[notes on §8]

So, every chapter of the Epistle to Diognetus that I read I think, "yeah, this one is my favorite". Ok, maybe not §§1-4. But after that, wow! Section 9 is no different. There's a crescendo building, but I think this time it really is the peak. Section 10 (which I'll blog about at a later date) is a definite transition, so in §9 the author is reaching the end of his statement of Christianity and why it is the one true religion.

But §9 actually starts out slow. EpDiog 9.1 is long and basically transitions the argument from that of §8 into the soteriological apologetic of §9. The transition is necessary; the author needs to establish that while in times past it might seem like God must not have cared because he hadn't acted through His Son to save His chosen, this really isn't the case. Here's EpDiog 9.1 in Ehrman's translation:

And so, having arranged all things by himself, along wtih his child, he permitted us -- while it was still the former time -- to be borne along by disorderly passions, as we wished, carried off by our pleasures and desires. He took no delight at all in our sins, but he endured them. Nor did he approve of the former time of unrighteousness, but he was creating the present age of righteousness, so that even though at that time our works proved that we were unworthy of life, we might in the present be made worthy by the kindness of God. And when we had demonstrated that we were powerless to enter the kingdom of God on our own, we were enabled by the power of God. (EpDiog 9.1, Ehrman)

You can start to see where the author is going. Important to note is the " ... we were enabled by the power of God" bit. That is, this isn't something that we were able to do on our own, God had to act to enable us. The reason? Sin, of course. We are separated from God by sin. We cannot overcome this. Therefore God must act to redeem us and bring us to him. Check out the progression below, I've put each step of the progression in v. 2a-e in a separate line, with my comments in brackets:

a. For our unrighteous way of life came to fruition and it became perfectly clear that it could expect only punishment and death as its ultimate reward.

[Sin prevents us from approaching God and only merits punishment and death, nothing else.]

b. But then, when the time arrived that God had planned to reveal at last his goodness and power

[God acts and intervenes]

c. (Oh, the supreme beneficence and love of God!)

[Spontaneous praise, but can you blame him? He's just said that we can't approach God and can only expect death and punishment. Then he says that God intervenes. Praise God!]

d. he did not hate us, destroy us, or hold a grudge against us.

[Huh? We're sinners, God won't abide sin, but he didn't smite us?]

e. But he was patient, he bore with us, and out of pity for us he took our sins upon himself.

[Huh? He takes our sin upon himself?]

The balance of EpDiog 9.2 is pretty cool, I think.

The word order in the primary clause is Subject-Object-Verb. Typical order (if there is such a thing) in Greek is Verb-Subject-Object. So there may be some sort of shift in focus or something going on here. Though God is the subject, the whole clause here really focuses on the role of Jesus Christ (the prepended element). At the least, "[God's] own Son" is being 'emphasized' in the word order.* This pattern ([accusative singular] ... + [ὑπέρ] + [genitive plural]) parallels the word order of the following phrases: [accusative singular] + [ὑπέρ] + [genitive plural]. Isn't that cool?

If you needed some help on remembering what the preposition ὑπέρ plus the genitive means, I think you found your test case to drill on.

I also find interesting the uses of alpha-prefixed form (negative/opposite) followed by the regular form of words some of these lines. I'm sure I'm stretching, but this is a blog post, so ... here we go. There are three places where the opposite of something is listed as a divine attribute:

These are qualities where the alpha-prefixed form is desirable: innocent or un-wicked; imperishable or impervious to decay;** and immortal. Now, when do the comparisons not have the alpha-prefixed version as a divine attribute?

Here, the word for holy is compared to one unlawful (or 'lawless' or 'without law'). Also, God is righteous and man is unrighteous. The contrast in the types of words that are used in these statements is interesting to me. God, who is supreme and perfect, nonetheless takes some words in thier alpha-prefixed state to describe his perfection, and other words that describe him need an alpha-prefixed state to provide the negative of the attribute.

The next two verses are short and sweet:

For what else could hide our sins but the righteousness of that one?
How could we who were lawless and impious be made upright except by the Son of God alone? (EpDiog 9.3-4, Ehrman)

It is a quandry, and it doesn't make much sense. True, only the sinless one could act to attain victory over sin. The only way for us to achieve victory over sin is through the victory of the Son of God. We can't do it.

Verse 5 seems to serve as a summary to this point, with inserted spontaneous praise of the author:

Oh, the sweet exchange! Oh, the inexpressible creation! Oh, the unexpected acts of beneficence! That the lawless deeds of many should be hidden by the one who was upright, and the righteousness of one should make upright the many who were lawless! (EpDiog 9.5, Ehrman)

He's in a state of wonder and awe. We should be too. When was the last time you considered just how amazing it is that God has done this for us?

There's still EpDiog 9.6, but I'll let you read that one yourself.

* Did I get that right? I'm going on memory here. Also, note that the English translation switches the order to 'typical' English order, Subject-Verb-Object.

** ἄφθαρτον (imperishable) is just a cool word. I've been studying it a little (it occurs in 1Ti 1.18, among other places) and may have a future blog post or two on it. Not for awhile though.