1 John 3:18

Lexical and Conjunctional Semantics: An Exegetical Study of λογος vs. ρημα and αλλα in 1 John 3:18

This exegetical study of *Lexical and Conjunctional Semantics in New Testament Greek* is based on a b-greek discussion from February 20, 2005. The initial discussion explored the semantic range of λογος and ρημα in the New Testament, positing that λογος generally possesses a broader meaning, encompassing various aspects of divine and human communication, whereas ρημα often denotes a specific utterance or spoken word. It was suggested that ρημα could frequently be substituted by λογος without significant textual damage, but the reverse is less often true. The discussion further noted that the Apostle Paul might exhibit a preference for ρημα του θεου over λογος του θεου in certain contexts, even while employing both. Similarly, in the Johannine corpus, λογος and ρημα are sometimes used interchangeably when referring to Jesus’ words.

The main exegetical issues addressed in this study revolve around two distinct yet interconnected semantic challenges. First, the precise differentiation between λογος and ρημα, particularly concerning their contextual interchangeability and the implications for understanding divine communication. Second, the semantic function of the conjunction αλλα in 1 John 3:18, specifically whether it conveys a strong contrast (“but”) or a more nuanced additive meaning (“as well as”). This distinction carries significant implications for interpreting the nature of love advocated in the passage, defining whether love is demonstrated *instead of* mere words, or *not merely* by words *but also* by deeds.

Greek text (Nestle 1904):
Τεκνία, μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν λόγῳ μηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ ἀλλὰ ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• The SBLGNT (2010) renders λογῳ with an acute accent (λόγῳ), while the Nestle 1904 text shows a grave accent (λογῳ). This is a purely orthographical difference, reflecting modern editorial practices regarding accent placement, and does not impact the lexical meaning or textual integrity.

From a textual critical perspective (NA28), 1 John 3:18 exhibits remarkable stability, with no significant textual variants affecting the interpretation of λογος, ρημα, or αλλα. Therefore, the exegetical focus remains primarily on lexical semantics and syntactical analysis rather than manuscript evidence.

Lexical notes provide crucial insight into the terms under consideration. According to BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, *A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature*), λογος (often glossed as “word”) possesses a vast semantic field in the New Testament, encompassing speech, utterance, statement, message, account, reason, and even the divine Word (Christ). Its range is considerably broad, reflecting its diverse philosophical and theological applications. In contrast, ρημα typically refers to a more specific, spoken word or utterance, often emphasizing the *act* of speaking or the specific content spoken. While some contexts allow for interchangeability, BDAG and other lexicons highlight that λογος can often subsume the meaning of ρημα, but the reverse is less common, underscoring the broader scope of λογος. KITTEL (*Theological Dictionary of the New Testament*) offers extensive theological discussions on both terms, tracing their usage from classical Greek through the Septuagint and New Testament, often emphasizing the theological weight of λογος as divine revelation and creative power, while ρημα is often seen as a specific manifestation or declaration of that divine λογος.

Regarding αλλα in 1 John 3:18, BDAG lists it as a conjunction with various functions, including adversative (“but,” “on the contrary”), exceptive (“but only”), and even a sense akin to “as well as” or “rather… than not.” The specific entry for 1 John 3:18 under αγαπαω 3 in BDAG suggests a translation that implies an additive element: “let us show our love with deeds *as well as* w. word or tongue.” This rendering diverges from the more common translation, such as that found in the NRSV (“Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, *but* in truth and action”), which interprets αλλα as a strong contrast, emphasizing deed *over* word. The question then arises whether this BDAG interpretation reflects a specific contextual nuance or an established grammatical rule.

Translation Variants

The grammatical and rhetorical analysis of 1 John 3:18 hinges significantly on the interpretation of αλλα within the negative construction μη… μηδε… αλλα. This construction typically signals a strong contrast, negating the first element(s) in favor of the subsequent one(s). For example, “not X and not Y, but Z” strongly implies that Z is *instead of* X and Y. The rhetorical force of this contrast is to direct the audience’s focus away from a superficial form of love (mere words or speech) towards a tangible, authentic manifestation (deed and truth). Translations that render αλλα as a strong contrast (“but”) align with this grammatical expectation, emphasizing that true Christian love is characterized by action rather than solely by verbal profession.

However, the alternative interpretation proposed by BDAG, suggesting “as well as,” posits a more nuanced rhetorical emphasis. This reading could imply that genuine love is *not merely* expressed through words, *but also* and more importantly, through deeds. It avoids a strict exclusion of verbal expression and instead highlights the insufficiency of words without accompanying action. While grammatically less common for αλλα in a straightforward adversative context, this interpretation might be argued from a broader rhetorical perspective of *true* vs. *insufficient* demonstration. It transforms the contrast from an either/or scenario to a critique of superficiality, demanding completeness in expression. The presence of εν εργῳ και αληθειᾳ (in deed and in truth) as the positive counterpart underscores the comprehensive nature of the desired love, implying both outward action and inward sincerity.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The lexical distinction between λογος and ρημα, while often subtle and context-dependent, generally positions λογος as the broader concept encompassing the full scope of communication, while ρημα denotes specific utterances. In 1 John 3:18, the use of λογος alongside γλωσσα (tongue) highlights verbal expression in general. The central interpretive challenge in this verse, however, lies in the semantic force of αλλα. While a strong adversative “but” aligns more naturally with the typical grammatical construction (μη… μηδε… αλλα), the contextual nuance suggested by BDAG (“as well as”) emphasizes a distinction between *merely* speaking and acting, rather than a complete dismissal of verbal love. Ultimately, the passage calls for a love that is concrete, genuine, and active, rather than superficial or merely performative. The following translation suggestions attempt to capture these nuances:

1. “Little children, let us not love *merely* with word or with tongue, but in deed and in truth.”

   This translation highlights the insufficiency of superficial verbal love, implying that words alone are not enough, without strictly negating their role.

2. “Little children, let us not love by word or by tongue, but by deed and in truth.”

   This rendering maintains a stronger contrast, emphasizing that true love is demonstrated through action rather than solely through verbal declaration.

3. “My dear children, let us not love with empty words or superficial speech, but with active deeds and genuine sincerity.”

   This interpretative translation expands on the implied negative connotation of “word or tongue” in this context, contrasting it with the comprehensive nature of “deed and truth.”