Ohio
I don’t know what resources in New Testament Greek are currently popular in Christianity.
I learned Greek because of certain problems I noted in the English translations. I haven’t had to deal with this particular verse in years. Peter’s teaching in 1Pet 5:1-7 has always been sufficient for me to disbelieve in the idea of an authoritative human leadership related to believers. Even when the subject of human authority came up on the Catholic forums, and of course it came up frequently in the form of the question “Who decides?”, I would just quote that verse and leave it at that. They always danced all around what Peter said without specifically dealing with it.
Perhaps the following will help to clarify my understanding of Hebrews 13:17.
Pistis refers to faith or conviction of the truth of something. Even Atheists have faith, that there is no God.
A word derived from peitho, the word translated as “obey” in the English translations of Hebrews 13:17. Peitho refers to confidence or trust in someone or something. Note how the word is translated in other verses in Hebrews.
In Heb 2:13 peitho is translated as “trust” in KJV, NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB.
In Heb 6:9 it’s translated as “persuaded” in the KJV, “convinced” in NASB, “confident” in NIV & NKJV, “feel sure of” in RSV & ESV.
In Heb 11:13 it’s translated as “persuaded” in KJV, “assured” in NKJV, the word being absent altogether from the Alexandrian text and consequently translations based on that text.
In Heb 13:18 it’s translated as “trust” in the KJV, “confident” in NKJV, “sure” in NASB, NIV, ESV, and RSV.
In Heb 13:17 the word is translated as “obey” in the KJV, NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and HCSB. As well as in the Roman Catholic NAB, and in the NCV, NLT, NRSV, GNB.
Even the Recovery Version translates the word as obey in Heb 13:17. While in 2:13 it’s translated as trust, in 6:9 & 13:18 as persuaded.
There is another Greek word that means to obey, or literally to hear under. The word is used in Col 3:20 and 22, for example. It is also used in Heb 5:9. So the writer of Hebrews knew to use that more common word at least once.
What follows is my personal opinion as to why.
Tradition. Pure and simple.
A Tradition that began in the first centuries of Christianity. By the time of the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century, the idea of human authorities was part of the fabric of Christianity. The Council members felt they had the authority to dictate one particular point of view over another. In spite of the Catholics blaming Protestantism for the present state of denominationalism, it already existed through the 1st millennium Councils. The main body that dictated in the Councils was already one of several denominations before it divided into East and West. But don’t tell the Catholics. They think every Christian community but themselves is a denomination.
Quote:
|
Also, not sure why you seemed to have a slightly antagonistic tone. Hopefully we can help one another in our journeys. Don't judge a book by its cover, or a forum by just one post!
|
Not so much a matter of the judgment of one post as it is a matter of a judgment of a post by an administrator. In my experience, forum Administrators have the power of life and death regarding posts and posters. I have apologized to Igzy for misunderstanding his intent. He has clarified where he’s coming from and I personally agree with his concern.
If I appear to be antagonistic, it may be because I just got off a forum infested with Catholic fundamentalists. Who, when I made the mistake of revealing too much about my personal beliefs, decided that I wasn’t Christian enough to suit them. In fact, that I wasn’t a Christian at all. And I’ve gotten the same authoritative judgments from fundamentalist Protestants that infest other Christian forums I’ve recently been on.
In reaction, I suppose, I come to this forum having already bowed to their conviction that doctrine is the basis of Christian being and I’m not a Christian due to doctrinal differences. Neither am I an Atheist. And I attend a Christian Church. So I call myself a religious Agnostic in relation to the doctrinal ideas of Christianity the religion.
In case some former Recovery members might surmise I’ve been ruined by the Recovery in some way.... Not true. I learned from that situation as it presented itself and moved on. My association with the Recovery was apparently only a matter of about five years. According to a Wikipedia article, The move to Anaheim was in 1974. And I didn’t associate with them that long after the move. If I’ve been ruined by anything, it’s been by Christianity the religion, of which the Recovery continues to be but a small part. Or more precisely, by fundamentalist Christians that infest Christianity the religion. It is they who convinced me that their religion isn’t true. I never found Atheist arguments to be persuasive. And I don’t equate the Bible with the religion based upon it in various ways. Being not yet convinced that the Catholics gave the Christians the Bible.
I remember meeting a few fundamentalist Christians in the Recovery just before I left. They were very staunch for some “new way” that was developing in the Recovery at the time. From what I know of the history of the Recovery, Lee took to shaking the box every now and then, just to keep things exiting. Or perhaps to awaken the sleepers. Hard to say since I didn’t know the man.
Personally, I’m a doctrinal realist. In that I acknowledge that not all Christians understand the Bible alike. A part of the denomination blues that has been a part of Christianity for centuries. And I’m a doctrinal relativist. In that I am tolerant of all Christian points of view without relinquishing my own view that is not necessarily Christian to them. This is in stark contrast with the common practice by Christian denominations of closed communion. For it reveals that the authorities of those Christian denominations are neither realistic nor relativistic in relation to doctrinal ideas that differ from their own. But then, that’s just another reason I’m not a Christian and another way I differ from most Christians of that sort.
I have chosen to not integrate into my own understanding of reality ideas from non-Christian religions and their writings. Not wanting to complicate things more than they already are. The Bible is sufficiently comprehensive for my average mind.
I know it would have been easier and simpler to just have picked a particular Christian denomination and then follow it to my death. But life is rarely easy, never simple.
I’ll work on my antagonism. Or at least my expression of it. My favorite comedian is a ventriloquist by the name of Jeff Dunham. One of his characters is Walter. Maybe I can learn to express my antagonism like he does. At least he makes people laugh. And I’m about old enough.
MacDuff