John 6:6

“`html

The Imperfect Aspect in John 6:6: An Exegetical Study

This exegetical study is based on a b-greek discussion from April 4th, 2014, concerning the nuanced use of the imperfect tense in John 6:6.

The initial query aimed to investigate the specific grammatical and semantic force of the imperfect verb ἔλεγεν (from λέγω, “to say”) in John 6:6. The discussion sought to understand why the evangelist chose this tense over an aorist form, questioning whether the imperfect implies a continuous, durative, or iterative action, and how it functionally relates to the accompanying present participle πειράζων (from πειράζω, “testing”).

The central exegetical issue thus revolves around the precise nuance conveyed by John’s employment of the imperfect indicative verbs ἔλεγεν and ᾔδει (from οἶδα, “to know”) in John 6:6. The choice of the imperfect aspect, particularly when juxtaposed with the present participle πειράζων, prompts an investigation into the temporal, aspectual, and rhetorical implications for understanding Jesus’ actions and intentions within the narrative context of the feeding of the five thousand. This analysis aims to illuminate how the imperfect contributes to backgrounding information and portraying Jesus’ divine foreknowledge within the Johannine narrative.

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

Τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγεν πειράζων αὐτόν· αὐτὸς γὰρ ᾔδει τί ἔμελλεν ποιεῖν.

• Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
• No significant textual variants in word choice or morphology. The SBLGNT (2010) typically uses lowercase for the initial letter of a sentence unless capitalized in the source text tradition, and often employs a comma instead of a semicolon for a similar rhetorical break. These are orthographical or punctuation differences rather than substantive textual variants.

Textual Criticism (NA28): The text of John 6:6 demonstrates remarkable stability across critical editions. The NA28 (Nestle-Aland 28th edition) presents the same Greek wording as cited from Nestle 1904. There are no significant variants recorded for ἔλεγεν, πειράζων, ᾔδει, or ἔμελλεν (from μέλλω, “to be about to”) that would alter the fundamental aspectual considerations under examination. This textual stability underscores that the interpretative challenge lies primarily in the grammatical and semantic understanding of the chosen verbal aspects rather than in establishing the precise wording.

Lexical Notes:

• ἔλεγεν (from λέγω, “to say, speak”): BDAG defines λέγω generally as “to say” or “to speak.” The imperfect form here typically denotes continuous, repeated, or customary action in the past. It can also describe an action in progress or a background action, providing context for the main narrative. KITTEL (TDNT) emphasizes the verb’s broad semantic range, from simple utterance to authoritative declaration.
• πειράζων (present active participle from πειράζω, “to test, try, tempt”): BDAG offers “to try to learn the nature or character of something by submitting it to a test, test, try” or “to try to determine the reaction of someone, test, try.” In this context, it refers to Jesus testing Philip. The present participle suggests a contemporaneous or durative action alongside ἔλεγεν.
• ᾔδει (imperfect active indicative from οἶδα, “to know”): BDAG defines οἶδα as “to have knowledge, know.” The imperfect of οἶδα, while grammatically imperfect, often expresses a continuous state of knowing in the past. It can also function ingressively (“came to know”) or denote a prior, settled knowledge that is presented as a continuous fact. KITTEL highlights οἶδα‘s focus on acquired knowledge leading to an inner state of knowing.
• ἔμελλεν (imperfect active indicative from μέλλω, “to be about to, intend to”): BDAG primarily translates μέλλω as “to be about to do something, be on the point of doing, intend to do.” The imperfect here further emphasizes an ongoing or settled intention in the past.

Translation Variants

The grammatical analysis of John 6:6 centers on the aspectual force of the two imperfect verbs, ἔλεγεν and ᾔδει, and their interaction with the present participle πειράζων. The Greek imperfect indicative, unlike the aorist, typically emphasizes the ongoing, repeated, or customary nature of an action, or it can describe an action that was in progress at a particular time. Rhetorically, it often serves to provide background information or to set the scene for the main narrative.

The verb ἔλεγεν (“he was saying” or “he said”) with the participle πειράζων (“testing”) indicates that Jesus’ statement to Philip (from v.5) was made with the purpose or in the process of testing him. The imperfect aspect of ἔλεγεν could imply that Jesus’ question was not a one-off statement but rather a sustained or significant utterance leading up to the miraculous feeding, or it frames the question as background information. It highlights the process of speaking and testing, rather than merely the fact of speaking.

Similarly, ᾔδει (“he knew”) is also in the imperfect. While οἶδα (“to know”) is often punctual in its meaning, its imperfect form here powerfully conveys Jesus’ continuous and settled foreknowledge. It is not that he “came to know” but that he “already knew” or “was continuously aware” of what he was about to do. This emphasizes Jesus’ divine omniscience, a crucial theological point in John’s Gospel. The imperfect of μέλλω (ἔμελλεν, “was about to”) further reinforces this sense of an established intention or plan. Rhetorically, this background clause explains why Jesus was testing Philip: because he already possessed the solution and was preparing to act, making the test a pedagogical or revelatory exercise rather than an inquiry due to uncertainty.

The combination of these imperfects paints a picture of Jesus acting with full intentionality and foreknowledge, even as he engages in a process of questioning and testing his disciples. The rhetorical effect is to heighten the reader’s appreciation for Jesus’ divine insight and control over the unfolding events, providing a theological lens through which to interpret the subsequent miracle.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The exegetical analysis of John 6:6 reveals that the imperfect tense is strategically employed to convey not merely past actions but their durative, continuous, or background nature, emphasizing Jesus’ conscious intent and divine foreknowledge. Translators must strive to capture these nuanced temporal and aspectual implications.

1. “But he was saying this to test him, for he himself continuously knew what he was about to do.”
   This translation emphasizes the ongoing nature of Jesus’ statement and his perpetual state of knowing, highlighting the durative aspect of the imperfects.
2. “Now, he said this to test him; for he already knew what he was going to do.”
   This rendition focuses on the explanatory background provided by the imperfects, suggesting a prior or settled state of knowledge that frames Jesus’ action.
3. “He was speaking this with the intent of testing him, because he had already known what he was preparing to do.”
   This suggestion attempts to combine the progressive aspect of Jesus’ speech with his pre-existing, continuous knowledge and his established intention, offering a fuller sense of the Greek imperfects’ force and rhetorical function.

“`