From: Paul S. Dixon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 18 1997 - 14:20:51 EDT
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:17:24 +1000 Ward Powers
>At 14:00 97/09/17 EDT, Paul Dixon wrote:
>>Apparently we may glean the purpose(s) of 1 John from three hINA
>>clauses found in 1:3, 4 and 5:13. They are respectively:
>>1) APAGGELLOMEN KAI hUMIN, hINA KAI hUMEIS KOINWNIA ECHTE >>MEQ hMWN,
>>2) TAUTA GRAFOMEN hMEIS, hINA hH CARA hMWN Hi PEPLHRWMENH, >>1:4.
>>3) TAUTA EGRAYA HUMIN hINA EIDHTE hOTI ZWHN ECETE AIWNION, 5:13.
>>Are these purposes mutually exclusive, or are they necessarily
>>And, if they are related, how so?
>>I would like to argue that the ultimate purpose is stated in 5:13 and
>>that the first two purpose statements necessarily relate to that
>I would agree with Paul that these three hINA clauses are significant
>in assessing 1 John. However, let me draw attention also to another hINA
>TEKNIA MOU, TAUTA GRAFW hUMIN hINA MH hAMARTHTE. (1 John 2:1.)
>Little children of mine, I am writing these things to you in order
>that you do not sin.
>Recent discussion on b-greek about sin and the Christian in the light
>of 1 John should ensure that we are all tuned in to the significance of
>what John says here in the first verse of Chapter 2.
>I reckon that this clear statement of John's purpose in his writing
>this epistle should have a place centre stage in any discussion about
Thank you for adding something which I certainly did not intend to omit,
the fourth hINA clause, suggesting another aspect of John's purpose in
writing.. As you state, its inclusion must not be overlooked.
How does this relate to the immediate context? If 1:6-10 is presenting
the first example (or test by which we can know we have eternal life) of
walking in the light versus walking in darkness, then it may easily be
misconstrued from this that it doesn't really matter whether we sin or
not, just as long as those sins are confessed.
So, John naturally wants to dispel this thought immediately. We should
not sin. Yet, if we do, know that we have an advocate, Jesus Christ
(2:1). Of course, he uses the aorist tense (hAMARTHTE ... hAMARTHi).
This is important, for John never envisions the possibility that a child
of God would or could sin habitually or customarily. In fact, 3:9
Of course, someone might bring up 5:16 where it suggests the possibility
of a brother (ADELFON) sinning (hAMAPTANONTA) a sin unto death. But, if
our interpretation of 3:9 is correct, then this must be a so-called
brother, an example of one who says he has fellowship with God but walks
in the darkness (1:6; cf 1 Cor 5:11). Whew, did I open another can of
Thanks again for your insightful correction.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:29 EDT