1 juan 3:4 ¿Debe entenderse como una referencia a la
ley Mosaica?
“Todo aquel que comete pecado, infringe también la ley; pues el pecado
es infracción de la ley.” (RV-1960)
Es interesante que,
para algunos, este pasaje, es interpretado en referencia a la ley mosaica, con
el objetivo de sustentar que dicha ley, sigue vigente y debe ser observada aún
después de la muerte de Cristo, el objetivo de este artículo es revisar desde
un punto de vista exegético que tan probable es esta afirmación.
En la primera
carta de Juan, en el contexto anterior, es decir el capítulo 2 se enfoca en el
tema del anticristo, en 2:12, tenemos una referencia al pecado al igual que en
este pasaje, pero no se lo vincula al tema de la ley. El capítulo 3 nos
presenta el tema de los hijos de Dios y su semejanza con este, en contraste con
los hijos del diablo, en general, ni en el contexto anterior ni en el inmediato,
ni en el posterior que se enfoca en el tema del amor, nos encontramos
referencias a la ley mosaica, o un tema ligado a este que nos lleven a tener en
mente dicha ley cuando leemos la carta. Esto se verá reforzado en el análisis
de los términos del pasaje más adelante.
La relación
entre el pecado y la ley.
Debemos tener en
cuenta, que si bien, un análisis gramatical y retórico aplicado a este pasaje
(el empleo de artículos frente a las palabras ley y pecado), nos indica que
pecado y ley pueden tomarse como intercambiables, o como una definición en este
contexto, sin embargo, debemos tomar en cuenta que esta no es la única
definición de pecado que encontraremos en las escrituras en general, nos
encontramos con un contexto específico donde se enfatiza esta definición en
particular. En otras palabras, esto no quiere decir que cada vez que
encontremos una referencia al pecado en las escrituras en general, debemos
tener en mente la idea de ley.
“There follows a definition of sin. Everyone
who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness (anomia). There are other
definitions of sin in the New Testament (e.g. Rom. 14:23; Jas 4:17; 1 John
5:17); but this, far from being ‘somewhat superficial’ (Dodd), is the clearest
and most revealing.” (The Letters of John, Tyndale New Testament Commentary, Rev. John Stott was Rector
of All Souls Church in London, 2015)
“The
Bible does not give one all-encompassing definition of sin. All these different
definitions are facets of the “whole” of sin. This verse emphasizes that sin is
lawlessness. This lawlessness is characteristic of the spirit of Antichrist.
Sinners see no reason to concern themselves with God's laws. Thus, in 2
Thessalonians 2:3–4, “the man of lawlessness… will oppose… God.” (Holman New Testament Commentary - 1
& 2 Peter, 1 2 & 3 John and Jude, David
Walls, Max Anders, 1999)
¿La “ley”,
cual ley?
Pasemos con el
análisis del término anomian el cual suele traducirse como “ley”. En la
Septuaginta, encontramos este término comúnmente empleado en referencia a la
ley mosaica alrededor de 200 veces. Algunos también encuentran pasajes donde
este término podría ser usado de manera intercambiable con el término para
pecado en Salmo 31(32):1–2, 50:4 (51:29). Tal vez esto sea suficiente para que
el argumento sea tomado como posible, pero aún está lejos de ser probable. Cuando
prestamos atención al Nuevo Testamento notamos que el término anomian,
nunca es utilizado en referencia a la ley mosaica, lo cual, sumado al contexto,
hace a lo mucho, una conexión muy débil entre el pasaje en vista y la ley
mosaica, después de todo, no nos encontramos en la Septuaginta, ni en una cita de
un pasaje de esta. De hecho, el que Juan hubiese querido enseñarnos en este
pasaje que el quebrantar la ley mosaica es pecado, seria demasiado obvio, o
banal, una tautología. Todos estos elementos de manera conjunta, nos hacen
descartar la afirmación inicial. La ley en vista, parece ser más la ley moral
de Dios, que una referencia a una ley del tipo legal como lo era la ley
mosaica, tal como encontramos en otros libros del Nuevo Testamento o incluso en
la literatura judía de qumran. A continuación, dejo algunas citas referentes al
tema para profundizarlo:
“When John says that sin is anomia, he is
saying more than that every sin is in some sense an infraction of the Mosaic
law. That would be a rather banal and tautologous statement. The word anomia is
used more than two hundred times in the LXX. In a passage in which the Lord
describes the penalty for covenant disobedience, Lev 26:43 displays the sense
of anomia well: “They themselves shall accept their lawlessness [anomia] on
account of which they disdained my judgments and were vexed in their soul by my
ordinances (NETS, italics added). To be “lawless” does not mean simply to break
the law; it means to disdain the very idea of a law to which one must submit.
Many atheists have this root problem of rejecting the idea of the existence of
God because their hearts are lawless and they reject the thought of a Being to
whom they must submit. Anomia is the rejection of God’s authority and the
exaltation of the autonomy of the self. As one of my colleagues said, “The Rule
of Law is about all people being equally subject to the law. Some people love
law. Others consider themselves above the law. They may use the laws to control
others. They may consider the freedom to do what they want the greatest law.”3
There is something innate in human nature that causes each of us to resent the
idea of submitting to a higher authority than ourselves. Any parent of a
two-year-old can attest to that. But a necessary part of maturing into a
productive member of a family or society is learning the appropriate respect
for law and authority. The OT book of Judges shows how a society descended into
moral anarchy when “everyone did as they saw fit” (Judg 21:25). The human heart
became lawless in the garden of Eden when Adam and Eve thought their opinion
that the fruit was good overruled God’s authority when he forbade them to eat
from a certain tree. It is from the lawless heart that acts of sin flow. The
foundation of a right relationship with God is acknowledging that he himself
defines the standard of right and wrong, and that we must be willing to submit
ourselves to his authority. The psalmist rejoices for those willing to bring
themselves under God’s covenant, for he does not deal with us as our anomia
deserves (Ps 102:10 LXX; 103:10 Heb. and Eng.). And in the ancient Greek
translation of his message the prophet Isaiah explained that the Suffering
Servant would be pierced for our anomia (Isa 53:5 LXX). In the NT, anomia is
never used to refer to transgression of the Mosaic law, but Jesus does use it
to refer to eschatological judgment: Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,”
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my
Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord….” Then I
will tell them plainly, “I never knew you. Away from me, you [who do anomia!].”
(Matt 7:21–23, italics added; see also Matt 13:41; 23:28; 24:12) It is striking
that John uses similar language in 3:4, pointing out that whoever sins is
really doing anomia. His point is to shock his readers into seeing the true nature
of what they may think of as individual, unrelated acts; such acts arise from a
heart of lawlessness. As Yarbrough points out, the word anomia “always refers
to those who have resolutely turned away from God, to the point that they can
no longer be regarded as his people but are in fact his enemies.”4 It was used
in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature to describe the activity of
Satan against God immediately before the end.5 The apostle Paul uses this word
to describe the “man of lawlessness [ἀνομία],” who is otherwise known in Christian eschatology as the antichrist (2
Thess 2:3; cf. Rom 6:19; 2 Cor 6:14; 2 Thess 2:7). How shocking it is to see
the true nature of sin—that it is of the same nature as the antichrists, the
world, and darkness. Anyone who expects to stand in confidence and to be like
Jesus Christ when he returns must deliberately and vigorously reject sin, for
not to do so reveals a heart that rejects God’s authority.” (1, 2, and 3
John Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Karen H. Jobes was
Professor Emerita of New Testament Greek and Exegesis at Wheaton College, 2014)
“3:4 As in the previous verse, John uses
the all-inclusive pas (“Everyone”) to accentuate that there is no elite group
that is above God's moral standards. While those who had left the church
thought themselves to be above accountability, John emphasizes that no one is
excluded from the following rule: literally, “Everyone doing [poi n, a present
tense participle] sin [t n hamartian] also does [poiei, present tense
indicative] lawlessness [anomian].” This truth is universal. There are no
exceptions.John makes an obvious contrast between this construction (pas ho poi
n t n hamartian, “everyone who practices sin” [NASB]) and the expression in
2:29 (pas ho poi n t n dikaiosun n, “everyone who practices righteousness ”
[NASB]).360 Not only does the child of God live a life marked by righteousness
(2:29) and purity (3:3), but he abstains from a life characterized by the
practice of sin. The word poi n is used frequently in this section (vv.
3,4,7,8,9,10) to imply a continual practice of sin as well as a realization of
sin's completeness.361 In other words, it is a willful, habitual action.
In
classical Greek the word for sin (hamartia) means to “miss the mark.” It was
used of a warrior who missed striking his opponent or of a traveler who missed
the right path.362 In the New Testament, however, hamartia is more active in
nature. In other words, sin is an intentional breaking of God's moral standard.
It is a willful rebellion arising from the deliberate choice of the individual,
a direct violation of God's laws. Sin is “missing God's mark” (Rom 3:23); it is
a direct offense against the known will of God.363
The
NIV translation “Everyone who sins breaks the law” fails to capture the full
significance of what John means. Kruse notes, “The word translated
‘lawlessness’ (anomia) is found only in this verse in 1, 2, and 3 John. It does
not carry the idea of breaking the law, for the whole question of the law is
absent from this letter; the word law (nomos) is not found at all in 1
John.”364 It is true that lawlessness is usually understood to be the violation
of God's law.365 But lawlessness is more than the absence of God's law for
John. It is a willful rejection and an active disobedience against God's moral
standard, which is a characteristic of the child of the devil.
Kruse,
following De la Potterie, makes a compelling argument that “in the NT anomia as
transgression of the law is completely absent.” Rather, John equates
“committing lawlessness” with “being of the devil” (v. 8). “Whoever commits the
sin (i.e., the typical sin of heretics), he says commits not only a morally
reprehensible act; he commits iniquity, thereby revealing that he is basically
a son of the devil (v. 8), someone who is in direct opposition to Christ and
God and who is under the control of Satan.”366
John's
emphasis here is vital to his argument against the false teachers. From all
indications the apostle is dealing with individuals who are indifferent to sin.
They believed that they could engage in any and all kinds of sinful activities
and still be in fellowship with God. In their line of reasoning, their acts
were merely amoral. It was such licentious beliefs that John confronts. Sin is
not amoral. It is not something to which one can be indifferent. On the
contrary, sin is a willful disregard for God. It is a rebellious revolt against
God's will. No one is excluded from the obligation to obey God; therefore the seccessionists
were placing themselves, by their sinful acts, in direct opposition to God.367
Sin in its very nature is “synonymous with being of the devil” (v. 8) and “the
opposite of being just” (v. 7).368 To live a life of sin is to align oneself
with the world and the devil and to be at enmity with God. It is the very
opposite of what righteousness is and entails.” (1,2,3 John An Exegetical and
Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, Dr. Daniel L. Akin is President and
Professor of Preaching and Theology, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary,
2001)
“In
3:4 the author returns to the theme of sin, which has not been mentioned since
2:12. In the next five verses, he repeatedly refers to this word, and he begins
with a simple definition: sin is lawlessness. Some writers, like Houlden (92),
connect lawlessness with the reference to purify oneself in verse 3, concluding
that the author’s agenda has ritual overtones. Houlden further suggests that
John thought sin was simply lawbreaking, specifically disobeying the command to
love one another. Ultimately Houlden (92) argues that John is more concerned
with rule breaking than with sin as a “cosmic force of evil.” Such a view
ignores apocalyptic literature’s use of lawlessness, as well as this specific
context. As Strecker (94) observes, the word “appears frequently in apocalyptic
writings” and is employed “to describe the activity of Satan against God
immediately before the end.” One specific quote from the Dead Sea Scrolls
suffices to make this point: All the children of falsehood are ruled by the
Angel of Darkness and walk in the ways of darkness. The Angel of Darkness leads
all the children of righteousness astray, and until his end, all their sin,
iniquities, wickedness, and all their unlawful deeds are caused by his dominion
in accordance with the mysteries of God. Every one of their chastisements, and
every one of the seasons of their distress, shall be under the sway of his
persecution; for all his allotted spirits seek the overthrow of the Sons of
Light. (1QS 3.20-24; cf. Testament of Dan 5:4-6; 6:1-6; 1QS 4.9, 17, 19; 5.2;
Matt 24:12; Luke 13:27; 2 Cor 6:14; 2 Thess 2:3-4; 2:7-8; Did. 16.3-4; Epistle
of Barnabas 4.1-4; 14.5; 15.7; 18.2) Our author senses cosmic forces facing off
in what he has already counted as the last days (cf. 2:8, 17-18). This dualist
theme is developed in 3:7-10 by repeatedly using child[ren] of the devil and
children of God/born of God. Moreover, if John uses lawlessness as other NT
writers do, his view of sin moves beyond rule breaking. Within an apocalyptic
worldview, lawlessness involves siding with God’s opponents and the forces of
evil. Behind every sinful action (cf. 5:16-19 for John’s awareness of the
complexity of sin) is an action against God. John attempts to communicate that
humans have two options, God or the devil, and actions tell to which group one
gravitates (Rensberger: 90).” (1, 2,
3 John, J. E. McDermond is professor of Christian ministry and spirituality at
Messiah College, Grantham, Pennsylvania,
2011)
