[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #570
b-greek-digest Thursday, 9 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 570
In this issue:
Re: God's Wrath and Mercy
Lordship Salvation
No time to read all my mail ...
Bible program
Re: Lordship Salvation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 15:56:26 CST
Subject: Re: God's Wrath and Mercy
On Fri, 3 Feb 1995, Bengt Odman wrote:
>In Romans 9:19-26, Paul first (19-21) makes it clear that God has every
>right to show mercy on whom he wants without obligation. The potter may
>make some specially fine things, designed to give him honour. But I
>wonder, is Paul then possibly turning the whole thing around (22), saying
>in fact that he has also saved the SKEUH ORGHS, originally made for
>destruction, calling us gentiles also (24)? The 1917 Swedish translation
>seems to interpret it this way, but I have not seen any other translation
>that does explicitly. Is there any who do? As I understand RSV, KJV, NIV
>and others, the chosen ones, gentiles or Jews alike, all belong to
>the SKEUH DOXHS.
Is no one going to volunteer to answer this theological timebomb? Oh,
well, fools rush in . . .
>Thus, grammatically, what I wonder is:
>
>1. Can or should EI DE THELWN be interpreted in an adversative sense?
>("but what if...?")
de is slightly adversative in and of itself on lower level paragraphs. On
higher level paragraphs, however, the contrast may merely mark the
beginning of a new section. ei can be translated "what if," especially if
the apodosis is missing. So in a given context ei de . . . can be translated
"but what if . . . ." In this context, however, IMHO the RSV is wrong in
doing so. This sentence has an apodosis, as shown by the kai beginning
verse 23. The sequence ei . . . kai . . . may be translated "if . . . then
. . ." as in Gal. 4:7 (KJV; RSV). Robertson refers to kai in the apodosis
in his big grammar (p.1181). The construction is not common, but it occurs
several times in the New Testament.
The tricky thing about translating the passage is that the main clause in
the apodosis is missing. It is to be understood to be the same as the
previous finite clause in the protasis, in this case: hnegken 'he bore
with.' Thus, here ei de . . . kai (ina can be translated "But if . . . then
[he bore with them] in order that. This process of understanding a
previously mentioned word that is elided I have sometimes called spreading,
after the spreading of features onto following phonemes in the field of
phonology.
The protasis is also grammatically complex, containing both a participial
clause and a finite clause. thelwn (or, qelwn, if you prefer) is a
concessive participle, which is translatable in English as 'although' or
'though' plus a finite verb, thus: 'although God wished/was willing.' The
concessive nature is not in the participle itself, but is due to the
contrast between endeixasqai thn orghn 'to show his anger' and hnegken en
pollh makroqumia 'he bore with in much patience.'
>2. Does HNEGKEN mean "kept so far" or "saved for ever"?
Looking at BAG on this point, I sincerely doubt it ever had this meaning.
Especially in light of en pollh makroqumia 'in much patience,' here it
should probably be understood as 'bore with,' 'put up with.'
This brings us to a suggested translation:
22 But if, although God wished to show his anger and make known his power,
he put up in much patience with the vessels of anger, ready for
destruction, 23 then he put up with them in order that he might make known
the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he previously
prepared for glory.
If I was smart, I would stop here with the sentence analysis. To do so,
however, I would be untrue to my training in discourse analysis. The
macrostructure (van Dijk style) at work here is something like:
"Justification by faith is not invalidated by the fact the God chose
Israel, for not all of Israel was chosen and Israel is not all of the
chosen." This contrast in the whole section between Israel after the flesh
and the chosen leads me to suspect that in this passage also the contrast
is at work: the vessels of anger may well be Israel (cf. 10:21) and the
vessels of mercy the true chosen people. This would explain why hnegken is
in the aorist rather than the present. The time for putting up with Israel
while God waited for the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4) had passed. If the
vessels of anger were the unelect, as traditionally understood, one would
expect the present tense here, for unfortunately, they are still among us.
Well, as I said, fools rush in . . . But if grammar (both sentence and
discourse) cannot be used to shed light on difficult passages, of what use
is it?
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Lawless Bill (915)688-5460" <bill.lawless@mioex.arco.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 16:40:59 CST
Subject: Lordship Salvation
I would like to see some discussion concerning Lordship salvation. There is a belief that one can receive Christ as Savior and not receive Him as Lord. This to me does not seem to be the message that Christ preached. His message seemed to be that anything les than a commentment to His Lordship is not acceptable.
Thank you - Bill
------------------------------
From: PeteLV@aol.com
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 17:37:45 -0500
Subject: No time to read all my mail ...
unsubscribe b-greek
end
------------------------------
From: GLLang@aol.com
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 18:25:28 -0500
Subject: Bible program
Could someone please forward to me some information upon a Bible program
called Hermeneutika? Where can it be obtained, price, Is it a windows
program and the like. Would you recommend it over say Logos?
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 18:25:10 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Lordship Salvation
On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Lawless Bill (915)688-5460 wrote:
> I would like to see some discussion concerning Lordship salvation. There is a belief that one can receive Christ as Savior and not receive Him as Lord. This to me does not seem to be the message that Christ preached. His message seemed to be that anything les than a commentment to His Lordship is not acceptable.
>
> Thank you - Bill
Although I certainly won't object to anyone who wants to answer on this
one doing so, but could I suggest that it be offline? I can't see that
the question has one thing to do with the Greek New Testament.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #570
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu