Thanks for the Illustration in the foolishness of trusting the critics to ever settle the matter. Let the greek scholars argue amongst themselves over trivial matters while we go on our way loving our King and obeying the revelation He has already given to the those before and now us.
While we run the race set before us they can iron out these issues on the sideline. They probably won't even notice since they will be absorbed into the Greek Game!
Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wrote: I include "themselves" here because there is no other object to receive the action of the verb: sanctification.DM > Sanctification / Sanctified is NOT the verb. Maybe this is what is causing some of the confusion here.My apologies, David, I did not mean to imply that the word sanctification is a verb, although I can see how you could conclude that this is what I was stating. I meant to convey the idea that sanctification is what the verb is about; it is what the subject is producing in its (in this instance, his) recipients.DM > The KJV translates the passage in present tense, not past tense. It does not indicate that our sanctification is complete or not complete. It only indicates that we are sanctified. Do we agree on this?Well, not exactly, David -- but I appreciate what you have done to crystallize my thinking here. While yours is a possible reading, it is not a necessary reading, and as such the KJ translation is not here as definite as it ought to be in order to be considered a very "good" translation. Let me explain.In English the verb "are," when used with a participle, performs a linking function, but it does not necessarily express voice; i.e, it may also be functioning exclusively as a descriptive (those who "are sanctified," the action being complete).* And so when used by itself, "are" is syntactically ambiguous: it could be a passive auxiliary or merely a verb of status, and this because there is nothing definite to force it to go one way or the other.In order to resolve the ambiguity, definition must be provided by adding another "be" verb (cf. "are being") which also makes the verb progressive (e.g., We are being sanctified as opposed to We are sanctified), and it is only now that the verb can be construed as a distinct passive -- not descriptive; hence two semantic effects are accomplish by the one syntactic change: forcing a passive interpretation, and adding a progressive aspect. This, in my opinion, is what is taking place in the Greek, where the participle hagiazomenous is definitely passive as well as progressively present (unless, as I demonstrated yesterday, you want to argue for a middle voice, which would also need to be translated in a way which would convey definition). And so, my conclusion is this: the present tense thrust of this participle needs to be extended beyond a mere linking verb if it is to convey a definite passive voice in a present progressive state; therefore it needs to read "those who are being sanctified." And so, my criticism remains the same: 'A cursory reading of this verse may leave one with the impression that the "perfected" are those whose sanctification is complete: they are, after all, "sanctified," aren't they?'But, David, I am ready to leave off on this discussion, as I can tell that it has become too complex to be helpful to the average Joe -- or Dean or Terry :>) so I hope that you will consider these distinctions, and maybe begin to see the reasons for my concern. God bless you and yours,Bill*I want to acknowledge Debbie for her contribution, via a sidebar exchange, in communicating these rather difficult concepts.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
