Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:4 | kalos | 126301 | ||
Everyone who PRACTICES sin... Part 2 FOOTNOTES 3:6 24tn The interpretive problem raised by the use of the present tense aJmartavnei (Jamartanei) in this verse (and poiei' [poiei] in 3:9 as well) is that (a) it appears to teach a sinless state of perfection for the true Christian, and (b) it appears to contradict the author’s own statements in 2:1-2 where he acknowledged that Christians do indeed sin. (1) One widely used method of reconciling the acknowledgment in 2:1-2 that Christians do sin with the statements in 3:6 and 3:9 that they do not is expressed by M. Zerwick (Biblical Greek §251). He understands the aorist to mean “commit sin in the concrete, commit some sin or other” while the present means “be a sinner, as a characteristic «state».” N. Turner (Grammatical Insights, 151) argues essentially the same as Zerwick, stating that the present tense aJmartavnei is stative (be a sinner) while the aorist is ingressive (begin to be a sinner, as the initial step of committing this or that sin). Similar interpretations can be found in a number of grammatical works and commentaries. (2) Others, however, have questioned the view that the distinction in tenses alone can convey a “habitual” meaning without further contextual clarification, including C. H. Dodd (The Johannine Epistles [MNTC], 79) and Z. C. Hodges (“1 John,” BKCNT, 894). B. Fanning (Verbal Aspect [OTM], 215-17) has concluded that the habitual meaning for the present tense cannot be ruled out, because there are clear instances of habitual presents in the NT where other clarifying words are not present and the habitual sense is derived from the context alone. This means that from a grammatical standpoint alone, the habitual present cannot be ruled out in 1 John 3:6 and 9. It is still true, however, that it would have been much clearer if the author had reinforced the habitual sense with clarifying words or phrases in 1 John 3:6 and 9 if that is what he had intended. Dodd’s point, that reliance on the distinction in tenses alone is quite a subtle way of communicating such a vital point in the author’s argument, is still valid. It may also be added that the author of 1 John has demonstrated a propensity for alternating between present and aorist tenses for purely stylistic reasons (see 2:12). sn Does not sin. It is best to view the distinction between “everyone who practices sin” in 3:4 and “everyone who resides in him” in 3:6 as absolute and sharply in contrast. The author is here making a clear distinction between the opponents, who as moral indifferentists downplay the significance of sin in the life of the Christian, and the readers, who as true Christians recognize the significance of sin because Jesus came to take it away and to destroy it as a work of the devil . This argument is developed more fully by S. Kubo (“I John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?” AUSS 7 [1969]: 47-56), who takes the opponents as Gnostics who define sin as ignorance. The opponents were probably not adherents of fully developed gnosticism, but Kubo is right that the distinction between their position and that of the true Christian is intentionally portrayed by the author here as a sharp antithesis. This explanation still has to deal with the contradiction between 2:1-2 and 3:6-9, but this does not present an insuperable difficulty. The author of 1 John has repeatedly demonstrated a tendency to present his ideas antithetically, in “either/or” terms, in order to bring out for the readers the drastic contrast between themselves as true believers and the opponents as false believers. In 2:1-2 the author can acknowledge the possibility that a true Christian might on occasion sin, because in this context he wishes to reassure his readers that the statements he has made about the opponents in the preceding context do not apply to them. But in 3:4-10, his concern is to bring out the absolute difference between the opponents and his readers, so he speaks in theoretical rather than practical terms which do not discuss the possible occasional exception, because to do so would weaken his argument. 3:9 32tn The problem of the present tense of poiei' (poiei) here is exactly that of the present tense of aJmartavnei (Jamartanei) in 3:6. Here in 3:9 the distinction is sharply drawn between “the one who practices sin” in 3:8, who is of the devil, and “the one who is fathered by God” in 3:9, who “does not practice sin.” See S. Kubo (“I John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?” AUSS 7 [1969]: 47-56) for a fuller discussion of the author’s argument as based on a sharp antithesis between the recipients (true Christians) and the opponents (heretics). ____________________ http://netbible.bible.org/ |
||||||
2 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:4 | Theo-Minor | 126317 | ||
Understand up front that to my mind, my argument is entirely illogical in the sense that I'm suggesting we do not, will not, and cannot sin once we truly know God. This is a dangerous view that leaves no real room for error, and it is to my benefit for mistakes to be permissable. What if I make one myself? So I'm not making this argument because I'm weird. I want occasional sin to be okay and forgiveable as much as the next person. I really believe he's telling us that we do not, will not, and cannot sin once we know and understand God in truth. The second part of this interpretation comes from the context of the passage itself. He's directly relating verse 3:6 to verse 3:5. There is no sin "in" Christ, so those of us "in him" cannot have sin. If we have sin and dwell in him then there is sin in him. Then there are passages like Hebrews 10:26: For if we willfully sin after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice concerning sin. As you pointed out in another, lesser, post on this topic, it's 'willful,' and I would add that it's "after receiving the 'full' knowledge of the truth." This is consistent with what John is saying. "Those that sin have not truly recognized or fully understood him." The Proverbs concur by saying that an adulterous man lacks understanding. So by this standard, if you are sinning [once or twenty times], you simply don't understand what God is about. You haven't had the revelation of the fullness of the truth. Paul says that we should not live in sin anymore, for Christ is not the minister of sin. He doesn't say, "Don't live in sin anymore, but go back and visit the old neighborhood now and again." Jesus said to the adulteress, "Go, and sin no more." That's a brutal command to give to someone if it is not an attainable goal. He didn't say, "Go, and sin only sometimes when you just can't help yourself." So we must assume it can be done. More to the point, Jesus tells us that his yoke is easy and his burden is light. John says that keeping God's commands are not a burdensome thing. So if they say it's easy, but we think it's hard, is it possible that we are not fully understanding? Is it possible that living without sin is a simple task that we have unnecessarily complicated through confusion or ignorance? Awaiting new posts ... Thanks to all that participate in this topic. It is, in my opinion, worthy of discussion because of the great impact it has on all our Christian walks. Theo-Minor |
||||||
3 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:4 | JCrichton | 126527 | ||
Hi, Minor! I tried back-reading to see what happened... I'm fading out... I think I understand your point: Jesus calls us to change our ways into His Way; to give up our sinful lives and enter into the Kingdom--not that we on our own have the power to change, but that we can abide in Him, who is Pure, and He will strengthen us and give us the ability to remain as children of the Light! Please, do not let your experience here tarnish your mind and heart! Our growth in the Lord requires much sacrifice and humility; episodes such as the one you have experienced should serve to test our resolve: Jesus or bust! God Bless! Angel |
||||||