TRINITY EVANGELICAL DIVINITY SCHOOL

EXEGETICAL PAPER ON 1 JOHN 3:4-10

SUBMITTED TO DR. LAU IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF NT 8720 ADVANCED GREEK EXEGESIS

BY BENJAMIN MARX NOVEMBER 17, 2011

That the first Johannine epistle is a difficult letter in terms of its theology is not hard to recognize. There are many difficulties but the most difficult passage for some Christian seems to be 1 John 3:4-10. But why is that so? We might suppose that verses 6 and 9 is the stumbling block for us today. What does the author of 1 John mean when he states e.g. (v. 6)? And does this not clearly contradict 1:8-10? These are the questions that will be addressed in this paper. It will be argued that the author redefines sin in 3:4 ( ) and that hence the issue is not sin in general but a specific sin which the author has in mind. The thesis for this paper is that, in light of the dualistic worldview as well as the eschatological emphasis of group identity, John defines sin as rebellion against God and that the believer does not and cannot partake in that.

1. Perfectionism and Sinlessness In this section of the paper we will deal with the assertions made in 3:4, 6, and 9 in light of the usage of the present tense and in light of the seemingly contradictory nature of those assertions in reference to 1:8-2:2.1 1.1. The Present Tense. Some exegetes attempt to solve the issue of sinless perfection through Johns usage of the present tense (e.g. ; ). Burdick, for example, argues that the KJV translation of (v. 4; committeth sin) is misleading because it suggests a point action rather than the continuing practice indicated by the Greek

Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John (1st ed.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1982), 413 bluntly states that [n]o other NT author contradicts himself so sharply within such a short span of writing, and inevitably much scholarly energy has been devoted to proving that no contradiction exists. D. Edmond Hiebert, The Epistles of John: An Expositional Commentary (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1991), 148 sees this inconsistency in the moral incompatibility between the believer's old and new nature. Yet no inconsistency or contradiction need to be proposed when we see what the author of 1 John is actually accomplishing in 3:4-10.

present tense.2 Hiebert translates as someone who does not continue in willful, habitual sin3 and Kistemaker refers to as an iterative present.4 However, the present tense cannot be decisive. Kubo rightly points out that if the present tense is taken to mean habitual sin, then we run into difficulty with 1:8 where the present tense is used ( ) and Marshall points to 5:16 ( ) for the same objection.5 This leads us to the second point. 1.2. The Relationship to 1:8-2:2. In 1:8-2:2 the author of 1 John asserts that a claim to sinlessness would be incongruous. We read in 1:8 if we say that we do not have sin ( ) we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us and in 2:1 my children I write these

Donald W. Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle: An in-Depth Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 236. He further writes that the NASB translation (everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness) is better because it is not merely referring to an instance of lawbreaking, but to the continued, habitual performance of lawless acts (ibid.). So also V. Kerry Inman, Distinctive Johannine Vocabulary and the Interpretation of I John 3:9, Westminster Theological Journal 40, no. 1 (1977): 142 who writes The thought being conveyed in I John 3:9 is not that one born of God will never commit a sinful act but that he will not persist in sin. D. Edmond Hiebert, An Expositional Study of 1 John. Pt 5, an Exposition of 1 John 2:29-3:12, Bibliotheca Sacra 146, no. 582 (1989): 210. The willful part will be explored in the section on the Redefinition of Sin; yet the habitual sin part might be due to an understanding of the Greek tense which might not be all that helpful. We can find a more fruitful observation in Inmans study where we find that the expressions and (v. 9) might have distinctive Johannine nuances and that the the verb opens the possibility that the phrase in the Johannine works bears the nuance of continuing in sin or capacity for sinful deeds; Inman, Distinctive Johannine Vocabulary and the Interpretation of I John 3:9, 136, 141. The same is being observed by Louw who further argues that since we have in v. 4 and in v. 6 the durative aspect is present in this pericope. J. P. Louw, Verbal Aspect in the First Letter of John, in Essays on the General Epistles of the New Testament (Pretoria: NTWSA, 1975), 102. He calls the switch from to stylistic reduction. Louw further observes that [t]o mark incomplete aspect, a lexical notation is necessary the durative aspect is now expressed lexically by . An item like does not explicitly denote duration, it is merely unmarked as for completion (100). Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle of James and the Epistles of John (New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986), 300. Sakae Kubo, 1 John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?, Andrews University Seminary Studies 7, no. 1 (1969): 51. I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 180. See also Martin M. Culy, 1, 2, 3 John: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004), 73 who writes that the present tense simlpy potrays the sin as a process without regard to the events frequency or recurrence [emphasis mine].
5 4 3

(things) to you so that you may not sin. If (),6 however, someone should sin, we have a helper before the Father Jesus Christ, the righteous one.7 How do we reconcile this passage with the assertions made in 3:6 and 9? The problem with the view of Christian sinlessness is that John writes about the possibility of sin in the believers lives (1:8, 10; 2:1; 5:16). Furthermore, his exhortation to do righteousness (2:1, 15, 29; 3:12, 18; 5:21) does not make sense if that is all they can do anyway.8 On the one hand Christians can never claim that they are without sin (1 Jn 1:52:2), yet on the other hand continuation in sin is a structural absurdity, an affront to a new ontology, for those who are born of God and have the sperma of God remaining in them (1 Jn 3:9).9 This latter statement by Davidson also implies that the meaning of , , and refers to habitual or consistent sin. This point warrants further investigation. Let it suffice to say that in 3:4 John redefines sin and thus does not talk about habitual sin; a point we will come to later. Kruse observes that out of the six (1:6, 8, 10; 2:4, 6, 9) statements only in two (1:8, 10)
Here we have a third class condition. A third class condition expresses projection without any statement of probability of its coming to pass; Culy, 1, 2, 3 John, 14; quoting Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament: With Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: P. Lang, 1989), 307. 7 The translation given is the authors own translation. This will be the case throughout the paper, unless otherwise indicated. Note also the present tense . Cf. Marshall, The Epistles of John, 178. Wilckens comments to 3:4-9 that [s]olche in gewissem Sinn ontologischen Stze ber Sndeund Gerechtigkeit als einander eschatologisch-endgltig auschlieende, radikal gegenstzliche Seinsweisen, und ber ein so ganzheitlichen Einbeschlossenheit der Christen in Jesus Christus, da sie nicht einmal die Mglichkeit zu sndigen haben, sind in den nichtjohanneischen Schriften nicht zu finden. This eschatological dualism will be dealt with in the section Johns Eschatological/Dualistic Emphasis. But Wilckens is further pointing out that this epistle is the only NT document we have which directly witnesses to the Reformation slogan simul iustus et peccator. Ulrich Wilckens, Der Sohn Gottes und seine Gemeinde: Aufstze zur Theologie der Johanneischen Schriften (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 137, 146. Ivor J. Davidson, Pondering the Sinlessness of Jesus Christ: Moral Christologies and the Witness of Scripture, International Journal of Systematic Theology 10, no. 4 (2008): 384-85. Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John (The New American Commentary v. 38; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 148 writes: John is not suggesting the believer is completely free from sin, but that the Christians life is not characterized by sin, which is the mark of the follower of Satan, who has been sinning from the beginning (v. 8). The child of God does not behave in a manner that has the nature or character of sin. Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John (Rev. ed.; Word Biblical Commentary v. 51; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 172 writes Our conclusion is that John has in view throughout the present passage the Christians potential state of sinlessness, a very questionable observation as will be seen in the remainder of this paper.
9 8 6

we find no inappropriate concomitant behavior being mentioned and therefore the claim itself is said to be inappropriate, and constitute those who make it liars. Hence, John can say in 1:62:10 that the claim to intimacy with God is legitimate as long as ones behavior does not invalidate such a claim. However, the claim not to have sinned is never legitimate.10 This helps to loosen the tension of the relationship between 1:8-2:2 and 3:4-10, but does not help us understand what John is exactly saying in the latter passage. Therefore, we need to look at Johns eschatological worldview (see section 2) and his redefinition of sin in v. 4 (see section 3).

2. Johns Eschatological/Dualistic Worldview11 2.1 Dualism. In this section we will just briefly investigate the letter of 1 John to see that the author does in fact portray are world in an either-or-fashion; in this view of things there is no gray zone, only black and white. The author uses imagery of light and darkness (1:5-7; 2:811), life and death (1:1-2; 2:17; 3:14-15; 5:11-12, 20) as well as righteousness and sin/unrighteousness (1:7-9; 2:1, 29; 3:4-10, 12; 5:17). In the given pericope we also observe that the clause (v. 7) shows that if sin (and we will in due time argue for a certain sin) is committed ones origin is revealed according to John's dualistic worldview.12 The issue at hand is one's parentage, with God and the devil as possible

10

Colin G. Kruse, Sin and Perfection in 1 John, Faith and Mission 23, no. 1 (2005): 27.

P. P. A. Kotz, The Meaning of 1 John 3:9 with Reference to 1 John 1:8 and 10, in Studies in the Johannine Letters (Bloenfontein, South Africa: New Testament Society of S. Africa, 1981), 6869 sees that Johns theology is best seen in the light of dualism in his eschatology and within the scheme of the indicative and the imperative. Ignace de la Potterie, The Impeccability of the Christian According to I Jn 3,6-9, in The Christian Lives by the Spirit (ed. Stanislas Lyonnet and Ignace de la Potterie; Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1971), 178-79 observes that the doctrine of impeccability is only in the Judeo-Christian eschatology in its true context referencing Isa 60:21, Dan 7:18, 27; 8:24 and Ezek 36:27-29 and, according to de la Potterie, Jewish apocrypha picks up the same doctrine and further develops it. Terry Griffith, A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John: Sin, Christology and the Limits of Johannine Christianity, Tyndale Bulletin 49, no. 2 (1998): 263. Griffith, as the title implies, argues for a nonpolemical reading of the text. See also D. Neufeld, Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of 1 John (BIS
12

11

alternatives a stereotyped pattern of apocalyptic argument.13 Being born of God (3:1-2, 9-10) does lead to a fundamental change in nature and thus sinning becomes unnatural, so unnatural, indeed, that its practice constitutes a powerful refutation of any claim to possess the divine life. John's antitheses are clear-cut.14 This stereotyped pattern of apocalyptic argument shows the interrelatedness of the dualism and eschatology in John. Thus we need to see what the author is portraying to be true of the times in which he is writing and the text was received at first. 2.2 Eschatological Emphasis. We see in 2:18 that the author calls the opponents and that and that indeed which in 1 John is not characterized by an eschatological catastrophe, but by a christological opposition of confession and denial, of Christ and Antichrist, of truth and lie; there are deceivers (2:26) and (4:1) out in the world.15 In his eschatological worldview the antichrist(s) is (are) historicized ,16 they do become reality and are obvious ( , v. 10).

7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994) and Hansjrg Schmid, How to Read the First Epistle of John Non-Polemically, Biblica 85, no. 1 (2004). Here in this paper we will not engage with this reading of the Johannine letters, though there are some interesting linguistic parallels. Griffith, Neufeld, and Schmid argue against hypothetical or real opponents (i.e., secessionist) but see the author of 1 John using rhetorical devices to create a dichotomistic world. Griffith via the TLG observes that the given examples use the same introductory [e.g. ] formulae found in 1 Johnin the service of advancing arguments (260) without having actual opponents. Schmid is a little more cautious and observes that [e]ven when 1 John speaks about opponents in the third person, this refers to the system itself. This does not mean automatically that the opponents are banned to the realm of hypothesis. There may have been opponents, but 1 John read self-referentially is not an adequate source to get to know something about them. The question is, therefore, not who the opponents were but with which purpose 1 John creates them (33).
13 Urban C. Von Wahlde, The Stereotyped Structure and the Puzzling Pronouns of 1 John 2:283:10, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64, no. 2 (2002): 323-24. Further it is noteworthy to observe that in 1QS 3:20 and 1QH 5:8 those who belong to darkness are called children of iniquity (or injustice) which corresponds to Johns children of the devil ( ) in 3:10.

F. F Bruce, The Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 92 [emphasis mine]. Schmid How to Read the First Epistle of John Non-Polemically, 34. He further points out four motives of the opponents in their apocalyptic function in 1 John: the last hour; division; victory; and the two spirits (34-35). Julian Victor Hills, Sin Is Lawlessness (1 John 3:4): Social Definition in the Johannine Community, in Common Life in the Early Church (Harrisburg, Pa: Trinity Pr Intl, 1998), 292 with reference to Bultmann's famous phrase of demythologizing.
16 15

14

One more word needs to be said before we will come to the redefinition of sin by the author in 3:4. This observation is in point of fact closely tied to section 3 since it has to do with the word which we will investigate. Matthew is the only Gospel writer who uses this term and Kruse states that he does so consistently in association with false prophets or others who oppose Gods kingdom, and always with some association in the context with the last days or the final judgement (Matt 7:23; 13:41; 23:28; 24:21).17 Having observed the eschatological viewpoint with the Christological opposition in mind, we now are able to make sense of .

3. Redefinition of Sin The subject-matter of sin in 1 John is the most striking feature18 of this letter with 1 John 3:4 as a key text.19 There are 26 occurrences of the - word group and 24 of them are found in 1:6-2:2 (8x); 3:4-10 (10x); 5:16-18 (6x) which indicates that John has dealt with the topic of sin in an ordered fashion and we should not think that he would contradict what he is saying throughout his writings.20 In order for us to come to an understanding of the term it is necessary to see how this term was used in the Old Testament (OT/LXX), in Jewish literature, especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DDS), and lastly how this term was used in the New Testament (NT). Due to the restriction of this paper, this can only be done concisely and in sketches.
17

Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 117. Harry C. Swadling, Sin and Sinlessness in 1 John, Scottish Journal of Theology 35, no. 3

18

(1982): 205. Ignace de la Potterie, Sin is Iniquity (1 Jn 3,4), in The Christian Lives by the Spirit (ed. Ignace de la Potterie and Stanislas Lyonnet; Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1971), 37.
20 19

Griffith, A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John, 262.

3.1 in the OT/LXX. De la Potterie points out that in the LXX is almost synonymous with ;21 yet there is no rigid Hebrew equivalence to in the LXX. About 60x it corresponds to ,about 25x (especially in the Psalms) to ,roughly 20x to , and some 25x to 22.We further observe that in the LXX can have Satanic connotations and actually translates Belial in 2 Sam 22:5 ( , [ ] ) and Ps 17:4 [ET 18:4] ( , [ ] ). This gave raise to later Jewish interpretation, to which we will turn now. 3.2 Lawlessness in the Jewish Literature. In some of the Jewish writings (cf. T. Dan 5:4-6; 6:1-6; T. Napht 4:1) it was portrayed that the sins committed by the Israelites were brought about by the powers of wickedness by Satan and his spirits.23 The link between light and darkness as well as sin and righteousness are also common features. In 1QS 3:18-21 we read for example: Those born of truth spring from a fountain of light, but those born of injustice spring from a source of darkness. All the children of righteousness are ruled by the Prince of Light and walk in the ways of light, but all the children of injustice are ruled by the Angel of Darkness and walk in the way of darkness. And in 1QS 4:19-20, 23: But in the mysteries of His understanding, and in His glorious wisdom, God has ordained an end for injustice, and at the time of the visitation He will destroy it for ever...There shall be no more lies and all the works of

De la Potterie, Sin is Iniquity (1 Jn 3,4), 41. Listing (in reference to Schnackenburgs work) Ps 31:1; 50:4; 58:4; 102:10. Walter Gutbrod, , ed. Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 4:1086. There are 20 other Hebrew verbs which correspond to .
23 22

21

Kruse, Sin and Perfection in 1 John, 30. Kruse is also to be credited with the other

observations here.

injustice shall be put to shame.24 Thus in 1QS 3:20, 5:2 and 10:20 those who commit sin are hence called children of iniquity. De la Potterie notes that iniquity is considered to be a satanic power under whose influence impiety is committed and also quotes 1QS 1:23-24 to bring out the full weight of Judaistic understanding of the word . 25 1QS 1:23-24 reads: All their revolts and their sins are brought about by the power of Belial. 3.3 in the NT. Having studied the background of the term in the LXX as well as the later Jewish writings, we are now prepared to look at some of the implications and usages of the NT writers. According to Limbeck there are two different contexts in which and are used: 1) when the subject under discussion is the redemption effected by Jesus Christ and 2) when the discrepancy between a specific person and the willand thus also the worldof God is to be expounded.26 Further the word when used in the NT has usually eschatological connotations.27 This we find in the Pauline writings in two specific texts in which the apostle deals with the issue at hand. In 2 Cor 6:14-15 we read (ESV): Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? Note here the dualistic emphasis of righteousness and lawlessness ( ), light with darkness ( ), and Christ and

The translation of the DDS is taken from Gza Verms, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York, N.Y., U.S.A: Penguin Books, 1998). 25 De la Potterie, Sin is Iniquity (1 Jn 3,4), 4243. See also 1 Enoch 5:8-9 and Jubilee 5:12 for an understanding of sinlessness of the righteous people of God. M. Limbeck, , EDNT, 1:107. For 1) he cites and for Rom 4:7; Titus 2:14; Heb 10:17 and for 2) Matt 7:23; 23:28; 24:12; Rom 6:19; 2 Cor 6:14; 2 Thess 2:3, 7, 8; Heb 1:9; 1 John 3:4.
27 26

24

De la Potterie, Sin is Iniquity (1 Jn 3,4), 44.

Belial ( ) which we also find in 1 John in general and 3:4-10 in specific. 28 In 2 Thess 2:3, 7 with its eschatological outlook ( ; v. 1) is used to describe the man of lawlessness ( ) in the context of rebellion ( ) against the Christ. This and other references suggest that the word was associated with the final outbreak of evil against Christ and that it signifies rebellion against the will of God Marshall observes. Further he states that [t]o commit sin is thus to place oneself on the side of the devil and the antichrist and to stand in opposition to Christ.29 From his passage we observe that is again used in an eschatological context and is further connected with rebellion ( ) which is (in 1 John 2:18 ). Kruse emphatically states that in the NT does not refer to the transgression of the law, such a meaning is completely absent.30 3.4. The meaning of .31 In the present context John is redefining sin as referring to rebellion. Thus Gutbrod freely translates this verse he who commits sin is thereby in revolt against God; indeed, sin is nothing but rebellion against God.32
28

Yet, is substituted with . Marshall, The Epistles of John, 17677. Kruse, Sin and Perfection in 1 John, 30.

29

30

The predicate noun is has the definite article. To this BDF 273 notes: Predicate nouns as a rule are anarthrous. Nevertheless the article is inserted if the predicate noun is presented as something well known or as that which alone merits the designation (the only thing to be considered). Georg Strecker, The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John (ed. Harold W. Attridge; trans. Linda M. Maloney; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 94, sees the word as an intensification; i.e., anyone who is guilty if is also guilty of . So also Hills, Sin Is Lawlessness (1 John 3:4), 288. John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary (2nd ed.; The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 19; Leicester, England: Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Eerdmans, 1988), 126 states Lawlessness is the essence, not the result, of sin. So also Griffith, A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John, 262 who notes that the in 3:10 is epexegetical. Gutbrod, , TDNT, 4:1086. C. Haas, Marinus de Jonge, and J. L Swellengrebel, A Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for translators; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 87 give the
32

31

The eschatological emphasis of the letter (esp. 2:18) indicates that in 3:4 functions to define sin in this passage as ultimate rebellion.33 What the author of 1 John is saying is that the sin here is with its implication of opposition and rebellion against God. This is the same sin Satan committed; he rebelled and opposed the Creator. Kruse brings this study to its conclusion when he writes: The children of God do sometimes commit sins (2:1), but the one thing they do not do is commit anomia, the sin of rebellion, the sin of the devil.34

In light of this we can now understand why John is stating in 3:6, 9 , that and actually .35 John has (at least in this pericope) redefined sin so that he can use the same word, with significantly different connotations.36 The believer does not participate in rebellion against God he actually cannot participate in such final opposition37 because they are children of God (3:1) and the 38 .

following possibilities for translating this verse: who commits sin does what is (characteristic for) Lawlessness, who sins is living in (accordance with) Lawlessness, if a person sins it is like the Lawless One that he is acting, who sins does what the Lawless One does (or sides with the Lawless One). 33 Griffith, A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John, 264. De la Potterie, Sin is Iniquity (1 Jn. 3:4), 37-55, 50; quoted in Griffith, A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John, 264 writes: In the dualistic and eschatological context of this passage, [the sin] can hardly be anything but the typical sin of the 'Antichrists', who reject Christ, the Son of God (2.22-23). It is the sin which the Fourth Gospel has described as the sin of the world: that of not believing in Jesus (John 16.11).
34

Kruse, Sin and Perfection in 1 John, 30.

Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 170 interestingly translates and comments on the development from verse 6 to 9 Not-beingallowed-to-sin is forced into not-being-able-to-sin (v. 9b). Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 184. Judith Lieu, The Theology of the Johannine Epistles (New Testament Theology; Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 5253. For some of the interpretation for see Jannie Du Preez, Sperma autou in 1 John 3:9, in Essays on the General Epistles of the New Testament (Pretoria: NTWSA, 1975), 105-112. Raymond E.
38 37 36

35

10

Appendix Some thoughts for further investigation will be given in this appendix. These two topics are of interest to the current author but could not be developed due to space restrictions. One valuable investigation is to further see how Johns redefinition of sin via can also be seen in reference to the which the author has been talking about in 2:7ff and picks up in 3:10 . Griffith, for example, notes: The first thing to note is that the treatment of sin is related to the issue of not loving one's fellow Christian in 3:10, and leads into a consideration of the significance of Cain.39 Not many commentators and exegetes further investigate this issue. Another topic for further study is the relationship of 3:4-10 to 5:16-18. If, as we have argued, sin in 3:4 is to be taken as rebellion and apostasy, then it is interesting to see that can be understood in the same manner as 3:4. This would render (5:18) in the same manner we have been arguing for above. Griffith writes: Understanding sin as apostasy in 3:4-10 also makes good sense of the discussion of two distinct kinds of sin in 5:16-17: unto death and not unto death.40

Brown, The Epistles of John (1st ed.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1982), 411 however rightly states that [t]he exact identification is not so important, so long as we recognize that the author is talking about a divine agency for begetting Gods children, which not only brings us into being but also remains and keeps us His children. It is interesting to observe that Hans-Martin Schenke, Determination und Ethik im ersten Johannesbrief, Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche 60, no. 2 (1963): 209 sees the language of as Synonym der Gotteszeugung and that therefore Wer aus Gott gezeugt ist, kann nicht sndigen, mu vielmehr Liebe ben, mu dem rechten Bekenntinis anhngen und kann, wenn er schon einmal sndigt, gar nicht anders als seine Snden bekennen.
39

Griffith, A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John, 262.

Griffith, A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John, 266. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, 182 writes To commit sinful actsis to flirt with apostate behavior and consequences. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 152 maintains that in 3:6, 9 and 5:18 John is evidently describing sin as an entity, rather than particular expressions of it but this needs to be proven. Maybe the better solution is to look at Johns redefinition of such sin in v. 4 where the apostle describes sin as as we have been trying to show in this study.

40

11

Bibliography Akin, Daniel L. 1, 2, 3 John. The New American Commentary v. 38. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2001. Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John. 1st ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1982. Bruce, F. F. The Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979. Burdick, Donald W. The Letters of John the Apostle: An in-Depth Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985. Culy, Martin M. 1, 2, 3 John: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004. Davidson, Ivor J. Pondering the Sinlessness of Jesus Christ: Moral Christologies and the Witness of Scripture. International Journal of Systematic Theology 10, no. 4 (2008): 372-398. Griffith, Terry. A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John: Sin, Christology and the Limits of Johannine Christianity. Tyndale Bulletin 49, no. 2 (1998): 253-276. Gutbrod, Walter. . Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964. Haas, C., Marinus de Jonge, and J. L Swellengrebel. A Handbook on the Letters of John. Helps for translators. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Hiebert, D. Edmond. An Expositional Study of 1 John. Pt 5, an Exposition of 1 John 2:293:12. Bibliotheca Sacra 146, no. 582 (1989): 198-216. ____________. The Epistles of John: An Expositional Commentary. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1991. Hills, Julian Victor. Sin Is Lawlessness (1 John 3:4): Social Definition in the Johannine Community. Pages 286-299 in Common Life in the Early Church. Harrisburg, Pa: Trinity Pr Intl, 1998. Inman, V. Kerry. Distinctive Johannine Vocabulary and the Interpretation of I John 3:9. Westminster Theological Journal 40, no. 1 (1977): 136-144.

12

Jones, Peter Rhea. A Presiding Metaphor of First John: Menen En. Perspectives in Religious Studies 37, no. 2 (2010): 179-193. Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the Epistle of James and the Epistles of John. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986. Kotz, P. P. A. The Meaning of 1 John 3:9 with Reference to 1 John 1:8 and 10. Pages 68-82 in Studies in the Johannine Letters. Bloenfontein, South Africa: New Testament Society of S. Africa, 1981. Kruse, Colin G. Sin and Perfection in 1 John. Faith and Mission 23, no. 1 (2005): 23-33. ____________. The Letters of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Kubo, Sakae. 1 John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual? Andrews University Seminary Studies 7, no. 1 (1969): 47-56. Latz, Andrew Brower. A Short Note Toward a Theology of Abiding in Johns Gospel. Journal of Theological Interpretation 4, no. 2 (2010): 161-168. Lieu, Judith. The Theology of the Johannine Epistles. New Testament Theology. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Louw, J. P. Verbal Aspect in the First Letter of John. Pages 98-104 in Essays on the General Epistles of the New Testament. Pretoria: NTWSA, 1975. Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. De la Potterie, Ignace. Sin is Iniquity (1 Jn 3,4). Pages 37-55 in The Christian Lives by the Spirit. Edited by Ignace de la Potterie and Stanislas Lyonnet. Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1971. ____________. The Impeccability of the Christian According to I Jn 3,6-9. Pages 175-196 in The Christian Lives by the Spirit. Edited by Stanislas Lyonnet and Ignace de la Potterie. Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1971. Du Preez, Jannie. Sperma autou in 1 John 3:9. Pages 105-112 in Essays on the General Epistles of the New Testament. Pretoria: NTWSA, 1975. Schenke, Hans-Martin. Determination und Ethik im ersten Johannesbrief. Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche 60, no. 2 (1963): 203-215. Schmid, Hansjrg. How to Read the First Epistle of John Non-Polemically. Biblica 85, no. 1 (2004): 24-41. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary. New York: Crossroad, 1992.

13

Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Rev. ed. Word Biblical Commentary v. 51. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007. Stott, John R. W. The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary. 2nd ed. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 19. Leicester, England: Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Eerdmans, 1988. Strecker, Georg. The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John. Edited by Harold W. Attridge. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Swadling, Harry C. Sin and Sinlessness in 1 John. Scottish Journal of Theology 35, no. 3 (1982): 205-211. Verms, Gza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York, N.Y., U.S.A: Penguin Books, 1998. Von Wahlde, Urban C. The Stereotyped Structure and the Puzzling Pronouns of 1 John 2:283:10. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64, no. 2 (2002): 319-338. Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistles of St. John: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays. 4th ed. London; New York: Macmillan, 1902. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Sohn Gottes und seine Gemeinde: Aufstze zur Theologie der Johanneischen Schriften. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Yarbrough, Robert W. 1-3 John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.

14