From: James H. Vellenga (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Nov 22 1996 - 14:29:27 EST
I agree with Carl that an understanding of "glory" is key
to understanding the sentence (or phrase -- in the absence
of a verb). However, I am not happy with the idea of
dismissing it as a mere "locution."
It seems to me that a good conceptual equivalent for the
NT concept of "glory" is the New Age concept of "aura"
-- a kind of invisible but powerful radiance effective
mainly in the spiritual plain. Correspondingly, "glorify"
becomes "make aura for" -- as in Luke 2.20: "The shepherds
went back, [constantly] making aura for God and praising
[him] over all [the things] they had heard and seen ..."
(In case it makes a difference to the acceptability of
the argument, I am not personally of the New Age persuasion.)
In this conceptual framework, it is possible to increase
God's aura -- at least in the the arena of this KOSMOS.
By actually speaking good things about someone, we in effect
increase their aura. And an event like that that the angels
announced in Luke 2 can result in
"Aura for God in highest [places],
and on earth peace for people of kindly purpose."
In this case, viewing the incarnation as one of God's
superlative actions, the author sees the action itself
as increasing God's aura.
Carl's suggestion of dative of possession is not necessarily
at odds with this. "Aura for God" is a way of claiming
aura that belongs to or is associated with God.
James H. Vellenga | email@example.com
Viewlogic Systems, Inc. __|__ 508-303-5491
293 Boston Post Road West | FAX: 508-460-8213
Marlboro, MA 01752-4615 |
"We all work with partial information."
Note that this kind of translation does not require a "giver";
the aura results directly from the actions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:57 EDT