Does Grace Sherman rescue David Allen? Or does Allen's Appeal Backfire? What does it mean that 1 John 5:1a is "condition" and 1 John 5:1b is "consequence"

Previously (link), we considered David Allen's putative attempt to respond to James White's challenge regarding providing a consistent exegesis of 1 John 2:29, 1 John 4:7, and 1 John 5:1.  We observed that Allen provided both a written response and a video.  In this post, we consider the most central part of that response that has not been addressed to date.

The following is a transcript from Allen's video (starting around 38 minutes, 47 seconds into the video):

Number four, semantic structural analysis. As linguists Grace Sherman and John Tuggy demonstrate with respect to 1 John 5:1, the semantic structure of the two propositions, proposition one, if anyone believes that Jesus is God's anointed, and proposition two, he is the one whom God has caused to live spiritually, i.e. be regenerated. Now notice this: semantically what is being communicated there -- the communication relationship there is one of condition consequence from a semantic standpoint. The condition is faith and precedes the consequence, which is regeneration. This is the natural way to interpret the verse. 

This closely follows p. 3 of Allen's written response, so closely that we can say he's just reading his written response:

There another place in the video where Allen makes reference to his position on this point. Starting around 21 minutes, 39 seconds into the video, Allen responds to Flowers by saying (transcription, as with the previous transcription, is Youtube's, lightly cleaned up by the present author):

Right. Well, I'm going to go ahead and raise some eyebrows by saying that I'm going to differ with you and Carson a little bit, because I actually think there are good reasons to think that 1 John 5:1 really can't be interpreted to argue for regeneration preceding faith.

But it's not on grammatical grounds. I'm going to get to all this in a minute. I'll just tease this right now. It's rather on semantic grounds. Semantic structure makes it pretty clear that what's happening there is faith preceding regeneration. So I'm a little bit stronger on that. I understand what Carson is saying. I don't disagree with what Carson is saying except to say that I think when you bring in the full orbed -- all of the exegetical material -- looking at it from a semantic perspective, contextually, you don't have a case for regeneration preceding faith, but you can have a case for faith preceding regeneration. So that would sort of be okay be how I might word that. 

I previously mentioned that I don't know what difference Allen intends between semantic and grammatical grounds, but at that time I did not have the benefit of having Sherman's work in front of me.  Incidentally, the book is published by "Summer Institute of Linguistics" in 1994 and lists as authors, "Grace E. Sherman and John C. Tuggy." The publisher has bios on a number of their authors (link to bios) but neither Sherman nor Tuggy are on the list.  I was able to locate archives of publications attributed to Tuggy (link), which shows an active interest in linguistics; the archives similarly listed a shorter two other linguistic-related publications associated with Sherman's name (link). Not that credentials are the be-all or end-all, but I was not able to locate any information regarding whether these authors have any specific training.  I only mention this because Allen calls them "linguists," in citing them. 

In order to respond to Allen, it's necessary to consider Sherman's book, of which page 91 is the single cited page.  On the other hand, in view of James White's challenge, it would be good also to consider whether Sherman anticipated the challenge (by more than two decades!) and provided the answer to the problem of applying Allen's (borrowed) analysis(?) at 1 John 5:1 to 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7.

Sherman has a note that is of particular interest at 1 John 2:29 and then nothing at all of interest at 1 John 4:7, except that her silence as to the parallel structure suggests she simply has not considered the issue.  From Sherman's analysis and conclusions for 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7 we can more clearly demonstrate the fundamental inconsistency at 1 John 5:1.

First, pp. 55-56 address 1 John 2:29a:

Notice that in the "Relational Structure" section, Sherman does not break down 2:29b.  However, when analyzing 2:29a, Sherman says that "The Greek grammatical structure indicates a condition-CONSEQUENCE relation. However, we know that the protasis of the condition is true, so that this functions as a reason-RESULT, here encoded as 'since'."  

When it comes to analyzing 2:29b, Sherman says that the Greek "has been begotten" is figurative, and that this signifies spiritual regeneration.  Thus, Sherman translates/interprets the text as "if anyone continues doing what is right, then God has caused him to live spiritually."

Second, pp. 79-81 address 1 John 4:7c:

As can be seen, Sherman does not further divide 1 John 4:7c, but treats the unit as a 'HEAD".  Sherman identifies the first appeal in this section (including 1 John 4:7) as "In a sense, this is the climax of the whole Epistle."  This is reasonable observation.  Note as well that once again Sherman explains "has been born from God" figuratively, in this case translating/interpreting it as "if anyone loves his Christian brothers, he has been caused by God to live spiritually and he knows God experientially" and to explain it thus:

The context shows that physical birth is not in view here; what is referred to is God's causing us to live eternally, that is, to associate properly with God, as a child with a father in a family.

Within the argument John is making, Sherman properly considers that 4:7c fits logically under "Love has its source in God," (i.e., 1 John 4:7b).  This, of course, is behind a right understanding of 1 John 2:29b as well: because God is the source of righteous acts, we know that the one who continues in doing what is righteous got that from God.

The challenge, of course, is to apply this same principle consistently when it comes to 1 John 5:1a-b (according to Sherman's division).  As noted above, p. 91 is the single page of Sherman's work that addresses 1 John 5:1a-b:

Note that on the page, Sherman has divided 1 John 5:1a as "condition" and 1 John 5:1b as "CNQ" (p. vi explains that this abbreviation means "consequent").  Allen asserted that "linguists Grace Sherman and John Tuggy demonstrate" but, as you can see, there is mere assertion, not demonstration.  Incidentally, I have referred to the author as "Sherman" instead of "Sherman and Tuggy" because of the preface of the book, which indicates that the initial work was Sherman's and that Tuggy (to paraphrase) beefed up the justifications of the positions set forth by Sherman.  In cases where there is bare assertion, it seems better to credit Sherman.

Note, however, that the "NOTES" skip right past 1 John 5:1b, and the notes on 1 John 5:1 are focused on the title "Christ."  

Nevertheless, Sherman twice provides the translation/interpretation: "If a person believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One, he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."  

I should add that the discussion of 1 John 5:1 resurfaces on the next pair of pages, pp. 92-93:

Notice here that the translation/interpretation offered pushed into a chiastic structure.  Sherman argues that "there is no doubt that the whole verse is an aphorism" and again "Verse 1 is a generalized statement in which the actors are unspecified or unidentified ...." (p. 93)

Recall from James White's challenge:

The Provisionist position is that 1 John 5:1 must be understood with the substantive participle in the present, "Everyone who believes (as a result) is born from God."  I believe the natural reading is "everyone believing has been born from God," with the perfect passive action preceding and conditioning the action of the participle. 

Based on the interpretation/translations offered by Sherman, it seems that notwithstanding the "condition/consequence" labelling, Sherman supports White more than Allen.  Specifically note:

• 1 John 2:29b "if anyone continues doing what is right, then God has caused him to live spiritually."
• 1 John 4:7c "if anyone loves his Christian brothers, he has been caused by God to live spiritually and he knows God experientially" 
• 1 John 5:1b "If a person believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One, he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."

This (of course) agrees with White's analysis as to the relative time issue.

What then of the condition/consequence point?  Recall that Sherman had identified something as being condition/consequence based on Greek grammar, but based on knowledge that the protasis is true, Sherman recategorized as reason-result, at 1 John 2:29a.

So, what are some other examples of condition/consequence and reason/result offered by Sherman?  At p. 24 we see multiple examples:

What we can glean from these examples is that if we assume that Sherman has common sense, we see that she is not using "condition/consequence" to mean that the condition is the cause of the consequence.  Rather, Sherman is using "condition" and "consequence" to express the fact that the truth of the condition statement guarantees the truth of the consequence statement. 

I wish there were a better explanation, but it seems that Allen may have mistakenly assumed that Sherman's "condition/consequence" meant something like "cause/effect," when it plainly does not (see multiple instances on p. 24 that cannot reasonably be thought to be cause/effect).  As a result, it seems that Allen has quoted Sherman as supportive of his position, when Sherman does not address the specific conclusion of the relative timing of initial faith and being born of God and her proposed interpretation/translation most closely aligns with James White's.

Sherman does not say that the condition is faith or that this precedes the consequence, nor that the consequence is regeneration.  Instead, Sherman says that the condition is the statement (the portion following the if, of course) "If anyone believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One" and the consequence is the statement "he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."  Notice that Sherman uses the the present tense for the condition statement and the perfect tense for the consequent statement.  The meaning of condition/consequence in this analysis is that if the condition is true, then the consequence is true.  In other words, if A is 5:1a is true, then 5:1b is true.  That's all that "condition" and "consequence" means here.  Moreover, given that Sherman has maintained the present/perfect distinction, the most natural read of the text is parallel to that of 1 John 2:29b and 1 John 4:7c.

Finally, for the same reason that 1 John 2:29a is grammatically a condition-consequence statement, so also is 1 John 2:29b and 1 John 4:7c.  And Sherman does not offer any reason or explanation (or even assertion) to handle these three parallel texts differently from one another.

Seven Sages and Revelation 16:5

The Precepts of the Seven Sages (or "Sentences of the Seven Sages" or "Injunctions of the Seven Sages") is a collection of concise wisdom.  There are nearly 150 statements in list, and seems to cover various moral and ethical rules in the form of maxims or gnomic commands.  They are thought to originate around the 5th century before Christ (although the TLG suggests as early as the 6th or 7th century BC).  

Of particular interest to me are two of the rules: 

• Ὅσια κρῖνε. 
• Κρῖνε δίκαια.

These are of interest because of Revelation 16:5, which states:

• Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος· δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας, 

You may notice that Revelation 16:5 mentions a form of the verb "judge" (κρίνω) in linked connection with both ὅσιος (traditionally translated "holy") and δίκαιος (traditionally translated "righteous").  The seven sages rules include commands to judge ὅσια and δίκαια.  

This serves to demonstrate, in a very minor way, the semantic propriety of the reading that is found in nearly all of the Greek manuscripts of Revelation, over against any naysayers, particularly those who are simply using the traditional English translations of the terms, without regard to the nuances of the Greek.

The text of the precepts with a very amateur and provisional translation is as follows (also see the links provided above for other translations)(this section may be in need of serious correction, which I will make if/when I identify the needed corrections):
 

Greek	English
ΣΩΣΙΑΔΟΥ	Sosiades
ΤΩΝ ΕΠΤΑ ΣΟΦΩΝ ΥΠΟΘΗΚΑΙ.	The Precepts of the Seven Sages
—Ἕπου θεῷ.	Follow God.
—Νόμῳ πείθου.	Obey the law.
—Θεοὺς σέβου.	Honor the gods.
—Γονεῖς αἰδοῦ.	Respect your parents.
—Ἡττῶ ὑπὲρ δικαίου.	Yield for justice.
—Γνῶθι μαθών.	Learn, then understand.
—Ἀκούσας νόει.	Understand after listening.
—Σαυτὸν ἴσθι.	Know yourself.
—Γαμεῖν μέλλων καιρὸν γνῶθι.	When about to marry, know the proper time.
—Φρόνει θνητά.	Think mortal thoughts.
—Ξένος ὢν ἴσθι.	When you are a stranger, act as one.
—Ἑστίαν τίμα.	Honor the hearth.
—Ἄρχε σαυτοῦ.	Govern yourself.
—Φίλοις βοήθει.	Help your friends.
—Θυμοῦ κράτει.	Master your temper.
—Φρόνησιν ἄσκει.	Cultivate wisdom.
—Πρόνοιαν τίμα.	Value foresight.
—Ὅρκῳ μὴ χρῶ.	Do not use oaths.
—Φιλίαν ἀγάπα.	Love friendship.
—Παιδείας ἀντέχου.	Hold fast to education.
—Δόξαν δίωκε.	Pursue glory.
—Σοφίαν ζήλου.	Strive for wisdom.
—Καλὸν εὖ λέγε.	Speak well of the good.
—Ψέγε μηδένα.	Blame no one.
—Ἐπαίνει ἀρετήν.	Praise virtue.
—Πρᾶττε δίκαια.	Practice justice.
—Φίλοις εὐνόει.	Be kind to your friends.
—Ἐχθροὺς ἀμύνου.	Defend yourself against enemies.
—Εὐγένειαν ἄσκει.	Cultivate nobility.
—Κακίας ἀπέχου.	Shun wickedness.
—Κοινὸς γίνου.	Be common to all.
—Ἴδια φύλασσε.	Guard what is yours.
—Ἀλλοτρίων ἀπέχου.	Avoid what belongs to others.
—Εὔφημος ἴσθι.	Be of good speech.
—Ἄκουε πάντα.	Listen to everything.
—Φίλῳ χαρίζου.	Be gracious to your friend.
—Μηδὲν ἄγαν.	Nothing in excess.
—Χρόνου φείδου.	Spare time.
—Ὅρα τὸ μέλλον.	Consider the future.
—Ὕβριν μίσει.	Hate hubris.
—Ἱκέτας αἰδοῦ.	Show respect to supplicants.
—Πᾶσιν ἅρμοζε.	Adapt to all.
—Υἱοὺς παίδευε.	Educate your sons.
—Ἔχων χαρίζου.	Be generous when you have.
—Δόλον φοβοῦ.	Fear deceit.
—Εὐλόγει πάντας.	Speak well of everyone.
—Φιλόσοφος γίνου.	Become a philosopher.
—Ὅσια κρῖνε.	Judge what is holy.
—Γνοὺς πρᾶττε.	Act after knowing.
—Φόνου ἀπέχου.	Avoid murder.
—Εὔχου δυνατά.	Pray for possible things.
—Σοφοῖς χρῶ.	Associate with the wise.
—Ἦθος δοκίμαζε.	Examine character.
—Λαβὼν ἀπόδος.	Repay what you receive.
—Ὑφορῶ μηδένα.	Look down on no one.
—Τέχνῃ χρῶ.	Use skill.
—Ὃ μέλλεις, δός.	Give what you intend to.
—Εὐεργεσίας τίμα.	Honor acts of kindness.
—Φθόνει μηδενί.	Envy no one.
—Φυλακῇ πρόσεχε.	Be mindful of guarding.
—Ἐλπίδα αἴνει.	Praise hope.
—Διαβολὴν μίσει.	Hate slander.
—Δικαίως κτῶ.	Acquire justly.
—Ἀγαθοὺς τίμα.	Honor the good.
—Κριτὴν γνῶθι.	Recognize a judge.
—Γάμους κράτει.	Control marriage.
—Τύχην νόμιζε.	Respect fortune.
—Ἐγγύην φεῦγε.	Avoid guarantees.
—Πᾶσι διαλέγου.	Converse with everyone.
—Ὁμοίοις χρῶ.	Use like-minded people.
—Δαπανῶν ἄρχου.	Manage your expenses.
—Κτώμενος ἥδου.	Rejoice in acquiring.
—Αἰσχύνην σέβου.	Respect modesty.
—Χάριν ἐκτέλει.	Fulfill gratitude.
—Εὐτυχίαν εὔχου.	Pray for success.
—Τύχην στέργε.	Embrace fortune.
—Ἀκούων ὅρα.	Be watchful while hearing.
—Ἐργάζου κτητά.	Work for what is attainable.
—Ἔριν μίσει.	Hate strife.
—Ὄνειδος ἔχθαιρε.	Detest disgrace.
—Γλῶσσαν ἴσχε.	Restrain your tongue.
—Ὕβριν ἀμύνου.	Defend against arrogance.
—Κρῖνε δίκαια.	Judge fairly.
—Χρῶ χρήμασιν.	Use your resources wisely.
—Ἀδωροδόκητος δοκίμαζε.	Test without bribes.
—Αἰτιῶ παρόντα.	Hold accountable the present.
—Λέγε εἰδώς.	Speak with knowledge.
—Βίας μὴ ἔχου.	Do not practice violence.
—Ἀλύπως βίου.	Live without pain.
—Ὁμίλει πρᾴως.	Associate gently.
—Πέρας ἐπιτέλει μὴ ἀποδειλιῶν.	Complete your tasks without hesitation.
—Φιλοφρόνει πᾶσιν.	Be kind to all.
—Υἱοῖς μὴ καταρῶ.	Do not curse your sons.
—Γλώττης ἄρχε.	Control your tongue.
—Σαυτὸν εὖ ποίει.	Take care of yourself.
—Εὐπροσήγορος γίνου.	Be approachable.
—Ἀποκρίνου ἐν καιρῷ.	Respond at the right time.
—Πόνει μετὰ δικαίου.	Labor with justice.
—Πρᾶττε ἀμετανοήτως.	Act without regret.
—Ἁμαρτάνων μετανόει.	Repent if you err.
—Ὀφθαλμοῦ κράτει.	Control your eyes.
—Βουλεύου χρόνῳ.	Deliberate with time.
—Ἐπιτέλει συντόμως.	Accomplish quickly.
—Φιλίαν φύλασσε.	Preserve friendship.
—Εὐγνώμων γίνου.	Be grateful.
—Ὁμόνοιαν δίωκε.	Strive for unity.
—Ἄῤῥητον μὴ λέγε.	Do not say the unspeakable.
—Τὸ κρατοῦν φοβοῦ.	Fear authority.
—Τὸ συμφέρον θηρῶ.	Seek what is beneficial.
—Καιρὸν προσδέχου.	Await the right time.
—Ἔχθρας διάλυε.	Dissolve hostilities.
—Γῆρας προσδέχου.	Welcome old age.
—Ἐπὶ ῥώμῃ μὴ καυχῶ.	Do not boast in strength.
—Εὐφημίαν ἄσκει.	Cultivate good reputation.
—Ἀπέχθειαν φεῦγε.	Avoid hatred.
—Πλούτει δικαίως.	Prosper justly.
—Δόξαν μὴ λεῖπε.	Do not forsake glory.
—Κακίαν μίσει.	Hate evil.
—Μανθάνων μὴ κάμνε.	Do not tire in learning.
—Κινδύνευε φρονίμως.	Risk wisely.
—Ἡδόμενος μὴ λεῖπε.	Do not cease enjoying.
—Χρησμοὺς θαύμαζε.	Marvel at prophecies.
—Οὓς τρέφεις, ἀγάπα.	Love those you nurture.
—Ἀπόντι μὴ μάχου.	Do not fight with the absent.
—Πρεσβύτερον αἰδοῦ.	Respect the elder.
—Νεώτερον δίδασκε.	Teach the younger.
—Πλούτῳ ἀπίστει.	Do not trust in wealth.
—Σαυτὸν αἰδοῦ.	Respect yourself.
—Μὴ ἄρχε ὑβρίζειν.	Do not begin with arrogance.
—Προγόνους στεφάνου.	Crown your ancestors.
—Θνῆσκε ὑπὲρ πατρίδος.	Die for your country.
—Τῷ βίῳ μὴ μάχου.	Do not oppose life.
—Ἐπὶ νεκρῷ μὴ γέλα.	Do not mock the dead.
—Ἀτυχοῦντι συνάχθου.	Join with the unfortunate.
—Χαρίζου ἀβλαβῶς.	Be gracious without harm.
—Μὴ ἐπὶ παντὶ λυποῦ.	Do not grieve over everything.
—Ἐξ εὐγενῶν γέννα.	Marry from noble stock.
—Ἐπαγγέλλου μηδενί.	Promise nothing at all.
—Φθιμένους μὴ ἀδίκει.	Do not wrong the deceased.
—Εὖ πάσχε ὡς θνητός.	Endure well as a mortal.
—Τύχῃ μὴ πίστευε.	Do not trust in fortune.
—Παῖς ὢν κόσμιος ἴσθι, ἡβῶν ἐγκρατής, μέσος δίκαιος, πρεσβύτερος εὔλογος.	As a child, be orderly; as a youth, temperate; as an adult, just; as an elder, wise.
—Τελεύτα ἀλύπως.	End life without pain.
—Πλήθει ἄρεσκε.	Please the majority.
—Μὴ λάλει πρὸς ἡδονήν.	Do not speak for pleasure.
—Ὁμολογίαις ἔμμενε.	Keep your agreements.
—Θυσίας πρόσφερε κατὰ δύναμιν.	Offer sacrifices according to your ability.
—Σαυτῷ μὴ μάχου.	Do not fight with yourself.
—Μὴ ἐπὶ παντὶ λυποῦ.	Do not grieve over everything.
—Τῷ βίῳ μὴ ἄχθου.	Do not burden yourself with life.
—Μὴ φιλαίτιος ἴσθι.	Do not be contentious.
—Ἐπαγγέλλου μηδενὶ τὸ παράπαν.	Promise nothing at all.
—Χρόνου φείδου.	Spare time.
—Ἐνδαπανώμενος καὶ ἐφ’ ἃ μὴ δεῖ, ὀλίγος ἔσῃ ἐφ’ ἃ δεῖ.	If you waste on unnecessary things, you will lack for necessary ones.

Verbs and Biblical Exegesis - Two Examples

I recently came across the following paragraph that captures an issue that turns out to be significant for exegesis as it relates to Calvinism and also to Hell.

Any event can be construed from a variety of perspectives. While this flexibility is fundamental to human ingenuity, it poses a challenge for language learners who must discern which meanings are encoded in their language and by which forms. The papers in this dissertation focus on verbs encoding directed motion (e.g., a girl runs into a house) and caused change-of-state events (e.g., a boy blows out candles). Both classes of events can be expressed by verbs that lexicalize different components of the event, namely Manner-of-motion (e.g., run) or Path (e.g., enter), and Means (e.g., blow) or Effect (e.g., extinguish), respectively.

Amy Celine Geojo, "Breaking and Entering: Verb Semantics and Event Structure," Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences (2015), p. iii (bold and underline added, italics original)(link).

While there are numerous verbs encoding directed motion and caused change-of-state events in Scripture, and an even larger number of associated nouns, there are two particular cases that I have noticed in the last few years that seem significant to controversies.

A first case is found in Matthew 25:46:

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

In this case, "punishment," is a noun taken from the verb kolázō (κολάζω).

The verb as such is only used twice in the New Testament, once in Acts and once in 2 Peter 2:9:

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Interestingly enough, these refer to the same thing.  The punishment that is judicially assigned at the day of judgment mentioned in 2 Peter 2:9 is the "everlasting punishment" mentioned in Matthew 25:46.  The verb, punish, refers to the carrying out of the action, rather than the conclusion of the action.  Even if it can have other uses (and perhaps it can), when the noun form is tied to an adjective that expresses duration (everlasting in the phrase, into punishment everlasting - εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον) it becomes clear that what is in mind is an unending punishment - an action of punishing that goes on and on and on forever.  The verb "punish" (at least in this context) is more like the verb "blow" than it is like the verb "extinguish."

The reason for this difference is that the verbal focus is on the actor and action rather than on the acted-on person and the result.  In the case of "blow" and "punish" it is the action that is the focus of the verb, as distinct from "extinguish" or "kill," where it is the result of the action that is the focus of the verb.  While blowing and extinguishing may be descriptions of the same birthday cake event, the emphasis is different.  

A second case is found in John 6:44: 

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The verb to "draw" here is more like "extinguish" than "blow."  It conveys a result, rather than simply an action in progress.  The Greek verb, helkuo (ἕλκω), is used eight times in the New Testament.  Normally it is used of a force that accomplishes the movement intended.

In English we see this difference more clearly encoded in the difference (in English) between "pull" and "drag."  The former implies the process, the latter implies the result.  If you are pulling something and it is not moving, you're not dragging it.

We sometimes express that difference with the use of prepositions functioning as particles.  For example, to "pull out" a tooth implies motion of the object in the verb itself.  If you yank on a tooth but it doesn't move, you didn't pull it out.  By contrast, to "pull on" something only implies the exertion of force, not any resultant motion.  You could pull on a tooth without pulling out the tooth.

God willing, I will post again soon to discuss the use of helkuo in Septuagint Nehemiah.