[B-Greek] Re: 1 Jn 2:5 hH AGAPH TOU QEOU

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Jun 6 07:37:22 EDT 2004


> I'm specifically wondering about
> Carl's comment that "I am bewildered by the acrobatics engaged in by
> interpreters who want to see more in AGAPH TOU QEOU than in
> English "love of God". . . I honestly think it is silly to suppose that a
Greek
> speaker or writer had any notion of a distinction between a subjective and
> an objective genitive any more than if we speak of "car care" we give any
> thought to how "car" functions in relationship to "care" in that phrase."
>
> I agree that Greek speakers didn't consciously think "I'm using a
> subjective genitive now."  Yet at the same time, wouldn't they have had a
> definite idea of what they were trying to communicate when they used a
genitive
> construction (like AGAPH TOU QEOU)?  The phrase is ambiguous by
> itself, but in context wouldn't they have had a more specific idea?  I
agree that
> Wallace makes this sound like the genitive has this "meaning,"
> when it's the context that determines the semantics of the phrase.
>
> For example, look at 1 John 4:9-10:
>
> EN TOUTWi EFANERWQH hH AGAPH TOU QEOU EN hHMIN, hOTI TON hUION AUTOU TON
> MONOGENH APESTALKEN hO QEOS EIS TON KOSMON hINA ZHSWMEN DI'
> AUTOU. EN TOUTWi
> ESTIN hH AGAPH, OUC hOTI hHMEIS HGAPHKAMEN TON QEON ALL' hOTI
> AUTOS HGAPHSEN
> hHMAS KAI APESTEILEN TON hUION AUTOU hILASMON PERI TWN hAMARTIWN hHMWN.
>
> It looks to me like John is making the sense of hH AGAPH TOU QEOU explicit
> in v. 10 (OUC hOTI hHMEIS HGAPHKAMEN TON QEON ALL' hOTI AUTOS HGAPHSEN
> hHMAS), showing that he did have a distinction in mind.

Hi, Jonathan,

I would agree with you completely, and I, too, was puzzled by Carl's
comment, because it appears as if he says that the range of potential
meanings of AGAPH TOU QEOU in Greek is equivalent to the range of potential
meanings of "love of God" in English. But I don't think this is what he
intended to say.

When John was writing AGAPH TOU QEOU in the verse quoted above, he
definitely had in his mind the concept of God loving people, not people
loving God. The concept in the mind is not expressed by one word or phrase
only, but a whole series of words. So, I agree that the following verse
clarifies or builds the concept that the writer had in mind when he wrote
AGAPH TOU QEOU.

That is why idiomatic, communicative versions in English do not feel obliged
to keep to the literal rendering "love of God", nor do they have any qualms
about making the implicit agent for EFANERWQH, i.e. "God", explicit:

NCV: This is how God showed his love to us: He sent his one and only Son
into the world so that we could have life through him.
NLT: God showed how much he loved us by sending his only Son into the world
so that we might have eternal life through him.
TEV: And God showed his love for us by sending his only Son into the world,
so that we might have life through him.

Notice, by the way, that EN hHMIN is probable best taken as the experiencer
or recipient in the context of "show". This means that "show his love to us"
is probably more accurate than "show his love in/among us".

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list