[B-Greek] Eph. 1:12 EIS TO EINAI hHMAS ...TOUS PROHLPIKOTAS EN TWiCRISTWi
Harold Holmyard
hholmyard at ont.com
Thu May 18 14:26:57 EDT 2006
Dear Iver,
>Part of this discussion touches on the inclusive versus exclusive "we" which is not explicitly marked in Greek, so it
>has to be understood from context. Because it is not explicitly marked, the writer may not always be clear about the
>distinction.
>
>
HH: I'm aware of an exclusive versus an inclusive "we." I suppose you
can infer that one term ("we") within one sentence is used two different
ways (inclusive, exclusive) if there are enough modifications of each
"we" to manifest a distinction, but the inference could only be correct
if the resulting sentence still made sense. I question whether it does here.
>Let me re-focus on the text:
>
>EIS TO EINAI hHMAS EIS EPAINON DOXHS AUTOU TOUS PROHLPIKOTAS EN TWi CRISTWi EN hWi KAI hUMEIS...
>
>Since Paul was writing to the church in Ephesos (and environs?), which was mainly Gentile, at a time where there was
>still great controversy between Jews and Gentiles, as well as between those Jews who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah
>and those who had not, the dichotomy between we-Jews and you-Gentiles would be in the back of the minds of the believers
>in Ephesos as much as it is in the mind of Paul.
>
>
HH: The distinction, or non-distinction in God's eyes, between Jewish
and Gentile believers is a theme of the epistle at some points (e.g.,
Eph 2:11-19).
>Because of the KAI hUMEIS, it is most likely that the "we" in the preceding sentence refers to the Jews (CEV translates
>by "we Jews" here).
>
HH: If "we" signifies all the redeemed in verses 3-12, then "you also"
could specify the particular portion of the redeemed that became so at a
particular time. That is, it could signify the believers in Ephesus.
> The "we" does not have to refer to the same entity throughout the section. The whole section from
>verses 3-14 is a praise of God's plan of salvation, which God had thought out even before the foundation of the world
>(v. 4), and that plan involved both Jews and Gentiles.
>
>
HH: When does the reader make the switch from an inclusive to an
exclusive "we"? Verse 13 with its "you also" is too late, so you must be
saying the switch occurs in verse 12, where the reader takes "we" in a
more limited sense to refer to the Jewish believers. A possible problem
with this idea is that verse 12 is in the same sentence as, and
completes the thought of, verse 11, where "we" refers to all the
redeemed. Surely, "we," inclusive of Jews and Gentiles, were not made
heirs only so that "we," signifying Jews alone, might be to the praise
of God's glory. This limited interpretation of verse 12 short-circuits
verse 11. All these statements about being to the praise of God's glory
would seem to refer to the entire Church (vv. 6, 12, 14), since the
reader expects consistency in Paul's refrain, and "we" in conjunction
with the refrain elsewhere designates the entire set of the redeemed
(vv. 6, 14).
>One of the problems seem to be the unclear understanding of PROELPIZW. The contemporary English word "hope" is far too
>vague in meaning and "trust" would be misleading. ELPIZW means "to wait for with expectancy", at least the way Paul is
>using the word in his letters. It is a bit like an "expectant mother" which is more than a "hoping mother". For ELPIZW
>Louw and Nida has: "to look forward with confidence to that which is good and beneficial," but they still use the
>somewhat misleading gloss "hope" at times. I am afraid the poor KJV translation of Eph 1:12 has mislead English Bible
>translation tradition. Louw and Nida is much better with their rendering of PROELPIZW: "to hope in a prior manner,
>either beforehand or prior to someone else."
>
HH: But Louw and Nida may be unintentionally begging the question we are
dealing with. "Someone else" is not a necessary part of the meaning of
PROELPIZW, since Louw and Nida could just as correctly have said
"something else."
> The PRO- prefix in this context means "prior" or "before(hand)", but not
>"first", and it must be seen in the context of PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU in verse 4, the PRO-ORIZW in v. 5, the PRO-TIQHMI
>in v. 9, and the PRO-ORIZW and PRO-QESIS in v. 11.
>
>Paul is reminding the Gentile believers, that their being saved through the grace of Christ is something God had planned
>long ago and had revealed to some degree to the Jews of former times (even though is was a mystery to them and only
>fully revealed now after the Messiah had come, was dead and resurrected). I think that is why he is using EINAI rather
>than ZWN. It was the plan of God that "we should be(come)". Note also the "chose us to be" EXELEXATO ... EINAI hHMAS in
>v. 4.
>
>
HH: I think one time element is prophecies about Christ given long
before his incarnation. I agree that the use of EINAI in verse 12 is
parallel with its use in verse 4, where it was easier to say "be holy"
than to say "live holy," which would have been incorrect grammar.
>As Carl pointed out in his second thoughts, the noun phrase TOUS PROHLPIKOTAS EN TWi CRISTWi is probably an apposition
>to the hHMAS that is subject for the EINAI. But the description "we who beforehand were in the state of expecting (the
>coming of) the Messiah" refers to the Jews.
>
HH: The verse does not necessarily say that people were in the state of
expecting the coming of Christ. That could be eisegesis. I think "hope
before," which BAGD offers as a gloss for PROELPIZW, is perfectly
suitable. PROELPIZW can add a time element to a word that often refers
to trust in God. See 2 Kings 18:5 LXX, where ELPIZW with EN refers to
trust in God. The verb elsewhere speaks of trust in God (e.g., 1 Chron
5:20; 2 Chron 13:18). The verb PROELPIZW does not appear in the LXX or
elsehwere in the NT, but your own recitation of the PRO- words in
Ephesians 1 suggests that it could be adding the idea of anterior time
to a standard use of ELPIZW for trusting in God.
> Now, Paul represents those Jews who not only were in the state of looking
>forward to and eagerly expecting the coming of the Messiah, but also had come to believe in Jesus as the Messiah.
>
HH: Again, the link between verses 11-12 seems to undermine this theory.
We all were made heirs (KLHROW) so that we all would be to the praise of
his glory. We are not all to the praise of his glory when we initially
put our hope in Christ. We are often a blot on humanity at that time.
But God's destiny is that we should be to the praise of His glory. The
ultimate time we will be to the praise of His glory (v. 14) is when we
are glorified, the Spirit being the pledge of that inheritance. The
relationship between KLHROW in verse 11 and KLHRONOMIA ("inheritance")
in verse 14, where KLHRONOMIA points to glorification, suggests that
being to the praise of his glory in verse 12 may also look ultimately to
that time. Presumably "redemption" in verse 14 has the same meaning as
it does in verse 7, and Paul elsewhere uses hUIOQESIA (v. 5) to refer to
the redemption of our bodies in glorification (Rom 8:23). So even in
verse 6 being to the praise of his glory may look to the ultimate goal.
> Then
>he continues: EVEN/ALSO you (Gentiles) have heard the message, have believed and have been sealed by the Holy Spirit to
>become his possession "for the praise of his glory" (end of v. 14.) - together with us, of course.
>
HH: A problem with this is that Paul writes a letter to a set of
believers, not to all Gentiles. While the phrase EN EFESWi is a C
reading in the UBS text, it is still the text. And even if it were not
the text, it was a specific group of people Paul was writing to. So
"even you" can be the Ephesians or some other group. True, they were
dominated by Gentiles, but "you also" can speak of when this specific
group joined redeemed humanity, or "us."
HH: One thing I agree with you about is that "you also" in verse 13
suggests in context that these people recently joined in a spiritual
reality that began long before, indeed before the foundation of the
world (v. 4).
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list