2 Thessalonians 2:13

Much has been said about this verse by Van and others--pointing to grammatical arguments that are hopelessly flawed in an attempt to make our faith the basis of God's choosing us.

Here is the verse in question:

But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. (ESV)
​

Here it is in Greek:

Ἡμεῖς δὲ ὀφείλομεν εὐχαριστεῖν τῷ θεῷ πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ κυρίου, ὅτι εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἀπαρχὴν εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας,
​

The entire debate has raged around the use of the phrase containing the Greek preposition "ἐν." In the following posts, Van has put forward his "interpretation" of the grammar: here, here, here, here, here, and here (to post a few)

My aim in this post it to provide a detailed exegesis of the passage and to demonstrate that the passage cannot say that we are elected in our own time because of our own faith.

The portion of the passage in question is this: ὅτι εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἀπαρχὴν εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας, which, being translated, is: because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Let us take a bit at a time, shall we.

Section 1: God chose (eliminating the "because" as superfluous to this discussion) These words, in Greek, are εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς. Here's the break-down:

εἵλατο A very rare verb in the New Testament, being used only three times. The word means "chose" and its form here is Aorist Middle Indicative, 3rd Person Singular. This word is the verb of the subject "God" and in its inflected form it means "He [God] chose for Himself.

Who did He choose?

ὑμᾶς A common word in the New Testament--the 2nd Person Plural personal pronoun. Here this is presented in the Accusative form.

Who did the choosing?

ὁ θεὸς This is the Nominative Singular form of the word "God." This indicates that "God" is the subject of the verb "chose."

So the simple translation of this section: God chose you for Himself

Section 2: As the firstfruits

This section will not have Greek in it. Suffice it to say that there is a textual variant. The ESV has "firstfruits," which is, likely, the wrong way to go. It is better to understand this Accusative noun as saying "from the beginning." The proper translation is of no immediate consequence, however, as it does not affect the grammar in question.

Section 3: to be saved

This word is the accusative noun σωτηρίαν preceded by the preposition εἰς.

For those of you who do not know, Greek prepositions change meanings based on the case of their objects. Certain prepositions, however, take their objects in only one case. εἰς is one of those prepositions, always taking its object in the accusative case.

εἰς is a pronoun of motion. Which is to say there is a verbal idea (not grammatically, but conceptually) with the phrase εἰς σωτηρίαν.

So, while this is technically a noun, to properly convey the concept of motion contained in the Greek pronoun εἰς and to properly convey the inherent concept in the Greek word σωτηρίαν, which itself implies motion, conceptually, one should translate this with a verbal aspect. Now that does not mean that the original text of εἰς σωτηρίαν is a verb. However, when trying to express the basic, underlying meaning of the construction in English, a verbal form is perfectly acceptable.

NOTE: There are three accusatives in the this part of the passage--You (a pronoun), from the beginning/firstfruits (an accusative which gives more information about the pronoun "you"), and salvation. Because all these accusatives are here, there is one "idea" of Direct Object. Technically, this is known as a double accusative.

So, the simple translation of the preceding sections is: God chose you for Himself from the beginning to be saved

Section 4: Here's where the fun begins! The phrase "through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth" obviously is modifying something. Is it the verb "chose" or is it the noun "salvation?" Here's the Greek breakdown:

ἐν The Greek preposition "in"

ἁγιασμῷ Dative form of the word "sanctify"

πνεύματος Genitive form of the word "spirit." Modifies "Sanctification"

καὶ The Greek conjunction "and."

πίστει The Dative form of "belief"

ἀληθείας The Genitive form of "truth"

Some considerations: ἐν always takes its object in the Dative case. Also, there are some 2700 or so uses of ἐν in the New Testament. Of the Greek prepositions, it has the widest range of semantic uses. But, the basic idea is "in" or "by" or "through" is conveyed.

In this construction, it is easy to see that this phrase (started by the preposition ἐν) is being used adjectivally (as in modifying a noun) and not adverbially.

ἐν + dative can, under certain circumstances, express means or manner while modifying a verb. However, two things show that this is not modifying the verb.

1. The preposition ἐν is governing two separate datives--sanctification and belief.

2. There is a conjunction between the clauses of this prepositional phrase

3. The word order shows this prepositional phrase to modify the noun "salvation" and not the verb "chose." This prepositional phrase, frankly, is too far away in the sentence flow to modify the verb. Had Paul wanted to express that God chose us because of our sanctification or belief, he would have put this prepositional phrase next to the verb.

Conclusion: The two dative nouns, sanctification and belief, are inexorably linked in concept. They are not two separate things; they are not one-in-the-same. They are two sides of the same coin.

We should expect a second ἐν before the second dative "belief." That the ἐν is missing and a conjunction is present shows the preposition ἐν governs both datives. That ἐν governs both the dative nouns and that both the dative nouns have genitive modifiers demonstrates, beyond a doubt, that this prepositional phrase is indeed adjectival and is modifying the noun "salvation."

So, the simple translation is "God chose you for Himself from the beginning into salvation (or to be saved) by sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."

This means, that we are indeed saved through sanctification of the Spirit and we are saved through our believing in the truth. But, we are not chosen because of these. The Aorist form of the middle verb "chose" means that the choice was made in its entirety sometime in the past, the Aorist envisioning a "snapshot" of time--and God Himself made that choice for Himself. So, the simple sentence gives us all we need to know: God chose us (for Himself) to be saved. But, He does not save us without our being sanctified (by the spirit), which is, obviously His work, and without our believing in the truth, which is, again, obviously His work. He chooses us for His own good purposes and He makes us fit for the Kingdom.

That salvation is accomplished through our sanctification and our belief shows that we are not just "saved against our will." The meaning of these concepts related to salvation, when juxtaposed to God's choice of us, shows that we must become willing participants in our own salvation. Surely God works to sanctify us--and that takes far too many forms to go into here. But, in His sanctifying work, we are to respond to Him and as He is changing us to be more Christlike, we must change to become more Christlike.

God makes the first move and we, then, respond to Him in repentance and faith leading to our ultimate sanctification (and belief in the truth) as He works on us to make us--once rebellious rebels--fit for the Kingdom as loyal sons and daughters of the Great King.

Having taken some time to formulate my grammatical argument, I was able to consult many resources and work through some other texts. After formulating my argument, however, I stumbled on the following resource:

2 Thessalonians 2:13--What Do Prepositions Modify

This resource was written by Dr. William Mounce--the dean of Greek teachers in the US. I was pleasantly surprised when, after reading his article, he agreed with me! I highly recommend the article.

The back and forth between Van and others only demonstrates that there is no substitute for working the text yourself. Remember, one can fancy himself a mechanic just because he can name all the parts of the internal combustion engine. However, if he cannot put the parts together properly and make the engine run, he is no mechanic at all.

Discuss, as I'm sure you [all] will and enjoy the discussion.

The Archangel

 

Freeatlast,

Thank you for the link. I read the paper and found several things lacking.

First, there is no technical discussion of the Greek from the author's standpoint. In other words, he does not apply a knowledge of Greek grammar or syntax to the text itself. Instead, he does what I call "Second-handing" (with apologies to Ayn Rand who uses the concept differently). He uses sources that seem to confirm his hypothesis (which we all tend to do), but he doesn't put what the sources say to the test--he accepts them at face value, uncritically. This is not considered a practice of true scholarship. It is not sufficient to line up people who may agree with your position and not delve into why they agree (or disagree) with your position. In lining up sources who agree with you, all you are doing is joining a rabble that may or may not have made the same [wrong] assumptions that you have. So, it is lacking because there is not a critical, grammatical interaction with the text.

Second, his entire discussion of the nature of the word "salvation" runs into problems because, it would seem, he is putting too much emphasis on the classical Greek concept and usage. Classical Greek and Koine Greek (Koine is what the New Testament is written in) are not the same. If you want an example, think of the English that the KJV is written in and think of our modern, American English. These languages, while similar in some ways, are vastly different--word meanings have changed and evolved, syntax is different, grammar is different. What is more, the King's English, 400 years ago, still had cases as seen in the difference between "Ye" and "Thee." Today, we use the generic "you" for both singular and plural.

Furthermore, the concept of "salvation" in the Bible--whether in the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuagint, or the New Testament--has a theological significance because the Old Testament and the New Testament are, primarily, theological works. So whether the salvation being talked about is spiritual or physical, there is a theological aspect to it. For the most part, the spiritual salvation expressed in the word "salvation" is lacking in classical Greek because their concept of afterlife is suspect at best.

There are also parts of his argument that fail because of the assumption of speaking about a physical salvation. Not to derail this thread or this current post, but physical safety of the believer, especially in the New Testament, is not much of a concern. Certainly there are times when physical safety is prayed for and granted. However, God's ultimate goal is not the believer's physical safety, but his or her spiritual faithfulness (safety). We can see time and time again in the New Testament that God is only too happy (not in a joyous sense) to take a believer's physical safety away so that there is a deepening of his or her faith--leading to a greater spiritual safety, so to speak. DISCLOSURE: I do not believe in a pre-trib rapture. I think the Bible is clear: The second coming of Christ and the "Rapture" are the same event. What is more, if the Apostles had no expectation or realization of physical safety, we should not either. After all, all but one of the apostles died horribly gruesome and painful deaths (for the glory of God, I might add).

Thirdly, it is clear the author of this paper has a particular theological bent to a pre-trib rapture. Many authors do; many authors have other bents. That a pre-trib rapture--in large part--does not come into the theological writing until the mid 1800's makes it highly suspect. This is to say, many early commentators would likely not have seen 2 Thessalonians 2:13 in an eschatological light.

Fourth. There is a clear and distinct contrast between the first part of chapter 2 and v. 13-17. The particle δέ sets off the beginning of v. 13 (it appears second in the sentence, but it is called a "post-positive" and, by definition, cannot begin a sentence) and δέ is purely an adversative particle. In other words, had Paul wanted to continue and expand his discussion, rather than contrast, he would have likely used καί, a copulative conjunction.

So, that's my take. I will say I enjoyed reading the paper. Thank you for posting it.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

You keep saying the same things--this is adverbial, etc. But, you never seek to tell us why it is adverbial. There is no discussion of technicalities in your repetitious postings and one begins to wonder whose words you are parroting without knowing why they are saying what they are saying.

So, am I questioning your "qualifications?" Yes. You have provided nothing here to suggest that you know how to handle Greek.

The Archangel

 

Actually, "for salvation" is a prepositional phrase. But, the preposition here is only a marker of a larger concept--the "Double Accusative of Object-Compliment."

The tell-tale signs of this construction are that the direct object combines with the verb to form a new verbal idea that has another accusative as its object.[1] Furthermore, the construction is occasionally marked by the presence of εἰς before the compliment. [2]

Hence, the preposition εἰς is not acting so much as a preposition to denote a prepositional use. But, the force of motion of the preposition is retained, precisely because of the connection between the verb "chose" and the object "salvation." The Double Accusative of Object-Compliment here is one concept which is serving as the direct object.

Chosen for salvation is one concept (meeting the mark of the definition of the Double Accusative of Object-Compliment).

So, this is not adverbial in the way you've described it.

The problem is that you are assuming this to be an adverbial phrase. Many neophytic Greek students have done what you are doing--always assuming that ἐν + dative must be adverbial and relate to the main verb.

In fact, the naked dative (that's the dative without the ἐν) and the ἐν + dative are not one-in-the-same. Certainly there is overlap, but there is no one-to-one correspondence. Again, it is another mistake that neophytic Greek students make that assumes the usage of the dative is what defines the ἐν + dative phrase.

So, the ἐν + dative is primarily to be understood first as a prepositional phrase and secondarily to be understood in relation to the cases, nouns etc. contained therein.

Furthermore, prepositional phrases which contain more clarifying nouns (such as this one with two genitive nouns) generally, in Greek, modify nouns. This is plainly seen in this example.

I find it funny that you are disparaging and ignoring noted and recognized "experts" (such as Mounce) when your Greek skills have been demonstrated to be quite unprepossessing.

In #1 and #2, the commonly seen usage throughout the New Testament shows not to be adverbial. Adverbial uses of the ἐν + dative are generally limited to ἐν + dative, which is to say a simple prepositional phrase, not a compound one with two dative nouns and two genitive qualifiers.

In #3, the common sentence structure in Greek supports the preposition (and accompanying phrase) modifying a close word. Another common neophytic mistake is to force a prepositional phrase (especially set off by ἐν) into one meaning. Can ἐν + dative be an indirect object answering "how?" Sure. But, those cases typically follow the verb very closely.

Not so. You are confusing the grammar of the text with the translation of the text. Also, you do not understand that in Greek, certain nouns, while still being nouns, contain a verbal concept. This verbal concept is amplified by the use of the preposition εἰς which conveys movement into.

Grammatically, the prepositional phrase is adjectival, as it modifies the accusative noun "salvation." Conceptually, it might be said--for those of us who are English speakers--that the prepositional phrase might be adverbial when modifying the verbal aspect of the noun "salvation" along with the inherent movement implied in the preposition εἰς.

Bottom line? You have not the first clue about what you claim to know. You have given no technical argument or discussion about this text--again, claiming that things are adverbial or not adjectival, etc. without telling us why.

The truth of the matter is that Paul did say "to be saved." That is what the syntactical force of the expression means. It was written as an accusative noun because Paul intentionally linked this noun to the verb "chose," intending to make a single idea--chosen into salvation, or chosen to be saved.

One thing that you might not be aware of...in Greek it is sometimes necessary to supply the verb "to be." Certainly if a translator would supply that word here, in effect transforming the noun into a verb, it would be correct--to capture the syntactical force, albeit at the expense of the grammar.

That you don't know these things makes me think you are a second-hander (with appologies to Ayn Rand who uses the word differently) who finds arguments that support your presuppositions, but fails to engage the arguments critically--probably because you have no facility to do so. Or, you are simply a poser--someone who may have fondled Greek at one time but has had neither the opportunity or desire to get intimate with Greek--while telling everyone you did indeed have the intimacy.

I'm starting to think you are simply a "poser." Like the person who fancies himself a mechanic, you might be able to label parts of the internal combustion engine, you might be able to assemble the disparate parts. But, when it comes to putting the whole together and making it run, you simply are out of your league.

The Archangel



[1.] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 183.

[2.] Ibid., 184.

 

I need to clarify what you are saying, Percho. Are you saying that the "belief" expressed in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is God's belief and not ours?

And you are basing this concept on Romans 3:25 which you are suggesting that God is having faith in the Blood of Christ?

Am I understanding you correctly?

The Archangel