1 John 3:9

An Exegetical Analysis of 1 John 3:9: The Nature of Sin in the Life of the Regenerate

This exegetical study of ‘The Nature of Sin in the Life of the Regenerate’ is based on a b-greek discussion from Wednesday, October 20, 1999. The initial inquiry centers on the grammatical implications of the present tense verb οὐ δύναται followed by the present tense complementary infinitive ἁμαρτάνειν in 1 John 3:9. The original poster questioned whether the grammatical context or the present tense of these terms necessitates or suggests a translation implying continuous or habitual sinning, noting a lack of general agreement in scholarly grammars on this point.

The main exegetical issue revolves around reconciling John’s seemingly absolute statements regarding the inability of the regenerate to sin (1 John 3:6, 9; 5:18) with the clear acknowledgement of believers’ capacity for sin and need for confession (1 John 1:8, 2:1-2). This tension leads to a critical examination of the verbal aspect of ποιέω (poieō) and ἁμαρτάνω (hamartanō), the force of the negative particle οὐ, and the rhetorical function of such declarative pronouncements within the broader theological framework of the epistle. Furthermore, the discussion extends to the significance of the chiastic structure proposed for this verse and the precise lexical nuance of δύναμαι.

Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται. (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• Nestle 1904 capitalizes Θεοῦ (Theou), while SBLGNT 2010 uses lowercase θεοῦ in both instances. Otherwise, the texts are identical.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

The Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28) does not record any significant textual variants for 1 John 3:9 that would alter the core meaning of the verse, particularly concerning the verbs ποιεῖ, μένει, δύναται, and the infinitive ἁμαρτάνειν. The consensus text is remarkably stable for this passage.

Lexical Notes:

• ποιέω (poieō): BDAG defines this verb broadly as “to do, make, bring about.” In the context of ἁμαρτίαν ποιεῖ, it signifies ‘committing sin’ or ‘practicing sin.’ KITTEL (TDNT) emphasizes the active, intentional performance of an action, indicating a purposeful engagement rather than an accidental slip.
• ἁμαρτία (hamartia) / ἁμαρτάνω (hamartanō): BDAG defines ἁμαρτία as “a deviation from a standard, sin.” ἁμαρτάνω means “to miss the mark, sin.” The present infinitive ἁμαρτάνειν, therefore, denotes the ongoing act or process of sinning. KITTEL traces the concept from its root of ‘missing the mark’ to its theological sense of failing in one’s duty to God, emphasizing the relational rupture caused by sin.
• σπέρμα (sperma): BDAG offers meanings such as “seed” (literal and metaphorical), “descendant,” or “progeny.” In a theological context, particularly with “His seed” (σπέρμα αὐτοῦ), it is often interpreted as the divine principle or life of God imparted to believers through regeneration, perhaps referring to the Holy Spirit or the divine nature. KITTEL provides an extensive theological discussion, linking it to divine generation and the new life in Christ.
• μένω (menō): BDAG means “to remain, abide, stay.” In the Johannine corpus, this term carries significant theological weight, often describing an intimate, continuing relationship or presence, as in God’s Spirit abiding in believers. KITTEL highlights its role in expressing permanence and active continuance in fellowship.
• δύναμαι (dynamai): BDAG primarily translates this as “to be able, capable,” often implying potential or capacity. The discussion in the b-greek thread explored a nuance of “to dare not” or “cannot bear to” (from LSJ), suggesting a moral compulsion rather than an absolute lack of ability. However, common NT usage generally supports the sense of inherent capacity or power. KITTEL, while acknowledging various shades, largely aligns with BDAG, focusing on inherent power or capacity.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The interpretation of 1 John 3:9 hinges significantly on the grammatical understanding of the present tense verbs and infinitives, particularly ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ and οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, and how these relate to the theological context of John’s epistle. The main points of contention revolve around the aspect of the present tense, the scope of negation, and the rhetorical intent.

Early contributors to the discussion, such as the initial poster, questioned whether the present tense, combined with the negative οὐ, implies a “continuous” or “habitual” action. This interpretation often leads to translations like “does not sin habitually” or “is not able to sin continuously,” attempting to reconcile 1 John 3:9 with 1 John 1:8 (“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves…”). Scholars like Fanning (1990) acknowledge the “habitual interpretation” as possible based on NT usage. However, Steven Miller challenged this, arguing that a negative “habitual present” meaning “only occasionally does this thing but not habitually” is a “real stretch” and unsupported by clear examples where οὐ + present tense implies sporadic action.

Conversely, other participants, including Miller and Martin Culy, suggested that such interpretations “water down” John’s “sweeping generalization” or “absolutist rhetoric.” Culy (2004) argued that the present tense simply portrays sin “as a process without regard to the event’s frequency of recurrence – a process that should have no place in the life of one who ‘remains in him.'” He preferred to see John employing hyperbole to emphasize the “fundamental incompatibility of being born of God and committing sin,” rather than weakening the rhetoric by focusing on habitual sin. This view maintains that Christians should not be characterized by a lifestyle of sin, without necessarily claiming absolute sinlessness.

The phrase οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν also received particular attention. Lincoln Mullen clarified a common misunderstanding, stating that οὐ negates the finite verb δύναται (“is not able”), not the infinitive ἁμαρτάνειν. If the intention were “is able not to sin,” the negative particle μή would be used before the infinitive, as μή negates infinitives and other non-indicative moods. Thus, the text clearly states an inability to sin, not an ability to avoid sinning. The present infinitive ἁμαρτάνειν, in this context, further emphasizes the nature of the action as an ongoing process or state.

Denise Parkes proposed an alternative lexical interpretation for δύναμαι, suggesting “dare not” or “cannot bear to” based on a secondary definition in LSJ, implying a moral compulsion rather than a physical or spiritual inability. This interpretation attempts to resolve the perceived inconsistency with 1 John 1:8 by allowing for the ability to sin while affirming a moral aversion in the regenerate. However, Elizabeth Kline and George Somsel countered this, arguing that the general NT usage of δύναμαι, as supported by BDAG, focuses on inherent capacity or power, and that the cited classical examples from LSJ do not strongly support a “dare not” nuance in a way applicable to the NT context without clearer semantic markers.

An important rhetorical feature, highlighted by George Blaisdell and Jeremy Spencer, is the chiastic structure of 1 John 3:9. Spencer proposed the following structure:

• A. Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Everyone who has been born of God)
• B. ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, (does not commit sin,)
• C. ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, (because His seed remains in him,)
• B’. καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, (and he is not able to sin,)
• A’. ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται. (because he has been born of God.)

This chiastic arrangement emphasizes the central clause (C) ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει (“because His seed remains in him”) as the pivotal reason for the regenerate’s inability to sin. The parallelism between A and A’ (γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ and ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται) and B and B’ (ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ and οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν) reinforces the idea that the new birth from God is the foundational cause for a life that does not actively engage in sin. The dynamic of σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει is presented as the internal, abiding force that enables this transformation, grounding the ethical demand in a theological reality.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The exegesis of 1 John 3:9 reveals a complex interplay of grammar, rhetoric, and theology. While the tension with other Johannine passages (1 John 1:8, 2:1) is undeniable, the most robust interpretation synthesizes the grammatical force of the present tense and the negative particle with John’s overarching rhetorical purpose and literary structures. The present tense, rather than denoting mere habitual action that allows for occasional exceptions, expresses a characteristic state or a sweeping, unqualified declaration of the fundamental nature of the regenerate life. The chiastic structure further elevates the indwelling divine “seed” as the enabling factor for this transformed existence.

The regenerate individual, by virtue of divine birth and the abiding presence of God’s life (σπέρμα), is fundamentally incompatible with a life characterized by sin. This is not necessarily a claim to absolute sinless perfection, but rather a strong affirmation of a new identity and an ethical trajectory that moves away from sin as a defining feature. The inability (οὐ δύναται) is spiritual and ontological, reflecting the new nature bestowed by God, rather than a physical impossibility or a mere moral reluctance.

Here are three suggested translations, each with a slightly different nuance informed by the exegetical discussion:

1. Every person born of God does not engage in sin, because His seed remains in them, and they are unable to sin, because they have been born of God.
   This translation emphasizes the characteristic nature of the regenerate life and the inherent inability to pursue a life of sin, grounded in divine regeneration.
2. No one who has been begotten by God makes a practice of sin, for God’s life-giving principle abides in them, and they cannot continue to sin, for they have been begotten by God.
   This option uses “makes a practice of” to hint at the durative aspect of the present tense without watering down the strength of the negation. “Life-giving principle” for σπέρμα attempts to capture the theological depth.
3. Everyone who has been born of God does not commit sin, because His divine nature lives within them, and they are divinely incapable of sin, because they originate from God.
   This translation leans into the absolute nature of the statement, interpreting οὐ δύναται as an ontological incapability stemming from their divine origin and indwelling. “Divine nature” and “divinely incapable” seek to capture the full force of John’s proclamation.