Johann
Well-known member
II. Interpretation of 1 John 3:6, 9 and 5:8
1. Criticism of the major interpretations of 1 John 3:6, 9 and 5:8.
Among numerous scholarly discussions to solve the present dilemma are five main interpretations. The first is a grammatical approach, which is also called “tense solution”. The primary focus of this approach is upon the aspectual consideration of the present tense of the verbs in 3:6, 9 and 5:18. Its proponents have emphasized the habitual force of the present tense6: πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει (3:6), πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ…, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται (3:9) and οἴδαμεν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει (5:18). NIV translates these verses as follows, reflecting this approach: “No one who lives in him keeps on sinning” (3:6); “No one who is born of God will continue to sin…he cannot go on sinning” (3:9); “We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin” (5:18).
According to this view, the believer may commit some acts of sin, but perpetual sin is not characteristic of a believer because the direction of the believer’s life is toward godliness. Yet this interpretation carries a few difficulties. John also uses the present tense in 5:16 which cites the sins of believers, “If any man sees his brother commit a sin which is not unto death.” Had the present tense of 5:16 been used in a “habitual” sense, believer would go on sinning, so it would lead contradictory conclusion.7 Similarly, John uses the present tense in 1:8 (“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us”). If the present tense of 3:9 were habitual, that of 1:8 would be habitual where the present tense stands.8 C. H. Dodd comments, “It is legitimate to doubt whether the reader could be expected to grasp so subtle a doctrine simply upon the basis of a precise distinction of tenses without further guidance…the apparent contradiction is probably not to be eliminated (though it may be qualified) by grammatical subtlety.”9 Furthermore, B. M. Fanning considers the present tense of 1 John 3:9 in “generic gnomic sense” rather than “customary”. He defines that the use of the present tense in generic statements describes “something that is true any time rather than a universal statement that is true all the time”.10 Actually, this grammatical approach generates a contradiction, failing to provide a satisfactory solution to the current problem.
Second, the Wesleyans insist that believers cannot commit willful and deliberate sin. D. W. Mills cites J. H. A. Ebrard’s statement, “One who is born of God cannot willfully, and against his better knowledge and conscience, do that which is sin; he cannot love, and cherish, and entertain sin…To the regenerate man is it a thing impossible-by his very nature-…to withstand and run counter to the commandments of God knowingly and with deliberate will.”11 Wesley categorized sin in a dualistic way: “proper sin” and “improper sin”.
According to him, a proper sin is a voluntary transgression of a known law, while an improper sin is of a non-moral nature, such as ignorance, error or infirmities.12 It is true that in the Epistle, John presents two kinds of sin: “sin leading into death” and “sin not leading into death” (5:16-17). The Wesleyans connect these two kinds of sin in the Epistle with the concept of “proper sin” and “improper sin”. La Rondelle states that “a mortal sin” is hopeless because a man has radically broken with God (proper voluntary sin) and “sin which is not mortal” can be forgiven (improper ignorant sin).13
Yet I. H. Marshall properly points out three difficulties to the view. He comments, “One is that by itself it is an inadequate solution to the problems of the text. Wesley himself has to admit that even saintly people (he cites David and Peter) could commit gross, deliberate sins, and therefore he has to admit that, even with this limited definition of sin, the text represents an ideal rather than something that is universally true of all believers. The second difficulty is that it is notoriously difficult to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transgressions; we can never be sure that even our best deeds are entirely free from selfish motives, or that our errors were in no way due to our own fault. And, third, the crucial objection is that there is no indication that John is working with such a limited definition of the term sin. He is talking about all sin.”14 According to the approach, the entire sanctification of the Wesleyan does not refer to freedom from all sin, but only from consciously deliberate sins or from the commission of “known sins”.15 Moreover, D. M. Scholer points out that even in the “sin leading into death” of 5:16, there is no clear distinction between deliberate sin and inadvertent sin, while insisting that “sin leading into death” refers to the unbeliever’s sin, but “sin not leading into death” the believer’s sin, similar to J. R. W. Stott’s view.16 Although what “sin leading into death” refers to is unclear, the passage of 1 John 5:16-17 does not seem to endorse any dualistic distinction about sin.
Third, it is from the Gnostic context where there were two different theological conclusions within Gnosticism, which were reflected respectively in 1:8-10 and 3:6, 9. J. R. W. Stott proposed the idea that Gnosticism led its adherents to different conclusions. He comments,
Some (among Gnosticists) supposed that their possession of gnosis has made them perfect; others maintained that sin did not matter because it could not harm the enlightened. Both positions are morally perverse. The first is blind to sin and denies its existence; the second is indifferent to sin and denies its gravity. To the first John declares the universality of sin, even in the Christian; to deny sin is to be a liar. To the second he declares the incompatibility of sin in the Christian; to commit sin is to be of the devil. It is in order to confound these particular views of his opponents that John states the Christian position in such categorical terms.17
It has been said that Gnosticism was a serious adversary against the Johannine community. Stott’s suggestion, however, is greatly dependent on subjectivity of the historical Sitz im Leben because there is no supporting evidence that John was arguing with two different Gnostic groups in his Epistle. S. Kubo well summarizes the difficulty of the view, “Actually as we have seen it is very difficult to make this kind of subtle division among the heretics. In fact, even Dodd’s description does not make a clear-cut distinction. The heretics described in 1 John are quite homogeneous and it is not necessary for our interpretation of these verses to require distinctions among them.”18
Fourth, it is based on a hypothesis about two different kinds of perfectionism. According to J. Bogart, the statement of 1 John 1:8, 10 is based on a Gnostic anthropology, which had been treated as heretical, but that of 1 John 3:6, 9 derives from the Gospel of John, and has been regarded as orthodox.19 The orthodox sinlessness is qualified in that only those who are born of God and abide in Christ are regarded as sinless. The sacrificial death of Christ makes this possible (2:1). Bogart argues that since John’s orthodox perfectionism is not found anywhere else in the New Testament except for the Johannine literature, heretical perfectionism did not evolve from John, but was introduced into the Johannine community either by the Johannine Christians who accepted Gnostic tenets or an influx of pro-Gnostic converts.20 It may be true that Gnosticism, like the Johannine community, also held some theological concepts such as “sinlessness”, and “anointing one”.21 Although this hypothesis is widely accepted by numerous scholars like E. Kasemann, H. Conzelmann, W. Meeks and J. L. Houldon, it is doubtful whether orthodox perfectionism can be found in the Gospel of John as Bogart claims.22 R. Alan Culpepper comments, “A decision on this issue is made difficult by the evidence Bogart adduces which shows that such a belief would not be out of place in John (e.g., the believers are “clean” and have passed from death into life) and by the fact that John never addresses the issue directly. He neither affirms nor denies “orthodox” perfectionism even though at times it may be implied. The gospel (of John) simply does not deal with the issue of sin within the community except perhaps in John 15:1-10, where the allegory and accompanying exhortation imply that believers may sin.”23 Furthermore, although Bogart assumes that the Johannine community had suffered from an influx of pro-Gnostic gentiles who had never accepted the basic biblical doctrines of God and man, 24 he does not present any evidence to his assumption.25
Finally, the fifth approach is that the concept of sinlessness in 1 John is based on the eschatological setting of the Epistle. According to this view, John refers to the ideal futuristic character of believers in 3:6 and 9. I. H. Marshall states, “What he is describing here is the eschatological reality, the possibility that is open to believers, which is both a fact (“he cannot sin”) and conditional (“if he lives in him”). It is a reality which is continually threatened by the tensions of living in the sinful world, and yet one which is capable of being realized by faith.”26 As a matter of fact, the expectation for a sinless state has been strongly endorsed not only by the Old Testament (especially, in the prophetic writings) but also by some extra-biblical documents such as Targums, the Jewish apocalyptic writings, and the Dead Sea scrolls.27 This hypothesis is most convincing even though some scholars have suggested that the passages of 3:6 and 9 are not written in a futuristic sense, but in a realistic sense. 28
Continue reading--
bible.org
J.
1. Criticism of the major interpretations of 1 John 3:6, 9 and 5:8.
Among numerous scholarly discussions to solve the present dilemma are five main interpretations. The first is a grammatical approach, which is also called “tense solution”. The primary focus of this approach is upon the aspectual consideration of the present tense of the verbs in 3:6, 9 and 5:18. Its proponents have emphasized the habitual force of the present tense6: πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει (3:6), πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ…, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται (3:9) and οἴδαμεν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει (5:18). NIV translates these verses as follows, reflecting this approach: “No one who lives in him keeps on sinning” (3:6); “No one who is born of God will continue to sin…he cannot go on sinning” (3:9); “We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin” (5:18).
According to this view, the believer may commit some acts of sin, but perpetual sin is not characteristic of a believer because the direction of the believer’s life is toward godliness. Yet this interpretation carries a few difficulties. John also uses the present tense in 5:16 which cites the sins of believers, “If any man sees his brother commit a sin which is not unto death.” Had the present tense of 5:16 been used in a “habitual” sense, believer would go on sinning, so it would lead contradictory conclusion.7 Similarly, John uses the present tense in 1:8 (“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us”). If the present tense of 3:9 were habitual, that of 1:8 would be habitual where the present tense stands.8 C. H. Dodd comments, “It is legitimate to doubt whether the reader could be expected to grasp so subtle a doctrine simply upon the basis of a precise distinction of tenses without further guidance…the apparent contradiction is probably not to be eliminated (though it may be qualified) by grammatical subtlety.”9 Furthermore, B. M. Fanning considers the present tense of 1 John 3:9 in “generic gnomic sense” rather than “customary”. He defines that the use of the present tense in generic statements describes “something that is true any time rather than a universal statement that is true all the time”.10 Actually, this grammatical approach generates a contradiction, failing to provide a satisfactory solution to the current problem.
Second, the Wesleyans insist that believers cannot commit willful and deliberate sin. D. W. Mills cites J. H. A. Ebrard’s statement, “One who is born of God cannot willfully, and against his better knowledge and conscience, do that which is sin; he cannot love, and cherish, and entertain sin…To the regenerate man is it a thing impossible-by his very nature-…to withstand and run counter to the commandments of God knowingly and with deliberate will.”11 Wesley categorized sin in a dualistic way: “proper sin” and “improper sin”.
According to him, a proper sin is a voluntary transgression of a known law, while an improper sin is of a non-moral nature, such as ignorance, error or infirmities.12 It is true that in the Epistle, John presents two kinds of sin: “sin leading into death” and “sin not leading into death” (5:16-17). The Wesleyans connect these two kinds of sin in the Epistle with the concept of “proper sin” and “improper sin”. La Rondelle states that “a mortal sin” is hopeless because a man has radically broken with God (proper voluntary sin) and “sin which is not mortal” can be forgiven (improper ignorant sin).13
Yet I. H. Marshall properly points out three difficulties to the view. He comments, “One is that by itself it is an inadequate solution to the problems of the text. Wesley himself has to admit that even saintly people (he cites David and Peter) could commit gross, deliberate sins, and therefore he has to admit that, even with this limited definition of sin, the text represents an ideal rather than something that is universally true of all believers. The second difficulty is that it is notoriously difficult to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transgressions; we can never be sure that even our best deeds are entirely free from selfish motives, or that our errors were in no way due to our own fault. And, third, the crucial objection is that there is no indication that John is working with such a limited definition of the term sin. He is talking about all sin.”14 According to the approach, the entire sanctification of the Wesleyan does not refer to freedom from all sin, but only from consciously deliberate sins or from the commission of “known sins”.15 Moreover, D. M. Scholer points out that even in the “sin leading into death” of 5:16, there is no clear distinction between deliberate sin and inadvertent sin, while insisting that “sin leading into death” refers to the unbeliever’s sin, but “sin not leading into death” the believer’s sin, similar to J. R. W. Stott’s view.16 Although what “sin leading into death” refers to is unclear, the passage of 1 John 5:16-17 does not seem to endorse any dualistic distinction about sin.
Third, it is from the Gnostic context where there were two different theological conclusions within Gnosticism, which were reflected respectively in 1:8-10 and 3:6, 9. J. R. W. Stott proposed the idea that Gnosticism led its adherents to different conclusions. He comments,
Some (among Gnosticists) supposed that their possession of gnosis has made them perfect; others maintained that sin did not matter because it could not harm the enlightened. Both positions are morally perverse. The first is blind to sin and denies its existence; the second is indifferent to sin and denies its gravity. To the first John declares the universality of sin, even in the Christian; to deny sin is to be a liar. To the second he declares the incompatibility of sin in the Christian; to commit sin is to be of the devil. It is in order to confound these particular views of his opponents that John states the Christian position in such categorical terms.17
It has been said that Gnosticism was a serious adversary against the Johannine community. Stott’s suggestion, however, is greatly dependent on subjectivity of the historical Sitz im Leben because there is no supporting evidence that John was arguing with two different Gnostic groups in his Epistle. S. Kubo well summarizes the difficulty of the view, “Actually as we have seen it is very difficult to make this kind of subtle division among the heretics. In fact, even Dodd’s description does not make a clear-cut distinction. The heretics described in 1 John are quite homogeneous and it is not necessary for our interpretation of these verses to require distinctions among them.”18
Fourth, it is based on a hypothesis about two different kinds of perfectionism. According to J. Bogart, the statement of 1 John 1:8, 10 is based on a Gnostic anthropology, which had been treated as heretical, but that of 1 John 3:6, 9 derives from the Gospel of John, and has been regarded as orthodox.19 The orthodox sinlessness is qualified in that only those who are born of God and abide in Christ are regarded as sinless. The sacrificial death of Christ makes this possible (2:1). Bogart argues that since John’s orthodox perfectionism is not found anywhere else in the New Testament except for the Johannine literature, heretical perfectionism did not evolve from John, but was introduced into the Johannine community either by the Johannine Christians who accepted Gnostic tenets or an influx of pro-Gnostic converts.20 It may be true that Gnosticism, like the Johannine community, also held some theological concepts such as “sinlessness”, and “anointing one”.21 Although this hypothesis is widely accepted by numerous scholars like E. Kasemann, H. Conzelmann, W. Meeks and J. L. Houldon, it is doubtful whether orthodox perfectionism can be found in the Gospel of John as Bogart claims.22 R. Alan Culpepper comments, “A decision on this issue is made difficult by the evidence Bogart adduces which shows that such a belief would not be out of place in John (e.g., the believers are “clean” and have passed from death into life) and by the fact that John never addresses the issue directly. He neither affirms nor denies “orthodox” perfectionism even though at times it may be implied. The gospel (of John) simply does not deal with the issue of sin within the community except perhaps in John 15:1-10, where the allegory and accompanying exhortation imply that believers may sin.”23 Furthermore, although Bogart assumes that the Johannine community had suffered from an influx of pro-Gnostic gentiles who had never accepted the basic biblical doctrines of God and man, 24 he does not present any evidence to his assumption.25
Finally, the fifth approach is that the concept of sinlessness in 1 John is based on the eschatological setting of the Epistle. According to this view, John refers to the ideal futuristic character of believers in 3:6 and 9. I. H. Marshall states, “What he is describing here is the eschatological reality, the possibility that is open to believers, which is both a fact (“he cannot sin”) and conditional (“if he lives in him”). It is a reality which is continually threatened by the tensions of living in the sinful world, and yet one which is capable of being realized by faith.”26 As a matter of fact, the expectation for a sinless state has been strongly endorsed not only by the Old Testament (especially, in the prophetic writings) but also by some extra-biblical documents such as Targums, the Jewish apocalyptic writings, and the Dead Sea scrolls.27 This hypothesis is most convincing even though some scholars have suggested that the passages of 3:6 and 9 are not written in a futuristic sense, but in a realistic sense. 28
Continue reading--
Thematic-Structural Analysis Of 1 John 3:6, 9, 5:18 for the Problem Of Sinlessness | Bible.org
I. Introduction Although sanctification is one of the most crucial components in the biblical doctrine of salvation in the Christological and pneumatological context, it has generated many theological controversies and debates, especially regarding the relationship between the believer and sin.
J.
