1 Yohanes 1:6

1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him and yet keep on walking ¹  in the darkness, we are lying and not practicing ²  the truth.

1 Yohanes 1:10

1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us.

1 Yohanes 3:5-6

3:5 And you know that Jesus ³  was revealed to take away ⁴  sins, and in him there is no sin. 3:6 Everyone who resides ⁵  in him does not sin; ⁶  everyone who sins has neither seen him nor known him.

1 Yohanes 3:1

3:1 (See what sort of love the Father has given to us: that ⁷  we should be called God’s children – and indeed ⁸  we are! ⁹  For this reason ¹⁰  the world does not know us: because it did not know him. ¹¹ 

Kisah Para Rasul 8:1-2

8:1 And Saul agreed completely with killing ¹²  him.

Saul Begins to Persecute the Church

Now on that day a great ¹³  persecution began ¹⁴  against the church in Jerusalem, ¹⁵  and all ¹⁶  except the apostles were forced to scatter throughout the regions ¹⁷  of Judea and Samaria. 8:2 Some ¹⁸  devout men buried Stephen and made loud lamentation ¹⁹  over him. ²⁰ 

Kisah Para Rasul 6:1

The Appointment of the First Seven Deacons

6:1 Now in those ²¹  days, when the disciples were growing in number, ²²  a complaint arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews ²³  against the native Hebraic Jews, ²⁴  because their widows ²⁵  were being overlooked ²⁶  in the daily distribution of food. ²⁷ 

Ayub 9:2

9:2 “Truly, ²⁸  I know that this is so.

But how ²⁹  can a human ³⁰  be just before ³¹  God? ³² 

Ayub 14:4

14:4 Who can make ³³  a clean thing come from an unclean? ³⁴ 

No one!

Ayub 15:14

15:14 What is man that he should be pure,

or one born of woman, that he should be righteous?

Ayub 25:4

25:4 How then can a human being be righteous before God?

How can one born of a woman be pure? ³⁵ 

Mazmur 143:2

143:2 Do not sit in judgment on ³⁶  your servant,

for no one alive is innocent before you. ³⁷ 

Amsal 20:9

20:9 Who can say, ³⁸  “I have kept my heart clean; ³⁹ 

I am pure ⁴⁰  from my sin”?

Pengkhotbah 7:20

7:20 For ⁴¹  there is not one truly ⁴²  righteous person on the earth

who continually does good and never sins.

Yesaya 53:6

53:6 All of us had wandered off like sheep;

each of us had strayed off on his own path,

but the Lord caused the sin of all of us to attack him. ⁴³ 

Yesaya 64:6

64:6 We are all like one who is unclean,

all our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in your sight. ⁴⁴ 

We all wither like a leaf;

our sins carry us away like the wind.

Yeremia 2:22-23

2:22 You can try to wash away your guilt with a strong detergent.

You can use as much soap as you want.

But the stain of your guilt is still there for me to see,” ⁴⁵ 

says the Lord God. ⁴⁶ 

2:23 “How can you say, ‘I have not made myself unclean.

I have not paid allegiance to ⁴⁷  the gods called Baal.’

Just look at the way you have behaved in the Valley of Hinnom! ⁴⁸ 

Think about the things you have done there!

You are like a flighty, young female camel

that rushes here and there, crisscrossing its path. ⁴⁹ 

Roma 3:23

3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Yakobus 3:2

3:2 For we all stumble ⁵⁰  in many ways. If someone does not stumble ⁵¹  in what he says, ⁵²  he is a perfect individual, ⁵³  able to control the entire body as well.

[1:6]  ¹ tn The context of this statement in 1:6 indicates clearly that the progressive (continuative or durative) aspect of the present tense must be in view here.

[1:6]  sn The relationship of the phrase keep on walking to if we say is very important for understanding the problem expressed in 1:6. If one should say (εἴπωμεν, eipwmen) that he has fellowship with God, and yet continues walking (περιπατῶμεν, peripatwmen) in the darkness, then it follows (in the apodosis, the “then” clause) that he is lying and not practicing the truth.

[1:6]  ² tn Or “living according to…”

[3:5]  ³ tn Grk “that one.” The context makes it clear that this is a reference to Jesus, because the reader is told “he was revealed in order that he might take away sins.” The connection with Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world in John 1:29 provides additional confirmation that the previous use of ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos) in 3:3b should also be understood as a reference to Jesus, as 2:6 was.

[3:5]  sn In Johannine thought it is Jesus, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

[3:5]  ⁴ tn The ἵνα (Jina) clause gives the purpose of Jesus’ self-revelation as he manifested himself to the disciples and to the world during his earthly life and ministry: It was “to take away sins.”

[3:6]  ⁵ tn Here the verb μένω (menw) refers to the permanence of relationship between Jesus and the believer, as in 2:27 and 2:28. It is clear that Jesus is the referent of the phrase ἐν αὐτῷ (en autw) because he is the subject of the discussion in v. 5.

[3:6]  ⁶ tn The interpretive problem raised by the use of the present tense ἁμαρτάνει (Jamartanei) in this verse (and ποιεῖ [poiei] in 3:9 as well) is that (a) it appears to teach a sinless state of perfection for the true Christian, and (b) it appears to contradict the author’s own statements in 2:1-2 where he acknowledged that Christians do indeed sin. (1) One widely used method of reconciling the acknowledgment in 2:1-2 that Christians do sin with the statements in 3:6 and 3:9 that they do not is expressed by M. Zerwick (Biblical Greek §251). He understands the aorist to mean “commit sin in the concrete, commit some sin or other” while the present means “be a sinner, as a characteristic «state».” N. Turner (Grammatical Insights, 151) argues essentially the same as Zerwick, stating that the present tense ἁμαρτάνει is stative (be a sinner) while the aorist is ingressive (begin to be a sinner, as the initial step of committing this or that sin). Similar interpretations can be found in a number of grammatical works and commentaries. (2) Others, however, have questioned the view that the distinction in tenses alone can convey a “habitual” meaning without further contextual clarification, including C. H. Dodd (The Johannine Epistles [MNTC], 79) and Z. C. Hodges (“1 John,” BKCNT, 894). B. Fanning (Verbal Aspect [OTM], 215-17) has concluded that the habitual meaning for the present tense cannot be ruled out, because there are clear instances of habitual presents in the NT where other clarifying words are not present and the habitual sense is derived from the context alone. This means that from a grammatical standpoint alone, the habitual present cannot be ruled out in 1 John 3:6 and 9. It is still true, however, that it would have been much clearer if the author had reinforced the habitual sense with clarifying words or phrases in 1 John 3:6 and 9 if that is what he had intended. Dodd’s point, that reliance on the distinction in tenses alone is quite a subtle way of communicating such a vital point in the author’s argument, is still valid. It may also be added that the author of 1 John has demonstrated a propensity for alternating between present and aorist tenses for purely stylistic reasons (see 2:12).

[3:6]  sn Does not sin. It is best to view the distinction between “everyone who practices sin” in 3:4 and “everyone who resides in him” in 3:6 as absolute and sharply in contrast. The author is here making a clear distinction between the opponents, who as moral indifferentists downplay the significance of sin in the life of the Christian, and the readers, who as true Christians recognize the significance of sin because Jesus came to take it away (3:5) and to destroy it as a work of the devil (3:8). This argument is developed more fully by S. Kubo (“I John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?” AUSS 7 [1969]: 47-56), who takes the opponents as Gnostics who define sin as ignorance. The opponents were probably not adherents of fully developed gnosticism, but Kubo is right that the distinction between their position and that of the true Christian is intentionally portrayed by the author here as a sharp antithesis. This explanation still has to deal with the contradiction between 2:1-2 and 3:6-9, but this does not present an insuperable difficulty. The author of 1 John has repeatedly demonstrated a tendency to present his ideas antithetically, in “either/or” terms, in order to bring out for the readers the drastic contrast between themselves as true believers and the opponents as false believers. In 2:1-2 the author can acknowledge the possibility that a true Christian might on occasion sin, because in this context he wishes to reassure his readers that the statements he has made about the opponents in the preceding context do not apply to them. But in 3:4-10, his concern is to bring out the absolute difference between the opponents and his readers, so he speaks in theoretical rather than practical terms which do not discuss the possible occasional exception, because to do so would weaken his argument.

[3:1]  ⁷ tn The ἵνα (Jina) clause is best understood (1) as epexegetical (or explanatory), clarifying the love (ἀγάπην, agaphn) that the Father has given to believers. Although it is possible (2) to regard the ἵνα as indicating result, the use of ποταπήν (potaphn, “what sort of”) to modify ἀγάπην suggests that the idea of “love” will be qualified further in the following context, and this qualification is provided by the epexegetical ἵνα clause.

[3:1]  ⁸ tn “Indeed” is not in the Greek text but is supplied to indicate emphasis.

[3:1]  ⁹ tc The phrase καὶ ἐσμεν (kai esmen, “and we are”) is omitted in 049 69 Ï. There seems to be no theological reason to omit the words. This has all the earmarks of a classic case of homoioteleuton, for the preceding word (κληθῶμεν, klhqwmen, “we should be called”) ends in -μεν (-men).

[3:1]  tn The indicative mood indicates that the verb ἐσμέν (esmen) at the end of 3:1a is not governed by the ἵνα (Jina) and does not belong with the ἵνα clause, since this would have required a subjunctive. If the verb ἐσμέν were subjunctive, the force of the clause would be “that we should be called children of God, and be (children of God).” With ἐσμέν as indicative, the clause reads “that we should be called children of God, and indeed we are (children of God).”

[3:1]  ¹⁰ tn Lexically it is clear that this phrase indicates reason, but what is not clear is whether (1) τοῦτο (touto) refers to what follows, (2) to what precedes, or (3) to both (as with the ἐν τοῦτο [en touto] phrases throughout 1 John). Διὰ τοῦτο (dia touto) occurs 15 times in the Gospel of John, and a pattern emerges which is so consistent that it appears to be the key to the usage here. Six times in the Gospel of John (5:16, 18; 8:47; 10:17; 12:18, 39) the phrase refers to what follows, and in each of these instances an epexegetical ὅτι (Joti) clause follows. Nine times in John (1:31, 6:65, 7:21-22, 9:23, 12:27, 13:11, 15:19, 16:15, 19:11) the phrase refers to what precedes, and in none of these instances is it followed by a ὅτι clause. The phrase διὰ τοῦτο is used three times in the Johannine Epistles. In two of these (1 John 4:5, 3 John 10) there is no ὅτι clause following, and so the διὰ τοῦτο should refer to preceding material. Here in 3:1 there is an epexegetical ὅτι clause following, so the διὰ τοῦτο should (unless it is the only exception in the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles) refer to what follows, that is, to the ὅτι clause itself. This is indicated by the colon in the translation.

[3:1]  ¹¹ sn The pronoun him is a clear reference to Jesus Christ (compare John 1:10).

[8:1]  ¹² tn The term ἀναίρεσις (anairesi") can refer to murder (BDAG 64 s.v.; 2 Macc 5:13; Josephus, Ant. 5.2.12 [5.165]).

[8:1]  ¹³ tn Or “severe.”

[8:1]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “Now there happened on that day a great persecution.” It is less awkward to say in English “Now on that day a great persecution began.”

[8:1]  ¹⁵ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[8:1]  ¹⁶ sn All. Given that the Jerusalem church is still active after this and that the Hellenists are the focus of Acts 6-8, it is possible to argue that only the Hellenistic Christians were forced to scatter.

[8:1]  ¹⁷ tn Or “countryside.”

[8:2]  ¹⁸ tn “Some” is not in the Greek text, but is implied.

[8:2]  ¹⁹ sn Made loud lamentation. For someone who was stoned to death, lamentation was normally not allowed (m. Sanhedrin 6:6). The remark points to an unjust death.

[8:2]  ²⁰ tn Or “mourned greatly for him.”

[6:1]  ²¹ tn Grk “these.” The translation uses “those” for stylistic reasons.

[6:1]  ²² tn Grk “were multiplying.”

[6:1]  ²³ tn Grk “the Hellenists,” but this descriptive term is largely unknown to the modern English reader. The translation “Greek-speaking Jews” attempts to convey something of who these were, but it was more than a matter of language spoken; it involved a degree of adoption of Greek culture as well.

[6:1]  sn The Greek-speaking Jews were the Hellenists, Jews who to a greater or lesser extent had adopted Greek thought, customs, and lifestyle, as well as the Greek language. The city of Alexandria in Egypt was a focal point for them, but they were scattered throughout the Roman Empire.

[6:1]  ²⁴ tn Grk “against the Hebrews,” but as with “Hellenists” this needs further explanation for the modern reader.

[6:1]  ²⁵ sn The care of widows is a major biblical theme: Deut 10:18; 16:11, 14; 24:17, 19-21; 26:12-13; 27:19; Isa 1:17-23; Jer 7:6; Mal 3:5.

[6:1]  ²⁶ tn Or “neglected.”

[6:1]  ²⁷ tn Grk “in the daily serving.”

[6:1]  sn The daily distribution of food. The early church saw it as a responsibility to meet the basic needs of people in their group.

[9:2]  ²⁸ tn The adverb אָמְנָם (’omnam, “in truth”) is characteristic of the Book of Job (12:2; 19:4; 34:12; 36:4). The friends make commonplace statements, general truths, and Job responds with “truly I know this is so.” Job knows as much about these themes as his friends do.

[9:2]  ²⁹ sn The interrogative is used to express what is an impossibility.

[9:2]  ³⁰ tn The attempt to define אֱנוֹשׁ (’enosh) as “weak” or “mortal” man is not compelling. Such interpretations are based on etymological links without the clear support of usage (an issue discussed by J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament). This seems to be a poetic word for “human” (the only nonpoetic use is in 2 Chr 14:10).

[9:2]  ³¹ tn The preposition is אִם (’im, “with, before, in the presence of”). This is more specific than מִן (min) in 4:17.

[9:2]  ³² sn The point of Job’s rhetorical question is that man cannot be justified as against God, because God is too powerful and too clever – he controls the universe. He is discussing now the question that Eliphaz raised in 4:17. Peake observes that Job is raising the question of whether something is right because God says it is right, or that God declares it right because it is right.

[14:4]  ³³ tn The expression is מִי־יִתֵּן (mi-yitten, “who will give”; see GKC 477 §151.b). Some commentators (H. H. Rowley and A. B. Davidson) wish to take this as the optative formula: “O that a clean might come out of an unclean!” But that does not fit the verse very well, and still requires the addition of a verb. The exclamation here simply implies something impossible – man is unable to attain purity.

[14:4]  ³⁴ sn The point being made is that the entire human race is contaminated by sin, and therefore cannot produce something pure. In this context, since man is born of woman, it is saying that the woman and the man who is brought forth from her are impure. See Ps 51:5; Isa 6:5; and Gen 6:5.

[25:4]  ³⁵ sn Bildad here does not come up with new expressions; rather, he simply uses what Eliphaz had said (see Job 4:17-19 and 15:14-16).

[143:2]  ³⁶ tn Heb “do not enter into judgment with.”

[143:2]  ³⁷ tn Heb “for no one living is innocent before you.”

[20:9]  ³⁸ sn The verse is a rhetorical question; it is affirming that no one can say this because no one is pure and free of sin.

[20:9]  ³⁹ tn The verb form זִכִּיתִי (zikkiti) is the Piel perfect of זָכָה (zakhah, “to be clear; to be clean; to be pure”). The verb has the idea of “be clear, justified, acquitted.” In this stem it is causative: “I have made my heart clean” (so NRSV) or “kept my heart pure” (so NIV). This would be claiming that all decisions and motives were faultless.

[20:9]  ⁴⁰ sn The Hebrew verb translated “I am pure” (טָהֵר, taher) is a Levitical term. To claim this purity would be to claim that moral and cultic perfection had been attained and therefore one was acceptable to God in the present condition. Of course, no one can claim this; even if one thought it true, it is impossible to know all that is in the heart as God knows it.

[7:20]  ⁴¹ tn The introductory particle כִּי (ki) is rendered variously: “for” (KJV); “indeed” (NASB); not translated (NIV); “for” (NJPS). The particle functions in an explanatory sense, explaining the need for wisdom in v. 19. Righteousness alone cannot always protect a person from calamity (7:15-16); therefore, something additional, such as wisdom, is needed. The need for wisdom as protection from calamity is particularly evident in the light of the fact that no one is truly righteous (7:19-20).

[7:20]  ⁴² tn The term “truly” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. Qoheleth does not deny the existence of some people who are relatively righteous.

[53:6]  ⁴³ tn Elsewhere the Hiphil of פָגַע (paga’) means “to intercede verbally” (Jer 15:11; 36:25) or “to intervene militarily” (Isa 59:16), but neither nuance fits here. Apparently here the Hiphil is the causative of the normal Qal meaning, “encounter, meet, touch.” The Qal sometimes refers to a hostile encounter or attack; when used in this way the object is normally introduced by the preposition -בְּ (bet, see Josh 2:16; Judg 8:21; 15:12, etc.). Here the causative Hiphil has a double object – the Lord makes “sin” attack “him” (note that the object attacked is introduced by the preposition -בְּ. In their sin the group was like sheep who had wandered from God’s path. They were vulnerable to attack; the guilt of their sin was ready to attack and destroy them. But then the servant stepped in and took the full force of the attack.

[64:6]  ⁴⁴ tn Heb “and like a garment of menstruation [are] all our righteous acts”; KJV, NIV “filthy rags”; ASV “a polluted garment.”

[2:22]  ⁴⁵ tn Heb “Even if you wash with natron/lye, and use much soap, your sin is a stain before me.”

[2:22]  ⁴⁶ tn Heb “Lord Yahweh.” For an explanation of this title see the study notes on 1:6.

[2:23]  ⁴⁷ tn Heb “I have not gone/followed after.” See the translator’s note on 2:5 for the meaning and usage of this idiom.

[2:23]  ⁴⁸ tn Heb “Look at your way in the valley.” The valley is an obvious reference to the Valley of Hinnom where Baal and Molech were worshiped and child sacrifice was practiced.

[2:23]  ⁴⁹ sn The metaphor is intended to depict Israel’s lack of clear direction and purpose without the Lord’s control.

[3:2]  ⁵⁰ tn Or “fail.”

[3:2]  ⁵¹ tn Or “fail.”

[3:2]  ⁵² tn Grk “in speech.”

[3:2]  ⁵³ tn The word for “man” or “individual” is ἀνήρ (anhr), which often means “male” or “man (as opposed to woman).” But it sometimes is used generically to mean “anyone,” “a person,” as here (cf. BDAG 79 s.v. 2).