[B-Greek] John 6:40 - PAS - "ALL" or "ALL THOSE WHO" ?
Rod Rogers
rngrogers at embarqmail.com
Thu Aug 6 17:44:45 EDT 2009
Sorry, but I have problems with replies like
this one. I just hate messages that are
theological in total, especially those
containing statements which I disagree with,
knowing what will happen if I comment on
them. So, I will not comment on this message
except to say that I think Carl, Iver and
others have made it clear that this text is
not ambiguous and is clear in stating what
the will of the father is and the hINA clause
describes what that will is. This thread is
departing from the Greek text and I would
appreciate these personal commentaries stop
or open this thread up for theological
comments.
rod rogers
bargersville, in
----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Dent
To: Jeffrey T. Requadt ; B-Greek Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 6:40 - PAS -
"ALL" or "ALL THOSE WHO" ?
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 TOUT
O 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-g
reek
>
> 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-g
reek
---
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-g
reek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list