What does "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" mean?

What does "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" mean?

In his first epistle, John refutes false teaching about the distinction between the spiritual and physical realms. By classifying everything physical as sinful, false teachers dissociated the believer's body from his spirit. This implies that as long as a believer's spirit is enlightened, his bodily behavior is irrelevant. John contends that our relationship to God requires behavior consistent with God's revealed character.

Some have thought that I John 3:9" TARGET="_blank">John 3:9 should read, "Whatsoever is born of God doth not commit sin," meaning that what God has produced in us (a nature?) is incapable of sinning. This interpretation would play into the hands of John's protagonists. That would indicate either that a believer is an enlightened spirit without sin in a body that sins or that his spirit doesn't practice sin, but his body does. John is teaching that the believer is one entity; his spirit and body are not independent parts. The believer is "born of God."

The key word is "commit," meaning a child of God cannot practicing sinning. Sinning cannot characterize one who is born of God because God is light. The epistle teaches that God's family will display likeness to the Father. A believer - not merely his body - still has the capability of sinning (1:8) and commits acts of sin (1:10); sin cannot, however, characterize him internally or externally.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why is Joseph’s genealogy given in Matthew's Gospel, instead of that of Mary, seeing that Joseph was not the father of the Lord Jesus?

There are, as is well known, not one but two genealogies of Christ in the Gospels. In Matthew 1" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1: His royal descent is traced from Abraham, through David and the kings of Judah, down to Joseph, His legal, though not His actual father. But in Luke 3" TARGET="_blank">Luke 3 His natural descent is traced from Mary’s own father, Heli, through a different branch of the Davidic family up to Adam. The phrase, “Being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph,” which is parenthetically inserted in Luke 3:23," TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:23, really answers the questions asked above. For since He was supposed, or legally reckoned, to be Joseph’s son, it was necessary that there should be what might be called an official genealogy, through him to David and Abraham, as well as that through His mother, in order that all objections to His claim to be “Son of David” should be silenced. In Matthew’s Gospel Joseph is prominent, and in Luke’s, Mary, not merely in the genealogies, but in the entire narrative, which in each case is as it should be, in view of the Jewish character of the former, and the Gentile character of the latter.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the title, "Morning Star" the same as the "Day Star"?

The name, "Morning Star" (Revelation 22:16)" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 22:16) and the "Day Star" (2 Peter 1:19)" TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 1:19) both refer to the coming of the Lord Jesus. Are they the same?

This page was adapted from an answer at Truth and Tidings Magazine by David Oliver.

The "Day Star" refers to the person of Jesus Christ. A few versions of the Bible (e.g. Darby, English Standard Version , New American standard), use the words "Morning Star" in 2 Peter 1:19." TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 1:19. The word "phosphoros" in Greek means "light bearing" (Strong, WEV), "light bringing" (Thayer), or even the Venus (Liddell & Scott). The two words in Greek from Revelation 22" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 22: are translated directly as "Morning Star." The word Peter uses, then, has a different emphasis than the two words in Revelation. In Peter is focusing on the second coming to the earth, but in Revelation 22" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 22 the emphasis is on the coming in the air for the Church.

In one paragraph (2 Peter 1:16-21)," TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 1:16-21), Peter, shows the certainty of the Lord’s coming to earth in glory. The brightness of the Morning Star ("the light bringer") should capture their (and our) attention and give assurance of the glorious day, when the "Sun of Righteousness shall arise" (Malachi 4:2)." TARGET="_blank">Malachi 4:2). In Revelation 22," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 22, the bright ("radiant": Strong) Morning Star captures the affection of the churches and causes anticipation of His coming to the air for His Bride - the Church. The Spirit and Bride both are calling for Him to come.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

How can I live at peace when my brother and I disagree?

Can believers live together peaceably when they differ on some personal issues of Christian living about which both have strong emotions?

Yes, we can because the Lord enjoined it (Mark 9:50)," TARGET="_blank">Mark 9:50), but only by applying Scriptural teaching to ourselves. The crux of the matter is not the right or wrong of another believers actions. Our behavior toward others is as important as their obedience to Christ. Another believers disobedience to truth doesnt justify our disobedience to the Lords command to love and serve our brother (John 13:34, 35)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:34, 35). Showing him patiently and scripturally "a more excellent way" is loving service. Even when motivated by a desire to uphold truth, behavior directed against another believer denies significant truths.

Lowliness (regarding ourselves) and forbearance (regarding others) accompany the wisdom that produces peace (Ephesians 4:2, 3;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:2, 3; James 3:17)." TARGET="_blank">James 3:17). Peace with my brother doesnt depend on his obedience to the Lord or on my obedience to my brother, but on my obedience to the Lord (Proverbs 16:7)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 16:7).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Was Adam alive before God breathed into him the breath of life?

Had the body of Adam physical life, before the Lord God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”? (See Genesis 2:7)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:7).

I should consider such an idea most speculative. How do we know what interval, if any, occurred between the formation of Adam’s body and the inbreathing of the breath of life? There is no necessary thought of Adam’s body lying without breath, but even so, that would here prove nothing, for the body of a person who has just died has still the blood in it, but there is no life in the blood. James by the Spirit distinctly affirms that “the body without the spirit is dead” (James 3:26)," TARGET="_blank">James 3:26), therefore Adam’s body could not be alive before receiving the spirit. It is striking, but not surprising, how the Bible confirms true science, which are both products of the same divine Mind; but science is a very different thing from “scientists” self-styled, and their theories. Scientists used to make merry at the idea of a body made of the dust of earth. Now it has been discovered that the fourteen elementary substances said to be found in the dust of the earth, do occur also in the human body in greater or lesser quantities. The word for “breath” in Gen. 2." TARGET="_blank">Gen. 2. 7 is UeShãnij, a word only used of God: 2 Samuel 22:16" TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 22:16 (blast); Job 4:9;" TARGET="_blank">Job 4:9; Job 32:8;" TARGET="_blank">Job 32:8; Job 33:4;" TARGET="_blank">Job 33:4; Isaiah 30:33," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 30:33, etc.; or of man: 1 Kings 15:29;" TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 15:29; Job 26:4;" TARGET="_blank">Job 26:4; Isaiah 2:22;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 2:22; Isaiah 57:16," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 57:16, and in contrast with animals—see Joshua 11:11, 14," TARGET="_blank">Joshua 11:11, 14, where “everything that breathed was slain”, but the cattle were left alive.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the Parable of the Ten Virgins refer to the Rapture?

Does the Parable of the Ten Virgins refer to the Rapture? (Matthew 25:1-13)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:1-13)

Matthew 24" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24 and 25 are a unit, being a continued narrative. The discourse of the Lord flows from questions about the temple, His coming, and the end of the age. The focus on "signs of His coming" indicates the Jewish setting of the passage, for "the Jews require a sign" (1 Corinthians 1:22)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 1:22) and "the times and seasons" that the Lord gives here are related to the Day of the Lord and the time when sudden destruction (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3)" TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 5:1-3) will come on those who trust a covenant with hell (Isaiah 28:15;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 28:15; Daniel 9:27)" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9:27) to guarantee them "peace and safety." This is at the beginning of Daniel’s 70th Week, the the 7-year period that follows the Rapture.

The initial signs (Mat 24:4-10)" TARGET="_blank">Mat 24:4-10) the Lord gives correspond to the first five seal judgments (Revelation 6:1-11)," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 6:1-11), which follow the catching up (4:1) and rewarding (v 10) of the saints of this age. The abomination of desolation (Mat 24:15)" TARGET="_blank">Mat 24:15) refers to the mid-point of the 7-year period (Dan 9:27" TARGET="_blank">Dan 9:27b). The"great tribulation" (Matthew 24:21)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24:21) points to the last half of that period and the visible coming of the Son of Man (v 27) to the Lord’s return to earth. The teaching comparing the days of Noah (vv 37-42) relates to the coming of the Son of Man, referring back to verse 27, as does the warning in verse 44. The Parable of the Faithful and Evil Servants (vv 45-51) deals likewise with "His coming" which must be the coming of the Son of Man in the context.

The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:14-30), which follows the Parable of the Ten Virgins, cannot refer to believers of this age. The wicked servant had responsibility entrusted to him by his master, yet is cast by the master into outer darkness. This, similar to the parable at the end of chapter 24 must have a Jewish setting. The prophecy of the sheep and the goats likewise refers to the Son of Man’s coming in glory.

The context of the Ten Virgins is the Lord’s return to earth and not the Rapture.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does submit mean for wives in Ephesians 5?

What does the submission of wives entail, Ephesians 5:22" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:22?

Verse 21 teaches voluntary subjection one to the other in the fear of God. One of the manifestations of this (verse 22) is the (Christian) wife's being submissive to her (Christian) husband as unto the Lord. This indicates that the wife submits (Greek: hypotasso) in loyal subjection (which includes obedience) to her husband, even as the Church is subject to Christ as Head (verse 23). The submissive wife acknowledges her husband's role of CONTROL and RESPONSIBILITY. "Everything" (verse 24) is limited by Lordship based on God's Word. This subjection is not slavish fear of a despotic husband but willing submission. The teaching in no way implies inferiority, but rather Divine intention.

A. Hull

Other pages in this section

About this site

Are New Testament believers of a higher class than those of the OT?

OLD TESTAMENT SAINTS

Is not the claim altogether unreasonable, that we of the Present dispensation, though so inferior to faithful Abraham, and not worthy of a quarter of his reward, are a different class of saint?

It is a very serious thing to let go dispensational differences. God is sovereign, and works all things after the counsel of His own will. Supposing we admit the above estimate of Abraham’s merits, as is certainly correct in the case of many Christians, even then our questioner’s conclusion is based on a fallacy. It involves a confusion between individual rewards for faithfulness, and the place in the kingdom will depend on that, and the calling of God, which is entirely of grace. Grace is free to bestow positions of privilege, quite apart from personal merit. The character of collective blessing depends on the character of the dispensation. Thus the blessings of Israel were in one sense material blessings in earthly places, those of the Church are spiritual blessings in heavenly places. One day Israel will be the head of the nations, and instruments of blessing to the whole world, but they were never in the Church.

For the differences between Jew and Gentile were very definite in Old Testament times. The building of the Church was future even in our Lord’s time:—”I will build my church.” But this does not say that individual saints of the Old Testament: Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, etc., will not have a far higher individual reward, than many of the Church. An illustration may serve. At the opening of Parliament, the King on his throne, is surrounded by Peers of the Realm, Statesmen, High Officials, and Dignitaries of State, many of whom owe their position to personal merit, for having served well their King and country. But by his side is one seated nearer than any other, accorded that place, not by personal merit exactly, but by the choice of the King, to whom she occupies a relationship nearer than the Prime Minister. On the steps of the throne are the Royal Princes and Princesses, including the little grandchildren, who certainly have done nothing to deserve that honour, but they were born to it. How foolish it would then be to raise the question of their merit! Some present may have made their mark by leadership or statecraft, but that is something over and above their birthright. We must distinguish them. The Kingdom will be a sphere of rewards as well as of blessings. All believers will be in it, that is, in the earthly or heavenly side of it, but all will not enjoy the same reward. Relationships, then, depends upon grace. We do not become members of the Church by merit, but by God’s own purpose and grace, and by the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The rewards of faithfulness will be crowns and positions in the kingdom.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Do the Scriptures guide only the husband to contribute financially to the church?

Do the Scriptures guide only the husband to contribute financially at the Lord’s supper?

I Corinthians 16:2" TARGET="_blank">I Corinthians 16:2 teaches that "every one of you" ("each of you," JND) should set aside funds on the first day of the week. Although a couple’s resources are one, is she not as much a priest as her husband? Husbands are not priests who offer on behalf of their wife or family; the males offer on behalf of the assembly. Is it not a fitting testimony to the wife’s priesthood that she should offer her financial sacrifice in the assembly? Does he partake of the emblems on her behalf, or does she remember the Lord individually? Is a believing couple received into the assembly as a couple or as individuals? Sapphira did not die (Acts 5:10)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 5:10) because she was one with Ananias in marriage, but because she was one with him in tempting the Spirit of the Lord (verse 9). In an assembly, we stand before the Lord as individuals.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

At the transfiguration, did Moses and Elijah have physical bodies?

At the transfiguration, did Moses and Elijah have physical bodies?

In each of the gospel accounts of the transfiguration (Mat 17:1-8;" TARGET="_blank">Mat 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-8;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 9:2-8; Luk 9:28-36)," TARGET="_blank">Luk 9:28-36), the Spirit of God uses the word "appeared," meaning "made visible" (TDNT. Kittel).

On that occasion, the disciples saw a preview of the glorified Christ (2Pe 1:16-18)." TARGET="_blank">2Pe 1:16-18). He was "transformed," a strong word suggesting an inward change (WEV Expository Dictionary). However, Moses and Elijah would not have had glorified bodies. Believers will receive such bodies at their resurrection, which is still future. Because Christ is the Firstfruit of resurrection (1Co 15:23;" TARGET="_blank">1Co 15:23; Acts 26:23)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 26:23), it seems unlikely that Moses and Elijah received a glorified body - even temporarily – before Christ rose from the dead. It seems equally unlikely that God created a special body for each of them at that time. While God is able to do that, each person’s body is unique to and solely identified with that person. God’s ways in providing a body for each person, then raising and changing that body at the resurrection (1Co 15:35-38)" TARGET="_blank">1Co 15:35-38) appear to rule out this possibility.

We have little Biblical evidence to use in answering this question. The best evidence is that by employing the verb "appeared," the Spirit indicates that Moses and Elijah did not have tangible bodies at the transfiguration. By divine power, they became visible to Peter, James, and John.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu