[B-Greek] Ephesians 5:5 "TOU XRISTOU KAI QEOU"
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at juno.com
Sun Jul 3 04:24:28 EDT 2005
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:20:29 +0000 kgraham0938 at comcast.net writes:
> You wrote:
> > In Ephesians 5:5 we have this phrase "OUK EXEI KLHRONOMIAN EN TH
> > TOU XRISTOU KAI QEOU."
> > My question is the construction of two nouns with one article at
> the end.
> > How much weight should we put on this when
> > translating it.that is can we say that this supports the deity of
> > XRISTOU.does KAI here mean 'EVEN' because of the
> > lack of an article with QEOU? Is that a reasonable option? Why or
> why not?
> > I have toyed with translating this phrase.
> Response: I think this particular passage would not fit within the
> Granville Sharp Rule because I think XRISTOU is a proper name. So
> that would go outside the criteria for the Granville construction.
> You go on to say...
> > Doesn't have an inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ who is God.
> > .Christ, even God. What thinkest thou?
> Response: No, I think it would simply be " in the Kingdom of Christ
> and God. Then you write....
> > A second question on the same verse relates to the idiomatic
> Hebrewism? (is
> > that the right spelling?) Expressed in TOUTO GAR
> > ISTE GINWSKONTES Can someone explain to me the concept of an
> > infinitive from Hebrew and how it shapes the
> > meaning here? I know nada in Hebrew and cannot find this in my key
> > grammars.
> > Thank you gentlemen!!
> Response: Well, this is similar to the infinitive absolute. If you
> look at 1 Sam 26:25 it reads " gam `asah ta`asah.
> What you have is the first word is an infinitive, written as the
> root alone, and the second form is a prefix form of the same verb;
> together they form an emphatic phrase. And you'd translate this as
> 'surely' plus the meaning of the verb.
> This is similar to the Hebrew except it does not involve an
> infinitive, but I think the affect is the same.
> Kelton Graham
You are correct in stating that the Granville Sharp rule does not apply
to proper nouns. The question remains, however, whether XRISTOS in its
various cases is a proper noun. When combined with IHSOUS, it would seem
that it must be taken as a PN, but otherwise (as here) that is unclear.
Ps 2 was understood as a messianic psalm though it referred to originally
to the king of Judah.
PARESTHSAN hOI BASILEIS THW GHS, KAI hOI ARXONTES SUNHXQHSAN EPI TO AUTO
KATA TOU KURIOU KAI KATA TOU XRISTOU AUTOU. Ps 2.2
Here there is a repetition of the article which makes it clear that it
does not come under Granville Sharp and that two "individuals" are in
view. It is thus a common noun "anointed one." This is even more
pointed in Mt 22.41-42
 SUNHGMENWN DE TWN FARISAIWN EPHRWTHSEN AUTOUS hO IHSOUS  LEGWN,
"TI hUMIN DOKEI PERI TOU XRISTOU? TINOS hUIOS ESTIN?
It is rather inconceivable that Jesus would here be directly asking the
Pharisees "What do you think of me?" The Pharisees indicate that they in
no way consider his question to be regarding himself by replying simply
LEGOUSIN AUTWi, "TOU DAUID."
While it became in time common to simply refer to Jesus as "Christ", the
question is, "Does our author use this as a proper or a common noun"?
Due to questions regarding whether Ephesians is truly from the pen of
Paul, I hesitate to refer to other Pauline works. There are 46
occurences of XRISTOS in Ephesians (again, in various cases). Many of
these are paired with IHSOUS (I haven't bothered to check precisely how
many). Offhand, It would appear that he equates IHSOUS = XRISTOS in
which case it might be used as a PN, but this should be further examined.
More information about the B-Greek