Study of a Prepositional Phrase

[Van]

In this very abbreviated study, lets boil this all down using just one verses, Galatians 2:16.. Here is how the NASB95 renders our verse:

“ nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”

Note that the translation indicates the idea that “through faith in Christ Jesus” is our faith toward Christ, i.e. faith in Christ. In this usage, we see that “dia” is followed by three nouns in the genitive case, faith, Jesus and Christ. Many translations render it “through faith in Jesus Christ” but the NET comes down of the side as a subjective genitive, i.e. the faith in view is Christ’s.

So if we translate “dia” as “by means of” and then translate as a subjective genitive, we get “by means of Jesus Christ’s faithfulness.” So we are justified by means of the precious blood of Christ rather than by our faith in the precious blood of Christ. But, you might say, the very verse says we are justified “by faith in Christ.” Not if we make a similar translation decision that if the preposition “ek” (out) when used to show source or origin with genitive, i.e. translated as “by,” the phrase could be translated as “by Christ’s faithfulness.” Again the idea is the source of our justification is the precious blood of Christ.

When Christ died on the cross, covered with His own blood, He became the propitiation for the whole world, and access to that grace is granted by God crediting our faith in Christ as righteousness. Knowing this even we have believed into Christ.

Are we justified when we profess our faith, or when God credits our faith as righteousness. Thus justification occurs when God puts us into Christ spiritually and we undergo the circumcision of Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

Arguments from personal incredulity are without merit.

Please Mr. Rippon, do not strain yourself trying to explain basic English, you seem unable to comprehend that if we enter a room through a door, we went through the door before we entered the room. So simple a cave man could understand it.

Thus "through faith" teaches faith before salvation, before justification, before regeneration, before reaching the grace in which we stand. But just what is the "faith" that provides access to saving grace? Our profession of faith, no matter how flawed, or superficial? Or is it only the faith God has credited as righteousness?

Are we saved based upon our faith, or in the One we place faith into though?

 

[Van]

Not to put too fine a point on it, Yeshua1, but why ask questions for which the answer is obvious? Are we saved based on our faith in Christ, or based on God crediting our faith as righteousness? Were the folks in Matthew 7 who said, Lord, Lord saved? Their faith was lacking, for Christ never knew them.

Are we saved "based upon," "in the One...?" This makes no sense. Could we be saved based on God crediting our faith as righteousness by means of Christ's faithfulness? Yes. So simple a cave man could understand it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not to put too fine a point on it, Yeshua1, but why ask questions for which the answer is obvious? Are we saved based on our faith in Christ, or based on God crediting our faith as righteousness? Were the folks in Matthew 7 who said, Lord, Lord saved? Their faith was lacking, for Christ never knew them.

Are we saved "based upon," "in the One...?" This makes no sense. Could we be saved based on God crediting our faith as righteousness by means of Christ's faithfulness? Yes. So simple a cave man could understand it.

So your faith in jesus is what God gives you credit for to save you?

Isn't it the truth that its the One whom you place faith in that saves you?

 

[Van]

Yeshua1, why not try a little harder to present truth? If I place my faith in Obama, will Obama save me? Did the people of Matthew 7 get saved by placing "their" faith in Jesus? Could we be saved based on God crediting our faith as righteousness by means of Christ's faithfulness? Yes. So simple a cave man could understand it. Reread Galatians 2:16: Here is the altered version of Galatians 2:16 based on the study of the prepositional phrase: “ nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by means of Jesus Christ's faithfulness, even we have believed into Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by Christ's faithfulness and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”

 

[Eliyahu]

Before we even think about studying hilasterion and the related words hilaskomai and hilasmos, we must address the three cornerstone words of salvation - propitiation, the means of salvation, redemption, the act of salvation, and reconciliation, the result of salvation. Our word study below enters into the arena of the means of salvation, which is Jesus Christ.

Hilasterion

Our best historical understanding is that hilasterion referred to the lid of the ark of the covenant, which was sprinkled with blood, and thus referred to as the mercy seat. Articles on its meaning are filled with classic words like expiation, atonement, and propitiation, all of which convey almost nothing to the modern reader. In a nutshell, under the Old Covenant, the blood of animals was sprinkled on the hilasterion on the day of atonement to provide temporary reconciliation with God and avoidance of the wages of sin. Under the New Covenant, Jesus, covered with His precious blood, has become our "hilasterion" (and our blood sin offering) as the means of everlasting reconciliation with God and avoidance of the wages of sin.

Three related Greek words (Hilasterion and Hilasmos-nouns and Hilaskomai -verb) appear 6 times in the New Testament, Romans 3:25, Hebrews 9:5 ; 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10, Luke 18:13, and Hebrews 2:17. If we look at several translations we find the words translated as (1) propitiatory sacrifice; (2) propitiation; (3) mercy seat; (4) atonement and (5) atoning sacrifice for the nouns; with the verb being translated as (1) have mercy; (2) be merciful; (3) turn your wrath; and (4) make propitiation.

In short the verb refers to the act of having mercy and the noun to the means of having mercy. Therefore hilasterion should be understood as the means of obtaining mercy , i.e the propitiatory shelter. Thus the Propitiation refers to Jesus Christ covered in His Own Blood, providing the means of salvation.

.

A good point!

<< Three related Greek words (Hilasterion and Hilasmos-nouns and Hilaskomai -verb) appear 6 times in the New Testament, Romans 3:25, Hebrews 9:5 ; 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10, Luke 18:13, and Hebrews 2:17. If we look at several translations we find the words translated as (1) propitiatory sacrifice; (2) propitiation; (3) mercy seat; (4) atonement and (5) atoning sacrifice for the nouns; with the verb being translated as (1) have mercy; (2) be merciful; (3) turn your wrath; and (4) make propitiation.>>

It is useful for the study, Thanks.

As for Romans 3:25, I would prefer rendering it to Place of Atonement as I think Paul was talking about the Place of Atonement on top of Ark of Covenant.

 

[Van]

Thanks Eliyahu, we disagree on what we think Paul was talking about, but we seem to be in the same pew.

 

[Eliyahu]

Yeshua1, why not try a little harder to present truth? If I place my faith in Obama, will Obama save me? Did the people of Matthew 7 get saved by placing "their" faith in Jesus? Could we be saved based on God crediting our faith as righteousness by means of Christ's faithfulness? Yes. So simple a cave man could understand it. Reread Galatians 2:16: Here is the altered version of Galatians 2:16 based on the study of the prepositional phrase: “ nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by means of Jesus Christ's faithfulness, even we have believed into Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by Christ's faithfulness and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”

Van,

Mostly, your study sounds quite correct.

But from my study, we may have to add some exceptional usage for the following verses.

1) Gal 4:13 -
Did Paul preach the Gospel by means of the infirmity of his health?

2) Romans 7:5 -

Is the Law of God the causality of the motions of sins?


My point is that dia in those verses should be rendered into

<Despite>

Paul preached the Gospel despite the weakness.
Motions of sins worked out despite the restraints by Law.

I use Mounce Lexicon which points Gal 4:13 to be < while subject to>
Mounce mentioned it is a rare case.

Thanks to Van, anyway.


Eliyahu

 

[Van]

If I seemed to say "dia" should always be translated as through or by means of, that was my error.

In Galatians 4:13, note that "infirmity" is a noun in the accusative, thus most modern translations render the preposition as "because of." See the OP addressing "with accusative."

And in Romans 7:5, we must first decide whether the law plays a causality role in our sinfulness. I say yes, and point to Paul's discussion (Romans 7:8) of how when he became aware of the sin of covetness, this resulted in sinfulness. Many translations go with "aroused by" the law, siding with this view.

Thus the Mounse view (translating dia as despite) may be correct, but is not shared by Dan Wallace or by many modern translators. Thus it would be an alternative view that should be carefully considered, and since scripture does teach causality of the Law in both sinfulness and the awareness of sinfulness, I will stick with "by" or "through."

 

[Eliyahu]

If I seemed to say "dia" should always be translated as through or by means of, that was my error.

In Galatians 4:13, note that "infirmity" is a noun in the accusative, thus most modern translations render the preposition as "because of." See the OP addressing "with accusative."

And in Romans 7:5, we must first decide whether the law plays a causality role in our sinfulness. I say yes, and point to Paul's discussion (Romans 7:8) of how when he became aware of the sin of covetness, this resulted in sinfulness. Many translations go with "aroused by" the law, siding with this view.

Thus the Mounse view (translating dia as despite) may be correct, but is not shared by Dan Wallace or by many modern translators. Thus it would be an alternative view that should be carefully considered, and since scripture does teach causality of the Law in both sinfulness and the awareness of sinfulness, I will stick with "by" or "through."

Gal 4:13: Weakness or Infirmity cannot be the means of preaching the Gospel. There, despite may be better.

Rom 7:5
I don't believe God gave Israel the Law which cause the motions of sins, then He charge them with disobedience, committing sins etc.
As many scholars and believers have been brain washed by Roman Catholic anti-nomia, I can understand your stance, but I would prefer <despite> again.

There are many, many verses of misinterpretting the Law in NT, I would not waste time in persuading about it.

Even if Jesus clearly declared that He didn't come to abolish the law, many people interpret that the Law of God has been abolished, which is untrue.


Eliyahu.

 

[Rippon]

And in Romans 7:5, we must first decide whether the law plays a causality role in our sinfulness. I say yes, and point to Paul's discussion (Romans 7:8) of how when he became aware of the sin of covetness, this resulted in sinfulness. Many translations go with "aroused by" the law, siding with this view.

The law is not sinful and it does not cause sin. Sin is the natural corruption of a person's heart. The law makes one aware of one's sinful estate. Awareness does not cause sin.

In Ro. 7:5 aroused is found in the NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, NET and Weymouth. In Ro. 7:8 it is found only in the NLT.

Thus the Mounse view (translating dia as despite) may be correct,

It's Mounce, a fine man. He has worked on both the ESV and NIV translations.

 

[Van]

Gal 4:13: Weakness or Infirmity cannot be the means of preaching the Gospel. There, despite may be better.

I agree, weakness or infirmity cannot be the means of preaching, but weakness or infirmity might cause a person to not travel and therefore stay in a location and during the convalesce present the gospel at that location. Hence, the translation "because of" rather than "by means of" is to be preferred.

Rom 7:5
I don't believe God gave Israel the Law which cause the motions of sins, then He charge them with disobedience, committing sins etc.
As many scholars and believers have been brain washed by Roman Catholic anti-nomia, I can understand your stance, but I would prefer <despite> again.

The idea is simple, the double whammy. Whether you have the Law or not, if you do something against the will of God, you store up wrath. But if you know what you are doing is in violation of the will of God you pile up more wrath, i.e. sinning in the manner of Adam.

Our difference is this, I believe willing violation of the known will of God is an additional sin, up and above the violation unknowingly of that will. This view is based on Paul's teaching concerning covetness.

 

[Eliyahu]

I agree, weakness or infirmity cannot be the means of preaching, but weakness or infirmity might cause a person to not travel and therefore stay in a location and during the convalesce present the gospel at that location. Hence, the translation "because of" rather than "by means of" is to be preferred.

The idea is simple, the double whammy. Whether you have the Law or not, if you do something against the will of God, you store up wrath. But if you know what you are doing is in violation of the will of God you pile up more wrath, i.e. sinning in the manner of Adam.

Our difference is this, I believe willing violation of the known will of God is an additional sin, up and above the violation unknowingly of that will. This view is based on Paul's teaching concerning covetness.

There is another verse to think about dia:

1 Tim 2:15
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης


I think many translations make mistakes in this verse.

Are the women saved by Childbirth, while the men are saved by believing in Jesus Christ, in His Blood and Death?


Eliyahu

 

[Van]

Hi Eliyahu, 1 Timothy 2:15 is a very difficult verse, and seems to say something inconsistent with many other verses.

Some think the idea is that she gave birth to the line that resulted in Jesus. But others, paying more attention to the grammar, say the verse refers not to the result of childbearing, but to the process of childbearing. These folks see her submission to her role, rather than leading Adam away from God, combined of course with faith, will deliver her in the afterlife from the consequence of her part in the Fall. Note that in this view, the process of child bearing actually including mothering, i.e. parenting the offspring. This points to her role within the family as demonstrating her live faith versus dead faith. In summary, the verse's message may be that Eve or generically women will be delivered by means of faith from which faithfulness flows.

Best I can do.

 

[Eliyahu]

Hi Eliyahu, 1 Timothy 2:15 is a very difficult verse, and seems to say something inconsistent with many other verses.

Some think the idea is that she gave birth to the line that resulted in Jesus. But others, paying more attention to the grammar, say the verse refers not to the result of childbearing, but to the process of childbearing. These folks see her submission to her role, rather than leading Adam away from God, combined of course with faith, will deliver her in the afterlife from the consequence of her part in the Fall. Note that in this view, the process of child bearing actually including mothering, i.e. parenting the offspring. This points to her role within the family as demonstrating her live faith versus dead faith. In summary, the verse's message may be that Eve or generically women will be delivered by means of faith from which faithfulness flows.

Best I can do.

Was Eve not saved yet until the other women faithful, holy, and sober?

I believe Eve was saved by accepting the leather clothes given by the LORD which shadowed the Redemption by the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ, as we read Genesis 3:21- 24.
1 Tim 2:15 is future tense and it has nothing to do with Eve.

Eve was mentioned to explain the order of the sin entering into the human world.

Eliyahu

 

[Van]

Hi Eliyahu, I was addressing the usage of "dia" in 1 Timothy 2:15. I provided my understanding of the verse.

If Eve was saved, she was saved by the blood of Christ, not a foreshadow of that blood.