EPHESIANS 1.4,5

Esteban Otero oterofamily4 at msn.com
Sat Jan 11 21:19:30 EST 2003




4)KAQWS EXELEXATO hHMAS EN AUTW PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU EINAI hHMAS hAGIOUS KAI 
AMWMOUS KATENWPION AUTOU EN AGAPH 5)PROORISAS hHMAS EIS UIOQESIONDIA IHSOU 
CRISTOU EIS AUTON KATA THN EUDOKIANTOU QELHMATOS AUTOU

My questions are in regards to the EINAI clause and its relationship between 
EXELEXATO and PROORISAS.

First, is the EINAI clause a (1)purpose/intended result clause (somewhat 
epexegetical) or (2)the continued object of EXELEXATO (viewing PRO KATABOLHS 
KOSMOU as parenthetical? Let me give a couple of translations to illustrate 
in case my question isn't clear.

1) even as he selected us for himself before the foundation of the world, in 
order that/for the purpose of we might be/us being holy and blameless in his 
presence

2) even as he selected us for himself, before the foundation of the world, 
to be holy and blameless in his presence

The reasons for my confusion are these:
1) if the first hHMAS is the primary object of EXELEXATO and the EINAI 
clause is a purpose/intended result/epexegetical clause then PROORISAS hHMAS 
seems to make the first hHMAS redundant as the primary object. The hHMAS of 
PROORISAS seems to be the primary deictic indicator of person, i.e. object 
of the whole thought clause, since PROORISAS is an aorist participle 
antecedent in time to EXELEXATO (I think). If PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU is taken 
parenthetically, can the hHMAS of the EINAI clause be taken as an expressed 
resumptive indicicator (basically serving to connect EXELEXATO hHMAS with 
EINAI hHMAS ...)? This would make the object of God's selection our being 
holy and blameless as opposed to us being something else. I don't know if 
that is valid.

2) On the other hand, all the works I have consulted (including Louw & 
Nida's offered translations) as well as every translation I've looked at 
take the EINAI clause as purpose, etc. If I am wrong about the relationship 
of PROORISAS with EXELEXATO, and verse 4 can be taken "absolutely", then it 
makes good sense to view the EINAI clause as purpose.

  Lastly, I think it makes good sense to take EN AUTW to mean "for himself" 
almost as a way of further expressing the middle of EXELEXATO. Robertson 
discusses this a bit. Also, a while back Mike Sangrey offered the 
possibility of reading IN CRISTW as "with respect to Christ" due to seeing 
EN as merely highlighting the personal aspect of the dative form. Is this a 
valid translation.

Sorry for the length. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Esteban Otero
Tampa, FL

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963




More information about the B-Greek mailing list