The genitive case delimits or describes things. As
William D. Chamberlain explains:
"The genitive case, hH GENNHTIKH PTWSIS (Lat. CASUS GENITIVUS), is
primarily the 'describing' case. Its function is adjectival. In fact,
comparative grammar shows that this usage is older than the adjective"
(An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 29).
Daniel B. Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 78-88) relates that in the case of the attributive genitive, "The genitive
substantive specifies an attribute or innate quality of the head
substantive. It is similar to a simple adjective in its semantic force,
though more emphatic: it 'expresses quality like an adjective indeed,
but with more sharpness and distinctness.' "
The last part of that quote is taken from A.T. Robertson's "big grammar."
As Wallace points out, the genitive itself (whether possessive or descriptive, etc.) is grammatically substantival, but semantically adjectival; that is, the genitive functions like an adjective, although it is formally a substantive (i.e., a noun case).
See https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/goodell/genitive
Compare J.H. Greenlees, "The Genitive Case in the New Testament." The Asbury Seminarian: Vol. 5: No. 3, p. 108-109.
https://place.asburyseminary.edu/asburyjournal/vol5/iss3/10/
Saturday, February 25, 2023
How the Genitive Case Works in Greek
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
yet they try to negate all of this in Col 1:15.. (from my understanding)
Admittedly, the genitive has many uses/functions, and Trinitarians (at least, some) try to construe Col. 1:15 as a genitive of subordination. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/06/genitive-of-subordination-question-i.html
like John 17:5, I would like another example of where that is the case, or where another genitive is rendered "over" instead of "of" or sometimes "by"
A website called "Examining the trinity" brings up some good points on this
Some attempt to treat Rev. 1:5 as a genitive of subordination. I'm not convinced and Carl Conrad sounded like he found the genitive of subordination a little suspect too.
I like Examining the Trinity. Read it many times before.
Rev 1:5 is abit far fetched.. So Jesus was never dead? Jesus is ruler over the kings of the earth? yeah but "of" means the same.. (not sure to which genitive you refer)
My point on John 17:3 was that trinitarians claim that Jesus doesnt exlcude himself or the holy spirit when he calls his Father "ton monon aletheion theon" - Im still waiting to this day for a trinitarian to cite me another example where someone else is addressed as "only true" or "true" and means to include themselves.
As that website points out they have very few examples to cite - Lesriv Spencer (paper I showed earlier in our conversation on scholars) would also agree.
They accept that Jesus was dead, but I've also seen some translate "ruler over the kings of the earth." Not saying I agree; I'm actually suspicious of the idea. But keep in mind that the genitive case can function different ways.
I concur with you about John 17:3. Their reasoning is farfetched
"So Jesus was never dead?" - same genitive as creation, why can they accept one and not the other is my question (to them) yes genetives can work differently but still come on
in teh context of "kings" doesnt "over" or "of" mean the same thing? would you even say "over" is a valid translation for a genitive? (even tho they can work in a variety of ways)
I've checked numerous older Greek grammars and have yet to find the genitive of subordination in any grammar besides Wallace. If someone knows an earlier reference, please tell me. But some do argue for the genitive of subordination in Colossians 1:15 and Rev. 1:5. I'm not saying Trinitarians are consistent, but they could argue that Jesus died, but he is lord of the dead.
Imo, "over" makes the thought more explicit rather than the translation, ruler of the kings of the earth. The word "of" is ambiguous in English, but to answer your last question, using "over" for the genitive is suspect to me.
I think Wallace "invented" it
I heard about it originally I think in a WT publication.. In my opinion they should add little bits of how Hebrew and Greek when it would be beneficial.
Not sure if when answering you go really technical, but I bet you could
I supposed they could argue that he is lord of the(literal) dead but only in some vague,tortured allegorical way
Luke ch.20:38"He is not the God of the (literal)dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”"
Anonymous, that is what I'm suggesting about the genitive of subordination being "suspect." It seems to be an invention by Wallace. However, I still search from time to time, trying to ascertain if anyone before him said any such thing.
Most of my answers are either brief or revolve around the practical application of a verse. I rarely make any technical comments.
servant, it is hard for them to deny that Christ is Lord of the dead and living if they claim to be Bible adherents. They at least give the description lip service:
Romans 14:9 (ESV): For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Acts 10:42 (NASB): And He ordered us to preach to the people, and to testify solemnly that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.
2 Timothy 4:1 (NASB): I solemnly exhort you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom
Revelation 1:5 (NET Bible): and from Jesus Christ--the faithful witness, the firstborn from among the dead, the ruler over the kings of the earth. To the one who loves us and has set us free from our sins at the cost of his own blood
But he needs to resurrect them prior to exercising Lordship over them does he not. So in a prophetic sense he could be considered Lord of the resurrected dead. Just as JEHOVAH could prophetically declare himself God of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob due to absolute certainty of their resurrection.
Isaiah ch.26:19 English Standard Bible "Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.
You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a dew of light,
and the earth will give birth to the dead."
Daniel ch.12:2ESV" many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."
Wallace's argument with regards to Colossians 1:15 is quite bad. He basically explicitly brings in theological considerations, the same with John 1:1. He also completely ignores how the metaphor of firstborn actually works in terms of the genitive (i.e. the familial genetive, a category he includes in his analysis of the genitive form.
A good excercise is to go over all the examples of a genitive of subordination and see if the one being subordinated to is categorically excluded from that which is subordinated (it isn't), and see if one could translate the genitive with an "of" (you can).
Servant: I see what you're stating and agree although it also seems to me, and I could be wrong, that Jesus starting being Lord of the dead and the living (and vice versa) once he was raised from the dead. But the situation does appear to be similar to Jehovah being God of the dead, who are living to him.
One ting that influences my thinking on this matter is that the apostles identify Jesus as the Lord of dead and living ones (present tense) but I concede that the ultimate fulfillment has to occur with resurrected ones from the dead.
Roman: I like your test for the genitive of subordination. Check the older grammars; if you can find it there, I will ingratiate myself to you :-)
You know more than I do how Trinitarians treat "firstborn" in Col. 1:15. They will argue vehemently that firstborn does not mean he's part of creation or that he was ever "born" unless they posit an eternal birth for Jesus.
Fair enough.
But to get back to what form a trinitarian acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord of the dead might take. With the exception of a vanishingly tiny minority of conditionalists/annihilationists death means something very different to the average trinitarian than our understanding of the bible's portrayal of death.
Yes indeed. I saw something about this issue the other day. They want to insist that "death" refers to the body, but the soul continues to survive. There are variants on this teaching. However, most try to argue that the dead are conscious, just maybe limited in perception or awareness. You might remember how the Living Bible argues that Solomon was giving his opinion about death in Eccl. 9:5.
See http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-445X2021000100014
Article about Romans 14:9
This article reminds me, in light of 1 Peter, that the living and dead may be a reference to one's spiritual state too. Ephesians 2:1-3.
Exactly. This to brings us to the issue of the small but growing number of Trinitarians who are conditionalists/annihilationists.
A number of their fellow Trinitarians are insisting that two notions are simply not compatible. Especially many see an issue regarding the death of Christ who after all is supposedly the God-man
1Peter4:6 ch.4:6NIV"For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit."
But note even here there is an attempt to imply a hard reductive dualism rather than the soft dualism the scriptures favour.
Most of the Trinitarians will likely find a way to balance the Trinity, hard reductive dualism, and the Incarnatio Christi. Over the last few months, Ive read more than one defense of the Trinity, which is paired with the Incarnation doctrine, and it's hard to see them casting away belief in souls that continue to live after death. On the other hand, I agree that there will always be Trinitarians who propose new ideas like NT Wright does.
I think both the conditionalists and the traditionalists have some hard questions to deal with regarding the incarnation but the conditionalists perhaps(it's not straightforward of course) have the more difficult task in that there is no afterlife you either exists or you don't. But as the white queen in Lewis Carroll's Alice through the looking glass put it all you need to believe the impossible is practice.
I need to look more into what the conditionalists contend regarding the incarnation, but are you saying they believe or suggest that the God-man ceased to exist when he died? Thanks.
A saying that to be consistent they would need claim that Jesus stopped existing at death like everyone else does. Of course they explain away the fact that he doesn't in various ways.
Okay, I see what you're saying now. Thanks for expanding.
I mean even with an eternal generation (not that I think that's exegetically defensible), or a generation outside of time, one cannot escape the force of the genitive meaning Jesus is in the category of creation as its firstborn, I mean they really want it to function like a dative ... but it isn't.
Two strategies I've seen--not saying they work--are to construe firstborn as a metaphor or to say the salient point (also figurative) is preeminence. You've probably read people like Lightfoot or Doug Moo and even NT Wright denies Christ is part of creation although he's firstborn. Wish I had time to quote examples.
Has anyone pointed to an analog from scripture or some other real world context that would correspond to a figure of a firstborn who is not part of the set of which he is firstborn?
I can't say for sure. So much has been written about the subject.
There is none, Firstborn is always part of the group which they are called firstborn.. Bible use is consistent on that. Modern day Im not 100% bt Im pretty sure there is no such case
David was not the First king, but he was the First one to remain faithful
(via: examining the trinity)
So in all your reading you have come across no comment on this issue(an analog to the metaphor) at all,not even an attempt to wave it away?
There is a lot to wade through, but I have not seen Trinitarians address the issue besides arguing that prototokos in Col. 1:15 does mean refer to one born first. They insist that preeminence is the main idea. But the things I've read just ignore that issue.
Surely whether we should consider him the first creation or the foremost creation is a relatively minor matter compared to how the figure of firstborn could be properly applied to one who is outside of the set of which he is supposedly firstborn.
As intimated earlier, Trinitarians do believe as firstborn, he is outside of/over creation. They believe he is the Creator and that firstbnorn delineates that position: one writer points to the following hoti in Col. 1:15-16 to show that he is not part of creation. Be that as it may, I have yet to see someone demonstrate that "firstborn of" has exceptions in relation to the group named.
Well that seems a bit circular to me. Establish the exception first(or at the very least the plausibility of an exception) and then go on to make your farfetched assertion.
" I have yet to see someone demonstrate that "firstborn of" has exceptions in relation to the group named." - pretty much case and point
I'm not a spokesperson for Trinitarians although I do sometimes try to promote understanding of what they're arguing. Looking at the matter from their POV, they might think that if a writer or writers are using "firstborn" in a figurative way, then they're not obligated to show exceptions for "firstborn of." Additionally, they contend that "firstborn" (prototokos) loses its "born" emphasis at some point such that it does not refer to one who is born first, but it is being employed to make prominence, the salient point. If someone reasons this way, is he/she obligated to produce exceptions for the phrase?
Here is an example of something I've read about Colossians 1:15 and firstborn. Taken from the Anchor Bible Commentary on Colossians:
The hymn in its further statements does not deal with the theme of Christ’s pre-existence; rather, it emphasizes the superiority of the Messiah, the creator over all creatures. Thus, the concept “first-born” is most likely a designation of rank. Of special significance also are vv 12–14, which introduce the hymnic statements of vv 15–20. They point in the same direction because they address the princely dominion of the Son.
The aspect of pre-existence in this interpretation is only of secondary
importance, and is inseparably connected to the Son’s role as mediator of
creation.
Not only OT but also NT parallels support such an exposition.
1. In the OT, the designation “first-born” exists as a precedent not only in the literal sense. In the transmitted sense, the Israelite people are called the “firstborn” of God (Ex 4:22; Sir 36:11, v 1) in which the component that these people are the “first-born,” foremost among the other “brothers,” is not an important factor anymore.72 The special relationship of this people to Yahweh as the beloved and chosen one is expressed and explicit in this terminology. Especially illuminating for this purpose is LXX Ps 88(89):28. This passage is of interest in the exegesis of Col 1:15 because there the subject deals with the Davidic king; “first-born” designates the ideal king “David” in his predominant position over the kings of the earth.
2. In the NT, “first-born” is used in Heb 1:5–6 in a similar fashion as in LXX
Ps 88(89). There are also significant similarities to the statements in Col 1:13ff. Hebr 1:5 speaks of the Son and refers to the proclamation in 2 Sam 7 (cf. Notes to Col 1:13). Heb 1:5–6 reveals that “Son” and “first-born” can be used as parallel or even synonymous titles of Christ. Essential in both designations is, as the reference of Heb 1:6b to Ps 97:7 shows, the pre-eminence of Christ among and over all powers or supposed deities [“and all the angels (Heb. ʾĕlōhîm) shall worship him”].
It's a figure ,then there ought to be an analog, preferably from scripture, but knowing who we're dealing with, we ready to take any analog however tendentious ,but if you can't even produce a poor analog.
What reason do we have to take your phantom seriously?
And btw doing away with "born' doesn't help, is the first of the resurrected not resurrected,the first real number not a number,the first letter of the alphabet not a letter of the alphabet.
I can easily reframe the challenge as a request to produce an instance where the first of a set is not a member of the set, with pretty much the same result.
Nothing said here necessarily excludes him from the set of which he is first/firstborn. if you want to say he is the foremost of the set go ahead. But he is in the set even the expression "rank" suggest that he is part of the formation. It's interesting that they could not produce a single example where firstborn of a set is excluded from the set
Even the Israelite example . Israel's being first/foremost did not put Israel outside of the set i.e JEHOVAH'S earthly family.
And I think we all know that if they could have produced such an analog they would have.
So I'm sorry ,but I'm going to have to put this down as yet another own goal by trinitarians.
They've been working on the Trinity for centuries: maybe somebody suggested an analog, but you might be right about them being owned in this case. I'm just used to Trinitarians never saying "uncle."
prototokos is also used of ones not "born" first - However the problem there is they are "first" in their respective groups not an exception too it..
(see examining the trinity BWF study and Col 1:15 study)
The argument must be in harmony with the rest of the bible.. which it is not.
Trinitarian Bibles themselves link Proverbs 8:22-30 to scriptures such as John 1:2, Rev 3:14
Rev 3:14 being a particularly difficult one when linked to Prov 8:22 where the meaning is clearly different. (Looking at you Allin & Wallace)
A possible dodge (of sorts) would be to suggest that the passage applies exclusively to the incarnate/resurrected Christ who became part of the creation according to them. The farfetched nature of such "logic" has never been an issue for trinitarians,but it would leave John ch.1:1 vulnerable. That might be a consideration for some.
Some try to deal with proverbs ch.8:22-30 by putting the beginning outside of time which of course is nonsensical if there is no time (Tempus) then there can be no temporal distinctions i.e beginnings intermediates endings.
see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/06/proverbs-822-qanah-possibly-means.html
Context is king:
Genesis ch. 14:19NIV "and he blessed Abram, saying,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator(From qanah) of heaven and earth."
Genesis ch.4:1NIV"Adam a made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. b She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth(from qanah hence she called him cain) c a man.” "
AT Robertson said that even though beginning is imperfect we should actually understand it as aorist (don't have quote on hand)
All one must do too see it doesnt mean eternity is pick up a bible or a Greek/Hebrew dictionary.. Gen 1:1 - has the earth existed eternally? are they going to try and argue that now?
They could try.. but they would have a tough time with that... burden of proof is on them for that claim
I find most ignore that about their bibles
Why is a trinitarian bible cross referencing 2 scriptures that apparently
(A) mean 2 different things creator/ created
(B) is just about "Wisdom"
(C)
(C.2) has nothing to do with christ
The word in proverbs can mean "possessed" but it would seem to mean something that someone did not originally have... rather than has had "from eternity"
Anonymous, that was the point of my blog entry for Proverbs 8:22, which I posted above. Some Trinitarians want to argue that "possessed" should be used there, and I think C.F. Burney argued for the meaning "begot." In this vein, the Nice Creed says the Son of God was "begotten" but not created. Many affirm the "eternal genration" and claim the Son's birth has no beginning or end--it is timeless. However, numerous Evangelicals have challenged this idea.
Post a Comment