A while ago Hank did a five part post series on his translation process of John 3:16. I was translating the verse again tonight and came across some questions while I was trying to knock the participle in the side to give it legs.1 I thought I would give ole Hank’s translation another look over for some help in this department.
Here is the verse:
οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (link to zhubert version)
Do you think the ὁ before the participle πιστεύων is indicating that the participle is in the attributive position relative to πᾶς and means that we need to translate the present active participle as a relative clause for πᾶς, clarifying everyone of what group we are talking about (Smyth 2050A) (i.e. everyone who is believing in him)?
Also, the participle is timeless, it either will denote the stage of action (here continuous because it is present) or action relative to the main verb (here at the same time as God giving and loving, because they are both in the aorist) when used in indirect discourse (Smyth 2043). I am thinking it is not in indirect discourse, but I really don’t know what indirect discourse means for Smyth. So, I think that the participle here is only indicating aspect, not time. Therefore, the participle here is indicating that everyone that is continually trusting in Jesus are the members of the world which are being given everlasting life.
I wonder how that impacts the H/C/A/O debate?
What do you all think? I am one week into the Greek participle, so I am pretty green here.
- Sorry to everyone that is not being taught Greek by Dr. DesRosiers for the inside joke. [↩]
10 Comments
Well, it’s definitely not indirect discourse, as that typically requires a specific verb to trigger it (which usually are “verbs of the head” like thinking, saying, etc., and we don’t have one here) and is displayed with an accusative subject and an infinitive verb. Just think of indirect discourse as a quote that doesn’t use “quotes.”
Since the ὁ πιστεύων occurs in a ἵνα clause, IMO that sort of seperates it from the tenses of the previous verbs in the sentence…it should be considered independently.
As for the meaning of participles…trust me, I’m in my 3rd year of Greek (taking my second advanced class at HDS) and they still tend to throw me. Just be prepared to be confused by them for a while. That said…a present participle does indicate an immediacy (and potenitally continuity) to the action. It would be fruitful to do a study on present participles (especially substantive ones) throughout John to see how they are employe elsewhere. I don’t see this particular participle having much of an impact on the H/C/A/O debate. What’s far more important in this passage (IMO) is the phrase οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον…especially when you understand what τὸν κόσμον consistantly represents throughout John’s gospel.
Anywho, off to church.
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.
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.
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).
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.
I am talking only about the participle in the attributive position.
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!
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.
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.
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.