Colossians 1:21-23

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 16 09:38:58 EST 1999


At 5:26 AM -0600 12/16/99, Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote:
>Thought I would throw out these ideas and questions, hoping to get some
>good feed back.
>
>Most English translations of this paragraph (Col. 1:21-23) render it in
>such a way that a condition seems to exist, based mainly upon the particle
>EI or EIGE of verse 23. Most render it as "if", hence..."if indeed you
>remain in the faith having been and remaining established and steadfast..."
>{the "having been and remaining" is one of the methods by which I render
>some prefect passive participles).
>
>Instead, I suggest translating EI as "since", and removing the possible
>misconception here. Viewing this "EI" as presenting an epexegetical
>statement demonstrating WHY we will be presented before God as HOLY and
>BLAMELESS. (Because we do remain in the faith, via the power of Christ).
>
>In verse 22, we have an emphatic contrast to the statement presented in
>verse 21. I accept the aorist infinitive as genuine here (which supports my
>scheme) APOKATHLLAXEN. This fact, this one-time accomplishment, allows Paul
>to be able to present before God, some of the fruits of his labor. Herein I
>suggest that Paul is the presenter. What thinketh you?
>
>I see no true protasis/apodosis condition existing, if an "if" were correct
>-- we are left with no resolution other than to suppose that "we" would not
>then be presentable? this seems awkward, but appears to be the reasoning of
>most English translators.
>
>How can one become "unreconciled"? Does "SINCE" make better sense here to
>some of you? It is a fairly common meaning of this particle (see the
>lexicons).
>
>I realize that some of the above observations may repel some theological
>persuasions (Arminian vs Calvinism) but I hope to keep this on a
>contextual/grammatical level. Another point strengthening the aorist
>"reconcile" of verse 22, is the use of the term in verse 20, it appears to
>be a timeless reality, a settled fact.

You may want to keep this out of the theological realm, but (please do
forgive me if I'm mistaken about this) it appears to me that you are
seeking an answer to a theological question from this text precisely
because you find possible implications of the EI GE troublesome.

The text:(21) KAI hUMAS POTE ONTAS APHLLOTRIWMENOUS KAI ECQROUS THi
DIANOIAi EN TOIS ERGOIS TOIS PONHROIS, (22) NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN EN TWi
SWMATI THS SARKOS AUTOU DIA TOU QANATOU PARASTHSAI hUMAS hAGIOUS KAI
AMWMOUS KAI ANEGKLHTOUS KATENWPION AUTOU, (23) EI GE EPIMENETE THi PISTEI
TEQEMELIWMENOI KAI hEDRAIOI KAI MH METAKINOUMENOI APO THS ELPIDOS TOU
EUAGGELIOU hOU HKOUSATE TOU KHRUCQENTOS EN PASHi KTISEI THi hUPO TON
OURANON, hOU EGENOMHN EGW PAULOS DIAKONOS.

I would agree that there's an emphatic contrast between the statements of
21 and 22, BUT I think that you are laying too much weight on the aorist
'tense' of the verb APOKATHLLAXEN in 22 when you say it is "a timeless
reality, a settled fact." I don't think the aorist can bear that weight and
it appears to me that you are wanting to give it the force of a perfect
tense form, i.e. indicating that the action is complete and, to use a
vulgar metaphor, "the money's in the bank." In fact, however, it seems to
me that 23 stands solidly against such an interpretation with its
enumeration of an array of circumstances that could yet undermine the
status provisionally gained. EPIMENETE is present tense and should, I
think, imply a deliberate and ongoing effort to persist in the status
described (TEQEMELIWMENOI, hEDRAIOI, MH METAKINOUMENOI) in view of ongoing
threats to that persistence.

In sum I DO think there's a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE ...
clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN  clause); the efficacy
of the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistent
effort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yet
facing them. To be sure, it's not a full-scale generalizing or future-more
vivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;
nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don't think we can
read the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to a
simple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), I
think the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of the
GE.

Here are the other GNT instances of the EI GE combination, all of them in
the Pauline corpus:

2 Cor 5:3 EI GE KAI EKDUSAMENOI OU GUMNOI hEURHQHSOMEQA ('provided, that
is, that once we have disrobed = been stripped of the body, we won't turn
out to be naked = void of discernible identity')

Gal 3:4 TOSAUTA EPAQETE EIKHi? EI GE KAI EIKHI. ('Did you go through all of
that for nothing?--if in fact it really WAS for nothing ... ')

Eph 3:2 EI GE HKOUSATE THN OIKONOMIAN THS CARITOS ... ("that is, if you did
in fact hear about my ministry of grace ... "

Eph 4:21 EI GE AUTON HKOUSATE KAI EN AUTWi EDIDACQHTE . . .('if in fact you
really listened to him and were instructed by/in him ...')


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5686 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/19991216/99c52e1e/attachment.bin 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list