IV. GRAMMAR
IV. GRAMMAR
It is not our purpose to give a complete Johannine Grammar. This has been done by others; e.g., E. A. Abbot, Johannine Grammar, London, 1906. Important points of grammar and syntax are mentioned in the commentary proper as they occur. Moreover, these are also basic to the translation which is presented.
With respect to three types of constructions a special remark is needed, as we see it. These constructions occur with great frequency in John’s Gospel. We refer to conditional sentences, ἵνα clauses, and ὅτι clauses. Some commentaries say very little about them. Others—including some of the best—comment on some of these constructions but not on others. At times a really controversial ὅτι clause fails to receive any comment. We can easily see the reason for this: it is simply impossible in a commentary to cover every point of grammar. Were one to attempt it, he would have to write a whole set of books on each of the Gospels.
The method which we shall pursue has certain features which, we trust, will recommend it. Under each of the three aforementioned types of clauses the groups or subdivisions are described. Difficult passages in which the clauses occur are explained. Each clause is assigned to its proper column. We believe that this treatment of these frequently occurring clauses has the following advantages:
1. Completeness. An attempt has been made to classify all these clauses, so that at a glance it can be seen where each one belongs.
2. The Saving of Space. Why should it be necessary in a commentary to say over and over again: “This is a contrary-to-fact conditional sentence. The protasis has εἰ with the past indicative; the apodosis has the past indicative with ἄν. As the imperfect tense occurs in both clauses, we know that the sentence has reference to present unreality.” About a hundred of these short paragraphs in connection with conditional sentences and then hundreds of others in connection with the ἵνα and ὅτι clauses not only can be avoided by a simpler method but they also consume the space that can be used for other important commentary material.
Hence, in this commentary on the Fourth Gospel, whenever a conditional sentence occurs in the translation, there is a brief footnote stating that this conditional sentence belongs to group I D (or III A 1 or whatever the case may be). See pp. 40–64. On the indicated pages one will find an explanation of the group to which the sentence belongs, and also the column in which it is classified. When the meaning of ὅτι or of ἵνα is immediately obvious, it receives no special comment in the text. If it be controversial or if for any reason it is discussed, there is a footnote-reference to the page where it is explained. These footnotes accompany the translations.
3. Readability. Though a person be not conversant with Greek, he may not mind an occasional Greek word or technical remark. If such a person finds too much material of this nature in a commentary, he will soon give up in despair. Hence, also for this reason it is probably better, to a certain extent to separate the following oft-recurring grammatical material from the commentary proper. Those who read Greek will appreciate the attempt which we have made to give a complete classification. This will facilitate comparison with similar points of grammar in the Synoptics and, for example, in the book of Revelation.
Classification of Conditional Sentences in the Fourth Gospel
Three main groups of conditional sentences occur, as follows:
I. The Simple or First Class Conditional Sentence
In this case the condition is assumed to be true to fact. Whether it is actually a fact has nothing to do with the form of the conditional clause.
In this kind of condition we find εἰ and any tense of the indicative in the protasis. This is entirely in harmony with the idea of the indicative, for that mode is used for assertion of facts (or assumed facts). If the protasis is negative, the negative particle οὐ is used.
The apodosis of such a conditional sentence may be a statement of fact (13:14), expressed by the present indicative; a question (1:25), also indicative (present tense in nearly every case); a prediction (11:12), future indicative; or a command (7:4), imperative.
Accordingly, in the Fourth Gospel, First Class conditional sentences are subdivided as follows:
Protasis
Apodosis
A
Condition assumed to be true to Fact, Indicative
Statement of Fact, Indicative
Aorist
3:12a
Present
Present
8:39
Present
Aorist
13:14
Present
Perfect with sense of Present
13:17a
Present
B
Condition assumed to be true to Fact, Indicative
Question, Indicative
Present
1:25
Present
Present
5:47
Future
Present
7:23
Present
Present
8:46
Present
Aorist
10:35, 36
Present
Aorist
18:23b
Present
C
Condition assumed to be true to Fact, Indicative
Prediction, Indicative
Perfect
11:12
Future
Aorist
13:32
Future
Aorist
15:20 (twice)
Future
D
Condition assumed to be true to Fact, Indicative
Command or Prohibition, Imperative
Present
7:4
Aorist
Present
10:24
Aorist
Present
10:37
Present
Present
10:38a
Present
Present
15:18
Present
Present
18:8
Aorist
Aorist
18:23a
Aorist
Aorist
20:15
Aorist
II. The Contrary To Fact or Second Class Conditional Sentence
The condition (or premise) is assumed to be in conflict with reality. The protasis has εἰ with the past indicative; the apodosis has the past indicative with ἄν (usually). A contrary to fact conditional sentence which has reference to the present time takes the imperfect in both clauses (15:19). A contrary to fact conditional sentence dealing with past time has the aorist or pluperfect in both (14:7). Sometimes, however, there is a shift from present time in the protasis to past time in the apodosis (14:28); or from past to present (15:22).
In the protasis the negative particle is μή, which is not strange in view of the fact that what is asserted is contrary to fact.
We distinguish the following three groups of Second Class Conditional Sentences:
A
Contrary to Fact Conditional Sentences dealing with Present Time εἰ with the Imperfect Indicative in the protasis; the Imperfect Indicative with ἄν in the apodosis.
5:46
8:19 (pluperfect with sense of imperfect)
8:42
9:33
9:41
15:19
18:36
B
Contrary to Fact Conditional Sentences deal with Past Time εἰ with the Aorist or Pluperfect Indicative in the protasis; the Aorist or Pluperfect Indicative with ἄν in the apodosis. In such sentences ἦν may be regarded as being aorist in meaning, for the aorist form is lacking.
11:21
11:32
14:2
14:7
C
Mixed Contrary to Fact Conditional Sentences
Protasis εἰ with
Apodosis with or without ἄν
Pluperfect as Imperfect
4:10
Aorist
Imperfect
14:28
Aorist
Aorist
15:22
Imperfect
Aorist
15:24
Imperfect
Imperfect
18:30
Aorist
Pluperfect
19:11
Imperfect
III. The Future More Vivid or Third Class Conditional Sentence
The condition is conceived of neither as a reality nor as in conflict with reality but as a probable future reality. The protasis, accordingly, uses ʼεάν with the subjunctive. In about three-fifths of the cases the Fourth Gospel in the protasis of this kind of a conditional sentence employs the aorist subjunctive; in the remaining two-fifths, the present subjunctive. John has a greater fondness for the latter than do the Synoptists. By way of exception the perfect subjunctive is used in the protasis.
When the protasis has the aorist subjunctive, the apodosis usually has the future indicative; sometimes, the present indicative; at times even the subjunctive or imperative.
When the protasis has the present subjunctive, the apodosis generally takes the present indicative; sometimes, the future indicative; a few exceptions will be noted.
In the protasis the negative particle is μή, as could be expected in connection with a mode of uncertainty.
We distinguish the following groups and sub-groups:
A
Future More Vivid Conditional Sentences, using ʼεάν with the Aorist Subjunctive in the Protasis, indicating that the Verb is Viewed as a Single conception
1
With Future Indicative in the Apodosis
3:12 b
5:43
6:51
8:24
8:36
8:55
10:9
11:40
11:48
12:32
14:3 b
14:14
15:10
16:7a
20:25
2
With Present Indicative in the Apodosis
7:51
8:31
8:54
12:24
12:47 ?
13:8
14:3 a
19:12
3
All Others:
Apodosis
8:51
Aorist Subjunctive
8:52
Aorist Subjunctive
9:22
Aorist Subjunctive (after sub-final ἵνα)
15:7
Aorist Imperative
16:7a
Aorist Subjunctive
20:23a
Perfect Indicative
B
Future More Vivid Conditional Sentences, using ʼεάν with the Present Subjunctive in the Protasis, indicating that the Verb signifies Continued Action.
1
With Present Indicative in the Apodosis
5:31
8:14
8:16
9:31
10:38b
11:9
11:10
13:17 b
15:14
21:22 (implied)
21:23 (implied)
21:25
2
With Future Indicative in the Apodosis
7:17
12:26 b
13:35
14:15
14:23
3
All Others
Apodosis
6:62
Must be supplied
7:37
Present Imperative
12:26 a
Present Imperative
20:23b
Perfect Indicative
C
Future More Vivid Conditional Sentences, using ʼεάν with the Periphrastic Perfect Passive Subjunctive in the Protasis, indicating that the Verb signifies an Action in the Past which still Continues in Force.
Apodosis
3:27
Present Indicative
6:65
Present Indicative
Classification of ἵνα Clauses in the Fourth Gospel
The great frequency of ἵνα (rather often in a sub-final or non-final sense but much more often to express purpose) is one of the characteristics of the Fourth Gospel. In order to explain it some maintain that this is simply Koine vernacular, for which the author shows a great fondness; others point to the influence of Aramaic. No doubt both of these factors must be borne in mind. And is it not possible that at the root of both there is another; namely, that in any language there is a fondness for analysis rather than synthesis, a preference which is bound to assert itself in time? Today, for example, the infinitive has just about vanished from the Greek language.
Having made an independent study of the use of ἵνα in the Fourth Gospel, according to the text of Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by D. Eberhard Nestle and D. Erwin Nestle, twentieth edition, 1950, we have reached the conclusions that are tabulated in the columns found on the following pages.
Column I contains a reference to all ἵνα clauses which, as we see it, express purpose. After each reference in this and in the other columns there is an indication of the tense, voice (for all verbs that may take an object, and are transitive in that sense), and mode of the verb (or verbs) introduced by ἵνα. In the text of the Gospel the verb in question does not necessarily directly follow ἵνα but belongs to it. Thus, in 14:3 the verb which is described in the column is not εἰμί but ἦτε. When the description of the verb is preceded by neg. (ative), the text has ἱνα μή. In all cases where ἵνα expresses purpose, it has been rendered in order that or in order to in our translation. A good illustration of ἵνα introducing a purpose clause is 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his Son, the only-begotten, in order that (ἵνα) whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
Column II A contains a reference to all ἵνα clauses which function as: a. subject (of an entire sentence or of a larger clause within the sentence) or b. subjective complement or c. appositive (of the subject or of its complement) or d. modifier of any of these three.
The ἵνα clause of 4:34 furnishes a good illustration: “My food is to do the will of the One who sent me, and to accomplish his work” (ἵνα ποιῶ … καὶ τελειὠσω).
Column II B designates those ἵνα clauses which function as: a. object (of an entire sentence or of a larger clause within the sentence or even of a phrase) or b. its appositive. Verbs of asking, praying (begging, requesting), ordering, appointing, etc., often take a ἵνα clause as object.
An illustration of this type of clause is found in 17:15: “I do not pray that thou shouldest take them out of the world but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one (ἵνα ἄρῃς … ᾶλλʼ ἵνα τηρήσῃς).”
When ἵνα introduces either a subject-clause or an object-clause (columns IIA and IIB), it has usually been rendered that. In other cases an infinitive has been submitted for the entire ἵνα clause. The rendering “in order that” has never been used in translating these clauses. That the substitution of an infinitive for a ἵνα clause is entirely legitimate is clear from a comparison of 1:27 and Luke 3:16; showing that the latter uses the infinitive where the former has the ἵνα clause; yet, the identical thought is conveyed.
Column IIC indicates the ἵνα result-clauses. One of the clearest is 9:2, where if ἵνα were given the full telic force, a hardly possible meaning would result. To be sure, some speak of “pre-ordinance” even in this case (if not human, then divine) but it is surely far more natural and simple to view this ἵνα as indicating simple result; so that we translate:
“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, so that (ἵνα) he was born blind?”
In most cases the sense in which ἵνα is used is immediately clear. There are cases, however, where excellent grammarians and interpreters have reached opposite conclusions. Some authorities (especially in the older school) refuse to admit that ἵνα ever introduces a result-clause. But if ἵνα (cf. Latin ut) can have the ecbatic sense in late Greek outside of the New Testament, there is no good reason to hold that it cannot have that meaning within the New Testament. Language, after all, is a living thing. To limit the meaning of words too strictly is never wise. Others, however, go to the opposite extreme and refuse to see purpose even in passages which speak about the fulfilment of prophecy (e.g., 13:18). They would, moreover, greatly extend the list of ἵνα result-clauses. However, over against their opinion stands the fact that the idea of purpose is predominant in this Gospel: 1:7, 8; 3:17; 5:23, 34, 36; history (here particularly redemptive history, but the two cannot be separated) is viewed as the realization of the plan and will of God: 4:34; 5:30; 6:37, 44, 64; 18:37; 19:28; and in that plan the exact time or hour when each event in the story of redemption is to take place has been designated: 2:4; 7:6, 30; 8:20; 13:1. This Gospel is predestinarian from start to finish, as is apparent to any unbiased student who reads it from beginning to end at one sitting. Hence, we must allow the prophetic-fulfilment ἵνα clauses their full, telic force.
It is true, of course, that the line between purpose clauses and result clauses is sometimes very hard to draw. Room must be left for honest difference of opinion (for example, in such cases as 5:40; 6:5; 9:36; and 14:29). Some, in order to bridge the gap between purpose and result have spoken of contemplated result.
Another problem which confronts us is the fine distinction which must be drawn at times between substantive clauses, on the one hand (whether subject or object; i.e., whether they belong to Column IIA or to Column IIB), and purpose clauses (Column I) on the other. Thus one might ask: Shall we conceive of all three ἵνα clauses of 17:21 as purpose clauses? Or shall we view the first and second as object clauses, and the third as purpose? Though we favor the latter alternative, because the first two clauses seem to be controlled by a verb of asking, while the third differs substantially in form, the former alternative counts among its advocates famous exegetes who can appeal to 17:22b and 23a where clauses similar in content to the first two in verse 21 are generally regarded as purpose clauses. Fortunately, however, the resultant interpretations, whether one adopts the first or the second alternative, do not vary widely.
In view of the aforegoing it will have become evident that what is given in the columns must be regarded as being no more than an honest approach to accuracy. We believe that the classification is, in the main, correct.
As to statistics, note the following:
Final ἵνα clauses (Column I) number just over 100, while non-final ἵνα (Columns IIA, IIB, IIC) number about 40. Hence, the ratio of final to non-final ἵνα clauses in the Fourth Gospel is 5–2.
The ratio of aorist to present (and a few perfect periphrastic) subjunctives in the entire group of ἵνα clauses is slightly better than 2–1.
The ratio of positive (ἵνα) clauses to negative (ἵνα μή) clauses is about 7–1. There are also a few mixed clauses (one verb negative, the other positive, as in 3:16).
I. Final Clauses
II. Non-final Clauses
A
Subject
B
Object
C
Result
1:7 (a) aor.act. subj. explains μαρτυρίαν
1:7 (b) aor.act.subj.
1:8 aor.act.subj.
1:19 aor.act.subj.
1:22 aor.act.subj.
1:27 aor.act. subj. explains ἄξιος
1:31 aor.pass.subj.
2:25 aor.act. subj. explains χρείαν
3:15 pres.act.subj.
3:16 neg.aor.mid.subj.
and pres.act.subj.
3:17 (a) aor.
(or present)act.subj.
3:17 (b) aor.
pass. subj.
3:20 neg.aor.pass.subj.
3:21 aor.pass.subj.
4:8 aor.act.subj.
4:15 neg.pres.subj.
and neg.pres.mid.subj.
4:34 pres.act. subj.(ποιήσω aor. act.subj. also has strong support) and aor.act.subj.
4:36 pres.act.subj.
4:47 aor.act. subj. and aor. mid.subj.
5:7 aor.act. subj. modifies ἄνθρωπον
5:14 neg.aor.mid.subj.
5:20 pres.act.subj.
5:23 pres.act.subj.
5:34 aor.pass.subj.
5:36 aor.act. subj.
5:40? pres.act.subj.
6:5? aor.act.subj.
6:7 aor.act.subj.
6:12 neg.aor.mid.subj.
6:15 aor.act.subj.
6:28 pres.mid.subj.
6:29 pres.act subj. explains τοῦτο
6:30 aor.act.subj. and aor.act.subj.
6:38 pres.act.subj.
6:39 neg.aor.act. subj. or fut.act. indic.; aor.act. subj. or fut.act. indic.; these verbs explain τοῦτο
6:40 pres.act. subj.; explains τοῦτο
6:50 aor.act.subj. and neg.aor.act.subj.
7:3 fut.act.indic.
7:23 neg.aor.pass.subj.
7:32 aor.act.subj.
[8:6 pres.act.subj.]
8:56 aor.act. subj.
8:59 aor.act.subj.
9:2 aor.pass. subj.
9:3 aor.pass.subj.
9:22 aor.mid. subj.
9:36? aor.act.subj.
9:39 pres.act.subj. and aor.subj.
10:10(a) aor.act.subj. and aor.act.subj. and aor.act.subj.
10:10(b) present act. subj. and pres.act. subj.
10:17 aor.act.subj.
10:31 aor.act.subj.
10:38 aor.act.subj. and pres.act.subj.
11:4 aor.pass.subj.
11:11 aor.act.subj.
11:15 aor.act.subj.
11:16 aor.subj.
11:19 aor.mid.subj.
11:31 aor.act.subj.
11:37 neg.aor. act.subj.
11:42 aor.act.subj.
11:50 aor.subj. and neg.aor. mid.subj.
11:52 aor.act.subj.
11:53 aor.act.subj.
11:55 aor.act.subj.
11:57 aor.act. subj.
12:7 aor.act.subj. (supply: it was)
12:9 aor.act.subj.
12:10 aor.act. subj.
12:20 aor.act.subj.
12:23 aor.pass. subj.; modifies ὥρα; has almost temporal force
12:35 neg.aor.act.subj.
12:36 aor.subj.
12:38 aor.pass.subj.
12:40 neg.aor.act.subj.
and neg.aor.act.subj.
and neg.aor.act.subj.
and neg.fut.act.indic.
12:42 neg.aor.mid. subj.
12:46 neg.aor.act.subj.
12:47 (a) aor.act.subj.
12:47 (b) aor.act.subj.
13:1 aor.act. subj.; modifies ὥρα
13:2 aor.act. subj.
13:15 pres.act.subj.
13:18 aor.pass.subj.
13:19 pres.act.subj.
13:29 aor.act.subj.
13:34 pres.act. subj.; explains ʼεντολήν
14:3 pres.subj.
14:13 aor.pass.subj.
14:16 pres.subj.
14:29? aor.act.subj.
14:31 aor.act.subj.
15:2 pres.act.subj.
15:8 pres.act. subj.; modifies ʼεν τούτῳ
15:11 pres.subj. and aor.pass.subj.
15:12 pres.act. subj.; explains αὕτη
15:13 aor.act. subj.; explains ἀγάπην
15:16 (a) pres. subj. and pres. act.subj. and pres.subj.
15:16 (b) aor.act. subj.
15:17 pres.act.subj.
15:25 aor.pass.subj.
16:1 neg.aor.pass.subj.
16:2 aor.act. subj.; modifies ὥρα; has almost temporal force
16:4 pres.act.subj.
16:7 aor.act. subj.
16:24 periphrastic perf.pass.subj.
16:30 pres.act. subj.
16:32 aor.pass. subj. and aor. act.subj.
16:33 pres.act.subj.
17:1 aor.act.subj.
17:2 aor.act. subj. (another reading has fut. act.indic.) explains ʼεξουσίαν
17:3 pres.act. subj.; explains αὕτῃ
17:4 aor.act. subj.
17:11 pres.subj.
17:12 aor.pass.subj.
17:13 pres.act.subj.
17:15 (a) aor.act. subj.
17:15 (b) aor.act. subj.
17:19 periphrastic perf.pass.subj.
17:21 (a) pres. subj.
17:21 (b) pres. subj.
17:21 (c) pres.act.subj.
17:22 pres.subj.
17:23 (a) periphrastic perf.pass.subj.
17:23 (b) pres.act.subj.
17:24 (a) pres. subj.
17:24 (b) pres.act.subj.
17:26 pres.subj.
18:9 aor.pass.subj.
18:28 neg.aor.pass.
subj. and aor.act.subj.
18:32 aor.pass.subj.
18:36 neg.aor.pass. subj.
18:37 aor.act.subj.
18:39 aor.act. subj.; explains συνήθεια
19:4 aor.act.subj.
19:16 aor.pass.subj.
19:24 aor.pass.subj.
19:28 aor.pass.subj.
19:31 (a) neg.aor.subj.
19:31 (b) aor. subj. and aor. pass.subj.
19:35 pres.act.subj.
19:36 aor.pass.subj.
19:38 aor.act. subj.
20:31 (a) pres.act.subj.
20:31 (b) pres.act.subj.
Classification of ὅτι Clauses in the Gospel of John
In this Gospel ὅτι occurs much more often than in any other. There are three main uses: causal, declarative, and recitative. Approximately one-third of the examples are causal, slightly over one half are declarative, and one-ninth are recitative. Specifically:
1. A causal ὅτι may be translated for, because, since. See Column I below.
2. A declarative ὅτι introduces a clause which is the direct object of a verb of declaring, testifying, saying, seeing, thinking, hearing, remembering, knowing, etc. Such a clause may be called indirect discourse (when the term is employed in its wider meaning). The translation is that. See Column II below. The list also contains a few examples which are not strictly declarative (thus, 3:19 epexegetical; 14:22 probably consecutive). In 6:46 we probably have the elliptical use: “I do not mean that,” etc.
3. A recitative ὅτι introduces a direct quotation. In the English language it is reproduced by quotation marks (“.…”).
In this Gospel when the author quotes Jesus directly, after the words “he said,” he generally omits ὅτι (See 18:5). When other persons are quoted directly, their words are introduced by ὅτι (1:20; 9:9). There are, however, several examples of indirect discourse (Column II), in which Jesus is represented as quoting his own previous sayings. Here declarative ὅτι is used (1:50, 6:36; 8:24; etc.). The present tendency is to regard ὅτι after Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω as recitative.
In by far the most of the examples the distinct meaning of ὅτι is immediately clear from the context. Thus, in 8:47 (where ὅτι is preceded by διὰ τοῦτο) the causal sense is evident. So also after words of saying, seeing, etc., the declarative usage is generally discerned without difficulty; see, e.g., 4:20. It is also very clear that in 1:20 ὅτι must be recitative (no change from first to third person), and that in 4:51 it is declarative (change from second to third person). There are also cases where ὅτι can be either declarative or recitative without affecting the sense; e.g., 4:37.
But at times ὅτι creates problems. Note the following:
2:18. Here, it would seem, one will have to go beyond the simple declarative that in reproducing the sense of ὅτι. The Jews cannot have meant, “What sign do you show (to prove) that you are doing these things?” They did not question the fact that Jesus had actually cleansed the temple. What they wanted to know was how he could justify his actions; what good, legitimate reason he was able to advance. This points to ὅτι in the causal sense. We translate: “What sign do you show us for doing these things?”
3:7; 4:27; 5:28. The Greek verb θαυμάζω can be used either absolutely or with accusative of person or thing. Once the latter is understood (namely, the fact that the verb can have an object, and that this object can be a single word or even an entire clause), it is easy to see that the ὅτι which follows the verb can be declarative (introducing a that clause). In the manner in which the verb is used in 3:7 and in 4:27 it does not differ greatly from verbs of declaring, testifying, saying, etc. (see under 2), which generally take a similar anticipatory, declarative ὅτι. Therefore, though neither in 3:7 nor in 4:27 does it make much difference in resultant meaning whether one translates “that” or “because,” we, nevertheless, prefer the translation “that.”
In 5:28 the situation is different. Here the object of the verb (μὴ) θαυμάζετε is not a clause but the pronoun τοῦτο. Moreover, τοῦτο evidently refers to what precedes. It does not (here) anticipate; for if it did, it would mean that Jesus was telling the Jews to stop being amazed about something which he had not yet told them; namely, the details with respect to the future physical resurrection. Hence, the clause μὴ θαυμάζετε τοῦτο is complete in itself and in our editions is properly followed by a comma. The ὅτι clause which follows the comma states the reason for the immediately preceding prohibition. The proper translation, accordingly, is “for.”
3:19. Here Chrysosthom and others have taken ὅτι in its causal sense. However, comparison with other similar passages—I John 1:5; 5:9, 11, 14—immediately shows that ὅτι is used epexegetically; that is, as introducing a clause which is in apposition with a preceding substantive and explains it. Thus, I John 5:14 can only be translated: “And this is the confidence which we have with respect to him that (not because) if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.” In form 3:19 is exactly similar, and ὅτι must be rendered “that.”
4:35(b). Here either that or because makes good sense. Nevertheless, the context (verse 35 a) would seem to indicate that Jesus does not intend to say: Scan the fields (doing this because they are white), but rather: Rivet your eyes on the whiteness of these fields (in contrast with natural fields). Here we have a verb of seeing with a direct object and an object-clause.
8:22. In passages such as this one (and 11:47) there is an ellipsis; so that the entire question can be paraphrased as follows: “Then said the Jews, ‘Will he kill himself?’ They said this because (or since, ὅτι) he had said, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’ ”
14:2. That ὅτι in the sense of because is possible and even probable here is shown in our explanation of that passage. We do not agree with those expositors who insist on declarative ὅτι, as if the causal sense were entirely out of the question. When ὅτι is taken as declarative, there are two possibilities:
a. “If it were not so (i.e., if there were not many dwelling-places in my Father’s home), I would have told you that I go to prepare a place for you.” This explanation makes Jesus say that if there were no predestined mansions in heaven for God’s children, he would go up there and take the necessary steps to change the situation, and that in that case he would have informed his disciples about his plans with respect to it. But surely that interpretation is impossible: Jesus and the Father are not in conflict in John’s Gospel.
b. “If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?” This, of course, is possible, and much better than a. Nevertheless, the question has been asked, “When had Jesus ever told his disciples this thing (namely, that he was going to prepare a place for them)?” The possibility that there had been such very important teaching of which the Gospel has preserved no record must be granted; the probability is not great.
Basically there is not a great difference between b. (ὅτι, that in a question) and the position that ὅτι must be regarded as causal. Two very important facts are either specifically taught or at least implied in either view:
a. In the Father’s house there is ample room for all of his children.
b. One of the purposes of Christ’s ascension to heaven was in order that he might get everything in readiness with respect to the dwelling-places of the elect.
Classification of ὅτι Clauses in the New Testament
I. CAUSAL
II. DECLARATIVE
(MAINLY)
III. RECITATIVE
=for, because, since
=that
=“....”
1:15
1:16
1:17
1:20
1:30
1:32
1:34
1:50(a)
1:50(b)
2:17
2:18
2:22
2:25
3:2
3:7
3:11
3:18
3:19
3:21
3:23
3:28(a)
3:28(b)
3:33
4:1(a)
4:1(b)
4:17
4:19
4:20
4:21
4:22
4:25
4:27
4:35(a)
4:35(b)
4:37
4:39
4:42(a)
4:42(b)
4:44
4:47
4:51
4:52
4:53
5:6
5:15
5:16
5:18
5:24
5:25
5:27
5:28
5:30
5:32
5:36
5:38
5:39
5:42
5:45
6:2
6:5
6:14
6:15
6:22(a)
6:22(b)
6:24
6:26(a)
6:26(b)
6:36
6:38
6:41
6:42
6:46
6:61
6:65
6:69
7:1
7:7(a)
7:7(b)
7:8
7:12
7:22
7:23
7:26
7:29
7:30
7:35 (almost
resultative: so that)
7:39
[7:40]
7:42
7:52
8:14
8:16
8:17
8:20
8:22
8:24(a)
8:24(b)
8:27
8:28
8:29
8:33
8:34
8:37(a)
8:37(b)
8:43
8:44(a)
8:44(b)
8:45
8:47
8:48
8:52
8:54
8:55
9:8
9:9(a)
9:9(b)
9:11
9:16
9:17(a)
9:17(b)
9:18
9:19
9:20(a)
9:20(b)
9:22
9:23
9:24
9:25
9:29
9:30
9:31
9:32
9:35
9:41
10:4
10:5
10:7
10:13
10:17
10:26
10:33
10:34
10:36(a)
10:36(b)
10:38
10:41
11:6
11:9
11:10
11:13
11:15
11:20
11:22
11:24
11:27
11:31(a)
11:31(b)
11:40
11:41
11:42(a)
11:42(b)
11:47
11:50
11:51
11:56
12:6(a)
12:6(b)
12:9
12:11
12:12
12:16
12:18
12:19
12:34(a)
12:34(b)
12:39
12:41
12:49
12:50
13:1
13:3(a)
13:3(b)
13:11
13:19
13:21
13:29
13:33
13:35
14:2
14:10
14:11
14:12
14:17(a)
14:17(b)
14:19
14:20
14:22
14:28(a)
14:28(b)
14:28(c)
14:31
15:5
15:15(a)
15:15(b)
15:18
15:19
15:21
15:25
15:27
16:3
16:4(a)
16:4(b)
16:6
16:9
16:10
16:11
16:14
16:15
16:17
16:19(a)
16:19(b)
16:20
16:21(a)
16:21(b)
16:26
16:27(a)
16:(27b)
16:30(a)
16:30(b)
16:32
17:7
17:8(a)
17:8(b)
17:8(c)
17:9
17:14
17:21
17:23
17:24
17:25
18:2
18:8
18:9
18:14
18:18
18:37
19:4
19:7
19:10
19:20
19:21
19:28
19:35
19:42
20:9
20:13
20:14
20:15
20:18
20:29
20:31
21:4
21:7
21:12
21:15
21:16
21:17(a)
21:17(b)
21:23(a)
21:23(b)
21:24
Influence of Aramaic upon the Greek of the Fourth Gospel
With respect to the possible influence of Aramaic upon the Greek of the Fourth Gospel it is probably best to avoid extremes. On the one hand, it would seem to be obvious that a book composed in Ephesus for those of Ephesus and vicinity, a Gospel intended to be read by Greek-speaking Christians from among the Gentiles, must have been written in Greek. But since its author was a Jew whose native tongue was Aramaic and since the primary sources for this Gospel must have been Aramaic, it would seem to be just as obvious that its linguistic peculiarities should often be viewed as Aramaisms; at least, as Semitisms. It is true that for many of these characteristic constructions one can find parallels in Epictetus or the Papyri or both. The question remains, however, whether when one finds so many of these peculiarities, some of them with such a high frequency rate, occurring together in the relatively small compass of one Gospel, and when, in addition, one knows that the author and also the Person whose discourses he reproduces were Aramaic-speaking Jews, whether under these circumstances it may not be best to give the Aramaic language its due as a formative influence which contributed its share in determining the type of Greek that is found here. Thus, the employment of several Aramaic words, constantly recurring parallelisms (often chiastic), suspended subjects, characteristic expressions (like “answered and said” which also occurs frequently in the Aramaic section of the book of Daniel), καί in the sense of “but” (or “and yet”), clause-co-ordination instead of clause-subordination (parataxis instead of hypotaxis), and abundant (redundant ?) use of pronouns and of the historical present, seem altogether natural when one finds them in a book written by an author with a Jewish name and soul.
V. THEME AND DIVISIONS
The theme is given in 20:31: Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God. There is a clear-cut division at the close of chapter 12: Christ turns away from the multitudes and withdraws himself to the inner circle of his disciples.
Good arguments can be advanced for various subdivisions under each of these two main parts. We prefer the following:
The first six chapters form one large unit. They proclaim the glorious Son of God who became flesh, is shown revealing himself to ever-widening circles, and is then rejected, first in Judea (chapter 5), then in Galilee (chapter 6). These chapters (after the Prologue, 1:1–18) cover various great events and discourses that pertain to a period of approximately two years and four months; i.e., from December of the year 26 to Passover of the year 29. There follows a half-year period (The Retirement Ministry, Passover to Feast of Tabernacles) on which John is silent.
Chapters 7–10 form another unit. They record events and discourses that occurred during the period from October to December of the year 29 (Feast of Tabernacles to Feast of Dedication). The conclusion of chapter 10 indicates that here again we have a natural division (see 10:40–42). This subdivision describes the Son of God making his tender appeal to sinners and at the same time rebuking his enemies whose hatred and sinister determination with respect to him gradually increases.
Chapters 11 and 12 constitute the third and final subdivision under the first main division. Here the Word is shown revealing himself clearly by two mighty deeds: the raising of Lazarus and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. This section takes us to the beginning of the Week of the Passion. As already indicated, the closing paragraph of chapter 12 (see especially verse 37) forms a natural conclusion to the entire first division of the Fourth Gospel.
The second part, chapters 13–21, divides itself very readily into four subdivisions. They are:
Chapter 13 stands by itself, though it forms a natural introduction to the Upper Room Discourses. But here in chapter 13, unlike chapters 14–17, we have narrative material. There is action, interspersed with dramatic conversation. We see the Master and his disciples at the Supper. He issues and illustrates his new commandment that they should love one another even as he loved them. The story regarding Peter’s denial, introduced in the closing verses of this chapter (13:36–38, the prediction), is continued afterward (in 18:15–18 and verses 25–27, the fulfilment of the prediction). Between this prediction and its fulfilment stands the block, chapters 14–17.
Chapters 14–17 clearly belong together. They contain the Supper Discourses and the Highpriestly Prayer. The Lord tenderly instructs his disciples and in his prayer commits to the care of his Father: himself, them, and those who would come to believe through their word.
In chapters 18 and 19 the Christ is described in the act of dying as a substitute for his people. It is clear, of course, that this section, too, forms a unit.
The final subdivision comprises chapters 20 and 21: the Resurrection and Appearances.
We have divided the Fourth Gospel into two main divisions and seven subdivisions, three under the first main division, four under the second. Though we claim no greater merit for this outline than that it is natural, as has been indicated, and easy to commit to memory, it is, nevertheless, interesting to observe that the apostle John, the author of the Fourth Gospel and of the Apocalypse, loves this kind of an arrangement. In the Apocalypse he also at times divides his sevens into two groups, placing three units in the first and four in the second or vice versa. (See our More Than Conquerors, Grand Rapids, 1952, pp. 30 and 75.) In fact, the book of Revelation, too, divides itself in exactly the same manner. Note the parallel:
Gospel of John
Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God
Book of Revelation
The Victory of Christ and His
Church over Satan and his
Helpers
I. During His Public Ministry
I. The Struggle on Earth
A. Revealing himself to ever-widening circles, rejected
A. Christ in the midst of the seven Golden Lampstands
B. Making his tender appeal to sinners, bitterly resisted
B. The Book with Seven Seals
C. Manifesting himself as the Messiah by two mighty deeds, repulsed
C. The Seven Trumpets of Judgment
II. During His Private Ministry
II. The Deeper Spiritual Background
A. Issuing and illustrating his new commandment
A. The Woman and the Man-Child Persecuted by the Dragon and his Helpers
B. Tenderly instructing his disciples and committing them to the Father’s care
B. The Seven Bowls of Wrath
C. Dying as a substitute for his people
C. The Fall of the Great Harlot and of the Beasts
D. Triumphing gloriously
D. The Judgment upon the Dragon, followed by the New Heaven and Earth
(For this Outline see More Than Conquerors, pp. 22–31)
The plan of John’s Gospel is, indeed, beautiful. The arrangement is superb. We see the Word in his pre-incarnate glory, so that we may appreciate his condescending love in coming to earth in order to save sinners. In his earthly ministry he reveals himself to ever-widening circles, but is rejected both in Judea and in Galilee. Nevertheless, he does not at once destroy those who have rejected him, but instead he makes his tender appeal to sinners, that they may accept him by faith. Meanwhile opposition becomes active and bitter resistance. By two mighty deeds he now manifests himself clearly as the Messiah. But though the Greeks seek him, the Jews, who have seen such clear tokens of his character, love, and power, repulse him. So he turns to the inner circle, tenderly instructs them in the Upper Room, and just before his final suffering and death commits them to the Father’s care. In his very death he overcomes the world and by means of his resurrection he reveals the meaning of the cross.
C. F. Burney calls it “one of the most remarkable phenomena in this Gospel,” The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1922, p. 69.
Thus R.S.V. along with other translations leaves ὅτι in 5:24, 25 untranslated, so that no distinction is shown to the English reader between the construction without ὅτι in 5:19 and with ὅτι in 5:24, 25. The question is legitimate whether, perhaps, the presence of ὅτι after Ἀμὴν αμὴν λέγω adds to the resumptive character of the saying which follows the words of solemn introduction. If so, the construction would tend in the direction of indirect discourse, as if Jesus is restating what he has said before but is now saying it in different words, perhaps with a new idea added or with a new emphasis. A good argument can be presented for this position in each of the cases where the introductory words appear with ὅτι (3:11; 5:24, 25; 8:34; 10:7; 13:21; and 16:20). N.N. omits ὅτι in all the other cases where Ἀμὴν αμὴν λέγω σοι (or ὑμἶν) occurs (1:51; 3:3, 5; 5:19; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:51, 58; 10:1; 12:24; 13:16, 20; 13:38; 14:12; 16:23; and 21:18). However, the situation is complicated by the fact that in some instances the text is disputed.
See W. F. Albright, “Some Observations Favoring the Palestinian Origin of the Gospel of John,” HThR, April, 1924; same author, From The Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore, 1940, pp. 299, 300. One should read at least: C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1922; O. T. Allis, “The Alleged Aramaic Origin of the Gospels,” PThR 26(1928), 531–572; E. C. Colwell, The Greek of the Fourth Gospel, Chicago, 1931; G. D. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, Studies in the Gospels (translated by P. P. Levertoff), New York, 1929, especially pp. 1–38; E. J. Goodspeed, New Chapters in New Testament Study, New York, 1937, ch. VI; J. De Zwaan, “John Wrote Aramaic,” JBL, 57(1938), 155–171; the Riddle-Torrey Debate, ChrC, July 18–Oct. 31, 1934; F. W. Filson, One Lord—One Faith, Philadelphia, 1943, pp. 31–35; and the works of C. C. Torrey; especially, The Four Gospels, A New Translation, New York and London, 1933; Our Translated Gospels, New York and London, 1936; and Documents of the Primitive Church, New York and London, 1941.
F. W. Ginrich, “The Gospel of John and Modern Greek,” ClW, 36(1942–1943), 122–123, has found a similarity between John’s Greek and modern Greek.