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

Matthew Dent dentm42 at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 6 15:30:52 EDT 2009


I would SINCERELY like to thank everyone who has responded... as always, the members of this list have challenged me to think critically and carefully.  Through your responses, I think I now have a much better grasp of John 6:40 and how it fits into the larger context.  (See notes below)

----- Original Message ----

> From: Jeffrey T. Requadt <jeffreyrequadt_list at hotmail.com>
> To: B-Greek Mailing List <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2009 11:52:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 6:40 - PAS - "ALL" or "ALL THOSE WHO" ?
> 
> I'm also wondering if this difference in interpretation here is the difference 
> between the participle acting adverbially or adjectivally? I.e., as an adverb it 
> would be saying, "For this is the will of my Father (what my Father wants), that 
> everyone, seeing the son and believing in him, would have eternal life, and that 
> I would raise him in the last day." In this sense, the O QEWRWN TON UION KAI 
> PISTEUWN EIS AUTON is modifying ECH ZWHN etc. Another way to put this in English 
> word order--and I'm only doing this to aid in comprehension, not because 
> Englishifying it is the goal--would be TOUTO GAR ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PATROS MOU, 
> INA PAS ECHi ZWHN AIWNIWN (UPO?) QEWRWN TON UION KAI PISTEUWN EIS AUTON.
> 
> As an adjective it would be modifying PAS, as in "This is the will of my Father, 
> that everyone who should see the son and believe in him (but not other people) 
> would have eternal life, etc."
> 
> John, is this what you're getting at when you say that the grammar doesn't 
> decide the question? Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think Carl and Iver 
> have been saying is that the first way, with PAS separated logically from O 
> QEWRWN, just isn't Greek. In other words, the construction PAS O + participle 
> (without trying to get mathematical about it), in this case, is a natural way of 
> defining a group of people, and that's the meaning that the grammatical layer 
> brings to this text.
> 

> I just did a search with Logos of the Nestle-Aland text for PAS (nom-masc-sing) 
> O (nom-masc-sing) PARTICIPLE (nom-masc-sing) with no words in-between any of the 
> terms. It came up with 114 items. The first is Matthew 5:22, "ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν 
> ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει·" EGW DE LEGW UMIN 
> OTI **PAS O ORGIZOMENOS** TW ADELFW AUTOU ENOCOS ESTAI TH KRISEI," translated by 
> NET as "But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be 
> subjected to judgment." I.e., in this case, judgment is conditional upon being 
> angry with one's brother. Another example is 1 John 3:3, "καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἔχων τὴν 
> ἐλπίδα ταύτην ἐπ' αὐτῷ ἁγνίζει ἑαυτόν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος ἁγνός ἐστιν." KAI **PAS O 
> ECWN** THN ELPIDA TAUTHN EP' AUTW AGNIZEI EAUTON, KAQWS EKEINOS AGNOS ESTIN." 
> Again, the purifying oneself (AGNIZEI EAUTON) is conditional upon having his 
> hope focused on him (Jesus) ECWN THN ELPIDA TAUTHN EP' AUTW.
> 
> I haven't looked at each and every reference, but my understanding so far is 
> that the PAS O PARTICIPLE is a way of defining a set group of people (or 
> things?). In that sense, John 6:40 would indeed be "limiting" the actions of 
> Christ in raising up people to only those who "see the son and believe in him." 
> And that's God's will, according to that verse.
> 
> All this is to say that I think the grammar is less ambiguous in this case then 
> one might think. It seems to be making a clear definition of a select group (but 
> doesn't have anything to say about how big that group is, only that they are the 
> ones who see the son and believe in him). It seems to be making clear that God's 
> will is for that group of people (not everyone) to be raised on the last day, 
> because they meet the condition of having seen and believed the son.

Is it possible that making the distinction we're making is splitting
hairs beyond what the Greek conveys?  After working further with the
text and context, I'm more convinced that reading the text as an answer
to the question "who is and who isn't" included in the set imports a framework
that doesn't exist in the text.  In the larger matrix of meaning the
question isn't who is and who isn't loved by God or whether
God wills some to be saved but not others.

The ambiguity may be that I was (we are?) trying to _define_ the group rather
than see it descriptively.  A better way to think of it may be,
   * There is this group.  
   * They consider the Son
and believe in Him. 
   * It is God's will that each member of this group be
raised on the last day.

What I don't see conveyed anywhere is what God's will is with regard to the composition of that group.  It seems that the group is taken as a "given" and what happens to that group is then described.

That there are some who do not consider the Son and believe on Him
is clear in the text (ref. Jn 6:36).  In fact, it is to this group that Jesus is speaking
(Jn 6:28-30,41-42).  The unstated implication is that these who do not
consider the Son or believe on Him are not among those to be raised up
on the last day.  While this group is obvously in the forefront of the minds of Jesus' questioners (and often our own), this
is not the group upon which Jesus focuses.  He simply puts out the
promise that "he who believes in Me has everlasting life" and it is the will of the father that "all who consider the Son and believe in Him may have everlasting life and I will raise him up on the last day."

Regarding the will of God, what is stated is that:
   * It is God's will that Everyone who sees and believes has everlasting life (v. 40).
   * God's will is "most assuredly" accomplished (v. 47).
   * No one comes to Jesus of his own volition, but only at the instigation of the Father (v. 44).
   * Jesus rejects/casts out none that come to him/were given him by
the Father (v. 37, cxref also v.70-71 - Judas, having come to Jesus,
was not thrown out by Jesus despite the fact that Jesus knew he would
betray him).

The question we often pose when presented with this is, 'Does the
Father "draw" all or just some?'  But this question is simply not what the
text is talking about.  Rather, Jesus' says to those around Him, "YOU
HAVE seen me.(v. 36),  You have come to me (v. 24), I will not cast you
out (v. 37)."

We don't get the the climax of this whole series until vv. 64-65:

αλλ εισιν εξ υμων τινες οι ου πιστευουσιν ... δια τουτο ειρηκα υμιν οτι
ουδεις δυναται ελθειν προς με εαν μη η δεδομενον αυτω εκ του πατρος μου
--- ALL ESTIN EX UMWN TINES OI OU PISTEUOUSIN ... DIA TOUTO ERHKA UMIN
hOTI OUDEIS DUNATAI ELQEIN PROS ME EAN ME H DEDOMENON AUTW EK TOU
PATROS MOU

To paraphrase: I told you no one is able to come to me unless it is
given to him from my father because some of you still do not believe.

Or, to put it another way -- the very fact
that you are hear, now, seeing and hearing me means that my father has
called you - you are chosen - you are given to me - God wills that YOU
be raised up on the last day.  Beyond that, the text is silent on the question of those who are "out" except to imply that they won't receive eternal life or be raised on the last day.  That is, those who refuse to believe will not receive the promises of God.

> 
> Or am I getting too much into exegesis here? I think as far as exegesis goes, 
> one could glean just as much from reading a wide range of published translations 
> and commentaries as from studying the isolated Greek sentence in great detail. 
> For example, I just used Logos to do a comparison of all English translations on 
> this verse (all the ones on my computer, anyway, which includes most reputable 
> translations), and they all--without exception--translate a conditional element 
> in the sense that we've been talking about. I'm not saying that it's pointless 
> to learn Greek as long as we have English translations; I'm saying that it's 
> pointless to take some classes that simply enable you to confirm what many 
> English translations already make clear. Let's stop requiring seminarians and 
> pastors to waste their time doing something that doesn't really help them in 
> their task of interpretation and exposition. Let's require them instead to study 
> the very good English translations that are available, and to become intimately 
> acquainted with the content of the Bible. OR... let's require them to actually 
> learn--really learn, down to the depths of their souls--Hebrew and Greek, to 
> learn it because it will allow them to comprehend what they believe is Holy 
> Scripture in a way that an English translation will not give them. Let's require 
> them to delve into Greek passages with nothing but a great lexicon and hours of 
> time. Let's require them to write their own letters--maybe to a 
> congregation?--in Greek. Let's require them to compose a hymn, a psalm, a prayer 
> in Greek. Let's require them to compare and contrast the theology of James and 
> Paul in Greek. I think there could be a tremendous amount of good done for these 
> men and women if they were required to spend their time doing this kind of 
> thinking, and not being satisfied with anything less. But let's stop wasting 
> precious time on something that can be picked up by reading some good books in a 
> few hours--and I'm speaking as one who's been through the methodology and 
> language requirements of the current system, as someone who took Greek as an 
> elective because I wanted to, not because I was required to. Any Greek that I 
> can actually understand comes from being genuinely interested and excited about 
> learning it, not because I learned neat tricks for remembering grammatical 
> terms. And I really, really wish that I had been able to learn Greek at a level 
> beyond the surface that I'm barely scratching, but I think that it would have 
> been very unlikely to happen with the methodology that I learned with. I just 
> don't understand requiring that kind of shallow education from graduate students 
> who are already severely burdened with ministry and home life and academics as 
> it is. Let's really teach Greek, and stop teaching pretend Greek.
> 
> If I've offended anyone, I apologize. My comments are sincere, but not directed 
> personally at anyone. My motives are heart-felt, not rancorous.


Wow!  Quite an indictment of "the system" -- and one I think is probably deserved  (and made by myself in other venues).  I'm not certain I see "no" value in the current system and would recommend retaining it as "the best we can do right now."  However, I would in no way advocate that it's the best, most efficient, or even all that "good" at all.  I think even a rudimentary understanding of Greek brought about by the current system is, at the very least, helpful in planting seeds for those who, like yourself, will extend that knowledge - and I'm of the opnion that even if that is all that comes fromthe current system it is worth retaining because, in all honesty, if it was not for the mandatory curriculum in Greek and Hebrew at both undergrad and seminary, I would not have become interested in it --- and I believe the same is true of many others who have fallen in love with the language.

I also think even the rudimentary knowledge provided by the current methodology is at least helpful for those among us who have just learned to scratch the surface --- and I certainly wouldn't advocate scrapping it entirely in favor of using English translations exclusively.  I'm firmly convinced that some fundamental awareness of the Greek (and Hebrew) and the issues involved in "translating" into English is absolutely necessary to be a true exegete.  Not that the even the best available curriculum's do this well as well as they could... but I would submit that it is better than nothing.

The recent thread on "grammar-translation" has been informative.  The question is, how do we move to that next level?  What methodology and resources do we need?  Your thoughts on a more comprehensive curriculum are intriguing and I believe deserve more consideration.  As an aside, this is an area which I have been slowly working for the past 5+ years rather intentionally (even delaying my ordination and entry into parish life by a year to begin studying for a higher degree in exegetical studies), so I'm very much excited to see others thinking about the same things!


THANKS AGAIN to all who responded to this thread and everyone on the list who has made my years of "lurking" incredibly fruitful!

Matthew Dent

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org 
> [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Carl Conrad
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 6:14 AM
> To: John Sanders
> Cc: greek B-Greek
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 6:40 - PAS - "ALL" or "ALL THOSE WHO" ?
> 
> 
> On Aug 6, 2009, at 8:56 AM, John Sanders wrote:
> 
> > I apologize once more.  I believe that I am not making myself very  
> > clear.  I
> > do not wish to repeat myself, for that will not help.  So I hope  
> > that this
> > may make myself more understandable.
> >
> > I do not question your understanding of this particular text, I also  
> > think
> > that is correct.  Let me translate the text as I think it would read:
> >
> > TOUTO GAR ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PATROS MOU hINA PAS O QEWRWN TON UION  
> > KAI
> > PISTEUWN EIS AUTON EXHi ZWHN AIWNION KAI ANASTHSW AUTON EGW EN TH  
> > ESXATHi
> > HMERAi.
> >
> > For this is the wish of my Father, that every one discovering the  
> > son and
> > believing in Him will have life eternal and I shall raise him on the  
> > last
> > day.
> >
> > Two notes:  the retaining of a classical for (EXHi) does not  
> > necessarily
> > imply retaining the classical meaning.  Given this text, I suspect the
> > "tentativeness" of the subjunctive has been replaced with the simple
> > "future".  Likewise, I suspect the future ANASTHSW is expressed with
> > certitude.  So, given that idiosyncracy of mine, we should be in  
> > agreement,
> > I would think.
> 
> The subjunctive of ECHi is not tentative; it depends upon the  
> introductory hINA. "The will of my Father" = "My father wants." WHAT  
> my Father wants is stated in the hINA clause: "My Father wants  
> everyone who sees and believes the Son to have everlasting life." The  
> hINA clause sets forth exactly what it is that "My Father wants."
> 
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
> 
> >
> > What is the question, then?  As I understand it, as I perceive the  
> > question,
> > it is asking who is included in the set?  Does the set include  
> > everyone and
> > this is the process that each one will go through to receive life  
> > eternal
> > and be raised on the last day, or is this actually the definition of  
> > the set
> > and only they who comply with this definition will receive life  
> > eternal and
> > be raised on the last day?
> >
> > The text itself is clear, but the text does not tell us which of  
> > these two
> > choices comprise the set of those who will receive life eternal and be
> > raised on the last day.  Either the set will have to comply with the  
> > text
> > because it is the definition of the set; or it gives the process for
> > which the set is to comply.  In either case you can come to this  
> > text and
> > read it and not be discomforted.  That is why I say that the text is
> > insufficient to answer this question and you will need further  
> > information.
> >
> > John Sanders
> > Suzhou, China
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Iver Larsen   
> > wrote:
> >
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Sanders" <
> >> john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com>
> >> To: "Elizabeth Kline" 
> >> Cc: "greek B-Greek" 
> >> Sent: 6. august 2009 08:27
> >> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 6:40 - PAS - "ALL" or "ALL THOSE WHO" ?
> >>
> >>
> >> 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."
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, I thought the arguments from grammar and similar  
> >> constructions were
> >> clear enough to indicate that (1) is the intended sense, and (2)  
> >> would have
> >> to be expressed in a different way with a subjunctive on the  
> >> perceiving.
> >> Notice also how in English you/Matthew had to add a second "would"  
> >> in (2)
> >> which is not reflected in the Greek text. Matthew also added an  
> >> "add" after
> >> "believing" which is not in the text. You can say that the desire  
> >> of the
> >> father is that all might have eternal life, but the condition is  
> >> clear in
> >> that only (all) those who perceive that Jesus is the "son of God" and
> >> believes in him will actually obtain that life.
> >>
> >> Iver Larsen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 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
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.45/2284 - Release Date: 08/05/09 
> 18:23:00
> 
> ---
> 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



      



More information about the B-Greek mailing list