Types of Genitive Case
And ‘Relative Exclusiveness’
As Employed in Scripture[i]
//Early Draft Version//
The more the type of genitive eludes the
reader the more the meaning gets confused, sometimes even reversed!
Scrutinizing how the genitive is related to
the noun it qualifies is of most significant importance!!
when it comes to the scripture, it is of more importance much the way the
scripture is more important than any other talk!!!
When I delivered this topic first[ii],
I had no avail to the advanced English
I was limited to the poor Arabic research in
the topic, and so I had to invent most of the termon0logy and coin many
explanatory expressions in Arabic.
I then worked, being virtually a pioneer, on
classifying the types of genitive case, and preparing examples for each type.
The audience liked the idea of differentiating
between ‘Subjective’ and ‘Objective’ types, discerning the ‘Partitive’ type,
They also understood how a genitive can be
implied, that is, it is not technically termed as ‘genitive’ in the Arabic
common grammar, but yet it is a genitive case according to the meaning.
Examples of that in English are the ‘possessive form,’ ‘the ‘adjectival form’
and the implied or contextual genitive, on which I will elaborate later in this
Now, as working in haste on this English
version, I know the topic is well searched and well known in the English
No need then to rewrite the technical part in
English herein. Thus, the scope of this article will be limited to the
applicative part of the lecture, and discuss few prominent scriptures in which
the genitive case type is the pivotal element for correct exegesis.
There is one interesting point. However, that lacks
enough theoretical discussion in the English grammatical literature. That is
what I may call ‘Relative (Contextual) Exception (Limitation, Exclusiveness). I
will use, however, the expression ‘contextual exclusiveness hereon. The
genitive element in which, comes from the implied context that qualifies the
limits of the object of exception. This case is well observed in common Arabic
grammar and I had no need to invent its terms in my Arabic version of this
article[iii]. It is interesting that
I need to do so in English this time!
Applications on Prominent Genitive Scriptures
I have tried, for the coming list, to gather
various kinds of employing genitive case in scripture, especially those that
are falsely used to attack the Christian faith..
scriptures are arranged topically.
otherwise mentioned and accounted for, all of the following scriptures are
quoted from YLT:
“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of the glory, may give
to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the recognition of him”
Although its being a ‘genitive of worshipping’ causes no problem, with
regard to the Christian belief in a full real incarnation, but as a matter of
fact, this very genitive case has another type. It is a ‘genitive of revealing,’
of ‘teaching on,’ of ‘showing the real image of.’
are of Greek/Roman pagan culture, who had been predominantly taught of
political gods, of mythical gods, besides the mundane general gods as money and
lust. Philosophers and poets instilled in the minds and hearts of people the
worship of and submission to such gods. In a related paragraph, the apostle
Paul draws the attention to those facts: “See that no one shall be carrying you away as
spoil through the philosophy and vain deceit, according to the deliverance of
men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according
to Christ” (Col2:8).
to specify God the Father as opposed to such false gods? He is defined as the
God whom Jesus Christ Himself, not a poet nor a politician nor a philosopher
nor a pagan false teacher, revealed and taught about (e.g. Joh1:18; 10:36).
“which is his body, the fulness of Him who is filling the all in all”
“to know also the love of the Christ that is
exceeding the knowledge, that ye may be filled--to all the fulness of God”
“till we may all come to the unity of the faith and of the
recognition of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to a measure of stature
of the fulness of the Christ’
The genitives of
“fullness of God, fullness of Christ’ are evidently subjective genitives. They
mean the fullness that God (the Father) and Christ fill the believers with, not
the other way round, i.e. the believers are invited to fill the Father and Christ!
prove that, it is straightforwardly remarked that the elect of God are not
equal in capacity of grace, but rather differ:
“… as to
each God did deal a measure of faith” (Rom12:3),
from star doth differ in glory” (1Co15:41),
above all, the Lord tells about a superlative greatness in the kingdom of
there is no reason to add up to the biblical language that does speak about
believers being filled by Christ, not the other way roud:
“… and out
of His fulness did we all receive, and grace over-against grace” (Joh1:16),
“… and ye
are in Him made full, who is the head of all principality and authority” (Col2:10)..
for the church, being the fullness of Him is a meticulously different story. The
church is the fullness of God’s pleasure and satisfaction. She is the ultimate
goal of his purpose. So, being his fullness does not mean equality, but rather
the final completion of His purpose. This cannot apply to individual believers,
for individuals, by themselves do not stand, each alone, as the fullness of
“who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation”
“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These
things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness,
the beginning of the creation of God” (KJV)
This quotation is taken from KJV because the
YLT inserts a kind of interpretive element, ‘The chief of the creation …” To be
so literal enough, that the examination works perfectly, I did not like to get support
in the YLT bit of interpretation rendered.
This can be both domination genitive in
general, as Jesus Christ in both His divinity and manhood is the head, prince
and forerunner of the church. It can also be an inclusive genitive, only
human-wise speaking as such.
The word ‘beginning can mean head or chief
literally, so it has no problems from the first look. As for the word
first-born, Christ is eternally born from the Father. If related as the
first-born to the creation, it can simply mean a genitive of domination and of
spiritual prototype. It can also mean his being first-born in His humanity.
However, I tilt toward thinking that the
apostle Paul meant it in the divine meaning, as the sentence makes brilliant
sense as a parallel as such:
The image (icon) of the invisible God
(his apparition in flesh)
The first-born of all creation (His
domination over creation since the early beginning as being the divine only
begotten eternal Son of God)!
all the elements of this wonderful Pauline comparison:
creation is compared to God, and the stances of Christ to both creation and God
is compared to each other.. Christ to creation is the Icon of the invisible
God. To God, He is the chief of the creation. In other words, this wonderful
theological statement tells that Christ is the only and eternal mediator who
links the creation to its creator, God the Father. As such, Christ is certainly
not created Himself!
rejoice in my sufferings for you, and do fill up the things lacking of the
tribulations of the Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the assembly” (Col1:24):
‘Lacking’ cannot be identically related to the work of Christ. It is a
genitive of reason. The apostle means the lacking of tribulation that the
church has to bear in the name and because of Christ. Many related paragraphs
accords with this understanding.
The work of Jesus Christ on earth was complete (joh19:28, 30),
and His suffering was enough to enter into His glory (Luk24:26), which
opens the gate for His followers..
‘New mystical’ guys, as I call them, take
advantage of misreading this verse. To tem I say, if the church is the fullness
of Christ (Eph1:23), that relates fullness to the church but not lacking
creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the
children of God” (Rom8:21):
This time it is not a very
serious example. However light, I would like to establish the principle of
correct understanding of how the language works for the sake of securing the
right exegetical mindset.
The genitive case meant here is
adjectival. It is ‘the glorious liberty …’ The original Greek form is: ἐλευθερίαν
Let it be rewritten then, for
the sake of true translation, as ‘The liberty of the glory,’ and thus the whole
sentence becomes ‘the liberty of the glory of the children of God.’
If one thinks it is adjectival,
then the glory of the children of God will be shared by the whole creation,
which cannot be the doctrines of the bible nor the apostle Paul.
literally not ‘adjectival genitive’ but rather a straightforward one. Now the liberty is a genitive and it qualifies
the whole part following it. How it does so? Which kind of genitive case it is?
It is not adjectival as seen from the original text. So of what type is it? It
is a genitive of cause. The glory of the children of God, when revealed, will
launch the liberty of the whole creation. Liberty from corruption as the
kingdom of heaven will have no bit of corruption (1Co15: 50). So earth
will be new (Rev21:1), with no thistles or darkness. Heaven will also be
so with no storms or floods (Rev21:1). The seas and rivers will no
longer be there but instead a sea of glass, that is clear and safe (Rev15:2),
and crystal river (Rev22:1) will be there.
“… and this
is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send--Jesus
The exclusion is ONLY applied on the false
gods worshipped by pagans, wicked people, starting from the devil himself (2Co4:4)
passing through money (Luk16: 13), until the wombs of the glutton ones (Phi3:19).
The guiding clue in the
context is the words the Lord opens his saying with: The eternal Life!
So the gods who lead to
death and deprive their worshippers from eternal life are those who are meant
by the exclusion from being each a ‘true god.’
Satan, as a false god,
kills and deprives from eternal life if worshipped (Joh8:44, 10:10)..
Money does the same. The
fool rich man (Luk12: 16-21) is an evident example of money as a lethal
god. The wise steward (Luk16:1-12) is a counter example of a one being
saved from the inequity of ‘god money’ he has been accepted in the eternal
tabernacles (Luk16: 9)..
Gluttony is alike. Even
without reaching the degree of gluttony, only serving the earthly food leads to
death (Joh6: 27, 49)..
As opposed to them, God
the Father is the ‘ONLY’ true God! This exclusion does not work on Jesus
Himself. Jesus Christ is the source of the very eternal life given to us from
God the Father> In him was life. He is the resurrection and the life. He is
in the Father, and the Father is in Him.
If Jesus Christ was
meant by exclusion from being the true God, then God the Father Himself is
excluded—God forbid, as being deprived from the Life which is in Him—again God
The word ‘only,’ only
excludes the false gods, as Jesus Christ is naturally and eternally included in
the Father. That simple and that sure it is.
behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend
of strangers, apt to teach” (1Ti3:2):
funny trouble-makers of the last days use this verse to ‘prove’ that the bishop
MUST BE (but not only ‘can be’) married. This cannot be what the apostle meant
for compelling reasons.
1) The apostle himself
was not married (1Co9:5).
2) He not only was
celibate but he also wished all men to be even as himself (1Co1:7, 1Co1:8.
3) Moreover he
tells with no reservation about other bishops, even apostles, who are celibate,
i.e. Barnabas (1Co9:6).
4) To top it all,
timothy the very bishop to whom this scripture was sent, who was ordained by the
apostle Paul himself (1Ti4:14), was celibate. An evidence for that can
be found in this advice given to him by the apostle Paul: “and the youthful lusts flee thou” (2Ti2:22).
Timothy was even ordained as archbishop as being authorized to ordain himself
other bishops. The very scripture misread by those rebels testifies (1Tim3:2)
5) So far, I have
limited my reasoning to the objective textual/contextual scrutiny, with no
reference to the most famous related scripture, that the Lord himself said in (Mat19:10-12).
The commandment herein, therefore, is a
contextual limited exclusion. It excludes NOT unmarried men, but rather those
who have experienced polygamy.
“… and there
is not salvation in any other, for there is no other name under the heaven that hath been
given among men, in which it behoveth us to be saved” (Act4:12):
This is a crystal clear
example of an absolute exclusiveness. The meaning is related to the noun
qualified by the exception. All others are excluded. Under the heaven all human
beings lived and live. Under that heaven no other name has been given for salvation
but that of Jesus Christ! How one may express the absoluteness of the meaning
with a stronger expression than that, I wonder!