From: CEP7@aol.com
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 15:05:41 EST
In a message dated 1/25/01 10:07:37 AM, GregStffrd writes:
<< I am not denying that a noun such ARCH **can be** transformed into a
verbal noun, but I am asking where the basis for doing is in this verse, or
elsewhere with respect to this noun. I see no basis for seeing a verbal idea
in ARCH, here, and simply highlighting its relationship to a verbal root does
not give it that idea.
Remember, I said I was open to viewing it as an objective genitive, if you
could show that here or elsewhere ARCH can carry an implicit verbal idea.
Simply being a cognate to a verb does not legitimize the interpretation. It
is a possibility, grammatically, to be sure, but a remote one at best. >>
ARCH is a verbal noun. It does not have to be transformed into one. The same
would be true of ARCWN, ERGON, AGAPH, etc. Nouns with verbal cognates are
essentially verbal nouns. Thus, when genitive substantives are related to
verbal head nouns, the genitive should be taken as a verbal genitive unless
the context dictates that this is not the proper sense.
«If Christ is the beginner, then he is not an intimidate agent, but the
causal agent. If one is intermediate, then someone else is beginning the
process through that agent. Col. 1:15-17 does use EN AUTWi, showing the
instrumental role of Christ in creation, but this is used together with
passive verbs! Hence, again, the beginner is someone other than Christ, who
creates "in/through" him. I see nothing that would indicate that Christ is
the beginner, but, as you seem to suggest, an intermediate agent. This is not
consistent with the idea of "beginner," which rightly is reserved for the
causal agent. »
This is rather complicated to explain so let me use a rather inexact analogy.
When I order a meal in a restaurant. Who is the agent involved in making sure
I receive a meal. The waiter takes my order takes it to the chef who makes
the meal and the waiter brings my meal to me. The waiter is the ultimate
agent (well actually, I am the ultimate agent since I ordered it) because he
takes the order and brings the food. The chef is an intermediate agent
because he prepared the meal. There are a whole host of other intermediate
agents and instruments (people who provide ingrediates the tools used to make
the meal, etc.).
Creation is much less complex, at least from an ex nihilo standpoint.
Basically, you can see it from two standpoints. One can simply see the
Father, Christ, and Spirit all having roles in creating without designating
specific tasks in creating or any causal or hierarchal structure. The
hierarchical viewpoint would be having creation as the Father's idea and
ultimate cause, Christ is the Agent whom He commissions to create, and the
Spirit is the instrument which Christ uses to create. The point is there does
not necessarily have to be one person that is seen as the agent of creation.
Charles E. Powell, Ph.D.
(h) cep7@aol.com
(w) cpowell@dts.edu
(h) 972-231-4166
(w) 214-841-3763
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:49 EDT