1 John starts off by making the claim that, as I said, Christians sin:
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1.8-10)
Seems clear and straightforward. And yet, later in 1 John we read this:
Everyone who remains in him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen him or known him. (3.6)Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because his seed remains in him; he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God. (3.9)
So what's going on here? If we say we have no sin we are a liar. But the one who is born of God "does not sin."
Some translations try to resolve the tensions here by translating 3.6 and 3.9 in a way that highlights an ongoing pattern of sin. For example, the NIV translates 3.6 this way:
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
The NLT translates 3.9 this way:
Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning, because God’s life is in them.
I'm not enough of a Greek scholar to judge if these translations are legitimate or not, but you can see what they are trying to do to resolve the tension with 1.8-10. And not just 1.8-10, our lived Christian experience as well, the fact that we do sin. These translations are making a contrast between an isolated act and an ingrained habit and pattern of sinning, an ongoing rebelliousness. We do sin, yes, but Christians do not "make it a practice of sinning."
Such a contrast might be enough to resolve the tensions for you. But you still might have some questions. And there are some Christians who look at texts like 1 John 3.6 and 3.9 as evidence for the possibility of complete sanctification, like John Wesley's view of Christian perfection.
I don't have any amazing or bulletproof answers here, but the argument I made out at the prison when we wrestled with these texts circled less about "sin" versus "patterns of sin" than about the centrality of the atonement. For example, let's go back up to 1.8-10 and read a bit further into Chapter 2:
If we say, “We have no sin,” we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say, “We have not sinned,” we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ the righteous one. He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.
I think this is critical for 1 John's later discussion about sinlessness in Chapter 2. My thought is that, when 1 John mentions sinlessness in Chapter 3, the issue isn't about our behavior as much as Christ's atonement. We sin, but we are sinless, because of Christ. Let's look at the fuller context of 3.6 and 3.9:
Everyone who commits sin practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that he was revealed so that he might take away sins, and there is no sin in him. Everyone who remains in him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen him or known him.
Little children, let no one deceive you. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who commits sin is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose: to destroy the devil’s works. Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because his seed remains in him; he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God.
Notice how the work of Christ weaves through the passage about sinlessness. "He was revealed that he might take away sin." "Everyone who remains in him does not sin." "The Son of God was revealed for this purpose: to destroy the devil's works." Here is what I think 1 John is saying here, connecting 3.6 back to 1.8-10: Everyone who remains in Christ does not sin because there is no sin in him. I think that "in him" is key. Yes, I sin, but if I remain in him and confess my sin then I do not sin because I am in him and in him there is no sin.
Simply put, I don't think the issue of sinlessness refers to our moral capacity for Christian perfection. I think the issue of sinlessness is primarily about "remaining in him" and that "in him" there is "no sin." The critical issue isn't our morality but Christ's sufficiency.
I'm not saying I'm right about this and you might have a different take. But I raise this line of argument to set up one more post about 1 John, the discussion we had out at the prison about 1 John 5.16-17 and the enigma that is "the sin that leads to death." In the next post I'll share that discussion.
