Breaking down Ephesians 2:8, how do I do that?

A friend of mine and I are looking at Ephesians 2:8 (ESV) "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God," We are in disagreement as to whether or not the "gift of God" refers to "grace" or "faith" (or both).

How do I break this sentence down (sentence structure, word forms, etc) in/from the original Greek to show where the emphasis on "gift of God" is placed? Hopefully my question makes sense. I don't know what you call this "process".

Any help or being pointed to a tutorial would be appreciated.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Donnie Hale

I'm in a study on Ephesians these days, and we just did this passage recently.

If you have a reverse interlinear, I recommend using that to check the morphology of the words "grace", "faith", "this" (or "that" - "and this/that not of yourselves"), and "gift". Also, compare verse 5 where a portion of verse 8 is first stated. You can also read the commentaries, but you'll find that there's no agreement; and they all make good cases for their opinions.

Good luck! It's a fun study.

Donnie

Francis

I think it is asking too much of grammar and syntax to settle this question. While the question might be entertained on the basis of the verse taken in isolation from its context, that context makes it clear what it is that Paul is emphasizing.

Beyond that, I can see how a person and commentators could want to import other theological commitments in the raising of this question. But whether the question stands as valid generally from a theological standpoint or not, the verse itself interpreted in its context should be allowed to emphasize what it emphasizes.

MJ. Smith

I would suggest that you take a look at any of your resources identified as sentence analysis, clausal analysis/visualization/outlines, discourse analysis, and syntactic analysis/visualization, These resources will show you how others have addressed the problem and whether they resolve it or leave it ambiguous.

painfree

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225057#Comment_225057

Francis, I would tend to agree with you here as the context seems to hold the answer.

Chris D. Mallea

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225083#Comment_225083

I would suggest that you take a look at any of your resources identified as sentence analysis, clausal analysis/visualization/outlines, discourse analysis, and syntactic analysis/visualization, These resources will show you how others have addressed the problem and whether they resolve it or leave it ambiguous.

You must teach Greek. [:P]

In my original post, one of the questions I ask is what this process
is even called. Obviously I'm not going to know what you're even
talking about.

Chris D. Mallea

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225121#Comment_225121

I'm still looking for a direct answer. [;)]

I'll go ahead and throw in verse 9 so that it is Ephesians 2:8-9 as so often quoted. Let's say for discussion purposes that you are asked what the phrase "gift of God" relates to. Without giving any personal opinions, your task would be to go to the original language, and using that, plus how the sentence is structured in the Greek and or any other feature related to hermeneutics, how would you give your answer or structure your "report"? Think of this as a class assignment and the problem is a math one. You would show your work Hopefully I'm making sense in my question but based on some of the answers, most likely I'm not.

Maybe I should be asking how to use Logos to exegete this pericope? Help me out here please........

chris

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225126#Comment_225126

maybe this is too simple of an answer, but put your text into the "exegetical guide". Run it. Depending on what resources you have in your Logos, you will see syntax resources (diagramming the sentences), Grammars (explaining various parts of the verses--maybe your question is dealt with there), etc. But for that to be useful you will need to know language and grammar terms (and Logos can help you with resources there). And for that matter, even diagrams and grammars--to some degree--are open to variance according to the presuppositions and/or analysis by the grammarian. Each verse cannot be diagrammed as thought we know exactly how it is supposed to be. Good commentaries (yes, reflecting the opinion of the author as well as others he/she has consulted) will highlight some of those issues for you and perhaps reference works and studies you don't have in your library--which will give you a bigger picture.

Sometimes you can tell emphasis by what word/phrase is placed (peculiarly) at the beginning of a sentence. There are probably other rules that reveal emphasis. But even an emphatic word and its resultant import can be overblown.

Lots of verbiage to say: have at it, and the more you know Greek, the better able you will make sense of those tools.

Ralph Mauch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225126#Comment_225126

Maybe I should be asking how to use Logos to exegete this pericope?

Have you tried the Exegetical Guide? Here is what the results look like, and "one" tool I clicked on to show the analyze was the Lexham Syntactic Greek NT, shown below on the right of the Guide (you have to hover over the different stuctures to fully understand).

Ralph Mauch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225133#Comment_225133

Lots of verbiage to say: have at it, and the more you know Greek, the better able you will make sense of those tools.

[:D] you added the words to my picture, and having a tool like Wallace's Greek will also help, for those of us (me) that had just enough Greek to be dangerous.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

How do I break this sentence down (sentence structure, word forms, etc) in/from the original Greek to show where the emphasis on "gift of God" is placed? Hopefully my question makes sense. I don't know what you call this "process".

Process is formally called exegesis. Related discipline is hermeneutics (variety of techniques for interpretation - includes contextual analysis).

I would suggest that you take a look at any of your resources identified as sentence analysis, clausal analysis/visualization/outlines, discourse analysis, and syntactic analysis/visualization, These resources will show you how others have addressed the problem and whether they resolve it or leave it ambiguous.

Initially looked at sentence analysis, clausal analysis, and discourse logosres:clausalnt;ref=BibleNA27.Eph2.8-9 and logosres:lexhamsgntgraph;ref=BibleNA27.Eph2.8-9 and logosres:ldgnt;ref=BibleNA27.Eph2.8-9 - noted greek genders: this pronoun was neuter that agreed with gift of God but neither grace nor faith (feminine) - also looked at sentence structure - then looked at couple commentaries - found similar observations plus contextual references to Ephesians 2:5 - decided to include Logos web site links and Logos resource URL's.

Logos Scholar's packages and above include A.T. Robertson's "Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament" logosres:rwp;ref=Bible.Eph2.8

Logos Platinum and Portfolio packages include A.T. Robertson's "Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research", one of 4 greek reference grammars often cited in lexicons and commentaries => http://www.logos.com/product/guide/greek-bible-texts-tools

Logos Scholar's Gold packages and above include United Bible Societies handbooks logosres:ubshbk70;ref=Bible.Eph2.8-9;off=1

A basic search Ephesians WITHIN 100 WORDS "gift of God" finds more articles in Logos library to consider - including example 181 in "Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis" logosres:discgrmrgrknt;ref=Page.p_334;off=158 which is part of a Discourse Bundle

Keep Smiling [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225121#Comment_225121

You must teach Greek.

In my original post, one of the questions I ask is what this process
is even called. Obviously I'm not going to know what you're even
talking about.

Scarcely know any Greek. However, the tools to which I referred are the tools Logos teaches in their DVD lessons on how to use original language resources in Logos even though you don't really know the language. Enter your passage into the exegetical guide: You should get something similar to this:

The visualization section contains many of the resources to which I referred:

Choosing the second item as an example, click on Lexham sentence analysis. This gives you a sentence diagram in tree format:

Now, you may be saying that's help - what's all that garble-de-gook? Mouse over gives you definitions

Yes, it takes time to learn to read the diagrams but the payoff it great. So the short answer to your question?

Conclusion: People who really know Greek aren't willing to commit to either answer .so I probably shouldn't either.

Edit: Lot's of people gave you good answers while I was making my pretty pictures. Hope it helps anyway.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225126#Comment_225126

Maybe I should be asking how to use Logos to exegete this pericope? Help me out here please........

chris

Sometimes the ambiguity of the English text mirrors that of the original. If you don't take that seriously, you can force any ambiguity into whatever mold you want (even inventing ambiguity, if necessary). It's been done. In this case, it would seem that you'd want to resolve the issue of whether the original text is genuinely ambiguous regarding the question you raise, or not. If it is, you'll need to leave the issue unresolved, or, as you suggest, consider whether the ambiguity is intentional implying that both grace and faith are gifts.

In resolving that question, the key (IMHO) is understanding how the pronoun "this" functions. You suggest that "this" points to either grace or faith. Have you considered that "this" may point to the entire phrase: this = salvation by grace through faith? If so the entire means of salvation is a gift, which does not answer the question of whether both then must be gifts as well.

Maybe you'll want to answer the question of whether either or both faith/grace is a gift by looking at other Scriptures.

Chris D. Mallea

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225141#Comment_225141

This is all great stuff, thanks folks. Lots of good material to go over.

Ralph Mauch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225141#Comment_225141

Maybe you'll want to answer the question of whether either or both faith/grace is a gift by looking at other Scriptures.

Best answer yet, the same author (Paul) has more to say on this when you look at Romans 4... Logos book - Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated by Bullinger is a favorite tool when looking into these matters.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225143#Comment_225143

This is all great stuff, thanks folks. Lots of good material to go over.

Since not know what resources your Logos library has, if would like some copy & paste, please ask.

Initially had copied from Word Pictures and UBS handbook (good material to read) - then decided links should be sufficient.

Edit: case of πίστεως (faith) used with preposition διὰ (through) provides some actionable insight about "through faith"

Keep Smiling [:)]

Chris D. Mallea

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225164#Comment_225164

I have the Scholar's Edition with Luther's Works and the Catholic Doctrine collection. I also got the Greek and Hebrew language set to delve into here shortly. I'll definitely take a look at all the resources mentioned and I give a big thanks to all, this is just what I was looking for, especially the visual pieces.

Chris D. Mallea

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225149#Comment_225149

Maybe you'll want to answer the question of whether either or both faith/grace is a gift by looking at other Scriptures.

Best answer yet, the same author (Paul) has more to say on this when you look at Romans 4... Logos book - Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated by Bullinger is a favorite tool when looking into these matters.

Thanks for that Ralph, I see that I have that book so I'll check it out.

Chris D. Mallea

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225140#Comment_225140

You must teach Greek.

In my original post, one of the questions I ask is what this process
is even called. Obviously I'm not going to know what you're even
talking about.

Scarcely know any Greek. However, the tools to which I referred are the tools Logos teaches in their DVD lessons on how to use original language resources in Logos even though you don't really know the language. Enter your passage into the exegetical guide: You should get something similar to this:

MJ;

I was being lighthearted on the teaching Greek comment because I didn't understand a word of what you said and so as the saying goes......

It sounds like you are referring to the Greek and Hebrew language courses. I did purchase those also but haven't had a chance to delve into them. I'll make that a priority. Thanks also MJ for the time you took to create the post with the pics. That was very helpful to me and I'm sure will be for those who do a search as I did.

chris

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225196#Comment_225196

MJ;

I was being lighthearted on the teaching Greek comment because I didn't understand a word of what you said and so as the saying goes...

The nice thing about Greek is that I can honestly say "It's all Greek to me". I will confess to a language/linguistics background - just not Greek, Latin or Hebrew.

Chris D. Mallea

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225136#Comment_225136

How do I break this sentence down (sentence structure, word forms, etc) in/from the original Greek to show where the emphasis on "gift of God" is placed? Hopefully my question makes sense. I don't know what you call this "process".

Process is formally called exegesis. Related discipline is hermeneutics (variety of techniques for interpretation - includes contextual analysis).

I would suggest that you take a look at any of your resources identified as sentence analysis, clausal analysis/visualization/outlines, discourse analysis, and syntactic analysis/visualization, These resources will show you how others have addressed the problem and whether they resolve it or leave it ambiguous.

Initially looked at sentence analysis, clausal analysis, and discourse logosres:clausalnt;ref=BibleNA27.Eph2.8-9 and logosres:lexhamsgntgraph;ref=BibleNA27.Eph2.8-9 and logosres:ldgnt;ref=BibleNA27.Eph2.8-9 - noted greek genders: this pronoun was neuter that agreed with gift of God but neither grace nor faith (feminine) - also looked at sentence structure - then looked at couple commentaries - found similar observations plus contextual references to Ephesians 2:5 - decided to include Logos web site links and Logos resource URL's.

Logos Scholar's packages and above include A.T. Robertson's "Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament" logosres:rwp;ref=Bible.Eph2.8

Logos Platinum and Portfolio packages include A.T. Robertson's "Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research", one of 4 greek reference grammars often cited in lexicons and commentaries => http://www.logos.com/product/guide/greek-bible-texts-tools

Logos Scholar's Gold packages and above include United Bible Societies handbooks logosres:ubshbk70;ref=Bible.Eph2.8-9;off=1

A basic search Ephesians WITHIN 100 WORDS "gift of God" finds more articles in Logos library to consider - including example 181 in "Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis" logosres:discgrmrgrknt;ref=Page.p_334;off=158 which is part of a Discourse Bundle

Keep Smiling

I see in your info above that there are two resources I don't have. One is the "Greek New Testament Discourse Bundle" and the other is within the "Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament bundle". Would one of these be more relied upon than the other or should I buy both?

chris

George Somsel

A friend of mine and I are looking at Ephesians 2:8 (ESV) "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God," We are in disagreement as to whether or not the "gift of God" refers to "grace" or "faith" (or both).

How do I break this sentence down (sentence structure, word forms, etc) in/from the original Greek to show where the emphasis on "gift of God" is placed? Hopefully my question makes sense. I don't know what you call this "process".

Any help or being pointed to a tutorial would be appreciated.

This really isn't susceptible to solution through grammar since τοῦτο (this) is nom neut sg while both χάριτί (grace) and πίστεως (faith) are both fem. The demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο should agree in gender with its antecedent which it clearly does not. This is what is known as a usage κατα συνεσιν or "according to sense" indicating that the author did not take the antecedent (χαριτί or πίστεως) as being gendered. A little logic might help here since "grace" is obviously not something which comes from one's self but is given by the one granting favor. It would appear inescapable that the antecedent of τοῦτο (this) must therefore be πίστεως (faith) which is said to not derive from one's self.

Chris D. Mallea

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225215#Comment_225215

A friend of mine and I are looking at Ephesians 2:8 (ESV) "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God," We are in disagreement as to whether or not the "gift of God" refers to "grace" or "faith" (or both).

How do I break this sentence down (sentence structure, word forms, etc) in/from the original Greek to show where the emphasis on "gift of God" is placed? Hopefully my question makes sense. I don't know what you call this "process".

Any help or being pointed to a tutorial would be appreciated.

This really isn't susceptible to solution through grammar since τοῦτο (this) is nom neut sg while both χάριτί (grace) and πίστεως (faith) are both fem. The demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο should agree in gender with its antecedent which it clearly does not. This is what is known as a usage κατα συνεσιν or "according to sense" indicating that the author did not take the antecedent (χαριτί or πίστεως) as being gendered. A little logic might help here since "grace" is obviously not something which comes from one's self but is given by the one granting favor. It would appear inescapable that the antecedent of τοῦτο (this) must therefore be πίστεως (faith) which is said to not derive from one's self.

Good morning George;

I believe that grace is a gift of God, also the faith (to receive that gift) is a gift of God. My friend thinks that he is the originator of the faith element required to receive that grace (his "part" in the act of being saved). I've shown him several other passages in the bible where it is clear (use clearer scripture to interpret harder scripture) that man is dead in their sins, do not seek after God, etc. The verse he keeps bringing up is Eph 2:8-9 so thusly the reason for my original post. I wanted to break the verses down to show/see where the faith element comes from.

I showed him in my Lutheran Study bible the commentary pasted below from our Book of Concord, where it is very clear, but he feels this is "The Lutheran view" and perhaps the commentary is slanted that way. I can understand his viewpoint. I thought if I learned how to go back to the original languages, break it down into it's elements I could show him in these verses as well as others that faith IS entirely the gift of God. It's a work in progress. [:D]

2:8–9 by grace. God’s generous mercy toward the undeserving (Rm 5:12–21). See p 1902. “So you see plainly that there is no work done here by us, but a treasure, which God gives us and faith grasps [Ephesians 2:8–9]. It is like the benefit of the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross, which is not a work, but a treasure included in the Word. It is offered to us and received by faith” (LC IV 37). saved. Rescued from sin, the devil, and God’s wrath. Sometimes in Paul’s writings, “salvation” refers to the Last Day (Rm 13:11), and at other places it is an ongoing present reality (1Co 1:18; 2Co 6:2). Here, he insists that we have already received it through Christ (Rm 8:24). See p 1904. through faith. God’s gift; opposite of both works and sight. Faith is a simple trust in God’s gifts, now and to come (Lk 7:50; Rm 1:17; Gal 2:16). “Faith is not a bare knowledge of Christ’s history, but it is God’s gift” (FC Ep III 6). not your own doing … not a result of works. Neither Jews who obey the Torah, nor Gentiles who heed their conscience, may claim a reward from God (Rm 3:19–31). “Christ’s merit is obtained not by our works or pennies, but from grace through faith, without money and merit” (SA II II 24).

Engelbrecht, E. A. (2009). The Lutheran Study Bible (2019). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225243#Comment_225243

I believe that grace is a gift of God, also the faith (to receive that gift) is a gift of God. My friend thinks that he is the originator of the faith element required to receive that grace (his "part" in the act of being saved). I've shown him several other passages in the bible where it is clear (use clearer scripture to interpret harder scripture) that man is dead in their sins, do not seek after God, etc. The verse he keeps bringing up is Eph 2:8-9 so thusly the reason for my original post. I wanted to break the verses down to show/see where the faith element comes from.

I showed him in my Lutheran Study bible the commentary pasted below from our Book of Concord, where it is very clear, but he feels this is "The Lutheran view" and perhaps the commentary is slanted that way. I can understand his viewpoint. I thought if I learned how to go back to the original languages, break it down into it's elements I could show him in these verses as well as others that faith IS entirely the gift of God. It's a work in progress.

If he disagrees with your LSB, I'm sure he would be greatly troubled by the great John Calvin.

8. For by grace are ye saved. This is an inference from the former statements. Having treated of election and of effectual calling, he arrives at this general conclusion, that they had obtained salvation by faith alone. First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.

Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and fancied preparations, and merits, and satisfactions? There is none of these which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men; so that the praise of grace would not, as Paul shews, remain undiminished. When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ. And so he adds, not of yourselves; that, claiming nothing for themselves, they may acknowledge God alone as the author of their salvation.

In the end, isn't it that final sentence by Calvin that strikes to the heart of the matter? God is the one who chooses to favor his creation with blessedness, not man who chooses God.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225201#Comment_225201

I see in your info above that there are two resources I don't have. One is the "Greek New Testament Discourse Bundle" and the other is within the "Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament bundle". Would one of these be more relied upon than the other or should I buy both?

Personally ordered Greek New Testament Discourse Bundle (7 vols.) $ 169.95 as a pre-publication ($ 109.95) that included Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament Bundle (6 vols.) $149.95 plus Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis $ 49.95 - bundle of 7 volumes retails for $ 29.95 less than purchasing 6 volume New Testament plus Discourse Grammar.

Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis Example 181 " logosres:discgrmrgrknt;ref=Page.p_334;off=158

Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament - Ephesians 2 logosres:ldgnt;ref=BibleNA27.Eph2.1-22

Hovering mouse over blue items has pop-up boxes with more discourse information (e.g. counter-point and point clauses in Ephesians 2:8). For screen shot, chose to not display other interlinear lines (Greek Lemma, Greek Morphology, Louw-Nida Article, and English Literal Gloss) - personally tend to display Louw-Nida numbers for mouse hover pop-up: english range of meaning within semantic domain (context) - also can mouse hover over greek word for morphology pop-up.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225319#Comment_225319

I am competent with Greek though I am not an expert. Nevertheless I have enough command to evaluate the kind of exegetical arguments that are commonly found in the kinds of commentaries that draw heavily on grammar and syntax to try to argue for fine points of interpretation. In fact, I have engaged and written this kind of exercise myself many times.

Usually, it is pretty simple: either the construction settles it and everybody but the few that always disagree can see it. Or when you end up with 32 possible interpretations, it is clear that the answer is not in more exegetical tools. Moreover, the answer is not democratic either (the view endorsed by the most). The majority view has often more to do with shared presuppositions and theological commitments than with better merits. If this were not so, Catholic theology would have to always be the one that is right since they outnumber Protestant exegetes (and the theological commitments of either show).

The point I am trying to make is this: several of the friends who have posted here confess having little or no knowledge of Greek. Contrarily to the recommendations of many others (and Logos' contention that you don't need to learn Greek to use Greek) I would warn against the dangers of thinking that these tools tell it as it is. Even syntactical displays involve choices and interpretations. Only the person who has enough of a command of these considerations can indeed evaluate their merit. If not, then why bother looking at tools that look more scholarly? You may just as well stick to the views expressed in commentaries. But you can't invoke Greek tools to choose between these views as if the Greek tools themselves give you the final "objective" word.

My personal experience, for what it's worth, is that excessive exegetical tunnel vision leads to many erroneous interpretations. The effect of the tunnel vision is naturally aggrandized self-confidence. How many sermons have been preached on the "divine love" agape and other supposedly insider's Greek knowledge? These have been preached and taught (and still are!) as if they were divine truth when a rather simple comparative study of the word usage would have shown this to be bogus. Yet it became a majority view and bandwagon with an appearance of expert credibility.

I would contend that it is the simpler tools that still remain the best ones for biblical interpretation. Cross-referencing goes a long, long way, especially when one takes care to acquaint themselves thoroughly with the whole canon, including the Old Testament scriptures. Context is very important though it does not settle everything. But solid cross-referencing without committing to militant theological schools that put lenses on (eg, dispensationalism, Lutheranism, etc) makes a better and better theology (the "theological" spiral). There is one Author indeed and one finds in increasing fashion that passages check out against each other and that some of the conundrums of interpretation are in fact rather simply solved that way but very frustrating otherwise.

So I would advise those who do not have knowledge of the original language but also those who do not to overstate the importance of detailed exegesis and advanced Greek tools. Many times I have spent countless hours and had ooos and aaahs as I "discovered" finer "nuggets" (made me feel good) but then when I am done and I look at where this all REALLY boils down to, it's not much different than what someone who takes time to do good basic Bible study would arrive at.

Spend more time in the Word itself than in tools that make you spend all your time around the Word. Remember the call of Wisdom to come and learn in Proverbs is not just for Greek scholars! Isn't it what we're all supposed to be after? I say this not against the place of expert knowledge but in order to put back in perspective.

Psalm 119:99 I have more insight than all my teachers, For Your testimonies are my meditation.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225407#Comment_225407

Context is very important though it does not settle everything.

I don't know how many times I have repeated on the b-greek forum that "context is king." This remains true. The argument of the broader passage must be considered when judging how any word or phrase is used. Nevertheless, there are times when context fails to settle the matter. In such cases it is necessary to take an even broader view. The entire corpus of a particular author must be taken into consideration to determine how such a word or phrase is used throughout an author's works. Do not immediately assume, however, that the views of a gospel author can be applied to the usage of Paul or that the useage of Paul can be applied to the use in one of the gospels. Just as I can listen to a piece of classical music and tell, even though I may never have previous heard it who the composer was simply on the basis of style, so also each author has a peculiar style which does not belong to any other. From this it is frequently possible to discern what the intention of some particularly troubling passage might be. While there are certain usages that one finds throughout all of the books since language is a medium of communication necessitating that certain conventions be followed, one can never simply level the playing field so that one author is simply saying much the same thing as any other. Each has his own contribution to make to the matrix which serves to make up the corpus of scripture.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225407#Comment_225407

So I would advise those who do not have knowledge of the original language but also those who do not to overstate the importance of detailed exegesis and advanced Greek tools. ....

Spend more time in the Word itself than in tools that make you spend all your time around the Word.

[Y]

Jim VanSchoonhoven

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225414#Comment_225414

I agree that we need to spend time in the Word and not just in the helps material, but I think it is important to face the fact that God had the NT written in Greek, in other words, the Word was written in the Greek language and even if we are using English bibles, our goal is to understand what God said in the Greek language.

I am not an expert in either Greek or English, but one of the things I have noticed is I am glad I took Greek in bible school, there is no doubt that knowing something about the language has been useful in understanding spiritual truths that are revealed in the scriptures.

How ever the goal is to know Christ more deeply and to walk by faith, in the Grace that He has freely given to us!

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225412#Comment_225412

Context is very important though it does not settle everything.

I don't know how many times I have repeated on the b-greek forum that "context is king." This remains true. The argument of the broader passage must be considered when judging how any word or phrase is used. Nevertheless, there are times when context fails to settle the matter. In such cases it is necessary to take an even broader view. The entire corpus of a particular author must be taken into consideration to determine how such a word or phrase is used throughout an author's works. Do not immediately assume, however, that the views of a gospel author can be applied to the usage of Paul or that the useage of Paul can be applied to the use in one of the gospels. Just as I can listen to a piece of classical music and tell, even though I may never have previous heard it who the composer was simply on the basis of style, so also each author has a peculiar style which does not belong to any other. From this it is frequently possible to discern what the intention of some particularly troubling passage might be. While there are certain usages that one finds throughout all of the books since language is a medium of communication necessitating that certain conventions be followed, one can never simply level the playing field so that one author is simply saying much the same thing as any other. Each has his own contribution to make to the matrix which serves to make up the corpus of scripture.

Peace, George!

That is one of your very-best posts, George! Well-done!

*smile*

Joy Always!

Chris D. Mallea

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/225407#Comment_225407

I would contend that it is the simpler tools that still remain the best ones for biblical interpretation. Cross-referencing goes a long, long way, especially when one takes care to acquaint themselves thoroughly with the whole canon, including the Old Testament scriptures. Context is very important though it does not settle everything. But solid cross-referencing without committing to militant theological schools that put lenses on (eg, dispensationalism, Lutheranism, etc) makes a better and better theology (the "theological" spiral). There is one Author indeed and one finds in increasing fashion that passages check out against each other and that some of the conundrums of interpretation are in fact rather simply solved that way but very frustrating otherwise.

I had to laugh out loud when I read the part about "But solid cross-referencing without committing to militant theological
schools that put lenses on (eg, Lutheranism,...)

You're not Roman Catholic are you??[;)] Never heard of Lutheranism being a militant theological school that put lenses on. [:S] Guess I don't get out enough.

Chris

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/229878#Comment_229878

I would contend that it is the simpler tools that still remain the best ones for biblical interpretation. Cross-referencing goes a long, long way, especially when one takes care to acquaint themselves thoroughly with the whole canon, including the Old Testament scriptures. Context is very important though it does not settle everything. But solid cross-referencing without committing to militant theological schools that put lenses on (eg, dispensationalism, Lutheranism, etc) makes a better and better theology (the "theological" spiral). There is one Author indeed and one finds in increasing fashion that passages check out against each other and that some of the conundrums of interpretation are in fact rather simply solved that way but very frustrating otherwise.

I had to laugh out loud when I read the part about "But solid cross-referencing without committing to militant theological schools that put lenses on (eg, Lutheranism,...)

You're not Roman Catholic are you?? Never heard of Lutheranism being a militant theological school that put lenses on. Guess I don't get out enough.

Chris

As an ex-Fundamentalist, former member of the Christian Reformed Church (Calvinist), and current (and still Calvinist) Episcopalian, my reaction was quite similar -- WHAT ! Lutherans ? We're not talking about handling snakes here or making the deaf to hear. Please, let's not have another knock-down, drag-out over churches.

Chris D. Mallea

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/229880#Comment_229880

I would contend that it is the simpler tools that still remain the best ones for biblical interpretation. Cross-referencing goes a long, long way, especially when one takes care to acquaint themselves thoroughly with the whole canon, including the Old Testament scriptures. Context is very important though it does not settle everything. But solid cross-referencing without committing to militant theological schools that put lenses on (eg, dispensationalism, Lutheranism, etc) makes a better and better theology (the "theological" spiral). There is one Author indeed and one finds in increasing fashion that passages check out against each other and that some of the conundrums of interpretation are in fact rather simply solved that way but very frustrating otherwise.

I had to laugh out loud when I read the part about "But solid cross-referencing without committing to militant theological schools that put lenses on (eg, Lutheranism,...)

You're not Roman Catholic are you?? Never heard of Lutheranism being a militant theological school that put lenses on. Guess I don't get out enough.

Chris

As an ex-Fundamentalist, former member of the Christian Reformed Church (Calvinist), and current (and still Calvinist) Episcopalian, my reaction was quite similar -- WHAT ! Lutherans ? We're not talking about handling snakes here or making the deaf to hear. Please, let's not have another knock-down, drag-out over churches.

I'm serious when I said that I laughed out loud. I'm personally not offended in the least by the comment and don't want to go off topic on my own thread. I didn't "read" charismatic but the wording sure made me picture Luther, in full battle dress, storming Whittenburg castle to deliver his 95 Thesis instead of posting it on the door. [:D]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/229885#Comment_229885

I think I missed the step between "break it down" and "break down" [:P]

Jeremy

Not that I agree with his conlcusions, but a a good introduction to the matter can be found in "Is Faith a Gift from God According to Ephesians 2:8? A Grammatical Analysis.” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal (Fall 2006). Logos has it.