[] Ephesians 1:3-4 Joe Hightower boeinguy2 at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 28 12:47:05 EDT 2006
[] Romans 4:1 [] Ephesians 1:3-4 I am wrestling with an issue involving the word kathos (KAQWS for those who use the system). There are several definitions for this including ‘just as’, according to’ or ‘basis’, which can be applied. Wallace describes the use as either showing correlation or cause. BAGD uses this as an example of cause. Given these definitions, the idea of election is related to the idea of blessing as: 1) we are blessed in the same way that we are chosen 2) we are blessed based on the fact that we are chosen 3) we are blessed based according to the fact that we are chosen Now for the issue. Several commentators (Hoehner, O’Brien, Hendrikson, and Bob Diffenbaugh’s write up at Bible .org) take the election to be not just related to the blessing but one of the blessings. Two commentators (Salmond and Martin-Lloyd Jones) take the idea to be the basis of the blessing, making the blessings undefined in this passage. I am stumped. It seems that the ‘plain reading’ makes the blessing dependent on the election, but to be undefined in this context. How do those who take the other position justify seeing both cause of and definition of in the same phrase? Help Please! Joe Hightower
[] Romans 4:1[] Ephesians 1:3-4
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 28 14:39:06 EDT 2006
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 [] Ephesians 1:3-4 On Jul 28, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Joe Hightower wrote:> I am wrestling with an issue involving the word kathos (KAQWS for > those who use the system). There are several definitions > for this including ‘just as’, according to’ or ‘basis’, which can > be applied. Wallace describes the use as either showing correlation > or cause. BAGD uses this as an example of cause.Mr. Hightower,RE: KAQWS in Ephesians 1:4The functional categories used in semantic analysis are not air tight. In otherwords, a single word used in a single context may perform multiple functions. The problem is built into the system of categories and labels and we find it everywhere in student grammars as well as technical works on linguistics.John Eadie on KAQWS in Eph. 1:4 “That connection is modal rather than causal; KAQWS, like KAQOTI may signify sometimes “because,” but the cause specified involves the idea of manner.”The quote for Eadie illustrates the problem. Eadie first makes modal vs. causal a binary opposition “That connection is modal rather than causal” then he illustrates how this binary opposition breaks down “but the cause specified involves the idea of manner”.Elizabeth Kline
[] Ephesians 1:3-4[] Ephesians 1:3-4
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 self822 at selftest.net self822 at selftest.net
Fri Jul 28 13:57:21 EDT 2006
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 [] Ephesians 1:3-4 I wonder if there are three other possibilities:1. To take KAQWS to mean “as” in the rather mild sense of “because”, as inthe following (substandard, but typical) example from English:I never seem to catch my breath, as I’m constantly torn between one taskand another.Taking it that way, it would convey the idea that God, who has blessed us(v. 3) is to be blessed too (also v. 3), as [in a somewhat slippery waymeaning “because”] he has done all these following things for us.2. To take KAQWS as introducing a string of specific kinds of blessing (vv.4-10 or even beyond) that illustrate that it is appropriate that we shouldbless God even as God has blessed us in Christ. This action (our blessingof God) appropriately matches that action (the catalogue of God’s actionson our part through Christ, vv. 4ff.). 3. To take KAQWS as relating God’s election of us (top of v. 4) to God’spredestination of us (top of v. 5), indicating that these two match eachother: Just as God elected us, so God predestined us (thus closelyparallelling Rom. 8:29). No specific relationship is being asserted–justthat these two actions of God go together and “match” each other.Webb Mealy Original Message:—————–From: Joe Hightower boeinguy2 at yahoo.comDate: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:47:05 -0700 (PDT)To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: [] Ephesians 1:3-4I am wrestling with an issue involving the word kathos (KAQWS for those whouse the system). There are several definitions for this including’just as’, according to’ or ‘basis’, which can be applied. Wallacedescribes the use as either showing correlation or cause. BAGD uses this asan example of cause. Given these definitions, the idea of election is related to the idea ofblessing as: 1) we are blessed in the same way that we are chosen 2) we are blessed based on the fact that we are chosen 3) we are blessed based according to the fact that we are chosen Now for the issue. Several commentators (Hoehner, O’Brien, Hendrikson, andBob Diffenbaugh’s write up at Bible .org) take the election to be not justrelated to the blessing but one of the blessings. Two commentators (Salmondand Martin-Lloyd Jones) take the idea to be the basis of the blessing,making the blessings undefined in this passage. I am stumped. It seems that the ‘plain reading’ makes the blessingdependent on the election, but to be undefined in this context. How dothose who take the other position justify seeing both cause of anddefinition of in the same phrase? Help Please! Joe Hightower— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/——————————————————————–mail2web – Check your email from the web athttp://mail2web.com/ .
[] Ephesians 1:3-4[] Ephesians 1:3-4
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 28 14:42:14 EDT 2006
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 [] Ephesians 1:3-4 3. EULOGHTOS hO QEOS KAI PATHR TOU KURIOU hMWN IHSOU XRISTOU, hO EULOGHSAS hHMAS EN PASHi EULOGIAi PNEUMATIKHi EN TOIS EPOURANTIOIS EN XRISTWi. 4. KAQWS ECELECATO hHMAS EN AUTWi PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU EINAI hAGIOUS KAI AMWMOUS KATENWPION AUTOU EN AGAPHi. At times we seem to be entirely too analytical in asking whether something is X OR Y when the fact of the matter is that it could be both. I recall Dan Wallace’s comment on Re 1.1 (_Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics_, pp. 120-21). The question there is regarding the nature of the genitive IHSOU XRISTOU. Is the revelation from Christ or is it about Christ, i.e. is it a genitive of source or is it a subjective genitive? Wallace opts for what he calls a “plenary” genitive. By this he means that it is both. This is not an uncommon type of situation with regard to our categories of Greek syntax. To the Greek there was a certain ambiguity regarding what was meant and either option could be chosen. _____________ Joe Hightower <boeinguy2 at yahoo.com> wrote: I am wrestling with an issue involving the word kathos (KAQWS for those who use the system). There are several definitions for this including ‘just as’, according to’ or ‘basis’, which can be applied. Wallace describes the use as either showing correlation or cause. BAGD uses this as an example of cause. Given these definitions, the idea of election is related to the idea of blessing as: 1) we are blessed in the same way that we are chosen 2) we are blessed based on the fact that we are chosen 3) we are blessed based according to the fact that we are chosen Now for the issue. Several commentators (Hoehner, O’Brien, Hendrikson, and Bob Diffenbaugh’s write up at Bible .org) take the election to be not just related to the blessing but one of the blessings. Two commentators (Salmond and Martin-Lloyd Jones) take the idea to be the basis of the blessing, making the blessings undefined in this passage. I am stumped. It seems that the ‘plain reading’ makes the blessing dependent on the election, but to be undefined in this context. How do those who take the other position justify seeing both cause of and definition of in the same phrase? Help Please!Joe Hightower— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ __________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[] Ephesians 1:3-4[] Ephesians 1:3-4
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Jul 28 14:59:30 EDT 2006
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 [] Ephesians 1:3-4 Dear Joe,>I am wrestling with an issue involving the word kathos (KAQWS for those who use the system). There are several definitions for this including ‘just as’, according to’ or ‘basis’, which can be applied. Wallace describes the use as either showing correlation or cause. BAGD uses this as an example of cause. > >Given these definitions, the idea of election is related to the idea of blessing as: > >1) we are blessed in the same way that we are chosen >2) we are blessed based on the fact that we are chosen >3) we are blessed based according to the fact that we are chosen > >Now for the issue. Several commentators (Hoehner, O’Brien, Hendrikson, and Bob Diffenbaugh’s write up at Bible .org) take the election to be not just related to the blessing but one of the blessings. Two commentators (Salmond and Martin-Lloyd Jones) take the idea to be the basis of the blessing, making the blessings undefined in this passage. > >I am stumped. It seems that the ‘plain reading’ makes the blessing dependent on the election, but to be undefined in this context. How do those who take the other position justify seeing both cause of and definition of in the same phrase? > > HH: This seems to be an interpretive issue as well as a strictlygrammatical one, since as you say, there are a couple of options. BAGDdoes list Eph 1:4 under the causal sense, but BAGD states that thisunderstanding involves taking KAQWS as starting a new sentence with anidea like “since” or “insofar as.” However, I have always read 1:4 asconnected to 1:3, not as a new sentence. So I have read KAQWS ascomparative or correlative word, and I have heard many say that 1:3-14is essentially one sentence in Greek. That is the view of Harold W.Hoehner, _Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary_ (p. 153), who says, “Inthe Greek text, 1:3-14 is a single long sentence of 202 words.”HH: With a correlative sense, the idea I derive is that God’s blessingof us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly places corresponds to theway He chose us from before the foundation of the world so that we mightbe holy and blameless before Him in love. That is, our spiritualblessings mesh with that divine purpose and serve to accomplish itinstrumentally. Both the gifting and the choosing are sovereign divineacts of wonderful grace and promise for our entire existence.Yours,Harold Holmyard
[] Ephesians 1:3-4[] Ephesians 1:3-4
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 Joe Hightower boeinguy2 at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 28 15:01:54 EDT 2006
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 [] Ephesians 1:3-4 Thanks Elizabeth and George I am probably a novice enough that I try to categorize everything. However, I cannot find a source that allows KAQWS to indicate what it is being used for here. There are several sources that refer to cause, comparison, ‘even as’, ‘according to’. I understand that something can reflect two ideas, but how can it reflect one that is not attested to? It appears that the commentators who take this position, use the lexical definitions, then add the idea that these define the ‘spiritual blessings’. I am looking for their justifications. Hoehner points to the commentary by Charles Ellicott, but does not quote him. Elizabeth, what does Eadie mean by modal?
[] Ephesians 1:3-4[] Ephesians 1:3-4
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 Joe Hightower boeinguy2 at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 28 15:25:02 EDT 2006
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 [] Ephesians 1:3-4 Harold, thank you. If I have read your post correctly, I think that this is the clearest to me and agrees with Martin Lloyd-Jones and Salmond. I am not sure about it starting a new sentence, but it does seem to add the idea that the blessings are in a manner like the choosing or that the choosing is the basis for the blessings. In either case, this does not seem to reflect the choosing is one of the blessings.
[] Ephesians 1:3-4[] Ephesians 1:3-4
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Jul 28 15:44:36 EDT 2006
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 [] Ephesians 1:3-4 Dear Joe,> >If I have read your post correctly, I think that this is the clearest to me and agrees with Martin Lloyd-Jones and Salmond. > >I am not sure about it starting a new sentence, but it does seem to add the idea that the blessings are in a manner like the choosing or that the choosing is the basis for the blessings. In either case, this does not seem to reflect the choosing is one of the blessings.> > HH: I would not exclude “election” from “every spiritual blessing.” “Every spiritual blessing” seems an all-inclusive phrase, and election is a spiritual blessing.Yours,Harold Holmyard
[] Ephesians 1:3-4[] Ephesians 1:3-4
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 28 16:15:42 EDT 2006
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 [] Ephesians 1:3-4 On Jul 28, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Joe Hightower wrote:> what does Eadie mean by modal?It is an old term, used in old grammars, cannot give a precise definition. It would probably include the notion of manner but that would broader than that.Elizabeth Kline
[] Ephesians 1:3-4[] Ephesians 1:3-4
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com
Sat Jul 29 21:49:17 EDT 2006
[] Ephesians 1:3-4 [] Ascensive use of KAI in 2 Timothy 3:16 (1) I appreciated Webb’s comments. They are worth considering. The KAQWS may relate to our blessing of God rather than God’s blessing of us, though I favor the view I set out below in (2). The causal meaning of KAQWS may well originate from the type of conceptual background he describes in relation to “as”.(2) Joe I think you are misunderstanding the causal meaning of KAQWS. If it is the right option, it does not only have to mean that election is the cause of blessing, but can just as well mean, and in this case almost certainly would mean, that we are blessed <since / in so far as> we have been chosen (see BDAG). Practically, this amounts to an explanation/definition of the blessings. If I say, “My friend has blessed me because he made me a sandwich, and gave me some money”, I am saying why (cause/reason) I say that he has blessed me. But those things did not cause him to bless me, but they are why I am blessed. There is more than one option for what part of the idea being expressed that the notion of cause can relate to. Moreover, as Webb mentioned, this KAQWS appears to be beginning a whole list of blessings that all contribute to why we are blessed. It is important to remember that Eph 1:3-14 is indeed one long sentence. Also, this passage is in a standard Jewish formula of praise to God known as a Berakah. The idea is that praise is given to God and then the reasons (causes!) are given for that.(3) Modal refers to the manner in which action is accomplished (cf. Dana and Mantey, 228, on the modal participle).God bless,Brian Abasciano—– Original Message —– From: <-request at lists.ibiblio.org>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 12:00 PMSubject: Digest, Vol 43, Issue 32> Send mailing list submissions to> at lists.ibiblio.org> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> or, via email, send a message with subject or body ‘help’ to> -request at lists.ibiblio.org> > You can reach the person managing the list at> -owner at lists.ibiblio.org> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific> than “Re: Contents of digest…”> > > Today’s Topics:> > 1. Ephesians 1:3-4 (Joe Hightower)> 2. Re: Ephesians 1:3-4 (Elizabeth Kline)> 3. Re: Ephesians 1:3-4 (George F Somsel)> 4. Re: Ephesians 1:3-4 (Harold Holmyard)> 5. Ephesians 1:3-4 (Joe Hightower)> 6. Ephesians 1:3-4 (Joe Hightower)> 7. Re: Ephesians 1:3-4 (Harold Holmyard)> 8. Re: Ephesians 1:3-4 (Elizabeth Kline)> 9. Re: Ephesians 1:3-4 (self822 at selftest.net)> > > ———————————————————————-> > Message: 1> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:47:05 -0700 (PDT)> From: Joe Hightower <boeinguy2 at yahoo.com>> Subject: [] Ephesians 1:3-4> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <20060728164705.47369.qmail at web54102.mail.yahoo.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii> > I am wrestling with an issue involving the word kathos (KAQWS for those > who use the system). There are several definitions for this > including ‘just as’, according to’ or ‘basis’, which can be applied. > Wallace describes the use as either showing correlation or cause. BAGD > uses this as an example of cause.> > Given these definitions, the idea of election is related to the idea of > blessing as:> > 1) we are blessed in the same way that we are chosen> 2) we are blessed based on the fact that we are chosen> 3) we are blessed based according to the fact that we are chosen> > Now for the issue. Several commentators (Hoehner, O’Brien, Hendrikson, and > Bob Diffenbaugh’s write up at Bible .org) take the election to be not just > related to the blessing but one of the blessings. Two commentators > (Salmond and Martin-Lloyd Jones) take the idea to be the basis of the > blessing, making the blessings undefined in this passage.> > I am stumped. It seems that the ‘plain reading’ makes the blessing > dependent on the election, but to be undefined in this context. How do > those who take the other position justify seeing both cause of and > definition of in the same phrase?> > Help Please!> > Joe Hightower> > ——————————> > Message: 2> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:39:06 -0700> From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 1:3-4> To: Joe Hightower <boeinguy2 at yahoo.com>> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <57ABA454-1EE9-45A4-BC15-994DCA378F33 at earthlink.net>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed> > > On Jul 28, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Joe Hightower wrote:> >> I am wrestling with an issue involving the word kathos (KAQWS for>> those who use the system). There are several definitions>> for this including ‘just as’, according to’ or ‘basis’, which can>> be applied. Wallace describes the use as either showing correlation>> or cause. BAGD uses this as an example of cause.> > Mr. Hightower,> > RE: KAQWS in Ephesians 1:4> > The functional categories used in semantic analysis are not air> tight. In otherwords, a single word used in a single context may> perform multiple functions. The problem is built into the system of> categories and labels and we find it everywhere in student grammars> as well as technical works on linguistics.> > John Eadie on KAQWS in Eph. 1:4 “That connection is modal rather than> causal; KAQWS, like KAQOTI may signify sometimes “because,” but the> cause specified involves the idea of manner.”> > The quote for Eadie illustrates the problem. Eadie first makes modal> vs. causal a binary opposition “That connection is modal rather than> causal” then he illustrates how this binary opposition breaks down> “but the cause specified involves the idea of manner”.> > > Elizabeth Kline> > > > > > > ——————————> > Message: 3> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:42:14 -0700 (PDT)> From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 1:3-4> To: Joe Hightower <boeinguy2 at yahoo.com>, at lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <20060728184214.53918.qmail at web38502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1> > 3. EULOGHTOS hO QEOS KAI PATHR TOU KURIOU hMWN IHSOU XRISTOU, hO > EULOGHSAS hHMAS EN PASHi EULOGIAi PNEUMATIKHi EN TOIS EPOURANTIOIS EN > XRISTWi.> > > 4. KAQWS ECELECATO hHMAS EN AUTWi PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU EINAI hAGIOUS KAI > AMWMOUS KATENWPION AUTOU EN AGAPHi.> > At times we seem to be entirely too analytical in asking whether > something is X OR Y when the fact of the matter is that it could be both. > I recall Dan Wallace’s comment on Re 1.1 (_Greek Grammar Beyond the > Basics_, pp. 120-21). The question there is regarding the nature of the > genitive IHSOU XRISTOU. Is the revelation from Christ or is it about > Christ, i.e. is it a genitive of source or is it a subjective genitive? > Wallace opts for what he calls a “plenary” genitive. By this he means > that it is both. This is not an uncommon type of situation with regard to > our categories of Greek syntax. To the Greek there was a certain > ambiguity regarding what was meant and either option could be chosen.> > _____________> > Joe Hightower <boeinguy2 at yahoo.com> wrote:> I am wrestling with an issue involving the word kathos (KAQWS for those > who use the system). There are several definitions for this > including ‘just as’, according to’ or ‘basis’, which can be applied. > Wallace describes the use as either showing correlation or cause. BAGD > uses this as an example of cause.> > Given these definitions, the idea of election is related to the idea of > blessing as:> > 1) we are blessed in the same way that we are chosen> 2) we are blessed based on the fact that we are chosen> 3) we are blessed based according to the fact that we are chosen> > Now for the issue. Several commentators (Hoehner, O’Brien, Hendrikson, and > Bob Diffenbaugh’s write up at Bible .org) take the election to be not just > related to the blessing but one of the blessings. Two commentators > (Salmond and Martin-Lloyd Jones) take the idea to be the basis of the > blessing, making the blessings undefined in this passage.> > I am stumped. It seems that the ‘plain reading’ makes the blessing > dependent on the election, but to be undefined in this context. How do > those who take the other position justify seeing both cause of and > definition of in the same phrase?> > Help Please!> > Joe Hightower> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > george> gfsomsel> _________> __________________________________________________> Do You Yahoo!?> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around> http://mail.yahoo.com> > ——————————> > Message: 4> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:59:30 -0500> From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com>> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 1:3-4> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <44CA5E92.90000 at ont.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed> > Dear Joe,> >>I am wrestling with an issue involving the word kathos (KAQWS for those >>who use the system). There are several definitions for this >>including ‘just as’, according to’ or ‘basis’, which can be applied. >>Wallace describes the use as either showing correlation or cause. BAGD >>uses this as an example of cause.>> >>Given these definitions, the idea of election is related to the idea of >>blessing as:>> >>1) we are blessed in the same way that we are chosen>>2) we are blessed based on the fact that we are chosen>>3) we are blessed based according to the fact that we are chosen>> >>Now for the issue. Several commentators (Hoehner, O’Brien, Hendrikson, and >>Bob Diffenbaugh’s write up at Bible .org) take the election to be not just >>related to the blessing but one of the blessings. Two commentators >>(Salmond and Martin-Lloyd Jones) take the idea to be the basis of the >>blessing, making the blessings undefined in this passage.>> >>I am stumped. It seems that the ‘plain reading’ makes the blessing >>dependent on the election, but to be undefined in this context. How do >>those who take the other position justify seeing both cause of and >>definition of in the same phrase?>> >> > > HH: This seems to be an interpretive issue as well as a strictly> grammatical one, since as you say, there are a couple of options. BAGD> does list Eph 1:4 under the causal sense, but BAGD states that this> understanding involves taking KAQWS as starting a new sentence with an> idea like “since” or “insofar as.” However, I have always read 1:4 as> connected to 1:3, not as a new sentence. So I have read KAQWS as> comparative or correlative word, and I have heard many say that 1:3-14> is essentially one sentence in Greek. That is the view of Harold W.> Hoehner, _Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary_ (p. 153), who says, “In> the Greek text, 1:3-14 is a single long sentence of 202 words.”> > HH: With a correlative sense, the idea I derive is that God’s blessing> of us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly places corresponds to the> way He chose us from before the foundation of the world so that we might> be holy and blameless before Him in love. That is, our spiritual> blessings mesh with that divine purpose and serve to accomplish it> instrumentally. Both the gifting and the choosing are sovereign divine> acts of wonderful grace and promise for our entire existence.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> > > > > ——————————> > Message: 5> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:01:54 -0700 (PDT)> From: Joe Hightower <boeinguy2 at yahoo.com>> Subject: [] Ephesians 1:3-4> To: Bgreek < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Message-ID: <20060728190154.37430.qmail at web54114.mail.yahoo.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii> > Thanks Elizabeth and George> > I am probably a novice enough that I try to categorize everything. > However, I cannot find a source that allows KAQWS to indicate what it is > being used for here. There are several sources that refer to cause, > comparison, ‘even as’, ‘according to’.> > I understand that something can reflect two ideas, but how can it reflect > one that is not attested to? It appears that the commentators who take > this position, use the lexical definitions, then add the idea that these > define the ‘spiritual blessings’. I am looking for their justifications. > Hoehner points to the commentary by Charles Ellicott, but does not quote > him.> > Elizabeth, what does Eadie mean by modal?> > ——————————> > Message: 6> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:25:02 -0700 (PDT)> From: Joe Hightower <boeinguy2 at yahoo.com>> Subject: [] Ephesians 1:3-4> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <20060728192502.57067.qmail at web54101.mail.yahoo.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii> > Harold, thank you.> > If I have read your post correctly, I think that this is the clearest to > me and agrees with Martin Lloyd-Jones and Salmond.> > I am not sure about it starting a new sentence, but it does seem to add > the idea that the blessings are in a manner like the choosing or that the > choosing is the basis for the blessings. In either case, this does not > seem to reflect the choosing is one of the blessings.> > ——————————> > Message: 7> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:44:36 -0500> From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com>> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 1:3-4> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <44CA6924.4020000 at ont.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed> > Dear Joe,> >> >>If I have read your post correctly, I think that this is the clearest to >>me and agrees with Martin Lloyd-Jones and Salmond.>> >>I am not sure about it starting a new sentence, but it does seem to add >>the idea that the blessings are in a manner like the choosing or that the >>choosing is the basis for the blessings. In either case, this does not >>seem to reflect the choosing is one of the blessings.>> >> > > HH: I would not exclude “election” from “every spiritual blessing.”> “Every spiritual blessing” seems an all-inclusive phrase, and election> is a spiritual blessing.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> > > > > ——————————> > Message: 8> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:15:42 -0700> From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 1:3-4> To: Joe Hightower <boeinguy2 at yahoo.com>> Cc: Bgreek < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Message-ID: <F9C0907E-60BE-4B37-AE0D-D6ABF0482951 at earthlink.net>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed> > > On Jul 28, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Joe Hightower wrote:> >> what does Eadie mean by modal?> > It is an old term, used in old grammars, cannot give a precise> definition. It would probably include the notion of manner but that> would broader than that.> > Elizabeth Kline> > > > > > > ——————————> > Message: 9> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:57:21 -0400> From: “self822 at selftest.net” <self822 at selftest.net>> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 1:3-4> To: boeinguy2 at yahoo.com, at lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <380-220067528175721296 at M2W016.mail2web.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1> > I wonder if there are three other possibilities:> > 1. To take KAQWS to mean “as” in the rather mild sense of “because”, as in> the following (substandard, but typical) example from English:> > I never seem to catch my breath, as I’m constantly torn between one task> and another.> > Taking it that way, it would convey the idea that God, who has blessed us> (v. 3) is to be blessed too (also v. 3), as [in a somewhat slippery way> meaning “because”] he has done all these following things for us.> > 2. To take KAQWS as introducing a string of specific kinds of blessing > (vv.> 4-10 or even beyond) that illustrate that it is appropriate that we should> bless God even as God has blessed us in Christ. This action (our blessing> of God) appropriately matches that action (the catalogue of God’s actions> on our part through Christ, vv. 4ff.).> > 3. To take KAQWS as relating God’s election of us (top of v. 4) to God’s> predestination of us (top of v. 5), indicating that these two match each> other: Just as God elected us, so God predestined us (thus closely> parallelling Rom. 8:29). No specific relationship is being asserted–just> that these two actions of God go together and “match” each other.> > Webb Mealy> > > Original Message:> —————–> From: Joe Hightower boeinguy2 at yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:47:05 -0700 (PDT)> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: [] Ephesians 1:3-4> > > I am wrestling with an issue involving the word kathos (KAQWS for those > who> use the system). There are several definitions for this including> ‘just as’, according to’ or ‘basis’, which can be applied. Wallace> describes the use as either showing correlation or cause. BAGD uses this > as> an example of cause.> > Given these definitions, the idea of election is related to the idea of> blessing as:> > 1) we are blessed in the same way that we are chosen> 2) we are blessed based on the fact that we are chosen> 3) we are blessed based according to the fact that we are chosen> > Now for the issue. Several commentators (Hoehner, O’Brien, Hendrikson, and> Bob Diffenbaugh’s write up at Bible .org) take the election to be not just> related to the blessing but one of the blessings. Two commentators > (Salmond> and Martin-Lloyd Jones) take the idea to be the basis of the blessing,> making the blessings undefined in this passage.> > I am stumped. It seems that the ‘plain reading’ makes the blessing> dependent on the election, but to be undefined in this context. How do> those who take the other position justify seeing both cause of and> definition of in the same phrase?> > Help Please!> > Joe Hightower> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > ——————————————————————–> mail2web – Check your email from the web at> http://mail2web.com/ .> > > > > ——————————> > _______________________________________________> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > End of Digest, Vol 43, Issue 32> ***************************************
[] Ephesians 1:3-4[] Ascensive use of KAI in 2 Timothy 3:16
[] Ephesians 1:13 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 1 14:31:40 EDT 2006
[] Ephesians 1:13 [] inexpensive pocket-size Greek New Testament When I was working on the DSS with Brownlee we sometimes consulted the Amharic. It is a Semitic language. georgegfsomsel_________ —– Original Message —-From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: Jason Hare <jaihare at gmail.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2006 3:31:32 PMSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 1:13Jason Hare wrote:<snip>> “it is standard in Greek that the event expressed by an aorist> participle takes place before the main verb expressed in aorist.” This> would indicate that the answering in “having answered, he said” took> place before the saying itself. Does this even make sense? It is a> repetitive feature of Semitic language. I have not myself figured out> why Semitic language (Hebrew, in particular) uses such repetitive> verbs, but it is very common.We cannot translate a Greek construction literally into English and then ask if this translation makes sense. I am used to a combination of the general word for saying combined with a more specific word like answer, ask etc, from Amharic, so it seems to be a feature of at least some Afro-Asiatic languages beyond Semitic.> There is no aorist in Hebrew, unless one counts the active participle> as a type of aorist. So, the structure cannot really be compared> directly to Hebrew, as I’m sure you know. Whereas this repetitiveness> may come from Semitic influence, the use of the aorist participle in> conjunction with an aorist main verb does not, and the meaning must be> drawn from the Greek structure itself.Well, the best I can do is to compare the Hebrew construction in the OT with how it was translated by the LXX.When I look at the close to 90 instances of APOKRINOMAI followed within 4 words of EIPON, and look at the corresponding Hebrew, I find that in two instances in the LXX a future indicative is used for the first word followed by a future indicative of the last word. In all other cases, APOKRINOMAI occurs in the aorist, most of these being participles. The Hebrew text normally has both verbs in a waw consecutive form. I suppose one might have expected a present participle of APOKRINOMAI, but that never occurs in the LXX when combined with a form of EIPON. I cannot tell you why this happens. I am only saying that this is what is happening, so you can compare the Hebrew structure with what the LXX considered to be the best or normal equivalent in Greek. It is this equivalence that is the same in LXX and the NT. I don’t know how common the structure is outside of LXX or NT Greek.Iver Larsen — home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Ephesians 1:13[] inexpensive pocket-size Greek New Testament
[] Ephesians 1:13 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Oct 1 15:31:32 EDT 2006
[] Humor or a frozen expression? Mk 5.7 [] Ephesians 1:13 Jason Hare wrote:<snip>> “it is standard in Greek that the event expressed by an aorist> participle takes place before the main verb expressed in aorist.” This> would indicate that the answering in “having answered, he said” took> place before the saying itself. Does this even make sense? It is a> repetitive feature of Semitic language. I have not myself figured out> why Semitic language (Hebrew, in particular) uses such repetitive> verbs, but it is very common.We cannot translate a Greek construction literally into English and then ask if this translation makes sense. I am used to a combination of the general word for saying combined with a more specific word like answer, ask etc, from Amharic, so it seems to be a feature of at least some Afro-Asiatic languages beyond Semitic.> There is no aorist in Hebrew, unless one counts the active participle> as a type of aorist. So, the structure cannot really be compared> directly to Hebrew, as I’m sure you know. Whereas this repetitiveness> may come from Semitic influence, the use of the aorist participle in> conjunction with an aorist main verb does not, and the meaning must be> drawn from the Greek structure itself.Well, the best I can do is to compare the Hebrew construction in the OT with how it was translated by the LXX.When I look at the close to 90 instances of APOKRINOMAI followed within 4 words of EIPON, and look at the corresponding Hebrew, I find that in two instances in the LXX a future indicative is used for the first word followed by a future indicative of the last word. In all other cases, APOKRINOMAI occurs in the aorist, most of these being participles. The Hebrew text normally has both verbs in a waw consecutive form. I suppose one might have expected a present participle of APOKRINOMAI, but that never occurs in the LXX when combined with a form of EIPON. I cannot tell you why this happens. I am only saying that this is what is happening, so you can compare the Hebrew structure with what the LXX considered to be the best or normal equivalent in Greek. It is this equivalence that is the same in LXX and the NT. I don’t know how common the structure is outside of LXX or NT Greek.Iver Larsen
[] Humor or a frozen expression? Mk 5.7[] Ephesians 1:13