[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #827
b-greek-digest Friday, 18 August 1995 Volume 01 : Number 827
In this issue:
John 1:1c
J 1:1
John 1:1c
Heb. 6:6
Archive is set up!
Re: Archive is set up!
Re: Archive is set up!
Re: J 10:10, PERISSON EXWSIN
Re: J 10:10, PERISSON EXWSIN
J 1:1 (fwd)
Re: Heb. 6:6
Re: J 1:1
Re: Heb. 6:6
Re: Heb. 6:6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "DR. KEN PULLIAM" <thedoc@aztec.asu.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 22:28:45 -0700 (MST)
Subject: John 1:1c
Ken Penner writes that "the word was a god" is not Arianism. My point
was that out of the three options, this would be the Arian interpretation.
It certainly is the option taken by the modern day Arians, the JW's.
- --
Ken R. Pulliam, Ph.D.
Chandler, Arizona
thedoc@aztec.asu.edu
------------------------------
From: KevLAnder@aol.com
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 01:50:23 -0400
Subject: J 1:1
Alan M Feuerbacher posted a stimulating discussion of the translation of the
final clause in J 1:1. I believe he is correct in pointing out how
notoriously difficult it is to formulate a hard and fast rule concerning the
usage of the Greek article. Perhaps the closest thing to a hard and fast rule
concerning KAI THEOS HHN HO LOGOS in J 1:1 was set forth by E.C. Colwell,
"Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," JBL 52
(1933):12-21. Colwell observed that if a definite noun preceded a copulative
verb, it was normally anarthrous; it if followed, it was articular. However,
it must be recalled that Colwell started out by making a judgment-call on
what constitutes a definite noun in a particular instance; and many Greek
scholars have considered this to be a preliminary flaw in his methodology.
Anyway, Colwell argued that THEOS in J 1:1 has a greater probability of being
translated "God" (definite), not "a god" (indefinite), since 87% of definite
predicates preceding the verb in the GNT are anarthrous. Now, this sounds
like some impressive research, as long as one takes into consideration the
sampling of data that Colwell actually studied. It cannot be forgotten that
Colwell investigated every instance in which DEFINITE predicate nouns
preceded the copulative verb. D.A. Carson has reported in _Exegetical
Fallacies_ (Baker, 1984, p 87) that one of his students, Ed Dewey, employed
GRAMCORD in order to investigate every occurence where any type of anarthrous
noun precedes either EIMI or GINOMAI, and he discovered that the nouns in the
exhaustive list were divided nearly equally into definite and indefinite
types.
Be that as it may, it must be contended that Colwell's Rule has not been
disproved. Colwell did not argue that a predicate noun which precedes a
copulative verb is likely to be anarthrous. Rather, he argued that a DEFINITE
predicate noun which precedes a copulative verb is likely to be anarthrous.
Therefore, Colwell's Rule is useful in assisting in the ajudication of the J
1:1 debate. But at this point Alan Feuerbacher is again correct in positing
that the final clause in J 1:1 cannot be firmly translated on the basis of
sheer grammar alone, for the definiteness or indefiniteness of THEOS has to
be determined on other (both narrow and broad contextual) grounds before
Colwell's probability would even have any bearing. Here I would point out
that Alan's reference to J 1:18 as an instance where the anarthrous THEON is
certainly to be understood as definite is helpful. THEON in 1:18 works
against the Watchtower, the Way, or whomever by tipping the scales in favor
of taking THEOS in 1:1 as definite. Furthermore, as Murray Harris and many
others have noted, John the Evangelist (along with the whole lot of NT
authors) was most certainly a monotheist, and to apprehend John as saying
that the Logos is another god would make him contradict himself. Hence, the
definiteness of THEOS in 1:1 is nearly certain. Although there is the
grammatical possibility that the clause under consideration may be translated
"and the Logos was a god," this possibility within the context of John's
Gospel is quite remote. Colwell's Rule tends to corroborate the greater
probability that the phrase in question ought to be translated "and the Logos
was God."
True, the interpretation of J 1:1 does not turn on grammar alone (although
Colwell's Rule may demonstrate a valuable statistical probability concerning
the grammar which we find); but then again, no interpretation can be based
merely upon grammar. Grammar alone cannot even account for understanding
exchanges between speakers of English, let alone ancient Greek. I have
learned that a knowledge of Greek often does not aid one in solving problems
of interpretation, although it does allow a person to better understand the
problems themselves and to consequently make more informed decisions
regarding them.
------------------------------
From: "DR. KEN PULLIAM" <thedoc@aztec.asu.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 22:59:14 -0700 (MST)
Subject: John 1:1c
Alan Feuerbacher wrote:
>Ken Pulliam wrote:
>>1) The Word was the God (THEOS is inherently definite).
>>2) The Word was a god (THEOS is indefinite).
>>3) The Word was God (THEOS is qualitative).
>That is my understanding of the possibilities. According to
>the reading I've done, 1) is neither grammatically nor
>contextually possible. Is this not correct?
Alan, I don't think it is possible contextually but I believe it
is possible grammatically. The noun THEOS is sometimes definite
even without the article since it is a title.
>As for 2), we also have variation "deity," "divine," "nature
>of ..." and so on. Correct?
I think what you are suggesting with the variations "deity,"
"divine," etc. fits better under number #3. Number #2 would be
the indefinite use, in the sense of one among others, "a god."
>As for 3), it does not give the full meaning of the Greek,
>either the basic words or the cultural context in which John
>wrote. Correct?
>This is an interesting point, and I'd appreciate some
>insight from people who have studied the cultural context.
>The Greeks and others around them believed in a pantheon of
>gods. These gods were as real to them as our God is to us.
>These gods were worshiped, even though most of them were
>imaginary idols.
This is certainly accurate.
>In certain cases, though, as I described in my previous
>post, worship was rendered to a "god" that is a real, live
>entity --Satan. By all Greek cultural practices that I'm
>aware of, Satan was a god -- not THE GOD, of course, but a
>god that really exists. Jesus believed that Satan existed,
>and would have called him a god. Yet Jesus certainly cannot
>be described as polytheistic, nor did he ever think that
>this god was God.
This is also true, but I fail to see your point. The fact is that
both ELOHIM and THEOS could be used of men, angels, idols, and
the true God. Obviously, then the term has two different senses.
In one sense, it refers to anything that is worshipped as if it
were God and the other sense is the Almighty One who is truly
deserving of worship.
- --
Ken R. Pulliam, Ph.D.
Chandler, Arizona
thedoc@aztec.asu.edu
------------------------------
From: DBWILLIS@aol.com
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 03:54:42 -0400
Subject: Heb. 6:6
David Willis here responding to Rod Decker who wrote,
>>
2. The shift in form from aor. to present is prob. significant. Note that
the first group is linked by a 'kai...te...te' sequence. The ptcp. 'fall
away' is most directly affected by this link as it would argue that it is
parallel with the earlier ptcps. and is not conditional (as some Eng.
versions transl.). I think that the pres. ptcps. ff. can only make good
sense as causal and not temporal. (There would have to be some
other
indication in the context to make them temporal, not just the pres.
tense,
per. #1.)>>
I think you have that "other indication" in the use of the adverb "once" in
6:4.
Thank you for your reply.
David Willis
DBWILLIS@aol.com
6728 Silver Tree Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46236
(317) 823-4858
------------------------------
From: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 18:51:24 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Archive is set up!
There is now a hypermail archive of b-greek at
http://www.uwa.edu.au/cyllene/jtauber/b-greek/
It doesn't contain much at the moment, but should archive everything sent to
b-greek from now on.
It gets updated once a day (or more if I do it manually).
I hope it's helpful.
James K. Tauber <jtauber@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Programmer and CWIS Officer
University Computing Services
University of Western Australia
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 06:24:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Archive is set up!
At 5:51 AM 8/17/95, James K. Tauber wrote:
>There is now a hypermail archive of b-greek at
>
> http://www.uwa.edu.au/cyllene/jtauber/b-greek/
>
>It doesn't contain much at the moment, but should archive everything sent to
>b-greek from now on.
>
>It gets updated once a day (or more if I do it manually).
>
>I hope it's helpful.
Thanks a heap, James. Now wel'll have to make sure that we maintain a
meaningful dialogue to justify your efforts. This will certainly become an
increasingly useful resource.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 95 08:31:14 PDT
Subject: Re: Archive is set up!
James Tauber,
Thank you for setting up the b-greek archive.
I have saved more than 300 past articles from b-greek,
those that seemed most interesting or informative to me,
including responses to some frequently asked questions.
Would it be easy for you to add these messages at the
beginning of your archive, so that some past history
was represented? I imagine it would be appreciated.
Vincent Broman, code 544 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: KevLAnder@aol.com
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 16:09:51 -0400
Subject: Re: J 10:10, PERISSON EXWSIN
Just a note about David L. Moore's treatment of J 10:10. My interest was
piqued by his discussion because, frankly, I had never taken a close look at
J 10:10; and when I opened my GNT and read J 10:10 I realized that a
straightforward reading of the Greek text appears to favor his view that
PERISSON be taken as a substantive adjective instead of as an adverbial
qualifier of ZWHN. I then did some lexicon checking. It so happens that
Thayer classifies PERISSON in J 10:10 as Moore would, translating PERISSON
ECHEIN as "to have abundance." Thayer also cites a cognate usage of the
adjective in antiquity: HOI MEN . . . PERISSA EXHOUSIN, HOI DE OUDE TA
ANAGKAI DUNANTAI PORIZESTHAI ("On the one hand, those who have abundance, but
on the other hand, those who do not have the wherewithal to get along" [my
rough translation]), Xen. oec. 20,1. (Note that in this example PERISSA is
anarthrous.) I thought David would also be interested in Alfred Plummer's
comments on this verse.
_have it more abundantly_] Omit 'more;' it is not in the Greek, and
somewhat
spoils the sense. More abundantly than what? Translate, _that they_ may
have abundance.
Marcus Dods in the _Expositor's Greek Testament_ also has some enlightening
commentary:
With quite other intent has Christ come: EGO HLTHON . . . ECHOSIN, that
instead of being killed and perishing the sheep "may have life and may
have
abundance." This may mean abundance of life, but more probably abundance
of all that sustains life. PERITTON ECHEIN in Xen., _Anab._, vii. 6,31,
means
"to have a surplus". "The repetition of ECHOSIN gives the second point a
more
independent position than it would have had if KAI alone had been used.
. . ."
Meyer.
I discovered that some translations, such as the NASB, list in the margin
"have abundance" as an alternate translation.
David's discussion of the variant readings was most interesting and I think
they warrant further investigation.
I would venture to supplement David's contextual clues in favor of rendering
PERISSON as "abundance." It is certainly illuminating that in verse 10 there
is a contrast between the thief who steals, kills, and destroys and Jesus who
provides life and abundance. But I believe the comparison can be tightened up
a bit. The key is in the whole shepherd/sheep figure that Jesus is using. In
verses 1-5 Jesus points out that the shepherd enters into the fold of sheep
via the door or sheep-gate, whereas the thief or robber steals his way in
some other way. Furthermore, Jesus contrasts how the shepherd's voice is
recognized by the sheep, while they do not pay attention to the thief. It is
of some significance that in verses 3 and 4, and then also in verse 9 Jesus
says that the shepherd goes into the fold in order to lead them in and out
(cp. Num 27:16-17). In verse 9 Jesus says specifically, "I am the door; if
anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and
find pasture." Now this parallels very nicely with verse 10:
Verse 9: He shall be saved . . . and find pasture
Verse 10: They might have life . . . and have abundance
Now the coupling of life and the provision of sustenance is far from foreign
to the Gospel of John. In 6:26ff this coupling is readily apparent. Jesus
says in 6:27, "Do not work for food which perishes, but for the food which
endures to eternal life." Jesus identified Himself as the true bread from
heaven. And how could "abundance" be described more graphically?--"For the
bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the
world. . . . I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and
he who believes in Me shall never thirst" (6:33,35). The parallel becomes
even stronger when one compares Jesus' description of His abundant provision
for the sheep in laying His life down for them (10:11,17-18) with His
depiction of sustenance as the partaking of His flesh and blood (6:51-58).
Obviously, the abundant provision of sustenance and the giving of life are to
be found quintessentially in the death of Jesus. Christ's atoning death is
indeed, to borrow the words of Marcus Dods, the "abundance of all that
sustains life"!
I haven't the time to follow this subject any further at this time (after
1:00 AM at this moment), but I would be interested to search out the theme of
"abundance" in the Pauline literature as well. I do recall one verse from
Romans that might be apropos: "For if by the transgression of the one, death
reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance
[PERISSEIAN] of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life
through the One, Jesus Christ" (5:17). Perhaps someone else could follow this
theme in Paul--;)
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: J 10:10, PERISSON EXWSIN
On Thu, 17 Aug 1995 KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
> I [...] did some lexicon checking. It so happens that
> Thayer classifies PERISSON in J 10:10 as Moore would, translating PERISSON
> ECHEIN as "to have abundance." Thayer also cites a cognate usage of the
> adjective in antiquity: HOI MEN . . . PERISSA EXHOUSIN, HOI DE OUDE TA
> ANAGKAI DUNANTAI PORIZESTHAI ("On the one hand, those who have abundance, but
> on the other hand, those who do not have the wherewithal to get along" [my
> rough translation]), Xen. oec. 20,1. (Note that in this example PERISSA is
> anarthrous.) I thought David would also be interested in Alfred Plummer's
> comments on this verse.
>
> _have it more abundantly_] Omit 'more;' it is not in the Greek, and
> somewhat
> spoils the sense. More abundantly than what? Translate, _that they_ may
> have abundance.
>
> Marcus Dods in the _Expositor's Greek Testament_ also has some enlightening
> commentary:
>
> With quite other intent has Christ come: EGO HLTHON . . . ECHOSIN, that
> instead of being killed and perishing the sheep "may have life and may
> have
> abundance." This may mean abundance of life, but more probably abundance
> of all that sustains life. PERITTON ECHEIN in Xen., _Anab._, vii. 6,31,
> means
> "to have a surplus". "The repetition of ECHOSIN gives the second point a
> more
> independent position than it would have had if KAI alone had been used.
> . . ."
> Meyer.
>
> I discovered that some translations, such as the NASB, list in the margin
> "have abundance" as an alternate translation.
>
> David's discussion of the variant readings was most interesting and I think
> they warrant further investigation.
KevLAnder@aol.com has brought out some points on this matter that
supplement the comments I posted. It appears that if my library were
more ample, it would have been clear that others have taken PERISSON in
Jhn. 10:10 as absolute. His exegesis of the passage also develops well
the themes of contrast between Christ and the false shepherds and that of
Christ's provision for His sheep through sacrifice of Himself.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 15:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: J 1:1 (fwd)
Recently there has been considerable discussion regarding
Colwell's Rule, its meaning and abuse, and whether Colwell himself was
guilty of abusing his own rule.
In 1975 my Th.M. thesis, "The Signifance of the Anarthrous
Predicate Nominative in John," argued that it was an abuse of Colwell's
rule to argue that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the copulative
verb tend to be definite. This is the converse of Colwell's rule which
asserts that definite predicate nouns preceding the copulative tend to be
anarthrous.
The most recent post to which I am responding contends that
Colwell did not abuse his own rule. I quote from Colwell himself in my
thesis:
"Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the
definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and
to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb
without the article." (E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of
the Article in the Greek Testament," JBL 52 (1933):13.
Clearly this is an assertion of the converse of his rule, and as
such does not logically follow ("If A, then B" does not imply "If B, then
A").
Paul Dixon
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 01:50:23 -0400
From: KevLAnder@aol.com
To: b-greek@virginia.edu
Subject: J 1:1
Alan M Feuerbacher posted a stimulating discussion of the translation of the
final clause in J 1:1. I believe he is correct in pointing out how
notoriously difficult it is to formulate a hard and fast rule concerning the
usage of the Greek article. Perhaps the closest thing to a hard and fast rule
concerning KAI THEOS HHN HO LOGOS in J 1:1 was set forth by E.C. Colwell,
"Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," JBL 52
(1933):12-21. Colwell observed that if a definite noun preceded a copulative
verb, it was normally anarthrous; it if followed, it was articular. However,
it must be recalled that Colwell started out by making a judgment-call on
what constitutes a definite noun in a particular instance; and many Greek
scholars have considered this to be a preliminary flaw in his methodology.
Anyway, Colwell argued that THEOS in J 1:1 has a greater probability of being
translated "God" (definite), not "a god" (indefinite), since 87% of definite
predicates preceding the verb in the GNT are anarthrous. Now, this sounds
like some impressive research, as long as one takes into consideration the
sampling of data that Colwell actually studied. It cannot be forgotten that
Colwell investigated every instance in which DEFINITE predicate nouns
preceded the copulative verb. D.A. Carson has reported in _Exegetical
Fallacies_ (Baker, 1984, p 87) that one of his students, Ed Dewey, employed
GRAMCORD in order to investigate every occurence where any type of anarthrous
noun precedes either EIMI or GINOMAI, and he discovered that the nouns in the
exhaustive list were divided nearly equally into definite and indefinite
types.
Be that as it may, it must be contended that Colwell's Rule has not been
disproved. Colwell did not argue that a predicate noun which precedes a
copulative verb is likely to be anarthrous. Rather, he argued that a DEFINITE
predicate noun which precedes a copulative verb is likely to be anarthrous.
Therefore, Colwell's Rule is useful in assisting in the ajudication of the J
1:1 debate. But at this point Alan Feuerbacher is again correct in positing
that the final clause in J 1:1 cannot be firmly translated on the basis of
sheer grammar alone, for the definiteness or indefiniteness of THEOS has to
be determined on other (both narrow and broad contextual) grounds before
Colwell's probability would even have any bearing. Here I would point out
that Alan's reference to J 1:18 as an instance where the anarthrous THEON is
certainly to be understood as definite is helpful. THEON in 1:18 works
against the Watchtower, the Way, or whomever by tipping the scales in favor
of taking THEOS in 1:1 as definite. Furthermore, as Murray Harris and many
others have noted, John the Evangelist (along with the whole lot of NT
authors) was most certainly a monotheist, and to apprehend John as saying
that the Logos is another god would make him contradict himself. Hence, the
definiteness of THEOS in 1:1 is nearly certain. Although there is the
grammatical possibility that the clause under consideration may be translated
"and the Logos was a god," this possibility within the context of John's
Gospel is quite remote. Colwell's Rule tends to corroborate the greater
probability that the phrase in question ought to be translated "and the Logos
was God."
True, the interpretation of J 1:1 does not turn on grammar alone (although
Colwell's Rule may demonstrate a valuable statistical probability concerning
the grammar which we find); but then again, no interpretation can be based
merely upon grammar. Grammar alone cannot even account for understanding
exchanges between speakers of English, let alone ancient Greek. I have
learned that a knowledge of Greek often does not aid one in solving problems
of interpretation, although it does allow a person to better understand the
problems themselves and to consequently make more informed decisions
regarding them.
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:55:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Heb. 6:6
>David Willis here responding to Rod Decker who wrote,
>
>>>
>2. The shift in form from aor. to present is prob. significant. Note that
>the first group is linked by a 'kai...te...te' sequence. The ptcp. 'fall
>away' is most directly affected by this link as it would argue that it is
>parallel with the earlier ptcps. and is not conditional (as some Eng.
>versions transl.). I think that the pres. ptcps. ff. can only make good
>sense as causal and not temporal. (There would have to be some
>other indication in the context to make them temporal, not just the pres.
>tense,
...
>I think you have that "other indication" in the use of the adverb "once" in
>6:4.
I'm not sure how you think that "once" (= hapax) in v. 4 affects the
temporal nature of the ptcp. in v.6. Could you be more explicit? In v. 4,
'hapax phwtisthentas' is an alternative way of saying 'regenerated'
('phwtizw' is almost a tech. term for regeneration in the NT). I.e., once a
person has been regenerated, if he then 'falls away' v. 6 (which I
explained in my orig. post), it is impossible, etc. BECAUSE this is the
significance of what they have done: 'anastaurountas, etc.' To make it
temporal would be like saying that you can't stop pouring water while
you're pouring water. I.e., 'you can't stop falling away while you're
falling away.' A temporal explanation sounds good at first glance, but it
is tautological. If I'm missing something as to how 'once' in v. 4 changes
this, please clue me in.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: David Coomler <davidco@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 16:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: J 1:1
On Thu, 17 Aug 1995, Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
>
> Anyway, Colwell argued that THEOS in J 1:1 has a greater probability of being
> translated "God" (definite), not "a god" (indefinite), since 87% of definite
> predicates preceding the verb in the GNT are anarthrous.
My understanding is that neither is really accurate, and that when
translating it into English it becomes descriptive--in other words, "god"
with a small g. The word was neither completely identical with God (big
G), nor simply an individual god ("a god"), but rather god in an
adjectival sense--or as some translate it, "divine." I think "the word
was god" or "the word was divine" are both more accurate than either of
the two extremes of making the word absolutely identical with God or a
separate god.
David
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:56:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Heb. 6:6
Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com> wrote:
Re: Heb. 6:6
>In v. 4,
>'hapax phwtisthentas' is an alternative way of saying 'regenerated'
>('phwtizw' is almost a tech. term for regeneration in the NT). I.e., once a
>person has been regenerated, if he then 'falls away' v. 6 (which I
>explained in my orig. post), it is impossible, etc. BECAUSE this is the
>significance of what they have done: 'anastaurountas, etc.'
It doesn't look as though the data on FWTIZW supports your
assertion for a t.t., Rod. But no matter how one understands FWTISQENTAS
in v. 4, IMO, one must take into account the larger context of what the
New Testament says about the unpardonable sin in order to understand what
is being said in Heb. 6:4-8 about this matter.
The context in which Jesus pronounced sin against the holy Spirit
to be unpardonable, was the ocasion of the Pharisees tactic of claiming
that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the prince of demons.
By pointing out that the Pharisees were aware of the kind of power that
was needed to cast out demons (Mat. 12:27-29; Lu. 11:19,20), Jesus
illustrated that they were not slandering out of ignorance but with full
knowledge that they were resisting and blaspheming the work of God.
Something similar also appears to be the case with those mentioned
in Heb. 6:4-8. Their sin had not been for lack of understanding, of
experience, or of power. Rather, their sin had been committed with the
full light of understanding. If we take Hebrews as most interpreters do,
believing it was written to Jewish believers who were facing strong
temptation to deny Christ and return to the Jewish cultus, we might expect
that the _sin_ referred to in this passage is some sort of radical and
public reject ion of Christ.
Then, there is the matter of the previous state of those souls
referred to here who have fallen beyond hope. (That is the implication of
PARAPESONTES since the compounding of PESONTES with the preposition PARA
serves to intensify of the verb's meaning and to imply enduring results.)
We know, from what is said of them, that they have had some fairly close
relation to the things of God. But we also know that they are destitute
of eternal life. It may be that they have had some form of temporal faith
as we find in the parable of the sower typified in two of the types of
soil that produce no fruit. (Cf. Heb. 6:7,8.) Is it necessary to be more
specific?
We should not overlook that the verses following this passage
sound a contrasting note of hope, essentially holding out the certainty of
salvation to those whose lives show the sincerity of their faith.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: DBWILLIS@aol.com
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 23:25:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Heb. 6:6
David Willis here responding to Rod Decker,
RD<<. (There would have to be some
>other indication in the context to make them temporal, not just the pres.
>tense,
...
DW>I think you have that "other indication" in the use of the adverb "once"
in
>6:4.
RD<<I'm not sure how you think that "once" (= hapax) in v. 4 affects the
temporal nature of the ptcp. in v.6. Could you be more explicit?>>
I simply was pointing out (as you requested) something else in the context
that would indicate that a a juxtaposition of the time (in relation to the
leading verb, ~adunaton~"it is impossible") of the participles was what was
intended rather than a causal relationship. To show a temporal adverb is
used in the series of aorist participles which are followed by present
participles would be further evidence (besides the shift to the present
participle) that there was intended a temporal significance by this shift.
Although I did not (and do not) choose to dispute this point in our language
forum (as opposed to a doctrinal forum), I do not accept your
"non-soteriological" explanation for "falling away." I take the words to
mean (as they seem to mean when understood in their most natural
interpretation) that a person who is once spiritually saved, can indeed
become spiritually lost.
<<To make it
temporal would be like saying that you can't stop pouring water while
you're pouring water. I.e., 'you can't stop falling away while you're
falling away.' A temporal explanation sounds good at first glance, but it
is tautological. If I'm missing something as to how 'once' in v. 4 changes
this, please clue me in.>>
While it is true that many of these participles are only different terms to
express the same concept of "falling away", I don't accept that this temporal
understanding is a mere tautology. I would say that it is not a tautology to
say of someone, "once you have fallen into the water, it is impossible to dry
off, so long as you are remaining in the water." This seems quite similar
to what is expressed here. At least in my opinion. Thanks for the reply.
David Willis
DBWILLIS@aol.com
6728 Silver Tree Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46236
(317) 823-4858
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #827
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu