. 約翰一書 - 第 3 章 第 9 節
凡從神生的就不犯罪，因神的道（原文作種）存在他心裡。他也不能犯罪，因為他是由神生的。
3:9 No one who has been born of God sins, because his [God’s] seed remains in them, and they are not able to sin, because they have been born of God (Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται). References to the new birth are found ten times in 1 John (2:29; 3:9 [2x]; 4:7; 5:1 [3x], 4, 18 [2x]; cf. John 3:3–8). Here the hoti clause defines what it means to have been born of God (notice the perfect tense of the participle): God’s seed remains in the one who has been born of God. As Kruse points out, it might at first glance seem that Christ is God’s seed that remains in the believer. However, he is likely right that the metaphor is more “bold,” in that it refers to the regenerative impulse, the Holy Spirit, who effects the new birth and who remains in and with the believer. This seems to say that those who have been regenerated by the Spirit are indwelt by the Spirit and therefore will not sin.
The statement that “no one who who has been born of God sins” immediately raises the existential question, “Who, then, is born of God?” And it seems to make John contradict himself in light of 1 John 1:7 and 2:1, verses that offer to believers the blood of Jesus as a remedy for acknowledged sin. And why does John exhort his readers in 5:16 to pray for the brother or sister who sins if a Christian is not able to sin?
One unacceptable approach is to just write off John as internally self-contradictory. But Brown, who thinks “we should never assume that ancient authors were stupid or illogical and could not see the difficulties, especially within the same brief piece of writing,” suggests that the problem indicates we must go deeper for the solution. He recognizes the contradiction, but suggests that it points to two different kinds of perfectionism—one a heretical teaching based on a distortion of John’s gospel and the other the orthodox perfectionism that John expresses here.13 Swadling has suggested that 3:6 and 9 are actually heretical statements made by the secessionists, who had also made the claim that they were without sin (1:8, 10). But there is no hypothetical “if we say …” in this passage, and the assertion that no one who has been born of God sins functions as an integral part of John’s argument that distinguishes children of God from those of the devil (3:10).
The most common way of explaining what John means in order to resolve both the existential angst of Christians who nevertheless sin and John’s apparent contradiction of himself is to press the durative aspect of the present tense of the verb in 3:9, “does not do sin” (ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ), to mean that those born of God do not and cannot sin habitually, even while recognizing that they do sin occasionally. Pressing the present tense to serve this purpose is appealing because it not only quickly diminishes the tension between John’s statements in 1:10 and 3:6, 9, but also reduces the psychological tension readers feel. However, this interpretation does not do justice to the vigor of John’s argument, and to explain it away quickly may cause us to miss the point. Furthermore, as Kruse astutely points out:
The use of the present tense says nothing about the habitual or nonhabitual character of the sinning, but only shows that the author has chosen to depict the sinning as something in progress, rather than as a complete action. And, in any case, the present tense is also used in 1:8 where such a distinction between occasional and habitual does not fit the argument.
Kruse is almost certainly on target to suggest that anomia is the key to understanding these difficult statements. When “sin” (ἁμαρτία) is first mentioned in this passage in 3:4, it is identified there with anomia, and both Greek words have the definite article. Because neither article is anaphoric, referring back to a specific previously mentioned sin in the immediate context, the article functions to designate a category of sin that is identified with lawlessness (“and sin is lawlessness,” ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία). This suggests that John is not referring to every sin as anomia, but is concerned with the sin that leads to eschatological judgment (i.e., apostasy). John will later say in 5:16–17 that there is sin that does not lead to death.
But what sin is not anomia? It is sin that has been confessed and cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ (1:9; 2:1–2). The sin of a believer who acknowledges and confesses it is of a different type than the sin of those who refuse to confess and submit to God’s authority. It is the anomia sin that leads to death that the one born of God is not able to commit because God’s seed remains in them (σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει) and they have been born of God (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται).
The Christian may sin, but if they are truly of God, they will agree with him that their sin is sin, will confess it, and turn from it. They will, as Marshall puts it, become what they are. This is quite different from those who refuse to define sin as God defines it, who rationalize their behavior as not being sin, or who otherwise defy God’s authority in their lives. In John’s thought, the one who lives righteously, though perhaps not sinlessly, is a child of the Father and contrasts with the one who does anomia and has not been born of God, at least not yet.
Having been born of God and having his seed within is given as the reason why a genuine child of God cannot commit anomia sin. It is in the very nature of conversion that one comes both to believe in God’s existence and authority and to acknowledge one’s own sin that made the cross of Jesus necessary.
The question of what “his seed” (σπέρμα αὐτοῦ) denotes is debatable. There is a basic ambiguity about the referent. It could be some indwelling regenerative agent from God—taking “in him” (ἐν αὐτῷ) to refer to the believer. In that case, it is still unspecified if that agent is the Holy Spirit, the word of God, the chrisma mentioned in 2:27, or something else. Or “his seed” could refer to God’s offspring, semantically equivalent to τέκνα—which would require taking “in him” (ἐν αὐτῷ) to refer to God and would then mean that the offspring of God does not commit anomia sin because he/they remain in God. In this interpretation, God’s seed could be a reference to his Son, mentioned in the previous verse, whose indwelling presence keeps the believer from sin.
On the one hand, this interpretation jibes with 1 John 5:18, if “the One begotten of God” (ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ) there is understood to be Jesus, who keeps “everyone born of God” (πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ) from the sin that leads to death (see comments on 5:18). On the other hand, every other occurrence of “seed” (σπέρμα) in John’s writings refers to descendants (John 7:42; 8:33, 37), but never to Jesus, which suggests that 3:9 may be another statement that those born of God do not sin because they remain in God.
Other interpreters take “seed” (σπέρμα) in the context of the birth metaphor to be a regenerative agent analogous to human sperm that begets children. Some interpreters further specify the referent of the sperma and agent of spiritual regeneration to be the word of God or the gospel, or to be the Holy Spirit.20 On this train of thought, the point is perhaps “the transference of character traits—spiritual DNA, as it were—through spiritual descent from the Father.” Because those born of God share his character, they are incapable of committing the sin of which John speaks. Regardless of how this difficult expression is understood, it is clear that, as Lieu notes, “being born from God means to continue to be vivified by God’s creative power; such birth cannot be lost or abrogated.”
Jobes, K. H. (2014). 1, 2, & 3 John. (C. E. Arnold, Ed.) (pp. 146–149). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
