An Exegetical Examination of the Purpose Clauses in 1 John 3:5 and 3:8
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Examination of the Purpose Clauses in 1 John 3:5 and 3:8 is based on a b-greek discussion from October 14, 1999. The initial inquiry concerns the prevalent translation of subjunctive verbs within ἵνα clauses in 1 John 3:5 and 3:8 as indicatives or infinitives, despite their grammatical form. The original contributor noted a discrepancy across multiple English translations, with many opting for indicative or infinitive renderings over a more direct subjunctive translation, particularly questioning this practice in purpose clauses.
The central exegetical issue revolves around the interpretation and translation of the Greek ἵνα + aorist subjunctive construction in these verses, specifically whether its purpose-expressing function should be rendered with a subjunctive English equivalent (e.g., “might,” “may”), an infinitive (e.g., “to take away”), or an indicative verbal phrase. The discussion further explores the grammatical and rhetorical implications of each choice in contemporary English, considering the evolution of such constructions in both Greek and English, and the impact of archaic versus modern idiom in biblical translation.
Greek text (Nestle 1904)
1 John 3:5: καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἄρῃ, καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν.
1 John 3:8: ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν, ὅτι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει. εἰς τοῦτο ἐφανερώθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου.
- Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- There are no significant textual variants affecting the ἵνα clauses or the verbal forms (ἄρῃ, λύσῃ) in 1 John 3:5 and 3:8 between the Nestle 1904 text and the SBLGNT 2010. Minor punctuation differences may occur but do not alter the grammatical structure or the semantic meaning of the purpose clauses.
Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):
A review of the critical apparatus in NA28 for 1 John 3:5 and 3:8 indicates no significant variants related to the ἵνα clauses or the subjunctive verbs ἄρῃ and λύσῃ. The Greek text for these clauses is consistently attested across major manuscripts.
- Lexical Notes:
- ἐφανερώθη (aorist passive indicative of φανερόω): BDAG defines φανερόω as “to make visible, to show” or “to make known, reveal.” In the passive, it means “to appear, be revealed, be manifested.” The aorist tense indicates a historical, completed action—the manifestation of Christ/Son of God.
- ἵνα: BDAG lists this conjunction primarily introducing purpose clauses (“in order that, so that”), result clauses (“with the result that”), or content clauses (“that”). In the contexts of 1 John 3:5 and 3:8, it unequivocally expresses purpose.
- ἄρῃ (aorist subjunctive of αἴρω): BDAG provides meanings such as “to lift up, take up,” “to take away, remove,” and “to carry away.” In 1 John 3:5, it carries the sense of “taking away” or “removing” sins. KITTEL (Vol. 1, p. 182) highlights its theological use for “taking away” sin (cf. John 1:29).
- λύσῃ (aorist subjunctive of λύω): BDAG defines λύω as “to untie, loosen, unbind,” or “to destroy, demolish, do away with.” In 1 John 3:8, given the context of “works of the devil,” the meaning “destroy” or “do away with” is strongly supported. KITTEL (Vol. 4, p. 336) notes its application in breaking something apart or abolishing something.
Translation Variants
The original discussion highlights a significant divergence in English translations of the ἵνα + aorist subjunctive clauses in 1 John 3:5 (ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἄρῃ) and 1 John 3:8 (ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου). This divergence reflects different approaches to rendering Greek grammatical mood and accommodating English idiom.
Some translations, such as the Darby translation (DBY), maintain a subjunctive rendering: “that he might take away our sins” (1 Jn 3:5 DBY) and “that he might undo the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8 DBY). Similarly, the NIV uses “so that he might take away our sins” (1 Jn 3:5) and NKJV “that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8). This approach reflects a more literal attempt to mirror the Greek subjunctive, which intrinsically carries a sense of potentiality or contingency, especially in purpose clauses. However, as noted in the discussion, the use of “might” in this context in English can be perceived as archaic or as implying doubt rather than a direct statement of purpose, which can be rhetorically misleading to a modern reader. It expresses purpose in a past tense contingency construction, a usage now obsolescent in conversational English but retained in some formal or traditional translations.
Other translations, like the New English Bible (NEB), opt for an infinitive or a more direct indicative verbal phrase: “to do away with sins” (1 Jn 3:5 NEB) and “for the very purpose of undoing the devil’s work” (1 Jn 3:8 NEB). This approach interprets the ἵνα + subjunctive as a straightforward statement of purpose, aligning with modern English idiom where purpose is often conveyed by an infinitive or a pre-infinitive phrase (“in order to,” “for the purpose of”). Grammatically, while the Greek construction employs a subjunctive, the semantic intent is clearly teleological (expressing purpose), making the infinitive a natural and rhetorically clear equivalent in contemporary English.
The rhetorical impact of these choices is significant. A translation using “might” may evoke a sense of solemnity or traditional religious language, reflecting the “dignity” of the text often associated with older translations like the King James Version. However, it risks obscuring the directness of the divine purpose for a modern audience unfamiliar with this archaic idiom. Translations employing infinitives or explicit purpose phrases, while perhaps less “literal” in mirroring the Greek grammatical mood, offer greater clarity and immediacy regarding God’s decisive intent, aligning more closely with contemporary conversational and formal English usage for expressing purpose. The discussion highlights that the Greek ἵνα + subjunctive structure evolved in later Greek into a common way of expressing what the infinitive once did, underscoring the semantic overlap in conveying purpose.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The exegesis of 1 John 3:5 and 3:8 reveals that the Greek ἵνα + aorist subjunctive construction unequivocally expresses divine purpose. The variation in English translations—between renderings employing the archaic “might” (reflecting the subjunctive mood directly) and those using infinitives or explicit purpose phrases—stems primarily from the evolution of English idiom rather than a fundamental difference in understanding the Greek syntax. While the subjunctive in English traditionally carries connotations of tentativeness or possibility, its use in older translations of Greek purpose clauses was idiomatic for conveying a deliberate aim. Modern English, however, typically conveys purpose more directly through infinitives or “in order to” constructions. Translators must balance grammatical fidelity to the Greek with rhetorical clarity and naturalness in contemporary English, recognizing that archaic English usages, while preserving a certain textual “dignity,” can unintentionally introduce ambiguity or suggest doubt where none exists in the original intent. The dynamic nature of language, with differences between formal and informal registers, further complicates translation choices, leading to varied approaches that cater to different reader preferences and theological perspectives.
- “And you know that He was revealed in order to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin.”
This translation prioritizes clarity and modern English idiom for expressing purpose, using the infinitive phrase “in order to take away” to convey the teleological aspect of ἵνα + subjunctive without implying doubt. - “The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.”
This rendering retains the subjunctive mood using “might,” acknowledging its historical usage in biblical translation to convey purpose. While potentially archaic, it can appeal to readers who appreciate a more traditional or formal register in religious texts, without necessarily implying doubt in the divine purpose. - “And you know that He appeared so that He would remove our sins, and in Him there is no sin.”
This option uses “so that” followed by a modal auxiliary (“would”) to clearly express purpose, similar to the subjunctive but more common in modern English for such clauses. It balances formal expression with contemporary comprehensibility.
care to discuss ? Jevan Little RichardAnna Boyce
1 John 3:5-10
For those who have inwardly purified themselves through the new birth (cf. v 3), sin is not only unsuitable because it is evil (v 4), but also because it contrasts to the person and work of Christ. Though every Christian sins (1:8), sin has no place in the life of a Christian (cf. Rom 6:1-4). It should not be tolerated, much less endorsed in any way (cf. 1 John 2:1).
The purpose of Jesus first advent was to take away our sins. Because of His sacrificial death, ultimately the world’s sin will be removed from human experience. No one in God’s eternal kingdom (after the final rebellion in the millennium; Rev 20:7-10) will ever sin again. The statements of v 2 have already referred to this climax.
The repudiation of sin, therefore, should be based not only on its iniquitous character, but also on the realization that the goal of the Savior, is to completely remove it from the believers’ lives. His own personal purity, (v 3), offers incentive to reject sin in all its forms. For He is entirely without it: in Him there is no sin. Christ’s sacrificial work, plus His own personal and absolute holiness, make sin utterly unsuitable for the believer.
3:6. Since there is no sin in Christ, the believer who abides in Him does not sin (cf. 2:28). Many efforts have been made, both here and in v 9, to soften this assertion. One popular way has been to understand the present tense (does not sin) as “does not continue to sin.” Another popular view is that John is speaking of an ideal which is not fully realized in present experience.
Against both of these views is the statement of v 5 that “in Him is no sin.” Since this is so, the one who abides in the Sinless One cannot be said to be only “a little bit” sinful! If there can be “no sin” in Christ at all, one cannot take even a little bit of sin into an experience that is specifically said to be in Him. The failure to recognize the logical connection between vv 5 and 6 is the reason v 6 has been misunderstood. As a result, this misunderstanding carries over into v 9.
First John 1:8 makes it clear that no Christian can ever claim to be experientially completely free from sin in this life. But at the same time the experience of “abiding in Him” is a sinless experience. One area of obedience is not “contaminated” by the presence of sin in other areas. If a person obeys the command to love his brother, that obedience is not tainted in God’s sight by some different sort of failure in the life, such as a lack of watchfulness in prayer (cf. Eph 6:18).
When a believer is walking in fellowship with God, He is able to look past all his failures and sin and see the actual obedience that is there. In 1:7 John explained that even while walking in the light, there is cleansing going on by virtue of the blood of Christ. As a believer walks in the light and does what God commands, God sees him as one who is totally cleansed and is without any charge of unrighteousness.
Thus, when a believer abides in Him, the positive obedience is what God takes account of and recognizes. The sin that still remains is not in any sense sourced in the abiding life, and that sin is cleansed in accord with 1:7. The experience of “abiding” is therefore equivalent to obedience.
Since sin has no part of the abiding experience, it follows that whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.
It is wrong to resort to the present tense of the verb sins, as though it means “continues to sin,” (see v 9). The flow of thought points to an antithesis between sin and Christ, between sin and abiding. Every attempt to accommodate “a little bit of sin” or “an occasional sin” in John’s statements completely nullifies the contrast the apostle is drawing. Since even believers sin (1:8), the statement is intended to stigmatize all sin as the product not only of not abiding but also of blindness toward God.
Every sin in some way is deceiving (Heb 3:13), and flows out of a darkening of the heart toward God. Not to recognize that John’s statement is true of all sin is to miss his point completely. If the Revisionists rationalized sin, they were wrong. People sin when in some way they are blind to and ignorant of the true God.
3:7. Simplicity of mind and spirit is often the best hedge for the Christian against heresies that purport to have more “profound” knowledge to share. Clearly in the preceding material (esp. vv 4-6) John has had the Revisionists in mind. The readers are not to allow these antichrists to deceive them. Some believers probably thought they could commit sin and still claim to be in touch with God.
In order not to be deceived, the readers must keep in mind the simple fact that he who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. John’s point is that righteousness (rather than sin) is what indicates that a person has a perfect, inward righteous standing with God (see 2:29).
Only righteousness arises from the inner nature of one who is already righteous as God is righteous, for “in Him there is no darkness at all” (1:5). When a believer sins, it is not a manifestation of divine righteousness.
3:8. If believers are righteous, and sin is not a manifestation of that righteousness, then the sin all believers commit (1:8) is of the devil, that is, sourced in him. Interpreters who take a statement like this as the equivalent of saying that a professing Christian is unsaved miss the point. Since even John acknowledges that Christians sin (see 1:7-10), if he who sins is unsaved, everyone is unsaved!
John states that the devil has sinned from the beginning, that is, he is the source of all sin, and his sinful career dates from the beginning. (The beginning does not refer here to eternity past, since the devil is a created being and not eternal. The reference is to the original state of creation as it was when Satan introduced sin into it (Isa 14:12-15; Ezek 28:11-15.) To be of the devil means “to be doing the devil’s work” (cf. Jesus’ words to Peter in Matt 16:23).
Also participation in sin is participation in the very thing that Jesus came to destroy, because the Son of God was manifested in order that He might destroy the works of the devil (cf. v 5, He “was manifested to take away our sins”).
3:9. The person who has been born of God has God’s seed within him and so is not capable of sin (he cannot sin) by virtue of his birth from God.
Naturally many have wondered how this claim can be squared with reality since Christians do sin, as even John acknowledges (1:8). But the answer lies near at hand. In 1:8 John warns, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.” But in 3:9 he says, “whoever has been born of God does not sin.” As total persons, believers do sin and can never claim to be free of it, but their “inward self” that is regenerated does not sin.
In describing his struggle with sin Paul notes that two diverse impulses are at work. So he can say, “For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members” (Rom 7:22-23; italics added). Previous to this he had concluded, “Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells in me” (v 20; italics added). His conclusion is simple; “So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin” (v 24). At the core of his being (in his inward man) he does not and cannot sin. The inward man (the “regenerate self”) is absolutely impervious to sin, fully enslaved to God’s will. If sin occurs, it is not the inward man who performs it.
Sin does exist in the Christian, but it is foreign and extraneous to his regenerated inner self, where Christ dwells in perfect holiness. Since Christ is eternal life (1 John 5:20), the one who possesses that life cannot sin because he is born of God. The divine seed (sperma) of that life remains (menœ, “abides,” “stays”) in him who is born again, making sin an impossibility at the level of his regenerate inward self.
This understanding of 3:9 builds naturally on 2:29-3:8. Absolute contrasts are a familiar part of Johannine discourse. Most prominent among these are the light/darkness and the death/life antitheses. But to these must be added the sin/righteousness polarity that has appeared prominently in this unit.
For a number of decades the opinion was popular that the key to understanding 3:9 is in the present tense of the verb to sin. In this view the verse should read, “Whoever has been born of God does not continue to sin; for His seed remains in him; and he cannot continue to sin, because he has been born of God.” (The NIV has a similar rendering.) In this view prolonged continuation in sin does not occur if one is born again.
But this raises more questions than it answers. Do not all Christians continue to sin until the day of their death? Furthermore do not all Christians sin daily? How can anyone claim not to be continuing to sin? Does the born again person come to some point at which he ceases to sin? This proposed translation solves nothing.
The regenerate person can express himself only through righteousness (cf. 2:29) and can never express himself through sin, because he cannot sin.
3:10 a. The NKJV takes this statement as a reference to what follows it (note the colon in its translation). But it is preferable to take the last half of the verse as the beginning of a new unit.
The words In this refer backward rather than forward in this context. The use of the words are manifest in verse 10 a link the statement with what has preceded in 2:29-3:9. The children of God…are manifest by their doing righteousness. This is not to be viewed as a test of salvation. John’s one and only test of salvation is faith (cf. 5:1 and 5:9-13). Instead, this is simply a statement about how God’s children do manifest themselves.
Those who see 1 John as a handbook for deciding who is saved and who is not misuse the book grievously. John is advancing the theme stated in 2:28 that boldness in the presence of the Lord is offered to those who abide in Him. By abiding in Him, believers can and do manifest themselves as children of God. But those who do not abide do not so manifest themselves. The reality of their regenerate inward man remains hidden.
The same principle applies to the children of the devil. There is no good reason to take this phrase as a reference to unsaved people generally (see v 8). The term children of the devil is descriptive in nature. In light of 2 John 9 (see comments there), the Christian who has deviated from sound doctrine about the person and work of Jesus Christ and who vigorously opposes the truth could be so described. This is no more strange than the fact that Jesus addressed His own disciple Peter as “Satan” (Matt 16:23). The “child of the devil” is anyone who does the devil’s work by opposing the truth.
RichardAnna Boyce True BUT such only come to the REPENTED heart full with the Mind of Christ
Troy Day As a believer, I inherit and earn rewards in the Kingdom of Heaven, each time I, as a believer, repent as per 1 John 1:9. I agree with God, that I have the righteousness of God in Christ, and the mind of Christ..
RichardAnna Boyce are you taking under consideration the comma of John following?
the comma does not affect God’s promises to me as a believer.
RichardAnna Boyce so you avoid the Bible text?
I focus on God’s promises that I have the righteousness of God in Christ, and the mind of Christ. Were the original manuscripts made with commas?
RichardAnna Boyce no one has seen the autographs to tell us exactly but SOME punctuation was followed indeed
which comma and which verse are you asking about?