Phil 4:6 ALL EN PANTI
Steven R. Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Tue Dec 31 20:22:14 EST 2002
On Tuesday, December 31, 2002, at 03:56 AM, Harry W. Jones wrote:
> Well Steven you remember how PAS was coved in much detail before. The
> augment was that since PAS was used obviously in a limited sense else
> were.
> And that it was actually used in a limited sense in 1 Timothy then that
> suggested that it was being used in this limited sense in 1 Timothy
> 2:4.
First of all, Harry, I think that to some degree you misunderstood what
was actually being argued. Yes, it was shown conclusively that PAS, in
both its singular and plural forms, was in a great many cases not
all-inclusive or universal in the sense that it embraced every single
entity in a respective class without exception. And yes, it was also
argued that PAS is used in such a non-inclusive way in the very context
of PANTAS ANQRWPOUS in 1 Timothy 2.4, as well as elsewhere in the
letter. But it was not argued that on that basis alone we should
understand PANTAS ANQRWPOUS in 1 Timothy 2.4 as limited in its scope.
There are other factors to consider, not the least of which is the
historical situation in which salvation was extended to the Gentiles
and the gospel was rapidly spreading beyond the borders of Jewry to
"all people," i.e., to Gentiles as well as Jews. In contexts in which
the extension of salvation to the Gentiles and the prosecution of the
Gentile mission are in view, "all people" is synonymous with either
"Gentiles" or "Gentiles as well as Jews." This is obvious in the
example of Acts 22.15, which I think you have misunderstood, and in my
opinion is the sense in 1 Tim 2.4, since the salvation of the Gentiles
as well as Paul's divinely given mission to the Gentiles is clearly on
his mind (cf. v. 7). The word KOSMOS is similarly used in the sense of
Gentiles as is evident from, e.g., Romans 11.11-15 where the two terms
are used interchangeably.
> I
> was later bothered by this line of reasoning so when John 1:3 came up
> it
> started me thinking about it again. Then Phil. 4:6 came up and started
> looking for guide lines in the use of PAS. I think it very important to
> know how PAS is being used. I believe the context makes the use of PAS
> clear in John 1:3. And BDAG, page 782, entry (1)beta, would seem to
> make
> its use clear in 1 Timothy 2:4. Don't you think so?
Indiscriminately lumping together uses of PAS from widely divergent
contexts is semantically misguided. You say it is important to know how
PAS is being **used**, and then confuse different types of usage from
different contexts! One can only determine how a word is being **used**
from its actual **usage** in a context! You don't really mean to say
that the use of PAS in Philippians 4.6 is the same as that in 1Timothy
2.4, do you?
As for John 1.3, you are right, the context DOES make clear that PAS
even here is not all-inclusive, for surely you are not saying that God
and the Word himself came into being through the Word. That would be
absurd. This is similar to the case of 1 Corinthians 15.27:
PANTA GAR hUPETAXEN hUPO TOUS PODAS AUTOU. hOTAN DE EIPHi hOTI PANTA
hUPOTETAKTAI, DHLON hOTI EKTOS TOU hUPOTAXANTOS AUTWi TA PANTA.
"But when it says, 'all things are put in subjection,' it is obvious
that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him."
This is a quote from Psalm 8.7 in the LXX. There is no explicit
exception there, but according to Paul, it should be obvious that there
is one! Since you are concerned with **usage**, could there be a more
obvious example of PAS not embracing "all without exception." According
to Paul himself, it may be obvious in certain cases that PAS doesn't
mean "all without exception"!
As for your question about BDAG, it doesn't even provide a definition,
but offers the glosses "all people/men, everyone." But what is at issue
is precisely what "all people" means in any given context! The glosses
in BDAG get us nowhere in determining this. Note that one of the
examples they give is 2 Corinthians 3.2:
hH EPISTOLH hHMWN hUMEIS ESTE, EGGEGRAMMENH EN TAIS KARDIAIS hHMWN,
GINWSKOMENH KAI ANAGINWSKOMENH hUPO PANTWN ANQRWPWN
"You are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by all men"
One can by no means understand PANTWN ANQRWPWN to mean "all men without
exception," as you would suggest. It is quite impossible that every
single human being on the face of the earth observed the conduct of the
Corinthians! And the solution you offer below in the case of Acts 22.15
doesn't help your case in the least; it rather destroys it.
Note also BDAG 1.d.beta. There we find the glosses "all things,
everything." And what do we find as an example? None other than 1 Cor
15.27, where, as we have already discovered, PANTA cannot possibly mean
"all without exception"!
> As far as your question about PANTAS ANQRWPOUS in Acts 22:15. I believe
> that really does take us to the heart of the matter. It would also
> seem to
> fall under the guide lines of BDAG entry (1)beta.
First of all, as I pointed out above, the entry in BDAG gets us
nowhere, since it simply glosses the construction without defining it
more precisely in each case. Among the examples given are Acts 22.15
and 2 Corinthians 3.2, which cannot by any stretch of the imagination
be taken to mean "all men without exception."
> It seems to me Steven,
> that we can take PAS in a relative sense and still not have exclusions.
This is inherently contradictory. It cannot at the same time mean "all
without exception" and yet have exceptions!
> That is, all according to ones ability reach or all one comes in
> contact
> with or all you are anointed to speak to. It would still be all. There
> would not be intentional exclusions. The same would be true in 1
> Timothy
> 2:4. There would not be any intentional exclusions. But what do you
> think?
I think it is important at this point to remind ourselves of the
question that we are asking, which is, "Does the phrase PANTAS
ANQRWPOUS in Acts 22.15 mean "all people without exception?" You claim
it does, then offer several glosses that exclude the vast majority of
people in the world!! If PANTAS ANQRWPOUS means "all according to one's
ability to reach," it cannot mean "all men without exception." If it
means "all one comes into contact with," it cannot mean "all men
without exception." If it means "all you are anointed to speak to," it
cannot mean "all men without exception." Your own glosses destroy your
whole argument!
At any rate, none of the glosses you have provided have anything to do
with the context at hand anyway. Ananias says, ESHi MARTUS AUTWi PROS
PANTAS ANQRWPOUS hWN hEWRAKAS KAI HKOUSAS. This most naturally means
that Paul would in actuality be God's witness to all men (whatever
sense the phrase carries) of what he had seen and heard. Any of the
baggage you suggest above must be arbitrarily imposed on the text. On
the other hand, the subsequent context quite naturally defines the
sense of PANTAS ANQRWPOUS for us. In v. 21 we read, KAI EIPEN PROS ME:
POREUOU, hOTI EGW EIS EQNH MAKRAN EXAPOSTELW SE. Paul's witness PROS
PANTAS ANQRWPOUS must be viewed in light of his commission EIS EQNH.
"All men" either means "Gentiles as well as Jews" or simply "Gentiles."
Thus the context is similar to that of 1 Timothy 2.4, 7. The phrase
PANTAS ANQRWPOUS must in each case be viewed in its historical context
of Paul's wide-ranging (MAKRAN) Gentile mission.
============
Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list