A better translation of Rom 4:1? Paul D. Nitz pnitz at wiss.co.mw Tue Oct 23 07:20:30 EDT 2001 Hebrews 10:14 Hebrews 10:14 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxROMANS 4:1″What then shall we say that Abraham,our forefather, discovered in thismatter?” (NIV)”What then shall we say? That we havefound Abraham (to be) our forefather(only) according to the flesh?” (LenskiCommentary)As you can see…
 Genitives in Rom. 2:4 Byron & Linetta Knutson byronk at open.org Thu Feb 6 03:14:29 EST 2003  number of AW, EW, and OO verbs in NT  Genitives in Rom. 2:4 I was wondering why the string of genitives in this verse rather than accusatives (excluding THS CRHSTOTHTOS)? Is there a simple…
Msindisi wrote: ↑June 27th, 2017, 4:33 amAs the context must govern the referent it would make sense that εΦ ω would signify ‘upon which’ rather than ‘upon whom’ for three major reasons.
1. Though Hebrews speaks of Levi being in the loins of Abraham when he paid tithes, the immediate context of Romans 5 does not speak of our pre-existence in Adam but it does speak of our helpless sinful condition, verse 6, 8 and possibly verse 10. Therefore, verse 12 may easily be seen as explaining the reason why we are sinful which speaks of inheriting a sinful condition.
2. The following 2 verses do not speak of sin at the time of the fall but the condition of sin when there was no law. The whole discourse concerns the committing of sin by people and the mastery of death over people who sin. The idea of inheriting guilt would therefore be of secondary importance and tangential to the whole discussion Paul is expounding.
3. There is a logical progression, which makes sense in light of the context. Not a simple chiasmus that has the last point returning back to the same event mentioned in the first point. Not.
A. One man sins.
B. Sin came into the world.
C. Death came into the world through sin.
B’. Death spread to all men.
A’. In Adam all sinned.
Rather A- B’ show a consequential progression and so it would make sense that as B’ is a consequence of C that A’ is also a consequence of B’. Though this argument is not conclusive by itself it is strong in light of arguments numbers 1 & 2.
Secondary strengths of this interpretation, but not decisive points are that, aside from a Pelagian reading of the passage, all viewpoints can agree on this understanding. We all agree that we sin because we have inherited a sin nature. This is consistent with the Jewish concept of ‘היצר הרע’ ‘hayetser Hara’ or the evil impulse. It is consistent with the reformed understanding of original sin in the concept that people inherit both sin nature and guilt of Adam’s sin. It also agrees with the Arminian view that we inherit the sin nature though not the guilt but become guilty of Adam’s sin when we sin in like manner.
Also it preserves a systematic approach from misinterpreting a passage through reading it according to a presupposed theological stance but ties the theology to the exegesis of that passage in a way that is governed by that particular text and minimises the danger of prooftexting.
Thirdly, even people with reformed theological understanding, such as Thomas Schreiner, recognise the strength of the “upon which” argument in his exegetical commentary on Romans (BECNT). Though this is not conclusive regarding the referent in the passage it does raise questions concerning the strength of the argument itself when one whose theology has been heavily influenced by a reformed soteriology disregards the referent that more clearly supports the reformed position even though the interpretation that he sided with does not in itself contradict a reformed understanding of original sin.
Talk about resurrection, this is quite an old thread. Please note that on B-Greek we focus on on issues of grammar and syntax, understanding the Greek as Greek, and not issues of theology. In this case of Romans 5:12, what tips it for me is not the theological content, but that the phrase is really a stock phrase used adverbially elsewhere, and particularly in the plural, ἐφ οἷς, but not unknown in the singular. Now, whether it’s consecutive or causal is a matter of some debate in the history of interpretation. This article by Cranfield is supposed to be quite exhaustive on the subject:
“On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12,” SJT 22 (1969): 324–41
But I can’t comment further since the Scottish Journal of Theology is not accessible through JSTOR (the first time I’ve been let down on that regard).
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — June 29th, 2017, 11:02 am
It seems agreed that we distinguish “semantics” and “(discourse) functions” of a word, and
we should not transfer the functions of the word derived from context to the semantics of the word.
In connection with ἱνα I would pose a hypothesis that
ἱνα introduces a non-indicative (modal) content
that is potential, contingent, etc in contrast to the content introduced by a ὁτι clase, which is actual.
That is the semantics of ἱνα. More than that, e.g. wish, intention, purpose, obligation, command, etc
is derived from context.
I think that this is the minimum that Sim proposes after all things that look like over-interpretation are filtered out.
To support this hypothesis, let me cite two more examples in additionn to the one already given.
(1) The original example,
εκηρυσσεν τον Ιησοῦν ὁτι οὗτος εστιν ὁ υἱοσς τοῦ θεοῦ.
He was proclaiming that Jesus is the son of God.
Και εξελθοντες εκηρυξαν ἱνα ὁτιμετανοῶσιν.
Going out, they preached that people should repent.
Here the ὁτι clause and the ὁτι clause correspond to each well.
The only difference seems that the one describes an indicative content, whereas
the other a non-indicative content. The more specific content is derived from the context and the
nature of the main verb.
LXX Exo 6:11.
εισελθε λαλησον Φαρθω βασιλεῖ Αιγυπτου ̔ινα εξαποστειλῃ τους υἱους Ισραελ εκ τῆς αυτοῦ.
KJV: Go in, speak unto Pharaho king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.
Here ̔the ινα clause specifies the content of the request. To think about “a purposed result”
seems to be an over-interpretation.
(3) Num 21:5
και κατελαλει ὁ λαος προσ τον θοεν και κατα Μωυσῆ λεγοντες ἱνα τι εξͅγαγες ἡμας εξ Αιγυπτου..
The people spoke against God and against Moes, saying “Why did you bring out out of Egypt..”
[Similarly with 2Sa 19:12]
Here ̔the ινα clause introduces a direct question, meaning that Moses shouldn’t have done that,
which is a non-indicative content.
Let me present two verses from LXX as examples where the ̔the ινα clause is the content of speech.
If I apply this idea to Rom 3:19, I could obtain:
[With reference to ] what the law says to those in the law, it (= the law) speaks that every mouth
should be stopped and all the world should be guilty before God.
[ It is difficult to express the subtle nuance of Greek subjunctive in English. So, the use of “should” should
be simply taken to indicate that it is a pointer fo the subjunctive verb in Greek. ]
Here I took ὁσα ὁ νομος λεγει τοῖς εν τῷ νομῳ to be an instance of the accusative of reference.
A similar construction is found in Rom 10:5:
Μωυσῆ γαρ γραφει την δικαιοσυνην την εκ τοῦ νομου ὁτι ὁ ποιησας αυτα ανθρωποσ ζησεται εν αυτοις.
Moses writes with reference to the righteousness from the law that the person who does them shall live in them.
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 29th, 2014, 7:34 am
Hi, I found an answer to my question, while scanning the thick grammar book by A. T. Robertson, p. 1184.
Sometimes a word is repeated with DE for special emphasis, as DIKAISUNH in Ro 3:22( cf. 9:30).
EQNH TA MH DIWKONTA DIKAIOSUNHN KATELABEN DIKAISUNHN, DIKAISUNHN DE THN EK PISTEWS.
So, if DE can introduce a phrase as Rom 9:30, the answer to my question is obvious.
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 10th, 2014, 7:52 am