1 John 3:9

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 Jay Adkins JAdkins264 at aol.com
Wed Oct 20 09:00:02 EDT 1999

Present Tense OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 Dear ers,I would like to hear your thoughts about what I think is a present tense verb followed by a present tense complementary infinitive OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9. Does either the grammatical context or the present tense of either term require or at least suggest translating “not able to sin continuously?” From what I have been reading, both on the current thread on the present tense and in the grammars I have, there does not seem to be general agreement. I can see where ones’ views on sanctification could influence their answer, but would hope that, rather or not we are successful, we would all want to try to avoid that particular pitfall. I believe, maybe naively, that we all want to know the truth. This is not the only passage that would be effected by ones’ understanding. I am just now coming to grips with the idea that the aorist is not the “once for all” tense. Yet I am reading where some now see temporal issues as part of tense in the indicative (David Alan Black). I was taught 20 years ago tense effected the kind of action, not time. The entire issue has become very confusing for me. Largely influenced by my own early training in how to handle the present tense I contribute the following initial translation of the entire verse. I do not expect agreement from all, but am wondering if there is even anyone who would agree and why or why not.1Joh 3:9 (GNT) PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU hAMARTIAN OU POIEI, hOTI SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTWi MENEI, KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN, hOTI EK TOU QEOU GEGENNHTAI.1 John 3:9 All the ones having been born from God do not sin habitually, because His seed is abiding in him, and is not able to sin continuously, because he has been born from God.Sola Gratia,JayAlways Under Grace!PS: As soon as I can afford it I would like to purchase Porter’s & Fanning’s books on Verbal Aspect. I have Porter’s Idioms of the Greek NT, Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Blacks, It’s Still Greek to Me & Linguistics For Students of NT Greek, plus some older Grammars by Summers, Robertson & Davis, and Dana & Mantey. I am waiting for the new BAGD to come out like everyone else. Any other suggestions for someone on a very limited budget would be appreciated.

Present TenseOU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 Jay Adkins JAdkins264 at aol.com
Wed Oct 20 09:07:44 EDT 1999

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 1cor 9:5 double accusative 1 John 3:9 All the ones having been born from God do not sin habitually, because His seed is abiding in him, and is not able to sin continuously, because he has been born from God.SHOULD READ:and he is not able to sin continuously,Sola Gratia,JayAlways Under Grace!

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:91cor 9:5 double accusative

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Oct 20 10:28:18 EDT 1999

off topic Advantages of the NA over the UBS (was: The Bible I ended up with…) To: Jay Adkins,<< 1Joh 3:9 (GNT) PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU hAMARTIAN OU POIEI, hOTI SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTWi MENEI, KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN, hOTI EK TOU QEOU GEGENNHTAI. 1 John 3:9 All the ones having been born from God do not sin habitually, because His seed is abiding in him, and he is not able to sin continuously, because he has been born from God. >>It is true that the present tense sometimes refers to habitual actions, but does that mean that a negative of a present tense can indicate that such actions are not done habitually? For example, if someone says: “Steven plays chess.” What does “plays chess” mean? It doesn’t mean that I play chess continuously day and night, yes? Now if someone says: “Steven doesn’t play chess,” what does that mean? Could it possibly mean that I only occasionally play chess, but I don’t do it on a regular bases? I think not. (There is the possibility that the phrase “plays chess” could mean “plays [tournament] chess” and so it is possible for one to occasionally play chess and yet not “play chess” in this specialized sense.)Now, let’s look at the Greek text. If we had: hAMARTIAN POIEI (“he/she does sin”), surely it is possible to understand this as referring to habitual action. Now lets negate the sentence (as it appears in the Greek text): hAMARTIAN OU POIEI (“he/she does not sin”). Now, are we to understand this to mean that this person does indeed occasionally sin, but just doesn’t do it habitually? Personally, I find such reasoning to be a real stretch.Let’s take a look at another example: POLLAKIS GAR PIPTEI EIS TO PUR (Matt 17:15), would it be possible to take: OU PIPEI EIS TO PUR to mean that he has fallen into the fire once or twice but he doesn’t to it on a regular bases? I don’t think so.Fanning [1990:215-216] writes:<< … the habitual interpretation of 1 John 3:4-10 is certainly ‘possible,’ based on NT usage. >>I’m not so sure. Can anyone show me a clear example of a “habitual present” with the negative particle “OU” where the resulting meaning clearly means that one only occasionally does this thing, but one does not do it on a habitual bases? I would like to see the NT usage which justifies this interpretation.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com From Luther’s Large Catechism: “Why, do you think, is the world now so full of unfaithfulness, shame, misery, and murder? It is because everyone wishes to be his or her own master, be free from all authority, care nothing for anyone, and do whatever he or she pleases. So God punishes one knave by means of another” (BoC 386.154).

off topicAdvantages of the NA over the UBS (was: The Bible I ended up with…)

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Wed Oct 20 11:14:33 EDT 1999

off topic off topic ><< 1Joh 3:9 (GNT) PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU hAMARTIAN OU POIEI,>hOTI SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTWi MENEI, KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN, hOTI EK TOU>QEOU GEGENNHTAI. 1 John 3:9 All the ones having been born from God do not>sin habitually, because His seed is abiding in him, and he is not able to>sin continuously, because he has been born from God. >>> > >Now, let’s look at the Greek text. If we had: hAMARTIAN POIEI (“he/she does>sin”), surely it is possible to understand this as referring to habitual>action. Now lets negate the sentence (as it appears in the Greek text):>hAMARTIAN OU POIEI (“he/she does not sin”). Now, are we to understand this>to mean that this person does indeed occasionally sin, but just doesn’t do>it habitually? Personally, I find such reasoning to be a real stretch.> Is it possible that the grammar is not the key here, but the lexicology? Iwould read POIEI as a purposeful making of sin, a deliberate desire to dosomething wrong. So loosely translated it would be “No one who is born ofGod deliberately sets out to do the wrong thing, because God’s essentiallife lives in him. He has no real ability to do the wrong thing because heis born of God.” The emphasis is on the intention of the heart, rather thanhabitual or occasional actions. Just my $.02.SteveSteve LongAllegro Digital Media, Inc.Print Host — Order your printing online!http://www.printhost.com/Kinja — What is it? You’ll never know, unless you go.http://www.kinja.com/

off topicoff topic

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Wed Oct 20 11:58:28 EDT 1999

footnote off topic The force of the present tense in 1 Jn 3:9 is the same as it isthroughout the whole book and particularly 3:6-10.In 3:6, PAS hO hAMARTANWN OUC hEWRAKEN AUTON OUDEEGNWKEN AUTON. In 3:8, hO POIWN THN hAMARTIAN EK TOU DIABOLOU ESTIN.In v. 10 the children of God and the children of the Devil are manifest by MH hAMARTANWN and hAMARTANWN respectively.If the present tenses here can be taken in any other way thanas communicateing habitual/characteristic behavior, then I would like to see it.Paul DixonOn Wed, 20 Oct 1999 9:0:2 “Jay Adkins” <JAdkins264 at aol.com> writes:> Dear ers,> > I would like to hear your thoughts about what I think is a present > tense > verb followed by a present tense complementary infinitive OU DUNATAI > > hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9. Does either the grammatical context or the > > present tense of either term require or at least suggest translating > “not > able to sin continuously?” From what I have been reading, both on > the > current thread on the present tense and in the grammars I have, > there does > not seem to be general agreement. I can see where ones’ views on > sanctification could influence their answer, but would hope that, > rather or > not we are successful, we would all want to try to avoid that > particular > pitfall. I believe, maybe naively, that we all want to know the > truth. > This is not the only passage that would be effected by ones’ > understanding. > I am just now coming to grips with the idea that the aorist is not > the > “once for all” tense. Yet I am reading where some now see temporal > issues > as part of tense in the indicative (David Alan Black). I was taught > 20 > years ago tense effected the kind of action, not time. The entire > issue > has become very confusing for me. Largely influenced by my own > early > training in how to handle the present tense I contribute the > following > initial translation of the entire verse. I do not expect agreement > from > all, but am wondering if there is even anyone who would agree and > why or > why not.> > 1Joh 3:9 (GNT) PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU hAMARTIAN OU POIEI, > hOTI > SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTWi MENEI, KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN, hOTI EK TOU > QEOU > GEGENNHTAI.> > 1 John 3:9 All the ones having been born from God do not sin > habitually, > because His seed is abiding in him, and is not able to sin > continuously, > because he has been born from God.> > Sola Gratia,> Jay> Always Under Grace!> > PS: As soon as I can afford it I would like to purchase Porter’s & > Fanning’s books on Verbal Aspect. I have Porter’s Idioms of the > Greek NT, > Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Blacks, It’s Still Greek > to Me & > Linguistics For Students of NT Greek, plus some older Grammars by > Summers, > Robertson & Davis, and Dana & Mantey. I am waiting for the new BAGD > to > come out like everyone else. Any other suggestions for someone on a > very > limited budget would be appreciated.> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: dixonps at juno.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to > $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to > subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

footnoteoff topic

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Oct 20 13:08:38 EDT 1999

off topic PANTES EISIN KALOI To: Steve Long,Jay Adkins: << 1Joh 3:9 (GNT) PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU hAMARTIAN OU POIEI, hOTI SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTWi MENEI, KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN, hOTI EK TOU QEOU GEGENNHTAI. 1 John 3:9 All the ones having been born from God do not sin habitually, because His seed is abiding in him, and he is not able to sin continuously, because he has been born from God. >>SCM: << . If we had: hAMARTIAN POIEI (“he/she does sin”), surely it is possible to understand this as referring to habitual action. Now lets negate the sentence (as it appears in the Greek text): hAMARTIAN OU POIEI (“he/she does not sin”). Now, are we to understand this to mean that this person does indeed occasionally sin, but just doesn’t do it habitually? Personally, I find such reasoning to be a real stretch. >>SL: << Is it possible that the grammar is not the key here, but the lexicology? I would read POIEI as a purposeful making of sin, a deliberate desire to do something wrong. So loosely translated it would be “No one who is born of God deliberately sets out to do the wrong thing, because God’s essential life lives in him. He has no real ability to do the wrong thing because he is born of God.” The emphasis is on the intention of the heart, rather than habitual or occasional actions. >> From what lexicon did you get that? Could you give another example where OU POIEI or OU DUNATAI refers to someone who does something, but not deliberately?-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com From Luther’s Large Catechism: “Why, do you think, is the world now so full of unfaithfulness, shame, misery, and murder? It is because everyone wishes to be his or her own master, be free from all authority, care nothing for anyone, and do whatever he or she pleases. So God punishes one knave by means of another” (BoC 386.154).

off topicPANTES EISIN KALOI

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Wed Oct 20 15:25:41 EDT 1999

Greek Primer OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 > > From what lexicon did you get that? Could you give another example where>OU POIEI or OU DUNATAI refers to someone who does something, but not>deliberately?> The basic gloss for POIEW is to make, do, cause, effect, bring about,accomplish, perform, provide, create (from my UBS dictionary at the back ofthe 4th edition, the only one I have at work with me). Every use of POIEWI’ve seen implies doing something on purpose. There isn’t any other usageof OU POIEI in the LXX or NT. OU DUNATAI is simply ‘inablitiy’, it saysnothing of whether it’s deliberate or not. But since John uses parallelismto explain an idea in different words, and I’m pretty sure this is a caseof parallelsim, the deliberateness of POIEI colors DUNATAI.I think deliberateness is shown by using a verb + noun rather than just averb; ‘to do sin’ or ‘to create a sinful act’ rather than just ‘to sin’. Atleast that’s the sense I get from it.SteveSteve LongAllegro Digital Media, Inc.Print Host — Order your printing online!http://www.printhost.com/Kinja — What is it? You’ll never know, unless you go.http://www.kinja.com/

Greek PrimerOU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Wed Oct 20 17:00:18 EDT 1999

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 off topic In a message dated 10/20/99 3:36:13 PM, dixonps at juno.com writes:<< The force of the present tense in 1 Jn 3:9 is the same as it isthroughout the whole book and particularly 3:6-10.In 3:6, PAS hO hAMARTANWN OUC hEWRAKEN AUTON OUDEEGNWKEN AUTON. In 3:8, hO POIWN THN hAMARTIAN EK TOU DIABOLOU ESTIN.In v. 10 the children of God and the children of the Devil are manifest by MH hAMARTANWN and hAMARTANWN respectively.If the present tenses here can be taken in any other way thanas communicateing habitual/characteristic behavior, then I would like to see it. >>While there is a lot of discussion on the present tense, I wonder if that should really be the issue. I actually prefer to see the present tenses as gnomic here. However, I suggest that THN hAMARTIAN actually refers to the specific sins that the false teachers were guilty of: denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and hating the brethren. John could be saying that the one born of God does not commit these sins period.Charles PowellDTScep7 at aol.com

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9off topic

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Wed Oct 20 17:37:13 EDT 1999

off topic EULOHMENOS hO ERCOMENOS EN ONOMATI KURIOU On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:28:18 -0500 Steven Craig Miller<scmiller at www.plantnet.com> writes:<snip>> I’m not so sure. Can anyone show me a clear example of a “habitualpresent” > with the negative particle “OU” where the resulting meaning clearlymeans > that one only occasionally does this thing, but one does not do it > on a habitual bases? I would like to see the NT usage which justifies > this interpretation.In the same context is a ready example. Verse 6b says:PAS hO hAMARTANWN OUC hEWRAKEN AUTON OUDEEGNWKAMEN AUTON.No one who sins has seen Him or has known Him.This makes sense only if the present tense hAMARTANWN is habitual/characteristic. Any other nuance would suggest wheneversomeone sins he gives away he has never seen or known God,certainly a commentary to the effect he never was saved.The habitual/characteristic nuance is compatible with the factthat one who has seen and known God does still commit actsof sin in an aoristic sense (2:1), though nothabitually/characteristically.This teaching of John, of course, is consistent with that of HisMaster’s who taught, “by their fruit you shall know them” (Mt 7). Themessage in 1 John, however, is more for those who believe,that they may know they have eternal life (5:13). By implication,however, it also assures them that those who had gone out fromthem were really not of them – even if they did profess faith.Their lifestyle of sin and of walking in the darkness gives themaway.Paul Dixon.

off topicEULOHMENOS hO ERCOMENOS EN ONOMATI KURIOU

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Oct 20 18:55:30 EDT 1999

Present Tense off topic To: Paul Dixon,SCM: << Can anyone show me a clear example of a “habitual present” with the negative particle “OU” where the resulting meaning clearly means that one only occasionally does this thing, but one does not do it on a habitual bases? I would like to see the NT usage which justifies this interpretation. >>PD: << In the same context is a ready example. Verse 6b says: PAS hO hAMARTANWN OUC hEWRAKEN AUTON OUDE EGNWKAMEN AUTON. No one who sins has seen Him or has known Him. This makes sense only if the present tense hAMARTANWN is habitual/characteristic. Any other nuance would suggest whenever someone sins he gives away he has never seen or known God, certainly a commentary to the effect he never was saved. >>Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by “habitual/characteristic.” But the claim that OUC hAMARTANEI (1 Jn 3:6), hAMARTIAN OU POIEI, and OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN (1 Jn 3:9), is a “habitual/characteristic” present seems to me to water down what the author of 1 John wrote.PD: << This teaching of John, of course, is consistent with that of His Master’s who taught, “by their fruit you shall know them” (Mt 7). >>”You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits” (Mt 7:16-20 NRSV).I don’t see that this passage suggests that some grapes are gathered from thorns, or that some figs are gathered from thistles. I don’t see this passage suggesting that a good tree bears mostly good fruit, and only a few bad fruit. And I don’t see how this passage supports your grammatical assertion.What I would suggest is that what we have at 1 John 3:6,9 and at Mt 7:16-20 is a sweeping generalization, and that there is no grammatical justification for watering down their sweeping generalizations so that they don’t appear to be so sweeping.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com From Luther’s Large Catechism: “Why, do you think, is the world now so full of unfaithfulness, shame, misery, and murder? It is because everyone wishes to be his or her own master, be free from all authority, care nothing for anyone, and do whatever he or she pleases. So God punishes one knave by means of another” (BoC 386.154).

Present Tenseoff topic

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 SPegler919 at aol.com SPegler919 at aol.com
Wed Oct 20 19:17:34 EDT 1999

Present tense, re Wheeler OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 JAdkins264 at aol.com writes:<< 1Joh 3:9 (GNT) PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU hAMARTIAN OU POIEI, hOTI SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTWi MENEI, KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN, hOTI EK TOU QEOU GEGENNHTAI. >>If verbal aspect theory is a better explanation of the Greek verbal system than Aktionsart and time based models, then I would offer the following (over)translation–“everyone who is in the state of having been born of God does not continue to do sin because his seed is continuing to remain in him, and he is not continually able to be sinning, because he is in the state of having been born of God.”The two perfects stress the state of the person, they have been born of God.The two presents indicate that the author, John, sees the action (or lack of it) as ongoing.Stephen PeglerBannockburn, IL

Present tense, re WheelerOU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 Kevin Smith kgs at iafrica.com
Wed Oct 20 19:24:16 EDT 1999

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 On 20/10/99 Steven Craig Miller wrote: It is true that the present tense sometimes refers to habitual actions, but does that mean that a negative of a present tense can indicate that such actions are not done habitually? For example, if someone says: “Steven plays chess.” What does “plays chess” mean? It doesn’t mean that I play chess continuously day and night, yes? Now if someone says: “Steven doesn’t play chess,” what does that mean? Could it possibly mean that I only occasionally play chess, but I don’t do it on a regular bases? I think not. (There is the possibility that the phrase “plays chess” could mean “plays [tournament] chess” and so it is possible for one to occasionally play chess and yet not “play chess” in this specialized sense.)Although I have no vested interest in the theological conclusion we draw from 1 John 3:9, I find your choice of illustration ironic. I used to play tournament chess but gave up playing regularly some time ago. When asked, “Do you still play [tournament] chess?” I answer, “No.” The reality is that once every 2-3 years I do play a tournament. The general state of affairs is that I do not play chess, but that general state allows for occasional exceptions. Every once in a while I feel like playing some chess, but I am no longer truly a chess-player. “Now, let’s look at the Greek text. If we had: hAMARTIAN POIEI (“he/she does sin”), surely it is possible to understand this as referring to habitual action. Now lets negate the sentence (as it appears in the Greek text): hAMARTIAN OU POIEI (“he/she does not sin”). Now, are we to understand this to mean that this person does indeed occasionally sin, but just doesn’t do it habitually? Personally, I find such reasoning to be a real stretch.” (Steven Craig Miller) Could it be that OU + present tense often expresses the general state of affairs while allowing room for occasional exceptions, with the focus falling sqarely upon the general truth? Perhaps the exceptions are not in view all, but the possibility of their existence is not excluded. Thus in our present text the focus if squarely upon the fact that “whoever is born of God hAMARTIAN OU POIEI.” The possibility of exceptions to that truth is not denied, but it is incidental to the point. Consider, for example, Romans 7:16: …hO OU QELW TOUTO POIW. Regardless of whether it was before or after Paul’s conversion, his point is surely that, as a general rule he did not want to sin. However, the very fact that he did what he didn’t want to do indicates that there were exceptions to that general state, that is, times when he did want to sin. Kevin SmithPort Elizabeth, SAkgs at iafrica.com————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991021/dab3d265/attachment.html

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Oct 20 20:05:08 EDT 1999

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 Jn 14.15 To: Kevin Smith,<< Thus in our present text the focus is squarely upon the fact that “whoever is born of God hAMARTIAN OU POIEI.” The possibility of exceptions to that truth is not denied, but it is incidental to the point. >>If I understand you correctly, I would basically agree with the major thrust of your post (which I didn’t back-quote in full), although I would suggest that the possibility of exceptions was indeed denied, since they were deemed incidental to the point.I would suggest the following comparison. The conservative justice, Robert H. Bork, in his famous (or infamous) “The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law” (1990:147), wrote:<< The Constitution states its principles in majestic generalities that we know cannot be taken as sweepingly as the words along might suggest. The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” but no one has ever supposed that Congress could not make some speech unlawful or that it could not make all speech illegal in certain places, at certain times, and under certain circumstances. >>(A historical note. Just seven years after the First Amendment became part of the Constitution, Congress passed a law, which by today’s standards would seem to be abridging the freedom of speech. This was the Sedition Act of 1798. The Sedition Act made it a crime to say or write anything “false, scandalous and malicious” against the government, Congress, or the President. This Act was aimed directly at newspapers, especially those presses owned by people who supported the Whig, or Jeffersonian Republican, party.)When the author of 1 John demands that Christians acknowledge sins and petition for forgiveness (1 Jn 1:8; 2:1-2), he appears to be speaking on a pastoral level. On the other hand, when he says that Christians do not or cannot sin (3:6,9; 5:18), he appears to be making a majestic generality. And so, I would suggest that there is no grammatical justification for watering down this majestic generality.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com From Luther’s Large Catechism: “Why, do you think, is the world now so full of unfaithfulness, shame, misery, and murder? It is because everyone wishes to be his or her own master, be free from all authority, care nothing for anyone, and do whatever he or she pleases. So God punishes one knave by means of another” (BoC 386.154).

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9Jn 14.15

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 Carlton Winbery winberyc at speedgate.net
Wed Oct 20 22:46:27 EDT 1999

off topic 1cor 9:5 double accusative Stephen Pegler wrote;>JAdkins264 at aol.com writes:> ><< 1Joh 3:9 (GNT) PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU hAMARTIAN OU POIEI, hOTI>SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTWi MENEI, KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN, hOTI EK TOU QEOU>GEGENNHTAI. >>> >If verbal aspect theory is a better explanation of the Greek verbal system>than Aktionsart and time based models, then I would offer the following>(over)translation–> >“everyone who is in the state of having been born of God does not continue to>do sin because his seed is continuing to remain in him, and he is not>continually able to be sinning, because he is in the state of having been>born of God.”> >The two perfects stress the state of the person, they have been born of God.>The two presents indicate that the author, John, sees the action (or lack of>it) as ongoing.> I really don’t see a problem in this context with these presents beinginterpreted as incomplete or linear action. It especially would beappropriate in light of 1:8-10. While there are many times when the presentdoes not indicate duration, I look in those context for compellingindicators of such. It seems that the only other possibility here in 3:9would be gnomic, but this is not the normal kind of universal that I see asgnomic.I do not find any help in appeals to what’s happening in the 20th centuryor other such illustrations. These are usually simply beside the point. Ido not see in this context any strong indicators that would cause me to seethe presents here as anything but linear.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinbery at speedgate.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

off topic1cor 9:5 double accusative

OU DUNATAI hAMARTIAN in 1 John 3:9 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Thu Oct 21 00:49:58 EDT 1999

The Bible I ended up with… The Bible I ended up with… On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:46:27 -0600 Carlton Winbery<winberyc at speedgate.net> writes:<snip>> I really don’t see a problem in this context with these presents being> interpreted as incomplete or linear action. It especially would be> appropriate in light of 1:8-10. While there are many times when thepresent> does not indicate duration, I look in those context for compelling> indicators of such. It seems that the only other possibility here in3:9> would be gnomic, but this is not the normal kind of universal that I > see as gnomic.> > I do not find any help in appeals to what’s happening in the 20thcentury> or other such illustrations. These are usually simply beside the point.I> do not see in this context any strong indicators that would cause me > to see the presents here as anything but linear.Thanks, Carlton. Well put. Paul Dixon

The Bible I ended up with…The Bible I ended up with…

1 John 3:9 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Tue Dec 21 22:21:03 EST 1999

1thes 4:3 Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4 An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991221/4a345b66/attachment.html

1thes 4:3Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4

1 John 3:9 Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Wed Dec 22 09:52:43 EST 1999

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 1 John 3:9 Here is what S.M. Baugh has to say about 1 John 3:6, 9. His full Excursus is about two and a half pages. I’m not about to type all of that information now. 🙂 But I’ll try to accurately relate his comments and quote him where I feel it is pertinent.Baugh initiates the discussion of 3:9 in his First John Reader by noting that 1 John 3:9 has been understood in many ways. The RSV, NIV and NASB all render this Johannine passage differently. Baugh posits the following view:”In my opinion, the fact that John chose to use the present infinitive hAMARTANEIN rather than the aorist hAMARTEIN, shows that he was thinking about “sinning” in v. 9 as a characteristic action. Hence, John does not teach “perfectionism”–that Christians can experience sinlessness in this life. Rather, when he says OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN he teaches that the genuine Christian cannot be characterized by a life of unrepentant sin” (pp. 50-51).Baugh believes that three factors buttress his interpretation of 3:9.(1) The immediate context.(2) The lexical significance of hAMARTANEIN.(3) The influence of DUNAMAI upon the tense form of its complementary infinitive.Basically Baugh feels that since the infinitive form of hAMARTANW does not appear elsewhere in the NT, John must have used the infinitive in 3:9 to signal an ongoing activity (not a state). He concludes: “the phrase OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN in 1 John 3:9 expresses the fact that the Christian is prevented by the new birth and the abiding presence of God from falling into persistent sin” (52).In ftn. 16 on page 52, Baugh also addresses the arguments of Smalley and Wallace. He demonstrates that 1 John 5:16 with its use of hAMARTANONTA does not eradicate the iterative force of 1 John 3:9. hAMARTANONTA is an adverbial present participle employed to express action contemporary with the main verb. 1 John 3:9 differs in this regard.I hope these points shed some light on the debate,Edgar Foster

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-41 John 3:9

1 John 3:9 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Wed Dec 22 11:50:08 EST 1999

1 John 3:9 1 John 3:9 To: Grant Polle,Maximilian Zerwick, in his grammar “Biblical Greek” (1963), writes:<< In the latter place [1Jn 3:9] John seems to suppose that Christianscannot sin, but in 2:1 he admonishes them not to sin. Here however hesays GRAFW hUMIN hINA MH hAMARTHTE (aorist: not to commit sin), whereasin 3:9 he says that he who is born of God OU DUNATAI hARMARTANEIN(present: be — habitually — a sinner) because he is born of God, i.e.cannot continue the sinful life that was his before his regeneration >>(sec. 251).Buist M. Fanning, in his “Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek” (1990),investigates this problem at some length (pp. 211-216) and concludes:<< … the habitual interpretation of 1 John 3:4-10 is certainly’possible,’ based on NT usage >> (216).I personally have my doubts. I have doubts as to the possibility of a”habitual present” with the negative particle “OU” where the resultingmeaning clearly means that one only occasionally does this thing, but onedoes not do it on a habitual bases. It just doesn’t make sense to me.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)————————-Steven:I don’t know where you get the idea that a negative particle OU on apresent tense cannot or should not denote the negation of habitual activity, unless you reject thenotion altogether of the presenttense denoting habitual activity. Some clarification here?John may merely be affirming what He learned from Jesus who taught in Mt:15-23 that every goodtree bears (POIEI) good fruit and that a good tree cannot bear (OUDUNATAI … POIEI, 18) bad fruit.Surely this is not saying that every individual piece of fruit from thattree is good, but that a good treewill be known by the fact that it typically produces good fruit (16). Inthe same way, one who isborn of God cannot sin (OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN, 1 J 3:9). Both in the Sermon on the Mount and in John’s Epistle, practicingrighteousness and practicinglawlessness are mutually exclusive propositions. Only the one whopractices righteousness andnot lawlessness will enter the kingdom of heaven (Mt 7:1-23, 1 Jn 3:10).Paul Dixon————– next part ————–An embedded message was scrubbed…From: Steven Craig Miller <scmiller at www.plantnet.com>Subject: Re: 1 John 3:9Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:21:03 -0600Size: 3405Url: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991222/e854eb4b/attachment.mht

1 John 3:91 John 3:9

1 John 3:9 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Dec 22 17:37:11 EST 1999

1 John 3:9 Blayney Revision of KJV To: Paul Dixon,SCM: << I have doubts as to the possibility of a “habitual present” with the negative particle “OU” where the resulting meaning clearly means that one only occasionally does this thing, but one does not do it on a habitual bases. It just doesn’t make sense to me. >>PD: << I don’t know where you get the idea that a negative particle OU on a present tense cannot or should not denote the negation of habitual activity, unless you reject the notion altogether of the presenttense denoting habitual activity. Some clarification here?I would be more than happy to try to clarify my comment. As I see it what Zerwick and others are really suggesting is that (at 1 John 3:9) both OU POIEI and OU DUNATAI are not so much “habitual presents,” but because of the negative particle have become mysteriously enough a “sporadic present” so that: hAMARTIAN OU POIEI and OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN means: “only sporadically sins.”IMO Greek syntax does not work like that. One cannot simply negate a present tense verb so as to create a “sporadic present.” This is IMO the fallacy of Fanning’s analysis of this issue. Fanning investigates whether or not there is a “habitual present.” And he concludes:<< … the habitual interpretation of 1 John 3:4-10 is certainly ‘possible,’ based on NT usage >> (216).But what he overlooks IMO is that the two present verbs in 1 Jn 3:9 have been negated, and none of the examples he cites as evidence for the “habitual present” are present tense verbs which have been negated. Thus in my opinion, Fanning has failed to present one legitimate, undisputed example of a present tense verb negated by the Greek particle OU which implies a “sporadic present.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

1 John 3:9Blayney Revision of KJV

[] 1 John 3:9 Seth VM sethvm at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 26 19:45:54 EDT 2004

[] Pocket PC Programs [] 1 John 3:9 Hi ers,I would like to submit this question to the list. I was curious about 1 John 3:9, in which the Scriptures say the following:”Pas ho gegennhmenos ek tou qeou hamartian ou poiei, oti sperma outou en auto menei, kai ou dunatai hamaranein, oti ek tou qeou gegennhtai. “Most translations translate this final clause to be something like..”No one who is born of God pracitces sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”Now, in regards to the clause about “cannot sin,” within its context, does the greek seem to clarify whether this is a statement on absolute incapability (i.e.: the human has no way of commiting a sin once born of God), on impermissiveness and zero tolerance, or on something else? So essentially, what does “cannot sin” mean?Thanks in advance for all of your input.Sincerely,Seth Moran_________________________________________________________________Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

[] Pocket PC Programs[] 1 John 3:9

[] 1 John 3:9 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Tue Oct 26 20:11:39 EDT 2004

[] 1 John 3:9 [] 1 John 3:9 On Tue 26 Oct 2004 (16:45:54), sethvm at hotmail.com wrote:> Now, in regards to the clause about “cannot sin,” within its context,> does the greek seem to clarify whether this is a statement on absolute> incapability (i.e.: the human has no way of commiting a sin once born> of God), on impermissiveness and zero tolerance, or on something else?> So essentially, what does “cannot sin” mean? There has long been a debate about this. Jerome in the Vulgate renders the phrase OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN “non potest peccare”, whereas commentators would rather he had put “potest non peccare”: “Has the ability not to sin” rather than “cannot sin”. ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF ZFC Lu <ben.crick at NOSPAM.argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)*Acorn RPC700, RO4.03+Kinetic Card, 126MB, 4.3GB HD, x32CDROM*Castle Iyonix X100, RO5.06, 600MHz XScale processor, 512MB DDR RAM, 114GB HD, CD-RW, etc. *Ethernet networking.

[] 1 John 3:9[] 1 John 3:9

[] 1 John 3:9 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Oct 26 22:24:58 EDT 2004

[] 1 John 3:9 [] 1 John 3:9 Dear Ben,>On Tue 26 Oct 2004 (16:45:54), sethvm at hotmail.com wrote:>> Now, in regards to the clause about “cannot sin,” within its context,>> does the greek seem to clarify whether this is a statement on absolute>> incapability (i.e.: the human has no way of commiting a sin once born>> of God), on impermissiveness and zero tolerance, or on something else?> > So essentially, what does “cannot sin” mean?> > There has long been a debate about this. Jerome in the Vulgate renders the> phrase OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN “non potest >peccare”, whereas commentators would> rather he had put “potest non peccare”: “Has the ability not to sin” rather> than “cannot sin”.HH: “Has the ability not to sin” would be mighty poor translation, it seems to me. The OU is in the wrong place; it would need to be before hAMARTANEIN. I think John is speaking about hAMARTANEIN as a lifestyle. The whole context suggests this. The NIV translation brings this out in previous verses:1John 3:6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.HH: And look at the contrast of lifestyles in verses 7 and 8:1John 3:7 ¶ Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.1John 3:8 He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.HH: There is a contrast between a saved and an unsaved person. The phrase in verse 9 is continuing that discussion of a righteous lifestyle versus a sinful lifestyle:1John 3:9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] 1 John 3:9[] 1 John 3:9

[] 1 John 3:9 Lincoln Mullen lmullen at bju.edu
Tue Oct 26 23:02:36 EDT 2004

[] 1 John 3:9 [] 1 John 3:9 OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN cannot mean “is able to not sin” with the OUmodifying hAMARTANEIN, because OU is not used with infinitives. The negativeparticle for infinitives (indeed, for all moods other than the indicative)is MH.I think that the present tense infinitive is significant. My understandingof John is that he is writing, “He is not able to be [continually] sinning.”I would interpret it to mean that a Christian is not engaged in a lifestyleof habitual sin, not that he never sins.- – – – – – – – – – -Lincoln MullenStudent, Bob Jones Univ. (SC)Groton, Massachusettslmullen at bju.edu—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold R. HolmyardIIISent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:25 PMTo: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] 1 John 3:9Dear Ben,>On Tue 26 Oct 2004 (16:45:54), sethvm at hotmail.com wrote:>> Now, in regards to the clause about “cannot sin,” within its context,>> does the greek seem to clarify whether this is a statement on absolute>> incapability (i.e.: the human has no way of commiting a sin once born>> of God), on impermissiveness and zero tolerance, or on something else?> > So essentially, what does “cannot sin” mean?> > There has long been a debate about this. Jerome in the Vulgate rendersthe> phrase OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN “non potest >peccare”, whereas commentators would> rather he had put “potest non peccare”: “Has the ability not to sin”rather> than “cannot sin”.HH: “Has the ability not to sin” would be mighty poor translation, it seems to me. The OU is in the wrong place; it would need to be before hAMARTANEIN. I think John is speaking about hAMARTANEIN as a lifestyle. The whole context suggests this. The NIV translation brings this out in previous verses:1John 3:6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.HH: And look at the contrast of lifestyles in verses 7 and 8:1John 3:7 ¶ Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.1John 3:8 He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.HH: There is a contrast between a saved and an unsaved person. The phrase in verse 9 is continuing that discussion of a righteous lifestyle versus a sinful lifestyle:1John 3:9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 John 3:9[] 1 John 3:9

[] 1 John 3:9 Dony K. Donev dony at cupandcross.com
Wed Oct 27 00:06:20 EDT 2004

[] 1 John 3:9 [] More on AIONIOS A similar discussion on 1 John 3:9 was held in 1999.Here is the link and of course the postings that followed it.http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//1999-October/007996.htmlIt may be interesting to revisit it.Dony K. Donev—– Original Message —– From: “Harold R. Holmyard III” <hholmyard at ont.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:24 PMSubject: Re: [] 1 John 3:9Dear Ben,>On Tue 26 Oct 2004 (16:45:54), sethvm at hotmail.com wrote:>> Now, in regards to the clause about “cannot sin,” within its context,>> does the greek seem to clarify whether this is a statement on absolute>> incapability (i.e.: the human has no way of commiting a sin once born>> of God), on impermissiveness and zero tolerance, or on something else?> > So essentially, what does “cannot sin” mean?> > There has long been a debate about this. Jerome in the Vulgate rendersthe> phrase OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN “non potest>peccare”, whereas commentators would> rather he had put “potest non peccare”: “Has the ability not to sin”rather> than “cannot sin”.HH: “Has the ability not to sin” would be mightypoor translation, it seems to me. The OU is inthe wrong place; it would need to be beforehAMARTANEIN. I think John is speaking abouthAMARTANEIN as a lifestyle. The whole contextsuggests this. The NIV translation brings thisout in previous verses:1John 3:6 No one who lives in him keeps onsinning. No one who continues to sin has eitherseen him or known him.HH: And look at the contrast of lifestyles in verses 7 and 8:1John 3:7 ¶ Dear children, do not let anyone leadyou astray. He who does what is right isrighteous, just as he is righteous.1John 3:8 He who does what is sinful is of thedevil, because the devil has been sinning fromthe beginning. The reason the Son of God appearedwas to destroy the devil’s work.HH: There is a contrast between a saved and anunsaved person. The phrase in verse 9 iscontinuing that discussion of a righteouslifestyle versus a sinful lifestyle:1John 3:9 No one who is born of God will continueto sin, because God’s seed remains in him; hecannot go on sinning, because he has been born ofGod.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 John 3:9[] More on AIONIOS

[] 1 John 3:9 Lincoln Mullen lmullen at bju.edu
Wed Oct 27 00:49:10 EDT 2004

[] More on AIONIOS [] Best Lexicon You should reply to at lists.ibiblio.org _____ From: Alexander Loney [mailto:alexander.loney at duke.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:27 AMTo: ‘Lincoln Mullen’Subject: RE: [] 1 John 3:9The imperfective aspect of hAMARTANEIN, both in this verse and in thepreceding context, is, I think, ill treated by translations such as”continues to sin” or “keeps on sinning.” This is analogous to the fallacythat a simple present imperative commands that the person do the actioncontinually and the aorist that he do it just once (the place to go for thisis D.A. Carsons’s Exegtical Fallacies, based on Stagg’s 1972 article “Theabused Aorist”.). Contrast this 1 John 3:9 with 1 John 2:1, where you dohave an Aorist, MH hMARATHTE. The whole verse goes: TEKNIA MOU, TAUTA GRAFW hUMIN hINA MH Hamarthte. KAI EAN TIS hAMARTHi,PARAKLHTON ECOMEN PROS TON PATERA IHSOUN CRISTON DIKAION. Here, when we take in the context above where he just stated that all infact do sin, it seems that he is not writing to them so that they not sin atall, rather, so that they refrain from some specific sins on account of theknowledge they now have from his letter. John writes with the Aorist herebecause he is concerned finite sins which, if committed, can be forgiventhrough the paraklete Jesus. However, I do not think that 3:9 can be considered to express habitualrefrainment from sin because of the aspect of hAMARTANEIN. Fanning has agood discussion on this problem in pp. 212–217 of his book on verbal aspect.He suggests, convincing I think, that 3:9 is more of gnomic, or generic,statement, as is made clear by the PAS. I think that while a habitualmeaning for 3:9 is possible, it is not marked in anyway to make it obviousto the reader. There is a contrast in verses 7 and 8 between the goodactions of the righteous person and the licentiousness of someone “from thedevil.” This contrast is a rebuke of Gnostics and a warning to Christians.So what follows in verse 9 is that Christians must refrain from sin,specific, absolute sins (though what those are is not spoken of here). This all, however, hinges in what exactly the meaning of DUNATAI is here.That I too am unsure of. Apologies to the Seth the orginal poster who wascurious about that. It most literally means “has the power to,” fromDUNAMIS, “power.” ——————————————————-Alexander LoneyDuke UniversityClassical Studies now the ears of my ears are awake and now the eyes of my eyes are opened – e e cummings —–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Lincoln MullenSent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:03 PMTo: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: RE: [] 1 John 3:9 OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN cannot mean “is able to not sin” with the OUmodifying hAMARTANEIN, because OU is not used with infinitives. The negativeparticle for infinitives (indeed, for all moods other than the indicative)is MH. I think that the present tense infinitive is significant. My understandingof John is that he is writing, “He is not able to be [continually] sinning.”I would interpret it to mean that a Christian is not engaged in a lifestyleof habitual sin, not that he never sins. – – – – – – – – – – -Lincoln MullenStudent, Bob Jones Univ. (SC)Groton, Massachusettslmullen at bju.edu —–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold R. HolmyardIIISent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:25 PMTo: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] 1 John 3:9 Dear Ben, >On Tue 26 Oct 2004 (16:45:54), sethvm at hotmail.com wrote:>> Now, in regards to the clause about “cannot sin,” within its context,>> does the greek seem to clarify whether this is a statement on absolute>> incapability (i.e.: the human has no way of commiting a sin once born>> of God), on impermissiveness and zero tolerance, or on something else?> > So essentially, what does “cannot sin” mean?> > There has long been a debate about this. Jerome in the Vulgate rendersthe> phrase OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN “non potest >peccare”, whereas commentators would> rather he had put “potest non peccare”: “Has the ability not to sin”rather> than “cannot sin”. HH: “Has the ability not to sin” would be mighty poor translation, it seems to me. The OU is in the wrong place; it would need to be before hAMARTANEIN. I think John is speaking about hAMARTANEIN as a lifestyle. The whole context suggests this. The NIV translation brings this out in previous verses: 1John 3:6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. HH: And look at the contrast of lifestyles in verses 7 and 8: 1John 3:7 ¶ Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.1John 3:8 He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. HH: There is a contrast between a saved and an unsaved person. The phrase in verse 9 is continuing that discussion of a righteous lifestyle versus a sinful lifestyle: 1John 3:9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. Yours, Harold Holmyard— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ — home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] More on AIONIOS[] Best Lexicon

[] 1 John 3:9 Martin Culy MCuly at briercrest.ca
Thu Oct 28 11:59:09 EDT 2004

[] -IKOS v. -INOS adjectives [] 1 John 3:9 Alexander Loney’s comments offered some helpful guidance for this passage.Let me add my two cents. It is important when interpreting such passages tokeep syntactic, theological, and rhetorical issues separate in our minds.If we allow our theological presuppositions to drive our exegesis, we runthe risk of misrepresenting the syntax and overlooking the rhetorical forceof the text. I believe that common analyses of 1 John 3:9 serve as a casein point. Let me share my comments on hAMARTANEI in 1 John 3:6, where manyfind themselves experiencing similar theological discomfort, given John’sapparent claim that Christians do not sin. “The author’s statement herewith the present tense verb has led to widespread debate regarding themeaning of the passage. Given the writer’s penchant for absolutestatements, 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 statementmakes it clear that ‘an intimate and ongoing relationship with Christ . . .precludes the practice of sin.’ Read within the context of the rest of theletter, it is clear that the writer does not necessarily expect a sinlesslife for those who ‘remain in him.’ He had made it clear in 2:1 that sinmay occur in the believer’s life. His ethical standards, both here andelsewhere in the letter, however, are incredibly high. It is important,then, not to water down his statement by pressing the present tense to implya focus on continual or habitual sin (contra e.g., Burdick, 239; Young,108), as though the writer were claiming that true Christians may sin aslong as it is not continual or habitual. The tense simply portrays the sinas a process without regard to the event’s frequency of recurrence-a processthat 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 thispassage fits within the larger argument of 1 John (i.e., ask how itfunctions rhetorically), and then work through the theological implicationsof the text. I believe the same “absolutist” rhetoric is being employed in3:9 as 3:6 to highlight the fundamental incompatibility of being born of Godand committing sin. I am thus more comfortable saying that John isemploying hyperbole to add force to his argument, than weakening hisrhetoric by claiming that he is concerned with habitual sin.Martin CulyAssociate Professor of New Testament and GreekBriercrest College and Seminary510 College DriveCaronport, 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.

[] -IKOS v. -INOS adjectives[] 1 John 3:9

[] 1 John 3:9 Alexander Loney alexander.loney at duke.edu
Fri Oct 29 00:56:10 EDT 2004

[] 1 John 3:9 [] Re: Professor Swanson Martin, you have put it very nicely, thank you. I would add that I agreewith you that we that the issues of syntax and context should be keptseparate–at first. It is equally fallacious, though, if not more so, toconsider individual sentences in a vacuum. Thus if Johannine theology,John’s historical milieu, Hellenistic/Hebraic rhetorical convention, and theactual co-text of the epistle represent the context of the letter, all thesefactors must be considered when determining the discourse-level semantics ofany particular verse, such as 3:9. Thus, I would assert that syntax (whichis conventional, not absolute, anyway) and context must be combined, afterthey have been separately determined, in order to arrive at real “meaning”in the text. I think you, Martin, have done so in your analysis. ——————————————————-Alexander LoneyDuke UniversityClassical Studies now the ears of my ears are awake and now the eyes of my eyes are opened – e e cummings —–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Martin CulySent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:59 AMTo: at lists.ibiblio.org; sethvm at hotmail.comSubject: [] 1 John 3:9 Alexander Loney’s comments offered some helpful guidance for this passage.Let me add my two cents. It is important when interpreting such passages tokeep syntactic, theological, and rhetorical issues separate in our minds.If we allow our theological presuppositions to drive our exegesis, we runthe risk of misrepresenting the syntax and overlooking the rhetorical forceof the text. I believe that common analyses of 1 John 3:9 serve as a casein point. Let me share my comments on hAMARTANEI in 1 John 3:6, where manyfind themselves experiencing similar theological discomfort, given John’sapparent claim that Christians do not sin. “The author’s statement herewith the present tense verb has led to widespread debate regarding themeaning of the passage. Given the writer’s penchant for absolutestatements, 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 statementmakes it clear that ‘an intimate and ongoing relationship with Christ . . .precludes the practice of sin.’ Read within the context of the rest of theletter, it is clear that the writer does not necessarily expect a sinlesslife for those who ‘remain in him.’ He had made it clear in 2:1 that sinmay occur in the believer’s life. His ethical standards, both here andelsewhere in the letter, however, are incredibly high. It is important,then, not to water down his statement by pressing the present tense to implya focus on continual or habitual sin (contra e.g., Burdick, 239; Young,108), as though the writer were claiming that true Christians may sin aslong as it is not continual or habitual. The tense simply portrays the sinas a process without regard to the event’s frequency of recurrence-a processthat 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 thispassage fits within the larger argument of 1 John (i.e., ask how itfunctions rhetorically), and then work through the theological implicationsof the text. I believe the same “absolutist” rhetoric is being employed in3:9 as 3:6 to highlight the fundamental incompatibility of being born of Godand committing sin. I am thus more comfortable saying that John isemploying hyperbole to add force to his argument, than weakening hisrhetoric by claiming that he is concerned with habitual sin. Martin CulyAssociate Professor of New Testament and GreekBriercrest College and Seminary510 College DriveCaronport, SK S0H 0S0 Phone: (306) 756-3207 ————————————– This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged proprietary material forthe sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, or distribution ordisclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intendedrecipient, or authorized to receive the information from the recipient,please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of thismessage.— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 John 3:9[] Re: Professor Swanson

[] 1 John 3:9 Seth VM sethvm at hotmail.com
Sat Oct 30 18:48:54 EDT 2004

[] Translation of Romans 9:6 [] present tense FEROMENHN Martin Curly, Alexander Loney, (i hope i got your names correct)Thanks very much for your analysis. God bless you gentlemen, and be well brothers.–Seth Moran_________________________________________________________________Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

[] Translation of Romans 9:6[] present tense FEROMENHN

[] 1 John 3:9 Denise Parkes deniseparkes at hotmail.com
Mon Feb 4 22:16:50 EST 2008

[] reading for translation or understanding? [] PARARREW’s root word (in Hebrews 2:1)? 1 John 3:9: PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU hAMARTIAN OU POIEI hOTI SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTW MENEI KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN, hOTI EK TOU QEOU GEGENNHTAI Doesn’t the LSJ’s definitions of DUNAMAI provide a third possibility to solve the apparent inconsistency between 1 John 1:8 and 1 John 3:6 and 9? DUNAMAI: 2. “of moral possibility, to be able, dare, bear to do a thing, mostly with neg.” Thus: 1 John 3:9: Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because his seed remains in him, and he DARE NOT sin because he has been born of God. If one uses this definition, doesn’t the inconsistency between the three verses disappear? Thus: If those born of God dare not sin then: while still able to sin according to 1 John 1:18,they don’t (intentionally) sin – 1 John 3:6, because they cannot bear to – 1 John 3:9. Cheers,Denise Parkes _________________________________________________________________Your Future Starts Here. Dream it? Then be it! Find it at www.seek.com.auhttp://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Ftracking%3Dsk%3Ahet%3Ask%3Anine%3A0%3Ahot%3Atext&_t=764565661&_r=OCT07_endtext_Future&_m=EXT

[] reading for translation or understanding?[] PARARREW’s root word (in Hebrews 2:1)?

[] 1 John 3:9 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 5 06:23:44 EST 2008

[] PARARREW’s root word (in Hebrews 2:1)? [] Teaching languages alive in the classroom (was:reading for translation or understanding?) If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that there is some compulsion which would prevent one from transgressing. I would need to review the LSJ entry more fully with the examples give to determine in what sense “dare” is being used there, but my inclination, in view of the fact that all other usages in the NT as cited by BDAG seem to concentrate upon one’s ability to perform some action, is to favor that usage here as well since there is nothing in particular to signal that it is being used otherwise. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus_________—– Original Message —-From: Denise Parkes <deniseparkes at hotmail.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Monday, February 4, 2008 10:16:50 PMSubject: Re: [] 1 John 3:91 John 3:9: PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU hAMARTIAN OU POIEI hOTI SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTW MENEI KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN, hOTI EK TOU QEOU GEGENNHTAI Doesn’t the LSJ’s definitions of DUNAMAI provide a third possibility to solve the apparent inconsistency between 1 John 1:8 and 1 John 3:6 and 9? DUNAMAI: 2. “of moral possibility, to be able, dare, bear to do a thing, mostly with neg.” Thus: 1 John 3:9: Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because his seed remains in him, and he DARE NOT sin because he has been born of God. If one uses this definition, doesn’t the inconsistency between the three verses disappear? Thus: If those born of God dare not sin then: while still able to sin according to 1 John 1:18,they don’t (intentionally) sin – 1 John 3:6, because they cannot bear to – 1 John 3:9. Cheers,Denise Parkes _________________________________________________________________Your Future Starts Here. Dream it? Then be it! Find it at www.seek.com.auhttp://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Ftracking%3Dsk%3Ahet%3Ask%3Anine%3A0%3Ahot%3Atext&_t=764565661&_r=OCT07_endtext_Future&_m=EXT— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ ____________________________________________________________________________________Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[] PARARREW’s root word (in Hebrews 2:1)?[] Teaching languages alive in the classroom (was:reading for translation or understanding?)

[] DUNAMAI 1 John 3:9 Denise Parkes deniseparkes at hotmail.com
Tue Feb 5 18:42:36 EST 2008

[] New Member [] DUNAMAI 1 John 3:9 George Yes, I think that in some instances DUNAMAI can imply compulsion – but mainly, though not necessarily, from an internal source – one’s conscience, intuition, common sense, and personal preferences. In addition to 1 John 3:9, I think there are a number of other verses where DUNAMAI with a negative can be translated as “cannot bear to” or “dare not.” Here are three examples: 1. Acts 4:19-20: …EI DIKAION ESTIN ENWPION TOU QEOU hUMWN AKOUEIN MALLON hH TOU QEOU, KRINATE. OU DUNAMEQA GAR hHMEIS hA EIDAMEN KAI HKOUSAMEN MH LALEIN. The sense of compulsion is very strong here. Peter and John COULD NOT BEAR, nor did they DARE, to do anything that was not right in the sight of God despite threats of violence. 2. 2 Cor.13:8: OU GAR DUNAMEQA TI KATA THS ALHQEIAS ALLA hUPER THS ALHQEIAS. Paul is saying here that he CANNOT BEAR TO, nor does he DARE TO, go against his true convictions. 3. Mark 6:5: KAI OUK EDUNATO EKEI POEHSAI OUDEMIAN DUNAMIN, EI MH OLIGOIS ARRWOTOIS EPIQEIS TAS XEIRAS EQERAPEUSEN Verse 2 of Mark 6 shows that Jesus had recently performed miracles in his home town but the audience did not have the same interest and amazement that was evident in other places. Thus Jesus COULD NOT BEAR TO provide further evidence of his divinity to such a faithless and impolite audience. He was not disempowered by their skepticism. This attitude of Jesus is present in his advice to the disciples in verse 11 regarding cities that did not welcome them. George, if you have access to the documents cited for the entry for DUNAMEI in the LSJ, I would be very grateful for your review. Thanks for your help,Denise Parkes_________________________________________________________________What are you waiting for? Join Lavalife FREEhttp://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3Den%5FAU%26a%3D30288&_t=764581033&_r=email_taglines_Join_free_OCT07&_m=EXT

[] New Member[] DUNAMAI 1 John 3:9

[] DUNAMAI 1 John 3:9 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Feb 5 23:18:12 EST 2008

[] DUNAMAI 1 John 3:9 [] DUNAMAI 1 John 3:9 LSJ:1996 452.2 moral possibility, to be able, dare, bear to do something … mostly with neg. Hom.Od 1.250, 13:331 S.Ant 455, Th. 1:130I checked all of these with the exception of Hom.Od 13:331. I don’t think any of them support your thesis. Perhaps with a little work you could get somewhere with Hom.Od 1.250 . Words which mean something like venture, risk, dare are TOLMAW & compounds, KINDUNEUW & compounds.S.Ant 455449 KR.h KAI DHT’ ETOLMAS TOUSD’ hUPERBAINEIN NOMOUS;450 AN.h OU GAR TI MOI ZEUS HN hO KHRUXAS TADE,451 OUD’ hH XUNOIKOS TWN KATW QEWN DIKH:452 OU TOUSD’ EN ANQRWPOISIN hWRISAN NOMOUS:453 OUDE SQENEIN TOSOUTON WiOMHN TA SA454 KHRUGMAQ’ hWST’ AGRAPTA KASFALH QEWN455 NOMIMA DUNASQAI QNHTON ONQ’ hUPERDRAMEIN.Notice that Creon uses TOLMAW in line 449 but the way I read DUNASQAI in 455, it has to do with the power or abitilty of Creon’s command to overturn (runover? hUPERDRAMEIN) the AGRAPTA … QEWN NOMIMA.Th. 1:130TAUTA 2 LABWN hO PAUSANIAS TA GRAMMATA, WN KAI PROTERON EN 3 MEGALWi AXIWMATI hUPO TWN hELLHNWN DIA THN PLATAIASIN hHGEMONIAN, POLLWi TOTE MALLON HRTO KAI OUKETI EDUNATO EN TWi 5 KAQESTWTI TROPWi BIOTEUEIN, ALLA SKEUAS TE MHDIKAS ENDUOMENOS EK TOU BUZANTIOU EXHiEI KAI DIA THS QRAiKHS POREUOMENON AUTON MHDOI KAI AIGUPTIOI EDORUFOROUN, TRAPEZAN TE 8 PERSIKHN PARETIQETO KAI KATECEIN THN DIANOIAN OUK EDUNATO, 9 ALL’ ERGOIS BRACESI PROUDHLOU hA THi GNWMHi MEIZONWS ES EPEITA EMELLE PRAXEIN.Here we have hO PAUSANIAS becoming puffed up because he received a letter with the result that he is OUKETI EDUNATO EN TWi KAQESTWTI TROPWi BIOTEUEIN …Hom.Od 1.250249 hH D’ OUT’ ARNEITAI STUGERON GAMON OUTE TELEUTHN250 POIHSAI DUNATAI:Here Telemachus is complaining that his mother isn’t able to put a stop to the feasting. You might be able to stretch this one a little and get some use out of it but what good is Homer for NT lexical semantics?Elizabeth Kline is doing the line wrap thing you see below:Hom.Od 1.250246 Δουλιχίῳ τε Σάμῃ τε καὶ ὑλήεντι Ζακύνθῳ, 247 ἠδ’ ὅσσοι κραναὴν Ἰθάκην κάτα κοιρανέουσι, 248 τόσσοι μητέρ’ ἐμὴν μνῶνται, τρύχουσι δὲ οἶκον. 249 ἡ δ’ οὔτ’ ἀρνεῖται στυγερὸν γάμον οὔτε τελευτὴν 250 ποιῆσαι δύναται· τοὶ δὲ φθινύθουσιν ἔδοντες 251 οἶκον ἐμόν· τάχα δή με διαρραίσουσι καὶ αὐτόν.”Th. 1:130ταῦτα 2 λαβὼν ὁ Παυσανίας τὰ γράμματα, ὢν καὶ πρότερον ἐν 3 μεγάλῳ ἀξιώματι ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων διὰ τὴν Πλαταιᾶσιν ἡγεμονίαν, πολλῷ τότε μᾶλλον ἦρτο καὶ οὐκέτι ἐδύνατο ἐν τῷ 5 καθεστῶτι τρόπῳ βιοτεύειν, ἀλλὰ σκευάς τε Μηδικὰς ἐνδυόμενος ἐκ τοῦ Βυζαντίου ἐξῄει καὶ διὰ τῆς Θρᾴκης πορευόμενον αὐτὸν Μῆδοι καὶ Αἰγύπτιοι ἐδορυφόρουν, τράπεζάν τε 8 Περσικὴν παρετίθετο καὶ κατέχειν τὴν διάνοιαν οὐκ ἐδύνατο, 9 ἀλλ’ ἔργοις βραχέσι προυδήλου ἃ τῇ γνώμῃ μειζόνως ἐς1 “Hist”, 1.130.2.1ἔπειτα ἔμελλε πράξειν.S.Ant 455441 {ΚΡ.} Σὲ δή, σὲ τὴν νεύουσαν εἰς πέδον κάρα,442 φῄς, ἢ καταρνῇ μὴ δεδρακέναι τάδε;443 {ΑΝ.} Καὶ φημὶ δρᾶσαι κοὐκ ἀπαρνοῦμαι τὸ μή.444 {ΚΡ.} Σὺ μὲν κομίζοις ἂν σεαυτὸν ᾗ θέλεις445 ἔξω βαρείας αἰτίας ἐλεύθερον·446 σὺ δ’ εἰπέ μοι μὴ μῆκος, ἀλλὰ συντόμως,447 ᾔδησθα κηρυχθέντα μὴ πράσσειν τάδε;448 {ΑΝ.} Ἤιδη· τί δ’ οὐκ ἔμελλον; ἐμφανῆ γὰρ ἦν.449 {ΚΡ.} Καὶ δῆτ’ ἐτόλμας τούσδ’ ὑπερβαίνειν νόμους;450 {ΑΝ.} Οὐ γάρ τί μοι Ζεὺς ἦν ὁ κηρύξας τάδε,451 οὐδ’ ἡ ξύνοικος τῶν κάτω θεῶν Δίκη·452 οὐ τούσδ’ ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν ὥρισαν νόμους·453 οὐδὲ σθένειν τοσοῦτον ᾠόμην τὰ σὰ454 κηρύγμαθ’ ὥστ’ ἄγραπτα κἀσφαλῆ θεῶν455 νόμιμα δύνασθαι θνητὸν ὄνθ’ ὑπερδραμεῖν.456 Οὐ γάρ τι νῦν γε κἀχθές, ἀλλ’ ἀεί ποτε457 ζῇ ταῦτα, κοὐδεὶς οἶδεν ἐξ ὅτου ’φάνη.On Feb 5, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Denise Parkes wrote:> > George> > Yes, I think that in some instances DUNAMAI can imply compulsion – > but mainly, though not necessarily, from an internal source – > one’s conscience, intuition, common sense, and personal > preferences. In addition to 1 John 3:9, I think there are a number > of other verses where DUNAMAI with a negative can be translated as > “cannot bear to” or “dare not.” Here are three examples:> > 1. Acts 4:19-20: …EI DIKAION ESTIN ENWPION TOU QEOU hUMWN AKOUEIN > MALLON hH TOU QEOU, KRINATE. OU DUNAMEQA GAR hHMEIS hA EIDAMEN KAI > HKOUSAMEN MH LALEIN.> > The sense of compulsion is very strong here. Peter and John COULD > NOT BEAR, nor did they DARE, to do anything that was not right in > the sight of God despite threats of violence.> > 2. 2 Cor.13:8: OU GAR DUNAMEQA TI KATA THS ALHQEIAS ALLA hUPER THS > ALHQEIAS.> > Paul is saying here that he CANNOT BEAR TO, nor does he DARE TO, go > against his true convictions.> > 3. Mark 6:5: KAI OUK EDUNATO EKEI POEHSAI OUDEMIAN DUNAMIN, EI MH > OLIGOIS ARRWOTOIS EPIQEIS TAS XEIRAS EQERAPEUSEN> > Verse 2 of Mark 6 shows that Jesus had recently performed miracles > in his home town but the audience did not have the same interest > and amazement that was evident in other places. Thus Jesus COULD > NOT BEAR TO provide further evidence of his divinity to such a > faithless and impolite audience. He was not disempowered by their > skepticism. This attitude of Jesus is present in his advice to the > disciples in verse 11 regarding cities that did not welcome them.> > George, if you have access to the documents cited for the entry for > DUNAMEI in the LSJ, I would be very grateful for your review.> > Thanks for your help,> Denise Parkes>

[] DUNAMAI 1 John 3:9[] DUNAMAI 1 John 3:9

[] DUNAMAI 1 John 3:9 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Feb 6 15:21:57 EST 2008

[] DUNAMAI 1 John 3:9 [] 2008 Lenten Greek Reading On Feb 5, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Denise Parkes wrote:> Yes, I think that in some instances DUNAMAI can imply compulsion – > but mainly, though not necessarily, from an internal source – one’s > conscience, intuition, common sense, and personal preferences. In > addition to 1 John 3:9, I think there are a number of other verses > where DUNAMAI with a negative can be translated as “cannot bear to” > or “dare not.” Here are three examples:> > 1. Acts 4:19-20: …EI DIKAION ESTIN ENWPION TOU QEOU hUMWN AKOUEIN > MALLON hH TOU QEOU, KRINATE. OU DUNAMEQA GAR hHMEIS hA EIDAMEN KAI > HKOUSAMEN MH LALEIN.> > The sense of compulsion is very strong here. Peter and John COULD > NOT BEAR, nor did they DARE, to do anything that was not right in > the sight of God despite threats of violence.> > 2. 2 Cor.13:8: OU GAR DUNAMEQA TI KATA THS ALHQEIAS ALLA hUPER THS > ALHQEIAS.> > Paul is saying here that he CANNOT BEAR TO, nor does he DARE TO, go > against his true convictions.> > 3. Mark 6:5: KAI OUK EDUNATO EKEI POEHSAI OUDEMIAN DUNAMIN, EI MH > OLIGOIS ARRWOTOIS EPIQEIS TAS XEIRAS EQERAPEUSEN> > Verse 2 of Mark 6 shows that Jesus had recently performed miracles > in his home town but the audience did not have the same interest > and amazement that was evident in other places. Thus Jesus COULD > NOT BEAR TO provide further evidence of his divinity to such a > faithless and impolite audience. He was not disempowered by their > skepticism. This attitude of Jesus is present in his advice to the > disciples in verse 11 regarding cities that did not welcome them.Relevant to your thesis, H.B.Swete (Mark p114) cites comments on Mark 6:5 found in Origin on Matt 10:19:OU GAR EIPEN OUK HQELEN, ALL OUK HDUNATO, hWS ERCOMENHS MEN EPI THN ENERGOUSAN DUNAMIN SUMPRAXEWS hUPO PISTEWS EKEINOU EIS hON ENHRGEI hH DUNAMIS, KWLUOMENHS DE ENERGEIN hUPO THSAPISTIAS.hOUTW DH OUTE TA ENERGHMATA TWN DUNAMEWN CWRIS PISTEWS THS TWN QERAPEUOMENWN … OUQ hH PISTIS, hOPOIA POT AN Hi, CWRIS THS QEIAS DUNAMEWS.The language of Mark 6:5-6 does not address the question of Jesus power in the abstract.MARK 6:5 KAI OUK EDUNATO EKEI POIHSAI OUDEMIAN DUNAMIN, EI MH OLIGOIS ARRWSTOIS EPIQEIS TAS CEIRAS EQERAPEUSEN. 6 KAI EQAUMAZEN DIA THN APISTIAN AUTWN. KAI PERIHGEN TAS KWMAS KUKLWi DIDASKWN.I would agree with H.B.Swete and R.T.France (NIGTC Mark, p244) Jesus’ ability POIHSAI DUNAMIN is to some extent constrained here DIA THN APISTIAN AUTWN. As Origin says OU GAR EIPEN OUK HQELEN, ALL OUK HDUNATO …Elizabeth Kline

[] DUNAMAI 1 John 3:9[] 2008 Lenten Greek Reading

Chiasmus: 1 John 3:9 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sat Feb 27 13:32:15 EST 1999

CCAT OT Hebrew anyone? ers ~I am working my way through John Breck’s “The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond,” where he gives this passage as illustrative of the ‘helical’ structure and flow of the chiasm, where a chiasm is seen as a ‘unit of thought’ that revolves around a central core to which it refers and which explains it.1John 3:9 reads: [chiastically]2. PASO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU 1. hAMARTIAN OU POIEI 0. hOTI SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTW MENEI 1′. KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN2′. hOTI EK TOU QEOU GEGENNHTAIThe parallel couplet 2 – 2′ forms the ‘bookends’ that ‘envelope’ this unit of thought when read/heard linearly, and are easily identified. As well, the couplet 1 – 1′ easily identifies. The central core, “0”, has no parallel, and is likewise easily identified. What is not so easily seen is the [conceptual] helical flow that structures this passage and gives it density. Visualize one of those orange highway cones sitting on your table, and put the 2 at any point on the circumference of the base, and put 2′ at the opposite point of the base but above it, say 1’4 toward the top. Then, at a point on the base halfway between 2 and 2′, move half-way up that old cone and similarly place 1 and 1′ opposite each other [rotated 90 degrees from 2 and 2′]. now place 0 at the top. The helical flow of the thought structure now runs from 2 to 2′ to 1 to 1′ to 0. AND… It as well flows in reverse! [bi-directional flow]So we have: 0 1 1’2 2’AND2 2′ 1 1′ 0Placed together, [which Breck did not do], we have2 2′ 1 1′ 0 1 1’2 2’Which forms the letter CHI of Chiasmus!The spiral form can also be created with expanding concentric circles around 2-1-0-1′-2′ 2 1 0 1′ 2’Start at 0, circle to the left and up around to the right through 1, then around and down and across through 1′, then up and around through 2, then circle down again through 2′. You should have a spiral. It moves inward to the center as well as outward from the center.In English, then, from p 43, we have 3 reads of this passage: Regular first:2 No one who is born of God 1 Commits sin0 For His seed abides in him1′ And he is not able to commit sin2′ Because he is born of God.Inward helictical second:2 No one who is born of God1 Commits sin1′ And he is not able to commit sin2′ Because he is born of God0 for [God’s] seed abides in him.Outward from the center third:0 [Because] God’s seed abides in him2′ No one who is born of God 1 Commits sin1′ And he is not able to commit sin2 Because he is born of God.[Breck notes that this is an exceptional passage in that it happens to work out well in English translation.]What is amazing to me about this is that apparently this triple understanding of chiastic passages was immediately and perhaps even instinctively comprehended by its readers/hearers of that time! And that the Hebraic OT is even MORE chiastic than the GNT!Comments??GeogeGeorge BlaisdellRoslyn, WA______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

CCAT OTHebrew anyone?

Chiasmus: 1 John 3:9 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sat Feb 27 13:32:15 EST 1999

CCAT OT Hebrew anyone? ers ~I am working my way through John Breck’s “The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond,” where he gives this passage as illustrative of the ‘helical’ structure and flow of the chiasm, where a chiasm is seen as a ‘unit of thought’ that revolves around a central core to which it refers and which explains it.1John 3:9 reads: [chiastically]2. PASO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU 1. hAMARTIAN OU POIEI 0. hOTI SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTW MENEI 1′. KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN2′. hOTI EK TOU QEOU GEGENNHTAIThe parallel couplet 2 – 2′ forms the ‘bookends’ that ‘envelope’ this unit of thought when read/heard linearly, and are easily identified. As well, the couplet 1 – 1′ easily identifies. The central core, “0”, has no parallel, and is likewise easily identified. What is not so easily seen is the [conceptual] helical flow that structures this passage and gives it density. Visualize one of those orange highway cones sitting on your table, and put the 2 at any point on the circumference of the base, and put 2′ at the opposite point of the base but above it, say 1’4 toward the top. Then, at a point on the base halfway between 2 and 2′, move half-way up that old cone and similarly place 1 and 1′ opposite each other [rotated 90 degrees from 2 and 2′]. now place 0 at the top. The helical flow of the thought structure now runs from 2 to 2′ to 1 to 1′ to 0. AND… It as well flows in reverse! [bi-directional flow]So we have: 0 1 1’2 2’AND2 2′ 1 1′ 0Placed together, [which Breck did not do], we have2 2′ 1 1′ 0 1 1’2 2’Which forms the letter CHI of Chiasmus!The spiral form can also be created with expanding concentric circles around 2-1-0-1′-2′ 2 1 0 1′ 2’Start at 0, circle to the left and up around to the right through 1, then around and down and across through 1′, then up and around through 2, then circle down again through 2′. You should have a spiral. It moves inward to the center as well as outward from the center.In English, then, from p 43, we have 3 reads of this passage: Regular first:2 No one who is born of God 1 Commits sin0 For His seed abides in him1′ And he is not able to commit sin2′ Because he is born of God.Inward helictical second:2 No one who is born of God1 Commits sin1′ And he is not able to commit sin2′ Because he is born of God0 for [God’s] seed abides in him.Outward from the center third:0 [Because] God’s seed abides in him2′ No one who is born of God 1 Commits sin1′ And he is not able to commit sin2 Because he is born of God.[Breck notes that this is an exceptional passage in that it happens to work out well in English translation.]What is amazing to me about this is that apparently this triple understanding of chiastic passages was immediately and perhaps even instinctively comprehended by its readers/hearers of that time! And that the Hebraic OT is even MORE chiastic than the GNT!Comments??GeogeGeorge BlaisdellRoslyn, WA______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

CCAT OTHebrew anyone?

Chiasmus: 1 John 3:9 William B. Steidtmann billstei at rconnect.com
Sat Feb 27 16:03:54 EST 1999

How good is Septuagint as a translation of Hebrew Scripture? 1 John 4:13 translation questioned If you haven’t seen the “Companion Bible” (Kregel Publications) you should take a look. This Bible has structural diagrams on almost every page from Genesis to Revelation. What you are referring to as a helical form is called “introversion” in this commentary Bible. There are two main structural forms: introversion and alternation. Each of these two forms can be woven or embedded within one another in a hierarchial fashion in multiple levels, much like your computer organizes files inside of folders inside of yet other folders, etc. The entire Bible is built this way, and goes way beyond a mere couple of sentences or two. Entire sets of books form introversions, as do single words. Sometimes the structures extend across several books. In the end it becomes obvious that the Bible is either the work of God or a massive 1500 year conspiracy of Biblical 😉 proportions.Further work on structures can be seen in the works of Charles H. Welch, and it seems obvious that he was influenced by the work seen in the Companion Bible. It is not his main concern however he does take structural analysis to a higher level than the Companion Bible did.Both the Companion Bible and the works of Charles H. Welch can be obtained through the following organization:http://www.tftmin.org/William Steidtmann

How good is Septuagint as a translation of Hebrew Scripture?1 John 4:13 translation questioned

Chiasmus: 1 John 3:9 William B. Steidtmann billstei at rconnect.com
Sat Feb 27 16:03:54 EST 1999

How good is Septuagint as a translation of Hebrew Scripture? 1 John 4:13 translation questioned If you haven’t seen the “Companion Bible” (Kregel Publications) you should take a look. This Bible has structural diagrams on almost every page from Genesis to Revelation. What you are referring to as a helical form is called “introversion” in this commentary Bible. There are two main structural forms: introversion and alternation. Each of these two forms can be woven or embedded within one another in a hierarchial fashion in multiple levels, much like your computer organizes files inside of folders inside of yet other folders, etc. The entire Bible is built this way, and goes way beyond a mere couple of sentences or two. Entire sets of books form introversions, as do single words. Sometimes the structures extend across several books. In the end it becomes obvious that the Bible is either the work of God or a massive 1500 year conspiracy of Biblical 😉 proportions.Further work on structures can be seen in the works of Charles H. Welch, and it seems obvious that he was influenced by the work seen in the Companion Bible. It is not his main concern however he does take structural analysis to a higher level than the Companion Bible did.Both the Companion Bible and the works of Charles H. Welch can be obtained through the following organization:http://www.tftmin.org/William Steidtmann

How good is Septuagint as a translation of Hebrew Scripture?1 John 4:13 translation questioned

Chiasmus: 1 John 3:9 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sat Feb 27 17:35:28 EST 1999

accentuation: contonation and mora discourse boundary markers in Luke >From: “William B. Steidtmann” What you are referring to as a helical form is >called “introversion” in this commentary Bible. There are two main >structural forms: introversion and alternation. Each of these two forms >can be woven or embedded within one another in a hierarchial fashion in >multiple levels, much like your computer organizes files inside of folders >inside of yet other folders, etc. The entire Bible is built this way, and >goes way beyond a mere couple of sentences or two. Entire sets of books >form introversions, as do single words. Sometimes the structures extend >across several books. So it would appear, although I do not know of anyone seeing the ‘whole Bible’ as a chiasm. One would have to argue that Christ is the pivot point and that the books of the OT parallel those of the GNT in mirror image fashion. That could lead to a massive re-ordering of the books of the Bible to fit chiastic structuring!!Beck argues for the development of the habit of ‘seeing chiastically’ as one reads the Bible, and especially OT prophetic works, which are almost invariably chiastic. Single chiasms of 12 strophs are known, each perfectly balanced and in ascending/descending development. There appears to be no limit to the number of strophs possible in a single chiasm.As well, he argues that the book of John follows as a whole chiastic form, which easily accounts for the apparent sequence anomilies [noted recently by Carl and well known to Biblical scholarship] in that when they are seen in terms of chiastic structuring, they are not in the least out of sequence. Hence there is no need, on this [literary] approach, to ‘correct’ sequencing by moving the text around.Pretty heady stuff, imho.GeorgeGeorge BlaisdellRoslyn, WA______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

accentuation: contonation and moradiscourse boundary markers in Luke

Chiasmus: 1 John 3:9 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sat Feb 27 17:35:28 EST 1999

accentuation: contonation and mora discourse boundary markers in Luke >From: “William B. Steidtmann” What you are referring to as a helical form is >called “introversion” in this commentary Bible. There are two main >structural forms: introversion and alternation. Each of these two forms >can be woven or embedded within one another in a hierarchial fashion in >multiple levels, much like your computer organizes files inside of folders >inside of yet other folders, etc. The entire Bible is built this way, and >goes way beyond a mere couple of sentences or two. Entire sets of books >form introversions, as do single words. Sometimes the structures extend >across several books. So it would appear, although I do not know of anyone seeing the ‘whole Bible’ as a chiasm. One would have to argue that Christ is the pivot point and that the books of the OT parallel those of the GNT in mirror image fashion. That could lead to a massive re-ordering of the books of the Bible to fit chiastic structuring!!Beck argues for the development of the habit of ‘seeing chiastically’ as one reads the Bible, and especially OT prophetic works, which are almost invariably chiastic. Single chiasms of 12 strophs are known, each perfectly balanced and in ascending/descending development. There appears to be no limit to the number of strophs possible in a single chiasm.As well, he argues that the book of John follows as a whole chiastic form, which easily accounts for the apparent sequence anomilies [noted recently by Carl and well known to Biblical scholarship] in that when they are seen in terms of chiastic structuring, they are not in the least out of sequence. Hence there is no need, on this [literary] approach, to ‘correct’ sequencing by moving the text around.Pretty heady stuff, imho.GeorgeGeorge BlaisdellRoslyn, WA______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

accentuation: contonation and moradiscourse boundary markers in Luke

John 3:19 – subject verb agreement Brian Tucker Niqmaddu at hotmail.com
Sat Jan 26 23:14:45 EST 2002

John 20:28 RV: Re: off topic John 3:19 But this is the judgment, that the light has come into the worldand men loved darkness rather than the light; for their works/deeds ‘were’evil.Question – Why is “works” plural (ERGA) with a singular verb (HN imperfectsingular of EIMI)? – “…their works/deeds was evil” Have I messed up?What’s going on here? I didn’t see any textual variants and I thought abouttreating ERGA as an accusative but that doesn’t make sense. This was aquestion asked by one of my students, here was my response, quoting Wallace,”Neuter Plural Subject with Singular Verb. Although there is a lack ofconcord in such constructions, they are not infrequent. Indeed, a pluralsubject normally takes a singular verb. It is an example of constructio adsensum (construction according to sense, rather than according to strictgrammatical concord). Since the neuter usually refers to impersonal things(including animals), the singular verb regards the plural subject as acollective whole. It is appropriate to translate the subject as a plural aswell as the verb, rather than translate both as singulars.” (399)Anything else to add or offer to explain or clarify this rule?Thanks,Brian—————————————————Brian TuckerRiverview, MIniqmaddu at hotmail.comeditor at journalofbiblicalstudies.orghttp://journalofbiblicalstudies.org

John 20:28RV: Re: off topic

John 3:19 – subject verb agreement Michael Haggett michaelhaggett at onetel.net.uk
Sat Jan 26 23:57:42 EST 2002

RV: Re: off topic Interpretation of Rom 4:1 Brian Tucker wrote, 27 January:| John 3:19 But this is the judgment, that the light has comeinto the world| and men loved darkness rather than the light; for theirworks/deeds ‘were’| evil.| Question – Why is “works” plural (ERGA) with a singular verb(HN imperfect| singular of EIMI)? – “…their works/deeds was evil” Have Imessed up?| What’s going on here? I didn’t see any textual variants and Ithought about| treating ERGA as an accusative but that doesn’t make sense.This was a| question asked by one of my students, here was my response,quoting Wallace,| “Neuter Plural Subject with Singular Verb. Although there is alack of| concord in such constructions, they are not infrequent.Indeed, a plural| subject normally takes a singular verb. It is an example ofconstructio ad| sensum (construction according to sense, rather than accordingto strict| grammatical concord). Since the neuter usually refers toimpersonal things| (including animals), the singular verb regards the pluralsubject as a| collective whole. It is appropriate to translate the subjectas a plural as| well as the verb, rather than translate both as singulars.”(399)MH: while I’ve got my Greek hat on (at 4:30am!)I think Wallace has got it about right. The only thing I’dquestion is:”Since the neuter usually refers to impersonal things(including animals), the singular verb regards the pluralsubject as acollective whole.”I don’t think the Greek neuter does usually refer to impersonalthings, so to use this as a reason seems a little contrived. I’mmore inclined to just accept it as “the way things are”. Also(beside noting the obvious fact that many masculine and feminineGreek nouns refer to impersonal things too) there are someplaces where a singular verb is used with a group of mixedgender nouns, for example:Jude :2ELEOS hUMIN KAI EIRHNH KAI AGAPH PLHQUNQEIHmay mercy, peace and love be multiplied to youMichael HaggettLondonwww.ntgreek.com

RV: Re: off topicInterpretation of Rom 4:1

22 Feb 2011

Friends,

1 John 3:9 has often been discussed in terms of Greek tense and its implication for understanding sin. The text also has the word σπέρμα SPERMA usually translated ‘seed’, and that’s often been discussed as well, at least in commentaries I’ve consulted.

I’d like to propose that the verse illustrates a chiasm, such as often appears in Hebrew poetry and in classical Greek literature as well, according to Smyth’s grammar.

Here’s the verse set out in chiastic form:

A. Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ Β. ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, C. ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτοῦ μένει Β(1) καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, Α(2) ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται.

A. PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU B. hAMARTIAN OU POIEI C. hOTI SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTOU MENEI B(1) KAI OU DUNATAIN AMARTANEIN, A(2) hOTI EK TOU QEOU GEGENNHTAI.

Further, in A and A(1) the position of the prepositional phrase ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ changes positions–that is, it follows the participle in A, but precedes the verb in A(2). I take the noun ἀμαρτίαν hAMARTIAN to be parallel to the infinitive ἁμαρτάνειν hAMARTANEIN in B and B(1). Then, in C, I wonder if the words σπέρμα SPERMA and μένει MENEI don’t envelope αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτοῦ AUTOU EN AUTOU in a kind of intra-chiastic chiasm. (Or perhaps I’m going too far.)

My question: if there is a chiasm in 1 John 3:9, is it fair to say that, in the Greek text, this verse turns on, pivots around, or hinges upon the verb μένει MENEI? It seems to me that there is evidence in the Greek text of 1 John 3:9 of a carefully-wrought rhetorical structure that would be difficult to render in English prose.

I hope this is helpful to list members; disregard anything here that’s not.

Blessings, Jeremy Spencer Pastor The Odessa Baptist Church Odessa, NY

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

4 thoughts on “1 John 3:9

  1. Wayne Scott says:

    Sounds like something written to confuse us by someone whose foundational belief is that our behavior has absolutely nothing to do with our eternal salvation. “You did nothing to earn your salvation and you can do nothing to lose it!”

    Since it’s not acceptable to rip the verse from our Bible, he is fine with simplifying it beyond understanding like the IRS does with our tax code.

  2. Wayne Scott Wayne Scott says:

    Sounds like something written to confuse us by someone whose foundational belief is that our behavior has absolutely nothing to do with our eternal salvation. “You did nothing to earn your salvation and you can do nothing to lose it!”

    Since it’s not acceptable to rip the verse from our Bible, he is fine with simplifying it beyond understanding like the IRS does with our tax code.

  3. Troy Day says:

    Wayne Scott Thanks for your comment. Major major case of DUNAMIS power in this 1 Jn verse – almost Luke like

    and may we add here DUNAMIS power to live with NO sin Melvin Harter

    Does either the grammatical context or the present tense of either term require or at least suggest translating “not able to sin continuously?” From what I have been reading, both on the current thread on the present tense and in the grammars I have, there does not seem to be general agreement. I can see where ones’ views on sanctification could influence their answer, but would hope that, rather or not we are successful, we would all want to try to avoid that particular pitfall. I believe, maybe naively, that we all want to know the truth. This is not the only passage that would be effected by ones’ understanding. I am just now coming to grips with the idea that the aorist is not the “once for all” tense. Yet I am reading where some now see temporal issues as part of tense in the indicative

  4. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    Wayne Scott Thanks for your comment. Major major case of DUNAMIS power in this 1 Jn verse – almost Luke like

    and may we add here DUNAMIS power to live with NO sin Melvin Harter

    Does either the grammatical context or the present tense of either term require or at least suggest translating “not able to sin continuously?” From what I have been reading, both on the current thread on the present tense and in the grammars I have, there does not seem to be general agreement. I can see where ones’ views on sanctification could influence their answer, but would hope that, rather or not we are successful, we would all want to try to avoid that particular pitfall. I believe, maybe naively, that we all want to know the truth. This is not the only passage that would be effected by ones’ understanding. I am just now coming to grips with the idea that the aorist is not the “once for all” tense. Yet I am reading where some now see temporal issues as part of tense in the indicative

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.