Page 1 of 1

Romans 8:29 - ὁτι οὑς προεγνω

Posted: December 30th, 2012, 11:07 pm
by rhutchin
The phrase - ὁτι οὑς προεγνω - appears in Romans 8:29.

Without regard to context, how would one understand προεγνω as singular indicative aorist active. Would it normally refer to some unique individual (or group) who lived in the past?

Can the surrounding context (not Romans 8:29, necessarily, unless it is unusual) alter how one would normally understand this phrase?

Can Romans 8:29, grammatically, support different exegetical interpretations?

Roger Hutchinson

Re: Romans 8:29 - ὁτι οὑς προεγνω

Posted: December 31st, 2012, 12:58 am
by Louis L Sorenson
Here is the text in context:

27 ὁ δὲ ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας οἶδεν τί τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅτι κατὰ θεὸν ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων. 28 Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν, τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν. 29 ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς· 30 οὓς δὲ προώρισεν, τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν· καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν· οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν.

Aland, B., Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., & Wikgren, A. (1993). The Greek New Testament (4th ed.) (423–424). Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies.

Re: Romans 8:29 - ὁτι οὑς προεγνω

Posted: December 31st, 2012, 7:35 am
by Stephen Carlson
I've been wondering about the so-called "gnomic aorist" a lot recently. I wonder if this could be an example?

Re: Romans 8:29 - ὁτι οὑς προεγνω

Posted: December 31st, 2012, 9:29 am
by Barry Hofstetter
rhutchin wrote:The phrase - ὁτι οὑς προεγνω - appears in Romans 8:29.

Without regard to context, how would one understand προεγνω as singular indicative aorist active. Would it normally refer to some unique individual (or group) who lived in the past?

Can the surrounding context (not Romans 8:29, necessarily, unless it is unusual) alter how one would normally understand this phrase?

Can Romans 8:29, grammatically, support different exegetical interpretations?

Roger Hutchinson
The aorist verb simply shows that the action took place at some otherwise undefined point in the past. It says nothing, in and of itself, of the nature of οὕς, the direct object. Practically everything else, including the question you are asking, has to be figured out from context.