I John 5:18 ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4226
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

I John 5:18 ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν

Post by Jonathan Robie »

1 John 5:18 wrote:Οἴδαμεν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ.
I'm not sure how to interpret this phrase.

Are ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ referring to the same person, or does ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ refer to Jesus (τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ, John 3:16) here?

Who is the agent in τηρεῖ αὐτόν? Who is guarding ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ? Which of the following are grammatically possible interpretations of the original sentence? Which is most likely?
  • ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (Ἰησοῦς) τηρεῖ πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ
  • πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ ἑαυτὸν - is that grammatically possible here? Can τηρεῖ αὐτόν mean τηρεῖ ἑαυτὸν?
  • Could ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ modify τηρεῖ, so the subject is ὁ γεννηθεὶς and ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ refers to the means by which the guarding is done?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: I John 5:18 ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν

Post by cwconrad »

Jonathan Robie wrote:
1 John 5:18 wrote:Οἴδαμεν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ.
I'm not sure how to interpret this phrase.

Are ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ referring to the same person, or does ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ refer to Jesus (τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ, John 3:16) here?
In my opinion, ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, inasmuch as it is qualified by πᾶς, is generalized and refers to the regenerated believer. I think too that the αὐτὸν governed by τηρεῖ as well as the αὐτοῦ governed by οὐχ ἅπτεται must have πὰς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ as their antecedent, and that the last two clauses are intended to explain the proposition that the regenerated believer does not sin: he does not sin because the One generated from God (surely ὁ υἱός) protects him and the Evil One can't get his paws/claws on him. I think that the Greek text is no more complicated than that.

The one additional comment I'd make is that I don't think there's any way that ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ functions adverbially with τηρεῖ in some instrumental sense; rather I think that ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ must -- can only function adverbially with the participle in the participial phrase ὁ γεννηθείς.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4226
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: I John 5:18 ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Thanks - that's helpful.

After I posted this, I noticed the NET notes have this to say:
1 John 5:18 (NET notes) wrote:The meaning of the phrase ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν in 5:18 is extraordinarily difficult. Again the author’s capacity for making obscure statements results in several possible meanings for this phrase:
  • (1) “The fathering by God protects him [the Christian].” Here a textual variant for ὁ γεννηθείς has suggested to some that the passive participle should be understood as a noun (“fathering” or perhaps “birth”), but the ms evidence is extremely slight (1505 1852 2138 latt [syh] bo). This almost certainly represents a scribal attempt to clarify an obscure phrase.
  • (2) “The One fathered by God [Jesus] protects him [the Christian].” This is a popular interpretation, and is certainly possible grammatically. Yet the introduction of a reference to Jesus in this context is sudden; to be unambiguous the author could have mentioned the “Son of God” here, or used the pronoun ἐκεῖνος as a reference to Jesus as he consistently does elsewhere in 1 John. This interpretation, while possible, seems in context highly unlikely.
  • (3) “The one fathered by God [the Christian] protects himself.” Again a textual problem is behind this alternative, since a number of mss (א Ac P Ψ 33 1739 Ï) supply the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτόν in place of αὐτόν in 5:18. On the basis of the external evidence this has a good possibility of being the original reading, but internal evidence favors αὐτόν as the more difficult reading, since ἑαυτόν may be explained as a scribal attempt at grammatical smoothness. From a logical standpoint, however, it is difficult to make much more sense out of ἑαυτόν; to say what “the Christian protects himself” means in the context is far from clear.
  • (4) “The one fathered by God [the Christian] holds on to him [God].” This results in further awkwardness, because the third person pronoun (αὐτοῦ) in the following clause must refer to the Christian, not God. Furthermore, although τηρέω (threw) can mean “hold on to” (BDAG 1002 s.v. 2.c), this is not a common meaning for the verb in Johannine usage, occurring elsewhere only in Rev 3:3.
  • (5) “The one fathered by God [the Christian], he [God] protects him [the Christian].” This involves a pendant nominative construction (ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ) where a description of something within the clause is placed in the nominative case and moved forward ahead of the clause for emphatic reasons. This may be influenced by Semitic style; such a construction is also present in John 17:2 (“in order that everyone whom You have given to him, he may give to them eternal life”). This view is defended by K. Beyer (Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament [SUNT], 1:216ff.) and appears to be the most probable in terms both of syntax and of sense. It makes God the protector of the Christian (rather than the Christian himself), which fits the context much better, and there is precedent in Johannine literature for such syntactical structure.
I suppose I'm not the first person to stumble over this ... do you think all of the 5 possibilities mentioned in these notes are possible?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: I John 5:18 ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Well, "possible" isn't really the right word; it's such a low standard to meet, so I can just say "Sure!"

As for "viable" or "plausible," here's what I think of the enumerated options:

(1) This option relies on a textual variant found in a small group of manuscripts (Harklean) that appears to have originated in the 4th century. Not viable.

(2) Syntactically, this option is straightforward. Sure, it is a rough for the context, but 1 John is full of these contextual jumps. Viable.

(3) This option relies on a better attested textual variant, but it I think the critical text is right on internal grounds. Not viable.

(4) The odd sense for τηρεῖ makes this less viable than (2).

(5) I just find this pendent nominative proposal extremely harsh. The default understanding of the topicalized constituent ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ is that it is going to be the subject of τηρεῖ and nothing in the clause contradicts that. At least John 17:2 has a plural pronoun αὐτοῖς to disambiguate the construction. Yes, the context seems a bit smoother with option (but note that option 2 has Jesus protecting the Christian), but at a very high syntactic price. Barely viable.

So I would consider only options (2) and (5) to be viable, and (2) more viable than (5).

Stephen
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4226
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: I John 5:18 ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Thanks, Carl and Stephen! I'm convinced.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: I John 5:18 ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν

Post by David Lim »

Jonathan Robie wrote:Thanks, Carl and Stephen! I'm convinced.
Actually I am not convinced. I had not read the version in the critical text until I saw this post, but I had read the Byzantine text earlier and never found anything problematic with the phrase "ο γεννηθεις εκ του θεου τηρει εαυτον" within the larger context. I understood it to mean "the [one] who was begotten out of God keeps himself [[from sin]]", in parallel with the earlier phrase, "every [one] who has been begotten out of God does not sin", and moreover it is reiterated in the next sentence, "we know that we are out of God ..." This repetition made it clear to me that this meaning was intended, especially since similar statements were made in 1 John 1:6-7, 2:29, 3:3-10, which imply that a believer should (actively and not passively) walk in the light, do the righteousness, purify himself, not do the sin, which is the lawlessness, remain in Christ so that he does not sin, because God's seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten out of God. So I see no reason why the Byzantine textual variant is not indeed a possible alternative. Does anyone have a good reason to identify "ο γεννηθεις εκ του θεου" as "ο υιος του θεου" based on the context, apart from that one word "αυτον"?
δαυιδ λιμ
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: I John 5:18 ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν

Post by cwconrad »

David Lim wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:Thanks, Carl and Stephen! I'm convinced.
Actually I am not convinced. I had not read the version in the critical text until I saw this post, but I had read the Byzantine text earlier and never found anything problematic with the phrase "ο γεννηθεις εκ του θεου τηρει εαυτον" within the larger context. I understood it to mean "the [one] who was begotten out of God keeps himself [[from sin]]", in parallel with the earlier phrase, "every [one] who has been begotten out of God does not sin", and moreover it is reiterated in the next sentence, "we know that we are out of God ..." This repetition made it clear to me that this meaning was intended, especially since similar statements were made in 1 John 1:6-7, 2:29, 3:3-10, which imply that a believer should (actively and not passively) walk in the light, do the righteousness, purify himself, not do the sin, which is the lawlessness, remain in Christ so that he does not sin, because God's seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten out of God. So I see no reason why the Byzantine textual variant is not indeed a possible alternative. Does anyone have a good reason to identify "ο γεννηθεις εκ του θεου" as "ο υιος του θεου" based on the context, apart from that one word "αυτον"?
This is pretty much a matter of "You pays your money and you takes your choice" and "Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" There is a significant textual difference between the MS readings. Do you choose the reading on the basis of what you think the text means or do you decide what the text means on the basis of the reading presented to you? Actually, of course, you make your choice pretty much at the same time on both questions. If it makes sense to you to say that the regenerated believer protects himself, then you'll find no difficulty in identifiying the two phrases πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. On the other hand, if we understand the two clauses following the ἀλλὰ as parallel explanations for this immunity of the every regenerated believer to sinfulness, then it's a matter of, "If God is for us, Satan's temptations are in vain."

You evidently think it odd that γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ should refer to Christ as Son of God, as if this were not a Johannine notion. But it is also the case that many do not think that ὁ γεγεννημὲνος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ means exactly the same thing as ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. That the two formulations do not mean the same thing is exactly what the NA27 committee thought, as Metzger's textual note makes clear:
5.18 αὐτόν {B}

The Committee understood ὁ γεννηθείς to refer to Christ, and therefore adopted the reading αὐτόν, which is supported by A* B 330 614 itr vg syrh copbo al. Copyists who took ὁ γεννηθείς to refer to the Christian believer (although elsewhere John always uses ὁ γεγεννημένος, never ὁ γεννηθείς, of the believer) naturally preferred the reflexive ἑαυτόν (ℵ Ac K P Ψ 33 81 1739 al).
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: I John 5:18 ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν

Post by David Lim »

cwconrad wrote:This is pretty much a matter of "You pays your money and you takes your choice" and "Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" There is a significant textual difference between the MS readings. Do you choose the reading on the basis of what you think the text means or do you decide what the text means on the basis of the reading presented to you? Actually, of course, you make your choice pretty much at the same time on both questions. If it makes sense to you to say that the regenerated believer protects himself, then you'll find no difficulty in identifiying the two phrases πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. On the other hand, if we understand the two clauses following the ἀλλὰ as parallel explanations for this immunity of the every regenerated believer to sinfulness, then it's a matter of, "If God is for us, Satan's temptations are in vain."

You evidently think it odd that γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ should refer to Christ as Son of God, as if this were not a Johannine notion. But it is also the case that many do not think that ὁ γεγεννημὲνος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ means exactly the same thing as ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. That the two formulations do not mean the same thing is exactly what the NA27 committee thought, as Metzger's textual note makes clear:
5.18 αὐτόν {B}

The Committee understood ὁ γεννηθείς to refer to Christ, and therefore adopted the reading αὐτόν, which is supported by A* B 330 614 itr vg syrh copbo al. Copyists who took ὁ γεννηθείς to refer to the Christian believer (although elsewhere John always uses ὁ γεγεννημένος, never ὁ γεννηθείς, of the believer) naturally preferred the reflexive ἑαυτόν (ℵ Ac K P Ψ 33 81 1739 al).
Yes I did not find anything wrong with the difference between the two phrases. Instead I took the perfect to emphasize that every one who has been begotten out of God does not sin because he has (already) been begotten out of God, and the aorist to simply refer to the one who was begotten out of God (as a fact). Moreover the aorist is used in John 1:13 for the believer in exactly the same way, so I do not think the NA27 committee's reason is good enough.. But I see what you mean. Anyway I think neither the chicken or the egg came first. ;) Likewise I certainly do not doubt that the other notion of "if God is for us, Satan's temptations are in vain" is also clear in John's writings, but not here in my opinion.
δαυιδ λιμ
Iver Larsen
Posts: 127
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am

Re: I John 5:18 ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν

Post by Iver Larsen »

David,

Yes, there are other considerations apart from αὐτὸν. We have three clauses: (1) the one-being-in-the-state-of-having-been-born of God does not (habitually) sin, (2) the one-(once)-born of God continually-guards him(self??) and (3) the evil one does (can) not touch him.

You suggested a logical (because) connection between (1) and (2) and see them as parallel. This does not go well with the contrastive ἀλλά between (1) and (2). On the other hand (2) and (3) are linked by καί, and say the same thing from a positive and negative aspect: Jesus guards him and Satan cannot touch him. The two pronouns have the same reference.

Furthermore, the verb τηρέω is normally used by John to mean keep a commandment/word etc. The other sense of guarding someone or something to protect and preserve it is also fairly common, although not so common in John's writings. There is a similar usage of the verb in John 17:11-12:
Πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς. ὅτε ἤμην μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου

The only place in the NT where you have the sense of guarding oneself is in Jas 1:27:
ἄσπιλον ἑαυτὸν τηρεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου.
but here the sense is clarified both by "spotless" and "from the world". It seems a stretch to suggest that such words could be implied in 1 John 5:18. There is not enough contextual support to do so.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: I John 5:18 ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Jonathan Robie wrote:
1 John 5:18 wrote:Οἴδαμεν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ.
  • Could ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ modify τηρεῖ, so the subject is ὁ γεννηθεὶς and ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ refers to the means by which the guarding is done?
A clue to answering this question is that unstressed oblique pronouns are often hosted by the first phonological word of the predicate. This suggests that τηρεῖ begins the predicate and, as a result, that ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ belongs to the subject. Otherwise, I'd expect to see something like ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθείς, ἐκ θεοῦ αὐτὸν τηρεῖ or ἀλλ’ ὁ γεννηθεὶς αὐτὸν ἐκ θεοῦ τηρεῖ, depending on the pragmatics of the subject/topic (which is difficult here because the referent of the supposedly identifiable ὁ γεννηθείς is hard to identify).

Stephen
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”