[B-Greek] Hebrews 13:4
kline-dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Nov 30 11:32:20 EST 2005
Carl W. Conrad Wrote:
> Heb 13:1 hH FILADELFIA MENETW. 2 THS FILOXENIAS MH EPILANQANESQE, DIA
> TAUTHS GAR ELAQON TINES XENISANTES AGGELOUS. 3 MIMNHSKESQE TWN
> DESMIWN hWS SUNDEDEMENOI, TWN KAKOUXOUMENWN hWS KAI AUTOI ONTES EN
> SWMATI. 4 TIMIOS hO GAMOS EN PASIN KAI hH KOINTH AMIANTOS, PORNOUS
> GAR KAI MOICOUS KRINEI hO QEOS. ... 13:7 MNHMONEUETE TWN hHGOUMENWN
> hUMWN, hOITINES ELALHSAN hUMIN TON LOGON TU QEOU ...
> Since the context is one of moral parenesis with instructions being
> given in imperatives (MENETW, MH EPILANQANESQE, MIMNHSKESQE ...
> MNHMONEUETE ...), in several instances the imperatives being followed
> by rationales, I think we probably should understand an elliptical
> ESTW with verse 4, so that it will read:
> 4 TIMIOS (ESTW) hO GAMOS EN PASIN KAI hH KOINTH (ESTW) AMIANTOS,
> PORNOUS GAR ...
Yancy Smith wrote:
> Just I was about to send this, Carl's answer came through, I
> am incomplete agreement with his response. The clause in which TIMIOS
> and AMIANTOS occurs is verbless and it forms the basis of the
> inferential clause (conclusion) introduced by GAR, "for God will
> judge fornicators and adulterers." Since it comes within the context
> of a paranetic paragraph which is marked by 3rd/2nd person
> imperatives, "MENETW" (13:1), MH EPIPLANESQE (v.2), MIMNHiSKESQE (v.
> 3), it is best to see the mode of the verbless clause in verse 4 as
> "dependent" on or "carrying over" the imperatives in its context. In
> this case the verb supplied would be the imperative form of "to
> be"--"let _____ be." Another way of looking at it is to see if the
> translation with an indicative mode makes sense, "Marriage is held in
> esteem by all and the bed is undefiled, for this reason God will
> judge fornicators and adulterers" makes less sense and would seem odd
> in its context (i.e. it does not satisfy the criterion of relevance),
> and the Greek reader would know almost automatically that the mode is
I am in total agreement with Drs. Conrad and Smith. Could someone
explain why in the last thirty years there has been a wave of popular
exegesis based on the reading of the second clause hH KOINTH AMIANTOS
as an indicative? (I suspect that this would entail reading the first
clause as indicative.) This position was being promoted in the '70s
by a seminary president, a prominent national (USA) leader in the
Evangelical movement (ThD, Dallas Seminary). I suspect this "scholar"
grew up reading the KJV.
Does anyone want to defend reading hH KOINTH AMIANTOS as an indicative?
More information about the B-Greek