Lovely Greek

[IFollowJesus]

"οὕτω γὰρ ἡγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλ᾿ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον."- John 3:16

I hear alot of dispute over the original language on the NT Was it greek? or some other language?

Also I wanted to post this beautifull language.

[bookworm1711]

This is beautiful language indeed, and the message is true in any language.

I hear alot of dispute over the original language on the NT Was it greek? or some other language?


It is most clear, for anyone who has studied the original language, or who has studied linguistics in depth, that the New Testament Greek is NOT a translation language. The New Testament was originally written in Greek, so that its message could be widely spread to the world of that day effectively.

The presence of word play in the Greek text, together with other linguistic and grammatical features including figures of speech, are absolutely the mark of a work written originally in the Greek language, for such figures simply do not directly translate into another language.

The Greek text of John 3:16 conveys much truth that is not always immediately obvious in English translation. That God so loved the world (ton kosmon or τὸν κόσμον) is grammatically called the monadic construction by Greek grammarians. This construction signals that "the world" is taken as a unified whole, the only and unique object of its kind, such that God loves the whole world, not a part of it (see also 1 John 2:2), so that this love extends to every individual person in the world.

The verse also states "that whosoever believeth" in him may not perish, but may have everlasting life. "Believeth" in the Greek text is in the present tense, which means, in Greek, continues to believe, not a one time supposed decision for Christ, or a one time act of faith (listen to the messages of Paul Washer currently posted to see the Biblical emphasis: http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=65227 and http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=61543). True faith or true belief always continues (Colossians 1:23).

My reference to the subjunctive mood of "may not perish" but "may have everlasting life" does not bear the English connotation of doubtfulness, but in Greek marks contingency, such that those who meet or satisfy the requirements of the specified contingency are the ones who can affirm the benefit of the promise: the contingency specified in the context of John 3:16 is continuing belief in the Son.

The terms "only begotten" used of the Son in John 3:16 express the unique and eternal relationship of the Son to the Father. In His pre-existence, Jesus was always uniquely the Son of God (Psalm 2:7. Isaiah 9:6. Hebrews 1:8). When used of Christ, "only begotten" speaks of "unoriginated relationship." Only begotten "indicates that as the Son of God He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him" (Vine, Expository Dictionary, Volume 3, page 140).

"Only begotten" is a word picture which portrays the relationship of the Father to the Son in the terms of a Middle Eastern patriarchal family (Genesis 21:12. Genesis 22:2, 12, 16. Hebrews 11:17).

Isaac, termed Abraham's only begotten son (Hebrews 11:17), though Abraham had a prior son Ishmael by Hagar (Genesis 16:15) and later sons by Keturah (Genesis 25:1-4. 1 Chronicles 1:32, 33), sustains a unique relationship to Abraham as the son of promise (Galatians 4:23). The same picture, portrayed in parable (Matthew 21:37), emphasizes the unique authority of Jesus as sent by the Father (John 20:21. 1 John 4:9), and our responsibility to receive the truth declared by Him (John 1:14, 18. John 3:18. Matthew 17:5).

And this does not begin to tap the truths present in John 3:16. God has, however, put those truths in every part of His written Word for our benefit, and commands us to "Search the Scriptures" (John 5:39. Acts 17:11) on a daily basis (Joshua 1:8), as possible, so that we may grow in Christ (1 Peter 2:2. 2 Peter 3:18).

[Obadiah]

Bookworm:

I've read about the 'monadic construction' elsewhere, but I've never been able to track down any references in the grammars. Could you refer me to some documentation for this idea?

Thanks.

[bookworm1711]

Dear Obadiah,

The "Monadic Construction" is discussed briefly, with a short list of example texts including John 3:16 as the first example, in James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winberry, Syntax of New Testament Greek, where they state "A substantive is monadic when it is the only such thing there is. An article is not always used with monadic nouns, however" (pages 73, 74). An older grammar by Samuel G. Green (1886), Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, discusses on page 179, "(1) Monadic Nouns.--Objects of which there is but one of the kind, or only one of which is present to thought, are usually defined by the Article," giving example words "heaven, earth, the sea, the great king." On page 190 Green states "Some monadic nouns, being regarded as proper names, may be used with or without the Article. He gives example words "sun, world, heaven or heavens, earth or land, sea, day, night, church, and some others. The Article, however, is most generally inserted."

Daniel B. Wallace, in his much more recent (1996) Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, according to the index on page 784, discusses monadic nouns on pages 223-224, 225, 230-31, 247, 248-49, 262, 263, 732, 734. On page 223, for example, Wallace states "6) Monadic ("One of a kind" or "Unique" Article); a) Definition. The article is frequently used to identify monadic or one-of-a-kind nouns, such as "the devil," "the sun, "the Christ." b) Amplification and Clarification...." He follows with further excellent discussion and examples. He gets into further refinements, distinguishing, for example, between the Monadic and the par excellence usages of the article.

[Obadiah]

Bookworm:

Thanks for the references.

I don't own a copy of Brooks & Winbery, so I'll have to look that up on my next library run. Meanwhile, though, I'm having difficulty making the connection between the monadic concept -- that the monadic noun represents a unique entity, an entity in a class by itself -- and the notion that because of this a monadic noun cannot be subdivided.

I agree completely that κοσμος nowhere in the NT means 'the elect' or such, that such texts as John 3:16 teach that God loves 'the human race' and not just a part of it. I'd really like to substantiate this with the monadic argument. (Not that I think such an argument is necessary; I've yet to see an even reasonable proposal for κοσμος = 'elect' that's without a transparently theological motivation -- but it's always good to have support from the grammar.) But at this point I'm simply not persuaded.

For example, if κοσμος means 'the human race' -- which it unquestionably does, e.g., in Romans 3:19 -- then, according to the monadic argument, κοσμος cannot describe a subdivision of the human race. But there are numerous NT texts in which κοσμος, by my reading, denotes that portion of the human race who are not redeemed (the 'non-elect', if you will). I'm thinking of Revelation 12:9, where Satan deceives "the whole world"; 1 John 5:19, "We are of God, but the whole world lies in the wicked one" where "the whole world" is in contrast to the redeemed; Hebrews 11:7, where Noah condemns the world; 1 Corinthians 11:32, "that we might not be condemned with the world"; 1 Corinthians 6:2, "the saints will judge the world"; John 17:9, where Jesus prays "not for the world but for those You have given Me". In none of these cases does 'world system' or the like make sense; the κοσμος here describes the human race except the redeemed. One might propose that κοσμος in the sense of 'the lost' is what's left of the κοσμος after the εκκλησια is taken out of it, but that still seems to go against the notion of monadic as indivisible. Further, Paul in at least one context uses κοσμος in the sense of the Gentiles, the human race except for Israel (Romans 11:12-15).

I'd like nothing better than to utilize the 'monadic' argument against the teaching of limited atonement, but at this point it just doesn't seem to pan out. Any assistance would be appreciated.

[bookworm1711]

Dear Obadiah,

You provided a nice study directly from the Scripture in your last post. I always enjoy that.

Part of the problem grammatically, linguistically speaking, is that our theology might get in the way of our grammatical categories and their proper application.

Case in point: it might be possible to consider the noun "resurrection" to be used in a monadic construction with a non-divisible significance in some contexts. Does that mean it has monadic significance in all contexts? I hardly think so. But those who believe in the simultaneous resurrection of both the just and the unjust (citing, for example, John 5:25, 28, 29) would argue for the monadic construction at Acts 23:6 as proof or confirmation. Perhaps a better citation would be Acts 24:15, 21. None of these instances I have cited regarding resurrection has the Greek article, but recall that the article is not always required. I believe the Bible teaches that the unjust are raised 1000 years later than the just, so that it is Biblical to speak of more than one resurrection, but I have scholar friends who disagree with me. Jesus himself appears to refer to the resurrection of the just as a distinct event in Luke 14:14 (which does have the article, but I would not suggest it is an instance of the monadic construction).

I have a scholar friend who has spent the past decade studying the issue or question you raise regarding the monadic construction at John 3:16 and its bearing upon the doctrine of limited atonement and Calvinism generally. If you do a search for the term "monadic construction" via Google you will probably encounter his website.

Perhaps earlier this year I began a study of the monadic construction myself, going first from the examples furnished in Green's grammar. I have since obtained Wallace's grammar, but have not continued or extended my study yet. Like you have found with "world," or 'kosmos,' a word which is sometimes monadic is not always so, and I'm searching for a grammatical or linguistic principle that will hold to identify instances that are strictly monadic. It is always interesting that the deeper you dig into Scripture, the more interesting it gets!

[Obadiah]

Bookworm:

I'm assuming your buddy is Malcolm Lavender. His website and others citing him are the only hits I got on Google for "monadic construction" and "atonement."

I had actually stumbled across Lavender's website some time back. Unfortunately, he offers no real evidence to substantiate his assertions. All I see is the same citation of Brooks & Winbery's Syntax p. 73. When I looked that up at the library before, there was nothing whatsoever about the monadic construction on that page. In case it was a typo, I looked at similarly numbered pages (e.g., 37) and the index -- still nothing. Is it possible the reference is to Brooks & Winbery's Morphology, or are there different editions of the Syntax?

My local seminary library has Green; I'll take a look at him.

Wallace doesn't address this aspect of the issue as best I can tell; his concern seems limited to the monadic use in relation to the use of the definite article.

In the long term, though, this monadic argument doesn't seem very useful. If the same word can be either monadic or not in any given context, wouldn't the limited atonement advocate simply argue that it's not monadic in such texts as John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2?

[bookworm1711]

Dear Obadiah,

I don't own Brooks and Winbery myself, but will check with my friend's copy (or have him double-check it) for verification. Nevertheless, the source in question is given as follows in the bibliography to my friend's book:

Brooks, James A. and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, Lanham, MD.: University Press of America, 1988.

I'll also forward to him your comments and concerns, and get back with you in a future post should my friend have a suitable answer.