Archangel,
It is adjectival - the best form of the participle to function appositionally (I can't remember arguing for it to be adverbial).
Again, where did you get the idea that I said it was adverbial?
View on regeneration
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by webdog, Feb 11, 2010.
?
-
regeneration precedes faith
44.8% -
faith precedes regeneration
20.7% -
faith and regeneration are simultaneous
31.0% -
other
3.4%
Page 4 of 6
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
Thanks for the response! You said "Those who believe" represents a present participle because the Greek construction wishes to convey simultaneous action." (from here).
It is my understanding that this type of action is more properly understood to accompany an adverbial participle, not an adjectival. The aorist adverbial participle, according to Wallace, can clearly show what you are saying. As you agree, however, this is neither aorist nor adverbial.
If I misunderstood you, please forgive me. I hope you can see why I might have misunderstood.
Blessings,
The Archangel -
-
Where in Wallace are you reading this?
The three examples I provide above all show how a participle with the article, adjectivally, function in apposition.
John 1:12 is no different. -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
As of yet I don't have a physical copy of Wallace. Thankfully, it is on its way (along with a copy of Robertson's grammar).
I have been reading his "chapter" on participles online. See it here.
Blessings!
The Archangel -
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
Robertson claims the participial phrase completes the anacoluthon from the beginning of the verse. I think because this is a dative participle, that is right-on.
In as much, it is not showing a pre-cause of regeneration is belief.
ADDITION: Robertson thinks the participle is in apposition to the pronoun, not the verb. (Grammar p. 778). Hence, the anacoluthon. At any rate, it doesn't seem this participle is relating to a verb, per se.
Blessings,
The Archangel -
Yes, Robertson is right on: "all who received"="those who believe." No objection from me. -
pinoybaptist Active MemberSite Supporter
-
"As a general rule, it may be observed that those gentlemen who know the least Greek are the most sure to air their rags of learning in the pulpit; they miss no chance of saying, "The Greek is so-and-so." It makes a man an inch and a-half taller by a foolometer, if he everlastingly lets fall bits of Greek and Hebrew, and even tells the people the tense of the verb and the case of the noun, as I have known some do." —Charles Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries
-
-
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
You can find Wallace's discussion on the participle here. Unfortunately, that's the only fragment of Wallace I currently have.
Out of curiosity, why do you say this verse shows faith preceding regeneration, specifically?
Blessings,
The Archangel -
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
The KJV was great for its time. However, no matter how good a translation is, no translation is perfect. Through scholarship, better renderings of the Greek and Hebrew become possible.
For instance, the KJV makes several mistakes with John 3:16. Does it change the beauty of the Gospel? No.
"For God so loved the world" does not mean God loved the world so much. It mean's God loved the world in this manner (that's what the Greek shows).
"He gave His only begotten Son" is better translated "He gave His unique son." The word translated "only begotten" is used of Isaac, Abraham's son. Isaac was not Abraham's only son, but Isaac was the son through whom the promise would continue. In that respect, Isaac was unique.
"Whosoever believeth in Him" is better translated "all the ones believing." This verse is saying that anyone can believe, as some suppose. The participle is simply saying that those who continue in belief will be saved.
So, many translations, correct some of these. Unfortunately, many modern translators think of this verse as a sacred cow and lean way too far towards the KJV rather than correcting historically goofy translations.
What is more, the English language has progressed quite far in the last 400 years. The KJV was more appropriate for that time period, not ours. Many preachers who use the KJV have to take too much time explaining the English rather than explaining the author's intent.
Also, to claim "modern" translations are behind the move away from God is just silly. These two bits of information do not go together. The argument is non sequitur.
Blessings,
The Archangel -
I finally found the reference in my copy. It's treated under Substantival (Independent). Again, no objection here.
Why do I believe this verse actually teaches that faith precedes regeneration?
1. The natural flow of the verse: A. "All who received him; B. "He gave the right to become children of God" ("those who believe in his name").
2. Yes, "were born" is aorist passive, a completed action with no real reference to time. Also, it makes clear that we cannot give birth to ourselves (passive).
3. For me, "to become children of God" points to a change taking place, a re-birth, if you will. -
The sad thing is this only needed because our educational system has become so lacking. -
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
Blessings,
The Archangel -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
Thanks for the response. I see where you are coming from, even though I don't agree. Tell me, is there any reason why you see "did receive" as the main verb as opposed to "He gave?" I tend to think "He gave" is the main verb and that "did receive" is referencing verse 11.
Thoughts?
Blessings,
The Archangel
Page 4 of 6