2 Thessalonians 2:13

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by The Archangel, Apr 7, 2011.

  1. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Much has been said about this verse by Van and others--pointing to grammatical arguments that are hopelessly flawed in an attempt to make our faith the basis of God's choosing us.

    Here is the verse in question:
    But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. (ESV)
    Here it is in Greek:
    Ἡμεῖς δὲ ὀφείλομεν εὐχαριστεῖν τῷ θεῷ πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ κυρίου, ὅτι εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἀπαρχὴν εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας,
    The entire debate has raged around the use of the phrase containing the Greek preposition "ἐν." In the following posts, Van has put forward his "interpretation" of the grammar: here, here, here, here, here, and here (to post a few)

    My aim in this post it to provide a detailed exegesis of the passage and to demonstrate that the passage cannot say that we are elected in our own time because of our own faith.

    The portion of the passage in question is this: ὅτι εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἀπαρχὴν εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας, which, being translated, is: because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

    Let us take a bit at a time, shall we.

    Section 1: God chose (eliminating the "because" as superfluous to this discussion) These words, in Greek, are εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς. Here's the break-down:

    εἵλατο A very rare verb in the New Testament, being used only three times. The word means "chose" and its form here is Aorist Middle Indicative, 3rd Person Singular. This word is the verb of the subject "God" and in its inflected form it means "He [God] chose for Himself.

    Who did He choose?

    ὑμᾶς A common word in the New Testament--the 2nd Person Plural personal pronoun. Here this is presented in the Accusative form.

    Who did the choosing?

    ὁ θεὸς This is the Nominative Singular form of the word "God." This indicates that "God" is the subject of the verb "chose."

    So the simple translation of this section: God chose you for Himself

    Section 2: As the firstfruits

    This section will not have Greek in it. Suffice it to say that there is a textual variant. The ESV has "firstfruits," which is, likely, the wrong way to go. It is better to understand this Accusative noun as saying "from the beginning." The proper translation is of no immediate consequence, however, as it does not affect the grammar in question.

    Section 3: to be saved

    This word is the accusative noun σωτηρίαν preceded by the preposition εἰς.

    For those of you who do not know, Greek prepositions change meanings based on the case of their objects. Certain prepositions, however, take their objects in only one case. εἰς is one of those prepositions, always taking its object in the accusative case.

    εἰς is a pronoun of motion. Which is to say there is a verbal idea (not grammatically, but conceptually) with the phrase εἰς σωτηρίαν.

    So, while this is technically a noun, to properly convey the concept of motion contained in the Greek pronoun εἰς and to properly convey the inherent concept in the Greek word σωτηρίαν, which itself implies motion, conceptually, one should translate this with a verbal aspect. Now that does not mean that the original text of εἰς σωτηρίαν is a verb. However, when trying to express the basic, underlying meaning of the construction in English, a verbal form is perfectly acceptable.

    NOTE: There are three accusatives in the this part of the passage--You (a pronoun), from the beginning/firstfruits (an accusative which gives more information about the pronoun "you"), and salvation. Because all these accusatives are here, there is one "idea" of Direct Object. Technically, this is known as a double accusative.

    So, the simple translation of the preceding sections is: God chose you for Himself from the beginning to be saved

    Section 4:
    Here's where the fun begins! The phrase "through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth" obviously is modifying something. Is it the verb "chose" or is it the noun "salvation?" Here's the Greek breakdown:

    ἐν The Greek preposition "in"

    ἁγιασμῷ Dative form of the word "sanctify"

    πνεύματος Genitive form of the word "spirit." Modifies "Sanctification"

    καὶ The Greek conjunction "and."

    πίστει The Dative form of "belief"

    ἀληθείας The Genitive form of "truth"

    Some considerations: ἐν always takes its object in the Dative case. Also, there are some 2700 or so uses of ἐν in the New Testament. Of the Greek prepositions, it has the widest range of semantic uses. But, the basic idea is "in" or "by" or "through" is conveyed.

    In this construction, it is easy to see that this phrase (started by the preposition ἐν) is being used adjectivally (as in modifying a noun) and not adverbially.

    ἐν + dative can, under certain circumstances, express means or manner while modifying a verb. However, two things show that this is not modifying the verb.

    1. The preposition ἐν is governing two separate datives--sanctification and belief.

    2. There is a conjunction between the clauses of this prepositional phrase

    3. The word order shows this prepositional phrase to modify the noun "salvation" and not the verb "chose." This prepositional phrase, frankly, is too far away in the sentence flow to modify the verb. Had Paul wanted to express that God chose us because of our sanctification or belief, he would have put this prepositional phrase next to the verb.

    Conclusion: The two dative nouns, sanctification and belief, are inexorably linked in concept. They are not two separate things; they are not one-in-the-same. They are two sides of the same coin.

    We should expect a second ἐν before the second dative "belief." That the ἐν is missing and a conjunction is present shows the preposition ἐν governs both datives. That ἐν governs both the dative nouns and that both the dative nouns have genitive modifiers demonstrates, beyond a doubt, that this prepositional phrase is indeed adjectival and is modifying the noun "salvation."

    So, the simple translation is "God chose you for Himself from the beginning into salvation (or to be saved) by sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."

    This means, that we are indeed saved through sanctification of the Spirit and we are saved through our believing in the truth. But, we are not chosen because of these. The Aorist form of the middle verb "chose" means that the choice was made in its entirety sometime in the past, the Aorist envisioning a "snapshot" of time--and God Himself made that choice for Himself. So, the simple sentence gives us all we need to know: God chose us (for Himself) to be saved. But, He does not save us without our being sanctified (by the spirit), which is, obviously His work, and without our believing in the truth, which is, again, obviously His work. He chooses us for His own good purposes and He makes us fit for the Kingdom.

    That salvation is accomplished through our sanctification and our belief shows that we are not just "saved against our will." The meaning of these concepts related to salvation, when juxtaposed to God's choice of us, shows that we must become willing participants in our own salvation. Surely God works to sanctify us--and that takes far too many forms to go into here. But, in His sanctifying work, we are to respond to Him and as He is changing us to be more Christlike, we must change to become more Christlike.

    God makes the first move and we, then, respond to Him in repentance and faith leading to our ultimate sanctification (and belief in the truth) as He works on us to make us--once rebellious rebels--fit for the Kingdom as loyal sons and daughters of the Great King.

    Having taken some time to formulate my grammatical argument, I was able to consult many resources and work through some other texts. After formulating my argument, however, I stumbled on the following resource:

    2 Thessalonians 2:13--What Do Prepositions Modify


    This resource was written by Dr. William Mounce--the dean of Greek teachers in the US. I was pleasantly surprised when, after reading his article, he agreed with me! I highly recommend the article.

    The back and forth between Van and others only demonstrates that there is no substitute for working the text yourself. Remember, one can fancy himself a mechanic just because he can name all the parts of the internal combustion engine. However, if he cannot put the parts together properly and make the engine run, he is no mechanic at all.

    Discuss, as I'm sure you [all] will and enjoy the discussion.

    The Archangel
     
    #1 The Archangel, Apr 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 7, 2011
  2. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Archangel. I see not too many have jumped on this and I assume that took a lot of time to put together and I certainly think you for doing it. Since I am not a Greek scholar or anything close I have to rely on people like yourself who has the ability to break down the Greek.
    At the same time I keep in mind that because of predispositions in a particular area of belief even the most sincere can miss interpret the intent of a passage, me included. This is the reason I try and stay with the understanding that context rules.
    So with that I have a question. Paul has been speaking about the rapture. Why suddenly would Paul change from the rapture and start teaching on how we get saved? This causes me to wonder if Paul is not continuing on in context and thanking God, not for their election by predestination, but thanking God for the contrast between those who follow after the man of sin and those who follow after God?
    I am not good at putting this argument into perspective so here is a link I would like you to look at and see if there is any possibility its claim.

    http://www.shasta.edu/admin/userfiles/resourceDocuments/2%20Thessalonians%202%2013.pdf
    I am not asking you to change your position, but I am asking is this also a possible one to consider?
    Thank you for your time.
     
    #2 freeatlast, Apr 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 7, 2011
  3. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    I am not a Greek scholar either (yet) but the thing your concerned about is the thesis of the author you linked. He is trying to prove a pre-trib rapture with his analysis. So, while i recognize everyone has their bias, its plainly stated in that link.
     
  4. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes but I am not sure that his bias (if any) is not different then the possibility of the OP (if any). I am asking if what the writer of the link does offer has any possible credibility in regards to this discussion. I think it does, but I wanted an unbiased opinion, not one that shot down the possibility because of an opposing view.
    In other words I wanted someone who would not throw out the baby with the bath water because they are dug in to read the article and say if his exegete is possible.
     
    #4 freeatlast, Apr 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 7, 2011
  5. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    Excellent work Archangel. Thanks.
     
  6. Gabriel Elijah

    Gabriel Elijah
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don’t know if 2 years of post grad Greek would classify me as a “Greek scholar”---but I do know the language well—and all I can say about your post archangel is—very very good work!---by the way---how many years of Greek did you take in college Van? Just curious considering your so insistent about the Greek grammar proving your point!
     
  7. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    If you can't see the author's bias in the link you provided clearly stated in his thesis, then I imagine any amount of time spent analyizing the document is a waste of time.
     
  8. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you. I don't want you to waste your time.
     
  9. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    I see we have gathered the usual suspects, accepting what matches their doctrine and questioning the qualifications of those who hold differing views. LOL

    Shall we go over it one more time.

    God chose you [Thessalonians] as first fruit, for salvation. God is the subject, the one performing the action. The thing acted upon - you is the direct object of the verb, chose. The compliment - as first-fruit - provides an aspect (describes a feature) of the direct object -you.

    For salvation is an adverbial phrase providing the purpose of God's choice - for salvation.

    Through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. This adverbial phrase answers the question "How" (through sanctification by the Spirit - the Spirit set us apart in Christ) and the question "why" (God based His choice on faith in the truth, faith He had credited as righteousness.)

    Why is this view not the most grammatical view? Here are the claims from the "experts."

    (1)The preposition ἐν is governing two separate datives--sanctification and belief. This is true, "en" is connected to two separate datives. But what about this construction suggests the phrase cannot be adverbial? Nothing.

    (2) There is a conjunction between the two phrases. This is true, also. But what about this construction suggests the phrases cannot be used adverbially? Nothing.

    (3) This prepositional phrase, frankly, is too far away in the sentence flow to modify the verb. This is false. As I understand it, if an adverb or adjective points to more than one verb or noun, then we use proximity to select the most likely meaning. Here the adverbial phrase points away from the noun, and to the verb, so we do not need to use proximity.

    Final point concerning all these "grammar" arguments. What the experts are saying is that the phase is adverbial, but is modifying the verbal idea within the noun salvation. So arguments (1) and (2) are self defeating, if the phase modifies "saved - the verbal idea - then it is adverbial and the arguments are fiction.

    Bottom line, Paul used inspired words to say what he meant, he could have said "to be saved" but instead said "for salvation." Thus to translate the text based on what the Calvinists would like it to say is without merit.
     
    #9 Van, Apr 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 7, 2011
  10. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which should be noted are a primarily Gentile congregation being addressed by a Jewish apostle. (thus the terms "us/our" and you). Why is this significant? Because the world around them is telling them they are not of the elect (Israel). That God doesn't love them and that they are dirty unclean heathen people. Paul is reassuring them, the Gentile congregation, the first fruits of many yet to enter the fold, that God from the beginning has chosen them (as a people) for salvation.

    This is the "mystery" Paul is always talking about that was revealed to him after the road to Damascus and to Peter in a dream, but it is NEW to most of the world. This is the big controversy of that day and what Paul is attempting to address when speaking of God election and choosing of peoples.

    What is ironic is that it is typically the Calvinists who are pointing out the distinction between "all" and "world" with "all kinds of people" and "people groups of all the world" in order to draw this distinction between Jews and Gentiles, but when it comes to passages like this they forget this distinction and can't seem to see Paul's intent to address the choice of people groups.
     
  11. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Freeatlast,

    Thank you for the link. I read the paper and found several things lacking.

    First, there is no technical discussion of the Greek from the author's standpoint. In other words, he does not apply a knowledge of Greek grammar or syntax to the text itself. Instead, he does what I call "Second-handing" (with apologies to Ayn Rand who uses the concept differently). He uses sources that seem to confirm his hypothesis (which we all tend to do), but he doesn't put what the sources say to the test--he accepts them at face value, uncritically. This is not considered a practice of true scholarship. It is not sufficient to line up people who may agree with your position and not delve into why they agree (or disagree) with your position. In lining up sources who agree with you, all you are doing is joining a rabble that may or may not have made the same [wrong] assumptions that you have. So, it is lacking because there is not a critical, grammatical interaction with the text.

    Second, his entire discussion of the nature of the word "salvation" runs into problems because, it would seem, he is putting too much emphasis on the classical Greek concept and usage. Classical Greek and Koine Greek (Koine is what the New Testament is written in) are not the same. If you want an example, think of the English that the KJV is written in and think of our modern, American English. These languages, while similar in some ways, are vastly different--word meanings have changed and evolved, syntax is different, grammar is different. What is more, the King's English, 400 years ago, still had cases as seen in the difference between "Ye" and "Thee." Today, we use the generic "you" for both singular and plural.

    Furthermore, the concept of "salvation" in the Bible--whether in the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuagint, or the New Testament--has a theological significance because the Old Testament and the New Testament are, primarily, theological works. So whether the salvation being talked about is spiritual or physical, there is a theological aspect to it. For the most part, the spiritual salvation expressed in the word "salvation" is lacking in classical Greek because their concept of afterlife is suspect at best.

    There are also parts of his argument that fail because of the assumption of speaking about a physical salvation. Not to derail this thread or this current post, but physical safety of the believer, especially in the New Testament, is not much of a concern. Certainly there are times when physical safety is prayed for and granted. However, God's ultimate goal is not the believer's physical safety, but his or her spiritual faithfulness (safety). We can see time and time again in the New Testament that God is only too happy (not in a joyous sense) to take a believer's physical safety away so that there is a deepening of his or her faith--leading to a greater spiritual safety, so to speak. DISCLOSURE: I do not believe in a pre-trib rapture. I think the Bible is clear: The second coming of Christ and the "Rapture" are the same event. What is more, if the Apostles had no expectation or realization of physical safety, we should not either. After all, all but one of the apostles died horribly gruesome and painful deaths (for the glory of God, I might add).

    Thirdly, it is clear the author of this paper has a particular theological bent to a pre-trib rapture. Many authors do; many authors have other bents. That a pre-trib rapture--in large part--does not come into the theological writing until the mid 1800's makes it highly suspect. This is to say, many early commentators would likely not have seen 2 Thessalonians 2:13 in an eschatological light.

    Fourth. There is a clear and distinct contrast between the first part of chapter 2 and v. 13-17. The particle δέ sets off the beginning of v. 13 (it appears second in the sentence, but it is called a "post-positive" and, by definition, cannot begin a sentence) and δέ is purely an adversative particle. In other words, had Paul wanted to continue and expand his discussion, rather than contrast, he would have likely used καί, a copulative conjunction.

    So, that's my take. I will say I enjoyed reading the paper. Thank you for posting it.

    Blessings,

    The Archangel
     
  12. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    Yes...thank you for your post and clarifying the truth of God.When someone sets out with an agenda ,to come up with a theological novelty for whatever reason...then are offered biblical correction and fail to accept it, it is very sad and raises red flags.
    Look forward to more of your posts as do all who believe and know the truth.:applause:
     
  13. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank your taking the time and the response.
     
    #13 freeatlast, Apr 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 7, 2011
  14. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,888
    Likes Received:
    37


    What I am going to say may appear not to be about the OP yet I feel it is relative to the OP and this verse from 2 Thess.

    God created the first man Adam and his wife Eve taken from him and placed them in the garden of Eden. There God put two trees and spoke to the man and woman concerning one of the trees. The woman was deceived by the serpent and ate but the man of his choice ate of the tree and brought death upon all men. Two thousand years later God made the old covenant with a people whom he chose and gave them his law and told them to chose life of death. The people said all that the LORD has said we will do. Once again they chose to do wrong. God gave a bill of divorce to part of this sinful group and still had mercy on the other part of this sinful group to bring about his purpose. Two thousand years after giving his law he sent his Son to die for these sinful people and to reconcile them unto himself.

    Now once again the religious are saying if you want to be saved you are going to have to chose. Well we see how that has gone up til then. Lets see what this Son said, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." They will still chose wrong even thinking they are choosing correctly. God is going to make a new covenant and this time the man will not be the one doing the choosing, for God is going to remake him in the resurrected image of his Son who having been made in the image of the sinful man died and was regenerated as the last Adam. Here is what God says, "But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. "

    Through our resurrection unto the image of the resurrected Jesus he Jesus will then be called the firstborn of many brethren. Presently he is the beginning,(of a new man) the first born from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

    It is not our faith in, or our anything else, it is what God is doing.

    In 2 Thess. 2:13 it is God that sanctifies and it is God's belief in the truth of the blood of Jesus just as it is in Rom. 3:25 it is God's faith/faithfulness in the blood of Jesus by which he sets him forth as the mercy seat.

    Archangel, I have told you before I know no Greek, so check the Greek in Romans 3:25 and comment please, and thank you in advance.
     
  15. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0


    You keep saying the same things--this is adverbial, etc. But, you never seek to tell us why it is adverbial. There is no discussion of technicalities in your repetitious postings and one begins to wonder whose words you are parroting without knowing why they are saying what they are saying.

    So, am I questioning your "qualifications?" Yes. You have provided nothing here to suggest that you know how to handle Greek.

    The Archangel
     
  16. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    The subject is 2 Thessalonians 2:13. I have demonstrated that your effort to rewrite the verse is based on not following the grammar and creating fictional arguments that are self defeating.

    Folks, flip over to 1 Peter 1:2 where we find a very similar assertion by Peter, we are chosen...through sanctification by the Spirit. And here we have no noun, just an adverbial phrase modifying an adverb.

    When a word or phrase is used adverbially, it modifies or describes a verb or adverb and answers questions like how, in what manner, by what means, why, on what basis, etc.
     
    #16 Van, Apr 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 7, 2011
  17. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    Van,
    You have posted error. A brother ,or actually several have offered correction.
    Your responses are non responses to his direct question.He asked you since you contend that his knowledge of the greek is faulty to demonstrate such,which you are unable or unwilling to do.
    To continue to oppose truth even if you post your error several more times is not going to change it. We knew your post was error to begin with as you attempt to re-invent the wheel.
    Why don't you invest in a good set of commentaries like William Hendrikson, or Matthew Henry.....read a bit ....and accept the biblical truth?
     
  18. Gabriel Elijah

    Gabriel Elijah
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would still like to know his academic training in Greek? So Van---if you’d be so kind---how many years of college Greek have you taken? It’s not that someone needs a college degree to be a good theologian/student of the Bible, but when someone insists that the answer lies in the Greek grammar---I would like to know their own personal qualifications for making such an assertion!
     
  19. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, "for salvation" is a prepositional phrase. But, the preposition here is only a marker of a larger concept--the "Double Accusative of Object-Compliment."

    The tell-tale signs of this construction are that the direct object combines with the verb to form a new verbal idea that has another accusative as its object.[1] Furthermore, the construction is occasionally marked by the presence of εἰς before the compliment. [2]

    Hence, the preposition εἰς is not acting so much as a preposition to denote a prepositional use. But, the force of motion of the preposition is retained, precisely because of the connection between the verb "chose" and the object "salvation." The Double Accusative of Object-Compliment here is one concept which is serving as the direct object.

    Chosen for salvation is one concept (meeting the mark of the definition of the Double Accusative of Object-Compliment).

    So, this is not adverbial in the way you've described it.

    The problem is that you are assuming this to be an adverbial phrase. Many neophytic Greek students have done what you are doing--always assuming that ἐν + dative must be adverbial and relate to the main verb.

    In fact, the naked dative (that's the dative without the ἐν) and the ἐν + dative are not one-in-the-same. Certainly there is overlap, but there is no one-to-one correspondence. Again, it is another mistake that neophytic Greek students make that assumes the usage of the dative is what defines the ἐν + dative phrase.

    So, the ἐν + dative is primarily to be understood first as a prepositional phrase and secondarily to be understood in relation to the cases, nouns etc. contained therein.

    Furthermore, prepositional phrases which contain more clarifying nouns (such as this one with two genitive nouns) generally, in Greek, modify nouns. This is plainly seen in this example.



    I find it funny that you are disparaging and ignoring noted and recognized "experts" (such as Mounce) when your Greek skills have been demonstrated to be quite unprepossessing.

    In #1 and #2, the commonly seen usage throughout the New Testament shows not to be adverbial. Adverbial uses of the ἐν + dative are generally limited to ἐν + dative, which is to say a simple prepositional phrase, not a compound one with two dative nouns and two genitive qualifiers.

    In #3, the common sentence structure in Greek supports the preposition (and accompanying phrase) modifying a close word. Another common neophytic mistake is to force a prepositional phrase (especially set off by ἐν) into one meaning. Can ἐν + dative be an indirect object answering "how?" Sure. But, those cases typically follow the verb very closely.

    Not so. You are confusing the grammar of the text with the translation of the text. Also, you do not understand that in Greek, certain nouns, while still being nouns, contain a verbal concept. This verbal concept is amplified by the use of the preposition εἰς which conveys movement into.

    Grammatically, the prepositional phrase is adjectival, as it modifies the accusative noun "salvation." Conceptually, it might be said--for those of us who are English speakers--that the prepositional phrase might be adverbial when modifying the verbal aspect of the noun "salvation" along with the inherent movement implied in the preposition εἰς.

    Bottom line? You have not the first clue about what you claim to know. You have given no technical argument or discussion about this text--again, claiming that things are adverbial or not adjectival, etc. without telling us why.

    The truth of the matter is that Paul did say "to be saved." That is what the syntactical force of the expression means. It was written as an accusative noun because Paul intentionally linked this noun to the verb "chose," intending to make a single idea--chosen into salvation, or chosen to be saved.

    One thing that you might not be aware of...in Greek it is sometimes necessary to supply the verb "to be." Certainly if a translator would supply that word here, in effect transforming the noun into a verb, it would be correct--to capture the syntactical force, albeit at the expense of the grammar.

    That you don't know these things makes me think you are a second-hander (with appologies to Ayn Rand who uses the word differently) who finds arguments that support your presuppositions, but fails to engage the arguments critically--probably because you have no facility to do so. Or, you are simply a poser--someone who may have fondled Greek at one time but has had neither the opportunity or desire to get intimate with Greek--while telling everyone you did indeed have the intimacy.

    I'm starting to think you are simply a "poser." Like the person who fancies himself a mechanic, you might be able to label parts of the internal combustion engine, you might be able to assemble the disparate parts. But, when it comes to putting the whole together and making it run, you simply are out of your league.

    The Archangel



    [1.] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 183.

    [2.] Ibid., 184.
     
  20. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    I need to clarify what you are saying, Percho. Are you saying that the "belief" expressed in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is God's belief and not ours?

    And you are basing this concept on Romans 3:25 which you are suggesting that God is having faith in the Blood of Christ?

    Am I understanding you correctly?

    The Archangel
     

Share This Page

Loading...