[B-Greek] I Tim 3.16 :: Why "seen of Angels"
Steven Lo Vullo
themelios at charter.net
Tue May 3 03:33:20 EDT 2005
On Apr 30, 2005, at 10:44 AM, Wilson Hines wrote:
> "OPSTHE ANGELOIS"
>
> Why wouldn't most translations use something other than "seen?"
>
> I understand that the DBL defines it first by "see," however the other
> definitions are:
> 1. Pay attention to.
> 2. Understand.
> 3. Visit
> 4. Experience
> 5. Learn about
> 6. Cause to happen
>
> The BDAG, of course, goes into much more detail, but still supports my
> personal thoughts here.
Hi Wilson:
I don't have DBL, so I will base my comments on BDAG and L&N.
BDAG actually doesn't support your thoughts with regard to this usage
of hORAW in 1 Tim 3.16. Rather, 1 Tim 3.16 is listed as an example
under A.1.d. Note that A.1 pertains to instances of hORAW dealing with
perception of the eye. Subsection d deals with passive forms with an
active sense, although I think Carl's terminology, i.e., an
"intransitive sense," is more accurate. There we find the glosses
"become visible, appear." Noted also is that with the dative complement
the idea is an appearance *to* someone. For 1 Tim 3.16 it says, "the
triumphant Christ appears to the angelic powers." (More on this below.)
> The reason, I ask why "seen," as the KJV, NIV and NKJV puts it, is
> because
> the Angels have "seen" Him since their creation. My further thoughts
> are:
But, as Carl and BDAG point out, what is in view here in this
Christological confessional context is the *risen* Christ. Surely we
should compare this text with the exact same form and construction
found several times in 1 Cor 15:
v. 5 WFQH KHFAi
v. 6 WFQH EPANW PENTAKOSIOIS ADELFOIS
v. 7 WFQH IAKWBWi EITA TOIS APOSTOLOIS PASIN
v. 8 WFQH KAMOI
Jesus, of course, had been seen on many, many occasions by Cephas, his
apostles, and others. But it is the special post-resurrection
appearances that are here in view. I think it is the post-resurrection
Christ who is also in view in 1 Tim 3.16, and that BDAG is correct in
saying that the appearance in 1 Tim 3.16 is of "the triumphant Christ
... to the angelic powers." Of course the angels had seen Christ since
their creation, but he certainly hadn't appeared to them in his
resurrection glory until after his actual resurrection. The point in 1
Tim 3.16, I think, is that angels, such important and glorious beings
(see 1 Tim 5.21), were witnesses of the resurrection. This fact lends
authority to the gospel, just as the mention of angels in 1 Tim 5.21
lends authority to Paul's charge.
Here are all of the other examples of this construction in the GNT:
Matt 17.3 WFQH AUTOIS MWUSHS KAI HLIAS
Mark 9.4 WFQH AUTOIS HLIAS SUN MWUSEI
Luke 1.11 WFQH ... AUTWi AGGELOS KURIOU
Luke 22.43 WFQH ... AUTWi AGGELOS AP' OURANOU
Luke 24.34 WFQH SIMWNI (cf. 1 Cor 15.5)
Acts 2.3 WFQHSAN AUTOIS ... GLWSSAI hWSEI PUROS
Acts 7.2 hO QEOS THS DOXHS WFQH TWi PATRI ABRAAM
Acts 7.26 WFQH AUTOIS
Acts 7.30 WFQH AUTWi ... AGGELOS
Acts 7.35 AGGELOU TOU OFQENTOS AUTWi
Acts 9.17 IHSOUS hO OFQEIS SOI
Acts 13.31 hOS WFQH ... TOIS SUNANABASIN AUTWi
Acts 16.9 hORAMA ... TWi PAULWi WFQH
Acts 26.16 WFQHN SOI
Heb 9.28 OFQHSETAI TOIS AUTON APEKDECOMENOIS
Note that in every case except one (Acts 7.26), a supernatural
appearance to another or others is in view. In every case the person or
thing(s) appearing is the subject of the passive verb, and the person
or persons to whom someone or something(s) appears is in the dative
case. It seems to me that 1 Tim 3.16 should be taken in the same way.
> 1. They would "Pay attention to" Him. I.e., Attend or serve.
As BDAG B.2 points out, this usage has to do with being alert or on
guard, not with service. Moreover, when used in this sense, hORAW is
transitive, followed by the aorist subjunctive or MH and the aorist
subjunctive or MH and the imperative or is used with APO. None of these
conditions exist in 1 Tim 3.16.
> 2. They would "Understand" Him. They aren't omniscient, so after the
> cross
> and His resurrection they possibly could see Him in a different light,
> or
> become more "understanding" of Him and His role.
BDAG, under A.4, lists the definition, "to be mentally or spiritually
perceptive," with the gloss "perceive." A.4.b deals with cognitive
aspect. Here we have one example with a prepositional phrase and two
with an accusative object. There is the example hOR. TWi LOGISMWi right
after the definition in section A.4, but this seems to be a case of
hORAW with an instrumental dative. L&N additionally has examples of
indirect discourse (32.11).
> 3. They could "visit" him.
All the examples I have seen are transitive with accusative object. And
what sense would this make in the context?
> 4. They could "experience," that in itself is a word with a whole
> range of
> meaning.
This would also fall under either BDAG A.3 or BDAG A.4. Section A.3
deals with experiencing a condition or event and is glossed
"experience, witness." The NT examples are transitive with accusative
object. And L&N claims that it is normally used in this sense in
negative expressions indicating what one will *not* experience. Section
A.4.a deals with sensory aspect. But notice that when used in this
sense hORAW is transitive and is followed by an accusative participle
or by an accusative and infinitive or by some form of direct or
indirect question/discourse.
> 5. They could "Learn more about", ie. No. 2.
Not sure where this comes from. Can you think of an example where hORAW
in the middle/passive -QH form means "learn more about"?
The bottom line is that no middle/passive -QH forms of hORAW with a
dative complement in the GNT seem to mean anything other than "to
appear to someone." Even if we took these as true passives, the idea
must be that the subject of the verb is seen by someone.
============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
MAR student
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list