|
The
Love of God
A Grammosophical Lesson
by
Ike Tennison
BIBLE
STUDIES l
HOME
Like all
languages of which I am aware, the English language has its own “rules” of
expression. From the perspective of
ancient Greek and Latin, one of the most noticeable “rules” of the English
language is that of little or no “inflection”
of nouns. Put simply,
“inflection” means that the forms
of nouns in ancient Greek and Latin were changed to indicate different functions of the word in a given sentence.
English, on the other hand, while it does change the forms of nouns to
show singular and plural (book/books,
woman/women; child/children; ox/oxen)
and possession (boy’s or boys’ books, child’s or
children’s toys), does not change
the form of nouns to indicate that it is the subject, direct object, indirect
object, object of a preposition, etc.
The inflection of Greek and Latin nouns, however, did show a change in
the form of the word to indicate subject, direct object, indirect object, etc.
Consider the following Latin examples.
|
1.
God sees the children.
|
Deus
videt pueros.
|
|
|
The
ending “-us”
on the noun indicates subject.
|
|
|
The
ending “-os”
on the noun indicates object
|
|
2.
The children see God.
|
Pueri
vident deum.
|
|
|
The
ending “-i”
on the noun indicates subject.
|
|
|
The
ending “-um”
on the noun indicates object.
|
Because the
forms of the words helped the ancient Romans to identify the functions of the
words in a sentence, the order of the words in a sentence was relatively
flexible. For example, the two
Latin sentences above could have been spoken or written just as easily in the
orders given below--with the same meaning (but different emphases) as translated
above.
1. Deus
pueros videt. Pueros deus videt.
Videt pueros deus.
Videt deus pueros.
2. Pueri
deum vident. Deum pueri vident.
Vident deum pueri.
Vident pueri deum.
In like
manner, other forms (i.e., endings) of
ancient Greek and Latin nouns did other kinds of things. Most notably, some of the endings on a simple noun call for a
translation into English by means of a prepositional phrase.
dei
= of God
deo
= to God, for God
For example,
the indirect object of a sentence would have been put in what is called the
Dative Case (the second example above, deo).
|
1.
God gives gifts to the children.
|
Deus
dat dona pueris.
|
|
|
The
ending “-is”
indicates indirect object.
|
|
2.
The children give gifts to God.
|
Pueri
dant dona deo.
|
|
|
The
ending “-o”
indicates indirect object.
|
Notice that
just one Latin word accounts for the
meaning “to the children” (three
English words).
One of the
trickier forms of Greek and Latin nouns is what is called the Genitive Case (the
first example above, dei).
The reason it is trickier has to do with the functions performed by the
Genitive Case when compared with the same functions in the English language.
|
1.
The children’s gifts were given to God.
|
Dona
puerorum data sunt deo.
|
|
|
The
literal translation of the Genitive Case is “of the children” (Gifts
of the children).
|
|
2.
God’s gifts were given to the children.
|
Dona
dei data sunt pueris.
|
|
|
The
literal translation of the Genitive Case is “of God” (Gifts of God).
|
It is clear
that the Genitive Case in these examples is used to express possession.
Although the literal translation of the Genitive Case is “of the
children” and “of God,” the English rules for showing possession
(apostrophe “s” or “s” apostrophe, etc.) can be substituted in the translation, as given above.
This use of the Genitive Case is rather easy to determine when the noun
of the thing being possessed is a “concrete” noun, like “horse, dog, tree,
book, house,” etc., etc.
However, when the noun is a “verbal noun”--i.e.,
a noun expressing a verbal idea, like “fear, hate, love”--the determination
of the use of the Genitive Case is not so easy.
To illustrate
the point, how would you interpret the following statements?
1.
The fear of the enemy is a healthy thing.
2.
The fear of the enemy caused us to cringe.
3.
The fear of the enemy caused us to rejoice.
It seems
obvious that the third example indicates that the fear belongs to the enemy, not
us, whereas the second example indicates that the fear belongs to us, not the
enemy. The first example, on the
other hand, may indicate that the fear belongs to the enemy or to us or to both.
What we are
dealing with here are two functions of the Genitive Case that are very important
to understand. The two functions
are described technically as Subjective Genitive and Objective Genitive.
That is, if you convert the verbal noun into a verb, what function is
played by the person(s) in the Genitive Case: as subject of the verb, or as
object of the verb?
2.
The fear of the enemy caused us to cringe.
This
use of the Genitive Case is the Objective Genitive--i.e., we feared the enemy
(the word in the Genitive Case functions like a direct object of the verbal idea in the noun “fear”).
3.
The fear of the enemy caused us to rejoice.
This
use of the Genitive Case is the Subjective Genitive--i.e., the enemy feared
someone or something unspecified (the word in the Genitive Case functions like a
subject of the verbal idea in the
noun “fear”).
The word in
the Genitive Case in the first example (“The fear of the enemy is a
healthy thing.”), however, may serve as either subject or object of the verbal
idea in the noun “fear.” Perhaps
a larger context would resolve this “interpreter’s dilemma,” but in
isolation, the sentence may be either or, perhaps, both of the uses.
A prime
example of the interpreter’s dilemma resides in the expression “love of
God.” Without a context, it is
evident that this may mean that God loves someone or something (Subjective
Genitive) or that someone or something loves God (Objective Genitive). A good illustration of this dilemma is provided in I John
3:17 (author’s translation).
“But
whoever has possessions of the world and sees his brother having a need and
shuts off his compassion from him, how does the love of God remain in him?”
Does this
mean that the person no longer loves God (Objective Genitive) or that God no
longer loves the person (Subjective Genitive)?
The evidence seems to favor the former, but there is also evidence that
the latter may be the case. See,
for example, I John 4:13-21. In
verse 16, there is a statement that “he who abides in love abides in God, and
God abides in him”--with the implication that if the person does not abide in
love, s/he does not abide in God, and God does not abide in him/her. Does it follow that God’s not abiding in a person means
that God does not love the person? There
is a strong suggestion that this is the case.
This lesson
has introduced some grammatical principles in order to make a philosophical
point (hence, “grammosophical”). We
all need to be more aware of the subtleties of languages, in general, and, in
particular, to be aware of the interpreter’s dilemma when we encounter the
expression “love of God.”
BIBLE
STUDIES l
HOME
| 
