the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive Jay Adkins JAdkins264 at aol.com
Thu Oct 14 07:08:15 EDT 1999
Spiritual death or Physical death? GAR and Paratactic Connectors Dear ers,Can someone please explain why in the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 the subjunctive verbs are translated like an indicative or an infinitive by so many translations?The phrases are:1 John 3:5 ….EFANERWQH, INA TAS AMARTIAS ARH 1 John 3:8 ….EFANERWQH O UIOS TOU QEOU INA LUSH TA ERGA TOU DIABOLOU1Joh 3:5 (DBY) …. *he* has been manifested that he might take away our sins;1Joh 3:8 (DBY) …. To this end the Son of God has been manifested, that he might undo the works of the devil1Joh 3:5 (NEB) …. Christ appeared, as you know, to do away with sins….1Joh 3:8 (NEB) …. the Son of God appeared for the very purpose of undoing the devil’s work.I have counted 9 translations that treat verse 5 as an indicative or an infinitive and 8 as subjunctive. In verse 8 the same translations treat it as an indicative or an infinitive 14 times and only 3 as subjunctive. I understand that the subjunctive in an Indefinite Relative Clause is often translated like an indicative, but why in a purpose clause would you do so? Is it because there is a futuristic aspect in the English phrasing which accounts for the degree of doubt represented by the subjunctive? That is my only guess as I really do not know the answer. There is no hidden agenda here.Sola Gratia,JayAlways Under Grace!
Spiritual death or Physical death?GAR and Paratactic Connectors
the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Thu Oct 14 08:36:26 EDT 1999
GAR and Paratactic Connectors GAR and Paratactic Connectors To: Jay Adkins,As for the infinitive, it is used in both Greek and English to expresspurpose. As for your translations from “DBY,” the English word “might” in”DBY” appears to be suggesting tentativeness: “he might take away our sins”(1 Jn 3:5 DBY); and “he might undo the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8 DBY),and not purpose.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com
GAR and Paratactic ConnectorsGAR and Paratactic Connectors
the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive Jay Adkins JAdkins264 at aol.com
Fri Oct 15 09:14:42 EDT 1999
1 Cor 7:12-16 PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 D Carl wrote:> It’s always fascinated me that the hINA + subjunctive clause > came eventually to supplant the morphologically distinct > infinitive; thus the modern Greek infinitive is NA + the > conjugated present or aorist subjunctive of a verb (NA > PW, for instance is the 1st person infinitive of “say”–> from what was once the Hellenistic hINA EIPW.> In any case, “might” in those Darby version formulations does> not express doubt as such; it’s simply the obsolescent usage > of the auxiliary verb “may” in a past tense contingency > construction.Thank you all very much for your responses. I was not aware of the changes in modern Greek. Furthermore, not all the translations that used the subjunctive force in these verses are as old as Darby, which helped to confuse me even more.1Joh 3:5 (NIV) But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.1Joh 3:8 (NKJV) He who sins is of the devil, for 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.Sola Gratia,JayAlways Under Grace!
1 Cor 7:12-16PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 D
the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Fri Oct 15 09:56:05 EDT 1999
PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 D the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive To: Jay Adkins, << Furthermore, not all the translations that used the subjunctive force inthese verses are as old as Darby, which helped to confuse me even more.1Joh 3:5 (NIV) “But you know that he appeared so that he might take awayour sins. And in him is no sin.” 1Joh 3:8 (NKJV) “He who sins is of thedevil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose theSon of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” >>I had suspected that such an idiom was archaic, but I wasn’t absolutely forsure. Perhaps I should have asked myself the last time I heard a fathertell a child the following: “Your Mother went to the grocery store so thatshe might pick up some eggs,” or anything even similar?-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com
PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 Dthe anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive
the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Oct 15 10:01:22 EDT 1999
the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive At 9:14 AM -0500 10/15/99, Jay Adkins wrote:>Carl wrote:> >> It’s always fascinated me that the hINA + subjunctive clause>> came eventually to supplant the morphologically distinct>> infinitive; thus the modern Greek infinitive is NA + the>> conjugated present or aorist subjunctive of a verb (NA>> PW, for instance is the 1st person infinitive of “say”–>> from what was once the Hellenistic hINA EIPW.> >> In any case, “might” in those Darby version formulations does>> not express doubt as such; it’s simply the obsolescent usage>> of the auxiliary verb “may” in a past tense contingency>> construction.> >Thank you all very much for your responses. I was not aware of the changes>in modern Greek. Furthermore, not all the translations that used the>subjunctive force in these verses are as old as Darby, which helped to>confuse me even more.> >1Joh 3:5 (NIV) But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our>sins. And in him is no sin.> >1Joh 3:8 (NKJV) He who sins is of the devil, for 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.It might be worth mentioning (although it’s pretty obvious, if only onestops to think about it), that: (1) any language that is widely spoken is always changing; (2) there’s always (or usually) a difference between the diction and grammatical usage that most people use conversationally or ininformal documents and what they write in more formal documents; (3) the “dignity” of a document or text has a considerable bearing onthe diction and grammatical usage employed in it; (4) religious and legal documents and texts and other documents andtexts of a similar “dignity” are likely to employ more archaic,obsolescent, or even altogether obsolete diction and grammar (although itcould be argued that if anyone is still reading and understanding anobsolescent diction or grammatical usage for a reason other thanantiquarian scholarly interest, that diction or grammatical usage cannotreally be quite obsolete–I still remember as a child memorizing and beingtold the meaning of what Jesus said to his parents when found in theTemple: “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”–but I’dquestion whether anyone conversationally today uses “wist” as asecond-person plural preterite of “know”);(5) although I don’t think there’s any one-to-one correspondencebetween theological conservatism and preference for ‘obsolescent’ dictionand grammatical usages, I do think there’s something of a tendency fortheologically conservative groups to prefer language that preserves more ofthe discernible grace and dignity of the King James Version, inasmuch as itand Shakespeare have probably influenced the nature of historical Englishmore than any other literary texts. It hardly surprises me therefore thatNKJV should still use “that he might destroy the works of the devil” for 1John 3:8–surely one can still hear/read remnants of 17th century Englishin that. Nor does it surprise me that NIV, however much it represents acompromise with more recent English idiom, should still use the obsolescent”so that he might take away our sins” for 1 John 3:5; I think that these doindeed reflect a sense that this older usage has greater dignity than thenow much more normal standard English usage, “appeared in order to takeaway our sins” for 1 John 3:5 or “The reason that the Son of God appearedwas to destroy the devil’s works” for 1 John 3:8. I don’t mean to implythat these are the only ways to convey the Greek of those verses in”formal” English, but they may be sufficient to show why the tastes andinclinations of some people are more attuned to the archaic diction andusage. And I have no quarrel with those to whom such language speaksclearly and eloquently, even if it is not my own preference.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctiveThe anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive
The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive George Goolde goolde at mtnempire.net
Fri Oct 15 10:35:31 EDT 1999
the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive Just “piling on” here in saying that Carl’s five point statement on the nature of language and biblical translation is one of the most accurate and to-the-point that I have seen. His statement about “dignity” captures the essence of why some prefer the 1611 KJV even if it is difficult for them to understand it. I personally gravitate toward the less “dignified” of the formal equivalent translations and end up at the NKJV or the 1995 NASB (which is less formal than the previous NASB).Anyway, thanks, Carl, for a good clarifying statement.GeorgeGeorge A. GooldeProfessor, Bible and TheologySouthern California Bible College & SeminaryEl Cajon, Californiagoolde at mtnempire.net
the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctiveThe anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive
The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive Jay Adkins JAdkins264 at aol.com
Fri Oct 15 10:44:39 EDT 1999
The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive 1 Timothy 2:11 In a message dated 10/15/99 2:01:49 PM !!!First Boot!!!, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> (1) any language that is widely spoken is always changing;> (2) there’s always (or usually) a difference between the diction and> grammatical usage that most people use conversationally or in> informal documents and what they write in more formal documents;> (3) the “dignity” of a document or text has a considerable bearing on> the diction and grammatical usage employed in it;> (4) religious and legal documents and texts and other documents and> texts of a similar “dignity” are likely to employ more archaic,> obsolescent, or even altogether obsolete diction and grammar (although it> could be argued that if anyone is still reading and understanding an> obsolescent diction or grammatical usage for a reason other than> antiquarian scholarly interest, that diction or grammatical usage cannot> really be quite obsolete–I still remember as a child memorizing and being> told the meaning of what Jesus said to his parents when found in the> Temple: “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”–but I’d> question whether anyone conversationally today uses “wist” as a> second-person plural preterite of “know”);> (5) although I don’t think there’s any one-to-one correspondence> between theological conservatism and preference for ‘obsolescent’ diction> and grammatical usages, I do think there’s something of a tendency for> theologically conservative groups to prefer language that preserves more of> the discernible grace and dignity of the King James Version, inasmuch as it> and Shakespeare have probably influenced the nature of historical English> more than any other literary texts. It hardly surprises me therefore that> NKJV should still use “that he might destroy the works of the devil” for 1> John 3:8–surely one can still hear/read remnants of 17th century English> in that. Nor does it surprise me that NIV, however much it represents a> compromise with more recent English idiom, should still use the obsolescent> “so that he might take away our sins” for 1 John 3:5; I think that these do> indeed reflect a sense that this older usage has greater dignity than the> now much more normal standard English usage, “appeared in order to take> away our sins” for 1 John 3:5 or “The reason that the Son of God appeared> was to destroy the devil’s works” for 1 John 3:8. I don’t mean to imply> that these are the only ways to convey the Greek of those verses in> “formal” English, but they may be sufficient to show why the tastes and> inclinations of some people are more attuned to the archaic diction and> usage. And I have no quarrel with those to whom such language speaks> clearly and eloquently, even if it is not my own preference.> Again, thank you. I had not even considered the differences between written and spoken English in regard to this construction. This makes good sense to me and can easily agree, however, I am wondering though if there is still another possible purpose in using this type of phrasing. Since the dual purposes of Jesus’ appearance in these verses could not be achieved unless He did appear, could the terms ‘might’ or ‘may’ simply be expressing this as the contingent aspect of the phrase? Not that there was any doubt the results would be achieved, but it was contingent on His appearance. Or am I really confused now? Even so, I could still understand that using these terms would still not be the best way to express it, as it is already implied.As for my own translation, I agree with you and will use the infinitive. My preference for being as literal as possible, includes using recent English idiom that is more conversational than most formal written documents, as my understanding of the NT Greek is that it was/is conversational and not formal. I asked the question in the first place because I did not understand the construction. Thanks to you, I think I have a much better grasp of it, not that it still could not be improved upon. The above questions are again merely to better understand the question that slows us all down, why?Sola Gratia,JayAlways Under Grace!
The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive1 Timothy 2:11
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?