels and sins: so that even in and by the power of the new life sin must be ever confessed, forgiveness received18, the temptation of the evil one avoided and overcome19, and self-purification and sanctification carried on.”—M.].

9. John speaks of being born in order to live, Paul of dying in order to live.

[Ezek. Hopkins: This place may, perhaps, be among the number of those, that had been more clear, if they had been less expounded. I shall only give you the genuine native sense of the words and then proceed to manage them to my present purpose. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin. Some from hence have concluded a possibility, at least, of a sinless state in this life: others, the infallible certainty of it; not only that a child of God might attain to such a perfection as is exclusive of all sin, but that whoever is a child of God cannot upon that very account be guilty of any sin: so like are errors to precipices, that, if a man lose his firm footing, usually he falls headlong; nor does he stop, till he dash himself against the bottom and foundation of all religion and piety: had these men but seriously pondered what the same Apostle saith in his first chapter, 1Jn_3:8; 1Jn_3:10 : “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us;” and “If we say that we have not sinned, we make God a liar,” they would not have entertained such an over-weening conceit of a spotless perfection of life here; whereof the greatest part is no better than sin and the best of it, but too, too much defiled with it. Others interpret thus: So long as we are the children of God, we cannot sin; and so the Papists go; but these go upon an erroneous supposition, that every mortal sin, as they call them, makes an intercision of justifying grace; and doth, as it were, annihilate the new creature. Others interpret it thus: in quantum sumus filii Dei: we cannot sin under that respect and notion, as we are the children of God; but even so far as we are, the best of us in the most part, unrenewed; though this is a certain truth, yet it is but a dilute and waterish exposition of this place; and it amounts to no more than this, that a regenerate man sins not as he is regenerate, that the principle of grace in him is not that principle from whence sinful actions proceed; and certainly, no man, that considers the weight of this Scripture expression, will think that the Apostle, by such an instance and ingemination, would press so thin a meaning as this is. The interpretation, therefore, that I judge to be the most natural and unforced is this: He, that is born of God, doth not commit sin; that is, he doth not sin in that malignant manner, in which the children of the devil do: he doth not make a trade of sin, nor live in the constant and allowed practice of it. Neither can he thus sin, because his seed remaineth in him; that is either the energy of the word of God whereby he is begotten again to a spiritual life, or the complexion of the graces of the spirit that are as it were the seminary and the seed-plot of glory. Nor he cannot sin, because his seed remaineth in him: this seed remains, and keeps him, that he cannot sin; either as apostates do who totally forsake the ways of God, or as profane persons do, who never embraced them. There is a great difference betwixt regenerate and unregenerate persons, in the very sins that they commit: all, indeed, sin; but a child of God cannot sin; that is, though he doth sin, yet he cannot sin after such a manner as wicked and unregenerate men do: there is a vast difference betwixt them, even in that wherein they do most of all agree: see that place in Deu_32:5. Their spot is not the spot of his children: even deformities themselves are characteristic: and a true Christian may come to know by his sins, that he is not a sinner. And, as they differ in the committing of sin, so much more in the opposing of it.”—M.].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Thou art wont in other respects to attach importance to the right name and the right word. Well, sin is immorality; what thou callest a slip, an error, an infirmity or a foible, is essentially—immorality.—Be not concerned as much about earthly losses or disgrace before men as about outraging the Divine majesty, which marks the nature of sin even more graphically than the outrage done to thy own soul.—What does it avail thee to be praised of men, even in newspapers, if God regards thee as a transgressor? Remember the case of Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, who was hateful to the Emperor; the courtiers said: “Burn him, confiscate his property, put him in irons, and have him killed.” But others replied, saying: “You will not gain anything by all this; for in exile he would find a home with his God; you deprive the poor, not him, of property; he kisses his chains; death opens heaven to him. There is only one way to render him unhappy; force him to sin; he fears nothing in the world but sin.”—Dost thou honestly abide the law of the land, especially the fundamental law—then maintain also the law of God’s kingdom, His fundamental law.—The sinner does the very thing which Christ desires to remove: he twines for Him a crown of thorns and crucifies Him anew.—Hold fast the sinlessness and death of Christ. Why was it necessary for the Sinless One to die if not for the sin of men? What is he that does not like the Sinless One and does every thing in his power to put Him out of the way? What is the public opinion which crowned that attempt with success? Of what consequence must sin be, if He had to die by and for it?—He did not come for the sake of the doctrine, which did not take away sin, that the prophet might be praised, but He came for the sake of sin, that the Lamb of God and the High priest might be praised together.—He came to acquire for Himself a people that it might live of and by Him; He came not to receive from it what were its possessions, but to take away from it, what is its grievance and to grant to it His glory.—A Christian, as a Christian, never does sin, he only suffers it.—In and with Christ we lose all pleasure in sin and loathe its service.—Sin dazzles men and prevents their seeing and knowing the glory of Christ.—To overlook the glory of Christ denotes not a low degree of immorality.—The illumination of our spirit is not without the purification of our heart, without the deliverance of our will from the chains of sin.—As sin is ever growing so that thin threads of lust become cords of vanity and cart-ropes of unrighteousness (Is. 1Jn_3:18), the small rent of doubt grows into a shipwreck concerning faith (1Ti_1:19) and a little spark causes a great fire (Jam_3:5), so in like manner the forgiveness of sins in justification grows to the annihilation of sin in sanctification, and the regenerate grows into manhood, so that while Ahab, though wholly mail-clad, was mortally wounded in one place, Paul though bitten by a venomous viper, shook off the beast into the fire and remained unhurt.—Christ is the point where men must choose the way that leadeth to the kingdom of darkness, or that which conducts to the kingdom of light.—Man’s way ends in the former kingdom with his belonging to Satan, but it begins in the latter with his regeneration.—Just those who are the devil’s know least of him, deny his existence and personality; those who with God resist him, know his nature and power much better than his servants.—Be not deceived, 1. Concerning the nature of sin; 2. Concerning the glory of Christ; 3. Concerning the activity of Satan; 4. Concerning the power of regeneration.—Fear sin! 1. It breaks the ordinance of God; 2. It is the cause of Christ’s sufferings; 3. It leads to the slavery of Satan; 4. It destroys thy adoption of God.—Child of God, rejoice! 1. God’s law is a sure and straight path; 2. The merit of Christ affords thee a mighty help; 3. The gift of the Spirit will yield thee precious fruit.

Augustine:—The doing of righteousness does not precede but succeed justification.

Starke:—Whatever is contrary to the law of God, whether done inwardly or outwardly, in thought, manner, words or works—is sin.—Let every one diligently study the law of God so that he may learn what is right and wrong and not do ignorantly what might have been avoided.—Sin must be a terrible and horrible thing, because for its sake Christ had to come, to suffer and to die. Every thing is in harmony: begone, sin! there is no room for thee with the redeemed! It is apostasy from the law, the opposite of the Image of Christ, the progeny of Satan, a mark of his slaves.—Thou sayest: I am a sinful man and not a sinful angel! True; but if thou art truly a believing Christian, sin must not reign in thee but thou must reign over sin and not serve sin in any particular.—Not certain, believers are exposed to the danger of being seduced.—Appearance, propriety of conduct, and observance of the externals of worship are not paramount in Christianity, but the heart must be changed and that takes place in regeneration.—It is ill-befitting a Christian to appeal to and boast of his illustrious descent, the distinction of his family and connections; the grace of regeneration, which invests him with the prerogatives of the adoption, truly ennobles him before God and men.—The children of Satan are often unknown, but more to themselves and those like them than to the godly.—The godly also are often hidden, but more from the ungodly than from themselves, for they know very well in virtue of the spirit of adoption both what they have received and what is promised to them.—There is a difference between the children of God and the children of the devil; they may and ought to be identified, but the identification requires a spiritual discernment, otherwise it cannot take place.—Honest preachers must not give evangelical consolation to those who are openly ungodly, though they say that preachers cannot condemn. True; they cannot condemn but they can denounce the damnable condition.

Bengel:—“Iniquitas horribilius quiddam, apud eos præsertim, qui legem et dei voluntatem magni faciunt, sonat, quam peccatum. Ex lege agnitio peccati. Linea curva cernitur per se; sed magis, ad regulam collata.”

Steinhofer:—The children of God in whom the divine seed of their eternal life is truly abiding, have really the holy privilege of not being able to sin.

Heubner:—Not the hurtfulness of sin is its nature, for that is accidental, but its opposition to God.—The chief purpose of the manifestation of Christ was the cancelling of sin, the atonement for our sin, and sanctification by means of reconciliation. Hence continuing in sin frustrates the purpose of Christ and contradicts His holiness.—Christianity is not gnosis, but an honest mind and conversation.—Recollect that as long as sinning is thy element, thou art in the devil’s sphere and exposed to his influence.—Take note: 1. That the destruction of the works of the devil is not something that has been done, finished and perfected once for all but is progressive in its nature, advancing to perfection to the end of time. 2. That Christ has laid the foundation by His suffering and death as well as by the establishment of His Church, that incessant warfare may be waged against the kingdom of the devil and that at the last it shall be entirely destroyed. 3. That Christ has enabled all who believe in Him and receive His power to overcome Satan. The power of Satan is broken in believers. The works of the devil are being destroyed in proportion as the Gospel spreads intensively and extensively. 4. That the absolute and total destruction of the kingdom of the devil will take place at the second coming of Christ. Then it will be fully consummated. At present believers are only called upon to make war against Satan.—As the seed does only push forth the fruit it contains, and cannot produce a fruit different in kind, and as it is peculiar to the nature, even to the germinating principle in the seed to produce the right fruit, so it is also with those in whom is laid the seed of God, the Spirit of God; its germinating principle prompts godliness of living. But this does not warrant the assertion of absolute sinlessness.—It is not a physically absolute impossibility, but a moral impossibility; it is impossible to the sanctified will.—The indwelling spirit effects so essential a difference among men, that it seems as if they were wholly different races. But because it is invisible, God causes it to become manifest in its persevering fruit.—How sharply does Holy Scripture distinguish between men; they are either the children of God or the children of the devil; it knows nothing of half-Christians, of an amphibious race; man can only be one or the other.—Be not deceived by this sharp dichotomy, as if it were unkind and uncharitable thus to judge, for it is not taught here that we should thus judge and classify others (for that is the prerogative of God), but that we should judge and range ourselves.

Reinhard:—Christ takes away

1. The deception and fraud of sin—by His doctrine.

2. The punishment of sin—by His death.

3. The dominion of sin—by His Spirit and example.

Besser:—With God every transgression is a crime; the Judge above does not treat sin as a trifle, a peccadillo (peccatilio, a little sin). Every sin and all sin has the character of treason.—True Christians know that the Saviour was manifested as the enemy and atoner of sin, and they agree with Him in heart and mind in pronouncing the same sentence on sin which was passed upon it in His bitter sufferings and painful death. Every one that abides in Christ, to whom he belongs once for all, does not commit sin, but says no to sin, which belongs to the old man, and resists its foreign power. The Christian’s will, his ego resting in and governed by Christ is not one with sin but one with Christ in whom there is no sin. Hatred of sin is the feeling which the children of God have in common, the love of sin the universal dowry of the children of the devil. Just as only those truly love good who know the Good One, so they only hate evil with perfect hatred who hate the Evil One as actively engaged in every evil and abhor sin as the work of the beginner of sin.—The will which worketh sin, is of the devil and not of God. Out of the new, divine life-ground laid in the children of God grows up the pure delight in the good and perfect will of God, and whatever is displeasing to the Father (and sin is unrighteousness and wrong) is equally displeasing to the child.

Tholuck:—Do not trifle with sin. 1. Because our hope is so glorious. Here the blessed rights of children, there the splendour and joys of children; should not he shun sin that hath such a hope? Ingratitude is one of the meanest vices; he that does not experience the necessity of gratitude for benefits received is one of the poorest and most hopeless of men. Christ who burst the chains and shunned no indignity in order to help us, should we not be grateful to Him—by fighting against sin? 2. Because sin is so culpable. Sin, did it only hurt us, we might get over it, but as it hurts God, it becomes a more fearful thing. The true child of God ceases to commit sin and greatly grieves at the presence of any and every sin. [A stanza of a German hymn.—M.] Every, even the smallest sin always hits the nerve of the law, unlike the eye, where the skin only and not the ophthalmic nerve needs to be injured; and the sinful lust is followed by the culpable word and the culpable word by the culpable deed. Misfortune is seldom alone and sin even more seldom. To become free from sin is the life-task of the Christian. He knows of no care greater than that of getting rid of a diseased conscience. Repentance cuts the nerve away from the lust of sin.

Gerok:—(on 1Jn_2:28 to 1Jn_3:8). Of the paradise of the divine sonship. 1. of the noble state of being a child; 2. of the holy duty of a child; 3. of the blessed children’s right of the children of God.

[1Jn_3:7. Burkitt:—The Scriptures speak of doing righteousness in two senses: 1. in a legal sense, which consists in an exact obedience and fulfilling of the law; and thus there is “none righteous, no not one;” 2. in an evangelical sense, which means walking uprightly according to the rules of the Gospel, conscientiously avoiding all known sin, and performing every commanded duty, observing a constant course of holy actions and making it our daily care to please God in all that we do. And it is the duty of every Christian, who would not be deceived as to his spiritual condition, to try himself by this infallible mark: “He that doeth righteousness is righteous;—whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.”—M.].

[1Jn_3:8. Bp. Hall:—He that gives himself over to the commission of sin, and makes it his willing practice, that man is not of God but of the devil: for it is and hath been, the trade of that wicked spirit, even from the beginning, ever since his fall [?], to sin against God, and to draw others into sin and condemnation with him.—M.].

[Secker:—Herein is the plain trial of our condition. If we are destitute of “the fruits of the spirit,” it is bad; if we find them in our hearts and lives, we have proof enough of its being good, and need never disquiet ourselves for want of any other. Being able to tell the very moment when we became pious and virtuous, is not material, provided we are so now; and happiest of all are they, who remember not themselves ever to have been otherwise. All feelings are imaginary and deceitful, unless they be accompanied with that one, which the Apostle experienced and mentioned: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity we have had our conversation in the world.” 2Co_1:12. Our Saviour’s rule of “knowing every tree by its fruits” Luk_6:44, is the only sure way to judge of ourselves as well as of others. And though we may perhaps be sometimes at a loss how to judge, or inclined, and even strongly, to fear the worst; yet if this arise not from presumptuous sins or habitual negligence, but merely from excessive humility or weakness of spirits, a modest diffidence will never hinder our future happiness, nor will a bold positiveness ever forward it. Good men may be cast down and bad men elevated without any reason. The former may see much in themselves to dislike; and yet God may see enough of what He approves to accept them: they may experience little joy in serving Him, and yet “walk” more completely “worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing,” Col_1:10, for doing it without the encouragement of a present reward. The latter, on the other hand, may build upon groundless fancies of their own, mistaking them for Divine communications: may be absolutely confident, wonderfully transported, yet find themselves at last fatally deceived. It is not, therefore, by their fears, or their hopes, or their raptures, that men are to judge of their spiritual condition. “Hereby,” saith St. John, “do we know that we know God, if we keep His commandments,” 1Jn_2:3. “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous; he that committeth sin is of the devil.”—M.]

[Tucker:—As therefore we are well assured, that repentance will re-instate us, and that obedience will continue us, in the Divine favour, according to the gracious terms of the Gospel, so let us likewise remember, that he who wilfully and habitually committeth sin, whatever evidence of his new birth or justification, his adoption or acceptance, he may fancy himself possessed of, is actually no other than the servant of sin and the slave of the devil. In short, virtue and vice, holiness and wickedness, Christ and Belial, can never, never unite together. If therefore we design ourselves to be the candidates for heaven, we must endeavour to acquire such qualifications as will, render us fit for that holy place. Because unless we really acquire them during the present state, the alternative is dreadful indeed: for he who committeth sin is of the devil. How shocking even to repeat; yet much more shocking to feel! to feel not only for a time but forever! Whereas on the contrary, “he who doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous;” righteous he is, because he will have, not only his manifold failings and imperfections all forgiven, through the mercies of the Gospel-covenant, but even his deliberate sins and offences cancelled and blotted out on his sincere repentance: and what is still more than ever could have been thought of, much less petitioned for, he will find himself permitted to appear before God as “holy, unblameable and unreproveable in His sight,” Col_1:22.—M.].

[1Jn_3:9. Pyle: Whosoever is born of God, etc. As if he had said: In fine, while a man preserves his Christian principle, and answers the character of a true member of God’s Church, he can never be guilty of deliberate and habitual vice. Make it therefore a sure test to whom a man belongs, in whose service he is listed, and from whom he may expect his wages, whether of God or of the devil, by the good or wicked practices of his life, by his behaviour towards God and towards his brethren.—M.].

[Hammond:—The phrase “born of God” is not to be taken here, as to denote the single transient act of regeneration; but rather a continued course, a permanent state, so that a regenerate man and a child of God are of the same meaning, and signify him that lives a pious and godly life and continues to do so. For the phrase “a child” or “a son” of any kind of father, signifies a resemblance or similitude of inclinations and actions; as a child of the devil, Act_13:10; sons of Belial, Jdg_19:22; children of Abraham, Gal_3:7. And so generally in this Epistle, he that is “born of God,” signifies a man truly pious, an obedient servant of God: and such is the subject of this proposition when of such an one it is said, that “he cannot sin:” not affirming that he cannot cease to be what he is, cannot fall off from the performance of his duty, of the possibility of Which the many warnings and exhortations that are given to pious men are evidences, see 1Jn_2:1; 1Co_10:12; Heb_3:12; 2Pe_3:17; but that remaining thus, a pious follower, imitator, and so a “child of God,” he cannot yield deliberately to any kind of sin.—M.].

[Whitby:—He cannot sin. Now that doth not import a good man cannot be overtaken with a fault (Gal_6:1). No, even those “little children” whose “sins are forgiven,” and who have “known the Father,” may and will be obnoxious still to some infirmities and wanderings out of the way. (1Jn_2:1). They may “sin not unto death,” and therefore may still have the spiritual life remaining in them (1Jn_5:16-18). But the true import of that phrase is this (Ita de Catone Minore Velleius Paterculus: Homo virtuti simillimus, et per omnia ingenio diis quam hominibus proprior, qui nunquam recte fecit ut facere videretur, sed quia aliter, facere non poterat. Hist. R. II. 34. Omnibus humanis vitiis immunis. Ibid.): That he hath such an inward frame of heart, such a disposition of spirit, as renders sin exceeding odious and hateful to him; so that he cannot entertain the thoughts of doing it, or a temptation to commit it, without the utmost detestation and the greatest horror, and so can very rarely, and only through surprise, or want of due deliberation, or through such violent temptations as prevent or hinder his consideration, be obnoxious to sin; and when he comes to consider of such an action, is presently condemning himself for it, bitterly repenting of it, and for the future watching most carefully against it. Cf. Mat_12:34; Mat_17:18; Joh_7:7; Joh_8:43; Joh_12:39; Joh_14:17; Rom_8:7-8; 1Co_2:14; Rev_2:2.—M.].

He that committeth sin is of the devil. It is not he who committeth one or more sins of infirmity, for so did Christ’s disciples while they were with Him; nor he who committeth one great sin through the power of a strong temptation, of which he bitterly repents, and from which he returns to his obedience; for thus did David and Peter, who yet were not then the children of the devil; but they who comply with the lusts of Satan and who will do them. Joh_8:44. The other interpretations which are given of these words seem either vain or impertinent, or false and dangerous, and

1. Vain is that sense which some put on these words: “He that is born of God, non debet peccare, ought not to sin,” or that it is absurd for him to sin; for the Apostle speaks not of what he ought not to do, but of what he doth not. Such is that also of those fathers, who interpret this of him who is perfectly born of God by a παλιγγενεσία, or “a resurrection from the dead,” for the Apostle doth not speak of what he shall do hereafter, but of what he doth not do at present.

2. False seems to be the sense which Origen, Jerome, and Ambrose put upon the words, that “he that is born of God sinneth not, quamdiu renatus est, whilst he is born of God, because he ceaseth to be a child of God when he sins; for this is not only confuted by the examples of David and Peter, whose faith under that great miscarriage failed not (Luk_22:32), but by the words of the Apostle, ‘Little children, if we sin we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and He is the Propitiation for our sins’ ” (Joh_2:1), who yet is only the Advocate for the sons of God. For the same reason I cannot assent to that exposition which saith: “A child of God cannot be guilty of any great or deliberate crime,” as Tertullian, de pudicitiâ c. 19.

3. Dangerous is the exposition of Bernard (In Septuag. Serm. 1), that “they who are born of God sin not, quia etiamsi peccata illis neutiquam imputentur, because their sins will never be imputed to them;” and of those who think it sufficient to say, “He sins not without great reluctancy, or not willingly, the evil that he doeth being that which he would not do;” for the will of that man, who, after some contest in his soul, yields to the commission of sin, is more strongly inclined to sin than to the avoiding of it, and so is not renewed. Nor doth the Apostle say, he that is born of God sins not willingly, or without reluctance; but absolutely, “He doth not commit sin.”

[I conclude with Gataker: “He that is born of God sinneth not,” that is: Vitam a peccato immuneum quantum potest sibi proponit, nec peccato unquam sponte dat operam; si aliquando præter animi propositum deliquerit, non in eodem persistit, sed errore agnito, ad institutum vitæ pristinum quamprimum quantumque potest, festinus revertitur.”—M.].

Footnotes:

[1][1Jn_3:4 German: “Every one that doeth (the) sin, doeth also (the) lawlessness.”—M.]

[2]ἡ ἁμαρτία A. B. C. G. K. al. Sin. The Article is very strongly supported and syntactically required.

[3][German: “And (the) sin is the lawlessness.”—M.]

[4]1Jn_3:5 ἡμῶν, omitted in A. B. Vulg. al., is found in C. G. K. Sin. [Also the reading of Syr. Theophyl. Oecum. Bede, Lachm. Tischend. Buttmann.—M.]

[5][German: “That He (that One) was manifested to take away our sins and sin is not in Him.”

[6][1Jn_3:6 German: “Every one that.”—M.]

[7][Same as 6.—M.]

[8]1Jn_3:7 παιδία A. C. al. τεκνία B. Sin. [Undecided which is the true reading.—M.]

[9][German: “Let no one seduce you.”—M.]

[10][1Jn_3:8 German: “He that doeth sin.”—M.]

[11][German: “For this” (εἰς τοῦτο). No warrant for the additional “purpose” in E. V.—M.]

[12][1Jn_3:9 Same as note 6. German: “Every one that is born (out) of God, doeth not sin.”—M.]

[13][German: “Because.”—M.]

[14]Lücke, Rickli, de Wette and Neander.

[15]Didymus: ἀκόλουθον καὶ ἀνάρμοστον.

[16]Oecumenius: ἀνεπίδεκτον ἁμαρτίας τὸν νοῦν ἡμῶν ποιεῖ.

[17]Rom_8:15.

[18]1Jn_1:8 sqq.

[19]1Jn_3:18.

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3:4-10 This section discusses what it means to live a pure life (3:3). Being born into God’s family demands purification; a life of sin—a continual lack of purity—is evidence that someone is not really God’s child. Sin is incompatible with the new nature derived from the new birth. John wants believers to do what is right and thus demonstrate that they are joined to Christ and his righteousness. Those who are children of God do not make a practice of sinning, but this differs from the sort of “sinlessness” that the false teachers claimed (see 1:5-10 and corresponding study notes).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Jn 3:4. Ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, he that committeth sin) There is an antithesis to this in, he that doeth righteousness, 1Jn 3:7. Ποιεῖν is to do, to exercise.—καὶ, also) by that very fact.—τὴν ἀνομίαν, iniquity) ἀνομία, iniquity, has a somewhat more dreadful sound, especially in the ears of those who greatly esteem the law and will of God, than ἁμαρτία, sin. From the law is the knowledge of sin. There is a kindred expression, ch. 1Jn 5:17, all unrighteousness is sin. A crooked line is seen of itself; but it is more conspicuous when compared with the ruler. By this expression the philosophical [notion of] sin is most befittingly refuted.—καὶ, and) Nay indeed, not only is the nature (principle) of sin closely connected with that of iniquity, but it is the same. Thus καὶ, and, ch. 1Jn 5:4, and γὰρ, for, ch. 1Jn 5:3.—ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία, sin is iniquity) Sin is the subject, inasmuch as the whole discourse treats of it. The antithesis is, He that doeth righteousness is righteous: he that doeth righteousness, is not considered ἄνομος, unrighteous, but he has the testimony and praise of righteousness: 1Jn 3:7, comp. with Gal 5:23; 1Ti 1:9.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn_3:4. The believer is so much the more bound to holiness, as all sin is ἀνομία.

πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν κ.τ.λ.] corresponding to the beginning of 1Jn_3:3, πᾶς ὁ ἔχων κ.τ.λ. The apostle is anxious to emphasize the truth of the thought as being without exception. ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, as the antithesis of ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, chap. 1Jn_2:29, is contrasted with ἁγνίζειν ἑαυτόν, 1Jn_3:3; as the apostle wants to contrast with the positive sentence 1Jn_3:3 its negative counterpart, he begins with the antithesis of that idea which formed the predicate in 1Jn_3:3, and makes it the subject (Ebrard). The definite article shows that the idea, according to its complete extent, is intended as definite, as forming the concrete antithesis to ἡ δικαιοσύνη;[199] both the interpretation of Socinus: to remain in sin, and that of Baumgarten-Crusius: to receive sin into oneself, to let it exist in oneself, are alike arbitrary; even the very common definition: to sin knowingly and wilfully, is out of place here, as the subject here is not the way in which sin is done, but the actual doing of sin itself. According to Brückner,[200] by ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν an actual moral tendency of life is indicated; this explanation is apparently justified by 1Jn_3:6; 1Jn_3:8-9, but even in these passages the apostles meaning goes beyond the restricted idea of tendency of life, inasmuch as he certainly has sinning in view.

καὶ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ποιεῖ] καί accentuates the idea that the very doing of ἁμαρτία is as such equally the doing of ἀνομία (Düsterdieck); by ἀνομία we are to understand, according to the constant usus loquendi, never the mere non-possession of the law (differently ἄνομος, 1Co_9:21), but always the violation of the law, namely, of the divine law, of the divine order according to which man should regulate his life,lawlessness (Lücke).[201] The sense therefore is: he who practises sin (in whatever way it may be) thereby makes himself guilty of the violation of divine order, he acts contrary to the θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, chap. 1Jn_2:17. According to Ebrard, τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖν expresses the antithesis of ἔχειν τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην, 1Jn_3:3; but it is more correct to perceive in that sentenceinstead of a conclusionthe introduction of a new element, by which the sharp contrast with τὴν δικαιοσύνην (1Jn_2:29) is indicated.

The following words: καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία, are added, partly to confirm the previous thought, partly to mark emphatically the identity of ἁμαρτία and ἀνομία which is expressed in it. The apostle does not want to give an exact definition of the idea ἁμαρτία (contrary to Sander), but to indicate its nature from the side on which its absolute antagonism to any fellowship with God appears most unrestrictedly (Brückner). The apostle could not more sharply express the antithesis between the character of the believer, who is a τέκνον Θεοῦ, and will be ὅμοιος Θεῷ, and the ἁμαρτία, than by showing ἁμαρτία to be ἀνομία, whereby he most distinctly opposes the moral indifferentism, against which the first section of the Epistle is also directed. Violence is done to the thought, both by limiting the idea ἁμαρτία to a particular kind of sin (a Lapide: loquitur proprie de peccato perfecto, puta mortifero), and by making ἀνομία the subject and ἁμαρτία, the predicate;[202] so also by mixing up references which are foreign to the context.[203] The καί by which the two sentences are connected with one another, Bengel translates and explains by: immo (so also Brückner by nay), with the remark: non solum conjuncta est notio peccati et iniquitatis, sed eadem; this is incorrect, for even the first sentence expresses, not a mere connection, but identity. The apostle could have written instead of καί the confirmatory particle ὍΤΙ, or the like, but by means of ΚΑΊ the thought of the second clause obtains a more independent position (so also Braune).

[199] Braune, however, rightly observes that too strong an emphasis is not to be laid here, either upon the article or on ποιεῖν, for in ver. 9 it is put ἁμαρτίαν ποιεῖν, and then, as synonymous with it, simply ἁμαρτάνειν; nevertheless, it is to be noticed that the fuller idea ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμ. at the beginning includes and determines the others, ποιεῖν ἁμ. and ἁμαρτάνειν (Ebrard).

[200] Brückner rightly rejects the interpretation of de Wette: ἁμαρτία appears to be the broader idea, ἀνομία the narrower, more definite and stronger, including particular offences, vices, etc.

[201] ἀνομία is distinguished from ἀδικία (1Jn_1:9, 1Jn_5:17) in this way, that the former idea is contrasted with abstract right (δίκη), the latter with the concrete form of right (νόμος) (Brückner).

[202] Köstlin (p. 246) appeals in behalf of this construction to Joh_1:1 : καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, assuming that καὶ ἁμαρτία κ.τ.λ. is to be read; see, however, the critical notes. Against this construction there is, besides, the fact that ἁμαρτία would have to be taken in a different sense here from that in which it is previously used, namely, as Köstlin says: The first time ἁμαρτία means sinful action, the second time guilt in the sight of God.

[203] This is the case, for example, in Hilgenfelds explanation: Not every one who deviates from the ceremonial laws, but only the sinner, falls under the category of ἀνομία; not less in the remark of Calvin: the sum of the thought is that the life of those who give themselves to sin is hateful to God, and cannot be tolerated by God.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn 3:4-12 . The Obligation of our Dignity as Children of God. “Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. And ye know that He was manifested that He might take away the sins; and sin in Him there is not. Every one that abideth in Him doth not keep sinning; every one that keepeth sinning hath not seen Him nor got to know Him. Little children, let no one lead you astray: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous; he that doeth sin is of the Devil, because from the beginning the Devil keepeth sinning. To this end was the Son of God manifested, that He might undo the works of the Devil. Every one that hath been begotten of God doeth not sin, because His seed in him abideth; and he cannot keep sinning, because of God he hath been begotten. Herein are manifest the children of God and the children of the Devil: every one that doeth not righteousness is not of God, and he that loveth not his brother. Because this is the message which ye heard from the beginning, that we love one another. Not as Cain was of the Evil One and slew his brother. And wherefore did he slay him? Because his works were evil, but his brother’s righteous.”

1Jn 3:4-8 . The Incompatibility of Sonship with Continuance in Sin.

1Jn 3:4 . ὁ ποι . τὴν ἁμ ., the converse of ὁ ποι . τὴν δικ . (1Jn 2:29 ). νόμος , the revelation of God’s will, the Father’s requirement of His children, an expression of the true law of their nature, ἡ ἁμ . ἐστ . ἡ ἀν .: the article in both subject and predicate make “sin” and “lawlessness” convertible and co-extensive terms.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Giveth not himself to pureness.

The rule of this purity can from no whence else be taken but from the Law of God, the transgression whereof is that which is called sin.

A short definition of sin.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Sin is incompatible with birth from God (Jo1 3:1-3). John often sets forth the same truth negatively, which he had before set forth positively. He had shown, birth from God involves self-purification; he now shows where sin, that is, the want of self-purification, is, there is no birth from God.

Whosoever--Greek, "Every one who."

committeth sin--in contrast to Jo1 3:3, "Every man that hath this hope in Him purifieth himself"; and Jo1 3:7, "He that doeth righteousness."

transgresseth . . . the law--Greek, "committeth transgression of law." God's law of purity; and so shows he has no such hope of being hereafter pure as God is pure, and, therefore, that he is not born of God.

for--Greek, "and."

sin is . . . transgression of . . . law--definition of sin in general. The Greek having the article to both, implies that they are convertible terms. The Greek "sin" (hamartia) is literally, "a missing of the mark." God's will being that mark to be ever aimed at. "By the law is the knowledge of sin." The crookedness of a line is shown by being brought into juxtaposition with a straight ruler.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 4. Sin is the transgression of the law.] The spirit of the law as well as of the Gospel is, that "we should love God with all our powers, and our neighbour as ourselves." All disobedience is contrary to love; therefore sin is the transgression of the law, whether the act refers immediately to God or to our neighbour.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4 Whosoever committeth, or doeth, sin. The Apostle has already shown how ungrateful we must be to God, if we make but little account of the honor of adoption, by which he of his own goodwill anticipates us, and if we do not, at least, render him mutual love. He, at the same time, introduced this admonition, that our love ought not to be diminished, because the promised happiness is deferred. But now, as men are wont to indulge themselves more than they ought, in evils, he reproves this perverse indulgence, declaring that all they who sin are wicked and transgressors of the law. For it is probable that there were then those who extenuated their vices by this kind of flattery, “It is no wonder if we sin, because we are men; but there is a great difference between sin and iniquity.”

This frivolous excuse the Apostle now dissipates, when he defines sin to be a transgression of the divine law; for his object was to produce hatred and horror as to sin. The word sin seems light to some; but iniquity or transgression of the law cannot appear to be so easily forgiven. But the Apostle does not make sins equal, by charging all with iniquity who sin; but he means simply to teach us, that sin arises from a contempt of God, and that by sinning, the law is violated. Hence this doctrine of John has nothing in common with the delirious paradoxes of the Stoics.

Besides, to sin here, does not mean to offend in some instances; nor is the word sin to be taken for every fault or wrong a man may commit.; but he calls that sin, when men with their whole heart run into evil, nor does he understand that men sin, except those who are given up to sin. For the faithful, who are as yet tempted by the lusts of the flesh, are not to be deemed guilty of iniquity, though they are not pure or free from sin, but as sin does not reign in them, John says that they do not sin, as I shall presently explain more fully.

The import of the passage is, that the perverse life of those who indulge themselves in the liberty of sinning, is hateful to God, and cannot be borne with by him, because it is contrary to his Law. It does not hence follow, nor can it be hence inferred, that the faithful are iniquitous; because they desire to obey God, and abhor their own vices, and that in every instance; and they also form their own life, as much as in them lieth, according to the law. But when there is a deliberate purpose to sin, or a continued course in sin, then the law is transgressed.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

4. As so often, the Apostle emphasizes his statement by giving the opposite case, and not the simple opposite, but an expansion of it. Instead of saying ‘every one that hath not this hope’ he says every one that doeth sin. The A. V. not only obscures this antithesis by changing ‘every man’ to ‘whosoever’, but also the contrast between ‘doing righteousness’ (1Jn_2:29) and ‘doing sin’ by changing from ‘do’ to ‘commit’. This contrast is all the more marked in the Greek because both words have the article; ‘doeth the righteousness’, ‘doeth the sin’.

transgresseth also the law] This is very unfortunate, destroying the parallelism: Every man that doeth sin, doeth also lawlessness. It is imperative to have the same verb in both clauses and also in 1Jn_2:29 : to do sin is to do lawlessness, and this is the opposite of to do righteousness. The one marks the children of God, the other the children of the devil. ‘Lawlessness’ both in English and Greek (ἀνομία) means not the privation of law, but the disregard of it: not the having no law, but the acting as if one had none. This was precisely the case with some of the Gnostic teachers: they declared that their superior enlightenment placed them above the moral law; they were neither the better for keeping it nor the worse for breaking it. Sin and lawlessness, says the Apostle, are convertible terms: they are merely different aspects of the same state. And it is in its aspect of disregard of God’s law that sin is seen to be quite irreconcilable with being a child of God and having fellowship with God. See on 1Jn_5:17.

Note that throughout these verses (3–15) S. John uses the strong expression, ‘Every man that’ and not simply ‘He that.’ It has been suggested that “in each case where this characteristic form of language occurs there is apparently a reference to some who had questioned the application of a general principle in particular cases” (Westcott): comp. 1Jn_2:23; 1Jn_2:29, 1Jn_4:7, 1Jn_5:1; 1Jn_5:4; 1Jn_5:18; 2Jn_1:9.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whosoever committeth sin,.... This, in connection with what follows, is true of any sin, great or small, but here designs a course of sinning, a wilful, obstinate, persisting in sin:

transgresseth also the law; not of man, unless the law of men is founded on, and agrees with the law of God, for sometimes to transgress the laws of men is no sin, and to obey them would be criminal; but the law of God, and that not the ceremonial law, which was now abolished, and therefore to neglect it, or go contrary to it, was not sinful; but the moral law, and every precept of it, which regards love to God or to our neighbour, and which may be transgressed in thought, word, and deed; and he that committeth sin transgresses it in one or all of these ways, of which the law accuses and convicts, and for it pronounces guilty before God, and curses and condemns; and this therefore is an argument against sinning, because it is against the law of God, which is holy, just, and good, and contains the good and acceptable, and perfect will of God, which is agreeable to his nature and perfections; so that sin is ultimately against God himself:

for sin is a transgression of the law; and whatever is a transgression of the law is sin; the law requires a conformity of nature and actions to it, and where there is a want of either, it is a breach of it; it is concerned with the will and affections, the inclinations and desires of the mind, as well as the outward actions of life; concupiscence or lust is a violation of the law, as well as actual sin; and especially a course of sinning both in heart, lip, and life, is a continued transgression of it, and exposes to its curse and condemnation, and to the wrath of God; and is inconsistent with a true hope of being the sons and heirs of God: but then the transgression of what is not the law of God, whether the traditions of the elders among the Jews, or the ordinances of men among Papists, Pagans, and Turks, or any other, is no sin, nor should affect the consciences of men.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Ver. 4. Sin is the transgression] As there is the same roundness in a little ball as in a bigger, so the same disobedience in a small sin as in a great. Papists tell us that concupiscence is not truly and properly a sin (Concil. Trident.); but St Paul saith otherwise, Rom 7:8. There are among us that say that original sin is not forbidden by the law; but sure we are it is cursed and condemned by the law, as that which hath in it a tacit consent to all sin. Peccatum est dictum, factum, concupitum contra aeternam legem, saith Austin (contra Faust. xxii. 27). Any lack of conformity to the eternal law is sin.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Committeth also iniquity.[1] By the Greek text, iniquity is here taken for a transgression or prevarication of the law, which makes the sense clearer. (Witham) --- Iniquity; (Greek: anomia ) transgression of the law. (Challoner)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Et peccatum est iniquitas, Greek: kai e amartia estin e anomia, transgressio.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Which is added, to signify nothing can be more unreasonable, than the expectation of partaking with God in the glory and blessedness of the future state, if we now allow ourselves in a course of sin, or of transgressing his holy law, which is the very notion of sin; and is again further enforced from the design of our Redeemer.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4. Whosoever—Our apostle turns now from the regenerate to the transgressor. And 1Jn_3:7 fully shows that he is dealing with transgressors who denied the true nature of sin.

Committeth—Practiseth, as a continuous present tense, and referring to the open act. To those who deny that misdeeds of the body are sin, he replies by unflinchingly subjecting their deeds to the law, with all its condemnatory power of penalty.

The law—The law of eternal rectitude, which is the divine law, also, (1Jn_3:11,) of love. The bodily deeds of a Nicolaitan can plead no exemption from that law or its sentence.

Sin… transgression… law—A sin and a transgression of the law are one and the same thing, so that the act at variance with the law is sin, and liable to all the condemnation of sin, or violated divine law.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 4-12. Sin is absolutely incompatible with Christ"s work of redemption and our union with him (verses 4-8), and also with being born of God, as is shown by the presence or absence of brotherly love (verses 912).

Once more the apostle turns from the positive to the negative. Having shown what birth from God involves, he goes on to show what it excludes. "Every one that doeth sin" evidently balances "every one that hath this hope" (verse 3), and "to do sin" is the exact opposite of "to do righteousness" (chapter 2:29). Sin is lawlessness hJ aJmartia ejstia. Both words having the article, the two terms are exactly equivalent all sin is lawlessness, and all lawlessness is sin. Anomia, like "lawlessness," expresses the ignoring of the law rather than the absence of it. "The law" means the law of God in the fullest sense, not the Mosaic Law. In short, sin is defined as the transgression of God"s will.

Vers. 4-12.

Sinning in every way incompatible with the Christian life.

Connecting link: The apostle had just said that every one with the Christian hope would purify himself" as Christ the Lord is pure." As if to guard this absolutely universal statement, "every one," against the possibility of question, he goes on to illustrate the varied aspects of sin in its bearing on law; as regards the Person and work of Christ; as related to the new life of the children of God; and with reference to the everlasting statute of the gospel. Thus giving an overwhelming force to the doctrine indicated by the topic before us. TopicSinning impossible to the children of God. The apostle deals here, not with detailed sins, but with sinning; not with isolated acts (if, indeed, there can be any such), but with the continuous life of sinning. As oJ poiwn thnhn is "one who lives a life of righteousness," so oJ poiwn than is "one who lives a life of sin." Terrible thought (and yet how true to fact!) that of living a life which is all sin, without any righteousness in it at all! The man who lives for self-pleasing rather than for the sake of pleasing God who consults his fancies, and not his duty; who cares only for himself, and not at all for his brother is living in sin every day and all the day long, however glossy his external self may seem. It is to the manifold contrarieties of such a life that the apostle here calls our attention. Let us look at such a life

I AS IT CONCERNS THE LAW OF GOD. "Sin is the transgression of law;" literally, "lawlessness." "It is," says Westcott, "the assertion of the selfish will against a paramount authority. He who sins breaks, not only by accident or in an isolated detail, but essentially, the "Law" which he was created to fulfill of right government of self, of concern for our brother, of loyalty to God. Hence the spirit of the Law is broken in its entirety, whatever form the details of his life may assume.

II AS IT CONCERNS THE CHRIST HIMSELF. (Verse 5.)

1. As to his person. "In him there is no sin." How black does a sinful, selfish life appear by the side of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ!

2. As to his work. "He was manifested to take away sins;" not only (as Paul shows in Romans 3) to demonstrate God"s righteousness in forgiving sin, but also "to take away sins "(Revised Version) to remove them altogether. To this end his whole earthly manifestation was directed, from the manger to the cross. And in thus doing, he would destroy "the works of the devil," who "sinneth from the beginning". (cf Joh_12:31; Col_2:15; Heb_2:14, Heb_2:15) Hence it is clear that one who is leading a sinful life is in constant opposition to the Person, will, and work of the Son of God!

III AS IT CONCERNS THE NEW BIRTH AS A DIVINE PRODUCT.

1. Sinning is altogether inconsistent with abiding in Christ; (verse 6 cf. Joh_15:5)

2. It is altogether opposed to the true knowledge of Christ (verse 6).

3. It is contrary to the features which always mark God"s children (verse 10). God"s children are re-born born to a life of righteousness and love. Hence (verse 9) whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for the seed of another life is in him.

4. It is impossible to a child of God. "He cannot sin, because he is born of God." Impossibility of sinning is one mark of the new birth. "He cannot sin." Blessed inability! Cannot be sinning, or living a life out of harmony with God"s will and Word. Cannot! Why? Because in the new product of God"s Spirit the principle of righteousness is so active that a sinning life is entirely out of the question. Virtue is so strong that it expels its opposite. A true child of God cannot be in alienation of spirit from his Father in heaven, even for one moment. So an honest servant cannot steal, a faithful husband cannot be unfaithful. One passionately fond of accuracy cannot be systematically inaccurate. So, also a child of God cannot be opposed to his Father"s will, simply because, ex hypothesi, the product of the new birth is a child who will will as his Father wills. Into errors of judgment he may fall, by sudden gusts of temptation he may be overtaken and so surprised into a fault; but from sin, from the sin of living alien to God, he was delivered once and for ever, when, by the change in his nature, he was born again! He was "renewed after the image of him that created him.

IV THE SINNING LIFE IS OPPOSED TO THE EVERLASTING STATUTE OF THE GOSPEL. So the apostle argues here. The sinning life is one of lawlessness, one of selfishness. Unlovingness and unrighteousness are not of God. He who drifts away from loyalty to God will soon drift away also from consideration to man. Disloyal self-will Godward, breeds selfish isolation manward. And this is contrary to the commandment that we heard" from the beginning," i.e., from the beginning of Divine revelation, (Gen_9:9) or from the beginning of our Saviour"s teaching, (Mat_5:44) or from the beginning of our Christian profession. (Gal_6:10) Consequently, one who receives and obeys the gospel began to unlearn selfishness the moment he was won for God. He is bound by his Lord"s precepts to do good unto all men.

INFERENCES AND APPLICATION.

1. H ow very serious a matter sin is! It is not a mere question of a few wrong deeds, but of a false bias of the will, which turns the entire life into a wrong channel. E.g. think of the prodigal son. During his guilty wanderings

2. he may have been entirely faithful to the citizen who hired him, but he was sinning against his father all the while he was away from him. So the disloyal man. He may do acts that are right as towards A and B and C; but so long as he is disloyal to God, he is sinning against him all the while.

3. How manifold are the forces employed against sin! A Law to condemn it, a Saviour to redeem from it, a Spirit to destroy it, a gospel to testify against it, a whole family of new-born sons to be living witnesses of his deliverance from its power.

1. How blessed and honourable to be a child of God, and so to be numbered among the forces which God would bring to bear against sin! God"s children are enlisted on his side, that they may be workers together with their Father in declaring eternal war against sin. Even under the Mosaic economy this principle was recognized. Jehovah called for the united voice of the people to join with him in branding sin with a curse (see homily on Deuteronomy 27). But then the more prominent force was a law without; now it is a life within.

2. How distinctively Divine is the life of the true child of God! and how clear and manifest a proof of the reality of redemption and of regeneration! Of the former, because he is redeemed out of the region of sin altogether; of the latter, because a new life, higher than nature knows, has been actually begotten in him, and is being sustained by the power of God.

3. How sure the triumph of God"s children! They have to fight against the world"s selfishness and sin, and in doing this they fight along with One who was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil. The purport of that manifestation shall be realized; and when their Lord triumphs, his victory will be theirs.

4. What a sorry outlook for those who are not the children of God! What can they be thinking of to fight against so much? But all I they do not think. They pause not to ask What am I doing? How forlorn their prospect! Alien from God, rushing against his Law, neglecting his gospel, despising the Son of God: to what humiliation and destruction are they rushing on? Siding with the evil one, like him they must be cast down (Luk_10:18) and cast out. (Joh_12:31)

Vers. 4-6.

Dissuasives from sin.

committeth sin, transgresseth also the Law," etc. The apostle, having stated that the influence of the hope of the Christian stimulates him to seek for moral purity, proceeds to present forcible reasons against the commission of sin. Of these reasons we have three chief ones in the text, and these are repeated, with some additional particulars, in verses 7-9.

I SIN IS OPPOSED TO THE HOLY LAW OF GOD. "Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness.

1. Sin in its abstract nature. "Sin is the transgression of the Law," or "lawlessness." This is said of sin in general: it is true of every sin, that it is a violation of the Law of God. This is opposed to several modem theories concerning sin. Some say that sin is a natural imperfection of the creature the crude effort of untrained man for right conduct. Our text says that itis not imperfection, but transgression of a holy Law. And others charge all sin upon defective social arrangements: human society is not rightly organized, and because of this men err. But St. John charges sin upon the individual, and charges it as a disregard or a breach of Divine Law. And others apply the word "misdirection" to what the Bible calls sin, and thus endeavour to get rid of guilt. But misdirection implies a misdirector; that misdirector is man. And sin is more than misdirection; it is the infraction of the holy Law and beautiful order of the Supreme. The sacred Scriptures everywhere assert this. The cherubim and the flaming sword of Eden, (Gen_3:24) the awful voices of Sinai (Exodus 20), and the mournful but glorious sacrifice of Calvary unite in. declaring that sin is the transgression of the Law of God. And the voice of conscience confirms this testimony of Holy Writ. The unsophisticated and awakened conscience cries, "I acknowledge my transgression," etc.. (Psa_2:3, Psa_2:4)

2. Sin in its actual commission. "Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness." The expression seems to indicate the practice of sin voluntariness, deliberateness, and activity in wrong-doing. It is the antithesis of the conduct of the child of God in purifying himself. It is not sin as an occasional or exceptional thing, but as a general thing. Persistent activity in doing evil is suggested by the form of expression. We are reminded by it of the expression of the royal and inspired poet, "the workers of iniquity persons who habitually practice sin, who work wickedness as though it were their business. Here, then, are reasons why we should not sin.

(1) Sin is a violation of the Law of God; it is a rebellion against his will the wise, the good, the Holy One. Therefore in itself it is an evil thing, a thing of great enormity.

(2) Law carries with it the idea of penalty. It has its rewards for those who observe it; its punishments for those who transgress it. Hence our interests plead with us against the practice of sin.

II SIN IS OPPOSED TO THE GLORIOUS GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. The holy will of God the Father and the redemptive work of God the Son are both essentially antagonistic to iniquity. "Ye know that he was manifested to take away sins; and in him is no sin.

1. The end of Christ"s mission was the abolition of sin. "He was manifested to take away sins. To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." The bearing of our sins in his own body on the tree is not the fact here mentioned. It is involved; for "once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the

2. sacrifice of himself"; (Heb_9:26) but it is not brought out in this place. The manifestation denotes his incarnation, and his life and work in the flesh. His entire mission was opposed to sin. He became incarnate, he prayed and preached, he wrestled with temptation, and wrought mighty and gracious works, he suffered and died, he arose from the dead, and he ever lives, to take away sins. "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.

3. A great characteristic of Christ"s Person was his freedom from sin. "In him is no sin." He asserted his own sinlessness: "Which of you convicteth me of sin? The prince of the world cometh: and he hath nothing in me." And this claim he consistently maintained. His enemies tacitly or openly confessed that they could find no sin in him. The Pharisees keenly watched him to discover some matter of accusation against him, but their watching was vain. And when they had preferred a false charge against him before Pilate, the Roman judge said, "I, having examined him before you, found no fault in this Man touching those things whereof ye accuse him;" "I am innocent of the blood of this righteous Man." Judas Iscariot had known Jesus intimately for three years, and after he had traitorously betrayed him, in intolerable anguish he cried, "I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood." And his friends, who had been closely and constantly associated with him for three years, invariably asserted the perfect moral purity of his character and conduct. The sinlessness of our Lord should check every inclination to sin in his disciples, and stimulate them to the pursuit of holiness. To commit sin is to run counter to our Saviour"s personal character, and to the gracious spirit and grand aim of the redemption which he has wrought.

III SIN IS OPPOSED TO THE DIVINE LIFE IN MAN. "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him.

1. Participation in the Divine life precludes the practice of sin. "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not." We abide in Christ by believing on him, loving him, communing with him, drawing our life from him. (cf Joh_15:1-7) That this part of our text cannot mean that sin is impossible to a Christian is evident from 1Jn_1:8-10 1Jn_2:1,

2. But in so far as the child of God abides in Christ he is separated fromsin. In the degree in which the Divine life is realized by him, in that degree he is unable to sin (cf. verse 9).

3. The practice of sin proves the absence of a true knowledge of Jesus Christ. "Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him." The sight and knowledge here spoken of are not merely intellectual, but spiritual; not theoretical, but experimental. And the "sinneth" does not denote sin as an occasional and exceptional thing, but as general and habitual. He who lives in the practice of sin thereby proclaims that he does not know the Lord Jesus Christ.

By all these reasons let Christians watch and pray that they sin not, and "follow after sanctification, without which no man shall see the Lord. W.J.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whosoever committeth sin - Thereby transgresseth the holy, just, and good law of God, and so sets his authority at nought; for this is implied in the very nature of sin.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

committeth sin practiseth sin practiseth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

sin Sin. (See Scofield "Rom 3:23")

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

To abide in Him means not to sin:

v. 4. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the Law; for sin is the transgression of the Law.

v. 5. And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin.

v. 6. Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not; whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him.

Here the apostle shows that deliberate, malicious sinning is incompatible with the new life of the Christians: Every one that commits sin commits also lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. That the apostle makes a distinction between sins of malice and those of weakness, such as come upon a person unawares, is seen from chap. 2:1. Of the former he speaks in this passage. Every one that is in the habit of committing sins thereby places himself in lasting opposition to the Law of God. He commits lawlessness, he deliberately does the opposite of that which the holy will of God demands of all men; he performs what God hates, what He has threatened to punish with temporal death and eternal damnation

Now it is true, in general, with regard to the sins of all men: And you know that He was manifested to bear our sins, and sin is not in Him. This is the gist of the Gospel-message, the great truth with which all believers are familiar. Christ was manifested. He came into the world. He appeared in the fullness of time in order to bear and take away our sins, to atone for all the sins of all mankind, to offer Himself as a perfect sacrifice of propitiation for all time. The handwriting which was against us has been completely wiped out through the salvation of Christ. His sacrifice had such infinite worth because in Him there is no sin; He is the innocent Lamb of God, His blood, as that of the holy Son of God, is the complete price of ransom for all the guilt that was heaped up before the just God.

From this fundamental fact it follows: Every one that remains in Him does not sin; every one that sins has not seen Him nor known Him. Our knowledge of the salvation of Christ is a living knowledge, a living faith. It is through this faith that we have fellowship with Christ, that we are and remain in Christ. In this union the Christian as such does not sin, he refuses to serve sin, he keeps his heart, mind, and thoughts away from sinful things, he will not yield his members to be servants of unrighteousness, Rom 6:1-14. On the other hand, every one that persists in sin, in lawlessness, in opposition to God’s holy will thereby give evidence that he has not seen nor known Christ by faith. If a person is in any way a willing servant of sin and still tries to persuade himself and others that he is a Christian, he is merely deceiving himself. Note; These words of the apostle do not state, as the so-called perfectionists claim, that a Christian here on earth will reach a stage in which he, in his own person, is sinless. Because we still have our sinful nature to contend with, therefore we Christians are prone to stumble and even to fall. It is according to the new man that we are pure in the sight of God, for the sake of Christ’s righteousness; it is according to our regenerated self that we do not commit sin and keep all our members in subjection unto holiness. But our carnal self, the old Adam, transgresses the will of God in countless instances, thus imposing upon us the duty to wage incessant warfare against it, as St. Paul has so clearly pictured it, Rom 7:14-24.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whosoever committeth sin, that is, whosoever lives in the allowed commission of it, lives in rebellion against, and in a flat opposition to, the law of God, sin being a transgression of God’s law; and such a person as thus commits sin, not only violates the law of God, but also frustrates the death of Christ; for Christ, in whom there was no sin, was manifested in the flesh to take away sin, the guilt of it by his blood, the power of it by his Spirit, and consequently we must purify ourselves from it, if we hope to see him as he is.

Learn hence, That nothing can be more unreasonble and absurd, than to expect salvation with God in heaven by a sinless Saviour, if we allow ourselves in a course of sin; nothing being more contrary than this to the design of Christ’s death, which was not only to deliver us from the danger, but from the dominion of our sins; not only to expiate our sins, but to make us sinless like himself.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4–10. Whosoever committeth sin, etc. The very act of sinning is a breaking of law. “Sin is lawlessness” (Revision).

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Christ was revealed

This can be stated in active form. AT: "Christ appeared" or "the Father revealed Christ" (See: Active or Passive)

remains in him

"has a relationship with God." See how this was translated in 1 John 2:5-6.

No one ... has seen him or known him

John uses the words "seen" and "known" to say that the person who sins has never met Christ in a spiritual sense. A person behaving according to his sinful nature cannot know Christ. AT: "No one ... has ever truly believed in him" (See: Doublet)

translationWords

sin

lawful

Christ

reveal

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

4. As so often, the Apostle emphasizes his statement by giving the opposite case, and not the simple opposite, but an expansion of it. Instead of saying ‘every one that hath not this hope’ he says every one that doeth sin. The A.V. not only obscures this antithesis by changing ‘every man’ to ‘whosoever,’ but also the contrast between ‘doing righteousness’ (1Jn 2:29) and ‘doing sin’ by changing from ‘do’ to ‘commit.’ This contrast is all the more marked in the Greek because both words have the article; ‘doeth the righteousness,’ ‘doeth the sin.’ Equally unfortunate is the A.V. rendering of καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ, ‘transgresseth also the law:’ which destroys the parallel between ποιῶν τ. ἁμαρτ. and τ. ἀνομ. ποιεῖ. Note the chiasmus, and render with R.V.; Every one that doeth sin, doeth also lawlessness. To bring out the contrast and parallel it is imperative to have the same verb in both clauses and also in 1Jn 2:29: to do sin is to do lawlessness, and this is the opposite of to do righteousness. The one marks the children of God, the other the children of the devil. ‘Lawlessness’ both in English and Greek (ἀνομία) means not the privation of law, but the disregard of it: not the having no law, but the acting as if one had none. (Comp. the Hebrew pesha and the LXX. rendering of it, Isa 43:27; Amo 4:4: it implies faithless disregard of a covenant. This was precisely the case with some of the Gnostic teachers: they declared that their superior enlightenment placed them above the moral law; they were neither the better for keeping it nor the worse for breaking it. Sin and lawlessness, says the Apostle, are convertible terms: they are merely different aspects of the same state. (Hence the predicate as well as the subject has the article: see below.) And it is in its aspect of disregard of God’s law that sin is seen to be quite irreconcilable with being a child of God and having fellowship with God. See on 1Jn 3:17.

The ‘for’ of A.V. is sanctioned by no reading or ancient Version: it comes from Tyndale, Beza, and the Genevan. The Vulgate preserves the chiasmus as well as the καί: Omnis qui facit peccatum, et iniquitatem facit; et peccatum est iniquitas. So also Tertullian, but with the African rendering delictum in each case for peccatum. So also, quite naturally, Luther: Wer Sünde thut, der thut auch Unrecht, und die Sünde ist das Unrecht. For instances in which both terms in a proposition that can be converted simply have the article comp. ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ὂν ἡκούσατε (1Jn 2:7): ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων (Joh 1:4): ἡ πέτρα ἦν ὁ Χριστός (1Co 10:4; comp. 1Co 11:3; 1Co 15:56). Winer, 142, note. Green, 35, 36.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4-10.] The irreconcileability of sin with the work of redemption, with communion with Christ, and with being born of God. So De Wette; and the passage seems thus to be well described. But the difficulty has been, to mark distinctly the connexion with the foregoing. In order to discover this, we must go back to the theme of the whole section of the Epistle, in ch. 2:29: “If God is righteous, then every one that doeth righteousness, is born of Him.” Hitherto the positive side of this position has been illustrated: the inseparability of birth-from-God and likeness-to-God. Now, the Apostle comes to treat its negative side: the incompatibility of sin with birth-from-God. And this he deals with essentially and in the ideal, as always. The whole is in the closest connexion with the foregoing, and is developed step by step with the minutest precision, as will be seen in the exegesis.

4.] In this verse we have ver. 3 taken up (cf. πᾶς ὁ ἔχων.… πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν) ex adverso. There, God’s essential purity formed a law, according to which the child of God, having hope of ultimate complete likeness to Him, purifies himself. Here we have it declared that the sinner goes counter to (this and all other) law: indeed the two terms, sin and lawlessness, are synonymous and convertible. Every one that committeth sin, also committeth transgression-of-law: and sin (abstract and in general) is transgression-of-law (abstract and in general. The assertion amounts to the identification of the terms, and the ἐστίν amounts to “is equivalent to.” If either of the words were anarthrous, it would become predicative of quality,—“is of the nature of”—as in θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος: both having the article, both are distributed logically, and the one is asserted to be co-extensive and convertible with the other. And from the nature of the foregoing clause, which was to declare the ἀνομία of sin, it would appear here also that we must take ἡ ἁμαρτία as the subject and ἡ ἀνομία as the predicate, not the converse.

This being so, what is it exactly that our verse asserts respecting these two things, sin, and transgression-of-law? First and obviously, no appropriation must be made, in this verse and throughout this passage, of ἁμαρτία to one kind of sin, whether it be mortal sin as distinguished from venial (so the R.-C. expositors, e. g. Estius, but hesitatingly, “loquitur præcipue de peccato mortali, quamquam et venalia sunt iniquitates quædam et legi divinæ alicui repugnant, et ab ingressu regni cœlestis ac similitudine Christi participanda remorantur, donec expurgata fuerint”), or notorious and unrepented sins, or sins against brotherly love (as Luther, and Aug. on ver. 9): “peccare contumaciter,” Aret.: “peccato dare operam,” Beza, Piscator: “peccare scientem et volentem,” Seb.-Schmidt, Spener. The assertions are all perfectly general, and regard, in the true root and ideal, every sin whatever. Every sin whatever then is a transgression of God’s law: as indeed its very name implies: ἁμαρτάνειν being to miss a mark, and the mark being that will of God which is the νόμος and σκοπός to him who ποιεῖ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ch. 2:17. Œc. gives the meaning very well, except that he understands of the law of nature only, what ought to be understood of the law of God, the revelation of His will, in whatever way made: ἰστέον δὲ ὡς ἁμαρτία μὲν ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀπόπτωσίς ἐστιν, ἀνομία δὲ ἡ περὶ τὸν θετὸν νόμον πλημμέλεια. καὶ ταύτην ἔχουσιν ἀρχὴν ἑκάτερον τούτων, τὸ μὲν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἔκπτωσιν, τὸ δέ τὴν περὶ τὸν θετὸν νόμον πλημμέλειαν. συμφέρονται δέ ταύταις καὶ κατὰ ταὐτόν. ὅ τε γὰρ ἁμαρτάνων τοῦ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν καὶ ἐν τῇ φύσει ἀπέτυχε σκοποῦ. σκοπὸς γὰρ τῇ ἀνθρωπείᾳ φύσει τὸ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ζῇν, τῆς ἀλογίας πόῤῥω ἀπῳκισμένῃ. ὡσαύτως καὶ ὁ ἄνομος πλημμελεῖ περὶ τὸν ἐν τῇ φὐσει δεδομένον νόμον, διαγινόμενος ἀκρατῶς, καλῶς οὖν ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ταὐτὸν ἀμφότερα περιέστησεν).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. πᾶς] Cf. ver. 3 (note). In contrast with those who seek to cleanse themselves from all defilement, are set those who continue to do the sin which defiles and separates from God. There is no special class of illuminati, superior to the obligation to keep the moral law. The test of progress is obedience. Those who fail to do the will of God, to work out the best of which their nature is capable, are breaking the law of God, which is the law of their being. All sin is law-breaking; all falling short of the highest possible is disobedience to God’s law for men, the law of self-realization after the pattern of the Christ. He that fails to do righteousness breaks the law.τὴν ἀνομίαν] ἀνομία here is, of course, not the antinomianism of the “Gnostic.” The condemnation of that would have required the converse of the statement here made, “All ἀνομία is sin.” But the writer is undoubtedly thinking of the claim made by the superior “Gnostic,” that he is at liberty to follow the leading of his own desires, without being under any obligation to the moral law, which is only binding on the ignorant and the inferior. The sins of which the writer is thinking are failures to fulfil the law of love, rather than grosser sins of the flesh, which are hardly, perhaps never, referred to in this Epistle. But whatever form they take, sinful acts are not matters of indifference. In the case of all men, even the most intelligent, they are transgressions of a valid law. He who stoops to them shows himself thereby to be no true τέκνον θεοῦ.

καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία κ.τ.λ.] The καί adds a clause which carries the thought a step further. Not only is “doing sin” a violation of law, but sin in its very nature is a transgression of the law of God. It is the self-assertion of the finite against the eternal will of Him who has the right to claim absolute obedience.

την 1o] om. 31.

η 2o] pr. και א: (?) om. I a 200 (83).

εστιν] + δε H δ2* (א).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whosoever committeth sin [πας ο ποιων την αμαρτιαν] . Rev., better, every one that doeth sin. See on ver. 3, every man that hath, and note the frequent repetition of this form of expression in the present chapter. Compare pav oJ aJmartanwn whosoever sinneth (ver. 6). The phrase to do sin regards sin as something actually realized in its completeness. He that does sin realizes in action the sin (note the article thn) that which includes and represents the complete ideal of sin. Compare do righteousness, 1Jo 2:29.

Transgresseth also the law [και την ανομιαν ποιει] . Rev., more accurately, doeth also lawlessness. Compare Mt 13:41, and the phrase oiJ ejrgazomenoi thn ajnomian ye that work iniquity (Mt 7:23).

For [και] . Rev., correctly, and. This and the preceding clause are coordinated after John's manner.

Is the transgression of the law [εστιν η ανομια] . Rev., correctly, is lawlessness. Sin is the violation of the law of our being, the law which includes our threefold relation to God, to the men and things around us, and to ourselves. Compare Jas 1:14; Jas 4:17.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4. Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν...) Bvery one that...

It is interesting to notice that Bede observes the inadequacy of the Latin rendering: Virtus hujus sententi, he says, facilius in lingua Greecorum, qua edita est epistola, comprehenditur, siquidem apud eos iniguitas ἀνομία vocatur... Omnes enim qui peccant preevaricationis (Ps. cxix. 119 Lat.) rei sunt, hoc est non solum illi qui datam sibi scripts legis scientiam contemnunt, sed et illi qui innocentiam legis naturalis quam in protoplasto omnes accepimus sive infirmitate sive negligentia sive etiam ignorantia corrumpunt,

For the change of order in the two clauses see v. 2 note.

5. Not only is sin a violation of the law of man’s being: it seta at

This fact at once explains how Christ could take away sin, and how ain is incompatible with fellowship with Him. The tense (5 not eas) marks the eternal character of the Redeemer. All that belongs to His ‘perfected’ manhood (Heb. ii. 10, v. 9) ‘is’ in Him no leas than His unchanged Divinity.

John i. 18, v. 37, vi. 46, xiv. 7, 9 (Heb. xi, 27).

The use of the word here in connexion with Christ seems to point to some teachers who appealed to their personal sight of the Lord (comp. i. 1 ff.; John xix. 35, xx. 29) as giving authority to their false doctrine. Of such in spite of outward intercourse it could be said that ‘they had not seen Christ’ (comp. 2 Cor. v. 16).

οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν] ‘neither hath come to know, i.e. neither knoweth. The point regarded is present and not past. Comp. ii. 3 note.

The statement leaves on one side the question of the indefectibility of grace. It deals with the actual state ofthe man, Past sight and past knowledge cease to beunleasthey go forward.

(Leg. pro Christ. c. 31).

σπέρμα αὐτοῦ] semen ipsius V., his seed, the principle of life which He has given continues to be the ruling principle of the believers growth. God gives, as it were, of Himself to the Christian. He does not only work upon him and leave him. The germ of the new life is that out of which the mature man will in due time be developed. Comp. John i. 13. .

rapas τέκνα. And also: Matt. xiii. 38

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889) and The Epistles of St John (1883) — public domain (pre-1929). Text recovered from Internet Archive / Google Books OCR scans. Westcott’s Gospel of John commentary is not included (its OCR lost the chapter running-heads required for reliable verse-keying). Some Greek quoted in the Hebrews volume is imperfectly rendered by the OCR.