[B-Greek] 1 John 3:9

Martin Culy MCuly at briercrest.ca
Thu Oct 28 11:59:09 EDT 2004


Alexander Loney's comments offered some helpful guidance for this passage.
Let me add my two cents.  It is important when interpreting such passages to
keep syntactic, theological, and rhetorical issues separate in our minds.
If we allow our theological presuppositions to drive our exegesis, we run
the risk of misrepresenting the syntax and overlooking the rhetorical force
of the text.  I believe that common analyses of 1 John 3:9 serve as a case
in point.  Let me share my comments on hAMARTANEI in 1 John 3:6, where many
find themselves experiencing similar theological discomfort, given John's
apparent claim that Christians do not sin.  "The author's statement here
with the present tense verb has led to widespread debate regarding the
meaning of the passage.  Given the writer's penchant for absolute
statements, the rhetorical force of this statement must be kept in mind.
His concern is not with projected eschatological realities (contra Wallace,
524-25).  Rather . . . as Smalley (159) puts it, the writer's statement
makes it clear that 'an intimate and ongoing relationship with Christ . . .
precludes the practice of sin.'  Read within the context of the rest of the
letter, it is clear that the writer does not necessarily expect a sinless
life for those who 'remain in him.'  He had made it clear in 2:1 that sin
may occur in the believer's life.  His ethical standards, both here and
elsewhere in the letter, however, are incredibly high.  It is important,
then, not to water down his statement by pressing the present tense to imply
a focus on continual or habitual sin (contra e.g., Burdick, 239; Young,
108), as though the writer were claiming that true Christians may sin as
long as it is not continual or habitual.  The tense simply portrays the sin
as a process without regard to the event's frequency of recurrence-a process
that should have no place in the life of one who 'remains in him.'" (I, II,
III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text, 73):  What I am suggesting we do,
then, is take the syntax and semantics of the text seriously, ask how this
passage fits within the larger argument of 1 John (i.e., ask how it
functions rhetorically), and then work through the theological implications
of the text.  I believe the same "absolutist" rhetoric is being employed in
3:9 as 3:6 to highlight the fundamental incompatibility of being born of God
and committing sin.  I am thus more comfortable saying that John is
employing hyperbole to add force to his argument, than weakening his
rhetoric by claiming that he is concerned with habitual sin.

Martin Culy
Associate Professor of New Testament and Greek
Briercrest College and Seminary
510 College Drive
Caronport, SK S0H 0S0 
Phone: (306) 756-3207


--------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged proprietary material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, or distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or authorized to receive the information from the recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.



More information about the B-Greek mailing list