[B-Greek] Heb 11:40 together or not apart?
Harold Holmyard
hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Aug 15 23:49:30 EDT 2006
Dear Craig,
>>HH: This is also somewhat confusing to me. It the
>>OT saints are not made perfect without us, then
>>logically they are made perfect with us. The
>>Greek statement implies that the OT saints are
>>going to be perfected but in such a way that it
>>is not without us. We are perfected at the same
>>time they are.
>>
>>Yours,
>>Harold Holmyard
>>
>>
>
>Hi Harold.
>
>I guess it is about a question of emphasis.
>
>If the emphasis is on togetherness, then translating the negation with a
>simple positive is fine.
>
>However, if the emphasis is on the 'betterness', the contrast, then the
>negation is being emphasised rather than the togetherness.
>
>Let me try to make a theological statement as an analogy for the latter, to
>help you understand what I mean. However, I want to stress that it is not
>meant to be an interpretation of Heb 11:40, or meant for discussion, it is
>just something that I can phrase with similar words which might help clarify
>the point I am trying to make:
>
>"It was necessary for Adam to sin first, God providing something better for
>Jesus, so that Adam should not be made perfect apart from Jesus"
>
>This could mean that Jesus did something Adam never did, rather than that
>Adam did something together with Jesus. It was necessary for Jesus to come,
>and apart from his coming, it was not appropriate that anyone else could
>have done the same before his coming. Jesus needed to come at the
>appropriate time. I think this kind of interpretation is allowed by the
>negative.
>
>Now if we change to using the simple positive, the emphasis changes, and
>meanings allowed by the negative are disallowed by the positive.
>
>The point is that in strict or formal logic, 'not apart' does not
>necessarily equal 'together'. If I don't go to the shop without you, it
>doesn't necessarily mean I went to the shop with you, or that you didn't go
>to the shop without me. Maybe I never went to the shop at all. Of course, I
>think that in common language we rarely follow strict or formal logic, and
>so perhaps it is fine to not interpretive to translate the double negative
>into a simple positive. Or do we in fact lose something in translation if we
>do so? That is the point of my question.
>
>
>
HH: The whole Book of Hebrews emphasizes that we have something better
than those under the old coveannt had, and by extension everybody before
that. It also explains exactly how the new is better. Hebrews 11 is
clear that OT saints received promises that were not fulfilled (Heb
11:9, 11, 13). Hebrews 11:39 returns to that thought, and the phrase "be
made perfect" in 11:40 carries some implication of the promises being
fulfilled. The fulfillment of the promises depended on something better
that would follow the lifetimes of the OT saints, and that better thing
came in the person of Jesus, so that only in him are the promises
fulfilled and is perfection brought. There is no doubt that the OT
saints are now perfected, at least in their spirits, for Heb 12:23 adds
this fact.
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list