From: Harry W. Jones (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Sep 23 2001 - 22:00:16 EDT
So you're saying Steven that PANTAS ANQRWPOUS could just mean a subclass
of men in verse 4? Also that it's even likely that it does mean a subclass
of men here because of it's use in verse 1? Wouldn't it's subclass use
possibly apply to ANTILUTRON hUPER PANTWN in verse 6 as well Steven?
> on 9/22/01 9:29 PM, Wayne Leman at email@example.com wrote:
> I didn't really want to get involved in this thread because of the
> theological implications of the discussion. But I think as long as we stick
> to what PAS may legitimately mean, we will be OK.
> This comes as a surprise to many, but PAS is rarely used in the NT in the
> sense of "all without exception" with regard to what or whom it describes.
> It is usually limited in one way or another, whether hyperbolic or not.
> > Unless the immediate context determines otherwise, PANTAS ANQRWPOUS is to be
> > understood to mean "everyone" (where the context is inclusive of both
> > females and males) or "all men" (where only men are referred to).
> This simply cannot be sustained, as I will show. The translation "everyone,"
> particularly when translating the plural, can be misleading. I think "all
> people," if we are concerned with inclusive language, is best. PAS is used
> 23 times in 1 Tim, and many of its uses are instructive. I'll limit myself
> mainly to those in the immediate context of 1 Tim 2:4.
> > I personally find nothing in the context of 1 Tim. 2:4 to indicate that the
> > lexical meaning of PANTAS ANQRWPOUS is anything other than "everyone". For
> > those who believe in limited atonement (or other limitations on PANTAS
> > here), there is still the hermeneutical out here in the verb QELEI, if we
> > allow for the philosophical distinction between what God desires to happen
> > and what he causes to happen.
> No hermeneutical out necessary. There are actually several indicators in the
> immediate context of 1 Tim 2:4 (as well as other sections of 1 Tim) that
> call into question both the idea that PAS normally means "all without
> exception" and the contention that PANTAS ANQRWPOUS in 1 Tim 2:4 must refer
> to all people without exception. This same word is used twice in v. 1, twice
> in v. 2, once in v. 4, once in v. 6, once in v. 8, and once in v. 11. Let me
> deal first with those instances where PAS is used in reference to people,
> following the flow of the author's thought with the purpose of maintaining
> (1) In v. 1 the author urges that entreaties, prayers, petitions, and
> thanksgivings be made hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN. Right away we have a problem
> with the assumption that PAS is all-inclusive, for it is not reasonable to
> conclude that the author is urging that prayer be made for every man, woman,
> and child on the face of the earth, much less for all who have lived before.
> The most likely context of the prayer is public, but even if it is private
> the problem persists. Praying for every person on planet earth would make
> for a very long church service or devotional time indeed! And it cannot be
> maintained that the author has in mind some cliched, generic prayer such as
> "God bless everyone in the whole wide world," such as a child would pray at
> bedtime, since he goes on in v. 2 to list specific types of people for whom
> this should be done. So the best way to understand PANTWN ANQRWPWN here is
> as "all kinds of people."
> (2) In v. 2 the delineation of specific offices held by people who would be
> known to the supplicants supports the contention that prayer hUPER PANTWN
> ANQRWPWN refers to prayer for specific people rather than generic prayer,
> and supports the view that PANTWN means "all sorts of." In addition, the
> exhortation to pray hUPER ... PANTWN TWN EN hUPEROCHi supports not only the
> contention that individuals are in view, but also that PANTWN cannot
> reasonably mean all authorities inclusively, since, again, that would not be
> possible. Imagine if we had to pray for every single government official in
> the world! Can anyone out there cite the names of all the rulers of the
> Taliban government in Afghanistan from memory? At the very least we must
> limit PANTWN TWN EN hUPEROCHi to those officials the recipients of the
> letter were familiar with. It should be noted that there are indisputable
> parallels to this use of PAS. For example, in Acts 2.17, Peter, quoting a
> prophecy from Joel, says, "In the last days it will be, God declares, that I
> will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh (PASAN SARKA), and your sons and your
> daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old
> men shall dream dreams." It is clear from the context of the book of Acts
> that the Spirit was not poured out on every single person on planet earth.
> The subsequent mention of "your sons and your daughters," "your young men,"
> "your old men" and "my slaves, both men and women" (vv. 17, 18) being
> participants in the outpouring of the Spirit confirms that PASAN SARKA means
> "all kinds of people." This is of course played out in Acts in a way Peter
> could not have imagined at the time, the outpouring of the Spirit on certain
> Gentiles (but not on every Gentile without exception).
> (3) It is important to consider the preceding context of v. 4 when deciding
> what semantical force to assign to PANTAS. This verse is not a theological
> island. So in view of the fact that the author has "all sorts of people" in
> mind when he uses PANTWN in v. 1 (made even more plain by v. 2), it is
> inconsistent to automatically switch gears and now maintain that PANTAS must
> mean "all people without exception." It is much more in keeping with the
> context to understand PANTAS here as "all sorts" as well. This does justice
> to the flow of thought of the author as well as recognizes a legitimate
> nuance of PAS. His insistence that entreaties, prayers, petitions, and
> thanksgivings be made on behalf of all sorts of people (vv. 1, 2) is in
> harmony with God's purpose to save all sorts of people (vv. 3, 4). And hUPER
> PANTWN in v. 6 should also be understood as "for all sorts of people" for
> the same reasons.
> (4) The author's comment in v. 7 also supports the foregoing conclusion. The
> testimony of Jesus giving himself a ransom for all (PANTWN, v. 6) is tied to
> Paul's ministry to the Gentiles. PANTWN here is simply a way of referring to
> the different kinds of people inhabiting the Gentile world. This is apt,
> since the early church had to deal with the movement of the Gospel from the
> Jewish to the Gentile world. The idea, which was at first hard for many to
> accept, is "not Jews only, but all kinds of people." So it is not hard to
> see the parallel between PANTWN ("all sorts of people") in v. 6 and EQNWN
> ("Gentiles") in v. 7. This should not seem unusual, since this idea is found
> elsewhere. For example, note Ananias' message to Paul in Acts 22.15: "For
> you will be a witness for him [God] to all people (PANTAS ANQRWPOUS) of what
> you have seen and heard." I shouldn't have to point out that Paul could not
> possibly have witnessed to every person on planet earth during the course of
> his ministry. The use of PANTAS ANQRWPOUS must be understood in the light of
> v. 21, where God commands Paul, "Go! For I will send you far away to the
> Gentiles" (EQNH). It is clear from the context that "all men" must mean "all
> sorts of men," i.e., not just Jews, but also Syrians, Galatians, Asians,
> Macedonians, Acheans, etc. There is a similar relationship at work in Rom
> 11:11-15, where KOSMOS and EQNOI ("world" and "Gentiles") are used
> interchangeably, neither possibly meaning "all people without exception."
> (5) The use of PAS to mean "all kinds" is used elsewhere in this letter. In
> 1 Tim 6:10 we read, "For the love of money is a root of all (PANTWN) the
> evils." If PANTWN is taken as all-inclusive, this statement is patently
> false, since the love of money is not the root of every imaginable evil, and
> it is impossible to think this is what the author meant. This is why various
> translations render PANTWN as something like "all sorts" (cf. ASV, NASB,
> NAS95, NIV, NRSV, NLT).
> > I see no exegetical, contextual hint of hyperbole in 1 Tim. 2:4, howerver,
> > but we should *always, at all times* <g> be alert to the possibility of
> > hyperbole with PANTAS.
> I have never heard anyone argue for hyperbole here, nor is it necessary.
> There is an established use of PAS meaning "all kinds," and this has nothing
> to do with hyperbole.
> Steve Lo Vullo
> Madison, WI
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:07 EDT