PDA

View Full Version : Hebrews 10:26 challenge



37818
09-10-2016, 08:47 AM
Hebrews 10:26,
. . . εκουσιως γαρ αμαρτανοντων ημων μετα το λαβειν την επιγνωσιν της αληθειας ουκ ετι περι αμαρτιων απολειπεται θυσια. . . .

Has a long standing traditional understanding being translated,
. . . For [if] we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, . . .

Here is the challenge:
. . . For we [do] sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, . . .

How does that reading change your understanding of that text and its context?

And not just these:

. . . we know Him . . . v.30

. . . we are not of them . . . v.39.

Its whole context . . . 10-39.

One Bad Pig
09-10-2016, 08:56 AM
Hebrews 10:26,
. . . εκουσιως γαρ αμαρτανοντων ημων μετα το λαβειν την επιγνωσιν της αληθειας ουκ ετι περι αμαρτιων απολειπεται θυσια. . . .

Has a long standing traditional understanding being translated,
. . . For [if] we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, . . .

Here is the challenge:
. . . For we [do] sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, . . .

How does that reading change your understanding of that text and its context?

And not just these:

. . . we know Him . . . v.30

. . . we are not of them . . . v.39.

Its whole context . . . 10-39.
Counter-challenge: find ONE translation or commentary which supports your alternative. Even the translations on Bible Gateway which go through an intermediate language (Latin) agree with the traditional understanding.

37818
09-10-2016, 09:35 AM
Counter-challenge: find ONE translation or commentary which supports your alternative. Even the translations on Bible Gateway which go through an intermediate language (Latin) agree with the traditional understanding.

Young's Literal Translation:
. . . For we -- willfully sinning after the receiving the full knowledge of the truth -- no more for sins doth there remain a sacrifice, . . .

Darby Translation:
. . . For where we sin wilfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains any sacrifice for sins, . . .

The question I have is the exegetic justification for "if" which is not there. Please feel free to justify it. Give the exegetic justification.

For my understanding of Hebrews 10:26 goes to a larger context - 1 John 1:8, 10 for example. And, ". . . there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, . . ." I see refers back to v.10 & v.18.

Cow Poke
09-10-2016, 09:49 AM
Young's Literal Translation:
. . . For we -- willfully sinning after the receiving the full knowledge of the truth -- no more for sins doth there remain a sacrifice, . . .

Darby Translation:
. . . For where we sin wilfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains any sacrifice for sins, . . .

The question I have is the exegetic justification for "if" which is not there. Please feel free to justify it. Give the exegetic justification.

For my understanding of Hebrews 10:26 goes to a larger context - 1 John 1:8, 10 for example. And, ". . . there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, . . ." I see refers back to v.10 & v.18.

In 1 John, particularly chapter 2, John is speaking of habitually or continually or making a practice of sinning.

Meanwhile, Barnes' notes on Hebrews 10:26:


(1) It is the natural and obvious interpretation, such as would occur probably to ninety-nine readers in a hundred, if there were no theory to support, and no fear that it would conflict with some other doctrine.

(2) it accords with the scope of the Epistle, which is, to keep those whom the apostle addressed from returning again to the Jewish religion, under the trials to which they were subjected.

(3) it is in accordance with the fair meaning of the language - the words "after that we have received the knowledge of the truth," referring more naturally to true conversion than to any other state of mind.

(4) the sentiment would not be correct if it referred to any but real Christians. It would not be true that one who had been somewhat enlightened, and who then sinned "wilfully," must look on fearfully to the judgment without a possibility of being saved. There are multitudes of cases where such persons are saved. They "wilfully" resist the Holy Spirit; they strive against him; they for a long time refuse to yield, but they are brought again to reflection, and are led to give their hearts to God.

(5) it is true, and always will be true, that if a sincere Christian should apostatize he could never be converted again; see the notes on Hebrews 6:4-6. The reasons are obvious. He would have tried the only plan of salvation, and it would have failed. He would have embraced the Saviour, and there would not have been efficacy enough in his blood to keep him, and there would be no more powerful Saviour and no more efficacious blood of atonement. He would have renounced the Holy Spirit, and would have shown that his influences were not effectual to keep him, and there would be no other agent of greater power to renew and save him after he had apostatized. For these reasons it seems clear to me that this passage refers to true Christians, and that the doctrine here taught is, that if such an one should apostatize, he must look forward only to the terrors of the judgment, and to final condemnation.

One Bad Pig
09-10-2016, 12:24 PM
Young's Literal Translation:
. . . For we -- willfully sinning after the receiving the full knowledge of the truth -- no more for sins doth there remain a sacrifice, . . .

Darby Translation:
. . . For where we sin wilfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains any sacrifice for sins, . . .

The question I have is the exegetic justification for "if" which is not there.
Neither of these supports your insertion of "do" instead of "if". The YLT, as a literal translation, simply omits any explanatory gloss, which only serves to highlight the limitations of an overly literal attempt at translation. The Darby translation is much more akin to "if" than "do".

37818
09-11-2016, 02:01 PM
Neither of these supports your insertion of "do" instead of "if". The YLT, as a literal translation, simply omits any explanatory gloss, which only serves to highlight the limitations of an overly literal attempt at translation. The Darby translation is much more akin to "if" than "do".

How does the addition of "if" to "we" change the meaning of Hebrews 10:26? [The same question, "how does . . . change the meaning of Hebrews 10:26?" Can be imposed regarding adding "do" after "we."]

Proverbs 30:6,

. . . Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Sparko
09-13-2016, 07:06 AM
What are you trying to argue 37818?

All sin is willful. You can't "accidentally" sin, can you? So it can't mean ordinary sinning because we still do that every day, and do so willingly. We choose to sin. Normally we regret this and know we did wrong and ask for forgiveness. And we get it. Right?

So obviously it has to mean something more. Like purposefully being evil, or not caring that we sin. Like saying "yeah I know that killing is a sin, but heck, I like it so I am going to keep on being a serial killer and I am forgiven! God said so! haha!" or "so what if adultery is a sin? I want to cheat on my wife, so I am going to do it as long as I don't get caught! I have no regrets"

Cow Poke
09-13-2016, 09:52 AM
What are you trying to argue 37818?

All sin is willful. You can't "accidentally" sin, can you? So it can't mean ordinary sinning because we still do that every day, and do so willingly. We choose to sin. Normally we regret this and know we did wrong and ask for forgiveness. And we get it. Right?

So obviously it has to mean something more. Like purposefully being evil, or not caring that we sin. Like saying "yeah I know that killing is a sin, but heck, I like it so I am going to keep on being a serial killer and I am forgiven! God said so! haha!" or "so what if adultery is a sin? I want to cheat on my wife, so I am going to do it as long as I don't get caught! I have no regrets"

Yeah, Christians don't sin because we HAVE to - we sin because we want to. As we grow closer to Christ, we don't become sinless, but we certainly should sin less.

Just Passing Through
09-13-2016, 10:55 AM
If 37818's main question is “where did the ‘if’ come from?” It simply comes from the process of turning a participle into a subordinate clause. Using a lot of “ing” verbs is both awkward and unenlightening, so the translator uses context and subjective judgment to determine the “flavor” of the participle.
It could be Temporal: When we sin...
Or Concessive: Although we sin...
Or Causal: Because we sin...
The standard Conditional used with this verse, “If we sin willfully,” is really a variation on the Temporal that avoids the implication that this sin (and the judgment described in the next verse) is a definite and foregone conclusion. Sort of “When and/or if we sin...”
It is the subjective interpretation of the translator, but it seems to be the best option here.

I wonder if 37818 could be suggesting that “there remains no more sacrifice for sin” is being used in the same positive way it was used in verse 18. No more sacrifice remains, because it is neither necessary nor useful to offer any sacrifices to add to the one perfect sacrifice that has already been made.
So you might translate, “Even though we still sin willingly after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins remains.” I.E. we are still forgiven, and it would be unnecessary and wrong to try to give God a sacrifice for that willing sin. Don’t worry about willing sins; they’re covered.

A problem with that take on the verse is the very harsh warning of the following verses. What remains is not any sacrifice, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire.
There is also the implication of verse 29 that the one who has done so is trampling God’s Son under foot, profaning Christ’s blood, and insulting the Spirit. That doesn’t sound like, “Oh, don’t worry about it, it’s covered.”

I take verse 26 either as describing a sin that isn’t just doing something willingly, but with a rebellious willfulness that says, “I don’t care that Christ died for me. I’m going to do whatever I want to spite his sacrifice.” Or else that all willful sins, done with full awareness that they are sinful and condemnatory in God’s sight, and not done in the weakness that tries hard to fight them but fails, do indeed separate a person from God and subject him to fearful expectation of judgment, but not unredeemably. It’s not the unforgivable sin. It’s a warning not to think after such a fall that the solution now must be to do something to pay for your own sin, but to truly repent and fall back upon the one and only sacrifice that can save you.

I could be completely wrong about what he's getting at. 37818 might actually be suggesting an interpretation very similar to what I just described, not a “don’t worry about it” attitude, just a “don’t try to fix it by a sacrifice” attitude. I still think the conditional “if” better reflects the harshness of judgment in verse 27, rather than the thought that all willing sin (and what sin isn’t at least to some degree willing?) subjects you to God’s judgment and puts you outside of his grace at least temporarily. If that were so, then anyone’s salvation could be as tenuous and uncertain, as someone who, at the last moment of life sees a car heading straight at him and thinks, “Oh, _____!!!” He has a willful sinful thought, has no time to repent, and finds himself facing judgment and fire. That could be you.

37818
09-13-2016, 02:05 PM
The text Hebrews 10:. . . 10-39 does not need the "if" in verse 26.

Note v.10, 14, 18, 26 what they have in common.
Note v.14, 17, 30, 39 what they have in common.

Note the arguments v.27-38.

The difference between the saved and those who reject the gospel of grace.

Sparko
09-13-2016, 02:33 PM
not getting what your point is

Cow Poke
09-13-2016, 02:34 PM
not getting what your point is

37818 seems to be gifted at that.

37818
09-14-2016, 06:09 AM
not getting what your point is

It is not saying those who are saved can become the lost. Noting vs.10, 14, 17, 39.

Sparko
09-14-2016, 06:32 AM
It is not saying those who are saved can become the lost. Noting vs.10, 14, 17, 39.What ARE you saying? Nobody knows. You keep skirting around what you want to actually say. Just come out and say it. What is the conclusion that you are trying to get us to come to?

37818
09-14-2016, 02:04 PM
What ARE you saying? Nobody knows. You keep skirting around what you want to actually say. Just come out and say it. What is the conclusion that you are trying to get us to come to?

Again, the context Hebrews 10:10-39 does not teach the saved can be lost. As some have suppose. [Pointing out the alleged "if" in v.26.]

Cow Poke
09-14-2016, 02:08 PM
Again, the context Hebrews 10:10-39 does not teach the saved can be lost. As some have suppose. [Pointing out the alleged "if" in v.26.]

:huh: So, that's your point? That's where you're trying to go? This is all about OSAS?

37818
09-14-2016, 06:03 PM
:huh: So, that's your point? That's where you're trying to go? This is all about OSAS?

It is not merely about OSAS. But that Hebrews 10:26 has had the word and concept of "if" add to it. It changes the meaning of that passage. Some who argue against the view point of OSAS cite Hebews 10:26 that it says "if." When it really does not. That rendering goes back to at least the late 4th century interpretation and translation.

Sparko
09-15-2016, 05:17 AM
Again, the context Hebrews 10:10-39 does not teach the saved can be lost. As some have suppose. [Pointing out the alleged "if" in v.26.]I think we all agree that it is not teaching that you can lose your salvation by sinning. It is basically saying if you sin unrepentantly then you probably are not saved in the first place.

Kbertsche
09-15-2016, 02:56 PM
Hebrews 10:26,
. . . εκουσιως γαρ αμαρτανοντων ημων μετα το λαβειν την επιγνωσιν της αληθειας ουκ ετι περι αμαρτιων απολειπεται θυσια. . . .

Has a long standing traditional understanding being translated,
. . . For [if] we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, . . .

Here is the challenge:
. . . For we [do] sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, . . .

How does that reading change your understanding of that text and its context?

And not just these:

. . . we know Him . . . v.30

. . . we are not of them . . . v.39.

Its whole context . . . 10-39.
I don't see how your reading makes sense in the context of the paragraph. It seems that v. 29 is expanding on v. 26; the willful sinner is condemned. Willful sin was judged very harshly in the OT as well.

Here's an excerpt on the passage from Word Biblical Commentary:

The severe warning in vv 26–31 is parallel in form and function to 6:4–8. Like that earlier passage, it exposes the gravity of apostasy ... The process envisioned in 6:4–8 consisted of four stages: (1) the experience of Christian life (6:4–5); (2) the fact of apostasy (6:6); (3) the recognition that renewal is impossible (6:4, 6); and (4) the imposition of the curse sanctions of the covenant (6:8). This same process can be recognized in 10:26–29, arranged in another syntactical order but with a complementary development:

(1) the experience of Christian life (“after we have received the full knowledge of the truth,” v 26)
(2) the fact of apostasy (“If we deliberately persist in sin,” v 26, which is defined explicitly in v 29)
(3) the recognition that renewal is impossible (“there is no longer any sacrifice for sin,” v 26)
(4) the imposition of the curse sanctions of the covenant (“only an inevitable terrifying expectation of judgment and of raging fire ready to consume God’s adversaries,” v 27)

37818
09-19-2016, 06:35 AM
I don't see how your reading makes sense in the context of the paragraph. It seems that v. 29 is expanding on v. 26; the willful sinner is condemned. Willful sin was judged very harshly in the OT as well.
<snip>

But all sin is willful, even if it be the sin of the santified Christians, is it not?
". . . If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. . . ." -- 1 John 1:8 . . . 2:2.

So how does it not make sense? The argument being that Christ's sacrifice is the only one for sins (Hebrews 10:10, 14, 18, 26).

Kbertsche
09-19-2016, 01:54 PM
But all sin is willful, even if it be the sin of the santified Christians, is it not?
No, it is not.

Num. 15:27 ** “ ‘But if just one person sins unintentionally, that person must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering. 28 The priest is to make atonement before the LORD for the one who erred by sinning unintentionally, and when atonement has been made, that person will be forgiven. 29 One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether a native-born Israelite or a foreigner residing among you.
Num. 15:30 ** “ ‘But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or foreigner, blasphemes the LORD and must be cut off from the people of Israel. 31 Because they have despised the LORD’S word and broken his commands, they must surely be cut off; their guilt remains on them.’ ”

37818
09-20-2016, 06:45 AM
No, it is not.

Num. 15:27 ** “ ‘But if just one person sins unintentionally, that person must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering. 28 The priest is to make atonement before the LORD for the one who erred by sinning unintentionally, and when atonement has been made, that person will be forgiven. 29 One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether a native-born Israelite or a foreigner residing among you.
Num. 15:30 ** “ ‘But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or foreigner, blasphemes the LORD and must be cut off from the people of Israel. 31 Because they have despised the LORD’S word and broken his commands, they must surely be cut off; their guilt remains on them.’ ”

An individual defiant- against Christ and the only sacrific there is. For that there is no forgiveness, v.29.

John Reece
09-20-2016, 07:44 AM
An individual defiant- against Christ and the only sacrific there is. For that there is no forgiveness, v.29.

Is each and every sin committed by any and all Christians always the equivalent of "An individual defiant- against Christ and the only sacrific there is"?

Sparko
09-20-2016, 07:50 AM
how do you sin unintentionally? give an example.

37818
09-20-2016, 12:36 PM
Is each and every sin committed by any and all Christians always the equivalent of "An individual defiant- against Christ and the only sacrific there is"? [sacrifice]

The text [Hebrews 10:. . . 10-39] makes a distiction between the saved and the lost who are not Christians.

37818
09-20-2016, 12:40 PM
how do you sin unintentionally? give an example.
. . .


But all sin is willful, even if it be the sin of the santified Christians, is it not?
". . . If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. . . ." -- 1 John 1:8 . . . 2:2.

So how does it not make sense? The argument being that Christ's sacrifice is the only one for sins (Hebrews 10:10, 14, 18, 26).

Sparko
09-20-2016, 12:49 PM
. . .
I was talking to Kbertsche

In the OT they had laws that you could break accidentally. That would be an unintentional "sin" - but it was not what we would call a sin today. It would be more like accidentally breaking the speed limit while driving down the road. You had broken a law but you didn't intend to. We don't have such things today. Any sin would be a willful act. Accidentally doing something would have no intention for wrongdoing and would not be held against you as a sin in the first place. You can't accidentally lie for example. You can say something that is wrong unintentionally but that would not be a "lie" - and if you did lie, it would be willful and deliberate. Same with stealing. You could accidentally take something that wasn't yours (mistaken someon else's luggage at the airport for your own for example) but it wouldn't be "stealing" and therefore not a sin.

So I would like Kbertsche to give me an example of how you could accidentally sin today.

37818
09-20-2016, 02:03 PM
Is each and every sin committed by any and all Christians always the equivalent of "An individual defiant- against Christ and the only sacrific[e] there is"?

Never, in there being no forgiveness in denying Christ as Savior.

Kbertsche
09-20-2016, 04:31 PM
I was talking to Kbertsche

In the OT they had laws that you could break accidentally. That would be an unintentional "sin" - but it was not what we would call a sin today. It would be more like accidentally breaking the speed limit while driving down the road. You had broken a law but you didn't intend to. We don't have such things today. Any sin would be a willful act. Accidentally doing something would have no intention for wrongdoing and would not be held against you as a sin in the first place. You can't accidentally lie for example. You can say something that is wrong unintentionally but that would not be a "lie" - and if you did lie, it would be willful and deliberate. Same with stealing. You could accidentally take something that wasn't yours (mistaken someon else's luggage at the airport for your own for example) but it wouldn't be "stealing" and therefore not a sin.

So I would like Kbertsche to give me an example of how you could accidentally sin today.
I think your definition of sin is much too narrow and restrictive. We can sin "accidentally" today just as they could in the OT.

There are a number of Greek and Hebrew words for sin; one of the most common means "to miss the mark", drawing on the image of an archer aiming at a target. This can be done accidentally. We sometimes speak of sins of "omission"; these can be done accidentally.

Sparko
09-21-2016, 05:17 AM
I think your definition of sin is much too narrow and restrictive. We can sin "accidentally" today just as they could in the OT.

There are a number of Greek and Hebrew words for sin; one of the most common means "to miss the mark", drawing on the image of an archer aiming at a target. This can be done accidentally. We sometimes speak of sins of "omission"; these can be done accidentally.some examples, please. A sin of omission usually refers to a deliberate act, like failing to tell someone the truth so that they continue to believe a lie in your favor. If you did it accidentally, like if you didn't KNOW the truth, then you did not sin.

Kbertsche
09-21-2016, 08:23 AM
some examples, please. A sin of omission usually refers to a deliberate act, like failing to tell someone the truth so that they continue to believe a lie in your favor. If you did it accidentally, like if you didn't KNOW the truth, then you did not sin.
Was there unintentional sin in the OT? Has God's character changed since then? Has the nature of sin changed since then?

We should be able to think of lots of examples.
1) if we violate Scripture on a topic, but don't know what scripture says on it, we sin unintentionally. For example, a new believer may not yet know specific moral instruction, so may sin unintentionally. Corinth is a good example; the believers were immature. They were divided and divisive, splitting into parties: "I am of Paul! I am of Apollos!". Some who joined sides probably did not know this was wrong. We often do the same today.
2) if we do something which has an accidental sinful consequence, we sin accidentally. If I am playing with a gun which goes off and kills someone, I have sinned by taking a life. This is an unintentional sin.

Sparko
09-21-2016, 08:38 AM
Was there unintentional sin in the OT? Has God's character changed since then? Has the nature of sin changed since then?

We should be able to think of lots of examples.
1) if we violate Scripture on a topic, but don't know what scripture says on it, we sin unintentionally. For example, a new believer may not yet know specific moral instruction, so may sin unintentionally. Corinth is a good example; the believers were immature. They were divided and divisive, splitting into parties: "I am of Paul! I am of Apollos!". Some who joined sides probably did not know this was wrong. We often do the same today.
2) if we do something which has an accidental sinful consequence, we sin accidentally. If I am playing with a gun which goes off and kills someone, I have sinned by taking a life. This is an unintentional sin.

#1 isn't a sin if you didn't know about it. How could it be? It isn't actually a sin even if you DID know about it. It is just stupid.
#2 isn't a sin. It is an accident. A stupid accident that could have been prevented, but not a sin. It is only a sin to intentionally kill someone. sin by it's very definition is rebelling against God. You have to do that willfully.

John Reece
09-21-2016, 09:03 AM
If we were to confine ourselves to the usage of "sin" in Hebrews 10, we would be limited to the specific topic of apostasy.

Kbertsche
09-21-2016, 09:34 AM
#1 isn't a sin if you didn't know about it. How could it be? It isn't actually a sin even if you DID know about it. It is just stupid.
#2 isn't a sin. It is an accident. A stupid accident that could have been prevented, but not a sin. It is only a sin to intentionally kill someone. sin by it's very definition is rebelling against God. You have to do that willfully.
So what do you think the OT means by "unintentional sin"? Can you give some examples that would qualify?

You seem to restrict sin only to "rebelling against God". As I said earlier, your definition of sin is too narrow and restrictive. The biblical definition is much broader.

Kbertsche
09-21-2016, 09:53 AM
#1 isn't a sin if you didn't know about it. How could it be? It isn't actually a sin even if you DID know about it. It is just stupid.
#2 isn't a sin. It is an accident. A stupid accident that could have been prevented, but not a sin. It is only a sin to intentionally kill someone. sin by it's very definition is rebelling against God. You have to do that willfully.
Here is one of the NT words for sin, which specifically means "unknowing sin":

88.302 ἀγνόημα, τος n: sin which is committed as the result of ignorance — ‘to sin through ignorance, to sin without knowing that one has sinned.’ ὃ προσφέρει ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων ‘which he offers (to God) on behalf of himself and for the sin which the people have committed without knowing they were sinning’ He 9:7.

Sparko
09-21-2016, 10:16 AM
So what do you think the OT means by "unintentional sin"? Can you give some examples that would qualify?

You seem to restrict sin only to "rebelling against God". As I said earlier, your definition of sin is too narrow and restrictive. The biblical definition is much broader.


Here is one of the NT words for sin, which specifically means "unknowing sin":

88.302 ἀγνόημα, τος n: sin which is committed as the result of ignorance — ‘to sin through ignorance, to sin without knowing that one has sinned.’ ὃ προσφέρει ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων ‘which he offers (to God) on behalf of himself and for the sin which the people have committed without knowing they were sinning’ He 9:7.

You are the one promoting the idea of "unintentional sin" so I am asking YOU to provide examples.

In the OT it meant breaking one of the Laws unintentionally - perhaps doing something that made you unclean without realizing it - I already said that previously. We are not under the Law.

John Reece
09-21-2016, 10:33 AM
...

You seem to restrict sin only to "rebelling against God". As I said earlier, your definition of sin is too narrow and restrictive. The biblical definition is much broader.

Sparko's definition of sin is not too narrow or restrictive with regard to the usage in Hebrews 10.

The usage of the term in Hebrews 10 is not broader than Sparko's usage of the term.

Cow Poke
09-21-2016, 11:22 AM
Sparko's definition of sin is not too narrow or restrictive with regard to the usage in Hebrews 10.

The usage of the term in Hebrews 10 is not broader than Sparko's usage of the term.

Thanks a lot, John -- now there will be no living with Sparko! :smile:

Sparko
09-21-2016, 12:19 PM
Thanks a lot, John -- now there will be no living with Sparko! :smile:
:smug:

John Reece
09-21-2016, 12:38 PM
Thanks a lot, John -- now there will be no living with Sparko! :smile:

:smile:

Kbertsche
09-21-2016, 06:29 PM
Sparko's definition of sin is not too narrow or restrictive with regard to the usage in Hebrews 10.

The usage of the term in Hebrews 10 is not broader than Sparko's usage of the term.
I was objecting to the blanket statement in message #20 by 37818 that "all sin is willful". It's clearly not.

So now let's get back on topic (Heb 10), if we can.

37818
09-24-2016, 11:20 AM
I was objecting to the blanket statement in message #20 by 37818 that "all sin is willful". It's clearly not.

So now let's get back on topic (Heb 10), if we can.

The issue still stands that the Greek text for Hebrews 10:26 does not say "if." And the addition/interpretion adding "if" originates with the Latin translation about the late 4th century.

The question stands, how does the text differ in meaning without and with the adding of "if." You have seemed to have argued that it would not make sense without reading "if."

John Reece
09-24-2016, 05:26 PM
Heb. 10:26: Ἑκουσίως γὰρ ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας, οὐκέτι περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπολείπεται θυσία, 27 φοβερὰ δέ τις ἐκδοχὴ κρίσεως καὶ πυρὸς ζῆλος ἐσθίειν μέλλοντος τοὺς ὑπεναντίους.

NRSV: Heb. 10:26 For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

On pages 632-633 of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace lists the adverb ἑκουσίως as a term used in Hebrews 10 in conjunction with the verbal participle ἁμαρτανόντων as a "clear illustration" of a "condition [if]".

The context of the latter portion of Hebrews 10 indicates that the author identifies himself with the Hebrews to whom his teaching is addressed and believes that he and they

"... are not among those who shrink back and so are lost, but among those who have faith and so are saved." (Heb. 10:39)

One Bad Pig
09-24-2016, 06:02 PM
You are the one promoting the idea of "unintentional sin" so I am asking YOU to provide examples.

In the OT it meant breaking one of the Laws unintentionally - perhaps doing something that made you unclean without realizing it - I already said that previously. We are not under the Law.
I found it interesting upon converting to Orthodoxy that we pray for forgiveness for sins both intentional and unintentional.

For example, if I accidentally cut someone off in traffic because I didn't see them, that doesn't mean that I haven't acted improperly against my neighbor.

Jedidiah
09-24-2016, 07:29 PM
No, it is not.

Num. 15:27 ** “ ‘But if just one person sins unintentionally, that person must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering. 28 The priest is to make atonement before the LORD for the one who erred by sinning unintentionally, and when atonement has been made, that person will be forgiven. 29 One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether a native-born Israelite or a foreigner residing among you.
Num. 15:30 ** “ ‘But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or foreigner, blasphemes the LORD and must be cut off from the people of Israel. 31 Because they have despised the LORD’S word and broken his commands, they must surely be cut off; their guilt remains on them.’ ”

Sparko has it I believe. The Numbers verse is clearly referring to sins against the law.

Kbertsche
09-25-2016, 01:55 PM
Heb. 10:26: Ἑκουσίως γὰρ ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας, οὐκέτι περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπολείπεται θυσία, 27 φοβερὰ δέ τις ἐκδοχὴ κρίσεως καὶ πυρὸς ζῆλος ἐσθίειν μέλλοντος τοὺς ὑπεναντίους.

NRSV: Heb. 10:26 For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

On pages 632-633 of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace lists the adverb ἑκουσίως as a term used in Hebrews 10 in conjunction with the verbal participle ἁμαρτανόντων as a "clear illustration" of a "condition [if]".

The context of the latter portion of Hebrews 10 indicates that the author identifies himself with the Hebrews to whom his teaching is addressed and believes that he and they

"... are not among those who shrink back and so are lost, but among those who have faith and so are saved." (Heb. 10:39)
The word ἁμαρτανόντων is a present active participle. While it is not in the subjunctive mood, it can still have a conditional sense. Below is an edited excerpt from Wheeler's Greek Grammar Notes. He classifies this as a circumstantial/adverbial use of the participle to indicate condition:

PARTICIPLE:
Definition: Declinable Verbal Adjective
Types:
I. Adjectival
II. Substantival
III. Circumstantial (Adverbial): Participle provides background information related to the Action/State of the Main Verb, which is being done by the Subject of the Main Verb; always anarthrous:
A. Time (Temporal):
B. Manner:
C. Means (Instrumental):
D. Cause:
E. Condition: “If” (equivalent to 3rd class condition): Luke 9:25; Gal 6:9; Phil 1:27; 1Tim 4:4; Heb 2:3; 7:12; 10:26
F. Concession:
G. Purpose (Telic):
H. Result:
I. Attendant Circumstance:
IV. Absolute
V. Imperatival
VI. Independent
VII. Indirect Discourse:
VIII. Periphrasis:
IX. Complementary:
X. Redundant:

37818
09-26-2016, 06:33 AM
Heb. 10:26: Ἑκουσίως γὰρ ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας, οὐκέτι περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπολείπεται θυσία, 27 φοβερὰ δέ τις ἐκδοχὴ κρίσεως καὶ πυρὸς ζῆλος ἐσθίειν μέλλοντος τοὺς ὑπεναντίους.

NRSV: Heb. 10:26 For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

On pages 632-633 of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace lists the adverb ἑκουσίως as a term used in Hebrews 10 in conjunction with the verbal participle ἁμαρτανόντων as a "clear illustration" of a "condition [if]".

The context of the latter portion of Hebrews 10 indicates that the author identifies himself with the Hebrews to whom his teaching is addressed and believes that he and they

"... are not among those who shrink back and so are lost, but among those who have faith and so are saved." (Heb. 10:39)
How is it "a 'clear illustration''" that argument being unique to all the New Testament Greek texts? Can it be proved that it does not constitute some kind of special pleading?

Kbertsche
09-26-2016, 08:10 AM
How is it "a 'clear illustration''" that argument being unique to all the New Testament Greek texts? Can it be proved that it does not constitute some kind of special pleading?
Why do you claim that the argument is "unique to all the New Testament Greek texts"? What do you mean by this? Are you trying to say that this is a unique occurrence?

Did you look at the six other passages that I posted from Wheeler where a participle is used with a conditional sense? (Luke 9:25; Gal 6:9; Phil 1:27; 1Tim 4:4; Heb 2:3; 7:12; 10:26.)

John Reece
09-26-2016, 10:19 AM
How is it "a 'clear illustration''" that argument being unique to all the New Testament Greek texts? Can it be proved that it does not constitute some kind of special pleading?

Yes, it can be proved that it does not constitute some kind of special pleading.

Far from being "unique to all the New Testament Greek texts", Wallace (op. cit.) provides the following examples of "clear illustrations" of "condition [if]" in the syntax of NT Greek texts that include Hebrews 10:26:


Clear Illustrations

Matt 21:22
καὶ πάντα ὅσα ἂν αἰτήσητε ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ πιστεύοντες λήμψεσθε.
Whatever you ask for in prayer, if you believe, you will receive it.

Luke 9:25
τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖται ἄνθρωπος κερδήσας τὸν κόσμον ὅλον ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἀπολέσας;
Fo how does it benefit a person if he should gain the whole world but if he loses himself?

Gal 6:9
θερίσομεν μὴ ἐκλυόμενοι.
we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

1 Tim 4:4
οὐδὲν ἀπόβλητον μετὰ εὐχαριστίας λαμβανόμενον
nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanks

Cf. also Luke 15:4 (cf Matt 18:12); Acts 15:29 (or means); 18:21 (genitive absolute); Rom. 2:27; 7:3; 1 Cor 6:1; 8:10; 11:29;
Col 2:20; 1 Tim 4:6 (or means); 6:8; Heb 2:3; 7:12; 10:26; 11:32; 1 Peter 3:6; 2 Pet 1:10 (or means).

37818
10-01-2016, 09:38 PM
Hebrews 10:26-27 is not merely as simple: A therefore B logic.

A therefore B logic can be translated "if" A therefore B without changing the meaning of A.

Hebrews 10:26-27 is A after B, C but D.

A - we willfully sin
B - receiving knowledge of the truth
C - there remains no more sacrifice for sins
C is repeating what is being taught in v.10, 12, 14 and 17-18.
D is given in contrast citing Isaiah 26:11 (see New American Standard Bible)

Adding "if" to A does change the meaning of A here.

John Reece
10-02-2016, 05:10 AM
Hebrews 10:26-27 is not merely as simple: A therefore B logic.

A therefore B logic can be translated "if" A therefore B without changing the meaning of A.

Hebrews 10:26-27 is A after B, C but D.

A - we willfully sin
B - receiving knowledge of the truth
C - there remains no more sacrifice for sins
C is repeating what is being taught in v.10, 12, 14 and 17-18.
D is given in contrast citing Isaiah 26:11 (see New American Standard Bible)

Adding "if" to A does change the meaning of A here.

:huh:

Sounds like "some kind of special pleading" (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?12061-Hebrews-10-26-challenge&p=371347&viewfull=1#post371347) to me.

:huh:

37818
10-02-2016, 08:20 AM
:huh:

Sounds like "some kind of special pleading" (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?12061-Hebrews-10-26-challenge&p=371347&viewfull=1#post371347) to me.

:huh:

How is not adding "if" where there is no "if" a special pleading? Where is A therefore B logic in vs.26-27?

Why not add "if" to v.18? ". . . Now [If] where remission of these is, [there is] no more offering for sin."
."

Chirst's redemption is a once for all. Those who reject it, reject the only forgiveness offered. The "we" are not the ones who are rejecting it.

John Reece
10-02-2016, 10:38 AM
How is not adding "if" where there is no "if" a special pleading?

"Special pleading" is your term, which I do not normally use or even understand; I used it in this case as a term to indicate that what you said before makes no more sense to me now than what you said before using that term ― hence the bracketing of my post with :huh:.



Where is A therefore B logic in vs.26-27?

What does "A therefore B logic" have to do with the syntax of the Greek NT text?


Why not add "if" to v.18? ". . . Now [If] where remission of these is, [there is] no more offering for sin." ."

There is no "adding" of "if" anywhere in the biblical text; however, the term "if" is used in English translations to express a conditional nuance of the usage of an adverbial Greek participle ― of which there is no occurrence in verse 18.

John Reece
10-02-2016, 12:22 PM
The perfectionist in me wishes to reword the last line in the last post above thus:


There is no "adding" of "if" anywhere in the biblical text; however, the term "if" is used in English translations to express a conditional nuance of an adverbial Greek participle ― of which there is no occurrence in verse 18.

John Reece
10-02-2016, 05:14 PM
....

Hebrews 10:26 is A after B

A - we willfully sin
B - receiving knowledge of the truth

....

If you begin with an inaccurate representation of the meaning of the Greek text, you will not reach a valid conclusion.

The text does not exactly say "we willfully sin" nor "receiving knowledge of the truth".

You apparently have a concept in your mind that you are determined to force the Bible to say, even if you must distort the biblical text in your effort to do so.

37818
10-02-2016, 09:11 PM
If you begin with an inaccurate representation of the meaning of the Greek text, you will not reach a valid conclusion.

The text does not exactly say "we willfully sin" nor "receiving knowledge of the truth".

You apparently have a concept in your mind that you are determined to force the Bible to say, even if you must distort the biblical text in your effort to do so.

εκουσιως γαρ αμαρτανοντων ημων μετα το λαβειν την επιγνωσιν της αληθειας ουκετι περι αμαρτιων απολειπεται θυσια φοβερα δε τις εκδοχη κρισεως και πυρος ζηλος εσθιειν μελλοντος τους υπεναντιους

εκουσιως [adverb] willfully
γαρ [conjunction] for
αμαρτανοντων [verb, present tense, active voice, participle, genitive case, plural] of doing sins
ημων [pronoun, genitive case, first person, plural ] we

μετα [preposition] after

το [definite article, accusative, singular]
λαβειν [verb, second aorist, active voice, infinitive] having received
την [definite article, accusative, singular] the
επιγνωσιν [noun, accusative, singular] knowledge
της [definite article, genitive case, singular] of the
αληθειας [noun, genitive case, singular] truth

ουκετ [adverb] no longer
περι [preposition] for
αμαρτιων [noun, genitive case, plural] of sins
απολειπεται [verb, present tense, passive voice, third person, singular] there remain
θυσια [noun, nominative case/subject, singular] a sacrifice

φοβερα [adjective, nominative case/subject, singular] fearful
δε [conjunction] but
τις [indefinite pronoun, nominative case/subject, singular] a certain
εκδοχη [noun, nominative case/subject, singular] looking for
κρισεως [noun, genitive case, singular] of judgment

και [conjunction] and

πυρος [noun, genitive case, singular] of burning
ζηλος [noun, nominative case/subject, singular] indignation

εσθιειν [verb, present tense, active voice, infinitive] devour
μελλοντος [verb, present tense, active voice, participle, genitive case, singular] of which shall

τους [definite article, accusative, plural] the
υπεναντιους [adjective, accusative, plural] adversaries

Now how does the above require "if." Please explain. And please make/add any needed corrections to or to any omissions necessary to that explanation.
Please, not merely for my benefit. Thank you.

John Reece
10-03-2016, 10:08 AM
εκουσιως γαρ αμαρτανοντων ημων μετα το λαβειν την επιγνωσιν της αληθειας ουκετι περι αμαρτιων απολειπεται θυσια φοβερα δε τις εκδοχη κρισεως και πυρος ζηλος εσθιειν μελλοντος τους υπεναντιους

εκουσιως [adverb] willfully
γαρ [conjunction] for
αμαρτανοντων [verb, present tense, active voice, participle, genitive case, plural] of doing sins
ημων [pronoun, genitive case, first person, plural ] we

μετα [preposition] after

το [definite article, accusative, singular]
λαβειν [verb, second aorist, active voice, infinitive] having received
την [definite article, accusative, singular] the
επιγνωσιν [noun, accusative, singular] knowledge
της [definite article, genitive case, singular] of the
αληθειας [noun, genitive case, singular] truth

ουκετ [adverb] no longer
περι [preposition] for
αμαρτιων [noun, genitive case, plural] of sins
απολειπεται [verb, present tense, passive voice, third person, singular] there remain
θυσια [noun, nominative case/subject, singular] a sacrifice

φοβερα [adjective, nominative case/subject, singular] fearful
δε [conjunction] but
τις [indefinite pronoun, nominative case/subject, singular] a certain
εκδοχη [noun, nominative case/subject, singular] looking for
κρισεως [noun, genitive case, singular] of judgment

και [conjunction] and

πυρος [noun, genitive case, singular] of burning
ζηλος [noun, nominative case/subject, singular] indignation

εσθιειν [verb, present tense, active voice, infinitive] devour
μελλοντος [verb, present tense, active voice, participle, genitive case, singular] of which shall

τους [definite article, accusative, plural] the
υπεναντιους [adjective, accusative, plural] adversaries

Now how does the above require "if." Please explain. And please make/add any needed corrections to or to any omissions necessary to that explanation.
Please, not merely for my benefit. Thank you.

Not merely for your benefit: You have listed above in vertical order the Greek words of the biblical text of Hebrews 10:26-27, with, added in brackets, grammatical descriptors of each word ― all of which is superfluous, for the purpose of answering your question, except for the initial clause, which I will present below.

Ἑκουσίως γὰρ ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν

NIV: If we deliberately keep on sinning
ESV: For if we go on sinning deliberately
NET: For if we deliberately keep on sinning
NRSV: For if we willfully persist in sin
TEV takes into consideration the whole verse rather than follow the literal order that you and the versions quoted above follow: "For there is no longer any sacrifice that will take away sins if we purposely go on sinning after the truth has been made known to us."

I and Kbertsche have presented in posts above the case for reading if in the English texts. See post # 43 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?12061-Hebrews-10-26-challenge&p=371005&viewfull=1#post371005), post # 46, Kbertsche (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?12061-Hebrews-10-26-challenge&p=371191&viewfull=1#post371191), and post # 49 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?12061-Hebrews-10-26-challenge&p=371470&viewfull=1#post371470).

John Reece
10-05-2016, 11:28 AM
37818,

I apologize for so rudely interrupting your argument.

I am curious to see where you were going with it.

I will try to restrain my impulsivity if you are wiling to give it another go.

37818
10-05-2016, 05:36 PM
Looking at the grammar for ημων it might be better translated . . . of us . . . . It is less inclusive than . . . we . . . . So adding "if" to . . . if of us . . . need not change the meaning of . . . of us. John what do you think?

John Reece
10-05-2016, 06:50 PM
Looking at the grammar for ημων it might be better translated . . . of us . . . . It is less inclusive than . . . we . . . . So adding "if" to . . . if of us . . . need not change the meaning of . . . of us. John what do you think?

Thanks for your response.

I wonder why you think ημων ... might be "better translated" . . . of us ...

And why you think that is "less inclusive" than ... we ...

And why you think that "if" is added, rather than merely being part the inherent sense of the syntax of the text.

I wonder: What is motivating you to rack your brain to come up with a reading that differs from practically every English version and scholar?

John Reece
10-07-2016, 06:49 PM
From The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia ― A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), by Harold W. Attridge; 1989, Fortress Press, Philadelphia:


Hebrews 10:26 The stern warning begins sonorously with a marked assonance. The adverb "willingly" (ἑκουσίως) appears emphatically as the opening word. The language derives from the Pentateuchal distinction between willful or high-handed and inadvertent sins that was widely recognized in post-biblical Judaism. As the sequel indicates, our author has in mind a specific willful sin, that of apostasy. The present tense of the participle (ἁμαρτανόντων) suggests that the sin involved is not a single act, but a continuing rejection of Christ. The pronoun ἡμῶν, "we," moderates the severity of the warning by including the author himself under its provisions.

Such willful sin occurs after "receiving the knowledge of the truth" (μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας), terminology that closely resembles a fixed expression used in the pastoral epistles for conversion. As in the previous warning passage (6:4-8) traditional language used of conversion and baptism is prominent. The noun ἐπίγνωσις is more solemn than simply γνῶσις, but there is no substantive difference between the two. The phrase as a whole suggests that there is an intellectual element to faith, although the content of that "truth" is not specified.

The affirmation that there does not "remain any sacrifice" (ἀπολείπεται θυσία) for such willful sins simply reaffirms the results of the reflection on Christ's unique sacrifice. That act was seen to have abrogated the old cult and thus displaced any other means of reconciliation with God.

27 What does remain for sinners is a "fearful expectation" (φοβερὰ δέ ἐκδοχή), an ominous note enhanced by the indefinite adjective τις. The expected judgment on sin can have only one outcome, condemnation to a "fiery zeal" (πυρὸς ζῆλος). Like the "day" of the previous pericope, the punishing fire is another motif of biblical prophecy that became a common feature of eschatological tableaux. Those whom this divine wrath consumes, those who "stand in opposition" (τοὺς ὑπεναντίους), are those who reject Christ's sacrifice, the primary enemies who are to be set under his feet.

The threat of judgment that this evocative eschatological imagery introduces will soon be balanced by a more hopeful recollection of the addressees' conduct. Yet the vision of impending judgment and the serious responsibilities it entails will continue throughout the subsequent exhortations. The warning passage in the final paraenetic section will close on a similar note, that God is a consuming fire (12:29).

John Reece
10-08-2016, 04:45 AM
From The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia ― A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), by Harold W. Attridge; 1989, Fortress Press, Philadelphia:


Hebrews 10:26 The stern warning begins sonorously with a marked assonance. The adverb "willingly" (ἑκουσίως) appears emphatically as the opening word. The language derives from the Pentateuchal distinction between willful or high-handed and inadvertent sins that was widely recognized in post-biblical Judaism. As the sequel indicates, our author has in mind a specific willful sin, that of apostasy. The present tense of the participle (ἁμαρτανόντων) suggests that the sin involved is not a single act, but a continuing rejection of Christ. The pronoun ἡμῶν, "we," moderates the severity of the warning by including the author himself under its provisions.

Such willful sin occurs after "receiving the knowledge of the truth" (μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας), terminology that closely resembles a fixed expression used in the pastoral epistles for conversion. As in the previous warning passage (6:4-8) traditional language used of conversion and baptism is prominent. The noun ἐπίγνωσις is more solemn than simply γνῶσις, but there is no substantive difference between the two. The phrase as a whole suggests that there is an intellectual element to faith, although the content of that "truth" is not specified.

The affirmation that there does not "remain any sacrifice" (ἀπολείπεται θυσία) for such willful sins simply reaffirms the results of the reflection on Christ's unique sacrifice. That act was seen to have abrogated the old cult and thus displaced any other means of reconciliation with God.

27 What does remain for sinners is a "fearful expectation" (φοβερὰ δέ ἐκδοχή), an ominous note enhanced by the indefinite adjective τις. The expected judgment on sin can have only one outcome, condemnation to a "fiery zeal" (πυρὸς ζῆλος). Like the "day" of the previous pericope, the punishing fire is another motif of biblical prophecy that became a common feature of eschatological tableaux. Those whom this divine wrath consumes, those who "stand in opposition" (τοὺς ὑπεναντίους), are those who reject Christ's sacrifice, the primary enemies who are to be set under his feet.

The threat of judgment that this evocative eschatological imagery introduces will soon be balanced by a more hopeful recollection of the addressees' conduct. Yet the vision of impending judgment and the serious responsibilities it entails will continue throughout the subsequent exhortations. The warning passage in the final paraenetic section will close on a similar note, that God is a consuming fire (12:29).

The Comment above was introduced in the commentary (op. cit.) by the following Translation and Analysis:


A Warning Renewed ― Hebrews 10:26-27

26 For, if we sin willingly after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27/ but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a fiery zeal which is to consume those who stand in opposition.

Analysis

The second section of the paraenetic translation, which is best understood as a hortatory prelude to the next major section of the text, develops the allusion to divine judgment implicit in the reference to the "day" and repeats the dire warning that had preceded the central expository section (6:4-8). The warning here is initially issued in more general terms than were used earlier. For a Christian's sins there is no possibility of renewed sacrifice (verse 26), but only judgment and punishment (verse 27).

37818
10-09-2016, 07:46 AM
. . . For a Christian's sins there is no possibility of renewed sacrifice (verse 26), but only judgment and punishment (verse 27).That interpreation is false.

Why?
First off, Chirst's sacrifice is the only one there is for sins.

. . . By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]. . . . -- Hebrews 10:10.

. . . For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. . . ." -- Hebrews 10:14.

. . . And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, [there is] no more offering for sin. . . . -- hebrews 10:17-18.

And secondly, the Christian is the one who is saved - never lost.

John Reece
10-10-2016, 12:31 PM
From The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia ― A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), by Harold W. Attridge; 1989, Fortress Press, Philadelphia:


......For a Christian's sins there is no possibility of renewed sacrifice (verse 26), but only judgment and punishment (verse 27).


That interpreation is false.

Why?
First off, Christ's sacrifice is the only one there is for sins.

. . . By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]. . . . -- Hebrews 10:10.

. . . For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. . . ." -- Hebrews 10:14.

. . . And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, [there is] no more offering for sin. . . . -- hebrews 10:17-18.

And secondly, the Christian is the one who is saved - never lost.

In context, Attridge's term "a Christian's sins" is a reference to apostasy.

Is it your view that it is not possible for a Christian to commit apostasy?

If so, what would be the point of the author of the Epistle so urgently admonishing his readers not to do so???

Kbertsche
10-10-2016, 11:35 PM
Looking at the grammar for ημων it might be better translated . . . of us . . . . It is less inclusive than . . . we . . . . So adding "if" to . . . if of us . . . need not change the meaning of . . . of us. John what do you think?

FYI, here's what the NIGTC (New International Greek Testament Commentary) says about the last two words of the clause, Ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν

Ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν: the present participle suggests continuous sin; more specifically, a continuation of the state existing before the readers came to “the knowledge of the truth”; certainly more than the permanent possibility or risk of falling back into sin. Michel aptly quotes Theophylact: ὅρα δὲ πῶς οὐκ εἶπεν ἁμαρτόντων, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτανόντων, τουτέστιν ἐμμενόντων τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀμετανοήτως. The genitive absolute (correctly used; cf. BD §423; MHT 3.322f.) has the force of an open condition; cf. “if” in 2:2. The author associates himself with his readers, but does not, of course, thereby imply that he has committed the sins to be specified in v. 29. The tactful “we”-form broadens, without losing sight of, the reference to the τινός of v. 25.