Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14

Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:15:24 -0800

Okay, one more "last word" on the subject :>) -- this time looking at some theological/interpretive aspects of my translation.
 
I find it significant that Hebrews 10.10 presents our participle in the perfect tense: "are sanctified" in the KJV and "have been sanctified" in the NKJV. "Have been sanctified" is, in my opinion, the better of the two translations, it being more expressive of the perfected thrust of this verbal form. That aside, however, the perfect tense conveys a completed act with (in this instance) ongoing benefits. Having used the perfect tense in verse 10, the question in my mind is, why did the author not use it again in verse 14, saying in effect, "For by one offering he has perfected forever those who 'have been' sanctified." A statement as such would in no way contradict what he had already stated in verse 10; for we already know from 10 that the sanctification in view is, at least at some level, complete. It is my opinion that the finished aspect of sanctification rests in the surety of the once for all offering of Christ on the Cross, his victory being final, complete, and irrevocable. What then about this word: is there nothing left to be accomplished in terms of sanctification? Are the "all" of Hebrews 10.10 as holy and set apart as they will ever be? Well, no, there is a process believers go through on the way to maturity, beginning, of course, with faith -- or repentance, depending on your persuasion -- and progressing from there.
 
Why didn't our author reiterate the completed aspect of sanctification in verse 14, having already stated it as such in verse 10; why did he choose instead to express himself in a different participial form? I believe it is because he is not repeating himself in 14; instead he is now emphasizing the process of sanctification and not the certainty of it. This, it seems to me, is the only thing that makes sense, because there is a sense by which a perfect tense can still affect its recipients after the action is complete. If the only thing the author had in view was the ongoing effects of sanctification -- i.e., the certainty of its results -- then he had the perfect verbal form to accomplish this in the perfect tense, the very tense which he had just used in verse 10. To meet his objective there was no need to switch forms in verse 14. That he did switch to a present passive to express himself in 14, then, should be understood as his way of emphasizing the ongoing aspects of Christ's once for all offering.
 
It is true that the author does not use this particular passive form elsewhere in his address, but he does use the same participle in a nominative rather than the accusative (subject rather than object) form in chapter 2 verse 11, where he states that "both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren" (NKJV). Notice here that not only is the passive "those who are being sanctified" in the present tense but also the active "he who sanctifies." This to me is a defining statement in our discussion: the process of sanctification was not finished in the one offering on the cross -- Jesus continues to sanctify. And so, while the certainty of its completion is secured and perfected on the cross, the process of sanctification is nonetheless progressive; therefore, my insistence on "those who are being sanctified."
 
Hence it is my opinion that Robertson, while a well respected and noteworthy scholar, misses it here, himself having been influenced by the older, less reliable translations.
 
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14

David Miller's comments in blue.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14

 
 
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.  
Not true.  You are over-simplifying the problem of tenses in Greek 
to English translation.  Read Robertson's grammar on page 821.   
"The translators of our English version have failed more frequently 
from their partial knowledge of the force of the tenses than from any 
other cause."  See also, "We have a great wealth of tenses in English 
by means of auxilliary verbss, but they do not correspond with any of 
the Greek tenses."
Robertson divides the durative type action into numerous categories, 
of which your definition above (past action still in progress) is only 
one.  You can find it on page 892 (h).  The Hebrews 10:14 passage is 
not placed by Roberston in this definition.  He discusses it as an
example under c, Descriptive Durative.  This means that he views it
only as descriptive linear action.  
when the passive is attached,  "being sanctified" is almost forced 
into the equation.
Passive has little to do with putting "being" in there.  The word "being"
is put in only if you read the Greek to be indicating a continuous, 
repetitive process.  This is what is under question here.  Does the 
Greek really carry this concept in what it says, or it it only one
of our possible renderings?
The passive voice has to do with the form of the sentence, for example,
"Jesus sanctifies us" would be active voice, but "we are sanctified by
Jesus" would be passive voice.  Wording it in the passive form puts
more emphasis on us being sanctified rather than on the one who sanctifies
us.  The passive voice does not attach this word "being" into the equation.
   
The KJV takes that option away.   
Sorry, John, but I repeat:  The KJV is present passive.  The Greek is present
passive.  So the KJV does not take anything away in terms of its translation
of "present passive."  The only way the KJV might take away anything is if
the action in the Greek truly means a repetitive or iterative ongoing process.  
If this could be proven, then the KJV would not point people as forcefully to 
this meaning as it should.  However, if the Greek does not have this force,
as Robertson argues, then the KJV might be a better translation than your
personal preference.
 
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.
Fair enough, but it is your theology which is guiding your translation 
rather than your knowledge of Greek.  I cannot be dogmatic about this
passage on the basis of linguistics because this exact form of the word
is not found anywhere else.  Nevertheless, my personal sense is that it
is not as loaded with repetitive action as you seem to insist. 
 
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.
 
I don't know why you think I made it sound like he had more to say.  I quoted him
and then referred the readers here to look at the quote and see for themselves how
he tells us to compare Heb. 10:10 for his reason why "descriptive durative is 
certainly all that is true" of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14."  It seems very
clear to me that his reasoning is the same as Judy's reasoning.  He looks at the 
context of the passage to find that 10:10 describes us being sanctified through
the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all.  On this basis, he argues
as Judy does that we should not look to anything more than descriptive durative
type action.    
 
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 the contrary, 10:10 is part of the dialogue, and therefore it has merit 
for consideration that theology or even grammatical rules do not have.  
All of our knowledge of Greek is derived by its use in sentences from which
we can readily see its use.  We get into problems with rare words or rare forms
where its usage is not readily observed.
Surely you recognize that 10:10 is part of the thought process being carried
forward by the author of Hebrews into 10:14.  This is not like yanking a passage
from a completely different book.
 
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 !! 
I do have a tendency to over-estimate what you have read and understood. :-)  
Peace be with you.
David Miller.

Reply via email to