The resolution to the problem in Eph 5:13-14 may reside in the meaning of
ELEGCOMENA. If this reproving/rebuking is efficacious, and if the
participle is passive (certainly suggested by hUPO TOU FWTOS), and if
FANEROUTAI and FANEROUMENON are either both middle or both passive
(probable), then the sense becomes:
but all things as they are (efficaciously) reproved by the light
are manifested (or, manifest themselves) as being light (this last part
being the sense of v. 14a).
Rationale:
1) Abbott-Smith follow Trench is saying that ELEGCW implies rebuke which
brings conviction:
EPITIMW, expressing simply rebuke, which may be undeserved
(Mt 16:22) or ineffectual 9Lk 23:40), while ELEGCW implies
rebuke which brings conviction (Tr., Syn, sec IV).
2) A parallel to Eph 5:13-14 may be Jn 3:20-21:
PAS GAR hO FAULA PRASSWN MISEI TO FWS KAI
OUK ERCETAI PROS TO FWS, hINA MH ELEGCQH
TA ERGA AUTOU. hO DE POIWN THN ALHQEIAN
ERCETAI PROS TO FWS, hINA FANERWQHi AUTO
TA ERGA hOTI EN QEWi ESTIN EIRGASMENA.
"He who does the truth comes to the light" sounds much like "all that are
reproved by the light are manifested that they are light".
3) The consequent exhortation in 14b, then, makes excellent sense.
The first part, "Awake, sleeper, and rise from the dead" would be an
expected exhortation from 13a, "but all things as they are reproved by
the light" while the second part, "And Christ will shine upon you" and
expected exhortation from the latter part of v 13 and v. 14, "are
manifested as being light" (in essence, not translation).
Sincerely,
Paul Dixon
Paul S. Dixon, Pastor
Ladd Hill Bible Church
Wilsonville, Oregon
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997 12:10:15 +0100 Jim Beale <beale@uconect.net> writes:
>At 8:21 AM -0400 7/12/97, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>>At 5:37 PM -0400 7/11/97, Jim Beale wrote:
>>
>>>No! I can't make any sense of either! (But I don't have to have a
>>>horse in order to drag someone else off theirs. :^)
>>
>>Granted! Of course I don't share Paul's (Dixon's, that is) conviction
>that
>>the logic of Ephesians (especially Ephesians) is
>Euclidean-Aristotelian.
>
>Well, hopefully you don't think it is Boolean-Russell! (i.e. what
>other choice is there?)
>
>>Actually Paul didn't say that about Ephesians in particular but about
>the
>>logical consistency of Biblical texts in general. Ephesians has
>always
>>seemed to me to present more problems in this regard, and most of all
>with
>>respect to the way the metaphors in it are strained to the breaking
>point.
>
>Be that as it may, given my hermeneutical presupposition that the
>authorial intent is (in principle) recoverable from the text, once
>that is discovered, the coherence of the thought should manifest
>itself.
>
>>Nevertheless, I still do believe that the light-darkness imagery is
>used in
>>a manner parallel to that in John 3.
>
>I think so too.
>
>>>How about we go _all_ the way and take ELEGXOMENA as middle? Then
>we
>>>have the sense: "And all that bears reproof manifests itself under
>the
>>>influence of the Light; for everything that manifests itself is
>Light."
>>>This seems to transition more smoothly to 14(b). I think I can
>agree
>>>with the above:- at least it is gramatically/logically consistent!
>>
>>Really?!!? Actually I think your wording "bears reproof" still
>reflects a
>>passive sense--
>
>I envision a participation of the "reprovee" in the result of being
>reproved; i.e. he "bears with" reproof. Without this middle sense, I
>can't see the verse as saying something true. Herod, for instance,
>was reproved (in a passive sense) by John the Baptist. In what way
>did his action manifests itself to be Light?
>
>Further, I think that (wrt the relation of clause 1 to clause 2 by
>means of 'GAR') clause 2 is a general principle of which clause 1
>is a particular application. The general principle is that
>"everything
>that manifests itself is Light" which indicates to me that the
>"reprovee"
>is cooperating with the agency of the Light in order to manifest the
>Light.
>
>If this is correct, then the Baptist's reproof of Herod is not covered
>by this verse since he rejected the Light -- i.e. the Light was not at
>work within him to manifest itself. Herod did not "bear with" the
>reproof.
>
>Does this make sense?
>
>>and I DO think ELEGCOMENA [although I'd PREFER to use X for
>>Chi, I've now conditioned myself to use C for Chi and X for Xi]
>
>I'm used to typing 'X' for Chi and C for 'Xi'! This is the TLG
>way. I'm sure we can understand each other. :-)
>
>>is PASSIVE
>>here rather than middle: the Light functions as both criterion and as
>judge
>>and divider between the blind and the seeing, the unenlightened and
>the
>>enlightened. I think (personally) that the puzzlement in the verse
>derives
>>from the equation here of the "enlightened" with "Light."
>
>True. I think the only middle ground lies in the middle voice and
>the interaction of the agency of the Light and the agency of the
>one being reproved in coming to the Light. To extend the analogy,
>the Light does not merely shine on the exterior, but shines in the
>interior (KAQWS 2 Cor 4:6) so that it "shines through" (i.e. the
>reprovee becomes a secondary source of the Light.
>
>>Nevertheless, I
>>think that works: it seems to me that the idea here is --as in John 3
>--
>>that those who respond to revelation (the shining of the Light) come
>to the
>>Light and thereby become "citizens" of the realm of Light so that
>they can
>>even be referred to as "light." I would guess that, historically
>speaking,
>>all this light/darkness imagery in the ancient world goes way farther
>back
>>than Plato all the way to Zoroaster.
>
>It would be interesting to trace that through.
>
>>Incidentally, while I certainly do believe that many of the NT verbs
>>commonly deemed deponent or passive are really middle, I've never
>tried to
>>argue that there is no passive in NT Koine. In this particular
>instance I
>>DO think ELEGCOMENA is passive and that the clear sign of that is the
>hUPO
>>agent construction.
>
>This sort of gets into my understanding of the relation of Divine
>sovereignty and human freedom. I don't have any technical problems
>with the question of how the Light can be purely active and the
>source of all activity with the middle sense on the part of the
>human response.
>
>>>Are you kidding me? ;-)
>>
>>Well, yes. I didn't seriously think it was a Chomskian formula; on
>the
>>other hand, it DOES have a superficial likeness to Greek
>diacriticals,
>>don't you think?
>
>Oh, I suppose! ;-) What amazes me is that someone probably spent
>a few hours putting that together. (It wasn't me.) I think it's
>really funny.
>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> The deepest and most pure humility doth not so much arise from
>>> the consideration of our own faults and defects as from a calm
>>> and quiet contemplation of the Divine purity and goodness. Our
>>> spots never appear so clearly as when we place them before the
>>> Infinite Light; and we never seem less in our own eyes than when
>>> we look down upon ourselves from on high.
>>> (Rev. Henry Scougal, _The Life of God in the Soul of Man_, 130)
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Actually, I like this that you've cited. I find it interesting,
>moreover,
>>that it reflects the Ephesians passage here under consideration (did
>you
>>use it here for that reason?)--
>
>It occurred to me. But I didn't intentionally include it for that
>reason.
>
>>and also that it is loaded with "middle/reflexive" verbs:
>>"consideration of our own faults and defects" = hOTAN TAS TE
>hAMARTIAS KAI
>>TAS ELLEIYEIS TAS hHMWN AUTWN SKEPTWMEQA; "appear so clearly" =
>SAFESTATA
>>FANEROUNTAI; "when we place them before the Infinite Light" = hOTAN
>>PROTIQWMEQA AUTAS EMPROSQEN TOU FWTOS TOU APEIROU; "when we look down
>upon
>>ourselves" = hOTAN hHMAS AUTOUS KATAQEWMEQA.
>
>A la bonne heure! Merci beaucoup, Carl.
>
>>It has a ring--shall we say, an effulgence--, moreover, that is at
>once
>>Platonic and Calvinist. What a combination!
>
>C'est moi! :-)
>
>Au revoir,
>Jim
>
>
>