3:1-12  1. Take note of what sort love the father gives to us, so that ‘God’s progeny’ we might be designated, and we are! For this reason the world system does not recognize us, because it did not recognize him. 2. Dear people, now we are God’s offspring and it has not yet been disclosed what we shall be. We know that if he should be disclosed, we shall be similar to him because we will see him just as he is. 3. and everyone who possesses this hope in him purifies himself, just as that one is pure.
4. Everyone who does sin also does lawlessness and sin is lawlessness. 5. And you know that that one has been disclosed so that he might take away these sins, and sin does not exist in him. 6. Everyone who remains in him does not act sinfully. Everyone who is acting sinfully has not seen him or known him.
7. Little children, no one should deceive you. The one doing justice is just, just as that one is just. 8. The one who does sin is from the slanderer, because the slanderer acts sinfully from the start. For this purpose God’s son has been disclosed, so that he might destroy the slanderer’s enterprises. 9. Everyone who is fathered from God does not do sin, because his seed remains in him and he is not able to act sinfully because he is fathered from God. 10. By this means God’s offspring and the slanderer’s offspring are disclosed. Everyone who does not do justice and everyone who does not love his brother are not from God; 11. because this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another—12. not in the manner of Cain: he was from the evil one and slaughtered his brother. And for what reason did he slaughter him—because his actions were evil and his brother’s actions were just. 

3:1-12  1Ἴδετε ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ πατήρ, ἵνα τέκνα θεοῦ κληθῶμεν, καὶ ἐσμέν. διὰ τοῦτο ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς, ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν. 2ἀγαπητοὶ νῦν τέκνα θεοῦ ἐσμεν, καὶ οὔπω ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα. οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα, ὅτι ὀψόμεθα αὐτόν, καθώς ἐστιν. 3καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ἁγνίζει ἑαυτόν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος ἁγνός ἐστιν.
4Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία. 5καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἄρῃ, καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν. 6πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει· πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν.
7Παιδία, μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς· ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν· 8ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν, ὅτι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει. εἰς τοῦτο ἐφανερώθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου. 9Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται. 10ἐν τούτῳ φανερά ἐστιν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου· πᾶς ὁ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ. 11Ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἠκούσατε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, 12οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν καὶ ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ· καὶ χάριν τίνος ἔσφαξεν αὐτόν; ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν, τὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ δίκαια.

Verse 1:  At the end of chapter 2 J has assured his audience that they possess God’s Spirit and God’s wisdom as taught by the Spirit. In this section he draws their attention to what they already know “the kind of love God gives them.” The aorist active imperative plural verb ἴδετε instructs them “to take note” and the object is the indirect interrogative marked by the interrogative adjective ποταπός (“what kind of, what sort”). The referent of the adjective (ἀγάπην) is embedded in the question and it serves as the object of the perfect active verb δέδωκεν. The perfect tense form expresses the divine generosity that stretches from their conversion into their current condition or state. J fronts the object and gives it prominence. The subject (ὁ πατήρ) comes at the end of the indirect question. The dative case marks ἡμῖν, a pronoun that includes J, as the indirect object of δέδωκεν.

In my opinion ἵνα signals a result clause that modifies δέδωκεν and explains the consequence of the father’s gift. Once again J places the object τέκνα θεοῦ before the verb giving it prominence in its clause. θεοῦ is a subjective genitive indicating that God is the agent who has generated these offspring. The aorist passive subjunctive κληθῶμεν describes the action of identifying or naming something and J uses the first person plural picking up the previous ἡμῖν. Who is the agent of this passive verb? Is it God or is it those who identify the offspring of God when they are disclosed?

J immediately acts to remove any impression that they lack the status of God’s offspring in the present, declaring καὶ ἐσμέν, using another first person plural verb.

J then explains why human society in subjection to the slanderer (ὁ κόσμος) fails to perceive the new status of these believers. The prepositional phrase διὰ τοῦτο modifies γινώσκει, a present verb indicating a current ignorance (οὐ γινώσκει). The object of the verb is another first person plural pronoun ἡμᾶς. The referent for the demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο is the following ὅτι clause, marked by the subordinate causal conjunction. Human society’s inability to perceive the true status of believers parallels their failure to recognize God, the father (αὐτόν) of these believers. J uses the same verb in the present and aorist tense forms to indicate this failed recognition.

Verse 2:  J shifts into the vocative mode of address, using the familiar epithet ἀγαπητοί. He reminds them of their identity because of his care for them. The temporal adverb νῦν emphasizes the present reality of their status, but the following, negative temporal adverb οὔπω reminds them that they have not yet experienced the total transformation that God destines for them. The nominal phrase τέκνα θεοῦ functions as the predicate in the equative clause. The first person plural present indicative verb ἐσμεν includes J and equates the subject “we” with the phrase “God’s offspring.” θεοῦ is a subjective genitive.

J continues the discourse with a second declarative clause marked by the conjunction καί. οὔπω modifies the aorist passive indicative verb ἐφανερώθη. Its subject is the indirect interrogative τί ἐσόμεθα. The interrogative pronoun τί is neuter singular and functions as the predicate of the equative clause/question. Although his audience and himself are ignorant of what exactly this future transformation will involve, they do know something about it right now. The verb οἴδαμεν signals what they do know. ὅτι marks a content clause that functions as the object of οἴδαμεν and expresses the content of the indirect discourse. ἐάν + subjunctive marks a third class condition. BDAG (268.2) comments that ἐάν can mark “the prospect of an action in a point of time coordinated with another point of time.” In my opinion the contingent element is linked with the time and might be expressed “if at any time [what we shall be] should be made visible.” The subject of ἐφανερώθη is the indirect interrogative and this probably continues as the subject of the following subjunctive verb φανερωθῇ.

ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα is the apodosis in the conditional clause marked by ὅτι. J places the predicate adjective first in the clause to give it prominence. The adjective ὅμοιος is regularly complemented by a dative pronoun or noun that defines the one who is the standard of comparison (“like him”) – in the context of this paragraph it would be “the father.” This is another equative clause with ἐσόμεθα functioning as the equative verb. J includes himself in this anticipated transformation.

ὅτι 2° probably marks a clausal clause. ὀψόμεθα is the future middle form of ὁράω. καθώς ἐστιν is a subordinate clause of comparison. The subject of ἐστιν is the antecedent of the previous pronoun αὐτόν, namely “the father.” J does not explain how the sight of “the father” will cause this transformation. In the OT we have the analogy of Moses whose face radiated with glory after his encounter with Yahweh on Sinai (Ex. 34).

Verse 3:  J uses πᾶς + articulated (usually present) participle about fourteen times, particularly in chapters 3-4, but see also 2:21, 29. It expresses inclusivity. The present participle indicates an activity concurrent with the main verb. In this case it is “possessing the hope,” just described in 3:2. The participle is modified by the adverbial phrase ἐπ’ αὐτῷ and with the dative case the preposition can have the sense “grounded in.” αὐτῷ presumably refers to “the father.” The articulated participle functions as the subject of the main verb ἁγνίζει, a present active indicative verb form. ἁγνίζω is a causative verb form that means “to purify” and is a cognate of the adjective ἅγνος “sacred, holy, pure or without taint.” J uses a reflexive pronoun as the object, to indicate that the subject and the object refer to the same person. The complex clause concludes with a clause of comparison signaled by καθώς. The demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνος clarifies that God the father is the subject. J places the predicate adjective before the verb to give it prominence. This is an equative clause indicating that the predicate defines the character of the subject. Purity in this context probably means “moral” purity. In 2:29 J declares that Jesus is δίκαιος. He is expanding his description of Jesus.

Verse 4:  Although NA28 begins a new paragraph with v. 4, I suspect J is continuing to develop the ideas in vv. 1-3. Another πᾶς + articulated present participle functions as the subject of ποιεῖ. J uses an inclusive formulation ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν that parallels the terminology of the main verb and its object (ἁνομίαν ποιεῖ). The present participle and the present active indicative verb express the idea of concurrent, continuing activity. The articles with ἁμαρτίαν…ἀνομίαν do not signal an individual sin, but rather have a generic function, expressing “sin” and “lawlessness” as categories. καί is ascensive, perhaps with the sense “also.”

J adds a second independent clause that is equative. The generic use of the article continues with ἡ ἁμαρτάι…ἡ ἀνομία.  Why is it important to J that his audience understands that sin = lawlessness? What has this to do with ἅγνος? Is this related to the frequent reminders about a “new command?”

Verse 5:  The use of ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη is another indication that vv. 4-6 belong with vv. 1-3. J references what his audience currently knows about the Messiah. For the use of ἐφανερώθη in reference to the Messiah see 1:2; 3:8 (see also 4:9) and also with a future reference in 2:28. The ὅτι content clause functions as the object of οἴδατε (as in 3:2). J again employs ἐκεῖνος but this time it seems to refer to Jesus as in 2:6; 3:7, 16;  5:16. However, in 3:3 and 4:17 ἐκεῖνος may refer to the father and not to Jesus. What they know is “that ‘that one’ has been made public/has been disclosed,” referring to a past completed action. The passive voice can express an appropriate sense. The middle would suggest that “he has disclosed himself,” a sense that is also possible. This refers to the incarnation, the event with which J began the letter.

The subordinate clause marked by ἵνα could define purpose or result. Either sense works in the context. J fronts the object τὰς ἁμαρτίας. Note that he uses the plural form here, in contrast to the singular in v. 4. The plural might refer to individual sinful acts, rather than the generic reality of “sin” as in v. 4. A significant number of textual witnesses read ημων identifying these actions as belonging to J and his audience, but not the Messiah as the next clause will make clear. The aorist active subjunctive verb form ἄρῃ (αἴρω “to lift up and move, to carry away/remove” BDAG, 28) indicates that the Messiah “has removed sins,” presumably referring to the consequences of such acts. The aspect is perfective. See its use in Jn 1:29. Probably it has reference to the cross. A reference to this action also occurs in 3:16 using different terminology.

καί may link the last clause with the first clause in the ὅτι construction, indicating that the incarnation is true, but the incarnation does not infect the Messiah with sin, even though he “takes away sins.” “Sin does not exist in him.” ἐν αὐτῷ refers to Jesus and probably has a locative sense. The juxtaposition of the subject with the predicate creates a stark contrast.

Verse 6:  J uses his third articulated present active participle modified by πᾱς in vv. 3-6. Again it is inclusive in sense and functions as the subject of its clause. In this case he returns to the concept of “abiding” or “staying in” with a nuance of continuing activity concurrent with the action of the main verb. ἐν αὐτῷ continues to refer to the Messiah and has a metaphorical ‘locative’ sense. The main verb ἁμαρτάνει is a present active form that can indicate continuing activity and continues the focus on ἁμαρτία. However, see the use of the present participle forms in 5:16. Is the Aktionsart of the verb in both contexts the same or different? What does the negative imply about this activity (“is not engaging in sinful activity”)? However we interpret it, J affirms that this rejection of sin arises as a divine gift through the gospel. Further, the true child of God renounces sin (perhaps in the context of baptism?).

The second clause adds a fourth example of a subject formed from an articulated present participle modified by πᾶς. Does the iteration of this kind of construction sound repetitious to his audience or does it have some positive effect upon their listening? He has offered four generalizations that define human existence and spirituality. ὁ ἀμαρτάνων is the subject of two perfect active indicatives (ἑώρακεν…ἔγνωκεν). He seems to differentiate with these verbs two different groups. The ones who “have seen him” presumably would primarily be Jews who lived in Palestine at the time of Jesus, and now are followers of the Messiah (see 1:1-2). Those who “have come to recognize him” would refer to all subsequent adherents. The repeated negatives (οὐκ…οὐδέ) shows the incompatibility of a sinful lifestyle with claims to have physically seen the Messiah or come to recognize that the historical Jesus is the Messiah (αὐτόν…αὐτόν). Note the use of the present participle in the context of perfect tense forms.

Verse 7:  J returns to the form of address that he used in 2:18. Whether J intends to signal a new discourse unit by using this vocative with a third person singular imperative might be challenged. For example, “doing what is right” (v. 7) is contrasted with “doing sin” (v. 4). J repeats his use of ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν in v. 8 (see v. 4). He uses ἐφανερώθη again in v. 8 to refer to the incarnation. Perhaps the discourse unit continues through to the end of v. 12.

For some reason J is concerned that some people associated with his audience are trying to deceive believers about these matters (μηδεὶς πλανάτω). J uses μηδείς as subject because the verb is in the imperative mood, not the indicative. The second person plural pronoun ὑμᾶς suggests that J is differentiating himself from his audience in this matter.

The subject of the second clause is another articulated present participle (ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην), but without πᾶς. Is there a reason for its omission? Notice that in v. 10 he uses this same construction but with πᾶς. These two occurrences may function as a parenthesizing element, embracing the contents of vv. 7-10. Presumably the singular, articulated τὴν δικαιοσύνην is similar to the generic function of the article in v. 4 (τὴν ἁμαρτίαν) and is referencing “right action” as a general category, not individual right actions. J mirrors this construction in v. 8 with ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν.

The second clause is an equative clause whereby “the one doing right action” is characterized or categorized as δίκαιος (just, innocent, in the right). J concludes this complex sentence with a clause of comparison marked by καθώς (see v. 3). ἐστιν 2° also has an equative function, characterizing ἐκεῖνος (probably the Messiah as in v. 5) as δίκαιος (see 1:9; 2:1, 29).

Verse 8:  J uses a sixth articulated present participle in this series (ὁ ποιῶν). This is the same participial phrase he employed in v. 4, apart from the initial πᾶς. It has the same sense, namely “the one who is committing sin.” It forms the subject of another equative clause. The predicate this time is a prepositional phrase defining the ‘source/origin’ of such a person or whose representative this person might be. J places the predicate in the focal point of the clause. As a result, he contrasts the ‘just’ person (v. 7) with “the one committing sin” and declares that this latter person has his origins or has mandate to sin from “the slanderer” (διάβολος).

J creates a complex clause by adding a causal ὅτι clause, that explains why such people who represent the slanderer are committing sin. The prepositional phrase ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς expresses a temporal idea and if it refers to the pre-creation reality, then the slanderer’s disposition also pre-dates creation. The subject ὁ διάβολος is placed in the focal point of the clause, giving it prominence. The Aktionsart of this present active indicative verb form ἁμαρτάνει indicates a continuing activity. The slanderer “is sinning” in all aspects of his existence and thus lives and acts in opposition to Jesus who is δίκαιος.

J explains the purpose for the Messiah’s past appearance (1:1-2), marked by εἰς τοῦτο that is specified more fully in the ἵνα clause. He places the aorist passive indicative verb ἐφανερώθη first in its clause because this is the most important piece of information in this clause. Again, one has to sort whether it functions as a true passive or as a middle. The subject ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ follows the verb. The genitive τοῦ θεοῦ expresses kinship and intimate association with the deity, in contrast to the slanderer. The ἵνα clause, reflecting the previous εἰς τοῦτο, probably expresses the purpose for the Messiah’s past appearance and he is the subject of the main verb λύσῃ, an aorist active subjunctive. λύω may mean “to undo” or “to destroy (bring an end to, abolish)” in this context. The direct object is τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου. In my opinion the genitive τοῦ διαβόλου probably functions as a subjective genitive and the entire phrase is a definition of ἁμαρτία and ἀνομία (v. 4). Compare the purpose clause in v. 5 ἵνα τὰς ἀμαρτίας ἄρῃ.

Verse 9:  J employs a seventh articulated participle. This time it is a perfect passive participle modified by πᾶς, indicating an inclusive sense. The verb is γεννάω and in the perfect tense form describes a state or condition. The adverbial phrase ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ defines the one responsible for ‘pro-creating’ these progeny. See similar expressions in 2:29; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18. This phrase contrasts with ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου (v. 8). Because the deity does not commit sin, his progeny express the same character. Likewise, because the slanderer sins, so do his progeny (v. 8). Note the singular, anarthrous ἁμαρτίαν as object.

J adds two causal clauses marked by ὅτι and linked by καί. The subject τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ refers to the deity’s ‘seed’. The adverbial phrase ἐν αὐτῷ modifies the verb μένει and probably refers to the believer. The Aktionsart of this present tense verb form might suggest the translation “is remaining/staying in him.” δύναμαι takes a complementary infinitive (ἁμαρτάνειν). In what sense is this person “unable to sin?” The second ὅτι clause is also causal and probably explains the two previous clauses. It repeats the affirmation expressed in the initial clause, but gives some prominence to the prepositional phrase ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Verse 10:  The verse begins with an equative clause that has a compound, neuter plural set of subjects. The verb is singular because the subjects are neuter plurals. J fronts the predicate adjective φανερά. The progeny of God are plain/apparent just as the Messiah has become plain/apparent. The adverbial phrase ἐν τούτῳ probably expresses means (“by this means”) and anticipates the information in the second clause. The two nominal phrases that function as subject are exact parallels and contrast the progeny of God and the progeny of the slanderer. J does not explain how people become τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου. Perhaps this is the default human condition.

The second clause is another equative clause that incorporates two articulated present participles that function as a compound subject. J signals they have one referent by the use of the single πᾶς. Both participles are modified by the negative μή. J once more defines who “is not ‘from the deity’.” He defines such people as expressing two, related characteristics. The second probably gives a particular way in which the first general descriptor is expressed. Presumably ὁ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην is someone who ὁ ποιῶν ἁμαρτίαν. To do “the right thing” includes “loving your brother” (second great command). Is “brother” an interpretation of “neighbor” and a means of contextualizing this command in the context of the church?

Verse 11:  I think the material in vv. 11-12 belongs with vv. 1-10. The repetition of the command to love one another, the presence of ὅτι at the beginning of the clause, and the use of δίκαια in v. 12 (see v. 7) suggest this. If this is the case then ὅτι is probably causal, giving an explanation for the statements in v. 10. The logic would be that the actions of some people show they have no relationship with God, because they violate the basic command that God has revealed – to love your brother/one another.

The main clause in the ὅτι clause is an equative clause whose subject is αὕτη and whose predicate is the arthrous noun ἡ ἀγγελία (see 1:5 where the same construction occurs). Presumably “the message” is the good news that Jesus revealed. ἀγγελία is qualified by the relative clause marked by ἣν, the object of ἠκούσατε. The temporal phrase ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς could refer to the early history of Israel or the revelations made by Jesus, i.e., the beginning of the gospel.

ἵνα marks an indirect command, expressed with a present subjunctive, first person plural. The Aktionsart of this present tense verb form may suggest a continuing action (we should be loving). The direct object is the reciprocal pronoun ἀλλήλους.

Verse 12:  The negative οὐ qualifies the clause of comparison marked by καθώς and serves to disqualify Cain’s action against Abel as a model of brotherly love. In the clause of comparison the verb phrase ἀγαπῇ [ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ] is understood as the main clause. I think a period should be placed after Κάϊν. A new independent clause begins with ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. The verb ἦν with the prepositional phrase ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ characterizes the subject, which is Κάϊν, as generated in some sense from the evil one.

καί shows the logical connection between Κάϊν’s ‘origin’ and his actions, a kind of consequence. The aorist verb ἔσφαξεν marks a completed action (OG Gen 4:8 καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν standard term for “kill”). Occasionally in the LXX it describes murder. τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ is the direct object.

J continues with a rhetorical question introduced by καί and χάριν τίνος, asking the reason for Κάϊν’s action. He repeats the verb phrase in the interrogative. He provides the answer to his question in the causal clause marked by ὅτι. He employs another ἦν clause that characterizes the actions of Κάϊν as πονηρά, reflecting his origins. The neuter plural subject τὰ ἔργα takes a third person singular verb ending (ἦν). The postpositive δέ marks a new topic, marking the semantic contrast with the previous clause. τά reflects an implicit ἔργα and is modified by a possessive genitive that refers to Abel. J characterizes his actions as δίκαια (see v. 7).