[B-Greek] Re: We versus You in Eph 1:3-14
moon at mail.sogang.ac.kr
moon at mail.sogang.ac.kr
Sun May 18 20:57:54 EDT 2003
>
> Conrad wrote:
> > The whole text: EN hWi KAI EKLHRWQHMEN PROORISQENTES KATA PROQESIN TOU TA
> > PANTA ENERGOUNTOS KATA THN BOULHN TOU QELHMATOS AUTOU 12 EIS TO EINAI hHMAS
> > EIS EPAINON DOXHS AUTOU TOUS PROHLPIKOTAS EN TWi CRISTWi. 13 EN hWi KAI
> > hUMEIS AKOUSANTES TON LOGON THS ALHQEIAS, TO EUAGGELION THS SWTHRIAS hUMWN,
> > EN hWi KAI PISTEUSANTES ESFRAGISQHTE TWi PNEUMATI THS EPAGGELIAS TWi hAGIWi.
> >
>
> > Here the "problem" in
> > my opinion is the function of the recurrent prepositional phrase EN hWi. I
> > am assuming that the dative relative pronoun here is functioning as a
> > demonstrative referring to the antecendent named in EN CRISTWi in verse 10
> > and named again in verse 12, so that EN hWi here is equivalent to EN TOUTWi
> > and implicitly equivalent to EN CRISTWi. But at the beginning of verse 13a
> > the linkage of the EN hWi phrase is a bit murkier than elsewhere within
> > these verses--and this, I think, is the source of the problem that Moon
> > finds here; in my view this EN hWi is REPEATED--redundantly--after the
> > participial phrase AKOUSANTES ... THS SWTHRIAS hUMWN. In sum, I believe
> > that Moon's option (2) is the right approach.
> >
>
[Moon]
> Thanks, Carl. I think your explanation makes sense to me.
> Now, what would you say to the following question?
>
>
> > >(3) What is the force of KAI in 13a in front of hUMEIS?
> > > (a) Does it mean "you also" in contrast to "we" in verses 11 and 12?
> > >
> > > (b) Does KAI modify the whole clause hUMEIS AKOUSANTES ....
> > > so that it means "you, also having heared..."?
> > >
[Carl]
>
> I think that the KAI does indeed mean "you also" and I think there is
> indeed a contrast between the preceding hHMEIS and this hUMEIS; I DON'T
> think that the KAI works adverbially with AKOUSANTES but
> rather--ultimately--with ESFRAGISQHTE: "you also were sealed, after you
> heard ... and believed." That is to say, I think that the KAI preceding
> hUMEIS is adverbial, while the KAI preceding PISTEUSANTES is a conjunction
> linking AKOUSANTES and PISTEUSANTES.
> --
[Moon]
Then, I would like to ask the following questions:
(1) Do "we" and "us" in 1:3-12 refer to the believers who are other than
those referred to by "you" in 1:13? If so, the most natural reference
of "we" are Jewish believers and the most natural reference of "you"
are Gentile believers, because in chapter 2 the oneness of Jewish
believers and Gentile believers are specifically talked about and
there "you" refer to Gentile believers.
(2) But, in 1:3-11, there are no indications that "we" refer only to
Jewish believers. We would have to say that
"we" in 1:3-11 refer to all believers, both Jewish and Gentile, and
"we" (hHMAS) in verse 12 refer to Jewish believers because
it is specifically qualified by TOUS PROHLPIKOTAS EN TWi CRISTWi
(those who first had hoped in Christ").
NIV seems to support this interpretation, which says:
in order that we, who were the fist to hope in Christ, might be
for the praise of his glory.
"Those who were the first to hope in Christ" is able to refer to
Jewish believers, I think.
If this is right, it is not easy to clearly see it in the text, is it?
(3) R. C. H. Lenski objected to this interpretation. Thinking that
"we" and "you" both refer to all believers, he
translates the passage as follows:
v 12: that we may be for his Glory-Praise as those who
have hoped IN ADVANCE in the Christ,
He comments: PRO in the perfect participle (PROHLPIKOTAS)
refers to the future fulfillment of the hope; we now hope
"in advance", hope shall finally turn to sight.
At the moment, I think that number (2) is the right way to go.
But Lenski's objection to it also seems to make sense to me.
What do you think?
Moon
Moon R. Jung
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea.
does not make it clear in verse then, in that case, "we" in verse 11 and "we" in
believers
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list