Rom 4:25

[Barry Hofstetter]

Rom 4:25 ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν.

I'm interested in comments on the two uses of διὰ. Syntactically, they look like they should be parallel, but conceptually, not so much. Thoughts?

[George F Somsel]

The thing which is immediately striking is the use of different cases in the two uses of διά. It is "for the sake of" or "because of" with the acc and means or instrument ("through") with the gen.

[David Lim]

The thing which is immediately striking is the use of different cases in the two uses of διά. It is "for the sake of" or "because of" with the acc and means or instrument ("through") with the gen.

(with gen.) ... or literal direction.

[cwconrad]

The thing which is immediately striking is the use of different cases in the two uses of διά. It is "for the sake of" or "because of" with the acc and means or instrument ("through") with the gen.

Rom 4:25 ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν.

Am I missing something? διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα and διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν both are instances of διὰ with the accusative and the accustive noun in each is qualified by ἡμῶν. It would seem to me that the same usage of διὰ is involved in both clauses.

The NET translator's note reads,

tn Grk “because of.” However, in light of the unsatisfactory sense that a causal nuance would here suggest, it has been argued that the second διά (dia) is prospective rather than retrospective (D. Moo, Romans [NICNT], 288–89). The difficulty of this interpretation is the structural balance that both διά phrases provide (“given over because of our transgressions…raised because of our justification”). However the poetic structure of this verse strengthens the likelihood that the clauses each have a different force.

I see no reason why we should not consider the usage of διὰ the same in both clauses and I see no reason why we should not understand the διὰ-phrase in each as answering the question, "For what reason?"

BDAG:

2. marker of someth. constituting cause
a. the reason why someth. happens, results, exists: because of, for the sake of

[Barry Hofstetter]

Rom 4:25 ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν.

Am I missing something? διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα and διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν both are instances of διὰ with the accusative and the accustive noun in each is qualified by ἡμῶν. It would seem to me that the same usage of διὰ is involved in both clauses.

The NET translator's note reads,

tn Grk “because of.” However, in light of the unsatisfactory sense that a causal nuance would here suggest, it has been argued that the second διά (dia) is prospective rather than retrospective (D. Moo, Romans [NICNT], 288–89). The difficulty of this interpretation is the structural balance that both διά phrases provide (“given over because of our transgressions…raised because of our justification”). However the poetic structure of this verse strengthens the likelihood that the clauses each have a different force.

I see no reason why we should not consider the usage of διὰ the same in both clauses and I see no reason why we should not understand the διὰ-phrase in each as answering the question, "For what reason?"

BDAG:

2. marker of someth. constituting cause
a. the reason why someth. happens, results, exists: because of, for the sake of

Thanks, Carl. I don't know why our two friends above were talking about the genitive... Here is what I wrote about the verse in another context (and without actually looking at the NET translation, though I did check Moo, Cranfield, and Sanday-Headlam):

I have been meaning to comment on Rom 4:25. The NASB translation is actually
acceptable. In both cases, the preposition is διά, DIA + the noun in the
accusative case. When so used, DIA means "because, on account of." Most
often, it is used retrospectively to give the reason for some action or
state, and "because of" is a perfectly valid translation. However,
occasionally DIA is used prospectively, as something that occurs looking
forward to a subsequent action, and the best translation in English is "for"
or "for the sake of." Most commentators (and I tend to agree) see διὰ τὰ
παραπτώματα, DIA TA PARAPTWMATA as retrospective, "because of our
transgressions" and διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν, DIA THN DIKAIWSIN as prospective,
"for the sake of our justification." Notice that I said "most" not "all."
Translations that use "for" for both uses of DIA are, I think, trying to
capture with one English gloss what the one vocabulary item does in Greek,
and "for" is sufficiently ambiguous in English that it sort of works. It
also helps the translator avoid making a specific determination as to the
interpretation of the prepositions.

I would appreciate you or anyone else analyzing what's wrong with this, if you think something is wrong, and especially on the "retrospective" and "prospective" distinction. I have actually always read the text this way, even before consulting the commentaries, but is that reading more theologically than grammatically driven?

[cwconrad]

I see no reason why we should not consider the usage of διὰ the same in both clauses and I see no reason why we should not understand the διὰ-phrase in each as answering the question, "For what reason?"

BDAG:

2. marker of someth. constituting cause
a. the reason why someth. happens, results, exists: because of, for the sake of

Thanks, Carl. I don't know why our two friends above were talking about the genitive... Here is what I wrote about the verse in another context (and without actually looking at the NET translation, though I did check Moo, Cranfield, and Sanday-Headlam):

I have been meaning to comment on Rom 4:25. The NASB translation is actually
acceptable. In both cases, the preposition is διά, DIA + the noun in the
accusative case. When so used, DIA means "because, on account of." Most
often, it is used retrospectively to give the reason for some action or
state, and "because of" is a perfectly valid translation. However,
occasionally DIA is used prospectively, as something that occurs looking
forward to a subsequent action, and the best translation in English is "for"
or "for the sake of." Most commentators (and I tend to agree) see διὰ τὰ
παραπτώματα, DIA TA PARAPTWMATA as retrospective, "because of our
transgressions" and διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν, DIA THN DIKAIWSIN as prospective,
"for the sake of our justification." Notice that I said "most" not "all."
Translations that use "for" for both uses of DIA are, I think, trying to
capture with one English gloss what the one vocabulary item does in Greek,
and "for" is sufficiently ambiguous in English that it sort of works. It
also helps the translator avoid making a specific determination as to the
interpretation of the prepositions.

I would appreciate you or anyone else analyzing what's wrong with this, if you think something is wrong, and especially on the "retrospective" and "prospective" distinction. I have actually always read the text this way, even before consulting the commentaries, but is that reading more theologically than grammatically driven?

I don't really see anything "wrong" with what you've said, unless that it seems to me you go to too great pains to draw distinctions where the Greek is quite sufficiently clear and tidy. This strikes me as one of those passages (of which there are so many!) that makes people bang their heads against the wall because they want to think in English rather than in Greek. My basic paraphrase:

He was forfeited -- what's the reason? our sins; he was resurrected -- what's the reason? our rehabilitation.

[Mark Lightman]

I agree with Barry that the two διά's here have marginally different forces. However, to explain this, one would either have to translate, which is treasonous, or one would have to use meta-language jargon like "prospectively" and "retrospectively," which is a different kind of treason.

I would paraphrase Rom 4:25 thus

ὄντων μὲν οὖν ἁμαρτωλῶν ἡμῶν, συνελήμφθη ὁ Χριστός. ἀνέστη δ' ὥστε ἡμᾶς δικαιωθῆναι.

Barry asked

I have actually always read the text this way, even before consulting the commentaries, but is that reading more theologically than grammatically driven?

Hi, Barry.

Yes, but it's always thus. Theology drives half way around the world before grammar can find its car keys.

[George F Somsel]

I wrote:

George F Somsel wrote:The thing which is immediately striking is the use of different cases in the two uses of διά. It is "for the sake of" or "because of" with the acc and means or instrument ("through") with the gen.

Carl replied:

Am I missing something? διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα and διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν both are instances of διὰ with the accusative and the accustive noun in each is qualified by ἡμῶν. It would seem to me that the same usage of διὰ is involved in both clauses.

Of course you are correct. I simply looked at the ἡμῶν and only saw the ending so I thought "genitive" immediately. That just shows that I should take more care to actually read anything I intend to comment on -- actually, even if I don't intend to comment.

[Barry Hofstetter]

I agree with Barry that the two διά's here have marginally different forces. However, to explain this, one would either have to translate, which is treasonous, or one would have to use meta-language jargon like "prospectively" and "retrospectively," which is a different kind of treason.

Thanks, Mark. While I agree with you with regard to understanding the Greek, we have to commit this treason occasionally, since the vast majority of people have the Bible only in translation, and occasionally need explanation of something in the Greek. I'm glad that you and Carl see that my explanation does have some basis in the Greek itself.

[cwconrad]

I agree with Barry that the two διά's here have marginally different forces. However, to explain this, one would either have to translate, which is treasonous, or one would have to use meta-language jargon like "prospectively" and "retrospectively," which is a different kind of treason.

Thanks, Mark. While I agree with you with regard to understanding the Greek, we have to commit this treason occasionally, since the vast majority of people have the Bible only in translation, and occasionally need explanation of something in the Greek. I'm glad that you and Carl see that my explanation does have some basis in the Greek itself.

Lest what I wrote previously be misunderstood, I don't believe that your explanation has any basis in the Greek itself: the construction involving διὰ + acc. means that a reason is being offered. That there are different kinds of reasons is something that we didn't have to learn from Aristotle's account of four distinct αἰτίαι; but there's no way I'd want to say that the διὰ-constructions in these two clauses are different any more than that I acknowledge Wallace's myriad subcategories of adnominal genitive (including the "aporetic") describe real grammatical distinctions in Greek. I would object less to a notion that cognitive factors in the context require us to differentiate somewhat these "reasons."

We do agree, I think, that the meaning a speaker or writer intends to convey is greater than the sum of the parts of his oral or written expression. But I also think that we ought to be cognizant that our translation may and often enough does give expression to more than the ipsissima verba of the original (Greek) text do in fact explicitly indicate. Only in that sense is it really true that traduttori are traditori. We've sometimes said that Wallace's GGBB is not so much a "grammar" of NT Greek as it is a "translator's manual" or "translator's heuristic," offering up algorithms for reading between the lines of NT Greek grammatical expressions. This is, of course, something quite different from understanding the Greek text in its own terms; as Mark has rightly noted, it can only be done by relying upon a metalanguage, which for most of us here means English terminological jargon employed to explain Greek grammatical usage. What some of us have come to discern, I think, is that we might be better off if we could use Greek terminological jargon to explain Greek grammatical usage -- just as we have come to discern that we need a Koine Greek lexicon that provides definitions in Koine Greek rather than a lexicon that seeks to offer English definitions for Koine Greek words.