Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14

[Christine Miller]

JD wrote:
If (a) you do not see babe - maturity as a process and (b) if you do not see that the "practice" as a move into holiness  --  then  you will not see why I used this passage.

I do see the maturity process in Heb 5, but it is (b) I do not see. The practice is not as a move into holiness. This is where we disagree on the meaning of the word "sanctification." Read back to verse 8: Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. This is what verses 13 and 14 are talking about: Christ was always holy and sinless. But he still had to learn things, to progress from the milk to the meat. Christ was sanctified, but there was still some maturing that had to take place. Not a maturing into holiness, but into one who (verse 14:) "by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

I am using the analogy of adoption to understand the difference between sanctification and the "obedience" Christ learned in verse 8. When a child is adopted, there isn't a long process. Bam. You're a member of the household now. BUT being a new member of the household doesn't mean you automatically know how the house does things. You have to learn to not leave your clothes on the floor. You have to learn that when you're done eating dinner you take your plate to the sink. You have to learn to abide by your new curfew. These are the metephorical house rules I was talking about. Sorry for not elucidating earlier, I can see how that comment must have seemed to come from left field. Do you see now how I view sanctification as an adoption?

Blessings!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

"But everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.  But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil"   (Heb 5:13-14).  If (a) you do not see babe - maturity as a process and (b) if you do not see that the "practice" as a move into holiness  --  then  you will not see why I used this passage.   "House rules" is not how I would typify the subject matter of Heb 5.   I see two considerations in chapter 5  --  the first is the purpose and function of Christ as the source of our salvation and , secondly,  the addressee's failure to have matured into the full stature of Christ.   That bit of subject matter begins in v 11 of chapter 5 and continues well into chapter 6.   Sanctification (being set apart as a result of holiness increa sed) is not a completed task in this case.    In Heb 10:10 , sanctification is the result of a vicarious action on the part of God in Christ.  The purpose of God's consideration is fulfilled, completed if you will, in Christ.  In Christ, the consideration of sanctification is finished.   The fact of sanctification in our lives is another matter, altogether.   So, in Heb 10:14 we "are being sanctified."  

 

House rules ????   Perhaps you could elucidate. 

 

jd

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Christine Miller <verilysaid@yahoo.com>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:55:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14

JD wrote:
Paul teaches sanctification as a continuing process in  Eph 4:20-24 and in Heb 5:13-14.

I don't wish to distract you from the present issue of Heb 10:14, but I am not sure I understand your references here. Specifically in Heb. 5, I do not see sanctification being discussed at all. The act of being adopted as a child of God is not the same thing as learning the house rules. Heb. 5 is not talking about sanctification, but learning the house rules, learning to "discern both good and evil."

Perhaps we disagree on what "sanctification" means?

Blessings!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 

 

It is almost  --  but not quite  -  humorous,   your inability to converse with me without the put downs.   Also, for some reason, when I go down into the body of your post,  I cannot single space  my response  unless I write it somewhere else and copy it into the post  --  below the    "-----Original Message  ----" line.  Strange.  And this applies to all your posts.  

 

 

I wrote that "durative" is an action that begins in the past and is linear in the present.  You wrote  "No true  ...." and referred me to a discussion by Robertson on p 821.   You even give a quote from that page.   First,   durative is just as I said and my definition comes from Robertson.    Secondly, the problems Robertson has in mind is carefully defined with specific references within the article.   If he meant to include the present passive participle,  he does not mention it in this section.   

 

I am not sure what you think is being said when you point to the "descriptive durative "  You write :This means that he views it  only as descriptive linear action.  That seems to be my point.  Does this mean that "leanear action" is NOT ACTUALLY IN VIEW ??  I will listen to an argument that presents such a case  --  but for now,  I do not think so.   As a result --  the participle remains  linear (and hense incomplete IN THIS FRAME of reference).   So much for tense.   "Passive" is a big deal to me. I think I understand greek pretty well  --  but I am not a [English} grammarian.   What I believe is this  --  saying that we "are sanctified" is not as clear to an average reader as saying "I am being sanctified."   Perhaps , because of your expertise in English grammar,   you do not see the problem as I see it.  To translate the participle as "are being sanctified"  is in line with the NKJV, the marginal notes in my NASV,  Comfort and Brown's interlinear translation,  Marshall's interlinear translation,   NIV   (those who are being made holy)  and  --  well,   I will quit. The semantics of  this syntactical issue may be just as you suppose  --   but that is theology.    You want to use 10:10 to limit the meaning of 10:14 because it is a part of the same conversation.   On a different subject, this might be a good point  --  a strong point.   But Paul teaches sanctification as a continuing process in  Eph 4:20-24 and in Heb 5:13-14. There is clearly   a sense in which sanctification is a continuing process.   There is no reason, then, to limit this passage (10:14) based 10:10 or to argue for a non-typical syntax.  "Desriptive durative" remains linear action (with no end in s ight).    

 

 

Summary statement:   Robertson's commentary beginning on p 821 is not an argument against an interlinear translation reading "are being sanctified."   Secondly, "descriptive durative" is, nonetheless, linear action with no end in sight in the framed reference.   Finally,  since Paul believes that sanctification is a continuing occasion for maturity  --   there is no reason to argue that Heb 10:10 should somehow effect the interlinear translation of 10:14  -   specifically,  "are being sanctified."   As a result, "are being sanctified" is a common translation of those who should know (better).  ;Nothing in Robertson argues that "are being sanctified" is wrong or a poorly thought out translation.  

 

 

This line is trash  --  smiley face not withstanding:  I do have a tendency to over-estimate what you have read and understood. :-)

 

Jd

 

 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:41:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14

David Miller's comments in blue.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

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 "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)."
"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 himand then referred the readers here to look at the quote and see for themselves howhe 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 veryclear 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 throughthe offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all.  On this basis, he arguesas Judy does that we should not look to anything more than descriptive durativetype 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 some 
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 witha particular commentary in the book   --  a 1400 page publication.  But, thanks forvote of confidence !!
 I do have a tendency to over-estimate what you have read and understood. :-)Peace be with you.David Miller. 

---

Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

---

Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.