Re: I Cor hINA/hOPWS

Date: Thu Aug 08 1996 - 18:34:44 EDT

In a message dated 96-08-07 22:58:58 EDT, (Eric Weiss)

<< 2. In 1:30 Paul writes, "And from/out-of him (God) you are in Christ
 (EN CRISTWi IHSOU)." Since Paul seems to use KURIOS for Christ and QEOS or
 PATHR for God (the Father), is it valid to interpret the next EN phrase (EN
 KURIWi), which is in the hINA clause that follows in 1:31 (hINA...hO
 KAUCWMENOS EN KURIWi KAUCASQW), to be a reference to Christ, rather than to
 God the Father? I know the quote is derived from Jeremiah 9:24 where YHWH
 used. But could this be an instance like Philippians 2:9-11 where Paul
 an OT scripture (Isaiah 45:23) and attributes to Christ what was said (by
 Isaiah) about YHWH? (It's attributions to Christ of things that were in the

 OT said about YHWH that seem to me to make an implicit case for the doctrine

 of the Trinity that is just as strong as overt references (if there are any)

 to Jesus being God.) >>

Good question. Although I see some similarities between Jeremiah 9:23-24 and
1 Corinthians 1:31, the grammar does not seem to be that precise in agreement
in order to make any substitutions of the sort mentioned above. This would
be more likely if the exact wording were used as for example in my previous
posts concerning hOTI EGW EIMI which was quoted verbatim a couple of times in
the Old Testament and then again in the New Testament a few times with a
strongly favorable context to support the purpose of the statements.

Just a side note concerning a comment made by someone else on this list. I
forgot who it was, but they declined making any comment on the previous John
8:58 passage because they didn't want to support any theology. I thought I
remembered that theological discussions were not forbidden on the B-Greek
list if the points made are elucidations arising directly out of a careful
examination of the text itself.

My understanding of the direction of the B-Greek list is to allow grammatical
comparisons and arguments that flow directly out of the
grammatical-historical analysis of the text, but it discourages trying to
formulate a theology that is not explained directly and clearly from the
immediate passage under consideration. The key as I see it is, "What did the
original writer intend to convey?" Does a study of the Greek constructs lead
one to see a direct correlation between certain passages?

For example, I personally don't see a direct and clear grammatical connection
between the two passages listed at the top of this post. That doesn't mean
there is not a connection at all, but my personal study of the Greek
constructs themselves don't seem to lead any further in that direction.
 Therefore, I myself wouldn't discuss the theology because I couldn't make
any clear, direct grammatical observations that elucidate the theology.


Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:48 EDT