Colossians 1:21

[] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Sep 23 15:59:19 EDT 2007

 

[] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS [] Pronounciation of upsilon On Sep 23, 2007, at 8:10 AM, Stephen Baldwin wrote:> > Ladies and Gentlemen:> A small point about which I am a little perplexed:>> From my reading, EXQROS means hating, hostile etc. But when used >> substantively, it can mean enemy (BAG).> In Col1:21, Paul speaks of “you at one time being [having been] > alienated…KAI EXQROUS THi DIANOIA EN TOIS ERGOIS…> > I note that this is translated “enemies” in NIV. “hostile in mind” > NASB. Of course, you could argue that there really isn’t much > between the two — but I’m curious about the NIV translation given > the stipulations about the presence or not of an article. Clearly > EXQROUS is anarthous [isn’t it?] and relates back to hUMAS…> > This reference (Col1:21) appears in BAG under the “subst.” heading > therefore as “enemy”, also defined as “abs” (what does “absolute” > mean in this context?)> JAMES 4:4 MOICALIDES, OUK OIDATE hOTI hH FILIA TOU KOSMOU ECQRA TOU QEOU ESTIN; hOS EAN OUN BOULHQHi FILOS EINAI TOU KOSMOU, ECQROS TOU QEOU KAQISTATAI.Absolute can be explained by looking at ECQROS TOU QEOU KAQISTATAI in James 4:4. Here ECQROS is not absolute. The object of the enmity is specified TOU QEOU. Compare hO DIOS ECQROS Aesch.Elizabeth Kline

 

[] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS[] Pronounciation of upsilon

Colossians 1:21-23 Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.net
Thu Dec 16 05:48:00 EST 1999

 

GENOITO! Colossians 1:21-23 Thought I would throw out these ideas and questions, hoping to get some good feed back.Most English translations of this paragraph (Col. 1:21-23) render it in such a way that a condition seems to exist, based mainly upon the particle EI or EIGE of verse 23. Most render it as “if”, hence…”if indeed you remain in the faith having been and remaining established and steadfast…” {the “having been and remaining” is one of the methods by which I render some prefect passive participles).Instead, I suggest translating EI as “since”, and removing the possible misconception here. Viewing this “EI” as presenting an epexegetical statement demonstrating WHY we will be presented before God as HOLY and BLAMELESS. (Because we do remain in the faith, via the power of Christ).In verse 22, we have an emphatic contrast to the statement presented in verse 21. I accept the aorist infinitive as genuine here (which supports my scheme) APOKATHLLACEN. This fact, this one-time accomplishment, allows Paul to be able to present before God, some of the fruits of his labor. Herein I suggest that Paul is the presenter. What thinketh you?I see no true protasis/apodosis condition existing, if an “if” were correct — we are left with no resolution other than to suppose that “we” would not then be presentable? this seems awkward, but appears to be the reasoning of most English translators.How can one become “unreconciled”? Does “SINCE” make better sense here to some of you? It is a fairly common meaning of this particle (see the lexicons).I realize that some of the above observations may repel some theological persuasions (Arminian vs Calvinism) but I hope to keep this on a contextual/grammatical level. Another point strengthening the aorist “reconcile” of verse 22, is the use of the term in verse 20, it appears to be a timeless reality, a settled fact.Thanks for your input.Mr. Gary S. Dykes email — yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.netSwanson’s Errata List — http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/yhwh3in1/

 

GENOITO!Colossians 1:21-23

Colossians 1:21-23 Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.net
Thu Dec 16 05:54:32 EST 1999

 

Colossians 1:21-23 Clement online? Proofreader needed!!I meant aortist VERB in verse 22, in my prior post, not the infinitive. I assume most saw my error.Gary Dykes

 

Colossians 1:21-23Clement online?

Colossians 1:21-23 Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.net
Thu Dec 16 05:48:00 EST 1999

 

GENOITO! Colossians 1:21-23 Thought I would throw out these ideas and questions, hoping to get some good feed back.Most English translations of this paragraph (Col. 1:21-23) render it in such a way that a condition seems to exist, based mainly upon the particle EI or EIGE of verse 23. Most render it as “if”, hence…”if indeed you remain in the faith having been and remaining established and steadfast…” {the “having been and remaining” is one of the methods by which I render some prefect passive participles).Instead, I suggest translating EI as “since”, and removing the possible misconception here. Viewing this “EI” as presenting an epexegetical statement demonstrating WHY we will be presented before God as HOLY and BLAMELESS. (Because we do remain in the faith, via the power of Christ).In verse 22, we have an emphatic contrast to the statement presented in verse 21. I accept the aorist infinitive as genuine here (which supports my scheme) APOKATHLLACEN. This fact, this one-time accomplishment, allows Paul to be able to present before God, some of the fruits of his labor. Herein I suggest that Paul is the presenter. What thinketh you?I see no true protasis/apodosis condition existing, if an “if” were correct — we are left with no resolution other than to suppose that “we” would not then be presentable? this seems awkward, but appears to be the reasoning of most English translators.How can one become “unreconciled”? Does “SINCE” make better sense here to some of you? It is a fairly common meaning of this particle (see the lexicons).I realize that some of the above observations may repel some theological persuasions (Arminian vs Calvinism) but I hope to keep this on a contextual/grammatical level. Another point strengthening the aorist “reconcile” of verse 22, is the use of the term in verse 20, it appears to be a timeless reality, a settled fact.Thanks for your input.Mr. Gary S. Dykes email — yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.netSwanson’s Errata List — http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/yhwh3in1/

 

GENOITO!Colossians 1:21-23

Colossians 1:21-23 Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.net
Thu Dec 16 05:54:32 EST 1999

 

Colossians 1:21-23 Clement online? Proofreader needed!!I meant aortist VERB in verse 22, in my prior post, not the infinitive. I assume most saw my error.Gary Dykes

 

Colossians 1:21-23Clement online?

Colossians 1:21-23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 16 09:38:58 EST 1999

 

POxy images tc-list On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499 At 5:26 AM -0600 12/16/99, Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote:>Thought I would throw out these ideas and questions, hoping to get some>good feed back.> >Most English translations of this paragraph (Col. 1:21-23) render it in>such a way that a condition seems to exist, based mainly upon the particle>EI or EIGE of verse 23. Most render it as “if”, hence…”if indeed you>remain in the faith having been and remaining established and steadfast…”>{the “having been and remaining” is one of the methods by which I render>some prefect passive participles).> >Instead, I suggest translating EI as “since”, and removing the possible>misconception here. Viewing this “EI” as presenting an epexegetical>statement demonstrating WHY we will be presented before God as HOLY and>BLAMELESS. (Because we do remain in the faith, via the power of Christ).> >In verse 22, we have an emphatic contrast to the statement presented in>verse 21. I accept the aorist infinitive as genuine here (which supports my>scheme) APOKATHLLAXEN. This fact, this one-time accomplishment, allows Paul>to be able to present before God, some of the fruits of his labor. Herein I>suggest that Paul is the presenter. What thinketh you?> >I see no true protasis/apodosis condition existing, if an “if” were correct>— we are left with no resolution other than to suppose that “we” would not>then be presentable? this seems awkward, but appears to be the reasoning of>most English translators.> >How can one become “unreconciled”? Does “SINCE” make better sense here to>some of you? It is a fairly common meaning of this particle (see the>lexicons).> >I realize that some of the above observations may repel some theological>persuasions (Arminian vs Calvinism) but I hope to keep this on a>contextual/grammatical level. Another point strengthening the aorist>“reconcile” of verse 22, is the use of the term in verse 20, it appears to>be a timeless reality, a settled fact.You may want to keep this out of the theological realm, but (please doforgive me if I’m mistaken about this) it appears to me that you areseeking an answer to a theological question from this text preciselybecause you find possible implications of the EI GE troublesome.The text:(21) KAI hUMAS POTE ONTAS APHLLOTRIWMENOUS KAI ECQROUS THiDIANOIAi EN TOIS ERGOIS TOIS PONHROIS, (22) NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN EN TWiSWMATI THS SARKOS AUTOU DIA TOU QANATOU PARASTHSAI hUMAS hAGIOUS KAIAMWMOUS KAI ANEGKLHTOUS KATENWPION AUTOU, (23) EI GE EPIMENETE THi PISTEITEQEMELIWMENOI KAI hEDRAIOI KAI MH METAKINOUMENOI APO THS ELPIDOS TOUEUAGGELIOU hOU HKOUSATE TOU KHRUCQENTOS EN PASHi KTISEI THi hUPO TONOURANON, hOU EGENOMHN EGW PAULOS DIAKONOS.I would agree that there’s an emphatic contrast between the statements of21 and 22, BUT I think that you are laying too much weight on the aorist’tense’ of the verb APOKATHLLAXEN in 22 when you say it is “a timelessreality, a settled fact.” I don’t think the aorist can bear that weight andit appears to me that you are wanting to give it the force of a perfecttense form, i.e. indicating that the action is complete and, to use avulgar metaphor, “the money’s in the bank.” In fact, however, it seems tome that 23 stands solidly against such an interpretation with itsenumeration of an array of circumstances that could yet undermine thestatus provisionally gained. EPIMENETE is present tense and should, Ithink, imply a deliberate and ongoing effort to persist in the statusdescribed (TEQEMELIWMENOI, hEDRAIOI, MH METAKINOUMENOI) in view of ongoingthreats to that persistence.In sum I DO think there’s a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE …clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the efficacyof the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistenteffort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yetfacing them. To be sure, it’s not a full-scale generalizing or future-morevivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don’t think we canread the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to asimple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), Ithink the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of theGE.Here are the other GNT instances of the EI GE combination, all of them inthe Pauline corpus:2 Cor 5:3 EI GE KAI EKDUSAMENOI OU GUMNOI hEURHQHSOMEQA (‘provided, thatis, that once we have disrobed = been stripped of the body, we won’t turnout to be naked = void of discernible identity’)Gal 3:4 TOSAUTA EPAQETE EIKHi? EI GE KAI EIKHI. (‘Did you go through all ofthat for nothing?–if in fact it really WAS for nothing … ‘)Eph 3:2 EI GE HKOUSATE THN OIKONOMIAN THS CARITOS … (“that is, if you didin fact hear about my ministry of grace … “Eph 4:21 EI GE AUTON HKOUSATE KAI EN AUTWi EDIDACQHTE . . .(‘if in fact youreally listened to him and were instructed by/in him …’)Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 5686 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991216/99c52e1e/attachment.bin

 

POxy imagestc-list On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499

Colossians 1:21-23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 16 09:38:58 EST 1999

 

POxy images tc-list On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499 At 5:26 AM -0600 12/16/99, Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote:>Thought I would throw out these ideas and questions, hoping to get some>good feed back.> >Most English translations of this paragraph (Col. 1:21-23) render it in>such a way that a condition seems to exist, based mainly upon the particle>EI or EIGE of verse 23. Most render it as “if”, hence…”if indeed you>remain in the faith having been and remaining established and steadfast…”>{the “having been and remaining” is one of the methods by which I render>some prefect passive participles).> >Instead, I suggest translating EI as “since”, and removing the possible>misconception here. Viewing this “EI” as presenting an epexegetical>statement demonstrating WHY we will be presented before God as HOLY and>BLAMELESS. (Because we do remain in the faith, via the power of Christ).> >In verse 22, we have an emphatic contrast to the statement presented in>verse 21. I accept the aorist infinitive as genuine here (which supports my>scheme) APOKATHLLAXEN. This fact, this one-time accomplishment, allows Paul>to be able to present before God, some of the fruits of his labor. Herein I>suggest that Paul is the presenter. What thinketh you?> >I see no true protasis/apodosis condition existing, if an “if” were correct>— we are left with no resolution other than to suppose that “we” would not>then be presentable? this seems awkward, but appears to be the reasoning of>most English translators.> >How can one become “unreconciled”? Does “SINCE” make better sense here to>some of you? It is a fairly common meaning of this particle (see the>lexicons).> >I realize that some of the above observations may repel some theological>persuasions (Arminian vs Calvinism) but I hope to keep this on a>contextual/grammatical level. Another point strengthening the aorist>“reconcile” of verse 22, is the use of the term in verse 20, it appears to>be a timeless reality, a settled fact.You may want to keep this out of the theological realm, but (please doforgive me if I’m mistaken about this) it appears to me that you areseeking an answer to a theological question from this text preciselybecause you find possible implications of the EI GE troublesome.The text:(21) KAI hUMAS POTE ONTAS APHLLOTRIWMENOUS KAI ECQROUS THiDIANOIAi EN TOIS ERGOIS TOIS PONHROIS, (22) NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN EN TWiSWMATI THS SARKOS AUTOU DIA TOU QANATOU PARASTHSAI hUMAS hAGIOUS KAIAMWMOUS KAI ANEGKLHTOUS KATENWPION AUTOU, (23) EI GE EPIMENETE THi PISTEITEQEMELIWMENOI KAI hEDRAIOI KAI MH METAKINOUMENOI APO THS ELPIDOS TOUEUAGGELIOU hOU HKOUSATE TOU KHRUCQENTOS EN PASHi KTISEI THi hUPO TONOURANON, hOU EGENOMHN EGW PAULOS DIAKONOS.I would agree that there’s an emphatic contrast between the statements of21 and 22, BUT I think that you are laying too much weight on the aorist’tense’ of the verb APOKATHLLAXEN in 22 when you say it is “a timelessreality, a settled fact.” I don’t think the aorist can bear that weight andit appears to me that you are wanting to give it the force of a perfecttense form, i.e. indicating that the action is complete and, to use avulgar metaphor, “the money’s in the bank.” In fact, however, it seems tome that 23 stands solidly against such an interpretation with itsenumeration of an array of circumstances that could yet undermine thestatus provisionally gained. EPIMENETE is present tense and should, Ithink, imply a deliberate and ongoing effort to persist in the statusdescribed (TEQEMELIWMENOI, hEDRAIOI, MH METAKINOUMENOI) in view of ongoingthreats to that persistence.In sum I DO think there’s a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE …clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the efficacyof the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistenteffort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yetfacing them. To be sure, it’s not a full-scale generalizing or future-morevivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don’t think we canread the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to asimple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), Ithink the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of theGE.Here are the other GNT instances of the EI GE combination, all of them inthe Pauline corpus:2 Cor 5:3 EI GE KAI EKDUSAMENOI OU GUMNOI hEURHQHSOMEQA (‘provided, thatis, that once we have disrobed = been stripped of the body, we won’t turnout to be naked = void of discernible identity’)Gal 3:4 TOSAUTA EPAQETE EIKHi? EI GE KAI EIKHI. (‘Did you go through all ofthat for nothing?–if in fact it really WAS for nothing … ‘)Eph 3:2 EI GE HKOUSATE THN OIKONOMIAN THS CARITOS … (“that is, if you didin fact hear about my ministry of grace … “Eph 4:21 EI GE AUTON HKOUSATE KAI EN AUTWi EDIDACQHTE . . .(‘if in fact youreally listened to him and were instructed by/in him …’)Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 5686 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991216/99c52e1e/attachment.bin

 

POxy imagestc-list On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499

Colossians 1:21-23 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Thu Dec 16 11:03:27 EST 1999

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy images [Synoptic-L] POxy images In a message dated 12/16/1999 8:39:44 AM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:<< In sum I DO think there’s a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE …clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the efficacyof the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistenteffort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yetfacing them. To be sure, it’s not a full-scale generalizing or future-morevivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don’t think we canread the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to asimple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), Ithink the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of theGE. >>Why do you connect the EI GE clause to APOKATHLLAXEN rather than PARASTHSAI? It seems to me that PARASTHSAI is the nearer verbal element and more natural connection. Two other questions are involved here: What is the relation of the protasis to the apodosis? Is it cause/effect or grounds/inference? and should this conditional construction be viewed as biconditional (if and only if).As relates to the first question if the connection of EI GE is to APOKATHLLAXEN, then this may involve a grounds/inference relationship. John Baima (a member of this list) notes in his thesis “Making Valid Conclusions”:”The protasis can be examined, but the truth of the apodosis is not equally determined. A true protasis, in this case, cannot cause the apodosis to be true, but rather, it is evidence of its truth. What seems to be happening here is that Paul is giving a test by which the truth or falsity of the apodosis can be determined because the apodosis is not something which can be measured empirically because of its past time and the nature of the event—it is an inward experience.If Paul intended to give a test by which the truth of the apodosis could be known, then he would need “if and only if” rather than a simple “if.” The implication of understanding this verse as “if and only if” is that Paul would be saying that a lack of continuing in the faith demonstrates that the person did not have the past reconciliation described in the apodosis. The fact that the apodosis is a past event indicates that the person would never have been saved rather than that the person had the experience in the past and somehow lost its benefits.”However, if the connection is to PARASTHSAI, then the relationship is probably one of cause/effect because of the future orientation of the purpose infinitive (the other reasons are mainly theological so I’ll refrain from discussing them). First Cor 15:2 also has similar issues.Charles PowellDTScep7 at aol.com

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy images[Synoptic-L] POxy images

Colossians 1:21-23 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Thu Dec 16 11:03:27 EST 1999

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy images [Synoptic-L] POxy images In a message dated 12/16/1999 8:39:44 AM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:<< In sum I DO think there’s a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE …clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the efficacyof the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistenteffort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yetfacing them. To be sure, it’s not a full-scale generalizing or future-morevivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don’t think we canread the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to asimple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), Ithink the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of theGE. >>Why do you connect the EI GE clause to APOKATHLLAXEN rather than PARASTHSAI? It seems to me that PARASTHSAI is the nearer verbal element and more natural connection. Two other questions are involved here: What is the relation of the protasis to the apodosis? Is it cause/effect or grounds/inference? and should this conditional construction be viewed as biconditional (if and only if).As relates to the first question if the connection of EI GE is to APOKATHLLAXEN, then this may involve a grounds/inference relationship. John Baima (a member of this list) notes in his thesis “Making Valid Conclusions”:”The protasis can be examined, but the truth of the apodosis is not equally determined. A true protasis, in this case, cannot cause the apodosis to be true, but rather, it is evidence of its truth. What seems to be happening here is that Paul is giving a test by which the truth or falsity of the apodosis can be determined because the apodosis is not something which can be measured empirically because of its past time and the nature of the event—it is an inward experience.If Paul intended to give a test by which the truth of the apodosis could be known, then he would need “if and only if” rather than a simple “if.” The implication of understanding this verse as “if and only if” is that Paul would be saying that a lack of continuing in the faith demonstrates that the person did not have the past reconciliation described in the apodosis. The fact that the apodosis is a past event indicates that the person would never have been saved rather than that the person had the experience in the past and somehow lost its benefits.”However, if the connection is to PARASTHSAI, then the relationship is probably one of cause/effect because of the future orientation of the purpose infinitive (the other reasons are mainly theological so I’ll refrain from discussing them). First Cor 15:2 also has similar issues.Charles PowellDTScep7 at aol.com

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy images[Synoptic-L] POxy images

Colossians 1:21-23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 16 12:48:11 EST 1999

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy images I John 3:2 and I John 2:28 At 11:03 AM -0500 12/16/99, CEP7 at aol.com wrote:>In a message dated 12/16/1999 8:39:44 AM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> ><< In sum I DO think there’s a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE …>clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the efficacy>of the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistent>effort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yet>facing them. To be sure, it’s not a full-scale generalizing or future-more>vivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;>nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don’t think we can>read the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to a>simple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), I>think the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of the>GE. >>> >Why do you connect the EI GE clause to APOKATHLLAXEN rather than PARASTHSAI?>It seems to me that PARASTHSAI is the nearer verbal element and more natural>connection. Two other questions are involved here: What is the relation of>the protasis to the apodosis? Is it cause/effect or grounds/inference? and>should this conditional construction be viewed as biconditional (if and only>if).I’ll agree readily enough to the possibility of construing the EI GE clauseprimarily with PARASTHSAI but that raises the further question of howPARASTHSAI relates to APOKATHLLAXEN; while I wouldn’t want to be dogmaticabout this, my inclination would be to understand PARASTHSAI as a purposeinfinitive dependent upon APOKATHLLAXEN, one that would normally beintroduced with a hWSTE or as an articular infinitive with EIS TO … or aTOU … . My own inclination,however, would still be to understand the EIGE CLAUSE as dependent upon APOKATHLLAXEN.>As relates to the first question if the connection of EI GE is to>APOKATHLLAXEN, then this may involve a grounds/inference relationship. John>Baima (a member of this list) notes in his thesis “Making Valid Conclusions”:> >“The protasis can be examined, but the truth of the apodosis is not equally>determined. A true protasis, in this case, cannot cause the apodosis to be>true, but rather, it is evidence of its truth. What seems to be happening>here is that Paul is giving a test by which the truth or falsity of the>apodosis can be determined because the apodosis is not something which can be>measured empirically because of its past time and the nature of the eventóit>is an inward experience.> >If Paul intended to give a test by which the truth of the apodosis could be>known, then he would need “if and only if” rather than a simple “if.” The>implication of understanding this verse as “if and only if” is that Paul>would be saying that a lack of continuing in the faith demonstrates that the>person did not have the past reconciliation described in the apodosis. The>fact that the apodosis is a past event indicates that the person would never>have been saved rather than that the person had the experience in the past>and somehow lost its benefits.”> >However, if the connection is to PARASTHSAI, then the relationship is>probably one of cause/effect because of the future orientation of the purpose>infinitive (the other reasons are mainly theological so I’ll refrain from>discussing them). First Cor 15:2 also has similar issues.I said previously that this is certainly different from a tight conditionalconstruction with an EAN (GE) + subjunctive protasis, where I wouldunderstand it to mean “if and only if”–but the EI GE clause seems to beattached not so much as a rigid condition upon which the APOKATHLLAXENattaches is dependent for its validity, but with almost colloquial force,as if to say, “assuming, of course, that you stick with your basicgrounding and follow through in spite of the challenges you meet, etc.,etc.” If people want to hang all the distinctions between pure and impureCalvinism and Arminianism on this, that’s their business, but I reallythink our author has a more practical pastoral concern for those he’swriting to–and Paul was always having to fight off those who wanted tointerpret his conception of salvation in terms of “money already in thebank.”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy imagesI John 3:2 and I John 2:28

Colossians 1:21-23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 16 12:48:11 EST 1999

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy images I John 3:2 and I John 2:28 At 11:03 AM -0500 12/16/99, CEP7 at aol.com wrote:>In a message dated 12/16/1999 8:39:44 AM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> ><< In sum I DO think there’s a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE …>clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the efficacy>of the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistent>effort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yet>facing them. To be sure, it’s not a full-scale generalizing or future-more>vivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;>nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don’t think we can>read the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to a>simple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), I>think the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of the>GE. >>> >Why do you connect the EI GE clause to APOKATHLLAXEN rather than PARASTHSAI?>It seems to me that PARASTHSAI is the nearer verbal element and more natural>connection. Two other questions are involved here: What is the relation of>the protasis to the apodosis? Is it cause/effect or grounds/inference? and>should this conditional construction be viewed as biconditional (if and only>if).I’ll agree readily enough to the possibility of construing the EI GE clauseprimarily with PARASTHSAI but that raises the further question of howPARASTHSAI relates to APOKATHLLAXEN; while I wouldn’t want to be dogmaticabout this, my inclination would be to understand PARASTHSAI as a purposeinfinitive dependent upon APOKATHLLAXEN, one that would normally beintroduced with a hWSTE or as an articular infinitive with EIS TO … or aTOU … . My own inclination,however, would still be to understand the EIGE CLAUSE as dependent upon APOKATHLLAXEN.>As relates to the first question if the connection of EI GE is to>APOKATHLLAXEN, then this may involve a grounds/inference relationship. John>Baima (a member of this list) notes in his thesis “Making Valid Conclusions”:> >“The protasis can be examined, but the truth of the apodosis is not equally>determined. A true protasis, in this case, cannot cause the apodosis to be>true, but rather, it is evidence of its truth. What seems to be happening>here is that Paul is giving a test by which the truth or falsity of the>apodosis can be determined because the apodosis is not something which can be>measured empirically because of its past time and the nature of the eventóit>is an inward experience.> >If Paul intended to give a test by which the truth of the apodosis could be>known, then he would need “if and only if” rather than a simple “if.” The>implication of understanding this verse as “if and only if” is that Paul>would be saying that a lack of continuing in the faith demonstrates that the>person did not have the past reconciliation described in the apodosis. The>fact that the apodosis is a past event indicates that the person would never>have been saved rather than that the person had the experience in the past>and somehow lost its benefits.”> >However, if the connection is to PARASTHSAI, then the relationship is>probably one of cause/effect because of the future orientation of the purpose>infinitive (the other reasons are mainly theological so I’ll refrain from>discussing them). First Cor 15:2 also has similar issues.I said previously that this is certainly different from a tight conditionalconstruction with an EAN (GE) + subjunctive protasis, where I wouldunderstand it to mean “if and only if”–but the EI GE clause seems to beattached not so much as a rigid condition upon which the APOKATHLLAXENattaches is dependent for its validity, but with almost colloquial force,as if to say, “assuming, of course, that you stick with your basicgrounding and follow through in spite of the challenges you meet, etc.,etc.” If people want to hang all the distinctions between pure and impureCalvinism and Arminianism on this, that’s their business, but I reallythink our author has a more practical pastoral concern for those he’swriting to–and Paul was always having to fight off those who wanted tointerpret his conception of salvation in terms of “money already in thebank.”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy imagesI John 3:2 and I John 2:28

Colossians 1:21-23 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Thu Dec 16 14:38:50 EST 1999

 

I John 3:2 and I John 2:28 2 Samuel 12:31 [2Kings 12:31 LXX] The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in “reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall. The sense is that one person tore down their side of the wall, not that two were reunited into unity. Hence…2 Cor 6:18 And all things are of God, who **hath reconciled** us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, **be ye** reconciled [tear down your side of the wall] to God.21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we **might be** [subjunctive] made the righteousness of God in him.6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.We see the same in Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we **were reconciled** to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we **shall be saved** by his life.As to Colossians, the whole language used in the passage is one of building or drifting:”if you continue…grounded…settled…not being moved away…”In his summary, he uses the subjunctive about his presenting, showing that he does not consider it a “done deal” but the fruit of his labors of faithful announcing, warning and teaching…28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present [PARASGHSWMEN] every man perfect in Christ Jesus:And how could Paul speak confidently of their future not “moving away” since he said that many would!So, EI is “if” and definitely not “since.”

 

I John 3:2 and I John 2:282 Samuel 12:31 [2Kings 12:31 LXX]

Colossians 1:21-23 Carlton Winbery winberyc at speedgate.net
Thu Dec 16 18:49:12 EST 1999

 

1Jo 2:15-17 Clement online? Bill Ross wrote;>The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in>“reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall.>The sense is that one person tore down their side of the wall, not that two>were reunited into unity. Hence…LSJ indicates that the basic verb stem ALLASSW was used to denoteexchanging one thing for another. The only meaning given for the doublecompound APOKATALASSW is to “reconcile back” or to restore a relationshipthat is damaged. I do not have the tools at home to check Bill’s etymology,but I do not think it would affect the use of this word in Paul any morethan the fact that “goodby” is affected in our use of it by the fact thatit came from “God be with you.” In the context of Col. 1, the word refersto God reconciling sinners to himself.As often has been pointed out on this list, etymology is interesting andsometimes informative, but usually leads the translator astray.>2 Cor 6: (I think you mean ch. 5)>18 And all things are of God, who **hath reconciled** us to himself by>Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;>19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not>imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of>reconciliation.>20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you>by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, **be ye** reconciled [tear down your>side of the wall] to God.I think what’s in brackets would be very distracting if inserted into thiscontext. The passive form here is what Carl Conrad calls middle and I callreflexive passive. To me it says “be reconciled to God” (Accept foryourself God’s provision of reconciliation).>21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we **might>be** [subjunctive] made the righteousness of God in him.>6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye>receive not the grace of God in vain.> >We see the same in Romans 5:> >10 For if, when we were enemies, we **were reconciled** to God by the>death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we **shall be saved** by his>life.> >As to Colossians, the whole language used in the passage is one of building>or drifting:> >“if you continue…grounded…settled…not being moved away…”> >In his summary, he uses the subjunctive about his presenting, showing that>he does not consider it a “done deal” but the fruit of his labors of>faithful announcing, warning and teaching…> >28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all>wisdom; that we may present [PARASGHSWMEN] every man perfect in Christ>Jesus:> >And how could Paul speak confidently of their future not “moving away”>since he said that many would!> >So, EI is “if” and definitely not “since.”I would say that the subjunctive following hINA in Col. 1:28 indicates thebasic purpose of Paul’s ministry, i.e., to “present every person mature inChrist.”Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at speedgate.netwinbery at andria.lacollege.eduPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

 

1Jo 2:15-17Clement online?

Colossians 1:21-23 Carlton Winbery winberyc at speedgate.net
Thu Dec 16 18:49:12 EST 1999

 

1Jo 2:15-17 Clement online? Bill Ross wrote;>The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in>“reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall.>The sense is that one person tore down their side of the wall, not that two>were reunited into unity. Hence…LSJ indicates that the basic verb stem ALLASSW was used to denoteexchanging one thing for another. The only meaning given for the doublecompound APOKATALASSW is to “reconcile back” or to restore a relationshipthat is damaged. I do not have the tools at home to check Bill’s etymology,but I do not think it would affect the use of this word in Paul any morethan the fact that “goodby” is affected in our use of it by the fact thatit came from “God be with you.” In the context of Col. 1, the word refersto God reconciling sinners to himself.As often has been pointed out on this list, etymology is interesting andsometimes informative, but usually leads the translator astray.>2 Cor 6: (I think you mean ch. 5)>18 And all things are of God, who **hath reconciled** us to himself by>Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;>19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not>imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of>reconciliation.>20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you>by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, **be ye** reconciled [tear down your>side of the wall] to God.I think what’s in brackets would be very distracting if inserted into thiscontext. The passive form here is what Carl Conrad calls middle and I callreflexive passive. To me it says “be reconciled to God” (Accept foryourself God’s provision of reconciliation).>21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we **might>be** [subjunctive] made the righteousness of God in him.>6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye>receive not the grace of God in vain.> >We see the same in Romans 5:> >10 For if, when we were enemies, we **were reconciled** to God by the>death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we **shall be saved** by his>life.> >As to Colossians, the whole language used in the passage is one of building>or drifting:> >“if you continue…grounded…settled…not being moved away…”> >In his summary, he uses the subjunctive about his presenting, showing that>he does not consider it a “done deal” but the fruit of his labors of>faithful announcing, warning and teaching…> >28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all>wisdom; that we may present [PARASGHSWMEN] every man perfect in Christ>Jesus:> >And how could Paul speak confidently of their future not “moving away”>since he said that many would!> >So, EI is “if” and definitely not “since.”I would say that the subjunctive following hINA in Col. 1:28 indicates thebasic purpose of Paul’s ministry, i.e., to “present every person mature inChrist.”Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at speedgate.netwinbery at andria.lacollege.eduPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

 

1Jo 2:15-17Clement online?

Colossians 1:21-23 Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.net
Thu Dec 16 21:26:42 EST 1999

 

Clement online? I John 3:2 and I John 2:28 I have immensely enjoyed reading some of the responses. I am about to leave for awhile, so I thought I would cap my post with this post.The text of Col. 1:21-23 contains much more than many exegetes seem to see, I often find that most Biblical scholars (pagan or elect) have not spent much time in Paul’s linguistic world.Some of the replies showed good original thinking, and a sincere examination of the evidence. Some (such as Conrad’s) just rehashed old traditional views adding nothing insightful. One implied that theology was seen as the guide as opposed to the grammar.Years ago, I had a particular belief system and felt smug in it, it was well endorsed by the “certified”. But after years of textual analysis, I changed my theology, as BASED upon the grammar. My theology is Word driven.I am glad I made a few souls think. Paul will present some souls “complete” in Christ before God. These are souls who sincerely studied and lived revealed truth and grew. But even if an elected person did not live the Word, his/her election was/is never jeopardized. And all of us waver in our faith, but NOT in one respect….N.B.”remaining in the faith” of verse 23 of our text: is/are those who are elect. This is a constant reality (thus the present tense). The faith is not our faith per se, it is that imputed faith which is of or belongs to Jesus Christ. That same faith given to Abram. It is via His faithfulness wherein I stand. I may go astray, but I am eternally secure. When astray the indwelling Holy Spirit will begin a heavy disapline of me and my wayward ways. Grammatical studies of numerous Pauline passages moved me to this conclusion and freed me from the chains of religion. Galatians 2:16 is a good verse for starters. May it open your eyes. End of this thread.Mr. Gary S. Dykes email — yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.netSwanson’s Errata List — http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/yhwh3in1/

 

Clement online?I John 3:2 and I John 2:28

Colossians 1:21-23 Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.net
Thu Dec 16 21:26:42 EST 1999

 

Clement online? I John 3:2 and I John 2:28 I have immensely enjoyed reading some of the responses. I am about to leave for awhile, so I thought I would cap my post with this post.The text of Col. 1:21-23 contains much more than many exegetes seem to see, I often find that most Biblical scholars (pagan or elect) have not spent much time in Paul’s linguistic world.Some of the replies showed good original thinking, and a sincere examination of the evidence. Some (such as Conrad’s) just rehashed old traditional views adding nothing insightful. One implied that theology was seen as the guide as opposed to the grammar.Years ago, I had a particular belief system and felt smug in it, it was well endorsed by the “certified”. But after years of textual analysis, I changed my theology, as BASED upon the grammar. My theology is Word driven.I am glad I made a few souls think. Paul will present some souls “complete” in Christ before God. These are souls who sincerely studied and lived revealed truth and grew. But even if an elected person did not live the Word, his/her election was/is never jeopardized. And all of us waver in our faith, but NOT in one respect….N.B.”remaining in the faith” of verse 23 of our text: is/are those who are elect. This is a constant reality (thus the present tense). The faith is not our faith per se, it is that imputed faith which is of or belongs to Jesus Christ. That same faith given to Abram. It is via His faithfulness wherein I stand. I may go astray, but I am eternally secure. When astray the indwelling Holy Spirit will begin a heavy disapline of me and my wayward ways. Grammatical studies of numerous Pauline passages moved me to this conclusion and freed me from the chains of religion. Galatians 2:16 is a good verse for starters. May it open your eyes. End of this thread.Mr. Gary S. Dykes email — yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.netSwanson’s Errata List — http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/yhwh3in1/

 

Clement online?I John 3:2 and I John 2:28

Colossians 1:21-23 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Fri Dec 17 09:25:15 EST 1999

 

Philippians 4:3-4 hWN TA ONOMATA EN BIBLW ZWHS Philippians 4:3-4 hWN TA ONOMATA EN BIBLW ZWHS <Bill>>The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in>“reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall.>The sense is that one person tore down their side of the wall, not that two>were reunited into unity. Hence…<Carlton>LSJ indicates that the basic verb stem ALLASSW was used to denote exchangingone thing for another. The only meaning given for the doublecompound APOKATALASSW is to “reconcile back” or to restore a relationshipthat is damaged.<Bill>APO=fromKATA=downALLASSW=changeI’m afraid I extrapolated the “wall.”How many people are willing to be reconciled, but not unilaterally!<Carlton>…In the context of Col. 1, the word refers to God reconciling sinners tohimself.<Bill>Yes, of course, context….Colossians 1 has the *identical* inference of only *one side* beingreconciled:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him toreconcile ***all things*** unto himself; by him, I say, **whether they bethings in earth, or things in heaven***.21 And [KAI=”even”] you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in yourmind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy andunblameable and unreproveable in his sight:23 If [EIGE=if indeed] ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and benot moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and whichwas preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am madea minister;This expresses the unlimited reconciliation of the atonement in sweepingterms, but its efficacy is conditioned on faith. This is clarified furtherin 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but alsofor the sins of the whole world.This is just the same formula as the Cor 5 passage:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling **the world** unto himself,not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the**word of** reconciliation.>20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you>by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, **be ye** reconciled [tear down your>side of the wall] to God.<Carlton>…I think what’s in brackets would be very distracting if inserted intothis context. The passive form here is what Carl Conrad calls middle and Icallreflexive passive. To me it says “be reconciled to God” (Accept for yourselfGod’s provision of reconciliation).<Bill>Exactly. It is an imperative, so it is impossible to construe as passive ina non-grammatical sense. But it is predicated on the steps made by God.Repent. Believe. Be baptized. The Father is willing to forgive. “I willreturn to my Father…” Our side of the wall is not “half.” His side was thecross, our side is faith. Each are our mutual steps to restoration.So Scriptural context always argues for a one-sided reconciliation (orrather, one side at a time).<Carlton>I would say that the subjunctive following hINA in Col. 1:28 indicates thebasic purpose of Paul’s ministry, i.e., to “present every person mature inChrist.”<Bill>Yes, but the subjunctive highlights that Paul realized that he would notindeed “present every person mature in Christ” though he labored that he”might.”————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991217/7c022e08/attachment.html

 

Philippians 4:3-4 hWN TA ONOMATA EN BIBLW ZWHSPhilippians 4:3-4 hWN TA ONOMATA EN BIBLW ZWHS

Colossians 1:21-23 A K M Adam akm-adam at nwu.edu
Fri Dec 17 11:21:09 EST 1999

 

GENOITO! “He/She” KJV At 8:25 AM -0600 12/17/99, Bill Ross wrote:> >The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in> >”reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall.><Carlton>>LSJ indicates that the basic verb stem ALLASSW was used to denote >exchanging one thing for another. The only meaning given for the >double compound APOKATALASSW is to “reconcile back” or to restore a >relationship that is damaged.With reference to this topic, we should note that Stanley Porter has a monograph on these verbs:KATALASSW in ancient Greek literature : with reference to the Pauline writings / Stanley E. Porter.Publisher:CCordoba : Ediciones el Almendro,Date:11994.Series:EEstudios de filologÌa neotestamentaria ; 5Caveat lector: I haven’t read it, so this is just a heads-up, FWIW.Grace and peace,A K M Adam– Seabury-Western Theological Seminaryakm-adam at nwu.eduTo translate is human; to parse, divine.————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 1260 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991217/d4afa305/attachment.bin

 

GENOITO!”He/She” KJV

Col 1:21-23 George Goolde goolde at mtnempire.net
Fri Dec 17 11:31:19 EST 1999

 

“He/She” KJV 2 Samuel 12:31 [2Kings 12:31 LXX] wross wrote: (Is that William Ross? I apologize for not knowing your name, but your post was not signed)The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in”reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall.The sense is that one person tore down their side of the wall, not thattwo were reunited into unity. Hence…How did you determine this was the meaning?GeorgeGeorge A. GooldeProfessor, Bible and TheologySouthern California Bible College & SeminaryEl Cajon, Californiagoolde at mtnempire.net

 

“He/She” KJV2 Samuel 12:31 [2Kings 12:31 LXX]

Col 1:21-23 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Fri Dec 17 21:45:30 EST 1999

 

Lots of Fun! Luther and the biblical langauges <George>wross wrote: (Is that William Ross? I apologize for not knowing yourname, but your post was not signed)<Bill>Yes, but I go by Bill.>The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in“reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall.The sense is that one person tore down their side of the wall, not thattwo were reunited into unity. Hence…<George>How did you determine this was the meaning?<Bill>The “wall” I extrapolated when I recounted the etymology from memory. Butthe meaning I got from three sources:* the elements of the word do not contain images of “union” but of “awayfrom” and “down” implying change (reconciliation) from removal of something(an obstacle, or a wall);* this is *everywhere* seen in *context* and *usage* of the word inScripture:Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh bythe blood of Christ.14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath **broken down themiddle wall of partition between us**;15 Having **abolished in his flesh the enmity**, even the law ofcommandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain onenew man, so making peace;16 And that he might **reconcile** both unto God in one body by the cross,having **slain the enmity** thereby:17 And came and **preached peace** to you which were afar off, and to themthat were nigh.18 For through him we both have *access* by one Spirit unto the Father.Nowhere in Scripture is reconciliation represented as anything less thanuniversal in scope or more than conditionally effective upon a correspondingresponse by those reconciled.So to answer your question:* the word itself* its usage and context in ScriptureFurther, The Complete Biblical Library has this to say about the classicalGreek usage of KATALLASSW:” …Primarily it describes the actions taken to end the struggle and angerbetween enemies”Hence, God took actions and now we are besought to do the same.To hope to embue the word with the meaning of effectively reuniting twoparties rather than one makes the context unreasonable in the above verseand in every other Biblical usage.Bill Ross

 

Lots of Fun!Luther and the biblical langauges

[] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS Stephen Baldwin stbaldwi at hotmail.com
Sun Sep 23 11:10:15 EDT 2007

 

[] The Aorist [] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS Ladies and Gentlemen:A small point about which I am a little perplexed:>From my reading, EXQROS means hating, hostile etc. But when used substantively, it can mean enemy (BAG).In Col1:21, Paul speaks of “you at one time being [having been] alienated…KAI EXQROUS THi DIANOIA EN TOIS ERGOIS… I note that this is translated “enemies” in NIV. “hostile in mind” NASB. Of course, you could argue that there really isn’t much between the two — but I’m curious about the NIV translation given the stipulations about the presence or not of an article. Clearly EXQROUS is anarthous [isn’t it?] and relates back to hUMAS… This reference (Col1:21) appears in BAG under the “subst.” heading therefore as “enemy”, also defined as “abs” (what does “absolute” mean in this context?) Could anyone explain why it might be substantival? Thanks as always… Steve Baldwinstbaldwi at hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________Gear up for Halo® 3 with free downloads and an exclusive offer. It’s our way of saying thanks for using Windows Live™.http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_WLHMTxt_2

 

[] The Aorist[] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS