From: virgil newkirk (virgilsalvage1@email.msn.com)
Date: Wed Jan 31 2001 - 03:30:04 EST
On /Tues. June 28, at 17:47 Moon referred again...to the following,
Moon]
I want to paraphrase Rom 6:141-15 as follows:
>
> 14(a) Sin will not be the master of you.
> 15(b) It is because you are not under the Law, i.e.
> not under the obligation to keep the Law
> as a Law-people,
> but you are under grace [which motivates you not
> to sin].
>
>
>
> 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the obligation
> to keep the Law as a Law-people,
> but under grace?
>
> The point of this paraphrase is that the point of Rom 6:14b is
> not so much "you are not under the Law" as "you are under Grace".
> In this paraphrase, the fact that "you are not uLaw"
nder the > has nothing to do with the declaration "sin will not be the
master
> of you", but the fact that "you are under grace" has.
Can we reject this paragraph based on on the grammar of Rom 6.14b?
This is my question...
Moon hello to you, and thank you.... My answer to the above mentioned
question....is, Yes....we can reject this paragraph based on the grammar.
You say... > In this paraphrase, the fact that "you are not under the law
has nothing to do with the declaration "sin will not be the master
> of you", but the fact that "you are under grace" has.
By making this statement...you are not dealing with UMWN not being
written as UMIN, and you are leaving behind the fact that what is found in
14b is inexorably connected to what has proceeded it by GAR. 14b does not
exist without 14a...which does not exist without verses 11-13. 14b is a
further explanation of what is outlined and stated in 14a, and believe
me...it centers around UMWN.
Having said that...I would have to acknowledge that, yes, I could
say..." the fact that "you are not under the law has nothing to do with the
declaration " sin will not be the master of you, but the fact that " you are
under grace" has. However....I would not do so....in reference to Rom 6:14
a&b, because that is not how Paul said it...and does not reference what Paul
said, in the fashion, content, and order that he said it in. You may not
have realized it...but doing so results in your saying things that are in
direct conflict with the context of what Paul says nearby. E.G. You say....
The usual reading of Rom 6:14 is that
sin's dominion over us has to do with our being under the Law.
This reading is obtained by reading "
sin will not be the master of you, because you are not under the Law".
(omitting the part "but under grace")
From it, we can state:
(a) if you are not under the Law, sin will not be the master of you.
From (a), many derive (b):
(b) if you are under the Law, sin will be the master of you.
It does not hold, in fact. This is a logical fallacy.
In fact, what we have is:
(c) If you are not under the Law but under grace, sin will not be
the master of you
Moon....If it is true that if when we are not under the law..but under
grace, sin will not be the master of us, then what do we do with what Paul
said in chapter 5, verse 13,14a....GAR..to explain further, until the law
SIN was in the world: but SIN was not being accounted for while there was
being no law....14a Nevertheless...Death reigned from Adam to Moses! Thus
proving ( c ) to also be a logical fallacy. Purposely perpetuated..?? By no
means am I suggesting this...Moon you are obviously digging and looking for
what the Greek actually is saying. Allow me to suggest again...that unless
we pause and consider the pre-GAR statement in 14a of "haMARTIA GAR UMWN OU
KURIEUSEI.....especially not missing the insistence of UMWN...we will not
have a basis for understanding the following..OU GAR ESTE hUPO NOMON ALLA
CARIN.
Moon, I am digging with you on this, really. But believe
me...everything here in verse 14 turns on UMWN. Allow me to say....it is not
written...haMARTIA GAR OU KURIEUSEI UMIN....This would be saying SIN, no
never will have dominion over you. It....does....not....say....that ! It
says...haMARTIA GAR UMWN OU KURIEUSEI...UMIN is the dative...meaning accrual
of. This is the " us " that is everything we have gained, become, added up
to be. SIN rules over this us, just like Rom 5:13 says...even without the
existence of the Law. Paul says something drastically and radically
different than UMIN by using the Genitive UMWN. The genitive; as Robertson
in his Grammar of the Greek New Testament says, " is DIAIRESIN and something
EIDIKON. --------I would say that for us to understand the implication and
application of something being stated in the genitive...we must be clear
that the genitive does not produce category of labeling. No...it is
DIAIRESIN...the genitive speaks of something having passed through
something...taking on that something and giving to that something that it
passed through it's characteristic, it's kind, it's content, it's genus !
That something takes on the distinction of that which has passed through it.
Before we go back and see how that affects "you" in Rom 14a....Let's
look at a few examples of the genitive and see if this model I've presented
above can be demonstrated with a few familiar genitives. Here's one that's
not only familiar, but sometimes leaves us scratching our head over.."what
does this mean"...." SON OF MAN "...with the understanding of the genitive
case, it seems plain that this refers to that unique one that came...passed
through man and as He was passing through took on Man and as this was
happening left Himself in Man...Said in all seriousness...LOOK !.....SON OF
MAN.
Another would be...APOKALUYIS IESOU CRISTOU....something covered and
concealed that has gone through an uncovering process...taking on the
reality and characteristic of being out in the open..uncovered...cannot ever
be hidden, because it is not that anymore. And this uncovering has passed
through and has taken on the One it has passed through with the result that
He is now characterized by being out in the open. This is now the uncovering
that is characterized by Jesus Christ...
If this is correct....Moon, let's...take this to Rom 6:14a and see how
it helps us see what the wonderful genitive case of the Greek grammar is
saying about UMWN. Now...haHARTIA...GAR...UMWN...(here goes...the genitive
that is..) SIN..to explain further..."as concerning what is characterized by
you and the implied fact of the genitive that something has passed through
you having left something there in you, concerning this you....No...Never
Never! EVER ! will it exercise authority..inflence..the ablilty to affect
anything concerning you....GAR ! Now we can in this...be mutually excluded
from the hUPO NOMON and be handed over in this to the hUPO CARIN !
The genitive case speaks of a passing through and resultant taking on of
that which it passes through...and an adding to....to that which it passed
through...of who and or what it IS as to it's nature...quality...kind....and
distinction. Adding to...in this case UMIN...resulting in...UMWN. I will
leave it to the reader to determine who or what has passed through, with the
result of someone or something left behind that haHARTIA GAR UMWN OU
KURIEUSEI ! Really I'm not trying to be funny when I quote a song many
of us know by the late Sonny Bono, a.k.a. Sonny and Cher...." it ain't me "
Dear Moon...in conclusion you offered....My contention is that here
"under the Law" and "under grace" may not be
exclusive of each other. I would like to take "not under the Law but under
grace" to mean that "under grace" overlaps "not under the Law". Of
course,
it is also possible for "under grace" to overlap "under the Law", unless
we start from the premise that if "under the Law" then "not under grace".
Now my question is: is this interpretation against the grammar or the
structure of OU GAR ESTE hUPO NOMON ALLA hUPO CARIN ?
I would say...yes it is.
Thank you Moon and all... thank you for the opportunity to look into and
work on this with you all. I don't know where the big letters came from in
the section above...sorry. I've pushed some button somewhere when I copied
and I don't know about it, that is how to change it...I'll try to make sure
it doesn't happen in the future.
Virgil Newkirk
Salt Lake City, Utah
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:49 EDT