Question about Luke 22:32 and the "syntactic force" of ἐκλίπῃ (to fail) in the LEX SYN GNT E&A

I was talking with a man who said that in Luke 22:32 the word ἐκλίπῃ (to fail) means that though Jesus was praying that Peter's faith wouldn't fail..it was "in doubt" because of the subjunctive mood of the verb.

Two things...

1.) From my searches, this seems not to be true...what search would you do to decide this point?

2.) In the LEXSYNGNTA&N specifically, does the "syntactic force" of "finite verb" on this particular word have any bearing on the issue one way or another. (the "possibility" angle)

Thanks.

bob

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Robert Pavich

Well, I've gotten this far; I did the following search:

logos4:SyntaxSearch;title=Hina_with_negated_verb_in_subjunctive_(may_not)

Let me know what you'd do differently and If I'm missing anything.

PS: How do I put a link to a search that automatically opens your logos 4 and does the search?

thanks.

bob

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/195866#Comment_195866

I suspect you're enjoying Logos' search capabilities and honing your skills. But you might wish to look at Acts 3:19 relative to Luke 22:32 'turn'. Most of the translations don't wish to move much beyond the literal and for good reason. The aramaic would have likely moved toward 'repent'. Combine that with the background on the word 'fail' (dribble out, etc) and the sense of the verb becomes really depressing. Trying to nail it on the verb-morph alone, though, sounds like a stretch.

Mark Barnes

ἐκλίπῃ (to fail) means that though Jesus was praying that Peter's faith wouldn't fail..it was "in doubt" because of the subjunctive mood of the verb.

One simple search (@V??S AFTER 5 WORDS lemma:ἵνα) should prove that ἵνα is almost always followed with the subjunctive, and needn't at all suggest that what follows is 'in doubt'. It's frequently used by Jesus to explain what will (definitely) happen in certain circumstances. The subjunctive is a grammatical construction used for events that haven't happened yet. The grammar dictionaries will talk about the verb being possible or probable, but grammar rules don't take into consideration an omnipotent sovereign God.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/195891#Comment_195891

thanks Mark,

that's what my search of the construction bore out...but being self-taught...I wasn't at all confident that that was the case...

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/195924#Comment_195924

Mark,

How did you get that link to do that?

I tried all morning to post a syntax search but it would never actually open the proper search...

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/195925#Comment_195925

I tried all morning to post a syntax search but it would never actually open the proper search.

Syntax searches don't work, I'm afraid. I guess they're too complex to be contained in a short URL.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/195958#Comment_195958

I guess you're right...that's too bad...

Ron Corbett

I was talking with a man who said that in Luke 22:32 the word ἐκλίπῃ (to fail) means that though Jesus was praying that Peter's faith wouldn't fail..it was "in doubt" because of the subjunctive mood of the verb.

Isn't it entirely different to say: "uncertain" / as opposed to "in doubt"? Surely the sense of this statement is not, "I doubt you (Peter) will pass this test". The Messiah who is Omnipotent, always wants us to triumph over temptations/trials. The variable is always on our side of the equation. But having said that, I see much more optimism in this statement. In fact, Peter getting a "heads up" about what is going on behind the scenes is even more of an indication of a more positive - more hopeful - outcome. [In another place Peter is called "a rock". The big picture for him looks positive.]

Also, in Davidson's Beginners Greek Grammar, he says this about the subjunctive:

There is no absolute time element in the subjunctive mood in any tense. In fact, since the action involved is only a possibility, all subjunctives make reference to the future.

and about the aorist subjunctive (from this verse):

The distinction in meaning between the present subjunctive and the aorist subjunctive is only in the kind of action. The present subj. expresses durative action. The aorist subj. expresses punctiliar action.

With reference to this second quote, one might read this verse: I am praying that you (Peter) may not have (even a momentary) lag in your faith.

I hope this is relevant to your question. I enjoy researching the nuances of the grammar and I too am in the beginning stages so I welcome any comments from the more seasoned among us

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/196146#Comment_196146

Ron,

thanks for the references...I don't have that resource....

AndyTheGreek

I was talking with a man who said that in Luke 22:32 the word ἐκλίπῃ (to fail) means that though Jesus was praying that Peter's faith wouldn't fail..it was "in doubt" because of the subjunctive mood of the verb.

Bob

I'm not sure what you mean by 'it'. Does 'it' mean:

Peter's faith failing - there was doubt that it would fail so Jesus' prayer was 'just in case' it might fail
Peter's faith surviving - there was doubt that it would survive - therefore Jesus' prayer was needed to rescue him
Jesus prayer - there was doubt that the prayer would work?

With regard to the verb being in the aorist, I would suggest looking at Porter's Idioms of NT Greek, which says (section 2.2)

"The aorist tense-form occurs in contexts where the user of Greek wishes to depict an action as a complete and undifferentiated process" - the emphasis is on his faith failing 'as a complete...process' - in other words that he might not recover.

I would suggest the import of the aorist subjunctive in this verse can be understood by thinking about the following:

Peter is about to deny Jesus - even taking oaths that he never knew him
This is going to have a huge impact on Peter's faith. If you or I did that we'd want to go and hide somewhere and, possibly, never come back
Jesus' prayed for Peter that his faith might not fail completely - that he might recover and strengthen his brothers.

I suggest, therefore, that the 'doubt' is that Peter's faith would survive this incident and Jesus, therefore, took steps to prevent that happening...

Andy

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/196380#Comment_196380

Andy...I guess I was less clear than I thought I was...

The man whom I was talking to meant that though Jesus would pray for him...the outcome of his faith either standing or failing was still in doubt...in other words...Jesus prayed that Peter's faith would not fail... but the outcome was uncertain even then.

AndyTheGreek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/196381#Comment_196381

Robert - thanks for the clarification.

Taken in isolation, the phrase 'might not fail' could indeed mean that the outcome was uncertain. But taken in context it simply can't mean that. After all, Jesus both prayed for Peter and prophesied that he would 'turn back and strengthen his brothers'. If the outcome was still in doubt after that, then nothing is certain!

This illustrates that word studies, on their own, can really be misleading. The context of the sentence, indeed, the whole passage, has to be taken into account.

Andy

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/196387#Comment_196387

I think you've gotten into Philosophy of Religion rather than just Scripture Studies. [:)]

Christ, being God, cannot really 'fail' in His prayers. Yet Peter, having free will, could of course have rejected God any moment he wanted to.

Man's free will vs God's omnipotence and omniscience.

I don't think you're going to solve that one by looking at the grammatical form of a single verb in a single verse... [;)]

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/196403#Comment_196403

I think you've gotten into Philosophy of Religion rather than just Scripture Studies.

Christ, being God, cannot really 'fail' in His prayers. Yet Peter, having free will, could of course have rejected God any moment he wanted to.

Man's free will vs God's omnipotence and omniscience.

I don't think you're going to solve that one by looking at the grammatical form of a single verb in a single verse...

Well....as it turns out...that was just the tip of the iceberg for this person...I just found out that he's an Open Theist....(and not very open to hearing my point of view)....

Oh well...it was good to search this and think about it...

thanks again for the replies...

AndyTheGreek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/196419#Comment_196419

Well....as it turns out...that was just the tip of the iceberg for this person...I just found out that he's an Open Theist....(and not very open to hearing my point of view)....

Interesting... I had not heard of Open Theism before (I may need to get out more [:)]) so did a bit of research.

To a degree I can see their logic (Isaiah 38:1-5) but the danger of espousing this sort of thing dogmatically (i.e. it happened in Hezekiah's case ergo it must happen all the time) is that you tend to see it everywhere. In the case of Luke 22:32 I think not - for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.

That's not to say whether I think man has free will or not but I'll say no more because that would steer this into a theological (and therefore, inappropriate) discussion.

Andy

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/196503#Comment_196503

Andy..I agree, that's why I tried to keep it at the "logos search advice" level...

I guess I'll do (just for info) a search like "open theism" in my Systematic Theology collection.