I John, Translation and Exegesis

[Jaltus]

In this thread I am going to go through every single verse of I John, giving the Greek text, my translation, grammatical insights that I have had (or read, but I did not use commentaries for most of it), and then deal with any sticky or important exegetical points.

My intended purpose is not theological, but some of what comes from this thread will in fact be exegesis which points directly to specific theological issues and makes (possibly determinative) rulings on said issues.

[Jaltus]

O hn ap archV o akhkoamen o ewrakamen toiV ofqalmoiV hmwn o eqeasameqa kai ai ceireV hmwn eyhlafhsan peri tou logou thV zwhV

Transliteration
'O 'hn ap archs 'o akhkoamen 'o 'ewrakamen tois ofqalmois 'hmwn 'o eqeasameqa kai 'ai ceires 'hmwn eyhlafhsan peri tou logou ths zwhs

What was seen from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our own eyes, what we beheld and touched with our hands concerning the word of life:

The first thing to note in the grammar is how the verbal structure works, beginning with the past tense of eimi (not more specific since it has only one past tense, not aorist and imperfect both) and continuing on into two perfects followed by two aorists. Now John is known for changing tenses more for stylistic reasons than for theological ones, but here he is producing something else. He goes from remote activities (heard and seen) to closer ones (beheld and touched), so the verbs move from a more abstract tense (perfect) to a more regular one (aorist). This feels very intentional.

The next thing to note is the intentional use of archV at the beginning of the work, such that it again parallels Genesis 1:1 but also makes a connection to John 1:1. In other words, this is an intentional link with John's gospel, which is strongly based on eyewitness testimony (cf. John 20-21).

The third item that demands attention is that the book begins with a neuter pronoun. This is obviously a problem since it cannot possibly have a grammatical antecedant, for nothing preceeds it in order to be an antecedant! However, the context makes it very clear that the entire life, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ are being pointed to since it is a group of events which is being referred to by the verbs. Also, the usage of multiple verbs to express an essentially unified idea brings home the fact that this was not a single event but an ongoing process that was witnessed.

Finally, the last phrase is the key to the first verse in many ways. It picks up two extremely loaded theological terms, namely logoV and zwh, or "word" and "life". These terms appear again and again in John's gospel, bringing to light much of the message that the gospel is meant to convey. In this work, "life" carries a lot of theological weight, but "word" is much more limited and is therefore used here to draw the reader's attention to the authority that the author is intentionally invoking.


Aside

I should probably have stated that I will be carrying certain assumptions into this thread. First, I believe that the author of the gospel of John and the author of this book are one and the same, namely John the apostle of Christ. This can be shown in many ways, but the easiest thing to do is to point to this opening verse and show that it is an eyewitness to the life and death of Christ who uses the same key theological terms as the author of John's gospel.

I am also going to assume that this work is not an epistle in terms of the classical form used. Rather, it is more likely to be some sort of tract or circular letter which explains certain issues within the gospel of John and corrects misunderstandings generated by the gospel. This is a part of the reason why John uses some of the key vocabulary but very little of the same style in the two writings.

[Jaltus]

kai h zwh efanerwqh kai ewrakamen kai marturoumen kai apaggellomen umin thn zwhn thn aiwnion htiV hn proV ton patera kai efanerwqh hmin

Transliteration:
kai 'h zwh efanerwqh kai 'ewrakamen kai marturoumen kai apaggellomen 'umin thn zwhn thn aiwnion 'htis 'hn pros ton patera kai efanerwqh 'hmin


and the life was made manifest and we are witnesses and are proclaiming to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to you -


The first thing to note is that this is a continuation of the previous verse. I have no idea why it was split here since this same one thought goes through verse 3.

Second, this verse presents a strange variation of tense. The verbs appear in this order: aorist passive, perfect, present, present, aorist passive. The first and last verb should probably be understood as the stress in this verse due to the unusual and rare nature of aorist passives. At the same time, the middle section of verbs is building off of the previous verse, saying that the contents of the proclamation (apaggellw) is based on the hearing, seeing, beholding, and touching of the last verse. This is therefore an implicit claim to trustworthiness with respect to the testimony that they have heard and are about to hear reiterated.

Third, notice the contrasting uses of the word zwh from the end of 1:1 and the beginning of 1:2. The former deals with the word which gives or brings life, making life a subordinate idea to the word. The latter, however, puts the life at the front spot while still implying the word. It is a masterful piece of writing, drawing the idea of Christ along without renaming Him but instead naming what He gives.

The concept of being made manifest deals with the revelation of God in the person of Jesus, in that He was the physical instantiation of the Father. This obviously should bring to mind key texts like "He who has seen me has seen the Father" and "I and the Father are one." This is another implicit connection to John's gospel, pulling into the very woof and weave of this book the person of Jesus Christ without actually mentioning Him.

Fourth, the use of the phrase "eternal life" (zwhn thn aiwnion) is going to be important. John pulls in the usage now in order to make it an explicit reference to who Christ is and what He did for us. You will also notice that this concept is another way of renaming Jesus. Thus eternal life is but another title of Christ in this book. If one substitutes logoV for zwhn thn aiwnion you end up with "the word which was with the Father," making it a very close parallel to John 1:1. It is therefore quite easy to see how this "eternal life" is just another way of talking of Jesus and the results of what He has done for us. Therefore, Jesus is eternal life since that is the result He brings for all who accept Him. John is neatly weaving in the gospel message throughout this introduction and at the same time making some very strong and obvious links with his gospel.

The final point to notice is the last usage of "was made manifest." This is the concept of revelation, such that just as God reveals Christ (God makes Christ manifest to you), in the same way Christ makes God manifest to us. This is a reciprocal relationship in many ways, and is a major theme of John's gospel.

[Bill the Cat]

Jaltus, can you also give a transliteration of the characters before you go into the exegesis? It'd help me a bit more in my learning of greek. Thanx

[Jaltus]

Ok, done.

h = eta
' = rough breathing
w = omega
f = phi
c = chi
x = xsi
q = theta
y = psi

[Jaltus]

o ewpakamen kai akhkoamen apaggellomen kai umin ina kai umeiV koinwnian echte meq hmwn kai h koinwnia de h hmetera meta tou patroV kai meta tou uiou autou Ihsou Cristou

Transliteration

o ewpakamen kai akhkoamen apaggellomen kai umin ina kai umeiV koinwnian echte meq hmwn kai h koinwnia de h hmetera meta tou patroV kai meta tou uiou autou Ihsou Cristou

Translation

what we have seen and heard, we are proclaiming even to you, in order that you indeed would have fellowship with us. But even our fellowship is with thge Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

First, this long process of introduction is almost over. After showing the eyewitness account by the verbs used, John is now moving from the seeing and hearing into the proclaiming elements. This is the natural process of the gospel that John is outlining here. The gospel is seen in a life, heard by someone telling it, then it effects one so deeply that one must then proclaim it in turn to others. You proclaim it not just for the glory of God, but so that others might truly have fellowship with you.

Second, a goal of witnessing is to enable true fellowship with those who are having the gospel proclaimed to them. The end goal is not salvation (a mistake often made by evangelists today), rather the goal of evangelism is fellowship within the common element of the church.

Third, this fellowship is not limited to just the church, but it is much more widely encompassing. The fellowship begins with salvation, moves into the church, and then continues in the progression of the relationship with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. In order to have true fellowship with a church, one must have true fellowship with God.

Fourth, grammatically speaking, there is nothing special happening within this verse. It is moving along the same lines as previous verses in the first half. The ina clause is just showing purpose, and the echte is subjunctive because of the ina.

Fifth, there is one slightly archaic word in the text, hmetera, but it occurs because hmwn cannot (stylistically) be articular. By having the de within the clause but not embedded between the article and the noun, the entire clause is being referred to instead of just the specific word. If hmwn was used instead, the de could be seen as embedded between the noun and its modifier.

[Jaltus]

kai tauta grafomen hmeiV ina h cara hmwn h peplhrwmenh

Transliteration

kai tauta grafomen hmeiV ina h cara hmwn h peplhrwmenh

Notes on the Greek

The last h by itself is actually eta iota subscript with smooth breathing, making it a form of eimi

Translation

And we are writing these things in order that our joy would be made full.

Comment

The first thing to notice is the tauta, which is a neuter plural accusative (though it could also be nominative in form since all neuter nominative and accusatives are the same). It is being used substantively, and thus is a noun instead of just being a demonstrative pronoun. This is a common expression used to carry forward the thought of a preceeding section.

Second, note the verb tense of the first verb. It is a present, making it a continuing action. John's uses of tense can be very important, as discussed above in verse 1, or they can be completely trival. Here, however, the choice is made based on the fact that he was in the midst of writing the book.

Third, the actual verb form in the ina clause is a periphrastic perfect subjunctive. A periphrastic occurs when a verb form cannot be expressed by using only a single word and therefore a form of eimi specifically conjugated (in this case a subjunctive) is supplied. Combining the subjunctive eimi with the perfect participle and you have a perfect subjunctive. The translation provided makes it sound as if it is in fact a passive, but that is because plhrwma tends to carry a passive meaning. Also, combining this sense with the perfect subjunctive, and it literally would be "would be filled" or "would be fulfilled," but the translation above is slightly more loose in order to get the real point of the verse across.

Fourth, as can be quickly seen, this is in many ways the purpose statement for the work under consideration. John is making it very clear that his happiness (or joy) is dependant upon how well his instructions are followed. In other words, the joy of the pastor is wrapped up in the maturity of those he is pastor over. Imagine if this were the case today in your church. How many can truly say that they (as pastor) or their pastor truly basis their happiness upon the maturity of those they serve? My guess is that it owuld be very few indeed.

Fifth, this concept of "filled" or "fulfilling" or "being made full" will reoccur again and again throughout this book, and often in very important places. John uses it to break up some of the major sections.

Sixth, this verse is the end of the introduction of this book. John has presented himself as an eyewitness to the life of Christ. He has said that he moved from passively watching, to actively taking part, to now being a proclaimer of the gospel himself. His stated intention is to draw his readers into the same relationship with God and the church that he has, such that all become mature in the faith.

It is from this point that the various themes will be developed.

[Jaltus]

Kai estin auth h aggelia hn akhkoamen ap autou kai avaggellomen umin oti o qeoV fwV estin kai skotia en autw ouk estin oudemia

Transliteration

Kai estin auth h aggelia hn akhkoamen ap autou kai avaggellomen umin oti o qeoV fwV estin kai skotia en autw ouk estin oudemia

Notes on the Greek

auth has a rough breathing mark over the upsilon, making it a demonstrative pronoun.

Translation

And this is the message which we have heard from Him and announced to you, that God is light and there is no darkness whatsoever in Him.

Comment

First, the opening phrase of this verse can be taken a few ways, none of which really affect the meaning. 1) "This is the message which" since the demonstrative pronoun is outside of the article instead of between the article and the noun (called the first attributive position, with the second attributive position being article noun article adjective instead of article adjective noun), this works. 2) "the message is this which" and it makes grammatical sense in another way, in that the articular word is now the subject. The problem with this rendering is the stacking of the demonstrative pronoun with the relative pronoun, which is more of an English translational problem than it is a Greek grammatical problem (although note that the article and noun come between the demonstrative and the relative pronouns). 3) "it is this message" works by taking the estin as impersonal and using the demonstrative as an adjective. This is a possible rendering, but some of the force is lost with respect to the stress. I opted for 1) due to how it conveys the emphasis on the demonstrative pronoun, carrying a strong emphasis in the way it is read and is to be understood. I would read it outloud like "And THIS is the message..."

Second, the use of the pronoun without a real antecedant is a normal sign of John's style throughout this book and II and III John. He tends to assume that you know he is referring to the Triune God or one of the persons (often times you can distinguish between the persons by the work of God he is talking of). This time, the reference is obviously being made to Jesus in that He is the one who taught John and gave him the message to be proclaimed.

Third, notice how this verse carries through the opening thought of receiving the message from Christ and passing it on to others. John will continue to reiterate that this is how the gospel is spread. By misunderstanding this to refer to nonsalvific teachings, the doctrine of tradition is built up in an unwise way.

Fourth, the content of the proclamation that Jesus gave to John and John passed onto his churches is quite simple. God is light. This obviously does not mean that God is a giant hallogen lamp in the sky, but rather that He is the pinnacle of holiness (cf. the hymns in Revelation, especially 4:8, though there are 9 uses of holy ascribed to God in Revelation). God is pure and unadultered by sin.

Fifth, and tied very closely to the last point, God has no darkness in Him at all. This is a very strong statement in Greek, using a double negative (double negatives in Greek strengthen negation instead of negating the negative, for if I said in English that I am not unable to do something it means I actually am able, in Greel saying I am not unable means I seriously have no chance of being able to do it). The negative is formed by saying "darkness in him not is nothing," with nothing being an accusative of respect (with respect to nothing at all). Thus a more literal way of putting it is "In Him darkness does not exist with respect to anything."

[Jaltus]

Ean eipwmen oti koinwnian ecomen met autou kai en tw skotei peripatwmen yeudomeqa kai ou poioumen thn alhqeian

Transliteration

Ean eipwmen oti koinwnian ecomen met autou kai en tw skotei peripatwmen yeudomeqa kai ou poioumen thn alhqeian

Note on the Greek

ou has a smooth breathing, making it a mark of negation instead of a relative pronoun.

Translation

If we would say that we have fellowship with Him and we walk in the darkness, we are lying and we do not do the truth.

Comment

First, the sentence begins with a conditional element, as seen by the ean. This means we should expect a subjunctive to follow (ASIDE: technically you should expect either a subjunctive or an optative to follow, but since there are only about 68 examples of this (Wallace, p. 326), in Koine Greek it can be more or less discarded, whereas in Classical Greek it was much much more common END ASIDE). And of course, the subjunctive does follow. This is a conditional statement, then with the protasis being the first half and the apodasis being the second half. However, it is not a totally complete conditional sentence since it is showing intention (note the oti fronting the next verb). However, the true apodasis occurs after the kai, making it a completed conditional. Personally, I do not think it matters what class a conditional is as long as you faithfully translate the verb forms.

Second, notice that again there is no mention of the antecedant for the pronoun, just another nameless "him." Again, this is obviously referring to God in some form, and probably is grammatically related to "God" from 1:5.

Third, the verse uses the word "walk" for living, which is a very common metaphor both in Greek society and today. Obviously walking in darkness refers to living a life of sin.

Fourth, John makes a nuanced approach to what truth is, namely that it cannot only be told (spoken truth) but lived. This can be seen by his using both lying and not doing the truth. Truth is not limited to something we say, but it deals with the content of life itself. This will be developed more fully as the book progresses.

Fifth, notice how we already have two major contrasts set up by combining 1:5 with 1:6. We have darkness and light which leads to lying and truth. Light is championed by God, wherewas darkness is anathema to Him and His people. In the same way, truth is going to be embodied in the person of Christ (see John 14:6) whereas lying is the province of the devil. By setting up these stark contrasts, John is forcing people to choose sides. Who are you going to follow, John asks, Satan or the Father of Light?

Sixth, this book moves quickly from what is said to how one lives. In many cases, this is built off of James' approach to the tongue being so powerful. John, however, is transitioning from speech alone to speech being indicative of how a life is lived. This means that what is in the heart is shown by what comes out of the mouth. If you speak truth, you are walking in God's path. If you lie, you are walking away from God.

[Jaltus]

ean de en tw fwti peripatwmen wV autoV estin en tw fwti koinwnian ecomen met allhlwn kai to aima Ihsou tou uiou kaqarizei hmaV apo pashV amartiaV

Transliteration

ean de en tw fwti peripatwmen wV autoV estin en tw fwti koinwnian ecomen met allhlwn kai to aima Ihsou tou uiou kaqarizei hmaV apo pashV amartiaV

Note on the Greek

aima should have a rough breathing mark.

Translation

and if we would walk in the light as He is in the light, we are having fellowship with each other and the blood of Jesus His Son is cleansing us from all sin

Comment

First, this is again a conditional sentence. It begins with another ean just like the last verse, so once again we should expect a subjunctive verb, and we are not disappointed. The apodasis that matches this protasis is the ecomen, not the estin, since the latter is inside of a comparative phrase (note the wV) and is therefore dependant.

Second, we run quickly into two old friends in the first part of the verse. We go back to the duality of light/dark, this time dwelling exclusively on light and how it relates to God and thus to believers. The other old friend is the metaphor of walking as living, which combines with the light metaphor. Thus, the obvious sense of the verse is that because God walks in the light because He is holy (as shown previously), then we as Christians need to walk in the light being holy as well. This is very much analogous to “be Holy because I am holy,” except it is John’s won formulation of “be light because I am light.”

Third, note that even though the concept of God being in the light is inside the conditional, it is in no way doubted that God is actually in the light. The point of the statement is saying "if we were like X" and X here is a real condition, namely that God is in the light. The assumption is that God is holy, and the rest of the case builds from there.

Fourth, fellowship between Christians is predicated not upon gushy feelings and being friends, rather it is predicated upon who God is and our relationship with Him. If we live as Christians, we automatically have fellowship with other Christians. It is part and parcel of being saved. Anyone who is saved is definitely fellowshipping with other believers, whether they know or accept it or not. By virtue of being saved, you become part of the church universal.

Fifth, membership to this church is predicated by salvation, and that salvation is entirely dependant upon the blood of Jesus, which is what anoints us such that we may approach the throne of grace. It was Jesus who IS GOD who shed blood for us, something we should not ever overlook. It was not just some shmoe who knew he was going to die at some point anyway, rather it was the immortal made mortal, the spirit made flesh, the omnipotent made weak, the immovable made broken, God Himself took on humanity and died for us.

Sixth, the blood is what cleanses us from sin. Note that the verb is continuous in its effects. It is a once for all sacrifice, true, but the cleansing did not happen then, it happens now. As we are being sanctified, as we walk more and more like Christ, as we confess sin, then is our sin cleansed from us by the power of His atoning sacrifice on the cross.

To Him be the glory forever and ever.

[Jaltus]

ean eipwmen oti amartian ouk ecomen eautouV planwmen kai h alhqeia ouk estin en hmin

Transliteration

ean eipwmen oti amartian ouk ecomen eautouV planwmen kai h alhqeia ouk estin en hmin

Note on the Greek

h has a rough breathing mark and no accent, making it the article and not the relative pronoun or the conjunction.

Translation

If we would say that we have no sin, we would be decieving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

First, we once again have a conditional statement. This time we have a single condition with extra nuances added. The use of ean once more leads to a subjunctive, but this time there are two subjunctives, not just one. The first one is the true protasis. The ecomen is not the apodasis, since it is in the oti clause. Rather, the apodasis is formed by a complex fragment.

Second, the complex fragment is the conjoining of the last two verbs in the sentence, planwmen and estin, with the latter being the true end of the conditional. Thus, it is nearly a double condition for the final occurrence. If we say...Then we deceive...and finally then the truth is... So the argument is a supposition, followed by a logically deduced occurrence, followed by the final statement. In other words, it is nearly a syllogism, such that it has two presmises and a conclusion:

P1) We say we have no sin (possible condition)
P2) We are deceiving ourselves (definitionn of human)
C) Therefore, the truth is not in us (logically follows P2)

Third, John's argument is striking at the heart of what it means to be saved and to not be saved. One of the very first steps on the road to salvation is to acknowledge sin. Thus, John is showing that we all must acknowledge our sin. Even Christians sin, since John here is talking to Christians (as can be seen by including himself in the "we" statement).

Fourth, the reason that this is a statement about salvation (or rather about what shows there to not be salvation in someone's life) is because of the word alhqeia. This is truth, a hard substantive truth. It is also a statement about who Jesus is (cf. John 14:6) as can be seen from logical induction from verses 5-7 above. 1) God is light. 2) Christians cannot walk in the darkness and be Christians. 3) If we falsely claim to be Christians, we are not doing the truth. 4) Therefore, truth is more than just a concept of not lying. 5) Jesus is the trthu (pull from John 14:6). 6) To be Christians, we are cleansed from sin by Jesus. 7) To be saved, we must acknowledge our sin (implicitly understood in order to be cleansed from it). 8) By acknowledging our sin, the truth instantiated in the person of Jesus Christ can be in us.

John makes his above case negatively, and it should also be understood that way, namely that if you claim to be without sin, you cannot be a Christian. The reverse is not true, namely that just by claiming to have sin you are a Christian. Indeed, claiming to have sin is but the first step in the salvific process.

The reason this is important to note is because John is going to make a lot of positive only and negative only cases, and we need to stick with what he says, for if you begin reversing his arguments, you will come up with false statements. This will be further explicated as we hit chapters 2 and 4 especially.

[Jaltus]

ean omologwmen taV amartiaV hmwn pistoV estin kai dikaioV ina afh hmin taV amartiaV kai kaqarish hmaV apo pashV adikaiaV

Transliteration

ean omologwmen taV amartiaV hmwn pistoV estin kai dikaioV ina afh hmin taV amartiaV kai kaqarish hmaV apo pashV adikaiaV

Notes on the Greek

omologwmen and both of occurrences of amartiaV should include rough breathing marks.

afh and kaqarish both have iota subscripts, which is very important for this verse (see below).

Translation

If we would confess our sins, he is faithful and just, in order that he would forgive us our sins and would cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Comment

This is another in a series of conditional statements (the last in the series is 1:10), and contrary to most understandings of this section, it is not the pinnacle or high point of the argument (once again, 1:10 is).

Once again the author is positing a hypothetical case in order to make an argument. This can be seen by the strong use of the subjunctive throughout the verse, with the mood appearing three times. Also note the first use of the subjunctive, omologwmen, is present while the other two, afh and kaqarish, are both aorist. This is important because it shows the need to repeat the confession (the present is the tense of continual or repeated action) whereas there is only one time of forgiveness and cleansing for that specific confession (seen by the aorist tense which shows an action as a single event).

This time, however, the conditional beginning is followed by an affirmation of who God (or possibly Christ alone, since He is the last referent of note from back in 1:7) is. Considering the parallel with Revelation, it makes more sense to consider this Christ alone instead of the full godhead, but that is much more of a technical issue.

This time the conditional is unfulfilled in that it is followed by a purpose clause, and not a true apodosis. The ina shows purpose or intention in terms of why someone would confess sins. His being faithful and just is the reason that we can expect forgiveness, it is not the condition leading to forgiveness.

In other words, this verse is built like this:

If...(aside)...in order that....

The argument is that if we would confess, due to who God/Christ is, then our sins would be forgiven and we would be cleansed from all evil (essentially).

This is an important verse theologically in that it clearly shows the need for repentance. There are a few radicals who like to make the argument that I John teaches that we as Christians are unable to sin, but this verse right here is the linchpin against such a misunderstanding of the text. John does not say “you” referring to possible unbelievers, but “we” including himself among those who need to confess their sins to God.

This verse is a promise we Christians need to draw on, continually, in order to lead a life of holiness, a life dedicated to Christ. We all sin, we all fall short every day of matching the ideal of perfection, but through Jesus we have the ability to ask for forgiveness and to receive that forgiveness. Praise be to God!

[Jaltus]

ean eipwmen oti ouc hmarthkamen yeusthn poioumen auton kai o logoV autou ouk estin en hmin

Transliteration

ean eipwmen oti ouc hmarthkamen yeusthn poioumen auton kai o logoV autou ouk estin en hmin

Notes on the Greek

hmarthkamen has a rough breathing mark, as does o. autou does not.

Translation

If we would say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

Comment

First, this verse is based on the idea of actually speaking something, which then shows the contents of the heart. While not quite paralleling James, one can easily see the correspondence in thought between this implicit section of I John and sections of James’ epistle. Speaking is based on something that you really believe (cf. 1:9, Rom 10:9), such that what you say grows out of what you feel in your heart. Tying this in with the concept of Jesus as truth, and the condemnation on lying, here implicit elsewhere explicit, is quite heavy.

Second, the content of what is allegedly being said (remember that the ean + subjunctive gives us a statement put forth for argument, not necessarily something that is truly happening) is that we, meaning Christians, have not sinned. This verb is a perfect active indicative, in no way a possibility but it is a strong assertion which John is here condemning. Now the word hmarthkamen can be seen as either saying “we have (not) sinned” or else as saying “we have (no) sin.” I would argue, from the continuing argument that John is making, that the former is preferable. The latter is certainly true since Christians, when standing before God, have no sin since Jesus is the propitiation for sin (cf. 2:2).

Third, if we do say we have not sinned, then we make Him a liar, meaning that any time we claim to be sinless or perfect, we impinge on God’s (or Christ’s) own integrity. Jesus Himself has said that we sin, but that we are now perfected in Him (cf. 2:1 and the understanding of what He does as our advocate). This means that those who argue that we as Christians cannot sin have missed the meaning of this entire section, especially this verse and 2:1. However, this will be more fully fleshed out in the next post. Since God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), those who argue this are obviously wrong.

Fourth, the part that says “the truth is not in us” is clearly arguing not only that those who make this argument are liars, but that they are not even saved. Remember that truth directly corresponds to who Jesus is. He is the embodiment of truth, and any turning from truth is a turning away from Him, and vice versa. This is not just about who we are, but about who we are in the light of who He is. Christians cannot be liars and still be Christians. If the living God who is the personification of truth is truly indwelling you, then lying is something foreign to you which you should be looking to totally eject from your system as if it were a virus.

Fifth, the basic argument is, then, whoever claims to have not sinned is making Christ out to be a liar and therefore such a person cannot have the truth, which is Jesus, within them. Remember that an essential step of the gospel message is to understand and confess sin (Rom 3:23-24). There can be no salvation unless there is something to be saved from, and sin is what we are saved from. This is therefore not arguing that Christians are perfect, merely that Christians, when they sin, need to confess that sin in order to remain in right standing with God. Just as fulfillment of the law does not mean remaining sinless but making the appropriate restitution as proscribed by the Torah, so does being right with God entail confession.

[Jaltus]

Teknia mou tauta grafw umin ina mh amarthte kai ean tiV amapth paraklhton ecomen proV ton patera Ihsoun Criston dikaion

Transliteration

Tekna mou tauta grafw umin ina mh amarthte kai ean tiV amapth paraklhton ecomen proV ton patera Ihsoun Criston dikaion

Notes on the Greek

amarthte and amarth have rough breathing marks, and amarthte also has a iota subscript.

Translation

My little children, I am writing these things to you in order that you would not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Comment

First, note the extra iota in Teknia making it different from Tekna, which would just mean children. The extra iota is called a iota diminutive, making the word have the meaning of “little” added to it. If I would call someone adelfioV, it would mean little brother instead of brother (technically I would call them adelfie since that is the vocative case, but now I am getting overly picky).

Second, notice the use of mou, making the people this work is written to be related in some way to John. In all likelihood these are people he either saved or help progress in the faith, as he is now their spiritual leader or father figure. This is why he can call them his children.

Third, notice the present tense of the first verb, thus stressing how John is in the midst of writing the letter. This means he is pointing out this will be a prolonged argument.

Fourth, this sentence is the statement of the purpose of this letter. The point of this entire work is to keep Christians from sinning. Keep this in mind as you read this work.

Fifth, there is something going for us in the unfortunate event that we do sin, namely Jesus is standing before God pleading our case. The picture given here is one of God as judge/jury and Jesus standing before Him pleading our case. The reason He is pleading our case is because we Christians are sinners. This is a point which many people overlook in this passage, the assumption that Christians are sinners (this will modify how we understand later verses).

Sixth, the most interesting thing to me is the title ascribed to Jesus, that He is dikaion, that is righteous or just. This is thrown in here for a reason, it is not just an ad hoc addition. Since Jesus is righteous, meaning He is innocent before God to the point of actually being good, He alone is able to represent us before God. Only the innocent can represent the accused, as it were. Someone under accusation cannot represent someone else, they can only represent themselves (and if they do so they have a fool for a client). Thus, this usage here is indicating not only that He is sinless, but more so that He is vindicated forever before God. This leads from the idea that only the guiltless can represent someone. Thus, the implicit argument is that Jesus can represent sinning Christians since He was Himself without sin. This also shows the concept of Christians being forgiven their sins because of Jesus as advocator instead of just His atoning death. Jesus’ death is obviously the capstone upon which salvation is built, but it is not the only piece to the puzzle, as the resurrection, His sinlessness, and his advocacy all attest to.

[Jaltus]

kai autoV ilasmoV estin peri twn amartiwn hmwn ou peri twn hmeterwn de monon alla kai peri olou tou kosmou

Transliteration

kai autoV ilasmoV estin peri twn amartiwn hmwn ou peri twn hmeterwn de monon alla kai peri olou tou kosmou

Notes on the Greek

ilasmoV and hmeterwn have rough breathing marks, and autoV does not.

Translation

And he is the atoning sacrifice for our sin, not for ours alone but even for the entire world.

Comment

First, the pronoun obviously refers to Jesus here, which is quite obvious. estin is used to give equivalence to the predicate nominative, such that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice. Now the problem with this is that the word ilasmoV carries such a wide range of meaning as well as some intense theological baggage. It refers to the sacrifices in the OT, as seen in Ezekiel 44:27, Psalm 130:4 (LXX 129:4), Leviticus 25:9, and Numbers 5:8 (the problem text for this understanding is the strange issue of Amos 8:14, where the Hebrew is actually ASM, meaning guilt or penalty: Obviously the LXX differs widely here as in other places). Thus, solid glosses for this word abound, including: sin offering, means of forgiveness, propitiation, or some such. I opted for the full-orbed understanding that pulls in the OT understanding the most by referring to it as the “atoning sacrifice,” which is the essential concept trying to be conveyed by this word. The word deals specifically with sacrificial language from the OT, being used for sin offering and atonement, including the name in Leviticus for the Day of Atonement (hemeraV ilasmou). Of course the context points toward this understanding in the above passage as well.

Second, this atonement is to cleanse people peri twn amartiwn hmwn, or for our sin. The preposition is what gives the problem in this section, due to how wide the meaning can be. The essential glosses that could be considered are: for, about, or concerning. Obviously the nature of ilasmoV rules out the understanding of “about.” This leaves “concerning” and “for,” and I would argue that the idea of intention is very strong in this passage due to the context of 2:1, thus He is the atonement “for our sins” rather than the atonement “concerning our sins.” The sense is carried more strongly by the former understanding instead of the latter.

Third, this same construction is used in the next part of the verse, such that He is the atonement not just for our sin, since the word amartiwn should be supplied due to context. Therefore the argument is dealing with the sin of us and the sin of the world. amartiwn should be supplied for both instances.

Fourth, this argument goes on to say how Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the entire world. Clearly John is not referring to salvation for all (a subject that will be dealt with later in the work) but is referring to the intention of the cross. This is where the strange vacillation between “for” and “concerning” makes itself felt, for in this instance one would want to see this as atonement concerning the entire world, and therefore removing itself one more step from universalism. However, what matters here is that peri nearly always brings the concept of direction or intention, and therefore this is what pastors and teachers will need to bring out here since the English is rather unhelpful at this point (the English for shows a much stronger connection than is truly meant by peri).

Fifth, the use of kai in this case is not just a copulative but is probably a type of concessive or exclamatory. It is stressing the idea of “even (!) for the entire world.” John is introducing to his readers the importance of those outside of the community, which is why he has been hammering home the “we” over and over again throughout this section. The “we” refers to Christians, and therefore “not-we” as it were refers to the unsaved.

[Jaltus]

Kai en toutw ginwskomen oti egnwkamen auton ean taV entolaV autou thrwmen.

Transliteration

Kai en toutw ginwskomen oti egnwkamen auton ean taV entolaV autou thrwmen

Note on the Greek

toutw has a iota subscript, making it a dative singular.

Translation

And by this we know that we have known Him, if we keep His commands.

Comment

First, the phrase "by this" (en toutw) is being taken as an instrumental use since it is answer the question "how" or "by what means." In any event it is describing how something is to be known.

Second, the phrase actually is pointing forward, something that happens only in John's writings and in no other New Testament author's work, with possibly only one or two exceptions (the others are disputed, and probably do not in fact point forward). The reason that we know it points forward here is because this is a conditional sentence with the parts reversed, which will be dealt with in the next point.

Third, normally in Greek syntax when one is using a conditional sentence the protasis comes first and the apodasis comes next (pro meaning before and apo meaning after). However, John reverses this order for more of a punch. This is why the phrase en toutw points forward, because it is really in the second half of the sentence even though it comes first! In other words, John reverses the order for effect, but in so doing messes with the normal usage of a pointing phrase.

Fourth, this is in fact a conditional phrase, and it normally would be stated like this: "If we keep His commands we know that we know Him." John reverses this in order to stress that knowing comes from keeping. There is a lot of stress in this sentence, and the unique grammatical moves point toward this being a sort of crux or stand out statement.

Fifth, notice the repeated use of ginwskw, appearing both in the present, ginwskomen, and in the perfect, egnwkamen. John has a tendancy to use a lot of high impact words like this. Remember that this is the word used for Adam "knowing" Eve. John is therefore not talking about a cursory acknowledgment of who Jesus is nor is he talking about some assent to general doctrinal issues. Instead, John is talking about knowing Jesus in such a way as to be truly intimate with Him. Knowing goes well beyond some mental activity and into a strong relational and experiential response.

Sixth, this knowledge of Jesus is shown to others by following His commands. Within John this commandment is general summed up by love, but that is something we will deal with in other verses. What is important is that this is an outward sign of an inward reality. We do not follow His commands out of mindless obedience nor out of a sense of duty, we follow them because it naturally flows out of our relationship with Jesus, by knowing Him to the extent that we are supposed to know Him, we then model our lives around the person He is and the impact that should have on our souls. It is not enough to keep the commands in some outward form, what this verse means is to make them a part of your very being in response to who Jesus is and what He means to you.

[Jaltus]

o legwn oti egnwka auton kai taV entolaV autou mh thrwn yeusthV estin kai en toutw h alhqeia ouk estin

Transliteration

o legwn oti egnwka auton kai taV entolaV autou mh thrwn yeusthV estin kai en toutw h alhqeia ouk estin

Notes on the Greek

The accent on the first occurrence of estin is normal, as it is at the end of the word, and the second occurrence is strange because the accent shifts to the front. This makes sense if you remember that it is an enclitic and the accent will shift.

Translation

The one who says that he has known him and is not keeping his commands is a liar and the truth is not in him.

Comment

First, notice the way this is phrased, "the one who says that..." which already shows that John is assuming the person says one thing but reality is different in this case. Later on this will become formulaic and it will just be meant to separate word from deed, and this is an example of that.

Second, the perfect tense for egnwka shows clearly that what matters for the person's claim is that the person wants it to be known they are in a state of knowing Jesus. Thus, it shows how this event of coming to know shifted to an abiding knowing, which is why the perfect is used.

Third, the present tense of thrwn shows the continuing nature of the infraction. The person is not a liar for breaking the command once, it is the repeated and ongoing nature of this not keeping that makes them a liar. Keeping the command would eliminate the label of being a liar.

Fourth, the idea of the command relates to what we have discussed previously, namely the command to love one's brother.

Fifth, estin is also in the present, showing the continual nature of being a liar. When the "not keeping" is no longer continual, then the label of liar will no longer be applied.

Sixth, the last phrase is a bit weird and could actually be taken in multiple ways, especially considering the way John uses grammar. ev toutw h alhqeia ouk estin could conceivably also be translated as "by this there is no truth," especially considering the parallel uses. However, what forces me away from this choice is that John uses the neuter article for the person, and this agreement in gender pushes me away from the normal interpretation. Added to this is the use of the phrase in the next verse referring to the same thing and translated as "by this," and the phrase here would be redundant.

[Bill the Cat]

:bump:

Hey Jaltus... Keep em coming!!

[Capt Mercury]

If I might add a quick common about 1st John in general. Jaltus referred earlier to how John tends to use synonyms in Greek interchangably - more as a style. This is a common understanding of his usage of them. For example in John 21 when Jesus was speaking to Peter and asking him if he "loved" Him. There he switched words for "love," "sheep," and "tend." But IMO this may not always have been done just as a matter of style.

Similarly in 1 John he switches between the use of γινώσκω (GINWSKW) and οιδα (OIDA) - both referring to " to know." But was this done just as a matter of style?

I'm not sure what transliteration style you're using - whether Q or TH for theta, W or O for omega, etc.. Oh, I see you listed it.

Anyway, I though it might prove to be interesting to observe the switching between these two words. You referred to the intimacy of γινώσκω (GINWSKW). Well, IMO in 1 John he uses οιδα (OIDA) in a less intimate manner.

CM

[Jaltus]

Sorry, but my next post on this will not be for a while. I have a lot going on and these posts take some serious exegetical work.

[Jaltus]

oV d an thrh autou ton logon alhqwV en toutw h agaph tou qeou teteleiwtai ev toutw ginwskomen oti en autw esmen.

Transliteration

oV d an thrh autou ton logon alhqwV en toutw h agaph tou qeou teteleiwtai ev toutw ginwskomen oti en autw esmen

Notes on the Greek

thrh, both occurrences of toutw, and autw all have a iota subscript, making the first a subjunctive and the rest dative. The d an is actually a de followed by the conditional marker, with the epsilon being elided since a word cannot end in a short vowel when followed by a word beginning with a vowel, and thus you get the contraction (just say the Greek outloud a few times and you will quickly see why).

Translation

But whoever would keep his word, by this truly the love of God has been perfected, by this we know that we are in him.

Comment

First, the "whoever" in the translation is a common idiom in Greek, in that the conditional marker combined with s relative pronoun will combine to be an indefinite person, hence "whoever." This is an intentionally ambiguous referant so that all who read this letter are included.

Second, the subjunctive clearly needs to be used here (since it is a future possibility instead of a future certainty), but it is quite clearly showing intention. One could translate "whoever could" but that leans too far toward some time of election language, which is clearly not in view here at all. Instead, I chose "would" since it accurately conveys the idea of intention. "Whoever wants to" is the essential idea in this part of the sentence.

Third, I think the use of word here by John is intentionally vague and holds a double meaning. In one reading, this refers to keeping God's commands. In another reading, this refers to keeping the promises we make. In a third reading, it refers to keeping Christ (the Word) in yourself, i.e. being saved. John has a tendancy to make these kind of word plays, drawing out multiple meanings and leaving them there for the reader to discover. We will come back to this later.

Fourth, this is one of the rare times within this book that the phrase "in this" or "by this" refers to something previously said instead of pointing forward. There is nothing it makes sense for this phrase to point forward to, and thus it must be referring to keeping his word.

Fifth, the perfect verb here (teteleiwtai) obviously refers to a state of being in that what matters is not even the effects of God's love being made perfect, rather it is clearly the state of having achieved such a perfected love that matters. Once the state is reached, everything else can be accomplished. The perfecting of God's love in someone is clearly a groundbreaking event, but it is in fact just the beginning of the argument of this verse.

Sixth, the second occurrence of "by this" is much more difficult to pin down. It once again points backwards, but which clause does it point toward? It is easy to argue that it points only to the preceding clause, such that it depends upon the love being perfected, but more likely it is referring to the concept of keeping his word. Thus, it should diagram in the Greek like this:

oV d’an thrh autou ton logon
........alhqwV en toutw h agaph tou qeou teteleiwtai
........en toutw ginwskomen oti en autw esmen.

Clearly in this rendering the two subordinate clauses are parallel to each other. This seems to make the most grammatical sense. However, the caveat would then be that the truly goes with both clauses, so both are true. This could change the translation a bit (But whoever would keep his word, by this truly the love of God has been perfected, by this truly we know that we are in him). in addition, what matters is that this give us knowledge of assurance. These are the signs to ourselves that we are saved (scripture nowhere teaches, as far as I can tell, assurance of other people's salvation, only of one's own salvation).

Seventh, John here is using what I like to call en Cristw language, or in Christ language. Paul uses this all the time in a number of different contexts. John tends to use it only for the union of the believer with Christ in order to show a clean heart and to walk in the light. John uses this in a more singularly mystical way whereas Paul tends toward a corporate understanding, whether mystical or forensic.

Eighth, the argument in this clearly runs in reverse. In order to know one is truly saved, in order to know the love of God has been made perfect in you, you must keep his word.

The implications are quite strong. The way one reads the argument is also going to effect what understanding one pulls from this text. One can read this as saying that love is finished within the person who keeps his word (any of the three above meanings) or one can read it as saying love made perfect is what enables the keeping of his word. It is difficult to see which way this goes. The semantic difference between finished and perfected is quite slim, and it could be seen as a unified theme here. This would also allow for a more holistic understanding of what Christianity entails.

The other issue goes back to the threefold understanding of the phrase "keeping his word." If it does meaning keeping Jesus in oneself, then this is clearly a salvific issue and love perfected is salvation. This interpretation would then point not to the love of God being made perfect through how the individual acts, rather it refers to the love of God in Christ's death and resurrection being made perfect by someone's acceptance of it, thus transforming their own life. If the understanding is that of keeping God's commands, then God's love being made perfect refers to how one loves God instead of being loved by Him. This is quite an interesting turn of phrase then, making our love of God made perfect through obedience. The final option is to understand this as referring to keeping one's own word, and thus telling the truth. This is quite interesting because of the emphasis on truth throughout all of John's works. In fact, the close linkage with alhqwV gives this option more viability than one would assign at first glance. The perfecting of love would be much like the above understanding.

In the end, I think John probably meant at least the first two options, but the third option is also quite powerful as well due to thematic considerations. Instead of going with one, I think John crafted this so perfectly that he meant to assume all three meanings.

[Jaltus]

o legwn en autw menein ofeilei kaqwV ekeinoV periepathsen kai autoV outwV peripatein.

Transliteration

o legwn en autw menein ofeilei kaqwV ekeinoV periepathsen kai autoV outwV peripatein

Notes on the Greek

outwV has a rough breathing mark, so it is the particle form.

Translation

The one who says he remains in him ought even thus to walk just as that one walked.

Comment

First, notice the parallel beginning with verse 4. Obviously this verse is picking up that some concept and, in stead of running with it, is changing it and pushing the theme farther along.

Second, again this has to do with confession, or with actual verbal communication. It is the one who is making some sort of claimm that is in view here. We already know that one must confess Christianity in order to be a Christian, and this is building off of that theme.

Third, notice the use of the word remain. It is clearly picked up from the gospel of John, most notably John 15. If you are paying attention when reading I John, you will notice how he uses key words that appear throughout the gospel and incorporates them into this short work of his.

Fourth, the word translated "ought" (ofeilei) is a sense of obligation (often used in the context of financial transactions). This is not just something that you should do, but that you are in fact indebted to do.

Fifth, walking is often used as a euphemism for living, thus walking here is referring to living, so that whoever claims to live in him must live as he did. This will be picked up more firmly below.

Sixth, the words "just as" show an equivalence of idea, which means that John is demanding perfection from Christians. Again, this will be dealt with below.

Summary

This verse is a challenge. It is telling us that in order to really be Christians, we not only have to talk the talk but we have to walk His walk. That means a real Christian lives JUST AS JESUS DID. Our lives are bound to His both eternally by His work at the cross and temporally, as we strive to live on this earth as He did. This verse is a challenge, since all Christians are supposed to live EXACTLY as Jesus did. However, it is also a mark of identification in the church. While none of us will ever live perfectly enough to totally fulfill this verse until glory, it is very clear that this is what we are to strive for. Living as Jesus did is a mark of a member of the church as well as a challenge for each member of the church.

[ruthrush]

In this thread I am going to go through every single verse of I John, giving the Greek text, my translation, grammatical insights that I have had (or read, but I did not use commentaries for most of it), and then deal with any sticky or important exegetical points.

My intended purpose is not theological, but some of what comes from this thread will in fact be exegesis which points directly to specific theological issues and makes (possibly determinative) rulings on said issues.

Why didn't you finish this?
Ruth

[James Peter]

Why didn't you finish this?
Ruth

Probably because some of us are expected to produce theology for more than just TWeb and there is only so long you can devote to theology in a day without needing a break. I can normally manage 6-12 hours but no more.

Jaltus probably found that he needed to focus more on his PhD and less on writing this thread.

[Bill the Cat]

Probably because some of us are expected to produce theology for more than just TWeb and there is only so long you can devote to theology in a day without needing a break. I can normally manage 6-12 hours but no more.

Jaltus probably found that he needed to focus more on his PhD and less on writing this thread.
Actually, the PhD was only a small part of it. He and his wife had twin boys a few months ago. That'll take nearly ALL of anyone's free time!

[James Peter]

But he stopped writing it in 2004 and whilst a lot of his time may have been taking up with, umm, practicing making the twins (:blush:) I don't think thats likely to have been the primary reason for stopping this thread (:lol:). It does explain why he isn't around much these days though...