[B-Greek] John 6:40 - PAS - "ALL" or "ALL THOSE WHO" ?

John Sanders john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com
Thu Aug 6 02:27:59 EDT 2009


I think that the answers given are accurate as they pertain to the Greek,
but they do not answer the question as put forth:

"The difference being in (1) it is the desire of the father that those who
are in a condition of perceiving and believing would have eternal life.
Whereas in (2) it is the desire of the father that all would be in a
condition of perceiving and believing and that all would have eternal life."

As I perceive this question, it is asking "the intent" or "extent"  of the
TO QELHMA to the SU and whether that "intent" or "extent" can be determined
from the content and grammar of verse 40 of John.

The topic of this verse, and of the preceding verses (of the whole
pericope?) is TO QELHMA.  The logic that builds  this pericope is related to
the TO QELHMA, not to the "intent" or "extent" of TO QELHMA.  I would
suggest that the content and grammar of that verse (of the pericope itself)
is insufficient to identify and address the question posed.  One will need
to look elsewhere.

John Sanders.
Suzhou, China

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Elizabeth Kline <
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Returning to the original question.
>
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Matthew Dent wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm having difficulty thinking through John 6:40:
> >
> > TOUTO GAR ESTIN
> > TO QELHMA TOU PATROS MOU INA
> > PAS O QEWRWN TON UION KAI
> > PISTEUWN EIS AUTON EXH ZWHN AIWNION
> >
> >
> > Specifically, I'm wondering whether "O QEWRWN ... KAI PISTEUWN EIS
> > AUTON" in the phrase "INA PAS O QEWRWN TON UION KAI PISTEUWN EIS
> > AUTON EXH ZWHN AIWNION" creates a bounded set which limits the scope
> > of the "PAS" or whether it describes the desired state of being of
> > the "PAS".
> .
> John 6:37 πᾶν ὃ δίδωσίν μοι ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς
> ἐμὲ ἥξει, καὶ τὸν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς
> ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω ἔξω,  38 ὅτι
> καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα
> ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ
> θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με.  39 τοῦτο δέ
> ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με,
> ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν μοι μὴ ἀπολέσω
> ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸ [ἐν]
> τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.  40 τοῦτο γάρ
> ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου, ἵνα
> πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων
> εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ
> ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγὼ [ἐν] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ
> ἡμέρᾳ.
> .
> JOHN 6:37 PAN hO DIDWSIN MOI hO PATHR PROS EME hHXEI, KAI TON
> ERCOMENON PROS EME OU MH EKBALW EXW, 38 hOTI KATABEBHKA APO TOU
> OURANOU OUC hINA POIW TO QELHMA TO EMON ALLA TO QELHMA TOU PEMYANTOS
> ME. 39 TOUTO DE ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PEMYANTOS ME, hINA PAN hO DEDWKEN
> MOI MH APOLESW EX AUTOU, ALLA ANASTHSW AUTO [EN] THi ESCATHi hHMERAi.
> 40 TOUTO GAR ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PATROS MOU, hINA PAS hO QEWRWN TON
> hUION KAI PISTEUWN EIS AUTON ECHi ZWHN AIWNION, KAI ANASTHSW AUTON EGW
> [EN] THi ESCATHi hHMERAi.
> .
> We see three statements with PAS
> .
> PAN hO DIDWSIN MOI hO PATHR PROS EME hHXEI, KAI TON ERCOMENON PROS EME
> OU MH EKBALW EXW
> .
> PAN hO DEDWKEN MOI MH APOLESW EX AUTOU
> .
> PAS hO QEWRWN TON hUION KAI PISTEUWN EIS AUTON ECHi ZWHN AIWNION
> .
> The three PAS/PAN hO all have the same referent, do they not? I think
> they all refer to the same group. The PAS puts some emphasis on the
> extension, the boundaries of the group. As Iver has pointed out, PAS/
> PAN isn't strictly necessary but we lose something if it is taken
> out.  In each case everyone PAS/PAN who meets the stated condition
> becomes a member of this group. In the first two the condition is
> identical PAN hO DIDWSIN MOI hO PATHR PROS EME. This helps to define
> TO QELHMA TOU PATROS in v.40. TO QELHMA TOU PATROS and TO QELHMA TOU
> PEMYANTOS ME does not point to a merely desired state of affairs. It
> points to state of affairs which is certainly future because  DIDWSIN
> MOI hO PATHR PROS EME. In other words  hO PATHR doesn't just wish that
> this state of affairs would be realized,  hO PATHR takes the necessary
> action DIDWSIN MOI to insure that this state of affairs is realized.
> The human action is subsequent to and dependent on the DIDWSIN MOI hO
> PATHR PROS EME.
> .
> This doesn't make the human action dispensable, or insignificant. Take
> a close look at the sequence here PAN hO DIDWSIN MOI hO PATHR PROS EME
> hHXEI, KAI TON ERCOMENON PROS EME OU MH EKBALW EXW.  It is hO PATHR
> who gives them, the result is they come to Jesus, and those who come
> to Jesus he does not reject. So coming to Jesus is the middle term, a
> necessary human response. In verse 40 the middle term is hO QEWRWN TON
> hUION KAI PISTEUWN EIS AUTON.
> .
> This is an attempt understand John's thought, not to promote some sort
> of reformed exegetical agenda.
> .
>
> Elizabeth Kline
>
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>



-- 
John Sanders
Suzhou, China



More information about the B-Greek mailing list