[B-Greek] Genitive in Romans 6:6c
Harold Holmyard
hholmyard at ont.com
Thu Jul 13 14:30:01 EDT 2006
Dear Yancy,
>2. Harold seems to think that SWMA is the human body, but did not
>specify in which sense, would it be fair to assume that it is the
>human body "insofar as it is characterized by sin"?
>
>
HH: Of course, since I think that "of sin" modifies "body": "the body
characteriazed by sin."
>3. My view, that I am trying on for size, that it is the human body
>as a creation of God. However, this does not rule out its use as a
>metonym, just that, in this case it is qualified by hAMARTIAS. I have
>no dispute with seeing SWMA in Romans as a metonym for the human
>being, created by God for immortality, but weakened through slavery
>to sin to the point of mortality. My view is closer to Harold's
>insofar as both of us see SWMA as referring to the human body.
>
>
HH: You still haven't shown a valid parallel for the usage you are
contemplating. Iver seems right that Rom 7:2 is different.
>
>Since you appeal to Rom 7:24, and "body of this death" has also
>sounded strange to my ears, I wonder if here we should read, "Who
>shall deliver me from this body, from this death? Taking the genitive
>as an abstract appositive. But this is not essential.
>
>
HH: I'm glad that it's not essential because it seems incorrect.
>
>
>
>>[Iver] In Rom 12:1, it is not our "physical bodies" that we are
>>supposed to offer to God, but our whole lives.
>>
>>
>I would agree here if you said, "In Rom 12:1, it is not SIMPLy our
>"physical bodies" that we are supposed to offer to God, etc."
>However, I find it difficult to believe that it does not include
>mainly our body as created by God and the things we do with it.
>
>
HH: Of course it includes mainly our bodies as created by God and the
things we do with it.
>I heartily agree with your interpretation of Rom 7:3, but disagree
>that the presence of APO is crucial. It is only crucial in a
>rhetorical sense to this discussion. I.e. there would be no
>discussion of the crux if Rom 6:6c read hINA KATARGHQHi TO SWMA APO
>THS hAMARTIAS. My musing was that the phrase can be taken either way,
>though I admit that the most natural reading is to take THS
>hHAMARTIAS with SWMA. This raises two points, one grammatical and one
>related to lexical semantics and context. The grammatical question
>concerns whether the genitive can do the same work without APO as it
>does with APO. I suppose you mean to say that APO is NOT optional
>with KATARGEW and the genitive. I.e. that in Koine Greek it would be
>impossible or at least highly improbable that a genitive with
>KATARGEW would be ablatival. Would you extend that reasoning beyond
>KATARGEW?
>
>
HH: The critical issue to me is that a reader would naturally associate
"sin" as modifying "body" in Rom 6:6, and I still cannot think of any
reason not to do so.
>
>Rom 6:6, the "body of sin" passage, which I take in this way: The old
>man [Adam, and each of us as we relive his life of disobedience] was
>crucified together [with Christ] so that our body [as we were created
>by God] might be released from sin with the result that it no longer
>is a slave to sin. I see the body as the "mortal body," created by
>God for immortality but weakened and brought under the curse of death
>through sin. The following verses show how believers must practice
>obedience to Christ in hopes of resurrection and in view of God's
>abundant grace.
>
>
HH: I don't know how significant this is, but it is not "the old man"
but "our old man," so it is not Adam but the people we used to be before
we were saved.
>
>In view of this broader context, I see every reason to take "SWMA" in
>Rom 6:6c as the human body standing for the human being as created by
>God for immortality but weakened to immortality through its bondage
>to sin. hO PALAIOS ANQRWPOS I take to be a reference to Adam as
>representing a spiritual or abstract concept of human life lived in
>disobedience to God. It appears that the battleground for the
>individual, the community, and the broader creation in the struggle
>for the inbreaking new creation is the human body or human being
>liberated from sin by Christ but still mortal and susceptible to sin,
>but now strengthened by the presence of the Spirit and the hope of
>immortal life in the transformed body and new creation.
>
>
HH: Yes, there is a real emphasis on the human body in Romans. "Our old
man" is not a reference to Adam though, at least not directly. Here are
other verses using the phrase:
KJV Eph. 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old
man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
KJV Col. 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old
man with his deeds;
HH: The "old man" is something we put off, namely, the conduct and
thinking that used to define us.
NIV Eph. 4:22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life,
to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful
desires;
NIV Col. 3:9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old
self with its practices
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list