for us to be (for praise of a glory of his)
the ones who hoped first by means of the Messiah...
makes a lot more "sense" to me.
Regards,
Jim Vellenga
> From: "Perry L. Stepp" <plstepp@flash.net>
> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:55:25 -0500
>
> Hello, all.
>
> Carl Conrad and I were having a private discussion regarding Ephesians
> 1.11-12, and decided to take it public.
>
> -----------------------------Quote mode on----------------------------
> Carl wrote:
> I want to say, however, especially about the EIS EPAINON phrases in 1:6 and
> 1:12 that I think these particular segments are little more than
> doxologies inserted ALMOST automatically by those steeped in Jewish
> liturgical phraseology such that, every time an assertion is made about
> God's mighty deeds, they immediately respond with BARUKH ATAH ADONAY
> ELOHENU MELEKH OLAM
>
> [snip]
>
> Much more important with respect to stating purpose, I think are the EIS +
> accusative phrases such as 1:10: (EIS OIKONOMIAN ... ANAKEFALAIWSASQAI) and
> EIS + infinitive phrases such as in 1:12 (EIS TO EINAI hHMAS .. TOUS
> PROHLPIKOTAS--here I think these are the key elements, while the EIS
> EPAINON DOXHS AUTOU is essentially an almost parenthetical accompanying
> benediction (His Glory be praised!).
>
> I responded:
> So you would take the "to the praise of His glory", which is consistently
> translated as the purpose statement (I've checked over a dozen English
> translations) as a parenthetical comment, and the "the ones who
> previously/first hoped in Christ" as the actual purpose statement?
>
> This would produce something like "In Him we were made heirs . . . in order
> that we (God's glory be praised!) might be the first to hope in Christ"
> 1.11-12)? Is this what you're suggesting? It makes sense to me, but I've
> checked every translation I have for Eph 1.11-12, including M. Barth's and
> Andrew Lincoln's, and find no mention of this possibility.
>
> I'm surprised that no one else has made this (to my mind) extremely lucid
> suggestion. Are you aware of any discussion along this line?
>
> Carl responded:
> I may be very wrong about this and I'd really like to hear what others have
> to say--how those who want to take the predicate of 1:12 as EIS TO EINAI
> hHMAS EIS EPAINON THS DOXHS AUTOU and who consider TOUS PROHLPIKOTAS as
> simply appositional to hHMAS. I'd be curious to see just how far out on a
> limb I am here (with my bias against the Greek of Ephesians!). I may be
> very wrong here, but I really think that EIS EPAINON THS DOXHS AUTOU EINAI
> is almost impossible Greek, even if we want to say in English (and Latin)
> things like "This is all for the greater glory of God." I can see that
> being said about one's labors; but it seems strange to say it of persons.
> One might say "live for his Glory"--but "BE for his glory" with a person as
> a subject really seems very strange to me.
>
> ---------------------------------------Quote mode
> off-----------------------------------------
>
> The language of Eph 1.3ff does indeed seem to me to be liturgical, and I
> can easily picture someone in that context interjecting "God's glory be
> praised!" at odd intervals during their doxology. What does everyone
> think? Is anyone aware of a discussion of the verse that takes the tack
> suggested here?
>
> Grace and peace,
>
> Perry L. Stepp
>
> (Permission granted to quote any or all and to name the writer.)