From: Rod Decker (rdecker@accunet.com)
Date: Fri Aug 11 1995 - 08:38:19 EDT
>David Willis here,
>
>meant by "it is impossible to renew them to repentance" in Heb. 6:6. Some
>may say that Heb. 6:6 is properly understood to say that a person who is
>saved and falls away can never be saved again, but I think that most would
...
>being renewed unto repentance after falling away, usually is explained by the
>distinction between one's "repenting himself" and someone _else_ renewing him
...
>considered before. The tense of the aorist participles "were enlightened",
>"tasted", "made partakers" and "fell away" changes to a present participle
>for "crucify afresh" and "put to an open shame". There is also the use of
>the adverb "once" along with the aorists which accentuates the purposeful
>time distinction being made. In Greek, the tense of the participle indicates
>the time of action of the participle in relation to the leading verb.
...
>is the cause of this impossibility. So long as that state continues, no one,
>not the impenitent himself nor anyone else can bring about a renewal. But
...
>The English "seeing" of the ASV and KJV and especially the "since" of the
>NASB suggests some explanitory or causal preposition here. But there is (as
...
>cause.) This suggests to me that a better translation might be "SO LONG AS
>they crucify afresh..." which would imply that there is no permanence to the
>condition of "impossibility" but it remains only so long as they continue to
A few brief notes:
1. The relationship of the tense of a participle to the main verb is not so
clear cut. There are too many exceptions to the rule you specify (which is
a fairly common statement) to be exegetically determinative. Some (e.g.,
Stan Porter) have argued that word order is more useful, but I'm not
convinved that there is any greater consistency here.
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.)
3. Despite most opinions to the contrary, I'm not convinced that "falling
away" must refer to a soteriological fall. Placed in its historical context
(which I take to be Neronian persecution in Rome ca. 64-65), I would
suggest that it refers instead to a failure to go on to maturity,
particularly by denying one's faith to avoid persecution (_perhaps_ [but
not certainly] by a claim to Judaisn once again since the Jews were not the
focus of Nero's scapegoat tactics following the fire of Rome). This
approach makes good sense of all the warning passages in Hebrews.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT