Romans 5 - ἐκ and ἐν

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
Post Reply
rhutchin
Posts: 25
Joined: September 6th, 2011, 9:25 am

Romans 5 - ἐκ and ἐν

Post by rhutchin » February 16th, 2012, 11:36 am

In Romans 5:1 we read, ...δικαιωθεντες οὐν ἐκ πιστεως...

In Romans 5:9, we read, ...δικαιωθεντες νυν ἐν τῳ αἱματι αὐτου...

What distinction might a writer be making:

1. by using οὐν vs νυν

2. by using ἐκ vs ἐν

irrespective of surrounding context (unless context matters)?

3. Is there any significance to the coupling of the words, οὐν ἐκ and νυν ἐν?

Roger Hutchinson
0 x


Roger Hutchinson

Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 427
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Romans 5 - ἐκ and ἐν

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen » February 16th, 2012, 7:31 pm

rhutchin wrote: What distinction might a writer be making:
1. by using οὐν vs νυν
irrespective of surrounding context (unless context matters)?
The textual context is everything for οὐν, and also for νυν in this kind of context :)

οὐν means here that what will be said is the result of or an inference from what has been said before. It doesn't point to anything besides the context. Steve Runge explains οὐν further in his Discourse Grammar, actually using this passage as an example , but in my opinion the explanation given above is enough for understanding Romans 5:1. Runge's explanation is important for understanding the whole semantic field of οὐν.

νυν is more interesting to me. Based on "feeling" I would say that it gathers together what has been said and begins new discourse development from there, using the conclusion as a base for further thoughts. I could paraphrase it "So now, we are justified by his blood, as we have seen. And under that circumstance we can say that..."

But that may not be enough considering the context, which has πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον (which you should have quoted IMO). The whole sentence is πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ σωθησόμεθα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς. "Therefore, much more - as we are justified by his blood - will we be saved..." πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον refers to what has been said and tells that we can conclude from it something which wouldn't have been so sure if the earlier message wouldn't have been true. δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ repeats what has been said and makes it a circumstance for what will be said. σωθησόμεθα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς is the focus of the sentence, the message which is based on what is said earlier.
3. Is there any significance to the coupling of the words, οὐν ἐκ and νυν ἐν?
Hardly, but I may be wrong.
0 x

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1577
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Romans 5 - ἐκ and ἐν

Post by Barry Hofstetter » February 17th, 2012, 2:33 am

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
νυν is more interesting to me. Based on "feeling" I would say that it gathers together what has been said and begins new discourse development from there, using the conclusion as a base for further thoughts. I could paraphrase it "So now, we are justified by his blood, as we have seen. And under that circumstance we can say that..."

But that may not be enough considering the context, which has πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον (which you should have quoted IMO). The whole sentence is πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ σωθησόμεθα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς. "Therefore, much more - as we are justified by his blood - will we be saved..." πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον refers to what has been said and tells that we can conclude from it something which wouldn't have been so sure if the earlier message wouldn't have been true. δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ repeats what has been said and makes it a circumstance for what will be said. σωθησόμεθα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς is the focus of the sentence, the message which is based on what is said earlier.
I read νῦν as temporal = "now that justification has been accomplished," making a connection between the present, fulfilled eschatological reality and the future salvation of the believer at judgement. I may have missed something, but as far as I know νῦν is not used in the sense you use above, but always in the temporal sense. You are really reading, I think, an English usage of the word back into the Greek.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 427
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Romans 5 - ἐκ and ἐν

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen » February 17th, 2012, 5:18 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: I may have missed something, but as far as I know νῦν is not used in the sense you use above, but always in the temporal sense. You are really reading, I think, an English usage of the word back into the Greek.
I thought this a bit more and came to the conclusion that my first explanation about the word νῦν wasn't correct. However, I don't think its strictly temporal in this context. BAGD gives the meaning 2. "Oft. it is not so much the present time that is meant as much as the situation pertaining at a given moment as things now stand". In our context the situation is also temporal (we weren't justified before and now are) but I still feel that νῦν here isn't meant to be purely temporal here. It's of course impossible to detach temporal (what was previously/what is now) from logical (what actually is/what could be) here. But the context rules, and I still think that my explanation of the phrase was good: "δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ repeats what has been said and makes it a circumstance for what will be said".

What was wrong in my earlier post was: "it gathers together what has been said and begins new discourse development from there, using the conclusion as a base for further thoughts". This is actually the context of the word, not the word itself, and therefore can't be used to describe the word νῦν generally.
0 x

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Romans 5 - ἐκ and ἐν

Post by David Lim » February 17th, 2012, 9:13 am

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote: I may have missed something, but as far as I know νῦν is not used in the sense you use above, but always in the temporal sense. You are really reading, I think, an English usage of the word back into the Greek.
I thought this a bit more and came to the conclusion that my first explanation about the word νῦν wasn't correct. However, I don't think its strictly temporal in this context. BAGD gives the meaning 2. "Oft. it is not so much the present time that is meant as much as the situation pertaining at a given moment as things now stand". In our context the situation is also temporal (we weren't justified before and now are) but I still feel that νῦν here isn't meant to be purely temporal here. It's of course impossible to detach temporal (what was previously/what is now) from logical (what actually is/what could be) here. But the context rules, and I still think that my explanation of the phrase was good: "δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ repeats what has been said and makes it a circumstance for what will be said".

What was wrong in my earlier post was: "it gathers together what has been said and begins new discourse development from there, using the conclusion as a base for further thoughts". This is actually the context of the word, not the word itself, and therefore can't be used to describe the word νῦν generally.
I also agree with Barry that "νυν" is temporal and has no connotation of logical progression. The earlier sentences, especially "ετι γαρ χριστος οντων ημων ασθενων κατα καιρον υπερ ασεβων απεθανεν" / "for, we still being weak, Christ died according to time for the sake of impious [ones]." and "συνιστησιν δε την εαυτου αγαπην εις ημας ο θεος οτι ετι αμαρτωλων οντων ημων χριστος υπερ ημων απεθανεν" / "but his own love God approved to us: that, we still being sinful [ones], Christ died for our sake." do correspond with "πολλω ουν μαλλον δικαιωθεντες νυν εν τω αιματι αυτου σωθησομεθα δι αυτου απο της οργης" / "therefore much more, now having been justified by his blood, we will be saved through him from the wrath.", contrasting our previous state of weakness and sinfulness and impiety and our current state of having been justified and saved. In other words: "For, while we were still weak and impious, Christ died according to [God's] time for our sake ... God showed to us his own love: while we were still sinful, Christ died for our sake."

As for Roger's question about the prepositions, I can say that "εκ πιστεως" / "out of faith" is natural and simply denotes the source out of which "εδικαιωθημεν" / "we have been justified", and "εν τω αιματι αυτου" / "by his blood" is just as natural and denotes that the indirect agent for our "δικαιωσις" / "justification".
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Mark Lightman
Posts: 300
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: Romans 5 - ἐκ and ἐν

Post by Mark Lightman » February 17th, 2012, 11:16 am

An example, I think, of what Eeli might call non-temporal νῦν is 1 Cor 12:20
νῦν δὲ πολλὰ μὲν μέλη, ἕν δὲ σῶμα
.

Eeli might call this inferential νῦν; I would call this I-need-an-extra-syllable-to-balance-out-my-sentence-νῦν-will-work-just-fine-because-these-particles-are-really-more-euphonic-than-semantic-anyway νῦν. Another example is Luke 11:39.

Of course, it’s hard to prove a negative. It’s hard to prove that Paul, an eschatologist if there ever was one (Jesus, too) was not talking about the present eschatological situation of the one-ness of the Church. The Greeks themselves, for example in the use of participles, again and again made no distinction between the temporal and the logical/causal/inferential. Why should they start now? Why should we?

I would paraphrase 1 Cor. 12:20 thus
βλέπομεν οὖν ἕν σῶμα ἔχον μέλη πολλά
.
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: …context is everything... the context rules...the context of the word, not the word itself...
σύμφημι δή. George Somsel once said “Context is king.” Well, maybe it was more than once. A guy on Textkit not long ago went even further. Words do not have meanings, he said, meanings make temporary use of words.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “What does this text mean?”