40 - 1Jn 3:6
Πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει· πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν, οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν.
When, therefore, the apostle deduces from the end of the manifestation of Jesus, and then more particularly from the nature of Him who appeared, that sin and belonging to the Lord are perfectly irreconcilable opposites, this is logically altogether clear and incontrovertible. But, on the other hand, there is much that rises up against the simple and unlimited acknowledgment of the saying before us: not only does the common Christian consciousness which—despite sin still operative in believers—still clings to the fact of sonship to God revolt against it, but also this exaggeration of the antithesis seems not to harmonize with our Epistle itself. While in our verse the apostle makes it emphatic that everyone who sins neither has nor can have had any fellowship with the Lord, he has notwithstanding, in 1Jn 1:8-10, not only recognised the presence I of sin in believers, but even described their denial of it as an essential lie, and as a clear token of the absence of fellowship with the Lord. Hence it is easily to be understood that many industrious attempts have been made to soften down the meaning of our verse, and thus to reconcile it with clear and express declarations elsewhere. But all these efforts are discredited by the phraseology and the context of our passage. It has been attempted to explain ἁμαρτάνειν[“sinning”] as continuing in sin; but the arbitrariness of such an exegesis is manifest at once. And if the sins are limited to very grave sins, such as the sin unto death, this is evidently contradictory to the context and spirit of the argument, in which the apostle is simply denying every distinction between sin and sin, and exhibiting every ἁμαρτία [“sin”] as also an ἀνομία [“lawlessnes”]. But not less erroneous is the explanation that the Christian does not in fact sin, because, as a Christian and according to his new man, he cannot sin, but as such cherishes nothing but hatred against the sin which, according to his old man, he commits. For although I may hate the sin which I do, it still remains sin; and as it is in me, it cannot possibly be said of me that I sin not: granted that I cannot in my new man sin, nevertheless it is the I, my person, which is the sinning subject. Generally, the view cannot be psychologically sustained which would introduce a total cleavage of the one human constitution, making the half of the man a sinner—that is, the old man—at the very time that the other half is under the influence of the Holy Spirit. All subterfuges of this and of similar kinds are exploded by a touch of the passage itself. We have seen that the apostle pleads against every sin as ἀνομία [“lawlessnes”]; and that, further, according to the Scripture, every ἀνομία [“lawlessnes”] inevitably separates from God. Then it follows directly and most closely from these premises, that every sin, be it what it may, sunders from God; and that he who commits it can have no communion with Him. How such a rigid scriptural utterance as this can be reconciled with the rest of Scripture is another and a second question, which we leave at present unconsidered. It is enough now to establish that St. John did lay down the propositions we now consider. The second half of the verse gives us the converse of the proposition we have been studying, but in such a way that its idea is only made essentially more intense. The thought of the former clause, πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει [“everyone who abides in him does not continue to sin”], is in itself not absolutely inexplicable: it might be said that the sinning man had fellowship with God, and will have it again; and that his sin has also interrupted that fellowship. But all this is taken away by the second clause, which makes it more startling than ever: the μένειν [“abide”] of the former does seem, indeed, to presuppose that there had been an actual past union with God; but here this is expressly denied, for we read: πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν, οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν [“everyone who continues to sin has not seen him, nor known him”]. If we had the present tense in each case instead of the perfect, the meaning of the latter clause would be very much the same as that of the former: supposing that in the critical time of sinning the image of the Lord is not on the table of my heart, might it not have been there before though it is not there now? The ἑωρακέναι [“has seen”] here might be explained by the same word in 1Jn 3:2. It is true that they do not refer to the same object: in 1Jn 3:2 the glorified Son of God is the object beheld; but He cannot be meant in our present passage. He cannot according to the connection; and because, simply, we have no image in our minds of the glorified Christ, nor can our thoughts of Him serve us here in the least degree. Here the object beheld is the Lord as He was once manifested, ἐφανερώθην [“made known”], and as He in fact in whom ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἔστιν [“there is no sin”]. Thus the ἑωρακέναι [“has seen”] refers to the Lord not καθώςἐστιν [“just as he is”], but καθὼς ἦν [“just as he was”]: just as the apostles have depicted Him in His life and sufferings before our eyes, as if in fact He had been crucified amongst ourselves (Gal 3:1, after Luther). Yet even if the two beholdings in this and the second verse are different as to the aspect of the object beheld, the seeing itself is of the very same nature, and is followed in both cases by the same results. When we behold the glorified Lord we shall be changed into the same image, and be in fact glorified ourselves; and so here likewise, he who has truly beheld the Sinless One should through this beholding himself become sinless. This consequence is so express to the apostle’s mind as to bring out the declaration, that he who is not sinless proves by that very fact his never having yet beheld the Lord. Of course it needs not to be insisted on that the seeing here meant does not consist in historical knowledge of Christ; but that such a perception is meant as is brought about by the instrumentality of the Spirit of Christ Himself, whose office is to bring to remembrance of the disciples both Him and all that He has said. Hence the apostle goes on to say that the sinning man, as he has not seen the Lord, so also he “has not known Him.” This position after ὁρᾶν [“to see”] is intended to stamp the γινώσκειν [“to know”] as either a higher grade or as a consequence of the seeing. It is not that ὁρᾶν [“to see”] is a figurative expression, and γινώσκειν [“to know”] its translation into fact: this is evident partly from the οὐδὲ [“nor”] itself, which points to a distinction between the ideas which it divides, and partly from the circumstance that to St. John the ὁρᾶν [“to see”] is by no means a figure, but the standing expression for a spiritual energy which absolutely refuses to be translated into anything else. The difference between the two words is rather this, that ὁρᾶν [“to see”] indicates the intuition, the act in virtue of which I take something immediately into myself or my mind; while γινώσκειν [“to know”] defines the apprehension or knowledge which is found as the consequence of this intuition,—that is, the consciousness and the means of it, its reconciliation with all the other objects of my thinking. Consequently the γινώσκειν [“to know”] is the result of the ὁρᾶν [“to see”]: the former without the latter would be an impossibility. It is customary with the Scripture generally to take the word γινώσκειν [“to know”] with a specially emphatic meaning. Thus, when in Mat 7:23 the Lord says to those who would bring to His mind their great deeds: οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς [“I never knew you”]. And yet it is unimaginable that a προφητεύειν [“prophesying”], a δαίμοναςἐκβάλλειν [“casting out demons”], in the name of Jesus, could be wrought without some corresponding relation to the Lord behind them; but the Lord denies any such relation. This is substantially the same case as that in our verse, and corresponds to its assertion that he who sinneth never had fellowship with the Lord. The only question is, how we are to understand a doctrine of Scripture which is so clearly expressed. The history of St. Paul’s conversion may give us help. It is said there, on the one hand, that the apostle’s companions had not heard the voice which spoke to him (Act 22:9); and, on the other, that they had heard it (Act 9:7). There is no contradiction here; for in the one case it is declared that they heard a sound and perceived a voice, while in the other it is said that they did not hear the words of this voice. It was the same with the heavenly voice which the Lord heard in Joh 12:28: some heard the sound as it were only of thunder; others discerned an angel’s voice; the disciples alone heard the words which were pronounced. In this latter case it might have been said of the people that they heard a voice as well as the seemingly direct contrary. In both the examples thus adduced it might have been said that nothing was heard, inasmuch as that was not heard which was properly to be heard. The relation in our present passage between seeing and knowing is precisely similar. St. John uses them here, as in Act 22:9 the hearing is used, with an emphatic meaning: the sinning man demonstrates by his sin, that knowing in the strict sense cannot be predicated of him; for had he really known, he could not have sinned. But that does not exclude the possibility that elsewhere the same ideas may be found with a more lax application. Even from the hem of our Saviour’s garment a virtue issued, and there was healing in the apostle’s handkerchief; but he who had experienced the healing power of the handkerchief was far from being on that account acquainted with all the treasures that flowed from the spirit of the apostle. We may here and there and in some various degrees submit to the influence of the Holy Ghost, and break off many a sin; but so long as sin is still in us, it is proved that we have seen only the hem of the Lord’s garment, not His very nature; for His nature is δικαιοσύνην [“righteousness”], and he who had seen and known Him as δίκαιος [“righteous”] must through that seeing have become himself sinless.
Now let us sum up the meaning of the verse. He who abideth in Christ sinneth not. The present does not express precisely the actual now, but a continuing condition: in him in whom the μένειν [“abide”] has become a reality, for μένειν [“abide”] carries with it the idea of abiding continuously. In him there is the abiding condition of the οὐχἁμαρτάνειν [“does not continue to sin”]. Again, on the other hand, in the case of him who sinneth, such an abiding state has not been attained: the actings of the ὁρᾶν [“to see”] and γινώσκειν [“to know”] are—let the perfects be observed—not accomplished facts. Then the sum is: every sin demonstrates that we are not found in the fellowship of the Lord.