Hebrews 3:11

Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Thu Dec 6 03:36:48 EST 2001


On Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 01:06  AM, DEXROLL at aol.com wrote:

> 3.11        hWS WMOSA EN TH  ORGH   MOU:
>         EI  EISELEUSONTAI   EIS THN   KATAVPAUSIVN MOU.
>     In doing some work on Hebrews I  came across this use of the 
> conditional
> as a sort of negative oath.   Now, I can understand the basic meaning 
> here as
> " if they shall enter my rest (or will they enter my rest ?) . No -- 
> they
> will not  ! ( understood apodosis)."  This phrase of course is repeated
> several times ( 4:3and 5).
>
>     In 3:18 we have TISIN  DE  WMOSEN   MH   EISELEUSESQAI   EIS  THN
> KATAPAUSIN   AUTOU  EI  MH   TOIS  APEIQHSASIN…  Now this phrase seems 
> to be
> from Numbers 14:23, although it is not the same as the Septuagint.
>
>     The first phrase is an exact quote from the Septuagint in Psalm 
> 95:11,
> which duplicates the Hebrew.  All of this brings a number of questions:
>
> 1. Is the conditional as negative oath  common in Greek or a Hebraism?
>
> Robertson (p.1024) says that it is "...an imitation of the Hebrew idiom,
> though not un-Greek in itself."
>
> 2. The phrase in 3:18 makes a simple negative statement, so what is the
> difference between the two?
>
> You have a simple conditional with the future indicative in one and  a 
> simple
> negation with the future infinitive in the second.

David:

I'll leave the first question to those who are more knowledgeable in a 
wider range of Greek literature, but will comment on your second 
question.

These are two entirely different uses of EI altogether. EI in 3.11marks 
an oath. (Ps 7.4-5 shows us what this looks like with the apodosis, 
which is rare. It is a self maledictory oath). EI MH in 3.18 is 
subordinate to WMOSEN and is used to single out TOIS APEIQHSASIN for 
focus and emphasize that it was THOSE WHO WERE DISOBEDIENT to whom the 
oath was made that they would not enter God's rest. Note that while 3.11 
contains a direct quote of the LXX of Ps 95.11, in 3.18 there really is 
no attempt at direct quotation, just the author's own rhetorical 
question. The infinitival clause MH EISELEUSESQAI EIS THN KATAPAUSIN 
AUTOU constitutes indirect speech (here, indirect quotation of the 
Scripture in view) introduced by WMOSEN, a verb of communication. It is 
common for an infinitive to be used in indirect speech after such a 
verb. So EI is a subordinating conjunction marking a first class 
condition dependent on WMOSEN. The indirect speech is embedded in a 
rhetorical question: "If it wasn't to those who were disobedient that he 
swore they would not enter his rest, then to whom was it" (note the 
preceding two vv.). The purpose here is to single out and focus on those 
who were disobedient and didn't enter God's rest, because the author is 
going to make the application to his readers by way of exhortation (cf. 
vv. 6, 12-15; 4.1ff.).
=============

Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI




More information about the B-Greek mailing list