No subject


Tue May 3 10:41:24 EDT 2011


> suffering for you,32 which33 is your glory.34
>
> 33sn Which. The antecedent (i.e., the word or concept to which this clause
> refers back) may be either "what I am suffering for you" or the larger
> concept of the recipients not losing heart over Paul's suffering for them.
> The relative pronoun "which" is attracted to the predicate nominative
> "glory" in its gender and number (feminine singular), making the
> antecedent ambiguous. Paul's suffering for them could be viewed as their
glory (cf.
> Col 1:24 for a parallel) in that his suffering has brought about their
> salvation, but if so his suffering must be viewed as more than his present
> imprisonment in Rome; it would be a general description of his ministry
> overall (cf. 2 Cor 11:23-27).

The idea of general suffering would support the singular "this suffering"
indicating not only the particular troubles in Rome, but affliction in
general.

> The other option is that Paul is implicitly
> arguing that the believers have continued to have courage in the midst of
> his trials (as not to lose heart suggests) and that this is their glory.
> Philippians 1:27-28 offers an interesting parallel: the believers' courage
> in the face of adversity is a sign of their salvation.

Paul is not arguing anything here. He is praying or asking them not to
despair because he had to endure sufferings for them, or rather for
preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. They should feel honoured and
encouraged. This second option is in my opinion less plausible both for
grammatical and contextual reasons.

Carl:
> As for the problem with the relative pronoun referring to the
> whole clause, isn't that precisely the case in Eph 6:2?

No, I wouldn't say so. In Eph 6:2 we don't have just any clause, we have a
specific and well known commandment which is easily recognized as ENTOLH.

<snip>
Carl:
> ...what we have in Phil 1:28
> is not so much the doctrine promoted and defended by the Philippian
> congregation that is the ENDEIXIS AUTOIS APWLEIAS but rather their solid
> and unshakable resistance to all efforts of their adversaries to undermine
> their committed community that is the unmistakable indication to the
> opponents that they are on the losing side, on the side of LOSS, in fact.

Your comment helps me to see why you interpret this verse differently. You
seem to think of APWLEIA as being on the losing side in a social conflict. I
think of it as opposite to spiritual, eternal salvation.

>
> In my opinion, Iver, you are excessively "hung up" over the fact
> that hHTIS is feminine; for my part, on the other hand (1) PISTEI seems
> pretty far, as an antecedent, removed from hHTIS, while (2) I don't
understand how the
> DOCTRINE espoused by the Philippians can itself ENDEIXAI to the opponents
> their own APWLEIAN: do they really know and understand that doctrine so
> that they can recognize it as an ENDEIXIS AUTOIS THS APWLEIAS?

Well, I don't think I am excessively hung up. I am challenging a traditional
grammatical claim about Greek grammar which I think is questionable.
Your point (1) I have tried to address by showing that in several other
instances, one has to go far back to find the antecedent. It is not so much
a matter of counting words, but looking at the structure. In the last part
of Phil 1:27 the main verbal idea is "contending for the faith of the
gospel", and this is followed by a side comment about how they were
contending for the faith without being intimidated by their opponents. Even
with this comment, the focus is still on contending for the faith.
Why should they fight for the faith? Because the gospel comes from God -
TOUTO APO QEOU - and it talks about salvation for those who believe - hUMWN
DE SWTHRIA - and destruction for those who disbelieve - AUTOIS ENDEIXIS
APWLEIAS. The two ideas of destruction and salvation are clearly contrasted
as to who are the recipients. I understand Paul to be saying that two things
are clear to the opponents (1) their own coming destruction and (2) your
salvation.
As for your point (2) I think the way Paul and the Philippians preached the
Gospel, it would be very foundational that only those who believe are saved
and others are headed for destruction. If they did not make that clear to
their opponents, they would not have preached the gospel. This was no deep
or obscure part of the gospel in those days, even though it may not be part
of the gospel that some people preach today.

Sometimes it is not easy to separate grammatical analysis from lexical
analysis, which quickly leads into theology, so I need to stop here lest I
open more cans of worms. (The "which" refers to lexical analysis, not the
whole clause.)

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list