b-greek-digest V1 #893

b-greek-digest            Saturday, 7 October 1995      Volume 01 : Number 893

In this issue:

        Re: Romans 3:19-20 
        Unsubscribe (4th request!) 
        Re: Unfit for the Dunghill


From: JClar100@aol.com
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 19:07:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Romans 3:19-20 

Hi Jim,

I've enjoyed your words about the passage at hand.  I've read most of what
you have written.  However, I want to reread the material.  I appreciated
what you wrote about John 1:1 (and John 1:12) regarding the Greek
constructions of the article HO as they relate to the constructions in Romans
3:19-20. I've kept the file for further study.

You've made a strong argument for your position that a noun preceded by the
article (eg., HO NOMOS) followed in close proximity by a noun without the
article (eg., NOMOU), assuming it is the same noun or pronoun, I guess, must
mean the same thing.  Is this the rule?  What about a case where the two
would be reversed (i.e., when the noun with the article is preceded by the
noun without the article...I don't think John 1:1 would be an exact duplicate
of what I'm talking about...) Would the  whole issue of essence,
definiteness, qualitative speculations, etc., come into play in such a case
as well?

Could you possibly give me some examples of the exception, assuming there are
some? I originally suggested, based on an alternative view, that Paul could
be speaking of "a legal system" or "any legal system" as opposed to the law
of Moses. (I remember Dr. Conrad arguing against this view as well.  If I
have misrepresented him, I apologize.  But he came at this from a different
perspective in conjunction with his comments on the lack of a forensic nature
in Greek religion.) We do know that Paul's message was to both (TE) Jews and

If this should be the case, and if it can be shown that there are some
similar exceptions, then it would bring on more discussion, or at least
indicate that this latter view which I stated has some credibility?  I'm not
saying that I necessarily I agree with it. I guess what I'm really saying is
that I stand in continual awe of the Greek language which, the more I'm
exposed to it, seems to circumvent my desire to impose my presupposed
theological views on it. Perhaps I should say that my theological views are
constantly being corrected.

Finally, the comments on the aorist tense have really "busted" my bubble?
 Are you and some of the others saying that there is really, in the final
analysis, no such thing as an aorist if understood as "completed action in
past time?" Perhaps I should leave this for some comments and questions on
Romans 3:22-23 relating to the recent postings.

Thanks to you and several others who have taken the time to respond in the
fashion you have.

James Clardy


From: JFFPTRS@aol.com
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 22:20:26 -0400
Subject: Unsubscribe (4th request!) 



From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 23:31:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Unfit for the Dunghill

"JOHN HAYDEN, JEWELL, IA" <hayden@duke.iccc.cc.ia.us> wrote:

>Thanks, Ellen.  I think Merrill Unger has suggested (in his Dictionary)
>that salt was used to hasten the decomposition of manure. This, presumably,
>is SALTY salt.  Jesus said, "Salt is GOOD: but if the salt has LOST its
>savor . . . it is [not] fit for the . . . dunghill; but men cast it out."
>(Luke 14:34-35).

>Salty salt may curse the land or "sweeten" the manure pile.  What I suspect
>is that this might be a little like Paul saying, "To the one we are the
>aroma of death to death; and to the other the aroma of life to life."  Is
>Jesus saying (considering the context in Luke 14) that those who follow him
>will, like salt, be either a blessing or a curse to those whom they
>encounter -- depending on their (i.e., the ones encountered) character?

	We should keep in mind that Jesus said that salt that has lost its
savor is useful neither for the land *nor* for the dunghill.  There is no
implication that salt that has *not* lost its savor would be good for
either of these. 

	Unger's suggestion is most probably not true since salt does not
hasten decomposition of anything; to the contrary, it retards
decomposition.  Almost any kind of organic refuse could be thrown on a
dunghill (i.e. compost pile) to decompose and later be used as fertilizer. 
But refuse that was even a little salty could not be so used since salt
retards the growth of most plants. 

	What "salt that has lost its savor" might be is another question. 
It has been suggested that Jesus could have been referring to slag that
was left after impure salt had been used to salt-cure fish or other
foodstuffs.  Such material would not be salty enough to be used as salt
but would be too salty to be thrown on the land or even on the dunghill
(in which case it would also eventually end up on the land). 

David L. Moore                             Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida                               of the  Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us           Department of Education


End of b-greek-digest V1 #893


To unsubscribe from this list write


with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content.  For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content

For further information, you can write the owner of the list at


You can send mail to the entire list via the address: