Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14

[knpraise]

 

 

John responds
 
David wrote this:   
Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars.  A.T. Robertston in "A 
Grammar of the Greek New Testament" writes about Hebrews 10:14 in the 
following way:
 
"But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive.  Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 
2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18.  There is no notion of purpose in "hago
ntes" (Ac. 21:16). 
In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the 
descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of "tous hagiazomenous" 
in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10)."
"durative" in this application is nothing more than a description of an action 
that began at some time in the past and continues into the present time.  when 
the passive is attached,  "being sanctified" is almost forced 
into the equation.   
The KJV takes that option away.   You are correct in saying that "are sanctified" is 
not past tense  --   but that is not how many will see this passage and that is or was
the point of this discussion.   It was Deegan who said "... its past tense, so what 
is the problem?"   ----------------   illustrating THE problem.  Our sanctification 
is both timeless and not of our own doing.    The KJV does not give the average reader
this point of view  ..................   the NKJV does, on the other hand.
Notice how Robertson actually approaches this passage exactly the same way 
that Judy did for meaning.  He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, 
to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative 
concept.  His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is 
CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durative.
You make it sound as though Robertson actually had more to say on this subject than 
your very accurate quote of the ENTIRE discussion on his part:  "But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive.  Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18.  There is no notion of purpose in "hagontes" (Ac. 21:16). In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10)."  Onlookers to this discussion need to know that this is all there is from Robertson .   The statement that he (Robertson) "He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative concept.  His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durative"  is a bit over stated in view of the full comment included in DM's post. At any rate, the original point is that of "being sanctified"  versus "are sanctified." Comments on "durative"  aside   --  if we understand what durative does to the syntax. 
If you are familiar with Robertson's grammar, you know that he separates the 
durative action into various categories, the progressive present being one 
(which is Bill Taylor's treatment of Heb. 10:14) and the descriptive present 
being another one.  I think if Robertson were here, he would have s
ome 
comments that would pull Bill Taylor away from his present dogmatic stance. 
Considering how most translators have shied away from commiting to a 
progressive syntax, I think there are likely to be many others that would 
likewise find some disagreement with Bill's solid commitment to a 
progressive present meaning of Heb. 10:14.
Syntax is one thing  --   abiding theologies are something else.    I do not think
that we should appeal to a    passage's syntactical construct to redefine that of                                                
another  (Heb 10:10 as used to
 overcome 10:14).  In so doing, there are no checks 
on our theological imaginations.   And that is exactly what we are doing, it seems to 
me  ..   i.e.   "because I believe that sanctification is always a completed task, 
Heb 10:14 must be translated in that light."    That is exactly what we are doing 
when we drag 10:10 into the discussion.  On a side note  --  I own Robertsons' grammar 
and think it somewhat humorous that you would, therefore, think that I am familiar with
a particular commentary in the book   --  a 1400 page publication.  But, thanks for
vote of confidence !! 
 
 
Peace be with you.
David Miller.