From: Jim Beale (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jun 03 1997 - 13:13:08 EDT
On Jun 3, 12:39pm, JohnBARACH@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 97-06-03 10:43:05 EDT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Jim Beale)
> > I've found two kinds of verses in which OU+PAS is found. In the
> > first kind, OU is construed with PAS. In these OU negates the
> > universal affirmative proposition producing a particular negative
> > proposition; ~(All a is b) becomes (Some a is not b). In the second
> > kind, OU is construed with the verb, producing a universal affirmation
> > (or negation depending on the way the relation is written). Of this
> > latter class are two important verses: Rom 3:20, Gal 2:16.
> The awkward thing about applying this idea to Romans 9:6 is the presence of
> the resumptive hOUTOI. It does not make sense, as Piper rightly points out,
> to sum up an indefinite OU PANTES (not all = some) with the very definite
> hOUTOI. We would not say, "Not all the people at the party? Those were the
> ones having fun." Something similar is found in Romans 7:15 (about which, I
> have discovered, there was much discussion here some years ago). Again, it
> seems best to me to take the OU as negating the entire concept which follows:
> It is not the case that "PANTES hOI EX ISRAHL, hOUTOI ISRAHL."
> Interestingly enough, this fits modern slang: "'All who are of Israel,
> these ones are Israel'--NOT!" =)
It seems you think I have changed my mind about how I read Romans
9:6. I didn't! I affirmed above that OU+PAS results in a negation of
the proposition. In this case, with the resumptive hOUTOI taken into
account, and an implied EISIN, the universal affirmative proposition
is "PANTES hOI EC ISRAHL1 EISIN ISRAHL2;" where ISRAHL1 and ISRAHL2
are employed to indicate distinct classes. ISRAHL1 is the class of
ethnic Israelites, and ISRAHL2 is the class of elect Israelites.
As my induction of almost all of the cases of OU+PAS in the NT
showed, taking OU to be coordinate with PANTES has the effect of
negating the proposition, which is of the form "All A is B," to
generate the contradictory form (a la square of opposition) "Some A
is not B."
I think we agree! We're just using different terminology. And I
guess the presence of hOUTOI makes this verse a little more
confusing, but the same principle applies.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:18 EDT