[B-Greek] 1 John 5:18: different tense indicates differentpersons?
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Mar 15 00:10:59 EST 2004
>
> >1 John 5:18 reads: 'OIDAMEN hOTI PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU OUC
> >hAMARTANEI ALL' hO GENNHQEIS EK TOU QEOU THREI [hE]AUTON KAI hO PONHROS
> >OUC HAPTETAI AUTOU'.
<snip>
> >1. Does the fact that the first participle is a perfect and the second
> >participle is an aorist really indicate that the second participle does
> >not refer to PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU?
It may well be a factor to consider, even if the NET comment didn't. The
perfect participle seems to be a general description of any "God-born"
person. It is stative. The aorist participle probably refers to a particular
person who at a particular time was born of God. In all other cases of the
aorist of this verb in the NT, it refers to a particular person.
Of the five options suggested in the NET note, number 2 and 5 are IMO the
best candidates, assuming that the original text had AUTON:
> ...NET note on the phrase in question: "The meaning of the phrase hO
> GENNHQEIS EK TOU QEOU THREI AUTON in 5:18 is extraordinarily difficult.
> (2) "The One fathered by God
> [Jesus] protects him [the Christian]." This is a popular interpretation,
> and is certainly possible grammatically. Yet the introduction of a
> reference to Jesus in this context is sudden; to be unambiguous the author
> could have mentioned the "Son of God" here, or used the pronoun
> EKEINOS as a reference to Jesus as he consistently does elsewhere in 1
John. This
> interpretation, while possible, seems in context highly unlikely.
<snip>
> (5) "The one
> fathered by God [the Christian], he [God] protects him [the Christian]."
> This involves a pendant nominative construction hO GENNHQEIS EK TOU QEOU
> where a description of something within the clause is placed in the
> nominative case and moved forward ahead of the clause for
> emphatic reasons.
> This may be influenced by Semitic style; such a construction is also
> present in John 17:2...
But John 17:2 is quite different:
hINA PAN hO\ DEDWKAS AUTWi DWSHi AUTOIS ZWHN AIWNION
(so that every one whom you have given to him, he may give them eternal
life)
The verb DEDWKAS is trivalent: you(the Father) have given everyone - PAN -
to him(Jesus)
and the verb DWSHi likewise: so that he(Jesus) may give eternal life to
them.
Here PAN hO\ is accusative as the object for the participle.
In 1 Jhn 5:18 hO GENNHQEIS is nominative and can hardly be anything than the
subject for THREI. If it were to be a fronted parallel to the object AUTON
as NET (5) suggests, I would have expected TON GENNHQENTA and then an
explicit subject for THREI.
So, I prefer option 2. The problems with suggestion (5) seem greater than
the problems with (2). Jesus was the epitome of what it means to be "born of
God". Anyone God-born can relate to the special God-born one.
The use of THREI in this context if paralleled by
John 17:12 hOTE HMHN MET' AUTWN, EGW ETHROUN AUTOUS
(while I was with them, I kept them safe)
John 17:15 ALL' hINA THRHSHiS AUTOUS EK TOU PONHROU
(but that you keep them safe from the evil one)
It fits the context well to have a final encouragement to the Christians, so
that not only are they admonished to not be living in sin, but they are
encouraged by the fact that THE ONE who was first and foremost born of God,
is the one who keeps all others who are also born of God safe from the evil
one - just as God the Father keeps them safe. Jesus and God are one.
As the NET note admits, (2) is the most popular (common) interpretation
found in English versions, and I think it deserves to be.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list