1 John 3.17 and 4.3

[Sebastian Satkurunath]

Hi again,
I've run into another couple of verses that I'm confused by. First is 3.17:

ὃς δ’ ἂν ἔχῃ τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσμου καὶ θεωρῇ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχοντα καὶ κλείσῃ τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, πῶς ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐν αὐτῷ;

I can't figure out what the subject of ἐχω is. It seems from the overall sense as though the things which are had are the brother's needs, but in that case why is it χρειαν rather than χρειαι? I guess the needs are the object of θεωρεω as well as the subject of ἐχω, but in that case why isn't there a relative pronoun allowing them to be both? And I think I'd still be confused about whether need is plural or singular, which makes me wonder if something else altogether is the subject of ἐχω. I may just be tying myself in knots here - can anyone help?

The second one is probably more straightforwardly a rule that I don't know about yet, but looking at 4.3:

καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν· καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἔρχεται, καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν ἤδη.

That μη (rather than ουχ) seems to suggest that confess is a 2nd person imperative rather than a 3rd person indicative, but then the sentence makes no sense, and the biblehub interlinear is showing it as indicative (https://biblehub.com/text/1_john/4-3.htm). I was aware that μη could be used with the indicative for questions where the answer was expected to be no, but are there other constructions where I should be looking out for it?

Thanks,

Sebastian

[Jason Hare]

Hi, Sebastian!

What suggests to you that μή can be used only with imperatives? A. T. Robertson (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, pg. 1172) specifically states that μή “is the usual negative of the participle” (pg. 1172). He continues in the same place (underline added for emphasis):

We have μή with the participle in the N. T. as a matter of course. Cf. Mt. 12:30 ὁ μὴ ὤν and ὁ μὴ συνάγων, (1 Tim. 5:13) τὰ μὴ δέοντα, (Lu. 4:35) μηδὲν βλάψαν, (Ac. 20:22) μὴ εἰδώς. In Mt. 22:11 f. and 1 Pet. 1:8, a distinction, as was shown, seems to be drawn between οὐ and μή with the participle. Cf. Mt. 18:25; Lu. 12:33; Jo. 7:15; Ac. 9:9; 17:6; 1 Th. 4:5 (cf. Gal. 4:8), etc. The downright denial of οὐ lingered on awhile in the κοινή (cf. papyri), but μή is putting οὐ to rout.

Of course, πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ isn’t a participle, but it is the generic sense that brings in the μή sense. Why? It isn’t talking about a specific person (spirit). It is talking about any and every spirit that doesn’t make this confession. Robertson specifically mentions the relative clause use on page 1169, just before the quote given above: “Cf. μή in a few relative clauses, as ἃ μὴ δεῖ (Tit. 1:11); ᾧ μὴ πάρεστιν ταῦτα (2 Pet. 1:9); ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ (1 Jo. 4:3, W.H. text).” I think this is probably due to analogy to the negation of a noun phrase or a substantive participle.

[Stephen Carlson]

Hi again,
I've run into another couple of verses that I'm confused by. First is 3.17:

ὃς δ’ ἂν ἔχῃ τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσμου καὶ θεωρῇ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχοντα καὶ κλείσῃ τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, πῶς ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐν αὐτῷ;

I can't figure out what the subject of ἐχω is. It seems from the overall sense as though the things which are had are the brother's needs, but in that case why is it χρειαν rather than χρειαι? I guess the needs are the object of θεωρεω as well as the subject of ἐχω, but in that case why isn't there a relative pronoun allowing them to be both? And I think I'd still be confused about whether need is plural or singular, which makes me wonder if something else altogether is the subject of ἐχω. I may just be tying myself in knots here - can anyone help?

ἔχοντα is a masculine singular accusative participle and, like other participles, it agrees with its subject in case, number, and gender, which is the masculine accusative τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ. χρείαν is not a verb but a noun and it's the object of ἔχοντα. It cannot be the subject of ἔχοντα because it's feminine. The object of θεωρῆ is not χρείαν but τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ.

The second one is probably more straightforwardly a rule that I don't know about yet, but looking at 4.3:

καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν· καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἔρχεται, καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν ἤδη.

That μη (rather than ουχ) seems to suggest that confess is a 2nd person imperative rather than a 3rd person indicative, but then the sentence makes no sense, and the biblehub interlinear is showing it as indicative (https://biblehub.com/text/1_john/4-3.htm). I was aware that μη could be used with the indicative for questions where the answer was expected to be no, but are there other constructions where I should be looking out for it?

An imperative makes no sense in context. 1 John 4:3 along with Tit 1:11 and 2 Pet 1:9 are the only places where a relative clause has μή with the indicative. I don't think there's a scholarly consensus for why and some scholars suspect a corrupt text.

[Sebastian Satkurunath]

Hi Stephen,

ἔχοντα is a masculine singular accusative participle

Ah, yeah, that is where I was going wrong. Schoolboy error - I was parsing it as though it were ἔχονται, hence the desperate search for a subject in the nominative/plural. It all makes a lot more sense now. Thank you!

The object of θεωρῆ is not χρείαν but τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ.

So I think this is a bit of an aside now that I understand what I was getting wrong originally, but why is "τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ" rather than "τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχοντα" the object?

Hi Jason,

What suggests to you that μή can be used only with imperatives?

Not that it can only be used with imperatives, but the idea that that it can't be used with the indicative, I got from Duff's "Elements of New Testament Greek" (p79)

In the Indicative, verbs are made negative by the addition of οὐ (or οὐκ/ὄὐχ) - see Chater 4, section 4.6. In the other moods, a different word is used - μη.

I don't think I quite understand how the analogy between a generalisation and the negation of a participle works, but given Stephen's comment that this particular construction only occurs in two other places I'm going to decide that it's a level of detail it's probably not actually that helpful for me to try and get my head around at this stage.

Thanks to you both,

Sebastian

[Stephen Carlson]

The object of θεωρῆ is not χρείαν but τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ.

So I think this is a bit of an aside now that I understand what I was getting wrong originally, but why is "τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ" rather than "τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχοντα" the object?

Because there are two nouns in the accusative I thought it would be clearer to just give the head noun of the entire phrase.