TO CORRESPONDENTS

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 6, 1879

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

50.—NO MAN THAT SINNETH NOT.

Will you please explain 1 John 3:9 and 5:18, so as to harmonize them with such passages as 2 Chron. 6:36 and Eccl. 7:20? P. C.

ANS. Lest the reader should not turn to the passages, we will quote them, that the force of the difficulty may be seen. 1 John 3:9 reads: “Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” Chapter 5:18 reads: “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” 2 Chron. 6:36 reads: “If they sin against thee (for there is no man that sinneth not), and thou be angry with them,” etc. Eccl. 7:20: “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.”

The passages in John must refer to moral power rather than physical; and we think they may be so referred without doing any violence to the language. The words begotten and born are in every instance from the same word in the original, which, when it refers to God, should invariably be rendered begotten. And whoever maintains this connection with God, or, as 1 John 3:6 says, “abideth” in him, does not sin; that is, does not deliberately, and from inclination and design, follow sinful ways. If he does this, he shows that he does not know God, and has not experienced that change which his Holy Spirit works in the heart. He that is begotten of God cannot sin; not in an absolute sense, but in a moral, just as we would say, if any one should try to induce us to break the Sabbath, to swear or to steal, No, I cannot do it; it is contrary to the truth, and to my regard for it and determination to obey it. Not that we have not physical power to do the deeds in question; but from a moral standpoint, on account of the principles of truth which we have adopted to govern our actions, we cannot do it. This view of the passages in question is maintained by Barnes and Doddridge.

But are these not contradicted by the passages referred to in the Old Testament? Not if we may trust a criticism which Dr. Clarke gives us on these passages. On 2 Chron. 6:36, he refers to his note on 1 Kings 8:46, which reads:—

“In ver. 46 we read, If they sin against thee, for there is no man that sinneth not. On this verse we may observe that the second clause, as it is here translated, renders the supposition in the first clause entirely nugatory; for if there be no man that sinneth not, it is useless to say, IF THEY sin; but this contradiction is taken away by reference to the original, כי יחטאו לך ki yechetu lach, which should be translated IF they shall sin against thee, or should they sin against thee; כי אין אדם אשר לא יחטא ki ein Adam asher lo yecheta, for there is no man that MAY not sin; i. e., there is no man impeccable, none infallible, none that is not liable to transgress. This is the true meaning of the phrase in various parts of the Bible, and so our translators have understood the original: for even in the thirty-first verse of this chapter they have translated יחטא NOT yecheta, IF a man TRESPASS; which certainly implies he might or might not do it; and in this way they have translated the same word, IF a soul SIN, in Lev. 5:1; 6:2; 1 Sam. 2:25; 2 Chron. 6:22, and in several other places. The truth is, the Hebrew has no mood to express words in the permissive or optative way, but to express this sense it uses the future tense of the conjugation kal.”

“This text has been a wonderful strong hold for all who believe that there is no redemption from sin in this life, that no man can live without committing sin, and that we cannot be entirely freed from it till we die. 1. The text speaks of no such doctrine: it only speaks of the possibility of every man’s sinning, and this must be true of a state of probation. 2. There is not another text in the Divine records that is more to the purpose than this. 3. The doctrine is flatly in opposition to the design of the gospel; for Jesus came to save his people from their sins, and to destroy the works of the devil. 4. It is a dangerous and destructive doctrine, and should be blotted out of every Christian’s creed. There are too many who are seeking to excuse their crimes by all means in their power; and we need not embody their excuses in a creed, to complete their deception by stating that their sins are unavoidable.”

Dr. Clarke says the same criticism will apply to Eccl. 7:20, where he gives the same rendering.

51.—WEEK IN GEN. 29:27.

What is meant by the word “week” in Gen. 29:27? W. B.

ANS. We think it means a literal week of seven days, and is proof that this division of time has been in use from the beginning. It appears from the record that it was customary in that age to make a marriage feast, which was to continue seven days, or one week; and the maintenance of this feast during the seven days was called fulfilling the week of the bride. When Jacob found that he had been deceived, and Leah had been given to him instead of Rachel, he demanded that the matter be made right and Rachel be given to him. But Laban reminded him that it was contrary to the custom of the country to give the younger in marriage before the elder; and as it would not have been proper to break off the festivities to which all the men of the place had been invited, verse 22, he says to Jacob, Fulfill her week, that is, let the marriage feast of Leah continue the accustomed week, and then I will give you Rachel, if you will serve me seven years more. He did so; fulfilled the week for Leah, then received Rachel, and served Laban seven years more. Thus Jacob, who had practiced deceit in reference to his brother Esau, was now deceived in regard to his own wife, and was cheated out of seven years of hard labor. He began to reap what he had sown. Laban no doubt thought he was doing a nice thing through this deceit, by getting seven year’s extra service from Jacob, and making a settlement for both his daughters; but he was afterward deceived, so that his property was almost ruined.