Heb 9:27,28: An Alternate Translation?

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Heb 9:27,28: An Alternate Translation?

Post by dwilkins » Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:29 pm

TheEditor wrote:Hi Doug,
All of these words are presented as the ultimate goal.

I have also wondered occasionally why JWs (since they think Jesus already is "present") and Preterists (who think his "arrival" was in the 1st Century) still observe the Lord's Evening Meal, since we are only told to do so "until He arrives"....

Regards, Brenden.
Sorry. I forgot to respond to your post. I don't see how what you presented challenges what I was proposing. The words mean two different thing, consistently (otherwise there would be no point in using different words). I'd suggest that the erchomai was the moment of arrival of Christ in an eschatological context and that parousia is the demonstration that he is present in his kingdom. One has the flexibility of lasting much longer than the other.

Christ told his original readers to observe communion until he came. I don't see why that means that those who live after that generation can't still observe it.

Doug

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Heb 9:27,28: An Alternate Translation?

Post by TheEditor » Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:47 pm

Hi Doug,

Please clarify for me; Which two words mean two different things consistently?

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Heb 9:27,28: An Alternate Translation?

Post by dwilkins » Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:54 pm

TheEditor wrote:Hi Doug,

Please clarify for me; Which two words mean two different things consistently?

Regards, Brenden.

The two I just referred to, erchomai and parousia.

Doug

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Heb 9:27,28: An Alternate Translation?

Post by TheEditor » Sun Aug 17, 2014 11:02 pm

Hi Doug,

As I wrote in my post on the previous page "Parousia, epiphaneia, apokalypsis, and erchomai are essentially interchangeable terms". I demonstrated this by use of many passages where the terms are used interchangeably. On what basis do you make the statement "The words mean two different thing, consistently (otherwise there would be no point in using different words)."? We don't hold to this view of the English language, why should we of the Greek? Even the specific "love" words (agape, storge, philea) are used at times interchangeably in the NT, even though they have specific meanings. Other than a need to maintain a certain eschatological paradigm, why the need to be this rigid with these terms?

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Heb 9:27,28: An Alternate Translation?

Post by dwilkins » Sun Aug 17, 2014 11:10 pm

You are asserting that they are completely synonymous. I disagree. I think that erchomai primarily means arrival and that parousia primarily means an ongoing presence. I haven't seen any evidence to contradict this.

Doug

User avatar
RickC
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Piqua, Ohio

Re: Heb 9:27,28: An Alternate Translation?

Post by RickC » Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:48 am

So . . . 'finally made it back.
'Hoping to reply to all today.
Thus . . . .
Hi Singalphile. You wrote:I haven't been interested in the full preterist issue for a while, nor do I have any knowledge of Greek, but as a disinterested observer, I would just say that I'm not exactly sure what all you changed and why you changed it. The Bible translations seem to be pretty consistent in these two verses, so what is it that you think they got wrong?
If you compare my proposed translations with the AV (in the OP), in v. 27 I was asking if death (itself) is the judgment.

Otherwise, I haven't gotten a reply from my friend who knows Greek well and have done more studying on the passage (cf. next post, ff.).
Last edited by RickC on Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RickC
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Piqua, Ohio

Re: Heb 9:27,28: An Alternate Translation?

Post by RickC » Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:37 am

Hello Brendan. You wrote:Not sure that I can offer much, but to my plain reading, I see a parallelism in Jesus coming the first time.

"And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this a judgment, so also the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many; and the second time that he appears it will be apart from sin and to those earnestly looking for him for [their] salvation." (Hebrews 9:27-28)

The similarity being drawn to the "once" aspect of death and the "once" aspect of Christ's sacrifice. He comes again "apart from sin", that is, without coming again as a sacrifice, to those looking to him for salvation. He came literally the first time for a sacrifice, I would expect the same for the "second time", but what do I know.
Yes, the passage has parallelisms. But what are these actually about?

I didn't consult any commentaries, though I'm sure some of them would be helpful. To be honest, I guessed in advance they might be biased and/or on a more popular level. (I'm looking for well-informed scholarly opinions).

So . . . along these lines I decided to re-listen to Steve's Hebrews lectures. On v. 27 he mentioned how it has been used to convey the idea that everyone will be judged after death. If I'm not mistaken, he said that while this may be true, the passage isn't directly addressing that.

(These are my IMOs now). The entire chapter is comparing priests: 1) Levitical priests in the Temple; in chapter 9 it is actually THE high priest being compared to, 2) Jesus, our High Priest.

Heb 9:27a (NKJV)

And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,

Who are the "men" in narrative context of the chapter?

It seems to me they are the high priests. Their service in the Temple -- (remembering there was just one high priest at a time) -- was "once", with it obviously ending upon their death.

What is the "judgment" of v. 27b?

Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, in terms of what high priests did then, is what chapter 9 is about. The author of Hebrews is showing the limitations of the high priest under the old covenant. What would these limitations be? That, regardless of how many high priests served on Yom Kuppur, each and every year there was another judgment (Gk, "krisis") wherein the sins of the people needed another atonement.

Heb 9:28 (NKJV)

so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Verse 28 is self-explanatory. The parallelism of "once" (vv.27,28) reveals the superiority of Christ's high priesthood: 1) There's no need for someone to replace him (as in the old covenant), 2) No certain day of the year needs to be observed for his offering (of himself) to be effective, 3) Unlike Levitical high priests who had to appear again and again, year after year; Christ's "second appearance" would be the salvation of his people.

Make sense?

User avatar
RickC
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Piqua, Ohio

Re: Heb 9:27,28: An Alternate Translation?

Post by RickC » Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:19 am

Hi Paidion. You wrote:Here is my personal interlinear of Heb 9:27

και καθ'——— οσον—— αποκεται —— τοις ανθρωποις αταξ αποθανειν μετα δε τουτο κρισις
and even as whoever it is reserved for —people—— once to die——— after but this judgment...

And here is my personal translation:

And even as it is reserved for people whosoever, once to die, but after this—judgment...

The preposition μετα means "with" if followed by the genitive case, but in the verse above it is followed by the accusative case, τουτο, and therefore must be translated as "after".

For some unknown reason, all Bible versions I have consulted leave the word "οσον" (whoever or whosoever) untranslated.
Re: v. 27a --
Doesn't "oson" mean "in as much as"? For "koth oson" my interlinear has "in as much as". Again, I'm no Greek expert. In my searching, I've found that "koth" means "as much as" also. To translate it as: "And in as much as in as much as" would seem redundant in English. Perhaps the author intended a double emphasis(?).

Otherwise, your v. 27b "but after this—judgment" would seem to make sense and/or go along with my interpretation (as in my last post). I'd prefer "and (kai) after this [comes] judgment" (as my interlinear has it).

Thanks!

User avatar
RickC
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Piqua, Ohio

Re: Heb 9:27,28: An Alternate Translation?

Post by RickC » Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:39 am

My last post for today.

But first, Doug: You and Brendan are discussing stuff I'm interested in (especially w/r/t parousia). I might join in on that convo, whether you guys keep posting here or start another thread. I have to get to sleep, work nites.

Anyways . . . .
Hi Homer! You wrote:Resurrection and judgment seem to go hand-in-hand. Do you have the same uncertainty about the texts that speak of a resurrection? What would your thoughts be regarding a post resurrection state of being without a judgment?


I've been leaning toward seeing at least some 'classical' resurrection texts in non-traditional ways. I've posted about it on the forum a few times. It's been a while ago.

One example: Jesus speaking with Nicodemus at nite time (Jn 3). Jesus was amazed that Nicodemus couldn't follow him; that a "teacher of Israel" should have certainly understood what Jesus was getting at with being "born again (or from above)." Here I tend to see what needed to be born again (resurrected) was Israel. A teacher of Israel in that day & time would have known that Israel had been depicted as a valley of dead dry bones (ref. cit., Ezekiel). I have more thoughts on these kinds of things but am getting too sleepy.

Re: my thoughts on a post resurrection state without a judgment?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. If you're referring to anyone "going to heaven (or hell)" without being judged; that doesn't seem possible. I've read that at least some (and maybe most) full preterists believe each person will be instantly judged upon death. That is, each person as a non-physical spirit (or perhaps what FPs call a soul). If I'm not mistaken they do not believe in a bodily resurrection at all (excepting Jesus's).

Otherwise, my own thoughts on these things are continuing to morph. While I feel mostly agnostic, I trust God, Who always does the right thing! <<< and that's good enuf for me, though I don't especially like "not knowing" things!

My brain hurts, LOL :)

Nap time here, thanks!
Last edited by RickC on Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Heb 9:27,28: An Alternate Translation?

Post by robbyyoung » Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:06 am

TheEditor wrote:Hi Doug,

You'll keep in mind I hope my JW reaing when I :lol: at this parousia notion. It amazes me that dispensationalists and preterists alike can make such a big deal out of a word that was used in order to shore up diametrically opposed ideas. To me, having been weaned on this distinction, I now see that approach as the error that it is. Parousia, epiphaneia, apokalypsis, and erchomai are essentially interchangeable terms.
Hi Brenden,

In my humble opinion, I believe you are creating a straw man argument. Futurists/Dispensationalists and Preterist DO NOT have diametrically opposed ideas because of the word "Parousia", but rather to the timing of eschatological events; whether it be parousia, epiphaneia, apokalypsis, or erchomai found in the context. Therefore, interchangeable words coupled with other factors such as:

1. Who's the audience
2. Audience expectation
3. Inspired Writer's prophetic declarations to that audience
4. Wrapped up in it's historical context

Will show which approach is in error.

Therefore, The Preterist paradigm is the MOST consistent view (being in agreement with every 1st Century expectation, promise and teaching regarding eschatological events) until one can prove the historical context of fulfillment, regarding eschatological events, speaks fulfillment to another audience, at another time, in another place. So to be clear, prophetic time statements and teachings by the NT inspired writers, to their original/intended audience, emphatically denoting fulfillment in THEIR lifetime is what separates Preterism from any other post 70 A.D. claims.

God Bless.

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”