re: Luke 12:10

From: Mike Phillips (mphilli3@mail.tds.net)
Date: Sat Jul 27 1996 - 13:18:51 EDT


> From: Randy Leedy <RLEEDY@wpo.bju.edu>, on 7/27/96 9:55 AM:
> Don Wilkins hit on a key consideration that has been overlooked in
> the discussion of Luke 12:10: the subject of AFEQHSETAI. It is not
> the person, who appears in the dative; i.e., AFEQHSETAI AUTWi cannot
> be translated "he will be forgiven." Rather, something will be
> forgiven him. The question is, what is that something.
>
> Surely it is too much of a stretch to import the idea of the man's
> total sin-debt, of which there is no hint in the context. The subject
> must be either the act just described (i.e., speaking a word EIS the
> Son of Man) or, less likely, the denial described in the previous
> verse. The only possibility I can see for taking EIS in a friendly
> rather than a hostile sense is to carry over the subject from the
> previous verse so that verse 10 means that the denial will be
> forgiven to the one who later speaks properly to the Son of Man, but
> the denial will never be forgiven to the one who blasphemes against
> the Holy Spirit. This construction of the passage strikes me as
> strained, but it's the only way I can see to get a friendly sense for
> EIS.
>
> ----------------------------
> In Love to God and Neighbor,
> Randy Leedy
> Bob Jones University
> Greenville, SC
> RLeedy@wpo.bju.edu
> ----------------------------

        If we take the parallel structure within the verse, we get "speaks a
word against" as equivalent to "blaspheme" yet, not identical. It's not
strained to make a meaningful tie to the previous verse (or the one following,
for that matter) as far as narrative, but I don't think it's necessary to do so
as far as grammar (as you pointed out) and it's not clear how that makes EIS
any different in translation, i.e., isn't the denial still "against" or did I
miss / lose you in your mental gymnastics? <grin>
        One might well ask at this point what the difference is in comparison
between 'speak a word against' and 'blaspheme.' Particularly where the title
'Son of Man' is utilized in conjunction with 'the Spirit, the Holy One.' There
is some marvelous fuel, it seems to me, for someone akin to Michael Lodahl to
make a case for a Jesus who understood the Shekinah Spirit to be indwelling,
yet, not identical. Would there be any other reason for the contrast
grammatically? Is there a grammatical distinction being made? Or am I
allowing my own bias to intrude <wink>? Someone far better at Greek than I is
welcome to instruct me on this one.

------
Mike Phillips
Hebrew Union College - JIR

A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging;
it is the skin of living thought and changes from day to day
as does the air around us. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT