# Greek Word Order in 2 Cor 5:15



## KeithW (May 22, 2014)

I don't know Greek at all. I came across a difference in English translations in the word order of the latter part of 2 Cor. 5:15.

KJV - "but unto him which died for them, and rose again"
NASB - "but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf"
Vulgate - "but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again"

(this English translation of the Vulgate comes from Google Translate.)

Only the Vulgate uses the Greek word order. In the NASB and Vulgate the ideas of died and rose again are strongly tied together, such that I take the NASB to mean, but unto Him who [both] died and rose again on their behalf.

Because of the KJV having an altered word order and the extra comma, I can imagine someone arguing the case that "for them" is tied to "died" but not to "rose again", eg. but unto him which died for them, and [Him which also] rose again.

Can someone explain this to me from the original Greek?

Thanks,
Keith


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 22, 2014)

Overall, none of the three translations you cite give a poor rendering.

Literalistically:...ινα οι ζωντες μηκετι εαυτοις ζωσιν 

...in-order-that the living-ones no-longer to-themselves they-might-be-living 

αλλα τω υπερ αυτων αποθανοντι και εγερθεντι

but to-the/him upon them having-died-one and was-raised-one​
There may be some debate about whether to render the latter participle as a passive term. With regard to your specific concern, about the placement of a comma in the KJV, it seems to me your specific fear is mitigated by a parallel statement in Rom.4:25, to wit: that he "was raised again for our justification."

Now, it might be the case that the KJV translators felt that the participle rendered "rose again" deserved _its own_ emphasis. They might have looked at the placement of the definite article and the first participle, with the prepositional phrase "for them" between, and decided to render that as one thought; to which Paul added the second description as a natural extension.

There's really nothing accurate about saying that the KJV makes a major alteration in the W.O., in terms of putting the Greek phrasing into good English. For what it's worth, I prefer thinking of the participles as a joint conception, and like the translations that try to exhibit that. But I can't claim that the KJV has definitely obscured an important point by their translational pick.


----------



## KeithW (May 23, 2014)

Thank you, Rev. Buchanan.

There are some weighty matters which have been going on in my mind ever since a long time friend of mine has made known to me a certain doctrine he holds to. Underlying arguments of his position come together in this verse, and dare I say might be contradicted by this verse. He and I have not yet discussed this particular verse, but I came here to get more information so I could think more about this verse, pray about it, and be armed with this information in case this particular verse comes up in conversation.

One of his arguments is, the English word "for" in the New Testament is sometimes the Greek word "anti", which mean "in-place-of". His rule goes, since "anti" is sometimes used in verses describing what Jesus Christ did for us, this definition must then be used in other verses containing the English word "for" which describe what Jesus Christ did for us, even if the underlying Greek word is different, like "hyper". So phrases like "Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6) and "Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8), which contain the word "hyper", must mean Christ died "in-place-of" us. My investigation of different lexicons does not lend 100% support to this idea.

So in considering his rule about "for" and the death of Christ, I come across this verse, also written by Paul, "but unto him which died for them and rose again". (2 Cor. 5:15) If I apply my friend's rule on this verse where the Greek word "hyper" underlies the English word "for", the meaning would be Jesus in-place-of us died, and Jesus in-place-of us rose again. The latter is nonsense. I am just trying to imagine my friend's arguments ahead of time. Hence the options in my first post.

My friend is KJV-Only, hence my curiosity about the KJV of this verse. And he was trained in logic, language, and Greek at seminary. Me, I only know how to look stuff up in concordances and lexicons.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 23, 2014)

The "rule" seems completely irrational. We're interested in what a specific text actually contains and says. The notion: that a word from Greek not found anywhere in some text still has bearing on interpretation where it is missing, leaves the ordinary reader at the mercy of Scripture-twisters.

Other than compound-words, the preposition "anti" is one of the lesser used prepositions in the NT. By one count, it occurs in about 20 verses; once is it rendered (by the KJV) "in the room of" (i.e. "in the *stead *of," that is "in-place-of"), Mt.2:22. In Mt.5:38, "for" meaning something closer to "the-same-as" (eye-for-eye, etc.). In Mt.17:27, "for" means "on behalf of." In Mt.20:28 (cf. Mk.10:45), we have a clear sense of "in the place of" regarding the English "for." Something similar in Lk.11:11.

Often it occurs in contexts where "because" is used, to show a reactionary response: Lk.1:20; 19:44; Act.12:23; 2Ths.2:10. Eph.5:31 uses the word in a similar fashion, where the KJV gives, "For this _*cause*_...," again introducing a reaction. Arguably, Lk.12:3 rendering "therefore" should be glossed in precisely the same sense as Eph.5:31. Jn.1:16 gives us the sense of "fresh-placement" or "refreshment" of the previous (same) grace.

These are all different nuances of a single word (anti), and not every possible sense is fitting in every use. How much *less appropriate* it is to insert a convenient gloss from an alternate Greek word, justified when a certain English word that may have a huge semantic range finds an overlap!​
If I understand at all what your interlocutor is proposing, it is some kind of "reverse-engineering" of the text, starting by taking an English word from a specific text, such as "for;" then finding a whole collection of Greek terms that may be rendered "for," not only the specific Gk. word from the original text--the list of words for the first 5 chapters of Matthew numbers at least 9 (including anti and hyper, and 7 more!). Then _replacing_ the original Gk. term with another one (as in the case of 2Cor.5:15, substituting anti for hyper) from the list of options; and finally, substituting an alternate English gloss from the semantic range of "anti" in the place of the original "for." Thus making the text say virtually anything one wishes, i.e. something in keeping with one's _a priori_ conclusions.

***********************

I'm adding something here (and deleting other lines).

As explained, the basic "rule" proposed is unsound. It is the case that a biblical writer's own use of other terms, as well as the uses of other biblical authors, can aid an interpreter in if he is seeking to narrow down the literal nuanced meaning of, say, hyper in 2Cor.5:15. But the allegation that the English "for" must be understood to mean "in the place of" due to a supposed generally accepted nuance of a _different_ Gk word found in _another_ passage (even if there seems to be a thematic connection between the two places) is simply irresponsible.


----------



## KeithW (May 26, 2014)

Thank you for your thoughts on this, and your confirmation of what I was thinking about my friend's "rule".


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 26, 2014)

Taking Greek was the most important part of my theological education. It wasn't so much mastering the language itself but learning how to properly use language (including English) and thinking about how to properly move from word meaning to exegesis. Bruce is kind to call it irrational. I might use a more colorful word to describe his folly if I spoke to him in person. Incidentally, Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson is a must for your personal library.


----------



## KeithW (May 26, 2014)

For my friend's rule about the word "for", I have examined many lexicons trying to find ones which support his definition of "hyper". I have even traveled to a library in another city just to read a lexicon I had not seen yet. Some lexicons _do_ allow for the definition to include in-place-of, but it is never the only option. So how the word is used must also be considered. Hence my bringing up this particular verse. In the past I have read every verse containing the Greek words "anti" and "hyper", evaluating their context. So while I agree that his rule is irrational, I believe he is blind to the mistake he is making. The very nature of being blind is you cannot see the mistake you are making.

I originally was not going to give much of the background of my question, but it might be informative.

Rich, I see you are a seminary student. My friend graduated from seminary, studied under and was a friend of John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation (a follower of Gordon Clark who taught extensively on logic), and is an ordained minister. (I just stumbled across a thread from 2006 where both you and Rev. Buchanan commented on John Robbins.) I suspect you will encounter people like this at seminary and in the ministry -- people who hold blindly to a mistake in the name of the Christian religion, fully convinced the view they hold is of God.

I am a layman, but I have immense practical experience with logic and a restricted-in-size language -- I am a senior software engineer by trade. I live and breathe creating logical structures in my head and on paper, then typing them up and seeing what happens. When I make a mistake it is called a "software bug". In contrast the Bible is not like that. You cannot simple type up what you believe, give it to a computer, and see if you made any mistakes. Unfortunately I am not a student of human language, so am unable to apply my skills there.

Thank you for mentioning that book. I'm going to get hold of a copy of it. I need to learn more about my own study methods.


----------

