Comments on: For the Greekers in the Crowd - the Participle in John 3:16 http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/ Conversations in Theology and its interaction with Culture Sat, 05 Jul 2008 18:12:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Think Wink. » πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5871 Think Wink. » πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:28:36 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5871 [...] Honzo asked a question about translating the particple πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων in John 3:16 (”whosoever believes” in most English translations). I did some reading up on this text and three things I think need to be said of the Greek phrase in question. The following is my reply. [...] [...] Honzo asked a question about translating the particple πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων in John 3:16 (”whosoever believes” in most English translations). I did some reading up on this text and three things I think need to be said of the Greek phrase in question. The following is my reply. [...]

]]> By: Hank http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5870 Hank Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:09:00 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5870 I did some reading up for this text and three things I think need to be said of the Greek phrase in question--feel free to correct if anyone disagrees. 1.) ὁ πιστεύων is an independent substantive participle because the participle is articular. As such, it functions as the subject of the ἵνα clause and its verbs ἀπόληται and ἔχῃ. It should not be construed as being attributive to πᾶς. 2.) πᾶς is a pronomial adjective and as such it does not normal rules governing the position of adjectives. πᾶς is in the first predicative position, being outside the article-noun grouping. However, πᾶς does not relate to ὁ πιστεύων as a predicative ("the believing one is all") but rather in a more attributive fashion. In short it modifies ὁ πιστεύων, not the other way around (i.e. ὁ πιστεύων is attributive to πᾶς). Thus πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων should not be construed as a relative clause. 3.) This point is more of a question. Are you arguing that ὁ πιστεύων is a gnomic or a continuous present? A gnomic present is a timeless present, and as such it speaks of a general, timeless fact, a maxim. A continuous present is repeated, continuous action. The post does not really distinguish the two. It sounds like Honzo in the post is arguing for a continuous present tense the emphasizes believing until the end. This fits more of how John uses πιστεύω in his Gospel (cf. John 20:31) (<a href="http://www.zhubert.com/study?word=%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B5%E1%BD%BB%CF%89%CE%BD&onlybook=John" rel="nofollow">here is everywhere πιστεύων is used in John</a>). On the note of a gnomic present, John 3:16 fits the formula of πᾶς ὁ + present participle, and is thus a gnomic present. However, as stated above, John uses πιστεύω in a continuous sense, thus John 3:16 should not be taken in a gnomic sense. I did some reading up for this text and three things I think need to be said of the Greek phrase in question–feel free to correct if anyone disagrees.

1.) ὁ πιστεύων is an independent substantive participle because the participle is articular. As such, it functions as the subject of the ἵνα clause and its verbs ἀπόληται and ἔχῃ. It should not be construed as being attributive to πᾶς.

2.) πᾶς is a pronomial adjective and as such it does not normal rules governing the position of adjectives. πᾶς is in the first predicative position, being outside the article-noun grouping. However, πᾶς does not relate to ὁ πιστεύων as a predicative ("the believing one is all") but rather in a more attributive fashion. In short it modifies ὁ πιστεύων, not the other way around (i.e. ὁ πιστεύων is attributive to πᾶς). Thus πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων should not be construed as a relative clause.

3.) This point is more of a question. Are you arguing that ὁ πιστεύων is a gnomic or a continuous present? A gnomic present is a timeless present, and as such it speaks of a general, timeless fact, a maxim. A continuous present is repeated, continuous action. The post does not really distinguish the two. It sounds like Honzo in the post is arguing for a continuous present tense the emphasizes believing until the end. This fits more of how John uses πιστεύω in his Gospel (cf. John 20:31) (here is everywhere πιστεύων is used in John).

On the note of a gnomic present, John 3:16 fits the formula of πᾶς ὁ + present participle, and is thus a gnomic present. However, as stated above, John uses πιστεύω in a continuous sense, thus John 3:16 should not be taken in a gnomic sense.

]]> By: Honzo http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5849 Honzo Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:11:10 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5849 As I understand it, when a participle is in the attributive position, as I think it is here, the participle acts as a relative clause. It is the participle πιστεύων which is the relative clause here. Oh, if I had said relative particle, I meant relative participle. As I understand it, when a participle is in the attributive position, as I think it is here, the participle acts as a relative clause. It is the participle πιστεύων which is the relative clause here.

Oh, if I had said relative particle, I meant relative participle.

]]> By: Hank http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5848 Hank Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:03:18 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5848 Oh I agree about Strong's and Bauer. But most students at MBTS only read out of Strong's (and most profs seem to only read out of Strong's when it comes to H/C/A/O discussions). I'm still confused about the "relative clause." I know the post is on the participle, but what did you mean by, "the πἂς here is modified by a relative clause"? I am not seeing the "relative" particle in the text. Oh I agree about Strong’s and Bauer. But most students at MBTS only read out of Strong’s (and most profs seem to only read out of Strong’s when it comes to H/C/A/O discussions).

I’m still confused about the "relative clause." I know the post is on the participle, but what did you mean by, "the πἂς here is modified by a relative clause"? I am not seeing the "relative" particle in the text.

]]> By: Travis http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5847 Travis Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:56:20 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5847 I have always taken attributive participles as "the one doing X" as a very formal and literal way translating. This verse is a bit tricky. We should translate the participle as a noun since it is in the attributive position with the article. But the world "all" makes translating it as a singular noun difficult. I think more needs to be said though about the subjunctives in the purpose clause. I will take a look at my Smyth. Hank, As for Stong's, Bauer is the best NT lexicon we have. But if you talk to Tomlinson (I am sure you know this) he says Bauer is not near good enough! I have always taken attributive participles as “the one doing X” as a very formal and literal way translating. This verse is a bit tricky. We should translate the participle as a noun since it is in the attributive position with the article. But the world “all” makes translating it as a singular noun difficult. I think more needs to be said though about the subjunctives in the purpose clause. I will take a look at my Smyth.

Hank,
As for Stong’s, Bauer is the best NT lexicon we have. But if you talk to Tomlinson (I am sure you know this) he says Bauer is not near good enough!

]]> By: Henry (Honzo) Imler http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5842 Henry (Honzo) Imler Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:45:25 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5842 I am talking only about the participle in the attributive position. I am talking only about the participle in the attributive position.

]]> By: Hank http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5839 Hank Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:49:37 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5839 Honzo, Are you saying that <font face="Palatino Linotype,Code2000,Gentium" size="+1">ἵνα</font><font face="Palatino Linotype,Code2000,Gentium" size="+1"> is functioning as a relative adverb? I always took it to be an adverb of purpose. Otherwise I'm missing the relative term in John 3:16 that warranted your previous comment. </font> Honzo,

Are you saying that ἵνα is functioning as a relative adverb? I always took it to be an adverb of purpose. Otherwise I’m missing the relative term in John 3:16 that warranted your previous comment.

]]> By: Hank http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5838 Hank Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:31:43 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5838 I'm coming from dealing with my SBC profs (a major exception is Dr. Tomlinson!!) who never take the time to examine how a word is used in context. There are syntactical and lexical rules that must be followed. Thus every time the word "all" or πᾶς πασα παν appears in the Bible in a salvific context, they always take it to be universal across time, even though the context, like here in John 3:16, doesn't necessarily permit that reading. It is a presupposition they bring from a lexicon like Strong's (thogh there is nothing inherently wrong with Strong's--it's probably not the best). I’m coming from dealing with my SBC profs (a major exception is Dr. Tomlinson!!) who never take the time to examine how a word is used in context. There are syntactical and lexical rules that must be followed. Thus every time the word "all" or πᾶς πασα παν appears in the Bible in a salvific context, they always take it to be universal across time, even though the context, like here in John 3:16, doesn’t necessarily permit that reading. It is a presupposition they bring from a lexicon like Strong’s (thogh there is nothing inherently wrong with Strong’s–it’s probably not the best).

]]> By: Henry (Honzo) Imler http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5836 Henry (Honzo) Imler Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:58:15 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5836 As a minor note (as someone who has not looked as how πᾶς πασα παν is used through out the NT and John), the πἂς here is modified by a relative clause and anything being modified by a relative clause is going to be limited in scope, so I don't know if, from this verse, we can say that sometimes πας, by itself, does not mean all. As a minor note (as someone who has not looked as how πᾶς πασα παν is used through out the NT and John), the πἂς here is modified by a relative clause and anything being modified by a relative clause is going to be limited in scope, so I don’t know if, from this verse, we can say that sometimes πας, by itself, does not mean all.

]]> By: Hank http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5833 Hank Mon, 25 Feb 2008 04:16:02 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2008/02/23/for-the-greekers-in-the-crowd-the-participle-in-john-316/#comment-5833 I think that it is attributive to the  πᾶς and thus it describes who is in the "all." As far as H/C/A/O goes, I think that it does two things: 1.) reminds us that not all are saved by the "gift;" 2.) "all" doesn't mean "all" all the time, rather there is a definite group in the mind of the author. But I would agree with what 'Ham was saying about τὸν κόσμον, namely it has in view all of humanity. God's gift of Christ was the demonstration of his love for all of humanity so that all of the ones who are believing in Christ will have eternal life. I think that the text in John's gospel that shows perseverance of faith as a condition of final salvation is John 20:31 where the present participle there, πιστεύοντες, emphasizes the timeless present because of its relationship to the  subjunctive aorist, πιστεύσητε. I think that it is attributive to the  πᾶς and thus it describes who is in the "all."

As far as H/C/A/O goes, I think that it does two things: 1.) reminds us that not all are saved by the "gift;" 2.) "all" doesn’t mean "all" all the time, rather there is a definite group in the mind of the author. But I would agree with what ‘Ham was saying about τὸν κόσμον, namely it has in view all of humanity. God’s gift of Christ was the demonstration of his love for all of humanity so that all of the ones who are believing in Christ will have eternal life.

I think that the text in John’s gospel that shows perseverance of faith as a condition of final salvation is John 20:31 where the present participle there, πιστεύοντες, emphasizes the timeless present because of its relationship to the  subjunctive aorist, πιστεύσητε.

]]>