[B-Greek] 1 John3:1 - 'called' by whom?

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Fri Apr 25 04:07:44 EDT 2003


On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 03:35 PM, Greg Stovell wrote:

>> This sounds like you would rule out the possibility that this might 
>> be a taunt, e.g. that Jews would frown on those who feel they can 
>> call God Abba, and say to them, "who do you think you are, children 
>> of God", eventually resulting in "children of God" as an ironic 
>> nickname for Christians?
>
> I think this depends on your dating of 1st John, as well as the 
> recipient community. It seems to me that 1 John is written to a 
> divided Christian community dating post Gospel writings (circa 100AD). 
>  In this case, the taunt or attack could very well be from one of the 
> branches to the other (see 2:19)... and the author's writing could 
> serve as an assurance of their adoption.

I think this is ruled out by hO KOSMOS OU GINWSKEI hHMAS. It is most 
natural to take GINWSKEI here in the sense of "recognize." It is "the 
world" (hO KOSMOS) that does not recognize John's recipients as 
children of God. And KOSMOS here seems too semantically broad to be 
limited to a divergent sect.

OU GINWSKEI seems to also indicate that it was **recognition** as 
children of God and the world's failure to recognize John's recipients 
as such that is in view here, rather than a taunt leveled against these 
Christians. In other words, the idea seems to be what the world 
**withheld** (recognition of these Christians as children of God) 
rather than what it **dished out** (the title "chidren of God" as a 
taunt). Whether this was an active refusal of recognition or simply a 
failure of recognition is harder to say.

In light of the above, I think the "taunt" suggestion is pretty 
speculative.

> On the other hand, it makes sense that KALEISQAI can be (loosely) 
> translated as "being known as". This would certainly be consistent 
> with the call as God's children in salvation history.  The fact that 
> we bear the label does not exclude the possibility of others speaking 
> of us as 'children of God" - whether it is an address or an attack...

I think it is important to consider the syntactical function of the 
clause here introduced by hINA. I think it is a nominal clause in 
apposition to POTAPHN AGAPHN. The interrogative adjective POTAPHN 
naturally evokes the question, "What sort of love has the Father 
bestowed on us?" The appositional clause marked by hINA answers that 
question: "That we should be called children of God." So the title 
"children of God," in my opinion, must be seen in this context as 
having originated from the Father, and must be taken as **his** 
evaluation of the recipients. This recognition would also, of course, 
be shared by fellow Christians.
============

Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI



More information about the B-Greek mailing list