I bow to your knowledge of greek.
I wouldn’t, because that comment has no basis in knowledge of Greek (which is why, I presume, it was deleted; I was only able to even see it through your quoting of it). It makes no difference on whether or not the word “continue” is “in the text," because Greek, unlike English, does not rely on words to relay this type of verbal communication—commonly called "verbal aspect." Rather, these types of verbs (commonly called
customary) are communicated
in the tense of the verb, not by a mere word. (As far as I am aware, biblical Greek has to word for “continue” in this sense—again, because it doesn't need it.)
Of course, that being said, he is at least partially right; the translation in the NIV still seems to be lacking. Here is Daniel Wallace, who is one of the world’s leading experts on Greek grammar (to whose knowledge of Greek we
should bow):
“Many older commentaries have taken the highlighted presents (as well as others in vv 4-10) as customary (a view especially popularized by British scholars, principally Westcott):
does not
continually sin . . .
does not
continually sin . . .
does not
practice sin . . .
is not
able to habitually sin. Taking the presents this way seems to harmonize well with 1:8-10, for to deny one’s sin is to disagree with God’s assessment. But there are several arguments against this interpretation: (1) The very subtlety of this approach is against it. (2) It seems to contradict 5:16 (ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ
ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον [if anyone sees his brother
sinning a sin not unto death]). The author juxtaposes ‘brother’ with the
present tense of ἁμαρτάνω with the proclamation that such might not lead to death. On the customary present view, the author should not be able to make this statement. (3) Gnomic presents most frequently occur with generic subjects (or objects). Further, ‘the sense of a generic utterance is usually an
absolute statement of what each one does once, and not a statement of the individual’s customary or habitual activity.’ This certainly fits the pattern.
“How should we then take the present tenses here? The immediate context seems to be speaking in terms of a projected eschatological reality. The larger section of this letter addresses the bright side of the eschaton: Since Christians are in the last days, their hope of Christ’s imminent return should produce godly living (2:28-3:10). The author first articulates how such an eschatological hope should produce holiness (2:28-3:3). Then, without marking that his discussion is still in the same vein, he gives a proleptic view of sanctification (3:4-10)—that is, he gives a hyperbolic picture of believers vs. unbelievers, implying that even though believers are not yet perfect, they are moving in that direction (3:6, 9 need to be interpreted proleptically), while unbelievers are moving away from truth (3:10; cf. 2:19). Thus, the author states in an absolute manner truths that are not yet true, because he is speaking within the context of eschatological hope (2:28-3:3) and eschatological judgment (2:18-19).”[1]
[1] Daniel B. Wallace,
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 524–25; various emphases original.
