How should we understand John 17:1-3 ?

[PaulThomson]

No one is required to accept the teaching of another man on the basis that that man has more scholastic qualifications. A man’s opinions are not verified by the number of his degrees, or publications, or acolytes; but by his ability to demonstrate that the facts consistently fit his thesis, and the lack of contradicting facts.

I have been spending some time looking through the NT usages of hoti and hina. Since Greenlee’s hypothesis, that the hina + subjunctive can equal a substantive devoid of any sense of consequence or intention, collapsed in the first four of his listed examples, I have arrived at a hypothesis of my own. I think the facts fit my thesis and I haven’t yet seen or heard any countervailing facts, so I invite posters to suggest some contradicting texts if they see any in scripture.

Here is my thesis.

Hoti is always followed by indicative verbs, so is used to introduce statements that the author or speaker considers definite: actions or states that definitely did occur, are definitely occurring or will definitely occur, and on the basis of which the action or state in the governing clause occurs. Hence, the clause hoti introduces can be either causative or substantive, hoti meaning either that or because.

Examples of hoti with past indicatives are John 6:26 and Mr. 11:18; with present indicatives are Lu. 19:31 and Mr. 9: 38; with future indicative are John 14:12, Rom 9:28 and Jas. 1:10

On the other hand, hina is always followed by subjunctive verbs, so is used to introduce statements that are contingent: describing states or actions that may or may not occur in the future of the governing clause. Hence, the clause that hina introduces cannot be causative or substantive, but is a contingent possibility that is either the intended or accidental consequence of the governing clause, hina meaning “so that” or “with the intention that” or “with the result that”.

I am open to someone presenting counter-examples to this hypothesis . Let’s see them if you have them. If you do, will mean I need to accommodate them by tweaking my hypothesis or discarding it. But so far, my thesis it seems sound.

Therefore, I will apply it to John 17:1-3 in my next post.

 

[PaulThomson]

I will now apply my hypothesis to John 17:1-3 in my next post.

John 17:1-3

Tauta (These things) elalEsen (spoke) ho IEsous (Jesus) kai (and) epEren (lifted) tous ophthalmous outou (his eyes) eis (to) ton houranon (the heaven) kai (and) eipen (said),

“Pater (Father), elEluthen (has come) hE hOra (the hour) ; doxason (glorify) sou ton huion (your son), hina (so that) kai (also) ho huios sou (your son) doxasEi (may glorify) se (you).

KathOs (Just as) edOkas (you gave) autOi (to him) exousian (authority) pasEs sarkos (over all flesh), hina (so that) pan (everything) ho (which) dedOkas (you have given) autOi (to him) dOsEi (he may keep on giving) autois (to them): zoEn aiOnion (aeonous life).

autEi de (And this) estin (is) hE aiOnios ZoE (the aeonous life) hina (so that) ginOskOsin (they may keep on knowing) se (you) ton monon (the only) alEthinon theon (true God) kai (and) hon (whom) apesteilas (you sent), IEsoun Christon (Jesus Christ).

Firstly, how do you think v. 2 should be translated? I don’t think most translations get it right at all, for the following reasons.

Notice that “all flesh” (pasEs sarkos) is genitive fem. singular; ”everything” (pan) is accusative neut. singular; “to them” (autois) is masc./neut. dative plural.

Most translations consider pan to be the referent of autois, and zoEn aiOnion to be the direct object of dOsei. They interpret this verse as,

“Just as You gave to Him authority over all flesh, so that he may give aeonous life to all you have given to Him.”

This does not seem to me to be a likely translation.

• “All flesh” (pasEs sarkos) cannot be the referent of “all” (pan), since “all flesh” (pasEs sarkos) is feminine, and pan is neuter.
• “All which you have given to him” (pan ho dedOkas autoi) cannot be “all flesh which you have given to him” because “all which” would need to be feminine, pasan hEn.
• Because John uses pan for “all” and not pas, pan should be referring to things (everything) and not persons (everyone).

My direct translation makes perfect sense – “the aeonous life” understood as being in apposition to the clause “everything which You have given to Him”.

So,

“Just as You gave Him authority over all flesh (fem. pl.), so that everything (pan: neut. s.) which (ho: neut. s.) You have given to him (autOi: masc. s.) he may keep on giving to them (autois: masc. pl.): aeonous life.

“All flesh” (pasEs sarkos fem. s) can be the referent of “to them” (autois: m. pl.) since “all flesh (though feminine)” is comprises both men + women (which, when collectively are referred to by the masc. pl. in koine Greek).

This translation makes semantic and grammatical sense of the Greek text.

If one translates v.2 as I do, with anarthrous “aeonous life” used appositionally, then the arthrous “the aeonous life” in v.3 refers back to the anarthrous “aeonous life” in v.2, as one mentions seeing “a dog” on the street and then uses the definite article to refer to that particular dog, as in “I saw a dog. The dog was black.”

So, “And this (i.e. “everything you have given to Him”) is the aeonous life, so that (hina) they may keep on knowing you the only true God and) Jesus Christ whom you sent.”

It is my conclusion by looking at the occurrences of hina and hoti in the Bible, that hina always introduces a subordinate clause describing an event or state that the writer or speaker sees as subsequent to, and as a causally linked consequence of, its governing clause: having the sense of “so that as a result…”. It can sometimes be translated into English simply as “that”, but the “that” is introducing either the purpose or the unintended consequence of the governing clause.

KathOs (Just as) edOkas (you gave) autOi (to him) exousian (authority) pasEs sarkos (over all flesh), hina (so that) pan (everything) ho (which) dedOkas (you have given) autOi (to him) dOsEi (he may keep on giving) autois (to them): zoEn aiOnion (aeonous life).

autEi de (And this) estin (is) hE aiOnios ZoE (the aeonous life) hina (so that) ginOskOsin (they may keep on knowing) se (you) ton monon (the only) alEthinon theon (true God) kai (and) hon (whom) apesteilas (you sent), IEsoun Christon (Jesus Christ).

In the above text the purpose/intention of the Father giving Jesus authority over all flesh was so that the Jesus might keep on giving to all flesh everything the Father gave Him.

"Everything the Father gave Jesus" is equated to "aeonous life".

And that aeonous life is being given for the purpose/intention that we may keep on knowing Jesus and the Father by experience, by learning to participate in all those things.

It may feel a little clumsy translating the Greek this way, because the Greek construction does not woodenly-literally convert word for word exactly into how we speak in English. But the ideas as I have expressed them are certainly discernible in the Greek.

"Father, glorify the Son so that the Son may glorify You in the same way that you gave Him authority over all flesh in order that he may keep on giving to them everything You have given Him, namely aeonous life. And this is what the aeonous life I have been giving them is for: so that they may keep growing in their knowledge of You, the only true God, and of Jesus Christ whom You sent."

This interpretation ties in with the rest of scripture that tells us, in various ways, that we receive all the treasures and attributes of God in Him. And the more of these treasure in Christ that we experience the more we get to know Him and the Father.

I have tried to construct a comparable narrative in a different context. Here goes -

Let’s take a situation of a military leader giving one of his officers an intake of cadets to train and then lead into combat. The officer has served the leader loyally and with distinction before becoming the cadets’ trainer and during their training.

The leader is being addressed by the officer, after the officer has completed the cadets’ training and is about to lead his trainees out into some region of the theatre of war.

“Please, make sure to back me up to the max, so I can back you up to the max, in the same way as [happened when] you gave me authority over all these cadets, so that everything you have assigned to me, I may apportion to them: combat skills. And this is what the combat skills I have been giving them are for: so that they may know how to survive in battle and how to prevail over their enemy.

We could put the sense of these ideas into smooth English thus -

“Please, make sure to back me up to the max, so I can back you up to the max, in the same way as [I backed you up when] you gave me authority over all these cadets, intending that everything you have assigned to me, I may distribute it to them [in the form of] combat skills. But their combat skills are not our main goal. The purpose of these combat skills we have been giving them is so that they may know how to defend one another and their homeland.

 

[TolworthJohn]

A simple question

What difference does your translation mean when compared with other translations.

 

[PaulThomson]

A simple question

What difference does your translation mean when compared with other translations.

Other translations say that knowing the true God and Jesus is what aeonous life is.

I think Jesus is saying that the goal of aeonous life is that we should know God and Jesus more; that partaking of what Jesus gives us from all that the Father has given Him is aeonous life; and that sharing these gifts with us is for the purpose of enabling us to come to know God and Jesus more and more.

 

[Mem]

John 17:1's 'hina' is reflective of the aorist subjunctive active "so that Son may glorify You," which indicates the possibility of not happening in certain circumstances, which also applies to John 17:2's "so that He may give eternal life [to] all those You have given Him."

While John 17:3's 'hina' reflects on the present subjunctive active "so that they may know You..." which expresses a possibility, wish, or condition that may or may not be true and indicates a continuous action.

So, we can conclude that, if the Son gives eternal life to a one (who meets the condition set by the Father) of all those that the Father gives Him (all those that meet the aforementioned condition) then He glorifies the Father and then, they can continuously know God.

And also, we can deduct from John 6:29's the condition set by the Father, which hina also is reflective of the present subjunctive active "to believe in the Son whom He has sent" indicative of a continuous action that may or may not be true. ( and I read the "work of God asked that we might do" as also the work of God that is of the possibility that we might not do).

So, my question is, why can we not deduct from this that, if it is not true, then it is not continuous, and if it is true then it is, actually, continual?

 

[studier]

Hoti is always followed by indicative verbs

Please explain how you determined this.

Have you examined all of the occurrences of hoti in the New Covenant Scriptures?

hina is always followed by subjunctive verbs

Same request and question.

 

[studier]

I'm going to let some published sources do some work while awaiting your response to my #6 post. It is a big task for any of us to prove or disprove what you've said that I've asked you to explain.

I'd ask you whether you agree or disagree with what's shown in the sources re: hina + subjunctive constructions.

Source: Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace (hereafter "GG")
Source: inthebeginning.org/e-diagrams/ (hereafter "Diagram")

NKJ 1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.

GG (my highlighting):

B. Syntactical Function

There are three broad syntactical functions to dependent clauses: substantival, adjectival, and adverbial.

1. Substantival Clause

In this usage the dependent clause functions like a noun.

a. Structure

This function of the dependent clause can be expressed by the following structural forms:8

1) Substantival infinitive clause

2) Substantival participial clause

3) Substantival conjunctive clause

4) Substantival relative pronoun clause

b. Basic Uses

1) Subject

a) Substantival infinitive (e.g., Heb 10:31)

b) Substantival participle (e.g., John 3:18)

c) ὅτι + indicative mood (e.g., Gal 3:11)

p. 661

d) ἵνα + subjunctive mood (e.g., 1 Cor 4:2)

e) Relative pronoun ὅ (e.g., Matt 13:12)


Diagram (which agrees with GG):

 

[studier]

Continuing:

NKJ John 4:34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.

GG (my highlighting):

2) Predicate Nominative

a) Substantival infinitive (e.g., Rom 1:12)

b) Substantival participle (e.g., John 4:26)

c) ἵνα + subjunctive (e.g., John 4:34)


Diagram (which agrees with GG):

 

[studier]

Continuing:

NKJ Matthew 12:16 Yet He warned them not to make Him known,

GG (my highlighting):

3) Direct Object

a) Substantival infinitive (e.g., 1 Tim 2:8)

b) Substantival participle (e.g., Phil 3:17)

c) ὅτι + indicative (e.g., John 3:33)

d) ἵνα + subjunctive (e.g., Matt 12:16)

e) Relative pronoun ὅ (e.g., Luke 11:6)


Diagram (which agrees with GG):

 

[studier]

Continuing:

I'm posting this so it's here for future use and we can see some of the grammatical issues:

NKJ John 17:3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. (Jn. 17:3 NKJ)

GG (my highlighting):

5) Apposition

a) Substantival infinitive (e.g., Jas 1:27)

b) ὅτι + indicative (e.g., Luke 10:20)

c) ἵνα + subjunctive (e.g. John 17:3)


Diagram:

 

[studier]

Continuing:

NKJ John 2:25 and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.

GG (my highlighting):

2. Adjectival Clauses

The dependent clause may function like an adjective and modify a noun, noun phrase, or other substantive.

a. Structure

This function of the dependent clause can be expressed by the following structural forms:9

1) Epexegetical infinitive clause

2) (Attributive) adjectival participial clause

3) Conjunctive clause

4) Relative pronoun and relative adjective clauses

P. 662
b. Basic Uses

Every adjectival clause describes, explains, or restricts a noun, pronoun, or other substantive. It has no functional subcategories. The following structural forms express this basic function:

1) Epexegetical infinitive (e.g., Rom 1:15)

2) Adjectival participle (e.g., 2 Cor 3:3)

3) ὅτι + indicative mood (e.g., Luke 8:25)

4) ἵνα + subjunctive mood (e.g., John 2:25)

5) Relative pronoun clause (e.g., Eph 6:17; 1 John 2:7)


Diagram:

 

[studier]

Continuing:

Verses copied hereinbelow. Diagrams not posted but will if necessary.

GG (my highlighting):

3. Adverbial Clause

In this usage the dependent clause functions like an adverb in that it modifies a verb.

a. Structure

This function of the dependent clause can be expressed by the following structures:

1) Infinitival clause

2) Adverbial Participial clause

3) Conjunctive clause

4) Relative pronoun and relative adverb clause

b. Basic Uses

5) Complementary (infinitive and conjunctive clauses)

a) infinitive (e.g., 1 John 3:16)18

b) ἵνα + subjunctive (e.g., Luke 6:31; John 8:56)

NKJ Luke 6:31 "And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.​

​

NKJ John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."​

6) Location (conjunctive and relative adverb clauses)

a) οὗ + indicative (e.g., Rom 4:15)

b) relative adverb ὅπου (e.g., Mark 4:5)19

7) Manner/Means (all four constructions except conjunctive clauses)

a) articular infinitive (e.g., ἐν τῷ + infinitive in Acts 3:26)20

b) adverbial participle (e.g., Acts 16:16)21

c) relative pronoun ὅν (e.g., Acts 1:11)

8) Purpose (all four constructions)

a) infinitive (e.g., 1 Tim 1:15)22

b) adverbial participle (e.g., 1 Cor 4:14)23

c) ἵνα + subjunctive (e.g., 1 Pet 3:18)

NKJ 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,​

d) relative pronoun οἵτινες (e.g., Matt 21:41)

9) Result (all four constructions)

a) infinitive (e.g., Gal 5:7)

b) adverbial participle (e.g., John 5:18)24

c) ἵνα + subjunctive (e.g., Rom 11:11)

NKJ Romans 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.​

p.665
d) relative adverb ὅθεν (e.g., Heb 8:3)

 

[studier]

The above are posted in response to your argument against the various uses of hina + subjunctive in the New Covenant Scriptures.

If all you're attempting to do is argue for your view of John 17:1-3, then maybe we should just focus there. Arguing for or against how hina + subjunctive verbs are used in all the New Covenant Scripture is likely not a task I'll get too involved in.

I'll await your response to my earlier requests and questions, before proceeding further.

 

[PaulThomson]

NKJ 1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.

1 Cor. 4:2 ho de loipon (but what is more) zEteitai (it is required) en tois oikonomois (in the stewards) hina (in order that) pistos (faithful) tis (a cetain one) heurethEi (be found).

My hypothesis is that to the first century koine Greek mind hina + subjunctive conveys the idea that the content of the hina clause is an intention or consequence of the content of the governing clause. In this case, what a master, and by allusion God, is requiring to be done is seen as future of His act of requiring it, and its fulfilment is contingent on intermediate events and not yet certain. The author is using this construction because, in his mind, the God's intention in requiring faithfulness is that we, in response, be faithful; but we may or may not be so.

This seems to me to fit my thesis.

 

[PaulThomson]

4) ἵνα + subjunctive mood (e.g., John 2:25)

John 2:24 But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because he knew all men,
25 kai (and) hoti (that/because) ou (not) chreian (a need) eichen (he was having) hina (that his intention was that) tis (any) marturEsEi (should testify) peri (concerning) tou anthrOpou (the man) autos yar (for he) eginOsken (was knowing) ti (what) En (was) tOi anthrOpOi (to/for man)

Again, my hypothesis is that to the first century koine Greek mind hina + subjunctive conveys the idea that the content of the hina clause is an intention or consequence of the content of the governing clause, and the content of the hina clause is contingent and not certain to occur.

In this case, if we first consider the sentence as if it was positive rather than negative, I am saying that "having a need" was considered by the first century koine Greek speaker here as that the needed thing is not a past or present reality, but a contingent occurrence future of the needing, and whether the need will be met is not certain. The present need (that someone bear witness) generates an intention to have the need met in the future, and the intention may or may not be satisfied. Hence, all the elements of my thesis would be present in this case to explain the use of hoti + subjunctive. Someone bearing witness is a contingent intention or result that the need generates.

In this case, the statement is negative, denying Jesus had such a need.

 

[PaulThomson]

Continuing:

b) ἵνα + subjunctive (e.g., Luke 6:31; John 8:56)

NKJ Luke 6:31 "And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.​

​

NKJ John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."​

NKJ Luke 6:31 "And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.

kai (and) kathOs (just as) thelete (you are desiring) hina (with the intention that) poiOsin (they should do) humin (to you) hoi anthrOpoi (the men) kai (even/also) humeis (you( poieite (do!) autois (to them) homoiOs (likewise).

Again, my hypothesis is that to the first century koine Greek mind hina + subjunctive conveys the idea that the content of the hina clause is an intention or consequence of the content of the governing clause, and the content of the hina clause is contingent and not certain to occur.

In this case, to will (thelein) is to desire or want. The thing desired is not being contemplated by the first century koine Greek speaker/writer as already true of the past or present, but is speaking of some future "doing" which is intended but contingent, not a certainty. Jesus' hearers might or might not do as he is intending. Hence hina + subjunctive is used in accordance with my thesis.

John 8:56 Abraam (Abraham) ho patEr humOn (yout father) Eyalliadato (rejoiced/leaped much) hina (in order that) idEi (he might see) tEn hEmeran tEn emEn (My day) kai (and) eiden (saw it) kai (and) echarE (was glad).

The primary meaning of agalliaO is not "to rejoice" but "to leap much", for which reason it is often used to mean "to rejoice" which one can do by leaping up and down much. However, here I think Jesus is picturing Abraham jumping up and down to see over the temporal horizon and catch a glimpse of Jesus ministry. The idea is similar to Rom 8:22-23 which JB Phillips expresses as the whole world being on tiptoes in expectation of the resurrection. Abraham was leaping (in his mind and spirit) with the intention of discerning something regarding Christ's ministry, whether he might see something was uncertain while he leaped, but God granted some insights, and he was glad.

I believe this also fits my thesis.

 

[studier]

My hypothesis is that to the first century koine Greek mind hina + subjunctive conveys the idea that the content of the hina clause is an intention or consequence of the content of the governing clause. In this case, what a master, and by allusion God, is requiring to be done is seen as future of His act of requiring it, and its fulfilment is contingent on intermediate events and not yet certain. The author is using this construction because, in his mind, the God's intention in requiring faithfulness is that we, in response, be faithful; but we may or may not be so.

A few questions to make this as simple as possible:

• If I'm reading you correctly, every hina + subjunctive is either purpose or result, correct?
• So, your theory is the same as it was when we began discussing this, correct?
• Will you answer post #6?

 

[montana123]

I do not understand why someone goes to all this length to understand something, for it seems like it would be easy to understand from scriptures alone.

Unless you are dealing with understanding something like 666 in the Bible which takes you to a word stigma which is something stuck under the skin for identification of the person.

Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

God calls things that have not happened yet as though they already happened for if it is a plan of God to happen in the future it is the same as if it happened in the beginning for it will come to pass with no hindrance.

The lamb was slain, the prophets blood was shed, and all the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and became flesh, which is the plan of God to come in the future in flesh.

Which Jesus is the beginning of creation Him coming in flesh but was considered being in the beginning.

Joh 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

This is the man Christ Jesus speaking which he did not have glory in the beginning for He was not born yet but was still considered as having glory in the beginning.

Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.

Jesus will share that glory with the saints so He cannot be speaking as God for the saints could not receive that glory.

Joh 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

The saints will behold Jesus sitting on the throne in heaven in a glorified body which He has not received at that time.

The Father loved the Son before the foundation of the world even though the man Christ Jesus was not born until later.

Jesus is speaking as a man and not as God as some people believe and say the glory He had in the beginning was Him being God, but it is glory that He will receive in the future which is considered as being in the beginning which the saints will receive the same glory a glorified body and eternal life.

 

[studier]

1 Cor. 4:2 ho de loipon (but what is more) zEteitai (it is required) en tois oikonomois (in the stewards) hina (in order that) pistos (faithful) tis (a cetain one) heurethEi (be found).

English: But what is more it is required in the stewards in order that faithful a certain one be found.

vs. from GG and the Diagram showing the hina clause to be substantive and the subject of the verb:

English: That a [man] be found faithful is in this case, furthermore, sought in the stewards.

• Hina clause translated as a subject and placed as such for clarity and according to the Diagram

Honestly, the translation you have provided doesn't make sense to me. Rather than than telling us what is required in the steward - faithfulness - what is required is not stated and we are left with purpose clause about faithfulness:

• It is required in the stewards for a purpose: so a certain one be found faithful.
  • What is required?

With respect, all this has done is choose to interpret hina as "in order that" and say your thesis makes sense, but I'm left reading an English sentence that doesn't make sense as worded.

I find the substantive, subjective interpretation of the hina clause to make sense.

 

[studier]

I do not understand why someone goes to all this length to understand something, for it seems like it would be easy to understand from scriptures alone.

An explanation: This discussion began on another thread and was moved here to not derail the other thread any further. What is being discussed is the meaning of Scriptures from John 17 that correlates to wording in John 6 that started the discussion.

The translation and interpretation of these grammatical structures can change the meaning of what was meant by the (A)author. @PaulThomson is working to properly understand what our Text is actually saying and thus what it actually means. It's the type of work that goes on in translation teams that provide the English translations for the masses to read. And double-checking translations and interpretations still goes on while we're all still working to understand the treasure we've been given. In addition, there are still men searching the globe for original language manuscripts and fragments that we may not have.

I for one appreciate the effort of all that God has men doing.