What if a Christian sins? A reflection based on the first epistle of John

Tao-jen Wang 王道仁

1. Foreword

Christians should not sin, but Christians do sin in real life. What should Christians do if they sin after becoming Christians? Will their sin still be forgiven? On what condition will their sin be forgiven? Do they need repentance or penance first to be forgiven? These questions might bother some Christians, and I am one of them. There are many passages in the Bible related to these questions, but those in the first epistle of John caught my attention. This paper aims to answer these questions based on it. May the Holy Spirit guide me in my study and lead me towards the truth.

2. Christians do sin

First of all, does Christians sin? 1 John 1:8-2:2 says “8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. 2But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” (NRSV) In this passage there is a clear possibility of Christians’ sin, or else the author would not tell Christians not to sin. And the author even wrote about “if anyone does sin” and “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.”

On the other hand, 1 John 3:4-10 says “4Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. 7Little children, let no one deceive you. Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God. 10The children of God and the children of the devil are revealed in this way: all who do not do what is right are not from God, nor are those who do not love their brothers and sisters.” In addition, 1 John 5:16-18 says “16If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one—to those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal; I do not say that you should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal. 18We know that those who are born of God do not sin, but the one who was born of God protects them, and the evil one does not touch them.” In these two passages, the author wrote that “those who born of God do not sin” and “cannot sin.”



These statements seem contradictory and are always a hot topic of debate in the first epistle of John. But even Peter the apostle sinned after confessing Jesus is Christ and the son of God: he denied the Lord three times and also was blamed by Paul for hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11-13). And actually hardly any of the commentaries and articles denies Christians do sin after becoming Christians. I think such a nearly unanimous opinion among diverse scholars is probably because of real life experience: all of us sinned after we became Christians.

3. What does it mean by Christians “do not sin” and “cannot sin?”

So what does it mean by Christians “do not sin” and “cannot sin?” Scholars had different opinions on this:

A. Christians do not and cannot sin normally

One explanation is that sinning is not normal to Christians, and Christians cannot sin normally. So Christians might sin, but it is not normal. In the first epistle of John, Christians and non-Christians are described to be entirely different. People born of God walk in the light (1:7), obey commandments (2:3), love one another (3:14), confess Jesus is the son of God (4:15), and do not and cannot sin; people not born of God are the total opposite. So in first John these dualistic terms are used to characterize Christians, but this does not mean Christians are absolutely sinless. The view was supported by Brooke.1

B. Saying Christians do not sin and cannot sin is to encourage Christians not to sin

Another explanation is that saying Christians “do not sin” and “cannot sin,” the author encourages Christians not to sin. So Christians “do not sin” and “cannot sin” is not a thesis used to debate if it is true or false; rather, it is an exhortation to help Christians not to sin. Rensberger2 and Strecker3 held this view. This is also related to the previous view: because it is not normal for Christians to sin, Christians should not sin.

C. Christians do not and cannot sin continually

Since “do not sin” (a`marti,an ouv poiei/ in 3:9 and ouvc a`marta,nei in 5:18), “cannot sin” (ouv du,natai a`marta,nein in 3:9) and “no one…sins” (ouvc a`marta,nei in 3:6) are using present tense, and Greek present tense might imply continuity, the author might mean Christians do not and cannot sin habitually. This is in contrast with 2:1 where “if anyone does sin” (eva,n tij a`ma,rth|) is using aorist tense. Stott4 and Johnson5 agreed with this view, and Inman supported this view with study of Johannine vocabulary.6 However, Rensberger pointed out that in 1:8 “if we say that we have no sin” (eva.n ei;pwmen o[ti a`marti,an ouvk e;comen) and in 5:16 “if you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin” (i;dh| to.n avdelfo.n auvtou/ a`marta,nonta a`marti,an mh. pro.j qa,naton...toi/j a`marta,nousin), present tense is used.7 But 1:8 is the opposite of 1:9, and continuing confessing sins goes hand in hand with not sinning continually. And in 5:16 “committing” is present participle, which might imply the tense is the same as “see,” which is aorist, without implying continuity.

Wu pointed out another problem of this view: the author of first John often switches between tenses like 1 John 2:12-14 without apparent reasons,8 so using different tenses may not be meaningful. I agree that grammatical subtleties should not be interpreted without the context; however, these subtleties might be used as adjunct evidence to support a view. In the context, to interpret Christians “do not” and “cannot sin” as “do not” and “cannot sin” continually still seems like one of the possible interpretations.

D. Christians do not sin and cannot sin in an eschatological sense

Though the author acknowledged that Christians still sin in the real world, in 3:6, 3:9 and 5:18 the author might be speaking in an eschatological sense when the end times have already come. Eventually Christians will be made perfect and sinless, and this is what the author was writing about. Actually 2:11 already states that “it is the last hour.” This view is supported by Brown though he still deemed it to be unsatisfactory.9 I think to use just 2:11 to support this view is unsatisfactory since 3:6, 3:9 and 5:18 are not in the immediate context. But this view is like talking about “already” and “not yet.” These two aspects of Christians are both true, so I accept that this is a possible explanation.

E. Saying Christians do not and cannot sin is to differentiate between real Christians and opponents

Another explanation is that saying Christians do not and cannot sin is to differentiate those “born of God” from those “born of the Devil.” The author of first John emphasized that Christians and opponents are totally opposite, and Christians are sinless in contrast with the sinful opponents. Christians’ sinning is an exception and is not mentioned for argumentation’s sake. Wu supported this view.10 I think this is a possible way to interpret 3:6 and 3:9, but in 5:18 there is less evidence.

F. Christians do not and cannot commit certain major or mortal sins

This view is that the author of first John used “sin” for different meanings in different contexts. Based on 5:16-17, sin is categorized as mortal and not mortal and “brothers” can commit not mortal sins. Then 5:18 says Christians do not sin, so it might be talking about Christians do not commit mortal sin. And so in 3:6 and 3:9 sin might also mean mortal sin, or some other major sins like disserting faith as Yarbrough11 and Griffith12 suggested. Wu criticized this view and pointed out that sin in 3:4 is “lawlessness,” so it is hard to insist that sin in 3:6 and 3:9 just means mortal sin.13 But 5:17 also says “all wrongdoing is sin” and still 5:18 might refer to mortal sin due to the context. So I do not agree with Wu on this point, but I think we should be cautious of this view since in 3:6 and 3:9 there are no reference to mortal sin or other major sins directly.

G. Christians “do not sin” and “cannot sin” is quoting the opponents’ saying.

This view is supported by Smith.14 First Smith maintained that 3:10 should be split into two parts: the latter part starts a new paragraph and the first part is the conclusion of the 3:4-9. Opponents of the author might claim that they do not sin and cannot sin, but actually sin apparently. So the author quoted their saying in 3:9 against them and concluded that they are not children of God. But if 3:9 is what the opponents said, then what about 3:6 and 5:18? Smith thought 3:6 is talking about Christians do not sin when abiding in Christ and 5:18 means Christians do not sin continually,15 but then why 3:9 not means the same? Another explanation is that 3:6 and 5:18 are also quoted from the opponents. But the all or none style of these verses are very similar to other dualistic statements in first John, and these verses are not followed by a direct rebuttal. So I do not find this view convincing.

Actually A, B and C are similar views, because saying Christians do not and cannot sin continually implies sinning is not normal for Christians. And Christians should not sin if sinning is not normal. These views are also supported by Christians’ experiences to some extent: being Christians, we often could not tolerate ourselves sinning habitually. We would continue to struggle against sin, and the Holy Spirit also helps us in our weakness.

Even though there are so many explanations,16 one thing is common: Christians do sin in real life.

4. What should Christians do if they sin?

So what should Christians do if they sin? According to 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Does it mean that we can only be forgiven if we confess our sins? But what if we sin unconsciously? How can we confess our sin when we do not know we have sinned? And what if we do not have time to confess and dies immediately after we sin?

Actually this verse is in contrast with 1:8 and 1:10. So in the context, 1:9 is talking about the general status of Christians, not just separate acts of confession. Being a true Christian, one has confessed to be a sinner and is always willing to confess one’s sin. So Christians do not need to worry about sin committed unconsciously or sin followed by immediate death. It is the attitude that is important. Therefore, 1:9 is not a mandatory criterion for forgiveness to fulfill every time after Christians sin; even if it is, true Christians have fulfilled it already.

As for confession, Brown17 thought it to be public because o`mologe,w in the Johannine literature are nearly all public confession.18 1:3 and 1:7 emphasized on fellowship and 5:16 shows there were at least some public confessions. Brown also used Didache 14:1 as adjunctive evidence: “But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.”19 Wu20 disagreed with this view and Strecker21 and Johnson22 thought confession could be both public and private. Certainly o`mologe,w in the Johannine literature are nearly all public confession; however, those are not about sin but mostly about Christ. And Didache 14:1 does not clearly state that the confession is public. My opinion is that since 1:8 says “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” and not deceives others, confession might not necessarily be public. And 1:9 talks about God’s forgiveness so the confession might be mainly towards God.

Rensberger pointed out that confessing “sins” in 1:9 is in contrast with “sin” in 1:8. This implies 1:9 is referring to confessing specific sinful acts,23 and Stott24 agreed with him. I think this might be a possible interpretation, but singular sin also occurs in 1:7: “…and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” This is very similar to 1:9: “…will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” So there might not be such a great difference when the author of first John used singular “sin” or pleural “sins.”

Additionally, 2:1-2 gives us more assurance pertaining to forgiveness of Christians’ sin: “But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” God do not want us to sin; but if Christians sin, God has already prepared the atoning sacrifice. So Christians do not need to worry: our sin is already forgiven! This even occurs before our act of confession after the sin, because true Christians already have an attitude of confession. In a sense, forgiveness is granted to us even before we commit the sin; just like what Jesus told Peter before his denial of the Lord: “but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:32) Jesus knew Peter would sin, but he already accepted Peter even before Peter committed the sin and before Peter’s confession of sin.

If Christians’ sin is forgiven before confession, do Christians still need confession of sins in everyday life? Based on 1:9, confession is the attitude of true Christians. Therefore, Christians should confess their sins: not for fulfilling a criterion of forgiveness but for doing what is right and good. I agree with Wu that confession can also remove obstacles of our fellowship with God.25

Though 1:9 is talking about general attitude of Christians, there is no reason why it cannot be applied every time Christians confess their sin. As a result, 1:9 can be a good reminder every time Christians sin: God will forgive us and cleanse us.

5. Conclusion

According to first John, Christians do sin in real life, but God has prepared the atoning sacrifice for our sin. Through Jesus Christ, we are forgiven and cleansed. Christians do not need an act of penance or repentance to be forgiven, but willing to confess our sins and repent are the attitudes of true Christians.

On the other hand, in first John Christians “do not” and “cannot sin” because sinning is not normal to Christians. Christians should not sin continually and habitually. But what does it mean by normally, habitually or continually? Is there a standard? Is a flash of hatred thought sin or not? Christians who have perfectionist tendency often experience more sin and blame on themselves, because they utilize a higher standard to evaluate if they sin. If we use a higher standard to evaluate sin, does not every Christian sin every day?

So this brings out another serious problem: what should we do if we suspect we sin continually and habitually? Should we worry if we are true Christians or not? What is the standard of evaluating sin?

And in first John sin are categorized as mortal and not mortal. Would Christians commit mortal sin? What should Christians do if they commit mortal sin?

No doubt that first John also discusses these topics, but I do not have enough space and time to discuss them in this paper. At first glace, there is no clear-cut standard in first John to determine what is sinning continually or normally. And based on Christians “do not sin,” “cannot sin” and “his commandments are not burdensome” (5:3), the standard of the author of first John might not be as high as some perfectionist think. And Christians might not be able to commit mortal sin because discussion of mortal sin (5:16-17) is followed by Christians do not sin (5:18). However, if we want to make a conclusion, we need to discuss more deeply and thoroughly, and rely on the Holy Spirit. Hopefully I can find a chance to write a paper on these in the near future.

May God help every Christian not to sin, and give forgiveness and peace to every Christian who sins. May the Holy Spirit guide us to interpret the word of God and correct us if we are mistaken.

6. Footnote

1 Canon A. E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 89.
2 David Rensberger, 1 John 2 John 3 John, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 92-93.
3 George Strecker, The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, Hermeneia-A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, ed. Harold Attridge, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 96.
4 John R. W. Stott (斯托得), Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Letters of John (丁道爾聖經注釋：約翰書信), Chinese ed. trans. Liang-Shu Liu (劉良淑) (Taipei: Campus Evangelical Fellowship, 2001), 136-137, 203.
5 Thomas F. Johnson, 1, 2, and 3 John, NIBC 17(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 70-71, 74.
6 Since Johannine vocabulary are small and utilizes elementary words, words may take on more nuances for compensation. See V. Kerry Inman, “Distinctive Johannine Vocabulary and the Interpretation of 1 John 3:9,” WTJ 40, no. 1 (1997): 139-141.
7 David Rensberger, 1 John 2 John 3 John, 92-93.
8 Daniel Tao-chung Wu (吳道宗), 1, 2, 3 John (I) (約翰壹貳叁書（卷上）), Tien Dao Bible Commentary (天道聖經註釋) (Hong Kong: Tien Dao, 2007, 361-362.
9 Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1982), 414-415.
10 Daniel Tao-chung Wu (吳道宗), 1, 2, 3 John (I) (約翰壹貳叁書（卷上）), 367-368.
11 Yarbrough thought sin in 3:6 and 3:9 might mean disserting faith, but he did not mention mortal sin. See Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 183.
12 Terry Griffith, “A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John: Sin, Christology and the Limits of Johannine Christianity,” TB 49 no. 2 (1998): 262-265.
13 Daniel Tao-chung Wu (吳道宗), 1, 2, 3 John (I) (約翰壹貳叁書（卷上）), 363.
14 D. Moody Smith, First, Second and Third John, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1991), 85-86.
15 D. Moody Smith, First, Second and Third John, 136.
16 For more explanations, also see Daniel Tao-chung Wu (吳道宗), 1, 2, 3 John (I) (約翰壹貳叁書（卷上）), 360-368; and Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, 413-415.
17 Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, 207-208.
18 See John 1:20, 9:22, 12:42; 1 John 2:23, 4:2, 4:3, 4:15; 2 John 1:7.
19 Isaac H. Hall and John T. Napier, trans., M. B. Riddle ed., “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” in Apostolic Fathers English Translation on Bibleworks 7 CD-ROM.
20 Daniel Tao-chung Wu (吳道宗), 1, 2, 3 John (I) (約翰壹貳叁書（卷上）), 140.
21 George Strecker, The Johannine Letters, 32.
22 Thomas F. Johnson, 1, 2, and 3 John, 32.
23 David Rensberger, 1 John 2 John 3 John, 54.
24 John R. W. Stott (斯托得), Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Letters of John (丁道爾聖經注釋：約翰書信), 85-86.
25 Daniel Tao-chung Wu (吳道宗), 1, 2, 3 John (I) (約翰壹貳叁書（卷上）), 143.

Reference

Brooke, Canon A. E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912..

Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1982.

Griffith, Terry. “A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John: Sin, Christology and the Limits of Johannine Christianity,” Tyndale Bulletin 49 no. 2 (1998): 253-276.

Hall, Isaac H. and John T. Napier, trans. M. B. Riddle ed. “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” in Apostolic Fathers English Translation on Bibleworks 7 CD-ROM. Print ed.: in Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies. Vol. 7 of The Anti-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. American edition, edited by A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids WM. B. Eerdmans, 1951.

Inman, V. Kerry. “Distinctive Johannine Vocabulary and the Interpretation of 1 John 3:9,” Westminster Theological Journal 40, no. 1 (1997): 136-144.

Johnson, Thomas F. 1, 2, and 3 John. New International Biblical Commentary 17. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993.

Rensberger, David. 1 John 2 John 3 John. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997.

Smith, D. Moody. First, Second and Third John. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox, 1991.

Stott, John R. W. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: the Letters of John (丁道爾聖經注釋：約翰書信). Chinese edition translated by Liang-Shu Liu (劉良淑). Taipei: Campus Evangelical Fellowship, 2001.

Strecker,George. The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, Hermeneia-A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Edited by Harold Attridge. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Wu, Daniel Tao-chung (吳道宗). 1, 2, 3 John (I) (約翰壹貳叁書（卷上）). Tien Dao Bible Commentary (天道聖經註釋). Hong Kong: Tien Dao, 2007.

Yarbrough, Robert W. 1-3 John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.