Bill Taylor wrote: > 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.
Fair enough, Bill. I certainly understand your viewpoint. My primary concern has been with your dogmatism, not your perspective per se. Of course, I always have in the back of my mind that you might have a better grasp than I do on this subject because of your formal education in this area, and that might rightly justify your confidence in your opinion. At the same time, it could be that your formal education gives you an over confidence in this area, kind of like the college grad or high school grad who thinks he knows all there is to know. :-) I think you know what I'm talking about. As for me, I have already made it plain that I cannot be dogmatic about the exegesis of this passage in either direction. Therefore, I cannot argue passionately against your position, nor argue passionately for it. I have heard you and considered your perspective. Although at present I still have not moved from my lack of dogmatism in the exegesis of Heb. 10:14, I will continue to consider what you have said. One thing I highly respect with you Bill, is that you at least recognize that Robertson differs from you on this issue. I appreciate you just coming right out and saying that you think Robertson misses it. There are other grammarians who would agree with you. Moulton, for example, takes your perspective. I can handle a bona fide discussion from different viewpoints, but I have a lot of trouble with John trying to make out like this is an open and shut case with all the Greek grammarians on your side. I think such rhetoric pushes people like Judy further away from appreciating Greek scholarship. I do not agree with Judy that all the Greek scholars are studying in vain. At the same time, I recognize her valid point that God is not apprehended through intellectual study, but by faith which comes through the revelation of the Spirit of God. Peace be with you. David Miller. ----- Original Message ----- From: Taylor To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 11:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14 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 ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
