Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:4-5
This exegetical study of 1 Timothy 2:4-5 is based on a b-greek discussion from Thu Nov 2 11:20:39 EST 2006. The initial query in the discussion, as presented in the primary content, challenged the assumption that the Greek relative pronoun ὅς (hos) in 1 Timothy 2:4 inherently carries a causal meaning, suggesting instead that it functions as a standard relative pronoun connecting the clause to its antecedent.
The main exegetical issues central to this discussion revolve around three key aspects of 1 Timothy 2:4-5: (1) the precise semantic force of the relative pronoun ὅς in verse 4, specifically whether it conveys an implicit causal sense; (2) the nuance of the verb θέλει (thelei) in verse 4, and its potential distinction from βούλομαι (boulomai) regarding divine will or desire; (3) the rhetorical and logical function of the conjunction γάρ (gar) in verse 5, determining its role as explicative or causative in linking the two verses; and (4) the potential emphasis implied by the word order of πάντας ἀνθρώπους (pantas anthrōpous) in verse 4, affecting whether the phrase refers to all individuals or all categories of people.
4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.
5 εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς
(Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
* No textual differences were identified between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 for 1 Timothy 2:4-5.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes
The critical apparatus of NA28 shows no significant textual variants for 1 Timothy 2:4-5 that would impact the exegetical questions discussed. The text is largely stable across major manuscripts.
Lexical considerations are central to the debate:
- ὅς (hos): This is a masculine nominative singular relative pronoun, referring to “God our Savior” (τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ) in the preceding verse (1 Tim 2:3). While typically functioning as a simple relative pronoun (“who”), grammarians like Smyth (Greek Grammar, §2555) acknowledge that relative clauses can assume a causal force depending on context. This is the crux of the debate: whether the causality resides intrinsically in ὅς here or in the broader discourse structure. Some commentators suggest an implicit causal effect, rendering it as “because he wishes.”
- πάντας ἀνθρώπους (pantas anthrōpous): This phrase translates to “all people” or “all humanity.” The question arises whether its position at the beginning of verse 4 is emphatic, and what implications “all” carries here—every single individual or all kinds of people/categories of people. The broader context of 1 Timothy 2:1-2, which calls for prayers “for all people, for kings and all those in authority,” suggests a categorical understanding (“all kinds of people”) rather than an absolute numerical universalism (“every single person”), especially in the light of the following theological statements in verses 5-6. However, discourse linguistics notes that the repetition of “all” (πάντων, πάντας) reinforces the inclusivity.
- θέλει (thelei): This verb, from θέλω (thelō), signifies “to wish, desire, want.” The discussion in the forum highlights a perceived distinction between θέλω and βούλομαι (boulomai). Thayer suggests βούλομαι implies a “will which follows deliberation,” while θέλω signifies a “will which proceeds from inclination.” BDAG, however, provides overlapping meanings for θέλω, including “to have a desire for something, wish to have, desire, want” (BDAG 3a) and “to have someth. in mind for oneself, of purpose, resolve, will, wish, want, be ready” (BDAG 3b). While BDAG does not explicitly reference 1 Tim 2:4 under θέλω, the presence of these nuanced definitions shows that θέλω can express both a heartfelt desire and a purposeful intent. The idea that God’s “wish” here implies a non-binding desire, contrasted with a deliberative “will,” is debated, with some arguing that God’s desire here is indeed followed by an executed plan (1 Tim 2:5-6). KITTEL (TDNT Vol. III, p. 44) further discusses θέλω as expressing “dynamic will” or “determination,” not merely a weak desire.
- γάρ (gar): This conjunction introduces an explanatory or causal clause. W.B. Robertson (Grammar of the Greek New Testament) noted its primary function as explanatory, a view largely confirmed by modern linguistic treatments (e.g., Steve Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament). It “fleshes out some aspect of what precedes” and “may introduce the reason or rationale for some preceding action or state.” Thus, while explicative, it often implicitly carries a causal force, providing the theological basis or justification for God’s desire for all to be saved.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4-5 is significantly affected by the semantic decisions regarding ὅς, πάντας ἀνθρώπους, θέλει, and γάρ. The interconnectedness of these terms shapes the theological implications of God’s universal salvific will.
The relative pronoun ὅς, while primarily anaphoric, can acquire a causal nuance through its discourse context. The flow of argument, moving from the command to pray for all people (vv. 1-3) to God’s character (vv. 4-6), suggests that God’s desire for all to be saved provides the *reason* or *motivation* for such widespread prayer. Therefore, interpreting ὅς as implicitly causal is grammatically defensible, even if not explicitly marked by a conjunction like διότι.
The phrase πάντας ἀνθρώπους also presents interpretative challenges. Its fronted position in verse 4 (preceding θέλει σωθῆναι) is grammatically marked, potentially indicating emphasis. Whether this emphasis highlights every single person without exception or all categories of humanity is debated. Contextual considerations, particularly the preceding call to pray “for kings and all those in authority” (1 Tim 2:2), favor a “representative” or “categorical” universalism, encompassing all social strata and types of people, rather than absolute individual universalism. This interpretation aligns with the pragmatic need for the early church to pray for civic leaders, implying that salvation is available to all, regardless of status or ethnicity, without necessarily guaranteeing individual salvation for every person.
The distinction between θέλω and βούλομαι is often subtle in Koine Greek. While some grammarians (like Thayer) attempt to distinguish them as inclination vs. deliberation, the evidence from lexica like BDAG and usage in the New Testament often shows considerable overlap. In 1 Timothy 2:4, God’s θέλει for all to be saved appears to be more than a mere wish; it is presented as a fundamental aspect of His character and purpose, which is then elaborated upon by the provision of a mediator in verse 5. This suggests that even if θέλω primarily connotes desire, here it is a powerful, purposeful desire that undergirds divine action.
The conjunction γάρ in verse 5 serves to introduce the theological rationale for God’s desire expressed in verse 4. It strengthens the link between God’s will for salvation and the unique provision of a single God and single mediator, Christ Jesus. Thus, γάρ is not merely an explicative connector but functions as a justificatory “for” or “because,” grounding God’s universal salvific desire in His monotheistic nature and the singular work of Christ. The close connection prevents a division of the two sentences, indicating that the theological statements are foundational to understanding God’s desire.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The analysis of 1 Timothy 2:4-5 reveals a rich theological statement concerning God’s salvific intent and the universal scope of Christ’s mediation. The relative pronoun ὅς carries an implicit causal force, while πάντας ἀνθρώπους likely denotes a categorical universality, emphasized by its position. The verb θέλει expresses a profound, purposeful desire on God’s part, which is reinforced and explained by the justificatory γάρ in verse 5.
- “It is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who indeed desires all people to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and humankind, the man Christ Jesus.”
This translation emphasizes the causal nuance of ὅς and the explanatory/justificatory nature of γάρ, while maintaining the common understanding of θέλει as desire. - “This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, because he intends for all kinds of people to be saved and to arrive at the knowledge of truth. This is so because there is one God and one mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus.”
This rendering explicitly highlights the causal force of ὅς and God’s purposeful will (intends), interpreting πάντας ἀνθρώπους categorially and emphasizing the explanatory link provided by γάρ. - “This is commendable and pleasing before God our Savior, who wishes that all humanity attain salvation and come to a precise understanding of the truth. Indeed, there is one God and one mediator of God and humans, the human Christ Jesus.”
This translation emphasizes God’s profound wish (θέλει) and the inclusivity of “all humanity” without necessarily implying individual universal salvation, while taking γάρ as an emphatic explanation rather than a strict cause.
4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρωπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. 5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς
4 hOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN. 5 hEIS GAR QEOS, hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN, ANQRWPOS XRISTOS IHSOUS
First, let us dispose of γάρ GAR. I’ve found Steve Runge’s _Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament_ to be helpful particularly with regard to some of the conjunctions. He notes that while Wallace and Young indicate that γάρ GAR is both coordinating and subordinating that
“Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.”
And,
“Where it occurs in narrative proper, the proposition introduced by γάρfleshes out some aspect of what precedes. It may be in the form of background information; it may introduce the reason or rationale for some preceding action or state.” Regarding βούλομαι BOULOMAI and θέλω QELW, it seems that the difference BDAG indicates is that θέλω QELW indicates a wish or desire while βούλομαι BOULOMAI not only indicates a desire but a plan. I am not sure that I agree with this — particularly with regard to this passage. Here it would seem that what is indicated is precisely that God’s wish is then carried out — that is to say, a plan is executed.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Thanks, George.
I’m not sure I understand this sentence (even with the help of English-Polish dictionary): “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.” Could you explain it to me, please?
Beata Urbanek
It means that Robertson was correct when saying that the main use of γάρ GAR is to explain what has already been stated. george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Thank you, George.
Beata Urbanek
Could I therefore say that GAR connects the two sentences very closely? That we cannot really divide them? Or the connection is quite loose?
I’d appreciate thoughts about QELW from other people as well.
Beata Urbanek
I think you’re asking too much. Is it a slip knot or a hangman’s knot? I don’t think you can say anything more than that GAR indicates that statement B comments on statement A.
Here too I think you’re asking for more of a disambiguation between QELW and BOULOMAI than is to be readily achieved. I haven’t done a study on this — perhaps somebody has, but I don’t know of it — but my sense is that earlier Greek tended to use QELW or EQELW of consent or willingness to do something or for something to be done, while BOULOMAI was used rather for positive intent to do something or have something done. I note that LSJ says, ” … to be willing (of consent rather than desire, v. βούλομαι 1), but also generally, wish … ”
I’m inclined to think that the two verbs are more or less synonymous and that QELW is the more common in everyday colloquial discourse. I note that QELW is found 208x in the GNT, 153x in the LXX, while BOULOMAI is found 37 times in the GNT, 121 times in the LXX. It might be worth a further investigation, but I don’t see much basis to differentiate the sense of the two verbs very sharply.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Here too I think you’re asking for more of a disambiguation between QELW and BOULOMAI than is to be readily achieved.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Thanks for your answer. Actually, I don’t expect or wish any diffrence in meaning or the other way round. I just wanted to know if the statement I’ve quoted was valid. And now I think that not quite.
Beata Urbanek
Beata wrote
Hi, Beata,
How about some thoughts from Euripides:
Alcestis is about to die in place of her husband. Before she dies, she wants to tell him what she wants, the main thing being that she does not want her husband to get remarried (“the funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables!”) This is how she puts it:
λέξαι θέλω σοι πρὶν θανεῖν ἃ βούλομαι. (LEXAI QELW SOI PRIN QANEIN hA BOULOMAI)
“Before I die, I want to tell you what I want.”
She has resolved with her will (BOULOMAI) that her kids would be better off without a step-mother, but it is her heart’s wish (QELW) that a woman be really heard by her husband, if only once, if only here.
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
Mark, I just can’t see how you’re getting that sense from this text; you’re talking about matters that are altogether out of the scope of this statement, which would seem to be saying no more than, “I want to tell you what’s on my mind.” I think we might very well argue that “what’s on my mind” (hA BOULOMAI) is what she intends to accomplish by doing what she’s about to do (i.e. die in place of her husband Admetus). But the complement of QELW is nothing more than LEXAI — “make a statement.”
It seems to me that Euripides’ usage of LEXAI QELW here does not differ significantly from the Pauline expression, OU QELW hUMAS AGNOEIN, ADELFOI (Rom. 1:13,. 11:25 1Cor. 10:1, 12:1 2Cor. 1:8, 1Th. 4:13)
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Hi Carl,
On a slightly unrelated note, do you think that, in this passage from Euripides, for example, BOULOMAI is more “subject intensive” than QELW? How would you falsify that?
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
If I recall correctly, you were citing Thayer. I WOULD NOT RELY on Thayer. The problem with Thayer is that he wrote before the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus papyri and the writings of Deissman and Moulton and Milligan.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
I know you would not. But I’ve quoted BDAG as well. (first sold my…)
Beata
Dear Beata, Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an individual wishes or wants and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council decides together?
thank you Shirley Rollinson +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is evident from the use of GAR in 1 Tim. 2:5 that THELO is used in v. 4 with the sense of purpose. That is to say: God will have all to be saved because there is one God and one mediator, Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.
Sam Cripps (layman)
After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that it usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, I have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want you to do or this is what I want should happen. If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of that consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself.
In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI
(God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all to make room for repentance.
In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to fully know the truth.
But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put everything in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as the mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and acknowledge this truth, they will not be saved.
Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that some distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the difference between English “want” and “wish”.
Dear Shirley,
they are cognate words so for sure they relate to each other. But BOULH means “will” as well, e.g. Luk 7:30 BOULH TOU QEOU. At first I connected BOULH to a council but it refers to individuals, too.
Beata Urbanek
Thanks to all who responded.
The text again: 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN
I have another question. Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? Should the “normal” word order be: ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους. hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS
Beata Urbanek
Plus another question:)
One of the commentators says that hOS has a causal meaning: “because He wants all people to be saved”. I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.
Beata Urbanek
Hi, Beata,
Any relative clause can have causal force if that’s what the context demands.
Paul could have used here a participle θελοντος (QELONTOS,) which would have had a causal force. Instead of a subordinate clause, he could have started a new sentence and used GAR, which would have had a causal force. The relative clause was such another option to keep the style various.
Mark L
Φωσφορος FWSFOROS MARKOS
I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t think is possible. Note the sentence without the verse number to muck things up.
τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ, ὃς πάντος ἀνθρώπους … TOUTO KALON KAI APODEKTON ENWPION TOU SWTHROS hHMWN QEOU, hOS PANTOS ANQRWPOUS …
Unless your unnamed commentator can find some proof of the use of ὅς hOS in a causative sense (which I seriously doubt he will be able) and can then further show that the use here fits his scheme, it appears that the usage here is the common, ordinary, everyday, meat-and-potatos relative which ties the following clause back to its antecedent.
As regards whether the position of πάντος ἀνθρώπους PANTOS ANQRWPOUS is emphatic, I would say that may be the case, but discourse linguistics is not my field. I think Steve Runge would be better able to answer that. I tried finding some answer in his book, but it would appear that he doesn’t feel that it is such an easy question to answer so that it requires some considerable discussion. He speaks of the normal information flow and old information / new information which whole matter would take a bit more time to wade through than I care to spend to answer one question so that it is better for him to respond personally. I would note, however that, going back to the beginning of the chapter, the discussion was concerning praying for all men
Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας ** ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ** PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSIS PROSEUXAS ENTEUCEIS EUXARISTIAS ** hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN ** Thus, while it may be the case that there is some prominence in its position, I somewhat doubt that since it is not any new information and simply resumes the discussion of prayer for all men on the basis of (hmm–am I introducing a causal idea ?) the fact that God wishes all men to be saved. Whatever Steve says regarding this, listen to him since that’s his specialty.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Let me attempt to be a bit more plain regarding the matter of ὅς hOS in this passage and the matter of causality. I would say that there is a certain causality expressed, but it DOES NOT LIE IN THE RELATIVE. The causality lies rather in the manner in which the author has structured the argument. He could have said
Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις … ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων. [intervening material] PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSEIS … hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN [intervening material]
Then he might have come to a full stop to begin again
θεὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. QEOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN.
Would there have been any less causality in such ? I don’t think so. It is the sequence of the statements which holds the causality and not the one word ὅς hOS. I would say that the causality as the reason for the offering of prayers is not so much stated as implied.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
I would agree with George that the causality isn’t implicit in the text, even if it may have been in the mind of the writer. I’ve said this before — and if I keep repeating myself, it may turn out to be ad nauseam –: ancient writers, no less than modern writers, tend to express themselves more tersely than they are actually thinking; a writer that wanted to be unambiguous could and still can take the trouble to express him/herself so as not to be misunderstood, but taking such pains is generally too much of a pain to take, and so we commonly don’t think twice about making ourselves as clear as perhaps we ought.
Carl
George wrote,
Hi, George,
Smyth, Greek Grammar:
2555. Relative Clauses of Cause take the indicative (negative οὐ). ὅς is more common than ὅστις.
θαυμαστὸν ποιεῖς, δ̀ς ( = ὅτι σὺ) ““ἡμῖν . . . οὐδὲν δίδως” you do a strange thing in giving us nothing” X. M. 2.7.13, Λοξίᾳ δὲ μέμφομαι, ὅστις μ᾽ ἐπά_ρα_ς ἔργον ἀνοσιώτατον τοῖς μὲν λόγοις ηὔφρα_νε κτλ. I blame Loxias, who after inciting me to a deed most unhallowed, cheered me with words, etc. E. Or. 285. So when the relative is a dependent exclamation (οἷος ῀ ὅτι τοιοῦτος, etc., 2687).
a. γε is often added to ὅς or ὅστις. b. μή is used when there is also an idea of characteristic (of such a sort) or condition (perhaps to avoid a harsher form of statement). Cp. 2705 g.
But I think we are looking at this all wrong. I don’t think one needs a grammar or grammatical category or even another example to show that there is causal force here. As you said in your post after this one, maybe the causal force lies in the nature of discourse, any discourse, and not in the relative pronoun itself, but it is clearly there.
Beata wrote about ὅς
Hi Beata,
This is also wrong. Words don’t have meanings. Meanings use words. You don’t “find” the meaning of a Greek word by looking in a dictionary or grammar. You learn to read Greek and the meaning is there. This is my own ultra nauseam, I know.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
Thank you, George.
Maybe it was my oversimplification – quoting my notes and not the actual commentary. It is I.H. Marshall, who says: hOS is used to append theological statements in 4:10; Tit 2:14 (Christ); cf. 1 Tim 3:16 where there is no ancetedent. The effect is causal: ‘because he wishes…’
Beata Urbanek
I scaled down your font. I really dislike oversized fonts.
Even in Smyth, it doesn’t appear that he is attributing any expression of causality to the ὅς hOS itself, but seems rather to indicate much the same thing as I said — there is causality expressed (He simply has no reason to state explicitly that it does not lie in the word itself).
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Ah, yes. I could agree with that. It is also much the same as the passage to which “Match” referred in Smyth.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Mark, thanks for the grammar reference.
I should read more Greek then.
Beata Urbanek
“Match” wrote:
“This is also wrong. Words don’t have meanings. Meanings use words. You don’t
“find” the meaning of a Greek word by looking in a dictionary or grammar. You learn to read Greek and the meaning is there. This is my own ultra nauseam, I know.”
While there is no inherent meaning in any particular word, there is a conventional meaning. I am reminded of the story of Abraham Lincoln who is supposed to have responded to a question “If we called a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have” with the answer that it would still have four since calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. I think you’re getting too cute by half.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Carl, I like your ad nauseam texts. Beata Urbanek
4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρωπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. 5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς
4 hOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN. 5 hEIS GAR QEOS, hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN, ANQRWPOS XRISTOS IHSOUS
First, let us dispose of γάρ GAR. I’ve found Steve Runge’s _Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament_ to be helpful particularly with regard to some of the conjunctions. He notes that while Wallace and Young indicate that γάρ GAR is both coordinating and subordinating that
“Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.”
And,
“Where it occurs in narrative proper, the proposition introduced by γάρfleshes out some aspect of what precedes. It may be in the form of background information; it may introduce the reason or rationale for some preceding action or state.” Regarding βούλομαι BOULOMAI and θέλω QELW, it seems that the difference BDAG indicates is that θέλω QELW indicates a wish or desire while βούλομαι BOULOMAI not only indicates a desire but a plan. I am not sure that I agree with this — particularly with regard to this passage. Here it would seem that what is indicated is precisely that God’s wish is then carried out — that is to say, a plan is executed.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Thanks, George.
I’m not sure I understand this sentence (even with the help of English-Polish dictionary): “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.” Could you explain it to me, please?
Beata Urbanek
It means that Robertson was correct when saying that the main use of γάρ GAR is to explain what has already been stated. george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Thank you, George.
Beata Urbanek
Could I therefore say that GAR connects the two sentences very closely? That we cannot really divide them? Or the connection is quite loose?
I’d appreciate thoughts about QELW from other people as well.
Beata Urbanek
I think you’re asking too much. Is it a slip knot or a hangman’s knot? I don’t think you can say anything more than that GAR indicates that statement B comments on statement A.
Here too I think you’re asking for more of a disambiguation between QELW and BOULOMAI than is to be readily achieved. I haven’t done a study on this — perhaps somebody has, but I don’t know of it — but my sense is that earlier Greek tended to use QELW or EQELW of consent or willingness to do something or for something to be done, while BOULOMAI was used rather for positive intent to do something or have something done. I note that LSJ says, ” … to be willing (of consent rather than desire, v. βούλομαι 1), but also generally, wish … ”
I’m inclined to think that the two verbs are more or less synonymous and that QELW is the more common in everyday colloquial discourse. I note that QELW is found 208x in the GNT, 153x in the LXX, while BOULOMAI is found 37 times in the GNT, 121 times in the LXX. It might be worth a further investigation, but I don’t see much basis to differentiate the sense of the two verbs very sharply.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Here too I think you’re asking for more of a disambiguation between QELW and BOULOMAI than is to be readily achieved.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Thanks for your answer. Actually, I don’t expect or wish any diffrence in meaning or the other way round. I just wanted to know if the statement I’ve quoted was valid. And now I think that not quite.
Beata Urbanek
Beata wrote
Hi, Beata,
How about some thoughts from Euripides:
Alcestis is about to die in place of her husband. Before she dies, she wants to tell him what she wants, the main thing being that she does not want her husband to get remarried (“the funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables!”) This is how she puts it:
λέξαι θέλω σοι πρὶν θανεῖν ἃ βούλομαι. (LEXAI QELW SOI PRIN QANEIN hA BOULOMAI)
“Before I die, I want to tell you what I want.”
She has resolved with her will (BOULOMAI) that her kids would be better off without a step-mother, but it is her heart’s wish (QELW) that a woman be really heard by her husband, if only once, if only here.
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
Mark, I just can’t see how you’re getting that sense from this text; you’re talking about matters that are altogether out of the scope of this statement, which would seem to be saying no more than, “I want to tell you what’s on my mind.” I think we might very well argue that “what’s on my mind” (hA BOULOMAI) is what she intends to accomplish by doing what she’s about to do (i.e. die in place of her husband Admetus). But the complement of QELW is nothing more than LEXAI — “make a statement.”
It seems to me that Euripides’ usage of LEXAI QELW here does not differ significantly from the Pauline expression, OU QELW hUMAS AGNOEIN, ADELFOI (Rom. 1:13,. 11:25 1Cor. 10:1, 12:1 2Cor. 1:8, 1Th. 4:13)
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Hi Carl,
On a slightly unrelated note, do you think that, in this passage from Euripides, for example, BOULOMAI is more “subject intensive” than QELW? How would you falsify that?
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
If I recall correctly, you were citing Thayer. I WOULD NOT RELY on Thayer. The problem with Thayer is that he wrote before the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus papyri and the writings of Deissman and Moulton and Milligan.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
I know you would not. But I’ve quoted BDAG as well. (first sold my…)
Beata
Dear Beata, Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an individual wishes or wants and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council decides together?
thank you Shirley Rollinson +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is evident from the use of GAR in 1 Tim. 2:5 that THELO is used in v. 4 with the sense of purpose. That is to say: God will have all to be saved because there is one God and one mediator, Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.
Sam Cripps (layman)
After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that it usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, I have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want you to do or this is what I want should happen. If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of that consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself.
In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI
(God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all to make room for repentance.
In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to fully know the truth.
But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put everything in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as the mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and acknowledge this truth, they will not be saved.
Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that some distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the difference between English “want” and “wish”.
Dear Shirley,
they are cognate words so for sure they relate to each other. But BOULH means “will” as well, e.g. Luk 7:30 BOULH TOU QEOU. At first I connected BOULH to a council but it refers to individuals, too.
Beata Urbanek
Thanks to all who responded.
The text again: 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN
I have another question. Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? Should the “normal” word order be: ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους. hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS
Beata Urbanek
Plus another question:)
One of the commentators says that hOS has a causal meaning: “because He wants all people to be saved”. I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.
Beata Urbanek
Hi, Beata,
Any relative clause can have causal force if that’s what the context demands.
Paul could have used here a participle θελοντος (QELONTOS,) which would have had a causal force. Instead of a subordinate clause, he could have started a new sentence and used GAR, which would have had a causal force. The relative clause was such another option to keep the style various.
Mark L
Φωσφορος FWSFOROS MARKOS
I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t think is possible. Note the sentence without the verse number to muck things up.
τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ, ὃς πάντος ἀνθρώπους … TOUTO KALON KAI APODEKTON ENWPION TOU SWTHROS hHMWN QEOU, hOS PANTOS ANQRWPOUS …
Unless your unnamed commentator can find some proof of the use of ὅς hOS in a causative sense (which I seriously doubt he will be able) and can then further show that the use here fits his scheme, it appears that the usage here is the common, ordinary, everyday, meat-and-potatos relative which ties the following clause back to its antecedent.
As regards whether the position of πάντος ἀνθρώπους PANTOS ANQRWPOUS is emphatic, I would say that may be the case, but discourse linguistics is not my field. I think Steve Runge would be better able to answer that. I tried finding some answer in his book, but it would appear that he doesn’t feel that it is such an easy question to answer so that it requires some considerable discussion. He speaks of the normal information flow and old information / new information which whole matter would take a bit more time to wade through than I care to spend to answer one question so that it is better for him to respond personally. I would note, however that, going back to the beginning of the chapter, the discussion was concerning praying for all men
Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας ** ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ** PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSIS PROSEUXAS ENTEUCEIS EUXARISTIAS ** hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN ** Thus, while it may be the case that there is some prominence in its position, I somewhat doubt that since it is not any new information and simply resumes the discussion of prayer for all men on the basis of (hmm–am I introducing a causal idea ?) the fact that God wishes all men to be saved. Whatever Steve says regarding this, listen to him since that’s his specialty.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Let me attempt to be a bit more plain regarding the matter of ὅς hOS in this passage and the matter of causality. I would say that there is a certain causality expressed, but it DOES NOT LIE IN THE RELATIVE. The causality lies rather in the manner in which the author has structured the argument. He could have said
Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις … ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων. [intervening material] PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSEIS … hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN [intervening material]
Then he might have come to a full stop to begin again
θεὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. QEOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN.
Would there have been any less causality in such ? I don’t think so. It is the sequence of the statements which holds the causality and not the one word ὅς hOS. I would say that the causality as the reason for the offering of prayers is not so much stated as implied.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
I would agree with George that the causality isn’t implicit in the text, even if it may have been in the mind of the writer. I’ve said this before — and if I keep repeating myself, it may turn out to be ad nauseam –: ancient writers, no less than modern writers, tend to express themselves more tersely than they are actually thinking; a writer that wanted to be unambiguous could and still can take the trouble to express him/herself so as not to be misunderstood, but taking such pains is generally too much of a pain to take, and so we commonly don’t think twice about making ourselves as clear as perhaps we ought.
Carl
George wrote,
Hi, George,
Smyth, Greek Grammar:
2555. Relative Clauses of Cause take the indicative (negative οὐ). ὅς is more common than ὅστις.
θαυμαστὸν ποιεῖς, δ̀ς ( = ὅτι σὺ) “”ἡμῖν . . . οὐδὲν δίδως” you do a strange thing in giving us nothing” X. M. 2.7.13, Λοξίᾳ δὲ μέμφομαι, ὅστις μ᾽ ἐπά_ρα_ς ἔργον ἀνοσιώτατον τοῖς μὲν λόγοις ηὔφρα_νε κτλ. I blame Loxias, who after inciting me to a deed most unhallowed, cheered me with words, etc. E. Or. 285. So when the relative is a dependent exclamation (οἷος ῀ ὅτι τοιοῦτος, etc., 2687).
a. γε is often added to ὅς or ὅστις. b. μή is used when there is also an idea of characteristic (of such a sort) or condition (perhaps to avoid a harsher form of statement). Cp. 2705 g.
But I think we are looking at this all wrong. I don’t think one needs a grammar or grammatical category or even another example to show that there is causal force here. As you said in your post after this one, maybe the causal force lies in the nature of discourse, any discourse, and not in the relative pronoun itself, but it is clearly there.
Beata wrote about ὅς
Hi Beata,
This is also wrong. Words don’t have meanings. Meanings use words. You don’t “find” the meaning of a Greek word by looking in a dictionary or grammar. You learn to read Greek and the meaning is there. This is my own ultra nauseam, I know.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
Thank you, George.
Maybe it was my oversimplification – quoting my notes and not the actual commentary. It is I.H. Marshall, who says: hOS is used to append theological statements in 4:10; Tit 2:14 (Christ); cf. 1 Tim 3:16 where there is no ancetedent. The effect is causal: ‘because he wishes…’
Beata Urbanek
I scaled down your font. I really dislike oversized fonts.
Even in Smyth, it doesn’t appear that he is attributing any expression of causality to the ὅς hOS itself, but seems rather to indicate much the same thing as I said — there is causality expressed (He simply has no reason to state explicitly that it does not lie in the word itself).
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Ah, yes. I could agree with that. It is also much the same as the passage to which “Match” referred in Smyth.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Mark, thanks for the grammar reference.
I should read more Greek then.
Beata Urbanek
“Match” wrote:
“This is also wrong. Words don’t have meanings. Meanings use words. You don’t
“find” the meaning of a Greek word by looking in a dictionary or grammar. You learn to read Greek and the meaning is there. This is my own ultra nauseam, I know.”
While there is no inherent meaning in any particular word, there is a conventional meaning. I am reminded of the story of Abraham Lincoln who is supposed to have responded to a question “If we called a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have” with the answer that it would still have four since calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. I think you’re getting too cute by half.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Carl, I like your ad nauseam texts. Beata Urbanek