[B-Greek] Purpose Clause
Muzi
MBTMUZ001 at mail.uct.ac.za
Fri Feb 25 06:06:28 EST 2005
Thank you Carl for your response. But somehow my question has not been
answered. Let me also add this example: "We were therefore buried with
him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised
from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new
life." (Rom 6:4, NIV). Is it NECESSARY to see the new life being
actually MANIFESTED (changed behaviour) for this case? Or the new life
is achieved by virtue of having the Holy Spirit dwelling in us and not
necessarily by visible actions? Theologically, I think this is very
close to Rom 8:9, "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature
but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you...". Here Paul uses
the first conditional clause to assure belivers that they are not
controlled by the sinful nature but by the Spirit.
So in short MUST the result be MANIFESTED or just be assumed to be true
even if they can't be seen?
"Carl W. Conrad" wrote:
>
> At 9:18 AM +0200 2/25/05, Muzi wrote:
> >Dear all
> >
> >I have difficulty with the purpose clause in regard to it's results.
> >Before posing my question I'll give views that have confused me. From
> >these views I'll then pick the things that confuse me in asking the
> >question.
> >
> >Collin Smith, an associate of Dr James White on White's AOMIN website,
> >explains it with an example. The example is "... we have believed in
> >Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified ..." (Gal 2:16, NASB). Collin
> >says, "Paul, by using the subjunctive, is not intending to communicate
> >any kind of uncertainty with regard to justification. Rather, by using
> >the subjunctive in a hina clause, he is proclaiming that our faith in
> >Christ has its purpose in our justification, and also has its end result
> >in our justification."
> >
> >However, a footnote in Dr Charlie Bing's Lordship Salvation dissertation
> >(Ch 2) quotes Ernest De Witt Burton as saying "There is no certain,
> >scarcely a probable, instance in the New Testament of a clause
> >introduced by hina denoting actual result conceived of as such." The
> >footnote comes with Charlie's discussion of Eph 2:10 (For we are God's
> >workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God
> >prepared in advance for us to do.)
> >
> >Corey Keating at http://www.ntgreek.org/ says the following
> >
> >a) The purpose clause (a dependent clause) is used to show the purpose
> >or intention of the action of the main verb in the sentence (in the
> >independent clause). This construction is meant to show intention, not
> >to state whether something actually happens or not.
> >
> >b) The purpose clause answers the question "Why?" or "For what reason?",
> >rather than "What?".
> >
> >c) The conjunction that precedes the subjunctive verb (usually i{na or
> >o{pw") is translated "in order that" or possibly "that". For the sake
> >of clarity, it is probably best translated "in order that".
> >
> >d) If the subjunctive mood is used in a purpose (or in a result)
> >clause, then the action should not be thought of as a possible result,
> >but should be viewed as the stated outcome that will happen (or has
> >happened) as a result of another stated action. The use of the
> >subjunctive is not to indicate that something may or might result
> >from a given action, but it is stating the purpose of or reason for
> >an action.
> >
> >e) The subjunctive mood in a purpose clause actually functions more like
> >a verb in the indicative mood rather than in the optative mood. It is
> >not stating the possibility or probability of an action, but instead
> >telling the intention of the primary action.
> >
> >My Confusion
> >
> >Collins seems to that the result is realised. Theologically I agree with
> >him as far as Gal 2:16 is concerned. However, grammatically I'm still
> >confused.
> >
> >Burton seems to say that the result is not realised.
> >
> >Keating seems to say that the realisation of result is not important
> >(a). I understand (d) as saying that whether or not we see the result we
> >should take it as having been fulfilled.
> >
> >QUESTION
> >
> >Is the realisation (actuality) of result important or not important?
> >Should we take it as having been fulfilled even though we don't see it?
>
> Of course the realization or result is important, but the hINA +
> subjunctive clause in NT Koine Greek may be used in ways that do NOT
> necessarily indicate PURPOSE; it may indicate RESULT; it may even be used
> as a substantive clause.
>
> However the hINA clause in Gal 2:16 is pretty clearly certainly is a
> purpose clause. I think that some of your sources referred to above are
> bringing theology to bear instead of or even prior to resolving the
> questions concerning the Greek construction. I would agree with the Burton
> and Keating accounts that you cite, that the hINA clause of PURPOSE,
> indicates the INTENTION accounting for the action of the verb on which the
> hINA clause depends.
> --
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list