There is an interesting issue that creeps up in 1 John 2:12-14
. Here is the passage in the NLT:
“I am writing to you who are God’s children
because your sins have been forgiven through Jesus.
I am writing to you who are mature in the faith
because you know Christ, who existed from the beginning.
I am writing to you who are young in the faith
because you have won your battle with the evil one.
I have written to you who are God’s children
because you know the Father.
I have written to you who are mature in the faith
because you know Christ, who existed from the beginning.
I have written to you who are young in the faith
because you are strong.
God’s word lives in your hearts,
and you have won your battle with the evil one.”
Certainly, the repetition in the passage catches our eye. The Greek is equally, if not more so, eye-catching. Before I actually get into the issue at hand, I do want to add that I really like NLT’s rendering of father and young men as “mature in the faith” and “young in the faith” respectively. The issue that I mentioned comes with how we translate the word ὅτι (hoti), which can be either causal (which the NLT, and most other translations, take it as), which would warrant a translation of “because,” or we it could be showing the content of John’s writing, which would be rendered “that.” In other words, is John giving the reason for writing or is he giving a summary of what he is writing?
Originally, I, like most translations, went with the causal “because,” but after thinking about it, and pondering the context, I think I’m leaning more toward hoti being content. My reason for this is recognizing that one of the main themes of the letter is assurance- John wants to assure them of their position in Christ, over and against both doubt and the apparent false teaching and apostasy that was occurring. This is especially true in the following verses, where he mentions those who have left the church as evidence they were “never really of them,” (1 John 2:19) and that the spirit behind the false teachers who deny that Jesus is the Christ is actually that of antichrist (1 John 2:22). He even goes so far to tell the recipients that they have a holy anointing that leads them in true knowledge (1 John 2:27), and that they do in fact know the truth (1 John 2:21). This entire section is one of assurance.
The section preceding verses 12-14 also seems to be grounded in assurance. John points out several times how one can be sure that they “know [Christ]” (cf. 1 John 2:3-6). It seems then that verses 12-14 is the hinge on which two major sections on assurance are held together. But what does this mean for the translation of hoti? Well, it seems to me that verses 12-14 is epexegetical, that is explanatory, of the section as a whole. Right in the middle of John giving assurance, he spells out exactly what he is telling them. “I am writing to you [to tell you] that your sins have been forgiven for his name’s sake” (cf vv. 12). Or, we could word it to say, “I am writing to you to assure you that your sins have been forgiven.”
This is the direction that I am leaning at the moment, possibly with the translation “to assure you that.” What are your thoughts?
6 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
I think you bring up some good points for viewing this in favor of a content hoti. However, I think that if I’m pushed to make a decision (apart from ambiguity, which is pretty consistent in John’s literature) I’m going to go with a causal hoti.
I agree with Martin Culy, who says that while it may seem odd for the hoti to be causal and then immediately followed with an exhortation to “love not the world”, it is not beyond reach. We must not forget similar styles of writing in the epistle to the Hebrews. Confidence in the audience is often mingled with strong warnings about remaining in the faith. Yes, these John says these people have the anointing leading them in true knowledge, yet even that is followed by a command to “remain in Him so that we have boldness when he comes” (2:28) and it is preceded by the commendation that if what they have heard from the beginning remains in them, then they will remain in the Father and Son (2:24).
This all seems a bit jumbled together, I know, but I would say that John’s intent is not for the hoti to be epexegetical, but for the section as a whole to function as a mitigated exhortation.
All this to say, John’s probably got both in mind. But if I’m pushed, I’m going with causal. That being said, it would be interesting to see if John’s got a particular use of hoti that he favors. Also, check out W. Hall Morris’ commentary on the Johannine epistles - he favors your view as well
Bryan, the flow of John’s thought leads me to take hoti as causal. The context is strongly in favor of a causal sense of hoti.
TC,
What about the flow of thought leads you to take it as causal? That’s my reason for thinking content haha. Here’s the NET’s take:
“The ὅτι (Joti) that follows all six occurrences of γράφω/ἔγραψα (grafw/egraya) in 2:12-14 can be understood as introducing either (1) a causal clause or (2) a content clause (if content, it could be said to introduce a direct object clause or an indirect discourse clause). Many interpreters have favored a causal translation, so that in each of the six cases what follows the ὅτι gives the reason why the author is writing to the recipients. Usage in similar constructions is not decisive because only one other instance of γράφω followed by ὅτι occurs in 1 John (2:21), and that context is just as ambiguous as this one. On other occasions γράφω does tend to be followed by a noun or pronoun functioning as direct object. This might argue for the content usage here, but it could also be argued that the direct object in the six instances in these verses is understood, namely, the content of the entire letter itself. Thus the following ὅτι clause could still be causal. Grammatical considerations aside, these uses of ὅτι are more likely introducing content clauses here rather than causal clauses because such a meaning better fits the context. If the uses of ὅτι are understood as causal, it is difficult to see why the author immediately gives a warning in the section that follows about loving the world. The confidence he has expressed in his readers (if the ὅτι clauses are understood as causal) would appear to be ill-founded if he is so concerned about their relationship to the world as 2:15-17 seems to indicate. On the other hand, understanding the ὅτι clauses as content clauses fits very well the context of reassurance which runs throughout the letter.”
Also, Smalley (WBC), Marshal (NICNT) Akin (NAC), as well as others, all show that the context and grammar allows for either one.
Hmm… interesting thoughts - thanks for this. I think I would still lean toward ‘causal’ - but also because I think John wants to give assurance to his readers: In this letter the author seems to envisage two realms: Firstly the realm of truth, light, life, obedience etc… and secondly the realm of lies, darkness, death, sin etc… And there’s no room to sit on the fence - you’re either in one realm or the other. This, of course, is a rhetorical technique designed to make the readers confirm themselves as dwelling within the former realm rather than the latter. But John is aware that his approach may backfire by making the church think: “Wow - I guess we must be in the latter realm, because we HAVE sinned etc”…. So this central section is a way of assuring the readers that John is not writing these things to them because he thinks they’re in the latter realm, but because he knows they are in the former, and he wants them to determinedly stay there:
“I am writing to you… because you HAVE overcome the evil one”
The NET translators really seem to think this use of hoti is ambiguous. I rather think the causal use of hoti goes with the theme of the letter, one of assurance. I believe Matthew made that point above. I have Kruse in the Pillar series. I’ll have to see what he says.
I think we are arguing the same point from different sides, which would of course be true of John’s typical ambiguity. In the translation, I went ahead with “because” and footnoted “that”