Romans 10:5-13

“For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the law: “The one who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach), because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation. For the scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

— ‭‭Romans‬ ‭10‬:‭5‬-‭13‬‬ 

Lots of OT references here: Lev 18:5, Deut 30:12-14; 9:4; Joel 2. Lev 18 is about prolonging life in the Promised Land, so that’s a kind of salvation for the Jews. Paul is using that to make his point (how the NT authors use the OT is a whole nother kind of study). Digging into this “righteousness” is book worthy and very debatable. This is a classic NPP text, especially since it’s in the middle of Rom 9-11, where Paul is discussing his fellow Jews. Some would say the whole book of Romans is ethnic and not individual (New Perspective on Paul). Don’t think it’s an either/or. Could be both/and, since nations are composed of individuals. Paul’s point throughout these chapters 9-11 is something about God’s justice/redemption plan and the nation of Israel. 

I know we love these verses for their evangelistic flavor, and perhaps rightly so. I’m not going to diss on that, but there’s clear indications that Paul is focusing on the Jew/Gentile relationship. “There is no distinction.” “He is the same Lord of all” That’s the message of everyone who calls on Jesus will be saved, not necessarily an individual approach.

Paul contrasts salvation by law—whether strictly works salvation or more likely (again NPP) salvation by following Jewish boundary markers, “works of law.”—with salvation by believing. Word is near you, it’s in your heart, you’ve heard it. And with the heart, just believe. No national distinction. All who believe are saved.

Paul does have a confusing view of the law, and putting it together through Romans can break your mind. But it does appear that in 2:13; 7:10 that he really thought that perfect obedience would confer eternal life. But in the next breath he would clearly state that no one could obey perfectly. 

Paul uses the Deut 30 reference to talk about God’s grace. He comes near to His people in relationship, but not only through the law, but in a much more tangible way: Jesus. And we (or more contextually) the Jews) don’t need to ascend the heaven (code for the impossible) or raise Jesus from the dead (he already did that) to find Him. The message has reached them. They just need to believe it.

Lord Jesus: There is no verb written, so it’s best to assume Jesus is the object of what they are believing, and “Lord” is the complement. So it would be “believe Jesus [to be] Lord”. And in this sense, Lord is very likely a reference to YHWH. Quoting from Joel 3:5 in v. 13 confirms that Paul is equating Jesus with YHWH.

I don’t see a major distinction between the mouth confessing and the heart believing. It almost reads like a proverb with parallel structure. This isn’t two necessary steps/conditions to me. Maybe Paul is building off the OT texts. Since they mention both heart and mouth, so does he. We have multiple expressions for how an individual begins their faith journey. I’m not going to limit it to one or two.

James 2:14-19

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you do not give them what the body needs, what good is it? So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith without works and I will show you faith by my works. You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that – and tremble with fear.”

— ‭‭James‬ ‭2‬:‭14‬-‭19‬‬ 

So many lessons to learn from this passage (and yes it extends to the end of the chapter), both in wisdom, faith, and hermeneutics and grammar. Someday I’ll have a separate post on the functions of the article, but that really is the key here. That “the” in v. 14 has been translated by the NET as “that kind of faith.” Seems odd at first, but it’s their way of interpreting an article that points back to something previously mentioned. 

If we saw a truck drive by making a crazy sound, or a certain person in the park, or we were talking about a famous event, we could use the English article in a similar way. We wouldn’t describe the whole item or concept every time. We would just say, “the truck” or “the boy,” (or more likely, “that truck/that man/that incident”). The article can function this way in Greek.

As much as I argue for staying in one book and gleaning its themes primarily, there’s nothing to be scared of when it comes to the big “James vs. Paul” showdown. Comparing Romans 3 and James 2 can be spooky at first, but that’s only because we strip verses of their context and don’t let authors say what they want to.

James is talking to a people hurting in famine. Impoverished. Far from home (Diaspora). He’s talked a bunch to the “poor/wealthy” divide in the church already in ch 2, and now he asks how any believing individual cannot help those in need? 

Genuine faith demonstrates itself in works. Empty words mean nothing. “I’ll pray for you.” “I hope you find some clothes and food.” God bless you and your family.” That doesn’t show faith. 

The question, “Can that faith save him?” is also written in a way to expect a negative answer. No, he has the wrong kind of faith. 

Are we to judge one another’s salvation? No, probably not a good idea. Is this the metric that lets me know someone’s eternal status? Again, I’m probably not going to judge. That’s not James’s point. His conclusion is simply that believers should help other believers in need. 

If not, our so-called faith is a lot like the demons. We believe God exists and even know Jesus pretty well. But we are not willing to share His love with others.

The neat thing is that Paul has nearly identical themes in his letters. “We owe no one anything but love.” Gal 5

Doing good things can never earn God’s favor, free us from sin or death, or gain life. But once we have received His life and love, it should be impossible not to share it with others. When we receive goodness and grace, we extend it. Otherwise, pretty much every NT author should conclude it’s possible we haven’t received anything.

Ephesians 5:15-21

“Therefore be very careful how you live – not as unwise but as wise, taking advantage of every opportunity, because the days are evil. For this reason do not be foolish, but be wise by understanding what the Lord’s will is. And do not get drunk with wine, which is debauchery, but be filled by the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making music in your hearts to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for each other in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭15‬-‭21‬ ‭NET‬‬

Who did you want to be when you grew up? Not what but who. Anybody? I don’t think I really had anyone specific. Some people have an awesome sports icon or music person.

VV 1-2 of this chapter command the Ephesians to be “Imitators of God, as beloved children.” Now we all know that kids like to copy what their parents do. Little girls will slip into mom’s high heels. Kids will put on adult hats, or sit behind the steering wheel. 

But be imitators of God. Doesn’t that seem kind of far-fetched, Paul? What does this require of us? That I know God as my Father. That I can act like Him. This flows from Paul’s prayer in chapter 3 that I would be filled with the knowledge and character of God. That the immense majesty of God’s glory would strengthen me, so that I could understand His love. Because v. 2 commands me to walk in love, remembering Christ’s tremendous sacrifice. Again, imitating what’s been done for me. 

Now I want to jump down to vv. 15-17. The rest of this chapter fills in the gaps of living as God’s children in a terrible and sinful world. We are His children, though. We should be different.

We should be careful to live with a mindset of wisdom, not foolishness. There are traps and dangers lurking all around, potholes and ditches. Sinking sand. If we are not careful, always alert, we can trip, we can fall. You all know that our culture, our world, our entertainment, the philosophies and worldviews of our day are crawling with error and deceit. And lies lead to wrong behavior. Paul says, Be careful. 

Now, when he says, Make the best use of your time, is that like, “Man, I really need to wake up at 6:00 to get a healthy breakfast, to squeeze in a good solid workout before going to school/work? Get all my chores done? Buy three planners and time all my events perfectly, so that I don’t waste a second of the day?” I just don’t get the feeling that Paul is talking about my personal schedule in an entire chapter on imitating God. 

So as a child of God in a perverse world, how would I not waste an opportunity?

Discovering God’s will is always a topic of interest for people, but I think we make it more complicated than it needs to be. There are a few verses that tell us exactly what it is—we just wrestle sometimes with daily decisions that affect our personal path for years to come. That’s okay.

But v. 17 is the key. The path to understanding God’s will is not rolling dice, asking a bunch of questions, praying a gazillion prayers and not making decisions until you feel warm and bubbly, or reading the Bible until that one special verse sticks out. That’s not how the Bible works. A lot of times, God’s will is as simple as not being foolish. And that means analyzing your past, present, and future in light of strong biblical truth and realizing what’s best for your life. It’s biblical wisdom. What decisions are you going to have to make in the next six months? Are you prepared to do that carefully? Wisely? In a way that imitates God’s character and love or the philosophies and deceit of the world?

Ephesians 5:18 is tricky, because it has been misunderstood based on the preposition “by the Spirit.” I use the illustration of pouring a glass of water from a pitcher. If I represent the glass, most people would see the water as the “Holy Spirit,” in that I am to be filled with the Holy Spirit. (And the typical meaning of that is parallel to the drunkenness half of the verse—He controls me/guides me.)

But Wallace’s grammar confirms that the little preposition (see this post on the preposition) after this passive verb rarely means “content.” And when we step back to see Paul’s use of “filling” verbs in Ephesians, we gain more insight. Paul’s prayer in chapter 3 has already said we should be filled with the knowledge of God—and that verb is used with a noun of content. So the water in the glass is the knowledge of God. The character of God. Paul wants us to be filled with that. The Spirit then is the pitcher being used to fill us with the knowledge of God. This is a preposition of means. It answers how we are to be filled. (There’s one more use of “filling” in Ephesians in chapter 4. Jesus is the one “filling” all things, so one could say that Jesus is the one completing this process.) 

Paul says, I want you believer not to be drunk. Those people can’t control their bodies. They can’t control their mind. That only leads to more immorality and wickedness. But I want your mind and your being to be filled with the knowledge of God, and I want the Spirit to be the one who leads you on the path of understanding who this God is. This will lead you toward wisdom. This will lead you to be distinct from the world. This will allow you to reflect His goodness  and love in a world that doesn’t know much about either.

And then Paul gives the most perfect three point sermon. You may read vv 19-21 and think he’s just giving lots more commands on what we should do. But these are all related to the command to be filled by the Spirit. And they all give a picture of what it will look like when the Spirit is filling us with God’s character. They answer the questions, So what? Or To what end? (These are participles of result)

V. 19.  You know how you know if the Spirit is filling the individuals of our church with the character of God? We sing tremendous songs of faith to Him with all of our heart. Can you sing? Now I don’t mean, Do you have much talent? Few of us do. But when you consider how much you know of God, how much He has shown His love for you, is there a joy inside that spills out in song? Forget how it sounds. Even in times of trial and testing, a song of faith can help you recognize the goodness of God and the mercy He has extended to you.

V. 20. Being filled by the Spirit immediately results in our dropping to our knees and acknowledging that we did nothing for anything that we own, that we did nothing for our eternal life or spiritual inheritance. God deserves all praise. Are you thankful? Or is the Spirit still in the process of filling you with a much better perspective of who God is?

V. 21. The third action that results from a proper understanding of God’s character is the Spirit enables us to submit to one another. Look around. In this text I don’t see any distinctions. So what does this mean? It’s easy to look down on others, judge certain individuals for this or that, and think, “Oh, yea they’re doing that job in the church or serving in that capacity makes sense.” But how does every member submit to every other member, regardless of race, gender, socio-economic status, etc?  

Because what’s our tendency? Oh, well, I’m going to look out for me, myself, and I. And, sure, I love these people. We’re all Christians. But at the end of the day, I’m still going to get what’s most important. Paul says, That’s not the character of God. That’s not wise. That’s very very foolish.

Be careful how you walk. Pray for the Spirit to fill your mind with attitudes that reflect that nature of God. So that you can sing to Him. So that you can thank Him for His many many blessings in your life. So that you can treat others as much more important that yourself.

Granville Sharp Rule

 Granville Sharp proposed a grammatical rule in 1798 regarding the Greek article. He restricted this rule to a very specific construction. Two substantives (same case but can be nouns, adjectives, participles) are joined by καί and the article precedes the first substantive only. Both nouns must be singular, refer to personal entities, and be improper.

When all these requirements are met, the two nouns refer to the same person. They have equal identity.

οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James" Mark 6:3

ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν "I ascend to my father and your father and my God and your God" John 20:17

Those who have analyzed each construction that matches Granville's restrictions have confirmed that every occurrence contains multiple substantives that have the same referent.

This is significant for some key passages like Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, where the deity of Jesus is confirmed by using this construction. Some object that "god" is a proper name, but this is simply not the case. Proper names can't be pluralized.

So what happens when people start applying this rule to constructions that don't follow Granville's limitations? They can reach erroneous conclusions. Don't try to make the rule do more than intended.

If proper names are joined by "and," it doesn't matter. They always refer to unique individuals.

If plural nouns are joined by "and," the groups could be identical (see Rev 1:3), but more likely the groups are either distinct (Matt 3:7), or one group is a subset of the other (Matt 9:11; Mark 2:16). In these cases, though, the groups are still related to one another. They either act in unison, or they are part of the same socio-economic circles, etc. We just can't say they are equal unless context allows it.

Impersonal nouns joined by "and" rarely (maybe one instance) have the same referent. More likely, the nouns are referring to distinct entities, or one noun is a subset of the other. Again, the fact that two nouns are joined by a single article indicates some sort of relationship, though. 

Some texts are interesting to debate and wonder how close that relationship is, but concluding that the referents are identical is unlikely unless the nouns meet Granville's limitations.

Cf Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 270-90, for a more exhaustive explanation and examples from biblical and extrabiblical sources.

Introduction to the Perfect Tense

Tenses are one of the most debated topics of NT Greek. We will get into time and aspect later, since scholars debate how the tenses interact with these. Different moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive) may relate to the tenses differently, particularly when it comes to aspect.

Time = past, present, future actions

Aspect = type of action, whether continuous, completed, statement of fact

The perfect tense is not used as often as other tenses, and since its form has reduplication at the front and a  case formative (usually kappa), it stands out on the page. Writers usually chose the form deliberately.

The classic definition of the perfect tense is that it describes completed action that has continuing results. It’s important to note that this action only applies to the speaker/writer. Unless context explains further, there’s nothing inherent in the tense that requires the results to continue into our present or forever.

Most agree with the "completed action/continuing results" kernel definition, but there's debate as to how this works exactly. In class, Fanning even called this a "quasi-aspectual" tense. So it's not exactly parallel to the present and aorist. How the "results/effects" relate to the present and how much is built into the tense vs the surrounding context is heavy grammatical work. Not for this intro.

My favorite analogy for tenses (I don’t know where I heard this—not original to me—so probably a Greek class) is a parade. Imagine Macy’s Day on Thanksgiving. 

The present tense puts you front row on the Main Street. You are watching float after float, singers, dancers, confetti. You can look one way and the other, and there’s no end and no beginning. You simply get to enjoy one stream of endless motion. (Of course, there are multiple uses of the present tense in specific contexts. This does not apply to every passage).

The aorist tense would be like riding in a blimp high above the action. You see the whole parade from thousands of feet in the air, and you can see the entire day’s worth of fun. You get the grande view. 

The perfect tense would be like you’re cleaning the street afterwards. Something happened. And now there are definitely results. And maybe there’s joy and emotions that fill everyone as they reflect on what they just experienced. But the tangible results linger as well.

Again, these tenses interact with real time and the moods differently, so this is definitely a general overview. When we see a perfect verb, we can dive into the context and see if it fits any of the following specific uses. Wallace has identified seven possible functions for the perfect tense: 

• Intensive Perfect: The perfect is completed action with continuing results. This function emphasizes the results or a present state. Many stative verbs belong in this category. It’s best in these examples to just use the English present tense. E.g. ἀφέωνταί σοι αἱ ἁμαρτίαι σου “Your sins are forgiven” Luke 5:20. 

• Extensive Perfect: The opposite of the intensive, this category emphasizes the past, completed action. Usually translate with English present perfect. E.g. κἀγὼ ἑώρακα καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ “And I have seen and I have testified that this is the son of God” John 1:34.

• Aoristic Perfect: Describes an event vividly. For some reason, authors use the perfect for simple past events with little concern for present results. Very rare in narrative genre. τοῦτον ὁ θεὸς [καὶ] ἄρχοντα καὶ λυτρωτὴν ἀπέσταλκεν σὺν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου τοῦ ὀφθέντος αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ βάτῳ. “This [Moses] God…sent” Act 7:35.

• Perfect with Present Force: Certain verbs occur in the perfect tense, though they function like present verbs. Οἰδα is the most common, but also some others: ἕστηκα, πέποιθα, μέμνημαι. These are also stative verbs, and their lexical history/meaning may impact this classification. E.g., μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε, “In your midst stands one who you do not know” John 1:26.

• Gnomic Present: Speaks of a general or proverbial statement/event. The aspect is in view, but occurs on many occasions. This is very rare. ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται,  “The one not believing has already been condemned” John 3:18.

• Proleptic Perfect: The perfect can occur in the second half of a conditional statement (called an apodosis). Depending on the time of the verb in the first half of the condition (protasis), the perfect can refer to a state that would result from an action that hasn’t occurred yet. This is a rare usage. (Rom 13:8)

• Perfect of Allegory: Very rare, but Hebrews uses it to refer to an OT event in an allegorical or picturesque way. (Heb 11:28)

  Someone my disagree with some of these examples or categories. Other grammars have more or less categories. But these serve as a good foundation for an understanding of the perfect and how authors could be using their forms. For more reading from Wallace, see Greek Grammar, 572-82.

Gender, Case, and Number of Pronouns

As a rule, all pronouns agree with their antecedent in case, number, and gender. This applies to personal, demonstrative, and relative pronouns. If the reader is unfamiliar with “case,” see a beginner grammar on NT Greek, or I’m sure I’ll have a post explaining the basics.

Antecedent should be familiar from any grammar course. It’s the word that any pronoun replaces or references in its context. E.g.: Peter went to the store to buy his sister a birthday present. (His refers back to Peter—okay, elementary school is now complete).

Case of Pronouns: The case of a pronoun more than likely will be determined by its function in the clause. (Subjects are usually nominative; objects are usually accusative; various cases for objects of prepositions). However, there are times when the case of a pronoun (whether relative or demonstrative) adapts to the case of its antecedent. This can be helpful when we are unsure what the antecedent is.

The are a few examples where pronouns do not agree with antecedents in gender and number, but these are extremely rare (see 2 John 1). Therefore, if someone is arguing for a change in gender/number or making a key exegetical conclusion based on a switch in agreement, it’s best to take another look.

Here’s an example from Wallace’s Greek Grammar.

Ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ· (Joh 15:26)

The demonstrative pronoun “this” is nominative, masculine, singular. Many see John (or Jesus) as affirming the personhood and even masculine gender of the Spirit (if we can even use such terms for a spirit). Why else would the gender be masculine?

But the antecedent is not “Spirit of truth.” It’s Paraclete, which is a nominative, masculine, singular noun. This is true in each passage in John that discusses the Paraclete. We can affirm that the Spirit is a person, but we cannot conclude anything about gender. Grammar is functioning here as expected. (Not to mention “Spirit” is a neuter noun, so making arguments based on gender of nouns is a bit silly).

Attendant Circumstance Participles

Participles can function as either an adjective, adverb, or noun (depending on context [and technically a gerund in English speak]), which allows for various endings (e.g., -ing, -ed, -en,-d, -n, -t). Attendant circumstance is a special scenario where the participle contains an action that is dependent on the main verb semantically, but the two actions cannot be separated. If the participle can be categorized as another type of adverbial participle, then it cannot be attendant circumstance. For more thorough discussion, see Wallace, Greek Grammar, 640-644.

According to Dan Wallace, attendant circumstance participles usually (90% of the time) have these five characteristics:

• tense of participle is aorist
• tense of main verb is aorist
• main verb is imperative or indicative
• participle precedes main verb in word order
• usually in narrative genre

A clear example is found in Matthew 9:13: πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε τί ἐστιν· ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν, "Go and learn what it is: I desire mercy, not sacrifice." 

Another good passage to discuss would be the "Great Commission" in Matthew 28:19-20:

19  πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,  20  διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.

All five characteristics are present in the opening participle and the main verb. It would be difficult to see a mere temporal idea in this participle. Translating as "while going," is ok, but there is certainly more force to the "Go," idea. Wallace concludes removing imperative force from "Go" turns this into more of a suggestion.

However, the final two participles "baptizing" and "teaching," would not be attendant circumstance. Not only do they follow the main verb, but "Means" would be a much more appropriate function for them. They answer how the disciples were commanded to "make disciples."

This category of participles may not be the most obvious choice, but knowing these five characteristics will help the student from mislabeling a participle and allow for more accurate understandings of debatable passages.

Colwell's Rule and John 1:1

 E.C. Colwell (1933) wrote an article in JBL concluding that a definite preverbal predicate nominative is usually anarthrous. Lots of words there, and if you do not love language or grammar, let’s break it down.

• Definite: specific entity in reality
• Preverbal: the word in question is written before the verb in the sentence
• Predicate Nominative: In a sentence with “is” or “become” as the verb (usually), there’s a subject and either predicate adjective or predicate noun. The predicate nominative/noun renames the subject. E.g., The painting is a masterpiece.
• Anarthrous: does not have the article

In English, word order is often crucial. The subject is typically before the equative verb/verb of being, and the predicate noun/adjective is after the verb. Greek word order doesn’t matter for syntax, while it may affect emphasis or semantics. 

Colwell noticed that when a definite predicate nominative is in front of the verb, it usually does not have the article. His point was that just because a predicate nominative doesn't have the article, one cannot assume it should be translated with "a" instead of "the." Context must decide the words definiteness. His key illustration was John 1:49, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (If you are the son of God, you are the king of Israel). Both subjects are the second person pronoun “you.” This leaves “the son of God” and “the king of Israel” as the predicate nouns in the first and second clauses, respectively. The first one has the article, and the second one does not. Jesus is not “a king of Israel,” but “the king of Israel.” One will notice, though, that context indicated the definiteness of the predicate noun "king.”

The problem is that many after Colwell misunderstood what he had concluded and reversed the rule. They stated that an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative is usually definite.

The key text used for support has always been John 1:1 καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. “And the Word was a god/the God/god”

A couple studies in the 70s (Harper and Dixon, specifically), showed how Colwell restricted his study to passages where predicate nouns were definite. The semantic understanding of the predicate noun, therefore, was already decided by the context before looking at the structure. Harner further argued that 80% of Colwell’s constructions contain qualitative nouns. That is, the noun incorporates some attribute or characteristic of an object or person. These studies also focused on word order and how the structure of a sentence affects the spectrum of indefiniteness to definiteness. Basically, they sharpened Colwell's conclusions so students could use them more practically.

Here is one example of each kind of noun in Colwell’s construction:

• Definite: John 1:49, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (see above)
• Qualitative: John 1:14, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (“the word became flesh” --not a flesh or the flesh)
• Indefinite: (most likely one in the NT) θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ συ (“I perceive that you are a prophet”—could be “the prophet” of Deut 18 but debatable)

In light of these studies, we can revise Colwell’s rule to apply to structures as we find them in the Greek NT: "An anarthrous pre-verbal Predicate Nominative is normally qualitative, sometimes definite, and only rarely indefinite." (See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 262)

What about John 1:1?

John 1:1 fits Colwell’s construction, but its semantics must be defined by context. Indefinite is the most rare meaning for this structure, and it would be nearly impossible for John to see Jesus as “a god.” 

Definite is unlikely. Most of the time, definite anarthrous preverbal predicate nouns are in genitive constructions, are proper names, or refer to a one-of-a-kind noun (e.g., sun). Having a definite noun for "god" here would also make "Word" convertible or precisely equal to its predicate. Essentially, the "Word" would be the same being as "the God," which would be difficult to distinguish from "God the Father" in a natural Jewish context. This is modalism, though John does have the strongest statements about Jesus' equality with the Father throughout the book (I and the Father are one; anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father).

A qualitative noun here fits John's theology and the structure of the construction best. Translation: "The Word was divine/deity." This allows balance between the Word's deity and His humanity in 1:14. The Word has the characteristics or nature of God. Their essence is identical, but He is not the Father.

Cf Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 256-70, for a more exhaustive explanation and examples from biblical and extrabiblical sources.

Participles of Means and Cause

Participles can function as either an adjective, adverb, or noun (depending on context [and technically a gerund in English speak]), which allows for various endings (e.g., -ing, -ed, -en,-d, -n, -t). 

This post focuses on two functions of participles that modify verbs. Therefore, they will be used as adverbs. Rather than being boring and translating with a simple -ing, it is more helpful to insert a word or two to help the reader see the connection between the dependent and independent clause (assuming that connection is clear). If it's not, then leaving it plain vanilla is probably best.

Means: Extremely common use of participles, and answers "How an action is accomplished." This is distinct from manner, which gives an accompanying characteristic or attribute of the person performing the action (e.g., "rejoicing").

Perhaps my most favorite example is 1 Peter 5:6-7.

Ταπεινώθητε οὖν ὑπὸ τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὑψώσῃ ἐν καιρῷ, 7  πᾶσαν τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν ἐπιρίψαντες ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, ὅτι αὐτῷ μέλει περὶ ὑμῶν.  "Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, "by means of/by" casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you."

The command is to "humble yourselves." The participial clause "casting anxiety" answers how we are to be humble. Prayer, in this case, is an act of humility. It's an expression of dependence on God. For Peter's letter as a whole, and his audience in their situation, this would be a great comfort.

ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· but he emptied himself "by means of/by" taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men (Phi 2:7) The main verb is so vague, and the participle answers how Jesus emptied himself. There are other options here (result, temporal, but those are not nearly as probable--sometimes for grammatical reasons). The "problem" with means here is that "emptying" usually doesn't include "taking" or adding something to the equation. When we understand the background of Philippians 2 as an early hymn (maybe one of the earliest creeds), we can allow for poetic license.

Cause: Another extremely common adverbial use of the participle is to give the reason an action occurred. By "reason," I mean the action looking backward that caused a current reality. All tenses are adequately represented as causal participles, and Wallace notes that this participle usually precedes its main verb.

Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν. "But Joseph, her husband, "because he was" just/righteous and not wanting to shame her, desired to put her away privately (Mat 1:19)

For deeper explanation, see Wallace, Greek Grammar, 628-32.

 

1 John 5:14-15

 “And this is the confidence that we have before him: that whenever we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in regard to whatever we ask, then we know that we have the requests that we have asked from him.”

— ‭‭1 John‬ ‭5‬:‭14‬-‭15‬‬

I don’t like discussing verses like this. We either end up talking in circles (making no sense to those who don’t understand Christianese) or talking ourselves into a corner/ a position that can’t be defended based on other passages or basic theology.

Surrounding verses (and overall themes of John) emphasize this word “know” bc of the heresies/opponents that John is attacking. Can talk about that in a passage of chapter 2 (probably vv 18-19). But other paragraphs in ch 5 seem to be closing thoughts and somewhat disconnected.

Grammar: v. 14 is third class condition. Present tense with ean is general present. This is why NET translated as “whenever.” V. 15 is first class condition, even though it still has ean (this is rare). 1st class is assumed true for sake of argument—never translate as since, even if the protasis (first half of conditional) is actually true. This would ruin logical force of conditional. 

At first glance, it seems John is saying the same thing twice in back to back verses. Would need to do deeper study to see if v 15 has slightly different/deeper meaning. Point is we have confidence that God hears us and that we will receive what we ask because He hears us.

Because of the conditional, there’s probably good grounds for emphasizing that phrase “according to His will,” but per my previous posts, it always seems like a cop out in Christian circles. Either the praying person isn’t spiritual enough, didn’t pray right, had wrong motives, etc. On the flip side, I thought God always hears His children…or anyone praying for that matter.

1 John 3:21-22 help understand this passage, since key terms are repeated: confidence, prayer, obedience. There must be some connection with obeying God’s will (i.e., the commandments, which for John is love) and knowing God’s will. Again, this also attacks the lifestyle and teaching of the opponents.

We could also use the following v. 16 to narrow down the “requests.” Not saying this is all that John means by “asking,” and I’m not trying to limit God by any means in order to, again, talk in circles or back into a corner. But John may be at least focusing here on one particular request: praying for those living in sin, which may end up leading to their destruction.

In either case, John must be making a point to his audience that they need. Maybe opponents are feeding more lies. We need more study on the book and context as whole before making blanket statements. We know what prayer is and God’s character. We know we pray and don’t get everything we ask. We don’t need to call anyone or anything a liar.

We don’t need to accuse solid Christians or having terrible motives or living in sin or not knowing God’s will. Maybe we can pray for God’s kingdom and spiritual maturity in ourselves and others, not so much physical things.