Phil 1:9 - το

[rhutchin]

Phil 1:9

ὸτι ὺμιν έχαρισθη το ὺπερ χριστου ού μονον το είς αύτον πιστευειν άλλα και το ὺπερ αύτον ασχειν

What is the purpose for το in the three instances in which it is used above - linked to χριστου in each case?

Would it make a difference if το had been omitted?

Roger Hutchinson

[cwconrad]

Phil 1:9

ὸτι ὺμιν έχαρισθη το ὺπερ χριστου ού μονον το είς αύτον πιστευειν άλλα και το ὺπερ αύτον ασχειν

What is the purpose for το in the three instances in which it is used above - linked to χριστου in each case?

Would it make a difference if το had been omitted?

Roger Hutchinson

It would help to have the text correctly identified and correctly cited:
Phil 1:29 ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν

I'd call this a case of anacoluthon; I think that Paul started out to say "ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν" -- but that he decided to insert another notion that "suffering for Christ" must have as its necessary foundation. Of course it's possible to English the content by omitting the anacoluthon, "You've been privileged, not only to believe in Christ, but to suffer for Him as well." I think that the initial formulation of the subject of ἐχαρίσθη was intended to be τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν, but that Paul switched horses in mid-stream and decided to expand upon his initially intended formulation.

[David Lim]

What is the purpose for το in the three instances in which it is used above - linked to χριστου in each case?

Would it make a difference if το had been omitted?

I am not sure if Carl took it the same way but this is how I read it:
[Phlp 1:29] because to you has been granted that which is for Christ, not only to entrust [yourself] to him but also to suffer for him.

In other words "το υπερ χριστου" is the subject of "εχαρισθη", which is why we need the "το". Then "ου μονον το εις αυτον πιστευειν αλλα και το υπερ αυτου πασχειν" is a further elaboration of "το υπερ χριστου", which is put in apposition.

[cwconrad]

What is the purpose for το in the three instances in which it is used above - linked to χριστου in each case?

Would it make a difference if το had been omitted?

I am not sure if Carl took it the same way but this is how I read it:
[Phlp 1:29] because to you has been granted that which is for Christ, not only to entrust [yourself] to him but also to suffer for him.

In other words "το υπερ χριστου" is the subject of "εχαρισθη", which is why we need the "το". Then "ου μονον το εις αυτον πιστευειν αλλα και το υπερ αυτου πασχειν" is a further elaboration of "το υπερ χριστου", which is put in apposition.

Lest there be any misunderstanding: No, the way David understands the text is not the way I took it. That is pretty clearly a standard way of making sense of it, but to me τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, the substantivized prepositional phrase, seems an extremely awkward expression as the subject of ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη. That's why I believe that Paul intended to add πάσχειν so that the subject of ἐχαρίσθη would be τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν, but that, instead of completing the substantival infintive phrase by adding the infinitive, he chose to start afresh with a fuller, more inclusive subject of ἐχαρίσθη, namely the double substantivized infinitive phrases linked in the ascending rhetorical antithesis, οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν. I think that τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν must have been the original intended subject of ἐχαρίσθη, but that Paul decided to make a more elegant statement about the grace given the Philippian congregation, with which he feels so close a bond.

[rhutchin]

I guess only Carl saw that this was actually Phil 1:29.

Anyway, Paul could have said simply: ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη οὐ μόνον πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ πάσχειν

Yet he adds the three phrases.

τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ
τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν
τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ

So, why does Paul begin each phrase with τὸ? Is there a grammatical rule involved here? If not, then what does τὸ do that would make a writer, like Paul, write it this way?

Roger Hutchinson

[David Lim]

I guess only Carl saw that this was actually Phil 1:29.

Anyway, Paul could have said simply: ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη οὐ μόνον πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ πάσχειν

Yet he adds the three phrases.

τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ
τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν
τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ

So, why does Paul begin each phrase with τὸ? Is there a grammatical rule involved here? If not, then what does τὸ do that would make a writer, like Paul, write it this way?

Under my interpretation, the article must be there for "το υπερ χριστου" to function as a noun phrase so that it can be the subject of the verb "εχαρισθη", otherwise "υμιν εχαρισθη υπερ χριστου" would mean "to you [it] has been granted for the sake of Christ". Likewise the subsequent phrases "το εις αυτον πιστευειν" and "το υπερ αυτου πασχειν" must each have the article for them to be in some kind of apposition to the subject. In both our interpretations, it is "το { ( εις { αυτον } ) πιστευειν }"; "εις αυτον" doesn't go with "το" but with "πιστευειν". In my interpretation "υπερ αυτου" goes with "πασχειν", whereas "το υπερ χριστου" stands alone. In Carl's interpretation "υπερ χριστου" also goes with "πασχειν". I personally don't think Carl's interpretation is likely because of two reasons: Firstly, "ου μονον ... αλλα και ..." almost clearly forms a complete whole, which is naturally in apposition to "το υπερ χριστου". Secondly, Carl's interpretation requires considering the sentence to be "grammatically malformed", having some ellipsis, which is not impossible but I do feel it is not likely for a reader to have taken it that way, given that after hearing or reading "το υπερ χριστου" and subsequently "ου μονον", he would not be waiting for something further and would just take "το υπερ χριστου" as a complete phrase.

[cwconrad]

I guess only Carl saw that this was actually Phil 1:29.

Anyway, Paul could have said simply: ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη οὐ μόνον πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ πάσχειν

Yet he adds the three phrases.

τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ
τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν
τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ

So, why does Paul begin each phrase with τὸ? Is there a grammatical rule involved here? If not, then what does τὸ do that would make a writer, like Paul, write it this way?

Roger Hutchinson

Once again I'll cite the text in question:

Phil 1:29 ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν,

We appear to be going around in circles. I thought I had set forth my understanding of this text adequately, but it's evident that neither Roger nor David understands the way I account for the text, and David's account of it makes no sense to me (I simply can make no sense of τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ as a phrase meaningful by itself and serving as the subject of ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη.

I think I haven't adequately explained what I meant by saying that this was an anacoluthon. "Malformed sentence" isn't a very felicitous expression. I never said or suggested that there was an ellipsis in the text, but I do believe that Paul revised his sentence as he was in the process of formulating it. I believe that Paul intended originally to attach πάσχειν to τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ so that the simple sentence would be ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν. I surmise that from the reformulated phrasing at the end of the text: τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν. But I think that, before penning or dictating πάσχειν to complete the substantivized phrase (τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν), he decided to heighten the rhetorical force of this thought; he decided that "suffering for Christ" is not just "a privilege granted to believers" but rather a privilege going one better than the privilege already given believers, namely the privilege to "believing in Christ." I think that this way of reading the text would be assisted by punctuating the sentence with a dash after τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ; that would make it clearer to the reader that this is in fact an anacoluthon. It would appear thus:

ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ-- οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν.

I think that this is the kind of textual difficulty that we see frequently in email exchanges when we compose quickly and either do not go back and re-read what we have written or do not adequaely re-read it to assure that the text flows clearly and says exactly what we intended. I think it's a lot easier to go back and correct our mistakes when we are typing on a keyboard and can quickly delete what's amiss and rephrase what we meant to say so that it expresses as clearly and precisely as possible what we intended. For one writing on papyrus that would be much more difficult than it is for us -- but I know it's true of myself that I don't re-read carefully enough what I've composed in these forum messages or in my own email, and I see it in what others have written with considerable frequency.

That's the only way I can make sense of the text in our editions. Perhaps someone can help me to see how the substantivized prepositional phrase τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ makes sense by itself as the subject of ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη. I'm apparently too dense to be able to figure that out.

[David Lim]

That's the only way I can make sense of the text in our editions. Perhaps someone can help me to see how the substantivized prepositional phrase τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ makes sense by itself as the subject of ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη. I'm apparently too dense to be able to figure that out.

Sorry when I said "malformed sentence" I did include the type of sentence that comes out of changing one's mind halfway about what to say. Anyway, let me try to explain what I meant by taking "το υπερ χριστου" by itself as the subject of "υμιν εχαρισθη" through a paraphrase: "because it was granted to you not only to entrust yourselves to him but also to suffer for his sake, which are together what is for Christ." Is it not possible?

[MAubrey]

but I know it's true of myself that I don't re-read carefully enough what I've composed in these forum messages or in my own email, and I see it in what others have written with considerable frequency.

Shouldn't that read, "I see it in what Mike Aubrey writes with considerable frequency"?

(Sorry, that's totally off topic. I couldn't help myself.)

[cwconrad]

That's the only way I can make sense of the text in our editions. Perhaps someone can help me to see how the substantivized prepositional phrase τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ makes sense by itself as the subject of ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη. I'm apparently too dense to be able to figure that out.

Sorry when I said "malformed sentence" I did include the type of sentence that comes out of changing one's mind halfway about what to say. Anyway, let me try to explain what I meant by taking "το υπερ χριστου" by itself as the subject of "υμιν εχαρισθη" through a paraphrase: "because it was granted to you not only to entrust yourselves to him but also to suffer for his sake, which are together what is for Christ." Is it not possible?

That would mean that the two αrticular-prepositional phrases in the second part of the verse, even linked by οὐ μόνον ... ἀλλὰ καὶ ..., are functioning as an appositive to τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ. Is it possible? I don't really think so. For one thing, I still don't find the phrase τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ or your English equivalent, "what is for Christ", very meaningful. One major reason for that is that it seems very strange to me to subsume τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν under the category τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ. I can understand "faith in him" as a privilege granted to believers and a foundation for a higher privilege of "suffering for him." That is to say, I can see both τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεέυειν and τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν as χαρίσματα, but I can't see how τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεέυειν is a subset of τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ.

but I know it's true of myself that I don't re-read carefully enough what I've composed in these forum messages or in my own email, and I see it in what others have written with considerable frequency.

Shouldn't that read, "I see it in what Mike Aubrey writes with considerable frequency"?

(Sorry, that's totally off topic. I couldn't help myself.)

Well, Mike, if it makes you feel better, you are one among the several whom I have observed writing like that; but for me to name particular culprits would be like the pot calling the kettle black. But you disappoint me, Sir! When I saw your byline, I was hoping that you had something to add to the discussion about the text in question.