1ª Juan 3 (Spanish RV 1909) - Bible Truth Library

• “Sin is the transgression of the law” should read, “Sin is lawlessness.” Lawlessness existed long before the law was ever given. See Romans 5:13-14. (“Help on Hard Verses” by A.C. Brown)

J. N. Darby Translation

Every one that practises sin practises also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessnessm.

JND Translation Notes

To translate this "sin is the transgression of the law," as in A.V., is wrong, and gives a false definition of sin, for sin was in the world, and death as a consequence, before the giving of the law. see Rom. 5.13; 7.13. The Greek reads "sin is lawlessness," that is, the absence of the principle of law (not the law), or, in other words, of the control of God over the soul. I ought to have no will of my own, but be in obedience. The statement is reciprocal, and may be read "lawlessness is sin."

W. Kelly Translation

Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessnessa; and sin is lawlessnessb.

WK Translation Notes

Few mistranslation have wrought wider or more profound mischief than that which represents {vi 30584}{/vi}. The real sense is, "Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." In the RV it is properly rendered, "sin is lawlessness," which is absolutely true, and applies to all mankind whether they did or did not know the law. All transgression of the law is sin, but all sin is far from being transgression of the law. Hence the Jews are called "transgressors," for they distinctively were under law; whereas scripture speaks of the Gentiles as "sinners," not as "transgressors," which they must have been if all men were alike under law.

There is no allusion to transgressing the law. Perhaps there is hardly a worse translation than this in the New Testament, nor one as to which even scholars seem duller. Sin is declared to be lawlessness. Beyond a shadow of doubt it may be asserted that the apostle does not define sin as "the transgression of the law." Now I maintain, not only that the word (anomia) will not bear such a meaning, but that it is altogether foreign to the scope of the passage and the drift of the apostle’s reasoning. It is also a mistake that anomia (lawlessness), is never in the New Testament the condition of one living without law, but always the condition or deed of one who acts contrary to law; for this would be paranomia (wickedness, as the verb in {vi 27738}{/vi} and the noun in {vi 30517}{/vi}). The usual terms for such a violation or transgression of law is parabasis (transgression) ({vi 27986;28038;28062}{/vi}, etc.) The truth is that anomia is both a wider and deeper word, as we learn from {vi 30584}{/vi}, where the Revisers have with theology veiled the truth. Sin is not transgression of law but lawlessness, and lawlessness is sin. It is a convertible or reciprocating proposition, the subject being identified with the predicate. Hence it is exactly where there is no law, that anomia (properly speaking) is found. What makes it of practical as well as dogmatic importance is that the common view entails the accompanying error that the law is always in force for all the necessary expression of God’s mind and will. But this we know from many scriptures is not true. The Bible is thoroughly explicit, that one particular nation was said to be under law, and that the rest of mankind had no such position, though responsible on their own ground. (See {vi 27975-27978;28011}{/vi}.) Here, therefore, the translation cannot be correct which contradicts other passages of undoubted holy writ; for if the common version of {vi 30584}{/vi} held good, the rest of mankind outside the Jews could not have been sinners at all, because they were not under law. Thus, evidently, this error throws the whole doctrine of what sin is and of God’s dealings with men into hopeless confusion. It necessarily darkens some vitally momentous parts of God’s word as to past, present, and future.