Several of the questions you raise I've answered in my reply to Rolf...
But in response to some specific things...interspersed...
>I don't think anybody has argued that all the present tenses in 1 John
>are customary/habitual. Now I have suggested that this nuance is
>important in the book, but I never suggested this is the only nuance
>of the present tense. I also suggested it was very important and
>prevalent in 3:6-10, but even there I'm not sure this is the only nuance
>of the present tense found.
As I indicated in replying to Rolf, my feeling is that if you have the
same verb in the same book in the same semantic/conceptual situations,
that unless there are clues to the contrary they should be read the same
way. In the case of "to sin" I think its punctual nature overrules
the imperfective idea, as indicated by 1Jn 2:1. And with no clues to
the contrary it should be understood that way.
>>>From the standpoint of Greek grammar, it seems to me that you've got
>>to do alot more than simply say that a verb is present therefore its
>>imperfective in aspect. One must be able to point to contextual clues
>>which point in that direction, which clues can include the grammatical
>>style of the author in the whole book, use of certain words (eg.,
>>check out John's use of POIEW with nouns; "from the beginning"), etc.
>
>Well, I certainly argued contextually for the customary/habitual
>nuance, so you must not be referring to me.
Sometimes I hate email... that statement sounded like an accusation of
sloppiness, and that was not my intention. My point was that you can't
assume imperfective aspect for the present without other factors
involved, which need to be specifically pointed to (I went into this
in my response to Rolf).
>>I think its important to keep in mind that John not only says:
>>hAMARTIAN OU POIEI, but goes on to say: OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN in the
>>same verse. That second statement, it seems to me, invalidates the NIV
>>interpretation of the verse; ie., you can't say both at the same time
>>(and the NIV translation of the second part seems to me very forced and
>unnatural).
>>One of the things that has to be considered in dealing with DUNAMAI is
>>whether the speaker is thinking objectively or subjectively (the
>>illustration I always use is that its two different things to say, on
>>the one hand, "I can't jump from here to the moon." and to say "I
>>can't drive faster than the speed limit." (assuming my car has the
>ability).
>>
>>There is a serious question in 1John about the nature of the
>>impossibility being presented here: is it literally and objectively
>impossible for a
>>Christian to sin ? (if so, then John is contradicting himself !!),
>
>Huh? This follows only if you assume your conclusion, i.e., that
>hAMARTANEIN is an aoristic present. It would be better to say, is it
>literally and objectively impossible for a Christian hAMARTANEIN?
I can't see how I'm assuming anything more than you are assuming coming
to this passage; as I said above my assumption is not based on
reading *this* passage as "aoristic" but the punctual nature of
"to sin".
>>or is
>>it subjectively impossible for a Christian to sin ? In other words,
>>from John's persective, I take it that what he's getting at is that it
>>simply does make any sense to him that someone could be the child of a
>>holy
>>father, have the nature of the holy father living in them, and then
>>turn around and live in an unholy manner...its psychological insanity.
>>And those who say that its okay (remember he is dealing with this type
>>of teaching) are simply misleading their hearers. Thus the passage
>>has a rhetorical force attempting to get people to think through the
>>nonsense position they have been confronted with.
>
>Can you give us a precedent for this, i.e., for taking OU DUNATAI + an
>infinitive subjectively and not literally and objectively? That
>certainly would carry more clout.
It seemed so obvious that I didn't think it needed examples; try Acts
4:20 (we just read past this in 2nd year Greek, so its fresh in my
mind)...Peter and John could *objectively*, literally, etc., not
have spoken about Jesus, but they were *subjectively* making a choice
to speak; for them to be silent was a subjective impossibility.
(notice the double negative...its Greek wonderful !!!).
>Also, I would be interested to hear how you do take this verse (3:9).
>Would you give us your explanation?
>...snip...
>Again, you can not dismiss the objective/literal interpretion of OU
>DUNATAI so easily, especially when you assume your conclusion in so
>doing. There is a contradiction here only if you assume that hAMARTANEIN
>is not customary/habitual and is aoristic/punctiliar. But, of course,
>this is what you are arguing for. There is no contradiction if the
>nuance is customary/habitual. Certainly the aorists in 2:1 do not
>contradict it. The customary/habitual interpretation does not proclaim
>sinless perfectionism and it is very consistent with other passages which
>indicate or assume the possibility, yea, certainty that the children of
>God will and do commit acts of sin (1:6-2:1), though not as they once
>did (habitually and customarily), because of the transforming power of
>God at work in them (3:9).
Again, my assumption is *not* based on this passage per se, but the
Aktionsart of "to sin", which I don't see being overridden in this
passage (I spoke to the POIEW thing in the post to Rolf).
>>or is
>>it subjectively impossible for a Christian to sin ? In other words,
>>from John's persective, I take it that what he's getting at is that it
>>simply does make any sense to him that someone could be the child of a
>holy
>>father, have the nature of the holy father living in them, and then
>>turn around and live in an unholy manner...its psychological insanity.
>>And those who say that its okay (remember he is dealing with this type
>>of teaching) are simply misleading their hearers. Thus the passage
>>has a rhetorical force attempting to get people to think through the
>>nonsense position they have been confronted with.
>
>I can certainly see your thinking here - cf Rom 6:1ff where Paul
>reasons, "how shall we who have died to sin continue any longer therein?"
> However, I think such is out of place in 1 Jn 3:6-10.
Rom never occurred to me; I'm not a big fan of reading one writer
in light of another per se; esp., other writers in light of Paul.
>How, for
>example, would you explain, PAS hO hAMAPTANW OUC hEWPAKEN AUTON OUDE
>EGNWKEN AUTON (3:6b)? I do think this is a fatal blow to your argument.
>Wouldn't we agree no matter how hO hAMAPTANW is taken, that it says about
>such a person that he never was saved? I don't think you want to take
>this one as an aoristic present (yikes!). Nobody would ever be saved.
>So, I think you would probably opt for an imperfect aspect here and
>probably the customary/habitual nuance. In fact, a customary/habitual
>nuance can be argued pretty strongly for most, if not all, the verbs in
>this section.
Now this one will take *way* more time than I have; let me just say that
I don't think John is using "to see" and "to know" in reference to
regeneration/justification--which is your assumption here. These are not
ontological terms, but experiential terms in my view, ie., a Christian
who sins demonstrates by that action that he has not fully realized the
implications of who Jesus was/is and what He has done for believers.
The way I approach exegesis (this is not to denigrate anyone else, just
my approach) is to assume that each writer of the NT has his own way of
discussing issues; they may or may not be discussing the same issues
and may or may not be using the same terminology. I begin by assuming
that there are NO technical terms in the first century and that writers
tend to define their terms at the beginning of their writings. I also
assume that the major influence on the non-pauline writers is Jesus and
not Paul (witness Peter and James' use of SWTHRIA YUCHN). I also assume
that the way terms are used in current systematic theological or
contemporary christian usage are either not reflective of the way they
were used in the NT or at best only portray on possible nuance. When
we come to John (the same could be said for Peter or James or Barnabas
[who I think probably wrote Hebrews...but that's NOT a discussion for
bgreek], Jude) he simply writes in a way that is different, mainly from
Paul--it seems to me that we have all become unwitting paulinists and
don't do justice to the rest of the NT at times as a result.
You are obviously reading 1John as a discussion of regeneration/
justification; I am not...I'm reading it as a pastoral letter discussing
the behavior of Christians who need to put the implications of the
Gospel into practice and not listen to false teachers who are
telling them that their behavior can ignore those same implications.
>At any rate, how would you reconcile 3:6b with your interpetation of 3:9?
I think I answered that; the same is true I take it for the discussions
of 1:5-10; "walking", "knowing", and "in us" are just different ways in
those passages for saying the same thing; the gospel and its implications
have not effected the believer sufficiently. Indeed the NIV has (at
least in some editions) translated the "in us" phrases as "His word/truth
has no place in our lives", ie., we don't allow the Gospel to have its
full effect (this is of course different from the reading that those
phrases refer to the ontological/regeneratory presence of the word/truth in
us/our souls). This is the way I read all of 1John and indeed I think its
more consistent with John's next discussion in 2:1ff.
As I said in replying to Rolf, I don't have time to get into this any
deeper; I think I've said my piece...
XAIREIN...
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************