English grammer Help!

[steaver]

I need to hear from some English grammer folks. I was never that great at it.

Rom 8:1¶There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.



Is "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" an attribute of those in Christ Jesus here proper English, or is it a condition placed on those in Christ Jesus?

What I need to know is how would this be interpreted in English class? Any English majors out there?

God Bless!

 

[Eliyahu]

This is a really good question to meditate for long time. Eventually the question is whether there is no condemnation even unto the believer in Jesus Christ or not even though they don't follow the spirit but flesh
BTW grammer should read grammar (I point out this because the issue here is about grammar)

 

[Chemnitz]

What exactly do you mean by 'attribute' and 'condition'? Your question will more likely find its answer in the Greek.

 

[DHK]

I need to hear from some English grammer folks. I was never that great at it.

Rom 8:1¶There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.



Is "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" an attribute of those in Christ Jesus here proper English, or is it a condition placed on those in Christ Jesus?

What I need to know is how would this be interpreted in English class? Any English majors out there?

God Bless!

The Lord does't put any conditions on our salvation. Many times he teaches us that is a free gift. This verse teaches us the character of a believer. A believer is one who does not walk after the works of the flesh, as is described in Gal.5:19-21; but rather he is one who walks "after the spirit," and consequently shows the fruit of the Spirit in his life. It is the character of a Christian's life that is shown here, not a condition. Because of the confusion in the verse that you stated, I often leave the last part off so as not to confuse others when I don't have the time to explain it. There are no conditions for salvation.

 

[EdSutton]

I need to hear from some English grammer folks. I was never that great at it.

Rom 8:1¶There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.



Is "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" an attribute of those in Christ Jesus here proper English, or is it a condition placed on those in Christ Jesus?

What I need to know is how would this be interpreted in English class? Any English majors out there?

God Bless!

"Language Cop, here! You rang?

Chemnitz is right. The real issue is not how the English language and grammar read, but what does the Greek language and grammar say. However as to your question, the alternatives you request are somewhat false, grammatically. The phrase in question would properly be termed 'descriptive', and is (a) characteristic of, and modifies "them".

And there is absolutely no relevance, as to how this might be "interpreted" in English class. Bible Class? Yes!"

Signed, Language Cop

"Thanks, L C."

Ed

 

[DQuixote]

It does not place a condition upon the backs of the Believer. To the contrary, it is a position statement. Positionally, the born-again Believer no longer walks after the flesh. The Believer has been imparted the righteousness of Christ. Positionally, he or she walks (in righteousness and holiness) after the Spirit. When He looks at me He sees not my sinful nature, He sees my victory in Christ Jesus. Hallelujah, Amen!

:jesus: :godisgood: :applause:

 

[StefanM]

"to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Proper theological interpretation involves consultation of the Greek.

That being said, I would not say that the clause in question is conditional.

For it to be adding a condition/requirement, IMO, it would need to be rendered "to them which are in Christ Jesus AND who (also?) walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

IMO, "them which are in Christ Jesus" = "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

 

[Jerome]

Conditional clauses generally begin with if or unless.

What we have here are relative clauses:
1. which are in Christ Jesus
2. who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

English grammar really does not help in distinguishing whether those referred to in the second relative clause are coterminous with or a subset of those referred to in the first relative clause.
Either reading is possible grammatically.
The comma between the relative clauses suggests, but does not require, a coterminous reading.
Without a comma the second relative clause could more clearly refer to a subset:
"them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit."

 

[Brother Bob]

The Lord does't put any conditions on our salvation. Many times he teaches us that is a free gift. This verse teaches us the character of a believer. A believer is one who does not walk after the works of the flesh, as is described in Gal.5:19-21; but rather he is one who walks "after the spirit," and consequently shows the fruit of the Spirit in his life. It is the character of a Christian's life that is shown here, not a condition. Because of the confusion in the verse that you stated, I often leave the last part off so as not to confuse others when I don't have the time to explain it. There are no conditions for salvation.__________________
DHK

So, how can they commit any sin known to man? (not my belief but others.)

 

[DHK]

So, how can they commit any sin known to man? (not my belief but others.)

1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

[Brother Bob]

Sorry, I don't want to hijack this thread.

 

[steaver]

BTW grammer should read grammar (I point out this because the issue here is about grammar)

Told you i wasn't any good at grammAr! :laugh:

I didn't mean to ask for a biblical interpretation of the verse.

Here is what I was told by someone....

Rom.8:1- where we're told, "There is therefore NOW no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, [CONDITION] WHO WALK not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." This is a powerful verse. In one breath, it says we will never be condemned..."therefore now, no condemnation"; and in the next breath places the condition of our daily walk into the mix. The Bible is full of paradoxes like this,

I resonded to him with this.....

Actually I believe this is an [ATTRIBUTE] WHO WALK not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. As you said, it says we will never be condemned, so walking after the Spirit rather than the flesh is not a CONDITION for not being condemned, but rather an ATTRIBUTE of believers BECAUSE they are in Christ Jesus and not condemned.

And he responded back with this....

If you make Rom. 8:1 an attribute, you have destroyed
the semantics of the English language.

My question then is this, have I destroyed the semantics of the English language? Is "attribute" incorrect? Is "condition" correct? Or is "characteristic" the correct semantic?

Is this debateable, or is there a clear, only one way, to read this using proper English semantics?

Thanks for all the replies. But I need to know if there is one proper English semantic or is it a grey area? I don't want opinions! I need English grammar scholars. Is this black and white? Cut and dried? Or not?

God Bless!

 

[Darron Steele]

Your friend has a problem.

The King James Version seeks to reproduce, as closely as possible, the GREEK word order and sentence structure. Its goal is not "perfect English" -- its goal is to accurately translate as word-by-word as possible an ancient Greek document.

As someone who speaks rough conversational Spanish, I can tell you that more than vocabulary differs between languages: their verb tenses, normal word orders, and grammatical structures differ.

If your friend requires the Word of God to follow the conventions of modern English to accept what it says, s/he has a problem. The Bible was not written in English; it is translated closely into English, and when such happens, perfect English is not possible.

As a person who once did apologetics a lot, I can tell you that a lot of people seek the strangest reasons to reject Scripture. Notice I said "seek" -- they are looking for reasons to do so, and they will seize on anything they can use. I found that when you bust one pretense, they simply scramble to find another.

 

[Eliyahu]

I hope the latest post by Steaver clarified the issue on this verse.
I say this because I noticed some posters didn't recognize what is the issue here.
Even though there may be a little nuance between my question and what Steaver posted, I would paraphrase the question a little differently.

The verse is this:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit

1) What if those in Christ Jesus walk after the flesh? Will they get the condemnation?
2) Don't the Believers in Christ Jesus walk after the flesh at all?

As for the question 2), 1 John 1:8 tells us the truth:

1John 1:
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Why do we commit sin? Do we still commit sins even though we follow after the Spirit? Nope!
Then we must confess that we follow after the flesh from time to time, which results in committing sins.

Bible shows us the condemnation on the behaviors of the believers in several verses, but the exact Greek word for Condemnation here is kata-krima and therefore I find only Romans 14:23 and 1 Cor 11:32. 2 Cor 7:3

Rom 14:23
If anyone eat some food doubting about it, he is condemned.

1 Cor 11:32

But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.


2Co 7:3 I speak not this to condemn you: for I have said before, that ye are in our hearts to die and live with you.


The following is not katakrima but English translation is condemn.


1Jo 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
1Jo 3:21Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God
Jas 5:9Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door. (Bible quotes from www.Crosswalk.com)

I have not found the exact expression, but at the moment would say that:

Overall condemnation which applies to the world doesn't apply to anyone in Jesus Christ.
But the specific condemnation on a certain sin does still exist when a believer doesn't follow after the Spirit but after the flesh.
Peter was rebuked by Paul ( Gal 2:14). I think it is the condemnation.

If the first sentence talks about the Overall condemnation, then we should interpret it as the result( attributes), not the condition.


If the first sentence talks about the Specific condemnation on a specific behavior, then we should interpret it as a condition. No condemnation applies only to the Believers who follow after the Spirit, only when they follow after the Spirit.

Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died... I believe this talks about the Overall Condemnation, which we are exempted from by the grace of Jesus.

The Greek sentence doesn't specify, I think, because the comma's are added by the compilers and editors.

 

[steaver]

My friend asked for the board address so I hope he comes in and maybe we can clear this up. I told him what the replies were in general, but he is not convinced that "condition" is incorrect.

Here is what he told me, but hopefully he will come in and expound on it further....

......."Rom 8:1 in the newer translations is altered, and the latter half
of the verse is tucked away in verse 4, which is the basis for your
"attribute" theory. When I get stuck on the footnotes of some peoples
exegesis, I revert to the "Emphatic Dialglott. It is the oldest complete
Greek manuscript of the N.T. available to us. It is seldom known by that
title, due to the reprint of copyright. There, the verse is listed at the
end of verse 4. If taken to be there properly, it is indeed in the context
of an attribute. Since the majority of more modern scholars are comfortable with the manuscripts the newer translations draw from, I can see why the majority consensus of your "board" friends would take it that way. The reason I'd tend to disagree is that I do not consider those manuscripts reliable, nor the newer translations. I believe the KJV has is right. Even the NKJV, which is actually translated from the newer manuscripts, chose to leave 8:1 alone, as rendered in the KJV.".......

God Bless!

ps. He's a good guy, if he comes in please welcome him warmly! Thank You!

 

[EdSutton]

Told you i wasn't any good at grammAr! :laugh:

I didn't mean to ask for a biblical interpretation of the verse.

Here is what I was told by someone....



I resonded to him with this.....



And he responded back with this....



My question then is this, have I destroyed the semantics of the English language? Is "attribute" incorrect? Is "condition" correct? Or is "characteristic" the correct semantic?

Is this debateable, or is there a clear, only one way, to read this using proper English semantics?

Thanks for all the replies. But I need to know if there is one proper English semantic or is it a grey area? I don't want opinions! I need English grammar scholars. Is this black and white? Cut and dried? Or not?

God Bless!

" Language Cop back! I hate repeating myself, on any thread, but I will make an exception here. FTR, I am not "an English Grammar Scholar" but my mother was an English major, and I actually did learn a few things from her. (She, no doubt would be surprised to hear this admission, were she still with us, having passed on to glory about four years ago, a month shy of the age of 94, still teaching SS every week, and discussing the lesson with me almost every week, before each class, until her death. In fact, the last thing she did on this earth before her stroke and death was actually study the next Sunday's lesson, as the books were opened at her table, from the the night before. Not meant to hijack any thread, but thanks for the opportunity to remember a saintly mother.)

So now I will repeat.

The real issue is not how the English language and grammar read, but what does the Greek language and grammar say. However as to your question, the alternatives you request are somewhat false, grammatically. The phrase in question would properly be termed 'descriptive', and is (a) characteristic of, and modifies "them".

And there is absolutely no relevance, as to how this might be "interpreted" in English class. Bible Class? Yes!

The phrase would be termed 'descriptive', or a characteristic. It is in no, way, a "condition", b grammatical construct. Another termed this a "relative clause". That is also a good and fair description.

What we have here are relative clauses:
1. which are in Christ Jesus
2. who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

English grammar really does not help in distinguishing whether those referred to in the second relative clause are coterminous with or a subset of those referred to in the first relative clause.
Either reading is possible grammatically.
The comma between the relative clauses suggests, but does not require, a coterminous reading.
Without a comma the second relative clause could more clearly refer to a subset:
"them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit."

I really hope this helps answer the OP." Signed- Language Cop

"Thanks, L.C.. We appreciate your help."

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

My friend asked for the board address so I hope he comes in and maybe we can clear this up. I told him what the replies were in general, but he is not convinced that "condition" is incorrect.

Here is what he told me, but hopefully he will come in and expound on it further....

......."Rom 8:1 in the newer translations is altered, and the latter half
of the verse is tucked away in verse 4, which is the basis for your
"attribute" theory. When I get stuck on the footnotes of some peoples
exegesis, I revert to the "Emphatic Dialglott. It is the oldest complete
Greek manuscript of the N.T. available to us. It is seldom known by that
title, due to the reprint of copyright. There, the verse is listed at the
end of verse 4. If taken to be there properly, it is indeed in the context
of an attribute. Since the majority of more modern scholars are comfortable with the manuscripts the newer translations draw from, I can see why the majority consensus of your "board" friends would take it that way. The reason I'd tend to disagree is that I do not consider those manuscripts reliable, nor the newer translations. I believe the KJV has is right. Even the NKJV, which is actually translated from the newer manuscripts, chose to leave 8:1 alone, as rendered in the KJV.".......

God Bless!

ps. He's a good guy, if he comes in please welcome him warmly! Thank You!

Steaver, your friend may in fact, and I have no doubt is "a good guy", but he is entirely wrong on the "Emphatic Diaglott." It is not a "complete Greek manuscript", in any form, but is, at best, a text. Nor is it, by any stretch, "the oldest complete" one. That designation happens to be most appropriate to manuscript "A", or 'Alexandrius', a western type manuscript more closely relate to the TR types than most others, such as Aleph and B, aka Vaticanus. That is simply the facts. Ther are legitimate questions as to whether or not this clause actually belongs to this verse, as opposed to a copyist error from verse four, but that is not the question in the thread, and I will not allow myself be goaded to get into that here.

Ed

 

[steaver]

Thanks for the post Ed. I see what you believe about Romans 8:1's English semantics and agree.

Would me calling the latter part of the sentence an "attribute" of those "in Christ" be an interpretation of the sentence rather than a definition of English semantics of the sentence?

I called it an attribute because I see walking after the Spirit as an attribute of a person in Christ because God has put the Spirit in those that are in Christ. So as a new creature in Christ the new nature will be walking after the Spirit even though a struggle will occur with the flesh and failure will occur at times, no?

God Bless!

 

[Pastor Larry]

As has been pointed out, the answer is not in English grammar but in Greek.

It is likely here that the phrase "who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit" is appositional to "those in Christ Jesus." It describes the same group of people. It is not a condition or result, but an identity. StefanM has it right with his =.

 

[steaver]

As has been pointed out, the answer is not in English grammar but in Greek.

How can I go to Greek to answer how an English sentence structure is grammatically defined?

I am asking, apart from this being a Bible verse and apart from this being a translation from the Greek, what is the latter part of this English sentence telling us about those in Christ?

Forget the bible exegesis of the verse. I was told that to make the latter of the sentence an "attribute" of the subject was to destroy English semantics and that it should be made a "condition". All I wanted to know is this true according to correct English semantics? Did I destroy English semantics by calling the latter part of the sentence an attribute for those in Christ Jesus?

I am not arguing for "attribute". I came with this question to LEARN CORRECT English semantics of this SENTENCE, forget for a moment that it is a bible verse.

Now I believe I agree with Ed's post, I only follow up with Ed asking once again about using the term "attribute" so I do not make the same mistake in the future.

God Bless! :thumbs: