[B-Greek] INA clause in 2 Cor 5:21
virgil newkirk
virgilsalvage1 at msn.com
Mon Jun 7 14:55:01 EDT 2004
Dear Craig and all,
When I wrote before of 2 Cor 5 & 6 not relating to Romans, I was thinking of
some of the earlier chapters of Romans. I agree Craig, that as you stated,
"(In fact, 2 Cor 5:21 seems to have a similar construction to Romans 8:3-4,
as well as some similar content.)"
Yes, very much so.
An aside: Some four years ago I wrote down on a piece of cardboard something
that Carlton Winbery offered by way of translation for part of 2 Cor 5:21.
It is from B-Greek on Feb 22, 2000 under the heading: "hAMARTIAN EPOIHSEN".
It has stayed with me through 3 moves and last night I went out and
retrieved it from the dashboard of my broken down pick-up truck.
Carlton offered..." He made the "not having known Sin One" (to be) sin for
us !"
quotes,captilization, and !, mine
Virgil Newkirk
Salt Lake City, Utah
----- Original Message -----
From: <newsgroupstuff at swiftdsl.com.au>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 6:58 PM
Subject: [B-Greek] INA clause in 2 Cor 5:21
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.
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list