present active participle in Hebr. 6:6
dixonps at juno.com
dixonps at juno.com
Tue May 8 01:13:18 EDT 2001
On Mon, 07 May 2001 17:54:54 +0300 Kimmo Huovila
<kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi> writes:
> dixonps at juno.com wrote:
> >
>
<snip>
> > So, he is really saying, to use your lingo above, when 'they do
> > Y,' 'they do X.' But, X is not possible; therefore, neither is Y.
>
<snip>
> There is nothing in the grammar to favor a logic that if X is not
> possible, neither is Y. The text says nothing of what follows from
> an impossibility of X.
Kimmo:
Let's look at the logic of the text.
Let Z = those who have once been enlightened, tasted of the heavenly
gift, been made a partaker of the Holy Spirit, tasted of the good word of
God and the powers of the age to come, and fallen away (4-6a);
Let Y = the same are renewed to repentance;
Let X = the Son of God is crucified again and put Him to open shame.
The argument can then be put together as:
If Z, then not Y (6:4-6a). This is necessarily a true statement (on the
assumption of Z), because Y cannot be true. Why not?
Because, if Y is true, then X is necessarily true, that is, if Y then X
(6:6b-c).
But X is false (Christ cannot be crucified again - though this is not
actually stated in the passage, it hardly needs to be and is an assumed
dogma). So, if the assumption that Y is true leads to a contradiction,
then the assumption is false, and its contradiction, not Y, is true.
The whole argument then is along these lines: statement of the
impossibility of renewing to repentance those who once been enlightened
... and have fallen away (6:4-6a), followed by a proof by contradiction
(6:6b-c).
This explains taking the present participles ANASTAUROUNTAS and
PARADIGMATIZONTAS causally.
Paul Dixon
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list