Featured Study of a Prepositional Phrase

In this very abbreviated study, lets boil this all down using just one verses, Galatians 2:16.. Here is how the NASB95 renders our verse:

“ nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”

Note that the translation indicates the idea that “through faith in Christ Jesus” is our faith toward Christ, i.e. faith in Christ. In this usage, we see that “dia” is followed by three nouns in the genitive case, faith, Jesus and Christ. Many translations render it “through faith in Jesus Christ” but the NET comes down of the side as a subjective genitive, i.e. the faith in view is Christ’s.

So if we translate “dia” as “by means of” and then translate as a subjective genitive, we get “by means of Jesus Christ’s faithfulness.” So we are justified by means of the precious blood of Christ rather than by our faith in the precious blood of Christ. But, you might say, the very verse says we are justified “by faith in Christ.” Not if we make a similar translation decision that if the preposition “ek” (out) when used to show source or origin with genitive, i.e. translated as “by,” the phrase could be translated as “by Christ’s faithfulness.” Again the idea is the source of our justification is the precious blood of Christ.

When Christ died on the cross, covered with His own blood, He became the propitiation for the whole world, and access to that grace is granted by God crediting our faith in Christ as righteousness. Knowing this even we have believed into Christ.

Are we justified when we profess our faith, or when God credits our faith as righteousness. Thus justification occurs when God puts us into Christ spiritually and we undergo the circumcision of Christ.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, Yeshua1, but why ask questions for which the answer is obvious? Are we saved based on our faith in Christ, or based on God crediting our faith as righteousness? Were the folks in Matthew 7 who said, Lord, Lord saved? Their faith was lacking, for Christ never knew them.

Are we saved "based upon," "in the One...?" This makes no sense. Could we be saved based on God crediting our faith as righteousness by means of Christ's faithfulness? Yes. So simple a cave man could understand it.

 

Yeshua1, why not try a little harder to present truth? If I place my faith in Obama, will Obama save me? Did the people of Matthew 7 get saved by placing "their" faith in Jesus? Could we be saved based on God crediting our faith as righteousness by means of Christ's faithfulness? Yes. So simple a cave man could understand it. Reread Galatians 2:16: Here is the altered version of Galatians 2:16 based on the study of the prepositional phrase: “ nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by means of Jesus Christ's faithfulness, even we have believed into Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by Christ's faithfulness and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”

 

Thanks Eliyahu, we disagree on what we think Paul was talking about, but we seem to be in the same pew.

 

If I seemed to say "dia" should always be translated as through or by means of, that was my error.

In Galatians 4:13, note that "infirmity" is a noun in the accusative, thus most modern translations render the preposition as "because of." See the OP addressing "with accusative."

And in Romans 7:5, we must first decide whether the law plays a causality role in our sinfulness. I say yes, and point to Paul's discussion (Romans 7:8) of how when he became aware of the sin of covetness, this resulted in sinfulness. Many translations go with "aroused by" the law, siding with this view.

Thus the Mounse view (translating dia as despite) may be correct, but is not shared by Dan Wallace or by many modern translators. Thus it would be an alternative view that should be carefully considered, and since scripture does teach causality of the Law in both sinfulness and the awareness of sinfulness, I will stick with "by" or "through."

 

I agree, weakness or infirmity cannot be the means of preaching, but weakness or infirmity might cause a person to not travel and therefore stay in a location and during the convalesce present the gospel at that location. Hence, the translation "because of" rather than "by means of" is to be preferred.

The idea is simple, the double whammy. Whether you have the Law or not, if you do something against the will of God, you store up wrath. But if you know what you are doing is in violation of the will of God you pile up more wrath, i.e. sinning in the manner of Adam.

Our difference is this, I believe willing violation of the known will of God is an additional sin, up and above the violation unknowingly of that will. This view is based on Paul's teaching concerning covetness.

 

Hi Eliyahu, 1 Timothy 2:15 is a very difficult verse, and seems to say something inconsistent with many other verses.

Some think the idea is that she gave birth to the line that resulted in Jesus. But others, paying more attention to the grammar, say the verse refers not to the result of childbearing, but to the process of childbearing. These folks see her submission to her role, rather than leading Adam away from God, combined of course with faith, will deliver her in the afterlife from the consequence of her part in the Fall. Note that in this view, the process of child bearing actually including mothering, i.e. parenting the offspring. This points to her role within the family as demonstrating her live faith versus dead faith. In summary, the verse's message may be that Eve or generically women will be delivered by means of faith from which faithfulness flows.

Best I can do.

 

Hi Eliyahu, I was addressing the usage of "dia" in 1 Timothy 2:15. I provided my understanding of the verse.

If Eve was saved, she was saved by the blood of Christ, not a foreshadow of that blood.