PDA

View Full Version : First Corinthians



John Reece
01-06-2017, 04:39 PM
This is a non-debate reading and grammatical analysis thread.

Please do not post any cabala in this thread.

Abbreviations:


BDAG: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Third Edition Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker (University of Chicago Press, 2000).

BG: Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, English Edition Adapted from the Fourth Latin Edition by Joseph Smith, S.J.. (Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963), by Maximilian Zerwick, S.J.

LXX: Septuaginta : Editio altera, Revised Edition (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), edited by Alfred Rahlfs.

NA27: Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (27th edition), edited by Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger.

NETS: A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title, Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, Editors (Oxford, 2007).

Zerwick: An Analysis of the Greek New Testament, by Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981).

I do not know how much time and energy I may have to devote to this thread until after I conclude one or both of my other Greek threads; I may have to skip some days, and/or limit myself not to complete verses but rather to a simple clause per post.

However, I have been itching to get started in a study of the text of 1 Corinthians, even of I must limit myself to one clause per day.

I tend to fall asleep while working on computer threads, which alarms my wife, because such was the prelude to my last admission to the stroke unite at Wake Med Hospital in Raleigh... perhaps I should take a nap first...

John Reece
01-07-2017, 04:02 AM
Text: (NA27):

Παῦλος κλητὸς ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ καὶ Σωσθένης ὁ ἀδελφὸς

Transliteration (Accordance):

Paulos klētos apostolos Christou Iēsou dia thelēmatos theou kai Sōsthenēs ho adelphos

Translation (NRSV):

Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes

Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):

κλητός : (< καλέω call) called.
ὁ ἀδελφός : our brother.

John Reece
01-08-2017, 03:41 AM
Text: (NA27):

τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν

Transliteration (Accordance):

tȩ̄ ekklēsia̧ tou theou tȩ̄ ousȩ̄ en Korinthō̧, hēgiasmenois en Christō̧ Iēsou, klētois hagiois, syn pasin tois epikaloumenois to onoma tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou en panti topō̧, autōn kai hēmōn

Translation (NRSV):

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):

οὔσῃ : participle of εἰμί be.
ἡγιασμένοις : made and kept holy perfect passive participle of ἁγιάζω consecrate, plural according to the meaning ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, i.e. through union with him.
κλητοῖς ἁγίοις : called to be saints.
ἐπικαλουμένοις : participle of ἐπικαλέω call upon ; οἱ ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου representing a Hebrew expression often applied to Israel in relation to יְהוָ֤ה, here in relation to Jesus, the complete phrase meaning "with all those who worship our Lord Jesus Christ as God" [Nota Bene ―JR].
αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν : referring to τόπος or κύριος their (Lord) as well as ours.

Elpis
01-08-2017, 05:03 AM
Text: (NA27):

τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν

Transliteration (Accordance):

tȩ̄ ekklēsia̧ tou theou tȩ̄ ousȩ̄ en Korinthō̧, hēgiasmenois en Christō̧ Iēsou, klētois hagiois, syn pasin tois epikaloumenois to onoma tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou en panti topō̧, autōn kai hēmōn

Translation (NRSV):

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):

οὔσῃ : participle of εἰμί be.
ἡγιασμένοις : made and kept holy perfect passive participle of ἁγιάζω consecrate, plural according to the meaning ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, i.e. through union with him.
κλητοῖς ἁγίοις : called to be saints.
ἐπικαλουμένοις : participle of ἐπικαλέω call upon ; οἱ ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου representing a Hebrew expression often applied to Israel in relation to יְהוָ֤ה, here in relation to Jesus, the complete phrase meaning "with all those who worship our Lord Jesus Christ as God" [Nota Bene ―JR].
αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν : referring to τόπος or κύριος their (Lord) as well as ours.

I appreciate you do not want debate, but as a matter of accuracy the verb ἐπικαλέω does not mean "worship as God". It means "to call upon, invoke, appeal to" and is used in scripture of God, Jesus and human beings eg Paul calls upon Caesar/Augustus (Acts 25:11, 25; 26:32; 28:19).

In Hope,

Elpis.

Chrawnus
01-08-2017, 05:49 AM
I appreciate you do not want debate, but as a matter of accuracy the verb ἐπικαλέω does not mean "worship as God". It means "to call upon, invoke, appeal to" and is used in scripture of God, Jesus and human beings eg Paul calls upon Caesar/Augustus (Acts 25:11, 25; 26:32; 28:19).

In Hope,

Elpis.

And we should trust you over Zerwick/BDAG, because...?

Elpis
01-08-2017, 06:04 AM
And we should trust you over Zerwick/BDAG, because...?

Because Paul did not worship Caesar Augustus as God by calling upon him. What Zerwick offers is an interpretation of the text, not a requirement of the grammar. This thread is in the Biblical Languages section.

In Hope,

Elpis.

Chrawnus
01-08-2017, 06:12 AM
Because Paul did not worship Caesar Augustus as God by calling upon him. What Zerwick offers is an interpretation of the text, not a requirement of the grammar. This thread is in the Biblical Languages section.

In Hope,

Elpis.

I was asking for your credentials, not your crackpot analysis.

John Reece
01-08-2017, 07:27 AM
Text: (NA27):

τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν

Transliteration (Accordance):

tȩ̄ ekklēsia̧ tou theou tȩ̄ ousȩ̄ en Korinthō̧, hēgiasmenois en Christō̧ Iēsou, klētois hagiois, syn pasin tois epikaloumenois to onoma tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou en panti topō̧, autōn kai hēmōn

Translation (NRSV):

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):

οὔσῃ : participle of εἰμί be.
ἡγιασμένοις : made and kept holy perfect passive participle of ἁγιάζω consecrate, plural according to the meaning ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, i.e. through union with him.
κλητοῖς ἁγίοις : called to be saints.
ἐπικαλουμένοις : participle of ἐπικαλέω call upon ; οἱ ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου representing a Hebrew expression often applied to Israel in relation to יהוה, here in relation to Jesus, the complete phrase meaning "with all those who worship our Lord Jesus Christ as God" [Nota Bene ―JR].
αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν : referring to τόπος or κύριος their (Lord) as well as ours.

Elpis
01-08-2017, 08:57 AM
I was asking for your credentials, not your crackpot analysis.

I was not aware one had to audition before posting on this thread :)

I have a fair knowledge of NT Greek and Hebrew which I learned while studying theology at a UK University. I am a bit rusty (it was a while ago) but still remember the basics. I make to claims to superior knowledge. But "calling on the name of someone" does not mean that you worship them as God. The immediate context (v 1) shows that the writer sees the Lord Jesus Christ as someone to be distinguished from God.

In Hope,

Elpis.

John Reece
01-08-2017, 09:09 AM
I appreciate you do not want debate, but as a matter of accuracy the verb ἐπικαλέω does not mean "worship as God". It means "to call upon, invoke, appeal to" and is used in scripture of God, Jesus and human beings eg Paul calls upon Caesar/Augustus (Acts 25:11, 25; 26:32; 28:19).

In Hope,

Elpis.

I appreciate your irenic spirit, and I acknowledge that the definition of ἐπικαλέω and its semantic range that you cite is accurate as far as it goes. I thank you for alerting me to the need to explain to you what you are not understanding.

Have you read Semantics of New Testament Greek by J.P. Louw, wherein he says (page 52) "with regard to exegesis it is clear that one has to start, not with the translation equivalent [which you, Elpis, are doing] but with the meaning based on what is implied by the context"?

Zerwick's primary frame of reference in terms of context is the usage in the OT of יהוה = the personal name of the God of Israel = Yahweh/LORD ― which in 1 Cor 1:2 is used in relation to Jesus.

Anthony C. Thiselton in his extensive New International Greek Testament Commentary captures the sense of the meaning of the word in its context. His orientation in the context is in harmony with the meaning as expressed by Maximillian Zerwick in A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, whence the quote that you have challenged.

This is from Anthony C. Thiselton in The Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Eerdmans, 2000) (45 footnotes omitted):


Addressees (1:2)

2.... The genitive in the phrase τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, of God, τοῦ θεοῦ is possessive. From Chrysostom onward this assertion has been urged on the basis of language, but it also anticipates more recent work on social relations at Corinth. Chrysostom observes that the church is the possession “not ‘of this person or that person’ but of God.” The church does not “belong” to some local leader, group, or party, but is God’s. Meyer construes the grammatical form as “genitive of the owner,” followed by Edwards (“genitive of possession”), Robertson and Plummer, and Wendland. More recently a number of writers who have adopted sociological or socio-rhetorical approaches to the epistle propose that Paul’s chief concern arose from the undue influence of patrons or of “the strong,” who exercised power on the basis of “wisdom” or of social status, and behaved as if they “owned” the church. This verse may begin an overture to this repeated theme. The church, Paul insists, belongs not to the wealthy, or to “patrons,” or to some self-styled inner circle of “spiritual people who manifest gifts,” but to God. Both Paul and local patrons or “spirituals” are accountable to God. The church is God’s growing “field,” God’s planned “construction,” God’s inner shrine (1 Cor 3:9, where θεοῦ, of God, stands three times in an emphatic word order). Karl Barth captures the tone magnificiently: “The main defect” at Corinth was the belief of the addressees “not in God, but in their own belief in God and in particular leaders.” Barth’s theological exegesis and Theissen’s social-science approach point in the same direction here as the exegesis of Schrage, Strobel, and Wendland. The church does not “belong” to any of its in-groups or leaders, but to God.

Regarding τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, Bengel drily speaks of the “paradox” of a church which is simultaneously of God and, of all places, at Corinth: laetum et ingens paradoxon! We should not make an issue out of the redundant dative singular present participle τῇ οὔσῃ. The idiom occurs widely in hellenistic Greek, and with ὑπάρχω even in classical Greek. Nevertheless Collins (as if in response to Bengel) argues that the participle is “not merely a copulative: it is a statement of existence as such. The church of God actually exists in Corinth.”However in a comment which has become notorious K. L. Schmidt sought to make particular play of this construction and this verse to support a “universal” as against a “congregational” doctrine of the church in Paul. He insists: “The sum of the individual congregations does not produce the total community of the church. Each community, how ever small, represents the total community of the Church. This is supported by 1 Cor 1:2; τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ . . . τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ . . . true rendering here is not ‘the Corinthian congregation’ but ‘the congregation, church, assembly, as it is in Corinth.’”

Schmidt overinterprets the grammar and exaggerates the implications of this verse. However, his faulty method may or may not invalidate his conclusions, since he also addresses wider considerations. An immediate allusion to all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place (v. 2) reinforces the thought that the church in Corinth is not a self-contained autonomous entity: they are not a self-sufficient community; they are not the only pebble on the beach. Their lifestyle and practices are monitored by translocal “fellow workers” of Paul’s (notably by Timothy, 1 Cor. 4:17), and they are required to follow patterns of thought and lifestyle which characterize traditions or “order” (διατάσσομαι) “in all the churches” (ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις, 1 Cor 7:17).89 The importance of “order” (τάγμα) is seen not only from ecclesiology (τάξις, 14:40) but also from Christology and especially eschatology (15:23–24; cf. 27–28).

Holmberg shows how in the Pauline churches networks of authority combine genuine leadership with genuine mutuality across local congregations and thus ensure a recognizable order, identity, and stability in a pluralistic society. By contrast, in Corinth people wanted, even demanded, “the right to choose” (ἐξουσία, 8:9; πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν, 6:12; 10:23; see under 6:12 and 8:7–13). This obsession with autonomy colored both individual and corporate aspirations. Yet the notion of each community as an internally self-contained autonomous democracy finds no place in Pauline theology. Hence Paul will shortly ask indignantly: Has Christ been apportioned out or “parceled out” (μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός; 1:13) into autonomous groups? It is possible to speak of the “catholicity” of the church of Paul’s day, as well as its diversity. For its networks and shared commonality in Christ, in the gospel, and in a common apostolic witness to Christ amounted to more than a loose federation of autonomous communities. Whether a given local group genuinely reflects Christ and the apostolic gospel is not left to be determined by criteria internal to the group in question, but also relates to translocal counterchecks such as the apostles, Paul’s fellow workers, and creeds, practices, and traditions followed in all the churches. Today the notion of criteria internal to “local” or “ethnocentric” communities brings us to the heart of the global debate about so-called postmodernity.

We should also be cautious about overinterpreting the word church, ἐκκλησία. Hodge (1858) drew on word history to claim that the church is “called out from the world” (ἐκ-καλέω). But the word was used in classical Greek to denote an assembly to which townspeople were “called” from their homes by a herald’s cry or trumpet. It is often argued that the NT writers inherited the word later as the LXX translation of the Hebrew קהל (qahal). Although Hatch-Redpath cite sixty-six examples, Schrage argues that the LXX background does not fully account for the NT uses of ἐκκλησία, and returns to the Greek origins of the word.Whatever the origin, the word stresses the call to assemble together as a congregation in God’s presence.

Paul applies the cognate terms related to ἅγιος, holy, twice here: sanctified, called to be holy people, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κλητοῖς ίοις. The words translated sanctified and holy derive from the verbal and adjectival cognate forms: (1) ιάζειν, to dedicate, to set apart, to make holy, to consecrate (cf. ἡγιασμένοις, perfect passive); and (2) ἅγιος, holy person, one dedicated and set apart to God. The latter may signify both status or role and character. Hence saints are those set apart as God’s own, and ideally holy in life, as a habituated pattern which has become reflected in a settled character.

The Greek again reflects an LXX translation, this time of the Hebrew קדוש (qadosh), which means separate or set apart in contrast to being in common use. The people of God and the things of God reflect their special status as serving God, who is awesomely Other, transcendent in majesty and purity. In this sense of the word, “Holiness is received, not achieved.” Even if this phrase were to be suspected of being a scribal insertion (which, we noted, is an extremely unlikely conjecture), Paul expresses this same thought in 1 Cor 6:11: you have been washed, you were sanctified (ἡγιάσθητε). The comparison with 6:11, however, does reveal one difference: the perfect passive of ιάζειν in 1:2 denotes a past event with present effects which remain, whereas the aorist passive of the same verb in 6:11 may bring into focus more specifically the transitional and transformative event of the readers’ coming to faith as an event of divine call.

Should ἐν be translated here as in (above, together with Barrett, REB, NRSV, ASV, NJB, AV/KJV, NIV) or as by? Paul regularly defines holiness or spirituality especially in this epistle in christological terms. The readers’ status as those who belong to God and are called to live out this godly holiness derives from their being-in-Christ. On grammatical grounds alone ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ could be translated sanctified by Christ Jesus, since ἐν followed by the dative case may include the notion of instrumentality. But elsewhere Paul places strong theological emphasis on being-in-Christ as a concept of corporate status which provides the ground for Christian life and destiny. The translation sanctified in Christ Jesus takes up this wider context. Thus Goodspeed translates ἐν as by union with Christ Jesus. Certainly ἐν with a dative of persons is broader than agency or instrumentality alone, often denoting mode, personal presence, or a close personal relation. What counts as holy is perceived as what counts as Christ-like. Hence, just as Christ assumes the form of the “image” of God in public (εἰκών, 1 Cor 15:49), so a holy people manifest their consecration to God through the status and character which they derive from Christ.

The plural form of the dative participle ἡγιασμένοις, to those sanctified, provides an epexegetical gloss on the earlier singular form, to the church. The change from the singular to the plural is noteworthy. The singular stresses the solidarity of the readers as one united corporate entity; the plural calls attention to the individual responsibility of each member to live out his or her consecrated status in Christ. (See further under the exegesis of 12:12–27.)

Just as Paul is called to apostolic witness, so every Christian believer is called to be holy. Because this call is to every Christian, Fee observes, the traditional translation saints “contains too many misleading connotations to be of value.” J. W. C. Wand offers a memorable question: “Are only good people to be recognized as members of the divine society. . . ? Is the Church a museum for saints or a school for sinners?” Nevertheless, just as Joshua was called to “possess” the land because he already “possessed” it as a divine gift (Josh 1:11–12), so believers are called to a lifestyle which reflects their already given status. Hence the theological and ethical make contact in this phrase in 1:2.99 Calvin comments that the call is “to blamelessness of life,” but “here God begins his work . . . and brings it to completion little by little.” The Corinthians, Paul repeatedly stressed, were far from having “arrived” (cf. 4:8–13, esp. 8b).

Paul now associates the other churches with Corinth: σὺν πασιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, αὐτῳν καὶ ἡμῶν. Our translation (above) unavoidably presupposes a particular interpretation of theirs and ours (αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν). Some ancient and modern commentators construe the meaning on the basis of the word order to mean in their place and in our place, applying it to place rather than to Lord. Thus Chrysostom understands Paul to mean that Christ remains the one Lord of those separated in different places: “One place helps them [has the effect of making them] not to be of one mind,” but “though the place be separate, the Lord binds them together.” The Vulgate follows this path: in omni loco ipsorum et nostro. Cyril, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius and Thomas Aquinas read the particle τε after αὐτῶν, which Allo believes would then add a degree of strength to this possibility.

Findlay, however, describes this whole approach, in spite of the word order, as “strained in various ways.” The key point is that the Corinthians, or at least those who cause the problems which Paul addresses, are self-absorbed and self-centered. They think and act as if they had a monopoly on Christ and the Spirit. They tend broadly to match the target of Nietzsche’s telling aphorism: “The ‘salvation of the soul’, . . . in plain English ‘the world revolves round me’.” Jesus Christ is not the exclusive “Lord” who serves only the interests of some specific group. He may indeed include them within wider Lordship, but he remains “both their Lord and ours.” Anecdotal tradition tells how C. H. Spurgeon handled a similar problem when a self-centered church leader claimed his attention by insisting that he came as “the Lord’s messenger.” Spurgeon is said to have sent back the message that “he regrets that he is currently engaged with the Lord.” In the sense conveyed by the anecdote, Christ is their Lord and ours.

The phrase all who call on the name of our Lord comes directly from Joel 3:5 (cf. Ps 98:6), from which it is taken up in Rom 10:13 and Acts 2:21. The LXX of Joel 3:5 reads πας ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται, which is identical to Paul’s quotation in Rom 10:13, and the vocabulary of the shorter phrase in 1 Cor 1:2 remains the same, allowing for the grammatical variations imposed by the context of reference. The allusion to the day of the Lord in 1:7–8 makes the allusion to Joel all the more probable. Moffatt translates “invoke the name of the Lord,” since the phrase ἐπικάλειν, “to call on” or “to invoke” (the gods) represents a standard phrase for the activity of worshipers toward their gods in classical and hellenistic Greek literature from Plato to Epictetus. Thus Epictetus speaks of avoiding a task “except after invoking Demeter” (εἰ μὴ τὴν Δήμητρα ἐπικαλεσάμενοι). If we place together the range of meanings of ἐπικαλεῖν in the LXX, the NT, the papyri, and the early Fathers, as well as the wider background in hellenistic literature, it becomes beyond doubt that “to call on the Lord” is to perform a self-involving commissive speech-act: Schrage calls it an “acclamation” performed as an “act.” It signals an act of appeal and request which is simultaneously an act of commitment and trust on the part of the worshiper.

This explains why Paul can regard calling on the name of our Lord in 1:2 and confessing “Jesus is Lord” (Κύριος Ἰησοῦς) in 1 Cor 12:3 as the sign and test of what it is to be a Christian believer. It is not a matter of aiming appeals to a deity from some neutral stance; that does not capture the force of either ἐπικαλεῖν, “to call on,” as Κύριος, “Lord.” Weiss asserts that what Lord “means in a practical religious sense will best be made clear through the correlative concept of ‘servant’ or ‘slave’ of Christ (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 7:22–23; Gal 1:10; Phil 1:1; Col 4:12).” Bultmann similarly observes that only this self-involving dimension offers a sense of freedom. If “slaves” place themselves at the disposal of their Lord, their Lord has them in his care and they are no longer their own responsibility, but trustfully call on the name of [the] Lord. Such a person “lets this care go, yielding himself entirely to the grace of God.” See further especially under 8:6 and 12:3. Combes notes the use of the correlative slave-Lord in a “positive” sense in 6:20, Rom 14:7–8, 14; 2 Cor 5:15.

Paul uses Joel’s phrase the name of the Lord. The name of the Lord stands as the guarantee that God’s acts in and through Christ will accord with the revelation of his character as hitherto disclosed. Name in the OT often signifies character, position, and especially reputation. When Moses asked God’s name (Exod 3:13) the LXX rendering “I am who I am” is probably better rendered on the basis of the Hebrew grammatical form “I will be who I will be” (3:14), i.e., you will see what constitutes my name by the sovereign and redeeming acts which I shall perform, and which will thereby disclose my identity in terms of character. When Psalmists praise the name of the Lord (Ps 9:2), this constitutes a recital of the saving acts which build his reputation and disclose his character: “Those who know your name put their trust in you” (Ps 9:10; cf. vv. 3–9 and Ps 20:1, 5, 7). Hence to call on the name of the Lord, partly in Joel, but more fully here, means not to invoke some shadowy, unknown, deity, but to commit oneself in trust to the one whose nature and character have been disclosed as worthy of this trust.

In 1 Cor 1:2 the name of the Lord is applied to our Lord Jesus Christ. This christological application cannot be detached from the utterly familiar tradition that in the LXX κύριος translates and becomes “an expository equivalent for the Divine Name,” both the Hebrew unspoken proper noun יהוה (YHWH, no vowels used) and אדון (ʾadon], lord or אדני (ʾadonai. Cullmann comments, “Adonai was certainly the characteristic Jewish designation for God in the first century before and the first century after Christ.” On the other hand, Paul regularly applies the word κύριος to Christ. Bultmann observes, “For Paul ‘Lord’ and not ‘Christ’ is Jesus’ title.” To proclaim Jesus as Lord (2 Cor 4:5) constitutes what Anderson Scott calls “a summary of Christian preaching.” Scott calls it “the one available profession of faith which Paul requires of a would-be Christian,” and translates Paul’s description of this confession τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως (the word of faith) as “the formula which expresses faith.” Clearly therefore to invoke or to confess Christ as Lord is a commissive act, not a mere intellectual proposition, since Paul makes plain as 1 Corinthians unfolds that salvation entails more than having some correct head content (1 Cor 1:18–25; 8:1, 2; 7–13; and elsewhere. See especially under 8:7–13, on the limits of γνῶσις, “knowledge”).

Paul was not the first to conceive of “invoking Christ as Lord” in prayer, trust, or self-commitment. The Aramaic form Maranatha (Μαράνα θά, 1 Cor 16:22), Our Lord, come (see under 16:22 in the translation), is difficult to explain unless, as Robinson argues, it stems from the early pre-Pauline Aramaic-speaking community. A stronger argument is that such passages as Rom 1:3–4 show every sign of representing pre-Pauline confessions which Paul himself uses and endorses. We refer readers to more detailed discussions and bibliography under 8:6 and especially 12:3, where “Jesus is Lord” assumes the dimension of a confessional formula or creed. There also it is both a truth-claim and a self-involving personal attitude of trust. The person who makes this confession belongs to Christ and is “his man” or “his woman.” On the centrality of this title for Paul, Dunn elucidates various constructive comments.

robrecht
01-08-2017, 09:20 AM
And we should trust you over Zerwick/BDAG, because...?

Because Paul did not worship Caesar Augustus as God by calling upon him. What Zerwick offers is an interpretation of the text, not a requirement of the grammar. This thread is in the Biblical Languages section.

In Hope,

Elpis.
I was asking for your credentials, not your crackpot analysis.John does not want this to be a debate thread, and I suspect he wants pointless bickering or name calling even less. John's original post already included the fact that ἐπικαλέω literally means 'to call upon'. I suggest another thread, either here in Biblical Languages or in a theology forum, would be a more appropriate place to carry on the wider debate about the potential christological and trinitarian implications of Paul's use of this verb here.

John Reece
01-08-2017, 09:33 AM
John does not want this to be a debate thread, and I suspect he wants pointless bickering or name calling even less. John's original post already included the fact that ἐπικαλέω literally means 'to call upon'. I suggest another thread, either here in Biblical Languages or in a theology forum, would be a more appropriate place to carry on the wider debate about the potential christological and trinitarian implications of Paul's use of this verb here.

Thanks, robrecht, but this has already gone too far to switch to another thread ― I have just spent an entire morning responding to Elpis; see the last post of page one, and critique it, of you see any error in it.

To all readers: please follow robrecht's helpful counsel above in the future, and let this be a one-off exception for educational purposes.

Thanks again, robrecht!

robrecht
01-08-2017, 09:36 AM
Thanks, robrecht, but this has already gone too far to switch to another thread ― I have just spent an entire morning responding to Elpis; see the last post of page one, and critique it, of you see any error in it.

To all readers: please follow robrecht's helpful counsel above in the future, and let this be a one-off exception for educational purposes.

Thanks again, robrecht!I just saw your response after I posted. Thanks again for all of your patient dedication to the original languages of our holy scriptures!

John Reece
01-08-2017, 09:46 AM
I just saw your response after I posted. Thanks again for all of your patient dedication to the original languages of our holy scriptures!

My great pleasure!

:thumb:

Elpis
01-08-2017, 10:14 AM
I appreciate your irenic spirit, and I acknowledge that the definition of ἐπικαλέω and its semantic range that you cite is accurate as far as it goes. I thank you for alerting me to the need to explain to you what you are not understanding.

Have you read Semantics of New Testament Greek by J.P. Louw, wherein he says (page 52) "with regard to exegesis it is clear that one has to start, not with the translation equivalent [which you, Elpis, are doing] but with the meaning based on what is implied by the context"?

Zerwick's primary frame of reference in terms of context is the usage in the OT of יהוה = the personal name of the God of Israel = Yahweh/LORD ― which in 1 Cor 1:2 is used in relation to Jesus.

Anthony C. Thiselton in his extensive New International Greek Testament Commentary captures the sense of the meaning of the word in its context. His orientation in the context is in harmony with the meaning as expressed by Maximillian Zerwick in A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, whence the quote that you have challenged.

This is from Anthony C. Thiselton in The Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Eerdmans, 2000) (45 footnotes omitted):


Addressees (1:2)

2.... The genitive in the phrase τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, of God, τοῦ θεοῦ is possessive. From Chrysostom onward this assertion has been urged on the basis of language, but it also anticipates more recent work on social relations at Corinth. Chrysostom observes that the church is the possession “not ‘of this person or that person’ but of God.” The church does not “belong” to some local leader, group, or party, but is God’s. Meyer construes the grammatical form as “genitive of the owner,” followed by Edwards (“genitive of possession”), Robertson and Plummer, and Wendland. More recently a number of writers who have adopted sociological or socio-rhetorical approaches to the epistle propose that Paul’s chief concern arose from the undue influence of patrons or of “the strong,” who exercised power on the basis of “wisdom” or of social status, and behaved as if they “owned” the church. This verse may begin an overture to this repeated theme. The church, Paul insists, belongs not to the wealthy, or to “patrons,” or to some self-styled inner circle of “spiritual people who manifest gifts,” but to God. Both Paul and local patrons or “spirituals” are accountable to God. The church is God’s growing “field,” God’s planned “construction,” God’s inner shrine (1 Cor 3:9, where θεοῦ, of God, stands three times in an emphatic word order). Karl Barth captures the tone magnificiently: “The main defect” at Corinth was the belief of the addressees “not in God, but in their own belief in God and in particular leaders.” Barth’s theological exegesis and Theissen’s social-science approach point in the same direction here as the exegesis of Schrage, Strobel, and Wendland. The church does not “belong” to any of its in-groups or leaders, but to God.

Regarding τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, Bengel drily speaks of the “paradox” of a church which is simultaneously of God and, of all places, at Corinth: laetum et ingens paradoxon! We should not make an issue out of the redundant dative singular present participle τῇ οὔσῃ. The idiom occurs widely in hellenistic Greek, and with ὑπάρχω even in classical Greek. Nevertheless Collins (as if in response to Bengel) argues that the participle is “not merely a copulative: it is a statement of existence as such. The church of God actually exists in Corinth.”However in a comment which has become notorious K. L. Schmidt sought to make particular play of this construction and this verse to support a “universal” as against a “congregational” doctrine of the church in Paul. He insists: “The sum of the individual congregations does not produce the total community of the church. Each community, how ever small, represents the total community of the Church. This is supported by 1 Cor 1:2; τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ . . . τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ . . . true rendering here is not ‘the Corinthian congregation’ but ‘the congregation, church, assembly, as it is in Corinth.’”

Schmidt overinterprets the grammar and exaggerates the implications of this verse. However, his faulty method may or may not invalidate his conclusions, since he also addresses wider considerations. An immediate allusion to all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place (v. 2) reinforces the thought that the church in Corinth is not a self-contained autonomous entity: they are not a self-sufficient community; they are not the only pebble on the beach. Their lifestyle and practices are monitored by translocal “fellow workers” of Paul’s (notably by Timothy, 1 Cor. 4:17), and they are required to follow patterns of thought and lifestyle which characterize traditions or “order” (διατάσσομαι) “in all the churches” (ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις, 1 Cor 7:17).89 The importance of “order” (τάγμα) is seen not only from ecclesiology (τάξις, 14:40) but also from Christology and especially eschatology (15:23–24; cf. 27–28).

Holmberg shows how in the Pauline churches networks of authority combine genuine leadership with genuine mutuality across local congregations and thus ensure a recognizable order, identity, and stability in a pluralistic society. By contrast, in Corinth people wanted, even demanded, “the right to choose” (ἐξουσία, 8:9; πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν, 6:12; 10:23; see under 6:12 and 8:7–13). This obsession with autonomy colored both individual and corporate aspirations. Yet the notion of each community as an internally self-contained autonomous democracy finds no place in Pauline theology. Hence Paul will shortly ask indignantly: Has Christ been apportioned out or “parceled out” (μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός; 1:13) into autonomous groups? It is possible to speak of the “catholicity” of the church of Paul’s day, as well as its diversity. For its networks and shared commonality in Christ, in the gospel, and in a common apostolic witness to Christ amounted to more than a loose federation of autonomous communities. Whether a given local group genuinely reflects Christ and the apostolic gospel is not left to be determined by criteria internal to the group in question, but also relates to translocal counterchecks such as the apostles, Paul’s fellow workers, and creeds, practices, and traditions followed in all the churches. Today the notion of criteria internal to “local” or “ethnocentric” communities brings us to the heart of the global debate about so-called postmodernity.

We should also be cautious about overinterpreting the word church, ἐκκλησία. Hodge (1858) drew on word history to claim that the church is “called out from the world” (ἐκ-καλέω). But the word was used in classical Greek to denote an assembly to which townspeople were “called” from their homes by a herald’s cry or trumpet. It is often argued that the NT writers inherited the word later as the LXX translation of the Hebrew קהל (qahal). Although Hatch-Redpath cite sixty-six examples, Schrage argues that the LXX background does not fully account for the NT uses of ἐκκλησία, and returns to the Greek origins of the word.Whatever the origin, the word stresses the call to assemble together as a congregation in God’s presence.

Paul applies the cognate terms related to ἅγιος, holy, twice here: sanctified, called to be holy people, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κλητοῖς ίοις. The words translated sanctified and holy derive from the verbal and adjectival cognate forms: (1) ιάζειν, to dedicate, to set apart, to make holy, to consecrate (cf. ἡγιασμένοις, perfect passive); and (2) ἅγιος, holy person, one dedicated and set apart to God. The latter may signify both status or role and character. Hence saints are those set apart as God’s own, and ideally holy in life, as a habituated pattern which has become reflected in a settled character.

The Greek again reflects an LXX translation, this time of the Hebrew קדוש (qadosh), which means separate or set apart in contrast to being in common use. The people of God and the things of God reflect their special status as serving God, who is awesomely Other, transcendent in majesty and purity. In this sense of the word, “Holiness is received, not achieved.” Even if this phrase were to be suspected of being a scribal insertion (which, we noted, is an extremely unlikely conjecture), Paul expresses this same thought in 1 Cor 6:11: you have been washed, you were sanctified (ἡγιάσθητε). The comparison with 6:11, however, does reveal one difference: the perfect passive of ιάζειν in 1:2 denotes a past event with present effects which remain, whereas the aorist passive of the same verb in 6:11 may bring into focus more specifically the transitional and transformative event of the readers’ coming to faith as an event of divine call.

Should ἐν be translated here as in (above, together with Barrett, REB, NRSV, ASV, NJB, AV/KJV, NIV) or as by? Paul regularly defines holiness or spirituality especially in this epistle in christological terms. The readers’ status as those who belong to God and are called to live out this godly holiness derives from their being-in-Christ. On grammatical grounds alone ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ could be translated sanctified by Christ Jesus, since ἐν followed by the dative case may include the notion of instrumentality. But elsewhere Paul places strong theological emphasis on being-in-Christ as a concept of corporate status which provides the ground for Christian life and destiny. The translation sanctified in Christ Jesus takes up this wider context. Thus Goodspeed translates ἐν as by union with Christ Jesus. Certainly ἐν with a dative of persons is broader than agency or instrumentality alone, often denoting mode, personal presence, or a close personal relation. What counts as holy is perceived as what counts as Christ-like. Hence, just as Christ assumes the form of the “image” of God in public (εἰκών, 1 Cor 15:49), so a holy people manifest their consecration to God through the status and character which they derive from Christ.

The plural form of the dative participle ἡγιασμένοις, to those sanctified, provides an epexegetical gloss on the earlier singular form, to the church. The change from the singular to the plural is noteworthy. The singular stresses the solidarity of the readers as one united corporate entity; the plural calls attention to the individual responsibility of each member to live out his or her consecrated status in Christ. (See further under the exegesis of 12:12–27.)

Just as Paul is called to apostolic witness, so every Christian believer is called to be holy. Because this call is to every Christian, Fee observes, the traditional translation saints “contains too many misleading connotations to be of value.” J. W. C. Wand offers a memorable question: “Are only good people to be recognized as members of the divine society. . . ? Is the Church a museum for saints or a school for sinners?” Nevertheless, just as Joshua was called to “possess” the land because he already “possessed” it as a divine gift (Josh 1:11–12), so believers are called to a lifestyle which reflects their already given status. Hence the theological and ethical make contact in this phrase in 1:2.99 Calvin comments that the call is “to blamelessness of life,” but “here God begins his work . . . and brings it to completion little by little.” The Corinthians, Paul repeatedly stressed, were far from having “arrived” (cf. 4:8–13, esp. 8b).

Paul now associates the other churches with Corinth: σὺν πασιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, αὐτῳν καὶ ἡμῶν. Our translation (above) unavoidably presupposes a particular interpretation of theirs and ours (αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν). Some ancient and modern commentators construe the meaning on the basis of the word order to mean in their place and in our place, applying it to place rather than to Lord. Thus Chrysostom understands Paul to mean that Christ remains the one Lord of those separated in different places: “One place helps them [has the effect of making them] not to be of one mind,” but “though the place be separate, the Lord binds them together.” The Vulgate follows this path: in omni loco ipsorum et nostro. Cyril, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius and Thomas Aquinas read the particle τε after αὐτῶν, which Allo believes would then add a degree of strength to this possibility.

Findlay, however, describes this whole approach, in spite of the word order, as “strained in various ways.” The key point is that the Corinthians, or at least those who cause the problems which Paul addresses, are self-absorbed and self-centered. They think and act as if they had a monopoly on Christ and the Spirit. They tend broadly to match the target of Nietzsche’s telling aphorism: “The ‘salvation of the soul’, . . . in plain English ‘the world revolves round me’.” Jesus Christ is not the exclusive “Lord” who serves only the interests of some specific group. He may indeed include them within wider Lordship, but he remains “both their Lord and ours.” Anecdotal tradition tells how C. H. Spurgeon handled a similar problem when a self-centered church leader claimed his attention by insisting that he came as “the Lord’s messenger.” Spurgeon is said to have sent back the message that “he regrets that he is currently engaged with the Lord.” In the sense conveyed by the anecdote, Christ is their Lord and ours.

The phrase all who call on the name of our Lord comes directly from Joel 3:5 (cf. Ps 98:6), from which it is taken up in Rom 10:13 and Acts 2:21. The LXX of Joel 3:5 reads πας ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται, which is identical to Paul’s quotation in Rom 10:13, and the vocabulary of the shorter phrase in 1 Cor 1:2 remains the same, allowing for the grammatical variations imposed by the context of reference. The allusion to the day of the Lord in 1:7–8 makes the allusion to Joel all the more probable. Moffatt translates “invoke the name of the Lord,” since the phrase ἐπικάλειν, “to call on” or “to invoke” (the gods) represents a standard phrase for the activity of worshipers toward their gods in classical and hellenistic Greek literature from Plato to Epictetus. Thus Epictetus speaks of avoiding a task “except after invoking Demeter” (εἰ μὴ τὴν Δήμητρα ἐπικαλεσάμενοι). If we place together the range of meanings of ἐπικαλεῖν in the LXX, the NT, the papyri, and the early Fathers, as well as the wider background in hellenistic literature, it becomes beyond doubt that “to call on the Lord” is to perform a self-involving commissive speech-act: Schrage calls it an “acclamation” performed as an “act.” It signals an act of appeal and request which is simultaneously an act of commitment and trust on the part of the worshiper.

This explains why Paul can regard calling on the name of our Lord in 1:2 and confessing “Jesus is Lord” (Κύριος Ἰησοῦς) in 1 Cor 12:3 as the sign and test of what it is to be a Christian believer. It is not a matter of aiming appeals to a deity from some neutral stance; that does not capture the force of either ἐπικαλεῖν, “to call on,” as Κύριος, “Lord.” Weiss asserts that what Lord “means in a practical religious sense will best be made clear through the correlative concept of ‘servant’ or ‘slave’ of Christ (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 7:22–23; Gal 1:10; Phil 1:1; Col 4:12).” Bultmann similarly observes that only this self-involving dimension offers a sense of freedom. If “slaves” place themselves at the disposal of their Lord, their Lord has them in his care and they are no longer their own responsibility, but trustfully call on the name of [the] Lord. Such a person “lets this care go, yielding himself entirely to the grace of God.” See further especially under 8:6 and 12:3. Combes notes the use of the correlative slave-Lord in a “positive” sense in 6:20, Rom 14:7–8, 14; 2 Cor 5:15.

Paul uses Joel’s phrase the name of the Lord. The name of the Lord stands as the guarantee that God’s acts in and through Christ will accord with the revelation of his character as hitherto disclosed. Name in the OT often signifies character, position, and especially reputation. When Moses asked God’s name (Exod 3:13) the LXX rendering “I am who I am” is probably better rendered on the basis of the Hebrew grammatical form “I will be who I will be” (3:14), i.e., you will see what constitutes my name by the sovereign and redeeming acts which I shall perform, and which will thereby disclose my identity in terms of character. When Psalmists praise the name of the Lord (Ps 9:2), this constitutes a recital of the saving acts which build his reputation and disclose his character: “Those who know your name put their trust in you” (Ps 9:10; cf. vv. 3–9 and Ps 20:1, 5, 7). Hence to call on the name of the Lord, partly in Joel, but more fully here, means not to invoke some shadowy, unknown, deity, but to commit oneself in trust to the one whose nature and character have been disclosed as worthy of this trust.

In 1 Cor 1:2 the name of the Lord is applied to our Lord Jesus Christ. This christological application cannot be detached from the utterly familiar tradition that in the LXX κύριος translates and becomes “an expository equivalent for the Divine Name,” both the Hebrew unspoken proper noun יהוה (YHWH, no vowels used) and אדון (ʾadon], lord or אדני (ʾadonai. Cullmann comments, “Adonai was certainly the characteristic Jewish designation for God in the first century before and the first century after Christ.” On the other hand, Paul regularly applies the word κύριος to Christ. Bultmann observes, “For Paul ‘Lord’ and not ‘Christ’ is Jesus’ title.” To proclaim Jesus as Lord (2 Cor 4:5) constitutes what Anderson Scott calls “a summary of Christian preaching.” Scott calls it “the one available profession of faith which Paul requires of a would-be Christian,” and translates Paul’s description of this confession τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως (the word of faith) as “the formula which expresses faith.” Clearly therefore to invoke or to confess Christ as Lord is a commissive act, not a mere intellectual proposition, since Paul makes plain as 1 Corinthians unfolds that salvation entails more than having some correct head content (1 Cor 1:18–25; 8:1, 2; 7–13; and elsewhere. See especially under 8:7–13, on the limits of γνῶσις, “knowledge”).

Paul was not the first to conceive of “invoking Christ as Lord” in prayer, trust, or self-commitment. The Aramaic form Maranatha (Μαράνα θά, 1 Cor 16:22), Our Lord, come (see under 16:22 in the translation), is difficult to explain unless, as Robinson argues, it stems from the early pre-Pauline Aramaic-speaking community. A stronger argument is that such passages as Rom 1:3–4 show every sign of representing pre-Pauline confessions which Paul himself uses and endorses. We refer readers to more detailed discussions and bibliography under 8:6 and especially 12:3, where “Jesus is Lord” assumes the dimension of a confessional formula or creed. There also it is both a truth-claim and a self-involving personal attitude of trust. The person who makes this confession belongs to Christ and is “his man” or “his woman.” On the centrality of this title for Paul, Dunn elucidates various constructive comments.

Thanks for responding and for the (rather long) extract. I think we are agreed that the concept of “worshipping as God” is not inherent in the verb ἐπικαλέω and that such a conclusion is based on context.

I obviously can’t respond to every argument in the extract but I believe the basic issue is the assumption that when OT quotations like “calling on the name of the LORD (YHWH)” are quoted in the NT in relation to Christ, they are identifying Christ as YHWH.

This is problematical because all the NT writers make a distinction between God and Christ (not just between the Father and Christ) - on just about every page.

However, not only does scripture distinguish between God and Christ, it also distinguishes between YHWH and Christ (Messiah). Not least is the fact that it is YHWH who says “I will be to him a father and he shall be to me a Son”. (2 Sam 7 and Heb 1:5)

There is a really good analysis of the use of the term θεος in Murray Harris “Jesus as God”. I realise this is hi-jacking your thread, so if you would be interested in taking this discussion to another thread, I would be happy to dialogue with you on it.

I would suggest the more likely (and scriptural) interpretation is that κυριος, when applied to the Lord (κυριος) Jesus Christ, relates to the Lordship that God bestowed on him (Acts 2:36). After all, this man has been raised to sit at the right hand of God (not just the right hand of the Father) (Acts 2:22.33).

In Hope,

Elpis.

Elpis
01-08-2017, 10:21 AM
John does not want this to be a debate thread, and I suspect he wants pointless bickering or name calling even less. John's original post already included the fact that ἐπικαλέω literally means 'to call upon'. I suggest another thread, either here in Biblical Languages or in a theology forum, would be a more appropriate place to carry on the wider debate about the potential christological and trinitarian implications of Paul's use of this verb here.

Sorry, I didn't see this before I responded to John. I would be happy with your suggestion (though from the Guidelines for this Forum, I understood that this forum was for discussion).

Elpis.

robrecht
01-08-2017, 10:28 AM
Sorry, I didn't see this before I responded to John. I would be happy with your suggestion (though from the Guidelines for this Forum, I understood that it was for discussion).

Elpis.It's really up to John, and no reason to apologize to me. John's threads are rather unique here in that he toils at great length to help others learn the original languages of our holy scriptures. You will find many of his threads making extensive use of basic tools such as Zerwick and BDAG to go through books of the Bible verse by verse. Zerwick is typically used by students of Greek to begin to develop more fluency in reading the New Testament. It is neither authoritative nor comprehensive, but it does allow students to consult on a verse by verse basis vocabulary and grammatical pointers that they may not have learned in an introductory first-year course.

John Reece
01-08-2017, 11:18 AM
Thanks for responding and for the (rather long) extract. I think we are agreed that the concept of “worshipping as God” is not inherent in the verb ἐπικαλέω and that such a conclusion is based on context.

I obviously can’t respond to every argument in the extract but I believe the basic issue is the assumption that when OT quotations like “calling on the name of the LORD (YHWH)” are quoted in the NT in relation to Christ, they are identifying Christ as YHWH.

This is problematical because all the NT writers make a distinction between God and Christ (not just between the Father and Christ) - on just about every page.

However, not only does scripture distinguish between God and Christ, it also distinguishes between YHWH and Christ (Messiah). Not least is the fact that it is YHWH who says “I will be to him a father and he shall be to me a Son”. (2 Sam 7 and Heb 1:5)

There is a really good analysis of the use of the term θεος in Murray Harris “Jesus as God”. I realise this is hi-jacking your thread, so if you would be interested in taking this discussion to another thread, I would be happy to dialogue with you on it.

I would suggest the more likely (and scriptural) interpretation is that κυριος, when applied to the Lord (κυριος) Jesus Christ, relates to the Lordship that God bestowed on him (Acts 2:36). After all, this man has been raised to sit at the right hand of God (not just the right hand of the Father) (Acts 2:22.33).

In Hope,

Elpis.


I am surprised that you insist on debating, despite the fact that I plainly stated in the OP ― and robrecht just now helpfully re-emphasised ― that my threads are not debate threads.

Please do not ever again post in this thread, or in any other of my threads.

I hereby appeal to the moderators to enforce this request.

Elpis
01-08-2017, 03:32 PM
I am surprised that you insist on debating, despite the fact that I plainly stated in the OP ― and robrecht just now helpfully re-emphasised ― that my threads are not debate threads.

Please do not ever again post in this thread, or in any other of my threads.

I hereby appeal to the moderators to enforce this request.

I defer to the original poster will not post in this thread again. It was not my intention to cause offence.

In Hope,

Elpis.

John Reece
01-09-2017, 12:38 AM
I defer to the original poster will not post in this thread again. It was not my intention to cause offence.

In Hope,

Elpis.

Thank you!

שָׁל֨וֹם

John Reece
01-09-2017, 02:48 AM
Text: (NA27):

χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Transliteration (Accordance):

charis hymin kai eirēnē apo theou patros hēmōn kai kyriou Iēsou Christou.

Translation (NRSV):

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):

χάρις : grace ; significantly replacing the usual Greek salutation καίρειν ; χάρις ... εἰρήνη combines and Christianizes Greek and Hebrew greetings καίρειν and שָׁל֨וֹם (shalom)

John Reece
01-10-2017, 08:13 AM
Text: (NA27):

Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῇ χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ δοθείσῃ ὑμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

Transliteration (Accordance):

Eucharistō tō̧ theō̧ mou pantote peri hymōn epi tȩ̄ chariti tou theou tȩ̄ dotheisȩ̄ hymin en Christō̧ Iēsou

Translation (NRSV):

I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that has been given you in Christ Jesus

Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):

εὐχαριστέω (τινί) : thank (one), give thanks.
μου : my.
πάντοτε : at all times.
ἐπί : for, with dative indicating the ground for thanksgiving.
δοθείσῃ : aorist passive participle of δίδωμι give.

John Reece
01-11-2017, 08:25 AM
Text: (NA27):

ὅτι ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτίσθητε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ καὶ πάσῃ γνώσει

Transliteration (Accordance):

hoti en panti eploutisthēte en autō̧, en panti logō̧ kai pasȩ̄ gnōsei

Translation (NRSV):

for in every way you have been enriched in him, in speech and knowledge of every kind―

Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):

παντί : everything.
ἐπλουτίσθητε : aorist passive of πλουτίζω enrich.
ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ : in all (= every kind of) speech (see chapters 12-14) or λόγος might denote the word of God, revelation, in which case λόγος καὶ γνῶσις might mean "knowledge of revealed truth".
γνῶσις : knowledge.

John Reece
01-12-2017, 03:02 AM
Text: (NA27):

καθὼς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐβεβαιώθη ἐν ὑμῖν

Transliteration (Accordance):

kathōs to martyrion tou Christou ebebaiōthē en hymin

Translation (NRSV):

―just as the testimony of Christ has been strengthened among you—

Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):

καθώς : causal for.
μαρτύριον : testimony, here that borne to Christ in Christian preaching.
ἐβεβαιώθη : aorist passive of βεβαιόω make firm (βέβαιος), confirm.

John Reece
01-13-2017, 04:16 AM
Text: (NA27):

ὥστε ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι ἀπεκδεχομένους τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Transliteration (Accordance):

hōste hymas mē hystereisthai en mēdeni charismati apekdechomenous tēn apokalypsin tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou

Translation (NRSV):

so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):

ὑστερεῖσθαι : passive infinitive of ὑστερέω lack, ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν be lacking in.
χάρισμα : gift of grace for the benefit of the community.
ἀπεκδεχομένους : participle of ἀπεκδέχομαι await.
ἀποκάλυψις : (< ἀποκαλύπτω un-cover) revelation.

John Reece
01-14-2017, 04:35 AM
Text: (NA27):

ὃς καὶ βεβαιώσει ὑμᾶς ἕως τέλους ἀνεγκλήτους ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ [Χριστοῦ].

Transliteration (Accordance):

hos kai bebaiōsei hymas heōs telous anegklētous en tȩ̄ hēmera̧ tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou [Christou].

Translation (NRSV):

He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):

βεβαιώσει : future of βεβαιόω to make a person firm in commitment, establish, strengthen.
τέλος : end.
ἀνεγκλήτους : (ἀν- privitive* + ἐγκαλέω accuse) irreproachable.
ἐν : on.
τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ [Χριστοῦ] : ** see comment below in NIGTC The First Epistle to the Corinthians, by Anthony C. Thiselton (Eerdmans, 2000).

*(Zerwick) Privative: term used of the ἀ- which denies the presence of the quality or substance denoted by the word following. ἀ privilege has been taken over into the English language in such words as a-moral, a-septic, a-theist. When prefixed to words beginning with a vowel (both in Greek and in English) it becomes ἀν-, an-aemic, an-archist, an-onymous.
**(Thiselton) The end, ἕως τέλους, clearly corresponds to the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. The eschatological context confirms the temporal reference, as against Schatter’s adverbial interpretation completely. Von der Osten-Sacken and Roberts note that in four cases (1 Cor 1:7–8; Phil 1:10; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Thess 1:6–10) an eschatological theme provides the transition into the main body of the letter. Paul assures the readers that at the last day they will be free from any charge, ἀνεγκλήτους. The Greek carries a range of meanings: blameless, irreproachable, and unimpeachable. In Oxyrhynchus Papyri of AD 20–50 a woman who has been deserted by her husband claims that she is blameless. This well exemplifies the meaning that no charge can be brought by way of accusation. This applies to the time which leads up to the day of the Lord as well as to being presented free from any charge on the day itself. Hence the word here belongs to the semantic domain of accusation and declarative verdict. Robertson and Plummer rightly translate unimpeachable, but Edwards’s free from any charge is a simpler form. Fee tends to merge the issue into questions about the Corinthians’ blameless “behavior.” But the primary emphasis falls upon the verdictive nature of the word. God pronounces a verdict; issues of the human moral condition remain secondary.

The final verdict occurs ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ [Χριστοῦ]. Paul transfers to Christ language about the day of the Lord in Old Testament traditions (e.g., Amos 5:18 and Zeph 1:14–18; cf. Rom 13:12). This is portrayed in the OT as a day of judgment. But this is not a matter only of rewards or penalties. As the righteous judge God puts all things right. This has a social as well as a forensic dimension, both reversing the fortunes of the wicked and vindicating the cry of the oppressed. But it is also forensic and personal: a public declaration of the verdict unimpeachable, i.e., of justification by grace. This can be anticipated by grace through appropriation (i.e., by faith), even in the present. Justification is an anticipation in advance of the verdict pronounced on the day of the Lord, in the faith-understanding that God keeps them firm and free from any charge up to and on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is extraordinarily wooden for Bultmann to claim that Paul inconsistently sees now God as judge, now Christ as judge. If the language oscillates, this is because the work of salvation is (here) a joint work, which later emerges as a trinitarian work. The main point is that as night dissolves into day (Rom 13:12) the hidden will become publicly visible and all that is wrong or that disrupts intimacy with God will be set right. It is unfortunate that the very clarity of this theme in Romans has tended to distract attention from its prominence in our epistle. The verdictive character of justification by grace is underlined by the role of definitive judgment on the day of the Lord in the OT, apocalyptic, and the NT.

John Reece
01-15-2017, 09:17 AM
Text: (NA27):

πιστὸς ὁ θεός, δι᾿ οὗ ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.

Transliteration (Accordance):

pistos ho theos, di’ hou eklēthēte eis koinōnian tou huiou autou Iēsou Christou tou kyriou hēmōn.

Translation (NRSV):

God is faithful; by him you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):

πιστός : faithful, to be relied on.
διά : here of principle cause.
ἐκλήθητε : aorist passive of καλέω call.
κοινωνία (τινός) : communion/fellowship with (one).

John Reece
01-16-2017, 04:46 AM
Text: (NA27):

Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες καὶ μὴ ᾖ ἐν ὑμῖν σχίσματα, ἦτε δὲ κατηρτισμένοι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ νοῒ καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ.

Transliteration (Accordance):

Parakalō de hymas, adelphoi, dia tou onomatos tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou, hina to auto legēte pantes kai mē ȩ̄ en hymin schismata, ēte de katērtismenoi en tō̧ autō̧ noi kai en tȩ̄ autȩ̄ gnōmȩ̄.

Translation (NRSV):

Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.

Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):

Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος : I appeal to you in the name of... i.e. with the authority of...Jesus Christ.
ἵνα : for infinitive.
τὸ αὐτό : the same ; here with one voice, i.e. in harmony.
λέγητε : subjunctive of λέγω to express oneself orally or in written form, utter in words, say, tell, give expression to.
ᾖ, ἦτε : subjunctive of εἰμί be, exist.
σχίσμα : (< σχίζω split, tear apart) division.
κατηρτισμένοι : perfect passive participle of καταρτίζω fit together ; put in order ; complete, κατηρτισμένοι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ consolidated in identity of...and of...
νοῦς, νοός, νοΐ, νοῦν, ὁ : mind.
γνώμη : opinion ; purpose ; resolve.

John Reece
01-17-2017, 08:38 AM
Text: (NA27):

ἐδηλώθη γάρ μοι περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί μου, ὑπὸ τῶν Χλόης ὅτι ἔριδες ἐν ὑμῖν εἰσιν.

Transliteration (Accordance):

edēlōthē gar moi peri hymōn, adelphoi mou, hypo tōn Chloēs hoti erides en hymin eisin.

Translation (NRSV):

For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters.

Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):

ἐδηλώθη : aorist passive of δηλόω make clear (δῆλος), reveal.
οἱ Χλόης : those of Chloe's household.
ἔρις, -ιδος, ἡ : rivalry.