PAR EMOU vs MOU (Rom. 11:27)

From: Randy Leedy (
Date: Mon Mar 24 1997 - 09:15:11 EST

In reading Romans 11, I was musing on the phrase hH PAR EMOU DIAQHKH,
considering whether the prepositional phrase somehow conveys
something more than a simple genitive pronoun would (hH DIAQHKH MOU).
I see that this is the wording of the LXX in Isa. 59:21, which Paul
is quoting, and that the underlying Hebrew has the simple possessive
(pronominal suffix) rather than a prepositional phrase.

I don't know anything about the general character of the translation
of Isaiah in the LXX (literal vs. free), and there is obviously the
possibility of a vorlage differing from the MT at this point. So the
question gets complicated for me pretty quickly.

I guess there's no big deal at stake. With either the prepositional
phrase or the simple possessive, God is still claiming initiative for
the covenant. But I'm wondering whether the prepositional phrase may
lay a little more stress on that initiative than the simple
possessive would.

BAGD (PARA, I.4.a.) says the phrase can function as a genitive and
lists a number of passages similar to this one in Romans. However,
most of the citations are extra-biblical, and I don't have access to
them to get the wider context. It's not hard, with a little
imagination, to see in those citations a reason for the longer phrase
rather than the simple pronoun.

Any ideas on whether I should take the prepositional phrase as
significant? Or is it a functional equivalent to the simple genitive,
used, perhaps, for a certain poetic effect?

In Love to God and Neighbor,
Randy Leedy
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:10 EDT