Titus 3:5

Titus 3:5 Jim Crouch crouchjames at attbi.com
Sun Jan 13 10:00:45 EST 2002

 

The Use of the word gold in the NT Titus 3:5 DIA LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS KAI ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOUIs it possible to read only one object of the preposition DIA (viz.,LUTROU) followed by two genitives of description (viz., PALIGGENESIAS KAIANAKAINWSEWS) with the final genitive phrase (viz., PNEUMATOS hAGIOU)modifying DIA LOUTROU? In other words, is it grammatically reasonable thatPaul is that the washing “by/through the Holy Spirit” produces both”rebirth and renewal”?If this is not grammatically reasonable, what alternative grammaticalconstruction(s) would convey this meaning?Thanks!Jim Crouchcrouchjames at attbi.com

 

The Use of the word gold in the NTTitus 3:5

Titus 3:5 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jan 13 11:56:48 EST 2002

 

Titus 3:5 I did something wrong At 10:00 AM -0500 1/13/02, Jim Crouch wrote:>DIA LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS KAI ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU> >Is it possible to read only one object of the preposition DIA (viz.,>LUTROU) followed by two genitives of description (viz., PALIGGENESIAS KAI>ANAKAINWSEWS) with the final genitive phrase (viz., PNEUMATOS hAGIOU)>modifying DIA LOUTROU? In other words, is it grammatically reasonable that>Paul is that the washing “by/through the Holy Spirit” produces both>“rebirth and renewal”?> >If this is not grammatically reasonable, what alternative grammatical>construction(s) would convey this meaning?These strings of genitives are somewhat annoying, sort of like “a whopperof a tale of a shaggy dog of my uncle’s.”I think there are at least two ways this COULD be read:(1) “through the bathing of regeneration and renewal brought about by theHoly Spirit” (understanding PAIGGENESIAS and ANAKAINWSEWS is defininggenitives dependent upon LUTROU and being roughly synonymous or evenunderstanding them as a hendiadys, and understanding PNEUMATOS hAGIOU as asubjective genitive separately dependent upon LUTROU understood as a verbalnoun: the Holy Spirit does the bathing;(2) “through regenerative bathing and (through) renewal by the Holy Spirit”(understanding DIA to govern separately two phrases LOUTROU PALIGGENESIASand ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU.Finally, I’m not convinced that there’s any significant difference in theultimate sense of the expression, no matter which way one understands thesyntax; it seems to me pleonastic, to say the least–like saying: “you mustbe born again, and you must also die and be raised to new life.”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Titus 3:5I did something wrong

[] Titus 3:5b Nicholas Lamme nlamme at midamerica.edu
Wed May 14 15:50:28 EDT 2008

 

[] hO QEOS in ROM. 1:28 [] Titus 3:5b Titus 3:5b reads:ESWSEN hHMAS DIA LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS KAI ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOUDo LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS and ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU refer to the sameevent or does LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS refer to baptism while ANAKAINWSEWSPNEUMATOS hAGIOU refer to the work of the HS in regeneration? Is itincorrect to infer a parallelism akin to Hebrew poetry here and so readthese as the same thing? Thanks.Nick LammeFaith OPCPole Tavern, NJ

 

[] hO QEOS in ROM. 1:28[] Titus 3:5b

[] Titus 3:5b Barry nebarry at verizon.net
Wed May 14 18:38:11 EDT 2008

 

[] Titus 3:5b [] FW: Titus 3:5b —– Original Message —– From: “Nicholas Lamme” <nlamme at midamerica.edu>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:50 PMSubject: [] Titus 3:5b> Titus 3:5b reads:> > ESWSEN hHMAS DIA LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS KAI ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU> > Do LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS and ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU refer to the > same> event or does LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS refer to baptism while ANAKAINWSEWS> PNEUMATOS hAGIOU refer to the work of the HS in regeneration? Is it> incorrect to infer a parallelism akin to Hebrew poetry here and so read> these as the same thing? Thanks.οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου…You have the key text above so I won’t repeat it in b-Greek here. I am not sure there is anything in the specific grammar of the text which would really nail this down. Until your question, I have usually assumed that it was two separate events, and saw it similarly to John 3:5 (and yes, I know that there is more than one interpretation of that passage as well). I wouldn’t call it Hebrew parallelism, but rather a species of apposition, which would make KAI epexegetical, “the washing of regeneration, even the renewal of the Holy Spirit.” It occurred to me that the presence of the article before ANAKAINWSEWS might imply a distinction between the two, but since it is frequent to omit the article in prepositional phrases used adverbially, as here, I don’t know if that’s really helpful or not. I suspect this is something that has to be determined on a broader contextual basis, if it can be determined at all.BTW, Nicholas, it’s good to see a fellow “Only Perfect Church” guy here. I was a long time member of Trinity OPC in Hatboro, PA… :)N.E. Barry HofstetterProfessor, WRTShttp://www.wittenbergreformed.orgMentor, TNARS http://www.tnars.net/Classics Instructor, TAAhttp://www.theamericanacademy.netand me:http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarryhttp://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog

 

[] Titus 3:5b[] FW: Titus 3:5b

[] FW: Titus 3:5b Nicholas Lamme nlamme at midamerica.edu
Thu May 15 17:19:31 EDT 2008

 

[] Titus 3:5b [] Titus 3:5b —— Forwarded MessageFrom: Barry <nebarry at verizon.net>Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 18:38:11 -0400To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: Re: [] Titus 3:5b—– Original Message —– From: “Nicholas Lamme” <nlamme at midamerica.edu>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:50 PMSubject: [] Titus 3:5b > Titus 3:5b reads: > > ESWSEN hHMAS DIALOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS KAI ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU > > Do LOUTROUPALIGGENESIAS and ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU refer to the > same > eventor does LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS refer to baptism while ANAKAINWSEWS >PNEUMATOS hAGIOU refer to the work of the HS in regeneration? Is it >incorrect to infer a parallelism akin to Hebrew poetry here and so read >these as the same thing? Thanks. BARRY WROTE:οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεοςἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου…You have the key text above so I won’t repeat it in b-Greek here. I am notsure there is anything in the specific grammar of the text which wouldreally nail this down. Until your question, I have usually assumed that itwas two separate events, and saw it similarly to John 3:5 (and yes, I knowthat there is more than one interpretation of that passage as well). Iwouldn’t call it Hebrew parallelism, but rather a species of apposition,which would make KAI epexegetical, “the washing of regeneration, even therenewal of the Holy Spirit.” It occurred to me that the presence of thearticle before ANAKAINWSEWS might imply a distinction between the two, butsince it is frequent to omit the article in prepositional phrases usedadverbially, as here, I don’t know if that’s really helpful or not. Isuspect this is something that has to be determined on a broader contextualbasis, if it can be determined at all. BTW, Nicholas, it’s good to see afellow “Only Perfect Church” guy here. I was a long time member of TrinityOPC in Hatboro, PA… 🙂 N.E. Barry Hofstetter Professor, WRTShttp://www.wittenbergreformed.org Mentor, TNARS http://www.tnars.net/Classics Instructor, TAA http://www.theamericanacademy.net and me:http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blogBarry, Thank you for the feedback. I do think that this is helpful. On amore thoughtful reading of the text, I suppose that I wouldn’t want to callthis some sort of parallelism either. Although my first thoughts about thatwere do to the actual structure of the text in Nestle-Aland. Theindentation of the text, I think, implies a quotation of some kind, or somekind of poetry. I agree also that John 3:5 seems to refer to two differentthings. I’m not sure that is the case here. But I’m open to thepossibility. My reasons for seeing the KAI as epexegetical may be whollycontextual and theological. Thanks again for you feedback.Nick LammeFaith OPCPole Tavern, NJBTW: I do think that there is some debate among “scholars” in the OPCwhether the P stands for “perfect” or “pure”. I say pick your poison.Though, it has been a real pleasure to be a part of this denomination.— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/—— End of Forwarded Message

 

[] Titus 3:5b[] Titus 3:5b

[] Titus 3:5b Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri May 16 01:57:20 EDT 2008

 

[] FW: Titus 3:5b [] APEQANOMEN THi >> Titus 3:5b reads:>> >> ESWSEN hHMAS DIA LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS KAI ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU>> >> Do LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS and ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU refer to the>> same>> event or does LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS refer to baptism while ANAKAINWSEWS>> PNEUMATOS hAGIOU refer to the work of the HS in regeneration? Is it>> incorrect to infer a parallelism akin to Hebrew poetry here and so read>> these as the same thing? Thanks.> > οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος> ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου…> > You have the key text above so I won’t repeat it in b-Greek here. I am not> sure there is anything in the specific grammar of the text which would> really nail this down. Until your question, I have usually assumed that it> was two separate events, and saw it similarly to John 3:5 (and yes, I know> that there is more than one interpretation of that passage as well). I> wouldn’t call it Hebrew parallelism, but rather a species of apposition,> which would make KAI epexegetical, “the washing of regeneration, even the> renewal of the Holy Spirit.” It occurred to me that the presence of the> article before ANAKAINWSEWS might imply a distinction between the two, but> since it is frequent to omit the article in prepositional phrases used> adverbially, as here, I don’t know if that’s really helpful or not. I> suspect this is something that has to be determined on a broader contextual> basis, if it can be determined at all.I would consider the two genitive phrases as complementary, describing the same event. KAI is basically additive, so one aspect can be added to another in order to give a fuller description of the topic. The topic is specified by ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς. This salvation did not come about through “the righteous works we might have done” but through “his own mercy”. It happened through λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου. Because the two nouns ἀνακαίνωσις (renewal) and παλιγγενεσία (regeneration) are synonyms, it seems likely that the same event is being described. The second genitive indicates that the Holy Spirit is the agent for this renewal, and the regeneration is further described by the word λουτρόν (cleansing/bath). I think the focus of this last word is the change of state from being “dirty” to being “clean”. Since it is a spiritual cleansing, it does not have to involve water or refer to baptism, but if it does it would be as a symbol or metaphor. The word only occurs one other place in the NT, namely Eph 5:26, a place that is also theologically significant and open to several interpretations.Iver Larsen

 

[] FW: Titus 3:5b[] APEQANOMEN THi

[] Titus 3:5 Gordon Slocum edifier.of.truth at gmail.com
Fri Sep 25 00:53:47 EDT 2009

 

[] Charts of Forms should be real words [] Titus 3:5 οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦἔλεος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλινγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματοςἁγίου,OUK EX ERGWN TWN EN DIKAIOSUNH hA EPOIHSAMENhHMEIS ALLA KATA TO AUTOU ELEOS ESWSEN hHMAS DIA LOUTPOU PALINGENESIASKAI ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU.NIV vs. 5 he saved us not because of righteous things we had done,but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirthand renewal by the Holy Spirit.Interlinear “not by works in righteousness which did we but accordingto the of him mercy he saved us through the washing of regenerationand renewal Spirit of Holy.My understanding of this verse is that “saved” is washing ofregeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit. Is it fair to say thatthe“washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” is a pointat which a lost person is instantaneously saved?Gordon

 

[] Charts of Forms should be real words[] Titus 3:5

[] Titus 3:5 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Sep 25 03:27:03 EDT 2009

 

[] Titus 3:5 [] Charts of Forms should be real words —– Original Message —– From: “Gordon Slocum” <edifier.of.truth at gmail.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 25. september 2009 06:53Subject: [] Titus 3:5> οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ> ἔλεος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλινγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος> ἁγίου,> > OUK EX ERGWN TWN EN DIKAIOSUNH hA EPOIHSAMEN> hHMEIS ALLA KATA TO AUTOU ELEOS ESWSEN hHMAS DIA LOUTPOU PALINGENESIAS> KAI ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU.> > NIV vs. 5 he saved us not because of righteous things we had done,> but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth> and renewal by the Holy Spirit.> > > Interlinear “not by works in righteousness which did we but according> to the of him mercy he saved us through the washing of regeneration> and renewal Spirit of Holy.> > > My understanding of this verse is that “saved” is washing of> regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit. Is it fair to say that> the “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” is a point> at which a lost person is instantaneously saved?> > GordonThis is a theologically controversial text, so what is “fair” will dependsomewhat on one’s presuppositions and traditions. I’ll make a few comments, butmay not answer your question.If we look at the structure of the sentence, the central part with the main verbis:ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς (ESWSEN hHMAS) – He saved usThe aorist indicates a past event here. The verb in itself is used in the past,present and future in the NT, so all three aspects are valid in each their owncontexts.The verb can refer to spiritual salvation or physical rescue like being savedfrom drowning. It is the context, esp. the use of PALIGGENESIA and PNEUMA hAGIOSthat indicates spiritual salvation as the topic here.Paul then adds some detail to the topic of “he saved us”. First, he answers thequestion “On what basis were we saved?” It was not based on or resulted from(EK) our good (in the eyes of God) works, but it was in accordance with (KATA)his own mercy:οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεοςOUK EX ERGWN TWN EN DIKAIOSUNH hA EPOIHSAMEN hHMEIS ALLA KATA TO AUTOU ELEOSPaul then adds a DIA phrase which answers the question “How did he save us?”Well, it happened through a “cleansing of rebirth and a renewal of holy Spirit”:διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίουDIA LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS KAI ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOULOUTROU and ANAKAINWSEWS are genitives because they are governed by DIA.LOUTRON is then connected to PALIGGENESIA by way of a genitive just asANAKAINWSIS is connected to PNEUMA hAGION.The relationship between two nouns in a genitive construction is a matter ofinterpretation based on the words as well as the context. ANAKAINWSIS is theverbal noun for ANAKAINOW. It is a Pauline word referring to spiritual renewal,and from the context of the NT, it is fair to suggest that the genitive heremeans that the Holy Spirit is the agent for this renewal. I take it is acontextual clarification of the more general word “salvation”.The parallel genitive LOUTRON PALIGGENESIAS is a bit more difficult. Because ofthe parallelism I take it that the LOUTRON is a different way of clarifying anddescribing salvation so that this event is both a renewal and a cleansing, bothin a spiritual sense. It is not the dirt of the body that is removed, but thesin and guilt. Whether water is involved in this cleansing or not iscontroversial, so I’ll not comment on that except to say that the word onlyoccurs one other place in the NT (Eph 5:26) where “water” is added forclarification. PALIGGENESIA seems parallel to ANAKAINWSIS, referring to thespiritual change described as both a rebirthing and a renewal. In this genitive,PALIGGENESIA can hardly be subject or object, so we are probably dealing withthe common descriptive genitive. The cleansing that Paul is talking about is aspiritual cleansing further described as a re-birth. It is the Holy Spirit thatis the agent for both renewal and rebirth since the words refer to the sameevent, but the first genitive is descriptive, the second is a so-called”subjective” genitive.I hope I have not unintentionally stepped on too many theological toes, and Irealize that others may have a different interpretation. A key point is thefunction of the adnominal genitive, and I think the descriptive genitive has ingeneral not been given the attention it deserves. Too often people jump to thequestion: “Is it an objective or subjective genitive?” when so often it isneither. I know a translation in Danish that says: “through the bath that”rebirths” and renews by the Holy Spirit”. They have taken LOUTRON as apersonified subject, but I don’t understand how they can do that.Iver Larsen

 

[] Titus 3:5[] Charts of Forms should be real words

[bible passage=”Titus 3:5″]

οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ
ἔλεος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλινγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος
ἁγίου,

OUK EX ERGWN TWN EN DIKAIOSUNH hA EPOIHSAMEN
hHMEIS ALLA KATA TO AUTOU ELEOS ESWSEN hHMAS DIA LOUTPOU PALINGENESIAS
KAI ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU.

NIV vs. 5 he saved us not because of righteous things we had done,
but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth
and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

Interlinear “not by works in righteousness which did we but according
to the of him mercy he saved us through the washing of regeneration
and renewal Spirit of Holy.

My understanding of this verse is that “saved” is washing of
regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit. Is it fair to say that
the
“washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” is a point
at which a lost person is instantaneously saved?

Gordon

= == = = =

This is a theologically controversial text, so what is “fair” will depend
somewhat on one’s presuppositions and traditions. I’ll make a few comments, but
may not answer your question.

If we look at the structure of the sentence, the central part with the main verb
is:
ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς (ESWSEN hHMAS) – He saved us

The aorist indicates a past event here. The verb in itself is used in the past,
present and future in the NT, so all three aspects are valid in each their own
contexts.

The verb can refer to spiritual salvation or physical rescue like being saved
from drowning. It is the context, esp. the use of PALIGGENESIA and PNEUMA hAGIOS
that indicates spiritual salvation as the topic here.

Paul then adds some detail to the topic of “he saved us”. First, he answers the
question “On what basis were we saved?” It was not based on or resulted from
(EK) our good (in the eyes of God) works, but it was in accordance with (KATA)
his own mercy:
οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος
OUK EX ERGWN TWN EN DIKAIOSUNH hA EPOIHSAMEN hHMEIS ALLA KATA TO AUTOU ELEOS

Paul then adds a DIA phrase which answers the question “How did he save us?”
Well, it happened through a “cleansing of rebirth and a renewal of holy Spirit”:

διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου
DIA LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS KAI ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU

LOUTROU and ANAKAINWSEWS are genitives because they are governed by DIA.
LOUTRON is then connected to PALIGGENESIA by way of a genitive just as
ANAKAINWSIS is connected to PNEUMA hAGION.
The relationship between two nouns in a genitive construction is a matter of
interpretation based on the words as well as the context. ANAKAINWSIS is the
verbal noun for ANAKAINOW. It is a Pauline word referring to spiritual renewal,
and from the context of the NT, it is fair to suggest that the genitive here
means that the Holy Spirit is the agent for this renewal. I take it is a
contextual clarification of the more general word “salvation”.
The parallel genitive LOUTRON PALIGGENESIAS is a bit more difficult. Because of
the parallelism I take it that the LOUTRON is a different way of clarifying and
describing salvation so that this event is both a renewal and a cleansing, both
in a spiritual sense. It is not the dirt of the body that is removed, but the
sin and guilt. Whether water is involved in this cleansing or not is
controversial, so I’ll not comment on that except to say that the word only
occurs one other place in the NT (Eph 5:26) where “water” is added for
clarification. PALIGGENESIA seems parallel to ANAKAINWSIS, referring to the
spiritual change described as both a rebirthing and a renewal. In this genitive,
PALIGGENESIA can hardly be subject or object, so we are probably dealing with
the common descriptive genitive. The cleansing that Paul is talking about is a
spiritual cleansing further described as a re-birth. It is the Holy Spirit that
is the agent for both renewal and rebirth since the words refer to the same
event, but the first genitive is descriptive, the second is a so-called
“subjective” genitive.

I hope I have not unintentionally stepped on too many theological toes, and I
realize that others may have a different interpretation. A key point is the
function of the adnominal genitive, and I think the descriptive genitive has in
general not been given the attention it deserves. Too often people jump to the
question: “Is it an objective or subjective genitive?” when so often it is
neither. I know a translation in Danish that says: “through the bath that
“rebirths” and renews by the Holy Spirit”. They have taken LOUTRON as a
personified subject, but I don’t understand how they can do that.

Iver Larsen