LimitedNegatives?

[Glenn]

Glenn,

You make good points. I appreciate your clarity of thought—especially in the statement:

"Then why contrast those elements at all? It seems far more plausible that the author is picking out things in the first birth that are unlike the second birth."

This seems very possible. However, to me, it does not seem a necessary inference.

Sometimes I think all we need is plausibility and what looks (to me, at least) like a natural reading. Many obviously correct readings of the Bible have some logical alternatives - it's just that those alternatives are unlikely.

Continuing with the assumption that this is an example of our "limited negative," and (for the sake of possible clarification) using the word "merely" where we had heretofore been supplying "only," John's comment would not necessarily be concerning itself with how many features the natural birth and the spiritual birth might share in common with each other, and in what points they might differ.

The children of God have not "merely" been born in the natural sense. This natural birth comes about (at least so far as humans can perceive it) "merely" through a human bloodline, "merely" through physical craving, and/or "merely" to satisfy some human wish.

They have experienced a second birth that transcends (without necessarily leaving entirely out of the equation) all of these "human" causes by interjecting God's spiritual work of regeneration. Such rebirth begins and ends with the work of God, though this does not mean that humans do not need to cooperate.

Co-operate by having desires of the flesh? Co-operate in having children? Even though you disagree with Calvinism, I am sure you'd see why a Calvinist (and probably an Arminian) wouldn't find this a likely reading of the text. This seems to take the text to a place never intended.

Incidentally, although I have said that a Calvinist would not be troubled if this is a "limited negative," and I have also agreed that two births are being contrasted here in a way, I do not think that this is the main contrast. I see three alternatives that are all rejected and they are not births but causes (although some of them are involved in the first birth, obviously, allowing the two to end up being contrasted), and then a fourth one being introduced that supersedes and excludes them all:

Which were born:
Not of blood (lowest, most base animal level, mere biological descent, no intelligence at all, this is always involved in human birth)
Nor of the will of the flesh (next lowest, sexual passion, desire rather than reason, this is usually involved in human birth)
Nor of the will of man (higher still, intelligent human decision making or planning, this is only sometimes involved in human birth)
But of God (highest level, a divine choice)

So I think the Calvinists are right to see the new birth being spoken of as something that is not caused by the other elements. However, Arminians (virtually all of whom would share this view, I suspect) maintain that although this is true, the human will still has some part to play prior to God implementing this causal influence.

That there might be other factors influencing the conversion of some people, including their bloodline (that is, having entered this world through and into a Christian family), or through motivations on the human level (like the desire to avoid hell, or to obtain heavenly rewards) would not be denied nor affirmed by John's statement. Human birth is "merely" through these agencies; divine rebirth may utilize them, but necessarily owes its occurrence "also" to divine agency.

I really think this is a large stretch. The text definitely doesn't say that the other factors have a part to play in the new birth - even if that could be inferred from other passages. But I suspect this isn't something that I' convince you of here (if you're anything like me).

You needn't worry about that. This is not a new toy for me, as I have been taking it into consideration in my biblical studies since the seventies.

Since my first birth!

There are passages where it is not clear whether it applies (like "do not [only?] lay up for yourselves treasure upon earth...but [also?] lay up treasure in heaven"), but there can be little doubt that John 1:13 is one to which it does apply. Otherwise we have John denying that these people have even experienced physical birth at all.

Well, no, that seems to go to far. If those Calvinists that you were talking about think this verse is ONLY about the new birth, then they'd say that it has nothing to say about the first birth, and that it describes the features of the new birth only (e.g. denying that it is of the flesh, etc). So there's no sense in which a limited negative is absolutely necessary here, which is why (I think) you said "possibly" when you brought this verse up as an example. The question is whether there is any specific evidence that this is what is intended, and the trouble is: It would read exactly the same whether it was intended that way or not.

What may be less clear is what impact this observation may have on the relationship between the phrases "the will of man" and "of God" in the verse. Our intuitions may lead you and me to different conclusions on that point—and we can't know whether our intuitions are quite pure, or whether they have been shaped by other doctrinal commitments.

I almost always assume that my intuitions are impure. I am, after all a Calvinist (well, sort of - not exactly but kinda).

[Troy]

Some time ago, I read an essay by Robert Hamilton that examines the book of John focusing on every passage found in this book that are also on the list of passages Calvinists use. John 1:13 is one verse that is examined, and Hamilton seemed to have a very compelling interpretation for this text. He argued that the three phrases Not of blood, Nor of the will of the flesh, Nor of the will of man are an example of a common literary feature of Hebraism known as "parallelism." By interpreting this text in such a way, Hamilton is saying that "the human decision in verse 13 does not refer to any and all human decisions, but instead should be identified with the immediately following phrase, a husband’s will, which refers specifically to parental volition in bringing about physical conception. Identifying the two phrases in this way accords with the conventions of standard Hebrew parallelism." Hamilton's full essay can be read here.

Now when I first read this, I thought that this may very well be just what John is doing in this verse, but, I was unfamiliar with such a literary feature. However, after taking an Old Testament Survey class taught by Rickie Moore (who is Professor of Old Testament Studies at the Church of God Theological Seminary) at Lee University, I became familiar with this aspect of Hebraic literary feature. It was during this time that I re-read Hamilton's interpretation of John 1:13. This time around, I did see how Hamilton could interpret this verse in such a fashion, but, I wanted to get Professor Moore's thoughts on this. In an email, I sent him Hamilton's exegesis of John 1:13, and asked him if he also sees Hebraic Parallelism in John 1:13 as Hamilton does. His reply strengthened the possibility of Hamilton's position. Professor Moore replied:

• Yes, I would agree with Hamilton... that in [John 1:13], the three statements (namely, born not of natural descent/nor of human decision/ or a husband's will) are synonymously parallel, and that these three statement's together stand in contrast to being "born of God", which comes through receiving Christ and believing
  in his name.

For more on Parallelism, go here.

[steve]

Getting back to the announced subject of this thread, I thought I would post an email that a pastor sent me today, and the response I sent to him. There is duplication of some of the information that has appeared in earlier posts, but those interested in this subject may have an interest anyway:

"Pastor Brian" wrote:

Steve,

I hope this e-mail finds you well. I listen to your radio show online frequently but can't call in because of work, but I have heard you refer to certain verses in the Bible as being a "limited negative". I have searched the Internet for any refernce to this Greek Grammar & I can't find ANYTHING on that. I know you're very busy, but if you can point me to some material so that I can study this, I would be grateful.

With you in Him,

Brian

My response:

Hi Pastor Brian,

I have had the same trouble that you describe in finding internet references to something called a "limited negative." I heard the term used by an older teacher years ago (I have forgotten who, exactly), when I was a young teacher, and I have used it ever since. I actually thought that a Google search would yield many references to it. Such has not proven to be the case. This raises serious questions about whether it is a recognized term in scholarship, as I had assumed to it to be.

The idiomatic phenomenon to which I have commonly referred by that name certainly exists —whether under that label or another. Perhaps it really has not been labeled, or has a name which I have not heard. If Google doesn't know the term, it may be available for assignment! If it has never made its way into cyberspace then perhaps I may claim the right to co-opt it to describe an otherwise unnamed phenomenon. I may have inadvertently become the "father" of a new, useful term!

I am speaking somewhat with tongue-in-cheek, here, but it actually is a valid line of reasoning. Someone has to be the first (or in my case, the second) person to assign an official name for a recognizable figure of speech! Maybe that has happened in my case?

The existence of the phenomenon (which I will continue to call a "limited negative" until a better, or more widely recognized, term is discovered) is obvious enough—but I wouldn't look for it in a Greek grammar—nor in the grammar of any language. What I am referring to is a figure of speech or an idiom (not a rule of grammar) which is found frequently enough in the Hebrew scriptures, and among Hebrew speakers (like Jesus).

I am trying to amass a list of examples, as they present themselves in my reading. So far, my list (upon which I have worked only tangentially, when not otherwise occupied) would include the following:

“Limited Negatives” in the Gospels

A "limited negative" is a statement, usually constructed as follows:

“Not A…but B” (not always constructed exactly this way—e.g., Matt.9:13)

What it actually means is: “Not only A…but also B” or, perhaps, “Not merely A…but primarily B”

Such an idiom becomes recognizable when it would be absurd or contradictory to take an absolute-sounding statement in its absolute sense. Here is a sampling of examples that I have identified in my reading:


A. Indisputable instances:

John 1:13
 …who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Meaning: “Who were not born only of natural birth, but were also [or subsequently] born of God”


John 6:27
 “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life.”

Meaning: “Do not work only for natural sustenance, but also for your spiritual sustenance”


John 7:22
 “Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers)…”

Meaning: “The practice of circumcision did not come only (or originally) from Moses, but also (or originally) from the fathers”


John 12:44 “He who believes in me, believes not in me, but in him who sent me”

Meaning: "He who believes in me, believes not only in me, but also in him who sent me.”


Matthew 10:20
 “…for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.”

Meaning: “It is not merely you speaking, but it is also the Spirit of God speaking through you.”


Matthew 10:34 
"I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

Meaning: “I did not come only to bring peace, but also to bring a sword.”



B. Probable instances:


Luke 14:12-13
 "When you give a dinner or a supper, do not [always or only] ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor your rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, [also or sometimes] invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind…”


Matthew 16:17
 "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood [alone] has not revealed this to you, but [beyond that] by my Father who is in heaven.”

Matthew 18:22
 “I do not say to you [only] up to seven times, but [additionally] up to seventy times seven.”


Matthew 20:28
" just as the Son of Man did not come [only] to be served, but [also] to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."


John 11:4 "This sickness is not [only] unto death, but [also] for the glory of God”


John 15:16
You did not [only] choose me, but I [also] chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last.


Matthew 6:13
And lead us not [merely] into temptation, but [beyond that] deliver us from the evil one.'


Matthew 9:13
But go and learn what this means: 'I desire [primarily] mercy, not [merely] sacrifice.'


C. More remotely possible instances

John 5:34
Not that I accept [only] human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved

John 5:41
"I do not [only] accept praise from men...

John 8:15-16 “I [alone] judge no one. And yet if I do judge…I am not alone, but with the Father”

Matthew 5:17
 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come [merely] to abolish them but [primarily] to fulfill them

Matthew 6:19-20 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth [merely], where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up [primarily] for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

----------------

Pastor Brian, I hope these examples may be helpful and will serve to clarify this matter, regardless what name may be chosen to describe the phenomenon.

Blessings in Jesus,

Steve Gregg

[mattrose]

Thanks for posting this Steve!

[darinhouston]

I came across a grammatical structure called chiasmus and a form if it called inverted parallelism. Could that be what's going in here?

[mattrose]

I am prepearing to teach John 12 and I was thinking about John 12:30 in regards to the 'limited negative' concept.

This voice was for your benefit, not mine

While it could mean just what it says, I think it could also mean:

This voice was for your benefit (also or primarily), not (just) mine

I think this is a valid thought b/c it is almost certain that the audible voice of the Father, which apparently only Jesus understood with clarity, was indeed beneficial to Him as well.

[Paidion]

Then there are verses which are in limited-negative form, but which may not be limited negatives. For example:

... and do not be drunk with wine ... but be filled with the Spirit...Ephesians 5:18

This verse probably doesn't mean: "Do not be drunk with wine only, but also filled with the Spirit."

[steve]

True, Paidion. This makes it risky, at times, to assume the presence of the idiom.

[mattrose]

I see you (Steve) have John 15:16 as a possibility. I would also consider the previous verse...

John 15:15 (parenthesis added)
I no longer call you (merely) servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you (also) friends, for everything that I learn from my Father I have made known to you.

This seems likely since Jesus refers to them as servants again just 5 verses later.

[steve]

True! Good observation!