J. De Waal Dryden

Filología Neotestamentaria 11 (1998) 85-100

The Sense of spe/rma in 1 John 3:9. In Light of Lexical Evidence

 

        Amidst the anfractuous current of theological and parenetic discourse in 1 John there is a verse that has long confounded interpreters: 1 John 3:9 Pa~j o( gegennhme/noj e0k tou~ qeou~ a(marti/an ou0 poiei=, o#ti spe/rma au0tou~ e0n au0tw|~ me/nei, kai\ ou0 du/natai a(marta&nein, o#ti e0k tou~ qeou~ gege/nnhtai. I am not here referring to the question of the impeccability of the Christian, but rather to the meaning of spe/rma au0tou~ e0n au0tw|~ me/nei=. More specifically, what is the meaning of spe/rma? Many answers have been proposed to this question, but no consensus has ever been reached. I will defend the thesis that there is only one possible translation of this verse, based on the lexical and contextual evidence. That translation is to take spe/rma au0tou~ in the sense of "His children", and translate this clause as "His children remain in Him".

Introductory Survey

        The majority of translations simply translate spe/rma as "seed" leaving the signification of the word to the interpreter 1. In turning to the commentaries on 1 John, we find various solutions to this problem. Brown poses the question, "What spiritual reality is symbolized by "God’s seed"?". To which he answers, "There is no agreement among the commentators" 2. While there is no agreement on the meaning, there

_____________________
86

is a consensus as to the possibilities, of which there are four: 1) "Spirit", 2) "Word", 3) "nature or life principle", or 4) "offspring" 3.

        1) Seed as Spirit 4. Schnackenburg remarks in support of this view:

"God’s seed" can hardly mean anything other than the Holy Spirit (cf. 3:24; 4:13). This is similar to John 3:6, where the effect of being born from above or of water and the Spirit is designated as being "spirit". ...The Spirit represents the principle of life ... this "burgeoning seed of divine life" must be substantially identical with the Spirit of God 5.

        Haupt also alludes to GJohn 6 3 as background for this verse. He argues, "This [divine] principle is, according to John 3:5, the pneuma: the Divine Spirit, viewed as seed or spe/rma, is the power of life entering into the man, the living germ sinking down into his nature" 7. Brown adds, "In 1 John 3:24 and 4:13 divine abiding is associated with the Spirit" 8.

        2) Seed as Word 9. This interpretation typically draws on parallels from 1 Peter 1:23, where the Word of God is called an "imperishable seed", and from the Parable of the Sower in Luke 8:4-15, where the seed is called "o( lo&goj tou~ qeou~". In addition to this Malatesta identifies four parallels in the Johannine epistles in support of this interpretation:

1 John 2:14   kai\ o( lo&goj tou~ qeou~ e0n u9mi=n me/nei
1 John 2:24   u9mei=j o# h0kou/sate a)p 0 a)rxh=j, e0n u9mi=n mene/tw (see also 24b)
1 John 2:27   kai\ u9mei=j to_ xri=sma o# e0la&bete a)p 0 au0tou~, me/nei e0n u9mi=n
2 John 1:2     dia_ th\n a)lh/qeian th\n me/nousan e0n h9mi=n 10

        Marshall splits the difference between Word and Spirit, "There is some doubt whether the seed is intended to signify the Holy Spirit or the Word of God. Probably the two ideas are to be linked together, just as was the case in John’s description of the "anointing of believers" (1 John 2:20, 27)" 11.

_____________________
87

        3) Seed as Divine Nature/Life 12. Here spe/rma is defined as a germ of the divine nature or divine life principle that brings life to the believer. In support of this position Westcott says:

The principle of life which He has given continues to be the ruling principle of the believer’s growth. God gives, as it were, of Himself to the Christian. He does not only work upon him and leave him. The germ of the new life is that out of which the mature man will in due time be developed. Comp. John 1:13 13.

        Law emphatically confirms this interpretation, "Unquestionably the spe/rma is here the new life-principle implanted by the Divine Begetting" 14. Alexander says that spe/rma should be "understood as a metaphorical application of the grain in the vegetable world which contains the possible germ of the future plant or tree; and would signify the possibility, or germinal principle, given by the Holy Spirit to the soul in regeneration" 15.

        4) Seed as Offspring 16. This interpretation takes spe/rma in the sense of collective progeny: "children", "descendants", "offspring". Bengel is the first modern commentator to take spe/rma in this sense. Speaking of those who are born of God, he says, "Such persons are the seed of God, Mal. 2:15" 17. Wohlenberg defends Bengel’s translation, "Die meisten Ausleger, auch Haupt, Weiss, Holtzmann, übergehen Bengels Vorschlag ganz. Und doch führt er auf das einzig Richtige, nur daß spe/rma nicht sowohl = te/knon, sondern kollektivisch = te/kna ist" 18. Bruce is undecided between the "divine nature" interpretation (3) and this one (4). He says:

This may mean the divine nature implanted in the believer through the new birth... But "seed" is frequently used in the sense of "offspring" ... if that is the sense of the word here, then the meaning of the passage is

_____________________
88

not "God’s nature remains in the child of God" but "God’s child remains in God and cannot sin because he is God’s offspring" 19.

        So Bruce is indisposed to cast his vote for either, but presents both as valid alternatives.
        This brief survey reveals a great diversity of opinion on how to understand the meaning of spe/rma in 1 John 3:9. The reason for the confusion, however, does not arise from lexical ambiguity, but rather from a neglect of the lexical data in favor of unchained theological interpretation. Consequently, a word, which occurs over forty times in the NT, has been treated as though it were a hapax legomenon. I intend to rectify this methodological error by beginning with a study of the lexical sense of spe/rma and then move on to theological interpretation after grammatical and structural observations.

The Lexical Sense of Spe/rma

        Before proceeding to a synchronic study of the sense of spe/rma in the first century, a diachronic study will be beneficial to get a background for the lexical range of spe/rma in the centuries prior to the writing of the NT.
        Classical Hellenism. In Hellenistic literature the sense of spe/rma is often simply the "seed" of a plant (Xenophon, Oeconomicus, 17.8). It can be used for animal or human progenitive "seed" as well (Euripides, Orestes, 553). These uses of spe/rma are in its literal sense where it signifies the physical seed by which plants and animals reproduce themselves 20.
        The Greeks also used spe/rma in a transferred sense to mean "offspring". Here spe/rma is used as a metonymy for that which the human seed produces: children or descendants. Sometimes it can have the sense of "child" or "immediate descendent", and other times it can mean "posterity" (Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound, 705). Sometimes it can even mean "race" or "tribe" or "nation" (Aeschylus, Suppliant Maids, 290).
        Alongside this sense, another transferred sense developed within Stoicism. Believing that the divine lo&goj ordered all things, the stoics

_____________________
89

envisioned that "a spark or seed of the universal Reason (a lo&goj spermatiko&j) resided within men, or at least the best and wisest of them" 21 (Zeno, Fragments 102, 108) 22. A man’s duty, therefore, was to live in accordance with this divine seed.
        Septuagint. Spe/rma is used extensively in the Septuagint. It occurs 218 times in the canonical books and another 30 in the Apocryphal literature. It is used most often for the Hebrew (rfzE. As with the Hellenistic literature above, there is a common use of spe/rma to mean "agricultural seed" (Lev. 27:30). With this, the senses of "animal seed" (Jer. 38:27) 23 and "human seed" (Lev. 15:16) are used also.
        Also analogous to Hellenistic usage is the transferred sense of spe/rma as "offspring". By far this is the most frequently used sense of spe/rma in the LXX 24. It can range in meaning from "child" or "son" to "descendent" or "posterity" 25. For example, when Eve speaks of Seth as spe/rma e3teron (Gen. 4:25) she is using spe/rma in the sense of "son" or "immediate offspring". But when the Lord promises Abram tw|~ spe/rmati/ sou dw&sw th\n gh=n tau/thn (Gen. 12:7) he means his "descendants", that is his "children" and his "posterity".
        This usage of spe/rma is further developed in the OT in two ways of theological significance. The first is the theme of the promised "seed" which originates in Genesis 3:15 and runs throughout the OT 26. The second is a consequence of God’s promise to bless Abram with offspring (spe/rma) as numerous as the stars (Gen. 15:5). The Israelites, who saw themselves as the fulfillment of this promise, called themselves spe/rma  0Abraa&m. As in Psalm 104:6, spe/rma Abraam dou~loi au0tou~ ui9oi\ Iakwb e0klektoi\ au0tou~ 27. Here spe/rma is used with covenantal connotations, stressing God’s faithfulness to his promise to Abraham, and God’s election of the "sons of Jacob". Here the people of Israel are not just physical descendants, but also spiritual children of the promise 28. (This use of spe/rma  0Abraa&m is also echoed in the OT

_____________________
90

Pseudepigrapha) 29. Finally, there are some Apocryphal uses of spe/rma to mean "race" or "nation" (Wis. of Sol. 10:15), or even the whole "human race" (to_ a)nqrw&pwn spe/rma, Tobit 8:6), similar to what we saw in Hellenistic usage.
        Our diachronic study has revealed in Hellenistic and Jewish literature a literal sense of spe/rma as vegetable or animal "seed", and a transferred sense of "offspring", or "posterity", with some particular developments from this core transferred sense (e.g. spe/rma  0Abraa&m). With this diachronic backdrop in place, we proceed to the synchronic study below.
        Essenes. In the Essene literature there is very little, if any, development in the usage of (rz. It is used in its literal sense for the "seed" of plants (1QS 10:7). And it is used in the transferred sense of "progeny" or "descendants" (1QM 13:7).
        Josephus. Spe/rma is used most often 30 in Josephus in the literal sense of "seed" for different plants and vegetables (Ant., 3.28). Along with this, he uses spe/rma in the transferred sense of "offspring", or "descendants", or "lineage" (Ant., 8.200, 9.109) 31.
        Philo. As with many other words, Philo has a unique use of spe/rma. He does use it in the literal sense of "agricultural seed" (Legum Allegoriae III, 227), and also in the sense of "human seed" (De Posteritate Caini, 171). But his use of the transferred sense is distinct.
        He does not use the transferred sense of "offspring", but rather the Stoic transferred sense of the implantation of divine rationality and life: the lo&goj spermatiko&j. As Shultz explains:

Bodies arise from human seed, souls from divine seed, Vit Mos., [1.]279 32. ... Hence man must be grateful to the generous God who has scattered luminous, radiant, and rational grains of seed in the soul like

_____________________
91

stars in heaven, Leg. All., III, 40. In this context we find phrases like "seed of virtue" in Leg. All., III68, "of wickedness", 242, of kalokagaqi/a, Migr. Abr., 24 ... This idea of divine seed may perhaps be ascribed to Philo’s contacts with Hell. mystery wisdom 33.

        The issue of Philo’s importance for understanding spe/rma in 1 John will be discussed below. For now it is clear that Philo’s usage is derived from Stoicism, and that it is different from the Essenes, Josephus, and (as we will see below) the New Testament.
        New Testament. The noun spe/rma occurs forty-two times in the NT 34. There are five instances of spe/rma used in the literal sense of plant seed: twice in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Mt. 13:24, 38), twice in the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Mt. 13:32; Mk. 4:31), and once in 1Cor. 15:38. In all cases the sense is of literal "seed" 35.
        The remaining thirty-seven uses in the NT are all in the transferred sense of spe/rma. Similar to the LXX the basic meaning is "offspring"; but this usage has a broad range of meaning from "immediate children" (Mark 12:21), to "descendants" (Luke 1:55), to "spiritual children" (GJohn 8:33). Paul develops the sense of Abraham’s spiritual posterity in Romans 4 and 9. In 4:16 he says that Abraham is the father of all who believe and all who believe are his children. He goes on to say in 9:7 that not all physical descendants are children of Abraham (ou0d 0 o#ti ei0si\n spe/rma  0Abraa&m pa&ntej te/kna), but rather the children of promise (those who believe) are reckoned as his real children (spe/rma), "alla_ ta_ te/kna th=j e0paggeli/aj logi/zetai ei0j spe/rma" (Rom. 9:8).
        Another transferred sense of spe/rma that is elaborated by Paul, is the use of spe/rma as a Christological title. In Romans 1:3 he says that God’s Son was "e0k spe/rmatoj Daui\d kata_ sa&rka" (cf. 2 Tim. 2:8). But Paul also believes Christ is descended from Abraham. In fact he says that Jesus is not just a spe/rma  0Abraa&m but the spe/rma  0Abraa&m. In Galatians 3:16 Paul says that God’s promise to Abraham was to provide a spe/rma, and that spe/rma e0stin Xristo&j 36.
        What about the Johannine use of spe/rma? Is there anything distinctive about his use of this word? Apart from 1 John 3:9, there are only four occurrences of spe/rma in the Johannine writings: GJohn 7:42;

_____________________
92

8:33, 37 and Rev. 12:17. The first instance is a controversy among the people at the Feast of Tabernacles over whether Jesus is e0k tou~ spe/rmatoj Daui/d. Here spe/rmatoj is used in the sense of "descendent", or "line", as in "from the line of David". It is the same Christological (i.e. Messianic) title used by Paul.
        The next two uses are in GJohn 8 where Jesus disputes with the Jews. They say to Jesus, Spe/rma  0Abraa&m e0smen (8:33), and he responds, oi]da o#ti spe/rma  0Abraa&m e0ste (8:37). This is the familiar use of spe/rma  0Abraa&m which was seen above in the LXX and Pseudepigrapha. It is used here in the normal transferred sense of physical and spiritual "descendants". The final occurrence is Revelation 12:17 where John speaks of the dragon, the woman, and tou~ spe/rmatoj au0th=j tw~n throu/ntwn ta_j e0ntola&j tou~ qeou~ kai\ e0xo&ntwn th\n marturi/an  0Ihsou~. Here spe/rma is used in the sense of "spiritual children" 37. So John uses spe/rma in both the physical and the spiritual sense of "children" or "descendants".
        With the synchronic and diachronic observations as groundwork, we can now return to our more specific question of the meaning of spe/rma in 1 John 3:9, taking each proposal in turn.

The Question Revisited

        1) Seed as Spirit. Recognizing the theme of begetting in this verse, certain interpreters translate spe/rma here as "Spirit", because the Spirit is the agent of begetting. Schnackenburg, Brown and others allude to GJohn 3:5 which associates the Spirit with begetting 38. While it is true that this verse links begetting with the Spirit, it has nothing to do with the meaning of spe/rma. This is a failure to distinguish between the sense of a word and the referent of a word. While pneu/ma and spe/rma can both refer to genna&w, that does not equate the sense of the two words 39. Also, having looked at the synchronic evidence for the semantic range of spe/rma, it is clear that it never means "Spirit". There is no lexical support for this interpretation, and it is justly discarded.

        2) Seed as Word. This interpretation rests most heavily on the identification of "Word" and "seed" in 1 Pt. 1:23 and in the Parable of the Sower in Luke 8:4-15. In fact, 1 Peter also speaks of begetting—through the seed, which is the Word. The difficulty with this verse is that spe/rma does not occur in it. The word here is spora~j and not

_____________________
93

spe/rma. Likewise in Luke 8:11, the word is spo&roj, not spe/rma (o( spo&roj e0sti\n o( lo&goj tou~ qeou~). Although all three words (spora~j, spo&roj, and spe/rma) share the same root, and their literal senses are very close, their transferred senses are distinct 40. This can be seen in Matthew’s use of spe/rma in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (13:24-29, 36-43), which follows his account of the Parable of the Sower (13:1-9, 18-23). Here Matthew uses spe/rma for seed, but the meaning is not o( lo&goj tou~ qeou~, but rather oi9 ui9oi\ th=j basilei/aj (Mt. 13:38) 41. As Brown says, "In the NT the word of God is called spora (or sporos in Luke 8:11) but never sperma" 42. Since spe/rma never means "word" in the NT or the LXX (i.e. 0 out of 290 occurrences) there is no reason to suppose that it means "word" in 1 John 3:9.

        3) Seed as Divine Nature. This interpretation would translate spe/rma qeou~ as "divine nature" or "divine life principle". Dodd, who gives the fullest treatment of this thesis, sees in 1 John 3:9 an allusion to the Stoic lo&goj spermatiko&j, as it is expressed in the writings of Philo, and later, in the second century, by the Christian Gnostic Valentinus. Dodd argues that:

It is difficult not to suppose that there is some relation between Valentinus’s doctrine of the divine "seed" which resides in good souls, and our author’s doctrine of the "seed". It is no wild hypothesis that the heretical teachers here in view, like Philo before them and Valentinus after them, referred to the divine principle immanent in man, as the divine "seed"; and our author may well have taken over the word from their vocabulary (as he may have taken over the term "chrism" [1 John 2:27]). It seems therefore best to read, "Anyone who is born of God does not commit sin, for a divine seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God"; which gives a (formal) parallel to the doctrine of Valentinus, that "some souls are by nature good, and others by nature bad, and the good are those which are receptive of the Seed, but the bad by nature could never even receive that Seed" (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I.1.15) 43.

_____________________
94

        One thing that can be said for Dodd’s approach is that at least there is some lexical evidence for taking spe/rma in this sense. He argues that John’s usage is borrowed from the surrounding Hellenistic culture expressed in Philo and Gnosticism. Even if we disregard the historical problem of the existence of (proto)Gnosticism in the first century, there are two problems with this thesis. First, his "formal parallel" between Valen-tinus and John is erroneous; for Valentinus the "good soul" is defined by its receptiveness to the seed, not by ethical living, which is the concern of 1 John 3 44. This "formal parallel" is, in fact, a theological antithesis.
        Second, Dodd is claiming that John is borrowing his usage of spe/rma from Philo and/or Gnosticism, which he judges "heretical". If, for the sake of argument, we assume (a) that John borrowed this word from Gnosticism, and (b) that John is not a Gnostic "heretical teacher" himself, then John can only be borrowing this word for use in a contrary (and Christian) sense, similar to Paul’s usage of the word musth/rion 45. So Dodd’s own argument demonstrates that spe/rma can not mean "divine nature" or "divine life principle" unless John is a Gnostic. Rather, John is using spe/rma in a sense that is in conformity with its transferred usage throughout the NT and the LXX, i.e. "offspring".

        4) Seed as Offspring. Having exposed the untenability of the opposing interpretations, we examine the possibility of taking spe/rma as "offspring" or "children" in 1 John 3:9. There are three arguments for this interpretation. First, it is the normal transferred sense of the word throughout the writings of the NT, the LXX, and Josephus. Therefore it is reasonable to assume its sense is the same here as it is elsewhere in the NT. Only evidence that spe/rma cannot mean "children" in this case could overturn this assumption, and necessitate the inquiry of other possibilities. Second, there is ample lexical data to fix the range of sense for spe/rma in the NT 46. Third, the other interpretations are a violation of the linguistic rule "Joos’ Law" which says that when the sense of a word is in question, it should be defined, "in such fashion as to make it contribute least to the total message derivable from the

_____________________
95

passage where it is at home, rather than, e.g., defining it according to some presumed etymology or semantic history" 47.
        Given the strong case for this interpretation, what are the arguments against it? There are three: 1) spe/rma is anarthrous, 2) the sense of "offspring" reduces the verse to a meaningless tautology, and 3) spe/rma qeou~ is never used elsewhere to mean "children of God". On the first point, Dodd argues that if spe/rma is to equivalent to pa~j o( gegennhme/noj e0k tou~ qeou~, then spe/rma must have the article. He admits that some writers "are loose in their use of the article, in particular such New Testament writers are under Semitic influence. This writer, however, does not semitize" 48. The charge that John does not Semitize has been rejected by Schnackenburg, Barrett and Hengel 49. Hengel says that John "writes a koine Greek which has a marked semitic, even Hebraic, flavour" 50. This is important because, writers under Semitic influence often omit the article for nouns with a following genitive, as in our case spe/rma au0tou~ 51. So, even though anarthrous, spe/rma can be taken to mean "children". To the second objection one can only reply with Alexander, "The fact that it makes John tautologous need not tell against its probability!" 52. As Marshall says, "Neither of these objections is convincing" 53.
        The final argument is that spe/rma qeou~ is never used anywhere else to refer to "God’s children". Instead the author would have used te/kna qeou~ if he had intended to mean children of God. This argument is flawed at two points. First, since the construction spe/rma qeou~ appears

_____________________
96

only here in the NT, this is an argument with equal weight against all interpretations, and subsequently no weight against any one. The second flaw is that it can be shown that the phrase spe/rma qeou~ is synonymous with te/kna qeou~ 54. In GJohn 8 spe/rma  0Abraa&m is used as a title for the Jews. In verse 33 the Jews say spe/rma  0Abraa&m e0smen, and in verse 37 Jesus concurs spe/rma  0Abraa&m e0ste. But in verse 39 Jesus rebukes them saying, ei0 te/kna tou~  0Abraa&m e0ste, ta_ e1rga tou~  0Abraa_m e0poiei=te. Here the terms te/kna and spe/rma are used synonymously 55. This usage is not unique to the Johannine writings 56, there is a striking example in Romans 9:6-8:

For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, and not all of Abraham’s children (pa&ntej te/kna) are his true descendants (spe/rma  0Abraa&m); but "It is through Isaac that descendants (spe/rma) shall be named for you". This means that it is not the children of the flesh (ta_ te/kna th=j sarko_j) who are the children of God (ta_ te/kna tou~ qeou~), but the children of the promise (ta_ te/kna th=j e0paggeli/aj) are counted as descendants (spe/rma).

        Paul uses the terms te/kna and spe/rma here to mean "children". Specifically spe/rma is used to designate the children of the promise. Therefore spe/rma is not only synonymous with te/kna, but more precisely with te/kna tou~ qeou~. Now that all three objections to taking spe/rma to mean "children" in 1 John 3:9 have been rejoined, and its likelihood established, we can turn to exegetical observations and determine how well our reading fits in its context in terms of grammar, structure, and theology.

 

Exegetical Observations

        1) Grammar and Syntax. There is one grammatical question to be addressed: subject-object agreement in number. There is no prima facie difficulty; a singular nominative noun spe/rma agrees with its singular verb me/nei. But spe/rma is collective in sense, and if John follows the constructio ad sensum, then the verb should be plural 57. But, in fact,

_____________________
97

John does not follow the constructio. In the Johannine writings, a verb governed by a collective noun is usually singular 58. (Even with subject-object agreement, translation can be difficult. For example, English has no collective for "children" 59. So we want to say, "His children remain in Him", but the Greek is, "His children (spe/rma) remains in Him".) Note also the syntactical advantage of taking spe/rma to mean "children" in spe/rma au0tou~ e0n au0tw|~ me/nei. Here both pronouns in the clause refer to the same object: God; unlike all other interpretations which would say au0tou~ refers to God and au0tw|~ refers to the one born of God 60.

        2) Structure. From the structure of 1 John 3 it can be seen that "children" fits most naturally into the context. Although the circuitous writing style of 1 John makes structural analysis formidable, there are some observations which can be made. Kotzé suggests a pericope delineation from 2:28 to 3:24, which is supported by Schnackenburg and Bultmann 61. The theme of the pericope is expressed by the inclusio e0n au0tw|~ me/nei (2:28 and 3:24). Further, 3:1-24 can be taken as an exposition of 2:28, 29. Structurally the "pericope" looks like this:

A    kai\ nu~n, tekni/a, me/nete e0n au0tw|~ (2:28a)
B         sxw~men parrhsi/an (2:28b)
C             pa~j o( poiw~n th\n dikaiosu/nhn e0c au0tou~ gege/nnhtai (2:29b)
                    1. Doctrine - God’s children do not sin (2:29-3:10)
                    2. Parenesis- God’s children love their brothers (3:11-18)
B’        parrhsi/an e1xomen pro_j to_n qeo&n [v.21] (3:19-23)
A’ o( thrw~n ta_j e0ntola_j au0tou~ e0n au0tw|~ me/nei (3:24)

        From this it can be seen that 3:9 is in C1 (3:1-10). There is another inclusio which expresses the theme of section C 62:

_____________________
98

pa~j o( poiw~n th\n dikaiosu/nhn e0c au0tou~ gege/nnhtai. (2:29b)
pa~j o( mh\ poiw~n dikaiosu/nhn ou0k e1stin e0k tou~ qeou. (3:10b)

        This subsection (C1) culminates in vs. 8b-10b, which can be diagrammed in the following chiasmus:

A    ei0j tou~to e0fanerw&qh o( ui9o_j tou~ qeou~, i3na lu/sh| ta_ e1rga tou~ diabo&lou.
B         pa~j o( gegennhme/noj e0k tou~ qeou~
C             a(marti/an ou0 poiei=,
D                 o#ti spe/rma au0tou~ e0n au0tw|~ me/nei,
C’             kai\ ou0 du/natai a(marta&nein,
B’         o#ti e0k tou~ qeou~ gege/nnhtai.
A’    e0n tou/tw| fanera& e0stin ta_ te/kna tou~ qeou~ kai\ ta_ te/kna tou~ diabo&lou:

        Two things can be observed regarding line D. First, the central theme of the pericope e0n au0tw|~ me/nei is employed here. Second, as is usually the case with a chiasmus, a slight shift in thought occurs at the center. The shift can be seen in comparing the outermost lines A and A’ 63. Whereas first, the Son of God was revealed (A), later the children of God are revealed (A’). This shift is natural if spe/rma au/tou~ is allowed to have its natural meaning, "children of God". Since this chiasmus is chiefly concerned with who the children of God are (and who the children of the Devil are), it would be surprising if the central line had nothing to do with this. Conversely, if spe/rma au/tou~, at the center of a chiasmus, meant something other than te/kna qeou~ (e.g. logo&j or pneu/ma) it would have been seen in the latter half of the chiasmus; but it is not. Therefore the chiastic structure of these verses supports the interpretation of spe/rma as "children".

        3) Theological Context. Finally, how does taking spe/rma as "children" fit into its theological context? Dodd describes the message of this section (2:29-3:10) of 1 John this way, "To be born of God, to belong to God, to remain in God, to have his word in us, and to do right—these stand on the one side of a dividing line: there is no alternative but to do wrong, and so belong to the devil and show oneself his child" 64. (Not to be overlooked is the thematic parallelism here between 1 John 3 and GJohn 8, where Jesus’ polemic with the Jews is over who are children of God and who are children of the Devil. This thematic parallelism is further evidence that spe/rma is to be understood

_____________________
99

here as it was in John 8: "children"). For John, to remain in God means to obey him (1 John 3:6), and this is only possible for those who have been born of God, his children (spe/rma au0tou~). Therefore 1 John 3:9, and particularly spe/rma au0tou~ e0n au0tw|~ me/nei, can be seen as the summation statement for this section (2:29-3:10). Therefore taking spe/rma au/tou~ to mean "His children" fits effortlessly into its theolo-gical context of practical obedience as a sign of spiritual birth. In fact it may be essential to understanding John’s theological emphasis here.
        It is likely that John chooses spe/rma here, instead te/kna, to emphasize God’s action in begetting his children. For as Carson says, "New birth is, finally, nothing other than an act of God" 65. So it is very possible that John uses spe/rma, a word with covenantal overtones not associated with te/kna, to press the theological point that God’s children do not sin because they are born of God. As Marshall says, "It is the divine birth which is the explanation of the moral character of a child of God" 66. Perhaps this would explain why a section devoted to the theme pa~j o( poiw~n th\n dikaiosu/nhn e0c au0tou~ gege/nnhtai, culminates in 3:9:

Pa~j o( gegennhme/noj e0k tou~ qeou~
        a(marti/an ou0 poiei=,
                o#ti spe/rma au0tou~ e0n au0tw|~ me/nei,
        kai\ ou0 du/natai a)marta&nein,
o#ti e0k tou~ qeou~ gege/nnhtai.

        Here spe/rma au/tou~ emphasizes the origin of God’s children in the saving work of God, and that God’s children remain in Him because they are His, i.e. begotten by his power (e0k qeou~ e0gennh/qhsan, GJohn 1:13). As Bruce paraphrases this verse, "God’s child remains in God and cannot sin because he is God’s offspring" 67.

Conclusion

        Having looked at the lexical data of the NT and its linguistic and conceptual background, it is clear that the ordinary transferred lexical sense of spe/rma is "children" or "descendants"; and that the contextual sense in 1 John 3:9 is "children". The other possible translations have been shown to be lexically untenable as well as conceptually ill-suited. Further, exegetical observations have shown that this interpretation

_____________________
100

comports well with its structural and theological context, as well as Johannine theology as a whole. In fact, taking spe/rma au/tou~ to mean "His children" is actually essential for understanding the theological import of this verse. The conclusion of the matter is this: spe/rma au/tou~ e0n au/tw|~ me/nei in 1 John 3:9 means "His children remain in Him".

 

12330 Conway Road
St. Louis, MO 63141 (USA)

J. de Waal DRYDEN

© 1998 Filología Neotestamentaria

 

________________________________

NOTES

 

1 Translations following this approach are NRSV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, NEB, as well as most Continental translations. The exceptions to this scheme are the RSV and NIRV, which translate spe/rma au0tou~ as "God’s nature". The Luther Bibel (1984) translates this clause as "Gottes Kinder bleiben in ihm". This translation is supported by alternate readings in the RSV and NRSV.

2 R. Brown, The Epistles of John: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1982), 409.

3 The best overview of the four different interpretations is in R. Brown, Epistles of John, 408-411.

4 This view is held by Balz, Braune, Brooke, Brown, Büchsel, Chaine, Feuillet, Hauck, Haupt, Holtzmann, Loisy, Luthardt, Schnackenburg, Schneider, Skrinjar, and Vawter.

5 R. Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 175, 195.

6 Throughout this article "GJohn" is used to designate the fourth gospel, and "John" is used to designate the implied author of the five Johannine writings.

7 E. Haupt, The First Epistle of St. John: A Contribution to Biblical Theology, trans. W. B. Pope (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1879), 192.

8 R. Brown, Epistles of John, 410-411.

9 This view is held by Alford, Barclay, Bede, Braun, Couture, de Jonge, de la Poterie, and Malatesta.

10 E. Malatesta, Interiority and Covenant: A Study of ei]nai e0n and me/nei e0n in the First Epistle of Saint John (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 247-248.

11 I. H. Marshall, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 186. Cf. G. Strecker, The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, trans. L. Maloney, ed. H. Attridge, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 102.

12 This view is held by W. Alexander, Bultmann, de Wette, Dodd, du Preez, Johnston, Klauk, Law, O’Neill, Plummer, Stott, Vincent, Vogler, and Westcott.

13 B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 107. The reference here to GJohn 1:13 is oblique at best; it does not favor this interpretation over any others.

14 R. Law, The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of St. John (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 19143), 389.

15 W. Alexander, The Epistles of St. John: Twenty-One Discourses with Greek Text, Comparative Versions, and Notes Chiefly Exegetical (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1880), 183.

16 This view is held by N. Alexander, Argyle, Bengel, Moffatt, Sander, and Wohlenberg.

17 J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament: Vol 5, trans. W. Fletcher (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1858), 128.

18 Wohlenberg, "Glossen zum ersten Johannesbrief I", Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift 12 (1901), 583. Wohlenberg also says, alluding to GJohn 8:33, 37, "Abrahams rechter Same ist Gottes Same, und Gottes Same bleibt im Hause Gottes immerdar"., 583.

19 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19952), 92. Cf. R. Brown, Epistles of John, 409. Where he says, "The most that one can say for this interpretation of 3:9b is that it does not lack all possibility". A. W. Argyle in, "1 John iii. 4f", Expository Times 65 (1953), 63, also notes that this "rendering is in agreement with v. 6 [of 1 John 3]: pa~j o( e0n au0tw|~ me/nwn ou0x a(marta&nei".

20 Along these line there is even an instance of the "seed" of a God in Pindar’s Pythian Odes 3.15. This is interesting for this study because Pindar uses "spe/rma qeou~" in his description of the intercourse between the god Phoebus and Coronis, the daughter of Phlegyas. The text reads kai\ fe/roisa spe/rma qeou~ kaqaro&n.

21 C. K. Barrett, The New Testament Background: Selected Documents (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1989), 65.

22 In H. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1964).

23 MT and ET Jeremiah 31:27.

24 (81%) 176 out of 218 occurrences are in the transferred sense. Cf. E. Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1977), 505, where, speaking of the LXX, he says that spe/rma "is most commonly a collective noun meaning "posterity"".

25 Because spe/rma can be used in a collective sense it rarely appears in the plural. There are four occurrences in the LXX: 1 Sam. 8:15; Lev. 26:16; Ps. 125:6; Isa. 61:11. All four are accusative (spe/rmata). (rfzE occurs only once in the plural (1 Sam. 8:15).

26 See T. D. Alexander, "Genealogies, Seed and the Compositional Unity of Genesis", Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993), 255-270. 49 of the 218 canonical uses of spe/rma are in the book of Genesis, and 98/218 in the Pentateuch.

27 MT Ps. 105:6. Likewise Isa. 41:8, su\ de/ Israhl pai=j mou Iakwb o#n e0celeca&mhn spe/rma Abraam o#n h0ga&phsa.

28 Contra G. Quell, "spe/rma", TDNT, 7.542, who says, "Expressions like "seed of Abraham, Israel, David" belong to the non-mythical human sphere. They stands (sic) for what comes from the loins, 2 S. 7:12. They simply serve to express the sequence of generations and inclusions in blood-relationships". How Quell can associate statements like spe/rma Abraam o#n h0ga&phsa with a "non-mythical human sphere" is difficult to grasp.

29 4x: 3 Macc. 6:3; Pss. of Sol. 9:9, 18:3; and Test. of Levi 8:15. According to J. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) all these are first or second century BC.

30 9 out of 14 occurrences, according to K. Rengstorf, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 1973).

31 Josephus also uses spe/rma in Bell., 2.276 where he describes the sufferings of the Jews under the proconsul Albinus as one of the "seeds" that led to the war with Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem.

32 Here Balaam says of the Israelites, "ta_ me\n sw&mat 0 au0toi=j e0c a)qrwpi/nwn diepla&sqh sperma&twn, e0k de\ qei/wn e1fusan ai9 yuxai/: dio_ kai\ gego&nasin a)gxisporoi qeou~". F. H. Colson translates this as, "Their bodies have been moulded from human seeds, but their souls are sprung from divine seeds, and therefore their stock is akin to God". F. H. Colson trans., Philo VI, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19593), 421. Cf. C. D. Yonge trans., The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 485.

33 S. Shultz, "spe/rma", TDNT, 7.543.

34 Not including 1 John 3:9, the possible variant in 2 Cor. 9:10, and the spermalo&goj of Acts 17:18, whose sense has no bearing on this discussion. Declination: spe/rma (23) spe/rmatoj (8) spe/rmati (7) sperma&twn (3) spe/rmasin (1).

35 Cf. S. Schultz, "spe/rma", TDNT, 7.545. For the Gospels he says, "In each case the reference is to the seed of plants which the farmer sows". For 1 Cor. he says this is a "reference to the seed of plants". cf. BAGD, 761. Paul’s usage here is in an analogy to the resurrection body. Cf. C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New Testament Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1980), 371. Also cf. M. E. Dahl, The Resurrection Body: A Study of I Corinthians 15 (London: SCM Press, 1962) 121-125.

36 Cf. E. Burton, Galatians, 505-510.

37 The children referred to are certainly believers, since following God’s commands and holding to the testimony of Jesus are Johannine marks of the church. Cf. 1 John 5:3, 10.

38 GJohn 3:5 Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born (gennhqh=|) of water and Spirit (e0c u3datoj kai\ pneu/matoj)".

39 See M. Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 19942), 101-108.

40 "Different words sharing a common lexical form may actually be more closely related in meaning to words with an entirely different lexical form than they are to words having the same lexical form". P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 179.

41 Matthew selects spe/rma here because of its transferred sense, as opposed to that of spo&roj. It would have been nonsense for him to say "o( spo&roj e0stin oi9 ui9oi\ th=j basilei/aj".

42 R. Brown, Epistles of John, 410. Cf. BADG, 761-763. Although these words due not display complete synonymy, it would be more helpful to think of these words as partially synonymous, in the way expressed by P. Cotterell and M. Turner. "By partial synonymy we mean a true identity of meaning between two lexemes in at least some, rather than all contexts; or for some of the senses of the lexeme, if not for all". Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation, 159. Cf. D. Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (Oxford: Blackwell, 19913), 340. Also cf. S. Ullman, The Principles of Semantics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1957), 108-125.

43 C. H. Dodd, Johannine Epistles, 77. The Irenaeus citation is to Harvey’s edition (Cambridge: 1857). The reference in D. J. Unger’s trans., St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies: Book I, J. Dillon ed. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992) is 1.7.22.

44 As Irenaeus himself explained in the second century, for Valentinus "it is not good conduct that leads one into Fullness; no, it is the "seed" which is sent from there [i.e. above] immature, but is perfected here below". D. J. Unger, Against the Heresies, 1.6.26. Ou0 ga_r pra~cij ei0j Plh/rwma ei0sa&gei, a)lla_ to_ spe/rma to_ e0kei=qen nh/pion e0kpempo&menon, e1nqa de\ teleiou/menon. Greek text from J. T. Nielsen, ed., Irenaeus of Lyons Versus Contemporary Gnosticism: Selections from Book I and II of Adversus Haereses, Textus Minores, vol. 48 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 19.

45 Cf. G. Bornkamm, "musth/rion", TDNT, 4.802-828. Esp. 824 where he says, "In, sum, musth/rion is a rare expression in the NT which betrays no relation to the mystery cults. Where there seem to be connections (e.g., in sacramental passages), the term is not used; where it is used, there are no such connections. In spite of certain analogies, there are thus serious objections against bringing Jesus or Paul under the category of the mystagogue".

46 Who questions the meanings of: basileu/w, didaskali/a, eu0doke/w, latreu/w, mnhmoneu/w, tima&w, u9pakou/w? Yet all of these words appear 21 times in the NT, less than half as many times as spe/rma.

47 M. Joos, "Semantic Axiom Number One", Language 48 (1972), 257. Cf. M. Silva, Biblical Words, 153-156. This law is often summarized as, "the best meaning is the least meaning".

48 C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, 75.

49 R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to John (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 1.105-1.111. See also C. K. Barrett, The Gospel of John and Judaism, trans. D. M. Smith (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 59, where he says, "It is important not to overlook the Semitic ring of the language of the gospel, and its importance should not be underestimated", p. 59. M. Hengel, The Johannine Question (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1989), 110-114.

50 M. Hengel, Johannine Question, 110. As with Schnackenburg, Hengel draws on the work of K. Beyer, Semitische Syntax in Neuen Testament (1962) and A. Schlatter, "Die Sprache und Heimat des vierten Evangelisten", Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 6 (1902) and his Der Evangelist Johannes: Wie er spricht, denkt und glaubt (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 19754).

51 See F. Blass, A. Debrunner, R. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), § 259. Cf. M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples, 4th ed. (Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963) § 183. Cf. also A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 3d ed. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919), 790.

52 N. Alexander, The Epistles of John: Introduction and Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1962), 86-87. One might add that if this is a tautology then the Johannine writings are replete with them. Therefore its tautologous nature is an argument in favor of this reading.

53 I. H. Marshall, Epistles of John, 186, n.6.

54 J. Louw & E. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, confirm this when they correlate genea& , te/knon, and spe/rma in 10.28, where they are all taken to mean "descendants".

55 Taking synonymy as understood in linguistics as partial and not complete (since complete synonymy is rare, if it exists at all). See note 42 above for a definition of partial synonymy.

56 Or the NT, cf. Isa. 44:3, o#ti e0gw_ dw&sw u3dwr e0n di/yei toi=j poreuome/noij e0n a)nu/drw| e0piqh/sw to_ pneu~ma& mou e0pi\ to_ spe/rma sou kai\ ta_j eu0logi/aj mou e0pi\ ta_ te/kna sou. and Sirach 44:12, e0n tai=j diaqh/kaij e1sth to_ spe/rma au0th/w~n kai\ ta_ te/kna au0tw~n di 0 au0tou/j.

57 But the usage of the constructio ad sensum in the NT is sporadic. See F. Blass, A. Debrunner & R. Funk, A Greek Grammar, § 134. Not all NT writers follow it consistently.

58 This can be seen most easily in John’s usage of the collective o1xloj. (e.g. GJohn 6:5). (John’s other uses of spe/rma (GJohn 8:33, 37) with collective sense are both predicate nominatives and therefore do not govern the verb. So we have to examine his usage of another collective.) o1xloj is used 20x in the Johannine literature, and 12 of those in the nominative, and each time with a singular verb.

59 In the U.S.A. we can say "the crowd is" (whereas in England it would be "the crowd are" because they follow the constructio ad sensum) but we do not say "the children is", but rather "the children are", because we have no collective.

60 Cf. A. E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 19572), 89. "It has the advantage of referring au0tou~ and e0n au0tw|~ to the same person". A final syntactical note: In the Johannine writings there is no set syntagmatic formula for the use of the verb me/nein. There are many possible subject and object relations. See E. Malatesta, Interiority and Covenant, for a detailed study.

61 P. P. A. Kotzé, "The Meaning of 1 John 3:9 with reference to 1 John 1:8 and 10", Neotestamentica 13: Studies in the Johannine Letters (Pretoria: NTSSA, 1979), 69. R. Schnackenburg, Johannine Epistles, 151. R. Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles: A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, trans. R. P. O’Hara, ed. R. Funk, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973), 43. "The epistle could have been concluded with 2:27 and originally probably was".

62 E. Malatesta confirms this subsection, but misses the larger structural chiasmus shown by the inclusio of 2:28 and 3:24. Cf. E. Malatesta, Interiority and Covenant, 237. Cf. also W. Nauck, Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefes (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1957), 1, for confirmation of this section.

63 These correspond to N. Lund’s categories of the "law of the shift at the centre", and the "law of shift from centre to the extremes". N. Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament: A Study in the Form and Function of Chiastic Structures (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 41.

64 C. H. Dodd, Johannine Epistles, 81. Cf. R. Schnackenburg, Johannine Epistles, 151. "Doing what is right and refraining from sin become a mark of being born of God or being a child of God". Cf. also 2:29b pa~j o( poiw~n th\n dikaiosu/nhn e0c au0tou~ gege/nnhtai.

65 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 126. Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978), 164. Where he says John’s construction "serves to accentuate e0k qeou~". Both commentators are discussing GJohn 1:13.

66 I. H. Marshall, Epistles of John, 186. Emphasis added.

67 F. F. Bruce, Epistles of John, 92. Italics are his.