Difference between revisions of "Heb 6:16-20"
m (→Verse 16: specifying verses) |
(→Verse 16: fixing wording to match Gen 15) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
== Exegesis == | == Exegesis == | ||
===Verse 16=== | ===Verse 16=== | ||
| − | In verse 16, the author suggests that oath taking is a way of certifying the reliability of a statement. Oaths were generally accompanied by penalty clauses. For example, a person might swear to do X and agree that if he did not do X, then the disappointed beneficiary of his oath could punish him. Thus, in the Ancient Near East covenants such as treaties were frequently accompanied by an oath after which the promisor would hack up some animal. The hacking up of the animal was meant signify what the promisee could do the promisor if he broke his word. (An example of this procedure can be seen in [[Gen 15:10]], and [[Gen 15:17|15:17]], where | + | In verse 16, the author suggests that oath taking is a way of certifying the reliability of a statement. Oaths were generally accompanied by penalty clauses. For example, a person might swear to do X and agree that if he did not do X, then the disappointed beneficiary of his oath could punish him. Thus, in the Ancient Near East covenants such as treaties were frequently accompanied by an oath after which the promisor would hack up some animal. The hacking up of the animal was meant signify what the promisee could do the promisor if he broke his word. (An example of this procedure can be seen in [[Gen 15:10]], and [[Gen 15:17|15:17]], where God solemnizes his covenant with Abram by the cutting of an animal and passing between the pieces.) In addition to penalties, one could invoke theological judgments. By taking an oath to do something, a person could become liable to damnation for breaking it. In a sense then, oaths are related to priesthood. Both of them are a special power that inheres in mankind to influence the action of God through ritual. |
== Related links == | == Related links == | ||
Revision as of 09:46, 11 March 2006
| Previous | Next |
Questions
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions
Lexical notes
- In verse 16 the writer places special emphasis on the word oath by transposing it from its expected position. In its expected position in Greek, the oath would fall in line with how it is translated in the KJV. Instead, the oath is transposed to the end of the sentence. To get the same affect in English we could translate this verse as: "For men indeed by the Greater swear, and for the end of the argument they have confirmation, the oath." See Ex 22:11.
Exegesis
Verse 16
In verse 16, the author suggests that oath taking is a way of certifying the reliability of a statement. Oaths were generally accompanied by penalty clauses. For example, a person might swear to do X and agree that if he did not do X, then the disappointed beneficiary of his oath could punish him. Thus, in the Ancient Near East covenants such as treaties were frequently accompanied by an oath after which the promisor would hack up some animal. The hacking up of the animal was meant signify what the promisee could do the promisor if he broke his word. (An example of this procedure can be seen in Gen 15:10, and 15:17, where God solemnizes his covenant with Abram by the cutting of an animal and passing between the pieces.) In addition to penalties, one could invoke theological judgments. By taking an oath to do something, a person could become liable to damnation for breaking it. In a sense then, oaths are related to priesthood. Both of them are a special power that inheres in mankind to influence the action of God through ritual.
Related links
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links
| Previous | Next |
