Revised Standard Version has the major break after commits sin; Greek New Testament, Nestle, and several versions have it after abides in him. With the latter punctuation the verse contains two parallel sentences, each stating first a fact, then the reason for it. Such a clause structure is the more probable one.
No one born of God commits sin expresses the fact that the believers do not sin because they have been born of God. The same thought is expressed in 5.18a; compare also 5.4, where the consequence mentioned is “overcomes the world.”
In other passages the Christians’ behavior is viewed, not as the consequence, but as the proof of their being born of God; compare 2.29; 4.7; 5.1. This shows once more that what one is and what one does form a unity in John’s opinion.
Born of God, see comments on “born of him” in 2.29. One should understand this phrase and the comparable expression “children of God” (verse 10, and compare verse 1) from the terminology of baptism. This rite, marking the entrance into the new life in Christ, was compared with birth (compare John 3.3-8), and those who were baptized were compared with children who were being born. In this line of thought God, with whom lies the ultimate initiative in conversion and baptism, could be called “the one who begets (or causes to be born)” (compare 5.1, in Revised Standard Version rendered “the parent”).
God’s nature abides in him: the expression God’s nature is in the Greek literally “his seed.” This Greek phrase can best be interpreted metaphorically as a reference to the source of life which God implants in the believer. The choice of it is in tune with that of the preceding metaphor. Just as the male seed is the ultimate cause of a child’s life beginning at birth, so God’s regenerating power is the ultimate cause of the Christian’s new life beginning at baptism.
Now the term “seed” is normally associated with the ideas of growth, development, and change. Therefore one expects in this clause a verb like “to grow,” “to develop,” or “to change.” John, however, does not use some such verb but says “his seed abides in him.” This favorite phrase of his certainly does not refer to change but to continuity (compare “to abide” in 2.14). This means that the imagery underlying the metaphorical use of “seed” has been abandoned in the second part of the clause.
This switch in John’s thought makes the clause difficult to understand and to translate. Various interpretations are reflected in the translations investigated:
(1) “His seed” is interpreted as a reference to God’s nature. Then the clause says that the believer has come to share God’s nature or characteristics, and so is in his likeness; hence, for example, ‘God’s (very) nature remains in him’ (compare Revised Standard Version, Goodspeed, Good News Translation, and others), ‘God’s own-innermost remains in him’; or, with further adjustments, ‘he possesses God’s mind,’ or ‘he takes after his Father’ (Bijbel in Gewone Taal, adapting its wording to that of a Dutch proverbial saying).
(2) “His seed” is interpreted as a reference to the life God gives. This results in such renderings as “the divine seed remains in him” (New English Bible), ‘the divine germ of life is (effective) in him,’ ‘he has and keeps God’s life in him like a grain of seed.’ With further adjustments this may lead to something like ‘he gives us new life.’ This is the interpretation the present authors would follow.
(3) “His seed” is interpreted as a metaphor for the word of God (compare Matt 13.3-9, 18-23 and parallels) or for the Spirit of God (compare John 3.5). This leads to renderings like ‘he has and keeps God’s word,’ ‘he has and keeps God’s Spirit.’
Divergent as they are, these renderings represent the same basic interpretation of “his seed.” It is also grammatically possible, however, (4) to take this phrase in the sense of “his (that is God’s) offspring.” This may either have a singular meaning and refer to Christ (Bible de Jérusalem), or a plural meaning, referring to the Christians (Moffatt). But in the opinion of the present authors, interpretation (4) is inadvisable.
And he cannot sin: when this is taken as the main clause of the second sentence (as advocated in the first note on this verse), it forms a climax; hence ‘what is more, he cannot sin,’ ‘it is even impossible that he would sin.’
What verses 4-9 say about sinning seems to contradict verses 1.5-10, which state that with Christians sinning is not only a possibility but even a fact. To avoid this apparent contradiction many translators take the present tense of “to sin” and “to commit sin” as expressing continuation; compare Good News Translation‘s “(not) continue to sin” (verses 6, 8-9). This is grammatically possible, but the above-mentioned interpretation is, in the present authors’ opinion, more in line with John’s thought. This thought is dualistic and distinguished sharply between good and evil, God and Satan. On the one hand no man may say that he is sinless, because the struggle between good and evil is only won with the help of God (1.5-10). On the other hand those who “remain in Christ,” who came to take away sin (3.5) and to destroy the works of Satan (3.8), may believe that they are on God’s side just as God is on their side. The dividing line between God’s realm and that of Satan is here considered to run between two groups of people, the children of God and the children of the devil (3.4-10). These two aspects of dualism occur side by side in many apocalyptic writings and in some documents found in Qumran.
Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .