[B-Greek] INA clause in 2 Cor 5:21

newsgroupstuff at swiftdsl.com.au newsgroupstuff at swiftdsl.com.au
Sun Jun 6 20:58:35 EDT 2004


I'm just wondering if someone can help me explain the force and use of the
INA clause in 2 Cor 5:21.

TON MH GNONTA hAMARTIAN hUPER hHMWN hAMARTIAN EPOIHSEN, hINA hHMEIS GENWMEQA
DIKAIOSUNH QEOU EN AUTWi (2 Cor 5:21)

It seems to me that the hINA clause is a final or result clause. Hence, to
me, the reading is that the first clause (TON MH GNONTA hAMARTIAN hUPER
hHMWN hAMARTIAN EPOIHSEN) is the ground/cause/reason for the second clause
(hHMEIS GENWMEQA DIKAIOSUNH QEOU EN AUTWi). The second is a result of the
first.

In other words, it is (simply) saying that because our sin was imputed to
Christ, the result is that we become the righteousness of God in Christ.

The reason I ask this, is because there is a common understanding that this
passage teaches a double imputation (the great exchange?). That just as our
sin is imputed to Christ, so Christ's obedience/righteousness is imputed to
us. However, (in my limited understanding of Greek) I wonder whether that is
not faithful enough to the text. If it were to mean that, I would think it
would use a WSPER.. OUTWS.. construction similar to Romans 5:21, or just KAI
or something else other than a simple hINA. Also, Paul would not have
distinguished between POIEW in the first clause, and GINOMAI in the second.
If we are to take the double imputation understanding, how do we properly
explain the hINA as a result clause (unless it is something else)?

(In fact, 2 Cor 5:21 seems to have a similar construction to Romans 8:3-4,
as well as some similar content. Also could be similar to ideas of death
followed by resurrection/ascension/glorification, in such passages as Rom
6:4, Rom 8:17, 2 Cor 1:5&9.)

Craig Johnson
Brisbane, Australia

PS I hope I haven't put to much theology and interpretation into this
b-Greek post, but I thought I needed a bit more explanation to help clarify
the question.




More information about the B-Greek mailing list